|
Michael Parker's Journal
 |
Thursday, November 27, 2003 |
The First Thanksgiving
For Christmas, 1996, my wife's mother gave us A Journey to the New World: The Diary of Remember Patience Whipple. (Her ancestors Samuel Tubler and Edward Tubler appear in Remember's diary.) Remember, whose nickname became Mem, crossed the Atlantic from England with her family on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth. (Mem spells it Plimoth.)
These Plymouth pilgrims planted their first crops in the spring of 1621, recently after Samoset and Squanto befriended them. An entry on October 10 explains that they have been harvesting this crop:
We have worked so hard during this harvest season, but praise be to the Lord for indeed with God's blessing we now shall have for each family a peck of meal a week as well as teh sam in corn for each family. My hands and fingers are sheathed in calluses from shucking all the corn. We had sown some twenty acres with Indian corn and all of it did excellently.
On October 11, Mem writes that Governor William Bradford has declared that they will have a special event to rejoice the "gathering of their fruits of our labors."
And it is not to last simply one day, or two, but three whole days. Squanto is sent to invite Massosoit and his people. We shall have feasting and entertainments! Four men have already been sent out to get fowl; others to hunt deer; and my father, with John Alden and Masters Winslow and Billington, are sent in the shallop to catch bass and cod and perhaps eels.
On October 13th, Mem describes the preparations that went into the festivities:
All the women have been cooking from dawn to dusk. Meat stews, fish soups. Squanto has shown me a new dish to make called succotash with a mixture of beans and corn. I promise to make pudding. Father and the men in the shallop did well. They brought in baskets brimming with fish.
The first Thanksgiving, more or less, is October 14th, 15th, and 16th. Mem records the events--
October 14: 'Tis the first day of the festivities. Massasoit has brought with him ninety Indians. We are busily cooking more. It was so exciting. The whole village bustles and everywhere Indians! The men have their faces painted deep red.... The air is laced with the scents of roasting meats and herbs. There are to be games and someone, I think it be Stephen Hopkins, has unearthed a pipe and drum and we ladies get to have a jigging match!
October 15: I thought I had eaten to the top yesterday, but here I be back for more at the table today. It has been a marvelous time. Mistress Billington jigged until she nearly swooned, but she never let up until finally, in fact, she did collapse. Her cheeks as red as the lobsters the Indians cooked in the kettle. I had never tasted lobster. It is my favorite. But you must wrestle with it to get the meat out of the claws. Johnny and Francis Billington made themselves lobster mustaches from the threadlike orange tentacles. 'Twas very funny.
As a closing ceremony of this event, Mem records the following dance the Indians performed--
The Indians did a most lovely and haunting dance at our festivities. It was full of quietness and we could only hear their soft humming and the click of their beads and their clamshell necklaces. It is called the deer dance and they do it this time of year, for soon they shall hunt in earnest for the deer.
8:13:33 PM  | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 |
The Greek Tenor: Mario Frangoulis
For those of you who enjoy listening to tenors, I have a CD for you.
My father, who has always been supportive of my creative adventures, knows my love of music. Ironically, he was the one who introduced me to the voices of the incredible Andrea Bocelli and Josh Groban. This past weekend, he returned home from a business trip with two new CD's. The one I want to discuss is "Sometimes I Dream," by Mario Frangoulis. The CD was actually released in 2002. I listened to it first, even though my father had insisted on me listening to the other CD, Duetto. I was so enraptured in the very first song "Vinchero" (written by Luisa Zappa Branduardi; music by Steve Wood) that I listened to it over and again (probably 25 times).
Frangoulis has a voice quite comparable to Bocelli and Grobin, whose voices are smooth, enveloping, rich, and strong. By strong, I mean that they approach their inflections and crescendos not like a gladiator butchering his way to victory but like a matador who guides the bull's movements with colorful and elegant pageantry.
I was so enthralled with "Vinchero" because of its beautiful melody and lyrics--they seem to describe my sentiments on life. I've always believed that I am the captain of my ship. Success, for example, is not going to drop into my lap. I have to make it happen. Life is replete with extraordinary victories and bitter defeats. Rising time and again on our path, persevering toward our goals, is not easy but we are better people for it.
Nonetheless, I've been learning it to add it to my repertoire. (No, I'm not as good as any of the tenors I've mentioned. I simply like to sing.) I'm including in this post the lyrics in both Italian and English. (Of course, I'll be learning the Italian; it's far more impressionable and intriguing.)
Nei sogni che facevo da bambino
vivevo la mia vita come un re,
avevo giorni pieni di sole,
non c'era mai dolore.
Vincero, perdero
la mia vita vivro
io da solo dovro camminare.
Vincero, perdero
la mia strada faro
giochero la partita della vita.
Ho avuto brevi attimi di gioia
momenti interminabili di noia
ho avuto giorni pieni di sole,
io so cos'e il dolore
Vincero, perdero
la mia vita vivro
io da solo sapra continuare
Vincero, perdero
la mia strada ora so,
ma da solo giochero la partita della mia vita.
Un re, io certo non saro.
eppure io vivro...
Vincero, perdero
luci ed ombre io avro,
ma da solo dovro continuare
Vincero, perdero
la mia vita sara,
come un viaggio lontano da fare
Vincero, perdero
la mia vita vivro,
io da solo dovro camminare.
Vincero, perdero
la mia strada ora so...
Vincero, perdero
la partita giochero...
Vincero, perdero
ma da solo
|
In the dreams I dreamed as a child
I lived my life as a king
My days were filled with sunshine
And there was never any pain.
I will win, I will lose
I will live my life
I will have to make my own way on my own.
I will win, I will lose
I will create my own path,
I will play the game of life.
I've had brief moments of joy,
Endless moments of boredom,
I've had days full of sunshine
I know what pain is....
I will win, I will lose
I will live my life
I will know how to continue on my own.
I will win, I will lose
Now I know my path,
But I'll play the game of life on my own.
I will certainly not be a king.
And yet, I'll live...
I will win, I will lose
I will have light and shadow
I will have to go on on my own.
I will win, I will lose
My life will be
A very long journey.
I will win, I will lose
I will live my life
I will have to make my own way on my own.
I will win, I will lose
Now I know my path...
I will win, I will lose,
I will play the game....
I will win, I will lose
But on my own.
|
9:42:21 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, November 24, 2003 |
Good Beginnings
What is your favorite beginning to a book? Here are a few of mine--
From Donna Tart's, A Secret History: "The snow in the mountains was melting and Bunny had been dead for several weeks before we came to understand the gravity of our situation."
From Mark Danielewski's, House of Leaves: "I still get nightmares."
From Stephen Crane's, The Red Badge of Courage: "The cold passed reluctantly from the earth, and the retiring fogs revealed an army stretched out on the hills, resting."
From Margaret Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale: "We slept in what had once been the gymnasium."
From Elizabeth Dewberry Vaughn's, Many Things Have Happened Since He Died: "My father has been dead 101 days."
From George Eliot's, Middlemarch: "Miss Brooke had that kind of beauty which seems to be thrown into relief by poor dress."
From Fanny Burney's, Camilla: "The historian of human life finds less difficulty and of intricacy to develop, in its accidents and adventures, than the investigator of the human heart in its feelings and its changes."
From Wallace Stegner's, Crossing to Safety: "Floating upward through a confusion of dreams and memory, curving like a trout through the rings of previous risings, I surface."
From Iris Murdoch's, The Nice and The Good: "A head of a department, working quietly in his room in Whitehall on a summer afternoon, is not accustomed to being disturbed by the nearby and indubitable sound of a revolver shot."
From Hunter S. Thompson's, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold."
From Charlotte Bronte's, Jane Eyre: "There was no possibility of taking a walk that day."
From Peter Hoeg's, Smila's Sense of Snow: "It's freezing--an extraordinary 0 degrees Fahrenheit--and it's snowing, and in the language that is no longer mine, the snow is qanik--big, almost weightless crystals falling in clumps and covering the ground with a layer of pulverized white frost."
From D. H. Lawrence's, Lady Chatterley's Lover: "Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically."
From Kurt Vonnegut's, Slaugherhouse Five: "All this happened, more or less."
From Herman Melville's, Moby Dick: "Call me Ishmael."
More later, I'm sure.
10:42:42 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, November 23, 2003 |
Upcoming Films for the Week of November 26
BAD SANTA
Billy Bob Thornton plays a drunken thief who dresses as Santa Claus to rip off department stores. On of the film critics I trust is Sean P. Means. He published an article in today’s Salt Lake Tribune about the Religious Right up in arms about this movie, which is being released by Disney’s darker-film-production company Miramax. Means lists the many battles Disney has had with the Right in the past. He concludes that there are two reasons why the Right are picking a fight with Bad Santa:
* Conservatives are feeling sassy after forcing CBS to pull "The Reagans" mini_series, after a ton of e_mail complaints ginned up by Bill O'Reilly and the like. They have the Eye as a trophy, and think the Mouse would look good hanging next to it.
* The story feels like part of an old battle, to attempt to drive a wedge between Disney and its Miramax subsidiary. Republicans would love to knock Miramax co_founder Harvey Weinstein a few pegs __ not just for the movies he makes, but because he's a prime fund_raiser for the Democratic Party.
The end product of all this noise, I suspect, will be zero. "Bad Santa" will open Wednesday (you'll see my review then, but I'll tell you now: it's raunchy, but it's funny). Miramax will go on as a part of Disney. Disney will go on, oblivious to boycott threats __ after all, how many people (including good right_wingers) bought the "Finding Nemo" DVD? And the Drudges of the world will go looking for their next "controversy" to exploit.
THE HAUNTED MANSION
In a seemingly odd attempt at creating a movie based on their rides in their theme parks, Disney releases their latest creation, The Haunted Mansion, based on the ride of the same name. Eddie Murphy plays a real estate agent (Jack Evers’) who is on the verge of losing his family because he dedicates more time to work. He and his wife, who are a joint real estate team, are called to visit Gracey Mansion when their flyer winds up laying in front its great iron gates. As a detour to their weekend vacation, the Evers family visit Gracey Mansion. The ghosts that haunt the mansion have their own intentions and those intentions center on Jack’s wife Sarah. The story is not as enjoyable as Pirates of the Caribbean, and the script doesn’t give Eddie as much to work with like the script for Pirates did for Johnny Depp. Nonetheless, The Haunted Mansion is a family-fun and light ghost tale. My four year old did not wake up from a nightmare the night after seeing it; and my seven year old commented to his friend as the credits rolled "That could have been scarier."
IN AMERICA
Sandra Morton (The Minority Report) and Paddy Considine play the parents of two young girls who move from Ireland to America. Hollywood.com explains that this film is about starting all over again. "In pursuit of a dream, the family uses ingenuity and sheer strength of will to make the most of their new life. With no cash to spare, Johnny and Sarah settle into a chaotic New York tenement and attempt to turn the dilapidated setting into a true home. From dragging an iffy_looking air conditioner across Manhattan to finding make_do jobs, nothing comes without a fight for the couple. And yet, as they see America as rife with challenges, dangers and weirdness, their daughters see it as a magical place where anything can happen, a place that might release them from the anguish of what has come before. Then, on Halloween, the girls dare to knock on the door of "the screaming man," a reclusive neighbor named Mateo, and everything changes. As the family heads for a crisis, Mateo (Djmon Houson of Amistad, Gladiator, and The Four Feathers) becomes their unlikely ally in the territory where hope, faith and even magic hold sway."
Directed by Jim Sheridan, who brought us the incredible films My Left Foot, The Field, and In the Name of the Father, In America is bound to be well-worth your money and time. Who knows, this could be an Oscar contender in many respects–script, acting, and directing.
TIMELINE
A group of archeologists (a professor and his students) are unearthing a French castle. The projects’ benefactor, the International Technology Corporation, out of New Mexico are seeming to be taking the project in a direction other than Professor Johnston feels it should go. He travels to New Mexico to get answers regarding their intentions. Meanwhile, the students discover a cave that no one has entered in approximately 600 years. Within the cave, they discover a lens from a bi-focal and a note, written in the hand of Professor Johnston, begging for help. The students travel to New Mexico to help the professor. Timeline stars Paul Walker of the Fast & the Furious films; and Francis O’Conner.
8:30:39 PM | |
|
|
|
Friday, November 21, 2003 |
Three Kings
# 8 Best of Film of 1999.
Starring: George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, Spike Jonze, Nora Dunn.
Written and directed by David O. Russell. Based on a story by John Ridley.
Note by Michael: I wrote this review in 1999. Looking over it has given me the desire to see the movie yet again, which I will, and write another review. Why? Five years have passed and I'm different; I'm older; and the world is different; and the rules of war have seemed to have changed. I'm mainly referring to this administration's approach to terrorism, a blank check for pre-emptive war (or pre-emptive defense as they like to think of it).
I'm sure, however, of one thing-- What might stay constant in the review is the dynamics of the various personalities in war. Men with hearts of war will wage war with anyone and for whatever reason they can surmise. Men with reason, with a sense of the human condition, will be the enemy of the cause. Victims can be anyone on either side; friendly-fire might be just another term for murder.
IN all, I imagine that the dictum "war is hell" is simply a depiction of the moral chaos that exists when the simple rules of law are lost between the passion of conquering and the will to survive. And Three Kings seems to depict this sincerely.
****
Three Kings plays like a classic western epic - bars of gold have been stolen, a few American soldiers have found out about it when they find the map holed up in an Iraqian soldier's butt, and they go after it (with intent on keeping some for their own benefit), of course. "Make life and make business," Clooney says to the soldiers. Welcome to a new era of war-making.
When the posse of soldiers find the town holding the treasure, they see that the Iraqi soldiers protecting the village are harassing and killing the innocent civilians, especially the women and children. Being who they are, they decide to help them out. But not before their trucks full of the gold bars get bombed on the way out of town.
In an amazing scene, the soldiers symbolically go through hell. After crashing because of the bombs, they are bombed with gas. Floundering aimlessly in the thick gas clouds that are so thick that they shut out the sun, they are rescued by nomads adorned in protective masks and long cloaks. They lead them into this vast underground cave where they plot their return to the city to help save the lives of the citizens living there. They will save them by taking them safely to the border.
Three Kings shows that war isn't what it used to be. Technology is king. Media is king. And this is a media war. For instance, when Mark Wahlburg's character is captured, he is thrown into a room where he finds a cell phone. He reaches an Iraqi operator who can't get him in contact with his command post because there is a block on their phone number. So he has her call collect to his home in America where he has his wife call the Pentagon and have them contact his command post. All the while, an American journalist is right outside the building broadcasting the war live to America. Clever.
Three Kings also makes some great statements. One about American society and the other about war.
Regarding American society: Wahlburg's interrogator asks why do Americans only like others that are like them. For example, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, changed his features and made his skin white. He wouldn't have done that if he felt accepted.
Another theme visualized is America's taste for violence. In the first scene of the film, the soldiers are out in the desert dying to kill and Iraqi. But they are all surrendering. When they happen upon an underground barracks, and an armed Iraqi soldier who isn't following their orders because he doesn't understand English, Wahlburg is pressured to shoot him. He does. While the other soldiers dance and holler around the slain Iraqi, Wahlburg throws up and breaks down crying.
Regarding war, the interrogator tells Wahlburg that the war is always just for power. The innocent people, like his two year old son, are the ones that die. You're fighting because of Saddam, he says, but you won't take him out. You will win the war and leave the Iraqi people to be starved and tortured by him.
I appreciated those thoughtful comments and the fact that when Wahlburg is freed by Clooney, and has the opportunity to kill his interrogator, he doesn't.
George Clooney is cavalier and headstrong as a general. It fits him well.
Spike Jonze is perfect as the easily-influenced soldier who wants to be Mark Wahlburg so bad he imitates his every move. Mark Wahlburg and Ice Cube give the film its thoughtful and human side. Ice Cube particularly, with his directed-by-God attitude is the mortar between the splintered, angry, vengeful, and dysfunctional soldiers about him.
8:54:55 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 |
Bush in Britain
I have believed since the beginning of this presidency that the British press and its people would be our measuring tool in regards to Bush. They would more honestly tell us how he is doing as president.
The majority of Britons are not thrilled that Bush is visiting their country, especially considering that the cost for the additional security force (16,000 strong) will be coming out of their pockets. Before Bush even boarded Air Force One, security forces were sealing man holes and checking drains in the streets and drain pipes on the sides of houses along the streets that Bush would be traveling.
American and British flags were hung side by side along major streets such as Pall Mall in a manner that wanted to portray the comraderie of the two nations, at least between the PM and Bush.
Crews built a large, white makeshift platform decorated in red and blue trim in front of Buckingham Palace. It is at this spot, under an overly-large presidential seal, that the Royal family would officially welcome Bush.
But the Britons are not happy that the Queen and her family are receiving the Bush’s. In a most condemning cartoon, Steve Bell of The Guardian newspaper today drew a caricature of the Queen with the features that have come to be the caricature of Bush the Younger–the long, Yoda ears, the baboon mouth, the droopy nose, and the furrowed brow that represents that clueless expression we so often see.
Protesters too have been busy in these days prior to Bush’s arrival. The Stop the War Coalition was busy preparing signs for Thursday’s march and rally with an expected 100,000 protestors. The signs display the name Bush in large, bold and black text placed squarely over a large, dark red splattering of blood. Another sign, I do not know if it was created by the same group, is fashioned like a futuristic Wanted sign. A cold-faced Bush is standing in a flood of white light. Large, red text starts below his chest and carries on to the bottom of the sign. The text reads, "A Killer Comes to Town."
Protestors have been in the streets all week. On November 17th, a grandmother, Lindis Percy, made her way past security in front of Buckingham Palace and to the top of its heavily decorated gates. She hung an upside-down American flag with the phrase "Elizabeth Windsor and Co we don’t want him here!" written between the white lines. She stood atop the gate all afternoon and into the evening before climbing down.
Last evening, November 18th, as protestors began to gather from across England and Europe, it was becoming more apparent how significant Thursday’s march is to many people. They feel it is their chance to show Bush just how they feel about his policies. Just view the AP photo taken by Johnny Green of Clare Anderson, a teenage protestor, who was marching with an American flag held high. It says it all. On first glance, the flag looks normal. But when you look closely, it is not the American flag we are used to. The white stars that grace the large blue field have been removed and a large white swastika have taken their place.
It’s too bad we are not seeing real discussions about these images in our media. Unfortunately, we’ve been bombarded with the literal play-by-play of Scott Peterson’s hearing and trial and the new allegations against Michael Jackson.
Meanwhile, Britain is a hotbed of news and images that are far more worthwhile to the future of our nation. Bush in Britain can give us a clearer picture of world opinion and a heartbeat on the issues that matter to the world. But we sit idly by like dumb creatures, totally fascinated in things we won’t give a shit about in a fortnight.
10:25:23 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 |
Policy Analysis Market Reloaded
Despite harsh criticism from politicians and national columnists which forced the Defense Department to scrap the highly controversial Policy Analysis Market (PAM) on July 31st, the terror futures market is going operational this coming March, according to Mark Gongloff, CNN’s Money Staff Writer.
The Pentagon was previously heading up the technology with Net Exchange and the Economist Intelligence Unit, the publisher of the Economist magazine, to allow traders to "buy and sell contracts on political and economic events in the Middle East, including assassinations, the overthrow of regimes and terrorist attacks."
Net Exchange is the sole developer of this system now. Charles Polk, the president of Net Exchange explained that the market is an interesting alternative "to specialists reporting from the region....It’s a way of going directly to individuals in the region or outside who have knowledge or interest in the political and economic events in the area."
Even though Polk says "there are no financial incentives for nefarious activities," a system such as this, just by its very nature, will inevitably drive nefarious activities.
Polk is being a bit disingenuous. It’s not the people who have knowledge that he’s interested in using this market, it is people in control and with money. And once a system like this becomes functional, it will only stay active in the Middle East region until lucrative prospects drive it to other regions till it is a global system. Terrorism is indeed prominent these days. The question I pose is whether we need a futures market that legitimizes and promotes it.
The morality of this market is bleak. Net Exchange is obviously capitalizing on terror, as would all their clientele.
Note: See my original post on July 31st. I have commentary from Joe Conason and Scott Rosenberg regarding this project under government auspices.
8:46:23 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, November 13, 2003 |
A War Poem from W.S. Merwin
As an introduction, W. S. Merwin is one of the most accomplished poets of our time. Merwin wrote eleven books of poetry. His work in The Carrier of Ladders won him the Pulitzer Prize in 1970.
He translated thirteen books of poetry (from French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin). His work, Selected Translations 1948 - 1968, won him the PEN Translation Prize for 1968.
In 1974, Merwin was awarded the distinguished Fellowship of the Academy of American Poets.
Besides poetry, Merwin wrote four books of prose.
I am fond of a few poems with themes on war from his 1992 collection of poetry titled Travels, published by Knopf. In regards to this poem, The Wars in New Jersey, I like to think it speaks so well about how I feel right now; and maybe how you feel right now. I appreciate his insight on how war affects the people of the country, the ones who have no voice in regards to who we go to war with, but the ones who have to pay for it with our own earnings. I also like the closing stanza. Merwin seems to suggest that we are truly an apathetic animal-- we seem to see the effects of war yet pretend it's good and worthwhile, as if it's peacetime, as if we know the purpose of being there.
The Wars in New Jersey
This is the way we were all brought up now
we imagine and so we all tell
of the same place by saying nothing about it
nobody is ever walking on those black
battlefields and never have we set foot there
awake nor could we find our way across
the unmemorized streams and charred flats
that we roll through canned in a dream of steel
but the campaigns as we know we know
were planned and are still carried out for our sake
with our earnings and so near to us
who sail forward holding up our papers before us
while the towers rising from the ruins and the ruins
the acres of wrecked wheels the sinking
carries the single limbs yet hanging
from the light fall away as we pass
in whose name it is being accomplished
all in a silence that we are a part of
that includes the casualties the names
the leaves and waters from the beginning
everything that ever lived there
the arguments for each offensive the reasons
and the present racing untouchable
foreground its gray air stitched with wires its lace
of bridges and its piled horizons flickering
between tanks and girders a silence
reaching far out of sight to regions half legend
where the same wars are burning now for us
about which we have just been reading something
when we look out and think no one is there
a silence from which we emerge onto the old
platfrom only a few minutes late
as though it were another day
in peacetime and we knew why we were there
10:23:28 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 12, 2003 |
What Has Happened to the CIA Operative Leak Investigation?
It is the twelfth day of November and I have not heard any news about the Plame investigation since October 24th, the day after the FBI interviewed (according to the AP report) more than three dozen Bush Administration officials, including Rove and McClellan about the leak.
A Google search for "Plame Leak Investigation" shows an article printed in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on October 29th, the title of which seems quite revealing, " Secrecy restrictions on leak investigation leave out FBI official." But when I click the link to read the story, I receive an error from the paper saying that the article does not exist. When I complete a search in the archives for this article, I get the same error. If I query the archives for "Valerie Plame," which is included in the Google's description of the article, I get a list of other articles except this one. Is this not strange?
I did find an interview with Wilson on October 31 by LA Weekly titled Unfair Game. I found the responses to the last two questions noteworthy:
Q: Do you think John Ashcroft should recuse himself from the investigation?
WILSON: At a minimum. I find it objectionable that Ashcroft is taking daily briefings from the head of the criminal_prosecution division on this, an ongoing investigation, given the nature of his previous relationships with Mr. Rove and others in the White House.
Q: Are you looking forward to getting out of this debate?
WILSON: There are those who try to make the argument that Im just a publicity seeker. I didnt get back into this debate until I felt that the neoconservative movement was going to take our country into war without really understanding what the potential consequences were. I felt I had some experience, and I had some informed judgments that would add balance to this debate. The rest of this, this whole Niger business, was as a consequence of my government lying. I did not seek to have my name attached to this part of it, but it is what it is, and eventually Im sure that I will go back to my private life, which has been in complete upheaval.
That said, it does seem to me that this goes to the very essence of what we are as a people and as a political society. I think that this government has been the most reckless and the most dangerous of any government in the 30 years that Ive been around Washington, and I have every intention of using the notoriety that I have in a way that encourages people to take back their democracy.
I found another noteworthy interview with Wilson on November Mens News Daily out of California. I liked the following questions and replies:
TN: Regarding the revelation of your wife as a CIA operative, do you think Karl Rove was behind the leak?
Wilson: Scott McClellan has admitted that Karl Rove spoke about it to the press after the leak took place. Now the only thing that we're disputing now with these guys is whether or not he used the term "fair game" or not. Now my contemporaneous notes from a journalist who called me say that that is precisely the term he used. My credibility, my batting average with this administration on truthfulness is about 3 for 3 so far.
TN: But the question again: Is Karl Rove the leaker?
Wilson: I don't know the name of the leaker. I will say this: the CIA is an executive branch agency that reports to the President of the United States. The act of leaking the name of a national security asset to the press was a political act. There is a political office that is attached to the office of the President of the United States. That office is headed by Karl Rove.
It is a useful place to start asking questions. Now, nobody has told me the name of the leaker or who authorized the leak. I did not know until I saw the Washington Post article that there were apparently two waves. There was the wave of the leak, two by six, two leakers to six journalists. And then there was a subsequent wave when Karl Rove and perhaps the communications office were pushing the story.
TN: Novak says it wasn't the White House.
Wilson: Well I don't care. Novak has changed his story so much that it's hard for me to understand what he is talking about. He also says that he isn't one of the six, but that issue is somewhere between Novak and the Washington Post and the person who leaked. I can tell you only that Novak called me before he wrote his story asking for a confirmation, and he confirmed to me after he wrote the story that there were two senior administration officials who provided the information to him. And I can tell in the week after his story appeared, I was getting calls from reputable members of the press saying that the White House was pushing the story.
TN: Including?
Wilson: Including my favorite, a respected journalist calling me up, and saying, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, he tells me your wife is fair game."
TN: Any names attached to these journalists?
Wilson:Well the only one that I have actually used is Andrea Mitchell and that was in the second wave. The other two, one was a producer, and I had not used his name before, and I will not use it now. The third one is a fellow who me he was going to prepare to confirm it but he then sort of went back on that, so I keep his name private as well.
TN: Is that the basis for the "frog-march" remarks?
Wilson: Well the "frog-march" remark, the basis for that of course is the telephone call saying that "your wife is fair game." Absolutely.
TN: What do you think he meant by "fair game"?
Wilson: That it was okay to go ahead and drag my wife out into the public square and administer a beating, to "slime" her as they say, or use her to in somehow discredit me.
****
TN: From your perspective, your wife indeed was a covert operative at the time of the disclosure of her name to Robert Novak?
Wilson: It's not really from my perspective and remember this is not a crime that has been committed against my wife or against me. If there was a crime, it was committed against our country. The CIA has referred the matter to the Justice Department for further investigation, I don't believe that's a frivolous referral.
TN: If it's determined that in fact there was no leak, that no crime was committed, are you prepared to take back some of the things you've said?
Wilson: Well, actually what I have said is that I would support the investigation, and the investigation will turn up what the investigation turns up. And if there is anything to take back in all of this, it would only be the handcuffs part of the frog-marching out of the White House. Because irrespective of whether or not the Justice Department determines that there was a crime committed and there is prosecution of that crime, even in this bare-knuckles town of Washington, it is below the belt of politics to drag a family member out into the public square to administer a beating because you find yourself unable to adequately discredit her husband who is your adversary in this particular matter.
TN: So you don't blame Rove for the leak, you blame him for pushing the story and dragging your wife into the public square?
Wilson: It's not so much that I blame him, it's that my information which I have no reason to disbelieve and every reason to believe, particularly since Mr. Rove has now acknowledged through Mr. McClellan that he in fact did talk about my wife to members of the press, that the White House actually pushed this story.
Despite Wilson's attempts to keep the focus where it should be, (and I'm not suggesting that that was his intent in participating in these interviews), tragic copter crashes and explosions in Iraq; silly entertainment news and coverage about the mini-series on the Reagons, Jessica Lynch, and Elizabeth Smart; and coverage of two highly publized court cases, among other things, seem to have diverted people's attention from the importance of this investigation. Is this investigation dead in the water?
10:26:05 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 |
British Protests and Another War Poem
The Brits are fit to be tied over the upcoming visit of Bush with Blair and the Queen. They are even more pissed at the latest requests Bush has made of Blair in regards of security. The Rueters report by Kate Kelland in London explains the latest developments:
President Bush may be subjected to the humiliating sight of an effigy of himself being dragged to the ground by anti-war protesters in London's Trafalgar Square next week.
But if police and White House officials have their way, the president, who had the staunch support of Britain's Prime Minister during the Iraq war, will be spared the embarrassment....
****
British police refuse comment on media reports of demands by White House security staff for vast central London exclusion zones for Bush's trip, which starts next Wednesday....
*****
With all police leave canceled, up to 100,000 protesters vowing to take to the streets and Blair himself trying to quash anti-Bush rhetoric, London's Metropolitan police commissioner admits the visit presents an "unprecedented" challenge....
****
But anti-Bush and anti-war campaigners are furious at what they fear are police plans to stop their protest -- slated for November 20 -- from marching through Whitehall and Parliament Square, the seat of Britain's government.
"It is an outrage that the most unwelcome guest this country has ever received will be given the freedom of the streets while a movement that represents majority opinion is denied the right to protest in...the heart of government," said Lindsey German, a spokeswoman for the Stop the War Coalition.
"It's completely unacceptable. I don't see why the White House should be able to determine how, where and when people protest in this country."
A poll in Tuesday's Times newspaper showed 60 percent of British voters strongly disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq -- and that anti-Bush feeling is particularly high among women.
The spectacle of Bush arriving with an entourage of up to 250 secret service agents, 15 sniffer dogs and handlers, 50 White House political aides, two motorcades of up to 20 armored vehicles each, as well as at least three aircraft and even his own personal cook, is unlikely to increase warmth toward him.
****
Media reports say officers policing the Bush visit have been warned not to be heavy handed and allow protesters to voice their opinion of Bush with slogans and chants if they want to.
Protesters say they are in constant dialogue with police, but also say Blair's government must reap what it has sown.
"There wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't invited George Bush -- who must be one of the most unpopular people in this country -- on a state visit," said German. "Now they are going to have to face the consequences."
It only seems fitting to print a very good anti-war poem in honor of Bush's visit, written by the Poet Laureate of Britain, Andrew Motion, prior to the Iraq war.
Causa Belli
They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad;
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.
9:30:22 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, November 10, 2003 |
The Matrix Revolutions
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Jada Pinkett Smith, Carrie_Anne Moss, Helmut Bakaitis, Hugo Weaving, Mary Alice, Monica Bellucci, Harry J. Lennix, Ian Bliss, Nathaniel Lees
Written and directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Distributed by Warner Bros. Rated R.
I expected more in this the closing episode, The Matrix Revolutions. The visual effects were incredible, as they have been in the previous two films. However, good visual effects cannot make up for a mediocre script and plot line. Just ask any first or second generation Star Wars fan who has found themselves disenfranchised from the prequel trilogy; they will tell you a similar story. Focus too much on the visuals by neglecting script and plot and you disrupt the balance of a good film. Where’s that Oracle when you need her?
The script bordered on bearable. For a trilogy that has its own unique philosophical edge, each sequel’s script has progressively seemed dumbed down, which is truly lamentable. Especially in Revolutions, the logic in the lines for the Oracle and the Frenchmen seemed to say everything yet nothing at all. It was as interesting and understandable as Rumsfield attempting to answer a question at a committee hearing on weapons of mass destruction.
It’s not that there aren’t some clever lines and good dialogue, but they are too few and far between. It’s as if the brothers Wachowski scribbled out a script to fill in the void between predetermined battle scenes. Because of this, there seemed to be no vision nor meaning to what was said.
Again, there was an occasional light in the muddled darkness. One of the dialogue sequences I appreciated occurred between Agent Smith and Neo. After an amazing fight sequence between the two, Neo is down. Agent Smith is standing nearby gloating over accomplishment, anticipating the moment he will take over the image of Neo. But Neo comes back and proceeds to stand up to continue fighting. With a massive army of Agent Smiths looking on, the main Agent Smith is puzzled, pretty much like Darth Vader was puzzled when Luke would not give in to the seemingly indomitable power. "How do you do this?" Smith says. "Why do you do this? Are you fighting for more than survival?... Is it love?"
Smith continues with thoughts that only an antagonist could come up with about how survival, love, hope, etc. are all illusions that blind the reality that we are doomed to be controlled, taken over, by some power or another. Finally, Smith, in utter frustration asks: "Why do you persist?"
"Because I choose to," replies Neo.
Decent dialogue such as this was easily overlooked by other scenes in which it just seemed like actors were simply spitting out instructions. For example, in the scenes before and during the moment Neo asks if he can have a ship (except for Niobe’s clever line). Or, in the scene between the young boy (forgot his name) who volunteered for the armory brigade in Zion and his overly-angry sergeant. Or, in the laboriously droll scenes with the captain or captains standing before the judges of Zion.
Transitions between major scenes could have been better written. For example, when Neo breaks into the Machine City, makes a deal for peace with the God of the Machine, and then gets plugged in, Neo is placed right down onto that street of rain to fight Agent Smith. And not just an Agent Smith, because by this time he has replicated himself into an army, but the one and only Agent Smith who leads, controls, and commands all of the other Agent Smiths.
Because Neo is placed on this street, we can assume that the God of the Machine 1) set this fight up, and 2) has control over the Agent Smith virus that is taking over his system. I highly doubt that is what the Wachowski’s had in mind because 1) Neo has just explained to the God of the Machine that the Agent Smith virus is the primary threat. And, 2) As a computer virus, the Agent Smiths aren’t being controlled by the machines (the system).
Thus, the transition from Neo speaking with the God of the Machine to the battle with the main Agent Smith should have been one in which Neo, once he is plugged in, flies around trying to find Agent Smith, runs into a few replicants, kicks their asses around for awhile until the main Agent Smith flies onto the scene to say "Neo is mine." Or something like that.
One thing in the Wachowski’s favor: I thought they delivered a truly sad but admirable savior character in Neo. When the film credits were rolling, I was concerned over the fact that the Machines, having the city of Zion at their absolute mercy, turned away. This only made sense to me when I realized that Neo went to the God of the Machine, not as the Neo in the Matrix, but as Neo as a human. Neo offered himself as a sacrifice on behalf of the humans in Zion if he failed to destroy the Agent Smith virus. "What do you want" inquired the God of the Machine.
"I want peace," replied Neo. Peace for the humans; peace between the machines and the humans.
In the end, Neo chooses an act that will inevitably lead to his death. But his death would also be a sacrifice that would benefit the machines, an act that did not go unrecognized by the God of the Machines. For this reason, I understood, the hordes of sentinels prepared to bore into the last stronghold of Zion to obliterate humanity, were called home, leaving Zion in peace, leaving Zion alone with the knowledge that Neo was the savior many of them believed him to be.
Things I Will Not Easily Forget
- The truly hip fashion of The Matrix. The color of black has never looked so good.
- The beautiful Carrie-Ann Moss as Trinity.
- Keanu Reeves as Neo. His personality, which doesn’t always fit with some films (he was very good in The Gift and Much Ado About Nothing), is a perfect fit for this role. I felt he was born to play this role.
- The classy and sophisticated Laurence Fishburne.
- The way Neo stops bullets and sentinels in mid-flight.
- The excellently choreographed fight sequences.
- The sly humor of Agent Smith (thanks to a gifted Hugo Weaving).
9:07:53 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, November 09, 2003 |
Another Quote from The True Believer
Why do people follow leaders and movements so blindly? Why are Americans today so willing to sacrafice their civil liberty for "security?" Personally, I think the following:
- Some people like to be on the winning side. They'll support the person who they feel has the majority support.
- Some people like to support the leader or movement giving them the most kick-backs.
- People will follow the leader or movement that suits the culture and social standard they are familiar with.
Other than these, I feel Eric Hoffer has a legitimate and erudite explanation of these questions in sections 93 and 94 (pages 118-119):
93. People whose lives are barren and insecure seem to show a greater willingness to obey than people who are self-sufficient and self-confident. To the frustrated, freedom from responsibility is more attractive than freedom from restraint. They are eager to barter their independence for relief from the burdens of willing, deciding and being responsible for individual failure. They willingly abdicate the directing of their lives to those who want to plan, command and shoulder all responsibility. Moreover, submission by all to a supreme leader is an approach to their ideal of equality.
In times of crisis, during floods, earthquakes, epidemics, depressions and wars, separate individual effort is of no avail, and people of every condition are ready to obey and follow a leader. To obey is then the only firm point in a chaotic day-by-day existence.
94. The frustrated are also as likely to be the most steadfast followers. It is remarkable, that, in a co-operative effort, the least self-reliant are the least likely to be discouraged by defeat. For they join others in a common undertaking not so much to ensure the success of a cherished project as to avoid an individual shouldering of blame in case of failure. When the common undertaking fails, they are still spared the one thing they fear most, namely, the showing up of their individual shortcomings. Their faith remains unimpaired and they are eager to follow in a new attempt.
The frustrated follow a leader less because of their faith that he is leading them to a promised land than because of their immediate feeling that he is leading them away from their unwanted selves. Surrender to a leader is not a means to an end but a fulfillment. Whither they are led is of secondary importance.
(Note: Emphasis is mine.)
Hoffer offers up many more explanations. I'm sure I will be documenting more from his incredible work on the nature of mass movements as time comes and goes and Bush and his supporters continue to puzzle me.
10:33:06 PM | |
|
|
|
Saturday, November 08, 2003 |
Quelling the Opposition
A second helicopter, this time a BlackHawk copter, was downed in Iraq, killing six more soldiers. This occurred within hours of the news that the military had changed their helicopter tactics after last weekends worst single military tragedy in the Iraqi war, a downing of a copter that killed 16 soldiers.
At home, debates raged about how silent Bush had been in regards to talking about this tragic incident, more pointedly what the Bush Administration policy is in regards to mourning the loss of soldiers in combat. One of the aspects of the debate centered on the fact that the media are no longer allowed to broadcast the caskets of our soldiers being removed from the military transport plane on American soil. The Administration’s argument for banning the broadcast is that the American public doesn’t have the stomach or nerves to view it. In actuality though, the American public is starting to see this phase of Iraqi democracy-building as another Vietnam. Even conservatives in my circle of friends are feeling that it is time to get out of Iraq; that this mission is not worth the cost in lives. The sight of soldiers returning in caskets would more swiftly change the national perspective, something the Administration is not willing to allow. Thus, the media ban.
This brings me once again to my topic of the Administrations dynasty of secrecy. Prior to the Iraqi war, there was a cartoon by Het Parool of Bertrams from Amsterdam, Netherlands, that is still so very relevant in today’s world. In the drawing, Bush, with his signature big ears, is dressed in work clothes that cling to his scrawnily_drawn frame because he's been hard at work with a shovel. With a smile on his face, Bush has propped himself up with the shovel, one foot planted on the shovel's blade; his arms are folded, resting on the top of its handle. Next to his feet is evidence of a freshly dug grave, heaped as high as his shins with dirt. The wooden cross-marker at the head of the grave gives the name of the victim: The Truth.
Yesterday, I quoted excerpts from Pizzo’s article "Need to Know," about the Administration’s actions to keep once public information controlled or hidden from view. Well, Atrios of Eschaton commented on yesterday’s unbelievable Washington Post article that revealed that the Bush White House is seeking to stop questions from the Democrats that pertain to how the Administration is using tax dollars.
The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.
...
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."
...
It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."
Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
I like what Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo wrote in response to this news: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And if you're already pretty corrupt when you get the power ... well, then things can really get bad pretty quick, as we're seeing."
In a related CNN story, Activist Brett Bursey, 55, who was arrested October 2002 when he entered a restricted area during a presidential visit, has subpoenaed Attorney General John Ashcroft and Karl Rove to testify at his trial. Bursey’s attorney feels that their testimony would prove that he was unfairly prosecuted–he was carrying a sign that read ‘No War for Oil’ and was arrested; but others standing in the same area holding pro-Bush and pro-War signs were allowed to stay. Evidence that "the Bush administration tries to ‘sanitize’ areas of dissent around the president during visits across the country."
10:42:38 AM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, November 06, 2003 |
On What We Need To Know
TomPaine.Com published an informative article today about the secrecy of this administration, more specifically in regards to making information hard to get or not accessible to public viewing. In the article Need to Know, written by Stephen Pizzo, a financial jounalist, Pizzo explains that it is not odd that the Bush Administration is unwilling to hand over documents regarding 9/11. Why? Because, as he puts it, "The Bush administration arrived in office nervous about open government. Almost immediately they adopted a 'none of your business' attitude towards public discourse."
He continues (and I'm going to print most of the article because it was a great reminder of the events during the early years of Bush & Cheney):
That stance became clear when Vice President Dick Cheney refused-and continues to refuse-demands he release the minutes from the Energy Task Force he chaired. Even though the task force shaped the administration's national energy policy, the White House said the meetings and who from the energy companies who attended them are-none of our business.
Then came President George W. Bush's November 2001 executive order allowing his administration and/or former Presidents to keep earlier executive branch documents withheld from the public. Among others, the order would shield documents from President Bush's father's terms in office-documents that might be awkward for several current White House officials who served under Reagan and Bush 41, specifically; Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
There was some public resistance to both actions. But, most of that resistance melted away in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A scared and rattled nation was told that information was potentially dangerous and had to be restricted. After 9/11 the list of potentially dangerous knowledge expanded to previously unclassified information, prompting Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, to warn that United States, "is moving from a society based on the right to know to one based on the need to know." Americans have not seen such a concerted clamp down on government information since World War II. The question is, how much of this new secrecy is a legitimate response to terrorism and how much of it is self-serving?
Even before 9/11 Attorney General John Ashcroft had expressed a desire to limit the scope of the historic 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) used by journalists and public interest groups to get hold of public documents. The terrorist attacks provided the perfect context in which large swaths of formerly public information could be shielded from view. Ashcroft moved swiftly, issuing new limitations on the FOIA dubbed "Exemption 2." Under the new exemption federal officials could deny FOIA requests "whether there is any public interest in disclosure..." or not.
****
Then there is the great Web content purge. Over the past two years thousands of documents and Web pages that had been available online have quietly disappeared. Some of the content removed clearly posed a danger, such as the location of nuclear waste storage sites and the movement of toxic substances. But, a lot of the information no longer available had legitimate public uses. Among the government sites gutted of data were online systems designed to warn communities about risks or accidents at hazardous materials spills or releases in or near their area.
I like, of course, how Pizzo closes his article:
[Is this done in the name of] National security? Maybe. Another possibility is that the release of certain documents and information could prove embarrassing, incriminating and politically sensitive-or may lead to some degree of (gasp) personal accountability.
It goes without question that 9/11 heralded a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy. And, in an open society some information available might serve our enemies' purposes. A judicious review of the kind of information readily available is not unreasonable. But, this administration has caste its nets widely and at least some of what they have hauled out of public view could reflect badly on them.
Having the power to keep secrets means never having to say you're sorry. It also means never having to admit you were wrong-or lied.
10:41:04 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 05, 2003 |
A Quote From The True Believer
I do believe I have mentioned this book before--The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer. It is one of the most influential books I've read. Hoffer is a genius in the way he has captured the particulars of a mass movement--its structure, leader, followers, ideology, rhetoric/dogma, etc. I like to think this following quote has particular poignancy to today's climate in which we are asked not to question the president nor his policies of war.
From page 117, Section 92:
The total surrender of a distinct self is a prerequisite for the attainment of both unity and self-sacrifice; and there is probably no more direct way of realizing this surrender than by inculcating and extolling the habit of blind obedience. When Stalin forces scientists, writers and artists to crawl on their bellies and deny their individual intelligence, sense of beauty and moral sense, he is not indulging a sadistic impulse but is solemnizing, in a most impressive way, the supreme virtue of blind obedience. All mass movements rank obedience with the highest virtues and put it on a level with faith: "union of minds requires not only a perfect accord in the one Faith, but complete submission and obedience of will to the [head of the established governing body] as to God Himself." Obedience is not only the first law of God, but also the first tenet of a revolutionary party and of fervent nationalism. "Not to reason why" is considered by all mass movements the mark of a strong and generous spirit.
The quotes are taken from Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae. I added the text in brackets and the bold text on the sentence of highest interest.
Hoffer has an additional footnote regarding the Leo XIII quote that I find most applicable to today's ideological atmosphere--"According to Luther, 'Disobedience is a greater sin than murder, unchastity, theft and dishonesty..."
I would like to explain personal experiences in regards to the above but..........
9:27:47 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 |
Bush's Political-Speak
The Bush Administration has become infamous for the rhetoric and political-speak they’ve been using to defend their agenda on the war, well.....make that on anything they have their mitts in. Every news conference Bush does seems to have a slogan conveniently displayed as a backdrop. For example, Mission Accomplished was hung across the tower of the USS Abraham so that Bush and his podium was centered underneath it. And just last week in Texas at the inauguration of a religious building, Bush was framed by the phrases King of Kings on the left side and Lord of Lords on the right side. Only someone with an unhealthy ego could go along with standing between phrases that are used in sacred worship to give honor to Jesus Christ. More on this later, I’m sure.
One of my favorite phrases after 9/11 went something like this: "If you don’t live life like you used to before 9/11, then you’re letting the terrorists win." My friend, who is now serving in Iraq on a maintenance crew, and I had planned to see Black Hawk Down. Before he agreed to go, he wanted to make sure his wife didn’t have plans for him. I told him to tell her: "If you don’t let me go see the movie, you are letting the terrorists win." We were allowed to see the movie.
Anyway, I am making a memo to self: start compiling a list of Bush political-speak. If you can think of any, or you have talked about this in one of your blogs, drop me a line and let me know.
In regards to Bush political-speak, I found a highly noteworthy editorial by columnist Simon Tisdall in The Guardian from Britain regarding the importance of truth in public discourse. From the article "Resist the Official Pol-Speak of Bush’s ‘War on Terror,’" I greatly appreciated these thoughts about the power of words:
Given that words, spoken, written or broadcast, are our main form of communication, and given that words have such inherent potency, it is a wonder that today's sound-biting leaders are not more careful what they say. In short, they should mind their language.
Words can define how a people or a nation sees itself: the US declaration of independence is one obvious example. Yet modern-day Palestinians also see themselves engaged in a struggle for "independence" and "freedom" from external oppression. The US ignores such semantic paradoxes....
[W]ords become symbols and benchmarks, as important, if not more so, than the "actions" (not words) that are ostensibly more significant.
Words such as "imperialism", "emancipation", "self- determination" and "liberation" define how history is scripted, how the future will be shaped, how contemporary conflicts are perceived and thus how they may or may not be resolved.
Terrorism is a salient case in point. In the abstract, "terrorism" is a terrible thing; everybody deplores it; nobody supports it. Why then is terrorism such a growth industry? Because its definition is not agreed. It depends where you stand. Terrorism has, thus, become a much abused, highly fungible term .
Tisdall describes how discourse has been used wrongly in wartime:
Second world war posters warning that "careless talk costs lives" embodied an enduring truth. Then the fear was that fifth columnists might overhear conversations of value to the Nazis. Elsie: "Can you take the kids to the park?" Herbert: "Sorry, ducks, it's D-day. I'll be invading Normandy all week." The equivalent US slogan was "loose lips sink ships".
Sixty years on, in another era of conflict, the careless talk comes more often from politicians - but it is potentially just as deadly. When George Bush, soon after September 11, referred to a "crusade" against al-Qaida, he helped persuade Muslims that they were under renewed attack from Richard the Lionheart in a US navy bomber jacket. In the context of a mooted "clash of civilisations", Bush's loose use of language was not only insensitive. It was unthinkingly reckless.
Bush has avoided the word "crusade" ever since. But he still regularly talks about the need to defend "civilisation" and "the civilised world" against "dark forces". He never quite says which part of the planet is the "uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he means Kandahar. Or Eastbourne. It is unclear. But the unspoken implication is deeply divisive, even racist, not to say insulting.
Tisdell closes his article with a call to truthful discourse:
Greater sense and sensitivity in use of language is required of politicians _ and indeed the media. The urge to suppress arguably loaded words or phrases should as a rule be resisted as inimical to free expression and better understanding. As every spin doctor knows, acceptance of "official" terminology and definitions can amount to implicit endorsement of official policy. But the search for the right, exact mot juste requires constant awareness of possible ambiguity and politically and culturally charged, multiple meanings.
As ever, in all human discourse, there is truth and there is propaganda. As ever, it is important to be able to tell the difference. Before passing the ammunition, pass the word.
Continuing in this same thread, Joe Conason, in his Salon journal article today titled "It Isn’t Filter," had a poignant reply to Bush and his neo-con pals regarding their rhetoric against their critics and the media for the Iraq rebuilding policy’s continuing failure.
If the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians went unreported by the news "filter," would those people still be alive? If the critics of U.S. policy in Iraq kept quiet, would that policy be working rather than failing? If U.S. policy is failing, at the cost of American and Iraqi lives, is the duty of patriots to pretend otherwise or to speak out?
I only ask because -- until the terrible week that culminated in yesterday's Chinook helicopter downing -- the line from the White House and the Pentagon was that America's worst problems in Iraq were "negative" news coverage and domestic "political" sniping. That propaganda trope is no longer plausible even to those who fervently support the administration and the war. Americans are losing confidence in the president's war policy not because of media coverage or political criticism, but because the administration misled them about the reasons for the war and the costs and consequences of invading Iraq.
In closing, I’ve been reading I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years by Victor Klemperer. I found a passage describing the propaganda coming out of Hitler and his Third Reich. The date, interesting enough, is 11 September 1934. (I have added a few phrases to help clarify what I think Klemperer is saying. And obviously, this is my interpretation.)
Party Rally of "loyalty" in Nurnberg. Loyalty, of all things, after the revolt [against Hindenburg]. Always have the cheek to claim the opposite. The Fuhrer: [This is the] Order [of government] for a thousand years. Once more the fantastic number. Once more against "irresolute intellectualism."
Goebbels speech about propaganda. Propaganda "must not lie." It "must be creative." – "Fear of the people is the characteristic feature of the liberal conception of the state." We practice an "active influencing of the people complemented by a systematic long-term education of a people." "At certain times statesmen must have the courage also to do unpopular things. But the unpopular has to be prepared for in advance, and its presentation must be properly formulated, so that the people understand it.." On the eighth [of September]: "We must speak the language the people understand. Whoever wants to talk to the people, must, as Martin Luther says, listen to what people have to say."
Once again the Fuhrer appeals to "heroic instincts." The subordinate leaders emphasize once again: "Adolf Hitler is Germany."
10:10:44 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, November 03, 2003 |
A Perspective of War
Poetry, like art, often displays a perspective | |
