|
Michael Parker's Journal
 |
Sunday, February 29, 2004 |
I'm not even sure Peter Jackson thought his film would sweep the Oscar's tonight, but it did, winning 11 awards out of 11 nominations. Return of the King ties Titanic and Ben Hur for the most Oscar's won, at 11.
King captured the Best Picture. Peter Jackson won for Best Director and Adapted Screenplay (with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens). And the film captured all the technical awards, costume, music, and set design that they were nominated for--Art Direction; Sound Mixing; Costume; Film Editing; Makeup; Visual Effects; Original Score (Howard Shore); and Original Song (Into the West, by Annie Lennox, Fran Walsh, and Howard Shore).
The other films coming out big were Master and Commander, which won for Cinematography and Sound Editing, and Mystic River, which was honored for Best Supporting Actor (Tim Robbins) and Best Actor (Sean Penn).
The gracious Charlize Theron was honored as Best Actress (Monster).
The incredible Renee Zellweger, who has been nominated the past three years, finally won the Best Supporting Actress for her turn in Cold Mountain.
Sofia Coppola, the first American woman to have been nominated for Best Director, took home the Best Original Screenplay award for her magnificent film Lost in Transalation.
Finding Nemo was awared Best Animated Film.
The Barbarian Invasions was honored as Best Foreign Film. One of the films producers commented in her acceptance speech: "We are so glad Lord of the Rings wasn't nominated in this category."
Best Documentary went to The Fog of War, comprised from interviews with Robert McNamara about the Vietnam War.
The finest remarks of the evening came from Tim Robbins acceptance speech, in which he pleaded with people who had been abused to seek help and to not feel ashamed. By speaking up, he said, we can break the cycle of abuse.
This years event will be remembered for the thoughtful tributes for Bob Hope and Katherine Hepburne; the recognition award for one of the true kings of comedy Blake Edwards; and Billy Chrystal's oven-times hilarious comments, especially the line "now that everyone in New Zealand has been thanked."
11:10:50 PM  | |
|
|
|
Friday, February 27, 2004 |
When conservatives are dissing on other conservatives, one can't help but take note of it. Richard Perle, who just resigned his post within the Pentagon, has also just released a book called "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror." Pat Buchanan, staunch conservative, has trashed book and the neocon movement. Personally, I wonder if Buchanan's trashing the book in order to stem the anti-neocon tide from steam-rolling into his christian right conservatism. Nevertheless, consider the details offered by the Center for American Progress:
Calling the tome "hysterical," Buchanan goes on to say, "on putting down Perle's new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality." He concludes, "neocons seem fearful that it is they who will be made to take the fall if it all turns out badly in Iraq...And this one they've got right."
8:01:14 PM | |
|
|
Using the Bible to define the laws of marriage is quite antiquated. I feel churches can define the laws of marriage for their own but that the state cannot nor should not exclude rights to those who seek to form a union or to marry. Besides, it's not as if anyone is following all of the edicts in the Holy Book anyway. Right? Consider this list of biblical marriage laws Rob found posted at RuggerJohnnyD's.
The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."
Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on Biblical principles:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7:31:29 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, February 26, 2004 |
The details surrounding the resignation of Perle from his post at the Pentagon, according to the Center for American Progress:
Knight-Ridder reports, "Richard Perle, one of the most outspoken advocates for invading Iraq, has quietly resigned from the Defense Policy Board, an influential bipartisan Pentagon advisory group." As the White House faces an increasingly fierce firestorm of criticism with "a growing number of congressional, legal and internal investigations into dubious prewar intelligence on Iraq and lucrative contracts for Iraqi reconstruction," Perle says he is stepping aside so his outspoken views in the push for attacking Iraq won't become "a lightning rod for criticism of the administration during an election year." (Perle, you'll remember, "is a prominent supporter and friend of Ahmed Chalabi, the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into possibly flawed intelligence that Bush used to make his case for the overthrow of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.") Another angle to keep an eye on: A British newspaper also "reported last week that questions also have been raised about $3 million in bonuses that Perle reportedly received in 2000 and 2001 from the firm Hollinger International. The company is investigating undisclosed payments to its executives, according to The Times of London."
10:54:16 PM | |
|
|
****I first posted this for Virtual Occuquan on Sunday, the 8th. With the Oscar's in three days, I wanted to repost this with a few enhancements.****
Best Picture
Nominations: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; Lost in Translation; Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World; Mystic River; Seabiscuit.
Who do I want to win? Return of the King
It would be remiss of me not to highlight Peter Jackson’s Return of the King, the last film in the trilogy Lord of the Rings. Here is a trilogy that has surpassed anyone’s expectations, taking one of the most loved works of literature and bringing it to life so convincingly on screen. Indeed, this trilogy is one of the greatest masterpieces of our time.
Return of the King, on its own merit, employed not only masterful visual effects (especially in the battle scenes) but a classic sense of epic storytelling.
Scenes that may prove timeless include Aragorn’s descent into the realm of the dead to persuade the ghastly spirits to fight against Sauron’s legions in order to gain redemption for their treason and receive eternal rest; Frodo being lead into Shelob’s lair by Gollum and the subsequent scenes in which Shelob hunts down Frodo; and Pippin singing a song of mourning in Denethor’s court as Denethor’s son Faramir rides to his death outside the gates of Minas Tirith.
To not honor this trilogy this year would be most disappointing, especially after failing to honor the first film The Fellowship of the Rings, which deserved the award that year.
Who will win? Return of the King
Return of the King struck gold at the nominations, garnering eleven of them, the most nominations by any film.
Return of the King has been the favorite so far by the film critics associations. Six film critic associations have awarded King best picture honors__ the New York Film Critics, Southeastern Film Critics, Online Film Critics and Broadcast Film Critics Association, Golden Globes, and Chicago Film Critics Association.
Lost In Translation has been honored as best picture by the Toronto Film Critics Association and San Francisco Film Critics Circle. Mystic River by the Boston Society of Film Critics and National Board of Review.
In all, the buzz for King sweeping the Oscar’s has been said to be as strong as the year Cameron went on to win, touting himself as "King of the World" for his epic retelling of the sea tragedy Titantic.
One thing you can count on. If Return of the King fails to pick up this award, expect darkness to cover Middle Earth and all of America along with it.
Best Director
Nominations: Fernando Meirelles, City of God; Peter Jackson, Return of the King; Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation; Peter Weir, Master and Commander; Clint Eastwood, Mystic River.
Who do I want to win? Peter Jackson (Return of the King)
Someone once said that anything done right is done by focusing on the details. Jackson’s approach to bringing Lord of the Rings to life seems to have this theory at its core. From the rarely seen Hobbit feet to the distinguishable characteristics of all the peoples of Middle Earth to the expansive landscapes and battlements in which the characters play out this story are made completely believable because of Jackson’s focus on the details.
This can also be said for his stellar directing skills over the vast assembly of actors and extras that graced these films. The performances, though in some moments a touch melodramatic, were for the most part wonderful and memorable. Though no one particular actor has been recognized, these films have been nominated for best ensemble cast honors, a reflection of good direction.
Who will win? Peter Jackson.
Jackson won the Director’s Guild Award (February 7th). It is nearly certain he will win the Oscar. It’s nearly that predictable. There has only been five or six times when the winner of the the DGA doesn't win the Oscar. Last year was one of those times, when Roman Polanski (The Pianist) beat out Rob Marshall (Chicago).
Jackson, like his film, has been the favorite by the film critic associations, being honored as best director by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, Toronto Film Critics Association, San Francisco Film Critics Circle, Online Film Critics, Broadcast Film Critics, and Chicago Critics Association.
Other directors honored for Best Director thus far include: Sofia Coppola for Lost in Translation (Boston Society of Film Critics, New York Film Critics, and Golden Globe) and Clint Eastwood for Mystic River (National Society of Film Critics).
Best Actor
Nominations: Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean; Ben Kingsley, House of Sand and Fog; Jude Law, Cold Mountain; Bill Murray, Lost In Translation; Sean Penn, Mystic River.
Who do I want to win? There are three performances that blew me away: Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, Sean Penn in Mystic River, and Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. But I’m completely torn between the latter two, Penn and Murray. Penn was remarkable as the father trying to cope with the violent murder of his 19 year-old daughter.
Bill Murray was also remarkable as the movie star on assignment in Japan, who suffers from jet lag and a sense of loss in a culture, language, and city so unfamiliar, in-your-face, and immense.
But I guess if I had to choose just one, I would have to vote Bill Murray because his comedic nature brings a humanity to his character that is delightful to watch, sad, touching, and seemingly timeless.
Who will win? Bill Murray (Lost In Translation)
Murray has literally dominated the awards circuit this year, garnering 10 out of the 11 or 12 best actor honors thus far. Here’s the list: Boston Society of Film Critics, Los Angeles Film Critics, New York Film Critics, Toronto Film Critics, Southeastern Film Critics, Chicago Film Critics, San Francisco Film Critics, Seattle Film Critics, National Society of Film, and the Golden Globe (Best Actor in a Comedy).
In comparison, Sean Penn was honored as Best Actor by 2 organizations, the National Board of Review and the Golden Globes (Best Actor in a Drama).
The Screen Actor's Guild shocked everyone by voting Johnny Depp the best actor of the year. Could Depp have pulled this off because Penn and Murray were splitting the votes?
The Academy tends to favor dramas over comedies. Sean has a great chance at winning.
Best Supporting Actor
Nominations: Alec Baldwin, The Cooler; Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams; Djimon Hounsou, In America; Tim Robbins, Mystic River; Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai
Who do I want to win? Tim Robbins (Mystic River)
Tim Robbins had one of the toughest psychological roles of the year and he played it masterfully, having to play a man (Dave Boyle) haunted by an event when he was an 11 year-old boy. He kept this experience a secret, not telling anyone about it, not even his wife. But when an event happens at the local bar one night, something is triggered inside of him and his experience floods to the surface, sweeping his psychological and emotional grounding off balance. Robbins plays the role with a thoughtfulness that seems both so instinctual and sincere. He’s a broken man that yearns to be whole yet knows he will never be.
There’s a scene in the beginning in which the boys are writing their names in wet cement. Dave, the last boy to write his name, was only able to write the first two letters before he was kidnapped. This image represents how Dave felt about himself, only half there. Robbins understood this and played Boyle accordingly; it made for one incredible and memorable performance.
Who will win? Tim Robbins (Mystic River)
Best Actress
Nominations: Keisha Castle-Hughes, Whale Rider; Diane Keaton, Something’s Gotta Give; Samantha Morton, In America; Charlize Theron, Monster; Naomi Watts, 21 Grams
Who do I want to win? Keisha Castle-Hughes (Whale Rider)
Keisha is nominated for her role as Paikea, a girl who fights tradition to become the leader of her Maori tribe. One aspect of playing Paikea is not well known. Keisha had to do her own stunts, which included riding a life_sized replica of a whale 12 miles off the shore of Auckland; she had to hang onto the whale even while it was being pulled under the surface by the tow boat it was attached to, despite the fact that she was terrified for her life.
I like to think that Keisha's presence in this list is backed by supporters who have fallen in love with a performance that captivated the hearts of hundreds of critics and film festival goers at Sundance and Toronto (where it won the Audience Awards). Once your heart is won over, it is hard to vote against it. This might just be her winning ticket Oscar night. Don't count this battle over until the envelope is open.
Keisha was awarded the Best Young Actor Award by the Critic’s Choice Film Awards and Most Promising Actor by the Chicago Critics Association.
Who will win? Charlize Theron (Monster)
Charlize Theron's incredible performance as the serial_killer Aileen Wuornos in Monster should be the winner. Theron transformed her body and face to play Wuornos, gaining 30 pounds and changing her facial features, a feat that never stays unnoticed by Oscar voters. Heck, Nicole Kidman put on a prosthetic nose and walked away with an Oscar. So why not Theron? Actually, some critics (Roger Ebert one of them) feel that Theron has given one of the best performances in film history.
Out of the nominees in this category, Theron has been the most recognized of the nominees by the film critics, followed by Naomi Watts, and then Diane Keaton.
Best Supporting Actress
Nominations: Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog; Patricia Clarkson, Pieces of April; Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River, Holly Hunter, Thirteen, Renee Zellweger, Cold Mountain
Who do I want to win? I was impressed by Holly Hunter’s performance in Thirteen as the mother of a daughter who is struggling with the pressures of being a teenage girl in our modern society. One of the most memorable scenes in film this year is from this film, near its end. Hunter has just discovered the razor cuts on her daughters wrists. Rather than freak out or turn to lecturing, she grabs hold of her daughter (who is fighting to be let go), wrestles her to the floor, grabs hold of the arm scarred by multiple wounds, and kisses them until the daughter relaxes and breaks down sobbing.
I greatly enjoyed Renee Zellweger’s performance in Cold Mountain. Her thick, back-woods talk and personality give the film its life and humanity. She’s the center of the film; it’s grounding.
But I would cast my vote for Marcia Gay Harden (Mystic River) who plays Celeste, the wife of Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins). She is forced to deal with a truly horrific scenario—her husband comes home late one night with blood all over him; his story keeps changing; and this same night, her cousin’s step-daughter is murdered. Her realizations and conclusions lead her to reveal what she thinks she knows to her cousin’s husband, Jimmy Markum. In many ways, she plays a modern Judas, betraying her husband but only because she’s confused and frightened. The closing scene, in which she is walking up and down the streets of the neighborhood trying to find her husband who has gone missing (with the knowledge that she is the reason for the disappearance) is simply haunting. Harden is simply amazing!
Who will win? Renee Zellweger (Cold Mountain)
Adapted Screenplay
Nominations: Robert Pulcini & Sheri Springer Berman (American Splendor), Braulio Mantovani (City of God), Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson (Return of the King), Brian Helgeland (Mystic River), Gary Ross (Seabiscuit)
Who do I want to win? Brian Helgeland (Mystic River)
Brian Helgeland’s adaption of the crime thriller is complex and thought-provoking. It is more than a murder mystery; it is as intelligent as a great Shakespearean tragedy.
Who will win? At the beginning of February, I said that the award would be given to Braulio Mantovani (City of God), whose plot revolves around gang warfare in the slums of Rio. My thinking was that the film was one of the most critically-acclaimed films of the year and thus would be picked to win, especially since the film wasn't nominated for best foreign film nor best picture. This could still happen.
And I still think that the there are chances, though slim, that the award could go to Walsh, Boyens, and Jackson to recognize the writing for all three Lord of the Rings adaptations.
But Robert Pulcini & Sheri Springer Berman (American Splendor) won the Writer's Guild award for this category.
Original Screenplay
Nominations: Denys Arcand (The Barbarian Invasions), Steven Knight (Dirty Pretty Things), Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, and David Reynolds (Finding Nemo), Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan, & Kirsten Sheridan (In America), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation)
Who do I want to win? Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan, & Kirsten Sheridan (In America)
Here is a script that has "heart" written all over it. It is a story of a young family who move to America to make a new life. They are also trying to leave behind the memories of their young son, who died from a cancerous tumor. Sheridan, co-writing the script with his daughters, shows that imagination and believing in something help us conquer the pains of death and the trials of life.
Who will win? Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation)
Honored by five film critics associations, winner of the Golden Globe, and winner of the Writer's Guild award for best screenplay, Sofia is bound to win the Oscar about two people trying to cope while visiting Tokyo. An incredible film; an incredibly unique and clever story.
VIEW and/or PRINT the list of all of the Academy Award nominations.
10:34:14 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 |
I saw this on Roblog and wanted to post it because I have been trying to compile a list since last June. Roblog mentioned that he got it from Dan. And it looks like Dan got it from Lawrence Britt’s "Fascism Anyone?" in Free Inquiry, Spring 2003. So there you have the genealogy of this post.
Do any of these things sound familar to you?
1. Exuberant nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic images, slogans and symbols _ National flags are seen everywhere in public display. Territorial aggression is explained to be mere destiny __ an unbidden greatness thrust upon the nation by history.
It is this burden of unique responsibility that now raises the fascist state above all previous constraint, no longer bound by international obligations, treaties or law.
2. Enemies Identified
This national cause is identified as unity against enemies _ The people are rallied around a unifying patriotism directed against some common threat: communists, liberals, a racial, ethnic or religious minority, intellectuals, homosexuals, terrorists, etc.
The state's message is sometimes couched in an easily recognized religious theme. Amazingly, this language is used even when the full context of the teaching shows the meaning to be diametrically opposed. Any dissent is "siding with the enemy", and therefor treasonous.
3. Rights Disappear
Disdain for human and political rights _ Fascist regimes foster an artificial climate of fear by intentionally amplifying stress and anxiety. Citizens naturally feel a strong need for security and are easily persuaded to ignore abuses in the name of safety. The few still willing to question are met with bullying and smear campaigns of intimidation.
Legislative bodies, if still in existence at all, are cowed into rubber_stamp submission with occasional ceremonial opposition. The judiciary tends to become activist in support of state views. The public often looks away, or even enthusiastically approves as rights are stripped away.
The concept of the individual inevitably yields ground, exchanged for the promised safety of the all_powerful state.
4. Secrecy Demanded
Obsession with secrecy and national security _ The workings of government become increasingly hidden. Questioning of authority is discouraged at all levels of society. From office talk at the water cooler up through the entire apparatus of rule, guarded speech and secrecy become ends in themselves.
Troubling questions are muted and entire areas of scrutiny are placed out of bounds by simply invoking "national security".
5. Military Glorified
Supremacy of the military _ The military establishment receives a disproportionate share of government resources, even as pressing domestic needs are neglected. Individual soldiers and military culture are glamorized and made constantly visible.
This provides both an object for public glorification, as well as sharp warning to possibly restless citizens that the power of the state stands close at hand, ready to use its great potential for violence.
6. Corporations Shielded
Corporate power is protected _ Typically, a segment of the business elite plays a major role in bringing fascists to national leadership, often from an unsavory obscurity. This marriage of big money and raw violence is often considered by historians to be the hallmark and backbone of fascism.
As these business_government_military interests meld, the significant threat of organized labor is clearly recognized. Labor unions and their support organizations are either co_opted successfully or ruthlessly suppressed and eliminated as soon as possible.
7. Corruption Unchecked
Rampant cronyism and corruption _ Fascist states maintain power through this relatively small group of associates, mutually appointing each other to interlocking and rotating positions in government, business and the military.
With this degree of control, they make full use of both official secrecy and the ready threat of state violence to insulate themselves from any meaningful criticism. They are not accountable and are shielded from scrutiny in a way unthinkable in a democratic society.
8. Media Controlled
Controlled mass media _ Sometimes the media are controlled directly by clumsy government functionaries. At other times, sympathetic corporate media insiders shape the themes indirectly, and therefor more skillfully. Image regularly trumps content as the "news" is presented breathlessly and with flashy stage effects.
A practiced formula of tenacious repetition brings even the most absurd lie into acceptance over time. By design, the very language itself and the coloration employed will push alternate views "out of the mainstream".
The terms of any remaining debate are narrowly defined to the state's advantage, making it easy to marginalize a truly differing perspective. Censorship and "self_censorship", especially in wartime, is common.
9. Rampant Sexism
Rampant sexism _ Governments of fascist states tend to be almost exclusively male_dominated. Traditional gender roles are made even more rigid and exaggerated. Condemnation of abortion and a virulent homophobia are commonly built into broad policy.
10. Intellectual Bullying
Disdain for intellectuals _ Fascist society tends to create an environment of extreme hostility to critical thought in general, and to academics in particular.
Ideologically driven "science" is elevated and lavishly funded, while any expression not in line with the state view is at first ignored, then challenged, then ridiculed and finally stamped out.
It is not uncommon for academics to be pressured to attack the work of their insufficiently patriotic peers. Writings are censored; teachers are fired and arrested. Free artistic expression in new works is openly attacked, and existing works deemed unpatriotic are often publicly destroyed.
11. Militarized Police
Obsession with crime and punishment _ Fascist society is often willing to overlook police abuses and forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. Long jail sentences for clearly political offenses, torture and then assassination are at first uncomfortably tolerated, and then start to pile up to become the norm.
Often a national police force is given virtually unlimited power to snoop through the civilian population. Networks of surveillance and informers are employed, both for actual intelligence gathering and also as a means to keep neighbors and co_workers isolated and mistrustful of each other.
12. Elections Stolen
Fraudulent elections _ In the disordered time as fascists are rising to power, the electoral arena becomes increasingly confusing, corrupted, and manipulated.
There is rising public cynicism and distrust over what are widely believed to be phony elections manipulated by moneyed influence, obvious media bias, smear campaigns, ballot tampering, judicial interference, intimidation, or outright assassination of potential opposition. Fascists in power have been known to use this disorder as the rationale to delay elections indefinitely.
9:28:17 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 |
Switchfoot. Have you heard of them? My friend who reviews music let me listen to their CD "The Beautiful Letdown." This CD, however, is not a letdown. Switchfoot is an Alternative Christian Rock band, originating from San Diego, California. Lead by Jonathon Foreman, this CD is a noteworthy compilation, with a marketable sound, engrossing and memorable melodies, and good vocals. Unlike Creed, this group’s sound is more pop-rock and punk-lite, more like Good Charlotte, Coldplay, Green Day, to name a few.
I appreciated the fact that their lyrics have a bit of substance to them. They are relevant, they make sense (unlike a few of Creed's stuff), and they are universal in meaning so that anyone with religious beliefs can listen and enjoy. In all, their lyrics are thoughtful and hopeful.
Lead by Jonathon Foreman, the vocals are highly memorable and easy to sing along to (reminiscent of my favorite CCM group Jars of Clay), most especially in the tracks "This is Your Life," "More Than Fine," "Dare You To Move," The Beautiful Letdown," "Gone," and "Twenty-Four."
Every once in awhile, Foreman's vocals reminded me of the Tears for Fears frontman, Roland Orzabel, especially on the beautiful track "On Fire."
In regards to the substance of their lyrics--It doesn't take long for the effects of life, such as world events, political issues, war, prejudice, etc., to seep into our collective consciousness and become the focus of and/or commentary within music and movies. (Consider Radiohead’s CD "Hail to the Thief" released last year.) Switchfoot doesn't tackle issues, necessarily, except in the opening track "Meant to Live," in which Foreman sings: "we want more that this world’s got to offer. We want more than the wars of our fathers."
Rather, they seem to invite us to focus on higher levels, without being preachy. The result is that we find meaning and a bit of our own desires and longings in these lyrics. Consider the lines to the chorus of the thoughtful closing sontrack "Twenty-Four":
I want to see miracles.
To see the world change.
I wrestled with the angel.
For more than a name.
For more than a feeling.
For more than a cause.
Singing spirit take me up in arms with you
You’re raising the dead in me.
10:01:58 PM | |
|
|
The Senate is preparing to vote on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act, if passed, will give gun manufacturers, wholesalers, dealers, and trade associations immunity from being prosecuted. The House passed this bill last April.
In a letter to the New York Times, the mayors of four major US cities (Michael R. Bloomberg [New York City], Richard M. Daley [Chicago], James K. Hahn [Los Angeles], and Scott L. King [Gary, Indiana]) urge Senators to vote against the bill. Here are excerpts from their letter:
Guns destroy thousands of lives every year and spread fear in our neighborhoods. It is much too easy for criminals to get firearms. And when a handgun is readily available, a minor argument or domestic dispute can quickly escalate into a homicide.
We've worked hard to get illegal guns off the streets, through tough law enforcement, by supporting reasonable gun laws - and by suing gun manufacturers and dealers to get them to take responsibility for their actions....
But Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that would undercut the ability of local governments to hold the gun industry accountable for its role in flooding our cities with guns. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would shield irresponsible firearms manufacturers, wholesalers, dealers and trade associations from any form of civil liability in cases in which they recklessly or negligently supply firearms to criminals.
By immunizing gun manufacturers against civil liability, the bill would remove much of their legal incentive to behave responsibly. It would encourage bad manufacturers to remain bad and good manufacturers to become lax.
Most firearms dealers are responsible business people selling to law-abiding customers. But a small minority are not, and their unlawful actions are largely responsible for the gun violence on our cities' streets. According to federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Many of these guns were illegal "straw purchases," a common street-gang tactic in which someone with a valid state firearms card buys large quantities of guns for resale to people with criminal records.
And yet the gun industry refuses to police itself. Gun manufacturers and wholesalers know who the problem dealers are, because when guns are recovered at crime scenes, they receive firearms tracing reports that show them which dealers sell disproportionately to criminals.
The gun industry claims it's merely seeking protection from frivolous lawsuits. But federal and state courts are recognizing the legal validity of many of these cases....
Almost 7,200 people were murdered with handguns in the United States in 2002, the most recent year for which figures are available. It is obvious that something needs to be done at the federal level. But rather than pass gun legislation that would make our streets safer, Congress proposes basically to immunize the gun industry from efforts to make it act responsibly.
All senators should oppose this bill. If they don't, they ought to explain why the one industry deserving of this extraordinary protection should be the one that makes a product that kills thousands of Americans each year.
Send a letter to your Senator to urge him to vote against this bill.
7:40:23 PM | |
|
|
The Center for American Progress reported today that Paige has a record of questioning the values of public school teachers:
This is not the first time Paige has attacked the integrity and morals of public school teachers as Secretary of Education. Last April, Paige said, "The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system... That's not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values." Paige, who oversees a public school system that serves 47 million students said, "All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith."
Yesterday, Paige quickly issued an "apology" saying his comment was "an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics that the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reform." In his apology Paige also accused the NEA of "fighting against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children." Paige's outrageous comments, and his subsequent "apology," raise an important question: are there legitimate criticisms of the NCLB program? The answer, according to a growing number of states and localities (many of whom are led by conservatives), is a resounding yes.
7:31:48 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, February 23, 2004 |
You know, I've wondered how much more people are going to take from this Adminsitration before they say "Enough is enough." (Is there anyone in this Administration who has not made some vile remark toward some special group, association, culture, race, etc, etc, etc.? If there are, they are becoming few.) Maybe today, the teachers of America will wake up and take notice.
Why?
Because today, in front of the Governors of the United States, the Education Secretary, Rod Paige, called the nation's largest teacher's union (2.7 million-member strong) a terrorist organization, as reported by the Washington Post.
Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words."
Yes. And I'm Santa Frickin' Claus?
Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.
[NEA President Reg] Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction"...
Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists."
Thanks, Terry. Now kindly get back to work to come up with a winning strategy for November.
7:26:50 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, February 22, 2004 |
In the closing moments of the video series The Ascent of Man, the Jewish philosopher James Bronowski walks out into a pond. Around him are the remnants of old battlements and buildings now uninhabited. "This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz," he explains. "This is where people were turned into numbers."
As his expensive loafers are completely submerged under the surface of the pond, he gets down on his haunches, reaches down into the water, and with both hands brings up dark-colored mud, the color of coal and ash.
"Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave."
With the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ fast upon us, a great anxiety is striking at the hearts of many people, especially those familar with the sights and sounds of those many dark and torturous years not yet forgotten to them. They are years we as humanity promised we would never forget nor let the likes of happen again. And yet, here we are.
Read my whole article.
12:04:36 PM | |
|
|
|
Saturday, February 21, 2004 |
From time to time, even I make unfounded remarks. Most recently, I made a comment about the activities of the Christian Right as being near "lawless." Michael Parker of Prolegomena (yes, there are two of us in the blog world) called me on this. I erred by making a gross generalization. Even though I feel that the language used by the Christian Right is inciteful, and spur violence and hate crimes (e.g. against abortion clinics) that doesn't mean that the majority of adherants is lawless. I will be more careful in the future to keep my attacks grounded and more descriptive (to the point).
In light of this, Joe Conason talks about the unfounded attacks against Max Cleland by Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn. If you are not familar with Max Cleland, he is the Democratic Senator from Georgia who lost his limbs in Vietnam after picking up a hand grenade that he thought had dropped from his gear. Coulter has been spinning the story to say that he dropped it on himself. The true story is that one of the "less experienced soldier[s] had dropped that lethal object."
At her harshest, Coulter writes that his service involved "no bravery." He did not "give his limbs for his country" or leave them "on the battlefiled."
Conason points out that a reader of Coulter's article would ascertain that Cleland saw no combat at all. Most importantly, "That same reader also wouldn't know that he was decorated for the valor he displayed in one of the war's bloodiest battles, only four days before the accident that grievously maimed and nearly killed him."
Conason continues:
She complains that his liberal defenders "are clearly implying -- without stating -- that Cleland lost his limbs in combat." In the very next sentence she states that Cleland "was not in combat" and "was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied." Had he not suffered the loss of his limbs, she smarmily reminds us, he would have ended up as a school teacher or a pharmacist, rather than a U.S. Senator and a Cabinet secretary. (What career does she believe George W. Bush would have pursued if he had been born into less privileged circumstances?)
Conason then turned his commentary toward the remarks of Mark Steyn, who recently wrote that Cleland was "no hero" but merely "a beneficiary of the medal inflation that tends to accompany unpopular wars."
Conason surmises about these ugly accusations:
Neither of Cleland's critics told the truth about him. Both misuse the modest remarks he has made in the past about his wartime experience to try to damage his reputation. He was indeed racked with self-doubt and depression after the accident that cost him his limbs. But that doesn't change the truth about who he is and what he did before that terrible day. He earned the decorations that these two termites now disparage.
Cleland defended his honor on cable television, where he told "Hardball" host Chris Matthews: "I volunteered for a combat mission with the 1st Air Calvary division going in to break the siege at Khe Sanh, and if that isn't a combat mission, you ought to ask some of the people that were there and the 200 guys that were killed in that mission."
In this time, though critics of Bush are pressing him to prove his legitimate turn in the National Guard, it should not be attempted to discredit those veterans who have legitimate records, such as Cleland and Kerry. In Cleland's case, consider this evidence of courage and valor published by Conason by US Army General Order 4361. (Dated June 9, 1968)--
"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam
"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.
"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."
I love Conason's closing remarks: "Neither [Coulter or Steyn] would be worthy to shine his shoes -- if only he still needed them."
11:18:50 AM | |
|
|
|
Friday, February 20, 2004 |
If Kerry wins the nomination, there will be no doubt who has the better service record. Check out this timeline published on Mother Jones. It has every major accomplishment for both men, except, of course, the date in which Bush visited the Base Dentist, thus proving he wasn't AWOL.
6:55:56 AM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, February 19, 2004 |
All of the fuss is going to lead to this........you just know it's true! 
5:48:43 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 |
Adam Curry of the MTV Top 20 Countdown fame has his own weblog--Adam Curry's Weblog: There are no secrets; only information you don't yet have.
What is unique about this website is that Curry has taken himself and his blog on the road. And this is just not any European or American road, I'm talking the roads of Iraq. Currently, Curry and company are set up in Camp Smitty in As Samawah, by Ar Rumaytaha and Tallil. Named Operation Iraqi Sunrise, Curry gets out and about the towns and providences, talking and interviewing anyone he can meet--teachers, kids, parents, labor workers, soldiers, etc. His photographers are taking photos, which are being posted on the blogsite. Evidentally, this operation only lasts till the end of the week--February 20th.
Here is an excerpt from yesterday's post:
The [troops] there were able to answer alot of questions that have been building up in the 'ole noggin. For instance, why is it that in a country that has so much natural oil resource, where fuel costs 2 cents a liter, why is there such an incredible shortage of fuel? There are literally lines of cars that are 4 rows wide and at least as many miles long at the gas stations. Answer: There are only two refineries in Iraq of which one is closed due to striking workers. Is that ironic or what?
Here is an example of the photos being captured. This one is of an Iraqi boy.
One of the observations Curry is amazed at is the people themselves. About those he meets in a town next to the Euphrates (near the Dutch camp in Al Kidhr), Curry writes:
...while walking through the market streets of Al Kihdr, iraqi people are beautiful. Seriously, handsome, and the kids are adorable. And not once did anyone ask me for more than a handshake or a chat. No begging, panhandling or the like.
Click here to read and follow Curry's trip.
4:17:58 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 |
LiberalOasis posted a noteworthy interview with Eric Alterman, author of the newly published book The Book on Bush. As a teaser, this is what Alterman thinks of Bush as a person:
I’m very reluctant to ascribe thought to George Bush beyond anything he actually says, and even then, I don’t often believe him.
I don’t know what’s in his heart. He says he has a good heart, he’s a good man. Let him think that if he wants. I’m interested in the results of his policies.
We don’t call him a liar in this book. We don’t ever say he’s lying, because we don’t know what he’s thinking. We don’t know what his consciousness is.
I do think that a man [that] tells us over and over again, "I’m 100 percent positive they have weapons of mass destruction." And then instead of saying, "Oh I’m wrong and I’m sorry," says "I’m 100 percent sure they have weapons of mass production" -- whatever that phrase was, isn’t someone who’s primary concern is that he always is scrupulous to the truth...That’s a kind of giveaway.
But I really couldn’t give a shit what Bush thinks or feels. I care what the results for the country are…
…I’m called a Bush-hater by the Wall Street Journal, but I don’t really have any feelings about Bush personally.
I never met him [but] when I watched that movie "Journeys with George," I found him quite charming, to tell you truth. I understood the charm of the guy.
But I don’t care if I like him or not. I don’t care if I like Clinton or not. I don’t care if I like Cheney or not.
I care, as a patriot and as an intellectual, what are the results of the policies for the country and the world.
And my view is that they are all uniformly disastrous. I can’t tell you a single good thing the guy has done for the country.
9:04:17 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, February 12, 2004 |
TomPaine.com published an article from the Center for American Progress titled "The Threatening Record." Within the article, the writers, David Sirota, Christy Harvey, and Judd Legum compiled a list of quotes from the Bush Administration regarding Iraq and Saddam being an immenent threat.
I'm including the list of the White House's warnings in its entirety:
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States." (White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03)
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." (President Bush, 7/17/03)
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." (White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03)
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now." (President Bush, 7/2/03)
"Absolutely." (White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03)
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended." (President Bush 4/24/03)
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
(Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03)
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended." (Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03)
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of
an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." (President Bush, 3/19/03)
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of
free nations." (President Bush, 3/16/03)
"This is about imminent threat." (White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03)
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." (Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03)
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." (Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03)
Iraq "threatens the United States of America." (Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03)
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a
nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and
recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03)
"Well, of course he is." (White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" 1/26/03)
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the
security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03)
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." (President Bush, 1/3/03)
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose
dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." (President Bush, 11/23/02)
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask
yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat
the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When
did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02)
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." (President Bush, 11/3/02)
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." (President Bush, 11/1/02)
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." (President Bush, 10/28/02)
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." (President Bush, 10/16/02)
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." (President Bush, 10/7/02)
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." (President Bush, 10/2/02)
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." (President Bush, 10/2/02)
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." (President Bush, 9/26/02)
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02)
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent?that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02)
Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness." (Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02)
11:07:43 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 |
The AFP on Monday reported the incident of an American Airlines pilot who, while the aircraft was waiting in cue to take off, got on the PA system and began to have Christian passengers and then non-Christian passengers identify themselves. He spoke about serving a mission in Costa Rica and seemed to hint (according to many passengers) that non-Christian passengers were "crazy."
Many passengers were immediately concerned, so much so that a few called loved ones on their cell phones, worrying that something was going to happen to the flight. Flight attendents quickly attempted to quell the concerns. They reported it to the pilot, who, after 45 minutes, got back on the PA and apologized to the flight attendants for having to take heat from the passengers for what he said. He did not apologize to the passengers.
Paul over at Playing With My Food has posted the interview of the pilot, in which the pilot still does not feel he did anything wrong.
This story disturbs me. It seems to be the paradigm of how the Christian Right is quickly becoming an aggressive and even lawless movement, feeling they can do whatever they want and it will be the right thing because it is for God.
The fact that the pilot did not express regret for saying what he did shows a contempt for the people he is being paid to serve. With the images of the doomed flights of 9/11 still fresh in our psyche, and having the knowledge that the terrorists were religious fundamentalists, this pilot's words to a planeful of trapped passengers are definitely threatening. I too would have worried about the intentions of the pilot. I too would have questioned his mental ability to be the pilot.
American Airlines should heavily reprimanded the pilot, if not let him go.
10:19:42 PM | |
|
|
Eschaton linked to a Gail Sheehy article from the New York Observer titled "Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show." Sheehy updates us on the investigation into 9/11, painting the most complete picture of what actually took place on the planes to date. Sheehy also explains the frustration by many families of the pilots, flight attendents, and passengers who feel that the investigation is being controlled by the White House, who have excused themselves from appearing in front of the panel except in closed quarters and who have sealed 28 pages of the 9/11 Report (which consisted of information regarding Saudi Arabia).
See my previous post The President's New Dilemma for more information on the 9/11 Report.
Atrios is right. Sheehy's article is a must read.
7:20:10 PM | |
|
|
On Big Government
LiberalOasis today talked about the how the Right are spinning the fact that Bush has made the government bigger under his watch. LO suggests that the Dems should call Bush on hypocrisy and fiscal responsibility because of this. In fact, to help the Dems out, LO created a great response I feel will come in handy come campaign debate time. It reads as follows:
"It’s not about whether government grows or shrinks, it’s about whether our government is serving our needs and spending our money wisely.
"The government had to grow to respond to our homeland security needs. And so it grew under George Bush.
"Yet, it’s still not serving our needs, because he’s not properly funding first responders, he’s not funding thorough cargo inspections, and he’s leaving a massive debt for our grandchildren to pay off."
On Bush's Character
Salon.com printed an excerpt from Paul Waldman's book Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You. I found this paragraph most revealing:
According to the Washington Post, friends and lawmakers who met with Bush just before he launched the invasion found him "upbeat," "chatty," "cocky and relaxed" and "in high spirits." The most revealing moment came when he thought the cameras were off: Before he gave his national address announcing that the war had begun, a camera caught Bush pumping his fist, as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. "Feels good," he said.
Yet the mainstream press, given this appalling glimpse into the president's character, chose to remain silent, no doubt hesitant to become the target of the White House's wrath, not to mention that of innumerable conservatives demanding that they support the president in a time of war. But after all, we are talking about what ABC News' "The Note" referred to as "inarguably the most beaten down press corps in the modern era."
On Liberals
Here is a noteworthy quote from Waldman's book about the conservative media and their attack on the liberals:
The conservative media apparatus is an integrated system in which stories circulate between talk radio, conservative magazines and newspapers and the Fox News Channel, generating momentum and pushing their way into more mainstream news outlets. The most enthusiastic goal of this media machine is locating and publicizing foolish things said by liberals, no matter how obscure or inconsequential the speaker may be, to inspire mainstream contempt for liberals. The idea that the words of some random professor or student are more important than the actions of the country's leaders may be farcical, but by giving endless attention to these alleged outrages, conservatives sustain the image of liberals as powerful and elitist and conservatives as persecuted and victimized. Were they so inclined, liberals could no doubt find conservative citizens who say stupid things too. But no one is paying them to undertake the search.
On the FCC's Investigation of Janet Jackson
From The Guardian in Britain comes an excellent opinion piece by Gary Younge titled "Ignorance is no excuse." He lambasts the US government for rushing into an investigation of a bare breast instead of one over the rush to war against Iraq. Here are some great excerpts:
Let's leave aside for a moment the value system of a government that can order an immediate inquiry into a bare breast and take a year to launch one into a bare-faced lie presented as a pretext for war. For there is a far more important principle at hand than the US government's calibration of indecency.
At best somewhere along the way on Super Bowl night there was an unfortunate mistake, either individual or systemic. At worst, and more likely, this was a cynical, tasteless publicity stunt. Either way it was wrong, and Michael Powell is going to make sure that whoever is responsible will pay the price.
Hold that thought. Now cast your mind back to the United Nation's security council chamber a year ago last Friday. With the help of tapes, aerial photographs and a PowerPoint presentation, Michael Powell's father, Colin, illustrates the US government's case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Jabbing the air and slapping the table, he offers "not assertions, but facts" and "evidence, not conjecture".
Colin Powell's "evidence" and "facts" have been proven to be not only "assertions" and "conjecture", but erroneous ones at that. But one year, one war, no UN resolution and thousands of deaths later, we are still waiting for someone to pay the price for a conflict that never needed to start and sparked a resistance that shows no sign of ending.
On Learned Helplessness
Dave Pollard of How to Save the World published an incredible poem (I do believe it is original, too) titled "An Ode to Learned Helplessness." I'm including his excellent ending here:
The greater dangers we ignore, distracted by learned helplessness:
Pollution, global warming, wealth imbalance, population stress,
Injustice, power run amok, farm factories, the world's oppressed.
And while we look the other way, extinction looms within the fog
Divert attention for too long and we become The Boiling Frog.
6:47:43 AM | |
|
|
|
Monday, February 09, 2004 |
MoveOn's campaign to censure Bush for misleading America into war has generated more than 250,000 signatures. I am one of them.
Tomorrow, MoveOn will be joined by former top intelligence officers and by parents whose children have been injured and killed while serving in the military in Iraq at a press conference in Washington to call on Congress to censure Bush.
President Bush's interview with Tim Russert yesterday proved one thing: Bush is still making up reasons why we went to war; he is still trying to mislead us with statements like, "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible."
The facts show the opposite, of course, as MoveOn outlined in a post on the 3rd.
"There must be consequences when a President takes us to war based on assertions he knows are untrue." MoveOn believes. "We've simply got to demand it."
I completely agree.
6:43:39 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, February 08, 2004 |
Trapper John posted a remarkable comment today on DailyKOS about Bush and the claim that he was AWOL. He questions the focus being put on the AWOL argument, stating that the focus should lie in the fact that he was able to get out of the guard 8 months early. I'm posting his commentary in its entirety because it was so good:
There's no question that the idea that Bush may have been AWOL during part of his tenure in the Guard is intriguing. But it's not nearly the most offensive aspect of his military history, and it's mired in uncertainty. We need to avoid getting caught up in the legalistic AWOL/not-AWOL arguments, and focus on what Bush himself admits when asked how he got out of the Guard 8 months early: "I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military."
Imagine with me a soldier named Joe Smith, from Southeast DC. Corporal Smith joined the DC Guard to pay for his undergrad degree at UDC -- he was the first member of his family to earn a four-year degree. Smith has been posted in Tikrit for the past six months, and despite the fact that his Guard commitment was due to end on Dec. 31, he isn't allowed to leave the service, due to Bush's stop-loss orders. But Smith applied to business schools before leaving for Iraq, and has just been accepted into Howard Business School.
Will Corporal Smith, who has already served longer than the term for which he signed up -- and who has served in a war zone -- be able to "work it out with the military" so that he can go to the "other" HBS? Hell no. And that, folks, is a powerful testament to the arrogant sense of entitlement that permeates every cell of George Walker Bush. The fact that he can characterize his service as entirely honorable, and apparently believes that it was somehow normal to "work out" a deal with the military so that he could return to his Ivy League roots -- at the same time that he keeps Guard members in Iraq long past the time when they should have gone home -- is appalling and foreign to regular Americans.
Bush got into the Texas Guard pilot program despite abysmal test scores, during a time that there was a draft on for an overseas war, and he was able to bail out early on that because he wanted to go to b-school. Today, Bush issues stop-loss orders that keep Guardsmen like Corporal Smith -- who unlike Bush, serve in an overseas war -- in the service indefinitely. And unlike George Walker Bush, son of a Representative/Ambassador/RNC chair and grandson of a Senator, the Smiths of today's Guard don't get to make it all stop just because they want to kill time at business school.
That is an issue which will resonate with Americans. Bush has never played by the rules forced on the rest of us, and his b-school/Guard dealings highlight the imbalance of the playing field.
Amen and Amen! Great stuff Trapper John!
6:26:00 PM | |
|
|
I have just published a review of the Oscar nominations on my film page. This review also includes my predictions for the major categories and a viewable PDF of the entire list that you can print out and use as a ballot for your Oscar party.
You can also read my article and predictions in the upcoming Virtual Occoquan, coming out next week.
1:25:36 AM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, February 05, 2004 |
The Tory leader, Michael Howard, called upon Prime Minister Blair to resign today. This request came after Blair "revealed to MPs yesterday that he was unaware that the intelligence that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes referred only to battelefield munitions, not any missile capability."
Speaking in Portsmouth, Mr Howard said: "I am accepting what the prime minister told us at face value. He said he never knew, he never bothered to ask this question.
"If I were prime minister and I had failed to ask that basic question before committing our country to war I would be seriously considering my position."
Mr Howard's comments shift the debate over the pre-war intelligence about WMD from questions about Mr Blair's integrity to ones about his competence.
Read the Guardian article "Howard: Blair Should Resign Over WMD Claim" in its entirety here.
The pressure facing Blair will translate into pressure for Bush at home. And the rejuvinated controversy about Bush being AWOL during his service time this week can only add to the pressure.
7:52:34 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 03, 2004 |
Though Bush has called for an independent investigation, most likely from pressure from Democrats and Republicans alike last week, (Blair is doing likewise today in Britain), the controversy surrounding "sexed-up" intelligence to convince Congress and America to pre-emptively invade Iraq is reaching a critical point. Australia has already censured their Prime Minister, John Howard, for misleading their country into war. MoveOn is starting that campaign here, and rightly so.
I have believed that we were mislead into war from the very mention of it in 2002. In fact, when Bush was handed the presidency, I joked with my co-workers: "Well, I guess we'll be invading Iraq."
I've written on the subject of spurious intelligence and being mislead in these posts:
A Few Days in February (2003)
Backpeddling!
MoveOn explains their reasoning for censuring Bush in an e-mail being sent to MoveOn members. I include it here in its entirety:
During the buildup to war, President Bush said the United States "must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.... We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring." 1
On the eve of sending troops into battle, Bush asserted that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." 2
Now David Kay, the CIA’s chief weapons inspector, has testified before Congress that these weapons do not exist.
In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election. 3
But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. 4 And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.
Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now. Join our call on Congress to censure President Bush by clicking here.
It's clear that we’ve been misled:
-
David Kay said last week, "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," and "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on." 5 Kay said these things shortly after resigning from his post as Bush's chief weapons inspector in Iraq.
- Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 6 Yet Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was sent to Niger in February 2002 to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there, concluded that "intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." 7
- A CIA report in February 2003 said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [1998] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs." 8
It's also clear that the misleading was deliberate:
Our democracy only works when we know the truth. We now know President Bush and his administration deliberately misled Congress and the American people. Censure is the least we should expect in response.
The independent inquiry will need a year or more to come to a conclusion, according to the Bush administration. It took less time than that for the country to go to war. We don't need more investigation, we need accountability, and we need it now.
We'll be holding a press conference in Washington on Thursday, announcing our campaign for Censure. If you sign on now, we can count your signature at the press conference. Please sign on right away.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
- Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
Tuesday, February 3, 2004
Footnotes:
1. Washington Post, January 28, 2004
2. Official White House transcript, March 17, 2003
3. Washington Post, February 2, 2004
4. An excellent, comprehensive rundown on the Bush administration's deliberate distortion of intelligence is available from the Center for American Progress
5. New York Times, January 26, 2004
6. Official White House transcript, January 28, 2003
7. Joseph Wilson Op-Ed, New York Times, July 6, 2003
Note: Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had her CIA cover blown, possibly by the White House, in apparent retaliation for Wilson's contradicting the White House's line on WMDs.
8. MSNBC News, Oct. 24, 2003
9. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", January, 2004
10. New York Times, July 8, 2003
11. Washington Post News Service, July 23, 2003
12. US News & World Report, June 9, 2003
Note: This article with the Powell quote is available for purchase from the US News & World Report archives for $2.95.
5:45:19 PM | |
|
|
|
|
