Humor Section (Sardonic at Times, Granted):

As I’ve said before – and probably will say again – humor humanizes political candidates, especially those who want to be President of the U.S.  Of course, jokes about officials in high offices – George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the like – are common.  Jokes about lesser-known candidates, which is my specialty, are rare.   Today (Saturday, just before midnight, EDT,) I’m taking on some big challenges, Republican contenders Senator Sam Brownback (of Kansas) and California Congressman Duncan Hunter.  If you scroll down through my columns, you’ll find jokes about Mitt Romney, John McCain, and a host of others, including the ever-popular Hillary Clinton.

 

If you have jokes of your own – original ones preferred – send them along.  You can put them in the comments section or e-mail them to me at TalkTop65@aol.com.  As always, thanks for visiting.  If you like this site – and there are new jokes everyday – please bookmark it and tell your friends!

 

You might ask:  Aren’t Presidents men (so far) with distinguished names like Thomas, Andrew, Abraham, Calvin, Millard, Grover, Franklin, and Theodore?  So what are doing with a bunch of guys named Newt, Mitt, Rudy, Sam, and Fred?

 

First Known Examples of Brownback and Hunter Jokes!

 

Sam Brownback?  The one thing you hear about him is that he’s a fighter.  I guess you need to learn to fight early in life if your name is “Brownback.” 

 

Little known fact: He’s only Senator Brownback during the summer.  When fall arrives, he becomes Tanback . . . and, when the snow flies, Whiteback.    

He was asked where he got his first name.  He replied, "I believe it was from my Uncle Yosemite."

As for Duncan Hunter, who is he?  As described on Townhall, “Hunter is a decorated Vietnam veteran who served with the 173rd Airborne Division and the 75th Army Rangers. After returning home, he attended law school and opened offices in San Diego's Hispanic Barrio Logan, often offering legal services at no charge. Last October, before the Republican congressional losses, Hunter announced his simultaneous retirement from Congress and his presidential candidacy. In other words, he is serious about this campaign.”

In a U. S. Congress with a higher-than-average number of wusses, Hunter is a true conservative and one tough guy.  Reportedly, Nancy Pelosi has a crush on him, something she’d never admit in trendy San Francisco.

 

Republican minority leader Boehner moved gruff-talking Duncan Hunter’s House seat far away from the Democrats.  It turned out Hunter was scaring Dennis Kucinich. 

 

Hunter observed the other day that he thought the nomination should go to the candidate who won the candidates’ traditional arm-wrestling contest.  .

 

Hunter was asked if he ever spent $400 for a haircut.  He said no, that when it gets a little shaggy he just yanks some out.

 

A reporter asked, "If there was a real fight between you and Barack Obama, who would win?  Hunter replied, “The big winner?  Whatever local mortuary that got him.”

 

A reporter asked why Hunter didn’t support gun control, and he almost winged the journalist with a Glock. 

 

I’m not saying Hunter is tough, but it’s true that he eats a steak without a knife or fork. 

 

They don’t ask Hunter to speak at schools anymore because he scares the children.

 

Somebody asked Hunter what he thought of the current Democratic candidates, and he said, “You mean Snow-Dingy and the seven dwarfs?”   

 

You know Hunter can be intimidating.  Ahmadinejad, the ruler of Iran, addressed him as “Your Highness.” 

 

It’s absolutely not true that he’s the founder of Dunkin Donuts. 

 

When asked what he thought of gay marriage, he said that he believed the bride and groom should have a great time at the wedding. 

 

David Letterman said Friday night  – this attribution is true – that “the Pope has gotten rid of Limbo.”  He explained, “Limbo is the place you go before you go to Hell.”  As a result of that comment, the Pope has withdrawn Letterman’s Degree in Theology.  (Note to those who care about such things: Limbo in the old Catholic tradition is where unbaptized babies who die go; they don’t go to hell.]

Saturday night about midnight, I'll have a review of the jokes about Presidential candidates, as well as some new ones.  Late Sunday (about midnight) I'll have a column that take off on John Hawkin's Townhall piece about "10 Differences Between Liberals & Conservatives."  His essay is serious, stressing things like individual responsibility.  Mine is (hee-hee) less serious.  For example, one of my differences is:  "Conservative women shave their legs -- even in winter."  Come visit. 

NOTE: THIS WEEKEND'S COLUMNS WILL BE PRECEDED BY THE WORLD'S FIRST-KNOW JOKES ABOUT REP. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DUNCAN HUNTER AND SAM BROWNBACK!!!  MONDAY MORNING'S COLUMN WILL FEATURE PREVIOUS JOKES (OF MINE) AND NEW ONES (OF MINE AND, HOPEFULLY, YOURS).  YOU'RE INVITED TO SUBMIT YOUR OWN.  MIKE GRAVEL JOKES ARE EXTREMELY RARE.  COME VISIT.  YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME.


"The President is always blamed for being so divisive, but see how much he's managed to unite the Democrats. " (contributed by Rodger Morrow of The Writing Company blog, with link to the right)


Scroll down for comments on last night's Democratic debate between the lame, the halt, and the blind. 

It has come to my attention that the world is suffering from a serious shortage of Mitt Romney jokes, a situation I intend to rectify immediately. 

Actually, Romney looks very good for a guy who's treated his hair with shellac.

But does this all this Mormon fever mean those missionaries will be coming to our doors saying, "God wants you to vote for Mitt Romney?"

Early Mormon leader Brigham Young had 56 children.  There's no truth to the rumor that he did it for the tax deductions. 

The Mormon Church was founded by a man named Joseph Smith, obvious an alias.  After all, if you had 28 wives, would you use your real name?

It's a crazy presidential race when the Mormon candidate is positioning himself as the guy who's only had one wife. 

One Utah observer impressed by Romney's ability to get money from his tight-fisted co-religionists said, "If Mitt can shake money out of those cheapskates, doing away with the national deficit will be a piece-of-cake." 

Catholic interlude: When he became a priest, Pope Benedict XVI took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  Compared to his predecessor, he's also apparently taken a vow of invisibility.

The head of Mitt Romney's Mormon church is Gordon B. Hinckley, age 96.  He's apparently the one who called John McCain a "whipper-snapper." 

One Mormon observer described Mr. Hinckley as "extremely vigorous."  At 96, that means he restricts his afternoon naps to two hours. 

GOOD MORNING/AAFTERNOON AMERICA!  MY REAL-TIME REVIEW, COMMENTARY, HUMOR SEGMENT ON THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IS BELOW THE FOLLOWING PIECE.  i WOULD LIKE TO SOLICIT YOUR COMMENTS ON THE DEBATE OF COURSE, BUT ESPECIALLY ON THE FOLLOWING PIECE.  IT'S EXACTLY WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT WHEN THEY RAIL AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.  I'LL COMMENT SOME ON IT LATER TODAY.  IT IS A VERY STRANGE PIECE INDEED.  If you don't want to use the comments segment, write to me at TalkTop65@aol.com or at TalkTop65@netscape.com

The headline reads:  Cheney Draws Protests Even at BYU  (a huge Mormon University in Utah, and the alma mater of Mitt Romney)

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Vice President Dick Cheney told Brigham Young University graduates
Thursday to savor second chances and be prepared for the unexpected throughout life in a commencement address that stirred up protests in one of the nation's most Republican states.

"Don't give up or let your doubts get the best of you," Cheney said. "For all the plans we make in life, sometimes life has other plans for us."

On a campus where dissent is unusual, about 100 people protested quietly ahead of Cheney's arrival, holding signs reading: "Mormon for peace" and "Make soup, not war."

Utah voters have consistently supported the administration, delivering President Bush his largest margins of victory in any state in 2000 and 2004. In the county that is home to the university, about 85 percent of voters chose the GOP ticket in 2004.

But the war in Iraq has weakened support for the White House. Cheney critics at BYU have questioned whether he sets a good example for graduates, citing his role in promoting faulty intelligence and his involvement in the CIA leak scandal, which led to his chief of staff's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Cheney's 14-minute address to more than 6,200 graduates didn't touch on any political topics. He thanked the school's ROTC members for their service and said they would be joining a military that is "a great force for justice, freedom and security."

Outside, the protesters on campus were not allowed to chant or make noise or attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Darren Jackson, 22, president-elect of the College Democrats.

"This war has been mishandled," said Jackson, who acknowledged the group had only about 25 active members, "which isn't much out of 30,000 students."

A handful of veterans holding a peace banner stood on a street corner off campus.

At the nearby city library, College Republicans and others passed out U.S. flags and held up welcome signs.

"We are just here to show there's a lot of support for the vice president in Provo," said BYU student Colby Green, 22, of Orem. "We wanted people to know that the vocal minority is not the majority."

That became clear when Cheney was introduced. He received thunderous applause from the 20,000 people at gathered at the university, which is owned by the Mormon church. The crowd cheered louder for Cheney than they did for church President Gordon B. Hinckley, whom Mormons consider a prophet.

The problem with this story is that, starting with the headline, is that it completely misrepresents the reception Vice-President Cheney received at BYU.  We hear at length about a small, hapless group of protestors, suggesting that Cheney can't get a friendly group even at a conservative university.  Then, in the paragraph in boldface, we find that 20,000 people cheered him wildly.  Why isn't that the lead paragraph?  Alas, we all know the answer to that one.  The story is a classic of media manipulation.

As promised, here is my real-time (almost) humorist's evaluation of the Democratic debate in South Carolina.  Before it starts, here's how I'd love to see it start with something like the following:

After all the candidate's praise the "wonderful . . . historically Black college . . . and its superb faculty . . . and outstanding, motivated, upwardly bound student body," I'd like to see a student (Black, of course) stand up and say:  "Mrs. Clinton, and gentlemen, we appreciate all your kind words about our institution.  But what I'd like to ask is you all is this:  Do ANY of you intend to recommend to your children or grandchildren that they apply for admission here?  For answers to my question, let's start with Mrs. Clinton . . . ."  (Biden: ". . . to show off the incredible capability of an historic Black college . . .")

After what I believe is called a series of "pregnant pauses," the moderator would reassume control of the debate.

Here are my evaluations of the debate and its key performers, humor accompanied by their own serious (?) words.
Humor in bold-face:

First, how could we characterize tonight's debate?  Maybe call it "Snow-Off-White and the Seven Dwarfs?"  ("Senator Clinton, the majority of the American people have an unfavorable view of you . . ." -- Brian Williams)

Brian Williams of NBC, host of the debate, actually asked hard questions.  What do you think got into him?    

What about a ticket of Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich?  They could call it "The Unspeakable and the Unpronounceable." 
("Some of these people [candidates] up here frighten me -- the top tier ones" -- Mike Gravel)

It probably wasn't a good idea for Senator Biden to praise Senator Obama again for his cleanliness.  ("In addition to Biden's uncontrolled verbosity, Biden is a gaffe machine." -- LA Times)  (:" . . . [Biden on abortion] I led the fight to defeat Roberts and Alito")

It was very highminded of John Edwards to describe his $400 haircut as payback for his dad being a mill worker.  (Bill Richardson, "The American people don't  want blow-dried candidates."  Hmmmmm.)

John Edwards says there are "Two Americas."  I guess I'm in the one where it doesn't cost $400 for a haircut.

I finally figured out why Barack Obama didn't vote for or against the Iraq War Resolution.  Nobody asked him to. 

Next Febuary's South Carolina primary will be critical for that "red state's" people.  They know it's the last time in 2008 that they'll see a Democratic presidential candidate.

Will it hurt Obama that he smokes?  Only if it keeps coming out his ears.
(Obama: "Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions [i.e., partial birth abortions)?"  

I predict Dennis Kucinich's campaign slogan will be:  "I'm short, and all the other guys are tall."   His poll numbers  probably will double, from 1% to 2%.

All the candidates bashed GWB hard.  But did anyone tell them he's not running again? 

These candidates really think the War in Iraq was an awful mistake.  I heard Mike Gravel mumbling about joining Al Qaeda.

Apparently, only one person there was ready to mention God.  It occurred with three minutes left when Edwards referred to "my Lord."   (He paused for a long, long time before so doing.) 

On partial-birth-abortion, they were all relatively enthusiastic about it.  But John Edwards one-upped the rest when he basically implied he'd perform one if necessary.   

"This decision [on partial-birth abortion] is a classic example of what's at stake in this election." -- John Edwards)  (Edwards on Obama:  "High-falluting rhetoric is not enough.")

Most impressive to this right-wing Hillary-basher:  Hillary Rodham Clinton, especially (and amazingly) on health care and on the War on Terror.  Richardson also impressed me somewhat -- again, on health care -- and he gave the best answer as to what he'd do if terrorists attacked (and decimated?) two American cities.  Obama essentially said that he'd conduct an investigation of the intelligence system -- pathetic.   

Least impressive of top-tier:  Barack Obama (empty rhetoric, unfocused -- when asked about the three nations that U.S. key allies, he didn't mention any, except Israel, after prompting)

On the issues of pro-life and pro-Second Amendment.  None was pro-life in the normal sense of that term, and one (Richardson) was pro-Second-Amendment.  No one really came out against "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.  "[Illegal immigrants should "pay a fine, pay back taxes . . ." (Hillary Clinton)

Mike Gravel:  "We have no important enemies. Who are we afraid of.  Iraq has never been a threat to us."

"There's no such thing as one-sentence [answers] with this crowd."  (Brian Williams)

The idea that terrorism has anything to do with militant Islam was never mentioned.   The Taliban was mentioned a couple of times, but al Qaeda wasn't.    North Korea and Iran got almost no mentions. Biden did talk about "stateless terrorism," but he didn't mention who the terrorists were.   Kucinich said the global war on terror has been a "pretext" for the U.S. to engage in agressive war.  He "doesn't see the world in terms of enemies." 

Note:  PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION (BELOW THE HUMOR COMMENTS) TO RESCUE BOB LEVINSON.  ABOUT 250 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED ON THE WAY TO EXCEEDING THE GOAL OF 1,000 SIGNATURES. 
 
In tonight's Democratic presidential debate, there will only be eight participants, including America's first dwarf candidate, Dennis Kucinich.  The number would have been 11 if three figures with strong niche support hadn't dropped out . . . Larry, Curly, and Moe.

On the news that the U.S. and Mexico (?) would execute Osama bin Laden if they had him in custody:

Early reports are that France would give bin Laden a stern lecture. Germany would opt for community service, probably having him lecture on Islam at a major brewery.

Senator Barack Obama told a joke? Stop the presses. He mixes amiability with a stupefying capacity to bore anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature.

On my site later tonight I'm going to be doing various jokes about tonight's performance by the gang of 8. It used to the gang of 11, except three dropped out: Larry, Curly, and Moe. Anyway, come visit me. I may not edify, but I will entertain.

Best to the 8 candidates. They know it's all in fun -- and that I worship the quicksand on which they walk


I'm a great proponent of the use of humor in politics and writing.

Arguably the best line in Steve Chapman's April 26 TH article ("Why Nothing Fails Like Success") is: "If [Harvard Law graduate Alberto] Gonzales is a dummy, then Gwyneth Paltrow is fat." The Peter Principle he cites is enduringly true -- and humorous, stating that all people "rise to the level of their incompetence."

In my view, humor can win elections -- or, at the least, it can be a key element in such victories.

Yeah, politics is serious business -- except in such cases as where your name is Bill Clinton and the subject is a certain blue dress. Fred Thompson is a man with a good sense of down-home humor, but there's a real dearth of good Thompson jokes.

On Campaign2008Victory, I'm trying to rectify that situation with a steady stream of original humor about Thompson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, and a whole bunch of other political figures (Reid, Pelosi, Murtha). In most cases, these individuals aren't a barrel of laughs, except to me perhaps.

When weird things occur in politics, and trust me, they often do, it affect humorists much like putting a pork chop in front of a hungry wolf.  For instance, Nancy Pelosi appointed a man named Silvestre Reyes as head of the House Intelligence Committee.  It turned out he didn't know the difference between Sunnis (often supporters of al Qaeda) and Shias (usually hostile to al Qaeda).  That's a little like appointing a math teacher who has trouble dividing 8 into 32.

Pelosi also appointed a man, Rep. Mollahan, a Democrat from West Virginia as head of the subcommitte that oversees the FBI.  One problem:  Mollahan is under investigation for corruption by the, you guessed it, FBI. 

You probably won't hear howlers about these situations on Leno and Letterman, let alone from John Stewart.  Those people usually define humor as something aimed at conservative Republicans -- that is, at us -- who they usually assume to be bumblers and incompetents.

Seriously (??), how important can humor be in politics? In some cases, it can be absolutely critical. The best modern user of humor was Ronald Reagan. Remember his line on Carter? "There he goes again." Also, reflect on the defining moment in the Mondale debate, when Reagan said he "wouldn't use (his) opponent's "youth and inexperience against him?" Did the elections turn on such moments?

To a significant degree, yes. In the campaign against Carter, Reagan faced a major challenge: the age issue. Reagan could win the election if he overcame a widespread view, fuelled by the MSM, that he was "too old" to be President. He used humor to deal with that situation. (Admittedly, it also helped that he looked and acted younger than Carter.)

One candidate who's using humor to his benefit is Mitt Romney. I'm working on several Romney jokes now. If you know any good ones, pass them along & I'll give you credit.

The stereotype of Mormons is that they're humorless souls.  Romney needs to overcome that.  He's started to do so.  His best humor line so far is that, yes, he's the Mormon guy but he's also the "candidate with just ONE wife."  A subtle, and funny dig at people like Giuliani and Gingrich, both of whom have been married three times.  Also, Romney is taking a Mormon sore point -- the history of polygamy -- and turning it to his advantage. 

One point of contention for Romney is that he's raising a huge sum of money from his fellow Latter-Day-Saints (Mormons) in places like Utah and California.  Could humor defuse some of the criticism Romney's getting on this point?  He might do so by tiptoeing around another stereotype of Mormons: that they're careful with a dollar (i.e., cheap). 

What if he did so by experimenting with lines like the following:  "One of my Church friends told me this, 'Mitt, if you can get that kind of money out of a bunch of tight-fisted Mormons, it will be a piece-of-cake to reduce the national deficit.'"  

With humor the ultimate dictum is this:  if it works, use it.

steve maloney

Did you know Fred Thompson is a candidate for Catholic sainthood?  He wrote a TH article on federalism and all across the nation people reported miraculous cures of their insomnia. 

The good news for President Bush is that his job approval rating from Republicans is 75%.  The bad news is that the total number of Republicans nationwide (including me) is at 947.

You think that's bad?  Hillary Clinton's favorability rating in her own family has fallen to 66% -- and Chelsea reportedly is wavering. 

Rodger Morrow of Sewickley, PA is also a friend of mine.  I hope you'll talk time to sign the petition, as Dean and I have.  -- Steve Maloney

Sign the petition first and read the jokes second.  If you'd like to send them to friends and tell them where to find new ones each morning, please be my guest.  You're always welcome here.   Remember Bob Levinson below; he doesn't have anything to laugh about right now.  

Let's face it: the pundits ask if our nation is ready for the first Black President or the first woman President.  The real question?  Is America really ready for a President named "Fred?"

 

Some people worry there might be embarrassing stories about Fred Thompson’s romantic episodes with actresses.   But I doubt most Hollywood starlets are into tell-alls about dating a slightly overweight, balding, older guy who talks funny.

 

Barack Obama gave another of his foreign policy speeches that was greeted simultaneously by a standing ovation and a multitude of puzzled looks. 

 

Word is out that Hillary Clinton is doing her Southern accent thing again.  The real controversy will come when she shows up in blackface. 

 

A poll came out today that said only 15% of Americans know what it is that Harry Reid does.  I wish they’d let the rest of us in on the secret. 

 
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

 Note to Visitors:  Sorry that the server has been up-and-down today.  Persistence is the key.
 
The following is the link to the news story about Muslim "clerics" (intolerant fanatics) threatening Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and author of "Infidel," with death.  Her offense is leaving the Muslim religion and, worse than that, criticizing it and the preposterous 7th century  "Prophet."   Here's the link: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/print_503977.html

In my blog two weeks ago, I wrote a piece strongly supportive of Ayaan Ali and her work.  Here's an e-mail I wrote today to one of the writers at Townhall; I sent copies to many people interested in the subject.

Please take a look at this link from Rodger [Morrow] and please pass it on where it will do the most good.  I am a major supporter of Ayann Hirsi Ali and have asked the U.S. government give her Secret Service protection.  She is one of the brightest and most appealing human beings I've ever encountered.  I've written on her in my blog and will do so again. 

In "Infidel," her remarks about Christianity are very positive, especially in terms of the faith practiced by her Dutch Reformed friends in The Netherlands.  The taught her many things about the difference between a loving God -- and one based on fear and threats.

The kind of Islam she encountered in various countries (Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and to a degree, Kenya) was extremely backward, complete with genital mutilation, honor killings, and the whole sorry mess of misery and ignorance. 

Her life is very much in danger, and I believe she expects to be killed by a Muslim fanatic, just as her film-maker/friend in Holland was.

Note please the comments of the "moderate American" Muslims, most of whom believe she should be killed as an apostate.  I believe she must be protected at all costs -- and granted immediate American citizenship by Act of Congress.  With our gutless congress, that may be very unlikely.  Her experience under heavy security in Holland -- and somewhere near I-95 in the U.S., living in what apparently was a Motel-6 or some such luxurious place -- is one of the best parts of "infidel." 

The article suggests she's an "atheist," but I belive that's not true.  I called her a "work in progress," and I believe she will embrace the Christian faith before much time has gone by.  Her revulsion for the worst aspects of Islam had created a barrier between her and all religious faiths.  She is so bright and curious that she won't remain in this state forever. 

I kidded with Mary Grabar, Townhall writer and Diana Irey, who ran for Congress against John Murtha, that if Ali spent a weekend with them, they could watch her get baptized on Monday. 

As you'll note in the linked article, Ayaan is accused of telling lies about the Qu'ran and about (Muslim prophet) Muhammed.  In fact, Ayaan is talking about her experience as a girl and woman who grew up as a faithful Muslim in Somalia.  She makes reference to passage in the Qu'ran that she belives (correctly) lead to inhumane treatement of women.  You will note that her Muslim critics never identify the supposed untruths, mainly because they are nonexistent.  She is the living definition of integrity, honor, and courage.  I told Diana that Ayaan reminded me of her, and I expect the resemblance to grow over the years. 

The bogus "Muslim clerics" who are calling for Ayaan's death should be deported if possible.  At the least, they should be arrested for making terroristic threats, which is against the law in Pennsylvania.  It's time for Islam generally to put up or shut up.  Is it truly one of the great world religions, or is it a hate-filled cesspool of intolerance and violence? 

In a sense, Ayaan is a person who lived in the equivalent of a closet for most of her life.  Her God-given brilliance and openness to learning saved her from a shrunken life, and now that she's out in the light, she truly has the possibility for real greatness.

She does not hate Islam or Islamic people.  She hates the atrocities performed in the name of God.  The things that never come to our attention don't become a part of our lives.  Lots of things are coming to her attention these days. 

Anyone who's a special favorite of both Christian advocate Steve Maloney and unreligious writer Christopher Hitchens -- and Ayaan is -- must truly be special. 

steve maloney
ambridge, pa

I know it says April 24 above but this is the April 25 column.
 

Part I: Humor is the Best Medicine

 

The Free World's Most Pressing Need is for good jokes about Fred Thompson and Barack Obama. I mean why should Dick Cheney and GWB get all the good zingers?

Seriously, what conservative America is calling for in its next President is a slightly overweight, bald, grumpy guy who talks funny.  Alternatively, our choice is a Black guy from Illinois who says things like, “A wet bird never flies at midnight” – and regards it as an applause line. 

I intend to fill a much-needed vacuum (did I put that right?) by coming up with a steady stream of jokes about Fred Thompson and Barack Obama, two of the greatest challenges ever presented to comedians. Both guys are about as funny as a shot of saltwater in the eyeball

Barack Hussein Obama, Senator from the great state of denial,  has reportedly sought to defuse the controversy over his middle name by changing it to "Hillary." He noted he’s always been a fan of the famous British mountain-climber.

New polling data is giving former Senator Thompson concern over whether the country is really ready for a President named "Fred." He explains that his mother was a big fan of "The Flintstones."

 

Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has a name recognition problem.  It turns out 43% of the American people remember him as a guy on “Hee Haw.”

 

Admit it, this is a confusing race.  The former Mayor of New York and the former Speaker of the House each have had three wives – and Romney, the Mormon guy, has had only one.  

Why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi ever smile?  Because she’s afraid she’d break her facelift.

 

Part 2:  Coalition-Building

 

One of the things I do in politics is work to build coalitions to elect conservative candidates – ones who are scrupulously honest, decent individuals.  That being the case, I was excited when I saw that Townhall.com had it own “Director of Coalitions.”  I wrote to her explaining what I did and sent off the e-mail.  She, continuing an irritating tradition at TH never wrote back.  Message: that’s not exactly the way to make friend, influence people, and build coalitions.

 

In politics, if someone offers you help, grab it with all the gusto you can summon.

 

Diana Lynn Irey: An Extraordinary Candidate

 

Let me tell you a story.  Last year, I was extremely active in Diana Lynn Irey’s campaign for Congress against Rep. John Murtha.  She was an inspiring candidate, and it was an exciting time for all involved.

 

Diana lost the election, with about 78,000 votes to Murtha’s 120,000-plus. As a sixteen-term congressman, he had many built-in advantages, one of which was that he raised four times as much campaign money as Diana.  (Murtha's spending was $3.5 million.)She got four votes out of every ten in the campaign.  Of course, to win, she needed five votes out of then, plus one.  She didn’t do badly at all for a first-time campaign against a firmly entrenched politician like Murtha. 

 

In some cases, these would be people who didn’t vote – a very big chunk of the electorate in most districts.  In other cases, they’d be people – another good-sized number – who voted for Murtha mostly because his name was familiar.  In some cases, they’d be individuals who’d forgotten to register – or perhaps never voted. 

 

Okay, what if one-out-of-three of Diana’s voters had used their influence with friends, families, neighbors to bring one more vote to her side?  That would leave two-out-of-three Irey voters to go their merry way.  She would have gotten 26,000 more votes.

 

What would 26,000 additional votes have meant?  With 104,000 votes instead of 78,000, she still would have come short of winning.  Presumably, she would have taken some votes from Murtha.  That could have turned election night into a nail-biter.

 

There’s another significant point:  if the polls had shown Diana was drawing close, she could have raised significantly more money.  Why?  Because people like to contribute to a potential winner.

 

With additional money, she might well have surprised John Murtha – and the political world – on election eve.  To my friend Diana, I say: “better luck next time,” and I certainly hope there will be a next time in 2008.

 

The Irey story I’ve just told is about people maximizing their influence in politics.  It’s about taking actions that don’t require a lot of time and money.  It’s about using your personal and social leverage.

 

In politics – local, state, and national – the whole idea is to take actions that will leverage your influence.  Yes, you’re only one person, but you can do things that will cause other people to act.  In turn the people you affect can move still others to take positive steps. 

 

Petitions: One Important Way to Build Coalitions

 

Let’s start out with a simple action Townhall recommends: signing a petition.  There’s one on the TH home screen right now, with a call to “Sign the petition: win the war on terror.”  It asks you to “tell your elected officials to stay the course with the war on terror.  Ask them to say ‘no’ to cut-and-run politicians.”

 

You can sign the petition by clicking on the screen and keying in your name.  But how could you leverage your single name?

 

One way is to ask others in your family – your roommate, your spouse, and your children – to sign the same petition.  They can use their own computers or yours.  Say you get three additional to sign.  Your one voice has become four.  You’re quadrupled your leverage.

 

You could increase your influence even more – by forwarding the petition to like-minded people on your e-mail list.  My own list of activists has about 200 names on it.  True, not every one of them would be interested, but many would.

 

The key is to go to people when the issue is an important one.  That won’t arise every week, or perhaps even every month.  In a short time, you’ll generally learn which of your contacts has an interest in signing petitions.

 

Do such petitions really work?  In some cases, they do.  For politicians who receive them, they can establish that there’s widespread support for certain positions.  In other cases, they can provide political “cover” for elected officials in district with divided public opinion.

 

In the Constitution, you’re guaranteed the right “to petition for the redress of grievances.”  The petition demonstrates that there’s not only one individual – you – with such a grievance. 

 

When’s the best time to sign a petition recommending actions you support?  As soon as possible.  In politics, there’s no time like the present. 

 

 Below, DeLay Remarks, Jokes, and Mary Katharine Ham column.  Pleas bookmark this site.  It's getting many visitors and is on its way to becoming the best one of the best on TH.    

DeLay urges GOP to get tough

To get to the video of Tom DeLay describing Pelosi, Reid, and others as being "very, very close to treason," click on the following: http://PghTrib.com.  That will take you to the Tribune-Review's home page.  Look down near the bottom right of the page to find the newscode box.  Enter in the following: 504197.  Then, click on "go" and you'll get the video. 

ALL MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE FREE FOR EDITORS -- ONLINE OR OFF -- AS LONG YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ME BY NAME AND NOTE WHERE YOU GOT IT.  THANKS.  – STEVE

Joke Section:

Reporter: Senator Biden, what did you mean when you said Obama was the first “clean” African-American presidential candidate?

Biden:  Have you ever gotten a whiff of Al Sharpton? 

 

Headline on TH:  “Chelsea Fights to Tie in English Premier League”

I didn’t know Chelsea Clinton was in England – let alone that she played soccer.

 

What does Hillary Clinton always show up in those suits-with-slacks outfits?

She wants to let you know exactly who in that family wears the pants.

 

Mary Katharine Ham: Great Potential, Two Mistakes

 

Jack Kelly, the superb national security columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said of NBC’s decision to air the Cho material:  “We say we do this to protect ‘the public’s right to know.’  The real reason, of course, is we hope the titillation will increase our number of viewers or readers . . . But as we fatten our bottom lines, we send a message to every sociopathic loser:  Wanna be famous?  Go kills a lot of people.  We’ll put your face and your story and your alleged grievances into every home in America.”    www.post-gazette.com/forum  (Sunday, April 22, 2007)

 

Mary Katharine Ham, you’re a shining young star at Townhall and in the “blogosphere.”  However, you made two big mistakes this week: (1) you “defended the indefensible,” NBC’s highlighting of the Cho videotape; (2) you appeared on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” to continue your defense of The Peacock Network.   MKH, meet Jack Kelly.

 

You should also contemplate the words of Mr. Read, father of one of those killed.  He asked the media “for the love of God” to stop playing the Cho video.  He described as “a second assault on the victims and their families.” 

 

What’s news and what’s not?  I’m sure that you pondered that question in your days at the University of Georgia’s Henry Grady School of Journalism.  If the public has a right to know – which is different from a right to see and hear -- how far does that right go?

 

For example, we probably should hear about the discovery of a child’s tortured body.  But do we have a right to see it, up close and personal on our TV?  Does NBC have a right to play it – over and over?  Does YouTube?

 

And if they don’t have such a right, why not?  As the media are always telling us, “Who are we to choose?” 

 

Or what about the video of Khalid Sheik Muhammed carrying around the bleeding, severed head of Daniel Pearl.  When should we play it?  The 6:30 p.m. news?  Or after the kids presumably have gone to bed?

 

Such videos have appeared on the Internet.  And when the ‘Net beckons, can the networks be far behind? 

 

Every psychiatrist who discussed the Cho video – except perhaps the in-house shrink at NBC – said that playing the tape sent a horrible message.  That message was: just make a tape and then commit your atrocities and you too can become famous.

 

At the University of Georgia Psych Department, I’m sure they teach about Pavlov’s dog.  In this case, Cho was the dog who sent the tape that made NBC salivate.  .

 

As he expected, Cho got to deliver his posthumous message.  He's proclaiming to an image-hungry world that, rather than being some bad person, he was just, you guessed it, a victim!   It turned out he didn’t do the killings for himself but for all the poor slobs like him.   

 

A child of his generation, Cho used the video as validation.  It gave him meaning in death that he never had in life.

 

My other objection is to your appearing on Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources.”   A Washington Post columnist, Howard will never, ever do anything that might lead to his ostracization in that rarified atmosphere.  When it comes to his opinions, Howard knows when to hold ‘em – and when to fold ‘em.

 

Howard’s driving purpose is to deliver mild, even loving, chastisements of the media brethren.  Basically, he’s saying, “You went a little too far.  Please don’t do it again.”  He’s especially partial to the concept of “no harm, no foul.” 

 

When it comes to people like Howard, my prayer for young conservatives like you MKH begins with “lead us not into temptation.”  In the network world, the lights truly are bright. 

 

But they do need a few people like you.  Your appearance will be living proof of the program’s “fairness.”  As for “balance,” that refers to one conservative for every three liberals.  

 

Be aware that the Howards of the world – and he’ll ask you to call him “Howard” – will want to “dress you up a little bit,” literally and figuratively.  If you’re a good guest, that is, slightly reticent when it comes to your conservative views, they’ll pay you the ultimate compliment: they’ll invite you back!

 

Of course, you won’t have to worry about ever returning if you turn out to be one of THOSE: a (shudder) Mary Grabar, a (double-shudder) Michelle Malkin, or a (triple-shudder) an Ann Coulter.  I mean, what would people say on Monday at the Post to Howard?  . 

 

It turns out, MKH, that you and I have at least two things in common.  For one, we’re both conservative.  Also, we both spent time at the University of Georgia – you as a journalism student, me as an English teacher (departing shortly before you were born). 

 

At our respective stages in life, your career potential is great, mine less so.

 

At its core, conservatism isn’t reducible to any of the following:  free enterprise, strong national defense, or even the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, a document written by and for all-too-fallible human beings.  Instead, conservatism is a way of viewing the world, based on the experience of mankind.

 

Conservatism is a political philosophy that gains authority from its basic core of morality.  Conservatism is about a strong sense of right and wrong – terms as unfashionable today as they are essential in all ages.

 

Mary Katharine, my advice is this:  think seriously about who you truly are – in terms of your moral center – and then ask:  “What person do I want to become.”  After all, what does it profit a woman if she gain the world (of journalistic) fame but in the process erodes the elements that make you truly special in the eyes of God and man – including this man.

 

MKH, I have five daughters.  If you were one of them, I’d be extremely proud of your accomplishments.  Your charm is obvious, and your potential is enormous.    .

 

At some point, you’ll have a chance to make a lot of money.  The main question for her – as for any of us – to ask is:  Exactly what am I selling, and what do they believe they’re buying?   At times, the cash and prestige proffered may extremely attractive, but the price paid to get the offer could be too high.

 

 

MAJOR BULLETIN:  DeLay Says Reid, Pelosi "Close to Treason"

DeLay urges GOP to get tough

By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said today.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Click here for story: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_504197.html

Salena Zito

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/

Political Reporter, Editorial Columnist

NOTE:   THE ONLY THINGS CUURENTLY COPYRIGHTED ON THIS SITE ARE THE JOKES.  IF YOU WANT TO USE JOKES FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, E-MAIL ME FIRST AND WE CAN DISCUSS FEES.  ALL OTHER MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE FOR EDITORS -- ONLINE OR OFF -- AS LONG YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ME BY NAME AND NOTE WHERE YOU GOT IT.  THANKS.  -- STEVE

TOMORROW'S COLUMN HERE:  It will deal with Mary K. Ham's appearance on Sunday on "Reliable Sources" (CNN -- see her blog today about the experience) and will criticize her for: (1) defending the indefensible, NBC's showing of the Cho video; (2) appearing on "Reliable Sources," a program in which one Howard Kurtz shills for the MSM and gives it gentle love taps for its major offenses.   I also tell her to start reading & answering her e-mails, something that's difficult when one is running off all the time to become famous.  Come see the fun!
 

"Laugh and the world laughs with you.  Snarl . . . and the world cowers before you."  Tough choice, huh?

 

This humor segment started 4/22/07.  Every morning by 10 a.m. Eastern Time (or before) there will be some original political jokes on this site – except of course when the TH server is down or when the political scene is atypically unfunny.  Reading the rest of the blog is optional.  If you like what you see, please return and tell your friends.  Here’s a sample. 

 

You know it’s been tough on Attorney General Gonzalez.  A reporter asked if he saw the naked streaker that ran through his office door several times, and he blurted out, “I can’t recall!” 

 

John Murtha is mad that he only made the top 20 list of the most corrupt congressmen.  He’s going around muttering, “We’re number 1.”

 

What do think would happen if Barbara Streisand entered the race as a Democrat for the Senate in California?  I predict she’d win by a nose.

From columns that appeared recently on TownHall – my response to their titles:

 

Kevin McCullough, "Why the Liberals Embrace Violent Massacres"  (about VA Tech)

My comment:  A liberal girl embraced me once, and it still gives me nightmares.

Robert Bluey, "British Conservatives Build Their Movement Online" 

My comment: The real truth is that they found online is a great place to meet girls.

About my FOX NEWS project:  My assessment of Fox is that a significant minority of the American people love it -- and an equivalent amount hate it.  The first group sees "fair and balanced" meaning news and opinion presented just the way they want it.  The other segement sees "fair and balanced" meaning news presented in a biased and manipulated way.  I don't see a way of bringing the two sides together.   Of course, there's also a group that can take FOX or leave it, and that's probably the biggest segment.

A significant number of the people who responded to me don't like the situations where two guests talk at the same time -- "talk over each other," as people said.  That's seen (correctly) as impoliteness and something the host (or the producer) shouldn't allow.  Let me be candid: that's just the way Roger Ailes and the people who run things at FOX want it.  They regard it as adding dynamism and excitement to the programming.  Two people arguing -- and refusing to listen to one another or respect the other person's right to have his or her say -- somehow gets preferred over reasoned discussion.  A "reasoned," respectful approach is seen as boring.

One person mentioned an O'Reilly (?) episode where a "Black Panther" disrespected Michelle Malkin.  Frankly, I don't regard Michelle as some "goddess of conservatism."  To me, she sounds like a person who has a small folder of "talking points" that apparently will last a lifetime.   That is, much of what she has to say is predictable and repetitive.   I wouldn't say the same about Mary Katharine Ham or Ann Coulter, both of whom seem to thought a good deal about the topics they discuss -- even though they're very different in personality.

I can't imagine a sound journalistic reason for having Michelle on with a Black Panther.  What's the point?  What real benefit is that supposed to provide an audience?  It's the television version of what an earlier generation called "a cheap thrill." 

Michelle:  I wonder how sincere her "conservatism" is.  When she comes on, it sounds almost as if she's reciting from a script.  I know just about what she's going to say before she says it.

Bill O'Reilly: most FOX viewers like him -- or, better, feel comfortable with him.  A few people are getting bored with him for doing basically the same thing, night after night, week after week, year after year.  The funny thing is that I basically like O'Reilly and agree with most of his views.  However, he seems to have gotten lazy.  He's locked into a certain format; he has the usual "outrages" to comment about; and he never surprises us, perhaps because we don't want surprises.   At times, he seems extremely pompous.  He's at his best when reading nasty e-mails and responding with wit and dignity.

As for Allen Colmes:  I love the person who described Colmes as a "baby seal" being clubbed nightly by Sean Hannity, "the alpha male."  I've never figured out what Allen's role is.  He's certainly not a shining star of liberalism.   Ailes and others must see the Hannity-Colmes combination as one that's "working," i.e., generating acceptable ratings.   To me, it's not a situation that's going to produce anything similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

On my correspondents generally: as you may seen, the vast majority were helpful and insightful on discussing problems I have with FOX overall.  I regard several people I heard from as emerging friends and people whose views I truly value.  If you've read the many comments, you can guess who most of them are.  Others like them are among the many people who sent e-mails. 

On the other hand, a few people were deeply skeptical about me and my motives.  In one case, a man accused me of (1) being a Democrat (never have been, never will be); (2) using his IP to determine where he lived.  I explained that I hadn't done that, didn't know how to do, and wouldn't do it under any circumstances.   One or two other people thought it was improper even to question anything FOX did.

My observationsto those few:  paranoia is not liberal or conservative.  It's just paranoia, and it's not attractive in any political stripe.  As conservatives, we must always be building our numbers, even if some of the people we bring in are not exactly "like us" in every conceivable way. 

FOX should be operating in a similar way, frankly, which it is not.  It should be trying to build its audience, rather than losing some of its best viewers, as is currently the case.  It should be trying to become "America's indispensable news source," which it is not even attempting as far as I can see.  It should be hiring women notable not mainly for their blonde hair or their long legs, but rather for their journalistic excellence.  What about hiring a few women who aren't beautiful but actually have the capacity to teach us things we don't know?  What I'm saying here is that FOX should be trying to attract a better audience -- smarter, more involved people -- and not just a bigger audience. 

The alternatives are not attractive.  We conservatives do NOT want to become a cranky minority that complains ceaselessly about what a growing majority is doing to us.  We don't want to become the "old people's party" (and trust me, I'm not young), which is mainly interesting for the rapidity with which it's dying off. 

In my case -- read the comments and responses I had with Goshawk -- I'm interested in making contact with people who want to change the political and social situation we now face.  I have no interest in complaining ceaselessly about Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Murtha.  Rather, I'm interested in replacing those individuals with other, better elected officials.  

As for the news I get, I want it to be the best news in the sense of being the truest, most in-depth information it's possible to obtain.  I don't want anyone pandering to my prejudices.  Instead, I want to know which of my prejudices (pre-judgments) have a basis in fact/reality and which don't. 

If you're with me on some of my points, fine.  If you're not, that's fine also.  As always, I value your comments.

Note: 1:  Starting today (Sunday), there will be an original joke of the day -- or two, or three.  Please bookmark this page and return often.  The jokes will always be up by 10 a.m. in the morning -- unless the server is down.  I hope you like them.  Feel free to comment:  -- Steve

Hillary Clinton says that when she’s elected President she’ll appoint Bill a “roving ambassador” designed to patch up the U.S. image, especially among young women.

 

Actually, Hillary and Bill are getting along so well that she’s thinking of allowing him to start dating again. 

 

John Edwards says “no more Mr. Nice Guy.”  Today, he said the next time Ann Coulter calls him the “F-word” again he’s gonna hit her with his purse.

 

I'm also going to try (key word) to do one every day based on the title of an article by a Townhall columnist.  Examples follow: 

Thomas Sowell, "A Trail of Slime" (Ray Nifong). 
Comment:  And here I thought this was going to be an article about John Murtha!

Kevin McCullogh, "Why the Liberals Embrace Violent Massacres" 
Comment:  A liberal girl embraced me once, and it still gives me nightmares.

Remember, laugh and the world laughs with us.  Snarl . . . and the world cowers in fear.

Note2 :  This week I’ll be featuring a discussion of Mary K. Ham’s appearance on Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” (CNN).  I strongly believe Kurtz was using MKH as a conservative “fig leaf” to justify the media’s excesses following the Virginia Tech shooting.  Kurtz’s point was that media the media did “the right thing,” which would be an historic first.  For a criticism of the point-of-view of people like Kurtz, please read conservative journalist Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, where he argues that “To boost their ratings, the media encourage the next mass killer.”  You can find Kelly at http://post-gazette.com/forum.  

 

 

When I was a child, my mother said of me to a friend:  “Stephen has very high standards, and so I fear that he’s bound to be disappointed often in life.”  Wise woman, that Ruth Maloney

 

FOX News disappoints me, and it should disappoint you.  As the column underneath this one shows, I've been getting many comments on my FOX questions.  What I've gotten is fascinating, but it's not something I can turn into statistics. 

 

So, I've been taking the easy way out and reprinting mostly snippets.  Asking the kind of question I did -- basically, if FOX is slipping (and certainly its ratings have) -- draws more criticism of the network than praise.  If people are happy with something, they tend to say little or nothing.  If they're unhappy, they're very ready to recite the reasons why.  Are they ever!

From the comments mainly, I'm reminded why all the networks are in business: to make money.  Rupert Murdoch, like his counterparts such as Ted Turner, didn't get filthy rich by giving money away -- or by throwing it out the window. 

 

Yes, Fox may be "our" network, but what it does -- how it presents news and opinion -- is designed to attract viewers of various economic subgroups, which in turn attracts advertisers.  If something doesn't sell, they're not interested in it.  A horrid thought: What if FOX decided liberalism “sold?”  Thank goodness it doesn’t.

As for me, I said in my statement soliciting views that I found the morning show, "FOX and Friends," basically unwatchable.  Silly me.  Many of my respondents LIKE the show and the people on it.  The ratings for "FOX and Friends" are more than double those for its nearest competitor, "American Morning," which I watched religiously until recently.  (Soledad and Miles O'Brien, no relations, were dumped from "American Morning" and replaced by left-wing journalist John Roberts and former FOX News person Kiran Chetry.) 

 

Reportedly, Kiran wanted someone (Gretchen Carlson) fired at FOX -- she denies it -- and they compromised by firing her instead.  

Gretchen then replaced E. D. Hill, who almost magically disappeared from “Friends” one day and reappeared in another time slot.  E. D., of course has eight children, so she can deal with any imaginable adversity.

Still hanging on by their toenails as “reporters” at CNN, Soledad and Miles are mildly liberal (my assessment).  Both are extremely smart and good questioners.  As is common in the business, they ask harder questions of Republicans than Democrats, but that's a bias we can easily recognize -- and discount to a degree.  Miles and Soledad got "reassigned" (the word the FBI uses when they send an agent to the Pocatello, Idaho branch) because "FOX and Friends" was killing them in the ratings.  

 

As the Mafia turncoat says in The Godfather, "Tell Michael it was only business."   Attention, Soledad and Miles, "It was only business." 

Kiran Chetry: is she conservative, liberal, or moderate?  It's a little bit like the old joke about the successful accountant.   He sought out a client and the man asked him, "How much is two and two?"  The accountant paused, then asked:  "What number did you have in mind?"  Of course, the accountant then had a client for life.

As Chetry’s smooth move to CNN shows, our news readers are nothing if not adaptable.  What is her greatest strength?  When I first saw Kiran on "American Morning," I noticed her skirt seemed extremely short and her legs uncommonly long.  I thought, "Well, it must just be me approaching the realm of old-goat-hood."   Then, I read that one person on TMZ.com had said of Kiran's new job, "Let the leg show begin."  I guess it wasn't only me. 

 

Somehow, I just keep thinking:  what if Soledad’s legs were just a little longer?  Or what if Miles O’Brien were – like John Roberts – just a little more ideologically manipulative?

Major news jobs -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC (sorta), and the "Big Three" -- are few in number.  It’s a compact merry-go-round.   Consider Laurie Dhue (I'm proud of being the one man in America who can spell her last name correctly.)   Before she came to FOX, where did she work?   At MSNBC and CNN.  And where did E. D. Hill work?  At ABC, NBC, and CBS, among others.

 

In other words, there’s a whole lot of recycling going on in the news business. 

 

There’s something else occurring.  Consider my correspondent who said that FOX is “playing a losers’ game.”  He means it’s doing basically the same thing – with the same people – as the other networks, although with a slightly conservative stance.  In fact, the “conservative” part really appears when the sun goes down and the opinion people  like Hannity and O’Reilly appear. 

 

Remember folks, FOX is doing what sells.  It’s giving us what we want, even if we have to be force-fed at times. 

 

If playing the Cho video sells, it rolls the video tape machine.  If “all Anna Nicole all the time” is what the public can’t get enough of, then we get her ungainly body stuffed in our faces 24X7.   But what network is it doing the Real News?  Answer: none of them.  

 

With poor Anna Nicole, FOX – like the rest of its competitors -- was seeking The Answer to America’s ultimate question:  “DannieLynn, who’s yo daddy?”  In the end, the answer didn’t seem to matter very much, because all the people involved weren’t worth 10 seconds of our attention.

 

FOX gets in the position of displaying what it’s decrying.  For example, Bill O’Reilly is willing to talk about the tawdriness of the Anna Nicole situation.  But as one guest observed, he made his complaints while his producers were continually – and salaciously – playing tape of Smith engaging in her vulgar “strip tease” show. 

 

Greta did something similar with the Cho tape.  On the one hand, she was asking if NBC “went too far” in highlighting the shooter.  At the same time, the NBC tape was playing again and again on the split screen.  When someone on TV asks if somebody “went too far,” you can hear in the distant background the fall of Rome.

 

Yes, it’s all understandable.  It’s what one cranky old Southern conservative called “the commercialization of EVERYTHING.”  But shouldn’t Fox have a slightly higher standard than its competitors?  Shouldn’t there be some semblance of a sense of right and wrong at the network?  With Cho, shouldn’t somebody wonder why they’re doing exactly what the shooter wanted?

 

If conservatism means anything – and to me, it means everything – it’s a view not only of how life is, but also of how it should be.  Like us, FOX should be advocating decency, integrity, and self-restraint.  It should be emphasizing not just its First Amendment rights but also its responsibilities to society.  Overall, it should be standing for the kind of morality that’s essential to sustaining any civilization worthy of the name.

 

FOX does some things very well, and I’ll discuss them in the next column – along with suggestions about how it can give us more of the valuable information we need. 

 

Frankly, we should be asking more from FOX.  Who knows, they just might surprise us.  

 

Stay tuned.

 

Steve Maloney

 

 

NOTE: MORE COLUMNS WILL FOLLOW, BASED LARGELY ON YOUR COMMENTS.  KEEP THEM COMING!  AS THE DAY GOES ON, I KEEP ADDING TO THE MATERIAL AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.  I PROMISE TO KEEP IT FROM BECOMING AS LONG AS "WAR AND PEACE!"  THANKS FOR TAKING THIS SITE OVER 1,000 VISITORS TODAY, Remember one fact of human nature:  when you ask people to write in about their like or dislikes regarding something, most of the people who reply will be the "critics."  That is true so far with this very unscientific survey.  However, some of the people apparently most critical of Fox tell me they watch all day long!   I'm printing a number of short comments at the end of this page.  On Sunday, I'm going to write my impressions of what the people who responded to me think of Fox News -- the good, the bad, and the blondes.  :-)

Hi:  I’m doing several pieces on Fox News.  I am very much a conservative, but I have some problems with the network.  Well, remember the man who went to see a fight (boxing match) -- and a hockey game broke out?  On my site, I've asked a few fairly innocent (?) questions about Fox News, and a pitched battle ensued.  It's not a struggle between Left and Right, but among conservatives struggling to define the "soul" of Fox News.  If you'd like to join in and make comments. please do so. "The more the merrier."  You're always welcome here.  I hope you'll return often, but even if you don't, I'm honored that you saw fit to visit.  If you'd rather comment in e-mail (and 25-30 people had as of Saturday morning, you can reach me at:  TalkTop65@aol.com.

Steve (charter member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy")

See exchanges below & in comments section

The following is a comment I received from "Handy" about FOX NEWS:

 

Handy writes: Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:22 AM
I Really Shouldn't Get Involved, Steve

FOX doesn't need more opinion shows or opinion segments. We all know what's going to happen on them. It'll be a left wing mouthpiece against a right wing one.

 

Nope, what FOX needs to do is start rooting out stories that the others don't cover. It's called "scooping," ladies and gents. As in, beat the other guys to the news.

Glen Beck may be doing more good promoting reality over there on CNN, because libs would never tune in to FOX, and they'd never see the other side. But his thoughtful style of reporting is really more attuned to FOX editors. Even Anderson Cooper goes a little deeper than anyone else over there.

As of now, FOX is far less boring than the other cable channels, but FOX could do better. Let some young guns out to plow new ground and reap some scoops.

I know what I'm going to get in the afternoon and early evening from all of the cable outlets. Lots of times I just switch to Animal Planet, Discovery, or History.

And, Greta doesn't deserve the sensational realm. That's like "Celebrity Justice" and not half as good as the Dominic Dunne stuff. She should have the federal court beat, with a great support staff.  [Note from Steve: Amen!]

There's nothing wrong with FOX keeping Geraldo on late night slots. He's gotten better, but he's still baggage. [Note: Amen, again!]

My personal feelings about this stuff don't matter much. It's not like you are Roger Ailes, or anything.  [Note: You got that right!]

 

But FOX is far more interesting than the competition, and if they do nothing else, O'Reilly is truly a "no-spin" guy. Sometimes he's too fair to idiots, but he does draw them out.

It's just that FOX is playing the losers' games. Now's the time to get out and develop some real news (scoops) while the rest of them will remain asleep at the old MSM switch.

Full Disclosure: I haven't watched a network newscast in over fifteen years. Can they be more boring than they were in 1992?  [Note: they are perhaps more boring because of the “celebrity” news stuff]

I honestly don't understand your project or even if you have one, but you owe your TH buddies a full after action report for their input.

We'll see, won't we?

 

 

The following is my response to “Handy.”

 

Dear Handy:

 

Wow!  I believe your comments are much more insightful than anything we’ll ever get from media critics (Howard Kurtz and the like).  I don’t really disagree with anything you said, and I truly wish you had Roger Ailes’s ear, but I have a hunch he listens mainly to himself.

Why am I doing this project?  There are several reasons (one is that I want as many people as possible to participate in my blog).  Another is that I genuinely would like have some influence, however small, in helping Fox become the major conservative force it can be -- even more than it is now.   

Your main point is that Fox has fallen into a trap: basically, it’s mimicking the way the “other guys” do it (CNN, MSNBC) but doing it from a conservative slant – and, sometime, a heavy-handed slant.  Could this be why, after going to the top of heap, the network’s growth in viewers has stalled?

 

To me, the network has become (at times) something like the old “Lawrence Welk Show.”  It gives certain viewers what they want to hear, but it doesn’t break any new ground.  In some ways, it has become stale.   One noted conservative (well-known to TH readers) told me, “The network hasn’t developed any (significant) new personalities in five years.” 

 

Its graphics, an important part of the overall viewing experience, look like something out of the 1970s.  Its make-up “experts” apparently are trying to create a 1950s look – where is Donna Reed when we need her.   There’s obviously a dress code at the network, and somehow I don’t feel that an old bald guy (Roger), not matter how brilliant he is, should be establishing dress standards for people (especially women!) half his age. 

 

No, I’m not advocating bikinis or mini-skirts.  I am advocating less than three layers of lip gloss.  I’m advocating having people look a little more natural and 21^st century than they do now.  Also, if they want to attract viewers of all ages, genders, and ethnicities, they need people on there that various groups can identify with.  

 

Fox can and should remain “conservative.”  However, as Handy points out, they’re playing a Losers Game.  Everyone on there – including the liberal or moderate person who replaces Allen Colmes (we can dream, can’t we?) – should be able to teach us SOMETHING.  We don’t need robots reciting a spiel.  We need people who are capable of enough self-examination to understand that they don’t know everything. 

 

I mentioned Kyra Phillips of CNN – and how she angered Nancy Pelosi.  I don’t know exactly what Kyra’s politics are – I’d guess moderately conservative – but she makes a sincere effort to present information from perspectives that are new – fresh.  On Friday, she reported from Baghdad on a fortune-teller (!) who has become the most popular talk show host in Iraq.  He inspires people in that country as he presents a message of hope.  Somehow the story was a lot more interesting than the usual recitation of car bombing statistics. 

Fox should hire Kyra immediately.

 

Delia Gallagher: she’s the “religion editor” at CNN.  She’s a devoted Christian (Roman Catholic).  At the Pope’s funeral, Delia was with the network’s anchor when their Italian translator didn’t show up to translate a speech in Italian.  Delia did the translation.  She also said, “The Pope is in heaven now.”  I wondered if CNN would run a banner headline saying: “CNN reports the Pope is in heaven.”  Fox should hire her – now.

 

I also think they should hire Chris Jansing of MSNBC.  She’s at least moderately conservative, extremely smart, and a believing Christian.  She’s also the youngest of 12 children!  She and Ms. Hill of Fox – apparently the mother of 8 children! – would have a lot to talk about.

 

Fox can be a wonderful asset for the conservative community.  As Handy says, they need to generate more scoops, rather than do variations on the same things the other nets are presenting.  They need to do everything they can to present conservatism as the best political alternative.  Note:  believe it or not, I’ll have a lot more to say about this subject.  Keep those “cards and letters” coming.  God bless to all.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa

Tom made the following comments:

 

Steve:

 

Yeah, I'm getting pretty fed up with Fox at the moment too. I like O'Reilly, Cavuto, Angle, Kondracke, Barnes, Burns & the media discussions, Macallum, Napolitano, Geraldo, Krauthammer, Kirsten Powers (even if she is a Democrat). They talk substance. But unfortunately the timing of these programs does not fit nicely into my lifestyle as I'm o/s [overseas, I think].  [Note from Steve: Kirsten Powers is the kind of “liberal” voice worth hearing, intelligent & serious]

Hence I get a lot of Greta (soft interviews, no substance), Hemmer, Shep Smith (there because of appearance, like many others, not interviewing skill), Fox & Friends which is 100% lame. Hannity is becoming a bore. He is so predictable on all points.

And those gorgeous female newsreaders (e.g. Lauren Green in particular) actually seem to be smiling while reading stories of massacres. This must stop! It's disgusting. Changing channels is not the most ideal option because conservative TV is not easy to find. For me the timings of the programs are a problem, so when any of the lame stuff comes on, change channels I do. I go to Sky, CNN or BBCWorld for my news. And yes, even Animal Planet as another said.  [Note: Tom’s description of the smiling anchors during disasters – I’m sure they’ve been told to smile a lot – is a devastating (and true) comment]

Fox also tends to laboriously cover one current event (usually the most sensational) ad nauseum. The commentary then becomes mind-numbing so I absolutely must change for mental sanity. When interactive TV hits mainstream, this won't be a problem.

Fox could do with some more international stuff on conservative movements overseas. CNN and BBC are cornering this market. Can’t wait for a Fox International to compete.

Lastly would also be great if they could some sharper talkers on like a Smerconish & Prager more often. Some of the guys they have are bumblers, e.g. Pinkerton & Kondracke (both of whom I like, though).

Despite the above, Fox is obviously a cable star (according to Journalsim.org, backed by Pew polls), so I'm sure they can do without my advice!  [Note: Actually, Tom, I think they’d do better with it, even considering their “stardom.”]

Cheers.

 

Tom

 

Following is my response to Tom:

 

Wow! Tom, I'm going to post your comments on the blog proper (the one with the "A material," as a friend of mine puts it).

 

I've heard it said that many Americans -- maybe even most -- are very good TV critics, because we see so much of it. People comment on things like camera angles, lighting, graphics, which supposedly are "technical" matters, but in fact we are aware of them. If a presentation is amateurish in any way, we dismiss it quickly. We expect a high level of professionalism -- and I bet that's even true of TV programs in Iraq.

 

When a show appeals too much to our own political and social inclinations, we sometimes wonder if they're pandering -- TO US. We don't want anyone to insult our intelligence.  For example, I like President Bush, but if someone tells me he's our greatest President ever, I get irritated.

 

As you may have noted, "Handy" (see above) said that Fox should "break" more news (and not about Anna Nicole or Britney), should have more "scoops" as we used to call them "in the day." Fox did BY FAR the best coverage up-to and during the first phase of the Iraq War in Iraq. It showed what actually was going on while other "nets" were off cowering somewhere. Its people were genuinely heroic.

Coverage of the War on ALL nets is superficial beyond belief.  Who exactly are the insurgents?  Why do they murder innocent people?  What do ordinary Iraqis think about them?  What kind of "government" do they have in mind for Iraq?  Why is the Kurdish so peaceful and apparently friendly to Americans?  What are the "success stories" in Iraq?  What exactly will happen if we leave in a hurry?  What are the chance of the terrorists there showing up in America?  Why is it so hard to stop the car bombings?  (On that part, if you don't allow cars in, they can't really kill anybody.)  I don't know the answers to these questions.  If the nets, including Fox, were doing their job maybe all of us would know.
 

A Fox fan (see above) told me that it was fine to have Geraldo on as long as they had him on very late at night. I laughed at that one, because it is so accurate. It would be ridiculous for us to say, "Well, Geraldo is on Fox, so I have to defend him all the time." Geraldo is a windbag, folks, whether he's liberal or conservative (and I'm not sure which).

 

I've strongly suggested that Fox go out and hire a few people who are plain old tough-minded journalists -- there’s a concept! They are people who are totally dedicated to their jobs of presenting information that we can benefit from. I gave an example above with Kyra Phillips.

Yes, some people like Fox "just the way it is." The problem there is that the network has stopped growing in viewership. For its influence to increase, it must keep growing, attract new viewers.

 

Many of us here on TH are the "hardcore" conservatives.  But as such, we can win very few elections just on our own -- check back to the last election. We have to keep drawing in people that agree with us -- mostly, sorta, some of the time. If we don't achieve that, we can look forward to a lifetime of complaining about what the liberals are doing to us.

I doubt Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch ever hear many of the insights the commenters are making. They should be.  If you can find a good way of getting this to them, please do so.  Their future -- and to a degree, our future -- depends upon their hearing such things. God bless.

 

-- Steve

Another note:  The man who made the comment about the blondes smiled as the read material about trageies -- and they're ALL blonde all the time now that the one (talented) brunette defected to CNN -- joins the other guy who said, "All the blondes on Fox look like they went to the same plastic surgeon."   I remember once when a pretty woman (okay, a brunette) news reader on MSNBC had on a guest from Newsweek, an extremely intelligent young woman who had a lot to say about terrorism.  One problem: the Newsweek woman was, well, homely.  But she absolutely knew what she was talking about.  As I told my wife, the Newsweek person got better looking every minute she was on air.  She was presenting information of value and not slanting it either way.

I call the airhead blondes (Alex Witt of MSNBC is one & Paula Zahn on CNN is another) the "Betty Boops."  If you have a stupid person on the air, the information you get is essentially going to be tinged with stupidity. 

The following is from Jeff in Michigan

Steve:

You're not crazy nor alone:  FNC has definitely suffered degradation in the time I have
watched, ca 2000-ish.  My biggest complaints:

1) There is no real "digging" f/news & particularly no follow-up w/details . . . or at least the
details I desire.

2) My distaste for some of the personalities is directly proportional to injection of their
opinions-as-fact.  Hernando Revolver is the worst offender.

3) As a recovering sex addict, I really despise the appearance of most of the female pundits.

FNC has gone from being on in my household during almost all waking hours (I'm retired) to on-the-hour & -half-hour, plus Brit Hume daily.  Otherwise, "Cops" & anything on the "Hitler Channel" is preferable.     

 

Thanx for asking!  I have wondered if my bride & I were the only disgruntled viewers.

 

n       Jeff

 

The following is from Merle in Ohio:

 

 

 Hi Steve, Read you blog on TownHall. I do not know if I agree with your tough-minded comment though. I find that the anchors on Fox stick to their guns ,and the tedious element you refer to is necessary. It only becomes tedious to those who hear the continuous knocking. You remark about needing "smart types" had me at a loss. I even checked Webster’s dictionary to find out which definition of smart didn't apply to Fox. I guess you must have meant how "clever" (CNN), and (MSNBC), are in slanting the news. Some of their programming may be boring to you, but it may not be boring to others. I believe Fox News seeks to address all of America with their coverage, and not just a faction. In doing so they speak to all of America.

 

-- Merle

"Teach us to care and not to care.  Teach us to sit still."  (T. S. Eliot) 

The following is an exchange I had with an amiable and very bright ex-Navy Commander.  It traces back to my column entitled “If Everything is Permitted, Then Everyone is in Peril” (below).  In a subsequent column, I framed it as a “Libertarian Conservative” versus a “Traditionalist Conservative.”  A long time ago, philosopher Thomas Hobbes described life in what he called “a state of nature.”  That prevailed before the rise of organized societies, with all the regulations and laws to which we’re now accustomed.  Hobbes said that life in such a condition – I remember the words well – was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish . . . and short.”   It was every man for himself in a battle for survival. 

 

As a traditionalist – someone who values greatly the institutions and behaviors that have worked in the past – I sometimes (well, all the time) get criticized for not valuing liberty sufficiently.   Frankly, I value an ordered society, not a disordered one.  I think we all saw the state of nature at work at Virginia Tech with Mr. Cho carried out his vengeance on his fellow human beings.  Why did he kill people?  Obviously, he was trying in his feeble way to make some sort of statement.  Ultimately, he killed them because he didn’t value them.  He saw them as a means to his bizarre end.  He saw an orderly society around him, and he viewed it as an impediment to his own freedom.  So, he tried to smash that society, destroy it.  He didn’t follow the rules.  He was anti-social.  He was what the philosophers call a solipsist, basically a person that believed he alone mattered.

 

Our liberty is very important.  But it doesn’t have much meaning apart from society.  In fact, our liberty, if it means anything other than individual anarchy, depends upon our society respecting our rights as we respect the rights of others.  The social world helps elevate us from nastiness and brutishness.  It keeps reminded us we aren’t not alone in the world. Thus, society isn’t the enemy of our civil liberties, restrained as they must always be from absolute fulfillment.  In fact, it’s the ultimate protector of those liberties.   The following is the “debate” or exchange between me and the Commander.  Would love to hear your comments. 

 

Note:  The Commander’s comments are in normal print, while my comments are in italics.

 

Steve,

 

Regarding your interesting Libertarian/Traditionalist debate, the following comments:

 

1. As we learn more about Cho's history, we see that elements of the established order -- the state of Virginia, the county, the local police, the VT administration -- had been dealing with him as a potential problem for some time.  He did not erupt entirely unsuspected from out of the blue.  A key question I have for "traditionalists" who might concede that we should trade liberties for order to prevent an incident of this kind is:  which liberties?  How do we know which ones would do the trick?  Should we incarcerate the mentally disordered faster, and on less exacting pretexts than we currently use?  Should institutions in the state university system take a dimmer view of the treatable mentally disordered than the psychiatric community does, and expel them more expeditiously?  But what if the next shooter is perfectly sane, as far as anyone knows before he starts shooting?

 

I think we need to make very sure criminals and mentally defective people don’t get guns.  We shouldn’t rely on the “honor system” (i.e., their word) that they are not guilty of crimes and that they are sound mentally. In making rules about guns or anything else, we need to test (just as business or the military does) to see what works and what doesn’t.  We need to stop as many of the bad things as we can without turning ourselves into a police-state.  In order to stop things like the Cho shooting and 9/11, we need laws (and more) that prevent people from doing terrible things.  We can’t stop every crazy or terrorist, but we can stop some of them, and we should try.  It appears Cho dropped through a lot of cracks in the legal and mental health system.  If guns didn’t harm innocent people, it wouldn’t be necessary to regulate their use and ownership.  Note:  Someone who commits a crime with a gun should forfeit his or her freedom – perhaps permanently. 

 

We already prohibit the sale of handguns to the mentally disordered.  We already know that prohibiting the legal sale of guns doesn't prevent anyone from obtaining them.  Should we have annual gun sweeps by the police -- literal inspections of people's homes, vehicles, workplaces, persons -- to ensure that no one known to be ineligible for firearm possession has one?  And of course, since that won't keep guns out of people's hands either, what else should we do to prevent someone like Cho from getting hold of one?  Semi-annual gun sweeps?  Weekly?

 

I don’t even hear the Democratic candidates calling for “gun sweeps.”  It’s not going to happen.  There are a lot of guns in the U.S. (one for every man, woman, and child, and maybe throw in dogs and cats), and it seems it’s fairly easy to steal them and sell them on the “street.”  As I said before, a big problem is the “honor system” that allows people with serious mental problems to say that they’re just fine.  Yes, they’re committing a felony by saying they’re fine, but they don’t seem to care (as seems to have been the case with Cho).   The gun sweeps idea reminds me of our new law saying we need to X-ray 11 million containers coming into the U.S.  Good luck!  Oops, the three containers that got smuggled in and didn’t get x-rayed had some very nasty stuff in them.

 

2. I think the difference in thinking, in the Libertarian/Traditionalist dichotomy you postulate, goes deeper.  To begin with, Cho is a party of one, someone who could not have been stopped by the material precautions of law in the first place.  What you call Libertarians are people who don't accept the premise that law, and state-imposed limits, are what fundamentally make us safe from each other.  Rather, the most basic foundation of public order is individual virtue, discipline, and accountability.  Law operates in service of these traits, not as their master.  This isn't wishful thinking either:  the fact that the huge majority of us are NOT constantly victimized by crime, even though the mechanisms of law enforcement can't possibly be ubiquitous, establishes the proposition nicely.  Law is a method of deterrence and punishment; even in the most draconian system it doesn't translate into CONTROL.

 

I agree that the “most basic foundation of public order is individual virtue, discipline, and accountability.”  I don’t drive much, and when I do I stay near the speed limit.  I do so because I’m not sure I could always retain control of the car at very high speeds.  Another reason I do so is to avoid getting a speeding ticket.  (The last such ticket I got was many years ago, but, as they say, you never know.}  I absolutely hate it when our country, which I revere, ends up looking to some many people like some barbarous capital of violence, with more murders in one big city than some good-sized countries have in a year.  We need to stop that situation, and I believe we’re smart enough to do so without taking away guns from law-abiding, responsible citizens.  Mayor Bloomberg reminded us yesterday that there are 30 murders each day in the U.S. – the equivalent of a Virginia Tech everyday.  That is TOO many.  It is TOO much suffering. 

 

It isn't possible for the precautions taken by humans to control every factor in our environment, and prevent all bad things from happening.  A proper view of law recognizes that as a truth, and doesn't try to ignore it and insist that (a) laws can control people's behavior, and (b) if something bad happened, it was because people's behavior wasn't being controlled enough by external mechanisms.

 

I think the law is designed to make sure that if people do violate it, they get punished.  To a degree (see my driving example), the law does control behavior.   At the same time, I sincerely believe I do what I do (in a moral/legal sense) because I was taught there were certain things that I could NOT do.  I didn’t matter what I WANTED to do.  Rather, there were some things I couldn’t do even if no one saw me or punished me for doing them.   Civilization rests on people who get up and go to work, stop for red lights, pay their taxes, and mow their front lawns.  Cho believed that killing innocent people was justifiable to make a point.  He was wrong, and he just didn’t realize that.  I believe there has to be a spiritual renewal in our society, an “explosion” of goodness and decency.  Cho showed us the evil in our midst, with, as the poet said, “a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun.”  He’s Mohammed Atta, but with a gun rather than a 747.  And the television networks have glorified him.  Shameful.

 

3. This leads to my final thought.  Posing the thesis that "the VT massacre is the price we pay for freedom" implies that the personal exercise of evil is uniquely abetted by political freedom.  The antithesis would be something like:  "Whatever the costs of less freedom, a VT massacre wouldn't be one of them."  I don't know that history really bears this out.  Psychotic slaughters have occurred in all political conditions; when the people are less free, the slaughters are more likely to be carried out by agents of the state rather than lone schizophrenics.

 

Unlike every other developed country (except Switzerland) we don’t have strict laws that make it nearly impossible for individuals to own guns.  We have a great deal of freedom to obtain guns, and that means some people will misuse them.  Because we have a great many guns they get stolen, traded, “borrowed,” and the like.  People who are stealing guns aren’t using them for target practice.  Most gun owners (98%?) are law-abiding and responsible.  A state senator in our area carelessly let his gun be available and a young boy got it and (apparently) committed suicide.  Children get guns, and they want to pull the trigger.   Note:  I am not saying to do away with the Second Amendment.  I’m just observing the obvious.  If all 26,000 Virginia Tech students had guns, how many would use them unwisely?  Only one-half of one percent?  The problem is that’s 130 people.  I don’t mean they would turn into a Cho, but there would be effects.  By the way, I know that a lot of laws and regulations backfire.  The child-proof aspirin caps may results in MORE child overdoses.  Why?  Because older people leave the hard-to-open tops off altogether.  You can figure the rest. 

 

Although I think there is something to the idea that America is uniquely a "gun culture," and that that has some relation to our murder rate as compared to that of other modern industrial nations, I suspect there's at least an equal correlation of our murder rate with our birth rate -- also unique among the modern industrial nations.  The overwhelming majority of murderers (and committers of all violent crimes) are young men, and we've been bringing more of them into the world than Europe or Japan.

 

I agree.  You can’t imagine how OLD the populations in Europe and Japan are getting.  One historian said they might become “national versions of rest homes.”  I don’t believe our high murder (and accident) rate with guns says we’re a bad society.  It does say that it’s easier to kill people in the U.S. than elsewhere.  There are a host of issues here.  One is that some gun owners, perhaps many, believe the government would like to sweep away their liberties, and in fact the Supreme Court – and certain Democratic politicians – fuel that fear with irresponsible actions.  Civil liberties are very important.  However, for 32 people at Virginia Tech, the question of civil liberties has become a moot point. 

 

One could consider a lot of factors and possibilities.  I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, but I do think one's bottom line on this is a function of how much one thinks government and law are the answer to our problems -- and conversely, how much one attributes the existence of our problems to inadequate control of us by the government.  I don't attribute any of the VT massacre to government not governing us enough.  I attribute it to the individual human choice to do wrong.

 

I used to run into a fair number of libertarians.  They wanted to privatize the police and fire departments, do away with drug laws, do away with the income tax, and the like.  Some of their ideas probably would work!  Thanks for the exchange.

 

Good discussion here.  I look forward to seeing what others come up with.

 

Sincerely,

 

J. E. D.

CDR, USN (Ret.)

"Tell Michael it was only business."  ("The Godfather")

"Self-control is the most exhilarating of pleasures."  (William F. Buckley, Jr.)

Remember Arthur Bremer? He did one thing in his life that anyone ever noticed: in Laurel, Maryland, he shot George Wallace, a candidate for President. Bremer wanted to shoot someone famous. First, he explored shooting Jimmy Carter, but that didn't work out.

So, he shot George Wallace. Like Mr. Cho, Arthur Bremer became a celebrity, "someone who's famous for being famous," as Andy Warhol put it. If he'd have shot the President, he'd have become even more famous.  If he'd shot a world record number of people, he'd have become a figure who'd have made it into the history books.  .

Did NBC have a choice? Sure, it had a choice. It had a choice not to show it and then explain why.
 
But for it to have shown restraint would have been, well, like a sleaze not being a sleaze. NBC isn't in the news business. NBC is in the business of making money, anyway it can.  It couldn't show the bloody and shattered bodies in Norris Hall.  It couldn't even ask a grieving parent, "But how do you FEEL?" So, it settled for what it had. . 

Cho railed against a thoroughly corrupt world.  Then, he sent the tape to NBC, because he believed it would confirm his "vision."

It doesn't care whom it hurts. It doesn't care about people, unless those people happen to be the ones at NBC that profit from ratings. It reflects what one old Southern Agrarian -- Donald Davidson -- called "the commercialization of everything." You can catch it on "30 Rock" on Thursday (tonight, for that matter).

In the end, it did what Cho could never have done on his own in a million years: made him a "hero," one with a "cause." Nice work, NBC. Next?  The mini-series!  And then, the ultimate video game!

Stephen R. Maloney (who would have burned the CD)

 

(Libertarian) Comment from “Foth” on my “If Everything is Permitted, Everyone is in Peril” Column: I’d very much appreciate your comments and will reply to each one (Steve).  Note: If you’re looking for the important “Ismail Ax” material related to the Virginia Shooter, it’s the column beneath this one.  

 

 

I am new to your site and toward the hope of establishing a beneficial relationship with you let me begin by saying that I admire the quality of your writing (at least as much of if as I have seen thus far). Having said that, Let me tell you that while I also agree with much of the content of the piece to which this is attached I find several of the faults so common to those who advocate views such as yours.

First, and least, your Counter/Michelle scenario is not valid. But that is not really important for the moment so I will just leave it at that for now. (If you wish me to elaborate on that point please inform me and I will do so.)

Second, and more importantly, you criticize the only remedy that has thus far been offered to reduce the loss of innocent lives to the likes of CHO. Then you offer no remedy of your own. Instead of a remedy you offer rhetorical questions. In fact, your entire final paragraph was nothing more than a series of rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions, sir, are of no value to any serious attempt at problem solving--they at best only serve to inspire an attempt at problem solving.

Before continuing, let me back up one moment and support my comment above. Allowing all law abiding citizens who so choose to carry concealed in hopes that one such person may be able to interrupt a killing spree and thereby reduce the numbers of deaths caused by guns is the only remedy that has thus far been advanced relative to the VT massacre. So be sure, some, have suggested that stricter gun control needs to be considered. However, the verdict on the success of that notion has so long been established that the suggestion is not to be considered a valid remedy to the current problem. What else has been offered for discussion? Nothing. Which is precisely what you have offered.

To my third and most important observation of your viewpoint. You make four statements which cause me concern:

1. You state that we must look at "… other countries and then act on what precise steps can reduce gun violence." This suggests to me that you do not fully understand nor do you appreciate that America is unlike any other country that now or that ever has existed. Americans are unlike any other people that populate any other country. When the question is related to the preservation of personal liberty and individual freedom of choice the answer for American must come from Americans. There is no greater model of liberty from which to find such answers than America.


2. You state that Americans kill each other in much greater numbers than other counties; and you state that it is a fact that we must do something about that [situation]. Why is that a fact? And who decided that it was a fact? A fact, Sir, is an objective thing. A decision that we must act thus-and-so is an opinion. An opinion is a relative thing. Relative to the values and standards held by the person (or persons) who hold the opinion.

While it may well be that in the opinion of some, the American-on-American death toll is too high a price to pay for the degree of liberty and personal freedom enjoyed by Americans--it also may well be the opinion of others, who place a higher value on liberty, that said death toll is not too high of a price to pay. There are still some among us who would say, "Give me liberty or give me death." And that, Sir, is a fact.

3. You state that "...it is essential that MY civil liberties--and yours--should not result in the endangering of other people." Because you may consider, based upon your set of values, that it is essential that your civil liberties should not result in the endangerment of others--it does not follow that all Americans hold the same values that you do. Some may place a higher value on liberty than you do. As a point of fact, I believe you do too. You just have not well thought out what you have written.

To be sure, good men and women are being put in danger daily for the sake of my--and your--liberty. They are those who wear the military and law enforcement uniforms of the United States of American. If we should adopt your attitude that none should be placed in harms way for the sake of liberty--then we would be obliged to immediately disband the armed forces of the nation. For they exist for no other reason than to ensure our liberty.

No...they do not exist to protect our lives. For then we would be asking them to sacrifice their lives for ours. A request no righteous human can ask of another. They must be putting their lives in danger for something that is of greater value than life itself. That thing of greater value, Sir, is Liberty.


4. You state that you believe in a well-regulated society. That is good. So do I. However, taken in context of your other comments I am inclined to fear that you would seek to achieve that desirable society at the expense of personal liberty--and even worse--have it provided by the enactment of as many laws as necessary for the government to achieve the order you desire. Your well-ordered society will be a police-state.

As we seek to overcome the evil of the likes of CHO, lets us remember that we are well advised to overcome evil with good. Police-states are not good. Liberty is good.

Please understand this, Sir, if liberty does not eventual lead to a peaceful society in America then there is much less chance of liberty prevailing over evil anywhere else. And if it does not then we are all doomed to someday, perhaps sooner than later, live in your Police-state.

Teach Americans to trust in liberty--not law. We need more liberty--less law.

FOTH

 

 

Traditionalist/Libertarian Response by Steve Maloney to Foth:

 

 

 

Hi Foth:  You raise many good questions, and I'll answer some of them at length later (when I have more time).  I salute you for providing the kind of thoughtful response that is rare in any forum. I'll think about every point at issue.

(1) I very much appreciate that America is unlike every other country in the world.  I wish many other countries were more like us.  I believe we can learn from other countries, especially when it comes to reducing the amount of violence in our land, as they've done in theirs.  I also understand that the Second Amendment is unique to America.  The right to "bear arms" (where?  when?) is not absolute.  You and I cannot bring our AK-47 to church or school.  To suggest that the Founders believed otherwise is absurd.

(2) All statistics I've ever seen show that America has more murders than any other developed country.  Iraq is not a developed country as I use the term.  Those are facts.  They lead me to believe (not a "fact" as such) that we should do something about it, because we don't want our family, friends, and other law-abiding citizens to be killed.  My judgments are not facts, but I hope they proceed based on the facts -- or certain statistical realities.  My judgment is that developments like Va Tech, Columbine, and the Amish School do significant harm to our country.  The events happen (fact); they happen more often in our nation than in other countries (fact); we must find ways to reduce the number of such events (judgment). 

(3) the rhetorical questions: I tend to use them when the answers are self-evident (at least to my "self").  I also use them at times when the answers are not clear but the need for an answer (SOME answer) is compelling. 

(4) On whether you believe in liberty more deeply than I do:  perhaps the ultimate form of liberty is "anarchy," where we might say (with Dostoevsky) that "everything is permitted."  Alexander the Great once said that the law of life is that "the strong take what they wish; the weak give what they must."  My guru historian Niall Ferguson, said that liberty is extremely important, but if personal freedom leads to chaos (Va Tech?), then people learn that order (at least a minimal order) takes precedence over liberty.  Again, I go back to Justice Goldberg, who observed that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact. 

There's something of a debate going on about life in general and life in our society.  Basically, the question at hand is:  Do we, all things considered, live in the best of all possible worlds?  Really, this is a question about if we have the proper balance -- in this case, between liberty and order.  Obviously, perfect order is a totalitarian ideal.  Conversely, perfect liberty might resemble anarchy.  We will never achieve a perfect balance.  From one perspective, a Va Tech every once in awhile might be "the price we pay for liberty."  My view is that the particular price in this case is too high. 

In the case of my "nude dancing" and speech example in the Supreme Court piece: I believe it's important to be precise about what words mean and what they meant to the people who wrote them.  If we don't like their definition, then we have a right to "amend" the Constitution. 

I may say more at some point, recognizing that I haven’t dealt with all your points.  I may also put this exchange on my site soon. Thanks so much for your provocative comments.

Steve Maloney
Ambridge, pa
President, The Crusade for Pennsylvania (TCFP)

This is new information apparently not yet out in the MSM -- what else is new?
 
...the Virginia Tech shooter died with the name Ismail Ax written in red ink on his arm. The mainstream press doesn't seem to have a clue as to what this might mean. To quote Indiana Jones, "Didn't any of you guys go to Sunday School?"...

To read the entire article on Cho ("Ismail"), go this site :
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041807B

The article is by Jerry Bowyer, an important conservative figure in the western Pennsylvania.  It was sent to me by Dr. Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and a friend of mine and Jerry's.


Stephen R. Maloney