From The New Republic:
"What's riveting has been the reaction of CBS. Like Howell Raines and the directors of the BBC before him, Dan Rather seems to believe that journalism is some kind of caste profession, a calling that no amateur blogger can aspire to."
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Canada Declares War on US (sort of)
From The Diplomad:
"One of our Diplomads attended a Canadian National Day reception, July 1, at a major hotel in a large city in the Far Abroad. It was a standard evening dip reception, to wit, carved ice swan, gummy canapes, warm drinks, and lots of inane banter among several hundred milling guests. Canadians are generally gracious hosts and traditionally hard to distinguish from their southern neighbors -- until they say "out" or "house," that is. But of late, and certainly at this event, they seem determined to ensure that there is no confusion, that the definition of Canada is "We're not the USA." At this reception, our Diplomad got cornered by a slightly tipsy Canadian aid worker (CIDA) who proceeded to give a weird version of US-Canadian relations which involved an apparently widely held Canadian view that Canada has defeated the United States in war, "We are the only the country to have defeated the United States in two declared (sic) wars." Our Diplomad, being a diplomat, held his tongue and didn't get into the details of these wars, such as noting that, yes, the Americans and British on several occasions fought battles in what is now Canada, and, yes, Americans lost some but won others, and in the end the Americans gained their independence (The Revolutionary War) and then successfully kept it (War of 1812.) Our noble Diplomad didn't launch into a description of Perry's victory on the Great Lakes over a "Canadian" invasion fleet or Old Hickory's victory over the "Canadian" army at New Orleans. Our Diplomad -- gracious, as are all our Diplomads -- limited his riposte to the ever polite, "Any time you want a rematch, let us know.""
"One of our Diplomads attended a Canadian National Day reception, July 1, at a major hotel in a large city in the Far Abroad. It was a standard evening dip reception, to wit, carved ice swan, gummy canapes, warm drinks, and lots of inane banter among several hundred milling guests. Canadians are generally gracious hosts and traditionally hard to distinguish from their southern neighbors -- until they say "out" or "house," that is. But of late, and certainly at this event, they seem determined to ensure that there is no confusion, that the definition of Canada is "We're not the USA." At this reception, our Diplomad got cornered by a slightly tipsy Canadian aid worker (CIDA) who proceeded to give a weird version of US-Canadian relations which involved an apparently widely held Canadian view that Canada has defeated the United States in war, "We are the only the country to have defeated the United States in two declared (sic) wars." Our Diplomad, being a diplomat, held his tongue and didn't get into the details of these wars, such as noting that, yes, the Americans and British on several occasions fought battles in what is now Canada, and, yes, Americans lost some but won others, and in the end the Americans gained their independence (The Revolutionary War) and then successfully kept it (War of 1812.) Our noble Diplomad didn't launch into a description of Perry's victory on the Great Lakes over a "Canadian" invasion fleet or Old Hickory's victory over the "Canadian" army at New Orleans. Our Diplomad -- gracious, as are all our Diplomads -- limited his riposte to the ever polite, "Any time you want a rematch, let us know.""
New York Will Rise Again
Says Vartan Gregorian:
"NEW YORK--When I first arrived in New York City in 1956 (by way of Tabriz, Iran, where I was born, and via Beirut, Lebanon, on my way to Stanford University), the New York I encountered was awesome as well as mind-blowing--even if that term hadn't been invented yet. I wrote to my sister in Tabriz that this city was a gigantic magnet attracting everything and everyone, every idea, every bit of energy, every scrap of power. It still is.
"The past several days have seen many commemorations of the terror attacks of three years ago. These events focused on the grief, the calamity and the slaughter of innocents. This was entirely appropriate, for we should never forget what happened that day.
"But we shouldn't lose sight of the other side of 9/11, either: the tremendous strength, dynamism and resiliency of New York. This is a proud, self-confident, busy, determined and impatient place that simply cannot be cowed or bowed. Within hours of the attacks, there was little question in anyone's mind that soon the city would be back about its business."
"NEW YORK--When I first arrived in New York City in 1956 (by way of Tabriz, Iran, where I was born, and via Beirut, Lebanon, on my way to Stanford University), the New York I encountered was awesome as well as mind-blowing--even if that term hadn't been invented yet. I wrote to my sister in Tabriz that this city was a gigantic magnet attracting everything and everyone, every idea, every bit of energy, every scrap of power. It still is.
"The past several days have seen many commemorations of the terror attacks of three years ago. These events focused on the grief, the calamity and the slaughter of innocents. This was entirely appropriate, for we should never forget what happened that day.
"But we shouldn't lose sight of the other side of 9/11, either: the tremendous strength, dynamism and resiliency of New York. This is a proud, self-confident, busy, determined and impatient place that simply cannot be cowed or bowed. Within hours of the attacks, there was little question in anyone's mind that soon the city would be back about its business."
Islam Has No Answers for Modern Iraq
From Zeyad, in Healing Iraq:
"Waiting for clerics and leaders of Islam to condemn violence might take forever. The reason is that there is no ONE Islam that all Muslims today adhere to. There is a multitude of sects, cults and groups that constitute what we call Islam, the followers of which can range from tens of millions to a few thousands. Even within the same sect there can be fundamental differences in interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. Rival clerics from the same sect can hold highly contradicting opinions on a matter as simple as washing yourself before prayers.
"Muslim jurists over the last 14 centuries have gone into every small detail of life that one could imagine without ever attempting to address the fundamental or controversial differences. Hundreds of thick volumes have been written about what is najis (filthy) and what is not, which hand you should use to wipe yourself with after defecating and which one to use when eating, whether it is acceptable or not to kiss a woman when she is menstruating, whether to wash one's hands again after touching the robe of a non-muslim before prayers (there are actually two answers to that depending on whether your hand was wet or not), and so on. Muslims to this day ask these questions, seek answers for them, and fear the consequences of not following them properly. Such a sad waste of time and resources.
"In fact, one can lead a completely normal life without ever learning these irrelevant minor details, probably because they were originally intended for a society that existed centuries ago. One would certainly be regarded with scorn today if he took a few stones and some sand with him to the toilet. So, Islam is NOT a universal religion for all times no matter what Muslims say, neither is Christianity or Judaism by the way. Islam does not have the answers for many things which is why Muslim clerics over the last century were speechless about modern technology and scientific discoveries. Eighty years ago in Iraq it was considered blasphemy to say that rain was originally steam and some people were actually killed for doing so. Mullahs struggled hard to prevent people from sending their children to primary schools or to teach women to read and write. Every new and strange device was considered 'evil' and a work of the devil. Telegraphy, telephones, radios, cameras, televisions. In Saudi Arabia people went to the local telegraph office to ask them where they are hiding the Jinn that brings them news from the other side of the kingdom. They were incredulous to the fact that a message would travel in seconds a distance that took many days or months on camel back."
"Waiting for clerics and leaders of Islam to condemn violence might take forever. The reason is that there is no ONE Islam that all Muslims today adhere to. There is a multitude of sects, cults and groups that constitute what we call Islam, the followers of which can range from tens of millions to a few thousands. Even within the same sect there can be fundamental differences in interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. Rival clerics from the same sect can hold highly contradicting opinions on a matter as simple as washing yourself before prayers.
"Muslim jurists over the last 14 centuries have gone into every small detail of life that one could imagine without ever attempting to address the fundamental or controversial differences. Hundreds of thick volumes have been written about what is najis (filthy) and what is not, which hand you should use to wipe yourself with after defecating and which one to use when eating, whether it is acceptable or not to kiss a woman when she is menstruating, whether to wash one's hands again after touching the robe of a non-muslim before prayers (there are actually two answers to that depending on whether your hand was wet or not), and so on. Muslims to this day ask these questions, seek answers for them, and fear the consequences of not following them properly. Such a sad waste of time and resources.
"In fact, one can lead a completely normal life without ever learning these irrelevant minor details, probably because they were originally intended for a society that existed centuries ago. One would certainly be regarded with scorn today if he took a few stones and some sand with him to the toilet. So, Islam is NOT a universal religion for all times no matter what Muslims say, neither is Christianity or Judaism by the way. Islam does not have the answers for many things which is why Muslim clerics over the last century were speechless about modern technology and scientific discoveries. Eighty years ago in Iraq it was considered blasphemy to say that rain was originally steam and some people were actually killed for doing so. Mullahs struggled hard to prevent people from sending their children to primary schools or to teach women to read and write. Every new and strange device was considered 'evil' and a work of the devil. Telegraphy, telephones, radios, cameras, televisions. In Saudi Arabia people went to the local telegraph office to ask them where they are hiding the Jinn that brings them news from the other side of the kingdom. They were incredulous to the fact that a message would travel in seconds a distance that took many days or months on camel back."
Dan Rather: Destroying CBS News to Save John Kerry
That's the thrust of this article by Stanley Kurtz in National Review:
"Why were we so wrong? Why did Dan Rather and CBS News, against all expectations, impeach their own credibility to defend the authenticity of memos that are almost certainly forgeries? The obvious answer is that they did it to save the faltering Kerry campaign from a final and decisive blow. If CBS were to admit that the documents were forgeries, it would have no grounds for protecting its sources. In fact, CBS would have a positive obligation to do everything in its power to expose the malefactors behind the forgeries. If the trail led back to the Kerry campaign, president Bush's reelection would be assured. Dan Rather has been at pains to derogate those who are interested in where the documents came from. This sounds suspiciously like Rather is concerned about what a revelation of his sources might mean. Certainly, if Rather personally received the forgeries from a Kerry operative, it would be a disaster for Rather. That alone might seem to be sufficient to explain CBS's refusal to admit its error. (It now appears that CBS News may well have received the documents from a partisan and highly questionable source.)
"And even if the trail leading back to the forgers does not pass through the Kerry camp, an admission by CBS that the documents are bogus would be a huge embarrassment for the senator's campaign, which has so aggressively seized upon the story to attack the president. It would also be a fiasco for Dan Rather and CBS, whose credulity on a story harmful to the president would be exposed, and pointedly contrasted to their treatment of the Swift-boat veterans.
"But surely it would have been better for Rather and CBS to cut their losses and admit their error. Yes, they would have taken a hit, but they would also have won kudos for honesty and professionalism. Americans are forgiving of those who admit error. By standing behind a story that is so obviously flawed, Rather and CBS News are setting themselves up to become laughing stocks. That is why the reasonable assumption I -- and many other folks -- made was that CBS would attempt to salvage its reputation by repudiating the memos. And that is why many now assume Dan Rather and CBS News have sacrificed their reputations in order to protect the Kerry campaign."
"Why were we so wrong? Why did Dan Rather and CBS News, against all expectations, impeach their own credibility to defend the authenticity of memos that are almost certainly forgeries? The obvious answer is that they did it to save the faltering Kerry campaign from a final and decisive blow. If CBS were to admit that the documents were forgeries, it would have no grounds for protecting its sources. In fact, CBS would have a positive obligation to do everything in its power to expose the malefactors behind the forgeries. If the trail led back to the Kerry campaign, president Bush's reelection would be assured. Dan Rather has been at pains to derogate those who are interested in where the documents came from. This sounds suspiciously like Rather is concerned about what a revelation of his sources might mean. Certainly, if Rather personally received the forgeries from a Kerry operative, it would be a disaster for Rather. That alone might seem to be sufficient to explain CBS's refusal to admit its error. (It now appears that CBS News may well have received the documents from a partisan and highly questionable source.)
"And even if the trail leading back to the forgers does not pass through the Kerry camp, an admission by CBS that the documents are bogus would be a huge embarrassment for the senator's campaign, which has so aggressively seized upon the story to attack the president. It would also be a fiasco for Dan Rather and CBS, whose credulity on a story harmful to the president would be exposed, and pointedly contrasted to their treatment of the Swift-boat veterans.
"But surely it would have been better for Rather and CBS to cut their losses and admit their error. Yes, they would have taken a hit, but they would also have won kudos for honesty and professionalism. Americans are forgiving of those who admit error. By standing behind a story that is so obviously flawed, Rather and CBS News are setting themselves up to become laughing stocks. That is why the reasonable assumption I -- and many other folks -- made was that CBS would attempt to salvage its reputation by repudiating the memos. And that is why many now assume Dan Rather and CBS News have sacrificed their reputations in order to protect the Kerry campaign."
John LeBoutillier on the Presidential Debates
They are Kerry's last chance, according to John LeBoutillier:
"Kerry has to tread a fine line: respectful of the office of the Presidency but hard on the Bush record. And he has to attack that record concisely, coherently and quickly; if he drags it out in his normal boring manner, viewers are going to head to other shows and games. Kerry’s biggest problem? He is 'un-likeable.' He is Lurch who flip-flops, dissembles and connives. That image has to be changed by his debate performances. He has to have voters walk away from these debates saying something like this: 'Boy, Bush made some big mistakes and that Kerry...well, he is not as bad as I had heard he was.' If Kerry can do that - then this race is going to tighten up right away. And then the Passion Differential (the anti-Bush sentiment outweighs the pro-Bush feeling in intensity that will manifest itself in dispropportionate turnout on Election Day)."
"Kerry has to tread a fine line: respectful of the office of the Presidency but hard on the Bush record. And he has to attack that record concisely, coherently and quickly; if he drags it out in his normal boring manner, viewers are going to head to other shows and games. Kerry’s biggest problem? He is 'un-likeable.' He is Lurch who flip-flops, dissembles and connives. That image has to be changed by his debate performances. He has to have voters walk away from these debates saying something like this: 'Boy, Bush made some big mistakes and that Kerry...well, he is not as bad as I had heard he was.' If Kerry can do that - then this race is going to tighten up right away. And then the Passion Differential (the anti-Bush sentiment outweighs the pro-Bush feeling in intensity that will manifest itself in dispropportionate turnout on Election Day)."
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Roger Simon on Pajamas and Bloggers
From RogerLSimon.com:
"Full Pajama Disclosure: I have noticed that some are casting aspersion on bloggers for working in their pajamas. I cannot tell a lie. I often do it. I also wrote screenplays for Warner Brothers, Universal and Twentieth Century Fox in my pajamas (do I have to give the money back?) and books for Simon & Schuster and Random House. I could go on... but I think you get the point. All together now:
'The pajama game
That's the game we're in
And we'll always be
In the pajama game
We love it!'"
ETYMOLOGICAL NOTE: According to the American Heritage online dictionary, the word "pajama" comes from the Hindi "pijma," for baggy pants, which in turn is based on the Middle Persian words "p" for leg plus "jmah" for garment.
"Full Pajama Disclosure: I have noticed that some are casting aspersion on bloggers for working in their pajamas. I cannot tell a lie. I often do it. I also wrote screenplays for Warner Brothers, Universal and Twentieth Century Fox in my pajamas (do I have to give the money back?) and books for Simon & Schuster and Random House. I could go on... but I think you get the point. All together now:
'The pajama game
That's the game we're in
And we'll always be
In the pajama game
We love it!'"
ETYMOLOGICAL NOTE: According to the American Heritage online dictionary, the word "pajama" comes from the Hindi "pijma," for baggy pants, which in turn is based on the Middle Persian words "p" for leg plus "jmah" for garment.
Mark Steyn on the Anniversary of 9/11
From The Spectator:
"Three years after September 11, the Islamist death cult is the love whose name no one dare speak. And, if you can't even bring yourself to identify your enemy, are you likely to defeat him? Can you even know him? He seems to know us pretty well. He understands the pressures he can bring to bear on Spain, and the Philippines, and France, too. He's come to appreciate the self-imposed constraints under which his enemy fights-- the legalisms, the political correctness, the deference to ineffectual multilateralism. He's revolted by the infidels' decadence but he has to admit it's enormously helpful: the useful idiots of the pro-gay, pro-feminist Left are far more idiotic and far more useful to him than they ever were to Stalin. He's figured out that while pluralistic open democracy might be a debased system of government next to Sharia, it has its moments: he had no idea that quite so many Westerners so loathed their own governments and, if not their own, then certainly America's. And he never thought that, even in America, while one party is at war, the other party is at war with the very idea that there is a war. And even the party committed to war presides over a lethargic unreformed bureaucracy, large chunks of which are determined to obstruct it. So, despite the loss of the Afghan training camps and Saddam and the Taleban and three quarters of al-Qaeda's leadership, it hasn't been a bad three years: the enemy has learnt the limits of the West's resolve, and all he has to do is put a bit of thought into exploiting it in the years ahead. A nuclear Iran will certainly help. "
"Three years after September 11, the Islamist death cult is the love whose name no one dare speak. And, if you can't even bring yourself to identify your enemy, are you likely to defeat him? Can you even know him? He seems to know us pretty well. He understands the pressures he can bring to bear on Spain, and the Philippines, and France, too. He's come to appreciate the self-imposed constraints under which his enemy fights-- the legalisms, the political correctness, the deference to ineffectual multilateralism. He's revolted by the infidels' decadence but he has to admit it's enormously helpful: the useful idiots of the pro-gay, pro-feminist Left are far more idiotic and far more useful to him than they ever were to Stalin. He's figured out that while pluralistic open democracy might be a debased system of government next to Sharia, it has its moments: he had no idea that quite so many Westerners so loathed their own governments and, if not their own, then certainly America's. And he never thought that, even in America, while one party is at war, the other party is at war with the very idea that there is a war. And even the party committed to war presides over a lethargic unreformed bureaucracy, large chunks of which are determined to obstruct it. So, despite the loss of the Afghan training camps and Saddam and the Taleban and three quarters of al-Qaeda's leadership, it hasn't been a bad three years: the enemy has learnt the limits of the West's resolve, and all he has to do is put a bit of thought into exploiting it in the years ahead. A nuclear Iran will certainly help. "
Steamroller and Violin
The other night we viewed a DVD of this, Andrei Tarkovsky's first film, completed as his student thesis project at Moscow's famous VGIK film school, shot at the Mosfilm Studios. Tarkovsky went on to become one of the great lights of the Russian art film, making Andrei Rublev, Solaris, The Mirror, and Stalker, among other pictures. This first effort is easier to understand than some of the later works, and a good introduction to his personal style. It is a 46-minute children's fable, about the friendship between a beleagured and insecure child musician and a heavy machinery operator paving the square in front of his apartment house, sort of like the French classic The Red Balloon. But it is also very different.
The themes of art and labor are Soviet, but the human drama, of personal fulfilment, bullying, testing, studying suffering, frustration, friendship, and the power of love, are universal. For anyone interested in the art of Tarkovsky, this early work is a real gem. It is full of symbolism, artistic cinematography--a raindrop falling into a puddle is almost like a human tear--and human moments. In a way, it presages his later themes, of a sensitive person caught in an insensitive world. We got our copy from Netflix. You can buy a copy at Amazon.com. And there is an excellent critical analysis online at Nostalghia.com. If you are interested in Russian films, especially Tarkovsky, you won't want to miss Steamroller and Violin.
The themes of art and labor are Soviet, but the human drama, of personal fulfilment, bullying, testing, studying suffering, frustration, friendship, and the power of love, are universal. For anyone interested in the art of Tarkovsky, this early work is a real gem. It is full of symbolism, artistic cinematography--a raindrop falling into a puddle is almost like a human tear--and human moments. In a way, it presages his later themes, of a sensitive person caught in an insensitive world. We got our copy from Netflix. You can buy a copy at Amazon.com. And there is an excellent critical analysis online at Nostalghia.com. If you are interested in Russian films, especially Tarkovsky, you won't want to miss Steamroller and Violin.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Is Bush Soft on Terror?
The Guardian's Craig Unger says despite the hype, in fact, he is:
"A poll just after the Republican convention showed that 27% of the voters preferred Bush to Kerry when it came to national security. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that if Bush wins in November it will be because of the fear factor. Yet the truth is that Bush is actually soft on terror. When it comes to going after the men who were behind 9/11 and who continue to wage a jihad against the US, Bush has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the forces behind terrorism, shielded the people who funded al-Qaida, obstructed investigations and diverted resources from the battle against it."
"A poll just after the Republican convention showed that 27% of the voters preferred Bush to Kerry when it came to national security. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that if Bush wins in November it will be because of the fear factor. Yet the truth is that Bush is actually soft on terror. When it comes to going after the men who were behind 9/11 and who continue to wage a jihad against the US, Bush has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the forces behind terrorism, shielded the people who funded al-Qaida, obstructed investigations and diverted resources from the battle against it."
Kamal Nawash on 9/11
Via Matt Drudge Kamal Nawah's interesting essay:
"This September 11 marks the third unforgettable anniversary of the worst mass murder in American history. After September 11, many in the Muslim world chose denial and hallucination rather than face up to the sad fact that Muslims perpetrated the 9-11 terrorist acts and that we have an enormous problem with extremism and support for terrorism. Many Muslims, including religious leaders, and �intellectuals� blamed 9-11 on a Jewish conspiracy and went as far as fabricating a tale that 4000 Jews did not show up for work in the World Trade Center on 9-11. Yet others blamed 9-11 on an American right wing conspiracy or the U.S. Government which allegedly wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and 'steal' Iraqi oil."
"This September 11 marks the third unforgettable anniversary of the worst mass murder in American history. After September 11, many in the Muslim world chose denial and hallucination rather than face up to the sad fact that Muslims perpetrated the 9-11 terrorist acts and that we have an enormous problem with extremism and support for terrorism. Many Muslims, including religious leaders, and �intellectuals� blamed 9-11 on a Jewish conspiracy and went as far as fabricating a tale that 4000 Jews did not show up for work in the World Trade Center on 9-11. Yet others blamed 9-11 on an American right wing conspiracy or the U.S. Government which allegedly wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and 'steal' Iraqi oil."
Glenn Reynolds Remembers 9/11
On GlennReynolds.com:
"September 11, 2001 wasn't the beginning of this war. In fact, fundamentalist Islamists had been making war on the United States for years, with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (which was intended to topple both towers, but failed), all the way back, in some sense, to the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran back when Jimmy Carter was president. For all those years, they were at war with us, but we largely ignored it. But September 11, 2001 was when we woke up, and realized what was going on. When people talk about the 1,000th casualty in Iraq, it's worth remembering that we had 3,000 casualties in a single day, in America, and that terrorists want to do much, much worse."
"September 11, 2001 wasn't the beginning of this war. In fact, fundamentalist Islamists had been making war on the United States for years, with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (which was intended to topple both towers, but failed), all the way back, in some sense, to the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran back when Jimmy Carter was president. For all those years, they were at war with us, but we largely ignored it. But September 11, 2001 was when we woke up, and realized what was going on. When people talk about the 1,000th casualty in Iraq, it's worth remembering that we had 3,000 casualties in a single day, in America, and that terrorists want to do much, much worse."
Mira Nair's Unknown 9/11 Film
Viewer's of Vanity Fair might be interested to track down a copy of Mira Nair's short docudrama about 9/11, one episode in an anthology film, which according to Tom Plate in the Straits Times, is not being shown in the US:
"Grieving Americans, shocked to discover that not everyone reacted to the World Trade Center massacre the same way, might want to see 11'09'01 September 11. It's an anthology, of sorts, from directors in 11 countries. The Egyptian contribution, by director Youssef Chahine, contains dialogue making the case for terrorist attacks against the US and Israel. India's Mira Nair tells the story of a Pakistani-American who died helping firefighters at the World Trade Center and who, posthumously, became the target of an anti-terrorist probe simply because, as his mother puts it, 'his name wasn't Jesus'- or David or Cary. Curtains go up on the controversial film in France on Sept 11. Americans who want to see it, at this point, will have to go there. It has yet to find a US distributor. Might this be a foretaste of US cultural protectionism? What an unwanted surprise ending that would prove. "
Here are some more details on the film, from ApunKaChoice.Com:
"Mira Nair's vignette dramatises the real life story of Salman Hamdani, an American Muslim medical student who went missing in New York City after the attack and later became a terrorist suspect. The all-American upbringing of the boy came to naught as his family saw neighbours and friends turn against them. Finally, it turned out that Salman had died helping people out of the World Trade Center tower that day. The members of the youth's family took part in the film.
"Nair was later quoted as saying that she wanted to make a film about the reality of life for South Asians in New York City after September 11. 'Life has changed irrevocably, and I think forever. From New York to Jenin to Gujarat, the Islamophobia that has taken over the world disturbs me immensely. As a filmmaker, I thought it was about time we spoke up,' the director of such popularly acclaimed films as 'Salaam Bombay' and 'Monsoon Wedding', told an ethnic Indian newspaper in the US."
Shahid Nahim reported that Nair's 9/11 docudrama was banned in the USA, in Pakistan's Daily Times:
"In the discussion that followed, Mira Nair revealed that the American film distribution association refused to distribute the film. According to them, the film is controversial and political. Hence the Columbia screening might be the only screening in the US. This effective banning of the film has come from Hollywood, which is notorious for making films about disasters and tragedies that have taken place all over the world. The film has been shown in Europe and other parts of the world and has been well received. It is a shame that the US public is unable to see the film � they need to see films of this kind more than any other nation. It is the US public that needs to learn how the rest of the world looks at them and their government. It is they who need to find out that there are other perspectives, other prisms through which events like 9/11 look very different indeed. 9/11, the film, does not present things as black and white or good and evil, unlike the US version of 9/11, where all good lies on one side and all evil on the other. "
"Grieving Americans, shocked to discover that not everyone reacted to the World Trade Center massacre the same way, might want to see 11'09'01 September 11. It's an anthology, of sorts, from directors in 11 countries. The Egyptian contribution, by director Youssef Chahine, contains dialogue making the case for terrorist attacks against the US and Israel. India's Mira Nair tells the story of a Pakistani-American who died helping firefighters at the World Trade Center and who, posthumously, became the target of an anti-terrorist probe simply because, as his mother puts it, 'his name wasn't Jesus'- or David or Cary. Curtains go up on the controversial film in France on Sept 11. Americans who want to see it, at this point, will have to go there. It has yet to find a US distributor. Might this be a foretaste of US cultural protectionism? What an unwanted surprise ending that would prove. "
Here are some more details on the film, from ApunKaChoice.Com:
"Mira Nair's vignette dramatises the real life story of Salman Hamdani, an American Muslim medical student who went missing in New York City after the attack and later became a terrorist suspect. The all-American upbringing of the boy came to naught as his family saw neighbours and friends turn against them. Finally, it turned out that Salman had died helping people out of the World Trade Center tower that day. The members of the youth's family took part in the film.
"Nair was later quoted as saying that she wanted to make a film about the reality of life for South Asians in New York City after September 11. 'Life has changed irrevocably, and I think forever. From New York to Jenin to Gujarat, the Islamophobia that has taken over the world disturbs me immensely. As a filmmaker, I thought it was about time we spoke up,' the director of such popularly acclaimed films as 'Salaam Bombay' and 'Monsoon Wedding', told an ethnic Indian newspaper in the US."
Shahid Nahim reported that Nair's 9/11 docudrama was banned in the USA, in Pakistan's Daily Times:
"In the discussion that followed, Mira Nair revealed that the American film distribution association refused to distribute the film. According to them, the film is controversial and political. Hence the Columbia screening might be the only screening in the US. This effective banning of the film has come from Hollywood, which is notorious for making films about disasters and tragedies that have taken place all over the world. The film has been shown in Europe and other parts of the world and has been well received. It is a shame that the US public is unable to see the film � they need to see films of this kind more than any other nation. It is the US public that needs to learn how the rest of the world looks at them and their government. It is they who need to find out that there are other perspectives, other prisms through which events like 9/11 look very different indeed. 9/11, the film, does not present things as black and white or good and evil, unlike the US version of 9/11, where all good lies on one side and all evil on the other. "
Michael Wilmington Talks to Mira Nair
He interviewed the director of Vanity Fair for The Chicago Tribune:
"Movie director Mira Nair has a great, warming, infectious laugh and a mind that works like a steel trap. And, much like Becky Sharp, the seductive but smart, nice but naughty anti-heroine of Nair's latest movie, 'Vanity Fair,' she seemingly never lets life get her down. Nair, 46, the Indian-born, Harvard-educated, internationally admired director of 'Salaam Bombay!' and 'Monsoon Wedding,' might seem an odd match for 'Vanity Fair': the lavishly produced new movie adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray's classic 19th Century British novel. Similarly, her film's star -- lively 'Legally Blonde' ingenue Reese Witherspoon -- might seem too Hollywood-ish a choice for 'Fair's' classically unscrupulous, seductive Becky, one of English literature's juiciest, most provocative females. Yet, as Nair points out, 'Vanity Fair' -- which she first read as a schoolgirl in India -- is a book she has read and loved for most of her life. And Witherspoon was Nair's first choice and, as it turns out, a memorable Becky -- winning us over equally or more than Miriam Hopkins in the trailblazing 1935 Hollywood Technicolor 'Becky Sharp' (directed by Rouben Mamoulian) or Natasha Little (star of the deservedly praised 1998 BBC TV-film, and a supporting player, as Lady Jane Sheepshanks, in Nair's all-star cast)."
"Movie director Mira Nair has a great, warming, infectious laugh and a mind that works like a steel trap. And, much like Becky Sharp, the seductive but smart, nice but naughty anti-heroine of Nair's latest movie, 'Vanity Fair,' she seemingly never lets life get her down. Nair, 46, the Indian-born, Harvard-educated, internationally admired director of 'Salaam Bombay!' and 'Monsoon Wedding,' might seem an odd match for 'Vanity Fair': the lavishly produced new movie adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray's classic 19th Century British novel. Similarly, her film's star -- lively 'Legally Blonde' ingenue Reese Witherspoon -- might seem too Hollywood-ish a choice for 'Fair's' classically unscrupulous, seductive Becky, one of English literature's juiciest, most provocative females. Yet, as Nair points out, 'Vanity Fair' -- which she first read as a schoolgirl in India -- is a book she has read and loved for most of her life. And Witherspoon was Nair's first choice and, as it turns out, a memorable Becky -- winning us over equally or more than Miriam Hopkins in the trailblazing 1935 Hollywood Technicolor 'Becky Sharp' (directed by Rouben Mamoulian) or Natasha Little (star of the deservedly praised 1998 BBC TV-film, and a supporting player, as Lady Jane Sheepshanks, in Nair's all-star cast)."
Friday, September 10, 2004
How the Internet Saved the Book Business
Again via Artsjournal.com from The Guardian:
"They might not be ditching the traditional shop, but the suggestion that booksellers would crumble under the challenge of the internet has been utterly refuted. Instead of becoming a footnote in bookselling history, the industry has used the web to secure its future. And the resulting competition between the main players means that, right now at least, the second-hand book field really is a buyer's market."
(I know it's bad form to say "told you so," but just am unable to resist noting that in 1998 I published a magazine article analyzing charges that Amazon.com would put bookshops out of business, called "Turmoil in the Book World." It concluded the internet was good for the publishing industry, and that Amazon.com would stimulate book sales. Unfortunately, the full text is not available free online, so I can't link to it.)
"They might not be ditching the traditional shop, but the suggestion that booksellers would crumble under the challenge of the internet has been utterly refuted. Instead of becoming a footnote in bookselling history, the industry has used the web to secure its future. And the resulting competition between the main players means that, right now at least, the second-hand book field really is a buyer's market."
(I know it's bad form to say "told you so," but just am unable to resist noting that in 1998 I published a magazine article analyzing charges that Amazon.com would put bookshops out of business, called "Turmoil in the Book World." It concluded the internet was good for the publishing industry, and that Amazon.com would stimulate book sales. Unfortunately, the full text is not available free online, so I can't link to it.)
The Disappearing Cultural Exchange
Via Artsjournal.com this linkfrom Backstage on the collapse of cultural diplomacy:
"And the bottom line: 'The annual number of academic and cultural exchanges has dropped from 45,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 2001.' This means that far fewer American artists, including performing artists, are being given chances to ply their crafts on foreign soil. The study presumes that those figures have decreased even further in recent years."
"And the bottom line: 'The annual number of academic and cultural exchanges has dropped from 45,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 2001.' This means that far fewer American artists, including performing artists, are being given chances to ply their crafts on foreign soil. The study presumes that those figures have decreased even further in recent years."
Putin's Resolve
It's the beginning of the end for the terrorists, saysMansoor Ijaz in National Review Online
"Like him or not, Vladimir Putin's resolve to stare down Beslan's terrorists--about whom he understood nothing--will (if by accident) be seen one day as a turning point in the war against extremism, because the depravity of Beslan's architects has turned the silent majority in the Muslim world on its ear. Editors, political leaders, and mullahs from Jeddah to Istanbul to Jakarta are decrying the insanity of the Beslan murders. And they are beginning to realize that always blaming others for their woes won't help elevate their disaffected people or spread the word of their failed vision any faster or better.
"We Muslims (I am an American whose faith remains that of the humane and dignified Islam) have no legs to stand on anymore when those who proclaim our religion are willing to put a gun to a child's head, pull the trigger, and call it an act of martyrdom. Islam no longer carries a message of hope, only the indelible impressions of cruelty. Its purveyors are bankrupt of ideas that inspire, and have failed in an ideology that in its very heart today has become hypocritical. To top it all off, America's Muslims--whose freedom to craft and convey an opposition to the terrorist cancer is protected by the very people those terrorists seek to destroy, sit silent-- stone cold silent.
"Islam's 'vanguard,' as Zawahiri called it, has an opportunity to redefine the message and turn away from the extremists. America will win the war against extremism because America's values are righteous, and because God, whatever you conceive Him to be, is at our side. But Islam will surely lose its credibility as a great religion if its benefactors don't stand now and drive the final nail into the coffin of the terrorists who have hijacked a noble faith."
"Like him or not, Vladimir Putin's resolve to stare down Beslan's terrorists--about whom he understood nothing--will (if by accident) be seen one day as a turning point in the war against extremism, because the depravity of Beslan's architects has turned the silent majority in the Muslim world on its ear. Editors, political leaders, and mullahs from Jeddah to Istanbul to Jakarta are decrying the insanity of the Beslan murders. And they are beginning to realize that always blaming others for their woes won't help elevate their disaffected people or spread the word of their failed vision any faster or better.
"We Muslims (I am an American whose faith remains that of the humane and dignified Islam) have no legs to stand on anymore when those who proclaim our religion are willing to put a gun to a child's head, pull the trigger, and call it an act of martyrdom. Islam no longer carries a message of hope, only the indelible impressions of cruelty. Its purveyors are bankrupt of ideas that inspire, and have failed in an ideology that in its very heart today has become hypocritical. To top it all off, America's Muslims--whose freedom to craft and convey an opposition to the terrorist cancer is protected by the very people those terrorists seek to destroy, sit silent-- stone cold silent.
"Islam's 'vanguard,' as Zawahiri called it, has an opportunity to redefine the message and turn away from the extremists. America will win the war against extremism because America's values are righteous, and because God, whatever you conceive Him to be, is at our side. But Islam will surely lose its credibility as a great religion if its benefactors don't stand now and drive the final nail into the coffin of the terrorists who have hijacked a noble faith."
Word Wrap on 60 Minutes Forgery Scandal
For those of you not tired of the document details, Little Green Footballs has a very complete analysis of why the 60 Minutes story is a hoax.
Blogs v. 60 Minutes
The Blogger dashboard carried this link to an interesting story by Jay Currie:
"One day. That was all it took for the ranks of citizen journalists to swarm and then thoroughly discredit a story which ran in the New York Times, the Boston Globe and on a network news magazine. From the Kerry perspective a scandal involving forged documents is a disaster. Kerry had yesterday to get in front of the story and he missed that boat. Instead of being able to stay on message and trying to beat down the post convention pulse which has sent Bush several points ahead in various opinion polls, Kerry is likely to face questions about who was responsible for the forgeries. While it would be astonishing if anyone inside the Kerry organization had a hand in them, it is a question that will be asked. Moreover, the spectacle of Kerry announcing that his campaign organization and the Democratic Party had nothing to do with issuing those documents will occupy several critical news cycles and focus attention on character -- exactly where Kerry does not want to be.
"From the perspective of the establishment media, this, too, is a disaster. CBS will have to explain: where did the documents come from? What were the bona fides of the source? Who was the source? Which expert looked at the documents? How closely? Those are the starter questions. The more basic question is how could a rabble of bloggers, in one day, provide hard core proof of forgery when major news organizations took those documents at face value? Most fundamental of all, why did the New York Times, the Boston Globe and CBS allow themselves to be used for such a transparent attempt to slander President Bush? Out in the blogosphere there are a swarm of people rooting for the answers."
"One day. That was all it took for the ranks of citizen journalists to swarm and then thoroughly discredit a story which ran in the New York Times, the Boston Globe and on a network news magazine. From the Kerry perspective a scandal involving forged documents is a disaster. Kerry had yesterday to get in front of the story and he missed that boat. Instead of being able to stay on message and trying to beat down the post convention pulse which has sent Bush several points ahead in various opinion polls, Kerry is likely to face questions about who was responsible for the forgeries. While it would be astonishing if anyone inside the Kerry organization had a hand in them, it is a question that will be asked. Moreover, the spectacle of Kerry announcing that his campaign organization and the Democratic Party had nothing to do with issuing those documents will occupy several critical news cycles and focus attention on character -- exactly where Kerry does not want to be.
"From the perspective of the establishment media, this, too, is a disaster. CBS will have to explain: where did the documents come from? What were the bona fides of the source? Who was the source? Which expert looked at the documents? How closely? Those are the starter questions. The more basic question is how could a rabble of bloggers, in one day, provide hard core proof of forgery when major news organizations took those documents at face value? Most fundamental of all, why did the New York Times, the Boston Globe and CBS allow themselves to be used for such a transparent attempt to slander President Bush? Out in the blogosphere there are a swarm of people rooting for the answers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)