I was watching the Sunday "I could be Bill Moyers" shows, and was struck by several things. One I will deal with in my next post. However, another was the upcoming film about Harvey Milk. The entire story was a bit off. As if they were trying to both build it up and avoid mentioning some things at the same time.

For example, while several people gave Milk effusive praise, including one who claimed "Harvey Milk changed the world", they were studiously avoiding the simple question of what Harvey Milk actually did. Besides being gay and getting elected, his accomplishments were notably absent from the story. As if his sole claim to fame were that he got elected. (I have a sneaking suspicion that in the future, some younger conservative will be saying the same about the Obama administration, but we will have to wait and see on that one.) And, knowing a bit of history, I have to say, that really is about the extent of Milk's involvement. Yes, he did the usual constitutent service every local wardheeler does, and his ward happened to be almost entirely gay, but that hardly makes him Sir Galahad the Gay, it just makes him a gay politician. Yes, he was a trend setter in being a gay politician, but I don't see how that "changed the world" or even merits a film.

Second,t hey really, really glossed over the circumstances of his shooting, as do most stories. The reason beign that most on the left want him to be a martyr, while in reality he was an innocent victim of a lunatic. Yes, it is sad he was killed, I regret anyone who is killed (barring murderers, terrorists, enemies in wartime, the usual exceptions), but the fact is the left is a bit put off that eh was killed not by some gun toting redneck upset at his homosexuality, but instead by an irate politician seeking to reverse his resignation and regain his seat.

As an aside, the person I feel msot sorry for is Mayor Moscone. He was killed in the same shooting, was even the principle target, and yet he has beenr educed to a footnote due to efforts to turn Milk into a martyr. His plac ein history is to be "the guy who was shot with Harvey Milk", the only note ever made in any report being "Mayor Moscone was shot and killed, too." It probably does not matter to the dead, but if it did, you have to imagine the Mayor's shade is less than pleased with playing second fiddle to a minor political figure like Milk.

Finally, the report, like all such reports, made mention of the notorious "twinkie defense", but seemed to race through it, so as not to make mention of some of the mroe salient features. You see, the same liberal politicians who seek to make Milk a martyr were responsible for that defense. California led the nation in the "diminished capactiy" expansion. Since the left believes in "rehabilitation" rather than punishment or prevention, left wing politicians then, a snow, push for more lenient sentences,a nd certainly despise the death penalty. But since most murders could not prove the sort of provocation to turn murder to manslaughter, and many could not meet the statutroy definition of insanity, either at the time of the murder or at trial, the elft provided another out, "diminished capacity", to bump murder to manslaughter. Well, allow me to clarify. it had existe din the law for some time, to argue that the defendant could not form the mens rea for a specific crime, but the left had been working to expand it to include a host of new "diseases" being invetned by the therapeutic society. So, in effect,t eh twinkie defense was the logical outcome fot eh trend in liberal judicial circles.

And that is what makes this so ironic. In any other case, the left would be praising the outcome of the trial, the fact that soem poor, over stressed defendant did not have to spend his life in jail or on death row, but was instead free to pursue his life after a period of rehabilitation. Even if the rest of the country was laughing at the "twinkie defense" the left would be brining forth "experts" to prove that it really was valid. (As they do for the McDonald's coffee tort cases.) However, since the victim is now deemed a secular saint by the left, they find themselves in the uncomfortable position fo having to actually consider the victim, rather than the poor criminal as they usually do, and have to actually critically examine the poor outcome of their own policy.

Well, enough of the late Mr. Milk. As I said, it is sad that he was shot, but I still see in him nothing more than a politician who was gay. Had he not been killed, he certainly would not have become as venerated, as he doubtless would ahve proved just another politician. (The same is likely true of JFK. Just ask Bill Clinton how har dit is to live up to the electiont iem hype when you live out both terms.) He may have suffered from being shot, but his myth did not. Now his entire past can be written in glowing "what if" terms by the left, rather than the much more tawdry reality most have to face in dya to day life.

Needless to say, I am not going to be seeing the Sean Penn portrayal of Mr. Milk whicht he spot was designed to promote.