Friday, December 23, 2005


Syriana is a collaboration amongst the trinity of heavy-weight, advocates of message movies: Soderbergh, Clooney, and Gaghan (who also wrote "Traffic"). I had barely heard any press on the film and found no strong impression about it except that Clooney was involved or was an actor in it (what a testimony for star castings!). Film marketing is responsible (along with the budget set aside for said marketing) for spreading knowledge of a film's "aura" to the public. As if from Plato's cave, we see impressions or shadows of the terrain of potential films that we might see without knowing anything about most of these films and those impressions are supposed to captivate and intrigue us enough to visit the theater. As I said, "Syriana" had barely cast even a shadow. Indeed, the group of moviegoers behind me were heard parroting my exact sentiments as they had no idea what "Syriana" was even about other than that Clooney and Matt Damon were in it. Wow, just throw out a big net of hooks and surely one of them will catch!

However, all of this had changed for me by chance and relative obscurity when I caught or I should say, my Tivo caught, a Charlie Rose interview w/ Stephen Gaghan (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/628), who wrote and directed it, that was exceptional for its lucidity and disturbing articulation of the way world decisions are handled by the power elites that run big Oil, governments, law firms, national intelligence agencies, and their ilk. It was the consummate verbal foreplay for the film since it provided the context in which to frame the film's complicated, multi-threaded narrative. But it wasn't so much the actual plot which was concurrently running stories of the involved characters seen from their P.O.V.'s as it was the labrynthine interconnections of Big Oil and political opportunism as played out over the theatre of the international stage. I came armed and knowing into this film while the folks behind me were the polar opposites. Ebert had some interesting remarks about foreknowledge of the film...

Ebert's review suggest that it's best getting lost in this decentered, erudite, jigsaw puzzle of a story since it gives you empathy for some of the characters who themselves can't see the big picture. Even the oil men and the CIA operative, "Bob", who Clooney plays and is modelled after real life Robert Baer, a former covert operative, can't see the whole Byzantine workings. This is partially the point-- that so many players and power struggles are involved that only God could keep track but the realpolitik of the matter is that profit, power, and hording a desperately vanishing natural resource are the common denominators that fuel the entire machine of corruption and myopic undertakings. Ebert also refers to the idea (not his own) of the "hyperlink" movie in which characters and plot is advanced kinetically as we get introduced to other characters or situations. Actually that description doesn't sound that different from a traditional narrative and plot where more is revealed as the plot develops. But like surfing the internet, where one idea is pursued while you end up in completely different and at times surprising side alleys, "hyperlink" movies go from idea to idea to develop possibly larger themes. But in the end, these films usually have a cohesion that is at least an artistic tableaux since the effort of filmmaking is always a contrived proposition with much organizational effort in place.

The depressing reality that representative democracy may not truly be efficacious in a world of power brokers that decide on major policy shifts over lunch at a French hotel is enough to make you never attend another peace march on the capitol but the film is more than that...it's an eye-opener about what's at stake in the next decade as energy becomes an inseparable part of national interest and moves to the forefront of foreign policy decisions. "Peak Oil" adherents should find their eyebrows raised considerably as their analysis gets validated with this film.

Noteworthy is that Bob Baer wrote a book about his experiences in the CIA and reports on the many failings of the intelligence community in his book, "See No Evil" Gaghan speaks with considerable esteem and awe of Bob Baer. Reading Baer's book may also be one of the hyperlink take aways of the film.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Rendering my thoughts onto the blogosphere...

I have only one thing on my political mind these days...

N313P... Whatever could it mean?


Hint: Google it.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Plame Game


What should be the biggest (if not bigger) scandal since Watergate has relegated itself to an almost "inside baseball" factoid of Washingtonian scandals. Many, including the likes of Arianna Huffington, have said it. The Plame outing by this Administration is much graver than Watergate. Thousands of lives were not lost as a result of the Watergate burglary. A war waged against the Middle East and fanning the flames of incendiary Muslim extremism was not the outcome of Nixonian obstruction of justice.

If you look at right-wing zealots commentary, blogs, and other Administration apologists in various podunk newspaper columns, it's all about questioning whether Plame was even a covert CIA operative. Reality revisionism comes in handy these days as the deluge of information and misinformation overwhelms many who don't have a tight grip on the handrail of facts.

As much as I loathe Joe Scarborough, he at least admitted this much on the Bill Maher show...
+++++++++++++++++
SCARBOROUGH: You know, the question is how would Republicans respond – and this is what I've been saying from the very beginning – how would Republicans have responded had, in 1997, James Carville and Al Gore's chief of staff outed a CIA agent, covert agent, at a time of war?

MAHER: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: They would have all been lynched.


Democrats who are outnumbered in the house or senate are operating with only one ball. Nonetheless, activate cajones !

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-miles27apr27,0,7484116.story

"The Unholy Alliance Against the Filibuster"

Pope Ratzinger was the one who pushed the argument during the 2004 US Presidential elections to deny communion to anyone not willing to criminalize abortion. This resulted in the disapproval of Kerry in some corridors of the Catholic church. President Bush provided the talking point of the "culture of life"-- that in matters that are in doubt to always fault to the side of life especially as applied to Terry Shiavo but not to the mentally retarded on Texas's death row or to the assault weapons ban's deleterious health affects on law enforcement or the general public; or even to the thousands of children killed, injured, emotionally scarred in the assault on Iraq. Where was this "culture of life" in those cases or in our morally bankrupt choice not to help fight the campaign of genocide in Sudan? Papal condemnation of the Iraq war was registered but Ratzinger feels there is more moral weight to the abortion issue of those yet unborn than to those already born but being killed through political wars. Now this man, in an unholy alliance with the Bush Administration's religious extremism, is the Papacy's Pope.

And I wondered why mainstream Christians were so silent, so demure on current moral issues that they seemed to defer to the Fundamentalist's agenda. Wonder no more. Convenient and politically expedient issues like abortion put the mainstream Christian in lock step w/ authoritarian Fascists of our current government. Killing unborn fetuses--no good. Killing fully formed children in an invasion of a sovereign nation--tolerable. Talk about moral anomie. The center just fell out. The horizon is no longer visible. We are a nation adrift in madness and moral failings.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Bill Maher, on his recent show, speculated that maybe Bush was right afterall [about the Iraq War and the Middle East] since there seems to be general movement and discussions for democratic movements throught the Middle East. Perhaps, he continued to think aloud, it took someone (i.e., Bush) with such incredible naivete and ignorance about the region to imagine impossible solutions that move away from the old mindsets.

Okay, for one, Shrub is only a figurehead. He was NOT the architect for the Iraq War. This has been on the drawing boards for decades and the main proponents were Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and of course, Richard Perle, the so called "Prince of Darkness" who was advisor to the Defense Dept. and the biggest warhawk. Again and again, I reiterate the illusion of participatory democracy. We elect spokesmodels for President under subjective criteria guided by propaganda. The Presidency is a collective leadership, a clever facsimile of an oligarchy. The concentration of power becomes more distributed and decentralized, the weaker the Head of State and the less informed the electorate is.

How does an Idiot become President? It is never accidental. Power is too important to be left to chance. Oligarchy Now!

Saturday, March 12, 2005


View from my office window in Hollywood during the last rainy spell. Posted by Hello