| |
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Che Sera, SeraBack in the 1970s, National Lampoon had an issue dedicated to the question, "Is Nothing Sacred"? The idea was that NatLamp's writers and artists were not above lampooning anything, no matter how much it might offend some people. And the cover image?  A new film is coming out about Che's life and death, and you can probably tell from the resume of the director what it's going to be like: Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to political material, directing tough films about the war on drugs (“Traffic”) and environmental laws (“Erin Brockovich”), as well as executive producing the Middle East drama “Syriana” and co-creating the HBO lobbyist miniseries “K Street.” Ugh. Here's the "relevance" of Che today: Why make “Che”? What relevance does it have to 2008?
“We’re certainly seeing the result of what happens when you make profit the point of everything, where money that’s being earned doesn’t represent any particular product or labor on anybody’s part. That can’t sustain, because it’s magical thinking. It can’t go on indefinitely, because eventually it crashes. Che’s dream of a classless society, a society that isn’t built on the profit motive, is still relevant. The arguments still going on are about his methodology. “ His dream was noble, but his methods left something to be desired? One could say the same about Stalin, I suppose. Labels: Che Guevara
Friday, December 12, 2008
Blagojevich Updates at Marathon PunditI apologize for the light posting lately; none of the hot stories has inspired me to have a take. But over at Marathon Pundit, my longtime blog-buddy John Ruberry has been all over the Rod Blagojevich story. John's an Illinois resident and has been tracking Obama and Blago for years, so you know you'll get more insight over there. Check it out! Labels: Barack Obama, Marathon Pundit, Rod Blagojevitch
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Truthers and BirthersThis came up on a conservative email list I belong to, where a bunch of people are still insisting that Barack Obama has not proven that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. There are a fair amount of similarities between 9-11 "Truthers" and "Birthers": 1. Insistence that the missing document is the key. Folks who debate creationists frequently refer to this as "the god of the holes"; wherever there's a hole in evolutionary theory, this is where god resides. For a long time, Truthers insisted that WTC-7 was the key, because the government (in the form of NIST) had not provided an explanation for its collapse. Of course, NIST released its report on WTC-7 this summer, and so the "Truthers" are back to pointing at other holes and/or trying to prove NIST wrong. So it is with "Birthers"; the missing birth certificate is the smoking gun. 2. Unwillingness to accept other forms of evidence. There were numerous eyewitness accounts of the damage to WTC-7, and abundant evidence that the Fire Department was well-aware of the possibility of collapse of the building hours before it fell. Similarly, the "Birthers" are unwilling to accept the Certificate of Live Birth. They are unwilling to accept the Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement from 1961. They are unwilling to accept the word of a Hawaii state official that Obama was born there. 3. Multiple, contradictory theories are embraced. The "Truthers" say that a refueling tanker hit WTC-2, or maybe it was a missile, or a fighter plane, or that nothing hit the Tower, it was all done with computer graphics. "Birthers" claim that Obama might have been born in Kenya. Or maybe he was born in Hawaii, but his Indonesian stepfather changed his citizenship to Indonesian. Or maybe he was born in Hawaii but because his father was British, he has dual citizenship and is not a natural-born US citizen. 4. Conspiracy theorists often believe in multiple theories. Phil Berg and Alex Jones, who are pushing the "Birther" crap, also push 9-11 Troof. Jerome Corsi, who's a "Birther" also peddled the North American Union nonsense as well.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Kenya Believe Obama's An American?You've gotta love the Birth Certificate Troofers, just like the Trig Troofers. They've been shot down again at the Supreme Court. Actually this isn't a Birth Certificate case, this is an even odder one, where the plaintiff claimed that Obama isn't a natural born citizen even though he was born in the USA because his father was a British subject. That's even nuttier than the Birth Certificate one. As pointed out by Charles at LGF, the Birth Certicate Troofers all claim they are defending the constitution. Simple question: How many of these constitution defenders have seen President Bush's birth certificate? This is Sore Loserman territory, as David Horowitz points out: It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution. If anything, Horowitz is too kind to the Birthers by granting them their premise. Look, if there were any real evidence that Obama was born outside the USA, I'd say that the constitution has to be upheld. But there is no such evidence, and there is plenty of evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed Morrissey, and many other conservative bloggers have pointed out how nutty all this is. But we're all in on the plot, or have drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
On Heroes and HeroismHere's an interesting article on the topic that this blog probably focuses on more than any other. Do you see a pattern? Back when my father -- who joined the Army at the age of 16 and was in Pearl City 67 years ago today -- was island-hopping with his artillery unit across the Pacific, some medals went to men who selflessly died for their country, but more often to those who made the enemy die for theirs.
Sacrifice was important, but winning was paramount.
This is no denigration of our brave soldiers in Iraq, but an observation about what the people awarding medals are thinking now vs. then. Of course, there have been medals awarded to those who made the other poor bastard die for his country; Brian R. Chontosh and Leigh Ann Hester come to mind. But it's still a valid argument that those two should be more celebrated for their accomplishments than they are.
|
|
