1.11.2002
I forwarded this article about Battle Mountain, NV -- the "Armpit of America" to my co-worker Amanda, whose parents live in Nevada. She writes:
A follow-up on this article: my parents informed me that the editor of the Battle Mountain paper was fired because of the way she represented the town to this reporter. The merchants in town demanded her resignation, and threatened to pull all advertising from the paper if she stayed. Another lesson about small town life, I guess.
Maybe the Washington Post will give her a job. . .
Colin writes:
I'm still trying to figure out why this came from the Economist, but whatever. Fascinating.
The week, to which we are all enslaved, has a strange and erotic history
Why does The Economist appear every seventh day? The answer is because we, like you, still regulate our lives by a septimal law that Mesopotamian star-gazers framed, and local warlords imposed, more than 40 centuries ago. Our weekdays and weekends and weeks off, our dress-down Fridays, hectic Saturday nights, Sundays sacred or profane, and Monday-morning blues all have their origin in something that happened around 2350BC. Sargon I, King of Akkad, having conquered Ur and the other cities of Sumeria, then instituted a seven-day week, the first to be recorded. . . .
Why should the Sumerian system have not merely endured but become an almost universal conqueror? Ur's posterity now sways regions Sargon never knew. Its lead has been slavishly followed by Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus ancient and modern, Muslims and most of the present inhabitants of Europe and the Americas. Even China surrendered a good thousand years ago. . . .
[Read the whole article here. Personally, I wish the Sumerians had also invented the 3-day weekend while they were at it. The article fails, however, to mention the Mayans, who had 3 concurrent calendar systems, including the Tzolkin religious calendar that combined a 13-day week and a 20-day week. How's that for confusing?]
1.10.2002
(Picture from the New York Times.)
These guys wake up in the morning, put on clothes that makes them invisible in the woods, go stand on a metal bridge and wear vests to make them super visible.� Our tax-dollars at work!
Too funny for words. You must especially read the letter to Shifman about 80% down the page, the one that begins: "Mr. Spammer, you swine," a tour de force of insults.
A headline I never thought I'd see -- Bush is restoring food stamps to legal immigrants. This was one of the more regressive elements in the 1996 welfare law. Essentially, we said that if you emigrated here legally that was fine, but we'll let you starve unless you become a citizen. That law was the reason I couldn't vote for Clinton on his last run (I threw my one-vote support behind Nader's first non-campaign).
So it's somewhat of a jaw dropper to hear Newt Gingrich say this:
"I strongly support the president's initiative. In a law that has reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this is one of the provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it was wrong. President Bush's instincts are exactly right."
Both the New York Times and the 52-member strong Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus claim that Bush's actions are aimed at wooing more Hispanic voters to the GOP. Let's hope he doesn't cave under pressure from the right-wingers.
Last Thurdsay, the cargo ship "Karine A" was intercepted by the Israeli military, carrying a load of missiles and other weapons. Israel says they were bought by Arafat and headed for the Palestinian Authority (PA). Mike Watkins sent us this article, with another possible explanation. He writes:
I picked this up from an international Iranian news service. It offers a plausible account of these events. In particular the alignment of interests makes sense. Hardliners in Iran want to poison any effort by moderates at rapproachment with the west. Hezbollah and PFLP-GC want to undermine the peace process and weaken Arafat. Israelis would like to see Iran labelled a terror-supporting state and want to further weaken Arafat. The extremes on all sides want to sabotage any effort by the US to broker negotiations. And so the escalation continues...
Mr. Alireza Noorizadeh, an independent Iranian journalist told Iran Press Service that the operation had been worked out by a section of the Iranian Revolutionary guards under the control of the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh�i, the Lebanese Hezbollah and Mr. Jibril "without the knowledge or Arafat and Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Khatami, the Iranian President".
Observing that the lamed and widely unpopular Khameneh�i, Mr. Jibril and the Lebanese Hezbollah, an organisation that is controlled by the Iranian leader, are all staunchly against the Chairman of the Palestinian Autority, Mr. Noorizadeh said the three had smuggld arms into the PA-controlled areas in the past using same methods "hence, he said, the presence on the ship of a member of the Lebanese Hazbollah and Palestinians beloging to the PFLP-GC". . . .
Reminding also that the policy of Mr. Khatami and his government concerning the Palestinian issue is "very different" from that instructed by the leader, who has the upper hand in the conduct of the regime�s foreign policy, Mr. Noorizadeh pointed to recent speeches by three reformist personalities criticizing the "Palestinisation" of the Iranian foreign policy.
Speaking at a recent a seminar on the "Palestinian issue from Iranians views" Mr. Mohammad Reza Tajik, an adviser to President Khatami and Director of the President�s Centre for Strategic Researches observed that while the Palestinians had adopted the strategy of dialogue (with Israel), Iran on the contrary advises the strategy of "war, war until victory, a position that is not progressive nor approved by any other nation".
You can read the whole article here. The folks over at Stratfor (no bleeding hearts they!) also doubt that Arafat was directly behind the arms smuggling in this article:
At the same time, logic argues against the idea that the Palestinian Authority was involved in the incident: The presence of Palestinian naval officers aboard the vessel, including one who later directly fingered two of Arafat's top lieutenants, limits plausible deniability. Though the Palestinian Authority does not govern a state, it nonetheless must behave as a government -- and governments engaged in covert or illegal operations usually act in a manner that allows plausible deniability. It would be either extremely stupid or sheerly lunatic for the Palestinians to think that a weapons-laden ship might transit the Red Sea and the Suez Canal undetected at a time when both are under heightened surveillance.
Furthermore, there are contradictory reports about the vessel's ownership. Israel claims Palestinians owned the ship, but Lloyd's List, a premier shipping publication owned by Lloyd's of London, reported Jan.7 that it was owned by an Iraqi national. According to Lloyd's, it was a Lebanese-flagged vessel operated by the Beirut-based Diana K. Shipping Co. and was sold in August 2001 to Ali Mohammed Abbas for $400,000. The ship was then re-registered in Tonga as the Karine A. Although a Lebanese Transport Ministry official has disputed the Lloyd's report, it lends credence to the Palestinian denials and countercharges that Israel manipulated the seizure to derail peace talks.
Ultimately, it matters little whether the Israeli assertions are true. The many apparent discrepancies, the illogic of the idea that the Palestinian Authority would attempt such an operation and finally the Lloyd's List report have combined to cast doubt on the Israeli claims.
So, is it possible that conservative elements in Iran are trying to push Israel and the PA into war? Or is this just another way that Arafat is ducking responsibility?
This article in yesterday's Washington Post quotes a "U.S. official" on the Iran-PA relationship:
"The Iranians and Arafat have been sworn enemies since September 1993," when the Palestinians launched peace efforts with the Israelis in Oslo, a U.S. official said. "Alliances and rivalries can turn on a dime, but I haven't seen any evidence of rapprochement, government to government. It would depend on who in Iran was behind the rapprochement and who they thought they were dealing with on the Palestinian side."
Still, the official said, if Iran is inserting itself into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, "it's important."
In a speech today, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel warned of what he called an emerging alliance between the Palestinian Authority, Iran and Hezbollah and said it posed a grave threat to Israel.
"This would have changed the strategic balance, putting Israel in an impossible situation where all of Israel becomes hostage to Arafat's terror strategy," he said. "The great danger is those relations that were developed between the [Palestinian Authority], led by Arafat, and Iran. Iran at the present time is the center of world terror."
It comes down to whether or not we believe Captain Akawi's claims that he was acting on official PA orders. According to this NYT article, the U.S. government now does, after initially expressing reservations. (So do William Safire and Michael Kelly.) And today's Debka claims that the PA Security Chief Mohamed Dahlan's recent travel intinerary suggests that he was directly involved.
So, pick your scenario: Arafat has joined forces with the Iranian militants, or he's a helpless pawn of militants both inside and outside of his territory. Neither suggests that peace is at hand any time soon.
1.9.2002
"Maybe we'll give them 'the girls of Afghanistan.'"
-- Larry Flynt on how he'd really like Hustler to (un)cover the war in Afghanistan, to Reuters.
Thanks to Naunihal for the quote of the day.
White House defends use of 'Pakis'
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has said that U.S. President George W. Bush meant no disrespect to the Pakistani people by referring to them as "Pakis."
"The president has great respect for Pakistan, the Pakistani people, and the Pakistani culture. Pakistan has been a strong member of the international coalition in the war against terrorism," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Bush used the term in remarks to reporters on Monday when discussing the possibility of nuclear rivals India and Pakistan going to war.
"I don't believe the situation is defused yet, but I do believe there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war," Bush said.
Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of the term. In Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur toward Pakistanis who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s and '70s.
At least he didn't call the Indians "Injuns".
1.7.2002
It's a shame, but even with the approximately 752 awards shows given out to the movies of the year, there are no honors given for cameo appearances -- those brief performances that often outshine the rest of the movie. We're taking nominees for 2001's films; send your nominations to me at [email protected]. Our first nominees are:
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (the goood witch and the baaad witch) in Lord of the Rings.
Chris Kattan for his use of duct tape in Monkeybone.
Greta Kline for her dance (with dad Kevin) in The Anniversary Party.
Burt Kwouk for his role as Uncle Tai in Kiss of the Dragon.
Illeana Douglas as the art teacher in Ghost World.
Send in your nominations! No Academy membership necessary!
Best movies we watched during 2001:
The 400 Blows. Of course, now we have to watch the rest of the Antoine Doinel cycle, but we don't mind.
Amelie. OK, so technically we saw this on January 1 2002, but we put it on the list anyway. Part Emma, part Rear Window, this is the greatest visual treat of the year (with the possible exception of Moulin Rouge.) And so what if it's a feel-good romance at heart? At least it's not shlock. If you haven't seen Delicatassen or City of Lost Children yet, see them now.
Bring it On. Yes, it's a cheerleading movie, but unlike Sugar and Spice, or even the disappointing But I'm a Cheerleader, it's actually good. Managed to be a cheerleading movie while parodying the cheerleading movie.
Dancer in the Dark. Sort of a musical version of Breaking the Waves -- the self-sacrifice of the innocent woman -- Bjork's perfomance, and the fantasy-musical sequences, really make this film. Too bad Von Trier was so mean to her that she'll never act again. Joel Grey has a great cameo.
Eyes of Tammy Faye. Somehow manages to be both ironic and idolizing. The fact that RuPaul narrates should give you some idea of what we're talking about.
Goodfellas. Reminds you that mob movies can be great.
Legally Blonde. Simply the best-written comedy of the year. Reese Witherspoon is great in the dumb-but-really-smart role. And the pink fuzzy phone alone is worth the price of admission.
Limbo. How come all John Sayles movies are so great?
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Wow. Ian McKellen is a special effect.
Memento. Our pick for best screenplay. How many movies make you feel like you have a neurological disorder?
Monsters Inc. The Pixar folks have done it again. Much better than Shrek (which I predict will not hold up over time). It's an interesting contrast to the Toy Story movies, which are essentially about children (read: toys) needing to be loved by their parents (read: children). Monsters is about parents (read: monsters) learning to love their children (read: children). Which is why I think it won't do as well with kids. (Nice nod to Ray Harryhausen in there.)
Moulin Rouge! Aah, they don't make musicals like they used to. They certainly never made them like this.
Nights of Cabiria. A stellar performance by Giuletta Masina. We watched this, loved it, and then ran out and rented Sweet Charity, which is based on the Fellini film, and worthwhile for the Fosse numbers.
The Passion of Joan of Arc. We saw this at BAM several years ago, with a live performance of a new score by Richard Einhorn. Dreyer's masterpiece was twice destroyed by fire (really) and lost until a copy was rediscovered in the closet of an insane asylum in Oslo (really). It's incredible to watch -- you can hardly believe that this was made in 1928.
Pushing Hands. Like Eat Drink Man Woman and The Wedding Banquet (both of which also starred Sihung Lung), Ang Lee explores the meaning of family. The first scene, which has no talking, may make you wonder, but stick with it. The scene in the Chinese restaurant kitchen is a masterpiece.
Shoot the Piano Player. Very good French noir (as is Elevator to the Gallows, which we saw before this year, but is also fantastique.)
To Kill A Mockingbird. Somehow, I made it through 31 years of life without reading the book or seeing the movie. The DVD has a good documentary, on the making and meaning of the movie.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. Pretty good suspense film, but the New-York-70s-kitsch-factor, plus a great ending, puts it over the top.
Woman in the Dunes. Sand. Lots of sand. Closer to the play No Exit than to any other film. Fascinating, and you've never seen sand look so gorgeous and menacing.
Yojimbo. Toshiro Mifune rules. (We also liked Sanjuro, sort of a comic take on Yojimbo.)
Worst movies we watched during 2001:
Chocolat. It's like eating an American chocolate bar: it looks at first like the real thing, but when you eat it it's mostly wax.
Dracula 2000. How bad was this? Really bad. Christopher Plummer is the only good thing about this movie. The only really scary thing was the audition tapes on the DVD, which show you that Dracula studied at the big-eyed spooky school of acting.
I Shot Andy Warhol but I Don't Care. Not even Lili Taylor could save this one.
La Grande Bouffe. Middle-aged men. They eat. They're gluttons. They have sex. Pass the remote.
Leaving Las Vegas. One long cliche. You may want to drink yourself to death before this movie is over.
Meltdown. A Jet Li movie in which Jet Li does not actually fight (much). Laughable villains (who brings snakes to a hostage-taking?). Very unlaughable "comic relief" from a spoof of Jackie Chan. Watch for the flying lizard.
Monkeybone. Visually interesting for about two minutes; after that, senseless. Chris Kattan is the only saving grace of this movie, and that's saying a lot. (He's only in the last 10 minutes of the movie.)
Planet of the Apes. Mark Wahlberg delivers the most ludicrous St. Crispin's Day speech in movie history. And the ending twist is a pointless afterthought.
