SamSaid!

MOVIES

     Whenever the US has been on a wartime footing, we have invariably had a barrage of war movies in which it hasn't been difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. It was true in WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam. Not so now. The Middle East Muslim terrorists have attacked us on our own ground as well as diverse places around the world. But the Hollywood moguls are reluctant to produce movies showing them as the bad guys. After all, we wouldn't want to offend the sensitivities of Arab/Americans, now, would we?? So when we get to terrorist movies, the bad guys are neo-Nazis (always a safe target) or aliens from outer space. But certainly, we wouldn't want to portray Bin Laden or Saddam as the bad guys. Doesn't that make you wonder?

     When you think about it, the answer is fairly obvious. The Hollywood elite have a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush, and they will NOT under any circumstances produce a film that makes George or his administration look good. Maybe 10 years from now (carefully edited), but not now. Take Barbara Streisand and her ilk as examples. In other years they have been very vocal in active support of Israel. Have you seen or heard anything from them lately? Without the support of Geo Bush and his administration, Israel could be toast. Even with the fate of Israel on the line, she and her buddies won't utter a word that could be construed as support for George Bush.

     So when you look for war movies, look for WWII re-runs or space movies. For decades, movies were designed to form public opinion, but when it comes to the war on terrorism in 2002-3, don't wait for the long beard ragheads, Bin Laden, or Saddam to be the bad guys. Look for the abuse of power in the White House. After all, the events of 9/11 were isolated, and the terrorist menace is overblown. That's the world as Hollywood sees it. If George B gets the credit, trash the whole idea.

     If you have a better idea, ask yourself, “why no war movies over the 2002-3 war on terrorism?”  After 2 years, still no movie about 9/11?  Oliver Stone would undoubtedly call it a CIA plot.

LICENSE

     I have had a driver's license for more years than I might want to confess. When I first got one, it was my key to independence  — to go where I wanted when I wanted. Then I put it in my wallet and largely forgot about it  — at least until I got my first speeding ticket. For a long time,  the key documents to protect and save were your birth certificate and your social security number. Not so any more.

     The other day I went down to the local branch office of my bank to make a deposit. I not only had to show my bank card, but also my driver's license for ID. The same thing is true in cashing a check. With ID verification more and more prevalent, the driver's license becomes critically important. At the airport of course, I have to present my ticket and my photo ID Driver's license. Never leave home without it, as the saying goes.

     With the realization of the importance of the Driver's license, I was apalled that our former Gov Gray Davis signed a law to grant CA Driver's  licenses to ILLEGAL aliens. Now get this  — these people have entered this country illegally  –  by whatever means. They live here, work here (some), enjoy our tax supported health care and welfare, put their kids in the public schools, and otherwise receive (demand) the benfits of citizenship. No passports, no visas, no green cards  — nothing. But just so they could  be more comfortable in living here illegally, then Governor Davis wanted them to have driver's licenses also. A few months back he said he opposed the measure and would veto it. Then in an effort to salvage what is left of his career, he signed the law in an effort to get a few more Hispanic votes in the recall election which he lost. 

     In days when we are trying to get a handle on illegal aliens who have evil intent, now we will issue to them a driver's license so they can move around more freely Maybe they can peddle more drugs that way. Doesn't that really hit a warm spot in thinking of big time political figures and how they spend our tax dollars and pander to special causes?

       Personally, I don't support the general notion of a recall election, but the thought of 3 more years of Gray Davis overcame any reservation I might otherwise have. I don't know if Arnold will be any better, but he sure can't be any worse. Everytime I think about securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegals, I will think of potential drug peddlers and terrorists driving around freely with a Davis license in their pockets.

     Isn't that pathetic??

RUSH

     Rush Limbaugh is a brash outspoken chap who will offer his opinion at most everthing at the drop of a hat. His radio show has legions of listeners and followers who see him as a breath fresh air or refreshing contrast from the claptrap coming left leaning mass media people  His critics regard him as a buffoon  –  perhaps an understatement.

     Earlier this year Rush accepted a job as one of the panelists on the ESPN NFL Today program preceding the Sunday telecasts. Although he is a rabid pro football fan, Rush was not hired for his football expertise. He was hired for his commentary with the thorough understanding that it would be controversial. The ESPN objective was higher ratings. Rush was the vehicle.

      A couple of weeks go, Rush commented that the QB of the Philadelphia Eagles, Donovan McNabb, was overrated because most of  the media people wanted to see a black QB succeed. He also offered the view that much of the Eagles' recent success was due to a fierce defense rather than McNabb's skills at Quaterback.  Now, one of two things obtains here,   i.e.,  A) was what Rush said true, or B) was what Rush said  his opinion. Either way, what is wrong with what he said?  Isn't that what he was hired to do?  Lots of football experts would opt for (A), and most listeners would accept (B). But not the lefties of the press.

     Naturally the Jesse Jacksons of the world and their surrogates expressed outrage over the “racist and insensitive” comments by Rush. What if his assertions were true?  Is that racist and/or insensitive? What if his comments or criticisms were well considered opinion? Is that racist or insensitive?  No doubt under a bit of pressure from ESPN, Rush resigned although sticking to his guns in what he said. The NFL rosters nowadays are 75% black. Is that Racism? Also, all NFL teams can be fined for failing to interview a black coach candidate (see Detroit),  before hiring one. Racist?

    There are two things at play here. When public criticism is directed at a black, it is automatically racist. And when it comes to insensitivty, the rule is “don't say things like that even if they are true.” Disgusting.

     I'll stick with Rush, and I hope he still says what he thinks. And for California fans, I am voting YES on Proposition 54.

MURPHY

     During the past few weeks, George Bush has met Murphy's Law, i.e., if anything can go wrong it will. His ratings have gone south with the “leak”, “WMDs”, the instability in Iraq, and the incessant carping of the 10 dwarfs seeking to oppose him next year. But on one point, he is dead right  –  i.e., the war against the terrorists will be long and difficult. Already we are seeing signs of erosion in the public will. The ACLU is more interested in defending POWs than in securing our defense  –  and the liberal courts concur. They erect all kinds of legal barriers and challenges to frustrate the FBI and CIA and  simply make it easier for terrorists to move around the country and function  as terrorists. I personally don't give a ratzass about so called civil rights when 9/11 types want to use our own rules to facilitate their evil intents. John Ashcroft is the current whipping boy, along with Pres Bush. People nowadays are more complacent, and the impact of 9/11 clearly has diminished. You know, “can't happen here”.

     In dealing with the Islamic terrorists, the problem is not the Islamic religion or the Koran. It is the long beard raghead clerics who preach death and destruction. The Ayatollas and the Mullahs. How do you deal with religious fanatics who think that suicide mssions are OK? And still talk about the “faithful” and the “infidels”? What kind of a God is Allah? Until there is a change of thought among the Islamic religious leaders, there will be no respite from terrorism. We are geared up to defeat STATE terrorism; religious terrorism is another animal. They can breed more than we can intercept and destroy. Do we have the will power to wage a 20 year war against these people? That is very likely what it will take. George knows that, but his left wing buddies keep saying that we must “negotiate”. Baloney (in lieu of the more appropriate barnyard term).

     There are 6 Million muslims in this country. Who knows what their leaders (American?) may have in mind? In some cases they may very well sponsor or support terrorism on our own soil. The thing that bothers me most about them is their silence. I just don't see them standing up against these long beard raghead muslim clerics who support suicide bombings and other terrorist activity  — clandestinely or openly.  Their silence is enough for all of us to beware.

     There are those who argue that the Koran does not espouse violence and death. I'm not convinced, and I won't be until prominent Islamic leaders rise and denounce their brothers who choose to interpret the Koran in their violent murderous way. But come to think of it, the Muslims  needn't fear  —  the good old ACLU will be right behind them and their “rights”.

     Great country, huh?  At least as long as it lasts.

BASHERS

     The Back-Biting Bush Bashers are at it again  –  with a vengeance. There are lots of problems in the US and elsewhere, and they are all George's fault, i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, India, Israel, Palestine, Yemen, North Korea, France, the UN, AIDS, Medicare, Tax cuts, deficits, clean air, the environment, the IRS, Social Security, the economy, abortion, and perhaps 10-20 more too numerous to list. All George's fault.

     Lively debate and criticism are the lubricants of politics and the battleground between the “ins” and “outs”. Certainly, President Bush is not immune to question and criticism. But the current bad-mouthing goes beyond the customarily harsh rhetoric between the “R”s and the “D”s. Perhaps the best case in point is the Beltway's Boorish Balloon, otherwise known as Teddy Kennedy. In his latest diatribe, he accuses the President and his staff of fraudulenlty creating the War against Iraq. In a way, I am surprised at Mr. Kennedy  — not for what he said and the terms he used, but because he was able move his considerable heft off his broadening backside to be interviewed. But I guess I should never underestimate his urge to get in front of a camera with a mike.

     The current verbal sewage coming from the Democrats, including the 10 would-be Presidential dwarfs, goes beyond politics, issues and differences. Rather, they are highly personalized attacks on Mr. Bush, whose personal conduct and principles stand so much in contrast to his predecessor who by all measures was a liar and moral degenerate. Even the courts said so. While there may be those who are well eqippped to direct criticisms at George and his administration, the Boorish Balloon of the Senate is not one of them. George may have his limits and shortcomings, but he does not have blood on his hands. Maybe someone should remind Big Teddy of the parable about living in a greenhouse and throwing rocks. In re Chappaquiddick, he would probably say that it wasn't his fault that she couldn't swim. That's about his speed. 

VACATION

     I have just returned from a 10 vacation  …….vacation, that is, if driving 2100 miles in ten days qualifies as a vacation. In my case, it did. Driving vacations generally involve a lot of sight seeing, and this one was no different. But this one was special for the things I did NOT see rather than the touristy sights one might expect. For example, I did NOT see long lines of automobiles or traffic congestion, and I did NOT see throngs of people pushing and shoving each other in an effort to be “first'. Instead, I saw the wide open spaces. Perhaps the highlight of the trip was contentedly dozing in the passenger seat while my wife drove at 80 mph – in cruise control- for an hour or two at a time. There were stretches of highway where an oncoming car was sort of an event. Great way to travel!

     The “wide open spaces” has become a cliche of sorts, but it is doubtful that a lot of Americans really know what the term means. City dwellers and easterners probably think “open spaces” means room to pass on the interstate. Not so with US 95 and US 26 in Nevada, Oregon and Idaho. No clouds, full sun, no cars and vistas on all directions. Even the sagebrush looked pretty good  ..  and the roads are in surprisingly good condition.

    Then reality set in. As we got closer and closer to the Bay Area, civilization reared its ugly head again. Here we were at 75 mph in multi lane traffic watching out for the lane-changing hotshots and trying to maintain a safe distance on both sides. In looking at the drivers of these speeding vehicles, I was reminded of the assortment of humans one normally sees while strolling thru a big mall. Not very reassuring. It is a sobering thought that just 5 feet away on either side there are dimwits who could convert me into roadkill in a matter of seconds.

     We are at home, and all is well. But I keep thinking about those stretches where we owned the entire highway  –  both directions. That's worth vacation time to me. You can keep Manhattan, the Loop or LA.

HOMOSEXUALITY

     In days of super-sensitivity, increasing thought control, and speech censorship even on college campuses, it is not easy to speak or write about homosexuality without setting off a firestorm, particularly since the US Supreme Court has prominently put it on the front page of the public agenda. History has not been kind to homosexuals. Over the centuries, different societies, religions, cultures and civilizations have treated homosexuals very harshly. They have been cast out, castigated, ostracized, demeaned, attacked, imprisoned, and killed  –  as though they were sub-human.

     Through all of this there have been creative and talented people who happened to be homosexuals. These folks may have been accepted for their skills and accomplishments, but very grudgingly. Here, the law of generalties holds true  –  i.e., it is far easier to castigate homosexuals as a group rather than individuals. The most pejorative terms have been applied to the genre. During my military service, “queer”, “fairy”, “lezzie”, “pervert”, and “deviant” were terms commonly used. Nowadays, these terms have been replaced by “gay”  –  a more positive label.

     Currently, homosexuals like to say that they are no different than other folks  –  they just pursue a different lifestyle. But that just doesn't wash with most people who visualize man on man sodomy, the Nambla people who advocate and defend older men/young boy sexual behavior, and the “in-your-face” images in the SFO Gay parades. The bulk of our populatiion simply does not accept homosexuality as a normal coupling relationship. There are 6 billion people on our planet, and none of them got here through homosexuals relationships. I think that simple statistic establishes the societal norm. Thus homosexuality can properly be described as abnormal. But…. understandably … homosexuals prefer not to be described as “abnormal”. Hence, the play on words such as “gay”, “different lifestyle”, “personal relationships”. etc., etc.

    Homosexuals are human beings and deserve to live unthreatened lives even though their sexual behavior may be highly offensive to others. But same-sex marriage is a horse of a different color. I just don't buy that. It seems to me that this is still another instance where a small minority is saying to the overwhelming majority of citizens, “Hey, we are here, so change your rules.” Marriage is special and different. It is for men and women. If homosexuals want to formalize their coupling, let them pick another word.

     Leave marriage alone.

THE GOV

     So what should an aroused citizenry do when it has a bellyfull of a miscreant Governor? It isn't just that Gray Davis has messed up the State royally  –  he still has three years to go in his present term. Consider  –  his favorable rating is about 20%, which means that a lot of Democrats in a heavily Democratic State have sent their thumbs down message. The only remedy under the California Constitution is recall  –  at least short of just allowing him to finish his term. But recall is a messy procedure indeed. The up or down vote on Davis is easy  –  replacing him is something else. Imagine  — Davis could get 40% of the votes and be recalled, and then be replaced by someone who would get, let's say, just 25% of the votes. Democracy works in strange ways.

     Virtually anyone with $3500 can get his/her name on the ballot to be the replacement Governor, and there are a lot of fruits and nuts in California, including the more notorious Kings and Queens of porn. How better to get a lot of publicity at a bargain basement price? I really hate top see all the chaos, but the prospect of Gray Davis serving 3 more years as the Governor of the State is truly frightening. But fear not, the 9 Democratic Presidential candidate midgets plus Hillary will appear prominently to support Davis.

     Schwarzenegger seems to be the front runner, but opponents point out that he has very little political experieice. True enough. On the other hand, Davis and his Sacramento pol pals have had decades of political experience and look at the messes they have created. So is political experience the critical prerequisite? It will all come out in the wash in 60 days, and any State that re-elects Barbara Boxer deserves what it gets.  In the meantime the rest of the country will be treated to a nightly comedy hour on the networks.

     Gray Davis probably wanted to push George Bush and Saddam Hussein off the front page  –  but not this way.

BARNUM AND BAILEY

     In California, the circus comes to town on 10/7, the election day for the Gray Davis recall. Davis has decided to campaign against the recall even though the polls suggest that the only thing about him that looks good to the public is his coiffure. The party line Dems are lining up in support unless there are last minute defections. Of course, they will vote party line even if Saddam runs for Lieutenant Governor. The big Repubs are delaying till the last minute for filing, however, an assortment of weirdos is emerging daily. It is not without reason that California is known as the land of fruits and nuts.

     A little known imponderable that could dramatically affect the outcome of the recall is Proposition 54 (the RPI initiative) that will also appear on the ballot. The Racial Privacy Initiative is sponsored in large part by Ward Connerly, a member of the Board of Trustees at UC Cal in Berkeley. Prop 54 is a follow up to Prop 209, also supported by Connerly, which prohibits race preferences in public education, hiring and contracting. Connerly is an outspoken opponent of affirmative action and other kinds of racial preferences.  Prop 54 would outlaw counting or categorizing individuals by race, ethnicity, color or national origin  –  officially it is titled The Classificationn  By Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origin initiative Constitutional Amendment. Connerly believes that accumulating statistics on the different groups perpetuates divisiness and moves further and further away from  togetherness in a colorblind society. He is a very effective speaker.

     Naturally, Davis quickly opposed the Proposition in order to attract support from minorities and liberal left wing groups looking for handouts.  Not surprising, but it is a calculated gamble. There are so many anti-Davis voices that his urging of a No vote on Prop 54  automatically gives credence and value to the Proposition and its supporters. A lot of independent voters could easily rationalize that if Davis opposes Prop 54, it must be OK. Maybe it is a case of who is pulling whom down the drain.

     The mass media will oppose Prop 54 as they did a few years back for Prop 209. But there is a groundswell of those who have had enough of preferences. Maybe the anit-Davis vote will make the difference. Stay tuned1

JUSTICE II

     A couple of attentive readers reminded me that I had misspelled the first name of France's Mr. Chirac. Sure enough, I omitted the (s) at the end of Jacque. Three explanations

     .  Aha! – gotcha. It was a quick test to see if you were reading the website material. You passed!

     .  During the French/German/ Iraqi fiasco, there were some writers who used the name of Jacque (no (s)). Evidently lazy writers who can't spell, or else found permissible dual usage. Or maybe they figured Mr. Chirac just didn't deserve the entire name.

     .  No spell check on the website page

     I'll give him the (s) whether he deserves it or not. Or maybe I'll just anglicize it into “Jack”. Same deadbeat either way.