Sunday, February 22, 2009

Our celebrity hero

click here to add a title ">L1000113-hero

click here to add a title ">_MG_6008-hero

L1000113-hero

click here to add a description " hidetimer="73989623">President Obama prepares to give his weekly address in the Blue Room of the White House on Feb. 20,...

All rights reserved Anyone can see this photo (edit)

Uploaded on Feb 21, 2009 | Delete

0 comments

_MG_6008-hero

click here to add a description ">That's what the White House labeled the jpeg. They use "hero" to label a lot of Barack's...

All rights reserved Anyone can see this photo (edit)

Uploaded on Feb 21, 2009 | Delete

0 comments




What's with the "hero" tags the White House been using on Barack's photos?

We know he's not a "war hero," he never served. We know he's not a "sport's hero" because he never played professionally. He's never been a fire fighter or a police officer, a teacher or a nurse. So "hero" of what?

Oh, yes, the hero of celebrity.

Barack's a regular Joey Heatherton.

With about the same shelf life for fame.

Smile pretty for the cameras.


FTA Tuesday

Broadcast and release of suppressed 1970s documentary (here to order it). David Zeiger, director of Sir! No Sir! explains:

index_w_vline


FTA-poster


FTA available Tuesday!

Broadcast Premiere
Monday, February 23, 9 pm.On the Sundance Channel

Dear Friends and supporters of Sir! No Sir!
Why did FTA disappear 37 years ago? To put it another way, why did a film featuring Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland at the height of their careers, less than a year after their hugely popular film Klute (for which Jane won the Academy Award for Best Actress), suddenly get yanked from theaters after only one week?
The answer lies in the film itself, and the turmoil it revealed. 1972 was no ordinary year. It was the year of Watergate. It was the year of Nixon's horrific, relentless bombing campaign against the people of North Vietnam. And it was the year that the rebellion of soldiers and marines against the Vietnam War spread to the navy and air force. FTA is the film that reveals and revels in that rebellion in a way that no other film did then or had for 35 years, until I made Sir! No Sir!
Francine Parker, who directed FTA, swore to me a couple of years ago that Sam Arkoff, the enigmatic head of American International Pictures, which was distributing the film, told her he had received a threatening phone call from the White House-and that is why he pulled the film. Is the story true? There's no proof, but I can't think of another reasonable explanation for Sam Arkoff, a man who knew how to wring every penny out of a film, yanking one starring Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland from theaters at a big loss (and, apparently, destroying all of the prints, since none were ever found). And what happened after that certainly gives credence to the story.
With the yanking of FTA, the story of the GI Movement against the Vietnam War was also yanked from public view, and has since been deeply buried under a swath of myths and lies that poured out of a newly "patriotic" Hollywood in the late seventies and early eighties. Rambo was just the tip of the iceberg, as the memory of an illegal, immoral, and hideously deadly war was replaced by Ronald Reagan's declaration that "The antiwar movement betrayed our troops."
I brought back FTA because I want you to see and feel the truth. Sadly, Francine Parker died a year ago, before she could see her film finally get its due. But the film is here. Watch it, and let yourself feel the electricity of that time. More importantly, ask yourself what it is about "then" that feels like "now," that speaks directly to us today. When you listen to Donald Sutherland give his mesmerizing rendition of the soliloquy from Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, look around you and ask yourself if anything has really changed.
And while you're doing that, enjoy the film. It's a lot of fun.
David Zeiger

Sir! No Sir! tells the long suppressed story of the GI movement to end the war in Vietnam. This is the story of one of the most vibrant and widespread upheavals of the 1960’s- one that had a profound impact on American society yet has been virtually obliterated from the collective memory of that time.


Click here to order FTA on DVD.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.





"I Hate The War" -- Most requested highlight this week. C.I. discusses Thomas E. Ricks' new book The Gamble, the peace movement, the 'leaders,' the illegal war and more.


"Easy pasta salad in the Kitchen" and "Pretty Poison" -- Trina returns with an easy recipe that's inexpensive and also discusses the economy and how imitation isn't a form of flattery, a point Stan echoes (they've both been ripped off by the same site) as he also does his Friday movie post.


"Get yourself right with your daughter, Alice" and "Get yourself right with your daughter, Alice" -- Betty and Marcia offer some advice to Alice Walker between snickers and belly laughs.

Alice Walker, you're sad and tired. Apologize to your daughter, meet your grandchild (finally) and then take a long vacation.





"Natalie Wood, Isaiah" -- there's a new boxed set of DVDs out -- the focus is Natalie Wood and very few actresses get boxed sets. Of living actresses, we're aware of Barbra Streisand and . . . Uh, that may be it. Of actresses who have passed away, the small list has included Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Judy Garland -- who did the bulk of her films at MGM -- has no boxed set. So Elaine shares some thoughts on Natalie Wood.


"Interview with Isaiah" -- Mike interviews the community cartoonist Isaiah about his decision to start a website.



"Swingin' John Bolton eyes the U.N.," "Bully is . . ." and "Condi Rice, Dangerous Fashion Plate" -- Isaiah's three posts last week. He reposts his comics and adds some thoughts on them.


"Barack has a senior moment" & "THIS JUST IN! DAZED AND CONFUSED BARRY!" -- No, Barry, Canada is not Iowa.



Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Rose Ceremony" -- Isaiah's comic, hugely popular. Barack's been rejected by his bachelorettes.


"Kat's Korner: Download The Good Stuff" -- Kat (who does another review today) reviews Schuyler Fisk's The Good Stuff. Great album, we highly recommend you download it.



"New Adventures of Old Christine (and Old Ruth)" and "Hillary goes to Japan, I say "Me next!"" -- Ruth isn't joking. She's planning a trip to Japan and that was inspired by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's trip to the region last week.



"The Gamble," "no 1 ever believed you, ari," "war is big business," "iraq," "iraq and nbc's heroes" and "Iraq, Afghanistan" -- Iraq coverage from Ruth and Rebecca and Kat.





"Music including indie.arie" -- Betty raves over india.arie (no, Betty honestly thought it was "indie") and the new CD.



"We're saving Big Auto why?" -- As Big Auto attacks labor, Trina asks the important question.



"Naomi Klein: The Revolution By Way of the Wet Panties" -- Marcia offers some criticism of Democratic Party cheerleader Naomi Klein.





"Avoid the book Welcome To The Revolution" and "A book and, Al, sit down already" -- Books! Why don't you ever talk books anymore! That's a non-stop theme Ty and Dona see in the e-mails to this site (thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com) so they asked us to be sure to note Stan warning you of a book to avoid and Marcia recommending one for you to pick up. We may also have a book feature of sorts here this edition. That depends on how tired everyone is. We're writing this, Dona, Ty, Jim and Jess are typing and editing already written pieces and Ava and C.I. are writing their TV commentary. We're wiped out right now (those of us working on this), but if others are up for it, we can catch a 40th wind.



"His wars" and "Barack the continual disappointment" -- Elaine and Mike express their disgust over Barry's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.



"Dropping Campbell Robertson off at school" -- Ty said this feature had 47 requests for a highlight. In this entry, C.I. takes NYT's Campbell Robertson to school.



"He spends, he buys" and "THIS JUST IN! SPENDING SPREE AND BUYING SPREE!" -- Cedric and Wally on the new owner of the Afghanistan War.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Truest statement of the week


So, when do we march? We have an administration that has officially upheld the lawlessness of the previous administration. The same people who took to the streets or at the very least engaged in righteous indignation over Bush administration actions should not silently sit by and allow Obama to do the same things.
It isn't too soon to protest. He told us right away that there is no change we can believe in. We don't have to wait for bombs to fall on Iran or for more prisoners to be denied their human rights.
It is not only acceptable but imperative that we speak up now. We must say that Iran has the right to have nuclear power or nuclear weapons or satellites or anything else it wants without being threatened by the United States. We must say that the continuation of Bush administration human rights abuses will not be excused under the guise of giving Obama one hundred magical days to learn his new job.
It is time to take not only Obama to task, but faux progressives to task as well. They are the Obamites who claimed they would hold his feet to the fire if we would just shut up and let him get elected. It is time to protest against them too and call them out for being the hypocrites they are.
That means a lot of protesting needs to be done. Why waste time when Obama isn't wasting any. We must get started now.


-- Margaret Kimberley, "When Will We March Against Obama?" (Black Agenda Report).

Truest statement of the week II

They've botched the stimulus, and they're botching the financial rescue. They're worse than I expected, and I wasn't expecting much in the first place (see: Obamamania, a febrile disease).


-- Doug Henwood, "Obama to coddle bankers" (Left Business Observer News From Doug Henwood).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Fairly early for a Sunday. For us.

Along with Dallas, the following worked on this edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.


We thank everyone. And what do we have?

Actually, we may have a piece or two for next week. We couldn't use them this week but they're written (and in print version).

Truest statement of the week -- Margaret Kimberley was the clear choice this week as was . . .

Truest statement of the week II -- Doug Henwood.

Editorial: The simulated 'stimulus' -- Trina helped with the writing of this and we thank her for it. She helped on one other feature and we'll note that when we get to it. We are always thrilled to have Trina's help and if we'd known she was planning to help, we'd have tried to do a roundtable or something to bring her into that. (We did offer, she said she'd help on the editorial but no need for a roundtable.) We're not joking about being alarmed when we saw Krugman's column Monday. C.I., Ava, Ty, Dona and me (Jim) all decided on the topic Wednesday and it had been floated before we decided. (Mike notes it in Thursday's "Barack and his apologists.") Then came Krugman's column and most of us couldn't read it all the way through on Friday, we were too sure he went to the obvious point about how the public is enraged by the first bailout and rejecting others. He covered a lot but, thankfully for us, left that out.

TV: Blustering Boys -- Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary. And we raided it for an Iraq section to use in another article . . . and Ava points out, "That article isn't even up here." No, it's not. Our apologies to Ava and C.I. for that. But this is a fun one that's also a hard hitting one and also includes trade gossip. I could write more about it but pulling Iraq meant pulling a heads up for next week. We can't think of a time when they've offered a heads up in their commentaries before about what they planned to tackle next week. They plan to tackle The Dollhouse. It airs Friday nights on Fox with The Terminator as a lead in. They had this thing about it that actually worked well with Iraq and when we pulled the Iraq section to use elsewhere, they had to redo the conclusion. They DID NOT like the first episode. They have a copy of the second episode that arrived when they called friends to register how much they hated it. Supposedly episode two is better (they haven't watched it, we've been working on this edition all night). So, barring something else coming along, The Dollhouse will be the topic (or a topic) next week.

Sadder Sirota -- Like cheese, Sirota really stinks and molds with age.

Mailbag -- Trina helped with this article. This is the other one she helped on. We thank her for the help. We started to do this in a transcript format but ended up ditching it for the strength of one voice.

The Bronze Booby goes to . . . -- Barack lies and you're a booby if you lie for him.

The Cult of St. Barack -- Top illustration done by Kat and Betty's oldest son. Possibly another adult. This is a photo that they painted over. Second illustration is Isaiah's and we thank him for the permission to repost. (We also thank Betty's son but we're not done with him yet.)

Go ask Phallus, Phallus Walker Red -- Two illustrations. The first is by Betty's oldest son and her daughter. The backstory is that her daughter started the illustration and made a stroke with the paint brush she hated. She started crying and her big brother said he'd fix it and did. It's a good illustration. The second one is Betty's oldest son and C.I. According to Kat. C.I. doesn't remember that. (But also hasn't looked at it.) The article is breaking it down about Alice Walker Red. We returned to it because we agree with DC Indymedia that now is time for a recent flashback.

It's coming . . . -- There will be an action calling for an end to the illegal war next month.

Two things not to miss -- Maxine Waters and Kimberly Wilder. If you missed Maxine Waters, you can catch it online later today. We were working on the edition and this was the first thing posted. Dona looked at the time and yelled that This Week would start in a half hour on the East Coast.

Iraq roundtable -- Repost of the Iraq roundtable a number of the community participated in on Friday night.

Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Stan, Wally, Marcia, Cedric and Ruth wrote this and picked highlights unless otherwise noted. We thank them.

We're planning to fall out now watching The Amazing Mr. X. We'll see you next week.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: The simulated 'stimulus'

In Friday's New York Times, Paul Krugman's "Failure To Rise" made many points regarding President Barack Obama's ho-hum, underwhelming stimulus package. (And is anyone truly surprised that Princess Tiny Meat would have an underwhelming package?) Having decided on the topic for this week's editorial Wednesday, we read Krugman with beads of sweat forming on the back of our necks, afraid he was about to require we hit the drawing boards.

Fortunately, he missed it. He came close and he raised many good points but he missed our editorial angle. Barack Obama has proposed an underwhelming and do-nothing plan that will fix nothing. Krugman notes, "For while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn't ask for enough. And as Michael Hudson (CounterPunch) observed:

The first question to ask about any Recovery Program is, "Recovery for whom?" The answer given on Tuesday is, "For the people who design the Program and their constituency" -- in this case, the bank lobby. The second question is, "Just what is it they want to 'recover'?" The answer is, the Bubble Economy. For the financial sector it was a golden age. Having enjoyed the Greenspan Bubble that made them so rich, its managers would love to create yet more wealth for themselves by indebting the "real" economy yet further while inflating prices all over again to make new capital gains.

Krugman is concerned that it might be difficult to "come back for more" as a result of what he terms "the ugliness of the political debate". It was at that point that we breathed a sigh of relief because he didn't get it.

Fresh faced Cover Girl Barack

No, it's not just that Barack's been Waist Deep In The Big Ugly for some time as he has repeatedly attempted -- not unlike the previous Bully Boy -- alarm a nation so he can get the policies that he wants. It's that an element's being ignored. Krugman ignores it the same way Barack does: The people.

GM and the others in Big Auto really hoped they'd hit the US Tax Payers Sweepstake, that Ed McMahon, if not Uncle Sam, would show up in Detroit with a multi-billion dollar check. What happened? The first bail out -- the one for the banks.

And the public watched in disgust as their money was handed over to businesses that didn't play by the rules, that obviously weren't smart enough to stay in business and that didn't deserve it. And their disgust only increased as it became obvious that Congress forked over the public's monies with no checks to ensure how they'd be spent, no oversight.

Big Auto had the misfortune of showing up after that. When the banks came back begging yet again, the public made it very clear to Congress that, no way, no how, did they deserve another damn cent. Every senator and representative heard from their constituents on this and most of these elected-to-represent-the-people officials ignored the public, overrode their sentiments, and forked over more tax payer monies and, again, with no oversight, no check on how the money would be spent.

The public's damn disgusted.

They're sick of hearing "this is the big fix and we'll do this and do it this once and ___ will be back on their feet." They're sick of doing without while billions and billions go to Big Businesses, to for-profit business who are supposed to keep themselves employed and are not supposed to be dependant upon tax payer handouts.

Monday night, Barack poured on the high drama (Trina rightly called it out). He was attempting to scare the American people enough to drive up support for his tiny package. His calmer remarks included the following:

And that is why the single most important part of this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs, because that's what America needs most right now.
It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.
When passed, this plan will ensure that Americans who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own can receive greater unemployment benefits and continue their health care coverage. We will also provide a $2,500 tax credit to folks who are struggling to pay the cost of their college tuition, and $1,000 worth of badly needed tax relief to working and middle-class families. These steps will put more money in the pockets of those Americans who are most likely to spend it, and that will help break the cycle and get our economy moving.


Note the key phrases that will haunt "the single most important part of this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs," "the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life," "only government that can break the vicious cycle," "breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do," "will put more money in the pockets of those Americans who are most likely to spend it, and that will help break the cycle and get our economy moving."

Monday night, Barack went on to key people to "tomorrow" when Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, "will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again. And that means having some transparency and oversight in the system. "

Transperancy? Geithner's vague speech -- hyped by Barack -- alarmed the markets. You can find it at FinacialStability.gov which is apparently Barack's next propaganda move.

But he laid down the markers, Barack did.

Krugman's worried about Congress when more money is needed (and we agree more money will be needed, the stimulus is underwhelming).

Congress isn't the problem, the public is. The public is sick of seeing their money tossed around so freely to help everyone but them. They're damn tired of all these handouts and the stimulus is nothing but more handouts to Big Business. When it fails to do what the public believes Barack has promised it will, he's a liar. He's the banks and savings and loans, the Big Auto execs, showing up to beg for more money.

And some (maybe Krugman) may think Congress can ignore the public as they did when they voted for the second bailout for the lending industry. But that bailout took place after the election, when Dems thought they were riding high and didn't give a damn about the public. When the stimulus fails to do the trick the public believes Barack has promised it will, he's going to have a really difficult time getting more money.

This was his first big bill and he could have whatever he wanted. The three Republican senators were not needed for its passage. This was the moment where a president, any president, is going to get something through Congress because it's their first big piece of legislation. Barack should have aimed high and went with what was needed and what would actually do some work. He refused to do that. He basically added $400 to Bully Boy's stimulus check last summer and that's really all he's doing for the average person. He didn't nationalize anything so these handouts to Big Business are handouts. They aren't loans that will be repaid and they certainly aren't investments because investments allow you to become a stock holder. They're handouts.

When this underwhelming package fails to get the economy on track, Barack will need to come back and ask for more. And the public will be fed up.

Big Auto felt the brunt of the public's anger but it will be spread out to others. (We are not stealing from David Sirota with that statement. David Sirota has stolen from C.I. about the free floating anger which C.I. has documented for two years now at The Common Ills and Ava and C.I. have documented throughout 2008 at this site. We'll gladly credit Sirota as the CHEAP MENTAL PICKPOCKET he is.)

Republicans are being Republicans and there's a lot of whining about that and a lot of teeth gnashing. Grow the hell up. That's what an opposition party does. If it surprises you, it's because for the last eight years while a Republican occupied the White House, the Democrats refused to act like an opposition party. The Republicans may overreach (that is their pattern) but in terms of their strategy and their actions, it is how an opposition party is supposed to act.

And Barack just gave them a gift. A stimulus that they believe is a failure. (They appear to believe it's a failure because they think it's all pork. Our position is that "pork" barely got included and "pork" -- which we see as people's programs -- needed a huge infusion of cash.) They're on the record stating it's a mistake.

Barack rolled the dice and if the underwhelming stimulus doesn't do what he said it would (and we don't believe it will), Republicans have their 2010 campaign message. And not only do Republicans have it, with the public outraged by the economic 'fix' that didn't take and Republicans calling out Barack's failure on the economy, watch and see how many Dems stand shoulder to shoulder with Barack.

He could probably try to delay any needed legislation until after the 2010 election (right after if Democrats lose big in the House, before the next Congress is sworn in) but that would help the economy how?

It would certainly help the GOP. Allowing Republican candidates to point out that not only did Barack's plan fail but he's refusing their attempts to craft a new plan.

He didn't ask for enough and his problem on that will not be the Congress, it will be the people. The people are the ones who will allow Dems in Congress (most of whom have long gotten over any of infatuation with Barack) to make a break with Barack. The Republicans will continue to oppose him and all of the big whiners screaming "We need to elect 60 or 61 Dems to the Senate" will suddenly grasp that the problem isn't with the number of Dem Senators, it's with what they're being asked to do.

Maybe fate will smile on Barack and his underwhelming package will turn out to be a miracle. If so, he'll be hailed as a winner. But anyone who crunches the numbers and notes what's dying in our economy right now, where the jobs are, which jobs are being lost, will be underwhelmed by his appalling FDR retread -- one that appears to think the job market today is made up of the same labor force as it was in the 1930s.

The Underwhelming Barack His Tiny, Tiny Package.

------



This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends

TV: Blustering Boys

Blustering boys pop up a great deal on TV these days.



tv7

Take XIII which concludes tonight on NBC. The two-part mini-series came to our attention Tuesday when friends at NBC began attempting to interest us in writing about it. We'd missed it. We were busy. Thanks but no thanks. Wednesday one NBC suit took it upon himself to fax reviews or 'reviews' to our DC hotel. He noted in the cover letter, "At least read the garbage The Idiot Belafonte wrote." The Idiot Belafonte? We do so love when our catch phrases are used. Okay, we'll read it.

Gina Belafonte is no doubt really proud of her garbage but we're wondering where the editor was? A lot of bad jokes that have not a damn thing to do with the mini-series. It's really past time that The Idiot Belfonte was forced to make an honest living.

We didn't know if we'd like it or not but we knew that if GB couldn't be bothered with actually reviewing it, we'd have to tackle it. "Send us the disc," we said, feeling a little like Angela Bennett.

The mini-series concludes tonight and our first goal is to get you up to speed. XIII is the tatoo Stephen Dorff has on his chest near his neck (not on his neck as some have insisted). The president has been assassinated while giving a speech announcing US troops were being pulled from Iraq and Afghanistan. Her vice president is now president, running for the office and being opposed by the dead president's brother.

Stephen Dorff appears to be the assassin. He is found in a tree (hanging from his parachute), shot and out cold. An elderly couple takes him in (the wife used to be a doctor) and nurses him back to health. He has no memories of what happened before being in the couple's house which quickly becomes the scene as a shoot-out as unnamed thugs and Val Kilmer show up. Both the man and the woman are killed and Dorff escapes determined to find out who he really is.

What unfolds is Val Kilmer thinks Dorff is 13 but he's actually a government agent who volunteered for reconstructive surgery to look like 13. 13 died after killing the president and Dorff's character is the governmental good guys (as opposed to the government bad guys also on display in the miniseries) only chance to flush out the killers.

Those are the basics and, with just the three paragraphs above, you can tune in tonight and follow the conclusion. But should you?

The reviews faxed to us (there were four) slaughtered the mini-series (three slaughtered it with critical comments, Belafonte just said it was awful and tried to work in some bad one-liners that had nothing to do with the mini-series). We're really not understanding the venom.

The cast is not wooden at all. One reviewer rightly praised Caterina Murino (who is wonderful as Sam) and most had good words for Val Kilmer but the rest of the cast was savaged and we were expecting to see some sort of extreme camp, Planet Nine type show. Instead, we saw a strongly acted, action popcorn feature.

Jessalyn Gilsig, for example, was believable in one of those only-in-action-movie scenes. Having just shown up as Kim, she has to explain that she's XIII's wife. She then has to explain that, while serving in Iraq, he fell in with a diabolical crowd, returned to the US with a bad conduct discharge that she discovered was a cover to get him out of Iraq and to the US so he could murder someone. He was not her husband anymore, as far as she was concerned, her husband had died in Iraq.

A bit over the top for one scene? She was just getting started. Alarmed at this unknown plot, she contacted her military father and they decided they had to get to the bottom of it. She begins sleeping with her husband (guess all of him didn't die in Iraq) to win his trust. She then gets him to tell the other conspirators that she wants in and her father provides her with some documents that look like state secrets so they'll trust her. They tattoo her and she's in but they do that, she says, just to humor XIII. She doesn't find out what's going on in time to stop it. He shoots and kills the president. He is shot after and, though Val Kilmer and others think he is alive, he died. At that point, Gilsig is finally allowed to take a breath and the others explain to Dorff how he's a government agent who volunteered to pose as Kim's husband Steve to catch the 'evil doers.'

It's data overload and really requires that Christina Pickles show up and declare, "That's a lot of information to get in in thirty seconds. Alright Joey, if you wanna leave, just leave. Rachel, no you weren't supposed to put beef in the trifle. It did not taste good. Phoebe, I'm sorry, but I think Jacques Cousteau is dead. Monica, why you felt you had to hide the fact that you were in an important relationship is beyond me. . . . Ross, drugs? Divorced? Again?"

Instead, Val Kilmer shows up and shoots Gilsig who quickly expires -- apparently already in a weakened state from lugging around all that exposition.

But while the writing of that scene was forced, Gilsig's acting wasn't. No one really gives a bad performance. Not even Stephen Dorff who creeps us out.

Not the character, The Dorff. Back when The Dorff was trying to make a name for himself as something other than a guy who used to play Becky's boyfriend on Roseanne, he was forever flashing pit and chest hair and forever doing so in outlandish poses. No, Stephen, no one ever needed to see you photographed on a toilet, not even when you were wearing women's shoes. So it's a bit creepy to see The Dorff turn up in a shirtless scene and grasp that someone's been waxing.

The Dorff and Michael Stipe used to pal around. They really palled around. And they didn't care who was around. And when Details did back-to-back covers on the two pals, the first angered Dorff (who could have tried not letting it all hang out in front of a reporter) but the second really pissed him and Michael off. Boys, if you don't want reporters writing about how you pull back the other's pants and look down them, don't do it in front of reporters. If you do it in front of them and they write about it, don't throw little fits and don't try to get people fired. Details ended up having a complete shake up over the tantrums of The Dorff and Stipe. One more reason no one should feel too torn up that R.E.M. fell on hard times long, long ago.

As a result, we have long enjoyed the 'tales from the road' of The Dorff and we'll note that he looks very convincing in a trucker hat early in the mini-series but looks even more convincing in tonight's conclusion wearing a collar with a chain. It may be The Dorff's most realistic onscreen moment and we strongly suggest that any who have ever been turned on by him (at one point in the fading days of the grunge era, he turned on a lot of men and women) check out tonight's conclusion for only that reason.


Dorff may be an actor. We feel he's at least ready for his St. Elsewhere second lead. The Dorff's playing a cypher action figure -- no memory but instinctively remembers training -- and his stunted, interior quality may actually work here. Val Kilmer really relishes the role he's playing and has a great deal of fun with it. It's a blustering boy, a scene chewing character. Kilmer has so much fun with it that you end up enjoying it as well. There's not much of a character to play -- which goes to the writing -- so the mini-series is lucky to have Val in a co-lead.

One reviewer complained about the use of different film stock when the story goes into flashback of the assassination but the alternative is what? As we remember it, the trick used to be that the flashbacks would be shot the same way but, when shown on your screen, be a little blurry and slowed down. We'll gladly take the step up to different kinds of film stock.

The mini-series moves quickly and it's an action one. Maybe as a result, we're not expecting Roots, Murder In Texas or even Master Of The Game? An action mini-series, we feel, should be judged by whether it moves quickly and whether it surprises you (even only momentarily). We think it does. We think it was a smart move for NBC to program it because any attention it gets right now prepares viewers for Kings. If you're around the TV tonight and have the time, give it ten minutes to hook you. We think most people who sample will end up watching in full.

We watched Monday in full as Barack uh-uh-uhed and spoke in that robotic manner that allows him to find more unnatural pauses than Estelle Parsons and Kim Stanley combined. "He's our Method president!" we quickly gasped while wishing we could have one president this decade capable of normal speech. If he gets any worse, he'll be Sandy Dennis.

And that's just his speaking style.

When you start examining what he's actually saying, it gets much, much worse.

Sadly, you learn quickly that you can't always trust the transcripts. For example this scare tactic stood out for many things including his stumbles:


My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in ever -- even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income and even greater loss of confidence.

When he made that comment, we called Elaine and asked her to note "will result in ever greater -- even greater deficits," (which she did, thank you, Lainie) because we were curious to see how the transcript services would handle it. We'd noted they tended to leave out his repeated uhs . . . repeatedly. He said "will result in ever greater -- even greater" -- it matters because? It matters because what he said is what he said and if we can't trust the transcripts to be accurate -- well that's a movie we sat through for the last eight years.



Listening to Barack is not something we recommend. Listening to him leaves us feeling like Vivian in the passenger seat while Edward attempts to drive a stick shift. But we made it through and will share a little for those who weren't able.



In 2003, Colin Powell disregarded that he worked for the people and, as he would make clear in his actions as well as in endless interviews, thought he worked for George W. Bush. We the people employ the White House occupant and all that work on the public dime. So, for example, Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State.



It's a concept that escapes Barack, "And so tomorrow my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again. . . . Before I even think about what else I've got to do, my first task is to make sure that my secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, working with Larry Summers, my national economic adviser, and others, are . . . I don't want to preempt my secretary of the Treasury; he's going to be laying out these principles in great detail tomorrow. . . . Again, Helene, I -- I -- and I'm trying to avoid preempting my secretary of the Treasury; I want all of you to show up at his press conference as well."

It damn well matters. If Powell had realized he worked for the American people, that he was supposed to serve them, maybe he would have at least been tempted not to lie for the White House to the United Nations. Barack, Timothy Geithner is not your anything. He is the Secretary of the Treasury. Just as the American people employ (and pay) you, so they do Geithner. When you try to make him your possession, you confuse where his loyalties should lie.



When not confusing who the actual employers were, Barack was confused over what his college major was. "I think that what I've said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum," he declared. Barack, you're not an economist. You majored in Constitutional Law.


Responding to NBC's Chip Reid, Barack declared of the health care systems:

The same applies when it comes to information technologies and health care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us less competitive, as well as breaking the banks of families all across America. And part of the reason is we've got the most inefficient health care system imaginable. We're still using paper. We're -- we're still filing things in triplicate. Nurses can't read the prescriptions that doctors -- that doctors have written out. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an -- put that on an electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-term cost of health care, and create jobs right now?

If you're thinking, "Wait, Hillary's 2007 stump speech," it actually goes back further. Those points -- almost word for word -- were part of her stump speech when selling The President's Health Security Plan in 1993. All he can offer are sixteen-year-old observations that Hillary has outlined many times already to the American people?



Then there was the most disgraceful moment of all. Going to the transcript:


MR. OBAMA: (Laughs.) You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly. (Laughter.) But let me try this out.



No, we're not aware of any president that has turned their vice president into a joke in public before. Certainly not in the last one hundred years of this nation. But Barack did just that. Used Joe Biden to get a few cheap laughs. He may have thought it was a nice way to suck up to the press but the reality is that there was fallout.



Fallout was felt immediately when, the next day, Nouri al-Maliki trashed Joe Biden in public remarks. That's right, the US puppet in Iraq thought he could rip apart Biden, mock him, make fun of him. He never thought he could do that with Bush or Cheney. But Barack waived it through.



The longterm fallout is that Americans now have a memory that will resurface. This memory is of Barack stabbing even his own vice president in the back. When things get tough for Barack, as they do for all presidents as the term progresses, it will most likely be commong to hear people say, "Well that's not surprising. Remember, he stabbed Joe Biden in the back. And did it during his first press conference!"



And there will be rough times galore for Barack. He's already lied in a press conference. Ed Henry of CNN asked him a question about coffins, "And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming into Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, snuck back into the country under the cover of night.You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy, so the American people can see the full human cost of war?"



Barack's response included, "Now with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense. So I don't want to give you an answer now, before I've evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved."



He told the American people that a review was taking place. That he was reviewing it, that the Defense Dept was reviewing it. That's what he told the American people on Monday night. Late Tuesday, Katharine Q. Seelye's "Gates Orders Review of Policy on Soldiers' Coffins" (New York Times) reported that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had decided to order a review. Order a review? But the day before Barack said a review was already underway? Barack lied.



And largely got away with it. By a press largely uninterested in Iraq as evidenced by the fact that not one person at the press conference asked one question about the Iraq War.


Thomas E. Ricks new book The Gamble is about Iraq and Friday he appeared on CBS News' online program Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) where he was interviewed by John Dickerson.





John Dickerson: Where are we now in Iraq? There's this feeling -- there's been this recent election, 'Oh, things are getting better in Iraq.' What's your view?



Thomas E. Ricks: My view is that there are two fundamental misunderstandings that Americans have about this war. First was how tough the surge was. It was not just a matter of putting a few more troops out into Iraq. It was a very tough six months -- probably the hardest phase of the war so far. The second theme of this book is this war is far from over. Yeah, the war has changed several times. It was an invasion, it morphed into an occupation, into an insurgency, then into a civil war then into an American counter-offensive. It's changing again. Just because it's changing, doesn't mean it's ended. The elections the other day? Yeah. Remember the elections a couple of years ago, purple fingers, people coming out? Followed by a civil war. So I think there are a lot of reasons that Iraq '09 is going to be very tough and in fact harder than the last year of Bush's war. And I think there's a good chance that Obama's war in Iraq will last longer than Bush's war.




John Dickerson: So who gets this? Does the president get this? You know, he talked about sixteen months removing troops. What are the commanders tell him? Is there a clash coming here in terms of the ground truth versus what the president may think.



Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was I will have no American troops dying in 16 months. But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."




CBS' Washington Unplugged is a program created each Friday by CBS News for the web only. Exclusive web content. You can stream it live on Friday afternoons or catch the archived broadcasts by visiting Washington Unplugged. Last Friday, Dickerson filled in for Bob Schieffer who is the regular anchor and the interview with Ricks (the above is not the full interview) may have been one of the few times when the media treated Iraq seriously last week.



Otherwise we got blustering boys like Barack that were shocking in their immaturity. Or blustering boys like the character Val Kilmer plays in XIII (amusing because it is a character). We got very little that actually mattered or made much of a difference from either but a mini-series is supposed to be entertainment -- it's excuse is that it never promised it would change the world.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }