All posts by danz_admin

America, Hearts, Movies

I’ve believed for a while that it is increasingly in books and movies that the perception of things – and thus often, the thing itself – is defined.

I don’t think that’s completely new; Homer, his tales, and his lyre defined much of what classical Greece thought of itself, and I can push the model forward through history.

I was thinking about it because of three films we’ve seen in the last month, each of which, in its way says something about what America means to its creators and reflects strains of what I see and we all see as well.

The films were “Walk The Line,” “Syriana,” and “The World’s Fastest Indian.”
To me, “Walk The Line” was a wonderful display of incredible, pitch-perfect, believable acting. The plot is unmemorable, except for one scene, where Cash and his band have managed to beg Sam Phillips of Sun records for an audition, and are playing competent country spirituals – old folk spirituals to a harder beat. Phillips is obviously bored, and stops Cash and says (something like):

“We’ve all heard those songs before. I’m not interested in recording them again. If you were dying in a ditch and could only sing one song, what would you sing?”

And Cash begins to awkwardly play “Folsom Prison Blues,” gaining confidence as his band figures out the song – which they’ve never played – and joins in.

It’s an incredibly powerful scene – where Cash finds his real voice – and it nails the image of America where we are most powerful because we are most ourselves; we believe that where we find the thing that is truly us, we are fulfilled.

In Cash’s case, it is a pretty complex self, and the film works most of all because Joaquin Phoenix manages to make the contradictions – a man deeply in love who has affairs; a pious man who takes drugs; a deeply rebellious man who comes to a local church every Sunday – believable; he makes them something that one man could plausibly contain, and shows us the struggles between these contradictions inside himself.

America seems much the same to me; we accept and absorb contradictions in personal and national character that should shatter us.

We were then invited to Arianna Huffington’s screening of “Syriana.” (thanks, Arianna!)

The movie is another exercise (like Traffic) in a John Dos Passos-like fragmented narrative, centering around a fictional emirate in the Middle East, it’s leaders, their oil, and the people who want it.

The fragments about the terrorist cell were actually quite good; it traces the path of two young terrorists from displaced oil workers to members of an Islamic school, to their final act. The facts are slightly different, in that many of the real jihadis aren’t driven by the need to get a decent meal, but are in fact disaffected middle class kids – and that story would also have been a powerful one.

George Clooney’s performance is a great one; it takes the young swaggering alpha male and runs him forward about twenty-five years, when he’s been passed over for promotion because he won’t play bullshit games, and he’s physically headed down the curve. He’s the reason to see the movie, surprisingly. He’s been a star more than an actor for most of his career, but here he raises the bar and jumps over it. I’ll never think of him in as limited a way again.

The core of the movie is the conflict between the emir’s good son (the reformer), a greedy oil company (whose lobbyist explains that corruption is the American way of life), a noble oil analyst, and the CIA.

Simple plot explanation: CIA bad, oil companies bad.

Sadly that oversimplified plot is pretty close to what actually unfolds; had the film had more moral nuance (see “Walk The Line” above) it would have been far more interesting.

The audience we saw it with loved it (except for Marc Cooper, apparently); as I pointed out to TG as we pulled into the parking lot set aside for those attending the screening “every Prius in L.A. is here tonight.”

The writer and director, Steve Gagan got up and gave a rambling speech, the nut of which was a simple sentence about halfway through.

“We’ve got problems as a people. We’ve got some kind of hole where our hearts should be; it used to be BMW-shaped, and now it’s Iraq-shaped.”

That pretty much summed up his views for me.

Which brings us to the next movie, which is really about hearts; the damaged heart of an obsessive old Kiwi motorcyclist (wonder why we went to see it?) and the warm hearts of the Americans who – literally in some cases – take him in and support him in pursuing his dream.

Bert Munro was a real man, who at the age of 63, went to the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, after setting records in new Zealand and Australia, and – on a shoestring and a home-made motorcycle – set world land speed records.

The movie is the story of his first trip, and it’s a simple narrative, as he is handed from one helpful American to another – from a transvestite motel manager to a pot-smoking used car salesman to an indian to an amorous grandmother to the Wendover land speed community, who at first rejects him and finally supports and embraces him.

Anthony Hopkins is Bert Munro, and he’s unsurprisingly wonderful. the part is made for him; it’s a man who completely shields his inner self from the world, and expresses himself only through action (think ‘Remains of the Day’ with sex and motorcycles).

The uniform kindness of those that Munro encounters – from the Immigration official who’d read about his motorcycle in Popular Mechanics and so gives him a visa, to the speed community that houses him and chips in to help fund his trip home – bothered me when I saw the film. It felt saccharine. Where’s the antagonist? Where’s the drama, I asked.

And, to be honest, it would have been a better film with more conflict – even if Bert’s wonderful streamlined motorcycle has been more fragile and less twist-and-go fast.

But constant kindness to strangers is almost a uniquely American thing, and the community that converts gasoline to speed is also one that is intensely welcoming and helpful.

We do open our hearts frequently and widely, and from my experience in Europe, we do so more thoughtlessly – more automatically – than most other cultures.

Gagan may have a hole in his heart, but the ordinary Americans shown in “Indian’ certainly don’t. And, to be honest, I think more of us are like them than like him.

Weblog Awards Again…

Over at the Weblog Awards, we’re firmly in the middle of the pack in the ‘Best Group Blog’ category. It doesn’t look like we’ll win – but it’d sure be nice to beat MySecret and MyDD, who are just ahead of us, and catch up to Pandagon. Yes, I totally admit it’s immature, but as the ad for North Sails once said, “Any time two boats are in the same body of water, there’s a race going on.”

Actually, I’m not sure exactly why that’s relevant, but it seemed like the right thing to say…

…so please go vote for us!

We’re In ‘Till We Win

Over at LT Smash’s shop, he’s drumming up calls and emails in support of “We’re In ‘Till We Win” (if I may paraphrase).

It’s a week before the elections in Iraq – one of the first and freest in the Arab Middle East – and, for partisan advantage, the leadership of my party is saying that we should tell the Iraqi people “OK, we’re going home now. Nice visiting you, sorry we didn’t finish cleaning up the mess.”

I emailed my hawkish Democratic Member of Congress, Jane Harman a few weeks ago.

Here’s what I got in reply:

Dear Mr. Danziger:

The 2,000th American casualty provides a grim marker for our involvement in Iraq, but it also presents an important opportunity to answer the American people’s most pressing question: What is our exit strategy?

This war is costing far too much in American lives and taxpayer dollars. It is creating a new breeding ground for terrorists where one did not previously exist. It is setting back our efforts to confront Iran. And it is causing our allies to question our competence, policy judgments and above all, our word.

But just as staying indefinitely is not an option, so too is an immediate pullout of most American forces. We are not able to keep order with the number of troops we have there now. Withdrawing most of our forces immediately would effectively turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda, or perhaps Iran, leaving in our wake civil war, increased human suffering, and a far-more dangerous place than we found 31 months ago.

Thus, the most prudent exit is a steady efficient drawdown of U.S. troops beginning after the Iraqi elections in December. Exactly how many and at what pace? Those numbers may be important but only for symbolic – not necessarily strategic – reasons. Troops signify intentions, and the American people (and the Iraqi people, for that matter) are concerned about our intentions.

For that reason, America must clarify its intentions if this drawdown – this exit from Iraq – is to succeed.

First, President Bush should state unequivocally that the U.S. does not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Our 60-year presence in Germany and our 50-year presence in Korea rightfully make people nervous that a half-century from now, American Marines will be living on a base in downtown Baghdad. President Bush should put that to rest – and make clear that U.S. policy is to leave Iraq completely.

Second, President Bush must clarify our intentions with respect to Iraq’s oil. We have no designs on Iraq’s precious natural resource, but Iraqis don’t believe us. We should state clearly that oil revenues belong to the people of Iraq and no one else. At the same time, we should also help Iraq get the oil flowing and encourage its neighbors, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to assist.

Third, we should redouble our diplomatic efforts to get allies and partners to come into Iraq to share the burden for security and infrastructure. Internationalizing our efforts will take the target off our back and make it easier for us to leave. But it will only work if we invite others in – and if the offer to cede control is genuine.

Fourth, President Bush should ask a high-level personal envoy to focus on nothing but ironing out the political conflict between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Creating a weakened, balkanized state is not our intention, despite the conspiracy theories of some. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Dr. Zalmay Khalizad, who engineered the Sunni “buy-in” to the recent Constitutional referendum, is a natural choice for this role, but it will mean reducing his other responsibilities.

And fifth, we must set forth a clear plan to have a fixed number of Iraqi military units trained to operate independently by a certain date. Establishing metrics for success, and sticking to them, will send the unequivocal message that the Iraqi people will be the defenders of their own country.

These five statements of American intention, backed up by concrete action, must accompany any drawdown in troops. No one – not in the Muslim world or here at home – will believe us unless we begin to leave, but no one should believe us unless we state now that we want a future for Iraq that is free of American involvement.

America seeks no empire, yet we give the impression to some that we do. Putting that issue to rest, once and for all, will allow the democratically elected Iraqi government to gain control over their country and will let our brave men and women finally come home.

Regards,

JANE HARMAN
Member of Congress

While I actually agree with parts of this (esp. the “Your oil belongs to you”), once again, her objective isn’t success against the insurgents; it’s “what does it take to get us to come home,” as clearly stated in the opening paragraphs.

Her notion that internationalizing the war – involving ceding control – is a good idea mystifies me. Who, in the feckless UN or EU, has shown any measure of resolve in dealing with this?

And this just makes no sense to me at all…can anyone help?

These five statements of American intention, backed up by concrete action, must accompany any drawdown in troops. No one – not in the Muslim world or here at home – will believe us unless we begin to leave, but no one should believe us unless we state now that we want a future for Iraq that is free of American involvement.

I’m composing a new letter and will get it to her by the 14th.

Tookie

I’ve been wrestling with my views on Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams and whether he should be granted clemency. It’s been a tough call for me.

I’ve come to be generally opposed to the death penalty. Why?

Two reasons.

One is simple: to kill someone in cold blood…not in the heat of defense or battle…seems to me to be simply inhumane. The deliberateness and spectacle of it contradict much of what I believe I would be willing to fight to defend about our society.

The other is simple as well: the justice system is deeply flawed. It doesn’t make sense to make irrevocable decisions using a system as imperfect as ours – even if it is likely to be better than anyone else’s.
On the other hand – there’s always another hand – I’d have no qualms seeing Saddam executed. Or Hitler.

It’s not to prevent recidivism; it’s not likely that the 1950’s would have presented Hitler much chance to retake the reins of power in Germany.

It’s because certain acts are so far beyond what we can and should accept that they deserve some special, significant sanction. It’s not because I believe that vengeance should be served, or blood repaid; Saddam could never – not if he were tortured unimaginably for decades – repay the debt that he’s incurred.

It’s a way of setting up boundary stones at the edges of our human culture. You and me, over here. Saddam, Hitler, over there. Ted Bundy…over there as well, I’d say.

There are criminals whose crimes are so great, and whose guilt is adequately certain, that I’d probably put them on the other side of the markers as well.

Not ordinary criminals; not the ordinary stickup-gone-bad killer, or the sullen wife murderer. Not even the glassy-eyed killer of one’s own child.

But the extraordinary criminals. The truly evil.

And, I have to say, I’d put Tookie in that camp, which puts him on the far side of the marker, and scheduled for the table, restraints, and sharp needle.

Not because of the four people he killed in cheap stickups, and mocked to his friends afterward.

Those were cheap crimes, and not worthy of more than a locked door and a forgotten man behind it.

Because of the twenty thousand young black men (and women) who died in the gang wars he helped trigger.

For that crime, he should pay.

It may well be that if Tookie hadn’t come along, the social conditions would have given that role to someone else.

And if someone else had bought Sierra DOS, Bill Gates would be an upper-middle class techie.

Yes, he’s written books, and lectured. I’ve read them, and read his work. And I’ve listened for the voice of redemption in it, and not heard it.

He may be redeemed; I hope he is. But he’s still on the wrong side of the boundary marker. His redemption is a matter for him and whatever God he may accept, not for the powers of this world.

Ted Rall And The L.A. Times

I keep seeing less and less value in my subscription to the L.A. Times; fortunately they keep dropping subscription prices fast enough that it just doesn’t quite seem worth it to cancel.

Then I open yesterday’s editorial pages and see a cartoon by loathsome slug Ted Rall (sorry, I’m not linking to him).Ted is notorious most recently for circulating his perverted sexual fantasies about returning veterans (in fact, I think Googlebombing “Ted Rall perverted sexual fantasist” might be fun). And seeing him in all his glory on the editorial pages tends to tip me toward dropping the subscription.

But then I had a better idea. As I understand it, much like television has “sweeps week” newspapers have periodic circulation audits.

So why don’t we do some research, find out when they are, and publicly drop our subscriptions for a month?

It’s a free country, and Rall is free to trail his slime, and the Times free to print it. And I’m free to organize boycotts to try and change their mind.

War Mongering Just Runs In The Family

Biggest Guy just suggested I link to a paper he tossed off that explains why – in international relations theory – we’re screwed if the aliens ever show up. (think Jonathan Swift)

The funniest thing is that he always slams me for my political positions in our family discussions. Take that, son!!

Actually, he really just wants to go to Mars…and he’ll use any argument to get a program started that will get him there.

Shameless Pandering For Meaningless Awards

I’m a big SRL fan, and their shows all have cool names like that.

Joe kindly pointed out that Glittering Eye was nominated for a Weblog Award; he neglected to mention that we’re up for one (Best Group Blog) as well, and it would certainly be nice to do well given the company we’re in as finalists…go drop on over and (shameless begging) vote for us!!

You can vote for us once a day, and you can be sure that all the TPM Cafe fans are!! (now I’ve been reduced to begging and tossing guilt…I don’t think I can go any lower…)

Wait…I can!! Think of it as Joe’s wedding present from you all.

Now I need to go wash these fingers.

Tony Pierce Has Got Me Defending Pajamas Media – Go Figure

There is certainly a lot of criticism floating around about Pajamas Media; personally, I see the business model and execution as sufficient and obvious areas where I’d take different approaches than Pajamas’ leadership.

But there are now some pretty outrageous charges being floated (and echoed) concerning the notion that they are some kind of Washington-funded CIA disinformation campaign.

I hate charges like this, because they are irrefutable, reputation-destroying charges aimed at removing people from legitimate dialog, and no one involved in Pajamas deserves that.

Now Tony Pierce is an O.G. blogger here in Los Angeles, and while I read his blog a lot when I was starting out – which was an interesting mix of fantasy concerning his love life and cold fact concerning work, money, and life in L.A.

But now he’s joined Joseph Mailiander and Juan Cole – who raised similar, more scurrilous (because more dangerous), charges against the ITM brothers in claiming that Pajamas might, just might be on the government payroll.

Now as far as Pajamas is concerned, I was there at the funding, so to speak. And I absolutely didn’t see anyone from Washington D.C. in the room; there was no one there but Chernick and his lawyers.

It’s certainly conceivable -if you watch too many movies – that a reclusive Los Angeles centimillionaire would be on the CIA payroll. But somehow I think the CIA tends to work through less colorful channels. because it’s certainly more likely that a reclusive Los Angeles centimillionaire saw something that has investment possibility, fit into his view of the world, and had the potential to be exciting.

Tony Pierce could have spent 60 seconds with Google and found out who was funding Pajamas and what he was about. I’m not sure if it is a more interesting fantasy to think otherwise, just laziness, or a desire to stir controversy (and traffic).

But let’s put a stake through the heart of this silly claim, and go on to discuss serious issues about blogs, the CIA, and the world in general.

Why Not Iraq

I went through the points raised in the comments to the post on “Why Not Iraq” below, and boiled them down to the list of ones I feel were the strongest (i.e. the ones that I felt had to be addressed to maintain my position).

# The war is unwinnable, because the insurgency is too powerful politically and militarily to be defeated within the time material resources and political will allow for the U.S. presence.

# The war is unwinnable because the Administration has no coherent plan.

# The war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the fight against terrorism.

# We are creating Islamist terrorists throughout the Middle East by occupying Iraq.

# The war used up money and manpower which could/should have been used to secure our borders, airports, and ports.

# The war has cost us allies in Europe and the Middle East, and damaged our standing and ability to lead in the world.

# Saddam was deterrable, and so controllable, unlike the Islamist fanatics likely to replace him.

# Containment was working, and so there was no need to invade.

# America’s image is not that of a country that launches preemptive wars.

# Going to war was a violation of the UN Charter, and the US conduct of the war has been a violation of the laws of war.

# The Administration’s case for the war was selective, inaccurate, and based more in supporting the Administration’s already-made decision than in guiding it.

# The pre-war planning ignored virtually all post-war issues, from the military to the political to the economic to the humanitarian.

I’ll plead bias, even though I did the best I could, and am open to ways that this list should be edited or changed. Take a look at them, and over the week, I’ll start responding to them one or two at a time, and a discussion will hopefully break out.

James Dobson Reviews 50 Cent

As a side note, let me register my amusement that The Washington Post has started a new online military affairs column…and the lead columnist is William Arkin.

I’d meant to blog about him when he was first starting out, and the L.A. Times was using him – and his email address was an igc.org one. Here’s the last paragraph and credits for a 2003 column of his in the L.A. Times:

The real revelation in the released document is that a preemptive war was justified on very weak evidence. The Bush administration decided Hussein had to go, but it hid behind flimsy intelligence to pretend that the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction was a justification for war.

Credit: William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: warkin@ igc.org.

So let’s go to www.igc.org.
It’s “The Institute For Global Communication,” home to:

PeaceNet

WomensNet

EcoNet

AntiRacismNet

Hmmm.

Look, Arkin’s a pretty good writer, and a veteran. But if you look at his opus in Google, you find him on the anti-military side of almost every issue that’s come along since the 1980’s.

And to appoint him lead blogger on military affairs for arguable the leading newspaper in the country certainly looks a lot like appointing ‘Focus On The Family’s’ James Dobson as the lead rap music critic.

I’m not saying that the major media are liberal, or biased against the military or anything. But this sure makes a good case for it.