Tuesday’s Tidbits
April 8, 2008 on 1:30 pm | In National, Oddball |
Scrolling through RCP and noticed this somewhat flattering piece in the Times Online concerning the late Charlton Heston and his fierce anti-gun control views.
Two shocking things about it: the writer is English and “is Britain’s only self-confessed libertarian Marxist newspaper columnist.” In other words, a left-wing libertarian case against gun control and for the simple virtues of the Second Amendment. That guy has more personalities than Sybil.
Good Heston quote from one of his letters from 1999:
A while ago, I was at one of those silly “A-list” parties and fell into conversation on all this with a stunningly beautiful, famous star (not a bad actress, either) who said, “Well, look what it says on the dollar bill: ‘e pluribus unum.’ From one, many.” “Actually, you’ve got the Latin backward,” I replied. “It translates, ‘From many, one.’ As in one nation . . . indivisible?” “No kidding?” she said, amazed. “Well . . . whatever.” And there you have it. We live, increasingly, in a “well, whatever” nation. God help us all.
* * * * * * *
John McCain attended a pro-Iraq war rally yesterday. Yes, believe it or not, there actually are such things. Mack said the usual words of encouragement about fighting terrorism and called Petraeus “one of [America’s] greatest generals.” But here’s what puzzled me about the story on MSNBC’s First Read:
Before McCain spoke, former Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia introduced the Arizona senator, telling those in attendance he wants his sons to view McCain as a role model, versus someone like Tiger Woods.
Say what? What did Tiger do to deserve the designation of poor role model? Make a lot of money instead of joining the military? Seems to me you could say the same thing about Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz or some of the other public officials whose war the sergeant supports.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
The point the staff sergeant was making is that he appreciates sacrifice to higher principle, made without material reward. Tiger Woods is a useful example of the opposite.
Comment by Jake — April 8, 2008 #
I guess I’m just wondering why he singled out Tiger. There are so many people out there who go for the bucks without serving a cause higher than themselves.
My understanding is Tiger is involved with charitable causes and gives away as much of his money as the next rich guy.
If you want to talk about not serving a higher cause but going for the almighty dollar, then look no farther, for example, than the Clintons of late, or a creep like Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski. But Tiger?
Comment by Terry — April 8, 2008 #
I’m not sure the average staff sergeant has ever heard of Dennis Kozlowski. At age 28, the guy was in his teens when old Dennis was throwing faux Greek orgies on his shareholder’s dime.
Comment by Jake — April 8, 2008 #
It sounds like the staff sergeant used Tiger Woods because his sons admire him. I agree there are much better choices for contrast. But, Terry, that was a cheap shot at the Clintons. They gave $10MM to charity, a tithe.
Comment by Peter Halle — April 9, 2008 #
Peter,
No more a cheapshot than using Tiger as an example. That’s my point. The Clintons are not serving a cause higher than themselves anymore than a bigshot golfer who also gives to charity.
I wonder if the Clintons took all their deductions on that $10m right after decrying “tax cuts for the rich.”
Comment by Terry — April 9, 2008 #
reminds me of something i saw on TV last night.
the drool that is “American Idol Gives Back”.. Rob Schnider pitched:
“I figured Bono has enough money to solve whatever problem is going on in Africa, but apparently he only has half.”
Woods has started his own charitable foundation, funding school programs, scholarships, and to teach golf to under-privileged kids.
At the sane token, Dick has reported something like $6 million in donations on his tax return, 3 quarters of his adjusted income.
McCain’s contributions include healthy sums of money to elite private schools that his children attended, those schools collectively are the largest beneficiaries of their foundations donations.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002519
Comment by fred — April 10, 2008 #
Terry, there are many good reasons to slam the Clintons. This just is not one of them. They have every right to use the tax code to its maximum lawful benefit to them, even if they think it’s wrong-headed. Is that somehow unethical?
Comment by Peter Halle — April 10, 2008 #
Fred,
It is indeed revealing to look not only at total charitable giving of any individual but at the list of the beneficiaries of giving from that individual. I’ll take a look at the Harper’s piece. Thanks for passing it along.
Peter,
There’s nothing unethical at all about wealthy people taking advantage of tax deductions for their charitable giving.
But it strikes me as a bit hypocritical to talk about the evils of “tax cuts for the rich” and then (as a wealthy person) turning around and exploiting the tax code to lessen your own liability.
And, truth be told, I guess I’m sick of the dreadful Clintons and just wish they would go away. Go Obama!
Comment by Terry — April 10, 2008 #