Your Alert Header
Your alert message goes here.
Going back three years here so I have to dig deep into my memory bank and see what is still there. Oh wait 2012 was an election I lived through and was somewhat active in it as a voter and blogger. So I guess this shouldn’t be so difficult. But the fact that someone like Rick Santorum could actually challenge someone like Mitt Romney tells you have screwed up the Republican Party is. If this was 1980 or 84 Rick Santorum would’ve been taken as seriously for president as Don Knotts or Rich Little or Artie Lang, some comedian like that. Because he would’ve been seen as a joke who probably needs to finish high school and grow up before he tries to do anything big.
If I’m Barack Obama I’m not hating my opposition, but getting down on my knees and thanking God everyday for the opposition that I do have. And writing them a check everyday for all the stupid and outrageous things they do and say. Like with defunding of Homeland Security to use as an example. Because when the GOP’s support goes down, President Obama goes up and even if Americans regardless of race and party are not in love with the man as President. But he looks like God in comparison to especially the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Because Americans have basically said that “yea Barry is not great and makes mistakes. But look I’m glad he’s there instead of Ted Cruz or the House Tea Party.”
But with the Tea Party in power especially in the House of Representatives and with the economic recovery now feeling like it is real with solid economic and job growth and with the falling deficit and with President Obama having the country on his side against ISIS, he looks pretty good. But without the Tea Party, perhaps President Obama is still Senator Obama sitting in on Senate committee hearings about agriculture spending or looking into the spending on school lunches and how much protein kids get from them. Which I’m sure is important, but a big step down from being President of the United States.
I saw Anatomy of a Murder last week on TCM and Robert Osborne described the movie as a very serious, or deeply serious, or something to that effect. But if you are familiar with Jimmy Stewart and a lot of his movies, his movies tend not to be that serious. Similar to Cary Grant because of how spontaneously funny they both were especially with improvisation. Sure Anatomy is about a very serious topic which of course is about a man accused of murdering a man who just raped his wife. An Army Lieutenant at that and very important person in his community. But there’s a lot of humor with funny people all throughout the movie.
And I think that is what I love most about this movie. They deal with very serious subjects which are murder and rape of course. But sex in the late 1950s when the country was about to change dramatically culturally and you could already see signs of that change by 1959 with the Rock and Roll Generation. And that is what this movie deals with which are very serious subjects, but they take a very humorous look at them with a lot of sarcasm and wisecracks. Including with the judge played by Joe Welch and the two lead attorney’s played by George Scott the lead prosecutor and Jimmy Stewart the lead defense lawyer.
Anatomy of a Murder at least a first is about a rape. But they don’t show that part. A women played by Lee Remick having a good time at a bar and ends up walking home and offered a ride by the owner of the bar and he ends up raping her. Her husband finds out about it later that night and goes to the bar to confront the man about it. And ends up shooting and killing him for it. Under most circumstances that would be a clear case of first degree murder, or at least second degree murder. But Paul Biegler played by Stewart goes with a temporary insanity plea and that becomes his main defense.
I first saw this movie about a year ago and it is already one of my favorite movies of all-time. Seen it three or four times since because of the versatility of the movie. Dealing with very serious subjects in the movie and yet everyone plays a comedian at least at some point in the movie. Which is typical for a Jimmy Stewart movie and this movie has a great cast as well. With George Scott, Ben Gazzara, Lee Remick, Arthur O’Connell and many others. And this movie gives its viewers a very good lock at the court system and what it is like to be on trial. And try such a big legal case.
I think what David Brinkley was getting at with what is my limited ability for mind reading that I have is that the country was in shock. Or at least everyone covering this story was. The first U.S. President assassinated in a hundred-years. A man who seemed to have everything in life being assassinated by a man who had nothing. Jack Kennedy being assassinated by Lee Oswald. I mean think about that for a second.
If someone as powerful and as successful as Jack Kennedy can be assassinated by someone as little and as big of a loser as Lee Oswald was, than anyone can be taken down in America. And since 1963 a lot of very powerful people in America have either been taken down by small people or seriously weakened. Richard Nixon was essentially taken down over a third-rate burglary, comes to mind pretty quickly.
Jack Kennedy just after 1 PM November 22nd, 1963 had everything going for him, including bringing a divided Texas Democratic Party together. A Northeastern Liberal, a Yankee doing that by the way. In Dallas, Texas on a beautiful fall day in November with his beautiful wife getting ready for a parade in his name in Dallas. And hours later is assassinated by a little piece of trash who had nothing going for him in life. And perhaps the only thing he was ever successful at was killing a U.S. President.
Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing David Mamet on Conservatism
The type of liberalism that David Mamet seems to be talking about an interested in is how Liberals get stereotyped by what my father calls knee-jerk Liberals. People who are actually not very liberal at all, but who wear the label because they thing Progressive is a sellout and they don’t want to have to deal the negative Americans stereotypes of Socialists and socialism. Or even a further left ideology than that. That if you’re a Liberal, you’re really a European leftist ideologically and you don’t like America and what it stands for. And that is putting it simply.
That if you’re a Liberal you believe in political correctness who defines that as being against any speech that offends groups of people who you generally support. And that some language is so offensive that it must not only be talked down upon, but banned. And speaking groups of people, that all people are members of groups. And because of that they should be treated as members of groups and not as individuals who can take care of themselves and even think for themselves. Even if a lot of members of their so-called tribe feel differently about certain issues.
That if you’re a Liberal you not only support the welfare state, but you are all about the welfare state. And that people are generally stupid and can’t be relied to take care of themselves. And are going to make mistakes that the society as a whole is going to have to pay for. So why don’t we just have a government a superstate big enough to take care of everyone with taxes high enough to finance this superstate to take care of everyone. That individualism and individual success and wealth by nature are bad things. Because it encourages people to go on their own and those things should be discouraged.
These are the negative and false stereotypes of liberalism that David Mamet seems to of bought into. And I would think someone as smart and as good of a writer that he is would know better than that. And perhaps has spent too much time with the Far-Left in America and now believes that everyone on the Left is part of the Far-Left. That there’s no such thing as Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist or Communist. That all of these political groups are liberal and all of these people are Liberals. Which is simply not true.
The real story of Malcolm X is of a man who came from a modest but not a bad upbringing who didn’t finish high school who got into trouble as a young man and became a thug and did time in prison. It’s in prison where he becomes educated and who actually became a prison inmate who was rehabilitated and became educated in prison. He was a man who became a better man in prison and able use what he learned to become a productive member of society and was able to build a good life for him outside of prison as short as his life was when he was murdered in 1965.
Malcolm X first became part of the Black Power movement in the 1960s. Not the Black Panthers, but African-Americans who wanted in Malcolm X’s movement who wanted to empower African-Americans to be able to take control of their lives and live in freedom. If Malcolm X was a racist when he first became part of this movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s using hatful language and slurs towards Caucasian-Americans, he wasn’t a racist when he died. He learned that not all Caucasians as he said were racists or White Devils. That there were good Caucasians as their were bad Caucasians like any race of people.
Malcolm X as an African-American leader was not a thug. But a leader who was about empowerment of a race of people in America who even though were officially free under law and no longer slaves, were overwhelmingly dependent on public assistance. Who trapped in poverty and in bad schools and not having the opportunity for a real future and being able to live in freedom. Malcolm X wanted to empower all of these Americans to be able to take control over their own lives and live in freedom. He wasn’t interested in integration for integration’s sake, but freedom for a community of Americans. Whether that meant desegregation or separation from the rest of the country.
Montana is sort of known for being part of the Libertarian West. People who don’t want big government in their bedrooms or wallets, or schools. That they just want to be left alone and allowed to live freely and enjoy and live off the land in their vast beautiful state. Before this new Congress Montana’s two U.S. Senators were both Democrats. And neither one of them could be accused of supporting big government and wanting to empower big government over the individual. Their new Republican Steve Daines seems to fall in that same category.
Which is why I’m surprised that one of their legislatures one of their state senators would propose a law outlawing certain outfits that can be worn in public. A clear violation of personal freedom and freedom of choice. We are not talking about men and women going naked in public in Montana. Just about what they actually wear in public. Having to do with tight pants like biking pants. They stopped short of banning skin-tight skinny jeans for women and skin-tight jeans for men. And that might have to do with their cowboy and cowgirl industry that they have out there.
You would think even a Montana state senator who represents maybe twenty-thousand people would have better things to do than try to play the state father. And dictate what adults who I’m guessing he views as his daughters and sons what they can wear in public. Again we’re not talking about indecent exposure and men and women showing up naked or something, just tight outfits. You would think this senator instead might have things like, gee I don’t know the state budget, public education, taxes, law enforcement, just to use as examples on his mind to worry about instead. But no, he’s worried about how free adults dress in public.