Wednesday, November 29, 2006
AND LATER: PARIS HILTON SHARES HER VIEWS ON WILAYAT AL-FAQIH
As if to disinter, dismember, grind into fine powder, and then re-bury the "liberal media" canard, Good Morning America invites Glenn Beck on to discuss radical Islam.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
SAPPING OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS
Dennis Prager:
Someone needs to take his medication. The idea that America will come crashing down around us if Ellison takes his oath of office on a religious text other than the Bible is, I think, ridiculous on its face, but it's Prager's attempt to place the ethical monotheism of Islam outside the bounds of "our civilization," as if there should be something inherently objectionable to the American mind about Islam or the Koran, that I find particularly stupid and offensive. (Sure, he's not "hostile" to the Koran, he just thinks swearing on it constitutes a threat to national security.) I can't speak for Ellison's other supporters, but what I'm saying is that Ellison's culture is American culture, is part of our civilization now. If Prager has a problem with that, well, as my gastroenterologist used to say, tough shit. Muslims are a growing minority in the United States, and our culture will adjust and accomodate them, just as it had to accomodate the Germans, the Irish, the Africans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Slavs, and whatever previously vilified stock Prager comes from. It won't be a painless process, it never is, but it really doesn't matter if Dennis Prager throws himself across the tracks or goes into a closet to suck eggs, either way the train's not stopping.
On the other hand, what if this dyspeptic bigot is right? I mean, if we start letting our elected leaders take their oaths on different books, who really knows what could happen? They might lose all sense of ethics and propriety. They might start selling policy favors in exchange for campaign donations. They might start allowing lobbyists onto the floor of Congress to write legislation. They might start engaging on extramarital affairs. They might start getting divorced, remarried, divorced and remarried again. They might start partying with lobbyists and hookers in expensive hotel suites. If Keith Ellison is permitted to take his oath on the Koran, one can even imagine, years and years from now, of course, that the United States might begin to operate a series of secret prisons wherein persons are held without charge and subjected to torture. I know that sounds wild. But maybe swearing on the Bible is what has prevented such things from coming to pass?
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
...
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.
Someone needs to take his medication. The idea that America will come crashing down around us if Ellison takes his oath of office on a religious text other than the Bible is, I think, ridiculous on its face, but it's Prager's attempt to place the ethical monotheism of Islam outside the bounds of "our civilization," as if there should be something inherently objectionable to the American mind about Islam or the Koran, that I find particularly stupid and offensive. (Sure, he's not "hostile" to the Koran, he just thinks swearing on it constitutes a threat to national security.) I can't speak for Ellison's other supporters, but what I'm saying is that Ellison's culture is American culture, is part of our civilization now. If Prager has a problem with that, well, as my gastroenterologist used to say, tough shit. Muslims are a growing minority in the United States, and our culture will adjust and accomodate them, just as it had to accomodate the Germans, the Irish, the Africans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Slavs, and whatever previously vilified stock Prager comes from. It won't be a painless process, it never is, but it really doesn't matter if Dennis Prager throws himself across the tracks or goes into a closet to suck eggs, either way the train's not stopping.
On the other hand, what if this dyspeptic bigot is right? I mean, if we start letting our elected leaders take their oaths on different books, who really knows what could happen? They might lose all sense of ethics and propriety. They might start selling policy favors in exchange for campaign donations. They might start allowing lobbyists onto the floor of Congress to write legislation. They might start engaging on extramarital affairs. They might start getting divorced, remarried, divorced and remarried again. They might start partying with lobbyists and hookers in expensive hotel suites. If Keith Ellison is permitted to take his oath on the Koran, one can even imagine, years and years from now, of course, that the United States might begin to operate a series of secret prisons wherein persons are held without charge and subjected to torture. I know that sounds wild. But maybe swearing on the Bible is what has prevented such things from coming to pass?
Monday, November 27, 2006
PARKOUR
File under Cool Stuff I Didn't Know Yesterday: Sebastien Foucan, who played the incredibly agile target of Bond's pursuit in Casino Royale, is a co-founder and proponent of Parkour: "a physical discipline of French origin in which the participant — called a traceur — attempts to pass obstacles in the fastest and most direct manner possible, using skills such as jumping, vaulting and climbing, or the more specific parkour moves. The obstacles can be anything in the environment, so parkour is often practiced in urban areas because of many suitable public structures, such as buildings, rails, and walls."
I can't imagine a better promotion for the discipline than Casino Royale, that chase was amazing.
I can't imagine a better promotion for the discipline than Casino Royale, that chase was amazing.
FLYING WHILE MUSLIM
On the removal of six Muslim imams from a US Airways flight last week, Larry Kudlow writes:
Yes, those "bearded troublemaking Muslims." Who do they think they are, having beards and being Muslim in Larry Kudlow's America? Kudlow's misuse of the term "rabble-rousers" is perhaps ironically appropriate, as the very presence of these Muslims was enough to rouse the passions and prejudices of the rabble. Unlike Kudlow, however, I don't consider this something worth celebrating.
According to everything I've read, these men were not instigating anything, and no one has come forward with any evidence that they did anything wrong. US Airways has offered multiple explanations of why they ejected them from the plane and then refused to let them fly on the airline. Larry Kudlow, however, apparently feels that being identifiably Muslim is enough to warrant such treatment. (But what about Muslims who aren't immediately identifiable as Muslims? Isn't that a danger, Larry? Perhaps they should be required to wear some sort of ID badge, a yellow crescent over the left breast? Will that make you feel safer?)
Michelle Malkin gets to work playing Six Degrees of Osama bin Laden, featuring links which purport to demonstrate these imams' terrorist connections and sympathies, but of course do nothing of the kind. (This is the same sort of shifty slander that Joel Mowbray used unsuccessfully against then-candidate, now-Congressman Keith Ellison.) In any case, such aspersions have nothing whatever to do with why the imams were pulled off the airplane, and in fact only contribute to the atmosphere of fear and bigotry which caused these men to be singled out, harassed and detained.
I was so pleased to hear that US Airways threw six bearded troublemaking Muslims off the plane last week. But I’m not pleased (nor surprised) that Muslim Democratic Rep.-elect Keith Ellison from Minnesota defended these rabble-rousers.
Yes, those "bearded troublemaking Muslims." Who do they think they are, having beards and being Muslim in Larry Kudlow's America? Kudlow's misuse of the term "rabble-rousers" is perhaps ironically appropriate, as the very presence of these Muslims was enough to rouse the passions and prejudices of the rabble. Unlike Kudlow, however, I don't consider this something worth celebrating.
According to everything I've read, these men were not instigating anything, and no one has come forward with any evidence that they did anything wrong. US Airways has offered multiple explanations of why they ejected them from the plane and then refused to let them fly on the airline. Larry Kudlow, however, apparently feels that being identifiably Muslim is enough to warrant such treatment. (But what about Muslims who aren't immediately identifiable as Muslims? Isn't that a danger, Larry? Perhaps they should be required to wear some sort of ID badge, a yellow crescent over the left breast? Will that make you feel safer?)
Michelle Malkin gets to work playing Six Degrees of Osama bin Laden, featuring links which purport to demonstrate these imams' terrorist connections and sympathies, but of course do nothing of the kind. (This is the same sort of shifty slander that Joel Mowbray used unsuccessfully against then-candidate, now-Congressman Keith Ellison.) In any case, such aspersions have nothing whatever to do with why the imams were pulled off the airplane, and in fact only contribute to the atmosphere of fear and bigotry which caused these men to be singled out, harassed and detained.
MULLAH ATARI, KING OF IRAQ
Like Hezbollah and Hamas, much of the Mahdi Army's popularity can be attributed to the simple fact that they deliver:
During the invasion of Baghdad in April 2003, Sadr militiamen had de-Baathified and secured Baghdad's "Saddam City" neighborhood, and renamed it "Sadr City," even before American troops had secured the rest of the city. During the looting which took place after Baghdad's fall, Sadr militiamen were out in force protecting Shi'a shops and homes. American troops protected the oil ministry.
From this week's Newsweek cover article on Moqtada:
Quite.
More:
The murder of al-Khoei can be seen as the first move in Moqtada's struggle against the Shi'a clerical establishment, and an almost unimaginably bold one. Unlike challenging the American occupation, being seen as having participated in the murder of a Grand Ayatollah could have had real, dire consequences for Moqtada in terms of popular support. He took advantage of the post-invasion confusion to eliminate a competitor, one with much greater scholarly standing as well as the backing of the U.S. coalition. The death of al-Khoei both satisfied what many suspect was a family grudge, and removed a significant rival for political power. (Al-Khoei had also made the questionable move of approaching the shrine that day accompanied by its keeper, a known Baathist, in a conciliatory gesture. The crowd that surrounded and eventually murdered them both, however, was not in a conciliatory mood.)
As with Rumsfeld's blithe dismissal of the looting, one of the retired generals on Jay Garner's staff dismissed the murder of al-Khoei by saying "Oh, it's just them killing each other." Not only was Moqtada underestimated, the people that were put in charge of the occupation had little knowledge of the political-religious context within which he was operating.
On Thursday afternoon, bombs in six parked cars began detonating at 15-minute intervals in three sections of Sadr City, including the crowded Jamila Market. Mahdi Army militiamen quickly spread out around the vast slum, residents said.
They helped the injured into cars and carted the dead to funeral homes, where the corpses would be cleansed according to Muslim rituals. Some donated blood and helped fire fighters douse flames. Other militiamen, some clutching AK-47 assault rifles or rocket-propelled grenades, searched for the perpetrators of the bombings. They found one more car, filled with explosives, and took the driver into custody.
At Khadisiya Hospital, militiamen assisted doctors and nurses, carrying patients into emergency rooms, Abid said. With hospital supplies thin, Sadr officials sent over syringes, medicines and other equipment donated by merchants. And with only four ambulances in circulation, most of the wounded were being brought in cars.
"Most of the cars were Mahdi Army, or Mahdi Army men were inside to carry in the wounded," Abid said.
Others fanned out to protect their neighborhoods. On nearly every street, heavily armed militiamen stood guard, residents said. Concrete barriers and barbed wire were quickly erected, closing off streets to unfamiliar cars to prevent further attacks.
Entry and exit into Sadr City were controlled. When he learned of the bombings, Hendul said, he rushed to Sadr City. But the militiamen at the checkpoints refused to let him enter. He showed his Sadr identification cards, but they wouldn't budge.
"They prevented me from coming inside until they made phone calls to check who I was," Hendul recalled Friday. "Yesterday was a good example of how we can handle security. Our city can protect itself better than the government."
During the invasion of Baghdad in April 2003, Sadr militiamen had de-Baathified and secured Baghdad's "Saddam City" neighborhood, and renamed it "Sadr City," even before American troops had secured the rest of the city. During the looting which took place after Baghdad's fall, Sadr militiamen were out in force protecting Shi'a shops and homes. American troops protected the oil ministry.
From this week's Newsweek cover article on Moqtada:
Moqtada al-Sadr did not appearon anyone's radar screen ahead of the 2003 invasion. Even among Iraqis, although he came from an important clerical family he was seen as a weak figure. Moqtada's father, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, had been a leading ayatollah, a rival to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and other top clerics. But gunmen—assumed to be working for Saddam—murdered the elder Sadr along with two of his sons in 1999. Moqtada was 25 at the time.
...
Saddam kept a close eye on Sadr because the young man inherited a wide network of mosques, schools and social centers built up by his father. The network was focused on the impoverished masses of Iraqi Shiites—the sort of people other religious and secular leaders didn't have much time for. Even some educated Shiites dismissed Moqtada as a zatut, or ignorant child. Some called him "Mullah Atari," because he apparently enjoyed videogames as a kid. He certainly lacked his father's stature: in his theological studies, Moqtada never reached beyond the level of bahth al-kharij (pregraduation research), according to a study by the International Crisis Group. But it's clear now that most everybody underestimated him.
Quite.
More:
[Grand Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei] returned to the holy city of Najaf, where he was born and raised, under U.S. military protection. He quickly organized a local council to get electricity and water flowing again, apparently with CIA money. (The CIA declined to comment.) But al-Khoei's father had been Iraq's top ayatollah—and a bitter rival of Sadr's father—during Saddam's rule. Now the sons were competing for power and influence. Sadr castigated al-Khoei as a U.S. agent, and demanded that he turn over the keys to the tomb of Imam Ali, the Prophet Muhammad's son-in-law. A gilded cage surrounding the tomb contains a box for pilgrims' donations, a huge and vital source of income for religious leaders.
As al-Khoei and a colleague visited the shrine on the morning of April 10, 2003, an angry mob attacked them with grenades, guns and swords. "Long live Moqtada al-Sadr!" the mob cried out. Al-Khoei was stabbed repeatedly, then tied up and dragged to the doorstep of Sadr's headquarters in Najaf, where he was still alive. A subsequent investigation by an Iraqi judge found that Sadr himself gave the order to finish him off: "Take him away and kill him in your own special way."
The murder of al-Khoei can be seen as the first move in Moqtada's struggle against the Shi'a clerical establishment, and an almost unimaginably bold one. Unlike challenging the American occupation, being seen as having participated in the murder of a Grand Ayatollah could have had real, dire consequences for Moqtada in terms of popular support. He took advantage of the post-invasion confusion to eliminate a competitor, one with much greater scholarly standing as well as the backing of the U.S. coalition. The death of al-Khoei both satisfied what many suspect was a family grudge, and removed a significant rival for political power. (Al-Khoei had also made the questionable move of approaching the shrine that day accompanied by its keeper, a known Baathist, in a conciliatory gesture. The crowd that surrounded and eventually murdered them both, however, was not in a conciliatory mood.)
As with Rumsfeld's blithe dismissal of the looting, one of the retired generals on Jay Garner's staff dismissed the murder of al-Khoei by saying "Oh, it's just them killing each other." Not only was Moqtada underestimated, the people that were put in charge of the occupation had little knowledge of the political-religious context within which he was operating.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
HOROWITZ WATCH
Via Crooked Timber, looks like bad news for David Horowitz.
Yes, after all, he did get his name in the newspaper. Success!
Yeah, so he probably won't be doing that any more...
Update
Via LGM, an interview with Michael Berube in which Berube (once again) demolishes Horowitz.
A week ago, it looked like David Horowitz had a few things to be thankful for in the emerging report of the Pennsylvania legislative panel that was looking for examples of violations of students’ rights because of their political views.
Sure, the committee had reported that it didn’t really find examples of the alleged oppression that he maintains is widespread. But Horowitz pointed to the committee’s recommendation that colleges adopt policies to protect student rights. And he liked the many pages included in the draft report that summarized testimony by Horowitz and some of his allies. Those are all gone in the final version of the report the committee approved Tuesday, which is being hailed by academic groups as completely vindicating their views.
Horowitz said that he was furious about the “breathtaking audacity of this theft of the report by the Democrats and the unions,” and that a “cabal” of faculty leaders had convinced “weak-spined Republicans” (who controlled the committee) to go along with the “theft.” He maintained, however, that despite the “travesty and the cover-up,” he was in fact pleased with what he accomplished in Pennsylvania.
Yes, after all, he did get his name in the newspaper. Success!
In the end, though, the panel on Tuesday stripped away what he had been citing as points of victory. The final report kept the language saying that it couldn’t find evidence of problems with students’ rights. On whether colleges need new policies, the report’s language changed, noting that some colleges have such policies and need only review them. On student evaluations of faculty members, the report shifted from urging colleges to change them to urging colleges to look at them and make their own decisions.
Two other things struck academic observers as significant: By removing all the pages summarizing testimony (a summary that many college officials believed was one-sided in favor of Horowitz), the committee removed a permanent record that seemed unfavorable and many thought unfair to academe. And because the final vote on the report was unanimous — on a committee controlled by Republicans — the committee made it more difficult for Horowitz to blame his problems on liberals.
Yeah, so he probably won't be doing that any more...
Update
Via LGM, an interview with Michael Berube in which Berube (once again) demolishes Horowitz.
COMMENT WITHHELD
Mark Steyn says that Muslims breed like, well, you know, and they're coming to take over Europe.
Ralph Peters says not so fast: The Europeans perfected ethnic cleansing in the last few centuries, and they'll take it up again once they feel sufficiently threatened by the Muslims in their midst.
Peter Robinson, responding to Peters, argues that Europeans just aren't faith-based enough anymore to engage in the savagery necessary for such a project.
And now I need to go take a bath.
Update
Thankfully, Dave Noon has not withheld comment.
Ralph Peters says not so fast: The Europeans perfected ethnic cleansing in the last few centuries, and they'll take it up again once they feel sufficiently threatened by the Muslims in their midst.
Peter Robinson, responding to Peters, argues that Europeans just aren't faith-based enough anymore to engage in the savagery necessary for such a project.
And now I need to go take a bath.
Update
Thankfully, Dave Noon has not withheld comment.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
BAHRAINI ELECTIONS
Marc Lynch on al Jazeera's coverage of elections in Bahrain:
And just one more example of a Bush screw-up, choosing to treat al Jazeera as an obstacle and refusing to recognize it as a legitimate and integral player in the process of Arab political reform.
There's been a fair amount of commentary on the Bahraini elections in the Arab media over the last few weeks. It isn't just al-Jazeera, of course - I watched a fairly lengthy report on al-Arabiya yesterday and there have been many essays throughout the Arab press. Some of the essays view it through the "rising Shia threat" lens, but the real debate seems to be over whether to view it as Egypt 2005 ("corrupt Arab regime manipulating elections to ensure its preferred outcome") or as Kuwait 2006 ("achieving some progress through the ballot box despite the obstacles"). And then there was an essay in yesterday's al-Quds al-Arabi, which described the Bahraini elections as "a model of reform in the American style": gerrymandering elections to a powerless Parliament in order to put on the appropriate show for foreign audiences. (Today's unsigned al-Quds editorial was more positive, highlighting that despite all its problems the election represented unprecedented democratic participation by Gulf standards.)
If nothing else, the Bahraini elections have proven galvanizing for young Bahraini political activists, who will perhaps build on this year's experiences and continue to push for a greater political role, more transparency and more accountability. And the elections have sparked another round of region-wide political debate about democracy and the possibilities for change. Just one more example of how the televised coverage and debate about Arab elections on al-Jazeera and its competitors can matter more than anything the United States does or says in shaping Arab attitudes towards democracy and reform.
And just one more example of a Bush screw-up, choosing to treat al Jazeera as an obstacle and refusing to recognize it as a legitimate and integral player in the process of Arab political reform.
Friday, November 24, 2006
GAZING AT BOND
Straight away, you know Casino Royale is not comic book Bond. Grainy black and white, shadowy figures at shadowy purposes in shadowy offices. Bond makes his bones. Then, more bones.
The opening titles: Generally, I'm against dudes singing over the titles, although the third best Bond theme song (Live and Let Die) is sung by a dude. Not a bad tune, and not enough to spoil the afterglow of that great opening sequence. Also: there are no somersaulting silhouettes of naked women during the titles, in fact no women at all. I can certainly understand wanting to move the films away from the misogyny of the 60s and 70s (and, okay, 80s...and sort of the 90s, too) Bond films, but dammit Maurice Binder's title sequences are art, man!
The lack of women swinging on the barrels of guns was a tip to what was coming. The filmmakers very overtly made Bond the object of examination throughout the movie. Rather than wolfishly ogling women, this Bond is ogled by everyone else. He gets caught on camera invading an embassy, causing a scandal. He emerges from the surf in clear reference to Ursula Andress's iconic entrance in Dr. No, after which he is checked out by a couple of ladies on the beach. References are made to his "perfect ass" and his "keeping fit." He plays poker, a game in which constantly evaluating and re-evaluating your opponent's appearance and behaviour is central. And, obviously, Bond's performance as a new double-O is being appraised by M and MI6 just as Daniel Craig's performance is being appraised by the audience. Appropriately, the film ends with Bond sniping his enemy: Now Bond is the one doing the watching. Ba-nah-BANAHH-ba-na-nahhhh!
Also, if you haven't heard, Bond is brutally sexually violated in the film. I dearly hope never to have to find out how long it takes one to recover from getting one's testicles repeatedly meteor-hammered, but I'm going to guess that one wouldn't be up and at it within a few days, as it seemed Bond was.
The gambling: They changed Baccarat into No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, which I suppose is not unrealistic, considering how popular Hold 'Em has become in European casinos, but I thought it unnecessary. It never really bothered me that I didn't know the exact rules to Baccarat, as I was able to follow the gambling just fine. (Having Giancarlo Giannini off to the side explaining the game to Vesper/the audience was annoying.) And "Baccarat" just sounds cooler than "No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em." Hold 'Em is a game I play on Saturday nights with my buddies. Baccarat is played in exotic locations by people wearing clothes that cost as much as my education.
The action sequences were great. The chase through the construction site was a triumph of design and editing, though the fact that Bond's quarry seemed to be some sort of simian-mutant-acrobat really pushed my suspension-of-disbelief envelope. Did it break? No.
Jeffrey Wright was so perfect for Felix Lighter that it took me a few minutes to realize, oh yeah, hey, that's Jeffrey Wright as Felix Lighter. Hope he sticks around.
The romantic dialogue was pretty bad, at times very bad, but I suppose this is part of Bond becoming Bond. He hasn't quite developed the Bond persona, he's still putting on his idea of a swinging sophisticate, still trying to weave snatches of romantic dialogue into the suave veneer that will enable him to effortlessly seduce women, still trying to achieve the level of near-sociopathic detachment that will enable him to casually dispose of them. I won't be disappointed if the sequels don't go this latter route, but I can see the argument for it being essential to the character. The story stresses that Bond still suffers from some measure of empathy, which I guess the end of the movie represents his having overcome with the blessed arrival of Monty Norman's theme, which had until then only been hinted at in the score.
Though Casino Royale 2006 brings the character back closer to his roots in the spy genre, the influence of Indiana Jones, which is what turned the films from near-parodies in the late-70s to outright actioners in the 80s and 90s, is obviously still there. Bond takes a huge licking and keeps on ticking, although the fact that he's back at the poker table moments afterward, cuts cleaned, tie perfectly tied, wearing a shirt even whiter than the one previous, instead of falling asleep under some train tracks or in an opium den, is what makes him Bond. Keeping up appearances, you know. Making the scene. Got it. It's not that I don't like action movies, I do and I consider them as artistically legitimate as any other film genre, let's just say that I like my Bond sneaking into secret facilities and garroting people more than I like him being dragged behind trucks.
Bottom line: A great time at the movies, and a very strong entry in the series, probably among my top 5 Bond films. That's pretty impressive, considering this movie had no Q. (Since it's a reboot, how about Brian Cox? Ian Holm?)
The opening titles: Generally, I'm against dudes singing over the titles, although the third best Bond theme song (Live and Let Die) is sung by a dude. Not a bad tune, and not enough to spoil the afterglow of that great opening sequence. Also: there are no somersaulting silhouettes of naked women during the titles, in fact no women at all. I can certainly understand wanting to move the films away from the misogyny of the 60s and 70s (and, okay, 80s...and sort of the 90s, too) Bond films, but dammit Maurice Binder's title sequences are art, man!
The lack of women swinging on the barrels of guns was a tip to what was coming. The filmmakers very overtly made Bond the object of examination throughout the movie. Rather than wolfishly ogling women, this Bond is ogled by everyone else. He gets caught on camera invading an embassy, causing a scandal. He emerges from the surf in clear reference to Ursula Andress's iconic entrance in Dr. No, after which he is checked out by a couple of ladies on the beach. References are made to his "perfect ass" and his "keeping fit." He plays poker, a game in which constantly evaluating and re-evaluating your opponent's appearance and behaviour is central. And, obviously, Bond's performance as a new double-O is being appraised by M and MI6 just as Daniel Craig's performance is being appraised by the audience. Appropriately, the film ends with Bond sniping his enemy: Now Bond is the one doing the watching. Ba-nah-BANAHH-ba-na-nahhhh!
Also, if you haven't heard, Bond is brutally sexually violated in the film. I dearly hope never to have to find out how long it takes one to recover from getting one's testicles repeatedly meteor-hammered, but I'm going to guess that one wouldn't be up and at it within a few days, as it seemed Bond was.
The gambling: They changed Baccarat into No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, which I suppose is not unrealistic, considering how popular Hold 'Em has become in European casinos, but I thought it unnecessary. It never really bothered me that I didn't know the exact rules to Baccarat, as I was able to follow the gambling just fine. (Having Giancarlo Giannini off to the side explaining the game to Vesper/the audience was annoying.) And "Baccarat" just sounds cooler than "No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em." Hold 'Em is a game I play on Saturday nights with my buddies. Baccarat is played in exotic locations by people wearing clothes that cost as much as my education.
The action sequences were great. The chase through the construction site was a triumph of design and editing, though the fact that Bond's quarry seemed to be some sort of simian-mutant-acrobat really pushed my suspension-of-disbelief envelope. Did it break? No.
Jeffrey Wright was so perfect for Felix Lighter that it took me a few minutes to realize, oh yeah, hey, that's Jeffrey Wright as Felix Lighter. Hope he sticks around.
The romantic dialogue was pretty bad, at times very bad, but I suppose this is part of Bond becoming Bond. He hasn't quite developed the Bond persona, he's still putting on his idea of a swinging sophisticate, still trying to weave snatches of romantic dialogue into the suave veneer that will enable him to effortlessly seduce women, still trying to achieve the level of near-sociopathic detachment that will enable him to casually dispose of them. I won't be disappointed if the sequels don't go this latter route, but I can see the argument for it being essential to the character. The story stresses that Bond still suffers from some measure of empathy, which I guess the end of the movie represents his having overcome with the blessed arrival of Monty Norman's theme, which had until then only been hinted at in the score.
Though Casino Royale 2006 brings the character back closer to his roots in the spy genre, the influence of Indiana Jones, which is what turned the films from near-parodies in the late-70s to outright actioners in the 80s and 90s, is obviously still there. Bond takes a huge licking and keeps on ticking, although the fact that he's back at the poker table moments afterward, cuts cleaned, tie perfectly tied, wearing a shirt even whiter than the one previous, instead of falling asleep under some train tracks or in an opium den, is what makes him Bond. Keeping up appearances, you know. Making the scene. Got it. It's not that I don't like action movies, I do and I consider them as artistically legitimate as any other film genre, let's just say that I like my Bond sneaking into secret facilities and garroting people more than I like him being dragged behind trucks.
Bottom line: A great time at the movies, and a very strong entry in the series, probably among my top 5 Bond films. That's pretty impressive, considering this movie had no Q. (Since it's a reboot, how about Brian Cox? Ian Holm?)
Thursday, November 23, 2006
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
10 lb Turkey, brined overnight.
Rosemary mashed potatoes.
Giblet gravy.
Wild Turkey apricot stuffing.
Sauteed garlic green beans tossed with sesame oil and soy sauce.
Candied yams.
Cranberry relish.
King's Hawaiian sweet rolls.
Harvest pandowdy pie.
Later this evening, Casino Royale at Cinerama.
I love this holiday. Hope you had a great one.
Rosemary mashed potatoes.
Giblet gravy.
Wild Turkey apricot stuffing.
Sauteed garlic green beans tossed with sesame oil and soy sauce.
Candied yams.
Cranberry relish.
King's Hawaiian sweet rolls.
Harvest pandowdy pie.
Later this evening, Casino Royale at Cinerama.
I love this holiday. Hope you had a great one.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
LEBANON ON THE BRINK
Juan Cole draws us a picture.
Lebanon for the past two years has been caught between several outside forces. The Hariris represent Saudi interests. Hizbullah and Amal, the Shiite parties, are aligned with Syria. The Gemayels have an old, longstanding behind the scenes alliance with Israel and the United States.
As I read the record, Syria provoked the initial crisis in fall, 2004, by overplaying its hand and making the Lebanese accept its choice for president, Gen. Emile Lahoud, for a further 3-year term. PM Rafiq al-Hariri resigned over this heavy-handed interference and looked set to challenge Damascus in the spring, 2005 elections. He was then assassinated in February, 2005. The assassin was himself a Sunni fundamentalist, but the operation may have been encouraged by Syrian or pro-Syrian actors.
The assassination of Hariri touched off a mass protest demanding that Syrian troops finally leave Lebanon (a peacekeeping force came in in 1976 with a US green light, during the civil war). The Syrians were supported by the Shiite Hizbullah, which staged demonstrations nearly as big as those of the pro-Hariri forces. Hariri was a Sunni, but the coalition put together after his death included Christians and Druze, as well.
Syria did withdraw. At that point, Lebanese politics became less polarized, and elections produced a national unity government that Hizbullah also joined.
But then in summer of 2006, Israel launched its long-planned war on little Lebanon, wreaking vast destruction on south Lebanon and on the southern slums of Beirut where Hizbullah was based. Israeli policy was in part to attempt to divide and conquer the Lebanese by making the reform government of Fuad Seniora attempt to disarm Hizbullah, which maintains a small paramilitary force of 3,000 to 5,000. The Lebanese government is too weak to take on Hizbullah, but members of the March 14th reform movement did lay the blame for the war at its feet.
As a result, Hizbullah has pulled out of the government. With Gemayel's assassination, the government will fall if it loses even one more cabinet minister. Worse, the society has now been economically devastated by Israeli bombing raids and is increasingly polarized. The Olmert government's plan for the second Lebanese civil war seems increasingly plausible. Syria has stupidly played into Israel's hands in this regard. The Lebanese themselves are in danger of once again allowing themselves to be used as proxies by people like Bush and Asad and Olmert. The positive achievements of the national unity government of summer-fall 2005 have been undone. Lebanon is on the brink.
IDEOLOGUE FOR HIRE
Now that figures:
I suppose that's one word for it.
More on this entirely unsurprising development from Mark Schmitt:
Wittman should fit right in.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman announced Tuesday that he had hired a new spokesman, which is not in itself that noteworthy, except that the said spokesman, Marshall Wittmann, is one of the great career vagabonds, ideological contortionists and political pontificators ever to inflict himself on a city full of them.
To say that Mr. Wittmann defies classification is like saying Paris Hilton defies modesty. But in his peripatetic soul, he is a Washington Original, a man without a political country going to work for a senator without a political party.
Mr. Lieberman, a longtime Democrat of Connecticut who was re-elected as an independent and calls himself an “Independent Democrat,” has not ruled out becoming a Republican.
Mr. Wittmann, meanwhile, is a Trotskyite turned Zionist turned Reaganite turned bipartisan irritant turned pretty much everything in between — including chief lobbyist for the Christian Coalition, the only Jew who has ever held that position.
...
There are of course plenty of political people who have undergone philosophical evolutions over the years. But Mr. Wittmann, 53, has zigzagged in the extreme, from stints in left-leaning unions to right-wing policy shops. He describes his career as “eclectic,” saying he has always been drawn to independent thinkers. “The good lord has made me a contrarian,” Mr. Wittmann said.
I suppose that's one word for it.
More on this entirely unsurprising development from Mark Schmitt:
It's tempting to make fun of Marshall Wittmann's newest guise, as Lieberman's communications director, as if it were just another twist in one of the oddest careers in Washington. The New York Times has some fun with that theme today.
However, it's quite obvious where this is going. John McCain will fail to win the Republican nomination, and he and Lieberman will turn up as a third party presidential ticket. They will have a great shtick: "We were each rejected by the ideological extremists in our parties, therefore we represent the true forgotten center of American politics." The Broders of the world will salivate over the possibility.
Except, of course, it will not be a centrist party. It will be the Neoconservative party, with Lieberman having taken that angry turn and McCain already there. And both are rank opportunists, for whom "straight talk" is an empty slogan.
Wittman should fit right in.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
BUSH'S MORAL CLARITY
The assassination of a Lebanese government minister: Condemned within hours by President Bush.
A month of bombing of Lebanon, massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, over a thousand Lebanese civilians dead, over five thousand wounded, and the creation of tens of thousands of refugees: How about a buttered roll?
A month of bombing of Lebanon, massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, over a thousand Lebanese civilians dead, over five thousand wounded, and the creation of tens of thousands of refugees: How about a buttered roll?
BUSH'S AMERICA
A group of Muslim imams were removed from a flight on Monday, apparently for the crime of making the hayseeds nervous.
Right, because if these men were up to no good, it makes complete sense that they'd call attention to themselves by praying in the terminal.
It's been said that ignorance is its own punishment, but in this case it punished these guys, too.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations called Tuesday for an investigation into the behavior of airline staff and airport security in the removal of six Muslim scholars from a US Airways flight a day earlier.
A passenger raised concerns about the imams _ three of whom said their normal evening prayers in the airport terminal before boarding the Phoenix-bound plane, according to one _ through a note passed to a flight attendant, according to Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways.
"We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam," Nihad Awad, the council's executive director, said in a news release.
The six were returning from a conference in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation, said Omar Shahin of Phoenix, president of the group.
"They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way," Shahin said after the incident.
Shahin said Tuesday that three members of the group prayed in the terminal before the six boarded the plane. They entered individually, except for one member who is blind and needed to be guided, Shahin said. Once on the plane, the six did not sit together, he said.
...
When Shahin went back to the airport Tuesday morning, a ticketing agent told him his payment for Monday's flight had been refunded and the airline wouldn't sell more tickets to him or the other imams. An airline spokesman in Arizona said he wasn't aware of the ticketing decision and could not comment.
"We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind and will continue to exhaust our internal investigation until we know the facts of this case and can provide answers for the employees and customers involved in this incident," the airline said in a news release Tuesday.
"Unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time," council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.
Hooper said the meeting drew about 150 imams from all over the country, and that those attending included Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who just became the first Muslim elected to Congress. Shahin said they went as far as notifying police and the FBI about their meeting in advance.
Shahin expressed frustration that _ despite extensive efforts by him and other Muslim leaders since even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks _ so many Americans know so little about Islam.
"If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," he said.
Right, because if these men were up to no good, it makes complete sense that they'd call attention to themselves by praying in the terminal.
It's been said that ignorance is its own punishment, but in this case it punished these guys, too.
THEFT
NY Times:
While it's a bit depressing to think that anyone would be surprised by this, as Israeli landgrabs have been documented by Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups almost as exhaustively as they've been assiduously ignored by mainstream U.S. news media, it is a good thing to see it in print.
As I've said repeatedly, it's preposterous to insist that Palestinians curb their resistance to the occupation while this sort of blatant theft is ongoing. This isn't just empty land that's being taken, much of it is farmland which Palestinian families have tended for generations, and upon which thousands of people depend for food and income.
UPDATE
Just to clarify, all of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are on Palestinian land, but the Peace Now report indicates that 39% of them are on land known to be owned by specific Palestinian people.
An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.
Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.
If big sections of those settlements are indeed privately held Palestinian land, that is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace. The data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.
The new claims regarding Palestinian property are said to come from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel’s presence in the West Bank. Peace Now, an Israeli group that advocates Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plans to publish the information on Tuesday. An advance copy was made available to The New York Times.
The data — maps that show the government’s registry of the land by category — was given to Peace Now by someone who obtained it from an official inside the Civil Administration. The Times spoke to the person who received it from the Civil Administration official and agreed not to identify him because of the delicate nature of the material.
That person, who has frequent contact with the Civil Administration, said he and the official wanted to expose what they consider to be wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and settlers. The government has refused to give the material directly to Peace Now, which requested it under Israel’s freedom of information law.
While it's a bit depressing to think that anyone would be surprised by this, as Israeli landgrabs have been documented by Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups almost as exhaustively as they've been assiduously ignored by mainstream U.S. news media, it is a good thing to see it in print.
As I've said repeatedly, it's preposterous to insist that Palestinians curb their resistance to the occupation while this sort of blatant theft is ongoing. This isn't just empty land that's being taken, much of it is farmland which Palestinian families have tended for generations, and upon which thousands of people depend for food and income.
UPDATE
Just to clarify, all of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are on Palestinian land, but the Peace Now report indicates that 39% of them are on land known to be owned by specific Palestinian people.
Monday, November 20, 2006
COVERS
This Yglesias post on "authenticity" has developed into an interesting thread on rock cover versions. My own list of favorites, original artist in parentheses:
Pretenders, Stop Your Sobbing (The Kinks) Their first single, a great way to introduce the world to Chrissie Hynde's gorgeous vibrato.
Van Halen, You Really Got Me (The Kinks) Also their first single, and a great way to introduce the world to Edward's amazing guitar work, which I still totally geek out over.
Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen) This version has probably been overplayed, but there's no denying either Buckley's astonishing voice or his facility with the lyric.
The Clash, Police and Thieves (Lee Perry and Junior Murvin) No comment required.
The Who, Summertime Blues (Eddie Cochran) Still rocks.
Frank Zappa, Whipping Post (The Allman Brothers) From an early '80s bootleg, with Bobby Martin on vocals. (What, you think Frank's taking that one?)
fIREHOSE, Sophisticated Bitch (Public Enemy) From their Live Totem Pole EP, which consists entirely of covers.
The Pixies, Head On (The Jesus and Mary Chain) One seminal alt-rock band covering another.
Dinosaur Jr, Just Like Heaven (The Cure) Likewise, but with that monster bridge and a J Mascis guitar solo that always makes me cry a little.
Pretenders, Stop Your Sobbing (The Kinks) Their first single, a great way to introduce the world to Chrissie Hynde's gorgeous vibrato.
Van Halen, You Really Got Me (The Kinks) Also their first single, and a great way to introduce the world to Edward's amazing guitar work, which I still totally geek out over.
Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen) This version has probably been overplayed, but there's no denying either Buckley's astonishing voice or his facility with the lyric.
The Clash, Police and Thieves (Lee Perry and Junior Murvin) No comment required.
The Who, Summertime Blues (Eddie Cochran) Still rocks.
Frank Zappa, Whipping Post (The Allman Brothers) From an early '80s bootleg, with Bobby Martin on vocals. (What, you think Frank's taking that one?)
fIREHOSE, Sophisticated Bitch (Public Enemy) From their Live Totem Pole EP, which consists entirely of covers.
The Pixies, Head On (The Jesus and Mary Chain) One seminal alt-rock band covering another.
Dinosaur Jr, Just Like Heaven (The Cure) Likewise, but with that monster bridge and a J Mascis guitar solo that always makes me cry a little.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
