| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Posted
7/5/2003 01:20:40 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Friday, July 04, 2003
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Posted
7/3/2003 01:20:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/3/2003 12:54:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/3/2003 11:49:47 AM
by Edward Driscoll
One of the reasons that parties benefit when the other party becomes extreme is that it allows it to hug the center. But if Republicans are moving to the center and Democrats to the left, that means both parties are moving leftward-that the center of gravity of American politics is moving leftward. Isn't that, too, part of the story of 1972?After watching the Robert Evans documentary on TV a couple of times last week, I started re-reading Easy Rider, Raging Bulls, Peter Biskind's look at the "New Hollywood" of the 1970s. At several points in the book (just as Todd Gitlin--another leftist author--did in his look at the TV industry during this time), he moans about the "incipient movement of America to the right" (that's a paraphrase, but a pretty close one). Did America move to the right in the 1970s, or did the leadership of the Democrats simply move so far to the left that they lost their voters? FDR, Harry Truman and JFK weren't perfect, but at least in terms of attitude and jaunty confidence, they seemed far more in tune with most Americans. But Johnson's leftward lurch with the Great Society (the New Deal--Texas size!) coupled with McGovern's pacifism and anti-Americanism seem increasingly far removed from the ideals of the typical American voter. And politics is a symbiotic tug and pull of leadership and listening. The Democrats are listening to their base right now--as they did in the 1970s--but they don't seem willing to listen to the rest of the nation. Which leads back to Barnes' article. As for my take, here's what I wrote back in February. Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Posted
7/2/2003 01:35:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/2/2003 01:02:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/2/2003 12:56:56 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/2/2003 12:16:41 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/2/2003 11:44:28 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/2/2003 11:15:02 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Posted
7/1/2003 08:07:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/1/2003 07:55:17 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/1/2003 06:18:56 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The Assembly approved a bill Tuesday that passed the Senate in January. Gov. James E. McGreevey, who cut off the $10,000 annual stipend that goes to the poet laureate after Baraka refused to resign, intends to sign the bill, according to a spokesman. Abolishing the position was the only way to remove Baraka because the governor and Legislature cannot fire the poet laureate. Baraka was criticized after reading his 60-stanza poem "Somebody Blew Up America" at a festival last summer. It included the lines: "Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed/Who told 4,000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers to stay home that day?/Why did Sharon stay away?" After Tuesday's vote, Baraka said he would sue the state for violating his First Amendment rights and for slander. "Very few of those people have even read that poem," Baraka said. "I can't have a differing opinion about a foreign state?"Click here for a flashback to what Stanley Crouch and Michele Malkin had to say about Baraka.
Posted
7/1/2003 05:00:35 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/1/2003 04:47:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/1/2003 04:43:35 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Humor is irrelevant when the situation is dire. And it's always dire. It's the sort of constant direness you find in the mind of someone who drives a 10-year old Volvo with bumperstickers that say "If you want peace, work for justice" on the left side and "If you want justice, work for peace" on the right, with a faded sticker in between from a 5,000 watt progressive radio station that features New Sounds in Congolese Drumming every Sunday night before signing off with an Emma Goodman quotation. This isn't to say I don't like unions - no. When management shivved me a few years back over an utterly trivial and preposterous issue, the union stood by my side and helped me out. I pay my dues without complaint, I applaud their actions on the workers' behalf. But I don't get all jangly inside when I consider that I belong to a UNION!, because I do not feel I am the spiritual inheritor of some grimy-handed laborer who just wants to put bread on his family's table, and is repaid for his work with the boot of a Pinkerton operative in his ribs. But honest to God, so much of the union rhetoric I get in the mail seems to think that Woody Guthrie will soon descend from the clouds with his fascist-killin' geetar and start singing against the Greatest Injustice of Our Era, namely, the proposed 17% interest in the dental co-pay.Around 1999 or 2000, I belonged for a year to the National Writers' Union. A friend recommended it for the leads, and I seem to recall getting an assignment or two out of it. (Incidentally, before, during and while I was a member of the NWU, the vast majority of assignments I've gotten by mailing--up until recently, snail-mailing--cold query letters, and lots of them. There's no substitute for hard work and aggressive marketing). But the day the NWU sent out an email celebrating "Native Americans' Day" on Columbus Day, the first of an endless series of the type of shrill leftist agitprop that Lileks derides in his "Bleat" today, I decided I'd simply quietly let my membership expire, and never renew.
Posted
7/1/2003 03:59:45 PM
by Edward Driscoll
WAS IT P.J. O'ROURKE WHO SAID that you could tell which party was winning, based upon who had the better looking women? (Or something like that. See this recent David Frum post, and this John Derbyshire essay from a couple of years ago for the basic gist).Check out these two lovelies, protesting against England's attempted ban on fox hunting. I don't know if they're going to actually win the argument, but it's obvious (at least to me!) they're on the right side of it: ![]()
Posted
7/1/2003 03:34:27 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Anyone who thinks that applying the moral standards of today retroactively to persons or cultural artifacts of the past means something should have their university degree taken away, at the least.Exactly. Whatever happened to simply turning the channel if you don't enjoy a show? Haven't we learned anything from Speedy Gonzales?
Posted
7/1/2003 01:46:22 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Monday, June 30, 2003
Posted
6/30/2003 10:53:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
6/30/2003 08:37:27 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
6/30/2003 08:28:37 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
6/30/2003 08:06:49 PM
by Edward Driscoll
"I'm not sure where Arnold [Schwarzenegger] gets his political instincts. People often say that for Kennedys, it's in the water."Chutzpah, thy name is Teddy.
Posted
6/30/2003 03:18:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
6/30/2003 01:22:08 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Posted
6/29/2003 09:41:42 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Considering how much James Lileks raved over Spider-Man last year (and rightly so), I'll be very interested in reading his take on The Hulk, the textbook example of how not to make a film of a comic book character.Lileks' review of the film (actually, more a review of the comic book, but why carp?) is the subject of his latest "Strib" column.
Home |