New innovations in digital music have led to a decrease in online piracy and an increase in online discovery of emerging musicians.
Sports & Entertainment
Like Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July, the Super Bowl is a great national secular holiday.
Nothing — especially not a football game — measures up to the seriousness of Watergate.
Over the past few decades, ratings for violent movies have become progressively more tolerant.
Twenty-five years ago today, the eyes of the nation were on San Francisco.
The football-über-alles culture has not changed appreciably.
The Washington Post asks this morning if England is really a good fit for the EU. The answer is of course, no, but getting to "no" is no easy matter.
In the movie "Men in Black," the intuitive agent turns to the tabloids to get to the greater truths. Look today to the tabloids: Baby bump on Princess Kate — Harry says it will be a boy. And incidentally, England's Prince Harry met this past week warrior-to-warrior with Arizona Sen. John McCain in a most poignant moment of reflection on our most noble and honorable women and men injured in sacrifice for our joint national purposes.
President Obama’s expressed concerns about violence in football a week before the Super Bowl seem oddly calculated. Are his recent comments intended to parallel his campaign against guns and his assault on the Second Amendment? Are we Americans — the ones who watch the Super Bowl — inherently violent? He wouldn't want his boys to play, if he had any. They might hurt themselves. Surely, a viewing of Hockey Night in Canada would send Obama to the fainting couch. But it is not hard to see him in future days high up in the stands with Bill Clinton and Mick Jagger and old friend Beckham and his Spice Girls missus, hoping against hope that some unheard-of Third World nation, newly thrown together by Western clerks and movie actors, will win the World Cup in soccer (and swooning with disgust when it goes once again to those gnarly Germans).
The critical commentary about the Bigelow-Boal movie “Zero Dark Thirty,” about the search for and killing of Osama bin Laden, is wrong. The chief criticism is that the movie condones torture. I think its portrayal of torture is likely to repel most viewers, to force them to look away from it. How is that condonation? As director Bigelow remarked, a movie’s showing something is not necessarily endorsing it. Exposure in drama is often, in the best cases, the best argument against it. Think of “Gentleman’s Agreement” or “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Portraying cultural anti-Semitism or racism did more to condemn it than condone it. The brilliance of “Dead Man Walking” was that it even-handedly dramatized both sides of the death penalty issue. It isn’t clear in this movie, or in any accepted historical evidence, that torture led to Osama bin Laden’s assassination. The issue of the morality, legality, efficacy of torture is an important and fair issue for public debate. I’m on record deploring the practice, and I would guess so are Bigelow and Boal. So I think this criticism of their movie showing the revolting picture of torture is incorrect and unfair.
There has been much media attention focus on the murder/suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs defensive player Jovan Belcher. Although it is tragic when any two people lose their lives to violence, it should be remembered that what occurred was cold-blooded murder. That would be the case if it were committed by a bum on the street, a political figure or a well-paid athlete.