Or, "I mean, I loved it at Radcliffe, but..." A very interesting point: Singer groups Welles' The Trial, Bergman's The Silence, and Antonioni's L'avventura together in interesting ways. Hadn't thought of it that way; seen 'em all.
From MITWorld: ABOUT THE LECTURE: His latest book, Ingmar Bergman, Cinematic Philosopher, came about quite accidentally, Irving Singer recounts. Singer was writing a book about several filmmakers, and discovered, when starting on the Bergman chapter, that the filmmaker had directed dozens of movies. Singer set out to explore this oeuvre – no easy task, since only the most recognizable titles are to be found at Netflix or the public library.
Thus began Singer’s ardent exploration of Bergman, and his appreciation of Bergman’s genius. “He created a new art form by combining his talents as a man of the theater, cinema and TV,” says Singer. In this lecture, he discusses how Bergman used philosophical ideas “in an extended sense” -- n…
From The Guardian: A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of…
From Zogby, March 15th. Now, if the Democrats were more interested in winning than in serving their corporate masters, they'd do the obvious electoral-politics thing: steal at least some of Nader's issues to grab his constituency -- obviously, those that don't alienate the base, which equals exactly none. And imagine how many ex-Paul voters and other potential voters who are understandably disgusted, such as my 92-year-old, FDR-liberal grandmother, who is not voting for the first time ever, would jump on a real Democratic ticket?
So, why doesn't it happen? I leave that to you to figure out.
Unlike the candidate's promise, which was worthless, as it ignored bases, contractors, the air war, etc.
Big shock. Here's the actual paper, from CNAS. Will Obama's supporters put serious pressure on the candidate, or will they stay on-message? A case-by-case situation, clearly, but let's not kid ourselves that Obama is the "peace candidate."
I don't mention Hillary's identical hypocrisy, noted in the article linked in the post title, because there is no fantasy about her, as opposed to Obama, except among the true Kool-Aid drinkers.