Michael Moore on George Orwell in "Fahrenheit 911"

Here is the first segment of an occasional series comparing what Michael Moore presented in the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” versus what critics said he said, or what people might have actually said. On Friday August 13th, I saw “Fahrenheit 9/11” for a second time, and this time I followed Andrew Sullivan’s recommendation that a blogger should tape record what Michael Moore was saying in the movie. Sullivan’s intent was to criticize Moore: my intent is to defend Moore, where possible, and put his critics on the defensive.

I start from the very end of the movie. Moore signs off, quoting from George Orwell’s novel “1984”. Moore, characteristically, drastically simplifies what Orwell actually wrote. I want to restore much of the original context, to allow a better understanding of both Moore’s narration and Orwell’s writing. Moore’s simplification seems to be a more or less faithful rendering of Orwell, but the contexts are different, of course. Below, I’ve highlighted what Moore apparently used. Judge for yourself. Myself, I think Moore lands a blow on the Bush Administration.

In “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore narrates:

George Orwell once wrote:

It’s not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version IS the past, and no different past can ever have existed. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not a victory, for either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.


Moore’s quotations come from Chapter 9 of “1984”. Winston Smith reads from Chapter III (entitled War is Peace) of “THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM” by Emmanuel Goldstein:

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines.

(text removed)

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

(text removed)

Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world's economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient -- a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete -- was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter -- set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call 'the proles'. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science'. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance -- meaning, in effect, war and police espionage -- the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life. In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work. Some are concerned simply with planning the logistics of future wars; others devise larger and larger rocket bombs, more and more powerful explosives, and more and more impenetrable armour-plating; others search for new and deadlier gases, or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents, or for breeds of disease germs immunized against all possible antibodies; others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under the water, or an aeroplane as independent of its base as a sailing-ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun's rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometres away in space, or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth's centre.

But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the three super-states ever gains a significant lead on the others. What is more remarkable is that all three powers already possess, in the atomic bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any that their present researches are likely to discover. Although the Party, according to its habit, claims the invention for itself, atomic bombs first appeared as early as the nineteen-forties, and were first used on a large scale about ten years later. At that time some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centres, chiefly in European Russia, Western Europe, and North America. The effect was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

None of the three super-states ever attempts any manoeuvre which involves the risk of serious defeat. When any large operation is undertaken, it is usually a surprise attack against an ally. The strategy that all three powers are following, or pretend to themselves that they are following, is the same. The plan is, by a combination of fighting, bargaining, and well-timed strokes of treachery, to acquire a ring of bases completely encircling one or other of the rival states, and then to sign a pact of friendship with that rival and remain on peaceful terms for so many years as to lull suspicion to sleep.

(text removed)

Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all three super-states are very much the same. In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare. It follows that the three super-states not only cannot conquer one another, but would gain no advantage by doing so. On the contrary, so long as they remain in conflict they prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn. And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing. Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also know that it is necessary that the war should continue everlastingly and without victory. Meanwhile the fact that there is no danger of conquest makes possible the denial of reality which is the special feature of Ingsoc and its rival systems of thought. Here it is necessary to repeat what has been said earlier, that by becoming continuous war has fundamentally changed its character.

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police. Since each of the three super-states is unconquerable, each is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life -- the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

(text removed. Winston starts reading again at Chapter 1)

Chapter I - Ignorance is Strength:

(text removed)

But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a confession of weakness. If, for example, Eurasia or Eastasia (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that country must always have been the enemy. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered. Thus history is continuously rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of the regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry of Love.

The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the course of a year. At all times the Party is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now. It will be seen that the control of the past depends above all on the training of memory. To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to remember that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, 'reality control'. In Newspeak it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well.

(text removed)

Diluvio

Which reminds me, on Saturday, I went to Luna's Cafe to see Diluvio, which features my next door neighbor, Gil Rodriguez. Quite a good time, dancing away with his wife Sherry, to an eclectic musical offerring: American jazz, Australian aboriginal, Chilean lamentation. I'll have to do it again!

Thinking About "A Chorus Line"

In comments on a previous post, Jennifer Marks, who played “Bebe Benzenheimer” in Runaway Stage’s “A Chorus Line,” asked that dangerous question whose answer every actor and actress is secretly dying to know: “i was in rsp's a chorus line. i was curious what u thought of it?" It’s a hazardous question because it puts the audience member on-the-spot. A less-confrontational question is: “so, did you enjoy the show?” Then the audience member is free to elaborate as they please: “you were great,” “the script sucked,” “I thought this show was supposed to be for kids,” or whatever, without necessarily revealing one’s true thoughts.

Nevertheless, I’m not the typical audience member, since I played (however badly) a “Cut Dancer” in Woodland Opera House’s show in 1999, and actually got to play “Bobby (aka Joseph Henry Mills III)” in DMTC’s show in 2003. So, given that background, my opinion might actually carry a little more weight than most audience members.

One thing the Sacramento area actors need is someone who can intelligently review local amateur musical shows: someone who is both part of the community, yet distant enough to offer an objective opinion. The local newspapers generally do a poor job at this function, if they do it at all. I once suggested using my blog to perform that function, but all my DMTC friends thought it was a horrible idea, because:

• I’m not really an objective observer;
• I will thoroughly alienate all my musical theater friends and acquaintances with tactless opinions;
• What the hell does an air-quality meteorologist know about musical theater anyway?

Nevertheless, the need lingers. So I’m going to offer a few (hopefully) humble opinions about the two recent productions of “A Chorus Line,” produced by Runaway Stage Productions (RSP) and Vallejo Music Theater. I saw the Sunday, July 25th RSP show, at Sacramento’s 24th Street Theater, and the Saturday, July 31st Vallejo Music Theater (VMT) show, at the Fetterly Playhouse for the Arts. My ballet instructor, Pam Kay Lourentzos, directed the VMT show: Bob Baxter directed the RSP show, with Gino Platina as choreographer.

I had quite a few acquaintances in the Runaway Stage show (indeed, I just got a wedding invitation to Laurent and Amber’s forthcoming wedding, which really surprises me, given their large and dense web of friends and acquaintances – I’m pretty far out in the cheap seats), but I knew just a few people in the Vallejo show.

The big standout in the Runaway show, for me, was “Val” (Becky Snow). Of the four recent productions I've seen or been involved with since 1999 (Woodland, DMTC, Vallejo, RSP) Becky (not an acquaintance) was the best "Val" (stiff competition too: Woodland’s Julie Peak and DMTC’s Wendy Young Carey were excellent Vals, and Vallejo’s Sylvia Keuter wasn’t bad either). Like I told RSP’s Ray Fisher at the Vallejo show, Becky Snow was "Head and shoulders - no, tits and ass" above everyone else. And it's a difficult role to get right too.

The big standout in the Vallejo show was Regina Mancha as “Cassie”. Very professional! Even though she was playing a supposedly bad actress, her acting was excellent, her dancing was superb, and she sang pretty well too: a 2 ¾ threat! The second big standout at Vallejo was Jimmy Robertson, who played “Mike”. What a phenomenal dancer!

Vallejo’s casting was generally good: most of the people looked like they were from the right ethnic groups, etc. RSP’s casting was more problematic. One notorious problem all local musical theater groups have with casting dance roles is that the talent pool is not deep enough. Thus non-dancers, and dancers who don’t look like dancers, get major roles. As a chunky veteran Bobby, I sympathize with the dilemma. RSP had several players who, while otherwise excellent, jarred the eye. Vallejo had some of the same problems, but the resolution seemed to be better there, maybe because the dancers there were shorter.

At RSP, there were some solid performances: "Judy" (Blair Jimison) and "Kristine" (Katrina Bushnell) come first to mind: "Paul" (Jacob Montoya) too. Kris Knipp as “Maggie” was an excellent dancer, good actress and pretty good singer. I thought "Bobby" (Robert Campbell) rushed just a bit, and Colby Salmon was miscast as "Greg": wonderful dancer, but Colby can't quite do 'snob': Vallejo’s Matt Larson was a better snob, but not as good a dancer. Laurent Lazard was a fine “Mike”, but I worried about those grandmothers of Quebec leaning out their windows into the sleet, on their cold and icy little pillows.

The biggest problems at RSP were choreographic - maybe insufficient drilling. The impact of the opening number depends a lot on unison dancing, and the crowded stage worked against the dancers. Vallejo did a better job with more dancers on a stage of about the same size, but Vallejo had what might be called an advantage over RSP - totally dependable canned music - music I otherwise disliked (I prefer live music). In addition "Cassie's" dancing was too timid (I wondered if that was Amber's health, Gino's planning, or just lack of time).

At Vallejo, I liked "Sheila" (Linda Crebbin-Coates) and "Bobby" (John Greer) and "Bebe" (Amber Mohney) and "Paul" (Ted Bigornia). It was great to see Monica Parisi and Michael Miiller on-stage again. Michael is really nailing down the “Zach” role these days – he just gets better and better. Monica is pretty in pink.The weak point of Vallejo’s production was the music (not live). Also, because of the design of the Vallejo theater, it was vaguely unsettling to see the audience reflected in the mirrors during "Music in the Mirror": Cassie, the mirrors, plus all the rest of us too!

Two performances illustrated unsuspected aspects of the shows – it was like reaching a hilltop and seeing entirely new acting terrain in the distance.

Linnea von Ahn, who played “Larry” at Vallejo, did something quite striking: she breathed life into a quite minor role. “Larry” is supposed to be technically exact - an adult among overgrown kids – but certainly not a standout. Linnea was not a trained dancer, but she had a nice smile. Her voice was loud, but flat. The effect she created, when she bossed the dancers around in the Tap Sequence, was of a friendly but pompous blowhard – a novel characterization (I wonder how many other blowhards there are on Broadway?) It worked! Made me smile! Excellent work!

“Kristine” and “Al” at RSP (Katrina Bushnell and Spencer Tregilgas) were an interesting couple: Al’s slight rhythm problem (he’s supposed to be the better-singing half of the couple) led me to wonder whether the character “Kristine” can actually sing quite well and maybe all she lacks is self-confidence. I contemplated their rather two-dimensional relationship expanding, allowing for a much more interesting and tortured future together: “Al” suffocates his wife’s budding ambitions, she rebels against his tyranny, then: a terrible breakup, accidents, travails, addictions – what a mess!

Looking at Vallejo's show, I reflected on just how hard a show "A Chorus Line" is to do well. Casting is crucial, but the limited pool of available talent (particularly male) often forces compromises. Pam Kay Lourentzos has practically made it a specialty to do the show well, and she still got a mediocre review from a Bay Area paper. That fellow didn’t understand: doing “A Chorus Line” is a privilege, a rite-of-passage, and Vallejo produced quite a good show. The RSP show was more problematic, but featured strong performances.

Puzzling Statements by Puzzling Conservatives

Having read George Will's column, 'Ignoring History in Iraq', I found myself more intrigued by the lacunae in his arguments than in the arguments themselves. Will recounted various American adventures overseas as part of his discussion of John Judis' new book, "The Folly of Empire." Regarding democracy, Will stated:

"A government that is all sail and no anchor might produce popular choices that lead through anarchy to civil war (American democracy led there), or national fragmentation, or fragmentation forestalled by Bonapartism, Francoism or some other variant of authoritarianism."

The parenthetical statement in bold was in the column as printed in the Sacramento Bee today, August 18th (not yet on the Web), but not in the Washington Post's Web version. The parenthetical statement is strange, because even though America went through the War Between the States, usually called the Civil War (a misnomer, actually, since the war was mostly sectional in nature), America never went through an anarchic stage beforehand. Was the parenthetical statement Will's own, or an editor's? I suppose what Will had in mind were efforts by "all-sail" Stephen Douglas, among others, to compromise between North and South on the issue of slavery and thus avoid bloodshed: God forbid that Iyad Allawi should try to compromise with Muqtada Al-Sadr to avoid bloodshed, even if a compromise is possible. I suppose it's easy to advise "no compromise," sitting here in the Western Hemisphere, but really, it's rather arrogant to counsel Allawi on such a path when Allawi might fail.

In addition, the totalitarian impulse is still a possibility in Iraq: our intervention hasn't closed the door on a new and better Saddam. A new dictator may emerge, or, growing tired of the mess, we might always kiss and make up with Saddam Hussein and unleash him on new Iraqi adventures. Stranger things have happened in world history. There is no magic division between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes: just different places on the same spectrum.

George Will pointed out the sham nature of the new Iraqi sovereignty, given the large number of American troops in the country. Then, apropos of little, Will ventured on a striking prediction: "Untenable even before what may be coming before November: an Iraqi version of the North Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. To say that the coming offensive will be by "Baathists" is, according to one administration official, akin to saying "Nazis" when you mean "the SS" -- the most fearsome of the Nazis. Such an offensive could make Sadr's insurgency seem a minor irritant. And it could unmake a presidency, as Tet did."

So, are there super-Baathists out there? Scary to contemplate! Will is almost surely wrong, however, since most credible observers believe the majority of combatants (see 'Beyond Fallujah' in Harper's print version) in Iraq are cells of young salafists working under loose religious direction. The closest equivalent in American terms might be young, gun-nut volunteer warriors, who like to tend to their families on weekdays and blow up convoys on weekends. There are some noisy Al Qaeda wannabes (Zarqawi) and quite a few veteran Baathists, of course, but they likely aren't the majority. Large arms stockpiles went unguarded after the U.S. victory in 2003, allowing just about anyone who wants weapons to have them, so any special access to the tools of war provided by Baathist Party or Al Qaeda membership was considerably devalued. It's a come-as-you-are resistance movement!

Has there ever been such a large war where one of the combatants (the U.S.) can't even get a fix on who their opponents are, or who leads them (for example, various imams, practicing unafraid in plain sight)? President Bush and others have repeatedly referred to their enemies as Baathist dead-enders and Al Qaeda terrorists, leaving out numerous volunteerist semi-militias. George Will just compounded this error. Wishful thinking may explain why we have such a problem dealing with the violence in Iraq.

Another strange, yet revealing, comment was made by William Buckley in a brief interview in the New York Times magazine on July 11th. Referring to the neoconservatives, the interviewer, Deborah Solomon, goaded Buckley: "Yes, their ambition in Iraq seems to be leading to their self-destruction," to which Buckley replied: "Neocons would suffer a great blow, conceivably mortal, if Bush were defeated because of Iraq."

The statement seemed odd: Buckley, and probably other conservatives as well (Pat Buchanan comes to mind since he never joined the Iraqi parade), are now trying to distance themselves from the Iraqi debacle. Blame rests with those foolish, wooly-headed neo-conservatives, and not with righteous conservatives in general. Failure dies an orphan, as we all know, but neocons alone aren't to blame: support for the Iraq adventure was used as a cudgel in the 2002 off-year elections by all national Republican candidates. Still, it's interesting to think of American foreign policy being screwed up by some carpetbagging, think-tank, neocon scalawags who no real conservative ever respected anyway, and no one else had anything to do with it.

Poll Results

To me, post-Dem convention poll results show (if possible) an increasing polarization in the U.S., with the West and South swooning for Bush, and the Northeast and Midwest swooning for Kerry. Kerry gains overall, because the U.S. population density is heavier in the NE and Midwest. Long-established biases thus reveal themselves. Still, Kerry is doing well. The voters seem to be blowing off all the Swift Boat crap.

Morbid Obesity

Too late: in Florida. On the mend: in Nebraska.

Summer Workshop Time

Summer Theater workshops are under way. I went to see Ron Cisneros' workshop last night ('Grease', which is double-cast: I saw the cast starring Robbie Teel), together with a few DMTC folks. Microphone problems marred the evening, and to me it was incongruous to include songs from the movie, but regardless, performances were uneven. Learning how to perform is a rough road. Nevertheless, it was fun to see Robbie, Rachel, and a few other friends and acquaintances as well. Good luck to the other cast! Next week, DMTC's Summer Workshop....

The Legacy of Andrew

I recall that when 1992's devastating Hurricane Andrew threw the Miami area back into the 19th Century, inadequate response by the Federal Government helped doom George H. W. Bush's candidacy for re-election. I wonder if Charley might do the same this year? If I were Kerry, I'd hustle myself down there right now while planes are still flying. People like first-responders, after all.

In retrospect, this year's stakes might even be higher. With Jeb Bush in the Statehouse and George W. Bush in the White House, there would be no excuse for an inadequate Federal response. Which means they'll likely bend Heaven and Earth to get it right. You would think.....

Marijuana Legalization


In June, a good high school friend, Walt Kubilius from Aiken, SC, attended the 14th annual Symposium on the Cannabinoids, in Paestum Italy, sponsored by the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Walt's summary of the proceedings posed a question concerning marijuana legalization that I heard none of the 2003 California gubernatorial candidates address, which can be summarized as:

• the medical marijuana movement, without saying so explicitly, proposes to give the role of determining the safety and effectiveness of new drugs to legislatures and public referenda, rather than to medical professionals or the FDA, and that may be a problem.

Does anyone want to address that particular question? It's thought-provoking! Here's Walt's write-up:
-----------------------------------

I recently attended a research conference on cannabinoids, a group of compounds one member of which is active ingredient in marijuana. I learned a lot at that conference, and I’ll share that here.

Cannabinoids are a group of chemicals, some natural and some synthetic, which share the property of being able to either increase or decrease the concentration of a neurotransmitter, glutamate, in brain cells. Modulation of glutamate levels in the human or animal brain affects/controls mental status. It’s a natural process - every minute, every day, operation of higher brain functions are associated with transient increases and decreases of cannabinoid concentrations, and therefore glutamate concentrations, in the brain.

Cannabinoids which occur naturally in humans are "endocannabinoids", and the molecules with which they interact are "cannabinoid receptors". In order to control glutamate concentrations on a time scale of minutes or seconds, both positive and negative feedback must operate. Cannabinoids which promote glutamate formation - which "activate" the receptors, are "agonists". Those with the opposite effect are "antagonists". Two endocannabinoid agonists are known. There also must be endocannabinoid antagonists as well, but none have yet been identified.

Endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors participate in higher brain functions: learning, memory, attention, and planning. Plants and lower animals do not have endocannabinoid systems; vertebrates do. A strain of mutant laboratory mice has been developed which lacks one of the three cannabinoid receptors. They look just like normal mice, but they are learning-disabled. Unlike insulin and vitamins, cannabinoids are not necessary for life, but they are necessary for learning and memory formation.

THC is not normally present in the human body, but it affects brain function because the molecule’s shape is similar to the shape of anandamide, one of the endocannabinoid agonists. The marijuana plant does not produce THC for its own use; plants cannot learn or form memories. It is thought that the marijuana plant evolved THC production in order to either be attractive to certain animals (like flowers are attractive to bees), or to be unattractive to certain animals (like toads taste bad). Its not yet known which way it goes.

There are definitely legitimate medical uses for cannabinoids. Its been known for over 20 years that marijuana can reduce nausea, enhance appetite, reduce intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients, and relieve muscle spasms in MS patients. However, recent research has found additional possible applications for cannabinoids. Probably the most important one is that cannabinoids facilitate early death of some kinds of cancer cells; they show promise as a chemotherapy. Endocannabinoids may also have a role in regulating bone mass. In addition, they may serve an antioxidant role in cell metabolism.

These known and possible medical applications form the basis for the medical marijuana movement. However, it is not clear that cannabinoids found in marijuana - THC, cannabinol, and cannabidiol-are the best choices for treatment. Marijuana has side effects known to every college student: intoxication and lethargy which make driving safely, operating machinery safely, or any mental work impossible. The trick is to find a compound with maximum benefit, and minimum side effects. Since endocannabinoids occur naturally in the brain, they might serve better. Drug companies and academic researchers are experimenting with synthetic cannabinoids, which exist neither in the animal kingdom, nor in the plant kingdom. It remains to be seen which compound is best for which medical condition.

Medical marijuana activists point to the known effectiveness of marijuana in managing MS, glaucoma, and nausea, and advocate legalization for medical purposes. I can’t blame people for wanting it. If I had glaucoma or MS, I’d obtain marijuana, illegally if necessary, to see for myself whether it could help. Marijuana advocates insist it is safe, and like to point out that nobody ever died of a marijuana overdose. That may be true, but acute nonlethality does not preclude chronic lethality. Nobody ever died of an acute tobacco overdose, and yet tobacco kills hundreds of thousands per year due to chronic effects. Medical marijuana advocates seem to be unaware of the possibilities. Here are some things I learned at the ICRS conference:

• In contrast to the common wisdom of the 1970s, marijuana is addictive. Researchers in Baltimore interviewed 20-year heavy-use pot smokers. They each reported an average of 5 unsuccessful attempts to quit. Reasons for failure were psychological withdrawal symptoms, including craving for marijuana.
• Long term frequent marijuana use causes enduring cognitive impairment. Researchers in Australia measured test performances of three groups of subjects: long-term heavy users, long-term light users, and non-users. Long-term heavy users performed worst in tasks related to learning, memory, attention, and planning. In addition, long-term users showed reduced MRI activity in the prefrontal lobe and hippocampus. Since Alzheimer’s disease affects the same brain functions, it is possible that persons destined to develop Alzheimer’s may show symptoms earlier if they are also long-term pot smokers.
• There is a "Fetal Cannabinoid Syndrome" observable in rats, analogous to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Progeny of female rats dosed with cannabinoids while pregnant showed hyperactive behavior while juveniles, and learning/memory deficits in adulthood.
• Marijuana causes the HIV virus to replicate faster. Scientists at UCLA dosed HIV-infected human white blood cells with THC, and subsequently found viral loads 50-60 times higher in the dosed cells as compared with un-exposed HIV-infected cells.
  

Several effects listed above are quite serious. Despite the claims of some, medical marijuana use will carry significant risk for some patients.

Debate on medical marijuana touches cultural battlefields. First, is the conflict between local vs. federal power. Efforts to make it accessible are made locally, it cities and states. It is the federal government which resists. Second, is the libertarian or counter-culture argument that there’s nothing wrong with using it if we want to. I believe that this is the major motivation of medical marijuana advocates; a desire to promote alternative lifestyles, more than a desire to treat patients. Centers of the movement are the centers of alternative lifestyles, and centers of medical expertise are not highly involved in the movement.

What has not received enough attention is the "Trojan Horse" of the medical marijuana movement. Without saying so explicitly, it proposes to give the role of determining the safety and effectiveness of new drugs to legislatures and public referenda, rather than to medical professionals or the FDA. There’s nothing special about marijuana. If it can be approved for medical use without the sanction of the FDA, then so can any number of treatments. For example, cancer sufferers who don’t want to undergo surgery will be encouraged to try various speculative and perhaps unsafe or ineffective remedies. The patent cure-all medicine days may return. Thalidomide-type tragedies may be repeated.

If the medical marijuana advocates want to make cannabinoids available for safe and effective medical use, they have already won. Pharmaceutical companies are developing and testing cannabinoids, including THC, cannabidiol, endocannabinoids, and synthetic compounds. They are going through the process, and may be in drugstores in several years if they are found to be safe and effective. The advocates don’t mention this much.

I don’t actually care whether marijuana is legalized or decriminalized for recreational use. It’s not morally wrong. It is no more dangerous than alcohol, and perhaps less so. However, long-term use is self-destructive. I do not wish to assign the FDA’s technical evaluation responsibilities to city councils without first clearly talking about the medical consequences down the road. I haven’t heard much of that talk yet.

Shame

There is a time for shame: shame can be good. Shame helped propel the Peace Movement of the 60's, with it's revulsion against patriotic symbols. There was an intimation of shame with Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, the time is not ripe yet to indulge the impulse. Because it wasn't MY government that did this: it was THEIR government. THEIR Supreme Court, THEIR proto-fascist jackboot neoconservative mentality. False election means false legitimacy. I'll indulge shame after the election.

More Tales of Sacramento at Night

Last night, about 1:45 a.m., while walking Sparky north on 21st Street, a high-speed chase came through the neighborhood. The perp came east on 2nd Avenue, over the tracks, with four police cruisers in alarmed pursuit, then turned right (the wrong way) down 21st, passing just a few feet from my inattentive dog. The evil-doer turned left on 3rd Avenue, disappeared a while into the neighborhood, then reappeared, turned right again onto 2nd Avenue after having gone north on 24th Street, and roared off to Oak Park. Where they went after that, I don't know, but the sirens echoed in the distance. Sparky, as usual, took little note of the commotion.

Bush Just Kills Me

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Hi Cheryl!

Cheryl Bly-Chester called today! She's looking for political support from the left side of the political spectrum for a political appointment, and I'll do my best to help such a fine Fellow Historical Figure!

Prediction

Given the unusual polarization of the electorate I wasn't really surprised that Kerry didn't get much of a post-convention bounce. In fact, I predicted it (although I kept the prediction to myself, so it doesn't count). The second part of the prediction, however, has yet to occur, so it's game: I predict that not only will George W. Bush fail to get much of a bounce from the Republican convention, he will actually see an erosion of his support. I think this will happen because of outrageous rhetoric at the convention and the antagonistic and hostile welcome the Republicans will get in New York.

Looking at current electoral vote predictions, it's quite impressive to see just how close they hew to the 2000 Election results. What a brittle, polarized, stubborn group of people we've all become!

Carbon Morons

Re "Are Power Plants Crying Wolf Over Lawsuit?," August 2 Sacramento Bee: Bee staff writer Chris Bowman did a horrible disservice to his readers by suggesting power producers exaggerate the difficulty of controlling carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Traditional pollution control focuses on eliminating trace gases in the exhaust, but to a considerable extent, carbon dioxide IS the exhaust. Bowman propagates the idiocy that a regulatory approach can help stave off global warming. Promoting efficiencies, not creating new inefficiencies, is the ONLY workable way to slow global warming. That, and conservation. It's like two approaches to weight control: cutting back on desserts or cutting off a leg. Both approaches "work", but only one is helpful. Time for Bowman to go back to school.

Baaa!

Persistent, Intelligent, Aggressive......Sheep.

Random Weekend Notes

Saw Vallejo Music Theater's "A Chorus Line" on Saturday, directed by Pam Kay Lourentzos. The show was good: the parts were well-cast and the dancers well-rehearsed. The fellow playing "Mike" (I'll find the program) was a phenom: I also liked "Sheila" and "Bobby" and "Bebe" and "Paul". Regina was fantastic as "Cassie". And it was great to see Monica and Michael Miiller on-stage again.

The weak point of the show was the music (not live). It was vaguely unsettling to see the audience reflected in the mirrors during "Music in the Mirror": Cassie, the mirrors, .... and all her friends too.

Saw another show on the weekend too: unsettling, unexpected, worrisome, even. Makes me nervous.....

Went to David Holme's and Jeremiah Lowder's birthday party at the Carmichael Garcia's: it was great connecting with those folks again (David and Lori and Jeremiah and Kristin and Keri and Richard and others). We got news of the Elly Award nominations from Ray Fisher during the party. The great annual game Community Theater Russian Roulette awarded a bushel of nominations to RSP (deservedly or not).

Went to the weekly Carmichael Elks Ballroom Dance. One African-American woman was wearing a pretty pin, which seemed to be shaped very much like a spider. I asked her if the pin was symbolic. She said not really: she was wearing a black widow pin because that was what she was!

Strange weekend.

Al Qaeda in Spain

Can't forget this fine link. I remember Osama bin Laden's first public remarks after 9/11: he warned Christians to leave Al Andalus. Just like the last 500 years hadn't happened!

Fafblog

Pretty darn funny blog! I'm tempted to copy his style, but a rabbit and a dog talking sotto voce in sober and measured tones just doesn't cut it.

Ron Reagan

Has issues with G.W. Bush.

Democratic Convention

As fine an affair as you could ask! Everyone is united! Democrats like Howard Dean were furious when the national leadership, in a patriotic spirit, unwisely tried to work with Mr. Bush on a variety of important issues (e.g. Sen. Edward Kennedy working with Bush on education initiatives; Democrats joining with Bush on the Iraq War, etc., etc.) The Angry Democrats pointed out, with their endearing red-faced screams, that Bush took this willingness to be weakness, and indeed, Bush betrayed every Democrat who ever worked with him (except maybe Zell Miller). The Angry Democrats were right, of course: they won that debate with the national leadership in March, in the primaries. Everybody is happy now. No more concessions! Onward we march, to November, to Armageddon!! Happy people (but not quite like Michael Moore's creepy happy shining Saudi people).

Offer of Credit

I'm much relieved that Bank of America has offered DMTC a credit line, based on the strength of the company alone, of $175,000. That's not enough to complete the new theater all by itself, but it'll be a big, big step.

I wonder if I'll be called upon to help out, with a 2nd. I hope not, just for simplicity's sake, but we don't live in simple times.

Mr. Ghailani's Capture

From the comments: "there are known to be elements of the Pakistani military and security infrastructure which are sympathetic to - and may be providing aid and comfort to - Al Qaida."

It's worse than that. Musharraf is actually dependent on the favor of jihadi groups in and out of Al Qaeda. Musharraf has to appease America and the jihadi groups at the same time, which probably means Bush will never get top-rung Al Qaeda leaders from Pakistan - I'm sure the Pakistan military knows approximately where they are - but the second-rung people like Ghailani are vulnerable. Musharraf is just looking out for Number One (Musharraf, of course).

Is Kerry Able Enough?

Chris Suellentrop has an interesting question:

"Even a casual viewer of Hardball knows that the first rule of an election that involves a sitting president is that it's a referendum on the incumbent. This election, however, has turned out to be the opposite. It's a referendum on the challenger. Kerry probably isn't responsible for this turn of events, but he's benefiting from it: The referendum on the incumbent is over. President Bush already lost it. This presidential campaign isn't about whether the current president deserves a second term. It's about whether the challenger is a worthy replacement."

In last year's California Recall Election, the September 24th CBA debate, the only one that Arnold Schwarzenegger participated in and by far the most watched debate in California history, did much to establish Schwarzenegger as a viable candidate. Arnold didn't have to do very much - after all, there was the embarrassing squabble with Arianna Huffington, where he indirectly offered to put her head in a toilet - but it was good enough to convince people he was good enough. That low bar was the only barrier between Arnold and the governorship. Same this year with Kerry and the Presidency. Kerry doesn't have to meet high expectations: all he has to do is show that he's at least G.W. Bush's equal, and Kerry will soon be picking out his favorite wallpaper for the Oval Office.

Wedge Issues

By the LA Times Rick Perlstein:

Republicans are skilled at reaching into the distant past of Democratic candidates to stage their melodramas. Democrats wouldn't have to go back far at all. Take something President Bush said in a 1993 Houston Post article: Heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ.An aggressive campaign by Kerry and the Democrats would pressure Bush to explain whether he still believes that. As it happens, Bush has an answer: Billy Graham told him not to "play God." But thereby hangs the wedge.Put the issue in Bush's face again, forcing him — Chop! — to choose whether to offend one party segment or another. Republican voters who believe you have to be Christian to go to heaven, and want their president to believe the same, fall to the right side of the hatchet. Moderate Republicans, who like Bush for his tax policies but are embarrassed to be associated with intolerance, fall to the left.

The False War on Terror

By Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria:

It is increasingly clear that the conflict in Afghanistan falsely fed the idea that the war against terrorism was a real war. In fact, Afghanistan was an exception. The reality of this threat, the very reason it is so difficult to tackle, is precisely that it cannot be addressed by conventional military means. Yet the prism of war has distorted the vision of important segments of Washington, especially within the Bush administration. This has produced bad strategy. The Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has written on the Bush administration's strategy and describes its three pillars as hegemony, preemption and unilateralism. All three approaches seem justifiable if you believe that we are in a war that can be won militarily. All are counterproductive in a struggle that seeks to modernize alien societies, win over Muslim moderates and sustain cooperation on intelligence and law enforcement across the world.

Antipodes

Some people sample good food. Some people sample good wine. Some people sample the entire Earth. (I wonder sometimes if aliens from Titan dropped a spacecraft randomly on the Earth, what they would find).

Virgin Surprise

After watching Runaway Stage's "A Chorus Line" this afternoon, the DMTC borg retired to Arden Fair mall to sample the new Cheesecake Factory there, but the effort turned into a debacle:  the place was far too crowded.  After getting separated from the DMTC folks, I ended up eating alone, but Michael McElroy found me, and we ended up going to Virgin Megastore, where CDs, DVDs, and related entertainment paraphernalia are usually found.

To my surprise, on the new merchandise display, were copies of the 9/11 report, released late last week.  I didn't realize Virgin also sold books.  I especially didn't realize Virgin sold politically topical reports.  I quickly snatched up one of the books.  (A caustic blogger is taking bets about how many pages of the report G.W. Bush reads).

Time willing, I hope to read the 9/11 report.

The DMTC borg eventually ended up, predictably enough, at Max's Opera Cafe, but vast amounts of time were squandered this evening.  Cheesecake Factory another time.......

More on Minnesota

(Rereading the article, it appears Minnesota does not identify party registration on its lists of eligible voters, so the GOP's effort does make some sense, but still....aren't they flirting with the possibility of a backlash?  Is it that hard to target their base?  What is really going on?)

Wilson's Veracity

One thing that is beginning to bother me regarding the entire Joseph Wilson truth-telling brouhaha is whether or not the combatants are talking about different periods of time.  Most of the supposed contacts between Iraq and Niger were said to have taken place in 1999 or earlier.  In 2002, Wilson was dispatched to evaluate whether anything recent had happened in Niger.  So - what period of time are we discussing here - old news (1999 or earlier) or new news (2000 and later)?

In any event, to me, the damage done to Wilson so far appears slight.  The Republicans don't have a lot going for them, and the continued sniping just brings unwanted attention again and again and again to those precious 16 words.

Getting a Grip

Dealing with the WWSJ paranoia.

The Party Wants to Know!

"But it's not as if we're asking for Social Security number and make and model and serial number of car. We're asking for party preference," he said. "Party preference is not something that is such a personal piece of data." 

Actually it's the most important thing to know, isn't it?  But that's available on the list of registered voters anyway.  So why ask?  I suspect the point is not to identify party preferences, but rather the snoopiest, most effective volunteers.  For more important missions, to come soon! 

Ad Buys and Battleground States
 
There was an interesting article in the Sunday New York Times showing where the Bush and Kerry campaigns are buying television advertising (maps unfortunately appear only in the print edition).  Not surprisingly, most of the money is going into places considered electoral toss-ups.  Nevertheless, there are some battleground areas where very little money is being spent, and I find that a puzzle. 
 
For example, despite large TV ad buys in New Mexico (my home state), there appears to be nothing happening in the Las Cruces area (second-largest city in the state).  That's no doubt because Las Cruces is far from Albuquerque, the state's largest city, but much closer to El Paso, Texas, and since Texas is considered a Bush lock, little advertising is coming their way.  Nevertheless, the state went for Gore by just a few hundred votes in 2000, and it would seem just prudent for both campaigns to toss some money into the El Paso TV market.  What gives?
 
Similarly, entire states are being neglected that have shown rather close margins in recent polls.  For example, Tennessee.  Or North and South Carolina.  Arizona too (I wonder how solid those recent polls are that showed a Bush surge there after McCain squelched the Democratic veep talk, given how equivocal the polls had been before?  Times, they may be a changin'.)
 
There's a lot of room for mistakes here!

What a Crock!
 
July 20, 2004    Cedar Rapids, Iowa -- President Bush said Tuesday his re-election will ensure safety for Americans as well as for those in the rest of the world in the war against terrorism.

"After four years more in this office I want people to look back and say, 'The world is a more peaceful place,"' Bush told supporters at a community college in Iowa. "Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be at peace."

The Argument Commences
 
Regarding the meaning and importance of the WWSJ Sky Terror story.....

Here We Go Again!
 
Clever Arabs foil airline security.

Been Listening to Air America
 
On 1240 AM.  It's nice to have an alternative!  It reminds me of the liberal blogosphere, but in the aural dimension.  What a concept!

Methane and Ammonia
 
On Mars!  Oh my!  (big indicators of life)

Cartoon
 
The one that got away

Amerika Berserk

An illustration of why our problems in Afghanistan are deepening.

Easterbrook Mismeasures Moore

Gregg Easterbrook tells bigger fibs than Michael Moore does (Daily Express, TNR On-line, July 12th). Moore stretches and simplifies, but he rarely lies outright. Concerning whether a B-52 was killing Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972, who is more likely to be to correct: Moore, who extrapolates from the commemoratory plaque that the bomber wouldn't have encountered a MIG unless it had been so engaged, or Easterbrook, who seems to suggest that the encounter between the B-52 and the MIG was purely accidental. It is possible to celebrate the amazing skill required to shoot down a MIG while also deploring the mission of the B-52: these are not contradictory positions. Easterbrook thinks Moore is anti-American, but maybe Easterbrook is just anti-Vietnamese. Most of the supposed errors people like SpinSanity and others seize upon are of the same sort: small technical omissions that obscure a larger and deeper truth that the rest of us can clearly see if we just open our eyes.

Reno 911

The Monday, July 5th trip to Reno was pretty disastrous, but what was stranger was the peculiar illness that took hold of me on Wednesday. It felt much like a hangover and pretty-much debilitated me for a day (but I had just one glass of wine!) Science News suggests that hangovers may be a form of inflammation. And I do have a shin splint (either a tear or a form of inflammation, which arose inexplicably, given that I've been idle since the weekend, at the same time as the hangover). It's strange that there was such a lag between drinking the wine and the hangover, but it may have been precipitated by the cumulative effect of several nights of poor sleep. In any event, with the help of aspirin, I hope I can reassemble myself in time for 'Damn Yankees' this weekend.

Nostradamus

Keith over at Subway is involved in an interesting project: using numerology to interpret the writings of Nostradamus. Keith is using the writings of Nostradamus like a Web Page, and using the various quatrains as hyperlinks. So far, he has discerned that there are at least two texts hidden within the the writings of Nostradamus, one in first-person and one in third-person.

I wonder if Keith will eventually conclude, as others have, that George W. Bush is the Anti-Christ?

Useful Links

Stories of a list of compliant reporters who parroted Ahmad Chalabi's lies
Eerie parallels between the price of gas and Bush's popularity
Evil NASA administrators plan to ditch a satellite in perfect working order, just because they think it costs too much
Mubarak's battle against the Muslim Brotherhood
Is the Bush administration trying to spring a July surprise?
The Palms of California

and lastly, but not least:
Flesh-Eating Bacteria
(important, since Chavo actually suffered from this horrible disease last year, and lost part of his abdomen as a result.....)

Damn Yankees

The Davis Enterprise review came out regarding DMTC's "Damn Yankees." The reviewer wrote: "'Whatever Lola Wants' is fine, but - again - could use a bit more oomph to make it sizzle." I thought this critique was a bit odd...Megan Soto does an admirable job with her dancing. How much more oomph would be required? I thought maybe it was a matter of interpretation: Megan's cold and manipulative, vs., say, someone else's angry and fiery. A friend then pointed out that Megan's interpretation didn't have enough levels, and so the character couldn't evolve sufficiently during the show. Hmmm.... So maybe Megan had too much oomph at the beginning, and not enough at the end? I don't know, acting is all such a mystery!

The Producers

With Katherine Arthur, I saw the travelling Broadway show, "The Producers", on Thursday July 1st, at Sacramento's Community Center Theater. As expected, a very, very funny show! "If your intention was to shoot an arrow through my heart.....Bullseye!"

Mary Young and Peter Baldridge also saw the Thursday performance.

Fahrenheit 911

I missed the opening of F911 on the weekend, but I did catch it on Monday, June 28th. The Tower Theater was remarkably crowded for a Monday, and I had to settle for an inferior seat.

There was only one part of the movie that I considered a stretch: just prior to the recent war, Baghdad wasn't all happiness and light, and the Iraqis DID have American blood on their hands, if not so much recently, then from Gulf War I.

Nevertheless, the movie is a triumph and many of its points have needed a public audience for too long. Once again, Moore's critics are going to miss the point and go after secondary matters.

For example, immediately after I got home, I caught Joe Scarborough on MSNBC declaiming against Michael Moore. Scarborough repeatedly insisted that Moore had stated that the U.S. had gone to war in Afghanistan to safeguard UNOCAL's pipeline project: having just seen the movie a few minutes before, I knew that what Moore had said was that the Bush Administration had continued negotiating with the Taliban over the pipeline even after the African embassy bombings and the Cole incident had given us ample reason to shelve the pipeline project, and that the new leadership of Afghanistan contains former UNOCAL advisors (people like belabored President Karzai).

Scarborough's desperate efforts to punch holes in F911 continued on Tuesday night (fact-checking is an unfamiliar burden to right-wing pundits, who usually just make up stuff, and doubly frustrating too, since its so easy to get their own facts wrong...all you have to do is casually watch F911 to see how badly Scarborough screws up his own analysis).

Then there are the professional fact-checkers, people at Spin-Sanity.org, who often miss the forest for all the trees. SpinSanity chastizes Moore for using Jeffrey Toobin's point about Gore winning the 2000 election if overvotes were counted statewide in Florida, and not clarifying that this was the only scenario by which Gore would have won, when the real crime is that the overvotes WEREN'T counted because of the U.S. Supreme Court intervention. Once again, as with 'Bowling for Columbine', Moore's crime was he oversimplified the matter under consideration, in order to make his point. Gosh, flay Moore's hide for that! It's not like anyone else ever oversimplified - Rush Limbaugh, for example, or shall we say, George W. Bush and his certainty concerning Saddam's WMD?

The Saudi flights out the country after 9/11 are another point: the fact of the flights, with the need for special permission, is not nearly as important as the absence of FBI questioning of bin Laden's closest relatives and what they might have known of the plot.

Moore is right to focus attention on business connections between the Taliban, oil companies, and the Bush Administration. After all, it wasn't until recently I learned California's right-wing Republican Dana Rohrbacher lobbied on behalf of the Taliban. These connections need to be understood.

I'm thinking of following the advice of Andrew Sullivan (A Blogosphere Challenge) and taking a tape-recorder into the movie, so I can get a solid transcript of the movie so as to counter the critics more easily (and not, as Sullivan wants, so as to criticize Moore more easily). Moore has done the nation a service. We should all applaud his efforts!

Interesting Discussion Regarding Iraq

Juan Cole

Thumbs Up

Roeper on Bush hatred.

Ned Roscoe Wonders About Voting

(from last to first, a Gubernatorial Candidate E-Mail Thread)

(Marc Valdez)
I think of American democracy like the Space Shuttle Columbia, accelerating into space, with chunks of foam blowing off the external fuel tank. It's hard to tell which little piece of foam might blow a hole into the wing. When voter participation is high and the know-how to run the democracy is widespread, America's flight possesses legitimacy and is safer as a result. When voter participation is low, and people become alienated from the business of government, America's flight becomes vulnerable to events.

Was September 11th the chunk of foam that blew a hole in the wing of American democracy? Many shields of secrecy fell on September 11th that stripped the electorate of proper knowledge and understanding of what our government is up to. The more-involved electorate of the 1850's or the 1910's wouldn't have stood for it without a fight, but we are more alienated these days (as we have been since WW II, actually), and easier to control as a result. We are now reaping the result (the Edmonds affair, with an apparent coverup by the government of a terrorist group recruiting within the FBI; the Halabi spy investigation, led by an overzealous alleged child molester; the disastrous Plame affair, which sowed distrust between the White House and the CIA, to the point where the CIA has to use serious muscle to bust up Ahmad Chalabi's Pentagon-approved Iranian spy ring; and the attorney-general-who-cries-wolf, whose terror warnings apparently have the sole purpose of distracting public attention when bad news regarding his department's inattentiveness dominates public discussion, such as when Saudi terrorists were learning how to fly).

"America is stable and prosperous enough that we can take it for granted that election results will be accepted peacefully by almost everyone." Remember, this did not happen in 2000! The clarification of ambiguous Florida results was stopped by judicial fiat. We have been living under a government of uncertain legitimacy ever since. How far will we go before, like Venzeuela in 2002, we start experimenting with troops in the palace and mobs in the street? Voter participation helps preserve the American experiment and helps preserve public safety. A safer public, after all, means less demand for blood products!


(Lawrence Steven Strauss)
Considering all of the people who have sacrificed and gave their lives so that we can live in a democratic society, I believe everybody should exercise his/her right to vote.


(Ned Roscoe)
Should I deregister? Should you? What do you think of this argument, you who are so passionately active?

If I was even more cranky than I already am, I’d ask the Registrar to remove me from the voting rolls. I am not disaffected because of my experience as a candidate. Running was fun. Nor did my experience as a proponent of a ballot initiative puts me off. I knew most people disagreed with me before I registered or petitioned. It’s not personal.

Napa’s election troubles are also not a factor. Compared with what I know of other counties, Napa’s election bureaucracy is a model of efficiency and John Tuteur is a stickler for proper procedures. Those who make their living from elections say that if people knew how their votes are handled, they wouldn’t bother to vote. Minor mistakes don’t bother me.

I can predict the election results but that won’t keep me from the polls. I enjoy the pageantry of democracy. Relatively rational people get seized with delusions of grandeur. When the system works well, money and power gravitate towards two poles which may not be very far from each other. The two camps bid for marginal positions without alienating their core supporters. It’s a great game, but I don’t have to play it.

America is stable and prosperous enough that we can take it for granted that election results will be accepted peacefully by almost everyone. We can argue about how decisions are made in Napa, California and the United States, but we know that elections play a smaller part than ballyhooed by editorial writers. As long as government has such tremendous power, the money will find a path to the power.

Duty to God, family, friends, employers, neighbors, regulators, and tax collectors keep me pretty darn busy. People ask me to register to vote and then to vote their way. I wish they’d get their priorities straight. I might vote Libertarian, because I like those people. They need every vote they can get to maintain their position as the 3rd largest political party. And, touch screen voting is fun like a cheap version of Vegas. But first, I ought to donate blood.

How Do Conservatives Know The Confirmation Process is Corrupt?

Priceless stuff!

Back to the Future

Movies of late have been a disappointment. I was disheartened by the way the promising start at that international congress of 'The Day After Tomorrow' was ruined, by riding roughshod over the Arab delegate's request for clarification of the counterintuitive information he was being fed. Angered, with no outlet, I decided instead to start a fight with the people sitting behind me who wouldn't shut up. Maybe when theaters dissolve into shouting and mayhem from annoyed fans who just wasted their money, moviemakers will spend $50 or $100 from their $100 million budgets and ask technical folks how to improve their screenplays. After all, those LA tornadoes in 'The Day After Tomorrow' could have looked so much cooler if the cinematographers understood that tornado funnels in close proximity dance around each other in whirling circles! Moviemakers are fools - we don't have to be fools. Rent more technically-exact movies, like 1953's "The War of the Worlds" instead!

Dear Russo, Marsh & Rogers

Last year, with the recall effort against Governor Gray Davis, many of us appreciated your leadership role in the state GOP in promoting healthy political debate. This year, I'm appalled to learn you are taking a leadership role in trying to get theaters from showing Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit 911." How hypocritical is that? That's a decision for theater management to make, based on what they believe audience interest is, without pressure from you. It's time you jokers back off!

Marc Valdez
(Former) Candidate for California Governor
http://marcvaldezcalgov.blogspot.com

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

On Friday, I saw the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," an Irish production about the coup attempt that nearly overthrew Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. The film had a refreshing lack of nuance: Hugo Chavez good, his enemies (the globalization goons called neo-liberals...basically what we call conservatives in the States) bad. The left-right divide is so sharp in Venezuela: like a heightened red-blue U.S. divide! There was a lot of talk on the Right about the corrupt values of the Left: all that was needed was the appropriate "wedge" issue to exploit!

Coup attempts really cause a lot of tension and chaos: In the absence of Chavez, who had surrendered and been jailed incommunicado, the struggling government swore in the Vice President. I liked the attempt at solemnity during the swearing-in ceremony, on recently restored National TV, while an idiotic ringtone interrupted the Oath of Office and people scrambled to find the stupid cell phone. Solemnity was so hard to reach, even though the situation could not have been more grave: instead, with all the endangered lives, people were overwrought with emotion. The twelve or so of us in the theater had a good time, pumping fists in the air. I wish I understood more about the political background, but that would have just complicated things.

Feels like we are in the 60's again! Throw away all that heavy baggage about how things are more complicated than they seem. Be gone, shades of gray! No more malaise! That must mean Michael Moore's new movie is approaching release. They had a trailer for that too, and it looked pretty good, with little irony, and many opportunities to cheer for the good guys.

Inhumanity

This post made me think.... I remember once looking up the Life Magazine that covered the Hiroshima bombing, just to see what people in 1945 thought about it. There is a charming article, with color photos, showing two American soldiers using flamethrowers to successfully set afire a Japanese soldier hiding behind some tropical foliage. It was pretty clear that Americans, of the settled sort that routinely read Life Magazine, considered Japs to be no more than infuriating animate insects. War does terrible things to one's fraternal sense of humanity. In 1945, however, we had a more robust sense of honesty about what we were doing than we do now. We didn't lie as much then, although people like George Orwell could sense the shape of the future to come. Long live Big Brother! (sorry, Little Brother - I wasn't talking about Jeb!)

Sistani the Big Winner

Juan Cole sees Ayatollah Sistani as a big winner in recent Iraqi negotiations, the Kurds as potential losers, and the Americans and British as quite weak. Sistani's determination is beginning to yield results. But will a civil war with the Kurds result?

Mexican Munchies

This story is fun:

Taco Bell patron in Iowa charged in chalupa assault
Associated Press

June 8, 2004

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A man who claimed he didn't get the taco he paid for has been charged with assault for allegedly pelting a Taco Bell clerk in the face with a chalupa.

Nancy Harrison told police she was working the drive-through Thursday night when Christopher Lame, 24, ordered some food.

He later came into the store, complaining he didn't get the taco he had ordered, police records say. Harrison said that when she asked for a receipt, he went back to his car and brought back the bag.

Harrison said she told him the store was closing, and as she turned away, a chalupa hit her in the face near her right eye. She said she ran into the parking lot and took down the license number as the motorist was driving away.

Lame was identified through the license number.

He is scheduled to appear in court June 15.
-----------
Friend Gene says:
Taco Bell has become a Midwestern institution--there would be mass chaos without it. It's the only place open at 2:30 am after a long night of partying. And that's just where you should be after a long night of drinking--in your car, navigating the narrow drive-thru lane whilst fumbling for loose change.

I say:
It's the strange nomenclature that causes problems. Never having ordered one, I must admit I don't know what a chalupa is. We're not very sophisticated in our Mexican food tastes, even in New Mexico. We just keep adding chili powder, hoping no one asks us to identify what we are eating. How much farther behind they must be in Iowa? That's what comes from that belligerent culinary Mexico City style they've got going on. In the 1980's, in Tucson, the big rave was the restaurant chain (2 restaurants in Tucson and 1 in Mexico City) called 'La Parrilla Suiza' (The Swiss Grill). They don't even have chili at all there. Just big gooey masses of cheese on steaks, in a faux European manner, but with mariachis. Everybody loved it, but most importantly, no one understood it.

Friend Tony says:
one of Tucson's best Mexican restaurants, going back to the 1970s, was a place out on the west side called, i think, Karichimaka. i had my first chimichanga there, and they had mariachis on weekends, but the food was damned good.

I say:
I had my first chimichanga in Tucson: they arrived in NM only after I moved to Tucson, in 1980. That's when I realized that there were regional Mexican food cuisines....although I should have realized that when I visited Tijuana in 1977 and saw shark tacos, which struck me at the time as really bizarre, but then, there's the Pacific so close!

Steyn on Saudi Arabia

I like conservative Mark Steyn less and less as time goes on (same with blogger Andrew Sullivan, for similar reasons), but Steyn hits the nail on the head here.

Reagan Memorial Stuff

Reagan did NOT win the Cold War: still, Reagan's impact was greatest with rhetoric. Eastern Europeans noticed other stuff going on, however, like the place falling apart from neglect.

Myself, I never liked the guy.

Mary Walker, Torture Attorney

Hard to believe this chain of links!

Thirtieth Anniversary Song for Jan & Steve
(Words by Tim O'Laughlin)

At the vow renewal party at the Vet Memorial, Saturday, June 5th.


Doug Ackermann and Tim O'Laughlin

To the tune of "Worlds Apart" by Roger Miller (from Big River)

Steve:
I see a vision of glory when I cast a show, here at DMTC, DMTC
You keep composure in crisis while my temper blows, here at DMTC, DMTC
We had a dream, we made it grow
We're co-producers, so on with the show

Jan:
We felt the music inside us, it had to come out, here at DMTC, DMTC
But we'll never make it to Broadway, of that, there's no doubt, here at DMTC, DMTC

Both (in harmony)
We took a dream, we made it grow
So people just like us could be in the show!
It's thirty years and we're still here...you and me...here at DMTC, DMTC
Together, at DMTC

Steve:
And if you build me a theater, I'll give you the lead!

Jan:
Twaddle-ee ah dee dee dah dee dee dee