- The Washington Times - Monday, October 8, 2001

TV White House
"The liberal Democrats of 'The West Wing' took on terrorism [on Wednesday] and did little but make pompous speeches.
"The highly anticipated episode was the first show of the new fall television season to make reference to terrorism in the wake of the real-life attacks Sept. 11.
"Executive producer Aaron Sorkin designed his script to mirror the conversation now under way in the real world about terrorism.
"Sorkin made sure that most, if not all, of the bases were covered, but he barely mentioned the military, which always makes liberals nervous.
"Rob Lowe's character deputy communications director Sam Seaborn expounded on the history of Islamic extremism.
"In the show, a group of gifted high-school students on a White House tour were gathered in the cafeteria to wait out an emergency in which no one was allowed to leave the building. That permitted the White House staffers to take turns delivering lectures whose pretentious tones made you wonder if Sorkin wasn't just showing off."
Adam Buckman, writing on "'West Wing Wimps Out on Terror,' in Thursday's New York Post

Hating America
"In my childhood the grown-ups were all convinced that the apparently inevitable nuclear holocaust would be the fault of the Americans. In my student years I saw the Vietnam War used as an excuse for violence and intimidation that would have made Mao Tse-tung proud. I saw many of those who now weep like crocodiles burning the Stars and Stripes.
"How strange, I thought, even then. They wore Levi jeans, drank Coke, watched American television and listened to American music. Something inside them loved America, even as something outside them hated her. They were like fish that hated the very sea in which they swam.
"America is free, very democratic and hugely successful. American intellectual life is the most vibrant and cultivated in the world.
"'People should think,' David Halberstam says from the blasted city of New York, 'what the world would be like without the backdrop of American leadership with all its flaws over the past 60 years.' Probably, I think, a bit like hell."
Bryan Appleyard, writing on "Why Do They Hate America?" Sept. 23 in the Sunday Times of London

Marxist 'logic'
"'As the twentieth century draws to a close,' write Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri [in their influential recent book, 'Empire'], 'capitalism is miraculously healthy, its accumulation more robust than ever.' For these writers, though not for most consumers and citizens, capitalism's capacity to survive, and even to flourish, poses a grave problem.
"'How can we reconcile this fact,' they ask, 'with the careful analyses of numerous Marxist authors at the beginning of the century who pointed to the imperialist conflicts as symptoms of an impending ecological disaster running up against the limits of nature?' Everything that is flawed about this deeply flawed book is contained in the way the authors ask, and then try to answer, this question.
"The most obvious of these flaws is the premise that there is anything to reconcile in the first place. Analysts committed to falsifiable ways of developing theories about the world, when faced with a gap between what was expected to happen and what actually happened, would likely reason along these lines: Marx predicted frequent crises in the capitalist mode of production that would eventually lead to socialism, but in reality capitalism succeeded and socialism failed, and so something must be wrong with Marxism. But the argumentation in this book cares as little for logic as it does for empirical reality."
Alan Wolfe, writing on "The Snake," in the Oct. 1 issue of the New Republic

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide