Wednesday, August 25, 2004
I see Kerry has sent Vietnam veteran Max Cleland to Bush's Texas ranch to deliver a request that Bush denounce in firmer tones the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's advertisement criticizing Kerry's Vietnam service. That's good political theater, but it seems a bit hypocritical when Michael Moore had a seat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention in Boston at the end of June. Has Kerry distanced himself from MoveOn.org yet?
The CNN story quotes the letter Cleland is to deliver as stating "members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend." A nice sentiment, but not one held by the many friends of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the organization Kerry was a member of in the early 70's, in which capacity he retold tales of atrocities that resulted in some fairly harsh treatment of Vietnam vets, setting the tone for nearly two decades of vet bashing.
Just for reference, I'm a bit of a first amendment absolutist when it comes to political speech. I'm in favor of disclosure laws for monetary contributions given to candidates, and I think a large enough ad buy, it can be argued, should overcome the right to anonymously criticize government, because their isn't much anonymity in buying adspace from CBS. I can be swayed based on history, though. Clearly, Jefferson and Madison didn't envision a first amendment that empowered newspapers and political parties at the expense of handbills and soapboxes.
As a result, I was angry with Bush for signing the campaign finance reform laws, and had little interest in McCain's presidential run because of his eating at the edges of the First Amendment. I am similarly disappointed now to hear Bush say publicly he wishes the 527's would stop advertising. How else are they suppose to get their messages out? Write op-eds for the New York Times and hope they deem the pieces worthy of publication?
The CNN story quotes the letter Cleland is to deliver as stating "members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend." A nice sentiment, but not one held by the many friends of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the organization Kerry was a member of in the early 70's, in which capacity he retold tales of atrocities that resulted in some fairly harsh treatment of Vietnam vets, setting the tone for nearly two decades of vet bashing.
Just for reference, I'm a bit of a first amendment absolutist when it comes to political speech. I'm in favor of disclosure laws for monetary contributions given to candidates, and I think a large enough ad buy, it can be argued, should overcome the right to anonymously criticize government, because their isn't much anonymity in buying adspace from CBS. I can be swayed based on history, though. Clearly, Jefferson and Madison didn't envision a first amendment that empowered newspapers and political parties at the expense of handbills and soapboxes.
As a result, I was angry with Bush for signing the campaign finance reform laws, and had little interest in McCain's presidential run because of his eating at the edges of the First Amendment. I am similarly disappointed now to hear Bush say publicly he wishes the 527's would stop advertising. How else are they suppose to get their messages out? Write op-eds for the New York Times and hope they deem the pieces worthy of publication?
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
I may need to apologize to Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds for my criticism of their handling of the Kerry Cambodia story. I still think the cursory mention of Richard Nixon is unimportant, but I don't think you have to be as ungenerous as I characterized the right-leaning bloggers for being if you read this statement by Kerry and assume he meant he heard Nixon deny Cambodian involvement while he was sitting on a boat in Cambodia:
It is possible he mispoke, and so far as I can tell from the blogs, although he did try to tie Nixon to this story the other times he told it. In my defense, I thought they were referring to this quote, where the tying is weaker temporally:
This is from a Washington Post opinion piece by Joshua Muravchik, which neatly summarizes the issue of Kerry's Cambodia story. It has he advantage of being written two weeks after the story's break out on the blogs, so it can characterize the reactions of the Kerry campaign and supporters.
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me.
It is possible he mispoke, and so far as I can tell from the blogs, although he did try to tie Nixon to this story the other times he told it. In my defense, I thought they were referring to this quote, where the tying is weaker temporally:
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.
This is from a Washington Post opinion piece by Joshua Muravchik, which neatly summarizes the issue of Kerry's Cambodia story. It has he advantage of being written two weeks after the story's break out on the blogs, so it can characterize the reactions of the Kerry campaign and supporters.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Famous people die in threes, and I post in twos.
I gave up on Lemony Snicket, as I mentioned below. The books clearly aren't going anywhere, at least until the final book, and probably not even then. I decided to search elsewhere for interesting children's literature. Not literally, mind you. Literally, I went back to the same local library and walked through the same children's section waiting for inspiration to strike.
I found inspiration in a newish edition of Frank L. Baum's Wizard of Oz. The edition I read was illustrated in the 80's by Michael Hague, in watercolor and ink. I bring that up in case you come across one of the creepily hyper-realistically illustrated versions, or one of the many in which the illustrations border on cartoons. I'm not fit to criticize art, but while I felt the staging of the pictures was sometimes static, a few were museum quality, and all served the purpose of giving young eyes a rest from reading.
Apparently I must recant my criticism of the violence in the Lemony Snicket series. Although no humans are killed in The Wizard of Oz, periodically one or more of Dorothy's companions fly into a blind rage that results in the sudden but gratuitous death of some animal or hominid that threatens the group. Oh well. At least no actual people are killed, unless you count the witches. I'd complain more, but the escapes from danger that didn't involve death were usually devoid of drama, as when Dorothy and crew simply skip right over the Quadlings.
The writing was skillful, though less clever than Lemony Snicket. I think the scenes were more fantastic than Lemony Snicket, but I guess having a talking scarecrow, lion and tin-man to work with will do that to a writer. Overall, aside from the gore (actually, in the case of both books, the terrible events are described about as cursorily as possible), it is a pleasant and well-paced book, if a bit too episodic.
Here's a post script. You may be aware some folks try to interpret The Wizard of Oz as a free-silver allegory. Having read the book, I can't see how anyone ever gave that theory more creedence than theories of anti-semtism in Star Trek. If you're looking for politics in children's literature, I came across this, in the midst of an attempt to decode the inside joke of the many sayings of Sunny:
I don't think I'm pushing an interpretation too far when I wonder if that's not supposed to be a reference to the Bush-Cheney administration. The negaverse version of me (hates Lileks, loves Lemony Snicket, and thinks laws about partial birth abortion are an outrageous infringement of a basic right) sees the same thing. That little joke will be about as topical and funny in a decade as Shakespearean references to bird's nests were two or three hundred years later.
I gave up on Lemony Snicket, as I mentioned below. The books clearly aren't going anywhere, at least until the final book, and probably not even then. I decided to search elsewhere for interesting children's literature. Not literally, mind you. Literally, I went back to the same local library and walked through the same children's section waiting for inspiration to strike.
I found inspiration in a newish edition of Frank L. Baum's Wizard of Oz. The edition I read was illustrated in the 80's by Michael Hague, in watercolor and ink. I bring that up in case you come across one of the creepily hyper-realistically illustrated versions, or one of the many in which the illustrations border on cartoons. I'm not fit to criticize art, but while I felt the staging of the pictures was sometimes static, a few were museum quality, and all served the purpose of giving young eyes a rest from reading.
Apparently I must recant my criticism of the violence in the Lemony Snicket series. Although no humans are killed in The Wizard of Oz, periodically one or more of Dorothy's companions fly into a blind rage that results in the sudden but gratuitous death of some animal or hominid that threatens the group. Oh well. At least no actual people are killed, unless you count the witches. I'd complain more, but the escapes from danger that didn't involve death were usually devoid of drama, as when Dorothy and crew simply skip right over the Quadlings.
The writing was skillful, though less clever than Lemony Snicket. I think the scenes were more fantastic than Lemony Snicket, but I guess having a talking scarecrow, lion and tin-man to work with will do that to a writer. Overall, aside from the gore (actually, in the case of both books, the terrible events are described about as cursorily as possible), it is a pleasant and well-paced book, if a bit too episodic.
Here's a post script. You may be aware some folks try to interpret The Wizard of Oz as a free-silver allegory. Having read the book, I can't see how anyone ever gave that theory more creedence than theories of anti-semtism in Star Trek. If you're looking for politics in children's literature, I came across this, in the midst of an attempt to decode the inside joke of the many sayings of Sunny:
"Be quiet this instant," Olaf ordered.
"Busheney," Sunny said, which meant something along the lines of, "You're an evil man with no concern whatsoever for other people."
-- The Slippery Slope, p. 108
I don't think I'm pushing an interpretation too far when I wonder if that's not supposed to be a reference to the Bush-Cheney administration. The negaverse version of me (hates Lileks, loves Lemony Snicket, and thinks laws about partial birth abortion are an outrageous infringement of a basic right) sees the same thing. That little joke will be about as topical and funny in a decade as Shakespearean references to bird's nests were two or three hundred years later.
Everyone has a special gift. I learned this weekend that nine years of Lego play has turned my nephew into a spacial genius, able to duplicate three-dimensional Euclidean solids given odd shaped plastic pieces. I was at the metropolitan Science Museum, in case you're curious. This isn't some pagan initiation rite for the Cult of Pythagoras.
Speaking of which, I watched the opening ceremonies and felt the Greeks were taking a little too much credit for civilization. I mean, don't they have enough accomplishments without pretending they invented drama? Do they have web access in Greece yet? If they do, they could easily have researched the origins of the Pythagorean Theorem. I'm guessing math books in Greece don't bring up the Egyptian inspiration or the independent discovery elsewhere. I thought perhaps the Greeks were taking credit for inventing the wheel, too, but I figured out they were celebrating pi. According to this guy, pi comes from Egypt, too. Save those floats, Greece. They'll come in handy at the Cairo Summer Olympics.
Anyway, as I was saying: everyone has a special gift. Procrastination is my special gift. Over a month ago I went to see the Disney "documentary" America's Heart and Soul, which was called by one reviewer the most Imaxy movie not shot in 70mm. That's a spot-on precis. The movie has lots of fun flyovers and time-lapse cinematography. It has interesting people and odd people doing interesting and odd things. The stories are told in the words and actions of the participants. Voice-overs are composed of interview snippets that provide background or insight. It also has a few musical montages.
All in all, it was a fun way to spend two hours, but it is not really worth watching twice. A couple of radio talk-show hosts were raving about it and its wholesome, uplifting look at America. A few bloggers were complaining about its simple-minded comb-over of America's flaws. In fact, it is not a paean to America, so much as to a handful of its residence and their can-do, take-charge, do-it-for-yourself-and-your-offspring attitude. Some of the people shown are simply reveling in eccentricity. Some are taking control of their futures to provide for themselves and their families. And some are self-actualizing, foolishly ignoring their responsibilities and their futures for the opportunity to do exactly what they want at this moment.
The movie is disjoint and sometimes unevenly paced. It appears its purpose was to make use of professional quality home movie footage, shot by the director/cinematographer during his travels related to his day job, which was to scout and film scenes for a stock footage library. Some of the vignettes he shot provide an insight into an individual's situation and way of thinking, but others are far too short, lacking meaning and seeming to have been included simply because the clips were in the can and weren't entirely uninteresting.
Speaking of which, I watched the opening ceremonies and felt the Greeks were taking a little too much credit for civilization. I mean, don't they have enough accomplishments without pretending they invented drama? Do they have web access in Greece yet? If they do, they could easily have researched the origins of the Pythagorean Theorem. I'm guessing math books in Greece don't bring up the Egyptian inspiration or the independent discovery elsewhere. I thought perhaps the Greeks were taking credit for inventing the wheel, too, but I figured out they were celebrating pi. According to this guy, pi comes from Egypt, too. Save those floats, Greece. They'll come in handy at the Cairo Summer Olympics.
Anyway, as I was saying: everyone has a special gift. Procrastination is my special gift. Over a month ago I went to see the Disney "documentary" America's Heart and Soul, which was called by one reviewer the most Imaxy movie not shot in 70mm. That's a spot-on precis. The movie has lots of fun flyovers and time-lapse cinematography. It has interesting people and odd people doing interesting and odd things. The stories are told in the words and actions of the participants. Voice-overs are composed of interview snippets that provide background or insight. It also has a few musical montages.
All in all, it was a fun way to spend two hours, but it is not really worth watching twice. A couple of radio talk-show hosts were raving about it and its wholesome, uplifting look at America. A few bloggers were complaining about its simple-minded comb-over of America's flaws. In fact, it is not a paean to America, so much as to a handful of its residence and their can-do, take-charge, do-it-for-yourself-and-your-offspring attitude. Some of the people shown are simply reveling in eccentricity. Some are taking control of their futures to provide for themselves and their families. And some are self-actualizing, foolishly ignoring their responsibilities and their futures for the opportunity to do exactly what they want at this moment.
The movie is disjoint and sometimes unevenly paced. It appears its purpose was to make use of professional quality home movie footage, shot by the director/cinematographer during his travels related to his day job, which was to scout and film scenes for a stock footage library. Some of the vignettes he shot provide an insight into an individual's situation and way of thinking, but others are far too short, lacking meaning and seeming to have been included simply because the clips were in the can and weren't entirely uninteresting.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
I started this blog in part because I thought I could be more even handed than some of my favorites. These past few days give me a chance to demonstrate. Not content with the issues raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Hugh Hewitt, and now Instapundit have been going after Kerry for stating that, contrary to the claims of Nixon that we weren't in Cambodia, Kerry spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. The Cambodia Christmas lie in itself is powerful because it is well document and easily disproved by crewmate testimony. It is also a pointless bit of self-agrandizement for the sole purpose or adding a personal twist to legislation (which we Americans should hope is logically debated and dispassionately voted on by wise senators; C-Span is a great disillusioner).
Hugh and Insta, on the other hand, seem to think the gotcha of Kerry accusing Nixon of lying about Cambodia, when in fact Nixon wasn't President for another couple weeks after Christmas 1968, redoubles the scandle power (measured in scandella is the U.S., or lier-mans, in the metric system).
In fact, a fair-minded individual, such as myself, would cut Kerry some slack on the Nixon Cambodia denial. It's not like the Kerry quote comes from Christmas 1968, nor is he claiming Nixon told him to go, or was lying at the moment he was there. More likely, Kerry was remembering Nixon's later denials of any U.S. troop manuevering in Cambodia, which we now know to be a lie, and was trying to claim some personal authority for pointing out that lie, because of his first-hand knowledge of skirmishes over the border. It may turn out Kerry is lying about his Christmas in Cambodia, but you don't have to be charitable to read his statement as an accusation against Nixon for later lies, not contemporaneous lies.
Hugh and Insta, on the other hand, seem to think the gotcha of Kerry accusing Nixon of lying about Cambodia, when in fact Nixon wasn't President for another couple weeks after Christmas 1968, redoubles the scandle power (measured in scandella is the U.S., or lier-mans, in the metric system).
In fact, a fair-minded individual, such as myself, would cut Kerry some slack on the Nixon Cambodia denial. It's not like the Kerry quote comes from Christmas 1968, nor is he claiming Nixon told him to go, or was lying at the moment he was there. More likely, Kerry was remembering Nixon's later denials of any U.S. troop manuevering in Cambodia, which we now know to be a lie, and was trying to claim some personal authority for pointing out that lie, because of his first-hand knowledge of skirmishes over the border. It may turn out Kerry is lying about his Christmas in Cambodia, but you don't have to be charitable to read his statement as an accusation against Nixon for later lies, not contemporaneous lies.
Lileks is still a turkey. He's on vacation this week and blogging is going to be reduced. In a pig's eye. I think on Monday and Tuesday he has equaled my total output so far, and I don't mean Monday and Tuesday combined. As Yosemite Sam would say, "Frippen frappen mitzle fricken..."
