Just a couple of links today

It's Thursday, I'm slacking...

IMHO, in the world of up-and-coming political pundits, there is no one more up-and-coming-ing than Greg Gutfeld. The Daily Gut has priceless quotes like, "So last Sunday I did something against doctors orders: I read the New York Times," and "Small towns are great because it's quiet and the beer is cheap - two factors that allow for wishful thinking. See, to me UFO's are the small city version of big city recycling. Because although I'm sure recycling exists, I've never seen it. Seems like it all goes into one bin."

Priceless.

The other link is to his FoxNews show, Red Eye. Watch it if you're a night owl, DVR-it if you are not.

By training, if not by trade, I am an historian.

Now, I'm not claiming to be James McPherson or even David McCullough. Heck, I'm not even claiming to be my late history professor Glenn Martin, or even my most recent favorite professor Jennifer Green. Still, I am, by training, an historian. Just because I am not one by trade does not invalidate my credentials.

Having said that, as an historian, I am able to look at the movie 300 without trying to dissect the historical inaccuracies. You see, I'm also a fanboy. So, I know that 300 is not intended in any way to be historically accurate. It is intended to represent a graphic novel, a comic book.

I suppose, though, what disturbs me about Professor Lytle's review is that it doesn't focus as much on the true historical details, but it contains phrases like "brutal apartheid state" and words like pedastry.

Now, I know the conservative bloggers and commentators have been all over "revisionism" in history for years. As an historian, I don't have a problem with the ideas behind revision. I fully believe that our stories need to be retold and reinterpreted if they are to be meaningful to each generation.

However, in practice, revision becomes a bad thing when it is only done a certain way. In other words, today's historical revisionism is based around the "holy trinity" of historiography: race, class, and gender. But, by revising only along these lines, we miss much of what history has to say to us.

In this way, Frank Miller may have been a better historian than professor Lytle. Miller tells us that, sometimes, you can beat the odds. That sacrifice can have rewards. That war doesn't have to be meaningless. These are the lessons of history, not whether "to spartanize" used to mean "to bugger."

Manufacturing Dissent

The AP has an interesting piece today on a documentary film made about liberal filmmaker (redundant, I know) Michael Moore. Among the more interesting nuggets:

• Roger Smith, then-CEO of General Motors and the focus of Moore's debut Roger & Me, actually met with Moore, not once, but twice.
• These meetings were not reported in the media until three years after Roger & Me was made.
• Michael Moore proved even more elusive than Roger Smith, with the two documentary makers making multiple attempts to interview Moore with no success.
• The two documentary makers are both self-proclaimed liberals who are, as a result of making this film, disappointed and disillusioned with Moore.

The most amazing part about this to me? That anyone could be "disappointed and disillusioned" with Moore in the first place, as it implies some sort of admiration to begin with. Most sane liberals abandoned Moore after Farenheit 9/11.

What's wrong with this country is what's right with this country

So, the other night, I was writing a blog post on some nutbag professor who seems to be guilty of treason. My wife, who conveniently sits at the computer next to mine, was doing something else. Just as I finished my post, she turned to me and said, "Well, they finally buried Anna Nicole Smith."

I stared blankly in the pretentious way I'm known to do and I said, without thinking "You know, you are what is wrong with this country. We're in the middle of a war, and our college professors are giving training manuals to our enemies. But somehow, it still matters to you where some dead celebrity is buried!"

Just this morning, she started speaking to me again.

I've had a lot of time to think about things while I was getting the silent treatment, and I think I've figured something out. Maybe, just maybe, it's not all that bad to be concerned with Anna Nicole, or with Paris, or Britney, or TomKat or whatever the flavor of the day is. Even in a time of war. These kinds of distractions are, in some way, a nice little fanciful escape from the cold hard reality that surrounds us. It may well be that we need these kinds of stories to keep us sane at times.

Add something else into the mix. America is the one place in the world where you don't, for the most part, have to worry about the Government running your life. Sure, there are incursions that we strive to beat back every day. But we still enjoy a relative amount of liberty in the United States. Our obsession with Anna Nicole, while a sign of our decadence to the parts of the world that hate us, is in some ways a representation of our freedoms. We have a right in the United States to escape from the serious issues every now and again, or even to not give a flying crap about the serious issues.

However, I have to agree with Drew: it's not news. It's fark.

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.