Traverse City Film Fest

Since Fahrenheit 9/11...since Bowling for Columbine...since Roger & Me...well, since he began making movies, Michael Moore has been on many people's shitlist. His way of filmmaking---his in-your-face documentaries---haven't sat well with many who find his films to be "unpatriotic" or "full of lies". It should not surprise anybody than that his idea to hold the Traverse City Film Fest from July 27-31 was met with some serious opposition. Everyone swore he was going to bring his politics into this festival. For the record, he did not and stood by his word.

The event that he concocted in his mind was performed by the community for the community. Thirty-one films were shown on a giant, inflatable under the stars in an area known as the Open Space where about 6,000 could seat themselves. Seven of the films happened to be world premiers.



The State theatre, which had become virtually defunct, was brought back to life by about 30 members of the community. They, "scrubbed floors and toilets, washed windows and patched holes. Painters painted, and electricians brought the place back to life". As the event came closer,"about 400 people volunteered to pop popcorn, take tickets, sweep the floors and generally do whatever it took to make the festival a success." People from both sides of the aisle had come together for one reason ---to see great movies. Everyone went home happy unlike the people at the fest that was competing against Moore.

A Suttons Bay woman and some conservatives from Texas chose to run an "alternative" festival called the FreedomFirst Festival. Ten minutes into the film they chose to run, "Michael Moore Hates America", it was turned off. Why? Because the first minutes were filled with profanity including the F-word. Apparently, Aldrich, the woman who chose to run the film, hadn't viewed it. She claimed there was an edited version, one without "filth", but to me, it doesn't matter what version. They are both filthy.

Nothing like a bunch of conservatives promoting hatred. And nothing like a successful bipartisan film festival built around appreciating classic movies to make Moore and the community of Traverse City look better than the conservatives who tried to provide an "alternative" to it and failed.

Good job, Moore and members of Traverse City. While coming together and putting politics aside, you also managed to make a political statement. Conservatives tend to have a tough time dealing with their hatred for certain individuals in America.

The Frist Offense

"It isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science...The president's policy should be modified."

No doubt is it funny to me to hear members of the pro-life community accusing Frist of flip-flopping much in the same way that conservatives accused Kerry of flip-flopping during the 2004 presidential election. To be honest with you, when I evaluate this situation, I don't think he flip-flopped. I think this was a long time coming. I also don't think he much cares what the religious right thinks. He has and always will be a physician, therefore, anything that will promote and enhance our health will always be a possibility to Frist.

Background

Frist went to Harvard Medical School and earned the honor of being a Doctor of Medicine in 1978. Since then, his mind has been focused on healing and his primary job has been that of a physician. Frist has trained in cardiovascular physiology. He was a senior fellow and chief resident in cardiac transplant service and cardiothoracic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine from 1985 to 1986. Following his year at Stanford University School of Medicine, he became a faculty member at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and started a heart and lung transplantation program at the center. He went on to found the Vanderbilt Transplant Center in 1989. He is currently a licensed physician and has performed over 150 heart and lung transplants.

Frist's medical career alone is one that gives me the idea that he sides with scientists before he sides with the Christian right. He has spent most of his lifetime devoted to medicine. Frist's history really does not involve the Christian right. The only reason they support him is because he has an ethical mind when he is on the brink of a medical advancement and is strongly against abortion. It's not like he didn't have a problem when it came to deciding whether or not to go forward and support heart and lung transplants. He had to think about it ethically.

Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For example, to realize the promise of my own field of heart transplantation and at the same time address moral concerns introduced by new science, we had to ask the question: How do we define “death?” With time, careful thought, and a lot of courage from people who believed in the promise of transplant medicine, but also understood the absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that question, allowed the science to advance, and have since saved tens of thousands of lives. -Bill Frist

His Recent Offensive Move

Frist had been waiting for the right time to be able to take on stem cell research for a long time. Like a reasonable person, Frist understands that saving lives is important while also understanding that science can get out of control. It's not like he's in favor of stem cell research that has no boundaries. He is pretty much standing by what he stated in 2001 and what he has always thought about stem cells. The only difference is that he has come to a stunning realization: Existing stem cell lines have been contaminated and can't be applied for human medical use. Contrary to what the Christian right's and/or others' belief may be or may have been, Frist was never against stem cell research. He just seemed like because he want to be strict and make sure that scientific advancements were achieved ethically.

Frist is not in favor of unlimited research of just any embryos. Specifically , he said in his speech on the Senate Floor, "...we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed."

Frist also still stands behind his 10 principles that he outlined in 2001, which involve a lot of bans and limits:

1. Ban Embryo Creation for Research;
2. Continue Funding Ban on Derivation;
3. Ban Human Cloning;
4. Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding;
5. Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only From Blastocysts That Would Otherwise Be Discarded;
6. Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process;
7. Limit Number of Stem Cell Lines;
8. Establish A Strong Public Research Oversight System;
9. Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical Review;
10. Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research Restrictions.

Frist's ethical philosophies that often make him seem tightly wound up or anal retentive still exist. But a light bulb went off and he realized that the restrictions placed by Bush in 2001 stifle is "continued commitment to healing". As with transplantation, he will be ethical in regards to stem cell research's advancements. He will make sure it is controlled. But I don't necessarily think he will be unreasonable compared to members of the Christian right and/or George W. Bush. He knows science, and he understands the meaning of life. His fight to make them coexist is a tough one in this day and age. My opinion is whatever happens, he will most likely make the right decision. With that, I end with this quote.

In all forms of stem cell research, I see today, just as I saw in 2001, great promise to heal. Whether it’s diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer. -Bill Frist

(Note to Frist: As long as you realize that you were wrong about Schiavo and understand that she was in a persistent vegetative state and also was blind so everything you said was wrong, we're ok. Despite what I may have thought about you earlier, I realize you just are afraid of doing something immoral or unethical in the field of science. It's tough. No one wants an army of clones running rampant across the globe as a result of unbounded science. That's why we must carefully examine each step that we take.)

Moore's Film Tells Truth

U.S. District Court Judge: Michael Moore’s Movie Tells Truth

Today, a federal Judge in Michigan threw out a defamation lawsuit against Oscar-winning filmmaker and best-selling author Michael Moore. The suit was filed by James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols in regards to his portrayal in Moore's Oscar-winning documentary, "Bowling for Columbine."

The judge ruled the suit was groundless and that Michael Moore’s statements in his film were "literally true" and therefore, not defamatory.

According to U.S. District Court Judge Paul D. Borman’s ruling: "...even taking the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant's publication contained false statements or omitted material factual statements."

The court concluded: "...the Court finds that Plaintiff's [Nichols'] defamation claim as well as his False Light and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims fail because [Moore's] statements were literally true."

Really though, I would love to see someone try to defend James Nichols and say he should've won this lawsuit. It would be entertaining to me.

Spotlight: Entertainment

I'm going on vacation and will be away from my blog for a week. I have chosen to leave some of my favorite music, books, and music (new and old) to listen to, read, and watch while I am gone.

MUSIC

Audioslave - Out of Exile
Creedence Clearwater Revival - Chronicle, Vol. 1
CSNY - So Far
Fall Out Boy - From Under the Cork Tree
Foo Fighters - In Your Honor
Green Day - American Idiot
The Killers - Hot Fuss

BOOKS

Everything Bad Is Good For You by Steven Johnson
Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell
State of Fear by Michael Crichton

MOVIES

Batman Begins
Blade Runner
Blazing Saddles
Jackie Brown
The Score
Usual Suspects
War of the Worlds
Wedding Crashers

VIDEO: McClellan "Chillingly Similar" to Watergate's Ziegler

CrooksandLiars.com Video

Doctoring a Leak: A Briefing For America

There's no question in my mind that Rove is a genius. He knows how to get what he wants. He's also incredibly psychotic in my mind. At what point will reality sink in? At what point will he realize that he's under criminal investigation?





After all, in news reports anyone can read about the so-called pranks he's pulling and how he appears to have no idea of what the weight of this situation is. From the NYTimes:

Mr. Rove appeared considerably merrier than Mr. Bush on the North Carolina trip, where he made a show of his trademark pranks. During a tour of a cotton yarn plant, Mr. Rove tapped a reporter on the shoulder and then handed him a bottle of Tylenol, apparently pulled out of an open pocket in the reporter's backpack. Then Mr. Rove said that the reporter looked like he could use the painkiller.

With all the political pressure, why doesn't Bush tell him to straighten up or he's fired? It's terrible for public relations when your adviser is acting like a child while the White House is under fire. It basically makes you, Mr. Bush, look like an idiot. I know Rove is smart enough to know, but he ought to have the sense to act like it while this messy situation is going on. Well, truth is, you can't fire him. He got you where you are today and you know you would suffer a terrible loss and also be eliminating a loyal friend if you fired him. So what are you going to do to get out of this mess?





RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has already started to pull the White House out of this situation. He is going through with what people are calling a "pro-Rove strategy" that will make things all better for Bush and Co. First off, the RNC Chairman has put together these "talking points" so that conservatives across America (Conservative Eyes, etc.) can start telling Americans how it is or so that they can begin brainwashing America with conventional wisdom in the same way they did when making the case for war in Iraq. The "talking points" are set up to discredit Joseph Wilson, the man whose report from Niger threatened Bush's case for war leading presumably to the leak. This strategy of attacking and not defending is popular and effective, a strategy that Rove has made work for him before.

The RNC strategy does not stop with attacks on Wilson. The RNC plans to call on conservatives to undermine the Democrats' call for Rove to be ousted, make it seem like he has done nothing wrong, and play down Rove's role. (BlogsforBush.com, Power Line, ConservativesAlwaysRight, Wide Awakes, The Conservative Voice) . Jim Vanderhai of the Washington post says:

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday

Republicans and conservatives then expect to dilute the matter or drown out the Rove controversy by creating a new controversy, one that won't get any member of the Bush administration indicted (hopefully). They plan on talking about the vacancy on the Supreme Court (Wide Awakes, Today's Democracy). They plan on hypothesizing and speculating the shit out of what could and could not happen and who or who won't get picked. They'll talk about anything connected to this just as long as they don't have to talk about Rove.





McClellan: That's really all I've got to begin with. I would like to talk about the likelihood of Rove being fired, if ari was the other leaker, and how I feel about being this administration's whipping boy, but "I'm not going to get into discussing matters relating to an ongoing investigation". Any questions?

"Q Did the President get his news yesterday about Justice Rehnquist's health from media reports?"



"...That's a nice try to get us to discuss an ongoing investigation..."

Clearly, they're not budging. That's their [Bush administration, Republicans, other conservatives] strategy, and they're sticking to it.

List of Attacks Since 9/11

Attacks Inspired By Al-Qaeda Since 9/11

Kennedy vs. Santorum

There appears to be a fracas or scuffle in the Senate. At this moment, I feel it necessary to point out that this bickering is causing the approval rating of Congress to steadily drop. As silly as this situation is, this is politics so let's get right down to the nitty-gritty of this situation.

TED KENNEDY

Kennedy led a "phalanx" or troop of senators (Note: Caution to Bush's speechwriters. Do not put this word in any of his speeches because it will definitely come out "pharynx" which is much different from a "phalanx".) on Wednesday in demanding that Rick Santorum apologize for blaming the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal on "liberalism" in Boston. According to the Washington Post, Kennedy noted that more than a dozen current U.S. senators were educated in Boston, including Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who went to Harvard Medical School. He said that child sex abuse "happens in every state of this great nation -- red states and blue states, in the North and in the South, in big cities and small." Kennedy said that "Boston-bashing might be in vogue with some Republicans, but Rick Santorum's statements are beyond the pale." Massachusett Democrats Edward J. Markey, John F. Kerry (one of the worst Democratic presidential candidates ever), and Barney Frank quickly joined Kennedy in his request for an apology. Markey said Santorum,"should apologize for maligning 'the courageous Boston parishioners who finally stood up to decades of an international Catholic Church coverup', Kerry said,"the families of Massachusetts soldiers who have died in Iraq 'know more about the mainstream American values of Massachusetts than Rick Santorum ever will', and Frank added that Santorum was a "jerk". He apparently felt that was the only thing Markey and Kerry left out. Frank's remark brings Senate speak to a new low. But that's okay. I would like to point out here that Markey, Kerry, and Frank have no idea what they are talking about simply because Santorum was referring specifically to universities in Massachusetts.

RICK SANTORUM

Santorum is under fire for an article that he wrote in 2002 that said "liberalism" in Boston was responsible for the Catholic sex abuse scandal simply because Democrats find his article to be a "sore spot" for Santorum and are bringing attention to this two year old article with the hope that Democratic candidate, Casey, will gain an edge over Santorum in the upcoming Senate race. Contrary to what the Democrats feel, Santorum is sticking by his article saying (according to Science Daily), "I was just saying that there's an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant [in Boston]".

That was the extent of Santorum's response to the mayhem that was created by the Massachusetts Democrats or what I am going to call for now "The Soggy Bottom Boys". ( I don't care if they aren't from Massachusetts. I've always wanted to come up with some cute conservative buzzworthy name like Turban Durbin. Something about it just sounds fitting.)

MY OPINION

At this point, if you want to put some rational thinking into this mess, it's important that you take a look at Rick Santorum's article to see what all the fuss is really about. I read the article. I respect Santorum's right to practice Catholicism and write articles that have to do with the Catholic faith. This article, however, is the product of a religious zealot. And his mentioning of liberalism being a cause of the Catholic abuse scandal is only meant to raise a stir or create shock in the minds of practicing Catholics in America and also deliver a low blow to Democrats. We all know that liberal is akin to Democrat nowadays. By mentioning "liberalism" as a cause of the scandal, Santorum is in essence saying that Democrats played a role in causing the scandal. Santorum is a menace to Democrats who want to embrace religious people across America.

I think the Democrats are correct to call Santorum out. But it would've been better if we could've heard from them in 2002, the year it was written!!! Why wait til now? No matter how right Kennedy may be for bringing this up and pointing out how wrong Santorum is, all a conservative has to say is, "This happened three years ago. Can't we move on and talk about real issues." And you know what? They're right. In fact, Santorum's spokesman is quoted in a Washington Post article saying, "It's unfortunate that the senior senator from Massachusetts, in consort with the extreme left, has chosen to take three-year-old comments out of context and politicize them on the Senate floor."

I understand the Democrats' need to beat Santorum (since he is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate), and I understand what they were doing. Unfortunately, I don't think the Massachusetts Democrats or "Soggy Bottom Boys" are going to gain what they wanted from this little altercation.