Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
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
« May 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 31
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

Saturday, 8 May 2004

Topic: Photos

No entries today...

Off to Carlsbad, just north of San Diego, for a birthday party - one of my favorite nephews. But perhaps this will be a slow news day.

Late tomorrow watch for the new issue of the weekly Just Above Sunset virtual magazine. Featured this week? New fiction from Deborah Vatcher that captures the mood of America today. And the first of a new, exclusive weekly column from Los Angeles journalist Bob Patterson. Photography this week will be out of the ordinary shots of Paris from our correspondent in Chicago who, by the way, leaves again for France soon. I'll be busy assembling it all early tomorrow morning.

But now I must be off. Whilst I'm at the party, consider this palm in full bloom outside my kitchen window. Ah, California!


Posted by Alan at 08:04 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Friday, 7 May 2004

Topic: Iraq

Responsibility and blame and all that sort of thing...

Rumsfeld and his crew have been testifying all day about the business with how we treated those prisoners - the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib? It has been in the news. You probabaly noticed.

I haven't watched much of all this testimony. What I have seen seems to be arguments about whether this business was a few bad apples in bushels of bushels of noble and true Americans (Rumsfeld and crew) - an aberration - or whether there is something wrong in the whole chain of command, or even the basic premises of the war (the left side of the Democratic party).

I suspect the latter is true.

Here is Yale Law professor Jack Balkin -
The Administration, and particularly Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, have been cavalier about American obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention. International law and transparency, we are told, are unnecessary because, unlike all of the other countries in the world, we are Americans, and we naturally believe in human rights and the rule of law. We need no special incentives to be good. But if history teaches us anything, it is that when governments, no matter how well they think of themselves, decide to free themselves from constraints, they become unconstrained, and when they refuse to make themselves accountable, they abuse their power. The only thing that has been lacking until now has been the proof of what everyone should already have known: that unchecked power leads to hubris, hubris leads to corruption, and corruption leads to violations of human rights.

Americans are proud of their devotion to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. But these cannot exist without institutional preconditions: they cannot exist if government officials insist on complete secrecy, mock international covenants, and refuse to allow their actions to be tested and constrained by law.

This Administration wanted secrecy. It wanted to be free of legal constraint. It wanted to do whatever it wanted whenever it wanted without ever having to be called to account for it.

Now it is reaping what it has sown.
Yeah, well, there are other views.

Who is at fault? Media Matters has a review of who might be to blame.

Women are really to blame. That's the view of Ann Coulter and Linda Chavez.

Coulter:
I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation.

I mean, this is lesson, you know, one million and 47 on why women shouldn't be in the military.

In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.

[FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, May 5]
And Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and FOX News Channel political analyst? From her TOWNHALL column you get this
But one factor that may have contributed -- but which I doubt investigators will want to even consider -- is whether the presence of women in the unit actually encouraged more misbehavior, especially of the sexual nature that the pictures reveal.
TOWNHALL is a website run by The Heritage Foundation.

But really - it must be the Feminists...

George Neumayr, managing editor of The American Spectator gives us this:
The image of that female guard, smoking away as she joins gleefully in the disgraceful melee like one of the guys, is a cultural outgrowth of a feminist culture which encourages female barbarians. GI Janes are kicking around patriarchal Muslims in Iraq? This is [Feminist Majority Foundation president] Eleanor Smeal's vision come to life. Had Thelma and Louise gone off to Iraq -- and sexually humiliated some of Saddam Hussein's soldiers as payback for abuse to Jessica Lynch a few cities back -- the radical feminists could make a sequel. ...

Feminists are good at creating a culture that produces "equal-opportunity abusers," Donnelly says. What happened at Abu Ghraib is also happening in feminist America, she adds, pointing to an Associated Press article from last month on a "disturbing trend around the country. Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity." ...

Perhaps in the eyes of feminists this isn't a crisis but a potential social program and these girls deserve ROTC credits.
Huh? I don't get it.

Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and host of FOX News Channel's After Hours with Cal Thomas says it's the damned Muslims! -
Some Arab commentators are repeating the myth that the West has, once again, humiliated Muslims. If there has been humiliation, it isn't the fault of the West. It is Muslims' fault. They took trillions of dollars in oil money, and instead of building a culture dedicated to elevating their people, including women, they have squandered it on agendas and adventures that had the opposite result.
Well, possibly.

The there is James Taranto, editor of The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com which comes to me every day by email here is Hollywood. He blames - hold your breath! - The Academic Left!

This is his point -
[T]he New York Times profiles some of the soldiers implicated in abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and to be honest, they sound like a bunch of losers. ...

[I]ncreasing the quality of military recruits would probably help avoid future Abu Ghraibs. One constructive step toward that end would be for elite universities to drop antimilitary policies, so that the military would have an easier time signing up the best and brightest young Americans.

Many academic institutions have barred ROTC or military recruiters from campus for left-wing political reasons--first as a protest against the Vietnam War, and later over the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" law. Whatever the merits of these positions, it's time the academic left showed some patriotic responsibility and acknowledged that the defense of the country--which includes the defense of their own academic freedom--is more important than the issue du jour.
So if the ROTC booths were reopened at Yale, Harvard and Princeton then the guards at the dusty Baghdad prison would have been thoughtful, intellectual sorts, quoting Latin - and thus none of this would have happened?

I'm not buying that.

The best explanation I've found so far comes from "Digby" at Hullabaloo and it goes like this:

Good Riddance
I think that the single most egregious mistake that Bush has made in his presidency (among many egregious mistakes) is continuously asserting that we are "better" as a people than "the enemy," whom they have never adequately defined. His vaunted "moral clarity" continues to be nothing more that a puerile appeal to emotion that has done much more harm than good. Historically, nations have always done this, but in this age of global media, it is a very bad idea. It's much too easy for pictures and words to make their way around the world in seconds to contradict such assertions and destroy our credibility. As Bush himself says repeatedly, "it's a different kinda war" and indeed it is. It is much more a war of ideas than a war of military conquest. If there was ever a time when we needed someone with highly developed communication skills, it was now. Unfortunately, we were saddled with someone who speaks in the most simplistic terms possible and it is blowing back on us now.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush's braintrust framed this War On Terrorism as between "good 'n evil," "us 'n them" --- exactly as bin Laden did. Instead of using reason, strength and good will to continue the solidarity the world felt toward America after 9/11, we reacted like a hurt child, lashing out with inchoate rage at virtually everyone, all the while screaming about our superior characters. (We even went after the Europeans for Christ's sake.)

Had we emphasized our institutions and traditions rather than our alleged goodness, we might be able to get past this awful moment of Abu Ghreib by showcasing a system that resists brute power and religious judgments of character in favor of blind justice. Their scramble now to investigate and fact-find again completely rings hollow because we rested our entire argument on the character of Americans in contrast to everyone else. Our credibility is in shreds.

There were essentially three stated reasons for invading Iraq. The first was because Saddam had WMD. The second was because Saddam had ties to terrorists. The third was because Saddam tortured and terrorized his own people.

There are no WMD. There never were any terrorist ties. And by consciously undermanning the "liberation" we created the circumstances that have led to sweeps of innocent Iraqi people who are then dragged into a prison system with no due process and are systematically tortured --- by us, not Saddam. No decent person can believe that it is moral to "pre-emptively" invade a country and do such things in the name of liberation and our superior "goodness" as a people.

Now, I'm not saying that Americans are a bad people. We're just people, comprising the full range of human character from saint to psychopath. So are the Iraqis and so is every other tribe. That is why we have government in the first place. It's hard to tell who's bad or good and it's not enough to simply assert that one group is and one isn't. We need systems and institutions to sort these things out in the most perfect way we can find and those systems and institutions are imperfect indeed. If we ever had a strength in America, a source of pride and superiority, it was that we put our trust in the rule of law not men.

And that is precisely the opposite of what our president has been saying. He's said "trust us" because we are good. We don't need to provide any explanations or adhere to any laws, treaties or agreements because the character of our people doesn't require it. And that is why these pictures are being greeted around the world with both horror and glee. The president of the United States has been holding out the moral superiority of the American people as justification for flouting all laws and conventions and we've just been slapped in the face with the truth. Americans are capable of being just as depraved as anyone else. (I would have thought that anyone over the age of 10 would already know this, but apparently not.)

Once Bush is removed from office maybe we can drop this simpleminded drivel and start speaking to the world like adults again. Fewer self-righteous sermons about being "called to bring freedom to the world" and more talk about the rule of law would be a breath of fresh air. I have a feeling we might find that people around the world are more willing to cooperate if our president doesn't constantly lecture them about our superior moral character and instead leads on the basis of reason, law and justice. In the war of ideas, the latter is where the real firepower exists.
Oh drat! I did so want to know I was morally superior.

Yeah, well, the cost of thinking that way is too high...

Posted by Alan at 16:18 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 7 May 2004 18:26 PDT home

Thursday, 6 May 2004

Topic: The Culture

Medical Notes - The FDA gets religion...

From the Washington Post Thursday, May 06, 2004
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday rejected over-the-counter sale of the emergency contraceptive Plan B, saying that the distributor had not proven that young teens can take the drug safely without a doctor's guidance.

The decision was an unusual repudiation of the lopsided recommendation of the agency's own expert advisory panel, which voted 23-4 late last year in favor of the switch and 27-0 that the drug could be safely sold as an over-the-counter medication.

The denial was a major goal of social conservatives, including members of Congress who lobbied President Bush on the issue. Reproductive rights advocates lobbied equally hard for its approval, and Thursday they criticized the decision as misguided and a historic blot on the reputation of the FDA as a science-based agency.
And the first comment I came across?
So let me get this right: teen girls are incapable of taking a goddamn pill that has instructions and everything on the goddamn box, but are capable of giving birth to and mothering another human being.

I'm speechless. They compound outrage upon outrage, but each seems to enrage in a new way. For some reason, I find this one particularly galling. I think it's that people who are against abortion have a special duty to promote alternatives. Instead, these assholes are making it even harder for women to avoid abortion.
I guess this all fits in with National Prayer Day.

Oh well. We live in an evangelical theocracy.

If you follow the links in what I posted on National Prayer Day you find the website for this "National Day" and discover the Mormons are NOT welcome - as the Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints people are listed as a cult. Buddhists and Muslims are, of course, excluded. Jews, Muslims and Buddhists won't be participating. Spokesman Mark Fried said that it's against the organization's rules to involve non-Christian cults like Mormonism.

Oh well. At least there will be more babies - good Christian ones at that. Unless we go back to coat hangers.

Posted by Alan at 19:20 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: The Culture

On your knees, America!
No double entendre implied at all...


Kenneth Wilson in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) gives this advice: In speaking or writing you may use double entendre to amuse, but be sure that your audiences will both understand and enjoy it, or it would be better not to attempt it at all. Inadvertent double meanings can embarrass writers or speakers.

So the on-your-knees business only has one meaning, not three....

Fred Clark reminds us, today is officially our National Day of Prayer. To be precise, in 1952, Congress passed a law establishing the National Day of Prayer as an annual religious observance.

And as Clark says - Quick: give me another sentence that uses the words "Congress," "law," "establish" and "religion."

Oh well, not a big deal.

Yes, there is an "honorary chairman" selected by the nonprofit committee that promotes this business. It's a ceremonial position. This year that would be Oliver North. Yep.

A little history from July 5, 1989...
Former White House aide Oliver North has escaped jail for his part in the Iran-Contra affair.

The decorated Vietnam veteran was convicted of three - out of 12 - charges relating to illegal United States' support for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua in the mid-1980s.

He received a three-year suspended prison sentence, two years on probation, 1,200 hours' community service with inner city drugs projects and a $150,000 fine.

The retired lieutenant-colonel has also had his annual service pension - of $23,100 - suspended after 20 years in the US Marines and he has been barred from holding any federal office.

In his summing up at the US District Court in Washington Judge Gerhard Gesell described North, 45, as a "low-ranking subordinate who was carrying out the instructions of a few cynical superiors."

Many commentators have expressed surprise at the leniency of the sentence for offences, which attract a maximum 10 years in prison and $750,000 fine.

... North was found guilty in May of falsifying and destroying documents, obstructing Congress and illegally receiving the gift of a security fence around his home in Virginia.
Yeah, well, he's since been born-again I guess.

Here's the opening of the president's proclamation -

In his first Inaugural Address, President George Washington prayed that the Almighty would preserve the freedom of all Americans. On the National Day of Prayer, we celebrate that freedom and America's great tradition of prayer. The National Day of Prayer encourages Americans of every faith to give thanks for God's many blessings and to pray for each other and our Nation.

Harmless fluff.

Clark reviews all the press coverage and adds this:
I find the idea of an official National Day of Prayer, like the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance, a bit hard to swallow. Either it's a serious affirmation of religion -- in which case it seems to violate the Establishment Clause, or else it's a hollow exercise in civil religion -- in which case it seems to violate serious religious faith.

Prayer is a Good Thing. It's far too important to allow it to be highjacked in the service of hollow pieties and political campaigns, so I'm not a fan of the National Day of Prayer.
Clark takes this all to seriously. No harm. No foul.

Posted by Alan at 09:19 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Wednesday, 5 May 2004

Topic: In these times...

Things spinning down, as if it matters...

Ah, William Butler Yeats - and do you remember this one?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Oh yeah - the second coming and the end of the world as we know it - the times the evangelical Christians long for could be drawing near.

Ah, no way. But there is a bit of a "widening spiral of things" afoot.

Tony Blair is with us still, and one of his strongest supporters dumps this into the mix.

See U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi
Sue Leeman, Associated Press - Wednesday, May 05, 2004- 4:39 PM ET
LONDON - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."

Clwyd, 67, is a veteran politician of the governing Labour Party and a strong Blair supporter who regularly visits Iraq and reports back on issues such as human rights, the delivery of food and medical supplies to Iraqis, and Iraq's Kurdish minority. Her job as Blair's human rights envoy is unpaid and advisory.

"She was held for about six weeks without charge," the envoy told Wednesday's Evening Standard newspaper. "During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey. A harness was put on her, and an American rode on her back."

Clwyd said the woman has recovered physically but remains traumatized.

"I am satisfied the case has now been resolved satisfactorily," the envoy told British Broadcasting Corp. radio Wednesday. "She got a visit last week from the authorities, and she is about to have her papers and jewelry returned to her."
Oh good. All fixed.

Remember, as Rush Limbaugh explains, this is no big deal -
Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
Ah, our people just blowing off steam.

But maybe, just maybe, this is not just a few rowdy guys and gals letting their enthusiasm get the better of their judgment. No?

Why would you think the problem is systemic? Bush says its an aberration, and you need to understand we're not like that, as a people, at all. He said that to two Arab television networks today - one funded by us and the other owned by the Saudis. The questioner from the first had become an American citizen the day before the interview. Curious.

Okay, why would you not believe this is an aberration?

Matthew Yglesias lists some reasons.
One: the US government sometimes shipped suspects off to foreign countries in order to have them tortured as a means of procuring information. Two: the US government has gone out of its way to maintain the claim that people detained in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be considered either prisoners of war with Geneva Convention protections or criminals with constitutional rights. Three: the US government wanted to procure information from the people detained at Abu Ghraib.

Now I seriously doubt an explicit order ever came down from on high saying, "sadistically torture these guys," but I'm not sure what other conclusion the people charged with handling the interrogations were supposed to draw from the top leadership's conduct other than that torture would be condoned as long as the people doing it didn't call attention to themselves.
Does Matt have his facts wrong?

Working backwards, we do want information. And last week Ted Olsen argued to the Supreme Court that the court had no jurisdiction over anything the administration wanted to do with the prisoners at Guant?namo - that place was not our soil and anyway, the folks we held were not prisoners of war nor were they criminals, and then too, the two Americans we held here as "enemy combatants" have no rights either as they also were neither criminals nor prisoners of war. New category - thus no court has the right to stop the administration. And then the first item - shipping off folks to places where they could be tortured for information so we could claim we don't do such things.

There are lots of stories about that. Remember that Canadian fellow we picked up by mistake at the Newark Airport - that Maher Arar fellow? Ashcroft and the Justice Department did apologize. So did the Canadians. A little oops thing. So even though he was a Canadian citizen picked up in the United States through a bit of misplaced enthusiasm - he'd done nothing - somehow he got shipped to Syria, to Damascus, and ended up in their military intelligence's Far Falasteen (Palestine Branch) prison - handcuffed and blindfolded, on Oct. 9, 2002. He was "interrogated" there at the request of Canadian and U.S. intelligence agencies. But mild, moderate or even severe torture is not terribly effective when you want information the dude just doesn't have.

Well, he got popped free after six or seven months, as he was useless.

Read all about it.

This is not a case of a few bad apples letting off a little emotional steam - to mix metaphors egregiously. It'd not even a case of steaming emotional apples.

We have not exactly been playing nice on a lot of levels.

See CIA May Have Had a Role in Hiding Iraqi Prisoners
Bob Drogin, The Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2004

Without detail, here's the essence -
WASHINGTON -- The CIA is seeking to determine whether its operatives had a role in the imprisonment of so-called ghost detainees, Iraqi prisoners who were held without names, charges or other documentation at U.S.-run detention facilities across their homeland, intelligence officials said Tuesday.

A little-noticed portion of the military's classified report on the abuse of prisoners in Iraq says that a number of jails operated by the 800th Military Police Brigade "routinely held" such prisoners "without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention."

In one case, the report says, U.S. military police at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad shifted six to eight undocumented prisoners "around within the facility to hide them" from a visiting delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine and in violation of international law," the report adds.

Human rights groups said the practice of keeping prisoners off written lists and physically concealing them from humanitarian aid groups and independent monitors has been well known over the years in dictatorships from Guatemala to Sudan.
Hey, if the International Red Cross doesn't know, well, how can they get all upset with us?

Pretty cool, huh?

Consider a detail from the New Yorker expos? of last weekend -
In November ... an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called "O.G.A.," or other government agencies--that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees--was brought to his unit for questioning. "They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away." The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison's inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, "and therefore never had a number."
No number, no problem.

So, we will punish a few low-level soldiers. They were, at best, doing really stupid things that embarrassed the whole nation. But we're good people. Bush says so.

So good people, pony up some more money for all this!

Bush Asks Congress for Additional War Funding
$25B Needed for Contingencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Says
Jonathan Weisman and William Branigin, The Washington Post, Wednesday, May 5, 2004; 5:21 PM
Driven by unanticipated combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and rising political pressure, the White House reversed course today and asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that begins in October.

... Bush included no war funding in his fiscal 2005 budget, and he had hoped to avoid such a request until after the November election, fearing a divisive, campaign-year debate over the war's conduct and future, Republican congressional aides said. Congress has already approved two wartime emergency spending laws totaling $166 billion, of which $149 billion went to Iraq.

But in recent weeks, military officials publicly stated that U.S. forces were already running into financial problems, and would likely run out of money even before Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Accounting tricks would likely patch those holes, they said, but it was unclear how the military would be able to wait until January or February, when the administration planned to detail its next war request.
Hey, you want to protest any of this?

Don't even think about it. Consider today's big Hollywood story.

How did Oliver Willis sum this up? "First they got Clear Channel to force out Howard Stern, then Sinclair refused to broadcast Nightline's episode about the fallen, and now this."

What is this?

See Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, May 5, 2004

The key points?
WASHINGTON, May 4 -- The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis -- including the family of Osama bin Laden -- and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
Well, Jeb won't be offended now. And Jeb won't jet off to the Cannes Festival where this is one of the official entries.

Oh, don't worry. We'll all be able to see it without having to go to France. Someone will distribute it. And make lots of money - even if Disney doesn't want such tainted money. And it's probably as over the top and hysterical as "Bowling for Columbine" was. And that was not a good film. Moore hasn't made a good film since "Canadian Bacon." He can be a buffoon.

But Ezra Klein comments on the implications:
This isn't an isolated incident, it's part of a worrying trend where the corporate friends of the Republican Party are using their positions to help reshape media coverage. When Howard Stern started down his anti-Bush road, Clear Channel forced him off. When Nightline attempted to honor the fallen, Sinclair dropped the episode from their lineup and Fox news promised a night devoted to our accomplishments in Iraq. When Michael Moore inks a deal with Miramax for his new, anti-Bush movie, Disney halts its distribution.

Aside from the worrisome trend towards censorship that Oliver [Willis] identifies, there's a deeper problem with these attempts to curry administration favor. The article on the Disney deal makes clear that Disney fears losing the tax breaks and perks that Jeb and George have given them. It's the cost-benefit analysis here that worries me. These corporations are making moves that will certainly anger the Democratic Party, they must then be looking towards some payback from the right that outweighs the ire of the left. These are corporations, their actions respond to an anticipated profit. When they make public stands like these they're taking a serious risk, what are they expecting in return?
What does a corporation expect in return for leaning far to the right and trying to please the Bush crew? Duh!

And so it goes. Another day in paradise.

Posted by Alan at 22:33 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Newer | Latest | Older