|
Eulogy is actually a pretty good movie. As one reviewer says on line, it is a series of cliches, illuminated by some pretty good writing and acting.
The grandfather (whom we finally see in a videotape), played by Rip Torn, has died. The family gathers: two sons, two daughters, one lesbian companion, some grandchildren including the protagonist, Kate, who is asked to prepare and deliver a eulogy.
Sending up Rocket Gilbralter, I guess, they put the body in a row boat and allow the 13-year-old twin grandsons to prepare it for immolation. As they push it into the water, the "fuse" comes off the boat. Not to worry, the two boys will shoot flaming arrows. So all this is developing in the background as the family talks, and Katie attempts her eulogy. Finally they all sing: "Papa was a Rolling Stone" (it turns out he had three families). Just when they get to "all he left us was," Kaboom!, the row boat explodes as opposed to catching fire. As Kate says afterward, it was raining Grandpa.
A very nice performance by Zooey Deschanel as Kate. It's more or less her movie--the sane one, commenting on the passing scene while trying to deal with a love affair of her own. Hank Azaria has never been better in anything I've seen. And Debra Winger, somewhat back from the dead herself as far as I'm concerned. (OK, I've just Googled; I should see Shadowlands and Forget Paris). Ray Romano is actually not bad.
The whole Plame thing has been unbelievably tedious from the beginning, and the Rove element only makes it a bit less tedious.
Part of what is clear is that Wilson has always been both ambitious and a publicity hound--aching to be a D.C. celebrity. All of this made it practically impossible for his wife, Valerie Plame, to be "covert" in any meaningful sense after she married him; Glenn Reynolds seems right about that.
The to-ing and fro-ing about Niger: Wilson seems not to have learned anything conclusive. The Washington Post wrongly reported that he established a link between Iraq and arms traders, when it was really Iran--a ludicrous mistake (later corrected by the paper) that the Bushies have been repeating recently. On the other hand, to the extent that he found anything, he probably confirmed that there were rumours, at least, of an Iraq connection. He certainly didn't conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no Iraq connection, as he tried to claim in his Op-Ed after Bush's speech. Wilson has hurt his credibility a lot by indicating that his orders came straight from Cheney, and his wife had nothing to do with it; in fact, his wife recommended him internally, through CIA channels, and it is not clear in the media--it was probably not clear to Wilson--to what extent the actual order to go came from outside the CIA, whether from the White House or whatever. It makes some sense that the Bushies were hoping to confirm Chalabi's bullshit about Niger, but let's face it, they were quite prepared to go with the bullshit, on a number of fronts, with no direct confirmation from anyone.
See Clifford May, summer 2004: May is an angry Bushie, and he goes into the whole "the first set of Niger documents were bullshit, but there was another set that weren't, blah, blah," but I think he is good on what Wilson found in Niger. No doubt the Bushies were some pissed at the Op-Ed. They didn't have to be evil or Machiavellian to have that reaction. Wilson was a former public official who directly contradicted a statement by the President, and went beyond or contradicted anything he actually knew in the process. Evidently, he did this to make himself a hero with liberal Democrats--and he had some success with that.
The bigger question is whether Wilson has ever displayed any real competence or credibility through this whole thing. His biggest claim to fame is that he was U.S. Ambassador to Saddam's Iraq: he went toe-to-toe with the dictator, he caused hostages to be freed, etc. But this all came after Bush Senior shit-canned April Glaspie as Ambassador--probably because she told the truth about Bush Senior policies. At the time this was hardly a plum job that the elite of the diplomatic corps was lined up to get--and Wilson got it.
Perhaps charming Valerie Plame is actually this guy's greatest accomplishment.
See also the famous Vanity Fair profile of Wilson and Plame: maybe Wilson was just acting Ambassador in Iraq.
British-born terrorists setting off bombs in Britain: this is starting to sound more like domestic terrorism.
What did Glenn Reynolds say about the "militia" movements in the U.S.--a few months before the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995? (Thanks to Pandagon and Atrios).
Glenn had some fairly stern words for the "patriots":
Although many militia supporters can quote the framers at great length on the right to bear arms, few seem aware that the framers also put a lot of effort into distinguishing between legitimate revolutions-such as the American Revolution- and mere "rebellions" or "insurrections." The former represented a right, even a duty, of the people. The latter were illegitimate, mere outlawry. The framers developed a rather sophisticated political theory for distinguishing between the two.
But he was also remarkably understanding.
The framers understood what a dangerous thing a revolution was. They embarked on their effort with trepidation, and they would not have been surprised to learn that most revolutions that came after theirs either failed or produced a new tyranny worse than the old. They knew that once let out, the genie of revolution often proves both destructive and hard to rebottle. As the militia movement says, the framers did believe in the right to revolution. But they believed that such strong medicine was a last resort against tyranny. Today's militia members would be better advised to organize a new political party, or to work at increasing voter turnout.
Such counsel may seem bland beside the very real romance of revolution. But those on the political right (from which most, though not all, of the militia movement comes) should know better than to yield to that romance. Ever since the idolization of Che Guevara, a large chunk of the American left has succumbed to revolutionary romance, while those on the right have focused on workaday politics. The relative fortunes of those two movements over the last 25 years, especially after November's elections, suggest which approach works.
It has become a cliche that a lot of the sentimental hatred of the U.S. federal government died down after Oklahoma City--and certainly that citizens who were never particularly violent, but toyed with defending the militias' "principles," quickly fell silent. The fact that there was widespread support for the militias at one time--Reynolds estimated at least 100,000 members in the militia movement--is surely sobering, and may even shed some light on the ability of today's "terrorists" to gain adherents--even suicide bombers. Their actions, although horrible, don't prove that they're some kind of monster such as we can never imagine rising up among us.
As Reynolds wrote about the militias: "Their fear, based on all sorts of rumors about 'black helicopters' and foreign forces maneuvering in remote areas, is that the feds, perhaps in conjunction with the United Nations, will seize their guns and establish a 'new world order' dictatorship that will take control over their lives."
I've also done some googling of my own on "domestic terrorism." How about the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857, in which Mormons were accused of slaughtering over 100 non-Mormons? Here is the official Utah, presumably Mormon account--other accounts are not as sympathetic to the Mormons:. The central figure is John D. Lee:
In January 1856 Lee was appointed U.S. government Indian Agent in the Iron County environs. His job was to distribute tools, seed, and supplies, and to assist the Indians with farming methods. Because of this assignment, Lee became the central figure in the tragic Mountain Meadows Massacre which occurred in September 1857.
After a group of 120 to 150 California-bound men, women, and children, known as the Fancher Party, was attacked by Indians in a four-day siege while they were camped at Mountain Meadows, Lee and William Bateman met with members of the wagon train and arranged for them to be escorted to safety under a flag of truce by the Mormon militia. With no other alternative, the company surrendered their weapons, but as they marched away from their wagons, Mormon militiamen, including Lee, shot and killed the male members of the party while Indians killed the women and older children. Seventeen small children were spared and cared for by Mormon families until they were returned to relatives in Arkansas.
The reasons for the massacre are complex, but center around a wartime hysteria that had built up in Utah with the announcement in July 1857 that a federal army was en route to Utah to put down an alleged Mormon rebellion. Rumors also circulated that members of the Fancher party had stolen from the Mormons, poisoned their reservoirs, and boasted of their role in the assassination of Joseph Smith.
As Mormonism grew, its adherents found themselves almost constantly at war with American society. Founder Joseph Smith and an associate were dragged from a prison cell by a mob and killed. Before that there was rioting over whether Mormons could vote--and looting by both sides. The state of Missouri issued an "Extermination Order" against Mormons. All of this, of course, precipitated their great move West.
My point, I guess is that all this was taken very seriously, but was not necessarily seen as the beginning of a world war.
UPDATE: the Mountain Meadows massacre committed (at least partly) by Mormons came to an end, although it seems hard to believe, on September 11. See Wikipedia.
UPDATE: The main Mormon Church has obviously become more and more mainstream since the 19th century. But there are still some odd things in the Book of Mormon, and there are splinter groups that claim to take the founding documents more seriously than the official Church does. One result can be extreme violence.
Maybe Bush and/or Blair can give a speech saying the violent Mormons are not the "true" ones.
We finally rented Monty Python's Life of Brian--for my son and me; my wife has no interest.
"You are all individuals!"
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"You are all different!"
"Yes, we are all different! Tell us more!"
"No, you're missing the point...."
So the Pythons had this kind of libertarian side to them. But then the question is: if there isn't some kind of conformity/conventional morality to rebel against, what does all this "think for yourself" really amount to? Will ordinary people really become Socrates, or will they magnify the importance of small differences in blue jeans or TV shows?
You can see Bush and Blair putting their heads together a few years ago. In what country could they possibly look to find terrorists who were prepared and able to attack Western cities? Where could these bastards be? The Anglosphere would search high and low--would stop at nothing--if only there was some clear indication as to which country was the most promising place to look.
Was it Iraq? Er, no.
Pakistan? Egypt? Staunch allies of the U.S., but you're definitely getting warmer.
How about Britain itself? With substantial periods of education and job hunting in the U.S.? Bullseye.
UPDATE: Maybe the Anglosphere should simply imitate the perfidious French, as described by Richard Pipes, asap.
Oh good. A military alliance between the new Iraq and Iran. (Via Kevin Drum).
The old question: to what extent has Iran been pulling the strings in Iraq from the beginning?
A guy who often rides the commuter bus with me (and who generously organized the canoe trip), brought up some prophecies the other day:
1. Socrates (he said) said that if a truly good man ever came about--kind, generous, helping others, turning away wrath--that man would be killed. Sure enough, Jesus was born, and he was killed.
I'm not an expert on Plato, but I gather this is a paraphrase of part of the Apology of Socrates. In my own paraphrase, Socrates says (at a fairly ripe old age) that if he had done the things a good man would do, including the just things, he would have been killed (31d-32a, 32e). Although earlier in the same work he emphasizes his willingness to take risks, even die if necessary, for a cause, and compares himself to Achilles, now he makes it clear he would have regarded his premature death as a bad thing, precisely if it happened because he was supporting a good cause. To what does he attribute the good fortune of not doing the things a good man would do, and not, as a result, dying young? He says his daimonic voice turned him away from doing public things, such as counselling the city (31c-d). If he fought for the just at all, he would have done so in such a way as to anger the (democratic) authorities, and thus he would have been killed. The only rational alternative, if he wished to avoid premature death, was to live a strictly private life, giving up fighting for justice; that is what he has done, fortunately counselled, he says, by his daimonic voice. (See also Republic 496c-d).
This is not exactly an exhortation to do the good and just things, or to be a good man in that sense. If a good and just man comes along who is killed fairly early in life because of his noble activities, one can imagine Socrates saying to him: You poor sap! Don't you have a daimonic voice to protect you?
2. Isaiah (according to my fellow commuter) prophesied that Cyrus would conquer Babylon, and that the city would hardly put up a fight. This was new to me--I didn't know Cyrus was explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
The prophesy in Isaiah about Cyrus starts at 44:28; the prophesy of the destruction of Babylon is at 13-14, agreeing closely with Jeremiah 50-51. I don't know the chronology of the Old Testament, but it is Ezra, which comes earlier, which confirms Cyrus re-establishing Jerusalem for the Jews. (My friend thought it was Daniel).
One site points out that several of Isaiah's prophecies did not come true. The prophecy implies the violent destruction of Babylon, which did not happen. My friend said, as more friendly commentators have said, there is some support in the Bible for believing the conquest of Babylon was supposed to be non-violent.
Another presents the whole Cyrus story more coherently.
UPDATE: Various accounts of Cyrus here.
I think Christopher Hitchens manages to be both morally and intellectually incoherent this time. Maybe the booze is taking over completely.
He observes that the U.S. military in Iraq is pursuing "a policy of 'force protection' that mandates Americans to treat any questionable action or movement with 'zero tolerance.' It's a moral certainty that many more Iraqi citizens die this way than are ever reported." He says it's probably not wise for the Americans to "gesture at" civilians "from inside a space-suit or armored vehicle, and then shoot them dead if they don't get it right the first time."
Hitchens supports the U.S. war in Iraq. Don't his observations make it sound like the Americans can't tell friends from enemies, have never known much about Iraq, and don't have enough people who speak the relevant languages? Perhaps they relied too much on the wild predictions of con man Chalabi, who apparently bought HItchens himself so many dinners and drinks?
Hitchens blames: the critics of the war. They're such nay-sayers, they will jump on any bad news, and positively welcome any suggestion that Iraq has become a quagmire. Knowing this tendency, the insurgents have cleverly but evilly decided to target such spots as checkpoints. Knowing the Americans will go to great lengths to avoid casualties among their own forces, the insurgents frighten them all into being a bit trigger-happy, thus widening the gap between Americans in uniform and Iraqi civilians. The war would be a thrilling and successful endeavour if it weren't for those left-wing, er, but non-Trotskyist, intellectuals.
So it's primarily the critics of the war who foster a pathological fear of U.S. casualties? Who regard every American life as something too precious to be shed in hell-hole #48? But isn't there more and more evidence that advocates of the war are neither willing to fight themselves, nor to see their children fight there? (See today's discussion about Pataki's son). Wasn't it a condition of their advocacy of the war, from the beginning, that it would somehow be perfectly safe and cheap? Wolfowitz wasn't just shooting the breeze when he told Congress it would be a cakewalk, over in a short time, and it would pay for itself. It is precisely the advocates of the war who are now forced to wonder if Iraq is worth the loss of significant U.S. casualties--and if it ever was.
If the stakes in Iraq itself--not in some vaguely defined region or religious grouping, much less the entire world--were not sufficiently high in the beginning to demand a big sacrifice, then they are probably not high enough now, either--even if would be embarrassing to bug out. The liberators of Iraq are now making sure as much of the burden of the war as possible falls on Iraqis, including civilians.
I heard Gwen Ifill this evening mention the story of U.S. citizens who have been detained in Iraq. All, she reported, have dual citizenship in an Arab country. I'm pretty sure one is Iranian--and Iran is actually not an Arab country. This is after almost four years of war--if not more, depending on how we are counting.
Vietnam isn't being mentioned only because critics of the war insist on bringing it up. The insurgents are probably thinking about it too.
For the long weekend, I went on a canoe trip with my son. A total of 9 "guys," three of them fairly young boys. In beautiful, isolated Algonquin Park. Fun, sometimes challenging.
UPDATE: Not much wildlife. One moose, maybe a year old, not too far away from our canoes. A few loons. Several families of ducks, but remarkably dull ducks. The guy in the stern of my canoe is a real bird-watcher, and he was kind of amazed at how few birds were visible. A few shore birds, including (oddly) a plain old robin. Lots of plain old gulls, such as we could see in the city anytime. A couple of hawks. Crows. Turkey vultures.
We camped on an island, deliberately trying to avoid mosquitoes. There were very few critters there at all--a few red squirrels. Hardly any bugs of any kind. Few birds.
The whole wilderness kind of eerily quiet.
I'm glad Foote's books exist; I'm glad someone taking an old-fashioned, story-telling, "great man," well researched approach could become so popular.
But on the PBS series on the Civil War, Foote said something like: if the Southern states had believed at the time of ratification that the Constitution precluded secession, they never would have joined the Union in the first place.
This is Southern boilerplate. Lincoln at best understood the Constitution differently than many Southerners, but was willing to force them to conform to his view. At worst he knowingly twisted the Constitution to fit his own doctrines and ambitions.
Lincoln was conscious that he was taking on both a "states rights," anti-Union, live and let live kind of approach, and various defences of slavery, all at the same time. He said: no state was ever sovereign except Texas. (And Texas, of course, acted like it wanted to lose its sovereignty and join the Union as quickly as possible).
This means: it was always the people of the United States who rebelled against the Crown, fought for their freedom, and established one constitution after another. It was never sovereign states. The Rehnquist court has spread a certain amount of confusion on this, abetted by conservative and libertarian constitutional law profs.
The South cooked up states rights, and codified it, because of their need to defend slavery. It wasn't some kind of accident that they wanted to defend slavery in addition to states rights. (It's more true that the South wouldn't have joined if the Bill of Rights had applied to states; they wanted the ability to maintain crude majoritianism within southern states, combined with anti-majoritarian provisions in the Constitution (especially the Senate)).
My main source is Walter Berns, but I've done my own reading, especially as I've taught American Con Law for two years.
I suppose this could be my 4th of July message to all my American friends.
UPDATE: I was thinking of Lincoln's remarks immediately after the surrender of Fort Sumter, in April 1861. He called for troops to fight a Southern insurrection, and explained that individual states were not, and could not, be sovereign. http://file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/First%20user/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/J5ULT9JQ/Document%20Abraham%20Lincoln%20A%20War%20to%20Preserve%20the%20Union.htm
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|