Entries from April 2006 ↓

This trial balloon is so pathetic.

A movie about Al Gore giving a PowerPoint presentation about global warming doesn’t sound all that exciting, but if you liked “March of the Penguins,” you’ll love “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore is as relentless in his travels to save the planet and faces almost as many obstacles as those penguins making their way across the tundra.

Getting the country to face up to global warming is his life’s mission, and it could be his ticket to the presidency. Voters yearning for a principled leader who truly believes in something may find what they’re looking for in the former vice president. [emphasis added]

Any old thing will do…as long as he believes in something.

On the other hand…see this post about the (un)likelihood of getting Americans to respond to the urgent threat of global warming.

The first feature film—ever—is coming to Saudi Arabia.

It is time for Sahar to marry, but she dreams of a career, not a husband. Her fundamentalist brother wants to pick her mate and is already planning her life as a homemaker.

In “Keif al Hal” (”How’s It Going?”), a big-budget Arab film due out this summer, family members find themselves torn between modernity and tradition.

The plot may seem mundane but in important ways, “Keif al Hal” is a landmark project with big ambitions. It is the first feature film from Saudi Arabia, a country with not a single legal movie theater.

The movie, financed by a Saudi prince, aims not only to raise delicate questions about social oppression but also to generate a Saudi movie industry and force the opening of theaters, some of which are reportedly under construction without licenses or legal status.

“Keif al Hal” follows the release of several short films and documentaries by Saudi filmmakers over the past two years that do not shy away from controversial themes. “Thalal al Sampt” (”The Oppression of Silence”), by Abdullah al-Moheissin, is an art house science-fiction film about government oppression, while “Cinema 500 km” chronicles one man’s drive to Bahrain to watch a movie, a statement about Saudi Arabia’s narrow personal freedoms.

But “Keif al Hal,” produced by Rotana, one of the Middle East’s fastest growing media companies, which is owned by the Saudi billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal, takes things several steps further, with a relatively big-budget, mainstream film that aims to provoke questions.

“I am correcting a big mistake, that is all,” said Prince Walid, sitting in his office high above Riyadh. “I want to tell Arab youth: You deserve to be entertained, you have the right to watch movies, you have the right to listen to music.” [emphasis added]

The AP also offers this backgrounder on the sorry history of the movies in the Saudi kingdom, and what’s at stake.

Now, let’s take a stroll down memory lane to late last week, when Osama bin Laden issued his latest talking points:

6. Saudis: We criticize the Saudi Monarch for refuting the idea of Clash of civilization. There is a clash led by the West against Islam.

7. Arab Liberals: Jihadists must silence the Arab and Muslim liberals. (A list has been established, but it wasn’t aired).

8. Education: We warn from any change that would affect the educational curriculum in the Arab and Muslim world.

9. Arab TV: We warn against those TV stations airing into the region and propagating Crusader propaganda.

Bin Laden is afraid of precisely the kind of ideas that Prince Walid is trying to introduce. Hmmm.

I’ve been avoiding writing about the 19-year Harvard student and author Kaavya Viswanathan, who Got a Big Advance, Got Help with a Concept, and Got Nailed for Copying Someone Else’s Bad Writing.

#41: I wanted to change the subject because I did not like the fact that Bridget of all people had just psychoanalyzed me with such accuracy. McCafferty, Sloppy Firsts (Three Rivers, 2001), page 301

I squirmed, uncomfortable at being so accurately psychoanalyzed, and by Sean, of all people.
Viswanathan, How Opal Mehta…Got a Life (Little Brown, 2006), page 171

#43: “‘Omigod!’” shrieked Sara, taking a pink tube top emblazoned with a glittery Playboy bunny out of her shopping bag.”
McCafferty, Sloppy Firsts (Three Rivers, 2001), pg. 68

“…buy me a pink tube top emblazoned with a glittery Playboy bunny.”
Viswanathan, How Opal Mehta…Got a Life (Little Brown, 2006), pg. 51

For one thing, GalleyCat has been all over it from every angle (examples above are cited by GalleyCat; all 45 examples can be found on this PDF at PublishersMarketplace). For another, as reported by the New York Observer, this was an accident waiting to happen.

Then I read the asinine remarks from Sara Nelson, head honcho of the trade magazine Publishers Weekly:

I don’t know and, to tell you the truth, I don’t particularly care if Kaavya Viswanathan did or did not plagiarize YA author Megan McCafferty in her now-controversial debut novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life.

It doesn’t really matter much to me whether this alleged plagiarism was conscious or un-, even now that Little, Brown has withdrawn the book, clearly under pressure from Random House, McCafferty’s publisher.What does concern me, though, is what this says about the publishing process, and about how and why books get bought and sold….

We’ve known for years that publishers, probably including Little, Brown, have long employed freelance editors and “book doctors,” of which packagers are just an institutional version. But Little, Brown has to resort to this? Realizing that a major house is willing to pay major money for a book that executives knew was going to require major work smacks of something majorly disturbing. It suggests that even the most well-bred publishing houses are not as desperate to find promising writers and great novels as they are to find attractive authors (preferably with interesting backstories) with whom they can match up test-marketed, packaged stories. And then they can take all the credit.

These remarks suggest Ms. Nelson has been living under a rock. Or that she just loves the taste of that Kool-Aid.

Granted, it’s a rival publication, but still… doesn’t she read the New York Times Book Review?

What would we do without Christopher Hitchens (may he please continue, and never tire)?

How on earth, or how the hell, did we arrive at this sordid terminus? How is it that the anti-war movement’s favourite MP, George Galloway, has a warm if not slightly sickly relationship with dictators in Baghdad and Damascus?

How comes it that Ramsey Clark, the equivalent public face in America, is one of Saddam’s legal team and has argued that he was justified in committing the hideous crimes of which he stands accused? Why is the left’s beloved cultural icon, Michael Moore, saying that the “insurgents” in Iraq are the equivalent of the American revolutionaries of 1776?

I believe there are three explanations for this horrid mutation of the left into a reactionary and nihilistic force.

(via normblog)

Hitchens goes on to enumerate the reasons and goes on to endorse (in his inimitable fashion) the Euston Manifesto, which I support, because it is a strong, principled statement against totalitarianism and for democracy.

Everyone is always talking about how the Middle East needs a Nelson Mandela. I think the United States needs a Christopher Hitchens. Urgently.

We have a singularly inarticulate president and a ruling party that has been unable to make the case for its own policy, much less make the case stick**.

Some of the most articulate architects of that policy, having been denounced as a cabal that owes its allegiance to a foreign power, have (understandably) receded into the background. Those formerly entrusted with executing the policy now speak out against it.

The president’s predecessors and their entourages have distanced themselves, sometimes gleefully, from his policy.

As it stands, the most articulate, stubborn, principled, and convincing spokesmen for American foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq are two Brits: Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens.

As far as I can tell–and I’ve been watching–there is no one on the American left with credibility and a megaphone who is passionately interested in making the case against totalitarian Islamism and for democracy. How is this possible when we are engaged in an (endless) information war with an enemy that makes use of the crudest possible propaganda?

Will America retreat from this battle in the Middle East?

The news that consummate fixer James Baker has been chosen by George W. Bush to find an honorable way out fills me with dread.

———

** One day I hope to get around to writing about Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point, and his concept of “stickiness” (as relates to marketing messages).

A lot of the anti-war protesters in New York City today were carrying signs that said “Out of Iraq, into Darfur.”

Huh?

I thought this was an anti-war demonstration. There’s a war in Darfur, right? A war that Osama bin Laden is urging his followers to spread. Right? What would we be doing in Darfur, exactly, if we were to “leave” Iraq and “go to” Darfur?

Anyway….it reminded me of this, from the treasure trove of illustrated propaganda (which is as old as man) at the Georgetown Book Shop:

From “An ABC For Baby Patriots,” a turn of the century Victorian alphabet book.

updated to include photo

In New York City, there’s a massive and very loud demonstration** taking place as I write, and I’ve got a front-row seat.

It reminds me of my youth–there’s a festival atmosphere, with music and marching bands, and speakers urging “No to pro-war Democrats!” and “Impeach for peace!” Which reminds me of why I support the Euston Manifesto.

above: free to be mindless, too

Here’s what the organizers, United for Peace and Justice, have to say:

SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006

NEW YORK CITY

Unite for change — let’s turn our country around!

Too much is too wrong in this country. We have a foreign policy that is foreign to our core values, and domestic policies wreaking havoc at home.

The times are urgent and we must act!

No more never-ending oil wars!

Protect our civil liberties & immigrant rights. End illegal spying, government corruption and the subversion of our democracy.

Rebuild our communities, starting with the Gulf Coast. Stop corporate subsidies and tax cuts for the wealthy while ignoring our basic needs.

Act quickly to address the climate crisis and the accelerating destruction of our environment.

Our message to the White House and to Congress is clear: Either stand with us or stand aside!

We are coming together to march, to vote, to speak out and to turn our country around!

——————

But New York’s a big place. I’m going here:

from the Georgetown Book Shop

TigerHawk, posting at the Belmont Club, links to this Daniel Henninger interview with Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz.

“I worried a lot about terrorism,” Mr. Shultz told me, “and I didn’t think we had an adequate strategy.” So in that 1984 speech, the next sentence says this: “The question posed by terrorism involves our intelligence capability, the doctrine under which we would employ force, and most important of all our public’s attitude toward this challenge.”

I wonder out loud whether this view made people nervous back then. GS: “President Reagan thought it was OK, but there were a lot of people that didn’t.” DH: “Now it’s part of the Bush doctrine.” GS: “I think the idea that you would do everything you can to prevent what is coming at you by way of something very disruptive–a 9/11–it’s a no-brainer.”

Yes, well Shultz only started worrying about terrorism after the hideous terrorist incident in Beirut that happened under his watch:

On the morning of Oct. 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove an explosives-filled truck into the barracks and killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service personnel [in Beirut].

I’ll let Wikipedia pick up the story from there:

President Ronald Reagan called the attack a “despicable act” and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. [He] assembled his national security team to devise a plan of military action, and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. However, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations….

The Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, the order was given for the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. This was completed on February 26; the rest of the MNF was withdrawn by April. Terrorists saw this as a two-fold victory for their cause, and their activity against Westerners (particularly Americans) increased, prompting various U.S. responses. [emphasis added]**

So Shultz is no hero, and he was no soothsayer.

Let us for a moment imagine he had gone around warning us of all the danger signals that pointed to more terrorism against America, even after we had pulled out (visibly) of the Middle East.

What fate would have befallen such a Cassandra?

Consider the case of global warning, an issue that has gotten a lot of attention lately:

By the clock of geology, this climate shift is unfolding at a dizzying, perhaps unprecedented pace, but by time scales relevant to people, it’s happening in slow motion. If the bad stuff doesn’t happen for 100 years or so, it’s hard to persuade governments or voters to take action.

And there is the rub. Many scientists say that to avoid a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations, energy efficiency must be increased drastically, and soon….

“The issue clearly has an urgency problem,” said Billy Parish, a founder of Energy Action, a coalition of student groups….

A Gallup survey last month shows that people are still not worried about climate change. When participants were asked to rank 10 environmental problems, global warming was near the bottom, far below water pollution and toxic waste (both now largely controlled).

Without a connection to current disasters, global warming is the kind of problem people, and democratic institutions, have proved singularly terrible at solving: a long-term threat that can only be limited by acting promptly, before the harm is clear.

Problems that get attention are “soon, salient and certain,” said Helen Ingram, a professor of planning, policy and design at the University of California, Irvine.

Stressing the problem’s urgency could well be counterproductive, according to “Americans and Climate Change,” a new book by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

The book notes that urgency does not appear to be something that can be imposed on people. Moreover, it says, “Urgency is especially prone to being discounted as unreasoned alarmism or even passion.”

Whether it comes to confronting—and acting against—global warming or Islamist totalitarianism, human inertia is one of our biggest obstacles.

And that’s where infotainment may come in handy. Consider Laurie David (that’s Mrs. Larry David), for example. She’s pretty entertaining!

The time has come to unite all Americans to stop the single greatest threat facing us today

By joining THE STOP GLOBAL WARMING VIRTUAL MARCH, we commit to each other that together, as our numbers grow, we will use our collective voices to demand that governments, corporations, and politicians take the steps necessary to stop global warming. Today I join this march, and I take the first step.

Got that? you’re joining a virtual march to commit to using your collective voices (as soon as there are enough of you) to demand (whoa!) that others take steps to stop global warming.

Do you think you can stick out your neck for that?

—————–

** From most media reports that I have seen, including countless magazine pieces written since 9/11, books, Frontline documentaries, and countless talk shows, this is the conventional wisdom across the (mainstream) political spectrum. I haven’t had time to research and back it up, however, so I offer Wikipedia as the least partisan and most succinct source.

The Manifesto has collected 100 more signatures in the last couple of days, along with a bunch of new associated bloggers. Naturally, it has also brought out critics and skeptics, as expected.

This synopsis explains why I support it:

The Euston Manifesto is not a cover for disillusioned radicals seeking to adopt a neo-conservative agenda. It is an attempt by people deeply committed to the values of the democratic left to respond to the profound political crisis that now grips Europe and most of the West. This crisis threatens the fabric of liberal democracy, as large swaths of what presents itself as the left make common cause with religious extremism, totalitarianism and anti-Semitism, while xenophobia and social brutality emerge as dominant themes on the right. We find ourselves continuing the struggle of our predecessors in previous generations of the social-democratic left, who fought the perversions of Stalinism and its apologists on one side, and the supporters of a social order designed to service the interests of established privilege and power on the other. Above all our politics are informed by the assumption that for a movement to be progressive in substance rather than in name only, it must seek to sustain and deepen democratic institutions and human rights in any context that it addresses rather to undermine them. Although this assumption may seem obvious to the point of triviality to some, the ease with which many who speak in the name of the left have discarded its obligations have compelled us to place it at the centre of our manifesto. (Shalom Lappin, King’s College, London)

You can read the whole thing here.

Clive Davis is among the skeptics. (Believe me, I understand the skeptics.) I posted a note on his blog, explaining why I support the Manifesto:

I’m a supporter of the Manifesto (and a leftist only in fond memory). The document, for all its flaws and weaknesses, has one overarching strength: its message is clearly anti-totalitarian and pro-democratic. And it draws no distinction between these two positions: it claims anti-totalitarianism as being the “right side of history,” if you will.

It’s an important argument.

Last week, I wrote about the surprisingly overheated political situation in northern Europe (here). Now comes word that the Swedes have joined their Norwegian cousins in welcoming Hamas members to their country. It’s unclear what the purpose of the visit is; no one is saying.

But the position of the Swedes is clear: Israel is anathema. The Swedish government has pulled Swedish troops out of joint European military exercises…because Israel will also participate.

This is an election year in Sweden. Will the Swedes oust their Social Democratic prime minister in September? As of April 22,

Reinfeldt, the head of the conservative Moderate party and the prime minister candidate for the four-party centre-right alliance, was the preferred choice of 38 percent of Swedes, the Demoskop poll published in daily Expressen showed.

Just 33 percent of the 1,000 people questioned April 11-18 said they wanted to see Persson, a Social Democrat, stay on in power. Persson has served as prime minister since 1996.