Politics on Three Continents
Bush, Blair Unconvincing, Repeating Catch-Phrases
Neither one said anything interesting in yeseterday's press conference. Of course, that's not surprising, but here's a quick recount of their press conference:
CNN.com and CNN International were both reporting last night that Bush had set a 4 year time table for a Palestinian state, which, as you can see above, simply is not true.
This problem has been getting on my nerves for some time now, and I think I'm going to rant about it.
CNN, and other 24/7 news "outlets" (just plug in your toaster! YAY! News toast!) seem to have a tendency to jump on a story before all the facts are in. Why? Well, the primary reason is the general desire to break the story. That may be all well and good in a newspaper environment, where the cycle of news is 24 hours long, and the first chance to break a story comes at 5 a.m., but in a 24/7 news cycle with four or five major competitors, the pressure to put out a story as quickly as possible will lead to corner-cutting.
The first things to go by the wayside are fact-checking, independent confirmation, and editorial review. Obviously, in a breaking news story, not all the facts are going to be known immediately. That's forgiveable, to a point. However, as the coverage of Arafat's death points out, double-checking information is also being left out of the process. Thus we get days of reversals: he's dead, he's not dead; he's in a coma, he's awake; he'll be taken off of life support, he'll remain on life support. (5) In the end, it seemed like news outlets were being led around by Sula Arafat's obfuscations. CNNI, I believe, was more susceptible to this because of the added pressure to "get it live, as it happens."
Personally, I'd be much more satisfied with accurate "dead" news.
Maybe Ying xiong Isn't so Slavish After All
I saw this movie a couple months ago, but it just popped into my conciousness again this morning.
One of the criticisms that I've repeatedly heard leveled at the film is that the director, Yimou Zhang, gave up his criticism of the Peking government for a fawning picture about the "glorious" unificiation of China. After some reflection, I think this may be a little too harsh.
It seems that he got in some sharp barbs that may not be so obvious. Take the clamoring voice of King of Qin's Court, for instance. Nothing could represent the lock-step of the Politburo's policies better than the singular voice of the court accolytes. Their screaming insistence that the Nameless be executed could just as easily be the mindless destruction of the Glorious Revolution, which crushed so much of the independent spirit of the Chinese people. It's especially poignant that the King and Nameless have reached some measure of understanding and empathy with each other's plights; the King's decision to kill his "kindred spirit" could be Mao's betrayal of his people with the Revolution's edicts.
Furthermore, the overall plot of this film, which is razor thin to begin with, really rests on the "unbeatable" sword skill of Nameless. This is just silly. It's such a cartoonish and childish conceit, that it is remarkable in its ridiculousness. Add to that the rather obvious color-theory which permeates the cinematography, and you get a film which is almost screaming "take me only at face value!" And if we do take this film at face value, we miss the fact that Nameless is the Hero.
He is not the martyr killed in the King of Qin's quest for hegemony. Rather, he is the self-sacrificing Everyman who recognizes the power of the King's goal and is willing to die to help the King realize it. Broken Sword and Flying Snow are anachronisms, literally left to die in the desert of broken kingdoms.
Yimou is obviously a supporter of the Unified China he portrays, but he's no friend of it's government. The clue is in how he portrays power in the film. The King's Court is little more than a chorus of self-interested vengence, enacting a punishment that the King himself is obviously pained to declare. The very manifestation of Qin's power is in its arrows, those vast walls of death. But how is it used? In an attack on the "greatest" calligraphy school, a center of learning, knowledge, reason, and peace; in the assassination of Nameless, who is a proponent of the King's own vision. These are brutal misuses of power that he is portraying -- it seems to be the cannibalism of a culture for the consolidation of power.
Think Falun-gong. Think Glorious Revolution. Think political prisoners. Think Beijing 2008.
I think this film needs a bit more credit than it's been getting.
------------Endnotes-----------
1. The clip of this Blair interview was broadcast on CNN International last night, but I cannot seem to find the original. The interviewer was dark-haired, female, and I'm pretty sure she worked for the BBC, but I wouldn't bet the farm. If anybody can find a transcript, I'd appreciate it.
2. Speaking of Barricades to Peace (from Ha'aretz)...
3. Can you say "martial law?"
The security measures, which plunge the country into a state of martial law not seen since the U.S.-led coalition authorities handed power to an interim Iraqi government on June 28, will give authorities the power to arrest and detain people without trial and also impose night-time curfews in "specific hotspots,'' Daoud said. (Emphasis mine.)
4. OK, so maybe Afghanistan's just a work in progress, but that doesn't mean it's not too early to declare is a stunning success, right? Right? Guys, you there? Hello....?
5. I'm not suggesting that CNNI was the only outlet falling for this stuff -- even the French didn't have a clue what was going on.
[Ed: Originally published w/o title. Title added at 14:33 NET.]
Neither one said anything interesting in yeseterday's press conference. Of course, that's not surprising, but here's a quick recount of their press conference:
- A two state solution -- Israel and Palestine, "side-by-side" in democratic "harmony." What's new about this? Absolutely nothing, but humor points for to PM Blair for getting called out during a private interview by a reporter who pointed out that a two-state solution was "not new." Mr. Blair's response was something along the lines of, "Yes, well, but you see, this time [unstated corollary: now that Arafat is dead] we expect the Palestinians to embrace democracy -- and we never dreamed of that during Oslo!" (1)
- Democratic States -- Again, why is "democracy" suddenly the key word, now that Arafat is dead? Was he holding up Israeli democracy? Does that mean that the Knesset isn't a democratic body? (Does that mean we get to invade Israel, a country that we've been arming for 50 years, and overthrow Sharon? That would be exciting!)
- Triumphalism! --Lesson #1: When things aren't necessarily going your way (3), point out the successes of history. Bonus points if you can get in some from before you were born!
- NATO-Expansion
- The Democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe (1990's)
- Germany, post-WWII
- Japan, post-WWII
- Afghanistan (4)
- Somalia
- Darfur
- Rwanda
- Germany, post-WWI
- The British Invasion of the Middle East, post-WWI
- (Nuclear) Pakistan
- (Nuclear) North Korea
- Foreign Policy Thoughts --Despite what CNN International initially reported last night, President Bush did not set a timetable for the peace process.
-- More importantly, though, wasn't Arafat elected? Sure he wasn't perfect, but:
Recognizing Mr. Arafat's failure to control violence among his people or to initiate helpful peace proposals, I use the word "legitimate" based on his victory in January 1996 by a strong majority of votes in an election monitored by the Carter Center and approved by the occupying Israelis. -- Jimmy Carter
Blair went so far as to say that the new elections to be held in 60 days would be the "first marker" for democracy in Palestine. Where were these guys in 1996? Of course, the real point of all this bluster was to put some pressure on Mahmoud Abbas: by casting the deceased (and therefore, helpless) Arafat as the Barricade to Peace (2), Abbas is going to be flushed out of the bushes to meet with Israel. Let the arm-twisting begin!
The Short List of Democratic Successes to Fall Back On:
Things Best Left Unsaid:
I think it is fair to say that I believe we've got a great chance to establish a Palestinian state, and I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state.
(...)
There is no other way to have a lasting peace, in my judgment, unless we all work to help develop the institutions necessary for a state to emerge: a civil society based upon justice, free speech, free elections, the right for people to express themselves freely.
The first step of that is going to be the election of a new president. And my fervent hope is that new president embraces the notion of a democratic state.
I hate to put artificial time frames on things. Unfortunately, I've got one on my existence as president. It's not artificial; it's actually real.
And I'd like to see it done in four years. I think it is possible. I think it is possible. (Emphasis mine.)
--The most interesting comment by far, however, was Blair's Bush Doctrine Corollary:
[W]hen I was first a member of Parliament . . . there was a view in foreign policy that you dealt with countries on the basis of whatever attitude they had toward you, that really whatever they did within their own countries that was up to them and didn't really make a difference to your long-term relationship.
(...)
There is not [international] stability of any true, long-term kind without democratic rights for free people to decide their government.
Obviously, this is an incredible reversal, not only of foreign policy, but also of the concept of sovereignty as it has developed over the last 200 years. This is, of course, the obvious next step of Preventionism -- state-building and democracy-seeding to ensure freedom for the "oppressed." There's also something inherently Orwellian about this concept of "free the people through bombs." Give them peace by blowing them up?
CNN.com and CNN International were both reporting last night that Bush had set a 4 year time table for a Palestinian state, which, as you can see above, simply is not true.
This problem has been getting on my nerves for some time now, and I think I'm going to rant about it.
CNN, and other 24/7 news "outlets" (just plug in your toaster! YAY! News toast!) seem to have a tendency to jump on a story before all the facts are in. Why? Well, the primary reason is the general desire to break the story. That may be all well and good in a newspaper environment, where the cycle of news is 24 hours long, and the first chance to break a story comes at 5 a.m., but in a 24/7 news cycle with four or five major competitors, the pressure to put out a story as quickly as possible will lead to corner-cutting.
The first things to go by the wayside are fact-checking, independent confirmation, and editorial review. Obviously, in a breaking news story, not all the facts are going to be known immediately. That's forgiveable, to a point. However, as the coverage of Arafat's death points out, double-checking information is also being left out of the process. Thus we get days of reversals: he's dead, he's not dead; he's in a coma, he's awake; he'll be taken off of life support, he'll remain on life support. (5) In the end, it seemed like news outlets were being led around by Sula Arafat's obfuscations. CNNI, I believe, was more susceptible to this because of the added pressure to "get it live, as it happens."
Personally, I'd be much more satisfied with accurate "dead" news.
Maybe Ying xiong Isn't so Slavish After All
I saw this movie a couple months ago, but it just popped into my conciousness again this morning.
One of the criticisms that I've repeatedly heard leveled at the film is that the director, Yimou Zhang, gave up his criticism of the Peking government for a fawning picture about the "glorious" unificiation of China. After some reflection, I think this may be a little too harsh.
It seems that he got in some sharp barbs that may not be so obvious. Take the clamoring voice of King of Qin's Court, for instance. Nothing could represent the lock-step of the Politburo's policies better than the singular voice of the court accolytes. Their screaming insistence that the Nameless be executed could just as easily be the mindless destruction of the Glorious Revolution, which crushed so much of the independent spirit of the Chinese people. It's especially poignant that the King and Nameless have reached some measure of understanding and empathy with each other's plights; the King's decision to kill his "kindred spirit" could be Mao's betrayal of his people with the Revolution's edicts.
Furthermore, the overall plot of this film, which is razor thin to begin with, really rests on the "unbeatable" sword skill of Nameless. This is just silly. It's such a cartoonish and childish conceit, that it is remarkable in its ridiculousness. Add to that the rather obvious color-theory which permeates the cinematography, and you get a film which is almost screaming "take me only at face value!" And if we do take this film at face value, we miss the fact that Nameless is the Hero.
He is not the martyr killed in the King of Qin's quest for hegemony. Rather, he is the self-sacrificing Everyman who recognizes the power of the King's goal and is willing to die to help the King realize it. Broken Sword and Flying Snow are anachronisms, literally left to die in the desert of broken kingdoms.
Yimou is obviously a supporter of the Unified China he portrays, but he's no friend of it's government. The clue is in how he portrays power in the film. The King's Court is little more than a chorus of self-interested vengence, enacting a punishment that the King himself is obviously pained to declare. The very manifestation of Qin's power is in its arrows, those vast walls of death. But how is it used? In an attack on the "greatest" calligraphy school, a center of learning, knowledge, reason, and peace; in the assassination of Nameless, who is a proponent of the King's own vision. These are brutal misuses of power that he is portraying -- it seems to be the cannibalism of a culture for the consolidation of power.
Think Falun-gong. Think Glorious Revolution. Think political prisoners. Think Beijing 2008.
I think this film needs a bit more credit than it's been getting.
------------Endnotes-----------
1. The clip of this Blair interview was broadcast on CNN International last night, but I cannot seem to find the original. The interviewer was dark-haired, female, and I'm pretty sure she worked for the BBC, but I wouldn't bet the farm. If anybody can find a transcript, I'd appreciate it.
2. Speaking of Barricades to Peace (from Ha'aretz)...
3. Can you say "martial law?"
The security measures, which plunge the country into a state of martial law not seen since the U.S.-led coalition authorities handed power to an interim Iraqi government on June 28, will give authorities the power to arrest and detain people without trial and also impose night-time curfews in "specific hotspots,'' Daoud said. (Emphasis mine.)
4. OK, so maybe Afghanistan's just a work in progress, but that doesn't mean it's not too early to declare is a stunning success, right? Right? Guys, you there? Hello....?
5. I'm not suggesting that CNNI was the only outlet falling for this stuff -- even the French didn't have a clue what was going on.
[Ed: Originally published w/o title. Title added at 14:33 NET.]
<< Home