Sunday, August 03, 2003

The checks are in the mail On July 5, I wrote: My brother has a good idea: If you are the recipient of one of the 25 million checks from the Internal Revenue Service to parents who qualify for a child tax credit rebate (up to $400 per child), beat Bush at his own game by giving what you can of your rebate check to your favorite Democratic candidate! It's what my brother is going to do with his check. [I don't have kids -- I'm a fag -- but if I got a child tax credit rebate, I'd give at least half of it to John Kerry's campaign unless I really, really needed it for something else.] The child tax credit rebate checks amount to nothing more than a bribe, like a student council president up for re-election handing out free candy bars, and further, the checks are only going to worsen the huge federal budget deficit; Bush gets a short-term political gain from the bribes, but in the long term, he's seriously fucking our future. BuzzFlash.com's "The Angry Liberal" suggested the same thing on July 28: My Fellow Liberals: As you may know, George W. Bush has raised over $40 million in campaign cash and is on his way to $200 million. His Democratic opponent in 2004 will be extremely lucky to raise half that amount. In an election process where the candidate who spends the most usually wins, decent Americans who are genuinely concerned about our future as a nation cannot sit back and let America's super-rich simply purchase four more years of the ongoing disaster that is the Bush Administration. There is great news, though. Soon, the Feds will be sending out child tax credit checks to us parents in amounts up to $400 per child. I ask you to save this windfall for a campaign donation to the eventual Democratic candidate for the 2004 presidential election. The math is easy. In 2000, there were 63 million registered Democrats in America, according to USA Today. If just a half million Democrats, less than 1% of the total number, would heed this request and donate the $400 checks, we could present our Democratic nominee with $200 million to counter Bush's Billionaire Bribery Booty. The parade of fat cats handing over tax cut kickbacks to Bush 2004 could be easily matched by a relatively small percentage of Democrats who believe in something besides personal enrichment. The truth is, dear liberals, we outnumber the creeps who are swamping the Bush campaign with money. Without removing a single penny from our bank accounts, we can take our government back from the Enrons and Exxons. According to Bush, the forthcoming rebate checks are being sent out to stimulate the economy. What better way to accomplish that end than to kick the Masters of Recession out of the White House? For those of you who were going to save the child tax credit for your children, what better investment could you make for them? Is sending your child into the world that Bush is creating for them with $400 in his/her pocket really in that child's best interest? Helping an honest, competent, reasonable person reach the presidency is the key to our children's future. And all you have to do to make it happen is hold on to that rebate check. Best of all, we don't have to worry about the Republicans duplicating this effort. They will spend their tax refunds on themselves. The guiding principle of conservatism, greed, will not allow them to do otherwise. Their idea of patriotism begins and ends with sticking a flag out the window of their SUVs. We liberals are made of something more. We believe that real patriotism involves sacrificing for the good of our nation. This is our chance to show the world that we are willing to stand up for our beliefs. We do not support this president. We do not support this tax cut. We can prove both propositions and change the course of history at the same time. And doing so won't cost us a cent out of our pockets. Please consider this request. In addition, please forward a link [http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/03/07/28.html] to as many Democrats as you can. We are many. We are principled. We are right. We are mad as hell. And by following this simple plan, we will triumph next year! So keep an eye out for that check, and unless you really, really need it for something, such as your child's medical problem, give what you can of it to your favorite Democratic candidate. I don't think that you can make a better investment in your future and your child's future. If you have a favorite Democratic candidate now, you can give to him or her now (donating online is easy, but you can also donate by mail; check out your favorite candidate's Website for instructions on how to make a campaign contribution). Or, if you want to wait until the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate is chosen, as The Angry Liberal suggests, you can make a campaign contribution then, but, of course, if you're anything like me, the temptation to blow the money between now and then is probably pretty strong. 11:16:32 PM    Comments []

Quote unquote "What really was the difference between the killing of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay and a Mafia hit? Think about it: $15 million was paid to some tipster ... and another $25 million sits on Saddam's head. That's $40 million of our money used for two hits on former business partners of the Bush family. "Whatever one thinks about the demise of the loathesome Hussein boys, we should at least be honest about what has occurred -- unprecedented in U.S. history. When a civilized nation's government pays to kill people -- then waves their mutilated corpses in the world's face -- there is reason to be queasy. The U.S. military is now, apparently, George W. Bush's personal posse and hit squad." -- Alan Bisbort, July 31, valleyadvocate.com "It's George Bush who will serve as the biggest unifying force for our party." -- Terry McAuliffe, chair of the Democratic National Committee, in The New York Times 7:03:01 PM    Comments []

Virtual Pulpit It's time again for Virtual Pulpit, wherein I post a quotation of Jesus Christ's from the New Testament that the "Christian" right pretty much completely ignores (or, in this week's case, mangles). My "inspiration" for this week's installment came from George W. Bush, the protestants' pope. In announcing his belief that fags and dykes should not be allowed to get married, Pope George wisely and lovingly said, "I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own." Jesus would be turning over in his tomb had he not been resurrected. What Jesus said was: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye, with never a thought for the plank in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's." (Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42) 2:11:39 PM    Comments []

Be afraid, be very afraid: Something I definitely won't miss about the Bush regime when John Kerry becomes our next president are the periodic, oh-so-helpful warnings that terrorists could strike Americans somewhere, someday, in some manner. Of course, while the Bush regime gets brownie points (so it thinks) for supposedly protecting us from terrorists (as it failed to do the first time), its constantly crying wolf is numbing Americans to warnings of any real terrorist dangers that might emerge -- thus making us more vulnerable, not less. 1:24:58 PM    Comments []

Film review Nick Nolte plays a grizzly priest in Mark and Michael Polish's nonsensical "Northfork." Northfork "Northfork" is one of those movies people walk out of pretending to have loved because they don't want their comrades to know that they didn't get it, either. Thing is, there's nothing to get. "Northfork" is like a student art film that somehow snagged a big budget and big stars (Nick Nolte, James Woods, Daryl Hannah, Anthony Edwards) who must have read the script but for some reason agreed to do the film anyway. "Northfork" is a surreal film about a 1950s Montana town called Northfork that is being cleared out for a hydroelectric power plant; soon the town will be underwater, so agents of the power plant (one of whom is played by Woods) drive around the flat, dusty terrain of Northfork trying to convince the few residents who are holding out to leave before they drown. This idea is strong enough for a compelling realistic film, but filmmaking identical twin brothers Mark and Michael Polish didn't seem to think so. (Michael directed the film, both of them wrote and produced it, and Mark has a role as Woods' son. Mark is frequently wooden in the film, in contrast to his performance in the Polish brothers' first and much better film, "Twin Falls Idaho.") Woven into the realistic plot of "Northfork" is the surrealistic subplot about a little boy (Duel Farnes) who used to be angel -- his halo and wings have been surgically removed and he bears the scars -- and who is looking for a way out of "Northfork." Nolte plays a priest who is trying to find adoptive parents for the orphaned little boy. Hannah and Edwards play spirits, angels, entities, whatever they are supposed to be, who are looking for a special entity that the little boy might be. "Northfork" is short on substance and big on cinematography. But we've seen these kinds of images before in David Lynch's, in Gus Van Sant's and in Joel and Ethan Coen's films ("Northfork" is especially reminiscent of "O Brother, Where Out Thou?", with its sepia tones, and of "The Man Who Wasn't There," with its images of a flood). Of course "Northfork's" angel motif brings Wim Wenders' "Wings of Desire" to mind, and "Northfork" even has a bit of "Bladerunner" in it, with its motley crew of bizarre characters (Hannah, Edwards, et. al.) living together in the same house.  Salon's reviewer wrote that "Northfork" "just barely squeaks over the dividing line between slavish imitation and homage." I'd say that with "Northfork" the Polish brothers are well into "slavish imitation" territory. I'm not impressed by films that don't make sense. Anyone can make a nonsensical film; it is much more difficult to make a film that is realistic and captivating at the same time. (And one David Lynch is enough.) Perhaps the Polish brothers knew exactly what they were trying to convey in "Northfork," but the inaccessible fantasies of identical twins do not make for good filmmaking, and if a piece of art fails to communicate something, then it has failed. The Polish brothers, who grew up in the Sacramento area, made a brief appearance in the Sacramento theater last night before the film began and they made some informal (and not very informative) comments about "Northfork," which they warned us is filled with strange images. (They didn't stick around for the end of the film, which made me wonder whether they really had to be somewhere else or they didn't want to be there at the end of the film.) The Polish brothers seem rather shy and unassuming, and I know that they are talented because I saw "Twin Falls Idaho," in which they played conjoined twins and pulled it off well. I hope that they have satisfied their urge to copy their favorite art-film directors and get back to the filmmaking of which they are capable. Their pretentious "Northfork" gives credence to "South Park" character Cartman's comment that "[art] films are those black-and-white hippie movies. They're always about gay cowboys eating pudding." ("This is like a black-and-white film made in color," Roger Ebert says of "Northfork." There is what appears to be a gay cowboy in "Northfork," but to the Polish brothers' credit, he doesn't eat any pudding.) My grade: C- 8:10:35 AM    Comments []