Did You Know That Glenn Beck Raped And Murdered A Young Girl In 1990?

Ken AshfordRight Wing and Inept Media15 Comments

There's evidence out there that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and most tellingly, Beck hasn't denied that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 — so therefore it must be true that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, which is something that he clearly did do.

You can find it all at http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/.  It's a website, so you know what is said on there is true.  And most importantly, Glenn Beck has yet to come forward and deny that the website is lying when it says that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. 

Below, from that website, I've posted one of the most compelling and uncontrovertible pieces of evidence which proves beyond a shadow of all reason that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

The “Why”: Why haven’t we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

Beck’s Background: He has exposed himself as a guy over and over again who has a deep seeded hatred for consensual sex.  I’m not saying he doesn’t like consensual sex, I’m saying he has a problem.

Search for Proof: It is rumored that Beck consumed the remains of the girl in a post-coitus ritualistic ceremony.  Hence, no body.  There’s no proof that he raped & murdered that girl. It’s just as likely that he murdered & THEN raped her.  There’s no proof that it was a girl, after he was done with it the genitalia were so mutilated that a definitive gender couldn’t be determined.

Pleading with Beck: Come clean, Glenn, just come clean. It’s the right time now. It is the decent thing for you to do, out of respect for the American people, and if you don’t respect them, out of respect for yourself. For the sake of the girl’s family, or girls’ families, *sniff* think of the families, Glenn, *sobs*, they need just that little bit of closure your confession can give them, just, please, Glenn, think of those poor families *cries* and what you have *cries a bit more* have put them through…

Let’s Blame in on the Mainstream Media (MSM): Why is the MSM not reporting that Glenn Beck might have raped and murdered a girl in 1990? They are covering for his rape and murder of that girl.

Let me interject here to point out that Fox News especially has failed to do a single story about Glenn Beck raping and murdering a young girl in 1990.  Not ONE!

Let the Records State: No link has been provided to Glenn Beck’s murder record to prove that he was not involved with a rape and murder of a girl in 1990.  A Lexis-Nexis search will reveal not one record of the statement “Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a girl today” in all of the records for 1990.  Even more damning, a Google search will not disprove the rape and murder.

Turn to the Snopes Sleuths: Someone needs to put together an email about Glenn Beck raping and murder that girl back in 1990 so we can all start pestering Snopes to varify if it is true or not.

Vast Coverup Conspiracy: I have no knowledge of any plausible alibi Glenn Beck has that would prove he didn’t rape and murder that girl in 1990.  Some say Glenn Beck has spent possibly THREE BILLION DOLLARS to cover up the fact that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Why won’t Glenn Beck release her death certificate? WHERE GLENN WHERE?! Wouldn’t it be the prudent thing for him to simply release his legal records proving that he didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990. It is very interesting that he has not taken this simple step. Instead he hides it behind an army of lawyers. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE, GLENN?

NEED MORE PROOF?  “R” is for radical “A” is for astronaut, “P” is for paper, “S” is for super-douche, “T” well, I don’t have that yet, but if I did, this would spell “rapist”.  Oh, the “I”?  That’s for oligarch or oligahr or orgalorg or…

I mean, poll results overwhelming show that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.  What more evidence do you need?

Also, you'll note that Glenn Beck is trying to draw attention away from himself a LOT lately.  He's been claiming that everyone from John Rockefeller to everyone in the Obama Administration is a puppet of ACORN/Hitler/Karl Marx.  Why is Beck trying to draw the spotlight off of himself and onto others?  What is he hiding?  That's just the kind of behavior — textbook behavior, in fact — that you would expect from a man who raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, which is something Beck has refused to deny ever doing.

Even on Yahoo Answers, the issue has been addressed:

Beckrapist  

(And yes, this is all satire.  The point of this post and the website above is to show how faux journalism, the kind purveyed by Glenn Beck himself, is not only alive and well, but misleading and dangerous.  As for whether Glenn Beck really did rape and murder a young girl in 1990, I don't know.  But people are sure asking legitimate questions, huh? So what does that tell you?)

UPDATE:  A graph shows that all this is probably true:

Beckrapesgraph

Other photos are surfacing:

2zxshp3  

Woffunreasonablysafe

Healthcare Reform Is Now Viral On Facebook/Twitter

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

There is a huge viral movement brewing on Facebook at the moment: Countless young people around the country are pasting the following message (or something close to it) into their status:

No one should die because they cannot afford healthcare. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

Hard to quantify, but some estimates are that the status is being used by tens of thousands.  What is remarkable here is that these status updates containing a strong and clear message in favor of healthcare reform are coming not only from the political community but also from those whose lives are not immersed in these fights. These are regular young people, all around the country, speaking out in favor of reform. This movement is impressive and surprising, and, at least from this vantage, quite newsworthy.

Update: Not Just Facebook… Twitterers (Tweeters? Twitter users?) getting in on the action, too.

Another update: Another one joins the throngs.

Barack-obama-facebook

Thoughts Of The Day Re Obama’s Indoctrination Speech

Ken AshfordEducation, Obama OppositionLeave a Comment

How long did it take the right to go from: "if you criticize the President you are a traitor" to "School children should not trust the President."

But seriously, what IS it with the objection to President Obama talking with school children and encouraging them to study hard and learn and do well?  I mean, it's not like he's going to be preaching partisan policy, like Reagan did two decades ago when he talked to schoolkids (via CSPAN) about tax cuts.

What could possibly happen as a result of the president and schoolchildren getting together?

Bush-pet-goat

Oh, shit.  We're screwed.

No, but really serously this time — if parents are going to pull their kids out of school on Tuesday because Obama (he's black, you know) is going to give the kids a pep talk, maybe we should pick that day to teach evolution and real sex education.

* Via Digby, from MSNBC:

Monica Novotny: John, what about this controversy over opposition to Obama's speech to school children?

John Harwood: I've got to tell you Monica, I've been watching politics for a long time and this one is really over the top. What it shows you is there are a lot of cynical people who try to fan controversy and let's face it, in a country of 300 million peopl there are a lot of stupid people too because if you believe that it's somehow unhealthy for kids for the president to say "work hard and stay in school," you're stupid!

Novotny: (laughter)

Harwood: I'm worried for some of those kids of those parents who are upset. I'm not sure those parents are smart enough to raise those kids.

But really really seriously — speaking of school indoctrination (which Obama's talk on Tuesday clearly isn't), anyone remember what I posted less than two weeks ago?

The [Texas] State Board of Education has appointed “review committees” made up largely of active and retired school teachers to draft new social studies curriculum standards as well as six “expert reviewers” to help shape the final document.

The standards, which the board will decide next spring, will influence new history, civics and geography textbooks.

The first draft for proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says students should be expected “to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority.”

How The Health Care Debate Should Be Discussed

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

This video is boring and wonkish.  It's boring and wonkish because it's detailed and educated.  I'm telling you that right up front because my point is that the health care debate should be boring and wonkish and detailed and educated.

This is Senator Al Franken (D-MN) who was confronted by a loud and angry mob of teabagging anti-reform protesters.  What happened?  They asked him questions, and he answered them.  He showed a grasp of the issues which, quite frankly, the teabaggers didn't have.  But rather than putting them down (or worse, avoiding them), he simply talked frank.

And they didn't have much to say.

I'm not sure he convinces anybody, but even to the teabaggers, they probably see that he is infinitely more knowledgeable than Limbaugh or Beck.

More on the Cameron Todd Willingham Execution

Ken AshfordCrime3 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man executed — wrongly, it seems — for the death of his daughters by intentionally committing arson (according to Texas prosecutors).

Hon. John Jackson, the judge in the case that led to Willingham's conviction, has spoken out.  I've excerpted his guest column in the Corsican Daily Sun.  I want to address his salient points, to show the poor quality of the judiciary in Texas:

In fact, the trial testimony you reported in 1991 contains overwhelming evidence of guilt completely independent of the undeniably flawed forensic report.

Always omitted from any examination of the actual trial are the following facts:

1. The event which caused the three childrens' deaths was the third attempt by Todd Willingham to kill his children established by the evidence. He had attempted to abort both pregnancies by vicious attacks on his wife in which he beat and kicked his wife with the specific intent to trigger miscarriages;

Then why does his own wife deny these so-called "vicious attacks"?  Besides, past bad behavior, even if true, carries only circumstantial evidentiary weight.  Not all wife-beaters commit murder — in fact, most don't.

2. The “well-established burns” suffered by Willingham were so superficial as to suggest that the same were self-inflicted in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself;

"Suggest"?  That constitutes "over-whelming evidence of guilt"?  Besides, scientific experts believe that his burns were consistent with the type of fire at Willingham's house.

3. Blood-gas analysis at Navarro Regional Hospital shortly after the homicide revealed that Willingham had not inhaled any smoke, contrary to his statement which detailed “rescue attempts;”

According to this New Yorker article, Willingham didn't try to rescue his family, although he told investigators he did.  He fled from the burning house because he was scared.  He was ashamed of his cowardice (although he did try to go back in, only to be stopped by firefighters).  He admitted it later on.  But lying about "rescue attempts" is not evidence that he started the fire.

4. Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination. Such opportunity was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner;

This is an embarrassment to the judiciary of Texas.  Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they lack reliability as evidence.  Refusal to take a polygraph, likewise, isn't evidence of guilt either.  Willingham was (wisely) told by his lawyers not to take the polygraph, and he didn't.  To use that now as evidence of his guilt is incredibly corrupt.  Judge Johnson should know this.

5. Willingham was a serial wife abuser, both physically and emotionally. His violent nature was further established by evidence of his vicious attacks on animals which is common to violent sociopaths;

This is, again, indirect and almost prejudicial evidence at best.  It's like saying — well, most violent criminal has a bad childhood; Person X has a bad childhood; therefore, he must have committed a violent crime.  Sorry, that doesn't cut it. 

By the way, a prosecution expert who testified that Willingham was a “sociopath” was expelled from his professional association just three years later for unethical behavior, including making diagnoses without examining people. Willingham’s former probation officer and a judge both directly refute any notion that he was a sociopath.

6. Witness statements established that Willingham was overheard whispering to his deceased older daughter at the funeral home, “You're not the one who was supposed to die.” (The origin of the fire occured in the infant twins bedroom) and;

A grievingfather telling his daughter she wasn't supposed to die isn't evidence of guilt.  There remains the distinct, indeed likely, possibility that he was speaking metaphysically — i.e., that she was too young to die.  As for the origin of the fire, even the experts at trial (who, even the judge agrees produced a "flawed forensic report") couldn't find evidence of arson in the twins' bedroom)

7. Any escape or rescue route from the burning house was blocked by a refrigerator which had been pushed against the back door, requring any person attempting escape to run through the conflagration at the front of the house.

According to this, the refrigerator was covering a back door because there were two refrigerators in the small kitchen. The police detective and the fire chief who handled the case both now say that the refrigerator’s location does not support the theory that the fire was arson.

The judge adds:

Co-counsel Alan Bristol and I offered Willingham the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty in return for a sentence of life imprisonment. Such offer was rejected in an obscene and potentially violent confrontation with his defense counsel.

And isn't that how an innocent man might act?

Here's the bottom line.  Could Willingham have committed arson, intending to kill his twin daughters?  Sure, if you stack the evidence the right way, and ignore other evidence, it's certainly possible.  But we don't convict people, and certainly don't sentence them to death, on being able to construct a scenario in which the murder is a "possible" truth.  The standard is (even in Texas) "guilt beyond a resonable doubt".

Anyone assessing all the hard facts (or lack thereof) objectively would have a doubt, and that doubt is reasonable.  Flawed expert evidence and "circumstantial" evidence was enought to construct a plausible story about how Willingham could have murdered his children.  But those things, even taken together, should never have resulted in a conviction.

I alluded to it before, but this long read in the The New Yorker is worth it.

Glenn Beck Gets All Da Vinci Code On Us

Ken AshfordRight Wing and Inept Media2 Comments

Seriously, I think this guy has gone off the deep end.  I’m not kidding about that.

BONUS BECK: From last week — big payoff at the end so be patient…

I mean, this is waaay beyond McCarthyism.  Beck is accusing the titan of American capitalism, John Rockefeller, of having been a secret communist.  How does he get there?

For those who won’t watch the video, it goes something like this: Rockefeller was an early American progressive, which actually means he was a communist, and they have connections to the fascists. And we know this because Rockefeller left clues to his true legacy with these communist art pieces which are hidden in plain sight, and since we have people in our own time who call themselves progressives they must actually be communists (possibly fascists?).

Olbermann had some fun with this, culminating in pointing out the fact that Fox News headquarters at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, across the street from 30 Rock, is actually part of Rockefeller Center

BONUS BECK from last week:  The payoff is at the end, so be patient…
 

By the way, Glenn Beck is still losing advertisers.

Why The Health Care Debate Is The Way It Is

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

Rudy Ruiz, guest commentating at CNN, has some thoughts:

Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues?

Here's my diagnosis.

Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation.

Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening.

First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers.

Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "fascism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way.

Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding.

We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors.

Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook.

I think he's largely right, but I also think he's largely describing the right.  On the left, there is more of a tendency to listen to the "long, complicated answers" and to educate oneself.  There is a bit of an echo chamber, but I find that most people on the left — myself included — pay a great deal of attention to what is said on Fox News, if only because we know that so many others turn to Fox as their sole new source.

I also think the left is less-guilty of seeking out like-minded opinions.  This, in part, is why the left has a hard time governing, even when it is in the majority.  It's because its own ranks are fractured and splintered, rather than trying to carve a cohesive whole.

Those on the left may watch Rachel Maddow, but they don't follow her as the gospel-giver.  But Joe Klein gives us anecdotal evidence that the same isn't true for the other side:

I was at a Blanche Lincoln town hall meeting in Russellville, Arkansas, yesterday–and the number of people who believe that the President has larded the government with communists (!) was astonishing. One woman said there were four known communists in the government and that she'd researched it on the internet. When I asked her afterwards, she said environmental adviser Van Jones, legal advisor Cass Sunstein (who was last spotted being excoriated by the left for supporting the FISA revisions), someone named Lloyd and she didn't remember the fourth. And wasn't it suspicious that Obama had all these czars working for him–that was a Russkie commie term, wasn't it? When I asked, the woman admitted that, among other things, she occasionally listened to William Bennett's conservative radio show. I pointed out that Bennett had once been the Drug Czar, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Life sure can be complicated sometimes.

I was later told by a local observer that many of these vomitous, disgraceful notions were the fruit of Glenn Beck's fruitful imagination. "We are living Glenn Beck's fantasy life," said this audience member. The amazing thing remains not only the unwillingness of responsible Republicans–a term that is in danger of becoming an oxymoron–to call bull– on this, but also the willingness of many prominent Republicans to join in the slinging of garbage. Michelle Cottle reports that there are Republican-sanctioned efforts afoot to have parents not send their children to school on September 8 because the President is scheduled to address the nation's school-children that day and they are afraid that he will fill their little heads with socialist propaganda. That is somewhere well beyond disgraceful. 

Could I just say that the intensity of this getting pretty scary…and dangerous? We are heading toward a cliff and the usual brakes of civil discourse are not working. Indeed, the Republicans have the pedal to the metal–rushing us toward a tragedy far greater than the California health care forum finger-biting Karen describes below. I'm usually not one to panic or be overly worried about the state of our country–even when we do awful things like invade Iraq and torture people, we usually right our course before long–but I have a sinking feeling about where we're headed now. I hope I'm wrong.

I hope he's wrong, too, but I really believe he's not.

The Latest Rightwing Freakout

Ken AshfordEducation, Obama OppositionLeave a Comment

On September 8, President Obama will speak to schoolchildren throughout the country.  He's going to convey a rather standard message.

In an August 26 letter to principals, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan described Obama's September 8 speech as being about "the importance of education" and "persisting and succeeding in school." Duncan also offered K-12 "classroom activities" to "engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives." From his letter:

In a recent interview with student reporter, Damon Weaver, President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

Since taking office, the President has repeatedly focused on education, even as the country faces two wars, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and major challenges on issues like energy and health care. The President believes that education is a critical part of building a new foundation for the American economy. Educated people are more active civically and better informed on issues affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong. I encourage you, your teachers, and students to join me in watching the President deliver this address on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. It will be broadcast live on the White House website www.whitehouse.gov 12:00 noon eastern standard time.

In advance of this address, we would like to share the following resources: a menu of classroom activities for students in grades preK-6 and for students in grades 7-12. These are ideas developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives. We are also staging a student video contest on education.

But the right wing is going ballistic. 

There's Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin — frothing at the mouth about Obama trying to "indoctrinate the children" into his "socialist agenda".  (Staying in school is "socialist" now?) 

Here's this from Townhall:

Parents, prepare yourselves–your kids are going to be made a captive audience to this forced nonsense.  I suggest you plan your own civics lesson to teach your children when they get home from school on September 8.  Teach them that "civic duty" does not mean doing whatever the President wants you to do, but instead, being strong-minded enough to stick to your principles and formulate your own thoughts about the role government should play in our lives. 

And this from The American Thinker:

Obama has turned his team of brainwashers on the task of indoctrinating America’s youth.

And lots more.

These people are nuts.

P.S.  George H.W. Bush: Encouraged "America's students to strive for excellence." While president, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students' as well as parents' responsibility/accountability; and to promote students' and parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face." According to The Washington Post, the "White House sent letters to schools across the nation to encourage teachers and principals to allow students to tune in the speech, which was also carried live by the Mutual Broadcasting and NBC Radio Network. The live television and radio coverage was arranged at the request of the Education Department." [Washington Post, 10/2/91]

Pat Buchanan Goes Full Blown Nazi-Supporting Stupid

Ken AshfordHistory, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

His latest — a pro-Nazi apologia entitled "Did Hitler Want War?":

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

***

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Some of these I can answer (How could Hitler invade Russia, Pat?  By conquering Poland which lay between.  Duh.) ….professional historians can correct Pat on other issues. 

But basically, Pat's article boils down to this logic:

World War II totally decimated Hitler's Germany, so why would Hitler want to enter that war in the first place?

It's a profoundly dumb question, because Hitler didn't expect to be challenged (when he invaded Poland), and when he was challenged, he didn't expect to lose.  Remember, he believed in the master Aryan race. 

Pat, of course, premises his entire article on the premise that Hitler was a military genius and a sane reasonable man armed with a crystal ball that looks into the future.  Hitler was precisely the opposite, and that's how the wheels come off Pat's wagon from the very beginning of the article — he starts with the premise that Hitler reasoned this all out.

But what is the underlying point that Pat is trying to make?  That Hitler didn't want to create a Third Reich through military expansion?  Well, yes I suppose that might be true, but even a meglomaniac like Hitler didn't expect that other countries would simply hand themselves over to him.

Hitler started the war.  He used the military to expand the geography and power of Germany.  Did he "want" war?  Probably not, but he certainly wasn't detered from provoking it.  And that's pretty much all that matters.

It's perhaps one of the stupidest articles Buchanan has ever written, and that's saying something.

Bloody Sock To Replace Liberal Lion?

Ken AshfordCongress, Red Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

Just because he's got he had a decent split-finger fastball doesn't mean he'll be a good political leader:

Can a Republican fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts? Among the list of possible GOP candidates is Curt Schilling.

The former right-handed starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox is not ruling out a possible run.

"I've got a lot on my plate," says Schilling. "Right now, I'm not even going to speculate on it."

But, Schilling admits he would need to make a decision pretty quickly.

"I think for the first time in a long time, it will take the right candidate," Schilling said of a Republican beating a Democrat for the Senate seat.

"I have been contacted," says Schilling about a possible Senate run.

Schilling, a registered independent and longtime Republican supporter, wrote on his blog that while his family and video game company, 38 Studios, are high priorities, "I do have some interest in the possibility."

A registered independent?  Uh, Curt, if you want to run as a Republican, you missed the deadline.

Trumbo

Ken AshfordHistory, Popular CultureLeave a Comment

Here's the sum total of what I knew about Dalton Trumbo before yesterday:

  1. He wrote "Johnny Got His Gun", which was one of the first grown-up books I ever read.
  2. He was one of the "Hollywood Ten" who got blacklisted because he refused to name names.
  3. He wrote the screenplays to "Spartacus" and "Papillon".

Last night on PBS, the American Mastersseries ran a documentary about Trumbo (called "Trumbo"), and it was a rare delight.  If you can catch a rebroadcast, do it.

The documentary tells Trumbo's story about his fight with HUAC (which he lost), his time in jail, the impact of the blacklist on him and his family, and his resurrection.  Although archival footage and interviews are used, much of Trumbo's story is told through the letters he wrote (read by such people as Michael Douglas, Liam Neeson, Dustin Hoffman, Nathan Lane, David Straithorn, Paul Giamatti, Joan Allen, Donald Sutherland, and others).

Trumbo was a man who was at once charming and curmudgeonly.  He had a very dry, and cutting, wit.

In other words, the dude could write.  Even his private letters (the ones "performed" by the actors above) had a Shakespearean eloquence.

Follow this linkto see the reading of Trumbo's letter to the telephone company (performed by Paul Giamatti).

And that ain't nothing compared to Nathan Lane's reading of a letter Trumbo wrote to his son, in which Trumbo recommends two books: one about poker, and one entitled "Sex Without Guilt".  The latter book becomes a humorous yet eloquent soliloquy on the virtues of, uh, self-pleasure:

“Any Rebroadcast, Retransmission, or Account of this Game, without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, is Prohibited.”

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

A blogger wanted to tell his friend Tyler about the Diamondbacks-Astros game (on August 23), so, aware of the warnings, he decided to call MLB:

The next morning I shot off an e-mail to MLB with my request and heard back within hours from Valerie Vieira, from the business development department in MLB Advanced Media. She asked me to call her.

I explained my situation to her and asked how to go about getting express written consent. She wanted to know if I was going to blog about the game or do a podcast, and I said no, I just wanted to describe the game to someone while sitting on my living room couch.

"How could anyone stop you from talking about the game in your own living room?" she said, taking my request as a joke.

I reassured her that it wasn't. While I doubted the MLB spies would be able to get to me, the disclaimer made it very clear that I'm not allowed to give my account of the game, so I wanted express written consent that gave me permission to talk about the game, and I would post a blog about how I went about attaining the consent. She said someone else from MLB would be calling me.

I waited 9 days, holding my tongue about the forbidden Diamondbacks-Astros game, patiently hoping MLB would give me the thumbs-up. I called and e-mailed Valerie several times to remind her I was waiting, but neither she nor anyone else has gotten back to me.

I take this to mean I am not allowed to describe the game to Tyler. Which is just as well, because I've forgotten all about the particulars now.

Health Care Alteration Leads To A Guy’s Finger Getting Bitten Off

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

The guy who lost his pinky was opposed to health care reform.  He had verbally assaulted a woman, then started physically assaulting a pro-health care supporter.  The latter fought back.  That's according to this eyewitness account, which adds:

Don’t be fooled by reports ginning up sympathy for that 65-year old guy or worse yet, reports characterizing him as a senior citizen. He was aggressive and ready to mix it up.

I'll bet his government-run health care plan (yes, he was on Medicare) was useful in helping to reattach his finger.

But seriously, folk.  I don't condone violence.  But beating up people because they're in favor of health care reform?  You can't really whine too much when they fight back.

In any event, it seems that this rightwinger lost the fight and the argument!