Saturday, August 21, 2004

A Word From Our Sponsor

I'd like to rest my heavy head tonight
On a bed of California stars
I'd like to lay my weary bones tonight
On a bed of California stars
I'd love to feel your hand touching mine
And tell me why I must keep working on
Yes, I'd give my life to lay my head tonight
On a bed of California stars


I'd like to dream my troubles all away
On a bed of California stars
Jump up from my starbed and make another day
Underneath my California stars
They hang like grapes on vines that shine
And warm the lovers glass like friendly wine
So, I'd give this world
just to dream a dream with you
On our bed of California stars


--W. Guthrie

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Hypocrisy Wears Flannel

Today, Aug. 10, 2004, Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment released a pair of Three Stooges DVDs containing both the original black-and-white sketches and new digitally colored versions. This decision confuses me: no one took too kindly to Ted Turner's decision to colorize all the old films he scooped up several years ago, so the Stooges should be no exception. And indeed, one Hollywood mogul has spoken out against the perversion of the art's original form for the sake of commercialization.

George Lucas told the Associated Press that the only way to truly appreciate what the Stooges were doing is to see the original films in black-and-white, that when colorized they lose their natural context and power. "It's not fair to the artist," Lucas said. And I agree.

But what if it's the artist doing the changing? Is that still an aesthetic crime? Or simply the now-better-developed abilities of the artist brought to bear on a previously acclaimed work?

Lucas' own original Star Wars trilogy will see DVD release in September, but the films might feel a little different to purists and boomers: the discs will not contain the original films but the "special editions" Lucas released in theaters in the late '90s, full of computer-generated characters, polishes and updates Lucas has said he always wanted but could not until now put into the films. Additionally, Video Store Magazine reported earlier this year that the faces of at least two characters in the original trilogy will be digitally enhanced (what does that even mean?) in order to make them gibe with versions in the recent films. The set of films will supposedly be presented "as George Lucas sees them today," said Steve Sansweet, head of fan relations for LucasFilm.

Suddenly Lucas' diatribe against the technological updating of older films seems less like a qualified argument and more the one-sided ramblings of a formerly great, now frighteningly wealthy and eccentric, storyteller and filmmaker.

I still think that colorization of films is bad, but so is the constant revision and refinement of a film released during the Carter administration. I advise everyone who genuinely cares about films to hang on to ther VHS copies of Lucas' only significant contribution to American cinema. Otherwise he'll just keep releasing newer, "better" versions on DVD every few years, never stopping to wonder if maybe he didn't get it right the first time.

Monday, August 09, 2004

So Little Time

In an ABC-TV interview in July 2000, Dick Cheney denied participation in any oil- or other business-dealings between Halliburton and Iraq while he was CEO of the company. He admitted to deals with Libya and Iran, but stated that there were strict policies against dealing with Iraq. The Washington Post later revealed that according to UN reports, Halliburton in fact signed contracts worth $73 million with Iraq while Cheney was its CEO. According to the report, two Halliburton subsidiaries sold materials to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales took place between the first half of 1997 and the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August of 2000.

Three weeks after the aforementioned interview, Cheney was informed that a Halliburton spokesman had publicly stated that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump (the Halliburton subsidiaries) traded with Iraq. Cheney then modified his earlier response, and claimed to be unaware of these dealings. However, the firms continued trading with Iraq for more than a year while Cheney was Halliburton's CEO.

In September '03, Cheney said that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with (Halliburton), gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

To this day he still possesses over 430,000 shares of Halliburton stock options and a deferred compensation account valued at between $500,000 and $1 million.

As Vice President, Cheney continually denies playing any direct role in the government's awarding of multibillion dollar contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries, despite internal Pentagon emails indicating that he has.

President Bush has been quoted as saying Cheney's "doing a heck of a good job. When I picked him I knew he was a fine business leader and a fine, experienced man."

(Sources: "Bush defends Cheney over Halliburton" CNN.com, July 17, 2002. See article at: www.cnn.com. "Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain" CBS News, September 26, 2003. See article at: www.cbsnews.com. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said" NewsMax Wires, Monday, June 25, 2001. See article at: www.newsmax.com.)


In the summer of 2003, the Bush administration passed a bill that added a $400-per-child tax credit to middle- and upper-income families. However, in a last-minute change to the bill, the tax break was denied to families who earn just above minimum wage.

Over 6.5 million families, and 12 million children in households earning less than $26,625 a year, did not benefit from the administration's increased tax refunds.

Senator Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat who tried to extend the tax credit to low-income families, said: "I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill. These are the people who need it the most and who will spend it the most. These are the people who buy the blue jeans and the detergent and who will stimulate the economy with their spending."

(Sources: David Firestone, "Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets," New York Times, May 29, 2003. "Dems, GOP Spar Over Tax Cut Provision," CNN, May 30, 2003. See article at: cnn.com. cbpp.org.)


At the International AIDS Conference last week, the Bush administration announced its refusal to donate a requested $1 billion to the U.N.-sponsored Global Fund to fight the disease. The fund works with 128 countries and is currently $3.6 billion short of its 2005 budget.

U.S. spokesman Randall Tobias said that the United States already donates billions to their own AIDS relief programs. However, the United States focuses its aid only on the small number of countries (approximately 14) that support the president's abstinence-first policy. In addition, the United States' Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief only allows the use of brand-name drugs, which are usually American-made, as opposed to cheaper generic versions. Generic drugs that are allowed under the Global Fund cost as little as $150 per person per year, versus the typical $700 cost of the U.S.-approved drugs.

(Source: "U.S. Fights Criticism at AIDS Conference," The Associated Press, July 14, 2004.)


In a 2002 Defense Department report that examined the policies and execution of the war in Afghanistan, retired Army colonel Hy Rothstein concluded that the victory in Afghanistan was not a strategic long-run success.

He noted that the bombing campaign was an ineffective way to hunt down Al Qaeda operatives. Moreover, it resulted in a number of civilian deaths that could have been avoided if Special Forces had been deployed and able to use methods of unconventional warfare. Finally, Rothstein believed the Special Forces would have negotiated with anti-Taliban elements to ensure that postwar Afghanistan did not degrade into its present state of anarchy.

When Rothstein delivered his report in January 2003, the Pentagon returned it to him with the message that he had to cut it drastically and soften his conclusions. When asked for comment, the Pentagon said, "We did not support all of his conclusions."

An unidentified former senior intelligence officer said, "It wasn't like he made it up ... the reason they're petrified is that it's true, and they didn't want to see it in writing."

(Source: Seymour M. Hersh, "The Other War," The New Yorker, issue of April 12, 2004.)


While campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush said: "I do support a national patients' bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas to get a patients' bill of rights through. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage ... I don't want the law to supersede good laws like we've got in Texas."

However, as governor, Bush vetoed the patients' bill of rights that he refers to above. Bush finally let the law pass, but he refused to sign it.

The Bush administration recently argued against this same Texas patients' bill in a Supreme Court case that challenged the strength of the law. The administration's briefing on the subject argued that allowing patients to sue their HMOs for wrongful denials of medical benefits costs the HMOs too much.

This month the court ruled in favor of the managed-care companies.

(Sources: Presidential debate, St. Louis, MO, 10/17/00. Charles Lane, "A 'Flip-Flop' on Patients' Right to Sue?" Washington Post, April 5, 2004. New York Times, 3/24/04. abcnews.go.com. Jake Tapper and Alicia Montgomery, "Patients bill alive, for now," Salon, Feb. 7, 2001.)


The Bush-Cheney campaign is encouraging churchgoers to use their congregations to rally support for Bush's re-election. However, as the IRS reminded Republican and Democratic national committees in a recent letter, tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."

If religious organizations participate in partisan political campaigning, they will lose their tax-exempt status.

The Bush-Cheney campaign distributed a document to religious volunteers that indirectly involves congregations, rather than individual congregants, in the effort to re-elect Bush. Some instructions include: "talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04," and "recruit 5 more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush Cheney campaign."

(Source: Alan, Cooperman, "Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign," The Washington Post, 7/1/04)


As Governor of Texas, George Bush supported a 1995 Texas law that allowed private citizens to carry concealed firearms with a permit, breaking a century long-ban on such conduct in Texas.

In 1997, Bush signed an amendment to the law that legalized the possession of concealed weapons in "a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship." If a religious institution wants to prohibit the possession of concealed weapons on their property, they are responsible for posting a sign that says so. However, under the Bush amendment there is no legal penalty for the first time that someone disregards such a posting.

(Source: Adam Clymer, "Bush Law allows Concealed Guns in Churches," New York Times, Sept. 18, 1999. John Wildermuth, "Bush, Gore Trade Fire Over Gun Control," San Francisco Chronicle, October 10, 2000)

More from McSweeney's

Rolling Stone panel discussion about the Iraq debacle


Monday, August 02, 2004

"I'm Doing Just Fine With This Plank In My Eye"

The Democratic National Convention ended last week, and each night I watched as over-groomed adults and their weird offspring paraded around for several days, regaling the oddly rapt crowd with boring personal anecdotes or poorly delivered speeches. The talks from the former Democratic candidates were the worst, each one giving us a healthy reminder how lucky we are the party isn't nominating the makes-Gore-look-peppy Gen. Wesley Clark or the Ferengi-spawned Dennis Kucinich or the hostile hairdo that is Al Sharpton.

I'm not a staunch Democrat. At 22 years old, I'm not much of a staunch anything except an unemployed drain on my parents. But I liked the speech Kerry gave on the convention's final night, despite its corny nature: in his opening statement Kerry announced he was "reporting for duty" as he saluted the crowd, a move they loved but reminded me of every lie an adult's ever told me and mine, of which there have been many.

Behind the staged flourishes, though, were things I liked hearing: the U.S. will only go to war if it has to, not wants to; more money for education; increasing the minimum wage; the promise of other programs that sound appealing to me, a young man raised in a church supposedly geared toward caring for "widows and orphans."

That's why I'm currently supporting Kerry. His delivery and presence, coupled with the encouraging things he said, genuinely affected me. Do I believe President Bush is an evil warmonger, painted by the left to be destroying the world? No. Do I think he lied about Iraq, among other things? Yes, I do.

Being raised in that widows-and-orphans church gave me a supreme love for the First Amendment that allowed my family to practice our faith openly, and that same amendment also lets Bush's supporters continue to freely support him.

But I want a reason.

"He's a good man." So what? My father's a good man, but he couldn't lead the nation. "He appeals to the honest working class of middle America." I don't want someone who's going to dumb himself down (or, more frighteningly, naturally play it dumb) just to sound more folksy. "He's a Christian." So what? I've known plenty of misguided and genuinely awful Christians.

No longer will I stay silent when someone I know arbitrarily praises the president without supporting their admiration with a reason. I'm tired of letting the rabid and deluded members of my generation, the one that has the potential to actually be the greatest, claim that they've found the enlightened path to good government and I must be some kind of heathen (or worse, liberal) for not voting with my congregation.

You determined to keep your state red? Fine by me and the Founders. But you'd better be able to tell me why. Otherwise, you're no better than the names you call me.

"I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side." -- Sen. Kerry in his speech on the convention's final night