Yes, Mark, of course we despise "Dances With Wolves!" It’s pretentious, silly, boring, condescending, tedious and intellectually offensive. The worst thing about it was that Hollywood thought it was profound, and that just confirms so much about Hollywood, doesn’t it?
You see, this "epic" — which I believe lasted about 14 hours, but it may have been longer — was intended to teach Deep Lessons to us hicks out here in Flyover Land all about the Noble Red Man. It seems that Hollywood had just discovered the American Indian, and learned that he was treated badly by the white man, and was going to teach all of us about it, because of COURSE we couldn’t have heard about it out here.
Never mind that the theme of the Noble Savage had been done to death in the early 19th century by James Fenimore Cooper, as any literate person (a category that, as near as I can tell, does not involve anyone in Hollywood) would know.
Or that the theme had become so passe that Mark Twain brutally satirized it later in the century. And remember, Twain was a very liberal, free-thinking sort, but he could not abide pretension.
Or that Hollywood — John Ford, no less — had decades previously given the subject serious, respectable treatment, in a way that might make even John Wayne feel guilty about the white man’s role.
Or that Hollywood, in a more thoughtful era, had even satirized that. In fact, let’s consider "Little Big Man" for a moment. It had fun with almost every Western cliche you can think of, including that of the noble, mystical Red Man (and yes, that was, is, and always will be a cliche, which is my point here — the people making "Dances with Wolves" were not sophisticated enough to know that; they actually thought they were breaking new ground, and that is what is so embarrassing and offensive about it).
"Little Big Man" paid the American Indian the compliment of treating him as a human being, rather than as a stereotype, positive or negative. Director Arthur Penn had the good sense to give his Indians — who, appropriately enough, referred to themselves collectively as "the Human Beings" — the full range of human attributes. They were brave, silly, wise, stupid, tragic, comic and so forth.
The best bit in the whole movie was when Chief Dan George, the wise, earthy Grandfather, decided it was "a good day to die," and went out and lay down to do just that. Of course, the viewer thinks, "Wow, Indians can really do that? I guess it’s because they’re just so much more attuned to the universe than we are." A few moments later, raindrops hit his apparently lifeless face. He opens his eyes and asks Dustin Hoffman whether he is dead yet. A relieved Hoffman says no, so Grandfather gets up with the younger man’s help, shrugs and says something to the effect of, well, maybe some other day would be a better day to die. Or so I remember; I don’t have it at hand to check.
It was so down-to-earth, real, fallible and human. And for those reasons, Grandfather actually is noble — unlike the cardboard cutouts of "Dances With Wolves."
Do you see what I’m saying?
As for "Apocalypse Now" — I’ll deal with that, at least in passing, in my next post. As it happens, my thoughts on it are sort of the opposite of Dave’s.
Related Posts
Gee Brad,
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to push your buttons. You’re starting to sound like Mary. You’re right-Dances With Wolves sucks beyond comprehension-just don’t get mad. Damned Zinn and Chomsky!
It was Hollywood that misled me. They rated that tripe at number 75 on the AFI 100. I’m sorry for being an uncultured oaf. Brad knows best.
“”Dances With Wolves!” It’s pretentious, silly, boring, condescending, tedious and intellectually offensive.”
I agree,but I would also say the same thing about all of Woody Allen’s movies,who I know is one of your faves.That’s my opinion,not a value judgement.If Mark likes the movie,so what,it’s only a movie.I think Annie Hall could easily be added to the list of worst films ever made.
But hey,Little Big Man was fantastic.
I can care less about Dances With Wolves because it is a mediocre movie. However, D.W.W. certainly isn’t one of the worst movies ever made.
Here is something that people may find of interest. I’ve no other place to post the following:
It doesn’t matter if you’re right or left—Bush is wrong
by Mick Youther
“I recently read Pat Buchanan’s book, Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency. I would recommend it to anyone, regardless of their politics. The biggest surprise to me was that even though Pat Buchanan is one of America’s leading right-wing conservative voices, I agree with everything he said in this book.”
Anyone know where to find instructions or any kind of help in creating a “blog site”. Other than typepad.com or godaddy.com. Any books available, or classes?
Mark, Pat Buchanan has many ideas I agree with, including his thoughts on the Supreme Court and the ongoing cultural war in America for two. His foreign policy ideas are protectionist and archaic. Pat would have us sit idly by while the Islamo-fascists take the Middle East, Africa, then Asia, and finally Europe. At that point, when Pat’s beloved Irish homeland would be in jeopardy, Pat, if he were in the oval office, would not hesitate to push the nuclear button. This is what his protectionist and appeasing policies would bring to us. Again, I admire the guy. Anyone who could go through the Columbia School of Journalism as a conservative has some guts.
GS, give Blogger a try.
I must disagree with placing Dune in a worst category, preferring instead “peculiar, potentially adequate.” Sure it was a failure, but it has several redeeming features, some of which even deal with the original story. I’ll think of them in a minute. It’s by no means Jackson’s LOTR, which excelled in casting, direction, cinematography, and, most importantly, fidelity to the story.
I’ve been immersed in a special project with little time for much of anything else, but did turn on the tube Saturday or Sunday (I’ve lost track) to find one of the great movies, The Outlaw Josey Wales wherein the aforementioned Chief Dan George has a wonderful supporting role. Eastwood’s talent in making the most of sparse dialog is quite satisfying.
While I tend to support the use of “Costner” as a verb, Bull Durham does weigh heavily in the balance to offset some of his more egregious flicks, no? While he’s got a better track record, Sean Connery has starred in some stinkers, but Robin and Marian surely outweighs a Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight twenty-fold.
Finally, I agree with the general opinion of Oliver Stone’s work, but propagandists are skillful folks. Here’s an analysis of Bowling for Columbine that shows what a clever editor can do; it’s intriguing in that it shows changes made between the theater film, home VHS, and home DVD versions.
Mark – Pat Buchanan is a very smart, exceedingly clever, and witty guy who takes a knife to a fistfight, a gun to a knife fight, and sneaks into gunfights to shoot his opponent in the back. He’s a pragmatist / opportunist who will do whatever it takes to win. He’s been called an Irish brawler and thug, appellations he seems to enjoy. I almost wrote that he’ll publicly adopt positions that he doesn’t personally believe in, but I don’t think that he is guided by a coherent ideological philosophy or set of policies. If you read his body of work over the past thirty years, you’ll find that he’s a keen analyst but appears to have some personal beliefs that border on the irrational, or even cross that line.
Although I disagree with Pat on many issues, I believe him to be a true conservative as opposed to the neo-liberals and neo-conservatives that co-opted power in the Republican Party. The left has the same problem with neo-liberalism. To me it is obvious that the entities that fund both parties are more committed to global corporate capital investment return than to the United States of America. Speaking of propaganda, (i.e., the systematic dissemination of truths, half truths, and lies to promote a one side view point), the corporate media had successfully undermined conservatism and liberalism by the 1990s; hence Clinton and Bush arrived on the scene. If you look at who owns the media (about eight or so major conglomerates), then it’s easy to see why cable and newspapers promote economic policies that damage most people (even the professional middle class and small business owners) yet are beneficial to a super wealthy elite. When you watch MSNBC for example, you’re being spoon-fed propaganda straight from Microsoft and General Electric. The State, for example, is beholden to the Chamber of Commerce because of advertising revenue; hence Brad’s opinions.
Here is another conservative that made the progressive press:
It Didn’t Work
By William F. Buckley
The National Review
” Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven’t proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.”
Mark, don’t miss Francis Fukuyama’s latest book After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads. Fukuyama is one of the ideological godfathers of neo-conservatism. Aspiring neo-con intellectuals frequently cite “The End of Hisotry” as justification.
Now, after tens of thousands dead and maimed in Iraq, Fukuyama decides that his philosophy was, well, wrong.
“Oops! Minor mistake, folks.” As it turns out, the U.S. can’t militarily impose democracy on a diverse tribal and religious society without a similar cultural or economic history.
Who woulda known? (Except those that paid attention during the last 50 years.)
From the safety of his professor’s office he can muse while surveying a tranquil campus. Too bad that he doesn’t get to experience the wrenching grief, mayhem and chaos that his true-believers unleashed in Iraq.
No wonder Americans deeply distrust ideologues.
Well, I certainly distrust ideologues, but you and I are on opposite sides when it comes to Iraq. But you see, that’s OK; we’re free to disagree — ideologues are not.
Usually, it is the self-professed ideologues — true conservatives (as Mark correctly calls him) such as Pat Buchanan, and the people who misleadingly CALL themselves liberals in this post-Vietnam world — who have opposed our venture in Iraq.
As I’ve written many times before, what we are doing in Iraq is a classically, quintessentially liberal enterprise. It reflects both exuberant American optimism and an acute sense of responsibility to the rest of the world. It certainly isn’t conservative — it’s too risky, too messy and too expensive for that.
In the only senses of the words that make sense, conservatives want to hang onto their three-car garages and country club memberships and let the rest of the world go to hell while we hide behind an anti-missile shield. Liberals want to reach out, and use the wealth and raw power of the United States to free oppressed peoples and give them at least a fighting chance of enjoying what we enjoy — prosperity, and the blessings of liberal democracy.
And now, to return to the original topic — Mark did indeed push one of my buttons, but not in the way he may think.
My mind is constantly composing harangues about things I encounter in daily life — things that aren’t really relevant enough to write a column about (or are borderline), but which I nevertheless structure in more-or-less column form and then tuck away into the dusty archives of my brain.
I had this forgotten set of complaints about Dances With Wolves stored away somewhere — complete with the references to James Fenimore Cooper, Mark Twain and John Ford — and Mark’s observation that my trashing of DTW was “interesting” (by which I had no idea whether he meant in a good way or a bad way) indeed pushed a button that caused the whole neglected mess to leap to my fingers.
I didn’t know it was going to end up that way. I just started to write a comment, but as it kept flowing and got more involved, requiring links, I turned it into a separate post.
I realize now, based on Mark’s and Bill’s comments at the start of this string, that it could look like I unloaded on Mark. That was not my intent. I was just minding my own business, and suddenly the gun went off.
Speaking of Indians, does anyone else remember the Indian Princess who stood in for Marlon Brando at the Academy Awards? She gave some anti-American discourse about how the red man had been so abused, yada, yada, yada. Liberals get really goofy and funny at times.
Brad, that remark about the 3 car garage is a blast. An extremely liberal friend of mine resides in Ballantyne south of Charlotte. Yes, they have the 3 car park. And the club membership. Devoted NPR listeners who grimace when I mention Rush.. haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaa
Yeah, but you miss the point: They feel GUILTY about it. That’s the only difference between them and conservatives. It doesn’t keep them from accumulating the bucks. And the stuff.
One more bit of proof of my thesis that “liberal” and “conservative” don’t tell you much about a person.
You’re so right,Brad.I wish we could retire those two words for a couple of decades and bring ’em back later when maybe they’ll mean something,unless you’re talking a liberal refill on this cup of coffee I’m drinking.
Brad, I see it a different way. Most liberals who have “made it” look down on the rest of society. Thus they propose tax increases on “them” while vigorously working to avoid taxes on their own money. They also will act miserly with their own money while proposing that working people don’t pay their “fair share”. The extreme examples are Streisand, Teresa Heinz, Hillary (remember she actually wrote off old underwear from Bill as a tax deduction), and a cast of thousands. Do liberals “feel” guilty? Yes, they do, but they want to act out their guilt with the wallets of hard working people. They also preach to others about “supporting public education” while making sure their own kids get into exclusive private schools. Gore, Clinton, Conyers of Michigan, and a raft of other libs have done that all along. I know we have all beat this liberal and conservative thing to death but it makes great blogging material..
Brad, now here is a journalist or two The State should hire. This kind of reporting and journalism would get your paper sales soaring. Hold that Tiger!!!!! These kids published the Muslim cartoons to boot.
Read about Students Put on Gun Auction at Clemson!
Brad, after reading this speech by Brigitte Gabriel, I understand more than ever your position on the cartoon business (sorry to bring it up again!). I can understand a government being wary, but this sort of thing is being circulated in evangelical church circles here. God help us all if Christians start becoming like radical, extremist Muslims, which is exactly what some evangelicals are perpetrating. A far difference from what the New Testament tells us that Christians are supposed to be. By the way, did you know that when in Isaiah 53 (obviously I understand this passage as Messianic) it says that “he had done no violence . . .” the word is hamas? Precarious, it is true, to compare an ancient Hebrew word with a modern Arabic one, but interesting none the less. Jesus is different from the rest, and his followers are supposed to be as well. But we keep “cutting off the ears” of non-Christians. No wonder they don’t want to listen. There is an interesting Christian song that was done in German a few years ago: “Jesus heilt den, der von den Juengern verletzt ist . . . ” translation: Jesus heals the person who has been wounded by His (zealous) disciples . . . .
Yeah Brad, it sounds like you’ve got Post Traumatic Writer’s Syndrome. I suspect that at one time Mary was a former editor of yours, and that you finally snapped under the pressure. Oh, the horror! There is a writer’s union you know.
Seriously though, preferences in cinema and literature are subjective. Undoubtedly, my favorite works are Hamlet, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Les Miserables. I don’t believe that any movie will ever meet my expectations concerning these works, so I’m often disappointed by modern renditions. Of course, good movies are usually backed up by good literature, and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. Four Weddings and a Funeral was a good movie in itself, and it had a solid screenplay, however, I was most moved by the recitation of the Funeral Blues by W.H. Auden, so I purchased Auden’s collected works as a consequence. Over the years I’ve committed quite a few of my favorite passages to memory solely for the joy of doing so. Many years ago I translated a significant portion of Sir Gawain using a Stratmann’s Middle English Dictionary in conjunction with a Concise Oxford Dictionary (before the proliferation of the internet). Translating Sir Gawain proved to be a daunting task since the North West Midland’s dialect of Middle English had never been well researched up until a relatively short time ago. I had to manually go through all of the vowel combinations and variant spellings to arrive at the correct definitions of words, and then carefully research the etymology of each word while continually testing it within its context. It took forever, but translating Gawain proved to be rewarding, and I learned much. I only became interested in Hamlet when I realized that Shakespeare had been acquainted with Alliterative Revival literature and that he possibly knew of the Gawain poet’s work. I miss those days. I suppose if I had never picked up a copy of Sir Gawain out of boredom on Christmas leave when I was twenty-five, then I would see no value in anything that I’ve mentioned here today.
Hitchens whups Fukuyama.
As for Buchanan, his nativist, isolationist, and populist views categorize him as a paleoconservative, folks that like to call themselves “classical conservatives” but are not.
(Sheesh! It’s almost as convoluted as keeping the Trotskyites, Leninists, Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and other communists straight, no?)
For your scorecard, Buchanan and crew are not big fans of free market capitalism and free trade, and have a distressing tendency to sound Anti-Semitic. Many conservatives therefore regard them as closet Democrats.
If movies are an art-form,they’re the lowliest.I haven’t seen any that I would call “art”.
Mark,
Does your Auden collection include “A Day for a Lay”?
Since the State’s editorial page doesn’t accept poetry,I’ll put one here.
Southern Plagiarist Haiku
The heart is a lone-
ly hunter trying not to
kill a mockingbird
W.E.M.
Here are just a couple of examples of that “acute sense of responsibility to the rest of the world” which Brad must have had in mind in his comment above.
Let’s not kid ourselves. America, like every dominant world power before it, acts primarily from self-interest. The Iraq intervention may have been a good idea from that standpoint, or not a good idea; but it did not spring primarily from the benevolent wish to free the oppressed peoples of Iraq. Even Hitchens acknowledges that in his typically eloquent column which Mike C cited above. After all, I don’t see us rushing into Myanmar, and only belatedly are we showing greater interest in the Darfur tragedy. Moreover, when we felt it benefited us, we were more than happy to acquiesce and actively encourage oppressive regimes, certainly during the Cold War era.
I have a one-word movie title for this idealized view of American foreign policy: “Fantasia.”
Phillip – Here is a novel idea. How about the Africans solving their OWN problems? They are immensely rich in natural resources, water, population, land, etc. but why is it the left in America constantly cries about what we dont do for Africa. I know a lot of this complaining wasnt rampant during the Clinton years, but we all knew he “felt” their pain so that made it all right. Bush, by the way, has given ten times the money to Africa that Clinton ever did, and we know that Bush will not receive even one iota of thanks from the left here or the Africans. Interesting.
No, Bill, although my collection does include "Lay Lady Lay." But to make up for the dearth of poetry, shall I set up a haiku category on the blog? Think carefully before you answer, because I recently found a minor trove of such verses I wrote in college, and it would not be beneath me to post them. Just so you are warned.
Dave, about the "gun." First, it’s a rifle, not a gun. I’m sure you knew that, even if Greenville’s staff writer didn’t. If not, you’d never make it in the Russian Marines. Second, it never said whether the thing would go full auto or not. Even if it didn’t, it might be worth five bucks for a chance to win it. After all, it’s the weapon that won the War for the South. Oh, wait — that was an alternative version of history. Anyway, it’s too late now.
And Mark, I don’t know much about the various dialects of Middle English, but Sir Gawain was always my favorite of the Orkney brothers — especially in the modern, T.H. White version.
Well, Phillip, "Fantasia" was a pretty good flick.
You seem confused on a certain point. Why must national interest and helping oppressed peoples in other countries be mutually exclusive? The best thing for America’s future safety and economic growth would be for the rest of the world to be governed by free, liberal democracies with active, growing economies.
"Why not Myanmar or Darfur" is an especially specious argument. Basically, I take my interventions wherever I can get them. I would LOVE for the U.S. to go in and separate the killers from their victims in Darfur; I just don’t see any chance of the political consensus for that happening.
I mean, look at Iraq: We had every justification we needed to go in there, and people are still arguing about it. One justification by itself was enough: The fact that we had only stopped shooting in 1991 in exchange for Saddam agreeing to certain conditions, and he had been violating those conditions for 12 years. If that weren’t enough, there was the 2002 UN resolution, which only the U.S. and its coalition partners (which, by the way, originally included most European nations ASIDE from France and Germany, and even THEY were actually of more help than they wanted to admit) were willing to act upon.
So yes, I was and am all for our intervention in Iraq — just as I was for Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo, and WOULD have been for Rwanda, and WOULD be for Darfur.
What disgusts me is when we stand by — as we’re doing in Darfur and did in Rwanda — or commit, then quit, as in Somalia. We have an enormous obligation to use our power and wealth to help those who don’t have them. Unfortunately, it’s all too seldom that our leaders are willing to ask us to fulfill that obligation, and that we’re willing as a nation to say "yes," and stick to it.
In response, Brad, let me clarify my earlier post: I agree with you that “national self-interest” and “helping oppressed peoples” are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive. However, I hope that you will concur that by the same token, they do not necessarily go together every time. And my point was that, in the crunch, the deciding factor in American foreign policy is self-interest.
“We have an enormous obligation to use our power and wealth to help those who don’t have them.” That’s a classic “liberal” viewpoint and it’s hard to argue with that statement, on its surface. The problem lies in that tiny word, “help.” Who decides what constitutes “help”? In a humanitarian crisis, a famine or a tsunami, help is easy to define—get some food and shelter to the afflicted, as fast as you can. In a situation like Iraq, “help” is much trickier to define. We see it one way, the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds probably see it three different ways. If Iraq degenerates into full-blown civil war, fragments into 3 mini-states, with one linked closely to a strengthened Iran, will we have “helped” Mr. Average-Iraqi-Citizen? We may not know the answer to this for years yet.
One thing is for sure: if we believe that only the United States can determine how best to “help” the world, that does not bode well “for America’s future safety and economic growth.” After all, what good will it do for there to be more “free and liberal democracies” if the US continues to pursue a more and more unilateralist approach to world affairs?
Can I just make a comment or two that may seem obvious — these are things that evangelicals have learned in mission work:
1) We can no longer talk “down” to the rest of the world, or even assume that we are in charge. If we are going to empower other countries, we have to treat them as partners. In the political arena, that means avoiding unilateralism wherever possible. Often, it even means serving underneath the leadership of others (that of course, is Christian, and will probably never fly in the political arena), even if we are footing the bill.
2) Our leaders have to level with us from the very beginning. They must establish a consensus with the American people concerning the goals and the cost involved. If there is any doubt in the very beginning, we cannot attempt the job, no matter how noble the cause. (Please pardon my Biblicism, if that’s what it is, but I find a lot of illustrations in Scripture.)
3) We must be aware of and avoid the American “fix it” mentality. Situations are often far more complex than we realize. Americans cannot fix everything. (It would also help if we would work on our educational system. We are abysmal at learning languages and understanding history and culture. Both require some humility.)
4) We are hated in the world, on the one side for the export of our “Puritanism,” and on the other side for our export of porn. Being hated is not necessarily a problem; leaders are always challenged. But the mixture is lethal; we are basically seen as hypocrites in many quarters. The film industry and the Internet provide a stereotype of Americans that is bigger than we realize. (Women in the Middle East think that all American women dress like Britney Spears.) When people in Germany heard I was from Texas, they automatically asked if I was a cowboy. Protests were in vain. Texans are cowboys, period. Never mind that I had ridden a horse about 3 times in my life.
In addition, we are seen as promoting Western culture and values with a vengenance (though the Internet has its own power, and there is not much we can do to turn it off), and destroying Eastern cultures.
This matter of helping the world is noble, but it won’t work without a lot of effort and preparation. In missions, we spend years getting ready for helping abroad, with programs in cultural anthropology, languages, etc. A missionary often spends the equivalent amount of time in training as a medical doctor. Of course, some of them are medical doctors as well.
All of this is not to negate the sacrifice that many of our people voluntarily make to serve in the military and foreign service. I’m just pleading for realism.
Herb, can America talk down to barbarians who wire up children and retarded people with explosives to kill Jews and American soldiers? Can we talk down to people who decapitate aid workers and reporters? Remember Daniel Pearl? You seem like a very likable person but I have this terrible thought that if you were in Berlin in 1936, while the Nazis were carting off families, and roughing up people in the streets, you would have been preaching — “Don’t fight back, we can’t lower ourselves to their way of hatred.” That may be fine for you, but I think we need to talk down to these sub-human scum. And kill all of them as soon as we can. As for partnering with the amoral secular humanist societies of Europe, forget it, they have lost their faith in God and the will to defend themselves. AT the rate they are going, Muslims will rule their nations within 20 to 50 years. This nation bailed the Euros out of their Nazi disaster in the 1940’s and someday they will be asking us to bail them out of their Muslim problem.
Dave, have you read Black Hawk Down? We could have gone a long way in preventing what happened there with just a little bit of cultural sensitivity. Americans go in with “shock and awe,” sometimes I think the European accusation, “like a bunch of cowboys” almost fits. Did we really need to blast through Mogadishu with low-flying helicopters and rip babies out of the arms of their mothers?
I was trying to say above that politics and religion are not the same thing. As you have probably read before, I am an advocate of (a modification of) Luther’s teaching on the two kingdoms. The world cannot necessarily be ruled by Christian principles. But we can learn some things from Christian principles, nonetheless.
We don’t always have to burst in the door like John Wayne and shoot up the place. Indeed, there are a lot of military people who are quietly helping in lots of peaceful ways, and for that I am thankful. But sometimes I don’t think the top brass has a clue. I may be wrong.
Well, I certainly distrust ideologues, but you and I are on opposite sides when it comes to Iraq. But you see, that’s OK; we’re free to disagree — ideologues are not.
I believe that it’s unfair to use the noun “Ideologue” when describing the political opposition since the word is prejudicial and its interpretation is subjective. Undoubtedly everyone who participates on this blog presents a fairly consistent ideology of his own making. Brad has an ideology (classic liberal), I have an ideology (social democratic), Herb has an ideology (Evangelical Christian), Mike has an ideology (objectivism: as I interpret Mike), etc. Of course, we all have different degrees of freedom within our own ideologies to make judgments. Sometimes I agree with liberal views-other times I agree with conservative views. I almost never agree with neo-conservative and neo-liberal views because they’re not consistent with my worldview (my ideology). I’m willing to listen to and to debate others, and to even sometimes adopt the arguments of people that I previously disagreed with. I’ve learned much by listening to people who do not necessarily agree with me.
Usually, it is the self-professed ideologues — true conservatives (as Mark correctly calls him) such as Pat Buchanan, and the people who misleadingly CALL themselves liberals in this post-Vietnam world — who have opposed our venture in Iraq.
Brad has a point about people calling themselves “liberals” in the technical sense. I think there are two things going on here:
1. Brad is still miffed about the hippy types and the Hanoi Janes opposing the Vietnam War.
2. Brad rejects the New Deal mentality as far as I can tell.
Point number two is the weird thing to me because the Great Depression had such a devastating effect on the country that the definition of “liberal” had changed by the time Brad came around. Maybe Brad is OK with the New Deal and he just opposes the Great Society; I don’t know for sure. Brad likes JFK, but JFK’s policies resulted with one kind of outcome when he was surrounded by New Dealers and social democrats, while Kennedy’s policies implemented today result in something quite different within the framework of unfettered capitalism. I think that Brad wants to limit the debate between the poles of a moderate republican and a conservative democrat. Social Democracy is off the table.
I’ll accept Buchanan and modern liberals as being “self-professed ideologues” if Brad agrees to be called a “surreptitious ideologue”. Brad is every bit as ideological as is everyone else.
As I’ve written many times before, what we are doing in Iraq is a classically, quintessentially liberal enterprise. It reflects both exuberant American optimism and an acute sense of responsibility to the rest of the world. It certainly isn’t conservative — it’s too risky, too messy and too expensive for that.
Too bad that neither the rest of the world nor most of the US sees it that way. Where’s the “acute sense of responsibility” right here at home? Seriously, our infrastructure has been privatized and outsourced to the point where we can no longer effectively defend ourselves if certain hostile countries (e.g., the Communist Chinese, the UAE, etc.) don’t want us to be defended. What “exuberant American optimism” is Brad referring to? I don’t see it. We’re supposedly spreading democracy yet neither do my former coworkers nor I have any rights. It’s total BS. We’re being exploited by a bunch of corporate scum and we know it. These people are de-facto white-collar criminals yet they are given a privileged status that they use to intimidate people. I’m not going to support any kind of military intervention to spread “democracy” abroad until I get real rights and real democracy here: including the right to form a trade union and the right to collectively bargain, for starters.
Obviously our free trade policies have been a disaster. We’re mired in debt and we have a gigantic trade deficit. We have egregious levels of wealth inequality. Our privatized society offers no hope for the majority of the population. The tax code is too regressive and is set up against ordinary people. I don’t know anyone in the working class (the bottom 80% of the population) who can afford to retire, and the middle class is shrinking. Does Brad think that people are going to continue to support failed trade and economic policies? If so, then he should think again. Why doesn’t Brad stand up for workers for once? Has Brad ever sought the opinion of labor groups or worker friendly civic organizations for his columns? No. Brad’s columns are full of references to investment firms and the Chamber of Commerce however.
In the only senses of the words that make sense, conservatives want to hang onto their three-car garages and country club memberships and let the rest of the world go to hell while we hide behind an anti-missile shield. Liberals want to reach out, and use the wealth and raw power of the United States to free oppressed peoples and give them at least a fighting chance of enjoying what we enjoy — prosperity, and the blessings of liberal democracy.
What is Brad talking about? What liberal democracy? Does a 98% congressional re-election rate constitute liberal democracy? Surely Brad means “plutocracy”. Prosperity for whom? Please get out and talk to the people.
Reading through my post again, it’s too negative about the military. Essentially, I’m for intervention, if carefully calculated. We’ve actually seem to have done a decent job in Afghanistan, as far as I can tell, which isn’t very far. Iraq? I don’t know. I still don’t know if we should have gone there. But it’s beside the point, now. We have to see it through.
Bush Defends Outsourcing of Jobs in India
Thanks for slitting the throats of American workers George!
South Carolina will soon be your own little “India” right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A..
One thing is for sure: you’ll come out smelling like a rose.
Brad,
I was asking Mark about his Auden collection,not your album collection.
And yes,I think a Haiku category would be splendid but strict-17 syllables,5-7-5.
We are number ten in something!
Hey, if you’re tired of being 49th and 50th in everything, then cheer up.
INCOME INEQUALITY HAS INCREASED IN SOUTH CAROLINA OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES
o In the early 2000s, the richest 20 percent of families had average incomes 7.0 times as large as the poorest 20 percent of families. This is up from a ratio of 4.8 in the early 1980s. This growth in income inequality was the 10th largest in the nation.
Bush’s tax cuts for the rich combined with his pro-job killing, outsourcing agenda, will surely soon take SC into “India” style third-world poverty. Won’t it be fun being George’s little “India”? We’re halfway there now.
Mark, India, the LARGEST democracy in the world, has now entered into a military alliance with us. This alliance is a huge master stroke of brilliance. Bush has been misunderestimated again. American companies will sell more goods there, and we will buy more from the Indians, a win win scenario. The bottom line is if you or anyone else works in a menial non-skilled job, hurry up and get some education and training in a “needed” skill trade. Then, join in the capitalist world and have fun while making money. Would not that be a great alternative to whining about how much money successful people make?
Dave,
Buy yourself a copy of The State and look in the classifieds for a good technician’s job. I finished at the top of my class in the Navy in electronics and I almost aced my E-5 exam during the height of the Regan Navy (competing against people who already had four-year degrees!). The Navy spent big bucks training me. I’am an expert LabView programmer (I’m willing to back up this statement). I write complex statistical distribution programs. I used to repair radars and microwave transceivers. I’m one of the few people in the US who can use and program the sophisticated test equipment needed to repair fiber optic amplifiers. I can easily write complex test programs. I’m decent at Javascript, HTML, DHTML, and I can modify Java programs to suit my purposes. I’ve math skills way beyond what most technicians can do. For example, I’d like challenge people reading this to numerically integrate Schrodinger’s equation: you can use fourth order Runge-Kutta or Numerov-it doesn’t matter to me-just make it work. Pump me out a six-sigma SPC program from scratch with plenty of bells and whistles: I can do this stuff in my freaking sleep.
Aside from all of that, I’ve spent most of my work life doing industrial electrician/ maintenance jobs because there have never been good technician jobs in the Columbia area. The engineers that I’ve worked with are all trying to do project work rather than real engineering because they see the handwriting on the wall. They’re worried about their jobs being outsourced because they know that people in India will do their job for one tenth of their wages. They can’t give me a job that doesn’t exist. The good jobs that were here have in large measure left SC, and the US for that matter. The wages for the type of work I do are going down because the employee market is glutted. Health insurance is disappearing. Companies come into this state and bring their sorry, crony management with them in order to exploit people. I never loved the South so much until I had the misfortune of working for the dregs of the Midwest.
Aside from that, I do plenty of activist stuff outside of work. I have a great wife and kid. My sympathies are with workers because they (we) have been screwed immeasurably. I try to represent people who otherwise have no representation. I especially try to take up for my coworkers: the welders, pipe fitters, machinists, electricians, mechanics, and millwrights who make this state and country run. I love the people of SC. My life is a total success!
As for whining-let’s not go down that road. We see things differently- let’s leave it at that.
Mark, you and I can agree that corporations in general leave a lot to be desired. Their definitely is a strong element of management greed that I see day in and day out. Imperfect as all that may be, the government is worse in all respects. The private sector is hugely incented to correct waste and inefficiency while the public sector has very little reason to focus on that, unless in some cases the State paper exposes some fraud. On that, when is the last time the State broke open a fraud story? Someone please remind me if they have lately.
Also, don’t take my posts as personal shots, I try to not do that but cross the border on occasion. You seem like a really industrious person with a lot of passion and that is commendable. There are corporations and companies out there with a conscience and respect for their employees. I understand that Chick-fil-A will not fire any employees. I have seen others that have voluntarily extended someone’s medical care so they would not take on catastrophic charges. All companies are not like the old garment sweat shops. But, yes, a lot of improvement is needed.
Mark, I hate to tell you, but with the mentality of most of the “business leaders” in Columbia, don’t expect high wages anytime soon. The mentality for a high tech economy will mostly have to come from outside, probably the German companies. Local management is looking how to replace you with an Indian on an illegal visa.
I see where the industrial advisors to the U of Illinois Urbana, which helped create the graphical Internet browser, has recommended that they cease teaching programming, because America can outsource all its software development.
Six Sigma? We don’t want no steekin’ Six Sigma.
Its Bush’s fault alright. And he will keep the war going as long as he can. To keep the voter scare so they will continue to vote for his party.
AJ, are you one of those who believes 9/11 didn’t happen, or that Bush blew up the WTC towers?
DWW’S WAS ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES EVER MADE!! YOUR ALL SCREWED UP. WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATER WITH EVERYONE IN HERE?? I KNOW WHAT IT IS!! YOUR ALL LITTLE BABYS WHO STILL SUCK ON YOUR MOTHERS TIT. YOU ALL STILL CRAWL AROUND ON THE FLOOR SPITTING UP ON YOURSELFS, & YOU DON’T KNOW ANY BETTER!! CAUSE YOUR STUPID LITTLE BABYS!!! I MEAN WHAT DO FUCKED UP BABIES KNOW?? NOTHING!!! THATS WHY YOUR ALL STILL BABY’S!! YOU WOULDN’T KNOW A GREAT MOVIE IF I SAT YOU DOWN IN YOUR GUYS HIGH CHAIR’S & FORCED YOU TO WATCH WATCH DWW’S!! THAT WAS ONE OF THE BEST IF NOT ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES EVER MADE!!! YOU ALL NEED TO GROW UP & SHUT UP!!! I MEAN YOU DON’T KNOW GREAT MOVIES!! YOU ONLY KNOW HOW TO BITCH LIKE WOMEN!! IT’S SAD YOU ALL NEED TO SHUT UP & YOU ALL REALLY NEED TO GROW!!! SECOND THING IS I REALLY DON’T CARE WHO THIS PISSES OFF!! CAUSE I REALLY DON’T CARE!!