Skippy of the Day: George W. Bush (again)

I truly didn't mean this feature to dwell on Dubya so much, but he does bring it on himself. Anyway, here's the laundry list:

"This enemy attacked not just our people, but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be patient, we will be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination. ... This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win." - 9/12/01, George W. Bush

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." - 8/30/04, Interview with George W. Bush

In a speech before the national convention of the American Legion, the president will make it "crystal clear" that America will win the war on terrorism, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "Not only are we winning it, but we will win it," McClellan said in describing Bush's speech. - 8/31/2004, Article on George W. Bush

On it's surface, this is yet another flip-flop by Dubya. Well, that's what happens when he veers away from his memorized talking points and his neglected logic circuits kick in. Fortunately for him, Dubya's staff got him back in line the next day. But the damage was already done: Bush was actually caught on tape telling the truth.

But let's look at his "create conditions" part of the quote. Soon after it became clear that WMD's would not be found in Iraq, Bush began putting far more emphasis on spreading democracy in the country (You're supposed to forget his promise that if Saddam gave up all his weapons, then Dubya would leave him alone). I can see how people would like this idea, although I find it ironic when Republicans start promoting the spread of democracy in other countries when they had no interest in it before. Most of them, especially Dubya, couldn't give a damn and were coddling dictators right and left. We count among our "Coalition of the Willing" some people high up on Amnesty International's most wanted list, including Uzbekistan. I guess if you're willing to lend an airbase to us for our Iraq invasion, we'll ignore you're practice of boiling people alive.

But I digress. In terms of building a democracy in Iraq, Dubya and his administration went about it like a first time gardener with a big bank account: He used a bunch of expensive equipment and threw a lot of seeds, but didn't bother learning a damn thing about, you know, actually growing plants. The administration thought it would be simple, leading Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to state that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people and showered with rose petals. Instead, we pushed our way in, botched the reconstruction, pissed off a lot of people, and gave the country back to the people in a poor and fractured state. These are not the actions of someone who knows how to, or even cares about, rebuilding a country.

In terms of the fight against terrorism, Bush was right when he said that winning isn't even possible. What we can do is ramp up our security and make sure its tougher for terrorists to hit us. These kind of methods do not connote a "war" but rather a "struggle", which is what it is. You cannot win this struggle, which is something people didn't want to hear after 9/11. They wanted to WIN. So it became a "War on Terror" which morphed into the "Iraq War": A visual spectacle of high tech weaponry and territory occupied. So the initial invasion was won, but the subsequent occupation went back to a struggle, and people saw soldiers dying by the hundreds. They did not like this state of affairs, and still don't.

The Republicans want a world of absolutes, and that includes the safety of America. It's not happening, folks. We can do our best, but there are no guarantees. We cannot be completely safe. We cannot stamp out terrorism forever. We cannot win. Yet, we can prevail, which is not the kind of chest-thumping patriotic nonsense that Republicans like. Dubya has said before that he is a good president because he takes unpopular actions. No, I'm afraid there is an even more unpopular alternative that Dubya should take, and the step he took recently will probably be as far as he will venture down that path during an election year.

Reviews: "Victoria & Albert" (2001) (TV miniseries) and "Mrs. Brown" (1997)

Although the monarchs of old did not withstand the scrutiny and paparazzi that the current royal families do, their private lives were none-the-less the business of far too many people, many of whom worked for them. Queen Victoria, the matriarch of the British Empire who ruled for over six decades, was beloved by her people, so much in fact that she was nearly smothered by it. There have been two major filmed looks into the life of Queen Victoria in recent years, and one conveniently segues into the other, providing an interesting portrait.

"Victoria & Albert" begins shortly before she attained the throne in 1837. Victoria (Victoria Hamilton) is only 18 when she inherits the throne of England from her now deceased uncle King William IV. Her assimilation into her new job is slow but gentle. Her advisors take her hand and lead her through her now daily duties. After her first two years on the throne, her advisors endeavor to find her a husband, and they find a likely candidate in Prince Albert (Jonathan Firth) of Germany. The two shortly thereafter marry, and Albert finds himself in the awkward position of being a husband with no real duties. And this is just the first of his concerns.

The film puts aside politics almost entirely in favor of the growing love story. Albert married Victoria more for power and social advancement than anything else, and he was advised that love would come later. Victoria, on the other hand, was madly in love with him and had her suspicions of his real feelings towards her. In the end, they both practice a lot of patience in order to get what they want, and it ended up making one of the strongest royal marriages that the British have ever seen.

I have to say that, for a 200 minute miniseries, this film seemed awfully short. It seemed that there were too many thing being left unexplored. Even the children, who get a perfunctory introduction during a Christmas scene, all but disappear save eldest Bertie, who goes through the motions of a standard troubled youth subplot. I would have liked to have seen more of Victoria, as the film seemed to be more about her husband at times. Even the bookend segments, from which the story unfolds as Victoria's flashback, seemed short and slight. The character of Albert was the more interesting due to his awkward position as the Queen's husband, but I felt there was much more to Victoria's story than what was shown.

"Mrs. Brown" picks up several years after Albert's death. Victoria (Judi Dench) had famously remained in mourning in perpetuity, and instructed her staff to dress appropriately. Her advisors have begun to worry for her and soon hire a Scotsman who was a favorite of Albert's in order to take care of the horses and coax the Queen into taking in some fresh air. John Brown (Billy Connolly) is all for it, perhaps even more so than the advisors. Mr. Brown turns out to be a very stubborn and arrogant sonfoabitch, indeed. Almost immediately, he takes steps to become the Queens chief confidant and servant. He takes the place at the head of the servant's table and orders other people around, including the Queen's son. He devotes himself utterly to her, approaching a level of paranoia later in his life.

If Victoria's staff were nervous about a German prince possibly meddling with state affairs, one can imagine how they felt about John Brown. Brown succeeds in drawing Victoria out of her funk, albeit without a change in mourning clothes. Victoria begins to see him as an extension of Albert as he is the only one brave enough to question her prolonged mourning. It was this ability and enthusiasm to challenge her that she heavily relied on, until he made one request too many, and he was downgraded to just one of the servants. We do not see how this affects Victoria, but John Brown takes his broken heart and simply devotes himself to her even more, hoping that the devotion itself is enough for him to go on.

Judi Dench, the grand Dame of British film, can play a queen in her sleep. Billy Connolly, however, is the one that really shines. The former stand up comedian has gone into more and more interesting waters acting-wise in his progressing career. Although the second film is named for Victoria (rather, the mocking nickname that people gave her after she began her controversial relationship), I find myself more intrigued with Mr. Brown. Much like Victoria's staff, the audience finds itself asking, "Who is this mad Scotsman?". It's a fair question. What makes him intriguing is that we never really get to know him completely. He's a three dimensional man who's motives, aside from serving his queen, are not clear. Did he see himself as merely a subject, best friend or defacto husband? Trying to read this man is the most enjoyable aspect of the film, and Connolly makes it possible.

Queen Victoria ended up having two strong men in her life, ones that she turned to for solace, comfort, advice and trust. We learn a great deal about them and a little less about the Queen. I'm very glad to have met Albert and John, but they have had their day in the sun. I yearn now to learn more about Victoria herself.

"Victoria & Albert" - Seven out of Ten
"Mrs. Brown" - Eight out of Ten

Discworld and Lucasworld

It's weird how you sometimes look for simple, well presented information on the net and have such a hard time finding it. It took me about 20 to 30 minutes this morning to find a webpage with Discworld character profiles for my earlier post. And because the site is so well made, here's a second link, this time to the homepage.

Similarly, I came across this page earlier. It has a very simple breakdown and analysis of the changes made to the original Star Wars trilogy coming out on DVD next month. For me, the completely changed Jabba's place band and song is what pissed me off the most. But there's alot more to hate amongst what is listed, and the author who wrote it does a pretty good analysis.

This may be the last post until Saturday, so have fun with the links.

Mythical beasts and other housepets

After fiddling with our digital camera and the photo editor, I have finally finished off the photos for the right side of the blog.

The fourth picture is of our two cats, Gandalf and Ozymandias. Before she met me, Mrs. Mosley had another cat she named Theadosia. It has been a tradition of hers to name her cats unique quasi-mythical sounding names. I've been very happy to continue this tradition with her.

Pictures of our future pets, Mononoke, Dumbledore, and Ridcully will be posted as soon as they become available.

Review: "Robin And Marian" (1976)

To paraphrase Douglas MacArthur, heroes do not die, but rather fade away. At the end of "The Adventures of Robin Hood", we see Errol Flynn take Olivia de Havilland in his arms and run off, presumably, into the sunset. Actually, most of the movie versions of the Robin Hood tale end this way, with Robin fading away with his lady fair. But, if the cinema of the Seventies taught us anything, it is that even our most revered heroes can be flawed and that nothing in life is as easily wrapped up as in a Hollywood ending.

We begin "Robin and Marian" many years after Robin Hood helped Richard the Lionhearted retain his throne from the treacherous Prince John. Now Robin (Sean Connery) and Little John find themselves in the desert wastes of Arabia helping to fight the Crusades, and they have both become frustrated by the war and their King. Robin and Little John soon return to England only to find it a changed landscape. Sherwood is overgrown, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Robert Shaw)is effectively running things, and his merry men are fewer and much older since they left. Most surprising of all, Marian (Audrey Hepburn) is now a nun inside a convent. Robin now slowly realizes that you can never go home again.

James Goldman, who also wrote my favorite film "The Lion in Winter", covers familiar territory here. As in that previous film, this is the story of two larger-than-life people who are approaching their twilight years. Unlike that film, the dialogue here is not as snarky or clever, which is probably for the best. Also unlike "The Lion in Winter" is how these characters fight themselves more than eachother. They are coming to grips with growing older in a changing world, and all three of the main characters have different ways of tackling that problem.

For the roles of Robin and Marian, you can hardly do better that the charismatic powerhouse of Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn. They have a tender chemistry together, not unlike Peter O'toole and the other Hepburn during the quieter scenes of "The Lion in Winter". At the time it was made, this was Audrey Hepburn's first film in nine years. Audiences then were treated to the sight of a young beauty who had grown old gracefully and had lost none of the magnetism she had decades before.

Like the aging characters themselves, the movie can tend to be slow and awkward on its feet. I would fault the film for this, but I believe that it is intentional. Director Richard Lester wanted this movie to be the opposite of previous Robin Hood tales by showing the brutal reality of these characters. Nothing that they plan, whether it is the escape from a castle or a final battle with the Sheriff's men, goes as well as they hope. It's an entirely different Robin, and some may be turned off by it. But for others, they will be rewarded with this wonderful tale of what happens to legends and heroes.

For true fans of Robin Hood, this film just has to be seen. It is a tribute to the stories that many of us grew up with and, like those stories, will not easily be forgotten.

Eight out of Ten

Skippy(s) of the Day: Joe Ponder, Ken Cordier & Paul Gallanti

What was once a fringe group out to discredit John Kerry, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth now have name recognition in ways they never imagined. In one of their ads, two of their group talk about Kerry's testimony before Congress concerning atrocities he witnessed being committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. The transcript of the ad follows:

John Kerry: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. . ."
Joe Ponder: "The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating."
John Kerry: ". . . randomly shot at civilians. . ."
Joe Ponder: "It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had."
John Kerry: ". . . cut off limbs, blown up bodies. . ."
Ken Cordier: "That was part of the torture, was, uh, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes."
John Kerry: ". . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan. . ."
Paul Gallanti: "John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us."
John Kerry: ". . . crimes committed on a day to day basis. . . "
Ken Cordier: "He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?"
John Kerry: ". . . ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
Paul Gallanti: "He dishonored his country, and, uh, more, more importantly the people he served with. He just sold them out."

One thing becomes obvious right from the get-go in this ad: They are not questioning the claims themselves, but the fact that Kerry made them. By this notable omission, they are accepting the fact that atrocities did occur in Vietnam. So given this, and the fact that the subject has been thoroughly researched and written about in the 30 year interim, let's just take the atrocities as indisputable for the sake of this discussion.

Unity is vital to the armed forces, especially in times of war, but it has its limits. People in law enforcement and the military believe in standing by their own and defending each other, even when one or more of their number are criminals and guilty as sin. These people wish to project an image of invulnerability and strength. The reality of such institutions, which are composed of human beings and therefore fallible, is anything but.

When a crime is committed by a member of such an organization, the powers-that-be usually handle it from within or, tragically, look the other way. What should happen is it should be made public. The punishment should be swift and visible to all. Show people that such behavior will not be tolerated. A display such as this will convey the image of an institution which is willing to recognize mistakes and correct them. This is a true show of strength.

Now let's look at these statements one by one, shall we?

"The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating. It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had."

Kerry was not fingering all soldiers for these crimes. When Joe Ponder complains of being hurt, either he is confusing the whole group with the bad apples, or he has some things he did in Vietnam he's not proud of. If the later is true, then his guilty conscience has nothing to do with Kerry.

"That was part of the torture, was, uh, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes."

Those who signed statements did so not because of John Kerry, but because of being tortured by their captors. If their spirit was so broken by simply signing a piece of paper under coercion (and it's not like the International Court was high on their worry list at the time), then what else could the captors have done to them? Does that mean they would stop believing in God if they were forced to sign a paper stating such? Would they forever feel like traitors to their country if forced to urinate on the American flag?

The prisoners of Abu Ghraib were forced to place shoes in their mouths and pantomime homosexual acts. They were forced to do these particular things because they are anathema to the Muslim faith. For those who survived the prison, do you think for a moment that they have they stopped believing? No. Faith is stronger than that. Apparently, Ken Cordier's more upset at signing a meaningless piece of paper than knowing of hundreds being slaughtered like cattle.

"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us."

John Kerry was telling the truth. It's not like Kerry was giving out battle strategies or any information that was valuable to the enemy. He was stating to the American people what they probably didn't know and what the people fighting on both sides in Vietnam probably already knew. Their captors wanted confirmation of this. If the prisoners were innocent, they could say so and that would be that. I'm not naive enough to claim that this would end their torture. However, they could go on with a clear conscience. This may not sound like much, but I imagine that there was little else for the soldiers kept captive to hold onto.

"He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?"

Again, he is confusing the whole military with the criminals, unless he is of the later as well as the former.

"He dishonored his country, and, uh, more, more importantly the people he served with. He just sold them out."

No, Mr. Gallanti, he was serving his country in yet another capacity: As it's conscience. He witnessed soldiers mad with blood thirst, and he stood up and said that this must stop because this is not what this country stands for. It made some people uncomfortable to hear all this from Kerry and they condemned him for it. And regarding those people, I'm sure Mr. Kerry didn't very much give a damn. Neither do I.

Eventually, we must ask ourselves what would have happened if Kerry had not spoken out, as these veterans would have preferred? The old adage of Evil occurring when good men stay silent applies here. He could have looked the other way in respect to the actions of his fellow soldiers, but that would not have made the army any stronger or made the war more successful. These men might, might have been spared an iota of their torture at the possible expense of more civilian casualties in Vietnam. I guess we all have our priorities.

The true dishonor lies with the soldiers that committed the crimes, and the Swift Boat Vets should be angry with them and not at Kerry. Instead, they appear on talk shows and denounce a brave soldier simply because they don't believe in his current politics. It is a tragedy to see that misguided gleam in their eye as they yearn to shoot the messenger.