Creationism > George Clooney?

Box Office Mojo’s weekend numbers are registering Ben Stein’s creationist documentary Expelled above George Clooney’s screwball comedy Leatherheads (3.1 million vs. 3.0 million), despite Expelled showing on 37 percent as many screens. Granted, it’s Expelled’s opening week versus Leatherhead’s third, but it still seems like an eye-popper. It looks Stein is headed for territory previously inhabited only by Mr. Michael Moore, though there’s some skepticism about how big of a success it should be measured. (hat tip: Chris Mooney)

When all the dollars are counted, which movie will gross more?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE: The peanut gallery over at Mooney’s blog posed the question about whether the geographic distribution of Expelled showings might offer something of interest.

I didn’t have the time to do anything too sophisticated (no geocoding to lat/long or ZIP code level analysis), but I did have time to pull the latest listings from Expelled’s theater locator and run the following charts over at Many Eyes. (FWIW, I only found 1050 theaters in the Expelled search, but Box Office Mojo says it showed on 1052).

This first one is a map that totals up the number of showings by state.

And then a scatterplot that rates the number of showings in each state against its population. They’re 2006 resident population numbers I pulled from Census.

You can see where the line would probably show up if you ran the numbers on the scatter. What I immediately look for are any states well above or below the pack. It looks like New York has a pretty low number of showings per capita, as do a number of other “blue” states, but so does Pennsylvania, home to the recent Dover controversy over Intelligent Design. On the other end, it looks like North Carolina and Georgia were pretty highly saturated, relatively.

See anything?

Which Barack Obama headline makes the best band name?

The media circus found its latest entertainment Friday when word of Barack Obama’s allegedly controversial remarks shot across the blogosphere. Unlike previous presidential titillations, this one was set off by The Huffington Post. That alone seems somewhat remarkable, considering how the lefty HuffPost openly apes the practices of the usual outlet for this sort of news: the more rightly Drudge Report.

But, in keeping with the spirit of Dave Berry Barry, may he rest in peace, let’s not take this opportunity to reflect upon what the means for the state of the news media, or even the campaign of one Barack Obama. No, let’s use it to consider which related news headline contains the best potential band name.

Which Barack Obama headline makes the best band name?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Sources:

The Wright side of history.

Pop quiz.

Name the controversial black pastor, once allied with a charismatic young presidential candidate, who called America the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” before decrying how, in a “madness” fed by the “immense profits of overseas investment,” the country “poisoned the international atmosphere” by falling “victim to … deadly Western arrogance” and propping up a foreign government that is “singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support?” He’s also noted concern about America worshipping “the God of Hate” at “the alter of retaliation.”

Maybe you’re thinking of Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor whose provocative sermons have recently caused problems for his highest profile congregant, presidential contender Barack Obama.

Well, that’s wrong. The answer is Martin Luther King Jr., who said all of those things in an April 1967 speech in Riverside, California. You can read and listen to it here.

Now you can start drawing distinctions between King’s form of dissent and the more highly publicized snippets of Wright’s technique. And that’s fine. I could make a list myself. But my point here is that King wasn’t always the meek and mild voice he’s often portrayed to be today. Though I think the way forward pointed to by King, and echoed again last week by Obama, is still well captured by the voice of Langston Hughes, who, grievanced as he was, envisioned the possibility of a more perfect union to come:

O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath– America will be!

The Reality-Based Community’s One Note Tune.

I just counted my way through Steve Weinberg’s annual list of journalism books published in the media trade magazine IRE Journal. Altogether it amounts to 231 titles. One reason Steve Weinberg should be everyone’s hero is that he’s probably already read a huge stack of them.

Me? Yeah, I’ve only read five. That’s just over 2 percent of the total (2.5 percent if you let me sneak in James Fallows’ repackaged magazine articles, which I totally swear I read in their original serialized form in The Atlantic).

It’s no surprise that after you lump George W. Bush, Karl Rove, the recently deposed Republican Congress, Iraq, Osama and the 2004 election into one big red pile, it easily tops the list of most commonly recurring topics. Deservedly so, I would say. I won’t feel like an informed citizen until I’ve cracked The Looming Tower and despite all I’ve already picked up in newspapers, magazines and elsewhere, I’m still interested in learning more.

I can’t say the same for topic number two. Ranking in with seven appearances on Weinberg’s list, it’s yet more scary stories for the sheltered secular humanist in the family.

And that’s not even counting omissions like Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy, Chris Hedges’ Losing Moses on the Freeway, or Hedges’ early 2007 follow-up—this one tops them all—American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

I know I’m painting with a broad brush. I’m sure much of it is quality work, but the shrill tone wears on me. The overheated eagerness in journalistic and left-wing circles to distinguish oneself from the Bush administration and unfashionable elements of its constituency (see the preening fixation with the now notorious “reality-based community” quote), grants any use of the right-wing’s alarmist rhetorical tactics a special whiff of hypocrisy.

And, to me, a lot of this stuff about the impending Christian overthrow of the Constitution is packaged in exactly the same language as all the right-wing noise about the liberal conspiracy to destroy America. Look no further than Ann Coulter’s Godless, Ramesh Ponnuru’s The Party of Death, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and, my latest favorite, Dinesh D’Souza’s The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

It’s possible that I’m missing the severity of these supposedly dire conflicts. Yet if things were grave as we’re told, I’d like to think the threat would be more apparent. As far as I can detect from my own experiences combined with observations gleaned from sources that I trust, both sides here have gone a bit overboard. But I guess that’s what people think will sell books. Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe, to torture a phrase, the barbarians are at the gate (or the crusaders, depending on your politics). You tell me. My intention isn’t to be dismissive.

And not to get too intense about it, but if two strongly opposed sides can each get away with labeling the other fascist without any clear contradictions, that means the battle George Orwell took up in 1946 has failed to progress much at all. In his essay Politics and the English Language Orwell wrote:

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another…

…One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin, where it belongs.