198 Comments

1. chuck:

The odd thing here is that I get the sense that protest, in and of itself, is seen as more important than what the protest is about.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:25 am 2. Knucklehead:

Yet one more Great Talent (and, IMO, he is) who really should just shut up and sing. Unfortunately the Market Cluebat will thump him upside the head and he’ll continue to mistake it for “censorship”. We’re watching the same nonsens, yet again, from Whoopi Goldberg. It ain’t “censorship”, Elton, Whoopi, Babs and the rest, it iss a simple and obvious case of you guys generating too much of something not enough people are buying. And everytime they try to tell you you’re selling the wrong product, y’all refuse to listen.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:30 am 3. Eric Deamer:

Michele had a great response to this

Look at all the great counter-example links she provides.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:31 am 4. Cecil Turner:

Roger,

Bullseye! Sir Elton bemoans the Dixie Chicks getting “shot down in flames” and blames it on government censorship. The only problem is that it was their fans, not the government, who were doing the shooting. The funny thing is that he doesn’t seem to see the irony in claiming “they have every right to say whatever they want,” but their fans apparently don’t.

And if he really wants a catchy song, perhaps he could hire Bernie Taupin to write one . . .

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:33 am 5. Knucklehead:

Yo, Elton, Mr. Zimmerman also gave us “I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more…” and the Subterranian Homesick Blues. Think about it. (That oughta keep the talented dope busy and outta the adult’s hair for a while!)

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:44 am 6. Peter G.:

Elton uses the Beatles and Dylan as examples of 60s protest songs, but Dylan essentially stopped writing protest songs in 1964 and never wrote about the Vietnam War, while the Beatles only protest song (”Revolution”) was about not getting involved. As for Pete Seeger, well he wasn’t exactly a pop star, was he? I’ve no idea who Nina Simone was.

As for the current scene, there are multiple examples of anti-war/anti-Bush songs (Sleater-Kinney, Sonic Youth, Patti Smith, Ted Leo, insert your favorite “alternative” act here), there’s Morrissey up on stage wishing Bush were dead, there’s Chrissie Hynde up on stage announcing that she hopes the coalition soldiers get killed … All right, so none of these names are making hit records right now, which is part of Elton’s point. But if he’s so concerned about it, why doesn’t he write his own protest song? To my recollection he’s never actually done this, unless “Crocodile Rock” was a call to arms for swamp-living reptiles. I know he doesn’t write his own lyrics, but surely he can make requests on the subject matter. Or he could record his own version of “Eve of Destruction” and we’ll all party down to that.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:50 am 7. jerry:

Elton:

The anti-war protests have gone the same way as the anti-nuke protest of the 1980’s. Once the NATO INF was deployed the Soviets stopped paying for protests. Their objective was to stop the deployment. Having failed to do that they as some groups say moved on.

Today, Iraq is a done deal. Moveon.org and Answer have decided that spending lots of money protesting the Iraq war is wasted. They would rather spend their cash on taking over the Democratic Party, which from their point of view is money well spent.

And Elton, the reason the Dixie Chicks aren’t being heard from these days is because their fan base are a bunch of red, white and blue necks who don’t like people who bash the troops or the President during time of war. Unfortunately, they have been unable to transition to the rock/pop world. They insulted their audience before they established a new following. As pointed out by Knucklehead that’s bad marketing on their part.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:00 am 8. Knucklehead:

Perpetual adolescents can sometimes be a real nuisance.

The pump don’t work, children, ’cause the vandals took the handle. Now, be good little Moonbats and go play with your rubber duckies while the nice Mr. Blair helps the nice Mr. Bush fix the pump so we can PUT OUT THE FREAKIN’ FIRE!

Jeepers these Moonbats with Microphones just make ya wanna scream sometimes.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:01 am 9. hollywood:

It’s easy to take cheap shots at Sir Elton. His point (not clearly made in the news) is that folks are afraid of criticizing Bush/the war, etc. Thus, Toby Keith wins awards and the Dixie Chicks take it on the chin. Yes, it was their fans “censoring” them, with a lot of flames being fanned by people like Drudge and others with agendas of their own. Surely, it’s not too difficult to wonder if somewhere behind the Drudges of the world Rove and Card are not somehow involved, providing matches.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:02 am 10. Alex:

Hate to interrupt a folie en masse, but maybe Elton John is, well, old and out of touch, just like some others here?

The Beastie Boys, To The Five Boroughs reached #1 in both Billboard’s Top 100 Album and Top 100 Rap/Hip-Hop Album Charts.

In other words, it sold a lot of discs. Here are some lyrics:

Stop building SUVs strung out on OPEC.

We got a president we didn’t elect (but he does look hot in a flight suit).

The Kyoto Treaty he decided to neglect,

and still the U. S. just wants to flex.

So step up to the window and place your bets.

Is the U. S. gonna keep breaking necks?

Maybe it’s time that we impeach Tex

and the military muscle that he wants to flex.

By the time Bush is done, what will be left?

Selling votes like E-pills at the discotheque.

Environmental destruction and the national debt.

But plenty of dollars left in the fat war chest.

and

Columbine bowling,

childhood stolen,

we need a little more gun controlling…

I’m getting kind of tired

of the situation,

The U. S. attacking other nations,

and narration,

on every station.

False elations

got me losing my patience.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:05 am 11. jerry:

hollywood:

you are right, the people are on the verge of revolution if only Michael Moore, Babs, Susan Sarandon et al could be heard rather then inprisoned under the Patriot Act.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:09 am 12. Sissy Willis:

Excuse me, Mr. John. Freedom of speech and a free market, you pampered woos! Oh, yah, and get a brain (pardon my French).

The land of the free and the home of the shopper

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:12 am 13. Knucklehead:

Dear Hollywood,

Your take on this might make some sense if there was not a steaming, malodorous mountain of counter-examples, pointed to in this and many other threads here and elsewhere, that refute any and all charges of censorship.

Now, be a dear and see above regarding the ill-fated but much needed pump. If you have no rubber ducky of your own one will be provided to you at no expense to yourself – we do love and care about you and your toys and petty amusements. After all, we haven’t spent all these years coddling your every whim for any reason other than deepest affection and respect.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:17 am 14. Rick Ballard:

“It’s easy to take cheap shots at Card and Rove.”

“Surely, it’s not too difficult to wonder if somewhere behind the Moores of the world Kerry and Edwards are not somehow involved, providing matches.”

What a great game for logically challenged!! Thanks hollywood, for providing a schtick for use by those whose synapses only fire intermittently. Should be marked “content free” though.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:24 am 15. hollywood:

jerry,

At least you’re trying to be funny. I think the only revolution is the spinning of compact discs in CD players, or the turning of film reels in projectors.

peter,

You really should hear Nina Simone’s stuff (she died last year). She tailed off toward the end of her career, but her version of “Need a Little Sugar in My Bowl” is well done and some of her protest songs have considerable verve. She was a much better piano player than Sir Elton, having gone to Julliard, and a better singer in a jazzy-blusey sort of style. Interestingly, she even recorded some Beatles tunes, though they aren’t her best work.

As for Dylan not writing anti-war songs after 1964, when you’ve authored “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “Masters of War,” “God on Our Side” which could and do apply to any unjustified war, how many times must a man make his point?

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:24 am 16. jerry:

Hollywood:

Tell me what specific wars you consider justified and why….

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:34 am 17. JB:

Elton John is out of touch.

See here.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:38 am 18. JB:

Sorry, just click on my link.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:39 am 19. Rick Ballard:

It’s true that Dylan made his point. Funny though, when I think of him I see him either standing in a group of Khmer Rouge next to a pile of skulls in Cambodia or manning a guard tower at a Vietnamese “re-education” camp. His depth of feeling was almost equivalent to his shallowness of thought so I can understand his status in some quarters.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:43 am 20. hollywood:

knucklehead,

you’re appropriately named.

rick,

you just don’t get Dylan. Your loss.

jerry,

we don’t have all year. You gotta define war, justified, etc. But to cut to the chase, WWII would be an example. Vietnam would not. Iraq would not. Now, permit me to don my flame retardant suit.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:50 am 21. JB:

Hollywood: how convenient! Assertions in place of argument. Been taking lessons from Medea Spock?

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:52 am 22. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

“As for Dylan not writing anti-war songs after 1964, when you’ve authored “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “Masters of War,” “God on Our Side” which could and do apply to any unjustified war, how many times must a man make his point?”

And how much attention should we pay to the large body of work after 1964? Perhaps Mr. Dylan learned and grew. Personally I find much of his later work far more interesting than the early work.

Take “Idiot Wind” for just one example. There are many.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:58 am 23. jerry:

Hollywood:

I give you two cheers for responding unlike most of the lefties who show up here.

First I will engage in a little sophistry. Why was WWII justified? The war was started when the #1 (Stalin) and #2 (Hitler) mass murderers up to that point in history got together to divide up Eastern Europe. (Actually, by September 1939 Stalin had murdered more people then Hitler would during his entire career.) The root cause of the Pacific War was Japanese expansion into Western Colonial territory. Japan only attacked the United States because we imposed economic sanctions and sent the Pacific fleet to Pearl Harbor as a provocation.

Second, were both Desert Storm and OIF not justified?

Third, Given that Communism murdered 100 million people don’t you think opposing Communist military expansion in the Vietnam was a good idea?

Fourth, How about Korea in 1950 or WWI? How about Kosovo in 1999?

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:04 am 24. hollywood:

knucklehead,

On this we agree (tho I wonder if you’re being ironic about “Idiot Wind”?). What I find most improved about later Dylan is his intensity in live performances. He’s really trying, not just going thru the motions as he seemed to do for years. Rethinking my earlier comment, I should have said the songs apply to any war–period, justified or not.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:06 am 25. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

“you’re appropriately named.”

Thank you.

And what, pray tell, does your name tell us about you? Is it appropriate? So far, from your posts, I see pretentious facade, some evidence of a trendy education, form over substance, perhaps some confusion about the limits and usefulness of artistic talent… Hollywood sort of stuff.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:07 am 26. thedragonflies:

Sir Elton is a perfect example of a dinosaur that hasnít noticed the sky darkening from the meteor blast yet (or whatever the cause of the end of the dinosaur age was). Unbeknownst to Sir Elton, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, et al the post-Viet Nam era ended 9/11/2001. But only for half the country. It will take the next terrorist massacre of Americans (or the election of 2004 I hope) to bring the rest of the country out of denial that war is being waged upon us.

Our country can no longer afford the narcissistic indulgence of self-flagellation of liberal anti-Americanism and that says America is bad, racist, insensitive, war-mongering, military-industrial complexist, fascist imperialists who are the source of evil in this world.

This crap is just a way for liberals to claim that Republicans are the bad people and Democrats are the good people. It has been a way for Dems to get votes for the last thirty years. But, it has become a mantra for suicide in a post-9/11 world because today, instead of the pretend evil of the U.S., there is a real evil of the terrorists. And guess who is going to have to fight the real evil? It is us, the U.S.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:08 am 27. ricpic:

“What are you protesting?” “Whattaya got?”

It never changes.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:10 am 28. jerry:

dragonfly:

I find your comparison of EJ to the dinosaurs insulting… to the dinosaurs. The end of the age of dinosaurs did not bring about their demise. The improvised, adapted and overcame. Today there are more dinosaur species extant than mammals… We call them birds. So you can see that the Vietnam left has not shown any similar ability to adapt to changing environments.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:13 am 29. ricpic:

jerry,

I don’t want no flying lefties.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:19 am 30. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

If you don’t mind I’d like to take up and, perhaps, expand upon your theme.

Which wars have not been wars of choice? We did not have to fight with either Germany or Japan, for example, in WWII. We could have written off our losses, build up a similarly sized and capable military, sealed ourselves safely behind our oceans and vast borders and let the world go whichever way it pleased. How simple, or at least less difficult and bloody, to have just waited it out and “peace” with whichever sides emerged as victors.

Justifications for war are often written soon after and, like histories, by the winners. Time, to the eternal delight of historians, often allows for the exploration of more sources (as legal protections fall away or principles pass away and leave their records to posterity).

Nations choose, or not, to fight wars. Each invariably believes themselves justified – that is the nature, isn’t it, of “moral relativism”. Once we chose to fight, or not, we can never know the alternate outcome. How then can we say, without any doubt, that any war was ever justified? We are always stuck with the decisions that need to be made at the time they are presented to us. Trying to argue “just war” with anyone short of St. Thomas or his ilk is a lost cause. They will simply shift “just” around to suit their needs and there is always yet another war that may be pointed to as a “moral disaster”.

Take Vietnam, for example. Who can say that Pol Pot would not have been prevented from killing the million or two that he killed. Or that Vietnam itself might not be a better, more just place had the outcome been different. In retrospect, as it was fought and with the eventual outcome, one can make a case that Vietnam was an “unjust war”. Had it been fought differently to a different outcome then, perhaps, it might have been a just war. Depending upon one’s perspective, one can surely count Vietnam as a just war.

Sorry, didn’t mean to hijack your conversation with Hollywood.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:27 am 31. hollywood:

thedragonflies,

I think I get your point, but on closer examination, I don’t. The Bushies (who control Congress) and the Congress have totally botched the war on terror. The Homeland Security money was turned into a porkfest with lots of money going to safeguard largely secure backwaters (or to buy them new fire engines), while the real target areas got shortchanged. Ridge spends most of his time playing with his color chart, not accomplishing anything. The first responders haven’t been trained. We are not prepared for another attack, particularly one that might strike in the heartland (to demonstrate our vulnerability?). Gary Hart addresses this in his new book apparently. You might want to look into it.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:34 am 32. Knucklehead:

Sorry, Jerry, but I’m becoming increasingly suspicious of the Meme Merchants. I’ve mentioned this before – if you deal with one meme they just drop another on the table and when you’ve finished with whatever list they’ve got they start all over from the top.

The “Bush was AWOL, Kerry was a hero” meme went nowhere when it first surfaced, recently its made another cameo. The “Bush Lied, People” died meme played itself out, but it will return. “Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place” is somewhat current but, like the others, can’t stand up to scrubbing.

I wonder if the “just war” meme is making a valiant return. They are pondeous and tiresome, but predictable, the Meme Merchants.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:35 am 33. jerry:

Hollywood:

The Pork you talk about is as much a Democratic Party initiative as anything else. Both Hillary and John-John want to spend even more money on first responders in Keokuk Iowa. Brings up another actual fact that you probably don’t know. The money for first responders has gone into areas that are much more likely to be attacked then Iowa. That’s the way it works. You secure the obvious targets before moving on to the hinterlands. During the early days WWII the Navy first secured the principal shipping lanes from U-boats on the East Coast and the Oil routes before moving to the backwaters. You probably didn’t know that because I bet your knowledge of military history is small. This administration is focused on defeating the threat where they live not merely cleaning up the mess after the attack. It is called attack at the source in Naval Strategy. It involves killing them before they get out into an area where it is harder to go after them. I suspect you probably haven’t read Mahan or Corbett either so I don’t expect you to that know that.

So please delve into your vast knowledge of military operations and intelligence to explain how you would be doing it. You have studied these sorts of things at some point haven’t you?

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:47 am 34. hollywood:

knucklehead,

I live in Hollywoood. So, shoot me. Actually, you’re scaring me because I’m agreeing with a lot of your points (although you’ll never convince me Nam was justified–why bother trying?).

jerry,

see knucklehead’s points. I just cited WWII and Nam as sort of benchmarks. Although we are supposed to learn from history, our history is that we don’t. To that extent, re-examining the bases for old conflicts strikes me as somewhat futile at best and mental masturbation at worst. Well, whatever flips your trigger.

But, no I don’t think OIF was justified in the unilateral sense that we did it, and more or less abandoned Afghanistan in the process. All other things being equal, if we were gonna throw Afghanistan to the wolves, it would have made more sense to focus on Iran. Of course, Iran did not make an attempt on our Prez’ father’s life. OTOH, if I were an Iraqi whose life improved (QED) as a result I’d think differently. Just my humble opinion.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:48 am 35. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

What a well reasoned and argued post! Such substance!

“The Bushies (who control Congress) and the Congress have totally botched the war on terror.”

How so? How has the war on terror been “totally botched”? What is your citeria for success?

And if “the Bushies control congress”, why aren’t they moving toward successfully passing the proposal for the ammendment that Bush wanted so much? The Bushies control congress, congress fails… surely you can do better. Dig deeper in the background material that was used for your little Hollywood screenplay, willya.

Perhaps you were in Hollywood during the last attack. I can assure you, having been just a bit closer than that, that there was no shortage of firefighters and first repsonders even after losing HUNDREDS to the attack itself. No shortage whatsoever. They reacted, they were where they were needed, and then they waited to do their jobs. Some waited, in vain, for loved ones to return.

Oh, but there is a plan (refresh my memory somebody, I can’t recall which candidate) to put 100,000 more firefighters and first responders on the job to improve “Homeland Security”. Maybe its just me, but that sounds like a plan to deal with the inevitable disaster after disengaging from the war.

Please, enlighten us about which “secure backwaters” have been drowned in largesse and which “targets” remain unprotected and have “untrained” first responders.

And while you are at it, can you tell us what your local fire fighters and first repsonders have recieved in the way of training and or have done in the way of planning since 9/11. Personally I’ve been quite pleasantly surprised to discover that plans were developed and exercised that reached quite deep into our national pool of people who have training to deal with emergencies. Of course such things are spotty – if your local people are qualified and concerned with being prepared and doing their jobs they pay more attention to this sort of thing. As far as I can tell those who do such things know where to go, what is expected of them when they get there, and who they should be reaching out to for what sort of additional assistance.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:53 am 36. jerry:

Hollywood:

What makes you think we have abandoned Afghanistan? There are lots of troops there you know. And the French just vetoed the use of the NATO brigade to help secure the country for elections.

How was OIF unilateral? We had the same coalition of troops that we used to invade France. Ok, substitute Australia for Canada. I bet you didn’t know there were more Australians involved in OIF then French at Normandy. Do you mean that if the French aren’t on board then it becomes unilateral?

I am glad you have said that the study of history is worthless because you make my point about the ignorance of the left. Without a frame of reference you cannot a rational judgment beyond your own narrow point of view. I suggest you learn a little before you engage in discussions with people who actually know something beyond the NYT and Michael Moore.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:57 am 37. TedM:

Hollywood,

You sound as if you may be a reasonable guy. Read Victor Davis Hanson at http://www.victorhanson.com

He is not a right wing ideologue.

Most of the people who comment at Roger’s site are reasonable advocates of our war against the islamic fanatics who wish to destroy western Christian society. And the regimes which aid, encourage and cover up for them. If you do not believe that this war exists and had existed for some years, then there is little we can discuss.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:05 am 38. thedragonflies:

Hollywood,

You seem to suggest that your complaint with the war is in the details of how it is being fought. Is this true? Are you actually for the war in Iraq and against the terrorists? Just donít like the way Homeland Security is doing a few foolish things? Perhaps you want more troops in Iraq?Forgive me for thinking that you were critical of the war itself rather than just against the details of some of the tactics. Am I reading you right?

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:07 am 39. Knucklehead:

“I live in Hollywoood. So, shoot me.”

Fair enough. Consider it done. JK!!!!

“Although we are supposed to learn from history, our history is that we don’t.”

What is that we have not learned from history? The history of the past half-century of so tells us that there is an expansionist and expandingly violent and bold branch of Islam. The same historical period tells us that it will not go away regardless of how much we wish it would or ignore it. We’ve been attacked, we’ve failed to respond in any meaninful way, therefore we got attacked with increasing boldness and ferocity.

Seems to me we’ve finally learned the proper lesson from that bit of history. Don’t just sit back, fight back. And don’t just keep talking with the same people about the same things and trying the same failed policies, do something radically different – turn over the card table and change all the rules.

I suspect we’ve also learned from other people’s mistakes in recent history. Our actions in, for example Fallujah, suggest we’ve learned from the Russian history in Grozny – no point leaving no two stones standing atop one another and killing everything that moves without measurably achieving anything that looks like success. Better to take a measured approach and see if something approximating successful falls out of it. I suspect we learned from recent Russian history in Afghanistan also. No point scouring every mountain rock and cave – that just get lottsa troops killed. Take the important ground and then raid on our own terms.

What is it you believe we’ve failed to learn from the history that matters to this discussion?

“To that extent, re-examining the bases for old conflicts strikes me as somewhat futile at best and mental masturbation at worst.”

I have no idea what that means. Nothing against masturbation, mind you, but I don’t know what you are re-examining or which old conflicts or which futilities.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:08 am 40. chuck:

Hollywood,

All I see in your argument is a bunch of unsupported assertions of failure. This won’t fly here as a starting point for argument, as most of us don’t agree that these are facts. To me, they look like feel good (for you) prejudice. Why was Vietnam a ‘bad’ war? Is OIF a failure? Is nothing being done about homeland security? So on and so forth.

Insulting other folks intelligence, competence, and moral capacity is a lot of fun, and lots of political movements specialize in offering a venue for such, but please don’t consider it anything serious.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:09 am 41. RogerA:

Hollywood–I appreciate your willingness to share your opinions–much better than some who drop by, parse words, and when asked about their value set depart, not to resurface until another thread.

I was interested in your comments about homeland security, first responders and protection. I work as an emergency response planner in a rural county–at any time there are 18 first responders (here defined as EMT personnel). The response time for the local sheriff to get from one end of the county to the other is 2 hours IF its a felony murder. Unfortunately, there isnt enough dollars in the GDP to adequately fund every rural county in the country (some 53K counties all in all).

On the other hand, the threat to a rural county is far less than could be accomplished by a terrorist act in Seattle, rather than Moses Lake, WA. The 31 cities initative undertaken by DHS responds to those threats. FWIW, every county has undergone a threat analysis and those are being compiled and prioritized. In short, there is a whole lot of work going on, but it isnt all that visible.

Hope this helps.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:25 am 42. hollywood:

tedM,

Thanks. I try to be reasonable.

jerry, knucklehead and chuck,

Gosh guys, we’ve gotten pretty far afield from Elton John, but who cares, huh? There’s lots more to say, but I do have to work, and I’d rather have you spend your time reading about our future president. So, here goes. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040726fa_fact

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:30 am 43. TedM:

Hollywood,

Your link shows that you don’t get it. We don’t want to read about JK. Our discussion was about the WAR and your points of what was going badly.

i guess you are off to work now. Tata.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:35 am 44. JB:

Knucklehead:

The “no just war” argument is interesting, but fails to take into account the internal war of ideas a free society (such as the U.S.) faces — the assault on freedom from within, much exacerbated when totalitarian ideologies are ascendant. In my view, the criteria for just war are greatly expanded, provided the goal is worldwide expansion of freedom. We fight abroad so we don’t have to fight them at home — and by THEM I do not mean Islamofascists.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:36 am 45. jerry:

Hollywood:

I want to know what you think not what Kerry tells you to think. You haven’t really addressed anybody’s questions here, whether on Elton John or the GWOT.

Folks: I was willing to give Hollywood a few cheers because unlike the usual troll he seemed to want to engage in discussions. I withdraw the cheers because I believe Hollywood is a new, more sophisticated version of a troll. He pretends to engage but never really does. Either that, or he possesses a rather shallow intellect, and try as he might, he cannot articulate anything beyond what someone else puts into his head.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:39 am 46. Sandy P:

–The Bushies (who control Congress) and the Congress have totally botched the war on terror.—

Riiiggghhhtt, hollywood.

If that’s true, then why after 3 (!) years do I not have my judges?

If the dems dug in their heels over the budget like they did the judges, it would have been very, very entertaining.

Nice try, tho.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:52 am 47. John Lynch:

Fooey. Holly left while it was still fun. It is nice to have dialog with someone who at least acts like listening.

Give the listening left a chance when possible.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:52 am 48. TedM:

We did John and he left.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:54 am 49. PeterUK:

Elton answers himself with his own song,”Candle in the Wind” that goes for careers as well. Of course the sordid subject of money was never raised, but has anyone got figures on how much the protest singers made,Dylan,The Beatles,or one of them, are still coining royalties today.As Noel Coward said “Extraordinary how potent cheap music is” potent it is, cheap it is not.

It was a huge industry which catered to the market of the sixties,that market has gone, except for the weekend hippies taking a break from their real estate business.Park up the BMW and have a toke! As Dylan said “Times They Are A Changin’”.

BTW If Roger can’t get movie work because of the left and the rest can’t work because of the right,who’s gigging over there in the Land of the Free?

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:56 am 50. Rick Ballard:

jerry,

His first post was content free. I figure if they can’t lay a predicate in the initial post then the probability of their being a troll approaches .8 – at least.

Pop culture posts make me wonder why the thematic consistencies of the three top films of the past twelve months – ROTK, Passion and Spidy2 are rarely explored. The open identification of evil and the steadfastness required to overcome it (in ROTK and Spidy2, anyway) are antithetical to the nuanced left. Jesus’ desire to let the cup pass in Passion has deeply resonating echoes in ROTK and Spidy2. Obviously not something the DNC or JohnJohn would care to dwell on but a billion dollar combined box office is pointing toward something. Perhaps Americans are not quite as ready for a “break” from responsibility as some have lately suggested.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:02 pm 51. chuck:

Rick, now you’ve done it. I’ve got to go back and find my first post and see if I layed a predicate in there somewhere :-/ As if dirty underwear wasn’t enough to worry about.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:10 pm 52. John Lynch:

PeterUK

Good question. We’re in the middle of blockbuster summer, and things seem to be going well for Hollywood. I hear anybody with talent or a script, or in some cases neither is hard out work out there; still ‘Gigged.’

TedM, Rick, Knuck: I tuned in late to the hollywood dialog, but from a reader’s perspective, it did seem like some listening was occurring, and some discussion was not completely content-free.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:11 pm 53. J_Crater:

Elton, Whoopi and Tim Robbins are all members of the “popular set” where “popularity” is bought and sold like hogbellies. But now they want to have their popularity put in a jar while they say and do things that are .. unpopular, at least with some.

The bulk of their problems come from “blowback.” This is the effect that every storeowner, school teacher, office/factory worker, minister, politician and soldier has to live with daily. In this case, the “blowback” comes from fans, some ardent, some casual, who just don’t like what they are being pedalled. Popularity is based on being liked, if they don’t like it, your history.

Their mistake is to call it “censorship.” Censorship is the suppression of views and ideas by the government, but as far as most of us out here in the hinterland can tell, the government is sitting this one out.

I suggest that they just grow up.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:11 pm 54. dr. sanity:

Elton John (getting back to the thread) confuses “consequences” with “censorship”. All behavior has consequences, including standing up for what you believe and saying what you think. If you aren’t prepared to pay those consequences–which may include loss of money, prestige, or popularity–when other people respond to your freedom of speech by exercising theirs, then you should keep your mouth shut. If you are going to whine about it and reflexly blame “the government” without any evidence or justification, then you are just blustering and have no real idea what freedom of speech really means.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:14 pm 55. TmjUtah:

Minus on minutes here…but what a conversation!

Knucklehead -

Remember always: “Conflcit = Failure”. That’s the meme for ‘botched war’ every time. That is if you are an ABB. Of course, elections pending in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya clocking out of the terror business, Khan’s Nuclear Proliferation Supermarket, Ltd out of business…and now the Palestinian thugocracy in melt down all MIGHT be thought of as good things, right? But there’s still conflict, so all is lost.

Pukes.

I highly recommend reading Belmont Club today regarding the strategic implications of the Palestinian Blazing Saddles situation, both for the Isreali/Pal ramifications and the wider war on terror.

Vietnam wasn’t justified. Not one second of it, after the policy of NOT winning became ingrained in our leadership. Any republic that engages in a war that CAN be won must win, or the exercise becomes political cop-out paid for in citizens’ blood and treasure.

Anybody who thinks we couldn’t win that war needs to do a little homework. Some of us here are military/former military…but maybe the rest of you would benefit from reading up on General Creighton Abrams.

There’s a reason the M-1 MBT is named after him. Go look up what he did after inheriting Vietnam from Westmoreland.

SHOULD we have been there at all? I think that’s another argument entirely.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:14 pm 56. PeterUK:

Rick,

HER post was content free.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:15 pm 57. Knucklehead:

JB,

I think we have some common ground but I can’t tell for sure. Who is THEM here?

And speaking of “naming the enemy” (quick, let’s move the thread farther afield before Hollywood get’s back!), did anyone see Wrethcard’s post on that topic from Saturday?

I don’t know if “The Wahabbi Strain of Islam” is the full panoply or the right name. I don’t know what to call the enemy in the GWoT. That’s one of the reasons it’s such a damn difficult war and will last so long. We’ve got to identify enemies and defeat them when we have no way to unambiguously see who they are. No magic light that shows them where we couldn’t see them before.

But let’s assume that it is Wahabbi Islam just for the sake of discussion. There’s nothing that marks a Wahabbi for ID purposes as far as I am aware.

How important is it, really, to find some more accurate name for the enemy? If, for example, the President knows, without a doubt that its the Wahabbis and all Wahabbis all the time, can he or should he bring that information out to We the People? What do you think would happen if such a name were applied? Would the moonbats explode in one big burst or would a whole lot of civil libertarians join them reflexively?

Wretchard raised a point that hit me a few days back and made me sick to my stomach. What if there really is a religion or strain of a religion that we just cannot afford to tolerate? I mean to the point of rounding them up and putting them in prisons or shipping them back to wherever they came from and where we’re going to have to fight them eventually anyway. Can the US constitutional system survive such a thing?

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:16 pm 58. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Hollywood

For some reason people in the arts feel that they should be involved in educating the people, as if artistes knew anything at all. Most are just brand names wrapped in promotion – no different than Tide Soap.

The Dixie Chicks got attacked by their own customers. Oops. The Dixie Chick idiots thought that anti-war stuff would sell to the segment of the market that is the most patriotic and sends the most of their kids to war – the south. So Drudge attacked them (he didn’t). Big deal. Entertainers often forget that the reason they make all that money is because people like to be entertained by them, not because they have oversized crania or actually know anything. Country and Western music is an interesting genre. It is like certain kinds of fiction – formula driven. It is also just about the only authentic folk music in the country (not that I listen to much of it).

I remember lots of fine music from the Vietnam War era, including protest music that I enjoyed even as I disagreed with it. But “We Gotta Get Out’a This Place” was one of the most popular in ‘Nam and it wasn’t anti-war.

Bob Dylan live? That’s pure torture. I’m sorry, but I have a bit of a background playing musical instruments, and his vocal chords do not constitute musical instruments. Lyrics, yeah – he was good at it. But I couldn’t stand to listen to the guy. Maybe it was due to growing up listening to classical music. The old Doors were great, but then Jim Morrison was classically trained and his work was complex and original.

But back to the subject. Why do artists need to be anti-war and for that matter, anti-Republican? Is it written in their contracts? Do they feel it is their duty, even though most have never experienced war, studied history or in general know a damn thing about it? Why do they have such a history of supporting vicious left-wing dictators?

How many songs have you heard lamenting the millions who died after we betrayed Vietnam and Cambodia? I can recall none. I do remember that Joan Baez was thrown out of the protest movement when she criticized the “reeducation camps” in Vietnam – Jane Fonda (another artiste) said it was improper to criticize a socialist (meaning communist) government. This was while hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were being imprisoned or killed, and millions of Cambodians were being killed.

I find most performers to be incredibly arrogant as soon as they get into politics (Roger can comment about them in person). They think they have a message. Well, they do, but it’s usually nonsense, and it’s not why people buy their product.

MASH was an anti-war sitcom. I enjoyed watching it, gritting my teeth periodically as the propaganda got in the way of the story. I watched it because it was funny, not to be lectured.

I watch ER (even though there are confused sharks wondering what went over them all over the place). But last year, we were treated to a blatant propaganda piece about lesbian marriage. I resented that – I don’t need my entertainment to lecture me about political and social issues, and because it was propaganda, all suspense was removed from the story line. And I especially get tired of it when it is always from the same side. Why should this whole community of grossly overpaid people ram their social views down my throat.

Hollywood functions like a Ministry of Information, but for the leftist side, not the government (with a few exceptions, rarely on TV).

Finally, I want to address the Vietnam War. It was a valid and necessary war. Under Johnson, it was fought very poorly. Under Nixon (and Abrams) it was won. The Democrats in the congress then handed it back to the North Vietnamese.

Vietnam was necessary as part of the Kennan containment doctrine – the doctrine of not allowing communism to expand (later followed by the unspoken Carter doctrine of kissing the rears of dictators the world over while allowing the Soviet Empire to expand all over the place). Even though we ultimately lost the war, Thailand and the Philippines (the main targets of the Soviet version of the domino theory) gained enough time to hold off the communists.

Furthermore, from a humanitarian standpoint, the Vietnamese much preferred the imperfect government we left them to the communists. There weren’t any boat people until the communists took over, but there were at least a million afterwards. Obviously the Cambodians preferred being alive and allowed to live in cities to what befell them once we couldn’t bomb the Khmer Rouge or provide aid to Cambodia.

Had Kennedy survived, and if he had sacked McNamara (unlikely), we might have won that war by 1968. Had Johnson not forced everyone to lie all the time, he might have had that victory.

As it was, Johnson put in a general (Westmoreland) who tried to win a war of attrition (hence the body counts), an incredibly stupid thing to do against a totalitarian government that has zero value for life. Even so, if it were not for the media lies and the anti-war movement, the war would have been over in March, 1968, according to General Giap, the North Vietnamese commander.

He ordered the Tet ‘68 offensive (illegal under the laws of war, since it violated a truce, but nobody in the US protested) in which the entire Viet Cong attacked the cities. The result was the loss of 50% of the Viet Cong (two later, similar offenses that year wipe out the Viet Cong entirely). The losses from the first offensive were so great that the North was going to sue for peace (there never was an indigenous Southern movement), until they saw that Tet was reported by our idiots in the press as a great defeat for America, and resulted in more protests.

At that point, they changed their focus to winning the war in the US. Aiding them in that effort, after meeting with them, was John Kerry who is still honored in Saigon for his efforts. Some of us, Vietnam Vets for the Truth are planning on doing something about his lies.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:20 pm 59. Sandy P:

Knucklehead, the Constitution’s not a suicide pact.

We’ll ship them out. No camps. You can dissent til the cows come home, but when you want to kill me don’t be surprised if I use every tool at my disposal.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:28 pm 60. John Lynch:

The part of the Hollywood discussion that seemed interesting (to me) was the historic references to earlier wars and the sentiment of the American people to the wars during the wars. It is of course easy to look at the wars afterwards, with the benefit of history and call winners and losers, right and wrong. How does that play out in present context?

Earlier Wars:

French and Indian War

Revolutionary War

The Whiskey Rebellion

The War of 1812

The Texas Revolution

The Mexican War

The Civil War

The Spanish-American War

World War I

World War II

Cold War

Korean War

Vietnam War

Persian Gulf War

The War in Afghanistan

The Iraq War

Some reference material less we be uninformed.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:30 pm 61. Knucklehead:

PeterUK,

I had the distinct impression that Hollywood is female also. Either we are incredibly insightful or hopeless sexists or place 50/50 bets without much concern.

John Lynch,

I’m withholding judgement regarding whether or not she? is here to discuss and develop her content further. So far I don’t see much other than sloganeering and I’m very memed out at the moment. I’m just tired of hearing the same ones over and over and I want to see some of the substance that allegedly underlies these things or I’m join DtP and just hammer them right off the bat.

I’d prefer we get some folks who disagree with the general consensus here ’cause it makes the discussion more valuable – provided their arguments can stand up to discussion. I don’t like being made to defend or reconsider my deftly arrived at conclusions, but I am capable of doing so and if I can’t, well, then I have a different problem. But lately its just been one liner after one liner, so I’ll just keep asking questions.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:30 pm 62. DennisThePeasant:

I’ve always considered it wise not to take advice on politics from those who wear sequins and feather boas while working. I consider it even wiser to avoid the advice on such matters from those who wear sequins and feather boas when not working.

Call it a Republican prejudice.

And as usual, “artists” tend to over-rate their ability to influence. I’ve been listening to The Clash for over half my life, and as yet neither “Washington Bullets” nor “I’m So Bored With The U.S.A.” have made much of an impression on my support of the U.S. liberation of Iraq.

Besides, the best Anti-Vietnam War song ever written was a Jazz song, not a rock song. If Elton was on top of the ’60s, he would have known that. That boy doesn’t need a protest song, he needs some Geritol.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:32 pm 63. RogerA:

Knuck: think how badly I feel! Hollywood criticized the dept of Homeland Security for not responding and abandoning the hinterlands–I provided some meaningful information (or so I thought)–Never to hear from Hollywood again.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:39 pm 64. John Lynch:

DtP, Knuck,

I inferred female from ‘holly,’ not much to go on but also not a determinate of our tired old left/right stereo’s.

I did see some sloganeering: but also some attempt to bring in a point about earlier wars. I wasn’t sure where she/he was heading, or what your questions might lead to, but it was interesting in its promise – not that it got anywhere.

Dt, you don’t wear boas? So much for my mental image …

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:42 pm 65. Paul:

Speaking as an artist myself I can say that while artists are as a rule very intelligent, they know little history, even less of things military, and are heavily imbued with the narcissism that is practically a prerequsite for leftist sympathy. And much like academia and the journalism profession they exist in an echo chamber where their views are accepted dogmatically and seldom challenged.

As a musician living in the Bay Area I am aware of exactly three other musicians that are not raving LLLs. There may be a few I don’t know, but there can’t be many.

I made the mistake at first of thinking you could discuss politics with these people and agree to disagree…that cost me about 30% of my income in 2003, so Elton John can take his “censorship” and stick it in the same dark damp place he keeps his head.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:44 pm 66. PeterUK:

John Moore

It is hypocrisy that many of those who wear a Red Star on their sleeves demand a Gold Star on their dressing room door.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:44 pm 67. jerry:

John:

I think there are several reasons why Hollywood (the place) has drifted to the faux utopia of the left. It has everything to do with the culture of celebrity. If your entire life is spent surrounded by sycophants and groupies telling you how important you are you will eventually believe it.

The second reason, which is a product of celebrity, is the detachment of the celbrity from the real world. In previous generations Hollywood celebrities were spread over the political spectrum because with few exceptions their celebrity was only applicable to their profession and did not extent to the wider world. Sure they held and expressed opinions but the public looked to politicians for political answers. Some Hollywood types did speak with authority on specific issues. You could ask Jimmy Stewart his opinion on war and peace issues because he was military authority in his right.

Because the celebrity operates in an false environment he/she [I hate using that] tends to confuse the script for the way things actually are. Just look at Arnold’s image versus Martin Sheen. Hollywood thinks Arnold is nothing more then a dumb action figure while Martin has gravity. He plays the President. It doesn’t matter that Swartzenegger has an MBA from the University of Wisconsin and a successful businessman while Sheen is dumb as a rock. Sheen’s scripts are better. The script always comes out the way it is supposed to. Does socialism work…you bet because it does in the script. Can war be averted…sure itís in the script. However, since celebrities don’t live in the real world they don’t understand that we write only half the script and things seldom work out as planned.

Perhaps Al Qaeda will do us a favor and attack Hollywood, the American symbol of decadence. It might shake the glitterati out of their cocoon and perhaps they will then understand their true place in the world…Entertainers and not much more.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:51 pm 68. Paul:

DtP:

When it comes to music, everone is an expert.

Are you perhaps refering to “Compared to What”? It’s a stretch to call that tune jazz, I think, although the players, especially Eddie Harris are all good jazz musicians.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:52 pm 69. Cybrludite:

John Moore,

I’ve even seen it argued that while VIetnam cost us a great deal politically, it cost the Soviets much more in terms of logistics. A sizable chunk of their truck production from those years that could have been better used to support thier own economy ended up as bombed out wreckage along the Ho Chi Mhin Trail. I believe that Jerry Pournelle is one of the proponents of the theory that proping up North Vietnam helped accellerate the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. I’d google up a link, but I work the night shift & sleep is calling…

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:57 pm 70. John Lynch:

jerry

Unfortunately, I think this is more than a Hollywood issue.

There are certainly many in Hollywood who speak out, and in some cases are strident in their speech, for anti-war, more social progressiveness, and against the evils of capitalism. There are some who speak out, again some stridently; against whatever a republican administration is doing when the same speak in favor of the same things if it is a democrat administration.

There are also fewer, and in at least in my tuned hearing, fewer strident voices, that speak out for vigilant defense, lower government involvement in social issues, and reduced tax burdens.

The majority don’t seem to use their voices at all, and as such, get lumped into the apparent loudest most vocal group whether that is their opinion or not.

I don’t particularly object to what Hollywood does, I can vote with my wallet, much to their dismay.

The unfortunate part is that the same is happening across the country. There is vocal and strident on the left, vocal and strident on the right, and a quiet middle. Much rests on the opinion of the middle.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:10 pm 71. Rick Ballard:

John Lynch,

Although I disagree that Ms. Wood came within a light year of providing anything of substance, I do take your point concerning attempting to communicate with those holding opposing views. I side with Knucklehead and DtP in having grown very tired of memebots but I am interested in how many posts you feel should be allowed prior to hitting the TROLL DETECTED button and proceeding with eradication measures. There was a time when I thought that DtP might have moved too quickly but that time has passed.

BTW, nice cite (and site) on war costs.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:11 pm 72. PeterUK:

Knucklehead,Most definitely She and not for any of those reasons.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:11 pm 73. Knucklehead:

John Lynch,

I’m not sure what you’re after here but I’ll play Keep in mind that I personally think the “just war” argument is “angels on the head of a pin” kinda stuff. Interesting exercise but whenever the shooting starts each side thinks they’ve got truth and justice in their portfolio. A purist “just war” argument is little more than a stalling tactic used by pacifists ;>

And this is a purely historical exercise. Times and people and notions of “justice” have changed petty radically. And keep in mind that any notion of “popularity” is a bit sketchy also. When there was big wilderness we had a ton of real, live, dedicated “libertarians” who often didn’t much care WHAT was going on as long as it left them alone to live their peaceful, law-abiding lives.

I haven’t looked at most of these wars in a while and none of them specifically from the perspective of “were they popular at home” or were they “just”, but here goes…

# French and Indian War

A nasty affair that was real life and death and turned a lot of the colonial population anti-French and, especially, anti-Indian (not that there wasn’t plenty of anti-Indian sentiment in general, but this didn’t help anything). I doubt that people of the time thought much about whether this was “just” or not and I don’t know that “popularity” would apply.

We can go back and forth about who’s case was more just in retrospect (no doubt the Indians thought there case was just as hell). If you lived anywhere near the frontier in this time, and many did, it was pretty much fight or die. The back and forth raiding, on the other hand, got pretty darned ugly and brutal IIRC. I don’t recall the French side of this other than that they wanted to stir things up to make life difficult for whoever they are competing with (the French do that a lot, always have). No doubt there was some legit geo-political conflict (revolving around Canada and, maybe the Ohio territory) but I don’t recall fersure.

This war (and to an extent most of the earlier Indian wars – probably up to Jackson’s trail of tears action) was “just” in any way either side could have related to. Anyone standing on either side would almost certainly feel justified. Later Indian wars get real sticky as far as any “justice” goes – especially the ones that were purely after access to precious metals.

# Revolutionary War

The “rebellion” that eventually became the war was, IMHO, just from the colonial side. The colonists wanted to stop being colonists and become full-fledged equal citizens. From the British side the “justice” was legalistic. Very simplistic, but what the heck.

# The Whiskey Rebellion

Unjust if you grew “corn” on the frontier and wanted to store, transport, and convert it to cash. I don’t know that this qualifies as a war. It was a big deal and an early test of the Republic, but I don’t see how its anything closer to a “war” than, for example, Ike sending troops to chat with ol’ Faubus about his schools.

# The War of 1812

Getcher freakin’ hands off our boats and sailors! Didn’t really need to be fought so I suppose that makes it unjust. I suppose we had better justification than they did. Bastards burned down our capitol though, we really oughta go smack some Cannucks for that or something (oh, never mind, we tried that didn’t we).

Between the end of the Revolution and this war there was a ton of tension that went back and forth between France and Britain and the US. We got played, used, etc. We weren’t exactly running with the big dogs back then. My sense of this is that it was “justified” on our part (but schtupid to fight it) and little more than bullying on Britains part. I think the Canadian adventure part of this is overplayed by some but I’ve never stopped and really looked at that angle.

But it did give us Jackson, didn’t it. Not much has ever been quite the same

# The Texas Revolution

This is the most fascinating case so far, IMO. The Mexicans had some legit claim to TX but they really didn’t seem to be very interested in administering it. It was almost as if it were the Mexican colonies or the red-headed stepchild. The “Mexicans” who were more or less native there didn’t seem all that interested in being part of Mexico. Then came all the white settlers and stirred things up and wanted independence and bingo, we gotta war.

I’m not convinced either side had much of a case for the “justice” of this one. Then again, we won, we got to write the history books and they’re still crying about it.

Unfortunately I have to stop – too much even for me

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:11 pm 74. hollywood:

Jeez,

A guy steps away for a few minutes and all hell breaks loose. Am I a troll? I don’t know. Do labels mean anything? I’m just a guy who admired Roger’s first 2 Moses Wine books, promptly stopped paying attention, found him posting years later on Chowhound.com, lost him, saw a reference in the LA Times to some pointed comment he made about Joe Wilson and thought I’d check this place out.

As for Elton John, I first saw him at the Troubador in San Francisco in 1970. He was incredible, like a young Jerry Lee Lewis–nothing like he is now. I basically stopped listening after Honky Chateau.

As for judges, Sandy, I agree the games Congrees plays in this regard are appalling, but I believe the GOP more or less established the precedent of bluesheeting or failing to bluesheet (I forget which) and honed the process of tubing nominations during the Clinton years. Now, unfortunately, it’s payback time.

John, I do listen. OTOH, I think some posters undercut severely the intelligence that might exist in their remarks with trite ad hominem arguments.

RogerA, thanks for your info. And I’m glad to know some things are being done, however, it is a fact that Wyoming got an incredible amount of money per capita compared to New York state where there are obviously many more vulnerable souls to be protected.

And now, duty calls. Lay on.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:21 pm 75. jerry:

Knucklehead:

Two points of history. (1) The French and Indian Wars were the North American adjunct to the 7 years war going on in Europe. The Colonies, a part of the UK were allied with Frederick the Great against Russia, France and Austria. (2) The British burned Washington in response to US forces burning York [now a neighborhood in modern Toronto] during our ill fated invasion of Canada. The war itself was merely fallout from the Napoleonic Wars. The blockade and the impressment of American citizens into the Royal Navy were consequences of British military requirements. Most RN Captains were scrupulous in their use of impressment and only took US citizens who were either born in the UK or born in North America before the Treaty of Paris. Under British law you remained a British Subject if you were born under the Union Jack regardless of your citizenship.

To illustrate this here is a trick question….

Who is the first American President…?

The answer is not George Washington but Martin Van Buren. All previous Presidents were born British subjects.

This bit of trivia comes from having a Canadian mother.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:26 pm 76. BigFire:

Manwhile in Las Vegas, Linda Ronstadt got booed and booted from Aladdin after praising Michael Moore and urging audience to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 after one of her performances. Unbeknownst, her audience isn’t the typical Moore audience, and she got drinks and other things thrown at her. Management then fired her on the spot.

You’ve got to remember that freedom of speech comes with responsibility, financial and otherwise.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:27 pm 77. John Lynch:

Rick,

The MEME button should be pushed just as soon as it is detected. It goes along with strong defense.

I’m not sure that I endorsed holly’s content just that I was interested in where the previous war discussion, if it ever got started, might lead.

Knuck,

Sorry for all of the work you took upon yourself. The ‘just war’ thing is kind of a historical retrospective and not meaningful for the purposes that I was trying to understand.

I was heading more for: How did people feel about the war, during the war? How much dissent about the war was there during the war? Were there Moore’s (F9/11) of the Revolutionary War? Did the Elton John of the time complain that his Chamber music wasn’t getting enough gigs? Were the academics wringing their hands about the international community and unilateral actions?

Maybe this is too big a subject. But it seemed interesting. Thanks for digging into it.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:27 pm 78. Matt Evans:

*But back to the subject. Why do artists need to be anti-war and for that matter, anti-Republican? Is it written in their contracts?*

I suspect the people who offer those contracts are VERY anti-republican. Do you know of any big hollywood producer or director who’s going to support Bush in the upcoming election? I’m sure there’s a few but I suspect that being pro-Bush in Hollywood right now is akin to having leprosy- look no further then the increasing ire tossed in Bruce Willis’s direction, who is pro-Bush (OMG his movies are SOOOO violent screams the left) or worse, Mel Gibson, who dared to make a spiritual movie that was not about the Dahli Lama or Scientology or whatever. I suspect many of these “performers” who rarely come out of their pot induced haze to read the news, are simply repeating what they hear from others at cocktail parties- “Bush is evil” etc. And the people arguing for the democrats are not worried about higher taxes because if you’re making millions, you can pay a very good accountant to find you the loopholes.

Clearly, there are some celebrities in Hollywood that know what they’re talking about. But Jerry (I think) made the crack about Sheen being uneducated and he’s dead right- a month or so back, some web site posted a list of the prominent hollywood “elite” who seemed to be on the forefront of the Bush bashing- and almost all of them were high school dropouts.

Stardom has the consequence of making stars feel much more important then they really are- because they feel so important, they can opine about any topic, no matter how little they know about it. Its a shame, really, that America is so fascinated by celebrities- its really boggling in many ways. I have alot more respect for celebrities and well known organizations, who instead of endorsing a candidate, are simply encouraging people to vote.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:30 pm 79. TedM:

I know you are waiting anxiously for my take on entertainers.

They are entitled to their opinions just like us.

We pay to see them entertain. If we wanted their opinions we would pay separately for that in another forum

I make my own blacklist of entertainers I will not support monetarily. That is MY right.

Any entertainer who spouts political opinions and insults the patrons of a venue should be fired.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:37 pm 80. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

Excellent summary history. One really needs to be a dates and events clamp to keep the precise connections and flow straight. Most of our migrations and conflicts over here had connections to conflicts in Europe. If Spain doesn’t become a shell there’s probably no Mexico, no Texas revolution, no Mexican war, etc…

We tend to forget that guys like Adams, Jefferson, etc., in addition to trying to run a brand new nation that had a whole lot pulling it apart, and dealing with levels of debt as a percentage of revenue that would give us heart attacks today, and a mercantile international system that was nearly constantly engaged in global conflict, were constantly being gamed and abused by the Limeys and Frogs Adams was a great American and a pretty lousy president with the single big exception that he stood fast and refused to be conned into taking us to war. Jefferson got right in there and played geo-political poker with Tallyrand and Pitt! Then he went and won a war against the Barbary pirates that none of the Big Dogs wanted any part of. Then he got the Louisianna purchase by completely overstepping his authority. Those guys weren’t playing from positions of power and they didn’t have a finely honed set of precedents. The won some, they lost some. Its a miracle there is a USA.

The average US citizens seems to think all those guys hung around car dealerships or something. The most fortunate and timely collection of genious the world’s ever seen, if you ask me.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:41 pm 81. hollywood:

Hmmm. Since a number of you were in error about my gender, does that mean I have to question all your other statements?

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:42 pm 82. TedM:

Hollywood

If what you just said was not in jest, you win a troll pin.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:45 pm 83. chuck:

John,

I lack the knowledge to comment on the popularity of these wars, but I do recall that there was a significant efflux of refugees to Canada during/after the Revolutionary war. I know some folks who trace their ancestry to such refugees. Maybe that explains the difference between the US and Canada

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:47 pm 84. hollywood:

TedM,

I guess it was said in jest since I’ve been questioning your statements all along.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:49 pm 85. Sandy P:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Via LGF:

Last Saturday night, at the end of her show at the fabulous Aladdin casino in glamorous Las Vegas, Linda Ronstadt praised Michael Moore as ìa great American patriotî and urged her audience to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

The doughy diva probably didnít expect what happened next.

The crowd booed her, threw drinks at her, and tore her posters down.

Then, to add well-deserved insult to well-deserved injury, she got the boot from the casinoís owner. (Hat tip: zulubaby.)

And I mean the boot, baby. He didnít even let Ms. Ronstadt go back to her gorgeous celebrity suite.

—-

Before you make a comment Hollywood – I’m paying to be entertained, not paying to listen to personal politics.

That’s the difference. Let her spend her money to get her views out.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:50 pm 86. chuck:

Hollywood,

You should have just kept quiet and enjoyed the delicious sensation of having a secret. Look at the bright side, though. Not everyone gets a chance to hear what was said while they were out of the room.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:51 pm 87. Roberts:

Hollywood, your claims that Republicans started the debasement of the judicial nomination confirmation process in the Clinton admin are false. Clinton’s judicial nominations were confirmed in roughly the same proportions and timeliness as Reagan/Bush admin nominations. Democrats in the Senate are currently engaged in an unprecedented obstruction of nominations of the current administration.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:52 pm 88. TedM:

Hollywood, you wrote:

“TedM,

I guess it was said in jest since I’ve been questioning your statements all along.

Posted by: hollywood at July 19, 2004 01:49 ”

Thats very interesting , since “Hollywood” hasnt been questioning my statements”

It leads me to ask , What name you used when you did question my statements all along.

HMmmmmmmmmmm.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:53 pm 89. PeterUK:

Hollywood,

No it just means you shouldn’t use Marie’s address.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:56 pm 90. Sandy P:

–As for judges, Sandy, I agree the games Congrees plays in this regard are appalling, but I believe the GOP more or less established the precedent of bluesheeting or failing to bluesheet (I forget which) and honed the process of tubing nominations during the Clinton years. Now, unfortunately, it’s payback time.–

No, Hollywood – advise and consent – vote them up, vote them down, but vote – not hold them hostage for 3 years.

and that goes for both sides.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:59 pm 91. hollywood:

Roberts,

I doubt your stats but I don’t have the correct info. Regardless (and I say this hoping not to open another bag of snakes), the harm done by the Dems holding up GOP judges is vastly outweighed by the Starr Commission/Impeachment waste and fiasco. That was hardball all the way. And to what end? It’s basically the same with judges although I think many would point to the credentials of the GOP nominees versus those of the Clinton picks and find the Dem picks superior. But there we get into a quagmire of an argument that will never be resolved.

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:59 pm 92. Rick Ballard:

John Lynch,

See, I told you it was a memebot. Hell, now we’re back to the Star Report – next up the Bollen Amendment, Oliver North and the Sandinistas followed by Watergate.

Also note that the ‘bot has no time to actually provide a cite (short of New Yorker interpretative gibberish) for what it claims. If someone wants to play with it, wear rubber gloves and remember – as soon as you start you’re on defense and off subject.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:12 pm 93. hollywood:

Roberts,

In an effort to compensate for the perceived lack of content in my prior remarks, I’ve dug up these words from People for the American Way on the judge situation in hopes of assuaging Sandy.

May 6, 2003

To: Journalists

Fr: Ralph G. Neas

Re: GOP Leaders Try to Create Constitutional Cover for Illegitimate Power Play

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights Subcommittee is holding a hearing today “to examine judicial nominations, filibusters, and the Constitution, focusing on when a majority is denied its right to consent.” It appears that the hearing is an effort to create the illusion of legitimacy for an outrageous scheme to eliminate an important check and balance on the administration’s court-packing efforts in advance of future vacancies on the Supreme Court.

Republican threats to “go nuclear” and put an end to long-established Senate practice, rules, and precedents are extraordinary in light of the success that President Bush has already had in making his mark on the federal judiciary. In the two years since President Bush named his first nominees to the federal bench, the U.S. Senate has confirmed 120 Bush judges, including 100 who were confirmed with the Senate and the Judiciary Committee under Democratic control. Since Republicans regained control of the Senate this year, Democrats have used the filibuster – a longstanding Senate procedure requiring a supermajority to cut off debate on important topics – to block only two controversial appeals court nominees, while a number of other nominees have been permitted a full floor vote in spite of intense opposition. Amidst the talk of crisis and a broken system, one important fact is being overlooked: there are currently only 49 vacancies in the federal judiciary, less than half of the 111 vacancies that existed when the Democrats took control of the Senate in July 2001.

In spite of the rapid approval rate for Bush’s judicial nominees, Republican leaders’ fury that even two nominees have been stopped by Democratic filibusters has led to a series of remarkable efforts to unilaterally change longstanding rules and to abrogate bipartisan agreements in order to undermine the ability of the minority party to provide any real check on the administration’s efforts to create a federal judiciary dominated by committed right-wing ideologues. Perhaps the most potentially far-reaching is the effort to declare the use of the filibuster to be unconstitutional when applied to judicial nominees.

The astonishing claim that the use of the filibuster is unconstitutional – although it has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike for decades – is a short-sighted strategy for undermining the Senate’s traditional role as the more deliberative House of Congress and for removing one of the only checks on the abuse of power by the majority Party, with respect to the issue of judicial nominations.

The Curious Champions of a Constitutional Right to a Senate Floor Vote

It is a remarkable display of hypocrisy for Republican leaders, including senators like Orrin Hatch, to suggest that use of the filibuster to prevent final votes on judicial nominees is unconstitutional. The historical record is clear that the filibuster has been used by both Republicans and Democrats with respect to controversial judicial nominations. In defending a Republican-led filibuster on a judicial nomination in 1994, Hatch himself explained that the filibuster is “one of the few tools the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.” Moreover, during the Clinton administration, Senate Republicans blocked dozens of Clinton nominees with much less open and accountable procedures like secret holds. Fully one-third of Clinton’s appeals court nominees from 1995 through 2000 were kept off the bench – many without even a hearing or committee vote – while others were delayed for as long as four years.

How can it be constitutional for a committee chair to stop a nominee by refusing to hold a hearing, or for a secret hold by a single Republican senator to prevent a nominee from moving forward, but unconstitutional for 41 Democratic senators to prevent a final vote using a public Senate procedure specifically designed to protect the rights of the minority? It is clear that the answer has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the politics of power at all costs. It is simply amazing for Sen. Hatch and his colleagues to make this argument with a straight face.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was among those voting against cloture on the nomination of Richard Paez in 2000. Yet now Frist says, “If filibusters are going to be made part of the judicial nominee process, I think you will see increasing discussion over whether the rules should be changed.” Frist and others have even suggested taking the constitutional question to the Supreme Court, a separation of powers nightmare that seems implausible at best. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has told reporters that he has devised a strategy that could bypass the filibuster and force approval of nominees with only 51 votes, describing his idea as “nuclear.”

Although Sen. Rick Santorum has suggested that the Democratic filibuster against Estrada “set a dangerous precedent” and that Democrats have “changed the rules,” it is clear that it is Republicans who are seeking to change the rules and make a dramatic break with history and Senate tradition. Republican Sen. Richard Lugar explained in 1993 that it is “a function of our Constitution that minorities are protected in many, many ways,” and that this is part of the rationale for the continued existence of the filibuster.

Some Republicans have wrongly asserted that there has been only one filibuster against a federal judicial nomination, the successful Republican filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas in 1968. In fact, cloture votes have been required to end debate on a number of judicial nominations. According to the Congressional Research Service, cloture motions have been filed and cloture votes held on 14 Court of Appeals nominations since 1980; as recently as 2000, cloture votes were necessary to obtain votes on the nominations of both Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. Sen. Bob Smith openly declared he was leading a filibuster, and he described Sen. Sessions as a member of his filibuster coalition. Democrats have also demanded 60 votes for controversial nominees, such as Edward Carnes, who was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 1992. Over the years, there were many other attempted filibusters that did not result in a cloture vote.

The current situation – with one party dominating the White House and Congress in spite of a narrowly divided national electorate – demonstrates why our constitutional framework was designed as a system of checks and balances. The filibuster is now virtually the only tool that Senate Democrats have at their disposal to try to force the administration and the Republican Senate majority to engage in bipartisan consultation, compromise, and cooperation on judicial nominations. If a demand for 60 votes is legitimate with respect to legislation that future Congresses can revisit, it is even more appropriate when considering lifetime appointments to powerful positions on the federal judiciary.

Historical Revisionism and Bogus Constitutional Theory

The primary legal theory being put forward by right-wing legal scholars and activists to support their claims rests on bad logic, bad law, and bad history. Conservative legal pundit Bruce Fein, scheduled to appear at Tuesday’s hearing, is among those arguing that requiring a supermajority to cut off debate on judicial nominations is impermissible. Such an interpretation defies the language of the Constitution and the history of the Senate.

In fact, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution clearly states that each House of Congress would make its own rules. In some areas, the framers of the Constitution did take some matters out of the hands of Congress by requiring, for example, two-thirds of the Senate to approve international treaties. Requiring a majority vote to approve matters is in essence a parliamentary floor, not a ceiling. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement for a simple majority for votes on nominations.

In fact, it wasn’t until 1917 that there was any way other than unanimous consent to cut off debate on issues, including judicial nominations, and bring them to a vote. In that year the very first cloture rule was adopted — two thirds of the Senate present and voting required to invoke cloture and force a vote on a measure. For the past 54 years, the Senate has required a super majority of the entire Senate (ranging from 3/5 to 2/3) to bring judicial nominations or legislation to a vote.

Never in our history as a nation have we authorized a simple majority to force a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomination or any other matter. There is certainly no justification for doing so now. The Senate was in fact designed to be the more deliberative body, where extended debate would be a check on potential abuses by the party in power. That characteristic of the Senate has often been lauded by conservatives in the past. Contrary to what George Will is suggesting now, in 1993 he wrote, “[T]he Senate is not obligated to jettison one of its defining characteristics, permissiveness regarding extended debate, in order to pander to the perception that the presidency is the sun around which all else in American government – even American life – orbits.” Back then Will also wrote that “Democracy is trivialized when reduced to simple majoritarianism – government by adding machine. A mature, nuanced democracy makes provision for respecting not mere numbers, but also intensity of feeling.” (Washington Post, April 25, 1993).

Although most observers consider it unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept a case about internal Senate rules, the Court did uphold the principle of supermajorities in a case involving local voting rules requiring a majority of 60 percent to pass a measure. The Court’s ruling stated: “Certainly any departure from strict majority rule gives disproportionate power to the minority. But there is nothing in the language of the Constitution, our history, or our cases that requires that a majority always prevail on every issue.” Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 at 6 (1971)

As has been noted earlier, filibusters have been used by both Republicans and Democrats against judicial nominations and many types of legislation. During the Clinton administration, Republican senators filibustered a number of legislative initiatives, including an economic stimulus package, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, health care reform, striker replacement legislation, and racial justice provisions in a crime bill. Would Republicans now argue that these efforts were unconstitutional because they are not explicitly permitted in the language of the Constitution?

The framers of the Constitution showed wisdom in specifying certain matters in which particular super majorities would be required and in all other areas allowing Congress to set its own rules. When Congress moved to create a rule that would create a mechanism to cut off debate – for the first time in 150 years – it did so in a manner that would maintain the Senate’s deliberative role and make it difficult for a narrow majority to abuse its power.

Other Examples of GOP Rule Changes and Power Plays

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch is increasingly abusing the power of his chairmanship to flagrantly violate or unilaterally change longstanding committee rules and bipartisan agreements that govern the Judiciary Committee’s deliberative process. It is these actions by Sen. Hatch, not the Democrats’ legitimate use of the Senate’s filibuster procedure, that mark a dramatic break with precedent and an abandonment of a commitment to act fairly and according to mutually agreed-upon procedures. Several of Hatch’s actions also stand in direct contradiction to his own stated principles about how the Judiciary Committee should function.

Committee Rule IV

One of the most egregious abuses of power occurred on Thursday, February 27, when Hatch violated clear and explicit Judiciary Committee rules that prevent the Committee from moving to a final vote on any matter before the committee without the support of at least one member of the minority party. Over the strenuous objections of several Democratic Senators, Hatch insisted that the rule did not apply to nominations – a specious claim that had never been made before – and that he would call for a final vote on appeals court nominees Deborah Cook and John Roberts, even though no Democrats supported the motion to bring them to a vote. (In a compromise since then, another hearing was held for Roberts; Cook received a vote on the Senate floor without an additional hearing to review her record.)

Since then, Hatch has changed his explanation, claiming that Committee Rule IV does not apply to the Committee Chairman. He now claims in essence that the Chairman’s power to call for a vote on a matter is absolute regardless of agreed upon rules of procedure, and that Rule IV is actually a rule that gives members the right to push for a vote that is being delayed by the Chair.

Hatch’s claims are demonstrably false. As recently as 1997, in connection with the consideration of the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be assistant attorney general, Hatch explicitly acknowledged that “[a]bsent the consent of a minority member of the Committee, a matter may not be brought to a vote.” (Transcript of Judiciary Committee meeting of November 13, 1997 at 6) (emphasis added) As Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle wrote to Hatch on March 4, Rule IV “clearly establishes a Committee filibuster right.”

Blue Slip Policy

Hatch has also changed another fundamental Senate rule regarding judicial nominations. In the past, Hatch has been a fervent supporter of the Senate’s “blue slip” policy, which has allowed home-state senators who object to a judicial nominee to delay action in the Judiciary Committee by not returning a nominee’s “blue slip” to the committee. As American Prospect has noted, “it was Hatch, in 1995, who hardened the blue-slip policy to allow a single senator to block a nomination indefinitely.” Indeed, Sen. Hatch made his blue slip policy explicit in 1998 by stating on the blue slips themselves that “[n]o further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominee’s home state senators.”

Now, however, Hatch has apparently declared a new policy saying that even though a senator’s decision not to return a blue slip would be given great weight, it would not be allowed to prevent Hatch from moving nominees he wants to move. “In other words,” says Hatch, “we can go ahead with certain nominees where you might have a withheld blue slip.” Sen. Barbara Boxer has objected to proceeding on controversial nominee Carolyn Kuhl, but Hatch has scheduled a committee vote on the nomination on Thursday, May 8.

Stacked Confirmation Hearings

Sen. Hatch held a single confirmation hearing featuring three controversial appeals court nominees simultaneously – Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, and John Roberts – on January 29. Scheduling multiple controversial appeals court nominees on a single day violated a longstanding bipartisan agreement. In the mid-1980s, Senators Strom Thurmond, Joseph Biden, Bob Dole, and Robert Byrd agreed in writing that there would be no more than one controversial nominee scheduled at any one time, an agreement that had been followed under both Republican and Democratic control until Hatch’s packed January 29th hearing.

Hatch’s move virtually assured that it would be impossible for senators to prepare thoroughly and for all three nominees to receive sufficient scrutiny. In fact, senators focused their questions on Sutton, meaning that nominees Roberts and Cook were asked very few questions. Hatch did provide another hearing for Roberts, but on May 5, Cook was confirmed by the full Senate, never having been subjected to serious public scrutiny, even though Democratic senators objected to the way she was railroaded through committee with the stacked hearing and Hatch’s violation of Rule IV.

Conclusion

The effort to create a constitutional objection to the selective use of the filibuster against extremist judicial nominees has no grounding in history or constitutional law. It is a power play that would subvert the Senate’s historical role, undermine its ability to conduct its advise and consent responsibilities, and open the door to further abuses of power by a narrow majority of the Senate.

The way to limit the time and energy expended in divisive confirmation battles is not a nakedly partisan power play that would alter the nature of the Senate in order to cement ideological domination of the judiciary for decades to come. The way forward is for the White House to engage in genuine consultation and cooperation on judicial nominations that would result in more mainstream nominees who could win bipartisan support.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:17 pm 94. penwil:

Interesting about what happened to Linda Ronstadt. I am beginning to wonder if a groundswell of angry backlash against all the Bush bashing and vitriol from the Left is starting to build up. I’ve never been the type to go out and a carry a sign, but if there was a protest in support of Bush and the WoT here in the Bay Area (as if!) I’d be out there.

And you want to talk about protesting . . . I can’t remember where I read it, and so it might not be true . . . but Slim Fast’s stock supposedly lost $1.2 billion in value after Whoopi’s vulgar Bush bashing caused offended stock owners to bail. It was that which led the company to then fire her and cancel a $7 million ad campaign. And the head of the company is supposedly a big Kerry contributor, but even he apparently now understands the laws of economic consequences.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:17 pm 95. JB:

Knucklehead,

THEM would be the domestic enemies of freedom, the appeasers, the multicultis, the moral relativists, the “we need to come to terms with communism/fascism/terrorism/insert ‘ism” here” crowd which would inevitably gain strength were we to pursue isolationism. In other words, it’s giving up in the values arena.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:22 pm 96. Knucklehead:

John,

These are great questions and very much interesting to compare with today…

“I was heading more for: How did people feel about the war, during the war? How much dissent about the war was there during the war? Were there Moore’s (F9/11) of the Revolutionary War? Did the Elton John of the time complain that his Chamber music wasn’t getting enough gigs? Were the academics wringing their hands about the international community and unilateral actions?”

If we take most of the wars you listed there was HUGE levels of disagreement about entering them in the first place. And it was played out in the media of the time, which included pamphleteering back around the time of the colonies and the revolution. I suspect this was oddly similar to “blogs”. A pamphleteer would put out a hard-hitting opinion piece that would make the rounds among both ordinary people and elites and would be the “hot topic” or “news cycle” equivalent of today.

Thomas Paine was something of the Michael Moore of his day – at least as far as rabble rousing went. He had the knack for stirring things up. And after the revolution he wasn’t happy with the result and went elsewhere (France IIRC) and stirred up more stuff. Pampleteers and newspaper people would often start the big scandals of the day. One (forget the name) almost brought down Jefferson. Nobody laid a glove on GW, but after him all the others were fair game. Heck, we had the Alien and Sedition acts when Adams was president. On his way out he made “midnight” decrees and appointments that would have made Clingon blush. He put Marshall into the Supreme court and Marshall wound up running perhaps the biggest power coup in our history – grabbing the power for judicial review for the Supreme Court. We’re just now seeing the effects of usurpist courts. Marshall was a great American but he started something there that he couldn’t possibly have forseen.

People did line up on sides of issues and it often was based upon the “red state/blue state” sorts of divides we have even now. If you lived where there were a lot of people your ideas were more “cosmopolitan” than if you lived on the frontier where you had a very different set of problems. None of this is as drastic today as it was then but similar in many ways.

We forget so much about our history. Someone above mentioned “first American President” trivia. How many people know that the lawyer who was the defense lawyer for some of the British soldiers who killed colonists in the Boston Massacre became our second president?

Jefferson, among all the other stuff he did was one of a few people in the world who invented paleontology (sp?). Both Washington and Jefferson made improvements to the plow. There’s one I find unbelievable when I think about it. What bit of technology of that time could possibly have been better known and more fully developed. Yet both those men looked at the darned thing and figured out how to make meaningful improvements. People seem to think Franklin was a randy old bufoon – he was one of the foremost scientists of his day (BTW, if you ever want a laugh, track down Ol’ Ben’s “Advice to a Young Man…”) What a riot of a read. I’ve wandered, haven’t I.

Back to your orginal question… Just look at WWII. Few wanted us to get involved with that mess. Even lend-lease was not particulaly popular because it was seen, but some and some powerful people, as a transparent attempt to draw us into the war. Major figures of the day thought quite highly of what Nazi Germany was achieving. Lindburg held views along those lines and was something of an example of a “star” of the day spouting off about politics. Joe Kennedy thought there was no way England could survive and advised FDR to cut and run and make a deal with the Germans. This stuff was argued out very publicly.

And information moved more slowly than today and people had more time and, I suppose, were much more practiced at discussion since there weren’t movies and TV and the like and just getting by required much more of the average person’s time and effort.

Two historians who, IMO, give the reader a good feel for this sort of thing are Manchester (The Glory and the Dream, I think that was Manchester) and Paul Johnson (see Modern Times – what a great history – puts Beethoven into perspective, I thought he just wrote music and played the piano – he rocked the world ;>)

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:24 pm 97. PeterUK:

Hollywood,

Looks intersting,might even read it some time.

Rick I’m upping to grade 9.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:24 pm 98. WichitaBoy:

John Lynch

Good questions. The “French and Indian War” was, as pointed out by jerry, just a small part of the “Seven Years War” fought between Britain and France. As far as I can tell, it was the first true worldwide war ever fought. The issue was who was going to be the top empire dog.

I believe that the Mexican War was the first war fought by the US in which there was significant protest against the government’s policy, protest led by New Englanders. Interestingly, both Lincoln and Grant were opposed to that war.

There was also significant domestic opposition to the Spanish-American War (cf. “The Conquest of the United States by Spain”), World War I (cf. H.L. Mencken), and World War II (cf. Charles Lindbergh), though nothing approaching the Michael Moore level.

I believe the prototype of the modern scion-of-the-privileged-classes virulent anti-war protester at all costs was Bertrand Russell during the Great War. I don’t believe there was any earlier precedent for this sort of thing.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:28 pm 99. Fresh Air:

Hollywood–

That monster post was incredibly rude. You are not only ignorant, you are a waster of pixels and Roger’s bandwidth. On many blogs that post alone would get you banned. Why don’t stop trying everyone’s patience and duck back under the bridge where you belong?

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:39 pm 100. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Knucklehead

Keep in mind that I personally think the “just war” argument is “angels on the head of a pin” kinda stuff. Interesting exercise but whenever the shooting starts each side thinks they’ve got truth and justice in their portfolio. A purist “just war” argument is little more than a stalling tactic used by pacifists ;

For once I disagree with you. There are long established religious doctrine for determining whether a war is “just.” It is not unreasonable to use those criteria when contemplating a war. In that sense, an imperialist war is not just, but a self defensive war is. The Iraq war is doubly just – it was defensive and also freed people from a tyrant. The Vietnam War meets the same criteria, except that the left threew away the “freed people” part by ignoring (as they always do) the difference between relatively free and utterly unfree, in fact asserting that the utterly unfree was freer (thereby adhering to Orwell, who warned of such behavior).

On the subject of trolls and non-trolls. Lately we have been short of good opponents here. If this whole place turns into an echo chamber, I’m going to have to bring up abortion or something to break it (just kidding).

Is hollywood a troll? Well, we have a whole lot of unrelated points stuffed into a single post – troll-like. But that’s not enough to assign trolldom IMHO. I would hope, though, that hollywood would stick to the subject of the thread, and debate about that (although I already drifted off into Vietnam land… sigh).

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm 101. WichitaBoy:

penwil wrote: “I am beginning to wonder if a groundswell of angry backlash against all the Bush bashing and vitriol from the Left is starting to build up.”

I don’t know. I haven’t seen any evidence of it.

I do know that Michael Moore’s film has been receiving standing ovations in … Wichita! Yes, those flyover hayseeds are at it again. My mother informs me that she can’t remember a time when a film received such in Wichita.

Propaganda is powerful; reality is perception.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:41 pm 102. Fresh Air:

WichitaBoy–

Actually the Revolutionary War is the first war involving significant domestic oppostion.

Roughly one-third were for it, one-third were Tories, and one-third didn’t give a damn. Not completely different from today, I might add.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:44 pm 103. Sun-Tzu:

Hollywood:

If you’re going to simply cut and paste from the People for the American Way website, please do us all the favor of simply typing (or cutting and pasting) the link, rather than the entire column.

This way, you waste far less of Roger’s bandwidth, and if people are interested, they can still go to the site.

But, really, cutting and pasting from PFAW (e.g.: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10520 for the Committee Rule IV section) isn’t more than argument by authority, or in this case, argument-by-those-who-agree-w/-you.

Now, if you had a piece from an actual Law Journal, it’d at least be introducing some learnedness into the debate, and if you had a personal opinion, it would be introducing your own thoughts. But cutting-and-pasting huge swathes of OTHER PEOPLE’S WRITINGS is, as someone above noted, simply rude, as well as intellectually dishonest (what, no citation?).

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:45 pm 104. DennisThePeasant:

Paul-

Of course I’m an expert on taste (that’s why I doing accounting in Ohio, Silly) and yes, I was referring to Compared To What?. I don’t understand your statement that it isn’t really jazz. The song was written by Gene McDaniels, a straight jazz singer/songwriter, and Harris, McCann, and Bailey were all straight jazz musicians. It was recorded at the Montreux Jazz Festival. Compared to what this isn’t jazz?

John Lynch-

Most Republicans do not do boas. We’re more the thigh high black leather boots with 13 inch stiletto heels and…well, never mind what we are usually into. And if you want a very sharp, accurate mental image of me, think lovechild of Ethel Merman and Buddy Hackett.

Now let’s see you keep down your Tofu Surprise at dinner thinking about that image.

And don’t try to drag me into this Hollywood thingee going on in this thread. I read the first two sentences of his first post and have skipped the rest. Appears the boy has mastered the cut and paste features of his browser software, though. Good for him, I say. Always glad to see one of the Cadre showing off a new skill.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:49 pm 105. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

penwill

Join your local ProtestWarrior chapter. They counterprotest the lefties, and in your part of the world, there should be plenty of targets.

Go to hq.protestwarrior.com and join up.

They have a lot of fun and discombobulate the left. They’ve got a good movie of their actions on their website, and they were featured on Fox last weekend.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:49 pm 106. Sun-Tzu:

Wichita Boy:

As Fresh Air notes, the American Revolution was fought among a populace that was roughly one-third in favor of independence, one-third opposed, and one-third fence-sitters.

After the founding of the US, the War of 1812 was incredibly unpopular, especially once the Brits blockaded American ports. IIRC, this resulted in the first arguments for secession, ironically by New England, in the “Hartford Convention,” in which they wanted to preserve states’ rights against the perceived tyranny of James Madison.

However, your larger point, that most American wars have been fought in the context of far less unity, is absolutely dead-on. World War II was the outlier, not the norm.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:49 pm 107. JB:

One would guess Michael Moore’s audience is fairly self-selecting, even in Wichita. There hasn’t been a significant swing to Kerry or a drop in W.’s approval ratings since the film’s release. While collective forms of insanity are fascinating, they are ultimately ephemeral.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:50 pm 108. Knucklehead:

JB,

You mean like these folks (talk about memebots!)?

Norman Lear – the only man in the US who thought Archie Bunker was real

Barbara Jordan – never met anybody else’s free speech she didn’t hate

Theodore Heshburg – gets a pass. A legit civil rights leader as far as I am aware

Andrew Heiskell – no clue who the heck he was other than a founder of PFAW, but that ain’t a good thing

PFAW’s Mission

People For the American Way was founded in 1981 by Norman Lear, Barbara Jordan, Father Theodore Hesburgh, and Andrew Heiskell. The following Statement of Purpose was adopted by the founders and other civic, religious, and business leaders who comprised the initial Board of Directors.

In times of hardship, in times of crises, societies throughout history have experienced wrenching dislocations in their fundamental values and beliefs…. We are alarmed that some of the current voices of stridency and division may replace those of reason and unity. If these voices continue unchallenged, the results will be predictable: a rise in “demonology” and hostility, a breakdown in community and social spirit, a deterioration of free and open dialogue, and the temptation to grasp at simplistic solutions for complex problems.

People For the American Way was established to address these matters. Our purpose is to meet the challenges of discord and fragmentation with an affirmation of “the American Way.” By this, we mean pluralism, individuality, freedom of thought, expression and religion, a sense of community, and tolerance and compassion for others. People For the American Way will reach out to all Americans and affirm that in our society, the individual still matters; that there is reason to believe in the future – not to despair of it – and that we must strengthen the common cords that connect us as humans and citizens.

The long term agenda of People For the American Way is broad. It includes reducing social tension and polarizations, encouraging community participation, fostering understanding among different segments of our society, and increasing the level and quality of public dialogue. As an educational institution, we shall communicate with the American people through printed materials, radio, television, public lectures and discussions.

We will gather information, analyze it, and distribute our findings to the public in a manner that provides for full and fair exposition on the issues. Our highest purpose is to nurture a national climate that encourages and enhances the human spirit rather than one which divides people into hostile camps.

By educating the American people and raising their level of understanding about the basic tenets by which our society is sustained, People For the American Way will fulfill its mission.

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:57 pm 109. Rick Ballard:

penwil,

Slim-Fast is now a business unit of Unilever, it’s founder is a ‘Ben&Jerry’ type (Abramson is his name). He’s the one responsible for hiring Whoopi. Whoopi’s spew occured on the Thurs. July 8, was reported on the 9th and Unilever sold off on high volume on Mon. the 12th and then again on the 13th. Whoopi was fired on the 14th. The actual price move was no big deal but the average volume doubled on the 13th in down trading so Ms. Goldberg wound up on the sidewalk. I don’t think much money was actually lost but perhaps Ms. Goldberg has achieved a better understanding of market forces.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:01 pm 110. mrp:

Wichitaboy

I believe that the Mexican War was the first war fought by the US in which there was significant protest against the government’s policy, protest led by New Englanders. Interestingly, both Lincoln and Grant were opposed to that war.

The War of 1812 was far, far more divisive than the Mexican War (Hartford Convention?).

New England, an entrenched Federalist redoubt, essentially thumbed its nose at the rest of the country and continued its long-standing trading partnership with British-held Canada. From June 1811 to June 1814, Massachussetts banks alone increased their hard money from $1,709,000 to $7,326,000, while pro-war Southern and Western state banks were being sucked dry of specie.

Matters got so out of hand that in 1813 a law was enacted creating a trade embargo between the states. All that did was increase disruption in the country and it was repealed a year later.

With all this Joe Wilson and WMD stuff, some perspective might help. One of my all-time favorite books on American history is Albert Z. Carr’s “The Coming Of War : An account of the remarkable events leading to the War of 1812″ (Doubleday, 1960). It is a superb acccount of American diplomacy from 1782 to 1815. I don’t agree with his concluding chapter, but it is eminently readable and informative in the main.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:01 pm 111. Roberts:

Actually Hollywood, your copyright infringement is not merely full of partisan misrepresentation but its obsolete being over a year old. Democrats have filibustered nominations of judges for lower courts than ever before. Since that article was written, Democrats actually filibustered entire banks of nominations.

Your references to Starr’s work is a bizarre bit of changing the topic. Not to mention that your opinion was devoid of factual basis since Starr only investigated matters referred to him by Clinton’s Attorney General – Janet Reno.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:01 pm 112. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

hollywood

Two words on how democrats treat judges: Thomas, and borking.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:04 pm 113. Syl:

Nothing to add. Just enjoying the history.

Thanks y’all!

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:09 pm 114. hollywood:

It appears I’ve violated all the “rules” of this board in one fashion or another. If someone would point me to the rules, I’d gladly follow them.

I posted the PFAW piece which I did not have a direct link for and rather than do a link to an inclusion in another link, I cut to the chase. If someone has an article from a learned journal on the judicial selction process that contradicts or goes beyond the PFAW, please provide a cite. I’ll read it.

I sense a growing hostility here and I can’t discern if it’s because my views diverge from the group or for some other reason. If the former, then I think you miss out when you limit discussion to like-minded folks. Too much inbreeding. I’m sorry people can’t bring themselves to read opposing points of view, whether from The New Yorker or PFAW or elsewhere–even, god forbid–MSM.

If there’s some other reason, let me know. I’ll listen.

If I used too much bandwidth, I’m sorry. OTOH, I think Roger might benefit by all the hits, no?

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:11 pm 115. Katherine:

I do love you, guys. There is nothing better than smell of scorched pixels to put a girl in a good mood after a very busy weekend.

With great discussion of history of American wars, where I always feel I need extra info and perspective.

I am taking notes on what my future reading will have to include. Could you suggest a really good read on Vietnam War?

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:18 pm 116. chuck:

DtP,

“Most Republicans do not do boas. We’re more the thigh high black leather boots with 13 inch stiletto heels and…”

…and singing “I Did It My Way” by any chance?

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:23 pm 117. hollywood:

Well, Roberts, have you got support for any of your claims? In particular with regard to Starr, I strongly doubt that Reno immediately charged him with looking into Paula Jones. At most, I suspect it was only after Reno felt pressure to appear fair that she may have permitted the investigation to veer from Whitewater to Jones to Lewinsky to the Rose Law Firm, etc. $30 or $40 million later, what did we get for our money?

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:24 pm 118. JB:

Knucklehead,

“We are alarmed that some of the current voices of stridency and division may replace those of reason and unity”

Processing…1981…Could they possibly mean… Ronnie Ray-gun!?

People For the American Way, rhymes with Hug A Commie Today.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:24 pm 119. WichitaBoy:

mrp

Thanks for the reference. I’ll have to get it.

I didn’t include the Revolutionary War because after all it wasn’t the US then.

It appears that, concerning the War of 1812, I’ve been filled with Southern and Western propaganda. I’ll have to bone up on it.

By the way, did anybody see this post on the historical untruth of the standard Battle of Waterloo narrative?

And, in other news, who really killed the princes in the Tower?

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:29 pm 120. Roberts:

Katherine, a single good popular treatment of the Vietnam War doesn’t really exist in my opinion. Col. Harry G. Summers’ “On Strategy” is a brilliant but fairly technical work on the strategic issues of the Vietnam War but not a complete “history” per se.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:29 pm 121. Rick Ballard:

Katherine,

For a political (as opposed to military) history of the origins and American personalities involved it is difficult to do better than Halberstam’s ‘The Best and the Brightest’. Although it was written in ‘72 – well before the end of the war – it provides excellent insight regarding the hubris involved in much of the political decision making prior to and during the war.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:32 pm 122. JB:

” sense a growing hostility here and I can’t discern if it’s because my views diverge from the group or for some other reason.”

Here’s a pseudo-computerese statement to explain the hostility:

while hollywood do (red herring + 1)

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:35 pm 123. Knucklehead:

John Moore:

Your points are valid and I deserve a spanking (DtP, may I borrow your boa?) for belittling “Just War Theory”. I will point out that when it was last being tossed around among the nattering classes (prior to Iraq) it was largely an MSM memebot (I like that word, thanks to whomever put it here today!).

I will also note, in a very weak attempt to defend myslef, that the “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin” issue also has a rich intellectual history out of the religous tradition

Hollywood:

PFAW is a charter member of the International Moonbat Network of Advocacy Groups for the Pet Projects of Zillionaires Who Have Lost Touch with the Little People They Claim to Care About.

I don’t believe you will find much sympathy for their position regarding protecting the populace from judges who might disagree with the relentless march of “progressive social policy”. This thread started with suggestions that Elton John is a bit out of touch and, well, PFAW is Norman Lear’s baby. Norman did us all a service by allowing us to laugh at the little bit of Archie Bunker in each of us, but he would have done us a greater service by just leaving it at that.

In addition to PFAW, Mr. Lear is involved with “Get out the PROPER vote drives:

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v16/i19/19000601.htm

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:37 pm 124. Katherine:

Roberts,

Thank you for your suggestion, I will try looking it up.

I can handle more than one book on the subject:-)

I should not have written a “good read”, though, good history is more accurate to what I have in mind. And I am not interested in the Marxist version, I am familar with that one, alas.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:37 pm 125. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood-

The rules are unposted, ever-shifting and stacked against whomever, whenever. Hope that helps.

Regarding long posts…

Long posts do not normally evoke negativity if the long post is your own actual product. John Moore can burn pixels like nobody’s business and never will get a complaint at this stie because it is his work. We respect hard work and industry But, when dealing with other peoples words, when in doubt, use a link. Posters can come across as both lazy and insincere when relying too heavily on quotes.

Regarding the “Echo Chamber” thingee…

We usually get that type of accusation from Lefties that show up at the site and try out this week’s Michael Moore meme and end up getting shot down. It isn’t that the folks here are intolerant or mean (other than myself…I am both), it is just that we have heard it all a million times before.

Like I said above, I read the first two sentences of your first post, immediately glazed over and went on to other things. Had I been in a bad mood, I would have Dennisized you. But to get Dennisized, you have to argue a stupid point badly. So, to avoid it, argue a thoughtful position clearly, logically and honestly…and in your own words.

If you haven’t progressed beyond a Democratic Underground level of thought, you will get a rough time here. But that is more a reflection of the fact that many of us bore easily rather than of any sort of intellectual intolerance.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:39 pm 126. Roberts:

Hollywood, you don’t understand how the independant counsel statute of the time worked at all.

AG Janet Reno had to under the statute, and did in fact, refer the matters the IC investigated. Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm billing, Vince Foster, the White House travel office scandal and more – those were all referrals made by the Attorney General to the independant counsel. Long after the White House had adopted the strategy of attacking the honesty of the IC, Justice Dept was still refering matters to them for investigation. The only exception was the matter of Clinton’s obstruction of justice involving Monica Lewinsky since that evidence was brought straight to the IC office. Nonetheless, Starr was required to obtain permission to investigate that as well.

As for the costs, those would have been far less if the Clinton admin had not actively obstructed the IC. As it was, given the large number of matters referred to him, Starr’s costs were not as outrageous as those from the Iran-Contra investigation.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:40 pm 127. jerry:

This NRO article is a tangent to the topic. Its about Max Clelands News Conference today. He repeats the Bush Lied, People Died meme couple with Joe Wilson is a truth teller. If you recall there was a Memo written by a Rockefeller staffer, outlining the Democratic response to a report favorable to the President. The memo suggested that Democrats continue to cry “Bush Lied People Died”. Well here it is in action:

Rich Lowery

National Review Online

July 19, 2004, 11:29 a.m.

Cleland Attacks Bush

The former senator goes ballistic.

Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a close friend and supporter of presidential candidate John Kerry, today launched into a blistering attack against President Bush.

In a conference call with reporters, Cleland said the president went to war in Iraq ìbecause he concluded that his daddy was a failed presidentî for not having removed Saddam Hussein from power after the first Gulf War. Therefore, Cleland explained, the younger Bush decided to ìbe Mr. Macho Manî by removing Saddam himself.

Cleland also said the president ìflat-out liedî when he asked Congress to authorize war in Iraq. ìHe told us four things,î Cleland said, listing Bushís claims of Iraq weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons programs, attempts to acquire yellowcake uranium in Africa, and ties to al Qaeda. ìAll of that was a pack of lies,î Cleland said. Both Cleland and Kerry voted to authorize the war.

ìThe president is living in a world of denial,î Cleland said. ìSo is the Vice President, and so is the Secretary of State.î

Cleland also said the presidentís famous ì16 wordî contention that Iraq sought uranium in Africa ìis a lie.î When asked if he believes former ambassador Joseph Wilson, the Bush critic whose story was substantially undermined in the new Senate report on pre-war intelligence, Cleland said, ìI do believe that Joe Wilson is telling the truth. I believe he has tremendous credibility, and Iíve met with him personally for hours.î

Cleland condemned the Bush administration for what he said were its illegal efforts to discredit Wilson by publicly identifying his wife, a former covert CIA operative, as the person who recommended him to investigate the African uranium matter. Cleland said there will ìprobably be some indictments coming down, because they [the Bush administration] broke the federal law on that.î

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:42 pm 128. Rick Ballard:

Katherine,

Moore’s ‘We were soldiers once… and young’ is a great account of heavy combat (Ia Drang) in the early stages of the war. It gives a very good ‘feel’ for what our troops were like prior to anti-war protests really getting going.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:42 pm 129. DennisThePeasant:

chuck-

LOL. But wrong.

Puttin’ On The Ritz

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:43 pm 130. Kevin P:

To Everyone:

Is Hollwood a troll? Probably but at least he doesn’t reach for the vulgar that most trolls usually stoop down to. I have already read the New Yorker piece on Kerry’s foreign policy and it is very similar to Hollywood’s posts. Lots of style and no substance.It touches all subjects but offers no plans or alternatives.It is very specific on what Bush has done wrong but only offers buzz words about more “international co-operation and of course the Democratic Party’s First commandment, Thou shall not do a thing unless the UN gives us permission.It is long,boring, and full of platitudes , it even praises Kerry’s lack of specifics by saying that it is good not to tie yourself down to proposals that you might not be able to carry out later.If you are suffering from a caffeine overdose and you don’t want to use sedatives to bring you down you can read it to bring you back down but otherwise there is nothing new or substancial in it.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:46 pm 131. RogerA:

Hollywood–your post tends to follow a pattern similar to many folks whom we label as trolls. Early on you posited some positions to which the board responded–you appeared to blow them off, and then resurface with the “echo chamber” comment. That pretty much fits the pattern of the common troll on this board.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:55 pm 132. hollywood:

Dennis,

Thanks for the explanations. I still don’t get this meme biz but I’m sure that’s not fatal.

As for Michael Moore, I find it interesting that he is raised as some sort of ogre so frequently. In my view, he and the Bushies have a symbiotic relationship. They dump all over him which gives him credibility in the eyes of those who dislike the administration and then rush out to see his film(s). The defenders of Bush love him because he lies and they catch him lying. Once they’ve determined he’s lied this justifies anything the administration has done–lying about Iraq, about tax cuts, terms of service for reservists, etc., etc. Somehow, I think the world’s a little more complex than this. A pox on both their houses, I say.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:08 pm 133. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

hollywood

I would suggest picking a subject close to the thread subject and sticking to it. You tossed in so many different contentious ideas that we could have the entire national debate just discussing them.

Also, posting long rants by as obviously a partisan source as the PFAW is inappropriate. They won’t get read, and they waste bandwidth.

Just because you tempted me, I’m going to mention the independent counsel Ken Starr.

The Democrats did an outstanding job of smearing an honest man, one who was simply doing his job. From the tone of the Democrat defense/attack, it would appear that they were not at all interested in the rule of law, but rather only in sex. They painted Ken Starr as a sex-crazed man. In fact, he investigated law violations, not sexual pecadillos. We have a member who may or may not join in today who happens to know Starr and also Bill Clinton. If you want the truth, ask him. He will tell you that Starr is a decent man who was doing a tough job. Everything else was vicious character assassination aimed at him. I have yet to hear a Democrat explain why Susan MacDougal spent all that time in prison simply for refusing to answer a question about Bill Clinton. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:09 pm 134. Bravo Romeo Delta:

Hey, Hollywood

Don’t worry about the reception – it takes a bit of getting used to, but all said and done, I’ve seen folks here concede a well-reasoned and supported point. Just like they’re not super tolerant of sloppy argumentation.

That said, I’ll echo the comments in regards to excerpting long posts. In general, I also find it far better to make my own points (illustrated with external supporting evidence) rather than borrowing someone elses, simply because you write with the luxury of knowing exactly who your audience is, rather than some sort of missive sent off into the vasty deep.

Finally, I would also agree that diverging too far from the thread topic isn’t generally too helpful. As you can see, threads that drift a lot tend to pull a hydra and become simply unmanagable, as several different topics get argued, dropped, and confused in parallel.

Now that all the pro forma stuff is done, the reason that Mike Moore arouses such a reaction is simply that he is a polemicist hiding under the cloak of virtue. Nobody thinks that either Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken are exactly the height of unbiased virtuous commentary. One of the principle complaints about Moore is that he peddles the same sort of nonsense, but does it under the guise of telling the truth. It’s not so much that he’s spinning, but rather that he can’t even be honest about his honesty.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:16 pm 135. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

hollywood

You are amazed at our offense at the behavior of Michael Moore. You are completely off base.

We dislike the guy because he is a liar, and he receives all sort of accolades for making those lies, and he also runs around the world saying offensive and untrue things about America. He is as disgusting as they get, short of concentration camp guards. He is anti-American (look at his overseas statements if you don’t believe me), vicious, dishonest, and rich enough to get away with it.

His only value is as a weather-vane. If someone likes him, we know they are either badly mislead or vile.

I have another reason to dislike him – we share the same last name.

You say: “The defenders of Bush love him because he lies and they catch him lying. Once they’ve determined he’s lied this justifies anything the administration has done–lying about Iraq, about tax cuts, terms of service for reservists, etc., etc.”

What a crock. The idea that Michael Moore’s lies help the Bush Administration is absurd – but it did give you a chance to throw in yet 3 more subjects. You are approaching the troll threshold.

How do allegations about Bush lying about tax cuts (false as they are) tie to the subject of anti-war songs?

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:17 pm 136. ambisinistral:

Oh well, let’s shoot off on another tangent in here…

“To illustrate this here is a trick question….

Who is the first American President…?”

Actually, it was John Hanson. He was the first President under the Articles of Confederation.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:17 pm 137. chuck:

Jerry,

Yeah, I can see that as a Democratic strategy playing out. I do recall the Republicans running something similar about Clinton’s economic policy. The incident that stuck in my mind was when George Will broke into a hurried rant on This Week With David Brinkley about how it would ruin the economy, etc. — and he *blushed*. I guessed there must have been a fax sent out to all Republicans. Something similar going on with the Dems, I suppose. Spontaneous outrage and all that. I think we need somebody doing voice over thought balloons during these conference calls to add a bit of entertainment.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:19 pm 138. Sandy P:

–At most, I suspect it was only after Reno felt pressure to appear fair that she may have permitted the investigation to veer from Whitewater to Jones to Lewinsky to the Rose Law Firm, etc. $30 or $40 million later, what did we get for our money?–

Was it 12 convictions in Whitewater? But that might have been different money.

Hollywood, I’m a tail-end boomer. I have already instructed my younger friends, if I’m dead, to come to my grave and yell, YOU WERE RIGHT! THEY WERE SCUM!

when the Senate Judiciary Committee’s records are released in about 45 years.

And counting….

hehehehehehehe

When those open, he won’t be fit to be on the same page as Ronnie.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:21 pm 139. jerry:

Hollywood:

Newsflash!! Both the Senate Intelligence Committe and the Butler Commision in the UK show that Joe Wilson Lied, as of today Max Cleland Lied, so did Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and Al Gore.

Folks, thats why I posted the Max Cleland article. The lefties have started their Bush Lied, People Died” counter attack.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:21 pm 140. ambisinistral:

Katherine,

I would suggest you pick up a book on James Polk. He is quite an interesting and, in my opinion at least, underrated President. He is the one who prosecuted the Mexican War. Often forgotten is the fact that at the same time he engaged in a lot of brinksmanship with England over Oregon and the U.S./Canadian border. Next to Lincoln, one could argue he was the greatest war time President the U.S. has had.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:21 pm 141. jerry:

Ambi:

Nope, same rules apply, Hanson was born a British Subject.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:23 pm 142. hollywood:

“I have yet to hear a Democrat explain why Susan MacDougal spent all that time in prison simply for refusing to answer a question about Bill Clinton. Perhaps you can enlighten us.”

Do you know the question? I don’t. I have a tendency to believe that if she answered the one question it would have lead to others (lawyers are like that).

I’m speculating but perhaps it had something to do with not wanting to worsen her husband’s situation or to get dragged further into a mess she wanted out of ASAP, even if it meant some jail time.

Ms. MacDougal is certainly a woman with an interesting story, even the bit about being charged with some alleged embezzlement by Zubin Mehta and his wife. Fortunately for her, Geragos saved her butt on that one.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:24 pm 143. Katherine:

Thank you for the reference.

I saw the movie and liked it very much; I don’t know if “liking” is the right word here, intensely moved, horrified, petrified, amazed, and angered would be better terms perhaps.

One of the deleted scenes, in which McNamara explainsthat the war will be won: “if we kill more of them than they will kill of usî and justifies it in terms of casualties of the WWII left me speechless.

I donít know how accurate the transition to the screen has been; I hope they did a good job.

I will read the book.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:24 pm 144. ambisinistral:

Jerry,

True, but the Presidents you outlaw were all naturalized American citizens, so I think my trick answer is better than your trick answer (talk about a weird wedge issue).

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:27 pm 145. RogerA:

Jerry–Perhaps the democrats are throwing raw meat to the delegates about to assemble in Boston–things arent going particularly well in terms of the Edward’s “bounce” (a dead cat bounce?)–

A personal note re Max Clelland from a Viet Nam era soldier: I was not an amputee thank God–and I genuinely sympathize with his loss–but I hope he is not introduced as a war hero–playing with a live grenade makes you a triple amputee, not a war hero.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:28 pm 146. Katherine:

Sorry, my last was addressed to Rick; and now I extend my thanks to ambi.

Mexican War is definitely on my “to do” list.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:31 pm 147. RogerA:

Katherine: You request for a book on Viet Nam is certainly a valid one–however, I believe Viet Nam is a conflict which defies a decent history (at least this close in time). I would hope John Keegan is up to the task at some time–her writes brilliantly.

Similarly, I dont think there will ever be a war novel that captures it–there were effectively 500,000 stories–depending on when you were there and where you were, it could have been life on a beach, or some terrible fighting in the Ia Drang or Plei Trap. Career soldiers went back two and three times, but many soldiers were there for one tour, so they dont have this perspective over time.

I dont ever see a single book that will resonate about the experience.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:33 pm 148. jerry:

RogerA:

I am sure they will and contrast his Vietnam war disability with Bush’s ANG service. Of course they will forget to mention the men who died flying with W.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:37 pm 149. John Lynch:

DtP

I’m glad I had my dinner, steak and potato by your leave, I’m of Irish decent after all, ’sides that – that’s what we Ohioans do.

I shudder to think what the mental image you conjure up would have done to me had I actually been surprised by Tofu.

Knucklehead

Your post seems to match my recollection of history as well. Wars, before and during, are not uniformly popular. Even though I’m a product of the 60s and as such have a fair amount of the confusion of the times, I do not understand the vehemence of this particular protest period.

Certainly, we have an election, so some amount is just overheated political rhetoric to hype one candidate while slamming another.

We also have some genuine anti-war types that would rather lie down and be killed than raise a weapon in defense of land and country.

We also have some who appear, in an off-handed way, to support the WoT, but not the war in Iraq.

Coming back to the just war thing, it is mostly useless until there is some perspective of history. I don’t particularly fear history’s judgment on this particular war, unless it is something like – what took us so long?

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:40 pm 150. hollywood:

Well, John, I hate to break it to you but during the second Presidential debate Bush lied about his then proposed tax cuts. He said “most of the tax reductions go to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” That was and is a lie. Most of the breaks go to the top.

Does this relate to anti-war songs? Obviously not.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:41 pm 151. jerry:

Hollywood:

Since the bottom half only pays 4% of the Federal Income Tax bill its pretty hard to give them much of a taxbreak isn’t it. And I want to see the exact quote, not one taken out of context by Howard Dean or some similar loony

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:45 pm 152. John Lynch:

hollywood, I assume you mean John Moore.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:46 pm 153. JK Ribera:

An old saw… One who signs his name “hollywood” probably has little to do with it.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:49 pm 154. TedM:

Hollywood,

You are not a novice. You manage to drag in so man tangents that I suspect that you have had some experience under the bridge.

What is the point which you are trying to make?

It would be easier for my confreres to address your point if you would just make it. give us your bottom line please.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:53 pm 155. Paul:

DtP:

Compared to “Kind of Blue” by Miles, or the utterly sublime “Crescent” by John Coltrane (both landmark albums), for example.

Not to be persnickety about it, as labeling musical genres is somewhat of an exercise in futility, but I would probably call “Compared To What” blues, although it’s neither Albert King nor Robert Johnson by any stretch.

It is similar in feel to a lot of the Jimmy Smith-Jimmy McGriff organ trio stuff that gets labeled as “barbeque” jazz (I get a chuckle out of that appellation).

Anyway, I certainly didn’t mean to disparage you in anyway…you may be “just an accountant” but your political acumen is superb, even if you do like The Clash (yech!:)

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:55 pm 156. Fresh Air:

RogerA–

Max Cleland is the Democrats’ sympathy mascot. His sole value is in welling up indignation among the faithful.

That he has allowed himself to become this tool of the Kerry Campaign is more pitiful than Gary Coleman signing autographs at the Iowa State Fair.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:57 pm 157. richard mcenroe:

Yes, Elton John, another 70;s reactionary gumming his muesli and putting his boas up on E-Bay while remembering when he mattered… didn’t my dad used to listen to him?

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:03 pm 158. D Anghelone:

John Moore:

“Had Kennedy survived, and if he had sacked McNamara (unlikely), we might have won that war by 1968.”

As per Fog of War, McNamara still believes that Kennedy would have pulled the troops out. I’d never believed that but the audio clips in the film do support that contention.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:03 pm 159. Renzo:

TedM – re your most recent post

It may be time to recycle part of a post from Mr Ballard, to wit…….

“Most of the trolls and thread thieves who post here are very conversant with them. Before posting a response to one of the visiting twits, it may be useful to refer to Alinky’s rules. Remember, if you decide to play their game, you will always be on defense and you will be perpetually wandering off topic.”

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:06 pm 160. TedM:

Too true Renzo, too true

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:12 pm 161. PeterUK:

Dennis,

I don’t suppose you would consider taking Linda Ronstadt’s spot at the Alladin? A bit short notice, but you can design your own costumes.Ethel Merman and Buddy Hackett,got to be a winner.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:14 pm 162. Katherine:

Thank you all for the suggestions and references.

One of the reasons I love this blog that we do get so many people with actual military experience, or people who studied the subject. After falling into idolatry worship of Victor Davis Hansen’s writings at NRO, I found his Carnage and History and Soul of the Battle most fascinating, but it is always good to broaden the horizons. However, I have learned to keep garlic handy to ward off all the post-modernist revisionist historians while searching for historical account of practically any period of history that includes two key terms “war” and “American”. Hence the plea for help. Forgive me, if for selfish reasons I got OT.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:19 pm 163. rgvdh:

Interesting bit of thread drift, wherein partisan bickering causes people to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:

Hollywood writes:

“The Bushies (who control Congress)”

Sandy P responds, quite cogently:

“If that’s true, then why after 3 (!) years do I not have my judges?”

Then Hollywood replies, *off*-point:

“As for judges, Sandy, I agree the games Congrees plays in this regard are appalling, but I believe the GOP more or less established the precedent of bluesheeting or failing to bluesheet (I forget which) and honed the process of tubing nominations during the Clinton years. Now, unfortunately, it’s payback time.”

And then far too many people take the bait and start arguing about who started the judge fights.

Folks, it doesn’t matter who started that fight. Whatever the rights & wrongs of the matter, the fact that the Democrats are *capable* of holding up the judges proves that Bush does *not* control the Senate.

All you folks arguing history with Hollywood are just helping him obscure the fact of Sandy P’s successful refutation of his claim that “Bush controls Congress.”

Keep yer eye on the ball, folks.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:22 pm 164. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

RogerA

Minor note: 2,500,000 served in country in Vietnam. Another 500,000 served in theatre (on board ship, and I guess Thailand, but I don’t know for sure). The 2,500,000 got an extra medal – a green and white thing from the SVN government.

hollywood

Amazing you would drag out taxes. However, Bush’s statement is right. More lower income than higher income people get tax relief. It is also true that the tax system is now so progressive that people with high income (even if it is temporary) are the ones who carry the load. Democrats intentionally conflate rich and high-income, plus oppose allowing small firms to be passed from down in the family.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:24 pm 165. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

hollywood

I almost forgot. Your explanation for Susan McDougal’s behavior is pathetic.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:26 pm 166. PeterUK:

TedM

Googling mmirwinus is interesting.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:27 pm 167. TedM:

Yes Peter it is. good ole Marie. lol

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:32 pm 168. rgvdh:

The ironic thing about the Dixie Chicks is that the comment that got them in trouble *wasn’t even about the war.*

It was “Bush makes us ashamed to be from Texas” or something to that effect. Now there are people out there who otherwise like Bush but thought he was wrong to innvade Iraq, and others who loathe him but thought Saddam needed to be taken down. There’s no logical connection bretween the hating Bush and opposing the war, it’s just that both views are fashionable among certain groups of people. Groups like the Hollywood Left, literature professors, and the French. Groups that also tend to look down on country music fans..

They didn’t get smacked for “opposing the war,” they got smacked for publicly siding with people who openly despise their fans. Not a smart move.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:33 pm 169. Mike_Nargizian:

Damian Penny wrote an entry on this which I thought brough out some interesting points.

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/002955.html

I momentarily wondered if he was talking about repressive “speech codes” on university campuses, or the way the word “neocon” is increasingly thrown around to shut down debate, the same way “communist” was used in the 1950s.

Elton John obviously hasn’t been to any Madonna concerts lately. And I guess he’s not part of the target audience for OzzFest, in which Ozzy Osbourne performs “War Pigs” before a backdrop comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. (Never heard that before.) For God’s sake, the freaking number one album in the country has a song accusing Bush of carrying out 9/11 himself.

I guess he hasn’t been to any movies lately, either. Fahrenheit 9/11, a “documentary” which stops just short of accusing Bush of complicity in the September 11 attacks, is on the verge of breaking $100M at the box office. This summer we’ve also seen The Day After Tomorrow, in which a Dick Cheney lookalike who opposes the Kyoto Accord is the bad guy, and the hilarious Anchorman, in which we learn that a character with an I.Q. of 45 goes on to become an advisor to the Bush White House. Next up is a remake of The Manchurian Candidiate, in which the villain is based on the Carlyle Group.

(No studio, of course, will even touch a project in which Islamic fundamentalists are the villains. It’s like Hollywood stopped making movies about Nazis in 1941.)

The late night talk-show hosts certainly aren’t letting the Bush Administration get away unscathed. Neither is the print media. Anti-Bush books by everyone from Richard Clarke to Molly Ivins to Maureen Dowd are displayed prominently in bookstores.

Yeah, it’s a pity Slim-Fast decided its association with a comedian who makes dirty jokes about the President wasn’t good for business (just as Florida Orange Juice growers gave in to boycott threats and dumped Rush Limbaugh as a spokesman a few years back). And Linda Rondstadt was booed off stage in Vegas for saying how much she loved Fahrenheit 9/11. Things might have been more testy about a year ago, but the Dixie Chicks still got a freaking Entertainment Weekly cover out of it.

The American government is coming under heavy criticism from the entertainment community, and it would be hard to envision a better symbol of a healthy democracy. Indeed, I defy anyone to show me a society that could suffer attacks on the magnitude of 9/11, and protect its civil liberties as well as the United States has – even with Christian fundamentalist John Ashcroft as Attorney General. (No one has any qualms about attacking his religion, of course.)

Canada lost one – one – person to the FLQ in October, 1970, and the government – led by civil libertarian Pierre Trudeau – imposed de facto martial law. And yet, there’s a direct correlation between admiring Pierre Trudeau and bemoaning “creeping fascism” south of the border.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:36 pm 170. Knucklehead:

Rgvdh,

Good points. I suspect Hollywood is here to float some trial memes and to see if the any defense of the current President or the WoT can be yanked away and focused as far back in the past as possible:

- Campaign tax comments (an interesting new twist on the Bush Lied meme)

- Impeachment attempt on Clinton

- Ken Starr & Susan McDougal

- Who started the judiciary stall wars

Wow. They can’t think that is clever so they must be getting desperate. Is it possible that their focus groups and polls suggest to them that their their anti-Bush and anti-War screeds are beginning to collapse with the unwashed masses? They can’t really believe “they were mean to our beloved Bubba” and “They started it!” will work, can they?

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:47 pm 171. chuck:

D Anghelone :

I have my doubts about Kennedy too. IIRC, Kennedy orchestrated the overthrow of Diem so as to prosecute the war more agressively. However, I think that we can all agree that Johnson screwed up the war pretty badly, from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to letting Westmoreland run it as he did. Abrams was a breath of fresh air, a real professional.

re 70’s reactionaries:

I think much has to do with fashions, nothing profound. Fashions are changing, and the big thing of 1968 is now passe’. Some folks haven’t gotten the message that they are no longer trend setters and they are out of touch with their audience. I like to say that one generation’s deepest beliefs are the next generations whoopee cushion, but that’s just flame bait. So sue me.

Re Hollywood :

There seems to be a deep desire to make us believe that Bush is a lying scumbag. We resist. We are obstinate. The evidence isn’t there. I suppose amongst the believers the argument suffices, but converting the heathen requires much more effort. I am sure many of us disagree with Bush on some issues, I certainly do, but to me the big issue is the WOT, and I think that Bush and his team is doing pretty good so far. On the domestic front, I have the impression more could be done, but I don’t have the information to really make the case. This is where I miss a disinterested investigative media.

Re Michael Moore:

He isn’t insulting “Americans”, he is insulting *me*. And he is inciting people against me and mine. So does the BBC. This doesn’t give me warm fuzzies. Somehow, those who agree with Moore seem to think they are exempt from danger due to the purity and progressiveness of their beliefs. I cite MM’s homepage decrying the attack on NYC as misdirected against a Democratic city, that it should have taken place in Texas. It’s parochial to presume that foreign folk neccessarily share one’s own outlook, but such insular views seem endemic among the enlightened. I might point out how easy it is to be tolerant when you labor under the misapprehension that everyone really agrees with you under the skin. Well, except for Republicans.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:47 pm 172. Kevin P:

Hollwood;

Yes, you are a troll, though a polite one. You hop and skip from subject to subject, you cut and paste to excess, when pressed you change the subject.We could balance the deficit if we had ten dollars for every subject you brought up. Regarding your theory on Michael Moore and why the vast majority of this web detests him and his politics.One qoute from the poster boy of “Super Size Me” says it all.From his web site on april 14th, regarding increasing UN participation in the WOT-

” I oppose the UN or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle, I’m sorry but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and sadly, that majority must now sacrafice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe, just maybe, God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”

The Democratic Party has embraced this man. Much of the MSM has too. Of course he has the right to say whatever he wants. But any party that embraces this man could never get my vote. How come they will get yours?

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:52 pm 173. rgvdh:

Knucklehead sez:

“Trying to argue “just war” with anyone short of St. Thomas or his ilk is a lost cause. They will simply shift “just” around to suit their needs and there is always yet another war that may be pointed to as a “moral disaster”.

On the other hand, actually *reading* St. Thomas is a real good idea. He’s very practical and utilitarian, really:

Does the guy declaring war have the lawful authority to do so?

Is your enemy harming the innocent or unjustly using force to steal or oppress?

Are you *really* defending yourself, or innocent people who need your help, or are you setting right something wrong or unjust that was accomplished by force, not just using that as an excuse for a land-grab or something?

Rules later added by the Church:

In the opinion of the lawful authority and others who understand matters of history and politics, are all other means either exhausted or are futile?

Is there any chance of winning?

If you answered “yes” to all the above, go for it! Chances are you’ll be making the world a better place.

Also, while you’re doinng it, don’t go killing civilians just for the heck of it. Collateral damage happens, but you should do your best to minimize it.

Asking how a given war fits this framework can help make a discussion much more productive.

Now that I think about it, between Lyndon Johnson lying to his boss (the American people) and his generals not even *trying* to win, there’s a good argument that Vietnam *was* unlawful asw fought. Not because the North didn’t deserve to be fought and defeated, but because of the way Johnson went about it.

Bush, on the other hand, strikes me as working extraordinarily hard to follow Aquinas’ rules.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:03 pm 174. D Anghelone:

Chuck:

“IIRC, Kennedy orchestrated the overthrow of Diem so as to prosecute the war more agressively.”

IIRC, again from Fog of War, McNamara lets JFK but not the U.S. Gov. off the hook for Diem. Not exactly one of them denouement things.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:08 pm 175. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I wouldn’t believe a word that McNamara says. Kennedy clearly intended to stop the Communists in Vietnam. Whether Kennedy would have done the job right is questionable (especially after his poor performance at the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis), but it would be hard to do worse than LBJ.

The analysis that Vietnam was unjust because of the way LBJ fought it fails to address the behavior of journalists, protesters and democrats after Nixon took over and put in Abrams, and about that time General Giap committed the major mistake of the Tet Offensive.

At that moment, peace was available. The VC had been pretty well wiped out. The US had massive combat power remaining, including the ability (used by Nixon in late 1972) to smash the North. Had the press merely reported the situation correctly, the NVA would have surrendered.

Unfortunately, the press lied and misinterpreted and intentionally started giving an anti-war spin. John Kerry, by the time he decided to gain political favor by being the spokesman for the VVAW, was attacking the US at a time that the war was essentially won, as was demonstrated the next year when the DRVN agreed to the truce.

After that, we betrayed the Vietnamese (thanks, left), costing millions of lives in SE Asia, communist insurgencies throughout the world, and left the impression that we would not fight – an impression that could turn true if Kerry wins.

Frankly, every once in a while I am struck by the amazing fact that, in the middle of a war, we may elect a man who sold out his country. It’s like having the Manchurian Candidate come to life!

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:32 pm 176. PeterUK:

John Moore,

Knowing how influential Cambridge was in nurturing sympathy for the left in the UK,I was wondering where your opposition candidate received his early politicisation.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:43 pm 177. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

He grew up in a liberal area. I suspect it came from there.

On the other hand, I am not sure that John Kerry has a true ideology, because he is such an opportunist that he may be completely synthetic. See here for the sort of things he did that would indicate more of a pure opportunism than a person of solid beliefs.

Also, my conservative brother went to Cambridge, and he’s still conservative

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:59 pm 178. Sandy P:

Tax breaks – like the child credit which went to people making $75K and under?

Or are you just talking $ amounts, Hollywood?

Did you give yours back?

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:14 pm 179. richard mcenroe:

OT ó Virus Warning!

Don’t open any e-mail from Ratatosk! I just got an infected file with his return address. It’s probably just a lift from an infected mailbox, but play it safe…

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:43 pm 180. richard mcenroe:

Fresh Air ó Now, now… Max Cleland is shining example for American youth: “Kids! Don’t drink and play with hand grenades!” Why, it’s Afterschool Special gold!

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:51 pm 181. PeterUK:

John Moore I was thinking perhaps somebody elses solid beliefs.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:06 pm 182. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Folks, I think it is in bad taste to ridicule Max Cleland. If you are in a situation where you need to have hand grenades, the fact that you have an accident with one isn’t funny and doesn’t detract from the service of that person. 10,000 of the servicement who are on the Vietnam Memorial were killed in accidents and other non-hostile ways.

PeterUK – are you referring to slick willy? I always figured it was the little trip to Moscow that did it

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:37 pm 183. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Another comment on Max Cleland. His idiotic statements today are fair game.

I didn’t realize he was a mind reader.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:47 pm 184. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ó Cleland blew off a detail to sit in his hooch and drink beer. Then he decided to pick up a hand grenade “he found laying on the ground”.

Cleland’s injuries were self-inflicted through carelessness and self-indulgence. More to the point, once he started messing around with the grenade he put other soldiers around him at risk.

I regard him the same way I regarded the enlisted man I saw walking around behind his squadmates on a live firing range with a charged weapon. I regret his pain but I resent his wrapping himself in the mantle of even those 10,000 noncombat deaths and industries.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:43 pm 185. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Richard

His XO said he picked up a grenade upon exiting a chopper, and it went off. According to that report, 20 years later the guy who dropped the grenade came forward. He also won a silver and a bronz star in prior action.

So I think going after his grenade incident is inappropriate.

Whose version is right? I don’t know, so I would simply assume that his is.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:03 pm 186. hollywood:

So for jerry, John Moore, Sandy P and Knucklehead, here’s a transcript of the second Presidential debate. At page 3, Bush gets into his taxplan. On this and many other matters he offers dissembling/lawyered answers. His specific quote on his tax plan, “most of the tax reductions go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” Simply untrue. And, if you’re honest, you’ll admit it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/debatetext101100c.htm

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:43 pm 187. Kevin P:

Hollywood:

You mentioned Bush lying about Iraq. Where? Before you go on a long list of what the CIA got wrong just stop. The CIA provided Bush with bad intel.The fact that Bush acted on the best intel that he had is not a lie.If I tell you I am Polish, if you repeat it, then you find out I am not Polish does that make you a liar? Now that we know that the “16 words” were accurate what are the lies that Bush said about Iraq. Remember, the CIA errors are not Bush lies.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:15 pm 188. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Most of the breaks – yes went to lower income people.

Most of the money, highest income people, as a result of one break – reducing the top marginal rate.

Not a lie unless we want to get into a Clintonesque argument about what the meaning of “most” is. Furthermore, you must be pretty desperate for arguments if you are reduced to an ambiquous statement from a debate, when everyoone else is talking about the war.

I see no value in debating whether this was or was not a lie. Anyone with a brain knows that you cannot have meaningful tax reductions without the high income people getting the most, because they pay almost all of the taxes. It is only deemogogougic democrats who pretend, whever any tax comes up, that giving more dollars to the people who pay by far the most taxes is somehow evil.

So, since you took an off topic subject, I’ll ask you one: why is John Kerry’s picture hanging the War Remnants Museum in Saigon, in a room dedicated to foreigners who helped defeat the United States. Should his campaign be talking about this? How about the news media? What does it mean?

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:09 am 189. Fresh Air:

Hollywood—

You are not only a troll, but a lousy one at that. You hijack the thread with multiple red herrings and come back six hours later with a lame defense for one of them.

So who would have gotten more benefit out of Bush’s plan?

The Bush proposal in 2000 called for lowering the bottom tax bracket from 15% to 10%. It also called for lowering the top bracket from 39.6% to 33%. There were some other wrinkles, but since you are a evidently a simple person, let’s just look at this simple data for a second.

Got your calculator? Okay. What is the percentage reduction from 15 to 10? Correct! It’s 50%.

Now, what is the percentage reduction from 39.6 to 33? Very good! It’s 16.7%.

Okay. I’m not sure if you can do this in your head , but tell me, please, which number is greater, 50 or 16.7? (Scratch paper may help.)

Take all the time you need. I’ll be back in a couple of hours to see how you’re doing.

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:23 am 190. Fresh Air:

G-damnit! Perfectly good rant blown to hell!

33% not 50%!

Still, doubt if Hollywood can answer, though…

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:28 am 191. TmjUtah:

Remember that the lowest income Americans pay no taxes period.

Ergo, THEY DIDN’T GET NO TAX CUTS (according to Ms. Pelosi, CPUSA/Berkely) and a tremendous social injustice was committed. Didn’t the congress authorize a bribe to that demographic?

Just another day in the Beltway.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:03 am 192. hollywood:

Actually, Fresh Air, I had an increasingly difficult time signing in from my work computer. I apologize for any delay. Naturally, it’s not just the percentage of the cut but the figure it’s applied to which yields the bottom line. That’s why Cheney saved a lot more from the tax cut than I did or ever could. I note also that you fail to mention any of Bush’s other dissembling in the debate.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:06 am 193. hollywood:

From John Moore (upstream):”I have yet to hear a Democrat explain why Susan MacDougal spent all that time in prison simply for refusing to answer a question about Bill Clinton. Perhaps you can enlighten us.”

John, your urban legend presentation of this issue intrigued me. As it happens, someone has recently given me a copy of Clinton’s book. Regardless of your opinion, the fact is the book has a very good index which permitted me to rather easily locate his take on this matter. In essence, he says at about page 721 IIRC that Susan McDougal (and Tucker and her husband) had already been convicted at the Whitewater trial. They were awaiting sentencing. Starr wanted Susan to testify about the Clintons’ role in Whitewater and with regard to some illegal acts in exchange for a reduced sentence. Clinton claims that McDougal would not agree to this because she did not want to choose between lying to get the Clintons on the hook or telling the truth and being pursued on perjury charges by Starr. I view this somewhat skeptically, but the fact remains she had already been convicted. She probably would have done some jail time even if she did testify. There was not just one question to be answered. And she probably did not want to implicate her friends. So, it looks like under any scenario whe had valid reasons for keeping quiet and serving the 18 months. Which is what she did.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:21 am 194. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Good, glad you admit she stayed in jail to avoid implicating Clinton in a crime. That’s progress.

Now, can you explain how Hillary made $100,000 in cattle futures?

Jul 20, 2004 - 9:04 am 195. hollywood:

John,

I could speculate that she had inside info, but that would be pure speculation. Maybe she got lucky. For the life of me, I’ve never seen how anyone could make money in the commodities or futures markets. I’ve attempted a lot of foolish things in my life, but betting in those markets is one of the few I’ve avoided.

Jul 20, 2004 - 9:25 am 196. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Having traded in those markets, it wasn’t luck and it wasn’t inside information.\

It was a bribe. Someone ( Tyson foods? ) buys some contracts, as does Hillary. The broker arranges to have long and short positions on the same contract. When enough profit accumulates on one side, that contract is sold and the profits given to Hillary. The other side is also sold and the loss assigned to the briber.

There are other ways of achieving the same effect.

Jul 20, 2004 - 10:23 am 197. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

hollywood

Here’s another question: Why is John Kerry’s picture hanging in the room for foreigners who help defeat the US in the Ho Chi Minh City War Remnants Museum?

Jul 20, 2004 - 10:24 am 198. hollywood:

John,

i suppose anyone can put a public figures picture where they want.

As for the futures contract, I see your point though it strikes me as a little involved as opposed to just handing her some cash.

Jul 20, 2004 - 11:09 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: