Norm's Thoughts

Movie Review: "Up in the Air" starring George Clooney

2010-02-10T07:00:00.000-08:00

Clooney works for a firm specializing in outplacing/firing people through face to face, one on one meetings. He travels constantly, 322 days/year and doesn’t even keep an apartment any more. At home in Omaha, he stays in a hotel on points.

He meets one woman at a bar, who, it turns out, travels a great deal also (Vera Farmiga). They have casual sex several times in various motels where their flight schedules intersect. After several sessions, the woman says to Clooney, Think of me as your soul mate with a vagina.

In the meantime, a younger woman, new at Clooney's firm (Anna Kendrick), broaches the concept of firing by teleconference, thus saving much travel time and money. Clooney's boss wants to experiment with this approach. In one teleconference, the woman who's just been fired says casually to Clooney and Kendrick she will now kill herself. Clooney's young associate brushes this comment off.

At a subsequent airport conversation, in between flights, Kendrick seeks conversation with Clooney and Farmiga. The latter tells the younger woman, as you get on in life, you settle for less in a mate. You just hope, though, that you're compatible. The look she gives Clooney at this point could easily be interpreted as her thinking longingly of him as the one for her.

The problem with the Farmiga character's evident world view is that a soul mate really means one who shares your fundamental, deepest values. If words have meaning, then casual sex, even on a repeated basis, is not the same as a soul mate.

At this point, Clooney has been invited to his niece's wedding. He's never been close to his sister or any portion of his family. His niece surprises him by asking him to give her away.

Clooney has a rendezvous with Farmiga and asks her to accompany him to the wedding. She asks, surprised,You mean, like a date? but agrees. Then, right before the wedding, the bridegroom is getting cold feet. Clooney, the confirmed bachelor, after an urgent request, talks to him about the need to avoid long term loneliness. Somehow, he convinces him to follow through with the ceremony.

Clooney's boss is in a mild panic. The woman who had originally threatened suicide has actually killed herself. Possibly, their firm faces legal action. In any event, the teleconference experiment is over for now and full blown travel to corporate sites and individual firings will resume.

Clooney defends Kendrick and says neither one of them had any inkling that the employee really meant suicide. This incident has caused his associate to quit. Clooney writes a glowing recommendation letter for Kendrick, which enables her to get a new job.

Before resuming his arduous schedule, Clooney decides to do what he has always avoided and embark on a chase. He knows Farmiga lives in Chicago and he finds her home address. He knocks on her door and is shocked to find she is not happy to see him and tells him to leave.

As he goes back to O’Hare, she calls him on his cellphone. He doesn't answer, but hears her message. Farmiga's indignant and asks, Didn’t he realize he was always a “parenthesis? Clooney doesn't bother to return her call.

So he resumes his travel schedule and, presumably, has been influenced by his exposure to family affairs and his talk with the bridegroom. Does he reject Farmiga's argument that casual sex with someone is synonymous with a soulmate? Will he make an effort to find a different kind of soul mate and adjust his travel demands on some basis?

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review: "It's Complicated"

2010-02-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

It's Complicated, stars Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, and Steve Martin.

Meryl Streep is divorced, with 3 grown children, the youngest just graduating from college. She has her own catering business, which seems to be doing well.

At a chance meeting at a party, she gets involved again with her ex-husband, Alec Baldwin. He's remarried, with a much younger wife and stepson, and this wife wants to have another child. He says to Streep that he's not happy in his second marriage. This results in unexpected sex and Streep enjoys it very much.

At the same time, Streep has become attracted to Steve Martin, her architect, who is helping her design an addition to her post-divorce home.

The movie explores some serious themes:

If Streep is still attracted to Baldwin, but she had divorced him because of his cheating, are there enough values there to warrant a reconciliation?

If he cheated on her originally and now he cheats on his second wife, will he one day cheat on her again?

If they had grown apart before the divorce, was this the real cause of the separation, not his cheating?

Although, in a way, Streep enjoys being the other woman, is this the basis for a serious relationship?

Is Streep's potential new relationship with Martin worth casting aside for an ex-husband?

The script is well-written, including several portions of low-key comedy. Once, when Streep goes from her kitchen to confront Baldwin, her daughter's fiance removes a carving knife still in her hand.

Baldwin's amorous attempts seem to have ended Streep's possible relationship with Martin, who says she needs a new architect to complete the project.

These are the conflicts faced by Streep’s character. The plot of It’s Complicated ends on a hopeful, heartwarming basis.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Book Review--"Please Take My Heart" by Mary Higgins Clark

2010-01-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, a young acclaimed actress is returning to New Jersey from Cape Cod. She is deeply troubled. Several days ago, she saw a man nicknamed "Jess," who seems to be the same man her roommate, murdered 15 years ago, had for a lover. She also may be worried about her ex-husband, who may be stalking her.

When she returns to her house, she sees an intruder, who shoots her several times. Later, a neighbor sees the open door, finds her, but she cannot be saved.

The ex-husband is a person of interest, but the cops don’t have enough to charge him.

Today, however, a convict, in return for a promise of a reduced sentence, says the ex husband offered him money to kill the ex wife. He later refused, but the key is, he says he talked with the ex- husband in the latter's apartment. Even more significant, he describes in detail the squeaky desk drawer from which the ex husband removed the proposed murder payment.

This is enough to charge the ex-husband with the actress’ murder. A jury trial begins.

The protagonist is the assistant DA, who leads the case against the ex-husband. Her DA boss is about to leave his office, since he is up for nomination to be US attorney general. The woman talks to the two cops who originally worked the case of the actress' murder. She dislikes one of them, although he is the DA's cousin.

The key is the ex husband's testimony. During the trial, when he is on the stand, the assistant trips him up. He doesn't understand how the con could have known about the squeaky desk drawer. He gets flustered and looks guilty to everyone.

The jury convicts him and his bail is of course remanded, pending sentencing.

However, a furniture mover in Brooklyn, who often hires men off the books, is urged by his wife to say he and the convict had moved another piece of furniture into the ex-husband's apartment. They dealt with the housekeeper at the time, since dead. He knows he left the con alone for awhile. Since the convict was later confirmed to be a petty thief, he could have examined the desk drawer and known how it squeaks.

In the meantime, the convict complains about his reduced, still 4 year, sentence. He says he wants probation or will provide additional testimony to mess up the assistant's case. There may be a question as to whether the one obnoxious cop had led him on as to what to testify to. But back in jail, before he can make good on his threat, he is poisoned.

Finally, the mover comes forward and shows how he and the convict had in fact been in the ex- husband's apartment. He provides journal entries to show he had hired the deceased felon. This is grounds for letting the ex husband out on bail.

The DA is furious with his assistant at this reversal of the case. He says that, somehow, she should have known about the furniture mover's activities. An acquittal for the ex husband will endanger his nomination. He orders her off the case.

In the meantime, a serial killer, wanted nationwide, has been living next to the assistant DA. He has targeted her as his next victim. Although now on the lam from New Jersey as well, he has returned with the aim of finishing her off.

But the assistant goes into NYC to look at the 15 year old case file on the murdered friend. What she finds is a stunning twist that may enable her to solve the case. In the meantime, she has to deal with threats to her life from two sources.

This latest Mary Higgins Clark provides expected suspense until all conflicts are resolved in a just manner.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Book Review--"U is for Undertow," a Kinsey Millhone Novel by Sue Grafton

2010-01-25T07:00:00.000-08:00

The "current" date for the protagonist, private investigator Kinsey, is 1988.

Kinsey is hired by a young man, who remembers he may have seen a body being buried back in 1967. It may have been the body of a 4 year old girl, who has long been missing after being kidnapped. First, there was a demand for $15,000, which was paid with marked money. Then, the demand was for $25,000. This too was dropped off, but was never picked up. The girl was never returned or found.

Kinsey investigates and, from her client's remembered locations, gets the cops to dig up a site. They find it was just a dog.

The developing plot and characters shift back and forth between 1963, 1967, and the 1988 present. In 1967, two other young men are part of the plot. The first, Jason, hates his stepmother. When his father and the woman are gone on vacation, he finds his father's gun. The second, Jason's friend, has a motorcycle and deals dope to fellow high school students and visiting hippies.

There is back and forth, between these and other characters in 1963 and 1967. In 1967, a mother is visited by her now-hippie son and his even worse hippie girlfriend. The latter fancies herself as a free spirit. She has a 10 year old (or younger) son, father unknown. They ask for money from the trust set up for the mother’s son, but are refused. Then, furious, they go away on their bus.

Kinsey, as always, is persistent and observant. Eventually, she finds the now-grown son of the hippie girl. Another complication arises when the young man who initially was her client is shot to death. But all these events, when pieced together, play a key role in her unraveling the case.

Several unexpected twists make the latest entry in the Kinsey Millhone series well worth reading.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Book Review - "Evidence," an Alex Delaware Novel by Jonathan Kellerman

2010-01-20T07:00:00.000-08:00

A half built mansion is a question mark that starts the novel. The structure is owned by a fabulously wealthy sultan from a small country very close to Indonesia similar to Brunei. He is Muslim, but also adheres to older pagan customs. It seems his younger brother, while in the US, may have been killed, after killing a girl. Based on pagan custom, the brother's soul needs to have his last home lie fallow, i.e. undisturbed. The half finished mansion seems to fit this strange description.

In the mansion grounds, which have a guard, cops find the bodies of a woman and man. The man has been shot, the woman has been strangled and raped with a gun.

A mysterious woman enters the scene. She is a half sister of the girl the younger brother is alleged to have murdered. In the novel, Delaware and Sturgis find that she first tried to have the house dynamited, to punish the brother's soul. Then, later, she successfully dynamites it.

The first time, she paid $50,000 to the murdered woman and man to do her work. They took the money and skipped LA to go north. This duo, when younger, were found to have been part of an eco terrorist group. Along with two friends, they formed a vicious activist foursome.

At a storage shed tied to the murdered couple, the surveillance camera shows a man taking off with a suitcase. It is believed that the suitcase contained the money taken by the couple. Presumably, they gave up the location of the storage shed under torture.

In the meantime, the woman who allegedly destroyed the structure is arrested. Since she is not strip searched, and is wearing a wig, she removes a vial of poison from the wig and commits suicide. Her mission to punish the brother is complete. Fortunately for Detective Milo Sturgis, Delaware's co-investigator, the assisting FBI agent was responsible for the woman not being stripped searched.

In the meantime, cops find a hanger with several Indonesian planes. In one of them, under a tarmac, lies the corpse of the girl murdered by the missing brother.

This novel continues the tradition of clever and persistent psychological insight and police work expected from Kellerman/Delaware stories. Alex and his Homicide Division partner, Sturgis, tie the dots together to solve a set of sadistic murders.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA NoraLyn Ltd. Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review - "Defiance"

2010-01-14T07:00:00.000-08:00

Many have asked, how could the Jews of Europe have been so seemingly passive about and resigned to Hitler's annihilation campaign? Right before and during World War II, they seemed to exhibit a sort of fatalism about the Holocaust, even though Hitler had announced his intentions to exterminate Jewry, both in writing and in frequent speeches? Some have said that this was philosophy at work, a philosophy of passivity against aggression in the hope that at least some of the tribes of Israel could survive in a hostile world. Only the brief Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943 seemed an exception, and this was known to be doomed from the outset.

Well, there was one Jewish group that did fight back against the Nazis, and at least in terms of their own escape from death, emerged victorious against them. The movie Defiance shows for the world the little known story of the Bielski Brothers in White Russia. These 3 brothers, farmers at the War's outset, not only avenged the death of their parents, but recruited a sizable group of ghetto refugees who fought back against the Wehrmacht from the White Russian forests.

The Bielski Brothers were farmers, not philosophers. However, their implicit philosophy was surely a strong commitment to justice, combining a passionate desire to live and, to the extent possible, to bring retribution to the Nazis who had slaughtered their loved ones.

Initially, the Brothers had a short term goal, to avenge their parents' murder against the White Russian police who collaborated with the Nazis. However, they wanted a longer term view, which temporarily led to a sharp difference of opinion. Should they join with Soviet Partisans, even though they were not Communist sympathizers, or should they stay and try to recruit more Jews? The second brother, Zus, decided to join the partisans, which caused a short term rift.

The oldest brother, Tuvia, on the other hand, chose the latter approach. He snuck into a near by ghetto and tried to convince its prisoners to join his small band. Here, he had to exhibit his own philosophy and powers of persuasion against the fatalism of the rabbinical leader. The latter preached that the Nazis needed Jewish prisoners as sources of labor. Also, escape would bring immediate retaliation and murder against those who did not choose to leave. Tuvia’s urging won out and a sizable minority did escape to join him in the forest.

His new band underwent the terrible hardships of Russian winters. Men who had been scholars had to join in backbreaking physical labor. Life-saving drugs had to be stolen from German campsites. Once, Tuvia, when recovering from near-death, was forced to shoot a would-be challenger to his leadership role.

After several years of movement throughout the forests and near defeat, the Bielski Brothers were re-united. By then, German reverses in other parts of Russia, such as Stalingrad, meant their campaign in White Russia had to end. This enabled the Bielskis and their band to escape. Many of them, including Tuvia and Zus, made their way to Western lines. Eventually, the two of them, along with their new wives, emigrated to the United States. Their triumph was virtually unknown until a novel and this movie brought it to a wide audience.

The movie is excellently integrated, filmed, and the script fits in perfectly with the action and conflict. Acting of Daniel Craig as Tuvia and Liev Schreiber as Zus are first rate.

Defiance deserves a full five star rating.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review - "Taken"

2010-01-07T08:00:00.000-08:00

Liam Neeson gives an absolutely memorable performance as an uncompromising moral avenger. He acts in the tradition of the earlier James Bond series and earlier Mickey Spillane novels. He is confronted by evil and he sets out to overcome the evil with all force, skill, and wits necessary. His revenge on evil is appropriate for the extent and depth of the evil.

No doubt, some admirers of the movie would class it as adventure, cops and robbers or who done it, and think no more about it. But the underlying theme of Taken is far deeper than that. Neeson is placed in a life and death situation that demands quick, REASONED, action. He uses force, even torture, to the extent necessary to get lifesaving information. But all his actions are aimed at an ultimate goal—his daughter's rescue from a life of slavery, prostitution, and, in short order, death.

When my wife and I saw the movie, we both said, We wish young people, especially young women, would see the movie and have the living hell scared out of them. This sentiment was not to be mean or petty. Rather, it expressed our concern that many, especially young people, believe they are immortal and are thus far too oblivious of the evil in the world. The proper reaction is not to be shocked speechless or rendered comatose by the realization of the evil of the movie. Instead, the realization should be that proper actions, reasonable precautions, can usually negate the power of evil.

When people underestimate the potential power of evil, they make the often fatal mistake of not leaving evil to its own devices. This mistake seems more prominent among Americans than other people in the world.

Examples of Neeson's use of a reasoned, logical approach in his quest to save his daughter include:

At her apartment in Paris, he retrieves her cell phone. From a phone picture of the daughter and her friend, he sees the reflection of the young scoundrel who took her picture and serves as a shill. He obviously is the one who lets his associates know of residences of intended victims.
Even though Neeson apprehends the young man, he escapes and is killed by traffic. Next, from former CIA contacts who have reviewed voices on the daughter's cell phone, they give him clues about the kidnappers. They are from a new, ruthless Albanian gang that has gone big into white slavery.
When Neeson finds the gang's headquarters, he initially poses as a corrupt cop, wanting an additional payoff. This ruse confirms that his ex-friend, now on the Paris police force, is on the take with the gang. Next, he fools the gang by asking all of them to help him translate an Albanian phrase. He hears all of them say, Good luck, and realizes which one of the gang taunted him earlier, when the kidnapper spoke into his daughter's cell phone.
When Neeson confronts the corrupt cop, he has already removed bullets from the gun in his home.

Neeson kills quite a few of the Albanian gang and the senior gang who auction off the kidnapped victims. Neeson follows through, all the way to the (likely) Saudi arch scoundrel who has purchased the short term sexual services of his virginal daughter. The final scoundrel, the owner of the yacht who won the sexual auction, reacts appropriately like a trapped rat. His cry, while holding Neeson's daughter at knife point, is We can negotiate. For Neeson, the answer is No, we can't, and the would-be slavemaster receives his richly deserved award of death.

If I would have added any section to the script of Taken, I would have had Neeson describe graphically to his daughter the death of her even more foolish friend. I didn't see this inclusion. Again, this would have been for the purpose of stating forcefully the consequences of foolish actions and lack of thought.

To me, the movie Taken richly deserves a 5 star rating.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review - "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day"

2010-01-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

Is it possible that one day's encounter can fundamentally and favorably influence the lives of two quite dissimilar women? The answer from this movie is a laugh-inducing and heartwarming "yes."

The setting is London in September, 1938, where the atmosphere is very tense over Britain's confrontation with Hitler and Czechoslovakia. Miss Pettigrew, a 40ish spinster, is down on her luck. She has lost her nanny's position, apparently not the first time with a similar dismissal. Her employment agency tells her bluntly that they have absolutely no other position for her. By chance, she spots an open position as social secretary to a high-sounding Delysia Lafosse. She goes to the address and says the agency has sent her. Her references will be sent shortly.

Miss Pettigrew is amazed at the chaos in the apartment and life of Miss LaFosse. She is an aspiring singer and actress. Her luxurious digs are really the property of the nightclub owner where she works. Her bed is currently occupied by a hungover would-be show producer whom LaFosse hopes to seduce into starring her in his next production. To complicate things further, Delysia is really in love with a passionate piano player and singer, also employed at the same nightclub.

Thanks to Delysia's urging, and the credit account of the nightclub owner that Delysia is using, Miss Pettigrew also gets a bit of makeover. This makes her look at least more like a social secretary.

In the meantime, before teaming with LaFosse, Miss Pettigrew had stopped at a soup kitchen. In the alley, she had spotted a well dressed woman passionately kissing a man. Now, in Delysia's employ, she attends a function and sees the same woman. She meets the man whom the woman is engaged to. He does not know of the woman's affair, and she threatens Miss Pettigrew with exposure as a soup kitchen vagrant. At the same time, Miss Pettigrew and the man, a wealthy businessman, are taken with each other.

When Delysia goes to her night club, she finds out that the producer has doublecrossed her and has another lead. Her boss, the nightclub owner, is watching her with a jealous eye. Her passionate boyfriend changes the musical sequence so the next song for her is "If I Didn’t Care." Even if the Inkspots didn't popularize this until the 40s, the words fit in beautifully with the plot. Delysia sings it passionately so that her love for her piano player is obvious. Then, the boyfriend and the nightclub owner slug it out and the boyfriend wins.

In the midst of this brawl, a test air raid siren begins and the nightclub empties. Delysia has taken refuge under the piano, with Miss Pettigrew close by. When the young woman cries for advice, she confesses that she is not an aristocrat, but the daughter of a Pittsburgh steelworker. Miss Pettigrew opens her heart as well. Her one true love was killed in World War I, before they could be married. She urges Delysia (actually Sarah) that, even if stage roles and nightclub fame are glamorous, she shouldn't let true love (with the piano player) slip by.

Miss Pettigrew takes her own advice when she has the chance to sit and talk with the businessman. Their affection for each other is obvious. Then, the other woman breaks in and says she is going to expose Miss Pettigrew as a tramp, as revenge for her own affair being exposed. Miss Pettigrew runs off in despair. However, the businessman tells the woman that Pettigrew had said nothing of the affair (tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot).

The next morning, Pettigrew finds that Delysia has taken her advice and is going off with her true love, the piano player. He has secured employment for them on a transatlantic ocean liner as a combined act. The young man calls her, "Hurry up, Grub" (her real name), but it's an obvious call of affection.

Now, Miss Pettigrew is sitting in a railroad station. Presumably, she got a little money from Delysia. Where she'll go now and what she'll do are up in the air. But then the businessman finds her and says he has looked all night for her. He asks her to please stay in London and join him now for breakfast. Although Miss Pettigrew hasn't eaten in over 24 hours, it is obvious that her elation is from much more than mere dietary satisfaction.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review - Phantom of the Opera

2009-12-26T13:09:00.000-08:00

I enjoyed this movie, considerably more than the Broadway and theater versions. Somehow, from the movie, I understood in a deeper sense the plot of the play.

I could emphasize with the Phantom, the poor disfigured creature and his hopeless love for the young Christine Daae. I could say, "Poor Phantom", while still not wanting him to get the girl.

Emmy Rossum, actually about 18 years old herself, played the 16 year old Christine beautifully, both in terms of acting and operatic voice.

The climax of the film was touching indeed. Her terminally ill husband lays flowers on her grave. He is struck by the flowers and ring, obviously deposited by the Phantom, still alive and still grieving himself for his lost love, Christine.

Although Phantom has been acclaimed for its music, I found the score so-so. It was the depth of the plot that got me. In another film, Billy Crystal expressed his disdain for the Phantom's live theater musical version, paraphrasing as follows: "This guy has a mask, covering his pizza for a face. The main melody of the play is a copycat version of 'School Days, School Days.'" Maybe it was plagiarized, but in the film version, I didn't mind one bit.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review - Brothers - War--Literaly Kill or Be Killed

2009-12-21T13:05:00.000-08:00

This was a grim movie, but I'm glad we went to see it. The plot covers an all-too common problem with US military endeavors after WWII. We've let ourselves be bound by Geneva Convention rules, while fighting undeclared wars against savages and thugs who only value death, not life. In particular, American prisoners of war are routinely tortured into making taped denunciations of their country. The plot of Brothers carried these atrocities one step further, showing one Marine forced to kill another Marine, when the choice was clearly, kill or be killed.

To add to the complexity of the plot, when the primary character is rescued from his Taliban prison, a flaming video camera is shown in one shot. If this video camera had been preserved, the full force of US military rules would have been brought against the surviving Captain and also the Marine he killed. The Captain would have been prosecuted for murder, although he killed only under duress and an either-or lifeboat type situation. His dead companion had previously made a statement, also under duress, denouncing the US. He would have been prosecuted, perhaps for violating the longstanding military rule that prisoners can only give name, rank, and serial number.

I've always held that the US should state as policy that it rejects in advance any statements or activities of US prisoners of war that were clearly made under enemy duress and torture.

Related portions of the plot involved the returning Captain (Toby McGuire), as he is torn by normal stress of captivity, but even more by what he did to save his own life. Although he has a breakdown and is confined in a mental hospital, the plot still ends hopefully. He apparently tells his wife what really happened during his captivity. Together, the two of them can work together for his healing. It dawned on me that, if any punishment for the Captain is considered proper, he must go through life providing moral support for the widow and young son of the Marine he killed. They regard him as a hero and he must live up to their expectations.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Invictus - Sports and National Reconciliation

2009-12-15T12:56:00.000-08:00

Rugby has never been well publicized in the US. Soccer, although not a ranking sport, receives far more publicity. Therefore, it was knowledge-expanding and stirring to observe the underdog South Africa team’s road to a 1995 Rugby cup victory.

The accompanying plot, of course, was the work of Nelson Mandela in using this victory and its team preparation to try to unify South Africa. From our own trip in 1994, when the country was just opening up, we had an idea that there was much unrest and volatility. The nation was still racially divided, although the Apartheid enforced by a distinct white minority had just ended.

Mandela has never received credit for the job he did in keeping South Africa’s peace, while trying to encourage foreign investment. He saw that merely seizing white-owned businesses and infrastructure would only be looting of a fixed amount of wealth. No growth could result from the types of activities that were occurring in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, where white minorities had been ousted from power.

As the new President of South Africa, representing an overwhelming black majority, Mandela took a long term view of what was needed. He alienated a considerable portion of his own party to implement his program of racial reconciliation.

The movie provides an exceptional, well integrated blend of sports and far-seeing political strategy.

Some critics have heaped praise on Invictus, claiming that this represents director Clint Eastwood’s work “at the top of his game.” Other critics have carped about what they see as “trite” dialog. Perhaps if Mandela had been ranting against his racist predecessors and, even more, against the US, they would have enjoyed the dialog more. One critic claimed that too much artistic license was taken in portraying actual events of Mandela’s interaction with the rugby team and its captain. These objections seem trivial.

Others have predicted that Morgan Freeman, in his role of Mandela, is a strong Oscar candidate. I hope that Invictus receives a potful of other rewards as well.

With all the negative, tragic outcomes of recent history and, of course, today’s events, it was refreshing and stirring to see the rugby success of the South Africa team. More to the point, it represented a hopeful outcome for the nation as a whole.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Obama and Iran

2009-06-21T13:36:00.000-07:00

Obama's problem is his moral equivalency, previously announced to the world and muslim countries in particular.

Iran is not a moral equivalent. Its government is the sworn enemy of the U.S. and is committed to our destruction and that of Western civilization. Therefore, it is our moral right and obligation to try to overthrow this govenment. If meddling in the Iranian election helps achieve this goal, that is a plus.

Remember that the original invasion of Iraq was a mistake when the real enemy and sponsor of terrorism was the Iranian government.

Also remember that some Iranian citizens may like the U.S. or at least not hate us. However, citizens of any country cannot escape the consequences of their government's actions. That was true of Germans and Japanese in WWII and is equally true today.

Norm Hill
www.booksbyhills.com

Thoughts on Election

2008-11-04T14:39:00.000-08:00

To me, this presidential election has represented dismal choices or lack of them. As the campaign wore on, Obama has tried in slick fashion to position himself as "mainstream" on issues such as gun control, terrorism, etc. This is despite the contradictions with his previous pronouncements, which had always been hard core "leftist." However, McCain has offered no meaningful difference from Obama. Now, his last ditch ads try to present him as an advocate of lower taxes and spending. This is despite that he, along with Obama, supported the incredible $700 billion bailout. He missed a golden opportunity to zero in on the bad accounting that contributed to a considerable extent, and, maybe even to a primary extent, to the current economic crisis. Also, McCain seems to support the same environmentalist proposals that would go a long way to shutting down American industry forever.

To be sure, McCain and his running mate have suffered from a disgraceful media distortion and bias. However, when I have heard some of his positions, my emotional reaction was that he "deserves" it.

The only possible reason for voting for McCain is terrorist concern. Obama's previous statements on foreign policy seem to express a very dangerous worldview and a feeling of moral neutrality between the US and terrorist, theocratic regimes. McCain's previous military and war record seem to give him (although, even here, we can't be sure) a likelihood of standing up to the thugs around the world.

Norman E. Hill

Books By Hills

Winner and Final Chairman

Norm's Thoughts Blog

Movie Review - "Tell No One"

2008-09-01T14:22:00.000-07:00

The French mystery thriller "Tell No One" keeps you on the edge of your seat-and your brain. Its integrated, intricate plot demands the utmost concentration for keeping up with a host of twists and turns. All mysteries are cleared up and resolved at the end, when the protagonist finally figures out what actually happened to his murdered wife some years before.

"Tell No One" has its share of evil participants, both actual criminals and law enforcement personnel completely corrupted. Villains are not raging psychos, but usually low-key wretches who describe their deeds and intentions matter-of-factly. In the same way, fanatical parental love is presented as a means for complicating matters further.

A complex movie like this easily calls for a second viewing to study its lines, body language, and subtleties again. Such a repeat showing should be just as enjoyable as the first.

Norman E. Hill
NoraLyn Ltd
Books By Hills

Success Express

2008-08-13T15:39:00.000-07:00

This is to let those interested in discovering what's inside the Winner and Final Chairman know, Friday, August 22, I will be interviewed on the Success Express radio program. I hope you'll be able to tune in. My interview will start at 11:45 a.m. and last around 20 minutes.

Norman E. Hill
Books By Hills
NoraLyn Ltd.

Ethics, My Understanding of Objectivism

2008-07-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

Notes on the Objectivist Ethics and Chain

Man exists primarily by reason and logic.

Man is fallible.

Man must plan long range.

Man needs a code of conduct to help plan long range.

Man must use reason and logic in this code.

Man must keep his reasoning faculty sharp and must not undercut or take "shortcuts" to bypass the use of reason and logic.

Man gains benefits from dealing with other men.

Man must deal as a trader with other men, one who uses reason and logic.

Someone who initiates force or fraud with other men is taking shortcuts with and undercutting reason and logic.

At the same time, he is undercutting his own faculty for using reason and logic and endangering its long term functioning.

Someone who initiates force or fraud is therefore endangering his long term means of survival.

This is the reason for the need for dealing honestly with other men and not initiating physical force or fraud. The need is a lifetime behavioral requirement, not one that can be discarded from time to time at a whim, and then reinstated whenever convenient.There is no blank check for rampant murder, robbery, fraud, etc., as a facade for "acting in one's own self interest." There is no justification for a "little" bit of robbery, fraud, etc., for all the same reasons.

Therefore, to have a fully laissez faire society, an Objectivist society with strictly limited government, this chain must be widely understood, not just by intellectuals but also by average men.It must be understood that behavioral requirements do not stem from commandments from society, a dictator, a mystical realm, or from a sermon on a mount.Some people will always choose to deviate, and one function of government is to protect the mass of people against those who do. But, their behavior must be recognized as deviant and outside the norm of what is acceptable ie rational.

Norman E. Hill
Winner & Final Chairman
BooksByHills

How Moral is Capitalism?

2008-07-20T13:11:00.000-07:00

This is to answer Rich Karlgaard's February 12 article in Forbes.

Yes, the purer the capitalism, the more prosperous AND more moral the society. As Ayn Rand has pointed out, her ethical code supporting capitalism is not dependent on "outside moral influences" or "religious values"(Ten Commandments or Sermon on the Mount). A pure capitalist system with Rand's ethics will not deteriorate to the "inhumane, cutthroat" society mentioned. In fact, the redistributionists' main nonsecular supports are the Sermon on the Mount and the numerous antiwealth references in Scripture.

In briefest form, man absolutely depends on his mind for survival, long range planning, and trading and dealing with other men. If he acts unethically, he damages and endangers his mind's functioning and thus endangers his survival. ONLY by acting ethically can he serve his rational self interest and protect himself on a long range basis.

Widespread understanding of this ethical approach cannot come overnight, due to centuries of philosophical corruption. Rand has the philosophical system, including ethics, in place to bring this change about.

One cannot truly defend capitalism against its implacable enemies without realization that pure capitalism is moral and therefore is incompatible with altruism or mysticism.

Norman E. Hill
Norm's Thoughts Blog
Winner and Final Chairman
BooksByHills
NoraLyn LTD

Attempt to Decipher Kant

2008-07-16T14:32:00.000-07:00

Man gets knowledge from integrating. By perception, he starts with observing the existents all around him. He keeps them in mental grasp by conceptualizing i.e. by omitting the particular measurements of existents and grasping their common denominators. This process of integrating is how man acquires knowledge of and control over reality.

Kant also starts with existents and perception and forms an exceedingly complex conceptual chain supposedly applied to grasp and integrate the existents. He concludes that:

1. The existents he "grasps" are not those of true reality, i.e. of the noumenal world.

2. His observation of existents is from his sensing faculties that are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Therefore, his observation is in principle distorted and, even if it was not, is not observation of true reality, i.e.the noumenal world.

3. His conceptual process and faculty are finite, neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and therefore could not mentally grasp the existents around him, even if they did represent true reality, ie the noumenal world. Therefore, his conceptual faculty is useless.

4. Therefore, in principle, man cannot grasp true reality.

Kant forms this conclusion about an unknowable reality by starting with reality and asserting he "knows" points #1 through #4 above. He accepts and uses the human process to grasp reality to form his conclusion that man in principle cannot grasp reality.

Norman E. Hill
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

Causes of the Civil War, So Many Fightling So Fiercely for So Little

2008-06-05T12:35:00.000-07:00

From first to last, the cause of the civil war was slavery. More specifically, the cause was the desire of a minority of slave-owners, slave traders, cotton brokers, etc, to perpetuate and expand slavery across the US. This minority controlled a disproportionate share of the wealth in the South. There was no established middle class, unlike the situation in the North.

Also, this minority controlled the politics in the South. Newspapers did not publish a variety of views. The majority of the population was illiterate. Abolitionists or suspected abolitionists were often threatened, beaten or killed. In the presidential elections of 1856 and 1860, antislavery candidates were not even listed on the ballots in 10 southern slave states.

In the 1830s, John Calhoun of South Carolina advocated the right of states to nullify federal laws or regulations to which they objected. Although this view was precluded by strong words from Andrew Jackson, it became more and more popular after Jackson. It was expanded to mean the right of states to secede from the Union if they objected to any of the above federal edicts, including any on slavery.

Since there were fewer cities than in the North and fewer available farm land not already taken by large plantations, there was little opportunity for a growing middle class. Cultivation of cotton wore out the land and caused constant need for fresh soil. The great majority of Southern whites did not own slaves. They farmed, usually on a subsistence basis. They could only thank God they were born white. They were very vulnerable to racist rabble rousing cries of "Keep the niggers in their place." Since they often had to hunt to augment food supplies, their numerous rifles and shooting skills were to prove significant later on.

Novels that opposed slavery like Uncle Tom's Cabin, or exposed the inherent weakness of the slave-based economic system, were strictly suppressed in the South and hardly read there at all.

The South was able to control US politics for a considerable number of years. In the Senate, with each state having 2 senators, the slave states held disproportionate power. With only 5 million white population versus a Northern population that grew to 14 million, the slave-owners had considerable power.

President Andrew Jackson was a slaveholder, but, as mentioned above, shot down any attempts at South nullification. However, succeeding presidents were very willing to do slaveholder bidding:

1. Martin VanBuren: Although a northerner, he tried to interfere with legal proceedings in the Amisted case, so that escaped foreign slaves could have been deemed property to be returned.

2. John Tyler of Virginia: Took over the Presidency upon the death of Harrison.

3. James Polk of Tennessee: Helped inflame public opinion to start the Mexican War and take over much territory that might have been potential slave states.

4. Zachary Taylor: A slave-owner, although a very brief reign.

5. Franklin Pierce: A northerner, but his Ostend Manifesto threatened Spain with war unless it ceded Cuba to the US(another slave territory.

6. James Buchanan: Arguably, one of our worst Presidents-a Northerner, he defended slave-owner thuggery in trying to force Kansas as a slave state against the majority of its residents. Despite urgent pleas by the war hero, patriot, and Army head, General Winfield Scott, he prevented him from sending troops to guard US garrisons, arsenals, and valuable ammunition in the South.

Stephen Douglas was a leader of the Democratic Party who wished to be President. To curry favor among the slave-owners, he forced through the Kansas Nebraska Bill in 1854. It repealed the Missouri Compromise and stated that inhabitants of any designated portion of this vast territorial area should decide by majority rule whether to be a slave or free state. However, slave-owners promptly decided to make Kansas a slave state by force. The soil of the state was unsuited to cotton, sugar or rice cultivation. Nonetheless, by sending in bands of thugs, a proslavery constitution was set up.

Douglas was angry at this distortion of his Bill. Over Buchanan's threats, he refused to sanction the fraudulent Kansas constitution for statehood. Also, in the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, he replied that, yes, in principle, citizens of a territory could vote to exclude slavery. Finally, in 1860, in preparation for the Democratic presidential convention, he denounced movements he detected to advocate renewal of the African slave trade.

All these examples of integrity on Douglas' part cost him support of the slave-owners. Although in the majority nationwide, the Democratic Party became hopelessly divided for the 1860 election. Douglas was thus denied the Presidency he so wanted.

Earlier, Southerners were defensive about slavery. However, as their economy more and more depended on slavery, they became ever more belligerent advocates of the institution. As the economy of the North passed up the South in wealth, resentment grew. Arguments were often couched in misleading terms of "states rights." Even later, during the war, when the Confederate cause was obviously lost, Jefferson Davis wrote "The fight will continue until the last of this generation dies in its tracks, until you acknowledge our right to self government." However, the underlying issue was clear, not states rights, and not self government. Statements like the infamous one from Alexander Stephens (paraphrase) identified the heart of the matter, "The Negro is inherently inferior to the white man, slavery is his natural condition. We are committed to this great moral and political truth."

Some have advocated that the North was equally culpable in the slavery institution. After all, Northern bankers had loaned $200 million to slave-owners, who were perpetually in debt. Supposedly, northern factory workers were worse off than slaves. However, factory workers could strike or change jobs to better themselves.

There was no underground railroad to transport Northern workers down south to slavery conditions. Obviously, the existence of an underground railroad enraged the slave-owners, although relatively few slaves out of the 4 million got away through it.

Robert Rhett and William Yancey were the two Southern spokesmen who carried the slavery question to a "logical" extension. Rhett advocated secession for his South and revival of the African slave trade-all on moral grounds. Also, the cost of slaves had increased sharply, up to $2000 for a prime field hand. Thus, increasing the supply in this manner would supposedly help the Southern economy (something like "a slave in every pot").

The Republican Party started in the early 1850s. Its platform was not abolitionism, but restricting slavery to its current states. There would be no extension to the territories or overseas military adventures to conquer Caribbean or other tropical lands for new slave states. Slavery could remain intact in existing slave states, although there was a hope that, this way, it would gradually become extinct. Yet, the slave-owners constantly distorted their views. "Black Republicans" became an epithet. Southern newspapers and, even more so, regional spokesmen and clergymen, constantly talked about the need to protect one’s property and loved ones from the massacres and rapes that would occur once Republicans freed the slaves and hurled them on the white population. Poor whites were often whipped up to frenzies.

Southern newspapers fanned the flames of war. Before the election of 1860, they warned that election of a Republican president would be a declaration of war. In Lincoln’s presidential inaugural speech, he ended with "I am loath to close. We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies." Nonetheless, these same publications referred to his speech as a declaration of war.

During the Civil War, the Confederate army was primarily made up of non-slave-owners. These men could not afford to own slaves. To win foreign support, the Confederate government had reaffirmed the banning of the African slave trade.

Therefore, these troops had no prospects of owning slaves. Further, they had no prospects of greater political participation. Yet, these men fought bravely and ferociously for the Confederacy. Before the battle of Gettysburg, the eastern portion of the Confederate army won almost all battles decisively. After Gettysburg, although badly outnumbered, they held off Grant’s forces for nearly two years. Only towards the end in 1865, when Lee's army faced starvation, were there significant desertions by Confederate troops.

Even into the 20th century, Southern spokesmen distorted the causes of the Civil War. A prime example is the author, Margaret Mitchell. In Gone with the Wind, she spoke longingly for the pre-Civil War days in the South. Supposedly, every white lived on large populations like Tara. Slaves lovingly and submissively took care of their white superiors. Northerners were recruited for brutish positions like slave overseers. She constantly referred to Negroes as creatures of inferior intelligence and worth. The Northern invasion put an end to this idyllic existence.

In summary, we can refer to ancillary causes of the Civil War, such as tariffs, jealousy, etc. However, the one root cause was the 4 million people held in bondage, and the desire of an entrenched minority to keep it that way.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com
Books By Hills

Views on Women

2008-05-12T16:50:00.000-07:00

Men and women are morally and intellectually equal. There are obvious physical differences between the sexes in terms of size and strength. Likewise, there are psychological differences, due to sexual roles, childbearing, etc. However, the point is both men and women survive on earth primarily by their minds i.e. their rational faculty.

In cultures, there is a direct correlation between the culture’s quality of life, including general prosperity, political freedom, and the status of women. The abject poverty, political tyrannies, and general miserable conditions and attitudes in the Islamic world and Africa go hand in glove with the miserable status of women, including beatings, forced marriages, “honor killings”, genital mutilations, foot binding, etc. At the same time, the prosperity and general quality of life in the Western world, especially the United States, correlate with the infinitely higher status of women.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com

War Crimes

2008-05-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

The concept war crimes is a very dangerous one, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and American legal codes. It is a non-objective, undefined term, and can be used by anyone to condemn and prosecute anyone he chooses.

Trials for war crimes arose against the Nazis and Japanese after World War II. There was no question that the leaders of these two governments were responsible for many atrocities and deserved to be tried as criminals. However, any moral force of the Nuremberg war crimes trials against the Nazis was doomed from the start. One of the trying nations was Soviet Russia-whose government was responsible for even more murders and atrocities against its citizens than the Nazis had committed.

Today, with this fatal precedent for war crimes, we see demands for war crimes arrests and trials against a country like Israel. This nation has been under attack for almost 60 years, through devices such as suicide bombers and terrorists who knowingly use innocent (relatively) women and children as shields. Then, when Israeli attacks against the terrorists result in deaths of women and children, wails and moans of unjustified homicide and war crimes are heard. Even officials of the U.S., such as Bush and Rumsfeld, have been accused to some extent of committing war crimes in Iraq. Our jailing of enemy terrorists in the Guantanamo prison has sometimes been alleged as an incident of war crimes.

Of course, we should not forget Hanoi Jane Fonda. In the late 1960s, her well-publicized characterization of U.S. airmen, doing their job of bombing enemy combatants, as war criminals, gave great comfort to our enemy, the North Vietnamese.

After World War II, there was a rational way, consistent with U.S. and Western criminal codes, for trying Nazis and Japanese. Japanese leaders, all the way up through Hirohito, had been responsible for atrocities against American prisoners of war. Similar accusations of murder could have been brought by British, Australian, and Nationalist Chinese leaders.

With the Nazis, the situation is a little more complicated. French authorities, for example, could have brought charges against Nazis for atrocities against Resistance and underground leaders. Similar charges could have been brought by other countries occupied by Nazis, such as Austria, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Two other countries who suffered greatly at Nazi hands were Poland and the Soviet Union. However, by the time of Nuremberg, Poland was already in Soviet hands. Since Soviet Union had its own barbarous government, this fact should have morally disqualified both countries from participating in any trials against Nazis.

The British suffered from indiscriminate Nazi bombing against civilians during the Blitz. This would have qualified them from participating in murder trials against Nazis.

Israel as a nation did not exist until 1948. When people thus became Israeli citizens, they could make a strong case that Nazis surviving at that time had murdered millions of people who would have become Israeli citizens if they had been allowed to emigrate.

The U.S. situation is a little more complicated. I am not aware of U.S. citizens who were murdered by Nazis, except for a few captured airmen. The latter would have justified trials at least against local SS instigators, although possibly against Nazi higher ups as well.

Many U.S. citizens of Jewish ancestry lost close relatives during the Nazi holocaust. Unfortunately, the latter were not American citizens. Even so, the argument can be made that many Jews who were later massacred had petitioned the U.S. government for asylum. These requests during the early 1940s were shamefully denied by that great “humanitarian”, Franklin Roosevelt. It might represent a stretch, but a good argument could be made that the Nazis thus murdered many would-be U.S.citizens.

Through the above arguments, many nations could have and should have brought criminal charges against Nazi and Japanese leaders. Both mass murder, rape and torture were all legitimate charges under legal codes of most of these nations, especially the U.S

Later on, the U.S. could have brought criminal charges against North Korea and North Vietnam for atrocities against American prisoners of war. Similar murder charges can be brought against any terrorists who were complicit in the 9 11 attacks. Enemy combatants captured in Iraq, Afghanistan (or even the 1982 Lebanese bombing of our Marines) can legitimately be held indefinitely as prisoners of war.

Under this approach, the U.S. does not seem able to bring criminal charges against Serbs, Somalis, Arab Sudanese, or Hutus for their atrocities. However, if it is determined to be in our nation’s self interest, we could certainly attack these groups, to whatever degree seems appropriate.

In summary, the concept of war crimes itself should be condemned by the U.S. and should never be the basis for trying anyone, no matter how despicable he is

Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War and the Cold War in General

2008-04-10T10:57:00.000-07:00

General Review

First, as a movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hanks and Hoffman, in particular, gave outstanding performances. Their real life counterparts deserve credit for working hard and, on a required behind the scenes basis, to start a counteroffensive against the Communist thugs.

Some broad implications can and already have been drawn from the movie. To do these justice, some moral points and historical analysis are both necessary.

Primary Moral Point

The forthright, honorable US approach in Afghanistan would have been our open, direct military aid (no troops, except possibly some advisors) to the rebels. Of course, this would have "provoked" the Soviets. But, it would have been a welcome contrast to the convoluted, clandestine way in which arms were shipped to the Afghans. Apparently, there was some sucking up to the Saudis, to enlist their cooperation with the Israelis.

The Soviets were completely open about their overthrow of the existing government and invasion. They were equally open about using Castro's troops for Angola and other military operations. If our government was morally armed, there would have been no qualms about direct US military aid, which would have been in our self interest.

Other Moral Points

Once the Soviets pulled out of the country, it was also in our interest to push for formation of a pro US government. It may have been an autocratic one, since, before the Communist invasion, a monarchy was in place. This type of government could have been acceptable to us, as long as it did not seek overthrows of other governments.

Therefore, some limited aid to Afghanistan, to help it rebuild, would have been in our self interest. The political alternative was not the Soviets or the Taliban.

If the US turned its back on the country, as the movie claims, it was a mistake.

Historical Analysis

By any measure, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, while important and morally uplifting, could not possibly have caused the fall of the Berlin wall, the freeing of the satellite nations of Europe, or the apparent implosion of the Soviet government over to the Yeltsin regime. Other causes had to have played a role.

In many quarters today, Reagan is given credit for ending the Cold War. Supposedly, he forced the Soviets into a competitive military buildup with us for which they lacked the funds to sustain. By trying to keep up with the US, they supposedly bankrupted themselves and their government with all its totalitarian apparatus collapsed.

This arms race probably played a role here, more than Afghanistan. However, in an arms race, supposedly, the Soviets and their satellites would rely on their own factories (plus whatever technology they could steal from the West). If the goal was to produce more or to divert more workers from, say, agriculture, the government could have done so by force. Since workers in the Soviet Union were apparently paid some wages, the government could print more money, if gold funds were short. Even with the low Soviet standard of living, unless the population was starving, the KGB seemed able to enforce order for some years.

In short, I believe still other factors had to have played a role in the Soviet implosion. The country had a sizable nuclear arsenal, albeit probably not as much as reported (while the US media positively relished stories about the Soviet’s achieving nuclear superiority over us, I always had considerable skepticism about this). One possibility is that, somehow, their delivery system ie the apparatus for loading and firing all their ballistic nuclear-armed missiles could have been dismantled or thrown off kilter. Maybe, for once, the CIA pulled off an espionage coup. We’ll probably never know.

My point is Reagan may not deserve much credit here. Alternatively, he may deserve credit in a way not publicized that served to overthrow the Soviet regime.

When Reagan took office in 1980, he inherited the Carter mess. No doubt, he was concentrating on an overall US arms buildup. Even so, he had to have known about the military aid program, already underway, for the Afghan rebels. He could have killed it if he chose. Much more likely, he gave it his support.

It would be interesting to see what the mind of Congress was at this point. Since it was so committed to US preclusion from aiding anti-Ortega forces in Nicaragua, Congress probably would not have wanted to go “overboard” in allowing an anti-Communist pro US alternative in Afghanistan.

Liberals, of course, would like to reap the credit for winning the Cold War and for Reagan to receive absolutely no credit. As long as the limited scope of the Afghanistan victory is understood, this movie won’t do it for them.

William Buckley-A Critique

2008-03-09T09:32:00.000-07:00

Recent accolades heaped on William Buckley, at the time of his death, provide grim confirmation of the adage: A bad argument FOR something is much, much worse than a direct attack on the something. It provides antagonists of the something with the mistaken notion that they possess the high moral/intellectual ground in their attacks on the something.

In this case, the something, of course, the victim of the bad argument from William Buckley, is capitalism. Buckley is considered by many as the intellectual spokesman, if not for capitalism, then for its alleged equivalent, conservatism. Actually, Buckley never claimed that he was defending capitalism. In his Wall Street Journal piece, "To Preserve What We Have", and elsewhere, he merely called for stopping at the current point of welfare state expansion and going no further. At each point he would say that this political apparatus, the welfare state, should expand no further. From the next point, and the next, he'd cry stop-no more expansion. Many who call themselves conservatives hold this position, which is completely futile. The welfare state, by its nature, must expand, and keep restricting freedom-if there is no philosophical opposition.

Several times, Buckley did call for protection of freedom, which, in the sense of individual rights, goes hand in hand with laissez faire capitalism. But, he never came close to answering: What ethical code supports individual rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and capitalism; what is the nature of man and human knowledge that in turn supports this ethical code; and what is the fundamental nature of reality that supports all the above portions that depend on it? No one can really be a proponent of individual rights and capitalism without articulating a philosophy of: Ethics-rational self interest; epistemology-reason and logic; and metaphysics-objective reality.

To the extent Buckley offered any defense of freedom or capitalism, it was based on religious faith, which really means-on altruism, sacrificing oneself for others. This lethal combination is completely incompatible with capitalism. Many of capitalism's alleged defenders are silent on this contradiction, but Buckley fully advocated it-to the extent he advocated any position-as his basis for freedom.

The most disgraceful and inconsistent aspect of his posturing as a defender of freedom lay in Buckley's militant stand against abortion-a woman's right to choose and to her own body. He fully advocated the dark religious superstition that life begins at conception, rather than the scientific position that human life, unlike the preliminary parasitical fetus, begins at birth or its equivalent. No defender of individual rights could advocate forcing women into lives of unwanted pregnancies.

Buckley could employ a wide variety of words, many not widely used. He could utter many witty, sarcastic, snide comments, usually without context or as part of a complete position. This ability is not enough to classify him as an intellectual or a defender of capitalism or individual freedom, much less as a defender of any consistent political or philosophical position.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com