Once again Bob Woodward has helped produce a piece of journalistic work which is making waves at the highest level possible. I sometimes wonder what he thinks of the more current method of journalistic king making/destroying which always seems so slipshod in comparison to the slow steady work which he has done for so many years. How influential is this one? Well I don't think it is going to lead to a presidential abdication of office. However, I'd make a Coca-cola bet this book is what provided the motivating force to replace Rumsfeld at Sec Def and what pushed Bush to finally say on record that Iraq was in a shambles.
Granted it wasn't Woodward per say so much as what he was able to get from folks inside the administration (Including Rumsfeld himself) to say 'on the record' that gave his book this kind of influence. Woodward through the years has defined the epitome Journalistic integrity and it is with that weight behind his words that this book has forced this administration to stop hiding from the truth that has been so obvious to rest of the 'real world' for at least a couple of years.
Some might suggest Woodward was part of the problem in the way he supported this administration in his previous two works regarding Bush's presidency. However in my view he was simply reporting the facts. When last he took on the Bush administration the war was relatively new and the dust had yet to settle on the fall out. The operation to take over Iraq and oust Saddam was an unmitigated success. This book deals with the fallout, the aftermath and the continuing debacle that has come to be the 'restoration of Iraq'. He doesn't change his tune here. He is specifically calling out what Iraq has turned into.
All in all this is a book that is on the short list to read for ANYONE who is interested in what is going on with Iraq. I could go on and on and make my own points but I simply could not make them as well as what you will find in this book. Read it.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Eragon, Movie Commentary
First off if you have not read the book or seen the movie and are worried about spoilers do not read this commentary as it may give away plot points.
First and foremost, I imagine the immediate question on anyones mind who read the book is "Did they do a good job?". The answer is a most certain and heart wrenching NO. They didn't even get close IMHO. As a movie it stands well enough on its own as a swords, sorcerers, and of course Dragons epic. However, it uses the book only for its broadest outlines and characters. The imagery is fantastic but by and by its hollow. It is like a game with fabulous graphics and zero substance.
Disapointing in the extreme for those that loved the book such as myself. It had such potential for continuing Hollywood's recent string of surprising success with epic fantasy stories.
More details? Jeremy Irons is horribly under used, The kid that Plays Eragon does a fair job at what he was handed but the scripted Eragon was a shell of the book character, Malcovich was miscast not to mention was not supposed to be seen in this part of the story anyway. Durga is played fairly well by Robert Carlyle.
As an example of how they changed the story? The Werecat is gone (budget cut I imagine). Saphira magically grows in short order and names herself. There is almost no training relationship between Brom and Eragon, just a single 10 second long fight with sticks used to prove Eragon can't use a sword well (he then goes off pell mell like he is a master dealer in death). We see little of Murtaugh and have almost no time for him to establish himself before being revealed as a potentially dangerous character to the Hero.
All in all it was a typical Hollywood hatchet job to make a mindless piece of entertainment at all expense of telling a deep and engaging story.
Ahh well. Such is life.
First and foremost, I imagine the immediate question on anyones mind who read the book is "Did they do a good job?". The answer is a most certain and heart wrenching NO. They didn't even get close IMHO. As a movie it stands well enough on its own as a swords, sorcerers, and of course Dragons epic. However, it uses the book only for its broadest outlines and characters. The imagery is fantastic but by and by its hollow. It is like a game with fabulous graphics and zero substance.
Disapointing in the extreme for those that loved the book such as myself. It had such potential for continuing Hollywood's recent string of surprising success with epic fantasy stories.
More details? Jeremy Irons is horribly under used, The kid that Plays Eragon does a fair job at what he was handed but the scripted Eragon was a shell of the book character, Malcovich was miscast not to mention was not supposed to be seen in this part of the story anyway. Durga is played fairly well by Robert Carlyle.
As an example of how they changed the story? The Werecat is gone (budget cut I imagine). Saphira magically grows in short order and names herself. There is almost no training relationship between Brom and Eragon, just a single 10 second long fight with sticks used to prove Eragon can't use a sword well (he then goes off pell mell like he is a master dealer in death). We see little of Murtaugh and have almost no time for him to establish himself before being revealed as a potentially dangerous character to the Hero.
All in all it was a typical Hollywood hatchet job to make a mindless piece of entertainment at all expense of telling a deep and engaging story.
Ahh well. Such is life.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Jefferson County Schools and Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is once again hearing arguments in a case of national importance with regards to school integration. In 1954 the SCOTUS handed down one of its most important decisions in Brown vrs Board of Education. In Brown they overturning the doctrine of separate but equal. The Supreme court found that separate was inherantly unequal and that schools could not legally segregate their schools based on the color of students skin. This led to a spate of law suits over the next couple of decades forcing schools to integrate. In most cases the solution was to bus kids to remote schools thus over coming the inherent geographic segregation of American society due to decades of legaly upheld separation of the races.
Fast forward through to today and now a school system is being charged with using racial discrimination in order to keep its school systems integrated. IE they are now using race to maintain DE-segregation. In short it is an affirmative action process by which racial discrimination is being used for good... or so the supporters of the program claim. Essentially they claim that any harm done by using racial discrimination in this manner is outweighed by the benefit of maintaining a largely de-segregated school system population.
The argument is one that is at the heart of American racial discord and an extremely thorny issue. Why is it thorny? Isn't it obviously evil and discriminatory to make any judgement based on the color of someones skin?
Practically speaking if you are to keep a school system from being segregated by geographic default how on earth are you to do it if you are not aware of the ethnic distribution of the students? That is the problem faced by the Louisville school board. A system which did not receive absolution from the federal court system until 1999 that it has sufficiently managed to integrate its schools systems well enough to regain its independence in determining student enrollment assignments. So they have voluntarily maintained a system of insured integration by being sure that among many consideration they maintained a 15-50% minority population in all of its public schools. It is this number guideline, or racial quota in some eyes, that has landed them with a suit in front of the SCOTUS.
Who is right? The school board certainly seems to have the best of intentions but I find it hard to condone ever upholding a system which contains the possibility in which race can trump all other decisions. And saying that race discrimination is wrong while actively discriminating in order to achieve racial balance is a highly hypocritical situation. It is a long term stance of the NAACP that such methods are the only realistic way with which to combat such things as default geographic segregation and a system which was systematically shaped through the decades/centuries by actively discriminatory practices. In a sense that fire must be fought with fire until such time as true parity is attained.
Personally I think the argument from the NAACP has at times reached the level of two kids in the back seat saying they hit the other because they 'got me last' and I had to even the score. The old saw goes "Two wrongs don't make a right". It seems to me the NAACP is saying you can correct years of discrimination with more discrimination. No one would suggest that the justification of the NAACP is the same as that which was used to implement Jim Crow laws. However I find it hard to swallow how blithely the NAACP accepts the notion of discriminatory practices as palatable. No matter how noble the justification, racial discrimination remains the upholding of one over another based solely on the color of ones skin. I must say at the last no matter what your reasoning that is simply an indefensible position.
On the other hand it is equally difficult to suggest that by simply turning a blind eye to race entirely it will be enough to ensure that the problem disappears on its own. Again... if racial integration is a legal mandate of Brown, then how is a school system to ensure racial integration if it does not actively make sure the ethnic make up of its schools is mixed by some arbitrary percentage that is deemed 'enough'?
It is still very much a fact that the population of America is still geographically segregated by default if not law. Thus going to a neighborhood school system (which many systems went back to once receiving their autonomy after the Brown based suits came to segregate them) results in many school systems now segregated by default rather than law. Basically Louisville is getting around this process with a "school of choice" system and by keeping an eye on the racial makeup of its schools. The person overseeing the system is making the (probably accurate asesment) that without explicitly ensuring racial diversity that the schools will over time default back to geographic divisions which in Louisville means highly segregated schools both along racial and socio economic lines. In short the question before the SCOTUS is should it be acceptable for public school systems to use race as a determining factor when assigning students to schools.
Fast forward through to today and now a school system is being charged with using racial discrimination in order to keep its school systems integrated. IE they are now using race to maintain DE-segregation. In short it is an affirmative action process by which racial discrimination is being used for good... or so the supporters of the program claim. Essentially they claim that any harm done by using racial discrimination in this manner is outweighed by the benefit of maintaining a largely de-segregated school system population.
The argument is one that is at the heart of American racial discord and an extremely thorny issue. Why is it thorny? Isn't it obviously evil and discriminatory to make any judgement based on the color of someones skin?
Practically speaking if you are to keep a school system from being segregated by geographic default how on earth are you to do it if you are not aware of the ethnic distribution of the students? That is the problem faced by the Louisville school board. A system which did not receive absolution from the federal court system until 1999 that it has sufficiently managed to integrate its schools systems well enough to regain its independence in determining student enrollment assignments. So they have voluntarily maintained a system of insured integration by being sure that among many consideration they maintained a 15-50% minority population in all of its public schools. It is this number guideline, or racial quota in some eyes, that has landed them with a suit in front of the SCOTUS.
Who is right? The school board certainly seems to have the best of intentions but I find it hard to condone ever upholding a system which contains the possibility in which race can trump all other decisions. And saying that race discrimination is wrong while actively discriminating in order to achieve racial balance is a highly hypocritical situation. It is a long term stance of the NAACP that such methods are the only realistic way with which to combat such things as default geographic segregation and a system which was systematically shaped through the decades/centuries by actively discriminatory practices. In a sense that fire must be fought with fire until such time as true parity is attained.
Personally I think the argument from the NAACP has at times reached the level of two kids in the back seat saying they hit the other because they 'got me last' and I had to even the score. The old saw goes "Two wrongs don't make a right". It seems to me the NAACP is saying you can correct years of discrimination with more discrimination. No one would suggest that the justification of the NAACP is the same as that which was used to implement Jim Crow laws. However I find it hard to swallow how blithely the NAACP accepts the notion of discriminatory practices as palatable. No matter how noble the justification, racial discrimination remains the upholding of one over another based solely on the color of ones skin. I must say at the last no matter what your reasoning that is simply an indefensible position.
On the other hand it is equally difficult to suggest that by simply turning a blind eye to race entirely it will be enough to ensure that the problem disappears on its own. Again... if racial integration is a legal mandate of Brown, then how is a school system to ensure racial integration if it does not actively make sure the ethnic make up of its schools is mixed by some arbitrary percentage that is deemed 'enough'?
It is still very much a fact that the population of America is still geographically segregated by default if not law. Thus going to a neighborhood school system (which many systems went back to once receiving their autonomy after the Brown based suits came to segregate them) results in many school systems now segregated by default rather than law. Basically Louisville is getting around this process with a "school of choice" system and by keeping an eye on the racial makeup of its schools. The person overseeing the system is making the (probably accurate asesment) that without explicitly ensuring racial diversity that the schools will over time default back to geographic divisions which in Louisville means highly segregated schools both along racial and socio economic lines. In short the question before the SCOTUS is should it be acceptable for public school systems to use race as a determining factor when assigning students to schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)