Monthly Archives: August 2005

Michael Kinsley points out that our Iraq policy seems to be based on continually changing our minds about who the Bad Guys are or why we don't like them.

For reasons that defy all concepts of wisdom, logic and human understanding, the vintage game shows run on GSN in the wee, small hours of the morning are no longer identified by TiVo as What's My Line?, To Tell the Truth and so on. Perhaps this is temporary but if you want to record these programs, you need to take a Season Pass to Black-and-White Overnight, which is how they're listed as of today. As far as I know, what's airing hasn't changed…merely the way it's listed on TiVo.

I think tonight's What's My Line? (that is, the one that airs early Tuesday morning) is one with Lena Horne as the Mystery Guest. Then the Wednesday morning one, if it's the one I think it is, is kinda interesting. Jack Paar is the Mystery Guest but before him, the panel has to guess the occupation of Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller, who were songwriters for — among other notable folks — Elvis Presley. Last time this one aired, I wrote this message about it.

In the meantime, the new channel fronted by Al Gore called "Current" is coming through on my satellite on station 366, though the satellite still thinks this is NewsWorld International or whatever used to be there. Based on the last half hour or so, humans may not notice it there either, since the material on Current seems to be anything but current. So far, it's a lot of disconnected videos about lifestyles and couples shopping together. On the other hand, I don't think there's been a new cable channel that didn't suck for its first few months so I'm guessing things will change a lot.

Every so often on this site, I abandon what little dignity I can sometimes muster and ask you to donate cash so I can feed the neighborhood raccoons, pay the costs incurred in maintaining this site, or just buy something silly off eBay. Many of you respond each time, and I am grateful. But the last time I passed the cyberhat, I received an unusual offer from a casual acquaintance. Here's a seriously-edited quote from him. He engaged in lavish praise of me, my writing and everything on this site that is unrelated to politics and then he wrote…

…but it breaks my heart when between the items I enjoy so much, I see you linking to political articles or even writing them yourself showing so little respect to our Commander in Chief and the leader of our great nation. I respect your work in TV and comics and I even admire the way you express yourself but I cannot agree with your view of George Bush and the War in Iraq and I think we need more than ever to get behind him and support what the U.S. is doing over there. I fail to understand how someone as obviously bright as you cannot see that.

Since it pains me so to read one of my favorite writers being on the other side, I would like to make you a serious offer. I would be glad to make a monthly donation and not a tiny one if you could see your way to eliminate political posts from your site. I am not asking you to change your mind about anything. I would just like to see you confine yourself to comics and TV and movies and all the other things I enjoy reading about when you cover them. You are not going to convert me to your point of view and I wish you would stop trying.

Okay, first point: Anyone who wants me to take them seriously when they say that good Americans support their president and show him respect will have to either (a) show me some proof that they felt this way when the previous occupant of the White House was being trashed or (b) tell me how someone who feels any Chief Exec is making serious errors can express this without having their patriotism and respect for the office impugned. It has never been part of any serious concept of America to believe that we must show blind fealty to whosoever happens to be in a public office at any given moment. In fact, I've never encountered anyone who really believes that. They just believe it while it's their guy getting bashed.

Secondly: If someone wishes to understand why some of us think George W. Bush is a bad president — one who's doing great damage to this nation and not even serving the causes he claims to be serving — I suggest you read this article over on Salon by Doug Bandow. You may need to watch an ad or something but it may be worth it if you really want to understand. Mr. Bandow, by the way, is not a crazed, partisan Democrat. He's a pretty well-respected Reagan-brand conservative.

Thirdly: Thanks for the offer but it would be no fun to do this weblog if I couldn't write anything that popped into my head. I haven't even taken paid advertising here because the few offers I've received have been from outfits I might want to criticize some day.

Lastly: I don't believe that postings on a weblog ever really change anyone's mind about anything of substance. I think we just do them because it feels good to express yourself. I am under no delusion that I will ever convince even one human being with an opposing worldview to come on over to my side. If I could, I'd want to get them to stop looking at the world through this "Them vs. Us," red state/blue state mentality where everything their side does is noble and wise and competent, and everything the other side does is treacherous, treasonous and inept. Decades ago, a teacher I had suggested that one should always read the opposition viewpoint and attempt to understand why people felt as they did, and to what extent their views were valid. These days, especially on the Internet, people seem to flee from opposition views. If they read them at all, it's to find some way to hurriedly dismiss them as crackpot and disingenuous.

Don't be afraid of views that don't match yours. Recently, I posted that I thought folks on both sides were believing a lot of "facts" on the Plame/Rove/C.I.A. story that were of dubious veracity. I said I don't think we know as much about this case as we think we do. I got an almost matching pair of e-mails — one from a gent who is certain Rove is heading for the slammer and that it's foolish for me to suggest it isn't so; another, from a lady who believes firmly that the matter has been settled and he's already been proven innocent. I think that if these folks opened themselves up to views that didn't tell them what they want to hear, they might get a little more accurate picture of the situation. But maybe that would spoil the fun.