Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Make your own free website on Tripod.com
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« September 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Tuesday, 14 September 2004

Topic: Bush

Books: The never ending search for truth, justice, the American way, and a copy of Kitty Kelley's new book...

A guest item by Bob Patterson...

Our efforts to snag a copy of Kitty Kelley's latest book, The Family: The Real Story Of The Bush Dynasty began about a week ago, when we started sleuthing around LA's Westside hoping to find a review copy in one of our favorite used book stores. A call and two visits did not produce the desired results.

Previously some other newsworthy books had caused some intrepid booksellers to stay open so that at 12:01 a.m. on the day the book was officially supposed to go on sale, so eager patrons could buy them at the first available opportunity. We were hoping there would be a similar event in conjunction with the start of sales for this book. We called the Westwood outlet for Borders Books and Music and asked if they would be according the new Kelley book that bit of marketing. They said they would not.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the day for the official start of sales for the item, we took a bus up to Westwood and went to our favorite mystery bookstore to see if they were offering the new book that was out of their area of expertise. Our preference would have been to buy the book there, but they weren't going to be selling that item. We ambled down to the Borders location.

A gentleman, approximately sixty years of age, was examining a copy at the same time we were checking the index and assessing the prospect of shelling out some money for a copy. Simultaneously we both asked, "So, what do you think?" I mentioned the fact that Ms. Kelley seemed to present the Bush family's association with the German banker Fritz Thyssen in a rather cursory and colorless manner. At that point the guy took the copy over to the check out counter.

Another fellow, of about the same age, gave the book a brief examination. He looked at the dust jacket information and his manner became disdainful. I mentioned that Ms. Kelley didn't seem to dig in a relentless and comprehensive manner. The guy's demeanor appeared to become more aggressive. He said that "they" should dig deeper into Kerry's voting record. It seems that remarks that Kerry made after returning from Vietnam had become the crucial factor in all this fellow's related decisions. Case closed.

The index made scant mention of some relevant items and seemed to ignore some topics which, it seemed to this columnist and book reviewer, might have merited a bit of consideration. Such as? The Bush family track record regarding the banking industry. Yes, she mentioned Union Banking Corporation in the area devoted to Fritz Thyssen, but, based on a quick scan of the Index, it seems she has passed on BCCI, Silverado Banking Savings and Loan, and Broward Federal Savings as topics to be examined.

Despite our reluctance based on economic considerations, it was time to disregard pecuniary caution and join the crowd who were buying this cultural curiosity de jour.

To make a judgment at this point would be like reviewing a movie's trailer and not the work itself. We will have to read the book before delving into an attempt at a review. The New York Times has published a review in the September 14, 2004 edition.

The last time this columnist/book reviewer recalls buying a book on the day of publication was the day when Madonna's book Sex went on sale. It seems we managed to purchase the last copy available in the Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Westwood area of Los Angeles.

We don't do it often, hence the experience itself becomes a noteworthy aspect of the purchase.

___

Editor's Note:

Yesterday, Monday the 13th, Bob suggested I take the digital camera down to Book Soup on Sunset Boulevard for the book signing of the week. Paris Hilton was there, signing copies of whatever it is she wrote, or had written for her. Book Soup is just twenty blocks from home. Perhaps I could get some cool pictures. The event was scheduled for seven in the evening, and when I drove by just before five there were already several hundred young folks milling about and spilling over into the street. Your editor decided that stopping at Franklin and La Cienega, near there, for cat food and a lottery ticket, was better than braving the crowd for a few celebrity shots. Your editor just doesn't have the soul of a paparazzi. Sorry.

I'm sure Paris Hilton is a pleasant young lady. Others covered it. I didn't.
___

Reference:

The New York Times review of the Kelley book:

A Bush Biography for the Age of Innuendo
Michiko Kakutani - Published: September 14, 2004
Kitty Kelley's catty new book about the Bush family is a perfect artifact of our current political culture in which unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record and old questions about President Bush's National Guard service get more attention than present-day issues like the Iraq war, the economy, intelligence reform or the assault weapons ban.

It is also a perfect artifact of a cultural climate in which gossip and innuendo thrive on the Internet; more and more biographies of artists and public figures dwell, speculatively, on familial dysfunction and disorder; and buzz - be it based on verified facts or sheer rumor-mongering - is regarded as a be-all and end-all.

... the author's undisguised contempt for many of the Bushes, combined with her failure to come to terms with politics and policy, and her tireless focus on sex, drugs and alcohol, will likely play into family members' penchant for assailing the media. It will likely give them an opening to shrug off this book as a snarky exercise in gossip, instead of forcing them to deal with substantive questions about their political record. Then again, in an election season willfully focused on the past and the personal and the unproven, this book may provide yet another distraction from issues here and now.
Junk?

Posted by Alan at 17:50 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 14 September 2004 18:00 PDT home


Topic: The Culture

Books: If you're so smart, how come you're not rich?

This is about intellectuals, the thinkers, and not necessarily the doers.

As a warm-up, some comments from others -

"I think, therefore I am is the statement of an intellectual who underrates toothaches."
- Milan Kundera, the Czech novelist ("The Incredible Lightness of Being" and others) who a decade ago moved to Paris, learned French well, and now writes his novels in French, not his native Czech. A show off? A toothache undermines the premises of Cartesian epistemology?

"There's always something suspect about an intellectual on the winning side."
- Vaclav Havel, the Czech dissident playwright who seems still amazed that he became the leader of the country at the end of the Cold War. He thinks winning undermines his credibility as a thinker?

"I've never been an intellectual but I have this look."
- Woody Allen (in Manhattan that will do)

"Humanity I love you because when you're hard up you pawn your intelligence to buy a drink."
e.e. cummings

It unfair to discuss a book before its release but consider this:

Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?
Subtitle: Confronting 21st Century Philistinism
Frank Furedi
Continuum Books
Publication Date: November 1, 2004
ISBN: 0826467695
160 Pages
$19.95 (hardcover)

The publisher's blurb -
The intellectual is an endangered species. In place of such figures as Bertrand Russell, Raymond Williams or Hannah Arendt - people with genuine learning, breadth of vision and a concern for public issues - we now have only facile pundits, think-tank apologists, and spin-doctors. In the age of the knowledge economy, we have somehow managed to combine the widest ever participation in higher education with the most dumbed-down of cultures.

In this urgent and passionate book, Frank Furedi explains the essential contribution of intellectuals both to culture and to democracy - and why we need to recreate a public sphere in which intellectuals and the general public can talk to each other again.
We need to do that? Don't tell anyone. The general public will run for the doors.

Of course, what with Just Above Sunset and this web log, I suppose I fall under the heading of Facile Pundit, if that. Or maybe I'm a Spin Doctor. Whatever. I don't suppose I count as an intellectual.

But Furedi's table of contents in amusing:
Introduction: A personal journey through the land of the philistines
Chapter 1: Devaluing the Intellect
Chapter 2: Trivial Pursuits
Chapter 3: Dumbing Down
Chapter 4: Social Engineering
Chapter 5: The Culture of Flattery
Chapter 6: Treating People as Children
These topics have come up here. I shall track down the book as soon as I can. Maybe I can claim I'm an intellectual if I read it. I don't look at all like Woody Allen so I do need some help.

The book has been released in the UK and Terry Eagleton, the author of the ever popular The English Novel: An Introduction (Blackwell) has an amusing review of this Furedi book in the current issues of The New Statesman.

Eagleton opens with a reference to music I don't know (shame on me!) but I get the general idea.
The spooky music of Mastermind says it all. Intellectuals are weird, creepy creatures, akin to aliens in their clinical detachment from the everyday human world. Yet you can also see them as just the opposite. If they are feared as sinisterly cerebral, they are also pitied as bumbling figures who wear their underpants back to front, harmless eccentrics who know the value of everything and the price of nothing. Alternatively, you can reject both viewpoints and see intellectuals as neither dispassionate nor ineffectual, denouncing them instead as the kind of dangerously partisan ideologues who were responsible for the French and Bolshevik revolutions. Their problem is fanaticism, not frigidity. Whichever way they turn, the intelligentsia get it in the neck.
Oh woe is me, Terry seems to be saying.

But that's the way it is. The 1964 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction went to Richard Hofstadter for his Anti-intellectualism in American Life, laying out how it has always been so on this side of the pond, from Colonial times to now. (Order a copy here and you too can feel put upon and misunderstood.)

Eagleton says the classical intellectual, "in the heroic mould of Jean-Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon and Hannah Arendt," seems to have shut up shop. We did inherit the idea of the intellectual from the 18th-century Enlightenment - all that stuff about truth, universality and objectivity - and those days are long gone. These days? - all that stuff is suspect. And Furedi seems to be asserting that these were formerly a problem for the political right. Hey, if you're going to appeal to prejudice, hierarchy and custom, then truth, universality and objectivity are not useful concepts at all. But now the left doesn't like these concepts either. Odd that this happened, isn't it?

Eagleton on why there is now no one around like Sartre, Fanon and Arendt (my emphases) -
In the age of Sontag, Said, Williams and Chomsky, whole sectors of the left behave as though these men and women were no longer possible. Soon, no doubt, they will take to imitating the nervous tic by which the right ritually inserts the expression "so-called" before the word "intellectual". Right-wingers do this because they imagine that "intellectual" means "frightfully clever", a compliment they are naturally reluctant to pay to their opponents. In fact, there are dim-witted intellectuals just as there are incompetent chefs. The word "intellectual" is a job description, not a commendation.

One mark of the classical intellectual (more recently dubbed a "theorist") was that he or she refused to be pinned to a single discipline. Instead, the idea was to bring ideas critically to bear on social life as a whole.

... In fact, a snap definition of an intellectual would be "more or less the opposite of an academic". Once society is considered too complex to be known as a whole, however, the idea of truth yields to both specialism and relativism. Because you can now know only your own neck of the woods, the general critique as launched by the conventional intellectual collapses. There is no longer any big picture, a fact for which our rulers are profoundly grateful. And given that anyone's view is now as good as anyone else's, the authority which underpinned that critique is downsized along with it. To suggest that your anti-racist convictions are somehow superior to my anti-Semitic ones comes to sound intolerably elitist.
Ah, so no one really knows anything much these days. There is no big picture.

But we do value knowledge. People still trot off top graduate schools and the economy depends on a core group of folks who know lots of stuff - management theory, complex computer systems, logistics and distribution, probability and chaos theory as it applies to the trading of financial derivatives, and automobile and aircraft and satellite design. We live is a "knowledge economy" after all.

But there is a catch -
A society obsessed with the knowledge economy, Furedi argues, is oddly wary of knowledge. This is because truth is no longer precious for its own sake.

... At an earlier stage of capitalism, knowledge was not so vital for economic production; once it becomes so, it turns into a commodity, while critical intellectuals turn into submissive social engineers. Now, knowledge is valuable only when it can be used as an instrument for something else: social cohesion, political control, economic production. In a brilliant insight, Furedi claims that this instrumental downgrading of knowledge is just the flip side of postmodern irrationalism. The mystical and the managerial are secretly in cahoots.
Huh? I'll have to think about that last comment - but not too hard. When intellectualism became useful it became useless?

Eagleton explain this, as I understand him, by saying we're short on critical intellectuals - as "thinkers" became "experts" and, in general, culture and education "lapse into forms of social therapy."
The promotion of ideas plays second fiddle to the provision of services. Art and culture become substitute forms of cohesion, participation and self-esteem in a deeply divided society. Culture is deployed to make us feel good about ourselves, rather than to tackle the causes of those divisions, implying that social exclusion is simply a psychological affair. That to feel bad about ourselves is the first step towards transforming our situation is thus neatly sidestepped. What matters is not the quality of the activity, but whether it gets people off the streets. Extravagant justifications for culture are piously touted: it can cure crime, promote social bonding, pump up self-assurance, even tackle Aids. It helps to heal conflict and create community - a case, ironically, dear to the heart of that bogeyman of the anti-elitists, Matthew Arnold. As Furedi points out, art can indeed have profound social effects; but it rarely does so when its value as art is so airily set aside.
Well, people do want what the do to be useful - we are a utilitarian lot. Art for art's sake? That doesn't pay the bills or make us feel better.

And what about education these days? As a former teacher of the useless - English and music - I found this amusing -
The feel-good factor flourishes in education as well. University academics are discouraged from fostering adversarial debate, in case it should hurt someone's feelings. Why indulge in it anyway, if what matters is not truth but self-expression? "Student-centred learning" assumes that the student's "personal experience" is to be revered rather than challenged. People are to be comforted rather than confronted. In what one American sociologist has termed the McDonaldisation of the universities, students are redefined as consumers of services rather than junior partners in a public service. This phoney populism, as Furedi points out, is in fact a thinly veiled paternalism, assuming as it does that ordinary men and women aren't up to having their experience questioned. Rigorous discriminations are branded as "elitist" - an elitist attitude in itself, given that ordinary people have always fiercely argued the toss over the relative merits of everything from films to football clubs. Meanwhile, libraries try frantically not to look like libraries, or to let slip intimidatingly elitist words such as "book".
Ouch! Too true. Did I worry too much about my students' self-esteem? Perhaps I should have undermined it by making them intellectually uncomfortable. Well, actually I did some of that too.

What a mess. We need to identify how we got to this sorry state, where thinking the uncomfortable and challenging each other is a social taboo.

It seems Furedi does not see "market forces or the growth of professionalism as the chief villains in this sorry story." The problem is the politics of inclusion - seeing a virtue in everyone agreeing without much examination of just what it is to which they are agreeing. Can't we all just get along?

Some of us say no. That does not necessarily make us intellectuals, but it's a start.

Posted by Alan at 11:38 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Monday, 13 September 2004

Topic: Election Notes

What's being said on Monday....

If you go to The American Prospect you will find this -

The Pathetic Truth
A unified theory of everything that explains why Democrats always get outfoxed.
By Michael Tomasky - Web Exclusive: 09.13.04

The argument is that, as he explains, Democrats fight campaigns on issues while Republicans fight them on character. Republican positions on most issues are basically unpopular, so their only hope of winning is a relentless assault on the character of their Democratic opponent.

The key paragraph -
The problem begins with the fact that majorities of the public tend to agree with Democrats on the issues. This isn't universally true, of course, but it's true with regard to more issues (perhaps many more issues) than not. On health care, the environment, investment, education, just about everything except national defense, majorities lean toward the Democratic position.
Maybe so. But if so, then what's the problem?

Kevin Drum explains the problem here -
... Now, I happen to agree with Tomasky that Republicans generally go for the jugular more effectively than Democrats, but it's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude -- although it is -- but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue -- like it or not -- the majority of Americans favor the Republican position. If John Kerry wants to win, he should focus on the issues, but he has to focus on the issues that matter most in this campaign cycle.

It's all about 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, and national security, baby. This election is going to be won on that issue, and Kerry needs to convince the country that he can handle it better than Bush. And really, considering the botch Bush has made of national security, that shouldn't be all that hard.

Bottom line: Republicans aren't avoiding the issues. It's just that their signature issue happens to be the one people care most about this year. Democrats had better figure that out pronto.
Yes, but there are so many diversions.

Kerry, Edwards and Daschle May Face Vote on Flag
Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, Monday, September 13, 2004; Page A19

It opens thusly -
For some Republicans it is the perfect political storm: a Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to protect the U.S. flag that would put Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, running mate John Edwards and Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle on the spot just a few weeks before the Nov. 2 elections.

The Senate GOP leadership has not scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment, but Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) noted last week that it is a high priority for veterans groups.
It is? Their dwindling benefits is not an issue of the veteran's groups? Frist knows better?

No, everyone sees this has one purpose - to make the Democrats uncomfortable with all this business about free speech being important, and force at least some of them say it really isn't, or else say the scruffy fools who oppose the president and his policies have the right to this symbolic gesture that makes so many "right thinking" Americans so angry they could spit nails. Force them to say one can do this in protest. Geez. These guys could work a little harder on passing a budget. But they do have a way of tapping the fear and anger of the masses.

Atrios says this -
This stuff just makes me embarrassed. I could point out that there are more important things to be worrying about. I could point out that in a free society individual political speech should be afforded the highest protection possible. I could point out that the proper way to retire a flag is, yes, to burn it. I could wonder out loud what will become of all the "flag clothing" and how a Supreme Court would have to waste time dealing with all the ridiculous cases that would result.
Well, it's all theater, isn't it?

It wins the votes.

Josh Marshall has some observations on this all, and why Bush is ahead. And his take on things is that Iraq is not a factor at all -
There are many reasons President Bush has taken a narrow but perceptible lead in the polls. Some are tied to tactical decisions on both sides; others are products of accidental developments; still others emerge from more deeply-rooted trends that won't be clear for months or years.

But all of them amount to the same thing: the president's campaign has managed to take Iraq out of the election debate.

Iraq remains ever-present, but as a rhetorical fixture, not a reality. Who's tougher; who's been consistent; who likes Saddam Hussein more, and so forth -- that's all there. The increasingly tenuous claim that Saddam Hussein had any relationship to Islamic terrorism -- that's there too.
But the actual Iraq war is nowhere to be found. Sunday was a disastrous day in Iraq, both for the Iraqis and for the American enterprise in Iraq.

But it garnered little attention here. The American death rate has creeped up as the occupation has continued. And to anyone who has eyes to see it, the entire American venture in Iraq has become a disaster of truly monumental proportions.
So? So it doesn't matter to most folks. It's just background noise, which is what I suppose he means by saying it has become a a rhetorical fixture.

Why?
... In the last two months, all of this has been pushed to the side of the election debate -- either by rhetorical tangles over 9/11 and terrorism, or attack politics centered on the two men's war records or lack thereof. That is the reason for the president's resurgence in the polls. It's really that simple.

There's another point that worth noting here too. And it's at least played a role in pushing Iraq out of the political debate. That is, that President Bush has been able to mobilize his manifest failure as a political asset, and the Kerry campaign has allowed him to do so.
Yep, the screw-up in now an asset.

And there's this. Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic argues that the whole Iraq business was just an honest mistake -
The White House, Rumsfeld, and the National Security Council thought: Afghanistan is unconquerable, it overcame the British and the Soviets, we want to have limited involvement in Afghanistan and set expectations low. Iraq, on the other hand, will be a cakewalk like in 1991, and they'll cheer us in the streets as we arrive. The administration believed that all-out commitment to Afghanistan would lead to embarrassing mess, while invading Iraq would be a big success, bringing praise and perhaps stabilizing the Middle East - maybe even changing the psychology of the terror war if Al-Jazeera showed throngs of Muslims cheering U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad. What happened turned out to be the reverse of the plan on both counts; Afghanistan went surprisingly well (in part because the Afghans wanted us, whereas they despised the Soviets) and Iraq couldn't have gone much worse. But it's hardly irrational to avoid the place where you think you will fare poorly and act in the place where you expect victory, which is essentially what Bush decided.
So they were only doing the logical and rational thing, given their view of the facts.

Shouldn't you be held accountable for getting the facts wrong?

Andrew Sullivan responds -
Of course, what we do now is another matter. Gregg thinks we're killing hundreds of mujahideen on Iraq, which can only be a good thing. Yes it is - as long as the conflict doesn't create many replacements. And the poor people of Iraq surely deserve more than being in the middle of an open-ended exercise in urban warfare in which their country is slowly destroyed. My early hope was that, having stabilized the country, U.S. forces could indeed have attracted professional terrorists to Iraq and killed them. But the Bush administration never sent enough troops to pacify the country, and so provoked the terrorism without being able to suppress it effectively. That's the worst of all possible worlds. Look, we have to tough it out. But how much confidence can anyone still have in the president who engineered this in the first place, and who still refuses to recognize that anything is fundamentally awry?
Good question. But folks want Bush to remain in office, or so it seems now.

The most harrowing comments from Sullivan are these -
HOW TO LOSE A WAR: Here's a quote [from The Observer (UK)] that unnerves me. It's from a Sunni insurgent who was once, he says, pro-American. What turned him into an enemy? The incompetence of the occupation, in part, beginning with the post-liberation looting: "When I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to suspect the US was not here to help us but to destroy us ... I thought it might be just the chaos of war but it got worse, not better." My own hope a year ago was that the sheer amount of reconstruction money that would be spent in Iraq would surely win over the population. But I was dumb enough to believe that the Bush administration was competent enough to spend it.

Barely five percent of reconstruction funds have been disbursed. I wish the blogosphere would focus more on this particular scandal than on the provenance of type-writers in the 1970s. And what's worrying about this particular ramshackle terrorist is that it appears he has taught himself. He isn't sponsored by Iran or the Baathists or al Qaeda. I guess the Observer could be peddling propaganda, but the story reads persuasively to me (the terrorist reveals his own racism, for example, hardly an interpolation by his p.c. British interpreters). We have to face facts, I'm afraid: we have helped create a classic guerrilla insurgency in Iraq in which the U.S. is struggling not to be defeated politically. The consequences of failure are exponential. And yet I see no awareness in the administration - or even among many of their supporters - that they even have a problem.

BUSH'S WAR STRATEGY: His brilliance as a war-leader, so heralded at the New York convention, bears new fruit. The Iraqi government is beginning to lose control of Baghdad now. I think the Rove political strategy must now be simply to hope that no one notices anything that is happening in Iraq before they vote in November. Just say after me: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. If anyone brings up Iraq today, just put your fingers in your ears and start singing loudly. Thank God the campaign is more focused on what Bush did in the National Guard thirty years ago and what Kerry's votes were in the 1980s. Otherwise we might have to debate reality.
No, we'll debate the proposed amendment to the constitution to ban burning the flag in any protest demonstration. Iraq will fall apart, and Bush will win.

Posted by Alan at 12:31 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Sunday, 12 September 2004

Topic: Photos

Sunday, the day of rest...

The new issue of Just Above Sunset is now on line. That would be Volume 2, Number 36 of course.

The usual hot topics in the news, or that should be in the news, with new comments from Paris, Atlanta and upstate New York - what first appeared here corrected and extended.

Bob Patterson has three items this week - his column on the uses of the past, a new Book Wrangler, and a short film review of one more subversive movie. And the two (2) photography sections cover the Frank Lloyd Wright house in my neighborhood (an amazing Mayan thing), and, since this is Hollywood, some celebrities.

And the usual odd quotes - this week, everything you ever wanted to know about Paul Val?ry, and more...

And something I came across last week at Fafblog - home of the Medium Lobster, Fafnir and Giblets - from Thursday, September 09, 2004, serious scandals!

Kitty Kelly's book comes out Tuesday, and we get this -
I am now in quite a pickle over who to vote for. I was boppin back n forth between George Bush an his deep heartland values an John Kerry an his actually bein able to run a country an I just could not figure it out but then these Kitty Kelley rumors came up an it just blew my squishy little mind!

The Poor Man says there are other scandals out there like a half-trillion dollar deficit an a phony war an such but before I could always balance those out with George Bush's brush-clearin skills an godly faith which could always resolve serious security concerns an international crises. Like what if you open your door one day an there is like thousands a yards a hostile brush outside - terrorist brush - an you are all "Oh no brush!" With all due respect to John Kerry I do not think his skill in international relations an killin Viet Cong could help us out with that crisis, I think right there we would need George Bush to clear that brush before it endangers our freedom.

Or what if Jesus comes back but is hit by radioactive rays an turns into radioactive monster MegaMechaJesus an goes on a rampage destroyin cities an such? It would take a leader of strong inner Jesusy faith to negotiate with the mutant Son of God before he seriously disrupts international stability.

But now all that is up in the air! What if George Bush really did have a coke habit an he is chasin down Osama bin Laden some day an he is closin in on Osama bin Laden an goin "oh I'll get you Osama bin Laden" an Osama bin Laden drops a bag a coke an George Bush is so overpowered by his desire to snort coke that he lets Osama get away?

Or what if George an Laura Bush really did smoke pot in the seventies? This could change everythin because I want to think of my president as a president I could have a beer with but I am not quite comfortable smokin pot with my president. I would have to smoke pot with all of his pot friends which means smokin up with like Dick Cheney an Karl Rove an Lewis "Scooter" Libby an they would probly start hittin me up for cash an I'd be all "but I do not have much cash on me Karl Rove" an Rove would be all "cmon Fafnir it's for tax relief, you like tax relief, dontcha" an then Cheney would get the muchies an eat the Congressional Budget Office or somethin.

So you can see how it would make my decision more difficult cause you can never compartmentalize bein a pothead in the seventies. Oh such weighty decisions!
Actually, Kitty Kelly hits the news and talk shows tomorrow, doing the promotional interviews for her new book.

Expect discourse like this.

And clearing brush is important.

And from this week's Just Above Sunset Photos - the Frank Lloyd Wright house a few blocks west of here....


Posted by Alan at 19:46 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 12 September 2004 19:49 PDT home

Saturday, 11 September 2004

Topic: The Media

Film: The fox condemns the trap, not himself....

The quote is from William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" (1793).

This review, by Bob Patterson, will appear in tomorrow's weekly edition of Just Above Sunset. It is posted here should you wish to add comments (click on "post your comment" below) or send a response via email (click on "Email the Editor" in the left column). Your observations, within the (wide) bounds of taste, will be published along with Bob's review tomorrow.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
- unrated -
Film review by Bob Patterson

If the fact that the New York Post film reviewer didn't like this movie is an unexpected bit of information for you, then you may be in for a spectacular surprise if you see this film. For a wide variety of other reactions check out the links provided by the Movie Review Query Engine.

The Fox News Channel has the motto "Fair and Balanced." This movie, which was original released as a DVD but is now playing in selected theaters, features a series of segments with the underlying premise that what you see on The Fox News Channel isn't what they say you are going to get.

This documentary film, directed by Robert Greenwald, presents various TV style "talking head" shots that present analysts and commentators who tell you what you can expect to see on that particular network and then follow with a quick series of on-air examples that prove the contention and contradict the claim that Fox's content is "fair and balanced."

After Australian newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch bought the broadcasting enterprise, he decreed a change of routine. The result was program content would adhere closely to what the executives wanted to emphasize for each new day. They show some examples of a daily position memo from Fox management and then provide an example of how the on-air talent complied with those "suggestions."

The results are as close to objectivity as one might expect if a well-known chef were to offer to hold a benefit barbecue for PETA. By the time the film is over, asking the question does Fox present the news with spin or not is like wondering if you should invite an avid Dodger fan to participate in a tribute to the Giants. Were the stories in the Voelkischer Beobachter fact filled and opinion free?

Visually the unending string of talking head shots is about as exciting as would be a baseball game that went to the bottom of the ninth inning with the opposing pitchers both throwing a perfect no-hitter. Leni Riefenstahl, a pioneer documentary filmmaker, proved that the genre can incorporate dramatic well composed images.

Ultimately seeing a relentless presentation of evidence to convince the viewer that propaganda disguised as objective reporting raises a question of hypocrisy. It makes the viewer wonder, with clich?s about a diligent electorate making a informed decision, if perhaps FNC is subconsciously making a mockery of the concept of democracy. It's as if they say: "We'll make your mind up for you." The fact that the Fox News Channel ratings have grown enormously, obviously will produce a "steady as she goes" response from their proud owner.

Intellectuals who find the concept that a business organization that promises "fair and balanced" news can attract a bigger audience with a bit of rhetorical chicanery, will find this film provides the food for thought that they had been seeking elsewhere.

The website for this film is here.

___

Editor's Note - for a previous discussion of this matter see Just Above Sunset - October 19, 2003 Opinion. The subtitle is "Thoughts on nailing mashed potatoes to a wall. Or - `We report, you decide.' - Disseminating Ignorance." This is about how watching the news can actually sometimes make you dumber, and have you believe things that just aren't so. It is a discussion of the results of a study done by researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling company. The study represents a year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they went to get things flat out wrong. They went to Fox News. The data show a direct relationship between relying on Fox News for information and getting the facts wrong. The Just Above Sunset item also contains comments from Rick, The News Guy in Atlanta.

Another item from William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" - "Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd." Not these days.

Posted by Alan at 11:59 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 11 September 2004 12:03 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older