Tuesday, November 20, 2007

And the assault on our Constitution continues. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was invited to give a speech at the University of Florida. During his appearance, several students rushed the stage in "protest", while many others shouted from the audience. Several people had to be removed.

And this is how the far Left defines freedom of speech.

I've posted about the movie "Redacted" in the past, and tonight I have an update. For those who don't know, the movie is directed by Brian DePalma, an ardent anti-military nut, and it depicts US soldiers storming an Iraqi home and raping and murdering a 14 year old girl. DePalma describes his film as "the truth about what's happening in Iraq", even though DePalma has never visited the war-torn nation. This movie also follows a certain trend. He directed the film "Casualties of War" which is about a group of US GIs in Vietnam that (surprise) kidnap and rape a Vietnamese woman.

The difference in these films is that the Vietnam movie was made many years after the war was over. Although it did very little for America's image, at least it didn't put US soldiers in harm's way. "Redacted", however, has been released in the midst of an ongoing struggle. This means that DePalma has just created a propaganda film that will certainly be used by our enemies as a recruiting tool and motivation to attack US soldiers. In short, DePalma officially has the blood of US troops on his hands. The is the difference between free speech and responsible speech. Interesting enough, the loons will fiercely defend DePalma's right of free speech while in the same breath condone the suppression of Alberto Gonzales' same right.

It's also important to note that this film wouldn't have been possible without the contribution of Mark Cuban, the Texas billionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Cuban financed the film himself, and has not been apologetic about it. It is my sincere hope that this comes back to haunt Cuban. The film is sure to bomb, which won't matter to him, it's a drop in the bucket. But what I hope is that his beloved basketball franchise takes a hit because of this. If there are any Dallas Maverick fans out there, it's time to find a new team. Cheer for the Spurs or the Suns. Go to Houston for a game instead of Dallas. Do whatever you can to ensure your money doesn't end up in Cuban's pocket. Cuban has a right to slander our troops. And we have a right to deny him our business. That's the beauty of America.

And this is from a long-time Mavericks fan. But no more. Go Spurs!

As an aside, this horrendous film only grossed $26,000 in its opening weekend. That's thousand, with three zeros. That's also the beauty of America. Cuban is poised to take a bath on this film, now wouldn't it be nice for him to feel a similar pinch at the ticket office?


The Loop Garoo Kid said...


Thanks for the link to the article. I am uncertain regarding your assertion that the protesters were of the "left." Certainly they could have been strict constructionists who believe in checks and balances. It can be argued quite credibly that during his tenure as White House Counsel and then as AG, Alberto Gonzales did much to attempt to consolidate a disproprionate amount of power in the executive branch.

As for the execution of his duties as AG, yes AGs serve at the pleasure of the president. Nevertheless, when career Justice Department attys are passed over for positions in the Civil Rights Diviosion of the Justice Department in favor of political appointees, many of whom were most recently in the private defending employers against discrimination law suits or whose credentials included writing against race conscious policies, you wind up w/ a moral problem.

You also wind up w/ a moral problem when the country's chief atty testifies b/f congress and comes off as being less than forthright.

I, for one, am quite certain that Michael Mukasey will be a vast improvement.

Interestingly, acording to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban, in his capacity of owner of Magnolia Pictures redacted disturbing photographs from the conclusion of "Redacted" over the fierce opposition of DePalma and his producer.

Meanwhile, I will voice my opinion that it is impossible for anyone to make a commercially successful film on the war in Iraq no matter what the political view of the movie.

Think about it. I understand your feelings about "Redacted." Films which are in any way negative about our armed forces or the war itself are going to elicit negative feelings. The same is true on films that support the war, but there is more here.

As you point out, the war is ongoing and is more real than any film that can be made about it. Commmunication has accelerated since WW II when there were a number of fine films made reagrding our forces in battle. Of course the other major difference is that unlike WW II, the country is not united behind the war in Iraq.

I will also opine that no matter how one feels about the war in Iraq, many are weary of it to the point where they will spend their entertainment dollars on a film regarding some other subject.

As for boycotting the Mavs, I fear you are flying in the face of Providence. You may recall that in 1974, George Steinbrenner was indicted on 14 counts then pled guilty to making illegal campaign contributions and obstruction of justice.

Bowie Kuhn, then Commissioner of Baseball suspended him for 2 years later reducing the suspension to 9 months. Steinbrenner was pardoned by Ronald Reagan in 1989 just b/f the president left office.

As I recall, Steinbrenner's acts had zero effect on the Yankees.


John Washburn said...

"I am uncertain regarding your assertion that the protesters were of the "left."

Loop, come on now. You can't honestly make that statement with a straight face. I would like to see one example of right wingers shouting down someone or storming the stage to silence another person.

As for Cuban, you are correct that he redacted a portion of the film. It was a scene of dead American soldiers in the streets of Iraq. The pictures were real, nothing Hollywood, and Cuban felt it was inappropriate. So he's okay with funding a film that will get US troops killed, as long as it doesn't actually show the dead troops. How proper of him.

And this also speaks volumes for the character of DePalma. He was furious about Cuban's decision. He wanted the pictures of those dead soldiers shown, damn the families who are still grieving.

And, yes, I doubt the Mavs will suffer. But they've lost at least one life-long fan, hopefully more.


Two Texas Billionaires. The contrast is striking.

Mark Cuban throws his bucks away on an anti-military film, to incite
the radical killers in a time of war; he rates a traitor's cap; another Michael Moore type dude.

And, T.Boone Pickens invests a few,
Loop says three, million to help those Magnificent Swift-boaters sink Kerry's chances in 2004. That
phony hero, Sen John Kerry is still
licking his wounds after the Tv debate with John O'Brian.

"Unfit for Command" rates a sequel,
It's Unfit for Public Office, if he ever runs again in Massachusetts.

Military families know this guy!
Three negative military remarks, On Camera, Archived! You're done, John. reb

Anonymous said...

This is why I love capitalism. There's no need for censorship, because the movie won't get off the ground anyway.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


Alberto Gonzales will not be remembered as one of our more noble AGs. Yet, he can command $30-40K for a speaking engagement so I have difficultly summoning tears, crocodile or otherwise, for him.

Meanwhile reb, you need to take a consistant position on the mainpulation of public opinion by monied powers or merely admit that you are partisan and whatever advances the cause that you back is praiseworthy while contrary opinions are to be vilified.

The Bush campaign torpedoed John McCain w/ scurrilous lies in South Carolina in 2000. What is your opinion regarding that political ploy?

I do not know what happened in the Mekong Delta but my initial reaction is that T. Boone Pickens had a political agenda in funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and therefore anything coming from that organiation should be consumed w/ liberal doses of salt.

Tell me reb. What is the difference between T. Boone Pickens and George Soros?

Here is a better question. Back up your opinion that John Kerry is a phoney hero w/ some facts that do not originate w/ SBVFT.

Here is a better question. Why do you admire the C in C who dodged combat and national guard duty to work on a senatorial campaign?



MY Partisanship, Loop? Look in the mirror, then re-read you words. To label you "progressive" is not meant to be unkind, it's just an
'effect' of wealthy niggling nabobs devoting so much wealth & energy to confuse the electorate. The true agenda remains a mystery.
T.Boone Pickens Worthy Foundations
versus George Soros-hate America Agendas with "Peace & Security Foundations Groups" w/ combined assets of 27 Billion, dedicated to spreading bumper-sticker hatred around the world? Watch for my December Posting. (It's gonna take
your 'secular-progressive' breath away,
hopefully force some serious inquiry).

The C of C was in uniform. Your Fate is then determined largely by events beyond a young officer's control. He also had a bout with
Jim Beam. (Well, So did I).

In your opening comment, you mentioned films made during WWII. Roosevelt & Winston Churchill, fortunately did not have a Michael Moore, Mark Cuban, or De Palma type slime-balls to contend with, or multiple hate-groups spreading vile anti-military and anti-administration propaganda. Yes, communications today are vastly different, in many ways.

John Kerry? Three Band-aid Purple Hearts, on a boat? How many ribbons and battle-scars did his crew get? Did you know that military officers, on occasion write their own Citations!
> Also, THREE anti-military comments archived, sound-on film! Some hero, wot? But, with your sentiments, I suspect you'd defend the Chappaquidic Kid, am I right? Neither of these fat-heads are Fit For Command! Partisanship, is in the eye of the beholder...So, behold, with a clear eye, and add a dash of cautious skepticism, my friend. reb

John Washburn said...

If the Bush campaign did deliberately spread lies about McCain then I openly condemn it. Speaking a Bush torpedo, I remember in the few weeks leading up to the '92 election when Perot said that one of his opponents was doing the same to him, and for some reason he was pointing at Bush (that had the Clinton's fingerprints all over it).

Reb, I'm glad you brought up Kerry. Personally, I think the guy is a slime ball, but I will say this: Technically he was wounded in theater and thus, technically, is entitled to a Purple Heart. The Swift Boat Vets have spoken out against him for a LONG TIME. The Left likes to think that they magically emerged during the '04 campaign as if the GOP had something to do with it. This is not the case. They've had a problem with Kerry since he returned from Vietnam.

And I think much of what they say has some validity, but they bordered on being inappropriate in the way they handled it. Like it or not, Kerry was a combat vet who suffered a wound and was rightfully awared the Purple Heart. That warrants respect, and the SBV flirted with crossing a line.

I'm also glad you mentioned that officers often write their own medals. This was likely the case with Kerry, since he was the only officer on the boat and thus the only officer present when he was wounded. So, basically, the commendation was in his own words, which is why I think the eyewitness reports of the SBVs have some validity.

With all that being said, my beef with Kerry isn't with his medals. Whether he deserved them or not is on his conscience, if he has one. No, MY big problem with him was how he conducted himself after returning. His testimony before Congress was an outrage. He basically disgraced EVERY US soldier who served in Vietnam, including the ones who were awarded medals. I would venture to say that a military officer saying what he said before Congress was unprecedented. I'm not sure what his motivation was, but he threw his buddies in front of a bus and I think it was despicable.

For that alone, I was glad to see the SBVs come forward.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


For details about the smear campaign against John MCCain, read the March 21, 2004 Boston Globe article by Ricahrd H. Davis who was McCain's campaign manager called "The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign."

Here's the short version. Sen. McCain and his wife, Cindy, brought an orphan girl from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh to the U.S. for medical tx. Ultimately, the McCains adopted Bridget, who has dark skin.

Through a method called "push polling" anonymous McCain opponents pretending to be legitimate pollsters began the rumor that MCCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. I know that being a southerner you can appreciate how this played in South Carolina, a state which is culturally very conservative.

People were asked over the telephone whether they would be more or less likely to vote for someone who has sired a black child out of wedlock. The rumor, like many lies, took on a life of its own.

Although Mr. Davis, in his article, states the McCain campaign never learned the identities of the anonymous pollsters, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots. Two four letter words spring to minf: "Karl" and "Rove."

reb, my own political beliefs have nothing to do w/ my analysis whereas it appears that yours blind you to the obvious. Case in point: How many times have I read your statements or those of your readers praising Fox News and its spokespeople? Fox news is owned By Ruppert Murdoch. Ruppert Murdoch has a conservative political agenda that he pushes through all of his media outlets which are numerous. Instead of taking a position that is: "Well Fox News suppports my conservative vision of the world," you drink the Kool Aid and repeat the propaganda litany: "Fox News is fair and balanced and it's agood thing we have it to protect us from the mainstream media." Except for one inconvenient truth: The New York Times is owned buy one company; ABC another; CNN by Time Warner; etc., etc. Fox News is owned by Ruppert Murdoch.

"Your fate is then determined by events beyond a young officer's control." Well, perhaps but not beyond anyone's control.

I think it is time to document how the old boy network is responsible for George W. Bush being where he is today. I do not denigrate the old boy network. Indeed, in some ways I have benfited it from it.

But here are the facts. George W. Bush is the scion of a wealthy and well connected Connecticut family.
He attended Phillips Andover Academy in Andover MA, an elite New England prep school and his father's alma mater.

My brother and I attended another elite New England prep school. My brother then attended Yale from where he graduated 2 years behind Mr. Bush, who was by all acounts, an indifferent student at both institutions.

(Yes, yes, John Kerry also attended Yale, graduating two years ahead of Mr. Bush, and four years ahaead of my brother. Sen. Kerry also was an indifferent student. He was a member of the soccer, hockey, lacrosse, and fencing teams. Mr. Bush was a member of the fraternity DKE and Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale of which my niece is also a meber.)

In those days, the headmaster of Andover sent a list of boys who should be admitted to the Yale Admissions Dept. Andover and Yale are more of a meritocracy now than they were then. Suffice to say, however, that Mr. Bush would likely be admitted to both institutions today notwithstanding his lack of academic quaifications.

Let us examine Mr. Bush as the successful oil man. Here is how the oil business worked then, in the 1970's. One obtains geological surveys that suggests oil may be found in a particular place. One then hires landmen to obtain leases from the property owners. Then one hires a drilling rig and drills for oil.

It doesn't sound to hard except for one thing. Drilling for oil and the obtaining leases and hiring landmen and obtaining the seismic studies is very expensive.

So what you do is gather a group of investors. You make a lot of money just by putting the deal together. I mean a lot of money. If you strike oil, you have an override interest in the well. An override interest pays you off the top. Think of it as a % of the gross. So if you strike oil, you become modestly filthy rich. Not Bill Gates/Warren Buffet/George Soros billionaire rich but comfortably millionaire rich particularly b/c this is 30 years ago and a million $ went a lot farther than it does today.

But where do find investors? If you are George W. Bush, why daddy's rich friends of course. We all want to see the children of our friends' succeed. If Young George strikes oil, why then he gets really rich and I get richer. If Young George drills a dry hole, why then he gets merely rich and I get a tax writeoff. Again, there is nothing wrong w/ this but don't confuse it w/ inventing a better mousetrap.

In 1989, having run unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives eleven years b/f, Mr. Bush and some of Daddy's rich friends bought the Texas Rangers from Eddie Chiles. Mr. Bush's stake in the $89 million purchase price? $500,000. Although he was the public face of the team he neither ran the financial side nor the baseball operations side.

Enter the kingmaker, Karl Rove, who convinces Mr. Bush in 1994 that he can get elected governor of Texas which he does by defeating Ann Richards. Of course he had to divest himself of the Rangers.

The governorship of TX, as governorships go, is a figurehead type position. The governor of TX cannot even reprieve a condemned convict.

2000 rolls around and in the wake of President Clinton's ill advised pecadillos, the Democrats are vulnerable. The kingmaker says "You can become the powerful man on earth."

There is a problem though. Also running is John McCain. He is popular, a real veteran who saw combat and was a POW and he has kicked your patoot in New Hampshire and he looks to do the same in South Carolina, a culturally conservative state w/ strong ties to the military. Okay let's see. Georeg W. Bush flew in the Air National Guard, sometimes and worked on a senatorial campaign in Alabama while John McCain flew combat missions in Vietnam and was a guest in the Hanoi Hilton. Who is going to play better in South Carolina? This is a no brainer until anonymous pollsters start calling and asking whether you, as a citizen of the Palmetto State, would be more or less likely to vote for a person who sired a black child out of wedlock.

This is your guy reb. We can leave the Jim Beam and cocaine out of it. Substance abuse can touch anyone. All of the above is true. So when I remind you that the president was never varsity material, it's not partisanship. It's history.

"He wasn't born in a cabin.
He never fought in a war.
But he learned to smile, and quote Abe Lincoln,
And get his foot in the door.

With one hand on the Bible,
He says he's only here to serve,
While everybody says that for better or worse,
We get what we deserve."

We can discuss his policies another time.


John Washburn said...

Loop, that's a very interesting stereotype you have there. I'm sure the people of South Carolina (and the South in general) would have a big problem with your comment. Perhaps a little perspective would help.

As you said, I grew up in the South, Mississippi to be specific. Yes, I did see the occasional example of racism, but it was usually in the form of racial slurs (from BOTH blacks and whites) and other dialogue. Whether there was true hate behind it or a reflection of culture of poverty and limited education is hard to say. But I will say that the South acts as an example of racial harmony for the rest of the country. History threw the two races together and as a result, over a hundred plus years blacks and whites have coexisted. Oh yes, there were some major obstacles, especially during the Civil Rights era, but they were corrected. Over the past 20 years substantial progress has been made.

So, growing up, I rarely saw examples of blatant overt racism. For example, when a black man says he can't get a cab because he's black. I never saw that first hand. Not in Dallas, or New Orleans, or Memphis, or Atlanta (not saying that it didn't happen, only I never saw it). So I thought that perhaps it was an overblown thing, that blacks were playing the victim role. Until I visited Chicago and New York and saw it first hand. Cabs passing up blacks to pick me up. It was eye-opening, and it was occuring north of the Mason-Dixon line.

This is a simple example, I know. But the point is, northerners tend to look down their noses at us southerners for being racist, and frankly we are tired of it. Growing up in the South, I saw some conflict between the races, but overall there was harmony. We've had our problems and still do, but we work them out. There is mutual respect among the races because we've lived together for a long time and we share similar history, culture and religious beliefs. The problem is that the South has a nasty history that they will never shake.

So, I think your argument about South Carolina is quite demeaning to the people of that state, and to be honest I don't think it holds water. The fact is, John McCain is not very conservative which is more likely to hurt him in the Bible belt. I think the rumor of him fathering a black child would hurt him more in, say, Illinois or New Jersey.

However, because it is the Bible belt, you could make an argument that rumors of him fathering an ILLEGITIMATE child (regardless of race) would be damning. If the people of South Carolina had a problem with these rumors, then that would be it. Suggesting that they liked McCain but didn't vote for him because he may have fathered a BLACK child is way too stereotypical for an educated man like yourself to buy into.

I would suggest you give South Carolina and the rest of the South a break, and a little more credit. If not, then spend some time down there. I think you would be impressed by what you see.


Loop Garoo asserts that I "need to take a Consistant Position on the manipulation of public opinion by monied powers..." and my response is simply this:

My position is entirely consistent,
and I offer Snake Hunters Weblog, with all comments intact, dating back to Jan 5, 2006,
all still visible. (a) I defend the Bush/Petraeus Doctrine in their dealings with the complexities of Middle-East War, in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Afganistan, and...
(b) Decry & Vigorously Oppose the Bush smug lackadaisical lack of attention in dealing with this administration's confusing efforts regarding Illegal Immigration (Both Parties Share In This Guilt) and Dubya's lack of political courage, in refusing to defend his Two Border Guards now serving 12 years in a Federal Penetentiary! It's Outrageous! They deserve no less than a Full Presidential Pardon (It's disgusting and embarrassing that he leaves them hanging out to dry, in favor of a Texas Political Crony and a Prosecuting Attorney that chose to side w/ the testimony of a Major Mexican Dope Smuggler! Period.

c) I Oppose Pelosi, Reid, Murtha,
Durbin, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Teddy Kennedy, et alia. Their Public Partisan Statements that give Direct Aid & Comfort to a vile, uncompromising, kill-culture enemy
exposes the worst possible political posturing. They have violated the public trust. I detest them.
I'll stick with CNN's Lou Dobbs, Duncan Hunter, and Dan Tancredo
on that issue, all day long!
Fox News & CNN are personal favorites because I prefer Up To The Minute Visual & Audio; With The Top-Two rated channels, I get
'Fair & Balanced'. I like O'Reilly
cuz he's a courageous whistle-blower that invites Left & Right to appear on the Factor. The cowards always decline national exposure for good reason. They correctly fear close-up scrutiny.

Loop Garoo favors The NYTimes, and old recalls (to consolidate his "talking points")... of Harvard & Yale, Texas Baseball Investments, Oil Investments, McCain's troubles with Bush during the 2004 Campaign, Soros vs Pickens Philosophical Preferences,
and I'd prefer to stay focused on 'What's Really Happening Now', and what the Grim Future Portends for our nation and the world. Is it
Brick-bats, Facts, or Slinky Legerdemain of Mind & Hate-Transference. Individuals must decide based on the Evidence, 'Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt'.

Partisanship? To hell with that! We Are At War, and our enemies have
No Geneva Convention Guidelines. The Palestinian Hamas/Fatah radicals are killing each other every day, if there are no Jewish Infidels in the neighborhood. Wake Up Pelosi. Wake Up "Pinky" Reid!
One of Loop's paragraph's began with "Where do you find the Investors (?), referring to "Daddy-Bush rich friends" and
Oil Investments (see my point)?

Oh yes, Karl Rove & Ann Richards;
Chicago Democratic Convention, was it not 1988? Her knife in the ribs
quote, "Poor George...he was born with a silver foot in his mouth", yep, I remember. Cute, but 'Poor George' won anyway. Then Ross Perot
candidacy helped Bill Clinton win the next round. Am I Right, Perot?
Well, I intend to bring up some history also, of Daddy Soros Rich Friends, and how they consistantly degrade our national image, demean our military, and confuse our electorate coast to coast, every day, in brutally clever harmony.
Watch For S/H December Post. So prepare to throw your best punch, it's Open Forum Fun & Games, and I'll respond...
Trust me on that score. reb

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


I am sorry if I implied that South Carolinians or other southerners were racist as that was not my intent. I do think South Carolinians are culturally conservative. My point was that to suggest that someone had fathered a child out of wedlock in what was necessarily an adulterous affair inasmuch as Sen. McCain was married at all relevant times, was something calculated to incense. The fact that the child was black also have incensed but accusing South Carolinians or other southerners of racism was not my intent.

Meanwhile, reb, I think you give hall passes to people w/ whom you agree, like SBVFT. Either the maipulation of public opinion by monied powers, whether they be George Soros or T. Boone Pickens is to be decried or it isn't. I look forward to your next post and I hope it is "fair and balanced."

There is no "Bush-Petraeus Doctrine." Gen. Petraeus is a very able field commander. He does not make policy. He executes it.

If there is a "Bush Policy" I, for one, am unable to articulate it coherently. Invading Afghanistan made sense. That was where the terrorists camps were. Invading Iraq made no sense.

I challenge any person reading this post to defend how invading Iraq served our national interests. reb, you tend to take the position that Iraq is just another locale in which the "kill-culture" is situate and b/c we are at war w/ the "kill-culture" then invading Iraq was justified. Whereas I do not necessarily disagree w/ your particular vision of the culture war, the invasion of Iraq has bogged down a disproportionate amount of our resources on a minor beach head of that war.

Iraq has become a lobster trap (you may explain how one works robert m.) for our nation and when you put all the positives in column A and the negatives in column B, guess which one is longer? Not column A.

Back to the Bush Doctrine. My point is that when you start out w/ someone who was never varsity material and make him the most powerful person on the planet, you wind up where we are now which is w/ an incoherent policy that is poorly executed.

Democratize the Middle East? All of our allies their w/ the exception of Israel are monarchies. Egypt is a democarcy in name only.

As I write this, the president is trying to broker a peace process between Israel and teh Palestinians, something he should have tried b/f the Palestianians deomcratically elected Hamas. I refer you to the lastest post at Redhunter.