Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
If you will indulge me a brief few sentences, I would like to remember President Gerald Ford. The man who was president when I was born, Ford steered this country successfully through a season of troubled waters. Perhaps more importantly, Ford served the nation as an ex-president with dignity. Unlike former Presidents Jimmy Carter, and to some degree, Bill Clinton, Ford followed a presidential tradition of being deferential to the current man in office. After paranoia got the best of President Richard Nixon, America was blessed to have Ford at the helm for a season.
•••
After the travesty of my November political predictions, one would think I’d shy from pontificating on the future. However, in the interest of percolating some political discourse, I thought I’d offer my take on who I think are going to be the 10 Americans who most shape this nation in 2007. Perhaps because of my own political tastes, this list is a little biased toward partisan actors. Here are the 10 people I believe will be the most influential in the new year:
1. Trent Lott. Like a phoenix rising from the political ashes, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has proved his own political influence in Washington by winning the minority whip position, making him the No. 2 Republican in the upper house of Congress. Lott, who resigned as Senate majority leader four years ago after making some controversial remarks, will be effective in assuring that the Democrats can do little with their slim control of the Senate. Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who took over the GOP leadership after Lott ) proved to be a naïve rookie, a fact that Democrats — like old-school Sen. Ted Kennedy — exploited. Lott knows the Senate game much better than Frist, and even as minority whip he will make things difficult for Democrats. Lott will make the power of the position stretch further than any of his predecessors.
However, Lott may even have more influence as an unofficial king maker as he silently pushes his old GOP rival, Sen. John McCain, as the 2008 Republican nominee for president. Lott’s early gestures favoring McCain may help keep other Republicans out of the race. I’m not sure what Lott hopes to gain from supporting McCain, except perhaps some political chips to cash in later should McCain become president. A cabinet post, perhaps ?
2. Hillary Clinton. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should come out swinging sometime in 2007, and I predict her swings will annihilate political pretty boys like former Sen. Johnny “ John” Reid Edwards and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. Sen. Clinton is focused on the path to Pennsylvania Avenue, and her road to the Democratic nomination will be paved in 2007.
3. President George W. Bush. The president the left loves to hate will make some very critical wartime decisions in 2007, which is why I put him on the list. By no means do I think that 2007 will be Bush’s most influential year, but the power of his office, combined with the force of his person (some call it resolve, others stubbornness ), will continue to create waves of change that ripple across America and the globe.
Domestically, Bush will enable a Democratic Congress to pass federal minimum wage increases (which will help dampen the economy ) and offer amnesty to millions of illegal workers here in America (which could, unfortunately, cement another ethnic voting bloc for Democrats ).
4. Carl Levine. Senate Armed Forces Committee Chair Carl Levine, D-Mich., is going to wield significant power as Democrats hope to exercise some oversight and force Bush to cut-and-run (oh, sorry, I meant redeploy ) from Iraq. Levine, one of the harshest critics of the Iraq war, will use the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearings to drag in and attempt to embarrass every so-called neo-con in the Bush administration, including, if Levine can get away with it, President Bush. Levine’s allies in the press will certainly help publicize oversight hearings on the Iraq war and spin those hearings according to their own objectives.
5. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, will perhaps be one of the most influential outside voices guiding Democrats in Congress from the pages of The Times. As the Democrats formally bring the war into the congressional debate, Sulzberger and the Times will continue to provide headlines that support that paper’s leftist, anti-American military positions. Conservatives, who often vilify the Times, underestimated the newspaper’s influence, perhaps a little to flush on the rise of the conservative media voices on outlets like Fox News Channel. Sulzberger has proved that the Old Gray Lady is still a powerful tool in leading the nation, and you can expect him to continue to use that tool in 2007.
6. Robert Gates. The man in the middle, the new secretary of defense has two years to “ fix” Iraq or go down in history as an asterisk on the end of the Donald Rumsfeld entry in history books. As a new face in the Pentagon, Gates is uniquely positioned to have the ear of both President Bush and the new Congress. If he can create a winning strategy, and sell that strategy to Bush and a majority of Congress, then Gates will tremendously impact 2007.
7. Bill O’Reilly. While The New York Times influences the influential, Bill O’Reilly — through radio, television and his newspaper column — influences the blue-collar middle class of America. In many ways, O’Reilly’s populist “ I care for the little guy” persona has given him the most significant voice in the middle class.
8. Lee Scott. The Wal-Mart CEO leads the company that has almost single-handedly been responsible for keeping the rate of inflation down. Now that the company’s mega-growth rate could falter, will the Bentonville retailer be able to keep prices from creeping up — giving more room for competitors to raise prices — and contributing to inflation ? Even those Americans who don’t shop at Wal-Mart will be affected by Scott’s ability to keep the Wal-Mart low-cost business model viable. If Wal-Mart falters, the rate of inflation will increase.
9. Steve Jobs. The Apple CEO gave us the graphical user interface and the iPod. His company’s iTV and iPhone come out in 2007. Both could transform the way we consume media as much as the iPod has.
10. Bill Clinton. The senator’s husband is reportedly fired up and ready to get on the campaign trail for his wife. The former president will have two crucial functions in 2007. First, he will keep his Democratic Party from swinging too far to the left by quietly rallying centrists for his new official cause — making Hillary Clinton the next president.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Taking the "Nativity" Journey
Hatchet
by Lucas Roebuck
I don’t mind Hollywood executives trying to make money by making movies that appeal to my religious sensibilities. However, when I pay $ 7. 50 to see a flick, I expect the movie to live up to how it bills itself.
For example, if I go to see a movie that bills itself as a comedy, I expect to come out of the theater laughing and feeling good. If a movie has “ Star Wars” in the title, I expect to see light sabers. Lots of light sabers. And if a movie claims to be a big budget epic drama portraying the single most influential birth in human history, I expect the film to move me to intellectual and emotional places I have never been before.
From that perspective, New Line Cinema’s “ The Nativity Story” fails as a movie. Unlike Mel Gibson’s masterpiece “ The Passion of the Christ, ” “ Nativity” seems less like the product of an artist’s passion for his or her faith, and more like a paint-by-number formula intended to patronize people like me.
Watching the “ Nativity ” made me realize the genius of Gibson when he had his actors use ancient languages instead of speaking in English. The “ Nativity, ” perhaps in an attempt to be more accessible, has actors speaking English with a Middle Eastern accent that is inconsistently applied from actor to actor. The result has the cheesy effect of constantly reminding the viewer that they are watching a movie.
Speaking in a foreign tongue avoids the bad delivery of lines, and more importantly, allows the actors to focus on delivering emotion instead of exacting lines. In the “ Passion, ” the unfamiliar language serves to authenticate the film, making the dramatic portrayal seem more real, and thus allowing the viewer to become more immersed and forget they are sitting in a movie theater.
Some may say that comparing the “ Passion” to the “ Nativity” is unfair — but New Line Cinema executives set the standard by cloning the marketing of the “ Passion” as they attempted to sell the “ Nativity. ” Churches were used to help market the film, as pastors used clips from the film in Advent sermons, and “ Nativity” posters were made available to post in church lobbies. No doubt New Line was hopeful using the same marketing playbook would help clone the box office take of the “ Passion. ”
As of this writing, the “ Nativity” had grossed a paltry $ 23 million, compared to the $ 370 million take of the “ Passion. ” Even if the “ Nativity” has an upsurge in Christmas week viewings, the likelihood of the film breaking the $ 100 million mark is nil. The movie cost New Line around $ 35 million to make, so the film should turn a modest profit once DVD sales and rentals are factored in.
The market failure of the “ Nativity” proved a few things about the success of the “ Passion” and the elusive Christian market moviemakers are trying to capitalize on. Firstly, even when pastors are preaching a film from the pulpit, parishioners can’t be counted on to “ follow orders ” and head to theaters. Secondly, Christian message or not, Christian moviegoers tend to be like other moviegoers — they reward great films because they were great, not because they pandered to a particular demographic.
That being said, I do recommend that Christians go and see the movie. I know that in the context of my own deeply held beliefs about who Jesus is, I was moved when I saw the film. But where the film took me spiritually had more to do with my predetermined ideas and knowledge of Christ than anything to do with the cinematic quality of the film.
I suppose I should qualify my recommendation for Christians to see the film. Instead, I say go see any presentation of the Nativity, as the Nativity reminds us what Christmas is all about. By that measure, watching “ The Nativity Story” is an excellent way to reinforce why we are celebrating Christmas in the first place.
by Lucas Roebuck
I don’t mind Hollywood executives trying to make money by making movies that appeal to my religious sensibilities. However, when I pay $ 7. 50 to see a flick, I expect the movie to live up to how it bills itself.
For example, if I go to see a movie that bills itself as a comedy, I expect to come out of the theater laughing and feeling good. If a movie has “ Star Wars” in the title, I expect to see light sabers. Lots of light sabers. And if a movie claims to be a big budget epic drama portraying the single most influential birth in human history, I expect the film to move me to intellectual and emotional places I have never been before.
From that perspective, New Line Cinema’s “ The Nativity Story” fails as a movie. Unlike Mel Gibson’s masterpiece “ The Passion of the Christ, ” “ Nativity” seems less like the product of an artist’s passion for his or her faith, and more like a paint-by-number formula intended to patronize people like me.
Watching the “ Nativity ” made me realize the genius of Gibson when he had his actors use ancient languages instead of speaking in English. The “ Nativity, ” perhaps in an attempt to be more accessible, has actors speaking English with a Middle Eastern accent that is inconsistently applied from actor to actor. The result has the cheesy effect of constantly reminding the viewer that they are watching a movie.
Speaking in a foreign tongue avoids the bad delivery of lines, and more importantly, allows the actors to focus on delivering emotion instead of exacting lines. In the “ Passion, ” the unfamiliar language serves to authenticate the film, making the dramatic portrayal seem more real, and thus allowing the viewer to become more immersed and forget they are sitting in a movie theater.
Some may say that comparing the “ Passion” to the “ Nativity” is unfair — but New Line Cinema executives set the standard by cloning the marketing of the “ Passion” as they attempted to sell the “ Nativity. ” Churches were used to help market the film, as pastors used clips from the film in Advent sermons, and “ Nativity” posters were made available to post in church lobbies. No doubt New Line was hopeful using the same marketing playbook would help clone the box office take of the “ Passion. ”
As of this writing, the “ Nativity” had grossed a paltry $ 23 million, compared to the $ 370 million take of the “ Passion. ” Even if the “ Nativity” has an upsurge in Christmas week viewings, the likelihood of the film breaking the $ 100 million mark is nil. The movie cost New Line around $ 35 million to make, so the film should turn a modest profit once DVD sales and rentals are factored in.
The market failure of the “ Nativity” proved a few things about the success of the “ Passion” and the elusive Christian market moviemakers are trying to capitalize on. Firstly, even when pastors are preaching a film from the pulpit, parishioners can’t be counted on to “ follow orders ” and head to theaters. Secondly, Christian message or not, Christian moviegoers tend to be like other moviegoers — they reward great films because they were great, not because they pandered to a particular demographic.
That being said, I do recommend that Christians go and see the movie. I know that in the context of my own deeply held beliefs about who Jesus is, I was moved when I saw the film. But where the film took me spiritually had more to do with my predetermined ideas and knowledge of Christ than anything to do with the cinematic quality of the film.
I suppose I should qualify my recommendation for Christians to see the film. Instead, I say go see any presentation of the Nativity, as the Nativity reminds us what Christmas is all about. By that measure, watching “ The Nativity Story” is an excellent way to reinforce why we are celebrating Christmas in the first place.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Kofi's Legacy of Death
Hatchet
by Lucas Roebuck
The international organizations — many of which exist to line the pockets of their bureaucrats (while they all wring their hands over the poverty in this world ) — are lining up to laud outgoing U. N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The awards will pile high, but not as high as the corpses of those who suffered and died on Annan’s watch.
Annan failed millions who were slaughtered during his tenure at the United Nations. But Annan wasn’t a total failure at completing his goals — he certainly helped the enemies of freedom and human rights use the United Nations as a tool to hurt the country that does more to defend those things than any other nation: the United States of America.
Often, Annan’s desire to cut the United States down to size was done so at the expense of those voiceless citizens of the world the United Nations was created to protect. Annan’s grand vision of multilateralism trumped the U. N. goals of world peace and security.
Annan’s parting gift to the United States was a speech at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum in Independence, Mo. earlier this week, in which he offered thinly veiled criticisms at President Bush and this Iraq policy.
Of course, Annan failed to mention that he enabled Saddam Hussein’s regime to continue its reign of terror for years, opposing every attempt by the United States and its allies to hold Hussein accountable for his evil deeds (and violations of U. N. Security Council resolutions ). The tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and buried in mass graves had no advocate in Annan. While Hussein’s evil sons literally raped and pillaged their own people, the dictator was paying off the international bureaucrats with kickbacks from a U. N. oil-for-food program. Hussein’s web of corruption was buying influence in the United Nations from greedy U. N. officials — all under the nose of Annan.
In many ways, either Annan’s incompetence or his willful denial is what ended up forcing the United States and her allies to invade Iraq and remove the dictator from power. Hussein used oil-for-food kickbacks to help bolster his regime. For a succinct and unbiased report on how far up the corruption went, I recommend reading the “ oil for food” entry at Wikipedia. org.
Unfortunately, enabling Hussein to continue oppressing his people was the least of Annan’s failures. Annan is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have been killed by paramilitary troops (Janjaweed ) in genocidal fashion, as Arabs worked to cleanse non-Arabs — both Islamic and Christian — from Sudan. Sudan, where modern slavery exists today, has been largely protected by Annan, who has been unwilling to call the ethnic killings (as reported by U. N. observers ) genocide.
(For my part, if the United Nations cannot get a multinational force into Darfur to end the widespread suffering and murder that the African Union multinational force could not, then the United States should do the job. If the Democrats are so big on “ redeployment, ” I hope they redeploy some of our troops to help end the genocide in Darfur. )
Besides protecting the Sudanese government, Annan has also allowed the United Nations to become an instrument of anti-Semitism for many of its Arab nation member states.
Another tragedy (not nearly a strong enough word ) that is a part of Annan’s legacy of failure is the Rwandan genocide in 1994. This happened while Annan was in charged of Peacekeeping Operations (although before he became secretary-general ). Annan kept U. N. forces from intervening in a conflict that ended up seeing one million people massacred.
Annan’s departure from the United Nations will no doubt free him up to be a more vocal critic of the Bush administration, but that is a small price to pay for the newfound absence of incompetence that will soon grace the United Nations.
I have high hopes that Annan’s successor, Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, will be a much more affective leader. Perhaps most importantly, unlike Annan (he’s a professional bureaucrat, who came up through the U. N. ranks, and had reason to protect the bureaucracy ) Ki-moon is a true diplomat. Ki-moon represents the best hope for reform at the United Nations, the sort of reform that will transform the obese organization from a gravy train for bureaucrats into a well-oiled mechanism that once again is a positive actor in the world.
by Lucas Roebuck
The international organizations — many of which exist to line the pockets of their bureaucrats (while they all wring their hands over the poverty in this world ) — are lining up to laud outgoing U. N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The awards will pile high, but not as high as the corpses of those who suffered and died on Annan’s watch.
Annan failed millions who were slaughtered during his tenure at the United Nations. But Annan wasn’t a total failure at completing his goals — he certainly helped the enemies of freedom and human rights use the United Nations as a tool to hurt the country that does more to defend those things than any other nation: the United States of America.
Often, Annan’s desire to cut the United States down to size was done so at the expense of those voiceless citizens of the world the United Nations was created to protect. Annan’s grand vision of multilateralism trumped the U. N. goals of world peace and security.
Annan’s parting gift to the United States was a speech at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum in Independence, Mo. earlier this week, in which he offered thinly veiled criticisms at President Bush and this Iraq policy.
Of course, Annan failed to mention that he enabled Saddam Hussein’s regime to continue its reign of terror for years, opposing every attempt by the United States and its allies to hold Hussein accountable for his evil deeds (and violations of U. N. Security Council resolutions ). The tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and buried in mass graves had no advocate in Annan. While Hussein’s evil sons literally raped and pillaged their own people, the dictator was paying off the international bureaucrats with kickbacks from a U. N. oil-for-food program. Hussein’s web of corruption was buying influence in the United Nations from greedy U. N. officials — all under the nose of Annan.
In many ways, either Annan’s incompetence or his willful denial is what ended up forcing the United States and her allies to invade Iraq and remove the dictator from power. Hussein used oil-for-food kickbacks to help bolster his regime. For a succinct and unbiased report on how far up the corruption went, I recommend reading the “ oil for food” entry at Wikipedia. org.
Unfortunately, enabling Hussein to continue oppressing his people was the least of Annan’s failures. Annan is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have been killed by paramilitary troops (Janjaweed ) in genocidal fashion, as Arabs worked to cleanse non-Arabs — both Islamic and Christian — from Sudan. Sudan, where modern slavery exists today, has been largely protected by Annan, who has been unwilling to call the ethnic killings (as reported by U. N. observers ) genocide.
(For my part, if the United Nations cannot get a multinational force into Darfur to end the widespread suffering and murder that the African Union multinational force could not, then the United States should do the job. If the Democrats are so big on “ redeployment, ” I hope they redeploy some of our troops to help end the genocide in Darfur. )
Besides protecting the Sudanese government, Annan has also allowed the United Nations to become an instrument of anti-Semitism for many of its Arab nation member states.
Another tragedy (not nearly a strong enough word ) that is a part of Annan’s legacy of failure is the Rwandan genocide in 1994. This happened while Annan was in charged of Peacekeeping Operations (although before he became secretary-general ). Annan kept U. N. forces from intervening in a conflict that ended up seeing one million people massacred.
Annan’s departure from the United Nations will no doubt free him up to be a more vocal critic of the Bush administration, but that is a small price to pay for the newfound absence of incompetence that will soon grace the United Nations.
I have high hopes that Annan’s successor, Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, will be a much more affective leader. Perhaps most importantly, unlike Annan (he’s a professional bureaucrat, who came up through the U. N. ranks, and had reason to protect the bureaucracy ) Ki-moon is a true diplomat. Ki-moon represents the best hope for reform at the United Nations, the sort of reform that will transform the obese organization from a gravy train for bureaucrats into a well-oiled mechanism that once again is a positive actor in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
