|
Michael Parker's Journal
 |
Monday, May 31, 2004 |
The truth of the matter is this. I am an avid fan of the Harry Potter films. To admit that I am excited for this weeks release of The Prisoner of Azkaban is an understatement. I'm dreaming about it I'm so excited.
I saw the trailer for the film when I saw Shrek 2. I was greatly intrigued by the darker tone of the upcoming film. One of the reasons why I am so excited (and why the film is darker than the previous two) is that Alfonso Cuaron is directing the film. Cuaron is known for directing the films A Little Princess, Great Expectations, and the incredible Y Tu Mama Tambien. I feel Cuaron has the ability to take the series to a richer, more psychological plane.
If you have not heard about the story line, here it is--When Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts for his third year, he and his friends, Hermione and Ron, learn that Sirius Black (played by Gary Oldman) has escaped from Azkaban prison and may be on his way to Hogwarts to kill Harry Potter.
Michael Gambon (Gosford Park) joins the cast as Dumbledore. And the lovely and talented Emma Thompson joins the cast as the professor of divination, Trewlaney. Besides Sirius Black, Harry Potter and friends will have to confront the Dementors, creatures who act as guards to the prison. They are known for their ability to suck the soul out of you.
I am expecting great things from Cuaron and Company. Five more days and counting. I can't wait!
Visit the website at www.harrypotter.warnerbros.com for more information.
4:16:37 PM  | |
|
|
|
Saturday, May 29, 2004 |
Ben Affleck, Uma Thurman, and Aaron Eckhart star in this MacGyver-type film about a man who gave up three years of his life to build a secret device for a company Alcom that can portray the future. When he finished the job, his memory was erased. But when he picks up a packet of his belongings, he learns over a course of silly and far-fetched situations that he placed 20 items in this packet that would help him remember (and help him get back inside Alcom) that he needed to destroy the device. Why? Because it was going to destroy humankind.
Paycheck wanted so badly to be another Minority Report. It brought in capable actors but the script lacked direction, coherence, and most importantly, sense. You could tell that a few of the stars, Uma especially, tried to make something happen with the dialogue given them. Nothing could save this from being awful.
2:43:33 PM | |
|
|
If you want jobs then you vote for Democrats, of course. Look at this amazing graphic from American Assembler. Consider that the worst Democratic president had a better record than the best Republican president. (I saw this posted on DailyKOS and couldn't resist adding to my journal. Thanks, KOS.) 
12:03:23 AM | |
|
|
|
Friday, May 28, 2004 |
No star has reinvented themselves as much as Madonna. No one star has been as successful as she has in doing this either. I remember as a teenager the fashion trends spawned from her debut album and MTV hits Holiday, Borderline, and Lucky Star--plastic bracelets and anklets; black bras under see-through tops or tanktops; everything lace.
She rankled the religious with hits such Like A Virgin, Papa Don't Preach, and Like A Prayer. Love, sex, and the experience of it came across as her religion. She turned many listeners into believers, entranced by her blonde ambition, physically fit and sexy physique, freshly hypnotic dance routines, her flare for the dramatic and grand, and some of the best songs of her time. She has been the paradigm, in many respects, of vogue.
Madonna had a turn as one of the most popular figures among contemporary musicals and world politics--Eva Peron, winning accolades for her performance in the musical Evita. She's most recently become a best-selling novelist.
She's the queen of expressing herself. It's a characteristic that has endeared her to many of us. Now a mother of two and happily married to director Guy Ritchie, and now a faithful adherent to the practice of Kabbalah, one wonders if she has taken to the road not really to reinvent her self and her music in our eyes but rather in an attempt to revise it all to fit her new self. No matter the reason, she has my attention. She has had it from the very beginning.
(The amazing photograph above was taken at her Reinvention Tour in Los Angeles this past week. This picture, as well as others from that concert, can be seen at Yahoo Slideshows.)
3:28:49 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, May 27, 2004 |
How uncanny. How bizarre. Nick Berg's story took a bizarre twist today when Salon reported that the American entrepreneur who was beheaded in Iraq was actually interviewed by Michael Moore for his documentary Farenheit 911 before he traveled to Iraq. Michael Moore verified this fact with Salon today. Here are a few excerpts from Salon's article today, written by Rebecca Traister.
Filmmaker Michael Moore filmed an interview with American Nicholas Berg in the course of producing his documentary film "Fahrenheit 9/11" before Berg left for Iraq, where he was taken hostage and killed, Moore confirmed to Salon in a statement Thursday. The 20 minutes of footage does not appear in the final version of "Fahrenheit 911," according to the statement.
Word of the footage reached Salon through a source unaffiliated with Moore or his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is reported to feature stark images of U.S. civilians and soldiers grappling with conditions in war-torn Iraq, as well as examining the relationship between President George W. Bush and the bin Laden family. It received the Palme d'Or, the Cannes Film Festival's highest honor, on Saturday.
In a statement widely circulated by Moore's people after an initial request for comment by Salon, Moore said, "We have an interview with Nick Berg. It was approximately 20 minutes long. We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family." Moore's camp declined to comment further on any aspect of the interview. Because the footage is not in the film, a spokeswoman for Miramax Films, the production company behind "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the company had no comment.
It was not clear from Moore's statement whether footage from the interview with Berg had ever been included in early cuts of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Reports about a film industry controversy surrounding distribution of the film first hit the news on May 5, a week before Berg's death. The film officially screened for the public and the press for the first time during the Cannes festival on May 17.
The news that Moore spoke to Berg while he was still in the United States only adds to the mystery surrounding the young man's presence in Iraq and tragic death. The interview was shot before the 26-year-old Berg left for Iraq late last year as a private contractor in the hopes of helping to rebuild the ravaged country. Though it was unclear what Berg spoke about in his interview with Moore, or how the two men met, unrelated reports following his death indicate that he headed for the Middle East with plans to work to improve the country's technological infrastructure and communication abilities. He ran his own company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service, in a suburb of Philadelphia.
I wonder if the footage might find its way back into the film. I wonder if Moore is trying to get permission to divulge the contents of the interview. Maybe that is why Moore is "dealing privately with the family." No matter what, this revelation definitely sparks my curiosity about the two weeks Berg spent in US custody in Iraq. My head is full of possible questions and possible theories, some of which might best be kept unsaid.
7:38:37 PM | |
|
|
If people's mind has been made up by April and May in regards to who they will vote for, Bush is in for a long summer and autumn. I still think it's too early and unwise to predict anything, even though poll results clearly show that American's are not in sync with Bush's vision or the Iraq war.
Josh Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo linked to a strategy memo by Stan Greenberg and James Carville from the Democracy Corps. They wrote the following about Bush's recent polling stats:
Six months out from the election, the race for president has entered a new and distinct phase with Bush not only endangered, as we suggested earlier, but now with the odds against him. He is more likely to lose than win. Public confidence has collapsed on Iraq, but there is a lot of collateral damage, producing a strong desire for change. Whether it is the vote or job approval or personal favorability, Bush has become a 47 percent president at best. In almost every area, he is being dragged down by even stronger negative trends. Put simply by the voters themselves: just 42 percent want the country to continue in Bush's direction.
Ralph Nader might yet prove to be the spoiler for John Kerry, even though Nader's spin on his purpose in running states the opposite. For proof of this, read this analysis of poll results compiled by the Don't Vote Nader group.
But before you click over there, read this grand idea from a columnist at the Guardian in England. In a masterfully written article titled "The Fall of the Vulcan's," Timothy Garton Ash ponders how the European Commission can help America vote out Bush. His comments reminded me of Kerry's statement back in March or February in which he said many world leaders would like to see him beat Bush. Here's what Ash proposes:
[T]he crucial election for Europe - not the European elections next month, but the American one on November 2 - will be decided by Americans for American reasons. And the deciding factor may not be any foreign entanglement, nor even the economy, but the candidacy of Ralph Nader, which is likely to take pivotal anti-Bush votes away from Kerry, as it did from Al Gore in 2000. If only Nader would stand down.
Now Nader is, in many of his concerns, truly European. It occurs to me that the European Union is having some difficulty finding a new president of the European commission. So why don't we kill two birds with one stone? If we really want to help the vulcans from the American stage, let's make Ralph Nader president of the European commission.
6:40:58 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 |
Check this out! Sign up to see all of the episodes and have the right to vote someone off the island. Practice for November.
6:23:21 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 |
Bill Moyer's speech to the Newspaper Guild/Communication Workers of America dinner on May 19, 2004 is an astute description of journalism today and how the purpose of journalism, if I can call it that, is being suffocated under the curtain of secrecy placed on it by the government and media conglomerates and moguls. It is a must read if there ever was one!
Consider this paragraph on journalism's role in freedom:
Freedom and freedom of the press were birth twins of the revolution. They grew up together, and neither has fared well without the other. At times, journalism has risen to great occasions and even made other freedoms possible. From editors who went defiantly to prison after being charged under the sedition act for circulating opinions that questioned the motives of Congress, or 'criminating' (whatever that meant) the president, to the willingness of Arthur Sulzberger and Katherine Graham to risk criminal prosecution under espionage laws if they printed the Pentagon Papers; from Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair taking on the shame of the cities, the crimes of the trusts, and the treason of the senate, to Walter Cronkite devoting an entire broadcast to Watergate; from Seymour Hersh reporting on torture to 60 Minutes II broadcasting the horror of Abu Ghraib, the greatest moments in journalism have come not when journalists made common cause with power, but when they stood fearlessly independent of it.
Consider these two paragraphs regarding secrecy of this Administration:
Partly it's because of the secrecy. The secrecy today is so thick as to be all but impenetrable. In earlier times there were padlocks for the presses and jail cells for outspoken editors and writers as our governing bodies tried to squelch journalistic freedom with blunt instruments of the law. Now, the classifier's 'top secret' stamp, used indiscriminately, is as potent a silencer as a writ of arrest. It's so bad the president and CEO of the Associated Press, Tom Curley, last week called publicly for a media advocacy center to lobby in Washington for an open government. "You don't need to have your notebook snatched by a policeman," he said, "to know that keeping an eye on government has lately gotten a lot harder."
With little public debate congress gives government agencies the right to search your home, office, telephone logs, e-mails, medical records, restaurant-receipts, even banking and credit card information-without your consent or knowledge. The president signs an executive order postponing thousands of declassified documents that are 25 years old or more. He signs another executive order sending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to religious organizations with no obligation to show us where the money's going or how it's being used. For the first time in history the vice president is given the power to decide what is classified and what is not. Behind closed doors, key environmental protections are shredded and in the middle of the night, without so much as a single fingerprint left in the margin, an anonymous hand inserts into an omnibus bill a loophole providing billions of dollars in subsidies to powerful clients. Secrecy poisons democracy and there is only one antidote. When a student asked the journalist Richard Reeves to define "real news," he answered, "It's the news we need to keep our freedom."
Moyer's hits the nail on the head with this paragraph:
Meanwhile, as secrecy grows, and media conglomerates put more and more power in fewer and fewer hands, we have witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon-a quasi-official partisan press ideologically linked to an authoritarian administration that is in turn the ally and agent of powerful financial and economic interests that consider transparencies a threat to their hegemony over public opinion. This convergence dominates the marketplace of political ideas in a phenomenon unique in our history. Stretching from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's empire to the nattering nabobs of know-nothing radio to a legion of think tanks bought and paid for by corporations circling the honey pots of government, a vast echo chamber resounds with a conformity of opinions, serving a partisan worldview cannot be proven wrong because it admits no evidence to the contrary. When you challenge them with evidence to the contrary-when you try to hold their propaganda to scrutiny-you're likely to wind up in the modern equivalent of a medieval iron maiden, between the covers, that is, of an Ann Coulter tirade, or wake up in an underground cell at FOX News, force fed leftovers from a Roger Ailes snack, and required for 24 hours a day to stare at photographs of Rupert Murdoch on the walls of the cell while listening to a piped-in Bill O'Reilly singing the Hallelujah Chorus in praise of himself.
10:26:27 PM | |
|
|
The fact that Bush stumbled over the pronunciation of the name Abu Ghraib last night is quite telling. Like Joan Walsh and Joe Conason, this gaffe gives the impression that Bush is simply not familiar with the name, as if he were seeing it written for the first time, as if he were saying it for the first time.
Isn't there someone in his employ up there who is supposed to coach him on how to pronounce names as important as Abu Ghraib? After all, it may be the acts captured by soldiers on film at this location that ultimately may cost him his re-election. You would think he would want to get this one right!
Joan Walsh of The War Room blog on Salon.com has an excellent commentary on this. Consider these choice paragraphs:
Given the importance of President Bush's Iraq address, it's the wrong time to be petty, but someone needs to say that his stumbling over the pronunciation of Abu Ghraib was a stunning gaffe -- and yes, I mean "gaffe" in the Washington definition of the word, as in a slip of the tongue that inadvertently reveals what the speaker really thinks -- or in this case, doesn't bother to think.
Is Bush the only American who hasn't discussed the torture scandal enough in the last month to have decided already how to pronounce the prison's name? I've come to say "Abu Ghrabe," with a long A (sounds like "hate"), which Google seems to say is the correct pronunciation. But the point is not to insist there's a clear, written-in-stone right way to pronounce it; there's no time to consult Arabic experts, and that isn't the point. I've heard knowledgeable people say "Abu Gribe," with a long I, as in "spite." Bush's mangled version sounded kind of like "Abu...Guh...rrab," as in "grab," which may be a Freudian take on it, given the groping and sexual abuse that went on there.
But the worst of it was the way Bush got stuck on the word, parsing out the syllables lamely, as though he'd never read or heard them before....
Abu Ghrabe, Abu Ghribe, Abu Ghrab, it didn't necessarily matter how Bush pronounced it, as long as he showed a weary, fed-up familiarity with the word and all it meant, and a determination to make sure this sort of scandal never happened again. But he didn't. That may have been the most important moment of Bush's speech, and the president fell on his face again, badly.
9:55:15 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, May 24, 2004 |
USA TODAY printed a remarkable article by Carl Bernstein today urging Republicans to get a backbone and stop this Bush presidency. Consider these opening paragraphs from Bernstein's article:
Thirty years ago, a Republican president, facing impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, was forced to resign because of unprecedented crimes he and his aides committed against the Constitution and people of the United States. Ultimately, Richard Nixon left office voluntarily because courageous leaders of the Republican Party put principle above party and acted with heroism in defense of the Constitution and rule of law.
"What did the president know and when did he know it?" a Republican senator - Howard Baker of Tennessee - famously asked of Nixon 30 springtimes ago.
Today, confronted by the graphic horrors of Abu Ghraib prison, by ginned-up intelligence to justify war, by 652 American deaths since presidential operatives declared "Mission Accomplished," Republican leaders have yet to suggest that George W. Bush be held responsible for the disaster in Iraq and that perhaps he, not just Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is ill-suited for his job.
Having read the report of Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, I expect Baker's question will resound again in another congressional investigation. The equally relevant question is whether Republicans will, Pavlov-like, continue to defend their president with ideological and partisan reflex, or remember the example of principled predecessors who pursued truth at another dark moment.
Today, the issue may not be high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather Bush's failure, or inability, to lead competently and honestly.
"You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror," Bush told Rumsfeld in a Wizard-of-Oz moment May 10, as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and senior generals looked on. "You are a strong secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." The scene recalled another Oz moment: Nixon praising his enablers, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, as "two of the finest public servants I've ever known."
9:59:16 PM | |
|
|
The Center for American Progress today reported that Donald Rumsfield has banned soldiers and media from using any "digital cameras, camcorders and cell phones with cameras." This comes after the revealed atrocities at Abu Ghraib and the excessive bombing of the wedding party near the border of Syria, in which gruesome footage was recorded and passed on to foreign media. (Atrios of Eschaton links to a news report from Elmundo.es with photos and video. The footage is quit graphic and may not be suitable for all eyes.)
The underlying message one can only assume from Rumsfield's new orders is that they do not intend to clean up their act and fall in line with the Geneva Conventions. He just wants to make sure that evidence of intelligence-gathering interrogation methods no longer see the light of day.
Isn't this yet another sign that the interrogation atrocities are systematic?
9:50:32 PM | |
|
|
I don't know about you but I disavowed myself as a Star Wars fan when the first film of the second trilogy, which is actually the first film of the first trilogy, was released. Why? Because it was such a monstrous bore! The plot was nearly non-existent. I take that back. It was nothing more than a glorified computer game passed off as a movie.
Christopher Bahn is a critic of the films also. But Bahn believes the last episode has a chance at suriving. Bahn believes that if they get rid of Lucas, hire a different writer, get a new cast, and forget the entire storylines of Episodes 1 and 2, they just might have a film.
Read his hilarious article posted today on MSNBC. Consider the introductory paragraphs to gain a sense of Bahn's cleverness and wit:
We’ve got one more year before George Lucas finishes up his "Star Wars" prequel trilogy with the as-yet-untitled Episode III, and he certainly has his work cut out for him. Not only does he have to resolve the ongoing storylines of "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" in such a way as to lead directly into Episode IV, the original 1977 "Star Wars," but he has to overcome two of the most soul-killingly dull storylines ever put on film. I mean, really - I’ve seen more interesting films on sandwiches I left in my fridge too long. Is there any way for Lucas to salvage the series in a single movie? It would take a great disturbance in the Force, but it’s not impossible.
Hire some real behind-the-scenes talent
Considering that most of the worst ideas in the last two films came from Lucas himself, he might start by handing over the reins to another filmmaker.
It might be difficult to convince Lucas to go along with it, but if necessary Lucas could probably be tricked by telling him that Joseph Campbell is waiting with a documentary crew to massage Lucas’ ego by interviewing him about his wonderful mythic imagination. When Lucas shows up, knock him out, encase him in a block of frozen carbonite and put him out of the way somewhere until the movie is out in theaters.
Give creative control entirely to a new directing and writing team - it almost doesn’t matter who - and tell them to ignore "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" entirely. Rethink Episode III as a standalone story with one simple plotline: Anakin Skywalker has just married Padme (who is, unbeknownst to him, pregnant with the twins Luke and Leia who’ll show up in the next film). Seduced by ambition, Anakin leaves behind his wife, his life and even his own name to join the evil Emperor Palpatine as Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith.
The probability of Lucas giving up his baby is low. I'll await this release on DVD. Forever live LOTR, the fantasy film with the most!
8:41:45 PM | |
|
|
Work is always fun when you can incorporate games such as this into your routine. Robert (also known as nubalicious on his blogsite), Shawn, and I pondered the above picture and came up with some fitting captions. Here are my favorite from our brainstorming session:
10. "Find a happy place...find a happy place...find a happy place...."
9. "Did I ever tell you I had a thing for my mother?"
8. "I'm bringing home a baby bumble bee."
7. "This wasn't in the Presidents for Dummies handbook."
6. "I think this is about the time my father vomited in that one guys lap."
5. "Must never eat chili before a press conference ever again!"
4. "Shit... I was not prepped for this question!"
3. Scanning the telelprompt, Bush sees: "blah, blah, blah....Weapons of Mass destruction.... blah.... blah... blah.... Oil."
2. "I picked the wrong day to quit smoking pot."
1. "Potato.... P-O-T-A-T-O-E....Potato."
The Comments page is anxiously waiting for your caption. Go to it!
Update: SORRY that the picture didn't work the first go-round!
7:33:38 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, May 23, 2004 |
AWESOME! I pulled this off of Salon's news feed:
American filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's and Louis Malle's "The Silent World" in 1956.
"What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this. Merci," Moore said after getting a standing ovation from the Cannes crowd.
The grand prize, the festival's second-place honor, went to South Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook's "Old Boy," a blood-soaked thriller about a man out for revenge after years of inexplicable imprisonment.
Moore was momentarily flabbergasted when he took the stage to accept the award, a big difference from his fiery speech against President Bush after winning the best-documentary Academy Award for 2002's "Bowling for Columbine."
"You have to understand, the last time I was on an awards stage, in Hollywood, all hell broke loose," Moore said.
9:19:55 PM | |
|
|
Moviegoers talked with their wallets this week and dished out an incredible $104.3 million dollars for Shrek 2. The only other film that had a better opening is Spiderman, with $115 million.
Shrek 2, about Shrek and Fiona meeting Fiona's parents in the land of Far Far Away, became the largest boxoffice opener for an animated film, beating out Finding Nemo.
Here's more tidbits from the AP about Shrek 2's success:
It's a humongous "happily ever after" for "Shrek 2." The computer-animated fairy tale satire collected an estimated $104.3 million at the weekend box office, the second-biggest three-day tally in movie history behind 2002's "Spider-Man," which took in $114.8 million.
"Shrek 2" also scored the biggest opening ever for an animated film, easily topping "Finding Nemo's" $70.2 million. "Shrek," which opened in 2001, earned $42.3 million in its first weekend -- but went on to collect $267.6 million and win the first Oscar for an animated feature film.
For the sequel, the grumpy green ogre collected $28.4 million on Friday, and then jumped a remarkable 58 percent Saturday to earn $44.8 million, according to Jim Tharp, head of distribution for DreamWorks.
Saturday's earnings broke Hollywood's overall record for highest one-day earnings, also held by "Spider-Man" with $43.6 million.
On a personal note, I greatly enjoyed Shrek 2. I loved it as much as the first film. The script is clever and dynamic. The original film succeeded because it consistently surprised me with ingenious lines and plot developments. In this light, Shrek 2 was just as ingenious. Some critics were distracted by the clarity of the digital animation, as if it made people look too real. I too noticed these moments, especially with Prince Charming on screen. But I was not distracted to the point of not thoroughly enjoying myself.
On a whole, the sign of a good sequel is that it's story and plot stand on its own, without relying on the original to supply character or plot development. It succeeds in establishing its own persona. This is Shrek 2.
Of course, these Shrek films would not be what they are if they did not revolve around the notion that beauty is not what one can see but what is in a person's heart. It's about falling in love with someone for who they are and not what you want them or expect them to be. These films make us feel good about who we are and inspire us to treat others a bit better too; at least they do for me.
Kudos to DreamWork's and the creators/makers of Shrek 2 for their success. They deserve it.
8:50:37 PM | |
|
|
|
Saturday, May 22, 2004 |
In a statement to investigators, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Private Lyndie England said "everyone in the company from the commander down" knew what was going on at Abu Ghraib.
Lynndie England is now infamous; she's become the face of these abuses. One of the many images that has defined this prison scandal shows her standing above a beaten Iraqi man who is curled up on the floor opposite her. The Iraqi man is wearing a leash; she holds the other end.
It has been documented by many scholars and psychologists and historians who have studied mass movements, war, and the characteristics of war that abuses such as these we are seeing happen because the perpetrators of these abuses come to see their victims as less than human, like animals. The image of the Iraqi man leashed like a dog validates this point.
In a New York Times column on Friday, Bob Herbert interviewed the 28 year-old Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia who is being tried for failing to return to duty after his troops' furlough. Meija added his testament about how war changes a soldier's perspective about the people they are sent to liberate. His sentiments echo those of the Vietnam war:
All you really want to do in such an environment, said Sergeant Mejia, is "get out of there alive." So soldiers will do things under that kind of extreme stress that they wouldn't do otherwise.
"You just sort of try to block out the fact that they're human beings and see them as enemies," he said. "You call them hajis, you know? You do all the things that make it easier to deal with killing them and mistreating them."
Like the SS troops who brutalized the Jews as part of fulfilling the grand scheme of the Nazi party, a vision created by Heydrich and Hitler, known as the Final Solution, these American soldiers, contract workers, and their commanding officers have likewise (though I admit to a much lesser degree in numbers) brutalized Iraqi men, women, and children in order to fulfill Donald Rumsfield's intelligence-gathering scheme known as Copper Green.
Private England revealed more extremely disturbing details about the abuses she was witnessed and carried out. As reported by Mark Sage of the PA News in New York, consider the following:
[England] said guards forced detainees to crawl on their hands and knees on broken glass, threw a heavy ball at handcuffed prisoners and forced male detainees to wear women’s ’maxi pads’.
She said one soldier would "personally stitch up detainees if the wounds weren’t too bad".
"He would take pictures of his work," she added.
After slamming one Iraqi against a wall, the soldier stitched the inmates lip.
Although England implicated more senior soldiers in the scandal, she told investigators that much of the abuse was "basically us fooling around".
"We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken," she said.
But she added: "Personnel from MI [military intelligence] and OGA [Other Government Agency, or CIA] would tell us to keep it up, that we were doing a good job." She said there were many other abuses, but "I can’t remember all of them".
She added: "We did what we were told."
....
[An] Iraqi was taken to a shower room and shackled to a wall by the CIA....he was interrogated [there] and eventually died.
It was not until his hood was removed, after he died, that the extent of his head injuries was known....
Specialist Jason Kenner told investigators: "He wasn’t dead at first.
"We didn’t know how much he was injured. He went into the showers for interrogation, and about an hour later he died on them.
"I was sent to find out what was going on. Later that day, they decided to put him on ice.
"After he passed, the sandbag was removed and I saw that he was severely beaten on his face."
Scott Higham and Joe Stephens of The Washington Post obtained the statements of 13 detainees who said they were "savagely beaten and repeatedly humiliated sexually by American soldiers working on the night shift at Tier 1A in Abu Ghraib during the holy month of Ramadan." These statements paint "the most detailed picture yet of what took place on the cellblock."
These statements were "taken in Baghdad between Jan. 16 and Jan. 21" and span 65 pages.
Consider the following revelations:
....prisoners being ridden like animals, sexually fondled by female soldiers and forced to retrieve their food from toilets.
....they were pressed to denounce Islam or were force-fed pork and liquor....sexually humiliated and assaulted, threatened with rape, and forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers.
"They forced us to walk like dogs on our hands and knees," said Hiadar Sabar Abed Miktub al-Aboodi, detainee No. 13077. "And we had to bark like a dog, and if we didn't do that they started hitting us hard on our face and chest with no mercy. After that, they took us to our cells, took the mattresses out and dropped water on the floor and they made us sleep on our stomachs on the floor with the bags on our head and they took pictures of everything."
....
...Ameen Saeed Al-Sheik, detainee No. 151362: "They stripped me naked. One of them told me he would rape me. He drew a picture of a woman to my back and makes me stand in shameful position holding my buttocks."
.....
Most of the detainees said in the statements that they were stripped upon their arrival to Tier 1A, forced to wear women's underwear, and repeatedly humiliated in front of one another and American soldiers. They also described beatings and threats of death and sexual assault if they did not cooperate with U.S. interrogators.
....
[Kasim Mehaddi] Hilas witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy at the prison. He said the boy was between 15 and 18 years old. Someone hung sheets to block the view, but Hilas said he heard the boy's screams and climbed a door to get a better look. Hilas said he watched the assault and told investigators that it was documented by a female soldier taking pictures.
.....
Another detainee told military investigators that American soldiers sodomized and beat him. The detainee, whose name is being withheld by The Post because he is an alleged victim of a sexual assault, said he was kept naked for five days when he first arrived at Abu Ghraib and was forced to kneel for four hours with a hood over his head. He said he was beaten so badly one day that the hood flew off his head. "The police was telling me to crawl in Arabic, so I crawled on my stomach and the police were spitting on me when I was crawling, and hitting me on my back, my head and my feet," he said in his sworn statement.
One day, the detainee said, American soldiers held him down and spread his legs as another soldier prepared to open his pants. "I started screaming," he said. A soldier stepped on his head, he said, and someone broke a phosphoric light and spilled the chemicals on him.
"I was glowing and they were laughing," he said.
The detainee said the soldiers eventually brought him to a room and sodomized him with a nightstick. "They were taking pictures of me during all these instances," he told the investigators.
.....
Al-Sheik said he was arrested on Oct. 7, and brought to Abu Ghraib, where he was put in a tent for one night. The next day, he was transferred to the "hard site," the two-story building that held about 200 prisoners and contained Tiers 1A and 1B.
He said a bag was put over his head and he was made to strip. He said American soldiers started to taunt him.
"Do you pray to Allah?" one asked. "I said yes. They said, '[Expletive] you. And [expletive] him.' One of them said, 'You are not getting out of here health[y], you are getting out of here handicapped. And he said to me, 'Are you married?' I said, 'Yes.' They said, 'If your wife saw you like this, she will be disappointed.' One of them said, 'But if I saw her now she would not be disappointed now because I would rape her.' "
He said the soldiers told him that if he cooperated with interrogators they would release him in time for Ramadan. He said he did, but still was not released. He said one soldier continued to abuse him by striking his broken leg and ordered him to curse Islam. "Because they started to hit my broken leg, I cursed my religion," he said. "They ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive."
The detainee said the soldiers handcuffed him to a bed.
"Do you believe in anything?" he said the soldier asked. "I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, "But I believe in torture and I will torture you.' "
I know many Americans feel we are justified in torturing Iraqis. I've heard from a few of them. But I want you to know they are wrong. Donald Rumsfield, George Bush, and their cohorts in this deplorable war on Iraq are wrong.
These acts have turned America into the evil that we teach our children is unacceptable. These acts have made a mockery of the precepts of any religion and the ethics of secularism. This is not who I am. This is not who my family is. This is not who my neighbors are. This is not who my friends are. I'd like to believe that this is not what America is.
11:50:42 AM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, May 20, 2004 |
Total Film Magazine published the results of a critics poll naming the best gory deaths in film. Their top choice was Vivian Leigh's shower scene in Psycho.
It's the sheer violence of the edit rather than any explicit gore - 70 different angles, over 90 cuts and those shrieking violins. It's a masterclass in montage and audience manipulation."
Crook added: "Knowing that the blood is Bosco's chocolate syrup and that a pulped casaba melon stood in for the stabbing noises does nothing to reduce the impact."
Scenes making the list seemed to cross many genres. Consider some of these scenes:
Stanley Kubrick's "Dr Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" (1964) came second, with the surreal ending when Slim Pickens (news) rides an atomic bomb.
Other highly rated movie deaths were the fatal plunge to earth of the ape in the 1933 Fay Wray (news) movie "King Kong," in third place, and the demise of Bambi's mother (6th) in the 1942 Disney movie of the same name.
Alan Rickman (news)'s fall from a 30-storey building in "Die Hard" (1988) comes fourth, followed by the killing of the title characters in "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967)....
The Wicked Witch melting in 'The Wizard Of Oz' (13th)....
The Godfather (22nd) and Reservoir Dogs (23rd)...
Which scenes would you put on this list?
10:28:44 PM | |
|
|
Check this out from the Center for American Progress:
The non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the Bush administration engaged in illegal, covert propaganda when it produced fake news segments about the new Medicare law and distributed them to local television stations. The segment featured individuals purporting to be Washington reporters who were, in fact, "paid with federal funds through a contractor to report the message." The GAO found that the news segments were "not strictly factual news stories as HHS [the Department of Health and Human Service] contends," and, just like their multi-million dollar advertising campaign, contained "notable omissions and weaknesses." The fake news segments were broadcast, in whole or in part, on 40 stations in 33 markets across the country. When the investigation was launched, Bush administration spokesman Kevin Keane mocked the allegations that the fake news segments were illegal. Keane said "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector. Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools." The GAO concluded, however, that the conduct Keane was defending violated two federal laws and improperly expended at least $44,000 of taxpayer money. Nevertheless, the Bush administration has indicated it is unlikely it would comply with the GAO ruling. The latest incident is part of a pattern of deception and deceit which the Bush administration has employed to pass and promote its $500 billion Medicare legislation.
REPORT ALLEGES CONSERVATIVE HOUSE LEADERS BRIBED MEMBERS FOR VOTES: This week, Common Cause released a report chronicling all of the improprieties that occurred before and after the passage of the Bush administration's Medicare bill. Perhaps most disturbing: conservative leaders in the House held the vote on the Medicare bill open for 3 hours in the middle of the night while they pressured Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) and others to switch their votes. Normally, votes in the House are open for 15 minutes. In a 11/23/03 column on his website Rep. Smith wrote, "members and groups made extensive financial campaign supports and endorsements for my son Brad who is running for my seat. They also made threats of working against Brad if I voted no." The following month on a radio interview, Smith said "the first offer was to give [my son Brad] $100,000-plus for his campaign and endorsement by national leadership." While Smith stuck to his principles, others did not, and the bill passed by one vote.
CONSERVATIVE HOUSE LEADERS CENSORED C-SPAN: The House leadership controls the C-SPAN cameras in the chamber. Normally, during a vote, the camera constantly pans side to side monitoring floor activity. But during the three hours the conservative leadership was harassing members to switch their votes, the camera was locked on the Democratic side of the chamber. As a result "there is no visual record of who was talking to whom that night while votes were sought by the leadership."
ADMINISTRATION THREATENED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO HIDE TRUE COST: Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster "was threatened with dismissal if he released his official estimate of the cost of the prescription drug bill," which was $156 billion higher than the administration promised. The White House was well aware of the higher estimate because Foster gave the estimates to them in June 2003. According to Foster, that same month Medicare administrator Tom Scully "decided to restrict the practice of our responding directly to provide responses to him so he could decide what to do with them." An April 26, 2004 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found that Scully's behavior was likely illegal. According to the CRS, a federal government employee who issues a "'gag order' on subordinate employees, to expressly prevent and prohibit those employees from communicating directly with Members or committees of Congress, would appear to violate a specific and express prohibition of federal law."
EMPLOYEE WHO ISSUED GAG ORDER CASHES IN: In December 2003, just after the president signed the Medicare bill, chief Medicare administrator Tom Scully joined a law firm that represents drug manufacturers and other major players in the health care industry who benefited from the law. The Bush administration granted Scully an ethics waiver "so that he could negotiate with potential employers while he helped write the Medicare law."
10:12:53 PM | |
|
|
You're going to be seeing a metamorphosis of Michael Parker's Journal over the next few weeks. It will begin with slight modifications to the layout and lead to an unveiling of the new blogname. But fear not good Salon blog friends and others who have come to visit, and who have come to know my name via my blog, I am not signing off. I will still be here writing as much as I possibly can.
For months I've been considering joining forces with a few friends on a blog. And with the election year heating up, I've volunteered to create and run the Utah Democratic Blog site. So rather than keep two or three blogs running at the same time, I'm going to let my personal journal fade away. This does sadden me to a great extent. But believe me, I'm excited for this new venture, too.
Within the next few weeks, you can expect to be formally introduced to my friends Shawn Hammond and Sean Beall. They bring so much more to this table. I'm thrilled at the prospect of having them on board.
10:01:31 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 |
A Republican recently explained to me that in debate, it is all about the gift of mockery. Discredit your opponent first, especially with soundbytes for the media, and you come out the conquerer.
I always figured that the moment you mock someone or attempt to discredit them, it was a sign that your arguement was weak or out of gas.
Today, Sen. Hastert applied this rhetorical method when questioned by a reporter about Sen. McCain's comments. As you read this, picture Hastert out in front of a group of House GOP lawmakers, who laugh at every phrase and expression Hastert gives the reporter. It's high school all over again.
Consider the report posted on CNN this afternoon:
The exchange [with Hastert] started when a reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."
Hastert: "Who?"
Reporter: "John McCain."
Hastert: "Where's he from?"
Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."
Hastert: "A Republican?"
Amid nervous laughter, the reporter continued with his question: "Anyway, his observation was never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes and his question was, 'Where's the sacrifice?' "
Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."
Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center are two military hospitals in the Washington area.
McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, later released a written statement, taking issue with the spending habits of Republican lawmakers.
"The speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops," McCain said. "All we are called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party."
6:42:10 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 |
Michael Moore's newest documentary Farenheit 9/11 is receiving rousing cheers and long standing ovations according to CNN and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times. The controversial film was recently bought by the Weinstein brothers at Miramax after the parent company, Disney, refused to distribute the film. Disney would also not allow Miramax to distribute the film so the Weinstein brothers came to the rescue.
The title of the movie comes from the Ray Bradbury novel Farenheit 451 and is signficant because that is the temperature at which books will burn. Moore interprets Fahrenheit 9/11 as the "temperature at which freedom burns."
CNN described the film in this way:
The movie reiterates other critics’ accusations about the Bush family’s financial connections to Saudi oil interests and the family of Osama bin Laden. Moore charges that the White House was asleep at the wheel before the Sept. 11 attacks, then used fear-mongering of future terrorism to muster support for the Iraq war.
Yet Moore - the provocateur behind the Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine," which dissected American gun culture - packages his anti-Bush message in a way that provokes both laughs and gasps....
Interviews, mocking footage of Bush’s often inelegant speeches, and comments by U.S. soldiers in Iraq - many expressing harsh disillusionment in their leaders - dominate the film.
It opens with a whimsical recap of the 2000 presidential campaign and the rancor after Florida’s photo-finish vote threw the election to Bush over Democratic rival Al Gore.
"Was it all just a dream?" Moore ponders. "Did the last four years even happen?"
The Sept. 11 attacks play out with no images of the planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Instead, Moore fades to black and provides only the sounds of the planes crashing into the towers, before fading in again on tearful faces of people watching the devastation and a slow-motion montage of floating ash and debris after the buildings collapsed.
Moore examines Saudi financial ties to the Bush family and presents post-Saddam Iraq as an economic-development zone for American corporations.
Graver in tone than "Bowling for Columbine," the film includes grisly images of dead Iraqi babies and burned children, along with amputees and other U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq....
Even those skeptical of Moore, who has drawn criticism that he skews the truth to fit his arguments, were impressed.
"I have a problematic relationship with some of Michael Moore’s work," said James Rocchi, film critic for DVD rental company Netflix, saying he found Moore too smug and stunt-driven in the past. "There’s no such job as a standup journalist."
Yet in "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore presents powerful segments about losses on both sides of the Iraq war and the grief of American and Iraqi families, Rocchi said.
"This film is at its best when it is most direct and speaks from the heart, when it shows lives torn apart," Rocchi said.
Just as the controversy surrounding Gibson's film The Passion of Christ created a remarkable interest for people to see the film, the same appears to be happening with Farenheit 451. At least, that was the case at Cannes.
10:01:21 PM | |
|
|
Here's a major news item from the AP that disappeared as quickly as it appeared. Answering questions in front of the Senate Committee for Armed Forces, Wolfowitz explained that there was no timeline for the departure of US troops from Iraq. Regarding the reasons why there is no timeline, Wolfowitz offered the following to the committee, according to the AP:
“I would say of all the things that were underestimated, the one that almost no one that I know of predicted ... was to properly estimate the resilience of the regime that had abused this country for 35 years.”
[Wolfowitz] said that included the failure “to properly estimate that Saddam Hussein would still be out there funding attacks on Americans until he was captured; that one of his principal deputies, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, would still be out there funding operations against us; that they would have hundreds of millions of dollars in bank accounts in neighboring countries to support those operations”; and that the old intelligence service would keep fighting.
Wolfowitz also said U.S. officials were wrong to impose so severe a policy of de-Baathification, the decision to purge members of Saddam’s Baath party from the government. The move threw thousands of teachers, military men and others out of work, many of whom had been required to join the party for employment, and was blamed for not only boosting joblessness but helping fuel the insurgency.
The ban on former party members in public-sector jobs was eased last month.
Wolfowitz also said that the next year to 18 months would be critical in Iraq because it would take that long to stand up fully trained and equipped Iraqi security forces and to elect a representative government.
Wolfowitz didn't sound too upset that there was no plan or timeline of departure. Due to the recent revelations regarding Rumsfield and how he failed to accurately plan for the war and the reconstruction, not to leave out how he helped mastermind the Copper Green strategy, I doubt they even want to leave. This Administration thrives on the chaos of terror and war. And besides, who are we to convince them they are wrong. To steal a phrase from Chris Hedges, they define themselves and no other definitions count.
6:25:28 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, May 17, 2004 |
|
