Big Government

Another day: another bad review. In my defense, i only read this book because i recognized the authors name as someone that my organization had worked with in the past. Though why that is a defense i cannot fathom.

Big Government

Another turkey. This one a book written by former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Ev Erlich, which merely reinforces my thought that political types should not dabble in literature. Well, this is a lofty statement that only really holds true for very contemporary writers (witness Jeffrey Archer, Lewis Libby – on the other hand Newt Gingrich wrote some good history books, but still....).

Either way, this book is an attempt by Mr. Erlich to capture the cut-and-thrust of Washington politics. I could go into the story, but I cannot be bothered. Suffice to say that we all learn that politics and Congress are corrupt and environmentalists are weirdoes. Big surprise.

The book is not helped by the fact that it appears to have been written by an infant, with repeated use of words like “nice” and “sturdy” and characters named: Wade Hoak (the President), or a 114 year old Congressman called Senior Younger, jr., or Congressman Ezra Wheezle (I wonder what kind of a person he is? You get the point). As if to emphasize the vacuity of the novel, it is written in a giant font with endless empty pages in between chapters.

The tenuous story lurches from one improbable scene to the next as an assortment of unrealistic characters flummox their way through their insignificant lives (well, the President continually appears, so not entirely insignificant). Occasionally, Erlich likes to try to give his characters depth by letting us hear their interior monologue, but if all we are going to hear is that “he thought he was a nice guy,” well, thanks, but I think I’ll survive without it. The characters he has decided are worth salvaging he makes into heroes, which immediately renders them meaningless, as all they are is a counterpoint to the “broad chested” and “bulbous nosed” evil Senator/Congressmen.

Well, enough of this. Survey says: dead loss. Help the environment and recycle your copy (as I will as soon as I am able to find a recycling bin near me).

Assault on Precinct 13

So i watched another car wreck of a film. I actually saw another over the weekend as well called A Day Without a Mexican (or something along those lines) - but I didn't even finish that one, so don't feel that i can savage it appropriately.

Enjoy!

Assault on Precinct 13

Remakes tend to be tedious affairs. They tend to drag through the mud perfectly good films and characters that you have enjoyed. In some cases, films that were pretty bad and pointless the first time around are thrown back into the studio system and then spewed back out in such a way that you wonder whose misbegotten idea it was to waste perfectly good money a second time over, all the while orphans across Africa are starving.

This film falls into that category.

Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of an old John Carpenter film that never needed remaking. The basic premise a gang decides to take out a police precinct (lucky number 13) to recover or kill a mob leader inside. In the original the gang are a street gang angered at the deaths of colleagues, in the remake, they are cops trying to kill a bad guy (Laurence Fishburne) who could turn them all in. The only people between the bad cops and the bad guy are a motley crew of quasi-cops led by burned out druggie/drunk cop Ethan Hawke. Why is he burned out you might foolishly ask? Well, this is answered in the pre-credit sequence, where we see undercover narcotics cop Hawke participate in a botched drugs bust where two of his colleagues (one of whom seems a far too young and lithe girl to be an undercover cop) are killed.

The coup de grace in the opening scene is when the camera pans to behind the villain who has just shot Hawke’s partner and we are treated to the sight of the back of his head popping off as Hawke beats the fellow to the draw. We see daylight quite clearly through the hole in the villains head. Charming.

This gore is repeatedly replicated throughout the film. This is not the gore of a film like Saw, where we are never actually treated to seeing the intense physical misery imposed upon the characters, but rather the gore of the first half hour of Saving Private Ryan: very real looking injuries happening with the resulting carnage on visible display. Gore in movies is fine, but once this is coupled with the callous way that people are dispatched, one wonders what kind of a misanthropist the director must be (a French one as it turns out: Jean-François Richet). We watch as heroes and villains alike come to rather sticky ends as calculating killer’s dispatch them with a wanton abandon.

For example, the one woman who could pass as a love interest in the story (and is the only true innocent present as it turns out), is a psychotherapist who gets trapped in the precinct due to bad weather after coming by for a regular session with Hawke. She gets out only to be captured by the bad guys, and then is shot in the face by über-villain Gabriel Byrne. No remorse and no reprieve. Why did she need to be so punished? I suppose the point is that life is cruel, but usually movies have at least some justification behind the death of a character. Also: cruel in movies is fine, gives characters a cold edge: but meaningless cruelty without any plot support is kind of unnecessary. We do not linger on the scene enough to feel the evil that is meant to permeate from Byrne.

I am now bored by justifying this film, and will simply list the other irritating faults that it had. Don’t read on if you want to actually watch the film.

Brian Dennehy appears, and turns out to be a villain. Well, I could’ve told that from the beginning. Last time he was a hero, Reagan was in the White House (this may in fact be incorrect, but I really don’t care. Sounds grandiose).

Is there really a police precinct in the middle of a forest in the middle of Detroit?

Why is Drea de Matteo’s character necessary, except to slut it up in her charmingly revealing costume (don’t get me wrong, I like scantily clad women in my films, but they either need to be characters or serve a purpose beyond proving that some women prefer bad men and like to wear revealing outfits).

Which cretin thought it would be interesting to call your two heroic main characters Sergeant and Bishop. I suppose this is the writer/director’s way of demonstrating their veneration for men in uniform. But then why kill so many off in the actual film? A sort of cinematic karma? Who cares?

Survey says: unnecessary evil. Why did they do it? I didn’t even particularly enjoy the first one, so I suppose a better question is: why did I impose it upon myself?

The Matador

Went to the moovies last night to the new Pierce Brosnan film the Matador. Hmmm. Then this morning i learnt that it was in fact meant to have some homosexual scenes that were cut - i have no idea where they would have fitted into the film, or why they would have needed to be there. The whole thing was a bit of a waste of time. Here is my review.

The Matador

The film opens with the sight of Pierce Brosnan stealing a hookers nail varnish to paint his toe nails. It then lurches into a slightly clichéd odd couple movie, with misanthropic hit-man Brosnan striking up a friendship with dorky and ineffective businessman Greg Kinnear in a hotel bar in Mexico City. They separate, and then, years later get back together when Brosnan screws up and comes to Kinnear for assistance with one final job.

There are moments of humor in the film, but they do not outweigh the basically very silly premise of the entire enterprise. Brosnan’s character is amusing, and he plays it with a certain panache, but it is lacking in any real credibility. Kinnear and his wife (Hope Davis) are ciphers of a middle class wannabe cosmopolitan couple, who have the ghost of a dead child hanging over them. Why it was necessary for them to have lost a child is never really explained: could be some claptrap about showing that they are all too aware of the fragility of life, but there is no emotional connection made with hitman Brosnan’s victims to justify that. Also, why we need to watch them humping constantly I cannot understand. Is it simply meant to contrast the aggressive shagging that Brosnan indulges in?

There were elements of the film that were reminiscent of a Jim Thompson novel – a hard edged pot boiler about bad people doing bad things. This was kind of fused with a more light hearted Elmore Leonard approach – but without any real meshing of the two halves together, so the whole comes out as somewhat slipshod. On top of this, since the cast was so small, and much of the film was taken up with conversations between them, it had an unjustifiable theatrical quality to it at parts. Especially when Brosnan shows up at the family home in the middle of the night, and the three of them (Kinnear, Davis, and Brosnan) talk, drink whiskey, and dance. Basically a half-assed version of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf.

The film had a style that was somewhat entertaining, the screen was always very colorful and the shots of the various cities that the action happens in are handled in a fun way. Otherwise, the film lacked the action and was too secretive to be an action rumpus. At the same time, the characters were disinteresting and verging on cliché, so there was no connection there. On top of this, the one entertaining character was constantly restrained by the script and it is hard to warm to a only partially formed burned out hitman.

This film is not one for the family, and not one for boys or girls in search of fun. It aspires to be something for the Sundance/Cannes artsy audience, but doesn’t carry it off. I would wait for it to appear on TV.

Israel in NATO???

So, there was an article in yesterday's Washington Post that discussed how Israeli membership to NATO was a good idea and would act as a deterrent to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

This is absurd. On top of this, it came from someone who I thought was a relatively coherent scholar, and not from the hard right (for a version of that, check out: Confounding the Mullahs of Iran: It’s Time for Israel to Join NATO).

Either way, here is a letter I wrote to the Post about this. The article can be found below.

Dear Sir/Madam,

There are a number of Aristotelian flaws with Ambassador Asmus analysis of why Israel should be admitted to NATO.

First, it is hard to understand why Iran would feel more threatened by a NATO deterrent, if it not already feeling threatened by the current American deterrent. Why should the Mullahs would be more scared of Europe than the United States, especially when one considers the extensive coverage given to Europe’s failings in defense.

Second, one of the stipulations of being a member of NATO is a commitment to the article five clause that rallies all members to each other’s aid should one come under attack. Let us contemplate for a moment what might happen if an extremist faction that could be tentatively traced back to some faction in the Iranian government were to attack Israel. In Tehran, denials would abound, while at NATO headquarters, the debate over whether to attack Iraq would be played out again on a larger scale, likely tearing the alliance apart. It seems disingenuous to assume that the reaction would be clear-cut support.

Ultimately, the concept of Israel in NATO is one that would appeal to many quarters in Washington. At a capabilities level, Israel would be a boon to the Alliance, and at a strategic level, binding it to the West would please the pro-Israel lobby. Nevertheless, none of these theories accommodate the political realities on the ground.


Contain Iran: Admit Israel to NATO

By Ronald D. Asmus, Tuesday, February 21, 2006; A15

The choice of how to respond to Iran's growing threat to the West in general and Israel in particular is not an easy one. One option is to try to stop Iran's nuclear program via an air and missile strike -- but such a step is unlikely to work militarily and could have disastrous consequences. The other is to shift to a longer-term strategy of containment while working for peaceful regime change. While that might work over time, it is unlikely to stop Iran from going nuclear in the short term if it is determined to do so. While working to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the West must think now about what to do if we fail.

One important element has been missing from the debate: NATO. What can the alliance do to help address the growing likelihood that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons? Let us not forget that it is European capitals that would be within striking distance of Iranian nuclear arms. NATO would have to return to its classic mission of defending Europe by deterring a nuclear threat. This development would also accelerate the debate in NATO over a regional missile defense system. The alliance would have to reorient its defense shield to confront the greatest threats to its members, emanating from the wider Middle East, in particular from a nuclear-armed Iran.

But the country most threatened by a future Iranian nuclear capability is, of course, Israel. It would be a mistake to dismiss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rantings about Israel as mere posturing or a bluff. One lesson from Sept. 11 is that we should not limit our strategic imagination or underestimate our enemies in the Middle East. When someone says he wants to wipe you off the map, he might just might mean it. If, then, the West decides that a military strike to deny Iran the nuclear option is too risky and instead opts for a policy of deterrence and long-term peaceful regime change, it must also take steps to ensure Israel's protection for that interim period.

The United States already has a de facto security commitment to Israel. Any future U.S. president would go to the defense of that country if its existence were threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran. And in spite of the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic voices that one can hear in Europe, there is little doubt that European leaders such as Tony Blair, Angela Merkel and even Jacques Chirac would also stand tall and defend Israel against an Iranian threat. Given this situation, basic deterrence theory tells us that it is more credible and effective if those commitments are clear and unambiguous.

The best way to provide Israel with that additional security is to upgrade its relationship with the collective defense arm of the West: NATO. Whether that upgraded relationship culminates in membership for Israel or simply a much closer strategic and operational defense relationship can be debated. After all, a classic security guarantee requires clear and recognized borders to be defended, something Israel does not have today. Configuring an upgraded Israel-NATO relationship will require careful diplomacy and planning. But what must be clear is that the West is prepared to match the growing bellicosity against Israel by stepping up its commitment to the existence of the Jewish state.

There are growing signs that Israel is interested in such a relationship with NATO. About two years ago I was approached by a group of Israelis and asked to help facilitate a closer Israeli-NATO dialogue. At the time, the idea seemed a bit far-fetched to many. Since then, however, a real debate has emerged in Israel over building closer ties to both NATO and the European Union. Israel has also presented the alliance with a plan for a step-by-step upgrade in bilateral cooperation. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has paid his first visit there, and talks on closer cooperation are underway.

Talking with my Israeli interlocutors two years ago, I asked them how they envisioned the circumstances under which Israel might one day seek NATO membership. They laid out two scenarios. The first was one in which Israel was moving toward a final peace settlement with Palestinians and an upgraded relationship with NATO became a key element in a package to persuade the Israeli public to opt for peace. The second was a scenario in which Iran acquired nuclear weapons and posed a real and growing threat to Israel. Having lost its own extended deterrence, Israel would turn to the West and NATO to help guarantee its very real security needs.

I would much prefer that we were faced with the first scenario, and one day we may reach that point, although the recent victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections suggests we shouldn't hold our breath. But the second scenario may become reality for Israel and the West. And that is the one that must determine the future pace of Israeli-NATO cooperation.

NATO has been reluctant to move too far too fast with Israel, preferring to wait for more progress in the peace process and wanting to move forward in cooperation with other Arab Mediterranean countries in parallel. But this is no longer the time for political correctness. It is time to break that link and not hold future Israeli-NATO ties hostage to Hamas or the broader vagaries of NATO's overall Mediterranean dialogue. While continuing to expand ties with these other Arab countries, we must recognize that the threat Israel faces is qualitatively different, as is our security commitment to that country.

Several leading Europeans have called for NATO to embrace Israel, but this debate will not get serious until the United States, Israel's main ally, puts its weight behind the idea. The time has come to do so.
The writer, executive director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels, served as deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs from 1997 to 2000. The views here are his own.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001121.html

Tooning out the truth

So, this is a bit of a liberty that i am taking, as this actually was published. Still, the editors somewhat tweaked up my final point, so i would appreciate any independent thoughts on it.

Tooning Out The Truth

What the cartoon coverage is ignoring about the real cause of the riots.

In much the same way that the original Danish cartoons caricatured the very real issues presented by the rise of fundamentalist Islam, the initial ensuing riots seemed a caricature of a fundamentalist response. But the underlying reasons for the initial protests were domestic to those countries and have almost nothing to do with Denmark. While some pundits in Europe and America have seized on these events as evidence of Islam’s incompatibility with liberal democracy, the truth is much more complicated. A survey of the countries that have seen violent protests shows that in many cases they were winked at – or led by – relatively secular, authoritarian regimes to direct popular dissatisfaction with their corrupt governance towards a European scapegoat.

The actual cartoons were produced back in September of last year, but only started causing turmoil after some particularly incensed Danish Muslims highlighted them in the Arab world and lobbied governments and the Islamic leadership. It was only once the pictures had been republished in an Egyptian daily that the furor started proper.

Arab reaction was prompt and violent, with widespread indignation, while the West’s reaction was to interpret the trouble as medieval Islamic obscurantism. These clichés swiftly transformed into self-fulfilling prophesies, further escalating the situation to the point where we are today, with people still marching – and sometimes dying – in the streets over cartoons that were published over four months ago.

To explain this uproar, it is instructive to look back at the first violent responses and explain their provenance.

The first aggressive and highly visible reaction in the Muslim world happened on January 30th when gunmen raided the European Union offices in Gaza and fired shots into the air outside. A closer analysis instead shows that these were in fact specifically Fatah gunmen who appeared in front of the delegation headquarters, rather than members of the newly elected Hamas party. This is an important distinction. Fatah is the older, and historically more secular, Palestinian political organization. Years of popular disgust with its kleptocratic rule culminated in the Hamas’ victory over it in the recent elections. Hamas, which is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has always been the more religious, more hardline, and more violent of the two parties.

Now consider an initial Hamas response to the troubles. One Hamas leader went so far as to go to a Christian church in Gaza and offer Hamas protection. This is not to say that the Fatah gunmen may not have felt offended by the cartoons, but it shows that there was another side to this protest – namely that Fatah may have been making a bid for greater popular legitimacy. The fact that the trouble did not escalate is likely testament to power wielded by the new Hamas leaders in the Palestinian Authority. Already aware of the inflammatory nature of their election, the last thing that Hamas leaders would have wanted would be the sacking of the offices of their main foreign donor. Subsequent rioting, where German and Danish offices were attacked in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, can be blamed as ripple effects from the continuing violence around the globe.

Such restraint was not on display days later in Damascus, Syria, where an inflamed crowd torched the building housing the Danish and Norwegian consulates. The international press immediately leapt upon this as the next result of the Danish cartoons, with widespread condemnation and pleas for calm.

However, journalists reporting from Damascus on the day of the violence were quoted as saying that people they had spoken to who were involved in the protests had never heard of the cartoons. On top of this, many saw the shadowy hand of the secret police, the Mukhabarat, behind the protests.

The truth is that Syria is a deeply secular country. The Ba’athist government that President Bashar Assad inherited at his father’s passing is one that has ruled the country with an iron fist for decades thanks to its stamping down on any dissent, especially troublemakers organized around religion. In 1982, President Hafez Assad responded to an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood by leveling the city of Hama, killing some 10,000 men, women, and children. Thousands more were imprisoned afterwards.

Consequently, it seems somewhat disingenuous for someone to draw the conclusion that President Assad would ever allow a protest organized around a religious theme to get so out of control to the point of torching buildings in the center of his capital city.

As if to emphasize this point, eyewitnesses were cited as reporting that men with walkie-talkies had been spotted directing the protesters. Ultimately, it benefited President Assad to focus Syrians rage on the foreign consulates: in this way they would both be distracted from the fact of his autocratic rule, and he would be seen to be burnishing his Muslim credentials.

Seemingly like wildfire, the rioting then spread to the Lebanese capital Beirut, where protestors sacked the buildings housing the Danish consulate there. Some blamed the trouble on Syrian agitators and police subsequently arrested some 200 people, of whom 76 were Syrian nationals.
At this point, the powder keg had been lit, and trouble started to flare up as Muslim extremists leapt upon the bandwagon around the globe. In some cases, the causes of the troubles were echoes of the trouble in Syria where the secular government pandered to extremists to divert from other troubles. While in others genuine expressions of rage against the publication of the cartoons were hijacked by agitators for other aims.

Either way, the lesson learned is that the root causes of the troubles were more complex than rage at the original Danish cartoons. Unfortunately, given the initial responses on both sides, the situation has now escalated beyond anyone’s control. As the Iranians assume the same posture they took during the Rushdie affair in 1989, Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory that was the first knee-jerk response to the Danish cartoons seems to be coming to fruition.

The irony for the West is that to allow the situation to degenerate simply reinforces the extremists’ hand. The real solution lies within Professor Samuel Huntington’s original thesis “to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests.” In other words, to foster free and democratic societies rather than totalitarian regimes that need to pander to religious extremism in order to stay in office. To avoid such vitriol in the future, the West needs to take steps now to fertilize the barren ground in the Islamic world that is currently ripe for extremists.

Inaugural

I keep writing stuff and cannot get it published.

This is a nuisance.

This way i can publish whatever i want. Except i am not getting paid.

Tant pis, life could be worse.