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
« December 2003 »
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

Monday, 22 December 2003

Topic: Iraq

Was Thomas Jefferson that cynical? Chomsky takes a few swings at Wolfowitz

On the lefty site AlterNet Noam Chomsky takes a dim view of US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

See Dictators R Us
Noam Chomsky, AlterNet. December 22, 2003 (first published in The Toronto Star)

Yes, Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). And he's a political writer, activist and critic - a key voice from the left. His new book is Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance - obviously not one of the volumes on cognition, language acquisition and the epistemology of grammar. Paul Wolfowitz is the administration's chief political theorist. Most of what we do in the world he has thought up, or at least explained as quite reasonable.

So what's Chomsky's beef?
... the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speechwriters.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" -fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career - like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression - and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.
Well, that was then. This is now. But it is odd.

Give Paul the benefit of the doubt?

Noam says no.
One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.
Harsh words.

The whole thing is worth a read.

What it comes down to is fancy idealistic words being used to mask a competitive struggle for domination and exploitation. Noam calls Paul a liar, or deluded. And sees him as the man who behind the duping of the country to make Bush and his friends rich - the usual left rant.

Except Noam gives events and dates - and asks us to think about them. Not many people will. No time. Other concerns.

His conclusion?
Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent - and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."
I suppose Jefferson said that - I'll try to find where. Was Jefferson that cynical?

And why won't Chomsky buy the administration's line on all this? Patriotic idealists do. Really. Cynics don't, and call themselves realists, like Jefferson.

Posted by Alan at 19:25 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: The Media

Real Magazines, Off-Beat Stories

You might want to skim the cover story of this week's U.S. News Report.
The Yale Men
: They all attended the same school, but Lieberman, Dean, Kerry, and the president traveled disparate paths in a turbulent decade
Dan Gilgoff, Cover Story 12/29/03

The four guys who went Yale?

George W. Bush ('68) resented all his classmates who "felt so intellectually superior and so righteous." And I guess he never got over it. You can sense he's still seething about it.

Two years ahead of him was Kerry ('66). He taught his parrot French and Italian words. Heck, had George and John been in the same graduating class, and thus likely to know each other, that parrot would have been dead. It would have shuffled off its mortal coil. One does think of the Monty Python possibilities.

Howard Dean ('71) called snooty classmates "fatuous butts." He was a bit blunt back then too. He's a bit more circumspect now, but only a bit.

Joe Lieberman ('64) was chairman of the Yale Daily News and traveled to Mississippi to help register black voters. He was earnest back then, as he is now.
___

Newsweek puts Jon Stewart on the cover, the guy from The Daily Show.
Who's Next 2004: Red, White & Funny: : The new year will bring a host of intriguing faces front and center. Politicians. Actors. Tycoons. Educators. And one fake news anchor, bravely battling pomposity and misinformation. Jon Stewart prepares for Campaign 2004
Marc Peyser, Dec. 29/Jan. 5 issue

Excerpt:
Not many comedy shows would dare do five minutes on the intricacies of Medicare or a relentlessly cheeky piece on President George W. Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq ("A small group of handpicked journalists accompanied the president on his top-secret mission to tell the entire world about his top-secrecy"). His cut-the-crap humor hits the target so consistently - you've gotta love a show that calls its segments on Iraq "Mess O'Potamia" - he's starting to be taken seriously as a political force. The Democratic National Committee announced this month that it plans to invite Stewart & Co. to cover its convention, amazing since "The Daily Show" is actually a fake news program.

... But you know what's really funny about Stewart? The more seriously the world takes him, the more he makes off like he's the Dennis Kucinich of television - amusing, short and not that important. So what if John Edwards announced his presidential candidacy on the show? "No one took it seriously," says Stewart. "After he said, 'I'm announcing that I'm running for president,' I said, 'I have to warn you we are a fake show, so you might have to do this again somewhere'." What about studies that claim young people get a huge portion of their news from late-night comedy? "I just don't think it's possible," he says. "We're on Channel 45 - in New York! Literally on the remote-control journey you could absorb more news than you would get from our show." So that's it, then. All you politicians lining up for face time with Stewart are wasting your breath. "Our politics are fueled by the comedy. We're not a power base in any way. Our show is so reactionary, it's hard to imagine us stimulating the debate," Stewart says. "Maybe I shouldn't be saying this. I'm literally saying, 'Why are you in my office talking to me? I'm nobody'."
Really? Even Ric in Paris watches the show there. And this is, after all, a cover story.
___

The other weekly magazines cover the usual - the war, the economy, the poltical stuff. Of course these two publications above cover "real news" too. But at the end of the year they cut loose a little.

Posted by Alan at 18:25 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 22 December 2003 18:12 PST home



Monday in Hollywood is shopping day...

Items will be posted later today. Now it's time for Christmas shopping.

And the parent magazine is back on line! A new issue was published late yesterday.






Use the link in the left panel.


Posted by Alan at 10:06 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 22 December 2003 10:09 PST home

Sunday, 21 December 2003

Topic: Bush

More information...

Wednesday, 10 December 2003 I posted this:
What? The apocalypse scares you? Really? What's your problem?
where I discussed an essay by Robert Jay Lifton
American Apocalypse
The Nation, Posted December 4, 2003, from the December 22 issue, and actually a short peek at his new book.)

DVMD of grittybits.com (see left panel) heard Lifton on the radio and has his new book on the way. She links to Lifton's biography. It's awesome.

Here `tis....

Robert Jay Lifton is Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology at the Graduate School University Center and Director of The Center on Violence and Human Survival at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at The City University of New York. He had previously held the Foundations' Fund Research Professorship of Psychiatry at Yale University for more than two decades. He has been particularly interest in the relationship between individual psychology and historical change, and in problems surrounding the extreme historical situations of our era. He has taken an active part in the formation of the new field of psychohistory.

Dr. Lifton was born in New York City in 1926, attended Cornell University, and received his medical degree from New York Medical College in 1948. Her interned at the Jewish Hospital of Brooklyn in 1948-49, and had his psychiatric residence training at the Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York in 1949-51. He was an Air Force psychiatrist serving in the United States, Japan, and Korea from 1951-53. He was Research Associate in Psychiatry at Harvard from 1956-61, where he was affiliated with the Center for East Asian Studies; and prior to that was a Member of the Faculty of the Washington School of Psychiatry.

From mid-1995, he has been conducting psychological research on the problem of apocalyptic violence, focusing on Aum Shinrikyo, the extremist Japanese cult which released poison gas in Tokyo subways. His book, Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism was published by Metropolitan Books in October, 1999.

His writings on Nazi Doctors (on their killing the name of healing) and the problem of genocide; nuclear weapons and their impact on death symbolism; Hiroshima survivors; Chinese thought reform and the Chinese Cultural Revolution; psychological trends in contemporary men and women; and on the Vietnam War experience and Vietnam veterans, have appeared in a variety of professional and popular journals. He has developed a general psychological perspective around the paradigm of death and the continuity of life and a stress upon symbolization and "formative process," and on the malleability of the contemporary self.

Recent books include Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial, (Putnam and Avon Books, 1995) (with Greg Mitchell) which explores the impact of Hiroshima on our own country; and The Protean Self; Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation, (Basic Books, 1993) which describes the contemporary "protean" self and its expressions of fluidity and change as its possible relationship to species consciousness and a "species self" (related importantly to one's connection to humankind).

Other books include:

The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat, (with Eric Markusen), (Basic Books, 1990).

The Future of Immortality; and Other Essays for a Nuclear Age (Basic Books, 1987).

The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (Basic Books, 1986), winner of the 1987 Los Angeles Times Book Prize for history; the 1987 National Jewish Book Award for Holocaust.

Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1991 [1968]), which received the National Book Award in the Sciences, and the Van Wyck Brooks Award for non-fiction, in 1969 The Broken Connection (which received the Martin Luther King Award in England), Harvard University Press, 1984.

Indefensible Weapons: The Political and Psychological Case Against Nuclearism (with Richard Falk), Basic Books, 1991, [1982].

Last Aid: Medical Dimension of Nuclear War (edited with E. Chivian, S. Chivian, and J.E. Mack), Redding, CT: Freeman Press, 1982.

Home From the War: Vietnam Veterans--Neither Victims Nor Executioners, (which was nominated for the National Book Award) Beacon Press, 1992 (with new Preface and Epilogue on the Gulf War [1983, 1968].

The Life of the Self: Toward a New Psychology, Basic Books, 1983 [1976]; Six Lives/Six Deaths; Portraits from Modern Japan (with Shuichi Kato and Michael Reich), Yale University Press, 1979.

Explorations in Psychohistory; The Wellfleet Papers (with Eric Olson), eds., Simon & Schuster, Touchstone Books, 1975.

Living and Dying (with Eric Olson), Praeger, 1974; History and Human Survival: Essays on the Young and the Old, Survivors and the Dead, War and Peace, and on Contemporary Psychohistory, Random House, 1968.

Boundaries: Psychological Man in Revolution, Touchstone, 1976 [1970].

Revolutionary Immortality: Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Norton Library, 1976 [1986].

Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, University of North Carolina Press, 1989 [1961].

Edited The Woman in America, Beacon paperback 1966 [1965]; America and the Asian Revolutions, Transaction Books, 1970; and Crimes of War (with Richard A. Falk and Gabriel Kolko) Vintage, 1971.
___

He's not George Bush, but perhaps one should take him seriously.

Posted by Alan at 20:07 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: The Culture

Jerry Lewis, Monty Python and ? Le P?re No?l est une Ordure ?
The reason we don't get along with the French? Our sense of humor.


Why can't we all just get along? Maybe it has something to do with our sense of humor being different from that of the Brits, and both being far, far different from that of the French.

Check this out:
Very droll The French have jokes, but do they have a sense of humour?
The Economist, Dec 18th 2003 [UK spelling as stands]

The whole item is quite long and detailed, but here are the main points.

First, this unsigned analysis does give us history:
Does humour exist in France? Before the French revolution of 1789, the word humour was hardly known. People knew esprit (wit), farce (prank), bouffonnerie (drollery) and humeur (a state of mind, or mood), but not humour. Only in 1878 did the French Academy, the institution that stands guard over the French language, accept humoristique as a French word. A year later Edmond de Goncourt used humour without italics as a French word in his novel "Les Fr?res Zemganno", but not until 1932 did the academicians give their approval to the noun humour.

Writers and intellectuals musing about English humour searched for an equivalent in France. Fran?ois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, France's best-known writer in the 18th century, tells the Abbot d'Olivet in a letter in 1762 that the English pronounce humour yumor, and think they are the only ones to have a term to express that state of mind. Madame de Sta?l, the daughter of Jacques Necker, a finance minister of Louis XVI, wrote in a discourse on literature: "The English language created a word, humour, to express a hilarity, which is in the blood almost as much as in the mind ...What the English depict with great talent is bizarre characters, because they have lots of those amongst them."
Ouch!

But things are different now:
One of the fiercest critics of the government, "Les Guignols de l'Info" ("The News Puppets"), a daily television programme similar to Britain's satirical "Spitting Image", is a huge success. "Les Guignols" has become sharper, even crueller, since it started in 1988. Hardly anything is taboo now. Supermenteur ("Superliar"), President Jacques Chirac's alter ego, is a particular favourite. ... "Les Guignols" has felt obliged to apologise only a few times--once to Mr Chirac's wife, Bernadette, whom it had portrayed masturbating with her handbag.
You can watch episodes here or here (the "official" CanalPlus site - click on VIDEOS)

Then there are the magazines:
Le Canard encha?n?, a satirical weekly, is equally feared by politicians and public personalities because of its investigative journalism and trenchant wit. Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Brown of the Peanuts cartoon strip was godfather to the magazine) and Hara-kiri hebdo, two satirical weeklies launched in 1969, are competing on the same ground. Hara-Kiri, which was created in 1960 as a monthly French version of Mad, an American satirical magazine, was twice censored by the government before its relaunch as a weekly. It has absorbed La Grosse Bertha, another satirical magazine that was launched in 1991 during the first Gulf war. Charlie Hebdo went bust in 1981, just after supporting Coluche, a comedian, in his bid for the presidency. It was relaunched ten years later.
But the issue is a different idea of humor.

Consider Jean Plantureux, or Plantu. A satirical cartoon by Plantu has been on the front page of Le Monde most every day for the past 20 years. Since ticking off his editors in 1994 he doesn't get to choose his subjects any longer, but he's pretty good. His comment? "We still have the naivety to believe in certain things. We do not have the detachment that characterizes English humor, we are more militant. If we have a cause to protest, however minor, we tear open our shirts, run into the street and shout `Shoot me!'" Cool.

The Economist give this theory for the whole business:
If the Latin emotions of the French sit uneasily with humour, so does the French logical mind. French children are instilled with Cartesian esprit (here meaning mind) at school and, even more, in the grandes ?coles, the country's elite universities. ... A French Cartesian mind does not know what to make of a nonsensical story, such as this one. "The governor of the Bank of England began an address to an assembly of bankers with these words: `There are three kinds of economists, those who can count and those who can't.'" A joke of this kind would be met with incomprehension by French listeners. It is not logical.

Self-deprecation, another essential ingredient of a "detached" sense of humour, is not the forte of the French. But if France is too emotional, too logical or too unsure of itself for humour, it can at least fall back on farce as a way of releasing the emotions. The French love Jerry Lewis, the American they call le roi du crazy; he has even been awarded the Legion of Honour, the country's highest decoration. And of course France produces its own farces. One of the best-loved of recent years is the at times heavy-handed film "Le P?re No?l est une Ordure" ("Father Christmas is a Shit"), directed by Jean-Marie Poir?. It shows Pierre and Th?r?se, staffers at a charity, manning the telephones on Christmas Eve to help callers in despair. Z?zette, a pregnant woman, arrives at the office, fleeing her violent husband, F?lix, who is close behind her. F?lix, still wearing his working clothes as Father Christmas, is subdued by Pierre and Th?r?se and ends up in hospital. The second visitor at the office is Katia, a manic-depressive transvestite in search of Mr or Miss Right. The ensuing series of catastrophes reaches its climax when F?lix returns with a gun, a lift repairman is killed, Pierre loses his virginity to Th?r?se, and F?lix and Z?zette dispose of the dead repairman.
Yep, I don't get it either.

And then this:
Why do French comic films not travel well when those made in Britain or America - whether by Woody Allen, John Cleese or the Monty Python team - seem to make people laugh all over the world? One answer, perhaps, is that audiences in other countries simply do not have the French fondness of puerile farce. Another, though, may be that the things that make the French laugh involve linguistic somersaults that only work in their own language. Much of French humour is jeux des mots, untranslatable wordplays.
Yes, linguistic somersaults just make my fellow Americans angry. We do plain talk. Think Will Rogers.

Not everyone is just like us, no matter what the neoconservatives tell us.

Posted by Alan at 09:29 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Newer | Latest | Older