The Oscars

Well! I finally saw "Million Dollar Baby" yesterday (Saturday), just in time for the big Oscarfest tonight.
It is certainly one of the darkest films I have seen. It clearly reinforces the notion that most of this year's big films have been downers. The acting is superb all around.
Without Paul Giamatti in the race, the Best actor is going to come down to Clint Eastwood or Jamie Foxx ("Ray").
I would not be unhappy with either choice. Or for that matter with my favorite, but I think hopeless cause of the evening, Don Cheadle in "Hotel Rwanda." But between Eastwood and Foxx my somewhat reluctant preference is for Eastwood (for the same reason that I would choose Virginia Madsen over Cate Blanchett for Best Supporting Actress). It seems to me that channeling a well-known personality like Ray Charles (as brilliantly as Foxx does it) or the equally wonderful job Blanchett does with Kate Hepburn is more of an acting trick or gimmick than a fully fleshed-out performance like Eastwood's or Madsen's.
Perhaps another way of saying this is that Eastwood and Madsen do much more with alot less to work with.
Although I still haven't seen Imelda Staunton ("Vera Drake"), it will be hard to beat Hillary Swank.
Morgan Freeman or Thomas Haden Church? Again a toss-up, but my vote (if I had one) would go to Freeman. If you want to see a performance without a false note, Freeman's is it.
So we come to best director: Martin Scorcese ("The Aviator") or Eastwood? If they give it to Scorcese it will be because they owe him for all the times they didn't. "The Aviator" is not a very good film. Although Scorcese did the best with what was there on the page, there wasn't much there.
Finally Best Picture. Since neither "Motorcycle Diaries" nor "Hotel Rwanda" were nominated, I would go with "Million Dollar Baby." How can you go wrong rewarding a movie that's hated by extreme right-wing film critic Michael Medved and his pals Rush Limbaugh and Rabbi Daniel Lapin.
One last word about the "Million Dollar Baby" controversy. I'm not at all sure that I would have made the same decision that was made by Eastwood's character, but a brief for euthanasia it ain't. It is certainly a legitimate choice within the Framework of the film, even if it wouldn't have been mine.
As Eastwood said to Frank Rich: "What do you have to give these people to make them happy?" I've often wondered that myself.

Scary quote

In the Feb. 14/21 double issue of The New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann quotes Bill Keller-who replaced Howell Rains as New York Times executive editor:

Portraying conservatives fairly does not mean equal time for creationism.
But it does mean, for example, writing about abortion in a way that does
justice to the deep moral qualms most Americans have about it. It means
trying to understand the thinking of people who regard gay marriage as
unacceptable, who worry that gun controls represent an encroachment on
their civil liberties.

In other words, let's worry about the civil rights of gun owners, but not of gay people. We don't want to give equal time to creationism, but it's no problem to give it to homophobia.
When Lemann sub-titles his article "Why is everyone mad at the mainstream media?", I can't help but wonder why.

Michael Powell on John Negroponte

According to Unconventional Wisdom, Outgoing FCC Chair Michael Powell was overheard talking about National Intelligence Director nominee John Negroponte:

"Powell believes President Bush picked Negroponte because no one the White House wanted to do the job would do it, including Tommy Franks, who said, 'Hell no!' The job of National Intelligence Director cannot be done successfully. All Negroponte will do is 'sit around waiting for the bomb to go off' and then take the blame when it does."

When Bush Comes to Shove

Here's a notice about a New York City organizing conference sponsored by the youth division of Democratic Socialists of America. Without endorsing DSA or its youth division use your own judgment:
WHEN BUSH COMES TO SHOVE: Youth Organizing Against Right-Wing & Corporate Power
March 11-13
New York City

Hunter S. Thompson

Hunter S Thompson's death has left a gaping hole in the ranks of American counter-culture.

Hunter S. Thompson

"Fear is just another word for ignorance"

Lists, lists, lists

Ok! our penchant for lists has gone too far.
I can live with lists of the 100 most powerful people in Hollywood, the 50 richest people in the U.S. and even, reluctantly, the 100 hottest "babes".
But I think things have gone beyond reason with Parade magazine's "The World's 10 Worst Dictators."
I can't help but wonder if Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea is upset that he has been demoted from last year's 6th place ranking to #10 this year. And what about Omar al-Bashire of the Sudan who leapfrogged from #7 last year to #1 this year. Is he out celebrating?
What about those who didn't make this year's list, will they be more dictatorial, more deadly in order to make next year's list.

Women and sports

Check out this recent posting on Andrewsullivan.com "The Daily Dish."

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: "For those of us who believe we should train our daughters according to Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, and other Biblical passages, my answer is "Yes, it is not good." I propose that sports greatly hinders the development of godly, Biblical, feminine character. Parents today expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy taking their daughters from one sports event to another, week after week, even to the point where it exhausts the family and family resources. The fruits we see are that today's Christian women are often ill- prepared to be Biblically obedient wives and mothers. This brings to mind a couple of questions: "Why do we spend so much time preparing our daughters to play sports?" and "What does it prepare them for in the future?" My answer is that sports prepare women to be more like men. Instead of spending all that time preparing our daughters as the Bible directs, we are training them to be like men so they can better compete with men in traditionally masculine roles - i.e., compete with them in the workforce, in politics, in the military, and in sports." - Scott Jonas, in Jesus-Is-Savior.com, outlining fundamentalist opposition to women in sports. No one should be under illusions that gays are not the only targets of some Christian fundamentalists. The freedom of women to live lives as they see fit is also anathema to these activists.- 4:38:00 PM

The Gates in Central Park

Sunday Ann and I went up to Central Park to see the Christo and Jeanne-Claude gates. Although I wasn't overwhelmed (I said to her: "You seen one saffron gate, you've seen them all), contrary to "Columnist of the Year" Andrea Peyser's ridiculous column (What is her problem?), they do add quite a lot of charm and excitement to a somewhat dreary period in the city. The Cow Parade, however, they ain't
If you're interested, one of the best views is from Belvedere Castle.
I took some photos, as soon as I learn how to get photos onto this blog, I'll post some.
I'm going to try to go back tomorrow (Tues.), when I hope it will be less crowded. More then.

Bush and the truth

The very Martha Stewart-like respect for truth that seems to pervade the Bush administration has once again been brought to the fore.
Thanks to Mediabistro for directing me to the Houston Chronicle article on "James Guckert, who used the Talon News byline 'Jeff Gannon,' [and] managed to get access to the White House on a daily basis for two years."
The Chronicle goes on to say: "The organization Guckert worked for turned out to be an arm of a partisan group, GOPUSA, a conservative Web site based in Houston and dedicated to 'spreading the conservative message throughout America.' It turns out Talon News was created only a few days before Guckert first applied for a White House daily pass."

Pro Gay marriage decision in New York State

On Feb. 4, New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled to compel New York City Clerk Victor Robles to issue five same-sex couples marriage licenses. Full story in Gay City News.
The decision has been appealed by the Bloomberg administration (although, in an attempt to straddle both sides of the fence, Bloomberg has said that he favors gay marriage).

Howard Dean, Democratic Party chair?

Well! all things being equal, it looks good for Gov. Howard Dean to become Chair of the Democratic Party on Saturday. However, don't forget how good it looked for the Yankees when they were up 3-0 against Boston in the playoffs.
But according to most observers (see Blog for America) it's pretty much a done deal.
What fascinates me is how negatively all the right-wing ideologs portray Dean's effect on the Party (check out Michael Goodwin in the New York Daily News).
If, in fact, he is going to be the "Dem Gravedigger," then why don't they shut-up and let it happen. Could it be that a real chair scares the hell out of them?
The fact is that these right-wing spokespeople want a Democratic Party that plays the role the Washington Generals have enacted for the Harlem Globetrotters. They need a team (party) who will make the process appear legitimate, but not one that will win.

The 25 most influential evangelicals according to Time

Time Magazine has published its list of "The 25 most Influential Evangelicals in America."

Taking Time's comments with a grain of salt, the list is a useful reference.

A joke

A friend of ours sent us this joke. Enjoy.


Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. Why would you ask that?!
There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day.
Any reports of a lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media.
That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect.
Why do you hate freedom?

The Democrats' "Jesus moment"

In the same issue Time has also taken off from Sen.Hillary Clinton's rightward shift on abortion last week to comment on the "Jesus moment" for the Democrats.

It seems University of California, Berkeley-linguist George Lakeoff and "left-leaning"-evangelical-author, Jim Wallis, are advising the Democrats on how to reach out to right-wing voters.

This is, of course, another in a torrent of right-wing interventions in the upcoming election of a new Democratic National Committee Chair. These are largely attempts to head-off the election of Howard Dean to that post.

No on Condoleezza Rice

I recently got this message from MoveOn


Dear MoveOn member,

Late last year, George W. Bush nominated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State -- the top diplomat for the United States abroad. The Senate is debating today and will vote tomorrow on her promotion.

No one in the country, except perhaps President Bush, is more responsible for pushing the pre-war lie that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. At the same time CIA briefings told Dr. Rice that Iraq had no active nuclear program, she was appearing on TV talk shows raising that possibility. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," after all, was Rice's line. And when the war started, Rice was one of its central architects and continued the WMD deception asserting, "I believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," and telling us, "we're finding interesting things." Last month the U.S. military formally ended the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

No National Security Advisor in recent history has been more deceptive or more inept. And there are few people in the world who enjoy less credibility with our foreign allies than Condoleezza Rice.

Senate Democrats have signaled their willingness to hold her accountable for these mistakes -- they've delayed her confirmation by a week for more intense questioning. And senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have already announced that they're voting against her confirmation. Please call your senators, listed below, and urge them to join Boxer and Kerry in opposing Dr. Rice's confirmation.

Senator Charles Schumer: 202-224-6542
Senator Hillary Clinton: 202-224-4451

After you make your call, please click on the link below to let us know you called.
http://www.moveon.org/callmade16.html?id=5063-169500-ZvpBymHF617sSYtuMmpR4Q

Because Republicans control the Senate, it's likely that Rice will be confirmed. But if there was ever a moment for Democrats to hold someone accountable for the disastrous war in Iraq, it's today.

Please make your phone call today. Let's make it clear that Condoleezza Rice should be reprimanded, not promoted.

Thanks for all you do.

--Tom Matzzie
MoveOn.org
January 25th, 2005

P.S. You might find these articles helpful.

Senate Begins Debate on Rice Nomination
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050125/ap_on_go_co/senate_rice

U.S. Gives Up Search for Iraq WMD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apology

Ok! So I'm not keeping my New Year's resolution and
blogging every day. That's why I don't make resolutions. But I'm still going to try to keep this one.

"Free Iraq"

Check out "Free Iraq" and "Baghdad Burning" two important Iraqi liberation blogs.
The New York Times has a very interesting article on current struggles within the community of Iraqi bloggers by Sarah Boxer (NYT, 1/18/05, E1)

Privatization of Social Security

I recently got this info from MoveOn about fighting privatization of social security so here it is in full.It's important


George Bush and Republican leaders have made phasing out Social Security – through privatization and massive benefit cuts – their top priority for 2005. We want to deliver 200,000 signatures to Congress to let them know that the American people oppose gutting Social Security. Sign now:Click to Sign

Dear MoveOn member,
Social Security is the crown jewel of progressive government -- a singular achievement that has reshaped what used to be penniless old age. Now George Bush and Republican leaders have made phasing out Social Security as we know it through privatization and massive benefit cuts their top priority for 2005.
Even House Republicans are skeptical about the scheme. According to a recent Washington Post article, as many as 40 Republican members are considering voting against it. So the final vote is likely to be extremely close, and Bush and the Wall Street firms that stand to make billions are pulling out all the stops. According to some reports, they're raising up to $100 million for advertising to apply pressure.
Bush started his publicity blitz on Tuesday, and now the clock is ticking for House and Senate members to state their position. We need to send them a message before it is too late. Let your members of Congress know that you want them to protect Social Security by signing our petition at the link below:
http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/?id=5055-169500-jOwzB.ROvA54NIUtY6ajuA
Our goal is to deliver 200,000 signatures on a petition to Congress when they return after the January 20 inauguration. That is a big goal in such a short time but we know that you can help make it happen by forwarding this alert to your friends, family and coworkers.
In pushing this issue, Bush is working out of the same play book that he used for the war in Iraq. First, he's manufacturing a crisis, by grossly distorting the scale of the threat. Then, when Americans are convinced that the problem is clear and imminent, he'll propose a reckless solution -- privatization -- which just happens to help a lot of his corporate friends.
And of course, the gap between Bush's rhetoric and the truth is enormous. Social Security is a complicated issue, but the basics are really pretty simple:
Social Security provides monthly benefits to some 44 million Americans who are retired, disabled or the survivor of a deceased parent. It provides most of the income for older Americans -- some 64 percent of their support. It has lifted generations of seniors out of poverty.
Social Security is not in crisis. That is an outright lie perpetrated in order to create the urgency for radical changes. Under conservative forecasts, the long-term challenges in Social Security do not manifest themselves until 2042. Even then Social Security has 70 percent of needed funds. That shortfall is smaller than the amount needed in 1983, the last time we overhauled Social Security. George Bush's Social Security crisis-talk is an effort to create a specter of doom -- just like the weapons of mass destruction claim in Iraq.
Phasing out Social Security and replacing it with privatized accounts means one thing: massive cuts in monthly benefits for everybody. Social Security privatization requires diverting taxes used to pay current benefits into privatized accounts invested in risky stocks. Without that money, Social Security benefits will inevitably be cut -- some proposals even cut benefits of current retirees. These benefit cuts are inevitable, since diverting Social Security money into privatized accounts means less money to pay current and future benefits.
Every serious privatization proposal raises the Social Security retirement age to 70. That might be fine if you're a Washington special interest lobbyist but it is incredibly unfair to blue-collar Americans with tough, physical jobs, or for African Americans and Latinos with lower life expectancies.
Privatization means gambling with your retirement security. There is probably an appropriate place for a little stock market risk in retirement planning -- but it isn't Social Security. Privatization exposes your entire retirement portfolio to stock market risks -- and the risk that you'll outlive any of your savings at retirement. You can't outlive your Social Security benefit.
So who does benefit? Wall Street. Giant financial services firms have been salivating for decades over the prospect of taking over Social Security. Wall Street would make billions of dollars in profit by managing the privatized accounts -- money that would come directly from your benefits.
So far, the Democrats are united in the cause of protecting Social Security. If the Democrats are going to show some real backbone we need to back them. Show your support by signing the petition at the link below:
http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/?id=5055-169500-jOwzB.ROvA54NIUtY6ajuA
And after signing the petition, please help debunk the misinformation that's circulating by forwarding this email on to your friends and family.
Thanks for all you do.
--Tom Matzzie and Eli Pariser MoveOn.org January 13th, 2005
P.S.: For more information, here are some good resources:
Campaign for America's Future on Social Securityhttp://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/index.cfm
The Social Security Network by The Century Foundationhttp://www.socsec.org/
"The Iceberg Cometh" by Paul Krugman. The New York Times. January 11, 2005 (registration required)http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ex=1263272400&en=a6842a621ebe11ad&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
"Bush Launches PR Campaign to change Social Security" by Richard Benedetto and Judy Keen, USA TODAY January 11, 2005http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-11-bush-social-security_x.htm?csp=34

Howard Dean announces for DNC Chair

As expected Howard Dean announced yesterday that he is running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. My instinct is to agree with: "Go! Howard! Go!." But there seems to be a bit of dissent.

The more I think about it, the more it seems as if anything short of supporting the Dean candidacy would be giving in to media bashing and the current tendency to move the Party to the right.

Anyway I would love to know what you think.

End of search for WMD in Iraq

The Bush administration search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has always seemed to me a bit like O.J. Simpson's search for the "real killer." So the fact that the search is officially over today and none have been found is hardly surprising.
It's also hardly surprising that Bush continues to justify the invasion of Iraq despite the failure to realize the primary reason given for it at the time. (This also makes a lie of the reason that Bush gave Congress and the United Nations at the time to justify the invasion.)
(for full story)