connecting*the*dots

Associated Press
Theater Pulls Trailer for ‘United 93′

NEW YORK - A New York City movie theater has pulled the trailer for “United 93,” which chronicles in real time the hijacked United Airlines flight that crashed into a Western Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11.

The AMC Loews Lincoln Square 12 theater in Manhattan said it made the decision after viewers complained they found it too upsetting.

“I don’t think people are ready for this,” theater manager Kevin Adjodha said.

“One lady was crying,” Adjodha told Newsweek. “She was saying that we shouldn’t have played the trailer. That this was wrong.”

Universal Studios in Los Angeles, meanwhile, said it would go ahead with plans to show the trailer for the thriller, which is scheduled to open in theaters on April 28.

Adam Fogelson, Universal’s president of marketing, said the trailer would be shown only before R-rated movies or “grown-up” PG-13 ones.

“The film is not sanitized or softened, it’s an honest and real look” at the events of Flight 93, Fogelson told The New York Times in Tuesday editions. “If I sanitized the trailer beyond what’s there, am I suggesting that the experience will be less real than what the movie itself is? We as a company feel comfortable that it is a responsible and fair way to show what’s coming.”

“United 93″ is scheduled to make its world premiere on opening night at the Tribeca Film Festival in Manhattan.

The festival, which was created to help lower Manhattan recover economically from the attacks, begins April 25 and runs through May 7.

The trailer begins with images of passengers boarding the plane on a sunny morning, and builds to a disturbing scene that includes actual news video of a plane about to hit one of the World Trade Center towers. It then returns inside Flight 93 as terrorists begin hijacking it and a passenger calls his family to tell them of the impending disaster.

The Families of Flight 93 have said that Universal Pictures will donate 10 percent of the first three days’ grosses to the memorial.

Where to begin? I guess I could start with my absolute disdain for the philathropic smokescreen Universal is attempting with their pathetic 10% donation of the first three days gross (that makes my last 401k plan of a 25% match up to 6% look charitable), but that’s not my major issue.

What fucking asshole decided to make this film? If you’re someone that considers 9/11 to be historically synonymous to Pearl Harbor, how ready do you think America circa 1946 would’ve been for a similar flick? America had already wrapped up WWII (while bombing Japan to hell in the process) yet I’d bet that the raw nerve of December 7, 1941 would’ve been wide open.

Almost five years beyond 9/11 we still (supposedly) can’t even find bin Laden, yet we’ve succeeded in destablizing an entire region — murdering tens of thousands of innocent people in the process while mobilizing the recruitment efforts of the very fundamentalist fervor we’re attempting to “battle.”

We’ve done everything except make a complex global situation less complex, and now the first 9/11 movie is on the horizon for release. We all know what happened on that horrific day, but know absolutely nothing about the seeds that led up to that day. I guess in this world of reality tv and goverment positioning, that doesn’t mean anything.

Personally speaking, I don’t appreciate the attempt to capitalize on my raw nerves and emotions surrounding the event. Then again, it took me more than a year to simply sit through the news footage of the planes crashing into the WTC due to being forced to walk though the rubble of Ground Zero for over a year on my daily commute from Brooklyn to Jersey City…

I might not have the average American’s perspective on this one.

What do you think?

I had planned on writing a long review of V and linking over to current memes that voice a similar “power to the people” message, but there’s no need.

The people are on it.

Yesterday, Andy and I had the opportunity to rap with a handful of UNCG film students, as his former professor (Matt Barr) invited him to present his documentary, reveal his creative process and expose the realities of the distribution game. I tagged along to introduce the possibilities of the web; how it can be used as both a creative channel and a viral mechanism for distribution.

Andy dove right in and introduced the story behind his documentary (Greensboro’s Child) to the students — the ties between the 1979 KKK shootings of five worker’s rights protesters and the unjust sentencing of a civil rights activist’s child to two life sentences for unarmed burglary just 7 years later.

The entire time I sat listening intently to my brother’s passionate presentation, I couldn’t help but notice the amount of times he mentioned his desire to not only go back into the film and improve upon his student-level production techniques (he began the documentary back in 1996), but to continue to document the unfolding story by re-editing the film and updating it with the findings of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

While I completely understand his intent and agree with the desired results, I just don’t agree with the approach — not in this day and age.

As a blogger and an enthusiast of web/documentary projects like the Echo Chamber Project and The War Tapes, my perspective of an evolving narrative is completely different than Andy’s.

When I think about Greensboro’s Child, I view it as a foundation of knowledge; an element that can be built upon with new elements of video, images and text to create an even broader and more reputable narrative thesis. It’s an impossible goal to continuously include the numerous, ever-evolving tentacles of the story (the Greensboro police department, the community attitude, etc.) within a single 1.5 hour long documentary.

So once the lights came back on and the students finished their Q&A, I introduced myself, a bit of my career history and proceeded to find my zone… Somewhere in the midst of my presentation, I introduced:

• myself as an activist, rather than a designer (a first)
• the possibilities of using cutting edge video distribution channels to introduce their voices to the world, such as youtube, currentTV, democracy
• how a mixture of blogging and video can have a more lasting reach than both tv and film (Rocketboom for example)

By the time my diatribe subsided, I found myself engaged in a conversation surrounding The People, Yes. Once we moved beyond the concept of the collaborative blog for the homeless of Greensboro, we evolved into a conversation about weekly trips into the community to capture the various stories of the underprivileged, on camera, and turning it back around as weekly shorts in a vlog. Heads were nodding left and right as the film students seemed eager to participate in such a project.

So I now have a new angle to TPY… and quite possibly a pool of energetic, dedicated, creative filmmakers to participate in the cause.

While walking off the UNCG campus, I turned around to take in a final glimpse… something, I don’t know what, just seemed different…

Tompkins and Adamson at the Austin airport

Well, it took me until today to be able to write my goodbye to Austin. Man, that town and conference kicks some serious ass. Some of my favorite moments from this past week:

• Bruce Sterling’s closing remarks on the state of the world. I’ve never been moved to tears by a public speaker before… I’ve a new favorite author.
• Running into Doc Searls after the Sterling presentation, and chatting with him for an hour about everything from our shared past in Jersey and Greensboro (my current residence) to our love of basketball to our vastly different experiences with the KKK (mine is through my brother’s documentary, you gotta ask Doc about his) and then hitting up a BBQ joint with Doc, Marc Canter, Nancy White and Jerry Michalski.
• Experiencing Kirby Dick’s This Film Is Not Yet Rated and Alan Berlinger’s Wide Awake at the greatest theatre experience I’ve ever come across, the Alamo Drafthouse.
• Adam Greenfield’s ubiquitous computing presentation. (Adam is so very articulate and cultured, I can only hope that experience design is taken more seriously within the world of ubicomp than it is within the web) and Peter Morville’s Ambient Findability presentation. Two very similar topics, yet two very different presentations.
• Finally meeting Tish Grier, Will Giese, Thomas Vander Wal, Peter Merholtz, Tara Hunt and Chris Messina in person after months of blogging, commenting, plazing and flickring each other (did I say flickring?). And yes, I can confirm without a doubt that missrogue and factoryjoe are the web 2.0 version of Bonnie and Clyde.
• Hitting up the town with Khoi, Chris, Ralph and Jeff. We were robbed of the SXSW Web Award for Best Green / Non-Profit site (mediamatters.org) damnit! So we drank more.
• I only ran into one former collegue/friend at the conference — Dan Saffer — but I think I made a handful of new ones along the way.

I had a blast. And I’m looking forward to next year already.

Kirby Dick, you motherfucking rule.

Al Franken is a fucking warrior for the truth — from his dedication to battle the system’s misinformation on Air America to walking into classrooms, teaching our youth to be aware of the snakes in the media by using long division.

Literally.

In one brilliant scene, he exposed Brit Hume’s bullshit statistics regarding the safety in Iraq compared to the yearly homicide death count in California, by simply dividing the death tolls by taking the populations of each territory. .002745 is not greater than .25 (my figures might be off).

Talk about proving why math matters to kids.

Nick Doob & Chris Hegedus’ God Spoke is an amazingly revealing peek into Franken’s life and social periphery. His devotion to family and friends (from his father and wife to Paul Wellstone) is a revealing exploration of his character, providing a glimpse into his inspiration to both participate and live in a fair, democratic Republic.

And of course, the guy is simply funny as hell. One of the greatest moments of the movie came when he and Ann Coulter engaged in a debate, on stage, before a live audience. The moderator asked Ann who she would choose to be if she could be anyone throughout history. Her response? Twofold: Sen. McCarthy because of his ability to expose Democrats as communists and FDR, so she could revoke The New Deal.

Hsss’s from the Austin audience filled the theater.

Al’s choice? Hitler, so he could revoke the holocaust, WWII, etc. In-the-moment fucking brilliance that brought down the house I tell you.

He’s running in 2008 for a Senate seat in Minnesota. I can’t wait to see his first debate (if his opponent doesn’t duck and hide that is). Keep on keeping on Al, and don’t ever change to win an election.

We need more people like you willing to take politics back to the people while staying real.

It’s not that Alan Berliner (writer, director, editor, producer) can’t sleep.

His creative clock has him on the graveyard shift. When the sun goes down and the shadows of the day disappear into the cloak of the night, the world pauses for him to search, discover, find meaning in it all. It’s his time to capture the previous day’s cultural images and remix them into his library of meaning.

It’s his time to create.

Some would say that Berliner is obsessive compulsive. Sure, maybe by the definition of a pedigree expert needing to prescribe another individual’s place in the world a fitting label and a career extending dose of pharma.

I’d argue that he sees the world through his eyes, which isn’t as common of a feat as one might surmise. Berliner takes the time to categorize nearly every sound, image and video that he comes across, and the evening is his obvious extention of his rebuild process; creating new context from ideas and producing his vision for the screen.

Wide Awake is his meta-documentary, exploring all of his flaws and brilliance, as it relates to his health, childhood, wife and newborn son (an especially insightful and beautiful display of viewing life through the eyes of our children).

Alan, if you ever come across this post, you gotta go play with flickr. You’ll love it.

Well, I made it to Austin in one piece, but since it took me until last week to register, I had to rush to get a hotel and transportation and kinda blew both.

My hotel is about a mile away from the Austin Convention Center (ACC ) — not terrible — but my rental reservation, well, it didn’t quite work. I must’ve missed a submit button in my haste. So I’m walking around town, which is a good thing, as I’ve become Veal over the last six months working out of my home office.

So after walking across the river, I met up with Tish Grier (of Snarkaholic and Corante Media Hub fame). Over lunch, we talked citizen media, self-promotion in the blogging age (do we really need to think about it?), the role of an academic pedigree in the market and… elbow grease (ask Tish about that one)

Following lunch, we headed back to the ACC to check email, met David Beach from Yahoo! while sharing table space, made some temporary party plans and went our separate ways; it was time for me to get catch Thank You For Smoking over at the Alamo Draft House.

The theater is as hip as can be, with wait-staff taking both drink and food orders from our seats. Yes, I ordered a Guinness pint from the middle of the theater. It felt like I was front-row at the Knicks game. Can you say, dope? And then the movie…

So true and so funny. Classic. Jason Reitman — the writer and director — took the time afterwards to answer questions and tell a few behind the scenes tales; one dealing with the Katie Holmes “missing sex scene” at a Toronto festival and the other being Sam Eliott’s pension for carrying his own rifle on set.

And with that, we were rushed out of the theater into the now packed streets of downtown Austin. Excuse me, but it’s time to go hit up a party.

Austin rocks.

I didn’t grow up with Johnny Cash on my record player or in my tapedeck. I guess that’s probably the case for most guys coming of age in Jersey in the mid-80’s. The bands that introduced me to rock ‘n roll were The Cars, Dire Straits and Pink Floyd. Johnny Cash was a blurry legend, a few generations before my time, falling into the class of Elvis and Hank Williams. Sure, I heard him, but I never really felt him. He represented a completely different universe of emotions.

Or so I thought.

I just got back from Walk The Line, and I’m still caught up in the afterglow. I’m going to shut up now and go find my Cash album and drift off to sleep.

Chris Penn, RIP

He always played the right-hand man, the bit part, even the little brother in real life, but he made every moment onscreen a memorable one. As a tribute, here are my all-time favorite Chris Penn moments:

• Footloose: For taking one on the chin (professionally) by letting Kevin Bacon teach him how to dance, in a montage sequence, to the cheesiest song of all time (check the title of this post)
• All The Right Moves: For being a dumbass by getting his girlfriend pregnant, thereby giving up his only chance to escape SteelTown USA on a football scholarship.
• True Romance: For being the no nonsense vice-cop that hilariously scared the living shit out of Cousin Balki
• At Close Range: (One of my all-time favorites) For looking his father in the eyes as he’s about to be put down for good. Just thinking about that scene makes the hair on my body stand on end.
• Reservoir Dogs: Favorite lines from a film chock full of great dialog:
  Nice Guy Eddie: The chick got tired of him beatin’ her so one night she walks in the guys bedroom and super glues his dick to his belly. Ambulance came and had to cut him loose.
  Mr. Pink: That ain’t all that bad.
  Nice Guy Eddie: Oh yeah, how would you feel if every time you had to take a piss you had to do a hand stand?
• GTA San Andreas: For being the epitome of a punk ass cop and letting me chase him down, run him off the road and waste his ass.

You are missed.

I’ve had the Koran sitting on my bookshelve for the past ten years; I have no idea how The Message has alluded me until this past weekend.

While the historical accuracy of the film and its brilliant acting took center stage, there were explicit elements of both the production and storyline I found especially intriguing.

For instance, Islamic law forbids portraying either the voice or likeness of the Prophet Mohammed (that concept would put Christianity straight out of business), so when certain scenes called for interaction with The Prophet, director Moustapha Akkad made the call to turn the camera into Mohammed’s silent point of view.

The cast of followers spoke directly to Mohammed, yet they were simultaneously engaged in conversation with the audience, providing us with the positioning of The Prophet. In 1976, this may not have been viewed as a compelling technique, but in the age of first person shooter video games — where we directly engage and interact with the narrative, driving the storyline as we gaze into the eyes of AI avatars — the technique shifts meaning over the years. Very retro-cool.

In terms of the story, both the politics and marketplace of Mecca circa 600 AD were fascinating and generated numerous offshoots of thought.

The film reveals that the ruling class of Mecca kept the populous in-line, and themselves profitable, through establishing a marketplace of ~360 idolic “Gods” — wooden or clay figures, sold to individuals and families alike to provide good luck. The families blindly worshiped them as their personal saviors (talk about instant, add-water religion) and left the ruling class alone to continue their manipulation of the market and society.

When Muhammed returned from the mountains and began sharing his first poetic drops of the Koran, amongst the numerous stanzas (of eventual Islamic law), the message that forbode the worship of other gods was explicit. “There is only one God” quickly became the righteous chant of all classes of men who followed Muhammed’s revelations. Upon experiencing this shifting of inclusion (of social classes) and exclusion (of idolic gods), the local merchants/governors took this challenge of authority as a direct threat to the well-greased mechanism of Mecca’s economy, class and power structure and responded with force.

The mere concept of “There can only be one God” was more revolutionary than any number of armed men storming the city because their God could not generate a profit.

After digesting the film, my mind’s eye kept returning to the current global struggles between Islam and the West, asking the question as to whether or not we’re going through a historical recurrance on a global scale. I mean, the World Trade Center was considered to be the most prolific iconic representation of the American (and Western) financial system. Could Ramzi Yousef and Osama bin Laden possibly have targeted the WTC in ‘93 and 9/11, respectively, in an attempt to make a deep seeded philosophical connection with fellow fundamentalists, tying the traits of modern day global capitalism to Mecca circa 600 AD?

Yeah, the film was that deep. Now I’ve got to check out Reza Aslan’s recently published book entitled “No God But God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.” Based on Jon Stewart’s interview with him last night and the reviews of Islamic bloggers, it’s bound to be enlightening on numerous fronts.

Chris Cunningham is now officially on my radar. Better late than never.

(via blather)

Everything is everything… for real.

Go see it today and then do something positive.

Indy films definitely hit a substantial delay in finding their way to my new home in Greensboro, NC, so after a month or so of waiting, I finally had a chance to see Good Night, And Good Luck this past weekend.

Classic.

Heading into the film, I had already regarded Edward R. Murrow a warrior for exposing the truth and championing the rights of the common man and woman, but if GNAGL enlightened me to anything it was to his absolute dedication to a pure journalistic method and a deeply, refined and realistic business acumen.

The Prototypical Newsman

With his classic, stoic, "just the facts ma’am" delivery, Murrow captivated his audience. He came across as an authority figure to the less media savvy audience of the 1950’s, but he also played the role of friend and confidant in the daily struggle to keep on keeping on. Murrow knew very well that if he didn’t consistently frame the paradoxes and contradictions of reality (in this case, Senator Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt), he’d be fair game for criticism and his career would head south quicker than a goose caught up in an October jet stream. That recognition of ethical behavior and accountability was too refreshing to view on film, because in our modern day, mass media world, those self-applied standards of journalistic integrity have all but flown the coop.

Understanding Power

If the film was even close to truly representing the relationship between Murrow and William Paley (the head of CBS), they provided an amazing service by exposing the foundation which drives decisions within the media ecosystem: advertising.

While Murrow bartered with Paley at every turn in order to continue exposing the world around him, Paley seemed forever caught between a rock and a hard place; he needed to keep Murrow happy with his role at CBS by providing the latitude necessary to fuel his journalistic passion while somehow balancing the finicky palette of his paid advertisers. The character development of Paley was rich and multidimensional, as I truly felt his angst in the midst of his paradoxical role within such a Darwinesque ecosystem.

And to see Edward R. Murrow, champion of the people, interviewing Liberace, well, it spoke volumes about the character of the man. He didn’t play the role of prima donna, refusing to lower his standards to run chatty interviews. He didn’t use an agent to threaten litigation. He recognized his role in adding value to the network by spreading his good name across programming that would return a dollar for Paley and the executive team. Though, the look on his face while he ran a fluff interview reminded me of a look and a feeling I’ve seen and heard hundreds of times over.

Modern Day Murrows

The majority of present day citizen journalists—Murrow molded bloggers—have day jobs. We design websites, write code, run businesses, multi-task like madmen, etc. Do we all wish we could blog for a living? I’d venture to say that most of us would say yes, as long as we wouldn’t have a strict editorial edict with advertising pressures. You see, we’re a bit spoiled like that.

Murrow had to navigate closed, controlled environments with a high degree of grace in order to shed light through one window of opportunity, one night a week. Bloggers? Well, we’ve become accustom to firing from the hip, espousing our opinions, perspectives and, yes, researched journalism on a intra-day basis, with no editor or advertising revenues to be concerned with. Has this new paradigm created irresponsible reporting? No more than the closed venue of the mainstream media. The difference is that we’re now empowered to network common visions and dreams, driving the potential of a new day into an actual sunrise, and the power of that freedom is upsetting the status quo.

Corporate media and industries are absolutely petrified by the potential of ordinary people gaining broadcast reach. And as much as I plan on assisting corporate America through this transition into the fast track of iterative development and customer accountability, until they can recognize that everything has changed and that we, the people, are now empowered, I won’t lose one wink of sleep over their concerns.

Can There Be Flat Hierarchy?

It’s true that if it weren’t for the relentless corporate push to rapidly develop and monetize the web in the mid-90’s, blogging technology might not have come about as quickly. Just as true was that VC investment in the potential of the web greatly contributed to the explosion of the infrastructure of information retrieval — collaborative filtering, search algorithms and now folksonomies.

So yes, we are all in this together. The talent needs the funding, but not as much as the funding needs the talent. Remember the last time we danced to this tune: capitalist power players funded the development of the internet on the shoulders of false stickiness, returning large dividends of ad revenue while the innovators focused on innovation. Many of those same capitalists continued to overinvest by underwriting ridiculous IPO’s until the bubble burst. Was it coincidence that a majority of them could reinvest in the internet at a basement entry price, while the talent scrambled about just to retain paid gigs?

Now the power players are scrambling to monetize our blood, sweat and tears at every turn, on every feed, on every page, while we continue to blaze paths two steps ahead of them with our eyes focused on the greater good. We’ll keep doing our thing, they’ll keep doing theirs.

In the end, what else can we say to them but “Good Night, and Good Luck?”

As an American, I fully understand the definition of hypocrisy.

Whether you’re a devout Catholic or an agnostic who reads between the lines, it’s easy to see the hypocrisy that runs rampant in modern day America.

And while it’s absolutely true that degrees of hypocrisy can be found in the actions of all inhabitants of this earth, only the most despicable human beings will fine tune and harness their hypocrisies in order to move into greater positions of power and wealth to the detriment of others.

Large corporations have perfected this systemic practice of monetary advancement through the guise of competition and the free market and people who understand how to harness the operating levers of these machinations have the ability to freelance in similar fashion.

In this age of readily made available information, one can document patterns of hypocrisy quite easily, as they are in abundance. Take this example set forth by Sean Hannity, which is covered in detail within the documentary, “This Divided State,” shot just before the presidential election of 2004.

From the logs of Jesus’ General, it appears that Michael Moore charged a $40,000 appearance fee to speak to a crowd at Utah Valley Community College. Now, appearance fees, even of the $40,000 variety, are standard practice from celebrity types, whether they’re former government officials, top corporate executives, All-Pro athletes or even overweight filmmakers. The speaker’s political affiliation doesn’t play a part in the fee either, as both sides of the aisle cash in on these opportunities. So how does Sean Hannity expose himself as a hypocrite? In an effort to subterfuge Moore’s appearance, Hannity schedules a pre-emptive lecture at the same college and charges a, get this, zero appearance fee.

Wait a second… That’s not hypocritical. Student fees stay in student pockets for Hannity, yet Michael Moore, the liberal of all liberals, charges out the wazoo to come hear him preach. Before tackling this particular charge of hypocrisy, let’s think about how this no fee/fee dichotomy of actors play in the mind of students attending this school? What about the people that live in the community or the ones who came out to hear Hannity speak? What about the average tax-paying citizen hearing this news around the country?

The lasting image left in the minds of these hard-working Americans is “Sean Hannity cares enough to speak with us on his dime, while Michael Moore charges a big fee to support the creation of another one of his anti-American propaganda films.”

This prevailing message is so black and white due to Hannity’s uncanny ability to leverage his hypocritical nature throughout his career. The fact of the matter is that Sean Hannity charged this small college more than $48,000 in travel accommodations, specifically for traveling by private jet.

In the end, both Hannity and Moore charged upwards of $60,000 for their individual visits, but the way that Hannity structured the line items in his invoice allowed him to present a “no appearance fee” visit.

Sneaky, eh?

So why does this matter?

Michael Moore followed Hannity’s visit a week later. The pre-emptive disinformation by Hannity was designed to create a election time clusterfuck for Moore’s lecture the following week. While both men ended up selling out their respective lectures, Hannity pulled in $13,500 more in donations, which added up to a noteworthy difference in net school expenditures of ~$17,000. That’s an important number, for the next time this school is looking for a speaker with a fixed budget, they might shy away from Moore or someone similar in shape and size.

I wasn’t at either of the lectures, and I’m waiting for the DVD to become available, so I can’t say for certain why one group of people donated so much more than the other, but I’ll venture into the realm of speculation in this instance.

I’ve followed Hannity’s shtick since his days on talk radio in New York City. The man knows how the rile up a crowd, pushing button after button to get the flock moving in his direction. In the provided clip, Hannity drops lines such as:

“…Michael Moore isn’t worth one red cent of student funds, by the way…”

After measuring the crowd reaction to such an opinion (heavy cheers), he moves onto calling out to the liberals in the lecture hall to stand up and identify themselves, with a condescending chant of:

“…here little liberals, here liberals, liberals, liberals…”

With the background framed by a huge American flag draped onstage, Hannity follows up by putting a face to the opposition in the minds of the still-seated crowd by stating:

“…ladies and gentlemen, here is the surest sign that our educational system is failing.”

As the crowd cheers, all is well in Mulberry now that Hannity is here.

Now, forget the politics of the still-seated people for a moment; they could’ve represented a mixed political pot, ranging from liberals who refused to stand (or as I like to call them: Democrats) to the extreme right-wing conservatives (or as I like to call them: the Minority).

The people that remained seated are simply looking for something to believe in, which in today’s day and age, is completely understandable. But the sick thing about Hannity and his ilk is that they understand this audience inside and out and will capitalize on their fears without thinking twice.

So when the crowd disperses from a Sean Hannity lecture, you can bet that people are reaching for their
wallets to keep them feeling pumped up and proud to be an American. How could anyone, including Michael Moore, compete with a pre-emptive, "no appearance fee" grandstand such as that? (unless they were hell bent to use similar hypocritical, manipulative and deceiving tactics).

Again, I’ve yet to see the film and have only seen the clip from the Hannity presentation, but I’d bet that Moore’s audience included a greater opposition to his platform due to the Hannity circus that rolled out of town just a week prior; "anti-American" targets remain fresh in ones mind, especially when they’re coming directly to ones neighborhood.

So you might be asking yourself, how does all of this relate to blogging and Web 2.0? It relates on a multitude of levels:

• If you’re reading this, you’re already participating in the blogosphere, legitimizing it that much more as an alternative form of media and/or press.
• If you make a comment to this post or subsequently post elsewhere, you’ll serve to expand the
  discourse around Sean Hannity and the power of misinformation
• If you trackback to this post, you’re working towards creating a semantic perspective around Sean Hannity and the power of misinformation

Active participation in the blogosphere , such as the above, supports one of the primary pillars of the Web
2.0 meme; to make opaque information transparent. You might not have come across this instance of hypocrisy and misinformation if you weren’t reading this blog. Ten years ago, that statement would have been an absolute as personal publishing had yet to hit the market. So while people, like you, are expanding the reach and discourse of the blogosphere, intuitive interfaces—from Rojo to Blogpulse to Technorati—are being designed to help people connect the dots of information and data, aggregating far ranging contextual topics across the web.

Easy access to reliable information? Community and political discourse? Could it possibly be that we’re in the midst of rebuilding a Democratic Republic from the ground, or network, up?

Social networks exist in the reality of our lives. On-line, services such as flickr , Yahoo! 360 and LinkedIn are popping up all over the place, and while each of these social networks are focused on specific interests and needs of people via a particular branded domain, with hooks into other data sources from around the web, they still only serve as a microcosm of the semantic potential of Web 2.0 and beyond.

What would happen if brands truly opened up and worked together to share the greater possibilities of profit? How much more connected would our lives become in the process of such innovation? How could optimized information object search and retrieval, mixed into these applications, change the dynamics of wealthy, resourceful individuals using the media as a lie and spin zone?

I’d be a hypocrite if I said I wasn’t looking forward to the day…

Whomever coined the phrase, “We learn from history’s mistakes” was only partially right — over the past 50 years, America seems to perfect them when given a second chance.

This isn’t new, but it’s worthy of being represented to the blogosphere. DJ Danger Mouse went after the Bush Boys six months ago, framing “The New World Order” in its proper context; money, power and US sponsored terrorism in the Middle East (Iraq vs. Iran). The temerity of an American leader to utter those four words to Congress is beyond frightening, as it sounds like propaganda straight out of Nazi Germany.

You’ll need the On2 Codec to view the QT Movie

(via Guerrilla News Network)

I’m a registered Independent, so everyone is fair game for me to criticize. And that’s my only beef with Michael Moore’s approach to his work. While I agree with his stance on about everything he’s dropped, he practically disappeared from the theatre-going public eye for eight years while Clinton was in office. Okay, he made “Big One,” but that doesn’t quite count.

If you’re a documentary filmmaker, attempting to represent the best interests of the people in this country, specifically the under-privilaged, don’t be partisan. There’s more than enough bullshit on Capitol Hill to sift through during any administration in the White House.

Greed, shadyness and stupidity don’t hold political cards.

I realize that Moore didn’t vote for Clinton or Gore in the last two elections, but his films projects a perception of a hardcore anti-Republican stance, instead of one that just supports doing the right thing, first and foremost. The government of this country—including the media—operates with the smoke and mirrors of a two-party system, meaning that Moore’s output can then be manipulated to work against the Democratic party, as he is presented as a strong supporter of “the other side.”

There’s nothing wrong with choosing a party to support per se, but when his agenda is to open the eyes of the fringe to sway votes (with Fahrenheit 9/11), middle-ground needs to be served in the midst of the sniper fire as a peace offering.

No matter! I’m counting the days for the release of “Fahrenheit 9/11.” I’m hoping he can put to celluloid at least a chunk of emotions that I’ve been struggling with for the past 3+ years. Call him what you may, but Moore does have a knack for capturing the poignancy of a particular issue.

It was around 1989 that I read Six Days of the Condor — a perfect story for an 18 year-old, chock full of deceit, murder, paranoia, sex, intrigue, spies. For some reason — possibly my attention span at the time — the end of the book threw me for a loop. So tonight, I kicked back with my Netflix choice of the week and watched the film adaptation: Three Days of the Condor.

Three words: Rent. it. now.

It was made 28 years ago, yet the plot line has come to life in eerie fashion over the last few years. I don’t want to ruin the movie for you, so if you are going to rent it, don’t read on.

Condor (played by Robert Redford) is a spy, and per chance, misses a hit on his office that leaves the entire office of seven dead. After some brilliant screenwriting, we come to find out that one of his previous reports, sent off to Langley as usual, hit a nerve within a secret faction of the CIA that just happened to be playing war games concerning the overthrow of an unstable regime in the Middle East in order to gain control of oil reserves.

Sure, the US has been meddling with numerous foreign spots over the past 50 years to keep a stranglehold on power, but shivers the size of nine inch nails traveled down my spine just the same.

The rogue CIA unit ordered the execution of the entire office after reading Condor’s spot-on investigative report, so he does the only thing he can and goes on the run to plan his next step. After outwitting numerous suits over the course of the film, he ends up confronting the CIA Director directly in front of the New York Times office in Manhattan.

After a quick verbal sparring over the morality of what our government was doing, Condor tells the Director that the story is out and the Times will be publishing it all. The film ends with the CIA Director asking Condor,

“What if they don’t print it, then where will you go?”

Redford’s face drops a bit as the last frame freezes on him.

Does Our Press Get Squeezed?

Forget the uncanny plot line that syncs up with the recent activity in Iraq (and the wild coincidence of the main NYC CIA office being in the WTC) all together. It’s eerie to see this on film, but I’m more interested with the final jab.

I often wonder how free our press really is. Our government has indoctrinated us to speak so harshly against media practices around the world, especially during the eighties and in the midst the cold war (when I was an impressionable teenager). The old “look, over there!” trick has done the trick to build a sycophantic capitalist society of productive worker bees.

Here’s something to ponder: Did you know that congress is on the verge of passing unprecedented legislation, allowing media entities to merge with minimal limitations? Can you imagine what this could mean in an Orwellian novel? Or in this capitalist society where an individual, like Bill Gates, has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined?

Less and less competitive news media = a singular perspective.

• Advertising revenue begins to drive editorial premise and journalistic objectivity.
• Agendas are set and met.
• A top down, targeted media push (via news, marketing, advertising, programming, etc.) becomes the mainstay of communication operations.

Our society has evolved from watching the news on TV at 6 and 11 (1970’s) to digesting news 24 hours a day on TV, radio, and the internet (1990’s) to having access to thousands of individual perspectives blasting on blogs (present). So with all of this newfound access we should feel both informed and empowered, right?

To quote Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, “That’s what they want us to think.”

For even the most advanced netizen, information technology is still a hindrance when trying to decipher noise from news, and fiction from fact. Simple to use, individually operated publishing channels are now available to the masses through blogging, but the reach to the majority is minimal at best as they’re presented in a non-digestible ecosystem.

I can easily imagine the power structure in this country thinking:

Let the kids play with their toys — be it bloggers broadcasting opinions based on theory or fact — no one will be able to tell the difference. No one will ever connect the dots even if they do find “truth.” The sheer amount of posts and opinions projected outwards will make all opinions null and void.

Our organized, top-down messaging is so strong via advertising, marketing, media, etc., that the bottom-up representation of the people will become lost in the noise of the the mainstream media, as well as in it’s own scattered presentation.

We’ll then use their information as data to feed our strategic messaging.

Americans have turned into thought veal over the past twenty-years. We’ve been tenderized perfectly to be devoured oh-so-nicely in an economic system that is set up to succeed only if the masses over-consume everything from food to entertainment to material goods to political punditry.

This is the boogie man that lives under my bed. I step on his throat when getting up each morning.

Every once in a while, a Sci-fi movie comes around the bend that actually makes you think:

• Bladerunner did it for me in ‘82
• Brazil even more so in ‘85
• And then came Gattaca in ‘97

Well, this November, the year of 2002, Steven Soderburgh has brought another gem into the fold. Solaris will probably only do 10% the gate of his remake of Oceans Eleven, but hey, that’s straight up mathamatics; only 10% of that audience will even ‘get’ this brilliantly directed and acted pseudo-remake of Andrei Tarkovsky’s epic 1972 film of the same title.

The beauty of this film, as with all great sci-fi films, is that the most challenging questions surrounding our humanity comes into play:

• Who are we?
• Where do we come from?
• Do we have control over our destiny?
• Is intelligence equitable to Godliness?

Solaris weaves through each of these questions (and more) with a plodding tempo and soundtrack, reminiscent to a heartbeat, providing the backbone of a humanistic journey of self-discovery; both on film and in the theatre itself.

Solaris will not provide answers, only pose questions and possibilities. It’s up to you to invest your intellect to come to your own conclusions. Be one of the 10%. It’s definitely worth the investment.

Michael Moore is the man.

Well, not "The Man" (that would be the racist, greedy, loathsome punk he’s tirelessly chasing down), but he is one righteous cat. Damn, it’s refreshing to hear a man speak from his heart and not from the corner of his mouth. If you hadn’t guessed by the title of this entry, I saw ‘Bowling for Columbine’ last night. I’m (almost) at a loss for words, but I’m now provoked and really upset.

Top 10 things that struck me after watching "Bowling…"

10) Work for Welfare is a joke
9) Right wing Christians (or anything else right wing) live a scared life
8) Dick Clark has as much compassion as real skin left on his face
7) If James Nichols had Osama bin Laden’s bankroll… he’d be more dangerous
6) You probably won’t get shot in Canada
5) Marilyn Manson is more intelligent than most of our leaders
4) You can get a rifle when opening a bank account in the US… really
3) I’d probably consume raw sewage before ever working for Lockheed Martin
2) This country was built on fear, violence and oppression. Sounds like a modern day TVlineup, eh?
1) Charlton Heston needs to be put out of his misery… with a rifle

I realized most of these points before going to the movie (except for the part about Dick Clark…what a… dick), but the presentation was worth it’s weight in gold.

I don’t consider myself to be left or right, like the masses that will debate the credibility of this film for the near future. I try to formulate my opinions based on the situation at hand. But to a righty, that’s a lefty. To a lefty, it’s a non-committed vote. To me, it’s the only way to remain sane in this twisted society we live in.

Michael Moore has the courage of a warrior and the conviction to follow up. Thank God. Hopefully, my brother’s documentary gets picked up and he can follow in Moore’s enormous footsteps.

Righteous cats.

I just spent the last weekend in Chi-town with my brother, Andy, and my mother, Nancy (now you know 3/4 of the Coon clan). We chewed up about 12 hours in front of the big screen, catching numerous independent films at the Digital Visions Film Festival where andy had entered his documentary for review.

At the end of the festival, Andy walked away with the award for Best Research Documentary with “Greensboro’s Child.” As compelling as the story is on it’s own, Andy’s filmmaking makes a poignant story both personal and uplifting. I’m sure if you contacted him for a copy, he would be more than happy to send you one.

Now that’s one proud mama Coon.

First, there was theDancing Baby. Now we have an internet superhero capable of swinging (literally) from the West Village to San Francisco, as well as from criminal to criminal. I’d like to introduce (drumroll please) gay Spiderman!

Don’t ask me who created this, but whoever they are, they’re my new heroes. Brilliant! It answers all my questions about Peter Parker after sitting through Spiderman and watching him turn down Kirsten Dunst — he was probably holding out for the Green Goblin.

I have to give my brother, Andy, a major shout out for his recent kudos down in North Carolina.

First, the feature film, “Burying Merriweather,” which he produced and starred in, is premiering next week at a local theatre in Greensboro, North Carolina. Two nights of big screen viewing and then off to film festivals around the country.

And then today, he found out that his documentary, “Greensboro’s Child” has been accepted at the Carolinal Film and Video Festival. Andy is a dedicated cat. It’s great to see his career start to take off. Love ya bro!