Okay, okay, okay.  I admit this is too easy, but, well, gosh darn it, it is fun.

You see, in response to my post expressing amazement that a “Journalism” school would honor Katie Couric, citing her interview with Sarah Palin as the specific reason for its award, a reader contended that for “some strange reason Couric’s ratings have been going up.”

Just, saw the numbers and, well, Katie’s ratings continue to decline.  Now only does the CBS Evening News have the lowest ratings of the “Big Three” broadcast networks, but it suffered the steepest decline of the three in total audience since January, losing a full 24% of its viewers.

Do wish some of our critics would check their facts before chiming in.

But, then if they didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to see what it’s like to shoot fish in barrels.

It’s kinda fun.

I’d been kicking around an idea for a gay marriage proposal that I’d send out to voices on both sides of the gay marriage debate to see how they would react.  The proposal would be three-pronged:

1. A given state would recognize gay marriage provided the partners agree to the same terms and conditions associated with traditional marriage (e.g., monogamy, joint property ownership, inheritance & etc).
2. Said state would make clear that various religious denominations would remain free to define marriage according to the strictures and customs of their faith.
3. Said state would eliminate “no-fault” divorce and make it more difficult to dissolve marriages.

This would challenge those opposed to gay marriage to consider state recognition of same-sex marriage as part of a strengthening of the institution in the eyes of the law.  It would see whether gay marriage advocates recognized marriage as a social institution (as opposed to a political “right”.)

Given this idea that had been kicking around in my head, I found another thing to celebrate in the Vermont law recognizing same-sex marriage.  That legislation meets the second prong of my proposal through, in the world of gay marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher, “imperfect, yet substantive, religious-liberty protections.”  There really is a benefit to going through the legislature.

My friend David Benkof, no fan of gay marriage her, calls this provision “a hidden victory for religious freedom“:

The Green Mountain State’s new law says in its “Public Accommodations” section that religious groups “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request  . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.” It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.

In other words, private religious groups are free not to recognize same-sex marriage and free not to offer goods or services to same-sex couples getting married.

(more…)

On Anderson Cooper’s CNN blog, we read “Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news.” They forgot the caveat: “except when they want to slam conservatives.”

While doing my cardio today at the gym (the only time I ever watch CNN), Cooper was reporting with a straight face on the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

After reviewing that document, Ed Morrissey asks us to engage in a little thought experiment:

Imagine, if you will, what the Left would say if we took this entire document and replaced all references to “military veterans” with “Muslims”, and all references to “abortion” with “universal health care”, and then predated this DHS report to 2008, during the Bush administration.  They’d be screaming about being smeared as traitors for their political beliefs, and they’d be right to do so.  That’s exactly what the Obama administration and Janet Napolitano has done here.

Rand Simberg has done just that and second Ed’s assessment.

Yet, it didn’t even occur to Mr. Cooper to go beyond the headlines and wonder about a left-of-center Administration releasing a supposedly damning report about those on the opposite side of the political aisle.

Yeah, I realize there are some right-wing kooks of whom we need to be wary.  But, there are likely just as many such folks on the left.  If DHS released a report that focused on left-wing extremist groups, do you think Cooper would feature it on his show?

But, apparently this report goes beyond those radical right-wing extremists who would use violence to further their political goals or wreak vengeance on their adversaries:

Readers insist the report is focused solely on violent groups, and they’re probably right that this is the authors’ intent. But that isn’t how it reads necessarily. Indeed, it goes out of its way to note that many of these groups haven’t done anything violent. The concern is that because they are right-wing they might be violent as if there is causation between being right-wing and being violent.

And it’s simply amazing, but not surprising that Anderson Cooper, a man who boasts a commitment to going behind the headlines wouldn’t bring anyone on to look behind its overheated language.

(more…)

The temper tantrum that all too many on left-wing blogs and even in some precincts of the MSM have been throwing in recent days as the “Tea Party movement gains greater steam has become yet another defining moment for the “netroots” and their media allies.

They can’t seem to fathom that there could be such a thing as a grassroots movement that is not only not of their making, but opposed to their ideology.  So, it must be “astroturf” (i.e., fake grassroots), in the words of one New York Times columnist.

Can you imagine how they would react if all conservative blogs repeated in unison that same mantra about the anti-Iraq War rallies, that they were not legitimate, merely made-to-order rallies orchestrated from the top down, that these people really didn’t oppose the war, they were merely goose-stepping to the instructions of the left-wing masters?

Maybe the netroots are just upset because conservatives (& libertarians) are finally using the Internet (& other new technologies) to promote our ideas.

I think it’s that –and more.  It goes to something I’ve been noticing since I defended the Gipper as an undergraduate that all too many (but fortunately not all) on the left refuse to grant any legitimacy to conservative ideas.  As Allahpundit put it,  ”Nothing the right does is legitimate in liberal eyes, so there must be a disqualifying factor hidden somewhere here.”

Check out this left-winger on the growing grassroots phenomenon:

This gets to the basic issue with the whole Tea Party movement.  It’s a group of f***nuts joining other groups of marginally related f***nuts to protest something or other, in a hugely f***nutty way.  The point of the Tea Party movement, besides the largest thrusting of testicles to America’s collective face since the Soviets launched Sputnik, is to protest.

Wow, sounds like someone had a bad day!  (Interesting side note: Andrew Sullivan linked that unhappy left-winger when he derided Ann Althouse’s pending nuptials.)

What makes these people so unhappy?  Why do they resort to a string of expletives to describe a grassroots movement?

Look, it’s too soon to tell whether or not we represent a majority of the American people (I happen to think we do).  There have been numerous grassroots movements throughout U.S. History which did not find success at the ballot box.  But, just because William Jennings Bryan lost three bids for the White House doesn’t mean he didn’t tap into the concerns of a certain segment of the population.

Can’t they at least acknowledge the legitimacy of our grievances?

Instead, we’re seeing is yet another example of the left’s intolerance for conservative ideas and their insensitivity to political grievances which do not fit their idea of what a political grievance should be.

(more…)

Once again, the Washington power elites are above the law and stick together.  Jack Murtha faces no accountability for his actions — because he is in Congress. (h/t – Instapundit)

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. John Murtha cannot be sued for accusing U.S. Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians “in cold blood,” remarks that sparked outrage among conservative commentators.

The appeals court in Washington dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by a Marine who led the squad in the attack. The judges agreed with Murtha that he was immune from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., claimed Murtha damaged his reputation by saying the squad he was leading engaged in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” in Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005.

At a Capitol Hill news conference in May 2006, Murtha predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation would show the Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha.

<…>

Wuterich’s attorney Mark S. Zaid said that despite the appeals court ruling, Murtha should apologize for his statements.

“It is disappointing that the court has placed members of Congress on a special pedestal and granted them carte blanche immunity to defame anyone they choose as part of their official responsibilities without even allowing a victim to expose the actual facts that are known only to the perpetrator,” Zaid said.

And the courageous Americans who volunteered to defend this nation and its principles are on the butt end of this court’s ruling.

Of course, the “racists” in Johnstown, PA (Murtha’s words, not mine) re-elected him.  So they deserve their traitorous Congressman.  But the rest of us don’t.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Well, I’m delighted to learn that the guy who’s been doing my taxes for the past nine years is a Republican.  And thanks to my wireless card, I could live-blog my experience here.

Suffice it to say, he’s doing all the work. It helped that during the year, I made sure to put any document which might be relevant to my taxes into a folder I keep on my desk. Sorted through that last night and have just been handing documents to my guy as he requests them.

I’ve been wondering if maybe we should change the name of April 15th to “Federal Extortion Day” (FED).

Now, to “extort” means “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.”  While the IRS’s power is not illegal, it does sometimes seem undue.

So, here’s a song for the day (to the tune of “Christmas Tree:”

 

• Extortion Day
• Extortion Day
• Oh hate I the feds today
• They spend and spend
• They take my money away
• They waste our income
• They waste it every day
• Extortion Day
• Extortion Day
• Oh how I hate the Feds today

Big kudos to Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia for this outstanding coverage of the formation of our new gay conservative organization, GOProud.

William McGurn writes in his WSJ column today:

Some of these issues are explored at GayPatriot.org, whose founder, Bruce Carroll, is also on the board of GOProud. From the disastrous economic policies of Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank to the outing of gay Republicans to the importance of male sexual monogamy, this conservative site offers a perspective you just won’t see anywhere else. Even on hot-button social issues, it can make for some strange bedfellows.

Take abortion. Christopher Barron, GOProud’s chairman of the board, points to an example from a few years back, when a Maine state legislator introduced a bill that would have outlawed abortion for a child thought to be gay, in the event genetic testing ever reached that point. That politician, Mr. Barron says, received virtually no support from gay groups. Though he himself is pro-choice, he says, “I want pro-life gays to know they have a home here.”

Whatever else it is, these are not your father’s gay Republicans. To the contrary, GOProud springs from a growing dissatisfaction among some gay Republicans that the Log Cabin Republicans, the traditional gay advocacy group within the party, has drifted to the point where its positions are indistinguishable from those of the left. It didn’t help when the Washington Blade chimed in with a report that Log Cabin’s biggest contributor, Tim Gill, is a Democrat.

Messrs. LaSalvia and Barron are themselves former officers for the Log Cabin Republicans. They know they belong to a defeated party that has no clear leaders but is now making decisions that will determine that party’s future in the years to come. They say they have formed GOProud in part to participate in that conversation — as conservatives who want to contribute to the team.

The ironies are legion. Since the loss of Congress and Mr. McCain’s defeat in November, any number of people have come forward to suggest that if the party ever wants to win again, it has to abandon its conservative principles. What does it say about the Beltway’s established ideological boxes that it is the gay wing of the Republican Party which is now advocating for a return to the party’s Reaganite roots?

We are now the “gay wing” of the Republican Party.  Awesome.  Thanks for the recognition of our new group, Mr. McGurn.

I hear a lot of gay liberals heads exploding today.  Andrew Sullivan’s brain matter is probably on the floor, too.

*pop*  *pop*  *pop*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A friend emails me from his Blackberry:

Been in line for 30 minutes behind 10 people w only 1 lazy teller. Realize that this is how obama wants the whole nation to operate.

Well, that’s what happens when the government takes over.  Guess this friend’s got added impetus to join us tomorrow on Santa Monica pier.

Just wanted to remind you all that tomorrow’s the day when Americans across the country will, in the tradition of our patriotic forebears, will be rallying against excessive government spending and for greater freedom.

With over 550 rallies scheduled, you’re sure to find one in a city near you, click here to find the closest place to rally.

A number of GayPatriot readers will be joining us on the Santa Monica Pier on Wednesday from 3-7 PM.  I just received word that my liberal leaning-lesbian friend who started last year’s campaign backing Dennis Kucinich, but ended up voting for McCain-Palin will be joining us.

I’ve even received word that Code Pink will be holding a counter-protest.

After we’ve taken a stand against big government, we’ll retreat to a local watering hole to celebrate a new birth of freedom in America.

When a reader (who has become a friend) praised 49th Parallel, a World War II propaganda film he had seen on cable, I added it to my Netflix queue.  Now that I’ve watched it, I agree with my friend’s assessment.  Not only does it hold up quite well, but it begs to be remade.

This film tells the story of six members of a German U-Boat crew stranded in northern Canada after the Canadian Air Force has destroyed their submarine.  As they try to make their way to the still neutral United States, they face resistance from a great variety of Canadians, even from a German religious community where they thought they might find welcome.

The filmmakers don’t soft pedal their portrayal of the Nazis, showing them to be the inhuman barbarians that they were, particularly the leader of the band, Eric Portman‘s Lieutenant Hirth.  The screenwriters didn’t mince words either.  Upon learning that the guests he was entertaining were Nazis, Leslie Howard‘s Philip Armstrong Scott, an effete writer trying to escape the war by studying Indians in the Canadian wilderness, quips,  ”I’m entertaining gangsters.

Later, he adds, “So, that’s who are you are, Nazis, well that explains everything, your arrogance, your stupidity, your bad manners.”  And after he stares down a Nazi who has stolen his gun, suffering only one bullet wound before his fellow Canadians capture his rival, Howard wonders, “One armed superman against one unarmed decadent democrat; I wonder how Dr. Goebbels will explain that.”

It’s high time we remake this film, but not about Nazis trying to cross Canada, but with Al Qaeda trying to make it across the US.  We’ll have our band of terrorists slip across the Mexican border into the Southwest, end up in Los Angeles where they try to fly to New York to meet up with a cell there for an attack on the Big Apple.

But, an attentive TSA agent prevents them for boarding the plane, so they have to make their way by land across the country.   (more…)

I can’t remember where it was, nor the exact key words to use in a search, but I recall once reading about the “truth in a lie.”  That the words (of a lie) may not be true, but they reveal a truth about the person speaking them and/or the situation he is facing.

Someone in Hollywood who lies about her age understands a truth about the town’s main industry that people here prize youth over experience.  Someone who lies about working out (saying he does when he doesn’t) reveals an insecurity about his mostly sedentary status.  Or, as in the case, of one guy with whom I was fixed up, an intention to work out (or so he claimed).

With that in mind, we could have a field day investigating the Vice President’s fabrications. As you may recall (something the MSM ignored), Bush Administration officials denied claims by Joe Biden that, in private meetings earlier this decade with the then-President Bush, the then-Delaware Senator castigated the Republican.

The truth in his lies?

Well, we can see the Vice President’s sense of self-importance, making himself out to be a bold man who speaks truth to power.  

And we all see a truth about our media-political culture; Biden thought he could score points by bashing Bush.  You can still ingratiate yourself to some in political polite society by attacking the former President.

And of course, we have one more example of officials of this Administration trashing the previous one, particularly the man who led it.  I’m still waiting for our critics to provide examples of either then-President Bush or then-Vice President Cheney personally trashing the Clintons (or the Gores) in their first three months in office.

So, Biden’s lies are really revealing, about himself, the prevailing culture in Washington and his Administration.

For those of you who don’t remember after eight years, this is what loyal opposition looks like.

And it also draws a very stark line between what it means to be on the political Left in America and on the Political Right. Witness:

THEN
A Republican president leads two broad international coalitions to liberate 50,000,000 Muslims in a far-away place from tyranny and despotism. In so doing, he works diligently to thwart terrorism on our own shores and in our own homeland. The Left’s reaction? To call him a war criminal, to demean him, to mock him, to call him a liar and a murderer and a torturer, too insular to consider any other type than simple cowboy diplomacy. To level the completely insensible incongruity of describing him simultaneously an evil genius and a world-class ignoramus.

NOW
A Democrat president, without the consultation of any allies, authorizes unilateral shots fired on citizens of a foreign country to save the life of a brave captain whose peril represents equal parts bravery (to even attempt escape) and selflessness (to offer himself to free his ship, crew, and cargo of charity food for starving Africans). The Right’s reaction? Praise and applause (albeit, from many quarters qualified and muted).

After eight years of continual vilification of a personality rather than policies, it is tremendously gratifying to see, for a change (YES! CHANGE!) a loyal opposition whose politics actually DO end at the water’s edge (and on it, too).

I join with my freedom and America loving conservatives today in congratulating President Obama on a cool hand and a job well done.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ

In the days leading up to (or just after) his “Road to Damascus” moment on February 24, 2004, Andrew Sullivan described himself as doubly disenchanted with the GOP.  It was not just the then-President’s social conservatism (e. g., support of the Federal Marriage Amendment), Andrew also lambasted Republicans Republicans for failing to hold the line on domestic spending.

Given his then-opposition to ever increasing levels of federal spending, you’d think Andrew would welcome a movement protesting the spending policies of Bush’s successor.  I mean, it seems Obama is playing poker with the former president using our tax dollars as chips, “I’ll see your spending and raise you 10 trillion.”

Now, Andrew, recalling his past principles, tries to cover for himself while faulting the rallies (which is what all the “cool” left-wing bloggers are doing these days):

As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don’t feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.

(H/t: Legal Insurrection.)

Um, Andrew, trying to figure out that first sentence there because it may be key to defining those who faulted Bush for his spending, yet now fault those criticizing Obama for his.  So, you believed in fiscal conservatism when Republicans were in power?  But, now that they’re out of power, you’ve changed your mind?

(more…)

Max Boot takes New York Times columnist Roger Cohen* to task for faulting the Bush Adminstration’s relationship to Iran by constrasting it with alliance with the Soviets during World War II:

The reason that the U.S. allied with Russia in 1942 was that, notwithstanding the evils of its communist regime, the two countries faced a common existential threat in Nazi Germany. As soon as that threat disappeared, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. became mired in a decades-long Cold War. What common threat does Cohen imagine would bind the U.S. and Iran together? A Martian invasion?

So eager are some on the left to fault the Bush Administration’s foreign policy that they excuse despotic regimes merely because they’re anti-American and forget the context of the historical references they make.

——

*In Cohen’s Op-ed, he notes (with apparent delight) that Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, referred to former Vice President Cheney “Darth Vader” twice in their interview.  Instead of finding pleasure in such a remark, a true advocate of international organizations would find it troubling that the head of such an agency would use the standard slur of the left to describe a past official of a democracy.  This shows a clear bias on behalf of ElBaradei and should concern those who wish his agency to prevent nations like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Wonder if ElBaradei has equally harsh words for world leaders, current and former, like Iran’s leader who have advocated the death of nations and the murder of innocence civilians.

In the very title of my post yesterday celebrating the rescue of Captain Phillips and the elimination and capture of his captors, I lauded the operation as the President’s “first military success.”  In the body of the post, I offered the Democrat kudos, praised him on his success, said he “got this one right.”  I gave him credit for ordering the rescue plan (which given what I have since learned may have been overgenerous praise).

And yet despite all that praise, one of our readers, Bill, calling himself a “gay conservative,” said in the comments that I had given “him only the most grudging credit for having ‘signed off’ on the rescue.”  Grudging credit?  I commended the Democratic incumbent at least four times (five if you count the title).  I guess ol’ Bill just missed what he didn’t want to read so he could more easily smear me.

The more I thought about his comment, the more I recalled Andrew Breitbart’s Op-Ed on how some on the left use the comments section of conservative blogs to discredit us:

Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power. . . .
Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy – us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency – and the humanity – of George W. Bush.

Now, Bill is not the first critic to call himself a gay conservative (or gay Republican) and proceed to lambaste us, usually, as in Bill’s case by misrepresenting what I actually said.

So, no, Bill, I don’t believe you.  I believe you only consider yourself a gay conservative when commenting on gay conservative blogs.  If you had been sincere in your criticism, you would have acknowledged the genuine (and perhaps overgenerous) praise I offered the president.  But, you’re not here to offer genuine criticism, you’re here on a different mission.

(more…)

There’s always a lot of good stuff on The Next Right about rebuilding the GOP.  I met two of the site’s primary bloggers, Patrick Ruffini and Jon Henke, in St. Paul last September and was impressed both with their knowledge of politics and their appreciation of new technologies.  I do hope RNC Chairman Michael Steele–or one of his top aides–checks their blog on a regular basis.

Ruffini had a good piece yesterday on the GOP potential to win back Silicon Valley.  Jon Henke takes some leftists to task for misrepresenting the tea party protests.

But, the piece of greatest particular interest to this blog was Kristen Soltis’s post on Young Voters, the GOP, and Gay Marriage.  She runs through the demographics showing that a majority of voters age 18-34 favor gay marriage in contrast to their elders and offers:

This is not to further imply that a change in position on gay marriage would mean droves of young voters signing up for the GOP. A number of other factors have to come into play, not the least of which is how important gay marriage is relative to other important political issues in the minds of these voters. . . .

Yet whether the Republican Party amends its actual policy stance on gay marriage or whether it simply makes efforts be more tolerant and inclusive of homosexuals generally, the Republican Party cannot ignore the vast differences in public opinion between young and old voters on the issue. This difference certainly presents a serious challenge to the party’s long-term ability to swell its ranks among young voters.

I don’t think the GOP need be pro-gay marriage to win the youth vote.  I do think it needs offer a vision of choice and opportunity to contrast the Democrats’ preference for government solutions and one-size-fits-all approaches.

That said, I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.

Given the libertarian leanings of young people, they represent the greatest potential source of “flippable” Obama voters.  And the numbers show that it won’t help the GOP to make ours the party opposing gay marriage.

I am shocked and saddened to hear of the sudden death of Philadelphia Phillies sportscaster and broadcast legend Harry Kalas.  It is fitting however that he died behind the sports microphone — doing what he loved.  What a great way to go.

His voice is known by anyone who followed the Phillies or saw numerous shows produced by NFL Films.  He also did sportscasting work for CBS Radio and Westwood One network.

For me, this is like the passing of a family friend.  He was like your favorite uncle who you watched baseball games with on TV.  Kalas’ voice was distinct, legendary and memorable; and he was an American classic.

If God has a baseball game scheduled today in Heaven, he has the best sportscaster to call the game with him now.

Rest In Peace, Harry.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

So he just said in his remarks at the Department of Transportation about the successful rescue in the Indian Ocean.

If George W. Bush had said this. . . .

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

It’s too early to determine the significance (and staying power) the tea party phenomenon of citizens across this great country organizing to protest the ever-increasing size of the federal government and the ever higher taxes the spending to pay for that government will require.

Personally, I think we’ve just seen the beginning of this movement which could reshape American politics, perhaps forcing Republicans to offer a new Contract with America to show their commitment to the principles which once guided our party.  At last count over 550 protests springing up across the country.

An the theme of these rallies is similar to those of protests and political movements throughout American history, going back to the first Tea Party 236 years ago and little uprising which ensued a few yeas later.  There have been numerous movements protesting the power of the federal government ever since, including most recently the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964, Jimmy Carter’s run in 1976 (he ran on anti-Washington, D.C. message), Ronald Reagan’s bid in 1980 and even (to some degree) Barack Obama’s successful campaign for “change” last year.

So, why can’t some on the left accept that this as a legitimate phenomenon?  For them to deny the sincerity of the protesters would be similar to conservatives denying the sincerity of all those who protested the Iraq War.

Law Professor William Jacobson* finds that instead of understanding people’s legitimate opposition to the the president’s spendthrift spending proposals,

Liberal bloggers and media groups can’t get the Tea Party phenomenon out of their heads. It wasn’t supposed to be this way, to them. Ordinary people getting together to protest against the liberal establishment. There is a cognitive disconnect. There must be a plot; the vast right-wing conspiracy at work.

They rush to define a grassroots movement as a right-wing conspiracy.  Are they so narrow that they think energetic opposition to Obama must needs be the product of some nefarious plot cooked up in the bowels of FoxNews studios?

Dan Riehl contends that “The Left can’t quite figure out the script for the Tea Party movement because there isn’t one beyond what is being written as it grows.”  Maybe that’s why they’re so upset, demonizing that which they don’t understand.  I think what they fear is related to something else Dan brought up that “the Tea Party movement is currently on track to be the largest genuine grassroots movement America has seen since the Sixties.”

(more…)

Perhaps it’s because I first saw Fred Astaire in The Towering Inferno (when he was 75), the legendary screen hoofer always strikes me as an old man even when playing a young man, even in his celebrated 1930s musical comedies when he was not yet 40.

And perhaps that perception makes his dancing seem all the more remarkable.  How could an old man move the way he does!?!?  How could anyone for that matter have such a range of motion.  Last night, I watched Easter Parade for the first time.  And while I had seen clips of a good number of the scenes over the years, I had never previously seen the flick in its entirety.

While dated and with a predictable plot, the flick is a delight to watch, if primarily for Astaire’s dance numbers.  Judy Garland merely supports him as his persona and performance dominate as soon as he starts singing a song and/or moving his feet.

It’s interesting how our initial impressions of people often color the way we see them.  I’ll never be able to appreciate Fred Astaire quite as someone who first saw him on the silver screen in the 1930s when he and Ginger Rogers helped define the Hollywood musical comedy.  But, even if I do see him as an old man who can dance, I’ll forever delight in his performances and marvel at his moves.