Good thing I long ago decided not to place my faith in people. Buncha crooks, all of them.
On the other hand, the President never gives me a reason to be disappointed. Well, outside of the odd (and I do mean odd) policy issue. However, Alessandra Stanley, who I'm swiftly growing to hate (nevermind my praise of a couple of posts back) has to get this dig in today, at the very beginning of what is (even considering its subject, the great and sainted FDR) a horribly biased review:
It is hard to remember a time when politicians tried to hide handicaps andClinton, of course. Dole, maybe. (I only remember his 1996 campaign.) But Bush has never once talked about his issues as a ploy for sympathy. Never.
hardship. Nowadays, even struggles that were once viewed as shameful are
flaunted as a sign of character, from President Bush vanquishing his drinking
problem to Bill Clinton overcoming a tempestuous childhood. Physical disability
is worn proudly: Bob Dole made his long, difficult recovery from a World War II
injury the crux of his 1988 presidential campaign.
But hey, FDR: By your anti-Semitism shall they know thee. I've made this point at least once before here: Sometimes (albeit rarely, when going against convention), a parochial view of history is the one that gives you the best picture. (I do wonder, however, how you call something like FDR's paralysis that, it sometimes seems, 90% of the country knew about, a "secret.")
This is a very strange review. Aside from the blatant error in the second sentence (East Jerusalem?), it's written as if there's some deep buried secret or something- when that simply makes no sense. Maybe they're looking for drama. Or maybe they're influenced by the fact that the film and its creator seem to be wacky to begin with.
Anyway, a chag sameach (what remains of it) to one and all!