Thursday, June 17, 2004

From the E-Mailbag...

Jim Brocius sends the following...

When you say you would defend freedom of speech to the death, you don't literally mean you'd actually physically fight for it, do you? Do you mean instead you will defend speech with speech, or political contributions of some kind? I don't think American government will ever get so bad (in my lifetime or yours, although one would have to be ignorant of history to completely disallow the possibility) that freedom of speech will need to be physically defended. You strike me as someone who chooses your words carefully and I'm wondering if you were just using those words as a figure of speech or if in fact you would actually risk your life defending freedom of speech if you thought such action was necessary.

I said I would fight to the death. Nowhere did I say it might be my death. I am, however, quite willing to put your life on the line. Or someone else's.

Hey, if it's good enough for the Executive and Legislative branches of government, it's good enough for me.

• Posted at 6:38 PM · LINK

This Just In...

Matt Brady over at Newsarama is all over the story of Carmine Infantino suing DC Comics over a number of characters, including The Flash and Batgirl, which he designed. This new report includes a link to a copy of the actual complaint. I have no comment yet on anything in it except that Mr. Infantino's lawyer doesn't seem to know how to spell the word, "villain."

• Posted at 6:29 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

I felt persuaded by this article by Fred Kaplan on how (he says) George W. Bush has used "Clintonian tactics" to convince many of Saddam Hussein's participation in 9/11 without actually claiming it. But if someone comes across a good article that casts a better light on Bush's sentence structures, please let me know.

• Posted at 4:36 PM · LINK

Today's Political Rant

As I said a few weeks ago, I probably won't go see Michael Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. I like a lot of what Mr. Moore does but sometimes he plays a bit too loose with the truth for me. (Though I will admit he is sometimes quite effective that way. Not long ago, when he called George W. Bush a "deserter," he almost single-handedly reopened the debate on Bush's National Guard service and goaded many reporters into digging further into it. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing but it is sadly exemplary of one way in which our press responds. If Moore had made a more temperate, accurate statement, he would not have had as much impact.)

Being a Free Speech fanatic, however, I will defend to the death his right to make his movie, and the right of anyone to exhibit or view it without undue pressure or suppression. I will also defend — not that this will probably be necessary — the right of others to call it a pack of lies or distortions or whatever and to march up and down in front of the Cineplex with signs to that effect. And I will say that those folks would have a bit more credibility if they waited until they'd actually seen it, or at least had a better tally of its alleged misrepresentations, before they began condemning it.

The other thing they could do would be to refrain from a tactic that annoys the hell out of me now, just as it bothered me back in the days of Vietnam protests. That's the cheap, dishonest trick of conflating criticism of our leaders with an attack on our fighting men and women...or even spinning an attack on some of our soldiers as an attack on all of them. The anti-Moore e-mails I'm receiving all lead with...well, here. Let me quote the first paragraph of one...

"Bash America" filmmaker Michael Moore is about to unleash an attack on the U.S. Military, the heroic men and women of the Armed Forces and our Commander-In-Chief via his film "Fahrenheit 9/11." Inexplicably, more than 1,000 theaters have indicated they will proudly broadcast what The Guardian calls an "anti-war/anti-Bush" film – beginning June 25th. And the number keeps growing each day. The goal of the film is abundantly clear: to undermine the war on terrorism.

The only parts of that I'll bet are accurate are the release date and the fact that it's an attack on George W. Bush. I doubt it's an attack on the heroic men and women of the Armed Forces. Perhaps it's an attack on those few zealots who engaged in torture but I'd hardly call them heroic. Since Moore's stated goal is to contribute to the ousting of Bush and his cronies, I think it's safe to say the film is anti-Bush...but if one thinks, as I do, that Bush has mishandled both the war in Iraq and the one against terrorism, there ought to be a way to say that without having someone claim you're blaming America or bashing brave soldiers. And when people come back with that line of reponse, I always think they don't have much to say as a genuine rebuttal. How about if we show respect for the troops by not hiding behind them?

• Posted at 4:18 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

Another piece by Terry Jones, this one about what constitutes torture.

• Posted at 12:32 PM · LINK