Ginny

Age: 77 Place: Originally Nebraska, now Texas Family: Husband, 3 daughters, 3 sons-in-law, 3 grandchildren Occupation: Retired Education: BA, MA Nebraska; Ph.D. UT-Austin Work On hhe Double (1979-1992); taught: ta Austin, Blinn Jr. College (1993-20015), Kelly Girls intermittently.

Another Reason not to vote for Kerry

by

I’m no expert on international relations, but it always seemed to me we were strong enough and big enough; our job–duty–is to stand beside those who believe as we do – in free elections, a free press, a judicial system that aims at rule of law. If Israel seems occasionally uncomfortably tribal, it is a good deal less so than the countries that surround it. But what is Kerry’s plan? Note Kristol’s column. Also, observe Krauthammer.And the delightful new blogger, Kudlow.

As someone who grew up surrounded by Czechs, Latvians, and Cubans, I’ve always felt we have a duty not to throw the smaller nations, especially those with whom we share values, off the sled to distract the wolves. (Not that I think Israel will take being tossed over very calmly and its relatively martial attitude may lead to crises we will not be able to ignore. Good for them. Even worse for us.) Nor are the wolves likely to stay long satisfied. I remember Taborsky talking about sitting behind, as secretary to, Benes in that build up to World War II that so easily sacrificed the Czechs. All the sentimentality (based on guilt perhaps) of Casablanca and The Third Man can not ignore the fact that they were sacrificed, a sop to wolves, who only became stronger.

A Reply to Ken

by

The readers of Reason, Ken, Megan McArdle are asked to ponder the importance of their votes, to argue convincingly. Ken’s stance was the least cynical, the most objective. It seemed a grown up complaint. Still, I was heartened by his comment, which led me to think that his stance was rhetorically effective but, fortunately, a bit empty. (And I do mean that in the best of all possible ways – interesting to read, eye-catching, but, in the end, reaching a complex resolution himself.) Still, here is a response.

Read more

C-SPAN 1 & 2 (times e.t.)

by

This Sunday’s Booknotes on C-SPAN 1, at 8:00 and 11:00 p.m., is an interview with Antony Beevor, discussing his work, The Mystery Of Olga Chekhova: Was Hitler’s Favorite Actress a Spy?.

In 1920, young Olga Chekhova, the beautiful niece of Russian playwright Anton Chekhov, fled Moscow for Berlin—taking only a smuggled diamond ring. Olga quickly won both celebrity as an actress and prominence in the ranks of Germany’s Nazi party, eventually becoming Hitler’s favorite actress. But was she really a sleeper agent recruited by her brother, Lev Knipper, to spy for the Russian NKVD? More.

The history slot is given to Norman Davies, whose discussion of his Rising ’44:The Battle For Warsaw should also interest World War II buffs.

Looking ahead, the November “In-Depth” period will be devoted to David Hackett Fischer (the phone-in three hours session will air Nov. 7 and be repeated throughout Sunday and early Monday morning). (So, we now are looking beyond the election – isn’t that a nice thought?)

C-SPAN 2 presents its 48-hour schedule.

The weekend kicks off with a set of three books Saturday morning: Jason DeParle, American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare, 9:00, followed by Ken Foskett’s, Judging Thomas: The Life and Times of Clarence Thomas. At 10:15, Beverly Daniel Tatum speaks of her Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”

On Sunday at noon pm and Monday at 12:15 am a panel discussion between John O’Neill & Glenn Smith should prove, well, controversial. Another set who appear to have battling theses will be on the Sunday 3:00 presentation of a debate between Peter Beinart and Ann Coulter. Another debate, this time between Bill Press and Ronald Kessler, occurs Sunday at 9:45 a.m. and again at 6:15. We are also likely to see little agreement on substance (though neither style is much given to understatement) in the Sunday morning pairing of Ted Rall (at 7 a.m.) and David Horowitz (at 8:30 a.m. ) Another duo will be Stanley Greenberg (The Two Americas) matched with Morris Fiorina (Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America). These appear at 4:15 and 5:15 both Sunday afternoon and early Monday morning.

Saturday afternoon Mr. De Villepin, currently the Interior Minister of France, discusses his book just after John Miller spends an hour discussing Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America’s Disastrous Relationship with France.

Harry Lime at the UN

by

Speaking of entertainment, tonight TNT is running Carol Reed’s The Third Man repeatedly. Probably those who love it have seen it – and those who haven’t, wouldn’t. But it is wonderful film noir; the lighting and drama of shadows and angles show that something may have been gained but something was lost when directors went to – mainly – color. (It was one of the first British movies shot primarily on location.) And Orson Welles, shadowed in doors, appearing from and disappearing in the sewers of Vienna, draws us to him as we are at once repelled. The book is thinner than the movie; the Joseph Cotton character as well as the Orson Welles one are more complex on the screen than in Graham Greene’s words.

This year has kept that movie at the front of my mind, anyway. The Oil-for-Food program reminds us that the Harry Limes of the world continue in the dark places (the “gap” perhaps?) of the world where life is cheap and chaos reigns – and in the corridors of power that live on that chaos; ensconced in the great marble of the United Nations, away from the suffering of their own peoples as well, the bribe-takers must have viewed the Iraqis (and how many others) as if from that ferris wheel – ah, what is one more person thrown in Saddam’s prison or one more woman at the mercy of a rape squad? Nothing to me; ah, with this I shall buy (and live) the life of the Medici.

Afghan Results

by

Afghan results appear mixed. Much criticism (as in our newspaper’s political cartoons) has been directed at potential violence. Apparently, that was not a problem. (Another dog that didn’t bark but whose absence is not likely to be noted.) On the other hand, the ink that marked someone as having voted washed off too easily and some may have voted repeatedly. Links:

Fox; Instapundit ; Jericho . All with pictures. An intro to the issues: Norvell.

The problems appear similar to those expected in Dailey’s Chicago and Johnson’s south Texas. This may well be simple incompetence; if it is venality, it is venality rather than violence. That does seem to indicate a real step toward democracy. Still, with several of the candidates boycotting, the election will not have the authority we would like. (Snarky moment: I wonder what Carter will do – perhaps he could bless it with a Venzuelean validition? Or, perhap not, since the project was undertaken under Republican leadership.) Frankly, it is hard to be snarky and look at the pictures; these are moving. I hope it proves, finally, a fair election.