 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought January 22, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
On January 16th I attended the 22nd annual Martin Luther King, Jr. dinner sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality. Held in the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers, suffice it to say, I had an opportunity to meet a large number of very prominent Americans. The keynote speaker was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who delivered a fairly pro-forma speech on the meaning of Dr. King’s life, but what interested me were the many representatives of some of the nation’s most important corporations who have been longtime CORE supporters. In an era when corporate America is unfailingly depicted as exploiters and evil, companies like ExxonMobil, Pfizer, Northstar- Foley Contracting, Coca-Cola, Mutual of America, L’Oreal USA, and so many others were represented. Rarely, if ever, does the public learn that every corporate sponsor of CORE has a long record of humanitarian service. Because its political and social philosophy is conservative, CORE is an Afro-American organization that gets very little notice in the media for its own programs to improve the lives of blacks in America and around the world. Indeed, it’s founder, Roy Innis, in greeting the several hundred guests, took special notice of the tide of “indecency” that is so frequently identified as black culture in the form of rap music, the ways blacks permit themselves to be portrayed in films and on television, and what too often passes for humor among black comedians. He decried this trend and called on the Black community in America to reject it. This kind of criticism is not known to the wider public because the media wants to focus on people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and, on the same day as the dinner, comments by New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin, who blamed Hurricane Katrina as God’s retribution to the Bush administration for the liberation of Iraq and the subsequent effort to assist Iraqis establish a democratic nation. Nagin then went on to say that New Orleans would be “chocolate at the end of the day…this city will be a majority African-American city,” said Nagin. “It’s the way God wants it to be. You can’t have New Orleans no other way.” Let it be said that Ray Nagin is an idiot. And a bigot. His performance before, during and after Katrina was a disgrace. At least he is consistent. While Mayor Nagin was grabbing headlines in New Orleans as the Big Easy’s new prophet of God, in New York at the CORE dinner, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi was accepting an award to the people of that State. In that unique Southern drawl of his, he related to the multi-racial audience gathered to celebrate Dr. King, how proud he was of Mississippi’s people who came together to help each other regardless of race, regardless of whether they were rich or poor, after Katrina’s rampage. He told the audience he was proud that Mississippi had the highest number of blacks elected to public office of any U.S. state. I looked in vain for any media coverage of the Governor’s comments, nor was there mention of any of the other proceedings of the 22-year-old event. Also while the attendees and honorees at the CORE dinner were breaking bread together, Sen. Hillary Clinton, a carpetbagger from Arkansas who now claims New York as her political base, was addressing an audience, telling them that the House of Representatives was a Republican “plantation” with all the attendant connotations of that description. She apparently forgot that the Democrat Party ran Congress for some forty years before the Republican Revolution of 1994, insuring that segregation and poll taxes would be the rule of law in many Southern States. Finally, on the same day, former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., was declaring that the President should be impeached or at least investigated for tapping the phone calls of potential enemies of the United States calling from overseas to perhaps plot the deaths of Americans. Since losing his bid to become the nation’s most certifiably crazy president, Gore has never lost an opportunity to make a complete fool of himself. In sum, those Democrats elected to positions of leadership around the nation managed to disgrace themselves in various paroxysms of stupidity and bigotry to remind the rest of us why the Republicans are, indeed, in control of the White House and Congress, and why decent, hardworking Afro-Americans should look to organizations like CORE to represent them. |
|||||
I wasn’t too surprised to hear Nagin’s recent comments regarding a "Chocolate City." He is of course back peddling and trying to explain himself to no avail. The entire political system in Louisiana is now showing itself for what it is again. Nagin’s comments have to have alienated just about every friend he managed to make earlier in the aftermath of Katrina. He has taken the blame for that which he managed to mismanage. Now he has to take the blame for being the new Earl Butz. For those of you who don’t remember, he made a few comments about how to make the blacks happy or shall I say, how to appease them. There was another rather stupid error on his part when he was talking about the Pope. The Pope had just made comments about not using birth control. In an off record comment he said something like, "He no-a play-a dah game…. He no-a make-a dah rules." He trusted a reporter and made the comment off the record, another sign of bad judgment. It was all over the news the next day. Nagin has almost nothing left of the bridge he built to DC. There is little left but a crater where that bridge used to be, a crater with a certain special nuclear glow to it. The people in Slidell are having trouble going to sleep at night because of that glow. It’s like the sun never sets there any more. Quite a few people are still talking about the damage, or shall we say the mismanagement, of the levees. They are looking for someone to blame for those levees failing. I am personally watching the next big levee blame game issue as it happens bit by bit each and every day. I have now dubbed the west bound I-10 bridge over Lake Pontchartrain "The Bridge to Eternity." Yes it is official — I have actually dubbed something. What an important day this is. (Well, maybe to me it is) New Orleans and the political machine of Louisiana want a six-lane bridge across that lake, so this bridge is only a temporary fix. I’m finding it difficult to understand why since they keep talking about how New Orleans will be smaller now. I guess it is because they know deep down that a lot more people will be driving to New Orleans to work and at five o’clock they’ll be wisely fleeing the murder capital for the safety of their homes across the lake before the sun sets. That will increase the traffic a lot. Such vision. But back to that westbound lane again, the eastbound lane was rebuilt with sections from the westbound lane and right now the speed limit on the eastbound lane is sixty miles per hour. Since some of the sections, and I should say a lot of those sections, in the westbound lane weren’t there after the storm and the rebuilding, that westbound lane is covered with prefabricated spans. The speed limit there is forty miles per hour for trucks and fifty for cars. Right after the bridge was reopened the spans were dead level and quite nice. Two or three weeks later that isn’t the case. If you’re doing the correct speed on that bridge you’re going to get run over. I mean by not only cars, but by trucks as well. When I got on it the first time I had people flying by me and within a week or two the bridge was getting to be a little less level. Already in some of the spans you can see a slight dip. That is because of the higher speeds as people are driving over them. Beginning last week they put out a sign that says "Speed reduced. Driving over the bridge at higher than listed speeds damages the prefabricated spans." Some of the people dropped their speed by ten miles an hour or so, but if you have your window open as they go racing by you can hear the rivets and fasteners creaking and popping. Several days ago I saw an eighteen-wheeler shooting along at about seventy and then suddenly reduce his speed to something like sixty or so. I saw a Louisiana Highway Patrolman pull out. I was pleased they were going to do something about the dim wits ruining the new bridge, but the patrolman didn’t pull the truck over. Instead he rolled right past him. He must have been going to lunch or something because I never did see him again. They could probably slow the speeds down on that bridge and fund the building of New Orleans with the tickets they could hand out in one afternoon, but they won’t do it. That bridge will one day become the bridge to eternity for at least one person, and everyone will wonder how it happened. I just thought I’d tell you how it happened before it does so you won’t listen to the spin when it does. It will be an accident or a simple collapse but Louisiana will probably continue to do nothing and look to DC for solutions when they are part of the problem. By that I mean their inaction. But that might be why I laughed years ago when Bill and Hill said they were building a bridge into the twenty-first century. Democrats are all suffering from ADDS, also known as American Democratic Dissociation Syndrome. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Would it be wrong to root against a man’s career? Would it be wrong to consciously hope for someone—a living, breathing human being—to fail at whatever it is he’s trying to do? What if you didn’t know this man? What if you had no reason to root against him? What if you only hoped for his failure because you liked his work? Would it be wrong? Here’s why I ask: A couple of weeks ago, I saw the trailer for an upcoming comedy called The Benchwarmers, about three grown men who go around the country playing Little League teams in baseball. Now, you probably don’t need me to tell you this premise sounds awful. Personally, though, I’m open-minded and could easily give it a shot. The problem I have with this movie, however, and the reason I’ll most likely avoid it, is its cast. The top two stars are former SNL buddies Rob Schneider and David Spade. And whenever Rob Schneider stars in a movie, it usually turns out to be crap. Now, I’d be all right with that if all this was was another crappy Rob Schneider movie. I’d just chalk it up to the legendary SNL curse—in which former cast members either tragically die or star in movies produced by Adam Sandler—and leave it at that. But the problem is, this is more than just another crappy Rob Schneider movie. Because this movie also stars Jon Heder. And Jon Heder, in case you don’t know, was the guy whose brilliant performance powered the title role of Napoleon Dynamite. This is a problem for me. And it’s a problem for anyone who thought Jon Heder had tons of potential. Rob Schneider represents the opposite of everything you want in a comedy. When he walks by flowers, he kills them. At best, The Benchwarmers figures to be mildly entertaining. But at worst, it figures to be another sad chapter in a series of Rob Schneider movies starting with “The” (such as The Animal and The Hot Chick). This doesn’t bode well for Heder’s career. And it doesn’t bode well for Napoleon Dynamite‘s legacy. This is a shame because Napoleon Dynamite is one of the early 21st century’s most essential movies. It’s an astonishing film, and I’m not afraid to say that—as trendy as saying it may be. I didn’t like this movie the first time I saw it. I liked things about it, of course, but it just didn’t seem so special. Over time, though, it began to sink in. Scenes would replay in my mind. I’d remember Pedro’s priceless lack of expression. I’d hear Kip’s whiny, undetermined voice. I’d think back on that scene where Lyle the farmer eats a sandwich and points into the distance, saying something so garbled and incomprehensible that, to date, I still don’t know what he said (and don’t want to). And I’d start to realize maybe there was something special about this movie after all. When I went back and watched it again (and again, and again), I realized, yep, there was. Now I’m hooked. Napoleon Dynamite‘s characters aren’t just characters. They’re people. And the more you watch them, the more you realize you know these people. Or hell, in high school, maybe you were these people. (I sure was.) That’s why this movie has been the “it"-movie of the last two years. That’s why, wherever you go, you see people wearing “Vote For Pedro” t-shirts. This story of quirky, small town redemption is spot-on perfect. Wherever you’re from, you probably know a Napoleon Dynamite. And whoever you are, you probably have a little Napoleon in you. In many ways, Napoleon Dynamite is more than a movie at this point. It’s a cultural milestone. A work of art. Which is why I suddenly find myself asking the questions posed at the top of this article. Is it wrong to root against a man’s career? What if the only reason you’re rooting against him is because you like his work? As I sit here thinking about The Benchwarmers, I’m just as skeptical as I was when I first saw the trailer a couple of weeks ago. In Napoleon Dynamite, Heder played the ultimate high school idiot. In this one, he apparently plays some kind of retard in a bike helmet. The movie doesn’t look funny, and Heder doesn’t look funny in it. Perhaps I’ll turn out to be wrong about that. I’d like that to be the case. But already it’s clear the typecasting has begun. Even if The Benchwarmers ends up being a pleasant surprise, it seems inevitable now that Heder’s career will eventually parody his role as Napoleon. Once that happens, it will become impossible to separate the actor from the character. I worry about this. It threatens to cheapen a very important movie (provided its own popularity doesn’t cheapen it first). That said, I find myself asking: Should I root against Jon Heder’s success as an actor? Would it be wrong to believe that, for Napoleon to live, his career must die? I mean, the only sure way to prevent Heder from making crappy, Rob Schneider-style movies is to stop him from making movies, period—isn’t it? I feel bad saying that, don’t get me wrong. He technically doesn’t deserve to be scorned yet, so this is sort of a preemptive strike. But Napoleon Dynamite truly is a special movie. It’s important to me and to a lot of other people. If Heder falls into a string of lousy post-Napoleon roles, I can’t help but think it’ll tarnish his first and finest hour. I really don’t want that to happen. Perhaps I have no right to feel this way. Perhaps I’m getting awfully territorial about a simple comedy film. But that’s just the way I feel about this thing. That Benchwarmers trailer left a taste in my mouth like burnt popcorn. I don’t want this taste to overshadow Heder’s work as Napoleon. Of course, the overriding question here—Would it be wrong to root against a man’s career?—would be easier to answer if that man were a career politician or a career hitman. To my knowledge, Jon Heder is neither of these things. He’s just an artist, attempting to make a career from his art. But I think this dilemma speaks to a larger problem within the realm of art and pop culture consumption. Napoleon Dynamite was an underdog film about an underdog person. But the film, like its character, isn’t really an underdog anymore. In the end, it became a big hit. And like any big hit, it figures to jump the proverbial shark at some point down the road. That’s just what big hits do. They capture something special, and people like it, so the folks involved spend the next few years killing the whole concept in an effort to capture that spark again. I remember a couple of years ago, I couldn’t imagine not wanting to see every movie that starred the so-called “Frat Pack” of Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, and Owen Wilson. I still think these guys are funny, of course, but I’m kind of tired of seeing them together all the time. Tragedies like Dodgeball don’t have to happen, if only these guys would branch out more. The same goes for a lot of the bands I’ve listened to over the years. Every now and then, a new artist will show up with a fresh, new sound. People will spend the next two years desperately waiting for a second album as good as the first. And then, when it comes out, it’ll sound exactly the same. But it won’t sound inspired. And no one will care for that band anymore. That’s what appears to be happening to Jon Heder. Obviously, I don’t expect every movie this guy stars in to be as good—or as special—as Napoleon Dynamite. I don’t think it’s possible to indulge in the arts without turning out a piece of garbage every now and then. I think I’ve proven this myself over the years. Sometimes I write stuff that blows my own mind. Other times I turn in an article that makes me want to vomit all over my writing career. I wouldn’t like it if someone told me to stop writing because my best work was already behind me, so I’m willing to give Jon Heder some slack. In answer to the question I posed up top, no, I don’t think it’s wrong to root against a man’s career; but, in fairness to Heder, he hasn’t quite earned his jeers yet. But for the sake of all those Napoleon Dynamite fans out there, I hope and pray Hollywood offers him the kinds of roles that’ll let him branch out more. And I hope and pray that he’ll accept only those sorts of roles. Maybe the industry just doesn’t understand this guy’s genius yet. Or maybe it’ll turn out he’s a remarkably limited actor. I don’t know. And time will tell. I just hope we can find out without marring a very special movie. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives. The only controversy, it seems, is whether the current nominee will favor the power of one branch over another, or the preferences of one political party over another. Last week's hearings were purely political, because the role of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly political. Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial "laws" forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone? Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court. We're being told two very troubling things: First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified. Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions. The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature. Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
Osama bin Laden, who has been in hiding and not heard from in over a year, has offered up a truce. Al-Jazeera, the “terrorist network,” dispatched a portion of his audio message, in which the alleged benefits of cease fire are explained by the Ace of Spades himself. He would have us believe that his offer would satisfy those who desire peace and stability in exchange for our country giving him the consent to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps his Doctor prescribed sunlight to treat Seasonal Affective Disorder and he couldn’t think of any other means to safely exit his cave. One can only hope that those considering his proposal see it as either a desperate attempt to save face because the war against Islamofascism is showing no sign of letting up or as a deliberate attempt to fuel more anti-Bush rhetoric by those in the extreme left; unable to grasp the nature of the threat to our way of life by terrorists pledged to kill anyone unwilling to accept the Sharia version of Muslim faith. Can people seriously imagine for even one minute his claim, "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat,” to be true? If Bush dismisses the ploy he loses in the mainstream media for not taking advantage of the opportunity to end the conflict, regardless of the probability that bin Laden is just buying time. If Bush actually entertained the idea of sitting down and meeting with this extremist, then it will be considered a victory for radical terrorism. His timing couldn’t be better; midterm elections coming up in our own country and the first Palestinian parliamentary election since 1996 scheduled in Israel; where Hamas is running candidates for parliament the very first time. Hamas, long considered a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and Israel and known for launching repeated suicide attacks against Israel, has a charter that calls for Israel's destruction. Meanwhile, Iran is saber rattling by removing UN seals from equipment at Natanz facility. U.S. and European countries are more than a little concerned that assertions claiming Iran is only interested in small-scale nuclear enrichment are fabrications to hide the real intent to produce atomic bombs. Battle lines are blurred but ideological alliances are not. The 21st century Crusades have begun. The ceasefire is colored by plans of a new attack if the U.S. doesn’t accede these insignificant concessions. Basically, what has been submitted is a plan likely to set back any or all freedoms gained in Iraq and Afghanistan. His request brings to mind a recent Israeli decision to yield land to people who want nothing more than to eliminate Israel’s very existence. As soon as the Jewish settlers pulled out of Gaza (under dispute though legitimately seized during the Six Day War), Hamas claimed this took place in deference to the constant barrage of terrorist attacks. Did Israeli leaders really believe anything changed since Yasser Arafat called on his people to fight and eliminate Israel? What did Israel gain in exchange for ceding control over the disputed land in Gaza? One must ask how giving in to bin Laden’s demands would prevent future terrorist attacks or ensure our safety? All that has been put on the table is acquiescence for both sides to reorganize, recruit and train soldiers. In a documentary about people who play Scrabble for sport, there was one segment about two players who have $500.00 riding on winning the best of 50 or so games. One of the opponents is clearly losing and realizes he is going to get cleaned out so he offers his challenger $250.00 to just end the thing. Both agreeing, they move on. Bin Laden hasn’t admitted defeat and he certainly hasn’t offered any reparations for the damage caused by 9/11 or the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 or a host of other terrorist acts in which he has been implicated. The stakes in the war we’re waging haven’t changed and the prize is still the same; democracy and freedom or existence under Sharia law. Given that the President takes very seriously the oath of office he took to uphold and protect the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, he understands exactly what there is to lose. The people of this country have grown accustomed to their freedoms. Are we still willing to fight for them? Reference Links: CIA Confirms Bin Laden's Voice On New Tape Hamas is winning supporters in an old stronghold of Fatah Iran nuclear stand-off escalates Israel and Palestine: A Brief History Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:45 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
