|jazzoLOG: Why Have Liberals Been Afraid?|
12 comments15 Sep 2006 @ 16:38 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Are we at a turning point?
Is the Left trashing Liberals once again? Or are the people Judt properly describes Neocons? Hitchens, for example, lost credibility on the left long ago. And no true liberal or leftist would think the New Republic is “liberal.” For those of us who remember how well it covered the Vietnam War this is sad.
But there is indeed an eerie similarity between Israel's unending bellicosity and the current US model. And since Israel has been at it much longer, going back to Ben Gurion, it makes one wonder if it is the US’s leaders who are imitating Israel's. I wonder, at times, what liberal Zionist Jews think of joining hands with Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly when unconditionally backing Kadima? Olmert, Bush, and Blaire all deserve each other. But do we deserve them?
Tony Judt’s piece was excellent.
Are we at a critical point now, here in the United States, where if this "Islamo fascism" fantasy takes hold we will genuinely enter into a century of unending global strife and warfare? Bush has already proclaimed that his “Long War” will be the dominant struggle of the 21st century. Will the American people believe it, and thus make it so?
And what will this struggle be a cover for? US imperialism? There is no defined goal except victory. Over what? The hearts and minds of more than a billion Muslims worldwide? Or will this “Long War” only be another manifestation of the world gone completely mad? We have seen that before too.
I remember Fulton Lewis! Nothing changes, does it? Yes, there fascists among us: right here at home, many of them attempting to concoct a new global enemy. To bring us down into their own darkness.
20 Sep 2006 @ 07:35 by jazzolog : Here's One Who's Not Afraid!
I don't think I've heard of Nancy Greggs before, but this entry of hers at a site called DemocraticUnderground is getting emailed and posted all over the place right now. I owe my thanks for it to an online friend in Florida, who in the past has asked to remain anonymous because of the job she has. Hmmmm, if the Bushies pull off this election, we all may have to become anonymous and underground~~~
Let Me See If I've Got This 'RIGHT' ...
Posted by NanceGreggs in General Discussion: Politics
Sat Aug 26th 2006, 08:43 PM
Let Me See If I've Got This RIGHT ...
By Nancy Greggs
I’m supposed to believe that the man who sat in a classroom reading a kids’ book for seven minutes AFTER he was told the country was under attack, who was warned repeatedly about imminent threats against the country and chose to ignore them, who has traipsed off on vacation every time there is a domestic or international disaster, is a decisive man-of-action with the fortitude to run a nation.
I am supposed to believe that God himself chooses my nation’s leaders and that, in His infinite wisdom, he chose a lying, thieving, self-absorbed, pro-torture, pro-war, lazy frat-boy jerk like George W. Bush.
I am supposed to believe that the same man who used family money and influence to duck military duty, who has failed at every business venture he ever tried, who never did an honest day’s work or accomplished anything of value in his entire life, is fit to be Commander-in-Chief.
I am supposed to believe that a man who ignores the Constitution he swore to uphold, breaks the law with abandon, repeatedly lied about the reasons for going to war, its cost, its duration, and even its goals, is honest and trustworthy.
I am supposed to believe that the escalating violence, chaos and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are a sign of progress.
I am supposed to believe that a man who, by his own admission, does not read newspapers, who only meets with and listens to ‘yes’ men, who refuses to speak before any group that is not hand-picked from his staunchest supporters, is in touch with the realities of the world.
I am supposed to believe that sending US soldiers into combat without proper equipment or a viable military strategy, while decreasing their pensions and their benefits, is a patriotic display of supporting the troops.
I am supposed to believe that gutting the funding of social programs aimed at assisting the poor, the sick, the hungry and the homeless is the outcome of good Christians being in office, and that torturing, maiming and killing innocent civilians is “doing the Lord’s work”.
Oh, don’t go anywhere, because I haven’t even gotten started yet …
I am supposed to believe that a president who acts like an ill-mannered, oafish, mindless buffoon in public, both at home and in international settings, and a vice president who tells a colleague to go f*ck himself in the course of conducting the country’s business, are both deserving of respect.
I am supposed to believe that spying on US citizens, quashing free speech, and suspending laws that govern detention and confinement without just cause is preserving the tenets of democracy.
I am supposed to believe that alienating our allies, isolating ourselves from the world, refusing to use diplomacy instead of aggression, and causing people around the globe to hate us is the best way to protect my country from violent attack.
I am supposed to believe that no-bid contracts awarded to companies owned by members of this Administration, its families and its cronies is pure coincidence, and that secret meetings resulting in policies that enrich their supporters to the detriment of hard-working Americans is good and honest government.
Hold on, because there’s MORE of this crap ...
I am supposed to believe that outsourcing American jobs, under-funding our educational system, and plunging the country deeper into debt with every passing day will lead to a stronger, more competitive nation in the years to come.
I am supposed to believe that the same people who left NOLA to drown, who refuse to secure our borders, who refuse to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and who initiate policies that incite anger and violence the world over are protecting my country from harm.
I am supposed to believe that an Administration whose policies make basic medical care and life-saving drugs unaffordable for millions of Americans is pro-life.
I am supposed to believe that elected representatives who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, tax breaks for wealthy individuals, and tax subsidies for multi-billion dollar corporations are looking out for their constituents.
Along with all of the above, I am also supposed to believe that selling authority over our ports to foreign nations, selling our national lands to private interests, and selling our children’s future by burdening them with debt for decades to come is in the best interests of our country.
Drum roll, please -- here's the BIG FINALE ...
I am supposed to believe it is safe to board an airplane with a hold full of uninspected cargo as long as no passengers are in possession of baby formula, that a group of men in Britain were about to take down ten airliners without tickets or passports, that seven men in Miami were going to blow up buildings in cities they didn’t have the money to get to, that one lone guy in New York was going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow-torch, that if we leave Iraq every terrorist in the world is going to come to the US and fight us in the malls and the supermarkets, that the ‘Liberal media’ simply forgets to cover the lies, cover-ups and corruption of this Administration and its party members, that voting for a Democrat in Connecticut sends shockwaves of unbridled encouragement throughout the Muslim world, that a bunch of PNAC members whose predictions have been proven totally wrong in every instance should be dictating policy to my government, that our military isn’t stretched too thin and they are just recalling those who have already fulfilled their duty because they’ve got too much time on their hands, and that George W. Bush spends his summers reading CAMUS and SHAKESPEARE.
Oh, if only I were GULLIBLE, ILL-INFORMED, EASILY LED and TOTALLY STUPID – what a FINE Bush supporter I would have made!
20 Sep 2006 @ 16:21 by Quinty @126.96.36.199 : Pinch yourself,
(not you necessarily) wake up, and you'll see Nancy Greggs is right.
But there are just a lot of folks who refuse to wake up. So what can we do? I mean, there is a radio station out here at night which harps on the illuminati and space ships. They actually find people who call in who have been "abducted" or taken on a small journey out there. Who describe what the spacepersons (notice how PC I am?) are like.
Now, once we win "the war between civilizations" - George has promised us we will (in a hundred years or so) - then maybe we can take on Evil in outer space? How long will it take us to win that one? It should keep Halliburton busy anyway, even if Dick Cheney doesn't live long enough to see it.
Common sense may not be so common after all, right?
21 Sep 2006 @ 01:40 by jobrown : I just
keep sending info to all friends I know are intersted in the Trurth and they send to other of their friends, who they trust wanting the Truth etc; a sort of people's life-line, if 'you' wish. And I myself have made the DECICION that The Good will win even rather sooner than later. The more people whi make that DECICION, the better the chances -and the time frame will shorten up -but we have brace us, the ride will be somewhat bumpy! I realized that the SECRET to ANY manifesting is whether we make a decicion -or not! I realized, I can't put my panties on without DECIDING to do so! I can't take single walking step without decicidng to do so. I can't do/manifest anything unless I decide in its favor!
Tje other day I stumbled upon this article why John PaulI was murdered. Here is the conclusion: John Paul I was killed for the following reasons:
--He wanted to clean up the Vatican Bank which was later riddled in 1982 with scandals revealing the Vatican hierarchy's filthy connection with Freemasonry, the Mafia, the CIA and its real purpose of bringing financial destruction while advocating wars and genocide worldwide. Note: Italian and French reports connected and named over 150 high ranking bishops and cardinals who were active members of Freemasonry, including the P2 Masonic Lodge and many other secret and dark societies.
--He was against passionately against the policies of the New World Order and the Illuminati, as well as wanting to diminish the power of the Jesuit General, better known as the Black Pope, who is the real leader of the Vatican.
For this he was killed on the 33rd day of his papacy, the number 33 being an occult symbol that good will never defeat evil and the disguise and duplicity of the Vatican will never be uncovered.
"...the number 33 being an occult symbol that good will never defeat evil... ".
Now, isn't this interesting?!... considering that ALL but (only) three of ALL American Presidents have been 33:rd degree Masons! They seem to know something about the power of DECIDING!!! Deciding to go for evil alone!.... So I decided to counter them with MY decicions! Wanna join me?
21 Sep 2006 @ 09:30 by jazzolog : The Brainwashing
starts at home, Vax. Before we ever get them in kindergarten...or even pre-school...they've been in front of the TV much of their lives. They've been to church or whatever the worship place might be called. They may have had tobacco, caffeine, booze and who-knows-what in the womb. The public schools have enough enemies in this country today, without blaming us for more. Not that we're blameless, God knows: we're like the other beggar services now, whoring ourselves for funding.
21 Sep 2006 @ 16:09 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : Interesting
about public schools.
Rather than strengthen and better them the far right here in the US wishes to destroy them.
It would seem, wouldn't it, that the logical approach would be to try to improve them. Rather than find reasons for not funding them. This is a most bleak and dark attitude. It condemns the poor to greater poverty and lost opportunities.
This attitude is similar to the right's attitude about welfare. Rather than attempt to find ways for helpiing the needy and ending poverty the right simply wishes to cut funding. They have their rationales, of course. Reasons, as we know, or should know, are always easy to find. Cut welfare moms off the dole because we don't want to encourage illegitimacy. That teaching the poor self reliance is good for them, a form of tough love. Or else they are all Cadillac queens sponging off the worthy tax payers: respectable citizens with jobs. And, of course the worthy rich who may do nothing but watch TV.
BS always offers an endless supply. And rather than discuss how to spend the money wisely in order to bring people out of poverty, or to improve the public schoools, or the environment, etc., the right condemns the efforts themselves. And doesn't believe in social programs though we know they can work. And if they don't then the logical nest step would be to find ways of improving them: in order to solve a large social need the private sector will never answer.
Public libraries have been "whoring" for at least a couple of decades, entering so-called "public private partnerships." Often conceding basic professional decisions to corporate sponsors in order to obtain basic funding. No one wants to pay taxes. Because, as any good American will tell you, taxes are basically evil.
I just did, about a week ago. I went to the state house here in Providence and wrote a check for my quarterly estimated income tax. I had a nice talk with a clerk there and left and walked down the hill and actually felt quite fine. Was I bleeding? Was I wounded? Did I begin to wonder where my next meal would come from? Did I go into a deep depression over this assault on my bank account?
No. None of that.
I actually didn't care, wasn't at all hurt, and would have gladly paid more if the money could go to good causes: such as public schools. I understand there are some schools with more than 40 kids in a class. How can anyone learn anything in such an environment? That teachers have to pay for necessary supplies out of their own pockets? That in some schools roofs actually leak when it rains.
So I committed a fundamentally UnAmerican act. I paid my taxes without pain. And walked away from the Rhode Island state house not caring about the amount of money I had made my check out for. Do you think there is any room for people like me in this country, people who gladly pay their taxes if they feel assured their money will go to worthy causes? Instead of war?
What the right seems to forget, I think, is that NOBODY believes in wasteful government spending. Not even the most liberal of liberal politicians. But that all spending is viewed as wasteful is a rhetorical technique which has become subcutaneous in our society. Many a citizen believes in this basic maxim as if it were a profound article of religious faith. Yet these same people, many of them, see nothing wasteful about spending hundreds of billions on needless wars.
Frankly, I wish some of that money would to our schools and libraries, where it's actually needed.
Now what's this about the Pope?
21 Sep 2006 @ 16:23 by vaxen : jazzolog...
America, today, would seem to be a reversion to Hamiltonianism... the system known as British Mercantilism which is, purportedly, what the so alled "American Revolution" was fought for. Adam Smiths attack on British Mercantilism is worth a read in that regard.
Hamilton and the Federalists were traitors! But it looks like their failed attempt at instantiating the age old evil have now overcome, in this century, the dreams of freedoms' champions.
Vote them all out! That, of course, is no longer possible...
It would require a brutal, uncompromising dictator to overthrow the federal system and adopt a British-style consolidated, mercantilist empire. As Taylor wrote (p. 237): "It seems to be nature's law, that every species of concentrated sovereignty over extensive territories, whether monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, or mixed, must be despotick. In no case has a concentrated power over great territories been sustained, except by mercenary armies; and whenever power is thus sustained, despotism is the consequence." Furthermore, "the ignorance and partiality of a concentrated form of government, can only be enforced by armies; and the peculiar ability of the states to resist, promises that resistance would be violent; so that a national government must be either precarious or despotick" (p. 238).
8 Oct 2006 @ 23:10 by Quinty @184.108.40.206 : George McGovern
George McGovern was lampooned in 1972 as a joke. And the aura still lingers. A "liberal," McGovern has been marginalized as a "pie in the sky liberal." That seems to be his place today in American politics. Once branded, it's hard to change the focus. He lost quite large in the '72 election to Richard Nixon. Who today would we say was the better man?
McGovern, I think, has grown in wisdom over the years. Recently in Harper's he offered a blueprint for getting out of Iraq. Most of his suggestions reflect a sense of morality which is quite rare today in Washington, and which certainly can not be found in the White House.
On some points I think he may be a bit off. But in his case I'm sure he knows far better than I do. (That argument, as I'm sure you know, is quite a dangerous argument in politics. It has often appeared as the last refuge of fools and scoundrels supporting a monstrous and unneeded war: Vietnam, Iraq.) But in McGovern's case one should at least be cautious. Respectful. For here (unlike today's inhabitants of the White House) is an honest and thoughtful man.
McGovern's Harper's piece isn't available yet on the web. Here is a rough summary by Sherwood Ross. The best I could find. The original is far better, and Ross leaves out McGovern's sly inclussions of the various costs for his program: explaining that each 500 million or billion the components of his plan would need is the equivalent of a few days or a week or so in costs for the war. Ross also leaves out McGovern's heartbroken appeal to repair the archealogical destruction brought about by the invasion. It appears our troops smashed an ancient site to turn it into a helicopter pad.
BLUEPRINT FOR AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ PROPOSED BY 1972 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GEORGE McGOVERN
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-09-28 03:11. Media
By Sherwood Ross
American and British troops in Iraq could be replaced over a phased, six-month period starting next January by a force of 15,000 men drawn from Arab or Muslim countries and paid for by the United States, former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern proposes.
In a wide-ranging article appearing in the October issue of “Harper’s” magazine, McGovern spelled out a comprehensive “blueprint” for the withdrawal of Coalition troops.
“Withdrawal will not be without financial costs, which are unavoidable and will have to be paid sooner or later,” McGovern wrote, in an article co-authored with William Polk, founder-director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago. “But the decision to withdraw at least does not call for additional expenditures. On the contrary, it will effect massive savings.”
Current U.S. expenditures in Iraq cost about $246-million per day, a rate that continues to climb, and will come to about $100.4-billion in fiscal 2006, the authors write, adding one estimate puts the cost of remaining in Iraq another four years at $1-trillion.
McGovern and Polk urged the creation of a “stabilization force” from Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, to be selected at the determination of the Iraqi government. The authors estimate that a force of just 3,000 troops from five countries would be sufficient to keep the peace.
At a cost of $500 for maintaining one man per day, the overall cost to support a 15,000-man army would be $5.5-billion, “approximately three percent of what it would cost to continue the war, with American troops, for the next two years,” the authors pointed out.
McGovern and Polk called for the “rapid withdrawal” of 25,000 armed “security” firm personnel and the phased withdrawal of the U.S. and British forces, said to number 120,000 and about 10,000 respectively.
They also called for putting a halt to work on U.S. military bases, the immediate release of all prisoners of war and closing of detention centers, payment of at least $25-billion to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, voiding of all oil contracts entered into during the U.S. occupation, and reparations to Iraqi civilians for lives and property. They also asked for creation of an international body to be named to arrange compensation for Iraqis tortured by Anglo-American troops.
The Harper’s article urged, again at U.S. expense, the rebuilding of damaged and destroyed hospitals and clinics and training their medical personnel, training a national police force, clearing the country of depleted uranium and land mines, and the rehabilitation of damaged historical sites. Personnel to clean up the ordnance could be recruited from among the “millions” of unemployed Iraqis, the authors said.
“We cannot prevent the reconstruction of an Iraqi army, but we should not, as we are currently doing, actually encourage this at a cost of billions to the American taxpayer,” the authors write. “If at all possible, we should encourage Iraq to transfer what soldiers it has already recruited for its army into a national reconstruction corps modeled on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.”
McGovern and Polk go on to say that nearly half of more than 100 U.S. military bases in Iraq have already been turned over to the Government but as many as 14 “enduring” bases are being built “and should be stood down rapidly” due to their expense and also as they “symbolize and personify a hated occupation” to a population only two percent of whom consider the Americans as “liberators.” What’s more, the Green Zone in Baghdad should be turned over to the Iraqi Government no later than the end of 2007.
The authors also call upon the U.S. “to dismantle and dispose of the miles of concrete blast walls and wire barriers erected around American installations.” This could be accomplished for about $500-million and could employ many Iraqi workers.
Scrap Oil Contracts
The U.S. “should not object to the Iraqi government voiding all contracts entered into for the exploration, development, and marketing of oil during the American occupation,” McGovern and Polk wrote.
“These contracts clearly should be renegotiated or thrown open to competitive international bids” as the Iraqis believe their oil has been sold at a discount to U.S. oil companies and that long-term “production-sharing agreements” have been highly favorable to the Americans and could cost Iraq as much as $194-billion in lost revenues.
“To most Iraqis, and indeed to many foreigners, the move to turn over Iraq’s oil reserves to American and British companies surely confirms that the real purpose of the invasion was to secure, for American use and profit, Iraq’s lightweight and inexpensively produced oil,” McGovern and Polk asserted.
They said, “any funds misused or misappropriated” by U.S. officials from the sale of Iraqi petroleum “should be repaid” to the proper Iraqi authorities.
The authors compared their call to indemnify Iraqi war victims to the U.S. post-World War II “Marshall Plan,” which redounded to America’s benefit by energizing the European economy. They note the number of Iraqi dead have been put at between 30,000 and 100,000 killed “with many more wounded or incapacitated.”
“Assuming the number of unjustified deaths to be 50,000, and the compensation per person to be $10,000, our outlay would run to only $500-million, or two days’ cost of the war,” the authors said. And estimating the number seriously wounded and incapacitated at 100,000, the total cost for their compensation would be $1-billion.
McGovern and Polk called for creation of a “respected international body” to process the claims of, and pay compensation to, Iraqis who have been tortured or suffered long-term imprisonment. More than 3,200 prisoners have been held for longer than a year and more than 700 for longer than two years, they note, “most of them without charge, a clear violation of the treasured American right of habeas corpus.”
Finally, the authors urged the U.S. to find a way “to express our condolences for the large number of Iraqis incarcerated, tortured, incapacitated, or killed in recent years. …A simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship.”
The Harper’s article, “The Way Out of War,” is excerpted from the book “Out of Iraq”, to be published next month by Simon & Schuster. Co-author McGovern, the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 1972, was defeated by Richard Nixon.
(Sherwood Ross is an American reporter and columnist. Reach him at email@example.com)
8 Oct 2006 @ 23:28 by Quinty @220.127.116.11 : Another thing.....
"McGovern and Polk called for the “rapid withdrawal” of 25,000 armed “security” firm personnel..."
What Ross doesn't make completely clear is that these "security firm personnel" are mercenaries: collectively a large private army, as McGovern points out, under no government supervision. They can do as they like, and answer only to their employers. McGovern suggests in his Harper's piece that they can easily be disbanded by simply ceasing to pay them. And that they will then all go home.
25,000 of them. That figure is astonishing, don't you think?
9 Oct 2006 @ 10:51 by jazzolog : A Republican Who's Had It!
I love this column today by Douglas Cunningham, who is business editor for the Times Herald-Record which serves New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. What I'm noticing, besides all he has to say, is what a grand new hideaway rehab has become! As Harry Shearer put it in a new song last night, "Avoid the TV gab, Check into Rehab Rehab"~~~
Time to switch teams
Monday October 9, 2006
My father, until he died, maintained that the biggest mistake he ever made was voting for Harry Truman in 1948.
Truman, of course, beat Thomas Dewey, though the polls and media heavyweights all said the Republican would win. I think about this, and I think, "Oh, to make such mistakes! Oh, to have such a luxury!"
We have no such luxury today. Today, Washington, D.C., our capital, has become drenched in money, corruption and sex. Its tawdriness is unbounded, its morals are in the gutter, its corruption runs like a sewer.
So it is that we come to Mark Foley, the former representative from Florida. As well, sex creep, pervert and predator of male pages under age 18.
Could we not have a nice, normal scandal, something involving Dick Nixon, maybe? Too much to ask today.
Foley ought to do the country a favor and take a long walk on a short pier. Is there nothing that's beyond the pale?
I've had it. The Republican leadership in the House, beginning with Speaker Dennis Hastert, has got to go. As in now. I'm thinking we need to plow through four or five people right below Hastert, too. If the Republican members of the House had any guts, they'd have ousted these people last week. If the Republican leadership had any shame, they would have quit last week.
Apparently, not very many people these days have either, at least in Washington. Anyone who knew anything about the scandal, I want them gone. If the Republicans come to be known as the party that protects gay sexual predators, we're finished. I am not ready to abandon the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater to the likes of Mark Foley.
The Hastert storyline is one in which there's no percentage. The most degenerate gambler wouldn't place a bet on Hastert and the rest surviving. The Hastert line is this: I take responsibility, but I've done nothing wrong. This is no worse than Democratic sex scandals. We, personally, have done nothing wrong.
Well, to start with, you did nothing about Foley. Do we need to know more? The Republican sex scandals are suddenly pure and virginal? Foley, to the pier. Hastert, to the bench.
Some of you then trot out, Oh, sure, it's a sex scandal that gets you upset. Everything else was A-OK.
No, it's not just that we understand this sex scandal, though it is awfully easy to understand. Pretty much everyone knows, on a visceral level, that what has gone on with Foley is deeply wrong.
The reason Republicans are bent out of shape is that this Foley scandal is the proverbial last straw. We've had it. The out-of-control spending. The earmarks. The graft with the lobbyists. The arrogance. The abrogation of principles that Goldwater, Reagan and others worked decades to spread.
The Republicans will lose the House in November. Absent big changes, I have to say they deserve to. I will help them lose it, because in my own congressional district, Pennsylvania's 10th, I'm voting for Democrat Chris Carney. As the campaign literature for Carney slyly notes, he's been married for 18 years to his college sweetheart.
Why might he note that? Because his opponent, and the incumbent, Republican Don Sherwood, engaged in a five-year affair in Washington with a mistress some three decades his junior.
My father had choices. The Republicans offer me candidates who can't even keep their pants on. I've had it.
Douglas Cunningham's commentary appears on Mondays. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org, or 346-3202.
9 Oct 2006 @ 22:41 by Quinty @18.104.22.168 : At least it's a step forward (perhaps?)
Seen as a token of GOPers who have jumped the fence, Cunningham's piece is heartening. Since Bush et al really have nothing (so it seems to me) in common with traditional Republican or Conservative values. They are quite radical.
In fact, I feel "conservative" nowadays. Like, say, conserving the Constitution?
Though traditional values on the part of this current zany crowd tend to be quite numbskull. All that floor scraping dreck over stem cells and gay marriage and flag burning and English first. (Get a life! I say.)
Bush et al have embarrassed their own party no end. If they had been more competent in their mad escapades they might be heroes today. But reality has never enjoyed a solid footing on the fabric of fantasies. One of Bush's bully boys (a proud philosoph) once scoffed at reality, with his famous condescension on "reality based" politics.
Cunningham's piece reveals some ugliness. That is true of all schlock. Mickey Spillane was not a bad writer because he couldn't write. He delivered the goods. His novels are bad because his own deeply ugly nature emerged. At the end of "I the Jury" Mike Hammer shoots a pregnant woman in the belly. She says: "How could you?" He answers: "It was easy."
We are neck deep in the big muddy at this time. How will it all turn out? Business as usual? Probably. Cunningham is a good voice for a continuing problem. But perhaps Bush et al have finally gone too far, and we may enjoy a temporary respite.
Yeah, Mike Hammer's line is echoed by Nicholson in The Departed. After assassinating a woman he remarks to his associate, "She fell funny." There's something sympathetic and even likeable about the monsters Jack creates on screen. He certainly is an icon of The Savage American, who apparently has evolved from The Quiet American. I wonder if he'll portray George Bush someday. That would be interesting---if it's a good script and director.
10 Oct 2006 @ 15:43 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Nicholson as Bush?
Can you imagine Nicholson as Alfred E. Newman?
He would have to master a giggle. Now that's something to imagine: Nicholson giggling like Bush. Winking and smirking no matter what he talks about. Bombs dropping. Arms and legs flying. The price of pet goldfish at WalMart. All delivered with the same sententious tone of voice. They have nukes! They have jelly beans! They are good! They are evil! The nation's laundry needs more starch! We start bombing tomorrow!
And Nicholson's height would have to be cut down somewhat, since he appears to be a bit too tall to convincingly offer the same swagger. My father says that John Ford tought John Wayne how to walk. We saw Bush master his walking style when he became president. In the beginning they must have left the coat hanger in his jacket just to help him out a bit. Now he has it down cold. I'll say one thing for Ronald Reagan: at least his manly walk was convincing. Bush's walk makes him look like an embarrassing clown.
Can Nicholson capture all that? Is Bush to comically off kilter even for Jack Nicholson? No. someone like Mickey Rooney would be required to do Bush.
Nobody would believe it!
Other entries in Projects
18 Nov 2008 @ 23:51: The Day John Kennedy Was Shot
27 Jun 2008 @ 12:06: The Poor In The US Are Sick And Dying: Happy?
27 Mar 2008 @ 11:26: Green Energy Development
24 Jan 2008 @ 09:58: Getting Drunk For Dr. King
12 Nov 2007 @ 11:23: Re: happy veteran's day & Pakistan?
16 Jul 2007 @ 09:28: Constitutional Crisis
25 Apr 2007 @ 09:53: Reeling In Rove
23 Mar 2007 @ 11:39: The Phil Mattson Message Board
4 Mar 2007 @ 12:17: Global Warming Gets Hot
17 Dec 2006 @ 12:40: Distracted On Sunday