A Navy SEAL from Queens and another from Michigan were found dead in a swimming pool at a base in Virginia.
Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Seth Cody Lewis of Queens and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Brett Allen Marihugh of Livonia were found unresponsive Friday at the bottom of the Combat Swimming Training Facility at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Address Congress
For the record.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is visiting the United States
On Wednesday, Abe will become the first Japanese leader to address a joint session of Congress.
He gave brief remarks and took student questions this morning at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
His comments came as some 100 protesters stood silently outside holding signs and banners calling for Abe to apologize for World War II-era crimes, including sexual slavery in Korea.
Abe next heads to MIT. He then flies to Washington D.C. to meet with President Barack Obama.
Abe will also visit Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is visiting the United States
On Wednesday, Abe will become the first Japanese leader to address a joint session of Congress.
He gave brief remarks and took student questions this morning at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
His comments came as some 100 protesters stood silently outside holding signs and banners calling for Abe to apologize for World War II-era crimes, including sexual slavery in Korea.
Abe next heads to MIT. He then flies to Washington D.C. to meet with President Barack Obama.
Abe will also visit Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Rand Paul Defends Obama's Use of Drones
Adam Weinstein captures well the disgusting Rand support of the drone activities of the Empire:
Rand Paul, the great white hope, presumed enemy of extrajudicial killings from the air, shocked and disappointed his libertarian disciples today by embracing drone warfare and defending President Obama’s use of flying death machines to immolate two hostages held by Al Qaeda.
The Republican senator, who earlier this year vowed that he would shoot a drone over his old Kentucky home with a shotgun, once made his bones with a 13-hour Senate filibuster of drone warfare in which he took an unequivocal stand for the constitutional rights of Americans not to be fried with a missile from an R/C doohickey...
Discussing the White House’s somewhat shady admission last week that two January drone strikes had inadvertently killed American hostage Warren Weinstein, Italian hostage Giovanni Lo Porto, and two American citizens accused of supporting Al Qaeda, Paul told Fox News Monday the attacks were a “difficult situation” and defended the president’s use of slightly discriminate fire from above to kill whoever:“There is a valuable use for drones and as much as I’m seen as an opponent of drones, in military and warfare, they do have some value,” Paul said on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.”“I’ve been an opponent of using drones about people not in combat, however if you are holding hostages, you kind of are involved in combat.”You see, we had to kill whoever was in that hut, because they were probably in possession of the hostages we had no idea were in that hut. That’s strategic logic, people! Presidential strategic logic. Right? Right?
Battling the Crazed Building Regulations in San Francisco
Did you miss my interview with Sonja Trauss, founder of the San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation
Here's what the Libertarian Party of San Francisco had to say about it, in an email to its members:
UPDATE:
Marcy Berry, Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, emails:
Here's what the Libertarian Party of San Francisco had to say about it, in an email to its members:
Hi All,-RW
If you all have a chance, please listen to this interview with Sonja Trauss. Robert Wenzel of the Economic Policy Journal did an amazing job at getting Sonja to bring out some excellent background on our current housing situation, as well as a list of hurdles developers face in building anything at all in this town.
It was very rewarding that Robert Wenzel mentioned the LPSF and our Tax Day during the interview.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/04/the-robert-wenzel-show-sonja-trauss.html
UPDATE:
Marcy Berry, Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, emails:
Hi Bob,
This was an excellent interview! Sonja has a way of making everything sound doable, and therefore, promoting hope and action.
Marcy
This is How Bad Things Are Getting at Rand Paul Central
Rand Paul's brain, Jesse Benton, is tweeting up a pro-Mitch McConnell storm. Including a re-tweet that originated with the super-neocon WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin, in which she named McConnell as "Distinguished pol of the week":
(ht Felix Bronstein)
-RW
Distinguished pol of the week http://t.co/B4SQxDMGI0
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) April 26, 2015
"Hold your nose" Benton also piled on in other tweets without a Rubin nudge:
Thanks in large part to the leadership of @Team_Mitch, Congress is actually starting to work again. http://t.co/u1ZRlPnlRp
— Jesse Benton (@LibertyPAC) April 21, 2015
How Mitch McConnell got the Senate working again http://t.co/qVy9NeyZO7
— Jesse Benton (@LibertyPAC) April 24, 2015
Just what the libertarian movement needs, a tweet homage to one of the most evil men in a city of evil men.(ht Felix Bronstein)
-RW
Sunday, April 26, 2015
The Emperor's Learning Curve
By Chris Rossini
Marco Rubio claims to have the skills of an Emperor. You see, he's on the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees. That's a much better position to be in than some punk Governor:
The U.S. Constitution.
I know...I know...these "public servants" raise their right hand and swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution as a matter of tradition only. We all know that the whole ceremony is nothing more than a politician's very first official lie.
Instead, there's a very steep learning curve that apparently takes a number of years. And for what? The destruction of foreign peoples and lands, as well as the subjugation and bankruptcy of your own.
Yes, the learning curve is tough. The Emperor must decide which country to ruin next. He must decide whether to back Sunni here, or Shia there. He must decide whether a foreign goon is a "freedom fighter" or the enemy....a "moderate" or an "extremist".
It's all just a learning curve.
Rubio says he's got it. Ready "on day one to manage U.S. foreign policy".
Sheldon Adelson's lucre is starting to jingle.
Marco Rubio claims to have the skills of an Emperor. You see, he's on the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees. That's a much better position to be in than some punk Governor:
“Governors can certainly read about foreign policy in briefings, and meet with experts, but there is no way they’ll be ready on day one to manage U.S. foreign policy because the learning curve alone would take a number of years, and you see that reflected in the history of the presidency.”You know what doesn't take "a number of years" to learn?
The U.S. Constitution.
I know...I know...these "public servants" raise their right hand and swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution as a matter of tradition only. We all know that the whole ceremony is nothing more than a politician's very first official lie.
Instead, there's a very steep learning curve that apparently takes a number of years. And for what? The destruction of foreign peoples and lands, as well as the subjugation and bankruptcy of your own.
Yes, the learning curve is tough. The Emperor must decide which country to ruin next. He must decide whether to back Sunni here, or Shia there. He must decide whether a foreign goon is a "freedom fighter" or the enemy....a "moderate" or an "extremist".
It's all just a learning curve.
Rubio says he's got it. Ready "on day one to manage U.S. foreign policy".
Sheldon Adelson's lucre is starting to jingle.
Chris Rossini is author of Set Money Free: What Every American Needs To Know About The Federal Reserve. Follow @chrisrossini on Twitter.
Spotted at the Cato Institute: A Take on Rand Paul's View on Audit the Fed
There is a great object lesson provided by a recent Cato Institute panel discussion. It provided great insight into why it usually makes sense to go for the jugular and call for dismantlement of government agencies, rather than measures that are unclear in objectives and which can be co-opted by the established order.
The panel discussion took place on April 17 at the Washington D.C. headquarters and was titled. Should GAO Audit the Federal Reserve?. Remarkably, the discussion hardly touches on the evils of the Federal Reserve and how it is the creator of the business cycle and a generally unstable economy. Instead, it is a discussion of the minutiae of what an establishment conducted audit would do and what it would look like. That's co-opting Ron Paul's call for auditing the Fed, which I am sure was aimed more at exposing the evils of Fed money manipulation.
The topic of gold doesn't even come up until the question and answer period at the end of the secession, where an audience participant brings it up. Panelist David Wessel of the Brookings Institute answered the question with utter contempt and said, "We tried the gold standard. It didn't work very well and we shouldn't go back."
Another panelist for this inside the Beltway Cato event was David Walker, a former United States Comptroller General who oversaw the General Accounting Office. His reply to the question was, "I don't see how practically you could go back to a gold standard."
And that's the kind of "broad policy discussion" you get at Beltway institutions these days.
There was one on point observation, however, and it came from Wessel, when he discussed Rand's view on Audit the Fed:
-RW
The panel discussion took place on April 17 at the Washington D.C. headquarters and was titled. Should GAO Audit the Federal Reserve?. Remarkably, the discussion hardly touches on the evils of the Federal Reserve and how it is the creator of the business cycle and a generally unstable economy. Instead, it is a discussion of the minutiae of what an establishment conducted audit would do and what it would look like. That's co-opting Ron Paul's call for auditing the Fed, which I am sure was aimed more at exposing the evils of Fed money manipulation.
The topic of gold doesn't even come up until the question and answer period at the end of the secession, where an audience participant brings it up. Panelist David Wessel of the Brookings Institute answered the question with utter contempt and said, "We tried the gold standard. It didn't work very well and we shouldn't go back."
Another panelist for this inside the Beltway Cato event was David Walker, a former United States Comptroller General who oversaw the General Accounting Office. His reply to the question was, "I don't see how practically you could go back to a gold standard."
And that's the kind of "broad policy discussion" you get at Beltway institutions these days.
There was one on point observation, however, and it came from Wessel, when he discussed Rand's view on Audit the Fed:
-RW
What Neocons Could Learn From an Understanding of the Horrors Created By Woodrow Wilson
An important essay is out by John R. Schindler who was formerly a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he taught courses on security, strategy, intelligence, terrorism, and military history. During his career, he was also an intelligence analyst at the National Security Agency and a counterintelligence officer.
In the essay, Schindler surveys the many foreign policy errors that Woodrow Wilson committed that led to horrific killing and ultimately World War II.
It is not difficult to see many parallels between Wilson's march into Europe, fueled by his religious liberal Protestant fever, and then his grave error in calling for the breakup of the Hapsburg monarchy, with current day war activity encouraged by neocons and Evangelicals.
This time it isn't the Hapsburg monarchy that is broken up that has led to turmoil in Europe. This time it is the takedown of Saddam Hussein and the resulting breakup in Iraq that has led to turmoil in the Middle East.
As Schindler makes clear, there was no good reason for the U.S. to enter Wold War I, the war was petering out when the U.S. entered. Presently, there is no good reason for the U.S. to be involved in the regional flare ups in the Middle East, which were triggered, in the first place, by the U.S. attack on Iraq.
Read Schindler's full account of Wilson's follies here.
-RW
In the essay, Schindler surveys the many foreign policy errors that Woodrow Wilson committed that led to horrific killing and ultimately World War II.
It is not difficult to see many parallels between Wilson's march into Europe, fueled by his religious liberal Protestant fever, and then his grave error in calling for the breakup of the Hapsburg monarchy, with current day war activity encouraged by neocons and Evangelicals.
This time it isn't the Hapsburg monarchy that is broken up that has led to turmoil in Europe. This time it is the takedown of Saddam Hussein and the resulting breakup in Iraq that has led to turmoil in the Middle East.
As Schindler makes clear, there was no good reason for the U.S. to enter Wold War I, the war was petering out when the U.S. entered. Presently, there is no good reason for the U.S. to be involved in the regional flare ups in the Middle East, which were triggered, in the first place, by the U.S. attack on Iraq.
Read Schindler's full account of Wilson's follies here.
-RW
"Neither London nor New York Will be Livable in Ten Years"
By Taki Theodoracopulos
A recent column in the FT had me mad as hell and not about to take it any more. The writer, Simon Kuper, calls Vienna a backwater, a bit like calling the Queen a busted flush because of her age. Sure, he writes how great Vienna was back when the Habsburgs ruled the roost, attracting people from all over, “some of them nuts.” He includes Freud, Hitler, Stalin, and Trotsky. Not the nicest bunch I can think of, but then the paper is a pink one at that. He fears London might go the way of Vienna, and price itself unaffordable to everyone but a few Chinese, Russian and Indian billionaires. The trouble is he’s right about London and dead wrong where Vienna is concerned. Vienna, incidentally, is dirt cheap.
Feeling myself inflate like a blowfish at the insult to my beloved city, I thought back to all those Schoenburg – Hartensteins gallivanting in fancy pantaloons around those beautiful palaces since the beginning of the 18th century. These were noble German counts who moved to Austria and became princes, a smart course however upwardly mobile. The place is still full of them, and my daughter recently visited Vienna and reported back that it was the most livable city in Europe.
Read the rest here.
A recent column in the FT had me mad as hell and not about to take it any more. The writer, Simon Kuper, calls Vienna a backwater, a bit like calling the Queen a busted flush because of her age. Sure, he writes how great Vienna was back when the Habsburgs ruled the roost, attracting people from all over, “some of them nuts.” He includes Freud, Hitler, Stalin, and Trotsky. Not the nicest bunch I can think of, but then the paper is a pink one at that. He fears London might go the way of Vienna, and price itself unaffordable to everyone but a few Chinese, Russian and Indian billionaires. The trouble is he’s right about London and dead wrong where Vienna is concerned. Vienna, incidentally, is dirt cheap.
Feeling myself inflate like a blowfish at the insult to my beloved city, I thought back to all those Schoenburg – Hartensteins gallivanting in fancy pantaloons around those beautiful palaces since the beginning of the 18th century. These were noble German counts who moved to Austria and became princes, a smart course however upwardly mobile. The place is still full of them, and my daughter recently visited Vienna and reported back that it was the most livable city in Europe.
Read the rest here.
Modern Day "Reality"
By Walter E. Williams
One of the wonders of modern times is that reality is often seen as a social construct and therefore optional. Thus, if one finds a particular reality offensive or inconvenient, he just "changes" it.
Say that one is born a male or a female but believes that nature made an error. Some believe that nature's "error" can be corrected by calling oneself another sex. Possibly a medical procedure on one's genitalia can correct nature's error. However, Mother Nature is ruthless. Sex determination is strictly chromosomal. Females are XX, and males are XY. There is no medical procedure that can change that. Once a male or female, always a male or female.
What about the chant "Hands up; don't shoot," echoed during street demonstrations and rioting and even in the halls of Congress? The lie was that Michael Brown had held his hands up to surrender to a white racist Ferguson, Missouri, police officer, Darren Wilson, who then shot him in cold blood. Even after it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reality was entirely different, it didn't matter. "Hands up; don't shoot" became the chant across the land.
"More women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year." That's the lie produced by feminists in 1993. It received a boost at this year's Super Bowl game in a 30-second, multimillion-dollar ad co-sponsored by the NFL, currying favor with women's groups as a result of a few players' misbehavior. Regarding the grossly bogus study, feminist writer Christina Hoff Sommers concluded, "How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained."
One of the wonders of modern times is that reality is often seen as a social construct and therefore optional. Thus, if one finds a particular reality offensive or inconvenient, he just "changes" it.
Say that one is born a male or a female but believes that nature made an error. Some believe that nature's "error" can be corrected by calling oneself another sex. Possibly a medical procedure on one's genitalia can correct nature's error. However, Mother Nature is ruthless. Sex determination is strictly chromosomal. Females are XX, and males are XY. There is no medical procedure that can change that. Once a male or female, always a male or female.
What about the chant "Hands up; don't shoot," echoed during street demonstrations and rioting and even in the halls of Congress? The lie was that Michael Brown had held his hands up to surrender to a white racist Ferguson, Missouri, police officer, Darren Wilson, who then shot him in cold blood. Even after it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reality was entirely different, it didn't matter. "Hands up; don't shoot" became the chant across the land.
"More women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year." That's the lie produced by feminists in 1993. It received a boost at this year's Super Bowl game in a 30-second, multimillion-dollar ad co-sponsored by the NFL, currying favor with women's groups as a result of a few players' misbehavior. Regarding the grossly bogus study, feminist writer Christina Hoff Sommers concluded, "How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained."
Saudi Propaganda About the Middle East
By Patrick Buchanan
For a month now, the Saudi air force has been bombing Yemen to reverse a takeover of that nation of 25 million by Houthi rebels, and reinstall a president who fled his country and is residing in Riyadh.
The Saudis have hit airfields, armor and arms depots, and caused a humanitarian catastrophe. Nearly 1,000 dead, 3,500 wounded and tens of thousands homeless. The poorest nation in the Arab world is near collapse. Dependent upon imported food, Yemen faces malnutrition and starvation.
And the United States has been an accomplice in the Saudi bombing of Yemen.
Why? Why is Yemen's civil war America's war?
What did the Houthis ever do to us?
While they bear us no love, their Houthi rebellion was an uprising against a pair of autocrats who had been imposed upon them, and against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Houthis' main enemy, AQAP, is America's worst enemy.
Why are we then making ourselves de facto allies of al-Qaida?
For a month now, the Saudi air force has been bombing Yemen to reverse a takeover of that nation of 25 million by Houthi rebels, and reinstall a president who fled his country and is residing in Riyadh.
The Saudis have hit airfields, armor and arms depots, and caused a humanitarian catastrophe. Nearly 1,000 dead, 3,500 wounded and tens of thousands homeless. The poorest nation in the Arab world is near collapse. Dependent upon imported food, Yemen faces malnutrition and starvation.
And the United States has been an accomplice in the Saudi bombing of Yemen.
Why? Why is Yemen's civil war America's war?
What did the Houthis ever do to us?
While they bear us no love, their Houthi rebellion was an uprising against a pair of autocrats who had been imposed upon them, and against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Houthis' main enemy, AQAP, is America's worst enemy.
Why are we then making ourselves de facto allies of al-Qaida?
A Major New Attack on Libertarianism?
The book, One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America by Princeton University professor Kevin Michael Kruse, is being marketed this way:
More disturbing is that there are indications of a vicious underlying attack against libertarianism in the book. @FriedrichHayek tweets:
We’re often told that the United States is, was, and always has been a Christian nation. But in One Nation Under God, historian Kevin M. Kruse reveals that the idea of “Christian America” is an invention—and a relatively recent one at that.An Amazon commenter notes:
As Kruse argues, the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation originated in the 1930s when businessmen enlisted religious activists in their fight against FDR’s New Deal. Corporations from General Motors to Hilton Hotels bankrolled conservative clergymen, encouraging them to attack the New Deal as a program of “pagan statism” that perverted the central principle of Christianity: the sanctity and salvation of the individual. Their campaign for “freedom under God” culminated in the election of their close ally Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.
I did not read this book yet, but was disturbed by the "Fact" stated in the write-up was that the national motto, "In God we trust" was a recent addition. Whatever you may think of our motto, Francis Scott Key quotes it in the Fourth stanza of the "Star Spangled Banner," Written in the year, 1814 AD/CE (which ever you prefer.) Thus, law making it a motto may have been enacted in the 1950, but it has been a de facto motto for a lot longer than that. I will give it PROVISIONAL 1 STAR, so I can publish this comment. This may be a good book; I intend to find out. But, I will be wary of the facts presented.
More disturbing is that there are indications of a vicious underlying attack against libertarianism in the book. @FriedrichHayek tweets:
Kevin Kruse's UG is a history in which New Deal Democrats & progressive GOPers place new God slogans in gov & libertarians are the villains.-RW
----
Kevin Kruse's Under God is a history where anyone who opposes Stalin or socialism is labeled a libertarian & vilified as one of the bad guys.
---
Kevin Kruse's Under God is a history where Hayek & Mises have not upended everything by showing that the dream of socialism is impossible.
---
Kevin Kruse's Under God is history were the Christian Socialists & Nationalists haven't just sent a generation to pointless slaughter in WWI
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Christie’s Wife Quits as Managing Director at Wall Street Firm
Mary Pat Christie, the wife of Chris Christie, resigned as a managing director from the hedge fund manager, Angelo, Gordon & Co., raising speculation that New Jersey Governor Christie will soon announce that he will enter the crowded field for 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
“Mrs. Christie has decided to take a hiatus from her work in the finance world to spend more time with her family and young children,” Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the governor said.
“Mrs. Christie has decided to take a hiatus from her work in the finance world to spend more time with her family and young children,” Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the governor said.
Who Was Really Behind the Assassination Attempt on Ronald Reagan?
It does not appear that political insider Roger Stone is buying the idea that John Hinkely was a "lone nut":
Reagan hit attempt 2 weeks aftr RR signed pres sucession agreement VP Bush/Baker pushed but Haig and Schulz opposed pic.twitter.com/q8KjpQcXxz
— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) April 25, 2015
I am anxious to interview Hinkley about who was really behind the failed assassination of Reagan. #Bush pic.twitter.com/rVmaLiSZ3m
— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) April 25, 2015
Political Insiders on Rand's "Interview Problem"
Block vs. Vacek on Rights
The following email exchange recently took place between Walter Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, and Edward Vacek, S.J., Loyola University,Religious Studies.
To; Walter Block:
Thanks for the panel presentation, Walter. You are courageous.
Yes, I really do not understand a lot about libertarianism. The very name led me to believe that you would hold that people have a right to make choices about their own lives, but – consistent with your one-only principle, I now see – you do not hold that. I keep learning.
Ed
----
To; Walter Block:
Thanks for the panel presentation, Walter. You are courageous.
Yes, I really do not understand a lot about libertarianism. The very name led me to believe that you would hold that people have a right to make choices about their own lives, but – consistent with your one-only principle, I now see – you do not hold that. I keep learning.
Ed
----
The Boring Ronald Reagan
Gore Vidal writes:
I first saw Ronnie and Nancy Reagan at the Republican convention of 1964 in San Francisco’s Cow Palace. Ronnie and Nancy (they are called by these names throughout the book under review) were seated in a box to one side of the central area where the cows—the delegates, that is—were whooping it up. Barry Goldwater was about to be nominated for president. Nelson Rockefeller was being booed not only for his communism but for his indecently uncloseted heterosexuality. Who present that famous day can ever forget those women with blue-rinsed hair and leathery faces and large costume jewelry and pastel-tinted dresses with tasteful matching accessories as they screamed “Lover!” at Nelson? It was like a TV rerun of the Bacchae, with Nelson as Pentheus.
I felt sorry for Nelson. I felt sorry for David Brinkley when a number of seriously overweight Sunbelt Goldwaterites chased him through the kitchens of the Mark Hopkins Hotel. I felt sorry for myself when I, too, had to ward off their righteous wrath: I was there as a television commentator for Westinghouse. I felt sorry for the entire “media” that day as fists were actually shaken at the anchorpersons high up in the eaves of the hall. I felt particularly sorry for the “media” when a former president named Eisenhower, reading a speech with his usual sense of discovery, attacked the press, and the convention hall went mad. At last Ike was giving it to those Commie-wierdo-Jew-fags who did not believe in the real America of humming electric chairs, well-packed prisons, and kitchens filled with every electrical device that a small brown person of extranational provenance might successfully operate at a fraction of the legal minimum wage.
As luck would have it, I stood leaning on the metal railing that enclosed the boxed-in open place where, side by side, Ronnie and Nancy were seated watching Ike. Suddenly, I was fascinated by them. First, there was her furious glare when someone created a diversion during Ike’s aria. She turned, lip curled with Bacchantish rage, huge unblinking eyes afire with a passion to kill the enemy so palpably at hand—or so it looked to me. For all I know she might have been trying out new contact lenses. In any case, I had barely heard of Nancy then. Even so, I said to myself: There is a lot of rage in this little lady. I turned then to Ronnie. I had seen him in the flesh for a decade or so as each of us earned his mite in the Hollyjungle. Ronnie was already notorious for his speeches for General Electric, excoriating communists who were, apparently, everywhere. I had never actually spoken to him at a party because I knew—as who did not?—that although he was the soul of amiability when not excoriating the international monolithic menace of atheistic godless communism, he was, far and away, Hollywood’s most grinding bore—Chester Chatterbox, in fact. Ronnie never stopped talking, even though he never had anything to say except what he had just read in the Reader’s Digest, which he studied the way that Jefferson did Montesquieu. He also told show-biz stories of the sort that overexcites civilians in awe of old movie stars, but causes other toilers in the Industry to stampede.
I had heard that Reagan might be involved in the coming campaign. So I studied him with some care. He was slumped in a folding chair, one hand holding up his chins; he was totally concentrated on Eisenhower. I remember thinking that I had made the right choice in 1959 when we were casting The Best Man, a play that I had written about a presidential convention. An agent had suggested Ronald Reagan for the lead. We all had a good laugh. He is by no means a bad actor, but he would hardly be convincing, I said with that eerie prescience which has earned me the title The American Nostradamus, as a presidential candidate. So I cast Melvyn Douglas, who could have made a splendid president in real life had his career not been rejuvenated by the play’s success, while the actor whom I had rejected had no choice but to get himself elected president. I do remember being struck by the intensity with which Reagan studied Eisenhower. I had seen that sort of concentration a thousand times in half-darkened theaters during rehearsals or Saturday matinees: the understudy examines the star’s performance, and tries to figure how it is done. An actor prepares, I said to myself: Mr. Reagan is planning to go into politics. With his crude charm, I was reasonably certain that he could be elected mayor of Beverly Hills.
I first saw Ronnie and Nancy Reagan at the Republican convention of 1964 in San Francisco’s Cow Palace. Ronnie and Nancy (they are called by these names throughout the book under review) were seated in a box to one side of the central area where the cows—the delegates, that is—were whooping it up. Barry Goldwater was about to be nominated for president. Nelson Rockefeller was being booed not only for his communism but for his indecently uncloseted heterosexuality. Who present that famous day can ever forget those women with blue-rinsed hair and leathery faces and large costume jewelry and pastel-tinted dresses with tasteful matching accessories as they screamed “Lover!” at Nelson? It was like a TV rerun of the Bacchae, with Nelson as Pentheus.
I felt sorry for Nelson. I felt sorry for David Brinkley when a number of seriously overweight Sunbelt Goldwaterites chased him through the kitchens of the Mark Hopkins Hotel. I felt sorry for myself when I, too, had to ward off their righteous wrath: I was there as a television commentator for Westinghouse. I felt sorry for the entire “media” that day as fists were actually shaken at the anchorpersons high up in the eaves of the hall. I felt particularly sorry for the “media” when a former president named Eisenhower, reading a speech with his usual sense of discovery, attacked the press, and the convention hall went mad. At last Ike was giving it to those Commie-wierdo-Jew-fags who did not believe in the real America of humming electric chairs, well-packed prisons, and kitchens filled with every electrical device that a small brown person of extranational provenance might successfully operate at a fraction of the legal minimum wage.
As luck would have it, I stood leaning on the metal railing that enclosed the boxed-in open place where, side by side, Ronnie and Nancy were seated watching Ike. Suddenly, I was fascinated by them. First, there was her furious glare when someone created a diversion during Ike’s aria. She turned, lip curled with Bacchantish rage, huge unblinking eyes afire with a passion to kill the enemy so palpably at hand—or so it looked to me. For all I know she might have been trying out new contact lenses. In any case, I had barely heard of Nancy then. Even so, I said to myself: There is a lot of rage in this little lady. I turned then to Ronnie. I had seen him in the flesh for a decade or so as each of us earned his mite in the Hollyjungle. Ronnie was already notorious for his speeches for General Electric, excoriating communists who were, apparently, everywhere. I had never actually spoken to him at a party because I knew—as who did not?—that although he was the soul of amiability when not excoriating the international monolithic menace of atheistic godless communism, he was, far and away, Hollywood’s most grinding bore—Chester Chatterbox, in fact. Ronnie never stopped talking, even though he never had anything to say except what he had just read in the Reader’s Digest, which he studied the way that Jefferson did Montesquieu. He also told show-biz stories of the sort that overexcites civilians in awe of old movie stars, but causes other toilers in the Industry to stampede.
I had heard that Reagan might be involved in the coming campaign. So I studied him with some care. He was slumped in a folding chair, one hand holding up his chins; he was totally concentrated on Eisenhower. I remember thinking that I had made the right choice in 1959 when we were casting The Best Man, a play that I had written about a presidential convention. An agent had suggested Ronald Reagan for the lead. We all had a good laugh. He is by no means a bad actor, but he would hardly be convincing, I said with that eerie prescience which has earned me the title The American Nostradamus, as a presidential candidate. So I cast Melvyn Douglas, who could have made a splendid president in real life had his career not been rejuvenated by the play’s success, while the actor whom I had rejected had no choice but to get himself elected president. I do remember being struck by the intensity with which Reagan studied Eisenhower. I had seen that sort of concentration a thousand times in half-darkened theaters during rehearsals or Saturday matinees: the understudy examines the star’s performance, and tries to figure how it is done. An actor prepares, I said to myself: Mr. Reagan is planning to go into politics. With his crude charm, I was reasonably certain that he could be elected mayor of Beverly Hills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)