I saw The Great Debaters on Christmas day, and I urge everyone to see it. It lives up to its hype, but it is even more than that. The advertising makes it sound like a fairly typical rooting- for-the-underdog-as-they-win story... in this case, the debaters of a small black southern college, Wiley, going up against debaters at Harvard University in 1935. It is based upon a true story, and it is amazing that it happened between those schools at that date at all (I've just read the New York Times review of the movie, which says the actual debate was at the University of Southern California, not Harvard). Even more amazing, one of the two debaters for Wiley was a woman and the other was 14 years old. Even more wonderful, it was carried on radio for all the country to hear.
Yes, that's the story, and yes, one cheers every step of the way. But it is so much more than that. The advertising doesn't hint at the gritty realities of the movie, which show, sometimes graphically, how dangerous it was to be Southern and black at that time. The scenes of danger are also played out in the topics of the debates, which get to the heart of the matter.
This is a movie that both black and white need to see. Even today, so many whites are ignorant of, or refuse to face, the difficulties of being African-American today, much less during the heyday of Jim Crow. Blacks maybe need to be reminded that things have improved, and that there are many black heroes to emulate. Hopefully that will inspire Americans of all races to to finally overcome the damned curse of racism that has killed and oppressed so many.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Competing Realities
After my last post, a review of Orson Scott Card's Empire, I took a look at his home page (http://www.hatrack.com/). I have it bookmarked, but check it rarely, which is a shame, he does some good reviews, etc. I took a look at a recent post, "A Standup President (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-12-01-1.html). It kind of confirms something I've thought more than once, that different citizens in this country live in competing realities. What he is saying in this essay just isn't what I recognize as reality.
I know Card is well-read in current events, a post I read of his some time ago mentions the publications he reads regularly, and they are some of the most noted on both the conservative and liberal sides. As for me, I read summaries of news from CNN, the BBC, and Today's Papers by Slate, which summarizes the leading stories of the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. I read the New York Times top stories, listen to ABC World News Tonight, and keep up as I can with stories on Alternet, Common Dreams, Mother Jones, the Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, etc. I also read books on politics and current affairs, again usually from a left perspective, though I try to read a bit more broadly.
It seems like there is very little non-partisan media anymore. I began reading some of the alternative media because it seemed that the Main Stream Media (MSM), was not covering all the important stories. Even the New York Times and the Washington Post get accused of not covering things the government doesn't want covered. These accusations come from the left at the same time the right is accusing these papers of ignoring everything but the liberal perspective. Meanwhile talk radio and Fox News are accused of radically right partisanship.
As a result, those in the country who are interested in news can pick their news sources according to their politics, and it increases the polarization. Informed citizens on both sides spout facts and figures that create a totally different picture of reality. For example, in the post by Card mentioned above, he calls George W. Bush a thoughtful president who learns from his mistakes. and honest, very different from the lying, incurious, unrepentant, power-hungry president found in my usual sources.
It is hard to say Card is stupid and ignorant. He's not. So are there any sources of information one can trust? And how can we deal in a bipartisan way with those who disagree when the picture they have of reality is so different?
I know Card is well-read in current events, a post I read of his some time ago mentions the publications he reads regularly, and they are some of the most noted on both the conservative and liberal sides. As for me, I read summaries of news from CNN, the BBC, and Today's Papers by Slate, which summarizes the leading stories of the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. I read the New York Times top stories, listen to ABC World News Tonight, and keep up as I can with stories on Alternet, Common Dreams, Mother Jones, the Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, etc. I also read books on politics and current affairs, again usually from a left perspective, though I try to read a bit more broadly.
It seems like there is very little non-partisan media anymore. I began reading some of the alternative media because it seemed that the Main Stream Media (MSM), was not covering all the important stories. Even the New York Times and the Washington Post get accused of not covering things the government doesn't want covered. These accusations come from the left at the same time the right is accusing these papers of ignoring everything but the liberal perspective. Meanwhile talk radio and Fox News are accused of radically right partisanship.
As a result, those in the country who are interested in news can pick their news sources according to their politics, and it increases the polarization. Informed citizens on both sides spout facts and figures that create a totally different picture of reality. For example, in the post by Card mentioned above, he calls George W. Bush a thoughtful president who learns from his mistakes. and honest, very different from the lying, incurious, unrepentant, power-hungry president found in my usual sources.
It is hard to say Card is stupid and ignorant. He's not. So are there any sources of information one can trust? And how can we deal in a bipartisan way with those who disagree when the picture they have of reality is so different?
Book review: Empire, by Orson Scott Card
| Title | Empire (Tor Science Fiction) |
| Author | Orson Scott Card |
| Rating |   |
| Tags | fiction, politics, sf, orson_scott_card |
| Your review | Orson Scott Card is a fascinating writer and person. The first book of his I read was Songmaster. I was in my teens or twenties, and I couldn't put the book down. I finished it in the wee hours of the morning and then it haunted me so that I couldn't get to sleep. The Ender's Game series is one of the best series in the English language, in my opinion, though I liked the later books in the series better than the original. When I was active in science fiction fandom in the 80s, I attended and was delighted by Card's Secular Humanist Revival, held in a tent near the hotel pool. So I was rather startled to find out that Card is a devout Mormon, and that his views on homosexuality were despised, I think with justification, by gays I knew. And after that I didn't read him as much as previously. I did read several of the Alvin Maker series and liked them, though was not as impressed as I had been by some of his work. Other books didn't sound like things I'd be particularly interested in. I never forgot, however, that some of his works haunted me. So when it is easy I've occasionally been picking some of his books up. I started one several months ago that I didn't finish for lack of time, and then read one written by someone else but based on one of his ideas. And I just picked up and read Empire. Did not think I would stay with it, as there was lots of politics that really got up my nose. Ridiculous to think that there would be a coup from the left against the government. For one thing, those of us on the left are too anti-authoritarian to have the discipline to stage such a thing. Then I suddenly remembered the French revolutionaries, and the Communists, and maybe it wasn't totally far-fetched... but still unlikely. I did keep reading, though. One reason is that I have been concerned about the chances of another civil war in this country, although I see the danger coming from the right. Card's speculation on how such a thing might happen is deft and as thorough in its knowledge of the human heart and mind as many of his other works - there is much confusion over what is right and wrong, who the villains are, and how to handle the desperate situation the country finds itself in. One of the things that hit me hardest was a comment by one of the characters that people on both sides see people on the other side as stupid and deceived. That made me take notice, because I had been wondering how Card, who I know to be well-read and intelligent (see his official web site, http://www.hatrack.com/, for proof) could be saying some of the things that to me just sound stupid - such as some of the characters expressing admiration for our current president. In the end, what affected me the most was the afterward, in which Card expresses concern about our polarization, and how difficult it is for a moderate voice to be heard, telling of his experience in being viciously attacked by those of both the left and the right. Here's an example of what he has to say: "Yet neither side can see any connection between their own fanaticism and the historical examples that might apply to them. People insisting on a Christian America simply cannot comprehend that others view them as a Taliban-in-waiting; those who insist on progressive exclusivism in America are outraged at any comparison between them and Communist totalitarianism. Even as they shun or fire or deny tenure to those who disagree with them, everybody thinks it's the other guy who would be the oppressor, while OUR side would simply "set things to rights". Rarely do people set out to start a civil war. Invariably, when such wars break out both sides consider themselves to be the aggrieved ones.". I'm not entirely convinced, and still hold to my political beliefs. But I hope that I can see my adversaries as human with their own ideas and needs, and to be willing to listen to them. In other words, this book made me THINK... and what else does a good book do, whether fiction or non-fiction? |
| Other authors 1 | |
| Publication | Tor Books (2007), Edition: Reprint, Mass Market Paperback, 368 pages |
| Publication date | 2007 |
| ISBN | 0765355221 / 9780765355225 |
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Book review: Bad Blood by Linda Fairstein
| Title | Bad Blood: A Novel |
| Author | Linda Fairstein |
| Rating |  |
| Tags | fiiction, mystery, series, linda_fairstein, alexandra_cooper |
| Your review | This is the ninth in the Alex Cooper series by Linda Fairstein. Fairstein was the head of the sex crimes unit in the DA's office in New York City for 25 years, leaving to concentrate on her writing and to be a media consultant on sexual violence and domestic abuse for the major networks. Her character, Alex Cooper, is also the chief prosecutor for the sex crimes unit, and many of the minor stories in the books are based on real cases Fairstein has been involved with. This background gives great authenticity to the series. More than that, Fairstein loves and knows the city of New York so well, and each book tends to focus on some fascinating aspect of the city, such as the time Edgar Allen Poe spent there, the art world, the Metropolitan Opera House, etc. In Bad Blood, the story revolves around the New York City subterranean world, the fragile water system. the subways, and all the underground world worked by sandhogs The plot is excellent, the settings incredible, particularly the closed City Hall subway station I sometimes get tired of the character of Mike Chapman, the policeman Alex works most with, but it wasn't a bother in this book. It was an excellent entry in a good series. |
| Other authors 1 | |
| Publication | Pocket Star (2007), Edition: Reprint, Mass Market Paperback, 480 pages |
| Publication date | 2007 |
| ISBN | 1416521518 / 9781416521518 |
Book review: The Penguin Who Knew Too Much
| Title | The Penguin Who Knew Too Much (A Meg Langslow Mystery) |
| Author | Donna Andrews |
| Rating | |
| Tags | fiction, mystery, humor, series, meg_langslow, donna_andrews |
| Your review | This is the 8th in Donna Andrew's humorous mystery series about Meg Langslow, a blacksmith and solver of mysteries. Andrews is often compared to Janet Evanovich since they both write mysteries with humor, but that's about the only commonality. I like both series, with maybe Andrews my preference by a hair. It is often said that truth is stranger than fiction, but I'm not always sure that is true... Andrews comes up with some pretty bizarre scenarios, matched by interesting titles that actually have some relationship to the plots of the books. In this book, Meg and her fiance Michael are finally set to move into the old house they've been renovating, so lots of Meg's relatives show up for the moving and the followup party. The festivities are somewhat postponed when Meg's father finds a body in the basement while digging a pool for the penguins. The penguins? one asks, and it turns out that the local zoo has asked people to help keep the animals while it recovers. Meanwhile word has gotten out through Meg's dad that the animals can be sent to Meg for keeping. Is the body in the basement the zoo's keeper? Andrew's plots are actually decent, not just an excuse for the humor, but the humor abounds, often laugh-out-loud funny...and that tends to earn me odd looks from my cats. This entry in the series is quite good. My favorite is still the fourth, Crouching Buzzard, Leaping Loon, but there hasn't been a dud in the whole series so far. |
| Other authors 1 | |
| Publication | St. Martin's Minotaur (2007), Hardcover, 272 pages |
| Publication date | 2007 |
| ISBN | 0312329423 / 9780312329426 |
Friday, December 28, 2007
Movie review: Amazing Grace
Amazing Grace is the story of William Wilberforce and his effort to end the slave trade in the British Empire. It is, er, um, an Amazing story and director Michael Apted and writer Stephen Knight tell it well.
It is not, of course, solely Wilberforce's story. It is also the story of those who persuaded him to get into this fight, those who fought with him, those who opposed him, and, yes, about those millions of slaves transported into death or servitude. Wilberforces's mentor, John Newsom (played wonderfully well by Albert Finney), was captain of a slave ship for twenty years, until he repented. He spoke of constantly having 20,000 ghosts with him, the ghosts of the slaves he transported. Out of his anguish at what he had done, he wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. When he speaks of "grace that saved a wretch like me" it was a true cry of his heart and tormented mind. The experience of slavery is directly told by Olaudah Equiano, played by African musician Youssou N'Dour. Sadly Equiano did not live to see the slave trade ended, but his book about his experiences sold 50,000 copies and had a major impact on public opinion.
Once Wilberforce was convinced to join this fight, he committed to it though the odds against ending the slave trade were high. 300 of the Members of Parliament were in part supported by the slave trade. The fight took years of hard work, showing MPs and the public the horrors of the slave trade.
Wilberforce's most potent ally was William Pitt, who became Prime Minister at the age of 24. Benedict Cumberbatch does an excellent job of portraying Pitt, and Ioan Gruffuds does well as Wilberforce. The movie shows a taste of the forces pulling Wilberforce apart... Pitt has to delay action on the slave trade during the wars with the French, and warns Wilberforce against dangerous ideas, while the abolitionist Thomas Clarkson urges Wilberforce to come to France with him and help create a new world there.
Wilberforce was involved in many causes, including animal welfare. Oddly, he was, according to the New York Times review, anti-trade unions, leaving one of his contemporaries to remark that apparently you had to be an African slave to get Wilberforces's sympathy for bad working conditions. This was not pointed out in the movie, which portrays Wilberforce in an almost entirely positive light. I don't see that as a drawback, in this particular case. The audience knows no one is perfect, yet the cause was such a good one, and the winning of its goal is so uplifting, that anything else would have been a distraction.
The movied points out in the end that Wilberforce continued to work for the abolition of slavery after the ending of the slave trade, and it was accomplished 3 days before his death in 1833.
Amazing Grace is a movie that uplifts the soul and girds one to fight whatever one chooses as the good fight today. The special features section of the DVD has a good information on the work to end slavery in today's world. Highly recommended.
It is not, of course, solely Wilberforce's story. It is also the story of those who persuaded him to get into this fight, those who fought with him, those who opposed him, and, yes, about those millions of slaves transported into death or servitude. Wilberforces's mentor, John Newsom (played wonderfully well by Albert Finney), was captain of a slave ship for twenty years, until he repented. He spoke of constantly having 20,000 ghosts with him, the ghosts of the slaves he transported. Out of his anguish at what he had done, he wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. When he speaks of "grace that saved a wretch like me" it was a true cry of his heart and tormented mind. The experience of slavery is directly told by Olaudah Equiano, played by African musician Youssou N'Dour. Sadly Equiano did not live to see the slave trade ended, but his book about his experiences sold 50,000 copies and had a major impact on public opinion.
Once Wilberforce was convinced to join this fight, he committed to it though the odds against ending the slave trade were high. 300 of the Members of Parliament were in part supported by the slave trade. The fight took years of hard work, showing MPs and the public the horrors of the slave trade.
Wilberforce's most potent ally was William Pitt, who became Prime Minister at the age of 24. Benedict Cumberbatch does an excellent job of portraying Pitt, and Ioan Gruffuds does well as Wilberforce. The movie shows a taste of the forces pulling Wilberforce apart... Pitt has to delay action on the slave trade during the wars with the French, and warns Wilberforce against dangerous ideas, while the abolitionist Thomas Clarkson urges Wilberforce to come to France with him and help create a new world there.
Wilberforce was involved in many causes, including animal welfare. Oddly, he was, according to the New York Times review, anti-trade unions, leaving one of his contemporaries to remark that apparently you had to be an African slave to get Wilberforces's sympathy for bad working conditions. This was not pointed out in the movie, which portrays Wilberforce in an almost entirely positive light. I don't see that as a drawback, in this particular case. The audience knows no one is perfect, yet the cause was such a good one, and the winning of its goal is so uplifting, that anything else would have been a distraction.
The movied points out in the end that Wilberforce continued to work for the abolition of slavery after the ending of the slave trade, and it was accomplished 3 days before his death in 1833.
Amazing Grace is a movie that uplifts the soul and girds one to fight whatever one chooses as the good fight today. The special features section of the DVD has a good information on the work to end slavery in today's world. Highly recommended.
Book review: It's Getting Ugly Out There
| Title | It's Getting Ugly Out There: The Frauds, Bunglers, Liars, and Losers Who Are Hurting America |
| Author | Jack Cafferty |
| Rating | |
| Tags | jack-cafferty, cnn, politics, media, george_w_bush |
| Your review | Jack Cafferty does commentary for CNN. He has been in the media for forty years. I haven't watched him before now, and probably won't watch him after reading his book...mostly because I hold those in the media to a higher standard of knowledge than most. They should really know what's going on, right? Yet Cafferty was favorable to George W. Bush as a candidate, buying his "uniter" and "bringing integrity back to the White House" rhetoric. I didn't, for one simple reason. I read Molly Ivin's book Shrub, and it was a record of venality and incompetence that has run true to form in the Bush administration. In other words, the information was out there, just as the information about the lack of WMDs and the lack of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda was out there before the Iraq war, but had little public exposure. Cafferty does rant about the media's attention to such things as Anna Nicole Smith and the lack of attention to important stories, and does blame the media consolidation and need to make a profit, but also the public. Sickeningly, he reports that the CNN coverage of Smith's death quadrupled their ratings!!! I also agree with Cafferty that the Bush administration may be good for the country in that its incredible level of arrogance, ignorance, and corruption may have awakened voters to the need to throw the bums out, and keep throwing them out, until they get the message and pass real reforms. |
| Other authors 1 | |
| Publication | Wiley (2007), Hardcover, 288 pages |
| Publication date | 2007 |
| ISBN | 0470144793 / 9780470144794 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)