The Incredibles
Mood:  party time!
Now Playing: The Incredibles
The Incredibles
By Daniel G. Jennings
There is only one word to use to describe Pixair's latest movie and that is fun. The Incredibles is pure fun from beginning to end.
I haven't enjoyed a movie this much in a long time. Watching the Incredibles I felt like a ten year old boy seeing his first Star Wars or James Bond movie or reading Marvel Comics at the Seven Eleven. The Incredibles is that much fun and more. It's better than Toy Story and maybe the best animated film made in America.
The Incredibles is the first truly successful super hero film. It works because it captures the power and excitement and wonder of the classic comic books of the 1960s and 1970s. Then like the best comic books sets a profoundly human story against the backdrop of a bizarre alternate universe where superheroes and super villains are an everyday reality. Like the best comic books the Incredibles creators throw in generous helpings of high camp and satire to make a delightful and extremely funny movie. There are plenty of inside jokes that comic fans will recognize but the movie would be just as entertaining to a person who has never read a comic book.
The Incredibles tells the story of Mr. Incredible and Elasti Girl, two 1960s style superheroes who are forced to come down to Earth and live a mundane life. The two meet and marry and are then forced to abandon superheroics by lawsuits. Sleazy lawyers sue them out of existence (I bet John Edwards won't like this movie much) because some of the people they rescue are hurt in the process. In one funny sequence Mr. Incredible is sued by a suicidal man whom he rescued after leaping from a building.
The government grateful for the supers' services protects them with secret identities and the witness relocation program. Unfortunately everyday life is hell for a super hero. Mr. Incredible now Bob Parr works in a cubicle at a heartless insurance company where he gets in trouble with the boss by telling the customers how to get their claims paid. Elasti Girl is a haggled housewife who has to put up with two super powered kids.
Parr gets lured back in the super hero life he loves by the machinations of Tantrum, a crazed ex super hero fan now a Dr. No style super villain. Tantrum is systematically exterminating super heroes in his efforts to develop super weapons and make himself into a super hero. In his quest to stop Tantrum, Incredible finds himself trapped on an island out of a James Bond movie and his family has to save him.
This plotline works because this is a visually stunning movie. The animated action, particularly images of a plane crash, is thrilling and exciting and looks better than a lot of stunt work involving live actors and actresses. The action and the super heroes themselves capture the power and thrill produced by the great comic book artists of my youth. For once superheroes on the big screen look as good as they do in the comics maybe better. These aren't actors dressed up in silly costumes they're really superheroes.
The scenes of Tantrum's high tech base remind me of the James Bond movies of the 1960s and 70s. The elaborate yet elegant structure and its denizens look incredible. The giant robot Tantrum unleashes is truly frightening.
There's a terrific retro feel here that captures the spirit of the movies of the 1960s perfectly. The music, the look, and the spirit of those movies of elegant and sophisticated fun.
The movie works though because it not the least bit pretentious like most comic book movies. It's not grim and filled with social commentary like the X-Men or just grim and silly like Batman. Instead it's light hearted and fun but not too light hearted. The action sequences are gripping and taken seriously and yes people do die. Pixair's super heroes avoid falling into the trap of most superhero stories the heroes aren't a pantheon of perfect god like beings, grim loners on a quest for vengeance or campy stereotypes. They're treated like real people, with families and limitations.
The Incredibles was a great movie, the audience I saw it with stayed and sat through the credits expecting one more incredible surprise. There is one disturbing thing about this movie, the animated characters here seemed more real than most real characters in today's movies.

Why Bush Won
Why Did Bush Win??
By Daniel G. Jennings
As the dust settles from the election we hear people asking why did Mr. Bush win? The answer to this question is obvious because the Bush team ran a great perhaps brilliant campaign and the Kerry team didn't.
Both campaigns did a great job of mobilizing voters but they did it in very different ways. The Democrats conducted a very noisy, very visible and rather disorganized grass roots campaign. The Republicans launched a stealth effort, moving quietly and cautiously behind the doors of churches and homes.
The Democratic effort backfired because it was public and noisy it invited attacks and criticism. Every noisy Democrat on the street corner, phone caller and obnoxious kid banging on doors was an advertisement for Bush. Every time they went out into the streets the Kerry volunteers energized both their base and the Republican base. The Kerry campaign circus with it's Hollywood stars, embrace of the peace movement, rock singers and Northeastern slant certainly mobilized conservatives. The constant stream of pro Kerry ads from left wing groups undoubtedly helped Bush. The arrogant holier than thou, we're smarter than you, tone of the Kerry campaign came through.
Kerry's very public campaign made very big target for Republicans, the pundits left and right and the various stand up comics and TV funnymen to shoot at. The Republicans could counter every move he made it because it was public and easy to examine.
This led to plenty of hysteria about the far left on the march and Kerry's left wing agenda as the noisy radicals mobilized. Naturally, this drove Americans who were uncomfortable with the direction of the Kerry campaign to the voting both in droves.
Bush or more precisely Karl Rove had a more brilliant strategy, they conducted a very quiet behind the scenes campaign. Instead of noisy radicals on the street corners, they had unobtrusive volunteers quietly signing up like minded people up in the privacy of their own homes. No publicity, no hysteria about the religious right on the rise, no Democratic backlash or reaction.
The Democrats and most political observers didn't realize what was happening until election day. It was the neatest political surprise and the boldest campaign move that I've ever seen and it worked. The army of volunteers quietly and centrally directed from the White House did their job and did it well. They mobilized a legion of new conservative voters beneath the radar.
The question is can this feat be duplicated? Probably not, surprise tactics can only work once. Next time the Democrats will be ready for this kind of attack and Rove or whoever takes his place may have to pull another rabbit out of the hat.
How does this change the political landscape? Well, first television advertising seems to have been dethroned from its central role as the key element in American politics. The Democrats and their allies spent hundreds of millions of dollars on thousands of hours of advertising and it didn't seem to matter. Perhaps people have been so exposed to advertising that it no longer has any real effect, or maybe people are using remote controls, Tivo and other gadgets to zap out the commercials. Of course with hundreds of channels of television, many of them commercial free it's almost impossible to get a commercial before the majority of the voters any more.
So what will take TV's place? I really don't know, the Internet or talk radio might but it's difficult to judge their impact. More likely well organized get out the vote efforts like this year's will become the focus of future campaigns.
Organizing the voters and using them in the smartest way is the reason Bush won. It is also going to be the key factor in future political campaigns in this country.

Elections, Media Insanity and Al Qaeda
Elections, Media Insanity and Al Qaeda
By Daniel G. Jennings
I never thought I'd feel almost glad to see the resurfacing of America's number enemy Al Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden but I am.
Our media had gotten so caught up in the insane hype surrounding the presidential election that they'd basically begun ignoring the real big story: the War on Terror and more importantly the terrorists' war on us. Only Bin Laden's return could distract the reporters, editors, commentators and cameras from the presidential campaign.
A day before Arab language news channel Al Jazeera began broadcasting what is apparently a new video from Bin Laden, reports surfaced that ABC news had in its possession an Al Qaeda tape featuring a truly frightening individual Azzam the America. Azzam the America, apparently a US citizen or somebody who's spent a great deal of time in the US tells Americans in English that Al Qaeda will soon commit a terrorist atrocity in America worse than Sept. 11. Azzam wears a mask and sunglasses he looks like something out of a comic book, a super villain issuing a threat and he's absolutely chilling.
Is this stuff for real? I think it is, Azzam sounds like an American, from his accent. More importantly, he's acting like an American. His dramatics are the kind of thing that a suburban kid raised on Marvel Comics, GI Joe Cartoons and James Bond movies would resort to. He's acting out his childhood fantasy of being Darth Vader, a masked destroyer capable of avenging himself on a society he hates.
My guess is that Azzam is here in the United States or traveling here to carry out some sort of terrorist attack. Al Qaeda made and released this video so that there will be no doubt they are responsible for the next terrorist atrocity on our shores. They know Azzam will probably be captured or killing during the attack and they want us to identify him or his body. That way there will be no doubt who is responsible for slaughter, so Arab politicians can't blame the Jews or the US government or some rival terror group can't claim responsibility.
The appearance of the Bin Laden video at this time is to remind the world that he and Al Qaeda are still out there and active right before an attack. That way nobody can say it wasn't Bin Laden, because Bin Laden is dead or missing in action. Bin Laden wouldn't come out and say, "I'm still in the fight," unless he was still fighting.
My guess is that Bin Laden wants to make sure the public knows that he is out there and probably responsible for the next big terrorist attack. What that attack will be I don't know but I'm certain Bin Laden does.
The media's coverage of this story has been disgusting and disturbing. ABC tried to keep the Azzam tape under wraps in order to get an exclusive until the Drudge Report exposed its behavior. Major media outlets like CNN and Fox tried to ignore the Azzam Story or downplay until the existence of the tape had spread throughout the internet. Why this happened I don't know but I have my suspicions, CNN, Fox etc. didn't want to acknowledge the fact that ABC had scooped them on the story. So they tried to pretend the story didn't exist until it went away.
Instead of focusing on the chilling Azzam tape the media focused on the illness of Yassir Arafat, who really doesn't matter in the least and on the manufactured issue of the missing explosives in Iraq. This issue was created by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the media, particularly the New York Times to hurt Bush. Ask yourself would Kerry have been able to prepare major speeches on it unless he had seen the story several days in advance?
Only the Internet stopped this, the Big Media tried to downplay the Azzam story, the web reported on it forcing other media outlets to cover it. How did Drudge and company find out about Azzam before ABC was willing to report on it. Simple the terrorists told them, Al Qaeda wanted the American people to see this tape. ABC wouldn't show it to them, so Al Qaeda sent Matt Drudge an e-mail about what ABC had.
That's a truly disturbing development, major media outlets those self proclaimed champions of the public good, had a major story that could impact all Americans. Yet they buried it because it didn't fit in with their plans and distracted from their single minded election coverage.
So what will happen next? I don't know, but I have a horrible feeling that will involve the deaths of a lot of innocent Americans.

debates
The Presidential Debates
By Daniel G. Jennings
I finally watched one of the presidential debates - that held on Friday Oct. 7, and I noticed something: there was little or no difference between what the candidates were saying.
Both President Bush and Senator Kerry were making essentially the same promises and taking the same basic stand on the issues. The differences between the positions the two candidates take on the issues are minor.
First take the Iraq War, which seems to be the big issue of the day because the media says so. Mr. Kerry's solution to the Iraq problem is to form an alliance of nations to secure and rebuild that country while training Iraqis to fight their own battles and secure their nation. Isn't that Mr. Bush's Iraq policy? Yes, it is. Kerry occasionally mumbles something about bringing in new allies but doesn't say who these allies are or where he'd find them.
Now take the war on terrorism Kerry promises to aggressively pursue terrorists and capture or kill them. That is exactly what Mr. Bush has done so there's no real difference there. Like Bush, Kerry would increase security around the country.
Then there's energy policy Bush's policy is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing investment in research to develop alternate energy sources namely hydrogen powered cars. Guess what Kerry's policy is he'd increase investment in research to develop alternate energy resources. The only difference being that Kerry would invest in solar panels and windmills rather than hydrogen cars. Either way we'll still be importing oil and burning coal to get most of our energy. Even if these new technologies pan out they'll take years perhaps decades to develop and perfect.
Now onto healthcare neither Kerry or Bush wants to really reform the healthcare system and say set up a real national healthcare system for people under 65. Instead they'll tweak the existing private system. Bush would make something called medical savings accounts available to people. Kerry would tax the rich to somehow give health coverage to the poor (he doesn't say how this would work). Neither would do anything to lower health care costs or ensure universal coverage. Either way insurance companies will make a fortune and the taxpayer will get soaked.
In economic matters both candidates will try to boast the economy and create jobs by giving selective tax breaks. That's it. Bush would give across the board breaks to big business. Kerry to businesses that don't export jobs. Nothing like public works projects to generate jobs and stimulate the economy are planned.
In intelligence matters both candidates would create a new central clearing house for intelligence data, in other words more bureaucracy and bureaucrats. How will that fight terrorism or locate and neutralize enemies?
On the matter of free trade and foreign trade the candidates on are on much the same tack. Both favor it, but claim not to and take token steps to appear to be protecting our trade while exporting jobs. Kerry's solution is tax breaks to keep certain jobs in the US, a doubtful strategy, Bush's answer is selected tariffs to protect industries like steel. Both are token issues. On the issue of importing cheaper drugs from Canada both Kerry and Bush claim to favor this but Bush hasn't implemented a plan. Kerry supports it even though it would probably mean opening the door to the import of drugs from China or India. This doesn't seem to bother Kerry who like Bush is a long time advocate of free trade.
Then there was all the stuff that wasn't discussed. First transportation, I haven't heard the t-word mentioned in this campaign even though we're facing a national transportation crisis. Our highways are clogged by gridlock, many of them are aging, wearing out and falling apart, our railroads are ancient and in many cases overloaded to the point of breaking, passenger rail is nonexistent, airports are crowded and aging, mass transit is sorely lacking in many areas, nonexistent in others and where it exists is often old and limited, and our passenger rail system is simply a bad joke.
Beyond that there is military reform, which is needed, space (our space program is in sorry shape), immigration and overall foreign policy. (we aren't developing the real relationships needed with emerging powers like India and China). I don't hear the candidates mentioning this stuff either. Not only are the candidates taking the same stands on the issues they're ignoring the same issues.
Instead of giving us a clear choice the candidates are giving us two sides to the same coin. It is time for the American people to demand something better from our political class.

hero
"Hero"
By Daniel G. Jennings
"Hero" is a great film that deserves to reach a much wider American audience than it will probably will.
Sadly, the American audiences that will enjoy this film the most will probably stay away because it is a Chinese action extravaganza. Yes, this is a Hong Kong film but it's nothing like the overtop action flicks of the 1980s and 1990s or the crude Kung Fu films of the 1970s. Unfortunately, memories especially of the dreadful poorly dubbed 1970s Kung Fu pictures will prevent those who would appreciate this beautiful piece of art from seeing it.
For Hero is a beautiful piece of art that owes more to John Ford than John Woo. As in Ford's great westerns the real star is the scenery, the beautiful landscapes of China. Director Zhang Yimou wisely lets the action and the actors get overshadowed by natural beauty giving the movie an epic quality.
Yes, all the pieces of a traditional Chinese sword opera are there the evil emperor, the noble hero on a quest to avenge his family's deaths, the beautiful female assassin, the epic fight scene and the climatic showdown between good and evil. Yet they're put together in a new exciting way that makes an adult film and a true work of art. Just as John Ford turned the traditional Western, the staple of the Saturday Matinee, into an art form in the 1940s and 50s.
Zhang gives ancient China a noble and poetic quality that reminiscent of the Old West as portrayed by John Ford and Sergio Leone. He also gives us an interesting and entertaining rumination on violence and revenge that is reminiscent of John Ford's "the Searchers" or Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven." The old and still highly effective plots of a ruthless loner seeking vengeance and a burnt out old warrior trying to forget his violent past are twisted into an intriguing story.
Despite the presence of Hong Kong legends Jet Li, Maggie Cheung (still the most beautiful actress on Earth for my money) and Tony Leung this isn't a martial arts movie. Nor is it a blood soaked action film, there is lots of action but little blood, making it more like a 1950s western than a recent action epic. That of course makes it all the entertaining and effective for the movie is delightfully old fashioned in its own way.
Younger action fans and martial arts nuts may not like Hero but movie buffs and older fans will like it. In particular the conservative fans who flocked to see Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" and "The Passion" and Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" would enjoy this film. There are some great historical sequences of the remorseless ancient Chinese military machine on the march and the attack history buffs should love.
Conservatives should also enjoy the moral focus of this story. The Hero has to learn to put aside his selfish desires for the good of his country and the authority figure is shown as working for the common good rather than selfish purposes. The Heroic act is self sacrifice for the nation, not mindless battle of evil. Obviously this movie couldn't get made in today's Hollywood unless Mel Gibson was directing it.
Hero gives us some interesting insights into Chinese culture and popular opinion in the world's most populous nation. The Empire and the Emperor are shown as good things and Imperial military conquest is glorified. (Keep in mind this movie was produced by the Chinese government). This movie which did huge box office business in China is a glorification of Imperialism and military conquest. Americans ought to take note of that, especially if China's growing industrial capacity and economy are channeled for military purposes.
Finally, Hero shows us the sorry state of the American movie industry, it would be almost impossible to make an artistic and entertaining movie glorifying America's past or to get major Hollywood stars to appear in it. Nor would it be possible to make such a big budget epic in Hollywood without injecting nihilistic political propaganda of right or left into it. Or for that matter to make a serious and adult big budget action film in which the characters behave like adults. (Okay maybe Clint Eastwood could do it)
The fact that Hollywood's top directors spend much of their time emulating often shamelessly the techniques of the top Chinese directors proves that Hollywood may loose its position as the world's entertainment capital sooner than we think. (even "The Passion" borrowed heavily from Hong Kong cinema) Hero is cutting edge entertainment with sophisticated production values a product of real filmmakers.
Unfortunately this important movie will be ignored here in the US because it's being marketed as just another action film. Hopefully, word of mouth will undo the damage and get this film the American audience it deserves.

Kerry
Kerry's March To Destruction
By Daniel G. Jennings
John Kerry's presidential campaign seems to be going down in flames and Kerry has only himself to blame for his dismal failure. More precisely Kerry will have only his own mouth and the mouths of some of his more prominent supporters to blame for loosing such a close race.
In American politics a very bad choice of words by a candidate or his supporters can destroy any political campaign. Particularly if the other party and the news media pick up on something ridiculous or offensive that the politician or somebody around him says.
Last week John Kerry speaking to the Unity Conference of Minority Journalists said he would among other things wage "a more sensitive war on terror." This lame-brained utterance was ignored at the time but quickly picked up on by that old political attack dog Vice President Dick Cheney. This week, Cheney told a large gathering of veterans of Kerry's stupid remark in a speech sure to be chopped into sound bites and replayed endlessly by the TV networks.
In a few days or weeks every American will know of Kerry's sensitive war on terror and every stand up comic will be using it in his or her act. Every radio talk personality will comment upon them and there's a good possibility that Saturday Night Live or some other TV show will produce a sketch lampooning Kerry's sensitive war on terror. The result is that Kerry will look like a complete fool.
The week before that failed presidential candidate and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, supposedly a high advisor to Kerry, made the moronic assertion that the terror alerts were being cooked up by the Bush administration to divert attention from Kerry's campaign. Naturally, Dr. Dean presented no evidence to back up his claims but he went on several TV shows to defend them. Kerry and other Democrats were forced to come out and distance themselves from Dean. Fortunately for Kerry, the Bush attack machine hasn't picked up on Dean's lunacy yet but it's only a matter of time before Bush takes notice of the good doctor's ravings and rams them down our throats.
American history is full of politicians whose careers were destroyed by such guffaws. The most interesting example was James G. Blaine. Way back in 1884, Republican presidential candidate James G. Blaine met with a group of clergymen at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York City. One of the clergymen, a blowhard named Samuel Burchard, gave a short speech in which he condemned the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion." Rum referred to drunkenness, Romanism to Catholicism which some Protestants saw as unpatriotic, and Rebellion to support of the Confederate rebels in the Civil War.
The words Rum, Romanism and Rebellion aren't very offensive to us today but in 1884 they were a vicious slur upon Irish Americans, one of the nation's largest ethnic groups. Burchard had called the Irish drunks and traitors to the country. Irish American men, who were devout Catholics and extremely patriotic Americans, were a key Democratic constituency. To add insult to injury a great many Irish American men had served in the Union Army during the Civil War and many Irish Americans had died fighting the Confederacy. Burchard's remarks were the equivalent of a modern politician talking of the racial inferiority of African Americans.
Reporters and Republicans didn't take notice of Burchard's bombast but Democratic spinmeister Alexander Pue Gorman did. Since tape recorders hadn't been invented yet, Gorman had hired a stenographer to record the Republican speeches. When he heard the transcript of Burchard's words read back to him, Gorman knew he had struck gold.
Within hours Burchard's remark, Democratic operatives were handing out thousands of pamphlets with the words Rum, Romanism and Rebellion prominently displayed in Irish neighborhoods and Democrats with signs mocking Burchard's words were turning up at Blaine's campaign appearances. Democratic newspapers from coast to coast published the remarks and many of them ran cartoons showing fat rich Republicans including Blaine sitting around sipping champagne and mocking hardworking Irish patriots. Blaine was successfully labeled an anti Irish bigot because of remarks he didn't even make.
The ploy worked Irish voters offended by Blaine's remarks flocked to the polls and sent Democrat Grover Cleveland to the White House. Even without modern mass media a poor choice of words sank a campaign.
With electronic media the effect can be even more devastating. Back in 1976, incumbent President Gerald Ford was running against Jimmy Carter. During a televised debate Ford said that Poland wasn't behind the Iron Curtain, that is under Soviet occupation. Poland, was under Soviet occupation as every fourth grader in the United States knew. Ford looked like a complete fool and like Blaine lost the election because of a stupid statement.
Since a foot in the mouth can sink a campaign, Kerry's campaign looks dead in the water unless he can control the words that come out of his mouth and the mouths of those around him.

summer movies
Summer Movies: Symptoms of a Nation in Denial?
By Daniel G. Jennings
The United States looks increasingly like a nation in denial of the simple fact that it is at war with forces that are dedicated to destroying it in particular One of the prime symptoms of this denial is the summer movie season.
Take a look at what?s playing at the multiplex during the war on terror and the art house and compare it to the movies produced during World War II. The biggest movies of the summer have been ?Harry Potter,? ?Spiderman 2? and ?I Robot? comic bookish fantasies about imaginary worlds where the menace of terror doesn?t exist.
The film that has attracted the most attention so far has been Michael Moore?s propaganda piece ?Fahrenheit 911? which blames the nation?s problems and the war in Iraq on a conspiracy of greedy corporations. Supposedly realistic thrillers have focused upon similar themes a remake of ?The Manchurian Candidate? is about an evil corporation trying to seize control of the government, ?The Borne Supremacy? shows a CIA type agency as a Gestapo like criminal conspiracy, and so on. Like the comic book movies these films do their best to deny the reality of terrorism and the threat it poses to our nation.
During World War II Hollywood at least acknowledged the fact that America was at war in its movies. Yes, most WWII era films were silly propaganda but they at least acknowledged the threat faced by the country and encourage people to fight it. Even that propaganda was probably too watered down. History tells us that the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists as portrayed by World War II era films were not as bloodthirsty as their real world counterparts.
Today?s Hollywood elite like the rest of the American intelligentsia seems to be in total denial of the reality of terrorism and the grave threat it poses to the United States and the rest of the world. They ignore the ugly reality of a vicious cadre of fanatics dedicated to our destruction and warn us of comic book conspiracies of big corporations and corrupt politicians. Worse they try to pull the wool over everybody else?s eyes by trying to exclude terrorism from the news, academia and the entertainment media.
The deniers also want us to ignore the horrendous fact that many people around the world including some of our so called allies would gladly see America destroyed. They don?t want to admit the vicious hatred that many Europeans, Asians, Arabs and even Americans feel for this nation is an irrational prejudice that fuels the fire of terrorism and threatens us.
Instead of trying to counter the hatred, Hollywood fans the flames and empowers the hate mongers such as Michael Moore even as that hatred threatens us. Worse the intelligentsia tells us that this hatred is our fault and the only way to overcome it is to kow tow to the haters.
So what will it take for Hollywood and the intelligentsia to wake up and see we are at war? That?s simple: continued terrorist atrocities in which thousands more Americas will perish and suffer. Hopefully, the fools in the entertainment industry will be able to keep up their denial for many years to come.

Bush in History
Bush and Truman
By Daniel G. Jennings
How will the people of the future view George W. Bush? My guess is Bush will end up like Harry Truman, loathed while he was in office but greatly admired from the vantage point of the future.
Although Truman is now regarded as one of our greatest presidents he wasn't very popular in office (Truman's approval rating was around 30 percent when he left office in 1953). Truman was viciously and savagely attacked by the press, the intellectuals, Congress and the opposition.
Like Bush today, Truman was dismissed as a nonentity and an ignorant buffoon by the so-called educated classes. Many people regarded Truman's presidency as illegitimate he had taken office after the death of the beloved Franklin D. Roosevelt and even though he did a far better job of implementing FDR's policies Truman was savagely attacked by many of FDR's admirers.
Truman's style didn't endure him to the press like Bush he was blunt and forceful and honest. Truman told the truth and got crucified for it.
Truman also implemented controversial and unpopular policies that were hated at the time but proven correct by history. Truman desegregated the armed forces, launched a government investigation that exposed racial injustice and proposed the first civil rights legislation (his administration came up with the term civil rights) laying the ground work for the civil rights movement. This earned Truman the hatred of Southern Democrats and many whites including many supposedly educated intellectuals who gave lip service to racial equality but in reality wanted blacks and other non whites "kept in their place."
On the foreign policy front, Truman actively and aggressively opposed the expansion of Communism. His administration created NATO, stationed troops in Europe and Asia on a permanent basis, launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan and gave the Greek government the support it needed to repel Communist invaders. This earned Truman the hatred of leftists who believed that the vicious tyranny of Joseph Stalin was paradise on earth (many of America's most prominent intellectuals and artists shared this moronic view) and of isolationists who felt that America shouldn't send forces overseas unless it was attacked. Truman's policies succeeded in containing Communism, rebuilt Europe and Japan and laid the ground work for America's great victory over Communism in the Cold War.
Like Bush Truman got America involved in an unpopular, destructive, bloody and controversial war. When the Communist puppet regime in North Korea invaded the South, Truman committed American troops to defending that nation. Even though the war ended in a bloody stalemate, the basic objective was achieved the Communists learned America would fight if they tried to expand their revolution by invasion. A larger war that could have led to millions of deaths and untold destruction was averted.
Today, Bush faces much of the same criticism that Truman did, he is being parodied and dismissed as an ignorant boob by the intellectual elite and the media. Worse he is being condemned as a warmonger and a second Hitler by the Neanderthals of Europe. Bush has taken the necessary steps of invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting the Islamic terrorists on their home ground. Like Truman's war in Korea, the conflict in Iraq is viewed as necessary but unpopular. The left is pillorying Bush for fighting in Iraq just as it condemned Truman for fighting in Korea.
During the Korean War, intellectuals of all stripes attacked Truman. Pablo Picasso even did a painting of imaginary American soldiers killing Korean women and children.
Like Bush, Truman faced an anybody but Truman mentality. The left angry that the Democrats had nominated Truman ran FDR's simple minded Vice President Henry Wallace against Harry on the pro Communist Progressive Ticket as a peace candidate in 1948. Southern racists angry that Truman believed that the constitution was colorblind ran Strom Thurmond on the Dixicrat Ticket. The real goal of these efforts was to split the Democratic vote and elect Republican Thomas Dewey to the White House.
The media liked the lackluster, Dewey a crime fighting former prosecutor from New York City, and the last major presidential candidate to sport a mustache. Reporters rushed to crown Dewey president. They predicted his victory and stated that Truman didn't stand a chance, Truman won the election by a comfortable majority. Like Bush today Truman seemed to have the people behind him even if the elite disliked him.
My guess is that thirty or forty years from now, a great many of the people who now put those "Anybody But Bush" bumper stickers on their cars will be recalling what a great president George W. Bush was. Many of them will be praising his far sighted policies and his victory over terrorism and claiming that they voted for him even though they really campaigned against him. They won't recall what they really thought of Bush or what they really said about him.

John Kerry
Comments About Kerry
By Daniel G. Jennings
John Kerry hasn't made a big deal of his Catholicism because doing so would hurt him politically.
If Kerry were to make numerous public displays of his faith, he would open himself up for all manner of criticism. Devout Roman Catholics who would most likely to swayed by such displays would be put off by the candidates' stands on the issues of abortion, war, gay rights and the death penalty which run counter to church teachings. Liberals many of whom view the Catholic Church as old fashioned and reactionary would be upset to see their candidate kowtowing to such an institution.
Kerry runs the risk of loosing working and middle class Catholic voters if he makes his faith an issue because many of them would be offended by his snubbing of church leaders. Kerry runs the risk of driving away gays, the women's movement and other important constituencies if he were to be too closely associated with the church.
Running as the Catholic candidate wouldn't help Kerry because devout Catholics are likely to be social conservatives and Republicans while liberals whose support Kerry needs don't like the idea of Catholic teaching influencing the political process. So don't expect Kerry's faith to be a big deal in this election.
Nor will Bush make a big deal of Kerry's faith, the President needs the support of Catholic voters particularly working class Catholics. He knows that any attacks on Kerry's faith will cost him those votes. Bush not wanting to offend Catholics won't make Kerry's faith an issue of contention.
The other big question dogging this summer's campaign is that of Bill Clinton. Clinton is out hocking his book and promoting his place in history. Many observers think this will help Kerry I'm not so sure.
Kerry will certainly get a boost if he hitches his car to the Clinton train. The problem is Clinton probably won't let him. Kerry is in a different wing of the party that is to the left of Clinton. More importantly, Clinton doesn't want to be associated with a loosing Democratic effort like Kerry. Nor does Clinton want any part of the dirty mudslinging presidential campaign we're likely to see this year. Slick Willy wants his place in history, not a reputation as just another politician shilling for an lackluster candidate. He also wants to see all the dirty laundry from his past buried.
Most likely Clinton will stay away from the election and let Kerry sink or swim on his own. Clinton will only come out and publicly campaign for Kerry if it looks like Kerry is heading for a landslide victory and has a victory whose light Clinton can bask in. Then of course, Kerry won't need Clinton's support.
John Kerry is going to have to win this election on his own without the help of Bill Clinton.

Lens of History
The Lens of History
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Lens of History is easily distorted by victory and defeat in war.
Victory acts as a set of rose colored glasses that makes us forget all the horrors and crimes of a conflict and remember only the glory. Hence, World War II is remembered as America's "good war" even though the US government and military engaged in numerous actions during that war which were morally questionable and even criminal. Japanese Americans were illegally and unconstitutionally interned in what both President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court described as concentration camps. The US Air Force mercilessly bombed German and Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. American troops often shot unarmed Japanese and German prisoners on the battlefield and America allied itself with one of the greatest tyrants in human history Joseph Stalin.
Yet all that is forgotten and World War II is remembered as the "good war."
Defeat, on the other hand acts as a magnifying glass that blows any crime or atrocity real or imagined far out of proportion. There is no evidence that the behavior of American troops in Vietnam was any worse than that of their fathers in World War II, yet Vietnam is remembered as the war in which American GIs behaved like criminals. In fact, history indicates that American behavior was better in Vietnam than World War II.
American military personnel who engaged in the indiscriminate killing of unarmed enemies were often awarded medals in World War II, including submariners who machine gunned life rafts full of Japanese shipwreck survivors. In Vietnam, GIs who machine gunned unarmed villagers were tried, convicted and imprisoned. The media savagely criticized both the military and America's allies for their tactics. During World War II, the media deliberately covered up both the horrendous nature of America's Soviet ally and morally questionable behavior of US military forces.
The difference between the wars is that America "won" in World War II and "lost" in Vietnam (to be accurate our ally South Vietnam lost in Vietnam after we pulled out but most people see Vietnam as an American defeat). Defeat enables us to look carefully and accurately at our past behaviors. Victory enables us to ignore our shortcomings and troubles.
Of course this means that if history's outcome had been different the way we view it would be different too. Had the United States invaded North Vietnam and dismantled the Communist dictatorship there in 1968. We'd probably remember Vietnam as a great American victory.
The Lens of History is a poor instrument subject to our prejudices and emotions rather than an accurate barometer of historical fact.