August 25, 2004
DENZEL
Man, I wish I could've seen this exchange between
Katie Couric and Denzel Washington. Thank heavens for brave celebrities...
(emailed to me by Tim)
MORE TO GROK:
I went and bought Courage Under Fire online, just because of Denzel. And also because that's the movie that made me know I wanted to be a military wife. After we watched it in ROTC class, I walked home from class all full of pride and love for my then-boyfriend's service. And I got back to his room to find he'd smashed a ukulele to splinters because a class he needed to graduate filled before he could register and therefore he would have to give up his slot in Air Assault School and take the business class in summer school.
As I calmed him down, I knew then that he was the man for me. I told him that as long as he beat up musical instruments instead of me, I'd stand by him through anything.
True story.
MORE:
Well, that's weird. Reader Matt found it on Snopes, and the account is MIGHTY different. I always check the validity of email forwards, but I don't snope out websites (though on a second glance, I should have if I'd read the parenthetical statement more thoroughly). Sigh. Oh well...it's still a good movie.
Hilarious that Meryl Streep said that money is bad though.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:50 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sarah - thanks for the link. I make it a point NEVER to watch the Today Show because their open hostility towards the president makes me mad. I knew I loved Denzel for a reason. HE should be a keynote speaker at the convention!
Posted by: Kathleen A at August 25, 2004 07:48 AM (vnAYT)
2
The Denzel-Couric exchange didn't actually happen as described.
Snopes has the actual transcript:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/denzel.asp
Posted by: Matt at August 25, 2004 10:12 AM (jhAOH)
3
Thanks for the snopes link! That was very interesting. Someone let me know when Meryl starts giving away all her money... *grin*
LOL - I nearly always go to snopes for just about any email I get that looks like it has celebrities claiming to have said something. I've found some interesting things that way.
Posted by: Teresa at August 25, 2004 11:22 AM (nAfYo)
4
Denzel Washington called himself "an ex-slave"!?
If Meryl Streep thinks money is so "bad," why does she contaminate yourself with it? Oh, I see, she doesn't want to give it away lest she contaminates others. Only a noble soul like her can keep its evil under control.
Posted by: Amritas at August 25, 2004 12:02 PM (q9T9n)
5
Hmmmm.....I thought EUROPEANS brought slavery to America, and AMERICANS fought a war to end it.
Washington: "You know, I haven't seen 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' because I live in America. I grew up here. I'm an ex-slave. I'm a result of what this country can do. So it's nothing new to me.
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at August 25, 2004 12:09 PM (QMAjT)
6
You are posting an email hoax here. Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. You might want to do a little more homework next time, or are email hoaxes the best evidence that the right wingers can come up with these days?
Posted by: laughing at August 26, 2004 10:30 AM (n17hK)
7
Laughing, are you drunk or just ignorant? I added an update that points directly to Snopes LONG before you commented. Do you suggest I delete the whole post and pretend I never said it, as people like Kos do?
Posted by: Sarah at August 26, 2004 10:50 AM (9iZmB)
8
Sarah -
As I recall I sent you a separate link to the Iowa Presidential Campaign Watch website when I sent you the email forward. That site, which I checked before sending you the article seemed to me to be a worthy corroborator.
Obviously I was wrong and I apologize for it. I never send stuff I don't corroborate elsewhere. However, this time my judgment was suspect.
Posted by: Tim at August 26, 2004 11:52 AM (bzKQf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
LIFE IMITATES OTT
Hilarious new Scrappleface article.
What's that you say? It's real? It's a
real article?
Oh. I coulda sworn...
Posted by: Sarah at
03:15 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Kerry is doing a rope-a-dope. With his allies in the media, it just might work. i'm sure Clinton has advised him on this. Just wait out the controversy, until the people get tired of hearing about it.
It irks me that he said countless times "bring... it... on" and then when it was brought on, he couldn't take the heat. That tells me all i need to know about whether he's "fit for command" or not.
Posted by: annika at August 25, 2004 01:35 PM (zAOEU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 22, 2004
DISJOINT
Is it just me, or is this title -- Iraqi athletes object to Bush campaign ad: Soccer players say president shouldn't exploit their success -- a little different from the crux of the
article's content?
...
However, the Iraqi Olympic delegation accused journalists of deliberately provoking an angry response from their players.
“Our purpose is not to politicize the football team in any way,” Mark Clark, a consultant for the Iraqi Olympic Committee, said. “It seems the story was engineered.”
...
But Clark insisted journalists were wrong to take advantage of the athletes.
“It is a little naughty,” he said. “The players are not very sophisticated politically; they are a little naive. Whoever posed these questions knew that the reaction would be negative.
“It is possible something was lost in translation. It’s a free, new Iraq, and the players are entitled to their opinions but we are disappointed.”
IraqÂ’s soccer players once lived in fear of Uday Hussein, son of toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, who used to beat the soles of their feet or throw them in prison for slip-ups on the pitch.
Under current coach Adnan Hamd, they have defied the odds to reach the quarterfinals at the Athens Olympics, where they will play Australia on Saturday.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:40 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Looks like a case of trying to be "fair and balanced" while being anything but. If accused of being slanted, the writer could point to the the body of the article - knowing that many people will only see the title.
I wonder where Mark Clark stands politically, if anywhere. Can he be objective?
BTW, I think it is possible to be angry over having one's images etc. in an ad without necessarily being against the person the ad is for. I would not be too pleased if I were mentioned in a Bush ad without my permission, regardless of how I thought about Bush.
But that deals with mentioning me as an individual. Mentioning whole teams already in the public eye is arguably different.
And who knows what the journalists asked the athletes. If I were asked, "Bush has a new ad saying that you want Americans to vote for him, so what do you think?" I'd be mad. I couldn't get the ad to play properly on my dial-up connection, so I don't really know, but I hope the ad is nothing like that. What little I saw did not give me that impression. I assume the ad is saying that Bush's policies freed the athletes. Not that they endorse him. Is that wrong?
Posted by: Amritas at August 22, 2004 06:09 AM (vDqr8)
2
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! My Mom said she heard about this all night on TV - but I couldn't find it anywhere. I'm posting the link (with a hattip to you) on ITM, Nabil's blog and others. You are a gem!
Posted by: Kathleen A at August 22, 2004 01:18 PM (vnAYT)
3
An Iraqi whose native tongue is Arabic, and in Greece for the Olympics is watching Bush's TV ads? Not to mention the fact that the ad doesn't even show or talk about the Iraqi athletes! But then again, SI is part of the same company as CNN. And we all KNOW Ted Turner called the 9/11 degenerates 'brave.'
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at August 22, 2004 04:48 PM (nL894)
4
Tanker,
For the record, I don't think there was some directive from Ted Turner or even SI's editorial staff or whoever to distort. I think some reporters, imagining what a Bush ad must be like (vile, of course), asked the athletes unintentionally inflammatory questions about an ad they hadn't seen and they gave inflammatory answers. The problem with media bias isn't people scheming to fool the masses; it's reporters whose longtime assumptions are so deeply ingrained that they are not aware of them.
Posted by: Amritas at August 23, 2004 01:46 AM (A8VTg)
5
Mark Clark is a U.S. government employee.
He worked for the CPA as a public affairs specialist.
Posted by: gnomon at August 23, 2004 06:10 PM (6XPqE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MINI-SERIES
I remember last year there was a
mini-series about Hitler on TV, and everyone was worried that it was too sympathetic. Even today, sixty years later, people don't want a personable Hitler. So why in the hell do we have a mini-series on
9/11 through the terrorists' eyes? I don't want to know what was going on in their lives to make them do these things, I don't want to watch them prepare to board the planes, I don't want to see the crash of Flight 93 from anyone but Tood Beamer's point of view, and I certainly don't want to give the 9/11 hijackers any more publicity and glory for the heinous thing that they did. I think that's disgusting.
That Hitler mini-series took 60 years. Maybe in 2060, when it's history, they can make a mini-series about that garbage, but it's not history when some of the collaborators are still alive and kickin' and being released by Germans.
This sure isn't the 9/11 movie Lileks envisioned.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:40 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Just think: It takes a lot of people to make a two-hour drama and to buy the rights for the US (or anywhere else in the world). That's a lot of people who aren't getting nauseous over the thought of propagating the message that
"the hijackers were all quite ordinary."
Yup, jus' plain ol' folks, killin' thousands.
Is this how desensitized people have become?
Posted by: Amritas at August 22, 2004 06:14 AM (vDqr8)
2
I'm sure it will be on Arabic TV very shortly. They can run it along with the Egyptian production of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at August 22, 2004 04:54 PM (nL894)
3
Tanker,
It saddens me to say that the prospects for international sales of the film are probably very ... good (gag). Even people in the Great Satan want to see it.
Posted by: Amritas at August 23, 2004 01:33 AM (A8VTg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 16, 2004
TRIP
This is a trip: here's what happens when
a scientist meets a journalist.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Please, please don't call Ray Fair a scientist. He's a "social scientist." There's a big difference between scientists and social scientists: namely, social scientists are scientist wannabes who try to model "precisely" human behavior. Of course, their assumption of "rational" behavior flies in the face of reality--as we all know that humans don't always operate rationally.
Social scientists give scientists a bad reputation that they don't deserve.
Posted by: Can't win at August 18, 2004 04:54 PM (gUA7O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 12, 2004
ABC
What a
crock: ABC didn't call me either, or they'd have found someone who voted Gore in 2000 and will vote Bush in 2004. It seems a tad ridiculous that they can't find
anyone in that category. Perhaps they're just not looking hard enough and are instead spending their time crafting over-the-top statements that look like fact but are indeed garbage.
Of course, I voted Gore in 2000 because I was woefully uninformed. I knew that I stood by the Republicans in almost all the issues, but I just didn't think that Bush had the experience to be president. I never thought he was stupid; I just thought he was too...simple.
Thank god I was right. That simplisme is now one of his greatest qualities.
MORE TO GROK:
I digested this for a while and decided I have more to say about it.
The last election was while I was in grad school. I'm ashamed to say that I don't think I read a single newspaper or watched a single debate. I honestly think I got my political news from Saturday Night Live. Embarrassing, I know, but I think it's pretty typical. Most young people just vote based on a hunch or on what they think the parties represent, whether it's true or not.
I'm going to write ABC now.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:43 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You might like
this (you'll need to scroll down...)
"JEEZ, ARE ANY GORE VOTERS PULLING THE LEVER FOR KERRY THIS YEAR? [08/11 01:13 PM]
It appears there are about a hillion jillion billion google and one Gore voters who are voting for Bush this year. How do I know this? Because it appears every last one of them decided to e-mail me in response to this post. Again, folks, itÂ’s great to hear from you, but honestly, IÂ’m not the one who needs to hear from you. ABC News does."
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 12, 2004 03:50 AM (kOqZ6)
2
Well, it looks like ABC is
eating their words now.
For the record, I'm one of those "elusive" citizens who voted for Gore in 2000 and will be voting for Bush this year. In 2000, I wasn't concerned with a war or defense of US soil; I was concerned with keeping government out of decisions that are proper only to be made by individuals, e.g., abortion, marriage, and scientific research (such as stell-cell research). But, as many others have noted, the issue for 2004 is the war, and who will ensure that Americans are safe. Bush is the obvious answer.
Posted by: Carla at August 12, 2004 11:40 AM (r5M6F)
3
Or....perhaps your world view is represented by the margin of error. That must be because you are so informed.
Posted by: rfidtag at August 12, 2004 09:56 PM (2fTDM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 11, 2004
HEARTACHE
If the media knew how much
this hurts, how it's like a knife in the heart of every military family member, would they still do it? It's becoming obvious that no one in the media gives a damn about our servicemembers.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:26 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
These photos sicken me. Each photo taken of a militant with weapons or worse,holding up an American soldier's helmut like a trophy, is like a slap in the face to every soldier and his family. How dare the American media be so callous and unAmerican! I'm outraged!!
Posted by: Nancy at August 11, 2004 03:23 AM (+jEfD)
2
They do realize that it hurts, that is exactly why they do it, and it is their intention to spark those feelings in you. It's called gritty, and hard-hitting, etc... etc...
It really spells out the scum that they have become, worse than ambulance chasing lawyers, it has become blood and body seeking reporters.
They biggest question I have, why are those that take these photos not tracked 24/7? Why are they allowed to operate in ways that are meant to incite jihadis, and demoralize the allies, and not treated as an enemy baffles me to the utmost extreme.
Information is a HUGE part of this war, and it is cedeing them that battlefield to not interfere with their operations.
Posted by: John at August 11, 2004 06:18 AM (crTpS)
3
This is the type of press coverage we here at home had during the Vietnam War. The liberal media has always prided itself on the fact that they, through their slanted reporting, were able to influence the outcome of the war in Vietnam by attacking it in their papers and on the TV in the U.S.
They are still at it and for the same reason. They are trying to scare the American people into pulling back from the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The press today at the highest levels is still made up of the anti-war people of the 60's.
This time I hope they don't succeed. Our future as a country and as a people depend on knowing what the truth is and sidelining the fact spinners on the left.
Posted by: susan at August 11, 2004 02:21 PM (ST1ZE)
4
One thing I am very thankful for this time around is that our military stands head and shoulders above the vietnam era. It could prove quite the difference. Vietnam took a decade to unfold, in another 8 years Iraq will not resemble Vietnam in the least.
I'm actually excited about the future.
Posted by: John at August 11, 2004 02:33 PM (+Ysxp)
5
John:
I hope you are right.
What makes you feel so positive about the future in Iraq and the middle east at large?
Posted by: susan at August 11, 2004 02:57 PM (ST1ZE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 07, 2004
BOOING
But I thought Fox News was the crazy unbalanced one? At least they're not
booing anyone...
Posted by: Sarah at
03:39 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But that booing was ... objective. Did you expect the Unity Convention to be silent before the world's worst Europpressor? Suppressing their criticism of color would be Racist (tm).
Posted by: Amritas at August 07, 2004 10:08 AM (L5vLk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
64kb generated in CPU 0.0172, elapsed 0.0948 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0838 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.