|
Michael Parker's Journal
 |
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 |
Questions for Cheney
Yesterday, I mentioned that the investigation could turn towards VP Cheney, as it should. In a letter to Cheney, published by TomPaine.com on September 18th, written by Reps. Kucinich, Maloney and Sanders, (members of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations), state the following information and ask pertinent questions about this affair. I quote:
Concerning a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago.
This alleged sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. During the period of time you reportedly paid visits to CIA, you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger, and your office received a briefing on the investigation. According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."
The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."
Moreover, your chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week that you did in fact express interest in the report to the CIA briefer. Our understanding is that Standard Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about a report, he is given a specific answer.
On Meet the Press on Sunday September 14, 2003, contrary to Ambassador Wilson and Mr. Libby, you denied receiving Ambassador Wilson's findings in February, or March of 2002. You also denied sending Ambassador Wilson to look into the claim.
"I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson... I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement... And Joe Wilson -- I don't who sent Joe Wilson."
Questions:
5) Who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report?
6) When did you personally become informed of Ambassador Wilson's findings?
7) If the staff who took your question said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know", why did you continue to use the shaky uranium claim in your public statements over the past year?
8) What efforts were made by your office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense?
Now that the Department of Justice is investigating the White House, we’ll have to see just how deep the investigation goes.
LiberalOasis believes that the depth and success of the investigation depends on whether the GOP will be united and on Ashcroft. At this moment, he believes they are not united. The right-wing press is behind the president but the GOP in government are thus far not saying anything. He cites the quote from the Paula Zahn/CNN interview last night with former Bush Pentagon Spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke.
The best thing to do is to have a very thorough and very fast investigation, find out what happened.
And, if what we think may have happened did happen, identify and fire and prosecute those people.
If the best way to get it done well and get it done fast is to turn it over to an independent counsel, then I say turn it over to an independent counsel.
I’m still under the belief that pressure from the media, congress, and the people will determine this. Expect diversions to crop up to take the limelight off this crisis. This is how this administration works. Isn’t it obvious?
9:03:56 PM  | |
|
|
|
Monday, September 29, 2003 |
The Identity of Spies
In my post on July 24th, I wrote the following about the Niger Uranium claim:
On another note, this Niger uraniam claim must go all the way up into the upper echelons of the White House. There is evidence that Cheney was the one that requested that an operative go down to Niger to ascertain if the intelligence was foolproof. An operative by the name of Joe Wilson was sent. The results? No evidence to support the claim that Iraq bought or sought uranium (yellowcake) from Niger. Don't you think that Cheney would have been biting at the bit to find out if there was even an ounce of accuracy to the claim? I do too.
In the meantime, someone in the White House called around to numerous newspapers trying to persuade someone to leak the name of Joe Wilson's wife, Victoria Plame, as another CIA operative. Bob Novak of the Chicago Sun Times agreed. Now the White House finds itself in a major crisis because outing an operative is a violation of two laws--The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982.
However, as of today, the White House is saying that Rove, who was pointed out by Wilson, did not commit the leak. Also of note, Novak is not stating his sources, nor are any of the other newspapers contacted by "top officials" at the White House. Might Cheney be part of this? If Cheney was Wilson's boss, and a disgruntled one at that, would Cheney be the one behind this? Just some questions to gnaw on.
Meanwhile, please read some of the best commentary and analysis on the web in regards to this crisis--
The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives, by John Dean.
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown at LiberalOasis.
Stephan at Absit Invidia has excellent posts today, titled Spy-gate Picks Up Steam, Spy-gate Again, and War Reading, which discusses the lingering controversy over missing WMD.
Douglas at The Agora directed me to John Dean's article, posted above. He has some great ruminations about the blooming of this crisis. Read Hope Springs Eternal and John Dean on Valerie Plame.
Josh Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo, also, is in top form today. Please read his posts--Gagglepalooza From This Morning, Some Interesting Whistling, A Couple More Issues to Watch, Bob Novak Is, and Another Big Problem.
Drew Vogel at Terminus, likewise has great stuff. Please read At Last, We're Getting Somewhere and The Most Insiduous of Traitors.
8:37:10 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, September 28, 2003 |
A Season of Diversion
Reality is only what we see and hear. Each year, Hollywood throws millions upon millions of dollars at future blockbuster scripts in hopes of making the unreal real. Films like Star Wars, The Matrix, and especially The Lord Of the Rings, to name a few, have thrilled us because they bring to life worlds only our imagination could conceive.
People in politics have long known that image is everything. And they’ve long known that the less their constituents know, the better. But they’ve rarely played around with our concept of reality until G. W. Bush’s grand entrance into the White House. Since then, great care has been given to control what we see and hear; and not only what we see in America, but also of how the world sees America.
Do you remember last December, in the midst of the Trent Lott fiasco, that the Pentagon was considering establishing an international system of information dissemination in which the military would oversee propaganda programs throughout the world? Thom Shanker and and Eric Schmitt of the The New York Times revealed this in their article "Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations,"on December 16th.
In this article, Shanker and Schmitt mentioned that "Many administration officials agree that the government's broad strategy . . . must include vigorous and creative propaganda to change the negative view of America held in many countries."
In fact, one military officer was quoted as saying: "We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it."
Most damning though is this quote:
In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, ending a short_lived plan to provide news items, and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.
What really interested me about this news article was this–that Rumsfield and company were more interested in perceptions in foreign countries rather than in America. Why did this interest me? Because I feel it is an indication that a system of propaganda already existed in America. You control your own house before you step outside to control others.
So what might be involved in this propaganda system? According to Shanker and Schmitt, the Pentagon has listed the following:
1) Pay journalists to write favorable articles about American policies.
2) Pay outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American polices.
(As a note, this reminded me of the myriad of college-age students who suddenly appeared in outside of the courthouses in Florida to protest and attempt to break into the rooms in which the ballots were being counted.)
3) Achieve physical and psychological results in support of objectives against adversaries.
4) Communicate national interest and demonstrate resolve.
(As a note, I think of Bush’s expensive end-of-war speech on the U.S.S. Abraham as a prime example that portrays the America’s resolve at fighting their enemies. The strategists wanted to show Bush not only as a heroic wartime president but a popular "superstar" president, a.k.a. Tom Cruise in Top Gun.)
One campaign that still seems odd is that which occurred directly after the tragedy of 9/11. Like a scene right out of The Wizard of Oz, where the Great OZ demanded Dorothy not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, television and cable channels were filled with commercials (prepared around Bush’s speech) urging Americans to live their life as if nothing happened--to go about their business. Though I appreciated the fact that Bush may have intended to stave off an economic disaster, this speech also seemed to suggest that he and his administration would take care of everything else amidst the talk of war.
The events resulting in the bestowal of the presidency upon Bush were chaotic; most everything America has encountered since has been as chaotic, confusing, and destructive.
We have faced a summer season in which the administration would not allow the release of the entire 9/11 report, that the reasons for war against Iraq were based on manipulated information; that the heroic mission to save Jessica Lynch was staged; that Britain’s top weapons inspector David Kelly was found dead from a suspicious suicide; that more soldiers have been returning home in body bags from Iraq than when the war was officially being fought; that Iraq under American rule has turned into another West Bank; and why don’t you just <fill in the blank>.
As we approach Autumn, as the leaves from our favorite trees lose their color and their life, falling into our yards and laying about like dirty laundry, we’ll be diverted by many other things that will attempt to paint a picture of a reality that is quite untrue. We won’t necessarily care, of course. As long as it’s beauty makes an impression, as long as the message is easy to remember, as long as it excites the animal instinct in us, we will be happy; we will be hanging on for more.
9:08:21 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, September 25, 2003 |
Magnolia
# 2 Best of Film of 1999
A young man is praying to find love, a woman who will want to marry him. This young woman, however, is on cocaine to help numb the pain caused by being sexually abused by her father. This father is a popular game show host who has just found out he is quickly dying of cancer and wants to set his wrongs right but his daughter won't have anything to do with him.
Meanwhile, an elderly man lies in his luxurious home dying of cancer, wanting to make amends to his estranged son. His young wife, having married him just for the money, has fallen in love with him as she has cared for him and is being torn up inside for cheating on him. The old man's estranged son, who cared for his dying mother when the man up and left them alone, is giving live seminars on how to make women do what you ask of them.
These richly defined characters are woven in with five other evocative characters to create one of the most unique and engaging tales of the year.
Written and directed by the thoughtful, poetic, and masterful Paul Thomas Anderson, Magnolia catches in an extraordinary way how the sins of the fathers and mothers are etched into our person, and at death, how the pain and guilt of our sins is just as unbearable as the disease that may be eating at us.
Magnolia is a film about redemption, turning points, and uncanny but remarkable coincidences, or things that happen though we can't understand why or how. Performances by this ensemble cast are rich and moving, especially from the wonderful Julianne Moore, the soft-giant Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the suprising Tom Cruise, who stole the show as a salesman for the getting-your-girl seminar, just to name a few.
Aimee Mann's soundtrack is poignant and very pleasing to the ears. (I love the sequence of scenes where each of the characters sing part of the song about trying to change. Very effective.)
Read the review of American Beauty, my choice for the #1 Film of 1999.
I hope you don't mind me posting reviews from yester-year. When I'm low on time, it helps publishing these reviews that I've already written. Besides, I'm enjoying rediscovering these films.
I won't be posting Friday or Saturday as I will be out of town. See you Sunday evening. Best wishes to you all!
9:34:15 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 24, 2003 |
More Amazing Poll Results
Daily Kos talks about the poll results from the American Research Group. They show that Bush’s approval rating is not only under 50% but also that more people disapprove of Bush than approve- 48% to 47%. Daily Kos also lists the results of the same poll over the last few months, showing a steady decline in approval numbers, just like other polls. Amazing figures.
Bush Doesn't Hold a Candle to Bronco Blowout or New TV Shows
Nielson Media Research results reported by Reuters at CNN.com came out this morning and Bush’s interview with Brit Hume of Fox came in dead last in viewership Monday night, drawing an average of about 4.30 million viewers in the hour, which is only a 1.6 rating and a 5 share in the crucial audience of adults ages 18 to 49. "In Nielsen terms, 1 ratings point equals 1 percent of homes that own television sets, while each share point represents 1 percent of the TVs actually in use to watch programming at a given time."
For a president who has made a point to have theme based backdrops and big and expensive productions for most any speech he makes, this show of disinterest has to hurt just a tiny bit.
9:40:21 PM | |
|
|
On Sending More Troops to Iraq
Danielle Pletka is vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterpise Institute. In her article "Troops in Iraq: More Isn’t Better" in the op-ed section of The New York Times today, strongly believes that the call for more soldiers in Iraq will not help the situation but actually hurt it. She has valid thoughts to back up her conclussion:
Clearly, the job in Iraq is not done. But sending in more troops is not the answer. With the number of ground engagements down and the recruitment of Iraqi players up, the solution lies in thinking about the transition from postwar triumph over Saddam Hussein to the empowerment of Iraqis.
Kristol Turns Red in Interview in Britain
Atrios of Eschaton quotes a reader from Britain who watched the John Pilger interview with Bill Kristol. In the interview, Pilger’s questions regarding our pre-emptive war policy angered Kristol so much that he turned red and got a bit testy. This is a good read. The post you want to look for is September 23, 2003 at 5:01 PM, titled "Eschaton Assignment Desk."
Sorry I didn’t include the link to this particular post but the link was broken.
8:49:40 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 23, 2003 |
Bush Stands Before UN
If the UN were a forest of trees, and Bush were a bush, would a speaking bush be heard? Probably not, especially since the bush doesn’t speak the same language as the trees.
I admit, that's a silly question; but the intent points to the stark differences between what Bush represents and what the UN has represented since its beginning. On this note, Bush arrived at the UN today in hopes that the words he’d speak and the assistance he would seek would be understood and accepted. Standing in the place where he once stood to tell the UN they should act or become irrelevant, it was Bush himself who was and is on the verge of being irrelevant--irrelevant to a world who can't trust him, who feels bullied by him, and irrelevant to a nation who is wearying of his administration's lack of control of the Iraq recovery, it's continuing secrecy over the 9/11 reports, and it's prevarications.
After the rhetoric that spewed from the administration, aimed at the UN, over their valid reservations and disapproval of going to war in Iraq, one should not question why Bush’s speech might fall upon disinterested ears. In the end, the replies were about our war tactics.
Kofi Annan leveled with the US that their pre-emptive war policy threatened the policy the UN had existed under since it was created. Evelyn Leopold of Reuters today wrote the following about Annan’s comments:
[Annan] questioned U.S. arguments that nations have the "right and obligation to use force preemptively" against unconventional weapons systems even while they were still being developed and said the U.N. Charter allowed military action for the purpose of self defense.
"But until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations," he said.
"Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time..." said Annan.
"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles, on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," he said.
For an excellent analysis and commentary on Bush’s speech and its aftermath, please read Eric Boehlert’s article in Salon, "Bush, Chirac Clash at UN."
6:52:09 PM | |
|
|
The Incredible Shrinking Poll Figures
In a latest national CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll yesterday, Bush’s approval rating has sunk to the lowest since he was made president, at 50%. This is absolutely an incredible figure in light of his 71% approval rating in April and 59% approval rating in August. To make matters worse for the re-election team is the fact that this poll also showed that Clark would beat the president 49 to 46 percent if the election were held today.
Of course, and I will say this again, it really is too early to get excited about this. However, this does reveal much. LiberalOasis blog today, titled "Bush Hits 50%" is a good read, if you are interested in getting an excellent analysis.
If you want more analysis about the recent polls from September 18, please see the article Taking the Plunge, by Ruy Teixeira at TomPaine.com.
On a side note, in regards to the president’s popularity, Drew Vogel at Terminus nicely meanders his way through a philosophical exercise on what popular means?
In regards to the reasons for Bush’s popularity demise, Steve at Absit Invidia (in his post titled Cynicism) gives us one reason and points readers to an article by Richard Reeves that states a few more.
6:35:57 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, September 22, 2003 |
American Beauty
# 1 Best of Film of 1999
In 1979, I picked Robert Redford's brilliant family drama Ordinary People as my top film of the year. Today, I give this honor to Sam Mende's family drama American Beauty.
The Burnham family looks like the good ole' American family. Just by looking at them, this is what we see: successful father, successful mother and homemaker (she gets dinner out on the table every night), and successful daughter (high school cheerleader). But don't be fooled by appearances because behind their beautiful oak door and elegantly draped windows lay strong animosities and a forum for neglect and mental abuse not seen since Mary Tyler Moore's ice-treatment in People.This is 90's cynicism at its best.
When we get to know them, however, this is what we find: Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is a loser who has given up on his wife, family, and job. He quits his job, blackmails his boss, dreams immoral thoughts about his daughter's girlfriend, Angela (Mena Suvari), and exercises in order to be able to seduce this girlfriend.
His wife, Carolyn (Annette Benning), is a perfectionist who wants badly to succeed at being a real-estate agent. She'll do anything to succeed, including physically abusing herself while chanting self-motivational phrases, sleeping with the top real-estate agent, and plotting to kill her husband.
Their daughter, Jane (Thora Birch), is an un-noticeable who is suffering from low self-worth and lack of attention from her parents. In fact, her parents haven't talked heart-to-heart with her for years. She obsesses about her looks because she doesn't hold a candle to her friend, Angela, who is not only beautiful but also desired by all the boys, including Jane's father. Jane is so embarrassed by and angry at her parents, especially her father, that she plots to have him murdered.
The neighbor boy Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley), one of the most unique characters in film, is the son of a retired general who is both an over-protective and abusive father (Chris Cooper). How over-protective? He submits his son to daily urine tests. Ricky has learned to tell his dad only what his dad wants to hear, nothing more, nothing less.
American Beauty is witty, cynical, thoroughly engrossing, and oddly beautiful. It opens the mind and makes one look inward. It shows us who we are and who we should be; how we close ourselves off from one another, remove ourselves from responsibilities, and lose the ability to love, forgive, and change until it is too late. In truth, one of our greatest problems is that we are not very nice to those outside of our circle of friends, or outside our culture, religion, status, sexual-orientation, and most importantly, within our own families.
In a hauntingly beautiful scene, Ricky Fitts shows Jane video footage of a plastic bag flying about in the funnels of the wind in an alley. For many, they are like this bag, struggling to find refuge from the forceful currents surrounding them. The beauty is that these people adapt and flow with the currents and await the moment when they can touch solid ground and finally find meaning in life and themselves.
7:04:00 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, September 21, 2003 |
Whale Rider
Directed and written by: Niki Caro (Based on the novel by Witi Ihimaera)
Cast: Keisha Castle-Hughes, Rawiri Paratene, Vicky Haughton, Cliff Curtis, Grant Roa, Mana Taumaunu, Rachel House
Cinematography: Leon Narbey; Music: Lisa Gerrard
I’m not going to be shy about this. Whale Rider is one of the best movies of the year and sports one of the best performances by a young actress, Keisha Castle-Hughes, in years.
You’ve probably read or heard that Johnny Depp’s performances in Pirates of the Caribbean and Once a Time in Mexico are so unique and alluring that he literally carries these movies. Likewise, Keisha’s performance of the young Maori girl who attempts to be the tribal leader she feels is her birthright is just as alluring. Even more so, the strength of her performance lies in a sincerity to her character and the plight that she faces. She literally wins us over.
A distressed economy and the influences and allurements of society (whether they be good or negative) have left the heritage of many Maori tribes in jeopardy; their Maori youth, unfortunately, get lost to it and become the unfortunate casualties. (This theme was also present in the extremely influential New Zealand film, Once Were Warriors.)
Such is the case in the Ngati Konohi tribe in which Pai is a member. In the beginning scenes of the film, we learn that this tribe has been waiting for the birth of the chosen ancestor of Paikea, a leader would have the spirit of the whale (who carried Paikea to their new home from their homeland Hawaiiki), and who would restore hope, unity, and honor to the tribe.
This ancestor was supposed to be Pai’s father, Porourangi (Cliff Curtis), but he never felt that he was the one. He followed his interest in art, which eventually leads him to Germany, without Pai. Then, Pai’s twin brother was heralded as the possible leader, but he died at birth, along with their mother. Porourangi names his surviving daughter, Paikea, much to the disapproval of the tribal chief, Pai’s grandfather, Koro (Rawiri Paratane), or Paka, as Pai calls him. It is after this tragedy that Pai's father, Porourangi leaves home. Nonetheless, Pai, at a very young age, felt that her life was important, that the responsibility of the tribe fell upon her–that one day she would lead the tribe.
The conflict within the story is between Pai, who realizes her potential and mission in life, and her grandfather, Paka, who is the tribal leader. Because Pai is a girl, she is relegated to learning the matriarchal responsibilities, such as guiding newcomers onto the marae (the heart of the Maori tribe–the place where all their meetings, funerals, education, etc. take place). One of my favorite scenes is when Pai guides visitors onto the marae as her grandmother Flowers (played magestically by Vicky Haughton) sings the Welcoming song.
Time and again, Pai will attempt to learn the duties, chants, songs, and language of the tribal leader while her grandfather Koro teaches them to some of the young Maori boys her age, in hopes that one of these boys could fulfill the role. And time and again, Pai will be discovered and reprimanded by him.
But a resilient spirit such as Pai’s never succumbs. She never gives up hope that Paka will come around to his senses, saying to her father that he doesn’t mean what he says. And she finds other means to learn what it takes to be the leader.
Whale Rider is a truly amazing story with heart and hope. Near the end, this film daringly crosses the line of reality to mysticism, as if it wants to be a grand fable, but this crossing seems nothing more than believable. Niki Caro, the writer and director, leads us to this point with a thoughtful script that builds layer upon layer the magical elements of the ancient Paikea legend, thus making possible the recreation of the legend in which Pai fulfills her mission.
Rawiri Paratane plays the grandfather and tribal leader just right, in its ever-present harshness. We see the weight that lays on his shoulders, of finding and training the leader of his tribe. He has a heritage and its customs to uphold, and when that comes into conflict in relation to his grand-daughter, whom he loves, we sense this conflict in his actions. Paratane's role is one of the more complicated in the film. It could have easily been made into a static performance but Paratane lends it depth, especially in his facial expressions and body language. It also compliments Keisha's performance, lending their relationship a uniqueness that is fresh and realistic.
Cliff Curtis, who plays Pai's father, is not new to film. His list of films is impressive--Training Day, Collateral Damage, The Majestic, Blow, The Three Kings, Bringing Out the Dead, The Insider, Once Were Warriors, and The Piano. Though this isn't a large role, Cliff's presence is noticeable and warm. He carries the hurt and pain over his wife's death and his father's stuborness in his heart and it shows in his performance.
Vicky Haughton, who plays Pai's grandmother Flowers, is the center of the film. She stands at the heart, being the mediator between her stubborn husband and their children and grandchild. He wounds; she comforts. He is blind to their potential; she buoys them up. She is matriarch and caretaker; she plays it just right, not with any sugar-coated fakeness.
But it is Keisha Castle-Hughes as Pai who ultimately makes us believe. Hers is truly a performance of the heart.
Whale Rider has won numerous awards already--the 2003 Canal Plus Audience Award at the Rotterdam Film Festival, the World Cinema Audience Award at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival, the People's Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2002 and the audience award for Best Narrative Feature, at the San Francisco International Film Festival.
10:13:26 PM | |
|
|
|
Friday, September 19, 2003 |
Signs
Honorable Mention for Best of Film, 2002.
M. Night Shyamalan's latest thriller Signs is an intriguing portrayal of an all-American family in the days leading up to a War-of-the-Worlds-type invasion by aliens. There are a few things that make this film stand out-- a thoughtful, layered, complex script; the acting; and the manner in which Signs is filmed.
With an alien invasion film, Night could have told a story similar to that of Independence Day, in which we see the invasion through the eyes of many people, including the aliens. But he reins in any sort of obtuse storytelling and focuses on one family, the Hess family, who live on a farm in rural Pennsylvania and who, have recently lost their mother in a tragic automobile accident, and who, upon waking one morning, find giant crop circles in their cornfields. But even more than this, Night chose to focus on the father, Graham (played by a thoughtful Mel Gibson) and his struggle of faith. You see, Graham used to be a minister. But after the tragic death of his wife, he gave it up. The reasons for doing so are kept deep inside him and we can only sense the shadows of them for most of the film, like we see the shadow of the cross on his bedroom wall. But as is normal in times of hard trials or imminent doom, in this case being destroyed by aliens, we see Graham finally deal with his problems. This is where the real story is and it is a good one.
Shyamalan’s method of filmmaking is pure Hitchcock, focusing not on the visual horror but on the horror invoked by our own psyche. What really is frightening is simple fear—that fear that arises when you know you have seen or witnessed something unknown or shocking but you have to question yourself because it happened so quickly that it might be mistaken for "just seeing things" or not enough sleep. The worst nightmares are those in which you know that you are trapped and that something is coming for you. This method accentuates the film’s primary focus, which is how the Hess family experience the invasion.
8:29:36 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, September 18, 2003 |
Saudi Arabia to go Nuclear?
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, I mean, that the Middle East was a safer place, news like this creeps out in a foreign country--because our media is too weak-willed to print it themselves--Saudi Arabia is considering going nuclear.
Reported in The Guardian, they are pursuing this path because of the upheaval in the Middle East. Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor, reporting from Vienna, explained that UN officials and nuclear arms analysts said this Saudi review reflected the following:
1. "Riyadh's estrangement with Washington and the weakening of its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella."
2. "...Saudi worries about an Iranian programme and ... the absence of any international pressure on Israel, which has an estimated 200 nuclear devices."
3. "Riyadh is also worried about a string of apparent leaks in American papers from the US administration critical of Saudi Arabia."
Isn't that last point interesting? And here I was thinking the White House was hiding information this whole time. Seriously, though, this last point nearly seems like something someone would use to blackmail someone else.
What is most noteworthy about this news release is this information:
UN officials said there have been rumours going back 20 years that the Saudis wanted to pay Pakistan to do the research and development on nuclear weapons.
In 1988, Saudi bought from China intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any part of the Middle East with a nuclear warhead.
Four years ago, Saudi Arabia sent a defence team to Pakistan to tour its secret nuclear facilities and to be briefed by Abdul Qader Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.
News like this takes me back to all that cooked-up intelligence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons that could strike London in 45 minutes. Of course, nothing has been found to substantiate this claim. And south of the Iraq border, the same country that raised 14 of the 19 hijackers, there has been development of nuclear programs. If I have not asked this question before, I ask it now: did we go to war after the right country?
(I have to credit this tidbit to Joshua Micah Marshall's site, The Talking Points Memo.)
On another front in the Middle East, Absit Invidia posts commentary regarding a news release stating that US intelligence sources are hinting that Syria has the WMD. The blog is cleverly called "Here We Go Again." Visit Steve over at Absit; he'll enlighten you.
On a sad note, we lost 3 more troops in an ambush today. These are ugly times.
10:23:41 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 |
Backpeddling!
Wesley Clark officially joined the race for president today. And as I noted of worth yesterday, Clark was the one to reveal that someone in the Adminstration had called him the day he was going on CNN after the events of 9/11 to persuade him to link Iraq into Al-Qaeda and the tragedy.
This afternoon, right after Clark's announcement, Bush makes a special press conference to say that Saddam had nothing to do with the events of September 11th. See the AP article by Terence Hunt titled Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11.
Coincidence? I don't think so. I feel Bush knows he and his people are hanging on the shorter end of the rope these days. Bush knows the song Rumsfield, Cheney, and Wolfowitz were singing after 9/11 and the build-up to the Iraq war.
But give it to a clever Bush and party to know that if they simply come out with revealing part of the lie--we meant to say that Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda but not with 9/11--then when the possible time comes in the future when Clark calls them on that telephone call, Bush will be able to say that the information was, indeed, legitimate.
Robert Scheer, in his damning article to Salon titled When Corrections Need Correcting, writes this about the corrections coming out for the lies:
The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness....Even [a] correction needs correcting.
If you liked that quote, try these choice paragraphs:
So, Wolfowitz and the administration might prove to be right after all. Not about Iraq's ties with bin Laden before the invasion. Nor about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction the president used to scare up support for war. But by turning its claim that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Without this claim, the president's men would be revealed as imperial adventurers who wasted the lives and resources of this country to redraw the map of the world. That scheme, including "preemptive military intervention," can be traced to a "Defense Planning Guidance" document prepared by Wolfowitz in 1992 when he was Cheney's undersecretary of defense for policy.
Thus, it was not too surprising that the bodies recovered after the 9/11 attacks were barely in the ground before Cheney and Wolfowitz were arguing that a proper response to 9/11 was to go after Iraq -- whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the plot. They were willing to say anything to convince us they were right, even trying to sell this as a war without cost.
And I like Scheer's closing remarks about this Administration's incredibly gross underestimation of reconstruction costs for Iraq:
In March, one week into the war, Wolfowitz told Congress, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Now we find that Iraq can't pay for its own reconstruction and since we went to war unilaterally, defying world opinion, we are unlikely to persuade anybody else to chip in.
Last week, a Washington Post poll showed that 60 percent of the American people opposed the president's plan to throw $87 billion more into this quagmire, on top of the $79 billion budgeted already. Perhaps, like people blinking in the sun after a long hibernation, Americans are finally awakening to the stupid and craven things being done in the name of our protection.
Another excellent article on the lies regarding the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda can be found at LiberalOasis; the blog is titled Iraq-Qaeda Backtracking and was posted today, September 17th.
Also check out the excellent blog at The Agora. Doug Anders focuses on Cheney's prevarications on Iraq, 9/11, and Al-Qaeda.
Excellent articles about the arrival of Wesley Clark on the scene can be found at Salon. Joe Conason's Journal for September 16th and 17th; and their feature article today, titled Wesley Clark: The New Howard Dean? by Eric Boehlert.
7:33:29 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 |
Wesley Clark Joins the Race for President
A general for president? It is not uncommon. There have been ten total; six of them popular--George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight Eisenhower.
The fact is this--I'm eager to see what Clark brings to the current fray of presidential hopefuls. I have liked his commentary when he has been on CNN. In fact, this reminds me of the TomPaine article, titled The Reckoning, by William Rivers Pitt in which he relates the interview that Wesley Clark had with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. In the article, Wesley reveals that the White House, after 9/11, called him personally to have him make the connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Read the article here.
While you're there, you might want to read the newest addition to the front page, the article Bush's Worst Nightmare, by Stephen K. Medvic. And, yes, that nightmare is Wesley Clark. Medvic suggests that Bush would skewer any candidate who has made a campaign on the basis of opposition to war.
In other related articles, Slate magazine has a good article today by David Greenberg titled Cincinnatus for President. Greenberg describes the characteristics the public seems to require of generals who win the presidency--
1. Those who "can radiate purity and appeal to the public's distrust of power-grasping career politicians."
2. "Soldier-candidates typically succeed ...when, like George Washington, they use their experience in war to show how much they value peace."
3. Those who do not have an "excess of militarism."
Greenberg weighs in on the pros and cons of Clarks' decision:
Wesley Clark, as pundits have noted, faces many obstacles if he wants to be president, including the lack of a campaign team and a late start in fund raising. But he has mastered the two historical requirements: He doesn't act as if he needs the job, and he doesn't act as if he wants war. For a general, that's a good start.
Let's roll.
8:48:35 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, September 15, 2003 |
8 Mile
# 8 Best Film of 2002. Now on DVD.
Curtis Hansen’s bleak film about hip-hop rapper and street poet, Jimmy Smith Jr. (Eminem), is a more raw and in your face film about life on the wrong side of the tracks than the 1970’s film Saturday Night Fever. Jimmy knows he is better than what his environment and upbringing tell him he is. He knows he is talented; he feels that what he writes is special; he senses in his soul that he needs to break free from the cage that is 8 Mile. But he struggles with confidence. This film shows how Jimmy gets his confidence.
8 Mile is noteworthy for its depiction of the poor side of Detroit, known as 8 mile, and the poor people who try to live and survive there. 8 Mile is unique for its portrayal of hip-hop/rap from the ghettos, showing us an underworld where musicians fight in the form of words and rhyme in front of rabid (yet keen and well-behaved) fans. Moreover, Hansen shows us intriguing characters that are stuck in lives they never asked for—victims of circumstance. He also shows to what ends these people do to get out of 8 mile. Kim Bassinger is great as Jimmy’s depressed and shattered mom. Eminem is utterly convincing as the young brooding Jimmy Smith, Jr.
Rated R for language, violence, and sexual situations.
9:33:27 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, September 14, 2003 |
Best of the Week
September 8th to 13th
After many weeks of beating myself up for having many articles in which I wanted to analyze but having no time in which to do so, I’ve decided to list all of those articles and blogs. I hope you find them as fascinating and insightful as I have.
The Agora--A good commentary on the Republican’s failure to be critical of their own president’s direction on any front–Douglas concentrates on the economy and international affairs. Douglas’ title of the blog is especially clever--Barn Door Closed, Horse Gone.
Absit Invidia has attacked some great subjects this week:
- Israel’s decree to get rid of Arafat in With Friends Like These...
- The latest poll in which Bush is down to his lowest approval rating since pre-9/11 days, titled The New Poll.
- A Letter from Congressman David Obey to the President urging him to let his Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense go.
- Commentary about the latest Colonel’s damning remarks against our poorly created mission-plan for Iraq, titled The Colonel Isn’t Having It.
- A fascinating and possibly damaging revelation that Ashcroft and his Pentagon officials knew about pending attacks using airplanes–that’s why they cancelled their flights the day before Sept. 11th. Check it out in his blog titled: How Did I Miss This.
LiberalOasis is a great place for analysis on everything dealing with the political spectrum. This week, I greatly enjoyed his pieces Who is Attacking Who? (about the Republicans crying over the harsh attacks from the Democrats); Bush = 9/11, on September 11th; and Bad Day for Bush, on September 12th. Noteworthy quote:
Bush may want to be permanently attached to 9/11, but he’ll want to forget this 9/11.
He was greeted with the political embarrassment of Israel formally threatening to remove Arafat from the Palestinian territories, which disintegrates whatever was left of the "road map."
So, we have another false promise from the Iraq War. If you recall, the Bushies argued that removing Saddam would dramatically help the peace process.
The New York Times
A feature editorial on September 9th in regards to the president’s speech, titled Presidential Character, asks whether or not the Bush’s luck has run out.
A feature editorial on September 10th in regards to the $87 million dollars asked by Bush, titled Paying the Bills for Iraq. Noteworthy quote:
For now, Washington will have to pay most of the bills, and those sums cannot simply be added on to a deficit already nearing a half-trillion dollars. The $87 billion Mr. Bush seeks is equal to a fifth of next year's civilian discretionary spending at home - more than the combined total for education, job training, and employment and social services.
Two Incredible articles by Paul Krugman of The New York Times:
Other People’s Sacrifice is an incredible analysis of the president’s speech to the nation Sunday evening.
Exploiting the Atrocity (September 12th) is yet another incredible commentary on how capitol hill has exploited 9/11. Noteworthy quote:
Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that's not how they operate. Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals - involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence - that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost.
From Salon.com:
Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband on September 11th, who is the co-founder of the group September 11th Advocates and who is a member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission, analyzes the Showtime movie called DC 9/11: Time of Crisis. The title of her article says it all: A "mind-numbingly boring" propaganda film.
Bill Donahue, a writer from Portland, Oregon, went in search of answers to the August forest fires (Bear Butte and Boothe) and that just happened to be going in time for the president’s arrival and speech about his controversial Healthy Forest Initiative–the "thinning of over 20 million acres of fire-prone public forests." The timing of these fires coincides with eye-witness accounts of seeing Chinook military helicopters flying from the very sites. Donahue’s amazing research is in the article Black Copters over Oregon.
Robert Sheer’s article Bush’s Big Lies, Continued, is a critical opinion piece on Bush’s address.
Perhaps the most galling aspect of Bush's consistently defensive speech, however, was his naked attempt to turn what has become a security disaster for U.S. troops, United Nations workers and the Iraqi people into a positive situation. He makes it seem almost a good thing that terrorism is on the rise in Iraq, because we've got our enemies where we want them. In claiming that "Iraq is now the central front" in the "war on terror," Bush is heralding a self-fulfilling prophecy: He claimed Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and he turned it into one.
And by the way, what happened to the cheering crowds and the gushing oil that the administration predicted would make this a low-cost Mideast liberation venture?
Meanwhile, as Bush boasts of how many irrelevant ammunition dumps we have seized in Iraq, the region is spiraling out of control. Afghanistan is once again falling into anarchy, with the Taliban on the rebound. The Israeli-Palestinian situation is worse after the fall of Saddam, not better as the administration promised. And the mysterious kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains a very suspicious kind of "friend." Let's remember, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudis.
Eric Boehlert, in his piece Ground Zero: 2004, (printed September 11th), hints that New York may not be as welcoming to the GOP after how the GOP has treated them after September 11th.
From Tom Paine.com
Bill Berkowitz, a political analyst and columnist, describes the character of the Special Advisor for Strategy, David Kay, and forewarns us that his report on the WMD coming out this September will not show the evidence that was promised before we went to war, but that won’t stop the administration from trying to spin it so that it does. The article is titled September Suprise.
Laura Rozen, a writer of national security issues from Washington, D.C., gives a critical review of the War on Terrror, titled Terror’s Disconnect.
The Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan research and educational institute based in Washington, D.C., printed on September 11, lists What Can $87 Billion Buy?
Finally, an incredible letter written by the advocacy organization titled September 11th Families For Peaceful Tomorrows. Their letter is a compilation of their thoughts regarding September 11th and a call to change the world through peace. The article is titled Towards a Peaceful Tomorrow. Noteworthy quote:
On February 15, 2003 a great worldwide shift was made apparent -- so obvious in fact that The New York Times reported it on the front page. The millions of people in the streets around the world marching against war in Iraq demonstrated that there are now two superpowers in the world: the Bush administration and global public opinion. We are honored to stand with our brothers and sisters around the world who know that we the people must find another way to live together on this planet.
So today as we mourn, reflect and remember, we ask that you join with us in pursuit of true peace, security, and justice. We owe it to the dead, we need it for the living and we must do it for the generations to follow. Let us move forward together to build a future of peaceful tomorrows.
More Remembrance pieces on 9/11
I would be remiss in not mentioning a few extremely thoughtful pieces written about the tragedy of 9/11. In my initial piece, I mentioned the blog sites Absit Invidia and The Head Heeb. Here are a few others:
September 11, Fried Green Al-Qaeda.
Honoring the Victims, James Carroll, Tom Paine.com
9:26:44 PM | |
|
|
|
Saturday, September 13, 2003 |
Adaptation
#4 Best Film of 2002. Now on DVD.
Adaptation is one of the best, if not the best, screenplays of the year. It jumps back and forth between four layers—the life of the famous and award-winning screenwriter Charlie Kaufman as he attempts to adapt the book, The Orchid Thief; the story line of book he is adapting, The Orchid Thief, which includes the life of John Laroche; the life of the author of the book, Susan Orlean; and the burgoening writing career of Charlie’s younger and more confident brother, Donald.
All of the characters in these layers are complicated, yet fully developed, and the separate layers they exist on make up a piece of this complete story that, before the ending of the film, converge in on one another, driving each other out of their comfort zones and into a cataclysmic confrontation that will result in being the death of their past selves.
Spike Jonze’ film is definitely quirky but very enjoyable and poignant. The acting is superb by Nicolas Cage (who plays both Charlie and Donald Kaufman); Meryl Streep as Susan Orlean; and the toothless Chris Cooper as the Orchid Thief, John Laroche.
10:04:51 PM | |
|
|
|
Friday, September 12, 2003 |
To Our Tomorrows
I've been waiting for the right moment to publish this poem. The day after the observance post for 9/11 is perfect.
In 2000, the neice of one of my good friends was in a terrible automobile accident. Being the person he is, he dropped everything to be by her side and to help her till she recovered. I wrote this poem for him. The message of the poem, I feel, is comparable to 9/11 in that there are good souls in the world who save, those who nurture others back to full recovery, and those who uplift and refill the hope of those who do the saving and nurturing.
Maybe, this is just a poem about friendship.
Tomorrows
I am a day of words compiled into books--
rows upon rows of unharvested me
and of journeys up and back and to and from
high landscapes where I picture you.
Words are intangible things like clouds.
Compressed, they often come down in floods--
Sudden news is never kind.
I am thrown by their force
Blinded for moments until I recapture
the focus behind my reopened eyes.
You sit with a broken friend; you're benevolent
nearly drowning in thoughtful, pleasant words.
I paint you recovering time and again
because you are Caretaker--
Refuge for the worn and wanderer.
I shake the words out of my books
scatter them around looking for "soul."
How long has it been since I've spoken it?
I need to paste it in your book.
I'll say only the best of words.
They'll cover what needs healing
for this time being.
I'll do this over and again
because the winds of our tomorrows always blow
and even the kindest spoken words,
like fallen leaves,
fly into the wintery swirls of forgetfulness
and are forgotten.
Who, then, would refill your hope
if not me?
by Michael Parker
9:49:08 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, September 11, 2003 |
SEPTEMBER 11TH
Because I don't live in New York, it seems as if I should not attempt to walk on ground that appears both sacred to me and off limits. But that day, like a makeshift banner read in Jerusalem, we were all Americans; we were all New Yorkers.
The first plane had just struck when I drove into the parking lot at work. Reports on the radio were weak--in fact, I had the impression it was a small aircraft. I was dumbfounded to learn that it was a passenger plane. And then, it seemed nearly simultaneous, one of the developers next to me cried out that a second plane had hit the other tower.
"No way!" many said as we made our way to his desk, only to see the headline and the footage for ourselves.
"This is war." I said. Many turned and looked at me.
But what else could you call it.
The day was spent standing around work cubicles, watching footage over and again of the second tower being hit and of the towers crumbling. I recall the lump in my throat that lingered and grew painful when I thought of the tens of thousands of people who could have perished and the fact that there were families at home who would always be waiting for that person they love to return home.
When I arrived home that evening. My wife was sitting on the porch watching the kids--my son was riding his bike up and down the walk; my one-and-a-half-year-old daughter was standing nearby. As I got out of the car, she recognized me. As is her daily custom, she ran up to me, her smile as large as her face, and jumped up into my arms. I shed tears and I felt guilty. How would you comfort a child who expects their dad or mom? How would you explain the phrase"not coming home?"
Three weeks later, I ran the St. George Marathon in a city of the same name in Southern Utah, approximately one hour north-east of Las Vegas. The National Red Cross was there. They were offering the opportunity to run on behalf of one of the people who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or in Pennsylvania. The funds would go toward the families of these lost souls. My wife and I both signed up and went about trying to pick a name.
They had pages and pages of names, each name printed out on a sticker that you could stick on your racing bib. After you selected a name, you gave one half of the sticker to the Red Cross and kept the other half. Then, you could look up the name you selected in a directory of sorts and find out information about the name.
Thumbing through the pages, I was looking for someone with my name, Michael Parker, or Michael, or Parker. But I came across the name of Michael L. Bocchino and selected it. He was one of the firefighters lost in the World Trade Center.
I won't easily forget running those 26 miles with Michael L. Bocchino on my chest and in my heart. Around mile 8, one of the townsfolk from the wonderfully supportive town of Veyo was blasting the Lee Greenwood anthem "Proud to be an American." I lost composure and sobbed. For the first time since the tragedy, all of the things I had bottled inside--the great sorrow from the event, the gratitude toward those who helped save people, the sense of sudden realization that the world was forever different--found their way out.
I have so many more thoughts about September 11th. But today, these were those thoughts--the names that are still quite sacred to say; the husbands, wives, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and grandparents who have an unfillable void in their lives; running on behalf of a fallen firefighter; and of coming home that day.
For thoughtful experiences and commentary, please visit Absit Invidia and The Head Heab.
THE NAMES
Last year, September 6th, in front of a special session of Congress, the US Poet Laureate, Billy Collins, stood in front of the assemly and delivered his dedication to those who lost their lives in the tragedy of this day two years ago. Simply titled The Names, it captures the sense of loss resulting from 9/11. What I most admire about the poem is the manner in which it is written; he treats his subject matter with care and a sense of reality--the names come alive to us because he ties them into things we touch or see everyday. Moreover, I appreciate the fact that he does concentrate on the lost souls; there is no touch of anger or retribution (or the like) as some of the poems I've heard being read on radio shows and observances. I think this portrays a great respect on Collins behalf and towards those who lost their lives and the many souls forever changed by the tragedy. Collins has created a timeless, beautiful piece of poetry. To read, please click here.
7:33:25 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 10, 2003 |
|
