Goldberg and Guthrie

It's interesting and telling that Jonah Goldberg thinks of Martin Luther King as a "liberal" icon. See this post:

So which leftwing martyr/icon is left? Sacco & Vanzetti were guilty. The Rosenbergs: guilty. Hiss: guilty. Margaret mead: liar. Rigoberta Menchu: liar. Duranty: liar. Kinsey: liar. Upton Sinclair: liar. I.F. Stone isn't looking too hot (lied about America often, loved totalitarians, might have taken KGB money).

Martin Luther King Jr. -- small flaws aside -- is still looking good. But Bobby Kennedy is only a useful leftwing hero if you don't look too closely. Ditto JFK. Jesse Jackson's going to look awful to historians.

Who's left?

I guess ideas such as, you know, "black children shouldn't have to attend separate, inferior schools" or "lynching people is bad" are "liberal" ideas.

I seriously thought Martin Luther King had sort of achieved American Hero status, but I guess I was wrong: to some conservatives, he still represents the other side of the political divide.

Merry Christmas, Goldberg.

POSSIBLE MUNICH SPOILERS IN THIS POST

I saw Munich as well. I guess it is a well made movie - some of the scenes are as exciting as Spielberg's work in the Indiana Jones films or Jurassic Park (by far, in my opinion, his best movie).

(As an aside - Goldberg. I find it best to leave unspoken the point that I don't differentiate between his "serious" and "popcorn" movies. There is really no difference - outside of his project of filming survivors telling their stories which actually is very important and will possibly make up for the harm done to the world by Jurassic Park 2 - and people should figure that out on their own.)

However, as a "prayer for peace" or a somehow interesting political statement, I have qualms. Before I saw Munich, I imagined the Munich terrorists as insane madmen, with no concern for human life and no real ideology outside of a homicidal religious philosophy. I figured Israeli soldiers were generally good people, probably pretty smart, and probably occasionally wonder whether they are doing the right thing. While I imagine those stereotypes are probably closer to accurate than most stereotypes, I also know that a lot of racism and cultural bias on my part went into forming them in my head. So, maybe a prayer for peace between Israel and its enemies (which I think Spielberg thinks this is) should maybe try to challenge that stereotype and bridge that gap? Maybe that's an impossible thing to do, but then why call this movie a "prayer for peace"? Regardless, this movie didn't even try.

I don't think Spielberg did anything to humanize anyone except the team of Israeli agents who were supposed to kill 11 men who probably had something to do with Munich. There are many scenes of Israelis feeling guilty about killing people, but not one scene (unless I'm missing something) of anyone feeling guilty about killing Israelis. The Israelis spend the whole movie desperately trying to avoid killing civilians; the only Palestinian characters that have significant screen time slaughter 10 helpless athletes. Seriously, how is that a "prayer for peace?" I just don't get it.

I say this knowing virtually nothing about what happened after Munich, outside of a general knowledge of the history of Israel during the time period. And I don't even know why this film was supposedly controversial or important - and I intend to read more and let you know if I'm missing something important. But apparently (according to this movie) Israel immediately bombed some camps after Munich - leaving something like 60 Arabs dead (again, according to the movie). Why didn't we see that? Yes, it wouldn't have had anything to do with the plot, but then neither did the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Were children killed? Seeing that on screen, rather than just hearing it referred to, may have made me pause and think about how much blood was on both sides' hands. That's doesn't mean that both sides are equally at fault - but the first step, I think, in a prayer to peach has to be a realization of just how terrible war is.

In the end, I don't understand why this story is especially relevant today, I don't understand why this movie was a prayer for peace and, although I don't really know what Spielberg was trying to say by ending with a shot of the World Trade Center, I'm pretty sure I don't like it.

But I still have an open mind about this, so try to talk me out of it if you disagree.

Also, Eric Bana was really quite good, as was the rest of the cast.

Read - linked to by Atrios.

In the end, I think I'm more embarrassed and ashamed that we don't have Universal Health Care than I am about all of these torture issues.

As regular readers (i.e., Goldberg and my mom) know, I have a love/hate relationship with the Clintons. The conservative stereotype of them both - that they are immoral, that they have no principles, that they will say or do anything to get elected - always strikes me as unfair. I was thinking, in fact, of simply getting behind Hillary's bid in 2008 - because she appears smart, decent and would bring simple competence back to the federal government.

Then, she supports an anti-flag burning law. But she's not for the Constitutional Amendment! But it should be illegal. But... I'm literally too confused to follow this line of thought.

As for flag burning, I quote a very wise political analyst...

Flag Burning Amendment

It's back, and apparently the vote will be "razor thin."

I know many Democrats may support it. Apparently, the majority of Americans support it. And God knows Republicans - by and large - support it. All of these people are idiots. If you support the flag burning amendment, you are an idiot. You don't understand anything about democracy. If some of these people are not idiots, they are bad people. If an otherwise smart person supports the flag burning amendment, they are either suffering from a mental disability or they are simply a bad person.

I am embarrassed and ashamed that members of my party will vote for this. I am embarrassed and ashamed that even one American thinks this is a good idea.

That's my contribution to the political discourse today.

Seriously, why would anybody think this was a good idea?

Some people following the War on Christmas think that the anti-Christmas forces are led by the Jews. Goldberg even insinuated in a comment below that Fox News's comments might be aimed at Jews - and are possibly even anti-Semitic.

This is wrong. I was reading a report from the front in Salon, which excerpts John Gibson's book (which I've never read). Gibson makes it clear that it's not just the Jews who are responsible for the attacks.

"The wagers of this war on Christmas are a cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians -- not just Jewish people," Gibson writes.

Goldberg - get it out of your head that the pro-Christmas forces are against the Jews! Gibson has made it perfectly clear that he is against the Jews AND many other people.



As an aside, that is an excellent article. I recommend it highly, even though you have to go through an ad to read it. As you will see, Gibson is much more enlightened than his predecessors, who sometimes - crazily enough - blamed ONLY the Jews, although we now see that the anti-Christmas forces are in fact Jews and guilt-wracked Christians working together with the trial lawyers. To wit:

As the Web site News Hounds pointed out last year, Henry Ford was sounding the alarm about the war on Christmas in his notorious 1921 tract "The International Jew." "The whole record of the Jewish opposition to Christmas, Easter and other Christian festivals, and their opposition to certain patriotic songs, shows the venom and directness of [their] attack," Ford wrote.

(Of course, as we know, the Ford company has since made up for this by sponsoring a commercial-free showing of Schindler's List.)


UPDATE: I saw this ironically after I made this post, and So-Called Austin Mayor links to it in the comments below. Ford continues its corporate policy of always being on the wrong side of history. Nice work, Ford!

I wish I had an answer to that. On one hand, we should go on with our lives as much as possible, to prove to God and the World that the terrorists haven't won. On the other hand, it seems disrespectful to play a silly game when thousands of Americans - both soldiers and civilians - lay slain in the blood soaked streets, victims of the War on Christmas.