No, really. Move on:
Many Democratic strategists were privately furious at the group for launching an attack on a member of the military rather than Bush, arguing that it gave Republicans a point on which to attack the Democrats and to rally around the administration's war policy.
Yes, because the toothless, anemic Democrats were just THIS CLOSE to ending the war. And MoveOn simply ruined it all.
This close...
Eh, Democratic Strategists (TM)?
Lately, it seems like many Discussion posts are not making it through the queue. One problem that's apparent is the standards for Discussion Posts are not clearly available, or well-known.
Back in the day, a post was created that attempted to set down the rules of the road:
Good Things
*The new post's topic will be significant for more than a day or two -- i.e., it is not centered on The News Of The Day.
*The post itself is well argued, preferably with links to supporting material.
*The topic, as presented, will foster discussion.
*A specific Discussion Table is selected.
Bad Things
*Posts that reprint a Reader Blog entry
*Posts that simply report "breaking news"
*Posts that solicit traffic for someone’s personal blog
*Icky formatting
These are good guidelines to follow.
Lotta people not gettin' any:
Surfing the net has become an obsession for many Americans with the majority of U.S. adults feeling they cannot go for a week without going online and one in three giving up friends and sex for the Web.
No mention of how many of them are having sex online, though.
Astonishing, newly-donated photographs reveal glimpses of daily life for the SS officers at Auschwitz:
Rather than showing the men performing their death camp duties, the photos depicted, among other things, a horde of SS men singing cheerily to the accompaniment of an accordionist, Höcker lighting the camp’s Christmas tree, a cadre of young SS women frolicking and officers relaxing, some with tunics shed, for a smoking break.
Important for the historical record, of course. But these photos are simply surreal, knowing the horrors perpetrated, contrasted with images of the perpetrators, for example, laughing and running in the rain.
I think they may say something about the way humans are able to compartmentalize existence, but, then again, most of this aspect of human history defies any explanation.
Seems like Sally Field's anti-war statement (and Fox's censoring of...) last night was just the start of a trend:
Are audiences ready for the steady stream of movies and documentaries that bring a faraway war very close? ...They all take as their central concern the price of America’s military and security activities since the attacks of Sept. 11.
The Times notes these are not just indie films, but blockbusters from major studios, starring the likes of Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Hanks, and Tom Cruise. Big money.
Also noted is how some of the most important and critically acclaimed movies ever produced, such as "The Dear Hunter" and "Apocolypse Now," were decidedly anti-war, but released years after the conflict ended.
Is Hollywood, in releasing these movies now, with no end to the Iraq debacle in sight, suggesting a new moral imperative here? Launching, through Art, a national dialog on War and it's purpose? A conversation to fill the emptiness of the news media's absence on the subject?
Clearly, media companies are hoping that asking questions about the war is good for business, in addition to being good for the republic.
Yeah, probably the first part of that sentence is the one at play...
