Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« May 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Tuesday, 18 May 2004

Topic: Photos

FYI - Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

Some of us couldn't get to Cannes this week, and we're down the road from Beverly Hills, the official "sister city" of Cannes, a few miles to the east in the low rent district. No way to see it here in Hollywood or anywhere over in the California Cannes. Heck, no one in the United States may be allowed to see this film anyway, but it seems to be at hit at that film festival on the Riviera.

Here, courtesy of the BBC are representative clips from those reviewers who have not been protected by Michael Eisner (explained at the end of the column here).
What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together. It's a look back that feels like a new gaze forward.
Washington Post


This is an angry film about greed, the abuse of power, the betrayal of the people by their leaders. Moore says he hopes to keep it up to date between now and a pre-election US release in July - assuming Miramax find a distributor to their liking. Republicans will be infuriated by the film's simple emotional message. The rest of us will hope it reaches as wide a congregation as The Passion Of The Christ.
The Independent


Moore's big omission is Tony Blair and the UK. He has a clever pastiche of the opening title-sequence of the old TV western Bonanza, with Bush and Blair mocked up to look like cowboys. But in a section about the ramshackle "coalition of the willing" which was supposed to lend international legitimacy to the invasion, there is no mention of the part played by this country. This can only be because of Moore's insistence on America's international isolation and arrogance. It's a strange, skewed perspective.
The Guardian


Fahrenheit 9/11 may be seen as another example of the liberal media preaching to its own choir. But Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadilloes that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions.
Time Magazine


It's a storming work of tempered polemic, gripping from start to last, that uses the war in Iraq as a starting point for offering a largely convincing class-based analysis of contemporary America. Small wonder that few US distributors want to touch it.
Daily Telegraph


There are still some classic Moore moments here, notably when squirming US congressmen are invited to sign up their own children to fight in Iraq. The director has always been strongest on the cusp between anger and humour, but there are simply too few such inspired episodes here. Fahrenheit 9/11 hits enough of its targets to qualify as an important and timely film. But it should have been a smart bomb, and it feels more like a blunt instrument.
The Times (UK)


Told with passion and cutting sarcasm, the film has a good deal of the Moore trademarks, from a deft use of various television and pop culture clips to embarrassing encounters with the great and the good. Moore is mischievous as ever - at one point he tries to convince members of the Congress to encourage their children to enlist and fight in the war. The irony and childish iconoclasm are still there but this is a film in which an adult sense of anger and frustration also dominate.
Screendaily


Its title notwithstanding, Michael Moore has delivered a film rather less incendiary than might have been expected - or wished for by his fans - in Fahrenheit 9/11. The sporadically effective documentary trades far more in emotional appeals than in systematically building an evidence-filled case against the president and his circle.
Variety


What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is Fahrenheit 9/11 - it is undoubtedly Moore's weakest - but will a film help to get a president fired?
The Hollywood Reporter
Well, one is tempted to say... we report, you decide.

Not this time.

Oh, and a bonus -
"But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens on MSNBC "Scarborough Country," 18 May 2004


Posted by Alan at 21:53 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 14:13 PDT home


Topic: The Media

Minor Press Notes...
Information Management 101


See Reuters, NBC Staff Abused by U.S. Troops in Iraq
Andrew Marshall, May 18, 2:30 PM (ET)
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said Tuesday.

The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

An Iraqi journalist working for U.S. network NBC, who was arrested with the Reuters staff, also said he had been beaten and mistreated, NBC said Tuesday.

Two of the three Reuters staff said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.

All three said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs. They said they did not want to give details publicly earlier because of the degrading nature of the abuse.

The soldiers told them they would be taken to the U.S. detention center at Guant?namo Bay in Cuba, deprived them of sleep, placed bags over their heads, kicked and hit them and forced them to remain in stress positions for long periods.

The U.S. military, in a report issued before the Abu Ghraib abuse became public, said there was no evidence the Reuters staff had been tortured or abused.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, said in a letter received by Reuters Monday but dated March 5 that he was confident the investigation had been "thorough and objective" and its findings were sound.
Never happened.

More detail?
... NBC, whose stringer Ali Muhammed Hussein Ali al-Badrani was detained along with the Reuters staff, said he reported that a hood was placed over his head for hours, and that he was forced to perform physically debilitating exercises, prevented from sleeping and struck and kicked several times.

"Despite repeated requests, we have yet to receive the results of the army investigation," NBC News Vice President Bill Wheatley said.

Schlesinger sent a letter to Sanchez on January 9 demanding an investigation into the treatment of the three Iraqis.

The U.S. army said it was investigating and requested further information. Reuters provided transcripts of initial interviews with the three following their release, and offered to make them available for interview by investigators.

A summary of the investigation by the 82nd Airborne Division, dated January 28 and provided to Reuters, said "no specific incidents of abuse were found." It said soldiers responsible for the detainees were interviewed under oath and "none admit or report knowledge of physical abuse or torture."

"The detainees were purposefully and carefully put under stress, to include sleep deprivation, in order to facilitate interrogation; they were not tortured," it said. The version received Monday used the phrase "sleep management" instead.
Never happened. Well, they weren't "abused."

It pays to work for Fox News. Roger Ailes would make sure you were safe.

And obviously NBC News Vice President Bill Wheatley hates American and loves Saddam Hussein. And everything changed after 9-11 of course.

Posted by Alan at 19:41 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:32 PDT home


Topic: Photos

Sunset in the Hollywood Hills, 18 May 2004 - at seven in the evening...

Posted by Alan at 19:18 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: In these times...

Bush and Rodney Dangerfield

You know you're in deep political trouble when even dead celebrities pick on you.

Tony Randall, the actor, the opera enthusiast, the celebrity, passed away today - well, last night at NYU Medical Center. He was eighty-four. Some knew him as Leonard Rosenberg of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Well, maybe not. He was only born there. He left.

This nugget from the Associated Press story coving his life:
Randall joked in September about how he envisioned his funeral: President Bush and Vice President Cheney would show up to pay their respects but they'd be turned away, because his family knows he didn't like them.
But Tony Randall (or Leonard Rosenberg if your prefer) was not the kind of manly-man preferred by the neoconservative hawks, the NASCAR dads... or the "gays are evil and want to bugger our children" Republicans. Ann Coulter wouldn't like him - she'd call him a girly-boy as she did her editors at the National Review when they fired her. He could be a bit prissy - the role he played in "The Odd Couple" for all those years didn't seem far from the man. The Christian Right? I'm sure his existence puzzled them, as one of God's minor mysteries. How could He create such a specimen? What was He thinking? But then again I suspect none of them listened to years of The Opera Quiz at intermission on those Saturday afternoon live broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera.

Different worlds. President Bush and Vice President Cheney won't show for the funeral. What would be the point?

Posted by Alan at 12:15 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Monday, 17 May 2004

Topic: For policy wonks...

Trapped

Fred Kaplan has the best summary you can find of the trap Bush is in with this prisoner abuse business in Iraq.

See Locked in Abu Ghraib
The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration.
Fred Kaplan - Posted Monday, May 17, 2004, at 3:22 PM PT in SLATE.COM

Here's the premise:
The White House is about to get hit by the biggest tsunami since the Iran-Contra affair, maybe since Watergate. President George W. Bush is trapped inside the compound, immobilized by his own stay-the-course campaign strategy. Can he escape the massive tidal waves? Maybe. But at this point, it's not clear how.
One thinks of the old "spies and corrupt politicians" movie No Way Out - not a very good film (Kevin Costner is awful as usual) but a great title.

Kaplan of course is referring to Seymour Hersh's latest New Yorker item and a three-part series in Newsweek - both discussed in Just Above Sunset on the 16th - Responsibility: Responsibility Military Style... and legal issues... in some detail.

Kaplan claims that if what is reported is true then it is hard to avoid concluding that responsibility for the Abu Ghraib atrocities goes straight to the top, both in the Pentagon and the White House, and that varying degrees of blame can be ascribed to officials up and down the chain of command.

The summary?
The gist is that last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put in place a secret operation that, in Hersh's words, "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

This operation stemmed from an earlier supersecret program involving interrogation of suspected al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. A memo to President Bush from White House counsel Alberto Gonzales--excerpted in Newsweek--rationalized the program by noting that we need "to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American citizens." This new sort of war, he went on, renders the Geneva Conventions' limitations on interrogating enemy prisoners "obsolete" and "quaint."

This program, Hersh reports, was approved by the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the National Security Council. President Bush was "informed" of it. Hersh also notes that its harsh techniques yielded results; terrorists were rounded up as a result. So, last spring, after Saddam's regime fell in Iraq and Rumsfeld grew frustrated over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction or to learn anything about the insurgents who continued to resist the U.S.-led occupation, he put the same program in motion in Iraq.

That's when all hell broke loose, and conventional prisoners of war--whose wardens had up to that point been following Geneva rules--were suddenly treated like terrorists whose deadly secrets must immediately be squeezed out. Hence, the ensuing torture.
Yep. That's about it.

As Kaplan says quite bluntly -
... Bush knew about it. Rumsfeld ordered it. His undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Steven Cambone, administered it. Cambone's deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, instructed Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been executing the program involving al-Qaida suspects at Guant?namo, to go do the same at Abu Ghraib. Miller told Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the 800th Military Brigade, that the prison would now be dedicated to gathering intelligence. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, also seems to have had a hand in this sequence, as did William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, learned about the improper interrogations--from the International Committee of the Red Cross, if not from anyone else--but said or did nothing about it for two months, until it was clear that photographs were coming out.
In case you need at refresher on one of these names, Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin, see Who would Jesus assassinate? We ask our consultants. Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin and his Christian Army learn from the Israelis for details - from last December in these pages.

So what is this trap Kaplan sees closing in on Bush?

Well, he points out that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have said they will keep their hearings going until they "get to the bottom of this." And notes that Republicans as well as Democrats are "behaving in an unusually--and unexpectedly--aggressive fashion on the question of how high up the blame should go." Not good.

And he points out that the courts could get involved, noting Newsweek reports that the Justice Department is likely to investigate three deaths that occurred during CIA interrogations, possibly with an eye toward charges of homicide. Thus war-crimes charges, for willful violation of the Geneva Conventions, are not out of the question. And Rumsfeld and Cambone could conceivably face perjury charges; if the latest news stories are true, their testimony before the armed services committees --taken under oath -- will certainly be examined carefully.

Damn.

Then there is the press. Blood in the water.

This leads to chaos -
All of these hound-hunts will be fueled by the extraordinary levels of internecine feuding that have marked this administration for years. Until recently, Rumsfeld, with White House assistance, has quelled dissenters, but the already-rattling lid is almost certain to blow off soon. As has been noted, Secretary of State Colin Powell, tiring of his good-soldier routine, is attacking his adversaries in the White House and Pentagon with eyebrow-raising openness. Hersh's story states that Rumsfeld's secret operation stemmed from his "longstanding desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the CIA." Hersh's sources -- many of them identified as intelligence officials -- seem to be spilling, in part, to wrest back control. Uniformed military officers, who have long disliked Rumsfeld and his E-Ring crew for a lot of reasons, are also speaking out. Hersh and Newsweek both report that senior officers from the Judge Advocate General's Corps went berserk when they found out about Rumsfeld's secret operation, to the point of taking their concerns to the New York Bar Association's committee on international human rights.

The knives are out all over Washington -- lots of knives, unsheathed and sharpened in many different backroom parlors, for many motives and many throats. In short, this story is not going away.
Cool.

So what can Bush do?

Kaplan says, and many would agree, Bush cannot fire Rumsfeld. That wouldn't stop the investigations. And yeah, the next guy up for the job would of course face confirmation hearings. That could get real messy and keep the all the issues up front and center. And Bush cannot fire Rumsfeld, as Kaplan points out, because "if he did, especially if he did so under political pressure, he would undermine his most appealing campaign slogan--that he stays the course, doesn't buckle, says what he means and does what he says." Yeah, just like that Horton the Elephant made famous by Doctor Seuss.

No way out there.

So does Bush fire the lesser officials - Cambone and Feith and the hyper-zealous "my God is better than your god" Boykin? Perhaps they know too much and would not go gently.

This is a mess. I wonder what advice Karl Rove is giving Bush tonight.

Well, our international reputation has taken its final blow already - our "legitimacy," always questioned by much of the world, has been thoroughly and objectively trashed. So?

Just keep on doing what we're doing, since all this cannot be made worse.

___

For an even more bitter perspective you might try this link:
Bush the torturer must leave office
Harvey Wasserman, The Columbus Free Press (Ohio), May 12, 2004

Here's how it opens:
The torture at Al Ghraib is a direct reflection of George W. Bush's moral character, his political beliefs and his military abilities.

Those images streaming out of Iraq reflect the true face of George W. Bush. Until he resigns or is removed from office, there is no way to begin removing the stain on the American character.

This is not about Donald Rumsfeld or a few "bad" soldiers in the field. Nor is it merely about "softening up" detainees to extract information about terrorism.

At their core, these outrages are gratuitous and psychotic. They stem directly from the morals and character of the man now occupying the Oval Office.
Bush resigns? Unlikely.

Bush is removed from office - by impeachment? Not with both houses of congress controlled by his party.

Bush is removed from office - through an election?

Now THERE'S an idea!

That might work, if there isn't another major terrorist attack here late in the summer, followed by martial law and the elections being put off until we've finally and definitively won the war to rid the world of all evil in all its forms. You know, that could take some time.

Posted by Alan at 18:35 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Newer | Latest | Older