Vis-a-vis Whoopi Goldberg saying that Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape," and that Europeans look at 13-year-old girls differently than US citizens, here's director Luc Besson, as quoted in the Telegraph: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
Just so. The kicker is, Besson is French. More proof that Goldberg's theory is insane. The fact that no one is calling for her to be canned is telling.
Besson's comments came after he refused to sign a petition calling for Polanski's release. The Telegraph reports that 100 movie bigwigs have signed it so far.
Could Hollywood be any more removed from the people that they're trying to sell tickets to? This is rape, not shoplifting.
Here's a post I wrote a while back. I think it holds water:
Musing on Fans, April 6, 2009
I was doing some work last night and had the TV on in the background. The Academy of Country Music Awards was on. As company, it was good enough for me. During the broadcast, I heard the presenters and award recipients say the word "fans" dozens of times. Fans-this, fans-that. "I'd like to thank the fans." And, "If it wasn't for the fans, I wouldn't be here." And, "The fans made this song a hit." The speeches were maybe ten or fifteen seconds long, and all of them revolved around record labels, family, and fans.
Country music is good at marketing itself to the people that matter: the fans that buy albums and listen to the radio.
Contrast that with the Oscars, where the show is designed to prove how far the movie business has gone in alienating its audience. Every speech is about "me," followed by an endless string of names that the home audience has never heard of. Agents, script consultants, producers, on and on.
A few years back, Hilary Swank made the faux pas of forgetting to mention her husband during her Academy Award speech. She was knocked around for it by the rags. I asked: why? It was perfectly understandable. These people dispose of marriages like coffee cups. (Swank is since divorced).
After thanking their sycophants, movie stars then get on a soap box. You have the writer of Milk preaching for gay rights, Sean Penn thanking "Commies" and "homo lovers" for granting him the Best Actor award, and any number of stars bashing the former US President. When they're finished, they go to a ritzy after-party, get drunk, and sometimes drink and drive. Want to meet a movie star? Depends how much they've had to drink and how fast they're driving. Movie stars can afford to buy ten thousand BMWs, but not one chauffeur.
During this year's Oscars, I heard the word "fans" exactly twice, one time as a joke from Will Smith (he correctly observed that action movies are great because they have one thing that most Oscar contenders don't: fans). Someone else mentioned the fans almost by accident. And that was that. All of the other speeches were about people we've never seen and never will.
Think about that. A room full of people, rich because people buy tickets to watch what they do, and it never crosses their mind to thank the people buying the tickets.
It really is amazing that people still line up to meet movie stars, or ask for their autograph, or even go to the movies. We know these people don't give a damn about us. To paraphrase Warhol, they tell us how to think, how to vote, how to behave and, more importantly, how to look while we're behaving. We pay their salaries and treat them like royalty while they treat us with indifference. They'd just as soon never meet us, let alone shake our hands. But we love them.
Amazing. Amusing.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Whoopi Goldberg
This gave me a sick, creepy feeling. Watching someone split hairs about rape vs. rape-rape, whatever the hell that means. My comments follow.
Polanski's a good film director, and I like most of his movies. But he's a confessed rapist of a 13-year-old girl, and he skipped out before being sentenced. You can give his movies all the five stars you want, but facts are facts: he never paid for the crime of drugging and raping a girl.
Whoopi Goldberg goes for the gusto in defence of a Hollywood family member. First she gives us a strange definition of rape and rape-rape, then tells us that in some parts of the world, 13-year-olds are looked upon as fair game. Goldberg: "Well, you know, I have to tell you, again, we're, we're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, in the rest of Europe, they are seen often times--"
She was interrupted before finishing what would have been an abysmal statement. But you get her drift. She finally closes the point thus: "I do know that not everybody sees things the way that we see things."
Ah. Polanski got the shaft because US rape laws are too narrow for a hip Euro guy like Polanski.
This is disgusting.
They save the best for last, though, as all of The View ladies break every rule in the feminist handbook and blame the victim's mother and the victim herself for being with Polanski in the first place.
Two thoughts: If the exact same language had been used on Jay Leno or Glenn Beck's shows, the screams for a boycott would be deafening. Considering The View's target audience is primarily homemaking women who probably have kids, Goldberg should be canned.
Polanski's a good film director, and I like most of his movies. But he's a confessed rapist of a 13-year-old girl, and he skipped out before being sentenced. You can give his movies all the five stars you want, but facts are facts: he never paid for the crime of drugging and raping a girl.
Whoopi Goldberg goes for the gusto in defence of a Hollywood family member. First she gives us a strange definition of rape and rape-rape, then tells us that in some parts of the world, 13-year-olds are looked upon as fair game. Goldberg: "Well, you know, I have to tell you, again, we're, we're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, in the rest of Europe, they are seen often times--"
She was interrupted before finishing what would have been an abysmal statement. But you get her drift. She finally closes the point thus: "I do know that not everybody sees things the way that we see things."
Ah. Polanski got the shaft because US rape laws are too narrow for a hip Euro guy like Polanski.
This is disgusting.
They save the best for last, though, as all of The View ladies break every rule in the feminist handbook and blame the victim's mother and the victim herself for being with Polanski in the first place.
Two thoughts: If the exact same language had been used on Jay Leno or Glenn Beck's shows, the screams for a boycott would be deafening. Considering The View's target audience is primarily homemaking women who probably have kids, Goldberg should be canned.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Between the Lines
It's not his fault. They all do it. The hollow words, the meaningless threats, the tired warnings. That sound you hear is the roar of inevitability.
Ask North Korea. Threats and threats and threats. Then they made a nuke, test fired a missile into the Yellow Sea, and now nobody says boo. There they sit. The game's over.
The one guy who didn't follow the script was George W. Bush. Right or wrong, he did something after threats didn't work. It got him a two-term presidency, but it also got him lambasted as a dummy and an evil dictator the world over. Politicians want the former, but not at the price of the latter.
There's the big L word: legacy. Or the G word: guts. They don't always go together too well.
Some guys do well with their legacy by going the gutsy route, but it's so damn risky. Better to play it the easy way, the way most Western politicians do when faced with thugs.
Here's President Obama's weekly address from this morning. I'm reading between the lines:
Ask North Korea. Threats and threats and threats. Then they made a nuke, test fired a missile into the Yellow Sea, and now nobody says boo. There they sit. The game's over.
The one guy who didn't follow the script was George W. Bush. Right or wrong, he did something after threats didn't work. It got him a two-term presidency, but it also got him lambasted as a dummy and an evil dictator the world over. Politicians want the former, but not at the price of the latter.
There's the big L word: legacy. Or the G word: guts. They don't always go together too well.
Some guys do well with their legacy by going the gutsy route, but it's so damn risky. Better to play it the easy way, the way most Western politicians do when faced with thugs.
Here's President Obama's weekly address from this morning. I'm reading between the lines:
This week, we joined with the United Kingdom and France [this is NOT a unilateral decision] in presenting evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility to enrich uranium [this is different then the totally out in the open facility; they have two]. This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime [which didn't stop North Korea, but hey, there's always hope], and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion [please ignore the word "pattern," as it might make you believe that they won't change their tune after we ask pretty please]. That is why international negotiations [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency [as opposed to before; now it's important].
My offer of a serious, meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue remains open [no doubt the Iranian dictators will listen this time - because we're serious]. But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions [last month they shot women in the street for taking part in political demonstrations; the regime also hangs people for the crime of being gay; but now they have a chance to show their peaceful intentions; look, we all know this a load of bull, but I have to say this stuff].
On this, the international community [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] is more united than ever before. Yesterday, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] in condemning Iran’s program. In our meetings and public statements, President Medvedev of Russia and I agreed [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] that Iran must pursue a new course or face consequences. All of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], and Germany [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], have made it clear that Iran must fulfill its responsibilities [okay, okay; Iran doesn't have any responsibilities except to themselves, but we're going to pretend that they share the same world view as us. We're making it up. Easier that way].
Iran’s leaders must now choose [I hate using that 'with us/with the terrorists' language, but I wrote this first thing in the morning and I was still a little groggy. Don't ask me about it later] – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people [sure, this paragraph was full of beans, but cut me some slack. Iran doesn't have any responsibilities, true, and they don't care if they're isolated, fine, and they don't care about their own people, okay. But...well, what do you want me to say? It's all a farce, anyway].
These are the urgent threats of our time. And the United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation [this is NOT a unilateral decision, etc. Huh? Come again? Oh. How can there be international cooperation when nobody's cooperating? Search me.] to meet them. This new chapter will not be written in one week or even one year [sorry, but this my out. I know it's a bit slippery, but come on, there's nothing I can do about this stuff. Iran's going to get a nuke one way or the other. If they get it within a year, I need to be able to say that it was going to take more than a year to get international cooperation kick started. A week, a year, who cares? I'd say 'decade' but you'd think I flipped my lid]. But we have begun. And for the American people and the people of the world [in case you thought this was a unilateral decision], it will mean greater security and prosperity for years to come [in other words, we aren't going to accomplish jack; but it feels good to know that in some mystic future, you'll have a safe, secure life. Anybody got a glass of water?].
Friday, September 25, 2009
Pressure For Whom?
Jake Tapper:
Will Obama et al have have the stones to roll the dice like that? Unlikely. Obama has been saying for over a year that he's willing to have a chat with Iran. He said this even though he knew about the second secret reactor. So for him, this is just old news. When the US failed to condemn Ahmadinejad's "election" and the violence that followed, this sent a clear message: no matter what happens, we're still willing to talk. And talk. And talk. Which translates as "time."
At a stretch, I can one day see some cruise missiles or an Israeli airstrike. But a full-on, "Here's your pressure, jerkwad" invasion is a fantasy. And Ahmadinejad knows it.
This morning President Obama, French President Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will accuse Iran of building a clandestine underground nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, which Iran's leaders have hidden from weapons inspectors, senior administration officials tell ABC News...Uhhhh...How does this even remotely increase pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program? Saddam Hussein violated international law for years, ignored sanction after sanction, kicked weapons inspectors out of his country, and refused to say where his weapons of mass destruction were. So Bush invaded and bingo, people around the world called Bush's war illegal and dubbed him Hitler.
The president is expected to say that this news "increases pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program," a senior administration official tells ABC News. He will described "great and increasing doubts about the strictly peaceful nature of the program -- which is what the Iranians suggest."
Will Obama et al have have the stones to roll the dice like that? Unlikely. Obama has been saying for over a year that he's willing to have a chat with Iran. He said this even though he knew about the second secret reactor. So for him, this is just old news. When the US failed to condemn Ahmadinejad's "election" and the violence that followed, this sent a clear message: no matter what happens, we're still willing to talk. And talk. And talk. Which translates as "time."
At a stretch, I can one day see some cruise missiles or an Israeli airstrike. But a full-on, "Here's your pressure, jerkwad" invasion is a fantasy. And Ahmadinejad knows it.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
75 Years. In Case You Were Curious.
Reuters: A British store is launching a range of underpants for left-handed men, an innovation it says will save them both time and embarrassment in front of the porcelain.
The new range, by UK-based Hom, will have a horizontal opening instead of a vertical slit accessed from the right-hand side, breaking a tradition that has lasted for 75 years.
"In our view, this is a vital step toward equality for left-handed men," said Rob Faucherand of Debenhams store.
Harper
Well, maybe someone with a fancy title was reading the Twitter reports of women being gunned down in the streets of Tehran.
"It's Not Every Day They Get To Hang Out With Actual NFL Athletes."
The Detroit Lions haven't won a game this season.
If that has a familiar ring to it, it should. They didn't win a game last season, either.
NFL Players Mentor Troubled Detroit Lions
If that has a familiar ring to it, it should. They didn't win a game last season, either.
NFL Players Mentor Troubled Detroit Lions
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Frank Rich and Cindy Sheehan
Frank Rich pulls out all the stops on this one: Sarah Palin as Grand Wizard of the Klan. Joe Wilson stepping over the free speech line. People protesting against their government = violent rage. Joe Wilson giving carte blanche to the oh-so-many nutcases out there, and man, there's plenty of 'em.
Speaking of which, I have to tip my hat to Cindy Sheeehan. I thought she was just some loudmouth who would pipe down as soon as Bush left office. Turns out, she really is anti-war, no matter who is boss. This was Sheehan last month:
Funny, though. I don't hear much about her these days. It could have something to do with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's attitude: "Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."
Odd. A few years back, Charlie gave interviews to Sheehan with words like, "Mom Stands Her Ground," and "Can Anti-War Moms Stop Bush?" written on the screen.
Now it's, "Shut up, Cindy."
NYT: With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the “real America.” Joe Wilson may or may not be in that camp, but, either way, that’s not the news. As we watched and rewatched the South Carolina congressman’s star turn, what grabbed us was the act itself.Where was all this talk when Cindy Sheehan and thousands of others were protesting Bush at every turn?
What made the lone, piercing cry of “You lie!” shocking was that it breached a previously secure barrier. It was the first time that the violent rage surging in town-hall meetings all summer blasted into the same room as the president. Wilson’s televised shout was tantamount to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When he later explained that his behavior was “spontaneous” rather than premeditated, that was even more disturbing. It’s not good for the country that a lawmaker can’t control his anger at Barack Obama. It gives permission to crazy people.
Speaking of which, I have to tip my hat to Cindy Sheeehan. I thought she was just some loudmouth who would pipe down as soon as Bush left office. Turns out, she really is anti-war, no matter who is boss. This was Sheehan last month:
Cindy Sheehan and other antiwar activists held a press conference today at the Oak Bluffs School, where the White House press corps is working as its reports on President Obama during his vacation in Martha's VineyardWho knew that Cindy Sheehan would give me a cold slap of integrity right in the kisser?
Sheehan said that she's opposing Obama the same way she opposed George W. Bush. "The facade has changed but policies remain the same," she told reporters. "Integrity in our movement means we have to do same for Obama as we did for Bush."
Funny, though. I don't hear much about her these days. It could have something to do with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's attitude: "Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."
Odd. A few years back, Charlie gave interviews to Sheehan with words like, "Mom Stands Her Ground," and "Can Anti-War Moms Stop Bush?" written on the screen.
Now it's, "Shut up, Cindy."
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Crazy
AP: A criminally insane killer from eastern Washington is on the run after escaping during a field trip to the county fair that his mental hospital organized.
Why such a dangerous person was out in public was a question many, including Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, were asking as authorities searched for Phillip Arnold Paul...
Paul was committed after he was acquitted by reason of insanity in the 1987 slaying of an elderly woman, whose body he soaked in gasoline to throw off search dogs. Paul buried the woman's remains in her flower garden.
In 1991, Paul walked away during a day trip to a Washington lake and was later captured. He attacked a sheriff's deputy in the jail booking area, knocking him unconscious, and was convicted of first-degree escape and second-degree assault.
Why such a dangerous person was out in public was a question many, including Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, were asking as authorities searched for Phillip Arnold Paul...
Paul was committed after he was acquitted by reason of insanity in the 1987 slaying of an elderly woman, whose body he soaked in gasoline to throw off search dogs. Paul buried the woman's remains in her flower garden.
In 1991, Paul walked away during a day trip to a Washington lake and was later captured. He attacked a sheriff's deputy in the jail booking area, knocking him unconscious, and was convicted of first-degree escape and second-degree assault.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Most Trusted Name In News
It looks like it's "pick on the media day" over at Hot Air. I'll play along. They link to this clip of Wolf Blitzer taking part in Celebrity Jeopardy and...he doesn't do so well.
Wolf must have signed an ironclad contract with the guys at Jeopardy. I'm guessing his agent couldn't get the episode yanked.
(If you don't have time to watch the almost unwatchable beating, here's the gist: Andy Richter, the comic from The Tonight Show, utterly thrashes him. It's so bad, Wolf ends up with -$4600, and Trebek has to chuck him a lifeline. Fast forward to 7:02 for the embarrassing conclusion, though kudos to Richter for picking up $68000 for a children's hospital).
Wolf must have signed an ironclad contract with the guys at Jeopardy. I'm guessing his agent couldn't get the episode yanked.
(If you don't have time to watch the almost unwatchable beating, here's the gist: Andy Richter, the comic from The Tonight Show, utterly thrashes him. It's so bad, Wolf ends up with -$4600, and Trebek has to chuck him a lifeline. Fast forward to 7:02 for the embarrassing conclusion, though kudos to Richter for picking up $68000 for a children's hospital).
One Way Of Looking At It
The disgrace that is modern journalism bleats its horn again. The Washington Post:
What happened next was a scandal that has shaken ACORN to its core. O'Keefe and Giles secretly videoed ACORN workers in the District, Brooklyn and Baltimore as they coached the secret filmmakers on how to evade taxes and misrepresent the nature of their business enterprise to get into a home.
In the wake of a public outcry over Giles and O'Keefe's videos, which went viral on YouTube and conservative Web sites last week, Congress has taken action. Thursday the House voted 345 to 75 to defund the organization, handing conservative Republicans a major victory. They have long seen the liberal group -- which offers housing and other services, including voter registration, to the poor -- as a shady operation devoted to electing liberals and siphoning off taxpayer money for a permanent underclass.
Everything these days is framed as "blank" and "conservative." If a couple of liberal filmmakers had made a similar video, the first sentence of that second paragraph would read: In the wake of a public outcry over Giles and O'Keefe's videos, which went viral on YouTube and [the web] last week...
The hosannas about offering housing and "other services" to the poor is a laugh. Other services being advice on tax evasion and how to import child prostitutes from overseas. Great.
So far, four ACORN offices have been exposed coast to coast, and five ACORN staffers have been canned.
Other than that, nothing to see here, folks.
Good thing the videos went viral, otherwise you wouldn't have heard a word about it. As Jon Stewart said, he's embarrassed these two amateurs outscooped him and he's only pretending to be a journalist.
Aren't they all.
What happened next was a scandal that has shaken ACORN to its core. O'Keefe and Giles secretly videoed ACORN workers in the District, Brooklyn and Baltimore as they coached the secret filmmakers on how to evade taxes and misrepresent the nature of their business enterprise to get into a home.
In the wake of a public outcry over Giles and O'Keefe's videos, which went viral on YouTube and conservative Web sites last week, Congress has taken action. Thursday the House voted 345 to 75 to defund the organization, handing conservative Republicans a major victory. They have long seen the liberal group -- which offers housing and other services, including voter registration, to the poor -- as a shady operation devoted to electing liberals and siphoning off taxpayer money for a permanent underclass.
Everything these days is framed as "blank" and "conservative." If a couple of liberal filmmakers had made a similar video, the first sentence of that second paragraph would read: In the wake of a public outcry over Giles and O'Keefe's videos, which went viral on YouTube and [the web] last week...
The hosannas about offering housing and "other services" to the poor is a laugh. Other services being advice on tax evasion and how to import child prostitutes from overseas. Great.
So far, four ACORN offices have been exposed coast to coast, and five ACORN staffers have been canned.
Other than that, nothing to see here, folks.
Good thing the videos went viral, otherwise you wouldn't have heard a word about it. As Jon Stewart said, he's embarrassed these two amateurs outscooped him and he's only pretending to be a journalist.
Aren't they all.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
I Really Care About Nucle--Michael Jackson's Dead?
I was walking down the street a few minutes ago and heard some jackass blaring a radio from his mid-life-crisis Jeep. In a roundabout way this got me thinking that there hasn't been much trouble in the world lately. Weird connection, I know, but it went something like this: If a friend told me about a guy blaring a radio outside his house, I'd shrug and say, "Yeah, there's fools everywhere." But when Jeep Guy does it in front of my place, it becomes, "There's goddamn fools everywhere!"
The debacle in Myanmar a long time back - feels like long; it's been a year - proved to me that caring is about proximity, both in time and place. Modern media has the power to make every place on the planet seem like it's right next door, if only for a few minutes. The tsunami (or was it an earthquake?) in Myanmar was on everybody's minds last year. The president had to do something, we had to raise money to help the people. Even peaceniks were saying that an invasion would be proper, to topple the government in Myanmar because the thugs weren't feeding their people.
And it all went away. Just like that. I have to assume that Myanmar's people are still living in abject poverty and that their rulers are still thugs. But I haven't received a chain-email request for money in a long, long time, and nobody on Facebook has the word "Myanmar" on their profile, declaring that we need to help these people. In a strange way, Myanmar just ceased to exist.
Maxim: time doesn't heal all wounds; it heals our wounds.
Caring is about proximity and time. The 9/11 memorials prove that. 8 years on and there's token gestures of remembrance, but not too many moments of silence in the office. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor warrants an occasional hat tip on the evening news, and in fact if it wasn't for the evening news' hat tip, nobody would remember the date of Pearl Harbour. And when's the last time somebody asked us to remember the dead from Waterloo? When women were being gunned down in Iran a couple of months ago, everybody was glued to the Twitter reports. Now, nothing.
Time. Proximity. They're all that matters when it comes to caring. Tornado in Kansas? Interesting. Tornado on my street? Terrifying. The thug states of the world understand this better than anyone. Give people enough time and they will forget everything. The further away the "crisis," the faster they'll forget. Nowadays, it only takes a few weeks, even less if a pop star dies.
Not that any of this is all bad. We'd be basket cases if we wandered around for the rest of our lives feeling exactly as we did the moment after something traumatic happened. But I do laugh when people screech how concerned they are with far flung places on the earth that are going through a hard time. My answer? "Call me in a year." There's no chance they will. (Incidentally, I Googled "Myanmar," clicked the news link, and was greeted with the today's headlines: Seven Bomb Blasts in Myanmar. Apparently no one was hurt. In other news: Myanmar Doubles Political Arrests; Elections a Sham, Group Says).
So there I was walking down the street thinking about this kind of stuff, and then I flicked to Drudge and it suddenly seemed prescient or at least apropos:
Czechs and Poles expressed rancor and relief Thursday that President Barack Obama had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield on their territories, reflecting deep divisions over a proposal that had also enraged Russia..."Considering Iran as a threat has been a wrong policy since the beginning," said Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for Iran's influential parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy. "Iran has said that it is ready to discuss and share responsibilities in global security."
Whether it's a good or bad idea isn't my point. Fact is, a decision like this doesn't happen the day after 9/11, but it does happen 8 years after 9/11. That's life. Always the way it goes. A little bit of quiet - besides, you know, the odd missile from North Korea landing in the ocean - and things like missile shields seem unnecessary and kind of silly to people with an Everyone's Beautiful In Their Own Way bent. The administration says that they're not really scrapping missile defense, they're redesigning it. Doesn't sound so bad. Besides, if the Russians and Iranians agree with it, then it must be a good idea.
Proximity and time. Thugs building missiles in Iran? A little nervous. Thug loading a shotgun outside my door? A lot nervous.
Should you care about Iranian missiles and American defense shields? Depends what happens next. See you on Facebook.
The debacle in Myanmar a long time back - feels like long; it's been a year - proved to me that caring is about proximity, both in time and place. Modern media has the power to make every place on the planet seem like it's right next door, if only for a few minutes. The tsunami (or was it an earthquake?) in Myanmar was on everybody's minds last year. The president had to do something, we had to raise money to help the people. Even peaceniks were saying that an invasion would be proper, to topple the government in Myanmar because the thugs weren't feeding their people.
And it all went away. Just like that. I have to assume that Myanmar's people are still living in abject poverty and that their rulers are still thugs. But I haven't received a chain-email request for money in a long, long time, and nobody on Facebook has the word "Myanmar" on their profile, declaring that we need to help these people. In a strange way, Myanmar just ceased to exist.
Maxim: time doesn't heal all wounds; it heals our wounds.
Caring is about proximity and time. The 9/11 memorials prove that. 8 years on and there's token gestures of remembrance, but not too many moments of silence in the office. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor warrants an occasional hat tip on the evening news, and in fact if it wasn't for the evening news' hat tip, nobody would remember the date of Pearl Harbour. And when's the last time somebody asked us to remember the dead from Waterloo? When women were being gunned down in Iran a couple of months ago, everybody was glued to the Twitter reports. Now, nothing.
Time. Proximity. They're all that matters when it comes to caring. Tornado in Kansas? Interesting. Tornado on my street? Terrifying. The thug states of the world understand this better than anyone. Give people enough time and they will forget everything. The further away the "crisis," the faster they'll forget. Nowadays, it only takes a few weeks, even less if a pop star dies.
Not that any of this is all bad. We'd be basket cases if we wandered around for the rest of our lives feeling exactly as we did the moment after something traumatic happened. But I do laugh when people screech how concerned they are with far flung places on the earth that are going through a hard time. My answer? "Call me in a year." There's no chance they will. (Incidentally, I Googled "Myanmar," clicked the news link, and was greeted with the today's headlines: Seven Bomb Blasts in Myanmar. Apparently no one was hurt. In other news: Myanmar Doubles Political Arrests; Elections a Sham, Group Says).
So there I was walking down the street thinking about this kind of stuff, and then I flicked to Drudge and it suddenly seemed prescient or at least apropos:
Czechs and Poles expressed rancor and relief Thursday that President Barack Obama had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield on their territories, reflecting deep divisions over a proposal that had also enraged Russia..."Considering Iran as a threat has been a wrong policy since the beginning," said Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for Iran's influential parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy. "Iran has said that it is ready to discuss and share responsibilities in global security."
Whether it's a good or bad idea isn't my point. Fact is, a decision like this doesn't happen the day after 9/11, but it does happen 8 years after 9/11. That's life. Always the way it goes. A little bit of quiet - besides, you know, the odd missile from North Korea landing in the ocean - and things like missile shields seem unnecessary and kind of silly to people with an Everyone's Beautiful In Their Own Way bent. The administration says that they're not really scrapping missile defense, they're redesigning it. Doesn't sound so bad. Besides, if the Russians and Iranians agree with it, then it must be a good idea.
Proximity and time. Thugs building missiles in Iran? A little nervous. Thug loading a shotgun outside my door? A lot nervous.
Should you care about Iranian missiles and American defense shields? Depends what happens next. See you on Facebook.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Your Daily Preening (II) - Updated
In the previous post I had a few extra paragraphs and then I deleted them. Race is a touchy subject and I'd said my bit. The paragraphs I deleted were about noticing that a lot of people are bringing up racism vis-a-vis the president, but that I haven't seen any overt examples of racism to back up the claims. I went on for a bit and then stopped. Racism is stupid, and I know it when I see it. I'd said enough. [I caught some email flack over this, of the "Chicken," variety. The deleted paragraphs were wiped out during the draft, not in response to criticism. My point was that writing about phony racism is boring if you spend too long on it. There's nothing you can say to make someone change their mind if they see a bigot around every corner].
In this clip below, NBC finds a couple of lame swastika signs which I suppose could be about race. If you've read this blog then you'll know my feelings on the Nazis and their symbol. Idiots use the swastika these days for all kinds of things, some of them race, but mostly because they think someone's an overbearing jerk. Their boss is a Nazi. Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi." Bush is a Nazi. Everybody they don't like - Right or Left - is a Nazi. The Nazi name and its symbol have become jest. Is that good or bad? You tell me. Anyway, in this case I think the boneheads with Nazi signs are just that: boneheads with Nazi signs. I don't figure race has anything to do with it. It seems every mass rally for any event on Earth comes with a few token Nazi signs.
New York governor Paterson has said that the word "socialist" is racist. Kurtz wrote today that "communist" and "like Russia" are racist. The Obama "Socialism" sign is supposedly racist, and Maureen Dowd claims that Rep. Wilson is racist for calling Mr. Obama a liar.
I guess this is going to be the way it is from here on out, and it's shameful for the media to push it this hard with such a lack of evidence. It's self perpetuating: if you call something racist, people will avoid using it, therefore why not start calling everything racist? If "socialism" is racist and "liar" is racist, what's next? But that's probably the point.
Six months ago a great many people celebrated the first black president in US history. 6 months later, politicians and network newsies are claiming the country is overrun by the Klan.
Jimmy Carter has weighed in. He adds more fuel to the fire by claiming that yes, the furor over Mr. Obama from his opponents is simply racism.
This is irresponsible stuff from writers and politicians alike. Before the Iraq invasion, I remember millions of people around the world marching against Bush's war. People were mad as hell. They called him every name in the book. I was in Italy at the time, and the stuff they were writing on the walls about Bush (Italians love their graffiti) was mean and dirty. But that's life: when people are mad, they say so. Now, though, it's all being summed up as simply 'racism.' This doesn't bode well.
If someone is a racist, they deserve scorn and ridicule. But if someone has a real beef about something and wants to speak his mind, nothing could anger or alienate them more than being told their words aren't worth listening to because it's just bigotry. This kind of stuff can only divide people further. I don't like where it's heading.
In this clip below, NBC finds a couple of lame swastika signs which I suppose could be about race. If you've read this blog then you'll know my feelings on the Nazis and their symbol. Idiots use the swastika these days for all kinds of things, some of them race, but mostly because they think someone's an overbearing jerk. Their boss is a Nazi. Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi." Bush is a Nazi. Everybody they don't like - Right or Left - is a Nazi. The Nazi name and its symbol have become jest. Is that good or bad? You tell me. Anyway, in this case I think the boneheads with Nazi signs are just that: boneheads with Nazi signs. I don't figure race has anything to do with it. It seems every mass rally for any event on Earth comes with a few token Nazi signs.
New York governor Paterson has said that the word "socialist" is racist. Kurtz wrote today that "communist" and "like Russia" are racist. The Obama "Socialism" sign is supposedly racist, and Maureen Dowd claims that Rep. Wilson is racist for calling Mr. Obama a liar.
I guess this is going to be the way it is from here on out, and it's shameful for the media to push it this hard with such a lack of evidence. It's self perpetuating: if you call something racist, people will avoid using it, therefore why not start calling everything racist? If "socialism" is racist and "liar" is racist, what's next? But that's probably the point.
Six months ago a great many people celebrated the first black president in US history. 6 months later, politicians and network newsies are claiming the country is overrun by the Klan.
Jimmy Carter has weighed in. He adds more fuel to the fire by claiming that yes, the furor over Mr. Obama from his opponents is simply racism.
This is irresponsible stuff from writers and politicians alike. Before the Iraq invasion, I remember millions of people around the world marching against Bush's war. People were mad as hell. They called him every name in the book. I was in Italy at the time, and the stuff they were writing on the walls about Bush (Italians love their graffiti) was mean and dirty. But that's life: when people are mad, they say so. Now, though, it's all being summed up as simply 'racism.' This doesn't bode well.
If someone is a racist, they deserve scorn and ridicule. But if someone has a real beef about something and wants to speak his mind, nothing could anger or alienate them more than being told their words aren't worth listening to because it's just bigotry. This kind of stuff can only divide people further. I don't like where it's heading.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Your Daily Preening
Howard Kurtz:
Is it racial?
Are the protesters, tea-partiers, birthers, deathers, doomsayers and hecklers motivated, at least in part, by a distinct discomfort with the country's first black president?
Or is that a smear against disgruntled Americans who have every right to express their dissent?
There is no definitive answer, of course, since we are talking about millions of people, from Joe Wilson, the disrespectful congressman who's now raised $700,000 for his "you lie" outburst, to the woman who told Arlen Specter that Obama is trying to transform the US of A "into Russia, into a socialist country."
But I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about "the Constitution" and "taking our country back." Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there's a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.
You started wondering about racism when you heard people shouting about the Constitution? Sure wouldn't want those critics to shout about "the Constitution." That's dangerous talk, all right.
There is not one bit of racism in any of Kurtz's examples of disgruntled people. Nada. As for the "taking our country back" stuff, I assume two things: 1) people are going with the "Congress shall make no law" stuff and running with it, and 2) they might not understand the constitution any better than the people who said George W. Bush was shredding the thing on a daily basis.
The Left wanted to "take the country back" since 2000, when Dubya "stole" the election. Hey, buddy, is that a white trash smear?
Talking about racism when there's no evidence of it is lazy and boring.
Is it racial?
Are the protesters, tea-partiers, birthers, deathers, doomsayers and hecklers motivated, at least in part, by a distinct discomfort with the country's first black president?
Or is that a smear against disgruntled Americans who have every right to express their dissent?
There is no definitive answer, of course, since we are talking about millions of people, from Joe Wilson, the disrespectful congressman who's now raised $700,000 for his "you lie" outburst, to the woman who told Arlen Specter that Obama is trying to transform the US of A "into Russia, into a socialist country."
But I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about "the Constitution" and "taking our country back." Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there's a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.
You started wondering about racism when you heard people shouting about the Constitution? Sure wouldn't want those critics to shout about "the Constitution." That's dangerous talk, all right.
There is not one bit of racism in any of Kurtz's examples of disgruntled people. Nada. As for the "taking our country back" stuff, I assume two things: 1) people are going with the "Congress shall make no law" stuff and running with it, and 2) they might not understand the constitution any better than the people who said George W. Bush was shredding the thing on a daily basis.
The Left wanted to "take the country back" since 2000, when Dubya "stole" the election. Hey, buddy, is that a white trash smear?
Talking about racism when there's no evidence of it is lazy and boring.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Get The Net. A Sports Guy Thinks He's A Journalist Again (II)
Uh-oh. Another sports "journalist" thinks he's a journalist.
Mike Lupica used to appear on ESPN to talk like a know-it-all and come off like same. For all I know, he still does. But in this piece for the NY Daily News he decides to go deep, then get outraged:
Human being are a political animal. We like to scream about politics, and sometimes we say outrageous things. Lupica's only upset because after a half-dozen years of Bush being called Hitler, it's now his guy that's getting yelled at.
There's a danger in sarcasm. You need to be good at it or you look kind of stupid. Lupica's words, with my immediate thoughts: "This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is [you just said who he is], thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar [he doesn't think he can - he can, and he did], Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help [Mike would know?], or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink [so that's how you're supposed to ask waitresses for another round - you yell "Liar!"]."
Sports "journalists" are good for a laugh. In this case I got a double dip: amusing sanctinomy with a side dish of bad metaphor.
Mike Lupica used to appear on ESPN to talk like a know-it-all and come off like same. For all I know, he still does. But in this piece for the NY Daily News he decides to go deep, then get outraged:
Across from the World Trade Center site there were more flowers than usual outside Engine 10, Ladder 10, the legendary New York firehouse known as Ten House. There are always more flowers, and signs, and photographs and flags, when there is another anniversary of Sept. 11.OK. Good start. But wait...
We promised ourselves we were going to be a better city and a better country because of what happened. We told ourselves that we knew what really mattered now. In the aftermath of the worst day the city and the country had known, we promised to find the best in ourselves, and in each other.Ah, get bent. Screaming about politics has been going on forever. It took a break for a few weeks after 9/11, and then it came back. Did anyone think it wouldn't?
And on this most recent anniversary of Sept. 11, the country seems as full of hate and noise as it has ever been. This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.
Human being are a political animal. We like to scream about politics, and sometimes we say outrageous things. Lupica's only upset because after a half-dozen years of Bush being called Hitler, it's now his guy that's getting yelled at.
There's a danger in sarcasm. You need to be good at it or you look kind of stupid. Lupica's words, with my immediate thoughts: "This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is [you just said who he is], thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar [he doesn't think he can - he can, and he did], Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help [Mike would know?], or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink [so that's how you're supposed to ask waitresses for another round - you yell "Liar!"]."
Sports "journalists" are good for a laugh. In this case I got a double dip: amusing sanctinomy with a side dish of bad metaphor.
Life's Overrated
I think Sarah Palin hit it on the head with the "death panel" thing. Her opponents see it as demagoguery, but they keep coming around to it. They call it "end of life care," or, as Evan Thomas puts it (without uttering the dreaded Palin's name), "Although demagogued as a 'death panel,' a program in Wisconsin to get patients to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death was actually a resounding success."
Well, what exactly is a "program to get people to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death?" If that's not a death panel, what is? I guess you could call it a death group, or a death meeting, but it's all the same thing: old people sitting around with their doctors talking about buying the farm.
That's the thing about dummies like Palin. They're so dumb, they have to say things simply so that they make sense. How provincial. In the world of big thinkers, death panel will lose against program in Wisconsin every time.
In Thomas' latest piece he uses his dying and now dead mother as an example. It's tough to go after a guy when he does something like that, but at the risk of being heartless, let's look at what he says:
The next time you're at the hospital, don't ask if they can save your life. Ask if they can make sure not to overtreat you.
Pretty much gives the whole game away, doesn't it? He doesn't say "death panel," nor does he say "rationing," but it's all in there. He is quite literally saying that the best way to bring down the cost of health care is to save money on keeping old people alive.
Palin was right. With ObamaCare there will be death panels. If that makes you uncomfortable, just call them something else. Rationalize while you're rationing. Or for the love of Pete, just learn to think of death properly. Thomas: "Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable."
He's right. Death is more than science. It's dollars and sense. Ready to do your part?
Well, what exactly is a "program to get people to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death?" If that's not a death panel, what is? I guess you could call it a death group, or a death meeting, but it's all the same thing: old people sitting around with their doctors talking about buying the farm.
That's the thing about dummies like Palin. They're so dumb, they have to say things simply so that they make sense. How provincial. In the world of big thinkers, death panel will lose against program in Wisconsin every time.
In Thomas' latest piece he uses his dying and now dead mother as an example. It's tough to go after a guy when he does something like that, but at the risk of being heartless, let's look at what he says:
There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients. In his address to Congress, President Obama spoke airily about reducing inefficiency, but he slid past the hard choices that will have to be made to stop health care from devouring ever-larger slices of the economy and tax dollar. A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that's where the money is.
The next time you're at the hospital, don't ask if they can save your life. Ask if they can make sure not to overtreat you.
Pretty much gives the whole game away, doesn't it? He doesn't say "death panel," nor does he say "rationing," but it's all in there. He is quite literally saying that the best way to bring down the cost of health care is to save money on keeping old people alive.
Palin was right. With ObamaCare there will be death panels. If that makes you uncomfortable, just call them something else. Rationalize while you're rationing. Or for the love of Pete, just learn to think of death properly. Thomas: "Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable."
He's right. Death is more than science. It's dollars and sense. Ready to do your part?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Google Who?
This one brings back memories. When I lived in South Africa, it was a living hell trying to find a) a place with internet, and b) a place with internet that worked. As for installing it in your house, forget it. It took two months for the phone guys to show up and put in a line.
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A South African information technology company on Wednesday proved it was faster for them to transmit data with a carrier pigeon than to send it using Telkom , the country's leading internet service provider.
Internet speed and connectivity in Africa's largest economy are poor because of a bandwidth shortage. It is also expensive.
Local news agency SAPA reported the 11-month-old pigeon, Winston, took one hour and eight minutes to fly the 80 km (50 miles) from Unlimited IT's offices near Pietermaritzburg to the coastal city of Durban with a data card was strapped to his leg.
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A South African information technology company on Wednesday proved it was faster for them to transmit data with a carrier pigeon than to send it using Telkom , the country's leading internet service provider.
Internet speed and connectivity in Africa's largest economy are poor because of a bandwidth shortage. It is also expensive.
Local news agency SAPA reported the 11-month-old pigeon, Winston, took one hour and eight minutes to fly the 80 km (50 miles) from Unlimited IT's offices near Pietermaritzburg to the coastal city of Durban with a data card was strapped to his leg.
CNN Screws Up. Blames Everybody Else.
The righteous indignation in this piece from CNN is a joke. They got caught reporting a story that wasn't a story, and boy are they angry:
I agree with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: "Before we report things like this, checking would be good," Gibbs said.
Responding directly to a CNN reporter's question about whether the public should have been notified about a training exercise, Gibbs was harshly sarcastic: "If anybody was unnecessarily alarmed based on erroneous reporting that denoted that shots had been fired, I think everybody is apologetic about that."
When another journalist noted that the Coast Guard was holding a news conference to take questions on the morning's events, Gibbs jabbed: "Hopefully CNN will go."
I've seen some pieces asking why the Coast Guard would hold such an exercise on the anniverary of 9/11. Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a Friday. Maybe they were due for a refresher. Maybe they just felt like it. Point is, it's good to have the military work on their training no matter what day of the week it is. The only reason this story made the news is because CNN reported that shots had been fired - and they hadn't.
I agree with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: "Before we report things like this, checking would be good," Gibbs said.
Responding directly to a CNN reporter's question about whether the public should have been notified about a training exercise, Gibbs was harshly sarcastic: "If anybody was unnecessarily alarmed based on erroneous reporting that denoted that shots had been fired, I think everybody is apologetic about that."
When another journalist noted that the Coast Guard was holding a news conference to take questions on the morning's events, Gibbs jabbed: "Hopefully CNN will go."
I've seen some pieces asking why the Coast Guard would hold such an exercise on the anniverary of 9/11. Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a Friday. Maybe they were due for a refresher. Maybe they just felt like it. Point is, it's good to have the military work on their training no matter what day of the week it is. The only reason this story made the news is because CNN reported that shots had been fired - and they hadn't.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
"Case of the Month"
America always goes bigger.
The ball's rolling on human rights stuff down in the US. Their payouts make Canada's human rights game look like the minor leagues:
Star-Tribune: Four years after Abercrombie & Fitch refused to let a teenager help her autistic sister try on clothes at its Mall of America store, state officials have fined the company $115,264 for discriminating against a disabled person. The hefty penalty from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights pleased the Maxson family of Apple Valley, which was forced to push hard for satisfaction after the retailing giant refused to apologize for the incident and even questioned whether the girl was disabled. The fine was levied in June but made public this month...
Note that the state also gets their pound of flesh:
In her ruling, Sheehy concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act and ordered the company to pay the girl $25,000 and cover the family's attorney fees of $41,069. The company had to pay the state a $25,000 fine and cover other expenses totaling $24,194.
The human rights department is pretty proud of it, too. They list it on their website as the Case of the Month. You'll also be able to find it in their newsletter, The Rights Stuff. Catchy.
The ball's rolling on human rights stuff down in the US. Their payouts make Canada's human rights game look like the minor leagues:
Star-Tribune: Four years after Abercrombie & Fitch refused to let a teenager help her autistic sister try on clothes at its Mall of America store, state officials have fined the company $115,264 for discriminating against a disabled person. The hefty penalty from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights pleased the Maxson family of Apple Valley, which was forced to push hard for satisfaction after the retailing giant refused to apologize for the incident and even questioned whether the girl was disabled. The fine was levied in June but made public this month...
Note that the state also gets their pound of flesh:
In her ruling, Sheehy concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act and ordered the company to pay the girl $25,000 and cover the family's attorney fees of $41,069. The company had to pay the state a $25,000 fine and cover other expenses totaling $24,194.
The human rights department is pretty proud of it, too. They list it on their website as the Case of the Month. You'll also be able to find it in their newsletter, The Rights Stuff. Catchy.
Jump Spin
Drudge points out a pretty good way of making sure that something turns out all right in the end. Here's CNN:
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
14 points in one night? That's a hell of jump. Must have been a killer speech. But wait. What's this fine print at the bottom of the page...
The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican.
Oh.
It's been a while since I had fun with pollsters, and so, some more Poll Vaulting:
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
14 points in one night? That's a hell of jump. Must have been a killer speech. But wait. What's this fine print at the bottom of the page...
The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican.
Oh.
It's been a while since I had fun with pollsters, and so, some more Poll Vaulting:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)