bleeding heart

A way-better-than-average political documentary. Investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill, reporting on the murder of some Afghan civilians and the ensuing (rather grotesque) coverup, begins discovering things about JSOC (Joint special Operations Command). This was well before they became publically recognized...indeed, they were quite unknownto most of the public at the time, being in effect a paramilitary force answering directly to the White House, and with relatively far-reaching authorizations to act as they deem fit, anywhere in the world. His investigations into America's use of JSOC, drone strikes, kill lists etc lead him to Yemen, where a US killing of several civilians occurred (and for which the Yemeni government took the blame); and finally to Somalia, in which civilians cower from both Al-Queda and affiliated foreign terrorists...and the brutal, US-backed warlords. Key to the film are the interviews he has with a JSOC insider, a former operative, and Anwar al-Awlaki's father, in a couple of surprisingly touching exchanges. (Awlaki's father is no radical...nor, so it seems, was Awlaki's sixteen year old son, also killed in a drone strike.) A very decent documentary, harrowing and occasionally eye-opening.

Don't you think that question would be better posed to Netanyahu, who claims to have changed his mind and now publically endorses the idea?

How about the ones I've seen that say "I f you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them"? Is that one a "benign honouring of those who serve"?

I thought it quite sublime, so agree to disagree, I guess. I also find it contextually interesting; unlike now (which might help account for the remake's relative weakness), there was no way to avoid thinking about feminism in light of the film; mid-seventies, all these powerful female characters. Carrie's powers (arriving full-fledged at the moment of menstruation, no less); but also her domineering mother, the kindly gym teacher, the rotten Chris who bullies Carrie, and finally the "good girl" Sue Snell, in effect forcing her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom.

If Argus had hijacked a thread with irrelevant jokes (or half-jokes?) about FOX news, the "trolling" allegation might have some merit. Pretty benign as far as trolling goes--but ok. But as it stands, I don't see how this constitutes trolling. At any rate, the issue with trolling is not an occasional mocking or even off-topic remark...which everyone, almost without exception, engages in from time to time. No, the problem with trolling is when it's performed continually, with consistency, especially when it is self-consciously a trolling exercise meant to antagonize posters. Argus doesn't fit into this category.

I have already spoken to the fact that people generally don't use the bumper stickers as a political slogan. What I wrote was "most people do indeed display them as a benign form of honouring those who serve in the military." Exactly as you say--we're practically paraphrasing each other, in fact. So now...who is presuming to speak for whom, here?

I'm ambivalent. It's not bad...and if the 1976 Brian DePalma film with Sissy Spacek (and John Travolta playing mean as a junkyard dog) didn't exist, I would like this one very much. Unfortunately, it's virtually the same movie--except the original has more style, I think. That said, the are two things I like about the new version. First of all, Carrie and her mother, though their relationship is profoundly dysfunctional, obviously love each other. I hadn't seen this as an absence is the first film, but now I do Also, Mrs. White, played by Julianne Moore, is far more sad, and so she has more humanity than the monster of the first movie. Her religious fanaticism is mostly quiet, a soul shunned by society, tortured by, it's quite clear, mental illness, and continually wounding herself. (She is, in fact, a "cutter.") I liked Sissy Spacek's Carrie better than Chloe Grace Moretz's; but to be fair, Moretz had an iconic performance to follow, and did a good job. Worth a rent; but better if you haven't seen the seventies' version.

I assume that prostitution will never be replaced by sex robots, because prostitution isn't always and only about sex. I think the "human touch" undoubtedly plays a significant role. I think sex robots will be a wildly successful enterprise, however.

"Support the troops" license plates, stickers, pop-up books and sex toys are not some benign Western tradition. They appeared quite suddenly, in quite recent times, and they very much mean "support your government's foreign policy." And no, of course many people who pay people for this ingenious little bit of entrepreneurship, and then display them on their cars like "honk if you're horny" or "I visited Magnetic Hill, NB" do not clearly think of them in the way they are designed for. Most people do indeed display them as a benign form of honouring those who serve in the military. but--as you know full well, whether you pretend otherwise or not--the term is often a loaded one, and intentionally so...as in "why don't you support the troops?" Which means, explicitly, "why don't you support the foreign policy as it involves the military?" So, maybe you can cut a little slack for those "leftists" who fail to distinguish between the benign supporters of "support the troops" bumper sticker businesses....and the sniveling moral cowards who use it as a political weapon.

A key point is this: no one seems to be really arguing the case that Islamist terrorists aren't committing...well, terrorism. It's those who feel the perverse need to defend any and all depredations by the Western states--and them alone--who are intent on narrowing the focus of discussion, so that the West makes "mistakes"....but is never TRULY at fault. Heck, who has the patience for this sort of self-indulgent blindness?

Oh, the defense of things like the Iraq War lost all credibility ten years ago. The defense now sounds like nothing more than crude apologetics for power. With good reason.

Shady, I think you have been misinformed of what a "troll" is...but ok....but now you're resorting to labeling Argus a "bigot" because of his perspective on....FOX news?

Most Canadian basic packages possibly do have a local broadcast Fox affiliate contained within.(mine's got Rochester)...but not FOX News Channel.

I'm definitely inclined to agree with you. Television is also far superior to what it once was. The notion that I Love Lucy or Jackie Gleason were so impossibly good that television must by necessity be now an inferior product is a silly argument. Of course there has been good television, and good movies. And now there is more good television and (as you say)more good movies. You're right: it's all good!

Since these claims about media bias are declarative sentences, they can plainly be proven....using robust methods of institutional analysis (I mean as opposed to selective picking through for salient examples, a method I once used for illustrative purposes to "prove" that the CBC was profoundly in support of the Iraq war). In fact, this is a retread of the "leftwing media bias" theme, cribbed from (similarly unproven) allegations about the American news media. So far--decades along now!--the "evidence" remains underwhelming, to put it generously. Hell, even right-leaning think tanks, who have money and time and access to professional scholars, have remained unable to present a robust institutional analysis on such an important theme, even as they have routinely engaged in the unproven claims on the subject.

He was fantastic in Greenberg. Amazing, even.

No doubt we could extrapolate the crimes and the number of interested parties involved. It doesn't change the obvious facts I've pointed out.

I'm arguing the precise opposite, Rue, against those who opine that the sole responsibility for the violence rests upon Iraqis and foreign terrorists. A common view among apologists for Western violence and Western behavior. Of course terrorists are guilty for their behavior; no one is arguing otherwise. The arguments--as we've seen on this thread, and a thousand times elsewhere--move almost uniformly in the opposite direction to that which you're stating. The interesting (if also predictable) thing about this phenomenon is that the responsibility of the invaders is perfectly well understood...so long as the United States of Nobility isn't the subject. At that point, people become strangely sensitive to the idea of holding the most powerful nation in the world responsible for the predicted consequences of it's ill-advised behavior. Such weakness is not my problem, though I'm willing to debate it. For example, the Soviets did quite a bit to unleash a paroxysm of horrors in Afghanistan. That tribal violence and terrorist atrocity are the fault of the native and foreign killer sis not in question; but also, no one disputes that the Soviet actions helped exacerbate this, and helped make things terrible, and that the Soviets share direct culpability. A similar view holds in the case of Iraq. That's elementary logic, and in fact the principle was cited at the Nuremberg trials, that the aggressive, invading force shares responsibility for all the horrors their invasion has unleashed.

I'm talking about taking responsibility for the predictable consequences of one's actions. Of course Saddam being in power was a terrible option. But that doesn't mean that the coalition has no responsibility for what it has unleashed, what it perpetrated and has precipitated. Look what the war has wrought. And the leader of Iraq is well on his way to the traditional performance: sectarian militias, the torture regime back up and running...The war has left hundreds of thousands dead, an enormour refugee crisis, and an increase in violent religious extremism. If all of this was not considered, not predictable...that would be one thing. But it was predictable...in fact, widely predicted.

OK, Kimmy's answer is convincing. This is the second time in two days that I've felt compelled to alter my stance. I'm losing it, everybody! Enjoy the show.

DoP, unfortunately, my ignorance, which is quite large on the subject, only allows me to tip my hat at both you and Derek, and try to make of the debate what I can. I only confess this so you understand I've not taken sides in a discussion which I can follow only tenuously. But it's interesting.

This point has already been covered, I believe.

I looked at your blog, and the point should be obvious as hell. But you're right; so far, people don't seem to be wondering how this could happen....only the scandalous fact that it did.

Then there we go. Easy and effective.

You guys are missing the only point being attempted: Canada Sucks. All else is bluff. Trolling is for mockery, not for debate. Fortunately, it tends to mock itself through obsessive repetition.