Regarding Adam Reilly’s piece “Taking Stock of an Imperiled Free Press”: despite his resources, access, money, mountains of evidence, and reliable sources who said otherwise, Bob Woodward wants us to believe he wholeheartedly thought we had to rush into war.
Knowing the consequences and the enormous gravity of the decision to make war, Woodward could have used his position to sway things back in the direction of peace and civility. But he didn’t. He chose to be the water boy for the war machine. And now he wants to claim stupidity and apologize.
Should we accept his apologies? Well, it’s not us to whom Woodward should apologize. He owes his apology to the mothers and fathers and children of the hundreds of thousands he helped assure would be slaughtered.
He and his associates in the major media are liars, war makers, accessories. They are Goebbels and Hearst. Thanks for offering a small shred of truth, Adam. Perhaps the Phoenix will inherit the journalistic credibility so entirely lost by Woodward and the Associated Propagandists.
Let’s hear it for the girls
I thought Sara Faith Alterman’s article did a great job of presenting an overview of a thriving subculture that many Bostonians aren’t familiar with. Although Boston’s burlesquers don’t have as strong a sense of “community” as some in other cities, Ms. Alterman’s comment that “most [burlesquers] admit that they’ve never actually seen other troupes perform” isn’t really accurate. I certainly have been to see all the burlesque troupes featured in your article, and most of them have come to see us — often more than once. It’s the burlesque fans who are more divided. In a small scene like ours, there’s a strong sense of loyalty and ownership among fans. This engenders the sentiment that to go see a different burlesque troupe than “yours” would be a betrayal. One of the missions of The Great Boston Burlesque Exposition was to promote a sense of community, and to expose entrenched fans to other troupes (no pun intended).
Thanks again for your support. Burlesque performers need a lot of support (pun intended that time).
I don’t think that Peter Schumann’s main target is the Bush administration, as stated by Greg Cook. I think it’s Israel.
This past Monday evening, I attended the opening at Cyclorama along with several friends. Although we suspected from the promo materials that this exhibit on Peter Schumann’s “recent visit to the Middle East” would be biased against Israel, we were not prepared for what we saw. Schumann’s installation was a collage of photos of the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto, with text underneath referring to the wall in Israel, “jackboots,” “people being pulled from their homes,” “the oppressor and occupier,” etc., leading to no other conclusion but that he was equating the policies of the Israeli government with those of the Nazis.
Later, at the symposium, a woman in my group asked Schumann what the basis of his comparison was; she was met with a chorus of “Zionist Nazi,” denunciations of the Israeli government, and insulting, dead-end rounds of clapping. Schumann then incredulously stated he did not mean to equate Israeli and Nazi policy, when it would be an insult to any viewer’s intelligence to conceive that the impression would be anything but.
It is understandable that there are two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and people are entitled to their viewpoints. But the overwhelming barring of one side from questioning the message behind an art exhibit is just plain exclusionary. If I may say so, the walls that I experienced at this event were far more concrete than any depicted in Schumann’s work.