But few in Democratic politics still believe that Obama is just aimlessly window-shopping outside the White House. A major Democratic strategist, who is affiliated with another presidential candidate, ran into Obama on Capitol Hill last week and was told by him, “I hope that when your conflict-of-interest period is over, we can work together.” The easy translation: “After your candidate loses in the early primaries, I hope that you will sign on with me.”
Multinational surveys have often reported that Americans are much more likely to believe in God than people in most other developed countries, particularly in Europe. However, a new Harris Poll finds that 42 percent of all U.S. adults say they are not “absolutely certain” there is a God, including 15 percent who are “somewhat certain,” 11 percent who think there is probably no God and 16 percent who are not sure.
These are the results of a Harris Poll conducted online by Harris Interactive® between October 4 and 10, 2006 with a nationwide sample of 2,010 U.S. adults.
Important difference between online surveys and surveys conducted by telephone interviewers
Over the last few years, several different surveys have found that more people admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs or behaviors when answering online surveys (without interviewers) than admit to these behaviors when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys. They are also three times more likely to say that their sexual orientation is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Researchers call this unwillingness to give honest answers to some questions in telephone surveys a “social desirability bias.”
It is therefore no surprise that in this online survey, more people say they are not absolutely certain there is a God than have given similar replies in other surveys conducted by telephone.
Differences between different religious groups
Not everyone who describes themselves as Christian or Jewish believes in God. Indeed, only 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics, and 30 percent of Jews say they are “absolutely certain” there is a God. However, most Christians who describe themselves as “Born Again” (93%) are absolutely certain there is a God. Differences between different demographic groups
Demographic groups that are more likely to say they are absolutely certain that there is a God include:
* People in all age groups 40 and over (63% of those ages 40 to 49, 65% of those ages 50 to 64 and 65% of those ages 65 and over) compared to people in age groups under 40 (45% of those ages 18 to 24, 43% of those ages 25 to 29 and 54% of those ages 30 to 39); * Women (62%) slightly more than men (54%); * African Americans (71%) compared to Hispanics (61%) and Whites (57%); * Republicans (73%) more than Democrats (54%) or Independents (51%); * People with no college education (62%) or who have some college education (57%) compared to college graduates (50%) and those with post-graduate degrees (53%). Frequency of attending religious services
Approximately one-third (35%) of all adults claim to attend a religious service once a month or more often, including 26 percent who say they attend every week or more often. Almost half of all adults (46%) say they attend services a few times a year or less often, while eighteen percent say the never attend religious services.
Those who attend religious services once a month or more often include 48 percent of Protestants, 46 percent of Catholics, and 12 percent of Jews. However, more than two-thirds (68%) of Born Again Christians attend Church once a month or more often. Are believers declining?
Three years ago, in an identical survey, 79 percent of adults said they believed in God and 66 percent said they were absolutely certain that there is a God. In this new survey, those numbers have declined to 73 percent and 58 percent respectively.
There is a ton of chatter about this absolutely ridiculous blogger ethics piece on Greater Boston this past friday. If you haven’t read about it, you can get all the skinny on C&L and The Horses Mouth.
The most egregious error, of course, and the one that everyone is chortling over, is that the man who looked down his long professional nose at unethical blogging activity is the same man who took satire for reality and didn’t bother to do any fact checking before he reported it as true. It is almost hilarious in its goofiness. Almost.
Johnathan Carroll actually believed this and reported it:
Armstrong bragged this week that the other bloggers he’d farmed out his website to, were in reality, him, writing under those aliases the entire time. And the blogrolling didn’t stop there: Armstrong also posed as liberal blogger Scott Shields, who posted for pay for yet another Democratic candidate
.
That Armstrong in an ironman, isn’t he?
The problem is that Carroll didn’t just make a fool of himself on that aspect of the story — he botched it even before he got to that part. He spliced in an interview segment with David Kravitz of Blue MassGroup out of context (which Kravitz objected to here), and he also sets forth a total misreading of the NY Times piece on which he based his segment:
Carroll (narrating): …The undisputed high point for the bloggeratti came last summer in Connecticut when they whipped up support for moneybags newcomer Ned Lamont who then whipped Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.
(video) “My name is Ned Lamont and I approved this message! Thank you!”
Carroll(narrating): As it turns out some of Lamont’s money in that campaign went to — wait for it — political bloggers. The New York Times published a “pay for praise” chart showing which bloggers got paid which money from which candidate.
Local blogger David Kravitz of BlueMass Group, says there’s a delicate balance involved here:
Kravitz: I don’t have a problem with campaigns paying bloggers or campaigns paying anybody else to do whatever they want as long as they’re transparent and up front about it.
Carroll (narrating): Some yes, some no. According to the New York Times some of the “kept bloggers” appeared on some of the left wing’s glamour web-sites. From the Huffington Post to Daily Kos to MYDD.
But this year, candidates across the country found plenty of outsiders ready and willing to move inside their campaigns. Candidates hired some bloggers to blog and paid others consulting fees for Internet strategy advice or more traditional campaign tasks like opposition research.
After the Virginia Democratic primary, for instance, James Webb hired two of the bloggers who had pushed to get him into the race. The Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont in Connecticut had at least four bloggers on his campaign team. Few of these bloggers shut down their “independent” sites after signing on with campaigns, and while most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs, some — like Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits — did so only after being criticized by fellow bloggers.
Throughout the segment and the roundtable, Carroll insisted that liberal blogs were offenders in this unethical non-disclosure, when in fact, the liberal bloggers were not implicated by non-disclosure at all in the New York Times piece. He got it completely backwards. The scenario in which bloggers are paid to secretly shill for a candidate on their own site happened one time that I’m aware of (aside from Hynes) and it was the notorious conservative Thune bloggers in South Dakota. I suppose it may have happened on the liberal side in this last election, but if it did, it was not revealed by that NY Times article or anywhere else. The dark speculation about the “kept” bloggers of the “left-wing’s glamour web-sites” simply has no basis.
But there’s also a very confused supposition that underlies both the NY Times article and John Carroll’s piece. They suggest that bloggers ought to give up their own sites if they sign on to a campaign and I can’t for the life of me think why that would be ethically necessary.(On a practical basis, I understand it completely.)
They seem to think that bloggers have some obligation to be “objective” like newspapers, when we are already openly partisan or ideological. They also seem to think that in the same way a writer for The New Republic cannot work on campaigns, neither can a blogger.
But suppose a writer for the New Republic did go to work for a campaign and disclosed in the magazine that she was working for candidate X and her readers could take that into account? I realize this makes professional journalists uncomfortable, but what would be the ethical problem? These writers are assumed to have an ideological point of view, so nobody expects them to be politically neutral. Indeed, their ideological status adds to their credibility. If anyone thought they were just political mercenaries, hiring out their writing and argumentation skills to the highest bidder, they would be shunned. Except for the obvious dilemma as to which employer the person answers to and to whom they owe their ultimate loyalty (something that doesn’t affect bloggers), I honestly can’t see the problem. It happens on op-ed pages of newspapers every day (when they bother to disclose, that is.) I can see why the magazine would not want to do this for many reasons, and don’t expect that they would, but I don’t see how the writer is personally ethically compromised unless she writes lies or fails to disclose.
It actually strikes me as more ethical and honest than what we saw in the Scooter Libby case where it was revealed after many months that many in the Washington press corps knew more than they ever reported, out and out lied to the public and protected powerful people who blatantly used them for partisan political gain. So many of these phony constructs of “objectivity” and “impartiality” and “journalistic ethics” have no common sense to them. In fact, they seem to be rules that are designed to obscure the truth rather than reveal them — and keep control of the political discourse in such a way that the people have to interpret their morning newpapers through far more than simple political bias; they have to try to decipher an arcane language that requires the kind of specialized skill that is more common to Egyptologists or tarot card readers. “Bias” can have much more insidious shadings than simple partisanship.
When you watch the whole Greater Boston segment, you realize that the problem isn’t just Carroll, it’s every person in the group. They may be taking their colleague’s word for it that many liberal bloggers are on the take and using aliases to get paid by different campaigns for their nefarious deeds, but their knowledge of the new media is also nil in every other respect. Their comically pompous attitude, considering that they are, with every word, revealing themselves to be completely foolish, is a sight to behold.
They took Carroll’s misleading report even further than he did. A “payola” meme gained steam, until liberal bloggers ended up being compared to Armstrong Williams. They were incoherent on the subject of blogs endorsing candidates, which they equated with being on the candidate’s payroll. They seem not to be able to grasp that a political site might endorse a candidate the same way newspapers or unions or citizens groups endorse candidates — because they believe in them. Instead, they seemed to think that when an independent partisan blog endorses a candidate, that blog loses its credibility for some reason. They tut-tutted that when the liberal BlueMassgroup blog endorsed Deval Patrick, the campaign was disappointed because now it looked like the site was a shill for their campaign. That’s makes no sense at all, unless they were also disappointed when the liberal editorial page of the Boston Globe also endorsed him. Carroll did make it clear later in the program that BlueMassGroup was not on the payroll, but failed to explain why they should be assumed to be shills when they endorsed Patrick.
The fundamental question (again) is whether bloggers should disclose whether they are on the payroll of campaigns or any other entity that is related to the subjects they write about. Yes, they should. We all agreed long ago that this is the best way to keep order on this issue. It’s the same standard that’s required of op-ed writers and columnists, although you hardly ever see it applied to anyone who appears on the cable shoutfests. Many of those “strategists” who make television appearances and opine on all matters political really do fail to disclose their web of financial ties to the political establishment. I suppose that might be a simple matter of practicality. After all, the list of people and companies many of them take money from would be so long there would probably not be time for an actual show.
None of this disclosure stuff is a problem for readers and bloggers. It just seems to be a problem with certain journalists, who apparently can’t wrap their minds around the idea that if bloggers adhere to a basic disclosure rule, readers and voters use their eyes and ears and minds to fairly judge their credibility. You don’t have to create a bunch of highminded complicated ethical restraints — they figure it out all by themselves.
I’ve been reading a fabulous book called Dissent in America: The Voices That Shaped a Nation. It was compiled and edited by Ralph Young, a Temple University professor who teaches a very popular course on the history of American dissent. The book contains “400 years of speeches, articles, letters, and songs that made a difference.” I found the petition below interesting. It was written almost 100 years before the Civil War, and almost 200 years before the time of MLK. Professor Young writes an intro:
The notions of “freedom” and “liberty” that were echoing throughout the colonies in the 1770s sufficiently encouraged slaves that they began petitioning colonial legislatures for their own freedom. A few petitions were requests to be sent back to Africa, but most argued for either immediate or gradual emancipation. This 1777 petition to the Massachusetts Bay Colony legislature was a appeal for gradual emancipation. Notice that the writers are apparently familiar with the Declaration of Independence. ____
TO THE HONORABLE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY, JANUARY 13, 1777
The petition of a great number of blacks detained in a state of slavery in the bowels of a free & Christian country humbly sheweth that your petitioners apprehend we have in common with all other men a natural and unalienable right to that freedom which the Great Parent of the Universe hath bestowed equally on all mankind, and which they never forfeited by any compact or agreement whatever. But they were unjustly dragged by the hand of a cruel power from their dearest friends and some of them even torn from the embraces of their tender parents–from a populous, pleasant, and plentiful country and in violation of laws of nature and nations–and, in defiance of all the tender feelings of humanity, brought here to be sold like beasts of burthen & like them condemned to slavery for life among a people professing the mild religion of Jesus–a people not insensible of the secrets of rational beings nor without spirit to resent the unjust endeavors of others to reduce them to a state of bondage and subjection. Your honours need not to be informed that a life of slavery like that of your petitioners, deprived of every social privilege, of every thing requisite to render life tolerable, is far worse than nonexistence.
In imitation of the laudable example of the good people of these states, your petitioners have long and patiently waited the event of petition after petition by them presented to the legislative body of this state and cannot but with grief reflect that their success hath been but too similar. They cannot but express their astonishment that it has never been considered that every principle from which Americans have acted in the course of their unhappy difficulties with Great Britain pleads stronger than a thousand arguments in favour of your petitioners. They therefore humbly beseech your honours to give this petition its due weight & consideration & cause an act of the legislature to be passed whereby they may be restored to the enjoyments of that which is the natural right of all men–and their children who were born in this land of liberty may not be held as slaves after they arrive at the age of twenty one years. So may the inhabitants of this state, no longer chargeable with the inconsistency of acting themselves the part of which they condemn and oppose in others, be prospered in their present glorious struggle for liberty and have those blessings to them, etc.
Lancaster Hill, Peter Bess, Brister Slenser, Prince Hall, Jack Pierpont, Nero Funelo, Newport Sumner, Job Look
Massachusetts abolished slavery three years later in 1780. I wonder what took the rest of the country so long? Perhaps the politicians were running the political calculations and just couldn’t come up with anything compelling.
Atrios links to this article which explores the idea of the US accepting Iraqi refugees. I’ve thought about this quite a lot over the last two weeks; as we contemplate the consequences of the violent, chaotic occupation that led to their civil war, it seems to me this is the least we could do.
Of course, for political reasons, the Bush administraton will have none of it:
Arthur E. “Gene” Dewey, who was President Bush’s assistant secretary of state for refugee affairs until last year, said that “for political reasons the administration will discourage” the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States “because of the psychological message it would send, that it is a losing cause.”
But Dewey said a tipping point has been reached that is bound to change US policy because so many refugees are convinced that they will not be able to return to Iraq. That tipping point was further weighted by Wednesday’s report by the Iraq Study Group that called for the eventual withdrawal of most US forces.
“I think there will increasingly be a moral obligation on the part of the United States” to allow resettlement by Iraqis here, Dewey said.
Fat chance. Here’s the problem. There are a whole bunch of people in the United States who think of Iraqis as terrorists, including a fair number of the military who have been taught to use that language. Even the Democratic Party uses that term.
Here’s a headline from World Net Daily a few years back: “Iraqi terrorists head to U.S. via Mexico?” As recently as last summer, the Harris Poll reported, “sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda” and “sixty-one percent of adults agree that invading and occupying Iraq has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack the United States.” When Pete Hoekstra and Rick Santorum came out with that silly, bogus report that the WMD had been found, a large spike in the polling showed up due to the relentless flogging on wingnut radio. Kathryn Jean Lopez once gleefuly reported on The Corner that Americans “get the war on terror” because 70% believed that Saddam Hussein was tied to 9/11.
So, with right wing radio still going strong, the GOP being in the rabid minority once again whose only raison d’etre is the GWOT, a debate already raging about immigration and plain old racists like Trent Lott saying things like “they all look alike to me,” I doubt that the US will be taking in an influx of arab immigrants. It’s beyond the imagination.
The sad truth is that we have probably managed to make at least some Iraqis hostile enough to the US that they have turned to radical Islamic fundamentalism and have decided that we are The Enemy, even if their Shia or Sunni rivals are “the enemy.” As with so many things about this godforsaken war, it has many parallels to Vietnam — but it is more complicated and more dangerous by a factor of ten.
I have often felt that most of what is wrong with modern conservatism could probably be traced to the boys and girls of the right’s salad days when they stared dreamily into the dark, dark night thinking of the hottest man and sexiest woman they ever saw brought to the page: Dagny Taggert and John Galt. ***sigh*** They read “Atlas Shrugged,” found their adolescent self-absorbsion and callowness affirmed by a philosophy of greed and self-interest and that was it. “If I behave like an asshole, I will be doing the moral thing” (and hot chicks and dudes will want me!) It is the last time many movement conservatives ever examined their beliefs again.
It turns out that the Ayn Rand Institute is busy indoctrinating another generation of 101st keyboarders, “libertarians” and wingnut welfare queens who will believe in magical thinking and politics as soap opera. They hold an Ayn Rand contest for teen-agers and college students and pay some pretty good prizes (for a contest that doesn’t actually produce anything useful in the world.)
It is quite serious — not in the mode of the Hemingway contest which delights in taking the minimalist master’s style to its most absurd. It’s possible that some of the contestants are just good All American opportunists who did it for the money. If so, good for them. (Talk about being hoist with your own petard.) But sadly, I suspect these kids are going to be the Kathryn Jean Lopez’s of their generations.
Behold, the winner of the “Atlas Shrugged” college essay contest, written in answer to this question: At his trial, Hank Rearden declares: “The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!” What does he mean? How does this issue relate to the rest of the novel and its meaning? Explain.
Throughout his life, Hank Rearden has been conditioned to accept guilt. He feels guilt because he cannot bring himself to value Lillian or Philip or his mother on the pretext of duty when no real value exists. He feels guilt because he is not capable of granting love undeserved. “You’ve got to be kind, Henry,” his mother insists. “You wouldn’t want me to think that you’re selfish” (433). This condemnation of selfishness oozes like poison from the world around him, overflowing his every accomplishment. He is trapped by the false conscience instilled in him: all that is done for the illusionary “public good” is virtuous; all that is done for the individual good is evil.
Hank Rearden’s most selfish act is his relationship with Dagny. Although his most noble ideals draw him to Dagny, he can at first see their relationship only as society views it: an immoral act fueled by the animal selfishness that is lust. “I don’t love you,” he declares after their first night together at Ellis Wyatt’s house. “I’ve given in to a desire which I despise” (238). Although Rearden recognizes his actions as “wrong,” he also knows that he cannot give them up. Subconsciously, he realizes that he is pursuing something of great value, but still he despises himself for being too weak to resist the “ugly weakness of man’s lower nature” (106), as he has come to acknowledge it. He is caught in the doctrine that he must always feel guilty for his pleasures, that joy in itself is sin
.
It’s always the hot stuff that gets ’em. Selfishness and sex. Can you imagine what an utter disaster these people must be in bed?
Last night I wrote a snarky (and controversial) post about Sandra Day O’Connor getting something wrong and I was soundly chastised for ignoring the basis of the original Kevin Drum link which was an embarrassing interview in Congressional Quarterly with the new Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes. The truth is that I just didn’t have the time last night — I’m not at home — and didn’t get a chance to fully appreciate how embarrassing that interview is. It’s a cringer.
Here’s a little excerpt:
To his credit, Reyes, a kindly, thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see the undertows drawing the region into chaos.
For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.
That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.
I thought it only right now to pose the same questions to a Democrat, especially one who will take charge of the Intelligence panel come January. The former border patrol agent also sits on the Armed Services Committee.
Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.
We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players.
To me, it’s like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who’s on what side?
The dialogue went like this:
Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?
“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”
“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.
He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.
That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up al Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.
Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.
It’s been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.
Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?
This is pretty basic stuff that doesn’t require a working knowledge of Muslim theology or even history, ancient or recent. What do these people, (Reyes isn’t alone) think is meant by the term “sectarian violence?” Aren’t they even curious about which side is which and why Iraq is splintering? How can you possibly try to make sense out of what is going on without even a rudimentary knowledge of the tribal and religious factors that feed the turmoil.
I think what amazes me the most os this is familiar to anyone who has been reading newspapers since the 70’s, at least. The religious rivalries have been around for centuries, of course, but the United States has been intimately involved in mid-east politics for decades and the press has been writing about it. We had the Iran hostage crisis and Iran-Contra and Lebanon and the first Gulf War and the rise of terrorism and 9/11. There always seems to be a crisis of some sort. You do not have to be a mid-east scholar or an expert to have simply absorbed the contours of the disputes — all you had to do was read the paper regularly. And that every member of the government didn’t immediately read up on bin Laden and his movement after 9/11 is simply irresponsible.
But then, look at the president, who didn’t know the difference between the Shia and the Sunni on the eve of the invasion. Or former CIA director George Tenent who was quoted in Woodward’s book “Bush At War” saying “The Iranians may have switched sides and gone to side with the Taliban.” (It’s not impossible,of course, but under current conditions it would be shockingly unexpected. It would be on the par of the Palestinians and the Israelis suddenly deciding to ally themselves.)And then there’s this guy who shows what appears to be a pretty common understanding of the complexities of the situation:
“One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit,’” said Mr. McCain, according to Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests.
It’s hard to understand why so many members of the government haven’t bothered to educate themselves on this important topic, but it seems that they haven’t.
Well, in many cases, it’s hard. For some, it’s perfectly obvious:
Trent Lott, the veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, said only last September that “It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people.”
“Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion?” wondered Lott, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after a meeting with Bush.
“Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference?
“They all look the same to me,” Lott said.
Update: Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah has a great idea: A pop quiz for lawmakers. I also think the Democratic leadership would do well to organize some tutorials and lectures on the middle east and require the elected officials and their staffs to attend. I’m not kidding. This is a grave problem and since the administration is led by an idiot and run by a bunch of faith based magical thinkers, it behooves the Democrats to do better.
During the American Revolution, George Washington wrote several letters to British General William Howe about the mistreatment of American prisoners of war. In each letter, Washington used the phrase “justice and humanity demands … ” as a way to appeal to Howe. Justice and humanity are universal qualities that align with most everyone’s sense of right and wrong.
The number of people who have died as a result of the Iraq debacle is approaching 700,000; if the number of injured could be added to the count, the total must approach one million. The United States — because of the recklessness, negligence, and fraud of its elected leaders, and because of a flawed system that fails to keep the corrupt influence of money from those who hold political power — is directly responsible for the injured and the dead.
In the eyes of justice and humanity, how do we — you and me — as part of a representative democracy, escape an equal share of responsibility for the carnage? As part of a country where coercive trade and rampant self-enrichment has historically led to the systematic decimation of opposing cultures, including the decimation of the politically weak, why should we also not be held to account? In the eyes of justice and humanity, how does America atone for this mistake in Iraq, reconcile and correct its flawed system of politics, and prevent future debacles of this magnitude? How does America ensure that despots and tyrants don’t again so easily gain the highest office in the land?
The only way I can think of is to (not necessarily in sequential order): 1. Undergo Congressional investigation of Bush administration conduct. 2. Appoint a special prosecutor. 3. Actuate a popular movement insisting on impeachment. 4. Remove the guilty from office. 5. Enact legislation to deal with a flawed system of mass media. 6. Enact legislation to fix the electoral process. 7. Pay reparations to Iraq or some international institution.
What else?Shouldn’t the question of impeachment not be one of partisan political strategy, but instead be about justice and humanity as seen through the eyes of the entire world?
I’m With the Banned: Two new docs for free speech groupies
By Dennis Hartley
If blowing the lid off the f-bomb doesn’t sound like fodder for a revelatory documentary in 2006, you’re probably right. “Fuck” (in theaters now) makes an admirable attempt to examine the impact of its namesake in the context of history, politics, religion, the media, popular culture and everyday life. Myriad talking heads are employed-vox populi, actors, musicians, writers, comics, media pundits, linguists, psychologists, etc. Conservative Citizens of Puritan Nation (Pat Boone, Michael Medved, Miss Manners, etc.) and the NPR Lovin’ Civil Libertarians (Bill Maher, Hunter Thompson, Janeane Garofalo, etc.) play predictable point/counterpoint via dueling sound bites, interspersed with archival footage from films, TV and newsreels. The overall effect is akin to one of those VH-1/E! Network pop culture countdowns-“The 50 Most Outrageous F-Bomb Moments!” There are a few well-focused segments-a tribute to Lenny Bruce, a brief examination of the FCC’s Orwellian Michel Powell era (Janet Jackson’s nipple, Howard Stern’s fines and Bono’s “fookin’ brilliant” award acceptance speech), and a review of George Carlin’s “7 words you can’t say on TV” (which you wish they would play in its entirety, because that one bit delivers a more profound denouement regarding censorship than the documentary itself!). The film is a great tease, but there’s not enough of a payoff to make you crave a cigarette afterwards.(Note: “Fuck” only ran for a week here in good ‘ol liberal Seattle, so I suspect it may not be on a lot of screens-you may have to wait for the DVD!).
Billed as a “feel good flick with fun, filth and felonious assault”, filmmaker James Guardino’s “Porn King” (Blue Underground DVD) is a peephole-eyed profile of notorious “Screw Magazine” publisher Al Goldstein. After a perfunctory review of Goldstein’s early years and subsequent rise to riches and infamy, the film directs its focus to the story of a three-year court battle kindled by a relatively minor verbal harassment charge brought against him by his ex-secretary in 2001. Goldstein’s “glory days” of first amendment battles were ancient history by the time Guardino started filming, and it becomes obvious that this final skirmish is less about freedom of speech and more about media attention (in this jaded age of mainstream post-Madonna porn chic, old-school “smut peddlers” like Goldstein appear to have lost their cachet). The film bears unblinking witness to the dethroning, as his riches turn quite literally into rags (at one point, a humbled Goldstein is actually begging the cameraman for a few bucks because he doesn’t want to spend another night in a homeless shelter). It’s still tough to feel sorry for him, because up to this point in the story he is shown to be so unrelentingly self-destructive and compulsively abrasive toward everyone he comes in contact with. Still, there is a morbid fascination factor here that makes “Porn King” an interesting watch.
Still not feeling persecuted enough? Here are some more free-speech flicks I recommend:
Let me also take this opportunity to gush shamelessly and thank you for making me feel so welcome to the Hullabaloo family, and for your enlightening comments-keep ‘em coming!
Kevin Drum links to an embarrassing interview with Silvestre Reyes and wonders:
On the other hand, if you were to ask a bunch of congress critters whether, say, Italy was fascist or communist during World War II, I wonder how many would beg off with jokes about not paying attention during high school history?
I can’t comment on congress critters, but I heard a real shocker from a Supreme Court Justice the other night:
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: It was suggested by the study group that we at least talk to those two countries, with whom we’ve had great difficulty and which are creating difficulty for Iraq, and that is Iran and Syria.
And they’re both neighboring countries. It’s important that they understand the concerns and to inquire whether they can try to help preserve the country of Iraq as it is, to stabilize it.
VERNON JORDAN: You know, Margaret, on this issue of Iran and Syria, in the early part of my career, I spent an awful lot of time talking to the enemy. They were police chiefs in the South and sheriffs in the South who were not our friends. But negotiation was required. And we did it because it was necessary, and I think the same thing about Iran and Syria.
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: We might go all the way back to World War II, where the United States continued to have discussions with Stalin. He was the enemy, not our friend, but we continued to have discussions. And I think we pretty much have to do the same here.
contest which delights in taking the minimalist master’s style to its most absurd. It’s possible that some of the contestants are just good All American opportunists who did it for the money. If so, good for them. (Talk about being hoist with your own petard.) But sadly, I suspect these kids are going to be the 
(Blue Underground DVD) is a peephole-eyed profile of notorious “Screw Magazine” publisher Al Goldstein. After a perfunctory review of Goldstein’s early years and subsequent rise to riches and infamy, the film directs its focus to the story of a three-year court battle kindled by a relatively minor verbal harassment charge brought against him by his ex-secretary in 2001. Goldstein’s “glory days” of first amendment battles were ancient history by the time Guardino started filming, and it becomes obvious that this final skirmish is less about freedom of speech and more about media attention (in this jaded age of mainstream post-Madonna porn chic, old-school “smut peddlers” like Goldstein appear to have lost their cachet). The film bears unblinking witness to the dethroning, as his riches turn quite literally into rags (at one point, a humbled Goldstein is actually begging the cameraman for a few bucks because he doesn’t want to spend another night in a homeless shelter). It’s still tough to feel sorry for him, because up to this point in the story he is shown to be so unrelentingly self-destructive and compulsively abrasive toward everyone he comes in contact with. Still, there is a morbid fascination factor here that makes “Porn King” an interesting watch.
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
(no, I am not being facetious).