May 20, 2005
Theocracy
Bush at a Catholic Prayer breakfast.
Understand here, that by ‘defend our values, they mean impose them on everyone.
May 18, 2005
D-I-N-G-B-A-T
Comments:Newsweek and a half
I haven’t had much to say on this, as both sides of the debate seem to be acting like loons. In an attempt to not really accomplish anything, I thought I’d examine both sides.
Anti Newsweek
They got it wrong used a bad source. At the best (for Newsweek) is a source who buckled under pressure, at the worst is someone who was trolling to give information. (“I’m pretty sure I saw this...pretty sure.)
The report focused on a politically volatile issue for a population which is known for violent responses to such things. Certainly, people have used this report as a reason to act in violent ways, and people died.
Finally, their initial refusal to retract was unfathomable, and their initial response (“Well, we can’t prove it didn’t happen”) was stupid.
Pro Newsweek
They got their information for a supposed reputable source and, given what is known about the prison in question, this certainly did not seem out of place in terms of behavior, so why would it raise red flags?
The pentagon (and Republicans) when they were pretty sure the story was true (which tells you something), adamantly denied that the story caused the violence. These people were looking for any reason for violence, and Newsweek just happened to be the first to give them an excuse, was the explanation. Which certainly seems true. If Newsweek hadn’t had this article, something else would have happened. Of course, that changed when it appeared to be some political gain from the story.
It is laughable that an administration who is known for not telling the full story, for fervently controlling information, and who themselves have given that part of the world plenty of reasons to dislike us, now seems to be blaming the whole thing on Newsweek.
Conclusion
Guess what? Both sides are right. And wrong. Newsweek screwed up. Badly. And needs to be held accountable for that screw-up. On the other hand, the Republicans holier-than-though attitude is deflection, pure and simple. They’ve long supported the idea that things in Iraq and Afghanistan are going poorly – in part-, because the press refuses to focus on the good things, only focusing on the bad. They’ve long sought to have better control on the press, and are blowing Newsweek’s true effect on things way out of proportion.
Newsweek may have lit the fuse, but must of the flammable materials were put into place longe before this story was written.
Finally, and I understand why the right won’t argue this, but I will. I understand that the Koran is holy – but we need to be slow on blaming violence on someone who wrote a story about the Koran being desecrated. These people chose violence because of the (alleged) destruction of a book. I’m not trying to diminish the insult here, but forgive me – the problem is not Newsweek, but the religious fervor that says the destruction of pulp and ink is worth killing people over.
(On a side note Andrew Sullivan has a link suggesting the flushing incident has probably happened, but Newsweek can’t actually prove it. Watch for this information to come out slowly).
May 17, 2005
Best Headline of the day
Listen, I’m sure Lucas tweaked the dialogue somewhat. If you look at the context of the film and the current political realities, you’d be foolish not to. I’m not saying that Bush is evil, per se, but if you look at the plot specifics:
Palpatine uses a (hyped?) external threat to restrict freedoms and grab power within the soon-to-be empire. It’s really a no-brainer to compare it with things today, with homeland security and patriot acts and...well, my point is made.
Of course, while specifics may have been tweaked as political nods, the overall concepts were not ‘invented’ for the movie. Star Wars, the original, had the same themes which were refereed to a few times.
Anyway, if you’re looking for a reason to go see the movie, John Podhoretz hated it. Which, really, is how I make all my film-watching decisions.
**** Updated Note: Before I get accused of whatever – this concept of using movies to make political statements is neither new, nor limited to republican presidents. Clinton had ‘Primary Colors’ and ‘Wag the Dog’, and probably a few more if I took time to research it.
Happy Anniversary
Congratulations, on one year of destroying America.
Silly gays.
It’s the Theocracy on line 2
May 16, 2005
Of Friends and Enemies
Hey, I’m not thrilled Kerry decided he felt it was necessary to speak out against the Democratic pro-gay-marriage plank. However, as I’ve pointed out before, we need to be very careful of dismissing supporters over stuff like this.
Kerry scored 100% on the HRC scorecard for the 108th congress, and 100% in the 107th congress.
Criticize him, sure. Let him know you don’t approve. But even with the disagreement over the marriage issue, he’s been a strong ally to GLBT issues and I think we need to be wary of tossing him aside.
Note to the Right
Hey, just a reminder for you folks. The Press shares the same constitutional protection as religion (In fact, absolute freedom of the press has only been curtailed by those activist judges that you so despise).
Remember that as you clamor for tighter government control.
Kung Fu Hustle
With finals behind me, I was finally able to see a movie. And, I’m happy to say, I picked a great one to see.
If you’re looking for an off-beat, touching, and action-filled movie – Kung-Fu-Hustle was worth the price of admission. While certainly violent, it was far less violent than Kill Bill and that ilk. In fact, with the exception of first scene, most of the violence is the poetic/stylistic fighting Ala Hidden Dragon.
There’s also humor, redemption, and quite a few unexpected plot twists. It’s a Kung-Fu movie which doesn’t take itself too seriously, which resulted in a movie seriously worth seeing.
Worth the $$ to see it in the theater.
May 15, 2005
Huge Gap
Disclaimer: I’m not sure why I’m taking role of defender of the press – they certainly could be doing a better job. However, this poll mentioned in editor and publisher is just so foolish, I felt the need to explore it.
Lets start at the top:
There’s actually a theme the threads through this whole article but – whenever you ask people within an organization about their performance, and compare it to those not inside the group, you’ll certainly get a gap.
Let’s look at some other possibilities: Ask people in the leadership of unions if they have too much power, and compare it to people in general. Or, ask people in general if CEOs are over-paid, then compare it to what the CEOs think. Or, maybe better, ask Congress to rate their efforts, and compare it to the nation as a whole.
Then, for some reason, the poll asks about blogging. Apparently more people in journalism read them than do the general population?
Meaning what? While certainly at different levels, I bet the same would be true if you compared newspaper reading (not just if you read, but how many different ones you read) and News Programs.
Journalism is about being informed – and sometimes news breaks on blogs. Usually ot, but certainly bloggers on both sides of the political aisle have managed to – if not break, then certainly spread the news of, stories of interest.
The part that only 14% of the population knows about the freedom of the press is just sad.
