Citadel of the Blogs The Inbox of the Internet (really)

In the interest of passing along a good page when I see one, check out c/net's <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/Digital_cameras/4520-7603_7-5023995-7.html?tag=tnav">"Digital Camera Buying"</a> page. Covers most topics satisfactorily (film vs. digital, lens, storage, etc.). I find there are just too many cameras on the market to make a solid sound decision.

Things I want in a digital camera: rapid photos for shots of children running, playing, sliding, etc. (Love the camera I have now: first a shot of my son at the top of the long slide; oh, now I have to wait for the camera to load as he slides down, oh boy its ready: click, now he is already at the bottom, on the ground, eyes closed. Don't you love that slide shot Mom?)

Zoom more than 3 x (for temple roof tops in Japan: did you know there are intricately carved wooden flowers on those things? I didn't either, and you certainly wouldn't be able to tell with the camera I have now.)

Portable: hey I just want a camera when I want it, I could care less what other people think about it (meaning, if it goes in my pocket, then happy is me).

Etc.

Okay, honestly now: do <em>you </em>know what those two terms mean? I sure as hell didn't. Check out these and other terms in this review of <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0720/p16s01-bogn.html">Grant Barrett's "Dictionary of Political Slang".</a>

Just so you know:

Chicken hawk, n. a person who advocates military aggression but avoided service (or did not serve) in the military.

Security mom, n. a mother whose voting habits are said to be affected by concern for her children's safety.

Not only the greatest actor that ever lived (according to many film and stage critics), Marlon Brando apparently had a heart–and in one of the least likely places you might look.

Often described as great and terrible at the same time (his role in "Apocalypse Now", for instance, was utterly outstanding, and yet Coppola complained that when Brando appeared on set he had not even bothered to read the book), Brando seems to epitomize all that is remarkable in post-war cinema. Influencing modern acting beyond calculation, he yet would not spearhead any cause or movement at all. Actors and modernity looked to him for leadership; Brando merely looked back with scorn. And yet, in that too, he did seem to lead. Like I say, this neatly captures both the good and bad in the last half-century.

Anyway, Brando received two Oscar awards, one for "On the Waterfront", another for "The Godfather". He refused to accept the latter one. And the reason for this is very telling.

Brando sent an actress dressed in full Indian garb to read a speech explaining why he refused the award: he rejected the film world's treatment of Native Americans.

It wasn't simply this speech, however, that makes this noteworthy. Brando was, apparently, the first non-black person to take Native American racism claims seriously. He was even once arrested for fishing with other Indians to protest the Indian treaty obligations the government was unfairly not upholding.

He once told a Newsweek magazine reporter in 1972:

"Christ Almighty, look at what we did in the name of democracy to the American Indian. We just excised him from the human race. We had 400 treaties with the Indians and we broke every one of them."

My image of Brando is one of self-indulgence: a fine fine actor but a person who simply let himself "go". Hence, the obesity. I have no way of knowing what really motivated Brando to support the Native American cause. One wonders if he did not have a maternal or paternal bloodline relation. In any event, and in light of his many highs as an actor and lows as a human being, he did justly uphold one cause.

And that is something for pause on the course of his passing. Check out this <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5355109/">brief overview</a> for more about this interesting footnote to Brando's life.

In Fahrenheit 9-11, I was interested to see footage of the election gaffes, and the Iraqi troop shots. The bit about the Bush and Bin Laden families–if accurate–was brilliantly done.

There have been some people, however, who mistake Moore's meaning in places. Viewers have said he implies the Bush regime allowed many Bin Laden family members to leave the country <em>during</em> the one week no-flight ban. In fact, when I watched the film, I thought Moore was implying this too. But upon closer inspection, it turns out Moore does not say this.

Here is <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/">Aaron Swartz' criticism</a> of this:

"He [Moore] notes air traffic was closed and that lots of people were stranded. But only a few people wanted to get moving: the bin Ladens and other Saudis. (Prince Bandar admits this himself.) He points out the White House approved flights to take the bin Laden’Äôs out of the country. (Richard Clarke said this under oath.) He notes that they were allowed to leave with only a cursory inspection. He emphasizes that they got nothing on the record. (The 9/11 Commission concluded this.)

Further facts only help Moore’Äôs case. While traffic was ’Äúreopened’Äù on September 13, most of the planes flying around were empty commercial flights leaving the smaller airports where they made an emergency landing. Private planes, like the Saudis used, were rare. Worse, the government has repeatedly denied these flights took place, even the people on the plane and at the airport have records to confirm the story. <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001376"> [Details]</a>

Either way, Moore’Äôs underlying point is valid. The Saudis wanted to get out of the country fast. The White House not only let them, but it may have helped them. Family members who could of helped us find bin Laden were flown out of our jurisdiction, while we arrested random muslims."

<a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001376">Swartz has transcribed this</a> part of the film for those interested in seeing the exact dialogue. Still, I criticize Moore for leaving the undesired conclusion (that the Bush administration allowed them to leave during the flight ban) to <em>innuendo.</em>

Personally, I am not a big Moore fan. He is totally biassed (obviously) and anyone could pick his work apart bit-by-bit. As well, warning bells start to go off for me when anyone gains a following like he now has.

BUT - I believe he is sincere in his love of his country and his wish for change–for the better. And like Noam chomsky, I believe their kind of criticism is valid and keeps everyone on their toes (conservative and liberal alike). He has also done good work for the Canadian film industry: did you know he wrote, directed and produced "Canadian Bacon" with John Candy? Classic.

The heads up for Aaron Swartz' critique goes to the excellent <a href="http://www.blogd.com/">Blog from Another Dimension.</a>

Michael Moore's film is, of course, taking America by storm. In Japan it won't come out until mid-August but I have been fortunate enough to see it before hand.

First, it is very different from what I imagined it would be: the connections between Bush and the Bin Laden family are tightly argued in the film and the viewer would be foolhardy to mistake the implication (i.e. the<em> Bush Laden</em> family).

Second, the scenes of American troops beset in Iraq is striking and heart-stirring. These are images I imagine the American public has likely not seen before. So good on him for that.

But my biggest complaint of the film is that it over-simplifies a case that is far from being simple. Sure, we can all pin the problems of modern society on to one head (get it– "pin head"? doh). But the fact is that life is not nearly so simple. If only it <em>were</em> simple, in fact. But as George Orwell said, truth always has jagged edges.

If you haven't seen Aaron Swartz' list of points defending Moore's film against republican criticisms, <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001376">check it out.</a>