timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

 

[roadkill1292]

If we define "radicals" as people who hack new trails through the jungle, "progressives" as people who set up the new base camps and "liberals" as people who show up after the hot showers are installed, then you're barely even a liberal, Tim. You're mostly just someone who likes the political game that has evolved.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think of that as "liberal" in the original, British sense of the word. My own views are fairly similar to yours.

 

[urbanhack]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

on some social issues you are. Your hard-core free market, capitalistic and pro corporation opinions don't make you a liberal IMO.

 

[RCon]

I'd say you have more liberal views than conservative views, but part of that is because some of the current conservative causes are just so stupid. More than liberal vs. conservative, though, you're naive about government in general. You generally believe things because someone in authority tells you so. With the exception of a couple of your pet causes, you believe whatever the government and the media tells you, and hold opposing viewpoints to impossible standards of proof. You consider this "nuanced", but in reality, it's simplistic, in that you have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to information (particularly partial, less than 100% proof information) that opposes the ideas you've been told.

For example, you love the idea of free trade so much that you automatically love the TPP, despite what it actually contains. You love the idea of fighting climate change so much that when government tells you it's doing something to combat climate change (see, Obama/China agreeent), you're instantly in favor of it, regardless of what's actually in the text. You love the idea of business-is-good-for-America so much that you refuse to consider that there are lots of instances where the interests of certain businesses directly oppose the interests of the people.

Overall, I'd say you're not a "liberal", but you are a "government is good and has our best interests at heart" guy.

 

[timschochet]

I wanted to add that almost none of what I believe is set in stone depending on the situation, and that I am far more likely to support pragmatism rather than rigid ideology in almost all circumstances. Everytime a political solution of some sort is offered, my first reaction is not: how does this fit into my ideology? Instead it's: how will people be hurt by this? How will people be helped? What effect will it have on people's lives? As a general rule I am fearful of quick change.

 

[timschochet]

I'd say you have more liberal views than conservative views, but part of that is because some of the current conservative causes are just so stupid. More than liberal vs. conservative, though, you're naive about government in general. You generally believe things because someone in authority tells you so. With the exception of a couple of your pet causes, you believe whatever the government and the media tells you, and hold opposing viewpoints to impossible standards of proof. You consider this "nuanced", but in reality, it's simplistic, in that you have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to information (particularly partial, less than 100% proof information) that opposes the ideas you've been told.

For example, you love the idea of free trade so much that you automatically love the TPP, despite what it actually contains. You love the idea of fighting climate change so much that when government tells you it's doing something to combat climate change (see, Obama/China agreeent), you're instantly in favor of it, regardless of what's actually in the text. You love the idea of business-is-good-for-America so much that you refuse to consider that there are lots of instances where the interests of certain businesses directly oppose the interests of the people.

Overall, I'd say you're not a "liberal", but you are a "government is good and has our best interests at heart" guy.

I think there's some merit to what you wrote here.

 

[timschochet]

I wanted to add that almost none of what I believe is set in stone depending on the situation, and that I am far more likely to support pragmatism rather than rigid ideology in almost all circumstances. Everytime a political solution of some sort is offered, my first reaction is not: how does this fit into my ideology? Instead it's: how will people be hurt by this? How will people be helped? What effect will it have on people's lives? As a general rule I am fearful of quick change.

ETA- free trade deals have generally been an exception for me to this way of thinking.

 

[RCon]

I wanted to add that almost none of what I believe is set in stone depending on the situation, and that I am far more likely to support pragmatism rather than rigid ideology in almost all circumstances. Everytime a political solution of some sort is offered, my first reaction is not: how does this fit into my ideology? Instead it's: how will people be hurt by this? How will people be helped? What effect will it have on people's lives? As a general rule I am fearful of quick change.

ETA- free trade deals have generally been an exception for me to this way of thinking.

This would be one of the examples I meant. The idea that "free trade is good" is so ingrained in you, you're unable to even consider the possibility that free trade isn't always beneficial, in every situation and under every set of circumstances.

 

[jwb]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

I always found your stances more reasonable than anything, and now I can see why - we're very similar in thought.

 

[timschochet]

I wanted to add that almost none of what I believe is set in stone depending on the situation, and that I am far more likely to support pragmatism rather than rigid ideology in almost all circumstances. Everytime a political solution of some sort is offered, my first reaction is not: how does this fit into my ideology? Instead it's: how will people be hurt by this? How will people be helped? What effect will it have on people's lives? As a general rule I am fearful of quick change.

ETA- free trade deals have generally been an exception for me to this way of thinking.

This would be one of the examples I meant. The idea that "free trade is good" is so ingrained in you, you're unable to even consider the possibility that free trade isn't always beneficial, in every situation and under every set of circumstances.

Ive always known that aspects of free trade weren't beneficial and that people can get hurt. Yet I firmly believe that it's the key to economic growth which is the key to almost all problems in society. That's a core conviction of mine so I'm going to have a hard time looking at it any other way.

 

[timschochet]

Rich as far as government being beneficial, I guess I just don't believe in its malevolence. I fear large government, but much more for incompetence than for deliberate tyranny. And I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

 

[RCon]

Rich as far as government being beneficial, I guess I just don't believe in its malevolence. I fear large government, but much more for incompetence than for deliberate tyranny. And I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

"Government" may not be malevolent, but individuals are, and those individuals often use the power of government to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people they're supposed to represent. This can be something as simple as a prosecutor/police officer abusing their power (think, planting evidence, lying, not disclosing exculpatory evidence, etc.) in order to create a conviction in order to enhance their career, or something as sinister as a direct quid-pro-quo payment for legislation.

As far as your opposition to "conspiracy theories", this is another example where you'd prefer to believe what you're told than question it. For you, this comes mostly in the form of demanding impossible levels of proof from those who don't agree with the, for lack of a better term, established school of thought. Consider the Clinton e-mail issue. It's clear that she shouldn't have done what she did. It's also clear that someone didn't take the necessary security precautions with that server. It's clear that information passed through that server that shouldn't have. Rather than stand up and call her out on it, you'll go on making excuses (she didn't know any better, her IT guys should have taken care of it) and demanding ever increasing levels of proof (the e-mail subject didn't explicitly say "CLASSIFIED", so it's not against the law).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dude, no, you're not a liberal or progressive or a centrist.

You're a Democrat, totally different thing.

 

[squistion]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

No, and once again that is why they call him wrong_mx. Compared to him you are liberal, but that also would include just about anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. While we share similar viewpoints on many issues,I don't see eye-to-eye with you on most of what you said in the second paragraph and would never classify you with those of us who call ourselves progressive or liberal.

 

[TPW]

You seem to lean to the left but I wouldn't call you a true liberal/progressive as you seem to vacillate back and forth across the spectrum depending upon which direction the strongest political wind is blowing . You do seem to regularly fall prey to irrational fear of whatever conservative boogeyman is offered up for the left's regular Two Minutes Hate.

 

[Slapdash]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

You're a moderate conservative in my book. With how far the GOP has gone to the right, you currently align with Democrats. Views not dissimilar from a Romney in 08.

Not a liberal either classical or contemporary.

 

[RBM]

Only issue you're far left on is your insane stance on immigration. But even you admit you're pretty radical on that.

 

[timschochet]

Only issue you're far left on is your insane stance on immigration. But even you admit you're pretty radical on that.

What's interesting about that is that it's only become a "far left" issue lately. Traditionally chamber of commerce type conservatives as well as libertarians are for much more open borders. I regard it as a capitalist position that goes along with free trade.

However, I am pretty much "far left" on abortion...

 

[jon_mx]

I think I've settled on Tim being an Elitist. Way to trusting to give government power. Way to trusting of the media. Way to trusting of universities. Way to trusting of big banks. Thinks anybody who dares questions their motives is a conspiracy nut.

I see serious flaws in all those institutions and can see clear cases where their power is abused. And that is my biggest issue with Tim. No matter how convincing of a case you make, Tim just brushes it off as crazy.

 

[timschochet]

McCarthy Era, continued

In January 1950 Joseph R. McCarthy was 41 years old, and in more ways than one he was a man on the skids. Elected 4 years earlier in the Republican sweep of 1946, he was in a fair way to becoming a disgrace to the United States Senate- a cheap politician who had sunk to taking $10,000 from the Lustron Corporation, a manufacturer of prefabricated housing, and an unsecured $20,000 from the Washington lobbyist for Pepsi-Cola. He had spent it recklessly in speculation in soybean futures and long phone conversations with bookies. A few men on the Hill knew that McCarthy's battered tan briefcase always carried a bottle of whiskey. He was in fact a borderline alcoholic, boastful among friends of his ability to "belt a fifth" every day. Be at the rate he was going he had 6, maybe 7 years left.

He was a rogue, and he looked the part. His eyes were shifty. When he laughed, he snickered. His voice was a high-pitched taunt. On the Senate floor he could be quickly identified by his heavy beard. He was in fact a prime specimen of what was then called the Black Irish: the thickset, bull-shouldered, beetle browed type found on Boston's Pier Eight and in the tenements of South Chicago. He lacked the genius of Huey Long and the faith in himself. What he had going for him was a phenomenal ability to lie and an intuitive grasp of the American communications industry. That and ruthlessness. If he had a creed it was nihilism, a belief in nothing, or next to nothing. He enjoyed reading his name in the newspapers, and he wanted to remain a senator.

Sometime after the Colony dinner, which had not been particularly helpful to him, McCarthy telephoned the Republican National Committee to say that he would be available on the Lincoln's birthday weekend, 5 weeks hence, for speeches about Communists in the government. If the committee staff was elated, they concealed it. Certainly they weren't surprised. This, after all, was the party line. Richard Nixon, the anti-Communist hero of the hour, was warning that the Hiss case was just "a small part of the shocking story of Communist espionage in the Untied States". Nixon was much in demand, but to the best of the Republican National Committee's knowledge, McCarthy knew nothing about Communism. The only Lincoln Day booking the staff could find for him was a spot before the Ohio County Women's Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, followed by dates in Salt Lake City and Reno. En route to Wheeling, the dutiful airline hostess, observing a U.S. Senator on her passenger list, said, "Good afternoon, Senator McCarthy." He look startled. "Why, good afternoon," he said. "I'm glad somebody recognizes me."

 

[Ladsud]

I dont know Tim, but anyone that dedicates a thread to himself seems like one of the first people that would have lopped your head off in the French revolution, or turned you into the state and got you sent to the gulag in the USSR. So in the classical sense of the "left" I think you would fit right in for even asking that question.

 

[timschochet]

85. Night Over Water

Ken Follett

1992, 688 pages

Historical epic thriller

Ken Follett strays away from his formulaic thrillers somewhat with this historical epic, which along with The Pillars of the Earth (reviewed later) represented the beginning of Follet's epic phase of writing which includes several books that I like very much.

The year is 1939. The last Pan Am Clipper (a large airplane which included staterooms and takes several days to travel) is leaving England for New York. On board is a large group of colorful characters: Nazi sympathizers, a Jewish refugee, an heiress about to lose her fortune, a thief, etc. Yeah it's soap opera time but it's also great. There is murder, mayhem, love, sex, political drama and debate, everything I love in a good yarn.

Up next: There are a few writers who do 20th century historical epic like no others. The first of these, Leon Uris, offers his first of several contributions to this list, a drama of the Middle East...

 

[timschochet]

I dont know Tim, but anyone that dedicates a thread to himself seems like one of the first people that would have lopped your head off in the French revolution, or turned you into the state and got you sent to the gulag in the USSR. So in the classical sense of the "left" I think you would fit right in for even asking that question.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Uris bored the hell out of me (as did Michener). Kudos for putting a Grisham novel in, though it's not the one I'd have picked.

 

[timschochet]

20 H songs for my listening pleasure:

1. "Half A Million Miles"- The Kennedys

2. "Hallelujah I Love Her So"- Humble Pie

3. "Hand In Hand" Elvis Costello & the Attractions

4. "Handbags and Gladrags"- Rod Stewart

5. "Happy"- The Rolling Stones

6. "Harvest Moon"- Neil Young

7. "Hateful"- The Clash

8. "Have a Little Faith in Me"- John Hiatt

9. 'Hear My Train A-Comin'"- Jimi Hendrix

10. "Heard It In a Love Song"- The Marshall Tucker Band

11. "Hearts and Bones"- Paul Simon

12. "Heavy Load"- Free

13. "Help Save the Youth of America"- Billy Bragg

14. "Helplessly Hoping"- Crosby, Stills & Nash

15. "High on a Hill"- Kate Rusby

16. "Highway In the Wind"- Arlo Guthrie

17. "Hillbilly Willie's Blues"- Alvin Youngblood Hart

18. "Hit Somebody (The Hockey Song)"- Warren Zevon

19. "Holiday From Real"- Jack's Mannequin

20. "Holiday In Cambodia"- Dead Kennedys

 

[timschochet]

Uris bored the hell out of me (as did Michener). Kudos for putting a Grisham novel in, though it's not the one I'd have picked.

I've got a few more...

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I thought so. Looking forward to it, as I am the future King books.

 

[shadrap]

Liberal? Yes to the max but always tries to deflect this. Egotistical? Yes to the max, especially with the tired old claim of racism permeating any republican candidate & THOSE that might vote for them. The racism slant is subtle but always there & implicates anyone who is voting another party. Comes out in his digressions too many times as he can't help himself. It somehow makes liberals feel superior, in that they are above the fray & somehow feel & care more for the poor & oppressed. Can't believe I just fed the ego but it won't happen much anymore.

Carry on with your lessons, Tim.

IMO

 

[Todd Andrews]

McCarthy era, continued

The universities were torn by a double allegiance, to the flag and to academic freedom. The flag won out. Legislature after legislature required teachers to take loyalty oaths, 11,000 of them at the University of California alone. UCLA fired 157 professors who balked. On the local level teacher oaths were administered by school board chairman, PTA presidents, and police chiefs. Legion and VFW officers in many communities studied classroom texts for subversive materials. Censorship was rampant.

If any occupation had to endure more than the teaching profession, it was show business. In New York 3 aggressive ex-FBI agents, egged on by vigilantes in the American Federation of Radio Artists, published Counter-Attack, a pamphlet listing 151 actors, directors, and writers whose names had appeared in the files of various congressional committees. Counter-Attack was circulated among communications executives, who were urged to fire anyone in it and to check it before hiring new people. Next the 3 issued Red Channels, a thicker directory of entertainers and announcers whose friends or "affiliations" we dubious. The industry trembled- Counter-Attack had described CBS as "the most satisfying network for the Communists"- and vice presidents kept copies of Red Channels in their bottom desk drawers. On Madison Avenue and throughout Hollywood it was rechristened "the blacklist."

Blacklisting was to be a feature of the entertainment industry for over a decade. It was a blunt instrument of blackmail, used to cow administrators whose livelihood depended on public opinion. Time has blurred many sharp contours of the McCarthy era, but no brief can be held for those company heads who permitted themselves to be intimidated. Often they knew that a star had been blacklisted by a jealous competitor, and at the other end of the wage scale they summarily dismissed stagehands and deodorant demonstrators on preposterous charges that they were "disloyal" or "security risks." If one executive had stiffened his backbone the counter-attackers' house of cards might have collapsed. None did.

The experience of Jean Muir was typical. One day she was the leading actress in The Aldrich Family, NBC's most popular serial. The next day her name was added to Red Channels. By afternoon the network had torn up her contract and put her on the street. NBC's explanation to the press set a new low in what had already become a low era, and established a precedent it's competitors soon followed. Of course Miss Muir wasn't a Communist, the network spokesman said blandly. She was loyal to her country and always had been. Unfortunately she had become "controversial". Controversy alarmed sponsors, stirred up the public, and hurt the product. In short, she had been fired because someone had lied about her. From then on, "controversial" was almost a synonym for "disloyal"- and just as likely to ruin a career. Eventually most people stopped trying to justify the blacklist. If questions were raised about its iniquities, there always seemed to be someone around who would shake his head and say maddeningly "where's there's smoke, there's fire."

Howard Fast, Dalton Trumbo, Lilian Hellman and many others were blacklisted because they were Communist or left-leaning. Some of these writers, and members of the "Hollywood Ten" (ten writers and directors who were asked to testify before HUAC and took the 5th Amendment rather than name Communists) continued to write for years under false names. Sometimes Academy Awards were actually given to fake writers when everyone on the "inside" knew that the real writer was blacklisted (as in the case of Roman Holiday.) Other actors, writers and directors disappeared, never able to offer their talents again.

On the other hand, there were well known celebrities who cooperated with the blacklist. Burl Ives testified before Congress about the subversive nature of his fellow folkies the Weavers, particularly Pete Seeger, which almost ruined Seeger's career. Adolph Menjou and Cecil B. De Mille both testified and named names. And John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, and Lucille Ball among others vigorously defended the blacklist.

Ronald Reagan was a vile scumbag narc

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'd say you have more liberal views than conservative views, but part of that is because some of the current conservative causes are just so stupid. More than liberal vs. conservative, though, you're naive about government in general. You generally believe things because someone in authority tells you so. With the exception of a couple of your pet causes, you believe whatever the government and the media tells you, and hold opposing viewpoints to impossible standards of proof. You consider this "nuanced", but in reality, it's simplistic, in that you have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to information (particularly partial, less than 100% proof information) that opposes the ideas you've been told.

For example, you love the idea of free trade so much that you automatically love the TPP, despite what it actually contains. You love the idea of fighting climate change so much that when government tells you it's doing something to combat climate change (see, Obama/China agreeent), you're instantly in favor of it, regardless of what's actually in the text. You love the idea of business-is-good-for-America so much that you refuse to consider that there are lots of instances where the interests of certain businesses directly oppose the interests of the people.

Overall, I'd say you're not a "liberal", but you are a "government is good and has our best interests at heart" guy.

I think there's some merit to what you wrote here.

That is because at heart you are an authority slobbering follower

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Todd, I gotta say man you really bring it. You always show up with brass knuckles.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Todd, I gotta say man you really bring it. You always show up with brass knuckles.

You slobber some authority, too, Saints, but you are filled with the joy and beauty of New Orleans, so much is forgiven.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Todd, I gotta say man you really bring it. You always show up with brass knuckles.

You slobber some authority, too, Saints, but you are filled with the joy and beauty of New Orleans, so much is forgiven.

Thanks, I'm sure you will remind me when I do. Have a good one.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Todd, I gotta say man you really bring it. You always show up with brass knuckles.

You slobber some authority, too, Saints, but you are filled with the joy and beauty of New Orleans, so much is forgiven.

Thanks, I'm sure you will remind me when I do. Have a good one.

I will also remind you that as you and Tim grapple over the squat and powerful supine body of Hillary, your conflicting passions clashing mightily as you thrust and parry hard with each other, straining and grunting, your lips sometimes come dangerously close to touching.

 

[msommer]

Eeeeew

 

[facook]

85. Night Over Water

Ken Follett

1992, 688 pages

Historical epic thriller

Ken Follett strays away from his formulaic thrillers somewhat with this historical epic, which along with The Pillars of the Earth (reviewed later) represented the beginning of Follet's epic phase of writing which includes several books that I like very much.

The year is 1939. The last Pan Am Clipper (a large airplane which included staterooms and takes several days to travel) is leaving England for New York. On board is a large group of colorful characters: Nazi sympathizers, a Jewish refugee, an heiress about to lose her fortune, a thief, etc. Yeah it's soap opera time but it's also great. There is murder, mayhem, love, sex, political drama and debate, everything I love in a good yarn.

Up next: There are a few writers who do 20th century historical epic like no others. The first of these, Leon Uris, offers his first of several contributions to this list, a drama of the Middle East...

I'm a big fan of Follett's early spy stuff and the Pillars books. I thought Night Over Water was just ok, and thought Jackdaws was terrible. Interesting you like them enough to have them in your top 100. I know you really liked his recent trilogy and I thought the first of that series was truly awful. Thanks for updating, I love getting peoples' takes on books.

 

[spreagle]

Inigo Montoya: He's liberal. He can't think straight.

Miracle Max: Woohoo look who knows so much. It so happens your friend Tim here is only MOSTLY liberal. There's a big difference between mostly liberal and all liberal. Mostly liberal means partially thinking straight. With all liberal, well with all liberal there is only one thing you can do.

Inigo Montoya: What is that?

Miracle Max: Resign yourself to listening to Tim repeating Democrat daily talking points with gusto and passion each and every day for the rest of your life.

 

[quickhands]

I'd go with leftist.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Tim,

How ugly is Carly Fiorina compared to this ?

A lot more ugly

Somewhat more ugly

About the same

Slightly less ugly

Thanks!

 

[quickhands]

Tim,

How ugly is Carly Fiorina compared to this ?

A lot more ugly

Somewhat more ugly

About the same

Slightly less ugly

Thanks!

Dude, wtf is wrong with you. You normally seem reasonable. You definitely are showing the creep.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Tim,

How ugly is Carly Fiorina compared to this ?

A lot more ugly

Somewhat more ugly

About the same

Slightly less ugly

Thanks!

Dude, wtf is wrong with you. You normally seem reasonable. You definitely are showing the creep.

My link

 

[timschochet]

Poor Carly. That's very mean.

 

[timschochet]

McCarthy era, continued

The universities were torn by a double allegiance, to the flag and to academic freedom. The flag won out. Legislature after legislature required teachers to take loyalty oaths, 11,000 of them at the University of California alone. UCLA fired 157 professors who balked. On the local level teacher oaths were administered by school board chairman, PTA presidents, and police chiefs. Legion and VFW officers in many communities studied classroom texts for subversive materials. Censorship was rampant.

If any occupation had to endure more than the teaching profession, it was show business. In New York 3 aggressive ex-FBI agents, egged on by vigilantes in the American Federation of Radio Artists, published Counter-Attack, a pamphlet listing 151 actors, directors, and writers whose names had appeared in the files of various congressional committees. Counter-Attack was circulated among communications executives, who were urged to fire anyone in it and to check it before hiring new people. Next the 3 issued Red Channels, a thicker directory of entertainers and announcers whose friends or "affiliations" we dubious. The industry trembled- Counter-Attack had described CBS as "the most satisfying network for the Communists"- and vice presidents kept copies of Red Channels in their bottom desk drawers. On Madison Avenue and throughout Hollywood it was rechristened "the blacklist."

Blacklisting was to be a feature of the entertainment industry for over a decade. It was a blunt instrument of blackmail, used to cow administrators whose livelihood depended on public opinion. Time has blurred many sharp contours of the McCarthy era, but no brief can be held for those company heads who permitted themselves to be intimidated. Often they knew that a star had been blacklisted by a jealous competitor, and at the other end of the wage scale they summarily dismissed stagehands and deodorant demonstrators on preposterous charges that they were "disloyal" or "security risks." If one executive had stiffened his backbone the counter-attackers' house of cards might have collapsed. None did.

The experience of Jean Muir was typical. One day she was the leading actress in The Aldrich Family, NBC's most popular serial. The next day her name was added to Red Channels. By afternoon the network had torn up her contract and put her on the street. NBC's explanation to the press set a new low in what had already become a low era, and established a precedent it's competitors soon followed. Of course Miss Muir wasn't a Communist, the network spokesman said blandly. She was loyal to her country and always had been. Unfortunately she had become "controversial". Controversy alarmed sponsors, stirred up the public, and hurt the product. In short, she had been fired because someone had lied about her. From then on, "controversial" was almost a synonym for "disloyal"- and just as likely to ruin a career. Eventually most people stopped trying to justify the blacklist. If questions were raised about its iniquities, there always seemed to be someone around who would shake his head and say maddeningly "where's there's smoke, there's fire."

Howard Fast, Dalton Trumbo, Lilian Hellman and many others were blacklisted because they were Communist or left-leaning. Some of these writers, and members of the "Hollywood Ten" (ten writers and directors who were asked to testify before HUAC and took the 5th Amendment rather than name Communists) continued to write for years under false names. Sometimes Academy Awards were actually given to fake writers when everyone on the "inside" knew that the real writer was blacklisted (as in the case of Roman Holiday.) Other actors, writers and directors disappeared, never able to offer their talents again.

On the other hand, there were well known celebrities who cooperated with the blacklist. Burl Ives testified before Congress about the subversive nature of his fellow folkies the Weavers, particularly Pete Seeger, which almost ruined Seeger's career. Adolph Menjou and Cecil B. De Mille both testified and named names. And John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, and Lucille Ball among others vigorously defended the blacklist.

Ronald Reagan was a vile scumbag narc

If Ronald Reagan was a narc (meaning that he named suspected Communists) I am unaware of it. I mentioned Burl Ives, Cecil B Demille, and Aldolph Menjou as people who did name names. Elia Kazan was another, and the film On The Waterfront was an attempt to justify his testimony. But so far as I know actors like Reagan, Wayne, Ball and Jimmy Stewart, while supportive of the program, didn't actually name anyone. I suspect your political dislike of Reagan is affecting your judgment here.

 

[jon_mx]

Let's tell the whole story. There were communists in Hollywood and they did try to take over unions. Reagan was a main target, and the FBI knew Reagan was a prime target for assassination when he was head of the actors union. Even so, Reagan spoke of communists right to speak to promote their views as Reagan was also very vocal against anti-semitism and racism. Reagan did talk to the FBI, but not as an informant and it was very Reasnable that Reagan would be supportive of the FBI as they were protecting him. There is no evidence that Reagan informed on anyone.

 

[Joe T]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a....

 

[AAABatteries]

So Frank vs Elvis? Anybody else have an opinion?

Frank.

Frank had people killed, Fat Elvis just killed himself.

vote Frank

 

[timschochet]

McCarthy era, Continued

Before traveling to West Virginia, McCarthy had done a little- a very little- homework. It would be too much to call it research. For the most part his "rough draft", as he later described it to reporters, was a scissors-and-paste job made up of passages from other Republican addresses, only slightly altered. According to the Wheeling Intelligencer, he had hacked out a paragraph from a speech Nixon had delivered in the House of Representatives on January 26:

NIXON IN CONGRESS: The great lesson which should be learned from the Hiss case is that we are not just dealing with espionage agents who get 30 pieces of silver to obtain the blueprint of a new weapon..but this is a far more sinister type of activity, because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

McCARTHY IN WEST VIRGINIA: One thing to remember in discussing the Communists is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprint of a new weapon. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

So far as is known, his own investigation of subversion was limited to a single phone call. He phoned Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune Washington staff and told him he needed help for his speech. From Edwards he learned of two inquiries, both brief and largely forgotten, into the loyalty of State Department workers. During a preliminary screening of some 3,000 employees who had been transferred to the State Department from wartime agencies, the screeners had recommended against the permanent employment of 284. Of these, 79 had been discharged. By subtracting 79 from 284, McCarthy acquired the magical figure of 205.

To grasp the dimensions of Senator McCarthy's fraud, one must remember that he had no dossiers, no raw data, and no specifications, however vague. If pressed, he was incapable of producing a single name. Yet when he spoke on the radio from Wheeling, he said:

I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of the Communist Party who are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.

He might have been holding a laundry list, a shopping list, or a Christmas card list. Whatever it was, it cannot have been important, because afterwards he threw it away. But now the Associated Press had the story and soon it was on the front pages of every newspaper in the country. Suddenly, with this one startling claim, McCarthy was famous. Reporters demanded to know who the 205 people were. McCarthy said he had been misquoted; he had spoken not of 205 Communists but of 205 "bad security risks. (The fact that it was a radio recording didn't seem to bother McCarthy's claim that he had been "misquoted"). McCarthy assured the press that he would name names before the entire Senate, and that if he could not do so, he would resign. This was the first of many boasts by McCarthy that he would either be proven absolutely right or he would resign immediately.

 

[timschochet]

84. The Haj

Leon Uris

1984, 566 pages

historical fiction

I regard Leon Uris as one of the great historical novelists of the 20th century, along with Herman Wouk, James Clavell, and James Michener. All 4, with the exception of Michener, are among my favorite novelists of all time and will be treated prominently on this list. Of these authors, Uris is the most propagandistic: he has a very set point of view, and his stories are highly partisan, probably none more so than The Haj.

This novel is in part a retelling of the birth of the modern state of Israel, which Uris documented in his previous novel Exodus (to be reviewed much later.) That novel told the story from the perspective of Jews. This novel attempts to tell the story from the perspective of Palestinians- or to be precise, from the perspective of Palestinians in the viewpoint of an American Zionist author. Uris is a passionate supporter of the Zionist cause and his description of his main characters in this novel is borderline racist. The Palestinians he describes here are filthy, ignorant, illiterate, superstitious villains. Their leader, the Haj, is somewhat heroic but also vain and stubborn. He tries to do right by his people but fails because of the fanaticism all around him. The Jews are presented as nearly flawless, hesitant to do wrong, and guilt ridden when they are forced to return Arab savagery with killing of their own. This is NOT an objective view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it's wholly one-sided, and its very clear which side Uris is on.

And yet- like most of his great novels, Uris tells an epic story, filled with history, love, treachery, and sheer human drama. His majestic sweep of human events is unmatched by few novelists. The Haj, despite it's flaws, is a masterpiece of historical fiction.

Up next: John Jakes' saga of two families in the years leading to the Civil War...

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This has to be a trolling segue - blasting Chomsky and touting Uris in consecutive posts