May The Force Be With Us

This past weekend Sonya & I did a Star Wars marathon, starting with episodes I and II (The Phantom Menace & Attack of the Clones) on Thanksgiving evening and episodes III-VI (all the rest) on Friday.

I feel the Star Wars films are a cultural background of my life. They were made over a period of my life ranging from when I was 14 to when I was 42, so I experienced the wonder of each installment as they were released. It is interesting watching the series in the order of the story timeline rather than the order in which they were made. They say great films are those that you get something different from each time you see them, and this time watching the last three films (the first three film made), I appreciated more than before the interactions between Darth Vader, Obi-Wan and the Emperor, this time knowing more of the backstory.

Here are some other observations one makes when seeing all six movies over a 30 hour period:

George Lucas must have grown up with fears of having his hands & arms cut off. Appendages are sliced off left and right in all six films. He also has a fear of high, exposed places.

Sonya is more of a Star Wars nerd than I realized. During a break in Revenge of the Sith, we had a visit from her friend, her brother and his girlfriend, and Sonya excitedly explained to them what she had figured out regarding the metaclorians.

The light saver fight between Qui-Gon, Obi Wan and Darth Maul is the best such fight in all six films. This was due to the cool double bladed saber, Darth Maul's Satanic makeup, and the apocalyptic choral score.

The Phantom Menace and Empire Strikes Back have the best original music. Considering how dramatic and memorable the music is in these two films, the themes from the other films (A New Hope aside) is surprisingly forgettable.

In the Empire Strikes Back DVD version, the original Emperor was replaced with Ian McDiarmid, who was the Emperor in Return of the Jedi and Palpatine in episodes I-III. I think I watched this DVD when we first bought it, but I don't recall noticing the switch.

I'm wondering if any of the dialog referring to the backstory in episodes IV-VI and been re-edited or re-looped to conform better to episodes I-III. I'm sure someone who's a bigger SW geek than I has watched the DVDs and VHS versions side by side and posted notes on the Internet. Ah.. found it here!. The only such change noted here is from Empire where the Emperor indirectly refers to Luke being Darth Vader's son, prior to the Big Reveal at the end of the film.

I love the politics of the first three films, which address how a democracy can be led by the nose into a dictatorship. The Revenge of the Sith DVD contains deleted scenes that deal more with the politics of the Chancellor Palpatine's ascension to the evil dark emperor. If those scenes had been left in the film, it would have been a stronger film. Some people have read comments about George Bush into this, but I believe Lucas's inspiration was the rise of Adolph Hitler. Episodes IV, V, an VI mostly lack this political depth.

I don't find Jar-Jar so annoying now, but I'm still turned off by the Ewoks.

I'm predicting that the norm for future generations will be to watch them in sequential order rather than the order they were made. The Star War fans of the future will experience the story in a very different way than those of the current generation.

Who's trying to"Revise History?"

In a speech given to the American Enterprise Institute, Vice Predident Dick Cheney said:

Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of this nation is utterly false. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics.

Who does he think he's fooling? Isn't this the same Dick Cheney who said on Meet the Press in 2002 that "We know for a fact" and "We have confirmed" that Saddam had all sorts of frightening weapons, including a reconstited nuclear weapons program, and when asked if Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, shrugged his shoulders and said "We just don't know!"

If he were asked if the Nazis, the Pasadena PTA, or space aliens were involved in 9/11, would he say "We just don't know"?

Is there any way to reconcile his statements other than by concluding that Cheney is the most brazen liar ever to hold his position?

Bush's WMD Fraud Finally An Issue

The Bush Administration has reached a new low over the past ten days.

Back up three years. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld take reasonable suspicions and concerns over Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction and exaggerate them into “a growing and gathering threat.” Mobile biological weapons labs, unmanned drones capable of spreading them over the US, and a reconstituted nuclear weapons program were described in great detail in speeches and Sunday morning programs. These statements were prefaced with phrases like “We know for a fact that..” or “We have confirmed...”

In fact, these intelligence reports with neither known for a fact nor were they confirmed. They were based on unreliable informants, forged documents, assumptions based on past behavior, and vague information such as satellite photos given the most alarming interpretation possible. Non-sequitor references to the 9/11 terrorist attacks were thrown in so that those not listening too closely would believe there was a connection. There is no doubt that Congress and the public were mislead into supporting an war as part of an agenda that was not being articulated.

Now, three years later, the Bush Administration is being called on their words and feels compelled to respond. Unable to answer these charges other than by admitting “the intelligence was wrong, they resort to name calling and nonsensical accusations.

“They’re trying to re-write history!” No, you’re trying to rewrite history by claiming that you didn’t mislead us!

“They’re supporting the terrorists” So dissent or discussing the truth means supporting the enemy?

“We’re going to throw (the critic’s) words back in their face.” Pointing out that democrats erred by believing Cheney was telling the truth certainly doesn’t absolve him. During the pre-war period, many democrats were afraid of becoming a 21s Century version of Neville Chamberlain, the British political figure infamous for appeasing the Nazis in the 1930s. They may have had doubts about Iraqi WMDs, but didn’t want to minimize the threat in case the threat turned out to be real.

Finally, when Vietnam veteran and 30-year Marine Rep. John Murtha called for the withdraw of US troops from Iraq, he’s called a coward in Congress and Scott McClellen accused him of adopting the policies of Michael Moore.

This presidency is certainly the most dishonest, disingenuous presidency in my lifetime, and possibly the history of the country, and polls show that people are finally starting to notice.

But for those of us paying attention, this is all old news. Why the hell was the official disinformation campaign no more than a background issue during last years election?

The Great West Wing Debate

Those watching The West Wing saw last Sunday the TV debate between Democrat Matt Santos and Republican Arnold Vinick, played respectively by Jimmy Smitts and Alan Alda.

I thought it was great fun for the candidates to drop the normal rules and make more of a loosely-moderated free-for-all. Real presidential candidates are too cautious, but this is TV, and this change made the debate much more fun to watch.

When one of them referred to President Bartlett, it broke reality for me, as I was really looking forward to voting for one of them. I’d pick either of them over George Bush, so the Bartlett reference was a disappointing reminder that I can’t pick either of them for that.

Here’s a few interesting things I noticed:

• In The West Wing alternate universe, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war didn’t happen.


• But they are experiencing record high gasoline prices.


• The Enron collapse also happened.


• Santos made a pledge to never start a war for oil, which drew an enthusiastic response from the studio audience. But since the Iraq War isn’t happening in the West Wing universe, I’m not sure what this was in reference to.


• Vinick responding, explaining that oil is a world commodity and that there’s no reason to go to war for it because any country that has it will want to sell it. This is a good retort to the “No Blood for Oil” slogan that the more simple thinking anti-war people like to chant, but it’s still not clear what Santos and Vinick are referring to.

And the winner? People tend to perceive their own guy as the winner of these debates, and I will make no exception: I’d still vote for Arnold Vinick to succeed Bartlett, providing the show with a more relevant forum to explore current events & issues, as well as to provide an example that one can be a Republican without trying to impose a religious-inspired agenda on the whole country.

Setting the Clocks Again

Can anyone explain to me the purpose of changing our clocks twice a year? Allegedly it is to save energy, but it seems to me that any energy you save on one end of the day (by getting up later or going to bed earlier) just gets burned on the other end of the day.All the shift to Standard time means to me is that for a few months during the winter, I live on the dark side of the world - at least during the week. It is dark when I leave the house in the morning, and as of yesterday it is getting dark when I get home. And I'm fortunate to end my workday earlier than most commuters.