I’ve been reluctant to write about the unrest in Iran, which Gateway Pundit has been doing a fine job of rounding up.

Every other time we’ve seen unrest, it has been squelched one way or another. But this time it appears to be more widespread. And it isn’t students (though, of course, students may be involved in organizing it—I don’t know any of the facts; I’m speculating).

Meanwhile, Bush decided to use sugar-coated carrots. And it seems to have made an impression.

I don’t know what to think and, truth to tell, I’m reluctant to hope. But: let it implode, without a bloodbath.

Ooooh! A new documentary, followed by a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Eric S. Margolis. I got an invite, which I’m happy to pass along (and scroll down for a blurb about the film):

American Zeitgeist: Crisis & Conscience in an Age of Terror
Look at a bigger picture.

NYC Premiere and DVD release, Thursday June 15, 2006
Followed by a debate b/w Christopher Hitchens and Eric S. Margolis
NY Society for Ethical Culture, 7:15pm (Doors open at 6:45)
2 West 64th Street at Central Park West
New York, NY 10023

For more details, visit www.americanzeitgeist.com

Dear Friend,

We wanted to inform you of the upcoming NYC premiere of the award-winning documentary American Zeitgiest: Crisis & Conscience in an Age of Terror. The film takes an historical look at the underlying fractures of the War on Terrorism across a 25-year+ period of time.

The screening will be immediately followed by a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Eric Margolis zeroing in on issues raised in the feature-length film.

Free beer will be available courtesy of the Brooklyn Brewery.

Tickets for the premiere, which will be held at the New York Society for Ethical Culture in Manhattan, can be purchased at www.ticketweb.com
or call 1-866-468-7619.

Left? Right? Liberal? Conservative?
Look at a bigger picture.

from the website:

In one of the most divided periods in U.S. history, questions of American empire and unilateralism are being levied abroad by friend and foe alike through the splintered lens of the War on Terrorism. What began as a widely supported effort to protect American lives has led us to an uncertain crossroads, more alone now than we have ever been.

Slated for release in 2006, Avenue E Productions’ latest film American Zeitgeist explores the underlying fractures of the War on Terrorism, considering how what America is, what it does and what it represents have become the most explosive questions on the world stage since September 11th.

That’s what Joe Biden just said on CNN. Really.

(No, Joe. L’etat n’est pas toi.)

Norman Lebrecht says the musical was pronounced dead by the New York Times a little while ago. Somehow, I missed that (the entertainment section piles up—I’m too damn busy with the “news”). Here he gives a great short account of its history and origins (from Italian opera). He also warns of a possible upcoming battle in the culture wars:

Show Boat, four hours long, opened on Broadway in December 1927 and ran for two years until the Wall Street crash. …This was the first racially integrated show ever to appear on an American stage, and the first to treat a mixed-race love story, set on the banks of the Mississippi. To present such a topic in 1927, or even half a century later, was brave beyond the normal remit of New York theatre and for many disenfranchised black people this musical, with its quasi-spiritual show-stopper Ol’ Man River, amounted to a rallying call. …

When Francesca Zambello’s eye-catching production opens this month at the Royal Albert Hall, you can bet your hairshirt to a croquet hoop that some self-appointed custodians of political correctness will complain that Ol Man River and Can’t Help Loving Dat Man are racially offensive. Seven years ago, the splendidly enlightened authorities of Middlesborough and Teesside banned Show Boat from council premises on the grounds that it would be ‘distasteful and upsetting’ to ethnic minorities

In today’s Slate, Shmuel Rosner, a correspondent for the (left-liberal) Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, writes one of the toughest, most candid, most honest words (of warning? advice?) I have ever read about political will and the national stomach of steel needed to enforce that will.

The Israeli West Bank barrier, when finished, will run for more than 400 miles and will consist of trenches, security roads, electronic fences, and concrete walls. Its main goal is to stop terrorists from detonating themselves in restaurants and cafes and buses in the cities and towns of central Israel. So, planners set the bar very high: It is intended to prevent every single attempt to cross it. The rules of engagement were written accordingly. If someone trying to cross the fence in the middle of the night is presumed to be a terrorist, there’s no need to hesitate before shooting. To kill.

As such, the Israeli fence is very efficient. The number of fatalities from terror attacks within Israel dropped from more than 130 in 2003 to fewer than 25 in 2005. The number of bombings fell from dozens to fewer than 10. The cost for Israel is in money and personnel; the cost for Palestinians is in unemployment, health, frustration, and blood. The demographic benefit—keeping out the Palestinians—is just another positive side effect for the Israelis….

But applying this model to the U.S.-Mexico border will not be easy. U.S. citizens will find it hard to justify such tough measures when their only goal is to stop people coming in for work—rather than preventing them from trying to commit murder. …

The more you answer these questions the Israeli way, the more unbeatable your fence will be. But don’t forget: Years of terror attacks hardened Israelis’ hearts toward their neighbors (just as years of occupation hardened Palestinians’ hearts toward Israelis). This brought them to a point where they were ready to do whatever it took to make the bloodshed stop. So, here’s an easy way to figure out if an American fence will work: Measure the anger and despair. Has it grown big enough to make that same commitment? [emphasis mine]

Upshot: No half-measures. And I’m not talking about a goddamn fence between us and Mexio, or us and Canada.
Really, you should read the whole thing. Twice.

The sad tale of Paul and Heather McCartney’s breakup continues in today’s Daily Telegraph. I read it, so you don’t have to (it’s a public service for my high-minded readers):

• He’s devastated by the porn pictures, because he had no idea about her sordid past.
• She found him boring.
• She didn’t get how huge the Beatles were, and was jealous of everyone fawning all over him.
• His daughter Stella was “violently opposed to the union with Mills.”
• He has hired a $1200-an-hour barrister in London and has also engaged the services of the law firm run by his late wife Linda’s family.

And:

“The latest salacious revelations are proof, if proof were needed, the divorce case of McCartney vs Mills-McCartney looks set to be one of the bloodiest and most vicious in modern history.”

From Lipstick.com, via Jeff Jarvis. What a great link—I love celebrity gossip! Plus, it’s completely legit. Don’t believe me? Check out Claims to Fame by [Professor] Joshua Gamson):

Moving from People magazine to publicists’ offices to tours of stars’ homes, Joshua Gamson investigates the larger-than-life terrain of American celebrity culture. In the first major academic work since the early 1940s to seriously analyze the meaning of fame in American life, Gamson begins with the often-heard criticisms that today’s heroes have been replaced by pseudoheroes, that notoriety has become detached from merit. He draws on literary and sociological theory, as well as interviews with celebrity-industry workers, to untangle the paradoxical nature of an American popular culture that is both obsessively invested in glamour and fantasy yet also aware of celebrity’s transparency and commercialism.Gamson examines the contemporary dream machine that publicists, tabloid newspapers, journalists, and TV interviewers use to create semi-fictional icons. He finds that celebrity watchers, for whom spotting celebrities becomes a spectator sport akin to watching football or fireworks, glean their own rewards in a game that turns as often on playing with inauthenticity as on identifying with stars.Gamson also looks at the celebritization of politics and the complex questions it poses regarding image and reality. He makes clear that to understand American public culture, we must understand that strange, ubiquitous phenomenon, celebrity.

After Claims to Fame, if you’re interested in digging deeper into the black arts of celebrity manufacture and maintenance—and I dare you not to be—read High Visibility, which, I note, has been updated for the digital age. Gotta order that.
In those two books, you will find a lot of the answers to the question “Why do we love celebrities?”… And you’ll still love ‘em…if you’re like me, that is.

There’s a longer reading list, but I’m not in the mood to do all the linking and stuff.