Chip Benson

AND THIS YEAR, THE OSCAR GOES TO...YOU!

The Providence Journal: February 13, 2007

“And the Oscar goes to…..You!”

“Me?” As in, me who put the “you” in YouTube? I’ve been dreaming of winning an Academy Award my whole life, even though I’m not, technically, an actor. Could this finally be my year?

I still tear up when they remember to thank Mom & Dad-and those are real tears Hollywood-albeit at the end of a very long list of agents, managers and underarm Botox fixers.

Let me explain. Several months ago I won Time’s Person of the Year award “You”. What a year it was for me to win “You”! Since then, I’ve sworn off social climbing. The way to the top without leaving your house is social networking sites.

The signature moment of last year’s Golden Globes Award show occurred before the actual ceremony during the all-important live telecast of the red-carpet arrivals. This is where the true YouTube moments happen.

The designer turned actor turned designer, Isaac Mizrahi, greeted Scarlett Johansson with the obligatory “Who are you wearing”, this is what passes for “Hello” in Hollywood, and then, while admiring her dress, he groped her bosom. It’s okay. He’s gay! Coincidently he behaves just like my Avatar!

I myself, or “You” as I am also known, have watched this clip many times, for purely professional reasons! Apparently, it is through this type of obsessive heterosexual behavior, whereby I put the “you” in YouTube, and determine just who is the what!

Before this column descends any further into Grammy Awards-speak let me give Al Gore his due. Whereas the Dixie Chicks were vindicated at the Grammy’s, so too shall “Al Bore” get redemption at the Academy Awards. The environmentalist turned Vice-President turned environmentalist deserves an Oscar for “An Inconvenient Truth” if only for doing it the old-fashioned pre-YouTube way. He went around by foot for years lecturing about global warming with a slideshow!

Social networking sites like YouTube and other digital grassroots technologies have propelled the excellent documentary from the obscurity of film festivals all the way to the forefront of public consciousness. When Isaac Mizrahi gropes Al Gore on the red carpet, but asks him about his carbon neutral tuxedo, you are watching 21^st Century democracy in action. This is what’s to come, someone tell the Shia’s and Shiite’s to tune in too!

Yes, the underlying theme at the Oscars this year will be vindication. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins will be celebrating the recent election results and I say, whew! Relax you’re good looking. I just want to enjoy what they’re wearing and that the actresses aren’t wearing very much at all. I’ll do my part at home, and together, we’ll vote the next sexy, er, cause it’s very own award, one YouTube boob at a time.

THE DEATH OF THE DOCUMENTARY

The Providence Journal: June 7, 2006

The conclusions reached in the new documentary Giuliani Time recall the Oliver Stone movie JFK -- a general misconception that is now a movie! Another documentary. Another conspiracy theory.
The phrase "Giuliani Time," meaning tolerance for police brutality, was never attributed to a New York City police officer. It was never said in the police-brutality case of Abner Louima, and it was never an unofficial policy of the New York Police Department. A reporter coined the phrase! No matter, several years go by and it's now the basis for a film documentary. In fact, Rudy Giuliani's reputation as a law-and-order mayor obscures the reality that he had a very contentious relationship with the police unions and police commissioners, and was hardly a beloved figure among the rank and file who would have carried out "Giuliani Time" justice.

Giuliani Time is not really a documentary, or anywhere close to the truth. How about Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? The book-publisher promotion says, "Read The Truth." If there's no truth in advertising, what can there possibly be in advertising about politics?

Chaim Yavin, the so-called Walter Cronkite of Israel, after 38 years of reporting on the Palestinian question, recently produced his first documentary, Land of the Settlers, and says he feels better now that he's been able to tell the truth. Okay, but what's he been reporting the last 38 years?
The so-called documentary Giuliani Time, produced by Kevin Keating, premiered in Manhattan and Los Angeles on May 12, and is another nail in the coffin for the original meaning of the word documentary--which in future dictionaries shall be defined as "not facts, but what I really think," "primarily left-wing," and "conspiracy theory."

It's all Michael Moore's fault. He started it with the entertaining Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, although to his credit Moore entered the latter into the regular-movie category for the Academy Awards, instead of the documentary group (better cocktail parties too).
Just as a quaint reminder, documentary is a video/film form of news analysis meant to document the facts of an important subject. Just don't let it get in the way of entertainment!
Running endlessly on the local Cox Cable television this election year are promotions for a documentary about Rhode Island state-treasurer candidate Frank Caprio--produced by Frank Caprio! It's unintentionally entertaining, but please--for the love of truthiness--call it a movie, a work of fiction, and don't bring home any documentary awards from those conspicuous documentary-film festivals. Everyone has one already, anyhow.

Giuliani Time and An Inconvenient Truth are political Trojan Horses, meant to seem at first as earnest works of artistic journalism. Once inside the walls of the theatre, though, they reveal themselves to be political animals. What will they end up destroying?
Certainly not number-one Yankee fan and Republican Rudy Giuliani, who at a recent fundraiser in Boston--of all places--was given a Red Sox jersey with "08" on the back! Mitt Romney, John Kerry: Take note. Rudy's first big fundraiser is scheduled in New York, on June 13.

The documentary Giuliani Time scores points for picking a terrific story. Rudy is America's most popular politician, and some say he has a very good chance of becoming the next president of the United States. For his actions on 9/11, he's become the American Churchill.

Churchill was also voted out of office after winning World War II, by a constituency that had tired of his omnipresence. The same can be said about Rudy after two hands-on four-year terms as mayor of the greatest if not toughest city in the world. Sixty years later, historians credit Churchill with providing nothing less than every Briton's freedom, to say nothing of Western Europe's. Rudy saved New York from itself, and then, perhaps, the entire country following 9/11.

Giuliani Time chooses to mix up the weariness that many New Yorkers had with Rudy's personality after eight years with the utter effectiveness of his policies. The film will stand as a record--in only this sense a documentary--of the head scratching that is still going on among New York Democrats over the Giuliani administration and policies that effectively debunked and cleared out 30 years of failed liberal government.

Giuliani Time is not a work of history or a factual documenting. It is a well-timed political hit job, meant to ride a Michael Moore-ish wave of hysteria in tandem with other like-minded investigative-journalism efforts, such as the claims that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.

Now that's entertainment!

PRESIDENT STEWART

The Providence Journal: February 27, 2006

For many diffident Americans George W. Bush is still not their president.

Remember January's televised State of the Union speech? "Turn it off!" "Why bother" "He's an idiot" "And so are you".

Yes, most voting Democrats remain in the country, but it's an ongoing out-of-body political experience for those not represented by him.

In this time of great social denial, the other-half-of-America cannot even look in the direction of the Bush Administration. In fact, they can't watch traditional news coverage anymore, because they don't take anyone seriously that takes the president seriously.

Instead, the other-half-of-America is watching news satire programs like Jon Stewart's  The Daily Show, on Comedy Central, followed by The Colbert Report, with fake interviews, and other programs like Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO. The formula goes something like this, "Ha, ha, ha. He's not really our president."

Mr Stewart speaks to the hearts and minds of the other-half-of-America. He is the newsman of choice for the Democrats. He is the darling of American pop culture, with one deft foot in politics, which is why he was chosen to be the host of the 2006 Academy Awards, to be held tomorrow night.

"Ha, ha, ha. He's not really our president" will be the theme of the night, along with Brokeback Mountain. At their intersection is the Dick Cheney hunting accident, otherwise known as the Goldmine of Comedy.

Mr. Stewart's monologue and remarks throughout the awards ceremony will no doubt be highly political, funny, and ultimately represent the Hollywood filmmakers "reel" opinion regarding the state of the union, and George Bush in particular. With all due respect to Edward R. Murrow in George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck, Mr. Stewart is today's truth-teller, at least for his many followers.

Politicians and newsmen spin Steven Colbert's "truthiness", but comedians and Democrats have the laughter to make their medicine go down. They hope it will cure what is sick in America.

Mr. Stewart will have a larger and arguably more rapt audience than did President Bush for his State of the Union and for continued good reason.

The other week Stewart deftly showed clips from the Fox News Channel of the anchors and reporters throughout the day dismissing the need as "obsessive" and "unnecessary" for continued coverage of Dick Cheney's hunting accident, given all the other important news going on. This came after Cheney's exclusive interview on Fox.

But then Stewart showed Fox's coverage of the "other important news", which turned out to be hours of helicopter-TV coverage of Neil Entwistle's arrival by car for arraignment in Framingham, Mass., for the murder of his wife and young child.

Things may have to get pretty funny in America before they get any better.

OUR PATHETIC POKER OBSESSION

The Providence Journal: Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Lets get one thing straight: Real men don't play poker. Poker is about bluffing, and real men don't have to bluff. Also, any man worth his salt doesn't hide behind a pair of sunglasses and under a cowboy hat--indoors--while playing cards on a table with an ad for Levitra running down the middle of it.

And yet poker is more popular than ever right now. Poker TV shows run constantly on the national television channel for men (ESPN) and the national television channel for women (E! The Entertainment Channel.) Bored celebrities, such as Mathew Perry and Ben Affleck, are recovering substance abusers, but they hold on to their street cred by keeping up other vices, like poker! They play-act with a vengeance.

It's getting pretty weird. The other night on ESPN, after a stare-down hand and then a "fold'em" over the virtual Viagra logo, two of the stars of Poker Stars- Chris "Jesus" Ferguson and "Juan Juanda"-took turns winging their cards from 10 feet away at a peeled banana mounted on a pedestal.

As I said before, real men don't throw cards indoors while wearing a large hat and sunglasses to try to pierce a peeled and mounted banana.

The smoke-filled rooms, mood lighting, and undercover-camera angles make poker TV shows look like focus groups for primal male behavior: lies, lies, and more lies, and the ability to bully the next guy into losing everything. Wait a minute. These poker shows are just like U.S. foreign policy. Kidding!

There is something socially evocative about the American poker craze-the absurdity and desperation of gambling-combined with the importance of presumptive appearance. It has been said that chess is the game of Europe, and that poker is its counterpart in America.The question is: Which game is the world playing today? Is it chess-the complex thinking man's game of strategy within a defined set of rules? Or is it No Rules Texas Hold'em- a game ultimately of chance, in which the nicknamed winners can take all all without holding as much as a pair of deuces?

These ridiculous poker shows are trying to tell us something. Ordinary Americans- anyone not in Washington, D.C., or New York City- realize that we are all in a final game of chance and desperation. The dire news surrounds us: natural disasters, nuclear proliferation, globalization-exploitation, a mountain of unpayable debt, and a new generation of Islamic extremists hell-bent on betting it all.

Simply put, we are at a poker table, along with a bunch of absurd characters. Why aren't we playing chess, instead?

THE PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE INFERENCE AGE

The Providence Journal: June, 2005

What an information Age this is! Suddenly, everyone, including Tom Cruise, is so informed that they've become argumentative experts on everything. There's so much information- too much information- on the Internet and television and in the press. It's beyond loud- as if our culture were a horror movie called The Spawn of Bill O'Reilly.

God forbid you end up on the wrong end of a withering conversation as Matt Lauer did with Tom Cruise on The Today Show, and find your ears pinned by "Matt, you don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

Yes, there's a lot of information but poorer communication, and now a simple "Hello, how are you?" is just polite disguise for a then jarring and vicious "Point, Counterpoint" exchange. Conversation in America is beginning to resemble question time for the prime minister in the House of Commons on C-SPAN- now that's "reality TV." "My Right Honorable Friend is a Jerk!"

Yes, it's partly the fault of Fox News, and its cheap imitators, but the Internet has to take its share of the blame too. Consider bloggers-they take off their sheep's clothing and surprise! It's a veritable group of Nixon's plumbers!

But in light of all of this frightening conversation, a new form of verbal interaction is taking shape, right under our upturned noses. We're leaving the Information Age behind, and entering "the Inference Age!"

The art of conversation is being replaced by the art of inference.

A typical exchange contains just a few quick stabbing presumptions, along with the right body language, a few labels, and knowing asides regarding class distinctions, and presto: You've avoided an icky talk and come full-circle to an assumption. Besides, who has the time anymore for exhaustive and caustic political discussions? The marriages of America cannot survive any more of this!

So, it's the dawn of a new era, a post- election verbal truce. In the middle it's a virtual no- fly zone. We circle conversation, warily inferring this and inferring that, but never engaging in actual combat-speak, whew!

Is all this the path to enlightenment, a new form of passive-aggressive behavior or just a breather before the next election? Nowhere is infer-speak worse than in the oldest part of Europeanized America, that bastion of Democratic politics, Boston.

Nowhere else is it more tribal, and social class more fossilized. Woe to those who visit the Hub who haven't mastered the dark arts of the Inference Age: "To speak is human, to infer is divine."

However, this is a bipartisan column. How much more out as a writer can you get than that? So let me point out that our conversationally challenged commander-in-chief is solidly on the inference bandwagon as well. Why, just the other week, in his speech to buck up America for the Iraq war, he mentioned the phrase 9/11 five times in just 30 minutes.

There is nothing to fear but inference itself!

CHRIS ROCK DOES WELL BY BEHAVING BADLY

The Providence Journal: February 21, 2005

The Producers of this year's Academy Awards have cynically tried to make up for the buzz lost to the nominating snubs of Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ-the two most-talked-about movies of 2004-by instead choosing an edgy and profane comedian, Chris Rock, as host of the ceremony, on Feb. 27.

Mr. Rock has done his part by creating a stir when he remarked that "only gays watch the Oscars," and that the black actor Jamie Foxx "had better win" the awards for best actor (in Ray) and best supporting actor (in Collateral).

For the past 10 years, Chris Rock has been behaving badly and getting away with it, because he is black. After an initial start on Saturday Night Live, the comedian became a superstar, primarily through his HBO solo-comedy performances Never Scared and Bigger and Blacker, performed before mostly black audiences in black theaters, such as The Apollo, in Harlem. However, all along, perhaps the audience that really mattered (television and its dollars) was white.

In these performances, Mr. Rock is quite profane and bigoted. The talented comedian can say many degrading things about black culture that white comics cannot-he practically speaks a different language when doing so-but like the Spike Lee movie Bamboozled, he may eventually provoke so much outrage that he will set back the development of other African-American TV and movie performers for many years.

This may be the moment. For all of his success, Mr. Rock has come of age on small stages and niche television channels, late at night. He is still not a mainstream performer, and there is considerable trepidation in Hollywood over exactly what he will say at the Academy Awards. Yet he will soon be a virtual U.S. ambassador to the world; the Oscars ceremony is the most watched television program, with a global audience of 1.5 billion.

At the very least, if he makes a fool of himself he will kill two birds with one cynical producers' stone, by creating buzz and then absorbing the criticism. Perhaps this is preferable in Hollywood to the heat that would have come down had Michael Moore or Mel Gibson been the center of attention.Is Mr. Rock, then, merely a patsy-a diversion from the storms of criticism created by Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ? It's been enough already, and quite a tumultuous year or two for politics and Mideastern religion.

Waiting in the wings and perhaps soon to make their first appearance at the Oscars are Snoop Dogg and P. Diddy-- absurd names that obscure long raps sheets and horrible accusations of attempted murder, rape and many other violent and disgusting things. Both convicted felons are attempting the lucrative change into mainstream entertainer. Snoop Dogg is an animated voice in the children's movie Racing Stripes, and P. Diddy is featured in a new ad for Diet Pepsi.

Bring on the minstrel show.

GOT INSURANCE? A FABLE OF THE POST- 9/11 RECONSTRUCTION

The Providence Phoenix: January 6, 2005

What do Santa Claus and the "US terrorism clause" (better known as terrorism risk insurance) have in common? In addition to the same last name, both are fairy tales that obscure something truly meaningful.
Within hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in 2001, the top executives of big American insurance companies convened via conference call to discuss whether their policies would cover damage from the 9/11 suicide hijackings. The first consideration was deciding if the events of September 11 were an act of war. Every major insurance contract in America has a "war exclusion clause" that exempts an insurer from responsibility for damages in the event of an "act of war." Essentially, the government is held responsible instead.

According to Robert P. Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group, "Within hours of the attacks, it was quite clear that the argument that 9/11 was an act of war would never hold up in court." The insurance lawyers based their decision on hundreds of years of case law defining an act of war. Yet it was no small consideration. The decision would cost insurers plenty, as 9/11 damages have totaled more than $30 billion by some estimates.

On September 11, however, President George W. Bush said the exact opposite -- that the attacks constituted an "act of war upon our country." These were not idle words, judging by how Bush launched the United States into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- conflicts that many observers believe to be the first in a series of multi-generational battles.

Why didn't the insurers cite the president as their chief witness to make an argument that 9/11 was an act of war? Doing so, after all, might have exempted them from billions in financial responsibility. According to a defense lawyer for one of the major insurers involved, "We viewed his statements as political rhetoric, and inconsistent with the law, and so, we performed an act of social responsibility."

When is an act of war not an act of war? In 2002, Congress created legislation to permit a new type of insurance called "the terrorism clause," in a clumsy attempt to bridge the divide between actual law concerning war and Bush's interpretation of it. Except unlike the "war clause," the "terrorism clause" does not exempt insurers from responsibility for damages. Instead, it is a new way for insurers to make money by underwriting terrorism policies.

If a business does not carry the policy and suffers an attack of terrorism, it alone will be liable for the damage, instead of the government, which by the way, has deemed terrorism the greatest threat to the national security of the nation. The "terrorism clause," however, is a tectonic shift of responsibility -- some might say of culpability -- for issues of terrorism and national security. Hundreds of years of law are now at odds with Bush"s definition of war on 9/11 and his subsequent statements. Simply put, if he says it is war, why won't it hold up in court?

The dubious legislation for the "terrorism clause" expires on Christmas 2005, unless it's renewed by the politicians and insurance lobbyists that believe in it. Is it some sort of payback from the government to the insurance industry, in the amount of the industry's 9/11 losses?

Perhaps some see this as a genuine conservative attempt at reducing the size and scope of government by outsourcing, or at the very least a privatizing, the fiscal responsibility for terrorism. Maybe they also believe in Santa Claus.

UNDECIDED, WE CANNOT BE DIVIDED

The Providence Journal: November 18, 2004

I'm back to being an Undecided voter. Back where I belong, with my people, among the great silent and indecisive majority.

On Election Day, like many others of my creed, I temporarily made a decision, somehow picked the winner, then broke out in a cold sweat and immediately returned to my modest posture of uncertainty and understanding, In the spirit of John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it," well, I made a decision before I became Undecided again.

Kerry's so-called political flip-flopping was nothing to us Undecided voters; it's what we call an involuntary muscle. We prefer to think of it as "seeing both sides of the issue." Many of these issues in our country are very complex, and proposed Republican or Democratic solutions make them even more complicated! To be certain is to be clairvoyant, mystical and otherworldly. We who are Undecided laugh uproariously at the certainty displayed by political pundits on cable news channels and talk radio arguing to death over government policies whose full implications won't truly be known for many decades.

Even President Bush has said about his Iraq policy that the true, full consequences of it won't be known until after we're all dead and gone- which, by the way, is music to an Undecided ear. However, maybe the Bush Doctrine of Terrorism Pre-emption could have been worded differently: "You are either with us or against us, or you're undecided."

Most regular Undecided folk always leave a little room for the possibility that we may not know absolutely everything! Look, you can read The New York Times all you want, but there is still a lot you may not know. Which is why some people in America, let's call them the voting majority, still have faith in religion-its just their way of being humble about what they may not know.

This country is not divided into political factions; it is united in uncertainty. We don't need to "begin the healing" or come together after this election; we already are. More people are Undecided than Republicans or Democrats combined. Myriad polls over the past two decades show that voters, when asked to identify themselves politically, divide about a third Democratic, a third Republican, and a third independent. Show me an independent voter, and I'll show you someone Undecided!

Of the 214 million eligible voters in the United States, 59 million voted for Bush and 55 million voted for Kerry. Most important, 100 million didn't vote-hint, hint: Undecided! So, to recap, of the 214 million eligible American voters, roughly 137 million make up the great Undecided Party. (Watch it, or I'll include the balance of the U.S. population: 72 million children 17 and under and Undecided. Democrats, you know they're just waiting not to vote.)

What are the hallmarks of our country today? Instant gratification, short-term thinking, and impulse buying, whimsy, glibness? Do you identify with theses words? Are you a jack of all trades and master of none? Good. These are the foundation of the Undecided Party.
The Democrats say that the Republicans are getting more conservative and right-wing, and the Republicans say- surprise!- the same thing in reverse about the Democrats! We Undecided voters observe this finger-pointing; we're quiet about it, and that's why the political center is getting larger and more Undecided. Pretty soon we may decide to become an official party. Some would like to call us Progressive or Reform, but that's doubtful. A true flag-waving, red-blooded Undecided voter will never cross that bridge of finality.

The great Undecided voting bloc does not display political bumper stickers like "Bush is not my president" or "It's hunting season for Democrats." That's way to much commitment. The most you would ever see is just "Undecided." However, we in the noncommittal majority feel bad for you all-or-nothing types, who can no longer speak to each other post-election. Our suggestion, and we are not certain of this, is that you remove your bumper stickers, or at the very least cover your old ones with a fresh "Undecided." This way you can talk to your neighbor again.

A nation Undecided cannot be divided!

EMPIRE FALLS: SO MUCH FOR INNOCENTS ABROAD

The Providence Phoenix: June 10, 2004

My wife and I recently spent a weekend in Paris, where on a rainy afternoon, while waiting to get in at the Musee d' Orsay, we had an interesting conversation with two older English couples visiting the city for the weekend. Well, what did they think of the Global War on Terror and all that?
"Welcome to the club," was their response, with a wary look of resignation. "Now you're finally in it like the rest of us." One gentleman said that while America has always been geographically isolated, the war in Iraq now has it politically isolated for the first time. "The whole world is basically against you," he said, adding, "there are very few voices of support anymore for the US in Europe."

The Brits were exasperated that we had screwed up the political magic of our physical isolation, and the inherent innocence of being a sea away from the world's oldest problems. Too bad, they said, but it's happened to the best of us.

All of the countries and people in Europe have to live in the wake of a particular continuum of issues and problems, from wars and conflicts of empire to long-ago emperors. Finally, we too have stepped in it, the mess that is the continuum.

The point of the problem was not the simple wrong or right of ousting Saddam, an obviously bad person, but the implications it would trigger with other people and countries around the world, now and generations from today. As President Bush has acknowledged, the outcome of the war on terror and his attempt at "promoting democracy" in the Middle East won't be known for a long time. However, this is a perilous road familiar to European colonialists.

As the world quickly comes together through international communications and business, or just a weekend visit to Paris, "Old Europe" may have a leg up on an increasingly isolated America. For one thing, it is not isolated. The Europeans travel. The roughly two-dozen countries that make up the continent have been living together, and visiting with each other on weekends, for quite some time. Despite all of the different languages, they share a common currency, and a hard-fought, but healthy respect for differences. Puritanical Americans have long noted the blase of Europeans when it comes to matters of rule and law, but perhaps the ennui is a wisdom born of the endless complications of conflict and war.

On the international stage, George W. Bush more represents the idea that "All Politics is National," while John Kerry sees it like most Europeans, that "All Politics is International." H may be forward-looking, at least for an American electorate that, like our president, rarely leaves the country, and finds comfort in simple (simplistic?) and direct answers to questions. However, whether it's the war or the economy, both issues are increasingly international in dimension. The future success of American businesses, and jobs in the post NAFTA US will be a matter of global, not national, economics.

The international perception of our foreign policy will very much matter for such US businesses as Boeing. Can it compete evenly with the European conglomerate Airbus if the world is against our military actions? Will American companies face a form of blowback-the unexpected consequences of policy-by having to go international or go bust?

In the age of ongoing nuclear proliferation, security will increasingly be a matter of multilateral cooperation. The European Union, with geographically closer ties to Africa and the Middle East, suddenly seems not only larger than the US but more importantly, a bigger influence in the hearts and minds of the world community. As the Europeans strive toward more egalitarianism, they practice what we preached for years: "That in the final analysis, we all breathe the same air, live on the same planet, and hope for a better future for our children."

Can this statement- first uttered by John F. Kennedy, after lessons learned in the standoff with the Soviets- be taught by another JFK, to another generation?

WHEN THE JACKASS CULTURE MEETS THE MIDEAST

 The Providence Journal: May 28, 2004

Mr. President, you've lost Howard Stern." Is it possible that this conversation has taken place in the White House among Karl Rove, George Bush and Republican media pop-culture guru Mark McKinnon? Don't be so sure it hasn't.

In 1968, President Johnson famously lost the support of CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, which Johnson surmised meant the heartland of America, and, as protest against the Vietnam War mounted, he eventually decided not to run for re-election. Thirty-five years later, it's Stern, and the MTV Jackass generation he represents, that may pull down a president.

For the past several months, Stern has openly challenged the "evangelical" Bush administration and the Federal Communications Commission during his radio program. He is upset over their enforcement of the obscenity laws against him, and resulting heavy fines. As the Republicans gear up for a convention in Stern's home base, New York City, he is stirring the pot to ensure that all does not go well in August and, most important, on Election Day.

He has had success before. In 1994, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo was upset by little-known George Pataki, and to this day many political experts in Gotham swear it was the daily radio support of "Fartman," a.k.a. Howard Stern, that made the difference.

The prison pictures from Abu Ghraib seem inspired from a skit on the MTV program Jackass, or something that one might come across in the morning listening to the impressively vulgar Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed "King of all Media." Stern has been on the air for more than 20 years behaving badly toward women and others, and has one of the largest syndicated radio audiences in America. He is paid $18 million dollars a year.

In fact, Infinity Radio Networks is part of the same company as MTV and CBS News--Viacom. There are an estimated 9 million listeners on Howard's own private heartless heartland, now part of the fabric of our society.

So we shouldn't be so suprised by what 21-year old Pfc. Lynndie England did on prison-guard duty in Iraq. It's reflective of our Jackass culture. Perhaps before her departure to the Third World country of Iraq she saw Kill Bill, Volume II, or rented the movie Pulp Fiction and was inspired by the "visionary" director Quentin Tarantino.

It is okay if Tarantino gets another Palme d' Or award from the French for film making, but we are shocked, shocked!, that this kind of thing could be done by American troops. After all, with an average salary of $17,000 a year (plus clothing and many other expenses), they are supposed to behave better than civilians.

For a more accurate read on current troop character and morale, check out the popular T-shirts that reservists are prominently wearing as they fly home from Iraq for leave. The shirt says "Army Reserve" on the front, and on the back "One Weekend a Month My Ass!"

If the War on Terror is a clash of civilizations, it is Stone Age versus Jackass Age. In one corner Pfc. Dominatrix with a lit cigarette, and in another five men in black masks and a beheading.