Hyphenated Americans

Something I happened across a while ago, apparently by Theodore Roosevelt. His feelings about "hyphenated Americans" are compelling and intruiging.

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

Farenheit Whatever

I just finished watching Farhenheit 9/11, and am now even more qualified to state my opinion of it. Surprise, surprise! I've completely changed my mind.

I no longer have any problem with people seeing this movie. I only got about 30% in before I stopped "disproving" the assertions and just sat back for the ride. It made me laugh multiple times, and although I thought the bit with the greiving mother was kind of overly sentimental for a comedy, I am forced to agree that it's a slick bit of moviemaking.

I rest assured that in time, someone will agitate me into actually writing something that takes the "message" of the movie seriously. Hopefully if you're reading this - it won't be you.

Unfairenheit 9/11

I'm no big fan of Christopher Hitchens, who for all his claims of being a hard-core liberal seems to agree with my "neo-con" perspective all too frequently, but his review of Moore's latest MTV movie illustrates from experience what I already expected.

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."

Unlike Moore's other recent movies, I'll likely endure viewing this one the moment it hits the net. As Hitchens points out and as I already knew, there is no point in arguing the validity of Moore's movies, since they are flat entertainment with little to no connection to factual information. Still, I'll need to be prepared to educate it's victims.

* Update *
Here's a counter-point to Hitchen's piece.

* Update 2 *
Andrew Sullivan weighs in with this:

"Some more thoughts on the Gibson/Moore parallels. It occurred to me as I witnessed the unanimity in the audience watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" that I had been in a similar situation before. Yes - this was exactly what it felt like at an early showing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Both movies were designed for people who already held - as theological certitude - the basic line of the work. Both used the most egregious devices of propaganda to reinforce this point. Gibson used extreme and constant violence - as if to say that recoiling from that horror was proof that his vision of Christianity was correct. The loving camera shots of pure pornographic pain and gore were devices to end thought, short-cut any audience autonomy, and reinforce orthodoxy. And that was Moore's device as well. The long views of the faces of various villains; the camera edits to create menace; the emotional manipulation of a bereaved mother; the swelling, ominous orchestral swoops. All we didn't have was a Pieta scene. One was designed for the unthinking hordes of the far right; the other for the unthinking hordes of the far left. Both were deeply depressing indicators of how far our culture has curdled into unthought and emotional extremism. Neither sought to convert or explain or persuade. Both were designed to bludgeon the viewer into ideological conformity. And if you resist? You are a heretic or a dupe. Whatever happened to "intelligent viewer"?

Farenheit 911

I have yet to see it but someone else did and this is their take on the film.
Juan Cole
I am actually looking forward to watching the film, I know a lot of folks who have seen it and the general concensus is that it works well within the framework of what it is trying to do and say, which is to open flood gates to wash the Bubba out of the cloth of America. I will do a review when I see it.

Ing

9/11 Commission analysis

Once again, I'm nearly brought to my knees by trying to make it through one of Dan Darling's postings, but this 9/11 commission report analysis is too deep to pass up on.

Part One
Part Two

Russia warned US about Saddam terrorism?

Here's a great example of facts that just confuse me. Apparently Russian intelligence thought Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against the US (link).

Um. Ok. I don't really trust Russian anything, particularly after their hard jockeying for power during the Iraq war run-up, but what on Earth is Putin talking about this for? The article says there was no evidence of said potential terrorist attack, but then says that these intelligence folks gave warning. Were these warnings pulled out of thin air? Maybe, who knows? If it's true (or was true, rather), does anybody care? What the hell do you do with information like this?

It's articles like these that make me kinda laugh to myself about trying to get an ants-eye view of the human world.

Respect for the dead (Reagan)?

While watching the long, elaborate, final funeral of Ronald Reagan, I found myself thinking about all the vitriolic and outright hateful things people had written and said about his death. I began to wonder about the notion of respecting the dead - or at least respecting death. I wondered about people who I think are truly terrible people, like Michael Moore or Senator Robert Byrd, and whether or not I would raise a cheer if they were to die. I don't feel that I would. I think I save that degree of hatred for truly malicious people, like Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein... or Osama Bin Laden.

Malicious: motivated by or resulting from a desire to cause harm or pain to others

I don't think that fits Ronnie.

In the end, I'm not sure how even I feel about celebrating someones death. It seems somehow ultimately petty. They're dead, and my joy only reflects something about myself - not about them. If Ronald Reagan's death has done anything, it's made me reassess my own feelings about hatred. Hell, that's something.

Info Node: Policy Review article

I've been trying to RTWT here, but I'm not well enough yet to handle it.

Read it. Tell me what it means.

"Are no" and "were no"

The difference between "...are no WMDs" and "...were no WMDs" is this.

I thought I might start...

This whole act of write write write by letting a real writer voice out his thoughts. This is of course, a link to an opinion piece by good 'ole Kurt Vonnegut.

Cold Turkey

Just as a side, I have yet to come up with anything quite meaty enough for the inaugural blog bit about my side of politicking.

p.s.
I just did a spell check using blogger based spell check and it did not recognize the word "blog". What a hoot...

Smoking Liberty or Death?

From Peggy Noonan on OpinionJournal.com's site. The piece itself covers a lot of stuff I'd like to just pass over to get to this segment:

"NBC reported Monday night that there is a new movement in California to ban smoking on public beaches. This is much more serious than the fact that if the law passes young people on beach blankets will no longer be able to break the ice by asking, "Got a light?" The NBC report came on right before I watched Tom Selleck chain-smoke through "Ike." It looked like such a liberated thing to do, smoking without care or guilt.
There is a great lie out there that they didn't know smoking was dangerous in Ike's day, but of course they knew. They knew because they coughed, they knew because their lungs ached, they knew because when they smoked it produced phlegm, they knew because doctors told them smoking aggravates tuberculosis, they knew because they have brains, and they knew because smokers were addicted and there is some rough knowledge within the human soul that when you're addicted to something it's probably not good for you. They knew it was dangerous. Hitler was dangerous too. The world was dangerous. They were planning the biggest amphibious invasion in all of human history. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I have come to hate the banners. No, I don't smoke. I just believe in the right of people to be human, to be imperfect and messy and flawed. I don't dislike the banners because they're prissy bullies, though that is reason enough. I dislike them because their work forces us to look at the shift in values in our country in our time. As I watched the NBC report, I actually thought to myself: I want to make sure I understand. If you smoke a cigarette on a beach in modern America you are harming the innocent. If you have a baby scraped from your womb, you are protecting your freedom. If you sell a pack of cigarettes to a 12-year-old boy you can be jailed, fined and sent to Guantanamo Bay with the other killers. If you sell a pack of contraceptives to a 12 year old boy in modern America you are socially responsible citizen.

For reasons that call for an essay of their own, and as we all know, the banners of cigarettes are on and of the left, and the resisters of the banners are on the right. Once the banners of liquor were of the right and its legalizers of the left. The banners of drugs were on the right and the legalizers on the left.

Why did the left change its stance on what it calls personal freedom regarding cigarettes and cigars? What was the logic? And please, if you are on the left, would you answer this question for me? How come the only organ the left insists be chaste is the lung? What is this pulmocentrism? Why are lungs so special? Why can't you endanger your own lungs? Why don't you care as much about livers? Don't the Democrats have a liver lobby?

I think that it is true that there is no individual human on earth that I hate. But when I think of the banners I think of what the old news producer told the bureaucrat who fired him in a cost-cutting campaign in "Broadcast News." At the end of their meeting the bureaucrat asked in unctuous tones if there was anything he could do to help. The producer thought. "Well, I certainly hope you die soon," he said. A great cinematic moment. I wish the banners would go away and stop bothering our country."

... aaand - DISCUSS!

Heroes

Superman. John Wayne. Tom Hanks. Malcomn X. Eleanor Roosevelt. We can consider our heroes and be inspired. I'll steal from Angel (the TV show) and quote:

"That's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be."

Some of us recognize our innate ability to withstand enormous pressure and suffering, born from an unwilling recognition of our own endurance. We recognize our failings, our weaknesses, our terrible limitations, and strive to endeavor for things greater than ourselves not because of some desperate hope but rather an understanding that we are not special and by that very awareness are given an opportunity to share our uncommon potential with everyone.

We know we're weak, fallible, flawed. We know that we're not special. Our goal is to reach out to those around us and through striving to create what is seemingly impossible for ourselves, demonstrate the manifest possibility for others to do the same.

Join us if you can, if you wish.