Media Musings
Talk about phoning it in. Over the past few weeks, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been Post It-noting it in. In the Dec. 5 Times, she prattles on about how she's the grinch in her family when it comes to Christmas (now there's a shocker), and that her mom and sister are, like, sooo into the spirit of the season.
That follows her Nov. 28 column, in which MoDo related how her fellow siblings are ardent Bush supporters, which she dutifully reports made for some interesting dinner-table conservation on Thanksgiving. Most of the column is even taken up by an email her brother sent to like-minded conservatives.
My question: Who cares? I'm a longtime fan of Dowd's writing, but I wonder if the Pulitzer-winning columnist is in mourning or something now that her book fell off the bestseller list. Has post-election Washington D.C. become that boring that quickly?
***
Images of the U.S. military's operation in Fallujah that you won't see in mainstream media can be found on an anonymous blog entitled "Fallujah in Pictures." Regardless of your stance on the Iraq War (this blog, I suspect, has made clear my thoughts on it), it certainly doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that war is not the sanitized exercise in jingoism so often depicted by media sources spoon-fed by the Pentagon.
Speaking of which, the U.S. military's chronicle of the Battle of Fallujah has also hit the Internet at the "Soldiers for the Truth" Web site.
***
Time magazine hasn't yet unveiled its person of the year, but kudos to American Idle for its early peek (ahem) at the winner.
posted by Chase McInerney @ 7:42 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
The Fallujah in pictures site should be mandatory viewing for everyone, both supporters and opponents of the war. I have a feeling that a lot of the people who have "support the troops" signs all over their cars would say that viewing these pictures is in some way hurting the troops. But our troops deserve the support of the American people for living and dying through the real nightmare that is any war.
I checked out the "Fallujah in Pictures" site, and wasn't sure exactly what point was intended. One could just as easily string together a web-based photo exhibit of rotting corpses from mass graves in southern Iraq, or the bloated purple bodies of gassed Kurdish infants clutched by equally bloated purple bodies of their gassed Kurdish mothers, or horribly-healed amputated limbs, or open mouths missing tongues.
Did no one KNOW that war caused terrible bloodshed? Really? Was anyone surprised or shocked? Not me. If you were, gosh, I'm truly sorry anyone can be that naive.
Sanitized jingoism? Does the fact that I've never served in the military preclude me from taking any stance on war other than simple-minded pacifism? Really? If so, Franklin Roosevelt should also be burned in effigy in the streets by those anarchists who chant mindless slogans at rallies. Same for Abraham Lincoln.
Isn't the world a bit more complicated than that? Isn't it rather silly to string together photos and believe you're somehow making a "statement" -- that overrused term from the self-absorbed, feel-good era of New Left cultural dominance?
Of course it is. And so I support the decision to invade Iraq. And I support the continuing fight there.
How can that possibly be?
It was General William Tecumseh Sherman who first described war as hell. And yet he engaged in a purposeful, methodical campaign of brutal burning and pillaging to let the South taste the terrible price of the war it had chosen to create.
He also said: "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
And: "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
If Kofi Annan and other people who purport to love peace had done the right things, taken the right measures, been a little tougher, acted a little more like leaders rather than Byzantine courtesans over 12 years and more, we might not have this war.
But we do have it. And there it is.
I thought Hitler was dead but he's alive and well and posting comments on this blog.
Hitler, huh? Such incredibly original thinking! So tolerant and wise and profound! And for a bonus, it's a grammatically incorrect insult!
Gosh, I don't believe I've ever heard that one before. Did you pick that up at some mindless anarchist rally, in the midst of bowing down to images of Che?
Ah, yes. The handy-dandy "fascist" label. It's the trusty, if cliched, rhetorical tool that leftists reach for in a pinch to slap on just about anything they disagree with (preposition at the end completely intentional).
Doesn't match the leftist worldview? Hey, it must be "Fascist"!
Good going there, sport. How's that eternal sunset of the leftist mind working out for you?
A few tips:
First, pick up a copy of Strunk and White's. It may help you compose a sentence or two that moves beyond a lame one-liner aching from flawed syntax.
Next, crack open the history books a little more before you abitrarily accuse someone of being "Hitler."
Ms. Dowd was out of options when it became obvious no one was buying into her leftist bent about George Bush so she turned on her own. Her article on November 28th was not for "Show and Tell" about her brother or to show her pride in him. He must have really ticked her off at Thanksgiving.
I will grant you the Hitler comment made by another poster was uncalled for and cruel. I will now ask a few questions for my own personal edification on your posting. Do you compare the current war in Iraq to the wars and the leaders that you refrence in your posting? Are you denying the fact that the war has been watered down in the American press? Is questioning the brutality of war such a taboo subject that you felt compelled to start pulling out qoutes to justify this war? History has taught us that two front wars never work as well as planned. Do I need to pull out qoutes about this subject? Do we still have the right to question what the U.S. Goverment does foreign policy wise? Do we need to consider how far this war will go into middle eastern countries? Is it the right of the U.S. to invade any country the administration deems might have connections to a terrorist organization? Do your witty rejoinders in your second posting make you look as bad as the person who called you Hitler?
In response to Zell Miller's tips:
1. I went to public school and my syntax is a product of a bad edumacation.
2. If it weren't for you republicans, my daddy would have made more money and I could have gotten me a private edumacation instead.
Regards from the trailer and Merry Christmas.
Wow. One never knows what posts will set people off.
I'm sure Chase is thrilled that his newish blog is attracting this kind of traffic.
For clarity's sake, I'm the "Anonymous" who first posted the Sherman quotes and high-falutin' historical references. After that, some apparently stump-toothed drooling individual (sorry, can't help insulting he/she/it) idiotically compared me to Hitler, to which I then responded. Finally, another "Anonymous" posed a series of questions to me.
First, let me say how thankful I am that this final Anonymous questioner seems to want to engage in an open and honest dialogue. That's a good thing.
Second, your questions definitely made me cool off and think.
Third, some answers:
QUESTION: "Do you compare the current war in Iraq to the wars and the leaders that you refrence in your posting?"
ANSWER: To be fair to the Hitler-epithet hurler, he/she/it was clearly offended by my original post. Let's agree that I dashed it off, and maybe didn't put in all the context that was necessary. I think historical comparisons are useful, but nearly always have failings because there's no history like the present. But it's important to me -- and maybe this is just a personal thing -- to place the sufferings of the Iraqis now side by side with their sufferings under Saddam, thus the reference I made to the gassed Kurdish infants. Which is worse? Put it another way: In Afghanisan, is there any question that orphans in Kabul are better off under the protection of American soldiers than they were when cruel Taliban masters stalked the streets, eyes streaked with kohl, on the hunt for the slightest infraction of fundamentalist Islamic law? I don't think there's any question. And this never would have changed without war.
QUESTION: "Are you denying the fact that the war has been watered down in the American press?"
ANSWER: I don't know if this is a fact. I haven't been to Iraq -- which does not, by the way, preclude me from reading about it and forming opinions. But I will concede that coverage has been watered down for American consumption. I think we would be better served if the American press would stop censoring and start showing -- everything, that is, including the mass graves into which babies had been indiscriminately tossed, and the gory video of beheadings by Zarqawi's minions. I understand plenty of such uncensored material would not be favorable to the American cause. So be it.
QUESTIONING: "Is questioning the brutality of war such a taboo subject that you felt compelled to start pulling out qoutes to justify this war?"
ANSWER: No. Why would it be taboo? It's also not taboo to criticize the critics, as it were. Since we're an open society, with free debate as one of our cornerstones, let's have at it in a big, wide discussion. That means I get to lay into those I disagree with. Marketplace of ideas. If my ideas are better, and if I express them in a superior way, the marketplace decides. If you don't like the quotes or historical references or my arguments, not my problem. But look -- my essential point was two-fold. First, that it's really pointless to slap up a bunch of photos on the web, deliberately minimize context, and believe that's somehow a morally superior thing to do. It's also NOT the case that the ONLY moral stance to take on war is to oppose it. In fact, it could often be the case that pacifism is itself morally untenable. Second, I thought I was being pretty clear that war IS brutal -- beyond brutal, in fact, HELLISH. And we could argue about this endlessly, but we know we avoided dealing with Iraq for 12 years. We might have avoided it for another 12 years. Eventually, however -- primarily because of the clear incompetence and failure of the U.N. and the clear hostility of Saddam's regime to peace -- we would have been forced to deal with the situation through force, WMD's or not. And the results might have been even bloodier. It is a fact that the Clinton Administration was gearing up to deal with Iraq in 1998. It is a fact that many Republicans resisted Clinton on this. It is also a fact that American pacifists resisted Clinton, including famously by protesting Albright and Cohen at a town hall meeting. But let us consider that the Clinton Administration was in all likelihood preparing to do exactly what the Bush Administration did, a full five years earlier and before 9/11 (and no, I am not suggesting a direct link between Iraq and Al Qaeda).
QUESTION: "History has taught us that two front wars never work as well as planned. Do I need to pull out qoutes about this subject?"
ANSWER: Look, I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. We fought a very successful two-front war with massive troop levels. It was called World War Two. We simultaneously fought in far-flung locales across Europe and the Pacific. We won. The Japanese and Germany lost. The Germans lost their two-front war; we didn't.
QUESTION: "Do we still have the right to question what the U.S. Goverment does foreign policy wise?"
ANSWER: I believe I already answered this. Yes, of course you do. So what are we arguing about? Nevertheless, I would add that it would be helpful if such questioning is undertaken calmly and rationally. We've seen a lot of hateful, irrational, nutty, paranoid "questioning" this election year. I hope you would concede that.
QUESTION: "Do we need to consider how far this war will go into middle eastern countries?"
ANSWER: I would hope we do consider that. And I think we are considering it. No one wanted war. No one desires war, despite the silly overheated rhetoric of the left. But it's also worth considering that we've been forced into a generational undertaking by the actions of evil kleptocracies and global terrorists. Is that necessarily the case? No, but it's worth discussing and debating, isn't it?
QUESTION: "Is it the right of the U.S. to invade any country the administration deems might have connections to a terrorist organization?"
ANSWER: I believe the doctrine you're referring to was quite clearly laid out immediately after 9/11. Al Gore, among others, lauded it early on -- until the Democrat party leadership realized they could score political points by appealing to the darker impulses of the radical left. I truly wish the Democrats hadn't done this, by the way, because I really liked our two-party system. Maybe Democrats will come to their senses. Or I'm sure another, better party will emerge to take their place soon if they don't. A party immolates itself ... and out of the ashes smart, rational, moderate individuals build a new party. It's happened before in American history, and it will happen again.
QUESTION: "Do your witty rejoinders in your second posting make you look as bad as the person who called you Hitler?"
ANSWER: Maybe, although I don't think so. In any case, it was certainly great fun making he/she/it look asinine.
Hey, somebody get Hitler a valium.
Hey, somebody get stump-toothed he/she/it a brain.
Hey, somebody get stump-toothed he/she/it a brain.
I know you are but what am I? INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uncle.
Yea!! I won, I won!! Yea! Seriously, you're right, the Hitler comments were uncalled for and pussy and I apologize. You seem like a smart he/she/it no matter how misguided. And even though I don't agree with 99.999% of what you say, you're an interesting he/she/it.
All my love, Stump-tooth drooler (wickedly funny name-calling by the way, though you did stoop to my level)
Hey, man, would you dudes quit calling yourselves "Anonymous." That's MY real name. All day yesterday I thought I had been calling myself "Hitler". It really blew my mind! - that is, until I realized I'd slept through last week.
Thanks, dudes.
Respectfully,
The Real Anonymous
In the blogosphere, we are all Anonymous.
Seriously, thanks to the Anonymous who apologized to this Anonymous for the Hitler comment, and that means I apologize too for the over-the-top stump-toothed characterization.
It's love all around and 'tis the season.
Post a Comment
<< Home