Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Mickey Kaus, one of the best left-of-center bloggers, has a hysterical set of posts that help explain why straight males are unlikely to go see Brokeback Mountain, which will likely win several awards but could fail to garner a substantial audience...

Reader C. E., reacting to an earlier "Brokeback" post, emails:

If I follow your logic, I should be genetically repelled from such films as Out of Africa, The Princess Bride, The Notebook, Wuthering Heights, The Big Easy, and basically every Hollywood romance ever made except Brokeback Mountain because I couldn't possibly enjoy a story about people who are not like myself.

Er, no. If a gay man, say, goes to see "Wuthering Heights," there is at least one romantic lead of the sex he's interested in! In "Brokeback Mountain," neither of the two romantic leads is of a sex I'm interested in. ... My wild hypothesis is that more people will go see a movie if it features an actor or actress they find attractive! If heterosexual men in heartland America don't flock to see "Brokeback Mountain" it's not because they're bigoted. It's because they're heterosexual. "Heterosexuals Attracted to Members of the Opposite Sex"--for those cultural critics wondering what a commerical disappointment for this much-heralded movie will Tell Us About America Today, there's your headline.

Kaus captures the essence of the issue. I'm a little skeptical about the rave reviews the film is garnering, because a part of me wonders whether people who are commenting on the movie are also emotionally invested in seeing it succeed, because it is consistent with their political views. But I can't comment on whether the movie's overrated, underrated, or whatever, since I haven't seen it.

Do I plan to see it? Look, I barely get to go to the movies as it is. I saw Million Dollar Baby last year, mostly because it had such strong Oscar buzz, and I came to regret that decision. It was a fine movie in many ways, but the ending was so insanely depressing that I swore up and down that I'd never watch that movie again (and for the record, the movie was overrated and anyone pitching this as the greatest sports movie of all time is missing the boat -- this doesn't even register as one of the top two boxing movies of all time).

By contrast, the story in Brokeback Mountain probably isn't depressing, but I don't like watching most movies featuring heterosexual love stories. Can I appreciate that they're good movies? Sure, but my taste in entertainment doesn't gravitate toward romantic movies. That probably says that I'm a shallow guy in some ways, but it doesn't make me homophobic if I fail to see Brokeback Mountain. Similarly, if I fail to see a critically accaimed movie about the experience of African-Americans in the U.S., it doesn't make me a racist.

Most people go to the movies to escape from reality to a place they'd like to go. Most heterosexual guys don't want to escape to Brokeback Mountain. We also don't want to visit Beaches, or hang out with The Prince of Tides. There's nothing wrong with those movies (except for Barbra Streisand), but there's nothing wrong with guys not seeing them either.

'80's Retro, Liberal Interest Group Style

Well, I guess you can't teach old barking dogs new tricks...

With Senate Democrats clearly outnumbered, liberal interest groups are staking their campaign against Samuel Alito Jr. on a simple strategy: Transform Alito into Robert Bork by any means possible -- whether the shoe fits or not.

"There are many similarities," notes People For the American Way's Ralph Neas, who led the coalition opposed to Bork and is helping lead the effort against Alito. Not least of these is that Alito, like Bork, is a conservative judge picked to replace a moderate swing justice. For Bork, it was Lewis Powell; for Alito, it is Sandra Day O'Connor. "This is a rare moment in history," adds Neas.

But just how closely Alito's jurisprudence mirrors Bork's is open to debate, but that's almost beside the point. What matters in the mounting slugfest over Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court is whether his opponents can sell the idea that the mild-mannered jurist is just a quieter, gentler version of Bork -- still a potent symbol of judicial extremism in the minds of most Americans.

Indeed, shaping public opinion and then persuading constituents to roar at their senators have become important elements of any judicial campaign. But it's particularly crucial in Alito's situation, where a handful of moderate Republicans and Democrats will determine whether he cruises to confirmation next month, barely squeaks by, loses an up-or-down vote, or is filibustered.

To defeat Alito, says John Samples, who directs the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, opponents must prove "not just that he's conservative or that he's against abortion personally -- they need to show he's nuts."

And not just to the Senate. Far more effective, says Samples, is the type of messaging that frames Alito for voters. "There is a public element to this," he says. "If you can get the public to believe he's way out there, then you can move some of these senators who would be inclined to vote for him."

In Bork's case, public opinion played a critical role in scuttling his nomination in the Senate in 1987. "A lot of lies were being told, and it would have been good if somebody had been out there rebutting them," says Bork, now a distinguished fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. "You have to have your countervailing soundbites, although it's a hell of a world where we choose Supreme Court justices by soundbites."

For interest groups joining the anti-Alito bandwagon -- and their numbers are growing -- there are risks in such brinkmanship. Chief among them is that their "sky-is-falling" rhetoric may erode their credibility among the moderates whose votes they seek.

Says Christian Myers, the executive director of Progress for America, a pro-Alito lobby: "If the Democrats think they can take a few instances out of context and have a groundswell of support around those few instances, I don't think they will be successful. I think the people who are going to pay attention to this are smarter than that."

...There remain a lot of hearts and minds to be captured. With four weeks to go before hearings begin, a CBS News poll last week showed that 75 percent of the American public are undecided in their opinion of Alito, or haven't yet heard enough to have an opinion. On the other hand, the poll revealed the opposition has an uphill battle, with only a quarter of Americans saying the president's Supreme Court picks have been more conservative than they like and 50 percent saying they like what they have seen.

It's not like liberals are gaining much traction in this debate, as indicated by the fact the so-called Alliance for Justice got approximately ZERO people to show up for a rally in Colorado last week, as part of a nationwide campaign. This may be because most of America would rather concentrate on Christmas -- sorry, the Winter Solstice holidays -- than Supreme Court hearings. Unlike liberal interest groups, most Americans can find better things to do during the holidays.

This debate will be framed by a lot of petty crap that can't disguise one simple fact -- the President is entitled to deference in his choice, so long as the nominee is well-qualified. Justice Alito is more than qualified to sit on the high court, and he will. The tactics the left employed against Robert Bork worked then, but they don't control the media empire as securely as they once did. Conservatives need to be wary and defend Justice Alito vigorously. As long as the do, he will be confirmed, no matter how much wailing and gnashing of teeth we hear from the left.

A Good Day to Be A Villanova Alum

My alma mater's been making me proud with athletic accomplishments lately, but they just made a much more important decision... and once again, did us proud...

The Board of Trustees of Villanova University today elected Peter M. Donohue, O.S.A. as the University’s 32nd president to succeed Edmund J. Dobbin, O.S.A. who has announced his intention to step down as president at the conclusion of the 2005-2006 academic year.

Father Donohue is currently a tenured associate professor and the chairperson of Villanova’s theatre department, a position he assumed in 1992. A recognized University leader, Father Donohue is a highly sought after academician, teacher, minister, colleague and lecturer. He is a member of the Augustinian Institute Advisory Board and has served on numerous committees at Villanova including, as faculty representative on the Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Diversity Committee, the Strategic Planning Committee, and the University Judicial Boards. In addition he served on the NCAA Certification Self-Study committees of 1996-1997 and 2001-2002. Father Donohue served two terms as a member of the Board of Trustees of Merrimack College in North Andover, Massachusetts.

An award-winning director, Father Donohue received five Barrymore nominations for Outstanding Direction of a Musical for Parade, Children of Eden, Into the Woods, Evita, and Chicago, which received nine nominations and three 2002 Barrymore Awards, including Outstanding Direction of a Musical.

A devoted liturgical minister, Father Donohue regularly celebrates weddings for Villanova alumni and conducts the Sunday evening Mass for the Villanova community. Father Donohue is the long time Chaplain of the University’s Navy ROTC program, offering counsel to midshipmen, presiding over the annual commissioning Mass and lecturing in the Senior Leadership Seminar.

Any man who suffered through the indignity of having me for a Theatrical Expression class and survived with his sense of humor intact deserves great accolades... whether this counts as one, I'll leave to others to decide. I'll second a point that Johnny Red made -- I suddenly feel closer to my alma mater.

I'll leave it to the Lord of Truth to add his thoughts if he so wishes (if he ever blogs again -- ahem), but the University could not have made a better choice to lead it forward in the new millenium.

I'll Bet These Are Moving Fast at MoveOn

I'd never seen this site before today, but Michelle Malkin linked to this new board game/Christmas present from Six Meat Buffet, and it's too damn funny to pass up...

When you play traditional Stratego, do you furrow your brow at where to place your high ranking officers? Do you gnash your teeth over how best to protect your flag? Stratego for Democrats relieves you of these worries.

Just like congressional Dim-O-Cracks work in consort with the mainstream press to tie our troops hands in combat, your hands are tied from the very beginning with Stratego for Democrats! All you’ve got are low ranking game pieces and a lot of white flags that you’ve got no way to protect.

The picture of Howard Dean on the board game cover is priceless.

Cartman Tells The Future

Brokeback Mountain led the way with seven Golden Globe nominations. I'm sure it's a fine movie -- for example, the cast is terrific. I think Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal would have been fine choices to play Anakin Skywalker if George Lucas hadn't lost his brain when casting the most important role in his second trilogy.

But that's an aside to this note -- Parker and Stone essentially predicted this in a classic South Park episode years ago. The National Ledger has the details...

The movie is adapted from a story by Annie Proulx and stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as love-struck cowboys whose forbidden affair begins in 1963 and ends 20 years later. The director described the low-budget indie flick, shot in Canada to save money, as a story of love against adversity.

The AP describes the as being full of sweeping vistas, lonesome men, bucking broncos and smoldering campfires. It also has sex scenes between two men whose lives are changed, disturbed and entwined after being hired to tend sheep for a summer in Wyoming.

Actual South Park dialogue, according to Rusty, describing the South Park Film Festival:

Cartman: No dude, independent films are those black and white hippie
movies. They're always about gay cowboys eating pudding.

Wendy: No they're not. Independent films are produced outside the Hollywood
system. They're movies without all the glitch and glamour of Hollywood.

Cartman: Well, you show one independent film that isn't about gay cowboys
eating pudding.

And to think, Team America didn't even get a Best Picture nomination last year.

The Minutemen Go Local

The Minuteman Project has generated some controversy, but there's no denying that it appeals to many citizens who are unhappy with illegal immigration. Local clubs like this one, which is not too far from me, might become the norm...

Heads turned in unison to a dozen people moving toward them on Elden Street in Herndon. Although the men's clothing -- work boots and bluejeans -- revealed them as day laborers, the new group wore warm winter coats and snug-fitting gloves and carried cameras with long lenses, a camcorder, a couple of walkie-talkies and a clipboard list of license plate numbers collected on previous visits.

"The day is ruined. They're going to scare off the employers," Alex Aleman, a 32-year-old Honduran in a black ski cap, told his friends in Spanish. "When they come, we don't eat."

It was the start of an almost-weekly ritual in this Northern Virginia town that began in mid-October when locals who object to the informal day-laborer site formed a Herndon branch of the Minuteman Project, a national group that actively opposes illegal immigration.

The Minutemen train their lenses on contractors who drive to the lot at Elden Street and Alabama Drive to hire the day laborers, many of whom are in the country illegally. They say they plan to hand the photographs to the Internal Revenue Service for investigation.

...Luis Hererra, 32, a Salvadoran who arrived four months ago, wanted to know whether it was legal for the Minutemen to photograph people against their will.

"I'm in a foreign country now," Hererra said. "I don't know the laws here yet."

The irony of that statement stood out for me. The issue of illegal immigration is rather complex on an economic level; I know that there are substantial arguments for and against ideas like the President's guest-worker program. But I also know that the law is clear-cut on this issue, and we can't solve the problem simply by ignoring it. There's a lack of respect for the law against illegal immigration that is disturbing.

At some point, citizens are bound to take up the job of law enforcement with creative ideas like the one above. I see nothing objectionable in doing this work, or even in publicizing the names of contractors who are seen employing illegal immigrants. I just hope our leaders realize that there is a growing problem here, and continued ignorance or an inability to pursue bold reforms could lead to a crisis that would not be managable. If a terrorist sneaks across the border and commits another crime on the scope of 9/11 (or even tries), there will be many more clubs like this one, and they won't settle for simply writing down license plate numbers.

The Wisdom of Solomon

I don't usually spend time quoting George Will, but this seemed too good to pass up. Will decided to write about the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that essentially requires institutions of higher learning that accept federal money to allow access to military recruiters on the same grounds as other would-be employers. The schools and their faculties have essentially decided that they should be allowed to accept federal money, but they don't have to comply with the requirements the government places on these efforts, because the schools believe the military discrtiminates against homosexuals with its "don't ask, don't tell policy." The schools are welcome to protest the policy, but they don't want to pay any price for it...

Federal assistance to institutions of higher education was about $35 billion last year, so the schools flinch from the price tag on their gay rights principles, which in this case dovetail neatly with their anti-military prejudices. The schools cite the principle that government cannot condition receipt of a government benefit on the loss of a constitutional right. The government replies that Congress frequently makes the receipt of federal funds conditional on the recipient's doing certain things to further a legitimate government interest, such as recruiting.

And the government denies that the law on recruiters' access abridges schools' rights of speech and association. The schools' lawyer argued that it does because the "forced hosting" of recruiters amounts to a "crisis of conscience" over compelled and subsidized speech. The schools say they are compelled to communicate a message of support for the military's policy regarding gays and to subsidize the military's message of disapproval of gays. But last week Chief Justice John Roberts said that "nobody" infers an academic institution's support for the views and policies of every employer allowed to recruit on campus.

...During oral arguments last week, the schools had many occasions to wince. Regarding the schools' theory that any conduct can be imbued with "communicative force," Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the schools might also justify banning military recruiters during a war the faculty disapproved of, because allowing the recruiters would be tantamount to the schools' endorsing the war.

As Will indicates, there's a certain level of petulance to the actions of these schools. Essentaiily, they want funding, but they don't want to take on any responsibilities attached to the receipt of the funds. Instapundit has a great thought...

Somehow it makes me think of Dan Akroyd in Ghostbusters:

Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

Too many people in academia don't seem to realize that the money has to come from somewhere. And you hear people talk about how academia needs to adopt an "adversarial stance" toward the larger culture, without thinking much about why the larger culture would want to pay for that.

That's about right. Look, a law school, including my alma mater, is free to a stand against prejudice if they see it. But they also need to accept the consequences that go along with such a stand. It's as if they're telling the federal government, "You're horrible, horrible bigots! Now give us your money and be gone... until it's time to send us another check, of course."

That's not how it should work. And here's hoping the Supreme Court agrees with Congress.