Archive for February, 2008
February 15th, 2008 by Matt
It’s not that I kowtow to David Fincher, but I do tend to dig his flicks: Fight Club, Panic Room and The Game, which includes my favorite not-safe-for-work piece of dialog ever (just click here… it’s the third section of quotations down). Zodiac is Fincher’s latest piece of cinematic brilliance, and this one stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., and Chloë Sevigny. The film loosely tells the story of the Zodiac killer, a serial murderer who terrified San Francisco residents during the late ’60s and early ’70s, and who mystified the authorities, intensionally and successfully.
But the movie isn’t really about the brutality of the murders (and they are brutal) or the murders themselves. And the film’s not really about who actually committed the murders (though we’re led to believe who it likely is/was). This film is really about Robert Graysmith (played with an unaffected texture by Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle when the Zodiac killer began sending cryptic letters to the area’s newspapers. These hand-written letters include admissions to certain killings, matter-of-fact explanations of why he enjoyed killing people, demands that newspapers print some of his letters (which they do), and coded messages, most of which were never cracked.
But here’s a sampling of one of the few ciphers figured out: “I like killing people because it is so much fun. It is more fun than killing wild game in the forest, because man is the most dangerous animal of all … I will not give you my name because you will try to slow down or stop my collecting of slaves.” You get the rated-R idea.
After several years of letters received, unsolved murders, and unsuccessful leads, the police and reporters essentially give up trying to crack the case. But Graysmith can’t let go. He obsesses, quits his job, and starts tracking down leads let go years and years ago, crossing over several different police jurisdictions, interviewing cops, neighbors, surviving victims, and reporters. In the end, he writes two true-crime books, Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked: the Identity of America’s Most Elusive Serial Killer. But this all comes with heavy prices.
And so this is a film about secrets kept and secrets we reveal, about safe and unsafe obsessions, about deaths and the ways we lead our little lives. Zodiac is a piece of gripping film-making that leaves your mouth agape and your mind wanting more.
Enjoy….
P.S. I can’t vouch for the validity of this website, but it might be worth checking out after seeing the film.
February 14th, 2008 by Matt
Today’s tasty bit of not-so-tasty news comes to us via VegNews, a fantastic progressive journal, but the article itself originally appeared on CNN.com. Anyhow, the upshot is this:
Anything made by McDonald’s tastes better, preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.
Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.
The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald’s foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.
The groundbreaking study, first published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, demonstrates that corporate product branding is stronger than we ever realized. We have an uphill battle, if it wasn’t already obvious, against these mega-corporations. We’ll talk about this topic more in the future, but this is precisely why we believe that lobbyists, even those we agree with, must be booted from D.C. for good.
Back to the article for a moment…. My favorite (read: “the scariest”) tidbit is this: “Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald’s-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent who liked the plain-wrapped sample.” Even McDonald’s carrots taste better?! That, my friends, is some powerful marketing.
For more information about fast food and all its evils, check out our Wednesday on the topic — “I’m not lovin’ it.”
February 13th, 2008 by Progressive Wednesday
Problem:
As the polls closed on Election Day 2004, I watched the state-by-state results eek in from the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Columbus with a thousand other volunteers, including Jerry Springer, the former mayor of Cincinnati, and Eric, who'd road-raged his way down from Rochester, New York, in his rusty and rust-colored – ˜86 Monte Carlo, to lend a hand for the final few days. I bit my nails to the quick and pulled and twisted at my goatee. The news seemed grim.
And so, the war would rage on. And the poor would increasingly fight it. And our broken health care system would cause more bankruptcies. And monolithic business would rule instead of wise environmental stewardship. And I felt too guilty to sleep. But it was that night, and deep into the morning, that Eric and I came up with the idea of Progressive Wednesday, a new way to empower people when there weren't elections, and hell, even when there were. And it was that night we decided that helping to fix the election process would be at the top of our Wednesday list.
Two weeks later, I attended a public hearing with sworn testimony by Franklin County residents reporting voter suppression, fraud, and the inequitable distribution of voting machines in both poor and predominately African-American districts, which made 2004 Ohio seem a little too much like 1960 Mississippi.
Since I'm not a Democrat, I now deeply question why I didn't just support a so-called “third-party– candidate like Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, or David Cobb, the Green candidate. But my experience helped me question, even more, the process by which we select our elected officials and the ways we decide whom to give our vote. I imagine I'm not alone.
- – – – -
Make Progress:
We'll definitely be returning to this topic time and time again, because it's intensely complicated and similarly significant to not just our rights as Americans, but to what we value as a human right. What follows, then, is a beginning. Consider the starter's pistol fired.
Bookmark:
It's a little bit difficult to describe Project Vote Smart in 304 words, but here goes:
- This non-profit uses oodles of volunteers (from the right and the left) to examine “voting records, campaign contributions, public statements, biographical data (including their work history) and evaluations of them generated by over 100 competing special interest groups.–
- In addition, they “test each candidate’s willingness to provide citizens with their positions on the issues they will most likely face if elected through the National Political Awareness Test.– In other words, they see if candidates will openly, directly explain what they stand for — a tall order in some instances.
- You can also use Project Vote Smart to learn about judges, congressional legislation, voter registration, polling locales, ballot measures, and lots and lots of accurate et cetera.
- The Project also offers up a Voter's Self-Defense Manual, a must-read for progressives of any political ilk. The booklet can be downloaded as an Acrobat file, or you can order one by giving them a jingle: 1-888-868-3762.
- They are truly bipartisan: “No one can join the Project’s board without a political opposite.– And whose served on the board? Carter, Ford, Dukakis, McCain, McGovern, and Goldwater, to name a few.
- They don't take cash money from special interests. To quote: “We do not accept contributions from any corporations, labor unions, or other organizations that lobby, support or oppose candidates or issues.” The money comes only in the form of donations by individuals (70%) and philanthropic foundation grants (30%). Plus, 83% of their funds go directly into their programs and content.
- U.S. News and World Report has this to say: “Project Vote Smart would make the Founders weep with joy.– The New York Times pointed out that the Project kicks so much tail that “even the Federal Government recommends it.–
- This service — this wonderful, wonderful service — is completely free.
Want to read more? Go check it out for yourself. Then bookmark it. You'll want it down the road: we guarantee it.
We'd also like to ask you to give some love in the form of greenbacks to this incredibly worthy, dare we say essential (okay, we dare), this essential cause. Even if giving means three bucks. Here's the beauty of your generosity: not only do you help out this organization whose sole purpose is to help you as a voter, but your gift is tax-deductible, and you can choose how the money is spent. So give a little and have them spend it wisely.
But remember to bookmark it, baby, remember to bookmark it.
.
Call:
This sucker might come as a shock, but the Constitution does not guarantee American citizens the right to vote.
We'll give you a second to reread that sentence. Okay, now that we've got your attention we'll give you all the support we need to prove it to you. In the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, the Court ruled: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.– We think, well, we think this is a load of crap, and not cute little rabbit pellets– ¦ no, we're talking a dump truck full of nasty elephant waste.
We'd like you to take five minutes right now, immediately after reading this, and call your Senators (take a peek and make sure your boss ain't lingering around). Just click this sentence to find a list of all the Senators with phone numbers for each. Here's what we'd recommend saying:
- “I'm a voter from [name your state], and I'm outraged that there's no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing my right to vote. If Senator [last name] wants my vote the next time [he or she] is up for reelection, then [he or she] will introduce or support legislation that would guarantee this basic American right.–
Be sure to thank them for their time.
If such an Amendment existed, folks could sue states for voter fraud, suppression, a lack of equal protection, and faulty machines or a lack of functioning ones. There are 7,800 different election jurisdictions. This adds a lot of variables. If there was a Constitutional Amendment, there could be a universal voting system for all elections. Fairness. That's what we're talking about here. Accountability. Equality. A more perfect union.
.
Write:
Even though we're far, far away from the next national elections, we think it’s more apropos to deal with this topic well before November, which is, of course, National Pomegranate Month.
Okay, here's the main idea of our letter-to-the-editor campaign: Our fellow Americans, Election Day should be a national holiday.
Now, it's hard to argue with a day off (though we're sure the workaholics out there could give it a shot). But we think for the sake of the U.S. of A., voters deserve a greater opportunity to choose what goes down.
Here are some talking points for ya to use and morph and personalize and localize to your heart's content:
- Election Day is an excellent way to emphasize the importance of community.
- As a holiday, we'd be reaffirming the cultural significance of voting.
- Voting was a central catalyst behind the founding of the country.
- Voter turnout in the United State for presidential elections ranks 65th in the world. Democracy deserves better. Common sense dictates that a holiday would raise voter turnout.
- Most workers paid hourly can't afford to take time off work to vote.
- Polls in some states close as early as 7 p.m., further limiting turnout.
- Long lines wouldn't seem as daunting since folks wouldn't need to hustle back to work.
- Election Day is already a holiday in Puerto Rico.
Here's a link to the newspapers throughout the country to help you find the address and specific requirements to the daily “Extra, extra, read all about it!” in your community. You can always check out our How to Read Newspapers tool. Also, you might want to take a gander at our How to Write Letters to the Editor tool, both in brief and in full.
Read:
Adopting Election Day as a national holiday and banging out a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote seem like two it's-about-time steps in the right direction.
There's got to be more we can do to help out so-called “third parties– and their very qualified candidates. Third parties deserve a greater voice in our country, and having more voices, more opinions, and options seems incredibly American to us. Two-party domination seems a bit archaic, a bit undemocratic.
There are several suggestions out there for ways to change the ways we vote and the ways third party candidates get treated on ballots. These ideas include:
We'll be returning to the topic of election fixes in the future, and we're curious what your thoughts are about each of the various options. After you read about each, let us know what you think by leaving a comment or by contacting us. Let us know which you prefer, which you have questions about. Your comments will help us decide which ones to support down ye ole road. So, thanks in advance.
.
Wear:
Okay, this one's easy enough. We'd like to encourage you to plunk down a few bucks, snag yourself this t-shirt, and wear it around all year long (taking it off occasionally to shower, make the love, and maybe even wash it here and there). Sport it when you head to the grocery, the gym, the Grand Canyon. (Speaking of the Grand Canyon– ¦.)
This is a way to send an honest and constant message. Plus the word “vote– is bad-ass as Mr. T and drop-dead gorgeous as Rita Hayworth. Since you're reading Progressive Wednesday, we're confident you're a little bit of both, too.
February 12th, 2008 by Matt
Hey kids (and fellow adults), I’ve got to use ye ole platform here to make a brief mention about torture and the death penalty. In case you missed it, the latest and the not-so-greatest goes like this:
Military prosecutors today issued the first charges relating to the September 11 attacks, saying they would seek the death penalty against six detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including the alleged mastermind of the plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The Department of Defense, which is leading the prosecution through a controversial and much-criticised process of military commissions, issued 169 charges against the men that include conspiracy, murder in violation of the law or war, attacking civilians, destruction of property and terrorism.
I know. I know. If these guys were behind the 9/11 attacks, then it seems like they deserve to be treated like the festering roadkill they are. Two problems:
- Some of the information obtained in regards to these detainees likely came about thanks to waterboarding, and we know that some of it definitely came about through other methods of torture (read on and you’ll see what I mean).
- The death penalty is, in all instances, amoral.
Okay, stay with me here. The right we as Americans value above all others is the right for all people to own their respective lives: this is the greatest liberty of them all, and the liberty without which no other liberties can apply. Since life is the greatest liberty of them all, it must be universally applied: simply because someone isn’t American doesn’t mean we, as Americans, should value their life any less. If a society values life as much as ours does, then even those monsters who may “deserve” the death penalty actually deserve to live. Since we believe life is the greatest liberty of them all, then we should never deny it to anyone through our justice system, even those who may have denied it to others.
The emphasis there is “may have” for a reason. We now know that information has been gathered at Guantanamo Bay through waterboarding. According to Dr. Bryce Lefever, a navy command psychologist, waterboarding, a method of illegal torture, goes like this:
You’re strapped to an inclined gurney and you’re in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you’re likely to breathe, you’re going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic.
But waterboarding and other methods of torture isn’t only legally wrong, it’s tactically wrong, because, according to Steve Kleinman, an Air Force Reserve colonel and expert in human-intelligence operations, they “produce false leads and hazy memories.” And we know that similar tactics were used against Abu Zubaydah, the guy who fingered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the leader of the 9/11 attacks. What did they do to Abu Zubaydah? According to a 2006 article in the New York Times, U.S. captors “[blasted] the Red Hot Chili Peppers at top volume, [stripped] Zubaydah naked, and [made] his room so cold that his body turned blue.”
We’re fighting a so-called “War on Terror” by using methods of terror. We’re willing to kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong. Our logic is, at best, backwards, and at worst, horrifying.
What can you do? Three things:
None of the three are cure-alls, but each is a start in a respectable direction.
February 11th, 2008 by Eric
Our purpose here at Progressive Wednesday is to provide ways to make it easier for Joe Average and Suzie Creamcheese to make progress, to encourage progressive social activism rather than wait for our elected leaders to put the needs of the people over the needs of the corporations who fund their campaigns. But we also encourage political activism, and with many issues, politics has a far greater impact and a far broader scope than with others. The issue that is most influenced by and reliant upon politics is poverty.
We've stated here from day one that we would not endorse any political candidate, but since he is no longer in the race, I think it's safe to say that John Edwards was the candidate with the best plan and the proper priority regarding this issue. As he said in a speech at the National Press Club:
Restoring our moral authority means leading by example and making clear that the hard challenges don’t frighten us. There is no better opportunity than the challenge of poverty – “ the great moral issue of our time.
But Senator Edwards is no longer in the race; it's down to just three. I won't endorse one of these candidates, even with regards to this issue alone. All I ask is that for those of you who hang your hat in one of the 21 states, commonwealths, districts, or territories that has yet to vote in the presidential primary or caucus, understand the candidates' positions on this issue. Here they are, courtesy of a little thing we like to call “The Internet”
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator John McCain
Oh yea, and then VOTE!
Thanks for the picture go here.
February 8th, 2008 by Matt
- There Will Be Blood: This is film about greed incarnate, betrayal in all its ugly forms, and violence as a corrupting and corrupted force. The flick also includes the best acting performance I’ve ever seen (Daniel Day-Lewis), and the greatest insult ever given in a movie. Ever. I won’t share it for fear of ruining it, but trust me when I say that you’ll know it when you hear it. This might be the best movie I’ve ever seen.
- Into the Wild: Into the Wild is based on the book by the same name written by John Krakaur, and it’s my favorite nonfiction work ever written. The story is basically this: Christopher McCandless graduates from Emory University, and then essentially disappears without telling his family of his plans. He wander the country discovering what it means to be a human being before ultimately dying in Alaska. He has epiphanies, however, that few of us are lucky enough to have.
- Michael Clayton: This flick about a lawyer/fixer (starring George Clooney in the title role) is as engaging as a legal thriller can get. The ending is a cinematic revelation.
- Charlie Wilson’s War: Another work on celluloid based on true events, Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of, go figure, Charlie Wilson, a member of Congress from Texas, who, along with the CIA, helps fund Afghanistan in it’s war again the Soviets. The closing includes a sobering reminder of the ways our failings led to the rise of the Taliban.
- Zodiac: As I previously reviewed, Zodiac, yet another film based on true events, tells the story of the Zodiac killer, a serial murderer who terrified San Francisco residents during the late ’60s and early ’70s, and who mystified the authorities, intentionally and successfully. But the movie isn't really about the brutality of the murders (and they are brutal) or the murders themselves. And the film's not really about who actually committed the murders (though we're led to believe who it likely is/was). This film is really about Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle, who becomes obsessed with the identity of the killer.
- Eastern Promises: This movie is a must-see if only for the five-minute fight scene in a steam room. I honestly don’t know how they pulled it off.
- Gone Baby Gone: Ben Affleck’s directorial debut is surprisingly moving, exciting, and tight as a pair of ’80s jeans. Amy Ryan shines as a mother whose child is kidnapped, and Casey Afflect is a gumshoe who tries to unravel the mystery of the kid’s disappearance.
- No Country for Old Men: The latest from the Coen brothers is like a love poem to nihilism and the pervasiveness of violence in a cultural gone horribly out of control. As such, this isn’t exactly the feel-good film of the year, but at the same time, it is masterfully crafted (there’s no soundtrack) and acted (Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem excell).
- Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead: This film about a jewelry heist gone horribly wrong is really a tale about family, lust, love, and trust (or rather, the destruction of those four things).
- Across the Universe: This Julie Tamor experiment succeeds in taking the catalog of Beattles tunes and turning into a well-wrought film. Bono and Eddie Izzard make incredibly forgettable appearances, but the direction is intoxicating and the remainder of the cast shines with their vocal skills and their sincerity.
Some of these films are on DVD and some are still in the theaters. Take if from me: all are essential viewing for film fans, particularly if you’re obsessed with the Oscars like me.
February 7th, 2008 by Charles Lamb
Most of us feel that it is a privilege and responsibility as citizens, to vote. Although it is easy to become disillusioned with politics, and especially with the way money influences elections these days, it seems better to participate rather than drop out of the process.
I know at least one intelligent person who won't vote any more, because he feels that all of the candidates in both parties owe too much to those who finance their campaigns to be free once they are elected. I share his disgust, and disappointment, with the way that elections are financed in our country.
However, there are differences between the candidates, and the parties' platforms. At times it may be voting for the lesser of two evils, but at least we can try to vote according to our beliefs and principles.
While there is a lot of talk today about separation of church and state, and some candidates are assuring us that their religious convictions will not dictate their policies, I for one still feel that Christians ought to vote for people who espouse principles and programs that are in line with their Christian convictions.
For me, that means that some of the issues listed below will be matters concerning which I listen carefully as the candidates make their promises.
- Care for the environment. Most people, according to polls, agree that protection of the environment is an important issue. However, it does not seem to rate high in the issues about which people care most. The economy, the war, and other issues are listed higher in voters' concerns. This isn't true for me. If we don't protect our home, our planet, some other issues won't matter much in the long run. I believe the Scriptures teach that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the creation. I want to hear more from the candidates about their stand on environmental issues. Will the person who wants my vote promise to enact strong policies for the protection of our water, our air,and our forests? Will he or she join with other nations in plans to stop global warming?
- Of course the economy is an important issue. The Scriptures are full of admonitions to care for the poor. What candidate and what party will do more to help those at the bottom of the economic ladder to have hope and the possibility for a better life? The Apostle Paul said that there should be a “fair balance– between those with assets and those in need. (II Corinthians 8:13-14) I want to vote for someone who is not so interested in protecting the wealthy but one who wants to see the life of the poor improved.
- I don't think I need to say a lot about the war. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peace makers– ¦– He didn't say “peace hopers– or “peace wishers– but peace makers. Will the next president be a peace maker?
- We are told to care for strangers, or aliens in our midst, in Deuteronomy 26 and elsewhere in both the Old Testament and the New. And don't forget, in the famous passage in Matthew 25, Jesus speaks of the day of judgment and says “I was a stranger and you took care of me.– When people ask him when they did that, he said, “As you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.– When I hear candidates discuss the situation of illegal immigrants, I want to vote for someone who recommends a compassionate solution to the problem.
There are many other issues I could mention. I am not optimistic that we will find a candidate who embodies all of the qualities I'd like to see in a president. If there was such a one, he or she probably wouldn't have the funds to be on TV or become known. Once elected, getting his program through Congress might be impossible. I realize I sound quite pessimistic here, but maybe I'm realistic.
Nevertheless, I'll cast my vote for the one whom I feel comes closest to sharing the principles and ideals that I believe in. How about you?
Thanks for the pic go here.
Make this your homepage 
Add this to your favorites