Another LA Times op-ed piece While you're reading Jeremy Rifkin's piece in today's Times, check out what Robert Scheer has to say about the Bushies and terrorism. Like the Rifkin piece, registration is required.
Oops I promised to publish a long article on the right's strategy to attack David Brock on Friday. It's taking a little longer than I thought. I should have it on later today (if not then, certainly tommorrow). In today's Los Angeles Times is an eye-opening article by Jeremy Rifkin about the perverse protein hierarchy that has developed in the twentieth century (registration is required but is free).
The Continuing Attack on David Brock Recently The Drudge Report released information about David Brock' s stay at a psychiatric facility. Media Whores Online has some good insights on the flap. I will have a long article on the matter tommorrow.
A Sequel! This is no joke: There is going to be a sequel to Dude, Where's My Car? called Seriously Dude, Where's My Car? that is scheduled for a 2003 release. I got the scoop from HipSmart.
Dude, Where's the Fairness? The other day (5/17), I wrote that I suspected that I was being blackballed by Opinionjournal.com (they didn't print my response to Peggy Noonan's recent column). So when Brenden Miniter wrote an obnoxious article on Clinton, I used the pseudonym Chester Greenburg (the Seann William Scott character in the classic film Dude, Where's My Car? (more on this later). They printed my letter:
What Clinton Really Said
Chester Greenburg - Los Angeles
In his attempt to deflect criticism from Mr. Bush, Mr. Miniter rehashes the same tired misinformation spread by the American right that Bill Clinton "famously wrote a letter in which he described himself as 'loathing the military.' " This is a grievous misrepresentation. Here is the entire sentence on which Mr. Miniter based his distortion: "I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give." In fact, in the letter, Mr. Clinton expressed respect for the military while simultaneously displaying bitter opposition to the war. If the case against Bill Clinton is so clear-cut, why is it necessary to put words in his mouth?
Bill Clinton certainly doesn't deserve any medals for his activities during the Vietnam War. He didn't want to go to Vietnam--but he didn't want any other Americans to go either. This is in stark contrast to many in the current Republican leadership who, at the time, thought fighting the war was great--just as long as others did the fighting. As long as Mr. Miniter is interested in what Bill Clinton "famously" didn't say in 1969, why doesn't he look into George W. Bush's whereabouts during the final two years of his six-year commitment to the Air National Guard.
Subscribe Salon is one the most highly regarded web sites devoted to culture and politics. The only problem is that, to keep afloat, Salon charges a yearly subscription to access some of the best articles. Joe Conason’s commentary titled “The 9/11 Coverup: Now We Know Why” in today’s Salon is alone worth the subscription price. It’s one of the best investments you can make. But if you’re a cheapskate, it is reprinted on SmirkingChimp.com.
Blackballed? In her last three Wall Street Journal columns, Peggy Noonan hit the trifecta of silliness when it comes to silly commentary. Two weeks ago, she argued, against all evidence, that Bill Clinton was “lazy.” Last week, she argued, despite all of the evidence in the 2000 (s)election, that George W. Bush was liked because “[w]hen you know a man doesn't have to win, you know he probably won't do anything to win. And when you know he won't do anything to win, you feel more secure in letting him win.” (click here for a good lampoon of the column). . However, I noted how the Journal editors allowed many harsh critiques of Noonan’s article in the online response section (see my 5/10 post). So today when Noonan wrote about how pundits on the left “fight meaner” than the nice guy pundits on the right, I thought I would write a short letter to see if the editors would publish it. Here is what I submitted:
Paul Begala can fight his own fights so I’ll let him answer Noonan’s claim that, in a battle of wits, someone like Ann Coulter “could eat her lunch off Paul Begala's head and use his tie as a napkin...” I’m just amused with Noonan’s argument that Democratic operatives like Begala and James Carville are effective because they “see politics as total war” but their Republican counterparts are nice guys who don’t. A content analysis of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page over the last decade would clearly show the absurdity of this argument. During the Clinton years, the WSJ’s editorial page was a repository for every crackpot conspiracy theory and smear about the Clintons that a paranoid billionaire could devise—and bankroll. Contrary to Noonan’s argument, the American right fears Begala and Carville—to the point of threatening to boycott their TV show—not because these two believe in “fighting meaner” (it’s odd that Noonan provides no specific examples of this supposed meanness). Rather, Begala and Carville do their homework and offer a forum to debate issues on even terms. This is anathema to people who are used to operating unchallenged through talk radio, through dirty-tricks operations (such as the Arkansas Project or “Troopergate”), or through the use of attack ads with “subliminable” messages.
Despite the large number of people whose responses were printed, my letter was not one of them.
I was concerned that the Daily Howler web site had become permanently inactive . There were no new articles in the month of April. However, this week, the Howler has three new articles—one being a short but devastating piece on Ann Coulter. For those of you not familiar with the Howler, it is one of the top media watchdog web sites. During the 2000 campaign, The Howler was one of the lone voices out there seriously analyzing the media bias regarding Al Gore’s alleged lies. I recommend reading the entire 2000 archives. One of the Howler’s most important scoops regarding the 2000 (s)election came in 2001 when the Howler uncovered journalistic misconduct by Bill Sammon in his book At Any Cost. (Click here, here, and here for other Howler critiques of Sammon’s book).
Let’s not forget how The Howler uncovered the hilarious blunder by Andrew Sullivan regarding media bias. The Howler also was one of the first voices to respond to the Moonie Times smear of the Bill Clinton regarding his November 2001 Georgetown speech (click here, here, and here). It's good to see that The Howler is back.
New Link I just found out from MediaWhoresOnline that Paul Krugman has a web site, so I added it to my links. Krugman has a short article on the allegation that he is one of the most partisan political columnists.
Karma In my 4/25 post, I mention the revelation by the former daughter-in-law of cult leader Sun Myung Moon that Moon was involved in various criminal conspiracies. I complained how there was little follow up on the matter—Virtue Czar William Bennett was a paid speaker for one of Moon’s front groups, so there’s little chance that he is going to ask, “Where’s the Outrage?” concerning Moon. No, Moon is a major cash cow for the American right. However, Brazil is taking action against Moon’s schemes. Yesterday, WorldNetDaily reported a crackdown on Moon's Brazilian front groups. Rejoice.
McCain Switch? I suppose David Broder is right when he argues that it is absurd to expect John McCain to run successfully for president as a Democrat. However, that is not to say that it would be a bad thing for McCain to try it. It is his only chance to win the White House. Assuming that Bush isn’t impeached (which he deserves), he will be the GOP candidate in 2004. In 2008, McCain will be 72. Plus, the GOP hates him. With the Democrat’s majority status in the Senate razor-thin, it would be great for a popular politician like McCain to become a Democrat—or at least an independent. The Democrats should encourage McCain to switch.
It’s Just As Well My roommate was thrown out of Television City when he tried to see Dennis Miller Live last night (he had a few too many and the ushers could tell). No loss: Miller’s guest was Larry Elder, a local talk radio Rush-clone. I don’t want to go off on a rant here, but if Miller is that hard up for guests, then I’d be glad to appear on his show.
See I Told You So On March 20, I criticized a National Review article about Alanis Morissette that I believed totally missed the mark. I warned about the unhip discussing hip subjects, noting that "writing for National Review Online is a good indicator that one is terminally unhip." I have further proof of this: in NR's "The Corner," Kathryn Jean Lopez notes: "The Bee Gees rock."
New Link I added Nerve.com's "This Week in Sex" to my links. This week's TWIS has a piece on Rush Limbaugh's claim that Bill Clinton is responsible for "single-handedly turning on the nation's oblivious youth to oral sex." The piece concludes with the following question: "Is Limbaugh now going to fess up to turning a new generation into balding, misogynistic pork enthusiasts?"
Kudos to the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Page I usually don't have nice things to say about the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Journal's editorial page became one of the most jaundiced examples of character assassination during the Clinton presidency--the nadir, in my opinion, was when it began to treat seriously the Mena drug smear of Clinton. Peggy Noonan is one of the worst offenders. Last Friday, I savaged her for her absurd claim that Bill Clinton is "lazy." Today, Noonan wrote a nauseatingly fawning piece on why Americans like George W. Bush. What I found remarkable was that the Journal editors included in the response section letters by people would not take any of Noonan's horseshit about Bush. Here is a good response by Carl Hudecek of Perrysburg, Ohio:
What absolute pro-Bush fiction. No President ever has had his henchmen and his brother rig an election, conduct election fraud, have every move orchestrated and every meeting stacked to provide an image of "no dissent" to promote his popularity.
Ms. Noonan should be ashamed of herself for not properly writing "April Fool" at the end of her Bush pap.
Also, read the response by Phillip Schuman of Pompano Beach, Fla.
Pop Culture Story in the Works I have been working on an important story involving the entertainment industry. I hope to have all the info on this site early next week. I'm just making a few calls to get the whole story.
Brock Versus Horowitz Grudge Match Analysis--Must Read I was working on an update on the latest wrinkle on the David Brock/David Horowitz feud. Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com beat me to the punch with a comprehensive analysis of the right’s attempt to impeach Brock’s credibility. The last third of the article deals with the Horowitz controversy. It is great article. Don’t miss it.
Update on 5/3 Post On Begala On 5/3, I wrote a post about an editorial in the Moonie Times that accused Crossfire's Paul Begala of linking the American right with the anthrax letters. I could not find the link. A reader was kind enough to provide the link. Read it for yourself. I find it highly convenient that the Moonie Times editorial failed to mention that Begala made the following observation: "Certainly the president's not behind [the anthrax attacks], but some lunatic is and they ought to be protecting and praising..."
My “Conversation” With Sam Raimi Today I attended the monthly LA Comic Book and Science Fiction Convention. I go to these if they have a guest I find interesting. To no surprise, it is a nerdfest. There were plenty of people who I’m sure were never asked to dance in high school—or ever for that matter. I went because Spider-man director Sam Raimi was a scheduled speaker. However, I was impressed with the talk by Blade II director, Guillermo del Toro. Del Toro had a devil-may-care attitude about casting the widest possible audience net and commercial tie-ins. Blade II, del Toro proudly told the audience, “didn’t sell one fucking Happy Meal.” After Raimi spoke, he gave autographs to the crowd. I told Raimi I crashed the premiere party and it was da bomb. Raimi chuckled and said of Columbia, “The studio does like to spend money doesn’t it?”
Alanis was Slammin'! Last night I saw Alanis Morissette live for the first time. I had seen her concert videos but in person she exuded a dynamism that made it a great experience.
Lazy Compared To Whom? Peggy Noonan is a media whore whose column I never miss— but not because she has anything of substance to write. I’m kind of like the character in the movie Go who hated The Family Circus (it’s “just waiting to suck”) but was irresistibly drawn to it. Noonan is an unremarkable hack writer (her “hollow punditry” was skillfully skewered by Jonathon Chait recently). But Noonan attracts mockers like me to her columns because of her tone. Her affected prose is an easy target (recently Norman Solomon mimicked her effusive manner in a hilarious column). Noonan’s serious writing rarely fails to evoke a horselaugh—whether it’s about George W. Bush’s intelligence or dolphins supposedly sent by Jesus to save Elian (why didn’t Christ’s animal act save Elian’s mom or the others on the raft?).
Noonan’s embarrassing groupie-like praise for Reagan and George W. Bush is matched by the nasty things she writes about the Clintons. Noonan wrote that Reagan would have refused to reunite Elian with his father (so much for the rule of law) because Reagan, unlike Clinton, “was a man.” Not only that, but Noonan puts her political opponents—people she doesn’t know personally—on the couch and assigns pathological psychological motives to them.
The irony of Noonan’s current column—in which she explains why Bill Clinton won’t have a talk show--is that her description of Clinton is not only contrary to established facts, but that it aptly fits her favorite recipient of fulsome praise, George W. Bush. The two main reasons Noonan gives why Clinton won’t have a talk show are 1) Hillary won’t let him (the perfunctory dig at Hillary); and 2) Bill is too lazy.
I won’t address the Hillary comment except to say that—unless one of Christ’s dolphins whispered some inside info to Noonan—this is just baseless speculation. My main beef is against Noonan’s silly argument that Bill Clinton is lazy. Here we have a hick from Arkansas who worked his butt off to go to college (where he excelled). He became Arkansas governor at a young age—both Republicans and Democrats praised his administration. Lazy? What planet is Noonan living on? You can’t come from Clinton’s background and get anywhere in life if you’re lazy. This revisionism of Clinton’s life reminds me of some horseshit from the late Barbara Olson’s The Final Days: “Contrary to the Lincolnesque myths created by their Hollywood friends, neither Hillary Rodham nor Bill Clinton rose from log cabins or poor circumstances to become America's most luminous couple. Both came from solidly middle-class families of sufficient means to enable them to attend privileged-and expensive-private educational institutions such as Wellesley, Georgetown, and Yale."
On the other hand, the qualities Noonan attributes to Clinton (e.g., “he loves to talk but not necessarily to work”) perfectly describe George W. Bush. This is a guy whose entire life embodies never having to work to achieve anything. Bush was able to get into Yale because Daddykins was able to pull strings. Daddykins’s friends were able to allow Bush to get a cushy National Guard position (Bush responded to the special treatment by not showing up for duty for the last two years of his obligation). Bush’s business career consisted of getting sweetheart deals from friends of Daddykins; when Bush’s laziness/ineptitude drove these businesses into the ground, once again, Daddykins’s friends bailed him out. When Bush’s sense of privilege led him to believe that he should become president, his brother hired a firm to scrub the voter lists of thousands of people who were entitled to vote—thus, we have someone in the Oval Office who is a lazy usurper.
Noonan’s projection of Bush’s characteristics to Clinton doesn’t surprise me. In The Case Against Hillary Clinton, Noonan writes, “Often when I watch the Clintons, I think I perceive a profound joylessness, an almost glassy-eyed containment, or distance. It's as if they don't have a facade, they've become a facade. You sense a depression on his part and an anger on hers." This is nothing more than Noonan projecting her own sour and rigid worldview onto people she doesn’t even know.
The Missing Quote The Moonie Times accusedCrossfire’s Paul Begala of being part of a smear campaign against the right. An editorial declared that on Monday’s Crossfire, Begala said, "the Republican right, under the sponsorship of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, has been engaged in a strategy they call demonizing [Senate Majority Leader Tom] Daschle. This, despite the fact that Tom Daschle was the victim of an anthrax attack by someone who wants to kill him."
The conclusion the Moonie Times editors reached from Begala’s alleged quote was that Begala was “linking conservatives to the sending of anthrax-tainted letters to Mr. Daschle last year." From the partial quote given, I did not conclude that Begala was “linking” the Republican right with the anthrax attacks. However, I wanted to see the larger context of Begala’s alleged statements. I use the term “alleged” because I looked up Monday’s Crossfire transcript and it didn’t list this quote. I realize it is a rush transcript and Crossfire had a recent controversy with its transcripts, so I’m in the dark about how to proceed on this one.