Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (5418)	8/20/2003 5:09:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

Pass the Biscuits We're living in Pappy O'Daniel's world Jesse Walker - Reason The politics and entertainment industries are both obsessed with deciphering popular preferences, but they approach the task in completely different ways. When they collide?as in the California recall, which has attracted more low-level celebrities than the final season of Politically Incorrect?the democratic and the demotic mix freely, giving us a bracing new vision of the public will. In the words of Charles Fort: "If there is a universal mind, must it be sane?" It's easy to assume that events like these are peculiar either to California or to our time. Thus, while the Golden State could elect a movie star governor in the 1960s and launch him on the road to the presidency, the rest of the country had to wait until the culture corroded irreparably before allowing people like Jesse Ventura to win elections. A tempting theory?and a completely wrong one. For as long as the mass media have existed, they have crossbred with the world of government. The newspaper world gave us Benjamin Franklin, Horace Greeley, and the yellow journalism master Rep. William Randolph Hearst (D-NY). For many years in Nashville, the country music legend Roy Acuff was not simply the state Republican Party's most famous face: In those days of the solidly Democratic south, you could be forgiven for believing he was the Tennessee Republican Party. And then there is the saga of Gov. Wilbert Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel: bandleader, radio star, and one of the most colorful figures in the Technicolor world of Texas politics. Today best known as a character in the Coen brothers' O Brother Where Art Thou?, which transposed his administration to Mississippi, O'Daniel in his day proved not only that celebrity could be a political asset but that it didn't hurt to be a little weird as well. He would have fit right in with the California recall. O'Daniel first rose to prominence as a tireless booster of "Texas flour" and the president of a Fort Worth mill. In 1931, the businessman started sponsoring a radio show featuring the western swing pioneer Bob Wills and his band, dubbed the Light Crust Doughboys after their patron's product. Initially skeptical?early on O'Daniel refused to pay for the program unless the musicians put in a 40-hour week at the mill?he soon became the show's announcer and attracted a devoted following of his own. When Wills left, O'Daniel stuck around, crooning and sermonizing his way to stardom. In 1937 he even moved to the border town of Eagle Pass, just to shift his broadcast home to the Mexican station XEPN. Such outlets were not limited by Washington's power restrictions, and thus were able to reach a still larger audience. A year later, he set his sights on a bigger prize. Gene Fowler and Bill Crawford describe the turn in their very entertaining book Border Radio: In the spring of 1938 O'Daniel, Carr Collins, and a small group of North Texas power brokers discussed a marketing idea that was as simple as it was revolutionary?that the elder statesman of flour sales enter the 1938 Texas Democratic primary for the governorship of the Lone Star State. Pappy was intrigued by the idea but hesitant at first. He was a political novice, a Kansas-bred Republican sympathizer who had never voted in a Texas election and had not even paid the poll tax. But he was a brilliant salesman and knew instinctively that running for office would be a great way to sell flour. Foreshadowing Ross Perot, O'Daniel told his audience that he would run for governor if they asked him to. His listeners obliged with a deluge of mail and soon he was hitting the campaign trail, the only man ever to run for office with a theme song called "Pass the Biscuits, Pappy." The celebrity drew the biggest crowds in the history of Texas politics to that date, and the press started comparing him to such contemporary populists as the Louisiana kingfish Huey Long and the Kansas quack Dr. John R. Brinkley, another broadcaster who had slid naturally from one business (telling listeners that he could cure their ailments by transplanting goat glands into their bodies) into another (running unsuccessfully for governor). To the establishment's surprise, O'Daniel won the race handily and moved his broadcast base to the governor's mansion. As a political leader, he did little that was useful or wise. But as a political entertainer, he kept himself in the public eye, blamed all his troubles on the uncooperative state legislature, got himself reelected, and threw a free inauguration barbecue. A year later, he was running an increasingly bizarre campaign for the Senate. As Fowler and Crawford put it: "He suggested that Texas form its own army and navy to protect the southern borders. He swore that he would purge Congress if it did not pass a bill to outlaw strikes. He vowed to eliminate the federal debt and force Congress to provide $100 million per year for a national pension plan. He accused the Texas newspapers of being politically controlled 'instruments of the devil'..." He won narrowly, thanks in part to some business interests who felt that sending the governor to Washington would be a good way to get him out of the state. O'Daniel was as media-savvy as Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger, as unpredictable as Jesse Ventura or Howard Stern. If there's a difference between the age that produced him and ours, it's merely that our media choices have multiplied since the 1930s and '40s, pushing us to the point where we have not one refugee from the entertainment industry on the ballot, nor two, but dozens. In the cable and Internet age, it's harder for just one star to monopolize our attention. Nonetheless, while Schwarzenegger could lose the California race to a more conventional politician, he's drastically outpolling all of his fellow entertainers. Even in an era of choices, the media still include their share of 200-pound gorillas. Pass the biscuits, Arnold. Associate Editor Jesse Walker is author of Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America (NYU Press).

To: JohnM who wrote (5418)	8/20/2003 5:26:01 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

Steyn weighs in on Liberal Censorship. Is banning the Bible next? By Mark Steyn Aug. 13, 2003 If you live pretty much anywhere in the Western world these days, you'll notice a certain kind of news item cropping up with quiet regularity. The Irish Times had one last week. As Liam Reid reported, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has warned Catholic bishops that distributing the Vatican's latest statement on homosexuality could lead to prosecution under the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act, and a six-month jail term. "The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the Act," says Aisling Reidy, director of the ICCL. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation." No Irish bishop has actually called gays evil yet. But best to be on the safe side and shut down all debate. From Dublin, let us zip 6,000 miles to Quesnel, a small paper-mill town in British Columbia. Chris Kempling is a high-school teacher and a Christian conservative and he likes writing letters to his local newspaper. In one of them he said that "homosexuality is not something to be applauded." The regulatory body for his profession, the British Columbia College of Teachers, suspended him for a month without pay for "conduct unbecoming a member of the college." No student, parent or fellow teacher at Correlieu Secondary School has ever complained about Mr. Kempling: he was punished by the BCCT for expressing an opinion in the paper. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association supported the suspension, not because of anything he's done but because of what he might do in the future. He might discriminate against gay and lesbian students in the future. He hasn't done so yet, but, if we don't preemptively punish him now, he might well commit a hate crime somewhere down the road. He didn't say gays are evil. But he did say homosexuality wasn't something to be applauded. And, if we start letting people decide who they are and aren't going to applaud, there's no telling where it will end. As in Dublin, best to be on the safe side and shut down all debate. In Sweden, meanwhile, they've passed a constitutional amendment making criticism of homosexuality a crime, punishable by up to four years in jail. Expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church. Those preachers may not be talking about how gays are evil this Sunday. But they might do next week, or next month. As in Ireland and British Columbia, best to be on the safe side and shut down all debate. Anyone sense a trend here? Even in America, where the First Amendment (on freedom of expression) still just about trumps "hate crimes" law, you can see where things are headed. A FEW weeks back, the Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated William Pryor, attorney-general of Alabama and President George W. Bush's nominee to the Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of an exhaustive effort to establish Pryor's unfitness for office, the Democrats delved into his history of homophobic vacationing. Was it true, demanded Senator Russ Feingold, that "you even went so far as to reschedule a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day?" Gay Day is an annual event at Disney, and Pryor is a practicing Catholic. Yes, he even went so far! "My wife and I had two daughters, who at the time of that vacation were six and four," replied Pryor. "But are you saying," gasped Senator Feingold in mock astonishment, "that you actually made that decision on purpose to be away at the time of that?" He actually did! "We made a value judgment and changed our plan and went another weekend." "Well, I appreciate your candor on that," said Feingold, like Perry Mason on cross-examination, after artfully trapping the witness into an irreparably damaging admission. Gay Day has its sweet side - Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck walk around holding hands, and so do Minnie and Daisy. I always figured Mickey was gay anyway. But the photographic souvenirs of the day unearthed by National Review also included a man quaffing on a beer bottle rising out from the unzipped pants of another chap. I wouldn't advise any young lady visitor to Disney to try that with her boyfriend: The park is very rigorously policed the other 364 days of the year. But the disinclination of a devout Catholic to expose his four-year-old to the delights of Gay Day now renders one unfit for public office. Which exactly is the love that dare not speak its name here? Pryor hasn't made any anti-gay rulings, but he might do one day, if we allow him to go around avoiding gay carousing on his vacations. Best to be on the safe side and vote him down now. And any other Catholics who still take that jazz seriously. THIRTY YEARS ago, in the early days of gay liberation, most of us assumed we were being asked to live and let live. But throughout the Western world, tolerance has become remarkably intolerant, and diversity demands ruthless conformity. In New Zealand, an appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on importing a Christian video Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside The Homosexual Agenda. In Saskatchewan, The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was fined by the Human Rights Commission for publishing an advertisement quoting biblical passages on homosexuality. Fining publishers of the Bible surely can't be far off. The coerciveness of the most "liberal" cultures in the Western world is not a pretty sight. Whatever happened to "live and let live?" If I can live with the occasional rustle from the undergrowth as I'm strolling through a condom-strewn park or a come-hither look from George Michael in the men's room, why can't gays live with the occasional expression of disapproval? Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage, they don't oppose the right of gays to advocate it. But increasingly gays oppose the right of Christians to advocate their beliefs. Gay activists have figured that instead of trying to persuade people to change their opinions, it's easier just to get them banned. As Rodney King, celebrated black victim of the LAPD, once plaintively said, "Why can't we all just get along?" But, if that's not possible, why can't we all just not get along? What's so bad about disagreement that it needs to be turned into a crime?

To: JohnM who wrote (5418)	8/20/2003 6:34:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793622

Friedman the NeoCon! Ya gotta love it. Dowd had her normal "Quagmire" column. No Time to Lose in Iraq By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN I was stopped the other day at the U.S. Army checkpoint on the July 14 Bridge in the heart of Baghdad and told by the sergeant on duty that I didn't have the proper ID to enter the U.S. compound, which clogs the heart of the capital. So I called the U.S. Army officer I had an appointment with, and he offered to drive out to escort me in. To make certain he found me, I asked the sergeant who was running the checkpoint to take the phone and tell the officer exactly where we were standing. "Sir," the sergeant said, "we're on the enemy side of the July 14 bridge. . . ." "Hmm," I thought to myself, "the `enemy side' of the July 14 Bridge? He's referring to Baghdad outside the walls of the U.S. compound." I couldn't blame the sergeant for having that impression. The bad guys in Iraq have been gaining so much momentum in recent days ? with their attacks on pipelines, U.S. forces and the U.N. headquarters ? that they are steadily eroding the sense of partnership between U.S. forces and the Iraqi people. The mounting attacks are forcing U.S. troops in Iraq to crouch more and more behind their own barricades, to mistrust more and more Iraqis, and to put up more and more roadblocks. There is now a huge cement wall being built around part of the U.S. compound in central Baghdad that is a carbon copy of the wall Israel is building in the West Bank. The same is happening on the Iraqi side. The Pentagon, with its insistence on doing nation-building in Iraq on the cheap, has been too slow in forming a provisional Iraqi government, too slow in getting the electricity on, too slow in turning security over to Iraqis. As a result, while most Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam, too many feel that their lives are tangibly worse in every other respect ? jobs, electricity, roadblocks ? because of the U.S. presence. "Saddam was paranoid, but he kept the streets open ? you're closing all the arteries," Muhammad Kadhim, a Baghdad professor, said to me. Everyone has advice now for the U.S.: bring in U.N. peacekeepers, bring in the French. They're all wrong. There are only two things we need: more Americans out back and more Iraqis out front. President Bush needs to give the U.S. administrator, Paul Bremer III, more resources to get basic services here running and Iraqis in charge as fast as we can. This is not Germany 1945. America is much more radioactive in this region. We don't have infinite time. Which is also why we need Iraqis out front ? fast. They need to be seen to be solving their own problems. They need to be manning the checkpoints because only they know who the good guys and bad guys are, and they need to be increasingly running the show so attacks on Iraq's infrastructure are seen and understood as attacks on Iraqis, not on us. And, most important, we need them out front because the Iraqi silent majority is our only potential friend in this whole neighborhood. Everyone else wants America to fail. But we have not empowered that Iraqi silent majority enough, and it has been too timid and divided to step forward yet. "The Iraqi people are the only ones in the area who have an interest in your success," said Masrour Barzani, the security chief for the Kurdistan Democratic Party, a real friend of America's. "But you have not allowed that friendship to emerge." It can only emerge if America gets the basics right ? water, jobs and electricity ? and lets Iraqis run things faster. "Let [Iraqis] take the credit; let them take the blame," Mr. Barzani said. "We need Iraqis to face their own problems and each other, and right now you're in the way." I heard a similar message just a few days ago from Sergio Vieira de Mello, the chief U.N. officer in Baghdad, who was killed in yesterday's bombing. We met over Lebanese beer and pistachios at his hotel, and he told me how much he believed that Iraqis could build a different Iraq, if they were given half a chance. Like me, he was a congenital optimist who believed in people's better angels. His senseless death is heartbreaking. It's also a challenge. Whoever blew up the U.N. office in Baghdad was trying to blow up Iraq's future. Yes, America must work harder now and devolve more power to Iraqis faster. But when all is said and done, only Iraqis can rescue this place. Only they can show us whether the diverse communities that make up this nation can rule themselves and take on their evil angels within. Only they can prove whether Iraqis are a nation with a collective will to be free and united. Only they can really tell us the true identity of the people on the other side of the July 14 bridge. nytimes.com