I forgot to post this up the day she wrote it, but Heidi has been getting into the local politics of West Hartford and Connecticut. We saw a number of signs in our neighborhood for Beth Bye when she was running for school board. We were curious about who she was which lead to a post or two at Heidi’s blog. A commenter pointed out that Beth Bye is running for State Rep, so Heidi decided to interview her for her blog.

She hasn’t posted the interview up yet, but her meta post about how she felt interviewing Beth Bye is interesting by itself.

We’ve learned a decent amount about the local political scene in a short time (not that we’re experts by any stretch). It doesn’t hurt that our next door neighbor works for the Speaker of the state legislature and candidates like Beth live a few blocks away. I’ll post up a link when Heidi gets done with the interview post.

From the White House Correspondence Dinner: Stephen Colbert’s speech part one and part two.

Fixed.

(Editor’s note: Eric left this as a comment in my post, but I think it’s worth having as a top level post. I’ve republished it and I hope Eric won’t mind.)

Ok, I saw this movie last night with my girlfriend. I was really hesitant at first. My impression going in to it mirrored a professor of mine (retired army) at the military school I am attending. Basically, we thought 2 hours was long, so they must do what most all movies that depict real life do: they pick out a few characters, show their background (both truth and fiction), and follow them through a set of true events that are sensationalized. This is the exact reason why I did not want to see it. I thought to myself, if I ever want to watch anything like it, it should be a documentary that tries to capture the true essence of the events, not some Hollywood interpretation playing on fears and emotions.

But, I wasn’t set against seeing it. So, my girlfriend, who was more curious about it at the time than I was, and I went last night. When we first arrived (about 30 minutes before the movie), it was empty. I figured it would have a small crowd, but to my surprise, it filled to almost capacity. Then it started.

To tell the truth, I was very surprised and completely wrong about my previous assumption. This movie was a documentary. Not a conventional one. It wasn’t narrated as clips of events were shown. It was a glimpse, as true as they could make it, of 6 different places the morning of 9/11 (the flight, 3 regional air traffic control centers, FAA headquarters, and a military air defense station).

They didn’t follow any ‘characters.’ They didn’t show any background. They didn’t show crowds or civilian reactions. They didn’t use Hollywood theatrics (as we have come to know). And what is more surprising is that they used the real people that were there that morning. You did have your share of actors (mostly unknowns), but where they could, they used normal, everyday people. You could tell, it wasn’t ‘scripted,’ as in the normal Hollywood sense. The lines weren’t meant to create superficial tension (they let the events do that), but to just reflect peoples actual thoughts in the situation. And, it was in real time.

I am sure had you been in any of the regional air traffic control towers, the FAA headquarters, or the military air defense, it would have been as close as a mirror image as you could get. The actions, reactions, and speech mimicked what I believed happened at that time at those places. As far as being on the plane goes, it is only a guess to what happened, although their interpretation is as probably as good as any others. The hijackers were portrayed as real people with real fears and hesitation. The passengers were as you would expect to be in a crisis, not as those in a Bruce Willis film or Oliver Stone interpretation.

To tell you the truth, I did get a little sick. I thought about leaving, half way through, but I was able to stay. Others did leave, but not as many as I had expected. The camera work was shaky (intentionally), which can cause some motion sickness.

Overall, I don’t think there was an intended message, be it political, patriotic, etc… I think the scenes were a series of events that were put together to (as best as possible) be unbiased to the events that happened that morning. I think whatever you take from it, is solely from where you stand going in. Some will take it as a political message, some as a patriotic one, some as over-hyped, and some as too overwhelming. It becomes your own manifestation of feelings towards that day, and towards the events.

I am not trying to convince anyone to see it or even give it a good review. It struck me as a recreation, as best as could be shown, not as a movie attempting to give insight we didn’t already know or a new interpretation to something already familiar. I didn’t feel as someone was trying to capitalize on a tragedy, but I do still believe in the best of mankind. Entertainment Weekly said in its review:

“Do we need to see this? No. There’s no right or wrong way to remember 9/11, no shame in skipping the movie-fied sight or prize for those who dare to look.”

I just wanted to let people know, that the thoughts I had going into it were wrong. I am not necessarily glad I saw this movie or upset that I did. I think in the coming years, it will be a good movie to have for people that were too young to remember what happened that day. And a good reminder, down the line, when I am ready to watch it again.

I saw on Thursday’s Daily Show and Colbert Report that Colbert was supposed to perform/speak at the White House Correspondent Dinnert. I wasn’t sure if they were joking and a quick Google turned up nothing. Turns out, he was there, playing his character, though he apparently didn’t amuse the President at all.

That’s pretty damn cool, and an honor for him to be there. What are the odds, however, based on this particular performance that:

1. The conservative/Bush fawning blogs are making a big deal about how this shows that the press is liberally biased
2. The White House decides to take “rollback” to the next level by skipping this dinner next year

I think the odds are pretty good on both items, honestly.

Can someone explain to this poor Motor City transplant what on earth an octopus has to do with the Red Wings. Why do fans throw them on the ice? It makes no sense. We are not the Detroit Octopi!

Signed,

Confused in Detroit

Salon.com has a very good review of “United 93″. Her reaction to the movie is what I imagine mine will be. As she says,

But while “United 93″ offers a horrifyingly realistic evocation of pain and fear, it doesn’t open itself out to any greater, more expansive truth. And it offers us no hope of transcendence. “United 93″ spells out for us horrors that previously we could only have imagined, as if imagining them could never be enough. It’s an expertly made picture that I wish I could stamp out of my mind. What’s the value of artistry that sucks the life out of you?

The review basically praises the filmmaking but says, as you can guess from that excerpt, that the film was very difficult to watch.

I was also surprised to learn that some of the characters are played by the actual people doing those jobs on 9/11:

And some real-life figures, among them air-traffic controllers and military personnel, appear as themselves. Perhaps most notable is Ben Sliney, the manager of the Federal Aviation Administration’s operations command center in Herndon, Va. On Sept. 11, 2001, Sliney had just been appointed to that position; it was his first day on the job, and his performance here suggests a masterly and controlled channeling of the feelings he must have had as he faced this daylight-nightmare challenge: What must it be like when your job is to respond, calmly and efficiently, to the unspeakable?

I wonder what those people felt while making the movie.

(and yes, I’m still not going to see it yet)

Holy crap. That’s all I can think to say right now.

According to a series in the Chicago Tribune, contractors in Iraq have been using subcontractors who bring in foreign workers against their will and often against the laws of the workers’ home countries. The Tribune reported today that the military finally ordered contractors to end abuses in Iraq.

The series of articles came out in 2005, but allegations have been floating around since at least 2004, when the Pentagon first publicly acknowledged the problem. Little has been done until now, and it’s dispicable that the Pentagon did nothing to force contractors earning billions to accurately document and validate workers’ nation of origin and the hiring practices of their subcontractors. It’s actually worse than it sounds at first, so read the article.

You may also want to read about the lawsuit by the families of the four contractors strung up on that bridge:

But then things started to get strange. Blackwater held a memorial service for the men at its compound. The families were gathered in a conference room, where they thought they would be told how the men had died. The Zovko family asked Blackwater to see the “After Action Report” detailing the incident. “We were actually told,” recalls Zovko’s mother, Danica, “that if we wanted to see the paperwork of how my son and his co-workers were killed that we’d have to sue them.”

Thus began the legal battle between Blackwater and the dead men’s families. In one of its few statements on the suit, Blackwater spokesperson Chris Bertelli said, “Blackwater hopes that the honor and dignity of our fallen comrades are not diminished by the use of the legal process.” Katy Helvenston calls that “total BS in my opinion,” and says that the families decided to sue only after being stonewalled, misled and lied to by the company. “Blackwater seems to understand money. That’s the only thing they understand,” she says. “They have no values, they have no morals. They’re whores. They’re the whores of war.”

(via Atrios and Digby’s Blog)

In the post on United 93 below, Sural asked me:

it’s always interesting to me, hearing your views on 9/11. I’m not sure if it’s because i left the country less than a week later/was a little preoccupied (admittedly self-centered) with my own safety in flying…but it’s never been as intense an experience as it seems to be for you, maybe because i feel “silly” thinking i have any right to feel loss when i didn’t really lose anything….

…

why do you think this is so personal for you?

Here’s the answer I promised.

The short answer is, “I don’t know.” I think intellectually, I agree with you… I feel “silly” to feel loss when I didn’t really lose anything. On the other hand, I do really change the channel when I see the commercial come on for that movie. That discrepancy made me write the original post in the first place.

I don’t really feel loss, though. It’s not that feeling. It’s more a recognition of what happened. I’ve internalized a lot of the events of that day and the days and weeks surrounding it, like many who were here. (and I’d emphasize, again, that I don’t think I’m any different than many if not most people out there). I wonder if being out of the country changed the experience for you?

I felt it was important, at the time, to witness what I could and to remember what I could. In October, I had to go to NYC to pick up visas for Mom and I to go to China. I ended up walking from 42nd and 12th Ave down to Chambers and Greenwich while I was waiting. I saw the wreckage from as close as I could. I even knelt and said a prayer. On my way down I passed firehouses, collective tributes and shrines to the victims, and the other ways people grieve. After seeing all that, how can I not be affected?

The way many of the victims died also affected me. It taps into some personal fears about death. I’m someone who likes being in control of my situation. Those deaths ripped control away from every victim, even the ones that survived.

All of it sort of blurs and blends together. Combine that with the intellectual things that I recognize. Knowing that 9/11 would excuse racism and bigotry. The historical impact of having this particular President at that particular time (I can’t think of anyone worse and remember thinking that pretty much on 9/12). This movie will start all of those discussions again. A common sentiment I’ve seen on blogs is that this movie will remind people of 9/11 and what we lost. As if we need reminders. The politicization of the film is sort of the final straw.

Don’t know if that answers anything. Probably doesn’t, but there it is.

I’m failing to come up with a simple explanation of why this is: pharmaceutical companies make up a large portion of the donors to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. I came across this while reading a Volokh thread on the FDA’s medical marijuana decision and can’t ignore it. I’m generally wary of big pharmaceutical companies because of how they abuse our patent systems to keep drug prices high. They generally are self serving even in the face of public health crises. Because of that, I feel like I’m missing out on something obvious…

Can anyone come up with an explanation that’s decent?