We will not walk in fear,* one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descendant from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.
-- Edward R. Murrow.
Sarah Vowell is filling in as a guest columnist in NYT as is a welcome sight -- as usual, the guest columnists are better than the ones they replace. Anyway, she commented on Good Night, and Good Luck, which I never watched, partly in fear of some sort of historical inaccuracies (though not that familiar with the immediate events) and partly that it would be a bit too didactic.
Historical films are rarely really fully accurate, and on some level cannot be because of restraints of the medium, though some probably can be more than the norm. [See, Past Imperfect.] But, this one feels right, down to its B&W film and music selections. And, the acting hits home. My problem is that it is a bit too good to be true ... it really is a bit too black and white. Everyone is basically a good guy, except for Sen. McCarthy. Some, like the main press guy at Slate, criticized some of the history of the film. And, probably that might be open to some, though I'll let people a bit more familiar do so. My problem is that it did feel a bit didactic, though the real life fear of the age plus the flavor of the main characters shined thru.
It was quite a feat for George Clooney, who also co-wrote, also seen in another "politics in film" piece -- and nominated for it too -- Syriana. I really don't want to see that ... maybe, one day, like Sarah, I will see one of them on a plane. No, probably not. Anyway, (GNGL) definitely worth watching, and deserving some notice at the Academy Awards.
On the way down, I found part of yesterday's paper (NYT) ... some good things. The beliefs section referenced abortion, in particular the greatly divided stance of high school students. One should take with a grain of salt beliefs as to personal morality, since things change when it hits you. Still, good stuff. It touched up William Saletan's (greatly criticized in certain parts) editorial of a few weeks back, noting that "abortion is bad" is vague. Bad like chemo or child labor?
In other words, sure, it's not "good," but saying it's "bad" can be misleading, and in fact easily abused by the other side. This is why ... the clueless aside ... why abortion rights sorts are loathe to use it as their new motto. You know, "hey, we know it's terrible, we need to get rid of it, but for now, it's a necessary evil!" Also quite popular with gun supporters.
---
* I also recently read The Second Bill of Rights by Cass Sunstein, which promotes the social and economic rights promoted by FDR, and makes some good points on the connection between so-called positive and negative rights. The government has to positively protect property. Also, between economic and political rights: want deprives one of the liberty to properly enjoy our rights.
But, Sunstein accepts that at some point fear for security -- here respecting things such as health care and the like -- also is a problem. It would weaken us our a people. Of course, the same applies to the other fear for "security" -- the Bush sort.