http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:03:36 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/12/130003.php#comment-646422 Apparently, this rather stupid and uninformed article has resurfaced again two years after it's original publication. It could easily be dissected from top to bottom, but I don't have time to waste on that exercise, so I'll just pick a few things randomly. "But do we want a history lesson from a man who claims that in the late '70s people thought cocaine couldn't hurt you?" How funny. Exactly that contention was made to me by several of the college-educated YUPPIES I knew in the mid 70s. That cocaine was the perfect drug, non-addictive, temporarily enhancing one, and with absolutely no side-effects. The revisionist history of McCarthy, "tail gunner Joe", famous for firing his tail gun in all directions while his airplane was sitting idle on the ground, an action of witless and useless waste and excess that presaged his political career, was begun by WF Buckley in NR, to his discredit. And none of those fine conservatives saw fit to denounce McCarthy and excise him from conservative ranks at the time, which gives the lie to any contention that Joe was not a member of the conservatives and did not represent them. They were, one and all, willing to stand aside and silently cheer while Joe did nothing but beatup hapless liberals and democrats. And if you want to lambast Hollywood for it's political excesses, why not start with those two worthies John Wayne and R Reagan? Who repeatedly and routinely were used for rightwing propaganda. And neither served in WW2, preferring to advance their own careers while better men were absent from Hollywood and actually fighting. They had Better Things To Do, starting a trend among super patriots that has become distressingly common in the modern Conservative Elite. 646422@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:03:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/12/130003.php#comment-646333 I agree that a thinking person should not seek out a television personality for a valid political opinion, but aren't journalists supposed to be a source of unbiased information? I think this is at the crux of Clooney's thesis, however tenuous, that there was a time in which the 'intrepid journalist' had more clout, and more integrity. I think that striking down journalists as mere personalities incapable of valuable political insight does a disservice to the idea of Free Speech in general, and to the role of the journalist in a deliberative democracy. Not to mention, it glosses over one of the main points of the film and one of the most salient problems plaguing the present day broadcast industry and journalism at large. 646333@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:58:33 EDT