The [url=http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRADBURY_FAHRENHEIT_911?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]AP reported yesterday[/url] that the author of the brilliantly written “[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345342968/qid=1087840147/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/103-1924542-6295049?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]Fahrenheit 451[/url],” [url=http://www.raybradbury.com/]Ray Bradbury[/url], is demanding both an apology from Michael Moore and a name change to his most recent short film “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Bradbury asserts that Mr. Moore did not ask permission to borrow from his title and expects him to “give me back my book and my title.”

Bradbury reportedly called Mr. Moore’s company six months ago to discuss this issue and was promised a return call, but only recently received one. Mr. Bradbury told the AP that Moore described himself as “embarrassed” over the amount of time that he had let go by before returning the call.

Joanne Doroshow, the spokesperson for Moore’s movie, was reported as saying that “Mr. Bradbury’s work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11.” Mr. Moore’s company has yet to indicate whether or not they intend to honor Mr. Bradbury’s request.

Thats the news portion of this post, now for a few comments on this issue.

First things first. Ms. Doroshow comments that the title of their movie reflects the facts. Fair enough. But there are likely several hundred titles that one could come up with which would do the same.

Why choose this title? At this point, the only real similarity between the Bradbury book and Mr. Moore’s film is the fact that they are both works of fiction.

Furthermore, even the subtitle of the movie “borrows” from Bradbury’s book in that the book states that “Fahrenheit 451 is the temperature at which paper burns,” while Moore’s subtitle is that “Fahrenheit 9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns.”

Did Moore borrow from Bradbury’s book title because he thought it appropriate or is he attempting to borrow some of the name recognition that goes with the title? Make no mistake, this book/film title has tremendous name recognition worldwide.

I’ve been a scifi fan for at least the past quarter century and I know many of the names who are considered to be among the finest of the genre. Names like Asimov, Benford, Brin, Dick, Donaldson, Harrison, McCaffrey, Niven, Pournelle, Wells, etc.

Bradbury is a giant among those giants when it comes to his work and, needless to say, I’ve read almost everything he’s ever written. Mr. Bradbury’s work has, without a doubt, inspired and influenced generations of young authors, as well as the creation of innumerable movies and television shows.

Have other “borrowed” from Mr. Bradbury’s work in the past, hoping to tap into some of his fame and name recognition? Very likely so, though, I’ve yet to hear Bradbury so upset as he is over this issue.

Really, though, what can you expect from Michael Moore? Michael is not interested in an issue or a cause, he is interested in the bottom line question, what will this film produce for him in the way of fame and fortune? In this sense, then, Moore is no different from any of the so-called “greedy” corporations so reviled by liberals (including Moore).

I’ll even go so far as to say that if Bush is not re-elected this November, Michael Moore, in my opinion, will be devastated. Why? Because President Bush has been the best thing that has ever happened to Mr. Moore; a cash cow no less.

Just as any good American entrepreneur might, Michael Moore has tapped into the angst of the angry left and turned it into good ol’ dollars and cents. In that sense then (no pun intended), good for Michael Moore. In every other way, however, the man is, at best, no better than a greedy executive seeking to maximize his opportunities.

Lets recognize Michael Moore for what he is, an entrepreneur and a businessman, not an idealist. If Mr. Bradbury wants his title and book returned to him, he’ll have to treat him as such. This means, of course, he’ll have to use legal means to force Moore to desist in what he perceives to be the theft of his book title. And this is a very real and legitimate concern, not one manufactured by Mr. Bradbury for partisan reasons.

The fact is, as one who watches the SciFi Channel and visits their website on a frequent basis, I learned recently that a production company is planning to produce a new “Fahrenheit 451″ movie. If Moore continues to politicize this title with his “Fahrenheit 9/11″ movie, he threatens the future profitability of both Mr. Bradbury’s book and any future movie based on the book.

Can Mr. Bradbury afford to wait while Michael Moore continues to blatantly borrow from his title? Probably not. Noone should allow such a blatant copyright violation to go unanswered. To do so would be to invite other such violations.

Will Bradbury act to protect his copyright? Well, lets just call this a developing story.

David Flanagan

Will he or won’t he? That is the question batted back and forth in the media at least as aggressively as Venus Williams and Jennifer Capriati competing on the tennis court. Just imagine it… Venus winds up, powerful sinews unloading full force as she connects with the ball, grunt of effort exploding from her lungs. You can almost see the ball flexing as it meets the tennis racket, rebounds, and flies screaming (yes, just like in the cartoons) towards the opposite side of the court.

In flies Capriati, experienced, wiry, agile, running to meet the ball, racket coming up as she prepares to send the ball spinning right back. Sweat beading her brow, and staining the court.

THAT is the kind of intensity you see currently in Washington regarding the debate over whether or not John McCain will accept John Kerry’s VP candidate offer.

Would a staunch conservative like John McCain, one whose loyalty to his party is only superceded by his loyalty to his country, REALLY consider such a move? The answer to that question, of course, varies based on the person to whom you are speaking.

This weekend, an article by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, who is gung ho on the idea, believes McCain is giving this some thought because it might give him the opportunity to strike a blow for bipartisanship in Washington. Many in the media and in Washington have made note of the growing partisan divide in Washington, as well as across America.

Fewer moderates are making it to Washington and, increasingly, candidates for office are running, and winning, on the promise of following the party line on many major issues. Personally, I think part of it is simply that each side attempts to paint the other as partisan, and, in that sense creates even more of an image of polarization to the average person. Be that as it may, the issue of a Kerry/McCain 2004 ticket still seems to present itself as a possibility, a thought which I find disturbing.

Why do I find this image disturbing? Primarily because, as a ticket, it just might give Kerry the edge he needs in November. There are many conservatives, myself included, who have great affection and respect for John McCain. If you want to talk about a real war hero (not to take away from Kerry’s service), then McCain is your guy. He fought in the Viet Nam War, was shot down and taken prisoner. Spent the next few years being tortured and abused as a POW, returned home, later to become one of the most powerful men in America.

McCain’s entire adult life has been spent in service to this nation, and though I might disagree with the Senator on many issues, I would never dream of showing disrespect to him. With that said, I would also never dream of voting for Kerry, even with McCain on the ticket.

Ultimately, Senator McCain’s views on this issue are his own; but if he is considering this option, and if he might ever stoop to listen to someone such as myself, whom, I readily admit, is not worthy to offer advice to such an accomplished and distinguished public servant, then I would like to offer a reason as to why this move would be a disaster for McCain, both personally as well as politically.

Lets take a page from history… Did you know that the United States of America owes, in great part, its freedom to one of its greatest revolutionary war heroes? I’m not talking about George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin, or even Thomas Jefferson. The man I’m referring to is Benedict Arnold.

“Benedict Arnold,” you say? “Yes, Benedict Arnold,” I reply. Benedict Arnold was one of America’s greatest military leaders during the American Revolution. He prevented the British from gaining a foothold in New York state through a series of brilliant military maneuvers, which included the assembly of a fleet of ships FROM SCRATCH, in which he harried the British fleet on the Great Lakes long enough to forestall an invasion before the winter of the first year of the war. The extra nine months Arnold gained for America helped us to better prepare that state for the expected British invasion from the North.

When the British Army, commanded by General John Burgoyne, eventually did invade from Canada in an effort to separate New England from the rest of the colonies, Arnold was almost single-handedly responsible for leading American forces to victory over Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga. Lest you forget, this was the battle that convinced the French to formally ally themselves with America and to declare war on England, which elevated the status of the American Revolution to a world war.

After Arnold heroically led American forces against Burgoyne (leading his men in battle even after being shot off his horse and sustaining a wound to his leg no less), he became one of America’s most-loved, and England’s most-feared, military leaders. Unfortunately for Arnold, his wife was a loyalist who maintained ties with England. Because of the politics of the day and Arnold’s sincere belief that the war was ultimately unwinnable, he was eventually persuaded to switch sides and, because of this, doomed himself to become one of America’s most reviled traitors.

Even John Kerry used the name of Benedict Arnold recently, calling any company that outsourced jobs to other nations “Benedict Arnold” companies. He stopped this line of rhetoric soon after it was discovered that his wife’s company, the Heinz Corporation, was one of those so-called “Benedict Arnold” companies. But I digress…

Why in the world would I bring this issue up with a man like John McCain? Not to accuse him of being a Benedict Arnold, certainly, but instead to show why the temptation to serve under Senator Kerry should be resisted.

Ultimately, for Benedict Arnold, his sincerity and idealism opened him up for manipulation by the wrong people. Arnold did the wrong thing for the right reason. He wanted peace for his nation and was afraid that, if America lost the war, her people would lose their lands (a common British practice) which would be parceled out to the English and German soldiers and officers who served in the war.

If a moderate peace could be negotiated, then Americans had a very good chance of keeping their lands. This is important because fully 40% of Americans at the time were well-to-do farmers and, even then, Americans were known to have the highest standard of living in the world. A loss would have disasterous consequences for many Americans.

What the British received for their efforts was a huge public relations coup; which they hoped would result in a loss of popular support for the rebellion. What ultimately happened, however, was that Americans were shocked and enraged by this turnaround and Arnold’s desertion may actually have helped the Americans cause rather than hurt it, as the British had hoped.

In the end, Arnold’s historical legacy is as one of America’s most famous traitors. A brilliant and sincere leader who has been forgotten by those who managed to bring him over to their side and reviled by the ones he hoped to save.

As we all know, history can be either harsh or generous when it comes to its historical figures. For Benedict Arnold, a man who clearly helped America free itself from British rule, the lens of history has been excessively harsh.

Now lets carry this over to John McCain and John F Kerry. For Kerry, having McCain join his campaign would also be a huge public relations coup. Two war heroes, one liberal, one conservative, on the same ticket. With this matchup, Kerry has a REAL chance of appealing to moderate voters, which is key (duhhhh!) in this upcoming election.

What will John McCain gain? Hmmmm…

I’m going to have to think about that one. As the VP, will McCain really be able to influence Kerry Administration policy? It is certainly possible, but he’d have to be careful in light of the fact that Kerry could lose support from his liberal base if they thought McCain was too influential in a Kerry Administration.

The other problem? Well, McCain himself might be a moderate, but Kerry is a true-blue, died-in-the-wool liberal. His is one of the most liberal voting records in Washington, more so even than Ted Kennedy’s.

Can a moderate Republican VP carry influence with a staunchly liberal Democratic President? I’d love to see the Vegas odds on that!

More likely is that McCain will simply anger his supporters, a majority of Republicans, and help Kerry win the White House. From there, I’m thinking that Kerry will later have to force McCain out before the 2008 election cycel in order to appease his party base.

This whole thing brings to mind a story I heard early in Clinton’s first term as President. VP Al Gore met with the President and began outlining to President Clinton all the wonderful things they would do in office, all the changes they would make and all the policy they would influence, etc. Clinton gave Gore one look and said, “who is ‘we’ kimo sabe?”

So, my advice (whatever it’s worth) for one of our most distinguished and heroic Senators, is to heed history’s warning and resist the temptation to side with the opposition. I’m not saying for an instant that we have a “revolution-level” engagement ahead of us, but the results of this November’s election will help determine whether the US will stay the course in its war on terror or whether it will seek a more “moderate” solution, if there could be such a thing with terrorists.

By the way, anyone heard from that other famous turncoat, [url=http://jeffords.senate.gov/]Jim Jeffords[/url], lately?

David Flanagan

The “Liberals” Creed” is an article published by Robert Alt, a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at The John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University currently reporting from Iraq.

As I read through the creed, I found myself nodding at every point. Conservatives and Liberals will find themselves doing the same for different reasons. Conservatives like myself nod because, yes, that describes the current liberal mindset. Liberals nod because, yes, that describes their current mindset.

Enjoy!

[url=http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/04/creed.html]The Liberals Creed[/url]

We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.

We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.

We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the “military action” in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.

We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.

We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.

We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.

We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.

We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.

We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.

We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.

We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we “support our troops;”
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word “heroes” is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.

Robert D. Alt is a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at The John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University currently reporting from Iraq. You can follow his daily progress at [url=http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/]No Left Turns[/url].