Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Moore Lied About Dispute With Disney — It Isn’t New

Posted on May 7, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Daniel Drezner has the facts: Michael Moore massages the facts. In fact, it seems Moore just lied to 'improve' his story.

The weird thing is, the original version was a good story too — just not as likely to get headlines. It appears that Moore has a contract with Mirimax, Mirimax wants to distribute the film, Disney won't let it. The difference is that Disney's been consistent on this rather than springing it on Moore.

In other words, Moore manufactured a news hook, and got a lot of headlines. That's pretty shabby. The basic issues — why Disney is against the movie (politics? fear? aesthetic differences?) remain.

I don't think I'll be going to see this movie. But then I didn't go to the last one either.

Update (5/9/04): Moore's reply

Posted in Civil Liberties | 1 Comment

Edward Castronova to Indiana

Posted on May 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

The Telecommunications Department at Indiana University has just made a a very smart hire.

Congratulations to Edward, and especially to his new colleagues for their discernment.

PS. You may wish to check out his departing rant.

Posted in Virtual Worlds | Comments Off on Edward Castronova to Indiana

Abu Ghraib and the American Pshycho-Sexual Scandal Artery

Posted on May 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Digby and Billmon are having a respectful and fascinating disagreement about how the Abu Ghraib scandal will play out. Will it expand to take in the other elements of what Sidney Blumenthal has dubbed the 'New Gulag'? Will the American appetite for a scalp be satisified with Rumsfeld's or will the scandal machine demand more? And are these the same or different questions?

First Blumenthal. Then Billmon. Then the sex.

Continue reading →

Posted in Iraq Atrocities, Politics: US: 2004 Election | 5 Comments

Air Howler May Spice Up Air America

Posted on May 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

According to today's incomparable Daily Howler, Bob Somerby will be on the radio soon. It sounds like can't-miss radio:

THE O'FRANKEN ADVENTURE: Our entire staff guest-stars today on Air America's inspiring show, The O'Franken Factor. Our segment starts at 12:30 Eastern. With Al's enthusiastic permission, we plan to discuss Wittgenstein's “private language argument,” although our presentation is fairly tight and may not take the entire segment. Punch line: “If they told us that when we were sophomores, we wouldn't have had to take Descartes or Kant!” Of course, if you try to do this on conservative radio, they give you this look like you're nuts.

Excitement builds in the radio world. We certainly hope you'll be listening.

I've listened to Air America a few time in the evening and found it to be just plain awful. To be fair I haven't heard either of what I expect would be the best shows — Al Franken's show and Florida's own Randi Rhodes. But what I have heard is pretty pathetic.

In contrast…no, by any standard, the clips of the Daily Show the Comedy Network puts online are absolutely fantastic.

Posted in Kultcha | 2 Comments

Privately?

Posted on May 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

In my current addled state, I'm having a little trouble understanding headlines like Bush Privately Chides Rumsfeld. Erum. “Privately”? Like on the front page of every newspaper on earth? Yes, I understand it's off-camera, but is that what “privately” means now?

Posted in Iraq Atrocities | 1 Comment

NYT Says $25 Billion Iraq Supplemental is no Big Deal

Posted on May 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Which is a better, fuller, explanation of the state of play?

Is it the account offerd by Notes on the Atrocities:

Nickel and Diming

February. Bush's budget comes out with no additional request for funds for Iraq.

Monday. A senior administration official says there's no “resource problem in Iraq.”

Today.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration asked Congress Wednesday for an additional $25 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional Republicans said, a retreat from the White House's earlier plans not to seek such money until after the November elections….

It seemed likely that the $25 billion proposal would be only the first portion of funds that will be needed for next year.

Or is it the account (on page A15!!!) of the New York Times, White House Asks G.O.P. in Congress to Add $25 Billion which begins with the line,

“The Bush administration, which once said it had enough money for the military's role in Iraq through 2004, asked Republican leaders of Congress on Wednesday to add $25 billion for the military beginning Oct. 1.”

… but nowhere notes that the administration was saying last week that no more money would be needed. Rather the article says over and over and over that this request was “not a surprise” and quotes (Republican) politicians as saying “we knew it was comming.”

Talk about soft coverage.

Posted in Iraq | 1 Comment