« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 28, 2005
Not in Our Stars
Good Night, and Good Luck may offer journalism classes the opportunity to give All the President's Men a break for a while. Since breaking the Watergate scandal, Woodward and Bernstein have served as the models for journalism, inspiring countless writers to pursue investigative journalism and secret sources. Now that Woodward seems to have reached the status of insider, more famous than most of the people he interviews, his own newspaper, The Washington Post, is questioning his utility as a model. Good Night, and Good Luck suggests that the media should re-examine itself completely.
The film depicts legendary American newsman Ed Murrow's confrontation with Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy right before McCarthy's influence fell. Murrow's success comes not in exclusive interviews or mysterious sources, but in being able to critically and publicly analyze the events and information that everyone had access to. The story is framed by a speech by Murrow questioning the direction of the media--is the desire to entertain stronger than the hunger to expose injustice?
George Clooney, who directed and co-wrote the film, has said that he hopes that Good Night, and Good Luck will encourage debate to talk about important issues. While McCarthy's power was already beginning to decline when Murrow confronted him, no other television journalist was brave enough to challenge McCarthy and his tactics--the fear of being labeled a communist was too potent. In an interview for Salon, Clooney acknowledges that there must be a compromise between entertainment and the less lucrative discourse of major issues--but the major issues must be there. Clooney's compromise is present even in the interview, when he is asked about whether he predicts financial success and he is praised for not being attractive. The New York Times describes Clooney as "doughy and pale." The film's demonstration of how the media can stimulate public opinion is much more vibrant.
If you find the film's call for social action compelling, you can find more information here. The responsibility of justice does not fall solely on the backs of journalists and others outside of ourselves--Murrow described this himself when he quoted William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in response to McCarthy: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Posted by Mandy Smithberger at 10:13 PM | Comments (621)
Soulful Matters
The saddest thing about intelligent design is that it detracts attention from the cool religious experiments; I'm thinking mainly of Dr. MacDougall's 1907 attempts to find the weight of the soul. Basically, the doctor (a Massachusetts local, by the way) hit upon the idea that if the soul was material, and left at the time of death, then there should be a change in body weight at the time of death. He set up special beds that measured weight down to a tenth of an ounce, and observed fatally ill patients as they went through the final stages of their lives. Keeping careful track of how their weight changed due to normal bodily functions, MacDougall was adamant that he observed a sudden change ranging from 3/4 of an ounce (the famous 21 grams) to 3/8 of an ounce.
Next week: the latest scientific findings on just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 05:09 PM | Comments (13)
November 27, 2005
Sexpo
Notoriously prim and proper Singapore, a country that still considers oral sex to be taboo held its first sex industry convention Sexpo November 18-20. The verdict? Not hot. Many were disappointed--no penis rings and genital ticklers, etc; they were banned. Philip Golingai described a general sense of confusion with the values of the convention in his review:
" Among the array was a jade carving of a penis that used to be worshipped. It was little more than 7cm (3 inches) long. I wondered why it deserved to be worshipped."
Posted by Mandy Smithberger at 06:32 PM | Comments (36)
And You Thought the American Press Had It Bad...
British news sources are buzzing about the release of a top secret memo revealing that Bush made comments (not clear if he was joking) about bombing al-Jazeera. Not to be confused with al-Quida, al-Jazeera is the major cable news station in the middle east. Both major British papers, The Times and The Guardian are carrying the story.
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 12:28 PM | Comments (6)
November 19, 2005
Vatican Comes to the Rescue of Science
From Yahoo News: "The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was 'wrong' and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. 'Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,' the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. 'If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.'"
Of course, is it also mentioned that "Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an 'intelligent project' and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order." So no clear policy from the Vatican yet on whether or not we were created by those 'highly intelligent aliens'.
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 05:31 PM | Comments (6)
Death or Sex? It's Your Choice.
In a given year, approximately 10,000 American women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, 4,000 of them die from it. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second deadliest form of cancer, killling an estimated 1 million women per year. Except now a vaccine has been developed that has been 100% successful in clinical trials at preventing a virus that causes the cancer. Enter religious conservatives. "I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior.” Says Leslie Unruh of the 'National Abstinence Clearinghouse'. Apparently, some religious conservatives are worried about how this will undermine their abstinence message; the virus in question is the human papilloma virus, which can be transmitted skin-to-skin so that even using a condom is no sure protection against it. Which makes it a prime scare-tactic source from abstinence-only education to scarier warnings on condoms.
Information on this is all over the web, but I'm going to admit to a particular failing in finding conservative sites that clearly state their reasons for opposing the vaccine (the closest I got was an article about the Christian Medical Association being misrepresented as opposing the vaccine). I admit to being biased, but this is more a case of poor googling skills.
I'd like to encourage everybody to add any of their own links to the ones below.
Cancer.gov
Women's health journal
New Scientist: Will cancer vaccine get to all women?
PHV vaccine works!
Aidsmap: is the vaccine really 100% effective?
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 02:51 PM | Comments (8)
November 15, 2005
The O'Reilly Watch Continues
Update: Bill O'Reilly was just kidding, so it's okay! Ha ha, Bill, good one about all those people being killed by terrorists, I get it now! And you're right to be annoyed that people didn't catch on; it's probably just because we live in a world where the threat of violence actually has to be taken seriously. Dismissing San Franciscians being angry as "hurt feelings" is rather missing the point. I mean, I have tons of jokes about setting Ann Coulter on fire, but I choose not to share those because I understand that people who share her views or at least sympathize with her right to voice unpopular opinions would not find those jokes as amusing as I do, and may even suspect me of wishing actual harm on her just because she thinks differently.
But more importantly, Bill O'Reilly is already past San Francisco, and onto Brown College to expose some kind of wild sex party. I wanted to listen to the internet broadcast, but no way was I shelling out the $5 for the premium membership necessary to listen, so I'll have to catch it via angry quotes over the internet. Brown Daily Squeal, we're all waiting for you.
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 01:08 PM | Comments (8)
November 13, 2005
He Said What?
Bad news for students planning on visiting family in San Francisco this Thanksgiving break: Bill O'Reilly thinks you should all be killed by terrorists. For your own good, and he isn't sorry about saying it. To citizens wondering why O'Reilly thinks they should be bombed, he addresses them directly, "You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace." And first off, that's a pretty bold statement considering New York and the people who actually were attacked are still liberal and voted against Bush by a wide margin in the last election. So if being a victim of tragedy is what gives you the insight to make decisions in the War on Terror, Bush shouldn't even be our president much less pushing to recruit kids out of high school.
Just to be clear, this is the interview following up O'Reilly's statements, so if anyone thinks that he had time, cooled off, and regretted his call for the deaths of innocent civilians, "What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said." So feel free to put O'Reilly in the same box as Ann Coulter, who supposedly still has her fingers crossed for the deaths of New York Times employees.
For the final disconnect from reality, here's what O'Reilly had to say about "Board of Supervisors member Aaron Peskin, whose district includes Coit Tower, suggested that O’Reilly should get his head examined. ‘It sounds like he’s on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist'". O'Reilly responded "Yeah, another cheap shot by that guy. He’s a classy guy, isn’t he? Taking a cheap shot against somebody. You know, this is the hallmark of the left: Cheap shot everybody. Come out with the most insane things you can."
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 12:11 PM | Comments (6)
November 06, 2005
A Compromise for Alito
For those not yet familiar with the argument over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it goes a little like this: so it would look like he was following precedent, Alito wrote in his court opinion that since Justice O'Connor had ruled that a child informing her parents before an abortion did not constitute an "undue burden" then having a wife inform her husband before an abortion didn't either. His mistake was assuming that a child's relationship with her parents was no different (or at least, not different enought) from a wife's relationship with her husband.
Liberal Blog UggaBugga to the rescue with a compromise that should make everyone happy: "We're in favor of requiring women to notify their husbands if they plan to have an abortion, with the proviso that an additional law is enacted: All men must notify their wives if they've had an affair - to be enforced with a hefty fine and substantial jail time."
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 01:19 PM | Comments (10)
November 02, 2005
Democratic Suprise Attack in the Senate: Rule 21 Invoked
Tuesday in Congress, Democrats invoked what's known as Rule 21 to close congress and demand an investigation into the lead-up to the Iraq war. In the past, closed sessions have been a matter that was actually discussed between members of both parties, but according to some only three Democrats knew what was going to happen. Democrats accused the Republican party of dragging out the official investigation; Republicans accused Democrats of pulling a stunt. In the end, Republicans yielded to the Democratic threat of shutting down the Senate on a daily basis until the investigation moved forward, and a bipartisan group of three Republicans and three Democrats was formed to report findings on the investigation by November 14th. The closed session was over after only two hours, but may not be the last, seeing as how during the Clinton impeachment Rule 21 was invoked six times (out of the total 53 since 1929).
The major question right now is how this affects the timeline of the Alito nomination. Alito changes the entire balance of the court; conservatives will finally have a solid majority on the Supreme Court. There will be a case (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood) coming before the Supreme Court November 30th on abortion, specifically parental notification for minors, a case that's eerily similar to Planned Parenthood v. Casey where Alito first tried to undermine the "undue burden" test. It took 24 days to confirm Roberts, making his confirmation one of the shortest of the sitting Justices. As the minority party, Democrats have little leverage to draw out the nomination long enough to keep vulnerable abortion precedent out of the hands of a conservative majority. Ironically, the sins of the Bush administration may be just what Democrats need to keep congress busy. And it certainly won't hurt any plans to run on an anti-corruption platform in 2006.
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 12:06 AM | Comments (8)