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 Fri, 7 Apr 2006 08:21:50 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/07/082150.php allendruryI suspect you will not see those names linked anywhere else this week. After hearing yesterday the confirmation of what had been rumored for weeks, that Couric will be the new anchor of the CBS Evening News, I thought not so much about the future of the three network newscasts as much as what they had once been.When I was a boy I would sometimes watch the CBS Evening News with my grandparents, who lived next door. There, in a cozy living room from time to time I would hear Walter Cronkite introduce a commentator with a dour and serious demeanor. He would talk about things I had little knowledge of while using some words I did not understand. But there was something about the fact that he never seemed to smile that made me think he was discussing something important. Back at my parents' house I would try and find the topic he was talking about in our daily newspaper. With a couple more years behind me I was able to understand Sevareid and his points. But in the early 1980s he had retired and the commentary portion of the newscast was a bygone segment.The idea that a newsman could challenge someone to know more about a topic or better understand an issue is a remarkable legacy for any reporter. But the style of reporting and seriousness that Eric Sevareid brought into our living rooms is absent in today's newscasts. There was a time not that long ago when the network evening newscasts were central to our lives; the anchors brought our country together in those moments where we all shared a national commonality. Through riots, wars, assassinations, and national fears the anchors provided comfort while imparting information. Now with cable news and the Internet, along with a society that has fewer scripted schedules and more choices available for our free time, the network news programs are unable to compete. Or are they are unwilling to compete?With news bureaus that are shrinking due to budget cutbacks, and more entertainment-type programming lurking as 'news' in a bid to gain younger viewers, it is harder to sit and take seriously the evening network newscasts.And yet the world knocks. But the stories often get scant attention. When Americans think of international news they think only of Iraq. While Iraq is a huge story with all sorts of interconnecting 'spokes,' there are a whole series of other stories that also need discussion.Darfur rages while South America has new and dynamic leaders in several countries whose polices will impact the United States. Russia has become more hard-line in the past years, and famine continues in the drought-stricken Horn of Africa.But first, a five-part series on how to insulate your home to conserve energy and the latest on the new study about why coffee may reduce heart attacks. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!All this leads me to Katie Couric. I am glad there is a woman anchor and I am glad she has a long list of impressive interviews conducted over 15 years as the co-host of the Today Show. I understand she was hired to pick up the ratings of the evening newscast and bring in younger viewers. But I will be watching to see if she is a real journalist who wants to report the news, or will be light and fluffy. Will she inspire someone to find out more on an issue or topic by picking up their newspaper?I know Bob Schieffer, who is currently the anchor of the CBS broadcast, to be a world-class journalist with a long list of serious credentials. (I will miss him!). I know that Couric also wants be seen as a serious journalist. The world wants and needs her to be one.But wouldn't it have been nice if Judy Woodruff would have been selected? Or Gwen Iffel? If either of those serious women had been named the anchor of the CBS Evening News we would know the future of the broadcast would be in solid hands, and that CBS was serious about the news. Video46080@blogcritics.org Fri, 7 Apr 2006 08:21:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/27/152743.php allendruryOur language is so often misused that I think we are losing the real meaning of certain words, to the point that we abuse them and twist the meaning of our nation's history.When I was younger, a superstar in the entertainment field would need to match the likes of Elvis, Sammy Davis Jr., Dolly, or Frank Sinatra. Today, if someone has a slick public relations team and nice physical characteristics such as a healthy smile with broad shoulders or busty chest (as the case may be), one can claim the title of 'superstar'. Following that pronouncement, the person is then treated to his or her own reality television show or recording contract. In a few years they will be forgotten by the public but still were able to cajole their 15 minutes of fame.The bottom line is, those many wannabes were never superstars, and they should not be termed as such in our culture.Now consider the word hero and how it has been used since 9/11, and it seems like everyone these days can lay claim to the word. The stock trader that happened to go to work on time and was killed in one of the World Trade Towers was labeled a 'hero'. The waiter in a restaurant at the top of the Towers who was tragically killed is also called a 'hero'.But if one only needs to show up to work on time and, as a result, die at the hands of a terrorist to be termed 'hero', then what do we call the firefighter who enters that same burning building with flaming jet fuel falling all around him, in an effort to reach his fellow citizens? The firefighter in this case is the true definition of the term hero and the worker who came to his office is a victim. The whole scenario is tragic but the difference in their roles is important to note and, for history's sake, to recall accurately.Now to the trickier topic of calling all soldiers heroes. I understand the emotional need for some to do this as it allows families to feel their child did not serve, and possibly die, in vain. In this rhetorically driven political climate, I certainly understand the political requirement that every elected official cite the word over and over while talking of soldiers. But in reality, the word hero doesn't apply to every person just because an individual enlists and wears a uniform.When a solider is killed by friendly fire or falls off the back end of a supply truck and is run over, the word hero is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Sad though it is that they died, these cases resulted from situations that did not meet the definition of the word hero, which is defined as being distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. If being shot by friendly fire makes one a 'hero,' then what would we call the forces that stormed the beaches of Normandy?Clearly we have become fond of the term hero for all sorts of overly nationalistic and political reasons that have ill-served both our country and our language. Culture45581@blogcritics.org Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:27:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/20/213701.php allendruryI place myself with those at the front of the line who opposed our going to war in Iraq. I was a constant letter writer to newspapers and other publications denouncing this action. I almost had my elected officials on speed dial as I was constantly calling to remind them of the absurdity of this military action. Around our dinner table, family and friends discussed this daily and all agreed it was a dreadfully wrong move for our country with dire consequences for the world.But elections have consequences, and Bush was allowed his majority in the mid-term elections in 2002 before the war started and suckered enough folks to re-elect him in 2004. Bush misled our country for the reason for this conflict and used fear as a motivating factor in gaining public support. However, there are huge geo-political concerns that must be grappled with that far exceed our righteous indignation over the political causes for this calamity.Now is not the time to vote for some feel good referendum so those with a political ax to grind can feel justified. I have absolute disdain for the Bush administration, but a well thought-out strategy for Iraq is far more important than knee-jerk simplistic actions by the sincere and well-meaning citizens who cry for our troops to come home now. If we were just in criticizing Bush and Company for not being thorough and insightful at the start of the war, let us not commit the same error by being short-sighed in the midst of the conflict.While it is true that those who signed up for the armed forces must accept the realities that might befall them, they should not be expected to be a part of the political equation for any election cycle. Sadly, they were pawns by Bush and Company in the ultimate chess game and have suffered as a result. But we also must not forget that these men and women chose to serve in the military and reserves and accept a paycheck for doing what they now are experiencing. No one can claim the high ground on this point as they all fall victim to less than honorable motivations, lest we forget that peacemakers are the ideal.A power vacuum in the Middle East was one of my continuing arguments for not going into Iraq and removing a government without understanding the dynamics there that would allow for the creation of a new power structure. Obviously no one in the Bush Administration reviewed the events after Tito died in Yugoslavia. They should have heeded the old proverb "Beware of what you wish for."Like Tito, Saddam Hussein kept a lid on ethnic cleansing and religious rivalries. It was not pretty, and it sure was not moral, but such things really ever are. The fact that we removed the Iraqi leader and created a festering bloody factional feud that has claimed thousands of lives should make it clear to even the most aging hippie that this is not the time to remove our troops. The job is not complete.If going into Iraq was immoral, than surely removing ourselves before the semblance of a working and functioning government of some type exists, would be just as immoral. Without providing Iraq with the ability of to have a police power and national defense capability prior to our departure would be the height of folly. We removed a power and the institutions that existed when that government fell. We have a duty to fix what we destroyed.Now this does not mean that President Bush should consider my vote against this referendum an endorsement of his policy. That would be completely misguided thinking. He needs to address what is wrong with his polices and not just continue sugar coating falsehoods. We need to insure our tax dollars are used for infrastructure building in Iraq and bring the European community into a broad-based coalition to help restore and run Iraq. In addition we need to state, once and for all, that we have no intent to keep defense installations in Iraq or use their oil economy for our greedy purposes.In addition we need to accept the fact that their government will not resemble what we hope it to be. We need to understand an Islamic government to some degree is going to shape the future of Iraq. While an Islamic regime will be problematic, that acceptance is the least that we can do after the horror that we brought to that land.There were many like me who understood that this operation wasn't going to be cheap or fast. We lost that argument but we must not lose the battle of righting the wrong that we started. Our troops must help now to undo the damage this war has caused. They must remain in Iraq and fix what has been broken. Politics45285@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:37:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/22/013616.php allendruryI do not often find myself defending President Bush. But when he deserves support, he should have it. The issue of port security, as it relates to Dubai Ports World, is one where Bush and his Administration are correct in their assessment for this company's future involvement in six of our nation's ports.When I first heard this national uproar I thought back on what I felt most people already should know about our ports (that was my first mistake). The Coast Guard and our customs officials are in charge of inspecting incoming cargo. While one can correctly argue that there is not enough funding to adequately inspect the volumes of material that come to our shores, that is not the issue at this time (I have argued for more such funds, but none seems to be in the budget pipeline). But to state that just because a company is located in the Middle East makes them hostile to our interests, or means they are a terrorist ridden enterprise, is the most illogical thinking that has poured simultaneously out of the mouths of some Republicans and Democrats. In addition it should be noted that planning and maintaining for port security is not done by the holding company, since that too is a function of the Coast Guard and Customs officials.Why do I think politics has hijacked a sound business plan just in time to propel some names into the limelight for the mid-term elections, and to propel those who harbor Potomac fever a chance to show they are tough and strong on national security? Shame on them!! That includes Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton!!I realize how some could argue this is a good political issue at the expense of Bush and the Republicans. I just can't see the benefit of denying a business bridge with a reputable company in the Middle East for the short-term gain of a few points in a poll.Perhaps I should let Bush sum it up for both of us as he (for once) can speak for me as my President.He said he would veto any legislation to hold up a deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge. Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.' He also stated, 'I don't view it as a political fight.'Well, Mr. President, they will try and make it into one. Know that you must be right on this one when you even have liberal Democrats such as myself, supporting your efforts. Politics43951@blogcritics.org Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:36:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/19/104754.php allendruryThis weekend a group of scholars released a list of the ten greatest blunders by American Presidents. The list put Richard Nixon and the cover-up of Watergate at number five, with President James Buchanan taking the lead for failing to avert the Civil War.The life and times of Richard Nixon has long been a favorite study of mine. My Democratic friends are amused when they see my bookshelves and discover that there are over 40 books about him, far more than for any other President. I have plenty of thoughts and views about Nixon and his presidency, the effects of his foreign policy on the nation, and the complexities of Watergate.Instead of rehashing what made Nixon number five on the latest historical list, I think it proper as we observe President's Day to reflect on a brave political act that proved ultimately to be a correct decision for the nation. I refer to the Sunday morning in 1974 when Gerald Ford gave a pardon to Richard Nixon.The acts of political corruption that we label as "Watergate" involve much more than a break-in of the national Democratic headquarters by burglars. The attempt to have the CIA thwart the FBI's investigation, the amassing of hush money, and even the idea of bombing the Brookings Institution all get labeled under the Watergate banner. Watergate has become synonymous with political corruption.The political glue that held our nation together was coming undone in 1973 and 1974. The strains of Vietnam had aided in unleashing social forces that set in motion a whole series of actions once Senator Irvin's committee started televised hearings into the Watergate affair. By the time Nixon was forced to resign in August of 1974 the national psyche was in need of serious repair.Gerald Ford proved to be the right man to put an end to the speculation over Nixon's fate in the judicial process. While a very plausible legal argument can still be made for allowing the president to face the same legal outcomes that others in his Administration faced, the national toll that would have resulted would have been too severe a price to pay. Ford understood that predicament.A close examination of the meetings in the days prior to Nixon's resignation when Ford and Al Haig, then White House Chief of Staff discussed matters, and meetings during the weeks that followed Ford's swearing-in, show that there was never a quid pro quo. Ford in fact faltered in a press conference (not his only verbal gaffe as President) and as a result started a process and a timetable he had not planned on in advance. Ultimately it would lead to a pardon for President Nixon.The fate of his Presidency was sealed with that announcement on a Sunday morning. In one day his overnight polls took the biggest decline (22%) that still is a record for the Gallup polling company. He was never able to recover and his defeat in 1976 can be attributed in large part to the pardon decision.But his action was right for the country. The healing that resulted from that decision was not reflected at the time in the national discourse. Today it is more obvious to historians. Ford's temperament and knowledge are in short supply in politics today. While I strongly would argue that Ford was wrong when he went after Justice Douglas years earlier, I can say with equal energy that Ford was morally correct in his dealings with the Nixon pardon.In an interview a few years ago Ford remarked about his decision and the national mood. "Right from the outset, I thought I was right and knew eventually the public would agree with me," he told a reporter.America is a better place tonight because he was our President at a most difficult time. As we honor those who served in the Oval Office on President's Day, let us all pass along a good thought to Gerald Ford. Politics43830@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:47:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/08/070706.php allendruryIf you love history, or if you feel vindicated by the social progress that our country has made over the recent decades, the funeral of Coretta Scott King was the kind of event that could bring back memories, instill confidence about the possibilities within each person of making a difference, and provide hope for the ongoing battles for equality that our nation is still fighting.Huge national events like today's six-hour funeral have a way of not only showcasing the leaders of our nation but also the soul of our better angels. If we did not know better, it would seem impossible to image the struggle that resulted from the desire of Americans wanting to obtain basic freedoms and rights that so many others took for granted. Today the old men and women who had fought with Coretta's husband, Dr. King, were not bitter or harsh as they spoke of the past, or of the journey that is not yet completed. They spoke instead of bravery, fortitude, a solid relationship with family and God, and a consuming thirst for justice.And they spoke about the dignity of a woman who picked up the pieces of a shattered life, but not a shattered faith, and marched on.Some year's back I ventured with true friends to Memphis and walked through the National Civil Rights Museum. A wonderful series of exhibits on the walking journey from the days when slaves first came to these shores, through the struggles of the 1960s, are all portrayed with honesty and excellence. Finally the tour ends outside the rooms that Martin Luther King stayed in, and the balcony where he stood and was killed in April 1968. The Lorraine Motel was the last stop on King's fight for a better country.Coretta would pick up the torch and carry on. One can't even imagine what that must have demanded of some inner strength and conviction, but the lesson still echoes for us tonight. The job of equality for all Americans is not yet done, and the hopes and works by those who have passed before demand our involvement. If she could continue to fight in the face of what happened in Memphis, surely we can commit ourselves to the next steps in our progressive push forward as a country. Politics43348@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:07:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/05/212131.php allendruryBilly Joel, Prophet Muhammad, And The Disconnect From Reality As a weekend guest from Denmark played Billy Joel music by memory on our living room piano, one of his country's embassies was being burned in a blind rage that is consuming the Islamic world. The stark contrast of his fingers flowing effortlessly over the ivories, while other fingers half a world away-clutched machine guns and flammables, was disconcerting. It was wonderful to get his European perspective each evening as we ate, conversed and laughed; obtaining a broader insight into how America is viewed from overseas. But throughout each evening I could not get over the disconnect from reality that is in over-drive in the Middle East as Islamic fundamentalists with no grasp over the meaning of a free press went berserk with the publication of political cartoons that depicted their faith in a way they felt improper.Denmark first printed the cartoons in one of their newspapers, once again proving the weight and impact of a satirical idea. What a 2,000-word column could never so pointedly convey was summed-up in a series of simple political cartoons. In solidarity, France and other European papers did the same through news stories. Riots, kidnappings, and burning embassies have resulted in an orgy of craziness.There is clearly a huge divide between two cultures, but let us be honest here. Freedom of the press, and freedom of expression must, and will, triumph over the 'requirement' that the whole world treat any particular religion with any more reverence than any other. The world will not and should not, bow to any religion who is hell-bent on molding the planet to meet tortured reasoning. Those who draw political commentary should not let their ink dry up, but continue to push the envelope of ideas.I have deep feelings for the Arab world and the people who reside in that most historic region. I also have a rather good foundation of understanding the Islamic religion and know that those depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are considered by followers of Islam to be 'wrong'. In the age of technology and interconnectedness, which makes the whole world neighbors of sorts, it is ridiculous however to assume that everything is not on the table for discussion and interpretation. To expect anything else is backwardness in the full context of the word.However, the larger issue for all, including moderate and even-keeled followers of Muhammad, is getting those who read only the Koran to somehow deal with the concept of pluralism and press freedoms. There must be a concerted effort throughout the Middle East to focus on changing the education system to allow for more than the Islamic schools to teach a skewered view of the world. While I do try to understand various cultures, on this matter, I find myself unable to poke my head so deep in the sand so as to view it in the same way a rioter burning an embassy might see it. There is no justification for the acts that are taking place in the Middle East this weekend. And the moderate voices in Islam need to step up and demand structural changes so as to stem the creation of a new generation of misguided Islamic youths.I already have seen those who are condemning the cartoonist and the publishers of the papers from the far left. RUBBISH! There are of course journalistic boundaries that news organizations follow every day to be fair and objective. But to state that a political cartoon can't be a 'thumb in the eye' to any group is a line we must never cross in any legitimate news organization. Politics43218@blogcritics.org Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:21:31 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/17/023743.php allendruryMoral clarity comes in small packages do not at first seem to be the vehicle by which justice arrives. But Rosa Parks was such a lady, and her cause of social justice stirred a nation and resulted in fundamental changes that make our nation a better place to live. On the opposite side of the historic divide, figures that held power, prestige, and social influence in their grasp declined the opportunity, for whatever reason, to undo injustice and stamp out racism and bigotry. Thomas Jefferson, understanding the heavy weight of slavery on the nation, felt that a future generation would take up the job of eradicating slavery. After the Missouri Compromise he was so dejected by the decision that he predicted the Civil War that would consume the nation. And yet he never had the inner strength to stand up for the end of slavery in a public way.President Buchanan understood the failure of the institution of slavery but resigned himself to the confines of the Constitution, as he interpreted it, and made no course correction for the nation on the eve of the Civil War. The power of the White House rested in his hands but he blinked, and as a result the Confederates felt emboldened, and the abolitionists grew stronger in their distaste of slavery and national impotence on ending the disgrace of owning another human being.But a slight unassuming woman decided that after a long day of work she would not move from her seat on a bus. Rosa Parks was already in the back of the bus, but as more white riders boarded she was requested to make room for one of them. She refused, and history shows how the brave action of one person changed the national dynamics forever.We often look, perhaps too often, to the holders of power to make changes for our society. Perhaps we need to look in the mirror and reflect on what we can do in our own small ways that may set in motion the hopes we wish for in our country.I suspect there is a little Rosa Parks in many Americans, and her lasting legacy would be further enhanced if more of us discovered it, and employed it in our daily lives. Politics42385@blogcritics.org Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:37:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/16/214948.php allendruryCivil rights have always been in the forefront in my thinking. I was first drawn to the world of concern of Rosa Parks, and others like her, while in high school. I never have forgotten the need to help insure all people are treated fairly in our society. Today however, the culture warriors are hell-bent on undermining the basic code of equality and what living in America represents. With large amounts of funding they are determined to add hatred into state constitutions through constitutional amendments, and work to place federal judges with "constructionist' views in power.In November 2005 two states dealt with the issue of gay rights. Maine and Texas came to different conclusions in their respective balloting on constitutional amendments. Texas favored denying rights to gay men and women to marry. Maine rejected arguments to undo civil rights for gay people that had already passed the State Legislature. But the general consensus across the nation from many Americans is that civil rights for gay people should be voted on by the masses. That did not happen for Rosa Parks, Catholics, the handicapped, or any other group in our history. Gay people, it appears, are to be judged for civil rights eligibility by an electorate that too often can't name their local State Representative, or the basic concepts of democracy in America. The lowest common denominators are making civil rights for many millions of Americans!So let me see if I have this correct.Gay teenagers can help decorate and promote the local high school prom, listen as their friends announce who their date will be, but are unable to take the person of their choice to the same dance.Later gay people can invest time and money in weddings for those same friends, then await the announcement of children and show added support by buying presents for the youngsters. As taxpaying gay adults they get the pleasure of insuring tax deductions go for the families of those who get to marry.But then something strange happens. Many Americans find that loving relationships need to fit their model and decline to reciprocate with laws that afford equal rights to gay people. Cultural warriors would like to convince us that gay relationships are bringing down the institution of marriage. One can read almost daily that gay Americans are somehow responsible for the decline in the moral underpinnings of America. It should be noted here that many gay relationships have stronger underpinnings and longevity than that of the heterosexual community, but why mix facts in with good old-fashioned, and outmoded ways of thinking.In addition to blanket hatred that comes as a result of the cultural war against gay Americans comes the added insult of depriving many the rights that comes with the marriage license.If a city bus hit a gay person there is no spousal privilege to allow his/her partner to visit in the hospital. If that victim wanted to sue the bus company there is no testimonial immunity in legal matters for his/her partner. If they wanted to undertake rehabilitation through a local gym or YMCA there are no family discounts for gay couples.In fact there are no family fee privileges for gay families riding the bus in the first place. Where I live in Madison, Wisconsin it is not uncommon to see gay men and women walk down the street hand in hand. This is always a serious matter for the cultural warriors who denounce any such act as just "lewd activity." What about the children, they scream, as if seeing held hands will permanently scar young minds. The screamers seem to believe that the Norman Rockwell image of America was ever credible.It appears that handholding, the issue of gay marriage, or the public discourse over the soon to be announced best film of the year, Brokeback Mountain, are highly upsetting to the social conservatives and the religious right. The reason it upsets so many is that it once again confirms that love is diverse and families come in all variety of designs. But the true measure of what we are as Americans will be shown by how strong we stand up to hatred and reject the simplistic and irrational arguments by the latest incarnation of those who wish to deny rights, and divide our country based on who we chose to love. Politics42373@blogcritics.org Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:49:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/14/231454.php allendrury After all the news of war, terrorists, and general mayhem in our world I have reason to believe that there is still hope for America. And the ones that gave me hope were people I did not know nor will likely see again. In addition, they did not know they were lifting my spirits.All they did was file out of a movie theater and go out into the world to rejoin their lives that had been suspended for the two hours the dark theater held them while an emotional drama unfolded.The crowd was mixed in background, and like us had to buy tickets for the show in advance, though it was playing on two screens. Just to show up at the theatre and expect to see the film with no ticket was futile. So we waited, with tickets in hand, along with a couple hundred other people in Madison, Wisconsin to watch Brokeback Mountain.Standing in line I looked at the folks and wondered what mindset they brought to the show, and as is my nature, what the political ramifications of this movie might have on voters this fall. Wisconsin has been forced to engage in the culture war by those who will ram a definition of marriage referendum onto the state ballot believing it will bring more of their kind out to the ballot boxes, and thereby impacting other contests. It should trouble us all that civil rights are now left up to the masses.The movie was one of the more powerful and gut-wrenching films I had seen in a long time. It was tender, beautiful, profound, and disturbing. It might be noted here that some call me a film snob, as I do not praise films without merit, and have difficulty watching films not up to a certain caliber.After watching the classics of old, and the newer releases that merit my money and time, I find the bulk of American movies with car crashes and adaptations of bad TV shows just a waste of my time. Too many films are made for teenagers and young people who have limited tastes, and as such foreign films are often the fare in the DVD player at home. Since Santa visited at Christmas, surround sound now gives the living room the theater 'feel,' so there is no reason to suffer bad films ever again.I mention all that to underscore the punch to the social conscience that this film serves up. It is an important film not only for the content of the story but also for the message it gives to a country weary of those who push a twisted moral righteousness. I sense that those who wage the culture war just do not understand how tired people are of hearing that the Teletubbies, along with Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, live immoral lifestyles!I think the outpouring of viewers to see this film is a response to the idiocy practiced by too many cultural warriors today. As evidence I offer that the competition has been slaughtered in per-screen theater sales, with advance sales for this show leading all others nationwide. Also consider that according to recent receipts its $640,000 one-day take was just $5,585 below that of King Kong but it played in less than one-seventh of the venues -- 483 for Brokeback vs. Kong's 3,482.After the film was over I stood for a couple of minutes and watched from the lobby as the people left the theater. It was somber, no laughing, no loud talking, eyes were still being dried and those were just the heterosexual guys with arms wrapped around their girlfriends. It was that type of film, with that type of impact. Everyone exiting the theater understood the film, and I walked away with hope after seeing those faces that we aren't lost yet in the harsh rhetoric of our time. We still have a moral center that only needs to be nourished and fed with something other than hatred. Politics42291@blogcritics.org Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:14:54 EST