I fulfilled a promise this morning.
I went to the movies and watched Dinesh D'Souza's film, 2016, Obama's America. The friend, a staunch conservative had encouraged me to watch the movie a week or so ago, so that I might learn more about "...exactly who Obama really is."
The theatre was the Cinemark Miami Valley located in Piqua, OH. This is in Miami County, OH and for perspective, this County voted 62.23% in favor of John McCain and 34.67% for Barack Obama in the 2008 General Election. It is an agricultural and factory work, conservative, heavily Caucasian, Christian area. I had no illusions that there would be many Obama supporters there. For the early bird showing today, there were about 30 people in the audience. All whites, mostly between the ages of 45 and 70. I spoke briefly with the General Manager of the Cinema, Joe Swietzer, who informed me that the movie is drawing as they expected, which was fairly modestly. It was meeting the projections they had set for it. No more, no less. Swietzer confirmed that it was catering to older audiences.
The movie ran 89 minutes long. It was beautifully filmed and scored. As the film took us to places like Kenya, Indonesia, etc., the cinematography was exquisite. The soundtrack and background music was culturally authentic and was expertly recorded. *(Corrected) The director of the film, Dinesh D'Souza, makes his debut in this film, worked with producer Gerald Molen, who's work is widely regarded with such credits to his name as "Schindler's List," "Jurassic Park," and "Rain Man."
(*A bit of a botch-up here. This sentence, as pointed out to me by a reader, was missed during the proof-reading process and was quite simply wrong. D'Souza isn't an esteemed film maker. The original, mistaken line is here: The director of the film, Dinesh D'Souza, is widely regarded as an esteem film-maker and craftsman. Mea Culpa.)
I will say that from the beginning frames of the film I found the use of the images and music to be constructing an ominous tone. As a professional musician myself, it is not difficult to transmit emotions via music and of course, images. If there had been no dialogue in the movie whatsoever-just a series of images-the clear message of this film would have been one of danger and fear. Make no mistake, this was never meant to be an impartial film. D'Souza has a message and a perspective to convey and he did so with a very high level of execution. Production wise, this is a powerful film for its type.
Now to the content. The basic premise of the film is that America in 2008 was a nation of a mostly unsatisfied electorate, who badly wanted something different in their Presidential leadership. Barack Hussein Obama was that "something different." Simply put, a black man with a relatively short public record was able to charm the voters into handing him the highest office in the land. The film suggests that it was far more of a seduction than anything intellectual that propelled him into the White House. D'Souza spends the first half of the movie transcribing a timeline of sorts of Barack Obama's origins, including those of his father, which is a central theme throughout the film. We are introduced to the life and ideology of his father in Africa and Hawaii and some of the anti-colonial people he circulated with. The seeds of Obama future plans to essentially downsize America into an "equal partner in the world", we are told, are planted during this time.
We're then introduced to several key figures who have been influential in Obama's life other than his father. We meet Frank Marshall David, Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. and all the baggage that goes with those names. I suggest interested readers google any of those names and decide for themselves how clear and strong are the alleged connections with Obama and how they are, according to D'Souza, heavily influencing the trajectory of a second term for the President.
The premise that a young man growing up without a father, is under some natural compulsion to pursue an approval of sorts, albeit symbolic in nature. Certainly growing up with out a father has an impact, but whether one believes that Barack Obama was so effected by this absence in his formative years, that he cunningly devised a long-term strategy to exploit his situation and use it to become President is up to the viewer to decide. D'Souza would have you believe Barack Obama is the greatest sleeper agent in the history of the world.
I don't dispute most of the factual information presented in the film. I have major reservations and outright issues with how some of these facts are interpreted. Again, there's an agenda with this film. The mission statement for this film might well have been, "...let's make a movie, based on real life events and relationships. Let's twist many of these events to serve our narrative. That Barack Obama is out to fundamentally transform our Country into something most of us wouldn't recognize. Let's construct enough scary and foreboding scenes and images in the film that for the person perhaps on the fence, this might give them enough emotion input to push them our way."
This film is not a mind-changer, in my opinion. Only the most non-discerning, uncritical viewer would likely walk away feeling NOW they know the rest of the story about Obama. It is 89 minutes worth of one film-makers explanation of the life and motives of the President. For those who already dislike Obama, this film is an affirmation. For those who support the Obama, it is most likely a bit of an unfair hatchet job. For many in the middle, we'll see. Those who can realize when their emotions are being played upon will have a very different reaction than those who can not.
I have to imagine, any accomplished film-maker with a comparable budget and resources that D'Souza had, could easily create a similar production depicting Mitt Romney as an evil man, who is setting out to damage America. I'd put this movie in the same class of much of Michael Moore's work and the internet film, "Three Things About Islam". Some truth, some lies, some unfairness. In a theme I find myself repeating quite often of late-the burden is on us as consumers of information to develop our senses enough to know the difference between pablum (i.e. baby food) and prime rib. Not all food is the same, nor obviously is cinema.
In summary, I felt 2016: Obama's America was a well crafted, deliberately mis-leading production with rather large simplifications of various facts. If what you want is easy to swallow content that plays to a certain narrative, this is what you got. If you were looking for a more intellectually honest examination of Barack Obama's history and ultimate intentions, you'll not find that here.
Sources:
http://www.miamicountyelections.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=130
A blog dedicated to the reasonable, rational and tolerant discussion of today's issues...With a focus on Politics, let's discuss it, shall we?
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Netanyahu 1992: "Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997."
Via a friend, this piece was brought to my attention. Its not really a traditional blog work, but a very short collection of quotes from Israeli leaders through the last twenty years predicting the imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran.
These were public comments made by Israeli leaders as far back as 1992.
From the Informed Consent Blog, who references a piece by the Christian Science Monitor:
These were public comments made by Israeli leaders as far back as 1992.
From the Informed Consent Blog, who references a piece by the Christian Science Monitor:
Netanyahu 1992: Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997
Posted on 03/06/2012 by Juan
Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.
1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
For clarity's sake, here's the link to the original work from the Christian Science Monitor:
*******************************************************************************************************To suggest that anyone sharing this info could be, in any way, in favor of Iran obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon, is laughable. That said...I think this information should at the very least give people a moment's pause before we take any steps toward military action against Iran. Netenyahu, Peres and Rumsfield weren't kidding, and likely believed those thoughts when they expressed them. Just as Netenyahu believes them now as tensions seemingly are on a slow burn toward military aggression.
It is a problem. For all the well enunciated reasons why, I'm not in favor of Iran developing nuclear weapons. That said, I'm not comfortable with the United States having nuclear weapons. Reality tells us many nations have nukes and so far there has not been an occasion where one was used. (The bombs dropped during World War II were Atomic weapons, a fraction as powerful as nuclear weapons.) Is the world safer because of them? The argument goes that if everyone has one, then no one will use one. Really? Ok, if you say so.
Aside from the whole "right to do what they please" argument, it does seem that the religious factions are pulling power from Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows? If the powers that be reach the point where military actions are chosen as a path forward, I sure hope there's more meat on the bone than apparently there was back in 1992, 1995 and 1998. If lives are at stake, American, Israeli or Iranian, let's make sure our information is of a better caliber than it appears to have been over the last twenty years.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Incredible footage of what life is like in Homs, Syria...
Remarkable footage of the situation in Homs, Syria shot by a photographer named "Mani." Trusted by the freedom fighters, the quality of his video is breath-taking. Compiled and edited together by UK Television Channel 4, the extended report provides a graphic picture of what those on the ground are dealing with. By allowing a longer than usual length for this report, you're able to get some context, some feel for what its actually like. Frankly, for most Americans, this is utterly foreign to us. Long form journalism is great for situations just like these. Too bad we don't see more of this caliber of work here in the States.
Watch it yourself and consider whether what, if anything, the United States should do to help those being slaughtered...
While its unclear who exactly is behind the uprising, there are questions whether its a similar revolt to that in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya or rather, something more orchestrated by Al Qaeda off-shoots, the intensity and the humanity of the piece is intact. I think its a matter of time before the United States gets involved. In what way-be it intelligence, financing, armament, or actual boots on the ground-I can't say. Typically, those behind these type uprisings would prefer to handle it without US aid or assistance. On the other hand, at some point in the battle, you take whatever help is available, I suppose.
Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/the-horror-in-homs
Watch it yourself and consider whether what, if anything, the United States should do to help those being slaughtered...
While its unclear who exactly is behind the uprising, there are questions whether its a similar revolt to that in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya or rather, something more orchestrated by Al Qaeda off-shoots, the intensity and the humanity of the piece is intact. I think its a matter of time before the United States gets involved. In what way-be it intelligence, financing, armament, or actual boots on the ground-I can't say. Typically, those behind these type uprisings would prefer to handle it without US aid or assistance. On the other hand, at some point in the battle, you take whatever help is available, I suppose.
Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/the-horror-in-homs
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Catching up on the Al-Alawahi killing, Niggerhead and Gov. Christie...
Catching up on the Al-Alawahi killing, Niggerhead and Gov. Christie...
Its been a few days since I was able to do much writing. Time to catch up...
1) Anwar Al-Alawaki was ended last week. The United States literally dropped a 100 lb. Hellfire drone on him and his associates as they walked across a parking lot to their cars in Yemen last Friday. You might say they all went to pieces. There's been some comments from all sides of the political spectrum that suggest President Obama has taken us down a very dark lane by authorizing this killing of a US citizen. The concerns from progressives like Dennis Kucinich and Rachel Maddow. Even Libertarian and candidate for the GOP nomination Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is distressed by this. Kucinich and Maddow are apparently worried about a lack of due process, as is Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul, however, goes on to suggest that Obama may have subjected himself to impeachment proceedings with his decision.
There's virtually no debate that Al - Alawaki was a known terrorist. If you believe he wasn't, then stop reading now. If you believe he was, then let's move on. This was a bad guy, a radical guy who loved to recruit new members to Al-Qaeda for the purpose of doing harm to the US and her allies.
The Obama administration loves the drones and has used them more than five times ALREADY than President Bush did during his time in office. That's not a shot at Mr. Bush, just a comparison. There's already been at least 225 drone missions, resulting in the deaths of over 1500 people. Very safe for the military to use these. yes, there's been a few tragic mistakes, but all in all...they work, they work well and they go along way to keeping our servicemen out of harm's way.
When President Obama wanted to try terrorists in US Courts, he was widely criticized for providing foreign terrorist suspects the same rights as US citizens. How the tables have turned. Now, he's getting heat from all sides for NOT giving this terrorist due process and a day in court. For all intents and purposes, Al-Alawaki had already forfeited his US citizenship by fighting with Al-Qaeda against US interests.
I say President Obama handled it exactly as he should have. Kept the risk to US soldiers to a minimum, and still got rid of a bad guy. Not a lot of endzone dancing, its not Obama's style. This won't produce much if any bump in his polling numbers, but at least this time I didn't hear of any one obsessing about the number of "I's" of "me's" in his remarks about the killing.
We have nothing to worry about when it comes to Obama dropping bombs on any other US citizens here in the US. Unless they behave really, really badly and threaten the rest of us. I haven't sunk to the point just yet where I have such little faith in this man's moral fiber and believe he's capable of attacking us right here in the States.
2) Niggerhead is a rock. An old rock on a hunting ranch that was leased by Texas Governor Rick Perry's family almost thirty years ago. A rock near the entrance to the camp that had the word "niggerhead" on it. At some point in time, the word was painted over, in an effort to remove the offensive term. As the years passed by, it seems the paint faded a bit and the word became more legible. Some people commented from time to time that this could be a problem for Gov. Perry someday. Some day came earlier this week.
The word Nigger was at one point in our history, a common term. That doesn't make it right, of course, and times have changed. Most of the former locations around the Country with Nigger in the name have been changed to "Negro." An example would be Nigger Skull Mountain in North Carolina, which was changed to Negro Skull Mountain back in the early 1960's.
I think anyone trying to make the case that Governor Perry is a racist because of this rock is making a mountain out of a mole hill and insulting the real issues of racism where they once existed and to a lessor degree, still exist today. Mr. Perry named the first African American Chief Justice of the Texas State Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, which is an odd thing to do if you don't like black people.
Should the rock still be there? Of course not. Its a clumsy detail thing that should've been removed long, long ago. Call Perry on his insensitivity I guess, but to me its pretty weak sauce to build that old rock into a case for him being a racist.
I think some of this zeal with which the left ran around in circles earlier this week is shameful. I've hated it when those on the right gin up some fake controversy when Obama or so Democratic leader does something stupid but benign. I can't ignore it when I see the left doing the same thing to a figure on the right. It's absolutely no better and an insulting diversion to the real issues of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Governor Chris Christie finally put the rumors/hopes to rest yesterday by announcing he will not be seeking the GOP nomination for President this go round. "Now is not my time" he said in an afternoon press conference. If he says its not time, then that's good enough for me. He's mid way through his term, and upside of quitting your job as Governor isn't so high politically. Financially, he may have done well ala book tours, bus tours, etc, but its clear to me that Christie likes his job and doesn't want to leave it.
I like Chris Christie. He sounds real to me. While I'm sure he doesn't just say anything that comes in his head, he does speak with a certain freshness, that the other GOP leaders of the day seem not to have. Maybe Congressman Thaddeus Mccotter (MIC-R) speaks in the same way. Its easy on the ears and sounds, to me, more real, more credible.
I also like him for his ability to occasionally embrace a non Republican talking point like when he defended his appointment of Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim, to the NJ state court earlier this year. He blasted those as "crazies" who suggested that he was basically enabling Sharia Law to creep into the NJ courts. That took some guts and the ease and irritation with which he had to defend Mohammed, impressed me. I have a hard time seeing some of our other GOP candidates doing something like that.
I like his character, and I like his realness. I'm not so wild about his politics, but some day I may be looking for a moderate conservative to consider and Mr. Christie may very well be worth a look.
Sources:
http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/us/politics/for-obama-success-battling-terrorists-seems-to-mean-little.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_ways_to_lose_your_citizenship
----------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/opinion/gov-perrys-rock.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_B._Jefferson
----------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/politics/opting-out-of-race-christie-says-now-is-not-my-time.html?ref=politics
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gov-chris-christie-defends-muslim-appointee-against-crazies-53461/
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Obama's Foreign Policy Speech...
I was able to watch President Obama's foreign Policy speech on C-Span today. It struck me as reasonable and hitting upon the things I expected him to. He acknowledged the "Arab Uprisings" in the region and promised support to those wanting more of a say in their own lives. He suggested leaders needed to listen to their people or move on. All good things. He also said the US would forgive one billion dollars owed to us by Egypt to help them spend more creating a new path to freedom. Personally, I have an issue with this, given the economic problems we have here.
I heard him talk about the Israel/Palestine issue, especially noting that Palestine should not attempt to "symbolically" isolate Israel at the UN later this year, when Mahmoud Abbas, President of Palestine, may push for a UN vote on statehood, which from Obama's signals today, would be vetoed by the United States. Exactly what Israel would want from the US.
There's a big to-do about what he said about 1967. Here's his exact quote:
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
Its not new or radical. In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
Sound familiar? Like from this afternoon, maybe?
Its also the same basic idea former Presidents Clinton and Bush both supported during their administrations. Further, his strongly worded warning to Abbas that any arrangement with Hamas gives Israel legitimate questions, questions that need answers before any sympathetic arrangement with Palestine can be made, was not a sign of weakness. How does all this add up to "Obama sides with Palestinians" as the both Fox News and the Drudge Report posted in their headlines? Its nutty.
I paid a visit to the Anti-Defamation League's website tonight to see if they weighed in on the speech. They praised the speech. An excerpt:
"We further commend his strong affirmation of the importance of the deep and unshakeable U.S.-Israel relationship, and his clear articulation of the moral and strategic connections betweenAmerica andIsrael . We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel , and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel ."
Doesn't sound to me like they hate it.
I know Prime Minister Netanyahu released a statement saying he expects Obama to clarify the US support to keep the settlements as part of a peace deal with Palestine. Overall, Netanyahu is probably pleased with what Obama said. Basically adhering to the same basic understanding the last two administrations have each supported and a rejection of a statehood vote at the UN by President Abbas for Palestine. Netanyahu is a
polished politician and he knows how the game goes.
These settlements are not very popular around the world, even with many of our Allies. Last February, when the UN wanted to have a Security Counsel resolution criticizing Israel's settlement policy, the US (at President Obama's direction) vetoed the resolution. Another example of Obama aligning himself with Israel.
This is, much ado about nothing. On the other hand, it did get us all to stop talking about Newt, eh?
Sources:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/19/the_roadblock_in_the_obama_doctrine
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/obamas-shocking-speech-on-the-middle-east/239168/
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38586_Instantaneous_Outrageous_Outrage-_Obama_Sides_with_Palestinians%21
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/6045_62.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/netanyahu-expects-obama-to-walk-back-speech/239183/
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/19/the_roadblock_in_the_obama_doctrine
I heard him talk about the Israel/Palestine issue, especially noting that Palestine should not attempt to "symbolically" isolate Israel at the UN later this year, when Mahmoud Abbas, President of Palestine, may push for a UN vote on statehood, which from Obama's signals today, would be vetoed by the United States. Exactly what Israel would want from the US.
There's a big to-do about what he said about 1967. Here's his exact quote:
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
Its not new or radical. In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
Sound familiar? Like from this afternoon, maybe?
Its also the same basic idea former Presidents Clinton and Bush both supported during their administrations. Further, his strongly worded warning to Abbas that any arrangement with Hamas gives Israel legitimate questions, questions that need answers before any sympathetic arrangement with Palestine can be made, was not a sign of weakness. How does all this add up to "Obama sides with Palestinians" as the both Fox News and the Drudge Report posted in their headlines? Its nutty.
I paid a visit to the Anti-Defamation League's website tonight to see if they weighed in on the speech. They praised the speech. An excerpt:
"We further commend his strong affirmation of the importance of the deep and unshakeable U.S.-Israel relationship, and his clear articulation of the moral and strategic connections between
"The Palestinians must heed the President's warnings about imprudent and self-defeating actions, including through campaigns to delegitimize Israel , plans to unilaterally declare statehood, and a unity agreement with a Hamas which remains committed to violence, rejection and anti-Semitism. This Administration has come a long way in two years in terms of understanding of the nuances involved in bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace and a better understanding of the realities and challenges confronting Israel ."
Doesn't sound to me like they hate it.
I know Prime Minister Netanyahu released a statement saying he expects Obama to clarify the US support to keep the settlements as part of a peace deal with Palestine. Overall, Netanyahu is probably pleased with what Obama said. Basically adhering to the same basic understanding the last two administrations have each supported and a rejection of a statehood vote at the UN by President Abbas for Palestine. Netanyahu is a
polished politician and he knows how the game goes.
These settlements are not very popular around the world, even with many of our Allies. Last February, when the UN wanted to have a Security Counsel resolution criticizing Israel's settlement policy, the US (at President Obama's direction) vetoed the resolution. Another example of Obama aligning himself with Israel.
This is, much ado about nothing. On the other hand, it did get us all to stop talking about Newt, eh?
Sources:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/19/the_roadblock_in_the_obama_doctrine
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/obamas-shocking-speech-on-the-middle-east/239168/
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38586_Instantaneous_Outrageous_Outrage-_Obama_Sides_with_Palestinians%21
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/6045_62.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/netanyahu-expects-obama-to-walk-back-speech/239183/
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/19/the_roadblock_in_the_obama_doctrine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)