Pam and I just finished watching “The Pacific,” the 2010 HBO mini-series produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. This 10-part series follows the stories of three real-life Marines who fought in the Pacific war against the Japanese. Robert Leckie and Eugene Sledge both wrote books about their experiences: “Helmet for My Pillow” and “With the Old Breed” respectively. They both died in 2001. The other person was John Basilone, a Medal of Honor winner who was killed on Iowa Jima.

Basilone had been in the military since around 1937. Leckie enlisted in the Marines after Pearl Harbor. They both fought on Guadalcanal. Sledge enlisted in the Marines in December 1942. Both he and Leckie faught on Peleliu. Leckie’s combat service ended there. There is a brief sequence showing Basilone’s heroic actions on Iowa Jima, and then the 9th episode is entirely about Sledge on Okinawa.

The three stories are intertwined nicely. I’ve read Leckie’s book, but not Sledge’s or any of the books about Basilone. I imagine the directors took some liberty with the stories–and I’ve heard that they did–but I suspect it was minor. They could have had Leckie and Basilone meet in some way on Guadalcanal, or Leckie and Sledge cross paths on Peleliu, and it would certainly have been interesting. But they didn’t do that.

“The Pacific” is a companion to the 2001 series “Band of Brothers,” which followed an Army company through the European theater fighting the Germans. Obviously, people will draw comparisons. Overall, I would say I enjoyed “Band of Brothers” more, and felt it was better in a lot of ways. But it was a different war–cleaner, more “civilized,” if you can use that term with war. The war against the Japanese was much more brutal, dirty, ambiguous. More like Vietnam.

I found it more difficult keeping track of the action in “The Pacific.” It didn’t help that so many of the actors looked alike. In that respect, I would say the casting was terrible. I had a tough time keeping characters straight. Someone would be killed and I would think it was somebody else. Very confusing. Fortunately, the three main characters–Leckie, Sledge, and to a lesser extent Basilone–were pretty distinct. But I gave up trying to keep some of the other soldiers straight, and that hurt my experience as a viewer.

Another complaint I have is their depiction of the battle for which Basilone won the Medal of Honor on Guadalcanal. They seriously underplayed it. Seriously. They showed a battle sequence that lasted maybe 5 minutes, and sure, Basilone was heroic. But the real story: Basilone’s regiment came under attack by 3000 Japanese soldiers in a battle that lasted 3 days, and ended with only Basilone and 2 other Marines still fighting. “The Pacific” gives us no sense of what actually transpired. There is a scene, after Basilone returns to the States, where someone reads aloud, in Basilone’s presence, a newspaper account of what happened. But I got the impression, from the context and from Basilone’s demeanor, that it was an exaggerated news account in a country wanting a hero. I didn’t realize the full extent of Basilone’s heroics until I read about him on Wikipedia.

The most interesting character was nicknamed Snafu, and played by an actor named Rami Malek. He went through the war with Sledge, and pretty much stole every scene he was in, I thought. I figured he was a character just made up for dramatic effect. But at the end, we find out he was a real guy. I’m wondering how he was actually portrayed in “With the Old Breed.”

I think the idea of following three Marines with great true stories was a good idea. It was also good to focus entirely on grunt footsoldiers, as “Band of Brothers” did. In following three Marines, they left out representing the crucial sea and air war in the Pacific. But through those three Marines, they covered well the life of Marines in the Pacific theater, from Guadalcanal to Okinawa. Neither series tried to be representative of the entire war, and that was wise. In both theaters, the really crucial element was the common footsoldier, and that’s where they focused.

Both series are fairly graphic, but it seems to me that “The Pacific” goes further than “Band of Brothers” in that area. “The Pacific” more effectively shows the horrors of war, probably because what Marines experienced in the Pacific was so terribly horrific.

I highly recommend both series. I think “Band of Brothers” is more interesting and better done, but you really need to watch both series.

I’m delighted about the departure of Keith Olberman from MSNBC.

Not because of his liberal views. There’s room for that on TV, and should be. After all, we’ve got a whole network devoted exclusively to conservative views. If MSNBC wants to commit their evening line-up to a weak counter-balance to FoxNews, that’s fine. There’s an audience for that.

And not because Olberman lacks ability. The guy is extremely talented. “Countdown” showed a lot of creativity. As a writer, I’ve always admired Olberman’s dexterity as a wordsmith; he could really turn a phrase, and knew how to do it with humor, which isn’t as easy as you think. He always seemed, to me, quite bright, though without the political background which provides knowledge and insight, which you find with the likes of Joe Scarborough, Britt Hume, and Chris Matthews.

In that way, Olberman was akin to Glenn Beck. Beck spent most of his career as a morning shock jock, and only gained an interest in politics when his Top 40-DJ career was waning and he realized he needed a new gig; talk radio was just then taking off, and he decided that’s where his future lay. Olberman got his start in sports, where he became a rock star of sorts with Dan Patrick on SportsCenter. But in turning to political punditry, he’s had to learn on the job. His lack of depth, like Beck’s, is apparent. Though Olberman avoids the wild-eyed rantings of Beck.

No, the reason I bid a happy adieu to Olberman has to do with character issues. His smugness. Inflated ego. Pomposity. Arrogance. Sense of self-importance. His inner diva.

In 2008, I read a New Yorker profile on Olberman called “One Angry Man.” As I’ve written before, nobody does profiles as well as the New Yorker. In this profile, Olberman’s arrogance and diva nature shone through, and I remember thinking, “This guy will someday implode.” To me, it was just a matter of time before he and MSNBC reached an unhappy parting. (I predict the same meltdown will happen with Glenn Beck, eventually.)

I’ve read for years about how the mainstay NBC news personalities disliked Olberman (and MSNBC’s nighttime line-up in general), because of the overt partisanship. People like Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw felt that Olberman’s blatant liberalism unfairly tarnished the image of the NBC news division, and I agree. Williams, Brokaw, and the other NBC mainstream journalists kept their distance from Olberman.

Sean Hannity recently interviewed Sarah Palin. That’s like Ken interviewing Barbie. Totally softball stuff. Likewise, I remember, during the presidential campaign, when Olberman landed an interview with Barack Obama. Olberman slobbered all over Obama, trying to be chummy and not ask anything confrontative. It was pathetic, and Obama seemed embarrassed by it. There are only scraps of journalist in Olberman.

This partisanship is why I despise both the MSNBC nighttime programs and the entirety of FoxNews. It’s not journalism. And it’s not truth. When your focus is to tear down the other side–whether it’s the Republicans or the Democrats–and to never say anything good about the other, then you’re not interested in truth. You’re just a puppet, a spouter of talking points. FoxNews no longer makes any pretense about being an objective news organization. MSNBC wants to have it both ways. Both networks know the audience they are trying to reach–the choirs they preach to, the people who care less about light than about having their preconceived views affirmed. And that’s not me. I’m in nobody’s choir.

As with Bill O’Reilly and others, there have been stories of Olberman being a diva around his staff. That always turns me off.

Speaking of O’Reilly: Olberman regularly attacked him, often placing him among that day’s candidates for “Worst Person in the World.” O’Reilly, instead of responding to Olberman, smartly went above him to attack General Electric, the parent company. O’Reilly found many excuses to unfairly demonize GE. This didn’t please GE.

I suspect that Comcast, the new parent company, was not excited about becoming O’Reilly’s new target of derision. If O’Reilly told viewers to cancel their Comcast subscription and switch to another carrier, tens of thousands of them would mindlessly obey.

During the Bush years, I grew to like Olberman. He was speaking about things which were a deep concern to me, particularly in regard to the wars and torture. But increasingly, he became shrill, and his sense of self-importance clouded everything. Then one night he ended an otherwise okay “Special Comment” piece by saying, “Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up.”

That’s when he totally lost me. That was way, way over my line.

Olberman was definitely good for MSNBC. During his eight years as “Countdown” host, he did what Phil Donahue, Alan Keyes, and a whole bunch of other bigger names couldn’t: he created an audience for the MSNBC evening shows, and he did it on talent alone (being an unknown, that’s all he had). So kudos for that.

But his ego did him in. And yet another unhappy parting–an Olberman trademark–occurred. An ESPN executive once said of Olberman’s departure, “He didn’t burn bridges here. He napalmed them.” I’m sure that’s the case once again.

Where will Olberman turn up next? Beats me. Probably on radio. I don’t see any TV network making a place for him.

Interestingly, Olberman’s TV spot is being filled by Lawrence O’Donnell, whose ego rivals Olberman’s. He lacks Olberman’s talent, but does bring political depth. But I suspect he’ll self-implode, too. As will Ed Schultz, who is taking O’Donnell’s previous spot. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are the only sane ones in the line-up. In my view. And Matthews is the only one I care to watch.

Compliments of roflrazzi.com

This morning, sparks flew on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when David Shuster, in kind of sideways manner, told host Joe Scarborough that he was being unduly biased in favor of John McCain. You don’t come on somebody else’s show and accuse him of something. Joe basically tore Shuster apart. It was not pretty.

Just now, I watched Chris Matthews talk condescendingly toward his co-anchor, Keith Olberman, and Olberman grimaced over it. I’ve seen this one coming for a long time. MSNBC is putting Olberman front and center, even though he’s a lightweight compared to Matthews (staffer in the US Senate, speechwriter in the Carter administration, six years as an aide to Tip O’Neill, and 15 years of print journalism for the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle).

If I were Matthews, I’d be a bit perturbed at being forced to play second fiddle to Olberman, a sportscaster who was re-engineered into a political pundit. Matthews brings a tremendous sense of history to politics. Olberman is highly articulate, funny, and quick on his feet–but he’s a lightweight. And an extremely partisan lightweight.

So as I said, to me, it was only a matter of time before Matthews had enough letting a sportcaster anchor MSNBC’s political coverage.

Has anyone else noticed all the blondes in ridiculously short skirts on Fox News? Yes, in fact, many people have noticed. Just Google “Fox News blondes.” Lots of chatter on this subject.

I don’t watch Fox News, normally, but I regularly flip through it (channel 82) on my journey from CNN (80) to MSNBC (84). And quite often, what you see is a blonde in a very short skirt. The morning Fox & Friends show, in particular, showcases a fabric-deficient blonde sitting between two bimbos of the testosterone persuasion.

Another is E. D. Hill, whose journalist acumen deduced that Barack and Michelle Obama’s fist-jab was actually a diabolical terrorist signal of some kind. I understand that Fox News responded today by canceling her show, which opens another slot for the teeming multitude of unemployed blonde goddesses.

Now, I’m not criticizing blondes. I’m sure that all of these stunning women carry impeccable journalistic credentials and can correctly identify a cold air mass moving across the Plains States. I’m just saying.