Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Yeah, but...

So the big news today is the release of some of the testimony made by senior administration officials to the so-called 9/11 Panel. Yahoo! News - Rumsfeld Counters 9/11 Panel Findings

What I'm reading so far is a bunch of hoohah about Afghanistan and Al Quaida. What about New York City? It seems that the panel is digging into the lapse in critical intelligence that led up to the tragedy. I wonder if they're ever going to address the issue of the slow response to the attacks while they were actually happening? Like, why NORAD was unprepared to intercept relatively slow-moving airliners? Why did it take so long to scramble fighter jets, and why did they send them from bases far from the target areas? And why did Bush insist on staying in the elementary school classroom AFTER he was notified of the attacks, instead of acting like the Commander in Chief that he is and taking responsibility for our Nation's immediate response?

Yeah, like they'll ever answer THOSE questions...

More later...
Paul
A Tale of Two Films.

First, “The Passion of the Christ.”

I finally went to see this one, and it has taken me a few days to gather some coherent thoughts to write about it. I assume that if you’re reading this, you’ve probably already seen the film, or by this time you’ve decided that you’re NOT going to see it. So please forgive me, as I intend to give a few plot points away in this essay.

Of course, even if you are only remotely religious, you already KNOW the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, so it’s not like I’m blowing any “surprise” endings. But this film, like many other films based on true events, is built on the filmmaker’s interpretation of the events, and it’s the little details that make the story come to life, so to speak. Unfortunately, it is Mel Gibson’s interpretation that I have the most problems with.

Actually, truth be told, the biggest problem for me is the limited scope of the film. It is literally the last day of the life of Jesus the Christ, and by focusing on that one fateful day, Mel and his co-writer give very short shrift to the rest of Jesus’ rather significant life. If you are Christian, you know that Jesus did a lot of very amazing things in his short 33-year life, but Mel has seen fit to leave that part of the story to other filmmakers. So “The Passion” is basically two hours of watching a man get brutally beaten and murdered, and we’re barely shown WHY Jesus is hated so much by his captors. Because of that, this is a deeply flawed film.

In an attempt to bring the gospels to life, Mel and his co-writer felt the need to exercise a little artistic license and add even more drama to the proceedings. However, I was repulsed by their attempts to make “sense” of the story. For example, some of the gospels note that after betraying Jesus, the apostle Judas committed suicide. What the gospels DON’T do is describe the suicide, or Judas’ descent into suicidal depression. So Mel took a shot at it, and instead of showing a man racked with guilt and remorse for cowardly and greedily betraying his close friend, they showed Judas as a man tormented and tortured by demonic children (!), who chase him out of town and cause him to…what? Go crazy?

This was part of a disturbing trend that the filmmakers chose to follow. It was apparently not enough to depict the brutal last day of Jesus’ life, but they also wanted to show that Satan exists and was a part of the entire proceedings, always broodily watching from the sidelines. Satan (or the devil, if you prefer) was depicted as a hooded, eyebrow-less albino. For shock value, Mel showed a maggot slowly crawl in and out of Satan’s nose. Whoa, now THAT’S evil!

Strangely enough, when Jesus finally died, Satan was shown to be mourning…or at least he was very, very disappointed. But there were no overt explanations of what that was all about…only “true believers” need apply.

Another strange “artistic license” taking was one of the too-few flashbacks to Jesus’ life. In this particular flashback, Jesus was shown “inventing” the normal-height table…! Beg pardon? When he demonstrates this new-fangled thing to his mother, Mary even quips, “It’ll never catch on…” See, God has a sense of humor…or is that Mel? It was such a jolting bit that I never could really catch on to what the filmmaker was trying to say with it. One of the frustrating things about the Bible, at least to me, is that the gospels of Christ have nothing to say about Jesus’ life as a young adult. The Good Book tells the story of his birth, a few stories of him as a pre-teen, and then there’s NOTHING until he’s in his thirties. So I guess Mel thought there would be no harm in portraying the Christ as the inventor of the modern table. Who knew?

Then there’s the controversy: Does this movie portray Jews as the murderers of Jesus? Oh yeah it does. Sure, it was the sadistic Roman guards that beat the shit out of our man, and it was the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, and it was even the Roman ruler Pontious Pilate who, albeit reluctantly, condemned Jesus to death. But the film clearly placed the blame on the shoulders of the high Jewish priests and their Klingon-like henchmen. But isn’t that the way it’s written in the Bible? Mel’s defense has always been that his film is true to the word. Personally, I don’t see how this particular issue is controversial…but then, I was raised Catholic.

However, if truth was what the filmmakers were really after, how did they end up casting very-Anglo-looking Jim Caviezel as Jesus? Why didn’t they go with an actor that actually looked like he might have grown up in Galilee, as opposed to Western Europe? I wasn’t surprised that Mel made the decision to have a Western, instead of Middle Eastern, Jesus. But Mel, you can’t have it both ways, bro. You can’t claim historical accuracy on one hand, then willfully distort the facts on the other.

Ultimately, there have been better movies made about the life of the Christ. “The Passion” was just a voyeuristic exercise in cinematic evangelism. And a damn bloody one at that.

Then yesterday I returned to the cinema and took in a truly enjoyable little film, “Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind”, Jim Carrey’s latest movie. This movie is a huge departure from the normal Carrey goofiness, and it was co-written by the fantastically inventive screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (“Adaptation”, “Being John Malkovich”).

This film is a treat for both the eyes and the mind. It is actually a romantic comedy, and a pretty funny one too, but it’s not like “When Harry met Sally”. It’s more like “Punch Drunk Love”, another great film that takes a normally goofy guy (that time Adam Sandler), and makes him ACT. Carrey did a great job anchoring a very challenging script, and making us care about his relationship with Clementine, a firebrand of a free spirit, wonderfully played by Kate Winslet.

Basically what happens in this film is that Joel (Carrey) discovers that there’s an obscure Doctor in New York City (well, somewhere on Long Island, actually) that is able to erase specific people and events from one’s memories. How Carrey makes this discovery, and what it means to his relationship with Clementine (among other people) is what makes this movie so much fun. And for me to describe any part of it is to give too much away. This is definitely one of those “oh, you just GOTTA see it!” type of movies, similar to “Memento” and “American Beauty”. There are plenty of plot twists and turns, and since the movie is dealing with memory (actually, memory LOSS), there are a lot of flashbacks (or what look like flashbacks…I can’t tell you any more than that)!

Accordingly, the visuals in this movie are extremely surreal and nothing short of fantastic. The special effects never seem gratuitous, and rarely intrude. They just do their not-so-easy job of depicting a life that is slowly losing some of it’s most cherished memories.

One of the best lines in this movie is an exchange between the Doctor and Joel, just before they begin the procedure. Joel asks if it’s a dangerous procedure and if there’s any chance that it will cause brain damage. The Doctor calmly replies, “Well, it actually IS brain damage…”!

“Eternal Sunshine” is a great movie, one that demands repeated viewing and will definitely be one to occupy a place in my growing DVD collection. I think it demands too much thinking for it to ever become a popular blockbuster, but for those who like to think before they laugh (and cry), this is the movie for you. And it was really nice to see a good movie again, especially after sitting through the (literal) torture that was “The Passion of the Christ”.

More later…
Paul

Friday, March 19, 2004

I swear I'm not inherently anti-Bush, but...

...the more he talks, it seems, the worse it gets. And this President has some of the finest speechwriters money can buy. Remember his address to the Nation after the attacks on 9/11? If they gave out Academy Awards for Presidential speeches, that one would have been sure to bring George the Oscar.

In stunning contrast, look at some of his words from his speech given today(Yahoo! News - Bush Marks First Anniversary of Iraq War), on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War:

"It is the interest of every country and the duty of every government to fight and destroy this threat to our people," the president said.

Now, is he REALLY saying that every other country has a duty to protect the American people? Isn't that what he means by "our people"? Or do his speechwriters not care about proper grammar? Damn, put the period after "threat" and call it a sentence.

Or how about this obfuscating gem:

"There is no neutral ground...no neutral ground...in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death," Bush said.

Since when was the so-called "war on terror" a "fight between civilization and terror"? Since when is warfare "civil"? And since it's apparently such an important term, what the heck does he mean by "neutral ground" anyway? Isn't he basically saying "if you ain't with us, you're against us?" Hell, he already said THAT a year ago...back when he was insisting that we were in imminent danger from Hussein's WMDs.

I guess he's saying "you're either civilized, or a terrorist"; "you're either good or evil"; one can only be free or enslaved. One can only be either alive or dead. Well that last one I can agree with, but there are certainly shades of gray for the other examples. Let's take a Boeing 757 for instance; it can be both good and evil, depending on who's doing the flying, right?

It may seem that I'm nitpicking the President's figures of speech, but hey, my original point is that he has the best screenwriters in the world on his payroll, and THIS is the best they can do?

Finally, how about this conundrum:

"The war on terror is not a figure of speech," he said. "It is an inescapable calling of our generation."

What the hell...? You mean this is an actual War? Well then, what are the objectives of this "War"? About a year ago, Bush said his intention was to rid the world of evil. No one in their right mind would set, and expect to achieve, such an absurd objective. If the presence of evil is good enough for God, who are we to try to eliminate it? He couldn't possibly be serious, could he?

In this "War", who and where are the combatants? How will we know if we are, in fact, achieving our objectives? These major questions have NEVER been addressed in any meaningful public forum or document. Someone must know the answers to these questions, right?

Look, as long as this administration continues to sell us an unwinnable war, they will also continue to resort to rhetoric like that sentence. And now he asserts that this "war" is "inescapable". Bush and his speechwriters must take their lines from the George Orwell guidebook to mass hypnotism. They believe that if they say it long enough, it will eventually be believed by the masses.

If we don't bounce this clown in November, we deserve him.

More later...
Paul


Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Take as much time as you need, Mr. President.

Can you believe that Bush told the 9/11 investigation committee that he would only give them ONE HOUR to question him about the events that happened that day? And only after pressure from his presidential opponent did he agree to give them more time: Bush Might Be Questioned Longer by 9/11 Commission

This is the President of the United States, right? The Commander in Chief. The man behind the wheel of the most powerful country on the planet, the man in charge on that fateful day...the same man who chose to read to a classroom full of children, rather than give orders to shoot down those hijacked aircraft BEFORE they could crash into the buildings.

Okay, no one knows what Bush was thinking when he was informed that the country was under attack...all we know is that he decided to stay with the children for a few more minutes. But that's what the commission is supposed to do: ask questions and find out WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED!

C'mon Mr. President. Take your time, you don't have to rush through this.

More later...
Paul

Monday, March 01, 2004

Stuff you didn’t know about Haiti.

“A number of U.S. firms, including commercial banks, telecommunications, airlines, oil and agribusiness companies, and U.S.-owned assembly plants are present in Haiti. “

And yet… “Haiti has been plagued for decades by extremely high unemployment and underemployment. The precipitous decline in urban assembly sector jobs, from a high of 80,000 in 1986 to fewer than 17,000 in 1994, exacerbated the scarcity of jobs.”

And this… “Haiti is a major transshipment point for South American narcotics, primarily cocaine, being sent to the United States. To counter this threat, the U.S. has taken a number of steps, including signing a counternarcotics letter of agreement with the Government of Haiti in May 2002, vetting and training the counternarcotics division of the Haitian National Police, providing material assistance and training to the Haitian Coast Guard for drug and migrant interdiction, and obtaining the expulsion of several traffickers under indictment in the United States.”

But… “Although Haiti did not meet counternarcotics certification criteria the past three years, the country was provided a waiver of any sanctions on grounds of vital national security interest (my emphasis).”

Vital national security interest? Are we talking about the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs?

Finally, this: “Foreign investment protection is provided by the Haitian Constitution of 1987, which permits expropriation of private property for public use or land reform with payment in advance. American firms enjoy free transfer of interest, dividends, profits, and other revenues stemming from their investments, and are guaranteed just compensation paid in advance of expropriation, as well as compensation in case of damages or losses caused by war, revolution, or insurrection (again, my emphasis. Wow!). The U.S. and Haiti have a bilateral agreement on investment guarantees that permits the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation to offer programs in Haiti. The two governments also signed a bilateral investment treaty in December 1983, but it was not ratified.”

Hmmm, and all this in a country with a 50% adult literacy rate, and a life expectancy of only 49 years!
(all information taken from the U.S. State Department website)

So, if this country were being run by a President we didn’t agree with, do you think there might be a remote possibility that we would…er… “request” his “resignation”?

More later…
Paul
Why is Haiti important now?

I have no idea. Is it because it's relatively close to the U.S.? Why do we care enough about what's going on there to send our troops there. And then this happens: Yahoo! News - Aristide Tells U.S. Contacts He Was Abducted.

The President of a sovereign nation tells a U.S. congressman and a U.S. citizen that the U.S. military has abducted his family and flown them across an ocean (!) against their will. U.S. spokespersons deny this, saying the Haitian president signed a letter of resignation. Even if true, why was he flown to Africa? Why not just bring him to the U.S.?

What the heck is going on? Why is the U.S. military involved? Of what importance is this small island nation to the U.S.?

There's got to be more later, but why should we even care?
Paul
Don’t give them the easy way out.

Tomorrow, California voters head to the polls to vote on some of the silliest propositions ever proposed. Euphemistically numbered (or not) Props 55, 56, 57 and 58, they’re basically asking the citizens of California to give the government the opportunity to INCREASE our already crippling budget deficit.

55: requests voter approval for the state to borrow $12.3 BILLION, to be paid back over 30 years. 30 years! No one is even talking about how much interest that will really cost. This money is supposed to be used to fund school construction and renovation. Hello? What happened to the current education budget? Did it get used for something else?

56: reduces the number of voters in the Legislature needed to pass a budget, from a two-thirds majority to only 55 percent. Aren’t we paying them to be present and vote? Why would we lower this requirement?

57: requests voter approval for the state to borrow $15 BILLION, to be paid back in 9 to 14 years. This money will be used to reduce the state’s deficit. How much interest does $15 billion generate? Oh, about another $6.5 billion. That’s nearly 50%! What a screaming deal…for the creditor. By the way, using bonds to pay for the deficit has been ILLEGAL in California since California became a state.

58: prohibits most (but not ALL) future bonds from being issued after Prop 57. As Arnold said so many times over the weekend in those unwatchable TV ads: “Prop 57 lets us refinance the deficit one more time; Prop 58 means we tear up the ‘credit card’”.

Dude, tear it up anyway, BEFORE we take on more debt.

Sorry Arnold, but you’re gonna have to go to Plan B, as far as I’m concerned. Get your braintrust working on other alternatives, like say….raising taxes and cutting spending. I’m voting NO, NO, NO and NO.

More later…
Paul
It’s “SchwarzeNEGGER”.

It’s one day before the California Primaries, and this past weekend was filled with televised political commentaries about this, that and the other. And all weekend long I had to endure people mispronouncing the governor’s name. It’s as if some people have been waiting for an excuse to let the word “nigger” back in their vocabulary, and now they have a chance to let it fly.

Look people, it’s “SchwarzeNEGGER”, and it sounds like “beggar”, not “bigger”. “Negger”, not “nigger”. Stop being lazy with your mouths and say it right.

More later…
Paul