Composited from today’s newswires:
Million Dollar Baby knocked ‘em dead at the 77th Annual Academy Awards.
A suicide bomber killed 125 people and wounded 130 by detonating a car near police recruits in a crowded market south of Baghdad on Monday, the single bloodiest attack in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The hard-hitting drama reeled in four golden guys Sunday night, nabbing Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actress for Hilary Swank, Best Supporting Actor for Morgan Freeman and Best Director for Clint Eastwood.
The bomber blew the car up next to a line of recruits waiting at a health center to take an eye test so they could join the Iraqi police in the town of Hilla, 62 miles south of the capital, witnesses said.
“I don’t know what I did in this life to deserve all this. I’m just a girl from a trailer park who had a dream,” Swank said. Many of those killed were at the market across the road, and were caught in the blast as they shopped in morning sunshine.
Reuters television footage showed a pile of bloodied bodies outside the building. Smoke rose from the wreckage of burned-out market stalls as bystanders loaded mangled corpses on to rickety wooden carts, usually used to carry fruit and vegetables. Sporting a shaved head and wide smile, Jamie Foxx accepted the Oscar for Best Actor on Sunday night for his portrayal of the beloved musician Ray Charles in the movie “Ray.”
Cate Blanchett, radiating a cool Hollywood glamour, won Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal in “The Aviator” of Katharine Hepburn. Others, their limbs ripped to shreds, were piled into the back of pick-up trucks. Nearby buildings were pockmarked by shrapnel. People wept, clutched their heads in despair and shouted “God is greatest” as rescuers led the injured away.
“The suicide bomber came from a nearby alleyway,” said Zeyd Shamran. “There were two people in (the car) and when it stopped one man got out, shook hands and kissed the other man.” Moments later the car exploded, he said. Before the Sunday night show, Producer Gil Cates called ABC’s five-second delay “a danger to society,” but in the post-Janet Jackson world of flopping tops, ABC insisted on having control of the pause button.
The thinking was that Rock might incorporate a couple of dirty words in his bits, just to get bleeped. The toll is the highest from a single attack since the fall of Saddam in April 2003, and makes Monday one of the bloodiest days of the two-year insurgency. “I went really blank. I think I’m still in shock.” Blanchett said.





48 comments
Trackback from LAmom - THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO PRINT
February 28, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Trackback from Sidelights - http://www.nielsenhayden.com/electroside/archives/2005_03.html#006121
March 1, 2005 at 7:07 am
Trackback from rdmsoft.com Blog - "Oscars Dazzle Deadliest Day Yet"
March 1, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Linkmeister
February 28, 2005 at 5:06 pm
1“Silent Night/6:00 News,” Simon and Garfunkel.
Very effective.
tim
February 28, 2005 at 5:09 pm
2Oh, come on, you want them to have perspective? Jeez, they’re still working on asking pertinent questions and following up on leads. Or not. But wasn’t that dress Hilary Swank had on just a killer? Uh, never mind.
Mike Z
February 28, 2005 at 6:56 pm
4By the end I was finding it hard to tell which sentences pertained to which news event. You know…because it all starts to sound the same after a while.
Deno the Untergeek
February 28, 2005 at 7:33 pm
5Brilliant commentary on what and where our ‘values’ shine through..at least the news’ values.
dee
February 28, 2005 at 7:55 pm
6Wow Linkmeister– hadn’t thought of that in years. Thanks.
I watched Law and Order reruns last night. One of their patented “ripped from the headlines” episodes, in which Ron Silver (of all people) played a liberal lawyer. Abu Ghraib on primetime.
Surrealism — catch the fever!
Ann
February 28, 2005 at 8:26 pm
7I watched the awards last night. I feel so…so dirty.
Tom
February 28, 2005 at 8:48 pm
8Damn, you don’t leave any survivors, do you?
Great piece of work. This is possibly your most insightful yet.
Jerry
February 28, 2005 at 9:14 pm
9Great post! A friend off mine coined (or maybe stole, though he is the only one I’ve heard use it!) the phrase, “First World problems.” You illuminate the concept so well! The ones my friend used was the quandry of a soccer mom with three kids with “enrichment activities” that start at the same time way across town from each other and whether to buy the LCD or plasma widescreen HDTV.
And: HA ha. Robin Williams said, “Nipples!!!”
tess
February 28, 2005 at 10:46 pm
10Boy, this is just depressing as hell when you can’t tell the entertainment reporter from the “real” ones. Then again, there’s a whore with a 2-day journalism class in the White House, so I can’t even say that the White House reporters are at least not literally whores anymore.
David
March 1, 2005 at 1:09 am
11The blast vaporized the car.
Sleep in heavenly peace.
Ananna
March 1, 2005 at 2:30 am
12Am I the only one who could tell the difference? It was as clear as the difference between blood and water.
Death toll up to 200 now.
Love,
Hanna
Amy Lin
March 1, 2005 at 9:19 am
14Jerry - he didn’t invent it. It’s actually a somewhat sarcastic phrase, at least as I’ve heard it. (In a song, actually - ‘And somewhere around the world someone would love to have my first world problems.’)
As far as the post goes, devastating. Very f-ing devastating.
Monty Zoom
March 1, 2005 at 9:42 am
15Well done Adam. It is quite the illustration of the populist media. The media is neither liberal nor conservative. It just gives the people what they WANT to hear and glosses over the stuff that it NEEDS to hear. Well done!!!
Murray
March 1, 2005 at 10:44 am
16News Cocktail:
Take news of the day
Pour entire amount into an empty skull
Shake vigorously
Pour into a festive glass, garnish with umbrella of choice.
LemonTart
March 1, 2005 at 11:10 am
17Some actor/ess award show was on that day? I could care less about what some whiny actor/ess did or didn’t win/wear/say. 200 people died, that has way more importance than some stupid award show.
Tiffany
March 1, 2005 at 11:31 am
18Good work, Adam. There’s something about the blending of the absurd and the obsene in this that works perfectly. I’ll let the readers sort out which is which……by the end, I couldn’t have done it.
Shyaporn
March 1, 2005 at 12:13 pm
19Hey, way to displace blame from the people actually responsible for what’s going on in Iraq to the Hollywood Press and a bunch of actors.
You’ve lost your perspective author. Last I checked, Hollywood was pretty ANTI-Iraq war and US occupation.
Hollywood-bashers can’t have it both ways. During the election, people were telling actors to shut up about their politics, and now they’re criticising them for not changing their entire business around to accomodate Bush’s blunders? And the Oscars ARE a business - why don’t they go after Halliburton to do all their work at cost in Iraq?
How much did the actors involved in the Oscars pony up for tsunami relief versus the current adminstration?
This little bit is focused on the entirely wrong group of people.
Mike Z
March 1, 2005 at 12:27 pm
20Umm…Shyaporn, I think the point of Adam’s post is not so much to indict Hollywood stars for not going to Iraq and stopping the bloodshed. Instead, it is meant to make fun of the general focus of the press and the citizenry on entertainment news rather than on serious stuff.
Isaac B2
March 1, 2005 at 2:36 pm
22So glad I BlogRolled you; this is great commentary.
Ann
March 1, 2005 at 3:54 pm
23LemonTart,
So you could (or couldn’t?) care less about an awards show–good for you. Righteous. But don’t pretend that not watching the show has any effect on the deaths of 200 people or makes you a better person. It’s certainly possible to rank different events by “importance,” but that doesn’t mean that everything else should stop.
Many of us are capable of political activity, strong feelings about the suffering of others, AND the enjoyment of popular culture. It’s not a zero-sum game!
sara
March 1, 2005 at 4:41 pm
24Adam,
I’m a big fan of your site and your writing, but I disagree with your perspective on this. I see nothing wrong with the news events you reference sharing the national headlines.
The competence to face and engage reality, especially a grim reality, doesn’t grow on trees. You have to create and cultivate it. The stronger the boundary around your recharging time/area, the more thoroughly you can recharge, and thus the more strength, energy, confidence, and optimism you have to take with you as you step outside of that boundary.
The implication of your post is that having boundaries of that sort and showing them right out in the open (as our media is doing in this case) is of bad taste. So I’m curious about what you consider to be wise strategies for managing a large range of emotional experiences. Do you only have sex when there are no problems anywhere in your work or social life? Do you have porous boundaries and sometimes think about problems in your life, brainstorm solutions for them, try to increase public awareness of them, empathize with suffering, and/or pay silent honor and respect to situations of emotional gravity while you’re having sex?
The Academy Awards were hardly an escapist avoidance of grim reality. The movie chosen as Best Picture and honored with four awards was an in-depth look at grim reality and a statement of respect toward people who muster up the strength to face it.
Let them have their glory. That’s not bad taste. In a country where pride and skill are increasingly propagandized so that the general public can’t tell the difference between the earned and the imitated, we need all the examples of earned pride and skill we can get. Even from Hollywood.
Murray
March 1, 2005 at 5:43 pm
25sara,
Much of what you have to say makes sense. When you say “The stronger the boundary around your recharging time/area, the more thoroughly you can recharge, and thus the more strength, energy, confidence, and optimism you have to take with you as you step outside of that boundary” I agree.
However that applies to those who DO address the problems of the world and those are not the people that I believe Adam is directing this post to.
At least half of America is willfully ignorant. When 85% of the country can name 3 “boys bands” and less than 15% can name 3 Supreme Court Justices, you can’t claim that we are very well plugged in. What was it, 70% of Americans thought that Sadam had a hand in 911? Even after the administration said he didn’t, (and then continued to say “Sadam” every time they said 911).
Sure we can absorb news of every type, but most people filter out everything that bores them.
On a rare, bright note, we are no longer one of a very few countries that executes its children. See how easy it is for us to join the civilized world?
David
March 1, 2005 at 7:16 pm
26The point of this powerfully absurdist piece seems to me to be that only one of the two threads has any particular meaning or impact on our culture. I did not take it as any kind of rejection of the Academy Awards, as marginal as they are in the grand scheme of things, but as central as they are (used to be? - they lost
audience share) to what mattered this week. Iraq is now on the back burner in our collective consciousness.
Be nice if the people in Fallujah could have tuned in to their version of the Oscars. I thought that’s what Bush promised them, what with “Mission Accomplished” and all.
Hollywood is a mixed bag of the best and the worst. They don’t come any more committed than Barbra Streisand, whom I’d support for President, but who couldn’t win, or more misguided than Arnie, who is now the governor of California and lusting for the White House.
We’re up to our asses in absurdities. Adam found a powerful way to convey a particular sense of that. Simon and Garfunkel’s song is not a condemnation of “Silent Night” (but it is a condemnation of war, echoing the WWI phenomenon regarding “Silent Night” and German and Allied soldiers who took a break from killing each other to sing the song together - IT’S ABOUT ABSURDITY, and nothing is more absurd than war.)
adam
March 1, 2005 at 9:12 pm
27Wow. You’ve all done a better job of decoding my piece than I could’ve done myself. Seriously.
So… Can anyone tell me where my sunglasses are?
And actually, I’d rather NOT attempt to explain it too much. I definitely didn’t want to renounce the Oscars (as devastatingly soporific as this year’s broadcast was). I WATCH the Oscars. Every year. It’s the business I work in, too.
I’ll just say this: We choose our news. Increasingly, these days, we choose it ourselves. Partly because there is an ever-shrinking sense of proportion in the news media, and partly because we can choose to click and see or not click and not see.
I just thought I’d take a couple of articles (mostly from Reuters, I believe), and do a little collage. Seeing the stories next to each other made me think, so I thought I’d pass it on.
David
March 1, 2005 at 11:44 pm
28It’s never the author’s job to decode a piece. He/she is the artist, not the interpreter, and for that matter the author might not even be able to provide either the fullest or the most insightful interpretation of what he/she has created. The most important measure of an artist is what that artist’s creation stimulates in others. And Adam damned sure scored on that count with this piece.
hedera
March 2, 2005 at 12:10 am
29And while we’re remembering Simon & Garfunkel: “Strawberry Fair”? “Are you going to strawberry fair? (generals ordered them forward to kill)” …
Adam, that was one of the creepiest things you’ve posted, and it was entirely clear that you were just, as you said, doing a collage. This - the entire world - is all just so strange. And by the way, I don’t watch the Oscars. No attitude; I just have other things I’d rather do.
hedera
March 2, 2005 at 12:11 am
30If I had a brain, I’d be dangerous. Make that: “Scarborough Fair”…
hedera
March 2, 2005 at 12:13 am
31Is it really true that a British actress at the Oscars said, “This is the dog’s bollocks”, and DIDN’T get beeped??
hedera
March 2, 2005 at 12:15 am
32He that is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. -Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
Anu at A.Word.A.Day hits it right on the button again with today’s X-Bonus…
Kelli
March 2, 2005 at 9:05 am
33The more we are able to choose what kind of news we get, the worse the information will be. People don’t naturaly think about others first, we are most concerned with ourselves, our families and the society closest to us. Thinking of people who are far away and different as just as important as people who are near to us and similar is a learned skill.
It is also a skill that is not being taught. If I were more cynical I might observe that some groups are teaching their children to think that the oppisite is true.
I might even observe that out culture as a whole tends to de-emphasize our common humanity.
Thank the Lobster that I am not a cynical person.
Tom M
March 2, 2005 at 11:36 am
34Kelli, spot on!
Terry Pratchett, in his book “The Truth”, when talking about newspapers, makes the point that what people want to see is not really “news” but “olds”. People want to read or watch stuff which reinforces their world view and reassures them that everything still makes sense. They love malicious or salacious gossip about neighbours or famous people, they love bad news so long as it is far away, or it validates their own views about how evil this group or that person is. Advertisers know this and will put pressure on news outlets to modify their content to maximise the audience for their adverts, thus most commercial news agencies don’t show stuff which might challenge their audience or, horror of horrors, actually force them to Think.
As a proud Brit, I am grateful for the BBC, and I am happy to pay my £10 per month so that english speakers around the world can get access to what is mostly news untainted by commercial considerations.
Jerry
March 2, 2005 at 2:46 pm
35adam - an artist should not “explain” their work. Any good art or literature evokes a response in the viewer/reader that is uniquely their own. It is easy for me to smugly say, “I got it, and they didn’t.” It is harder to say, “Wow, I didn’t see it that way at all; thanks for giving me a different perspective or context to think about this in.”
I love FA for two things. First, it is a “feel-good” place where I know I will find intelligent, “reality based” friends with, generally, the same world-view I have, who will bring information to the discussion I may have missed. Second, I will be challenged by intelligent, “reality based” opponents with a different world-view.
Your posts amuse, inform, and catalyze the discussion.
Jerry
March 2, 2005 at 3:29 pm
36hedera - yes, she did! And Robin Williams said, “…nipples.”!
Kelli and Tom M - I agree and disagree. In the “free market” of journalism, “choosing” our news can lead to only tabloid news. However, I am mightily impressed with “blog news,” which is often well researched, attributed, and has sources the mainstream press ignores. The ‘net and small papers increase choice, and even if the “bigs” don’t compete for that audience, the choice is still there. The US is reacting to a period of consolidation of news sources, and I think the outcome will be more positive than you think.
Tom M, responsible American television journalism died the day that the FCC stopped requiring that news be a “public service” requirement of using the public airwaves, and the first commercial appeared on a news show. While I find the BBC an important source, forgive me if I read warily a government controlled source.
Kelli, hard to argue with the rest of your comment! I have yet to hear anyone on the TV, or any newspaper point out that the War Monkey’s Adventure in Iraq cost the Iraqis 100,000 “excess deaths,” and the loss of their basic infrastructure and that is why the “insurgents” are so successful, and that we have turned Iraq into a fertile ground for Islamic fundamentalist extremism. We are reverting from a nation that gave lip-service to the plight of others, which at least cringed when we heard about millions of victims of bigotry and fanaticism all over the world, to a nation of xenophobes, who “just don’t want to hear about that.”
At least we can teach our own children that, really, there is just the “Family of Man,” and not to send to know for whom the bell tolls.
PC (Potentially Cardinal) Pete
March 2, 2005 at 4:28 pm
37Adam, GREAT post. I love you even when I hate to love you. (Not in a “cheerful sense”, of course. Go the Marlins!)
I was (possibly inordinately) proud of my local ISP’s latest “Pik-a-poll” : Which actress was best dressed at the Oscars - Hilary Swank, Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslett, or Scarlett Johannson? So far, 62% of respondents have chosen “Don’t Care”…
Tom M, as a veteran insomniac, I have long enjoyed the “Beeb” on our local (non-commercial) radio after midnight. Especially “From Our Correspondent”. There’s nothing like a bit of reality from someone who was there.
Oh, Lobster, I’ve gone way off-topic again. As punishment, I shall watch one of the commercial news stations tonight (where I suspect the news will sound suspiciously like Adam’s post). Ha. Made it back on topic again. Phew.
Murray
March 2, 2005 at 5:47 pm
38If half of America is willfully ignorant, and another 1/4 is partially informed, at least the INFORMED 1/4, now have the opportunity to glean news never before available.
This is probably good.
There is nothing you can do with the WILLFULLY ignorant. It’s a lost cause.
The informed 1/4 now have access to raw information and can filter out journalist.
The partially informed 1/4, who used to watch Walter Cronkite, are probably now watching Faux News.
It’s not a big gain.
tess
March 3, 2005 at 3:23 am
39I say we go back to old-fasioned Stalinist propaganda! Those uninformed 3/4 just need to have slogans repeated at them over and over again with catchy colors until they’re all brainwashed! Or be so badly tortured and terrorized for disagreeing that none of them would dare question us ever again! It’s just like the good ol’ days in Russia! Kinda like what one of my boyfriend’s classmates said in a film class discussion — don’t show dissenting opinions because it might foster different ideas.
The saddest thing is that it’s probably the only thing that would work to get some people to at least parrot something vaguely intelligent to say, though they wouldnt’ necessarily understand what they’re saying. And then what? We turn into exactly what we are decrying against.
I think I want a stiff drink and a teddy bear to hug while I curl up in a fetal position.
Kelli
March 3, 2005 at 8:53 am
40Jerry,
Thanks for your comment about alternative news media, I was forgetting about the willfully informed people I have been interacting with on this very site. There is hope for freedom of information. There is even hope, Lobster willing, for a generation that might get along slightly better than the one before.
Tom M- Thanks for the Book recomend, I have started The Truth and am loving it.
Jerry
March 3, 2005 at 7:23 pm
41Kelli -
“willfully informed!” I love it! Looking forward to seeing more of your comments here!
David
March 3, 2005 at 9:00 pm
42Tess,
We’re already there. I heard Tariq Ali on Democracy Now today. He rejected the notion that American is fascist (I disagree somewhat, but I’m using Mussolini’s equation: fascism=corporate control of government, rathjer than the bizarre murder machine it became under Hitler). He likened what we are seeing as more akin to Bhrezhnevianism. And some military insider said to Seymour Hersh, “Welcome to Stalingrad.”
I say, “Welcome to pre-perestroika A-Bush-ica” (Lobster I hope I didn’t get peristroika and galsnost confused)
tess
March 4, 2005 at 4:26 am
43David,
My boyfriend was hearing this little idiot going on about how Stalinist propaganda was great to help women get abortions. I am pro-choice, but I take umbrage when it’s being promoted using Soviet-style scare tactics.
I remember peristroika as being the opening up of the Russian economy to capitalist elements. Then again, I was 8 when that happened so my memory’s a bit fuzzy.
I need that stiff drink now. I managed to wrest away a cheap bottle of ammaretto before all the Republican frats and sororities bought all the booze for their pre-quarter daddy-funded parties.
David
March 4, 2005 at 11:25 am
44Damned, make that glasnost, not galsnost. It’s the bandages on three fingers resulting from getting my cat off the roof.
I should check with Condi Rice, what with her being a Sovietologist and all.
And, hey, so long as you aren’t Muslim and/or don’t look Middle Eastern, you aren’t in danger of being taken in the middle of the night and shipped off to some gulag, or better yet given a free ride on the extreme rendition express in a corporate jet.
Drunk arch-Republicans must be a hoot. I’m quite amazed by the sober ones.
Jerry
March 4, 2005 at 1:33 pm
45David -
I am offended! America is not bigoted!
There was a time, not so long ago, after Tim McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, that evey American was looking with suspicion at any neatly-groomed young white man! There were many incidents in which neatly-groomed young white men who didn’t even have red hair were attacked by mobs and killed.
And after that incident, we bombed most of the northwest, in hopes of accidentally hitting enclaves of Posse Comitatus members and white extremists. The whole region was invested with hundreds of thousands of Natonal Guardsmen, and thousands of neatly-groomed young white men were hauled of to secret detention facilities and tortured until the gave up somebody, anybody, to the Pafic-Northwest Interim Government.
Murray
March 4, 2005 at 2:15 pm
46Jerry,
You forgot about the invasion of Michigan to rid the world of the Michigan Militia.
A huge success. They haven’t threatened us in years.
Jerry
March 4, 2005 at 4:53 pm
47And don’t forget the DWW (Driving While White) controversy, when white folks were being pulled over and searched just because they “looked suspicious!”
David
March 4, 2005 at 9:04 pm
48Damned, how could I forget? Early dementia is pure hell.