Before moving on to Jodie Foster, a few comments about the politics of the day.
I am one of those people who tends to blame EVERYTHING on George Bush...the war in Iraq, the health care mess, the economy, deficit spendiing, the weather, etc.
So, in that vein, here's the following:
"Hello, Vladmir?"
"Yes, George. What may I do for you today?"
"Well, Vladmir, we've got another problem with the news cycle."
"Again, George?"
"Yeah, well, Karl's been running loose again."
"Ah...I see. What is the problem?"
"Well, he put out this phony story about McCain and its on the verge of being traced back to him. We need to get it off the front pages ASAP."
"Hmmm? Why would Karl put out a phony story on McCain? I thought he was the presumptive nominee of your Party?"
"Yeah...it's kinda complicated...maybe I'd better put Karl on the line. You know, I really don't like to get into details. I am the Chief Decider. Delegate is what I say. Delegate and then look into their eyes, right Valdmir?"
"You are a wise and courageous man George. I have learned much from you. Now, put Karl on."
"Hi, Vladmir. We haven't talked in a while..."
"Not since Dan Rather, Karl. What is it this time?"
"Well, Vladmir, we put out this story on McCain, via the New York Times, that implied he's had an affair with a lobbyist."
"Ah...a man?"
"No...no Vladmir...a woman lobbyist, who represented clients he did favors for."
"And this is a damaging story? I don't see the scandal."
"Actually, Vladmir, that's sort of the point...there is no point...no real scandal."
"I'm not sure I'm following."
"Yes...well...it was basically a pointless story, but the story would dominate the news cycle and could never actually hurt McCain, because it wasn't true."
"Ah. And why would you want to dominate the news cycle with a false story about your Party's nominee?"
"To help Hillary."
"Ah...the hated Billary. But why would you want to help your rival?"
"Because we'd rather run against her than Obama and she's in very deep doo-doo at the moment. Even Bill has said that unless she can win in the Texas and Ohio primaries, she's out."
"Yes...and how does this relate to the McCain story?"
"That's the clever part...he'll be on the front page instead of Obama. If Obama keeps dominating the news, he's liable to win the Democratic nomination. It really shuts down the Big Mo for him."
"Ah yes...the all important Big Mo. I see...you are attacking McCain with a story that will be proven false, to prevent Obama from winning the Democratic nomination, giving the nomination to your arch foe Hillary Clinton, whom you expect McCain to beat."
"Well, Vladmir, it's a little more complicated than that, because no one expects McCain to actually win, even if the Democrats ran Donald Duck...but that's sort of the general idea at the moment. You know what we say...control the process; control the result."
"Hmmm? Your democracy works in strange ways, but we are trying to learn. So, what can I do for you?
"Well...we were thinking about a small fire at the U.S. embassy in Belgrade. Nothing serious. No one gets hurt...just set a few fires, break some furniture, that sort of thing."
"It can be done...with no more than a few cases of good Russian Vodka in the right hands, but how does it help?"
"It will take the McCain story off the front pages."
"But I thought you wanted it on the front pages?"
"We did, but not at the expense of an investigation at the New York Times that exposes our connection."
"Ah...but Judith Miller is gone...you have a second mole at the Times?"
"The Vice President hasn't authorized me to reveal that, Valdmir. Let's just say the McCain story threatens to outlive its usefulness, but we don't want to go back to Obama."
"Karl...you make us blush with envy at your talent for misdirection. Our forgery of the Rather letters about George worked well, no?"
"Perfect Vladmir. Once the letters were exposed as forgeries, no one ever questioned the content. We forged the truth. Perfect."
"Well, we try and be helpful. You may count on Belgrade. Goodbye Karl."
"Would you like to say goodbye to George?"
"No, that won't be necessary. We've looked into each others eyes and have seen our souls."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
"The Brave One" with Jodie Foster
"The Brave One" is the liberal, feminist remake of Bronson's "Death Wish" series. Proving, I suppose, that women are as capable as men of doing evil things, but they struggle with them more.
Foster plays a Manhattanite who, while walking the dog in Central Park with her fiance, is beaten, the dog stolen and her fiance murdered. After several weeks of trying to cope with this, she buys a gun and becomes a vigilantte. Similar to Bronson in "Death Wish I," her first experience is accidential...i.e. she gets into a bad situation and defends herself, killing her attacker. Unlike Bronson, however, the "accidents" keep reoccuring and she just keeps shooting. [In Bronson's case, it only takes a single incident to put him in the "hunt."] At the end, and after four or five "accidents," she finds her fiance's killers and takes them all out, although not without remorse and abit of luck in being trailed by a street-wise and understanding cop. Does she get her dog back? I won't say and spoil the film for you.
Intellectual depth is presumably shown through Foster's struggle with herself on whether or not to keep killing. She understands, at some level, that what she is doing is "wrong" but just can't keep from doing what, on another level, she believes is right.
The question posed is how do good people survive in the face of evil without becoming evil themselves?
I am not sure there are any breakthrough moral issues here. In fact, the film could be easily interpreted as saying: "If you believe, in your heart, that revenge is OK; it's OK as long as you worry and fret about it." Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth trumps turning the other cheek.
But, it's probably a reasonable portrayal of approximately where Christians stand today.
Foster plays a Manhattanite who, while walking the dog in Central Park with her fiance, is beaten, the dog stolen and her fiance murdered. After several weeks of trying to cope with this, she buys a gun and becomes a vigilantte. Similar to Bronson in "Death Wish I," her first experience is accidential...i.e. she gets into a bad situation and defends herself, killing her attacker. Unlike Bronson, however, the "accidents" keep reoccuring and she just keeps shooting. [In Bronson's case, it only takes a single incident to put him in the "hunt."] At the end, and after four or five "accidents," she finds her fiance's killers and takes them all out, although not without remorse and abit of luck in being trailed by a street-wise and understanding cop. Does she get her dog back? I won't say and spoil the film for you.
Intellectual depth is presumably shown through Foster's struggle with herself on whether or not to keep killing. She understands, at some level, that what she is doing is "wrong" but just can't keep from doing what, on another level, she believes is right.
The question posed is how do good people survive in the face of evil without becoming evil themselves?
I am not sure there are any breakthrough moral issues here. In fact, the film could be easily interpreted as saying: "If you believe, in your heart, that revenge is OK; it's OK as long as you worry and fret about it." Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth trumps turning the other cheek.
But, it's probably a reasonable portrayal of approximately where Christians stand today.
"The Invasion" with Nicole Kidman and the Meaning of Life As We Know It
Briefly, "The Invasion" is about some alien organism that infects earth via the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Presumably, this method of infection is due to the destruction of the vehicle over Texas, preventing the Shuttle from going through a normal "detox" procedure following a successful landing. This also gives the film a "sense of believability" and allows the use of a lot of inexpensive film footage obtained from networks and NASA.
The "infection" causes humans to behave like robots, with the loss of human emotions. Although there is apparently some "intelligence" behind this and some ill-defined goal, the primary one seems to be "inclusiveness" - i.e. to infect everyone on earth and eliminate human emotion. The government tries to prevent the infection from spreading, while they search for an antidode at some heavily guarded facility. But, since the infection seems to manifest itself during sleep, their efforts initially fail. Most of the film regards Kidman trying to stay awake and avoid infection, while trying to get to "home base" and safety. During the course of all of this, there are a couple of "think about it" scenes, wherein the infected explain to Kidman how great it all is and how much better off we'd all be without emotions. In one scene, an aspen grove is used as an example of interdependency, although, as you may imagine, the direct link between aspen groves and human emotions is somewhat glossed over.
Along the way, Kidman's boy friend is infected and turns against her and the climax of the film comes when Kidman learns that the alternative to infection must be death (i.e. accept the interdependency of the aspen grove and join the team or die, because "group think" cannot withstand individuality). Of course, Kidman escapes, reaches the government facility, discovers the antidode, and "humans" win.
My first thought about all of this was this must be a theme born in the mind of fellow Australian actor Mel Gibson. Who else would revive the old cold war "Body Snatchers" theme of individualism vs. collectivism? This is the "me vs. we" debate and as such becomes vaguely relevant to evolution, Christianity, politics, etc.
However, before I launch into this relevancy, a bit on my personal background thinking.
First of all, in an increasingly populated and complex world, I confess that I have a shade of bias in favor of Zombies. I have come to conclude that the main goal of life - in any form - is to a) stay alive and b) in failing to do that for eternity, perpetuate the species. This is the one, single goal all living things seem to, for the most part unconsciously, share. If our "human emotions" have not evolved to a point wherein we are biologically capable of supressing individual emotions that threaten to destroy the species, then it just may be time to rethink exactly which emotions are necessary (such as love) and which are not (such as hate).
For the Huckabees amongst us (and Libertarians), the key word in the above is "evolved." I must also confess, that I am a "believer" in evolution. Is evolution certain? Probably not, but it appears to me the vast amount of scientific evidence falls on its side. The three "certainties" in my thinking are probability, logic and change. In other words, "change" is a given and through probability, we are able to logically and reasonably predict the effects of change.
In turn, these "predictions" allow us, to one degree or another, to "adapt" and adaptation is the apparent key to species survival.
Neither individuals or species may survive truly "alone." Even the rare species capable of self-reproduction rely on their environment for their survival. Individually, most of us are biologically "wired" for reproduction, but species survival is an awareness we must come to intellectually. So, as we climbed down out of the trees and "evolved" to our present circumstances, there has been this constant tension between what is good for "me" versus what is good for "we."
I suspect that which predominates at any given time is highly situational, but that within the broad sweep of human history there have been long periods in which a given orientation did, in fact, dominate. I would distinguish these periods of "me" and "we" historical orientations with structures and processes. "Me's" create structures which lead to "we" processes. And, while this has been a far from perfect history, it has generally worked well in that "we" as a species are still here. To date, human emotions, as destructive as they may be on occasion, have not resulted in the termination of the species itself...but no bets on the future.
I think one reason for this may have been religion, which may have been a way of intellectualizing the "we" side of the argument...i.e. the existence of a superior being is secondary to the effect such a possibility has on human psychology. With all of its follies, "religion" has in a curious way acted as a "brake" on the "me's" in human history, by introducing a "power" beyond ourselves as individuals and, in a curious way, is species survival insurance. Life after death, to me, is a present awareness that regardless of whatever may happen to me, as an individual, the species will continue. It is the "promise" of life everlasting and a means of overcoming the greatest of individual fears, non-existence.
This intellectualizing religion - whatever religion it may be - is/was a complex process in itself. For the vast majority of individuals, throughout most of human history, life has been "short and brutish." Some type of "promise" in the form of religion may have been necessary to the evolution of human behavior in our relatively lengthy care for our young, which in turn, contributed to our overall intellectual development [Note: This doesn't exclude a basic biological predisposition toward some basic after birth care, but as we have "evolved" this period of care seems to have extended to both pre-birth and after birth care and in a curious way is what anti-abortionists on the right and anti-individualist responsibility adherents on the left have in common].
While it seems to me that all religions offer "something" to their followers, as one who espouses basic Christian ethics, if not the hierarchy and events of Christianity, I "believe" the message of Christianity is to suggest that we arrived at a point of "re-evaluation" of the me vs. we controversy approximately 2000 years ago. I believe Jesus came to understand, in the wake of human agricultural and technological advances, that the "threat" to human species survival lies not in nature external to us but within ourselves, or in other words, that we are, in fact, part of nature, not separate from it.
This "thought," which may indeed have been far ahead of its time, was expressed in what might be termed the 11th and 12th commandments: love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek...or, perhaps in other words, you may be faithful to yourself only through faith in others, for we are all essentially one...a species. "Under God," was, given human history up to that time, a perhaps necessary, but non-essential concept.
I consider this thinking as a swing in human history from "me" to "we." And, I consider it in the vein of "all else being equal" and as a "goal" for which to strive. Practically, I do not think we've arrived at a point wherein this premise can be integrated into our basic fiber or DNA. Evolution is a long and painful process. In a sense, communism was a theoritical attempt to move from "me" to "we" and it failed, perhaps in its magnitude of change and/or the peoples on whom it was imposed. Western, liberal democracy, with all of its own follies and corruption, seems a surer and safer path.
And, too, none of this would be terribily "urgent" were it not for my feeling that we are rapidily arriving at a point through our specific technology and general ignorance of placing the species itself in danger.
Finally, on this topic, is the question of how can human individuality survive in the face of the need for increasing collectivism for species survival, without some quantum leap in the evolution of human behavior that, in essence, prevents evil thoughts and doers? A lot of "good communists" died in the camps of Siberia. A lot of "good Muslims" have died in the streets of Baghdad.
One thing that comes to mind, within the context of Christianity, are the events preceeding Jesus' death by crucifixtion. It occurs to me that Jesus suspected his betrayal at the Last Supper, and hence his reference to it, but was of two minds. Such a betrayal would be the total refutation of everything he had been trying to teach. His later "doubt" on the cross was a doubt regarding his own belief, i.e. the belief that human beings had within themselves the power to change for the greater good; if they did not, as evidenced by his betrayal, then he would have died for nothing. The resurrection was sort of like ornaments on the tree...necessary for only those who later misinterpeted what he was really trying to say in terms of the changes necessary in human behavior to ensure species survival. What came later...the resurrection, the trinty were stories in the tradition of most religion...i.e. to be believed he had to be shown as something more than human; thus, entirely missing his point.
Jesus was in the first instance, a Jew who believed in Judism. He may or may not have been aware that he was taking the religion onto a broader plane, in that he had discovered the common theme of the Ten Commandments and, indeed, of all "law," be it religious or civil...betrayal...i.e. in commiting a crime, you wrong not only another individual, but society as well. I believe that the lesson of the cross is that Jesus saw us as all part of the same human family and as such deserving of a certain respect that prohibits betrayal. Judas' betrayal undermined, in his mind, the basis of his ministry.
I suspect the concept of betrayal may be a central theme of most, if not all, of the world's major religions and is not unique to Christianity. Perhaps, somehow therein lies the key to the survival of our species, in foregoing specified rules (or,as my father once said: "If there are no exceptions, there is no need for a rule") by intergrating respect and faithfulness into human behavior itself. What lingers is the fear that we no longer have the time to wait for evolution.
So, while Nicole Kidman battled infected Zombies outside of herself, Jodie Foster fights the demons within, in the next topic..."The Brave One."
The "infection" causes humans to behave like robots, with the loss of human emotions. Although there is apparently some "intelligence" behind this and some ill-defined goal, the primary one seems to be "inclusiveness" - i.e. to infect everyone on earth and eliminate human emotion. The government tries to prevent the infection from spreading, while they search for an antidode at some heavily guarded facility. But, since the infection seems to manifest itself during sleep, their efforts initially fail. Most of the film regards Kidman trying to stay awake and avoid infection, while trying to get to "home base" and safety. During the course of all of this, there are a couple of "think about it" scenes, wherein the infected explain to Kidman how great it all is and how much better off we'd all be without emotions. In one scene, an aspen grove is used as an example of interdependency, although, as you may imagine, the direct link between aspen groves and human emotions is somewhat glossed over.
Along the way, Kidman's boy friend is infected and turns against her and the climax of the film comes when Kidman learns that the alternative to infection must be death (i.e. accept the interdependency of the aspen grove and join the team or die, because "group think" cannot withstand individuality). Of course, Kidman escapes, reaches the government facility, discovers the antidode, and "humans" win.
My first thought about all of this was this must be a theme born in the mind of fellow Australian actor Mel Gibson. Who else would revive the old cold war "Body Snatchers" theme of individualism vs. collectivism? This is the "me vs. we" debate and as such becomes vaguely relevant to evolution, Christianity, politics, etc.
However, before I launch into this relevancy, a bit on my personal background thinking.
First of all, in an increasingly populated and complex world, I confess that I have a shade of bias in favor of Zombies. I have come to conclude that the main goal of life - in any form - is to a) stay alive and b) in failing to do that for eternity, perpetuate the species. This is the one, single goal all living things seem to, for the most part unconsciously, share. If our "human emotions" have not evolved to a point wherein we are biologically capable of supressing individual emotions that threaten to destroy the species, then it just may be time to rethink exactly which emotions are necessary (such as love) and which are not (such as hate).
For the Huckabees amongst us (and Libertarians), the key word in the above is "evolved." I must also confess, that I am a "believer" in evolution. Is evolution certain? Probably not, but it appears to me the vast amount of scientific evidence falls on its side. The three "certainties" in my thinking are probability, logic and change. In other words, "change" is a given and through probability, we are able to logically and reasonably predict the effects of change.
In turn, these "predictions" allow us, to one degree or another, to "adapt" and adaptation is the apparent key to species survival.
Neither individuals or species may survive truly "alone." Even the rare species capable of self-reproduction rely on their environment for their survival. Individually, most of us are biologically "wired" for reproduction, but species survival is an awareness we must come to intellectually. So, as we climbed down out of the trees and "evolved" to our present circumstances, there has been this constant tension between what is good for "me" versus what is good for "we."
I suspect that which predominates at any given time is highly situational, but that within the broad sweep of human history there have been long periods in which a given orientation did, in fact, dominate. I would distinguish these periods of "me" and "we" historical orientations with structures and processes. "Me's" create structures which lead to "we" processes. And, while this has been a far from perfect history, it has generally worked well in that "we" as a species are still here. To date, human emotions, as destructive as they may be on occasion, have not resulted in the termination of the species itself...but no bets on the future.
I think one reason for this may have been religion, which may have been a way of intellectualizing the "we" side of the argument...i.e. the existence of a superior being is secondary to the effect such a possibility has on human psychology. With all of its follies, "religion" has in a curious way acted as a "brake" on the "me's" in human history, by introducing a "power" beyond ourselves as individuals and, in a curious way, is species survival insurance. Life after death, to me, is a present awareness that regardless of whatever may happen to me, as an individual, the species will continue. It is the "promise" of life everlasting and a means of overcoming the greatest of individual fears, non-existence.
This intellectualizing religion - whatever religion it may be - is/was a complex process in itself. For the vast majority of individuals, throughout most of human history, life has been "short and brutish." Some type of "promise" in the form of religion may have been necessary to the evolution of human behavior in our relatively lengthy care for our young, which in turn, contributed to our overall intellectual development [Note: This doesn't exclude a basic biological predisposition toward some basic after birth care, but as we have "evolved" this period of care seems to have extended to both pre-birth and after birth care and in a curious way is what anti-abortionists on the right and anti-individualist responsibility adherents on the left have in common].
While it seems to me that all religions offer "something" to their followers, as one who espouses basic Christian ethics, if not the hierarchy and events of Christianity, I "believe" the message of Christianity is to suggest that we arrived at a point of "re-evaluation" of the me vs. we controversy approximately 2000 years ago. I believe Jesus came to understand, in the wake of human agricultural and technological advances, that the "threat" to human species survival lies not in nature external to us but within ourselves, or in other words, that we are, in fact, part of nature, not separate from it.
This "thought," which may indeed have been far ahead of its time, was expressed in what might be termed the 11th and 12th commandments: love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek...or, perhaps in other words, you may be faithful to yourself only through faith in others, for we are all essentially one...a species. "Under God," was, given human history up to that time, a perhaps necessary, but non-essential concept.
I consider this thinking as a swing in human history from "me" to "we." And, I consider it in the vein of "all else being equal" and as a "goal" for which to strive. Practically, I do not think we've arrived at a point wherein this premise can be integrated into our basic fiber or DNA. Evolution is a long and painful process. In a sense, communism was a theoritical attempt to move from "me" to "we" and it failed, perhaps in its magnitude of change and/or the peoples on whom it was imposed. Western, liberal democracy, with all of its own follies and corruption, seems a surer and safer path.
And, too, none of this would be terribily "urgent" were it not for my feeling that we are rapidily arriving at a point through our specific technology and general ignorance of placing the species itself in danger.
Finally, on this topic, is the question of how can human individuality survive in the face of the need for increasing collectivism for species survival, without some quantum leap in the evolution of human behavior that, in essence, prevents evil thoughts and doers? A lot of "good communists" died in the camps of Siberia. A lot of "good Muslims" have died in the streets of Baghdad.
One thing that comes to mind, within the context of Christianity, are the events preceeding Jesus' death by crucifixtion. It occurs to me that Jesus suspected his betrayal at the Last Supper, and hence his reference to it, but was of two minds. Such a betrayal would be the total refutation of everything he had been trying to teach. His later "doubt" on the cross was a doubt regarding his own belief, i.e. the belief that human beings had within themselves the power to change for the greater good; if they did not, as evidenced by his betrayal, then he would have died for nothing. The resurrection was sort of like ornaments on the tree...necessary for only those who later misinterpeted what he was really trying to say in terms of the changes necessary in human behavior to ensure species survival. What came later...the resurrection, the trinty were stories in the tradition of most religion...i.e. to be believed he had to be shown as something more than human; thus, entirely missing his point.
Jesus was in the first instance, a Jew who believed in Judism. He may or may not have been aware that he was taking the religion onto a broader plane, in that he had discovered the common theme of the Ten Commandments and, indeed, of all "law," be it religious or civil...betrayal...i.e. in commiting a crime, you wrong not only another individual, but society as well. I believe that the lesson of the cross is that Jesus saw us as all part of the same human family and as such deserving of a certain respect that prohibits betrayal. Judas' betrayal undermined, in his mind, the basis of his ministry.
I suspect the concept of betrayal may be a central theme of most, if not all, of the world's major religions and is not unique to Christianity. Perhaps, somehow therein lies the key to the survival of our species, in foregoing specified rules (or,as my father once said: "If there are no exceptions, there is no need for a rule") by intergrating respect and faithfulness into human behavior itself. What lingers is the fear that we no longer have the time to wait for evolution.
So, while Nicole Kidman battled infected Zombies outside of herself, Jodie Foster fights the demons within, in the next topic..."The Brave One."
Miscellaneous Notes on a Failing Society
This is the first post in three months, due to 1) preparation for the holiday season; 2) the holiday season; 3) recovery from the holiday season.
First comment concerns the shabby state of American journalism. One small example (and they occur daily) is today's story on a cable network (MSNBC) regaarding John McCain. McCain was asked if he thought Huckabee should withdraw from the Presidential race due to his losses in the Virginia, Maryland and D.C. primaries. McCain replied that of course he would like to see Huckabee withdraw, but had long defended his right to stay in the race as long as he wants. Headline of story then became: "McCain asks Huckabee to Withdraw." Within four hours or so (in time for the evening pundants), the story will be "McCain Pressures Huckabee to Withdraw."
Thus, McCain's point of "it's really up to him," gets twisted and distorted to pressuring Huckabee to withdraw. Sooo...when the media talks of how the country has polarized itself, it should look to itself in the first instance. [And, of course, when asked about McCain's comment, Huckabee will probably twist the story to his own advantage, rather than challenging the media with: "I don't think that's really the point McCain was making."]
I doubt this is intentional. In most cases, it is more likely that most shabby journalism is simply the pursuit of controversy for the sake of ratings.
MSNBC, by the way, has apparently become the left's counterpart to the right's Fox News.
Meanwhile, sports fans, we all know deep down inside, its really all about baseball. Despite the minor problems facing the country regarding Social Security, health care, immigration, two wars, education, the economy, etc., etc., Henry Waxman today took up roughly 5-6 hours of national media time pondering the question of whether or not Roger Clemens really told the truth concerning his use of steriods.
This is a story that would have died out long ago had not some enterprising "reporter" complimented the main story with "news" that apparently Mrs. Clemens also received steroid injections, thus enabling the networks to re-run an ad photo of Mr. and Mrs. Clemens in Speedo and bikini. What's better than sex and baseball?
So much for sports and politics. Next up is the rather mundane subject of what is the meaning of life...as seen through the eyes of Nicole Kidman's recent film "Invasion."
I am a sucker for Kidman's films (as well as Jody Foster's stuff). Their latest offerings, however, are along the lines of "occasionally we have to do something to pay the rent." Foster's latest is "The Brave One," sort a feminist version of the old Charlie Bronson "Death Wish" series. Kidman's is sort of a remake of the cult classic, "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Because, I suppose, both films feature genuinely good actresses, they must pretend to have some "deeper meaning." Like, people who normally go to Kidman and Foster films do not expect to see Grade B (or lower) movies.
But, being niave and not wanting to believe that either of these great actresses would "sell their art for money," I played along and really, really tried to understand the deeper meanings with which each professed to be dealing. Next post will deal with Kidman and the one after that with Foster.
First comment concerns the shabby state of American journalism. One small example (and they occur daily) is today's story on a cable network (MSNBC) regaarding John McCain. McCain was asked if he thought Huckabee should withdraw from the Presidential race due to his losses in the Virginia, Maryland and D.C. primaries. McCain replied that of course he would like to see Huckabee withdraw, but had long defended his right to stay in the race as long as he wants. Headline of story then became: "McCain asks Huckabee to Withdraw." Within four hours or so (in time for the evening pundants), the story will be "McCain Pressures Huckabee to Withdraw."
Thus, McCain's point of "it's really up to him," gets twisted and distorted to pressuring Huckabee to withdraw. Sooo...when the media talks of how the country has polarized itself, it should look to itself in the first instance. [And, of course, when asked about McCain's comment, Huckabee will probably twist the story to his own advantage, rather than challenging the media with: "I don't think that's really the point McCain was making."]
I doubt this is intentional. In most cases, it is more likely that most shabby journalism is simply the pursuit of controversy for the sake of ratings.
MSNBC, by the way, has apparently become the left's counterpart to the right's Fox News.
Meanwhile, sports fans, we all know deep down inside, its really all about baseball. Despite the minor problems facing the country regarding Social Security, health care, immigration, two wars, education, the economy, etc., etc., Henry Waxman today took up roughly 5-6 hours of national media time pondering the question of whether or not Roger Clemens really told the truth concerning his use of steriods.
This is a story that would have died out long ago had not some enterprising "reporter" complimented the main story with "news" that apparently Mrs. Clemens also received steroid injections, thus enabling the networks to re-run an ad photo of Mr. and Mrs. Clemens in Speedo and bikini. What's better than sex and baseball?
So much for sports and politics. Next up is the rather mundane subject of what is the meaning of life...as seen through the eyes of Nicole Kidman's recent film "Invasion."
I am a sucker for Kidman's films (as well as Jody Foster's stuff). Their latest offerings, however, are along the lines of "occasionally we have to do something to pay the rent." Foster's latest is "The Brave One," sort a feminist version of the old Charlie Bronson "Death Wish" series. Kidman's is sort of a remake of the cult classic, "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Because, I suppose, both films feature genuinely good actresses, they must pretend to have some "deeper meaning." Like, people who normally go to Kidman and Foster films do not expect to see Grade B (or lower) movies.
But, being niave and not wanting to believe that either of these great actresses would "sell their art for money," I played along and really, really tried to understand the deeper meanings with which each professed to be dealing. Next post will deal with Kidman and the one after that with Foster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
