A reminder from Salman Rushdie, Step Across This Line: Collected Nonfiction 1992-2002:
"The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his
world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in
sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is
wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon
sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity,
water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies,
music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not
by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat
them.
"How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared.”
Wednesday, January 2
Tuesday, January 1
Weak
"Condemnation has grown stronger in the wake of Najia and Hanifa's assassinations," the article concludes. "Not only is killing an innocent woman considered the greatest shame in Afghan culture, but Islam prohibits it, said Khalilullah, an Afghan citizen."
US women service members regularly meet with Afghan women, advising on humanitarian and security programs.
Photo of 2007 meeting in northern Laghman courtesy of Staff Sgt. Julie Weckerlein, US Air Force and Wikimedia Commons
Home
Of course, that's if we're enjoying a happy period of life.
The computer-generated landscape is courtesy of Terragen software and Wikimedia Commons
Torture
Kathryn Bigelow offers an inadequate, tortured response to the criticism about torture in her film Zero Dark Thirty.
Critics have argued that the film misleads by suggesting torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden. This criticism does not interfere with her First Amendment right to "create works of art and speak their conscience without government interference or harassment" - especially when the producers of the film purport to tell "story of history's greatest manhunt for the world's most dangerous man."
She argues that torture was used in the early years, and it's fine for the film to include these scenes. Most critics have not denied her the right to that depiction, and I've heard no criticism specifically accusing her of endorsing torture. Yet the film is incomplete as long as it does not reveal, even emphasize, the methods most instrumental in bin Laden's capture. She argues that "confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist's a light on dark deeds," and yet she goes too far. The critics did not ask for her to ignore or deny torture as she alludes toward the end of the essay. All most critics have done is point to a major hole in her film and suggest that the story would have been immensely improved had she relayed the true consequences of torture.
Now as a former writing instructor, let me point to the phrases that signal her lack of confidence in this argument.
After labeling the criticism as "brouhaha," she writes "I'm not sure I have anything new to add, but I can try to be concise and clear." Beware of any writer who must assert that he or she is being "clear," an attempt to deny the reader the ultimate judgment.
Bigelow is right on one point when she questions "if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen." Unfortunately, the film's depiction of bin Laden's capture might suggest policies allowing torture have value.
Bigelow tries to distract her readers with emotional references to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the bravery of the military in providing security. Yet in the end, she admits that torture "was the key to finding bin Laden." And by suggesting that he was defeated by "ordinary Americans" she reminds us that torture was used on ordinary Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and others whose names we may never know.
Bigelow squirms under the criticism that Zero Dark Thirty missed the opportunity to be a great film and story, relaying truth about the human condition.
Critics have argued that the film misleads by suggesting torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden. This criticism does not interfere with her First Amendment right to "create works of art and speak their conscience without government interference or harassment" - especially when the producers of the film purport to tell "story of history's greatest manhunt for the world's most dangerous man."
She argues that torture was used in the early years, and it's fine for the film to include these scenes. Most critics have not denied her the right to that depiction, and I've heard no criticism specifically accusing her of endorsing torture. Yet the film is incomplete as long as it does not reveal, even emphasize, the methods most instrumental in bin Laden's capture. She argues that "confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist's a light on dark deeds," and yet she goes too far. The critics did not ask for her to ignore or deny torture as she alludes toward the end of the essay. All most critics have done is point to a major hole in her film and suggest that the story would have been immensely improved had she relayed the true consequences of torture.
Now as a former writing instructor, let me point to the phrases that signal her lack of confidence in this argument.
After labeling the criticism as "brouhaha," she writes "I'm not sure I have anything new to add, but I can try to be concise and clear." Beware of any writer who must assert that he or she is being "clear," an attempt to deny the reader the ultimate judgment.
Bigelow is right on one point when she questions "if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen." Unfortunately, the film's depiction of bin Laden's capture might suggest policies allowing torture have value.
Bigelow tries to distract her readers with emotional references to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the bravery of the military in providing security. Yet in the end, she admits that torture "was the key to finding bin Laden." And by suggesting that he was defeated by "ordinary Americans" she reminds us that torture was used on ordinary Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and others whose names we may never know.
Bigelow squirms under the criticism that Zero Dark Thirty missed the opportunity to be a great film and story, relaying truth about the human condition.
Mom power
Thank you to the reviewers reading the book and writing about the central themes.
"The settings of the two books [Royal Escape and Fear of Beauty] couldn't be more different, but both involve the efforts of a woman to take control of her own life," writes Verna Suit for Gumshoe Review. "Both tell their stories effectively, thoroughly engross the reader, and reward with feel-good endings, a fine formula for a novel."
Natalie Papailiou, writing for Shelf Awareness for Readers, calls the book "a compelling portrait .... Froetschel has great respect for the Afghan culture and deftly provides a slice-of-life tale that informs and even surprises."
"The settings of the two books [Royal Escape and Fear of Beauty] couldn't be more different, but both involve the efforts of a woman to take control of her own life," writes Verna Suit for Gumshoe Review. "Both tell their stories effectively, thoroughly engross the reader, and reward with feel-good endings, a fine formula for a novel."
Natalie Papailiou, writing for Shelf Awareness for Readers, calls the book "a compelling portrait .... Froetschel has great respect for the Afghan culture and deftly provides a slice-of-life tale that informs and even surprises."
Excerpt
The author certainly appreciates the reaction from all those who took the time to read it and comment! Reading the comments is humbling - and I hope the rest of the book meets their expectations.
Point of view
Helmet cameras offer a closeup look at fighting. Like any tool, like the internet itself, they can aid in analysis and understanding or they can be cheap thrill, watched with little thought at all, explains Greg Jaffee of the Washington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)