Short Cuts

Some more reviews of movies I was either too busy or too lazy to review before. Enjoy.

G.I. Joe: Not your daddy's G.I. Joe movie. America is mentioned in passing once or twice, but this revamp of the Joe team is headed by...NATO. Giggle at will. A lot of effects, not much acting, but a few skin tight suits to keep the boys happy. Since all of the West's real enemies gave up at the end of the Cold War, Hollywood has had to invent bad guys and heroes or just steal them from fifty-year-old comic books. Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? International terror? Come on, you can't make a movie about those boring subjects. We need something ripped from the headlines. Hence, this movie.

The Taking of Pelham 123: Highly enjoyable thriller with John Travolta and Denzel Washington. Does the original Pelham (starring Walter Matthau) justice. Travolta and some henchmen hijack a subway car and hold the people inside hostage. Mayhem ensues. Travolta is great. Washington is quite good, too, but Travolta has the better part. Always more fun to play the bad guy.

Crank 2: Completely implausible and totally over-the-top. Also fun as hell. Check your incredulity at the door and just enjoy. Jason Statham plays a guy who has an artificial heart which needs to be shocked every few minutes or he'll die. As if that's not enough, he has to find the guys who have his real heart while dodging cars and bullets along the way.

Antichrist: Great, great movie, but not for everybody. If you hated anything by Bergman, then you'll hate this flick. A man and a woman (they remain nameless throughout) lose their child in an accident. The man takes the woman to the woods to help her recover. He's a therapist. She's a decidedly uncooperative patient. There's blood and violence, but the horror is mostly of the psychological kind. This movie pulls no punches. Beware.

Two Fists, One Heart: Paint-by-numbers Australian flick about a boxer and his desire to please his father. And his girlfriend. And himself. This has Redemption Theme written all over it. You've seen it all before, but it's an okay movie.

Surrender

Whoa.

This is a huge shift in foreign policy:

AP: President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.

McChrystal wants troops. The President doesn't want to send them. Solution? Don't declare the war's over - declare an enemy isn't an enemy.

As for the "increasingly unpopular war" stuff, it doesn't always mean what the media wants it to mean. If they mean "increasingly unpopular and pull out now," they're wrong. If they mean "increasingly unpopular with the way it's being fought," then they're on the money.

Eight years ago, the Taliban provided a haven for fanatical religious thugs to get boned up on how to shoot guns and knock down buildings. Eight years later, the US is prepared have them involved in Afghanistan's political future. Spin it any way you want, but this action only has one label: surrender.

Time: Last month, Taliban fighters in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, hijacked two NATO fuel tankers. The robbery escalated into an international incident because NATO aircraft, following a German request, bombed the two stranded tankers while civilians were siphoning free fuel. The death toll — more than 125 Afghans perished, nearly half of them civilians — overshadowed the gruesome fact that the Taliban had beheaded one of the tanker drivers. Beheadings and killings of NATO supply drivers are a common occurrence, according to several private security contractors.

Wonderful ally, that Taliban. Man, the outlook for the political future in Afghanistan looks pretty good, huh?

The Most Trusted Name in News

Via Hot Air.

The guys at CNN are unbelievable.

Here's Wolf Blitzer (the man who went -$4600 on Celebrity Jeopardy) and crew fact checking an SNL skit about Obama. Talk about sticking up for your guy. Fact checking a negative comedy skit about a politician? CNN's more transparent than a window.

At the end of the clip, they find time to pull out SNL's take on Sarah Palin, which they call..."dead on."

My favorite CNN/YouTube clip is underneath this one.



Fast forward to 1:23 to see your Fact Checker in all his glory:

The Bus Idles - McChrystal

From the Telegraph:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid...

Word is the president is furious over McChrystal's speech. A taste:

[McChrystal] told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

That may be, General, but it isn't your problem. Your problem is to follow orders from your civilian commanders. Public support and long term strategy are concerns of the president. Your job is to carry out orders until you retire or get canned.

I may agree with McChrystal's assessment, but you can't have a military commander mouthing off in another country about how much smarter he is than the president. It smacks of insubordination and brings up memories of MacArthur vs. Truman. Didn't end so well for MacArthur.

One more speech like this and expect the bus to arrive for McChrystal.

The Hyperbole Bus

It looks like Obama isn't alone in jumping aboard the Hyperbole Bus today.

Here's Peggy Noonan, with more of her insipid flowery prose:

Who are The Elders? They set the standards. They hand down the lore. They're the oldest and wisest. By proceeding through the world each day with dignity and humanity, they show the young what it is that should be emulated. They're the tribal chieftains. This role has probably existed since caveman days, because people need guidance and encouragement, they need to be heartened by examples of endurance. They need to be inspired.

Who are these Elders-with-a-capital-E of which she speaks?

Newspaper reporters and TV anchormen.

She begins the piece with this:

When William Safire died the other day, we lost one of the Elders of journalism and the argumentative arts. We've been losing a lot of them lately: Walter Cronkite, Bob Novak, Don Hewitt, Irving Kristol. "The stars seem to be going out one by one," said Howard Stringer at Cronkite's memorial.

No, the piece isn't satirical. Yes, Pegs really believes this stuff.

See My Movie. And Know Your Place.

Vis-a-vis Whoopi Goldberg saying that Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape," and that Europeans look at 13-year-old girls differently than US citizens, here's director Luc Besson, as quoted in the Telegraph: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."

Just so. The kicker is, Besson is French. More proof that Goldberg's theory is insane. The fact that no one is calling for her to be canned is telling.

Besson's comments came after he refused to sign a petition calling for Polanski's release. The Telegraph reports that 100 movie bigwigs have signed it so far.

Could Hollywood be any more removed from the people that they're trying to sell tickets to? This is rape, not shoplifting.

Here's a post I wrote a while back. I think it holds water:

Musing on Fans, April 6, 2009

I was doing some work last night and had the TV on in the background. The Academy of Country Music Awards was on. As company, it was good enough for me. During the broadcast, I heard the presenters and award recipients say the word "fans" dozens of times. Fans-this, fans-that. "I'd like to thank the fans." And, "If it wasn't for the fans, I wouldn't be here." And, "The fans made this song a hit." The speeches were maybe ten or fifteen seconds long, and all of them revolved around record labels, family, and fans.

Country music is good at marketing itself to the people that matter: the fans that buy albums and listen to the radio.

Contrast that with the Oscars, where the show is designed to prove how far the movie business has gone in alienating its audience. Every speech is about "me," followed by an endless string of names that the home audience has never heard of. Agents, script consultants, producers, on and on.

A few years back, Hilary Swank made the faux pas of forgetting to mention her husband during her Academy Award speech. She was knocked around for it by the rags. I asked: why? It was perfectly understandable. These people dispose of marriages like coffee cups. (Swank is since divorced).

After thanking their sycophants, movie stars then get on a soap box. You have the writer of Milk preaching for gay rights, Sean Penn thanking "Commies" and "homo lovers" for granting him the Best Actor award, and any number of stars bashing the former US President. When they're finished, they go to a ritzy after-party, get drunk, and sometimes drink and drive. Want to meet a movie star? Depends how much they've had to drink and how fast they're driving. Movie stars can afford to buy ten thousand BMWs, but not one chauffeur.

During this year's Oscars, I heard the word "fans" exactly twice, one time as a joke from Will Smith (he correctly observed that action movies are great because they have one thing that most Oscar contenders don't: fans). Someone else mentioned the fans almost by accident. And that was that. All of the other speeches were about people we've never seen and never will.

Think about that. A room full of people, rich because people buy tickets to watch what they do, and it never crosses their mind to thank the people buying the tickets.

It really is amazing that people still line up to meet movie stars, or ask for their autograph, or even go to the movies. We know these people don't give a damn about us. To paraphrase Warhol, they tell us how to think, how to vote, how to behave and, more importantly, how to look while we're behaving. We pay their salaries and treat them like royalty while they treat us with indifference. They'd just as soon never meet us, let alone shake our hands. But we love them.

Amazing. Amusing.

Whoopi Goldberg

This gave me a sick, creepy feeling. Watching someone split hairs about rape vs. rape-rape, whatever the hell that means. My comments follow.



Polanski's a good film director, and I like most of his movies. But he's a confessed rapist of a 13-year-old girl, and he skipped out before being sentenced. You can give his movies all the five stars you want, but facts are facts: he never paid for the crime of drugging and raping a girl.

Whoopi Goldberg goes for the gusto in defence of a Hollywood family member. First she gives us a strange definition of rape and rape-rape, then tells us that in some parts of the world, 13-year-olds are looked upon as fair game. Goldberg: "Well, you know, I have to tell you, again, we're, we're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, in the rest of Europe, they are seen often times--"

She was interrupted before finishing what would have been an abysmal statement. But you get her drift. She finally closes the point thus: "I do know that not everybody sees things the way that we see things."

Ah. Polanski got the shaft because US rape laws are too narrow for a hip Euro guy like Polanski.

This is disgusting.

They save the best for last, though, as all of The View ladies break every rule in the feminist handbook and blame the victim's mother and the victim herself for being with Polanski in the first place.

Two thoughts: If the exact same language had been used on Jay Leno or Glenn Beck's shows, the screams for a boycott would be deafening. Considering The View's target audience is primarily homemaking women who probably have kids, Goldberg should be canned.

Between the Lines

It's not his fault. They all do it. The hollow words, the meaningless threats, the tired warnings. That sound you hear is the roar of inevitability.

Ask North Korea. Threats and threats and threats. Then they made a nuke, test fired a missile into the Yellow Sea, and now nobody says boo. There they sit. The game's over.

The one guy who didn't follow the script was George W. Bush. Right or wrong, he did something after threats didn't work. It got him a two-term presidency, but it also got him lambasted as a dummy and an evil dictator the world over. Politicians want the former, but not at the price of the latter.

There's the big L word: legacy. Or the G word: guts. They don't always go together too well.

Some guys do well with their legacy by going the gutsy route, but it's so damn risky. Better to play it the easy way, the way most Western politicians do when faced with thugs.

Here's President Obama's weekly address from this morning. I'm reading between the lines:

This week, we joined with the United Kingdom and France [this is NOT a unilateral decision] in presenting evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility to enrich uranium [this is different then the totally out in the open facility; they have two]. This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime [which didn't stop North Korea, but hey, there's always hope], and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion [please ignore the word "pattern," as it might make you believe that they won't change their tune after we ask pretty please]. That is why international negotiations [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency [as opposed to before; now it's important].

My offer of a serious, meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue remains open [no doubt the Iranian dictators will listen this time - because we're serious]. But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions [last month they shot women in the street for taking part in political demonstrations; the regime also hangs people for the crime of being gay; but now they have a chance to show their peaceful intentions; look, we all know this a load of bull, but I have to say this stuff].

On this, the international community [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] is more united than ever before. Yesterday, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] in condemning Iran’s program. In our meetings and public statements, President Medvedev of Russia and I agreed [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] that Iran must pursue a new course or face consequences. All of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], and Germany [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], have made it clear that Iran must fulfill its responsibilities [okay, okay; Iran doesn't have any responsibilities except to themselves, but we're going to pretend that they share the same world view as us. We're making it up. Easier that way].

Iran’s leaders must now choose [I hate using that 'with us/with the terrorists' language, but I wrote this first thing in the morning and I was still a little groggy. Don't ask me about it later] – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people [sure, this paragraph was full of beans, but cut me some slack. Iran doesn't have any responsibilities, true, and they don't care if they're isolated, fine, and they don't care about their own people, okay. But...well, what do you want me to say? It's all a farce, anyway].

These are the urgent threats of our time. And the United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation [this is NOT a unilateral decision, etc. Huh? Come again? Oh. How can there be international cooperation when nobody's cooperating? Search me.] to meet them. This new chapter will not be written in one week or even one year [sorry, but this my out. I know it's a bit slippery, but come on, there's nothing I can do about this stuff. Iran's going to get a nuke one way or the other. If they get it within a year, I need to be able to say that it was going to take more than a year to get international cooperation kick started. A week, a year, who cares? I'd say 'decade' but you'd think I flipped my lid]. But we have begun. And for the American people and the people of the world [in case you thought this was a unilateral decision], it will mean greater security and prosperity for years to come [in other words, we aren't going to accomplish jack; but it feels good to know that in some mystic future, you'll have a safe, secure life. Anybody got a glass of water?].

Pressure For Whom?

Jake Tapper:

This morning President Obama, French President Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will accuse Iran of building a clandestine underground nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, which Iran's leaders have hidden from weapons inspectors, senior administration officials tell ABC News...

The president is expected to say that this news "increases pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program," a senior administration official tells ABC News. He will described "great and increasing doubts about the strictly peaceful nature of the program -- which is what the Iranians suggest."

Uhhhh...How does this even remotely increase pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program? Saddam Hussein violated international law for years, ignored sanction after sanction, kicked weapons inspectors out of his country, and refused to say where his weapons of mass destruction were. So Bush invaded and bingo, people around the world called Bush's war illegal and dubbed him Hitler.

Will Obama et al have have the stones to roll the dice like that? Unlikely. Obama has been saying for over a year that he's willing to have a chat with Iran. He said this even though he knew about the second secret reactor. So for him, this is just old news. When the US failed to condemn Ahmadinejad's "election" and the violence that followed, this sent a clear message: no matter what happens, we're still willing to talk. And talk. And talk. Which translates as "time."

At a stretch, I can one day see some cruise missiles or an Israeli airstrike. But a full-on, "Here's your pressure, jerkwad" invasion is a fantasy. And Ahmadinejad knows it.

75 Years. In Case You Were Curious.

Reuters: A British store is launching a range of underpants for left-handed men, an innovation it says will save them both time and embarrassment in front of the porcelain.

The new range, by UK-based Hom, will have a horizontal opening instead of a vertical slit accessed from the right-hand side, breaking a tradition that has lasted for 75 years.

"In our view, this is a vital step toward equality for left-handed men," said Rob Faucherand of Debenhams store.

Harper

Well, maybe someone with a fancy title was reading the Twitter reports of women being gunned down in the streets of Tehran.

"It's Not Every Day They Get To Hang Out With Actual NFL Athletes."

The Detroit Lions haven't won a game this season.

If that has a familiar ring to it, it should. They didn't win a game last season, either.


NFL Players Mentor Troubled Detroit Lions

Frank Rich and Cindy Sheehan

Frank Rich pulls out all the stops on this one: Sarah Palin as Grand Wizard of the Klan. Joe Wilson stepping over the free speech line. People protesting against their government = violent rage. Joe Wilson giving carte blanche to the oh-so-many nutcases out there, and man, there's plenty of 'em.

NYT: With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the “real America.” Joe Wilson may or may not be in that camp, but, either way, that’s not the news. As we watched and rewatched the South Carolina congressman’s star turn, what grabbed us was the act itself.

What made the lone, piercing cry of “You lie!” shocking was that it breached a previously secure barrier. It was the first time that the violent rage surging in town-hall meetings all summer blasted into the same room as the president. Wilson’s televised shout was tantamount to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When he later explained that his behavior was “spontaneous” rather than premeditated, that was even more disturbing. It’s not good for the country that a lawmaker can’t control his anger at Barack Obama. It gives permission to crazy people.

Where was all this talk when Cindy Sheehan and thousands of others were protesting Bush at every turn?

Speaking of which, I have to tip my hat to Cindy Sheeehan. I thought she was just some loudmouth who would pipe down as soon as Bush left office. Turns out, she really is anti-war, no matter who is boss. This was Sheehan last month:

Cindy Sheehan and other antiwar activists held a press conference today at the Oak Bluffs School, where the White House press corps is working as its reports on President Obama during his vacation in Martha's Vineyard

Sheehan said that she's opposing Obama the same way she opposed George W. Bush. "The facade has changed but policies remain the same," she told reporters. "Integrity in our movement means we have to do same for Obama as we did for Bush."

Who knew that Cindy Sheehan would give me a cold slap of integrity right in the kisser?

Funny, though. I don't hear much about her these days. It could have something to do with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's attitude: "Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."

Odd. A few years back, Charlie gave interviews to Sheehan with words like, "Mom Stands Her Ground," and "Can Anti-War Moms Stop Bush?" written on the screen.

Now it's, "Shut up, Cindy."

Crazy

AP: A criminally insane killer from eastern Washington is on the run after escaping during a field trip to the county fair that his mental hospital organized.

Why such a dangerous person was out in public was a question many, including Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, were asking as authorities searched for Phillip Arnold Paul...

Paul was committed after he was acquitted by reason of insanity in the 1987 slaying of an elderly woman, whose body he soaked in gasoline to throw off search dogs. Paul buried the woman's remains in her flower garden.

In 1991, Paul walked away during a day trip to a Washington lake and was later captured. He attacked a sheriff's deputy in the jail booking area, knocking him unconscious, and was convicted of first-degree escape and second-degree assault.

The Most Trusted Name In News

It looks like it's "pick on the media day" over at Hot Air. I'll play along. They link to this clip of Wolf Blitzer taking part in Celebrity Jeopardy and...he doesn't do so well.

Wolf must have signed an ironclad contract with the guys at Jeopardy. I'm guessing his agent couldn't get the episode yanked.

(If you don't have time to watch the almost unwatchable beating, here's the gist: Andy Richter, the comic from The Tonight Show, utterly thrashes him. It's so bad, Wolf ends up with -$4600, and Trebek has to chuck him a lifeline. Fast forward to 7:02 for the embarrassing conclusion, though kudos to Richter for picking up $68000 for a children's hospital).

One Way Of Looking At It

The disgrace that is modern journalism bleats its horn again. The Washington Post:

What happened next was a scandal that has shaken ACORN to its core. O'Keefe and Giles secretly videoed ACORN workers in the District, Brooklyn and Baltimore as they coached the secret filmmakers on how to evade taxes and misrepresent the nature of their business enterprise to get into a home.

In the wake of a public outcry over Giles and O'Keefe's videos, which went viral on YouTube and conservative Web sites last week, Congress has taken action. Thursday the House voted 345 to 75 to defund the organization, handing conservative Republicans a major victory. They have long seen the liberal group -- which offers housing and other services, including voter registration, to the poor -- as a shady operation devoted to electing liberals and siphoning off taxpayer money for a permanent underclass.

Everything these days is framed as "blank" and "conservative." If a couple of liberal filmmakers had made a similar video, the first sentence of that second paragraph would read: In the wake of a public outcry over Giles and O'Keefe's videos, which went viral on YouTube and [the web] last week...

The hosannas about offering housing and "other services" to the poor is a laugh. Other services being advice on tax evasion and how to import child prostitutes from overseas. Great.

So far, four ACORN offices have been exposed coast to coast, and five ACORN staffers have been canned.

Other than that, nothing to see here, folks.

Good thing the videos went viral, otherwise you wouldn't have heard a word about it. As Jon Stewart said, he's embarrassed these two amateurs outscooped him and he's only pretending to be a journalist.

Aren't they all.

I Really Care About Nucle--Michael Jackson's Dead?

I was walking down the street a few minutes ago and heard some jackass blaring a radio from his mid-life-crisis Jeep. In a roundabout way this got me thinking that there hasn't been much trouble in the world lately. Weird connection, I know, but it went something like this: If a friend told me about a guy blaring a radio outside his house, I'd shrug and say, "Yeah, there's fools everywhere." But when Jeep Guy does it in front of my place, it becomes, "There's goddamn fools everywhere!"

The debacle in Myanmar a long time back - feels like long; it's been a year - proved to me that caring is about proximity, both in time and place. Modern media has the power to make every place on the planet seem like it's right next door, if only for a few minutes. The tsunami (or was it an earthquake?) in Myanmar was on everybody's minds last year. The president had to do something, we had to raise money to help the people. Even peaceniks were saying that an invasion would be proper, to topple the government in Myanmar because the thugs weren't feeding their people.

And it all went away. Just like that. I have to assume that Myanmar's people are still living in abject poverty and that their rulers are still thugs. But I haven't received a chain-email request for money in a long, long time, and nobody on Facebook has the word "Myanmar" on their profile, declaring that we need to help these people. In a strange way, Myanmar just ceased to exist.

Maxim: time doesn't heal all wounds; it heals our wounds.

Caring is about proximity and time. The 9/11 memorials prove that. 8 years on and there's token gestures of remembrance, but not too many moments of silence in the office. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor warrants an occasional hat tip on the evening news, and in fact if it wasn't for the evening news' hat tip, nobody would remember the date of Pearl Harbour. And when's the last time somebody asked us to remember the dead from Waterloo? When women were being gunned down in Iran a couple of months ago, everybody was glued to the Twitter reports. Now, nothing.

Time. Proximity. They're all that matters when it comes to caring. Tornado in Kansas? Interesting. Tornado on my street? Terrifying. The thug states of the world understand this better than anyone. Give people enough time and they will forget everything. The further away the "crisis," the faster they'll forget. Nowadays, it only takes a few weeks, even less if a pop star dies.

Not that any of this is all bad. We'd be basket cases if we wandered around for the rest of our lives feeling exactly as we did the moment after something traumatic happened. But I do laugh when people screech how concerned they are with far flung places on the earth that are going through a hard time. My answer? "Call me in a year." There's no chance they will. (Incidentally, I Googled "Myanmar," clicked the news link, and was greeted with the today's headlines: Seven Bomb Blasts in Myanmar. Apparently no one was hurt. In other news: Myanmar Doubles Political Arrests; Elections a Sham, Group Says).

So there I was walking down the street thinking about this kind of stuff, and then I flicked to Drudge and it suddenly seemed prescient or at least apropos:

Czechs and Poles expressed rancor and relief Thursday that President Barack Obama had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield on their territories, reflecting deep divisions over a proposal that had also enraged Russia..."Considering Iran as a threat has been a wrong policy since the beginning," said Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for Iran's influential parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy. "Iran has said that it is ready to discuss and share responsibilities in global security."

Whether it's a good or bad idea isn't my point. Fact is, a decision like this doesn't happen the day after 9/11, but it does happen 8 years after 9/11. That's life. Always the way it goes. A little bit of quiet - besides, you know, the odd missile from North Korea landing in the ocean - and things like missile shields seem unnecessary and kind of silly to people with an Everyone's Beautiful In Their Own Way bent. The administration says that they're not really scrapping missile defense, they're redesigning it. Doesn't sound so bad. Besides, if the Russians and Iranians agree with it, then it must be a good idea.

Proximity and time. Thugs building missiles in Iran? A little nervous. Thug loading a shotgun outside my door? A lot nervous.

Should you care about Iranian missiles and American defense shields? Depends what happens next. See you on Facebook.

Your Daily Preening (II) - Updated

In the previous post I had a few extra paragraphs and then I deleted them. Race is a touchy subject and I'd said my bit. The paragraphs I deleted were about noticing that a lot of people are bringing up racism vis-a-vis the president, but that I haven't seen any overt examples of racism to back up the claims. I went on for a bit and then stopped. Racism is stupid, and I know it when I see it. I'd said enough. [I caught some email flack over this, of the "Chicken," variety. The deleted paragraphs were wiped out during the draft, not in response to criticism. My point was that writing about phony racism is boring if you spend too long on it. There's nothing you can say to make someone change their mind if they see a bigot around every corner].

In this clip below, NBC finds a couple of lame swastika signs which I suppose could be about race. If you've read this blog then you'll know my feelings on the Nazis and their symbol. Idiots use the swastika these days for all kinds of things, some of them race, but mostly because they think someone's an overbearing jerk. Their boss is a Nazi. Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi." Bush is a Nazi. Everybody they don't like - Right or Left - is a Nazi. The Nazi name and its symbol have become jest. Is that good or bad? You tell me. Anyway, in this case I think the boneheads with Nazi signs are just that: boneheads with Nazi signs. I don't figure race has anything to do with it. It seems every mass rally for any event on Earth comes with a few token Nazi signs.

New York governor Paterson has said that the word "socialist" is racist. Kurtz wrote today that "communist" and "like Russia" are racist. The Obama "Socialism" sign is supposedly racist, and Maureen Dowd claims that Rep. Wilson is racist for calling Mr. Obama a liar.

I guess this is going to be the way it is from here on out, and it's shameful for the media to push it this hard with such a lack of evidence. It's self perpetuating: if you call something racist, people will avoid using it, therefore why not start calling everything racist? If "socialism" is racist and "liar" is racist, what's next? But that's probably the point.

Six months ago a great many people celebrated the first black president in US history. 6 months later, politicians and network newsies are claiming the country is overrun by the Klan.

Jimmy Carter has weighed in. He adds more fuel to the fire by claiming that yes, the furor over Mr. Obama from his opponents is simply racism.

This is irresponsible stuff from writers and politicians alike. Before the Iraq invasion, I remember millions of people around the world marching against Bush's war. People were mad as hell. They called him every name in the book. I was in Italy at the time, and the stuff they were writing on the walls about Bush (Italians love their graffiti) was mean and dirty. But that's life: when people are mad, they say so. Now, though, it's all being summed up as simply 'racism.' This doesn't bode well.

If someone is a racist, they deserve scorn and ridicule. But if someone has a real beef about something and wants to speak his mind, nothing could anger or alienate them more than being told their words aren't worth listening to because it's just bigotry. This kind of stuff can only divide people further. I don't like where it's heading.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Your Daily Preening

Howard Kurtz:

Is it racial?

Are the protesters, tea-partiers, birthers, deathers, doomsayers and hecklers motivated, at least in part, by a distinct discomfort with the country's first black president?

Or is that a smear against disgruntled Americans who have every right to express their dissent?

There is no definitive answer, of course, since we are talking about millions of people, from Joe Wilson, the disrespectful congressman who's now raised $700,000 for his "you lie" outburst, to the woman who told Arlen Specter that Obama is trying to transform the US of A "into Russia, into a socialist country."

But I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about "the Constitution" and "taking our country back." Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there's a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.

You started wondering about racism when you heard people shouting about the Constitution? Sure wouldn't want those critics to shout about "the Constitution." That's dangerous talk, all right.

There is not one bit of racism in any of Kurtz's examples of disgruntled people. Nada. As for the "taking our country back" stuff, I assume two things: 1) people are going with the "Congress shall make no law" stuff and running with it, and 2) they might not understand the constitution any better than the people who said George W. Bush was shredding the thing on a daily basis.

The Left wanted to "take the country back" since 2000, when Dubya "stole" the election. Hey, buddy, is that a white trash smear?

Talking about racism when there's no evidence of it is lazy and boring.

Get The Net. A Sports Guy Thinks He's A Journalist Again (II)

Uh-oh. Another sports "journalist" thinks he's a journalist.

Mike Lupica used to appear on ESPN to talk like a know-it-all and come off like same. For all I know, he still does. But in this piece for the NY Daily News he decides to go deep, then get outraged:

Across from the World Trade Center site there were more flowers than usual outside Engine 10, Ladder 10, the legendary New York firehouse known as Ten House. There are always more flowers, and signs, and photographs and flags, when there is another anniversary of Sept. 11.

OK. Good start. But wait...

We promised ourselves we were going to be a better city and a better country because of what happened. We told ourselves that we knew what really mattered now. In the aftermath of the worst day the city and the country had known, we promised to find the best in ourselves, and in each other.

And on this most recent anniversary of Sept. 11, the country seems as full of hate and noise as it has ever been. This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.

Ah, get bent. Screaming about politics has been going on forever. It took a break for a few weeks after 9/11, and then it came back. Did anyone think it wouldn't?

Human being are a political animal. We like to scream about politics, and sometimes we say outrageous things. Lupica's only upset because after a half-dozen years of Bush being called Hitler, it's now his guy that's getting yelled at.

There's a danger in sarcasm. You need to be good at it or you look kind of stupid. Lupica's words, with my immediate thoughts: "This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is [you just said who he is], thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar [he doesn't think he can - he can, and he did], Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help [Mike would know?], or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink [so that's how you're supposed to ask waitresses for another round - you yell "Liar!"]."

Sports "journalists" are good for a laugh. In this case I got a double dip: amusing sanctinomy with a side dish of bad metaphor.