24P- Politics At The Speed Of FIim

A Cavernous Voice Laiden With The Screams of the Damned

2005-01-03T19:08:00.000-08:00

I just watched Henry Kissenger on Fox talking about humanitarian relief. Maybe he got confused and wandered on set when he heared there was a disaster in Indonesia.

Morphology

2004-11-16T03:25:00.000-08:00

Fallujah is an atrocity. It’s a war crime that is never likely to see any justice meted out in recompense. No one in a position of power is ever going to ever face any consequences. Instead, punishment will inevitably fall on those unfortunate enough to loose control of themselves in the heat of battle in a nonsensical war of attrition. Its clear that US policy has totally jettisoned any pretense of following the Geneva Conventions. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva convention states: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The leveling of an entire city of several hundred of thousand for harboring a guerilla movement falls under that under any reasonable definition. The men that weren’t killed were arrested. The guerilla leaders left before the attack with most of the population - if they were there at all. What have we done? How is it going to help one bit? What happens when the people come back and find most if not all of their city and its 77 mosques destroyed? Fallujah was the birthplace of the rebellion that threw out the British in 1920. It’s something that they’re proud of, and we have given them reason after reason to do it again.

The battle was deliberately timed to begin after the election. If it was so tactically important to “retake” Fallujah, why the wait? If the purpose of the attack was to help prepare the way for elections in January, why are Sunni candidates threatening to boycott the election because of it? If the Sunni’s boycott you can kiss a legitimate government goodbye. Once people start coming back to the city and the true extent of the destruction and death is known a boycott will probably be a sure thing, barring some kind of miracle. Why destroy the entire city? Why keep the Red Crescent out (Middle Eastern Red Cross)?

This was an old school slash and burn job. Its one of the oldest tactics for dealing with rebels. It’s a one two punch to beat down the rebel fighters themselves and scare the shit out of the civilians who actively and silently support them. The idea is to kill and destroy as much as possible. One step closer to the dark side. Bush is trying to have it both ways: He wants to brutalize and make the Iraqis fear us enough to abandon hope of pushing us out, but he also wants to be seen as trying to help, protect, and safeguard the Iraqis. The result is going to be a disaster. You can’t mix and match. Its either or. Mix and match gets you Algeria, Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, North Ireland, etc… As a country that supposedly works for democracy and human rights, the only reasonable choice is doing the right thing and make an honest attempt at rebuilding. But the only thing on the minds of our Pentagon friends were no bid contracts and creating a government for the benefit of the American Enterprise Institute. Why is everyone surprised that the Iraqis got angry at us? We blew their shit up, stole from them, tortured them, killed them, and for that they’re supposed to thank us? “Winning” in Iraq now means killing a lot of Iraqis. We are not the good guys. We are not the underdog. We are not the White Knight or the Good Sheriff. We are The Galactic Empire. We make a desolation and call it peace. We reelected Abu Ghraib.

This is Marlboro Marine thing is bullshit. What the fuck is wrong with people? He was under orders to go and kill people. This is not sexy. He was there because the Bush administration are less than worthless and bordering on avaricetic. The failure of our policies is what led to this mess. There is a line between support and fetishizing. A sexual icon should be the last thing that comes out of all this.

A Manifesto For Radicalization

2004-11-09T03:04:00.000-08:00

Tough times are coming. Even if Kerry had won there wouldn't be a whole lot he could do. Since we have reelected a mind-shatteringly incompetent government you can feel it coming much faster. In response, liberals in general and the Dems in particular, are radicalizing as I type. You can see it clearly in the liberal response to the election. Things like Jesusland, while hi-larious, have very real sentiments behind them. People who used to be moderate are moving towards partisanship, and current centrists and moderates of both wings are finding themselves ignored and diminishing in number. Centrism is a luxury afforded by periods of wide spread and sustained prosperity. The post WWII consensus is no longer operable. That constitutional order is collapsing as the Agrarian civil war era and the Coal Gold standard era economies before it.

Our current order is based on oil to provide large cheap energy for a liberal welfare state and the suburban lifestyle. You can call it the energy/black-gold standard. Theoretically our money is based on our economic output and not pegged to the price of any sort of commodity. But our output is determined how much energy we can produce and ultimately you can reduce all production down to the common thread of energy costs. IE how much oil we have to burn. Suburban life is possible because of cars. Cars and highways make it possible for us to use large amounts of land. That widening of the land supply makes it cheaper and lets people have a life style that would be impossible in a big urbanized city. Thus we trade capital for energy and energy for less rent. This process has been repeated for things like strip malls, supermarkets, and Wal-Mart style retailers. But we have hit the limits of substitution for a couple of reasons. One is that oil reserves are limited in the US and so we have to buy it from other countries. Two the bandwidth at which we can pump and distribute oil is limited as well. The restrictions on substitution started around the 70s, but not because we're going to run out of oil. To combat this the ideas of globalization and "free-trade" was born.

"Free-trade" in sarcasm quotes is of course nothing of the kind. Globalization shifts energy costs to poor nations where energy use is much lower thus saving businesses oodles of money. Ironically globalization has exasperated the problem in two ways. Firstly the social contract that came with globalization promised to replace lost jobs in manufacturing with white collar service and information jobs. For a while it was kept and let to the tech boom in the 90s. But then businesses realized they could substitute these jobs as well. Globalization led to booms in places like China and India. The growing economies and huge populations gave birth to a huge professional class willing to work for much less than US workers. Also these countries are finally beginning to industrialize thanks to the huge flow of money. They've quickly burned through huge amounts of coal and now are trying to convert to oil. In 10 years China alone will use more oil than the entire world does now. The US is BLEEDING money to try and sustain energy production because its that energy that keeps our huge appetite for consumption going. Exhibits A and B are the deficit and the current account deficit; both are the largest ever. The rest of the world is literally supporting us.

We're caught in a catch-22. The rest of the world is supporting us, but we support them as well. The relationship is very, very fragile. The US is the only country with a population that has enough capital to absorb the huge amount of excess production that fuels the economies of countries like Japan and China. But we do that buying with enormous amounts of debt. But we're the only country with a military that can keep the supply of oil flowing. We are the oil police. So we keep the oil going so production can keep gong so we can keep buying. But that cycle is headed for collapse. As the supply of available oil shrinks it becomes more valuable. The middle east which has the largest percentage of oil reserves is becoming increasingly unstable. The authoritarian governments we support/ed have or are about to be toppled. These new governments are very hostile to the US and are likely to disrupt the oil flow. Iraq was, indeed, about oil, but not the way you might think. Oil had been creeping up in price for a while. Iraqi oil was effectively untouchable because of Sadaam. We didn't go in to seize it for ourselves we went in to put oil back on the market and keep oil prices down for everyone. But its gone all wrong. Production is constantly being hammered by attacks. Our military is bogged down and we have lost the industrial world's consent to be its policeman.

All these forces are coming together to produce a crisis. Since the Democrats have largely controlled the post-war order the Republicans have been radicalized for some time and have already formulated a response: fascism to bring about a feudal style socio-economic order. The idea is to freeze growth so that the current order can stay competitive as energy costs rise. They'll do that by marginalizing and cannibalizing the industrial and technology economies and the urban growth oriented lifestyle they support and turn that capital towards the military, agriculture, and a new aristocracy. The military acts like a huge bottomless pit for money. Civilian contractors get paid 100,000 for driving trucks in Iraq. A bullet's value is gone after its used and doesn't ever have to be expended. But it probably will be. Feudal societies are very war like and highly religious. Two characteristics of many conservative republicans and certainly the Bush administration. Since the 70s, year after year more and more programs are gutted or replaced with less expensive and less effective alternatives. As the viability of the welfare state continues to deteriorate more and more people are going to turn to the Republican solution for stability. That solution requires religious adherence and economic trade-offs for welfare-like support from the church - which was the function of a national church in feudal times. Wealthy corprate Republicans have made a deal with fundamentalists. The wealthy and the religious leaders will form the nobility. They have agreed to trade growth for power. The Wealthy become the aristocracy and the only ones capable of charging rend and owning pattens. The aristocracy empowers the church to enforce its beliefs on the population. People trade growth and liberties for stability and support from the church. Classic feudal society.

Democrats have not formulated a response. They've been busy trying to maintain the viability of the current order. Now that they've been marginalized they can finally get around to reorganizing to create a progressive alternative to the Republicans. Its going to be nasty. Two radicalized parties in a less-than-zero-sum game. So we come back to the centrists. While they're complaints are heart-felt there is no alternative. Its time to choose sides. Its time to put aside childish consumer politics. This is serious. If 2000 wasn't clear enough 2004 better fucking be. We're not going to win by offering the same god damn shit again, or by appealing to religious sentiments. Conservative Christian fundamentalism is about creating a new social order that runs completely contrary to liberalism. In order to win votes Dems need to offer a radically different approach that diffuses the appeal of the Republican position and achieves the liberal goals of modernism, progress, and justice. Call it the Real Deal after the reality-based-community if you want. I would. It isn't about moving more to the left or right or center. Its about creating a liberal society and an economic structure that can maintain strong growth for decades. Real growth and progress are the only things that are going to give people enough hope and economic ablility to sacrifice their traditions and join the Democrats.

What does that mean? It means undertaking energy reform like we undertook the space race. It means cutting the military down. Its also going to mean some kind of conscription to dilute the uniformity of the military caste. Its going to mean the urbanization of suburban sprawls like Southern California, and other parts of the west. Its going to mean the end of traditional forms of subsidy and replaced by commodity and technology subsidy. It also means strong support of... I can't believe I'm saying this... free market capitalism. Like it or not capitalism is the best system for producing growth. Ideally this will be capitalism on liberal terms. There won't be any room for compromise. Liberal capitalism will stand in stark contrast to the running in place that results from feudal communism. It has to, or else we lose. The only choices are growth or stasis, and as far as I'm concerned stasis is the death of liberalism.

Worse Than Useless

2004-11-05T04:39:00.000-08:00

Rohrabacher and Cox.

Oh maaaaan... At least someone had fun on tuesday.

I went to bed thinking that hey at least they won't concede until every vote is counted this time. Boy was I surprised when I woke up.

The first lesson that the Democrats should have learned after last year was to fight; fight until you're dead. Gore lasted longer than this. Pathetic. It was a long shot but Kerry could have least made a show out of it. Show that he was willing to go all the way to defend his party and his people.

No presidency and lost more of congress. Uhg. Its great Obama won, but he was running against Alan Keys, the craziest stooge the Republicans have.

I watched Kerry try to out conservative Bush during the debates. What was he doing? Why are you trying to appeal to conservatives? What is your platform? What are you doing? People don't trust Democrats to implement a conservative agenda, and with good reason. They have Republicans for that. It isn't about tactics, its about substance. Even this year the media noise was all about how the two candidates are the same. When are they going to get it? In an election between a fake centrist conservative and a real conservative they're going to pick the real one.

The Democratic party needs to dump the centrists and the technocrats like hot rocks; like YESTERDAY. They didn't want to win. They abandoned their constituents and betrayed the trust of the new political apparatus that was built to put them in power. If the power of a global network that can raise millions of dollars and can run attack and defense for you for FREE can't put you in power, NOTHING will. EVER. Neolibralsim needs to DIE. Now. It needs to die as dead as paleolibralism.

Politics as a consumer culture needs to die. While the Democrats are wasting elections trying to find the particular flavor of centrism that people want, the Republicans are consolidating their power.

There was no fatal mistake that would have saved Kerry. He lost by millions of votes. Edwards couldn't have done it either. He's another conservative Democrat. He would have been tarred as inexperienced, or not religious enough, or too gay friendly, or SOMETHING. Hillary wouldn't do any better nor would any of the other goof balls holding their tails between their legs.

The third way, the new way is the way of neomodernism, the way of the reality-based community. Democrats need to stop lying and face reality. The reality is that we are facing an energy crisis. We cannot afford our current lifestyle for much longer. The world is going to become more and more hostile to us as we try to grab and burn as much oil as we can. It will happen even faster if Iraq slips into chaos, which is likely. Our threat of invasion will no longer be credible. Democrats need to field people who understand this. People who will lead instead of pander, and who will fight for civility instead of giving in to insanity.

Modern democrats will have to show people that the old America, America as the only super power is a myth, and a lie. They will show people a better way to live. They will create an America that has a future instead of selling a doomed future to pay for the present. To get that party requires sacrifice. The current party has shown it is not up to that task and chooses instead to lie to its constituents and continue on the current path to insignificance. Being a liberal is more than health care and government programs. Its about fighting for justice on all fronts. These Democrats will not fight and they are not liberal. Throw them out.

The Debates

2004-10-01T01:22:00.000-07:00

Why does fake news have more substance than real news? Maybe its fitting though since everybody is crazy nowadays. These are days where only a comedian has the skill to properly engage a subject seriously and still be funny. John Stewart walked all over Giuliani, part time asshole and the former mayor of the countries biggest city who's still got that national hero smell. He had it coming I suppose. He had the impossible job of defending the indefensible, and his weak babbling candidate chose to avoid answering for his own decisive leadership every chance he got. George Bush, in a brilliant tactical move, chose instead to viciously attack entire legions of nefarious straw men. He was entirely victorious, and by the end of the 90 minute brawl, he stood triumphant; towering over his opponent mounted on the corpses of his imaginary enemies. There was no contest of wills; not one drop of sweat was shed as he hacked away. So great was his power, he sighed with irritation and rolled his eyes at the futility of it all. George Bush lost the facts debate, but he certainly could win the narrative debate. Facts cannot be changed, but the story of what happened can be redrawn by force of will and imagination. If I've learned anything, its that republicans have infinite capacity to imagine the most seductive and optimistic of fantasy lands. I don't know if you heard, but Iraq was a success. That’s what they said anyway, and they deserve a chance to have their story told. Newton's Law of Journalism: for every story there are two equal and opposite opposing sides. At this moment there are hundreds of republican elves making beautiful toys for all the good little journalists out there. They'll be way more fun than anything democrats will give them. Democrats don't know how to make fun toys.

JFK on the other hand was not another JFK. He certainly sounded Presidential and looked stately and serious. But he was arguing the Facts debate, and he certainly won. The facts are as he stated, and he is arguing action based on those facts. With facts as your ally its hard to loose, but you have to attack in order to win. He did not shoot to kill. You don't have to hulk out to attack someone in a debate, and in fact you'll automatically loose if you do. But all it takes is a word. Kerry should have Killed Bush with a sentence. Something calmly stated. A matter of fact conversational bitch slap, like something from a British period drama. I wanted tears. I wanted to see him suddenly stripped naked; clutching desperately at the podium trying to hide his sad contemptible shame before the entire world. I wanted to see Kerry the God of Life and Death. The one they tell stories about. But no. Alack-a-day, he played it safe and certain. He let Bush escape with his life, and he'll have to fight a constant uphill battle to combat the sound-bite sized arguments Bush pathetically delivered. Inevitably, context will be lost as the mass of republican operatives swarm over the airwaves declaring the president won because he didn't utterly fail. Tomorrow at 5am Eastern they'll activate the loom, spinning, using the President's unmistakable words to weave a grand web of lies that is more real that what really happened. When you're not wedded to using facts to advance your argument, its easy. If democrats still want to use facts and win, they'll have to learn the art of evisceration. Expose lies and incompetence in the most ruthless way possible. As long as what they're saying is tied to the real world I would whole heartedly support such a move. As for tonight, my team "won". Over the next few day's we'll see if someone hasn't gone back with an eraser and turned Bushes "F" into an "S". For Success.

Hey It Only Took 18 Months

2004-09-10T15:04:00.000-07:00

From This Is Rumor Control:

ABC's Nightline will be taking a bold step tonight at 11:35 pm by revealing the media's "dirty little secret" of not reporting how horrific war really is. By failing to show the truth about war's deeply disturbing images, has the media made war too easy to accept? Nightline will grapple with the question of how far the media should go in protecting viewers from real life images of war, atrocities and terrorism. Would our nation learn a different lesson from reporting the truth? Nightline intends to stretch the envelope beyond the confines set by the administration and military to shield the public.

A caution to viewers. Nightline will present graphic images never shown before on television. Even the producers are torn over what to air and what is too disturbing for anyone to watch. Take heed.

Anyone that's seen Fahrenheit 9/11 already has an idea of the disconnect of tone and accuracy the coverage from the reality. I'll be watching this all the same. Everyone should but war advocates have a particular duty to do so. If there was any justice in this world war supporters from all ages and all places should be forced to see exactly to what the consequences of their support have brought to those far away places.

Iran-Contra Part Deu

2004-08-29T15:18:00.000-07:00

Everyone knows its cool to be retro and party like its 1986. I'm over here with my Voltron, you're over there imagining you're that chick in Flashdance, and those guys in the Pentagon are breaking laws and making back-ally deals that involve everyone's favorite theocractic Middle Eastern state. No not Afganistan, Iran! Now, maybe no one noticed when all those guys from Iran-Contra were given their jobs back. Hey thats cool, who read the news anyway? As long as they don't fuck things up too bad yeah?

Oops.

This is one of those conspiracies that makes people believe the crazy ones. I don't quite get it all yet, but it all involves the neoconservatives in the pentagon, the war in Iraq, Iran, Isreal, Italian foreign intelligence service (wtf?), the forged documents that were used as evidence to show Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, and the outing of a CIA agent. Anyway, go read this article from the Washingtom Monthly, and here from mid-east expert Juan Cole.

Evenhanded Backhand

2004-08-22T01:02:00.000-07:00

Some people are upset that Matt Yeglesias got angry, said some very harsh objectively true statements, and gave out a call to arms.

First of all Matt is a very well tempered blogger, and it is one of his goals to remain so. He is reasoned and civil to the point of agrivation. Secondly, everyone has their breaking point, and Matts just happened to be now. It took a lot to get there. What was it that broke the cammels back? A coordinated campain of black propaganda designed to undermine the candidate he's chosen to support fronted by a group of liars and run the presidents campain staff. This is something to be upset about. Even people on the other side can be upset about this, expecially veterans like John McCain. This is NOT normal politics. It shouldn't be like this.

The things Matt said about Bush are true. He has promoted criminals to high government positions; people involved in Iran-Contra. He obviously supports the adds. If McCain can come out and condemn them so can Bush. The truth hurts. Guess what Republicans, your candidate is an asshole. He's been a terrible president, and this rediculous ad campain is coming back to bite him in the ass. Listen. Can you hear? I'm playing the worlds smallest violin for you.

Lets get to the heart of the matter: conservative are upset that Bush isn't getting away with his usual Bullshit. Bemoaning the blowback as overly partisan and undemocratic is the icing on your double decker turd cake that's been baking for the last ten years. The reason boat has sailed. DLC Democrats were so bipartisan some of them were Republicans. But the Republicans shut them out. They berated and bullied and yelled on TV, radio, and in print. Now you want reason in the face of growing Democratic power? Tough shit. We don't have to listen anymore. As they've made perfectly clear time and time again the ruling party and administration don't deserve to be in power. No amount of reasoned debate is going to change that.

Also I'd like to say that its a rediculous idea that just because someone doesn't want to debate or argue an obvious point they're somehow beyond all hope. Its unreasonable to argue everything. Only philosophers argue everything. The evidence on the swift boat guys is out, and paraded around in print. We don't need to debate anymore. Its done. I don't want to have to have a debate about the nature of gravity everytime I trip. It's O.K. to accept somethings a priori. It is now a proven fact that the swift boat dudes for bush are liars. Therefore, I don't have to debate their bullshit anymore. Bush put people - like Poindexter, and Abrams from Iran-Contra - into his government. Therefore he's given criminals high paying government jobs. Whining that liberals aren't being evenhanded enough is just insulting. Saying that is just going to make someone more angry.

Trying To Stay Regular

2004-08-17T09:05:00.000-07:00

I want to start updating a lot more. I'm gonna post on something thats been worming away in my brain for the past few days later this afternoon. Also due is a review for The Village.

Like A Fucking rhino In A China Shop

2004-08-12T19:18:00.000-07:00

The US is the fucking rhino. The Shrine of Ali Hussain is one big china cup full of boiling hot anger juice. There's shelling, and they're dropping bombs. BOMBS. I don't care if they're laser guided or placed gently on a target with little notes saying. "Sorry we're bombing your holy monument. <3 BFF US Army." No one is going to care once shit gets broken. Yeah the Sadrists are assholes for using the mosque as a fort. But we're doing exactly what they want. They WANT us to incinerate the place. No one is going to care who was there first or who started it. Or rather they will care. They'll be martyrs. People will be carying Sadr's portrait around the country while the hundreds of outraged Shiits with guns flood around them shoot things until they're not moving anymore. If Sadr is killed and/or the Mosque is damaged you might as well call in the choppers. There won't be anything to do except massacer everyone, and no one should even be thinking about planning that right now. But I'm sure we'll see a Headline "US Plans To Shoot on Site In Case of An Uprising." The accompaning story will reveal a memo from the Justice Department to the Pentagon on the legalities of killing large amounts of people when they're really fucking mad at you. And now Iran is getting in on the act - well even more in on the act.

Allow me to switch into conspiracy mode for a moment. If Iran does get involved we could see an instintainious expantion of the war to include Iran. I am of the opionion that the neocons are crazy enough to do just about anything at this point. They're probably also really pissed about Iran feeding them disinformation through Chalabi. I think its safe to say that these guys can hold a grudge. And this only surfaced about 4 months ago. So on the off chance that something happens and there's an uprising and Iran interviens, I don't think the neocons will waste any oportunity to try and turn it around and push back. Hard. Not only will the troops have to hold their ground, but they'll have to advance into Iran. There's barely enough troops to maintain order in Bagdad. So it might come down to just bombing whatever the fuck we feel like, and if we happen to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, well shucks, we just got lucky. Oh and a draft asap. This is a god damn nightmare.

Postapalluza

2004-08-12T09:24:00.000-07:00

Here in lies several threads that I need to vent on. Now. Before my brain tries to crawl out my nose and goes site-seeing in Central America. So what might have been 3 posts or so will be one. One very angry incoherent post full of spelling errors that I'm not going to correct.

Switf Boat Assholes

This is a bunch of guys who are pissed off that Kerry protested the war after he came back from killing a bunch of guys, getting shot at, and rescuing his crew mates. But you wouldn't know that from their ad. The exact phrasology they're using is gramaticly true. They're calling Kerry disshonest and unfit, because of all the horribley true things he said about what was going on in Vietnam when he came back and joined the anti war movement. But thats not the litteral truth one percives on a cold screening of the ad. It sounds like they're questioning Kerry's actual record. It sounds like they're calling him a coward and a liar for saying he killed a bunch of guys, got shot at, and saved some of his crew mates.

Oh is THAT how it came across? Goodness... It was an accident! I swear!

Its all bullshit. All of it. And they deserve every amount of derision you can muster up (if you're not completely exausted already). They couldn't come out and be forethright with their actual grievence, because well, people would start throwing things at them. I mean lets face it, Veitnam was fucked up. We killed a LOT of Vietnamese. Sometimes for no particular reason. We generally call things of that nature "War Crimes". And the fact that Kerry could then come back and join the antiwar movement and help bring the war crimes being comitted in Vietnam into the spotlight is yet another feather in his cap. The Swift Boat Verterans don't deserve to be involved in the political conversation. No more time needs to be wasted wading through this bullshit. It comes down to this: Kerry released all his records. They've been through the bullshit factory already and came out clean. If you have a problem with Kerry's record you need to take it up with the Navy. Medals aren't tootsie rolls. They are not handed out to fat kids dress like pirates or spiderman for festive treats on the hollidays. When say Kerry is lying about his record, what your really saying is the Navy is lying. Or your saying I don't like his politics and am trying fling around as much poo as I can and hope it sticks to something. Pick one. I don't care which.

Bush and His Record

This one is a little shorter. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with what Bush did to avoid service for Vietnam. Lots of people avoided service. My Dad went on a similar corse. He knew his number was going to get him drafted, he was in school, and he was very keen on not going to Nam. If he had gone, I might not be here. But you never know. Anyway, he joined the army and signed up to be an MP. And it all worked out. He got to travel around the country a bit, served his time, got money for school, got out when his time was up, and went back to school. But he did NOT want to go. He seriously considered going to Canada to avoid being drafted. So no problem. You don't have to be a big military hero to be president. In fact its one of the good things about the office. But he won't admit that what he did was skipping out of combat. He trys to play off being in the Texas AIR national guard is all manly and heroic. Charlie don't serf George. So not only is he bullshiting his way out of service, but he's also bullshiting about how honorable and true his band of brothers moment really was. All he had to do was say, "Vietnam was fucked up. I didn't want to go and die for no reason." I can accept that. If he wanted to be couragous AND not serve he should have been with his fellow students burning his draft card. But he didn't do that either. He was playing the system trying to weasle out of the duty he was assigned after being bumped to the front of a long waiting list. He was staying in a rented house with his buddies and makng sure the commies weren't tampering with the beer suply. So Bush no longer gets a pass on Vietnam. Kerry: Served in combat and did the right thing after he came back by supporting the antiwar movement. Bush: Assigned to Texas Air National Guard, specificly stated that he did NOT want to go into combat, and then hoodwinked the system and went off to spend the next few decades doing nothing in particular.

Stem Cells and religion.

I'm an athiest. I don't believe in souls, or the divine, or anything like that. So imagine this debate from my perspective. You're trying to tell me that a microscopic cluster of cells should not be destroyed for research because its the same thing as killing a person. So instead we should destroy it or let it degenerate naturally since its never going to be inceminated and brought to term. Thats what this debate sounds like. This is what it sounds like to a great many scientists who want to do research into a very promicing field but can't because they can't get money from the govermnet to experiment on something thats going to be destroyed anyway. Idiots. Explain this little story to people dying of Althimerz. Oh wait, they can't understand you because they're DYING OF ALTHIMERZ WHILE THEIR FUCKING BRAIN ROTS AWAY. IDIOTS. Explain this little story to the embryo. Oh WAIT. Its a fucking cell cluster that's too small to see with the naked eye thats going to be destroyed anyway thanks for asking. And even if these exess embryos weren't going to be destroyed my tune wouldn't change. Ask the guy who needs a new liver if he'd rather have a new liver or no liver but be secure in the knowledge that by golly no microscopic globule people will have been aniallated out of existence. Instead they'll be frozen for all eternity or maybe disintagrate out of existence natrually. If you want to argue that humanity begins at fertilaziation you've got some serious issues to work out. Lets take this to its logical conclution. All abortions would be out of the question and Illegal. Miscariges could become murder investigations. Did a pregnent mothers intentional physical activity cause the death of the embryo featus? Did someone's assault result in a miscarrage? Suits and charges could be brought on behalf of the featus/embryo. The idea that a woman's body is her own is mutually exclusive. Absolutely insane. Oh yeah and no artificial incemination. We shouldn't be creating all those extra embryos in the first place right? 5 babies at one time? (WTF is wrong with you?) And people think my conception of humanity is nihalistic. If a cluster of cells is human where is value in that? A cell has no sense of self. It don't feal hate, courage, or love. Cells can't learn and have no memory. A cell can't crawl, walk, babble, speak, or write a novel. A cell can't build a bridge, or create art, or formulate mathamatics. All these things are what humans do. Even children. Even babys. But not cells. Nor not month old featuses. Religion is going to loose this debate. Even without government funding reaserch is being done. And outside the US lots more research is being done. When the breakthroughs are made people are going to find out that they like having their Diabetis cured. They'll enjoy the new limbs and organs. Babies, children, and adults who have lives and friends and families are going to care more for each other than a cell that could someday possibly be - given enough time, money, technology and energy - what they are at this moment. Shit if an embryo is a human being then a block of marble is a sculpture. A Paper cup is a small soda. I know beliefs can be strong but your religion has no place in the physical world.

All this brings me to my next screed. Religion needs to change in the face of science. NOT the other way around. If Albert Einstein says mas can be converted into energy and that gravity warps space and time you better fucking believe it. Letting religion dictate what science can do or say puts the whole idea of science on its head. If you don't think general reletivity or quantum mechanics are common sense or pass the laugh test why bother with science at all? Well there is all that medical technology, and electricity and what not. That stuff is ok I suppose.
Religion still has not fully adjusted to being relegated to the roll of strict moralistic idealism. Wayback when there was no science religion got the whole spectrum. It dictated everything. It told you not only how to act, but how to see the world and how it worked. It was up to the people who created the great beliefs to explain the world to their adherents. If you start with a small group of core assertions about the world its easy to make shit up from there. More chairitably, there was no other way to explain our experiences. So rather than building a system around something they knew nothing about, they created meaning, purpose, and cause in their minds. But then science came along and started making all these claims that made no sense at all through the eyes of religion. Some claims were outright contradiction. So religion pushed back with stronger dogma. But dogma can't make an apple fall to the ground. Science makes emperical claims that describe what we actually experice. Religion can assert anything it wants to but has NO ability to make any kind of emperical claim. Religion begins in the mind and thats where it belongs. No doubt after tens of thousands of years it might be a hard habit to break. But its something that needs to happen and the quicker the better. I hate flossing creationists out of my board of education.

Uhng So incoherent... I need a nap.

This Weeks Edition Of: What The Fuck Is Wrong With You

2004-08-05T23:03:00.000-07:00

From Steve Gilliard:

Get this: the Green Card

Reality show holds up green card as bait

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Aug. 5, 2004 | Los Angeles -- A Spanish-language reality TV show is offering contestants an unusual prize: the services of immigration lawyers to guide them toward a green card for U.S. residency.

Gana la Verde -- Win the Green -- began airing daily last month on KRCA-TV Channel 62 in Los Angeles. Owner Liberman Broadcasting also airs the program on its San Diego, Houston and Dallas stations.

People say that our show is like 'Fear Factor,' but it's different because the climax of the show involves working, production manager Adrian Vallarino told the Los Angeles Times.

The show's winner receives a year's worth of help from attorneys to expedite the residency process, the Times reported Wednesday. There's no guarantee of a green card.

Contestants have performed stunts including gulping down live tequila worms, trapping a butter-drenched pig and jumping between two speeding 18-wheelers.

A U.S. immigration official warned against undue optimism for contestants.

I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the premise of a television show except to say that they are holding out false hope to people, said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, adding that it sounds very much like exploitation.

The show has consistently reached an average of 1 million Hispanic households and last week was No. 2 among 18-to-49-year-old Hispanic viewers.

What the fuck? No seriously, some asshole in LA thought this up?

I mean, it's like handing out coupons to Chuck E. Cheese in Darfur. How cruel can you be? Let's not only exploit the Mexicans, let's taunt the fuckers as well.

Fear Factor is just a bunch of actors, this is cruel as hell and disgusting on so many levels. People run across the desert to get here and people think this is a joke to air on TV? Shit. Why not bring back bear baiting? It's about as kind. Oh right, PETA would object. Mexicans being humiliated on TV for shits and grins gets no notice, but if you bait a bear, you'd go to jail.

That is really fucking twisted. I think TV producers are the slimiest people in Hollywood - if not the entire Milky Way galaxy. Except maybe the slime creatures of Tau Ceti three, but they're, you know, actually made of slime. So they get handicap points. They should be sued for extortion. Why not make a documentary show about the horrors of trying to make it through the immigration Services bureaucracy? Have the studio provide lawyers to families the producers pick for each episode. They might actually help people, and enact some change. Shit, I'd watch that. But I guess its not on the level of the boiled cabbages that serve as Fear Factor's audience. I fucking HATE Joe Rogan. Fuck you and you're lame ass shows.

Multiple Movie Extravaganza! (Spiderman 2, Napoleon Dynamite)

2004-08-05T20:49:00.000-07:00

Well its been a great couple weeks a the theaters; for me at least. The faithful 'ol indie theater in my area has rounded up a great bunch of old flicks from the 80s. These are flicks I'd never thought I'd ever see on a big screen. Its been awesome. AND, I've squeezed in Spiderman 2 and Napoleon Dynamite. So... Lets get it on!

Spiderman 2

I thought the first Spiderman movie gave Tim Burton's Batman a serious run for its money. And I thought Spiderman 2 was even better than the first. So in my mind, Spiderman 2 is the Best. Superhero. Movie. Ever. Before I really get started let me say: I really like the Spiderman mythos; I was Spiderman for Halloween like 3 years in a row; and I think Kirsten Dunst is the bee's knees. So, grain of salt and all that.

The film is extremely well served by the return of the major talents Toby Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Danny Elfman, and Sam Raimi. This great set of talent is joined by one of my favorite authors Michael Chambon. With they're powers combined, they form Captain Planet. I mean Spiderman 2. If you're at all familiar with Chambon's work, you can feel his presence adding a much needed dramatic weight to the universally familiar superhero story. About 70% - 80% of the movie is focused on relationships and character. Not only in the story but in the placement of the camera. Huge sweeping shots are reserved exclusively for following Spiderman's aerial gymnastics through the city and in some spectacular special shots. It works great; keeping us focused on the characters and their reactions. It also has the pleasant effect of getting your adrenaline going during the action sequences.

Speaking of action, there' s plenty, but concentrated in a handful of extremely intense scenes. CGI integration is much better than last time around and not nearly as distracting. Raimi really works his real and CGI cameras to propel movement on the screen. The film has his unique style stamped all over it. There's one scene in particular that I love where he throws his fans a really meaty bone. It comes in the form of a shot for shot lift from one of his older cult movies, Evil Dead 2. There's all sorts of other goodies liberally scattered through out the movie. Watch for cameos from Stan Lee, Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi, and - my favorite of the film - Hal Sparks. Genius. See it!

Napoleon Dynamite

This movie is really... REALLY fucking funny. You know those movies people always quote at parties? This is one of those movies. Its infinitely imitateable. Jon Herder seriously deserves an honorary Oscar nomination. At least. Napoleon is the kind of kid who even uncool kids could rag on. The lowest of the low. The kid who tells you he went wolverine hunting with his uncle. The kind of kid who is SO annoying and SO clueless you're always hearing them say the dumbest thing you've ever heard. But you end up empathizing with him. Its crazy.

The brothers Hess have created a very detailed very quirky world for their film. It doesn't really hit you at first, but you'd have a really tough time placing this movie... in time. As far as I can tell the only modern references are a Backstreet Boys song and the music on a tape Napoleon receives later in the film. Before that its deliberately and wonderfully vague. Even the stuff about computers is questionable. Chat rooms have been around for a long time. And look at that big beige box he uses. There's plenty of style to go around, and I hope the Hess brothers go on to make other great movies after this.

Napoleon's friends and family also deserve a mention because their essential to what turns into a very triumphant story. Napoleon makes one of his only friends Pedro in the beginning of the film. They have a lot in common even though Napoleon is white and Pedro is Hispanic. There's also Napoleon's brother, Kip, who's 31, lives at home with their grandmother, and spends most of his time in chat rooms with his online honey, LaFawnduh. They're all ridiculous awkward and inept. Even Napoleon's Uncle who shows up to look after the house when Grandma is hospitalized after an ATV accident in the dessert. In fact everyone in the film is flawed in some way. Even the cool kids at Napoleon's high school. I think that’s where the film gets a lot of its power. It ditches the traditional underdog formula and deadpans everything to a ridiculous degree. So when the moment of truth finally comes it actually takes you by surprise. So in the end even losers win. And the cool kids are left in the dust because they're so cool, exclusive, and alone.

Why Culture Matters

2004-07-28T01:23:00.000-07:00

I was reading the comments of an article on politics and cultural wedge issues a moment ago when I came across a number of comments that almost made me spit my tropical fruit flavored Sobe into sweat delicious streaks on my monitor. The gist of the article was that in order to recoup a good portion of the working class vote that has migrated to the Republicans, Democrats should compromise on specific cultural issues like abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools etc. And people were agreeing. There was some dissent, and one or two people who didn’t think it would be possible but agreed in principle. But there were lots of comments that were very fond of the idea. I think that anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to be smacked repeatedly with a rolled up newspaper. It like deciding to go ahead and use that pack of chicken that’s four days over the expiration. Just rub some spices on it. No one will notice. Riiiiight…

I admit, I have some personal stake in this. I’m what the conservatives call a godless socialist. Shit, I’m a Fu-ilm student. When I grow up someday, I hope to become an integral part of the Problem. I mean, I’m just getting started. I still have to make my zombie movie, my deviant sex movie, and my left wing political documentary. I’m pretty sure Spielberg finished his deviant sex movie by the time he was nineteen.

Let’s knock down a few of the easy ones first. The big one being that the culture war is already won. Not exactly at this moment, but say ten maybe twenty years from now just about every one of the big issues will have been settled by consensus. Abortion probably won’t be. But conservatives will probably have found a new host of issues that signal the apocalypse. The next generation of kids are more socially liberal than the generation before them; surprise, surprise. And anyone who tries to pass the idea that being conservative is hip is smoking all sorts of drugs. Just thinking about that makes my brain want to escape.

Its also a terrible strategy especially for Democrats since their current coalition consists primarily of social interest groups. Lets face it. The reasoning behind this strategy is to scoop up some of the white working class vote. In gaining some, if any, real percentage of that voting bloc who would the Democrats loose? How much more similar to the untrained eye would the parties appear? Christ, it might even force some people to join the greens. Or even – shudder – the libertarians.

But most of all – I say MOST of all is that it plays right into Republican hands. I think we can safely say that based on conservative behavior over the past decade a few concessions, however large, won’t satisfy the monster. Its dealing on their terms and on their turf. Gay marriage, abortion, cultural pluralism, church and state are all issues that have a very direct impact on people’s lives. They’re rights that were and are being fought hard for. It would be a hideous mistake to erase all those years of social gains. They’re culture issues that, hey wow, only affect those who participate in said culture. Thankfully rural Kansas isn’t a whirlwind of decadent urban culture. Shit, I live in Southern California and I’m not in the whirlwind. I haven’t even had my bondage session this week for fucks sake. No wonder I’m behind on my deviant sex movie.

And yeah, right now you might be thinking that none of it matters or affects you. Until your girlfriend gets pregnant. And you’re in college or working a job that barely supports you. Shit. Or you learn one of your long time friends is gay and has found someone he or she really loves. Shit. And if it can affect you there are millions of people out there who suddenly find themselves on the other side of the fence for a change.

I have little sympathy for sore losers who would deny others social and intellectual freedom and safety to satisfy their myopic ideology. We are compromised already. I don’t see why any social liberal should compromise further. Its time for the conservatives to compromise, and to realize they’re a shrinking minority only forestalling the inevitable.

Shifting Focus

2004-07-19T18:08:00.000-07:00

The Seattle PI:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Monday the United States is exploring whether Iran had any role in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a scenario discounted by the CIA.

"We're digging into the facts to see if there was one," Bush said in an Oval Office photo opportunity. Bush noted that acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has said that there was no direct connection between Iran and Sept. 11.

"We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved," Bush said. "I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all it's a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings.

George Orwell, 1984:

The Speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurrried onto the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speakers hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd, Oceania was at war with Eastasia!

Why Irony Defines My Generation

2004-07-17T06:40:00.000-07:00

Via Digby from The Agonist:

Moscow and Washington are quietly negotiating a request by the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, Russian government sources tell Stratfor. The talks are intense, our contacts close to the U.S. State Department say, and the timing is not insignificant. A Russian troop lift to either country before the U.S. presidential election would give U.S. President George W. Bush a powerful boost in the campaign.

Quick, we need the Islamists to get the Russians out of Afgan- I mean, we need the Russians to get the Islamists out of Afghanistan! Russian president Poody Poot Putin was a head honcho in the KGB, and now he's our best friend. Sadam used to be our best friend cause he hated the commies and the Shiites, and now look at him; he looks like a mullah. What the fuck is going on?

In other news DeForest Soaries, head of the Election Assistance Commission, has asked Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge to come up with some contingency plans for postponing elections incase of a terrorist attack on election day. There's a little voice in my head that sounds suspiciously like professional finger wagging editorialists across the nation that tells me to not go overboard and think through this rationally. Why Should I?! The Bush Administration has overstepped every boundary, and mismanaged every trust of power given to them. First of all only Congress has the power to set election policy. But you know that might not be clear enough to the Bush people. This is the administrator that thinks the ability to set aside the law is inherent in the president. So that he can order the systematic torture of secret captives in hidden locations. So that’s ok I guess. But what if - and I'm going out on a limb here - what if congress says no, but Bush halts elections anyway because, hey, this is a national emergency, were at war, etc, etc. And once we've stopped them we can't have them until we're free from the threat that they might be disrupted again; whenever that is. I guess he'll let us know. His people will call our people, and everything will be fine, go back to your jobs etc.

How about NO, BITCH! I wouldn't trust George W. Bush with a stapler, let a lone the power to postpone elections. I don't think it will actually happen, but then I didn't think they'd actually TORTURE people either. So while the tally of people tortured by a government, N, is greater than zero my trust of said government is equal to -N, thus forming an inverse relationship, asshole. Why should ANYONE trust a government with the competence and intelligence of Aquaman. And not just any Aquaman, I'm talking about Superfriends Aquaman. We shouldn't be considering this proposal. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. It needs to be known that NO we Don't Want This To Happen. You want to know what was happening last time electoins were suspended? The fucking Civil War. I know the south may rise again, but its probably only to get some more chips and maybe a glass of water. The south loves chips and water.

Of course, this all fits nicely under the unofficial Bush Administration philosophy: In order to save it, we have to destroy it. That’s right, in order to prevent terrorists from disrupting the election, we have to disrupt the election. Its like dad told us to go into the basement and drink all the antifreeze and we're going to run down there first and drink it all so there's none left for anyone else. Take that enemies of freedom!

All this talk of terrorists and elections has everyone chittering about who the terrorists want to win. And while some terrorists have spoken out on the issue:

Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a terrorist group with links with al Qaeda released a statement about the bombings in Spain. The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

But there are still lots of people who feel that the terrorists want Kerry to win. But why? Is it the hair cut? He's overt "Frenchness"? Or is the illogical dichotomy that if Bush hates terrorists, then his opponent loves terrorists? Or in the similar mindset that if that Bush wants to fight terrorists then logically his opponent doesn't want to fight them? Lets let the head of the Jefferson County Republicans, Jack Richardon IV speak for this crowd:

[The Jefferson County Republican Party] is handing out signs that read "Kerry is bin Laden's Man/Bush is My Man." I put in a call to the head of the Jefferson County Republicans, Jack Richardon IV and asked him if this were true.
Richardson told me that he'd seen a bumper sticker with that phrase on it and agreed with it heartily. "I believe that if you look at John Kerry's voting record in the senate," he told me, "why wouldn't bin Laden prefer Kerry over Bush?"
When I pressed Richardson on whether or not his party organization was distributing it, he acknowledged that they probably were handing it out on their campaign literature tables at recent events. And if it was being handed out, "I make no apologies for it."

"I think it's funny how the truth not only can be amusing but also make a point," Richardson went on. "Why wouldn't Kerry be bin Laden's man? Bush certainly isn't bin Laden's man."

Illogical thinking takes the lead! Again! We must not do what the terrorists want! Forget all the terrible decisions and vote Bush! Bush: Not Endorsed Terrorists! Oh right, he IS the candidate endorsed by terrorists. Must not do what the terrorists want! Vote Kerry! Kerry: "I say to you now: I am not endorsed by terrorists."

Holy Fucking Shit

2004-07-15T04:31:00.000-07:00

Sy Hersh:

EdCone.com: Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."

(I transcribed some of his speech from this streaming site. Hersh starts at about 1:07:50.)

He called the prison scene "a series of massive crimes, criminal activity by the president and the vice president, by this administration anyway…war crimes."

The outrages have cost us the support of moderate Arabs, says Hersh. "They see us as a sexually perverse society."

Hersh describes a Pentagon in crisis... with large sums of cash missing, including something like $1 billion that was supposed to be in Iraq. "The disaffection inside the Pentagon is extremeley acute," Hersh says. He tells the story of an officer telling Rumsfeld how bad things are, and Rummy turning to a ranking general yes-man who reassured him that things are just fine. Says Hersh, "The Secretary of Defense is simply incapable of hearing what he doesn’t want to hear."

The Iraqi insurgency, he says,was operating in 1-to-3 man cells a year ago, now in 10-15 man cells, and despite the harsh questioning, "we still know nothing about them... we have no tactical information.”... The war, he says, has escalated to "fullscale, increasingly intense military activity."

Hersh described the folks in charge of US policy as "neoconservative cultists" who have taken the government over, and show "how fragile our democracy is."

He ripped the supine US press, pledged to bring home all the facts he could, said he was not sure he could deliver all the damning info he suspects about Bush administration responsibility for Abu Ghraib.

Postmodern War

2004-07-11T05:52:00.000-07:00

I think this article by Dave Neiwert at Orcinus makes a very good point: that we, too, are subject to the battle for hearts and minds, and that it is in fact a constant battle.

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard predicted that Desert Storm would not actually happen. After the war, he claimed he had been correct, and that no war had taken place. His point was that we would not experience the war as it was on the ground. We would instead be presented with something entirely artificial that had little resemblance to reality but accept as real nonetheless. And he was right. I bet the clearest memory most people have of the war coverage is that cockpit video from a plane using its laser guided bombs to take out some anonymous building. And its not just a matter of what is presented, but also what is kept hidden. I'd say that goes double this time around.

Right wing types are always pissed off about Iraq coverage as overly negative. This emphasis on the tone of coverage is extremely revealing. What exactly have we been shown thats overly "negative"? On what basis are you not supposed to show some piece of "negative" news? What is "negative" news? And even if you have a piece of negative news, it still happened didn't it? Its as though whats reported in the media isn't actually happening, and that the whole point of news as a source of objective information is incidental or irrelevant.

I imagine most people have the perception that events - not the media that reports them - influence what they think, and in order to change their own opinion events have to change. So complaining about Iraq coverage is a symptom of the inverse of that idea. Rather than changing whats happening, change what people think FIRST, and then when you've influenced enough people events change. Change the world in a person's mind, and ignore reality. Another instance of postmodern philosophy as a deadly weapon.

I think this point of view explains a lot of things about neoconservatives and the Bush administration in particular. The whole up is down ism that has been their trademark is indicative of this mindset. There's also the very wide streak of dishonesty on scientific matters many on the right have. The fact that this mindset held by so many conservatives is VERY ironic, and does not give me a lot of optimism about what is going to happen to our politics as we fight the never ending war on terror. The irony comes from the fact that this kind of idealism was very popular with the second favorite conservative punching bag right after The Clenis: those damn dirty hippies in the 60's. There were huge information wars between the communists and anti communists on the left. Quickly the tactics of both sides began to mimic the tactics of Lenin and Trotsky as they formed front groups of activists and magazines and radio programs. Each side producing huge amounts of propaganda made to emulate the great taste of real coke with none of the tricky facts. Eventually some of the anti communists split from the left in the 80's and became Reagenaughts, the first generation of neoconservatives. So in order to beat the commies the future neocons stole all their moves out of Trotsky's play book.

The Bush administration has many similar habits to the Soviets in addition to the media philosophy. They never admit they are wrong, and when someone finally waves a piece of evidence in Scott McClellan's goofy ass face, the story suddenly changes, and yet still stays the same. It has always been the same. The president has ALWAYS supported the Geneva accords. The administration NEVER said we went to Iraq because of WMD, we went to free the Iraqi people. Terrorism has ALWAYS been a top priority. There is also the very disturbing network of prisons for enemy combatants that seem very similar to soviet gulags. For example: once you go in you aren't supposed to be heard from again. What does this symbiotic relationship that seems to form between two rivals mean for us as a society thats battling militant religious terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam? Is there some kind of relationship between the rise of these groups and the rise of religious fundamentalists and the patriot militia movement here at home?

For me this paints the Bush administration and the rest of the neoconservatives as the most extreme kind of idealists with a very - ehem - artistic take on reality. Personal belief is one thing but this country was not built to be run by a bunch of bizarro-world communists. Our government can't function when its people are treated like heaps of clay to be molded into the proper shape - like enemies. Its stupid and dangerous and it has to stop.

Obligatory vote-his-ass-out comment here.

Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban Review

2004-07-01T00:24:00.001-07:00

I love Harry Potter. And ironically I got into it by watching the movies. Go figure. One I had read all the books I realized how insubstantial the movies were in comparison. So when I heard that The Prisoner of Azkaban was going to be directed by the very indie Alfonso Cuarón, I was pretty stoked.

This movie is Good. You can really feel the difference between the previous two films directed by Chris Columbus and Cuarón’s. PoA is much more focused, smaller, and has a number of differences from the book, and definitely benefits from that. Instead of wasting time on gee-wiz cool stuff and trying to cram every possible thread from the book into the film Cuarón spends a lot of time building character and atmosphere. And what an atmosphere. Although this is a kids movie, it’s the most sophisticated and dark kids movie I’ve ever seen. The Knight bus scene is practically insane. Even the scoring has changed with John Williams bringing a much more Medieval sound to the music this time.

All the cast is back reprising their previous roles. The kids are a little older this time and all the guys are taller more gangly as only the British can be. My favorite actors were Alan Rickman, in the smartest casting EVER, as Professor Snape, and new guy David Thewlis as Professor Lupin. Gary Oldman is great as Sirius Black. Its too bad that he doesn’t get to show up and do his crazy thing more often. I wish Warner Bros. would put out extended versions of the movies like Peter Jackson does with The Lord Of The Rings, and especially for this movie since Alfonso Cuarón did such a brilliant job.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Review

2004-07-01T00:24:00.000-07:00

Apparently the words “Michael Moore” are media code words for kicking commentary into bat-shit crazy fecal flinging mode. People who proudly proclaim that they haven’t seen the movie are on the warpath calling Moore un-American, a liar, a hater, a propagandist, a shameless self promoter, etc… There are even campaigns to keep the movie out of theaters.

So is the movie biased, partisan, unfair, and angry? Yes, and enthusiastically so. The movie grabs you and bombards you and manipulates you with a strong narrative story that takes you through a huge amount of documentary evidence and footage interspersed with very powerful personal stories. Like any good movie should, and yes even documentaries. And the movie makes a very strong case that George W Bush is an incompetent president. You may disagree with that conclusion obviously, and there is plenty of room to criticize the movie for the conclusions it draws; for me specifically the insinuation that Bush is a tool of Saudi Arabia. Other than that the movie stays away from conspiracy theories, and there is a large amount of evidence that is very solid and very persuasive. You can’t dismiss the movie without also dismissing all the footage and documents Moore presents. Lila Lipscomb’s personal account of her family’s experiences was particularly devastating. There’s no denying the loss of her son, who died in a Blackhawk helicopter crash, and the grief and anger she feels over it. I don’t know what it is about Moore that makes people open up to him this way and share their feelings, but for me its the greatest thing about his movies.

There’s also the infamous footage of Bush sitting in the class room reading My Pet Goat on September 11th. Its incredible to watch him react for those seven minutes. Other than that, I didn’t see a whole lot that was new to me. If you’re a news junkie there will be lots of familiar bits, like John Ashcroft singing and a simple, (not) easy to use parachute for leaping out of buildings. But some the friends I saw the movie with don’t get past A1 let alone 15 minutes of Dan Rather, and they were definitely surprised at how much they didn’t know. And that’s really the point of the movie. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the super concentrated 2 hour ADD version of the “other sides” story. The one most people never heard. Its biased and partisan because the movie was made by one very opinionated man. Its angry and unfair because the views of this one very opinionated man were ignored and dismissed as objectively pro Sadaam. ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox, The NY Times, Post, and LA Times, had their chance to give a calmer, more objective and evenhanded voice to the facts Moore presents, but they blew it. And now we have Fahrenheit 9/11.

That Torture That You Do Do, You Do So Well

2004-06-08T21:50:00.000-07:00

So, the cover has been blown. Lots of other people have commented, but I'd like to say my piece.

There was something inevitable about the memo. I was waiting for it, and I'm sure others were too. The chain of culpability has finally after several weeks reached where we suspected it would all along: the top. All we had to do was wait. Now we've been rewarded with a brand new chapter in everyone's favorite nightmarish national fiasco. And, irony of ironies, they're betting on, of all things, the Nuremberg defense.

The memo is a how to guide on constructing the legal frame work to shield the president, his staff, and marginally the interrogators themselves, from charges of torture. Thanks to some fudging and a whole lot of acid the administration attorneys were able to pin new powers to the president. The memo argues that authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president." I guess if you're the A-Number-One-Head-Motherfucker-In-Charge then it would make perfect sense. The president can do whatever he wants.

But wait doesn't Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution say one of the president's duties is that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Oh fuck! That says the complete opposite of what the memo says. Damn you constitution!

I can't believe they're trying to argue this. Its the ultimate executive power grab. Anyone who defends this logic is practically - no, undeniably - saying the president has no obligation to uphold or even follow the law. That the president is the embodiment of the state. Isn't anyone concerned that this sounds fascist? Its practically step by step the same defense used by Nazi war criminals. Just following orders. Only a handful of poorly trained soldiers. Torture is not official policy, etc. etc. Forget godwins law. Its no longer operable. Its not my fault these people have unpleasant historical company. Hopefully to be followed with unpleasant cell company.

This story probably will get even worse. After its all over people need to be put in jail for this whole mess. No pardons. Do not pass go. Do not collect two million dollar book deal.

Shrek 2 Review

2004-06-08T20:22:00.000-07:00

Shrek 2 is hilarious. No wait- its laugh-till-you-cry and your-stomach-hurts-cause-your-laughing-so-hard hilarious. It could have been so easy to phone it in on what was going to be a blockbuster no matter what critics said. Thankfully the people at Dreamworks Animation put more thought and work into this film than we're likely to see in any other big movie this summer.

Shrek 2 is Great Entertainment. Yes there are fart jokes. And they work. The lowbrow humor is a then candy shell. Something to grab your attention and fill time. But Shrek 2 also has a brain. A brain that's filled with snarky pop culture references, clever sight gags, wit, and a realistic cynical attitude about all that perfect happily ever after bullshit. Shrek never wastes time. Every single second is used to its full. The screen is jam packed with the kind of detail that only CGI can give. When it comes on DVD you'll want to go through and hit pause just so you can find all the gags. The dialog works the same way. No setting up jokes for five minutes, no pointless conversations. Everything is rapid-fire. You'll have hardly finished laughing when the next joke jumps out at you from nowhere and catches you off guard.

The voice acting is great all around. Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, and Cameron Diaz, and the rest of the original cast are back. Eddie Murphy, once again, is hysterical as Donkey. But its Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots - possibly the cutest cat EVER - and Jennifer Saunders as Fairy Godmother who absolutely steal the show.

Shrek is the postmodern fairy tail; a fantasy with a twist that makes it contemperary and very localized, but its core message of inner beauty and sacrifice for love, can last well beyond the life of its humor. Which is the down side to movies like shrek that play off pop culture. Ten years from now, much of its humor will be lost on audiences who aren't inundated with the ins and outs of Gen-X culture.

But you can watch it and laugh your ass off regardless of what some fifteen year old thinks about it ten years from now. If he's never seen cops, his loss. Fucking kids.

First Post!

2004-06-08T19:21:00.000-07:00

The first of many posts on my film review and political site. An odd combinatin you say? Well, thats why I'm here: to Confound you and Challenge your preconseptions and other nonsense. Film critisism and punditry are, at their core, matters of interpritation, so I think it'll work like gangbusters. If it doesn't work, no one is probably going to read this anyway, and its my blog and I'll cry if I want to.