He's not anti-technology but he's not in love with it?? Must be the fumes from his out-house screwing with what little pea-brain he has left.

"Fiddling" while Rome burns, comes to mind.

sounds like he needs a swift kick with a sabot to the head.

The Apprenticeship of Dhimmi Kravitz.

Someone push the mute button on this pretend teacher, please.

"You have to encourage prose, analysis and detail -- otherwise people will go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without really knowing why."

Real translation: If you don't think before you go to war, you attack a third-party country like Iraq that wasn't connected to the 9/11 attack, while you leave Saudi Arabia who was the home country of the terrorists in the jets, alone and unpunished.

Some of Richard Dufuus's, ecouraged prose.
"Religion of Peace"
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Richard Duffus said these things?

See what happens when hollywoodies speak without a script!

"encourage prose, analysis and detail" equates to let CNN and the WP tell you what realllly happened because being an eyewitness is so clouding on the judgement.

We watched 9/11 unfold at work. Then we cancelled the day and everyone went home to comfort their families.

Moron.

Why are there even articles appearing in the media with this drivel?

Why do we even read what these High School drop-outs think about foreign policy and important issues?

The MSM perhaps has an agenda?

Oh, that's right, the MSM is under the thumb of Halliburton!

/moonbat off

Looks like commie-boy gets his vital news and information from the Hollywood set, i.e. Doofus, Robbins, Bald-spot, Mike-whale Moore, etc.

And he believes it too--guess what that means? Your a blind consumer of Hollywood propaganda!

Moron's of Hollywood leading their lefty moron brigades even after all these years. United 93 passengers figured out what to do in minutes. Hollywoodheads.

I thought Dreyfuss was the dog on "Empty Nest". But it's clear that it ain't the dog saying those things in this post. The dog is far smarter than Dhimmi Dick Dufuss.

Click on http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ to see what happens when a six year old girl steps a prayer rug/flying carpet.

I really can't understand what all the anger is about; Dreyfuss produced a fairly simple McLuhanesque interpretation of the event. The plain textual description we would have heard in the 1850's ("Two planes crashed into the buildings") would have had nothing like the impact of watching the planes actually hit - and, because it was broadcast all over the world at the same instant, it created an instant reaction, where in the past, it would have taken days, weeks, and months for the story to disseminate, lessening its effect ("Look, last September, two buildings were crashed into" - how compelling is that if you hear it in March?).

Dreyfuss's comment that we needed to encourage "prose, analysis, and detail" is a typical response of detached, literate man; you can be sure that, in the oral, tribal societies of the Arab world, there was no demand for this type of analysis at all - chanting, singing, and dancing were the ways that their communities would and did respond.

Examining something in writing, without the pictures, serves to detach emotion, which can be a useful thing when you're considering war. When it's so easy to push a button and rain down death, I want the people in charge to take their time, think about things, and not react on gut feel or emotional response.

None of this means I'm against the war; I think Bush did the right thing, however badly it is working in the event. I hope we get it right after all is said and done, but I'm not going to pretend that we're not going to have more funerals before it's over.

But to call a guy an idiot for offering up the same type of analysis I'd expect from any first year media studies course - well, that seems a little stupid in itself.

KevinB,
On one hand you are right.

On the other, I don't think McLuhan would draw moral conclusions from an analysis of the "form" of the media exactly as Dufus does. That's getting into a discussion of "content" as he would say, and the media, television in particular, is not a medium for a real, honest debate of ideas, just talking heads spewing propaganda.

Besides, McLuhan was a Catholic (you would have never known) and--were he alive today--would probably advocate for a new crusade against Islam. He would be buddies right there with Oriana Fallaci.

Imagine that, for the first time people in Nigeria and Cairo could actually see and were empthetic to the plight of Americans trapped in those buildings. This is the power of the instantaneous image transmission. And who could forget, the videos of Bin Ladins joy as the towers fell that we all saw afterwards.

We need mentally masticate the details of the crime and attempt to minutely and prosaically determine the source of our anger so that we don't react inappropriately, the muslims wingnuts in question can kill schoolchildren?

I would argue that our need to react was not created by the emotional content of the images, as suggested but rather by the action of flying two aircraft into building killing 2500 people (there's that action-reaction thing again).

** Or am I out of touch with the inner pathos that all humanity shares?**

Umm, exactly how was Iraq tied into 9-11? So if ya grab yer gun and run out shooting before figuring out who yoou should be shooting at, you're going to feel satisfied but you might just blow away the wrong target.

But to call a guy an idiot for offering up the same type of analysis I'd expect from any first year media studies course - well, that seems a little stupid in itself.

Posted by KevinB at May 2, 2006 01:06 PM

Spoken like a first year media studies major @ the University of Death-to-the-infidels.

"Umm, exactly how was Iraq tied into 9-11? So if ya grab yer gun and run out shooting before figuring out who yoou should be shooting at..."

If it really looks like that to you, boy, I think you need to try putting your belt through all the loops tomorrow morning.

Careful about "rushing to judgement." Is that the Smart-alec Baldspot analysis? You are obviosuly another success story of swallowing Hollywood propaganda wholesale without any digestion.

Doug, please show me how Iraq was behind 9-11. Just because the administration did everything it could to imply that Iraq was, without giving hard proof, doesn't make it so. Please show me. I'm willing to listen with an open mind.

Doug: Sorry, I missed in the original post where Dreyfuss drew a moral conclusion. Perhaps you could point it out to me? And I agree with you TV - especially as practiced in North America right now, where the idea seems to be to get two people entrenched in their views shouting at each other - is a lousy place to exchange ideas.

I don't know that I can agree with the comment that McLuhan (and yes, I did know he was Catholic) would be agitating for war with Islam. As a literate man, McLuhan was appalled at what he saw as TV's breakdown of society, but on the other hand, he felt that it was impossible to resist (King Canute trying to hold back the tide was his favourite analogy), and that the best we could do was try to understand consciously what was happening to us, rather than just reacting to it subconsciously. I'll go out on a limb and posit that he would be instructing us on why logical, linear argument (the preferred way of thought of literate man) is not particularly effective when dealing with tribal, oral culture.
(Here's an experiment others can do at home: try to use logic to explain to three four-year-olds why they can't have ice cream before dinner.)

JimC: You miss my point. I never said that it was the emotional CONTENT (my emphasis) of the images; it was their instantaneous transmission around the world (i.e. the MEDIUM) that was the message. When 5 billion people see those planes crashing all at (roughly) the same time, it creates an enormous polarization between those who found it awful and those who found it great. That wouldn't have happened 150 years ago, when the people in Nigeria and Cairo might have found out about it a week, a month, or even months later.

RichFisher: Recess is over. Please go back to class at the school of "Anything I don't understand, I make fun of."

Todd
Please show me where "The administration did everything it could to imply that Iraq was behind 9-11."

I, for one, would like to know the source of the quotes from Dreyfuss. I would appreciate seeing the entire context of these remarks. Thanks ...

Richfisher, read this: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html

And what was this instantaneous reaction... they close down the airlines for a week.. hardly world shattering.

Of course, after much planning, they went after the perps, which seems reasonable.

I listen to Jay Thomas on Sirius Satelite radio. Jay was Dreyfuss' co-star in Mr. Holland's Opus.

Jay tells an interesting story about a certain person he worked with who flipped their Mercedes while driving under the influence. When the police arrived to save this 'model citizen' he was hanging upside down by his seat belt. There was a same bag of white powder that had fallen out of his pocket and was lying in clear view of the officer. The 'model citizen' looks at the officer and says, "I planning on going into rehab."

Bright, easy to read, big clear graphics. A gold mine of short items to give you a surprising over view of Hamas and similar, like Hizbullah.

http://www.pmw.org.il/latest%20bullitins%20new.htm

Know thine enemy.. It couldn't be better put. Very crisp. Very expert. TG

My bad - I forgot the link. Fixed now.

Todd,

Did you want to be a soldier of fortune? Would you join in all the projects listed in the..

www.PMW.org.il/

website above? Which would be your favourite? TG

KevinB, I was in the process of posting but hadn't refreshed and therefore, hadn't actually seen your comment until I submitted. Interesting parallax!

I agree with your comment about the polarization that occurs - of course some would find it dreadful, and some would find it delightful. That was my point as well, although I obviously failed to write it as clearly as others posting here have. I also do believe that there was significant emotional content to the images. (How could a person not?)

I was responding to an earlier post that inimated that it was only the emotional aspects of the act that precipitated US movement into Afghanistan and subsequently into Iraq.

Todd: I admit that in my mind there is some nebulousness in the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, however I believe that the Bush administration and intelligence honestly believed there was a connection. However, given the slant of the media in the US I wonder if some of the actual information has been obfusticated by the pundits. I don't feel everyone has been honest in their dealings with the public. I just know that lots of people seem to criticize Bush, but a whole lot fewer are prone to be critical of the press.

Todd - why should we connect Iraq and 9/11? The US invaded Afghanistan as retaliation for 9/11 because that is where terrorists were being trained. The invasion of Iraq then followed because of a broader war on terror. I don't think anyone ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He was just a dangerous, terrorist-friendly dictator who had to be taken out now that the U.S. was becoming more proactive about terrorism.

Right Jeff. It was those WMD's that Iraq had that made them a menace. Sorry, I forgot about those.

Dreyfuss is so Zen.

If a tree falls in the forest without a witness does it make a sound?
If a building falls in the city and no one video tapes it - was anyone killed??

Todd, how do you suppose all those many thousands of Iranian troops got gassed in the Iran-Iraq War that Saddam started?

(Hint: Saddam started that war and he used a LOT of WMDs against Iranian troops, principally artillery shells of all calibers, loaded with various nerve agents. The Iranians even had to fly thousands of them to Europe for medical treatment, their own hospitals being unable to provide the treatment. Their arrival in Europe, in horrific condition, was even shown on the BBC News.)

How do you suppose all those tens of thousands Kurds were killed by Saddam & Co. in Saddam's Anfal genocide against them?

(Hint: Thousands of nerve gas bombs.)

Now, where are those WMDs?

They DO exist. Do some research and reading; the information is out there, from multiple credible sources.

Some of the WMDs are now back in Russia, from where their components were originally bought. The others are in Syria, being stored in remote Syrian military bases, where the Syrian military stores it's own WMDs.

Here's my question: Where's the moral perspective in considering the US war criminals for liberating Iraq, and forgetting 30 years of systematic murder of Iraqis by Saddam & Co., including torture, rape rooms, feeding human beings into industrial shredders?

Does Abu Ghraib and US guards humiliating terrorist prisoners equal what the Saddam regime did to it's own people? Does ending that blood-soaked psychotic regime and giving the Iraqi people a chance at building a free, democratic Iraq really make the US evil?

By what possible reasoning were the Iraqi people "at peace" in Iraq, under Saddam?

By what possible moral code is the US the bad guy in Iraq?

Dave, The moral code to villigy the US is simple .. they are largely white, Christian, prosperous, compansionate, smart, helpful, generous, decent.

Those are the things that make you bad nowadays .. if you are brown, violient, uneducatied, non Christain, not helpful to anyone else and treat women like shit .. (Candian Indians qualify to some extent here too) then you are righteous and deserving and are OWED!

got that ... ? just turn everything you were brought up to believe upside down and you will have all the answers you will ever need.

Oh man ... I made so many typos, spelling and grammatical errors .. I apologize. I have no time to edit, but time to apologize. Go figure.

Todd read this

So, now I come at last to my ideal war. Let us start with President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, which I recommend that you read. Contrary to innumerable sneers, he did not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important though those considerations were. He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam's deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that? Here's what should have happened. The other member states of the United Nations should have said: Mr. President, in principle you are correct. The list of flouted U.N. resolutions is disgracefully long. Law has been broken, genocide has been committed, other member-states have been invaded, and our own weapons inspectors insulted and coerced and cheated. Let us all collectively decide how to move long-suffering Iraq into the post-Saddam era.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138332

The comments about Bush being justified in attacking Iraq because of the link(?) to 9/11 are unmitigated nonsense. Taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan made sense because they were harbouring Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda. Whatever sins Saddam was guilty of, the evidence shows that he was not involved with 9/11.Thus the attack on Iraq was unwarranted aggression.

Todd, Todd? where d'ja go? Notice you didn*t choose a project from the 20 or so on the website I mentioned.

Looking forward to your reasoned rubuttal too. TG

Richfisher said it best: 5:48pm TG

Todd/Cardinal47: Iraq & Terror: Apparently Czech Intelligence Service advised the US that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague prior to 9/11, and just before large amounts of money was funneled to the conspirators.

Also, post 9/11, but before the Iraq war, Vladimir Putin stated that Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times about planned terror attacks on the US by Saddam's regime.

We know that Saddam paid the families of terror bombers in Israel, and that jihadist terror training camps were operated by the Iraqi military at Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak.

So.....you were expecting signed agreements and handshaking photos with Saddam & Osama?