I thought I knew this guy…

Larry Miller has always struck me as a no-nonsense kind of guy. I was surprised and disappointed to hear of the nonsense that went on at Jordan Commons on Friday.

The last second decision to pull “Brokeback Mountain” was a poor one, and no good reason for it has been offered up by Miller. Refusing to carry the film in the first place demonstrates closed-mindedness; agreeing to do so before then violating that agreement couples closed-mindedness with bad business sense. I had never before suspected Miller to be possessed of either.

As for the film, my wife and I had the privilege to see it on Friday night. The story is not unfamiliar: Two people are thrown together by circumstance and fall deeply and sincerely in love. They find (or already knew, in this case) that the world in which they live will not accept them and their feelings for one another, and they try their best to conform. But their love is undying, and they spend year after tortured year trying to express it while hiding it from those around them. Formulaic, really—only the two people are men, and not just men but cowboys, and real ones.

“Brokeback Mountain” is a well-made, high quality film. The sex scenes between the protagonists are far less explicit than in some PG-13 fare that I have been unfortunate enough to see. But, they are between men, and that fact did make me squirm. Nevertheless, the scenes are much more moving and sincere than most.

The story itself cuts through stereotypes about homosexuality and poses difficult questions through brilliant directing and Oscar-worthy acting. The men in the film are in love, despite their best efforts not to be. Their love causes them grief and despair, ultimately wreaking havoc on their lives. But such is love’s power, a power as strong between these two men as between any couple.

Now, if thinking about the way in which our society either stigmatizes or altogether refuses to deal with homosexuality makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you could spend your movie dollar on another of the fine films currently playing at Miller’s establishment. Jordan Commons is proudly carrying the number one film in the country, “Hostel”, which includes scenes of torture so graphic that many moviegoers have grown ill and left theaters, a fact that the moviemakers have heralded proudly. And if you are not in the mood for torture, you might try another high class Jordan Commons feature, “Grandma’s Boy,” a “comedy” in which elderly women and young men spend time doing drugs together in between scenes of “strong crude and sexual humor.”

Apparently, in Miller’s view, not only do these films deserve a screen at Jordan Commons more than “Brokeback Mountain” does, but pulling the film is justified despite the fact that doing so violates a business agreement made in good faith. I thought I knew this guy…

It's not that simple, Mr. Bush...

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

--September 2001

And so long as I'm the President, we will be determined, steadfast, and strong as we pursue those people who kill innocent lives because they hate freedom.

And, of course, al Qaeda looks for any excuse. But the truth of the matter is, they hate us, and they hate freedom, and they hate people who embrace freedom. And they're willing to kill innocent Iraqis because Iraqis are willing to be free. Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country. And we will help them rid Iraq of these killers.

--May 2004

The Salt Lake Tribune had an excellent article the other day about the insurgency in Iraq.

It seems, unsurprisingly, that the war in general, and the insurgency more specifically, is much more complicated than the Bush Administration has made it sound.

It appears as though there are a number of insurgencies going on, and that few, if any, of those insurgencies are based on motivations as simple as "hatred of freedom."

While all of the insurgents are not members or supporters of al-Qaeda, it seems as though al-Qaeda has been responsible for a good number of the deadliest attacks.
As a result, an increasing number of Iraqis resent the fact that the U.S. presence in Iraq has served as a magnet for al-Qaeda.



Last year, on Veteran's Day, the University of Utah had an event in which veterans of the Iraq War spoke. I skipped classes that day, headed up to the Union, got some Chik-fil-A, and then went to hear them speak.

The room seemed to be full of two main groups of people: Older Korean War and WWII veterans and their spouses, and young ROTC students and their families.

And me.

The panel of veterans from the current war consisted of three men--one was very young, maybe around 22 or 23, the next must have been in his thirties, and the oldest was about mid to late forties.

The panelists were asked a few questions about the environment in Iraq--a couple of old veterans were very interested in the effect that sand and heat had on tanks and artillery.

After a question about their opinion of the "liberal media" and its portrayal of what was happening in Iraq, I thought it was time for me to raise my hand.

I asked the following question: "What would you say to those of us who feel uncomfortable about the reasons we have been given for why we are in Iraq, in particular those of us who don't think what we are doing in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror."

The soldiers responded in order. The young soldier gave a brief non-response response, and I thought I sensed that he was holding back a bit, that he wanted to say more.
The thirties-ish soldier responded angrily. He was a hypermasculine, loud, blindly loyal soldier--the kind whose image Hollywood likes to exploit, but who is actually the exception, not the rule. His response was substanceless, and served as cover for berating me for disloyalty and calling me stupid for not believing that Iraq had to do with al-Qaeda. After all, he said, look at all of the al-Qaeda bombings.

The older soldier outranked the other two by a longshot (though I don't remember exactly what his rank was). He was thoughtful and measured, a humble man who commanded respect, and the kind of person that you feel that you can trust almost immediately.
He said that he could understand why some would have a hard time making the connection to the war on terror. He then said something that shocked me.
He paused, looked up toward the ceiling for a second, and said, "there's one thing that I can see as a success in Iraq with respect to the war on terror, and that is that we have provided a target for al-Qaeda over there, and now they have less of a reason and are less likely to go through the effort to attack over here."

Then, he sat down. And the questions shifted back to the heat and the sand.

Afterward, I approached the stage despite the evil eye I was being given by GI Joe. I thanked the older soldier for answering my question, and then I leaned a little closer and said "is that really the only thing that you can think of that it has to do with the war on terror?" He said, "well...yes, probably."

I walked back down to the Law School with a knot in my stomach. Besides being such a hollow victory, the soldier had all but admitted that Iraq had had nothing to do with al-Qaeda before the invasion--which was one of the many "reasons" the American public was given for the necessity of the war. Instead, any connection to the war on terror had come after we arrived, as a consequence of our presence.

Since that time, that line has oft been repeated--that it is better that they attack us there than over here.

What we seem to be forgetting is that the Iraqi death toll at the hands of insurgents is much, much higher than the U.S. death toll.

It's no surprise that the Iraqis have a hard time agreeing that the fact that their country is now a magnet for al-Qaeda is a "victory."

Carter For Party Chair!

"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors."

Jimmy Carter is my kind of Democrat. We ought to identify the errors that lead up to what often becomes a final and dramatic error--abortion--and try and correct them.

The Democratic Party has doggedly and dogmatically supported abortion in all its forms for far too long.
Abortion should be safe, legal under certain circumstances, and rare.

While some in the Democratic Party have recently begun espousing that point of view, too many are so reflexive and inflexible in their rhetoric that they sound like they are defending abortion itself and not just the "right to choose."

Abortion, particularly the later term forms, are abhorrent. You need not seek out shocking photographs or read inflammatory literature to see what I mean--just check out the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, where the most well known and utilized forms of late term abortion are described in horrifying detail. Scroll down to the actual opinion, and then check out section I. Troubling.

As the opinion points out, only about 10% of abortions are performed in the second trimester, which because of the development and size of fetus necessitates the use of one of these disgusting methods. Democrats should have no compunction about standing up and saying that the practice described in that opinion is horrible.

Abortion should be safe, and it order to be safe, it needs to be legal. That is my stance as a Democrat.
But not every form has to be legal, there ought to be reasonable limitations on the exercise of the right, and, most importantly, I can abhor the practice while understanding the need for it to be a decision left up to a woman and her loved ones.

To Torture, or Not To Torture?

Very interesting article in today's NY Times.

The Bush Administration has characterized the way in which we are dealing with terrorism as a "war." Calling what we are doing a "war" changes the rules of the game in our favor. We should not dodge the obligations of that designation while reaping the benefits.

If it is a "war," then detainees are prisoners of that war, and therefore ought to be accorded the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
However, I cast my lot with Senator McCain, a man who, unlike most in the Bush Administration, has had actual experience with the military and torture. Even if we call them "detainees," they are still entitled to protection.

The quote in the third-to-last paragraph speaks volumes. In 2002, after deeming detainees to be outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions:

Bush ordered that military detainees "be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

This turns Geneva on its head. Whereas Geneva guarantees human rights and limits military power, Bush's philosophy increases military power and makes human rights conditional. The Administration subjugates human rights to "military necessity," empowering the military to violate Geneva when it views doing so as necessary. This turns the protections of the Geneva Convention into privileges granted according to military whim.

The events at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere should instruct us that soldiers and their superiors have a limited definition of "humane," which may fairly be attributed to an expansive view of "military necessity."

The question is, given the Bush Administration's philosophy, should we really be shocked about what went on at Abu Ghraib?

Come On Drudge--This is Below Even You...

President Bush has nominated Judge Sam Alito for the vacant position at the Supreme Court.

Judge Alito has been nicknamed "Scalito" because the mainstream media and/or liberal establishment (which are the same thing to some) is "anti-Italian."

Or so Matt Drudge would have you believe.

He speciously argues that the nickname "Scalito" is "ethnically insensitive." He writes that the Democratic National Committee is "anti-Italian," and as evidence of this fact he uses the following quote from the DNC:

"Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”

Wow. That statement obviously just reeks of ethnic insensitivity. It couldn't possibly be that the fact that their names lend themselves well to the nickname. Give me a break, Drudge--"Scalia" and "Alito" combine to form "Scalito" so easily that the nickname is barely even witty.

Drudge even quotes a Republican strategist that calls the nickname a "derogatory racial slur."

The only thing even remotely "ethnic" about the nickname is that both names happen to be Italian.
Hyper-reactive political correctness is a liberal failing according to conservatives, but when there's political capital to be amassed, principles seem to matter a bit less.

I have a hard time understanding why intelligent people respect Matt Drudge.

But I'll take a shot and perhaps give him more credit than he deserves.

Perhaps Drudge is more wily and clever than I thought. There is an implicit syllogism underlying his argument.

The first evidence of this comes right from the headline "Media/DNC nickname..."

Drudge goes on to argue that it is both the mainstream media and the DNC/liberals that are referring to Alito as "Scalito."

Finally, the Republican strategist that calls the nickname a "derogatory racial slur."

The syllogism?

Liberals call Alito "Scalito."

The mainstream media calls Alito "Scalito."

Conservatives don't call him "Scalito."

Ergo,

Liberals and the mainstream media are the same. Conservatives and the mainstream media are different.

Now, I am probably giving Drudge too much credit for being clever. But the syllogism is there. That the mainstream media is synonymous with the liberal establishment is a mantra that Drudge has repeated to himself daily for more than ten years. It is a proposition that he unconsciously sows into all of his arguments.

I seriously doubt that liberal media bias is as pervasive as Drudge and many others make it sound. And I am convinced that many who doggedly argue that the mainstream media is just a liberal mouthpiece know that they are mischaracterizing the issue. But, like the Republican strategist in the Drudge piece, no principle is so important as to be immune from compromise when there are political points to be scored. And the "media is liberal" line has played well, plays well now, and will likely continue to play well in mobilizing the conservative base. So, the exaggeration, if not myth, goes on.

That's not to say that liberal reporters don't exist--I think most reporters are liberal. But I don't think that their views color their reporting as much as some argue.
That's also not to say that liberals/Democrats don't also compromise their principles to score political points. Only one word is needed to all but prove that point, and that word is Iraq.

Cute as a (swastika emblazoned) Button

Let's be honest. Is there anything Cuter than Hate?

ABC News is running an article on a couple of adorable little racist twins named Mary-Kate and Ashley Goebbels, er, I mean, Lynx and Lamb Gaede.
They call themselves "Prussian Blue" and they sing songs of white nationalism and racial purity--you know, stuff appropriate for their thirteen years of age.

Here's a pic of the little darlings sporting adorable matching T-Shirts. See, Hitler was really just a nice guy, like the "have a nice day" smiley face, only instead of "have a nice day" he liked to say "Jews must be exterminated."

The Gaede girls have their own website. If you doubt the depth and sincerity of their hate, go to their site, and check out the photo in the upper-lefthand corner. Look into those eyes. Now look at this shot of Hitler.

Creepy.

It seems as though the White Supremacist movement has been keeping these national(ist) treasures all to themselves.
No less an authority than "National Vanguard" wrote an article about the duo last year.

Here is an excerpt from the article--and I am not making this up:

IS THERE ANYTHING CUTER than two identical twin twelve-year-old girls who have a band together? How about if they dress in matching plaid skirts—that ups the cuteness quotient, right? And what if they perform folky versions of classic racist songs by bands like Skrewdriver and Rahowa? Whoa! Now we are heading into the cute danger zone.

(bolding mine)

Thank heavens for Freedom of Speech. I'm glad that we live in a country where people like this are allowed to run their mouths, so that the rest of us can ask "are you serious?"

Well, they are. But as frightening as ideology if this nature can be, it is mostly just pathetic. Where it once elicited fear and awe, it now seems to produce a mixture of revulsion and pity.

Why is Florida even inhabited?

Why does anyone live in Florida?

Seriously, when you combine regularly occurring catastrophic hurricanes with strange gun laws that make even Utah seem tame by comparison, with former pet pythons that are released into the wild where they reproduce at an alarming rate, regularly fight with alligators (check out this pic to see what I mean) and snatch animals of all sorts, including turkeys...after a while it makes one wonder. And this list is by no means exhaustive.
And given that Florida sounds like a place where only the strongest survive, a place that we might send Aron Ralston or Lance Armstrong or Paris Hilton, why is it populated by retirees? Are kids trying to get rid of their parents?

Maybe someone who has been there, or maybe someone who grew up in Florida, can tell me why the whole place should not be declared a federal disaster area, or a nature preserve, or given to Cuba, etc.

Anyone?