Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Spencer Warren on The Passion
I blogged yesterday (below) about an essay by Spencer Warren about the classical understanding of how to portray violence in visual art. Mel Gibson’s The Passion prompted me to remember Warren’s essay. Well, it turns out that yesterday the Claremont Institute posted this review by Spencer Warren of The Passion. The bottom line--Warren thinks highly of the movie, but also thinks Gibson overdid it with the violence.
Posted by Eric Claeys | Link to this Entry | Comments [316] | 3/2/2004 9:11 AM
|
|
Operation American Freedom
Amman, Jordan -- As Schramm has reported, I am currently on my way to Iraq to report on the progress of Iraqi regime change for the next few months. Before I provide an update of my trip to date, it is worth saying a few words about how this project came about, and why we are doing this.
By my recollection, the idea for this project was hatched about six months ago. Schramm decided that he should send the most horrible weapon ever devised by man to Iraq--a lawyer. I was struck at that time--and I still am today--by the disconnect between what was being reported on the news, and what people (mostly those unburdened by press credentials) returning from Iraq were saying. The former gave us only body counts, while the latter provided numerous examples of the slow success of regime change, both from the point of view of the soldiers and the Iraqis. While there is a certain bias to news coverage in favor of "bad" news, the drumbeat here was and is particularly pernicious . . . and particularly political. This skew is not particularly surprising coming from outlets such as CNN, which admitted to knowing yet failing to report about Saddam’s recent (pre-war) atrocities, lest it lose access to the country whose last confrontation with the U.S. put the network on the map.
This media disconnect is particularly disconcerting given the importance of the U.S. effort in Iraq. The effort to oust the Saddam and replace him with a democratic regime is an historic undertaking. The removal of a bloody tyrant and the attempt to bring freedom to an oppressed people is one worthy of the American people. But the task is one filled with both promise and peril. If regime change is done well, then Iraq will serve as an example in the Middle East and will likely contribute to the stability of the region. However, if regime change is done poorly, then Iraq will also serve as an example both of democracy in the Middle East and of U.S. foreign policy, and its failure would likely further destabilize the region.
Because so much is at stake, the skewed media perspective which provides the lone window into the region for most Americans is all the more dangerous. Dangerous because it misinforms Americans as to what our role is in Iraq, what kind of progress is being made, and therefore what sort of action we should take next.
This project is designed to provide some counterbalance. It will be different from the standard reporting in several ways. First, unlike the majority of publications, we will not just be reporting from within the Green Zone in Baghdad. While I certainly will spend time there, Iraq is bigger than Baghdad, and I intend to explore it. The plan therefore is to provide reports, for example, on the Shiites from Basra and on the Sunnis and Kurds from Mosul. Second, the project will include both embedded and non-embedded reporting. From my contacts with the DOD, the vast majority of reporters do one or the other. Third, it will be for a period of months, not weeks. Most embedded reporters are in country for a period of only 4-6 weeks. Fourth, the product of the reporting will be varied, including blogs with pictures, as well as standard newspaper and magazine reporting. And finally, the perspective will be different--that is, it will be written from a perspective that the regime change, if done right, is a worthy goal. This is not a cheerleading expedition, however. We will look to expose failings as well as successes. But unlike the vast majority of the media, we do not look to cheapen the sacrifice of the fallen by reporting only upon their death, while ignoring what it is that they died for.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 3/1/2004 7:50 PM
|
|
Bush economy better than Clinton?
J. Edward Carter, chairman of something called Economists for Bush, has an interesting article comparing the first three years of the Clinton economy with the Bush economy in the same period (up to nine months before the election). Very revealing, not the sort of things you see on CNN. Nice chart.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 3/1/2004 8:42 PM
|
|
Aristide abducted?
Jean-Bertrand Aristide is now claiming that he was taken forcibly to the Central African Republic by the U.S. from Haiti. Rep. Maxine Waters seems to agree. Aristide said that "White American, white military" had forced him to, leave. Jesse Jackson is calling for an investigation. Colin Powell is not amused at all of this.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 3/1/2004 2:53 PM
|
|
George Soros smashed
Daniel I. Davidson smashes George Soros’ book, "The Bubble of American Supremacy" in Sunday’s WaPo. Soros may be rich and lucky (and Hungarian born), but he is an idiot. And I’m glad that even ordinary folks see it. Note these few amazing lines from the review that reveal how unlearned and silly Soros is, Davidson writes: "It is startling to read a man who considers himself something of a philosopher acknowledging that he was ’not even aware of natural rights until I started studying’ the neoconservative ’view of the world.’ He believes that ’Leo Strauss, who supposedly influenced Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons, cottoned on the first sentence of the declaration [of Independence] and derived, from the idea of self-evident truths the concept of natural rights,’ a concept that Soros believes ’plays an important role in the ideology of American supremacists.’ He thinks that natural rights are ’associated with conservative arguments and papal pronouncements’ and that it is appropriate to distinguish between his concept of the open society and natural rights.
As the Columbia Encyclopedia states, ’the classic expressions of natural rights are The English Bill of Rights (1689), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the First 10 Amendments of the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (1948).’ There is no opposition between the open society as expounded by Soros and the doctrine of natural rights."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 3/1/2004 1:58 PM
|
|
As Churchill, so Bush?
Andrew Sullivan is often hard to disagree with. Here he compares Churchill the war leader and what happended to him after the war--he lost big time to Clement Atlee--with what may well happen to Bush: He could be seen to be succesful in the war, therefore his services are no longer needed by November. And, it will also be the case that because Bush (like Churchill during the war) expanded the size of government, he has little credibility when he criticizes Kerry on spending and his liberalism regarding the size of government. This would, in effect, make Bush the architect of a liberal takeover.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 3/1/2004 1:28 PM
|
|
Boys, Choirs, and the War
Edith Foster writes a lovely mediation on the relationship between boys, choirs, and the war. Her start: "If you’re like me, your school or community choir is the only forum in which your children memorize any amount of great poetry. My experience is that the kids remember the music and the lyrics of the songs long after the rehearsals and concerts are over. It is, therefore, especially important to know what kinds of poems and songs they are learning at choir practice. To illustrate this point, allow me to briefly describe my experience with two choir concerts: last year’s spring concert, sung as the campaign in Iraq was in progress, and this year’s." 
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 3/1/2004 1:26 PM
|
|
Violence in Art and Violence in the Passion
I haven’t seen The Passion yet. My wife & I avoided the first week because we generally avoid long lines at movies. We’re still hesitating, though, because the reviews say the movie is so violent. Our doubts reminded me, however, of this excellent posting by Spencer Warren on the Claremont Institute’s website.
The short of it--really good movie directors appreciate that the way to impress a movie audience is not to show the violence on the screen, but instead to suggest it off-screen in a way that makes the audience’s imagination do more of the work. This rule of thumb stems from a classical understanding of art, and in particular a classical understanding of the objects and limitations of visual art. If Warren (and the classics) are right, The Passion may suffer on an artistic level. But we’ll have to go see the movie to judge for ourselves.
Posted by Eric Claeys | Link to this Entry | Comments [224] | 3/1/2004 11:18 AM
|
|
News You Can Use--Maybe. . .
Not to be missed was the Saturday New York Times business page article entitled, "Pfizer Gives Up Testing Viagra On Women." Seems the little blue pills just don’t work on the fairer sex.
The money quote, from the had of Pfizer’s "sex research team," is: "Men consistently get erections in the presence of naked women. With women, things depend on a myriad of factors."
Ah, modern science discovers the obvious once again. Maybe Pfizer should sell each dose of women’s Viagra with a dozen roses and a box of chocolates.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [8] | 3/1/2004 8:25 AM
|
|
"John Kerry’s odd come-to-Jebus moment"
In this morning’s edition of the Bleat James Lileks comments on John Kerry’s answer to the question of whether God is on our side: “We pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.” He juxtaposes this to one of the president’s statements: “The liberty we prize is not American’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.” Then finally asks, Which one best represents the face of America you’d like the President to show to the world?
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments | 3/1/2004 6:33 AM
|
|
Ralph Ellison
Lucas Morel’s op-ed in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times reflects on the work of Ralph Ellison. It is a fine piece. Monday marks the 90th anniversary of Ellison’s birth. Invisible Man, according to Lucas,
"made ’invisibility’ a metaphor for our inability to see each other’s full humanity. Published in 1952, the novel chronicles a black man’s search for identity in an America that refuses to ’see’ him. As Americans struggle today to become more colorblind in their public and private interactions, Ellison’s writings offer much to improve our social and political vision." "Ellison, who died in 1994, observed that the ’high visibility’ of blacks in a predominantly white America made their individuality ’un-visible’ to most whites. ’If the white society has tried to do anything to us,’ he remarked, ’it has tried to keep us from being individuals.’ But though the nation’s founders committed the ’sin of American racial pride,’ they also committed the ideal of human equality to paper. In so doing, Ellison believed they gave blacks and other minorities the firmest ground for the extension of America’s promise to all of its citizens." Read the whole thing, or even better, get Lucas’ new book (officially published on March 1st by the University Press of Kentucky) called Ralph Ellison and the Raft of Hope: A Political Companion to Invisible Man. It includes essays by Lucas, James Seaton, Danielle Allen, Thomas Engeman, John F. Callahan, and others. You can order it by clicking here.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 2/29/2004 8:50 PM
|
|
Boorstin dies
Daniel J. Boorstin has passed away. Although his book "The Image" (1962) was mandatory reading in many of my college courses (you know, the latest "in" sort of thing according to the with-it faculty; he coined the term "pseudo event") I stopped reading him after a while. There was something soft in his attempts to understand America. Yet, he was disliked by some nasty people, so I suppose he couldn’t have been all that bad. The WaPo eulogy states: "He had been criticized for oversimplification and overlooking the more complicated moments of American history, from McCarthyism to Vietnam, and for overlooking the more complicated movements of American scholarship, from multiculturalism to feminist studies." RIP
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 2/29/2004 8:15 PM
|
|
Dying languages
Jack Hitt on dead (or dying) languages and whether they ought to be saved. Such pieces are always interesting to me, but I don’t think we ought to be thinking about languages the way we think about museums. If they’re not alive, be off with them! Besides, if there is anything in a dying language worth the saving, another will pick it up. "Remuneration? O that’s the Latin word for three farthings."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 2/29/2004 1:14 PM
|
|
Skimming in Iraq
Susan Sachs of the NY Times writes on this theme: "In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein’s government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions.
Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of food and medicine. Yet the government’s hidden slush funds were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the world who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry offices, said Iraqi officials who supervised the skimming operation."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 2/29/2004 1:07 PM
|
|
Barone on Gaddis
Michael Barone also has an opinion on the John Lewis Gaddis thesis we have brought up before. And, he doesn’t think the Democrats, John Kerry included, could so easily change American foreign policy even if they wanted to. He cites to advantage both John Quincy Adams and FDR.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 2/29/2004 1:03 PM
|
|
California
George Will has some opinions about the primary election (for the GOP US Senate seat) in California. Perhaps he is being optimistic, but he sees a way Bush cpould carryb the state if Rosario Marin wins th primary. Pay attention to the numbers Will cites.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 2/29/2004 1:02 PM
|
|
