This Web Blog was haphazardly produced without using Spell Check one danged time. We like it that way.

ESOTERICA: In the coming weeks, expect our partnership with CinemActivist.com to provide you with reviews of great documentaries from Cinema Libre Studio, PBS, the History Channel, the Visioneerng Group and Working Films that provide you knowledge and move you toward activism. Just so you know.

Depending on the events of the day, we'll likely be bringing you information about a great new film on New Orleans from independent director Alex LeMay, "Desert Bayou," slated to appear in New York City and New Orleans in early October before rolling out across the country.

You can catch "Desert Bayou" in the following cities on these dates:

5 October:


• New York City
  City Cinemas Village East
  181 2nd Avenue
  New York, NY 10003
  (212) 529-6998
  www.angelikafilmcenter.com
  Showtimes: 1:20, 3:30, 5:40, 7:45, 10:15
  Fri - Sun: 11:10, 1:20, 3:30, 5:40, 7:45, 10:15

12 October:


• Madison, WI
  Westgate Art Cinemas
  340 Westgate Mall
  Madison, WI 53711
  (608) 271-4033
  www.marcustheatres.com
  Showtimes: 2:15, 4:45, 7:15, 9:30

19 October:


• Des Moines, IA
  Varsity Theatre
  1207 25th Street
  Des Moines, IA 50311
  (515) 277-0404
  www.varsitydesmoines.com
• Rosendale, NY (upstate)
  Rosendale Theatre
  408 Main Street
  Rosendale, NY 12472
  (845) 658-8989
  Showtimes: 5:00, 7:00, 9:00 (daily)

26 October:


• Salt Lake City, UT
  Broadway Centre Cinemas
  111 E. 300 South
  Salt Lake City, UT 84111
  (801) 321-0310
  www.saltlakefilmsociety.com
• Las Vegas, NV
  Regal Village Square 18
  9400 W. Sahara Ave.
  Las Vegas, NV 98117
  (702) 838-0490
  www.fandango.com
• Seattle, WA
  Regal Meridian 16
  1501 7th Ave.
  Seattle, WA 98101
  (206) 622-2434
  www.fandango.com
• Los Angeles, CA
  Laemmle Sunset 5
  8000 Sunset Blvd.
  West Hollywood, CA 90046
  (323) 848-3500
  www.laemmle.com
• Pasadena, CA
  Laemmle One Colorado
  42 Miller Alley
  Old Pasadena, CA 91103
  (626) 744-1224
  www.laemmle.com
• Washington DC
  AMC/Loews Dupont 5
  1350 19th St. NW
  Washington, DC 20036
  Showtimes: 202-333-3456
• Detroit, MI
  TBA

02 November:


• Houston, TX
  Angelika Film Center & CafÈ
  510 Texas Ave.
  Houston, TX 77002
  (713) 225-1470
  www.angelikafilmcenter.com
• Chicago, IL
  TBA

In my on-going critique of the sorry state of American journalism, and especially journalism as it is practiced on television - where it is little more than "infotainment" - I've posited the notion that most of us get our news from comedians these days in the United States. I've said that we do that because there is more truth, for many of us, in the "fake news" than what we get from the Bobble headed, blow-dried mannequins foisted on us by the networks or the cable channels.

An unscientific survey of my younger friends, who fit in the 30 -45 year-old demographic, tells me that most of them get their news from approximating three sources: Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" and CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." [NOTE: I made it a pledge to myself to watch all three programs religiously over the next week in order to young-up my perspective a bit.]

I received an e-mail this week from Jamison Foser over at Media Matters for America which was basically a reprint of an article there he ran on the 19th of this month about George Will-imitator and right-wing talking-points conduit Tucker Carlson. Jon Stewart was right about Tucker, of course, not only is he a dick, as Stewart put it, he's also a shill. Worse yet, he has no problem playing fast and loose with the truth. Here's a brief excerpt from Foser's article:

... The October 16 edition of MSNBC's Tucker provides an excellent, if infuriating, case study. Host Tucker Carlson and his two journalist guests peddled a steady st ream of conservative misinformation - and at the same time suggested that the very cable channel on which they were doing so is biased against conservatives.

Carlson led A.B. Stoddard of The Hill and Josephine Hearn of the Politico in a discussion of an allegation that, in 1992, Hillary Clinton listened to a recording of a telephone call held by political adversaries of her husband. The allegation first appeared in Her Story, the Clinton biography released earlier this year and written by New York Times reporter Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth, formerly of the Times. The sole citation Gerth and Van Natta provided for the allegation read, in full, "Author interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006."

Her Story was poorly received when it was released months ago, perhaps because it was heavily reliant on anonymous sources like the "former campaign aide" who made the telephone-recording allegation, and perhaps because of the authors' < a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200705300001?lid=681&rid=366731" target="_blank">history of dubious reporting. In any case, the phone allegation was almost universally ignored. Nevertheless, Carlson declared Tuesday evening that "rumors of scandal" might disrupt Clinton's presidential campaign:

CARLSON: A new book out by a pair of Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporters makes a startling claim. Back in 1992, it says, Hillary Clinton allegedly eavesdropped on the phone calls of her husband's political opponents. Some Republicans say that smacks of hypocrisy especially since Senator Clinton criticizes the warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists - trouble for Hillary Clinton?

In fact, Her Story isn't new, and it wasn't the reason Carlson devoted a segment to the allegation - Carlson later admitted he hasn't even read the book. So why did Carlson, Stoddard, and Hearn - along with other media figures - devote so much time to such a vague and thinly sourced allegation in a months-old book that nobody much cared about at the time?

Perhaps because the GOP told them to. This flurry of media attention began with an article in The Hill laying out the Republicans' plan to attack Clinton over the allegation.

Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance.

[...]

Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.

[...]

A GOP official said, "Hillary Clinton's campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year."

By attributing the segment to revelations in a "new book" (that isn't new and that he hadn't read) rather than to the fact that Republican political operatives were criticizing Clinton, Carlson managed to give an air of credibility to what was a thinly sourced partisan attack.

I rest my case.

The PROBLEM, from the point of view of This Ranter, is that you can pretty much predict what's going to come out of Tucker Carlson's mouth before he even opens it. Just review the Republican Talking Points sent out in a Memo at Fox News or from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and you know exactly what Tucker Carlson is going to talk about on any given day. He's a wind-up doll.

Remember that toy called Chatty Cathy that was popular back in the late 1960s? You pulled a ring that rolled out a string from her back and she would spout a number of pre-programmed stock phrases like, "Hi! You're my new best friend?" That's Tucker Carlson and - to only a slightly lesser extent - CBS's "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric, all over.

Yeah, I know, that kewpie doll, Katie Couric, has gotten way too much ink and bandwidth since she took over what used to be a prestigious chair on the nightly network news broadcast. Part of the fault, though, lies with the fact that - going on the defensive - Katie has actively made herself more of the story than the news she's supposed to being covering five nights a week. She has gone to so many media outlets, from Vanity Fair to the New York Post trying to defend herself against her multitudinous detractors that she's the story. Judith Miller redux, from one perspective.

Pull the ring in Katie's back and you'll get the same kind of soft-ball interviews that she distinguished herself for conducting for years on The Today Show. Want actual research of the implications of a story or any depth? Don't look to Katie Couric. Her in-depth reporting is about as deep as her "endearing", pre-programmed smile.

It's people like her and Tucker that make American journalism the beacon to the world and the great source of real news that it is today.

First of all, as referenced in the podcast this link will take you toward, I am a firm believer in the concept that criminals need to face that they have made a tragic mistake, in whatever form, which damaged themselves and society. Made to face that fact and accept it, they then need to be educated to remember that they are not the crime they committed but remain members of society and humans beings. That's point one: re-socialization.

The best way to achieve this end is two-fold and speaks to my second two points. Once made to accept that they must pay for their mistakes, we must make these individuals pay in two forms. The first has to do with facing the responsibility of their actions.

Besides being deprived of their liberty through incarceration, it is my belief that programmes which have perpetrators meet with the victims of their crimes and fully address the consequences of what they have done are productive and should be more widespread. The victim then does not become someone who wasn't there - as in a house break-in - or someone who is unknown - as in a purse-snatching - but another actual human being to whom the perpetrator is made accountable, face to face. This speaks to taking responsibility for the consequences of one's action.

Admittedly, in the case of more violent and heinous crimes, such as murder or rape, the efficacy of this approach is questionable. But the vast majority of prisoners, internationally, are incarcerated for non-violent crimes. Most violent crimes occur between people who actually know each other to begin with. Thus, the second part of the suggested programme contains certain validity and would move us, as a civilized society, closer to improving order and rehabilitation.

The third point is the most crucial. Inmates should be allowed, as suggested in the podcast, to reconnect with society by doing productive work which allows them to make reparations to their victims. This last point is crucially important if our criminal justice systems are to be meaningful at all.

I make the latter statement for two reasons:

• First, because simply warehousing individuals in a "crime school," which is how most prison systems should be viewed today, is wrong-headed.



• Second, because if we mean to produce humane and productive members of society, rather than recidivists, we should begin while they are being re-educated and made to face their responsibility to society. That begins with making them literally (as in monetarily) pay for what they have done.

I suspect that friends on both the left and the right will disagree with the approach I am suggesting. I welcome their comments and the conversation. I would posit now that we have to start somewhere other than the warehousing and crime school system which currently exists in most countries.

Here is why. If you look at the familiar symbol of the scales of Justice being held by that august lady they do not suggest that justice is retribution but rather that it is recompense.

PREVIOUS RANTS PAGE