This is worth reading for any progressive religious person who is feeling befuddled right about now. [Thanks, Bev and Jon]
|
|
||||||||
Monday, November 29
Wednesday, November 3
Four More Years
by
Paul Wishengrad
on November 3, 2004 07:11PM (EST)
Wednesday, October 27
Nothing But Respect for Sarah McLachlan
by
Paul Wishengrad
on October 27, 2004 10:42PM (EDT)
Check out this amazing video of hers - http://www.worldonfire.ca/
Did You Hear Hizzoner?
by
Paul Wishengrad
on October 27, 2004 09:50PM (EDT)
Monday afternoon Philadelphia Mayor John Street made a soundbite that got on ABC Radio News nationwide when he introduced a special guest to the gathered 100,000 Kerry/Edwards fans at the huge downtown rally: "Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the last duly elected president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton!" Ha! My hero.
Amnesty International's Global Write-a-Thon
by
Paul Wishengrad
on October 27, 2004 09:29PM (EDT)
Wow, what a great idea! Join me and a few thousand Amnesty International members in Amnesty's first annual Global Write-a-thon. On December 1st Amnesty will post (and I will update here) some cases of prisoners of conscience. At this writing, over 13,000 letters to these prisoners and their captors are pledged. I'm good for 5 or 10 postcards or letters, how about you? Read up on it and join my Delaware Letter Writing Event here. Don't worry, you don't need to be an Amnesty member - I for one have let my membership lapse, but just love this letter writing initiative. Won't you join me? Here's more about Amnesty International and some other ways you can help them Make a differenceJoin Amnesty International’s fight to defend human rights and protect lives. Sign on to our campaigns to:
And Now a Word From Al Gore
by
Paul Wishengrad
on October 27, 2004 09:10PM (EDT)
It may be politically unfashionable to listen to Al Gore right around now, but in these last days before some other man gets the majority of votes in a presidential election, I thought it wise to heed his well-chosen words regarding the deception and dysfunction of the Bush administration. They're right on target. On Monday, former Vice President Al Gore gave his "closing argument" in a passionate and powerful finale to his MoveOn speech series. The address focused on this same reality gap. Here's a short excerpt:
You can read the whole speech at: We have only days left to hold George Bush accountable. Everything you've done so far has set the stage for victory -- The end of the Bush Administration is within sight. And if we all push hard for 6 more days, we'll elect a new President on November 2nd.
Leaving Women Behind
by
Paul Wishengrad
on October 27, 2004 08:58PM (EDT)
Surprise surprise - George Bush is giving women the message they want to hear on the campaign trail, but it's a classic "bait and switch". Read more here. Friday, October 1
Even I'm Impressed
by
Paul Wishengrad
on October 1, 2004 01:41PM (EDT)
I like Bob Dreyfuss of the Dreyfuss Report's take on the first Presidential Debate - too bad only one candidate was presidential.Only the brain dead could be confused about which of those two men was presidential. Kerry impressed even me. On the other hand, we got to see what the president is like when he is Dickless. (By that, I mean that he doesn’t have Dick Cheney nearby.) The president was utterly lost. His confused, bumbling speech revealed a man so out of his depth that it is truly scary to grasp the reality that he is actually commander in chief—and I am quite sure that voters saw that. The decisive moment of the debate came when Kerry skewered Bush over the fact that it was Osama, not Saddam, who attacked us. At the moment, Bush’s three years of portraying Iraq as the enemy crumbled into dust. And Kerry’s comment that invading Iraq was like FDR invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor nailed it. Many too-close-to-the-scene observers forget that masses of voters still believe that Saddam caused 9/11, partly because their good faith in the presidency makes them believe that no president would invade the wrong country. Well, Bush did. Kerry got nearly everything right. He reamed Bush over the fact that Saddam was not a threat in 2003. When Bush said Saddam was getting stronger, Kerry pounced—Iraq was contained, sanctioned, covered with no-fly zones and full of UN inspectors. Had Bush let him alone, he would have gotten weaker, not stronger. (That’s not strictly true: more likely, the UN inspectors would have proved there were no WMD, sanctions would have been lifted, and Saddam would have stabilized.) If the debate were a fight, the refs would have stopped it midway through out of mercy. Kerry sliced and diced the president every step of the way. It’s impossible to enumerate Bush’s low points: When he said “of course” he knew that Osama attacked us? When he said that he was a “calm” guy, looking like he was about to explode into pieces? When he said that he knows fighting in Iraq is “hard work,” because he’s seen on TV how hard it is? No spin can salvage this for Bush. The early polls are overwhelming. A CNN poll was Kerry 53, Bush 37. Thirty-seven percent brain dead? Tuesday, September 28
Florida Just Won't Play Fair
by
Paul Wishengrad
on September 28, 2004 12:22PM (EDT)
Oh, THIS is just delightful: Two former US Presidents declare that the the state of Florida does not measure up to basic international fair elections standards. Read here. I mean, I hate to harp on the Sunshine State - they've been battered by 3 going on 4 hurricanes for crying in a bucket! But the Jeb Bush fiefdom is corrupt at the top.
Friday, September 3
Unmitigated Gall
by
Paul Wishengrad
on September 3, 2004 05:53PM (EDT)
by Molly Ivins Ivins nails the duplicitous rhetoric of the past week's RNC with zingers like: "The real theme of the convention is “George Bush Makes Us Safer”—as dubious a proposition as Madonna’s virginity." With pollsters showing Bush's lead on national security issues, this commentary offers liberals much-needed comic relief. Molly Ivins has been a hero of mine for years because of the way she unabashedly suffers no fools. She's had a lot to write about lo these last three and a half years. Read on! Wednesday, September 1
We're Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
by
Paul Wishengrad
on September 1, 2004 08:33PM (EDT)
The First Newspaper Endorsement of John Kerry!
by
Paul Wishengrad
on September 1, 2004 08:11PM (EDT)
The conservative daily Seattle Times is first to endorse a candidate - and during the RNC, no less! Editorial Kerry for President
Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.
The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.
The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.
The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.
A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.
This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.
Kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as Bush if given a Congress under the control of Democrats. He is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.
Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.
In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.
Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber. Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.
On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.
We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.
Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.
There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.
Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.
Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.
Boos for Moore
by
Paul Wishengrad
on September 1, 2004 07:51PM (EDT)
Fahrenheit 9-11 director Michael Moore attracted curious stares and hostility at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday. In his speech, Senator John McCain called him a 'disingenuous filmmaker' drawing boos from the crowd. President George W. Bush's unforgiving critic merely responded with this gesture and a 'thank you'. - AP Saturday, August 14
Referendum on Bush
by
Paul Wishengrad
on August 14, 2004 02:01PM (EDT)
Monday, July 12
The Patriot's Act: What's more American than asking questions? By Michael Moore / The Los Angeles Times
by
Paul Wishengrad
on July 12, 2004 04:39PM (EDT)
[Filmmaker Michael Moore wrote this LA Times editorial for Independence Day 2004] NEW YORK — As a young boy, I loved the American flag. I'd lead my younger sisters in patriotic parades up and down the sidewalk, waving the flag, blowing a whistle and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over and over until my sisters begged me to let them go back to their Easy-Bake Oven. I loved singing the national anthem. I won an essay contest on "What the Flag Means to Me." I decorated my bicycle with little American flags for a Fourth of July parade and won a prize for that too. I became an Eagle Scout and proudly promised to do my duty to God and country. And every year I asked to be the one who planted the flag on the grave of my uncle, a paratrooper who was killed in World War II. I was taught to admire his sacrifice, and I hoped to grow up and do my part, as he had, to keep us free. But, in high school, things changed. Nine boys from my school came back home from Vietnam in boxes. Draped over each coffin was the American flag. I knew that they also had made a sacrifice. But their sacrifice wasn't for their country: They were sent to die by men who lied to them. Those men — presidents, senators, government officials — wrapped themselves in the flag too, hoping that their lies would never be questioned, never be discovered. They wrapped themselves in the very flag that was placed on the coffins of my friends and neighbors. I stopped singing the national anthem at football games, and I stopped putting out the flag. I realize now I never should have stopped. For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do." Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered. These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions. I think it's time for those of us who love this country — and everything it should stand for — to reclaim our flag from those who would use it to crush rights and freedoms, both here at home and overseas. We need to redefine what it means to be a proud American. If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag, you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit: Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America? Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates? Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs? Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour? Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!)? Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust? Are you proud that more than one billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately? Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country? If these things represent what it means to be an American these days — and I am an American — should I hang my head in shame? No. Instead, I intend to perform what I believe is my patriotic duty. I can't think of a more American thing to do than raise questions — and demand truthful answers — when our leader wants to send our sons and daughters off to die in a war. If we don't do that — the bare minimum — for those who offer to defend our country, then we have failed them and ourselves. They offer to die for us, if necessary, so that we can be free. All they ask in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. And with this war, we have broken faith with our troops by sending them off to be killed and maimed for wrong and immoral reasons. This is the true state of disgrace we are living in. I hope we can make it up someday to these brave kids (and older men and women in our reserves and National Guard). They deserve an apology, they deserve our thanks — and a raise — and they deserve a big parade with lots of flags. I would like to lead that parade, carrying the largest flag. And I would like the country to proclaim that never again will a war be fought unless it is our last resort. Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink. In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride. Saturday, June 26
The Perils of The Presidency
by
Paul Wishengrad
on June 26, 2004 01:41PM (EDT)
Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a timely history lesson on the rationale for limited executive power. Gore says what too few Democrats have been willing to say since 9/11—that what Americans should be most fearful of is not Al Qaeda, but how the government exploits our fear of terrorism to expand its powers. Our nation will always face dangers, but to weaken our democratic system in the name of security will be our undoing. The following is the bulk of a speech delivered by Vice President Al Gore on Thursday, June 24, 2004, at the Georgetown University Law Center (highlights are mine). When we Americans first began, our biggest danger was clearly in view: we knew from the bitter experience with King George III that the most serious threat to democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands of an executive, whether he be a king or a president. Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power. It is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced, in order to ensure the survival of freedom. In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear. It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation’s handiwork and assess the quality of our generation’s stewardship at the beginning of this 21st century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he—the president—label any citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant,” and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen’s liberty—even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal. What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners—and that any law or treaty that attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together. What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush’s assertion that he has the inherent power—even without a declaration of war by the Congress—to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States. How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current president’s recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief? I think it is safe to say that our founders would be genuinely concerned about these recent developments in American democracy and that they would feel that we are now facing a clear and present danger that has the potential to threaten the future of the American experiment. Shouldn’t we be equally concerned? And shouldn’t we ask ourselves how we have come to this point? Even though we are now attuned to orange alerts and the potential for terrorist attacks, our founders would almost certainly caution us that the biggest threat to the future of the America we love is still the endemic challenge that democracies have always faced whenever they have appeared in history—a challenge rooted in the inherent difficulty of self governance and the vulnerability to fear that is part of human nature. Again, specifically, the biggest threat to America is that we Americans will acquiesce in the slow and steady accumulation of too much power in the hands of one person. Having painstakingly created the intricate design of America, our founders knew intimately both its strengths and weaknesses, and during their debates they not only identified the accumulation of power in the hands of the executive as the long-term threat which they considered to be the most serious, but they also worried aloud about one specific scenario in which this threat might become particularly potent—that is, when war transformed America’s president into our commander in chief, they worried that his suddenly increased power might somehow spill over its normal constitutional boundaries and upset the delicate checks and balances they deemed so crucial to the maintenance of liberty. That is precisely why they took extra care to parse the war powers in the constitution, assigning the conduct of war and command of the troops to the president, but retaining for the Congress the crucial power of deciding whether or not, and when, our nation might decide to go war. Indeed, this limitation on the power of the executive to make war was seen as crucially important. James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.” In more recent decades, the emergence of new weapons that virtually eliminate the period of time between the decision to go to war and the waging of war have naturally led to a reconsideration of the exact nature of the executive’s war-making power. But the practicalities of modern warfare which necessarily increase the war powers of the president at the expense of Congress do not render moot the concerns our founders had so long ago that the making of war by the president—when added to his other powers—carries with it the potential for unbalancing the careful design of our constitution, and in the process, threatening our liberty. President Bush has been attempting to conflate his commander-in-chief role and his head of government role to maximize the power people are eager to give those who promise to defend them against active threats. But as he does so, we are witnessing some serious erosion of the checks and balances that have always maintained a healthy democracy in America. I am convinced that our founders would counsel us today that the greatest challenge facing our republic is not terrorism but how we react to terrorism, and not war, but how we manage our fears and achieve security without losing our freedom. I am also convinced that they would warn us that democracy itself is in grave danger if we allow any president to use his role as commander in chief to rupture the careful balance between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Our current president has gone to war and has declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war, which he says justifies his reinterpretation of the Constitution in ways that increase his personal power at the expense of Congress, the courts and every individual citizen. We must surrender some of our traditional American freedoms, he tells us, so that he may have sufficient power to protect us against those who would do us harm. Public fear remains at an unusually high level almost three years after we were attacked on September 11, 2001. In response to those devastating attacks, the president properly assumed his role as commander in chief and directed a military invasion of the land in which our attackers built their training camps, were harbored and planned their assault. But just as the tide of battle was shifting decisively in our favor, the commander in chief made a controversial decision to divert a major portion of our army to invade another country that, according to the best evidence compiled in a new, exhaustive, bipartisan study, posed no imminent threat to us and had nothing to do with the attack against us. As the main body of our troops were redeployed for the new invasion, those who organized the attacks against us escaped and many of them are still at large. Indeed, their overall numbers seem to have grown considerably because our invasion of the country that did not pose any imminent threat to us was perceived in their part of the world as a gross injustice, and the way in which we have conducted that war further fueled a sense of rage against the United States in those lands and, according to several studies, has stimulated a wave of new recruits for the terrorist group that attacked us and still wishes us harm. A little over a year ago, when we launched the war against this second country, Iraq, President Bush repeatedly gave our people the clear impression that Iraq was an ally and partner to the terrorist group that attacked us, Al Qaeda, and not only provided a geographic base for them but was also close to providing them weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. But now the extensive independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind. And, of course, over the course of this past year we had previously found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So now, the president and the vice president are arguing with this commission, and they are insisting that the commission is wrong and they are right, and that there actually was a working co-operation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The problem for the president is that he doesn’t have any credible evidence to support his claim, and yet, in spite of that, he persists in making that claim vigorously. So I would like to pause for a moment to address the curious question of why President Bush continues to make this claim that most people know is wrong. And I think it’s particularly important because it is closely connected to the questions of constitutional power with which I began this speech, and will profoundly affect how that power is distributed among our three branches of government. To begin with, our founders wouldn’t be the least bit surprised at what the modern public opinion polls all tell us about why it’s so important particularly for President Bush to keep the American people from discovering that what he told them about the linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda isn’t true. Among these Americans who still believe there is a linkage, there remains very strong support for the president’s decision to invade Iraq. But among those who accept the commission’s detailed finding that there is no connection, support for the war in Iraq dries up pretty quickly. And that’s understandable, because if Iraq had nothing to do with the attack or the organization that attacked us, then that means the president took us to war when he didn’t have to. Almost 900 of our soldiers have been killed, and almost 5,000 have been wounded. Thus, for all these reasons, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have decided to fight to the rhetorical death over whether or not there’s a meaningful connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They think that if they lose that argument and people see the truth, then they’ll not only lose support for the controversial decision to go to war, but also lose some of the new power they’ve picked up from the Congress and the courts, and face harsh political consequences at the hands of the American people. As a result, President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. If he is not lying, if they genuinely believe that, that makes them unfit in battle with Al Qaeda. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick. But the truth is gradually emerging in spite of the president’s determined dissembling. Listen, for example, to this editorial from the Financial Times : “There was nothing intrinsically absurd about the WMD fears, or ignoble about the opposition to Saddam’s tyranny—however late Washington developed this. The purported link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, by contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region. It was and is nonsense.” Of course, the first rationale presented for the war was to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. Then the rationale was to liberate Iraqis and the Middle East from tyranny, but our troops were not greeted with the promised flowers and are now viewed as an occupying force by 92 percent of Iraqis, while only 2 percent see them as liberators. But right from the start, beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public’s mind. He repeatedly used this device in a highly disciplined manner to create a false impression in the minds of the American people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Usually he was pretty tricky in his exact wording. Indeed, Bush’s consistent and careful artifice is itself evidence that he knew full well that he was telling an artful and important lie—visibly circumnavigating the truth over and over again as if he had practiced how to avoid encountering the truth. But as I will document in a few moments, he and Vice President Cheney also sometimes departed from their tricky wording and resorted to statements were clearly outright falsehoods. In any case, by the time he was done, public opinion polls showed that fully 70 percent of the American people had gotten the message he wanted them to get, and had been convinced that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The myth that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together was no accident—the president and vice president deliberately ignored warnings before the war from international intelligence services, the CIA, and their own Pentagon that the claim was false. Europe’s top terrorism investigator said in 2002, "We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.” A classified October 2002 CIA report given to the White House directly undercut the Iraq-Al Qaeda claim. Top officials in the Pentagon told reporters in 2002 that the rhetoric being used by President Bush and Vice President Cheney was “an exaggeration.” And at least some honest voices within the president’s own party admitted as such. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated war hero who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said point blank, "Saddam is not in league with Al Qaeda…I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda." But those voices did not stop the deliberate campaign to mislead America. Over the course of a year, the president and vice president used carefully crafted language to scare Americans into believing there was an imminent threat from an Iraq-armed Al Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, the president told the country “You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam” and that the “true threat facing our country is an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam.” At the same time, Vice President Cheney was repeating his claim that “there is overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” By the spring, Secretary of State Powell was in front of the United Nations claiming a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.” When the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding “no credible evidence” of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, it should not have caught the White House off guard. Yet instead of the candor Americans need and deserve from their leaders, there have been more denials and more insistence without evidence. Vice President Cheney insisted even this week that “there clearly was a relationship” and that there is “overwhelming evidence.” Even more shocking, Cheney offered this disgraceful question: “Was Iraq involved with Al Qaeda in the attack on 9/11? We don’t know.” He then claimed that he “probably” had more information than the commission, but has so far refused to provide anything to the commission other than more insults. The president was even more brazen. He dismissed all questions about his statements by saying “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” He provided no evidence. They have such an overwhelming political interest in sustaining the belief in the minds of the American people that Hussein was in partnership with bin Laden that they dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever. But the damage they have done to our country is not limited to misallocation of military economic political resources. Whenever a chief executive spends prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies, he damages the fabric of democracy, and the belief in the fundamental integrity of our self-government. That creates a need for control over the flood of bad news, bad policies and bad decisions also explains their striking attempts to control news coverage. To take the most recent example, Vice President Cheney was clearly ready to do battle with the news media when he went on CNBC earlier this week to attack news coverage of the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda. He lashed out at the New York Times for having the nerve to print a headline saying the 9/11 commission “finds no Qaeda-Iraq Tie”—a clear statement of the obvious—and said there is no “fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said.” He tried to deny that he had personally been responsible for helping to create the false impression of linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Ironically, his interview ended up being fodder for the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart played Cheney’s outright denial that he had ever said that representatives of Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence met in Prague. Then Stewart froze Cheney’s image and played the exact video clip in which Cheney had indeed directly claimed linkage between the two, catching him on videotape in a lie. At that point Stewart said, addressing himself to Cheney’s frozen image on the television screen, “It’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.” Dan Rather says that post-9/11 patriotism has stifled journalists from asking government officials “the toughest of the tough questions.” It was CBS, remember, that withheld the Abu Ghraib photographs from the American people for two weeks at the request of the Bush administration. Donald Rumsfeld has said that criticism of the administration’s policy “makes it complicated and more difficult” to fight the war. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said on CNBC last September, “I think the press was muzzled and I think the press self-muzzled. I’m sorry to say but certainly television, and perhaps to a certain extent my station, was intimidated by the administration.” Bush and Cheney are spreading purposeful confusion while punishing reporters who stand in the way. It is understandably difficult for reporters and journalistic institutions to resist this pressure, which, in the case of individual journalists, threatens their livelihoods, and in the case of the broadcasters can lead to other forms of economic retribution. But resist they must, because without a press able to report “without fear or favor” our democracy will disappear. Recently, the media has engaged in some healthy self-criticism of the way it allowed the White House to mislead the public into war under false pretenses. We are dependent on the media, especially the broadcast media, to never let this happen again. We must help them resist this pressure for everyone’s sake, or we risk other wrong-headed decisions based upon false and misleading impressions. We are left with an unprecedented, high-intensity conflict every single day between the ideological illusions upon which this administration’s policies have been based and the reality of the world in which the American people live their lives. When you boil it all down to precisely what went wrong with the Bush Iraq policy, it is actually fairly simple: he adopted an ideologically driven view of Iraq that was tragically at odds with reality. Everything that has gone wrong is in one way or another the result of a spectacular and violent clash between the bundle of misconceptions that he gullibly consumed and the all-too-painful reality that our troops and contractors and diplomats and taxpayers have encountered. Of course, there have been several other collisions between President Bush’s ideology and America’s reality. To take the most prominent example, the transformation of a $5 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit is in its own way just as spectacular a miscalculation as the Iraq war. But there has been no more bizarre or troubling manifestation of how seriously off track this president’s policies have taken America than the two profound shocks to our nation’s conscience during the last month. First came the extremely disturbing pictures that document strange forms of physical and sexual abuse—and even torture and murder—by some of our soldiers against people they captured as prisoners in Iraq. And then, the second shock came just last week, with strange and perverted legal memoranda from inside the administration, which actually sought to justify torture and to somehow provide a legal rationale for bizarre and sadistic activities conducted in the name of the American people, which, according to any reasonable person, would be recognized as war crimes. In making their analysis, the administration lawyers concluded that the president, whenever he is acting in his role as commander in chief, is above and immune from the “rule of law.” At least we don’t have to guess what our founders would have to say about this bizarre and un-American theory. By the middle of this week, the uproar caused by the disclosure of this legal analysis had forced the administration to claim they were throwing the memo out and it was, “irrelevant and overbroad.” But no one in the administration has said that the reasoning was wrong. And in fact, a DOJ spokesman says they stand by the tortured definition of torture. In addition the broad analysis regarding the commander-in-chief powers has not been disavowed. And the view of the memo—that it was within commander-in-chief power to order any interrogation techniques necessary to extract information—most certainly contributed to the atmosphere that led to the atrocities committed against the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib. We also know that President Bush rewarded the principle author of this legal monstrosity with a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Bush, meanwhile, continues to place the blame for the horrific consequences of his morally obtuse policies on the young privates and corporals and sergeants who may well be culpable as individuals for their actions, but who were certainly not responsible for the policies which set up the Bush Gulag and led to America’s strategic catastrophe in Iraq. I call on the administration to disclose all its interrogation policies, including those used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and those employed by the CIA at its secret detention centers outside the U.S., as well as all the analyses related to the adoption of those policies. The Bush administration’s objective of establishing U.S. domination over any potential adversary led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war, a painful adventure marked by one disaster after another based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the U.S. soldiers trapped over there and the Iraqis in prison. The top-heavy focus on dominance as a goal for the U.S. role in the world is exactly paralleled in their aspiration for the role of the president to be completely dominant in the constitutional system. Our founders understood even better than Lord Acton the inner meaning of his aphorism that power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. The goal of dominance necessitates a focus on power. Ironically, all of their didactic messages about how democracies don’t invade other nations fell on their own deaf ears. The pursuit of dominance in foreign and strategic policy led the bush administration to ignore the United nations, do serious damage to our most alliances in the world, violate international law and risk the hatred of the rest of the world. The seductive exercise of unilateral power has led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that would have been the worst nightmare of our framers. And the kind of unilateral power he imagines is fools gold in any case. Just as its pursuit in Mesopotamia has led to tragic consequences for our soldiers, the Iraqi people, our alliances, everything we think is important, in the same way the pursuit of a new interpretation of the presidency that weakens the Congress, courts and civil society is not good for either the presidency or the rest of the nation. If the congress becomes an enfeebled enabler to the executive, and the courts become known for political calculations in their decisions, then the country suffers. The kinds of unnatural, undemocratic activities in which this administration has engaged, in order to aggrandize power, have included censorship of scientific reports, manipulation of budgetary statistics, silencing dissent, and ignoring intelligence. Although there have been other efforts by other presidents to encroach on the legitimate prerogatives of congress and courts, there has never been this kind of systematic abuse of the truth and institutionalization of dishonesty as a routine part of the policy process. Two hundred and twenty years ago, John Adams wrote, in describing one of America’s most basic founding principles, “The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them…to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” The last time we had a president who had the idea that he was above the law was when Richard Nixon told an interviewer, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal… If the president, for example approves something, approves an action because of national security, or, in this case, because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant order, then the president’s decision in this instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law.” Fortunately for our country, Nixon was forced to resign as president before he could implement his outlandish interpretation of the Constitution, but not before his defiance of the Congress and the courts created a serious constitutional crisis. The two top Justice Department officials under President Nixon, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, turned out to be men of great integrity, and even though they were loyal Republicans, they were more loyal to the constitution and resigned on principle rather than implement what they saw as abuses of power by Nixon. Then Congress, also on a bipartisan basis, bravely resisted Nixon’s abuse of power and launched impeachment proceedings. In some ways, our current president is actually claiming significantly more extra-constitutional power, vis-à-vis Congress and the courts, than Nixon did. For example, Nixon never claimed that he could imprison American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime and without letting the see a lawyer or notify their families. And this time, the attorney general, John Ashcroft, is hardly the kind of man who would resign on principle to impede an abuse of power. In fact, whenever there is an opportunity to abuse power in this administration, Ashcroft seems to be leading the charge. And it is Ashcroft who picked the staff lawyers at Justice responsible for the embarrassing memos justifying and enabling torture. Moreover, in sharp contrast to the courageous 93rd Congress that saved the country from Richard Nixon’s sinister abuses, the current Congress has virtually abdicated its constitutional role to serve as an independent and coequal branch of government. Instead, this Republican-led Congress is content, for the most part, to take orders from the president on what they vote for and what they don’t vote for. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate have even started blocking Democrats from attending conference committee meetings, where legislation takes its final form, and instead, they let the president’s staff come to the meetings and write key parts of the laws for them. (Come to think of it, the decline and lack of independence shown by this Congress would shock our founders more than anything else, because they believed that the power of the Congress was the most important check and balance against the unhealthy exercise of too much power by the Executive branch.) This administration has not been content just to reduce the Congress to subservience. It has also engaged in unprecedented secrecy, denying the American people access to crucial information with which they might hold government officials accountable for their actions, and a systematic effort to manipulate and intimidate the media into presenting a more favorable image of the Administration to the American people. Listen to what U.S. News and World Report has to say about their secrecy: "The Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government—cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters." Here are just a few examples, and for each one, you have to ask, what are they hiding, and why are they hiding it? More than 6000 documents have been removed by the Bush administration from governmental Web sites. To cite only one example, a document on the EPA Web site giving citizens crucial information on how to identify chemical hazards to their families. Some have speculated that the principle threat to the Bush administration is a threat by the chemical hazards if the information remains available to American citizens. To head off complaints from our nation’s governors over how much they receive under federal programs, the Bush administration simply stopped printing the primary state budget report. To muddy the clear consensus of the scientific community on global warming, the White House directed major changes and deletions to an EPA report that were so egregious that the agency said it was too embarrassed to use the language. They’ve kept hidden from view Cheney’s ultra-secret energy task force. They have fought a pitched battle in the courts for more than three years to continue denying the American people the ability to know which special interests and lobbyists advised with Vice President Cheney on the design of the new laws. And when mass layoffs became too embarrassing they simply stopped publishing the regular layoff report that economists and others have been receiving for decades. For this administration, the truth hurts, when the truth is available to the American people. They find bliss in the ignorance of the people. What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it? In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing Constitutional power grab by the president. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public’s mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties—again on his personal discretion—and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election. War is lawful violence, but even in its midst we acknowledge the need for rules. We know that in our wars there have been descents from these standards, often the result of spontaneous anger arising out of the passion of battle. But we have never before, to my knowledge, had a situation in which the framework for this kind of violence has been created by the president, nor have we had a situation where these things were mandated by directives signed by the Secretary of Defense, as it is alleged, and supported by the National Security Advisor. Always before, we could look to the chief executive as the point from which redress would come and law be upheld. That was one of the great prides of our country: humane leadership, faithful to the law. What we have now, however, is the result of decisions taken by a president and an administration for whom the best law is NO law, so long as law threatens to constrain their political will. And where the constraints of law cannot be prevented or eliminated, then they maneuver it to be weakened by evasion, by delay, by hair-splitting, by obstruction and by failure to enforce on the part of those sworn to uphold the law. In these circumstances, we need investigation of the facts under oath, and in the face of penalties for evasion and perjury. We need investigation by an aroused congress whose bipartisan members know they stand before the judgment of history. We cannot depend up on a debased Department of Justice given over to the hands of zealots. “Congressional oversight” and “special prosecution” are words that should hang in the air. If our honor as a nation is to be restored, it is not by allowing the mighty to shield themselves by bringing the law to bear against their pawns: it is by bringing the law to bear against the mighty themselves. Our dignity and honor as a nation never came from our perfection as a society or as a people: it came from the belief that in the end, this was a country which would pursue justice as the compass pursues the pole: that although we might deviate, we would return and find our path. This is what we must now do. Wednesday, June 16
When Going to a Movie is Patriotic
by
Paul Wishengrad
on June 16, 2004 10:44PM (EDT)
Help Make Fahrenheit 9/11 a Huge Hit[from MoveOn.org] Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11 is an incredibly powerful movie that lays bare the cynicism and greed behind Bush's war policy. The astonishing and revealing footage in it has the power to change the course of the 2004 election.Given how devastating the movie is to President Bush's carefully crafted facade, it's hardly surprising that right-wing groups who call Moore a "domestic enemy" are using censorship and intimidation tactics to try to get it pulled from theaters. That's why we've got to do everything we can to make the opening a huge success. We're asking people to pledge to see the film on the opening night -- Friday, June 25th. (If you can only make it on Saturday or Sunday, that's OK too.) To pledge, just head to MoveOn.org's site. And watch the trailer while you're there! It looks like it's gonna be highly entertaining - never has your patriotic activism been so easy. Make the movie a BIG HIT in it's first weekend. Studios make all their plans for the future of a film (broad release or bargain bin) based on the box office for the FIRST weekend. Now you can actually "Do the Right Thing" by finding and seeing a movie! It's the movie the Bush Adminstration doesn't want you to see. Friday, June 11
From StoptheNRA.com
by
Paul Wishengrad
on June 11, 2004 06:40PM (EDT)
Momentum is building and pressure is mounting for Congress to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. With less than 30 legislative days left before the ban expires, we must maintain this momentum. Here's what's been going on:
Here's what happens if the ban expires:
Tuesday, June 8
On Being Optimistic
by
Paul Wishengrad
on June 8, 2004 11:27PM (EDT)
Dear Senator Biden -
Lately I've noticed that you are being increasingly sought out for sound bites and other "opposing viewpoint" quotes by both news agencies and those other "fair and balanced" talking head shows. Today your voice aired here at WJBR-FM during the 4pm national news, provided by the ABC radio network.
You were quoted as an example of the rightly bipartisan eulogizing of Ronald Reagan, and your comments alluded to Reagan's optimism: "You cannot lead a great nation like ours without being an optimist."
Sir, I write today to laud your choice of words - thank you for your part in returning positive thought and optimism into the national dialogue. I have no doubt about the sincerity of your remark, but I'm also pleased that it signals that you and your colleagues recognize the demeaning language of fear and dependency that President Bush has empowered himself with since 9/11.
About a year ago The Nation published an article called "A Nation of Victims" which documented Bush's use of "dominating linguistic techniques" and the same sort of "dependency creating language" used by domineering spouses in abusive relationships. Psychologists have pulled the veil away from his paralyzing use of "learned helplessness" - the method of amplifying fearful events into seemingly lasting conditions. He has been persistent in wearing down the electorate by creating and sustaining more fear, then propping himself up as the only solution. (To read the full article, click here.)
If I'm right in this notion that you in the Democratic leadership aim to align the party with a sense of optimism, to encourage and empower the American people with your words, and to echo FDR's truism that we have nothing to fear but fear itself - then I applaud you! One need only look at John Edward's unexpected success in the Iowa caucuses to realize that the people of America - sometimes unbeknownst to themselves - really do want to believe and hope in themselves and their country!
We have hot, humid weather conditions in the Delaware Valley this week. Some of us announcers at WJBR choose not to harp on at length about how dangerous or oppressive the conditions are, choosing instead to end with which day the low pressure system will bring relief - as it always does. The listeners want to hope for something.
Caution, sir! When I say that Americans want a positive message, I do not mean that our rhetoric should be tame, not standing in strong opposition to the Bush Administrations policies - we can't win if we're not bold! But the listener should come away from Dems speech with a renewed sense of hope and purpose. We must shout forcefully to drown out the fear mongering, and continue on through the false attacks on our patriotism. This refusal to breed fear in our own country - to transform the thrust of our speech into one of inevitable success and victory - is the very essence of patriotism!
And while we're at it, we Dems should listen to ourselves.
Keep up the good work! I think you are "right on message".
Respectfully,
Paul L. Wishengrad
Wilmington, DE
It's Just Opposition, Stupid!
by
Paul Wishengrad
on June 8, 2004 09:59PM (EDT)
by Katrina vanden Heuvel Have you noticed how sensitive some of these Republicans are? When did plain and simple opposition become political hate speech? After former Vice-President Al Gore delivered a smart, sometimes humorous, and ultimately scathing critique of the Bush Administration's assault on the environment in a speech in New York City last Thursday, GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie characterized Gore's remarks as "political hate speech" and called on him to repudiate such "vile tactics." (Click here for the full text of Gore's speech.) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay--who dishes it out but can' t take it--had the same overheated reaction to Senator Edward Kennedy's powerful talk last week in which he accused Bush and his advisers of capitalizing on fear from the September 11th attacks and putting "a spin on truth to justify a war that could well become one of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American foreign policy." (Click here to read Kennedy's remarks.) Kennedy's speech, according to DeLay--the man aptly called the Hammer--was a "hateful attack" that "insulted the President's patriotism." Someone's gotta get these guys into a good Con-Law class fast before they brand the Bill of Rights a subversive document because it protects the right to dissent--or what Gillespie calls "political hate speech." Thursday, June 3
The NRA Must Be Stopped
by
Paul Wishengrad
on June 3, 2004 07:14PM (EDT)
-from StoptheNRA.com Dear Friend, If you are going to get involved in renewing the Assault Weapons Ban ... the time is now. Congress is in session for only 30 more days before the ban expires later this summer. If the ban isn’t renewed, in most states, new assault weapons will be sold at gun shows without even a background check. That means assault weapons could be sold to anyone: criminals, gang members, drug dealers, and terrorists. Over 75 percent of Americans agree that the Assault Weapons Ban must be renewed. Every police organization in the country, religious groups, educators and scores of other mainstream organizations agree. In fact, there is only one group in the country in favor of letting the ban end: The National Rifle Association. And so far President Bush is listening to the NRA over every other constituency. We cannot let this ban expire. Here's what happens if the NRA wins: 1. In most states, eighteen-year-olds will be able to walk into gun stores and buy new American-made AK-47s. 2. In many states, it will be possible to bring concealed TEC-9 assault pistols, loaded with thirty rounds of ammunition, into bars, churches and sports arenas, and even public schools or universities. 3. In many states kids as young as 13 will be able to buy brand new American-made AK-47s at gun shows and through the classifieds. 4. New assault weapons will be advertised over the internet. 5. New rapid-fire ammunition magazines that allow guns to fire up to 100 rounds without reloading will be mass-produced and sold on a cash-and-carry basis to anyone, with no questions or background checks. Here's how you can help renew the ban: 2. sign our petition if you haven't yet 3. forward this mail to everyone you know Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a past presidential race that he would find it hard to back any candidate who favored repealing the federal assault weapons ban. "Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues." Thank you for your support. stoptheNRA.comWednesday, May 26
"Fair and Balanced"
by
Paul Wishengrad
on May 26, 2004 01:09PM (EDT)
Following live coverage of President George W. Bush's 31-minute May 24 speech on U.S. policy in Iraq, during primetime, at 8 p.m. (ET), MSNBC, CNN, and FOX devoted the remainder of the hour to analysis and commentary. On MSNBC, host Chris Matthews anchored a special edition of Hardball, which began an hour before Bush's speech and continued afterward. Following Bush's speech, Matthews switched to a lengthy interview with Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, offering a Democratic view. Biden was followed by Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), giving a view from congressional Republicans. On CNN, host Paula Zahn anchored an abbreviated form of her show Paula Zahn Now, headlined "Special Edition: Countdown to Handover." After canvassing CNN White House and Pentagon correspondents, Zahn featured an interview with former President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who offered a Democratic view. Albright was followed by Joe Klein, a regular contributor to Zahn's show and a Time magazine senior writer, and then by an exchange between Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), the former vice-presidential candidate. The lineup on FOX News Channel was strikingly different; no Democrats were heard from. Fox's coverage was anchored by FOX News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume, who moved from Bush to a panel of pundits that included pro-Bush, pro-war conservative syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer; pro-Bush, pro-war conservative Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes; and Washington Post staff writer Ceci Connolly—FOX News contributors all. National Public Radio senior correspondent and FOX News Channel political contributor Juan Williams, who often appears on Hume's daily 6 p.m. newscast and has been critical of Bush's polices in Iraq, did not appear on the primetime panel. Following the panel of two conservative pundits and one news reporter, Hume introduced Rep. Peter King (R-NY) as "one who supports the President on this issue." King described the Bush address as "uplifting," "poetry," and said Bush spoke "almost lyrically." After a brief exchange with FOX senior White House correspondent Jim Angle, Hume returned to his stacked panel for closing remarks. Krauthammer was given the last word: "He had to answer a question, 'does he have a plan?' The answer is yes, he has a plan, with details and dates. He succeeded." -Tompaine.com/blogs Wednesday, May 12
What's Up With Kayaks on Cars?
by
Paul Wishengrad
on May 12, 2004 09:22PM (EDT)
Alright - that Hyundai Santa Fe commericial on TV makes three new auto ads I've seen in the last week featuring a kayak atop a vehicle! One ad has two guys toting their boats through the streets of San Francisco to the ballpark, to the tune of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame". I forget the third one. Two thoughts: Are there no original thoughts in the advertising world? Perhaps some market research study discovered that yuppie car buyers who stated that they were "D) Likely to buy a new sport utility vehicle in the next 3 to 6 months" also associated themselves with the small sector of society that actually owns and uses self-propelled personal watercraft. And secondly: Put me on record as regularly putting my own homebuilt kayak on top of my vehicle since 1996! I confess I used to carry The Widowmaker with a (shudder) Chevy Blazer SUV, but I've atoned for that in the form of financed overage payments folded into the current monthly payments for my latest vehicle. I've been happily carrying that most seaworthy kayak down to the river's edge with my most roadworthy Subaru Forester.
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara
by
Paul Wishengrad
on May 12, 2004 01:10PM (EDT)
A masterpiece from gifted filmmaker Errol Morris. As if ripped from today's gripping headlines, the documentary is the thought-provoking, historically riveting story of America as seen through the eyes of Robert S. McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under the administrations of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Inspired by the book "Wilson's Ghost," "The Fog of War" is a 20th Century fable, a story of an American dreamer who rose from humble origins to the heights of political power. One of the last century's most controversial and influential figures in world politics, McNamara takes us on an insider's journey through many of the seminal events of the 20th Century -- from the firebombing of 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo in 1945 to the brink of nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban missile crisis to the devastating effects of the Vietnam War. Through unreleased archival footage and first-hand account interviews with McNamara conducted over a span of two years, "The Fog of War" is not a standard historical drama but rather an important personal drama of a provocative historical figure. Winner of the Best Documentary Oscar, the Best Documentary Award from the National Board of Review and the Los Angeles and Chicago Film Critics Associations, among many, many other honors. Director: Errol Morris. -onvideo.org Wednesday, May 5
Capturing the Friedmans
by
Paul Wishengrad
on May 5, 2004 11:21PM (EDT)
Absolutely remarkable. "Capturing the Friedman's" on DVD. Not so much for the adult subject matter, although it does do so much to look at the alleged abuses from every conceivable angle. The brief visit with the notion that mass hysteria can result in a sort of victim's competition is utterly amazing to me. The suburban Long Islanders actually found another way to strive to "keep up with the Jones'"! Only in America. No, the most remarkable thing about "Capturing the Friedmans" is the filmmaker embarrassment of riches in the form of footage! It's a documentarian's DREAM in terms of access. We have home movies of their childhoods - which I suspect were judiciously pared down to the bare minimum from a wealth of footage. We have video from the night before sentencing and the night before imprisonment, complete with most private utterances, feelings, faces and gestures. We have someone carrying a running camera during the courthouse attack (I had to rewind and watch it again). We have David's weeping on his video diary, for crying out loud! Is Seth the only sane one? And while we're asking questions, let's not forget the big one about Jesse: Did he or didn't he? I cannot tell, and that speaks volumes to the skills of director Andrew Jarecki and editor Richard Hankin. Genre question - is "Friedmans" a documentary? It has more polish than all D.A. Pennebakers films combined. And you could argue that when the family turns the camera on itself, "Friedmans" ceases to be a simple document. Documentarians know their subjects intimately and seek to communicate aspects to the audience. When it's a Friedman son doing the filming, the tables are turned - we become intimate with both the guilt and the cluelessness of the subject/filmmakers. And they are seemingly helpless to escape the cycle. By the time Uncle Howard chimed in for the fifth time, I felt I had endured a weekend seminar on family dysfunction. It was masterful to push back Howard's revelations to near the end. Even the most robust examples of the annoying new unscripted (aka "reality") TV Hollywood churns out pales in comparison to the crackling voyeuristic intensity captured by those around the Friedman family -- and those camera-wielding Friedmans themselves! Tuesday, April 20
Despite What You Read: Bush is Cutting OT
by
Paul Wishengrad
on April 20, 2004 07:45PM (EDT)
Today, the Bush administration is formally introducing new rules that will make millions of people ineligible for overtime protection when they work more than 40 hours per week. This change has been in the works for months, and thousands of people have called on Congress to oppose the new rules. Congress has responded -- bipartisan majorities in both houses have voted against rolling back overtime. Bush is feeling the heat, but his corporate-CEO backers are determined to fatten their profits by shortchanging working people, so the White House is pushing ahead with the new rules, accompanied by an aggressive spin campaign. Already, stories in the AP and the Washington Post have suggested that Bush had a last-minute change of heart, and acted to extend overtime protections to more people, rather than gutting them. Don't be fooled. The rules introduced today would in fact take away overtime pay from workers earning as little as $23,660.- a year. This would be a huge pay cut for potentially millions of working Americans and their families. It's urgent that we get the real story out. Can you help, by sending a letter to the editor of your newspaper today? Writing a letter takes only a few minutes, and we've made it easy with tips and talking points, below. Please take a few minutes to send a letter to your editor today. If you want to get your letter published, don't be like me. Don't give the editor a choice of whether they are a) fools or b) compliant lap dogs. That choice is a "no-win" proposition. Either the editorial board at your paper was buffaloed by Commerce Secretary Elaine Chao and the rest of the administration - OR - they are a "Cut and Paste" propaganda conduit for any bunk the administration feeds them in a press release. You see, asking the paper if they take their Fifth Estate Watchdog mandate seriously will hurt your letter's chances of getting some ink. Take it from the angry voice of experience. Thursday, April 15
June 30th = Chaos and Death in Iraq
by
Paul Wishengrad
on April 15, 2004 06:40PM (EDT)
Dear friend, The violence in Iraq is escalating beyond our control. It's time to recognize that we need the world's help to reach the hearts and minds of Iraqis. We've got to transfer management authority over Iraq to the United Nations, to enable a real transition to peaceful Iraqi self-rule. Please join me in calling for this change, at: http://www.moveon.org/unauthority/ 60 Americans and reportedly hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in just the past week; 677 Americans have died in Iraq since the war began. A religious leader hostile to the United States now controls two cities, and has sparked uprisings in two others. Dozens of foreigners have been taken hostage. The growing opposition to American rule among the Iraqi population "probably runs in the tens of thousands", consisting of people who "have jobs in vegetable shops, offices, garages, and schools," according to the New York Times. These people, who should comprise the civil society we're hoping to build there, instead are arming themselves and awaiting the call to attack Americans. Our troops in Iraq are stretched thin -- U.S. commanders are asking for more troops, and there's talk of a draft, perhaps to be announced just after our November elections. Instead of simply redoubling our commitment, we should support our soldiers by taking the bull's-eye off their backs. As Thomas Friedman put it, "If it is America alone against the Iraqi street, we lose. If it is the world against the Iraqi street, we have a chance." Join me in calling for a transfer of authority over Iraq to the U.N., at: http://www.moveon.org/unauthority/ Thanks. Wednesday, April 14
The Barbarian Invasions
by
Paul Wishengrad
on April 14, 2004 10:28PM (EDT)
This post is for you who have already seen Denys Arcand's award-winning "The Barbarian Invasions". The French gem (aka: Les Invasions Barberes) won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, and I recommend you pick it up on DVD next month. I had the good fortune to see it on the big screen at Delaware's preeminent (and only) Independent Film House, Theatre N. I didn't expect a film about an emotionally chilly son and his teminally ill father to be quite so entertaining! Leave it to the French to blend dialog about fear of death and the void of nothingness beyond with double entendres about oral sex. Those who are averse to or only tolerant of subtitles will not have a good time with "The Barbarian Invasions". Better read quick because it's a giddily wordy film, like "My Dinner with Andre" around a hospital bed. And the character of Sister Constance in the hospital is a peculiar device. She is the mode via which Arcand fills us in on the film's background. Rather than flashing back or bringing us up to speed with other methods, we learn along with the sweet Quebecois naif all about the dying man and his family. And speaking of the hospital, what do you perceive to be the filmmaker's take on Canada's Medicare system? It's the subject of great derision, but in a sort of shoulder-shrugging way. I couldn't help thinking of all the tanned Academy voters living in southern California thanking their lucky stars that their elective surgeries (lipo, tummy tucks, facials, boob lifts and the like) are not subject to 6 - 9 month waiting lists.
Infuriating Press Conference
by
Paul Wishengrad
on April 14, 2004 09:50PM (EDT)
Last night President Bush baited the major networks and newsgathering organizations with the promise of a press conference, then proceeded to use the first 18 minutes to propagandize the nation. "Stay the course" was the theme, even though this last week has seen more lives lost, both military and civilian. Some of the Japanese, Italian and American civilians that have been missing were executed, some were returned, some are still MIA. Two warlords have seized cities and done what "Coalition" Forces and the temporary Iraqi Governing Council couldn't: they have galvanized grass roots support. Instead of blossoming optimism about the promise of rights and freedoms borne of imminent democracy, this Spring 2004 will be remembered as the season ordinary Iraqis took up arms and took to the streets, excited for an opportunity to take out one of the American invaders. Why are Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney so baffled that people from other lands behave in different and unexpected ways? I can hear them in the Situation Room: "Why are they shooting at us? We're their liberators!" Last night President Bush pursed his lips and redoubled his resolve: America will live up to it's promise to see this ill-fated, poorly planned invasion through to the handover date of June 30th. In the meanwhile, people will continue to die scampering around putting out the Warlord's fires. Just like our own heroes of the American Revolution, they aren't fighting fair! Women and children shoot our own anti-tank missles at us from schools, hospitals, and mosques. Author and historian David Halberstam gave a lecture here in Wilmington back in early fall 2000, weeks before the election. The point that lingers on is his observation that the GOP spends all their time and money campaigning with their take on domestic issues, relegating foreign policy to secondary status. The historian cited multiple times when, after election, that lack of foreign policy emphasis jumped up and bit them on the ass within two years. Halberstam was talking about a general all-American condescension that led to a lack of any cogent foreign policy before the emergencies. He could not be more on target with this administration, except perhaps in underestimating it's epic cluelessness! During reporters' questioning, George Bush chose to avoid any notion of responsibility for any of the failures of this botched operation, choosing rather to attempt to brainwash the American People into believing that our young American war dead have "died for the cause of freedom". Friends and families of the 677 (and counting) casualties are coming to realize that they died so that Haliburton could rebuild. Wednesday, March 10
Ask a Filmmaker at IMDb.com
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 10, 2004 07:55PM (EST)
Internet Movie Database (or IMDb) is a terrific resource for film lovers, you probably have used it before. I just discovered a fascinating FAQ series they are doing on a weekly basis called "Ask a Filmmaker". Every Monday three guest columnists from the world of Independent Film simply answer a short question about their craft! A successful Screenwriter, Director and Cinematographer each field a selected question emailed in by a reader. It's fascinating stuff, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Tuesday, March 9
Sign the Petition to Fire Rod Paige
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 9, 2004 08:02PM (EST)
President Bush's Secretary of Education Rod Paige has labeled teachers who object to his poorly planned and underfunded "No Child Left Behind" policy as "a terrorist organization". When the NEA had the temerity to insist that Bush live up to his own promise to fund education, the Secretary took a page from his boss' playbook: Question the Patriotism of those who Object. But Paige took it way too far by equating the real heros - the teachers - with those who perpetrated 9/11! And can one call it an "apology" if the Contrite Party insults the Offended Party still further? Secretary Paige called the teachers' actions "obstructionist scare tactics" while attempting to apologize! I call that "spin control" - not apologizing. We teach our kids not to use name-calling, and to be sincere when we apologize. Because Secretary Paige is unsuited for the job and unable to "play nice", I hope you'll join me in demanding he be FIRED (Click here to go to the petition), and replaced with someone who can work with the teachers in bringing up the next generation of Americans. It's too important. Agree? Disagree? Simply click on Leave Comment below if you want to stay anonymous, or go ahead and Create Reader Account (above right, by the login) so I know who is saying what. Just remember it's a public bulletin board. Thanks!
Operation "Fear and Smear"
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 9, 2004 07:09PM (EST)
Zero private sector jobs were produced in the USA last month, providing further evidence that President Bush's economic policies have failed. Bush is the only president since Herbert Hoover to oversee a net loss of jobs during his presidency, a fact which is catching up to him. Fifty-nine percent of Americans disapprove of President Bush's handling of the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC news poll. Concurrent with this, President Bush is spending 3-5 days a week at GOP fundraisers. Last night he began using the name and attacking the voting record of his presumptive opponent John Kerry. Using his trademark language of fear, and twisting the truth like an experienced pro, Bush reported that Kerry voted to cut Intelligence spending nine years ago, and that is no way to behave "in a time of war". What the president failed to point out to the 1100 assembled was that there was no war on nine years ago, and that Kerry has voted for increased funding for Intelligence three times since that "no" vote nine years ago. Bush continues to warp the record and use terminology recognized by experts to be promoting a cycle of fear and dependence. It works the same way as an abusive relationship: the insecure husband or father (Bush) tells the woman or child (the nation) that life outside the house is riddled with danger - these are perilous times, after all - and that venturing from his protective custody will mean harm or death. The villain fans the flames of fear, while at the same time, reassuring the victim that he alone is the source of protection and salvation. Keep them in line with fear. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. So it begins, the misinformation campaign of "Fear and Smear" aimed at actually promoting Americans' sense of terror for political gain! It's in hopes of distracting them from the fact that we are suffering a history-making job hemmorage. Good thing the American people are too smart to fall for that for very long. The way folks in the heartland flocked to John Edwards' message of hope like a thirsty camel to water - that tells the real story. And I hate to say it, but it's good thing for Democratic hopefuls that gas prices should be hitting the $3 mark right around the end of summer. Saturday, March 6
A Few Lost "Must See" Films for 2003
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 6, 2004 06:32PM (EST)
They're lost in the shuffle of the Golden Globes, SAG Awards, various critics' fetes and the Oscars. Maybe they get a mention at the Independent Spirit Awards... sometimes? I'm talking about a personal list of relatively unsung films that brought me a lot of enjoyment. Sure, I probably told you I loved "Lord of the Rings" or "Cold Mountain". This article is to tell you about some lesser-known films that I may have forgotten to mention. It's thanks to Theatre N that I know about them, and now you should rent them on DVD because a great film is a terrible thing to miss, agreed? Did you see The Cooler? It's a strange little romance set in Vegas, of all places! My homegirl Maria Bello is in it! We went to the same church as me growing up, her interplay with always great William H Macy and Alec Baldwin are nuanced and authentic. Take a look at the trailer at Imdb. It contains one standout moment in that I would nominate for indy film moment of the year. When Bello's character is threatened and badgered by Baldwin's into thinking that she is worthless, that no one would miss her if she were gone (as he is threatening to do), she shrieks back "Bernie would!" at the top of her lungs. That line hooked me into the movie, but I really enjoyed Macy and Baldwin for their tired and contentious working relationship that revolves around the Vegas "Old School" of doing business. Note to self: Pick up "The Cooler" soundtrack CD - jazzy. The Fast Runner had a profound impact on me, but give yourself a few hours on a rainy Sunday to drink in it's simple majesty. Filmed by North American Inuit people in their native tongue (with subtitles), it's an epic without a cast of thousands. It's a story as timeless and full of humanity as anything by Shakespeare, and it's set amid both the tight confines and the awesome glacial infinities that make up the Inuits icy cold existence. Maybe a good "dog daysof Summer" rent? It's an amazing achievement, totally engrossing, techically brilliant and honestly acted by gifted Inuit people. Watch for the "making of" insights while the credits roll, they enhance still further what has gone before. And I was simply swept away by the charming L'Auberge Espaniol! Perhaps the name problem kept it from wider acclaim -- it was also released as "The Spanish Apartment". It's a coming-of-age story of a French student who decides to study abroad in Barcelona. The European Exchange Studies program called Erasmus is a big bureaucracy that drops him in the Spanish metropolis essentially on his own - without housing and unable to speak Spanish. Once he begins the living situation in the titular apartment, his experience changes for the better. The halfdozen roommates crammed into the place hail from all over Europe, the UK and America. While there is some familiar stereotyping, the characters are unpredictable and original - and funny! It was refreshing to see the Brit roommate's visiting brother taking on the role of the ignorant xenophobe. Instead of an Ugly American we got an Ugly Brit... maybe the film's producers wanted to avoid insulting their largest foreign market? The student stumbles into love and sex during school year, while at the same time struggling with his devotion to his French sweetheart. After all the hardships and the laughter (and the original characters they are shared with) I came away as though I had lived the semester with him in the apartment. I've bought the DVD (which is saying something) and look forward to showing my daughter the potential ups and downs of studying overseas. She's gonna love it.
Film Review: House of Sand and Fog
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 6, 2004 05:18PM (EST)
This doesn't happen very often, but despite some terrific performances, I had a negative reaction to "House of Sand and Fog". Some are saying that this is what director Vadim Perelman intended! Films that get Oscar nominations get my attention in late January and February, I want to see the performances that have gotten the respect of the peerage of the Academy. Ben Kingsley is, as always, a bulwark of subltle strength and dignity as Behrani the exiled Iranian general. And Shoreh Aghdashloo is fine, although I'm not sure if she put in the "Best" role of any actress in a supporting role this year. Why were Ben and Shoreh (and James Horner's music) honored? I suspect one reason for that nomination and it's because the members of the Academy nominating committee were duped by this imposter of a film! Part of my anger after seeing HOSAF was due to the obvious manipulation atttempted by the filmmakers. I enjoy ambient music on occasion, have sampled "Echoes" on NPR for many years. The quasi-new age crap in the background of HOSAF was distractingly bad, largely because it failed to enhance subconsciously, instead rising to the forefront like a lot of faux-twinkly posturing. The fog, the mist, the lights in the fog and mist, the fog on the edge of the house, the lights on the house in the fog, dark fog, mist and some lights. This is the tedious array of establishing shots I had to endure. Did they conjure up a mood or serve the narrative in any way? No! They served to extend this one hour "Lifetime Original Story" into a feature-length movie. Jennifer Connelly is a lovely actress and we either know her from "A Beautiful Mind" or "The Hulk". In HOSAF she wistfully contemplates her misfortunes and prettily compounds them with some pretty lousy decisions. Am I supposed to sympathize with her? On the one hand, I have never been in the grips of a physical addiction to a drug. On the other hand, we all suffer the consequences of our actions. Over and over again, wrong turn after wrong turn, I couldn't help noticing that I had failed to relate to her character. Why should she keep the house? Move your stuff out and get off the property! You blew it, move on - bad things happen. This Iranian family should not pay for other's mistakes. Maybe I'm not the right audience for this movie. I'm not star-struck enough with Connelly's beauty or her acting skills to cut her a break. Perhaps if I were ignorant or afraid of foreigners like Connelly or Ron Eldard's policeman character, there would be a lesson in the film for me. "Look how frightened of deportation the family is! See how kind they act to visitors pleading to get their house back. Maybe that Behrani guy is right about us Americans being rich beyond measure and having no idea what we have!" Well, duh. Because the tragic sequence of events of the film caused me to grow even more annoyed as it unspooled, some friends are trying to convince me that the director's intent was not to evoke sympathy in me, but rather to stoke flames of anger regarding ugly Americans and our often unconscionable behavior. Well if that was the intent, I say: "Too late!"
Wednesday, March 3
Film Review: Cold Mountain
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 3, 2004 11:10PM (EST)
Just hours before it was to be virtually snubbed by the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences live on ABC-TV, I saw Anthony Minghella's latest romantic epic at the Regal People's Plaza 17. "Cold Mountain" was seemingly destined to get the Cold Shoulder from Oscar that night, but I found it to be everything I expect in an great Hollywood film adaptation: a terrific screenplay beautifully shot and acted, with deeply moving scenes on both sweeping and intimate scales. Minghella hit Oscar paydirt years ago propping up the wooden Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas in another adaptation, "The English Patient". Wondrous scenery, costumes, cinematography, and editing were like a beautiful cadaver emptied of it's lifeblood as Fiennes and Scott-Thomas displayed ZERO chemistry, either alone or as a couple. [I digress to take a look at the subsequent works of these two stiffs, Ralph and Kristen: He went on to help transform my favorite fun TV show into the fun-free "The Avengers" -- and it took "Gigli" to help us forget what he made of "Maid in Manhattan". And her performance opposite Redford in "The Horse Whisperer" made women almost angry.] "Patient" won nine Oscars back in 1996, and I distinctly remember wondering, "How could it have swept like that?" It clearly had the look and sound of an epic adventure/romance, the kind of cinematic grandness that Academy voters feel good voting for. They must even been thinking "close enough" while voting for it, thought I, because that big beautiful movie with the crashing biplane made nary a blip on my emotional radar! It was a big shiny miss for me. Fast forward to Leap Day 2004: "Cold Mountain" connects bigtime with terrific performances from a stellar cast, and awesome "cast of thousands" Civil War sequences counterbalanced with the most tender yet profound screen romances I have seen in years. Jude Law and Nicole Kidman are just as perfect looking as the leads back in '96, but this time the casting, acting and direction are right on target. They use a scant amount of screen time together to build a steaming and believeable chemistry that made all the difference. When Inman and Ada share that kiss on the porch, did anyone else notice the camera shot tilting, or was that just me getting dizzy? I'm serious! The unspoken and unconsummated potential of that kiss and the haltingly awkward dialog surrounding it more than justifies both her unflagging faithfulness and his herculean trek back to North Carolina that are the body of the film. Anyone who knows my disdain for Renee Zellweger's award show antics also knows it pains me to roundly agree with the accolades she received for her part as Ruby. The slurred southern white-trash accent, the squinched face, and the scrambly gait all added up to a multi-faceted characterization with charisma and heart. I gotta give her credit: Ruby saved Ada and her farm, and somehow that cherubic nutbar's performance buoys the film. Kidman and Law's respective quests are propelled by more than simple love/lust, however. Props to both for the depth of spirit and motivation they portray. Kidman's survival of a rural winter is a near manifesto of women's empowerment in an environment hostile to non-whites and non-males. And Law doesn't go AWOL from the confederate trenches until he is blasted out - his return to Ada is really motion toward the ideal of peace in the eye of a bloody storm. His swooning solliloquy to that effect under the influence of laudenum in the old gypsy woman's cabin is masterful. Minghella's lighting and camera angle are as inspired as the acting, and they craft a memorably moving scene. All this in Civil War-era southern accents from an Aussie and a Brit! The only time I popped out of total engrossment with the wondrous story (adapted by Minghella from what must be a cracking good Charles Frazier book) was down the homestretch. Just before Ada's long sought-after reunion with Inman outside that snow-covered Apache lean-to, I couldn't help noticing that Kidman's lipstick, makeup, hair and form fitting black outfit were absolutely Hollywood PERFECT. I had to mute my internal Diva Meter to forget that Kidman's runway-ready black bolero chapeau was pristine and jauntily angled in a world where everyone else's torn up headwear was worn askew. Where in the world did these two hardscrabble women farmers find the perfect shades of lipstick and rouge in the snowy winter of 1865 in rural North Carolina -- and who so meticulously applied it? These quibbles were dismissed with a different brand of "suspension of disbelief", I guess. Because nothing was going to keep me from getting swept away with the grandly romantic and skillfully told tale of "Cold Mountain". What did you think of the film? Please Leave a Comment just below. Why not create a reader account so I know it's you? Thanks.
A Way To Lower the Price of Gas
by
Paul Wishengrad
on March 3, 2004 09:29PM (EST)
Lately I was one of ten friends of my sister. She was asked via email to forward plans to boycott Exxon/Mobil to ten friends, and in turn I am to forward it to ten friends, and so on. The Master Plan it to force Exxon/Mobil to lower prices by asking 300 million drivers NOT to buy Exxon/Mobil products until the resulting price war drives down the cost of a gallon to $1.30 or lower. So the email asked me to not only boycott Exxon/Mobil, but also to enlist 10 co-conspirators. They are going to HAVE to lower prices when the 300 million stop buying from them, right? And the boycott requires no sacrifice on the part of drivers (which has doomed all the other boycotts) other than the small inconvenience of buying the same amounts of gas somewhere else. No life changes needed on all our parts! Well, I love the spirit of the thing, but I guess Joby caught me on a "Cynical" day. We've all probably come across many of these online movements, plans to punish Exxon for their Exxon Valdez oil spill, or other petroleum giants for promoting drilling in protected Alaskan wilderness. About a year ago you may have gotten email about the less-than-scary "Not buying gas on a certain day of the week" plan. Now, I am the LAST one to deflate the makings of a true grass roots movement, but these Big Oil Boycotts never seem to make a RIPPLE, let alone get on the national or corporate radar. While it's true that if any Big Oil concerns were truly shaking in their boots, they surely wouldn't let on. I suspect they have triple-redundant safeguards against THOSE kind of leaks, as opposed to leaks by their petroleum products. But at the same time I wonder: How come I never hear of any experienced troublemakers (ie: Ralph Nader) or reputable online activist organizations (ie: MoveOn.org) trying them out? I suspect it's because they don't work. It pains me to say that! I am as idealistic as they come! "One man can start a movement that changes the world"! Yes, "The greatest of journeys begin with a single step"! Heck, I even voted for Howard Dean in the Delaware primary. And I think that's where all this comes from. In the same way that Dean represented many peoples' sense of OUTRAGE in the path that Bush has taken the country, these Big Oil Boycotts take care of an emotional need. These calls to action have an artificial, almost "wishful thinking" life that speaks to our hurt or fear but otherwise carries no weight. It's a little like trying to change the course of a Big Oil tanker by pulling alongside in a kayak and whacking it with a stick. It won't work, but it feels good to try and take your licks. Am I off base? Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment just below. Friday, February 20
Delivered the Petition to Sen. Biden's Office Today!
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 20, 2004 10:10PM (EST)
"I cannot believe it took me 43 years to visit my US Senator's office for the first time. That is ridiculous." These were my first thoughts upon climbing into my car earlier this morning, after dropping off MoveOn.org's petition inside Senator Joe Biden's office. I had written legislators, the President, my Senators when I lived in Pennsylvania, and I have met and shaken hands with both my US Senators from the first state, Biden and Carper. I've even shaken hands with Governor Ruth Ann Minner when she was campaigning at St. Hedwig's Polish Festival down the street! But it has taken this long to actually visit my Senator's office with a political agenda in mind. I have Eli Pariser and those plucky young activists at MoveOn.org to thank for mobilizing me to action. They organized the polite walk-in delivery of portions of the petition that I was a part of today. It turns out Biden's Wilmington office is just off Rodney Square on the 20th floor of an ugly concrete building that I've driven by countless times before. Some background: MoveOn.org divided the petition of 1008 Delaware names/comments into sections to be delivered to Biden's office at 15 minutes intervals all day long. Their instructions stipulated that a simple polite delivery to the staffer was all that was called for, and if one happened to encounter the actual Senator of some news media along the way, that was all the better. For greater impact the deliveries arrive periodically all day long. This gentle one-at-a-time ritual was occuring simultaneously at Senate offices all over the country. It's going on as I write. I was the legs of the movement this morning! Friday is my day to get things done; it's the weekday morning I don't take care of my 2-year old daughter, Zo�. There is also a certain pull to sleep in on Friday mornings. This pull is called Laziness. This morning that Laziness was bolstered by it's ally Fear of the Unknown, so I hit the snooze button two too many times and wound up a little late for my delivery time of 9:45am assigned to me by MoveOn.org. The powers that be granted me a parking spot 10 steps from the entrance to 1105 N. Market Street! An omen? While I was parking my car, a solitary woman walked by me with what looked for all the world like another section of the same petition that I was delivering! It turns out that her name was Karen and she was MoveOn.org's 10:00am delivery-person (as I learned from the sign-in desk clipboard in the lobby). We exchanged smiles as she emerged from the bank of elevators on the ground floor - I thought of simply blurting out: "Hi! MoveOn.org petition?" but said nothing to my comrade. So much for building the Movement. Upstairs on the 20th floor, Sen. Biden's staffer Matt would be receiving these two portions of the petition about 5 minutes apart. Matt was a little harried but polite; he had to field two phone calls during my one minute visit. At MoveOn.org's urging I took the chance to point out to Matt that the asterisks on the first two pages of the petition denoted names and comments by families of Military Personnel serving in Iraq. MoveOn.org was correct in predicting that this would be of particular interest to the Senator, as his staffer paused to flip through and verify the asterisked pages. Matt was obviously well-trained, and he looked me in the eye as I further encouraged the Senator to take up a leadership role among his Senate colleagues in bringing Censure to President Bush for deceiving the American Public about WMD's in Iraq. I didn't say it as gracefully as I just wrote it, but Matt nodded thoughtfully, thanked me for the visit and wished me a good day as I left. So now we arrive again at Paul jumping into the Subaru, having used about 6 minutes of the 24 I purchased on the parking meter. I find myself sitting chest up and out, with an unbelievable rush of civic pride! Or more accurately, pride that I finally DID something beyond simple seething at the Warmongers. It's the same addictive chemical that courses through my brain in smaller doses when I emerge from a voting booth. Today I think I know the driving energy that surged through the veins of my ward-heeling, pamphlet-wielding, populist Democrat father. Don't nominate me for any awards just yet, but it's a start. And as my friend Curtis told me recently, it's never too late to begin doing what you really want to do.
Targeting "Bulls Eye" and Others Like It
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 20, 2004 10:07PM (EST)
"Irresponsible" is an gross understatement. I'm all for our constitutional right to bear arms, but WHY OH WHY would the NRA be pressuring the legislators on their payroll to give Bull's Eye Gun Shop and other similarly reckless gun dealers immunity from virtually all lawsuits? These are the guys who sold the automatic rifle used by the D.C. snipers (although Bull's Eye says they lost that gun). [Below is excerpted from NRAblacklist.com] The Senate may vote as early as next week whether to give legal immunity to Bull�s Eye, the gun dealer that "lost" the assault rifle used by the D.C. snipers. In these remaining days, we are reaching the peak of momentum we need to stop this reckless legislation. Would the Senate vote to let negligent CEOs off the hook? No way. Would they vote to let negligent accountants off the hook? No way. But they want to let negligent gun dealers off the hook. What a joke. We must stop this. ----------------------- View that TV ad airing on CNN and Fox News, then act.
"Quick, somebody find me another flight suit!"
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 20, 2004 04:10PM (EST)
Here's a ray of hope in the form of a press release from Kandy Stroud of the DNC. Bush Campaign Runs Away From President's Record Washington, D.C. - President Bush's campaign has acknowledged that it has no plans to run on George W. Bush's record in the White House and will instead combine negative attacks with a focus on yet-to-be-proven Bush proposals, according to a news report. "President Bush's record is so dismal that even his own campaign isplanning on running away from it," Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Friday. "The problem for George W. Bush is that Americans will judge him on that record: nearly three million jobs lost, 43 million Americans without health insurance and turning a record surplus into a record deficit. President Bush's record is indefensible." Other lowlights of the Bush record include false claims about Iraq weapons of mass destruction, a criminal investigation of his administration for revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent and defense of Halliburton AFTER the company was accused of stealing millions from American taxpayers. "President Bush has no choice but to run on his press conferences," McAuliffe added. "But much like the president's record, those press conferences haven't put one American to work, provided health insurance for one hard-working American family and haven't shaved a single dollar off the deficit." -------------------------- Contact Kandy at the DNC by clicking here, or just post a comment (below) and I'll pass it along. Wednesday, February 18
Censure Walk-in moved up!
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 18, 2004 10:39PM (EST)
You may already know that we are not going to allow the Bushites to get away with simply launching an investigation into Intelligence. Not only is this panel full of members hand-picked by President Bush, but their findings are due in March 2005 - thereby insulating Dubya from any adverse PR until after the November elections. To that end, the crew at MoveOn.org has organized a movement wherein we walk into our US Senator's office and politely demand that the Senate officially censure the president for purposefully warping and twisting the intel to suit his predetermined goal of invading Iraq. The death toll climbs, the WMD do not exist, and Bush must be censured for lying to the American people in order to send our young men and women into harm's way. Most Senators and Representative are in recess, back on home turf among the constituents. NOW is the time to create MoveOn's continuous stream of visitors (one of which will be YOU), simply stopping by and telling the staffer or the legislator that Congress should move to censure the President for his deception of the American people! Friday February 20th we take 5 minutes to walk into our Senators office and ask for Censure, then go about our business. MoveOn will have someone follow you in to do likewise... all day Friday February 20th. Simply click on the link below to tell MoveOn what part of the day works best for you - they'll get back to you with a time, and even provide you the address! Act now, click now. http://moveon.org/censurewalk/?id=2348-3599861-2OgS.y7lR26kE2A3kkpVYw
Film Review: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 18, 2004 09:08PM (EST)
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Alright - I have a beef from the very start: the title has NINE words in it! You know my feeling about that. If not, see the blog entry entitled "What's With All the Long Titles?!"
I saw Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (this is ridiculous; I'll call it MC:FSW) with my Mom. It was I who turned her on to those wonderful Patrick O'Brian nautical adventures that the movie is based on. My beloved college roommate John Moody was the one who told me about them - I've read about ten. Peter Weir is obviously a fan - his movie pays loving attention to character and shipwise details - just like the book in many ways, and I like Russell Crowe as Jack Aubrey (although his hair is supposed to be stringy greyish blonde - I guess Crowe is too vain to hew to that unflattering detail). Dr. Maturin played by Paul Bettany (Crowe's
imaginary friend in A Beautiful Mind)? That is woeful miscasting - Bettany comes off as a pursed-lipped petulant prettyboy who whines and broods through the entire movie. He is supposed to be sweaty, pale, unkempt, wiry with pointed facial features and bad breath - but absolutely brilliant at subtrefuge, intrigue and all that cloak and dagger. Near photographic memory, excellent judge of people's motives, and
ruthlessly efficient master spy in tatty clothes and a rumpled wig. Did you see that in Bettany's portrayal? Perfect skin and makeup, perfect (real) hair, normal (non-black) clothing. What Poppycock.
MC:FSW is indeed what they say - One of the finest films of it's type ever made... maybe THE best historical naval battle fiction flicks ever made. No wonder it is nominated for the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Art Direction, Best Visual Effects - did I miss anything?
For those who need to see whether my thumb is up or down -- Recommended! It's great in a booming, grand kind of way, my friend who has two small boys thought it was a great family outing (despite the scene where a pre-teen swabbie needs his arm amputated below deck).
Tuesday, February 17
Welcome to Paul's Blog!
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 17, 2004 04:14PM (EST)
Look Around. I invite you to peruse the pictures of family and friends, and to read and add a comment to any and all blog entries. At this point, I'm focused on Anti-Bush advocacy and Film Reviews (It's Oscar season, baby!) Hopefully this blog will stimulate thought and discussion, communcation and action both on the vital issues, and the trivial. Once you identify yourself by entering a name and password (of your choice), you'll be authorized to see the treasure trove of adorable pictures of my daughter and her cousins. Sorry that I have to approve you before access to family photos, it's just that this is a public blog open to everyone out there... you know how it is. Become a Reader. For the uninitiated, a reminder that a blog is a log - that means you are very welcome to read and leave a comment under anything you see here! You can be Anonymous, but I hope you will use your chosen name and password when you visit. It's really easy. Simply sign up as a "user" in the upper right-hand corner with a username and password, and post your 2 cents! Maybe I am disrespecting the President? Maybe I was heaping too much praise on a film director? Maybe you have something to add, edit, revise, append or argue? Click on the Leave Comment bar and tell us what's on your mind. Bear in mind that it's and open dialog for people to see and respond to, and may be read by anyone who happens along. Enjoy the Photos! Access to most of the photos are by permission only, just for safety's sake. Can't leave certain things open to the entire web, y'know? I'll be notified of everyone who signs up with a username and password. If I know who you are, I'll give you access to photos - it's that easy! I WANT you to see the photo album! Trust me: if you are an Armstrong, a Clapham, or a Wishengrad or a friend of one - you'll be able to see photos on your next visit. I hope you'll be back often - there's one cool way I can get you to return: Get Notified. This spyblog software lets me automatically notify a select list of users (people like you) when there are new articles or new film reviews or new photos added. Let me know, and you can be notified via email that a change was made here. Stay in Touch. It's likely that if you are reading this, it's because I emailed you an invitation to stop by. That means that I want you to know my thoughts and opinions, and I want to know yours (all time permitting). Thanks!
Monday, February 16
What's With All the Long Titles?
by
Paul Wishengrad
on February 16, 2004 09:23PM (EST)
Does anyone besides me long for the days of short, succinct film titles crafted with side alley marquees in mind? Recently some of these Hollywood movies with Texas-sized titles, are causing reviewers to choose between cute acronyms or Carpel Tunnel Syndrome! All the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) movies come to mind, as do a gaggle of Summer 2003 releases, like:
Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde
Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights
Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas
We can all think of ways that the above titles could be truncated. It strikes me that it would be a good editing exercise for a class of fifth-graders.
The grand violator is Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. TEN words long! Did that fit on any movie marquee across this great land of ours? Good old Disney Studios/Buena Vista: The Mouse always has to up the ante, what with Walt being a founding fellow in the All-American "bigger is better" school. More to point: Do we need a synopsis of the movie after a colon in the title? Why so wordy?
Somewhere some formula concocted by one of the Ivy League MBAs that run Hollywood studios today concluded that films that throw as many words at consumers as possible have a 1% higher chance of becoming a blockbuster than flicks with normal titles. "Charlies Angels IV: Back in Detachable Exploding Stillettos and Loaded for Bear" It's a simple ploy really, and can be reduced to this (I just wanted to use another colon): Stuff as much PR for the movie as possible into the title.
|
Topics
Login
Recent Articles
Search
Recent Visitors
Paul Wishengrad - Apr 6, 08:52PM
joeyblong - Mar 7, 12:10PM
Lars Hindsley - Dec 16, 04:44PM
BeverlyR - Dec 1, 01:30AM
Pimp Daddy K - Nov 10, 09:02AM
|
|||||||
Hello! Thanks for dropping by my weblog (more commonly referred to as a "blog"). 