Tuesday, July 17, 2007
2008 Presidential Election: CNN Shows Balance, Finally
After months of what I have pointed to as reporting bias, CNN's finally designing its news with balance. As of today, gone are the minutes upon hours of negatively-slanted reporting on Barack Obama and positively-slanted reports on Hillary Clinton. For example, I just saw a report detailing Senator Obama's donations and that about 1 percent come from people who purchased items.
The report ended up being a plus for Senator Obama.
Then, Wolf Blitzer's about to explain how John Edwards' wife reportedly said that Hillary Clinton's too much of a man. Well she said something more complex in Salon .
GEEZ! I personally don't like that take. Senator Clinton's breaking new ground. I'm an Obama suporter, but I'd never make a comment like that.
Well, at least CNN's focusing on the story. Before today, I thought CNN was blocking bad news about Hillary Clinton.
The report ended up being a plus for Senator Obama.
Then, Wolf Blitzer's about to explain how John Edwards' wife reportedly said that Hillary Clinton's too much of a man. Well she said something more complex in Salon .
GEEZ! I personally don't like that take. Senator Clinton's breaking new ground. I'm an Obama suporter, but I'd never make a comment like that.
Well, at least CNN's focusing on the story. Before today, I thought CNN was blocking bad news about Hillary Clinton.
Moe From Jezebel Drinks Martini's With Amber, The Obama Girl
This account is way too funny. You've got to read Moe's column. Apparently Ariana Huffington threw a party at her apartment in Washington, and...
"I'm Amber," said a petite woman with a cheery smile. She was very very thin and very very tan, though too naturally olive-complected to be called tanorexic, too compactly curvy to be "anorexic." Her white skirt stretched across an ass that was difficult to look away from, except when she smiled and flashed the flawless teeth of a sixteen-year-old cheerleader. It was the Obama Girl, and she was spectacular. "I've got a crush on Obama girl," my friend Crowley said at her sight. "I'm just going to repeat that until funny." We were at Arianna Huffington's apartment, and there was so much free booze everything was funny.
As inconceivable as it may sound to anyone who has marveled over Amber's God-ordained perfection in the role of Obama Girl -- the star of the esteemed "I Got A Crush On Obama" series of pro-Barack slow jam videos designed to give cable news outlets something about the presidential campaigns to report on when nothing is actually going on besides the counting of money and realizing that ..
Ok, you've got to go there to read the rest!
Packers Sign Aaron Rouse and David Clowney; Nego With Justin Harrell
Even with this, the NFL teams are showing a good record of signings at this time. It's typical that the higher dollar draftees take longer to sign.
Packers aim to get rookies under contract
By Rob Demovsky
rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com
With organized team activities completed, the Green Bay Packers have one main objective before training camp begins in less than six weeks: Get the rest of their rookies under contract.
The Packers have signed two of their 11 draft picks, third-round pick Aaron Rouse and fifth-rounder David Clowney. The more difficult negotiations, however, have not yet begun in earnest.
General Manager Ted Thompson and vice president of player finance Andrew Brandt have a tight rookie salary pool of $4.907 million, which is the maximum amount of salary cap space the Packers can use to sign their draft picks and undrafted rookie free agents. That's about $630,000 more than the NFL rookie pool average for 2007, but no team had more draft picks than the Packers.
The Packers had the highest rookie salary pool at $6.647 million last year, when they had 12 picks, including the fifth overall selection in the draft, linebacker A.J. Hawk. Their rookie pool this year is close to what it was in 2005, when it also had 11 draft picks but selected at No. 24 in the first round. Their first-round pick this season, defensive tackle Justin Harrell, was at No. 16, meaning he likely will command more first-year money than quarterback Aaron Rodgers received as the 24th pick in 2005.
Signing bonuses won't be the difficult parts of the negotiations with the draft picks, because those tend to fall in line with the players taken in similar spots, but structuring the deals to fit under the rookie salary pool will be the challenge facing Brandt and Thompson.
"The process continues as it always has," Brandt said this week. "We're in discussions with all of our draft picks."
Considering how heavily the Packers could rely on several rookies — especially Harrell, second-round draft pick Brandon Jackson, a candidate to start at running back, and James Jones, a possible No. 3 receiver — it would behoove them to have their entire draft class under contract before training camp begins on July 28.
That timetable is even more critical for Harrell, who played in only three games last season at Tennessee due to a torn biceps tendon. That injury caused the Packers to take cautious approach with Harrell this spring, holding him out of most minicamp and OTA workouts.
Like most agents, Harrell's representative, Eugene Parker, can be difficult to negotiate with at times. One of his clients, Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson, missed nearly all of his rookie training camp in 2005 before agreeing to a deal. However, the Packers haven't had any trouble signing Parker's clients of late. Parker represents receiver Greg Jennings, a second-round pick last season who signed before training camp. He also represented former first-round pick Ahmad Carroll, who also signed his rookie contract before camp opened.
"I'm fully confident in my agent, and he has a pretty good relationship with people here in Green Bay," Harrell said. "So pretty much, I ain't worried about that. (Signing before camp) was the goal coming in, even if I wouldn't have been hurt. My agent pretty much has a good feel where I'm coming from, and I feel 100 percent that he's going to get the job done."
Several NFL teams have signed a few draft picks, but the signing season begins in earnest now that most clubs have wrapped up their offseason workouts. The Packers completed their OTAs on Tuesday.
Packers aim to get rookies under contract
By Rob Demovsky
rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com
With organized team activities completed, the Green Bay Packers have one main objective before training camp begins in less than six weeks: Get the rest of their rookies under contract.
The Packers have signed two of their 11 draft picks, third-round pick Aaron Rouse and fifth-rounder David Clowney. The more difficult negotiations, however, have not yet begun in earnest.
General Manager Ted Thompson and vice president of player finance Andrew Brandt have a tight rookie salary pool of $4.907 million, which is the maximum amount of salary cap space the Packers can use to sign their draft picks and undrafted rookie free agents. That's about $630,000 more than the NFL rookie pool average for 2007, but no team had more draft picks than the Packers.
The Packers had the highest rookie salary pool at $6.647 million last year, when they had 12 picks, including the fifth overall selection in the draft, linebacker A.J. Hawk. Their rookie pool this year is close to what it was in 2005, when it also had 11 draft picks but selected at No. 24 in the first round. Their first-round pick this season, defensive tackle Justin Harrell, was at No. 16, meaning he likely will command more first-year money than quarterback Aaron Rodgers received as the 24th pick in 2005.
Signing bonuses won't be the difficult parts of the negotiations with the draft picks, because those tend to fall in line with the players taken in similar spots, but structuring the deals to fit under the rookie salary pool will be the challenge facing Brandt and Thompson.
"The process continues as it always has," Brandt said this week. "We're in discussions with all of our draft picks."
Considering how heavily the Packers could rely on several rookies — especially Harrell, second-round draft pick Brandon Jackson, a candidate to start at running back, and James Jones, a possible No. 3 receiver — it would behoove them to have their entire draft class under contract before training camp begins on July 28.
That timetable is even more critical for Harrell, who played in only three games last season at Tennessee due to a torn biceps tendon. That injury caused the Packers to take cautious approach with Harrell this spring, holding him out of most minicamp and OTA workouts.
Like most agents, Harrell's representative, Eugene Parker, can be difficult to negotiate with at times. One of his clients, Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson, missed nearly all of his rookie training camp in 2005 before agreeing to a deal. However, the Packers haven't had any trouble signing Parker's clients of late. Parker represents receiver Greg Jennings, a second-round pick last season who signed before training camp. He also represented former first-round pick Ahmad Carroll, who also signed his rookie contract before camp opened.
"I'm fully confident in my agent, and he has a pretty good relationship with people here in Green Bay," Harrell said. "So pretty much, I ain't worried about that. (Signing before camp) was the goal coming in, even if I wouldn't have been hurt. My agent pretty much has a good feel where I'm coming from, and I feel 100 percent that he's going to get the job done."
Several NFL teams have signed a few draft picks, but the signing season begins in earnest now that most clubs have wrapped up their offseason workouts. The Packers completed their OTAs on Tuesday.
Rupert Murdoch Closer To Buying Wall Street Journal - WSJ Online
You've got to admire Rupert Murdoch's flair for the deal. Just a day after the reported block by Chris Bancroft , he engineers a deal, or is at least close to it. It's up to the Bancroft's now.
Dow Jones, News Corp. Set Deal
Tentative $5 Billion Pact
Gets Board Vote Tonight;
Family to Meet Thursday
By SARAH ELLISON - Wall Street Journal
July 17, 2007; Page A3
News Corp. reached a tentative agreement for the purchase of Dow Jones & Co. at its original $5 billion offer price. The deal will be put to the full Dow Jones board this evening for its approval, said people familiar with the situation.
In what could be the final round of talks, yesterday negotiators from News Corp. and Dow Jones -- including Chief Executive Richard F. Zannino, company advisers and two independent directors -- reached an agreement in principle on a deal first proposed by News Corp. in mid-April. News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch resisted pressure from Dow Jones to raise his initial $60-a-share offer, which represented a 67% premium to where the Dow Jones stock was trading before news of the offer became public. But Mr. Murdoch suggested the possibility of nominating former Journal Managing Editor Paul Steiger to the board of News Corp., according to a person who was there.
The deal still faces its biggest hurdle -- getting approval from the Bancroft family, which controls 64% of Dow Jones's voting power. Mr. Zannino has indicated to News Corp. that the family's position on the deal is too close to call, according to a person who spoke to him.
Michael B. Elefante, the Bancroft family's lead trustee, has scheduled a meeting for Thursday at which he would present the agreement to all Bancroft family members before asking for their final vote. Mr. Elefante is expected to give the family several days to make a decision, suggesting a final resolution could be achieved some time next week.
MORE
• Complete Coverage: A Deal for Dow Jones?
• Graphic: Key Players in the Dow Jones Bid
However, the Bancroft family remains sharply divided on a sale to News Corp. While some members are open to a deal, others have been looking hard for an alternative. Christopher Bancroft, 55 years old, a Dow Jones director who serves as a trustee overseeing shares that account for about 15% of the company's total shareholder votes, has spent the past several weeks approaching hedge funds, private-equity firms and others in an attempt to buy enough shares of Dow Jones to block a sale. Another family director, Leslie Hill, has pressed the company to meet with investors, such as supermarket mogul Ron Burkle, who have alternative proposals for Dow Jones. Ms. Hill's mother, Jane Cox MacElree, serves as a trustee for or owns shares that account for about 15% of the company's total shareholder vote.
News Corp.'s unwillingness to raise the price could also harden opposition from within the family. Some Dow Jones top executives and independent directors had hoped the Bancroft family's ambivalence about the Murdoch deal would help the company extract a few more dollars per share, according to people close to Dow Jones.
Dow Jones shares were down 54 cents to $56.95 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday. The shares rose about 50 cents in after-hours trading.
The negotiations yesterday began with a lunch meeting attended by Messrs. Murdoch and Zannino.
In addition to The Wall Street Journal and its international and online editions, Dow Jones publishes Barron's, SmartMoney magazines and other periodicals; DowJones Newswires; Dow Jones Indexes; and the Ottaway group of community newspapers.
Dow Jones, News Corp. Set Deal
Tentative $5 Billion Pact
Gets Board Vote Tonight;
Family to Meet Thursday
By SARAH ELLISON - Wall Street Journal
July 17, 2007; Page A3
News Corp. reached a tentative agreement for the purchase of Dow Jones & Co. at its original $5 billion offer price. The deal will be put to the full Dow Jones board this evening for its approval, said people familiar with the situation.
In what could be the final round of talks, yesterday negotiators from News Corp. and Dow Jones -- including Chief Executive Richard F. Zannino, company advisers and two independent directors -- reached an agreement in principle on a deal first proposed by News Corp. in mid-April. News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch resisted pressure from Dow Jones to raise his initial $60-a-share offer, which represented a 67% premium to where the Dow Jones stock was trading before news of the offer became public. But Mr. Murdoch suggested the possibility of nominating former Journal Managing Editor Paul Steiger to the board of News Corp., according to a person who was there.
The deal still faces its biggest hurdle -- getting approval from the Bancroft family, which controls 64% of Dow Jones's voting power. Mr. Zannino has indicated to News Corp. that the family's position on the deal is too close to call, according to a person who spoke to him.
Michael B. Elefante, the Bancroft family's lead trustee, has scheduled a meeting for Thursday at which he would present the agreement to all Bancroft family members before asking for their final vote. Mr. Elefante is expected to give the family several days to make a decision, suggesting a final resolution could be achieved some time next week.
MORE
• Complete Coverage: A Deal for Dow Jones?
• Graphic: Key Players in the Dow Jones Bid
However, the Bancroft family remains sharply divided on a sale to News Corp. While some members are open to a deal, others have been looking hard for an alternative. Christopher Bancroft, 55 years old, a Dow Jones director who serves as a trustee overseeing shares that account for about 15% of the company's total shareholder votes, has spent the past several weeks approaching hedge funds, private-equity firms and others in an attempt to buy enough shares of Dow Jones to block a sale. Another family director, Leslie Hill, has pressed the company to meet with investors, such as supermarket mogul Ron Burkle, who have alternative proposals for Dow Jones. Ms. Hill's mother, Jane Cox MacElree, serves as a trustee for or owns shares that account for about 15% of the company's total shareholder vote.
News Corp.'s unwillingness to raise the price could also harden opposition from within the family. Some Dow Jones top executives and independent directors had hoped the Bancroft family's ambivalence about the Murdoch deal would help the company extract a few more dollars per share, according to people close to Dow Jones.
Dow Jones shares were down 54 cents to $56.95 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday. The shares rose about 50 cents in after-hours trading.
The negotiations yesterday began with a lunch meeting attended by Messrs. Murdoch and Zannino.
In addition to The Wall Street Journal and its international and online editions, Dow Jones publishes Barron's, SmartMoney magazines and other periodicals; DowJones Newswires; Dow Jones Indexes; and the Ottaway group of community newspapers.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Cloverfield Clues - Cloverfield and Slusho - So What?
Ok, I'm going to go on a small rant regarding these clue seekers who are so myopic in their focus they can't tell a product placement from a clue.
First, Slusho is a product. Yes, it appeared in Alias. Yes, it's logo is seen on someone's t-shirt in the Cloverfield trailer . But does this make it a clue? Hell no!
The definition of a Clue is "Something that serves to guide or direct in the solution of a problem or mystery."
So how does a website called Slusho lead is to the solution of the mystery of what this film's about? Answer? It doesn't.
It's a way of Slusho benefiting from this viral marketing campaign. Period. Indeed, they may have paid a fee for this or at the least provided cast and crew with tons of Slusho drinks on the set.
But that's it.
First, Slusho is a product. Yes, it appeared in Alias. Yes, it's logo is seen on someone's t-shirt in the Cloverfield trailer . But does this make it a clue? Hell no!
The definition of a Clue is "Something that serves to guide or direct in the solution of a problem or mystery."
So how does a website called Slusho lead is to the solution of the mystery of what this film's about? Answer? It doesn't.
It's a way of Slusho benefiting from this viral marketing campaign. Period. Indeed, they may have paid a fee for this or at the least provided cast and crew with tons of Slusho drinks on the set.
But that's it.
Christopher Bancroft Tries To Block Rupert Murdoch's Bid For WSJ (Wall Street Journal)
Wow. Well, apparently Murdoch's (pictured) is not liked by this Bancroft, who's not giving in, or perhaps he's just trying to drive up the share price?
From CNBC: A Dow Jones board member who is also part of the family that controls the company has launched a last-ditch effort to block a takeover by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.
Christopher Bancroft has recently approached hedge funds, private equity firms and General Electric, hoping to buy enough voting shares of Dow Jones to give him the power to thwart a sale, the paper reported on its Web site, citing people familiar with the matter.
YouTube and Ron Paul Top Technorati Searches Today
Man. I can understand YouTube, but Ron Paul's on Technorati every day. I think Barack Obama would be there too, if the BarackObama.com website were Technorati registered.
Hmm.....
Not taking anything away from Ron Paul.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
PAUL OLIVER and JARED GAITHER Selected In NFL SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
From NFLMEdia.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
(212) 450-2000 * FAX (212) 681-7573
WWW.NFLMedia.com
Joe Browne, Executive Vice President-Communications
Greg Aiello, Vice President-Public Relations
FOR USE AS DESIRED
7/12/07
TWO PLAYERS SELECTED IN NFL SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
The San Diego Chargers and Baltimore Ravens each selected a player in today’s seven-round
supplemental draft, the NFL announced today.
The Chargers, picking 28th, chose cornerback PAUL OLIVER of Georgia in the fourth round.
The Ravens, selecting 31st, picked Maryland tackle JARED GAITHER in the fifth round.
Oliver, 6-0 and 208 pounds, was among Georgia leaders in tackles last season (fifth with 57)
and registered two sacks. He limited the No. 2 overall selection in the 2007 NFL Draft, Georgia
Tech wide receiver CALVIN JOHNSON (Detroit), to two catches for 13 yards in the Bulldogs’
season-finale win last year. In 2005, Oliver won Georgia’s Most Improved Defensive Player
Award.
The 6-9, 350-pound Gaither started 17 of Maryland’s last 21 games at either left or right tackle.
As a freshman in 2005, he did not allow a sack from his left tackle position. Gaither was rated
as the No. 3 prep-school prospect in the nation by a scouting service while at Hargrave Military
Academy in Virginia.
With today’s selections, San Diego and Baltimore thus forgo the corresponding picks in the
2008 NFL Draft.
There were no other players selected today.
The supplemental draft was conducted by computer from NFL headquarters in New York.
# # #
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
(212) 450-2000 * FAX (212) 681-7573
WWW.NFLMedia.com
Joe Browne, Executive Vice President-Communications
Greg Aiello, Vice President-Public Relations
FOR USE AS DESIRED
7/12/07
TWO PLAYERS SELECTED IN NFL SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
The San Diego Chargers and Baltimore Ravens each selected a player in today’s seven-round
supplemental draft, the NFL announced today.
The Chargers, picking 28th, chose cornerback PAUL OLIVER of Georgia in the fourth round.
The Ravens, selecting 31st, picked Maryland tackle JARED GAITHER in the fifth round.
Oliver, 6-0 and 208 pounds, was among Georgia leaders in tackles last season (fifth with 57)
and registered two sacks. He limited the No. 2 overall selection in the 2007 NFL Draft, Georgia
Tech wide receiver CALVIN JOHNSON (Detroit), to two catches for 13 yards in the Bulldogs’
season-finale win last year. In 2005, Oliver won Georgia’s Most Improved Defensive Player
Award.
The 6-9, 350-pound Gaither started 17 of Maryland’s last 21 games at either left or right tackle.
As a freshman in 2005, he did not allow a sack from his left tackle position. Gaither was rated
as the No. 3 prep-school prospect in the nation by a scouting service while at Hargrave Military
Academy in Virginia.
With today’s selections, San Diego and Baltimore thus forgo the corresponding picks in the
2008 NFL Draft.
There were no other players selected today.
The supplemental draft was conducted by computer from NFL headquarters in New York.
# # #
Upper-Income African-American Donors back Obama Over Clinton
This is a little-reported story I found at the USA Today.
Upper-Income African-American Donors back Obama Over Clinton
June 13, 2007
Orlan and Zina Johnson pose with Barack Obama during an April 2007 event at the Columbus Club that raised more than $400,000. Obama has received nearly double the number of contributions from zipcodes with high concentrations of wealthy African Americans than his closest Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, USA TODAY analysis shows.
"I think (Barack Obama is) the right guy at the right time. The fact that he's African-American is part of it. But at the end of the day, he's got the educational pedigree, the intelligence. He's got the skills, all the things you'd like to see in your leader."
— Democratic contributor Orlan Johnson
USA TODAY compiled this analysis using campaign contribution reports of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton with the Federal Election Commission and from demographic data supplied by Claritas, a marketing information firm.
ZIP codes were included if they contained a larger share of black households than the national average (13%). A ZIP code also was included in the analysis if its black median household income topped the comparable national figure of $31,000. USA TODAY also studied subgroups of ZIP codes where black median household incomes topped $50,000 and $75,000.
By Fredreka Schouten and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama is surpassing rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in campaign contributions from areas with blacks of above-average income, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The Illinois senator has received more than double the number of campaign contributions from ZIP codes with sizable concentrations of upper-income blacks than Clinton, according to the analysis of first-quarter campaign records.
FIRST-TIME DONOR: 'He's the right guy at the right time'
Obama collected more than 2,200 donations from ZIP codes that ranked above average in both the share of black households and black household incomes, the analysis found.
Clinton received 1,000 donations from these areas. Overall, Obama raised nearly as much as the New York senator did in the first quarter from all sources.
Polls show the former first lady attracts more support from women and lower-income workers than her party rivals. Obama does better with independents and higher-income voters. The analysis is another sign that economics drives their support as much as race or gender.
Black voters are crucial to choosing a Democratic presidential nominee. In South Carolina, host of an early nominating contest, blacks account for nearly half the voters in the Jan. 29 Democratic primary. Obama is seeking to be his party's first black presidential nominee.
Obama's early success raising money from blacks is a sign of how much he has energized them and the challenge posed to Clinton, who is aggressively courting black voters.
Although blacks "can be excited about and loyal to politicians of other races … people lean toward members of their own group," said Carol Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University. She said the donor patterns are a "reality check" for Clinton, whose husband was popular among blacks.
Minyon Moore, a senior Clinton adviser, said it was "natural" that Obama would appeal to black donors. "We're not ceding that ground," Moore said. Clinton "has a great deal of support in the African-American community."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign is "proud of the level of support we have achieved from all groups."
Upper-Income African-American Donors back Obama Over Clinton
June 13, 2007
Orlan and Zina Johnson pose with Barack Obama during an April 2007 event at the Columbus Club that raised more than $400,000. Obama has received nearly double the number of contributions from zipcodes with high concentrations of wealthy African Americans than his closest Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, USA TODAY analysis shows.
"I think (Barack Obama is) the right guy at the right time. The fact that he's African-American is part of it. But at the end of the day, he's got the educational pedigree, the intelligence. He's got the skills, all the things you'd like to see in your leader."
— Democratic contributor Orlan Johnson
USA TODAY compiled this analysis using campaign contribution reports of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton with the Federal Election Commission and from demographic data supplied by Claritas, a marketing information firm.
ZIP codes were included if they contained a larger share of black households than the national average (13%). A ZIP code also was included in the analysis if its black median household income topped the comparable national figure of $31,000. USA TODAY also studied subgroups of ZIP codes where black median household incomes topped $50,000 and $75,000.
By Fredreka Schouten and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama is surpassing rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in campaign contributions from areas with blacks of above-average income, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The Illinois senator has received more than double the number of campaign contributions from ZIP codes with sizable concentrations of upper-income blacks than Clinton, according to the analysis of first-quarter campaign records.
FIRST-TIME DONOR: 'He's the right guy at the right time'
Obama collected more than 2,200 donations from ZIP codes that ranked above average in both the share of black households and black household incomes, the analysis found.
Clinton received 1,000 donations from these areas. Overall, Obama raised nearly as much as the New York senator did in the first quarter from all sources.
Polls show the former first lady attracts more support from women and lower-income workers than her party rivals. Obama does better with independents and higher-income voters. The analysis is another sign that economics drives their support as much as race or gender.
Black voters are crucial to choosing a Democratic presidential nominee. In South Carolina, host of an early nominating contest, blacks account for nearly half the voters in the Jan. 29 Democratic primary. Obama is seeking to be his party's first black presidential nominee.
Obama's early success raising money from blacks is a sign of how much he has energized them and the challenge posed to Clinton, who is aggressively courting black voters.
Although blacks "can be excited about and loyal to politicians of other races … people lean toward members of their own group," said Carol Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University. She said the donor patterns are a "reality check" for Clinton, whose husband was popular among blacks.
Minyon Moore, a senior Clinton adviser, said it was "natural" that Obama would appeal to black donors. "We're not ceding that ground," Moore said. Clinton "has a great deal of support in the African-American community."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign is "proud of the level of support we have achieved from all groups."
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Joss Whedon Goes Off On "Captivity" Movie - And He's Right!
This is the best and most appropriate rant to a world-wide problem: the reduction of the importance of women.
Let's Watch A Girl Get Beaten To Death - Joss Whedon
This is not my blog, but I don’t have a blog, or a space, and I’d like to be heard for a bit.
Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.
There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken – by more than one phone – from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool.
I could start a rant about the level to which we have become desensitized to violence, about the evils of the voyeuristic digital world in which everything is shown and everything is game, but honestly, it’s been said. And I certainly have no jingoistic cultural agenda. I like to think that in America this would be considered unbearably appalling, that Kitty Genovese is still remembered, that we are more evolved. But coincidentally, right before I stumbled on this vid I watched the trailer for “Captivity”.
A few of you may know that I took public exception to the billboard campaign for this film, which showed a concise narrative of the kidnapping, torture and murder of a sexy young woman. I wanted to see if the film was perhaps more substantial (especially given the fact that it was directed by “The Killing Fields” Roland Joffe) than the exploitive ad campaign had painted it. The trailer resembles nothing so much as the CNN story on Dua Khalil. Pretty much all you learn is that Elisha Cuthbert is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured, and that the first thing she screams is “I’m sorry”.
“I’m sorry.”
What is wrong with women?
I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.
How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.
I try to think how we got here. The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they’re also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, “If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful.” It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true. How else to explain the fact that cultures who would die to eradicate each other have always agreed on one issue? That every popular religion puts restrictions on women’s behavior that are practically untenable? That the act of being a free, attractive, self-assertive woman is punishable by torture and death? In the case of this upcoming torture-porn, fictional. In the case of Dua Khalil, mundanely, unthinkably real. And both available for your viewing pleasure.
It’s safe to say that I’ve snapped. That something broke, like one of those robots you can conquer with a logical conundrum. All my life I’ve looked at this faulty equation, trying to understand, and I’ve shorted out. I don’t pretend to be a great guy; I know really really well about objectification, trust me. And I’m not for a second going down the “women are saints” route – that just leads to more stone-throwing (and occasional Joan-burning). I just think there is the staggering imbalance in the world that we all just take for granted. If we were all told the sky was evil, or at best a little embarrassing, and we ought not look at it, wouldn’t that tradition eventually fall apart? (I was going to use ‘trees’ as my example, but at the rate we’re getting rid of them I’m pretty sure we really do think they’re evil. See how all rants become one?)
Now those of you who frequent this site are, in my wildly biased opinion, fairly evolved. You may hear nothing new here. You may be way ahead of me. But I can’t contain my despair, for Dua Khalil, for humanity, for the world we’re shaping. Those of you who have followed the link I set up know that it doesn’t bring you to a video of a murder. It brings you to a place of sanity, of people who have never stopped asking the question of what is wrong with this world and have set about trying to change the answer. Because it’s no longer enough to be a decent person. It’s no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I’ve always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I’m beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red.
All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause – there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. If you can’t think of what to do, there is this handy link. Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that. Any one of you would have cried out, would have intervened, had you been in that crowd in Bashiqa. Well thanks to digital technology, you’re all in it now.
I have never had any faith in humanity. But I will give us props on this: if we can evolve, invent and theorize our way into the technologically magical, culturally diverse and artistically magnificent race we are and still get people to buy the idiotic idea that half of us are inferior, we’re pretty amazing. Let our next sleight of hand be to make that myth disappear.
The sky isn’t evil. Try looking up.
Let's Watch A Girl Get Beaten To Death - Joss Whedon
This is not my blog, but I don’t have a blog, or a space, and I’d like to be heard for a bit.
Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.
There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken – by more than one phone – from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool.
I could start a rant about the level to which we have become desensitized to violence, about the evils of the voyeuristic digital world in which everything is shown and everything is game, but honestly, it’s been said. And I certainly have no jingoistic cultural agenda. I like to think that in America this would be considered unbearably appalling, that Kitty Genovese is still remembered, that we are more evolved. But coincidentally, right before I stumbled on this vid I watched the trailer for “Captivity”.
A few of you may know that I took public exception to the billboard campaign for this film, which showed a concise narrative of the kidnapping, torture and murder of a sexy young woman. I wanted to see if the film was perhaps more substantial (especially given the fact that it was directed by “The Killing Fields” Roland Joffe) than the exploitive ad campaign had painted it. The trailer resembles nothing so much as the CNN story on Dua Khalil. Pretty much all you learn is that Elisha Cuthbert is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured, and that the first thing she screams is “I’m sorry”.
“I’m sorry.”
What is wrong with women?
I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.
How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.
I try to think how we got here. The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they’re also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, “If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful.” It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true. How else to explain the fact that cultures who would die to eradicate each other have always agreed on one issue? That every popular religion puts restrictions on women’s behavior that are practically untenable? That the act of being a free, attractive, self-assertive woman is punishable by torture and death? In the case of this upcoming torture-porn, fictional. In the case of Dua Khalil, mundanely, unthinkably real. And both available for your viewing pleasure.
It’s safe to say that I’ve snapped. That something broke, like one of those robots you can conquer with a logical conundrum. All my life I’ve looked at this faulty equation, trying to understand, and I’ve shorted out. I don’t pretend to be a great guy; I know really really well about objectification, trust me. And I’m not for a second going down the “women are saints” route – that just leads to more stone-throwing (and occasional Joan-burning). I just think there is the staggering imbalance in the world that we all just take for granted. If we were all told the sky was evil, or at best a little embarrassing, and we ought not look at it, wouldn’t that tradition eventually fall apart? (I was going to use ‘trees’ as my example, but at the rate we’re getting rid of them I’m pretty sure we really do think they’re evil. See how all rants become one?)
Now those of you who frequent this site are, in my wildly biased opinion, fairly evolved. You may hear nothing new here. You may be way ahead of me. But I can’t contain my despair, for Dua Khalil, for humanity, for the world we’re shaping. Those of you who have followed the link I set up know that it doesn’t bring you to a video of a murder. It brings you to a place of sanity, of people who have never stopped asking the question of what is wrong with this world and have set about trying to change the answer. Because it’s no longer enough to be a decent person. It’s no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I’ve always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I’m beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red.
All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause – there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. If you can’t think of what to do, there is this handy link. Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that. Any one of you would have cried out, would have intervened, had you been in that crowd in Bashiqa. Well thanks to digital technology, you’re all in it now.
I have never had any faith in humanity. But I will give us props on this: if we can evolve, invent and theorize our way into the technologically magical, culturally diverse and artistically magnificent race we are and still get people to buy the idiotic idea that half of us are inferior, we’re pretty amazing. Let our next sleight of hand be to make that myth disappear.
The sky isn’t evil. Try looking up.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)