“Getcha a case of beer for that!”

After hastily writing a column based on a viewing, last Friday evening, of the WikiLeak video, titled “<a href =http://collateralmurder.com/>Collateral Murder</a>,” of a shooting in Iraq, this writer delayed posting it early Saturday monring.  In reconsidering the implications of what we had seen and what the event meant as Saturday progressed, we realized that our quick take on the topic had omitted two important aspects of our reaction to what we had seen.

It seems to this writer that the video portrays a news event that deserved far more extensive coverage and analysis than it got.  Perhaps there was a big fuss and the fact that our only access to coverage was mostly limited to some talk radio programs and some quick scans of online websites, explains our assumption that it has passed practically unnoticed.  Noting that American Journalism had fumbled away a major news story is becoming a major recurring theme in contemporary American culture (and our columns).

Movie reviewers value originality and if one movie echoes a previous effort that will usually be a part of the reviews of the new film.  For instance when this columnist first saw “A Simple Plan” (the 1998 film directed by Sam Raimi), we noted as we watched the film that there were strong parallels with the classic movie “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”  After seeing the film, we then read reviews and noted that some well known and respected film critics mentioned noticing the similarity to the classic award winning film from the late forties.

Watching the real life events portrayed in “Collateral Murder,” this columnist got the strong impression that what he was seeing was a reality TV attempt to plagiarize a sequence seen in the commercial film “Apocalypse Now.”   We kept expecting to see the shot where Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvale) says:  “Getcha a case of beer for that one!”

Pedestrians in Berkeley on Friday night, scurried past the video display with a remarkable level of lack of interest and of the ones who stopped to chat with the activists involved in the public event, the attitude, as perceived by this columnist, can be described as being equal measures of levity mixed with arrogant distain.

Imagine, if you will, that American newsmen covering the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials conducted “man in the street” interviews with German Citizens and got “So what?” responses.  Would that have become a major news story? 

So American Journalism scores the amazing achievement of committing (in baseball terminology) two errors at once.  They miss the story behind the shootings, and then they also miss America’s remarkable complacency about new war crimes.

Here, for what it’s worth, is the inappropriate lighthearted and whimsical column that was written the morning after seeing the “Collateral Murder” DVD in Berkeley:
On the evening of August 20, 2010, in downtown Berkeley, activists from the World Can’t Wait group showed the DVD titled Collateral Murder showing the WikiLeak footage of events which took place in Baghdad in July of 2007.

This columnist, who had only seen still photos from the footage and some commentary on the video, took the opportunity to see the DVD and talk to the activists and members of the public who stopped to look at the video.

Most pedestrians hustled past and seemed blasé about any need to consider the debate over the footage. 

One young activist, apparently of high school age, lamented the lack of other concerned young people. 

Two passersby were talking to a member of the World Can’t Wait group and they informed the columnist that they were associated with Cal Berkeley in the capacity of currently or recently enrolled students. 

The one who had debating experience projected an aura of amused distain.  His amount of sympathy for the journalists who got shot in the footage being shown was about equal to the extent of compassion shown by the cartoon character Super Chicken, who often had to remind his companion, a lion named Fred:  “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.”

The debater grumpily admitted that collateral damage during war was regrettable, but it was entirely within the range of tolerable numbers which could reasonably be expected under the circumstances.

His rather broad grin projected an image of frat-boy levity that reminded the columnist that Rush Limbaugh had described the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as being on the same level as required at college fraternity initiation ceremonies. 

That, in turn, reminded the columnist of the fact that the first time former President George W. Bush had his name mentioned in the New York Times was when they quoted him, in the late Sixties, as saying that the use of branding at the university he was attending was just a bit of college frat frivolity and of no concern to outsiders. 

This columnist has yet to determine how tolerant dedicated compassionate Christian conservatives are when it comes time to assess the morality of the old American tradition of playing the game of “human ashtray.” 

The video itself included the radio chatter that accompanied the events depicted and listening to the lighthearted enthusiasm of the participants, reminded the columnist of the sequence in Apocalypse Now when Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore (Robert Duvall) commends one of his men and adds “Getcha a case of beer for that one!”

The aforementioned debater intimated that journalists covering a war could reasonably expect that a grave in a national cemetery might have a high likelihood level of probability and when challenged with the assertion that the events in Iraq were more likely to have a deadly result for journalists than similar service during World War II did, he (as all good debaters must) challenged the assertion. 

By a remarkable co-inky-dink, the columnist just happened to have scanned page 742 of Frank Luther Mott’s book American Journalism (Macmillan Company hardback) earlier that day and had the fact that a “grand total of 1,646 newsmen” had participated in WWII.  The number of newsmen included the fact that (page 743) “Many women acted as war correspondents.”  We did not have the total number of journalists killed in both Iraq and WWII available, however.

[Did you know that Leaah Burdette of <I>PM</I> was slain by bandits in Iran, in 1942?  (Ibid.)]

The math major stoutly maintained that more newsies were killed in WWII than have been killed in Iraq.  Without knowing the specific numbers he authoritatively proclaimed that if the percentages were (hypothetical numbers) 2% in WWII vs. 15% in Iraq, the older number would be higher and thus 2% was larger than 15%.

It was obvious to the columnist and the students, that the topic was of no great consequences, which it would have been if the subject for discussion had, instead, been the prospects for a UCB win over USC this fall, and so the two young men (the math major was complaining of the ambient air temperature) went off to pursue the ghost of Jay Gatsby.

Anyone who compares the newsreel footage from the Nuemburg War Crimes Trials with the video displayed in the “Collateral Murder” DVD would have to enter a plea of <I>nolo contendere</I> if the basis for comparison were to be the level of levity displayed by the participants.

War correspondents may come and then drift away in a red mist, but it is blatantly obvious that if American voters were forced to make a choice, they would much prefer to have a beer at a tailgate party with the guys who “engaged” the terrorists purporting to be medical aid personnel coming to treat the fatally wounded journalists in the DVD than they would be to drink with the Nuremberg rascals.

The public reaction to the World Can’t Wait event was probably epitomized by the woman who stated that she wanted the war to end, but she didn’t want to get arrested.

Luckily for all concerned, America’s last combat troops had left Iraq the same week, thus rendering moot, all the concomitant lively discussions.

A letter of apology, signed by two members of Bravo Company 2-16 and reprinted on a World Can’t Wait flyer, says:  “With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. . . . Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.”

Now the disk jockey will play “That’s Alright Mama,” “The Night They Burned Old Dixie Down,” and the theme from “Gone with the Wind.”  We have to go find a new topic to amuse the bread and circuses crowd.  Have a “Charlie, don’t surf” type week.

“Contradicting isn’t arguing!” (“Yes, it is!”)

The famous philosopher Montague Python devised the most popular circular argument of all times when he posited the hypotheses that contradicting is a legitimate, scholarly method of argumentation and he subsequently spawned a cottage industry in academic circles for professors and PhD candidates to assert the converse theorem:  “No; it isn’t!”

The Republicans have adapted the Python-esque attitude regarding the possibility that global warming will kill off all the polar bears (even the massive colony of expat white bears living in zoos around the world?) by disqualifying any scientific preditions designed to elicit sympathy for the gigantic brutes.

The Democrats have embraced the challenge in such a wholehearted and enthusiastic way that some observers are alarmed about the possibility that the Democrats are showing symptoms of addiction in their compulsive responses to the Republican invitations to put aside substantive topics and, instead, waste some campaign time by continually injecting new scientific information into the argument which, by the Republican ground rules, automatically disqualifies the material that is (in the Republicans’ august opinion) worthy of a room of its own in the Mad Scientists Hall of Fame.

Here is a hypothetical transcript of how to play the game:

Dem:  A new scientific report says that all polar bears will drown because the polar ice cap is melting.

Rep:  Where does it say that in the Bible?

Dem:  But if you read the report, surely, you will admit that without a polar ice cap, the polar bears will soon disappear form this earth.

Rep:  Don’t call me Shirley. 

Dem:  So you don’t care if all the polar bears drown? 

Rep:  Polar bears are known for their remarkable long distance swimming ability, polar bear skeletons have been found on Samoa.  (Republicans are not confined to reality.  For Democrats, truth is a self imposed restriction limiting their retorts.)

Dem:  Don’t you care about Global Warming?

Rep:  If you could prove it exists, I most certainly would, but for now, I think it’s like the “theory” that if I flap my arms fast enough, I’ll start to fly.  Aren’t scientists the ones who say that, according to the laws of aerodynamics, bees can’t fly?

Dem:  I’ll do anything I have to, to prove that Global Warming really exists.

Rep:  Anything? . . . ?

Dem:  Science has proved conclusively that global warming is occurring and that polar bears are in peril. 

Rep:  No!  It doesn’t!

Here’s a suggestion for Democrats who want to argue logically and simultaneously break out of their addiction to the Monty Python game:  issue this challenge:  given the fact that you don’t believe in Global Warming because you don’t’ believe in science, how about this:  The Democratic Party will build you a World Headquarters for the Science Skeptics (AKA the Republican elite SS Society) Association on the atomic proving ground’s “Ground Zero” conveniently located close to Las Vegas!  Whatcha say?  Free! 

At that point the Republicans would face a philosophic crisis.  They must accept the dare because if they decline the offer, the discussion will then put them on the defensive.  If they want to decline the offer based on any scientific reasons, then they have been  proven to be hypocrites; if they decline and attribute it to “common sense,” then they can be asked what common sense tells them about the photos that show a shrinking polar icecap.  If they don’t believe in photos; ask them if you can buy all their family album photos, home movies, and negatives.  Do they use family snapshots to remind themselves that grandpa and grandma really existed (and looked groovy in their youth?)?  If they don’t believe in photographic evidence, then they don’t need family snapshots and should jump at the chance to sell them off.  Isn’t offering a Republican a chance to make some easy money just like offering a drink to an alcoholic?

If they accept the offer, the Democrats should use reconciliation to get legal permission to build such a facility and then they should build it and turn it over to the Republican Society of Science Skeptics.

If the Democrats wanted to use methodology as mean and crooked as the Republicans utilize, they might want to run ads showing victims of disabilities acquired by fighting in territory where Agent Orange was used.  The spokesmen could then say that only scientists disapproved of using Agent Orange and that there was absolutely nothing in the Bible that would indicate that there was any reason to avoid waging war with or living where it had been used for defoliation.  Has the use Agent Orange been abandoned in the Bush Wars just because of scientific evidence?  (Have you noticed that there are no trees or vegetables growing in the Tora Bora pass?)

What does the Bible say about accepting this generous offer (a free headquarters building on Ground Zero) from the Democrats?  Did any polar bears offer to testify at the Scope’s Trial?

Question:  If Bible thumping conservatives are diagnosed with cancer do they seek help by going to an African witch doctor or do they head for an American doctor who relies heavily on science?  What does the Bible say about chemo-therapy?  Shouldn’t Republican Christians turn down any and all recommendations for such cancer treatments? 

The Global warming circular argument might, in the final inning, boil down to an old Republican election slogan’s advise:  “If God meant for man to fly; He would have given him wings!”  Amen, brother!

Now, the disk jockey will play the Foreigner’s song “Blinded by Science,” Thomas Dolby’s “She Blinded Me With Science,” and Elvis’ “Viva Las Vegas.”  Whew, we need to go take a reinvigorating look at some photos taken back when it was clever to ask a girl:  “Wanna see my Walmetto?”  Have a “Sock it to me!” type week.

Don’t Do As I Do . . .

(Sydney NSW) Oct. 29  Odds are that you won’t see much mention in the mainstream media in the United States about the debate that will be held this evening at City Recital Hall in Sydney because the topic to be debated will be:  “America has lost its moral authority.”

Bob Carr, former premier of New South Wales, will be on of the speakers for the Affirmative point of view. 

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Paul McGeough will be another on the Affirmative side of the question and in this morning’s edition he outlined his indictment of the Bush Administration saying ” . . . Washington is unashamedly contemptuous of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

If American media were to report on debates such as the one to be held tonight, then the American people might have a more difficult time clinging to the long held image of the United States as “the good guys.” 

Haven’t these Aussie blokes seen the John Wayne movies?  Are they going to be so limited in their outlook that they will base their arguments on the U. S. foreign policy rather than all those feel good movies that brim over with patriotic pride for such things as the liberation of Paris, and D Day, and raising the flag on Iwo Jima?

A columnist for this web site can alert the U. S. audience to such lapses in judgment and recoil in horror as these folks point their fingers in righteous indignation.

Do American debate police brutality because Ned Kelly was hit with gunfire 27 times while he was resisting arrest?  Was that a bit over the line and morally reprehensible?  Americans never raise that question.  The cops did what they had to do.  Kelly was nursed back to health, put on trial and, after being found guilty in a fair trial, sentenced to death.

These critical Aussies who want to castigate George W. Bush for being a tad overenthusiastic about putting an end to terrorism would do well to remember Ned Kelly’s last word:  “Such is life!”  A President does what he has to do to protect his people.

We haven’t decided about going to see tonight’s event, yet.  It certainly sounds like the U. S. is being set up to be found guilty.  Isn’t that what’s called a kangaroo court?

Now, the disk jockey will play “Does Your Chewing Gum Loose It’s Flavor on the Bedpost Overnight” and we’ll hop out of here.  Have a “Good day mate!” type of week.