Year: 2004

Thomas Sowell writes so many columns that they ought to stop calling the list of them over at townhall.com an “archive” and start calling it a blog.

It’s been a couple of weeks since I checked in on his writing, but I see he’s cranked out several more gems.

Here, Here, and Here.

He is so smart.

Elton John has given an interview that the BBC is reporting on in which he speaks of the reluctance of celebrities to speak out against the Iraq War to the situation of McCarthyism in the 1950s. According to the story:

Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of “bullying tactics” used by the US government to hinder free speech.

“There’s an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious,” he told New York magazine, Interview.

Sir Elton said performers could be “frightened by the current administration’s bullying tactics”.

The singer likened the current “fear factor” to McCarthyism in the 1950s.

“As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts – or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter,” he said.

“[T]he Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticising the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he’s freely elected, and therefore accountable.”

Assuming that the BBC is being accurate in its reporting of what John said, what the heck’s going on here?

I don’t know how much Elton John knows about U. S. history, but the McCarthy Era (1950-1953) was a period in which the U.S. Congress was conducting hearing (led by Sen. Joe McCarthy) into alleged Communist infiltration into the U.S. government and military. McCarthy went too far and destroyed his own reputation (hence his name is now a by-word for government-led bullying). He was censured by the Senate and retired in disgrace. Ironically, McCarthy was right that there were Soviet infiltrators (Duh! You don’t think the KGB had anybody working for them in the U.S.?), and recently declassified intelligence indicates that McCarthy actually underestimated the number of Soviet agents there were. We now know that there were at least 349 such agents, only half of whom were ever identified.

Several years before the McCarthy Era, in 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated the Communist subversion in Hollywood and ended up citing the Hollywood Ten for contempt of Congress for refusal to cooperate with the investigation. So there was a case in which the government could be perceived as “bullying” entertainment inductry figures.

However, as far as I am aware, nothing remotely like that is happening now. The celebrities who have spoken out against the administration’s prosecution of the War on Terror, including the Iraq War, have been entirely unmolested by the government as far as I can tell, and Elton John’s reference to government “bullying tactics” is remarkably short on specifics as to what those tactics are–at least as it is reported by the BBC.

The fact that “as of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts – or anti-war songs that catch on” is due to three factors: (1) major hostilities are already over in the Iraq War and the clean-up phase, as difficult as it has been, has not turned into the kind of morass that Vietnam did, (2) unlike the Vietnam war, the Iraq War was prosecuted as part of self-defense campaign to ensure national security in the wake of a devastating sneak attack that galvanized the American public, and thus (3) the American public supported and largely continues to support the war–at least to the extent of not being interested in organized protests or buying anti-war songs.

The problem Elton John has is not with the government, it is with the public.

Those celebrities who have encountered problems with their careers have done so not because the government hauled them up before a congressional committee and cited them for contempt of Congress but because the public decided it didn’t want to buy their records or watch their shows.

I happen to be one of the people who stopped listening to the Dixie Chicks after their comments last year. For those who may not be aware, while on tour in England the Chicks’ lead singer made comments about the Chicks, as Texans, being ashamed of President Bush. My initial impulse was to be dismayed at their remarks but not to stop listening to them. I figured the Chicks would quickly be brought to their senses and apologize and there would be few long-lasting repercussions.

They had to apologize. The comments that they made displayed no grasp whatsoever of who their core audience is (i.e., country-music fans). Managers and record company officials would quickly sober the group up to the potential career implications of directly mocking the sensibilities of one’s core audience, and an apology would be forthcoming.

However, instead of apologizing, the Chicks issued a series of smouldering, defiant non-apologies that made a pretense of being apologetic. I mean, they couldn’t even muster up the wherewithal to give an acceptable phony showbiz apology to their fans. Every time they opened their mouths to “apologize,” they only made it worse. While this string of non-apologies was happening the Chicks did the absolutely bizarre thing of responding to the controversy by appearing on the cover of Entertainment Weekly stark nekkid with politically-charged words written all over their bodies (e.g., Traitors, Hero, Boycott, Brave, Dixie Sluts, Free Speech, Saddam’s Angels, Peace).

It was at that point that I decided–all on my own, without anybody from the government telling me what to think–“Okay, these people are too bizarre for me. Whatever skills they may have as singers, I’m not going to be able to listen to them sing for the foreseeable future without having to think about all this unpleasantness, and as I don’t want to do that, the simple solution is to stop listening to their music and stop buying their CDs. Perhaps increasing age, maturity, or business-savvy will prompt the Chicks to rethink their position and at some point in the future issue at least a passingly sincere apology and I can rethink my decision, but for now, that’s it.”

So the Dixie Chicks weren’t shot down in flames. They shot themselves down by mocking the sensibilities of their core audience at a nationally sensitive moment and then–like defiant children–repeatedly refusing to apologize to their fans and then doing the over-the-top bizarro stunt with the Entertainment Weekly cover.

There’s no government bullying here. People decided all on their own that the Dixie Chicks’ behavior was sufficiently unacceptable that they didn’t want to support them anymore.

Elton John, your problem isn’t with the American government but the American public. I wonder why it is that you don’t say so?

This story–Terror In The Skies, Again?–has been making the rounds on the blogosphere, but in case you haven’t read it yet, go ahead and read it now. It will chill you to the bone.

It is by a woman who took a plane flight with her husband and child and who may have witnessed a dry run for a future terrorist attack.

We know that the terrorists make such practice runs. Actor James Woods witnessed a dry run preparing for 9/11.

The article describes not only what happened on the flight but also the woman’s efforts afterwards to determine what it was she witnessed and also her efforts to determine what the authorities are doing to prevent attacks based on the apparent method she saw in use on the flight.

It is not certain that the author did witness a dry run, but then again, she may have.

As you can see from the end of the story, the author does not feel that the authorities have done enough to stop this kind of attack, but if there is a ray of hope here it is this: The terrorists may have been scared off by what happened after the flight. They may have concluded that they were too exposed and decided they need to go to ground and call off their plans.

Maybe.

Let’s hope so.

Don’t you just hate it, when every year more and more stores, businesses, TV and radio stations that used to say “Merry Christmas” start saying things like “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays”?

It burns me up when they do that.

I don’t mind if they add “Happy Hanukkah” or similar wishes to folks of other religions (though “Happy Kwanzaa” tests my limits, as being black isn’t–or shouldn’t be–a religion).

One of the local country music stations even runs public service announcements that say “Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Happy Kwanzaa! And to everyone else . . . Have a nice day!”

But it really irks me when businesses suppress Christmas entirely and try to get by with a politically correct “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.”

I’m sorry, but–as they say–Christ is the reason for the season. Hanukkah isn’t even a major holiday on the Jewish calendar. The only reason it gets prominence in advertising is because it’s close to Christmas (advertisers don’t want Jewish folks to feel left out). I don’t like it when people try to entirely suppress Christ and the boost he gives businesses’ sales at that time of year.

Makes me not want to support businesses who desire reap the benefits of the season without acknowledging its reason.

Turns out some other folks feel the same way. This story tells the tale of a man who is organizing a boycott of such businesses. Exerpts:

Manuel Zammarano has formed the Committee to Save Merry Christmas to protest the fact that big retailers profit from Christmas shopping dollars but refuse to mention the holiday by name.

His group has boycotted Federated Department Stores Inc., which owns Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, for collecting Christmas cash without giving Christmas credit for all the end-of-year gift buying.

May God prosper his cause.

I don’t like the commercialization of Christmas. In the words of Joel Robinson, Christmas is too often “a Christian holiday ruined by commercialism.” But I don’t like commercialists trying to reap its financial benefits while entirely remove Christ from Christmas.

I may wish you “Merry Christmas!” but I’d mean something entirely different if I said “Merry -Mass!”

ATTENTION OTHER BLOGGERS! IF YOU AGREE WITH THESE SENTIMENTS, CONSIDER BLOGGING THIS STORY! LET’S HELP MR. ZAMMARANO SAVE CHRISTMAS FOR THE CHRISTIANS