The War Prayer

For those of you who don't visit the Washington Monthy blog The Political Animal. Let me pass along their powerful Memorial Day anti-war message from 100 years ago by Mark Twain: The War Prayer.

Because of the horrors we ask them to bear, we must always honor those we send to fight our wars. Because of the horrors we ask them to commit, we must only send them to fight when they are truly needed.

Support the troops. Pray for Peace. Bring Them Home.

Of Pirates and Popcorn

Thirty years ago this summer the original "Star Wars" film mesmerized me and millions of others. That film started George Lucas's empire and not only set my course as a full-fledged sci-fi geek, but also set my standard for what makes a quality summer popcorn movies.

My standard does not require the film enthrall me to the point where I am remain fascinated 30 years later. I don't expect I'll have another movie experience like "Star Wars." What I want from summer popcorn movies is the complete escape into whatever world the movie is creating. I also want to find myself emotionally drawn to the characters and the story. I can forgive film making flaws of acting, script and specials effects if I get lost in the movie and care what happens to the characters in the story of the movie. If I am thinking about the outside world the movie is not doing it's job. I didn't review Spiderman 3 here, but it failed this standard for me.

Four years ago, "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" easily met my summer popcorn standard. Johnny Depp's roguish and rather askew Captain Jack Sparrow lead the audience through a fantastical romp with humor, romance and wonderfully choreographed sword fights. As a lifetime fan of Errol Flynn movies, I love a good movie sword fight. I was disappointed last summer with "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest." It was a weak return of Captain Jack and friends. The humor seemed stilted, the sword fights seemed created by committee and the story was a 2 hour 30 minute set up for the third film. With that set up I had very low expectations for the third film.

I am happy to report that though "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" is quite long and takes awhile to find Jack Sparrow, it meets the summer popcorn movie standard. If you've got 3 hours for a movie (time includes trailers) and want to run away from reality, spend it with this new adventure from the Disney movie factory. Depp's Jack Sparrow is marvelously crazy like a fox. The movies various stories and new characters hold your interest and it even has a surprise or two not expected in a summer popcorn movie. To avoid spoilers I'll avoid writing on details until I add "spoiler space" below. If you liked the first film but were disappointed by the 2nd as I was, give this one a chance and see if it brings back that marvelous escape of the all good summer popcorn movies. I understand Depp is retiring Captain Jack, so I hope Disney will be willing to retire the films and move on. It is Depp who is the linchpin to all of these movies. He brought a marvelous character to life and brought pirates back among our favorite romanticized outlaws. Whatever odd, obscure movies he may do in the future, Johnny Depp will be remembered and loved as Captain Jack.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R


S

P

A

C

E


Now, a few thoughts on the film in more detail...

This movie makes no pretense of being based on anything in reality. It creates a world of pirate mythology beyond Davy Jones' locker. There actually is a pirate code and enforced by Jack's dad played by Keith Richards. There is even a pirate "king." The afterlife is a place that can be found and visited; a goddess can be bound by ropes; and rocks can become crabs who can carry a ship. I think that complete rejection of all reality is the only way to play this story and its characters. If you can't put reality aside and just go along for the ride, you should spend your money going to a ballgame.

I was surprised how well they held together all the parts of story. The 2nd film had several subplots and this one has to deal with that and does it remarkably well. The romance is resolved with one of the best movie weddings ever. Davy Jones becomes more than a monster but remains monstrous to the end. He contributes to a shock for our romantic couple of Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom that I didn't expect from a Disney movie. Jack Sparrow's insanity is played for all it's worth and made a bit too obvious at times. I liked wondering just how crazy he was versus how much it was an act to distract his foes. The villainy of the East India Company is just played as understood. Not surprising in a pirate movie and it is an aspect you just have to go with.

I'll finish by commenting on the ending that clearly sets up another story if Johnny Depp could be talked/bribed into it. I hope it doesn't get made. Let the fans' imaginations play out scenarios of how Jack will get the Black Pearl back and how Will and Elizabeth can overcome time and/or death. Rarely are Hollywood studios smart enough to leave a story as it is. For years, there were rumors of a sequel to "Gone with the Wind" and "Casablanca." This movie isn't in their league, but the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy are the finest movies that will ever be made based only a rather dorky amusement park ride. Someone please tell Disney to go make a new ride and leave the story to play as any fan wishes in her/his mind.

Why the Democrats Lost

Thursday the Democratic majority in the House and Senate passed another blank check to fund the war in Iraq. The attempt to add even voidable benchmarks for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq failed and failed completely. W won.

Lots of bloggers on the left are ranting on how horrible this is and bashing the Democratic leaders in the Congress for their failure. I prefer to examine why this effort failed and what might be done differently in the fall and beyond as more supplemental funding bills are needed to pay for W's stupid, stupid, stupid war.

When the debate began, I was attracted to Rep. Murtha's plan for the bill. His idea was to tie the money to troop readiness requirements for training and time between deployments that would have kicked W's "surge" in the teeth. W could come to Congress to ask for a waiver for these requirements, but he would have to come up with reasons and gain the votes to get the waiver. I liked this plan. I saw the Democrats granting the money with these pro-troops provisions and daring W to explain why he was vetoing the bill. It may never have become law, but it would have definitely stuck it to W. Murtha's bill could have been an easy victory for the Democrats in Congress. Show that W didn't want to compromise or "protect the troops." In a debate with "needs of the troops" as the focal point of the rhetoric, Murtha's bill would immediately show that W was not concerned about the troops. He would be turning down a reasonable requirement for a worn and weary Army and Marine Corps.

Murtha's bill was rejected as not going far enough. Instead the Democrats went for a bill with a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It was a great crowd pleaser for the Democratic base and the Democrats could point to numerous polls showing that a majority of citizens wanted the troops out by 2008. The flaw in the plan was not that it followed public opinion. The flaw was that they picked a bill that had no chance of becoming law with no back up plan for what to do after W vetoed the bill and an override attempt failed. Somehow they seemed to think that W would actually negotiate a compromise when he didn't need to do so. He had the Republican votes needed to sustain veto after veto. The Democrats were left with no hand to play.

You can hear many within the Democratic base crying and nashing their teeth at the failure of a Democratic Congress to deliver on their promise of "no more blank checks." What you do not see is any recognition of the reality of congressional procedure. Congress cannot force anything on the president without the votes required to override a veto. No one thought those votes existed. Only the most naive anti-war activist thought the Congress could force an end to the Iraq War. Unfortunately, Democratic congressional leaders played the game almost as naively as a college freshman whose knowledge of how a bill becomes a law is based upon the cartoon explanation from Schoolhouse Rock.

A strategy that recognized their limitations could have put pressure on W to compromise. Why not requirements for readiness? Why not benchmarks for the Iraqi government that could be enforced? Why not promise no permanent US military bases in Iraq? Why not draw up preliminary plans on withdrawal? Each of these could have been in a bill and used to point to W and the Republicans as the supporters of "stay the course" and screw the troops. The Democrats failed strategy leaves them looking weak and gives W his first real political victory since his re-election.

What will happen in the fall when this starts again? If you are a Democrat or simply someone who wants some check on W's war, you better hope thinking about this has already begun and is more thorough this time. The Democrats should not rely upon Republicans for help. The latest round of "the next few months are crucial" statements are no better an indicator of the Republicans facing reality than the last 7 versions of those statements. The congressional Democrats will again be facing a united front from the pro-war party. This fall they must recognize that W has no desire to compromise on anything and they should assume he won't. They should state upfront that their ability to change the policy is limited by a president who has operated for over 4 years without a strategy or accountability. They should focus on strengthening the view among the public that the Republican Party is the party of a failed war without end. They should call for the war to be part of the regular budgeting process. They should pass bills with support for post-traumatic stress syndrome programs and similar pro-veterans elements including planning for how to repair the Army and Marine Corps that have been severely damaged by W's endless stupidity and stubbornness. Some of these efforts should not wait for the next supplemental request. Amendments can be attached to other bills W wants to sign. Simultaneously, the hearings and investigations on exposing the poor judgment and corruption of W's war could be used to increase the pressure. They also must teach their base that pushing for withdrawal and only withdrawal will be another loser.

Ending the war and winning the next election are not independent events. W has no intention of leaving Iraq as long as he is president. The Republican presidential candidates are lining up in support of W's war. The Democrats can and must demonstrate that if they public wants the war to end, they are the only choice. This cannot be done by repeating Thursday's failure.

Calling Frank Church and Friends

During the 1970s I learned government in the context of a failed war and an imperial presidency. Now I watch as we repeat ourselves and I'm not even 45 yet. The failed war continues to take lives unnecessarily with no end before January 2009 likely. The imperial presidency's has barely been exposed. We have seen a memo justifying torture, secret prisons run by the CIA under who knows what, if any, rules, telecommunications companies admitting giving the government access to data on US citizens, and yet we may have only touched the surface.

This week we saw a bit more of how little W and friends respect the Constitution with details from former US Deputy Attoney General James B. Comey on the efforts of Bush to continue an illegal wiretapping program that even the conservative Republican Comey could not stomach. In short, W sent his Chief of Staff and then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez to get a hospitalized, drugged John Ashcroft to sign off on what his deptuy would not. Ashcroft is no fan of extensive civil liberties and had previously signed off to continue the program but he would not ignore the rule of law to this extent. W was forced to make some changes to the secret program.

Is this the same illegal wiretapping program that came to light previously and was widely debated or is it another program? We don't know. Why? It's classified. Does it have congressional approval? No. Why not? Because until last January congressional oversight of executive power had been placed in an undisclosed location by the Republican majority. Do we know what programs are mining data in pursuit of "national security." Not really. The GAO did produce a report for Democratic Sen. Akaka on the hundreds of data mining programs that exist throughout the government. The GAO did not have access to any classified materials so this is an incomplete examination. What we do know is that this administration believes the presidency has little if any constraints on its power as long it can be claimed to be under the role of Commander-in-Chief. With a "Global War on Terror" that means US citizens' constitutional protections don't restrict our "Commander Guy."

Thus, we need another Frank Church. Sen. Church's Select Committee investigated years of abuse of power by security agencies under both Democratic and Republican administration. Its investigations lead to the very laws that W and friends are likely violating to "protect us from terrorists." It is my strong suspicion that the access to date from telecommunications and other companies is being used in multiple programs to create the giant data mining and monitoring program that was nicknamed "Carnivore."

From the Electronic Privacy Information Center:

In November 2002, the New York Times reported that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was developing a tracking system called "Total Information Awareness" (TIA), which was intended to detect terrorists through analyzing troves of information. The system, developed under the direction of John Poindexter, then-director of DARPA's Information Awareness Office, was envisioned to give law enforcement access to private data without suspicion of wrongdoing or a warrant.

TIA purported to capture the "information signature" of people so that the government could track potential terrorists and criminals involved in "low-intensity/low-density" forms of warfare and crime. The goal was to track individuals through collecting as much information about them as possible and using computer algorithms and human analysis to detect potential activity.

The project called for the development of "revolutionary technology for ultra-large all-source information repositories," which would contain information from multiple sources to create a "virtual, centralized, grand database." This database would be populated by transaction data contained in current databases such as financial records, medical records, communication records, and travel records as well as new sources of information. Also fed into the database would be intelligence data.

A key component of the TIA project was to develop data-mining or knowledge discovery tools that would sort through the massive amounts of information to find patterns and associations. TIA would also develop search tools such as Project Genoa, which Admiral Poindexter's former employer Syntek Technologies assisted in developing. TIA aimed to fund the development of more such tools and data-mining technology to help analysts understand and even "preempt" future action.

A further crucial component was the development of biometric technology to enable the identification and tracking of individuals. DARPA had already funded its "Human ID at a Distance" program, which aimed to positively identify people from a distance through technologies such as face recognition or gait recognition. A nationwide identification system would have been of great assistance to such a project by providing an easy means to track individuals across multiple information sources.

DARPA's Broad Agency Announcement 02-08 soliciting proposals from industry stated that the initial plan was for a five year research project into these various technologies. The interim goal was to build "leave-behind prototypes with a limited number of proof-of-concept demonstrations in extremely high risk, high payoff areas."

In September 2003, Congress eliminated funding for the controversial project and closed the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office, which had developed TIA. This does not, however, necessarily signal the end of other government data-mining initiatives that are similar to TIA. Projects such as the Novel Intelligence from Massive Data within the Intelligence Community Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) will apparently move forward. The FBI and the Transportation Security Administration are also working on data-mining projects that will fuse commercial databases, public databases, and intelligence data and had meetings with TIA developers.

W and friends in and out of government will assure you that everything they do is for the security of America and its citizens. That's what all those agencies in the 1970s told Sen. Church as well. I suspect it will be only after W leaves office that we learn how fully our government has gathered information on all of us and what it has been used to create.

The privacy issues in the 21st Century involve governments and private companies. It is from private industry that the data is being mined. Companies who don't seem to mind selling private data to crooks so they can target the elderly. An extensive and full debate on who knows what and who can get what from the numerous data banks each of us has tied to our names is needed. But first we stop a president who sees himself as above the law.


"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin

Tony Blair and W

After several months of waiting, Tony Blair officially announced his resignation as Britain's PM effective June 27. I suggest you check British media for full and in-depth reaction on his term in office. This post is on how Tony Blair's tenure was mortally wounded by an American president.

I cannot tell you why he did it, but sometime in 2002 Tony Blair decided to follow W into Iraq and hitch his own legacy to a radical foreign policy from a intellectually lazy man who was following the advice of those who though America should "act like an empire." Shouldn't a Brit have seen that as a bad sign? W's decision already fills numerous books and will be a point of discussion for decades if not centuries in this country. Blair's decision to tag along won't be the biggest section of his biographies, but will be seen as the beginning of the end of Blair's leadership.

Blair went against public opinion in Britain on Iraq. The war was never popular among the British public. Perhaps they remembered their own history in Iraq. Or perhaps, they were simply smart enough not to trust W to lead a "preventive war." This is an example where a leader ignored his voters and paid for it. The British public had it right. Blair had it wrong.

Blair was a much more articulate speaker on why war was needed against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. However, he must have known the weakness of the intelligence W was using to justify the invasion. If he wasn't asking "what happens after Saddam is gone?" he failed in his duty as prime minister. Once he asked that question, he should have known that W's gang was completely clueless on what to do and were ignoring those in the US government who tried to bring it up. Somehow, his desire to remain loyal to Britain's closest ally must have overridden the warning flags he had to see. He may have thought he could influence the policy. He may have thought he could guide W into a more intelligent choices after Saddam fell. He was wrong and the British have paid for it in lives and he has paid for it politically.

The beginning of the Iraq War was the last high point in Blair's popularity, he was (with the help of weak opposition from the Tories) able to lead to Labour to its first 3rd consecutive election victory in May 2005, but his majority fell and the writing was on the wall. Blair had to go. The Iraq War defines Blair's final years as Prime Minister. The Labour Party continues to suffer from his allegiance to W's stupid stupid war. After the 2005 election, there was no doubt that Tony had to go and many thought he should have left a year ago.

Labour will choose a new leader who will become Prime Minister. A Scotsman named Gordon Brown is the clear favorite. The expectation among Brits is that he will get the British out of Iraq as part of his effort to reclaim the voter support Labour will need before a new election is called by May 2010. If Labour fails to get Britain out of Iraq, the party could split so seriously that the Tories can regain their dominance of the 1980s and 1990s. And the Tories aren't anti-war. But they didn't lead the British into Iraq and that may be all that is needed.

I don't know if Blair can ever clearly explain why he choose to follow W. I would love to hear Blair's private views of the man who has helped hastened the end of his leadership. I'd love to hear what those close to Blair say about why he "took the decision" as the British say. Blair has been Labour's most electorally successful leader, but he tied his legacy to a president whose righteous arrogance tragically continues.