Jonathan's blog

Some people claim that Bush lied. Some people claim that if Bush lied, so did Hillary, Edwards, British intelligence, etc. I tend to agree that "lie" is probably a little too strong. A little. But I keep going back to the joke from The Colbert Report from a year ago: "Makes facts based on decisions" (as opposed to the normal phrase, "makes decisions based on facts"). Maybe the current administration didn't lie, but it's been pretty clear that they made facts (cherry-picked intelligence and took a skewed view of what was there) based on decisions (the decision to find a way to take out Saddam). More evidence of that recently: WaPo article and NY Times opinion.

Tonight we watched Kingdom of Heaven (2005,R) (ScreenIt! Review). From the Wikipedia entry:

The story deals with the Crusades of the 12th century, and involves...a village blacksmith who goes on to aid the city of Jerusalem in its defense against the great Islamic leader Saladin, who battles to reclaim the city from the Christians. The script is loosely based on the life of Balian of Ibelin. Professor Hamid Dabashi of Columbia University was the film's chief academic consultant.

So much violence. So much battling of God's enemies. So many cries of "God wills it." From both sides. I give it 3 out of 5. Coincidentally (before I started watching Kingdom of Heaven, I didn't realize that it was all about war between Christians and Muslims), today I also watched the Fox News special Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (on the recommendation of a relative). I thought it was instructive in emphasizing the danger, in giving more full attention to what we usually only hear in brief soundbites...the chants of "death to America", the way children raised to be martyrs. Much emphasis was made that the special was addressing radical Islam, not its moderate relative, but that moderate Islam is too reticent in condemning the radical fringe. I guess these are all points that have some validity. This violent, radical Islam is not something that human society should tolerate. But the coincidence of watching these two things today reminded me again of the obvious parallels between then and now. A battle between a Christian king and a Muslim general from Tikrit. The infamous reference by king George to crusades. The spiritual significance tied to death as a crusader...to death as a Muslim martyr. It's tempting to think that we have progressed so far since then but that they are still stuck in such a primitive place, but many of us still think of what we've been doing lately as going to war in God's name, with his blessing. I was brought back to the feeling of how important it is that we not sink to the level of these murderous extremists...not to torture, not to trust in nor embrace violence. Not to allow our enemies to draw us away from the things that are so noble and wonderful about our country.

Last night I watched Ararat (2002,R). From the Wikipedia entry:

Ararat is a 2002 film by Atom Egoyan about the Armenian Genocide, an event that is denied by the government of Turkey. In addition to exploring the human impact of the specific historical event, the film also examines the nature of truth and its representation through art.

I thought it was good. I give it 4 out of 5.

From an article of the same title in the Nov 9, 2007, issue of The Week:

An Iraqi Shiite who was sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies is now a member of Iraq's parliament, U.S. military sources told CNN this week. Jamal Jafaar Mohammed had fled Kuwait and was convicted in absentia for the bombings, which killed five people. He was elected to parliament in 2005 as part of the Shiite alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose Dawa party claimed responsibility for the embassy bombings at the time but has since recanted. Military officials said that Mohammed acts as a liaison between Iraqi Shiite militias and Iranian special forces in Iraq. He hasn't been to parliament in months, and is currently believed to be in Iran.

From an article of the same title from the Nov 9, 2007, issue of The Week magazine:

Netherlands Edwin Cornelisse Algemeen Dagblad There are some people you just can't live with, said Edwin Cornelisse in the Amsterdam Algemeen Dagblad. In fact, you can't even live near them. To house these "anti-social" types-people whose neighbors have frequently complained about loud, messy, drunken, or simply unpleasant behavior-the Dutch government is building special communities on the outskirts of towns. The anti-social inhabitants will be supervised 24 hours a day. Anyone who demonstrates that he or she can live responsibly and be respectful of the community will eventually be allowed to return home. Those who don't make progress will remain under supervision. It may sound harsh, but the tactic has a proven track record. Nearby Denmark pioneered these "alternative communities," known in Danish as "strange houses," where one can live "free of the ordinary rules." Plenty of people who are unwilling to put up with noise ordinances or zoning regulations actually move there voluntarily. Some people just don't want to fit in. Why should we force them?