« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 23, 2006
Another 9/11 Movie
Oliver Stone has written and directed an upcoming film called "World Trade Center" based on the true store of two Port Authority officers rescued from the WTC rubble. A Yale University graduate student, Chris Moukarbel, got a copy of the script and made a short film out of it, which he had offered freely on his web site. Paramount, which has sunk $100M into Oliver Stone's efforts, sued to have the student film removed from the Internet. According to a lawsuit filed by the studio:
Large numbers of people will see the Moukarbel film first for free and determine, based on this poor-quality copy, that they do not want to pay to see the remainder of the WTC Film at a theater when it is released.
Well, if that's their beef, they should also sue Oliver Stone for making Alexander, Any Given Sunday and Natural Born Killers, which might have the same deterrent effect on the movie-going public.
Posted by Winston Smith at 08:26 AM | Comments (1)
June 22, 2006
Bush Incites Insurgency
President Bush is in Hungary doing what he does best: acting like an imbecile. To wit, he actually said this:
"The lesson of the Hungarian experience is clear," Bush said in the courtyard of Buda Castle where he celebrated the coming 50th anniversary of Hungary's bloody revolt against communist rule. "Liberty can be delayed, but it cannot be denied,"...
"From this spot, you could see tens of thousands of students and workers and other Hungarians, marching through the streets," Bush said. "These Hungarian patriots tore down the statue of Josef Stalin and defied an empire to proclaim their liberty."
...
"You never lost hope," Bush said. "You kept faith in freedom, and 50 years after you watched Soviet tanks invade your beloved city, you now watch your grandchildren play in the streets of a free Hungary."
Well what's wrong with that? Nothing really, except that Bush held this up as an example to the Iraqi people. Note to Bush: the Iraqis are already following that example, it's called "the insurgency," idiot.
Posted by Winston Smith at 10:54 AM | Comments (0)
June 20, 2006
Geneva Conventions
Update: Libertarian-ish blogger, Andrew Olmsted, has a rather insightful post pondering the danger of soldiers escalating the atrocities. He rightly points out that this is a critical time for us to remember that we're the Good Guys™. As John McCain pointed out in his opposition to allowing torture, "It's not about who they are, it's about who we are."
By now, you've undoubtedly heard the sad news that the two missing soldiers have been found dead, reportedly dumped on the street. Little more information is available, but already the Freepers have raised the possibility that they were tortured and executed. That is, sadly, a rational suspicion.
What isn't rational — but totally expected from the Freepers — is that after three years of thumbing their nose at the Geneva conventions, they suddenly seem to have realized why they're important:
The Uncle complains there's no "plan" to protect US Forces who are captured?Like Heck there isn't.
We're part of the Geneva/Hague conventions.
EVERYONE agrees not to kill POWS.
EVERYONE agrees not to TORTURE AND MUTILATE POWS!
Oh, my dear Freeper, not everybody.
Here, Charles Graner poses with a dead guy. The dead guy walked into Abu Ghraib and ended up in a body bag a couple of hours later. We have record that he was interrogated by "Other Government Agency" (probably the CIA), but not about what. There's no record that he actually did anything.
When Abu Ghraib happened, we all tried to impress upon the Chickenhawks what a terrible message it sent to the Iraqis. If non-combatants, not even charged with a crime, aren't safe in US custody, why should we expect our soldiers to be any safer. If we wanted the Geneva conventions to be applied to our soldiers, we should apply them to our enemies. Period.
Predictably, many Freepers whine:
the President will be criticized and blamed for the whole ordeal.
Who's fault is it that we have a national policy that allows torture and execution of prisoners? Not mine. Fault also belongs, in part to the people who supported this policy, who are now outraged that we may be on the recieving end of a similar policy.
Giving credit where credit is due, some Freepers do get it. Freeper Non-Sequitor responds to a question posed by The Sons of Liberty:
Why ahould we extend protections to them, especially when they do this?Because we are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and we are a civilized society unwilling to reduce ourselves to their levels?
That's the idea. We need leadership that gets it.
Posted by Winston Smith at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)
June 19, 2006
Republicans: Supporting the Terrorists
Republicans support terrorists? Well, not all the terrorists, just the ones who only kill Americans.
Last week, an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told reporters that the PM was considering an deal to end the insurgency that would include pardoning any insurgents who had "not shed Iraqi blood." That's kind of a roundabout way of saying that the amnesty would cover only insurgents who's IEDs sent home American soldiers in wheelchairs and body bags.
Although another aide confirmed that this had been discussed, Maliki was furious at the leak and prompty fired the aide who originally spoke to reporters. What kind of an asshole would think that pardoning people one the basis that they only killed Americans was a good idea?
The kind of asshole that gets elected to office by Republicans.
SENATOR TED STEVENS - “IF THAT’S AMNESTY, I’M FOR IT:” “I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward… if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What’s the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we’ve forgiven?”
SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA’S PEACE EFFORTS. “Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa…Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture?”
SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. “Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?”
Support the troops! The insurgent troops!
Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to play politics with the war by introducing straw-man resolutions and blocking any debate or amendment on them. This leaves legislators with the choice of voting for a bullshit resolution or appearing to take a radical "anti-troop, defeatist" position. John Murtha's proposals are not only taken out of context by his opponents, but often manufactured entirely. Whenever a Democrat proposes a sensible troop redeployment, the Republicans raise a mindless "cut-and-run" proposal and pretend that Congress is voting on the Democrat plan. They're not.
Only three Republican House members had the cajones to vote against last week's fluff -- revealing how desperate and mercifully unburdened by honesty the Republican leadership has become.
You see, when there's a real issue that actually affects the troops, kleptocrats like Ted Stevens show that they don't really care about this country as long as they get their billion dollar bridge to nowhere pork projects.
Covering for Iraqis who kill U.S. soldiers is a Republican tradition that dates back to the 80's. When Saddam Hussein's forces sank the USS Stark, Reagan squelched any talk of repercussions. What's a few dead sailors and a sunken Navy ship between friends?
Posted by Winston Smith at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)
June 08, 2006
Further comments...
on my article "A Question of Terminology".
The following was recently put up on Bishop Spong's website. I enjoyed reading Spong's answer, as it seeks to change the public useage of the term "Christian" instead of abandoning "it to the Falwells, the Robertsons and the Ratzingers of the world".
Remember: Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. While I agree that he is the leader of the Catholic Church and carries the autority that gives, he represents the more conservative constituency of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI has alienated many North American Catholics and caused them to seek spiritual answers in denominations such as the Independent Catholic Church or the Episcopal Church. The problem of "spirituality" and "Liberal Christianity" that Francis Salmeri poses needs to be addressed by clergy if they are going to provide spiritual, moral, ethical and political support to members of their congregations. The clergy and Church leaders can no longer ignore the paradigm shift which is occuring in Liberal Christianity.
Francis Salmeri via the Internet writes:
"If we accept the fact that Jesus was a man with a beautiful and powerful teaching and not a Savior, Messiah or the Christ, is it not time to make the shift away from calling ourselves Christian? Perhaps Jesuian or Jesuist, something more affirming of Jesus the man and not as Christ and away from the Almighty Father God toward what you describe as a non-theist ground of being? As I move enthusiastically and rapidly to this new and wonderful horizon that you and a growing number of others point toward, I find I can not call myself Christian or even a liberal one any longer. Isn't it time to differentiate this new religious sense with a new name that affirms the new direction and the new way of being in the world?"
Dear Francis,I treasure the word Christian and refuse to abandon it to the Falwells, the Robertsons and the Ratzingers of the world. The word Christ translates the Hebrew word 'maschiach,' which means literally 'the anointed one. Originally it was the Jewish title for their king, but when there was no Jewish King (from 586 BCE on) it began to stand for the coming messiah who would restore the throne of King David. Eventually it came to mean a life in whom the voice of God is heard or the will of God is lived out. That is exactly how I view Jesus of Nazareth. God's voice of love is the voice I hear in Jesus. God's being is the being I see lived out in Jesus. I see him calling us beyond tribe, prejudice, gender differences and even religion into a new humanity. I see him acting out the divine purpose to enhance the life of this world. I see God as the source of life revealed when we live fully. I see God as the source of love revealed when we love wastefully. I see God as the Ground of Being revealed when we have the courage to be all that we can be. When I look at the portrait of Jesus as he was remembered in the scriptures and in the Christian tradition, I see the fully alive one, the totally loving one and the one who lives out all that he was destined to be, even as his life was betrayed, forsaken, denied, tortured and killed. That is why I have no problem joining St. Paul and saying, "Yes! Yes! God was in that life," or joining St. John and saying, "If you have seen Jesus you have seen God."
Later theology turned this experience into stultifying creeds, irrelevant doctrines and controlling dogmas. I can sacrifice those. The God experience I find in Jesus I cannot sacrifice. So he is Christ for me and I claim the title Christian and work to transform its meaning into what I think it was originally designed to communicate.
Hope you find this helpful.
-- John Shelby Spong
Posted by Sister Weasle at 11:03 AM | Comments (0)