You'll never guess who back in '74 opposed some of the key parts of the Freedom of Information Act through which we're now finding out information about torture policies, payoffs, etc. Read this.
FOIA
I’m Keen on Keane
Okay, I swear I’m not turning this into a pop culture blog, but I just got Keane’s album Hopes and Fears (a decidedly apropos title to be a soundtrack for political blogging these days), and it’s brilliant. They are like the beautiful bastard child of Chris Martin and Ben Folds.
I never listen to the radio anymore (in addition to finding myself the wretched old duffer sitting in the balcony of the Metro at whom I used to sneer half my life ago when 30 seemed impossibly old and the floor was the only place to see a show), so maybe this is old news to everyone else. This, however, is a musical crush of such magnitude as I haven’t experienced since Brett Anderson and I were So Young, hence my compulsion to share.
Hearts & Minds
Our battle to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people continued apace today, when an F-16 dropped a 500lb “smart” bomb on the wrong house, killing 14 Iraqis, 7 of whom were children. It should be noted that the army is claiming that only five individuals were killed, but the fact they are willing to apologize at all suggests to me that the owner of the house, who is the one claiming the higher figure, has the truth of it.
The house in question was part of a “cordon and search” operation to catch some nameless insurgent lead in the area south of Mosul, and the U.S. military is claiming that the bomb had in fact been intended for a different target nearby. Well, gee, I guess that makes it all better: “We didn’t mean to incinerate your family on the basis of some flimsy lead, sir. We’d actually meant to incinerate the family across the street, instead.”
The army’s real response wasn’t a whole lot better: it “deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives.” The children were possibly innocent?
I understand that war is hell, and that mistakes happen, but wasn’t this supposed to a “cordon & search” operation? Or has “cordon & search” become a euphemism for “search & destroy”, in the much the same was as “coercive interrogation” has become a euphemism for torture?
Armstrong Update
AMERICAblog reports that Joe Scarborough is also jumping on the crucify Williams bandwagon. (Watch the video here; it’s amazing stuff.) But there’s one big difference between what Scarborough was saying about the situation and how O’Reilly handled the situation. Scarborough primarily indicted the administration.
And here’s another difference: after hearing Scarborough’s attack on the administration, Williams left the studio and refused to be interviewed by him. If he's willing to fall on his own sword for O’Reilly and Novak, why not for Scarborough? Perhaps he wasn’t ready to talk about the administration’s role in this burgeoning scandal.
Recapping Disaster
Yesterday was not a very good day for Democrats, or anyone concerned about the future of democracy in this country. Two chances to make a difference were diffused. First, the massive problems in Ohio that threw the election to Bush (and yes, there is much evidence to support this - the election was stolen again, there is no doubt, it is NOT a conspiracy theory) and a serious discussion about election reform (i.e. getting rid of those machines that have no paper trail in order to prevent foul play) were presented by Sen. Barbara Boxer and then promptly turned into a farce when the House & Senate voted against her objection. This INCLUDED many Democrats. Several Repubs - including tarnished Majority Leader Tom DeLay - accused the Democrats of being sore loser conspiracy nuts who wanted to undermine the democratic process. Ironic. Minorities everywhere should be concerned because it was basically a black against white fight, with the whites telling the blacks 'too bad, there is nothing you can do about it'. It is also significant that the most prominent voices in this protest against the election results have been Jesse Jackson and John Conyers - NOT John Kerry who was absent altogether.
Then, several Democrats rolled over for toture-promoter Alberto Gonzales in his confirmation hearing. Another missed opportunity to stand up against the Republican agenda. If you don't like any of Bush's proposed policies - Social Security privatization, the continued farce in Iraq, further tax cuts for the rich - too bad. Your elected Democratic leaders are more concerned about self-preservation than the principles they are supposed to represent. And when our Monority Leader is the definition of Republican-Lite, we are in grave danger. The Democratic party is in MAJOR trouble and we are quickly becoming a one-party state.
This article nicely highlights what I just said. I recommend you read it.
On a bright note, I am very proud to see that the two Senators representing IL - Durbin and Obama - really stepped up.
Terrible Terry
They want him to stay?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/democrats_mcauliffe
I thought he sucked? Two failed campaigns isn't enough for them to want new blood?
What is wrong with the Democrats???
You Don't Have to Lie about Good Ideas...
The Alternate Brain links to a NY Times article reporting the Government Accountability Office has found that the Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people. What law did they violate? The prohibition on using taxpayer money for propaganda.
The accountability office said the videos "constitute covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, which were distributed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. They were broadcast by nearly 300 television stations and reached 22 million households, the office said.I wonder how all the rightwingers who are mad that their tax dollars are going to tsunami relief feel about them going to illegal government-sponsored propaganda instead.
[…]
Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. The accountability office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they distributed editorials and newspaper articles written by government
officials without identifying them.
Meanwhile, if the Democrats don’t pull this troubling story together with the Armstrong Williams debacle, and use them to point out loudly and repeatedly how corrupt and morally bankrupt this administration actually is, then they truly are a useless bunch of wankers.
Strong-Arming Armstrong
I wasn’t going to comment on the whole Armstrong Williams debacle, as it’s been well covered on other sites (including the National Association of Black Journalists great response), and I didn’t have anything particular noteworthy to add.
Except I just happened to catch Williams being interviewed on last night’s O’Reilly Factor, and I’m absolutely fuming. O’Reilly, who has defended Dick Cheney’s 1986 vote against a House resolution calling for Nelson Mandela's release from prison, Chris Wallace’s comparison of Teresa Heinz Kerry to Eva Perón, President Bush’s repeated allusions to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the "smoking gun" link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and on and on and on and on, actually took Williams to task for his mind-blowingly inappropriate decision to accept an illegal and unethical payment to whore for the administration.
I have never before seen anything like this "interview" on the O'Reilly Factor. O’Reilly scolded Williams like a bad puppy, and Williams, in a performance worthy of Stepin Fetchit, responded with wide-eyed naivety and shame—Gee, I see your point, Bill. I didn’t even think I was doing anything wrong. You’re so right, Bill. I sure have learned my lesson. If he said he’s learned his lesson once, he said it three times, while Bill admonished him, pointing out that he would never do something so stupid. The two even agreed that losing his column with Tirbune Media Services was just the price you pay when you make such a dumb mistake.
The irony is that Williams was targeted by the administration specifically to sing the praises of No Child Left Behind to the black community. Used because he was black, he is now left out to dry for the same reason. Unlike the aforementioned administration leaders and media personality, Williams’ behavior is immediately indefensible—no continued defense until the shit really hits the fan, like the approach taken in justifying the nomination of Bernard Kerik. When the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (whose department coordinated the videos) wasn’t sent to Fox News Channel to be condescendingly reprimanded and take the fall for the administration’s bad decision. No, only Williams became a sacrificial lamb, his defense being an unimaginable ignorance about how the world works.
Once again, the Republican machine relies on the regrettably dependable biases and fears of their minions to deflect responsibility. This might be acceptable to the Bush administration, and to the viewers of Fox News, but I cannot for the life of me imagine why it was acceptable to Armstrong Williams. $240,000 doesn’t seem an irresistible fee in exchange for a soul.
Friday Cat Blogging
The trifecta of adorable fuzziness:
Big Jim, master of his domain.
Matilda, princess of all she sees.
Little Olivia, who we recently rescued after she came flying off the back of a farm truck in front of us at 60mph.
Gonzo
Aside from my lovely, twisted, and immeasurably valuable friendship with Mr. Furious, the longest relationship with a man in my life is with Morrissey, the extended version of whose album You Are the Quarry Mr. F generously purchased for me recently. It is a brilliant collection of songs (even the original release without all the B-sides), and although the opening track, America Is Not the World, may arguably be the weakest song on the album, there’s a lyric in it that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately:
America, the land of the free, they say,
And of opportunity, in a just and a truthful way,
But where the President is never black, female, or gay.
And until that day
You’ve got nothing to say to me
To help me believe
In America.
It came to mind again as I read John Aravosis’ rightfully bewildered comments on Gonzales’ confirmation:
I still can't believe we're about to have an attorney general who thinks torture is okay. […] How can a single Senator vote for this un-American scum.I can’t believe it, either. And not only does it baffle and infuriate me, it alarms me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, non-Americans (and here I actually mean non-U.S. residents, since the rest of North, Central, and South America, from all of whom we’ve permanently usurped the term American, fall into the category I’m describing) have been wise and charitable enough to draw a distinct delineation between the American government and the American people. Since many of them mistrust and dislike the government, but like the people, it works out fortunately for us—even those among us who disdain the very penchant for nuance that affords one a view of such fine distinction.
When Bush was first appointed President, there was a sense overseas similar to that among the American Left—that the election had been, at worst, in some manner stolen, and, at best, was only the result of the electoral college gone haywire. It was easy to say to friends abroad that at least most of wanted Gore, even if he wasn’t the man at the helm.
This time, when Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral college, I feared that the divide separating the American government from the American people would be lost. I wasn’t the only one; heartfelt apologies went out around the world, and were graciously accepted. Still, the gap had narrowed. Friends abroad used to tell me they felt sorry for me being stuck with Bush. Now they tell me they feel sorry for me being stuck with all the Bush voters. Now instead of compartmentalizing the government from the people, it’s the government and their supporters…and everyone else. And "everyone else" is the minority (if you go by the votes). That’s a pretty small slice of the American Pie keeping us from being outright loathed by even our allies.
Now we’re going to be saddled with Alberto Gonzales, rogue pen of torture memos extraordinaire, as our Attorney General. If John Ashcroft made us a laughing stock, Gonzales will make us a target. It is truly indefensible, and if we are met with scornful contempt by non-Americans, it will be well deserved.
And all of it with nary a peep from our elected Democrats—a shameful display. I cannot imagine anything associated with a Congressional seat—wealth, power, influence—that I would not be willing to sacrifice to avoid casting a vote for the despicable, dishonest, incompetent, scummy piece of horseshit that is Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats go along to get along, casting their votes for this vile drip of dogwank in hopes of getting reelected. What lunacy, what farce, that the Democrats have let the national discourse get hijacked into a fantasyland where one worries that showing a shred of integrity might “come back to haunt you.”
Upon what principles does this country stand if we are willing to shrug with complacency as a man who condones torture (behind closed doors, if not under oath) can easily assume the post of the highest law officer in the land?
You’ve got nothing to say to me
To help me believe
In America.
If the administration continues in this direction, unfettered and unopposed, I imagine that America won’t have much to say to anyone any longer.
You Gotta (see this to) Believe (it)
Does it matter that some of the organizations who received federal funds under Bush’s “faith-based” initiative don’t even consider themselves religious?
My first thought was that maybe that was a good thing; perhaps the program wasn’t withholding funding from deserving secular groups as I had feared it might. Until I read this:
Some have no connection at all to religion, such as You Gotta Believe!, a Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group that finds permanent homes for teenagers in foster care. The name is not intended to invoke a belief in God, but the belief that there is a home somewhere for every child.I find it extremely troubling that the government does so little research of the groups to whom they direct federal funds that they don’t even know whether they are actually faith-based or not. Choosing groups based solely on their names? What if it was “You Gotta Believe (in the Supremacy of the White Race)” or “You Gotta Believe (that all fags should die)”???
White House officials said the list included groups which had identified themselves as faith-based and groups which officials thought religious based on their names.
What a collection of useless twits we’ve got running the show.
Blogrollin' Fridays
I was directed via Rook’s Rant to Blogrollin’ Friday, a charming idea proposed by PSoTD. The gist of the idea is, if you regularly update your blog roll, instead of mass updates, pick a new link to add on Fridays and take a moment to plug ‘em. The thing I like about it is that it gives you an opportunity to provide a link to a strong or favorite post, which is a better endorsement than just a general link to the main page; I’m sure I’ve let my share of crappy posts hang around as the most recently posted well past their buy-sell dates.
Anyhoo, I think it’s just a swell concept, so for my Blogrollin’ Friday, I’m adding Rook’s Rant. And it’s not because he makes me blush or shares my deepest affinity for true geekdom, but because of posts like this and this, as I have a special appreciation for those who are equal parts kind and caustic. Special props for “Matthew Yglesias (future conservative)” which totally cracked my shit up.
New Look
As is no doubt evident, I've given Shakespeare's Sister a new look, and will now be posting as Shakespeare's Sister (instead of amsmiles). Also, I've switched to HaloScan comments, which I find much more user-friendly (and quicker) than Blogger's default comments engine.
It was unfortunate to lose all the existing comments, but I hope this change will encourage more commenting, as I value the feedback I get from visitors to my little space in the blogosphere.
Terror at 1600
Let’s revisit the definition of terrorist again, shall we?
terrorist: adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
Someone who employs terrorism (“the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”) especially as a political weapon. That’s very interesting.
Consider the recently uncovered email authored by Peter Wehner, deputy to political director and dark overlord Karl Rove:
The success of President Bush’s push to remake Social Security depends on convincing the public that the system is “heading for an iceberg,” according to a White House strategy note that makes the case for cutting benefits promised for the future.The minutiae of the Social Security system is not one of my competencies, but I have made it a priority to understand the reality of the situation as best I can. (Should you be interested in doing the same, Atrios and Paul Krugman are good places to start.) Rest assured, however, according to all the information I have been able to get my hands on (including analyses by conservative economists), there is no imminent crisis that requires the radical changes to the existing structure that have been proposed by the Bush Administration.
[…]
“We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the precondition to authentic reform.”
In fact, any remote threat to Social Security could have been avoided had the Clinton Administration-generated surplus not been obliterated by Bush and his GOP-controlled Congress, with their undisciplined spending and preemptive, never-ending war. A colossal fiscal crisis engenders not an urge to reform their own habits, but instead a drive to dismantle Social Security, an opportunity for which they have lusted since its inception.
Now they have seized on the idea that “searing” the idea that “we are on an unsustainable course” into the public consciousness, that we are “heading for an iceberg,” is the next step in their plan of attack. A strategy depending on breeding abject fear among voters handily satisfies two goals: deflect any responsibility for the staggering deficit by eclipsing reasonable discussion with apocalyptic prophecies, and scare the populace into submission—a fearful public is a compliant public.
And who knows this better than Bush and his crew, architects of the color-coded terror warning system that is surely a more accurate indicator of Bush’s need for headlines (or need to distract from bad press) than any credible threats to national security. Who knows it better than the team who won the election based on the fear-mongering premise that their opponent, a decorated war hero, had no interest in keeping America safe. Who could tell you more certainly than the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay that fear is a most powerful tool.
Calling Bush and his conspirators terrorists is not hyperbole. The archetypal terrorist in our collective consciousness may be a dark-skinned, bearded man in a turban with vengeance in his heart and Allah on his mind, and reducing terrorism solely to the threat of a radical Muslim is a construct the Bush Administration is only too happy to reinforce.
But suicide bombing is not the only kind of terrorism. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Wielding fear like a weapon, plans to sear an erroneous idea into voters’ minds in an attempt to coerce them into supporting an ideological solution to a trumped-up problem—this is another, lesser, form of terrorism. So why are we letting it stand?
Ohio Electoral Objection Fails
The Senate voted 75 - 1 against it.
The House Voted 257 - 33 against it. (still counting)
Democrats voted with Republicans on this because they are scared shitless about losing their jobs. It seems we effectively have a one-party system.
Hope you enjoyed Democracy. It was fun while it lasted.
Why I'm in Love with Barack Obama
Okay I admit it. I'm completely in love with Sen. Obama. Not only is he intelligent, well-spoken, handsome, and down-to-earth, he has now decided to stand up with fellow Democrats (including awesome fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin) to challenge the electoral process. This is a genuine man who genuinely cares for people.
That might be fluff if said about many other politicans who have a fake public "face" but I know it's true about Obama. I've seen it first hand. At a fundraiser for Melissa Bean (victorious Illinois 8th Congressional District contender and another genuinely wonderful person), I met Obama in person. He leant tremendous support for Bean, as he did for many other candidates since his victory was in the bag. He spoke at that dinner just as well as he did at the Democratic National Convention. He tore the room up, as you can imagine. But despite all the thunder and hype, he somehow manages to come off as a real person. He connects with you. He looks you directly in the eye, and you understand why he appeals to people across the aisle, in urban IL as well as traditionally racist Southern IL. To the "elite" as well as the "working class." His appeal is natural and organic and this is why he has gotten so many people all over the nation (and in Kenya as well!) so worked up. At the dinner, he made a point (although he was behind schedule and being trailed by handlers) to visit every single table and shake hands and speak to every single person. How could I help but feel a tingle as we shook hands? I knew I was meeting him at a crucial time - before the storm when he blows up nationally.
Will he become the big star every thinks? Is it too much too quick? Is he a future Presidential contender? Who knows. He is already aware of being over-hyped and admits as much in his usual self-affacing way in the Jan. 3 "Newsweek" (picture up the issue containing his cover story if it's still available). Hopefully he'll pace himself properly, remaining cautious while still showing guts (as he has done today), and one day help pull Democrats out of the Dark Ages within which they currently find themselves. Until then, I will try to nurse my crush as I realize I have to share him with the nation now :(
Rest Well Tonight
You can’t make this shit up: New CIA chief Porter Goss thinks the CIA is spending too much time on terrorism; abolishes daily counterterrorism meetings.
Democratic Challenge Update
Via BradBlog:
According to several sources, Jesse Jackson has just announced six Senators who will join in challenging the Electors today in a joint session of Congress. His announcement was made to a rally going on at this hour in Lafayette Park across from the White House.
Jackson told the crowd that Senator Barbara Boxer will stand to challenge, and will be supported by at least the following Democratic Senators: Hilary Clinton (NY), Harry Ried (NV), Barack Obama (IL), Dick Durbin (IL) and Christopher Dodd (CT).
Senator Boxer: "It's not about overturning the election. For me, this is the opening round in the call for Electoral Justice."
A Stronger America???
Kerry sucks because he went on an on during his campaign about how he would make sure every vote was counted, unlike the 2000 election. Then on Nov. 3 he conceded in the blink of an eye. Despite numerous reports of irregularities and downright misconduct in Ohio (including that of Ohio Sec. of State Kenneth Blackwell), he basically told us to get over it and bridge our differences with the Republicans. Now in the letter below, he basically concedes yet again telling us that despite these irregularities, and this impending investigation prompted by the couragoues Barbara Boxer, the election results will not be affected. Why not? Where is the recount? Why is the public being reassured over and over again that even though things were totally fucked in Ohio - the state that decided the election - don't worry, Bush will still be president. Even Al Franken today on Air America says "this is not about protesting this election." Why not? Why are we so afraid of being called conspiracy theorists? Boxer isn't, and she clearly has the balls that John Kerry lost somewhere along the way.
Regardless, he has some info in his letter and a (tepid) call to action:
"No American citizen should wake up the morning after the election and worry their vote wasn't counted. No citizen should be denied at the polls if they are eligible to vote. And, as the greatest, wealthiest nation on earth, our citizens should never be forced to vote on old, unaccountable and non transparent voting machines from companies controlled by partisan activists.Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.But, that does not mean we should abandon our commitment to addressing those problems that happened in Ohio. We must act today to make sure they never happen again.I urge you to join me in using this occasion to highlight our demand that Congress commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system. A Presidential election is a national federal election but we have different standards in different states for casting and counting votes. We need a national federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I will propose legislation to help achieve this.Florida 2000 was a wake up call. But the Republicans who control Congress ignored it. Will they now ignore what happened in 2004?There are nearly 3,000,000 of you receiving this email. We accomplished so much together during the campaign. Now let's use our power to make sure that at least one good thing comes from the voting rights problems of the 2004 election. If we want to force real action on election reform, we've got to demand that congressional leaders hold full hearings. Make sure they hear from you and help hold them accountable.Speaker Dennis Hastert: 1-202-225-0600Leader Bill Frist: 1-202-224-3135And please report that you've made your call right here:http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.phpI want every vote counted because Americans have to know that the votes they stood in line for, fought for, and strived so hard to cast in an election, are counted. We must make sure there are no questions or doubts in future elections. It's critical to our democracy that we investigate and act to prevent voting irregularities and voter intimidation across the country. We can't stand still as Congressional leaders seek to sweep well-founded voter concerns under the rug.Please join with me in calling Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist and telling them that you want action on election reform now.A recent report from Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) reveals very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials. I commend the Democratic National Committee for its announcement this week that the DNC will be investing resources and reaching out to non-partisan academics in a long term study of Ohio voting irregularities. I am only sorry that we haven't seen the same from Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell and GOP officials.Congress must play a positive, proactive role on this issue. That's why I will soon introduce legislation to reform our election system, ensuring transparency and accountability in our voting system and that all Americans have an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted.Please remember to let us know that you made your call when you're done. We're hoping to ensure House and Senate leaders' offices hear our demand for action on election reform in meaningful way. Please take a moment to let us know you have made your call here: http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.php
Thank you,
John Kerry"
Updated Links
Took off a few, including--regretfully--The Dark Window, which is on indefinite hiatus; if Pete returns, I'll be sure to reinstate the link.
Also added some new ones, many of which were long overdue: The American Street, Common Dreams, The Daou Report, Eponymous, The Island of Balta, Majikthise, Max Blumenthal, MaxSpeak, The Poor Man, and Yelladog. I read a lot of different blogs, but these are consistently good, as with those to which I was already linking.
Also, Pam's House Blend has just been redesigned, and Pam is doing great work over there on gay and lesbian issues, in particular. If you're not reading it regularly - start!
The Always Aggrieved League
Part of the Right’s perpetual victim complex is, necessarily, the Blame Game, as you can’t be a victim without someone or something having victimized you. Conservatives who succumb to this phenomenon are constantly on the lookout for people and places at which to point an accusatory finger; always moving and circling like sharks, they must stay in perpetual motion for survival, lest their wounds have time to heal.
As they washed ashore, the tsunamis seem to have brought with them new lows for these cretins to stoop to. Rush Limbaugh’s Jan. 3 transcript (link via Digby) contains the following exchange:
CALLER: (Giggle) Well, I was pretty upset and even getting madder the more coverage I watched, and I was thinking, 'Why am I not feeling so charitable, and I'm seeing all these bodies,' and then I see this picture on the Internet that was sent to me, and it was them carrying a body along in Sri Lanka, it said Galle, G-a-l-l-e, Sri Lanka and they had a crowd of people watching and this guy in the middle is standing there looking at the body wearing an Osama bin Laden T-shirt.It is unlikely (to put it mildly) that Sri Lankans were cheerleaders on 9/11, Islam drawing the smallest proportion of the four major religions on the island, 70% of which is Buddhist, 15% is Hindu, 8% is Christian, and 7% is Muslim. Additionally, Sri Lanka suffered, with India, 168 suicide bomber attacks between 1980 and 2000, each exacted by their most prominent terrorist group, LTTE, an effectively secular faction. (This number of attacks is more than 3 times the next highest occurrence—52 Hizbullah and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Argentina combined). Being no stranger to such tragedy, the Sri Lankan people were unlikely to have celebrated the work of al-Qaida. In fact, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, there was an ongoing investigation into links between LTTE and al-Qaida:
RUSH: I saw that picture.
CALLER: And I thought, it just validated the way I felt and I thought these are the same people that were the cheerleaders on 9/11, and we're going to go rebuild their world for them.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: Now, I love President Bush. I respect him. I voted for him, but when I saw him come out and I realized they were asking for more money –
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: -- I got even madder, and I thought, 'I don't think we should be asked to give any more.’
[T]he LTTE’s relationship with al-Qaida was in focus to understand the latter’s mastery of suicide attacks even though most groups learn by trial and error. Before the September 11 attacks, al-Qaida had executed two successful suicide missions, the August 1998 East African Embassy bombings and the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. The sources said the links, which were first indicated in the early ’90s, are the first instance of an Islamist group collaborating with an essentially secular outfit.Though I haven’t seen the picture referenced by Rush and his caller, I can imagine that among the entire population of Sri Lanka there are those who support Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, even the briefest internet search to find out about Sri Lanka could have enlightened both Rush and his ditto-head about the more typical character (and demographics) of the island.
That’s just not the point, though. Rush and his caller had found someone at which to point their fingers. And for what reason? Because they felt guilty about not feeling charitable toward the victims of the tsunamis, and because they are angry at their beloved Bush (at whom they could never direct their anger) for giving their hard-earned tax dollars away to people with brown skin. (Using said monies to kill people with brown skin is a different story altogether.)
Even when victims of nothing but their own depraved selfishness and racism, they seek to blame others. It’s not that they’re isolationist, xenophobic fuckwits – it’s that they just don’t like giving money to terrorists who hate us for our freedom, that’s all. One Sri Lankan in an Osama t-shirt was enough for Rush and his caller to condemn an entire people and, in the process, justify their own indifference.
The prize, however, as always goes to the Religious Right, who are so audacious in their claims of victimhood and self-righteous finger-pointing that it evokes as much awe as disgust.
Appropriately tagged the homo-pocalyptic crowd by Pam of Pam’s House Blend, this group of heartwarming religious activists has determined that we can pin the blame for the tsunamis on gays and lesbians, and they have thoughtfully shared this information with us in some exceedingly creative ways:
Images via Pam’s House Blend. Circulated by Fred Phelps, the craziest son of a bitch I can think of. I won’t go into his résumé here, but if you don’t know who he is – check him out. Truly scary and insane stuff.
AMERICAblog also reports on conservative bastion of hate WorldNetDaily’s promotion of Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan’s view that the tsunamis were punishment from God for homosexuality and fornication committed by residents and tourists at Christmastime. The article’s title, Homosexuality, fornication cause of tsunami?, is so anathema to my rational, secular, scientific beliefs about how the world works that it may as well say Lightbulbs, squid cause of peach fuzz?.
How about this: No one is to blame for the tsunami, but we’re all responsible to help pick up the pieces. It’s certainly nothing you’ll ever hear from the Always Aggrieved League. They’re far too content blaming presumed terrorists for their own deficits of empathy and sodomites for bringing God’s wrath upon us. If only they spent less time on God’s will and more on the decidedly earthly pursuit of developing a will to pull themselves out of knuckle-dragging ignorance.
God Bless the Congressional Black Caucus
In what is not meant to be, but will be nonetheless, a fitting tribute to one of their recently deceased founding members, the feisty Shirley Chisholm, the Congressional Black Caucus have planned to mount a challenge to the ’04 presidential election results. Consortium News reports:
John Kerry may have one more chance to “report for duty.” On Jan. 6, after the new Congress convenes, he could join with Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters and other members of the House of Representatives in supporting their expected motion for a full-scale investigation of Election 2004, particularly the widespread allegations of voting fraud in the pivotal state of Ohio.Anyone who has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 will be able to imagine this scene. Except this time, instead of VP Al Gore presiding over his own fate, it will instead be VP Dick Cheney presiding over the fate of his boss. Chilling.
For the House motion to have any standing, it must be signed by at least one U.S. senator. So far, no U.S. senator has stepped forward despite petition drives from rank-and-file Democrats demanding that Bush’s victory be contested.
In ’00, the members of Congress who made the motion could not find a single senator to support them. I hope with every ounce of my being that it will not happen again. Surely John Kerry will not turn his back on his fellow Democrats – both those brave enough to submit the motion and those in every state of the union who are desperate to see their elected Dems mount a real challenge to the Bush Administration’s unchecked reign. The measure would be little more than a symbolic gesture; there is no real hope that even a motion for a full-scale investigation would deter Bush from assuming the presidency at his Jan. 20th inauguration. But the message would be clear – and let’s face it, the Dems are in desperate need of a clear message these days.
For many in the Democratic base, it may be Kerry’s last chance to show that he meant what he said when he challenged the Bush dirty tricksters to “bring it on.”If Kerry keeps silent as part of an ’08 bid, he’s got it backwards. His only hope for an ’08 bid is to keep his focus on ’04 for the moment. Not supporting the motion because it is merely symbolic, or because he may be accused of sour grapes, would be foolish. Someone in the Democratic party needs to convey to rank-and-file Democrats that they care about clean elections – and more importantly, that there are still those in the Democratic Party with a fighting spirit.
And if there aren’t, well, the Green Party’s got a message for us:
If Senate Democrats allow George W. Bush's victory based on questionable numbers to stand, the Green Party will tell Democratic voters: you have wasted your votes and your campaign contributions on a party that will not defend your right to vote. Regardless of whether the recount effort or a challenge from Senate Democrats overturns Mr. Bush's 2004 election, Americans need to see that corrupt elections will not be tolerated. At the very least, a challenge will advance some sorely needed reforms: auditable paper records of all computer votes; equitable distribution of election equipment; assurance that legitimate votes aren't obstructed; removal of biased partisan officials from supervision of vote counts; clean election laws. This is what the Green Party stands for. Where do the Democrats stand?Them fightin’ words care of Marc Sanson, co-chair of the United States Green Party. It’s like a siren song for disillusioned Democrats.
If our party can’t answer his question, they’d better not expect to remain our party for long.
These Troubled Times We Live In
Has anyone else noticed that troubled has officially become a newsy euphemism for totally fucked up?
Here, for instance, a NY Times editorial describes the plethora of “deeply troubling aspects of the Gonzales nomination.”
Here, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that conservative Minnesotan Republican Mark Kennedy found proposed Congressional ethics changes “troubling.” And from the same story: “What's troubling about Tuesday's vote is not that it insulates DeLay or demonstrates GOP unity, but that it entrenches a style of politics that has placed the consolidation of party power above conduct of the nation's business.”
Here, Common Cause’s VP for Advocacy, Celia Viggo Wexler, responds to the proposed Congressional ethics changes by saying, “When a party is in power for a certain amount of time, they get more lax about ethics… You also see a kind of culture growing up that is troubling: If there's a rule that's nettlesome or in your way, just get rid of it."
Here, the Lebanon Daily Star describes America’s “pattern of interaction with this region” as “troubling.”
Here, the NY Times reports that the results of Americans training Iraqi police offers and national guard troops have been “troubling.”
I remember countless uses of the word “troubling” in describing former aspirant to Homeland Security Chief Bernard Kerik’s past. However, I think this one is my favorite:
While banishing doubters, Bush has been recruiting sycophants.The use of the word is almost comical in its understatement. Changing Congressional ethics rules to accommodate your loathsome party leaders isn’t troubling – it’s totally fucked up. Alberto Gonzales’ résumé isn’t troubling – it’s totally fucked up. Someone who can seemingly be accurately compared to a member of the Gestapo being slated to run our Department of Homeland Security isn’t troubling – it’s totally fucked up!
Bush’s ill-fated choice of Bernard Kerik to run the Department of Homeland Security collapsed after disclosures of Kerik’s questionable judgment in other jobs and his possible hiring of an illegal alien as a nanny. But the more troubling story may have been that Bush wanted a yes man like Kerik to oversee a department with broad powers over the civil liberties of American citizens.
Though Bush judged the former New York police commissioner to be a “good man,” others who knew Kerik had different opinions. For instance, while working for a Saudi hospital 20 years ago, Kerik ran the investigative arm of a security force that allegedly harassed and spied on American employees because they weren’t complying with strict Saudi rules governing alcohol and dating, according to former hospital employees interviewed by the Washington Post.
“Kerik was a goon,” said John Jones, a former hospital manager who also called Kerik and his security team “Gestapo.”
I say to hell with the FCC. From here on out, anyone who’s been carefully selecting the use of the word troubling to substitute for what we all know they really mean ought to just let fly with it. After all, VP Dark Lord Dick Cheney didn’t tell Patrick Leahy he was “troubled” by his criticisms of Halliburton, now did he?
Bush Bollocks It Up Again
The Bush Administration response to the tsunami disaster exemplifies everything I dislike about this president, his cohorts, and their leadership. Since the onset of America’s response to the tragedy, I have felt at turns mortified, livid, and awed, and I am reminded once again of why I so desperately wanted this man replaced, both as our President and as our foremost diplomat, our envoy to the rest of the world.
Incompetence. Though our official pledge now stands at $350 million and counting, the original sum offered was $400,000:
The United States' initial offer of aid for the tsunami victims drifted from a miserly $400,000 to a ridiculous $15 million to a paltry $35 million in a 24-hour news cycle.Having—or, more aptly, not having—a handle on something seems to be a recurring theme with this president. While his infamous 7-minute delay before reacting to the events of 9/11 tend to be viewed along partisan lines, with liberals seeing paralyzing ineptitude and conservatives seeing calm under fire, I cannot imagine the defense for so vastly underestimating the need generated by this disaster. With many Americans questioning the $400,000 pledge when it was first offered, it seems the populace had a stronger grasp on the situation than the administration.
[…]
The figure is now $350 million with a promise of more to come, raising the question of what idiot came up with the $400,000 figure in the first place and what kind of handle the president had on the disaster […]
If this wasn’t blatant incompetence, then it was willful disregard of the magnitude of events—in either case, a pretty paltry display from the White House.
Questionable Priorities. In everything from the funding of sex education programs to the appropriation of resources in Iraq, the Bush Administration never fails to use politics and ideology to govern their choices. The only side they’re ever on is their own.
Their original pledge to the tsunami victims was one-tenth the cost of the nine official balls and associated festivities planned for Bush’s Jan. 20th inauguration. Even still, with countries such as Australia doubling our aid contribution, Bush is taking his usual wait-and-see attitude about upping our pledge, and has promised that the inauguration will go on as planned. Aside from what many consider a general inappropriateness of such a lavish celebration in close proximity to such a heart-rending tragedy, expending an inarguably egregious sum on the fête while delivering one of the lowest pledges of assistance from the Western world can only be described as questionable priorities, as best.
(In a tangentially-related aside, when the NY Times Magazine’s Deborah Solomon recently asked Jeanne L. Phillips, the chairwoman of the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee, whether she or the president had ever discussed canceling the nine balls and using the $40 million inaugural budget to purchase better equipment for the troops, Phillips replied:
I think we felt like we would have a traditional set of events and we would focus on honoring the people who are serving our country right now -- not just the people in the armed forces, but also the community volunteers, the firemen, the policemen, the teachers, the people who serve at, you know, the -- well, it's called the StewPot in Dallas, people who work with the homeless.Because, you know, a theme of honoring service is a priority, even though actually honoring those who serve is clearly not.)
[Solomon:] How do any of them benefit from the inaugural balls?
I'm not sure that they do benefit from them.
[Solomon:] Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?
Honoring service is what our theme is about.
The Shifting of Responsibility. Not wanting to sacrifice his balls (ahem) and under pressure about use of taxpayer dollars with no end to spending in Iraq in sight, Bush has opted to try to elicit direct contributions from corporations and the American people to augment the government’s contribution. Let it be noted that, as ever, many Americans are eager to help and would do so with or without the President’s urging, but when he tells us “The greatest source of America's generosity is not our government…It's the good heart of the American people,” he fails to recognize that the American people pay taxes to their government to provide funding for situations just such as this, not because we are unwilling to donate personally, but because our national policy expresses something separate and unique from the actions of individual Americans. Indeed, traveling abroad will teach you very quickly that views of the American people and views of the American government are vastly different things.
Hypocrisy. Quite simply, it’s yet another case of what’s good for the goose….
To help in what he called ''this urgent cause,'' Bush urged Americans to send money […]Of course he hasn’t.
Bush himself plans to make a personal donation but has not done so yet.
Cronyism/Political Opportunism. All wrapped up in one. Jeb Bush, currently leading the delegation dispatched by his brother-in-chief, was allegedly sent for his experience with natural disasters. I’m not about to try to quantify the likenesses or differences between the hurricanes in Florida and the tsunamis, but something tells me that a potential ’08 presidential run has significantly more to do with Jeb’s selection than some kind of unique meteorological experience.
Selective Bipartisanism. Despite his promises to be a uniter, not a divider, Bush has, of course, been anything but. The country is truly polarized, Bush’s ideologically-driven policies are rammed through Congress running roughshod over any opposition (meager though it may be), and he clearly has no use for anyone who disagrees with him; those who do are quickly braded traitors. Yet suddenly, Bush—who couldn’t even contain himself from acting like an ass at Clinton’s Library opening—suddenly needed the Big Dog’s master fundraising skills, and sent him, along with his own father, to circulate and drum up cash to contribute to tsunami aid efforts. As Robert Kuttner suggested in The Boston Globe, “[Bush’s] version of bipartisanship is that good old Bill Clinton gets to shill for private money that a decent government would be providing.”
I guess that’s the problem, though, isn’t it? We don’t seem to have a decent government right now. Instead we have a leader who prefers to spend $40 million on a party for himself while others suffer. And if you think I just mean the tsunami victims, take a look around your own community. There are people there who could use a little help, too.
The Forgotten Dead
First do a Yahoo Search for “Tsunami toll.” The BBC, CNN, ABC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post all turn up on the first page of results, tracking the ever-rising number of dead. The AP even helpfully offers a breakdown by nationality.
Now do one for “Iraq civilian toll.” Notice a difference? The only major news organization that seems to care about the cost of human life to Iraqis in the ongoing Iraq conflict is al-Jazeera.
IraqBodyCount.net estimates the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the start of the war to be around 16,000, although a study released in October placed the number much higher. The truth may very well lie somewhere in the middle, but it’s curious that no major news organization has applied their evident interest in tracking the number of dead from natural disasters to pursue an accurate assessment of the same in Iraq. No doubt, it is more difficult information to ascertain, due in part to our military’s refusal to release such numbers and our administration’s unwillingness to publicly address the issue, but surely that should make it all the more worthy of the media’s attention.
We are (rightfully) pouring out dollars and goodwill to those suffering from this natural disaster, and yet we are unwilling to even acknowledge those suffering from a disaster we perpetuated upon them. Where are the links to generously donate to the Iraqi people? Images of the tsunamis wreaking havoc upon the beaches of faraway places are running like a ghoulish loop on CNN and the other cable news channels, and yet we are forbidden even to see pictures of the coffins containing our own soldiers who died in Iraq, no less the brutal images of the war itself. We tut-tut about how many deaths could have been avoided with proper warnings about the deadly waves, but ignore that Iraq was a war of choice, with all the deaths incurred so far completely preventable—including the lives of the 1,500 soldiers who have died.
By the time the war is done, the civilian toll will be as high or higher than that caused by the tsunamis. I wonder, will we ever care as much about the death we cause as that for which we feel no guilt or blame?
Please, somebody, get this man a dictionary…
…because he clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ultimate:
I want to welcome you all here; Laura and I are so thrilled you're here. We want to welcome your spouses. I particularly want to say a thanks to your spouse for having supported your run for the Congress or the Senate. Laura and I know how hard it is on a family to be in the political arena. It's the ultimate sacrifice, really: sacrifice your privacy; it's a sacrifice of time with your kids. But you're going to find it's worthwhile -- serving this great country is an unbelievable honor, and both the elected official and the spouse are serving our great country. (Via AMERICAblog.)Or perhaps he does, and finds that sacrificing his privacy and time with his kids is more important than the troops sacrificing their lives. That would certainly explain a lot, wouldn’t it?
Stingy
I keep wishing it will just go away – this preposterous story about UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland allegedly calling the US’ pledge of $15 million in aid to tsunami victims “stingy.” And not just because it’s a stupid, energy-sucking timewaster like any other so-called news story that debates the veracity of a quote as if the quote isn’t on record for all to see. (See Bill Sammon’s original article that started it all and Media Matters’ subsequent analysis of the false report and its infiltration of the mainstream media. The original quote in its entirety can be found here, too.) No, it’s not just the insult to our collective intellect that makes me hate this story. It’s also the sheer embarrassment I feel as an American that we’re whining about being picked-on…again. The biggest bully on the block is crying foul at a UN Humanitarian Aid Chief’s comments that suggest the richest countries in the world tend to be the least generous – without singling out America from any other first-world nations, or even mentioning America by name. Hmm. Perhaps thou dost protest too much, no?
The victim mentality that has become pervasive in American society has undermined all notions that we are the country with a can-do spirit, with a belief that the weakest among us can rise to greatness. It started within our own borders; our ambition and determination, that good ol’ American work ethic, somehow started to mutate, until it had become a disfigured, funhouse mirror image of its former self – now an arrogant sense of entitlement.
Should one get less out of life than one expected, well, that’s simply unacceptable. I am entitled to more than this. Anything less cannot be attributed to the sometime unfairness of life or, heaven forbid, personal responsibility. No, clearly the unfortunate American who has a lower-paying job, a smaller house, fewer cars, or an old stereo has been somehow victimized. Except, of course, any true victims of our society – those who live in poverty and squalor, children who risk their lives walking to their massively underfunded schools, the ill without means to afford healthcare, the indigent elderly who choose between food and medication – all of those among us who have fallen through the safety net that social programs have sought, and oft failed, to provide.
And just as we turn our backs on the victimized in our own country, so, too, do we show contempt for tsunami-ravaged victims by spending a moment examining our indignation over the misconstrued comment of a humanitarian aid worker. It is truly shameful behavior; the grand vision Americans once shared has been reduced to tunnel vision, seeking only to identify and expose the supposed injustices levied against us. We have become so blind as to ignore the very real hardships of the world in order to better magnify the adversities of our own creation.
This seems to be a particular, peculiar attribute of the American Right, not necessarily unique to them, but by them indisputably perfected. The Right is always being victimized, so they claim – why, the Left even tried to steal Christmas from them! Every argument is framed so as to perpetuate their perceived victimhood; their battle against gay marriage is not about their own rancid bigotry (of course), but instead about the threat to the sanctity of their own marriages; banning compulsory prayer in a public school is simply about restricting their religion, with never even the most cursory examination of how their religion might have been imposed on someone else. They are perpetually, irrepressibly injured, never without a new grievance or outrage.
For anyone with devoutly religious and/or politically conservative family members, this phenomenon is nothing new. And although it has always been irritating to me, I also found it quite pitiable – what an unfortunate way to spend one’s life, looking for slights and discriminations that weren’t really there, convincing oneself of it until life was little else than miserable expressions of cynical ire.
It’s not just the odd grumpy uncle or the self-martyring mother anymore, though. It is everywhere, and it is fast becoming the new American dream – to find oneself as the perfect, unsavable victim in perpetuity…with all the things money can buy. The American Right isn’t happy without their bogeymen to taunt and aggrieve them, but having hold of the presidency, both houses of Congress, and a large swath of the judiciary is making it difficult to continue to claim victimhood. Some make the mistake of asking what more they could possibly want, but it misses the point. They want everything – all the power and the continued right to claim they have none.
So now they take international offense. Criticisms of America are construed as dire insults, and we, this nation of victims with the most powerful military in the world, react in a manner that befits a spoiled child. I was annoyed but resigned when this behavior was contained, but as it becomes the predominant indicator of our global relations, I can stand it no longer.
The Left must expose this repellent, infantile conduct for what it is, loudly and repeatedly, and call it out as the irrational and patently unacceptable stance that it is. If we don’t, we really will all be victims…of our own gluttonous self-indulgence and, yes, stinginess. We are not meant to have everything, and those who have power are not entitled to act as if they have none.
Sister, I'm a Poet
Despite That Colored Fellas' call for therapy for all of us who suffer from Compulsive Pun Disorder, I've done it again in the title of this post. What can I say? - I'm hopeless. My only excuse is that I hardly think most people will recognize the song....
Anyway, as per that subject header, it appears that yours truly has garnered second place in the American Street's "You Go to War with What You Have" poetry contest. The rules, and comments about the judging, are here. The top three poems can be seen here.
In short, the rules were that you had to use Rumsfeld's unfortunate aforementioned line. My entry was as follows:
You go to war with what you have,
And I had dreams of glory,
Now long replaced with nightmares
And an all too familiar story.
An army of one, I’m a father and son,
And a brother—one of three.
The army with which you’ve gone to war
Is replete with men just like me.
You go to war with what you have;
We were told we had the best.
I strode into the combat zone
With Kevlar on my chest.
Some vehicles were armored well
The rest good armor lacked.
We scavenged for scrap metal, and
Hoped we would not be attacked.
You go to war with what you have,
And we fought for proper protection.
The enemy seemed a distant threat
As we fought fatigue and infection.
We fought the hunger gripping our guts,
We fought against thirst, stress, and pain.
We waited for rebels and roadside bombs
And fought against going insane.
You go to war with what you have,
Your fears, your flaws, your charms.
But in a moment, what you have can be lost;
I gave up one leg and both arms.
I gave up my innocence and any thought
That war was no more than a game.
You go to war with what you have
And hope you come back the same.
Grim stuff. And I dedicate it to you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Thanks to those who saw fit to include me among the winners.
MovieTime
Last year sucked. Everyone I know seemed to have a crappy year. There were an unusually high number of natural disasters and extended periods of weird weather; every time I turned around, someone I knew was going to another funeral, visiting someone in the hospital, or going into the hospital themselves; and the economy was such that I didn’t speak to anyone who wasn’t complaining about their finances or jobs (or the lack thereof). And, of course, for progressives, 2004 sucked big time. It was just the Year of Suck.
But nothing was more representative of how sucky the Year of Suck really sucked than the ghastly selection of films we were served up this year. It’s one thing when your reality sucks, but when your escapism sucks, too, you know it’s a genuine and inescapable Suckfest.
In addition to being Lefty Political Pundit Extraordinaire, I am a film nut; my head is crammed with so much film trivia, names of obscure actors, and snippets of dialogue that I serve as a sort of breathing IMDB for my friends and family. One look at the ever-expanding collection of films taking up space in the den undoubtedly leaves one with the impression that I clearly intend to spend my unfunded retirement watching films in my cardboard box.
It is, then, with some measure of self-designated expertise that I deem 2004 a truly dismal year for films. Attempting to put together a Top 10 list garnered me a collection about which I was decidedly unenthusiastic; most of them wouldn’t even have warranted an honorable mention in other years. So I scrapped the typical format, and will plow onward accordingly.
I found myself skipping films by some of my favorite directors this year – M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village, Michael Mann’s Collateral, The Coen Brothers’ The Ladykillers, Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic, Stephen Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Twelve, and James L. Brooks’ Spanglish, all of which looked like renters at best. P.T. Anderson, Sam Mendes, Anthony Minghella – I hope you all had a nice year off, but we’re going to need you back in ’05, boys.
Most of the films that were supposed to be hits weren’t (ref: The Alamo, Troy, King Arthur, I, Robot, Alexander, et al), and some which were successful were probably only so by virtue of appalling competition (I’m talking to you Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azerbaijan…er, Azkaban). Falling short of expectations were Hero, The Terminal, Alfie, and The Aviator – disappointments all. (Please give it up, Scorsese; you’re a hack and a half.)
So, like I said – a shitty year all told. There are still a few films I want to see and haven’t yet (Shaun of the Dead, Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself, The Hunting of the President, Maria Full of Grace, I Heart Huckabees, The Machinist, Kinsey, A Very Long Engagement, and Hotel Rwanda all come to mind), worth a mention since I can’t give them the accolades they might very well be due.
As for films I’d recommend, well, they’re pretty slim this year. Good popcorn movies were Hidalgo, Hellboy, Mean Girls, and Man on Fire. Great popcorn movies were The Incredibles, Bridget Jones’ Edge of Reason, National Treasure, and The Bourne Supremacy. General recommendations are A Home at the End of the World, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which warrants a mention for its fantastic title alone), Kill Bill Vol. 2, Closer, and the very sharp and funny Saved! and Napoleon Dynamite.
Which leaves my rather measly Top 5, which are true diamonds in a very rough year.
5. Finding Neverland. I’m usually not a fan of pictures that play around with history. I don’t tend to care for historical fiction (Shakespeare in Love) or especially revisionist biographies (A Beautiful Mind). But Finding Neverland didn’t stray far enough from the facts that it bothered me, and I thought Johnny Depp’s performance was superb (not to mention his flawless Edinburgh accent). And Kate Winslett was, as always, inimitably lovely.
4. Sideways. Alexander Payne is shaping up to be someone for whose movies I anxiously await. I loved Election and About Schmidt, and Sideways was a great third time out. He has a way of making movies that look and feel very real – not the movie version of real, but really real, in a sad and wonderful way. Paul Giamatti is also becoming one of those underrated actors who choose projects that tend to almost unfailingly appeal to my taste (Big Fat Liar notwithstanding).
3. Before Sunset. Nine years after the amazing Before Sunrise, we fans finally got our chance to visit again with Celine and Jesse. Before Sunrise managed to perfectly capture what it feels like to be young and abroad and falling in love – the compulsion to share one’s big thoughts, the bizarre experiences which leave one with untellable anecdotes. A slight film in duration, but one that has stayed with me like my own memory.
2. Spider-Man 2. The best superhero movie ever, bar none. Sam Raimi, the choice of whom for director of this series was nothing short of brilliant, was wise in eliciting the assistance of Pulizer Prize-winner Michael Chabon to help with the scripting. The first Spider-Man was great; this one was even better. The leads, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, and Alfred Molina, can act, and the story of a man who reluctantly faces a destiny he did not choose renders the specifics of the destiny (superherodom) irrelevant. One is left with the notion that the world needs more Peter Parkers, rather than more Spider-Mans, and that is the film’s greatness.
1. Garden State. A simply amazing piece of filmmaking; what an accomplishment by writer/director/star Zach Braff. A look at Braff’s blog reveals the effect this film has had on countless people – thousands of comments, effusing appreciation, adulation, and gratefulness. The film is, simply, beautiful. (As is the accompanying soundtrack.) In a year with so much that was anything but, this graceful and thoughtful film is a reminder of all that is still right with the world.
Thus ends MovieTime. Back to our regularly scheduled political musings.
Shirley Chisholm Had Guts
Recently, while playing Trivial Pursuit with my parents, Mr. Shakes and I got a question about which member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet was the only person eligible to run for the Czech presidency. Without hesitation, I answered, “Madeleine Albright,” reached for the die and rolled again. After a moment, I realized everyone else was looking at me a bit incredulously. “What?”
“How the heck did you know that?” my dad asked.
“I’m a political junkie,” I reminded him, and for the first time, it seemed like he actually began to grasp the breadth of my knowledge. It wasn’t showing myself for years to be well-versed on issues, policy, candidates, history…it was answering an esoteric Trivial Pursuit question. “I know my stuff,” I said.
“You know your stuff,” he acquiesced.
I’ve known my stuff for a long time now, feeling since a very young age that understanding and being involved in politics was the right and responsibility of everyone. It has been a passion for as long as I can remember, as close to religion as I get. Today, one of the women who most inspired me, who stirred in me my ardor and excitement for politics, for change, has died.
I can remember learning about Shirley Chisholm for the first time. I was 11. I thought she was brave, brainy, ballsy, and totally cool. She was the first black woman elected to Congress and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and although being a trailblazer was certainly part of her appeal, it was the fire in her belly and her desire to do the right thing that appealed to me most, which I most wanted to emulate—a passion so strong that it conveyed itself to me from the pages of books. Ms. Chisholm had retired two years before I ever heard her name.
Shirley Chisholm was the kind of politician that we long for – someone Unbought and Unbossed, who spoke her mind and challenged the status quo, even when it wasn’t politically expedient. She was tough, but not uncompromising, and ambitious, without ever losing her empathy. She was a legend, and a rare one at that, actually having duly earned her extraordinary reputation.
Once discussing what her legacy might be, Shirley Chisholm commented, "I'd like them to say that Shirley Chisholm had guts. That's how I'd like to be remembered."
I can’t imagine remembering her any other way.
Back to Life, Back to Reality
I’m back. Had a week off, and I feel like I’m returning with renewed energy.
I tried to stay away from the news as much as possible, but I have been following the news about the tsunamis. We had a few days of worry about Mr. Shakes’ uncle, who was traveling abroad and was finally able to make a call to assure everyone he was still alive.
I am still waiting to hear from a friend who is teaching English in that part of the world. My hope is that limited internet access has hindered communication. While I hold out hope, my heart goes out to those for whom hope is no longer a luxury, who have received the news no one wants to hear.
Where are you, Paul?
