Tuesday, August 11, 2009

A Lousy Day's Work

fighting words

Was Bill Clinton's visit to North Korea worth the time, energy, and prestige? No way.

By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/
Posted Monday, Aug. 10, 2009, at 11:39 AM ET

I call your attention to a small detail about Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the two American journalists who were wrongfully arrested, illegally detained, and then capriciously released by the crime family that controls the northern section of the Korean peninsula and treats all its inhabitants as slave-prisoners and all the neighbors within its missile range as hostages.

The two young women were picked up in March and released in August. That means they spent almost half a year in the North Korean prison system. Yet to judge by the photographs of them arriving back on U.S. soil, they were in approximately the same physical condition as they had been when they were first unlawfully apprehended.

Now, I spent less time than that as an honored guest in North Korea and still managed to lose weight during my stay. The shattering statistic that everybody now knows about North Korea is that its citizens are on average 5 to 6 inches shorter than South Koreans. And by that I mean to say "on average"—it seems to be true even of North Korean soldiers. The stunting and shortening of the children of the last famine generation may be still more heartbreaking when we come to measure it. And the fate of those who are in the North Korean gulag can, by this measure, only be imagined. There is a starvation regime within the wider nightmare of the slave system. Yet Ling and Lee had obviously not been maltreated or emaciated in the usual way that even a North Korean civilian, let alone a North Korean prisoner, could expect to be.

The logical corollary of this is obvious. The Kim Jong-il gang was always planning to release them. They were arrested in order to be let go and were maintained in releasable shape until the deal could be done.

Does this not—or should this not—slightly qualify and dilute our joy in seeing them come home? Does the Dear Leader not say to himself, That was easy? Are the North Korean people not being assured, through their megaphone media, that the sun shines so consistently out of the rear end of their celestial boss that even powerful U.S. statesmen will appear at the airport to bring apologies, pay tribute, and receive custody of uninvited guests in the workers' paradise?

Whatever the Pyongyang press has said, it is unlikely to exceed in its flattery the encomium already offered by Lanny Davis, a former consigliere to both Clintons. I strongly urge you to read his entire boot-lick essay here, but I offer you this for flavor:

The release of the two journalists by the North Koreans … was the result of a tour-de-force, trifecta combination of the three most talented and truly great political leaders of our times—Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; her husband, former President Bill Clinton; and President Barack Obama. Without the special talents and the synergistic magic of the three of them working together …

Hold it right there. As I say, take a look at the whole piece and roll it round your tongue for as long as you can bear it.

Davis is a known fawner on the Clintons, but Henry Kissinger, writing in Sunday's Washington Post, was hardly better. Like the inexpert bore that he so often is, our former secretary of state loosed a positive barrage of rhetorical questions without troubling to answer any of them:

It is inherent in hostage situations that potentially heatbreaking human conditions are used to overwhelm policy judgments. Therein lies the bargaining strength of the hostage-taker. On the other hand, at any given moment, several million Americans reside or travel abroad. How are they best protected? Is the lesson of this episode that any ruthless group or government can demand a symbolic meeting with a senior American by seizing hostages or threatening inhuman treatment for prisoners in their hand? If it should be said that North Korea is a special case because of its nuclear capability, does that create new incentives for proliferation?

The remainder of his article is the sheerest waffle, probably because he and Kim Jong-il share some of the same friends and patrons and business partners in Beijing (this is also why he skates so rapidly over the human rights dimension of the crisis), but at least the questions he declines to answer were worth asking and the provisional answer to the last two of them would appear to be "yes." Since Bill Clinton began the "engagement" with North Korea more than a decade ago, nothing done by its regime has been thought of as punishable. Even since the resumption of the so-called "six-power" agreement in Beijing in February 2007, North Korea has violated it in the nonminor form of nuclear testing and the production of weapons-grade plutonium and has simply ignored all the relevant U.N. resolutions. These aggressive and arrogant policies have been advanced at exactly no cost. And meanwhile, the civilian population of North Korea is kept at the slavery and starvation level, with emergency food aid from overseas exacted by blackmail to make us complicit in the sickening business, while the civilian population of South Korea is threatened with obliteration in the most bloodthirsty terms if any resistance is offered to the nuclear blackmail that keeps the whole horror going in the first place.

As of last week, and as the result of a huge investment of time and energy and prestige and forced politeness, we can now claim to have reduced the North Korean prison population by exactly two, and they were going to be released anyway. In return, we have immensely gratified and flattered the man who kidnapped them and who makes a daily mockery of international law. There was even "remorse" expressed. But guess by whom? Not by the slave master who makes his territory impossible to enter and impossible to leave. A lousy day's work.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2224779/

Monday, August 10, 2009

Today's Tune: The Corrs - Breathless (Live)

(Click on title to play video)

Go on, go on
Leave me breathless
Come on
Hey, yeah

The daylight's fading slowly
But time with you is standing still
I'm waiting for you only
The slightest touch and I feel weak

I cannot lie
From you I cannot hide
And I'm losing the will to try it
Can't hide it, can't fight it

So go on, go on
Come on and leave me breathless
Tempt me, tease me
Until I can't deny this loving feeling
Make me long for your kiss
Go on, go on, yeah
Come on, yeah

And if there's no tomorrow
And all we have is here and now
I'm happy just to have you
You're all the love I need somehow

It's like a dream
Although I'm not asleep
I never want to wake up
Don't lose it, don't leave it

So go on, go on
Come on and leave me breathless
Tempt me, tease me
Until I can't deny this loving feeling
Make me long for your kiss
Go on, go on, yeah
Come

Yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

And I can't lie
From you I cannot hide
And I've lost my will to try it
Can't hide it, can't fight it

So go on, go on
Come on and leave me breathless
Tempt me, tease me
Until I can't deny this loving feeling
Make me long for your kiss

Go on, go on
Come on leave me breathless
Go on, go on
Come on leave me breathless
Go on, go on
Come on leave me breathless
Go on, go on

John Hughes: American Rebel

Another Perspective

By Andrew Cline on 8.10.09 @ 6:07AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/

Look at director John Hughes, who died last Thursday at age 59, and one might think: accountant. The owl-rimmed glasses, boyish hair, and collared shirts would say to anyone likely to judge by such stylistic clues that this was a middle-class father of two who worked 9-5 and packed his own chicken salad sandwiches every day to save a few bucks. Ironically, it was John Hughes who taught us all that judging others by such superficial criteria was not only morally wrong, but usually factually wrong as well.

The two great criticisms of the 1980s, both incorrect, are that it was a "decade of greed" and a decade of mass conformity in which all who were different were shamed into submission or outcast. The first is a topic for another essay. The second is countered by Hughes' greatest films: Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Beuller's Day Off, and Weird Science, and by the lesser but still powerful Pretty in Pink and Some Kind of Wonderful.

These were the films my friends and I talked about until late in the evening while cruising the McDonald's parking lot. We were entertained by Indiana Jones, Top Gun, and Revenge of the Nerds, but aside from the Star Wars trilogy and the brilliant comedies of Rob Reiner, only John Hughes' films got us discussing film as an art form. We knew only three Hollywood directors' names: Spielberg, Lucas, and John Hughes.

Hughes lacked the technical and artistic genius of Spielberg and Lucas. He dazzled no one with dog fights in outer space, killer sharks or chiseled heroes who defeated the Nazis with only a whip. He captured our hearts with something much simpler: Stories of people just like us.

Not one John Hughes hero was muscular or rich. Eric Stoltz was probably the most handsome. The girls were cute, but you wouldn't find a super model in any of the credits. So why did we, boy and girl alike, keep shelling out our money to borrow dad's car and go see these people on screen weekend after weekend? It was because all of us knew that if only we had the pluck -- the nerve -- to take the kind of social risks these kids were taking, we could easily be the hero or heroine too.

For the children of the 1980s, John Hughes was our J.D. Salinger or Joseph Heller. He wrote us into his films. Those kids getting picked on, being misunderstood, struggling to establish their own identity, they were us. We didn't have Yossarian or Holden Caufield. We had "Farmer Ted," Ferris, Sam, Mary Stuart Masterson's Watts, or the entire cast of The Breakfast Club.

But more than that, we had Hughes. We had a writer and director who didn't exploit us by luring us into bad films with a couple of good songs and some attractive celebrities. We had an artist who respected us as individuals. That is why, no matter your class or crowd, you loved John Hughes' films. He respected his audience as no director of teen films ever has.

John Hughes' lasting mark on American cinema was to treat teenagers with dignity and respect. He did this by writing characters that did not blindly rebel against authority. None of Hughes' heroes sought to destroy anything or anyone. They rebelled for the most basic human reason: to assert their individuality.

It wasn't enough for a John Hughes character to wear a leather jacket or smoke cigarettes. They weren't poseurs. In fact, his rebels, most notably excepted by Ducky from Pretty in Pink, tended to dress just like everyone else -- or want to. Hughes' great insight was to understand that rebellion had nothing to do with how you dressed and everything to do with how you thought and acted.

In his films, the hero doesn't stand entirely outside of society's norms or values, but rather embraces most of them. He rebels not through senseless destruction, but by asserting his independence from the role others assign him based on his appearance and age.

Ferris Bueller skips school because he concludes that he can learn more outside the school walls than within them. In Sixteen Candles, Ted and Sam show the cool kids that the skinny guy with braces and the alternative girl with no boobs have a lot more to offer than those who rely on their looks to get by. The members of The Breakfast Club and the characters in Some Kind of Wonderful learn that everyone is insecure, funny, caring, and -- above all -- worthy of treating with respect, no matter how they dress or wear their hair.

Yes, there are undeveloped characters written in for comic relief (Long Duck Dong). There are stereotypes (Chet). But in the end, Long Duck Dong gets the girl and becomes seen by the other characters in Sixteen Candles as more than just a "bizarre Chinaman." Even Sam's grandparents are written to defy type -- one set is overly reserved and uptight, the other too loose and carefree. We are left to believe that "normal" is neither of these extremes, but somewhere happily in the middle.

Hughes understood that we are all stereotyped. His films rebelled against type not just for people who chose to dress in black and listen to The Cure, but for all of us. By showing that preppies and jocks are equally as misunderstood as geeks, stoners and basket cases, he taught a generation of teenagers to judge others by their character, not their appearance. He taught us that prejudice and forced conformity are evils because they deny the individuality, and therefore the humanity, of their objects.

This is why John Hughes' best films rise to the level of greatness. The acting and directing are brilliant, but the writing lifts them into a place somewhere between entertainment and literature.

Hughes refused to caricature teens or the suburban, middle-American values of the 1980s with which they struggled. He didn't belittle parents who worked hard or the wonderful homes and neighborhoods they provided their kids. He wasn't telling his audience that they were right simply because they were young or that their parents and teachers were wrong simply because they were older.

In John Hughes' world, adults were not always wrong; teens not always right. Nor were the poor always virtuous, the rich always evil, the counter culture always noble, or the prevailing norms always repugnant. Everyone was to be evaluated on his or her own merits as an individual, not as a representative of class, culture, authority, or anything else.

By asserting the supremacy of the individual, John Hughes was himself rebelling against type. He was a Hollywood director refusing to promote the standard Hollywood clichés about America and its youth. His vision was essentially a Reaganite one: that we are all individuals and that the key to our destiny is found not in external social causes, nor dependency on others, but in our own willingness to shape it.

He managed to impart this crucial lesson without preaching it, but by doing the vastly more difficult job of entertaining. He told honest stories, and the lesson told itself. His honesty was why we, his audience, loved him so much. And it is why his films will be watched -- and loved -- long after the hair styles, clothes and music cease to evoke fond memories from any living viewer.

Andrew Cline, high school class of 1988, is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Expelled From the New York Times

By Ben Stein on 8.10.09 @ 6:09AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/

My sister nailed it many years ago when she said, "Your basic human is not such a hot item."

Keep that filed in your head as I tell my little tale.

About five or six years ago, roughly, I was solicited to write a column every two weeks for the Sunday New York Times Business Section. I was really thrilled. I have written for the Washington Post (when I was a teenager), for the Wall Street Journal edit page under the legendary Bob Bartley, for Barron's, under the really great Alan Abelson and Jim Meagher, for my beloved American Spectator, under the great Bob and Wlady, and now having a regular column at the Times was going to be great stuff.

The column went well. I got lots of excellent fan mail and fine feedback from my editors, who, however, kept changing.

The first real super problem I had was when the movie I narrated and co-wrote, Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed, was in progress. A "science writer" for the Times blasted the movie on the front page and noted that I, whom she repeatedly called "...a freelance writer..." (not a columnist ) for the Times was somehow involved. That was followed by a really fantastically angry blast against the movie by a reviewer who really hated it a lot. (I note that the Times also disliked Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hmm.)

Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me. But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously.

Some of them started a campaign against me in various forums, including letters to the Times.

At roughly the same time, I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the "investment bank" Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.

Still, my editor at the Times stood by me loyally and was steadfast, even inspiring.

Now, in the time I had been doing my column, roughly five or six years, I had done many commercials for goods and services. No one at the Times ever said a word negatively about these. In fact, when I did a series of commercials with Shaquille O'Neal, the legendary basketball star, one of my superiors at the Times asked me for souvenirs. No one ever told me in any way, by word, look, or gesture, not to do commercials.

Meanwhile, the haters connected with atheism and neo-Darwinism continued to attack me.

Then, two things happened to change and end my career at the Times. Well, maybe three. The Times told me they were forced by budgetary pressures to only run me every four weeks. This was a blow and I started to think about where else I might write. (I had been solicited by many major publications while at the Times but my editors had asked me not to write for them and I did as asked.)

But the two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.

They did let me run a piece querying what I thought was a certain lack of focus in Mr. Obama's world but that was it, and then came another issue.

I had done a commercial for an Internet aggregating company called FreeScore. This commercial offered people a week of free access to their credit scores and then required them to pay for further such access.

This commercial was red meat for the Ben Stein haters left over from the Expelled days. They bombarded the Times with letters. They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) They demanded of the high pooh-bahs at the Times that they fire me because of what they called a conflict of interest.

Of course, there was no conflict of interest. I had never written one word in the Times or anywhere else about getting credit scores on line. Not a word.

But somehow, these people bamboozled some of the high pooh-bahs at the Times into thinking there was a conflict of interest. In an e-mail sent to me by a person I had never met nor even heard of, I was fired. (I read the e-mail while having pizza at the Seattle airport on my way to Sandpoint.) I called the editor and explained the situation. He said the problem was "the appearance" of conflict of interest. I asked how that could be when I never wrote about the subject at all. He said the real problem was that FreeScore was a major financial company and I wrote about finance. But, as I told him, FreeScore was a small Internet aggregator, not a bank or insurer.

Never mind. I was history. "You should have consulted us," was the basic line.

Of course, there was not one word of complaint when I did commercials for immense public companies. By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)

I still do not see the conflict of interest. Credit reports on the Internet never was in my subject area. However, I don't sue newspapers. And the gig was getting to be so small that it really had a minor effect on my economic life. Still, I shall miss waking up on Sunday to see my column unless a neighbor here in Beverly Hills has stolen my paper. (No place, not one place, in Sandpoint sells the Times.)

The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. "There are a lot of people who have knives and forks," he said, "and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something."

I will miss writing my column for the Times but I am at retirement age anyway. There were some great people there, really standup people. I got to love some of them. But as to the haters and the weak willed, I think my sister and Bob Dylan had it right.

You will still see my little thoughts, maybe in some big places. And I can put this Times gig on my résumé when I apply for Social Security. And, I really mean this, I will pray for those who use me despitefully, even if the neo-Darwinists think that's a waste of time. It's not.


Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Health-Care Reform: A Better Plan

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Friday, August 7, 2009

In 1986, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley created a legislative miracle. They fashioned a tax reform that stripped loopholes, political favors, payoffs, patronage and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with the elimination of the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom.

In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high-quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health-care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.

This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That's why the administration can't sell Obamacare.

The administration's defense is to accuse critics of being for the status quo. Nonsense. Candidate John McCain and a host of other Republicans since have offered alternatives. Let me offer mine: Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts. Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

(1) Tort reform: As I wrote recently, our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.

An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).

What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.

The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.

(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health-care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.

There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.

The health-care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.

Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.

But that's a political problem of Obama's making. As is the Democratic Party's indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn't change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare's new ones -- arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

As CC Sabathia dominates, Yankees-Red Sox rivalry takes stunning turn

By Bill Madden
The Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/
Sunday, August 9th 2009, 4:00 AM

The worm has officially turned.

Their 0-8 start against the Red Sox a distant memory, the Yankees are now threatening to turn the American League East into - dare we say it? - a cakewalk after CC Sabathia came up $161 million large Saturday. The fruits of Brian Cashman's spending last winter have been sufficiently reaped as Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira's fingerprints are all over the 3-0 hammerlock the Yankees have put on this show-us-what-you're-made-of August series against their ancient rivals.

Burnett matching zeroes with Red Sox ace and perennial Yankee nemesis Josh Beckett set the tone for Friday night's marathon Yankee win. Teixeira provided the necessary offense Thursday, going 3-for-4 with a homer and two doubles and then yesterday by singling home the first run in the third and drawing the one-out walk that got things in motion for the run that made it 3-0 in the seventh.

And then there is the new 0-fer that is defining what's going on between these two teams now - 24 scoreless Red Sox innings after yesterday's 5-0 Yankee win in which Sabathia flirted with a no-hitter for 5-2/3 innings and left to a thunderous ovation with two outs in the eighth and nine strikeout notches on his belt.

"That was unbelievable," Sabathia said, "I had goose bumps walking off there."

This was what he was brought here for. Burnett and Teixeira, too. For the three of them, Cashman doled out more than 400 million Steinbrenner dollars. The first big dividend has been this weekend in which the Yankees have opened up a 5-1/2-game lead on the Sawx and have served notice that they can pitch with anyone and hit from top to bottom. "We're good," Sabathia said with a smile.

He was perfect for 4-1/3 innings before David Ortiz worked him for an eight-pitch walk. Then, after he retired the first two Sox in the sixth, Jacoby Ellsbury broke up the no-hitter by dunking a hit into center field. "I'd be crazy to say I wasn't thinking about the no-hitter," Sabathia said, "but in my mind I was just trying to get outs and get my teammates back to the dugout in a hurry."

Granted, the Red Sox are not functioning with all their parts right now. Jason Bay, one of their best hitters, has not played in this series, and instead of facing Tim Wakefield's always menacing knuckleballs in Thursday's opener, the Yankees were the beneficiaries of broken 42- year-old John Smoltz's sad and sorry last stand. But as Derek Jeter put it, when you have power pitchers like Sabathia and Burnett on their game, "you could put them up against an All-Star team."

One can only guess if Red Sox GM Theo Epstein is having any second thoughts about bowing out of the Teixeira bidding last winter when it threatened to go above $190 million - and thereby paving the way for Cashman to come in the back door and land the switch-hitting first baseman for $180 million. Teixeira has bolstered the Yankee lineup the way Sabathia and Burnett have reestablished the top-of-the-rotation dominance that characterized the Yankees' championship teams under Joe Torre.

"CC gave us exactly what we needed," Joe Girardi said. "We knew we were short (after Friday night's 15-inning marathon in which he used six pitchers) and I'd have to say it was his best performance as a Yankee."
"For me, every game is important," Sabathia said, "but these games in the division against the Red Sox are especially big. I know that."

Even though the Yankees carried a 2-1/2-game lead coming into the series, all they heard was that 0-8 against the Sox. Now it is 3-8, the lead is 5-1/2 and the swagger is on their side. And, oh yeah, as opposed to June, it's the Red Sox's guy who is now under steroid siege. At least A-Rod didn't need a week to figure out how to tell people he was guilty.

A lot can still change, of course, from here to October, just as it changed so dramatically from June to August. But Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira have transformed this Yankee team, and the Red Sox have now come to see it firsthand. They've seen more than that, though. They've seen a Yankee bullpen that can match zeroes with theirs, and possibly be even deeper. And they've seen a lineup that can impose hurt - like theirs used to do - from all nine slots.

We've seen a reversal of roles this weekend. Now, in August, it is the Yankees who are feeling good about themselves and the Red Sox who have been given reason to harbor some doubt as to whether they're as good as they were supposed to be back in June.

bmadden@nydailynews.com

French Muslims' Veils Ignite Debate on Values

Full-Length Covering Subject of Inquiry

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Sunday, August 9, 2009

VENISSIEUX, France -- It was market day on Place Leon Sublet, the main square in this little working-class town southeast of Lyon. In the shadow of an old Catholic church, unhurried shoppers wandered the food stalls.

It could have been a portrait of France at its most traditional, except that many of the women wore robes down to their ankles and long scarves to conceal their hair.

Then along came a woman shrouded head to toe in black. Only her dark eyes were visible through a narrow slit in her veil, a portrait more reminiscent of Saudi Arabia than traditional France.


Reuters Pictures

File photo of a woman wearing a niqab walking at Trocadero square near the Eiffel Tower in Paris June 24, 2009.


French people have long been accustomed to Muslim women wearing head scarves and long dresses. But the sight of women covered by black veils, increasingly frequent in some towns, has become the latest test of France's uneasy role as host to the largest Muslim population in Europe, nearly 6 million out of 64 million. Because of its stark distinction from the way European women dress, the full veil has generated a public outcry, becoming a symbol widely perceived as an assault on France's secular values.

"It's ridiculous," sneered Jose Aparecio, 66, a retired plumber surveying the busy square in Venissieux. "I don't know what they're trying to prove."

Responding to the sudden swell of concern, President Nicolas Sarkozy declared recently that "the burqa is not welcome" in France. He did not say what he would do about it, but the National Assembly, or parliament, named a commission of inquiry last month to weigh whether full-length Muslim veils should be outlawed.

The prospect of new legislation revived resentment, still lingering among Muslims here, over a legal ban enacted in 2004 against female students wearing scarves to cover their hair in public schools. Although France's main Muslim organizations have not endorsed full veils, calling them a "marginal phenomenon," they have denounced the possibility of restrictive laws as further stigmatization of Muslims trying to find a place in the French landscape.

"A very large majority of us only wish to live our religion in moderation and tolerance," Mohamed Moussaoui, head of the French Muslim Religion Council, said in a statement to Le Point magazine. "Naming a commission of inquiry corresponds to something heavy, which is normally reserved for major subjects affecting society."

Most of the outrage, particularly among Paris commentators, has centered on women's rights, based on a supposition that women who wear full veils are forced to do so by their husbands. For instance, the Council of State, France's highest administrative tribunal, upheld the government's refusal to naturalize a veiled Moroccan woman because it said her attire "clashed with the values of a democratic society and the principle of sexual equality."

But more broadly, the decision to wear a full-length veil has been interpreted as a way to defy the ideal of integration, which traditionally has underpinned France's attitude toward Muslims and other immigrants. By ostentatiously refusing to blend in, women wearing such attire have generated intense resentment among European-stock French people long uncomfortable with an unaccustomed religion in their midst.

To some extent, the resentment also has spread among Muslim immigrants, particularly the elderly, who from humble beginnings worked hard to become part of the society and now see fellow Muslims challenging their adopted values. "If they don't like it here, they can always leave," sniffed Mustafa Zemaoui, 65, a retired locksmith who was sipping on a little glass of rose wine as the lunch hour approached.

In that vein, the official High Authority Against Discrimination and for Equality ruled recently that government-sponsored, free French classes are entitled to exclude fully veiled women because, on one hand, the veil covering their mouths impeded teaching and, on the other, the classes are part of an effort to integrate immigrants into society.

Although concern has been brewing for months, the recent outcry was set off by André Gerin, who was mayor of Venissieux for 24 years and is still its member of parliament. Gerin, 63, a former autoworker and Communist Party veteran, said his experience here showed him that the veil is "the tip of an iceberg," behind which lurks a small core of Muslim fundamentalists determined to impose its ways on French society.

"There is real ideological work underway to refute the best parts of what makes up Western civilization," he said in an interview at city hall, where he maintains an office despite resigning recently as mayor.

Backed by about 90 fellow members of parliament, Gerin introduced a resolution in June asking for the commission of inquiry. With Sarkozy's comments in the background, the commission was immediately set up, scheduling hearings after the August holidays and promising to issue recommendations by the end of the year.

"The vision of these imprisoned women is already intolerable for us when they come from Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or certain other Arab countries," the resolution said, suggesting the likely outcome of its work. "It is totally unacceptable on the soil of the French Republic."

Gerin throughout his political career has made it a point to work closely with Muslims, who make up a little more than half of Venissieux's 60,000 residents. But when he discovered in 2002 that two Venissieux youths were captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he said, he began to worry. Two years later, Gerin was instrumental in getting the government to expel a Muslim preacher who he said was preaching hatred of the West and "brainwashing" young Venissieux Muslims.

Public comment in France has focused on the burqa, a full veil popular in Afghanistan that allows women to see out a lacelike patch at eye level. But most fully veiled women in France have adopted the niqab from Arab countries. It leaves the eyes visible in a gap between the head covering and a separate face veil.

Whatever the term, Gerin said, the women become "walking prisons" behind their veils and, more important, are part of a campaign by hundreds of politically oriented Islamic fundamentalists to spread their views among Muslims in poor neighborhoods near the major cities of Lyon, Paris and Marseille.

The Interior Ministry's internal intelligence services estimated last month that fewer than 400 women wear the full veil in France; most are native-born citizens and some are recent converts. The decision to adopt such garb, the ministry's analysts said, often arises from a desire to provoke French society rather than submission to husbands or fathers.

Gerin disputes the ministry's estimates as too low, but said that in any case, the government has underestimated the danger posed by fundamentalist thought in France. The older generation of Muslims, immigrants from Algeria or Morocco seeking to integrate into a better life, has been challenged by younger radicals, born in France but often trained in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, he said.

"They question everything," he added.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

‘You Are Terrifying Us’

OPINION: DECLARATIONS

AUGUST 8, 2009

By PEGGY NOONAN

The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

We have entered uncharted territory in the fight over national health care. There’s a new tone in the debate, and it’s ugly. At the moment the Democrats are looking like something they haven’t looked like in years, and that is: desperate.

They must know at this point they should not have pushed a national health-care plan. A Democratic operative the other day called it “Hillary’s revenge.” When Mrs. Clinton started losing to Barack Obama in the primaries 18 months ago, she began to give new and sharper emphasis to her health-care plan. Mr. Obama responded by talking about his health-care vision. He won. Now he would push what he had been forced to highlight: Health care would be a priority initiative. The net result is falling support for his leadership on the issue, falling personal polls, and the angry town-hall meetings that have electrified YouTube.

In his first five months in office, Mr. Obama had racked up big wins—the stimulus, children’s health insurance, House approval of cap-and-trade. But he stayed too long at the hot table. All the Democrats in Washington did. They overinterpreted the meaning of the 2008 election, and didn’t fully take into account how the great recession changed the national mood and atmosphere.

And so the shock on the faces of Congressmen who’ve faced the grillings back home. And really, their shock is the first thing you see in the videos. They had no idea how people were feeling. Their 2008 win left them thinking an election that had been shaped by anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and pro-change feeling was really a mandate without context; they thought that in the middle of a historic recession featuring horrific deficits, they could assume support for the invention of a huge new entitlement carrying huge new costs.

The passions of the protesters, on the other hand, are not a surprise. They hired a man to represent them in Washington. They give him a big office, a huge staff and the power to tell people what to do. They give him a car and a driver, sometimes a security detail, and a special pin showing he’s a congressman. And all they ask in return is that he see to their interests and not terrify them too much. Really, that’s all people ask. Expectations are very low. What the protesters are saying is, “You are terrifying us.”


AP Photo

Joan Korman ,left, and Dawn Tabrizi, right, hold protest signs during a rally protesting government managed health care in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. , Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009.

What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town-hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.
People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.

Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that people are “storming these town-hall meetings,” that they were “well dressed,” that “this is all organized,” “all planned,” to “hurt our president.” Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.

The Democratic National Committee chimed in with an incendiary Web video whose script reads, “The right wing extremist Republican base is back.” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse issued a statement that said the Republicans “are inciting angry mobs of . . . right wing extremists” who are “not reflective of where the American people are.”

But most damagingly to political civility, and even our political tradition, was the new White House email address to which citizens are asked to report instances of “disinformation” in the health-care debate: If you receive an email or see something on the Web about health-care reform that seems “fishy,” you can send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. The White House said it was merely trying to fight “intentionally misleading” information.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Wednesday wrote to the president saying he feared that citizens’ engagement could be “chilled” by the effort. He’s right, it could. He also accused the White House of compiling an “enemies list.” If so, they’re being awfully public about it, but as Byron York at the Washington Examiner pointed, the emails collected could become a “dissident database.”

All of this is unnecessarily and unhelpfully divisive and provocative. They are mocking and menacing concerned citizens. This only makes a hot situation hotter. Is this what the president wants? It couldn’t be. But then in an odd way he sometimes seems not to have fully absorbed the awesome stature of his office. You really, if you’re president, can’t call an individual American stupid, if for no other reason than that you’re too big. You cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan “extremists” and “right wing,” or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They’re citizens. They’re concerned. They deserve respect.

The Democrats should not be attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case. After all, they have the big mic. Which is what the presidency is, the big mic.

And frankly they ought to think about backing off. The president should call in his troops and his Congress and announce a rethinking. There are too many different bills, they’re all a thousand pages long, no one has time to read them, no one knows what’s going to be in the final one, the public is agitated, the nation’s in crisis, the timing is wrong, we’ll turn to it again—but not now. We’ll take a little longer, ponder every aspect, and make clear every complication.

You know what would happen if he did this? His numbers would go up. Even Congress’s would. Because they’d look responsive, deliberative and even wise. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Absent that, and let’s assume that won’t happen, the health-care protesters have to make sure they don’t get too hot, or get out of hand. They haven’t so far, they’ve been burly and full of debate, with plenty of booing. This is democracy’s great barbaric yawp. But every day the meetings seem just a little angrier, and people who are afraid—who have been made afraid, and left to be afraid—can get swept up. As this column is written, there comes word that John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO has announced he’ll be sending in union members to the meetings to counter health care’s critics.
Somehow that doesn’t sound like a peace initiative.

It’s going to be a long August, isn’t it? Let’s hope the uncharted territory we’re in doesn’t turn dark.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13


Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Conformity is now the new dissent

Community Organizer wants to organize us all.

By Mark Steyn
Syndicated columnist
Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion
Friday, August 7, 2009

DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTI… No, wait, that bumper sticker expired January 20th. Under the stimulus bill, there's a new $1.3 trillion bills-for-bumpers program whereby, if you peel off old slogans now recognized as environmentally harmful ("QUESTION AUTHORITY"), you can trade them in for a new "CELEBRATE CONFORMITY" sticker, complete with a holographic image of President Obama that never takes his eyes off you.

"The right-wing extremist Republican base is back!" warns the Democratic National Committee. These right-wing extremists have been given their marching orders by their masters: They've been directed to show up at "thousands of events," told to "organize," "knock on doors" …

No, wait. My mistake. That's the e-mail I got from Mitch Stewart, Director of "Organizing for America" at BarackObama.com. But that's the good kind of "organizing." Obama's a community organizer. We're the community. He organizes us. What part of that don't you get?

AP Photo

Elizabeth Smith ,left, and her husband Spence Smith hold protest signs during a rally protesting government managed health care in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. , Thursday, August 6, 2009.

When the community starts organizing against the organizer, the whole rigmarole goes to hell. Not that these extremists showing up at town hall meetings are real members of the "community." Have you noticed how tailored they are? Dissent is now the haut est form of coutur ism. Senator Barbara Boxer has denounced dissenters from Obama's health care proposals as too "well-dressed" to be genuine. Only the Emperor has new clothes. Everyone knows that.

Thankfully, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has seen through the "manufactured anger" of "the Brooks Brothers brigade." Did he announce this in a crumpled suit? He's a Press Secretary who won't press. Apparently, the health care debate now has a dress code. Soon you won't be able to get in unless you're wearing Barack Obama mom-jeans, manufactured at a converted GM plant by an assembly line of retrained insurance salesmen. Any day now, Hollywood will greenlight a new movie in which an insane Sarah Palin figure picks out her outfit for spreading disinformation (The Lyin', The Witch And The Wardrobe).

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, added her own distinctive wrinkle to the Brooks Brothers menswear. She disdained the anti-Obamacare protests as fake grassroots. "I think they're AstroTurf," she declared. "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care."

Is this one of those Chinese Whispers things? Obama told Gibbs to tell Boxer to tell Reid, and by the time it reached Pelosi, it came out as uniforms night: Brooks Brothers. Mel Brooks. Springtime for Hitler. Swastikas. Or is the Speaker right to sound the alarm about this army of goosestepping dandies? A veritable Garbstapo jackbooting down the Interstate like it's a catwalk in Milan.

Fortunately, this president doesn't fold like a Robert Gibbs suit. He won't give in to the attire pressure. So, on Monday, the official White House Web site drew attention to the alarming amount of "disinformation about health insurance reform." "These rumors often travel just below the surface," warned Macon Phillips, Chief Commissar of the Hopenstasi …whoops, I mean White House Director of New Media, "via chain e-mails or through casual conversation."

"Casual conversation," eh? Why can't these "dissenters" just be like normal people and read off the teleprompter?

"Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help," continued Commissar Phillips.

"If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Reporting dissent is the highest form of patriotism! Is your neighbor suspiciously "well-dressed"? Is he mouthing off about cancer survival rates under socialized medical systems while wearing a cravat? Give us his name, and we'll give you his spats! Just go to flag@whitehouse.gov, not to be confused with flagging@whitehouse.gov., which is the e-mail address for reporting President Obama's latest approval rating. Go to flay@whitehouse.gov if you'd like Speaker Pelosi to walk across your back as a whip-wielding SS dominatrix barking "Vee hoff vays of making you tokk less casually, dumbkopf!" Go to flange@whitehouse.gov if you need parts for your new government car, or your new government hip replacement. Go to flaunt@whitehouse.gov if you'd like a special preview of President Obama's latest bare-chested pictorial for Vanity Fair. Go to flatulent@whitehouse.gov if you'd like to report your neighbor's cow for excessive CO2 emissions.

Better yet, just send everything on everyone to the White House. Unsure about that old hippie artist across the street? The one who said, "Yeah, I voted for Obama 'cause I thought it'd be cool to have an African-American president. But, since the economic downturn, the bottom's really dropped out of my hemp tapestry market." He seems to be starting to entertain impure thoughts about the Dear Leader's plans for us, doesn't he? And yet, with the best will in the world, one couldn't really describe him as a snappy dresser, could one? It's a tough call. So best be on the safe side, and report everyone. The Administration can hire people to sift through it all, and that will stimulate the economy even more than the new cashmere-for-clunkers program: Are you an angry right-wing fop? Why not trade in your frankly effete sweater for an evening with Joe Biden?

The Washington Post's Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite (not, as far as I know, a Brooks sister to the Brooks Brothers) says "the town hall demolition derby" is "cynically designed and carried out in order to destroy real debate in the public square over health insurance reform." Decrying the snarling, angry protesters, liberal talk-show host Bill Press (no relation to the Corby Trouser Press) says that "Americans want serious discussion" on health care. If only we'd stuck to the President's August timetable and passed a gazillion-page health care reform entirely unread by the House of Representatives or the Senate (the world's greatest deliberative body) in nothing flat, we'd now have all the time in the world to sit around having a "serious discussion" and "real debate" on whatever it was we just did to one-sixth of the economy.

But a sick, deranged, un-American mob has put an end to all that moderate and reasonable steamrollering by showing up and yelling insane, out-of-control questions like, "Awfully sorry to bother you, your Most Excellent Senatorial Eminence, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you don't read any of the laws you make before you make them into law?"

The community is restless. The firm hand of greater organization is needed.

© Mark Steyn

Friday, August 07, 2009

Democrats’ Fear Is Showing on Health Care

This administration feels it is the only legitimate beneficiary of “people power.”

By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/
August 07, 2009, 0:00 a.m.

The Democratic party is panicking, lashing out like a cornered animal, all because its effort to take over the health-care industry is coming apart like so much wet toilet paper.

Nancy Pelosi, who will get her own bound volume in the annals of asininity, has outdone herself. When asked by a reporter whether the protests at various town-hall meetings represented legitimate grassroots opposition or were manufactured “AstroTurf” stunts, she replied, “I think they’re AstroTurf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

Now this is a pas de trois of dishonesty, slander, and idiocy. Not only is Pelosi lying when she says protesters are bringing swastikas to these town halls, not only is she suggesting that American citizens are Nazis for having the effrontery to get in the way of Obamacare, but she’s also saying that the alleged swastikas are obvious proof that these protests are manufactured by slick P.R. gurus.

How does that work? What public-relations genius says: “Okay, we need these protests to seem like an authentic backlash of real Americans. Make sure everyone has enough Nazi paraphernalia!”

Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer insists the protests have to be fake because the protesters are too “well-dressed.” Likewise, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says this is all “manufactured anger” because the protesters — he calls them the “Brooks Brothers Brigade” — are too tastefully appointed to be authentic protesters. Apparently only filthy hippies can petition government.

This, of course, doesn’t preclude the possibility that the protesters are also Nazis; they were snappy dressers (Hugo Boss made SS uniforms, after all). But we’ll leave that there.

The White House is asking supporters to submit the names of anyone who forwards e-mail with “fishy” information. “Fishy information” herewith defined as anything that serves as a speed bump for the White House steamroller.

The DNC has put out an ad claiming that the “right-wing extremist base” is out to “destroy” Barack Obama, so it has unleashed “angry mobs . . . mob activity straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they’ve called out the mob.”

The DNC ad points to a memo written by an activist named Bob MacGuffie as proof that Republican political ops are pulling the strings. It turns out that MacGuffie, a decent-seeming fellow, is a rank amateur whose Right Principles PAC has collected a mere $5,017 and disbursed the staggering sum of $1,777, and has 23 members on Facebook and five followers on Twitter, according to The Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham.

It’s difficult for mere mortals like us to fully grasp the enormousness of the Democrats’ hypocrisy. Put aside all that talk of dissent being the highest form of patriotism. Overlook that Democrats would have upended jerry cans of gasoline and immolated themselves in protest if the Bush administration had asked people to inform on their neighbors. You can even forget that the DNC’s claims are untrue.

But how can we ignore the fact that the world’s most famous community organizer is whining about community organizing?

But wait: It gets better. As of this writing, the entire BarackObama.com site was dedicated to “Organizing for America,” with a special page dedicated to “Organizing for Health Care,” where supporters are asked to flood town halls and “make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.”

They only thing they left out is the instruction to leave the Brooks Brothers jackets and swastikas at home.


The reason for the panic is simple. Obama and the Democrats feel entitled to have their way on health care. This sense of entitlement is understandable. They won the election and control everything.

The problem is that Americans don’t like what they’ve heard about the plan, and Obama is incapable of selling, or unwilling to sell, it on the merits (perhaps because he knows the plan will lead to the single-payer system he has long sought but now denies wanting). That’s why Obama spends most of his time either attacking critics or denouncing the status quo.

Simply put: This administration believes it knows best. It feels it is the only legitimate beneficiary of “people power.” It thinks it has a monopoly on democratic organizing. And it is terrified that it will be hobbled if it loses this fight.

So, it just stands to reason that anyone who stands in the way must be a fraud, a puppet, a goon — or even a Nazi.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Today's Tune: Ray Charles - Mess Around (Live)



(Click on title to play video)

John Hughes, Director of ’80s Comedies, Dies at 59

By MICHAEL CIEPLY
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
August 7, 2009


LOS ANGELES — John Hughes, the once-prolific filmmaker whose sweet and sassy comedies like “Sixteen Candles” and “The Breakfast Club” plumbed the lives of teenagers in the 1980s, died Thursday on a morning walk while visiting Manhattan. He was 59.

The cause was a heart attack, according to a statement from the publicists Paul Bloch and Michelle Bega.

Mr. Hughes turned out a series of hits that captured audiences and touched popular culture — and then flummoxed both Hollywood and his fans by suddenly fading from the scene in the early 1990s. He surfaced sometimes as a writer, occasionally under his pen name, Edmond Dantès, the real name of the Dumas hero in “The Count of Monte Cristo.”


John Hughes in 1990
(Paul Natkin/WireImage)


His seeming disappearance inspired a 2009 documentary, “Don’t You Forget About Me,” by four young filmmakers who went in search of a man who was by then being compared to J. D. Salinger because of his reclusiveness. It became a tribute to Mr. Hughes’s influence on youth culture.

Mr. Hughes, who began his career as an advertising copywriter in Chicago, had been living quietly on a farm in northern Illinois. He is survived by his wife, the former Nancy Ludwig, whom he met in high school; two sons, John and James; and four grandchildren.

John Wilden Hughes Jr. was born on Feb. 18, 1950, in the suburbs of Detroit before moving, at 13, to the Chicago area. His father worked in sales, and he lived in a middle-class, all-American reality that became the mainstay of his films.

“I didn’t have this tortured childhood,” he told The New York Times in a 1991 interview. “I liked it.”

While visiting New York during his advertising days, Mr. Hughes hung around the offices of National Lampoon magazine and was published when he showed a gift for comedy. Once having begun work as a screenwriter, he pursued the craft relentlessly.

In the 1991 interview, he said: “If I’m on a roll, and I finish a script at 3:00, I’ll start another at 3:02.”

Mr. Hughes’ biggest success, in box-office terms, was the “Home Alone” series, of which he was the writer and a producer. The first film, released by 20th Century Fox in 1990, turned the simple tale of a young boy, played by Macaulay Culkin, who was forgotten by his vacationing family, into a monster hit. The film took in more than $285 million at the domestic box office and spawned two sequels.

He had a reputation for discovering and bringing out the best in young actors. In a statement on Thursday, Mr. Culkin said: “I was a fan of both his work and a fan of him as a person. The world has lost not only a quintessential filmmaker whose influence will be felt for generations, but a great and decent man.”

Mr. Hughes’s greatest professional effect came from a series of teen-oriented films he directed in the 1980s, beginning with “Sixteen Candles” in 1984. It was a whip-smart but tender look at coming of age, with Molly Ringwald as a girl whose 16th birthday is forgotten in the whirlwind of her sister’s wedding; it featured emerging actors like Anthony Michael Hall, John Cusack, Joan Cusack and Jami Gertz, among others.

“The Breakfast Club” followed in 1985, with “Weird Science,” immediately behind, in the same year. By then, the troupe of young actors who showed up in films by Mr. Hughes and others who worked in the same vein had expanded to include Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson and Ally Sheedy; they were tagged “The Brat Pack.”

Probably no film so completely captured the arch and almost noxious, yet somehow loveable, quality of Mr. Hughes’s characters as “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” The movie, released by Paramount Pictures in 1986, starred Matthew Broderick as a ne’er-do-well high-schooler who spends more energy avoiding the classroom than he might have used inside.

“He can lie, manipulate and con people with inspired genius, especially in the service of a noble cause such as playing hooky,” Nina Darnton wrote of the Bueller character in a less-than-admiring New York Times review.

But the movie took in $70 million at the box office, and wound up 20 years later on an Entertainment Weekly list of the 50 best high school movies of all time, alongside others from Mr. Hughes.

If the magic seemed to fade — Mr. Hughes’s last movie as a director, “Curly Sue,” fell flat in 1991 — he continued to write for the screen. As recently as last year, working as Edmond Dantès, he shared a story credit with Seth Rogen and Kristofor Brown on “Drillbit Taylor,” in which Owen Wilson played a low-budget bodyguard hired to keep a couple of kids from getting pushed around.

Some in Hollywood surmised that he had stepped away simply because, for all his successes, he did not particularly like the film business and its ways. He was known as a stickler for control who often tangled with executives even as he made their companies a fortune.

Yet Mr. Hughes ultimately marked the business so indelibly that his name has become identified with an entire genre: comedies about disaffected youth.

Multimedia
Slide Show
Remembering John Hughes

APPRECIATION

Hughes was a master of light, right notes

The filmmaker's world was white, comfortably middle-class and suburban. His view encompassed an easy sentimentality, a measured angst, an outrageous sense of fun.

By BETSY SHARKEY

Los Angeles Times Film Critic

http://www.latimes.com/

August 7, 2009

Filmmaker John Hughes burned brightest in the '80s, when he defined teen angst in terms of the caste system of the suburban high school experience, a thread that others would pick up again and again.


Writer-director John Hughes, right, on the set of "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" with stars John Candy and Steve Martin. (Joyce Rudolph / Paramount Pictures)

His films were talky, in a good way. Like the kids whose stories he was telling, he let them ramble. Teen self-absorption was treated with reverence, not ridicule. The world might make fun of them, their classmates, their brothers and sisters too, but never John Hughes.

And a generation of kids and future filmmakers like Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow embraced it.

Hughes, who died Thursday at age 59, was fascinated with the human as outsider. Outsiders like "Pretty in Pink's" Molly Ringwald who just wanted to fit in. And outsiders who couldn't care less: Matthew Broderick as Ferris Bueller on his legendary day off, Judd Nelson's not quite broken Bender in "The Breakfast Club," Anthony Michael Hall's martini-mixing geek in "Sixteen Candles," all members of the players club before they were 17.

But Hughes' outsiders lived in a different part of town than, say, Francis Ford Coppola's gritty, wrong side of the tracks "The Outsiders." Hughes outsiders were white, comfortably middle-class and probably from one of Chicago's affluent suburbs, where he grew up and returned in the '90s when he'd had his fill of Hollywood. Things were only slightly sad or bad in his films, there were no serious train wrecks -- only feelings got hurt, and the endings were usually happy ones.

He reflected a very specific slice of Americana that like many, I understood. A pop culture filmmaker adored in the heartland, he knew how to hit all the light notes - an easy sentimentality, a measured angst, an outrageous sense of fun. His was a spoon-full-of-sugar kind of filmmaking that was often exactly what I wanted, if not what I needed.

The slights that life hands us was one of his favorite playgrounds. Forgotten birthdays, forgotten kids, forgotten families -- "Sixteen Candles," "Home Alone," "Planes, Trains & Automobiles" -- someone was forever being overlooked.

When you're Ringwald, and a soft, pouty, still awkward 16, it hurts; when you're an 8-year-old screaming terror embodied by Macaulay Culkin, it's the best Christmas gift ever; and when you're John Candy's middle-aged lonely traveling salesman in a life where nothing, including the suit, fits, it's tragic.

For a period of time, Hughes was so dominant -- certainly in the U.S. where he always played best -- that it's hard to believe that he only directed eight films. He wrote 30 others -- the "Home Alones," most notably -- that were produced, 16 of them in the '80s, 13 in the '90s, and contributed characters or ideas to a handful of others.

Of all of his films, there are two that will forever be quintessentially Hughes for me: "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," absolutely swimming in attitude, which captured brilliantly and irritatingly the kind of cockiness that you envy as a teen, hate as an adult, recognize no matter what age you are, and "The Breakfast Club," life deconstructed in high school detention, the archetypes and the anxiety playing out in real time.

By "Curly Sue" in 1991, Hughes had apparently tired of fighting battles with studio executives who second-guessed him.

He left Hollywood behind and headed back to the Chicago area, where he would still dabble in the business from a distance.

But really, Hughes was a creature of the '80s, and if he hadn't left Hollywood, it was on its way to leaving him.

Comedy took on more of an edge, went raunchier, darker, meaner than Hughes ever could.

In the end, like so many of the characters he created, Hughes had become a cinematic memory stream of another time when things didn't seem so bad.I will light 16 candles and remember.

betsy.sharkey@latimes.com


Hughes dead at 59

Director-writer's coming-of-age movies dominated the '80s

By Mark Caro
Chicago Tribune reporter
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
August 7, 2009

Few filmmakers define an era, a genre and a place like John Hughes did with his '80s comedies often set on Chicago's North Shore.


"Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986)

He may not have been a critic's darling, but his name became synonymous with a brand of comedy in which young, rebellious, yet good-at-heart characters battle an establishment that seemed to rankle the filmmaker as well. Films such as "The Breakfast Club," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Home Alone" took on an iconic status, all while his productions revitalized the local film industry and launched scores of careers.

A reclusive figure who in recent years lived in part on a farm in Harvard, Ill., Hughes, 59, died Thursday of a heart attack while walking in Manhattan, his spokeswoman Michelle Bega said. She said the filmmaker was visiting family in New York.

"I feel like a part of my childhood has died," "Funny People" director Judd Apatow said in a statement. "Nobody made me laugh harder or more often than John Hughes."

Macaulay Culkin, launched to stardom as the burglar-bashing kid in the Hughes-written and produced "Home Alone" (1990), said, "I was a fan of both his work and a fan of him as a person. The world has lost not only a quintessential filmmaker whose influence will be felt for generations, but a great and decent man."

"I am truly shocked and saddened by the news about my old friend John Hughes," said Matthew Broderick, who lived out the ultimate Chicago fantasy as the title character of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986). "He was a wonderful, very talented guy, and my heart goes out to his family."

Other young actors boosted by Hughes included Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, Joan Cusack and her younger brother John in "Sixteen Candles" (1984) and Ally Sheedy and Judd Nelson in "The Breakfast Club" (1985).

But Hughes' impact when far beyond performers.

"He put Chicago on the map," said Ernie Malik, unit publicist on nine Hughes-produced movies. "Movies had been made in Chicago before the 1980s but not to the extent and in the numbers that John got produced."

Said Chicago Film Office director Rich Moskal: "His films shooting in Chicago spawned an entire generation of film workers. They went on to be wardrobe designers, gaffers, directors of photography, producers and filmmakers themselves."

Born in Lansing, Mich., Hughes was an ad copywriter and creative director at Leo Burnett in Chicago before breaking through with the screenplays to the 1983 hits "Mr. Mom" and " National Lampoon's Vacation." Then working in the Illinois Film Office, Al Cohn remembers the young Hughes coming in and wanting to launch his directing career in the Chicago area.

"It was interesting to watch his rise from just one of a number of people who come into the office to talk about their hopes and dreams to become this icon of teenage films," Cohn said.

Hughes was as prolific as he was successful, working on multiple films a year with what Moskal called "a Midas touch. There was a time where everything he directed, everything he produced, everything he wrote, all the music that he selected to be in his films were nothing shy of hits."

After "The Breakfast Club" came movies he directed ("Weird Science," "Ferris Bueller," "Planes, Trains & Automobiles") and those he wrote and/or produced ("National Lampoon's European Vacation," "Pretty in Pink," "Some Kind of Wonderful"). "Home Alone" grossed almost $300 million domestically, a huge number in 1990.

David Rochester, who lived down the street from where some of the scenes from "Home Alone" were filmed in Highland Park, remembered Hughes describing the new movie.

"He said it would be a great movie, that it would be the kind of movie that would be played over and over again every Christmas," Rochester said. "I thought he had delusions of grandeur. Of course he was exactly right."

Hughes continued working on several projects at once. "He stayed up all night," Malik said.

Melissa Rochester Rosen, 31, was in 7th grade during the filming. She said their house can be seen when Macaulay Culkin is walking down, missing his family. He looks into a home with holiday activity – that's the Rochester house. She even got to appear in the film when a scene needed reshooting but the extras had gone home. Hughes asked her to stand in instead. "It was very exciting," she said. "I felt like I was being directed by John Hughes."

Hughes had a large farm near Harvard, but was rarely seen and was very private, said neighbors Bill and Sylvia Daletski, whose six-acre property adjoined his. They described him as a good neighbor.

The couple never met him but said they once spotted John Travolta out for a morning walk. Hughes had guest homes on his property, they said.

Hughes put on a large 4th of July fireworks display that his neighbors enjoyed watching. "That was the highlight of John Hughes living there," said Sylvia Daletski.

Jennifer Green, artistic director of the Piven Theater Workshop in Evanston, said Hughes gave opportunities to many young Chicago-area actors including, John and Joan Cusack. "A lot of our more illustrious alumni saw some of their first film work in his productions," Green said. "I think when John Hughes came to town to cast, he made a commitment to offer roles to local talent. Some of those people have gone on to become nationally known."

In 1991 and 1992, Hughes was responsible for the screenplays of "Career Opportunities," "Dutch," "Curly Sue," "Beethoven" (under the pseudonym Edmond Dantes) and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York."

Meanwhile, he remained in the Chicago area. "He never played the role of Hollywood superstar," Moskal said. "In fact it was just the opposite of that. His reasons for working and living in Chicago's North Shore were that he did not enjoy the trappings of Hollywood."

But after "Curly Sue" flopped, Hughes began withdrawing and never directed another film despite abortive attempts.

Cohn recalled being location manager on one of Hughes' subsequent projects based on a script called "Chambermaid." It fell apart and eventually became the Jennifer Lopez vehicle "Main in Manhattan." Hughes got a story credit as Edmond Dantes on that one, as he did on the Apatow-produced failed 2008 comedy " Drillbit Taylor."

"Very recently he toyed with the idea of making a film for the 2016 Olympic bid," Moskal said. "He was very interested in doing it. Clearly after all these years he loved Chicago and wanted to create a film to promote that to the world community, but like many of John's recent projects, it stayed in his head and never took hold."

Hughes routinely turned down or didn't respond to interview requests over the past decade, and little is known of how he spent his time. "He was sort of a regular, simple guy and someone who ended up having an interest in trees and cattle and different kinds of livestock," Cohn said. "The few times I saw him in recent years was at Blackhawks games."

"For some reason he walked away," Malik said. "I don't know why. I'm not sure anybody in town does. But I guarantee you there's a stack of scripts sitting in his house that has never seen the light of day, and one wonders if they ever will."

The Associated Press, Tribune movie critic Michael Phillips and freelances reporter Susan Berger, Brian Cox and Andrea Brown contributed to this report.

Related
The movies of John Hughes
John Hughes' teens: Where are they now?

In Memoriam

John Hughes, RIP

By Ben Stein on 8.7.09 @ 6:09AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/

John Hughes was a stunningly talented director, a wildly funny writer, a great friend, a Republican in a town where being a Republican takes some courage. But most of all, he was a poet. He was to the postwar middle class white kid what John Keats was to the age of upheaval during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars.


Ben Stein in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"

John Hughes had many brilliant insights: his portrayal of the carnage that modern business travel wreaks in men's lives in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" was by far the best evisceration of what deregulation has wrought, and a powerful comment about the loneliness of the life of the working middle-aged traveling man. His understanding of the mindset of the rich pre-teen child -- total paranoia combined with almost Hitlerian fantasies of power and sadism -- was made funny in his "Home Alone" movies. His thought that family is far more of a combined prison and circus than a heaven was brought to hilarious life by his National Lampoon's "Vacation" series.

But the insight that will make him immortal came in his teen movies, "The Breakfast Club", "Pretty in Pink", "Sixteen Candles" and my favorite, the one that changed my life, "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". This insight was that the modern American white middle class teen combines a Saudi Arabia-sized reservoir of self-obsession and self-pity with a startling gift for exultation and enjoyment of life. No one had ever thought to note that along with James Dean's sulky self-obsession might also come a shriek of happiness at just being alive. John Hughes -- Republican -- saw that potential, saw that the individual still had the ability to transcend whatever was weighing him or her down and come out leading a parade down Michigan Avenue.

This insight sized up teens perfectly but also ennobled them, which made them -- and all of us -- love him. In a way, he was describing modern man of any age.

There is no one else who can lay a glove on this insight or portray it so magnificently in the young American.

John Hughes was irreplaceable.

- Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

A Loincloth to Set Parisians Aflutter

Abroad

By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
August 6, 2009

PARIS — Last week it was announced in Britain that “Me Cheeta,” the comic “autobiography” of Tarzan’s sidekick, now a septuagenarian, was a finalist for the Man Booker Prize. Leave it to the French, meanwhile, to resuscitate Tarzan only to stick him in a semiotic jungle.


A movie poster for "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman," movie poster, 1946.

Photo: Sol Lesser Productions


Edgar Rice Burroughs’s famous ape man is the subject of a summer show at the Musée du Quai Branly here that mixes old comics and film clips with children’s action figures, a stuffed crocodile and the female robot from “Metropolis.” (Don’t ask.)

This being a serious museum, there are a few genuine African totems and shields, which look as out of place in this context as Maureen O'Sullivan did, toting her banana-leaf pocketbook and wearing a pair of homemade pumps, while standing in the bush beside the loinclothed Johnny Weissmuller and two forlorn elephants in the film “Tarzan Finds a Son!”
The show has been wildly popular.

Its organizers cogitate, with Gallic élan, on Tarzan’s proto-environmentalism; his philosophical roots in Rousseau and the 19th-century nudist movement; his literary antecedents in Kipling and H. M. Stanley; and his mythological reliance on the stories of Hercules and Romulus and Remus. The exhibition also makes hay about the first words Tarzan uttered not in ape grunts but the language of civilized men:
“Mais oui,” the young Lord Greystoke said.

And of course there is also the sex angle. “One can expound as much as one likes in scientific speeches about his mythical and universal nature, but one always gets back to the fact that Tarzan is a half-naked guy saving white-skinned young women, lost in the jungle and wearing their party dresses, from the claws of vicious gorillas,” noted Libération, the newspaper, in its review of the exhibition. “It’s all about torrid eroticism.”
So it is.

The show is a mess, truth be told. It has wonderful drawings from bygone comic artists like Burne Hogarth and Hal Foster, and it means to use Tarzan to help dissect how Western pop culture has (mis)interpreted the non-Western “other.” But it’s displayed in cramped galleries at a museum whose theatrical, heart of darkness installation of non-European cultures as diverse and unrelated as Inuit and Cameroonians — in meandering ill-lighted spaces connoting primitive, spooky peoples — is of a piece with the antediluvian ethos of the original Tarzan.

The highborn “killer of beasts and many black men,” as Tarzan unfortunately described himself in “Tarzan of the Apes,” was conceived just before World War I by Burroughs, a former gold miner and cowboy, in a climate of American expansionism, late colonialism and institutionalized racism.


Drawings from a Tarzan comic by Burne Hogarth on display in the exhibit.

Photo: Musee du Quai Branly

Before he died in 1950 Burroughs published about two dozen Tarzan potboilers, his fictional character becoming an increasingly fantastical figure, speaking a dozen languages while battling the teensy Minunians and dinosaurs. An easygoing guy with a fondness for golf who settled in what came to be called, thanks to him, Tarzana, Calif., Burroughs never bothered to set foot in Africa, which is why Tarzan also faced off against Asian tigers and killed lions by wrestling them into a full nelson. As Gore Vidal once phrased it, the author of Tarzan was “not one to compromise a vivid unconscious with dim reality.”

This turned out to make his work like catnip for Hollywood producers who, beginning in 1918, released Tarzan movies more frequently than Burroughs did books. They were the perfect vehicles for parading stars in various states of undress.

“In the first Tarzan movies,” said Charles Tesson, who picked the film clips for the show, “Tarzan wears a tuxedo. After Weissmuller took the role, he becomes a superhero, an abandoned child, an amnesiac, a naïf, pure but strong, très sportif.”

The exhibition’s principal curator, Roger Boulay, stressed how not just Tarzan films but also comics and books became a barometer of shifting political and social standards, in France no less than in America. The blue-blood colonialist defending Africa for white people for years played off against this country’s foreign escapades as well as its anxieties about miscegenation. Expurgated and unexpurgated versions of the comic strip were published here, one with Jane dressed for innocent French youngsters, the other with her in nature’s own to please more seasoned aficionados. An alliance of French Catholics and Communists eventually pushed through a law that, for a while, purged Tarzan from French movie theaters.

“For the Catholics it was the nudity,” Mr. Boulay explained. “For the Communists it was the fact that he was a violent, unemployed aristocrat who ate bananas.”

In America, Tarzan on screen, as he did in some of the later Burroughs books, went the way of late Dick Tracy in the funny pages. By the 1970s Tracy was battling outer space criminals on the Moon in a rocket-powered garbage can. Tarzan vanquished Vikings and ancient Romans and during World War II joined the Foreign Legion to fight the Japanese on Sumatra.


A movie poster from Edgar Rice Burroughs's "Tarzan and the Amazons," 1945, Sol Lesser Productions.

Photo: Musee du Quai Branly

The exhibition ends with a French television advertisement for men’s perfume, directed by the great Jean-Paul Goude, from 2005. A male model joins leopards and monkeys drinking at a watering hole. “Guerlain Homme,” a voice-over intones. “For the animal in you.” It’s a throwback to the Tarzan who hadn’t yet morphed into a time-traveling Superman.

That’s one plausible explanation for the show’s popularity: fondness for a gadgetless hero from the days before “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.”

There’s also the cachet of the eco-warrior, which the exhibition pushes hardest and which plays well here in France: Tarzan protecting the jungle from greedy commercial interests. But Libération no doubt had it right. The Parisian boys glued the other morning to a video monitor playing a clip from “Tarzan and His Mate” (1934) didn’t seem to be rapt by the concept of environmental preservation.

The movie was the first major instance in America of censorship under the Hays Code, which cracked down on racy Hollywood fare. In this case the outrage was over a skinny-dipping scene: a body-double for O’Sullivan briefly swimming underwater buck naked with Weissmuller.

The boys stared with great scientific interest.

Tarzan turns out to be a man for all times, having swung across the centuries, through eras of colonialism and multiculturalism, austerity and profligacy.

But some things never change.

Multimedia
Slide Show
Tarzan in Paris