Saturday, July 17, 2004

Michael Moore Exposed!

My friend, joyce, sent me this to my e-mail not too long ago.  It is written by one of the best journalists out there, Christopher Hitchens.  He exposes "Buffet Boy" Michael Moore for the weasel that he is.  Before that, it is very apalling how MM could desecrate the title from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.  Now, Mr. Hitchens article.  Please enjoy!

Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore.

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.html
Posted: June 21 2004 3:26 PM

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeerawould, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna * and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Timesof June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports.


Article courtesy of my friend, Joyce.

A Friendly Request

A friend of mine just asked me if I could post a link for her.  Here is the "transcript" and the link.
 
I was wondering if you can post a mention in one of your blog posts about Jason Gross's diabetes run that is in progress now on your board sometime? Here's a link to his page:
http://www.diabetesrun.com
 
 

Baseball

For fans of Major League Baseball, the first trade deadline is two weeks away from today, July 31.  It seems that Seattle is doing some housecleaning, by designating SS Rich Aurilia and 1B John Olerud for assignment.  They traded Freddy Garcia to the White Sox last month, and could manager Bob Melvin be next? I would not be surprised.  I can see Aurilia going to the Cubs, since they need a shortstop, due to the injury of Alex Gonzalez.  Also, Aurilia would be reunited with manager Dusty Baker.  Unless Olerud hangs it up, could he be in a Dodgers or Padres uniform?  I know that he recently voided a trade to San Francisco, but I guess that option should not be ruled out.  It would give the Dodgers a cheaper alternative, especially it seems that Carlos Delgado will not waive his no-trade clause. 
 
If I were the Cubs, along with my hometown Phillies, I would look for depth in starting pitching.  With the injuries to both Mark Prior and Vicente Padilla, a "rental" would not be a bad idea, especially both teams in the heat of the pennant race.  Besides Seattle, it looks as if that Colorado, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City are in selling mode right now.
 
I just heard on TV that the Mets may be trying to trade OF Karim Garcia.  He would be a nice bench bat for a contender.  Just a thought. 
 
More to follow later. ...    

Dirt On Edwards!

What you don't know about Senator John Edwards!  Here is the link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/7/105248.shtml
 
This is from a man who was a close confidant to former President Clinton.  As always, the mainstream media gives it a free pass.  You be the judge!

AP Poll: More Voters See Bush As Arrogant

Like many other polls, they mean little.  Besides, what is their sample, and is it proportional?  At least the LA times admitted that they skewed theirs recently to favor the liberal (Democrat) base.  When it comes down to it, I want someone will make a decision, take a stand, and stay with it, in that high of a position.  President Bush does not, "Lurch" does not.  JohnKerry flip-flops so much that I do not think that he knows which side is up!  Intelligence, like looks, is not everything.
 
Here is the link:AP Poll: More Voters See Bush As Arrogant http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040713/ap_on_el_pr/candidate_qualities

Must-read for Undecided voters!

The link that I will provide here is from former New York City mayor Edward Kotch,  a Democrat, who was not at the get-together at Radio City Music Hall, which cost Whoopi Goldberg her job with Slim-Fast.  (Apparently, she needs it for her humorless mouth. )  I would take that he had a reliable source to write this.  Here is the link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/13/142250.shtml
 
Like Zell Miller (D-GA), I guess that Kotch has seen the light.  Hopefully, the citizens of this great country of ours will say the same on Election Day. 

"From The Crapper"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20040715/od_nm/odd_excrement_dc
 
I just saw this in the Oddly Enough section of Yahoo! News.  Please click on the link and read it.  Have we seen it all, yet?
 
I was watching Dennis Miller on CNBC the other night, and had a story in his "Daily Rorshach" segment (I apologize if I spelled that wrong), that a man was seriously injured when the portable toilet that he was in exploded.  Apparently, he lit up a cigarette while doing his business.  I wonder how that will effect the ozone layer, Algore!

2004 Presidential Debate Schedule

The link provided below is the debate schedule for our next Presidential election.:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040715/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_debates
 
Personally, I am looking forward to Vice President Cheney to make mince meat out of NC Senator John "Two Americas" Edwards, the running mate for Democratic Party potential nominee John "Flipper" Kerry. 
 
The American people should pay close attention to these, and shall see who the best man for the job will be- President George W. Bush!

Halls of Appeasement

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_philippines_hostage_040715124352
 
After reading this story, you should see why you cannot neither negotiate nor cave in to the terrorists.  Even though I hope that this does not happen, I would not be shocked if they kill the hostage.  (For the record, I have two Filipino first cousins.) Let us find these animals and exterminate them, partisan politics aside! 

Martha Stewart

As you are aware, Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months prison, five months house arrest, and two years probation.  It seems like some see this as a death knell on Ms. Stewart; however, I would not be shocked is she makes a Nixon-like comeback after she pays her punishment to society.
 
I wonder, though, if they will make use of her talents, and put her in the kitchen?  I also wonder how much the stock of her company will drop on Monday.  Friday's close reminded me a lot of the dot bombs of the late nineties.  Sit back and watch.
 
Here is the link of the article, for those living under a rock:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_bi_ge/martha_stewart
 
 

Russian Nightmare

I just found this via (AOL) AIM.  Talk about mistaken identity.  Here is the link:
http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-RTO-reodd&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040715%2F1102385898.htm&sc=reodd
 
I know I usually joke that the only reason why I read the obituaries is to see if my name is in there, but this takes the cake.  I hope that his wife does get fraud charges put on her; although, I wonder where has he been for all this time?  I would love to hear your thoughts on this one.

Hello! (7/17/04)

Hello, again.  It is 1004 ET.  It is pretty much a county-wide cleanup today.  At least the weather is nice today.  This will hopefully be the beginning of the comeback trail for some of the communities in Burlington County, NJ.  The folks around here are very resiliant.  Despite the housing development blitz, there are still plenty of families that knew what it was like to live in "the old days", when a community would lend each other a hand, when times called for it.  Like NYC, the area will not just come back, but will look a lot better.  It will take time, but the areas of Medford, Medford Lakes, Lumberton, and my old hometown, Southampton, will look more beautiful than before.
 
I will be back later to contribute to my blog.  I am having a late breakfast; plus, I have to take care of.  Take care until next time!  Bye!

NASCAR Nibs

http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/headlines/cup/07/15/green_white_checker/index.html
 
The link provided above is in regards to the announcement made Thursday about the new green-white-checkered rule that goes into effect next weekend in Loudon, NH.  It will be effective in NASCAR's top three series, even though the Craftsman Truck Series already uses it.
 
Imagine if they had this at Talladega back in April?  I would have loved to see Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. (amongst others) have a shoot-out to the finish.  I like the idea, because I am getting tired of seeing races finish under caution as frequently as they have been.
 
Whether or not you like this new rule, my hat goes off to NASCAR President Mike Helton, and those behind the scenes of NASCAR's governing body.  Mr. Helton is always available to answer any gray areas during broadcasts, and explains very thoroughly, whether it deals with the scoring system, or a situation on the track.  Hopefully, these new "scoring loops" will alleviate confusion on the track as far as who is where.  Hey, it is a work in progress, and they are trying their best to make NASCAR, in my opinion, the most fan-friendly sport in the world!
 
In closing, my condolences go out to the Hendrick family.  "Papa Joe" will be missed by all in NASCAR.  May you rest in peace, Mr. Hendrick.

Friday, July 16, 2004

Obesity to be treated by Medicare?

I found this link in Yahoo! News this morning:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040716/ts_latimes/revisedpolicytreatsobesityundermedicare
 
According to the story, weight-loss treatments will be covered by Medicare.  Here is a partial quote from the article:
 
 "Obesity is a critical public health problem in our country that causes millions of Americans to suffer unnecessary health problems and to die prematurely," Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services (news - web sites), said at a Senate subcommittee hearing where he announced that Medicare officials were removing the statement that "obesity itself cannot be considered an illness" from the Medicare manual.
 
Mr. Secretary, I understand that; but, should I waste more tax dollars for some one that is too lazy to go for a brisk walk, and to homecook a meal?  I do not think so.  When will the vicious cycle of handouts ever stop? 
 
People need to realize that the only way things will change is for them to look in the mirror, and say, "I am going to do something about it right now!  It is time to stop feeling sorry for myself.  YES, I CAN!  I can do it!"
 
At this point, I believe, things can change.  It all starts with you!  The sooner you realize that, then you will be heading in the right direction.

Welcome, Everyone!

Hello, everyone!  Welcome to The Phillips Philes!  I am William N. Phillips, Jr.  You can call me Bill.  I will try to keep this brief.
 
I am twenty-nine years old and single, but I do have a girlfriend.  I received my Associates of Science degree in Criminal justice from Burlington County College, Pemberton, NJ, in 1997.  I like talk radio, NASCAR, reading when I can, and follow the Philadelphia sports teams. 
 
I will use this forum to talk about things that are of interest to me.  I will primarily focus on current events and politics, but I will throw in some odds and ends in, to change the tide a little bit.
 
As time goes on, I will be glad to tell you more.  For those who visit, I hope that you will enjoy it.