Newt Gingrich’s Lessons Learned the Hard Way 5

I have two items for my write-up today on Newt Gingrich’s 1998 book, Lessons Learned the Hard Way.

1.  Newt talks about one of the prominent ethics charges that was brought against him (the only one that wasn’t dropped): that he used tax-exempt money for political purposes, namely, a course that he was teaching and distributing entitled “Renewing American Civilization”.  As Newt states on page 100, “The IRS regulations involving tax-exempt educational foundations allow such foundations to beat the drum to their heart’s content in support of ideas and programs for achieving certain higher political ends (lower taxes, higher taxes, welfare reform, free trade, tariffs, and so on) but not to lobby for a specific piece of legislation nor endorse any candidate nor participate directly in a political campaign.”

Newt states on pages 122-123 that the House Ethics Committee did not conclude that Newt violated tax law, but that it “felt that [Newt] could have avoided public controversy had [he] sought and followed legal advice to ensure [his] activities with the nonprofit agency that transmitted and disseminated the Renewing American Civilization course complied with tax law.”  But Newt says on page 107 that he actually was advised by a lawyer, who was once on the Federal Elections Commission staff, and that he was “scrupulous about sticking to the rules.”

The New York Times‘ understanding of the committee’s conclusion is partially different from Newt’s, for it says here, while linking to the report: “But the ethics committee did find that Mr. Gingrich had used tax-exempt money to promote Republican goals, and given the panel inaccurate information for its inquiry.”  I say “partially” because Newt does acknowledge that he gave the panel inaccurate information: he states that his lawyers prepared a poorly-researched report, and that he signed it without reading it thoroughly.  Why did Newt agree to be reprimanded and to pay a $300,ooo fee to reimburse the committee for its work, if he felt that he was innocent of tax violations?  Newt says that he wanted to put the issue behind him for the sake of the country rather than dragging it out for years.  Newt was also dealing with the death of his step-father at this time.

2.  Newt talks about the census, and how he opposed a Democratic attempt to sample ten percent of the population rather than counting it.  What does this mean?  There was concern that the way of doing the census—-a door-to-door head count—-under-counted poorer neighborhoods, minorities, immigrants, etc.  This was relevant to the representation that areas got in government, and also to the amount of money that they received from the federal government.  To attempt to redress this problem, the Democrats proposed that the Census Bureau count 90 per cent of the population, while allowing for the remaining 10 per cent to be defined according to sampling.  This is called “statistical adjustment”.  Newt acknowledges that there is a problem of under-representation of certain people in the census (although he notes that the 1990 census counted 98.6 of Americans, which isn’t bad for the government), but he did not think that the Democrats’ approach was the way to go.  He refers to it as inventing virtual people, and he feels that it could unfairly tip the balance in certain elections.  

Incidentally, there was a West Wing episode about this issue.  See here for a summary.  On the show, Sam Seaborn says that a reason that people in the inner-cities are not adequately counted is that many of them don’t like to talk to people, such as the counters going door-to-door.

Newt Gingrich’s Lessons Learned the Hard Way 4

I have four items for my write-up today on Newt Gingrich’s 1998 book, Lessons Learned the Hard Way.

1.  Newt Gingrich says that, as Speaker, he was under pressure from conservatives in the private sector not to compromise or work with President Bill Clinton, and he was criticized for being too accommodationist.  But Newt narrates that Bill Clinton saw the “handwriting on the country’s wall” and signed major Republican bills with “only a few adjustments” (page 82).  There was even a time when Clinton agreed with the Republicans against the Democrats.  Clinton wanted fast track legislation that would allow him to speedily make trade agreements, but Democrats did not support him on this because their union backers opposed giving the President such fast-track authority, presumably because they felt that it could threaten American jobs.  Clinton liked the Republicans’ version of fast-track legislation, Newt narrates, but there were not enough Democrats supporting it for it to pass.

2.  There are two chapters in this book about ethics, covering Newt’s crusade as a Congressman against ethical violations by Democratic (and one Republican) U.S. representatives, and the ethical charges against Newt when he was a Congressman and then Speaker of the House.  I have not read all of the second chapter on ethics (the chapter on GOPAC and the class Newt was teaching), and so I may save my commentary on that for tomorrow.  What I’d like to do here is to highlight something from a New York Times‘ article on Newt’s crusade against ethical violations.  The article is entitled Gingrich Stuck to Caustic Path in Ethics Battles, and it says the following:

“Mr. Gingrich spent more than a year making speeches against Mr. Wright, branding him ‘the least ethical speaker of the 20th century.’ The charge that finally stuck involved a vanity book, ‘Reflections of a Public Man,’ that Mr. Wright sold in bulk to lobbyists and supporters, under an unusual agreement for him to receive 55% of the royalties. (Years later, Mr. Gingrich would come under attack for his own book deal.)

“The House Ethics Committee found ‘reason to believe’ that Mr. Wright had violated House rules in 69 instances; seeking to avoid a drawn out disciplinary hearing, he resigned in June 1989, giving Mr. Gingrich his biggest Democratic scalp.”

The article presents Newt as fishing for anything he could pin on Wright, even making charges that did not stick, yet it acknowledges that the House Ethics Committee found reason to believe that Jim Wright violated House rules 69 times.  Does that not confirm that Newt was on to something?  I guess it depends on which of Newt’s charges were verified.  Of course, Newt in the book says that his case against Wright was based on solid research.

3.  Newt challenged an African-American Democrat over ethical violations, and there was a danger that this could be characterized as racism.  But Newt states on page 87: “But as a Pennsylvania-born army brat who had on my very first day in office cosponsored the bill making Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday, I was quite serene about my ability to draw a clear distinction between a felon and a nonfelon without regard to race.”

I read in an article on Newt (which, unfortunately, I cannot find) that Newt, for a Southern Republican, was actually quite progressive on race.  I admire that.

4.  Newt had issues with convicted felons being allowed to vote in the House.  On page 87, he states: “I began to make speeches about the indecency of permitting someone who had in fact been convicted of a crime to vote on measures affecting the welfare of ordinary Americans.  Imagine, I said, allowing the vote of an honest legislator to be canceled out by the vote of a felon.”

I’ve heard people make this sort of argument in favor of withholding the right to vote from felons.  Arnold Vinick made that sort of argument on The West Wing!  I don’t understand it, to be honest.  Why shouldn’t people who have made serious mistakes be allowed to vote?  They have to live under the decisions that elected representatives make, just like the rest of us, so shouldn’t they be allowed some say?  Moreover, shouldn’t they have some say so that the rights of the accused are protected, or so that “law and order” does not go too far and become unfairly repressive?  I suppose that there could then be a danger that some felons would support laws that allow corruption or loosen up regulations, but my impression is that the laws against felons voting do not relate to that so much.  Those kinds of people can have political influence without voting.  My impression is that the felons stripped of their right to vote are largely lower on the income scale.

The Desperate Housewives Finale

Here are some thoughts about the Desperate Housewives finale.

1.  Bree’s murder trial was wrapped up quickly and neatly, as Karen McCluskey (who doesn’t have long to live) stepped forward and took the blame for killing Gaby’s abusive step-father.  Was this satisfying?  Well, on the one hand, I was hoping for more length and drama to the resolution.  There was drama, for I enjoyed watching Ben refuse to reveal Bree’s secret on the witness stand and going to jail as a result.  But I hoped for more, since the murder of Gaby’s step-father, the subsequent cover-up of it, and the resulting tensions have encompassed this entire season, and so you’d expect more to the resolution than a quick confession by Karen McCluskey soon followed by a dismissal of Bree’s case.  On the other hand, Karen McCluskey’s confession was a neat way to resolve this plot-line, and I admired McCluskey for doing what she did.

2.  There was long talk that Marc Cherry would make a spin-off about Karen McCluskey and her sister, who is played by Lily Tomlin.  (And, as West Wing fans know, both actresses played Jed Bartlet’s secretary on The West Wing.)  But Karen McCluskey died, and so that’s now out of the question.  I do not know for certain, but Marc Cherry may have canceled the idea due to Kathryn Joosten’s lung-cancer.

3.  I enjoyed the last episode, but I can’t say that I found it riveting, until the last few minutes.  Why were the last few minutes so riveting?  For one, we see that the ladies drift apart from each other.  Susan sells her house and moves.  Lynette, Tom, and the kids go to New York, where Lynette becomes a big-shot executive in Katherine Mayfair’s new company, grows old, and has grandchildren.  Gaby and Carlos stay close to each other in their marriage and start an online shopping company, and eventually a TV show.  And Bree marries Trip (played by Scott Bakula, whom I love as an actor), moves to Kentucky, and enters the world of politics (presumably as a Republican).  All of this was sad and yet good (since it left an emotional impression on me).  It makes me want to wait a while before I watch old episodes of Desperate Housewives because, if I were to watch them now, I’d be sad that the ladies’ good times at Wisteria Lane would eventually come to an end.

Second, there were the ghosts on Wisteria Lane.  I could identify some of them but not others.  Fortunately, wikipedia has identified them, along with providing links to who they are.  I’ll quote wikipedia, and I’ve taken the liberty of supplying the links that wikipedia left out: “As Susan departs the lane one last time, the ghosts of the lane watch her. Among them include Mike Delfino, Karen McCluskey and her son, George Williams, Juanita ‘Mama’ Solis, Mona Clarke, Karl Mayer, Ellie Leonard, Nora Huntington, Rex Van De Kamp, Lillian Sims, Beth Young, Chuck Vance, Alma Hodge, Bradley Scott, and Martha Huber.”

There were a variety of reasons that I was moved by the ghosts scene.  (1.) What better way is there to say good-bye to the show than to see the various characters who have appeared in the show’s history?  (2.) It was interesting that good people, bad people, and weak people were among the ghosts, and they all had peaceful expressions on their faces.  Mary Alice said that these ghosts hope that the living will learn to put aside regret and bitterness.  I like the concept of redemption for the wicked, who look back on their lives and realize that they made poor decisions, perhaps out of insecurity and ego, and they hope that the living will learn not to make the same mistakes.  (3.) Overall, as the ghosts were surveyed, the people you’d expect to stand next to each other were not standing next to each other.  Paul Young was not near Mary Alice or his second wife, for example.  The point here may be that our social roles in this life do not carry forward into the afterlife.  At the same time, there are exceptions to this, for Mike still cares for his wife, Susan, and Karen McCluskey was standing next to her son (or so wikipedia identifies him), whom she lost when he was young.

It was disappointing not to see certain characters in the afterlife.  Eedie Britt was not there, but I’m not surprised, since the actress who played her is not on good terms with Marc Cherry.  But I was especially disappointed when I did not see Ida Greenberg, whom I really liked.

(UPDATE: The wikipedia article has been updated.  First, it says that Matthew Applewhite was in the background as a ghost—-and Matthew Applewhite was Betty’s son in Season 2.  Second, it says regarding Eedie: “Edie Britt‘s ghost is absent in the final scenes because of the lawsuit pending between Nicollette Sheridan and show creator Marc Cherry.  In an interview in Summer 2011, Cherry had previously hinted that he wanted to ask Sheridan back for the series finale ‘to pay homage to everyone who has been on the show’.  However, though they could not get Nicollette back as a ghost, there is a blonde woman during the final scene in the background that could be Edie.”)

Third, at the very end, we see that the lady moving into Susan’s house has her own dark secret, and we’re not told what it is.  Life on Wisteria Lane continues!

My Twenty Favorite Desperate Housewives Episodes

The last Desperate Housewives will be on this coming Sunday.  Last year, when Smallville was ending, I wrote a post that discussed my fifteen favorite Smallville episodes.  This year, I’ll talk about my twenty favorite Desperate Housewives episodes.

Season 1

“The Pilot” (Episode 1):  I fell in love with the show from the start.  There is so much to praise about the pilot episode, but I’ll focus on what I particularly liked.  I enjoyed the part when Mike Delfino first met Susan Meier at the reception for Mary Alice’s funeral, tasted Susan’s macaroni and cheese, and remarked to Susan that it tasted burnt and undercooked at the same time.  It was hard not to like Mike, but (like most viewers) I was wondering what exactly he was up to.  And then there was the end, when the ladies read the note that Mary Alice received shortly before her suicide: “I know what you did, it makes me sick, I am going to tell.”  Mary Alice narrates beyond the grave that she did not want to burden her friends with this, and one of the ladies says, “Oh Mary Alice, what did you do?”

“Running to Stand Still” (Episode 6): My favorite part of this episode was when it showed Carlos and Gaby signing their prenup, as Carlos’ mother (or, as Carlos called her, his “Ma-MA) looked on.  Savvy woman!

“Your Fault” (Episode 13): Bree tells the pharmacist, George, about how she met her husband Rex.  She met Rex at the Young Republicans Club, and after meeting him she talked late into the night with him about big government and other issues.  (Incidentally, the actor who plays Rex was the Republican Speaker of the House in episodes of The West Wing.)  This stands out to me because I like it when television touches on politics.  And, although I am more liberal nowadays, I enjoy watching Republican TV characters, such as Archie Bunker and Alex P. Keaton.  As an honorable mention, I’ll refer to the opening scene of Episode 15, where we see that Bree has a huge picture of Ronald Reagan with a cowboy hat hanging on her wall.

“Sunday in the Park with George” (Episode 21): Susan is estranged from her boyfriend, Mike Delfino, because she has learned that Mike has a criminal record for killing a cop.  Susan goes to Noah Taylor’s house to question him about what happened.  Noah Taylor (played by Bob Gunton) is the wealthy father of Deirdre, who was Mike’s girlfriend (and Deirdre is now missing and dead).  Noah does not answer Susan’s questions, but Deirdre’s sister Kendra privately tells Susan what happened.  According to Kendra, Deirdre was a drug addict who had been in and out of jail, and an undercover cop caught her using and made her have sex with him in exchange for her freedom.  When Mike found out about this, he was furious and tried to put a stop to it.  When the cop pulled a gun on Mike, the two of them struggled and fell over the balcony.  Mike got up, whereas the cop died.  When Susan learns that Mike killed out of self-defense and went to jail for trying to save Deirdre, she cries and says “I knew he was good.”

“One Wonderful Day” (Episode 23): This was the final episode of Season 1.  In it, the mystery of why Mary Alice killed herself, what Paul Young was hiding, and why Mike Delfino was in Wysteria Lane is solved.  Essentially, Deirdre (a drug addict) sold Angela (a nurse) her baby, and Angela then changed her name to Mary Alice and moved to Wysteria Lane with her husband and her new child, whom the Youngs named Zach.  After Deirdre uses her rich father’s money to track Mary Alice down, she comes to Wysteria Lane and wants her child back.  Mary Alice thinks that Deirdre is still on drugs and does not want to give Zach up, so Mary Alice kills Deirdre.  But Mary Alice then looks at Deirdre’s arms and realizes that Deirdre had quit using drugs.  Mary Alice and Paul dismember Deirdre’s body, place its parts in a toy-chest, and bury the chest underneath what would later become their pool.  Mary Alice kills herself years later because Martha Huber, whose sister was a nurse who worked with Mary Alice back when Mary Alice’s name was Angela, knows that Mary Alice bought the baby, and Martha sought to blackmail Mary Alice in an attempt to solve her own financial problems.  In this last episode of Season 1, Mike Delfino takes Paul Young into the desert, points a gun at him, and demands to know what happened to his girlfriend Deirdre, but Mike does not shoot Paul after learning the truth; rather, Mike leaves Paul in the desert.  Mary Alice’s closing narration is inspiring, for Mary Alice says that she roots for her friends, even if she’s not sure that all of them will make it.

Season 2

“I Wish I Could Forget You” (Episode 6): Zach Young was the biological son of Deirdre and Mike Delfino, and the adopted son (if you will) of Paul and Mary Alice Young.  Susan pays Zach to go to Utah in search of Paul, since Susan wants to keep Zach away from her daughter, Julie.  Mike finds out about this and is upset with Susan, and he confronts her when she is trying on a wedding gown, hoping that Mike will propose to her.  Susan runs after Mike into the streets, crying and begging him not to leave.  After Mike drives away, the other ladies rush to the street to comfort Susan.  I love this scene because, a lot of times, we try to keep our pain private and hidden from our friends, and it’s beautiful when our friends can support us, even when we show our sadness in public.  You can watch the scene here.

“Coming Home” (Episode 10): Carlos has found religion, and the insidious Sister Mary wants him to go with her on a mission trip to Botswana, to Gaby’s chagrin.  When Carlos tells Gaby inside of a church that there are a lot of suffering people in the world, Gaby responds, “And there will be a lot of suffering people in this church if you don’t wipe that patronizing look off your face!”

“One More Kiss” (Episode 11): Betty Applewhite and her sons, Matthew and Caleb (who is developmentally-delayed), have moved to Wysteria Lane.  Nobody else in Wysteria Lane knows about Caleb at this point because his Mom keeps him locked up in the basement.  This is because Betty thinks that Caleb killed Matthew’s girlfriend Melanie in Chicago, after Melanie rebuffed Caleb’s request to be her boyfriend.  The residents of Wysteria Lane think that the Applewhites are hiding something, but they’re not sure what.  Melanie’s family hires a private investigator, Curtis Monroe (played by Michael Ironside), to track down Caleb.  Curtis enters the Applewhites’ residence to take Caleb hostage, and he falls through the stairs to the basement while his gun goes off.  Curtis dies.  When Betty and Matthew come home, they see Curtis’ corpse and decide to put it in his car.  The corpse is accidentally discovered by Susan, and the residents of Wysteria Lane gather to see what’s going on.  Betty at first says to Matthew that she is not worried, but, when she sees the ladies looking at her with suspicion, she says, “Now I’m worried.”  Betty was a mother who knew how to keep her cool, but she was worried that her secret would be exposed once the ladies started to talk.

“Silly People” (Episode 14): After Bree sneaks into the Applewhite’s home and sees Caleb in the basement, she demands that Betty tell her what is going on.  Betty tells Bree the story, and I’ll quote from wikipedia’s summary of it: “Melanie Foster was Matthew’s on-and-off girlfriend in Chicago. After one of their feuds, Caleb called Melanie and asked to meet her at the lumber yard. Melanie saw this as harmless and agreed to meet him. Caleb told Melanie that if he was her boyfriend he would never break up with her or fight. Melanie laughed in his face. Caleb tried to kiss her, but this made Melanie uncomfortable and she slapped him. This angered Caleb who picked up an axe and killed her. This, Betty believes, is the reason why she felt it was her fault and not his for not protecting him ‘from himself’ since she is his mother and could not see him going through imprisonment or even death.”  After hearing this story, Bree puts her hand over Betty’s hand to show compassion.

“Thank You So Much” (Episode 15): Bree has a drinking problem, and Lynette suspects that something is wrong after Bree babysits Lynette’s children and falls asleep, during which time the kids leave the house and go to town.  Lynette learns from Mrs. McCluskey that Bree was drunk, but Bree brushes off the accusation when Lynette confronts her.  Lynette looks through Bree’s garbage and finds a bunch of wine bottles, and she lines them up in front of Bree’s house (which would make an impression on the socially-conscious Bree!), leaving a note that says “Do you still think you don’t have a problem.”  Bree and Lynette then look at each other in silence.

Season 3

“Bang” (Episode 7): I’d say that this is my favorite episode of the series.  Laurie Metcalf plays Carolyn Bigsby, a former neighbor of Orson Hodge, who has recently married Bree.  Carolyn thinks that Orson abused and killed his first wife, Alma, and so Carolyn tries to warn Bree about Orson.  Bree then informs Carolyn that Carolyn’s husband, Harvey, is having an affair.  Carolyn is outraged, and she goes to Harvey’s supermarket and holds it up with a gun.  Lynette is in the supermarket with Nora, with whom Lynette’s husband Tom had a one-night stand (before he met and married Lynette) and a child.  Nora recently tried to seduce Tom, and so Lynette is upset with Nora (not that she liked Nora in the first place).  When Carolyn learns about this, she shoots Nora, who then asks Lynette to take care of her daughter.  After Nora dies, Lynette gives Carolyn a sermon about how life is hard, but we should deal with it.  When the hostages finally make it out of the supermarket safely, we see Lynette lying on a bed, having her recurring nightmare about the time that she saw Mary Alice shortly before Mary Alice’s suicide.  Lynette sees Mary Alice reading the note, “I know what you did, it makes me sick, I am going to tell”, but this time Lynette does something different.  She puts down her shopping bags, goes up to Mary Alice, and asks her what is wrong.  Mary Alice tells Lynette that she cannot save her, but that she should enjoy each beautiful day.  Mary Alice narrates that this was the last time that Lynette dreamed about her.

Season 4

“Sunday” (Episode 11): I wrote about this episode here.  It gets into such issues as going to church and the Bible to find answers, and the difference between ritual confession and genuine repentance.

“Free” (Episode 17): Season 4 introduced Katherine Mayfair into the series.  I will not describe her story in detail, but what happens in this final episode of the season is that her abusive ex-husband (a cop) finds her and threatens her, and he is killed.  Bree quickly gets her friends together to coordinate their stories so they can lie to the cops and protect Katherine.  I found this to be a beautiful scene because the ladies did not get along with Katherine before, but they came to have compassion for her.

Season 5

“Home Is the Place” (Episode 11): I talk about this episode here.  What I liked about this episode was that it highlighted how much Gaby had to give up to take care of her husband Carlos while he was blind.  Gaby (a former model) loved jewelry and beautiful clothes, but she had to give those up to meet the family’s expenses.  And Carlos had to decide whether to take a job working with the blind, which he felt would nourish his soul, or take a six-figure job in which he could be the shark he didn’t want to be.  For Gaby, he picked the latter.  I had to admire Gaby for the sacrifices she made, since she can easily come across as a shallow character.  But there’s depth there!

“The Best Thing That Ever Could Have Happened” (Episode 13): I talk about this episode here.  Beau Bridges plays Eli Scruggs, a handyman who helped people.  We learn that he did so because Mary Alice helped him when he was dirt poor, and he felt awful after she killed herself.

“Mama Spent Money When She Had None” (Episode 14): I talk about this episode here.  Gaby joins a boot camp to lose weight and fit into a dress.  When she does not show up one morning, the Israeli drill sergeant of the camp brings boot camp to her front door!  This episode is also noteworthy because Eedie gives Gaby a lecture about humility.  Eedie was good at giving convicting lectures, even though she herself was far from perfect.

Season 7

“Down the Block There Is a Riot” (Episode 10): Paul Young is exacting his revenge on Wysteria Lane because the residents abandoned him during his legal problems.  His revenge is to construct a halfway house for released convicts, which troubles the inhabitants of Wysteria Lane.  A disturbing riot erupts in protest, and Paul gloats to Lynette that the residents of Wysteria Lane are obviously no better than he is.  Lynette is sorry about her role in causing the riot.  This episode was disturbing rather than enjoyable, on account of the riot, but my favorite episodes are the ones that stood out to me, not always the ones that I enjoyed.

Season 8

“Always in Control” (Episode 7): The ladies are covering up that Carlos killed Gaby’s step-father (who raped her when she was younger and came back into her life to threaten her) and that they buried the body in the woods.  But Susan is in an art class, and her instructor (played by Miguel Ferrer, whom I know from The Stand) wants Susan to create honest art.  And Ben Faulkner, a construction man who has hired Mike, has learned from Bree about what she did to Gaby’s step-father (since Ben is using the land where the guy was buried). Ben asks Mike to bury the body under the concrete of their construction project, and he is surprised that Mike agrees to do so without question (for, unknown to Ben, Mike is protecting Susan).  As dramatic music plays, Susan paints a picture in which she and the ladies bury Gaby’s step-father.  And Mike is supervising as concrete is poured over the place where he buried the body.

“Suspicion Song” (Episode 8): Carlos is drinking heavily because he feels guilty about killing Gaby’s step-father, and his work suffers.  When a rich client learns about this from Gaby, he demands to see Carlos right away.  Right when you think that the client is about to chew Carlos out, the client pulls out his sobriety chip and strongly recommends that Carlos get help.  You never know who is in AA!

“Any Moment” (Episode 18): Mike Delfino has just been killed, and his and Susan’s son, MJ, is acting out at school.  Susan figures out a way that she and MJ can release their anger over Mike’s death—-they throw jars of jam (which were given to them as a gift) against the wall.  MJ throws the jars against the wall, and then he just drops a jar to the ground, with a look of dejection on his face.  This was a very sad scene.  At first, MJ was mad; but then he was just sad.

This series has made me laugh, cry, and think.  I picked my favorite episodes based on the ones that made the greatest impression on me.  I’ll miss Desperate Housewives, and I wish those involved with the show the best.

A Contract with the Earth 16: Caps

On page 148 of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple say the following:

“…in a command and control environment with mandated caps on carbon dioxide emissions, Europe lags behind the free-market American achievements, with Europe emitting carbon dioxide at a growth rate three times that of the United States, according to data gathered from 2000 to 2004.”

This didn’t sit right with me, for a variety of reasons.  First of all, how can Europe have a high growth rate of carbon emissions, when it sets caps on them?  Are the caps too high?  Are people choosing not to follow the caps set by law?  Second, I thought that Europe had lower CO2 emissions than the United States.  In part, I assumed this because of what Arnold Vinick said on The West Wing: “You want to know why Europe’s CO2 emissions are so much lower than ours?  Nuclear power!”  But there are also statistics that show that Europe has lower CO2 emissions than the U.S., which is number 2, after China (see here).  Of course, Newt and Maple mention the “growth rate”, which is probably different from how much CO2 is actually emitted.  But the latter is relevant, in my opinion.

I still agree with a lot of what Newt and Maple argue, notwithstanding my reservations on this point.  I agree that command economies are not necessarily cleaner than free-market economies, and I also believe in encouraging green technology.  I still think that caps are necessary, however.

Foreshadowing Vinick as Santos’ Secretary of State?

I’ve been watching The West Wing over the past several months with my Mom and her husband.  We finished the final season, Season 7, last week.  I thought this morning: It was awesome that Democratic President Matthew Santos selected his once Republican rival for the Presidency, California Senator Arnold Vinick, to be his Secretary of State.

I didn’t think so the first time that I saw that episode, since I was expecting for Santos to select Vinick to be his Vice-President, plus I was more interested in Vinick’s domestic stances than in where he and Santos agreed on foreign policy.  I was envisioning Vinick as Vice-President guiding Santos to the center and making Santos receptive to conservative ideas to improve the environment, education, etc.

But now I think that Vinick is a perfect choice to be Secretary of State, and that, if I had put two and two together when I first saw that episode, I would have thought so even then.

Why?  Because one of my favorite scenes in Season 7 is when Matt Santos and Arnold Vinick are having their televised debate during the election, and Vinick talks about how taxes in Africa inhibit economic advancement.  What I’ve liked is not so much what Vinick was saying (as good as that was), but the fact that Matt Santos was respectfully listening to Vinick and giving him the floor, without interrupting.  This was an informal debate, in which the candidates could freely interrupt each other, but Santos stood back and let Vinick make his point about Africa, as if it was worth hearing (which it was).

I should have said to myself, “Man, if Santos wins, he should pick Vinick to be his Secretary of State!”

Schumer Could Have Been a Hero…

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York was on ABC This Week this morning (click here for the transcript).  One of the topics that he addressed was controversial left-wing comedian Bill Maher, who has donated a million dollars to Barack Obama’s super-PAC.  Many Republicans are saying that Obama should give back the money, since Maher has called Sarah Palin derogatory names.  This is currently an issue because right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has received flack (and even drops in advertisers) for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”, and Obama and others on the Left have criticized that as uncivil discourse.  Republicans are responding that Bill Maher is uncivil in his discourse, too, and so the Left should criticize him as well.

When asked if the Democrats should return Bill Maher’s donation, Charles Schumer said the following:

“Well, no. I mean, look, the bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh’s comments were just nasty and directed at a particular young woman who had a particular point of view and was expressing herself. Bill Maher is a comedian. It’s much different. Rush Limbaugh has tremendous weight in the Republican Party. No one will rebut him. Bill Maher’s a comedian who’s on at 11 o’clock at night but has very little influence on what’s happening here.”

Schumer’s response is understandable, but it’s sad.  It’s understandable because Schumer does not want to make headlines by openly demanding that the Democrats return Maher’s money, since that would place the Democrats in an awkward position.  (I’ve watched enough of The West Wing that I can picture Josh Lyman arriving at that conclusion!)  But it’s sad for a variety of reasons:

1.  Contrary to what Schumer says, Bill Maher does have political influence, for Maher is giving a million dollars to the Democrats.

2.  Schumer’s attempt to downplay Bill Maher as a mere comedian while he criticizes Rush Limbaugh is quite a stretch.  Both Rush and Bill Maher are comedians in that they try to be funny, but they also claim to be presenting legitimate points-of-view on politics and policy.  In my opinion, Rush and Bill Maher are in the same boat.

3.  Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.  Unfortunately, in U.S. politics, people tend to give a free pass to their own side while condemning the other side.  One result of that is Schumer’s poor logic (at least on the issue of Rush and Bill Maher) that he displayed this morning.

4.  Due to pressures on politicians to be team players, it’s rare to find a politician who stands for what’s right, even when it creates an awkward situation.  Chuck Schumer could have been a hero this morning by declaring that Democrats should support civility and thus return Bill Maher’s check.  Instead, he chose to be a team player and to engage in silly partisan games.

This is not to say that Schumer hasn’t done good things in the area of civility.  He has appeared on right-wing shows and has discussed issues in a respectful manner.  After the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, he and Republican Senator Tom Coburn sat next to one another to show their commitment to transcending political polarization.  I just wish Schumer was more of a hero this morning.

Susan Faludi, Backlash 8

In my latest reading of Susan Faludi’s 1991 book, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Faludi critiques sexism in television shows, which persists notwithstanding the decline in women watching television.  According to Faludi, television shows present the mother as absent (Full House), give women a salient domestic role while not emphasizing their independence (Family Ties, Cosby Show), objectify women, or focus on women who have non-threatening roles “in a strictly all-female world” (Golden Girls, Designing Women).  Shows with strong autonomous women, such as Kate and Alley and Roseanne, have to fight to survive or (in the case of Roseanne) are lambasted.  According to Faludi, television shows and movies also stigmatize abortion and female sexuality outside of marriage, even as they champion men sleeping with a number of women.

It was challenging to read Faludi talk about entertainment because she was criticizing many of the shows and movies that I happen to like.  Why do I like them?  Is it because I’m a sexist?  I don’t think that I am against watching women succeed in the professional world.  One of my favorite shows is Star Trek: Voyager, and that has a female captain.  C.J. Cregg on The West Wing is independent, and I admire her.

I do admit that I have liked for shows to stigmatize abortion, for that has confirmed my own pro-life stance (in my own mind): I can say that even the liberal entertainment industry thinks that there’s something wrong about abortion, so abortion must be wrong!  I also confess that there are shows that focus on independent women that I do not like—-such as the Mary Tyler Moore show.  While I enjoyed watching Murphy Brown, I wouldn’t be comfortable dating Murphy Brown.  I’d be more comfortable dating Corky Sherwood.  When it comes to shows depicting single independent women, what that usually brings to my mind is how hard the dating scene is.  But, for some reason, I’m comfortable watching family sitcoms, even though I’m not married.  I think a big part of that is because I was a kid when those sitcoms were on, and so I could identify with them at the time, and I experience nostalgia whenever I watch them. Did my childhood match what was on the sitcoms?  In a sense, yes.  My Mom stayed at home for a significant part of my childhood.  Even when she owned a health food store and went back to school, she was still around for us kids.

Personally, I don’t think that it’s wrong for shows to depict women in the domestic sphere, as long as they acknowledge that women also may have needs outside of the home—-needs for self-fulfillment, for expression of their creativity, etc.  Faludi acknowledges in places of her book that women can work outside of the home while still maintaining their family lives.  But she also appears to criticize movies and shows that depict women within the domestic sphere.  She would probably say that these shows emphasize the women within their domestic sphere, and that this is part of the backlash of encouraging women to stay at home rather than being independent.  Perhaps her critique is valid.  I still enjoy the shows that I watch, though.  And yet, I also like shows that acknowledge women’s search for self-fulfillment, for that adds depths to characters.  But I usually like to see men and women working something out to make everyone in the family happy, rather than for the woman to ditch her family.  According to Faludi, there was a time when movies focused on men and women working things out, without belittling women’s aspirations.

GCB

I watched part of ABC’s GCB last night.  GCB is based on the book Good Christian Bitches.  There are Christians who are screaming “persecution” in response to this show.  Some have glibly stated that there would be an outcry if there were a program called GMB, with the “M” standing for Muslim.  In this post, I’ll list some thoughts:

1.  I don’t think that Christians should only be portrayed positively in stories and media.  The impression I get from folks on the religious right is that any negative depiction of Christians amounts to persecution.  In my opinion, though, religious hypocrisy is fair game when it comes to stories.  We’d have to eliminate a lot of literature if we could only accept the stories that depict Christianity or religion positively.  George Elliott’s Middlemarch had a religious hypocrite, Bulstrode.  There was the cold guy in Jane Eyre who told young Jane that she was going to hell.  There’s Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter.  There’s the Bible!  Then, going to the evangelical realm, there are Christian movies that depict one or more Christian character negatively.  I think of the movie Hidden Secrets.

2.  I do like to see some positive portrayal of religion in stories and in media.  One reason is that many Christians are good folks, and their religion inspires them to do positive things.  Another reason is that faith and the search for meaning are a part of our (and many other) cultures, and so stories that talk about the big questions can be quite powerful, when they are well-written.  Overall, I feel that television, the movies, and books are positive when it comes to their depiction of religion and spirituality.  I think of such programs as Six Feet Under, Desperate Housewives, Dexter, LOST, and a host of others.  I did not watch all of GCB last night, for it did not particularly draw me in.  But I hope that it’s about much more than bashing Christians, and that there will be something deep and reflective about it (but I’m not optimistic).  The movie Saved! also lampooned the evangelical sub-culture, but I liked it because it had positive things to say about faith—-where it is right, where it can go wrong (in the author’s opinion), etc.

3.  I can somewhat sympathize with my evangelical friends who feel that society is tolerant of everyone and everything—-except for them.  What would the reaction be to a show that depicted Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, or African-Americans in a negative light?  Shouldn’t we refrain from condemning all groups, including evangelical Christians?

I do not have a good answer to this question.  I think that, on some level, evangelical Christianity is fair game because of its prominence in American society (though, of course, many evangelicals would claim that they are marginalized in the United States).  I myself am not against acknowledging that people may have problems with elements of Islam or Judaism.  The West Wing, for example, talks about Islamic extremists, but (in contrast to Islamophobes) it does not apply that label to all Muslims.  So I’m not sure where I land on this question of depicting groups.  I’m against stigmatizing entire groups of people, but I also realize that stories reflect reality, on some level, and there are times when people use their religion in evil ways.  In my mind, it’s acceptable to highlight that.

My Impressions of Newt Gingrich: From My Conservative Days to Now

A friend of mine (who is a liberal) asked what is the appeal of Newt Gingrich, considering that so many people know about the morally deplorable things that he has done in his life.  Granted, after reading about what Newt’s ex-wife, Marianne, said about him in her interview with ABC last night, I doubt that I would want for Newt to be my best friend.  But I would like to share here how I have found Newt to be an appealing figure, both when I was a conservative, and afterwards.

I first heard of Newt when George H.W. Bush was President.  Bush was trying to hammer out a budget deal with the Democratic Congress, a deal that would include tax increases.  And Newt as the minority whip in the House was boldly standing up against Bush and the Democrats.  Although I had not yet seen Newt speak (I knew about Newt from Insight magazine), I admired him as a principled conservative, in a time when the Republican President appeared to be abandoning Republican values.

In 1994, when the Republicans took control of the Congress, I finally got to watch Newt on TV.  I was watching him on Meet the Press, and there were many things that I was admiring about him at that time: his boldness, his mouthiness, his conservatism, his ability to answer questions in an articulate manner.  I felt that the liberals (i.e., the media, the Clintons) were a powerful elite, which believed that it was beyond criticism, and so I enjoyed watching Newt abrasively challenge them.  When the interviewer on Meet the Press told Newt that Hillary Clinton disapproved of Newt’s idea to put disadvantaged children in orphanages, Newt replied that Hillary was an elitist who did not realize that babies were being thrown into dumpsters.  When the interviewer asked Newt about school prayer, Newt referred to a child who got in trouble at school for saying grace.  Newt criticized Clinton’s Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, for her extreme views—-and, surprisingly, Elders left the office not long thereafter.

Then there was the whole Connie Chung controversy, where Newt’s Mom told Connie that Newt called Hillary a “bitch”.  Connie promised Newt’s Mom that this would be their little secret, then she featured it on television.  When Bryant Gumbel was interviewing Newt and was about to ask him about this, Newt stopped Bryant right there.  Newt said that his Mom made Connie Chung brownies (perhaps implying that his Mom was naive when dealing with the media), and that this entire issue was being blown out of proportion.  I loved Newt then, especially as I saw Bryant Gumbel’s arrogant, befuddled, “How dare you” expression on his face.  And I loved the bumpersticker that said, “Newt’s Mom Was Right—-Connie’s One, Too”.

Over time, as Newt served as Speaker, my impression was that he was getting less confrontational, which disappointed me somewhat.  I guess I was hoping that he’d be telling the Clintons and the media off throughout his tenure!  But I found something that I admired about Newt even then: When he was found to be wrong (i.e., in terms of ethics), my recollection was that he usually came clean about it.  Some of you may have different memories about that, but I’m just saying what I remember.

When I moved more to the Left, I admired Newt for other reasons.  I thought that he was intelligent, and I also appreciated that he sought conservative solutions for problems that often disturbed liberals, such as the rising cost of higher education and health care, environmental problems, etc.  I think that it’s a good thing when somebody points out why the status quo does not work, and what can be done instead.  Something else that I have admired about Newt is that he is willing to debate anyone, anytime, and anywhere.  Jon Huntsman was a minor player in the race for the Republican nomination for President, but Newt was willing to sit down and have a one-on-one debate (or, actually, it was a constructive conversation) with him.

And I liked it when Newt appeared before an African-American church in South Carolina and faced tough questions.  Newt did not have to appear before that church, for many African-Americans do not vote Republican.  But he did so, and that (in my mind) demonstrates character on his part.  I remember an episode of The West Wing, in which a white cop shot an African-American kid.  An African-American church was holding a memorial service, and Democratic candidate for President, Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits), attended and spoke there, whereas Republican candidate Arnold Vinick (played by Alan Alda) did not even show up.  I was a Republican at the time, and I was disappointed that Vinick did not show up to that.  That’s why I was so impressed that, in the realm of real-life, Newt Gingrich spoke to an African-American church and listened to people’s concerns while he was there.

There are many things that turn me off about Newt: his opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque (the Cordoba Center), his mischaracterization of the history of Cordoba in opposing that Mosque, his hypocrisy, his belief that tax-cuts for the rich are a way to revive our economy, the way that he comes up with good ideas but does not follow through on them, etc.  And then there are some things about him that I simultaneously like and dislike: his arrogance, for example.  His pomposity can turn me off at times, but I doubt I would admire him as much if he did not have the chutzpah that he does!  I may not vote for Newt Gingrich, but I can definitely see his appeal.