February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

The thing to remember about freedom is that it is not given, it is taken

-Scott Adams

July 30, 2005

Reverse Fair-and-Balancism?

Breaking News: There may be bias in the mainstream media.

I have found that the blogosphere delivers news up to 48 hours earlier than traditional media. I first heard about the Air America Radio investigation on Wednesday morning through Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer, and subsequently Michelle Malkin. Since then, only the blogosphere has caught fire over this, while the MSM has been Holloway'd.

A Google News search for Air America returns only blogs and the Washington Times.

At the writing of this entry:
A CNN website search reveals nothing.
A Washington Post website search reveals nothing.
MSNBC, empty.
NY Times, nada.

And perhaps most surprisingly,
Fox News, zilch.

Why hasn't Fox News jumped on this? Are we witnessing reverse fair-and-balancism? Are they perhaps going out of their way to not look biased after the O'Franken/O’Reilly conflict? Or is it not newsworthy to report the fact that a half million dollars of taxpayer money – earmarked for community programs – has vanished somewhere in the seedy halls of Air America Radio?

As a comparison, a Google search of “Tom Delay House Ethics” yields 494,000 results (57,000 w/ ‘House Ethics’ in quotes). Even if every accusation against Tom Delay were true, he still wouldn’t be anywhere near the half-million dollar figure that Air America Radio stands accused of "borrowing." And Delay's funds weren’t intended for children’s clubs and Alzheimer’s patients.

But perhaps most disturbing is Air America Radio's cavalier attitude, undoubtedly emboldened by their immunity from MSM scrutiny. Their statement says

[...] we agreed months ago to fully compensate the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club as a result of this transaction.

and

Regrettably, the camp did not survive the closure of the Gloria Wise organization.

Which begs the question: Do you plan on returning the $500,000 to the government, or are you just going to invest that back into the station? And since no one in the press is bothered enough to ask these questions, I'll go ahead and assume that Tom Delay can borrow Air America Radio's excuse that he "agreed months ago to fully compensate" the American people for his overseas travel.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

July 29, 2005

President Musharraf’s Risks

President Pervez Musharraf today declared that "Any (foreigners) in the madrassas - even dual nationality holders - will leave Pakistan."

The madrassas are private Islamic schools, where students memorize the Koran and can study to be a scholar, an immam, or a sheikh. There have been some questions about how many students attend madrassas in Pakistan, but it is known that many extremist jihadists use the madrassas to teach a violent hatred of the west – you know, like the Taliban did. Musharraf is going after the extremists… any guesses what their response to that will be? The president has said that the jihadists have for 26 years been raising funds, recruiting manpower, providing military training and spreading hate literature in aid of the extremists.

There are plenty of jihadist extremists in Pakistan who were already hateful of General Musharraf before today’s move. They hate him because of his non-jihadist relationship with Western governments. The United States considers Musharraf to be an Islamic moderate, and we rely on him as an ally in the War on Terror, and as a partner in easing tensions with nuclear neighbor India. He has already been the target of several serious assassination attempts over the years due to his alliance with the United States, including two attacks where Al-Qaeda operatives are alleged to have had inside information from a member of his military security detail. How much longer will he live before it catches up with him? He supported the American invasion of Afghanistan, and has allowed our troops great latitude in their search for Osama bin Laden and other targets in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. His ability to support our search has been limited by the difficulty of his own political situation – he may be an Islamic moderate, but not everyone in Pakistan is. President Musharraf wears a target on his back because of his anti-terrorist policies.

The BBC reports that Pakistani forces have detained hundreds of clerics and suspected militants since President Musharraf announced a new crackdown on 15 July… The president also vowed to crack down on anti-Western hate speeches in mosques or in recordings. I hope he knows what he is doing. And I hope he is around to keep doing more and better for years to come. If only more of our allies had the convictions of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Celebrities Against Farm Subsidies

I have heard a lot of people complain over the years about celebrities and their pet causes. “You are a singer/actor/athlete/llama, not an expert on foreign policy!” But I ask myself, hey, if I were famous for singing/acting/athletics/other, wouldn’t I talk about free markets and intellectual property rights? I do that now – why would you think that fame imposes some sort of responsibility for me to shut my trap?

Celebrities get interviewed, they get asked questions, and they want to use their celebrity to do good, so they discuss what they think is important in the world. That’s laudable, isn’t it?

Well, no. Good intentions by themselves are not good enough - they don’t pave the road to paradise, after all. But neither will I generalize and say that all celebrities are wrong in their attempt to make a difference in the world. Just because Ted Danson is a hypocrite and an idiot doesn’t mean that Woody Harrelson is. Woody reaches those titles on his own merit. Let each man or woman be judged as an individual. Some are indeed fools, but some are right on the money, and should be recognized as such.

Check out Asymmetrical Information, where Jane Galt (love the name) blogs about celebrities against farm subsidies. Yes, there are celebrities who are banding together at Oxfam America to oppose farm subsidies around the world. Jane names several - and frankly, some of them really surprised me.

Free enterprise rears its beautiful head in Hollywood? Hey, Ronald Reagan used to work there. They aren’t all commies.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 27, 2005

Funding PBS and NPR

Do you value PBS and NPR?

David Boaz of the Cato Institute has laid out the Top Ten Reasons to Privatize Public Broadcasting

Boaz starts out focusing on the libertarian perspective that it is beyond the scope of proper government to fund these stations, especially in the modern broadcasting era. And that's a great argument, but what people are really interested in lately is the issue of bias in the media - so let's talk about that.

We have seen quite a bit of political ballyhoo this year with regard to bias in public broadcasting. Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), feels that these government funded stations have an unacceptable liberal bias that should be replaced with a more objective approach. After all, this is the $400 million of taxpayer money that the CPB distributes to PBS and NPR annually. Why should this money subsidize political bias? In fact, the CPB charter expressly forbids such bias, stipulating that the corporation adhere to "objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." So Tomlinson is right to demand more objectivity… isn’t he?

Many at PBS, including former president and CEO Pat Mitchell, say that Tomlinson’s actions are a direct threat to editorial independence – something that is also forbidden by the CPB charter. Public broadcasters are supposed to enjoy independence from the political establishment, for obvious reasons – PBS was never meant to be subject to pressures from whichever party is in power at a given time. So public broadcasters are right to demand independence from partisan politicians like President Bush and Kenneth Tomlinson… aren’t they?

In 2004 Tomlinson hired a consultant to analyze the political ideology of guests on four PBS and NPR public affairs shows (Bill Moyer, Tavis Smiley, Diane Rehm, and Tucker Carlson). NPR alleges that this consultant himself is a biased conservative, who graded the shows not on their full content, but on their degree of support for the Bush administration.

A New York Times editorial a few weeks ago reported that “journalists and executives seemed stunned to learn that they were being scrutinized” (SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (NYT) 7/1/05).

Taxpayer funds, but with no expectation of scrutiny. Hrm. Would that I had such a job. A wakeup call was definitely in order for these people. But that’s not the general tone of the press. On May 4 the New York Times editorial page included a scathing piece on the situation, accusing Tomlinson of politicizing public broadcasting. NYT says “his goal of expanding PBS audience includes not more centrist programming but pushing broadcasts over ideological line with blatantly partisan programming and hiring of more Republicans” (NYT 5/4)

The American left (most notably commentators from PBS and NPR) have attacked Tomlinson’s demand for “balance”, calling his efforts a “ideological putsch” (NYT 6/15) and “political interference in programming” (NYT 6/16)

Diane Rehm says she hadn't known she was being monitored by CPB until the story broke. Her reaction blows me away. Here is what she says other journalists should learn from the situation:

If I investigate you, Diane Rehm, you will tone down your program and you will make sure that there are more conservative opinions on the air than there are liberal opinions -- because we want to make sure that the conservative perspective is out there.

Rehm sounds like she has been hoping to play the martyr role all her life. Unfortunately, her flair for drama has outstripped her ability to give a balanced, objective view of her own situation. Irony?

I am stunned that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be spending money to monitor my program.

Ms. Rehm, I am stunned that you would expect the CPB to dish out $400,000,000.00 per year, but not monitor the damned programs it is funding! Such hubris at taxpayer expense - literally!

Some organizations on the left say they want "the people" and "the local stations" to have more say in the future of public broadcasting.

Policy and programming decisions should not be based on the perceived interests of the public deduced by political leaders and executives under fiscal, political and organizational pressure. Public hearings will tell us exactly what the people want.

Public hearings? No, it’s called the free market. I’m glad to find lefties who agree with me about removing public funds from the equation. You want to know exactly what the people want?

Of course, no political conversation would be complete without a good old fashioned Nazi reference. Rory O’Connor at AlterNet.org is happy to provide it.

PBS now faces deep cuts, advocated by the Cato Institute and this weblog. Liberals and public broadcasters say that any cuts would be political punishment from the Republican dominated Congress. Too bad they didn’t think about that ahead of time. In the interest of full disclosure, I listen to NPR pretty much every day. I love it. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, in order to get the government out of it.

Take another look at that Top Ten list from David Boaz at Cato. Take special note of point #6 on the list, and ask yourself if you really understand it. No network or reporter can be objective to the point of eschewing bias – let’s get our tax dollars out.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2005

The Terrell Owens Debate

You know, I’m not quite sure whom to root for. Terrell Owens for knowing his value, the Philadelphia Eagles for standing their ground, or T.O’s agent, Drew Rosenhaus for knowing his client’s fair market value, and thus, his own paycheck.

Apparently T.O. has said yesterday that he will report to camp because, “I still believe I deserve more than what they've given me. But I'm not stupid. I'm not about to miss training camp, get fined every day and give them even more reasons to keep from paying me.”

Now we all have our own opinions about how much athletes are paid these days for “playing a game.” Some believe that if the player’s salaries were kept lower, then ticket prices wouldn’t have to be raised, yada, yada, yada. While their rising salaries may play a small role in that, don’t be fooled. Teams get all sorts of revenues from the stadiums (parking, concessions, souvenirs), the communities, and the NFL itself. A lot of this money goes directly in the hands of the owners.

I am almost on the side of the players. We, as fans, pay good money to see the game being played. We go on emotional roller coasters throughout, and when your said team is victorious…..Ahhh…..what a feeling. We deserve to see the best athletes out there performing, and if it costs the teams a little more to get them to play, so be it.

I am almost on the side of the owners. They are the ones who make it possible for the team to even be there in the first place. If it weren’t for them, it just couldn’t happen. The players should be grateful to the teams that are willing to put them out there.

As for the agents? Well, that goes back to the players. You bet they are going to try and get the best they can for their client. Bigger paycheck for client….bigger paycheck for the agent. Dollars and Sense (Cents?)

The case of T.O. is a rather misleading one though. Here is a man who last year signed this contract he wants so badly to get out of. One year played under a seven (7) year deal. The main reason he signed this “less than standard” contract was to get out of the fiasco with the 49ers and Ravens dealing him somewhere he didn’t want to go. So he jumped as fast as he could to sign anything to be somewhere he wanted to be. Now he’s crying about it. Hard to be on his side.

The Eagles? So far they are holding on to T.O. and not giving him more money or trading him. Obviously they are a much better team with him than without. His attitude may be a bit off-key but his talent on the field is impressive. He was (in my opinion) that last piece of the puzzle they needed to get them to the Super Bowl. It worked.

As for Rosenhaus? What can you say? Capitalism at its finest. If I were an agent I would be pushing for more money too. There’s another side to Drew though. While at his hotel in Florida last week, Rosenhaus saved a four-year-old boy from drowning. When the kid was pulled from the pool, he had no pulse and was not breathing. Drew then administered CPR until the paramedics arrived, and they said that if it weren’t for the quick action of Mr. Rosenhaus, the child would not have survived. A modern day superhero.

I’d say I’m cheering for the guy Rosenhaus was that day in the pool. If we could all be like that, this rock we live on would be a much better place. It makes all that other stuff I wrote look rather trivial, doesn’t it?

Posted by G-Dawg | TrackBack (0)

July 24, 2005

What is the Purpose of the Military?

A recent poll shows that 74% of Americans say we should have troops deployed to Japan.

However, less than 60% of those polled said they believe U.S. forces should remain in place until civil order is restored in Iraq.

Now, by a show of hands, who sees something wrong with this? I am trying really hard to reconcile this – I guess so long as Americans aren’t dying, we just don’t care whether it actually makes any sense to keep hundreds of thousands of American troops forward-deployed. There has been talk over the years of eliminating these deployments, or at least reducing them, but they are still out there.

A 1998 publication by the Cato Institute gave some numbers regarding forward-deployed troops between the end of the Cold War and the new War on Terror. Of course, some of these things are a little out of date (my major complaint with Cato), but the point remains. Why exactly do we have more than 35,000 troops in Japan? Where else could they be? Iraq?

Home, maybe?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 22, 2005

Janice Rogers Brown for President

The Sundance Channel has finally surrendered the last remnants of impersonating a medium that promotes film art to dedicate itself full-time to forwarding a political agenda. The majority of the "art" on Sundance used to consist of movies like "My Two Daddies" or "Bush's Appendix" or whatever, but with the airing of Air America's The Al Franken Show, they have given up trying to attract non-left viewers. Hopefully some entrepreneurial Rupert Murdoch type will recognize this void in the market and provide an artsy movie channel that is not aggressively pursuing Socialism (of which I will fully embrace when Robert Redford dedicates every last penny of his to the social security welfare program and vows to never work in Hollywood - or Park City - again.)

Nonetheless, I'm enthralled with Franken's show. I usually flip back and forth between Franken on Sundance and Fox and Friends for my daily dose of humor (the former unintentional). The Al Franken Show, seemingly dedicated to mocking patriotism, offers that same sort of pre-Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore humor. The only greater possibility for humor is if Michael Moore were to do a documentary of the Al Franken show…in Flint, Michigan. But I digress.

[I wonder if anyone has thought yet to have a conservative/liberal show in the spirit of Hannity and Colmes that features Al Franken on the left? The right's representative? Ben Stein of course. Working name: "Franken Stein". It'd be a monster show. That's copyright, 2005, by the way. Contact me, Sundance Channel, if you're interested in buying the rights. I want to produce.]

Al Franken and his co-host, the very forgettable Katherine Lanpher, called Janice Rogers Brown a "psychopath" this week. Now, I know that this can be dismissed as humor, but even other political humorists such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have a granule of truth behind their parodies and caricaturing. I could understand Franken using humorous epithets for Brown like 'scary' or 'dangerous,' because, indeed, these are two words that are accurate from their perspective. Janice Rogers Brown is scary and dangerous for all those who seek to rewrite the Constitution for a more progressive age.

Maybe I just fail to see the intrinsic humor value behind the word 'psychopath.' Here is one definition of psychopath:

A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

Certainly an argument can be made, especially when focusing on 'amoral behavior without remorse,' that the word could be used to define Bill Clinton in his waning presidential years. And yet, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a time that a conservative called Bill Clinton a psychopath, although I wouldn't put it past Ann Coulter to have done so.

Nonetheless, Al Franken and what's-her-face have called Janice Rogers Brown a psychopath. Anyone who has read Brown's "A Whiter Shade of Pale" speech given in 2000 will certainly understand why the left fears her, and considers her dangerous. But I'm curious as to what has exalted her to this psychopathic status usually only reserved for the most heinous, like former Halliburton CEOs for instance.

I decided to do a little research on what makes her so reviled. So I went straight to the deepest cavern of the moonbat cave - the Alliance For Justice - and read their official press release for their strong opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit. The equally forgettable but somehow ubiquitous president of Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron said,

"After a thorough review of Justice Brown's record, we have profound concerns about her ability and willingness to put aside her extreme, anachronistic views of the law and decide cases as statute and precedent require."

Note that their concerns are not simply concerns, but profound concerns. Concerns with deep meanings attached. Sticking with the comedic theme, however, their use of the word "anachronistic" as it relates to Constitutional interpretation is laughable. As if, somehow, the meaning of our twenty-two decade-old Constitution changes in nuance with every passing year. Somehow, the Constitution has slightly different meaning today than it did, in, say, 2004.

Most of the Alliance for Justice's articles are simply attacking statements made by Brown in the infamous speech noted above. But this line is a keeper: "[Brown] repeatedly misconstrues precedent and brazenly criticizes U.S. Supreme Court rulings." [GASP!] You mean to tell me that someone has the audacity to criticize the rulings of the holiest of holy institutions? Are not they beyond reproach? And to do so in such a brazen manner! Perhaps it is this brazen quality - her outright disrespect for Supreme Court legislating - that has caused her, a black woman, to be shunned by the NAACP and NOW.

In fact, according to People for the American Way (founded by Superman, apparently), Janice Rogers Brown has been denounced by a virtual who's who list of leftist/socialist organizations from the AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Democratic Action, Feminist Majority, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Bar Association, National Council of Jewish Women, National Organization for Women, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planned Parenthood, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Sierra Club, and perhaps most tellingly, the NY Times and the Washington Post.

In the Washington Post condemnation of her, they say "[...] Brown's activism comes from the right, not the left; the rights she would write into the Constitution are economic, not social. Suddenly, all but a few conservatives seem to have lost their qualms about judicial activism." Well, this is predictable, if nothing else. Any attempts to halt the slippery slope of leftist judicial activism is labeled as "conservative activism," instead of what it is, originalism or constructionism. Janice Rogers Brown is a judicial activist, according to the Post, by sheer virtue of the fact that she's not a Socialist judicial activist.

I doubt Al Franken and the Sundance Channel would find humor in one aspect of Janice Rogers Brown that has already been pointed out by several conservative talk show hosts. It's that all of Brown's opponents list her rulings, speeches, and views as negative qualities. When what is really happening is that conservatives and originalists alike are resoundingly agreeing with her. For instance, back to the People for the American Way, they lament:

Economic Regulation and Environmental Protection: One key case [of Brown's] concerned an ordinance requiring hotel owners seeking to convert residential units to tourist hotels to help replace the lost rental units in the city, which suffered from a severe shortage of affordable rental housing. The majority easily upheld the ordinance, but Brown dissented, arguing that such regulations are not allowed unless property owners agree they would benefit them economically. Such a radical philosophy would preclude almost any economic or environmental regulation. The majority severely criticized her for attempting to use her own political and economic views to redo the democratic decision in the case.

You mean to tell me that she found it unconstitutional for the government to force private businesses into a line of work that was not profitable to them? [Gasp!] What a "radical" philosophy! Doesn’t she know that this goes against California's socialistic agenda? And what, exactly, would cause businesses to convert residential units to tourist hotels anyway? Certainly not San Francisco's heavy residential regulation and rent control. No wonder Janice Rogers Brown has made so many enemies with these radical and extremist views she peddles.

Anyone this despised by so many leftist organizations has no business being appointed to the Supreme Court. Rather, this psychopath should run for President.

Posted by Rammage

The Greatest Ever?

In the spirit of some bike race across the pond, I thought I’d say a little something about Lance Armstrong.

I truly believe Lance Armstrong is one of the greatest athletes of all time. Period. A man that can come back from cancer and win the Tour de France should be regarded high in anyone’s account. This man is about to make it seven in a row. SEVEN! When he tied the record at five (held by a few), we all thought that was it. Last year was six. After today, with two stages left it looks like Lance is going to do it again. Amazing.

Yes, I wear one of his Livestrong bracelets. I think everyone should. The support for cancer research is a very important one in my opinion.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1)

July 19, 2005

Paving Suburban Paradise

I felt sure that my first article under the "Moco Loco" category - The People's Republic of Montgomery County, Maryland - would have been about the deplorable Department of Liquor Control, and, believe me, I will talk of them often and harshly. But an article came out in the July 12th Washington Post that deserved comment.

First, no news is newsworthy to the Post unless they have managed to capture the human element, which usually consists of The Man sticking it to the helpless masses. Katherine Shaver didn't disappoint in her "In Md. Community, It's Fight or Flight" article. This piece was an add-on to the larger story of the ultra-notorious Intercounty Connector (ICC) route being chosen, a 40-year effort to build an 18 mile stretch of outer beltway that connects I-270 in Gaithersburg to I-95 just north of the DC beltway.

The fanatical moonbats staunchly oppose this construction because of the potential impact to the fragile and "pristine wilderness" of the Greater Washington DC suburbs. Presumably the ICC would be built on the carcasses of spotted wood owls and whatever other Endangered Species Act flavor of the month. Its opponents believe that the ICC's one billion dollar price tag would be better spent on public transportation rather than the facilitation of private automobiles (i.e. people should be reliant on government, not themselves.)

While the AtlasBlogged community, the quixotic purveyors of libertopia that we are, tends to be chilly towards eminent domain, it is remarkable that the project will only lay claim to 58 homes in a swath of land so close to our Nation's Capital. And to be fair to the spirit of caveat emptor, these homeowners knew at purchase time that dangling above their abodes hung the sword of Damocles with the letters "ICC" etched into the hilt. (I will refrain from making the comparison to homebuyers who get a terrific discount on their property adjacent to an airport and then complain to the FAA about noise abatement, lest I launch into a rant).

The real reasons that opponents to the ICC exist spring from the same fountainhead as most other environmental issues. They are already here, and do not want more people coming in and mucking up whatever scenery we have left. It's the same old story that will be played out time and time again throughout America. But this story has a human element too, and Shaver was all over it. Some of the comments she solicited follow, seemingly taken directly from the Environmentalist Handbook for Fighting The Man:

"I saw the master plan, and my property was sitting in the way of the highway," Mahabare, 32 said." [The sinister words "master plan" are used throughout, check]

"My God, I almost started crying. It hurts so bad. It's really sad what they're doing. It affects all the children. They grow up here." [Mention the children, check.]

"We watch TV there," said Rina Claytor, 47, pointing to her family room, where the windows that now afford a view of the woods could soon face a highway. "We might as well live along a railroad track if that happens." [I guess this means that "Survivor: Maryland" is pretty much out of the question, now. Get in Joni Mitchell reference], check.]

Black said she loves the wooded view from her kitchen and dining room windows, especially in winter when the snow and ice cling to the trees. She wonders what will happen to the deer, rabbits, and foxes she sees scampering about. [Make reference to endangered creatures, such as deer, rabbits, foxes, and - thanks to global warming - snow, ice, and trees. Check.

And my favorite,

Gatti, who is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, said she worries how the traffic pollution would affect her asthma and her 2 1/2-year-old son's breathing problems. [Get in another child reference, bonus points awarded for ill children. Check and check.]

I wonder which side of this issue the Washington Post falls? Certainly this human tragedy trumps any highway construction that has been in the works for four decades, despite any preordained knowledge. And what about the children?

For the record, the ICC is being built in my backyard in Derwood. And me and my asthma think it's great. Montgomery County has been anti-business, anti-development, anti-everything for far too long [compare Northern Virginia to Montgomery County, which had a 10+ year head start]. Aside from having an easier access to Baltimore, the ICC will mean more businesses, more homes, and more jobs. And with a little bit of luck, the new Wal-Marts will drive out the anti-progressive leftists.

The ICC opponents will have to relocate to areas of pristine, virgin, hinterland, like the backwoods of Boyds or the frontier of Frederick.

Addendum: At least it's nice to see the Washington Post remaining consistent in their inconsistency. Naturally they're in favor of eminent domain when it favors government expansionism: "[Regarding New London, CT] However, in a city badly needing economic revitalization, perhaps the city's action was defensible."

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1)

July 16, 2005

The Hollywood Touch

“The Hollywood touch.” That’s what my 9th grade history teacher always called it. He was upset that the film industry just couldn’t recreate historical events/periods without adding some sort of feel good story to it. He would go on and on about how “Hollywood knows how to ruin a good history lesson.” I wish I could give you some good examples, but be honest, who pays attention in history class at the 9th grade level? I was having enough trouble trying to stay awake.

But that little tidbit always stuck with me. “The Hollywood touch.”

I started applying it not only to the historical based movies, but also to all movies in general, especially those that were taken from books. I read a lot of Stephen King novels growing up and to me it just seemed that they (producers, directors, whoever else had a say in it) just couldn’t get it right. Then I started reading all of the Jack Ryan novels (in order) by Tom Clancy. Once those movies were getting made, or should I say ruined, I finally accepted the fact that going into the theater, do not expect the movie to be anything like you thought it was going to be based on what you read. At least I thought I did.

It would be hard to argue that Steven Spielberg was anything but a genius in the 1980’s, and maybe into the ‘90’s with his filmmaking. I just wish I knew what happened to him. His latest choice to remake the classic “War Of The Worlds,” could have been fantastic in my eyes. I guess the movie was pretty good in general, but the ending? Come on! If you haven’t seen it, I really won’t ruin it for you by telling you that if the movie would have ended just a mere five minutes before it did, I would have walked out of the theater with a much different attitude. “The Hollywood touch.” I'm just glad that in “I, Robot” they didn’t have Spooner and Calvin hook up at the end.

I know I could bore you to death listing off a multitude of books that have been slaughtered by the film industry, but I’ll spare you the pain. In fact, I bet the list could go on forever. I would imagine the short list would be which movies were made that were actually great based on the book they followed. I’m also willing to bet that most of those failed to include - you guessed it - ”The Hollywood touch.”

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1)

July 14, 2005

Wie the Golfing

Here it is. My first blog entry ever, and it’s going to be about golf. I promise this won’t be a recurring trend (golf writing), but there is just something that I need to get off my chest.

Let me start by saying one thing. I think that the arrival of Tiger Woods to the golf scene was the best thing to ever happen to the sport. He almost single-handedly turned what was once a game for men in terrible outfits into a worldwide phenomenon. More people than ever have taken up the game, and he opened the doors for everyone. Kids, minorities, and even underprivileged people now have opportunities that never existed before Tiger came along to take up the game and excel at it. Programs are now in place through many charities to help. It has been great for golf.

That being said, I am very disappointed with the fact that the USGA and the PGA are allowing women to play in men’s golf events.

First it was Annika Sorenstam in 2003, then Michelle Wie in 2004 and this year. I am in no way saying they don’t have the ability to compete, even though neither was able to make a cut (four tournaments combined). I just don’t think it’s right.

As for Wie, her talent is unquestionable. Her future in golf is undeniable. She will be a great player. Mark my words.

My issue is that so far this year, she has played in two of the men’s tournaments, and is currently competing in the men’s Amateur Public Links (APL) championship which, oh by the way, carries with it a possible entry into next year’s Masters tournament for the winner. Since 1989, the APL champion has been invited to The Masters.

Before you get all uppity about discrimination or anything else you want to call it, consider this: There is a series of tournaments put together for women to compete called the LPGA. Get it? Ladies PGA. The USGA also has a ladies APL. The men are not allowed to play in either the LPGA or the USGA events sanctioned for women. Why is it allowed for women to play in the events sanctioned for men?

I also feel for the PGA touring pro who is trying to make a living on tour be told that he cannot play a certain week because they gave his spot to a woman. Here’s a man who went through the rigors of Qualifying School (considered by many as the toughest six days of golf) only to be denied the chance to play in a tournament that he was entitled to play in.

These women are great golfers, no doubt about it. But they have a tour set up for themselves for them to compete on. They have to qualify for that tour as well. Don’t take away a spot that someone else qualified for on the other tour, please.

As for Wie at the APL? She just won her second match of the day to move to the quarterfinals. Three more wins and who knows? We could just see Wie at the Masters. Boy wouldn’t that just rile up Hootie again?

UPDATE: Michelle Wie lost the following day in her quarterfinal match, albeit to the eventual champion of the tournament. There is a bright side for her, as all quarterfinalists are automatically invited back to the APL the following year. Not that I'm happy about it.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1)

July 13, 2005

National Education Association and National Endowment for the Arts Merge; Form New Acronym

Michelle Malkin points out the National Education Association has conducted their annual meeting (Shut Up and Teach).

According to their charter, "the National Education Association (NEA) is the nation's largest professional employee organization and is committed to advancing the cause of public education." [Emphasis mine]

But clearly indicated by their business items, they have more on their agenda than simply education:

New Business Item 47
The NEA will inform members about reasons for the boycott of Gallo wines called by the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO. The NEA will ensure that Gallo wines are not served at any function of the Association.

and

New Business Item 78
NEA will urge its members that they "do not shop" at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club due to Wal-Mart's anti-union, low-wage, low-benefit policies that have left its employees in need of hundreds of million of dollars in public aid for various health care and social safety net programs.

Uh-huh. And what, again, do these pro-union agenda items have to do with education? Let's face it, the NEA might as well change their name to the People's Education Association (PEA). Then the intellectual elite among them can be referred to as "PEA-brains."

No mention of the nefarious "V" word.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1)

July 12, 2005

Bunch of B.S. (Baltic States)

On April 28th, Wulf forwarded me this: A Few Good Lessons for Europe

This article made me realize something. Something very obvious now that I look back on it. PJ O'Rourke had written an article on some of the more annoying Baltic States who seem to be prospering in their socialism. It seemingly contradicted everything that I believe, that no socialist state can survive long-term. So I've been a little perplexed by this.

But, [Eureka!], they don't have to defend themselves. Oh sure, they have some navies, and some soldiers, and so forth. But realistically, how much of their free health care money would have to be diverted to national defense if, say, we were living in an America-less world circa 1939?France is understandable - they're destined to be slapped around till the end of time. But I'd imagine that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and even Belgium, and all those other whiny western Euro countries wouldn't take kindly to a Soviet, Italian, or German invasion. They'd have to invest monies into their military. And where would their wonderful socialist society be then? I tell you where: the same state as the USSR in 1988.

Just like Jonah Goldberg, as an American taxpayer, I don't mind funding this blanket of freedom over Europe, since it undoubtedly serves us a good purpose too. Namely, the prevention of the next European Conqueror and Emperor from recruiting Franco-Drones into their army. But sheesh, the apparent complete lack of gratitude or diplomacy from anyone on the western side of the continent is obnoxious.

Heh. Cracks me up. "No, no, capitalism will never work. It's evil!" Not only is it working, but it is subsidizing entire countries to insouciantly bask in their socialism.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3)

July 10, 2005

Seeing Red, Feeling Blue

I lay up some nights thinking about how much this angers me, and I think my blood pressure actually elevates.

The traditional color of the GOP has always been blue, and the traditional color of the Dems has always been red. It makes sense:

Blue: Traditional. Time honored. Rational. Calm. Lincoln. Union. Yankees
Red: Change. New. Emotional. Anger. Redcoats (i.e. Loyalists). Red Sox

This is the order of things. In addition, it's a nice touch that red also symbolizes communism, which the American Democratic Party prefers, despite their cries to the contrary.

So then one day, some liberal arts journalism major from Oberlin Socialism Indoctrination University working for CNN makes a critical call, one that would change how America views politics. This Democrat working for the Democratic CNN decides to depict Republican states as red, and Democrat states as blue. A very simple decision, probably made out of ignorance, or at least contempt, and every one else follows suit. I don't know this faceless, nameless person, but I hate her.

I mean, don't get me wrong. The overall strategy is brilliant: "We can't beat them on ideas, therefore, get ahold of the media, entertainment, and education industries and the indoctrination will occur naturally....kinda like how Apple gave its computers to schools." It's brilliant, but it's still aggravating.

I'll never, ever, use the term "Blue State/Red State." Please slap me if I do.

The democratic media has already erased all sources that stated the official color of the GOP is blue.

"United States: Republican Party, hence states that vote Republican are referred to as red states as opposed to blue states which vote for the Democrats."

It's a conspiracy now, I tell you.

Ha! Here's a site the bastards haven't gotten to yet:
"We use BLUE for GOP, Red for Democrat normally but you have a choice in the maps."

Even the Canadians do it: "Canadians politically associate the colour blue with conservatives."

This is how it's always been done here, too.

Posted by Rammage | TrackBack (0)

Replacing O'Connor

There has not yet been any white smoke from the little chimney on the roof of the White House. Once there is, it will indicate a decision has been made on a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. Who exactly will replace this woman on our highest court? Every political action group, special interest, journalist, blogger, and wannabe is chiming in with their opinion, but your opinion and $2.95 will get you a coffee in Foggy Bottom.

All I know for certain is that we have spoken for years in this country about Roe v. Wade as the litmus test for the court appointments. Would this person uphold it or overturn it? But should this particular litmus test matter? If SCOTUS were to overturn Roe v. Wade, would we in fact descend into the dark ages, as we are led to believe by activists championing “women’s issues”?
Apparently, we would not. The Life Legal Defense Fund has a state-by-state breakdown of the laws that would govern women's bodies if the pope himself were to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy.

In sum, only seven States—Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin and probably Arkansas—would have enforceable laws on the books that would prohibit most abortions in the event Roe, Doe and Casey are overruled.

So why the sensationalism at NOW (“Justice O'Connor Resigns ... Women's Lives on the Line!”) or the DNC?

At least the DNC takes a moment to give props to the first woman on the Supreme Court – NOW just jumps straight in to tiresome partisan flailing that makes most of us apathetic to politics – accompanied by demands that the Bush administration not stoop to exactly that level.

Sigh. How many cases have been decided by a 5-4 margin in the last 10 years? That’s the information I would want if I were sitting in the Oval Office, preparing to make a decision. Abortion is but one issue – even if you feel it is the most important one, it’s just one of so many in this nation. Let’s think big picture, and keep our heads, please.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2)

July 6, 2005

Scrapple, Onions, and Ham

Someone in the blogosphere stated, and I wish that I remembered who to properly give him credit, that all institutions eventually turn leftist (i.e. Amnesty Intl., U.N., etc.). It's just a law of nature. Even venerable The Onion has fallen decidedly left of center, as evidenced by one of their writers recently peacocking on Air America Radio's The Al Franken Show.

Fortunately, there's always Washington's-own Scott Ott keeping political humor fresh at Scrappleface. Yesterday's news release - Bush: Africa's Poverty Reduces Greenhouse Gases

Posted by Rammage

July 1, 2005

SCOTUS Interruptus

This is a wonderful comment made by Emile Zola on Polipundit

By the way, W. can always make a recess appointment of Judge Brown to SCOTUS. (Eisenhower made recess appointments of Justices Earl Warren, Potter Stewart and William Brennan, before they were later confirmed by the Senate). The eventual confirmation battle after that would be something to see, because it would be a spectacle of Democratic Senators trying to remove the first African-American woman from SCOTUS.

Go Janice Rogers Brown!

Posted by Rammage

The Vote is In

And I ask you, how can any reasonable person with a modicum of common sense rationalize that the Democrats are "for the common man?"

This House vote was for a piece of legislation that

would cut off federal funding to any governmental entity that use[d] the expanded eminent domain power to take land for economic development projects.

Here's how the voting fell: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll350.xml

Posted by Rammage