kt moxie

I was perusing the White House's website, and found an old speech (February 23, 2003) from W.  Here's an excerpt, with a few "comments" inserted on my part:

Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning. Wow.  If we were already winning in 2003... And we're showing them the definition of American justice. Yep.  Torture.  Detention.  No lawyers.  No charges.  And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. Oops!  No WMDs here!
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. All those WMDs… hidden under rocks!  This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. I'm seeing it now - Osama and Saddam sitting together, playing with Saddam's invisible chemical weapons ... […]
The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. […]  Yes!  I see now!  There is peace, and hope, and harmony in the Middle East. 
The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Scarcity, fear, war, misery, torture…  Ouch.  It’s like words pulled from the headlines about Iraq today.  The Iraqis would be first the benefit – wow…  […] 
Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Well, we didn't find any poison labs, but we did take over the torture chambers! Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. Who’s nightmare is it now?

So, was he lying? Propagandizing? Ignorant? Manipulated? Just really misguided?

I think we are all happy the shuttle *finally* got back up into space.  Here's a cool shot taken by NASA Science Officer John Phillips from the space station of Hurricane Emily on July 17, 2005.

 

A photojournalist snapped this one in Iraq, and titled it "Hearts and minds."  A smiling child, carrying colorful boxes (tissues maybe?), flipping the foreign photographer the bird. I love it.  I think it shows frustration, hope, and fun all at the same time.   What do you think?

Ok.  I don't want to hear anyone talking about Harry Potter anymore!  If you think this is a post about the media hype - you'd be wrong.  Actually, I'm jealous.  How dare you people be able to sit down and read a novel?  And finish it, too?  I haven't been able to do that in... oh - let me see - 28 months.  That would be the age of my daughter (19 months), plus 9 months.

My jealous and anger struck me last night as I was packing my nightstand.  We are moving soon (as soon as our builders give us a date - darn it!), so I needed to clear it out, dust and all.  My nightstand is full of books that I have not read.  The 4th and 5th Harry Potter.  Some Neil Stephenson.  A bit of Amy Tan and Marge Piercy.  And a sprinkle of Mark Twain and Alex Haley for culture. There's more, but it's just too sad to think about.

I've had some grand plans.  I thought pregnancy would force me to slow down, and so I'd enjoy a few more books.  Ha!  Little did I know that my body needed 14 hours of sleep per day for gestation!  Then, I'd have all that extra time while on maternity leave.  Hmmm... reading with sleep deprivation and a baby that needs feedings every few hours works well, too.

Now I'm on "toddler time."  After I pick up from daycare, it's Amelia time - dinner, play, play, play, clean-up, bedtime.   Now it's 9:30 - and I still haven't gotten anything done!  Then, John and I quickly try to accomplish something - anything! Let alone spend some "quality time" together.

So, I look forward to enjoying my books again.  In the meantime - bah humbug!  No more talking about Harry!  I don't want to hear about him growing up without me!

2 1/2 out of 5 bowls of ice cream.

Note:  I'm the mom of a toddler.  I don't go to the movies.  I rent DVDs through Netflix - so all my movie reviews will be for the DVD release!

 

Ok.  Can this movie really be best picture of 2004?  Really?  I have to say I expected a bit more out of this film.  I really like Hillary Swank, I love Morgan Freeman, and Clint has proven himself to be a great director.   But this is two different films - poorly pieced together - with an unrealistic plot twist.  And neither film is particularly thought-provoking, complete, or compelling.

First, we have the boxing movie.  Tough-Girl version of Rocky?  Maybe.  Except we have to watch too many fights instead of making a few interesting ones.  We are supposed to believe that she has some innate boxing talent that Morgan's and Clint's characters notice. But when she first starts at the club, she doesn't even know how to hit a speed bag?  Come on - even I've watched Rocky do it! 

Then - the plot twist - [spoiler here - do not read on if you really don't want to know] the current world champion is a "dirty fighter" and punches her not once, but twice, after the bell. The second time landing Hillary's neck on her stool, breaking her spine. Come on, Clint, we didn't really need this silliness to get us to your second movie, did we?

Now, we have - oh my gosh - "the real movie."  When everyone told you "this isn't a boxing movie" - this is what they are referring.  But what is this second movie about?  "They" claim about euthanasia - and the moral dilemmas associated.  Hillary's character is a fighter, but she doesn't want to live as a quadrepelegic.  Does Clint help her die?

What I found so uncompelling about this part of the movie was that this did not really deal with death, dieing and euthanasia.  Euthanasia - by definition - is about mercy and ending suffering.   A person with quadrepelegia is not in physical pain.  And we all know that there are plenty of successful people without the full use of their limbs.  Hmmm.  Steven Hawking.  Christopher Reeves.  So, we are supposed to believe Clint was relieving some other kind of suffering?  No - she just wanted to die as a boxer, not as a quadrepelegic.  That's just pathetic and short sighted. 

No, I think they "picked" quadrepelegia as the "suffering" of choice because it's a Hollywood movie.  Who wants to watch a movie with someone who can't think for themselves anymore like Terri Schiavo?  Or someone in continuous pain like in the end stages of untreatable cancer?  But, hey, cute Hillary Swank can still say her smart remarks while pretending she can't move her arms and legs!

So, I had high expectations for this movie, but it was a big let down.  I guess you can't expect a Hollywood movie to really take on a controversial issue.

This is by a local Detroit photographer, Bobby Alcott, and it just is so happy and summery.  Enjoy!

Is this cool or what?  Can you believe someone actually created that with paper?  The artist is Robert J. Lang.  About him from his website: 

"Robert J. Lang has been an avid student of origami for over thirty years and is now recognized as one of the world’s leading masters of the art, with over 400 designs catalogued and diagrammed. He is noted for designs of great detail and realism, and includes in his repertoire some of the most complex origami designs ever created."

Speaking of the London attacks, here's some striking images from Mike Golden - a London photographer.  Here's what he says about these images (click on image to enlarge):

Aftermath.

Two contrasting images that depict the unusual end of a terrible day, the worst terrorist attack in the UK and largest loss of life since the second world war. As I write this more than 50 are confirmed dead and that figure will definitely rise as the conditions underground where three of the four bombs were detonated are described as "Torturous".

These images depict two of the busiest roads in the city of London at rush hour.

The first image depicts an endless stream of thousands of workers trying to make their way home without any of London's transport system. No Tube, no buses and limited overground rail services. Me, I walked for an hour and half all the way home, past endless queues of static cars.

The second image is Commercial St. deserted. I have never seen it this way before at any time of day or night. Much of the city of London looked like this, like an unrealistic scene from a movie.

 

Time to show my true colors and rant about politics.  A British think tank just published an "astonishing" - or maybe just obvious - report about the UK and terrorism proposing that

The UK is at particular risk [to terrorist attack] because it is the closest ally of the United States, has deployed armed forces in the military campaigns to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and has taken a leading role in international intelligence, police and judicial cooperation against al Qaeda and in efforts to suppress its finances...

 

No way!  I thought the terrorists just picked their targets out of a hat!  Or maybe they use a bingo ball cage.  I-47!  OOOH!  Greenland!

Now, our fearless leaders would have us think otherwise...  Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has rejected suggestions there is any relation between the London attacks and Britain's backing of the Iraq war.  Huh? 

Now, I'm not suggesting that a terrorist action should make a government back down or change alliances.  Even though though I think we should have never invaded in the first place!  However, to propose that the enemy are a bunch of idiots who act randomly with no true purpose just makes our side look stupid, too.  What purpose does this serve? 

So, if the terrorists are really just attacking any location that is too Western? capitalistic? Americanized?  Christian? - I'm not even sure what our leaders are suggesting the terrorists are attacking when they say "our way of life" - then there really is no way to protect ourselves at all.  I hate to break it to you Bush and Blair - there will always be a few radical wackos out there who can convince a few impressionable young people to blow themselves up.  Great.  Thanks for the protection, leaders.

Now, if - per chance - the terrorists were hitting locations for a purpose - say, hitting London to sway British people to get the politicians to back out of the alliance with the US in Iraq - then, let's look at what the they might be up to.  Hmmm... Divide and conquer?  One less enemy?  Only took 4 young men to knock out a country?

Why will these leaders not admit there is a real strategy on the terrorist's side here? 

Oh - I'm sorry. We stupid public.  We need evil savage terrorists to kill, kill, kill.  They stupid.  And they live in caves.  Ug.