Emmylou Harris had a bit of a cold. Her throat was a bit sore, so we got her a hot tea with lemon and honey. And, like a trooper she sang her heart out. You can hear it in her voice a little, that shredded raspy thing happening. But, her great talent and pipes are hard to keep down. She overcame. And, the band, Spyboy, just stellar.
This is one of those performances that stick with you. Everything clicked between band and crew. Although the video on You Tube is pretty cruddy, the moment it captures is one of the best performances I’ve ever seen on TV and I’m privileged to have worked on it.
It will always be one of the great shames of the corporate television history that is one day written that Sessions at West 54th wasn’t allowed to blossom and find it’s audience. When we were making it, no one had heard of it. And, no one really watched it. Now, ten years on, I have an old faded t-shirt from the show and it never fails that when I wear it, someone comes up to me and says: “I love that show! When is it coming back?” And, of course, when I see friends who worked on it, we always reminisce and it’s generally a fact how good it was and that it was just great fun to work on.
Emmylou Harris and Spyboy sing Neil Young’s “The Wrecking Ball”…
FOR TOO LONG the full length 90 min. version of this documentary has been unavailable. Only a 20 minute version has been circulating. Here now as of January 10, 2007 this failure of access ends. Bill Moyers, the respected TV journalist, analyzes the threats to constitutional government posed by an illegitimate network operating from within the government but using secrecy to set itself up outside of the government / peoples oversight. All this back in 1987. This documentary gives a fascinating overview of what has actually happened in the last 50 years regarding the CIA and the Cold War (including Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Vietnam and Chile). The foundation for the massive push towards greater secrecy in government going on today.
It’s become pretty clear over the past few years that, like most of the warbling warbloggers on the right, Glenn “Instuputz” Reynolds is simply incapable of any type of intellectual honesty. His ideology is rock solid though. A Republican President in the White House is like his favorite sports team getting into the Super Bowl. Even if they lose badly (and cheat), he’ll be around year after year after year to cheer them on from the sidelines, ever convinced and hopeful that next year will be the year.
To wit, we have the Nutty Perfessor’s latest statement of uncontrolled hypocrisy and ideological myopia, referring to John Kerry at Davos:
Like Jimmy Carter, he’ll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he’ll console himself with the approval of America’s enemies.
Now, of course, ever the propagandist and loyalist to all things wingnut, der Perfessor is simply chiming in with the usual hate for Carter (and Kerry) that is ever so popular amongst the Kool-Aid Kids. The fact that such rhetoric and perspective is one of the foremost reasons America is so divided on this and other issues never occurs to them. It’s the very definition of a fascist perspective and The SNAFU Principle as well. And, it’s entirely a reaction to their inability to deal with reality: Vietnam could have been won, etc.
Two points worth mentioning here: First, it’s rather obvious that wingnut hatred for all people they don’t agree with outstrips their hatred for “America’s enemies”. Otherwise, why not join up and kill some terrorists, right? If the war on terror is that important, what’s the delay? Uncle Sam needs you now!
Alas, they are simply content with being the founding members of the Whining Wingnuts™, and going after everyone who disagrees with them with calls of “traitor!”. It’s all too familiar if you ask me.
Have no doubt, when a Democratic President is in the White House and a GOP member is abroad criticizing that Democratic President “at a time of war”, ideological dogs such as Glenn Reynolds and the wankers at Free Republic will be supporting “their guy”. The situation will be reversed. The so-called “loyalty” to the USA and the President will be out the window. Mark my words. Will they call their guys “traitors” for speaking against the President? Doubtful. Such truths are lost on them, alas… but I digress.
Second, note the words: console himself with the approval of America’s enemies…
I seem to remember that on September 11, 2001, it was 15 Saudi Arabian terrorists (of 19) who flew jets into the WTC and the Pentagon. And, it’s known that the House of Saud supports terrorism as well.
Speaking of consoling oneself with the approval of America’s enemies:
The newly remastered versions of the original Star Trek television series include some pretty amazing alterations of certain scenes, such as the one above. You can scroll through a gallery to view some of them.
It’s an interesting situation in many ways. Having grown up with the Kirk Enterprise, part of me waxes nostalgic for the cheesy effects. They were cheesy back then. But, of course, over the years, as effects have become more sophisticated and production design more refined, some of the scenes in the old series can appear a bit….dated. And, I’m sure to younger audiences, pretty lame.
That said, I can’t help but notice that the new affects lack something of the old shows pre moon landing innocence. But, one also has to ask, how much of that innocence is truly that or simply a lack of money? Judging from some of the stories I’ve read over the years, I’d have to say the latter played a large role, but it’s a little of both no doubt. The new effects feel more like the ones in the newer shows, which I suppose helps to create a certain amount of continuity. Not an entirely bad thing for sure. I’ll have to watch a few of them to see how it comes off. (Which I suppose is the point, isn’t it?)
I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense. – President George W. Bush – Tuesday, April 18, 2006
REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?
BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. The truth of the matter is as well, that is one reason I gave the answer. The other reason why is I had not had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet. I had not had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspectives. He likes to call it fresh eyes. (emphasis added) – November 8, 2006
In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president’s minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new “way forward” for U.S. forces in Iraq. -January 25, 2007
PELOSI: He’s tried this two times — it’s failed twice. I asked him at the White House, ‘Mr. President, why do you think this time it’s going to work?’
BUSH: Because I told them it had to.
PELOSI: Why didn’t you tell them that the other two times? – January 25, 2007
President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday “I’m the decision-maker” about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup.
“I’ve picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed,” Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.
The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas.
“I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it’s even had a chance to work,” the president said. “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.” – Jan 26, 2007
VP Dick “Buckshot” Cheney, the leader of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, whose foreign policy has led to the debacle in Iraq, quite likely the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States, has said that Hillary Clinton won’t make a good president…
Because she’s a Democrat. I don’t agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.
Which pretty much sums up the mindset of many Conservatives I’d venture. They will support a losing team to the death simply because they can’t see beyond their ideology.
Any reasonably sane person over the age of 15 knows that war is dangerous, expensive, and terrible. You know that it kills lots and lots of people, leaves many others damaged, and makes new enemies with new grudges. It is profoundly destabilizing and carries with it the threat of wider, more devastating unrest. So you don’t do it unless you absolutely have to.
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, no one provided a credible justification for the war. It was obvious that we did not have to invade Iraq. This is the overriding fact: Invading a nation without cause (you can call it “preemptive”, but that just means you don’t have cause) is breathtakingly immoral and equally stupid and you do not do it… A sane person starts from the position of not making war. The question of why not support starting a war should never even be raised—the reasons not to are always obvious…
Yes, we’d all like to be Superman, able to fly into countries and create freedom and justice for all. If I wake up tomorrow morning and discover I have become God, believe me, everyone will be hearing from me. But no number of weapons, and no army of whatever size, can compensate for the fact that human beings are not God and we can’t just make everyone behave the way we want them to.
John Murtha, a man who actually fought in a war, says“wars cannot be won with slogans,” which is a message I’ve been pounding into the ground for a couple of years, both on this blog and at ye olde Jakeneck. Of course, it hasn’t helped the situation any that the public relations wonks that run the Bush White House keep renaming the war.
Another sure recipe for losing a war: Keep it open ended. The wingnuts like to compare the Global War on Terror to that other open-ended struggle, the Cold War. Of course, troops weren’t actually deployed in the Cold War. There wasn’t an “insurgency” in the Cold War. It was an overall concept to describe the struggle against Communism and the Soviets and the Chinese in particular, a struggle which is still very much occurring and rather serious, very serious.
And, finally from Philip Carter over at Intel Dump:
We will not win this “long war” so long as our enemies want victory more than we do, and are willing to sacrifice more to achieve victory than we are. We are asking for tremendous sacrifice from our all-volunteer military today. But though the burden of military service is heavy, it is not broad. I believe this is problematic in its own right, because such a division between those who serve and those who don’t has serious political and social consequences. However, there is an operational implication here as well. Our lack of national sacrifice telegraphs a very clear message to our enemies, not unlike the message which President Clinton sent to Slobodan Milosevic when he said “I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war.” Wars are a contest of will, and they are won in the mind. We cannot afford to tell or show our enemies that we want victory less than they do. Unfortunately, that is precisely the message that our current attitude on national sacrifice is sending.
It is an important point. But, as I’ve said before, it is a war without definition, therefore a war without a defined end. How can we win?
The Oscar nominations have been announced. The biggest ommision obviously, is Dreamgirls for Best Picture. It really is a fine film, much better than Little Miss Sunshine IMHO. (I liked LMS very much too.) But, the Oscars are little more than a public relations popularity contest… So, there it is.
The Sundance Film Festival is underway, and a number of pics have already been picked up for some pretty nice sums. My interest is always in the ones that don’t get picked up. That’s where some of the great filmmaking is to be found, truth be told. There’s some interesting videos to watch over at the Sundance Channel Video Blog, for those looking for a little inside view into the Park City world.
Screenpeace: An Antiwar Film Festival run by the War Resisters League, has been underway for a week, and continues into next month. Stop on by if you find yourself in NYC, some interesting flicks on the sched.
One of the great differences between Conservatives and Liberals, from the very beginning of the current polarization, has been the Conservative attitude towards the real cost of war. They prefer to keep in hidden and brushed under the rug. Example: How the Bush Administration attempts to keep photos of US coffins and war casualties to a minimum. When such photos get published, the whining on the right is deafening. Just look at Michelle Malkin’s page. Personally, it’s always been one of my main reasons for opposition of the Iraq War- the level of sacrifice offered by the chicken hawks has always been zero. They consider their fear to be a sacrifice. With that in mind, make an effort to see The Ground Truth. Throw a screening party. All funds rasised go to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. There is a screening here in NYC coming up:
Screening of The Ground Truth Saturday, January 27, 2007, 6:45pm Katwalk Lounge 2 West 35th street, between 5th and 6th avenues New York, NY $10
So who will Fox News fire for peddling the Obama hoax? How about the Washington Times? Who will they fire?
The thing is, we’re talking about ideologues who think like this:
It is a tonic to have our government led by a man of principle – and we who support President Bush wouldn’t give that up for any price…if it means that we have to put up with an endless campaign of slanders, half-truths and character assasinations, then we’ll just put up with it. The payoff is worth the price.
So, rather than actually having a problem with egregious behavior, they celebrate it. And, then they have the audacity to actually blame everyone else for the lack of values in the country. Wingnuts are dangerous and not too bright, to be sure. The people though are wise to the incompetence and the folderol.
If you were one of those persons (like me) who thought it would be impossible for Ted Nugent to slide any farther down the has been hole than he had by forming a fake rock group (I use the term “rock group” loosely) for a reality show (I use the term “reality” loosely) that was meant to revitalize his defunct and marginal career, well… you’d be wrong.
Dinesh D’Souza has a new book out, it’s titled: “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11″. Over at Salon, Alex Koppelman interviews D’Sousa and rips his basic arguments to shreds.
The obvious answer in the final analysis is that all sides bare responsibility for the state of affairs in the world, 9/11 included. Anyone who states otherwise is part of the problem. D’Souza’s dishonest intellectual brand of fascism- blame the opposition (Liberals, the Left, Democrats, whoever)- is neither original nor is it too difficult to pick apart. Same old same old.
Michael Wolff has a new album out. See him play if you can… You won’t regret it.
Over at Media Rights:
…we’re introducing a new article series called Shortlist, your opportunity to learn about the films that inspire intellectual, artistic and activist leaders. Leaders like Albert Maysles, a pioneer of cinema verite whose documentaries explore issues from poverty (Lalee’s Kin) to politics (Primary). We asked Mr. Maysles to share his favorite films and his thoughts on the power of documentary to change the world. So what films make Al’s Shortlist? Keep reading to find out.
