Why Pat Sajak Would Be A Better President

2013-01-20T12:00:00.000-08:00

Reason 30

2009-03-12T14:58:00.000-07:00

Reason 29

2009-03-11T01:34:00.000-07:00

So far, the only alternatives to Bush on the issue of the "internets" have been Gore, Kerry, and Obama, all of whom are totally gung-ho about putting the internet everywhere right now because it's the right thing to do. How about a president who understands the internet, yet knows and articulates that, like any other tool, it has the potential to be very good or very bad?

I like the Internet. I use the Internet. I do more than half my shopping on the Internet. I have a website. I read most newspapers online. I know how to use a computer as well as most and better than some. So what is it about the so-called “online community” that worries me so? Why do I have a dark feeling about its impact on the next generation?

Let’s start with the fact there is no “community” online. A community has houses and shops and schools and churches. It has places where people interact eye-to-eye. It’s where you know who your friends are, and they know you. It’s where you can shake a man’s hand and take his measure. It’s where you can turn to someone you trust in troubled times, and lend a hand to a neighbor.

The online version of community, on the other hand, is made up of millions of faceless screen names behind which people hide. It thrives on the kind of anonymity which brings out the worst in so many. It allows its users to sit in darkened rooms for hours on end while they pretend to be social. It’s never having to really meet someone, have a real conversation or interact on a human level.

Most Internet users, of course, are not drawn into this nameless, faceless virtual world. They chat with their friends and do their homework and listen to music and research term papers. But for a growing number of young people, the Internet has become a place to hide from the real world. Support groups are springing up to help parents deal with children who have become recluses, even as they form a wider ring of online “friends”.

Millions of man-hours are being lost as companies pay their workers to surf mindlessly or troll around various chatrooms. Relationships are torn apart as easily-available Internet pornography comes to dominate lives. Like fantasy sports, a frightening number of people are living fantasy lives. It’s as if the invisible friends many young children create have become as real as the ever-beckoning keyboard of their laptop.

Ironically, you can use the Internet to find organizations which deal with Internet addiction. On at least one of them, the Center for Internet Addiction Recovery , you can take a quick test to see if you are an addict or are heading down that road.

The Internet has some wonderful possibilities in terms of spreading information and ideas—and, ultimately, freedom—around the globe, but it also poses the danger of creating a generation of users who are more comfortable sitting in front of a glowing screen talking with strangers than they are in dealing with the reality outside their doors.

It would be tragic if this technology, with the potential to open up the world, ended up enclosing all of us behind individual walls.

Reason 28

2009-03-10T02:53:00.001-07:00

Look at Pat's face 43 seconds in. That took diplomacy and restraint of a presidential level. If we're going to be sitting across the table from Ahmadinejad, I want someone like this, not some ingrate with no poker face who can't stop complaining about "inheriting" unpleasant things in an office he spent two years and $750,000,000 trying to get. Compare and contrast Pat's even-headedness with, for instance, this. Or, if you want to broaden the net a bit, this or this (not embedded, because those politicians have some pretty filthy mouths).

Reason 27

2009-03-08T07:21:00.000-07:00

Pat recognizes that freedom is for everyone, and that freedom comes with responsibilities. Pat listens to voices that most in Hollywood and Washington don't even hear.

While watching a sporting event on NBC recently, a commercial for the DVD release of the grisly horror film, “The Hills Have Eyes” was shown. And to make it even grislier, this was the uncut release that was “too intense for theaters”. The commercial, while not graphic, was intense and, I would maintain, disturbing. Disturbing, too, was the question of why NBC (or its local affiliate) was running this commercial in the early evening and during a program which included large numbers of children, my own among them.

This was another jarring reminder that ours has become an “opt-out” rather than an “opt-in” society. In other words, the burden falls on those who would rather not be subjected to commercials for films about torture and murder. The usual answer to such objections is, “If you don’t like it, change the channel or don’t watch.” Well, that answer makes sense if HBO is airing the film, but what about a commercial dropped without warning into the middle of a sporting event?

The same problem applies to Internet porn, a huge issue for millions of families. As soon as you speak of controlling the flow of pornography into computers, screams about the First Amendment begin. These screams can be heard even if one is not advocating censoring the material, but merely suggesting that people should be allowed to opt-in rather than have to opt-out. Why can’t someone who wants pornography in his home request it rather than have those who don’t want it have to struggle to keep it out?

Again, I’m not talking about censoring anything. And who decides what’s pornographic? Well, in an opt-in society, it really doesn’t matter, because any adult would be free to allow anything at all into his or her home, as long as it’s legal and available. Meantime, those who would rather not have it won’t get it. No more legal battles and no more fighting about what’s acceptable and what’s not. You want it, you got it. You don’t want it, you don’t got it.

The explosion of technology has, it seems to me, led to a strange twisting of the whole freedom of speech debate. For many, the argument has appeared to advance from protecting all forms of speech to protecting all forms of speech in all arenas. In other words, creating safe havens is, somehow, censorship. Requiring printed lyrics so that parents can monitor their kids’ listening habits is, in this new world, tantamount to censorship. (Just ask Tipper Gore the problems that can cause).

It’s one thing to rail against so-called bluenoses who are trying to dictate what others can and should do; it’s another to insist that no one should be able to shield himself or his family from what he—for whatever reason—may find offensive. All any of us should ask is the freedom to choose what we want or don’t want. Why can’t we opt-in for that?

Reason 26

2009-03-07T03:57:00.000-08:00

Pat can write his own speeches.

Reason 25

2009-03-06T07:50:00.000-08:00

Pat clearly has a more open view toward controversial freedom of speech than our current president. Not only does Pat not think Rush Limbaugh should be publicly hanged, he went even beyond that and let Rush guest host his show.

Whether you agree with Rush or not, he has as much right as anyone to talk, and as president, Pat would recognize that.

Reason 24

2009-03-05T16:33:00.000-08:00

Who was Pat palling around with twenty years ago? See for yourself.

Reason 23

2009-03-04T02:22:00.000-08:00

Anyone who's as big of a Fred Thompson fanboy as Pat can't be all bad. Together, he and his wife donated nearly $5,000 to Fred's campaign, and said of him on his website,

Senator Thompson and I are not bowling buddies, but we’ve socialized a few times, and we have a lot of mutual friends. (My first television work was in his beloved Tennessee.) None of that is any reason to support a presidential candidate, but it does give you some sense of the man, and I can tell you he sincerely feels a call to duty and the belief that he can make a positive difference.

...

As a parent, I’m far less interested in a President’s view on particular social issues than I am in how seriously he takes the threat to our safety and security. On that score, he was very impressive.

...

I don’t know whether Fred Thompson will ultimately prevail as the Republican Party’s nominee for President, but I find myself rooting for him, because, even if there were no other reason (and I think there are many), he drives the mainstream media crazy by paying absolutely no attention to them.

Reason 22

2009-03-03T03:21:00.000-08:00

Because if anyone's going to fix this economy, it's a wizard who pulls panels out of thin air.

Reason 21

2009-03-02T01:24:00.000-08:00

Pat on freedom of speech, from here.

Freedom of speech is under attack in this country, but the outcry is strangely muted. The Left, normally the most vociferous absolutists when it comes to free speech, faces a dilemma because of the sources of these attacks.

Let’s start with the controversy surrounding former Seinfeld co-star, Michael Richards. Comedians, known for their propensity for “pushing the envelope”, are under more scrutiny than they’ve faced in many decades, probably since the era of Lenny Bruce. There are reports some comedy club owners are threatening to fine performers who use racially insensitive language. I would be the first to argue such language doesn’t belong in clubs (or anywhere else, for that matter), but imagine the reaction if the source of the trouble were religiously insensitive language. Suppose a couple of Catholics in the audience were offended by an anti-Catholic tirade which forced the comic to apologize and moved club owners to threaten fines. I suspect these infringements on the First Amendment rights of comics would not be accepted so docilely.

What we have here, it seems to me, is the push for “politically correct” speech coming back to bite the pushers. Freedom of speech has been eroded over the years as various words and phrases were singled out as being offensive and banned (not necessarily legally, but practically) from public use. So-called “hate speech” became a crime. Since this banning and criminalizing of speech was done in the name of sensitivity, there wasn’t much fuss made by the usual protectors of such freedoms. I’m not defending any of these words or phrases (most especially not the one which landed Mr. Richards in such hot water), but there is a kind of delicious irony at work here in that those who have traditionally pushed the envelope must now be the most careful about where they push. If this were bluenoses objecting to certain language, there would be a tremendous battle going on to protect the rights of comics; however, since those objecting are not the “enemy”, what’s a comic to do?

Free speech is also not so free when it comes to discussing the War on Terror (a phrase which has also come under attack). Again, in the name of sensitivity, we have to be careful about how we describe those involved, and be sure not to single out any group, lest we appear to imply those most vocally and publicly devoted to our destruction are not nice people.

In this case, however, the reluctance to speak out is based on more than sensitivity; fear also comes into play. How else can one explain Hollywood’s reluctance to dramatize the brutality of those waging this war? Think about the movie industry’s reaction to the Nazi menace during World War II, and contrast it to their silence now. It’s hard to blame studio executives for not wanting to expose themselves to retribution or for recognizing the fact theaters would be reluctant to show anything that might be deemed “inflammatory”, but it’s equally hard to find anyone who will even acknowledge this climate of fear. Again, free speech has been abridged, but it doesn’t seem to be of much concern to those most affected by it.

The only speech battles in which the entertainment world seems willing to engage are in defense of sex, crudity and gratuitous violence. They can still look brave and bold by fighting those fights because they’re nice, safe and familiar. They’re still willing to defend the right to speak, but they’re much more comfortable if the fight is over on-screen flatulence.

Reason 20

2009-03-01T20:41:00.000-08:00

You know he can dish it out, and now you know he can also take it, and all quite graciously. Also notice how he follows his own advice about vowels. A president who actually does what he says we should do? Now there's a novel concept.

Reason 19

2009-03-01T05:52:00.000-08:00

Diversification. Pat has hosted both of the biggest game shows ever. That's kind of like being a community organizer, right?

By the way, is it just me, or have Daily Double bets not gone up with the doubled dollar amounts? Seems like people don't bet as high a percentage of their money anymore. Kind of like how vowels are still $250 on Wheel after however many decades (most estimates say that if the price of vowels went up with inflation and rising prize amounts, they'd cost a thousand now).

Reason 18

2009-02-28T03:31:00.000-08:00

Pat defends America against the attacks of the vicious soccer lobby, and gets a few of his own barbs in along the way. Don't ever say he doesn't have foreign policy experience.

Dear FIFA,

Congratulations on another swell World Cup. I’m sure the best team won, if it’s over yet. If it’s not, I’m sure the best team will win.

As an American who is not among the 6% of my countrymen who, according to recent surveys, follow the tournament closely, allow me to explain why the rest of us don’t and what you might consider doing to your sport to change things. Keep in mind, by the way, that you don’t have to change anything. You have billions of rabid fans around the world, and I don’t think you really need to add another hundred million or so from my country.

Before I offer my helpful hints, I’d like to disabuse you of the notion that our disinterest in the Cup has anything to do with xenophobia. The idea that we care only for things all-American can be knocked down simply by examining MLB, NBA or NHL rosters. The problem is simply that the sport of soccer is not in our blood; it doesn’t excite our passions the way those other sports do (including, of course, our American football). We didn’t grow up following the game and hearing stories from our fathers and grandfathers about great soccer moments in their lives. And there’s nothing wrong with that. When I’m traveling in Europe, I have trouble finding baseball scores, because that’s a sport not found in their blood.

True, millions of American youngsters play soccer, but I’m afraid that fact will give you only false hope for the future. I hate to break the news, but soccer is a favorite among U.S. school kids because, at that level, you don’t have to be much of an athlete to run around the field a little bit and appear to be contributing. American parents love it, too, because they don’t have to pay much attention since not much of anything actually happens. Even while the kids are playing, their sporting passions run to football, baseball and basketball, and those sports maintain their holds on the kids’ loyalties long after they’ve kicked their last youth soccer ball.

American newspapers might also be fueling your false hopes. The big ones, of course, are made up of people much more worldly and sophisticated than their readers, so they force-feed us page after page of World Cup coverage even though most of us flip through the unread pages until we find a sport we care about. It’s as if they’re making us take a bad-tasting medicine for our own good. You can never accuse a large American newspaper of valuing its readership above its standing among fellow journalists.

So, now, on to my suggestions. Let’s start with scoring. There should be some. If you like things the way they are, by all means, leave them alone, but don’t expect a lot of American viewership for 1-0 games. We don’t trust a sport in which a 3-0 score is described as a “blowout”.

Run the clock backwards. It’s nice to know how much time remains in a game rather than how long they’ve played. I know we can do the math, but why.

Stop the clock if an injury happens. I know you can add some extra time after the half and after the game, but it seems kind of arbitrary.

Make your players use their full names. It’s okay for Madonna or Sting, I suppose, but it strikes us as a bit pompous when half a roster decides to attempt to achieve the superstar status implied by using a single name.

Clamp down on fan violence. If American fans fought as brutally and regularly as a lot of European fans do, they would be accused of being—well, so American.

I have a lot of other ideas, but start with these, and I’ll get back to you. And, again, don’t feel you have to change. We already have more than enough sports we care about.

Your friend,

Pat Sajak

Reason 17

2009-02-27T03:23:00.000-08:00

Pat is willing to stay the course.

By the way, don't forget to watch Wheel's 5000th episode tonight!

Reason 16

2009-02-26T01:18:00.000-08:00

Pat weighs in on vowels, an issue that all too often is glossed over by politicians. Pat's not afraid to address the tough issues.

For a long time now, I’ve been wanting to write extensively on a subject near and dear to my heart: vowels. Specifically, buying them on Wheel of Fortune. It is one of the most often misunderstood and underappreciated aspects of the show. Viewers who fail to see the wisdom of it are missing out on one of the key strategic maneuvers of the game, and players who forget to do it are, more often than not, sent home in second or third place while someone else goes to the Bonus Round.

Let’s start with simple statistics. There are 21 consonants and 5 vowels. That means you have a one-in–five chance of finding a vowel, while only better than a one-in-twenty chance of finding a consonant. Add to that the fact that buying a vowel removes the risk of landing on a “Bankrupt” or “Lose a Turn” space that spinning entails. If anyone on the Wheel staff (including the host) were playing the game, he or she would begin buying vowels as soon as possible, especially when the puzzle is a lengthy one.

I think the fact that vowels cost a little money often makes people feel reluctant to buy them as early or as often as they should. And I think, too, they feel worse when they call a vowel that isn’t there rather than a consonant because they’ve had to announce their intentions. In other words, it may feel less embarrassing to lose a turn to “chance” rather than buying the “wrong” vowel.

As I said earlier, buying vowels is especially critical when you’re faced with a lengthy puzzle. As soon as you have enough money, you should start buying. There is nothing more frustrating than watching players lose their turns by blindly calling a consonant (or by hitting a “Bankrupt”) when they could have bought a vowel. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen players fill in the first two letters in the word “THE” and then spin instead of buying the “E”, only to lose their turns and never get them back. Why buy the “E”? Because it is virtually risk free, and $250 is a small price to pay to get more information, since there could, after all, be several more “E’s” is the puzzle.

The worst thing I see (and I see it more often than you would think) is when people pass up an opportunity to take advantage of the only time we actually tell them what letter is in the puzzle. Here’s what I mean: when there are no more vowels in the puzzle, we announce it, and we remove all vowels from the used letter board. Consequently, it means that there are only vowels available to choose if there are vowels left in the puzzle. If there is only one vowel left to choose on the used letter board, it tells the players it has to be in the puzzle. (After all, if it weren’t, we would have removed it from the used letter board once the last remaining vowel was purchased.) And yet, people frequently forget to buy it, and it is very often the key that would unlock the solution. It’s fun to see the contestant coordinators tearing out their hair when that happens.

Viewers often complain about players who buy a vowel when the puzzle is already obvious, and then immediately solve it, thereby “wasting” $250. Well, there are a few things to remember. First, just because it’s obvious to you in the comfort of your home doesn’t mean it’s obvious to the player. Second, since the last thing someone wants to do is mis-solve a puzzle, the player might just be making sure that it’s what he thinks it is. So, for a relatively small sum, he gets to “double-check” his work. Finally, the game moves so fast and the tension can be so high in the studio, a player might just want a few seconds to clear his head before answering; so, buying that last vowel also buys a little time.

There are exceptions, of course, and it doesn’t always work out, but in the vast majority of cases, the player who buys vowels aggressively is the one who makes it to the Bonus Round. There is rarely a show that doesn’t have at least one puzzle turn on someone’s decision to buy (or not buy) a vowel.

All of these points are relentlessly beaten into our players’ heads by our outstanding contestant coordinators, but, once taping begins, strange things happen, and people tend to forget these basic strategies.

Trust me on this. No matter what you may think while you’re watching on TV, vowel-buying is the most important aspect of being a successful Wheel of Fortune contestant.

Class dismissed.

Reason 15

2009-02-25T00:58:00.000-08:00

Pat on taxes, written in 2006. With all the talk last election about tax reform and abolishing the IRS and whatnot, I'm surprised I never heard anyone propose this, an idea that really captures the spirit of liberty and civic duty. And it took a game show host to come up with it.

It’s April, so it’s hard not to think about taxes. No matter what you feel about our tax system—whether the rates are too high or too low, or whether the system, itself, is fair or unfair—virtually everyone agrees the thing is an absolute mess and a national disgrace. Nobody understands it, including the people who try to administer it, and every time politicians simplify it, they add a few hundred extra pages to the already-undecipherable code.

Of course, there will never be real simplification, because too many people have a vested interest in the mess they’ve helped create. Lawyers and accountants and tax preparers make billions helping us sift through the IRS rubble, and, of course, the politicians love the opportunity to micromanage our activities by manipulating tax laws. There’s a lot of power hidden in all those rules.

But I have an idea. It’s a simple one, but one that would fundamentally change the relationship between the government and the governed. Get rid of the withholding tax! It’s the worst idea in a system crawling with horrible ideas. When the government takes your money before you ever get it, it does two things. First, it make you forget it really is your money they’re spending. And, even worse, our elected leaders forget where it comes from, too.

But imagine if every tax-paying American had to sit down once a week or once a month—whatever the rules were to be—and write checks to the Feds and to the good folks in their state capitals. What if we could actually see and touch and feel our wages before we sent a big hunk of them off to others to be spent as they see fit.

Can you imagine the change in the level of interest we would all take in government? Can you imagine the questions we would ask and the accountability we would demand? We tend to think of government spending in terms of millions and billions and even trillions. But what if we could think of it in terms of the hundreds or thousands each of us would contribute regularly? Those annual lists of pork barrel projects would seem a little less amusing and a lot more aggravating. It’s enough to make a politician sweat.

Which is why it’ll never happen.

Reason 14

2009-02-24T00:09:00.000-08:00

Pat is much better at helping everyday women win at late-70s game shows than William Shatner.

You may want to turn down your volume for this first video.

Now here's Pat.

Much more pleasant, no?

I mean, you don't want Shatner to be president, do you? Let's be reasonable, man.

Reason 13

2009-02-23T02:00:00.000-08:00

Here's our future president at the 2007 Media Research Center Gala, accepting the "I'm Not a Political Genius But I Play One on TV Award" on Rosie O'Donnell's behalf, for her claim that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

If nothing else, you've got to admit he'd probably be a far sight better at press secretary-ing than Gibbs.

Reason 12

2009-02-22T12:15:00.000-08:00

The Big 3 want a bailout? They have to play for it! C-SPAN's ratings would go up at least a little.

Relatedly, he could give presidential addresses in that last little bit of Wheel where he usually talks with Vanna about something. Then he wouldn't be preempting House, like Obama did the other week. And that's better for the economy, because every hour spent broadcasting a presidential address is an hour that doesn't have twenty minutes of revenue-drawing ads. And those presidential addresses are usually pretty much just fluff anyway, so Pat shouldn't have a problem boiling down just the important parts to a thirty-second witty banter.

Reason 11

2009-02-22T00:05:00.000-08:00

He's better-looking than Obama, despite being 15 years older. And he doesn't feel the need to flaunt his shirtless, waxed, wimpy little pecs in so-called candid photos that photographers just happen to take, unlike Obama and Putin.

So much classier.

Reason 10

2009-02-21T13:18:00.000-08:00

In 2004, John Kerry and John Edwards claimed they were more qualified to occupy the White House than George Bush and Dick Cheney because "we have better hair." Even though a survey showed that likely voters actually preferred Bush's hair. Obama wisely never made hair an issue, because then he'd be pitting Joe Biden's wispy mullet against Sarah Palin. And Sarah's got some damn good hair.

So anyway, how does Sajak stack up on the hair issue? See for yourself.

Reason 9

2009-02-21T04:35:00.000-08:00

Have you seen all the czars and advisory committees and extra bureaucracies we're getting? What's left for Obama to do? There's no way Pat Sajak couldn't do whatever it is that Obama actually does.

Reason 8

2009-02-20T16:00:00.000-08:00

Half Polish, All American.

Virtually every president to date has come from Western Europe. And most of them are 9th or 10th cousins. Even Barack Obama's Kenyan father was a British citizen, and his mother is a direct descendant of Edward I (also the progenitor of Sarah Palin, John McCain, and Princess Di). Eastern Europe doesn't get enough presidential love (Monica doesn't count). And we all know you can't forget Poland.

But at the same time he's thoroughly American. Born and raised in Chicago. Two kids, two wives. Changed his name from Sajdak to the more aesthetically appealing Sajak. And really, what's a more American occupation than that of the humble weatherman, where Pat began his meteoric career?

Okay, I swear, I didn't even notice that pun until I typed it.

Reason 7

2009-02-20T01:19:00.000-08:00

He knows his place.

He knows that he's a celebrity, not a politician, and that people expect him to just clap along while the letters get touched, not go off on political diatribes every time he's out in public. When he briefly got his own show on Fox News, it was almost entirely devoid of politics. Even his own personal website, which used to house a number of rather insightful political commentaries, recently was replaced with just a blue screen with white text reading "Pat Sajak is host of the long-running TV game show, Wheel of Fortune." (It is, however, still viewable on the Internet Archive, if you're interested) He knows that in his public life he's just a celebrity, and has never aspired to be anything more. But then, they say that those most deserving of power are the ones who never seek it -- or, to put it another way, Ben Franklin was the best president we ever had.

Reason 6

2009-02-19T13:37:00.000-08:00

He's so romantic!

Reason 5

2009-02-19T04:01:00.000-08:00

Sajak will call out political asshattery (asshaberdashery?) when he sees it. This is from his writings, circa 2005.

I am about to call someone a name.
This is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. Name-calling is not in my nature. True, I have cast more than my share of aspersions on others, but I have tried to do it with humor, or, even when I was seriously upset, I tried to modulate my tone.
This is not to say that I don’t get angry, but I’m not a screamer. I tend to sulk and plot revenge. I’m sure there must have been times when, as a child, I called someone “stupid” or “ugly” or “fat” or some of the other hateful things that children often say, though I don’t remember specific instances.
And, yet, I’m about to call someone a name.
I’ve always been interested in politics, a rough-and-tumble field where name-calling is not unusual. I enjoy reading and writing about politics, and I have some strong opinions, some of which I’ve shared on this page. However, I try to keep my politics in context. I discuss the subject here, or at overtly political venues. My quarrel with celebrities and politics is not that they voice opinions, but that they often foist those opinions on others in inappropriate settings. I’ve had some tough things to say about people when I’ve spoken at some of these events, but, again, I don’t think I’ve ever just flat-out called someone a name.
Until now.
This sudden shift in my policy is a result of the Iraqi elections. I’m not sure how anyone could look at the lines of voters who, quite literally, risked life and limb to exercise a right many Americans tend to take for granted even without terrorist threats and suicide bombers. I don’t care what your opinions of George W. Bush, the Iraq War or the War on Terror might be, this was, on a strictly human level, a moving event for a region of the world where democracies are not exactly flourishing.
Every voter in those lines was, in ways big and small, a hero, and should be admired and supported. How could anyone look at voters dancing in the streets and proudly holding up their blue fingers to indicate what they had so bravely done, and not be moved? It seems to me that Sunday was not the time to attempt to minimize or trivialize what millions of Iraqis did that day. That could wait at least 24 hours, couldn’t it?
Enter Massachusetts Senator and former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Here’s a man who should know something about heroics, as he reminded us a thousand or so times during the campaign. On the very day Iraqis were voting, most of them for the first time in their lives, here’s some of what Kerry had to say on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: "It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq, but ... no one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq,"
More Kerry: "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." (Sound familiar?)
What a marvelous way to pay tribute to those trying to embrace democracy! I know he’s bitter, and I know he’s not going to say anything that would appear to endorse any of President Bush’s policies, but couldn’t it have waited a day? Or couldn’t he have at least included a kind word of encouragement or congratulations to the millions of Iraqi citizens who voted before he began to belittle the process and the turnout?
His dour demeanor on “Meet the Press” and in another interview Sunday contrasted sharply with images coming from Iraq, and his comments sounded small and petty. You would expect something more from a man who, less than three months ago, lost a race for the Presidency of the United States. It was a despicable performance. So now it’s time for me to get this off my chest.
Mr. Kerry, you are a jerk.
There. I feel better.

Reason 4

2009-02-18T05:43:00.000-08:00

Pat doesn't take crap from anyone. Not even contestants.

Who would you rather have representing us across the table from Ahmadinejad?

Reason 3

2009-02-17T09:06:00.000-08:00

He can give a darn good speech. This is a speech he delivered at Hillsdale in 2002, entitled The Disconnect Between Hollywood and America.

Here in this quiet, peaceful corner of Michigan, you might not have a sense of your importance in the world. I come from a community that has the opposite problem. Because it is so big and so powerful, so great and so well-known, it has an exaggerated view of its significance.

That community is Hollywood. Not Hollywood, the town. Not much Show Business actually goes on there. Most of the studios are spread around other Southern California communities, like Culver City or Burbank. But I mean Hollywood, the Entertainment Mecca — which includes parts of Southern California and New York City, and, because news has become entertainment, some of Washington, D.C., as well. While I work in Hollywood, I live elsewhere.

My family and I live in a quiet suburb of Annapolis, Maryland. The kids go to school there. They live near their grandparents — my in-laws — and most of my neighbors care very little about overnight ratings, box office grosses and sweeps weeks. We don't hate L.A. In fact, we like it, and we spend a great deal of time there. But I happen to have a job that allows me a great deal of flexibility, and that gives me the luxury of living a real life in addition to my fake one.

You see, one of the dangers of my business is that it has the potential to fill you with a distorted view of life and of your importance in it. And it's understandable in a way. If you are part of a successful enterprise, people treat you very well. They send limos for you. They tiptoe around you.

They pretend that the most outlandish or inane things you might say are important and quotable. Drugs? Adultery? Alcoholism? Deviant behavior? Don't worry. You go on Oprah — you cry — people call you heroic for being so open — and your career soars to new heights.

You're treated importantly, so you must be important. Suddenly your views are not just your own private opinions; they become part of the public record. They quote you on Entertainment Tonight and in People magazine. You can endorse a candidate, fight for a cause, call people names — it's pretty heady stuff.

The world waits breathlessly for your next pronouncement. Rosie O'Donnell — a daytime talk show host — goes public with her sexual preference, and she is lauded as brave. What exactly is brave about that? First of all, who cares? And what's brave about getting the chance to be interviewed by ABC and landing on magazine covers? I characterize it as bravery-as-a-career-move.

I don't mean to pick on Ms. O'Donnell, but it's just another example of the self-importance that Show Business can bestow on you — the idea that your sexual preference matters to anyone other than your immediate family and your partner, or partners, seems rather silly to me.

Speaking of silly, Alec Baldwin, an actor, recently compared the election of George W. Bush to the terrorist attacks of last September. This is the same Baldwin brother who promised to leave the country if Bush were elected.

Sadly, he reneged on that one. Baldwin also went on Conan O'Brien's late-night show during the Clinton impeachment to say that Illinois Republican Congressman Henry Hyde should be shot — along with his family. Do remarks like that get you chastised in Hollywood? Ostracized? Marginalized?

No, it's Alec Baldwin. He's an actor. He's in Show Business. He's important. The silliness and outrageousness that emanates from Hollywood comes from non-performers as well. Ted Turner once mocked his employees who had ashes on their foreheads for Ash Wednesday as "Jesus Freaks." Mr. Turner, a self-proclaimed protector of human rights, apparently has his limits.

Filmmaker Rob Reiner — a cofounder of Castle Rock Entertainment — is reportedly upset by what he sees in many films these days, and he plans to do something about it. In fact, he's so upset about this thing, anyone who wants to depict it in a Castle Rock film must meet with Reiner first in order to justify its inclusion.

So what's got Rob so upset? Gratuitous violence? Casual sex? Disrespect toward Christianity? Bias against Big Business? Is that what he wants to cut down or eliminate? No, of course not. That would be censorship. He wants to get rid of smoking. There's too much smoking in movies.

To quote Mr. Reiner, "Movies are basically advertising cigarettes to kids." No knock on Rob. In fact, I agree with him. But why is smoking open to censorship and not these other issues? And what happened to Hollywood's argument that movies and TV shows don't cause bad behavior, they just reflect it? Or is it merely a health issue?

But surely, health is involved when it comes to violence and casual sex. The answer is, there is no answer. It's just Hollywood being Hollywood. It's monumental hypocrisy. Kids can't pick up bad habits from what they watch... oh, except for smoking. You see, if you complain about what you see as excesses on the screen, you are a book-burning prude who wants to tell everyone else how to live.

You are a censor. You have no right. That is a right saved for the wise. They know better. They are important. It's the same kind of nonsense that brings celebrities to "Save the Earth" benefits in eight-mile-per-gallon limos.

Or that allows them to make a public service announcement urging recycling — filmed at their 20,000 square foot homes. They can lecture to you and you should listen, even if they don't, because... well, because they're celebrities. They're from Hollywood, for goodness sake-and you live in Michigan!

I could go on with a laundry list of silly and hypocritical things said and done by some of my fellow Show Business luminaries, but the point here is not to make them look silly. They're perfectly capable of doing that without my help.

The larger point is the disconnect between the realities of this nation and its people, and the perceived realities of many in the entertainment community. I don't mean to sound too harsh — or hypocritical. After all, I seem perfectly happy to have cashed my checks for the more than 30 years I've been in television.

And I'm not exactly working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I do make a living by selling vowels and spinning a giant multicolored wheel! So who am I to be pointing fingers? Well, I'm just someone who wants to feel prouder than he does — as proud as he once was — about what goes on in his industry.

And that's why I spend only part of my time around it. I need to step back occasionally. I think it does help me see the world more clearly. And that's the irony of it all. Whether it is from my home in Maryland or from your classroom here in Hillsdale, you — in a very real way — are more aware of what this nation and this world are about than the supposedly well-connected and in-tune people who inhabit our media culture.

Former CBS News-man Bernard Goldberg has written a best- selling book called Bias, in which he maintains that the real problem with the media is not a bias based on liberal vs. conservative or Republican vs. Democrat. It is a bias based on the sameness of worldview caused by social, intellectual, educational and professional inbreeding.

These are folks who travel in the same circles, go to the same parties, talk to the same people, compare their ideas to people with the same ideas, and develop a standard view on issues that makes any deviation from them seem somehow marginal, or even weird.

They think they have diversity in their midst because they take pains to hire a representative mix of gender and race. But there is no diversity of thought. On the great social issues of our time, there is an alarmingly monolithic view held by what has become known as the "media elite."

You can bet that the New York Times is careful about how many women it hires, but you can also bet that it is not very careful that these women hold diverse views on issues they'll be writing about, such as the environment, gun control or abortion.

My guess is that a pro-life view within the walls of the Times is a pretty rare one. And the same holds true on the entertainment side. It is just assumed that "right thinking people" hold certain views.

If you don't... well there's the problem. How can you portray people fairly in film or on TV if you think their attitudes are so foreign? How can you write about people fairly if they seem so out of touch with what you are used to in your everyday life?

That might help explain why religion is rarely depicted as a natural part of life in the average sitcom or drama series, despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans say that it is important to them.

At a dinner party in Los Angeles recently, our hostess was about to say some grudgingly kind words about President Bush and the way he was handling the War on Terror. She prefaced her remarks by saying, "Now I know everyone at this table voted for Al Gore, but ..." Well, she knew no such thing.

She just presumed it. It's what "right-thinking" people did. This "false reality" is a phenomenon that permeates media circles. It's the phenomenon that caused Pauline Kael, former film critic for The New Yorker, to remark after Richard Nixon's election sweep in 1972, "I can't believe it! I don't know a single person who voted for him." This was a man who won in 49 out of 50 states, and she didn't know one person who voted for him. And I don't think she was dealing in hyperbole.

She simply had never met those people. She couldn't believe they really existed. It's the phenomenon that allows the media to "rediscover" patriotism and heroism in the wake of September 11, when those of you in Hillsdale, and millions of others in St. Louis, Cleveland, Salem, Phoenix, Cheyenne, and a thousand other cities and small towns, know that those traits never went away.

It's the phenomenon that explains Hollywood's disdain for Big Business. You read about it in the newsmagazines and see it in the movies. Big Business is bad. The people who run these businesses are heartless, often criminal, brutes. There is no regard for the little guy.

Thousands are laid off while the greedy business executives reap windfall profits. Never mind that some of the biggest and least-competitive businesses are in entertainment. They merge, they lay off thousands, while stock options accrue to the top executives.

Top talent at networks and in movies get tens — even hundreds — of millions while so many of their co-workers, the little people they care so much about, lose their jobs. They simply don't see the contradiction.

They are above it. And, perhaps worst of all, it's the phenomenon that allows movie studios and television networks to program with an utter disregard for your kids and your communities. It's not that they're evil people. They have kids and they care about them.

But they see no connection between what they do and the results of what they do. And, besides, you're not really families and communities. You're ratings, demographics and sales. You see, they are — for the most part — clueless. Clueless about this country and its people.

Clueless about you. And they are afraid. They are afraid of the new technologies — afraid of the dwindling numbers of viewers or readers or listeners... afraid for their very existence. So, don't you see, they have to do what it takes to survive. They must survive.

They are important. Who do you people out here — the ones they fly over on their way to the other Coast for meetings — who do you think you are? Well, you are this country. You are its future. And I think that's a very good thing to be. The world can look mighty dark and forbidding at times.

But how exciting to be in a position to help change all that. And you're at the center of it. The center is not Los Angeles or New York. The power is not in Hollywood or Washington. The power is here.

Oh, you may end up in one of those other locations, but look what you will bring with you. This place. Its ideals. Its strengths. Its traditions. You will have spent these formative years in a setting where ideas can be discussed and treated with respect.

Where the great traditions of this nation and its cultural heritage have been passed on to you... and, through you, will be passed on to countless others. No matter how you eventually make your living or where you live your life, your time here at Hillsdale helps assure that you will have a positive impact on your generation. That strikes me as an excellent start on your legacy.

I will take a small part of Hillsdale with me when I leave. I envy the big part that each of you will carry throughout your lives. This resource — this power — is reality. Not the media's version of it. And you possess it. Use it wisely. Thank you.

Reason 2

2009-02-16T19:47:00.000-08:00

Unlike Obama, Sajak makes smug look good.

You know you want some of that.

Reason 1

2009-02-15T14:02:00.000-08:00

He's got the military experience.

Pat spent two years as a DJ in Vietnam. That's infinity more years than Obama spent in Vietnam in any position.