What I said five years ago...

(Originally Posted December 11, 2001)

"You monster. You beast.
You unspeakable bastard."

Everyone has an opinion about September 11, 2001. Everyone is pitching their two cents worth. So why not me? Not that I am any great statesman or spokesman or a "mover and shaker." However, it has all reached a boil now, and I thought I might as well spell out a few things from my point of view.

Let me begin with that morning and how it appeared to me. My alarm had gone off just shortly before six in the morning (Pacific coast time). OOMA [object of my affection], who had been up since 5:30, said that the World Trade Center was on fire. She went back to drying her hair.

Sure, thought I. I sat up in bed, looked at the TV, and sure enough, one of the towers is blazing away.

The "expert" guest commentator on the Fox News Channel was a dodo. He prattled on, saying we can't assume this was deliberate action, that there's a great deal of air traffic in the area, that the sun was low, could be blinding, pilot could have gotten lost, might be an accident, could be--

Blam! Huge fireball rises up into the screen. Cameraman pulls back from the tight shot he had been holding on the burning tower. Debris exploding out from the second tower, obviously a huge explosion, someone exclaiming that a second plane has hit the second tower. Quickly surf to CNN. Their camera had much the same angle/shot, but had been holding back, less zoom, more building. They replayed what had happened just moments before, showing a jetliner zooming in from the right, disappearing behind the burning tower, huge explosion showing where it ended up.

Accident, my ass.

In the hour that followed, I listened to the radio. A third airliner hit the Pentagon. A fourth had gone somewhere in rural Pennsylvania. All civilian aircraft grounded. The towers fell....

I'm sorry, but as I looked at those two buildings burning I thought, "What genius, what audacity." As horrific as it was (is!), what happened was a natural extension of terrorist actions throughout the world. Suicide bombers are now commonplace. It wasn't a huge leap to imagine suicide pilots. Tom Clancey built the climax of a novel (Debt of Honor) around the notion. The sheer brilliance of the execution was something to behold. Objectively, I couldn't help but admire what had been done, in much the same way as historians admire how well the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor went.

Subjective evaluation is another animal. Leonard Pitts, Jr., writing in the Miami Herald for September 12, 2001, said it short and sweet: "You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard."

Pitts also gave a foretaste of what was coming.

It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started.

But you're about to learn.

Now it's December 2001, some three months later. We have bombed Afghanistan up and out of the stone age, and toppled one of the most repressive regimes on earth. A coalition of interests from within Afghanistan has come to an agreement regarding a replacement, interim government. Osama bin Laden, the man we hold responsible for WTC 9/11/01 as well as other acts of terrorism, remains on the run, his al-Qaida terrorist network falling apart. The only cloud on the horizon sits over Israel, where Palestinian terrorists have triggered a series of suicide attacks that will in all likelihood do little more than toss Yasir Arafat from power, if not into a grave.

Yet as I drive to work this morning, I hear an NPR commentator saying that the large-scale bombing of Afghanistan will accomplish nothing, that we must bring the accused to stand before the world court, to espouse the rule of law, to settle the Palestinian issue, etc.

In short, she apparently doesn't realize that our actions in Afghanistan are working. We're winning. Certainly, this is just a first, tiny step. But it's amazing the number of people who can't recognize success. Or, more accurately, will never accept Bush as president, or that anything he does is proper and correct.

People are literally dancing in the street in Afghanistan. More and more information reveals that a large percentage, perhaps the majority, of the Taliban were from foreign nations. In effect, foreigners took over Afghanistan, declared their notion of Islam as the one, true way, and supported a world terrorist who felt likewise. Indeed, there is evidence that shows Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network was so intertwined with the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan as to be indistinguishable and inseparable. It was inevitable that an assault of al-Qaida would topple the Taliban, to the joy of the citizens of Afghanistan.

We did not attack Afghanistan; we went after a terrorist network. We did so in response to September 11, 2001, but it's about time!

Now, let me tell you what worries me. There is this great, crushing rush to erase a basic freedom we accept as normal and natural in the United States. That freedom? The freedom of movement, of being able to go where you will, whenever you want. When I attended the police academy, I was taught of a landmark Supreme Court case that came out of San Diego. There was this black gentleman of the dreadlocks persuasion who had a habit of late night walks. And he took them wherever he wanted, including the upper class neighborhoods of San Diego. Surprise, the police confronted him, demanded his identification, and pretty much tried to shake him down.

He refused to show any ID, stating (correctly) that he hadn't done anything wrong, wasn't doing anything wrong, and that the police had no right to confront him so. He was arrested on the spot. To no one's great surprise, the case ended up before the United States Supreme Court, who overthrew the man's conviction, and ruled that police cannot just randomly stop people, demand ID, and insist that the person explain themselves. There has to be this tiny little thing known as "probable cause."

Yet here we are, years later, perfectly willing to accept just this sort of police conduct.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Larry Ellison, president and CEO of Oracle, says it's time for a national ID card. No, sorry, he didn't say that, he said he believes that there should be a national standard for identification cards. That was his corrective statement after a television interview showed him saying, "We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and embedding in the ID card." In response to privacy objections, he added, "[T]his privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion. All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy." Not to be outdone, Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, piped in with the comment, "You already have zero privacy. Get over it."

Nice, when two leaders in the technology industry, a predominantly liberal area of the economy, call for such a repressive measure.

I am not willing to surrender one iota of my liberty, and am not about to call on someone else to give up a trace of theirs. Please, let us face up to a basic, real fact: You are never safe! Just as crime is a function of society, risk is a function of an open society. The more open, the more free, a country and society, the more open to attack it is. Only by altering the fundamental nature of our country can this be changed.

And surprise, the creatures who staged the attacks of September 11, 2001, are the ones who want to alter the fundamental nature of our country! They don't like us just for being the way we are. Excepting our total conversion to a Taliban-like flavor of Islam (or whatever belief system--secular or otherwise--that they adhere to), there is nothing we are going to do that will change that. We could withdraw completely from the Middle East, taking Israel with us, and they'd still hate us, attack us, want to see us dead and buried. We are declared again and again as the Great Satan of the planet. There is no way, if that is the true belief, that they can stand to see us survive.

We have Federalized airport security personnel for ghu knows what reason. Please, explain this to me. On September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked. There is nothing to show that a single hijacker smuggled an illegal weapon on board. To the contrary, we are told again and again that their weapons were small and legal, pockets knives and box cutters. On that day, and until very recently, it was perfectly legal for passengers to carry such items onto the aircraft. Airport security personnel did their job, they did not fail.

On the other hand, a number of the identified hijackers were on the terrorist watch list. Immigration personnel who checked their passports as they came into this country let them pass. Aren't immigration personnel Federal employees?

So, if I understand this correctly we want to fire the people who did their job and did nothing wrong, while we "look into" how these terrorists got into the country in the first place. Ah, of course.

P. J. O'Rourke, in an article for the November 2001 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, remarks on how in Israel ordinary life has conquered terrorism. (When last checked, you could find the article here, but you may have to search the site in case it moves.) Anything O'Rourke writes is entertaining, and this is no exception. The closing paragraphs are priceless.

"This country is hopeless," Dave said, pouring a Palestinian Taybeh beer to complement a number of Israeli Maccabee beers we'd had earlier in West Jerusalem. "And as hopeless placed go, it's not bad." We discussed another Israel question. Why are Israeli girls so fetching in their army uniforms, whereas the women in the U.S. military are less so? It may have something to do with carrying guns all the time. But Freud was a lukewarm Zionist, and let's not think about it.

After the first Zionist Congress, in 1897, the rabbis of Vienna sent a delegation to Palestine on a fact-finding mission. The delegation cabled Vienna saying, "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." However, the twentieth century, with all its Freudianism, was about to dawn, and we know what having the beautiful bride married to another man means in a modern story line. No fair using amnesia as a device for tidy plot resolution.

"Do we have to choose sides?" Dave said. But it's like dating sisters. Better to make a decision and head for the Global Village limits. And speaking of sisters, I opened the Jerusalem Post on Easter morning and discovered that my sister's neighborhood in Cincinnati was under curfew, overrun with race riots.

O'Rourke made his trip to Israel earlier in the year, and he wrote the article before September 11. The events of September 11, 2001, require an American response, which is now in progress, and will be on-going for years to come. It is, in a sense, a new holy war, and if we remain focused it will spread a message of freedom, rather than an oppressive religious dogma.

As we demonstrate to the world that a free people are a terrible thing when aroused in anger, we must not forget our own lesson of freedom. We should not merrily surrender our liberties for an illusion of safety, no matter how tempting that may be. And for that, I give you the words of the fictitious Henry Drummond, as delivered by Spencer Tracy:

I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy, you can only punish. And I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches, its upholders as well as its defiers. Can't you understand that if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools. And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try and foist your own religion on the mind of man. If you can do one you can do the other, because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding. And soon, your honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, backward through the glorious ages of that 16th century when bigots burned a man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.

Bear this in mind any time someone says changing an existing law or adding a new law is "for your own good, your safety."

2006 Update:

Most of the above I still agree with. However, over the last five years a few things have changed, mostly my knowledge and experience. I've a few years of law school under my belt and understand that much more of the US legal system. For instance, in late 2001 I would have said that The USA Patriot Act was a horror. Today I understand that 90+% of the Act simply allows Federal law enforcement to use against terrorists the same tools they've already been using against organized crime and drug dealers. Further, those restrictions aren't Constitutionally based. They come, rather, from the Legislature reacting in horror at the abuses of the Nixon administration. That is, they are the result of a power grab, the Legislative taking from the Executive.

While Drummond's words should be stamped on the hallways of every law school in the country, a quiet review of the dire warnings made by the loyal opposition in 2001 reveal...they aren't very good at making dire warnings.

There is also a continued failure to recognize the enemy for what he is, an ideology bent on the destruction of personal freedom. No, I'm not talking about Bush, and if that was your first thought then yes, I'm talking to you, and you need to get a clue. Osama and his ilk don't want to make nice, they want to convert you at gunpoint or kill you. They don't have a preference.

I opt for Door #3, which is to convert them, either to change their ways or end their ways. And between those two choices, I don't have a preference.

Some biased reviews of "The Path to 9/11"

From that staunch supporter of the right, the New York Times:

The terrorists are ruthless and implacable. Some foreign informants and obscure civil servants turn out to be inspiringly tough-minded and smart: low profiles in courage. But “The Path to 9/11” is an unsparing, and at times hyperbolic, portrait of bureaucratic turf wars, buck passing and complacency. Senior managers at the F.B.I. and C.I.A. are overwhelmed and quicker to protect their own hides than national security. It’s always the enemy within that nettles the most.

From the Detroit Free Press, that bastion of conservatism:

But "The Path to 9/11" -- airing at 8-11 p.m. Sunday and 8-10 p.m. Monday on ABC -- intently avoids any shallow shock value sensationalism to dissect the roots of an almost unfathomable national catastrophe. And it does so with a fair amount of understated intelligence, while utilizing an often absorbing, richly detailed procedural style. On a simple quality drama level, it's the best network miniseries in several years.

Methinks that those who doth protest approximately six (6) minutes of a five (5) hour miniseries doth protest too much. And as I understand it from the reviews and comments, the film isn't exactly complimentary about Bush & Co., especially Condoleezza Rice. But the idiotarians don't complain about that, no, that would be too...consistent of them. Would evince some, er, integrity.

Rally 'round, all ye defenders of free speech!

I am talking, of course, about The Path to 9/11. Is it free speech, and the artist can produce whatever he/she wants, or are you going to side with the Democrats, or, more precisely, "former members of the Clinton administration"?

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," [Clinton Foundation head Bruce] Lindsey and [Clinton advisor Douglas] Band wrote in their letter.

And...

"I haven't seen it, but from everything I've heard it's not down the middle. It's not fair at all. And to have a film that seems to be biased and take one side put on by a network seems to be the wrong thing to do," said [Senator Charles] Schumer [D-NY]. "You can't take a film that's supposed to report on something that's so real and so close and make it into fiction. That's beneath ABC's dignity."

That one of the former Clintonistas complaining is Sandy "How Did This Get In My Pants" Berger is just delicious. This must be farce, these people cannot be serious.

ABC and Disney are explicit in saying this is a fictionalized version of events, using all the standard tools of fiction (e.g., compression, combining characters, etc.). Where are the those left-wing, stalwart defenders of the First Amendment? Where's Larry Flint, et al?

Hark, I hear...crickets!

In contrast, let us not forget Mikey Moore's fabrication, that "documentary" known as Fahrenheit 9/11. All these clowns would have better legs to stand on if they had objected with equal vehemence -- including an attempt to shut down and censor -- to Moore's crap-piece.

But to give Moore his due, if asked he'd probably say, "Go ahead, air it. They can make what they want. Free speech, baby!" There, I've finally said something nice about Michael Moore. I shall not make it a habit!

But not to worry, all you idiotarians out there, ABC may have caved already:

The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.

Do love the bit that "many" of the complainers are Democrats, that the organization is "left-wing", and "conservative blogs" have defended the film.

If truly believe in free speech, then Democrats and "left-wing" groups should be engaging in what is known in gaming circles as "stfu". And thus, conservatives would -- and should -- follow suit.

For the record, I don't give a crap what sort of crap you write, film, draw, say, etc. Just don't object if I respond or make a counter-argument. Doing so is not censorship, Dixie Chicks. Attempting to block a broadcast, on the other hand, is.

Update: A FAQ that says it all. Still LMAO at this crowd. And still amazed at the number of people who Truly Believe that all the run-up to 9/11/2001 started shortly after Innaguration Day, January, 2001. The wilfull ignorance is staggering.

United 93 on DVD

Have you bought your copy yet?

United 93 is easily one of the best movies I've seen in a great many years. No, I am not overstating the case. It's excellent on all counts. Paul Greengrass hits one out of the ball park by suppressing his own political leanings (leftward, or so I have heard) and simply tells the story. I was impressed with what he did with the Bourne Supremacy, making a sequel that, in many ways, exceeds the original. And his Bloody Sunday is on a par with United 93; indeed, if I were Irish I might say it was better.

But I'm not. I'm an American and while I deeply honor the men and women who died in the World Trade Center, and I humbly respect and praise the firemen and policemen and others who died charging into those doomed towers, I am in awe of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93. And Greengrass does 'em proud.

It's sort of what I was getting at with my bit on the Battle of Thermopylae. There you had a bunch of Spartans ready to die, but the real heroes of the moment were the Thespaians, true citizen-soldiers, not trained from childhood to fight and die, yet stand with the Spartans and fight and die they did.

On UA93, that's what 40 people did. The policemen and firemen who charged into the Trade Center towers faced life and death every day. Certainly they were heroes, but they were already heroes, just for doing the job. On UA93, it was the common citizen who stood up, looked evil in the eye, and said, "You go to hell!"

So maybe the passengers never made into onto the flight deck. Doesn't matter. They still stopped those bastards from using a fourth airliner as a guided missile, to destroy heaven knows what. God bless 'em.

I saw this film with my daughter when it was first at the theatre. Afterwards, we didn't talk much. She went out and got a "UA93" tattoo. She doesn't ever want to forget the sacrifice those people made.

Neither do I.

That easily colors my opinion of the film, but I think it stands on its own merits. Using little known actors and a great many people who were actually involved, Greengrass does a clear recreation of the horror that is and remains 9/11/2001. As said, he doesn't try and paint one patriotic picture or another, he just lets a powerful story unfold on the screen. By the last frame, you're left speechless. I can't think of a miscue in the entire film.

I've got my DVD but I'm rather afraid to watch it alone. It's a powerful experience, especially at the end. It demands to be a shared experience, because what happened that day was, indeed, shared by the world.

So, like I asked: Have you bought your copy yet?

Can Time get anything right?

Even writing a complementary article, Time can't get it right...

The Orion spacecraft, by contrast, is based on proven Apollo technology. It’s configured like a large Apollo: a conical crew compartment atop a cylindrical engine module. It will sit atop heavy-lift boosters that are modeled in part after the shuttle’s own liquid-fuel engines — far and away the best part of the old shuttle technology and the part most worth saving.

Only, that's not quite right.

The crew lift vehicle (Ares I) will use as its first stage a solid rocket booster (SRB) based on the shuttle design. So, unlike what Time implies, humans will still be riding up toward the stars on solid rockets (at least for the first stage).

Also, the heavy lift vehicle (Ares V) will not use the space shuttle main engine (SSME). Rather, it will use the RS-68 from the Delta V (and it's based on a Russian design at that). And the Ares V first stage will be assisted by two SRBs.

Read all about it here. It was all announced a couple of months ago, so no excuse for an article dated Septemer 1, 2006.

Still, otherwise, nice article.

Crocodile Hunter, R.I.P.

I'm not going to pretend I'm shedding tears. Nonetheless:

Steve Irwin, the hugely popular Australian television personality and environmentalist known as the "Crocodile Hunter," was killed Monday by a stingray during a diving expedition, Australian media said. He was 44.

Target of much satire, he obviously had a fire for what he did and how he went about doing it. Crazy or not, at least he walked as he talked. And such a way to go. Would have expect a croc to finally gnaw his ass. I wonder what kind of ray it was. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe a jelly got him.

Christian rock as a threat?

I'm not sure what Peter Suderman's point is here at Alarm-Alarm, but the line he cites from a Pitchfork short track review is pretty straight forward:

Why is Christian Rock the new punk rock? Because those bands care about what they're selling-- care a lot-- and they make a culture out of it: a weird, fucked, mortal-enemy-to-what-we-hold-dear culture, but there it is.

To which Peter comments:

If pop culture art with Christian ideas succeeds, it may well be because of what Baron is describing.

Well, yes, because of that passion. Too many performers today seem more caught up in themselves than in their craft. And I said "craft" because it's not "art". (What is art? In the eye of the beholder. In other words, I know it when I see/hear/smell/taste/touch it.)

Lately I've taken to listening to a variety of what I suppose is called "Christian rock". Certainly Lincoln Brewster is right there, singing songs of straight-forward praise and redemption.

But where do you put BarlowGirl? Oh, certainly they're driven by their faith; they make no bones about what they believe. Yet their songs are often wrought with the same angst that drove much of the punk rock I've listened to. Listen to a song like Porcelain Heart which is almost entirely about the pain of a broken heart.

Someone said, "A broken heart
would sting at first then make you stronger."
You wonder why this pain remains.
Were hearts made whole just to break?

That's damn-near bitter bitch money cynical. The positive spin they put on it is a cry to the Creator, the only one who can make a broken heart whole again.

Anyway, I stray, because Peter's point is well taken. Passion and belief in the message you're delivering goes a long way in any industry, in any endeavor. Much of modern rock has lost both, while those performers casually dismissed as "Christian rock" have both. And in spades.

I'm just wondering what "threat" Pitchfork's Zach Baron perceives.

About that "Steven Spielberg ending" comment

All right, when I wrote about the film V for Vendetta, I said the "happy ending" was an ending Steven Spielberg would have been proud of. Is there someone out there who doesn't get it? I can think of precisely one film that Spielberg didn't slap some sort of "and they all lived happily ever after" ending onto, and that was Munich (which sucked in its own right and for other reasons).

Most of his films righteously have happy endings. Kill the shark, absolutely. Hero wins the day, without a doubt. Some poor schmuck prevails over homicidal big rig, yea!

But as I recall, his first theatrical film didn't have all that happy an ending. Indeed, I think the protaganist gets his ass shot off and dies. Which was proper, since that was based on a real story and that's really what happened.

And does Close Encounters of the Third Kind really have a "happy" ending? Our hero goes off with the aliens, and the music swells to happiness, but he's just abandoned his wife and kids and left 'em in the lurch. Even Spielberg has reputedly said, now having kids of his own, that he never could have made CE3K today, at least not with that ending.

But look at AI. The film reaches what feels like a natural ending, with the little boy robot lying at the bottom of the sea...forever. You're sad, but it all feels organic, as if to say, "Well, of course, how else could this end?" But no, bam, sea freezes, millenia go by, and aliens come and rescue him for a happy, if brief, reunion with his mother. I grant you that this almost works, but it needs a voice over narration to fill in all the blanks. Worst happy ending slapped on a gloomy film since the original Blade Runner (may that narration and its writer rot in hell...forever!).

The absolute worst offender, however, is Minority Report. I know that it's accept wisdom that AI was Spielberg's tribute to Stanley Kubrick, but Minority just drips with the influence of its source material (Philip K. Dick) and Kubrick. It is 99% a science fiction masterpiece that is substantially ruined by that last 1%.

To understand why we must remember the premise of the film. Three psychics (pre-cogs) can predict murder. All three must agree for a prediction to be reported and recorded. The Pre-Crime cops can then swoop in and arrest the "bad guy" before he/she can be bad. The plot is driven when the head of Pre-Crime, Anderton (played by Tom Cruise), is predicted to commit a murder. He is then on the run and pursued by his own team.

This is all well and good. The film offers one of the greatest images of the near-future since, oh, Blade Runner. It is, for the most part, internally consistent and all of the gadgets flow from present day. It all feels real and workable. It's beautiful.

Minority Report also offers so many disturbing tidbits. For instance, we are arguing today about facial recognition software, yet in MP, everyone is retina scanned (and ID'd) everywhere. It is a sense of all-pervading surveillance which would make the blood of modern privacy advocates curdle. Here, it's casually tossed off, albeit necessary for the plot (as written).

MP falls apart at the every end, and if you haven't seen it and don't want to no, go away. It's been years, you've no excuse. Go buy/rent the DVD, then come back when you're ready.

At the end, Anderton confronts the real villain, saves the day, and even rescues the pre-cogs. Pre-Crime is shut down and there's a completely artificial feeling that due to the efforts of Tom Cruise & Wife(a babe, a beauty, an actress; especially liked her brief moment here), freedom once more walks the land.

Only, that's hogwash. Those eye scanners are still there. And now there is murder again. It's made clear in the film that murder has ceased in the area where Pre-Crime works. The question, in the film, is that since all three pre-cogs might not agree on a prediction, some "innocent" was probably arrested and "haloed" (thrown into some horrific suspended animation, presumably forever). To Anderton, and apparently the world, this is horrifying.

But for a film that just dripped reality and truth, this is a flagrant bit of crap. The system works. It predicted, and stopped, murder. They would never shut it down. Not ever. Dick recognized this because in his original short story, it was presumed there would be minority reports; a vote of two to one was sufficient for Pre-Crime to act. The story's plot is driven by the discovery that there was no agreement, there were in fact three different predictions.

No, in the film what needed to be corrected was the method of "punishment", not apprehension. Since the murders were prevented, why halo the non-offenders? Some might be in need of incarceration, but not all, or even most.

I re-imagine the end to Minority Report. It's all right up to when the big boss shoots himself. From there we get Cruise's voice over....

With the revelantion of minority reports, there was a cry to shut down Pre-Crime. But no one could doubt Pre-Crime's effectiveness. The reality was that there were no murders.

So instead, the politicians released all those who were haloed, choosing to keep them under observation for a time. They also reasoned that if they attempted to murder again, the pre-cogs would see. And warn.

As for Agnes and the other Pre-Cogs, they were returned to their living hell, not quite alive, not quite dead. We fight to free them, to undo the injustice society has done to them. For the true minority report is that a harm against one, is a harm against us all.

See, even though it's still a classic liberal spin ("better a hundred go free than an innocent man be put to death", etc.) it is more in keeping with the tone of the film. And the real horror of the film isn't that people are haloed, but that the three humans have been abused, i.e., the pre-cogs under that huge banner of "for the good of all!"

Now that would have been a great ending to a great film. But Spielberg went all touchy-feely at the end. And that's what I mean when I write about "a tacked on, total crock, happy ending that Spielberg would be proud of".

Transformers?

Why does this make me grin?

It's directed by Michael Bay, and he's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. However, his films have a certain enthusiastic exuberance that is...endearing. And The Island was actually a shock, being such a loud and profound anti-abortion analogy.

So maybe this will be...interesting. Maybe at least as entertaining as Armageddon. Is Steve Buscemi a Transformer? Now that would rock!

V for Vague

m15m, best rendition of the film V for Vendetta. Totally. Like, no contest.

This is easily one of the most disappointing films I've seen this year. Now it's on DVD and shrinking it to the little screen doesn't improve it. It could have been brilliant and great. Instead...eh.

No, it's not just the obvious politics of the thing. Well, yes, it is the obvious politics of the thing. If you want to take digs at Bush, fine, have at him, but when it comes to Art (that's right, with a capital "A") you need to look a few moments past the current moment, because once the moment has passed, your "Art" looks like crap.

The graphic novel understood this. It's worth several readings, because you need to wade through it a few times, and even then you miss stuff. Some of the artwork could have been clearer, especially during those scenes where the picture is the only way to identify who is dying at what time. That aside, the plot is great.

Because what the novel understood was what I said, you make a political point without hammering at a particular political moment. You treat your audience as though they have an IQ somewhat higher than the average pea, that they will get it. The novel was written as an attack on Margaret Thatcher when she was PM of England, yet she's not even mentioned. Few (if any) of her politics are discussed. Rather, the author looked at what frightened him about her time in office, and expanded it to the autocratic extreme.

But look at how things came about! In the novel, England rejects Thatcher and elects a liberal government. That government disavows the mere possession of nuclear weapons and complete chucks 'em away. Thus, without nuclear arms, when a limited WW3 happens, England is untouched (physically). The rest of the world goes to bollocks, however, and England collapses into anarchy. And it is from this anarchy that The Leader and "England Prevails" rises.

Get it? Liberal government, unrealistic position, war, government collapse, anarchy, autocratic dictator. That's the progression in the novel. (Even if, later, Moore would reject this as "melodramatic". He also got assumed Thatcher would get tossed from office. Oops!)

There is no such logic, rhyme, or reason to the movie. There's a dictatorship because the plot needs one. Something about "America's war" and an American plague, but talk about vague and WtF. Then there's the Phil Donahue wannabe.... Oh, wait, that's supposed to be Bill O'Rielly? Naw! Ranting, self-rightous monologues like that were Phil's stock-in-trade.

Then there are the little things, like Gordon's illustrated Koran. "Can I not admire the pictures?" (Or some such nonsense.) No, you can't, because your implication is that all copies of the holy Koran are illustated with loverly artwork, which is load of dingo's kidneys. Why not an illustrated Bible? Why not an illustrated Torah? Why not just a collection of forbidden art? No, that's in there to say, "Hey, Muslims are wrongfully oppressed. Just ignore those who have bombed buildings, flown jets into buildings, blown up trains, blown up subways, shoot people without mercy, and all that other stuff. Everyone has extremists. Just look at the 'Christian' dictator I've invented for this film! He's just like Bush, that evil fundamentalist. Evil! Eeeeeevvvviiillll!!!"

And let's not even start on the entire new back story plot, about the government slaughtering 100,000 citizens to create a climate of fear so a dictatorship can step in and "restore" order. Arf!

V, the movie, works best when it hews closely to the novel. Those moments are brilliant and damn near resonate. V, the movie, becomes totally brain dead when it tries to be "relevant". In so doing, it becomes irrelevant (at best) and stupid (at worst, which is to say, most of the time).

I mean, come on! This is a police state, with cameras everywhere, with "Fingerman" patrolling the streets to mug, rape, and murder who they please. Et cetera. Yet, no one notices thousands upon thousands of Guy Fawkes costumes being ordered and delivered throughout the country (or at least throughout London)? Puh-leez! A willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, but swallowing that one requires artificial gravity that would make the Krell proud.

A question to all who think this film is Deep and Makes A Strong Statement: In the novel, at the end, V blows up 10 Downing Street, home of the PM and dictator, and cries for anarchy. His is a direct assault on the fascist dictator. In the film, he blows up Parliament and cries for democracy. Don't you think that since he's gotten the dictator killed, gutted the autocratic leadership, and set the country up for a revival of democracy, that Parliament -- the very seat and symbol of English democracy -- might have been rather, er, important, a symbol of freedom, a rallying point for a new era? Perhaps it shouldn't have been blown to sh*t and gone.

Just wondering.

Consider that Guy Fawkes was a fanatic who wanted to blow up Parliament because he was a "Catholic extremist" who, with "Puritan extremists", wanted to blow up the nation's Protestant leaders and return England to the bosum of Mother Church in Rome. In the book, Fawkes's politics are left at the door and V dons the costume as a symbol of anarchy. In the film, Fawkes is portrayed as some Robin Hoodish hero of the people. Interesting, don't you think, given the real Fawkes's religious bent. He was, in fact, the religious fanatic that the film attempts to portray Bush The Leader as being.

At the end of the novel, the future is decidedly unknown. The country is sinking into anarchy. V is dead and Evey opts to don the costume so that there will always be a V, an immortal you might say, to make sure no authoritarian rises to power. In the film, there's almost a sense of order as V is everyone and everyone is V. Only the seat of British democracy has been blown to sh*t and gone, there is no rallying point, and we're left with this false sense of euphoria. In other words, it is beautiful pap, a slapped on happy ending that Steven Spielberg would have been proud of.

The film illustrates that even when being "brave" and presenting "an uncompromising vision of the future", Hollywood is, at heart, chicken and presumes that the audience is dumber than a bowl full of (dead) mice.

And Ubuntu sucks...again!

Look, I really want to like this stuff. I had reach a level of tolerance with OpenOffice sufficient to tempt me to use it all the time. I love the interface, especially when I can kick over to WindowMaker.

But, damn, it's amazing to me that the screensaver can bring my computer to its knees! Once it kicks in, my only recourse is the reset button. I can't get crash out of the x-server. The system is locked tight, Windows NT blue screen of death tight.

So, I've downloaded images for openSUSE and PCLinuxOS. It is time to walk away from Ubuntu. And, damn, it seems so close. Then again, if I "fixed" this I'd next have to figure out why Amarok is silent, yet every other mp3 player works just fine.

G'uh.

UPDATE: Found out this might be the result of a bad patch, though probably not because that crash was the one I already re-installed to correct. So now I'm dual booting into openSUSE v10.1, and I hate it already. I'm sure that somewhere there's a slower operating system, but I don't want to find it. I stand on the edge, ready to just Partition Magic the thing out of existence and give over my entire HDD to The Gatesian Empire (cue heavy breathing).

Ubuntu returns

Ubuntu Linux v6.06.1 LTS returns to my desktop because, well, I have a resurrected desktop computer. Thus, my laptop gets a vacation and I get to give this flavor of Linux another chance.

Maybe this install will remain connected to the Internet. Ahem.

"Infernal Affairs" Becomes "The Departed"

I watched Infernal Affairs last night. I understand there are at least two sequels; I'm not sure I want to watch them because I'm afraid they'll undo the afterglow. I'm also afraid that Martin Scorsese, one of the cinematic greats, might do the same with his Americanized version this fall, The Departed.

I dislike the name change to start with. Infernal has that name because of the quote used right from the get go: "The worst of the Eight Hells is Continuous Hell. It has the meaning of Continuous Suffering. Thus the name." (Nirvana Sutra) Verse 19.

And that is precisely what the movie is about, thus the reference to hell in the title is completely appropriate. The setup is relatively simple: Two young men join the Hong Kong police force. One "washes out" because he's actually been recruited to go undercover with the HK gangs (triads). The other is in reality a gang plant in the police force, assigned to work his way up through the hierarchy for the benefit gang sponsor. The plot of the film is driven by both the police force and the gang discovering that they each have a mole. Thus, the police mole is now searching for the gang mole, and vice versa.

But the humanity of the film is driven by the price each mole is paying. Can the gang mole become a "good" man, actually become a cop and fight for the right? And what is the cost on the police mole, because for ten years he has lived without his real identity? These moments make Infernal Affairs an exceptional film, and are no doubt what drew Scorsese to the subject.

What I love about watching most foreign films is that they aren't made to American expectations. Now, some countries become predictable in their own right. Take French films. The good guy always dies, there's never a happy ending (Luc Besson's work being, for the most part, notable exceptions). The French relish in "tragic" ending, even if they have to contrive one.

But Asian cinema is another matter altogether. Am I giving anything away if I reveal the end of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? If so, your bad because the film's been out for years. Damn near everyone dies at the end, but what really dies are relationships that never quite happened. The film is choked with unrequited love, and just when you think that love is about to be returned...gak, someone dies.

Maybe that's the Asian film tick. Person A loves person B, but B doesn't not love A in return. And just about the time that B realizes he/she loves A, A or B or both die. Damn, sounds like my life (except for the dying part). Fun?

Well, yeah, because they do it with such flair. And somehow it always catches me off guard, though it happens in Crouching Tiger, Hero, and House of Flying Daggers.

It will be interesting to see if Scorsese holds the course.

Jimmuh Cahtuh, flaming tard at large

In case you hadn't noticed, I have no (as in zero, none, nada) respect for Jimmy Carter. This has long been the case, beginning in 1977 when he took the Oath of Office for the presidency. I think he made my skin actually crawl during his campaign, even more so when he begged for re-election in 1980. It was in 1980 that I lost all hope for the man, when he conceded the race to Reagan, several hours before the polls in California closed. I remember that moment vividly because my father and I were getting off work (5ish) and on our way to vote when Carter's concession was announced on the radio. To say that my dad, a lifelong Democrat, was pissed is a vivid understatement.

Since then, Cahtuh has done nothing to redeem himself in my eyes. Oh, there's that whole "habitat for humanity" thing, but I believe he does that in some quest to salvage his soul, personal aggrandizement, rather than the altruistic urge he advertises. Where he completely drives me up a fig tree is when he pontificates on the Middle East. And I know exactly what I mean by "pontificate" and it is precisely applicable to his gaping pie hole.

(See, I really don't like Massuh Cahtuh, no not at all.)

His recent interview with Spiegel is a case in point. Aside from being his usual pious yet pompous nonsense, he gets almost everything precisely wrong. (In fact, he's so good at that you can generally take anything he says, turn it 180 degrees about, and find the truth.)

Despite the obsequious nature of most of the interviewer's questions, Cahtuh couldn't bring himself to answer the questions given. Instead, he launched in self-praise about the treaty he brokered, etc. He slimes that he got a treaty between Egypt and Israel despite the election of Begin. Thus, in a single phrase he implicates that Israel has always been the problem, the force against peace, in the Middle East, and negates the fact that, hey, 'tard, Begin won that Peace Prize right alongside Sadat!

God forgive me, but I really dislike this man. Can't he just learn to stfu?

James Newton Howard, under-appreciated?

Really, I'm beginning to think so. I've been ripping my CD collection into VBR MP3's. I've finished soundtracks, so I can easily see how many of his I have, and when I drift through the tracks I get sorta weepy.

James Newton Howard is a composer that when he is on, he's evocative. Even when he's composing for third-rate movies, like Jackson's King Kong. You listen to the finale bits, Beauty Killed the Beast IV and V, and the Enya crap aside...wow. The submarine piece in his score for Atlantis...wow.

This has been a back-burner question for me because I keep wondering who will come along to take the place of John Williams, John Barry, and Jerry Goldsmith. Sure, they're not all dead, but sometimes I wonder. Have you listened to Williams' bits for Munich and War of the Worlds? The occasional moment, yes, but that makes him less than Howard because Howard's moments are getting longer.

Maybe I miss Goldsmith. That there was a composing god if ever there was one. Remember this and this and this? Wow!

Has Barry written anything worth a hoot since Prances with Puppies? I think not.

And I've already cried over Williams.

So that leaves...who? Howard is doing well. There's also Howard Shore, who can compose some really great creepy shit, though I think hit LOTR crap is over-rated (well, then again, LOTR was over-rated, so it fits). I'm excited by Michael Giacchino. His score for The Incredibles was...incredible! A crime was committed the day it didn't at least get an Oscar nomination. There's also Marco Beltrami. Even when he's scoring for crap he's fun (because, well, it's fun crap), and his Hellboy score wasn't crap at all (because Hellboy wasn't crap, it was great).

One day, one of these fellows -- or someone else -- will do something amazing. And they'll we'll all go, "Hey, remember when Williams was this good? Was he ever this good?"

The Collapse of Judgment: by Hugh Hewitt

It starts with a simple question:

If you could save the victims of one of the following four events, which group would you save?

1. The victims of Fidel Castro's 'revolution?'

2. The victims of Hezbollah's ambushes, rockets and missiles over the past three weeks?

3. The victims of the Seattle attack on the Jewish federation?

4. The victims of Mel Gibson's repulsive outburst of anti-Semitic venom?

...and goes from there. It's from August 3rd, but excellence knows no time limit.

The height of rudeness

I read this article at MSNBC about a culture of rudeness, and all I can say is: Amen, brother!

I am so sick unto death by the general rudeness in the world today, and I think he's pegged at least most of the reason. It's not for snobby reasons that I don't watch TV (my TV is a display for movies that I buy or rent), it's because I'm tired of the celebrity-go-round, the "reality" TV, the sheer weight of mind-numbing crap. I'd rather watch endless reruns of "She's the Sheriff" than most anything on the air today.

I think I was forced to this conclusion, about celebrity rudeness and "news" coverage, by Paris Hilton. She is obviously Satan. I don't mean "daughter of Satan", I mean she is the anti-Christ herself. She became a "celebrity" simply by inheriting a shitload of money. Period. That's it. She's never done a worthwhile thing in her life, other than be a participant in an Internet-distributed porn film. She slinks, she purrs, she insists on being #1, and she's...what? An heiress. And the public ate (!!!) her up.

Sad.

Like the author, I remember a time when you aspired to be rich and famous because that meant you would be cultured and refined, someone that others would naturally look up to. Did those celebrities and millionaires have hidden flaws? Absolutely. Were they less than perfect? Well, duh, they were human! But it is precisely the point that their flaws were kept to themselves, hidden, rather than being paraded about as though the flaw was the thing, as though it was more important that they farted than what they said.

There's a saying that goes something like: A man who is rude to the waitress is not a nice man. I try to follow that rule. I'm polite to the help, I over-tip the waitress, etc. I ride like a maniac, in firm belief that 80mph is where life begins, but other than that I'm a rather calm guy. All 6' 4" of me. Admittedly, that means I can afford to be calm.

Still, my point remains. Let's all slow down and relax, sip the (decaf) coffee, smell the (fake) flowers, enjoy the (scorching) sun, and wave at the (bastard) who cut us off. And use all of your fingers!

Okay, so I enter post title here

All right, so this is Live Writer (Beta), the latest from Microsoft. So theoretically, I type this over here on my desktop, then...what? Ah, click publish....

Update: Wow, it works.

Remembering the Battle of Thermopylae

According to the history text, today marks the anniversary of the Battle of Thermopylae, 480 B.C. The battle has been the subject of movies, some books, and even a new film that's in production. Most focus on the 300 Spartans of King Leonidas.

Bob's History in a Nutshell: King Xerxes of Persia decided he wanted to own the world. He assembled a vast army, numbering in the millions, and got to work. Here a conquest, there a conquest, soon he was a royal (ahem) pain in the ass headed for Greece. At that time, Greece was a collection of squabbling city-states. Individually they were going to be easy pickings. But some Greeks thought this would be a bad idea. In order to let the squabblers stop squabbling, a few select opted to face Xerxes at the pass of Thermopylae, a narrow strip of land that would nullify the Persians' superior numbers. This force was led by Leonidas and his 300 Spartans.

They -- and those that fought with them -- died to a man.

But buy time they did, and Xerxes got his royal ass handed to him at the Battle of Salamis and the rest of the Persians met a similar fate at the Battle of Plataea. Thus Greece remained free...to continue their squabbles. Eventually, though, the Greek state was born and many consider this the birthplace of democracy, so imagine our world today if Xerxes had been successful.

What the better histories point out is that key to the victory wasn't just Leonidas and his 300, but the contribution of the Thespaians (numbering some 700). While other Greek allies left the final fight to the Spartans, these Thespaians stayed. This can't be stressed enough, and must be understood to grasp how important this was. Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of courage. Maybe Steven Pressfield writes it best in Gates of Fire, as Polynikes, one of the Spartans, steps out to address those who are about to die:

"It is no hard thing for a man raised under the laws of Lykurgus to offer up his life for his country. For me and for these Spartans, all of whom have living sons, and who have known since boyhood that this was the end they were called to do, it is an act of completion before the gods."

He turned solemnly toward the Thespaians and the freed squires and helots.

"But for you, brothers and friends...for you who will this day see all extinguished forever..."

The runner's voice cracked and broke. He choked and blew snot into his hand in lieu of the tears to whose issue his will refused to permit. For long moments he could not summon speech. He motioned for his shield; it was passed to him. He displayed it aloft.

"This aspis was my father's and his father's before him. I have sworn before God to die before another man took this from my hand."

He crossed to the ranks of the Thespaians, to a man, an obscure warrior among them. Into the fellow's grasp he placed the shield.

I eat this stuff up. That simple display of honor and respect. You see, as Polynikes says, the Spartans were trained to die for their country; the Thespaians were not. Yet their they were willing to stand, to fight for what they believed was right, to die with the Spartans rather than retreat with the others.

The Thespaians were, in other words, the planet's first true citizen-soldiers.

And so I remember Thermopyle, and when I do so I remember the many members of the US reserve forces fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all around the world. Fuck the draft, let the real warriors step up. God bless 'em all.

Proportionate response my left cheek

From a video clip sent to me by my USAF daughter:

MidEast guy: You better remember, we blew up two of your buildings.

Carlos Mencia: Oooo, and we blew up two of your "countries". You wanna play this game, bitch?!?

I keep thinking of that clip whenever I read the news coming out of the Middle East, specifically Israel's response to Hezbollah (Hizbollah? Herbollah? Whatever!). Let's see if I can make my interpretation of what's going very, very clear.

Say you live in an apartment complex. Not a great one, but clean, with a roof, most of the comforts of home. Next door is a stellar set of condos. Very nice, very state of the art. Some of the basement tenants in your apartment building don't like the people living in the condos, so they start shooting bottle rockets at them. Every now and again, a kid gets hurt, and once in a while, someone in the condos is actually killed. (These are very serious bottle rockets.)

Naturally, this pisses off the condo dwellers. They get even more frustrated because all of the other neighboring apartment buildings actually root for the basement-based rocket launchers. The condo people turn to the police, who say that the condo people must have greater tolerance of those in that neighboring basement.

The people who live above the basement, or even in apartments next to the guys shooting the rockets, try and tell the guys to stop, but are ignored. They do nothing more than say, "Hey, stop", while watching the fireworks. Afterall, they don't like the condo dudes either.

So one day the condo lobs a few mortar rounds into the apartment to get at those bottle rocket guys. Now your nice apartment building is being turned into a mess, but instead and leaping down the throat of the provocatuers, (i.e., bottle rocket boys), you scream at the condo people, "Hey! Disproporationate response, bastard!"

Of course, I live across town, in my own house, and I say, "Go, condo dudes, go!"

Hez (Hiz? Her? Eh!) was launching rockets into Israel on a near-continuous basis. Then they snatch a couple of soldiers just -- apparently -- for decoration. And the world is shocked -- shocked, I say -- because Israel didn't sit there like a Frenchman and fume. Israel invaded Lebanon before, then unilaterally withdrew. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Result? Rocket and mortar fire from both areas into Israel, with "governments" in both areas throwing up their hands and going, "Oy, what can we do?"

Well, apparently Israel feels they can do better. "Disproportionate"? No, it's about time. The MidEast will be peaceful when one side of the other is defeated on the battlefield and opts for surrender rather than annihilation. A "peace process" or "road map to peace" will always bring us back to this simple fact. A "peace process" or "road map" is precisely what Hez/Hiz/Her, and their ilk, want, because it gives them a free hand.

So I'm pulling for those guys with the Star of David. And if this brings about a war to finally settle the matter, then so be it. Israel is a democracy surrounded by autocratic thugs. Why is there even a question as to which side we should support?

Oh, wait, I remember. Because they -- and we -- are capitalist oppressors of freedom loving socialist people around the world. Riiiiight. Must keep that in mind.

Is a perfect film about to appear?

All right, "perfect" may be an overstatement, but still....

Written & Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, the man who made a perfect Harry Potter movie and the gorgeous A Little Princess and more.

Starring Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, and (special drum roll) Chiwetel Ejiofor (perfect as The Operative, perfect as Okwe, perfect here?).

I'm actually excited about a film that's coming soon, namely The Children of Men.

(Oh, and The Science of Sleep doesn't look too shabby, either.)

I'm in the midst of an anime binge

I started with my all-time-favorite, Akira, progressed through #2, Ghost in the Shell, and finished with Steamboy. I'll probably watch Ghost in the Shell: Innocence tonight, and maybe even Perfect Blue. I've seen them all before (and in the case of Akira and GITS, over and over), and they're all great touchstones.

If you have any love of animation at all you cannot help but be left slack-jawed after watching Akira. For the most part it is completely done in classic, painted cell animation style. There are moments you can tell where something computer generated helped create a given movement or prepare a framework, but by and large it is a massive labor of love with ink and pen. It is a singular film that puts all other animation to shame. Period. End of debate.

It is also an exploration of the human psyche, what we are often willing to do in the pursuit of knowledge and power. As a Time Magazine review once said, there are no "good guys" in Akira, just differing levels of bad. It takes a couple of viewings to really understand who is "bad" and who is "good". And at the story's end, it all comes down to fellowship, friendship, even love. Brings a tear to me one good eye every time.

GITS, on the other hand, isn't as well animated but is much more grounded in where the world may be headed. While Akira is essentially metaphysical, GITS explores how technology is and will force an evolution of not just mankind, but human intelligence. In the end you have a merger between a human mind and soul ("ghost") and an aritificial intelligence that created its own "ghost". Heady stuff.

Steamboy is both a triumph and a disappointment. A triumph because it is so goddamn gorgeous to look at. While Akira is, to me, the zenith of traditional animation, Steamboy is a fantastic blend of the traditional and the new. "Eye candy" is such an understatement that it's an insult.

Disappointment because the story can, at times, be shallow and murky. In essence it is the conflict in science, between the pure quest for knowledge and the application of science. It flops into a pedantic and lecturing tone from time to time, but there is enough rousing adventure to save the day.

There is also Ray Steam, our hero. He is a young lad of science, caught up in the pure thrill of discovery. He isn't concerned with purity and he's not too worried about application. He just wants to play and discover. As one adult character says of him, he's a young boy who can look at a complicated machine, understand its function in a glance, and then improve upon it. He also has the hero's spirit of never giving up, never giving into panic. Throughout the film you watch him see a problem and work his way through it, even at the risk of life and limb. He's great.

Any of these films would make a superb live-action film and would probably, in that form, garner a larger US audience. It's a shame that most American filmgoers put animation in the "kid's only" pigeonhole, because these three films, and the others I mentioned, are most definitely not kid's films. (Well, Steamboy is okay for kids, but the higher details would be lost of them.)

Rumors persist of an American live-action production of Akira, but I'd be afraid that such a production would feel compelled to wrap it up with a near, explain-it-all ending. That would just ruin things.

Ah well, enough for now. Back to the screen, time for Innocence.

Gar, Dead Man’s Chest!

This is a little late. Sorry. Fire me if you must.

I was one of those who contributed to the largest opening weekend in movie history, the $136 million that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest looted from the wallets of mankind. Think of the starving children that would have fed. Think of the problems of humanity that could have cured.

Naw!

I’m in a fairly dark period of my life (Who am I? Where am I going? Yadda yadda yadda?) and I got dragged into the daylight to give the film a peek. The end result?

I sort of liked it but I’m mostly disappointed.

Over at Ain't It Cool News, Moriarty said that Dead Man’s Chest is to Curse of the Black Pearl as Empire Strikes Back is to Star Wars: A New Hope. And that’s fairly accurate, except that Empire Strikes Back is the best of the six Star Wars films and one of the truly great geek sci-fi masterpieces of all time, surpassing – in my mind at least – the film that gave it birth. In that sense, Dead Man’s Chest isn’t even in the running.

But if you look at function and not results, it’s an apt comparison. Dead springs right out of the events at the end of Curse. Right from the get-go we learn that Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightly) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) were to be wed, only to have their wedding interrupted by some evil representative of the East India Company (damn them a-cursed capitalists!). Seems he has warrants for their arrest, and if convicted (an issue never in doubt) they will be hanged. Their offense? Springing Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from custody, what they did at the end of Curse.

So, voila, the story continues. Our two star-crossed lovers are now facing the consequences of their actions. Commander Norrington (Jack Davenport), who gave Jack one day’s head start, has never caught him and has resigned in disgrace. The only person relatively untouched at the beginning of Dead is Elizabeth’s father (Jonathan Pryce, a personal favorite of mine since his marvelous work in Brazil), but that won’t last.

From this promising start, with a nice, clean tie-in to the first, things go haplessly awry. Seems that Jack Sparrow sold his soul to Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) in order to be made captain of the Black Pearl (you know, his pirate ship). Well, his time is up and Davy is coming to collect.

There’s also Will’s father, Bootstrap (Stellan Skarsgard) and this I thought was a great move because it always struck me as awful what happened to Bootstrap in the first film. I mean, he essentially mutinies against the mutineers, is tied up in chains, and thrown over the side. But that’s after they’ve taken the cursed gold, which means that Bootstrap is cursed along with all of them, sitting on the bottom of the sea, in the dark, the weight of the ocean crushing on him, but unable to die! When I watched Curse and realized this was Bootstrap’s fate, I was horrified. And I was delighted to see it become a plot point in Dead.

So, let’s review. We have a promising beginning, we have a central plot, we have the opportunity for poignancy, even horror. The result? A solid shrug of the shoulders.

The movie just seems to keep jumping all over the place. Director Gore Verbinski (lovely name) can’t hold it all together. The result is a film with a noticeably darker tone (a la Empire, mind you), less humor, more (more, more!) action, way loads of confusion, and decidedly less fun. It also continues a decidedly awful trend: It’s long. Not quite Dear-God-In-Heaven-When-Will-the-Damn-Dirty-Ape-Just-Fall Peter Jackson King Kong long, but pretty close. There isn’t a reason in God’s Heaven for this film to be two and a half hours long. None.

Someone asked me if this was as “kid’s friendly” as the first, which I thought was a strange notion. There was something kid friendly in the first one, what with those skeletons gutting all those sailors? But, I supposed, that was just gratuitous violence and done in cartoon style. Here, it’s more of the same, only the humor isn’t as well done. Oh, and then there’s that human heart. You don’t see the actual extraction, but you do get to see it beating while it sits in a box. Interesting.

Now, that said, I did like the Kraken. I know other critics who complain that it just keeps popping up, but they’re full of it. The Kraken keeps popping up as part of a running battle. Saying he turns up too often is like complaining that in Sink the Bismark the British kept “popping up” too often.

Further, I really enjoyed Nighy’s turn as Davy Jones, tentacles and all. I like that members of his crew become more and more creatures of the sea. I loved the sheer horror of their fate, much more horrific than what happened to the crew of the Pearl under Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). You see, Davy Jones makes then volunteer for their fate. And I really loved Bootstrap; Skarsgard is perfect. The scenes between father and son are, for me, excellent.

There are moments of sacrifice that just feel right and proper. There is also an underlying current betrayal, a constant question of who is on whose side. By the time we meander (and I do mean meander) into the last half hour things are beginning to click. When it comes down to the cliffhanger – yes, it is a cliffhanger and you won’t see the end until next summer – I liked the turn of the last card. The final moment before the credits just made me grin from ear to ear.

And damnit, I meant to stay through the credits because there’s supposed to be a bit there that I’m sure will pop up in the next film. There was just such a bit at the end of Curse and it does pop up in this film. (Remember the monkey's fate?)

So, cursed ye pirates, I be going back for more. Gaarrr!

Hamdan: Court tells Congress to go pound sand!

I tried to read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (pdf here). Needless to say, I got a terrible headache.

The more complicated the judicial reasoning -- the more twists and turns a Court makes to support its ruling -- the more likely it is that the Court is going astray. In Plessy the Court went on and on about equal protection, rights, policies, etc., and then declared that separate was, indeed, equal. That decision stood for over 50 years, until Brown v. Board of Education said, "Er, no, no it isn't." By comparison (not just to Plessy but to ther lousy Court rulings), Brown is inspirational in its brevity.

I thought of that as I read the majority's reasoning that a Federal statute lawfully enacted by Congress didn't mean what it said, it actually meant something else, which conveniently allowed the Court to proceed.

US Supreme Court jurisdiction is subject to regulation by the Congress (see US Constitution, Article III). Ex Parte McCardle is the classic case, and the first, illustrating the matter. Like Hamdan, McCardle involved a habeas corpus action. Like Hamdan, Congress acted while the McCardle case was working its way through the courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court had already heard oral arguments on the case when Congress explicitly revoked its jurisdiction over the matter. Result? The Court said, "We no longer have jurisdiction." And then they shut up and poor Mr. McCardle was left to seek other remedies.

Would that this Court were as respectful of the Constitution.

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which said in part that only the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC has jurisdiction over any appellate action involving detained enemy combatants (e.g., the Gitmo detainees). By the plain language of the statute, the US Supreme Court should never have heard this case because Congress had explicitly removed it from the Court's jurisdiction, which the Constitution says Congress can do.

This Court thought otherwise. They used "ordinary principles of statutory construction" to say that the DTA didn't really say what it plainly said. The leaps and bounds the majority goes through to come to that conclusion are breath-taking (and, as said, headache inducing). In contrast, Scalia's dissent is straight-forward and clear. The contrast is stark and telling. The majority seized jurisdiction in a matter where the Congress -- not the President, mind you -- said they had none. So much for obeying the rule of law.And that doesn't even get to the heart of the case. Much of the ruling was by a plurality of the Court, meaning it will only be persuasive and not binding on other courts, which means it's a mess.

How a war is conducted is, by the US Constitution, the purview of the President, not the courts, and certainly not the Supreme Court. While the Congress has a say, it often must defer to the President at a time of war in how the President chooses to conduct that war. Period.

Pointedly, the Court is not in that loop at all, yet in this decision they stick their nose in and declare that they do. Most breath-taking is their invocation of Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, which by its own terms cannot apply! Common Article 3 applies in cases of civil war, strictly internal conflicts within a given, signatory nation. It does not apply to international conflicts. Seems like plain language to me, but again, not to this Court. This Court says that the current war on terror, and specifically against al Qaeda, is not an international conflict (despite being fought in nations all around the world) because al Qaeda isn't a nation.

At that point in the decision my head throbbed so hard I had to stop reading.

If anyone asks what is meant by judicial activism, this is what is meant by judicial activism. Contrary to the MSM "news" reports, Hamdan is a relatively mild rebuke of the President. Rather than a win for the rule of law, it is a defeat. It is a major slap at the Congress for having the audacity to attempt to revoke Court jurisdiction. At the end of the day, this is what we have:

• The Court can find jurisdiction whenever and wherever it wants, the explicit will of the Congress notwithstanding. (And if you're terrified of a growing tyranny, that should make your blood run cold.)
• The President is not allowed to conduct military tribunals against detained enemy combatants.
• The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't really apply to this same detainees, so they can't be tried under the UCMJ.
• The President can't try them in regular criminal court, either.
• But, and here's where it just gets to be too much fun, the President can detain them for "the duration of hostilities" because they are, after all, dangerous enemy combatants and the Court not only won't rule otherwise, it actually affirms that authority.

So if you want the detained enemy combatants released, then this ruling is horrific to your cause. As a result of this ruling, the Court has in essence said that indefinite detention is the President's only course of action. It affirms the President's power to declare someone as an enemy combatant (subject to their right to challenge that designation), it affirms that we are in a state of war, and it affirms that an enemy combatant may lawfully be detained for the duration of hostilities.

President Bush was seeking to try the worst of the detainees to move them out of the Gitmo facility and into a more regular prison facility, with a definite time for their release. Those having been handled, he could then release the remaining detainees to their countries of origin and, voila, shut down the detention facilities at Gitmo. This ruling completely stymies that effort, and leaves the 400+ detainees in their current (Court-ruled legal) state of limbo.

Oh, and as a marvelous bit of serendipity, since the Court says it does indeed have appellate jurisdiction over these matters, it may have just opened the floodgates to 600+ habeas corpus appeals. Hope they're not too busy!

Nice going, asshats of the bench!

Why is abortion still a hot button issue?

I mean, haven't you ever wondered? If Roe is "settled" law, if a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is clear and given in the US Constitution, why does it remain the #1 hot button political issue?

Because Roe is not settled law. Because such a right doesn't exist in the US Constitution. Oh, and because abortion supporters are chickenshits. Oh, and anti-abortion members of Congress are also chickenshits. Am I being blunt?

Roe is not settled law because no judicial decision ever is. During recent Senate hearings, we kept hearing about "super precedents". There is no such thing. Stare decisis, the rule of precedents in our judicial system, is a guideline and nothing more. Any past decision is subject to challenge if either the underlying facts or law have changed. For example, in Roe, one of the underlying facts had to do with viability, when a fetus could survive outside the mother's womb. Anyone keeping an eye on the medical science knows that viability improves all the time. Just ask anyone who has given birth to a premature baby. Thus one of the unlying facts of Roe has changed, and continues to change.

Roe is also not settled law because -- surprise -- it's not even the law any more. Roe was partially affirmed and partially overturned by Casey. Casey, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out during his confirmation hearing, is the law, not Roe. Most people still believe that the Roe trimester approach to abortion regulation is still in effect. Nope. The rule is Casey, and Casey says that the states are free to regulate abortion in anyway they see fit as long as it does not create an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion. A two-edged sword, Casey opened the door for states to pass laws mandating parental and spousal notification, which drives abortionists up a wall or two. However, Casey states that the right to abortion is an absolute (bye bye viability!) and opened the door to late-term abortions, such as the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion. Under Casey, a woman could be on her way to the delivery room and opt to have an abortion instead.

Do you begin to see why Roe is not "settled" law? It's not even the law, yet everyone still refers to Roe when they discuss abortion rights. It's not settled because a Court could come along and, under the right legal circumstances, toss Roe/Casey out the door. To see an example of a "super precedent" that was treated just that way, consider Plessy, which stated that separate is equal. That law was in place almost 60 years (1896 to 1954) before Brown v. Board of Education declared that separate is not equal. Poof, Plessy vanished. So much for super precedents. As measured against Plessy, Roe and Casey are infants. (No pun intended, though I like the tinge of irony.)

So now we have to wonder why Senators want Roe/Casey treated as some sort of super precedent. First, they understand perfectly that a future Court could see that Roe was one of the most horribly reasoned decisions the Court has ever made, and decide that maybe it's time to eradicate that stupidity. Erasing Roe would mandate reviewing Casey (since Casey is based on Roe), and Casey would similarly be eradicated. So pro-abortion Senators -- or, more accurately, those pandering to the pro-abortion factions -- want to avoid that at all costs.

(Please note right here and now that this is not a pro- or anti-abortion issue. This is a matter of law. And as a matter of law, Roe is one of the Court's least reasoned rulings. When we hit the issue in law school, it was amazing. Even abortion supporters couldn't figure out how the Court came to its conclusions in Roe. As one [pro-abortion] woman put it, it was as though the Court simply ruled the way it did because it wanted to, and legal reasoning be damned.)

So why are allegedly pro-abortion Senators chickenshits? Because, second, if they really gave a rat's ass about protecting a woman's "right to choose" then they would introduce legislation codifying Roe and/or Casey. That's the "check" the Legislature holds over the Judiciary. If they dislike the law that has resulted from a judicial ruling, the Legislature can pass a law reversing that ruling. (It doesn't help the poor slob impacted by the ruling; it just prevents what the Legislature perceives as future injustice.) If the Legislature really wants to keep the Court out of it, they go even further and amend the Constitution.

So if pro-abortion Senators really believed in what they were spouting, they would propose a Constitutional amendment codifying Roe, Casey, or some combination thereof. If such an amendment were successfully added to the US Constitution, there would be an actual right to an abortion, and a woman's precious "right to choose" would be protected from any present or future US Supreme Court.

Of course, the pandering bastards don't do this because they know it would never succeed. They know that the statement "most Americans support a woman's right to choose" is a half-lie because polls show that support really means support for abortion "in cases of rape or incest or if the mother's life is at risk, and then only during the first trimester." They know that the majority does not support abortion on demand, or procedures such as partial-birth abortion, or -- generally -- any abortion after the first trimester.

And I'm talking about women here, because in a number of surveys it turns out that men are far more in favor of abortion than women (contradicting claims by NOW and others). Even allowing for that, the above poll results still hold.

So those pompous bastards who bark that they support a woman's right to choose, i.e., abortion, don't. They are chickenshits.

And to that precise degree, Senators who claim to be anti-abortion are also chickenshits because they could propose legislation and/or a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe/Casey. But they don't.

So abortion remains a hot button issue when, in reality, it doesn't have to be. If one side or the other proposed legislation either supporting or tossing Roe/Casey, we -- as a nation -- could have the massive national debate over the matter that the Court in Roe denied us. We could get the issue settled. You know, do that democracy thing. That, of course, would require the US Senate to do its job rather than posture and pontificate. And they are much better at that, strutting peacocks that they are.

Kung Fu, F You!

Now this is funny.

What Kind of American English Do I Speak?

Your Linguistic Profile:

75% General American English

10% Dixie

5% Upper Midwestern

5% Yankee

0% Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

Autorantic Virtual Moonbat

I may be late to the party, but still...

Ubuntu bye bye

I give up, I surrender. Once upon a time I might have had the energy or inclination to put up with all of this, but not now and not today. Maybe if I strike it rich and can spend a week or so tinkering with an operating system (ah, the days of old...sans riches, that is) I'll give it another go. But for now...

Bye bye, Ubuntu. Bye bye, Linux.

Obviously I'm more in love with the concept of Linux (in all its assorted flavors) than with the reality of living with Linux (in any of its assorted flavors). I frankly loved working with the WindowMaker interface (window manager, in technical terms), but that's all.

What brings me to this conclusion was Ubuntu Linux Dapper Drake, v6. I had previously tried Breezy Badger (v5) and was impressed but not won over. But with Dapper, Beta 2, I really got excited. Somewhere along the line I tried a live CD and everything just worked. Cool. I used Partition Magic to open up some room on my laptop and installed the beta. Everything just worked. Perfectly.

But then I hit the release candidates. I believe it was around Beta 5 or so. The Internet just went away. Mind you, I hadn't changed a thing on this machine. After that update (downloaded via the Internet, o' irony), poof, no Internet connection. Boot over to XP, seek help, try a flurry of suggestions, nothing works.

I relaxed, figured I'd just want for the actual release before trying again. I did and when v6.06LTS was released, I bit-torrented it onto a local drive, created an install CD, and started that sucker up. Installed perfectly. Everything worked again. Oh joy and happy day!

Day.

It installed v2.6.15-23-386 of the Linux kernel. A short while later there was an update to -25- of the kernel. Bye bye, Internet. Boot back to the -23- kernel. Works for a few minutes, then nada.

Boot back to XP, searched for answers, find a slight flurry of suggestions (enough to tell me I'm not the only one with the problem), and none of them work. For that matter, none appear to work for others who are having the same issue.

So Ubuntu, as of v6.06LTS, is a Linux dead end. It was far and away the best distro I had tried. Mandrake to Mandriva, Red Hat to Fedora Core, Knoppix, SUSE, Damn Small, and even the now-defunct Evil Entity (and oh, I really wanted that one to work; the name alone made it worth the effort).

So, sigh, in a few minutes I'll press the "back up now, damnit" button on my extenal HDD. When that's done, I'll run Partition Magic and recover the space I had created for Linux. Then I'll run the XP recovery console and zap the MBR. When I'm done (in less than an hour) I'll have a pure XP laptop again. And note that all of those steps will work and I can do them with my eyes closed.

So, adios, Linux. Next time I wander through the operating system jungle, it will be to visit Mac OS X, which I understand is the best Linux/Unix distro in the known universe. Sounds good to me!

Wow, my sleep pose...

Find your own pose!

The Chicks don't get patriotism

Truly, I'll finish this and be done with The Dixie Chicks. This, however, was all just too juicy to pass up.

For the London Telegraph, The Chicks gave an interview. If they have expressed similar things in the US media, I haven't seen it. Again, we see the massive expression of their, er, bravery....

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

So, what The Chicks did had nothing to do with promoting their career. So all those appearances for Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, et al, had nothing to do with promoting their career. I get it. They speak with courage, others exploit. Sure.

Maybe they are familiar with the phrase: Good for the goose, good for the gander. Their accusation flies both ways. If we are to take their critique of Bush and Iraq as honest, then why can't we take the critique of them as honest? Oh, that's right, if you support Bush and the war you are, by definition, a lying bastard. I keep forgetting that....

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

First, let's understand what "pandering" means, aside from the traditional definition (to pander is to perform the job of a pimp, setting up customers for whores). In its current usage "to pander" or "pandering" means you are playing false to a crowd. That is, you are promoting ideas that you don't believe in but that your crowd does. You pretend support in order to gain favor from the crowd.

Remember, Maines made her original statement before a London audience, not a Texas audience. Almost seems like...pandering....

But not really because it's clear that Maines truly believes in what she said, so she wasn't pandering. When she makes the accusation here, though, she's saying that the artists using the flag and soldiers in their videos don't believe in the mission, the troops, or the country, and thus are pandering. Again, it's an easy accusation but is she saying that, oh, Tobey Keith is lying when he sings in support of the troops or the country, that he doesn't really believe in what he's singing? Again, they want it both way. Anyone who opposes Bush, the war, etc., is speaking the truth, while anyone who supports Bush, the war, etc., is pandering.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

We start with a few definitions of patriotism that you can find on the Web:

• love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; "they rode the same wave of popular patriotism"; "British nationalism was in the air and patriotic sentiments ran high"
  [wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
• Patriotism is a feeling of love and devotion to one's own homeland (patria, the land of one's fathers). This article surveys the concept of patriotism from the viewpoints of history, politics, ethics, and biology.
  [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism]
• To show love, support, and sacrifice for one's country.
  [www.nps.gov/mana/education/vocab.htm]

To be generous, I'd say that Maines is young and ignorant. Why do people care about patriotism? That depends a great deal on how much you feel you have benefitted by being a citizen of your country. I would imagine that if you had been born in Russia during the Stalin era you might not feel very patriotic, given his penchant for purges.

On the other hand, if you lived in a country that afforded you the opportunity to pursue your musical dreams, to rise to the top in your field, to have your music played throughout the country and around the world.... In other words, if you were The Dixie Chicks, wouldn't you have some love for the country that gave you birth and afforded you the opportunity to become what you are?

Well, apparently not, and she doesn't "understand the necessity" for patriotism. Given that, I can assume that if ever in the future I hear the phrases "I support the troops" or "I love my country" or anything similar coming from the mouth of Natalie Maines, she is pandering, i.e., lying through her teeth.

Oh, and a clarification re The Chicks new producer....

The recruitment of Rick Rubin as producer, the man who rejuvenated Johnny Cash, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Neil Diamond and others, is guaranteed to extend the Chicks' appeal, though it would be disappointing if the album's thoughtful range of subject matter (from IVF to Alzheimer's) was overshadowed by the Bush episode.

I don't see hip hop on the list, but Rubin may handle that, too. And I love that word, "rejuvenated". Did any of those performers need rejuvenation? Do The Chicks need rejuvenating? Interesting.

Is Howard Dean insane?

Quote:

If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America....

DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC's 'TODAY', 13 June 2006.

It is instructive to note:

1) The bit about being indicted for perjury comes from an unsupported story that TruthOut published a month ago. Their “report” was that the special prosecutor was about to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators (essentially the same charges already filed against Scooter Libby). This bit, “[i]f Karl Rove had been indicted” is beyond sheer speculation and is utterly meaningless. Rove wasn't indicted so speculating about what a non-existent indictment might have contained is inane. Dean might as easily have said, “If Rove had been indicted it would have been for bitch slapping me in public, though I did deserve it.” There was not, is not, and probably will never be an indictment against Rove for anything regarding Valerie Plame.

2) No one has been accused of “leaking the name of an intelligence operative”. No one. The possibility of such a leak, in violation of Federal law, was the reason for the entire investigation. Years into this mess, no one has been accused because in all likelihood the “crime” never occurred. A criminal law defines the elements needed to violate that law. The elements of the offense don’t exist here, so no violation of the relevant statute(s) occurred, so this “sin” is a figment of Dean’s fevered mind. This inconvenient truth (!) is constantly ignored by Joe “I Squandered My 'Credibility' for Kerry” Wilson, [No]TruthOut, [We Can't] MoveOn, and et al of the fever swamp left. It is also clearly ignored by Dr. Dean.

3) The phrase “during the time of war.” Wow, that is an amazing admission. We now have Howard Dean on record as recognizing that the United States is engaged in a war, and that this state of war existed before we invaded Iraq. A real live war. Dr. Dean should be prepared for all the consequences that flow from that state of affairs, because if you actually read the US Constitution you see that, yes, when it comes to waging war the President is allowed all sorts of latitude that he isn’t otherwise allowed. Thanks for the admission, Howard, I didn't think you comprehended reality so well!

Chicks in Space!

Amazing. We’re still in a brouhaha about the Dixie Chicks. Though most of the public comments have been made by their lead singer, Natalie Maines, she keeps being represented as lead spokescritter for The Chicks, so I’ll just keep referring to them as The Chicks. Thus....

They can say what they want, but they are not immune from criticism. They can sing what they want, but some of the lyrics of their new song just sound like whiny little bitch monkey talk. They are not “brave” and I feel like gagging any time I see the words “Dixie Chicks” and “brave” used in the same sentence, where “brave” refers to “Dixie Chicks”. Barf! See?

Over on MSNBC I read an article by some guy about “red state liberals” and how if you’re offended by The Chicks you just need to get over it because it’s what he and his have had to put up with for years, well six years. At least.

Oh puh-leez! What’s most offensive about The Chicks is precisely what’s wrong with this article. It’s this never-ending pity party, a constant whine – sometimes made with sobs, sometimes with anger -- about how repressed and oppressed they are. Barf! Damn, another gag reflex.

You want to feel repressed? Try tuning into your favorite alternative rock station and being aurally mugged because you support Bush, the battle for Iraq, and the entire worldwide war against terror. Try looking for a movie to see and anything that’s not “This Season’s Must See Blockbuster!” turns out to be another anti-Bush screed by pampered snotty little self-righteous gazillionaires. Try listening to some music and hearing that you’re an idiot for supporting Bush. Try tuning into a “left-leaning” talk show and hear that 1) you are genetically defective if you support Bush and 2) you are just a pawn for the “Bush crime family”. Try it, just for a day.

In terms of political debate, The Chicks were (are) chickenshits, okay? Dear sweet little Natalie spouted her bit in London, in front of a Chick-friendly, anti-Bush audience. She would have been brave if she had said the same shit in front of a crowd in Texas, or any other venue within the United States. But she didn’t. Instead, she was in Europe where they're none too happy with Bush to begin with. Natalie’s not stupid, she knew exactly where she was and what she was doing. When the backlash began, she and the The Chicks demanded to be immune from criticism. Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly and every other outlet for the MSM granted them the status of saints.

Why? Because country music is predominantly conservative, in terms of artists and fans and songs. So when The Chicks slipped over to the MSM's dark side, the MSM lept to their defense. And the Chicks lept, too, as they embraced the rock and hip-hop scene, publically stating that rock fans and rock stars were more in tune with what they felt and believed. Who abandoned whom?

I’m happy that The Chicks new CD is selling well (though not as well as their last). I enjoy anyone’s capitalist success. That’s true even if I think their “art” is the stuff plagues are made of, because they managed to find an audience that believes otherwise. This is true even if you’re schlock-king Dan Brown. Maybe especially if you’re schlock-king Dan Brown, because if his badly written crap can sell 60 quadrillion copies throughout the known universe, then there’s hope for the rest of us schlock-king-wannabes.

By the same token, though, I embrace everyone’s right to not buy their shit, to be offended by what they produce, and to reject what they spout. I don’t find The Chicks brave (barf!) or even interesting. If anything, they’re whiners and they’ve found a complete whiner’s support group collectively known as The Left. If you want your art to be judged, then present your art and critics be damned, but accept that critics are part of the game. If you want to spout politics, expect to get spouted back at, because that’s part of the political game.

And I should immediately make clear that anyone who sent The Chicks a death threat because of what dear sweet little Natalie said ought to be sought out and introduced, face-first, to the business end of an outhouse. At a minimum. For a start. After all, shit deserves to be introduced to shit. Clear?

If I could stand most country music, maybe I’d hear some pro-Bush or pro-American music. But I can’t so I’m stuck in hell. Since I’m stuck I might as well be amused, and nothing is funnier than a rock star who believes his/her/its music is Significant.

It’s just as bad -- no, it’s worse at the movies. There are at least four movies in production about the battle for Iraq, and all four take a negative spin. (And hey, isn’t it “too soon”?) Where is the pro point of view, the one that says deposing a murderous thug of a dictator is a good thing, that bringing democracy to a region of dictators is a good thing? The snotty of you, maybe even dear sweet little Natalie, would probably say that there is no “pro” view so therefore there cannot be a pro movie.

If so, wow, such hubris.

What the hell am I saying? “If so”? Of course it’s so! You can hear it in the way they argue, in the way the left presents the case, any case. A contrasting POV is never shown because they don’t believe one exists. You see this in all aspects of the media, but most especially in their “dramatic” presentations. Oh the brav -- Barf!

Look, anyone in the entertainment industry is voluntarily participating in slavery. This is especially so for those trying to get their little toe in the door. They live in a part of the country where millionaires have a hard time affording a home. 30 or more rent a single-room studio apartment because you need 30 poverty-level incomes to afford the rent. It’s brutal. It is a system that is not designed to encourage success. Support groups thrive. You have to live in an echo chamber that says, “You are good, you will succeed” because nothing in the business says that. Quite the opposite. Until you do succeed, that is.

If you do achieve success, you’ve been driven somewhat insane by the process. This insanity is visible in any number of ways, and The Chicks declaration of their “bravery” is just one of them. Others would include Britney Spears loving publicity while demanding her privacy and George Clooney believing he has any talent. At all.

Well, actually that last is delusional, but that’s a form of insanity, right?

And that’s not really fair since I kind of like Clooney the actor when he’s being Clooney the actor a la ER or even Three Kings, and he rocked in The Peacemaker. But when he subverts his acting for his activism...barf! Especially given that he gets Edward R. Murrow almost all wrong by leaving out the follow-up to his conflict with McCarthy, that Murrow came to agree that Communism was the major threat to the country, that maybe ol' Tail-Gunner Joe bad it right.

But maybe that’s just Hollywood. Where else would a crowd listen intently, take seriously, and then soundly applaud someone praising them and their industry by reminding them of what sort of racist drivel they often make? (In case you need clarification, during his Oscar acceptance speech Clooney noted with pride that the Academy had awarded an Oscar to a black woman. That woman was Hattie McDaniel, for her performance as Mammy, Scarlett O’Hara’s servant in Gone With the Wind. Her performance and appearance is the epitome of Aunt Jemimah, which is not an altogether flattering term -- or image -- for a black woman. God bless Hattie, but that role...ugh!)

So it’s obvious why The Chicks chose to abandon their “country roots”, embrace the rock culture, and have their latest album produced by someone who specializes in rock and hip-hop albums. That’s their crowd, that’s their base, that’s their insanity. More power to them! I wish them well and fantastic success (good for a capitalist economy to have success stories, you know).

Just don’t call them bra -- Barf!