The big Fall movie preview issue of Entertainment Weekly arrived in the mail today, and on the cover is my personal favorite actor, Johnny Depp. Not only is he clean shaven now, but he's got his hair combed back quite elegantly and he's wearing a suit. He looks quite like my father in the pencil drawing that I keep on the mantel. I'm having a bit of trouble getting past the cover! Hmm… the cover folds out and there are sixteen small pictures of various Fall movie stars. One of them is Maggie Gyllenhall, who looks uncannily like my own mother as a young girl. Okay, I'm finished with the cover. On to the magazine. Here's what caught my eye:
1. "Seinfeld" is coming out on DVD with "deleted scenes, blooper reels, an alternate version of the pilot, and cast commentaries."
2. Ereka Vetrini, Omarosa's nemesis from "The Apprentice," will be Tony Danza's sidekick on the new "Tony Danza Show." It's a talk show. Yeah, Ereka can talk.
3. Jamie Foxx, playing the role of Ray Charles in the biopic "Ray, " "wore prosthetics (modeled on Charles' actual eyes) to simulate the singer's blindness." He asserts that this was needed to avoid "cheating" as he moved around. It would be unaesthetic without prosthetics. But acting is faking it in all sorts of ways. Among the great actors who played blind sans eye prosthetics are: Audrey Hepburn and Bette Davis and Gabrielle Anwar and Patty Duke and Virginia Cherrill. The movies seem to prefer blind women to blind men, but I note the great Mr. Muckle in my all-time favorite comedy "It's a Gift." And the guy in "Butterflies Are Free." Ah! The best performance by a male actor as a blind character was Al Pacino. Hmm… and there was good old Gabrielle Anwar as his love interest. What has become of of Gabrielle anyway? Oh, and another fine performance by a male as a blind character was Gene Hackman. It seems blind men are funny and blind women are dramatic. You can think about why, and think about whether Foxx's film will be a hit. He sure looks like Ray Charles in the photograph. He's also, according to EW, a fine pianist--he went to college on a piano scholarship. So he'll be doing all the piano playing as Ray. Nice fact to know: Ray Charles, who died in June, was able to witness the final cut of the film.
4. John Travolta and Joaquin Phoenix play firefighters in "Ladder 49," which is supposed to be better than "Backdraft," which real firefighters hate (because it's unrealistic). The filmmakers want you to think "Black Hawk Down."
5. They remade "Alfie," with Jude Law as Michael Caine. I've never bothered to watch the Michael Caine one, so why should I care? Well, Law is much cuter than Caine.
6. So what's the Christian Bale diet? "I just didn't eat." He got down to 120 pounds (he's 6'2"). He also only slept 2 hours a night. What role required all that? Some paranoid guy in "The Machinist." He's bulked back up for "Batman."
7. New Alexander Payne movie. "Sideways." I loved "Election" and "After Schmidt" was pretty good. Good lord, this new film is set in a wine-tasting milieu!
8. "The Grudge"—they've hired the director of the original Japanese film ("Ju-on") to do the Hollywood version. Takashi Shimizu. It stars Sarah Michelle Gellar, who looks just like Gwyneth Paltrow in this picture.
9. Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet together at last! "Finding Neverland." A biopic of J.M. Barrie. I hope it's good, because this is one I'd like to see.
10. Kevin Spacey directs himself in a biopic of Bobby Darin. "Beyond the Sea." How could that possibly be good? Spacey is eight years older than Darin was when he died. And who is interested in the life of Bobby Darin? That's just crazy! It seems the only reason for this is that Spacey has always looked a bit like Bobby Darin. What's next for Kevin? A biopic of Lee Harvey Oswald?
11. It's biopic year for the Oscar-craving actors as Leonardo DiCaprio plays Howard Hughes (with Martin Scorsese directing) in "The Aviator." There really is some fascination in seeing Cate Blanchett impersonate Katharine Hepburn and Kate Beckinsale impersonate Ava Gardner.
12. Jim Carey as Lemony Snickett. He rides a Segway. Okay.
13. "Proof," "Closer" … I guess I'm supposed to care about these Oscar-y productions. I'll wait for the reviews. And even if they are good, I'll probably resist, because I still remember getting hoodwinked into seeing "The Hours." Prestige movies for women: leave me alone!
14. Then there's the question: What Don Cheadle movies can I see in December? There's "Hotel Rwanda," in which Cheadle plays the role of Paul Rusesabagina, who saved the lives of 1200 Tutsis in 1994 (a great story). And there's "The Assassination of Richard Nixon," a political thriller that also stars Sean Penn and Naomi Watts.
15. They're making a film of "Get Smart," with perfect casting: Steve Carell.
16. A current film I'd buy right now if it were on DVD: "Los Angeles Plays Itself." It's a documentary about L.A. as it appears in the movies.
17. Ah! Finally, a decent DVD of "Purple Rain." Make sure you get the 20th Anniversary version. Don't buy this one.
August 14, 2004
Shady grove.
A walk this morning in the UW Arboretum ...
called to mind an old favorite album cover ...
and made me imagine Impressionist figures running around in nineteenth century white dresses like these ...
but there was no one around.
called to mind an old favorite album cover ...
and made me imagine Impressionist figures running around in nineteenth century white dresses like these ...
but there was no one around.
August 13, 2004
Instructions for a Peavey Rage 158.
John bought a new practice amp for his guitar. It came with "IMPORTANT SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS," a list of 16 separate items, the first four of which are especially important:
After the 16 items, there's this extra: "SAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS!"
Okay, silly instructions. I guess they assume a guitar player is an idiot. But it's a nice little practice amp, at a good price. The clean tone is especially appreciated. And it has a nice modern/vintage toggle switch, valuable if you like a 60s-style sound, and not always the maximum distortion.
1. Read these instructions.
2. Keep these instructions.
3. Heed all warnings.
4. Follow all instructions.
After the 16 items, there's this extra: "SAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS!"
Okay, silly instructions. I guess they assume a guitar player is an idiot. But it's a nice little practice amp, at a good price. The clean tone is especially appreciated. And it has a nice modern/vintage toggle switch, valuable if you like a 60s-style sound, and not always the maximum distortion.
Answer revealed: the Republican Presidential candidate I voted for.
Here's the final count in the blogpoll asking which Republican Presidential candidate I voted for. I had said that I've been voting in presidential elections since 1972 and have only once voted for the Republican candidate. Seventy-seven people voted and the clear favorite was Reagan:
Now what was the thinking there? Why did Reagan come out on top by such a wide margin? Reagan ran twice, and I could only have voted for him one of those times, so the fact that he's the only one who ran twice in the stated time period should not have caused you to pick him. I guess there was a trend of Democrats switching over to Reagan, and just on sheer numbers, the chances of a Democrat voting for Reagan in 1984 are high, given the abysmal numbers for Mondale. But, in fact, I voted for Mondale. Up until Bill Clinton, I had never voted for the winner in a Presidential election. So now, you have enough information to reach the correct answer: Gerald Ford! Why on earth did I vote for Ford—especially when I voted for every other loser up until Clinton? It means that I voted against Carter when he won and for him when he lost! Who does that?
I was all set to vote for Carter in 1976. I had voted for Carter in the New York primary, and actually set out on Election Day in November intending to vote for Carter. I was walking to the poll with another person with whom I'd been talking about the election throughout the campaign. Both of us had been struck by a statement Carter made the day before the election. Carter was asked what he would do if he lost, and he answered that he would just go back to his peanut farm. That statement undermined my support for Carter overnight, strangely enough. He seemed thin and weak to me after that. Here was this man who'd only been the governor of Georgia, and he thought he could be President, yet he had no other vision of a role in the world for himself than to stay in Georgia and be a peanut farmer. Peanut farm, Presidency—what's the difference? We sat down on a bench on the way to the polling place and talked about it and both decided to vote for Ford! What was there in Ford's favor? He was already President so there was no issue of elevating an inadequate man to the Presidency. He may have been inadequate, but he was already President. And I found something reassuring in the fact that he, uniquely, had not sought the Presidency.
But let me say something about Nixon. I didn't support him in 1972, the first year I voted, or in 1968 (when I was a senior in high school), but I absolutely loved Nixon in 1960, the first election I was old enough to have an opinion about. I was nine. I wore a huge Nixon button to school in those days, and all the kids I knew loved Nixon. I vividly remember a schoolmate observing, "If kids could vote, it would be a landslide for Nixon." As I noted above, I have voted for every loser from the time I started voting until Clinton came along. But if you go back to 1960, the first year I started having an opinion, I supported every loser except Clinton. Not only did I support Nixon in 1960, but I supported Goldwater in 1964, and then Humphrey in 1968. My record of supporting losers, in fact, is so extraordinary—remember I supported Carter when he lost, but opposed him when he won—that my support ought to be dreaded as the kiss of death.
Here's a new poll to test your understanding of my political predilections. I was walking on State Street today, when a young man with a clipboard asked me to sign a petition to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. I'm in Wisconsin, which is an important swing state, as you probably know.
Ronald Reagan--48.1%--37
Bob Dole--18.2%--14
Gerald Ford--13%--10
George H.W. Bush--13%--10
Richard Nixon--7.8%--6
Now what was the thinking there? Why did Reagan come out on top by such a wide margin? Reagan ran twice, and I could only have voted for him one of those times, so the fact that he's the only one who ran twice in the stated time period should not have caused you to pick him. I guess there was a trend of Democrats switching over to Reagan, and just on sheer numbers, the chances of a Democrat voting for Reagan in 1984 are high, given the abysmal numbers for Mondale. But, in fact, I voted for Mondale. Up until Bill Clinton, I had never voted for the winner in a Presidential election. So now, you have enough information to reach the correct answer: Gerald Ford! Why on earth did I vote for Ford—especially when I voted for every other loser up until Clinton? It means that I voted against Carter when he won and for him when he lost! Who does that?
I was all set to vote for Carter in 1976. I had voted for Carter in the New York primary, and actually set out on Election Day in November intending to vote for Carter. I was walking to the poll with another person with whom I'd been talking about the election throughout the campaign. Both of us had been struck by a statement Carter made the day before the election. Carter was asked what he would do if he lost, and he answered that he would just go back to his peanut farm. That statement undermined my support for Carter overnight, strangely enough. He seemed thin and weak to me after that. Here was this man who'd only been the governor of Georgia, and he thought he could be President, yet he had no other vision of a role in the world for himself than to stay in Georgia and be a peanut farmer. Peanut farm, Presidency—what's the difference? We sat down on a bench on the way to the polling place and talked about it and both decided to vote for Ford! What was there in Ford's favor? He was already President so there was no issue of elevating an inadequate man to the Presidency. He may have been inadequate, but he was already President. And I found something reassuring in the fact that he, uniquely, had not sought the Presidency.
But let me say something about Nixon. I didn't support him in 1972, the first year I voted, or in 1968 (when I was a senior in high school), but I absolutely loved Nixon in 1960, the first election I was old enough to have an opinion about. I was nine. I wore a huge Nixon button to school in those days, and all the kids I knew loved Nixon. I vividly remember a schoolmate observing, "If kids could vote, it would be a landslide for Nixon." As I noted above, I have voted for every loser from the time I started voting until Clinton came along. But if you go back to 1960, the first year I started having an opinion, I supported every loser except Clinton. Not only did I support Nixon in 1960, but I supported Goldwater in 1964, and then Humphrey in 1968. My record of supporting losers, in fact, is so extraordinary—remember I supported Carter when he lost, but opposed him when he won—that my support ought to be dreaded as the kiss of death.
Here's a new poll to test your understanding of my political predilections. I was walking on State Street today, when a young man with a clipboard asked me to sign a petition to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. I'm in Wisconsin, which is an important swing state, as you probably know.
The view from Madison: base ten! lasers!
I've been mesmerized by my laptop screen for a long time, and was slightly irritated that a group of four men decided to set up at the table right next to mine (considering that the place is nearly empty). But I kept my concentration up, not even eavesdropping on these guys, until I heard the words "base ten." Now I'm entirely distracted by these men, all with French accents, talking about math. Ah, they are leaving! So soon? But I've been here for over two hours. I really do need to leave. It's a beautiful day here in Madison, where it's sunny and 67 degrees. And here's a cool thing about Madison:
Check out the picture at the link.
[The dome of the new Overture Center] which stands four stories above the lobby at the corner of State Street and North Fairchild Street, was lighted about 9 p.m. for a 15 minute demonstration of the building's lighting system.
Three rings of computer-controlled light-emitting diode strips lining the rotunda glowed, faded and pulsed through nearly every shade of the rainbow up into the glass dome. ...
During the demonstration, the lights also went through a sequence in which strips of red, white and blue chased each other around the rings.
Check out the picture at the link.
Hurricane Charley and the presidential campaign.
Hurricane Charley looks big, and I am hoping for the best the people of Florida who live in its path--some of whom are close family members of mine. So forgive me if I look ahead to the time after the hurricane and think about the effect of this attack of the natural world on the state that is the most important state in the presidential campaign. It seems to me that Bush, as President and brother of the state's governor, is in a position to take advantage of this event. I wonder what is being planned, even now, and how the Kerry campaign hopes to horn in on the action. I'm putting it bluntly, of course, and I'm sure part of the plan is about how to be very careful not to seem like you're just taking personal advantage of the disaster.
Andrew Sullivan picked a bad time to take a vacation.
I'd really like to read what he has to say about McGreevey and the new California Supreme Court case. He's a hardcore vacationer, apparently. And when did the little donkey head get added next to his heading "The Daily Dish"? Did he really put that there?
Reacting to the usual email from georgewbush.com
Every morning I get email from Patrick Ruffini who runs the official Bush website. I didn't sign up for this email, but I get it because they linked to me a while back. I've written pro-Kerry things too (and anti-Bush and anti-Kerry things), but the Kerry site has never linked to me and, not that I feel neglected, they never email me anything. I could say the Bush people are spamming me, and the Kerry people are behaving better by not taking advantage of a free way to reach me (me, a swing voter). But every day, Ruffini sends me things. Does that make the Bush side more web-savvy? Well, they are more blog-savvy, as indicated by today's email sign-off: "As always, don’t forget to send any posts you’d like to bring to our attention." It's blog-savvy, because it shows an understanding of the blogger's appetite for links. It means: Say something nice about us and we'll link to you. We will give you traffic!
Okay, so let's see what else Mr. Ruffini would like me to know today. First:
This is going to be a little hard, because I'm sitting in a café at the moment and I don't want to annoy anyone. But okay, I'll look. I think it's kind of cool to make an Olympics ad, but kind of rotten to appropriate the Olympics, as if you are the official presidential candidate of the Olympics. Sodas and various commercial products have to pay extra to link themselves to the Olympics (perhaps only if they say "Olympics" or use the logo). The ad, which shows swimmers getting read to dive, then diving, then swimming, is very short, and displays the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan at one point under the swimmers. The email calls the ad "Victory," but the ad leaves it to the viewer to link up the idea of athletic competition and two newly free nations to two victories at war and victory for Bush in the election. It's a simple little commercial that makes its point, mostly subliminally, and also seems to admit that they know were going to be watching the Olympics and not listening to them very much in the next two weeks.
Second, Ruffini alerts me to this:
I guess the "more sensitive" war on terrorism is going to be right up there with "I voted for the war ... before I voted against it" in the Kerry-quotes most useful to the opposition. You can say this is taken out of context--"The Daily Show" riffed on this last night--but Kerry is a terrible candidate if he doesn't know how to stop himself from dropping in little word sequences that we be extracted, triumphantly, from his public remarks. Even if you wanted to keep his comments in their context, it would be difficult, because he doesn't give good sound bites. But his opponents are combing over his statements, looking for the worst, just as his people are doing to Bush's statements. As Jon Stewart, a big Kerry supporter, said on "The Daily Show" last night: "Is he trying to lose?"
UPDATE: "Subliminably."
FURTHER UPDATE: NYT, Aug. 19: "The United States Olympic Committee has asked the Bush campaign to stop using the Olympic name in commercials. Federal law grants the U.S.O.C. exclusive rights to the name."
Okay, so let's see what else Mr. Ruffini would like me to know today. First:
Today, the nation turns its attention to the Olympics. There’s a new ad out today that highlights the triumph of freedom and democracy around the world, with 120 democracies participating in the Olympics, including 2 new free nations, Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch it at: http://www.georgewbush.com
This is going to be a little hard, because I'm sitting in a café at the moment and I don't want to annoy anyone. But okay, I'll look. I think it's kind of cool to make an Olympics ad, but kind of rotten to appropriate the Olympics, as if you are the official presidential candidate of the Olympics. Sodas and various commercial products have to pay extra to link themselves to the Olympics (perhaps only if they say "Olympics" or use the logo). The ad, which shows swimmers getting read to dive, then diving, then swimming, is very short, and displays the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan at one point under the swimmers. The email calls the ad "Victory," but the ad leaves it to the viewer to link up the idea of athletic competition and two newly free nations to two victories at war and victory for Bush in the election. It's a simple little commercial that makes its point, mostly subliminally, and also seems to admit that they know were going to be watching the Olympics and not listening to them very much in the next two weeks.
Second, Ruffini alerts me to this:
Morning Reads focuses on John Kerry’s “more sensitive” war on terror. Only John Kerry could want our troops to fight a “sensitive” war, yet vote against giving them body armor.
I guess the "more sensitive" war on terrorism is going to be right up there with "I voted for the war ... before I voted against it" in the Kerry-quotes most useful to the opposition. You can say this is taken out of context--"The Daily Show" riffed on this last night--but Kerry is a terrible candidate if he doesn't know how to stop himself from dropping in little word sequences that we be extracted, triumphantly, from his public remarks. Even if you wanted to keep his comments in their context, it would be difficult, because he doesn't give good sound bites. But his opponents are combing over his statements, looking for the worst, just as his people are doing to Bush's statements. As Jon Stewart, a big Kerry supporter, said on "The Daily Show" last night: "Is he trying to lose?"
UPDATE: "Subliminably."
FURTHER UPDATE: NYT, Aug. 19: "The United States Olympic Committee has asked the Bush campaign to stop using the Olympic name in commercials. Federal law grants the U.S.O.C. exclusive rights to the name."
Good-bye to Julia Child.
Have a nice meaty meal with lots of butter and a half bottle of red wine tonight in honor of the monumental Julia.
Best take on the McGreevey resignation.
From the front page of the NYT:
Being impressed that McGreevey came out as gay is like saying "ooh, I love puppies" to Nixon's Checkers speech. I'll stipulate that gay people are as lovable as puppies, but I think it's more appropriate, under the circumstances, to be unimpressed, because he's employing the hard-won positive feeling toward gay people for plain, old political purposes. I'm resigning because I'm gay is no more believable than I'm resigning because I want to spend more time with my family. It's a way to try to hold on to some dignity on your way out. Except that McGreevey is also trying to hold onto his office until November and thus to retain the office for his party.
UPDATE: A question you might find relevant in deciding how sympathetic to feel towards McGreevey is when did he marry his second wife? Answer: late 2000. Are we really to believe he took the "bonds of matrimony" so seriously, that as a gay man, marrying a woman when he was 43 years old, living in the United States in the year 2000, he was planning to refrain from extramarital sex? Either McGreevey wronged his second wife grievously by withholding the crucial information that he is gay or the two of them had an understanding, in which case the bit about violating the bonds of marriage is hogwash! The only other possibility is that he was still deceiving himself at age 43, which is incredibly hard to believe. Yesterday's speech was a shameful, self-serving travesty! "At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world ..." Oh, please!
ANOTHER UPDATE: I see that E.J. Graff in TNR Online is saying "Oh, please" too. He also says "Gays and lesbians should leave this guy dangling on his self-constructed gallows" and is irked that McGreevey is diverting attention from the California Supreme Court's case yesterday.
"What it reminds me of is Richard Nixon, the Checkers speech or some of the stuff during Watergate," said Steven Cohen, a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.
But he saw already the contrast in the words spoken by the governor and at least some of the reasons for the sudden announcement: "The gender of the person he had the relationship with is irrelevant," he said. "The problem is putting a lover on the payroll in some fashion."
Being impressed that McGreevey came out as gay is like saying "ooh, I love puppies" to Nixon's Checkers speech. I'll stipulate that gay people are as lovable as puppies, but I think it's more appropriate, under the circumstances, to be unimpressed, because he's employing the hard-won positive feeling toward gay people for plain, old political purposes. I'm resigning because I'm gay is no more believable than I'm resigning because I want to spend more time with my family. It's a way to try to hold on to some dignity on your way out. Except that McGreevey is also trying to hold onto his office until November and thus to retain the office for his party.
UPDATE: A question you might find relevant in deciding how sympathetic to feel towards McGreevey is when did he marry his second wife? Answer: late 2000. Are we really to believe he took the "bonds of matrimony" so seriously, that as a gay man, marrying a woman when he was 43 years old, living in the United States in the year 2000, he was planning to refrain from extramarital sex? Either McGreevey wronged his second wife grievously by withholding the crucial information that he is gay or the two of them had an understanding, in which case the bit about violating the bonds of marriage is hogwash! The only other possibility is that he was still deceiving himself at age 43, which is incredibly hard to believe. Yesterday's speech was a shameful, self-serving travesty! "At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world ..." Oh, please!
ANOTHER UPDATE: I see that E.J. Graff in TNR Online is saying "Oh, please" too. He also says "Gays and lesbians should leave this guy dangling on his self-constructed gallows" and is irked that McGreevey is diverting attention from the California Supreme Court's case yesterday.
August 12, 2004
Flaunting a smoking ban.
According to the NY Post: " VANITY Fair editor-in-chief Graydon Carter continues to flaunt Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban in his corner office at Conde Nast." How do you flaunt a smoking ban? I've got this fabulous smoking ban. You are not going to believe how stringently I am going to enforce this thing!
Olympians in Playboy.
Back in the early days of the women's movement, encouraging young women to take up sports had absolutely no connection to producing the kind of women who would pose nude in Playboy. But the Olympian women of today are posing in Playboy. (Oh, the link is work safe. The only picture in this NYT article is of a high jumper, Amy Acuff, at her sport.)
I don't read much about sports, but it seems to me that kind of austere talk is not used so much anymore. I think there is a lessening of feminist sensibility generally, and I think it's a bad thing that people are witlessly saying things like this again, but I think we can safely proceed without the overdone worrying about "objectification" that used to be much more common. And if anyone wants to accuse me of being hypocritical, I'll defend myself.
[F]emale athletes are showing off their bodies in nonsports magazines and making no apologies for it.
That is unlike four years ago, before the Sydney Games, when the swimmer Jenny Thompson's photograph appeared in Sports Illustrated - with only her fists covering her breasts - and generated controversy. At the time, Donna Lopiano, the executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, told reporters, "Any exposure in a sports magazine that minimizes athletic achievement and skill and emphasizes the female athlete as a sex object is insulting and degrading."
I don't read much about sports, but it seems to me that kind of austere talk is not used so much anymore. I think there is a lessening of feminist sensibility generally, and I think it's a bad thing that people are witlessly saying things like this again, but I think we can safely proceed without the overdone worrying about "objectification" that used to be much more common. And if anyone wants to accuse me of being hypocritical, I'll defend myself.
Giuliani at the Republican Convention.
The NYT has a front-page story on the role Rudolph Giuliani will play at the Republican Convention. Giuliani has had his differences with Republicans in the past, and the article speculates that he has career aspirations that are leading him to offer himself up to the Party to be used to lure swing voters. Let me remind readers that I am a swing voter, in case you've lost track. Key passage in the article:
Aptly put. I didn't vote for Bush, and in fact, I've been voting in presidential elections since 1972 and have only once voted for the Republican candidate (see if you can guess via the blogpoll below). Every other vote was for the Democrat. I did not like Bush in any way, until September 11th. No matter what he's done since then, there has always been a part of me that wants to stick with him, because he was the guy who was there when we were suffering so much, as the Times quote above notes. Giuliani is the one person who most takes us back to those days and stirs up those old feelings that have worn thin in the past three years. Giuliani is going to give a prime time speech at the convention that, in his words, "is largely on the theme of terrorism and how the president's leadership has gotten us through the worst attack in the country and made us stronger." Here's another Giuliani quote from the article:
This is powerful stuff. It is the material that affects me. I know the Democratic Convention had its own 9/11 memorial segment. They had Glenn Close emote over a sentimental description. It felt stagey and did not call up the real emotion of the day, which doesn't, in any event, connect to any memories involving John Kerry or any other Democrats. We will have to see, but I am expecting the Giuliani speech at the Republican Convention to have a very powerful effect.
Here's the blogpoll:
UPDATE: Answer revealed here.
Many Republicans are hoping that by speaking out forcefully for Mr. Bush, Mr. Giuliani can sway swing voters who may not like some of Mr. Bush's policies but are nevertheless comforted by the idea of leaders who have steered the nation through the Sept. 11 attack and its aftermath.
Aptly put. I didn't vote for Bush, and in fact, I've been voting in presidential elections since 1972 and have only once voted for the Republican candidate (see if you can guess via the blogpoll below). Every other vote was for the Democrat. I did not like Bush in any way, until September 11th. No matter what he's done since then, there has always been a part of me that wants to stick with him, because he was the guy who was there when we were suffering so much, as the Times quote above notes. Giuliani is the one person who most takes us back to those days and stirs up those old feelings that have worn thin in the past three years. Giuliani is going to give a prime time speech at the convention that, in his words, "is largely on the theme of terrorism and how the president's leadership has gotten us through the worst attack in the country and made us stronger." Here's another Giuliani quote from the article:
"One of the reasons the world is safer now is that we are going out and trying to find our enemies and demobilizing them," he said. "I was sitting there in Congress the night Bush announced the Bush doctrine. And I remember leaving that night feeling better that the president of the United States had reversed 20 or 30 years playing defense" against potential enemies, he said.
This is powerful stuff. It is the material that affects me. I know the Democratic Convention had its own 9/11 memorial segment. They had Glenn Close emote over a sentimental description. It felt stagey and did not call up the real emotion of the day, which doesn't, in any event, connect to any memories involving John Kerry or any other Democrats. We will have to see, but I am expecting the Giuliani speech at the Republican Convention to have a very powerful effect.
Here's the blogpoll:
UPDATE: Answer revealed here.
August 11, 2004
Should John Kerry sue the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
Kenneth Baer, a former senior speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore, writes in TNR Online that John Kerry should sue the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. When I saw the suggestion, four reasons not to sue sprang to mind immediately. Baer, I was interested to see, deals with all of them. Here are the four reasons:
1. Kerry is a public figure, so under New York Times v. Sullivan, he would need to prove that the SBVT knew the libelous statements were false and proceeded with "reckless disregard." Here, Baer asserts that we already know that there are falsehoods. I'll set out Baer's points in some detail, with my comments in bracketed italics:
3. The election will be over by the time the case gets anywhere near a judgment. Here, Baer thinks it's worth it anyway in order to "send a message that there will be serious repercussions for anyone who wants to fund or appear in an ad that is patently false." That's the usual upside of litigiousness. Demonstrating your willingness to sue is intimidating. It even intimidates people who are telling the truth. I think in a political campaign, voters want to see issues addressed in public debate that takes place before the election, not squirreled away in a long court proceeding where the truth is learned too late to help them decide how to vote.
4. Kerry will be subjected to discovery requirements, with the court likely to require him to produce all sorts of records of his military service, including his medical records, which he has not thus far been inclined to release. Baer is thinking of discovery from another angle:
But, quite aside from all of that, is Baer's intense little article helpful to Kerry? I doubt very much that Kerry will want to sue: there are plenty of pragmatic reasons not to. But if voters are made to think Kerry should be suing, because characters like Baer are itching for it, voters may conclude that the reason Kerry isn't suing is that the charges are true.
UPDATE: Here is the Annenberg FactCheck.org analysis of the SBVT ad. The analysis picks carefully through the story of the vet who at one point said he'd made a "terrible mistake" and explains the full basis for Kerry's Silver Star award, with a link to the official citation. This vet (Elliot) seems, in the FactCheck analysis, to be someone who is sadly torn between two positions perhaps because many different people have attempted to enlist his help over the years. O'Dell, according to FactCheck, was "a few yards away" from the events that led to the Bronze Star, and the man Kerry is said to have saved, Jim Rassmann, contradicts O'Dell.
It's not surprising that O'Dell's story did not make it into the record, but I have to say that it seems scurrilous to feature O'Dell in the ad, when his is only one version of a story, and the official record does not back him up. The same is the case for Elliot. I don't know who's telling the truth, but it is deceptive to have an ad with only one version of the story told. Challenging someone's war record is an ugly thing to do, as I've said before, and one ought to have very solid proof that you are right before going down this road. I also think Kerry has some responsibility for motivating an attack in this form by allowing himself to be portrayed as a war hero at the Convention, rather than concentrating on more current issues. But given all the awards, it is appropriate to refer to him as a war hero.
It was overdone at the Convention, but that doesn't justify a scurrilous response. The ad oversold the material that was available, and that really was unfair. FactCheck's conclusion is: "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." That sounds about right to me, and that's the right criticism of the ad. I will also note, to reclaim this update as it relates to the Baer article, that it is also a reason why Kerry should not sue and should not be faulted for not suing.
UPDATE: Beldar has a lot of good analysis of the Baer piece.
1. Kerry is a public figure, so under New York Times v. Sullivan, he would need to prove that the SBVT knew the libelous statements were false and proceeded with "reckless disregard." Here, Baer asserts that we already know that there are falsehoods. I'll set out Baer's points in some detail, with my comments in bracketed italics:
One member of the group has already called his participation in the ad a "terrible mistake;" that same veteran and another one in the ad actually defended Kerry from similar charges in his 1996 Senate race; another gave Kerry exemplary ratings as an officer; and none of them have ever initiated official proceedings to challenge the Navy's decision to award Kerry these medals. ...2. Kerry will look litigious, a negative quality which will be exacerbated by the fact that he has a trial lawyer as a running mate. Baer concedes this is a "risk," but opines that it's a risk worth taking.
[One could believe the facts in the ad and still regret making it. And one might easily choose to defend a candidate whose politics you like from an attack based on true assertions. Of course, Kerry knows whether they are telling the truth. We don't.]
Medical Officer Lewis Letson states that: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Letson offers no proof for his assertion, just details about the dates and places surrounding the injury that are readily available. More damning is that according to official Navy records, Kerry was treated by another medical officer; Letson was not the medical professional who signed Kerry's "sick call sheet."
[The potentially libelous statement is that Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart. We don't know whether that statement is true or false. But if it's true that Kerry is lying about that, then there is no libel, even if Letson didn't treat Kerry and knowingly lied when he claimed to have treated Kerry. You might have actual malice about that statement, but the problem is that Kerry isn't injured or brought into contempt by the statement that a particular person treated him. It's just not libelous. It would not be enough to prove that Letson was lying about treating Kerry. Letson could still defend by showing that Kerry was lying about his first Purple Heart.]
Gunner's Mate Van O'Dell says that: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know, I was there, I saw what happened." O'Dell did not serve on Kerry's boat, but was on another boat in his division. O'Dell claims to have witnessed the entire incident in which Kerry won his Bronze Star. Yet, his account does not show up in any official Naval documents--from the spot reports filed immediately after the incident that detail damage to two boats, including Kerry's, and Kerry's injury report to the eyewitness accounts of Jim Rassmann, the man who Kerry pulled out of the river. Either O'Dell is right, and Rassmann, Kerry, and the US Navy are wrong--or O'Dell has a big legal problem on his hands.
[Same problem! Let's assume that O'Dell did not personally see what happened and he's knowingly lying about that. How is that statement libelous? O'Dell's seeing or not seeing the incident is not a matter that harms Kerry. It is only the fact asserted about what Kerry did that hurts Kerry's reputation and is thus capable of being libelous. If O'Dell is repeating something he heard someone else describe, and he thinks it's true, it might be that the New York Times standard is not met. But surely, if O'Dell can prove that the Bronze Star incident really is as O'Dell describes, he will have established the truth defense with respect to the statement that harms Kerry's reputation.]
3. The election will be over by the time the case gets anywhere near a judgment. Here, Baer thinks it's worth it anyway in order to "send a message that there will be serious repercussions for anyone who wants to fund or appear in an ad that is patently false." That's the usual upside of litigiousness. Demonstrating your willingness to sue is intimidating. It even intimidates people who are telling the truth. I think in a political campaign, voters want to see issues addressed in public debate that takes place before the election, not squirreled away in a long court proceeding where the truth is learned too late to help them decide how to vote.
4. Kerry will be subjected to discovery requirements, with the court likely to require him to produce all sorts of records of his military service, including his medical records, which he has not thus far been inclined to release. Baer is thinking of discovery from another angle:
Discovery procedures could lift the curtain of anonymity on those funding these ads, potentially compelling them to disclose their financial and political interests and connections. In addition, a lawsuit will have an equally chilling effect on the political consultants who make these ads. Even the largest political ad-makers can't afford costly litigation; from a financial perspective, getting involved with groups like SBVT would be too big a risk no matter a consultant's politics.Well, that's just admitting that you're using discovery for a purpose other than getting proof of the issues in the case. In other words, you want to abuse the process of discovery! You're admitting you want to intimidate with litigation! In fact, Baer's main idea is to use litigation to overwhelm and intimidate one's opponents, whom he compares to military enemies.
But, quite aside from all of that, is Baer's intense little article helpful to Kerry? I doubt very much that Kerry will want to sue: there are plenty of pragmatic reasons not to. But if voters are made to think Kerry should be suing, because characters like Baer are itching for it, voters may conclude that the reason Kerry isn't suing is that the charges are true.
UPDATE: Here is the Annenberg FactCheck.org analysis of the SBVT ad. The analysis picks carefully through the story of the vet who at one point said he'd made a "terrible mistake" and explains the full basis for Kerry's Silver Star award, with a link to the official citation. This vet (Elliot) seems, in the FactCheck analysis, to be someone who is sadly torn between two positions perhaps because many different people have attempted to enlist his help over the years. O'Dell, according to FactCheck, was "a few yards away" from the events that led to the Bronze Star, and the man Kerry is said to have saved, Jim Rassmann, contradicts O'Dell.
It's not surprising that O'Dell's story did not make it into the record, but I have to say that it seems scurrilous to feature O'Dell in the ad, when his is only one version of a story, and the official record does not back him up. The same is the case for Elliot. I don't know who's telling the truth, but it is deceptive to have an ad with only one version of the story told. Challenging someone's war record is an ugly thing to do, as I've said before, and one ought to have very solid proof that you are right before going down this road. I also think Kerry has some responsibility for motivating an attack in this form by allowing himself to be portrayed as a war hero at the Convention, rather than concentrating on more current issues. But given all the awards, it is appropriate to refer to him as a war hero.
It was overdone at the Convention, but that doesn't justify a scurrilous response. The ad oversold the material that was available, and that really was unfair. FactCheck's conclusion is: "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." That sounds about right to me, and that's the right criticism of the ad. I will also note, to reclaim this update as it relates to the Baer article, that it is also a reason why Kerry should not sue and should not be faulted for not suing.
UPDATE: Beldar has a lot of good analysis of the Baer piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
