What began as a little housecleaning noted in a previous post has evolved into a major project, indeed, the first major reorganization of my apartment since I moved here back at the end of the last century.
As I created more space by moving some furniture around, I started sorting through piles, both to reduce the clutter and to collect any and all notes I had written for my dissertation. In the meanwhile, I have discovered countless other notes, some related to movie scripts, others to my long-dormant fantasy epic as well as myriad ideas for blog posts.
I was delighted to discover a remarkable consistency to my thoughts on gay marriage, with ideas for posts in 2004 relevant to the current debate, a suspicion of courts deciding the issue and a concern that the debate focuses more on the “right” to marry than the meaning of the institution.
Given that I have written an average of three posts a day for the past two months, perhaps I needed this time off from blogging, so as to take a step back, gather my thoughts (as I’ve been gathering my notes) and let the ideas stew a bit before blogging at a pace similar to that of this spring.
I’ll segue from that thought to one (undated) note I discovered as it reminded me of something I had read Friday in the New Republic. A while ago, I had written:
[The] Left doesn’t even see their (sic) [own] hate even as many define their relation to the current president in such terms.
Yet the Democrats still believed in the power of the establishment and its ideals. This is a major theme of Recount. Al Gore and his lieutenants agonized about their reputation, their duty, and winning the approval of The New York Times, while Republicans saw the episode as a pure street fight. The Republicans were teeming with rage and paranoia, well-captured in the movie by the “Brooks Brothers Riot” and the bitter commentaries of GOP recount lawyer Ben Ginsburg. This was the political culture of the moment. Liberal editorial pages studiously urged both sides to fight fair, while conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard printed deranged conspiracy theories and urged Bush to do whatever it took to win.
Sounds like the movie’s theme is at odds with the facts. After all, it was Gore and his “lieutenants” who pressed for additional recounts when the first two did not yield the results they wanted.
What struck me most of all was not learning about the bias of the film (which given Hollywood is to be expected), but reading the article’s author, Jonathan Chait musing about the GOP engaging in a “pure street fight” while contending conservative editorials were “deranged.” This from the guy who, in September 2003, had written how much he hated President Bush.
This man doesn’t even see his own hatred. And it reflects even in his current commentary on a movie whose producers delight in demonizing the Republican players in the 2000 election controversy.
I guess it was for the best then that I chose to watch The Americanization of Emily on DVD last night instead of tuning in HBO. If I wanted left-wing conspiracy theories, I could just check out a few blogs, perhaps even a post or two by the self-professed Bush-hater Jonathan Chait.
UPDATE: According to Brent Baker of Newsbusters, despite the film’s implication “that the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an accurate vote count,” it did deliver “some anti-Democratic points rarely heard in the news media.“