Impromptus: On Dean and Company

I know it's easy to jump on Dem chair Howard Dean, but sometimes he has to be jumped on. He says, "... the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." That's just plain lousy, isn't it? Even if you thought it true, I believe a sense of caution or humility would keep you from saying it, if you were chairman of one of America's two major parties.

I guess I stopped being amazed at the behavior of Democrats in this war when Jimmy Carter invited Michael Moore to join him in his box at the 2004 Democratic convention. Or was it when all those Democratic leaders turned up at the premiere of Moore's movie, and hailed it? I can't remember.

I know it's easy to jump on Sen. John Kerry, but sometimes he just has to be jumped on. I mean, here's how he describes the work of American soldiers in this war: "... going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ..."

As you know, the activity of American soldiers in Iraq is to prevent and defeat the terrorizing of kids, children, and others.

(By the way, does Kerry intend a distinction between kids and children? Or was he just caught up in his melodrama?)

What John Kerry said is pretty lousy — very, very lousy. I don't care how many medals he wears, or tosses, or whatever.

You know, friends, that I'm not nuts about "chair" in place of "chairman," or even "chairwoman." But I called Dean, above, "chair," and I think that was right, don't you? I mean, it goes with him, his party, his sensibility — his governorship in Vermont, his bike-path religious politics, etc. It is the mot juste, as John Kerry might say (while screwing up that "u," I bet).

The testimony out of the Saddam trial is really big — I mean, the witnesses are laying it all out, what Saddam and his accomplices did. Human experience does not get more depraved than this.

Do you have a sense that the world cares much? (And by "world," we often mean the media, and other elites.) I have a sense that it does not — because this testimony is a distraction (or would be a distraction) from the accepted narrative: bad, lying America, imposing itself where it has no business.

This should be the Iraqis' moment in the sun: the chance when they finally get to tell their story, after decades of the worst suffering. Instead, it's all Valerie Plame, 16 words, an American female interrogator rubbing — or not rubbing — her breasts against a detainee, blah, blah, blah.

Remember this, friends, and you've long known it: Iraqi suffering doesn't count, because that might mean that Bush & Co. weren't so wrong to remove that regime.

And no fair talking about girls in Afghanistan! (It makes Bush critics uncomfortable.)

Every day, it seems — every day — we read of another suicide attack in Iraq, killing dozens of police graduates, or enrollees. And yet, Iraqi men continue to sign up. Remarkable.

It is clear, too, that what Iraq faces is an "intifada." Don Rumsfeld doesn't like "insurgency" — he might try that. For the Israelization of Iraq accelerates.

If you read the news about Iraq — a wide variety of news, not just what the Establishment Press gives you — you can't help being furious to hear John Murtha say, as he just did, "When you fight an insurgency, you have to win the hearts and minds of the people, and we've lost the hearts and minds of the people."

How can he say such a thing? How? I think the hearts and minds of the people are made clear on election day. And, in a week or so, Iraq will have had three of them this year. And those hearts and minds are with a new, democratic Iraq — an Arab experiment, which the Americans are making possible. Iraqi voters dodge terrorists as they go to the polls. I'll never forget the image of a woman spitting on the corpse of a suicide bomber, as she walked around it, to cast her ballot.

In my Impromptus the other day, I was complaining about great (or at least illuminating) ignored speeches. I give you — if you care to read it — Secretary Rumsfeld's speech on "The Future of Iraq," from Monday: here. In my view, this is a clear-eyed assessment — not boosterish, straight.

I haven't read much about the new chief justice, but I like what I've read so far. Consider (from the AP):

The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to uphold a law that says colleges cannot turn away military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's policy on gays if the universities also want to receive federal money. New Chief Justice John Roberts said schools unhappy with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have a simple solution: turn down federal cash.

As my old friend Herb would say, "That's too much like right." (Another old friend — I can hear her now — would say, "That's too much like right-wing!")

WASHINGTON (AP) — SpongeBob SquarePants, Shrek and other characters kids love should promote only healthy food, a panel of scientists recommended. In a report released Tuesday, the Institute of Medicine said television advertising strongly influences what children under 12 eat.

The report said the food industry should spend its marketing dollars on nutritious food and drinks. That means SpongeBob, the popular animated star of the Nickelodeon cable TV network, and other characters should endorse only good-for-you food, the panel concluded.

This does not seem like a governmental directive yet, but does it nevertheless seem too Nanny State for you? Me too — or is it just that I likes me not-good-for-you food?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Citing health concerns, the city is considering a ban on taco trucks and other mobile food wagons that dot the busy streets in Nashville's immigrant neighborhoods. But critics say the proposed ban has more to do with cultural differences than health. [I give you my Surgeon General's Warning, friends: Here comes race.]

"There's a resounding feeling that these actions are driven by racism," said Loui [sic] Olivas, a business professor at Arizona State University. Nashville is one of several cities with fast-growing Hispanic populations that have tried to restrict food trucks recently, he said.

"Folks weren't pointing fingers or speaking loudly with traditional hot dog vendors or bagel or ice cream vendors," Olivas said. "That's always been a part of growing up in America. Why the concern now?"

Ay, caramba! I don't think it's a matter of race, Loui — I suspect it's more a matter of creeping Nanny Statism.

This guy gave me a vivid memory, from my youth. When Reagan was shot, there was a new push for handgun control. On Detroit television, an angry (black) commentator said — shouted — "No one talked about banning rifles when Vernon Jordan was shot!"

P.S. Bagel vendors? Did Loui Olivas say "bagel vendors"? Were bagels ever vended on the streets? Or was he just trying to throw the Jews in?

A U.N. investigation has confirmed reports of torture in China. Interesting. If even the U.N. acknowledges torture in a "socialist country" (as William Kunstler used to say), it must be really, really bad.

Lowell Weicker is considering challenging Joe Lieberman for his Connecticut Senate seat, saying, "I have seen this country propagandized into war. It's now a second wave of propagandizing, with the president taking the stump, joined by persons like Sen. Joe Lieberman."

I know which candidate National Review will endorse, if it comes down to Weicker or Lieberman!

One of Australia's largest banks apologized on Monday for a "grooming handbook" that suggested staff wear flesh-colored underwear and advised against shiny stockings because they make legs look fatter. The grooming guide — which also recommended that earrings should be no bigger than a small coin and that women should wear no more than two rings on each hand — was given to retail banking staff at the Commonwealth Bank.

"The guidelines are just that — guidelines," bank executive Hugh Harley said in a statement. "I apologize to any staff who may have been offended or who do not feel comfortable discussing such matters."

I thought the problem would be racial — "flesh-colored underwear." (What color is flesh? Whose flesh? Remember the Crayola controversy?) But it seems like the people just didn't like being told what to wear. Even guided!

ROME (Reuters) — Calling a foreigner a "dirty negro" in Italian is not necessarily a racist insult, Italy's highest court has ruled. The verdict, relating to a case where a group of Italian men punched and insulted some women from Colombia, caused deep unease at a time when Italy is struggling to contain racism.

The court on Monday ruled in favor of one of the men, who argued he was not being racist when he launched the assault with the words: "Sporche negre — cosa ci fanno queste negre qua?" ("Dirty negroes — what are these negroes doing here?")

Most Italians would have no doubt that calling someone a "dirty negro" was a racist insult.

A little music criticism, from the New York Sun: For a review of a concert celebrating (the composer) George Perle's 90th birthday, please go here. For a review of a recital by the pianist Garrick Ohlsson — and a review of a concert of the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center — please go here.

Jay, I overheard this on the Bob and Tom radio show out of Indy. Comedian Emo Phillips says he's dating a Cuban girl, "and she's teaching me to speak Cuban, which is a lot like Spanish, but with fewer words for luxury items."

Have a story to share with you. My next-door neighbor is a retiree who loves to travel. He and his wife took a trip to India just a few years ago, and found themselves in a smallish town or village. They were approached by a man in his fifties who asked where they were from, and upon learning that they were American he began to ask a number of questions. He had read the Bible and asked many questions about apparent contradictions. He had read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Democracy in America, and asked question after question about America and our customs. He was dressed rather shabbily, but spoke excellent English, and was an NBA fan!

As my neighbor and his wife had to get back on the tour bus, the conversation only lasted about an hour. But just prior to taking his leave the man said to them, "In my religion we believe that how we live in this life determines what life we will lead in the next, so that our rewards are not eternal but must be deserved again and again. I believe that you must have done something extraordinary in your past lives to have been born an American in this one."

And by the way: I hear, or hear about, comments like that Indian man's all the time — in a world that is supposed to be one giant cauldron of America hatred. My eye. (Aren't you glad I cleaned that up for you?)

Jay, The City of Chicago is again sponsoring a Kristkindlmarkt in the City Hall Plaza. It's a nice place to shop and eat German-style. I guess that, like saying "Feliz Navidad," the name is okay because it's not English.

Did I ever tell you about the singer who, in a tree-lighting ceremony, was requested to sing "O Christmas Tree" and "Silent Night" — only he was required to sing them in German, lest religious words (e.g., "Christmas") offend certain ears? (The presumption was that German would be safer, before an American audience.)

Dear Jay: In regards to the kindergarten class that thinks Santa's "ho" refers to jollies rather than jollity, rest assured: All hope is not yet lost.

[The letter-writer is referring to the item that appeared at the end of Monday's Impromptus.]

I live outside rural Lampasas, Texas, where the year's largest festival is still called "Spring Ho." (Oddly enough, it's in July and refers to the city's healing springs, not the season.)

The festival comes complete with a pair of beauty pageants whose winners are proudly and innocently dubbed . . . Miss Spring Ho and Little Miss Spring Ho.

Dear Mr. Nordlinger, Thank you for your article "December's C-Word" from December 2003. [That article is found here.] It's because of articles like yours that parents at our public school took action. Every Christmas, the 5th graders have hummed "Silent Night" rather than sing it. A number of us felt it was offensive that the students were not allowed to sing the song and also that the students never sang a real Christmas carol. They sang religious Hanukah songs and even a Kwanza song. Well, this year the principal responded to our complaints and the 5th graders are actually going to sing "Silent Night." This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Thanks for raising the issues regarding Christmas.

Wait, are your referring to my latest, 'Why Americans Win Wars?' which is coming out May 06, or the history of journalism I'm still working on? I don't know when that one will be finished. I have a ton of analysis to do: I collected editorials, two per month, from each of the five leading papers (NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Atlanta Journal) for a 12-year period to analyze the shift over time.

I'm still trying to explain that change. Part of it was a general "religiosity" that still clung to assuptions about a higher truth, so all reporting must be tempered with that in mind. For ex., there were some subjects that even Scripps or Pulitzer would not cover, as they thought it encouraged more immoral behavior (and Scripps was NOT a Christian, and hated religion).

I think, most of all, that this shows the "atheist's dilemma," which is that absent God, there is nothing to keep the train on the tracks, for eventually all logic says "you have your view of what is right and I have mine. Who's to say which is better?" and then you have chaos. That is where the MSM is today---no contraints, no view of basic good or of evil. Just the "story." In the book I'm working on about this, I quote an ad you might remember from the 1980s by ABC, where Peter Jennings ends by saying, "There is no truth, only news." Huh? If that is true, then that sentence is irrelevant---why should anyone believe that statement?

For the life of me, I cannot figure out all these anti-American libs. (I've thought about this a LOT). And there's NO question it's antipathy for their country that informs their politics.

Is is it their genes? Whatever it is, it seems to be a pattern that such people are less inhibited from vile language/behavior. The Dems "scorched earth" politics remind me a lot of the "Dis culture" of gangsta rap. These people also display an uncanny sense of moral superiority. (As a conservative, I don't think of myself as superior---more like, just normal.)

I'm serious. What makes a person derive all his political positions from his belief that America is evil, stupid, corrupt, etc.? For some young people it can be put down to being "fashionable". But it makes no sense whatsoever when we're talking about well-to-do senators and the like. But it's not just posturing. Their knee-jerk response to most subjects is to blame America, find fault with soldiers/policemen, etc.

What explains this?! I just don't believe a normal, rational person can hold these beliefs while living in this society and being almost "lionized" for "holding America accountable".

In the book I'm working on about this, I quote an ad you might remember from the 1980s by ABC, where Peter Jennings ends by saying, "There is no truth, only news."

Seems like I would remember that - if I had heard it.
How, you might ask, could I have avoided hearing it? By then I had learned from Reed Irvine's "Accuracy in Media" newsletter that "the media" were "biased," and I no longer believed that the public-spirited citizen naturally followed broadcast journalism. In fact, I had begun treating broadcast news as an ad for a product I wouldn't buy. For example, I have a clock radio set to come on at the start of Rush's show - not at 12:00 but 12:06, after "the news."
I confess the TV is on a lot during the evening, but unless I'm tuning in a football game I virtually forget that the broadcast bands even exist.

Interesting points re Mencken on FDR and the New Deal policies. Seems the Dims may not have been in lockstep then as they are now. I've never done any research on FDR, but I'd be curious to know if he may have been a student of the social experiment that was the Bolshevik revolution and its progress(?). Was he in fact a socialist at heart???

Clemens' quotes are as accurate today as they were when he made 'em. Going back even farther, Thomas Jefferson had many unkind words re the media of the day. Now, these two fellows at least didn't appear to make any distinctions that I'm aware of when it came to the media. Their media vs our media so to speak. I don't know of any comments attributable to either one praising their contemporaries in the media. Interesting in and of itself.

So the system worked even with a flaw at its core - the flaw that even if your actual perspective is benign it is arrogant to believe that your can trnascend your own perspective and actually be objective.

The flaw may be fatal unless the BOD's and/or editors are willing to revisit/reinstate the hard and fast rules they established for themselves to mitigate bias. I don't know if it's too late for the MSM to revive itself or not. They have allowed(?) the internet and talk radio in particular to make huge inroads into their kingdom. Whether by choice or by chance, the result is the same; they are bleeding profusely. From where I sit, the conservative media appears to be gaining on 'em.

You might argue the point, but LS's comments re the loss of a religious foundation that was once shared by those in the media makes a lot of sense. Relativism is the bastard child of a media, or culture, without a moral compass. A "Ten Commandants of Journalism" might do wonders for their bottom lines. And the good they could do...

What makes a person derive all his political positions from his belief that America is evil, stupid, corrupt, etc.? For some young people it can be put down to being "fashionable". But it makes no sense whatsoever when we're talking about well-to-do senators and the like. But it's not just posturing. Their knee-jerk response to most subjects is to blame America, find fault with soldiers/policemen, etc.

What explains this?! I just don't believe a normal, rational person can hold these beliefs while living in this society and being almost "lionized" for "holding America accountable".

I think it's a kind of desperation for adequacy and it is, ironically, found at both extremes of American society. In the poor it is, seemingly, explicable: "I don't have, and everyone else does, so what does that make me?" In the rich it seems to be a combination of condescending pity for "the poor" (who BTW are as well off as the middle class was fifty years ago) and a desire to manifest distinctness from the middle class.
The middle class has no desire to tear down the rich and can't afford to patronize "the poor," since its separation from that status is a work in progress.
In any event, the phenomenon of American antiAmericanism puts me in mind of the story of the Almanac editor who received a draft prediction of the year's weather and called up its author:
"Look here," the editor said. "You are predicting that it will snow on the tenth of July. In all of recorded history it has never snowed on the tenth of July."
"No," the author replied, "and it probably won't this year either - but if it does, I'll be the darnedest prophet that ever lived!"
These people are so desperate to be superior to middle America that they make fantastic claims - and if any of them ever pans out they will, at least in their own minds, be amazing prophets.

>"but I'd be curious to know if he may have been a student of the social experiment that was the Bolshevik revolution and its progress(?). Was he in fact a socialist at heart???"<

-FDR was a Commie.

"Stalin is my brother"~ FDR

http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/RoadRussia/index.html

"There is no menace here in Communism...there is nothing wrong with the Communists in this country. Several of my best friends are Communist."~FDR

I collected editorials, two per month, from each of the five leading papers (NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Atlanta Journal) for a 12-year period to analyze the shift over time.

Your reference to "editorials" didn't hit me until several days after reading your post. I have meant to get back to you on this point but have been distracted by other "issues". First of all, what 12 year period of time are you looking at. Was this a period of time in which you believe the newspapers were pretty much reporting straight news and leaving their opinions/advocacy on the editorial pages? IOW, could the news pages be trusted to have very little in the way of "advocacy" journalism??? I suppose what I'm trying to determine is will looking at just the editorials during this period of time develop the clues you seek?

FGS

You make a good point, but I think if we can show a shift in the editorials that is obvious, it will go a long way toward arguing for media bias (it may not prove that bias affected news---a bogus claim, IMHO, but it would prove something).

Our sample is 12 years, 1958-1970; LA Times, WaPo, NY Times, Atlanta Constitution, and Cleveland Plain Dealer. It's gonna be a baseball bat between the eyes of the MSM.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.