Speculation

When I listen to music, I tend to apply the lyrics to my life. The most powerful thing about music is the emotion it can evoke when you connect to it. I have a song for every mood, and I have a mood for every song. There are specific artists or songs that make me feel especially “love-sick”. Since I am a pretty pathetic romantic, I chose my playlist to reflect what I feel on a day filled with fantasies of what love has been like for me, what I want it to be, and what it could be. If I am thinking about an old fashioned good time with dancing and long dinner conversation, Frank Sinatra is always good. Ben Harper has a way to open old wounds and make me cry like a baby. If I am daydreaming and just being a gushy girl, I put on a little Sarah McLaughlin. Tracy Chapman can get me on any level... happy, hopeful, sad, even adventurous. I am quite a sappy daydreamer, and this playlist is perfect for one of those days:
Fast Car- Tracy Chapman
Blue Skies- Willie Nelson
My Beloved One- Ben Harper
I Believe- Sarah McLaughlin
Lay You Down- Jack Johnson and The Animal Liberation Orchestra
When I’m Not Myself (?)- John Mayer
Sic Transit Gloria- Brand New
Hard Headed Woman- Cat Stevens
Somebody’s Cryin- Chris Isaak
Lover Lay Down- Dave Matthews
Takes Some Time- Jimmy Eat World
Wonderful Tonight- Eric Clapton
Heaven Help- Lenny Kravitz
Sex and Candy- Marcy Playground
Let’s Get it On- Marvin Gaye
Your Body’s Callin- R.Kelly
Creep- Radiohead
Gently- Tenacious D (Jack Black)
With or Without You- U2
Dancing in the Moonlight- Van Morrison
We’re Going to be Friends- White Stripes

An Affair to Remember is a movie directed by Leo McCarey in 1957. It is a classic romance aboard a ship where two people, played by Kary Grant and Deborah Kerr, that are both attached to other people, fall in love. The man is a well known bachelor that plays the field, and before he got on the ship, he announced that he was engaged. It was all over the news and he was getting publicity that I can’t say he discouraged. Kerr, playing an ex- nightclub singer was aboard the boat traveling for leisure. She tried to escape the cameras following him, but he didn’t care. Once the boat docked, the two made a promise to get their lives together and meet on the top of the empire state building in six months. Kerr was on her way to meet him and got in a tragic accident that prevented them from reuniting. Grant eventually found his love and they ended up together. You almost thought the movie was going to end without Kerr confessing her accident because of pride, but he figures it out.
Unlike the original, the woman in Love Affair, played by Annette Bening, is announced to be married on the news in the beginning. More like today, Bening and her mate, played by Warren Beatty, are equally successful. Instead of the woman being the “lucky” one to snag the most eligible bachelor, it was asked “who’s with her”? It was, however, hinted that like the original, he was still a lady’s man when his watch was handed to him flirtatiously by woman he worked with. Instead of starting on a boat, the movie began on plane. Instead of a week together, a few days. Instead of 6 months until they meet again, 3 months. All this represents how things are fast-paced these days. Trips are faster, love blossoms faster, and the only thing that is slower is our patience- especially as an audience. Their contact is more quickly begun by a near crash. They only ended up on a boat to get to a vacation place since the plane was forced to land on an island. Not as much was left to imagination. In the original, the notes each received from their lovers ashore weren’t revealed as to what they said, in the remake they were. The reinventions in the remake weren’t necessary or creative.
In the original, they agree to meet on to of the Empire State Building, and a part of the agreement was that if one wasn’t there it was for a really important urgent reason. In the remake, they agreed the same, but in the agreement they said if one person didn’t show, there would be “no pestering” or phone calls. The love was deeper and more believable in the original. They didn’t hint at the fact that their love may fail, and I guess today it is more likely that meeting someone like that is a mere fantasy that will dissolve. Still, it took away from the moment.
I already knew if the original was good enough, I wouldn’t like the remake. Sure enough the remake of An Affair to Remember was repelling. Actually, I couldn’t even find any room to enjoy it. I can watch daytime trash TV when I am bored, but this wasn’t even that engaging. Love Affair did not do a good job reinventing the romance that made the original so alluring and sensual. The way the the romantic dramas were made back then- with every word slowly dripping off the lover’s lips, every touch lingering, and every gaze sincere and unrushed. I just don’t think you can get as intense of a connection when trying to remake something and portray it through the ways of today, while trying to hold onto the same concept. Not quite enough twist was given to the remake, and it was almost stuck between the original and somewhere else. The vacuous reinvention of scenes tried to keep the same emotion by keeping same exact actions as a tribute to the original. The remake was too afraid to approach new representations.
Grant and Kerr gave stellar performances, and the mystery of his pursuit for her was wanted. It left me eager to watch as each scene ended with the thought of them getting together. The deliberate imperceptible moves the characters gave was dreamy. It added effect to maybe how love once was before this fast paced world existed. Courting is no longer a game, but a single play. And maybe the speed of things today has taken the magic out of people trusting in taking their time with love?
Love Affair tried to cater to the new audience, taking into account that times are different. The roles of men and women are different. Women aren’t just educated to keep their spouse interested, but to have a career. Unfortunately the rushed attitudes of both characters didn’t give me chance to like them. Instead of the long silences in the original, the remake filled each moment with awkward banter that didn’t quite make it. I rest my case in saying the in order to remake a film, the most important criteria is that it can stand up against the original. This one can’t even stand alone.

Brooke Gladstone with On the Media discusses the issue of civilian casualties in Iraq with Human Rights watcher Marc Garlasco. The dilemma is whether or not the fixation on accurate numbers takes away from the focus on why casualties keep rising, and how to stop all the dying. There have been different methodologies for gathering numbers and figuring out statistics, however many of them are quickly refuted from reasons such as skepticism on the way the numbers were computed or fast-tracking results because of the election.
According to Garlasco, it is not the issue of numbers, it is the fact that people are dying. If we get so consumed with what is accurate and how the data was collected, we will start losing sight of the real problem, and that is that countless innocent lives are being taken in Iraq. Gladstone responds saying that having numbers is crucial due to the fact that it has more of an impact on the public, and the media will then have a more solid thing to give the public hold on to. The point is that more people are dying in Iraq than what was imagined, and the numbers create a vivid picture of the direction this is headed. Gladstone brought up the fact that 50,000 people died in Vietnam, and today that stands for everything that went wrong with that war. Think about the fact that it has been estimated, including extreme opposite estimations, that between 8,000 and 190,000 people have already died in Iraq. Even if it is around 10,000, the lower estimation, that is a truly unreal amount of people to die if half the reason for going into those countries was to help those civilians establish a just government.
I assume that if there wasn’t organizations that counted bodies and watchdogged the war in Iraq, so many more avoidable casualties would occur. Nobody wants to be watched when they are doing something unjust or wrong. Human Rights Watch is here to protect human rights. In the words of the independent, non-government funded organization, “This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world.” HRW is made up of about 150 lawyers, journalists, academics, and a growing number of volunteers. The gist is that if you dedicate to equal human rights, accurate reporting, and network with individuals and groups around the world, then anything is possible. In order to avoid any government control, they don’t accept any government funding. Having the independence allows HRW to give information as it happens, how it happens. From creating a worldwide treaty that is successfully raising the minimum age for participation in armed conflict to 18, to having such accurate, extensive and in depth reporting that they have helped to convict genocidaires in Rwanda, HRW is beginning to change many things throughout the world.
It is important to hear citizens that work for citizens, people that work for the people, humans that work for humanity. They are us, we are them. We aren’t the government. All we have to worry about is our rights, not conflict of interest worries that hinder factual journalism, no decisions about things that may hurt business relationships... It is so important to join in and speak with the voice that represents us, and to remember that each human being deserves the same rights as the next. If injustices continue, it is only so long that we, perfectly privileged Americans, will have our rights trampled as well.

“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” is a documentary directed by Robert Greenwald on the conservative bias of the Fox News Channel. Through interviews with former Fox employees and other compelling and disconcerting footage, a sharp image of narrow minded disapproval for “alternative” views is reiterated time and time again. This film explores the dangers of one man owning too much. Media is controlled by so few, and when we only get what those few want us to get, the impact on society is full of unfairness.
Most of the people that spoke on this film were either media experts or former Fox employees. Some remained anonymous to maintain security with their current jobs. It had been said numerous times that while working for Fox, individuals were encouraged with cryptic memos to stay to the right wing of things, and they would, for fear of losing their job. Clara Frank, a former Fox producer, stated that she felt pushed to be conservative. An anonymous interviewee said that if “you challenge them, you are history”.
Another thing Clara Frank noticed while working for Fox and dealing with the program Hannity and Colmes, was that there were well known conservatives on the roster, but only a few unknown liberals. Conservatives made up 83% of the partisan guests. Anything that made democrats look stupid got on the air, and it was made into news- no matter how insignificant.
When news comes from one ideological perspective, it thwarts the public. What happens to our right to know is that it gets smudged out. If you think back to Edward S. Herman, he discusses the problems with corporate ownership, and it’s veer from democracy. He states that “The power of the US propaganda system lies in its ability to mobilize an elite consensus, to give an appearance of democratic consent, and to create enough confusion, misunderstanding, and apathy to allow elite programs to go forward (p261)”. His argument is that news gets framed around elite interests, and that is where the debate lies.
Unfortunately during campaigning and election times, getting biased information can really injure the public’s chances at a “fair and balanced” decision. According to media expert Jeff Cohen of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), what people learn about candidates is what media tells them. This can be discussed in relation to Fox’s image of being patriotic and being true Americans. When you go on as a guest and share opposing views, for example with BIll O’Reilly, you get pegged as anti-American. With images of flags flowing behind every newscaster, who could possibly make a better call on whose American enough?
It is scary to think that Fox has so much control. Just think of the last election. When Fox announced Bush won the election, every other network news station followed their lead, turning what was a jump the gun assumption into a perceived fact. This system of control is partly made up of the generation of fear and doubt. As long as the American public thinks bad things are happening to them, or good things are happening because of the war, they are more likely going to back up anything that “seems” like it is working. From using 9/11 families to evoke sympathy and create support for war (Jeremy Glick on Bill O’Reilly Factor), to showing footage of a happy Iraq... everything comes from the promotion department, even if it is subjugating the public.
Author John Nichols stated that a “narrow discourse” equals a “lesser democracy”. I believe this is true. How can you have a fair and balanced media when it is owned by such a powerful conservative man as Rupert Murdoch? He is using his power and money to manipulate the media at the expense of democracy. In the Information Society Reader Garnham suggests the following: "Journalists are not in any way accountable to the public they claim to serve and themselves constitute a distinct interest. How then are we to ensure that this expository function [balance and objectivity, information search and exposition] is carried out responsibly (p364)?"
In order to regain a democratic media, society needs to rely on other sources, no matter what your beliefs or views. Fair.org specifically states that “almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States are owned by for-profit corporations.” This cannot be ignored. The obvious conflict of interest is putting what we deserve to know at risk. Responsible journalism will not prevail if news is dictated by money and power.

Why is it that Liberals are sometimes considered naive idealists by Conservatives? And why is it that Conservatives are sometimes considered inflexible and indomitable? Both sides of the political spectrum carry with them biases and generalizations. These generalizations are prominent every single day in every article on Bush or Kerry.
I read an article on CNN.com called “Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote”. The issue is that another Bush ad is coming out that uses one of Kerry’s quotes as fuel to pinning him as unknowledgeable in the area of war. The argument is that the Bush campaign keeps using Kerry’s quotes out of context to unfairly discredit him.
Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Bush campaign, said in this article that Kerry’s views are pre-9/11 and it makes him unfit to deal with the war. Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie held the same tone saying that “[Kerry] demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer.” However Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer stated that “...John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multi pronged approach. It's not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S."
Why is it that what is represented as truth on either side is so opposite? I am confused with the fact that campaigns can take a quote out of context and use it to their advantage, while in the process losing all original meaning of what was actually said. Going back to what I started with... in the media about the debates there is much talk that Bush is so inflexible and Kerry is a flip flopper. Bush seems to present himself as too much of a realist, resisting change of mind and not admitting to mistakes. Kerry has been pegged as irrational and unrealistically optimistic on war issues. Obviously the spin factor comes in, and bias provides for support of the side you are on. My question is what is better in this time of urgency? To be an extreme realist- someone who is practical and pragmatic, or an idealist- a visionary and an optimist? Des being a realist blind you to other options, and does being an idealist cloud the ability to see the problem?
I started to think about what I read in the article in the reader “Christianity and Power Politics”. I never thought I would look at liberalism in this light, but is it too idealistic? Can the optimism focused on human nature impose on logical reasoning? I never thought of democracy and liberalism as different concepts, but I can see how it is thought that liberalism can be “too simple a creed to suit the complexities of our tragic era (p85)”. Possibly too idealistic. According to this reading, democracy is more focused on truth, and government provides a process in which truth can be discovered.
I am starting to see that in such chaos, idealistic views can endanger our country. It is important to be strong and skeptical. Even though I still believe that the way campaigns and media present our presidential candidates is skewed, it makes me tilt my head in another direction to see how those views manifested. I am worried about Kerry’s ability to deal with this war Bush started, but I more concerned about misrepresenting his statements. Who has a better approach to running our country? It is so important to know and understand what each candidate believes and what they have planned, and if we keep getting this spun out coverage, we won’t know what’s really being said by either one.