BurningbirdWhen Dave Rogers typed in members from his old sci-fi movie collection, I knew that I had “This Island Earth”, stuffed somewhere among the videos. While picking through the packed boxes, I was able to find my old, beloved copy of “Them”. I almost feel like I found a forgotten hundred dollar bill, stuffed into an old, discarded purse.
The movies aren’t DVD, but that don’t mean no nevermind to me. If they’re a little worn and scratchy, why that will just add to the effect.
Popcorn, anyone?
Though I sometimes wish Dean would go out and hire a strong DC insider to manage his campaign and keep him from inserting foot in mouth, my estimation of him as a candidate was enhanced when I read about his relationship with his wife, Dr. Steinberg Dean, and the fact that she doesn’t have much to do with the campaign.
Finally, for once, an example of a political spouse who really does demonstrate that there could possibly be equality of the sexes in this country some day.
However, the mainstream media and all the little anal conservatives are just appalled at the fact that this woman is not giving up her career in order to stand by her man. But I’ll let View from the Loft speak my mind, he did it so well:
Go ahead and Google Judith Steinberg Dean–you’ll see many, many more examples of the we-like-independent-women-but-itsn’t-it-odd- that-Judy-is-never-seen-with-Dean-on-the-campaign-trail train of thought. Actually, “we”–that is, commentators, reporters, and throwbacks–don’t like independent women. They make “us” nervous. They have the unmitigated gall to believe that their own careers are important, not amusements to be tossed aside when hubby calls. “We” want to see a woman stand by her man, and if she doesn’t, well, “we” can’t be held responsible for the consequences. This is what underlies the rationalizations that “we,” as one columnist said, want to see the candidate “in context. And you can’t see a man in context without his wife.”
And here I thought electing a candidate had to do with his beliefs, policy proposals, position on crucial issues, qualifications for the job, and other trivia, when all the while it’s about whether he and his wife have a good (read: man-dominant, woman-subservient) marriage. Silly me.
(Thanks to Joel for the heads up)
(My, I’m making up for lost time not writing to the weblog, aren’t I? I miss my walks, though.)
Good news for MoveOn, according to Sheila Lennon CBS has denied the organization’s request to air the winning Bush in 30 seconds ad, because supposedly the ad focuses on an ‘issue’, and CBS won’t take issues-based advertising during the Superbowl.
Already people are expressing outrage, particularly since, according to Sheila:
CBS will however run anti-smoking ads during the game and, for the third year, an entry from The White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (remember the “drug use aids terrorists” ads?).
I like the MoveOn ad. I think it’s wonderfully orchestrated, and beautifully filmed. However, about the worst place to plunk this ad would have been during a Superbowl, to a lot of people sitting around in a party mood, drinking beer, and eating too much. The same people who want to forget the problems facing this country for a few hours during a sports game, and who are going to react negatively to having said problems forced into their face during their time of ‘escape’.
Now, the MoveOn ad will get publicity because of CBS’s denial, and it won’t cost a penny. More importantly, it will be viewed in the more appropriate context – as a political statement, within the context of a political statement.
Perfect.
Dan Gillmor had talked about this in a humorous, slightly catty posting earlier:
Or maybe it’s all a plot by the CBS outpost of the Liberal Media Conspiracy ™. Here’s the idea: Turn down the ad, which will generate a firestorm of publicity, and then the ad will get played on all the news shows – free advertising and a much bigger bang for the buck. Maybe CBS is plotting with MoveOn.org! Ooooh, those clever lefties.
However, it’s genuinely gratifying to discover that CBS actually has some standards. That’s not obvious given the quality of the network’s programming.
Meow!
Ah me, what a dangerous combination: a weblog and an inability to get away from the computer with hikes and other exercise due to not being able to do more than hobble from my bedroom to the bathroom. I did not have a particularly good night last night as all the various parts of me clamored for attention.
“Feel me!” “No, no! Feel me!” “Ignore them, I hurt the most!”
Damn body parts.
Still, I am able to move about and this makes me happy, if for no other reason than I can get coffee when I want it.
I mentioned yesterday that I actually went into a Little Green Footballs post and left comments. Most people will think this a foolhardy thing to do and I tend to agree with them. However, I cannot watch people making fun of the death of another person without at least attempting to…what I have no idea.
What happened is that Joey deVilla had pointed out a cartoon and award given to Rachel Corrie as “Idolitarian of the Year” for, we presume, getting run over by a bulldozer when she was protesting the wrecking of a home in Palestine. The award was offensive enough, but the humor that was indulged in was, well frankly, beyond anything I’d seen before.
Regardless of whether we agree with a person or not, or regardless of what a person has done, I can see little justification into making humor of their death. It seems to me that webloggers can go too far in what they write and support, and if so, then Charles, the “Prince of Puerile Hatred” crossed the line, he and his band of merry, and mainly anonymous, marauders. So I entered comments to that effect, which basically only served as fresh meat for the ‘wits’ that frequent LGF’s comments.
It was discouraging to see the things said, until I noticed that there really aren’t a huge number of people agreeing with Charles. In fact, his longer threads tend to be a smaller group of dedicated devotees, and then milder comments, or even criticism from people such as myself.
It made me realize that yes a weblogger can go too far, but we don’t have to do anything about it: as they get worse in their behavior and in what they support, they’ll lose more and more people who can’t stomach the never ending hatred until eventually they just fade away, hopefully never to be heard from again. Or they’ll act as a lightning rod for all the people we would rather not have to deal with anyway, in which case they serve a useful purpose.
Weblogging, like Google, is self-healing.
I have said in the past that I am not one of the those that supports pulling the US out of Iraq without a thought or a backward glance. I didn’t want us to invade Iraq – we didn’t have the right to abrogate the UN’s authority in this matter. However, once the deed was done, we have an obligation to ensure that Iraq not descend into civil war, or become yet another fundamentally religious regime.
With the politically strategic pullout of the US scheduled for July 1 of this year, what will happen is our people, for the most part, will be home by election time in November, but not so soon that the country has a chance to erupt into civil war. And I don’t think there’s little doubt of this happening. You can’t remove an oppressive regime over peoples of strongly differing opinions and beliefs and expect to have a smooth running, fair democracy in barely a year’s time.
Unfortunately, the group of people most likely to pay the price for our short sighted thinking will be the women of Iraq.
Both Baghdad Burning and wKen reference articles about a new vote by the US-backed Iraq Council to return the country to sharia, a dogmatic adherance to variously interpreted Islamic law that is basically going to strip the rights of women in the one Islamic country that had progressed more than any other when it comes to rights for women. Baghdad Burning wrote:
I usually ignore the emails I receive telling me to ‘embrace’ my new-found freedom and be happy that the circumstances of all Iraqi women are going to ‘improve drastically’ from what we had before. They quote Bush (which in itself speaks volumes) saying things about how repressed the Iraqi women were and how, now, they are going to be able to live free lives.
The people who write those emails often lob Iraq together with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan and I shake my head at their ignorance but think to myself, “Well, they really need to believe their country has the best of intentions- I won’t burst their bubble.” But I’m telling everyone now- if I get any more emails about how free and liberated the Iraqi women are *now* thanks to America, they can expect a very nasty answer.
Supposedly the current adminstrator, Paul Bremer, will most likely overturn this law, but what happens in June when we start pulling out? Does anyone believe that there will be a significant change in attitude among the dominant Shiite population in that time?
Think about it – this is no different than telling women in this country that they can’t work in any position that they want; that they must be accompanied by male members of their household if they want to drive somewhere; that they have to be covered head to toe in heavy draperies regardless of the weather; that they can’t go to school, vote, breath without the expressed permission of a male dominated religious majority. Doing this to the women in this country is no different that what we’ll be doing to the women in Iraq.
The current administration knows this, but has shown little evidence of caring about this. However, lest you think that the liberals among you are going to get off without a whipping, I don’t see that there’s much interest among all of you in what happens to the women of Iraq with your silly little “Pull out now” stickers and signs.
In fact, all you’re doing is giving ammunition to the Bush administration, “You asked us to pull out, we did what you asked.”
Because of the actions of our country, we are condemning half the populace of Iraq to dark servitude without any rights, and little hope. And we – both liberals and conservatives – have done this thing.
(And before you ask, what do I suggest? Bringing in the UN to work with the Iraqi people long-term to ensure that the rights of minorities and women are upheld – paid for by the US, supported by both our troops and money. However, this time with a UN leadership, in support of a basic set of human rights that must be implemented by all countries, regardless of dominant religion. Including the US.)