And what is “this?” Nile Gardiner has a piece in the Daily Telegraph about the top ten films of the last decade that promoted a “conservative” point of view. Meaning, in his words, the films that best advanced ideas like strong support for the military, a love for one’s country and a defense of capitalism/the free market.
Now, none of these things are intrinsically conservative. And none of the movies he lists are “guaranteed” to offend left-wing sensibilities like he claims.
Oh, and Nile Gardiner is not a film critic, he is a political commentator. So of course his reviews are going to be filtered through such a lens as well as a cartoonish depiction of all political terms.
His list is the latest in a long line of things where politics just doesn’t work. Children’s books like Why Mommy is a Democrat and Help! There Are Liberals Under My Bed are similar kinds of products. And I’m not linking to their Amazon pages because I don’t want copies of them to be sold.
Having a pundit make a top ten list based on their politics about culture they spend most of their time condemning is definitely something that should be banished in the coming decade. And since I’m all for freedom, I encourage that it be banished the freedom-est way possible: Everyone standing up and telling pundits who dare to do this something they’ve never heard before: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
–City Pages interviews Michelle Bachmann, who it has relentlessly parodied for months. But it’s less fun because she agreed to an email interview rather than an in-person interview.
–The Far East Economic Review says that President Obama seemed “uncouth” when he bowed to the emperor…but they got the name of the Emperor wrong. You’d think being based in Hong Kong and priding themselves as the premier English language publication in East Asia they would know that Emperor Hirohito has been dead for 20 years
Gerson’s column in the Washington Post looks at Obama and how voters in Virginia, who backed him, also voted for Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate.
He gets it right at the beginning by saying that Bob McDonnell ran towards the center and focused on bread and butter issues (although Gerson doesn’t use that phrase) while his opponent talked about wedge issues. Specifically, McDonnell’s Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, emphasized his college thesis and what he had to say about homosexuality in it.
But then in the middle, Gerson started tilting my head:
By creating deficits unequaled as a percentage of the economy since World War II, by proposing to nearly triple the national debt in the next 10 years, by using the economic crisis as an excuse for the massive expansion of government authority over health care, Obama has become a polarizing figure.
First, here’s a link to a graph showing the deficit as a percentage of the GDP. One pattern is that during a recession, the deficit as a percentage of the GDP goes up slightly, and we’re in a recession now. Also, for the billionth time, the health care reform being proposed is not about government controlling health care.
Politicians who have run for governor — say, Bill Clinton — had a good feel for the politics of the center. Obama has yet to demonstrate it. According to the White House, on election night he was “not watching returns” — displaying a French monarch’s indifference to America’s shifting middle.
In the paragraph before this one, Gerson says that America is a center-right country. In the paragraph after this one he says that the majority of Americans oppose his health-care even though the last poll said that 55% of respondents supported the public option, the most significant part of the reform.
And who else runs for governor but politicians? And is Gerson implying that Obama is not a politician since he, apparently, does not run to the center?
Like it or not, Obama is a politician and has been one for the last 13 years. He’s been a calm, rational centrist so far, just as the Chicago Tribune expected him to be when they endorsed him.
As for Michael, I think he needs to talk to people other than those in the pundit class for a while and clear his head and not use pundit-speak when writing his columns.
Not me personally, but people of my age or slightly younger.
I won’t go through the whole thing, just some highlights.
I’ve said this before — and I know I’ll get heat for this — but I’m convinced we are raising a generation of would-be killers: the “me generation.”
A generation that only cares about “me-me-me.” A generation that never made anything on merit. A generation that doesn’t understand what it means “to earn” something, because they’ve been handed everything.
Would-be killers? You mean like when you fantasized on-air about killing Michael Moore?
Also, you grew up in the 1970′s, which Tom Wolfe called the “Me Decade.” Project much?
A generation that was brought up by parents who wouldn’t spank them because it was too barbaric and were graded in purple pen because red is too frightening.
Ah, never mind, I guess he’s not talking about me.
A generation who got trophies no matter what place they finished. A generation too busy trying to get noticed on YouTube or Facebook or Twitter to accomplish anything of real lasting value.
I don’t have trophies. And gimmie a break, I’m just out of college!
We never expected it of them. We promised them a land of sunshine rainbows and lollipops. So it should come as no surprise that the “me generation” enters the workforce demanding high salaries, corner offices and promotions in the first few months — all while wanting to dress down and work less than 40 hours a week.
I would LOVE to go to work for 40 hours a week, but because of this lousy economy and because the subject I studied is upending itself, my options are much more limited. Also I would wager that the economy is such that Monday-Friday 9-5 jobs are the exception rather than the rule.
They feel entitled and are more concerned about “what’s in it for me?” than anything else. Because that’s what we taught them. Especially not what stupid grandma thinks about health care.
You’ve confessed you’re a selfish pig from time to time, Glenn, so don’t lecture me about selfishness.
Our schools encourage kids to take the Pill without parental consent and not to worry if you do get pregnant, because Planned Parenthood will help you…
They do? Mine didn’t. Mine taught that we should save sex until we’re ready to have a baby, but if we did have sex we should use things like condoms. And this was a public school!
Don’t you see because we have tried to make life easier for our kids, we have bought into the lie that there is a free lunch; that you can have it all; that there is no right and wrong. We have destroyed ourselves and we are about to destroy our kids’ future by teaching them that losers get a trophy just like winners do. We have taught them that no matter if you win or lose or if you play the game, all outcomes are equal.
I’m not sure who Glenn means by “we.” I wasn’t taught any of those things and Glenn home school’s his children (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
It’s a lie, but mark my words, all of society has reinforced this lie and when we yank that reality away, those who think they deserve the corner office, the prettiest girl, the biggest house and the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, will not accept no for an answer — even if that means taking it from others
Uh, Glenn, Barack Obama is part of your generation. He’s not part of my generation which you’re blowing your nose at right now.
When we as parents went into their schools and said: “not my child, it is somebody else,” when we accepted their cheating or stealing or lying and gave them a reward instead of a punishment we taught them they are above everything, even the rules — they will have no compassion on those that they will perceive destroyed what they had coming.
I wasn’t rewarded for doing those things.
And didn’t you say you hated the families of the 9/11 victims and that the victims of Hurricaine Katrina were “scumbags?” What makes you think you have anything valuable to say on “compassion?”
This whole thing came about because polling throughout the Health Care debate has shown a general trend that younger people support health care reform while older people oppose it. Rather than examining why this is, Glenn decides to scare people about young people and how this split is part of a larger problem that only he can see.
Oh, and one more thing to add to your list of things that should shame you as a parent, Glenn. I hope you show this to you’re kids when they grow up as an example of how awful you really are:
The animosity between Beck and [Bruce] Kelly continued to deepen. When Beck and Hattrick produced a local version of Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” for Halloween — a recurring motif in Beck’s life and career — Kelly told a local reporter that the bit was a stupid rip-off of a syndicated gag. The slight outraged Beck, who got his revenge with what may rank as one of the cruelest bits in the history of morning radio. “A couple days after Kelly’s wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, ‘We hear you had a miscarriage,’ ” remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. “When Terry said, ‘Yes,’ Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly] apparently can’t do anything right — about he can’t even have a baby.”
And it makes me rip my hair out every time a new development comes out about it. It’s another development about John Edwards’ affair. A new book is coming out by an ex-aide of Edwards, Andrew Young, who says that Rielle Hunter had a child with John Edwards, and that…
According to the newspaper, Young wrote that Edwards once told Hunter they would wed after Edwards’ wife, who has cancer, died.
Edwards told Hunter that the ceremony would be held on a rooftop in New York and the Dave Matthews Bands would make an appearance, the newspaper said, citing its examination of the book proposal.
Rod Blagojevich is about to start his federal corruption trial. His former chief fundraiser Christopher Kelly was about to be trialed along with him, but he died this evening at Stroger hospital after overdosing on an over-the-counter medication. Many people surrounding Blagojevich have abandoned him, his two lawyers that were supposed to represent him at his impeachment hearing quit before the Illinois senate conducted the trial and everyone in the Democratic party has done everything to distance themselves from Blagojevich.
Steve Anderson, a Baptist pastor in Tempe, Ariz. is an angry insane man. It’s probably not the best idea to present reason and intelligence to an angry insane man, but hopefully I’ve disgusted the haughty ones enough that they won’t bother reading this.
Anyway, he’s been in the national news as of late because he said on the pulpit that he prayed every night for President Obama to die. His bio page on the church’s website says he has “no college degree <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory, including almost half of the New Testament.”
Well, let’s see, the New Testament has 260 chapters in total (count ‘em!), so almost half would be 130. The four gospels alone have 89 chapters. Something a little more specific on WHAT parts of the Bible he’s memorized would be good. Isn’t praying for someone else’s death against the rules somewhere?
It would also be interesting to know what Anderson did before he started his church in 2005. These guys usually have stories about how they were posessed by the devil and a long list of horrible (but vague) things they did. Drugs and alcohol usually are included in the story. Not that these stories aren’t true, I’d just like to see some documentation of the stuff Anderson’s done before, like the essays he wrote in high school, or his job history.
Then there’s the doctrinal statement on the church website. The first thing it says is “ <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> We believe that the King James Bible is the word of God without error,” which is something I have a problem with, since there is so much ambiguity in the Bible and various other questions raised by the various editions of it and the history of it. Just to ignore all of that and say “that’s it, absolutely, no questions” seems a little narrow minded to me. It’s also worshiping the Bible (and according to the laws in the Bible, a form of idolatry), rather than God.
The next statement, “ <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> We believe all Scripture was given by inspiration of God, and that God also promised to preserve his word. Divine inspiration is of no value to Christians without God’s promise of preservation,” doesn’t really help things much. The scriptures are the word of God (as described in the first statement) and are now inspired, immediately prefaced by saying they are inspired and preserved (which ignores how much of the Biblical authors is in their writing and assumes that it’s all God’s word). I guess this is their version of internal consistency.
The next few statements are pretty typical and I’ll skip them. Although I should say that birth control pills do not “end life after conception” like it says in one of them. They prevent fertilization (so life begins when the sperm enters the woman?). Also, I don’t get why this church is opposed to in-vitro fertilization, since that also doesn’t end life after conception (it does the opposite!)
Also, if homosexuality is a sin and the unsaved are punished by a literal hell (as said earlier), what is this “death penalty?” If the death penalty is hell, isn’t putting that in a bit redundant?
Then there’s the last statement of faith in which the church opposes “ <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> worldliness, modernism, formalism, and liberalism.”
Liberalism, okay. Religion almost by nature is conservative (except mystic sects), so whatever on that.
It seems odd that a church would reject formalism. Formalism in religion is regular observances, and isn’t that what going to church every Sunday is?
Anyway, worldliness, okay it’s devoted to the spirit rather than worldly concerns (nevermind what Jesus said about helping the poor and stuff). Also, wouldn’t talking about the homosexuals and President Obama be concerning oneself with worldly matters?
It’s the modernism part that really confuses me. Does anyone find it strange that someone opposed to modernism is on the internet?
So it turns out a growing number of “Tea-Party” activists are learning how to organize from Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” which they (and their allies) have previously condemned as a handbook for how liberals stay in control of the country.
Dave Weigel cites examples from recent conservative best-sellers by Jonah Goldberg and Jerome Corsi (whom he mistakenly calls a “muckraker”) on how conservatives in the past had villified Alinsky and his supposed influence on Obama. Weigel doesn’t mention it, but Michelle Bachmann and Bill O’Reilly have done the same thing.
The people who talk to Weigel say that they ignore Alinsky’s more “immoral” parts (they don’t say what) and they plan to adapt his ideas to advance their conservative causes like shouting down congressmen about health care.
Alinsky would roll over in his grave. The book is filled with references to the “haves” and the “have nots” and how the purpose of the book is to help the “have nots” gain political power from the hands of the “haves.” If he were alive right now he would push aggresively for government assistance for those without health insurance.
I agree with David Sirota that the latest column by Richard Cohen at the Washington Post is proof he’s gone batshit insane. It’s a hodgepodge of three ideas: Obama is lousy at passing Health Care, Obama is a boring interview subject and because Cohen hasn’t interviewed the President, he should win a Pulitzer Prize.
Or at least will win won. He starts off the piece implying he’s already won the prize for not interviewing the President. And he writes that Obama on TV is less interesting than a Maury Povich rerun.
The idea that a “journalist” would find reruns of Maury Povich more interesting than a brand new interview with the President is confusing enough.
Cohen writes that President’s used to be “awesome” and to interview one was enough to win the Pulitzer Prize and implies that at such a time he would have jumped at the chance to interview the President. Well, I checked the Pulitzer archives and found two instances of winners for exclusive interviews with Presidents: Arthur Krock of the New York Times for his interview of President Roosevelt and Louis Seibold of the New York Worldfor his interview of President Wilson.
Krock won the prize in 1938 and Seibold in 1921. Cohen joined the Washington Post in 1968. If he can remember reporting back that far, he is way too old.
Cohen also thinks its better if Obama is kept off the TV, which TV executives, magazine editors and various others would passionately disagree with, since Obama helps circulation when he appears on the cover.
Richard, I think its time you take a break and let a journalist take over your column. At least until you summon the energy to learn about the issues of the day instead of watching Mauray Povich reruns.
