November 6, 2003 by s.z.

Just a few choice THE REAGANS comments before bed. First, there's that NRO piece by Michael Paranzino, the guy who organized the 10-minute boycott that still allowed you to watch Everybody Loves Raymond.  In it, he writes about how he, a humble house-husband without a clean dress-shirt to his name, got to be on the Bill O'Reilly radio show, and Fox & Friends, and was quoted in a bunch of papers and stuff, all because Everyone Loves Ronnie. You can burn a lot of hours reading 75,000 e-mails. So many people revere Ronald Reagan, and so many want to protect Nancy Reagan like they would protect their own mother — it's an emotional experience to read their messages. Which leads to my theory what causes genetic conservatism: some people grew up with mean, scary mothers like Nancy Reagan, and this leads them to seek out authoritarian father-figures who will protect them from scary stuff -- when these ersatz fathers aren't telling them to just grow up, make lots of money, and be men, thus reinforcing their secret fears about their masculinity.  And deep down inside, these damaged souls are still looking for a thin, brittle, cold girl, just like the one who married dear, old dad -- which is why they also like Ann Coulter, and want to see her nude. Anyway, just a theory.  Now, here's more about the move of THE REAGANS miniseries to Showtime, where there are no sponsors to boycott, and so this solution just isn't good enough for some people, even though it will have a "public forum" after it airs, so that people can complain about how the movie didn't adequately capture Ronnie's halo : CBS yields, shifts series on Reagan CBS explained the shift to Showtime by saying in a statement that ''a free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view.'' In addition to airing the movie, Showtime is planning to schedule a ''public forum'' so the program can be debated after its airing. [snip] Most of the opponents of ''The Reagans'' said they were satisfied with the move to Showtime. But Michael Paranzino, a Washington, D.C. political consultant who said he collected 100,000 names on a boycott-CBS Web site, said he hoped Viacom would pull the drama from Showtime, too. ''A smear is a smear, and a lie is a lie. ... I am already being bombarded by e-mails urging me to redirect the boycott to Showtime and other Viacom properties.''   This Casablanca moment brought to you by Michael Paranzino, who is not going to let this thing go, not while there are still people he can lead in a boycott, Bill O'Reilly radio shows to appear on, and clean shirts to wear.  (Thanks to David for the tip.) Now, here's a snippet from the LA TIMES article Made-for-TV movies stir the pot, which suggest another possible solution:  "The networks have been going for more provocative, more topical projects, and I think that will continue," says TV historian Tim Brooks. "(They can) get massive attention to something with promotion, and that lends itself to high-concept movies and ripped-from-the-headlines stuff."   Yes, "ripped-from-the headlines" means Law & Order!  So, I think CBS should sell the footage to NBC, who could cut it and make it into a L&O ep (using their standard "ripped-from-the headlines" disclaimer about it not being based on any real people, to avoid any problems with kooks).  I envision it as the story of a man who holds some important political position (maybe President of an unnamed country or something), and who is starting to get Alzheimer's.  His cabinent and staff, who see him as their ticket to power, try to cover up for him until the day when his Chief of Staff is found murdered, the old man standing over him naked, mumbling something about being the anti-Christ, and "live in sin, die in sin."  Anyway, the hangers-on rally for a MASSIVE coverup, but the cops see through it and arrest the President  Defense Attorney Shambala Green tries to get him declared mentally incompetent to stand trial (yes, just like in tonight's L&O ep).  But in the L&O twist ending, we learn that it was THE PILL-POPPING WIFE who actually committed the crime, because she never liked Regan and because he opposed her "Ketchup is a VEGETABLE!" pronouncement.  But the jury won't convict her because she reminds them of their own scary mothers.  The End. But seriously, it's good that they pulled THE REAGANS from the CBS schedule, because it allegedly contained some very slanderous, deceptive scenes which suggested that Reagan wasn't all there, even before leaving the White House.  For instance, there's this voice-over dialouge from when the new, young scriptwriter meets the President: I was surprised how big his hearing aid is, or rather how aware of it you are when you're with him. There was a quizzical look on his face as he listened to what was going on around him, and I thought, He doesn't really hear very much, and his appearance of constant good humor is connected to his deafness. He misses much of what is not said directly to him, but he assumes it is good. No, wait, that is allegedly true, which is the point of this Timothy Noah piece: Saint Ronald.  And that young scriptwriter grew up to be . . .Barbra Streisand.  Now you know . . .the REST of the story. So, in conclusion, I'm going to bed now. 1:40:22 AM

What This Means, And Why You Should Care, But Only a Little Anyway, about that memo--since my insiteful comment explaining it's significance seems to have evaporated, I'll try to do it here: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI, pronounced "Sissy"by those who have to deal with it), is charged with overseeing the intelligence community(with the assistance of the the less prestigeous HPSCI, pronounced  to rhyme with "tipsy").  Since its membees are entrusted with classified material to do their oversighting, they are supposed to be ethical, trustworthy, and non-partisan. (Note: they aren't given the security processing that goverment employees have to undergo before being being granted security clearances, since the theory is "the voters screened them."  Yeah, we used to think it was funny too, when I worked for in the intelligence community).  Anyway, if SSCI members are perceived as requesting classified information for the purpose of leaking it to play political "gotcha!" with their opponents, the intelligence community will naturally be reluctant to give them any information(well, more reluctant than they already are).  And since the committee was supposed to still be in the fact-finding phase of their study of pre-war intelligence (the study was supposed to be about the intelligence), they shouldn't be writing memos outlining a strategy wherein the bottom line is basically "Nobody really cares about the intelligence; the important thing is to show that Bush misled us into going to war."  (If the intelligence DOES show this, then certainly SSCI should request a special investigation of the matter and the American people should be informed of how they were deceived before they are asked to vote in 2004.  Or course, that would depend on whether SSCI gets the White House info they have requested by then -- or at all.) But, as I said before, this leaked memo was just a piece of paper outlining a possible strategy that could be used if this, this, and the other happened -- no information has actually been misused or leaked.  And said memo is said to have been written by a staffer, not a Democratic member of the Senate -- and it wasn't approved by anybody in authority, and wasn't shown to anybody on the committee or anywhere else.  So, if I were in charge of things (which I really think I should be), I would move the staffer or staffers who authored it out of the Hart Building (because smarty-pants staffers who think they can rule the world through their skillful  handling of their alleged masters really bug me, especially when they're stupid), and order the irate Republicans who are mouthing-off about this to focus instead on how the DOJ investigation into finding which Senior Administration Official leaked the name of a CIA covert employee to Robert Novak in order to further a political agenda is going. And in the meantime, I would follow the follwwing advice from this Moonie Times Editorial Democrats' abuse of power, only I would change "Democrats on SSCI" to "Senior Administration Officials" and "go after the president" to "go after Ambassador Wilson", and change "commitee is not" to "White House is not": Because some Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee discussed the intention to misemploy intelligence secrets in an effort to go after the president, and we don't know how many senators or members of the staff were involved, it is only prudent to suspect all minority members, even those who otherwise might be honorable. For the time being, this compromised security means that the committee is not a safe depository for important national secrets. 12:16:06 AM