Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Unperky Ratings for Couric


Couric
rashes



Gender Bias?


"Gender" Blamed for Katie Couric's Low Ratings: Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007
CBS News and Sports President Sean McManus says that gender bias may play a role in the disappointing ratings Katie Couric has been getting on CBS Evening News.

"I think it is a fact there are probably people, both men and women, who are perhaps uncomfortable having a woman anchor the news," McManus told the media industry publication Broadcasting & Cable.

"The way she is scrutinized, I think sometimes unfairly, quite frankly, I think a lot of that has to do with gender."

McManus maintained that as a woman, Couric has to be concerned about 'a lot of things the male anchor doesn't have to worry about, like how she looks or what she is wearing."

The Real Reasons for Couric's Low Ratings


With all due respect to Mr. McManus, I believe the reason Couric's numbers have fallen is not because she is different, ala being a woman, but that she is the same. She is the same old touchy feely liberal bias wrapped up in a new gender and new clothes.




Despite her attempts at being objective, with her Free Speech segments, her underlying sympathies show through loud and clear. What makes FOX so appealing on cable is that they give voice to a side that has been neglected by the other media. The same can be said for talk radio. When the people have a choice, they go for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity over Air America, Al Franken, and even Alan Combs any day.

The networks have never used a conservative anchor. They ought to try it. They might like it.


The Stiffness Factor


One problem with finding a conservative for the job is the stiffness factor. Several conservatives are less fun than liberals. They are wrapped up in righteousness and act like they have a stick up their rears. Some conservatives who are enjoyable are too radical. Ann Coulter is more fun than a barrel full of puppies, but she'd be a poor choice for a news anchor.

Find the Doppelganger Plus of Katie Couric on the Right


I suggest the networks find a conservative female who is not overly religious, and not overly stern, but who has gravitas on the major issues of the day. This would be a more serious version of Katie Couric, but on the right. Not too religious. Not too dogmatic. But with a conservative bent. Able to smile, and laugh, and joke; but with a real interest and understanding of world issues.

One Girl Who Could Do It


Do I have suggestions? It's a difficult task.

Surprisingly, even to me, is one person that pops into my head as perfect for the job, Democrat Tammy Bruce. Of course, she would have to abandon her combative side and adopt a more sober demeanor, but she is an example, to me, of the kind of woman who could present the news with a depth of understanding and draw ratings too.


click to show/hide the rest of the post

About Ms. Bruce

Tammy Bruce (born August 19, 1962) is an author and political commentator. Bruce hosts The Tammy Bruce Show, a radio talk show broadcast on over 160 stations in the United States. The show broadcasts six days a week, including Saturdays. Each episode is three hours long. NewsMax.com Magazine's "Top 25 Talk Radio Host" list selected Bruce as the twenty-fourth most influential host in the nation. She is described on her website as "an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist". Bruce is a self-described classical liberal.

For seven years, Bruce served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) from 1990 to 1996, the longest continuous tenure in the chapter's 30-year history. She mobilized activists locally and nationally on a whole range of issues, including women's image in media, childcare, health care, violence against women, economics, and domestic violence. She also served two years on the board of directors for NOW, which she heavily criticizes in her last book.

Tammy, while remaining a Democrat, has taken a decided right turn in her outlook in the last several years. She is highly supportive of George Bush and the Iraq War, and holds now several conservative positions on national issues. She does remain liberal on many social issues, but she is tolerant of opposing views. She takes her Democratic Party to task on their demagoguery, as I do.

Her Books

The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds

The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values , (Random House, 2003).

The New American Revolution: Using the Power of the Individual to Save Our Nation from Extremists (Morrow, 2005)

Her newest book is The New American Revolution, How You Can Fight The Tyranny of The Left's Cultural and Moral Decay


Pigeonholing Tammy


Ms. Bruce is an anomaly, and the left doesn't know what to do with her. She still stands tall as a hard-driving, reasonable feminist, and wants to remain a Democrat, but she is disgusted where her party has gone. Sound familiar? That's my line. She is a classical liberal. That's how I see myself. Which translates into today's jargon as conservative, or even neo-con. But it's really just classical liberal—the same beliefs on many issues that great Democrats have held, like FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. Strong on defense, patriotic, pro-business. Believing in God, but not overly religious. Tolerant.

click to hide most of this post


Ms. Bruce as Anchor


Anyway, off my soapbox and back on topic. Ms. Bruce is one example of a female, I think, who could hold her own as a news anchor. Why would she succeed where Couric is failing? Ms. Bruce is pretty, like Couric, but more so; intelligent, far more than Couric; and has gravitas, far more than Couric. She is passionate about world issues, much like the men—Brokaw, Williams, and Gibson. Plus, she is basically conservative, without being stiff.

Let's face it, Couric is a lightweight. She is not passionate about world events. She is not well informed. Her politics are liberal, and based on feelings. Who will turn to her for her views on the world?

Get a woman like Tammy Bruce, and you've got a chance for an audience.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Die Soldier, Die!


Hatred




Peace Rally


I was watching coverage of the anti-war rally in Washington, D.C., on the O'Reilly Factor last night, and heard the vacuous ramblings of Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Jane Fonda.

I'm paraphrasing, but when asked about the 3 million people who died when America left Vietnam, Ms. Fonda said that America caused their deaths by going there in the first place. In other words, we, America, forced the Viet Cong to murder their own citizens. This kind of anti-America thinking was on display throughout the protest.

Also, this morning, on Fox and Friends, I saw an American Iraq War vet, Joshua Sparling, who had lost his leg to amputation, who described his experience when he went to the rally to protest the protest; in other words, to support the war in Iraq. He got a get-well card from one protestor that on the inside said, "Die soldier, die!" Hundreds of protestors gave him the finger,



screaming, "You should have stayed in Iraq," "You're just a murderer," "You have blood on your hands." Police had to intervene when several in the crowd gathered clubs and were going to jump him. Others were spitting on him, cursing.

This is your typical pro-peace crowd. You can even see the hatred in the eyes and faces of the main speakers.


Negotiate, Negotiate, Negotiate


I could pick any number of tenets to debate with this crowd, but I want to focus today on one central myth that they believe. See also my post, The Usual Suspects Smell Blood.

Countries are People Too

The peace at any cost crowd believes that countries behave like human beings. This leads them to imagine that negotiation is always the best policy when dealing with anyone, including expansionist, totalitarian, fanatical nations.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

Negotiating with Hitler

The classic example of their kind of philosophy in action was when Neville Chamberlain, fearing Hitler, went to negotiate with him. Hitler was all smiley and back-slapping, and gave in to Chamberlain, promising he would not wage war against Europe—in exchange for one minor concession, the bloodless annexation of the nation of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain was ecstatic. He came back to England claiming he had achieved "Peace in our time." Then, Hitler, having digested Czechoslovakia, went on to gobble up the rest of Europe.

A Negotiating Success

Can the personal touch ever make a difference? Yes, rarely. The shining example of negotiation working was when Jimmy Carter, by dint of will, forced the Israeli's Menachem Begin and Egypt's Anwar Sadat to make peace, following the 1978 Camp David Accords, in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty; with Israel returning Egyptian lands, and Egypt pledging not to attack Israel. This peace has held, no matter how chilly relations have gotten between Egypt and Israel over the years.

The Differences

Self-Interest
Why did Neville Chamberlain fail while Jimmy Carter succeeded? The answer is that it was not in Hitler's Germany's perceived self-interest to honor the negotiation with Chamberlain. It was, though, in Sadat's Egypt's perceived self-interest to honor the peace treaty with Israel.

Hitler was intent on conquering Europe, and perhaps then, the world. Negotiation, for him, was part of a chess match, where he knew he had duped his opponent into surrendering pieces without a fight. No amount of backslapping, good cheer, sincerity, or making nice would have gotten any different results. Hitler was going to try to take over Europe, period.

Sadat, however, was tired of losing every war with Israel. This was not only humiliating, and emasculating, but also disastrous to the Egyptian economy. Sadat got peace, 3 billion dollars in American aid a year, and he was able to save face by promoting the positives of the whole thing. If he had known he would be assassinated for his trouble, perhaps he would not have gone through with the treaty. On the other hand, he seemed like a courageous fellow, and was well aware of the danger. He may have done this thing truly as an act of heroism for the sake of his people.


Negotiating with Good, and Evil
Notice, too, the differences between Hitler and Sadat. Hitler was a monster, a raving fanatic. Sadat was a good man.

You can negotiate with a good man. You cannot negotiate with a monster.

The monster will, by his very nature, be looking to use the negotiation for his own sordid agenda.


All People Are Good
Except Americans
Which leads to the left's other mistake, when speaking of the power of negotiation. They believe that all people are good.

Of course, this does not, for some reason, include America, nor anyone on the right, nor even those in their own party who are not left enough.

So, to them, George Bush is evil. America is evil. Corporations are evil. Capitalism is evil.

Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, though, are de facto good. Hugo Chavez is marvelous. Fidel Castro is wonderful. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just has an anger management problem. Terrorist bombers are exactly like you and I. Merely sit down and talk with them and they will give up their arms. After all, it was America that made them into killers. The most murderous KGB member was just a regular guy underneath. Why, if you'd have given the peace crowd the chance, they could have charmed Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, you name him, into giving up their nasty behaviors and joining the world community. All it takes is face time. A smile. A cocktail or two.


Model for the Peace Crowd


The ultimate plan for peace with the peace crowd is the Tibetan monk's model, nonviolence in the extreme. This is the Richard Gere strategy for world peace. These docile ascetics, according to Buddhist principles, did not resist the violent takeover of their nation by communist China. Instead, they negotiated. They chanted and prayed, burned incense, and smiled a lot. They were nice to the Chinese. They made them wonderful vegetarian dinners.

The result? They were slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands, and Tibet remains occupied and ruled by a foreign power.

click to hide most of this post


Every War is Vietnam

The left have long memories. Every year, to them, is 1972. Every war is Vietnam. The solution, for them, is to march on Washington and spit on the flag. They will go on demonizing America, idealizing evil, and minimizing the results of American withdrawal from the world. Just let them sit and drink their lattes while bashing America and planning their next hate event, and they'll be happy.

God bless them, for, literally, they know not what they do.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 29, 2007

A Democrat Reaches Out to the Middle Class


Definitely
emocratic



Democrats Moving Right?



Chuck Schumer has written a book that will be out soon, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time, and is on the talk show circuit promoting it. It illustrates one prominent Democrat's thinking on how to communicate with the middle class. He believes that Democrats improved at this in '06, but that to win in '08 they will have to do even better.

I am virulently anti-Democrat and I've cringed over the years when I've heard Schumer speak. The book, though, and Schumer's explanations of it, sound like his attempt to co-opt some basic Republican values. This doesn't bother me. Democrats moving right is a good thing. On the other hand, when Democrats move right, you can still tell they are Democrats, which is the funny, or scary part of the deal.




In the book, Schumer explains:

Schumer's Imaginary Friends


Biking through New York's boroughs in 2005, I thought about some old friends, Joe and Eileen Bailey. Though they are imaginary, I frequently talk to them.

This is a Democrat speaking, without a doubt. He doesn't recall a real couple from the middle class as an example, but a couple he imagines; and he talks to them, frequently! This guy should be a Californian.

Eight Words


Schumer's analysis of the elections is more astute. He believes the parties communicate their message best when the campaigns are boiled down to eight words:
In 2004, they (Republicans) did it with eight words: War in Iraq. Cut taxes. No gay marriage. Those eight words sum up the reasons for George W. Bush's re-election.

In 2006, Democrats did much better with people like Joe and Eileen, but only because of Bush's mistakes. We had our own eight words: No war in Iraq. No corruption. Bad economy. But these eight words did not describe our own vision; they were the negative image of the Republican message. In 2006, they helped us win back Congress. In 2008, we will need to do more to persuade the Baileys to again trust the Democratic Party.

Note, he is still talking about his imaginary friends, the Baileys.


The Truth About '06


He may be right about the eight words that won for them in '06, but the public is wrong about the war in Iraq, in my opinion, and also about the economy. We had a great economy, then and now, but the public bought the Democratic demagoging of this issue, hook, line and sinker.

The Democratic Way


This is how a Democrat remains a Democrat. Yes, he wants to communicate more with the middle class, but how? By lying to them and demogoging issues. Sometimes politicians get elected by using this strategy, unfortunately.

Schumer's Plan


Schumer's ideas for the future of the Democratic Party are:
In part of my book, "Positively American," I try to start the process by presenting 11 goals, which I call "The 50 Percent Solution." Taken together, these ideas could help define what Democrats stand for. In the book, I explain each goal, how we can achieve it and why it is important to the Baileys. For example, Democrats should commit to increasing reading and math scores 50 percent by dramatically increasing federal involvement, and funding, in public schools. We should increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent. We should call for reducing illegal immigration by at least 50 percent and increasing legal immigration. We should cut our dependence on foreign oil by 50 percent, and reduce cancer mortality, abortions and childhood obesity each by 50 percent. We should increase our ability to fight terrorism by 50 percent.

Distinctly Democratic


You can still tell it's a Democratic plan. Note the words "increasing federal involvement, and funding." The answer to all problems, with Democrats, is higher taxes and more funding.

He calls for decreasing illegal immigration. How? He doesn't say. One can only hope he has a plan other than amnesty.

He advocates cutting our dependence on foreign oil. How? By preventing drilling in the U.S.? By taxing the oil companies? By opposing nuclear energy?

And so on.

He does speak to middle class concerns, yes. But he will rely on old Democratic solutions to these problems, including bigger government, more regulation, socialized medicine, and higher taxes.


Conclusion


The wolf is getting cleverer with its choice of sheep's clothing.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, January 28, 2007

The Usual Suspects Smell Blood


Hanoi

Jane










Jane Fonda on the NVA anti-aircraft gun







Fonda and Her Cohorts Sense a Weakened President and Nation



She won't sit in an enemy tank this time, but she smells the blood of a wounded President and nation, and that of its noble soldiers, and decides its time to once more move in for the kill.





This anti-American crowd, ungrateful for their wealth, safety and security, are once again baring their fangs, eager to rip into the heart of America's ability to survive.

See also Sarge Charlie's great blog today, SargeCharlie, as he has focused on Ms. Jane too.


Protest Focuses on Troop Increase for Iraq


Protest on the mall - New York Times: By IAN URBINA, Published: January 28, 2007 —

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation’s capital since the war began.

The event drew demonstrators from across the country, and many said that in addition to taking their discontent to the streets they planned to press members of Congress to oppose the war. "When we voted it was a directive to bring our troops home now," said the Rev. Graylan S. Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, referring to the November elections when Democrats won control of Congress. Demonstrators listened to speeches from a roster of politicians and entertainment figures including the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio and a candidate for the presidency in 2008; and Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California. The actors Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also addressed the crowd.

The protest was largely organized by the group United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 1,400 local and national organizations. Included in the coalition are the National Organization for Women, United Church of Christ, the American Friends Service Committee, True Majority, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, CodePink, MoveOn.org, and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Counter protesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers.

“We never lost a battle in Vietnam but we lost the war, and the same is going to be true in Iraq if these protesters have their way,” said Larry Stark, 71, a retired Navy officer who fought in Vietnam for five years and was a prisoner of war during that conflict.

Mr. Stark said that the protesters were undermining troop morale and increasing the likelihood of a premature withdrawal. “It’s like we never learn from the past,” he said.

Ghouls


Ms. Fonda did us all a favor for many years after being rejected by half of America and hated by the military, by making half-hearted apologies and keeping silent with her vicious anti-Americanism. She mistakenly believes that enough time has passed, and that the 70's have returned again with the howls of ghouls like Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Cindy Sheehan, who cause more death and destruction for American GI's than Al-Queda ever could.

May free speech reign, as I always say. This is America. Let them speak.

Then, after they have spoken, we will speak. We will proclaim the truth about them, and not let them get away with murder.

click to hide most of this post


A Message for Moderates


I know you are confused, or think our feelings about Ms. Fonda are extreme. In my opinion, they are not. I do not advocate that any harm come to Ms. Fonda, nor to her compadres. I want to afford them the right to their views. They have a right to gather, and say anything they feel is true.

My only goal is to counter their arguments. Plus, some of what they do is done in the mistaken belief that they are being heroes. They envision themselves as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type people or John Doe types. I want to clarify, for any of their fans, for the nation, and for Ms. Fonda et al, that they are not heroes. They are the exact opposite. Since celebrities want above all else to be liked, (followed by their desire to make millions of dollars off the capitalism they abhor), I want to show them that their hateful views do not make them liked. Rather, they are despised, by at least a significant portion of the nation.

Maybe, maybe, they will stop and consider their positions. Probably not. At least, though, some of their fans will reconsider their devotion to them, and—hoping against hope—their box office will slip.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, January 27, 2007

American Democracy at War



War



Srategies





Iraq War Strategies under Hitler, Roosevelt or Truman, versus Bush


I want to compare how a dictator would wage the War in Iraq, versus how our democracy must wage it.





Furthermore, I want to compare how Roosevelt or Truman would wage the war versus how Bush is waging it. There are advantages for a dictator in waging war, but also disadvantages. The same is true for a democracy, and especially for our democracy post Vietnam and post Watergate.

Moreover, there is a difference in leadership style between our leaders in WWII and our leaders now.


Hitler


How would Hitler wage the War in Iraq? He would use his own judgment and wield absolute control to effect it. Knowing Hitler, he would use overwhelming force quickly. He would also be aware that Iran and Syria are funding, training, and even sending troops into Iraq, so he would open up fronts against both these countries simultaneously, aiming to crush them and perhaps even take them over. In Iraq, he would confiscate the oil fields and use the revenue to pay for the war effort. He would annihilate neighborhoods that harbored terrorists or insurgents. He would not hesitate to ethnically cleanse either Sunnis or Shias if they continued to be troublemakers.

Results

What would the results be? Hitler sults be? Hitler would probably win the War in Iraq. He would have conquered Iraq by now, and maybe Syria too, and at least reduced Iran's influence in the region, including stopping them from developing nuclear weapons and decimating their army and warlike capabilities.


click to show/hide the rest of the post

The disadvantages?

The rest of the world would be building armies and weaponry to oppose him and defeat him eventually. A quiet insurgency would begin building within Iraq, Syria and Iran to one day take their lands back. Knowing Hitler, he would eventually open up too many fronts, and eventually be defeated.

Roosevelt or Truman


How would Roosevelt or Truman wage the War in Iraq? Actually, they would fight much the same way as Hitler, except without the ethnic cleansing, and without the permanent takeover of Iraq, Iran and Syria. Plus, after the war, they would return the oil fields to the Iraqis, and develop a Marshall Plan for that country.

Results

The results? There would be peace in Iraq, and Roosevelt or Truman would then use this as a springboard to forge a peace between Palestine and Israel.


The disadvantages?

You need strong leaders like Roosevelt or Truman to sustain a war effort that could effect such results. Such leaders are rare.

George Bush


How is our democracy waging the War in Iraq under George Bush?

America's Perpetual War Against the Peace Advocates

America always seems to have a large peace contingent. We had anti-war folks before all of our wars. So to enter any war, millions of peaceniks or neutral folks must convert to favoring war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to go to war against Hitler's Germany long before Pearl Harbor, but it took that disaster to mobilize enough Americans to favor the war. Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to get us into the war, and then used Allied victories, carefully orchestrated propaganda, and the power of the bully pulpit to sustain American fervor for the war, all the way to victory.

Bush Handicaps

George Bush is operating under a number of handicaps compared with Roosevelt and Truman:

First, we are post Vietnam and post Watergate. Many Americans are instinctually anti-war because of the mess of Vietnam. Those same Americans, plus others, are distrustful of their government and leaders because of Watergate.

Second, the perpetual war between congress and the president over who has more power is in a stage where congress is emboldened to tip the scale in their favor. Democrats sense a weakened president, and so are pressing their case for more congressional power and less presidential power.

Third, George Bush has been less than effective in explaining the war to the people. He has not been able, as of late, to overcome the Democratic and some Republican opposition to the war by virtue of the bully pulpit. Part of the reason is that he has had a slow learning curve in giving effective speeches and communications; and part of it is that, until recently, he has not leveled with the American people about the truths of the war.

Fourth, Bush and Cheney et al made crucial strategic and tactical mistakes in Iraq, such as too few troops, not guarding weapons caches, and leaving the Iraqi army unemployed, which set up the inevitability of the insurgency and the failures in the Iraq War.

Fifth, Bush has chosen to fight a politically correct war. For example, he let Muqtada al-Sadr go when he had him cornered, so as not to anger the Shias; he would not attack the enemy in mosques; he was "careful" when going into insurgent strongholds not to harm the neighborhoods nor the "innocent" people harboring the terrorists; and he allowed Maliki to prevent the U.S. from going after Shia insurgents. Literally, George Bush has had the United States walking on eggshells, fighting a "careful," politically correct war.

Sixth, as a result, the War in Iraq has not gone well. Though the U.S. wins every outright battle decisively, we get slaughtered in the covert war, and public opinion continues to increase against the war.

Seventh, the U.S., along with Bush's ineffective championing of the war, is not engaging in any active propaganda war. Admittedly, in the age of the Internet, YouTube, and MySpace, this would be hard to do anyway, but there seems to be no massive educational campaign about why we are fighting and how high the stakes are. We just have one, lone Texas Ranger, who can't communicate well, telling us to trust him on this one.


Results?

We are winning the War in Iraq, in reality. There is no way the insurgents can defeat us. We win every battle, inflict more casualties than they do, and control the territory and the financial assets. We do suffer causalities, unfortunately. 3,000 dead is significant. Yet, compared to all our other wars, this casualty rate is low. What we are losing, as happened in Vietnam, is the PR war. The propaganda war. The war for hearts and minds.

click to hide most of this post


Conclusions


Hitler

Hitler would have won the War in Iraq by now, hands down. On the other hand, he would have continued his expansionism until he angered so much of the world that they would eventually mass and defeat him, as happened in WWII.

Roosevelt and Truman

Roosevelt and Truman would have won the War in Iraq by now, but they didn't have the handicaps that Bush has. We'd be well on our way to world peace, including in Palestine and Israel, under Roosevelt or Truman.

Bush

In my opinion, Bush was wise to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. This was a good thing for world peace and the War on Terror. It's too bad the American people don't see this and aren't patient enough to witness the resulting good things that will come from its successful conclusion.

Bush is winning the actual war in Iraq, undoubtedly, but has not won the PR nor the propaganda war, and so has lost the hearts and minds of Americans, Iraqis, and the world. Though Bush is winning the battlefield war for control of the territory and assets of Iraq, he is not winning the peace, the battle for law and order in Iraq. Due to military blunders, strategic and tactical, and through fighting a politically correct war, Bush has not been able to quash the nascent civil war and bring peace and security to Iraq. So, as in Vietnam, America is in danger of being driven from Iraq, not by the force of a standing enemy army, but by a deadly insurgency that instills fear, and by the force of public opinion.


The Solution


Bush has one more chance, the troop surge.

He needs to take the gloves off and stop fighting a politically correct war. He must fight to win, now. Plus, he must develop immediately into an effective communicator on the war, and authorize some kind of massive education campaign to teach the American people what the stakes are in this war.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Friday, January 26, 2007

Friends of God


Evangelicals








Pelosi Documentary: Evangelism in America's Heartland


Yesterday, I watched with fascination, awe, and yes, a good feeling, Nancy Pelosi's daughter's documentary about evangelicals in America, "Friends of God."

God, Mom and Country: A Filmmaker's Odyssey - The New York Times:








Ms. Pelosi with her son, Paul Michael Vos, born in November.









You are a young documentary filmmaker with a reputation for capturing politicians' antics. In a deliberate departure from politics, your latest film is
a road trip into the world of evangelical Christians that includes a drive-through church, a Christian wrestling federation, a stand-up Christian comic, and an evangelical Elvis.






HBO's Friends of God - TCA Report - TV Squad:
Documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, who also directed the doc about the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush "Journeys with George," tackles evangelicals in "Friends of God," an original film for HBO. It's a startling look deep inside the conventions, beliefs, and personalities that make up this larger than you would think demographic in the United States, which contains an estimated 50 to 80 million Americans.

Here is what one dismissive critic had to say: "Friends of God" goes into the belly of Evangelical America - TELEVISION REVIEW - Los Angeles Times:

click to show/hide the rest of this section

But in "Friends of God" Pelosi takes her "Real World" self and noncombative questions into Evangelical America and fails to achieve any intimacy whatsoever. The film is a Rough Guide of Holy Roller-ville, Pelosi the Blue State girl hitting the road with implied Trader Joe's snacks to have look-but-don't-touch encounters with Christian wrestlers, Christian car enthusiasts, Christian theme park operators, Christian home-schoolers.

What she observes — that there are millions of evangelicals out there, sectarian culture warriors, young and old, folded into pop culture and with political might — never rises to anything more than the preordained tour into the Land of Difference that Pelosi herself is on.

At its worst, it all comes off as a social worker's patronizing home visit, as when Pelosi drops in on a brood of Christian home-schoolers in Pikeville, Tenn., and seems to want to spirit away the mother of 10, maybe take her back to New York City to teach her how to blog.

Though Pelosi does, once again, get a "get" just by having a knack for being there. In this case it's the Rev. Ted Haggard, disgraced ex-leader of the New Life Church and National Assn. of Evangelicals, who resigned over "sexually immoral conduct" shortly after Pelosi finished her documentary.

click to hide most of this section


Freaks and Jerks


If you are a conservative, you'd expect a hate-filled film, ala Michael Moore, about a subject so foreign to such a secular family as the Pelosi's. Indeed, several evangelicals are up in arms about the film, saying that Ms. Pelosi focused on the "freak-show" aspects of evangelicals.

Dr. Larry Poland said that seeing certain evangelicals on-screen made him cringe a bit, because "Every congregation has their 'jerk factor.' The gays and lesbians have it, the Democrats have it, and we have it."


click to show/hide the rest of this section

Ironic Backdrop


Ms. Pelosi, when she made this documentary, could not have known two things that would be true when it first aired: that her mother would be installed as the first female Speaker of the House; and that her main spokesman for the evangelicals in the film, Ted Haggard, would disgrace himself.

click to hide most of this section


True Believers


I watched the smorgasbord of "freaks" and "jerks" but didn't get the same feeling as some of the defensive evangelicals feared. In fact, witnessing the panoply of eccentrics, as well as the many more ordinary believers, just gave me the feeling that these people really believe. They really really believe, to an extent that is absolute. They are a mighty army trying to use all of modern man's quirks and idiosyncrasies to fight the war for Christ. In their own minds, and with tangible results in reality, as in election victories and stable families, they are winning, one soul at a time.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Disclosure


In the interest of disclosure, I am not an evangelical. I believe in God, with a mix of Catholicism, Judaism, New Age, and an ear towards listening to God in the real world. If anything, I am biased against evangelicals, since though I believe in God, I do not believe in mankind's absolute interpretations of Him. I believe all religions have something to offer humanity, and do represent a communion with God, but that fallible humans have taken the Bible, the Qur'an, and other holy books, and characterized them as the literal spoken word of God. They presume that they know God and no one else does. Why? Because it says so, in the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qur'an, or the Bhagavad Gita.

God Speaks to Everyone


So I get very nervous when I hear someone so certain that they have a direct pipeline to God while the rest of us are out in the cold. I believe God speaks to all of us—Christians; Jews; Wiccans; even Muslims, the good ones; Buddhists; and even atheists and agnostics.

Charlatans, God, and Fallible Humans


Still, though I believe that about 60% of the pastors of these evangelicals are charlatans, just out to rake in the money, and I cringe at the absolutism of the evangelicals' beliefs, I do sense God in their midst. They are so happy, so involved, and so certain of their salvation through Christ.

Their young people are smiling. They might have rings in their lips, and purple hair, and sing punk rock, but it's Christian punk rock. These kids seem to have channeled their youthful rebellions into peculiar dress codes instead of drugs, sex and violence.

The families appear happy, united, working hard, the way families are meant to be.

The one glaring failure of all Christians, as with all humans it seems, is in the sexual realm. There are so many sexual scandals. Witness your Jimmy Swaggarts, your Jimmy Bakers, several Catholic priests, and your Ted Haggards.

Still, the evangelicals evidently have great sex lives with their partners. Another plus.


Haggard as Spokesperson


I found the use of soon-to-be-morally-exposed Haggard as the main spokesperson for the evangelicals to be ironic and emblematic. He seemed a good enough fellow throughout the film, full of good will and cheer, enlightenment, and moral certainty, even against gays. Until he was exposed as having gay sexual encounters himself. Again, Pelosi did not know Haggard would fall when she made her film. Still, he added a lot to the documentary, including its irony and a warning to the world that all is not as it seems.

click to show/hide the rest of this section


Kansas City Star | 01/16/2007 | Journeys with Ted and "Friends of God":
Besides, it's hard to see how "Friends of God" could have survived if Haggard had been sliced out of it. As president of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of a sprawling megachurch in Colorado, Haggard proved a helpful guide, on-camera and off, for the secularized, urbanized Catholic Democrat as she began her explorations of the praise-Jesus crowd.

If “Friends of God” is able to overcome the doubters and become a useful document of today’s Bible Belt, much of the credit must go to Haggard (he also was featured in the film “Jesus Camp,” which was partly shot in Lee’s Summit). Pelosi said he took her into his family and on trips through the evangelical world; opened doors to Jerry Falwell, who allowed her to film inside his Thomas Road Baptist Church; and turned her on to subculture phenomena like Christian wrestling, which looks just like the blood-and-guts version on cable TV, except there’s an altar call at the end.

Unfortunately, Haggard also provided what, in hindsight, will surely be the film’s touchstone moment. Standing outside church, he tells Pelosi’s camera that surveys have found evangelicals enjoy the best sex lives. Without warning, he turns to a couple of men standing nearby and asks them, “How many times a week do you have sex with your wife?” and, “How many times does she climax?”

But as weird as this exchange is, it does help establish an authentic voice for “Friends of God” that it would not have if it had been made by a born-again believer, who might have left scenes like that one out.

Larry Poland, an evangelical who was a consultant for Pelosi and HBO, told the TV critics he wasn’t entirely happy with the film, but then, “the film I’d have made wouldn’t have been interesting and fascinating."

click to hide most of this section


Cult?



Are evangelicals part of a cult? In my opinion, definitely yes. Some parts of the cult are harmless, as when the pink-haired wrestlers proselytize after a Christian wrestling match.















I am reminded though of the extent that evangelism can go when I watch the 1980 movie about the charismatic psycho-preacher, Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones, the guy who led almost 1000 followers to commit suicide. I am reminded of the absolute faith that some Muslims have that lead them to fly planes into towers of innocent people.

Yet, most of the cult of evangelism is either harmless or even positive. After all, they advocate following Christ, whose teachings were very humanistic and positive to all. Until, of course, you get to the dark side, where lurks hatred for those non-Christians, gays, and sinners of all kinds. Then, these Christians forget that Christ said ye without sin cast the first stone.

There is also something creepy about having these guys and gals proselytize 24 hours a day. Who likes a "Bible-thumper" bending your ear when you don't want it?

And, as a cult, there is also the mind-numbing, automaton-like behavior of people in groups—doing, saying, and thinking the same things, reinforced by ritual, song, and groupthink. This is no different from any kind of brainwashing (although evangelicals would say it is a kind of good brainwashing). All religions do it, but evangelicals do it with a special gusto. Radical Muslims do it too, only with evil in their hearts.

click to hide most of this post


Conclusion


I will never be an evangelical, and I would not want my children to be one either.

On the other hand, if I could capture the good parts of the phenomena, and add tolerance, skepticism about their beliefs (a healthy uncertainty), an openness to other religions, and a receptivity to God speaking in the here and now, then I think you'd have something. Keep God and Christ, and the rituals and goodness. Get rid of the hatred, exclusivity, moral certainty, and sinful pride. Admit that you are human, fallible, and that your interpretation of the Bible, or any other holy book, is your interpretation. Don't mistake your interpretation for the word of God.

On the other extreme, I advise not to discriminate against evangelicals. They are mostly good people. Very good people.

I urge every American to see this film, "Friends of God." It captures some truth about America, and about God, and is supremely entertaining.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,