California = Everybody

A recent Senate bill, introduced on May 20, will be doing something California didn't even want to do: limit tobacco products. In reading the bill, you will notices this tidbit in Section 907.a.1:

A cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the Secretary's authority to take action under this section or other sections of this Act applicable to menthol or any artificial or natural flavor, herb, or spice not specified in this paragraph.

Phillip Morris is backing this bill as well. Interestingly, menthol cigarettes are specifically included. My favorite on here is Clove. All the rest of the flavors are interesting, but clove, the choice for goths, is the most interesting as nobody really cares for them all that much. Many people regard cloves as harsh, even though they smoke them.

The bill is supposed to keep cigarettes tasting like tobacco, instead of flavors like Kool's new flavors from Brown and Williamson, so kids do not start smoking them, especially for their smooth flavors. Hrm. Are tobacco lobbyists using government legislature to do their competition work for them? Sounds like a raw deal to me.

Another article on it.

Bush, The Christian

Here's a factoid I only recently learned. President Bush wrote an executive order (he likes those) to help out faith-based organizations. Well, while church and state generally don't mix, some of them need funding. But, guess what? Bush is a Christian. And, though his policy makes no attempt to say whether it will be biased or evenly distributed among the faiths, homework dictates otherwise.

This factoid shares that the government does indeed give out $24 million dollars to Intermediary Faith Based Organizations. Who are the intermediaries? Here's a list from the same website. If you notice, there are several christian/catholic-specific charities that get money. However, there are no Jewish charities which get any money. No Muslim charities, no Buddhist charities. Only Christian charities. The closest is stuff like state or university funds for non-profits or interfaith organizations, but they never get tied up with Jewish ones either.

I have more of a problem with the anti-Semetic distribution of this than the actual giving of money, because they do do some good for the communities in which they reside. More evidence that Bush needs to be dealt with and fast.

Religion Understands Not Hollywood

Yesterday, the movie Saved!, a movie about mean students at a Christian academy, came out in limited release (LA/NY/Chicago?). It is actually about a girl who tries to save her boyfriend from his homosexual tendencies only to become pregnant herself, and ostracized from school. So, guess what? The conservatives are having a field day wth hating this movie, even to the point of getting so flustered they don't do any research.

Yesterday, the movie Raising Helen, a movie in which a young aunt suddenly becomes the guardian of her now-deceased sister's three children, and also falls in love with the hot and hunky pastor, was also released.

National Review only reviewed Raising Helen (which, by the way, got a 23% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning 23% of the reviewers liked it), and liked it, or at least liked Pastor Dan. Another National Review article also commented on Pastor Dan, and liked him alot too. They both believe that Pastors have been either used for faddish methods (horror movies) or "sadistic, hypocritical killjoys," and even mentions Heathers in that vein. For those of you who don't remember, this Pastor was just a cynical preacher at funerals.

Front Page Magazine, on the other hand, attacked Saved! as being typical of Hollywood's treatment of religion. This is what gets the ire of the conservatives, I guess. He lists off some movies, most of which aren't really Hollywood, but independent. The "Hollywood" movies he names are, The Last Temptation of Christ, Priest, Dogma, The Magdalene Sisters, The Order, Stigmata, The Saint, The Basketball Diaries, and Heaven Help Us. Last Temptation is one of those classic stories of not being a Hollywood movie. It is Martin Scorcese directing an art film challenging faith as we know it, but still being relatively honest in its dealings with religion. In fact, I imagine it caused more than just me to question their agnosticism. As soon as word got out he was making it, he lost his funding for the movie and had to go completely independent early on. Priest is British, as in The Magdalene Sisters. In fact, The Magdalene Sisters is a historical movie, and not supposed to be all that fictionalized, if at all. Which brings us to the independent The Basketball Diaries, which was also based on biographical writings.

Mr. Feder also says two really really strange dealings which lead me to believe that Christianity and Catholicism is a cult. The first is that Hollywood pushes the concept of gender sameness, where gender roles are socially imposed instead of reality based. As most people know, a gender role is socially imposed, though some of it might be genetic. One only has to look at the wide range of females in my family (and in theirs too, probably) to know that gender roles aren't exactly everything. Especially with so many women becoming financially independent and secure... The other thing he writes is Hollywood's agenda, which the Conservatives are trying to stop, includes "a contraceptive culture, erotic indoctrination masquerading as sex education" (not to mention "abortion on demand"). Is there anything wrong with a contraceptive culture? People worldwide, throughout the ages, have been having pre-marital sex, and getting pregnant. Hence, a shotgun wedding, or various other euphemisms. As for the erotic indoctrination, I don't know about you, but I didn't learn how to give/recieve blow jobs, eat out a girl, or various positions in my class. We saw sterile drawings of a penis entering a vagina, and spewing without thrusting. We also saw genetalia with STDs. MMM, nothing gets me hornier than a wart covered vagina.

And, though it is only one case, Keeping the Faith, for all its suckiness, was missed by all three writers. This is the Ben Stiller and Edward Norton movie about a priest and a rabbi pining for the same girl. It was really slow, and should have been half and hour shorter, but alot of people really liked it. It wasn't demeaning to either religion, and it was actually a sweet movie. I didn't like it though.

So, with a distinct lack of research, and they're religious movie knowledge being based on the bottom of the barrel (Stigmata?!), the Conservatives are basically retarded and need to be Saved!

Game

So, I know this isn't much of an update, but here's an extremely biased video game against Bush. It provides some fun facts about how Bush trashed our economy, and the fun facts regarding who gets his tax cuts.

Culture, Politics, Religion, the works!

I just got back from seeing Life of Brian at Main Art. Yes, its like the 299384th time I've watched the movie, but it is brilliant. If you haven't seen it yet, run and rent it. It's on an old transfer DVD, as well as Criterion. (note: before you all go buy new ones, the new print still looks just as gritty and grainy as the Criterion edition does).

Anyways, the last time I actually watched the movie was back when I had taken the Kubrick class, at least (if not before that even). This was post-9/11, but not in the middle of the war. Or, maybe I just never understood the scene (which is actually entirely possible), but when the People's Front of Judea are going through the tunnels to kidnap Pilate's wife, they use the word terrorist quite a bit. And, there are alot of weird parallels to the whole American occupation of Iraq. Honestly, if you haven't watched the movie in awhile, it is now a good time to go back to it.

Because, part of the movie is about how Brian gets tangled in insurgent uprisings to get rid of the Romans, who are currently occupying the Jew's land. There is the comment, "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Which completely reminds me of the liberals saying what have the Americans done for the Iraqis, besides get rid of Saddam Hussein, build schools, water, etc.

This is also noted by the political correctness of the Jewish insurgents, except for the leader..."Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies." It is really weird watching the movie at this point in time. How a propos that it is coming out this year for its 25th anniversary, just after The Passion, and in this time of war in the Middle East.

I should also note that for the first time, I watched Eddie Izzard's 1999 stand-up comedy show Dress to Kill last night. For those who don't know, Izzard is a British "executive/action tranvestite" who is quite intelligent and insightful. He had some cunning remarks on everything: culture, politics, and religion. He commented on the Islamic people and how they don't go around Jihading everybody. He commented on the CoE having the basis of being for divorce. He commented on Empires, and how Britain took over India (Well, you don't have a flag, and we do. Its a rule we just made up). It's really fast paced and quite witty, I suggest people take a look at it.

Go to church you heathen

Here's a neat idea. Church for the internet-addicted.

The Conservative Bias

So, I'm still having that major debate over at Anti-com on bias in the media, and when it becomes irresponsible. Well, here's something for irresponsibility:

Armed forces are given the option of silence or Rush Limbaugh. Now, honestly, is this really responsible airtime? The only good reason for this is that Liberals are against the war, while Limbaugh is for the war. I personally don't think that liberals should be aired over armed forces radio, simply because of the demoralization of our troops. I certainly don't want mindless drones there, but I don't want them to think that there is a rather large selection of Americans who are not behind them. Its hard enough being at war without having to hear that.

I propose no talk radio whatsoever. The army should supply them with news, Headline News-style, if they choose. The usage of Rush Limbaugh as a source of opinion in the nation is just like piping in a steady stream of Michael Moore, if not worse. And, conservatives would hate that idea.

Bashing Your Brains In

OOO, political wars are trying to hit movie theaters.

In the red corner, we have Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 trying to catch a distributor.

In the blue corner, we have a new film, underground you might say, Michael Moore Hates America, a critical look at Michael Moore and his politics, as well as a search for the American Dream (yeah, right).

In all honesty, I'm totally digging Mike Wilson in that he is going a bit post-modern by making a documentary analyzing documentaries. It reminds me of that movie Games People Play, except this one won't just say I'm fake and you don't know what is real at the end, or will it? Either way it sounds like massive fun. Check it out, and spread the word.

Mommy, What's plagiarism

Rape and pillage the first episode, just change the order a bit. Those sons of bitches out there ain't gonna know the difference. All that shit is just filler for the interview anyway. We film a new intro. Show some old footage from the first episode so they get a brief history of Mickey and Mallory. We introduce a new angle... - Wayne Gale, Natural Born Killers

Repetition works, David. Repetition works, David. - Wayne Gale, Natural Born Killers

Dubya just put forth his best effort to save his own ass, and it wasn't an effort. I couldn't help but think of NBK as I was watching the bullshit spew from his mouth as he basically repeated the same exact things he has been saying for a long-fucking times.

Here are the new additions:
Abu Ghraib prison will be torn down, and a new maximum-security prison will be put up in its place (probably with more security to protect film from escaping the prison)
We are keeping the level of troops at 138,000 instead of slowly pulling out of Iraq.

I think thats about it. The five steps he outlined, otherwise, were: Giving sovereignty to Iraq, establishing Iraqi security, Continue Rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, Getting the international community to help out, and just generally moving to the free election by January. He reminds us that the violence will further spike, and that we have indeed lost quite a few of Saddam's higher ranked officers and loyalists into foreign terrorist cells.

Oh, did I mention the further exploitation of Nick Berg, even thouh he wasn't mentioned by name. And, he was only getting ready to be killed, though Al Zarqawi was only suspected to be the man with the knife. (I still think that the video was faked with further evidence here)

So, Bush said nothing new, and nothing new was all it was. *sigh* He hinted that Iraq was the central point of the terrorist organizations, and if we win in Iraq we almost win everywhere, which is a major fallacy. He doesn't hint that we will be applying pressure in any of the other surrounding countries to release the terrorist cells. He doesn't hint that we will be doing anything after we get Iraq settled, really. But, then, the speech, I guess, was supposedly only on Iraq, not on the war on terror as a whole.

It seems that Bush's speech writers are working from the same ideology that Wayne Gale worked on to manipulate the audience for ratings in 1994's Natural Born Killers (both scripts: Tarantino's and Stone's). What a gyp.

Media Censorship

Cable television is the bastion for intelligent people who can afford it. But, some people still cannot afford cable, and must resort to the biased networks for their news source. So, what's happening tonight?

Bush is giving a speech on his plans of Iraq, which may actually make or break the election next year (unless he pulls a Kerry). The problem is that he may say something of importance and weight for the first time in ages, but the networks are not going to air the shows. Or, at least the major networks: Fox, NBC, ABC (and probably CBS) have all decided not to air tonight's speech in order to keep the public entertained and distracted by whatever mindless shit they have scheduled normally.

Is this a political move? If Fox was still airing the speech, I would say, you bet your ass it is. But, since every one of the stations have decided to keep the public mindless, its not even political It is a financially motivated move at the end of sweeps month. Fox is, however, giving the affiliates (read local carriers) the option of carrying the speech, though I am sure there is incentive to do otherwise.

Luckily Fox News, MSNBC, and the likes will be carrying the speech.

New Icon

So, I just got a new Icon. It is John Waters meets Better Bowers with a limpwristed Bush with Farrah Fawcett hair.

OLD:


NEW


I'm kind of leaning towards the old one still. The new one in bigger format is shown now:



Also, I'm not sure why I haven't posted this on here, but I'm LJ-cutting it again:

Cinematic Punditry

Background
Its not altogether unseen, but definately rare, when a movie wins awards before it has a domestic distruibuter (by domestic I mean within its own country). One of the biggest cases I have seen of this type of award-giving is in 1984/85 with the release of Brazil, when Terry Gilliam had a contract to release his big art-house movie at under 120 minutes, and it actually was 132 minutes. This caused a now-legendary fight between Gilliam and Universal Studios (specifically Sidney Sheinberg) leading to Universal's re-editing and withholding of the film for over a year, and Gilliam's campaign to keep control. While fighting for control, Gilliam made the move of showing it underground, especially to film critics, and ended up winning the L.A. Film Critic's award.

The latest misadventure in cinematic manuverings is the piece of punditry (with exaggerated, unfair, or fictional elements) from Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 911 (slogan, "The Temperature Where Freedom Burns"). As most people know by now, Disney, when Moore had proposed said movie, had originally said that they were not going to distribute the movie. However, Disney and Miramax gave Moore 4._ million dollars to make the movie, and when it was finished, Disney decided not to release it. This, of course, provides great fodder for publicity.

NEW INFORMATION

Before I lose you all by exploiting my cinematic knowledge, here is the latest update: Fahrenheit 911 has won Cannes Film Festival's Palme D'Or. For those of you who don't know, Cannes is a major annual international film festival held in Cannes, France (Mediterannean Coast). At the end of the festival, the Jury gives out awards to whomever they consider to be the best movie. Past winners of the Palme D'Or include Elephant (last year's awesome reaction to Columbine), The Pianist (Roman Polanski's look at life as a Jew under Polish Nazi occupation), Pulp Fiction, M*A*S*H, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver. Also, it does make mistakes, such as Wild At Heart, David Lynch's abhorable movie with Nicholas Cage.

This year, the jury was headed by Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, duh...), and the rest of the jury represented a few different countries. The jurors includes:

Benoit Poelvadore (C'est Arrive Pres de Chez Vous aka Man Bites Dog, director and killer, Belgian)

Edwidge Danticat (a black female writer from Haiti who became a US citizen at age 12)

Emmanuelle Beart (female French actress, star of 8 Women [murderous singing lesbians] and Mission: Impossible)

Jerry Schatzberg (Finnish director, most famous for early works with Al Pacino, Scarecrow, and The Panic in Needle Park)

Kathleen Turner (American Actress, The War of the Roses)

Peter Von Bagh (Finnish Film Critic)

Tilda Swinton (British actress, Adaptation., and Vanilla Sky)

Tsui Hark (Vietnamese martial arts director, obviously a Tarantino choice)

So, 1 French, 2 Fins, 1 Belgian, 1 Brit, 1 Vietnamese and 3 Americans decided that Fahrenheit 911 was the best movie of the festival. Fox News, with its fair and balanced reporting, blames it all on the French. Especially with Tarantino heading the troops, and 2 violent directors (Man Bites Dog is one of the most vicious movies I have ever seen), I highly doubt that it was just the French who were thumbing their noses at America through Michael Moore.

However, if this is anything like the Brazil situation, this should make it easier to either force Disney to distribute it or give Miramax enough oomph to buy it back and find another distributor. For some reason, everybody trusts film festival awards to at least pick out entertaining films (Pulp Fiction was so much better than that piece of shit Forrest Gump which won at the Oscars).

So, with any hope, this piece of cinematic punditry will make its way onto film screens sometime in the near future, and we can see all the glory that Michael Moore tends to use. Well, at least his movies are downright entertaining. Good work Cannes.

Election Choices

Ahhh yes, its that year again. That year where politics take a back seat to stumbling over tongues, pandering, and mudslinging. You know the year, its called election year.

This year, we have two frontrunners, George Dubya Bush (Incumbent) and John Kerry (Incumbent asshole). Our disillusioned candidates so far are Ralph Nader, and (in some cases) Lyndon LaRouche.

On the liberal side, we have irresponsible reporting from Kristin V. Jones, over at The Nation, regarding punks (starting with old-school goth dropout, and Ministry frontman, Al Jourgensen) and politics. Everything she writes is of the creepiest kind. Sure, I appreciate stuff like Punks Against Bush, and I'm even partially A.B.B. myself, but these kids know absolutely nothing about Kerry or Nader. And, while I am not for Bush, I'm not for Kerry either. These kids get signed up with cool hip shirts like, "Vote F*cker" and then vote for the president they are told to vote for, not an educated vote.

On a similar deluded note, strip clubs now have voter registration tables. Come in, sign up to vote against Bush (in Wisconsin), and get a lap dance. *shrug* Even the owners are getting into it. But, these places are straight strip joints. If they were gay strip joints, that's where I would see Bush stepping in. Dick and alcohol just don't mix, or something like that. But, I know that Bush and his cronies are probably frequent users of strip clubs (or were frequent users) especially given that the more conservative people I know generally go to strip clubs fairly freely (and in some cases regularly).

Besides all of this, we have the GOP bus doing the same types of things. But, at least the kids have a chance of hearing the president talk (unless they're kept out of the rallies).

Then, there is Ralph Nader. Nader and Kerry met this week, and Kerry isn't dissuading Nader from the trail, at least not yet (I'm waiting for another classic flip-flop). He is telling voters that their vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. But, they must not know much about the electoral process because, if Nader actually gets some electoral votes (HAH!) and Bush and Kerry still reign in, then we'd have difficulties. But, there have historically never been any three party runnings, really. Besides, Nader has been too quiet so far, though we still have 6 months.

But, still, Kerry has been doing his classic moves this week, announcing that he may elect anti-abortion judges, then flipping on the statement. I don't like Kerry one bit, and I never have. He's always seemed quite slimy.

But, then there's Bush and his administration. Let me just say, Ugh. Between the media censoring of the liberals that has been occuring under him (Farhenheit 911, Howard Stern, etc), his botching of Iraq (and his thinking they're ready to recieve power, though our war isn't finished...and don't you even think that just because we're not fighting the Iraqis that we shouldn't have control of the place until we're done), his abhorable stances on gay marriage, his view on the economy, budgets, taxes, etc...Well

And, LaRouche. I've said enough about him, look below. I'll be looking more into him though he's guilty of mind control tactics worthy of Jonestown or Manson minus the war. I love the guy for his efforts though. I wonder if everybody is as cynical about it as I am. I am getting calls from the LaRouche youth office to go to meetings and maybe I'll join the cult for awhile. It should be fun. :-)

So, there you have it. Clowns and jokers, the lot of them.

The Blood-Stained Bride

We fired upon and bombed a wedding party over in the Middle East today. Fox News (I know I know, biased as all hell) and CNN both give reports thst the military say that the wedding party were shooting at planes and at soldiers at 3am (middle of the night). They have also found a good stockpile of weapons.

It makes me wonder, should I get a militia group and have them dress all in tuxedos and wedding dresses?

Idle Worship

Let me talk about Lyndon LaRouche for a minute. It was on Thursday (you can scroll down a few entries on this journal) that I was in Ann Arbor and was pulled into a discussion for Lyndon LaRouche. It was an awesome holistically political discussion that ranked from geometry to GEB (I fucking love that book) to Shakespeare to LaRouche's economic strategy.

But, since this was only from the grassroots operations of the kid, I have been slightly reading up on the guy. Mind you, I haven't delved very deeply into his politics, having too much fun being a media analyst (I wonder what one has to do to get paid to be one of those) over at Anti-com.com (p.s. Check out my Gojira reference, its too funny). Yeah, I sound a bit cocky, fuck you all.

Anyways, I was reading up on LaRouche, so I should mention what I discovered originally.

First, there is LaRouche's Youth Movement website. It has a list of classic (read required) reading throughout history, including Riemann (Riemann sums are fun, Plato, Dante (WTF?! The work is an awesome piece of bile (having trudged through the first 6 levels of Hell), but I would never think that understanding it helps out politics in any way, shape, or form), and Homer (for the melodramatics, I suppose...as a side note, I'm reading The Iliad right now, so funny). Their Classes section included everything from economics to "Suicide, sex and the preconsciousness" to "Why Modern Art Sucks."

OKOK so that's just the youth movement page. Let's check out his own shit.

First we have the Southeast Asia Doctrine, in which he says very little other than I have the solution. At times it sounds semi-similar to ideas Vic had been saying in this Anti-com post, only much much much vaguer, while at other times it sounds completely contrary. He has some awesome moments, such as "unless that statement, as crafted by me, is considered," as well as the finale of the piece. Oh yes, Larouche is no dummy, he knows how to finish off saying not much. He doesn't say very much, has a point with many sub-points (readers are likely to skim), then finishes with two sections of grandioseness. And, my favorite, the webcast event, The Keys to Peace which says absolutely nothing except what he percieves as happening to the economy, oh and that he is awesome. Which could be true, but, then, I'm not an economist.

Then, the third piece of evidence against LaRouche is National Review's condemnation of everything LaRouche and his newsletter bases their ideas on as conspiracy theories and lies. Whcih still makes me laugh a bit.

So, maybe I'll vote LaRouche because he's interesting, smart, paranoid, egomaniacal, or at least different from the other two bozos currently running. He's not looking to be dictator though...he's 85, he can't do that.

ed's note: The issue here is that, as a pervert, I naturally decided to go to the sex as psychoanalytical discussion. Over half of the mp3 is not about sex. Though, look up Larouche in The Guardian on July 12. The Speaker is using alot of different techniques which are quite commonplace in manipulators at the end. "Don't hang out with those LaRouche Guys. Listen to mommy. And that leads us into psychosexual impotence." I love these people. I love cults, because he was talking about groups like the cult awareness network, the drug MK Ultra and LSD testing, and AFF. This guy is just purely awesome. "What makes you psychosexually impotent is if you don't feel like dealing with another person's mind in a serious way."

"In front of 10,000 people he started imitating himself masturbation, he may not have been imitating, I dunno he hanged himself later...Michel Fukoh said the only honest non-fantasized sexual relationship you can have is masturbation, because then at least you know you love the person you're having sex with...Essentially what he's saying is that you take the subjective out of sex. And that's how you overcome the Freud problem of non-mediated relationship with another being. You know its fantasy, so go ahead and do it, just make sure you know its fantasy. Now the point Phil is making on the, the point Lyn has always been making on this is that the problem with people becoming leaders is dishonesty on every single level. You're telling people 'trust me, I'm telling you the truth. Give your life to this cause' And then, two minutes later, you're staring at their crotch. I'm serious. Never happens in organizing? Hm...The question of psychosexual impotence is that that's going on and you try to pretend it's not happening, meanwhile you're not organizing the person because its like you don't have another person in front of you, you have a sexual organ in front of you."

And the dud lets out gas...

I feel I have a sort of responsibility of talking about the new find of sarin gas. It seems that everything is flying over the new discovery.

For those of you who have your heads in the sand, the US military had a shell explode near them, and it had been loaded with sarin gas. They originally had said "trace ammounts of sarin gas." Even after a day or two, they still said "trace amounts of sarin gas." Recently, they have said 4 Liters of sarin gas were in the explosive. Apparently, it was one of those ones where you mix it to make it toxic.

Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but I feel that they are grasping for straws. Finding one stray shell to validate their vain continuing search for WMDs seems a bit suspicious, since they hadn't even found it if it hadn't have exploded. To me, the timing seems a bit too calculated with Bush's approval drop as well. I might even be prepped to believe there wasn't a shell since we haven't seen it yet. We aren't given evidence other than press reports that it exists. We only have the word from Bush's administration, and the fraudulent reports of WMDs surely back up his word to be true, right?

Even if it does exist, I still wouldn't lean towards UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix when he says that it isn't evidence of stockpiling. That seems too suspect as well.

Ideal-ogies

Friday, I got to the bar ealy, and had avoided a cover charge. While at the bar, I decided to read Metrotimes until either a)some people showed up or b)there was some good music. While reading Metrotimes, I ran across a piece of information of idea censorship, only this time its from the right.

Yes, ladies and germs, The Nation via Metrotimes reported that the College Republicans of Kalamazoo College combined with the evil Bush-Cheney campaign team to block entrance to a Bush rally. They prevented seven individuals, most of whom apparently are outspoken members of the Left, from entering Bush's campaign rally. They were apparently fingered by the group an barred entrance from the rally, though they were not armed with even the minorest of offenses, like signs or weapons.

At U of M, back in October, when I attended the Michael Moore book/political rally, something not-so-similar happened. People from the Student Republicans (or some other nasty right wing group) had come in with signs even. They made it all the way to their seats. Interetingly, Phil and I were in the same row in the balcony with them to witness this first hand. They, however, put the signs up over the edge of the balcony, in what I thought was pretty solid and secure state. Especially if they held them throughout the rally. But, it wasn't meant to be, as the lady had to tell them they couldn't have their signs up on the balcony, but they were allowed to stay.

On a more hilarious note (and also what reminded me of this), was I saw the video and images from Anti-com.com's answer to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s March 20th March for Peace. The humor in putting this in the same post as the one from Metrotimes is that the "unjust authority of _______'s censor" is not limited to the left. The right participates in censoring just as much as the left, and in the end, we are all just trying to infiltrate and corrupt somebody else. EXCEPT, the major difference (and the injustice) is that one group was barred completely from peacefully hearing the President speak, while the other was barred from voicing their own opinion contrary to the purpose of the intended rally.

As a personal aside, I'm against censorship of all sides, and I'm for the disruption of both sides. If the right ever rallied (which they tend not to do with their influence in high circles, and a general respect for people who don't want to hear it), I'd be all for infiltrating their rallies too.

Fucking bastards, the lot of them.

The Right Wing Delusion

"Anybody can make up statistics to prove a point. 14% of the people know that." - Homer Simpson

Recently, the AP reported that Bush's economic approval may be tied to his war approval. They said that as the approval for his handling of Iraq goes down, so does the opinion of how he handles the economy as well as the job market. This is as nonsensical, as well as sad but true, as the right wing's faith in Donald Rumsfeld that he can recover from the drastically misled war to bring us to a victory.

I've been looking at some of the conservative and liberal websites, and little has been said about the reparations which Rumsfeld and the administration are planning on giving to the Iraqi abuse victims. It makes me wonder if the liberals are happy with the idea that we are throwing money after the victims of our own abuse, and if the conservatives are just mildly unhappy because they have to do something to right their wrongs.

The problem is that there is no logic to the idea of these reparations. It reminds me of bad parents who, instead of going to games or spending time with their kids, just give them money. Just as we abused them, we hope this here payment will help make things alright for the damage done both physically and mentally to your brain. Which brings up the question, "what is the price of a soul?"

But, then, I'm not here to argue in support of these reparations, I am here to criticize Rumsfeld and Bush (and by Bush, I mean Cheney). This war we have here is started. I want all of you to face it. If you're a liberal wanting us to pull out of Iraq, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that, as a nation, we started something that we cannot stop until it is over. A war isn't just some willy-nilly action that one can go in with even the shakiest of reasons, and, considering I, a once-out-of-the-loop college student, was against the war based on WMDs and whatever other minor illogical reasons Bush was giving that liberals ae currently harping on him for, then you should have been too. You can't just say, "well, I'm sorry, we were mistaken. Here's some money. Have a good life" and then pull out the military without a)being seen as a rash, illogical and cold-hearted bitch as well as b)losing further standing as a world power, in a world growing scarier by the impending and growing powers of China (why can't it be Japan? they have cooler shit).

Now that all of you are hopefully coming to terms with the idea that Dubya and his cronies got us into a giant mess from which we are not so easily extracted, you have to come to terms with where our mistakes have been. The problem is that, though Bush has said that policy should not be dictated by popular opinion, Rumsfeld's war was enhanced by the liberal leanings. While I believe Bush is wrong about policies, war is something best left for the cold brutal people who can handle the harsh reality of massive destruction. Having played games of Stratego and various other war simulators, one comes to realize that by going in in minor amounts always leads to the diminuation of the nations soldiers as well as the total defeat of the first attack wave. Yet, when it came to Iraq, we did not go in all gung-ho and defeat the terrorist cells. We did not send investigators or border patrols there by the millions. And, like it or not, this was a large influence of the liberal thinking.

Rumsfeld was the head of this war. He designed the war, and executed it. He was the one who fucked it all up. To me, the length of the war as well as the messy execution of the war is strike one for ole Rummy.

The second strike, to me, isn't really a strike. But, a large portion of our nation, including many of the conservatives, consider this a major strike. Rumsfeld knew of and approved the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. That link is a Wired link which also links to The New Yorker about a story being released today (or next Monday) regarding Rumsfeld's full knowledge of the policies leading to the abuse shown in the photographs.

This leads to Rummy's third strike: the reparations given to the Abu Ghraib abuse victims. I summed it up shortly in a little footnote two political links ago (maybe I'll start a politics only journal). Some papers report on the positive effects it has for the American side, like Washington Post's article on a former victim turned US guard. To me, that sounds alot like the way the Nazis scared people, including the Jews, into becoming an MP. Other groups are not reacting so positively(?) by going with Americans to help their fellow man. They are going against their attackers to eventually defeat them and kick them out. I had read a few stories in the days following the release of the photographs (but I can only find a link to a Salon.com article republished after, where the last line is pertinent) where the victims hated the Americans, much as a bullied child hates his bullies and gets revenge on them. Revenge is not a solely American concept, nor is it a solely Iraqi concept. Instead, it is a universal Human condition.

So, if we think about it, what would be the best way to get revenge on the Americans? Perhaps it would be to get money from them, deflect to their enemies, and then give the American money to the terrorist factions. And, guess who's helping to do that? Yup, ole Rummy. Which is why I think the third strike is the most serious strike of all. And, its not that we're trying to be good sports and giving them tips either (its not sports, its war people!). Maybe if the reparations were delayed until after the war effort, but then we would never give them money. Especially since the war is continually botched.

So, its not because of the prison abuse that I think Bush should give Rummy the boot, but its because of sheer incompetence that Rummy should get out of his office. He should be gone, because if I made a project that went months over its time schedule, as well as billions of dollars over budget, I think I would be fired, and there would be a new mastermind at the project's helm. As would any normal American in any corporatized company, just as the greenlighter at 20th Century Fox was fired/resigned because he OKed Fight Club which went over budget, and didn't make up its money at the theater, even though that was Fox's best year in a fuckload of time for film. But, not Dubya's administration and not in the government, apparently. I want that job security, you know?

Yet, the conservatives still want to cling to Rummy, even though they probably do agree with the three main points. They believe and cling to the idea that Rummy can redirect the war into something salvageable and we are not without hope. They believe that nothing was Rummy's fault. They believe in Rumsfeld and that he should remain in office. And, therein lies the fundamental Right Wing Delusion: the horse you're backing is awesome, even if he is in last place.

Marriage is Dead, Long Live Marriage

As the bell tolls midnight, MTV News is currently on the steps of city hall in Massachusetts (I'm guessing Boston, but couldn't it have happened in an easier state to spell?) where same-sex couples are lined up to get married, this time legally and with full support of the US Supreme Court. Why the city hall gets special hours is beyond me, I mean fo fuck's sake, they could at least wait until 7am, but then if I a)had a boyfriend/girlfriend with whom I'd want to spend the rest of my life with, until finances do us part, and b) even supported the institution of marriage, this would be my only chance to get a marriage license, due to the hours that the city hall is open.

I digress. Gay marriage is a hot topic, and one that I've explored on this journal several times over. I've explored it always from a pro-gay marriage stance, and always critical of both the institution itself, but the religious reasons for getting married. The legal benefits of marriage denied to civil unions are impossible to overlook.

As most of you know, I am against marriage of any kind. I don't want to get married, I don't want to be legally tied to a person on top of being emotionally attached, and I certainly don't want to be tied through religion (especially considering my agnosticism). The only good thing marriage has going for it are the benefits that the federal and state governments offer to married couples, but lets take a look at why there are so many mehods opponents use against gay marriage, and why some of them are easier to dismiss than others.

The first group I want to look at is the religious sects. You know whom I am talking about, the groups that believe in God and Jesus Christ or whoever the fuck else they believe in, pay their churches/synagogues/temples/whatever money to worship there, and various other psychotically devout things. These are the people who support cardinals and priests who deny sacraments not only to the lawmakers who support legalized abortion laws, but also deny the people who vote for these lawmakers. These people are easy to dismiss and hard to ignore because of their influence over the religious lawmakers who actually buy into this crap. The problem with these people is that you can write them off with "there has to be a seperation of church and state" but the religious influence over the stupid and smart is hard to ignore, even if they agree. Everything has an influence, and many people think with their heart and not with their head. (note: Michael Moore was spouting against one of the original DNC presidential candidates because he said that he was against abortions but would not pass laws to make it illegal, and said that he had to believe that abortions were OK too...Moore is a jackass)

The second group are those that say marriage is an ancient institution that should remain the same. Well, I know I'm sounding extremely liberal, but FUCK YOU. Things change. If things didn't change, women would still be "obeying" their husbands like they do according to the Koran in mulsim cultures. Women would still be servants, and very seperate from husbands. Women's place would still be in the kitchen, if she was married. It's easiest to dismiss because its just people longing for the ways of old.

The third group are those that say marriage is for making babies and populating the nation. Well, enough people have out-of-wedlock babies now. And, lets look at the heterogamous but childless couples who can't have babies. The ones with barren wives, sterile husbands, or even physical disabilities or mental illnesses which make sex impossible. Not only that, there are plenty of benefits just for having children that the benefits of marriage have nothing to do with it anymore. It is still the middle difficulty concept to dismiss. Part of the reason for the benefits was so people who got married wanted to stay married, and it was harder for the father or mother to dump the family that he/she was creating. And, it is still beneficial in these terms, but many of the benefits also have nothing to do with family or children, but just the benefits of legal couples. This includes, but is not limited to, visitation rights and health insurance taxation. If we got rid of these benefits for marriage, or every single right was associated with civil unions as equally as marriage, then we would have no problem.

That, in turn, brings us to the fourth mehtod. Those that are willing to give gays civil unions, which is supposed to have every single right that marriage has. The issue and problem with civil unions is that there are many benefits that are given to marriages that are not applied to other types of unions. This is also troublesome in the concept of health insurance given by companies to people and their spouses. It is hard to argue the idea that civil unions are seperate but not equal, especially with people who aren't familiar with the differences that exist between the two.

Nevertheless, marriage is now, at this point of time, not a religious institution anymore. That was eliminated long ago when the first American laws were made dealing with marriage. Marriage is now a legal institution, and legal institutions change, whether you like them or not. In 1968, interracial marriages were illegal, and 72% believed it was wrong.

That being said, as always, I am still against the methods which the gay activists have used, and the channels gone through, to get this far in legalization of gay marriage. There was not a public debate. There is not even close to a majority agreeing to the concept of gay marriage. However, as Bush himself said, this is America, and we don't need the permission of the world to do what we want. I believe he also made some comment regarding political policies should not be dictated by popular opinion. I also have to argue, there could not have been that big of a public debate during the civil rights time either. They had to push their agendas ahead despite the moral objections which white supremacists, as well as racial bigots, possessed.

Still, this is a step in the right direction. There will be no delusions in this mind that, just as some people still regard interracial marriages as wrong, there will always be a group who are against gay marriages, and homosexuality in general. The difference will be the number against the marriages will hopefully dwindle to just being an annoying buzz, like the ones against interracial marriages. On the MTV show I do, but I can't there was a guy from one of those groups with Family in their name, who essentially said "Its clear that marriage is the end for the gay agenda, and that is why I am against it." Which is virtually impossible to argue with because of the brute cruelty and aggression involved in what he was saying, and he probably won't change his mind.

Still, I'll leave you with two quotes:
John Waters - "I remember when being gay meant that your mother didn't nag you about when you were getting married."
Scott Thompson as Buddy Waters - "Gays shouldn't be getting married. I mean, the world hates us, why ruin a good thing?"

Police State Redefined

I really need to stop reading some of these idiots’ blogs. Honestly, they come up with some scary-ass shit, if you ask me. The most recent scary thing to come out of a somewhat intelligent blog post was, "A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war."

I'll isolate it and bold it for effect too

A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war.

(This was quoted from Rusty Shackleford)

Naturally, one can imagine that this is in response to CBS and their airing of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photographs, as well as the Nick Berg beheading.

Before I go any further, I want to clear up a couple of points that I have made on both events. Therefore, you can ponder Rusty's above quote (which is not part of a larger sentence) as I wax remembrance.

Regarding the CBS release of the abuse photographs, as well as the photographs themselves, I have been, and still am, a bit callous towards the victims of the abuse as well as the release of the photographs. I believe that the Iraqis have done worse to Americans in their country by light-year leaps and bounds. The Americans, in this time of high stress, needed some outlet so they didn't go Section 8 on us, and, even if it was sanctioned by higher levels, all of our abuse pales in comparison to what Americans have been subjected to on the Iraqi street, as well as in terrorist captivity, so in my opinion, the abuse is nothing to get all hot and bothered over.

Regarding the Nick Berg video, I am having a split response. The first is if I believe myself and my own eyes and logical sense, that the video is fake and given by the government, but since that is a completely different argument, I will avoid retelling the details which are further explored yesterday. The other is if I believe the government as well as the media in that this really is a death, that Nick Berg was actually beheaded by terrorists (specifically Al Zarqawi), and that everything was the way its been portrayed in the media, after viewing the video I am a bit shocked and appalled. It also has that split purpose of telling me that yes, the terrorists are nastier and crueler than we could ever imagine or hope to be and "I shouldn't be offended by the abuse photographs," AND that we should unite as one in this war against terrorism. WHOA, flashback.

Which brings us back to:

A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war.

On an unrelated journal, I have been posting comments as Anonymous (for various unrelated reasons), and have even laid claim to the name Anonymous (side note: maybe I'll make it a schtick), which is also a sort of snide statement to their desire for anonymity in the About Us section. I decided to maximize the effect of both their words as well as their mission statement. But, I'm getting sidetracked. On this blog from various writers, one writer wrote on Wednesday about the relationship between CBS and the Nick Berg video. It was along the same mistaken lines as Rustys blog, only even worse because Rusty at least admits that the terrorists needed no reason to kill Nick Berg, and this writer said CBS provided the latest excuse for them to kill, titling the post "CBS: Blood on Their Hands."

What this writer chooses to ignore is that the Iraqi street already knew about the abuse by hearing first hand stories from released prisoners, as well as seeing the effects of the abuse on the released prisoner's bodies. I'm going to venture to say that while the photographs are shocking, they probably don't compare to seeing the first hand bodily effects on the prisoners. This abuse was so well known that a mere 10 days after CBS' release of the photographs, Yahoo did a story on an art exhibit which featured no less than 3 alabaster statues depicting abuse victims which were strikingly similar to that of the photographs, as well as a quote saying "the photos came as no surprise."

So, then why is everybody blaming CBS and the purpose of a free press for increasing the awareness of the Iraqi public? All it did was confirm what American officials were investigating, and it informed the American public. I think that’s the problem though. Rusty seems to think that we are back in the 1930s, WWII era, where war was a patriotic glorified activity. Our war movies were so honorable and John Wayne stylized, the news told of all the good things that the war was accomplishing, and everybody was in on the bandwagon. It rather reminds me of the old-time newsreels that South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut satirized so well with the "Did I say death camps? I mean happy camps."

So, what is the purpose of having a free press if we cannot use it in the best of times and the worst of times? Why should all of our media constantly tell us and the rest of the world that we, as America, are the best country ever? Isn't the purpose of a free press not only to tell us of our advances and successes in the various arenas (arena of science, politics, economics, etc) but also to tell us when our government is doing wrong? Shouldn't we know that we are struggling in Iraq and essentially losing this battle?

Rusty has a semi-point though. He says that we need to minimize the split of Americans during times of war because a divided country is easier to battle than a united one. But, just as the majority lays fault to the Germans for voting in the Nazi party and not overthrowing them when the Nazis were doing horrible things to the Jews, Americans will be held accountable for the atrocities being done in their name overseas in Iraq. If a free press isn't going to tell us, as Americans, what our country is doing for us in our name simply so it can have a more unified front, I don't want to be a part of it. I don't care if the free press is actually out for money, so long as it is doing a good job of keeping us informed with relevant and pertinent news.

Part of the problem that both Rusty and the editors of the afore-mentioned blog are having is that the press is being too liberal (yes, it’s that conservative paranoia again) and only reporting on anti-American or pro-Islamic stories, calling that liberal propaganda. However, any patriotic, pro-American, demonizing Islam reports are A-OK. Case in point: while I have respect for that football guy (whose name will never be mentioned on my blog until I name every single one of the Americans who have died in Iraq), his story was complete and other patriotic propaganda. If it were any other soldier, the mainstream press would have just numbered the dead and moved on, but as soon as some celebrity dies, it’s a symbol of our fucking patriotism. And, this is good news according to these people. Perhaps, I'm being a bit cynical here, but that's honestly how I view it. It's government manipulation.

Nevertheless, my point is (I can hear any reader who has made it this far breathing a sigh of relief) a free press should be reporting on America's fallibilities and mistakes during times of peace and war. America should have a war that has a purpose to not so blindingly split the opinion over whether we should be in it or not. America should not have to worry about splitting the opinion on its world politics. America should not have to worry about its activities being released to the American public, or the international public for that matter. The press should not have to worry that America's mistakes will be a blight on America. In addition, given that things happen which negate all of the above idealistic statements, a free press has the duty and obligation to inform its citizens, with or without spin, in times of peace and in times of war, of everything their country is doing in their name. Without this, we have the press and the government changing stories, releasing disinformation (which happens even with the free press), changing history, and being able to do abhorable things in the name of freedom and America, and we become more and more a police state with no real sense of the world at hand.

----------------------------------------

As a side note, I notice that not one of the blogs has a reference to Rumsfeld giving money as compensation to the victims, nor to the stupidity of doing this. Especially since, if I were a victim of abuse, I would deflect to the other side, and probably give them money to help get rid of my attackers. But, that's just my opinion.

Pile Up

Salon.com revealed this little piece of information today: Family members provided e-mails Thursday that say Nicholas Berg was held by the U.S. military before he was kidnapped and beheaded, but the government contends the messages were based on erroneous information.

Combined with my discoveries, and a full analysis of CBS' handling of the prison abuse photos as well as the US government's reaction to the release of both pieces of evidence, I think I may have enough for a small to medium sized article.

The Raping of Nick Berg

The Raping of Nick Berg

In recent weeks, Americans have finally gotten the opportunity to see what exactly the American occupation in Iraq is like. We have been shown photographs of Abu Ghraib prisoners being humiliated, tortured and otherwise compromised. We have also been able to see a snuff video which has 5 face-covered men killing Nick Berg. This is widely different than 2002 when we had to struggle to find images of Danny Pearl’s killing. But, have we been getting the full and truthful story, or is the government trying to create a world where the press is worried that every piece of negative information it releases will lead to another additional brutal death in the war?

Chronology
It helps to analyze the current chain of events in recent politics, in order to put the recent news in perspective. For over a year, we have had troops in Iraq trying to quell the terrorist factions in order to create a civilized life for the Iraqi public. As the source of money is running out, and more and more politicians are getting cold feet about our presence in Iraq, the number of our troops is dwindling. In fact, on July 1st, we intend to transfer our authority to the Iraqi people and its government. This will be useless given that the terrorist factions are still powerful and able to conquer a government not backed by US troops.

In January 2004, photographs detailing prison abuse at Abu Ghraib are released to the American government, who then launches their own investigation into the incident in order to punish the criminal abusers. This investigation is made public, but not readily told, and rather hidden from the general American.

The Associated Press reported on March 4¹ that Iraqi militants were distributing a leaflet claiming Al-Zarqawi was dead. They claimed that he had been killed in one of the US’s bombings. Due to a wide level of distrust in this claim, no further reports have been implied. The French government laid investigational claims that Al-Zarqawi was behind the March 11 Madrid bombings.²

On March 24, Nick Berg was arrested and detained in Iraq. Whom he was arrested and detained by is unclear at this point in time. The US government had stated that he was detained by Iraqi forces, while Nick Berg’s parents have recently release e-mails dated April1st, from US Consular Officer Beth A. Payne informing them that Nick Berg was in the US custody. US officials have stated that at no time was Nick Berg in American custody. Nick Berg was supposedly released on April 6, and US officials said that they did not notify Berg’s parents at all because the information was not revealed until April 7. At some undetermined point of time and place, Berg was supposedly captured by Iraqi terrorists.

Also, on April 6, during a US military report on Al-Zarqawi, who had laid claim to the series of attacks at this time, they reported on a May 2002 medical visit. Prior to this report, Al-Zarqawi had been reported as having his leg amputated in the May 2002 visit to Baghdad. CNN reports, “The official would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment.”³

On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, CBS airs a story on 60 Minutes II which features some of the abusive and humiliating photographs of the Abu Ghraib prisoners. CBS, and Dan Rather, had been told to delay the broadcast of the story by the American government to protect our troops in Iraq and to prevent further distaste from the American public. CBS delayed the story for two weeks before finally airing the story on a Wednesday night broadcast of 60 Minutes II, airing against the popular show The O.C.

After the airing of the photographs on the relatively unwatched 60 Minutes II, the press picked up the story, and it became front page headlines. The photographs were an embarrassment to the US military, as well as showing activities made illegal under the Geneva Convention. As a result of the worldwide press which the photographs received, many blamed and took a negative stance toward the US military, the Pentagon, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Some even blamed Donald Rumsfeld for the abuse happening in Abu Ghraib, and called for his resignation. The US Government then proceeded to repeat that they had not wanted the photographs to be aired because of the effect it would have on the Iraqi street.

On Saturday, May 8, 2004, Associated Press⁴ writes a story about an art exhibit in Baghdad, Iraq, which features 3 alabaster statues on images which were strikingly similar to the images revealed in the photographs. This is exactly 10 days after CBS had released the photographs to the madding press. An artist in the exhibit who created the statues states, “The pictures did not surprise me” and said that many of his statues were based on stories from released prisoners.

Also, on Saturday, May 8, the US military claim to have found a dead body. There is no announcement. However, after the video is released on Tuesday, the military gives the body an identity, Nick Berg. We are not told if the body was headless, but give the video, we inherently believe it to be so. Also, we are not shown the body, nor are we given any hint that such a body actually exists, beyond official US reports, which are always dependable.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2004, 36 days after Nick Berg was supposedly released from Iraqi/US custody, and 13 days after CBS aired the release of the photographs, a website associated with Al-Qaida released a grainy, and edited, web video of Nick Berg being beheaded by 5 masked men which followed a lengthy speech from the center standing of the men. The center man is purported to be Abu Mus’ad Al Zarqawi, a sheikh closely associated with Osama Bin Laden. As part of his statement, he says one of his reasons for this video is “the shameful pictures and news of evil humiliation.”⁵

The Video
The initial aspect of the whole video is that it starts with Nick Berg tied to a chair alone stating facts about himself to confirm his own identity. The first thing we notice about the video is that it has been taken by two different cameras, each with a time stamp, each stating a different time. This is obviated by a cut at 0:08 on the video. The continuity of the first segment is undeniable, but one should notice the difference in the time stamps: Camera 1 has a time stamp of 13:26:27 and Camera 2 has a time stamp of 2:18:36, or a difference of 11:07:51. One can tell it is a time stamp and not a time code because there is no frame counter, and there are not 13 hour video tapes. The time stamp is an important piece because it is set by an internal chip.

At 0:19, the video cuts to a lengthy section where Nick Berg is sitting tied up on the floor with five masked men standing behind him. The center man gives his lengthy speech, before attacking him. This section is filmed by Camera 2.

At 4:30, we hear a strange, horrifying scream, though Nick Berg is neither screaming nor being attacked.

At 4:37, the five men pounce on Nick Berg and take him to the floor. And, at 4:38, we have a discontinuous cut to Camera 1. The time stamps become important here. At the beginning of this cut, Camera 2 has a time stamp of 2:44:37. Camera 1 has a time stamp of 13:45:47, or a time difference of 11:01:10. At this point, Camera 1 has a close-up of Nick Berg with his hair being pulled with a cringe on his face. At this point, no cutting has been made.

At 4:43, we are submitted to an extreme close-up of the chaos, as well as a cut. The cut is not from Camera 1 to Camera 2, but Camera 1 to itself. We have jumped ahead by 7 seconds, 13:45:52 to 13:45:59. The change in camera angle is representative that this was not a malfunction in the camera’s time stamp chip.

For the next 34 seconds, Camera 1 stays pretty constant while the screams stop and the men proceed to cut off Nick Berg’s head. Then, at 5:17, we are subjected to another cut. This time, again, from Camera 1 to itself. The time stamp has a difference of 73 seconds going from 13:46:33 (which works with the duration of the clip) to 13:47:46. In the space of this cut, the head of Nick Berg has been fully removed from his body. At the beginning, his head looks very much in tact, while at the end it is easily removed. The head is then held up for the Camera one to see in a very imposing stance.

One should note that the time difference of Camera 1 from its initial frame to the final stance holding the head is 121 seconds. From 13:45:47 to 13:47:48.

At 5:24, our second to last cut, the one proving the impossibility of this being a real video filmed simultaneously. This one cuts back to Camera 2, which now has a time stamp of 2:46:18. Note: the last time we saw Camera 1, at the initial push of Nick Berg, it had a time stamp of 2:44:37. The difference in time: 101 seconds. How is it possible that the bookend time from start to finish is 20 seconds shorter than the time of the actual recording?

At 5:29, our final cut shows the head resting on the decapitated body. We are back with Camera 1, now showing a time stamp of 13:48:38.

The overall graininess and distortion inherent to web videos causes the viewer trouble in discerning the details of the video. One can’t really see the blade, or if the neck is still in tact, or if it is actually real. What one can tell is that the attackers are not Arabic, but Anglo-Saxon as they have hands which are paler than Nick Berg’s head. One can tell this by comparing the hand to the head, as the hand is picking up Nick Berg’s head as they are cutting it. When they lift the hand up, after the cut, the hand appears darker, or the head, by contrast, has gotten paler.

Theories
Just from watching the video, one cannot determine that it is a fake until one notices the little details, like the lack of dripping blood from the head. However, from a bit of viewing of the media circus underlying the whole video, one can determine that the US government is definitely benefiting from it. With a little pay-off to Nick Berg and/or his family, the government could easily create a false murder to scare the press into submission.

In addition to being a fear factor for the press, this is also a great piece of anti-Islamic propaganda. This is a piece that causes Americans to jump up and shout “We need to silence the terrorist factions before they behead more of our personnel!” So, between a well-needed piece of propaganda as well as working to scare the press, the government has a lot to gain from creating the media hype around this video which rapes the our military, and Nick Berg.

¹ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/
² http://www.news-leader.com/today/0327-LinktoalQa-48372.html
³ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/06/us.zarqawi/
⁴ http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040508/ap_on_en_ot/iraq_abuse_in_art
⁵ http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

Ann Arbor say What?

So, I'm staying in Ann Arbor, mainly to go to D:Fuse at The Necto tonight. He's progressive house, so if anybody wants to join...

I was walking around, and got caught in a long-ass holistic political-economic discussion. There was a group of people who want Lyndon H. LaRouche as the democratic nominee, as opposed to John Kerry. It lifts my heart to see people trying to abolish John kerry.

Apparently LaRouche is doing this and that about our economy, but I have no idea what he has for various other ideas. I've decided that a good look at his website is in order. In the meantime, I have stuff like "The Night They Tried to Kill Me" and an open letter to the DNC.

As a big proponent of ABB, I'm also ABBOK (Anybody But Bush Or Kerry). I refuse to vote for either one. Kerry sucks, he's just out for himself. Bush sucks, but thats blindingly obvious.

Maybe LaRouche is my answer. I dunno, *shrug.*

Fail the Fucking Students

In viewing the beheading, there were some very very noticable edits. I find the video to be rather suspect.

First of all, the screaming starts prior to anything actually happening.

Second, there were two cameras used. You can tell by their inclusion of the time code.

Third, The time code is also another problem. There is a section at 4:37, just before the beheading, where the camera comes in, and then gets caught up in the jumble of people. The time code then jumps by 7 seconds. The blurry close-up used when a student filmmaker is trying to get a one-cut look, but the time code is at fault here. At 5:17, we have another jump in time, of almost a minute and a half. It looks like they have finished their beheading already, but the time code jumps for them to life the head up in proud moment.

Fourth, it appears they are cutting from the top up, but the screaming stops at a rather odd place.

Fifth, the time code isn't precise on the two cameras either. There is a discrepancy of about 30 seconds between the two cameras' time codes. Camera one (which is the bookend) pushes him over at 2:46:42, then they have the head already lifted at 2:46:18, or 96 seconds. Camera two, however, has a time code starting at 13:45:47 and they're in the process of lifting the head at 13:47:48, In other words, 121 seconds.

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist, but this video has problems with reality. If I was a film teacher, I'd fail them.

I should also note that this is not a time code, so much as a time stamp. It doesn't have frames on it, its just hours, minutes, and seconds.

(If you haven't seen the video: Salon had it up Thank you Phil for another link.)

Also, I'd like to give thanks to Troma Studios and John Waters for teaching me what good and bad filmmaking is all about, as well as movies like Cannibal Holocaust, and I Spit on Your Grave for giving me a stomach and eye for fake movie making. Also, Blair Witch for teaching me that a conspiracy is easy to create.