So basically, it’s not going to be a trial, but an “Inside the Actor’s Studio” for terrorists. Just yards from where thousands of innocent Americans perished, we’ll all get to understand the motivations that drove these men to do what they did. I mean, since we know they’re not going to deny their guilt– it’ no longer about justice. It’s just about “why, why, why.” We’ll learn exciting things about their childhood, their dreams of martyrdom, and how evil America is. It will be a show trial, without the “trial” part.

God, if only someone could have seen this coming.

Oh, wait…we all saw this coming. The only people who didn’t? Those who let it happen.

There are three reasons for that:

-One, those people are stupid.

-Two. There’s a belief shared by the “why do they hate us” faction of America that we are equally responsible for the terror attack. . If we were just better people – you know: nicer, less successful and less “American” – no one would try to kill us! Replacing Bush with Obama was supposed to help with all that. It didn’t.

-Three, we’ve elected people consumed by the idea of root causes – a pseudo-intellectual exercise that prevents a real understanding of evil actions. Every culprit can tell a story, but by listening to that story, you insult each and every one of his victims. But to abort any argument based on root causes, simply say, “there are plenty of unhappy people who don’t fly planes into buildings.” Of course that’s just too sensible for the best and the brightest.

My solution for this upcoming trial? A nationwide “shaming.” Don’t report, don’t decide. If we all agree to act as if the trial does not exist, then we can at least corral the poison that these people wish to spread. Our government may have given them the soapbox, but we can kick it out from under them.

Tonight, what a great line-up!

the return of Carrie Keagan!

Ambassador John Bolton!

Dr. Michael Baden

Diana Falzone

and…Jim Norton. 

Whew!

And it once was.

All this changed with the “cultural revolution” of the 1960s when objectivity went out of style.  The argument put forth by the Modern Liberals was that the individual is incapable of being objective.  They argue everything a person believes is so tainted by their personal bigotries – bigotries borne of the color of their skin, the color of their hair, the nation of their great-great-great grandfather’s birth, their height, their sex and their weight, etc. — that the only way to eliminate the evils of bigotry is to eliminate all attempts at rational thought.

Since the 1960s, the Modern Liberal has been preaching that rational thought is a hate crime.

Writing about this phenomenon as it relates to one of the communities most infected with the Modern Liberal dogma, the leftist news media, the great Thomas Sowell argued that the quest for objectivity has been replaced with the quest for  ”neutrality.”  What’s the difference between objective reporting and neutral reporting?

Consider a journalist covering a football game and the Jets have just defeated the hapless Patriots 57-3.  (Hey, this is MY post, I can make up the score.)  An objective journalist would write a report about how the Jets are a better team than are the Patriots.  The story would feature key plays and decisions that highlighted New York’s superiority to the New England franchise on that day.

Consider the coverage of Nidal Hasan’s massacre of 14 innocent people at Ft. Hood.   The objective reporter writes about the clear and obvious link between the murderer and his Muslim faith.  But the neutral reporter — the one who has been taught that he cannot imply in any way that one culture or one religion is better or worse than any other — will not only not write the objective truth, but he will seek to invent a narrative that proves the murderer has been victimized.

Just as the sports reporter could not write that the Jets are a better team and therefore had to turn the good into the bad (the cheater), the neutral news reporter had no choice (i.e. would not be a “good reporter”) unless he ignored the truth, which, in turn, left him no choice but invent a storyline where the mass murderer was the victim and his victims the bad guys.

“Neutrality” is just another form of the indiscriminateness that I write about and another example of how indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminatess of policy but rather invariably and inevitably sees the Modern Liberal side with evil over good, wrong over right, and failure over success.

Recently, I celebrated my eighth year of sobriety.  I have 9/11 to thank for that; it was shortly after the attacks that I began attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous with regularity.  I’d been to AA once before, at 25, when a DUI arrest landed me in “the rooms.”  But at the time, I still had 15+ years of drinking to get out of my system, plus a mid-life crisis to go through that sent me flying out to La-La Land (which is where I was when the towers fell back in my home town).

I’m proud I haven’t had a drink since 2001.  After spending decades trying to flee my “issues” like an adolescent hamster on an existential wheel, the fog gradually lifted from my brain and I stopped running.

They say when you drink, you stop growing emotionally, that you’re almost in a state of suspended animation – normal on the outside, stunted on the inside.  Sobriety gets the spiritual gears moving again.  Suddenly, years of pent-up, delayed maturation caught up with me – real fast.

For the first time in my life, I began to think clearly, regardless of the circumstance.  I copped to the fact I hadn’t been twenty-something in quite a while, that I had frightening familial responsibilities coming down the pike (a sick parent), and I learned how to pray (which, BTW, works).

I also stopped voting Democrat.  As it says in the Big Book, “we reject fantasizing and accept reality.”

The fellowship of AA provided consistency, and even some reassuring laughs.  But it also required some eye-opening.  The sad truth is that there is no such thing as a totally safe haven – and that includes AA meetings.  At least in LA, anyway.

AA meetings are supposed to be little Shangri-Las of  partisan immunity,where principles trump personalities, and “outside issues,” such as politics, are verboten.  But for years after 9/11, in meetings all over the west side of Los Angeles - and particularly in the gay mecca of West Hollywood - Bush-bashing and anti-war screeds from the podium were so common, they almost seemed like one of the Twelve Steps.

Call me naive, but I was shocked when one fellow alcoholic, in the midst of sharing his story before a crowd of maybe 100 (including some very shaky newcomers), actually implied that anyone who didn’t vote for John Kerry in the then-upcoming 2004 election didn’t deserve compassion.  Sure, ”George W” was also in recovery – but he was nothing but a dangerous “dry drunk.”  (Similarly, in group therapy a couple years later, our otherwise unbiased shrink ringleader recommended we all read Bush’s Brain.)

And so it was revealed to me that bigotry against conservatives is color blind, knows no creed, and has no shame.  That was during what I now refer to as the tongue-biting years.

At the same time, I also began to notice a strange contradiction occurring among my enlightened fellow booze-hounds.  Since Republican-smearing was de rigeur, never an “outside issue” – and even fiscal conservatives were invariably mocked as religious fanatics - I would have assumed that the Christian tenets of the AA program would get slammed as well.  Yet nobody blinked – not even when their sponsors nudged them to get with the program and chime in for the Lord’s Prayer. 

To quote Madge the manicurist from the classic Palmolive TV commercials:  You’re soaking in it!

Somehow, the notion of getting on your knees – to pray, of all things - got a free pass from the AAs I knew (despite the fact there there was plenty of un-serene venom directed at Catholics, and Christians in general, in their own personal accounts of ”what it was like”).  Did not these clever, recovering boys and girls recognize that AA was encouraging them to do exactly what they had rejected in their own (often Republican) families – i.e. to turn their will over something bigger than themselves, and trust in God? 

Remarkably, they just kept praying – and Bush-bashing.  We were all reassured that our individual “Higher Powers” could be anything, even a door knob, if that was easier for some of us to swallow than, say, Jesus.  So Hollywood AA turned out to be a bizarre mix of angry “progressive” politics and old-time religion – a cult-like “happening” of mass cognitive dissonance.

This may come as a surprise to some lefty lushes (and possibly our current President), but Alcoholics Anonymous was not founded by a Muslim (though there are plenty of Muslims in recovery).  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but AA founder, Bill Wilson, was not only an icky white male, and a God-respecting Christian, he was also - hold on to your seats - a lifelong political conservative.  Talk about a triple threat.

Yes, if Bill Wilson were around today, he’d probably be a “tea bagger” (the same way JFK would be a right-wing war-mongerer).   We know for sure that he opposed the stimulus bill of his day (FDR’s much-vaunted New Deal) and that he modelled AA on the teachings of an evangelical Christian movement known as the Oxford Group.  Why doesn’t that surprise me?

In 1938, a fateful year not unlike 2009, Oxford Group founder, pastor Frank Buchman, declared the time had come for national “Moral Re-Armament.”  Now remember, Buchman could be considered the granddaddy of Alcoholics Anonymous.  And normally, his brand of militaristic rhetoric would be enough to make most West Hollywood gays run screaming in the opposite direction (that, or publish names and home addresses of his disciples on the Internet).  Here’s a sampling: 

*  “The only sane people in an insane world are those controlled by God.”

*  “The true patriot gives his life to bring his nation under God’s control.  Those people who oppose that control are public enemies…”

*  “God-controlled supernationalism seems to be the only sure foundation for world peace!”

*  “A dynamic experience of God’s free spirit is the answer to regional antagonism, economic depression, racial conflict and international strife.”

*  “The true patriot gives his life to bring about his country’s resurrection.”

Makes Rick Warren look pretty good, doesn’t it?

Bill Wilson handpicked aspects of Buchman’s theories – such as “Lives must be changed if problems are to be solved” – and tweaked them to reflect his own firm belief that the only way to stay sober was through having a spiritual experience.  And the most foolproof way to have a spiritual experience?  Regular prayer, on your knees, expressing gratitude, whether you mean it or not.  In other words: no-frills “Christianist” behavior modification.

Despite his unapologetic faith, which many urbanites today equate with mental illness – unless the religion is Islam, of course, in which case it’s just healthy multiculturalism - Wilson was far from the closed-minded, violent bigots that Christians are usually stereotyped as on stage, screen, and in casual conversation.  Aside from drinking, Wilson cheated on his wife (probably), dabbled in LSD therapy, and even turned to the supernatural for answers in his never-ending quest for freedom from addiction.

But no matter what crazy detours he took, “Bill W” never took his eye off the ultimate goal: eagle-eyed sobriety.  He knew he was just a sinner among sinners.

The Christians I’ve met have impressed me with their grace in the face of adversity, their quiet combination of humility and hope (minus the audacity).  Maybe I’ve just met the best of the best, but from what I’ve seen, they don’t even expect God - and certainly not Big Brother - to take care of their problems for them.  They understand it’s a two-way street.

Bill W was such a Christian: an honest man who faced his demons, shared his struggle, used his brain, and brought renewed life to millions of people of all nationalities, creeds, and colors.  (And no, he didn’t believe black people should be slaves.)

If there is a lesson in this, it’s that – contrary to popular mythology - liberalism is not responsible for all the good works in the world.  Individuals are.  And thankfully, Alcoholics Anonymous is one altruistic miracle the Left will never be able to take credit for (as it too often does).

I didn’t get sober to continue living in a dreamworld of perpetual denial and fantasy, the way I did for most of my life.  Being a drunk is a lot like being a liberal – and I was both – always hiding from reality, making childish excuses, blaming other people for my shortcomings.  But with time, and patience, my Higher Power revealed to me something unexpected: the common-sense sunshine of the conservative spirit.

Sobriety, if not AA, finally gave me the freedom to think for myself, and to speak without constraint – a liberty which is increasingly under attack these days, in ways both vast and insidious.  That’s a freedom I won’t give up easily.  It took me too long to discover it. 

Some battles you’re born into, others you choose.  God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

It was a spoof of self-help advice books and offers rants and essays about the crazy world we’re living in, mainly focusing on most of society’s utter lack of manners and common sense. And because Tim and I are on COMPLETELY opposite sides of the fence politically, that dynamic made the writing crisper, funnier, edgier and a whole lot of fun to read. 

We first teamed up with a book called “Life: The Final Frontier,” which came out in Aug. 2001 and was doing well until 9/11 came along and we had 55 radio interviews canceled because the nation understandably went into mourning. But last year, we decided to try again in the true American can-do, bounce-back spirit and we got the rights to “Life” back, added 60 percent new material and re-released it through an indie publisher called Razor 7, with glowing cover endorsements from such comic and writing luminaries as Comedy Central superstar Carlos Mencia, Esquire editor and two-time national best selling humorist AJ Jacobs, and Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada. 

In the interest of the Thanksgiving season, I thought this excerpt might lend some laughs amid the hard times as people prepare to travel to their loved ones. If you like it and want to know more about how to get the book, click here and learn more about it and a great one-week-only deal. Either way, hope you enjoy this and the next excerpt on another frustration of daily life – basic auto maintenance! 

Here’s an excerpt from a chapter about modern etiquette: 

Living in America means that we have some fundamental freedoms, and one of the biggest is the freedom to travel. We’re Americans – so we have the right (or at least the ability) to go anywhere we want on the planet (except Osama bin Laden’s hiding place, and Al Qaeda’s HQ). 

But just because you CAN fly when,how or where you want, doesn’t mean you SHOULD. In fact, there’s tons of people who should never set foot on a plane or in an airport or, well, just about anywhere in public. And therein lies the need for a few basic rules. 

FLIGHT – or WANNA GET INSIDE A GIANT METAL TUBE 30,000 FEET ABOVE THE EARTH? 

You’ve gotta love air travel. It’s one of the great inventions in human history, and can take us from one end of the planet to another within a matter of hours. Flying used to be a grand concept, something to look forward to, the glamorous way to go anywhere. 

But nowadays, that sense of excitement is replaced by fear and dread: of terrorists, plain old crashes, endless waits in airport security, and a general reduction in service that now leaves you paying for your damn peanuts. 

Seriously, tack a dollar on to my ticket price and I won’t mind, but DON’T tell me you’re charging me for a half-ounce pack of unsalted snack treats. I can perhaps think of no better example of just how friggin’ cheap big business has become. 

Sure, there’s the first class section on a plane to allegedly make your life better. But is it really worth double the ticket price just to feel a little more comfy for the 90-minute flight from Milwaukee to Cleveland? It’s the only section you can still get served a meal in while flying, but come on: you should be paying them NOT to force airplane food on you, rather than REQUESTING a meal. 

Forget about “Snakes on a Plane,” it’s space on a plane that’s truly terrifying. There’s not enough room for me to even stretch my legs, but I have to wear a seatbelt so I don’t fly down the aisle if we crash. Right. Seat belts are supposed to keep you from flying out the window of your car. So what the hell’s the point of having them on a plane? Do they really think a 300 pound guy like me is going to be thrust 200 feet down the narrow center aisle, slammed through the steel-reinforced cockpit door, crashed through the front windows, and then launched forevermore into the ether? 

And don’t ever fly into or out of Florida, unless you’re willing to spend an extra three days getting on and of f the plane. There’s so many old people in wheelchairs, it’s like a flying hospital in the sky. And I love how planes are the one form of transportation that needs to tell you 20 ways to survive a crash before you even take off. 

At least there’s not as many ex-cons and felons as on Greyhound – unless you’re on Southwest, which is so cheap, I call it Greyhound in the Sky. If you can’t afford to fly Southwest, save your money, buy a gun and kill yourself. At least you won’t be spending three days going cross-country with a guy who just got out of the clink for being a child molester. 

GOIN’ GREYHOUND – or THE SUREST SIGN YOUR LIFE ISN’T GOING SO WELL 

Riding a bus across town is scary and embarrassing enough, but riding a cross-country just to save 56 bucks that you’re going to spend on the crappy food at rest stops anyway is ridiculous. But hell, even I’ve ridden Greyhound a few times (including to Vegas – ah, the glamorous life!) so here’s some tips to alleviate your trauma: 

First, beware of everyone around you. Possibly even the driver. You never expected to see the other riders outside of a carnival midway or a racist ’70s cop show. There’s two types of people who ride Greyhound: convicts and grandmas. Both are likely to sport tattoos, and sometimes you can’t tell the groups apart. Let’s just say there’s some scary grandmas on Greyhound. 

There was a dude once onboard who had tattoos above his eyebrows. Then, just as I was thinking, “He never cares if he gets a job again,” he admits openly and loudly that he just got out of prison. Trust me, there’s nothing you can say to a guy like that that can lead to a more productive or healthy situation, so don’t say anything. 

In addition, almost everyone who rides on Greyhound looks like they’ve stepped out of a Diane Arbus photo. But hey, this is life on the edge. Who cares if the most normal-looking person on the bus is an Irishman with one eye? The conversation is straight out of a David Lynch movie, but the travelers are genuine Americans. The experience will leave you praying for our nation’s future. 

A full day of fun for all, to be certain. In any case, pack a camera. You can use the photos in court later when you sue Greyhound, and your grandkids will cherish photos of freaks at the turn of the millennium for decades to come. 

With all the human tragedy buses and trains have to offer, not to mention the unique friendships one can forge there, how could you ever consider riding a plane again?

Even though I have lived in the D.C. area for a little less than three years, I recently watched  “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” for the first time. The movie revolves around an appointed Senator who brings his hopefulness and his integrity to Washington D.C. James Stewart plays Mr. Smith, the head of a boy’s organization, who is surprisingly given a chance to serve his country in the United States Senate. He is a Governor’s political appointee who some believe will cave to political pressure and make his voting decisions on the advice of a corrupt but highly-respected Senate colleague. Mr. Smith refuses to accommodate that fellow Senator and the demands of the political machine in his state that fights against him and he eventually loses confidence in the entire political system.

When Smith recognizes how blatantly corrupt some politicians are, he heads to the Lincoln Memorial planning to leave the nation’s capital after the media and his fellow Senators have disgraced his name. His secretary, Clarissa Saunders, meets him there and she notes the following about Senator Paine and Jim Taylor, two of Smith’s high-profile critics:

Your friend Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every other man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them did not stop those men. They were fools that way. All the good that ever came into this world came from fools with faith like that. 

After that part of the movie, Mr. Smith is given a choice. He can return to his home state and try to repair the damage to his reputation that was caused by the accusations lobbed at him or he can return to the Senate and fight for his honor. Mr. Smith decides to return to the Senate, where he mounts a filibuster to get his message out to the people of his state.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Smith, an icon of idealism and integrity, has become a paradigm that politicians enjoy being compared to. Several months ago, Liza Mundy from the Washington Post, wrote a piece about the film and noted the importance of the movie. “Its influence,” she wrote, “is rooted in the idea that a virtuous innocent can take on a rotten political system — and win.” Mundy later wrote that  “perhaps at no time has the film been invoked as often as during the 2008 presidential election, a race in which everybody was trying to claim the outsider status that Smith embodies.” Bundy noted in her piece that depending on your political persuasion, both President Obama and former Governor Sarah Palin can and have been compared to Mr. Smith.

If you took a broader perspective today of Mr. Smith and viewed him as an advocate for the people over the forces of politics as usual, you would see how such “fools” are necessary in the nation’s capital these days and how critics often go after such “fools.” In Washington D.C., the amount of money given to a state or a district in earmarks can be seen as a major political plus while people who are fiscally conservative can be criticized for not soliciting or accepting more money from the federal government. Is it a “fool” who wants to fight for fiscal responsibility when our deficit is so high? On the matter of health care, is it foolish for our elected leaders to take their time and meticulously debate reform that will affect millions of Americans, like some elected leaders like Senator McConnell want to do. Is it a “fool” who wants health-care reform to be debated and discussed thoroughly while others want to push through the legislation quickly? On the same subject, is it “foolish” to ask our public officials to read this important piece of legislation before they push it through? Is it “foolish” to want to know what is actually in this massive health care bill before it becomes law?

With such questions about “foolishness,” some would likely ask the obvious question: do we have Mr. Smiths in Washington today? I believe that we do have such people in our capital. We have Mr. Smiths in Washington who fight for accountability and transparency and who fight for their ideals and their values over their party’s principles.

For one, I am reminded of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. In 2000, Democratic Senator Lieberman represented his party as nominee for vice president but six years later, he lost the primary in his own state. Believing that the voters of both parties and many independents would support him, Lieberman ran and won as an independent and he has deserved that title in the Senate. Although he still supports the Democrats on a lot of issues, Lieberman supported John McCain in last year’s election much to his own detriment, and he has recently opposed parts of liberal health care reform, once again facing critics from within his own party. Some may consider Lieberman a “fool” for standing with Republicans on issues like health care or national security issues but others, like myself, consider him a leader willing to stand up for his principles.

If you have not seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” I highly recommend it as a classic film about maintaining integrity in the midst of harsh criticism. We do have a couple Mr. Smiths in Washington today but this country could always use more such leaders in our nation’s capital today.

It was a spoof of self-help advice books and offers rants and essays about the crazy world we’re living in, mainly focusing on most of society’s utter lack of manners and common sense. And because Tim and I are on COMPLETELY opposite sides of the fence politically, that dynamic made the writing crisper, funnier, edgier and a whole lot of fun to read. 

We first teamed up with a book called “Life: The Final Frontier”, which came out in Aug. 2001 and was doing well until 9/11 came along and we had 55 radio interviews canceled because the nation understandably went into mourning. But last year, we decided to try again in the true American can-do, bounce-back spirit and we got the rights to “Life” back, added 60 percent new material and re-released it through an indie publisher called Razor 7, with glowing cover endorsements from such comic and writing luminaries as Comedy Central superstar Carlos Mencia, Esquire editor and two-time national best selling humorist AJ Jacobs, and Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada. 

In the interest of the Thanksgiving season, I thought this excerpt might lend some laughs amid the hard times as people prepare to travel to their loved ones. If you like it and want to know more about how to get the book, click here and learn more about it and a great one-week-only deal. Either way, hope you enjoy this and the next excerpt on another frustration of daily life – travel etiquette! 

Here’s an excerpt from a chapter about basic auto maintenance!: 

BASIC AUTO MAINTENANCE (OR: WHY YOUR MECHANIC MAKES MORE THAN YOU DO) 

Have you ever driven your car away from the auto shop and had the uneasy feeling that the entire staff there was laughing like hyenas at you behind your back? That is a common feeling, and there is a simple reason why you think that. 

They are. 

“But why?” you may ask, “Why are they having a laugh at my expense?” The explanation for that is pretty easy, my friend, and deep down inside you probably already know it. Let us set the time machine back a few years and look at things as they were when you were in high school. 

Chances are you thought you were pretty darned smart back in high school. Remember? You were on the debate team, the yearbook staff, you may even have been the valedictorian of your senior class. Your parents were so proud they gave you a car. They helped you take care of it. Then you went to college and really wowed ‘em. 

Wow. 

But before we move on, let’s go back to high school. Remember that guy who took all the shop classes? Remember his friends? What was it you called them, Motor Heads? Grease Monkeys? Wrench Jockeys? 

Boy did you ever look down on them! Ha Ha Ha! Look at the shop guys! Losers! 

Admit it – that’s what you thought. But now you’re fresh out of school. On your own. With your own car. Your own used car, that is. Funny how life works. 

See, Mom and Dad aren’t going to pay for the repairs now that you’ve struck out on your own. So guess who’s laughing now? That’s right, Smartypants…all those guys you looked down on in high school. 

Admit it – when you take that car into the shop you feel as dumb as a brine shrimp. When the man in the coveralls looks at you and gestures back at your disabled transportation, you haven’t got the vaguest idea what he is talking about, do you? 

Be honest. 

If you are the average person you wouldn’t know a catalytic converter if there was one floating in your soup. That’s why you’ll happily pay the “dumbest kid” in your high school class to fix it. See, he would know the catalytic converter if it was floating in your soup. 

So who’s the dumb kid now, Mr. Philosophy Major? 

While you wait in the repair shop for the former dumb kid to tell you what’s causing your 11-year-old dorkmobile to spew black smoke and sputter like a Cub Scout at a nude beach, perhaps you might want to check out the walls of the repair shop. Go ahead, look at the sign that lists their labor rate…Look at it! 

No, no, you didn’t read it wrong, Einstein. It says $75 an hour. Seventy-five dollars!

Even your psychiatrist doesn’t charge that. And without your car, you can’t even go see your psychiatrist. In fact, it’s not unlikely that you will see your psychiatrist in the waiting room of the repair shop as well. See, he doesn’t know what a catalytic converter is either. 

The hour and a half you wait for the mechanic to return from the bay and tell you what’s wrong with your car is the longest ninety minutes you will ever spend. You’ll try to distract yourself by reading the three-year-old copies of Sports Illustrated they’ve thoughtfully left for you. Maybe you’ll buy a can of pop. Perhaps you’ll treat yourself to a nice gumball. If the repair shop is nice they’ll even have free coffee for the patrons. Go head! Have a cup of java on the boys in the bay! At $75 an hour, they can afford it. 

Finally, after half a pot of the strongest coffee this side of Istanbul, the mechanic will come out and call your name, If you’re smart you won’t answer. You’ll run for your life. 

He’s about to start telling you why you have to give him five hundred dollars. 

He’ll start with the phrase, “Well, we checked the engine on the computer and this is what the problem is…” That’s the last thing he’ll say that you will understand at all. 

Except the five hundred dollar part. 

He will ramble on about the alternator fan belt or the fuel injectors or the overhead cams. All the while your eyes will glaze over. You will have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. 

He will know that you have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. But he’ll keep on talking about parts that he is about to replace in your car….and you’ll nod. He will take an eternity to get to the only part of the conversation you really care about anyway. 

The part about the five hundred dollars. 

All along you will both know that you are giving him the money. But he’ll make you wait. 

Why does he make you wait? Why does he torture you like this? 

Because you asked for it, buster. You deserve every second of torture he dishes out. You owe him that five hundred bucks, even if all that’s wrong with your car is that it’s out of gas. 

Why do you owe him? Because you wasted all that time in high school and college learning philosophy. And mocking him. 

He knew you thought he was dumber than you. He wasn’t. All along he was plotting this day of sweet revenge in his grease monkey mind. You will gladly pay restitution to him for your arrogance, restitution in the form of five hundred bucks. Your psychiatrist will pay him the same restitution as well. 

It’s a good lesson in humility when you think about it… guess that’s why “kar” is the first syllable in “karma.” 

Thus endeth the lesson, but since you will inevitably face a mechanic who knows you know nothing at all about your car, here’s a short list of parts that your car does not have. Hopefully, this will save you embarrassment, if not money. 

Your car does not have a :

Defibrillator
Maypole
Blinker Fluid Reservoir
Crisper
Carbuncle
Mine Sweeper
Ionic Transmographer
Semiautomatic transmission
Time Portal
Solar Interferometer
Martin Landau Roof
Starter Pistol
Cheese Filter
Irradiator
Electric Slide
Clown Vent
Serling Rod
Catatonic Converter
Big Bad Voodoo Daddy
Aorta
Jimmy Hat
Snooze Alarm
Iambic Pentameter
Proton Torpedo Valve
Picnic Gasket
Litter Box

Back in the states he enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserve, and over the next three years served in many capacities before finding his way to the Pacific theater, where he met John Bulkeley and became his executive officer. Montgomery commanded a PT boat in many battles, and eventually headed up to Normandy as an operations officer for a destroyer squadron. While preparing for D-Day, he remembered later, “I saw Bulkeley on his PT Boat and waved to him. There was another man on the bridge with him. I had no idea then it was Jack Ford.”

Soon after D-Day, Montgomery was felled by a serious bout of tropical fever and was sent back stateside. In four years of war he had earned, among other decorations, the Bronze Star and a Chevalier ranking in the French Legion of Honor. All in all, Ford’s kind of guy. When it came time to cast the Bulkeley part in Expendable, the choice was obvious.

Montgomery arrived in Florida not having acted in four years, and the prospect of stepping in front of the camera again terrified him and triggered debilitating panic attacks. But Ford — capable of immense kindness when least expected — treated his problems with understanding, and over a period of several days gently coaxed him back into the acting groove. Ultimately, They Were Expendable would become one of the actor’s best performances, quietly understated but richly nuanced. Montgomery later said that

Ford had a great crew; they all knew him and they were all fiercely loyal. They’d have defended him to the death. They gave me as good . . .

So little of what I did in Hollywood gives me any pride of achievement. Three or four pictures out of sixty-odd. It’s not very much. Ford was the best I’d ever worked with: the only one I’d call creative. After Expendable I’d cheerfully have signed a contract to work with him exclusively. I don’t know that the idea would have appealed to him, of course. But I’d have been happy. He was a genius.

The respect was mutual. Near the end of filming, Ford took a nasty fall off of a studio scaffold and fractured his leg (“Jesus Christ, you clumsy bastard!” Wayne yelled when he and Montgomery found Ford writhing on the ground). When M-G-M called him frantically in the hospital, wondering who could possibly step in on short notice to finish the picture, Ford christened Bob Montgomery as the man who would direct the few remaining scenes.

After Expendable, Montgomery went on to a fruitful later career, first as a director of several well-regarded noir films, then as a popular television personality. His then-twelve-year-old daughter Elizabeth would later grow up to be a star, too — most famous for playing the madcap enchantress Samantha in the 1964 television series Bewitched.

Donna Reed (1921–1986), was just coming into her own as a young actress in 1944, and like so many others before her she was putty in Ford’s hand. In the beginning Ford deliberately didn’t speak to her for weeks, and his rudeness served to build up the hardened exterior she would need for playing her opening scenes in the hospital, stoically assisting meatball surgeons. Later on in the production, however, the wily director changed tactics.

Right before the scene where she is treated by Wayne and his unit to a charmingly improvised candlelight dinner, Ford suddenly softened her up with a string of lovely pearls, ostentatiously presenting them to her in front of the whole crew as a sort of tribute to the nurses of Bataan. This gift from the fearsome, crotchety director was so unexpected that her face lit up with a radiant glow which carried over into the scene, lending genuine conviction to her reactions throughout the dinner, the serenade, and all the way up to her tearful final line, “They’re just such nice guys!”

Film critic Bosley Crowther, the Roger Ebert of his era and no fan of stridently patriotic movies, would write in the New York Times that, “Donna Reed is extraordinarily touching in the role of an Army nurse who figures into the story in a brief romance which is most tastefully and credibly handled.” This was the start of Reed’s career as a true star, and the very next year she would appear in her most immortal film role, that of Jimmy Stewart’s devoted wife in It’s a Wonderful Life.

Incredibly, after They Were Expendable was released, the real-life counterparts of the Wayne and Reed characters both sued for damages, claiming that — even though the names in the movie are all fictitious — the film insinuates that they had a romantic relationship in real life. How anyone could complain about being portrayed by the likes of John Wayne and Donna Reed is beyond me, but in the end they both won damages in court (a few thousand for the man, several hundred thousand for the woman). And so it was this film that prompted the widespread use of the disclaimer we have seen on countless movies ever since, about all characters being fictitious and any resemblance to real people “living or dead” being coincidental.

Throughout the decades in which he worked, John Ford collected about himself a motley assortment of character actors, stuntmen, ex-soldiers, and personal friends, people he particularly enjoyed working with. Together they became informally known as the John Ford Stock Company, and over the course of thirty years they matured into an experienced acting troupe much greater than the sum of their parts, to the point where you can usually judge the merit of a Ford film based on how many members of his Stock Company are listed in the credits. Astoundingly versatile, they were by turns raucously hilarious or deeply affecting, depending on Ford’s whims. For fans of the director’s films, the sight of one of their weathered, well-loved faces on screen is always a cause for rejoicing.

Along with John Wayne, the Company’s most prominent member was Ward Bond (1903–1960). Both Wayne and Bond came to Ford in the late 1920s as a pair of frat-boy college football players from USC looking for summer studio work as grips, stuntmen, whatever they could get. A hardworking character actor, Bond had a different kind of appeal than the Duke, but one no less important to Ford’s films.

Bond was a human bulldog — pug-nosed, round-bellied, big-assed. He looked like someone’s father or brother, eminently blue-collar and dependable, with no guile in his face whatsoever. This allowed him to stand in front of a camera and bring lines to life that in other mouths would have sounded shamelessly corny:

“It means service — tough and good.”

No fancy wordplay, no flowery prose. Just honest sentiments, presented with all the simplicity you would expect from a rugged sailor searching for a manly way to express himself to his buddies. In Ford’s oeuvre, Bond continually grounds scenes in reality that might otherwise become too saccharine, as when in They Were Expendable he serenades Donna Reed (a scene that both Bond and Reed would repeat the very next year in Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life, with Bond playing Bert the Cop).

Like Wayne, Bond also didn’t serve during the war — rejected due to his epilepsy — and so instead became an air-raid warden in Los Angeles. In July 1944, he suffered a horrible accident while riding his motorcycle on Hollywood Boulevard. According to fellow John Ford Stock Company member Harry Carey Jr.:

He was hit by a car, and his left leg was torn to shreds. The story is that one doctor wanted to amputate it because it was evidently hanging by a thread of flesh, but Duke Wayne threatened to annihilate the doc if he did that. Somehow, after months and months of treatment and skin grafts, the leg was saved. Ward wore a huge brace on it much of the time, but covered it so well you could hardly tell. One part of his leg never did heal. He always had to wear some kind of dressing on it.

With Expendable filming at the end of that year, Bond was in no condition to play such a physically demanding role. Yet like with Robert Montgomery’s panic attacks, Ford reacted to the news with kindness. He kept his friend in the cast and worked around the injury, blocking his scenes so he wouldn’t have to walk more than a step or two in any one shot, and later having his character injured in the script so he could hobble around on a crutch.

It was a good choice — Bond is one of the highlights of They Were Expendable, providing generous helpings of pathos and comic relief in equal measure. One indication of the respect Ford had for his abilities is that Bond was paid more than any other actor on the picture aside from Montgomery and Wayne — $37,000 all told, compared to Montgomery’s $170,000 and Wayne’s $80,000. (For the record, Jack Holt made $30,000, many of the other second-tier actors brought in $15,000 or so, and Donna Reed got $5000 for her few days of studio work.)

In addition to Wayne and Bond, the two giants of the Stock Company, They Were Expendable relies on the talents of other longtime members. Russell Simpson (1880–1959) is “Dad” Knowland, the aged mechanic who refuses to abandon his forty-year home in the Philippines, and is last seen sitting laconically on his doorstep, totally alone in the jungle, cradling his shotgun and a jug of whiskey, waiting for death at the hands of the soon-to-arrive Japanese vanguard. And Harry Tenbrook (1887–1960) portrays the lovable lug “Squarehead” Larsen, the unit’s cook, who ever pines for “the Arizona to come steaming up the bay with her fourteen-inch guns blazing, and the best cook stoves in the Navy.” Neither of these actors were household names, but Ford gave them small, key moments to hold up in the picture, and as always they shine.

(Stuntman Frank McGrath (1903–1967) — a Ford favorite who over a decade later would become a star in the hit television show Wagon Train with Ward Bond — can also be spied as an unnamed sailor in a late scene. He’s the one who tells John Wayne “Glad to see ya back, Mr. Ryan” after Wayne’s character finds Brickley and his men once again.)

Special mention must be made, however, of Stock Company regular Ronald J. “Jack” Pennick (1895–1964). In They Were Expendable he plays Doc, the old weeping sailor being put out to pasture in the clip we saw earlier, but who ultimately stays behind to fight alongside the doomed Army on Bataan. His is a name few people remember today, but anyone who professes admiration for the movies of John Ford needs to know it. Jack Pennick meant a great deal to the director, so much in fact that he holds the honor of appearing in more Ford pictures than any other actor.

Pennick was a two-bit Hollywood trouper when he first met Ford in the late silent era, and he appeared in several of the then-youthful director’s pictures in the late 1920s and early 1930s. A particularly kind and gentle man under his rough, hangdog exterior, it impressed Ford greatly to later discover that Pennick was also a lifelong soldier — a tough-as-nails former Marine drillmaster who had fought in both World War I and the “Banana Wars” of the 1920s. As if that wasn’t enough, over the years he also educated himself into becoming one of the foremost experts on soldiery and military history that Ford or anyone else had ever met.

The two men got on famously, and soon Ford adopted Pennick as his all-around, ever-present aide-de-camp. He did virtually everything for the director, from waking him up each morning on location and hand-delivering his first cup of coffee, to tucking him into bed unconscious after a long night of drinking and poker. The man Ford affectionately called “the big six-foot-four-and-a-half mick” also served with him during World War II, devotedly following him around the world and supposedly (according to professional bullshitter Ford, so take it with a huge grain of salt) even winning the Silver Star. “Wild Bill” Donovan, the founder of the OSS, once reverently said of Pennick, “There is the most perfect soldier I have ever met.” To the end of his days, whenever John Ford would exit a car or enter a room, Jack Pennick would jump up and snap off a perfect salute to his benefactor.

All of this appealed greatly to Ford’s boundless sense of drama and history and duty, and he reciprocated Pennick’s loyalty many times over in the post-war years. In all the director’s greatest movies you can see the winningly ugly ex-soldier appear in some minor role, usually as a sergeant or barman. He was much more useful behind the scenes, mercilessly drilling pampered actors and teaching them how to comport themselves as real servicemen. Anyone wondering how it must have felt for John Wayne and the rest of the John Ford Stock Company to be worked over by ol’ Jack Pennick need only check out this little clip from Ford’s Fort Apache (1948), which has a funny scene of him whipping some green cavalry troops into shape:

My guess is that, given his druthers and some recalcitrant recruits, he could have given R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket a run for his money.

Pennick was also kept on hand to ensure that all the military costumes and lingo were as accurate as possible. It was he who famously walked into West Point during Ford’s filming of The Long Grey Line (1955), took one glance at an old coat-of-arms on the wall, and nonchalantly proclaimed it inaccurate — the swords hanging in the display, he assured the docents, were upside down. When they checked their manuals they discovered to their astonishment that he was right — the display had been hanging wrong for decades until Pennick tipped them off.

When today’s filmmakers, flush with the power of CGI and modern camera techniques, declare their gloomy anti-war films more realistic and thus superior to the hokey military movies of yore, I can only think of guys like Jack Pennick, men who infused old movies with their patriotism, optimism, loyalty, and expertise. One of John Ford’s greatest gifts to posterity is his immortalization of such people on screen, reminding future generations of their caliber.

Next Saturday in For Conservative Movie Lovers, we conclude our coverage of They Were Expendable with a look at John Ford’s postwar legacy, and his place in film history as a champion of the American spirit.

Previous posts in the series “John Ford, John Wayne, and They Were Expendable”:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

FURTHER READING AND VIEWING

Company of Heroes: My Life as An Actor in the John Ford Stock Company by Harry Carey, Jr. For those wishing to learn more about the group of Fordian actors mentioned above, there is no better source than this volume of delightful stories by Mr. Carey (who as of this writing is 88 years old and still hale and hearty). There are many laugh-out-loud (and some cringe-worthy) moments featuring John Ford, John Wayne, Ward Bond, Jack Pennick, and all the rest. A must read if you watch the films of John Ford — it will add layers of meaning to each picture, and make them that much more satisfying.

The Earl of Hollywood: a nice website dedicated to the life and career of Robert Montgomery. Lots of rare pictures, including ones of Montgomery as an ambulance driver in France, and in uniform on the cover of various magazines. Well worth perusing.

MOVIE TRIVIA ANSWER: Looks like no one came close to getting the answer to our trivia question last week. Future film director Blake Edwards, in his early acting days, played an unnamed sailor in They Were Expendable, appearing in two main scenes. First, he shows up as a wet-behind-the-ears seaman in the bar during Doc’s farewell party (he’s the one who gets a “very small beer” from actor and former wrestler Sammy Stein).

Much later his character is seen again, this time as a bearded, now-veteran member of John Wayne’s dejected crew, attending an impromptu funeral for two comrades and then listening gravely as the radio in the bar heralds the fall of Bataan.

If you think about it, Ford here creates a shattered mirror image of the first bar scene. Some of the same kids who cheerfully toasted Doc’s health with beer, sarsaparilla, and ginger ale are now at a much different tavern, this time drinking hard liquor, having in the interim become seasoned, war-hardened sailors fully aware of the meaning of “service — tough and good.”

All of these scenes were shot on Hollywood sound stages as opposed to on location in Key Biscayne, Florida, which explains why Edwards doesn’t appear in any outdoor shots.

Other movies the young Blake Edwards can be seen in include The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), where he plays a corporal at the ATC (Air Transport Command) counter in the beginning of the film (”Guess I’m goin’ to Cleveland,” he tells Andrews). He also played the lead in several schlocky B films, including the immortal Strangler of the Swamp (also 1946).

Several months ago, Big Hollywood posted Steve Ditko’s provocative essay, “Toyland”. It was a powerfully written piece on creativity, philosophy, heroism and the disturbing trend towards nihilism in the culture.  As a result, “Toyland” got some interesting comments and Ditko has prepared the following as a response.

Written especially for Big Hollywood, here is Steve Ditko’s “The Ever Unreachable.”

THE EVER UNREACHABLE
© 2009 Steve Ditko

1. The controversy that is taking place with the issues in my “Toyland” article (on Big Hollywood) involves an ancient battle, a long history of opposing principles: The fundamental principles for and against reality. It is the real world of facts versus the unreal world of beliefs and claims; of true knowledge of right and wrong, good/evil, justice/injustice versus wrong knowledge and false authorities. It also involves the hero, a man acting at his best, and the anti-hero, the chronically troubled mind and behavior in the comic book world.

2. The fundamentals, the basic principles, are not clearly recognized, identified nor understood because they all involve a philosophy, a correct philosophy, versus the many incorrect philosophies.

3. A philosophy is a comprehensive view, understanding, of the universe (of life/man) and man’s relationship to it. It is philosophy, whatever its crude beginnings of philosophical principles (myths, fables, legends, religion) that rules man’s thoughts and determines his life’s values. The philosophical view is made, held, by the methods, degrees, of objectivity (reasonable), subjectivity (feelings, emotions), and intrinsicism (faith, authority). They define the world, life, man, truth, right/wrong behavior and justice. Those ideas, beliefs, reasons, principles determine man’s actions for and against.

4. The recorded actions become history.

 5. History is filled with men/minds continually making, accepting, acting on errors and continuing them, refusing to admit or correct them, thereby causing irritating, unstable conditions until those errors erupt in open conflict, violence and war.

6. There are history’s better periods because of better philosophical principles being accepted and practiced: The Enlightenment, Renaissance, birth of the United States, the years of trade and exploration.

7. Bad philosophical ideas led to bad periods of ethnic, tribal wars, the Inquisition, religious wars, years of numerous territorial expansion wars and empire-seeking wars among nations.

8. Everyone’s behavior involves accepting philosophical principles learned, practiced, in growing up in some family, group, tribe, religion or country. But not many minds choose to understand the validity of what is claimed as real and unreal, true/false, right/wrong, justice/injustice and by what reliable methods of understanding and proving.

9. Few minds are willing to clearly understand events that affect their lives. Even events like 9/11, terrorism, don’t cause the needed questioning, understanding, of one’s and other’s opposing belief systems, philosophies of life. There is not real concern to know the kind of consequences inherent in any belief, action or philosophy.

10. It’s the way many comic book fans, “historians”, don’t seek any fundamental understanding of the role of a hero or the reason, purpose, consequences of anti-heroes, rotting heroes and the deaths of comic book heroes.

11. Too many minds are willing to take the path of least resistance, go along with the crowd, seek the comfort of some in-group and be relieved of thought and responsibility by following some claimed, believed, authority. In comics, it’s with some editor, comic book expert or “historian”.

12. But active, better minds can choose to think, question and act independently in seeking and obtaining, a better understanding of ideas, actions and consequences.

13. Our American founding fathers had read and understood Greek and Roman politics, philosophy and history.

Our founders did not want an American government with a ruler like a king who can claim rule by might is right and exercising oppressive and even total power.

Our founders wanted a constitutional republic of right is might, where elected presidents are bound by laws that limit their authority and powers.

14.  They challenged, examined, questioned, debated and struggled to identify, establish and defend the principles of “certain unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” including property rights. (Who “owns” one’s comic book collection? By what right?). 

15. Since they wanted, needed, to have a united colonial effort against the Divine Right of a King, against his absolute ruling power over all others, the founders compromised with the slave states. 

16. But a king’s Divine Right is a derivative right and not the fundamental right. 

17.  That unfortunate error, never fully faced, was the understanding that the slave states claimed their own “Divine Right”, the Divine Right of Ownership of Individuals as Slaves, as Property to be Used and to be disposed of, having no value therefore useless, worthless. It’s the way some editors view comic book heroes.

18.  Both the Divine Right of a king and the Divine Right of the ownership of other men as slaves, property, rests on the Divine Right of the Irrational.

19. That “right” is a chosen, claimed absolute, a supreme ruling power over everything especially over another individual’s body, mind and life.

20.  What was evaded, denied, rejected, is Aristotle’s (384 BC-332 BC) definition: “man is a rational animal”. Rationality and irrationality are potentials to be chosen, practiced and actualized. Rationality includes Aristotle’s Correspondence Theory of Truth and his Law of Identity: A is A. Their violations–irrational acts–result in ongoing errors, wrongs, failures and injustices.

21.  And later, there’s Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) “Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.” Compromises, contradictions, cannot exist in nature. Thinking, accepting, acting on the wrong, untrue contradictions must result in errors, problems, trouble, disasters as the early history of manned flight—airplanes—offers one clear example and the successes of Thomas A. Edison’s many inventions shows how reality rewards the true correspondence of fact/knowledge/ideas/success.

22. To be rational, a man must choose to be consistent in his thinking—non-contradictory—and to use the proper method of reason—logic–to be objective. Any compromise, corruption, between the rational (real) and the irrational (unreal) must lead to wrong, bad, harmful, even disastrous, consequences in practice as criminals and dictators continue to prove. 

Some, even many, will complain that everything isn’t being fully explained, documented. They can’t and won’t think in principles, a general truth on which other truths depend. It’s the way a criminal act of initiating force/fraud reject the principle of rights, the law, the legal system, even society. 

 23.  There was a fan crusade in 1986 for the return of Jack Kirby’s art pages being held by Marvel Comics. The fans involved were not interested in the principle that all artists’ pages held by all comic book companies, and all pages held by others not sanctioned by the artist, must be returned to the artist.

24. That crusade was for only a very special interest, privilege, for only one artist—Kirby—having a moral, legal, right to his art pages held by Marvel, so all other artist’s pages, in effect, “legally”, “rightfully”, belonged to whoever had or could get them, an idea which is believed and practiced today. But it’s an either/or: Either a valid principle for all or anything goes.

25.  The founders’ anti-principle, error, compromise, led to the Civil War and continuing racial, social, problems. With a part “truth”, it is the less demanding part that feels good, so right, so acted upon as the “real truth”, “real virtue”.

26. Wrong political philosophies, the irrational, the compromising, the contradicting, led to World War I and the internationally established League of Nations (made up of conflicting ideologies) that failed to prevent World War II.

27. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s compromise of establishing diplomatic relations with communist Russia, an antithesis of individual, property rights, etc., was like accepting and self-injecting a deadly poison into ones own healthy body. (Like accepting, injecting, neurotic flaws, antis, into a comic book hero.)

28.   The U.S. government’s ideological indifference and compromises made inevitable the “Red Decade” by infecting, corrupting, all areas of intellectual, political, economic, entertainment industry, the country’s social life and well being and security up to Russia stealing our atomic bomb secrets.

29.  Another compromise helped the USSR in its war against another anti-individual rights, anti-property and anti-life nation: Hitler’s Germany and his National Socialism, NAZISM, and on to the long, frightful Cold War. 

30.  A further compromise of rationality, rights, led to establishing the United Nations. Too many members were all kinds of The Divine Right of the Irrational power-lusters. Their ruling ideologies remain anti-individual, anti-mind, anti-liberty, anti-rights and anti-existence.

31.  This global association, with its collective delusions, its Divine Right of the Irrational power, creates all kinds of tensions among member nations. It has many ongoing scandals (oil, bribes, continuing conflicts, etc.) while the many hoping, wishing, wanting, supporting, praying minds still choose to believe that a world organization (any organization) built with power lusting members will succeed. Yet today, some 60 plus years later, where does man live in peace and prosperity?

32.  Or is the reason for the unstable conditions, widening unrest, open conflicts, terrorism and war the inevitable consequences of so many minds choosing and acting on errors, compromises against the principle of no compromise with an antithesis, the habitual method throughout history? What form of animal life chooses deliberate harm to its life in its best interest and continued survival?

 33. Aristotle, Bacon and many other rational minds, knowledge, principles and demonstrations that a contradiction is proof of an error are continually being ignored, evaded and denied. No rational mind respecting its own wellbeing should be willing to join a relationship with the irrational and expect mutual respect and benefit from the irrational.

34.  All kinds of harmful compromises from A to Z, animal rights to zoning laws, run wild today, by those accepting and acting on, forced action by The Divine Right of the Irrational.    

Some examples include: Banning DDT with the result of continuing and rising deaths by malaria; hate speech codes which harm free speech; zoning laws which prevent economic growth; the power of eminent domain, with deals between politicians and special interest groups, violates private property rights; environmental “laws” where the planet is sacred, inviolate, protected, and man is held, labeled, “a cancer” to be controlled, stopped, removed, where the Divine Right, irrational might, is believed, held, the enforced “right” and law.   

35.  We continually hear, see and bear in many ways the increasing bad consequences from the compromises, contradictions and corruptions, the deliberate rejection, of valid principles such as individual rights.

 36.  The United States government started out as a constitutional republic to protect individual rights and property rights with checks and balances on political power and with the rule of law, not of men. And today we hear more voices, read more about and see more, are affected more, of the United States as a “democracy” with diminishing checks and balances, more sanctioning, rewarding, legalizing protest groups (animal and plant “rights”) with increasingly anti-individual consequences in every way.

37.  The United States never had a laissez-faire capitalism system. There never was a separation of political power from economic power. There always were some government controls and increasing political power creating more and wider restricting, punishing controls over productive minds (anti-trust laws, etc.), over production, forbidding expansion, growth (anti-monopolies, trust-busting, etc.). They were/are all aimed at penalizing the risk-takers, producers and market success (anti-profit), rejecting capitalism for a mixed economy. (It’s like expanding flaws, antis, in comic book heroes.)

38.  In a mixed economy, the free part has diminishing freedom and the political part has increased, wider government controls, power. (Comic book heroes have diminishing rational virtues and anti-heroes have increasingly irrational vices.)

39.  What is claimed, supposed to be, believed to be a free market economy, free of political power intrusion, an actually operating capitalist system of free individuals, independent minds, in trade by mutual consent for mutual benefit is actually continually being restricted, controlled and punished.

40.  It is the free market, capitalism, which is continually, publicly, being blamed for all the economic failures, hardships. There is no real blame for the actual cause of the economic failures. The political intrusion, manipulation, deals with pressure groups, payoffs, special interest pressures and manipulations, undercutting and destroying individual rights and property, restricting and controlling individual minds, lives.

41.  There is no government’s political power acting as a policeman against market force and fraud but political power as a hidden, silent ruling partner free of blame.

42.  When there is no actual separation of political power (force) and economic power (free minds producing and trading values), then political might wins over rational right. It’s the way a hold-up man’s gun/force wins over the victim and his money, the irrational over the rational, the anti-hero over the hero.

43.  The history of government power, intrusion—it’s anti-trust legislation, anti-nuclear power, anti-oil and gas exploration to protect nature, etc., is one of The Divine Rights of the Irrational and not the actual, valid, constitutional republic policies arrived at with defining rights, responsibilities, valid questioning and debates and the burden of proof.

44.  The irrational always seek some unearned, undeserved benefit and always seek to blame the authentic producers for failures caused by the irrational power luster who interferes with the rights of others, forbidding their legitimate rights to control their thinking and action, to be against the ambitious risk takers trying to create the new, the better, where all can profit.

45.  Coercive power fears change by others, outsiders. Power prefers stagnation, even repression as with tribalism, closed societies, dictatorships, even comic book universes. Yet the mind is an ever-active faculty and some minds are constantly seeking something new, better, the more rational, truly good.

46.  All new businesses are based on the prevailing dominant philosophical premises and they adapt, change, as different new ideas or principles gain power, prestige: silent movies to talkies, Technicolor, TV movies, video tapes, DVDs, etc. Some ideas lose influence, support, the way liquor was out, prohibition was in, but a failure so then out and back to liquor.

47.  The automobile (electricity, refrigerator, radio, etc.) changed the nation’s life style. It expanded, created, new and better businesses and better minds for getting, making and using metals, oil/gas, factories, mechanics, service stations, better paved streets, expanding highways, a better life style over the days of the horse and buggy.

48.  It all took better minds, knowledge, those willing to risk and fail. Some who failed couldn’t compete, blamed others, the “system”. There were the envious accusing the successful of being selfish, greedy exploiters, profiteers and worse, but the majority, even the protesters, benefited.

49.  Man/mind at his productive best offers an admirable view of man. But it is not always believed, held, accepted, nor acted upon and practiced as one’s own life “principle”. It’s more commonly viewed as showing off, arrogant and selfish, even immoral. For most, it is good only in theory, good for fantasies, fictions, movies, TV shows, newspaper strips and comic books.

50.  Comic book history began with reprints of daily newspaper strips. Then later comic book innovative story ideas came from radio stories, adventure magazines, the movies. It took the industry awhile to stand on its own creative power with Superman.

51.  Basically, comic book history is a history of story/art ideas about an adventurous kind of man. The new industry’s idea was to present man as a hero fighting against all kinds of criminals. Then came the costumed heroes. There was the desire to show man acting at his best, overcoming all odds, obstacles, dangers and villains with a happy ending as in most movies.

52.  The industry broadened into all areas: science fiction, jungle tales, romance, western, crime, war, mystery, funny, educational, fairy tales, religious, sports, fantasy, children’s, historical, book and movie adaptations and horror.

53.  Then in 1948, increasingly loud public voices and complaints charged comic book stories and art with seriously damaging young minds. These charges by a claimed authority, Dr. Fredric Wertham, and others, were accepted on faith.

54.  Political power, always seeking new areas to enter, have control over, launched its “for the public good” show (Senator Estes Kefauver) to protect young helpless, vulnerable minds from the irresponsible comic book publishers, from stories/art harmful to society’s defenseless youth.

55.  The spectacle resulted in another victory for The Divine Right of the Irrational through the establishment of The Comic Code Authority in 1955. The Authority would rule over the comic book industry that had been found and held guilty, labeled dangerous, to society and to young helpless, unprotected minds. 

56.  Most comic book publishers surrendered their right to free speech to irrational public opinion and political power. Some publishers stopped making comics, some went out of business entirely, the industry shrunk dramatically, and as a whole was ruined as a creative business. There was no longer any need, place, for talent in creating stories and art.

57.  Then all comic book stories had to be scrutinized for the Code’s list of prohibited story ideas, the art for its so-called harmful visual effects and psychological and ethical implications.

58.  It was up to the whim of the Code reviewer who had total power over what was allowed and fit for all and every young helpless mind, over what must be corrected, changed, done over or rejected. All must be reviewed, approved, before putting the Comic Code’s seal of approval on the story/art page.

59.  And so comics stagnated under the Divine Right of the Irrational. 

60.  Then in 1961, Martin Goodman, Marvel Comics publisher, wanted a group of heroes. The Fantastic Four was developed.  They were a package, a mix of old, new, different, flawed ideas, not creative but they were perceived as “heroes” and a start to save the comic industry from its own self-imposed stagnation.

61.  The Code still exists though with fewer members than in its early days when it exercised destructive power against the comic industry’s creative mind. The Code had no effect on all other actually worse publications, material such as in the “underground press”, etc.

62.  Every new generation brings about changes in implicit, explicit, philosophical beliefs and about a believed better life for man. Some new ideas become accepted, some old ideas are pushed out; some new ideas are actually better, some worse.

 63.  It usually depends on who has the power, what kind of authority to implement and practice what ideas. It can be a short-range idea/goal like a one-shot comic book or for a long-range benefit with a continuing series. It all involves the state of the marketplace, distribution, outlets, competition, etc., factors for success or failure.

64.  Every change in a man’s life involves a belief about some view of what is possible or desirable. It’s a man/mind choice toward a believed or a provable higher or lower, better or worse, a real value or a mere gratification.

65.  With comic books, it is what a hero, the main character, represents as better, best and how a comic buyer’s own character responds to a likable, possible or a gratifying model.

66.  A hero is any person admired for his qualities or achievements and regarded as an ideal or model. Both the hero and the anti-hero are potentials to be actualized. It’s an either-or choice for what is believed best for a man’s life.

67.  So a hero is a moral measurement, a standard, the way a pound is a measurement, standard, for weight, an inch, yard, for length, etc.

68.  A hero in a story measures the highest, best, in a man. All other character’s actions are viewed, measured, by that standard. A flawed hero means no or an anti-standard, anti-best, so anything goes. It’s like a flexible ruler that can be shrunk or stretched so no true measurement. No A is A.

.  The role of a hero operates on two levels, two models. Everyone wants something more or better, wants what they don’t have. And no one wants to be cheated, abused, violated in any way. One usually needs, wants, some kind of protection, protector. In society, that means the police and the courts.

70.  Comic books have stories/art showing men (and women) choosing to deal with violations by others on their own initiative, accepting risks, dangers involved, and performing as an action hero.

71.  On the first level, a hero (sports, etc.) is an inspiration, seeing another person achieve his desired goal. A hero shows that achievement isn’t automatic or guaranteed, that obstacles and opposition of all kinds are inevitable, that repeated efforts will be necessary, that there are real success and failure distinctions between true/false beliefs, right/wrong actions and good/bad ends, that hard choices have to be made, that a strong will is needed to sustain one’s efforts under pressure, that there is a dedication to his mind’s goals and a willingness to do what needs to be done to overcome mistakes, difficulties, obstacles, opposition, setbacks and that in the end one has truthfully, rightfully, earned and deserved his goal, achievement, success and rewards.

72.  “Hero” models are compromised and corrupted with “human flaws”, neurotic touches, self-pity and the ideas that “Life’s unfair”, “It’s not my fault” and  “I’m being discriminated against”. These chronically troubled “poor me” complaints weaken and undercut the sustained motivation needed to deal with, overcome, the difficulties and setbacks.

73.  There is a crucial difference between the real and the counterfeit, the authentic and the fake, the actual and the claim, rational beliefs and emotional beliefs.

74.  One the second level, the hero is a higher inspiration and model. An action hero makes value judgments about right and wrong, good/evil, victim/violator, justice, injustice. He knows what he stands for and why and what needs to be upheld and defended.

75.  A hero is committed to the real, the rational, true, right, good and justice. He is not hesitant, paralyzed with worries about what others believe or say and has no self-made doubts and uncertainties about right and wrong, about real, true life values. The action hero understands calculated risks, the importance of acting for, defending, important life values, the willingness to take unpopular stands, to defend the truth, oppose the wrong, correct injustice as to his own best interest.

76.  The hero acts on principle, not on short-term, pragmatic expediency. He is dedicated to the realization that the fraud and fakes have no human value and that only the actually earned and deserved are truly human.

 77.  Every new generation in the comic book industry—producers, editors, writers, artists and fans—brings its own implicit or explicit philosophical premises, principles, about the world, man, mind and life. These premises have increasingly been anti-hero and anti-man.

78.  The anti has been publicly claimed, reported, desired, demonstrated, rewarded and seen in all types of communication, entertainment outlets, even in music, clothing styles, etc. The hero model, the rationally, professionally competent, even functionally competent best, demands too much thinking, acting and producing from the doers. For them, the world, society, is too unknowable, one can’t be competent to deal with it, it is too full of tensions, changes, unresolved ongoing problems and conflicts, even daily life is too uncertain. Man/mind “can’t really know anything for sure” and “He’s only human” means someone, another, knows best.

79.  The usual operating premise is that man is naturally badly flawed, powerless in too many ways: original sin, heredity, environment, member of some minority being discriminated against, don’t get the breaks, etc. Since flawed, so rejected is any belief, hope, that anyone can actually cope with life’s complexities. With so many reported tries and failures, so all survival requires compromise, pull, favors, cheating, joining, belonging to some influence, power group, some protector. Fictional heroes are certainly no help, guide, for real life living.

80.  But to diminish, reject, the ideal of a hero is to reject all higher levels of ambition, valid achievement and to actually admit one’s position, success, took no real ability, effort, skill. It is of no real value, wasn’t, couldn’t be, earned, deserved, and, in fact, can be no real achievement. The position, success, is just the end product of mindless, emotional action, dumb luck and pure chance.

81.  So there is a need, desire, to smash the valid hero model, to force in the anti-man/mind in every way one can as if there never was or could ever be better minds, ideas, higher individual achievements gained, produced. It makes the anti, the neurotic, the self-pitying, the confused man/mind by nature unable, unfit, to provide a better life, world, for himself. It’s not his fault. He shouldn’t be blamed.

82.  It is commonly claimed, believed, that all those who have made money, profited, succeeded, prosper, could only have done so by dishonest means. So according to the “social justice” premise (non-objective principles/philosophy) of these claimants, those who succeed must now be forced to provide for all the failures—the non-producers and non-earners—whatever their “claimed”, “owed” needs, wants and gratifications. In ethics, that means altruism, sacrifice; in politics: paternalism, welfare state collectivism, even egalitarianism; in economics: statism, government control, socialism; in art: some form of the anti: smashing man/mind, the hero; in fandom: some form of “I want…”

83.  To put the issue of man/mind, of ongoing human relationships, in a more clear and principled focus, understanding, under a constitutional republic of individual rights, no one (no fan, etc.) has any right to, claim on, any part of another’s life, time, work, without the uncoerced mutual choice, mutual agreement, mutual benefit, of both parties. It is where both parties earn and deserve and both are free to say “no” and go their own way without being penalized or abused.

 84.  In a democracy, loud voices, protesters, claimers, demanders for needs, wants, can be considered some majority and must be obeyed, gratified. And, like in a mixed economy where political power is superior to economic power, fan power is believed, claimed and superior to the rights of the individual artist. Fans always find something, someone, isn’t gratifying them. In both cases, the ones unwilling to sacrifice must be punished, abused and penalized in some way.

 85.  Those fans who continually moan about my quitting Marvel, Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, act as if Marvel was/is a southern plantation ruled by The Divine Right to Own Individuals as Slaves and that I, as a freelancer (not an employee), could at any time be (and was at times) taken off the S-M/DS strips, and given no work, had no right to quit and that I should be made to go back, be made to keep producing story ideas, panels, pages of story art and comic books for their gratification. Only they are free to act as they choose without penalties.

86.  Today’s communication world is the largest and easiest to enter into than it has ever been. So one can get involved with, associate with, many other minds, each choosing to deal with the other (even when there are disagreements) with the mutual benefit of exploring differences for wider understanding and without the uncalled for negatives, labeling, smears, etc., which are practiced, condoned, by too many in fandom. It is way beyond those “fans” with their lists of wants, entitlements, demands, parroting and whining and who insist that others exist to serve and gratify their whims.

 87.  They don’t offer to even trade a value like common courtesy but abusively demand the unearned and undeserved as their “right”.

 88.  No one has anything of value to gain from those who begin by believing, insisting, demanding, that they have or are owed some “right” to another’s intellectual, artistic knowledge, property like that the other has earned and paid for.

89.  In comics fandom today, there are too many acting like babies whining, crying, throwing temper tantrums and demanding another’s bottle or toy. And too few in fandom caring about the actual value, integrity, of the comic book industry, too many, too willing to surrender the objective best to the subjective worst.

90. One can choose to continue acting on wrong philosophical principles, on errors. But no individual, no group, industry, society, can change for the better until each individual comes to understand his own moral (philosophical) responsibility as a man, as a rational being.

An Arkansas fifth-grader made news recently by claiming there is no “liberty and justice for all” in America as his reason for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during his school’s daily patriotic exercises. 

Red Skelton could’ve taught him a thing or two:

– 

Of course, the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that as long as such dissent is practiced in a non-disruptive manner a student is acting well within his Constitutional rights — his faulty reasoning for the dissent being irrelevant — and he may not be compelled to participate by either the school, or the state. 

Teachers and administrators are strictly prohibited from singling out such peaceful dissent for discipline, admonishment or public ridicule. 

Any teacher or administrator doing so should swiftly and forthrightly be subjected to reprimand or discipline including assignment to an appropriate Teacher Quality Enhancement Training program in order to mitigate any future injustices on their part. 

The Pledge itself takes all of fifteen seconds to recite — which is likely a main reason most states and public school boards ascribe it for compliance with their respective education codes, policies and regulations — yet the Pledge, as with standardized patriotic exercises, is designated to inculcate patriotic values upon our nation’s children. 

These values — i.e., love of and devotion to country — include American Exceptionalism, which secures even the Liberty and human rights to dissent against that very love and devotion. 

Contrary to popular opinion however, dissent is obviously not de facto the ‘highest form of patriotism.’ 

As Socrates warns the ages in Plato’s Republic:

“[D]emocracy has her own good [Freedom], of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution… the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom… the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction… above all in forms of government… The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”

Is it an excess of liberty that incites a fifth-grader to irrational dissent against a pro forma patriotic exercise, and in the process tell his substitute teacher to “go jump off a bridge”?

Perhaps, but that is for his parents to decide, the Supreme Court moots further argument.

There is however a parallel issue that might be worthy of consideration:

Can state and local school boards compel teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms?

The Supreme Court held in Newdow v. Elk Grove 2004 that, yes, in fact they can:

Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State… required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students.

Hopefully teachers unions and under-their-thumb school boards won’t exploit this latest attack against the Pledge as a destructive excuse to reject and undermine its original intent, i.e., allegiance to the American Republic in all her glory and the values inculcation thereof.

Hopefully as well, outside political advocacy groups will be barred as sponsors of so-called “Tolerance Through Education” programs that intrude outside Lawyer/Facilitators — without prior parental notification – into classrooms as a means of creating political correctness Pledges of Tolerance that students can be shamed to abide, while concurrently pressured to diminish the traditional Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

Whenever public schools ignore or revise long-standing Patriotic Exercises policy requiring simply the Pledge, or Star Spangled Banner, replacing those with near meaningless vagaries like “Appropriate patriotic exercises also include, but are not limited to, songs, poems, quotations and discussions related to the development of citizenship in a democracy” one begins to wonder whether rulebooks are any longer worth the paper they’re printed on.

What values should the required daily patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students?

Nothing came to me but more questions.  Satisfied that no further gastric contributions could tell the tale, I rose from the bathroom floor, shrugged unconvincingly and hit the flusher.   What a perfect way to end unseemly encounters.  Flush them. 

I proceeded to weave an unsteady trail down the hallway in the general direction of a coffee pot.  My daughter had arisen before me and FOX News was already drifting in from the other room; Bill Hemmer recounting the latest on the decision to move the admitted 911 terrorists to NYC for trial. 

And then it struck me like a wet trout. 

Why – I hadn’t been drinking the night before at all!  This was no hangover!  This was Bizarro-World 2009 (or as some call it, the Barrack Obama Presidency) — in full flower!

Recovering from the jolt of reality that had knocked coffee grounds everywhere, slipping and sliding on them I staggered into the living room to stare at the TV screen.  Yes, it was coming back to me like a recurring bad rash – the Commies had taken over as America slept.  And we were all out of 2% cortisone cream. 

As the inebriative disorientation of an Obama reality continued to blur my vision, I recounted some of the more recent national realities. 

Emergency stimulus bills – $800 billion in spending, cash-for-clunkers, tax cheat cabinet, Marxist czars, quadrupling the national debt within 10 months…and as Communist China lectures us about deficit spending and fiscal responsibility…Obama pushes hard for a socialized medicine bill that will cost taxpayers at least two trillion dollars, nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and drive insurance companies, hospitals and doctors bankrupt, leading to rationed health care and a gross decline in research and overall quality of medicine.

But I don’t want to rush to judgment.  It’s only been ten months, give the guy a chance.

Huh!!????

And in the We-don’t-rush-to-judgment category… Major Hasan’s shooting spree at Ft. Hood that left 13 dead and 30 wounded seems to have the mainstream media baffled.  It seems he must’ve been a nut.  He must’ve been tormented by fellow soldiers for his religious views.  He must’ve been a victim of the system…who simply snapped.   And we don’t want to rush to judgment that he may have been a Muslim jihadist murderer terrorist, dead square in our midst, at the largest Army base in the country…that simply wanted to kill as many Americans as possible for his jihad, for his Allah.  Gee, sure didn’t send up any red flags…even with the bitter and angry Wahabbist rantings to his fellow soldiers, his communication with a noted Muslim radical cleric, and oh yeah, his phone calls, documented by the army, to Al Qaeda!

Hmmm…how could anyone possibly have seen anything bad coming….?

And now… The people that admitted to having masterminded the destruction of the Twin Towers and murdered three thousand Americans are to be put on trial a few blocks from where the towers fell in downtown Manhattan. 

As a “Star Trek” alumnus, I am bereaved that the phrase “Beam me up, Scotty!” has been so over-used…or I’d be tempted to use it now.

The ACLU will ensure that these self-admitted terrorists’ ‘rights’ will be guarded as they’re extended every legal privilege, the same as a law-abiding citizen of the U.S.  Upon discovery it will be revealed that they were not Miranda-ized and made fully aware of their ‘rights’ when they were apprehended.  Upon discovery it will be revealed that ‘proper’ search-and-seizure methods were not used when these miscreants were arrested.  Wire-tapping may have been used that the ACLU will have a problem with.  Three of these fellows were strapped to a board and had water poured over their faces, convincing them that they were in danger of drowning – all in a very successful attempt to procure valuable information that may have saved thousands of more lives of Americans.

And the CIA, the FBI, George W. Bush and the entire U.S. Military will be put on trial for the court of world opinion to evaluate – a years-long, hundred-million dollar dog-and-pony show of a trial for the America-hating Leftists to rally behind.  “You see?  You see how bad we were before?  You see what Bush/Cheney/Halliburton gave you?  Well…we’re not like that anymore.  And to show you how sorry we are…we’re gonna serve up America’s autonomy and exceptionalism on a silver platter.  Everybody come take a bite — who wants white meat?”

In Bizarro-World 2009…up is down.  The good guys get prosecuted and the bad guys walk.  So how many betting men do we have out there?  Has Vegas set the odds yet?  And what’s the line and spread on these five guys walking?

In a rush to re-establish to the world our supposed, and heretofore, absent humility and global cooperation – and in the name of a misguided allegiance to some missing ‘higher good’ for humanity, we have abruptly changed direction and now champion a new banner – ‘Peace through supplication…strength through softness’.

Future Al Jazeera news headline in Arabic:  “The Pussification of America is complete.”

I suppose some will merely deem it to be the natural countermanding of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George Bush’s ‘cowboy’ persona, in both personal style and foreign diplomacy.  Mr. Obama, in order to counterpoint Mr. Bush’s ‘cowboy swagger’ (Bush calls it “walking”), bows low to foreign heads of state – some would say grovels – and in every tone and rhetoric, apologizes to the world for our excellence and achievement. 

And, oh by the way, we’re sorry we’ve been such horrible racists – unlike you all.

But now that we’ve proven to the international community that we’re no longer racist and are suddenly all too aware that we’re the focal point and primary cause for everything bad, destructive and unstylish in the world — Europe cheers us.  How better to validate their own insistent bend into socialism?  Socialists everywhere just love us now.  Third-world despots embrace our epiphanic rush to change.  Hamas and Hezbollah smile their congratulations at our new enlightenment and willingness to abdicate our superiority of both strength and ideals — all in the name of tolerance and ‘balance’.

Enemies of America everywhere smile warmly at us…as they sharpen their daggers.

Our allies around the globe are getting nervous.  And who could blame them?  I read of Neville Chamberlain’s assurances to his countrymen in 1938 after meeting with Hitler in Munich.  He was certain he had engineered a path to peace in Europe — through appeasement.

Ronald Reagan used to speak of America as a “…shining city on a hill.”  A place of liberty and freedom and personal responsibility; a place people all over the world looked up to and emulated, and couldn’t wait to visit, and even emigrate to legally, to start a new life, a better life for themselves and their families.  He reminded us of our strengths, of our compassion, and of our unending ingenuity, drive and resourcefulness.

Ronald Reagan made us feel good about being an American.  He held us to the high standard of honesty and fiscal responsibility and individual initiative and personal accountability for our actions.  The ultimate result of these ideals was success – success, achievement and excellence, the likes of which the world had never before seen.  And something else we had: Pride in America.  There were no ‘apology tours’… no gestures of contrition… no tacit appeasement, to anyone, anywhere for any reason.  We believed in peace through strength.  And these were not empty words – they were backed by actions.  Reagan meant the words he spoke — and you could take them to the bank.  Reagan spoke of the success that we enjoyed by sticking to our ideals, American ideals.  He said it was ‘morning in America’. 

The image was of the sun coming up in the morning…and not of its setting.

Honest and ardent students of history are not just nervous – they’re alarmed.  This country we know and love, this America, is fast becoming unrecognizable to many of us.  It’s like we’ve had this big wham-jammer of a party…and now we awaken to a monstrous hangover. 

It’s the morning-after in America…only the aspirin bottle is three years away.