FAUX PUBLISHING

Whenever we write a blog, decide we are satisfied with the finished product, and click on the button marked "Publish", we are given the illusion that something we have created will now be in the public domain and that readers enamored of our view points (and our stylish prose) will immediately tune-in and read our latest bits of wisdom. Wrong!

While it may be technically true that we have been published (on-line), it is also true, in the main, that no one is waiting with baited breath to read our latest epistle. If the number of comments we have received is any indication of this blog's popularity, it is highly likely we may be our only reader. And that is a reality akin to publishing a book and never selling so much as one copy. And it is nothing new. We had a grandfather who, at the height of World War II self-published a self-serving piece entitled MASTER OF MEN. He cajoled a local book store in to displaying five or six copies in its window, even advertising that the author was a "well known citizen of the area"; and not one single copy of his "masterpiece" was ever sold. And even the free copies he distributed to family members were never read. The book was simply dreadful.

And we may be experiencing a similar syndrome. A friend whom we directed to this blog site called recently and complained that he could not figure out how to read anything on the site, that he had not actually found anything we had written, and that if he had he was certain he would disagree with every word. Fortunately, we have not directed any enemies to the site.

So, blogging (at least for those of who are essentially unknown) is a form of mental masturbation. It is a way of being "published" without earning a legitimate right to do so, and it is satisfying mainly because it allows the writer(s) to vent, to sound off (even if no one is listening), and to hope (idly we fear) that somewhere, somehow, a kindred soul might stumble on to the site and offer similar views, or even a compliment or two on our writing. But, while a million bloggers grind out new stuff every day, they are not talking to each other. And faux publishing is the contemporary way of strutting around like the emperor who had no clothes. He was invisble. So are most bloggers.................

Garrett500
12/29/2005

MOVIE REVIEWS--WORSE THAN THE MOVIES!

Not all that many years ago it made sense for a film fan to read the opinions of the experts before heading off to the theater. Not that we always agreed with the critic, but we could at least figure on a fairly reliable assessment of the pictures we wanted to see. Indeed, there were some critics whose opinions were almost always the opposite of ours. If Vincent Canby, as a case in point, did not like a particular flick, there was a better than even chance that we would. Similarly, if Rex Reed (who is still plying his trade, albeit less noticeably) was fond of a new picture, we were reasonably certain we would not care for it.

These days reading the film critics (of which there are seemingly as many as there are movies) is a tricky business. It seems that many of them know nothing more about the cinematic arts than we do. And their jobs now come down to little more than the offering of their opinions as to whether they like, or dislike, what they see. Rather than critiquing performances, plots, camera work, sets, etc., today's critic is content to tell you why he likes something, or why he does not. But in doing so he offers no insights in to the background for his opinions. In fact, quite a number of our contemporary reviewers seem intent, mainly, on attempting to ferret out whatever meaning they think they discern in a film. Indeed, give them something really chewy, like MUNICH, and they will write reams of stuff about the scriptwriter's motivations, about the Director's sympathies for the Olympic victims, and why the film, so many years after the events it depicts, is "timely". Take another piece, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, and we have reviewers telling us that C.S. Lewis's story is actually a biblical allegory. And they tell us that having no idea whether Lewis intended it that way. None of them, after all, got to interview him; and nowhere (that we know of) did he write anything to the effect that NARNIA was a religious story. Doubtless some Christians were heartened to hear that this film embodies Lewis's spiritual predilections, but we would have preferred a review which more honestly appraised the picture's merits or demerits as a piece of the film maker's art. We know, after all, that Disney (the studio behind the production) made the movie for entertainment and for money (scads of which they intend to earn from ticket sales). Doubtless they gave no thought to C.S. Lewis's rationale for writing the book; only that it would lend itself to (potentially) good cinema.

So, when we read movie reviews these days we have very little we can rely on. Reading Roger Ebert, or any of the other dozen or so well known critics, offers us no assurances that their opinions can be relied upon. Ebert, for instance, waxes eloquent about a lot of things (and sometimes he discusses the film he is reviewing), but as often as not it is actually difficult to tell whether he likes or dislikes the picture he is writing about. To glean that information you have to see how many stars he bestows; and that information seems to appear someplace different than the review. He is not vague on his TV show, but in print his commentary cannot be used to determine whether a particular flick should be seen or avoided. When he reviewed GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, as a case in point, his affection for the work was less apparent than his reflections on the situation it depicted. It helps that a reviewer is old enough to remember historical events when depicted in film, but telling us why a movie is good (or bad) is also essential to the critic's job. And, from our perspective, most of them are now missing that point. And the reason, we suspect, is because the art of print journalism has been obliged to take a back seat to less obvious but far more pressing issues. Newspapers, unfortunately, are not about the news anymore. They are really about selling as much advertising as possible. And journalists are hired not so much for their professional skills as for their willingness to work for mediocre money. No, we do not suggest that one as well respected as Roger Ebert fits in this category. But while he, and a hand full of others, endeavor to work as professionals, far too many more cannot spell "professional" much less define what professionalism is. And for that reason alone, the reviews we read are often worse than the movies they critique.

Garrett500
12/28/2005

IMPEACHMENT; GETTING IT RIGHT

Recent revelations that president Bush has been allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on private phone conversations and emails came as no surprise to this observer. To the contrary, we would have been more surprised to learn that such activities were not taking place.

Nor is it surprising that the president, after a bit of back pedaling, owned up to these nefarious activities. He has made it clear, virtually since the smoke cleared on 9/11, that as far as he is concerned just about anything goes when it comes to fighting the war on terrorism. And where "spy gate" is concerned Mr. Bush is more aggrieved by the fact that ordinary Americans now know what he's been doing than by any suggestion that he might be breaking (or at least ignoring) the law. Indeed, his rationale for this chicanery is that terrorists don't play by the rules, so he shouldn't have to either. And when backed to the wall on the matter he retorts that we haven't been attacked in four years. Right, and the fact that he has been spying on Americans is doubtless the reason that Al Queda has left us alone.

That America is supposed to stand for something more noble than those nations which encourage, which foster, or which simply tolerate terrorism is, we fear, lost on the denizens of Bush World. They were wounded (albeit no where near mortally) on September 11,th 2001, and they are retaliating with a ferocity, and a lack of traditional American ethics, heretofore unimagined in the annals of this country's history. And even when it involves overt law breaking (which is surely what this spying is), the administration sits back and brazens it out by saying things like "we were cleared for this operation by Justice Department Attorneys", "read the Constitution, we're covered". But when asked to cite which specific statute, which part of the constitution, what law of any kind, legalizes spying on American citizens without benefit of a warrant, no one in Bush World can come up with anything except more hollow rhetoric.

There is too much which is ignoble in this administration's conduct of its business. It lied to us about the rationale for war, it has overseen the imprisonment without access to due process of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals suspected, but not indicted. It was surely looking the other way at Abu Graib and to think otherwise is to believe in the Easter Bunny. And, for several years it has violated one of the most dearly held tenets of our democracy; it has been spying, without legal authority, and without apology, on what may be thousands of American citizens.

In 1998 a misguided Congress impeached then president, Bill Clinton. Republican conservatives (or at least those who could elude charges of hypocrisy) were incensed that Mr. Clinton had conducted an affair with a young White House intern. And they were really peeved at the fact that he had lied about it. Never mind that an admitted fifty-percent of married Americans have affairs. Forget the fact that one hundred percent of them lie about it. This was "Slick Willy", and those who wanted his cajones went after him tooth and nail. Ultimately, after subjecting the country to an exercise in abject tomfoolery, Clinton was acquitted, he completed the remainder of his presidency, and the country benefited, in the main, from his leadership. If we endeavored to impeach Clinton for having an affair would it not make even more sense to impeach Bush for lying and for breaking the law? Before he erodes all of our civil liberties should we not begin to sense his mission, make it clear that we don't need a dictator, and impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors? We think so, and we hope those members of Congress who share this view will get the ball rolling.

An otherwise competent president who stupidly indulges his fantasy in a twenty-four year old nymphet is one thing. A president who lies, who flagrantly breaks and ignores laws, who obviously believes he is above those laws, and who is presiding over the dismantling of our traditional democracy, is quite another. The last time we impeached a president we went after the wrong guy for the wrong reasons. We now have the opportunity to get it right.

Garrett 500
12/21/2005

ANN COULTER, IMPERVIOUS TO INDICTMENT

In a column recently penned by Ann Coulter, arguably America's best known conservative female, she bemoans the fact that she cannot be indicted. She points to numerous other Republicans, from Deep Throat all the way to Stewart Libby, who have been, or have been threatened; and she wonders what she has to do to enjoy the company of these characters. She also notes, however, that for all the indictments, and/or threatened indictments, the number of convicted conservatives are few and far between. And she implies, not so subtly, that Democrats enjoy indicting Republicans, even when they don't deserve it.

She offers some examples of justice gone south. Oddly, for instance, she observes that Rush Limbaugh ("El Rushbo" as she calls him) is being threatened with indictment (but remains untouched thus far) for his admitted addiction to pain killers. If charged he will be accused of Doctor shopping--as a means of assuring his supply of more Oxycodine than the law allows--but Ms. Coulter seems to think his political preferences will have more to do with an indictment than his culpability as an errant drug user. And, for all any of us know she could be right. But, if justice prevails (and sometimes it does), El Rushbo will go down, if he does, for nothing remotely related to his conservative cosmology.

Ms. Coulter also reminds us that Newt Gingrich was roundly investigated, and threatened, that Ed Meese (late of the Reagan administration) was skewered by investigators, and that Tom DeLay, who has been indicted, was unfairly charged. And, when all is said and done, we are left with the impression that Republicans and conservatives, taken as a group, are nothing less than well meaning choir boys.

Gee, Ann, maybe that's your problem. This is a male choir, and there does not appear to be much room for a mouthy member of the distaff side. Indeed, it appears from here that your conservative colleagues tolerate you while covertly finding you obnoxious. You do have the benefit of being attractive; and no one could question your sense of humor (barbed though it is); but let's face it, you are way out there when compared to most of the otherwise circumspect female members of Bush World. Compare yourself, for instance, to Condi Rice. Would she inquire, even humorously, as to why she cannot be indicted? Or how about Karen Hughes? She is one of the president's favorite gals, but she knows her place and how to maintain the requisite distance. And, of course, there is always the redoubtable Mary Matalin, never an apologist, always a supporter. And she, too, remains behind her betters; never out in front of them. But you barge in a like the proverbial bull in a China shop, you tell it like it is (or at least as you want to believe it is--and it seems you don't know the difference), and in Bush World, telling it like it is is a privilege generally limited to those far closer to the inner circle than you are. Not that it matters too much. Their version of "like it is" is no more accurate than yours. It is just that theirs is a bit less combustible, a bit more circumspect, and--we'll admit it--far less interesting.

And to get indicted; or at least to be close enough to the inner circle to command the attention of those who could indict, you may want to alter a few aspects of your image and your personality. Cut the hair, discard the bottle of blond, shorten the skirts, quit smoking, and quit kidding with liberals. The latter is especially important. It is one thing to go on the tube with Bill Maher, but to sometimes sympathize with his points of view (even in jest) is a conservative no-no. Indeed, you are better advised to spend the majority of your tube time with Sean Hannity. Doubtless he is less interesting (and far less intelligent) than Maher, but he is a card carrying, died in the wool, fully accepted member of Bush World, and to make yourself as subject to scrutiny as those folks are you have to hob-knob with them; not with a quasi liberal libertarian.

You see, Ann, it is not that you are too nice to be indicted. It is not that you are, as a lawyer, too clever to avoid legal missteps. No, it all gets down to the simple fact that your position within the inner sanctum of Bush World is not yet firmly established. Ironically, it would be ludicrous for anyone to call you a liberal; but, sorry sweetheart, you may not be as all encompassing a conservative as you think you are. More importantly, to be part of the machinery of this administration requires that you do more than observe it. You have to join it. And that probably requires an invitation. And while we would not bet that you've never received one, we would wager that whatever chance you might have had has disappeared. And that renders you, at least within the context of the current political climate, impervious to indictment. Too bad. But, unless the Patriot Act is far more venal than we think it is you cannot be indicted for being outspoken or stupid or wrong. And that, Ms. Coulter, will continue to keep you out of the clink.


12.15.2005
Garrett 500

SPINNING THE SPIN

A new ABC poll informs us that seventy percent of Iraqi citizens are optimistic about democracy. Concurrently, however, only fifty percent think it has a chance of working, sixty percent believe American involvement is detrimental to the process, and sixty-five percent want our military to vacate the country ASAP.

And the Bush administration exudes confidence about the achievement of its mission in Iraq (the real nature of which remains something of a mystery). And it does so because a sizeable percentage of Iraq seems comfortable with the idea of democracy. That the other parts of the poll are less encouraging is ignored. And that is typical of what we call "Republispeak"; a process whereby administration flacks, supporters, and hangers-on are able to focus on things which please them while completely spacing any negatives.

It is part and parcel of the Republican/conservative cosmology that denial ( plausible or not) is the means by which potential converts can be convinced that the earth really is flat, that the sun rises in the west, and that God looks kindly only upon the red states. And from this convoluted logic they can then conclude that our invading forces really are welcomed in Iraq, that Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction (regardless the evidence to the contrary), and that our slaughter of more than 30,000 Iraqis has, without doubt, been in the best interests of the millions of other Iraqis whom we haven't slaughtered.

And so it goes. And the spin goes on. And, by this time next year there will be no more than a couple of handfuls ofAmerican soldiers still on Iraqi soil. But as the withdrawals commence (this spring we're betting), the offered rationale will be that we are winning, that we have captured the minds and hearts of the formerly beleagured populace, and that victory is ours. That November's midterm elections, in which the Republicans might otherwise lose their shirts, looms as the real reason for the impending troop withdrawals will not be mentioned; at least not by anyone in Bush World.

And that's what we call spinning the spin.........

12.14.2005
Garrett 500