There’s No Excuse for Putin, But NATO Should Have Seen This Coming…

01 Tuesday Mar 2022

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Int Pol. Posts Index, International Politics

Tags

international politics, NATO, politics, Putin, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine War, USA, War

This opinion piece by Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, eloquently outlines what I think has been the biggest single blunder of the West, in its relationship with Russia, since the end of the First Cold War in 1989: the expansion of NATO to the doorstep of Russia.

This expansion championed by the Clinton administration in the late 1990s, tweaked a long held, and after the Nazi invasion of 1941 which resulted in 20 million Soviet deaths, an easily understood paranoia of Russians to perceived encroachment from the West.

That, despite protest from Moscow, the USA and Europe pushed NATO into former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states bordering Russia, was an act of hubris that is now reaping the blowback that everyone should have expected.

This is not to excuse Putin, who owns his own despicable place in history, but it has provided him with an all too Trumpian looking nationalist fig leaf to justify his tantrum smackdown of Ukraine, for daring to want to leave his putrid umbrella of influence.

ps. In light of Putin’s own fascistic behavior at home and in invading Ukraine, it’s ironic that he claims to be doing it to ‘deNazify’ Ukraine; which unlike Russia, at least has the seeds of a democratic future…

[This New York Times article is gifted via my subscription and is freely available]
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DPDmwbiOMNAo6B_EGKfbd_Zt12wjeBTd5HPfopTeB1iO9DOkgnAy-Znqy5orVXaSMktdD0GWosw5PGWb1_-jWyZDXnI706nefhtFfba2m6RPfZ0nc-IAYy9MBudVqr3CEO1b6FRrAuoqR23_crBZl6RTYSNmLd77SzVUIIaJjRZQrc6wI2R-hYRTjQ-NeZ4LoGewhTYknUGDI9uS1vrYMBZ65Eefr3PBUie8HhgL8OCGQOLYmhB5A5QoK8hKz8l6WU1jVngbnQC4SvpOa6&smid=url-share

Trump’s Government Shutdown, Iran and the Kitchen Sink…

14 Monday Jan 2019

Posted by Zak de Courcy in International Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

current-events, Democratic Party, Democrats, Donald Trump, Iran, National Emergency, Republican Party, Republicans, Shutdown, Trump, USA, USA Politcs

In its 4th week, the record breaking US government shutdown is affecting millions of people who rely on the government for their survival, seems far from a resolution, and for what?

This shutdown was instigated by Trump when the Democrats refused to cave to his ludicrous demand for $5.7B to build his Mexican wall, which he promised Mexico would pay for. Apart from the fact that this money would only build a fraction of his wall, most observers question whether it would be effective at all, given that most contraband comes through border road entry points anyway, or via drones, planes, cannons and tunnels. Worse, Trump has fired up over this dispute that surely comes nowhere close to justifying the catastrophic harm he is causing.

I wondered why someone as cunning as Trump would resort to this issue as his first protracted confrontation, his potential Alamo? What’s in it for him? The first obvious answer is that it fires up his core ‘Build the Wall’ base of support. It also provides a huge distraction from the many flashpoints bursting around him. But, surely there’s got to be more to it than that?
With the Mueller investigation of Russia and Trump wrapping up soon, and with several bombshell revelations soon to follow, Trump must be able to read the tea leaves: he’s in for a very torrid time.

Now back to the shutdown… Trump has been openly flirting with the idea of declaring a ‘National Emergency’ which he says he could use to divert money from the military and FEMA to fund his wall. Whether he actually does declare an emergency on this occasion, I think is moot. I don’t think he will. But by keeping the idea of a declared emergency bubbling in the public consciousness for weeks, Trump is softening Americans to the very notion that such an emergency could be readily called.

Why would Trump be so keen to have the possibility of a ‘National Emergency’ handy in his back pocket? Because such an NE declaration gives him access to unprecedented and potentially almost dictatorial powers, at least in the short term. And as I’m sure he knows, the congressional review of such powers has rarely been exercised and would be very difficult to curtail. With his army of partisan judicial appointments, it’s also likely that at least some courts could be found to support him.

Trump’s rabid base has already been indoctrinated to the view that CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times are the “enemy of the people”, so they are prepared for a barrage of negative press against their hero from that quarter of the media. As well, the Republicans in Congress have already proved to be completely spineless and without a shred of principle or decency, as they have fallen in behind Trump. So, we cannot expect much in the way of resistance from them. And while the Democrats do now control the House of Representatives, critically, after the mid-term elections where they lost Senate seats, they now have next to no influence in that more powerful chamber. It’s the Senate that will ultimately determine Trumps fate and that body is now Trumps happy spitoon.

So, back to Trump’s ‘Emergency’. Trump has always seemed to operate behind a wall of obfuscation, misdirection, fantasy, invention and created chaos. It wouldn’t take much for Trump to concoct a cyber war or even a hot war with Iran to justify ‘controls over the internet’, including search (just Google ‘idiot’ and select the images tab: the first 12 images are of Trump). Already, Trump has reportedly ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for military strikes on Iran. It also wouldn’t take much for Trump to bury adverse reports like Mueller’s, or even an impeachment, under the cover of a ‘National Emergency’. And, if you think war with Iran is far fetched, remember the concocted intelligence that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

When the real push from the Democrats and the media comes, don’t expect Trump to put his nation first and consider the consequences of his actions, do expect him to chuck everything, including the kitchen sink to defend himself.

We’re all in for one hell of a ride.

More
• The Atlantic have produced this interesting piece which takes these themes a bit further. It’a a long read, perhaps best savoured in bites, but it’s quite illuminating.
What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency [The Atlantic]

Clinton Supporters are Scaremongering about Donald Trump to Silence the Concerns of the Young and the Poor

26 Saturday Mar 2016

Posted by Zak de Courcy in International Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Benjamin Studebaker, Bernie Sanders, Democratic Party, Democrats, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, USA, USA politics

This is an incredible piece of analysis that really blows the fluff and bubble off the Bernie Sanders / Trump scare campaign. I’m an ardent supporter of Bernie because he strikes me as someone who has walked the walk for more than 50 years with unimpeachable service to humanity. He also talks about a new compact with Americans that amounts to a FDR style ‘New Deal’ but writ so much larger. His campaign also promises much in the way of example for the rest of the world.

This is a long read but I promise you it’s worth it.

Benjamin Studebaker

I started seeing it a few weeks ago, when Daily Kos told its contributors that after March 15th, they were no longer allowed to robustly criticize Hillary Clinton from the left. As Donald Trump continues to win, win, and win some more, it has only intensified. First they asked Bernie Sanders supporters to unite behind Clinton. Now they’re accusing Sanders supporters of being privileged if they resist. And from there, it’s just a small step to calling Sanders’ people enablers of racism, sexism, or even fascism. If you haven’t seen these arguments yet, you will soon. The arguments being peddled are very poorly constructed. They rely on a mix of fear and bias toward the near.

View original post 3,160 more words

I Am Bradley Manning!

23 Sunday Jun 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in International Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Afghan War Logs, Barack Obama, Bradley Manning, Cablegate, collateral murder video, Daniel Ellsberg, Espionage Act, international politics, Iraq War Logs, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, langley virginia, Lyndon Johnson, New York Times, North West, Pentagon Papers, politics, Richard Nixon, The Guardian, us state department, USA, USA politics, Washington Post, WikiLeaks

They say you can be judged by the company you keep. President Barack Obama has chosen to take a stand for the criminals that Bradley Manning bravely exposed and to stay silent while this whistleblower is persecuted for causing embarrassment and discomfort to his administration.

Pfc. Bradley Manning

Check out the Iraq Collateral Murder Video that started it all:
• Watch the video:

• Learn more about the video that exposed the gunning down of unarmed civilians, journalists and children, here:
Read about the Collateral Murder Video

To claim that Manning’s leaks have given aid to ‘the enemy’ because some of his leaked info was found in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, is ridiculous. If they’d found a New York Times article with a photo of the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, would they accuse the ‘Times of ‘aiding the enemy’ by providing Osama with that targeting information? Nothing that Manning allegedly released through WikiLeaks, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times, has been shown to have caused any real harm to anyone but it has revealed the duplicity of the USA’s actions in the world. For causing this dent to US pride and prestige, Bradley Manning is to pay with the loss of his liberty for a very long time.

I read Manning’s hour-long statement to the court at his pre-trial hearing at the end of February and cried. This young man is only 25 and has sacrificed the rest of his life for this.

• Read the full text of Manning’s statement:
The Guardian’s transcript of Manning’s pre-trial statement
or
• Listen to Manning’s statement:

Daniel Ellsberg** exposed the Johnson and Nixon Administration’s Vietnam War lies, was vilified but is now recognised as a genuine hero. Similarly, Bradley Manning will go down in history for bravely risking death by daring to expose the lies and criminal behavior of the US military (the Collateral Murder Video and the Iraq and Afghan War logs) and shining a light on the murky dealings of the US State Department with the Cablegate exposure. On the other hand, Barack Obama’s legacy will always be stained by this cruel and vindictive response to Manning’s incredibly brave, ethical act. As Daniel Ellsberg, himself pointed out: “I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case”.

• Please watch this moving video and share this post if you can:

The featured celebrities involved in the project are:
Actor, Maggie Gyllenhaal; Pink Floyd legend, Roger Waters; Oscar winning director of Platoon, Oliver Stone; revered Vietnam War whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg; legendary talk show host and political activist, Phil Donahue; President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner; Pulitzer Prize winning author, Alice Walker (The Color Purple); legendary RATM and Audioslave guitarist and activist, Tom Morello; Rolling Stone journalist, Matt Taibbi; actor, Peter Sarsgaard; human rights activist and scholar, Angela Davis; music icon, Moby; artist, Molly Crabapple; environmentalist and founder of Peaceful Uprising, Tim DeChristopher; West Point graduate, Lt. Dan Choi; the famous (and arrested) Occupy Wall Street activist, retired Episcopal Bishop George Packard; the ever controversial, Russell Brand; award winning American investigative journalist, Allan Nairn; Pulitzer Prize winning political journalist, Chris Hedges; actor, Wallace Shawn; novelist and political commentator, Adhaf Soueif; and Iraq War veteran of Bravo Company 2-16, Josh Stieber, who was seen on the ground in the Collateral Murder Video and was so incensed by what he’d seen that he renounced his support for President Bush, became a conscientious objector and campaigned against the Iraq war.

** Daniel Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 with crimes carrying a possible 115 year sentence. The charges were dismissed in 1973 following revelations of illegal phone taps by the FBI.

More:
Learn more about the campaign to support Bradley Manning:
• The Bradley manning Support Network
• I Am Bradley Manning Project

My son Toby said, “Funny how this story isn’t given any coverage. It’s one of the biggest stories of our generation.”.
I agree… But in an age of expedience, it’s hard to measure effective journalism when the important issues of our time are things like… Kanye and Kim naming their new daughter, North West.

Please share!
:: Please leave a comment ::

The Wall Street Obesity Epidemic: Let Them Eat Cake!

15 Wednesday May 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in International Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bastille day, Bill Gates, Capitalism, Capitalist system, CIA, development economics research, extreme poverty, FBI, GFC, greed, Homeland Security, international politics, K Street, Occupy movement, occupy-wall-street, Oxfam, politics, poverty, tax, tax haven, Ted Turner, terrorism, the 1%, the 99%, United Nations, USA, USA politics, Warren Buffett

Watch this, then we should talk…

Blows your mind eh. It’s obscene the amount of latitude, deference and aspirational support we give to this evil aspect of Capitalism. How is this level of outrageous greed possible when more than a billion humans live on less than $2 a day and at least another billion live in grinding poverty. It’s hard to imagine that any of the 1% have any ethical values when you know just how obese their wallets are.

I imagine this 1% also see terrorism emanating from the impoverished and uneducated 3rd world, as an attack on freedom or the Capitalist system (or maybe just an attack on western conspicuous gluttony to you and me); or perhaps more cynically, just the blowback cost of doing their egregious business. Oh, and they cleverly get taxpayers to pay the bill for this cost with huge increases in anti-terrorism budgets at the CIA, Homeland Security and the FBI, while slashing spending on prosecuting these same Wall Street criminals… Nice work, K Street.

Unfortunately, this video puts it more coherently than the well meaning but incomprehensibly disparate Occupy Movement ever did (apart from the ‘We are the 99%” slogan that is) … Pity… Had hopeful visions of another Bastille Day back then (with less pitchforks and muskets and more placards and bullhorns).

While Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Ted Turner are divesting their huge wealth, doing great and much needed work in the 3rd world, what are the rest of the grotesquely wealthy doing? Oxfam recently reported that, “The world’s 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over.”. This group also represents only a minuscule number of the 1% worst wealth hoarders. The World Institute for Development Economics Research at the United Nations, released a report in 2006 that indicated that the richest 1% of adults in the world owned a staggering 40% of the planet’s wealth, while the top 10% wallowed in a full 85% of global assets. On the other hand, the bottom 50% of the world’s adult population could only account for a tiny 1% of the world’s wealth. In the last 6 years, which included the GFC, this calamitous situation has got even worse. According to Oxfam’s 2012 report, “The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process,”.

Here’s an idea for somewhere to start… Just shutting off tax havens that enable the wealthy (and corporations) to avoid their obligations to pay tax, would raise $189bn in additional tax revenues, according to Oxfam, and that’s more than enough to end extreme poverty in the world.

Thanks to Shaun C. for sharing the video (I know the video went viral a while back but…).

Learn more:
• World’s richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers.
By James Randerson (The Guardian, 6 December 2006)
• It’s the Inequality, Stupid!
By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot (Mother Jones, March/April 2011 Issue)
• The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all.
(Oxfam Media Briefing, 18 January 2013)

Anyone got a problem with this?

:: Please leave a comment ::

The Sunday Screening Session….. Iron Man 2 (2010)

12 Sunday May 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Film

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Action, Action & Adventure, Adrenaline Rush, Adventure, California, Dan Lebental, Don Cheadle, Film, film review, Garry Shandling, Guy Movie, Gwyneth Paltrow, hollywood, iRate:: 3½ / 5, Iron Man 2, Jack Kirby, John Debney, Jon Favreau, Just For Fun, Kate Mara, Master Villain Film, Matthew Libatique, Mickey Rourke, Monaco, Monte Carlo, New York City, Paul Bettany, Rick Pearson, Robert Downey Jr., Sam Rockwell, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Sci-Fi Action, Science Fiction, Stan Lee, Starpower, Sunday Screening Session, Superhero Film, USA

Mood?:: Adrenaline Rush | Guy Movie |
Just For Fun | Starpower.
iRate:: 3½ / 5
Director:: Jon Favreau.
Writers:: Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby (characters and graphic novel);
Justin Theroux (screenplay).
Cinematography:: Matthew Libatique.
Editors:: Dan Lebental and Rick Pearson.
Music Score:: John Debney.
Cast:: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Kate Mara, Paul Bettany, Samuel L. Jackson, Jon Favreau, Garry Shandling.

Credits (Click to expand)

Trailer:
http://youtu.be/siQgD9qOhRs

iReview:
Next week I’m planning to check out Iron Man 3 in 3D (it’s a threshold test to see how much torture my eyes can endure). Before I do, I thought I’d sit through a refresher with Iron Man 2. Unfortunately I don’t have the Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy) edition with all its spectacular extras, I only have the lamo 1 disc version. Fortunately though, the main event, the Blu-ray movie, is identical on both.

What Happens:
In the exciting sequal to Iron Man, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is under pressure from a devious Senator Stern (Garry Shandling), abetted by arms manufacturer and nasty-piece-of-work, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), to turn over his Iron Man suit to the US Military.

Meanwhile in Russia, Tony’s father’s one-time partner, Anton Vanko (Eugene Lazarev) is dying. His embittered son, Ivan (Mickey Rourke), vows to make Stark pay while also exacting revenge on the USA. With the assistance of Hammer, Ivan sets about executing his evil plans with an Iron Man suit of his own and an army of remote-controlled killer drones.

Story (Click to expand)

From the outset, the thundering notes of AC/DC, telegraph that this is going to a fun ride. As well, it provides a connecting thread to the first film (when Back in Black memorably blasted from the boom box in the U.S. Air Force convoy escorting Stark in Afghanistan). This time, Shoot to Thrill opens the show and Highway to Hell provides a fitting bookend. Merchandising for the movie also saw an AC/DC soundtrack album released to coincide with the film. Unfortunately, it was a soundtrack in name only, as most of its AC/DC songs did not appear in the movie and almost all the tracks that did, including those by Daft Punk and The Clash, were excluded.

With this branch of the super-hero universe there’s none of the noirish and forbidding tone of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, nor the facile treatment of Spider-man 3. While the Nolan series is in a league of its own, the Iron Man arc seems to place the movies squarely within the comic end of comic-book adaptations. That the filmmakers selected Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a character, suggests they may also have had James Bond in mind as they fashioned this screen version of Stark. If you need convincing, take a look at Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) with all his metal fangs and tell me that’s not an homage to Jaws (Richard Kiel) from The Spy Who Loved Me (1977).

Iron Man (2008) had a relatively straightforward mission to fulfill, giving us the origin story and a turncoat villain to defeat. The story was also linear with enough action and well written nuance, to more than satisfy critics and the legion of fans alike. For this sequel, the gallery of allies and rogues has been greatly expanded and I admit to fearing there was potential for Spider-man 3 syndrome (too many spinning tops in the plot and an abundance of uninteresting and underdeveloped characters). Happily, with Iron Man 2, I was reminded that a well developed and integrated script together with interesting characters backed by strong actors, can keep many tops spinning successfully.

In the same way that the very dour Christian Bale, personifies Nolan’s Batman, part of the genius of the Iron Man series series is the perfect synergy of character to actor. Before 2008 when the original was released, Robert Downey Jr. was viewed by many as a very charismatic and gifted, but also slightly dissolute, actor with a possibly limited future; just the man to portray Iron Man then. While super-hero action flicks don’t need great actors to succeed, they sure as hell can still elevate an otherwise good film. In this case, Downey carries the Iron Man franchise and gives the character the glint that makes the narcissist, egocentric Stark, an amusing and likable asshole. Add to that, the life threatening crisis imposed on Stark by the palladium in his ARC reactor chest implant, and somehow he becomes a sympathetic character as well.

Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns as Stark’s exasperated and unstated love interest who progresses from overworked assistant to company CEO. Both Paltrow and new action princess, Scarlett Johansson (Natalie ‘Black Widow’ Rushman), were convincing.

Ivan ‘Whiplash’ Vanko (Mickey Rourke) is a welcome addition to the Villain Hall of Fame. Rourke’s skill as an actor, gives Vanko a depth of character that’s not obvious from the words on the page. His whip-cracking party trick that disrupts the race at Monaco is also the film’s memorable highlight. Spectacular as the this sequence was though, I did wonder, given that Stark only decided to drive at the last moment, how Vanko was so well prepared to meet him on the track… hmmmm.

Memorable as Vanko was, I think it’s unfortunately telling that his biggest moment comes so early. He had enough strength and physical presence for a lot more personal mayhem. So, while I enjoyed what we were allowed, I think he was well underutilized with all that brawn, just sitting around in the film’s second half. I would have been happier with a lot more Vanko destructo and less of the storm of clashing and crashing metal bots at the end.

Don Cheadle takes over from Terrence Howard, playing Colonel James ‘Rhodey’ Rhodes, Stark’s friend and link to the military. Rhodey’s got to deal with a few loyalty issues throughout the movie but, as you’d hope, the sidekick comes through in the end.

While most of the subplots and characters were well handled, I had a little trouble with the Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) plotline. This well connected military adviser and weapons specialist, was also completely corrupt and so consumed by ambition that he would do anything, including trusting a shackled, known terrorist to deliver a mega-weapon for him. He was also prepared to sweep aside any impediment to achieve his maniacal ends. Unfortunately, instead of the masterful, malevolent warmonger that would have been required to get to where he was, we got an evil, slightly more mocking, slightly less bumbling Colonel Klink. Ok, I’m being a bit harsh, but I think Rockwell was miscast.

Director, Jon Favreau, does a good job with the action sequences and otherwise staying out of the way. He also resists the temptation to give us a festival of action violence and keeps Downey’s charismatic face out of the suit as long as he can (unless it’s behind a heads-up display that is). He understands that the strength of this franchise, lies as much in the story Downey tells as it does in the comic-book’s flying metal suit. A lesser actor would certainly have spent more screen-time flying and busting metal and a lot less time appealing to the adults in the audience.

As with any super-hero actioner, there’s plenty of CGI but for perhaps the first time, I wasn’t conscious of the transition from drama to CGI action. The desktop created world fused seamlessly with the real, to the extent that I didn’t even think about it until after I’d sunk the last of my glass of Drambuie at the end.

Finally, I got a chuckle from the unexpected curiosity near the end of the credits: composer John Debney performing Mary Poppins’ songwriter, Richard M. Sherman’s Make Way For Tomorrow Today, a song right out of the Disney playbook, which follows the metal monster Highway to Hell by AC/DC. Oh, and if you hang in there, right to the end of the credits, there’s a short bonus scene.

The Picture:
There’s not a lot to complain about with this 1080p transfer. The cool blue hue of the image suits the genre and the attention to detail in the set design is impeccable.

The Audio:
From the crisp and raucous AC/DC beginning to the hellish Highway to Hell at the end, this is a cracker of a DTS 5.1 audio track. The energy pouring out the monitors during Vanko’s Monaco car-splitting hissy fit, was a joy. The Foley work throughout was meticulous and it showed in the crisp detail in this mix. For me, a signpost of a good sound field, is the lack of obvious signs. The explosions, the ring-tones, the camera shutters and the bullet strikes, all happen where you’d expect in the channel mix, and contribute to an enveloping and excellent track.

Verdict:
With the comic-book adaptation benchmark set so high by Nolan’s Batman trilogy, it’s pleasing to see that, while Iron Man 2 doesn’t attempt to scale those heights and doesn’t quite reach the standard of Iron Man (2008), it’s still a literate and fun addition to the super-hero genre.

iRate:: 3½ out of 5.

4Movie Tragics

Trivia:
• To prepare for his role as Ivan ‘Whiplash’ Vanko, Mickey Rourke paid a visit to Butyrka Prison, Moscow: “I tried to incorporate the whole Russian philosophy. It’s a culture of its own and I really enjoyed doing the research and meeting the people and they were very gracious there at the prison.”
• Five authentic vintage formula one race cars were used in the Monaco race, including a 1976 Lotus type 77.
• PayPal creator, Elon Musk’s development facility for SpaceX, doubled as Hammer’s factory with many actual employees acting as background extras.
• Cameo: Stan Lee, co-creator of Iron Man, appears as the man wearing suspenders who Stark identifies as Larry King.
• Cameo: Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle Corporation (a billionaire playboy, who has often been compared to Tony Stark) appears briefly at the Stark Expo. As he walks past, Stark says, “It’s the Oracle of Oracle”. Oracle’s brand is prominently placed at several points in the film, including the climactic showdown at a fictional “Oracle Biodome”.

Extras:
• Feature Commentary by Director Jon Favreau (This is an energetic narration that is interesting in the main but does occasionally annoy when Favreau veers into ‘Audio Descriptive Service for the Vision Impaired’ territory).
• SHIELD Data Vault (Provides interactive on-screen information that appears periodically during the movie, about characters, technology and weapons. Alternatively, this feature can be viewed as a stand-alone package).
• Previsualization and Animatics (Another feature that overlays information on-screen during the movie. This displays scene specific storyboards and scene animatics that give an interesting insight into scene development).

You want More!
Iron Man 2 – IMDb (Internet Movie Database)
Iron Man 2 – Rotten Tomatoes
Iron Man 2 – allmovie.com
Iron Man 2 – Wikipedia

I dare you to disagree with anything I’ve written.
:: Please leave a comment ::

Louisiana Marches Steadily Back to the 15th Century:

07 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in International Politics, Religion, Science

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Bobby Jindal, climate, creationism, evolution, intelligent design, international politics, Lamar Smith, local school board, Louisiana, louisiana legislature, Louisiana Science Education Act, louisiana students, National Science Foundation, nobel laureate, politics, religion, science, scientific method, USA, USA politics, valid science, Zack Kopplin

A few days ago, the Louisiana legislature rejected Senate Bill 26 which sought to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act which allows for creationism to be taught as valid science in schools. Two previous attempts at repeal in 2011 and 2012 also failed.

As a high school student in 2011, Zack Kopplin started the repeal campaign with the support of 78 Nobel laureate scientists. He said at the time that he kept hoping that either an adult or an organisation would take up the issue. Dismayed that no one did, he took up the cause himself, even testifying before the state Senate. He is now a Rice University student and is still pushing ahead with this campaign.

Zack Kopplin (image: billmoyers.com)

In his most recent testimony, Kopplin was quoted by the Associated Press (May 1, 2013) saying, “This law is about going back into the Dark Ages, not moving forward into the 21st Century.” He added, “Louisiana students deserve to be taught sound science and that means the theory of evolution, not creationism.”

Check out Zack Kopplin’s recent op-ed in the Guardian Newspaper:
• Louisiana counts the cost of teaching creationism – in reputation and dollars
by Zack Kopplin (Guardian, 1 May 2013)

Gov. Bobby Jindal
(image: Gage Skidmore)

For me, one of the disturbing aspects of this issue is the support of likely Republican presidential hopeful, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal for the creationist cause.

Last month, in an interview with NBC, Jindal said,
“I’ve got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let’s teach them about ‘intelligent design’…What are we scared of?”

What we are scared of, is that the USA still exercises a critical influence in the world, so to have a person like Jindal as a potential leader of that country is frightening for the future of science and education.

See the full NBC interview with Jindal here:
• One on One with Governor Bobby Jindal.

For about half the last century, the USA led the world in academic excellence and scientific discovery. Then along came the religious nutters in the form of creationists who support the teaching of intelligent design as science, to help Americans find their way back to the 15th century. When I ask myself why news like Louisiana’s rejection of SB 26, makes me seethe with anger, I answer… It’s because the hubris of these closed minded politicians and the nutters they represent, causes millions of kids to be taught lies. They are sanctimonious bloody child abusers. These kids who don’t know better, rely on their teachers to safeguard their future and help them become fully functioning adults. Instead, by allowing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design as legitimate science, they’re raising a generation of kids who wont have the choice to become geologists, paleontologists, physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, anthropologists or biologists. You can’t teach the scientific method alongside creationism or intelligent design because they are incompatible. Creationism and intelligent design which is supernatural pseudo-science, cannot survive the scrutiny of the scientific method which requires that theory withstand all evidence. Creationism and intelligent design requires only that selective evidence support theory, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. In other words, Creationists make the evidence fit the theory, not the other way round.

All natural science disciplines have provided us with overwhelming evidence that the world and the universe are billions of years old, so again they are incompatible with creationism and intelligent design which posits that dinosaurs co-existed with humans less than 10,000 years ago. All these scientific disciplines also require an understanding of the interwoven and independently verifiable history of our planet and universe not the untestable supernatural pseudo-science of creationism and intelligent design.

When you’re looking for oil, it helps if you have an understanding about the process that transforms dead organisms into liquid oil over millions of years. It helps if you know how tectonic plates have moved over millions of years so you’ve got an idea where to look. It also helps if you can identify rock stratification that has occurred over millions of years. So, if you’re a creationist who wants a job in Petroleum geology, forget it because there’s nothing in creationism or Intelligent design that will help you find oil, you need real science for that. If you’re developing new medicines, it helps if you have an understanding about how pathogens evolve and for that you need real science like evolution not creationism or intelligent design.

Louisiana is not isolated in its support of creationist pseudo-science. The rise of secular rationalism has seen Christian fundamentalists fight back with a strategy designed to circumvent the ‘separation of church and state’ by insidiously introducing this intelligent design crap-science into schools. This program is backed by the cleverly named Discovery Institute (remind you of anything? perhaps the Discovery Channel), a Seattle based right-wing Christian, Creationist lobby group, thinly disguised as a ‘think tank’. This pernicious organisation’s stated goal is to Teach the Controversy and create an aura of doubt around evolution. Its purpose seems to be to undermine the long established scientific method, which requires science theory be based on measurable and verifiable evidence, unlike the supernatural intelligent design pseudo-science which is not empirical science.

Indoctrinating kids with creationism disguised as legitimate science is the kind of blatant distortion of truth, dressed up as fact that was a hallmark of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. That’s why it makes me so f***ing angry.

More:
• Here is an excerpt from Kopplin’s 2013 Louisiana Senate testimony:
Claude Bouchard, the former Director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, calls the LSEA “anti-science” legislation whose intent is to diminish the role of science in elementary and secondary schools when teachers discuss with their students such hot topics as evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

Dr. Bouchard says that the LSEA has economic consequences. “If you are an employer in a high tech industry, in the biotechnology sector or in a business that depends heavily on science, would you prefer to hire a graduate from a state where the legislature has in a sense declared that the laws of chemistry, physics or biology can be suspended?”

Because The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology pulled a prescheduled convention from New Orleans in response to the passage of the LSEA, the repeal of this law is important to our state’s tourism industry.

According to Steve Perry, the President of the New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau, the LSEA “is a poor symbol of our state’s actual commitment to being on the cutting edge of modern science. And, it has a damaging impact on our bringing hundreds of millions of dollars of major international meetings and conventions in medical and basic sciences.”

Perry says “It is such an embarrassing, antiquated law to have on the books when we are making such transformational new investments in biotechnology, gene therapy, and neurosciences. With our entire country voicing the need for more investments in the teaching of science and mathematics, here we are re-living the kind of discussion the Catholic Church must have had with Galileo.”

• Creationist Science Committee Chair seeks to sideline Peer Review:

U.S. Congressman Lamar Smith
(image : U.S. House of Representatives)

The creationist agenda has been boosted by the appointment of creationist, Texas Republican Congressman Rep. Lamar Smith, as chairman of the House Science Committee (truly ironic, given his anti-science agenda). Smith has proposed legislation, the High Quality Research Act, which implicitly provides for political judgments on research merit and could allow climate change deniers and creationists to weigh in on possible applications of research projects. Chairman Smith is pushing for the stripping of the peer-review requirement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant process and substituting a new set of politically motivated funding criteria that is significantly less transparent and not reviewed by independent experts (ie. scientists). The funding criteria also seeks to diminish the role of research that independently verifies experimental results, a result that wouldn’t displease climate change skeptics and the scrutiny averse creationists.

More links:
See Bill Moyers’ excellent April 2013 interview with Zack Kopplin (who knew that 46% of Americans believe God created the Universe and the Earth less than 10,000 years ago… scary):

Check out Kopplin’s 2011 testimony in support of repeal of the Creationist Law here:

See more of Kopplin’s video here:
• Zack Kopplin’s Repeal the Act YouTube Channel.

Also see the complete Louisiana Senate 2013 hearings here (Kopplin’s testimony begins after about 80% has elapsed – look for SB 26 on screen):
• Louisiana Senate SB 26 hearings.

I think allowing creationism to be taught as legitimate science in schools is dangerous, because it doesn’t require the application of the scientific method and it therefore undermines and devalues rigorous science. Am I right?

:: Please leave a comment ::

Ted Cruz and the New Crusaders:

05 Sunday May 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in International Politics, Religion

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Afghanistan, Christian, crusader knight, Crusader Knights, Crusaders, Crusades, fighter squadron, GOP, Human Rights, international politics, Middle East, Muslim, Pentagon, pentagon spokesman, politics, proselytizing, religion, Republican, Ted Cruz, US Congress, USA, USA politics, Werewolves

Senator Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz, the 42 year old Texas Senator and a likely 2016 GOP candidate for president, recently addressed the Republican Party’s Silver Elephant Dinner in South Carolina. According to Politico, “He brought the crowd to its feet by denouncing the administration for cracking down on proselytizing in the armed forces.”

Cruz was quoted saying, "The United States government has no authority to tell any American, in the military or not, that he or she cannot share their faith with others,” Cruz said, exclaiming: “You know, there comes a point where you just can’t make this stuff up!"

What The Pentagon is cracking down on is not people who pray but people who aggressively proselytize, particularly in sensitive zones like Afghanistan.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said in a statement. “The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.”

“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” Christensen added.

Cultural sensitivity would suggest against a unit of the US military, headed for Afghanistan, changing its nickname from the “Werewolves” to the “Crusaders”, complete with the medieval red cross, crusader shield insignia and a crusader knight as its mascot. But the VMFA-122 USMC fighter squadron’s new commander, Lt. Col. Wade Wiegel, was determined to do just that. Equally, going into battle in Afghanistan with your “Jesus rifle” complete with the Biblical references: John 8:12 and Second Corinthians 4:6, etched into its scope, would seem arrogant and just plain stupid. But, there are Christian soldiers who were incensed by The Pentagon’s directive to scrape them off. There are many in the military who welcome the comparison with the holy wars of the past that pitted 11th century Christian Crusader Knights against Muslim warriors in almost two centuries of merciless bloodthirsty conflict in Palestine. That The Pentagon is attempting to wipe out this influence seems only sensible in a region where ‘death from the sky’ drone strikes make the locals hypersensitive and where self-righteous, Bible carrying, western Christian soldiers are not particularly welcome.

Deep within the military, though, there is also the pernicious impact of unit commanders and other senior ranks, pointedly inviting their subordinates to attend Bible classes and prayer groups. When such Bible study and prayer groups grow from small informal gatherings into large, exclusive and influential cliques then The Pentagon is right to worry about unit cohesion and freedom from religious exclusion and conflict. It’s easy to see why a minority of non religious or non Christian lower ranks might liken this type of ‘invitation’ to a subtle form of intimidation, coercion or bullying.

So when a likely GOP candidate for president decides it’s important to make a stand against The Pentagon crackdown on aggressive Christian proselytizing, he’s also making a stand for intimidation of non-religious and non-Christian minorities while also holding up the standard of the murderous medieval Christian Crusaders for the US Military.

It beggars belief that Americans just don’t get why they are so despised in the middle-east, but someone like Senator Ted Cruz goes a long way to illustrating why.

If you’re a Christian from a majority Christian country put yourself in a different space for a moment and imagine you’re a Christian from a Muslim majority country and you’re being constantly harangued by Muslims urging you to abandon your infidel ways and worship the one true god, Allah.
So, how do you feel about the possibility of aggressive Muslim proselytizing then… Not so comfortable is it?
So, why do Christians do it to non-believers and non-Christians?

:: Please leave a comment ::

The Sunday Screening Session….. No Country For Old Men (2007)

21 Sunday Apr 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Film

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

1980, Abandon All Hope, Beth Grant, Carter Burwell, Chase Movie, Coen Brothers, Cormac McCarthy, Crime, Crime Thriller, Drama, El Paso, Ethan and Joel Coen, Film, film review, Garret Dillahunt, In A Minor Key, iRate:: 4½ / 5, Javier Bardem, Joel and Ethan Coen, Josh Brolin, Modern Classic, Nail Biter, No Country for Old Men, Roger Deakins, Roger Ebert, Sunday Screening Session, Texas, Thriller, Tommy Lee Jones, USA, Woody Harrelson

No Country For Old Men (2007) (122 min)
iReview: Version: No Country For Old Men: Blu-ray Edition (Blu-ray);
Video: AVC 1080p; Audio: LPCM 5.1.
Genre:: Crime | Drama | Thriller |
Sub-Genre/Type:: Chase Movie | Crime Thriller |
Modern Classic |
Settings:: 1980 | El Paso, Texas | Texas, USA.

Mood?:: Abandon All Hope |
In A Minor Key | Nail Biter.
iRate:: 4½ / 5
Directors:: Ethan and Joel Coen.
Writers:: Cormac McCarthy (novel: No Country for Old Men);
Ethan and Joel Coen (screenplay).
Cinematography:: Roger Deakins.
Editor:: Roderick Jaynes (Ethan and Joel Coen).
Music:: Carter Burwell.
Cast:: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly MacDonald, Beth Grant, Garret Dillahunt, Stephen Root, Jason Douglas, Kit Gwin, Tess Harper, Barry Corbin.

Credits (Click to expand)

Trailer (HD):

iReview:
This week I decided to check out a movie I hadn’t seen before (unbelievably lame, I know), and also from this century: No Country For Old Men (2007). Universally praised and hailed as a filmmakers masterpiece, this movie also attracted an avalanche of awards. Joel and Ethan Coen share the record of four Oscar nominations for the same film with Orson Welles for Citizen Kane (1941) and Warren Beatty for Reds (1981). The Coens’ four nominations are for Best Picture (won as producers with Scott Rudin), Best Director (won), Best Adapted Screenplay (won), and Best Editing (under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes).

What Happens:
Acclaimed filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen deliver their most gripping and ambitious film yet in this sizzling and supercharged crime thriller.

When Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles on a bloody crime scene, a pickup truck loaded with heroin, and two million dollars in irresistible cash, his decision to take the money sets off an unstoppable chain reaction of violence and his pursuit by a nerveless psychopath, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Not even West Texas lawman, Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), can contain it.

“This magnificent film represents the best work the Coen Brothers have done since Fargo. Like that movie classic, this is a cold-blooded thriller with a darkly humorous edge… Hitchcock wouldn’t have done the suspense better.”
(David Stratton, ABC Australia, At The Movies)

“No Country for Old Men is as good a film as the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, have ever made, and they made Fargo.”
(Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times)

Story (Click to expand)

While this is recognized as the Coen brothers darkest and most tense film, it is not lacking in their signature deadpan humour. I love the way they play with Cormac McCarthy’s language in this script (yes they directed, adapted and edited the whole thing). Here’s an exchange between Deputy Wendell (Garret Dillahunt) and Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones):
Wendell
“Well, it’s a mess, ain’t it, sheriff?”
Sheriff Bell
“If it ain’t, it’ll do till the mess gets here.”

McCarthy’s writing was clearly destined for the Coens’ delightful and mischievous adaptation. I can imagine the brothers glee as they saw these words; they and Cormac are kindred spirits.

The three main characters are all beautifully drawn: Vietnam vet. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), is an expert hunter who happens upon an unhappy scene with perhaps, happy consequence – a slew of bullet-strewn bodies, bullet-ridden trucks, a truckload of drugs and 2 million dollars in cash; Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones), a very competent veteran lawman, the last in this family business, who seems slightly out of his time; and recovery guy, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), the unflinching psychopath who carves a murderous path across Texas with his gas bottle and cattle stun-gun.

Brolin is entirely believable as Moss, a man who might just be able to stay one step ahead of the unstoppable Chigurh (pronounced chugar). Tommy Lee Jones, as the slightly world weary Bell, acts his socks off in this. He utterly inhabits the role with exquisite timing and tone, and an understated delivery that tells you he’s at the top of his craft. He also wears the vernacular like a Texas native (oh, hang on a moment, he is). Bardem was born to play Chigurh and he does so with pitch perfect characterization. You just know that if you bumped into Javier on an L.A. street, you’d regret the experience; he’s that good. The three story-anchors are ably supported by Scottish actor, Kelly MacDonald, as Moss’ wife Carla, who had me completely fooled – of course she was a Texan; Woody Harrelson plays himself delivering us Carson Wells, who was sent to end the out of control murder spree and recover the money; and Beth Grant, who gives us a short but memorable turn as Carla’s abrasive mother.

From the stunning red sky silhouette that stamps Roger Deakins’ entry into the film, you know there’s some wonderful photography ahead and he doesn’t disappoint. In much the same way as cinematographer, Tom Stern has become the right hand of director, Clint Eastwood, Deakins has come to exemplify the Coen brothers films. His framing is very precise and in almost all ways, I couldn’t imagine it done better. You only need to watch the featurette: The Making of No Country for Old Men (see extras), to see the contrast between the behind-the-scenes footage, and the finished shots.

The music from Carter Burwell, another staple of the Coen universe, is unobtrusive but appropriate, leaving space for the sound of the wind to weave its magic throughout the film.

I’ve left the best for last… The work of the brothers as directors, writers and editors is near faultless. None of the plot seems forced or contrived, even though the effect of the whole is completely quirky (as you’d expect from a Coen film). The stories of the three central intertwining characters rarely fully intersect yet they are told in such a way that you’re never left wondering. The dialogue is fluid and deliberate without anything superfluous or corny. The tension built by the direction and editing is perfectly fit for purpose with so many near misses and moments of possible discovery which keep us on the edge of the seat. The hotel/motel scenes where Moss and Chigurh never meet, are exercises in pure dread. Add to that, the device of the coin toss which creates another layer of delicious tension. And, like a cat toying with its prey, the Coen brothers leave us guessing which way the coin fell, the final time, until we see Chigurh check the soles of his boots on the path out front.

The luxury of having almost complete control of the film making process is a creative advantage few directors are afforded. Even fewer filmmakers, I suspect, would be able to handle these multiple disciplines with as much finesse as the Coens. Steven Soderbergh has often photographed (as Peter Andrews) and edited (as Mary Ann Bernard) the films he’s directed, with excellent results. However, I wouldn’t rate him quite in the same class as Joel and Ethan Coen. Here, the Coens have employed their extra limb (Deakins) on camera while they have control of every other major aspect of the look of the film. The combination of their shooting script, their dialogue, their direction and their precision editing, is a rhythm that is almost musical. I became conscious of this as I mused over their many cuts and cutaways and realized they were part of a dance which also included the delivery of the dialogue. It’s very clever and something only really achievable if you control the whole shebang as they did.

This would have been an impressive genre movie even if it had a conventional conclusion. But the ending that presents itself here, was so satisfying and original that I found myself laughing completely inappropriately. If you’re one of the other three people who haven’t yet seen this movie then I’m not going to spoil it by telling you.

The Academy got it completely right in awarding the filmmakers their Oscars for this movie; as a lesson in film making it is peerless.

As a critic, Roger Ebert, regularly placed himself in the seat of a genre fan, so he would not necessarily grade on an absolute scale (according to his taste) but rather gave a relative score. Thus on Ebert’s scale, if Superman (1978) scores 4 within the superhero genre, then Hellboy (2004) gets a pretty good 3 (even though Ebert really disliked the film) and The Punisher (2004) only a 2. If I were putting myself in someone else’s seat then, like Ebert (who scored this a 4/4), I’d have to give this 5/5. But, because I want to keep a perfect 5/5 for rare movies that completely blow me away, I am awarding this a 4½ / 5. Jeez, after an explanation like that, it might have been easier just to go the 5.

The Picture:
As you would hope, with a movie of this recent vintage, the screen image is superb. Every craggy wrinkle line, every speck of blood (and there’s a lot of that) and every bullet hole crack in the glass of Moss’ truck, is displayed in brilliant detail. The colours are rich and true and the image, clean with no visible noise.

The Audio:
I wish I’d had the foresight to have bought the Collector’s Edition with its possibly superior DTS 5.1 audio track. As it happens, this Blu-ray LPCM 5.1 sound track is more than adequate. As well, as this isn’t an action flick, the quality of audio reproduction isn’t quite as critical. There were times when the balance between speakers fell short of ideal. For example, occasionally, the right front and left surround channels dominated, leaving the left front unbalanced and slightly out of the mix. Apart from these occasional anomalies, though, the audio field sounded fine.

Verdict:
I’m embarrassed that it has taken me this long to see this movie, especially as I’ve had it in the library for some time. In a way though, I’m glad I waited because I think I can now appreciate the virtuosity of its construction a lot more than I would have only a few years ago. It’s a filmmakers tour de force and a film I’ll likely learn more from with each viewing.

iRate:: 4½ out of 5.

4Movie Tragics

Extras:
• The Making of No Country for Old Men (as well as the usual filmmaker discussion about inspiration and script development, there’s some interesting behind-the-scenes action from the set… an interesting featurette) – 24min.
• Working with the Coens (this is pretty much a PR gushfest) – 8min;
• Diary of a Country Sheriff (this character featurette looks at Sheriff Bell from a number of angles and compares him with Chigurh… enjoyable without being essential) – 7min;

You want More!
No Country For Old Men – IMDb (Internet Movie Database)
No Country For Old Men – Rotten Tomatoes
No Country For Old Men – allmovie.com
No Country For Old Men – Wikipedia

Is this the best movie by the Coen brothers or does Fargo still top the list?
Have I got it completely wrong and has Stephen Hunter got it right in his Washington Post review, when he abruptly states, “I just don’t like it very much”?

:: Please leave a comment ::

The Last Civil Right? Same Sex Marriage:

08 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics, International Politics, Religion

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Australian politics, Chief Justice Earl Warren, civil rights, DOMA, gay rights, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Human Rights, international politics, LGBT, Loving v. Virginia, marriage, politics, Proposition 8, religion, same-sex marriage, US Supreme Court, USA, USA politics

For those old enough to remember, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), was a challenging and controversial film. At that time (only 46 years ago) interracial marriage was unthinkable and strongly opposed by the church as well as being illegal in 16 states in the USA and opposed by 72% of the American public. Running against the tide in 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled against interracial marriage prohibition in Loving v. Virginia. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who penned the unanimous decision, wrote in words that echo strongly for same-sex marriage:
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Today, such relationships are barely noticed let alone condemned (except by a small minority in the deep south).

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two landmark cases related to same-sex marriage. The Court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996), which defined marriage as between a male and female and also required the US federal government to deny benefits to same-sex couples, married in states that allow same-sex unions.

It seems that the last great Civil Rights issue is in the balance and once again, just like they did with interracial marriage in 1967, the churches stand on the side of prejudice (with a very few exceptions like the 1 million strong, United Church of Christ).

So while great strides have been made in recent decades to recognize the civil rights of the LGBT communities, there still exists one glaring inequality that defines them and their life partnerships as inferior and somehow frivolous: Marriage inequality.

Marriage today, particularly in the West, has moved away from being an exclusively religious institution and is now celebrated in many ways: in churches; synagogues; court houses; city halls; parks; and sometimes, in less solemn, perhaps even frivolous settings.

Some are religious ceremonies while many are very secular. Generally though, they have one thing in common: they celebrate the love, joy and commitment of two people to each other in the company of friends and family. For most, this is one of life’s highlights but it is one that is wholly denied to gay people and relegates gay relationships to being somehow less worthy and legitimate than those of straight people.

I have no problem with religious people defining for themselves the nature of their creation, their relation to a deity and dogmatically ordained relationships between people within their faith. I similarly have no objection to religious celebrants, declining to marry same-sex partners. I do however, object strongly when those same people seek to impose their definitions on the rest of society. The religious might believe that their deity created marriage to foster procreation but the reality is that marriage was a device developed thousands of years ago, long before Christianity, Islam or Judaism, to ensure property ownership and inheritance. Whatever the view, the decline in formalised religiosity in the West has paralleled an increasing view that marriage is not a necessary precursor to procreation. At the same time, I believe there is a growing identification with the notion of marriage as a desirable way of publicly demonstrating and celebrating the commitment of two people, including mothers and fathers already in a family, to each other. As well, I think many people now see the legal responsibilities inherent in marriage as somehow affirming their willingness to more permanently commit to each other.

Many countries have approved or are in the process of legislating marriage equality, including: Andora, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay, although I’m ashamed to say, not my own (Australia). In the traditionally conservative United States, same-sex marriage has been legalised in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, D.C., the state of Washington and the largest state, California (barring the success of Prop 8, currently before the Supreme Court). Even in the UK which is currently ruled by a right-wing coalition government, the Conservative Party are pushing ahead with marriage equality. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, In a speech to his Conservative Party in 2011 said: “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

See the full transcript of Cameron’s speech here.

The conservative fall-back position for those opposed to same-sex marriage, seems to be: that some form of civil union might be possible. While civil unions do legally cement a gay partnership contract in much the same way as a marriage, they do so without the equality of status and celebration conferred by a straight marriage. And worse, such a confirmed legal status further entrenches the inferiority of gay relationships by only recognising their legal but not societal status. Allowing civil unions but not marriage, is akin to legally granting an African American the right to travel at the front of the bus but with a big sign fixed to his seat patronisingly proclaiming “We whites have to let you ride but you’re still BLACK!!!”, thus perpetuating the myth that being white (or in this case, straight) is still somehow superior.

At a time when family and society’s bonds are being increasingly challenged, why would we not take the opportunity to help place family and relationship commitment more firmly at the core of our communities by affirming the role of marriage as a desirable and cherished family institution not just as something religious people do before they procreate.

It’s time to remove one of the last signposts of gay inferiority, reach out the hand of inclusiveness to all people and support the affirmation of family and committed relationships intrinsic to marriage equality for all.

Has this issue reached a tipping point or are the forces of prejudice like the leader of the conservative Liberal Party in Australia, going to be able to hold back what seems like the inevitable tide of history?

:: Please leave a comment ::

Zak From Downunder

~ Zak de Courcy's sometimes incendiary thoughts about politics, life and religion.

Tag Archives: USA

There’s No Excuse for Putin, But NATO Should Have Seen This Coming…

Trump’s Government Shutdown, Iran and the Kitchen Sink…

Clinton Supporters are Scaremongering about Donald Trump to Silence the Concerns of the Young and the Poor

I Am Bradley Manning!

The Wall Street Obesity Epidemic: Let Them Eat Cake!

The Sunday Screening Session….. Iron Man 2 (2010)

Louisiana Marches Steadily Back to the 15th Century:

Ted Cruz and the New Crusaders:

The Sunday Screening Session….. No Country For Old Men (2007)

The Last Civil Right? Same Sex Marriage: