WE WON!!!!



Tuesday, November 04, 2003

NEW YORK — CBS announced Tuesday that it won't run the controversial miniseries "The Reagans" later this month.

The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay-cable network owned by CBS parent Viacom.

"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement.

A broadcast network has different standards than a pay cable network, CBS said.

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

The flap over the $9 million miniseries, which was set to air on Nov. 16 and 18, began late last month with a story published in The New York Times revealing portions of the script that were unflattering to President Ronald Reagan and former first lady, Nancy.

That led to a firestorm by Republican-based political groups and Reagan supporters, some of whom threatened to boycott CBS and the products advertised during the program.

The Media Research Center (search) asked major advertisers to review the script and consider not buying commercial time on the show.

In an unusual move, CBS officials said last week that portions of the movie were unfair and the film was being re-edited.

It is rare for a network to substantially rework a completed film just weeks before it is scheduled to be shown.

As soon as CBS made the decision to cut portions of the film, director Robert Allan Ackerman opted out of the editing process and lead actors James Brolin and Judy Davis — who were to play President and Mrs. Reagan — refused to do any publicity interviews for the miniseries, according to a report in Newsweek magazine.

That left the editing process in the hands of CBS executives, Newsweek reported.

Though no one who protested the miniseries has seen it, it was condemned by the former president's friends and supporters as unfair and inaccurate.

Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, told CBS President Leslie Moonves (search) in a letter that historians should review the miniseries for historical accuracy, or the network should run a disclaimer that the program is fiction.

Gillespie said the miniseries might have omissions, distortions and exaggerations that could cause Americans to "come away with a misunderstanding of the Reagans and the Reagan administration."

Some questioned airing any dramatization of the 92-year-old's life while he struggles with Alzheimer's disease (search).

Gillespie said he hasn't seen the full miniseries but was uneasy because of news reports and brief clips that have been made public.

He said he resents particularly how the miniseries reportedly depicted the Reagans' unsympathetic attitude toward AIDS victims and how it was said to portray Nancy Reagan.

CBS lawyers had reviewed the miniseries and given it the go-ahead, but Moonves ordered lawyers to give it another look and for CBS to cut out certain portions.

Among the parts that were snipped, according to Newsweek, were the inflammatory line "They that live in sin shall die in sin," which is Reagan's reply to Nancy when she asks him to do more for AIDS victims in the miniseries.

Those involved with the project admitted having no proof that Reagan ever made such a statement.

Newsweek reported that footage of Ronald Reagan Jr. doing ballet was also cut.

My Father-In-Law says I've got to post something from time to time here so he's got something to argue with me about, so here goes:

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

CBS is going to air a movie about the Reagans. They say that it will be historically acurate and unbiased. Will it be as unbiased as those involved in its making? Let's see...

Elizabeth Egloff, the source of the script, admits to being a democrat and also admits to inserting conversations into the script "for which there is no evidence that it ever took place." Strike One, CBS.

Australian-born Judy Davis, who portrays Nancy Reagan, has been in the papers speaking about the "ugly specter of patriotism." She also is a card-carrying liberal. Strike Two.

James Brolin portrays a Ronald Reagan who is completely controlled by a domineering wife. James, of course, is married to Barbra Streisand, one of the most outspoked critics of the former president, and she spent much time on the set of The Reagans. Brolin is known to support the same causes as his wife. Strike Three.

Of course, should we expect any less when CBS is being run by Les Moonves? Les, as we know, sat next to Hillary Clinton when her husband won the democratic nomination for president the second time. On top of the strikeout, I think we need to call in the this game on account of rain.

Stop CBS from airing "The Reagans" telefilm

Other than that, things are going well here. I've started a web site for D&D here.

Will try to post again, this time maybe less than 3 months from now!

Read it here.

Now, let me say off the bat that I'm not necessarily proposing that the state should have done something to prevent this guy from driving. For me, as usual, this isn't about the government telling people what to do. This is about guilt, foolish pride and downright stupidity.

"The nine dead -- five women, three men and a 3-year-old girl -- were not identified. " I'm going to speculate here, and its possible I'm going to be wrong; if that's the case, apologies to Mr. Weller in advance. However, it is my guess that Mr. Weller's driving skills have been deteriorating for some time. He drove THREE BLOCKS before his car stopped. It wasn't as if his reaction time was a little off; you have to be really incompetent to go THREE BLOCKS. That doesn't happen overnight.

My own grandfather, God rest his soul, drove for at least three years longer than he should have. It was pure chance/fate/luck/providence (pick your favorite word) that he didn't mow down "five women, three men and a 3-year-old girl." That last victim, in my mind, is the most tragic. Mr. Weller has had the opportunity to live 8 years longer than the life expectancy of an American male; that girl will never see her 8th year.

So, who's culpable? Could it have been prevented? Where is the guilt? Here are several possibilities:

1) Is the state of California guilty for not revoking Mr. Weller's license? Perhaps the frequency of renewal periods or the requirements of a driving test should be changed. This assumes that the correct role of the state is a pre-emptive licensing (something I'm not totally sold on, but can live with for now.)

2) Are Mr. Weller's family (or friends or neighbors) guilty for allowing him to drive? Assuming Mr. Weller didn't wake up yesterday suddenly a poor driver, someone had to know his driving had been less-than-stellar as of late. I'm sure they though, as my family did with my grandfather, "he's lived a long hard life, driving is one of his last remaining privelages, i can't take that away as it would hurt his self-esteem."

3) That brings us, of course, to poor old Mr. Weller, of whom a neighbor said, "A more careful, gentle, loving person you'll never find." True enough, it may be. But a careful, gentle, loving 22 year-old person who has 3 beers on the way home from work and plowed through the same nine people would be sitting in a jail cell waiting for his manslaughter charge. Did Mr. Weller truly think his driving skills were up to snuff? If so, his judgement may have been off. If not, he shouldn't have been driving. Either way, not much different than a drunk driver in my mind.

In Hebrew law there was a clear distinction between manslaughter and murder. It was all about intent. If you intentionally killed someone, you were to be killed, "an eye for an eye." If you killed someone by accident, you were to be severly punished. Someone had still died at your hand, whether you intended it or not. Actions have consequences, and we must live up to them. As far as that went, for the Hebrews, there was even a "right of vengence" in which the family of a wrongfully killed individual could petition for the death of the unintentional killer.

I'm not proposing we hang Mr. Weller. But I'm not proposing that we demand more of our driver's licensing system either. What I'm calling for is individuals to utilize their capacity for self-government; for "careful, gentle, loving" people to also be "humble" enough to say "I don't drive well anymore. I'm giving it up." I fully intend to tell my kids (and have already told my wife) that when it is time, if I don't catch it myself, to just say something and I will be done. I really don't want to kill someone's baby girl. But neither did Mr. Weller.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is proposing that the computer industry devise a way to destroy computers used to illegally download music. Check it out here.

I'm trying hard to understand Senator Hatch's position. After all, downloading mp3s of music which you have not purchased is theft. No one in good conscience can say that they believe they should get something for nothing. Anti-capitalist arguments against the recording industry aside, the fact remains that people have pirated music and software since the inception of the internet. Napster popularized it to be sure, but alt.binaries.whatever has been a repository for copyrighted material for years.

But, back to Senator Hatch. has this guy really proposed destroying a computer, which may be worth hundreds of dollars, because someone downloaded the equivalent of a $16 cd? Senator Hatch, it seems, has been at the forefront of a lot of anti-technology legislation through the years. Much of it has been in the area of anti-child porn legislation. But this one, however, is just irrational. He didn't suggest that the music industry create their own file-swapping service, one that safeguards copyright. He didn't suggest arresting file swappers. Nope, this guy wants to "destroy" (his word, not mine) the file swapper's computer.

THIS is why the Republican party can't seem to get it together half of the time. We sound great when it comes to economic freedoms (in spite of the Democrat's claim to be the only ones who know how to run an economy) but then guys like this come out trying to "destroy" private property in the name of recording rights. If there is any truth to the accusations of the left that the Republicans are authoritarian, it is shit like this.

I wonder

I'm having a tough time keeping up on the laundry. Do you think they could regulate our dirty clothes? I mean, there's gotta be a study somewhere that proves wearing clean clothes everyday is detrimental to our health, or perhaps a study to prove that people wearing dirty clothes commit fewer felonies? Just make it a law and sign me up!

The legislature and governor in Washington State can kiss my hairy yellow ass.

Once again the self-righteous hypocritical followers of Tipper Gore are at it. These friggin liberals talk all day long about freedom of speech when a consumer refuses to buy the Dixie Chicks' latest album (although, last time I checked, nowhere in the first amendment does it say that a consumer should be compelled to financially support those with whom he disagrees.) But they are more than willing to regulate the video game habits of their citizens. Take a guess at which of the two major parties sponsored this bill. I'll give you a hint: It wasn't the Republicans.

Twenty years ago, it was Tipper vs. Ozzy. Now its the Washington Democratic party vs. Grand Theft Auto and the Matrix.

Still, there may be hope. At least one person in Seattle has a clue.

Well, the guy who was going to sue Oreo over the content of Trans Fats has dropped his lawsuit. Part of the response from his web site:

"And to those of you who thought I was infringing your freedom, remember, when the facts are suppressed you have no freedom. You had a right to know about trans fats, and now you do. What you do with the information is entirely your concern. If you knowingly want to continue to eat trans fats, enjoy!"

Woo hoo, looks like we got through to him. See the email I sent to him yesterday below:

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Younce
To: sljoseph@earthlink.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:39 PM
Subject: bantransfats.com Inc


Mr. Joseph:

Your "Oreo" lawsuit has generated quite a bit of media interest today, as I am sure you are aware. I realize you are likely to receive a deluge of emails today, both for and agains your suit.

I have some simple questions. I would understand if you don't have the time or inclination to answer them. My instinct tells me they will be ignored. However, if you truly believe in the rightness of what you are doing, I think it might be worthwhile for you to add it to a FAQ of some sort on your web site. Here are my questions:

Why attempt to resolve the "trans fat" problem in this manner? Would it not be more effective to use the funds donated to bantransfats.com to educate people as to the dangers of trans fat, as opposed to attempting to restrict the rights of other Americans? Or, if you really believe that the only answer to the problem is through the force of law, why not lobby your elected representatives to create legislation addressing the issue? I am quite frankly appalled that you feel the need to police my eating habits through litigation.

Regards,

Robert A. Younce

I busted my friggin toe last night. Let this be a lesson to everyone: always push in your chair when you get up. As it turns out, there have been no great advances in the treatment of broken toes, so I probably just blew $35 at the MedExpress for a nurse to take my temperature and blood pressure and a doctor to look at my to and say, "yep, it sure is broken."

Why is that every 6-10 months some supposedly reputable magazine such as Fortune discovers that there are dishonest people on eBay? I know that I've read at least one (probably several) articles in Time magazine in the last five years. You'd think there would be an editorial memo at AOL Time Warner saying "enough, already. We've told everyone who will listen to be afraid of eBay." All I can figure is that Ted Turner secretly has invested in a chain of second-hand stores around the country, and has lost billions since the online auction site came around.

First Blog Post.