So: Suppose a Muslim started praying at the outset of an Air Canada flight. Would those morons take him off of the flight? No need to answer; the question answers itself, just as the utter stupidity and cowardice of many in the West reveal themselves blindingly each and every day.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
So: Suppose a Muslim started praying at the outset of an Air Canada flight. Would those morons take him off of the flight? No need to answer; the question answers itself, just as the utter stupidity and cowardice of many in the West reveal themselves blindingly each and every day.
The film merits attention. More than just a sports movie, Invincible tells the true-life story of Vince Papale, a 30 year old bartender who made the Philadelphia Eagles in an open tryout that then-new Eagles coach Dick Vermeil meant as mostly a publicity stunt and a way of motivating players.
Set during the economically depressed late 1970s among the working class in Rust Belt South Philadelphia, the film presents the theme of hope in several different ways.
First, of course, there is Vince's hope—vague at first but increasingly real—of making the Eagles as a wide receiver and special teams player. (Mark Wahlberg's portrayal of Vince is very solid and affecting.) Second, there is Vince's hope of finding a woman who will love him and stay with him through good times and bad. Third, there is the hope of Vince and his working class brethren that they will find permanent work that pays decently. (The film regularly cuts to brief scenes showing union members on strike, in the bar discussing job cuts, and so on.) Fourth is the hope of Eagles coach Dick Vermeil (excellently played by Greg Kinnear) to bring some pride and intensity to the team. Fifth is the way the exploits of professional football players bring hope to people who follow the team. The film makes a point of telling how the memory of a great play by an Eagles player got Vince's struggling, blue-collar father through 30 years of hard times.
That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. People in difficult conditions, especially men, do often find inspiration from the unlikely successes of sports heroes, especially underdogs. That is what athletic competitions bring most richly to the culture, and it is why we care about them. The moral drama of individuals trying through hard work to overcome others' advantages is a microcosm of American life, and it provides inspiration to all those who care to find it.
That insight is what makes Invincible such an inspiring and impressive film.
From Karnick on Culture.
Two months after I took over the campaign of Jay R. Beskin, running an impossibly quixotic - no incumbent has been defeated since 1994 - race for Miami-Dade County Commissioner (District 4) against the incumbent, Sally Heyman (who raised 400 thou to our 100), the local reporters all believe that the race is "too close to call".
Hopefully, tomorrow night we can reflect back upon a victory and analyze some of the unique things we accomplished. For now, mon ami Hastings, it is the biting of the nails.
Here is one historic move I did. Hired a company (Vowcast) that makes webcasts of weddings to make one of a debate between the candidates. We made no cuts at all and you can see
the entire debate - plus me at the end for a minute and a half explaining our intent. (Forgive my ruffled and rumpled appearance; it came at the end of a long day out on the campaign trail.)
Monday, September 04, 2006
Famed "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin was killed yesterday when he was stung in the heart by a stingray over which he was swimming in Australia's Great Barrier Reef for a video shoot.
Irwin, 44, apparently frightened the creature by getting to close, bringing on the animal's self-protective attack.
Stingrays have a poisonous, barbed tail which can cause excruciating pain if a person is struck by it, but such attacks are only very rarely fatal. Irwin was struck in the chest, however, and the barb appears to have pierced his heart. It was an extremely rare and strange incident.
In his television programs and theatrical movie, Irwin gained great fame for engaging in close contact with crocodiles, poisonous snakes and spiders, and other dangerous creatures. His continual message was that we should respect nature, understand it, and protect animals from abuse and extinction.
Irwin frequently had highly dangerous encounters with animals, always warning his TV viewers of what the dangers were but telling us we should not be afraid of nature and should understand it and live in harmony with it. Part of his appeal, however, was the daredevil nature of his exploits, and the number of times he placed himself in jeopardy almost guaranteed that he would eventually be hurt or killed during one of these encounters. Yesterday it happened.
Irwin was an immensely likeable personality, and his many fans and admirers will miss him. The message he tried to send, that nature is dangerous but is no threat to us if we let creatures go their own way and don't disturb them, is one that he ironically disobeyed in his work and which eventually killed him.
Nature is dangerous indeed and will often kill indiscriminately if we let her go her own way. The only thing that saves us from wanton destruction is our natural human inclination to harness the forces of nature to our own advantage and increased safety. Knowledge, reason, and a sense of benevolence are essential to such stewardship, as Irwin continuously pointed out in his life's work. But only through harnessing nature can we live well. That is the message we may best take from Irwin's life and tragic death.
From Karnick on Culture.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The race to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes is at the top of my talking points this morning, because the crowded Democrat field has pulled into the final two weeks of the primary campaign sounding more like Monty Python than The West Wing. Polls, pundits, and common sense all converge on the reality of a two-man race between Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin, but that doesn't stop the also-rans from demanding attention.
Last night, the Maryland League of Women Voters sponsored a debate among the Democrats, but only the aforementioned two met their established criterion of polling at least 15% support in the weeks before the debate. Three minor candidates noisily and publicly protested the decision at a public rally in Annapolis, but the League stood firm.
Allan Lichtman tried to make the most of the situation, but it may just have backfired on him. Lichtman is probably the only one of the minor candidates anyone outside Maryland has ever heard of. If he stuck to his day job, as a history professor at American University, you wouldn't have heard of him either. But Lichtman is also that cable TV talking head with the annoying voice and the weird hair, who shows up regularly on CNN and MSNBC, flogging his goofy "Keys" system of predicting election results (not to be confused with Alan Keyes, who is another bizarrerie of Maryland politics). He has never polled higher than 3%, he had raised less than $300,000 in a race where one of his junior league competitors has spent $5 million of his own money, and unless he's certifiably insane he could never have regarded this race as anything but a publicity stunt.
(Despite the evidence of your own eyes, these gentlemen are not, left to right, Tim Gunn of Project Runway and Michael Kinsley of Crossfire being studiously ignored by Senate candidate Allan Lichtman. They are Senate candidate Dennis F. Rasmussen and Senate candidate Josh Rales being studiously ignored by Senate candidate Allan Lichtman.)
He's got publicity now. The three excluded candidates reappeared at the debate site in Owings Mills, and Lichtman brought a posse that included his wife, Karyn Strickland. For years, Strickland was head of Maryland NARAL, and no doubt she has much experience of her own in staging political protest stunts. So when the Baltimore County police moved in to arrest the party for criminal trespass she shouted out advice on the proper response, advice that was captured by local radio reporters and played nonstop on the AM airwaves this morning.
Lichtman will never, I predict, be able to live down the fact that he is the man whose wife stood on the steps of the Maryland Public Television studios and bellowed: "Allan, go limp! Allan!! Go limp!!!"
The only possible career move for him now is to film a Viagra ad with Bob Dole.
Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) yesterday appeared in a popular on-line video game, the user-created online world Second Life. Wagner James Au reports in New World Notes that staff members of Warner's exploratory campaign staff contacted him to ask if he'd "be interested in interviewing Governor Warner in Second Life."
Au reports on how it came about:
“Well,” Nancy Mandelbrot (RL info here) explains, “we were sitting in our offices one day and kind of goofing around, just geeking out about social technologies, gaming, that sort of thing, as we're wont to do. Someone made a joke about how great it would be if we brought an avatar of Governor Warner into Second Life.Au, known as Hamlet in Second Life, agreed to interview Warner on the site, "But it’s still a bit vertiginous to be in-world standing there in front of the avatar of a man that leading Democratic Party financier Chris Korge (speaking to Bai) pronounced as, '[T]he one to watch as an outsider in this race. He seems presidential.' ”
“When we all quit laughing, we kind of looked around and said, ‘Hey, that's not a bad idea.’
“One of Governor Warner's operating principles is to go where the voters are,” she continues, “not make them come to you. We saw how rich an environment [SL] was. I mean, you can sit next to someone's avatar, strike up a conversation, and forget that you're not in the same room. We started to see that in Second Life, people can get together and talk politics with other folks without the obstacles of real life.”
The proprietors of the site are understandably excited about Warner's appearance in the online world, and are characterizing it as a history-making event. However, it is nothing of the sort.
Instead of slaying a gigantic robot or inventing a new kind of staple food, Warner's avatar simply sits in a comfy chair and answers questions about contemporary politics in the former governor's usual smarmy way.
The interview shows conclusively that politicians are politicians whatever the medium, and that empty suits are empty suits even when they're computer-generated.
From Karnick on Culture
The Home Office said on Wednesday that it will "make it an offence to own images featuring scenes of extreme sexual violence," according to Reuters:
The new law would outlaw any material that featured violence that was, or appeared to be, life-threatening or likely to result in serious and disabling injury.This type of material was already illegal in the United Kingdom, but websites were ignoring the law and the government was doing nothing about it:
Although it is already illegal to distribute or publish such images under the Obscene Publications Act, the material has become increasingly available via the Internet.Presumably, the government will now enforce the law. We'll see.
"The vast majority of people find these forms of violent and extreme pornography deeply abhorrent," Coaker said.
"Such material has no place in our society but the advent of the Internet has meant that this material is more easily available and means existing controls are being by-passed -- we must move to tackle this."
From Karnick on Culture.
Two commentators of great skill, Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute and Professor Michael Pakaluk of Clark University, appear to have "squared off" over how great an influence religious faith and its expression should have on political discourse. Miss MacDonald's article takes a strong secular position, whereas Pakaluk's adopts a position more favorable toward traditional public invocations of faith. Both evince considerable passion, both mount elegant arguments, and both miss the point.
The brilliant Michael Novak, America's foremost thinker on the interface between religion and politics, recently responded to a challenge from Miss MacDonald that Christianity prove its claims to truth:
Mac Donald is right to demand as much.
Either the Catholic Church (to stick to what I know best) is true, or it isn’t. That’s where the Church makes its stand. (As Lenny Bruce used to joke, “It is the only one true church.”) It can do no other, for the name it accepts for God is that God is “Spirit and Truth.” The very first commandment, handed on to the church by Judaism, is “thou shalt not have false gods before me.” Between false gods and the true God the decisive point is truth.
The significance of Novak's approach will be lost on many persons of our time, mostly because of the shallowness of contemporary education. Any religion that addresses the great questions of the human experience must deliver answers that, at the very least, do not require us to accept demonstrably false statements. If a creed's claims are consistent with the truths revealed by reality, it may get a respectful hearing. Of course, with the passage of time, Mankind becomes more capable of testing such claims; accordingly, a faith that appeared consistent with temporal reality in year X might not look so good in year X+100, or X+1000. But that's built into the nature of intellectual inquiry.
The two great Thomases, Aquinas and Jefferson, agreed that true religion does not demand that the mind accept absurdities, Tertullian's nonsense notwithstanding. In other words, they conceded that the evidence of the world around us, delivered through our sense organs and the instruments we build to extend them, is primary; it trumps theories of all kinds, not merely scientific ones. Neither Hillel nor Christ uttered a single word to dispute them.
Wherefor, then, the wrangle over the political admissibility of faith? Politics -- "the art of the possible" -- is concerned with achieving particular conditions and results in this world. Politicians have unlearned the nasty habit of predicting that their opponents will roast in Hell; among other things, the concomitant lip-smacking tends to leave spots on one's tie. More important, the temporal world operates according to strict rules of cause and effect, without regard for one's faith. A political platform that promises results of some kind because God, if properly petitioned and propitiated, will intervene to deliver them is massively presumptuous, to put it mildly.
The great orators of America's past were sensible enough to confine their public religious statements to expressions of faith and gratitude. Those who argued for this or that policy or program "because God wants it that way" are less well remembered. But conversely, secular sorts were once far less disposed to take offense at public figures' expressions of faith in or gratitude to God. Our contemporary anti-theists have turned militant, as if for President Bush to quote Isaiah or cite Christ as his favorite philosopher were somehow a mandate laid upon them as well. That's a modern vice which we would do well to unlearn.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
...perhaps the new guy can get away with inviting The Reform Club's readers to peruse this brief disquisition on classical liberalism and constitutionalism.
(It struck me as a bit discursive for this site.)
Ford's stolid, mature persona contrasted greatly with those of popular contemporaries such as Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, and James Dean who valued a high degree of explicit emotional expression. Ford could show passion when called upon, as in the suspense film Ransom (remade in 1996 as a Mel Gibson vehicle) and the drama The Blackboard Jungle, but even in those cases his stoicism is what we remember most vividly.
Ford's characters often had serious flaws—such as stubbornness, irresponsibility, jealousy, and lack of intelligence—and these flaws led to interesting moral complexities in his best films. In both his virtues and his flaws, Ford represented a strong strain of the American character—the adventurousness, the uncompromising striving for rectitude, and the relentless and often disorganized pursuit of what is right and good in life.
Ford's best films and most memorable performances admirably reflect this complex set of attributes: classic crime dramas such as Gilda, The Big Heat, and Experiment in Terror;The Man from the Alamo, westerns such as 3:10 to Yuma, The Desperados, Cimarron, and The Violent Men; dramas such as Trial, The Blackboard Jungle, and The Brotherhood of the Bell; films in which he played contemptible villains as in The Man from Colorado; crazy comedies such as The Gazebo and The Teahouse of the August Moon, and many others.
He was a man who made the most of his talents and opportunities.
ABC has produced a four-hour docudrama, The Path to 9/11, which is based on the government report on the attack and helps explain how the attack happened. After the second, concluding episode of the miniseries, ABC will air a special edition of Primetime hosted by Charlie Gibson. Good Morning, America, World News, and Nightline will also cover the story.
NBC will run a number of programs, including coverage on the Today show. The network will rerun in primetime several programs originally aired in 2001. MSNBC and CNBC will present programs as well, but nobody will watch them.
CBS will air an updated version of the documentary 9/11 on Sunday evening, and on Sept. 6 will present an hour-long, primetime special, Five Years Later: How Safe Are We? (My guess: they'll conclude that we've been demn lucky, not smart.) In the special, Katie Couric will interview President Bush. Hilarity ensues when Couric takes offense to the President calling her Elfy and giving her a whopping great noogie.
From Karnick on Culture.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Some years ago, at the conclusion of an essay on competitive monies and monetary reform, economist Pamela Brown of Auburn University quoted Brian Loasby's statement in Choice, Complexity, and Ignorance that "competition is a proper response to ignorance." This concept can be traced back through several economic minds, including Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek. The central filament of the thing is, of course, that the results of free-market competition in the provision of some good or service cannot be predicted ab initio, the presumptions of statists and monopolists notwithstanding.
Today, John Stossel at Jewish World Review makes a vital connection to America's preeminent ignorance factory:
When a government monopoly limits competition, we can't know what ideas would bloom if competition were allowed. Surveys show that most American parents are satisfied with their kids' public schools, but that's only because they don't know what their kids might have had!
Surveys taken in various parts of the nation indicate that the average high-school graduate of our time is less knowledgeable, particularly in the politically critical fields of American and world history, than an eighth grader of a century ago. The need for such graduates to take remedial classes in English composition and mathematics as college freshmen is a well known national ignominy. The persistent inability of college graduates to express themselves clearly and coherently in the workplace speaks even more eloquently about the low standard of performance to which we hold our expensive educational institutions.
This has been going on, and getting worse, since World War II. You'd think we didn't know any better...or didn't want to.
Yet the major educrats' union, the National Education Association, maintains a stout barrier against educational competition of any sort: vouchers, tuition tax credits, open enrollment among public schools, or any other alternative. The NEA's ability to galvanize its two-million-plus members to fight initiatives toward that end has defeated school choice proposals in state after state. It's also thwarted the expansion of pilot choice programs such as those established in Cleveland and Florida. It routinely wins the support of state Departments of Education, which should surprise no one. Today, it fights most fiercely against measures intended to ease the burdens of homeschooling families, an option it has impeded but failed to criminalize...so far.
Sure sounds as if there's something the NEA doesn't want us to know, doesn't it? Which explains a lot about the erudition level of our kids, when you think about it. But Americans don't like to be kept in the dark. When we discover that someone in authority has been hiding something from us, we tend to take it badly. The more important the subject, the worse we take it.
So: When confronted by a gigantic, very wealthy union determined to keep you and your children ignorant, what would you deem a proper response?
It happens every once in a while. You discover something that is really special, that should be incredibly successful, but unaccountably, isn’t. A very well read friend made me aware of the fiction of Lars Walker. He writes mostly about Vikings during the period when Christianity contended with pagan religions, but he also has a contemporary novel (which happens to deal with Viking lore!).
I cannot give a high enough recommendation to Lars Walker’s The Year of the Warrior. I had to wait for it, but it was completely worth the wait. The narrator of the story is a young Irishman taken captive to sell as a slave by Vikings. They give him a tonsure to make him look like a priest so he’ll fetch a higher price. A newly converted Viking nobleman buys him because he needs a priest for his village. The Irishman decides to play the part of the priest in order to survive and the action flows from there.
Wonderful historical saga. Interesting insights about the Christian faith and its relationship to political power. Some beautiful battle sequences, too. Fully developed characters. Worth reading in every way.
So why the lack of bestseller status? I have a guess. The Lars Walker novels are published by Baen, which really specializes in sword and sorcery/science fiction. The covers of the Walker books have that look to them, but they are actually much deeper. I think the normal Baen reader is disappointed by the lack of standard genre stuff when they buy the book. But you, dear reader, will not be disappointed. You shall be blessed.
Yes, but is it Art?
Short answer: No
Of course, the museum makes a nice excuse for it, as E! reports:
"It's partially a statement on modern media that 'celebrity poop' has more entertainment value than health, famine or other critical issues facing society and governments today," the Capla [Museum] crew said in a statement, "and also the absurdity of the media coverage on Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' new baby, Suri Cruise, which has reached stellar proportions, eclipsing far more notable events with more substance."Yes, a comment on modern media. Thanks for that. Without a sculpture of baby poop, we would never have known that the modern media are superficial—and that modern museums are so much better.
From Karnick on Culture.
Variety reports that the BBC has established a content-provision deal with Chinese broadcasters, through which the Beeb will provide drama programs to more than 300 local and regional channels, including outlets in Beijing and Shanghai. In addition, the latest season of David Attenborough's BBC program Life in the Undergrowth, which will be shown on the national network China Central Television.
The Chinese will be playing cricket and stopping for afternoon tea before you know it.
From Karnick on Culture.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
A protest movement in Hong Kong (led by one of my favorite entertainment figures, Jackie Chan), sheds light on some interesting differences between America's wide-open Omniculture and other, politically different places, and also on a conflict endemic to modern societies and which will surely become increasingly thorny.
and fellow stars marched silently Tuesday to Hong Kong's government headquarters, protesting against a gossip magazine that featured a cover photo of a pop singer changing backstage.
The celebrities, wearing black T-shirts, handed over a petition denouncing the photos that were secretly taken of Hong Kong pop singer Gillian Chung, part of the popular female duo Twins. The stars urged the government to tighten laws governing racy publications.
Chung was shown adjusting her bra backstage after a concert in Malaysia's Genting Highlands. It appeared on the cover of the current issue of Easy Finder weekly.
That is what's considered racy over there, in terms of open publication at least. And in great contrast to America's entertainment community, which perpetually worries that the nation is sliding down a slippery slope to imminent federal censorship of entertainment (an entirely absurd notion), the Hong Kong entertainers and members of the public are actually calling for the government to step in and stop certain types of publication:
The photos have sparked a major backlash. Government regulators have received a deluge of complaints. Hong Kong's Obscene Articles Tribunal has classified the magazine issue "indecent," which could lead to prosecution. Chan and fellow stars attended a TV special protesting the photos Monday.
Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang spoke out against the photos Tuesday.
"I identify with society's strong criticism of these tactics," he said.
I'm not familiar with Hong Kong's constitution, but I suppose that like that of its former parent Great Britain, and very much like that of its new overseer, China, it does not have press protections nearly as universal as those in our First Amendment (and even ours does not protect obscenity, although the Supreme Court has effectively defined the latter out of existence). Hong Kong journalists, in any case, disagree with the entertainers:
Journalists have opposed restrictions on their coverage as a threat to press freedom. Legal reforms propose banning secret surveillance by private parties, but the government is still considering the recommendations.
Chan acknowledges that celebrities are news and should expect to be treated as such:
Asked if he wants to see paparazzi photos banned completely, Chan said he believed celebrities should be held accountable for their actions.
Chan correctly observes, however, that invasions of privacy that would be illegal when done to noncelebrities should be illegal for everybody:
"As public figures, we should allow our pictures to be taken. If we crash our cars when we're drunk, it serves us right. People should scold us. But for a girl to be photographed when she's in a changing room, such a private place, is despicable behavior," he said.
AP reports that Hong Kong publications have indeed been closed down for such activities:
Eastweek magazine was shut down amid the backlash after publishing on its cover a photo of a visibly distressed, seminude female star, widely reported to be Carina Lau, in October 2002.
Eastweek was then owned by businessman Albert Yeung, who controls Chung's record label EEG. It was later reopened under new ownership.
Certainly nothing like that is apt to happen here, although on the state level it would be perfectly constitutional, and on the federal level it would likewise be constitutionally acceptable in response to publications that traffic in obscenity. But even so, it won't happen in the foreseeable future. (Note that I'm not advocating any particular policy in this situation but merely pointing out the constitutional issues.)
American entertainers complain about papparazzi, understandably, and they would certainly like to see local governments step in to ensure that people are prevented from intruding too greatly into their lives. (And I agree with them on that.) Even so, it is very difficult to imagine Hollywood entertainers calling for the government to attack the problem by suppressing the publications in which the photos appear. Well, impossible, really.
This is a very interesting controversy because it places in stark terms our current cultural conflict over what is public and what is private as media penetration into our lives becomes increasingly ubiquitous. It involves an endless series of tradeoffs, to which I think there will never be any easy, conclusive answer.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Sent the paper in, whereupon the editors began to "fix" it so that the writing style would appeal to above-average freshman. Anyway, I put the kibosh on most of those changes, but one change that they insisted upon reveals quite an interesting dynamic. One of the problems confronting the Chinese is the spread of HIV/AIDS; unlike the incidence of more-traditional diseases spread by various forms of pestilence---which the Chinese have done a remarkable job reducing--- HIV/AIDS presents formidable problems in substantial part because it is behavioral, that is, the incidence of the disease depends crucially on various risky types of behavior by individuals.
Well. This obvious truth---denied by no one anywhere---is too "sensitive," too "controversial," and might "anger" some readers, in particular, the homosexual lobby at Brown University. And so the editors demanded that HIV/AIDS not be described as a "behavioral" disease, even though that central reality is one important dimension of the problem faced by the Chinese government, as some of the policies implemented to reduce the spread of the infection will drive part of the affected population into the shadows. Their argument---believe it or not---is that any disease is in some sense behavioral, and so describing HIV/AIDS in that way conveys no useful information. Really? Malaria? Lymphatic Cancer? Etc. I am not making this up.
And so I told them not to publish the paper; I allowed them to waste two weeks of my time, but I will not allow them to impose upon me the asinine dogmas of political correctitude. And so the efforts of lefties to impose censorship is amusing indeed, particularly in the sense that defense of their position has led them to descend into such absurdities as the argument that HIV/AIDS is not behavioral. It just doesn't get any better than that.
The possibility I broached yesterday that Joseph Lieberman might emerge from his current struggles more powerful than ever derives from a somewhat obscure study in finite mathematics called voting power.
In a situation whose outcome is to be decided by a vote, a participant's voting power is the percent of possible vote configurations in which his is the deciding vote -- in other words, the relative frequency with which he would effectively pick the winner. Even static voting tableaus can be fascinating in this regard. Consider, for example, a committee of four persons, whose chairman is empowered to break ties. The chairman's voting power is three times that of any other committee member, a result that's not intuitively obvious from the simple statement of the rules.
Voting-power studies get really interesting when time, coalition dynamics, and horsetrading are included. If the stakes in a given contest are perceived to be high, as the hour of decision approaches the price of a "swing" vote can rise dramatically, which is why persons of, let us say, flexible convictions tend to keep their options open until the last possible moment. Other things being equal, the longer the bidding war goes on, the higher the final bid will be.
It's that "other things being equal" part that bedevils analysts of Congressional hijinx. For the bidding never really ends, nor is any person's vote irretrievably locked down until it's actually been cast. As the price of a swing vote rises, persons whom one had deemed committed might reassess their positions, and decide to "put themselves on the market." The political rationale is always expressed in terms of relative gains, losses, and priorities: "Well, yes, I'd have to trade away my opposition to X, but look at all the concessions I could get on Y, Z, and Q!" The increase in the supply of votes for sale would depress their price, as an increase in supply always does.
You might not think like that. Politicians do. Never doubt it. Whatever his party alignment, religious affiliation, or avowed political ideology, one must always assume that Legislator Smith can be bought, if the price is right.
We're likely to get some examples of this in the coming fracas over Ambassador John Bolton. Objectively, Bolton is everything one could wish for in an ambassador: candid about his views, fearless before any and all opposition, and devoted to representing American interests. But Bolton is a Bush Administration nominee, and will therefore be fought bitterly by Senate Democrats despite his evident merits. It's odds-on that the excessively spending-friendly Republican caucus will attempt to buy a few Democratic votes with offers to logroll on other subjects. If the game becomes obvious, quite a few Democrats, who have no real objection to Ambassador Bolton, will offer to break ranks for the right subvention.
Any bets on where the mass media will locate the odium for such unprincipled dealing?
Which brings us back to Joseph Lieberman, the only Democrat to speak strongly against the conduct of Bill Clinton during Clinton's trial before the Senate. Senator Lieberman was scathing about Clinton's moral deficits...yet he voted to acquit the president, who had admitted lying to a grand jury, to Congress, and to the American people.
Media profiles of the senator have unanimously praised his moral seriousness and integrity. Perhaps different standards must be applied to politicians. But one cannot help wondering whether the GOP caucus failed to approach Lieberman, failed to meet his asking price, or whether the Clintons outbid them, with the payment to come at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. After all, there are no higher stakes than those in a removal trial before the Senate.
Cruise's deal at Paramount was on very good terms for him, which means it was expensive for the studio—more than $10 million a year. Cruise's representatives say that Paramount made an offer to Cruise to keep his production company on Paramount's lot, but the offer was significantly less money than the Cruise's company had been receiving, so they decided to shop around for private financing. This is not unusual: the Hollywood studios have been slashing costs recently, especially payments to big stars such as Cruise. A slowing of growth in DVD sales has certainly contributed to this trend.
[T]his parting of the ways was really just a bottom-line, cost-cutting business decision on Paramount's part. . . .
It made sense for Paramount to try to get Cruise to sign a less expensive deal and, failing that, to let him leave.
It's good to see the Times echoing our analysis. It's an interesting article with some very good insights into "superstar economics" and Hollywood finance.
Is Sumner M. Redstone crazy like a fox?
Movie industry executives may be forgiven for thinking that the Viacom chairman was mad to let Tom Cruise go after a 14-year relationship simply because Mr. Cruise seemed a little off balance. After all, the movies made by Viacom’s Paramount Pictures studio and the actor’s production company earned more than $2.5 billion at the box office.
Yet, if you ask economists and other academics that study the movie industry, Mr. Redstone’s decision was, in financial terms, spot on. The best reason to get rid of Mr. Cruise or, for that matter, Mel Gibson, or Lindsay Lohan, is not their occasional aberrant behavior. They, like most marquee names in Hollywood, are simply not worth the expense.
“Who knows what went through Mr. Redstone’s mind?” said Jehoshua Eliashberg, a professor of marketing, operations and information management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. “But one can’t discard that the reason is that it doesn’t make economic sense to pay him all this money.”
From Karnick on Culture.
I watched a few minutes of the Emmy Awards ceremony last night on NBC. Some thoughts:
- It was good to see Tony Shaloub win an award for his acting in Monk. Shaloub gave a mildly humorous speech and seems an immensely likeable person.
- Conan O'Brien is a truly scary-looking individual but is rather amusing. The opening song and dance sequence was as tedious and embarrassing as these usually are. When will awards show producers realize that bad production numbers presented with irony are still bad?
- Bob Newhart is still one of the funniest men alive. His subtle, intelligent brand of humor is hugely appealing in this time of general raucousness in American comedy.
- TV producers must be incredible skinflints, as they obviously do not pay their actresses enough money so that the ladies can afford complete dresses. Many of the gowns on display last night seemed to consist of little more than a few square feet of very sheer fabric. Of course, for those of us who happen to be red-blooded American males, this is a good thing.
- It was pleasing to see 24 win for Best Drama Series and Kiefer Sutehrland win for Best Actor (or Outstanding Performance or whatever they're calling it these days). 24 was an innovative show during its first couple of years, and its use of an overarching story line over the course of a season has been much imitated since. In addition, for all the implausibility and melodrama that presses its outlandish storylines forward, the show works very well as a romance fiction, and it is always full of interesting ideas and themes.
From Karnick on Culture.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Fran lives on Long Island, is a husband and a father of two, and has dedicated his massive brainpower to defending Western Civilization not just as an engineer in the defense industry, but as the intellectual idol of millions at his own blog, Eternity Road, to which Fran will continue to post and to which we've added a link.
Mr. Porretto also maintains an 11,000-volume library at his country manor, so it's tough to slip anything by him. He's also been known to author up fiction in a panoply of genres, although he assures us that anything he writes here you can take to the bank. I've had no reason to doubt him, except when he describes himself as "bizarre but harmless."
Bizarre perhaps, but this is a very dangerous man, and we're very glad to have him. Welcome aboard, Fran, and cheers also to your faithful readers who've come over to see what other mischief you've got yourself into.
The "buzz" over Joseph Lieberman and his decision to run as an independent against Ned Lamont, who defeated him in the Democratic primary for United States Senator from Connecticut, has been an amusing and misleading thing. The "netroots" -- Deaniac, DailyKos, and HuffingtonPost types -- who backed anti-war Lamont are furious that Lieberman, a well known and popular incumbent, should be outpolling their preferred candidate. Conservatives have been chortling over the debacle, which, if it plays out as it now appears destined to do, will preserve a reliably pro-Iraqi Freedom / Bush Doctrine senatorial vote while sticking a thumb in the eye of the most irritating sorts on the liberal Left. Other Democratic figures of note have been cautious in their statements on the matter, with few exceptions. Lieberman has considerable support from both sides of the aisle; if he succeeds in retaining his seat, it is not inconceivable that he could exact a price from those who backed Lamont against him during the primary campaign.
What's missing from this painting in primary colors is a candid assessment of the senator himself, of his motives, and of the three-sided war within the Democratic Party for whose outcome this contest is a straw in the wind.
Lieberman is no conservative. His voting record has received a 90% approval rating from the socialist Americans for Democratic Action; only two sitting senators stand higher in their esteem. He's on record as having stated that a legislated cap on corporate profits would be a desirable thing. Needless to say for a Democrat of national profile, he's publicly pro-abortion and a defender of the government-school educracy.
But it wasn't always that way.
Before his selection as Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Lieberman was vocally anti-abortion; he also advocated school choice, including some form of vouchers. He flipped on these things for the 2000 presidential contest, and strove to downplay his earlier stances. When observers questioned how he could square these new positions with his Orthodox Judaism, of which so much had been made at the time of his nomination, he demurred, saying that he wasn't Orthodox, just "observant."
Joseph Lieberman, whatever else he might be or claim to be, is a politician. That is, he's animated primarily by the desire for the power, prestige, and perquisites of high office.
A politician will always feel an urge to trim his sails to the prevailing winds. The democratic mechanism gives trimmers a powerful advantage over those who refuse to "evolve" in the quest for public acclaim. Also, the Democratic Party's embrace of special-interest coalition politics has made the allegiance of certain groups, particularly the National Education Association and the NARAL / NOW pro-abortion coalition, something they cannot afford to risk. The dynamics of the situation would torment any man who aspires to high office, no matter how strong his convictions.
The best plausible outcome of the Connecticut Senatorial race for the country would be for Lieberman to retain his seat, but not because the incumbent's convictions or character are orders of magnitude more wholesome than Lamont's or those of GOP challenger Alan Schlesinger. If Lieberman should win and Democrats should have to decide how or whether to make peace with him, the fault lines that divide the Kennedy/Kerry faction, the Dean/"netroots" faction, and the Clinton/McAuliffe "pragmatic" faction will become vivid. For Lieberman, despite his vice-presidential run, belongs to none of them. Each will bid for his cooperation in its bid to control the party for the 2008 presidential run. As a former candidate for national office whose profile is now higher, both in recognition and in popular esteem, than his former running mate, his endorsement will be of great value during the 2008 primary season.
Everyone in this morality play is "evolving" as we speak: individual candidates, regional political alliances, and national factions vying for party hegemony. Each is a survival influence and constraint on all the others, which must decide in their various ways when to groom one another and when to bare their teeth. What rough beast, deeming 2008 its hour, will slouch toward Washington to be born remains to be seen.
Friday, August 25, 2006
I was of the "I'm Sumner Redstone, I'm sick of this [stuff], I'm 83 years old, and I don't give a flip" school. But it seems Brother Pastorius was on the right track, too:
The unknown trophy wife of a Hollywood film executive has been revealed as the unlikely driving force behind Tom Cruise's dramatic firing this week.
Paula Fortunato, 43, the wife of 83-year-old Sumner Redstone, the Viacom chairman who sacked Cruise, took a dislike to the actor after he publicly criticised the actress Brooke Shields for using post-natal anti-depressants.
Cruise's obsessive devotion to Scientology has seen him demand that his young fiancee Katie Holmes should go through the agonising process of childbirth in silence.
His allegiance to the cult has itself stirred controversy, it being based on the belief that humans are an exiled race from outer space called Thetans.
"Here is a woman - and I care about Brooke Shields because she is an incredibly talented woman - where has her career gone?" Cruise ranted on national television. "These drugs are dangerous. I have actually helped people come off them. When you talk about postnatal depression, you can take people today, women, and what you do is, you use vitamins."
Redstone estimated that Cruise's off-screen behaviour cost his latest movie, Mission: Impossible III, between £50 and £75 million in lost box office revenues even though the film was, he said, 'the best of the three movies' in the action series.
Sources say Fortunato told her powerful husband, "I never want to see another Tom Cruise movie again".
The talented and acclaimed actor William Macy made this point yesterday in a thoroughly admirable criticism of the unprofessional behavior of a younger colleague, the actress Lindsay Lohan, in her work on a film in which the two appeared together. As E! Online reports,
When it comes to tardiness,follows the golden rule. Do unto under-the-gun film crews as you'd have them do unto you.
"You can't show up late," the Emmy winner said Thursday at a Los Angeles press junket for his new film, Everyone's Hero. "It's very, very disrespectful."
So let that be a lesson to you,
"I think what an actor has to realize [is that] when you show up an hour late, 150 people have been scrambling to cover for you," Macy said when asked about Bobby costar Lohan's usual check-in time. The two share a scene together in the-directed drama about the 16 hours leading up to Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in 1968.
"There is not an apology big enough in the world to have to make 150 people scramble. It's nothing but disrespect. And Lindsay Lohan is not the only one. A lot of actors show up late as if they're God's gift to the film. It's inexcusable. They should have their asses kicked."
Habitual lateness may not just be a problem for Lohan but, according to Macy, despite his opinion that she's a huge talent, "she was pretty late" all the same.
A studio spokesperson declined comment.
Lohan has some very good traits, I am sure, especially her expressed wish to travel to Iraq to entertain U.S. troops stationed there, but grand (and highly publicized) gestures do not wipe away other offenses, especially habitual ones.
Macy's comment is just right, on all levels.
Cor bless yer, Mr. Macy! Cor bless yer!
From Karnick on Culture.
[AP reports:] Tokyo's subway authority will allow a station advertisement featuring a nude and pregnant, officials said Thursday, dropping an earlier plan to censor the photo.
HB Japan Inc., publisher of the Japanese edition of Harper's Bazaar, plans to rent ad space at the posh Omotesando station next week to promote its October issue with Spears posing naked on the cover.
The ad, in which Spears bares her belly but covers her breasts with her hands, is the same one used in the August issue of the magazine's U.S. edition. The 24-year-old pop star is pregnant with her second child.
OK, the magazine cover did appear on newsstands here in the United States, but at least it was smaller and might be covered up by a copy of Guns and Ammo or Beekeeper's Fortnightly. This ad will be unavoidable. People of taste will have to hire large people in overcoats to stand in front of the ads and block them from view. It's an extra expense to clean up the subways, but a necessary one.
From Karnick on Culture.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Yet it is interesting to explore what Hezbollah is resisting. Israel voluntarily and unilaterally left southern Lebanon in conjunction with a U.N. accord. Israel did not respond in force to literally hundreds of rocket attacks against its northern territory until its soldiers were wantonly killed and three were kidnapped. And Israel did not challenge the U.N. when it didn’t enforce Resolution 1559 which specifically called for the diarmament of Hezbollah.
What Hezbollah appears to be resisting is the very existence of Israel. There are two theoretical observations that make this case. If tomorrow Hezbollah gave up its weapons, peace in Lebanon would follow. Even detractors of Israel would admit this result. If tomorrow Israel gave up its weapons, Israel would cease to exist. That too is indisputable. Therefore who is resisting whom?
When Sakarov and Scharansky were dissidents opposed to the tyranny of the Soviet leadership, it was clear who they were resisting. When Jews fought Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto, it was clear who they were resisting. Who precisely is Hezbollah resisting?
If I were to ask, who is Lebanon resisting, the answer is apparent – Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Lebanon is an occupied country that no longer represents the will of its five million residents. It is and has been a client state of Syria for years and the Cedar revolution notwithstanding, either Syrian secret police, Hezbollah forces or Iranian Revolutionary Guard pull the political strings. To argue, as our State Department does, that the Lebanese government must be propped up is an exercise in self delusion.
In the media universe where ignorance prevails, the word “resistance” has meaning as a cause. It reverberates with the echo of freedom fighters and nation builders. Now, of course, the word has been preempted, a casualty of double-speak.
“Resistance” is not alone in this preemption category; it is merely the latest example. In the last few years the word “occupation” was the Orwellian word of choice; it too was used by the PLO and Hamas to argue for their resistance against Israel. In this case the world seemed to buy the line since an entity called Palestine and a people called Palestinians were invented and given legitimacy.
What the West doesn’t understand is that the Koran and the Islamic faith countenances “teqiya,” or lying, that promotes the religion and is consistent with Allah’s will. Since Allah’s will cannot be determined and designs on caliphates can be contemplated, teqiya is a useful method for promoting Islamic expansion.
The part that is infuriating about this state of affairs is that American journalists are often persuaded lies are true and truth is lies. How does one know? If you start with the Chomskyan supposition that the American government always lies, you may be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Islamists.
However, there is a simple test for truth detection. Whenever Hezbollah spokesmen use the word “resistance,” and whenever Hamas uses the word “occupation,” you can be sure lies are forthcoming. Now, if only the American press corps would adopt this simple litmus test.
Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, www.herblondon.org.
Yes, in the Omniculture, everything happens.
The New York Times has brought on a perfume critic, AP reports. The column will appear frequently in the Times's style magazine. In a statement, new Times perfume critic Chandler Burr said, “Every other true art has a serious criticism. I believe perfume should as well.” He said he intends to take his new position very seriously.
Well, I suppose somebody has to—and it makes sense that it would be the person who's being paid for it. . . .
From Karnick on Culture.
Tom Cruise's loss of his production agreement at Paramount Pictures has raised a good deal of comment in film-industry circles. The action itself is rather mundane. Cruise's deal at Paramount was on very good terms for him, which means it was expensive for the studio—more than $10 million a year. Cruise's representatives say that Paramount made an offer to Cruise to keep his production company on Paramount's lot, but the offer was significantly less money than the Cruise's company had been receiving, so they decided to shop around for private financing. This is not unusual: the Hollywood studios have been slashing costs recently, especially payments to big stars such as Cruise. A slowing of growth in DVD sales has certainly contributed to this trend.
Moreover, Cruise's company was primarily producing films not starring Cruise himself, which would suggest that any slip in popularity on his part would not affect their box-office prospects. These production deals, however, are realy just ways for studios to keep their most popular stars happy, giving them additional compensation by allowing them to function as producers—making them "creators" rather than just before-the-camera types.
Cruise's popularity has definitely fallen in the past year, making him a less valuable commodity as an actor at Paramount. As AP reports,
[N]egative public perception of Cruise has soared in the past six months in the closely watched Q Scores, which rate celebrity popularity. They indicate that negative perception of Cruise jumped nearly 100 percent since mid-2005, while positive perception fell about 40 percent.
"He's definitely at his low point in terms of consumer appeal, among both males and females," said Henry Schafer, executive vice president of Marketing Evaluations Inc., the Q Scores company.
Actually, contra Shafer, there is room for Cruise's rating to drop further, but that's up to him, of course. Cruise can overcome this if he behaves somewhat normally and has another hit movie, but certainly a Cruise with these Q ratings is worth a good deal less to a movie studio than the Tom Cruise of two years ago. Welcome to Microeconomics 101, Tommy Boy.
All of this confirms that this parting of the ways was really just a bottom-line, cost-cutting business decision on Paramount's part. What made the situation rather surreal and newsy was two things: public awareness of Cruise's bizarre recent history of TV rants and goofiness, and Viacom chief Sumner Redstone's statement regarding the decision to break with Cruise's company. The chief of Paramount's parent company said Cruise's recent antics—leaping about on Oprah's sofa proclaiming his undying love for wife number 3, tearing Matt Lauer a new one for not understanding the magnitude of the conspiracies surrounding us about which Cruise and other Scientologists wish to warn us, etc.—were "creative suicide" and cost the studio up to $150 million in lost ticket sales for Mission Impossible 3.
Possibly, but these big crash and explosion movies may well have run their course, and the fact that the John Woo-directed Mission Impossible 2 was so irrational and uninspired probably did more to tank installment three than anything Cruise could have done. (I like Woo's Hong Kong films and Broken Arrow, Face/Off, and even Paycheck, but I have to say that he was a poor fit for MI2, not that I can fully understand where it all went wrong; it really should have worked. Well, OK, one thing that was disastrously wrong was the fact that MI2 dumped the central concept of the TV series and first film, the creation of a vast illusion to thwart the villains through ingenious trickery. MI2 was at heart an ordinary action film with extraordinary absurdity in its action sequences, which is saying a lot. And it appears that this was a consequence of Cruise's ego and his desire to avert rumors of homosexuality by emphasizing physical action, such as him climbing cliff faces, etc. This overbalanced the film, further removed the film series from the essentially cheerful and optimistic nature of the TV series, and made MI2 perfectly ludicrous.)
It made sense for Paramount to try to get Cruise to sign a less expensive deal and , failing that, to let him leave. There is nothing to be ashamed of in this, and no need to pile on the hapless Scientologist goofball with harsh words. A simple "We love Tom and wish him well" would have been much better than Redstone's high and mighty rant. As in all things, Redstone and Viacom have shown themselves as entirely devoid of class, manners, and principle. A pox on them, I say.
I'll tell you more about the repugnance of Viacom and Redstone in future postings on this site.
Boy, things are getting weird when I find myself defending Tom Cruise. That's how repulsive Viacom is.
From Karnick on Culture.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
The Chicago City Council, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence, has banned the sale of foie gras, arguing that some producers of the delicacy force-feed the geese from which the liver pate is produced, which the Chi solons say is painful and inhumane.
Chicago mayor Richard Daley opposed the ordinance but it went into effect anyway. The New York Times reports that many people in the city are embarrassed and angered by the law:
On Tuesday, this city’s lawbreakers were serving foie gras.
The illicit substance could be spotted in places it was rarely seen when it was legal: buried in Chicago’s famed deep-dish pizza, in soul food on the South Side, beside beef downtown.
In one of the more unlikely (and opulent) demonstrations of civil disobedience, a handful of restaurants here that never carry foie gras, the fattened livers of ducks and geese, featured it on the very day that Chicago became the first city in the nation to outlaw sale of the delicacy.
“This ban is embarrassing Chicago,” said Grant DePorter of Harry Caray’s Restaurant, which dreamed up an appetizer of pan-seared foie gras and scallops ($14.95) and a Vesuvio-style entree pairing foie gras and tenderloin ($33.95) just to buck the new ordinance. “We really don’t think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What’s next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?”
The "offense" is subject to fines of $250 to $500, though there remains some question about how aggressively the city will enforce it. The alderman who sponsored the ban, Joe Moore, has been the subject of praise from animal rights activists and derision from restaurateurs, gourmands, and people generally concerned about erosions of individual liberty in the City of Big [Government Looking Over Your] Shoulders.
The law has already induced mockery from outside the city, according to a Chicago Tribune story:
Allen Sternweiller, executive chef and co-owner of Allen's New American Cafe, whose company is a plaintiff in the restaurant association's lawsuit, said Chicago is getting an unwanted reputation based on its proposals regarding trans fat and foie gras.
"Some of my colleagues (around the country) call Chicago 'The Nanny City,'" Sternweiller said.
The prospect of foie gras speakeasies and gang wars over rights to distribute the delicacy is amusingly farfetched, but the increasing number of things being banned by the Nanny City and other places makes a greater flouting of the laws a certainty at some point.
From Karnick on Culture.
As I noted just this past week on this site and Karnick on Culture, the democratization of the media through technological change will probably be only a temporary phenomenon, as the 'Net will ultimately be harnessed by governments and corporations for their own benefit. Today Sony will announce its latest contribution to this process: its acquisition of Grouper, an amateur-video website along the lines of YouTube. The New York Times reports:
Sony Pictures Entertainment plans to announce on Wednesday that it has acquired Grouper, a Web site featuring videos contributed by users, for $65 million.
The deal marries one of the biggest and most powerful movie studios, which regularly spends more than $100 million on a film, with a Web site that provides free access to short and often inexpensively made videos on topics like pets, sports and music.
Michael Lynton, the chairman and chief executive of Sony Pictures, said the investment was a bet that material posted by users would continue to be a big draw online.
“My sense is that user-based content is a form of content that’s going to last,” Mr. Lynton said. “It’s a bet, no question, but it’s a bet worth making.”
Despite its emphasis on letting users share homemade videos, many of the most popular clips on Grouper are slick short productions, including music videos and commercials. . . .
Grouper will promote Sony’s content and seek to build communities of users around Sony movies and television shows, Mr. Felser said.
Of course it will. That's the whole point of the transaction.
From Karnick on Culture.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The box office performance of a "high concept" film such as Snakes on a Plane is typically based not on the cleverness of the concept but on whether there is actually a good movie in it. Die Hard and Speed, for example, had characters we could care about, and the films put them in situations where they had interesting choices to make. Those that don't have these things usually fall off at the box office even if they get a good opening weekend.
Interestingly, the least entertaining and involving parts of Snakes on a Plane are the two big action scenes in which the serpents attack the passengers on the plane. The snakes operate in a riidiculously implausible manner, even if we accept the filmmakers' premise that pheromones released on the plane would make the creatures more aggressive. These snakes are much more than "more aggressive"; they're positively malevolent and volitional. That's not at all believable—and it's not the slightest bit necessary, for the film is interesting enough without sci-fi snakes.
The first 40 minutes of the picture are devoted to scenes setting the stage for the big action sequences. The central conceit is that a young man who witnessed a murder by a powerful gangster in Hawaii consents to testify against the killer and is duly to be flown to Los Angeles to appear in court. That leads to the scheme to release hundreds of snakes on the plane and cause it to crash. OK, better plans have been devised in this world, but we'll let it go, shall we?
After all, what really makes a high-concept thriller successful is how the characters react to the situation, and especially the need for them to show courage, honor, and other good character traits. Snakes on a Plane has plenty of that, with some characters acting honorably, others meanly, and others developing better character through the course of the story. What is most pleasing is that the characters actually manage to surprise us just a little bit once in a while. The film has a solid performance by Samuel L. Jackson at its center, and it has the right amount of humor, meaning not too much. Snakes on a Plane also has enough action-film cliches to choke an anaconda, but the filmmakers' willingness to let us see human character in action makes it worth seeing.
From Karnick on Culture.
In response to a complaint by a single viewer, British media regulator Ofcom said Turner Broadcasting has offered to delete scenes that "glamorize smoking" in cartoons from earlier decades, when such scenes were commonplace. According to Reuters, the change was instigated when a single viewer complained to Ofcom about two scenes in two Tom and Jerry cartoons (one scene in each) shown on Turner's Boomerang channel in England, 56 percent of whose viewers are aged four to fourteen.
As a result, a Europe-based representative of Turner Broadcasting said the firm will "voluntarily" go through the entire inventory of cartoons owned by the firm, as reported by Ofcom in its news bulletin, according to Reuters:
"We are going through the entire catalog," Yinka Akindele, spokeswoman for Turner in Europe, said on Monday.
"This is a voluntary step we've taken in light of the changing times," she said, adding the painstaking review had been prompted by the Ofcom complaint.
This applies only to Great Britain at this time, as far as I can ascertain.
Interesting how times change, isn't it? In the 1950s, top-rated I Love Lucy was sponsored by a cigarette company, and the firm and network insisted that Lucy be seen holding a cigarette as often as possible. (Of course, it is debatable whether Lucille Ball can be said to have been capable of glamorizing anything at that time. . . .) Requirements that sympathetic characters smoke cigarettes and villans not smoke at all or smoke pipes or cigars were common practice throughout television at that time.
Such strictures applied even on the Camel News Caravan, a network news program, where Winston Churchill could not be shown holding a cigar.
Today, the situation is reversed: sympathetic characters do not smoke cigarettes, and villains do. It's a better lesson, I suppose, but one sometimes wonders why we all have to be treated like children because the federal and state governments will not allow the media to trust parents to teach their kids that smoking cigarettes is a very bad and unnecessary risk.
From Karnick on Culture.
there is an alternative to thanking God on the one hand and seeing the universe as a “cosmic lottery” or as absurd on the other. An alternative to being grateful to a deity or to ignoring such feelings altogether. Think of the sun's warmth. After all, the sun is one of those forces that make possible the natural world, plant life, indeed our very existence. It may not mean anything to us personally, but the warmth on our face means, tells us, and gives us a great deal. All of life on Earth has evolved in relation to this source of heat and light, we human beings included. We are because of, and in our own millennial adaptation to, the sun and other fundamental forces. My moment of gratitude was far more than a moment's pleasure. It is a way of acknowledging one of our most intimate if impersonal relationships, with the cosmic and natural forces that make us possible.
I wouldn't deny that it's possible for non-theists to have genuine feelings of gratitude even beyond the sorts of transactional gratitude everyone experiences every day ("thanks for the coke, here's a dollar..."), but I'm not sure Aronson really shows that non-theistic (or maybe non-purposive) views of the world really get you to defensible claims for gratitude, rather than just a "feeling." After all, when Aronson talks about "impersonal relationships" it's not really a relationship, it's a much more generic connection. The sun would - on his terms - burn just as brightly if we weren't here. We don't have a relationship with the sun, any more than the millions of people who buy tabloids have a relationship with the celebrities they think they know.
Indeed, on Aronson's take, it's hard to figure out how we might have gratitude for the most distinctive thing about us, that we are able to think about whether to actually be grateful or not. Our rationality, our consciousness, our ability to philosophize, so to speak, really sets us off from the rest of nature (so far as we know). In what sense can we be grateful for that thing that goes a long way toward making us "us" if the "us" there is just the product of blind, impersonal, non-purposive processes? Not much, it seems to me.