Further to a point touched on last week (I keep doing that. Man, I should have a show on a cable channel where I get to yell at people, I'm so ahead of the analysis curve. Phwwb) here is Marianne Means from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of Sunday June 27 (my blog post on this was June 23. Oh sut up, weasel):
Bush's Nixon Moment: "I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture"
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
The Temperature That Hypocricy Burns At?
Its official: “Fahrenheit 911” came out of the blocks as the biggest grossing film of the weekend here in the United States, despite uneven nationwide distribution. A scan of the Portland Press Herald shows that it is only showing on one screen out of a potential fifty in Maine’s largest city but in a phone call from Brooklyn, NY, my old chum Alex testified that the line stretched around the block at his local fleapit on opening night. Corporate media has been doing its best to cast aspersions on Michael Moore’s integrity and methodology but Fat Mike from Flint has said himself to anyone who will listen that this is a partisan film and people are still flocking to the theaters. Perhaps his mistake was not claiming that his portrayal is “fair and balanced” like Fox News, or that he has “talent on loan from God” as Rush Limbaugh likes to describe himself. Perhaps Moore is afraid that if he followed Limbaugh’s example the lord as punishment would strike him deaf too.
ABC News, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Disney Corporation that refused to distribute Fahrenheit 911 in the first place, predictably had bad things to say about Moore. As did NBC News, whose parent company GE is heavily vested in military contracts and the reconstruction of Iraq and whose former celebrity CEO Jack Welsh came under fire in Moore’s books Stupid White Men and Dude, Where’s My Country? Despite the fact that neither TV channel declared their rather obvious conflicts of interest in their reporting about Moore’s film, I will give them credit for showing a modicum of balance in their reporting (they applied similar tests to Mel Gibson’s revisionist Passion of the Christ discussed here in March: check the archive)and for showing a great deal of creativity in their attacks (using former terror czar and Bush critic Richard Clarke to nit-pick at a couple of details, for example.) Now if they would only apply the same tests to the daily broadcasts of talk radio….
I do have to give negative marks however to NBC during the same newscast for looking askance at the tough questioning an Irish TV journalist gave to President Bush during his recent stop-over in the Emerald Isle. A puce-colored Bush almost exploded when Irish reporter asked her questions in the probing style of the European media (according to Bob Woodward in his book on the decision to attack Iraq, Plan of Attack, Bush did the same thing to British TV eminence Trevor McDonald in 2002. Pages 119-120). Maybe NBC and the other American networks need to take note of this approach rather than take the offensive stance that a foreigner was being rude to God on earth and should therefore be shipped off to Guantanamo.
My golly gumdrop goodness (to use a Rumsfeld-ism) I’m not suggesting that more aggressive reporting would have any effect on policy. Politicians are far too up their own ass and bought off by corporations to ever fully listen to the questions and for most of the public journalists are on a par with their slimy subjects when it comes to trustworthy-ness. Besides, Britain has an incredibly, deliciously feral press and Tony Blair ignored them (and his constituent population) so that he could join in the war started by his toothpaste sharing buddy George. However, although powerless to affect policy, aggressive and fair journalism can be instructive to the voting public and is fantastically fun to watch. After all, it is important to remember in this time of state funerals and elections that politicians work for us. Therefore journalists should ask the questions that best serve their viewers, listeners, and readers, not their chances of access to the club of celebrity. Michael Moore, in his biased and satirical way, is doing this, which may be why the mainstream media is so keen to pull him down as if he was a statue of Saddam Hussein.
Ironically the most glowing review for Fahrenheit 911 among the mainstream broadcast media came from Fox News. No doubt for his mistake the reviewer has been reassigned to covering sewage issue in Baton Rouge.
What is maddening is that the media is prepared to be (rightfully)skeptical of someone like Michael Moore and is willing to devote time and resources to fact-checking every line in Fahrenheit 911 (good) but prefers to take administration policy at face value (bad). Here’s an idea; instead of continuing to acquiesce to politicians (the people’s servants not masters)how about the media taking the rigor they show examining Moore, Mel Gibson, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson and turn it on those who claim to be working on our behalf? Its time for them to act as the fourth estate once more. The press should serve as an important role as the Supreme Court as a check and a balance on the legislative and executive branches of government. They are the tribunes of the people; they should be standing in the chariot of the Emperor, whispering in his ear “you are just a man.” Then perhaps “We report, you decide” can be more than the hollow and cynical slogan of Rupert Murdoch’s spin machine.
ABC News, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Disney Corporation that refused to distribute Fahrenheit 911 in the first place, predictably had bad things to say about Moore. As did NBC News, whose parent company GE is heavily vested in military contracts and the reconstruction of Iraq and whose former celebrity CEO Jack Welsh came under fire in Moore’s books Stupid White Men and Dude, Where’s My Country? Despite the fact that neither TV channel declared their rather obvious conflicts of interest in their reporting about Moore’s film, I will give them credit for showing a modicum of balance in their reporting (they applied similar tests to Mel Gibson’s revisionist Passion of the Christ discussed here in March: check the archive)and for showing a great deal of creativity in their attacks (using former terror czar and Bush critic Richard Clarke to nit-pick at a couple of details, for example.) Now if they would only apply the same tests to the daily broadcasts of talk radio….
I do have to give negative marks however to NBC during the same newscast for looking askance at the tough questioning an Irish TV journalist gave to President Bush during his recent stop-over in the Emerald Isle. A puce-colored Bush almost exploded when Irish reporter asked her questions in the probing style of the European media (according to Bob Woodward in his book on the decision to attack Iraq, Plan of Attack, Bush did the same thing to British TV eminence Trevor McDonald in 2002. Pages 119-120). Maybe NBC and the other American networks need to take note of this approach rather than take the offensive stance that a foreigner was being rude to God on earth and should therefore be shipped off to Guantanamo.
My golly gumdrop goodness (to use a Rumsfeld-ism) I’m not suggesting that more aggressive reporting would have any effect on policy. Politicians are far too up their own ass and bought off by corporations to ever fully listen to the questions and for most of the public journalists are on a par with their slimy subjects when it comes to trustworthy-ness. Besides, Britain has an incredibly, deliciously feral press and Tony Blair ignored them (and his constituent population) so that he could join in the war started by his toothpaste sharing buddy George. However, although powerless to affect policy, aggressive and fair journalism can be instructive to the voting public and is fantastically fun to watch. After all, it is important to remember in this time of state funerals and elections that politicians work for us. Therefore journalists should ask the questions that best serve their viewers, listeners, and readers, not their chances of access to the club of celebrity. Michael Moore, in his biased and satirical way, is doing this, which may be why the mainstream media is so keen to pull him down as if he was a statue of Saddam Hussein.
Ironically the most glowing review for Fahrenheit 911 among the mainstream broadcast media came from Fox News. No doubt for his mistake the reviewer has been reassigned to covering sewage issue in Baton Rouge.
What is maddening is that the media is prepared to be (rightfully)skeptical of someone like Michael Moore and is willing to devote time and resources to fact-checking every line in Fahrenheit 911 (good) but prefers to take administration policy at face value (bad). Here’s an idea; instead of continuing to acquiesce to politicians (the people’s servants not masters)how about the media taking the rigor they show examining Moore, Mel Gibson, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson and turn it on those who claim to be working on our behalf? Its time for them to act as the fourth estate once more. The press should serve as an important role as the Supreme Court as a check and a balance on the legislative and executive branches of government. They are the tribunes of the people; they should be standing in the chariot of the Emperor, whispering in his ear “you are just a man.” Then perhaps “We report, you decide” can be more than the hollow and cynical slogan of Rupert Murdoch’s spin machine.
Friday, June 25, 2004
History Friday: Happy Birthday Orwell
Happy birthday, George Orwell! One of the greatest and most precient writers of English ever to have lived, George Orwell (born Eric Blair in 1903)was part of the long tradition of British writers who advocated a nation, and ultimately a world, becoming at peace with itself through social justice. He stood for fairness, moderation over extremism, and the negation of privilege in all its forms; be it the disproportionate influence of the monied classes in democracies or the iron grip of ideologues in totalitarian states.
His writing was so groundbreaking, "Orwellian" has become a (misapplied) cliche of both the right and the left used to describe the consolidation of power by the party in control of the Houses of Parliament, Congress, or the White House. Misapplied because to be "Orwellian" is to oppose and expose the mundane daily evil that underpins totalitarianism, rather than to incrementally adopt those same evils as ways of increasing one's power. However, this is a small semantic quibble. I am glad that in this time of functional illiteracy people still recognise "Orwellian" as shorthand for the abuses they read about in Animal Farm and 1984.
In getting ready to celebrate the birthday of one of my favorite writers, I stumbled across this fantastic site that does more than I ever could to illustrate the sheer brilliance of his writing and opinions:
George Orwell
If George Orwell had lived longer than his 47 years, I feel that he would have only become better as a writer. I have a hunch that he would have followed a similar evolution as Graham Greene, as the cynicism so evident in 1984 would most likely have grown as the cold war deepened and the global assault of the corporations picked up speed.
This wouldn't be a proper "History Friday" unless I included a parallel to today, so now to Orwell and the Bush administration. Bearing in mind the caveats outlined above, indulge me in the parlour game: which mythical totalitarian state are the Bushies more inclined towards? Is it:
a) Aldous Huxley's Brave New World
or
b) George Orwell's 1984
The answer is of course b). Yes, the Bushies are so stupid and arrogant, they don't even attempt to gild the bars of the cage they are trying to herd us into. At least Clinton realized that if the last vestiges of democratic control were to be slowly siphoned off into the hands of multi-national corporations, he might as well try to make the worker drones as fat and happy as possible. Hence, the 90s were all soma and sex: Huxley. Under Bush, people are poorer, more fearful, in a constant state of war, and a wealthy elite make very little effort to sugar coat draconian security measures they say are for "our own safety".
So happy birthday, Eric Blair. You helped shape my view of the world and my politics; thank you a thousand times.
His writing was so groundbreaking, "Orwellian" has become a (misapplied) cliche of both the right and the left used to describe the consolidation of power by the party in control of the Houses of Parliament, Congress, or the White House. Misapplied because to be "Orwellian" is to oppose and expose the mundane daily evil that underpins totalitarianism, rather than to incrementally adopt those same evils as ways of increasing one's power. However, this is a small semantic quibble. I am glad that in this time of functional illiteracy people still recognise "Orwellian" as shorthand for the abuses they read about in Animal Farm and 1984.
In getting ready to celebrate the birthday of one of my favorite writers, I stumbled across this fantastic site that does more than I ever could to illustrate the sheer brilliance of his writing and opinions:
George Orwell
If George Orwell had lived longer than his 47 years, I feel that he would have only become better as a writer. I have a hunch that he would have followed a similar evolution as Graham Greene, as the cynicism so evident in 1984 would most likely have grown as the cold war deepened and the global assault of the corporations picked up speed.
This wouldn't be a proper "History Friday" unless I included a parallel to today, so now to Orwell and the Bush administration. Bearing in mind the caveats outlined above, indulge me in the parlour game: which mythical totalitarian state are the Bushies more inclined towards? Is it:
a) Aldous Huxley's Brave New World
or
b) George Orwell's 1984
The answer is of course b). Yes, the Bushies are so stupid and arrogant, they don't even attempt to gild the bars of the cage they are trying to herd us into. At least Clinton realized that if the last vestiges of democratic control were to be slowly siphoned off into the hands of multi-national corporations, he might as well try to make the worker drones as fat and happy as possible. Hence, the 90s were all soma and sex: Huxley. Under Bush, people are poorer, more fearful, in a constant state of war, and a wealthy elite make very little effort to sugar coat draconian security measures they say are for "our own safety".
So happy birthday, Eric Blair. You helped shape my view of the world and my politics; thank you a thousand times.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Politicians Should Avoid Comparing Themselves To People
With just days to go before the official transfer of sovereignty from the US military junta to the Iraqi kleptocratic interim government, the Bush administration is still reeling from pillar to post from new revelations of mismanagement and sadism in its various foreign misadventures.
Goaded by reports that the supposed "few bad apples" who tortured Iraqi prisoners were not acting independently but rather instead represented the logical conclusion of the Bush administration's abrogation of the Geneva Convention and human rights in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Baghdad, George and the boys released a partial record of their deliberations on the question of torture:
White House Releases Files on Interrogating Detainees (From NPR)
and:
Papers show US torture debate (from the BBC)
President Bush, it what sounds like a non-denial denial, stated that he did not or will not order the use of torture. He even used his indignant voice, which as the past four years have shown usually means he is trying to be clever and parse his words. And remember that presidents are usually at their most emphatic just before the bucket of shit falls on their heads: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "we did not trade arms for hostages." Ann Applebaum's take on the subject is quite interesting:
So torture is legal?
The star of the day once again however was Little Donnie Rumsfeld, the Robert MacNamara of the new century. On one of the memos discussing the possible use of torture, Rumsfeld states that as he is capable of standing up for eight hours at a stretch, why can't detainees?
Hats off to Rumsfeld. Not only is he Secretary of Defense (with the biggest desk in Washington DC: cool trivia nugget there) he also apparently has a second job, soldering the joins on Oreck vaccum cleaners in a Alexandria, VA factory. There he stands for eight hours, soldering away by touch only as he is hooded, while attack dogs nip at his naked ankles. Every 10 minutes Specialist Lindy England pops out to give him the thumbs up.
Rumsfeld wants to be careful opening up this can of worms. Does he really want people taking guidance from politicians on how to behave? On both sides of the Atlantic there are more than enough bad examples from the ranks of public service. Already it seems that guards at Abu Grahib prison took the lead from the late British politician Steven Milligan, who was found dead in his apartment dressed in women's underwear hanging from a lamp fixture with an orange in his mouth.
Being too tough to need a chair in emulation of Rumsfeld is one thing, but do we really want to screw interns, bug our opponents' offices, ram our car off bridges or into motorcyclists, fall down the steps of aircraft, puke on the Japanese Prime Minister, call Princess Diana "David", cozy up to racists, take a kickbacks from industry cronies, fall off segway human transporters, or choke on pretzels just so that we can be like our leaders? Shouldn't such behavior be confined to the more dignified setting of NBC TV's Fear Factor?
Goaded by reports that the supposed "few bad apples" who tortured Iraqi prisoners were not acting independently but rather instead represented the logical conclusion of the Bush administration's abrogation of the Geneva Convention and human rights in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Baghdad, George and the boys released a partial record of their deliberations on the question of torture:
White House Releases Files on Interrogating Detainees (From NPR)
and:
Papers show US torture debate (from the BBC)
President Bush, it what sounds like a non-denial denial, stated that he did not or will not order the use of torture. He even used his indignant voice, which as the past four years have shown usually means he is trying to be clever and parse his words. And remember that presidents are usually at their most emphatic just before the bucket of shit falls on their heads: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "we did not trade arms for hostages." Ann Applebaum's take on the subject is quite interesting:
So torture is legal?
The star of the day once again however was Little Donnie Rumsfeld, the Robert MacNamara of the new century. On one of the memos discussing the possible use of torture, Rumsfeld states that as he is capable of standing up for eight hours at a stretch, why can't detainees?
Hats off to Rumsfeld. Not only is he Secretary of Defense (with the biggest desk in Washington DC: cool trivia nugget there) he also apparently has a second job, soldering the joins on Oreck vaccum cleaners in a Alexandria, VA factory. There he stands for eight hours, soldering away by touch only as he is hooded, while attack dogs nip at his naked ankles. Every 10 minutes Specialist Lindy England pops out to give him the thumbs up.
Rumsfeld wants to be careful opening up this can of worms. Does he really want people taking guidance from politicians on how to behave? On both sides of the Atlantic there are more than enough bad examples from the ranks of public service. Already it seems that guards at Abu Grahib prison took the lead from the late British politician Steven Milligan, who was found dead in his apartment dressed in women's underwear hanging from a lamp fixture with an orange in his mouth.
Being too tough to need a chair in emulation of Rumsfeld is one thing, but do we really want to screw interns, bug our opponents' offices, ram our car off bridges or into motorcyclists, fall down the steps of aircraft, puke on the Japanese Prime Minister, call Princess Diana "David", cozy up to racists, take a kickbacks from industry cronies, fall off segway human transporters, or choke on pretzels just so that we can be like our leaders? Shouldn't such behavior be confined to the more dignified setting of NBC TV's Fear Factor?
Friday, June 18, 2004
History Friday: Is Kerry Our Louis Philippe?
There is a theory gaining traction among political scientists that the coup that bought George W. Bush to power in 2000 was akin to the Bourbon restoration in France after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. The parallels (like most parallels) are a touch sketchy, but interesting nonetheless.
Indeed, much like restored Bourbons Louis XVIII, then Charles X (not a militant French rights fighter you dummy, but king Charles the Tenth) George W. seems intent on ignoring the changes in society and the achievements of the 8 year Clinton interregnum and is feverishly trying to turn the hands of the clock back. Alas, as is so often the case with botched restorations, the successor is often much more extreme than the deposed monarch (Bush seems intent not on restoring the values and times of his father, but rather 19th Century President Ulysses Grant)and ends up in hot water. Hence today's history Friday:
The story of Charles X
Now here's the incomparable Molly Irvins on a subject touched upon here on the Wisdom Weasel; namely the defacto coronation of the American President as an absolute monarch:
This was the day that the Constitution was discarded
Indeed, much like restored Bourbons Louis XVIII, then Charles X (not a militant French rights fighter you dummy, but king Charles the Tenth) George W. seems intent on ignoring the changes in society and the achievements of the 8 year Clinton interregnum and is feverishly trying to turn the hands of the clock back. Alas, as is so often the case with botched restorations, the successor is often much more extreme than the deposed monarch (Bush seems intent not on restoring the values and times of his father, but rather 19th Century President Ulysses Grant)and ends up in hot water. Hence today's history Friday:
The story of Charles X
Now here's the incomparable Molly Irvins on a subject touched upon here on the Wisdom Weasel; namely the defacto coronation of the American President as an absolute monarch:
This was the day that the Constitution was discarded
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
We Report, You Decide...
From the rats leaving the sinking ship department:
Fox News' GLOWING review of Fahrenheit 911
Something must be going on when the "We Distort, You Deride" folks like a Mike Moore film. Still, Rupert Murdoch has changed horses before, as the support given to Tony Blair by his extensive British holdings after years of banging the drum for Margaret Thatcher shows...
So lets recap; Bush has lost the confidence of diplomats, generals, ex-CIA chiefs, admirals, scientists, his own bishops in the United Methodist Church, and now the Fox News movie reviewer. Still, at least he has Rush Limbaugh.
Fox News' GLOWING review of Fahrenheit 911
Something must be going on when the "We Distort, You Deride" folks like a Mike Moore film. Still, Rupert Murdoch has changed horses before, as the support given to Tony Blair by his extensive British holdings after years of banging the drum for Margaret Thatcher shows...
So lets recap; Bush has lost the confidence of diplomats, generals, ex-CIA chiefs, admirals, scientists, his own bishops in the United Methodist Church, and now the Fox News movie reviewer. Still, at least he has Rush Limbaugh.
When You Are Too Crazy for the Generals, You Are Too Crazy for America
Something rotten in the State of Denmark, to borrow a lump of prose from old Bandy Legs Bill, the Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon. President Bush II has proven himself to be so inept, dogmatic, and extreme he has drawn fire from that well known bastion of progressive socialism (tee hee), the US Corps of Retired Diplomats and Generals, Inc. Normally trotted out on cable news to warmly approve the deaths of thousands by playing with toy planes and using technical military dirty talk that excites the anchors, the dogs of war finally seem ready to bite the hand that fed them.
Yes, the people who brought you Gulf War I, Grenada, Panama, Cruise missiles in Europe back in the Cold War days (remember those protests?), and so on believe that Bush is too aggressive and confrontational. Now that's saying something.
A group of retired US ambassadors and senior military figures is set to urge voters to remove President George Bush from office in this year's election.
Bush conducts foreign policy (indeed, any policy) like the super-rich scion of an inbred chunk of the aristocracy he is. All his life, his mistakes have been someone else's mess to deal with. Now of course its no longer a question of drunkenly wrapping his MG around a lamppost and Pop making a contribution to the Police Benevolent Fund (or such like) so that it goes away, but Bush's M/O is pretty much the same.
So he's freaking out the hawk establishment. Who else? Well, this week US scientists, frustrated by the White House's lack of action on any environmental issue, have decided to publicly reveal the extent of their ignored advice to the President and to try and galvanize the public to greater action.
Ten leading US climate scientists spoke on Tuesday of the need for more urgent action to tackle global warming.
Good luck to them, in the land where one of my neighbors uses his lawn tractor to drive the 100 yards from his house to the store.
Regardless of the end result of these attacks from various establishment figures, the fact that they have chosen to do so publicly reveals two things.
1) Bush's policies are so unpopular among smart people (America; clever is a virtue, not a vice.)
2) Bush's team has been uniquely successful in pissing off career civil servants and advisors to the point that they are willing to break government omerta (cf. Richard Clarke, General Anthony Zinni, this latest lot, and most of the experienced members of the National Security team).
Bush claimed that he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider. He seems to be succeding, but perhaps not in the way he intended...
Yes, the people who brought you Gulf War I, Grenada, Panama, Cruise missiles in Europe back in the Cold War days (remember those protests?), and so on believe that Bush is too aggressive and confrontational. Now that's saying something.
A group of retired US ambassadors and senior military figures is set to urge voters to remove President George Bush from office in this year's election.
Bush conducts foreign policy (indeed, any policy) like the super-rich scion of an inbred chunk of the aristocracy he is. All his life, his mistakes have been someone else's mess to deal with. Now of course its no longer a question of drunkenly wrapping his MG around a lamppost and Pop making a contribution to the Police Benevolent Fund (or such like) so that it goes away, but Bush's M/O is pretty much the same.
So he's freaking out the hawk establishment. Who else? Well, this week US scientists, frustrated by the White House's lack of action on any environmental issue, have decided to publicly reveal the extent of their ignored advice to the President and to try and galvanize the public to greater action.
Ten leading US climate scientists spoke on Tuesday of the need for more urgent action to tackle global warming.
Good luck to them, in the land where one of my neighbors uses his lawn tractor to drive the 100 yards from his house to the store.
Regardless of the end result of these attacks from various establishment figures, the fact that they have chosen to do so publicly reveals two things.
1) Bush's policies are so unpopular among smart people (America; clever is a virtue, not a vice.)
2) Bush's team has been uniquely successful in pissing off career civil servants and advisors to the point that they are willing to break government omerta (cf. Richard Clarke, General Anthony Zinni, this latest lot, and most of the experienced members of the National Security team).
Bush claimed that he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider. He seems to be succeding, but perhaps not in the way he intended...
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
History Friday Addendum
Although this makes a mockery of my attempt to impose some sort of cohesion to my posting schedule, this History Friday-style nugget was too interesting to wait three days to post. Besides, this coming weekend marks the marathon celebration of my 31st birthday so there is a good chance that liquor induced radio silence will reign from Das Veasalstag from June 18-June 22.
So without any further ado, some pre-embargo news from Cuba:
Castro asked US president for $10
So without any further ado, some pre-embargo news from Cuba:
Castro asked US president for $10
Monday, June 14, 2004
History Friday, on a Monday II
Yet again, work pressure has pushed History Friday to a Monday. This will never do.
So, its been a very morbid 7 days here in the USA, with God providing us a week with bookends of death. Reagan has been covered here, and I cannot claim anything but a deep but uninformed love for the career of Ray Charles so I shall not disrespect either him or music journalism by adding to the well meaning hot air.
However, with the mind focused on death, this story from the BBC offers an interseting peek into the past and the American way of death.
Miami's pallbearers: A dying breed
So, its been a very morbid 7 days here in the USA, with God providing us a week with bookends of death. Reagan has been covered here, and I cannot claim anything but a deep but uninformed love for the career of Ray Charles so I shall not disrespect either him or music journalism by adding to the well meaning hot air.
However, with the mind focused on death, this story from the BBC offers an interseting peek into the past and the American way of death.
Miami's pallbearers: A dying breed
The Dance Hall Gourmet Gourmand
Dave Stelfox has done it again, writing an evocative pean to the virtues of simple, down home food that even city mice have no excuse not to buy. Read it here:
Dave on the virtues of a good tomato
Further inspiration (alongside the suprisingly strong Maine sun, col'beer, stingyness, and the protestant need to accomplish something over the weekend) to tend to the tomatoes I was finally able to get in the ground on Saturday.
Inspired by Dave's loving descriptions of putting things inside chickens and so on, I humbly offer up last night's dinner at Chez Weasel for your cooking pleasure. For those of you by the way who doubt our qualifications in this area, as Norwich City FC supporters we claim the mantle of Deliah Smith as our own.
CURRIED WHITE FISH
For 2-3
1lb Orange Roughy, halibut, cod, hake, New Zealand wonder-species of dubious origin or other white fish, cut into however many portions you need.
1/2 cup mayonnaise
Tbsp white wine
Tsp dill
Tsp lemon juice
Tsp curry powder
Tsp Garam Masala
Vegetable oil
Coat a baking rack with the vegetable oil while preheating the oven to 350f. Bung the oily rack (wahey!) in a shallow baking tray and elegantly arrange the fish on it.
In a bowl, thoroughly mix the mayo, the wine, dill, lemon (or lime) juice, curry, and garam masala until they are all combined and the resulting paste is smooth, shiny, and just a little runny. At this point I decided to add some tumeric but its not compulsory.
Spread the mayo mixture onto the top side of the fish fillets. Place in the pre-heated oven for 25-30 minutes, based on the thickness of the fish (really stupid fish take longer to cook.)
This is ace with a fresh green salad (from my garden preferably, although not practical for most of you) and either sauteed or boiled new spuds.
Lovely.
Dave on the virtues of a good tomato
Further inspiration (alongside the suprisingly strong Maine sun, col'beer, stingyness, and the protestant need to accomplish something over the weekend) to tend to the tomatoes I was finally able to get in the ground on Saturday.
Inspired by Dave's loving descriptions of putting things inside chickens and so on, I humbly offer up last night's dinner at Chez Weasel for your cooking pleasure. For those of you by the way who doubt our qualifications in this area, as Norwich City FC supporters we claim the mantle of Deliah Smith as our own.
CURRIED WHITE FISH
For 2-3
1lb Orange Roughy, halibut, cod, hake, New Zealand wonder-species of dubious origin or other white fish, cut into however many portions you need.
1/2 cup mayonnaise
Tbsp white wine
Tsp dill
Tsp lemon juice
Tsp curry powder
Tsp Garam Masala
Vegetable oil
Coat a baking rack with the vegetable oil while preheating the oven to 350f. Bung the oily rack (wahey!) in a shallow baking tray and elegantly arrange the fish on it.
In a bowl, thoroughly mix the mayo, the wine, dill, lemon (or lime) juice, curry, and garam masala until they are all combined and the resulting paste is smooth, shiny, and just a little runny. At this point I decided to add some tumeric but its not compulsory.
Spread the mayo mixture onto the top side of the fish fillets. Place in the pre-heated oven for 25-30 minutes, based on the thickness of the fish (really stupid fish take longer to cook.)
This is ace with a fresh green salad (from my garden preferably, although not practical for most of you) and either sauteed or boiled new spuds.
Lovely.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Too Early
NO NO NO NO NO.
Several plans are afoot to see the late former US President Ronald Reagan immortalised on American money.
Its far too early to even consider this. Its pretty tacky that there is already an airport and an aircraft carrier named after him before history has had a chance to assess his legacy fully.
If they want to name a unit of currency after Reagan, how about the IOU in honor of the collossal deficit he created with his wacked out economics?
Several plans are afoot to see the late former US President Ronald Reagan immortalised on American money.
Its far too early to even consider this. Its pretty tacky that there is already an airport and an aircraft carrier named after him before history has had a chance to assess his legacy fully.
If they want to name a unit of currency after Reagan, how about the IOU in honor of the collossal deficit he created with his wacked out economics?
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Perspective.
While we go apeshit crazy with grief over one very, very old man who died surrounded by family and expensive doctors, consider this:
Thousands have been killed and more than 1 million left homeless in a 15-month conflict between Arab militias and the black African population in the western Darfur region of Sudan.
Thousands have been killed and more than 1 million left homeless in a 15-month conflict between Arab militias and the black African population in the western Darfur region of Sudan.
Sharpening Pitchforks for the Gipper.
America has been waiting a while for this. A Commiseration Culture has taken hold in the west over the last 15 years, with everybody’s passing becoming an occasion for public mourning and the whitewashing of records. Until recently, Americans have been reduced to casting envious glances across the Atlantic as the once stoic Brits rent their shirts and gnashed their teeth with all the aplomb of a Greek chorus over the almost self inflicted death of Princess Diana and the long-rehearsed passing of the Queen Mother. With the death of Ronald Reagan they have their own giant tragedy, and like most consumables in our culture America has opted to supersize it.
A hint of the media overkill and self-indulgent wailing inherent in a modern public death was given by the frankly baffling outpourings over the Darwinian demise of the amiable under-achiever John F. Kennedy Jr. Now with the death of Ronald Reagan America is looking to reclaim its rightful place as the champion of excessive public displays of emotion.
The last President to die was Richard Nixon. The damage he inflicted on the American body politic was so great that hardly a voice was raised to demand an extravagant send off. Before that, it was LBJ, who had the good fortune to pass on when death still carried an air of decorum. Now we have reached such as pass that the only thing missing from the Reagan mort-stravaganza is an MTV-produced half time show. Heaven forbid Nancy suffer a wardrobe malfunction while performing “Amazing Grace.”
Before you start yelling that I’m just a bitter liberal who is pissing on Reagan’s grave I’d like to say that this is not about him and I’m not ranting about his legacy. That part comes later.
I am instead perturbed at the apparent coronation of our Presidents represented by this weeklong national death fest. This America: we do not have a monarch. The President is important, true enough, but in the Jeffersonian ideal he should return to life as a private citizen after his time in office. The ex-President does have a role to play post-White House, but it should be that of advisor and elder statesman, not that of a mythical king whose popular legacy is swept up in a wave of hagiography upon death.
Reagan of course faced his final years with a private dignity, slowly succumbing to the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease over at least a ten-year period assisted by the best medical care the taxpayer could buy (sidebar: isn’t odd that Alzheimer’s is uniquely described as a “cruel” disease by fiftysomething journalists given that it means boomer children have to pay to have someone change their parent’s diapers?) The question must be asked however if the money being lavished on his morbid bacchanalia would be better spent assisting less privileged Alzheimer’s sufferers. Whatever happened to “in lieu of flowers, please make a donation to…” Perhaps this is one last stab at supply-side economics from beyond the grave, with the Reagans fully confident that the nations florists and sympathy card retailers will make a contribution en masse to research.
Ronald Reagan was an important public man. He was also wealthy product of the celebrity culture. He stood for class war, the destruction of altruistic society, contempt for the domestic democratic process, and the global export of dogma driven violence. Those who make a big deal of his humble beginnings often fail to comment on his betrayal of the working- and middle- class through his feckless economic theories.
Reagan pursued a foreign policy that portrayed the United States as a cowardly and dogmatic bully. It was ok to invade Grenada, but not to respond to the Beirut bombings of Americans. It was ok to trade weapons for hostages with evil Iran, as we would get payback by turning a blind eye to our friend Saddam Hussein’s use of poison gas on Iranian troops.* I’ll never forget having the realization at 13 that Reagan was willing to sacrifice the Western Europe I was growing up in to the fire of a nuclear war in order to confront communism. Thanks for the early teenage nightmares I endured after cruise missiles arrived in England, Ron. Reagan did not win the Cold War; Gorbachev called it off. Just imagine the response from Moscow to Reagan’s reckless and ruinous brinkmanship if a more kindred soul had sat in the Kremlin. We would have all fried to prove a negative; communism is bad, m'kay.
Reagan risked your life by firing the air traffic controllers in order to break a union; odd from a former president of the Screen Actors Guild. Or rather it isn’t when you look at most of his momentous decisions. Essentially, Reagan was motivated throughout his life by pique. Communist agitators who tried to usurp his control of the SAG transformed Ron from a liberal Democrat to conservative Republican in a matter of months. The Air Traffickers challenged his authority and were summarily fired. Congress thwarted his pet projects in Central America, thus Iran/Contra was born from the loins of his administration. Prior to becoming President, the moderator of a New Hampshire primary debate tried to allow other candidates equal time; Reagan started screaming that he “had paid for the microphone” and should be allowed to continue regardless. The man was the type of prissy primadonna so often found in B-movies. In happier times he would have earned an executive producer credit on a series of forgettable cinematic abortions. Instead he became President.
Luck favored Reagan. He gambled heavily and recklessly and thankfully for us he was able to bluff his opponents. Was the western world safer, better off, and nicer after eight years of Reagan? I have my opinions, but frankly we won’t really know until my distant grandchildren write the properly sourced history of that time some 50 years hence. Bear that in mind this week as you sob, wail, toast, and allow yourselves to be manipulated into joining in with the mourning for an illegitimate king.
*THAT’S where those WMDs are! In Reagan’s casket!
A hint of the media overkill and self-indulgent wailing inherent in a modern public death was given by the frankly baffling outpourings over the Darwinian demise of the amiable under-achiever John F. Kennedy Jr. Now with the death of Ronald Reagan America is looking to reclaim its rightful place as the champion of excessive public displays of emotion.
The last President to die was Richard Nixon. The damage he inflicted on the American body politic was so great that hardly a voice was raised to demand an extravagant send off. Before that, it was LBJ, who had the good fortune to pass on when death still carried an air of decorum. Now we have reached such as pass that the only thing missing from the Reagan mort-stravaganza is an MTV-produced half time show. Heaven forbid Nancy suffer a wardrobe malfunction while performing “Amazing Grace.”
Before you start yelling that I’m just a bitter liberal who is pissing on Reagan’s grave I’d like to say that this is not about him and I’m not ranting about his legacy. That part comes later.
I am instead perturbed at the apparent coronation of our Presidents represented by this weeklong national death fest. This America: we do not have a monarch. The President is important, true enough, but in the Jeffersonian ideal he should return to life as a private citizen after his time in office. The ex-President does have a role to play post-White House, but it should be that of advisor and elder statesman, not that of a mythical king whose popular legacy is swept up in a wave of hagiography upon death.
Reagan of course faced his final years with a private dignity, slowly succumbing to the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease over at least a ten-year period assisted by the best medical care the taxpayer could buy (sidebar: isn’t odd that Alzheimer’s is uniquely described as a “cruel” disease by fiftysomething journalists given that it means boomer children have to pay to have someone change their parent’s diapers?) The question must be asked however if the money being lavished on his morbid bacchanalia would be better spent assisting less privileged Alzheimer’s sufferers. Whatever happened to “in lieu of flowers, please make a donation to…” Perhaps this is one last stab at supply-side economics from beyond the grave, with the Reagans fully confident that the nations florists and sympathy card retailers will make a contribution en masse to research.
Ronald Reagan was an important public man. He was also wealthy product of the celebrity culture. He stood for class war, the destruction of altruistic society, contempt for the domestic democratic process, and the global export of dogma driven violence. Those who make a big deal of his humble beginnings often fail to comment on his betrayal of the working- and middle- class through his feckless economic theories.
Reagan pursued a foreign policy that portrayed the United States as a cowardly and dogmatic bully. It was ok to invade Grenada, but not to respond to the Beirut bombings of Americans. It was ok to trade weapons for hostages with evil Iran, as we would get payback by turning a blind eye to our friend Saddam Hussein’s use of poison gas on Iranian troops.* I’ll never forget having the realization at 13 that Reagan was willing to sacrifice the Western Europe I was growing up in to the fire of a nuclear war in order to confront communism. Thanks for the early teenage nightmares I endured after cruise missiles arrived in England, Ron. Reagan did not win the Cold War; Gorbachev called it off. Just imagine the response from Moscow to Reagan’s reckless and ruinous brinkmanship if a more kindred soul had sat in the Kremlin. We would have all fried to prove a negative; communism is bad, m'kay.
Reagan risked your life by firing the air traffic controllers in order to break a union; odd from a former president of the Screen Actors Guild. Or rather it isn’t when you look at most of his momentous decisions. Essentially, Reagan was motivated throughout his life by pique. Communist agitators who tried to usurp his control of the SAG transformed Ron from a liberal Democrat to conservative Republican in a matter of months. The Air Traffickers challenged his authority and were summarily fired. Congress thwarted his pet projects in Central America, thus Iran/Contra was born from the loins of his administration. Prior to becoming President, the moderator of a New Hampshire primary debate tried to allow other candidates equal time; Reagan started screaming that he “had paid for the microphone” and should be allowed to continue regardless. The man was the type of prissy primadonna so often found in B-movies. In happier times he would have earned an executive producer credit on a series of forgettable cinematic abortions. Instead he became President.
Luck favored Reagan. He gambled heavily and recklessly and thankfully for us he was able to bluff his opponents. Was the western world safer, better off, and nicer after eight years of Reagan? I have my opinions, but frankly we won’t really know until my distant grandchildren write the properly sourced history of that time some 50 years hence. Bear that in mind this week as you sob, wail, toast, and allow yourselves to be manipulated into joining in with the mourning for an illegitimate king.
*THAT’S where those WMDs are! In Reagan’s casket!
Monday, June 07, 2004
History Friday, on a Monday?
The second History Friday of this blog is a few days late, due to work commitments (waaa) but as time is elastic on the web who really gives a flying one, eh?
The couple of days delay of course allowed Ronald Reagan to die. I will expand my thoughts on his legacy later (most likely this evening) but I dedicate this Monday's History Friday to him with this, one of his greatest contributions to American political life:
FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS: REAGAN'S ROLE.
Yes, it was Ronald Reagan who while not introducing the concepts, certainly refined the presidential art of following the dictates of a doctrinaire foreign policy of dubious to negative effectiveness down moral dark alleys while lying to the public about his true aims. Then when the shit hits the fan, Reagan provided the "dumb bunny" model that ensures that a president's personal popularity remains high while his aides get it in the neck.
No wonder George W. Bush idolised the guy.
If you want to read more of the Walsh report into Iran/Contra, it can be found here: Walsh Report
The couple of days delay of course allowed Ronald Reagan to die. I will expand my thoughts on his legacy later (most likely this evening) but I dedicate this Monday's History Friday to him with this, one of his greatest contributions to American political life:
FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS: REAGAN'S ROLE.
Yes, it was Ronald Reagan who while not introducing the concepts, certainly refined the presidential art of following the dictates of a doctrinaire foreign policy of dubious to negative effectiveness down moral dark alleys while lying to the public about his true aims. Then when the shit hits the fan, Reagan provided the "dumb bunny" model that ensures that a president's personal popularity remains high while his aides get it in the neck.
No wonder George W. Bush idolised the guy.
If you want to read more of the Walsh report into Iran/Contra, it can be found here: Walsh Report
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Comments Added/Fahrenheit 911 Info.
As some of you have already realised, the comments box on each post is now up and running. Feel free to chime in, or continue to email me at wisdomweasel@hotmail.com. Your feedback, bile and suggestions have been useful and are always welcome.
Also, the trailer for Fahrenheit 911 is on the web. Michael Moore has more on his film at MichaelMoore.com.It finally has distribution and will be released nationwide here in the US on June 25th. Finally you will be allowed to make up your own mind about Moore's film and not have Disney's "Imagineers" do it for you.
Also, as always the BBC has some interesting reporting on the film and the controversy: Moore's 9/11 trailer goes online.
Also, the trailer for Fahrenheit 911 is on the web. Michael Moore has more on his film at MichaelMoore.com.It finally has distribution and will be released nationwide here in the US on June 25th. Finally you will be allowed to make up your own mind about Moore's film and not have Disney's "Imagineers" do it for you.
Also, as always the BBC has some interesting reporting on the film and the controversy: Moore's 9/11 trailer goes online.
Wahey!
For all the moaners and professional pessimists on the progressive side of American politics, heartening news from South Dakota:
Democrat Wins Special Election.
One swallow doesn't make a summer (nor an impeachable offence) but this was a Republican seat lost during a Republican presidency, with Republicans in charge of the house, senate, and supreme court. Besides, even if this doesn't amount to a hill of beans in November, it is better to die fighting on your feet than live scrabbling on your knees.
Democrat Wins Special Election.
One swallow doesn't make a summer (nor an impeachable offence) but this was a Republican seat lost during a Republican presidency, with Republicans in charge of the house, senate, and supreme court. Besides, even if this doesn't amount to a hill of beans in November, it is better to die fighting on your feet than live scrabbling on your knees.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Here Come The Cronkite Moments.
Living in Maine I often have to make my own entertainment, and one of my favorite fogeyish pursuits of recent years has been sitting down at the kitchen table on a Friday night to make something (cranberry vodka, soup, seedling trays, etc) or drink something while listening to the radio.
Thanks to the invasion of the channel snatchers (Clear Channel, Cumulus, et al) commercial radio playlists are more sychronised than the menstrual cycles of women jail inmates, as without fail all of them play the Allman Brothers at 7pm nightly. On the other hand, the local community station's offerings of Bambutu M'tba's Xylophone orchestra etc can be a little too earnest for a Friday night. The CD player on the kitchen stereo is broken. Therefore my default listening is Maine Public Radio, and in particular a charming and gentle big band/trad jazz show called "The humble Farmer."
The host, humble Farmer (aka Robert Skoglund) is a genial type; much given to puns and wordplay. He can be annoying; the expression of his "humbleness" by using the lower case for his nickname is a case in point. He certainly is not a controversial character nor professional agitator. Therefore I am very sad that I missed last Friday's show, as humble offered up some telling and significant insight into the thinking of middle class America. My good friend Richard was kind enough to forward me humble's thoughts from Friday night. I have reproduced it below; I hope you find the eloquent unarticulated parallels to the situation in Iraq and the United States as arresting as I did.
"Did you see Rommel's grandson on TV? Must have been Public Television, because no other channel would carry such an interesting program. Brought back memories. When I was a kid I heard about Rommel, The old Desert Fox. My grandfather Skoglund would crank up the radio as loud as it would go and then he'd sit next to it with his hand behind his ear to find out what Rommel was doing.
Which reminds me that someone sent me an email that explains why some Americans are now wearing red on Fridays. The email says, Quote: "When Norway was occupied by Germany in 1940, Norwegian women began to knit RED caps for children as a way of letting everyone know that they did not like what was happening in their country, that they didn't like having their freedom taken away by the Nazis.
My great aunt, Karin Knudson Myrstad, was one of the women who knit red caps for her children and others. Similarly, in Denmark, women knit red-white-and blue caps (colors of the Allies) for the very same reason.
The result was that whenever Norwegians and Danes left their homes -- to go to the store, to work, etc, they could see that THE MAJORITY opposed what was going on in their country. As you know, both countries organized effective Resistance efforts and changed history -- everything that happened began simply by wearing red! (or the colors of the Allies, in Denmark)." End of quote.
I think that the person who sent out this email should remember that the young boys that Hitler sent into Denmark and Norway did not think that they were taking away freedom. You can't blame the kids. They had been told that they were bringing freedom and a new and better form of government to some backward people who were ruled by kings. For years, Hitler's troops, these young kids, had been taught to believe that they were the freedom fighters. So when they finally went into Norway and
Denmark, they knew they were part of Hitler's glorious effort to
establish order and free an enslaved people from archaic and oppressive governments. Of course, there are always a few puppet sympathizers, and Vidkun Quisling, who welcomed the occupying German soldiers, is the Norwegian Benedict Arnold.
Resistance efforts? The Danes and Norwegians might have thought that they were defending their homes and country in a resistance effort, but Hitler's troops didn't see as resistance these people who schemed and plotted in cellars. The Danes or Norwegians who opposed Hitler's soldiers were fanatical insurgents who should be shot on sight.
If you were one of Hitler's brighter soldiers, and you told one of your superior officers that in spite of what you'd been told, you were getting tired of helping Danes and Norwegians set up a better form of government, what do you think would have happened to you?
And imagine what was going on back home in Germany. What would have happened to a German citizen who refused to pay taxes to a government that tried to protect Germans by sending tanks into Africa. "Hey Hitler, what you doing way down there in Africa with all them tanks you bought with my tax dollars? When you started this thing, you said you were protecting us from crazy people in Austria and Poland. How many crazy Poles you expecting to find in Africa?" That tax payer would have seen his property auctioned off and Hitler and Rommel would have bought even
more tanks with the proceeds.
Anyway, I want to thank whoever it was that produced that TV show on Rommel, because it gave me an excuse to read up a bit more about Hitler and how he snuck up behind a very intelligent people and slipped fascism in on them before they knew what hit them. Mein Kampf and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are some of my favorite reading. If you ever want to understand the basic principles of propaganda, if you ever want to read something scarier and more unbelievable than Stephen King, read
what it's like to live under a fascist dictatorship. Read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. They burned books.
And movies. You can't appreciate the freedom we have here in America until you read how the Nazis censored movies. Do you think that the Nazis would let the German people see a movie that criticized the way Hitler was spreading his brand of freedom?
Young people might not understand why some of us old folks, who survived Hitler and his friends, still talk about the war, but people of my generation, and that probably includes Rommel's grandson, --- we can't forget that the fascists were very scary guys."
wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Thanks to the invasion of the channel snatchers (Clear Channel, Cumulus, et al) commercial radio playlists are more sychronised than the menstrual cycles of women jail inmates, as without fail all of them play the Allman Brothers at 7pm nightly. On the other hand, the local community station's offerings of Bambutu M'tba's Xylophone orchestra etc can be a little too earnest for a Friday night. The CD player on the kitchen stereo is broken. Therefore my default listening is Maine Public Radio, and in particular a charming and gentle big band/trad jazz show called "The humble Farmer."
The host, humble Farmer (aka Robert Skoglund) is a genial type; much given to puns and wordplay. He can be annoying; the expression of his "humbleness" by using the lower case for his nickname is a case in point. He certainly is not a controversial character nor professional agitator. Therefore I am very sad that I missed last Friday's show, as humble offered up some telling and significant insight into the thinking of middle class America. My good friend Richard was kind enough to forward me humble's thoughts from Friday night. I have reproduced it below; I hope you find the eloquent unarticulated parallels to the situation in Iraq and the United States as arresting as I did.
"Did you see Rommel's grandson on TV? Must have been Public Television, because no other channel would carry such an interesting program. Brought back memories. When I was a kid I heard about Rommel, The old Desert Fox. My grandfather Skoglund would crank up the radio as loud as it would go and then he'd sit next to it with his hand behind his ear to find out what Rommel was doing.
Which reminds me that someone sent me an email that explains why some Americans are now wearing red on Fridays. The email says, Quote: "When Norway was occupied by Germany in 1940, Norwegian women began to knit RED caps for children as a way of letting everyone know that they did not like what was happening in their country, that they didn't like having their freedom taken away by the Nazis.
My great aunt, Karin Knudson Myrstad, was one of the women who knit red caps for her children and others. Similarly, in Denmark, women knit red-white-and blue caps (colors of the Allies) for the very same reason.
The result was that whenever Norwegians and Danes left their homes -- to go to the store, to work, etc, they could see that THE MAJORITY opposed what was going on in their country. As you know, both countries organized effective Resistance efforts and changed history -- everything that happened began simply by wearing red! (or the colors of the Allies, in Denmark)." End of quote.
I think that the person who sent out this email should remember that the young boys that Hitler sent into Denmark and Norway did not think that they were taking away freedom. You can't blame the kids. They had been told that they were bringing freedom and a new and better form of government to some backward people who were ruled by kings. For years, Hitler's troops, these young kids, had been taught to believe that they were the freedom fighters. So when they finally went into Norway and
Denmark, they knew they were part of Hitler's glorious effort to
establish order and free an enslaved people from archaic and oppressive governments. Of course, there are always a few puppet sympathizers, and Vidkun Quisling, who welcomed the occupying German soldiers, is the Norwegian Benedict Arnold.
Resistance efforts? The Danes and Norwegians might have thought that they were defending their homes and country in a resistance effort, but Hitler's troops didn't see as resistance these people who schemed and plotted in cellars. The Danes or Norwegians who opposed Hitler's soldiers were fanatical insurgents who should be shot on sight.
If you were one of Hitler's brighter soldiers, and you told one of your superior officers that in spite of what you'd been told, you were getting tired of helping Danes and Norwegians set up a better form of government, what do you think would have happened to you?
And imagine what was going on back home in Germany. What would have happened to a German citizen who refused to pay taxes to a government that tried to protect Germans by sending tanks into Africa. "Hey Hitler, what you doing way down there in Africa with all them tanks you bought with my tax dollars? When you started this thing, you said you were protecting us from crazy people in Austria and Poland. How many crazy Poles you expecting to find in Africa?" That tax payer would have seen his property auctioned off and Hitler and Rommel would have bought even
more tanks with the proceeds.
Anyway, I want to thank whoever it was that produced that TV show on Rommel, because it gave me an excuse to read up a bit more about Hitler and how he snuck up behind a very intelligent people and slipped fascism in on them before they knew what hit them. Mein Kampf and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are some of my favorite reading. If you ever want to understand the basic principles of propaganda, if you ever want to read something scarier and more unbelievable than Stephen King, read
what it's like to live under a fascist dictatorship. Read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. They burned books.
And movies. You can't appreciate the freedom we have here in America until you read how the Nazis censored movies. Do you think that the Nazis would let the German people see a movie that criticized the way Hitler was spreading his brand of freedom?
Young people might not understand why some of us old folks, who survived Hitler and his friends, still talk about the war, but people of my generation, and that probably includes Rommel's grandson, --- we can't forget that the fascists were very scary guys."
wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
