Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 04, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hooked on trivia
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Americans for weeks woke up and went to bed to news updates about Anna Nicole Smith's death and the fate of her daughter.

Then, we seemed to go into near national paralysis over Don Imus' "hos" slur - yes, including this writer, who wrote half a column on his arrogance.

But then actor Alec Baldwin came to the rescue screaming, "Pig!," at his poor 11-year-old daughter - and, of course, accepting Dr. Phil's televised offer of intervention.

The media run with this trivia because they know it will hook viewers. But why do we care about this transient fluff? After all, it's not as if there hasn't been real news this spring.

To recap just some of what's been going on while we waste our time following spats between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump:

We are reaching the 11th hour in Iraq, as Gen. David Petraeus surges troops to secure Baghdad and stabilize a fragile democracy before the Democrats cut off funds for the war effort. Al-Qaida in Iraq tries to pull off as many spectacular attacks as possible to demoralize Americans. The future of much of the Middle East hangs in the balance.

Last week, jihadists who were planning to blow up an oil field in Saudi Arabia were arrested. And according to a leaked memo from British intelligence, others plot new major attacks.

Our erstwhile ally Europe is experiencing the best and worst of times. A strong Euro cannot hide static economic growth, high unemployment, unassimilated minorities and little defense capability. Europeans have little confidence in either their spiritual or material defenses to protect against an unpredictable Russia, a nuclear Iran or al-Qaida's next-generation plans for mass destruction.

Speaking of Russia, it is suddenly rich beyond belief. It may soon pump 10 million barrels of oil per day - much of it sold on the world market at sky-high prices. Russia already supplies Europe with half of its daily natural gas needs.

And as the Russian government becomes more repressive at home, it showcases its new energy clout abroad. A bullying Vladimir Putin threatens former Soviet republics with gas cut-offs and Estonia with diplomatic isolation. He warns NATO countries not to participate in American led-missile defense. Russian dissidents mysteriously are murdered at home and abroad. Why reform its politics or the economy when Mother Russia can grow rich hawking oil?

Iran is even more dangerous, vowing both to become a nuclear power and wipe out Israel. Until then, it is busy supplying Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists, kidnapping sailors, and fabricating bombs to kill Americans in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the United States keeps borrowing to meet its enormous consumer and oil appetites. The Japanese and Chinese have, combined, stockpiled over a trillion dollars from indebted Americans. One or both nations will inevitably adopt an assertive foreign policy to reflect their financial leverage over the U.S.

Despite politicians' rhetoric about energy independence, Americans have made no progress in curbing our enormous oil appetite, which accounts for 25 percent of the world's daily consumption.

We incur debt to pay for imported petroleum, while ensuring astronomical world oil prices. That hurts poor nations and translates into billions of dollars pouring into the most unstable and hostile governments of the Middle East - and eventually to terrorists themselves.

There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Thousands took to the streets on May Day to demand new rights. While we squabble over border defense, increased security, guest workers, verifiable IDs, amnesty and earned citizenship, hundreds of thousands more aliens come illegally into the United States every year.

The public and its leaders know these problems cannot continue unaddressed - and yet we fear the bitter medicine to come far more than suffering with the present chronic illness.

But what if al-Qaida lets off a dirty bomb or blows up an oil field, or if Americans flee Iraq, or if Russia decides to cut off natural gas to Europe or reabsorbs one of its bothersome former republics? We try to hear and see no evil, but it's not far-fetched to suggest that future world events could quickly change the lives of millions.

So why then fixate on Anna Nicole, Rosie, Imus and Alec?

Simple - they are the modern equivalents of grotesque carnival freak shows that used to provide a perverse sense of escapism from what people dare not face. Yet as our dependency on such tabloid distraction grows, so, too, do the real dangers that we ignore.

The ghost of Anna Nicole, foul-mouthed Rosie and trash-talking Imus turn out to be the best friends Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin have.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Be the first to read Victor Davis Hanson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

To Gabby
I have been out of the industry now for about 1.5 years so I may be behind on some things. My knowledge of the Pebble Bed Reactors leads me to believe that they probably will not be any cheaper than the current reactors. Both Westinghouse and G.E. have advanced models of their reactor systems with designs already approved by the NRC (Westinghouse used the standard PWR model while GE uses the BWR).

Several utilities have already filed a notice of intent to build a new plant which is the first step in the process. (That was as of when I was still there).

Don't expect to see a massive building effort though. The libdolts screen that Nuclear Power is subsidized but it is not. When you ask them how, the common answer is the Price-Anderson Act which limits the liability of a company in the event of an accident and provides an insurance company (ANI). The insurance is about like Flood Insurance, it is EXPENSIVE and it varies dependent on your rating with INPO and the NRC. In short, it is not a subsidy that is measurable.

The biggest holdup for building new plants is the ability to recover costs from the State PSCs and the uncertainty on the waste. During the last building boom PSCs were not allowing full recovery of costs in the rate base. As to burial of waste, Yucca Mountain was supposed to open 10 years ago and no end is in site. And BTW, Yucca Mountain was paid for (and is still being paid for) by the utilities.

Government and capitalism
The A-bomb is a special case because of the need for secrecy. Not exactly the sort of project that you want 15 defense contractors to bid on during a war.

Government can invent stuff, but the market is needed to make it commercially feasible. The computer is a prime example; it originated from government programs, capitalists built mainframes feasible for businesses, and microcomputers that just about anyone can buy.

Space flight is another. NASA could put a man on the moon and dock an American capsule with a Commie capsule, but capitalists brought costs down sufficiently to make the commercial satellite industry a reality, and other capitalists are taking baby steps to establish space tourism. Yeah, that industry caters to the rich, but that's true of all infant industries - I remember when VCRs cost 700 bucks (in early 1980s dollars) and the DVD for the box office megaflop "Heaven's Gate" went for $60.

To liberalgoodman
I read somewhere that when Murdoch invented FOX he planned it to carry a certain amount of what he called "gossip" as a way of attracting viewers. Sounds like this tactic has worked. Something akin to putting all that lip gloss on the women and having the news read by luscious young women who look like prostitutes. Certainly FOX has always led with 24/7 coverage of Scott Peterson, Natalie Holloway, and Anna Nicole Smith. They use trashiness as a hook to pull in an audience for their political message.

When Ted Koppel retired from Nightline he said that he knew he would get hate mail for saying what he was going to say, but he thinks that the TV news organizations should show the news that people need to be informed about and not the entertaining stuff that they prefer.

Market Forces Are The Only Answer
Someone commented that market forces take too long so we need a top-down initiative from the government. That is exactly the worst thing we can do. Can you say MTBE, Ethanol - government picking winners and losers only ensures we all will be losers. Politics has a much different focus than the market. Politics makes decisions based on the perceived political return to politicians. The market makes rational decisions based on what best serves the economic interest of consumers and thereby bakes efficiency and effectiveness into its uncanny process.

Government has been seeking alternative fuels ever since Jimmy Carter started funding research into shale oil - all with no result. Solar and Wind will never be mass suppliers because it is impossible to effectively develop critical mass with them (economies of scale). Hydrogen sounds intuitively promising, but once you start digging in to the details you find that more energy is required to extract hydrogen from water than it will return. Certain processes arising from doing this extraction in combination with nuclear reaction could change this calculus a bit, but at present the efficiencies don't appear to be favorable.

We need to develop and expand our own sources for domestic oil production and we need many more refineries. We need one blend of RFG that all states will accept so we don't generate artificial supply shocks of blended gasoline every May. While not an answer in themselves, bringing supply potential online from ANWR and offshore sources will serve as a moderating influence to price shocks as the ability to increase supply on demand will moderate foreign countries abilities to engage in economic sabotage against us.

Pursuit Trivial?
My brain is in a quandary. Where is the usual gang of crazies? The discussion so far is rather reasonable and interesting. But, please, I'm not complaining. I like it this way.

Trivial news items will always abound. As our population increases, we'll have more people looking for work; thus the increase in journalists. And they need something to write about, don't they? So, being sub-par in most things, the journalists will continue to feed us with trivial items, especially about the so-called celebrities. I, for one, don't care about most of them or the news items.

I agree with Bob Doyle about nuclear energy. That's where we have to exert our own energy, as it were. We should be spending our research dollars there---and not with marginally successful energy sources like wind, solar, and corn [the latter creating silk only good for ersatz smoking.] Those sources aren't going to make much of a difference in the energy scheme of things.

Nuclear power will. And it's time for the Liberals of the country to understand that. We need to spend our resources on more and safer nuclear power. We need to spend time and money researching for cold nuclear fusion. That's the best way to wean ourselves from foreign oil. We have enough domestic oil and coal to run our vehicles and heat our homes, and burn our trash.

Please, ZB2, don't use the French as an example. They're all mush-headed, and I wouldn't want people to think that was caused by their use of nuclear energy.

JimWG, please do more reading about the so-called milblog crackdown. It isn't censorship or what you and others might believe. Be objective about this, eh?

By the way, I think if our oil needs drop drastically because of our use of nuclear energy, the World oil prices should be going down as the market shrinks. Good news for Europe? I don't know, the Europeans'll still find bad things to blame on us.

To Alan K. Henderson
I doubt that the "pebble bed reactors" will wind up being any cheaper to operate than the current reactors. Much of the current costs are imbeded costs from over-regulation, this will not change with the type of reactor. Also, the pebble bed reactors are much smaller than the current generation of reactor, so although construction costs may be less, but it will require more of them.

As a means to totally replace all fossile generation based on the costs from about 20 years ago I had calculated something on the order of 10 to the 12th power dollars. So replacing ALL fossile with nuclear is not possible.

You are right about the media fluff. Wind power and solar will just not do it and will also create a much worse invironmental mess than the fossile fuels. People complain about the long half-life of radioactive isotopes in the spent fuel when it is actually less radiactive in 300 years than the original U235/U238 that was mined. Solar cells, however, are full of rare earths and heavy metals that have a half-life of INFINITY. They do not decay at all. If we built giga-watts of solar cells (currently with an expected life of 10 years) where are you going to bury all of those old cells?


As others have said...
...it's not us who "can't get enough of" ANS, Rosie, etc. It's the news stations that can't stop feeding this crap. I tune into the news to see what's going on. If they stopped talking about all of these worthless human beings tomorrow, no one would notice. It's not us craving it, it's you force feeding it.

btw, nice summation of the insurmountable problems that will destroy the U.S. in the next few years. If we see it, don't you think the EU does too? Don't you think they're making plans to defend themselves when we can no longer do it? And don't you think they themselves will be the ones who destroy us, led by Germany. laugh if you will. But watch what happens.

Back Up the Train
Why fault us for a bit of diversion, i.e., ANS, Hilton's dog's tricks,etc. We do our phone calls, e-mails and talk amongst ourselves concerning lots of serious things. We take time to read the likes of Hanson, who, I bet, is known to kick back and just stare into the air, (which is the equivalent of most TV viewing, these days). I mean, give us a break, here. Now, Homeland Security Admin. has lost essential personnel files. This stuff sort of streeses us out, so we just tune-out for a bit and listen to the empty gab about the clueless sector which, yipes, includes Homeland Security Admin.!

1 more cent
We live in mediocre times

my 2 cents
A little while back Linda Chavez ran a column with the title 'A Nation of Nincompoops'

My sentiments exactly.

News on the sidebars of TH as I write this:

Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail

Spector trial goes on with sick lawyer

Basinger attends child custody hearing in dispute with Baldwin

Jessica Biel wants respect as an actress

Brandy sued over LA freeway crash

Eve is charged with DUI


WGAF? Apparently a lot of people do.

------------------------------------------


And the beat goes on - Former Congressman Sonny Bono.

America drinks and goes home - Frank Zappa

Media fluff, Manhattan projects
My media vacuosity exposure is set pretty low. I still don't know what the Rosie and Trump spat was about, and don't care. I can name only one dude to claimed parentage to Anna Nicole's baby, cuz he has the same name as a boring David Koresh lookalike New York City shock jock.

The "manhattan project" metaphor for finding a new alternative to oil does not work. The real Manhattan Project sought to develop an already-existing theory (nuclear fission) to develop a powerful weapon. A parallel would involve an already-existing alt fuels theory that hasn't been tried before. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such theory. Unless you count matter-antimatter reactors, which are so far just a figment of the imaginiation of Paramount Studios.

There *is* existing research into Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, a form of nuclear reactor that is safer and more economical than conventional nuclear reactors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Anything that replaces oil (and coal) will have to be able to generate a comparable amount of power. Windmills and solar panels won't cut it.

One concern with nuke energy is waste. The amount of waste can be reduced by building mixed oxide (MOX) reactors, which run on recycled nuclear fuel (or recycled weapons-grade plutonium).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel

The article cites one obstacle: "Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel is not permitted in the United States due to nonproliferation considerations."

Tom, Bob, Gabby,
Tom,
If you don't think that we're mining (the correct word, actually, rather than "drill") in North America, you have not been to Calgary lately. It is true that high gasoline prices amount to a de facto tax on consumers, but the long-term trend in the price of oil, absent government interference, is down, in real terms. You might Google "Julian Simon" for an explanation of why this is true.

New energy technologies will develop, and oil companies are making huge bets in developing them, along with other companies. So you are incorrect that there is a lack of drive in that direction, but you are right that oil interests hold sway over politicians and they probably receive more favorable tax treatment than they should. In that regard, however, they are no different than other large corporations that seek the favor of politicians. The flip side of the coin, is demonstrated by the newfound concern of oil companies about global warming, proof that politicians hold sway over oil companies.

Actually, purchases of imported oil by Americans contribute to our current account deficit, and, if anything, that tends to depress the value of the dollar. Oil prices are quoted in dollars because, over time, the dollar has been the most stable currency, resulting in minimal dislocation to the petroleum market from currency fluctuations. Recently, of course, because the Euro is higher than it used to be relative to the dollar, there has been some pressure on OPEC members to change to the Euro. Those guys remember, however, the year 2000, when the Euro was worth 82 cents.

What I don't like is government favoritism of uneconomic technologies. By that I mean, wind, solar, and especially ethanol, which would barely exist were it not for huge subsidies and government mandates. (And, by the way, the political power of the farm lobby and the environmental lobby.)

Bob, Gabby,
We generate virtually no electricity with oil. It gets used for transportation and as feedstock for chemicals. If we could gasify coal economically, we would be doing it. The truth is, we can't. The other reason we need nuclear power, by the way, is to produce the huge amounts of electricity it's going to take to produce the hydrogen that the talking heads think is such a wonderful thing. (Talk about inefficiency!)

Since Russia and Iran have oil, there is no way we can (or should) keep them from getting rich selling it. We benefit by purchasing oil at a price lower than it would be if they were not selling it, and we also gain because the dollars we spend inevitably wind up being repatriated as investments here. Those investments reduce the cost of capital here and give them a stake in the success of our economy. I think you'll agree that that is desirable.

ZB2
did you read about the complaints over wind farms today that has made world news? they are killing too many bats & birds...lol

Gabby
First, going nuke will save us the tens of millions of barrels of oil that our oil-powered electrical plants use each year. Second, with a nearly unlimited supply of relatively low-cost nuclear power and the world's greatest reserves of coal, we can gasify coal at a cost that will be less per gallon produced than we could get by importing and refining oil.

lilly, Ellen Sue, Dave6on
lilly,

one can still be a businessman AND a statesman, eg. Benjamin Franklin. And an MBA holder & a businessman are 2 wholly different things. One can be the former yet still have zero experience in the latter & be completely unsuitable for it as well. No matter how hard I try, I cant visualise GWB running a real business.

Ellen Sue,

these people (our Rep/Dem leaders) keep getting elected yes, but by 50% of the voting population. A good proportion of the 50% who dont vote are probably disenchanted with the choices they have. I'm sure there are some good ones out there (including those you mentioned), but alas it's too rare.

Dave6on

you are making a big assumption here - that we will in fact mine oil in North America.... If that does not hold, high oil prices is bad bad bad for the US. There is no good news there.

I agree that the goal is not to become energy independent. But inventing new energy technologies is the goal surely, so long as it is cost-effective. It's going to happen one day - just a matter of time. I'm suggesting that a major reason for the lack of drive in that direction is the sway oil interests have over our politicians. THAT results in "market distortions and higher costs to consumers."

Another reason may be because oil is bought in US$ & this is artificially holding up the $. If oil was replaced, what would happen to the $? Could this be another reason the US is not too keen on replacing oil just yet?





Trivia Vs. Lethal Terrorism

It's fascinating how the media's distracting emphasis on mindless trivia is occurring while a crackdown on Milblogs is happening all over the web. Milblogs provide raw from-the-horse's-mouth info from the belly of the beast, not "news" off some biased idealistic editor's desk in some air conditioned office in NYC.

I'd very much like to know WHO and WHAT pressured the Services into taking this milblog crackdown action. The general news I get from Milblogs is that though the situation's rough sledding in Iraq and Afghanistan it's not Chicken Little time over there, like some parties would very very much want us to believe.


James Greenidge
Queens, NY
(who doesn't believe our troops are hapless babies who have be called in from the bad old storm by hysterical mommies)

To: BobDoyle
You're right, nuclear power is about the only reasonable alternative--and what do we hear? Whining about wind, solar, etc.

The only reason Democrats like wind power and solar power is that those technologies are so blasted expensive they can only survive by means of massive government subsidies.

As for nuclear, it has been rendered artificially non-competitive by over-regulation. Do you know how many separate permits a power company has to get before they can break ground for a nuclear power plant? Answer: 63.

For those liberals who whine about "how do we deal with the waste" or other such nonsense--I have a suggestion for you.

Ask the French.

The French get 77% of their electricity from nuclear power.

You like the French, right? You and Jean Francois Kerry are real big on France, right? Ask the French. Then get busy building some nuclear power plants.

Gabby
We don't need a Manhattan Project for oil alternatives -- we already had one -- the original Manhattan Project. Right now we have all the technology we need to produce nearly limitless energy with a virtually inexhaustible fuel supply that is not a polluting fossil fuel. The only problem is, the same people who are clamoring for the U.S. to sign the ridiculous Kyoto treaty and reduce our consumption of fossil fuels are the one's putting all the roadblocks in the way of our developing a nuclear-power based economy completely independent of the influence of the thug nations controlling most of the world's oil supply.

Left out
The only thing that would have made VDH's article perfect was a summary statement about the group of "fasch-o-religious" zealots who harken unto the Imams and who will pursue us to the gates of Hell in order to kill us all. And the Party of perjury, paganism, and perversion wants to surrender to these people. Sorry, but death is what they have in store for us.

Matthew
I doubt VDH thinks less of you for following sports or park-your-brain-at-the-door TV. His concern is with the NEWS MEDIA -- not ET, or The View, but Fox, MSNBC, CNN -- covering the disposition of Anna Nicole's baby in far greater depth than they cover things that can actually affect us.

(I'm sure he wouldn't even know if People magazine had a 10-page spread on Smith's life and death -- I don't either -- but TV media coverage after her death was the equivalent of, say, US News & World Report having a 10-page spread on those quantities.)

All that said, I have found a very effective way of avoiding trivial "news" coverage. Just don't watch most TV news. Works like a charm.

Think how stupid the average person is
Now think about the fact that half the people are even stupider than that.

There you have your answer.

Here's another trivia question for you: Why is gloom and doom directly proportional to IQ? Because the more intelligent you are, the more you can understand what's going on around you.

Those people who think the most important thing that will happen today is whether or not Sanjaya will get the key to whatever planet he lives on are happy and when they are happy, they stay out of our way.

Check out Walter Bagehot on the subject of why the Monarchy is necessary. Same thing.

Energy Independence
I commented on your interview with Hugh Hewitt, in which VDH also mentioned the pernicious effect of high petroleum prices and their role in funding terrorists and jihadis. He suggested that lower oil prices would reduce the amount of money flowing to unstable governments and, by extension, to terrorists.

In fact, the opposite is true.

High oil prices have led to dramatically increased exploration and production in high-cost fields in North America. Rig rents are at all-time highs. While much of this production has not yet come to market, and while limited refining capacity will continue to be a problem, high prices will lead to higher production and price stabilization.

Many of the new producers in North America have costs that exceed $20 per barrel, so only market prices well above that level insure the long-term viability of the huge investments required to bring this oil to market.

Producers in the middle east and in Asia have by far the lowest production costs in the world, in some cases not much more than $1 per barrel. Oil, like money, is fungible. Attempts on our part to secure "energy independence", if they result in drops in the market price to $20 (the figure mentioned by VDH in his interview with Hewett), will result in the shutdown of domestic, higher-cost, production, leaving the middle eastern producers stronger than ever, in terms of their share of the market.

If we proscribe the use of oil from those regions in the US, then we will pay more for oil than the rest of the world, placing us at a competitive disadvantage in a world economy. The result will be recession and a flight of jobs to those parts of the world with lower energy costs.

In a global economy, we can no more be "energy independent" than can (or should) we be independent in any other sector of the economy. Attempts by the government to favor certain industries or technologies, with the goal of energy independence will result in market distortions and higher costs to consumers.

An earlier commenter mentioned that the market takes too long to work, but the fact is that only the market works. Attempts to create a "Manhatten Project" to develop alternative fuels will be exercises in futility. We might as well shovel sand against the tide.


ratings and news and feelings
50% of the population has an IQ or 100 or less and that explains much of what is in the mass media. Even intellignet people respond to emotional tripe more readily in a culture that has tipped from thinking to feeling as a way to respond to the world

Why Trivia Matters
Hanson is right on here - our addiction to trivia is an indication of the strength or weakness of our national character. So why trivia matters is because it is a barometer of our society. The questions remains, what do we do about it? GT

Hooked on Trivia
It is also safe conversation for those thrown into contact with people who may not agree with one another over the solutions to our real problems.

We are all finding the political debate so poisonous to friendships, that we begin to avoid any discussion of important issues at all except with those who think like us.

These are the stories the MSM throw at us from dawn till dark so that most people get caught up in the details of the trivia.

I read escapist mystery novels to retreat from the anxiety I endure over our real threats that the Democrats in power have all the wrong answers for: diplomacy instead of power, global warming instead of energy independence, hate crime laws instead of law enforcement, gun control laws instead of self-control, victim rights instead of self-reliance -- the list goes on and on.

I see that this week's "trivia" is the
DC Madam. We will get that until some mega-story comes along to knock it off the air. The question I have is when did soliciting prostitution become a national news story?

What's this 'WE' stuff
I agree with Vic. This misterious 'we' or 'the public' is used as an excuse much of the trivial inane and cheap reporting. Just like the Democrats are incorrectly citing the 'will of the people' for their misguided efforts.

The issues in the article are real and it is imperative that we elect real leaders instead of the poll citing clowns we see everyday on TV. I think the core a=of America is thirsting for real news and real leaders.

Right wing press
It's the right wing press that leads the way in reporting trivia as news. Anna Nicole had twice as much coverage on Fox as CNN. The NYTimes never put her on the cover.

Tom
You are probably right - Congress IS the problem. However, the "folks" keep electing these nimrods. Two exceptions are the Oklahoma senators - Inhofe and Coburn. They make me proud.

To Tom
Re your suggestion that the United States should be run not by statesmen but by businessmen: it already is. Don't you remember all the hype about Bush being our first MBA president? And he has done wonderful job for business. It's just the statesmanship part that he has a slight problem with, silly little matters like international diplomacy and domestic social policy.

The Bad and the Good
I hope a first-rate intellect like Victor Davis Hanson will write again -- and at greater length -- at the trivialization of news. It has a toxic effect on the public discourse (such as it is) and has been building for years. It's like bad money driving out good.

On my site today (click on name above), I have what I hope is the best analysis you'll ever read of debate last night involving the 10 Republican candidates I tried to keep myself "MSM free" of presuppositions and write about the debate that actually occurred -- one that impressed the heck out of me. I write briefly about about ALL TEN of the candidates. I even responded to the challenge of some regular readers who chided me for advoiding Tom Tancredo, who said something profound near the end of the debate. Anyway, I hope to hear your views on what I wrote. Thanks -- steve


VDH has it wrong
but not for the reasons the Bush bashing liberals above stated. He says "But why do we care about this transient fluff?" WE don't care. When you use that pronoun you attempt to incoprporate everyone else into your thoughts. How about this? Most women who watch TV during the day care about ANS, Rosie, and the Dr. Phil. American males in general detest these things. Even as Fox was giving the hourly dose of ANS the male newscasters were making fun of the coverage to the female newscasters.

Run US like a business
One horror story after another. Shame it's all true. But who's to blame? Those tuning into Rosie v Donald? No way. That's a cop-out. I'd rather tune into that freak show than the one which says "listen to us & vote for our political party" which is just another freak show, only it's much more boring.

Prioritising all VDHs listed dilemmas, the 3 paragraphs regarding oil is the biggest concern. Sort this one out, & the rest of the problems dilute. Will the US govt (Dems & Reps) have the courage to take on the vested oil interests in the US? Not to do so is tantamount to treason.

"We try to hear and see no evil"

No, not "we", CONGRESS. They are the # 1 problem, not the folks. We are being mismanaged big time. It's time to look at the US as US Inc & Congress as the CEOs. We either replace them or US Inc goes bust. And I'm not saying bring in the Dems. They would be equally as bad, if not worse. It's time to have people of the calibre & character of Ross Perot, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Lee Iacoca running US Inc. Politicians are not business-minded people, & therefore are by definition incompetents.

When VDH says, "We are reaching the 11th hour in Iraq", this is why the folks are tuning into Imus & Rosie. We've heard it all before. Not only boring but soul-destroying.

"The ghost of Anna Nicole, foul-mouthed Rosie and trash-talking Imus turn out to be the best friends Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin have."

Substitute CONGRESS/SENATE for Anna/Rosie/Imus & VDH is then spot on.

Of course we could always.....
listen to a discredited classicist who has been so very wrong about so many things since 9/11 that only a sycophantic website such as Townhall.com would dare to further besmirch their reputation by publishing him and his mindless screeds.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.