Rotating Header Image



Cindy Sheehan May Challenge California Senator Dianne Feinstein

Hugo Chavez Joins Activist Sheehan to Bash Bush

Cindy Sheehan’s son, Casey, who she says she so woefully feels self pity for having lost, fought voluntarily and confidently in the Iraq War, which he believed in, against a military dictator very similar in behavior and policy and politics to Hugo Chavez of Bolivia, who now kisses and hugs with Cindy Sheehan before the world’s media. A run for the Senate pales in responsibility compared to the degree this woman has betrayed her son’s legacy while cavorting with one of the world’s leading narco terrorists. Which means nearly as badly that she’s also betrayed with perseverance the United States of America.

Would that our national security might prevent her from returning to the country. Chavez and Castro certainly have room for her permanently — along with some fruit baskets — in Bolivia or Cuba or both.

Hear and view how little Cindy Sheehan knows about anything and even less about herself with the depth of self-pity and the destructiveness of irresponsibility, video composite:

Read Previous:


7 C O M M E N T S

  1. justaguy says:

    I saw “The New World” the other night…and I must say…it was one of the best movies that I’ve seen in quite awhile. People will likely either…love it ….or hate it. But, the film was so poetic…so beautiful…and the chemistry between Smith and Pocahontas was amazing. There was a ton of symbolism in the film as well. I highly recommend it.

    I agree with this review…

  2. justaguy says:

    er…rather the chemistry between farrell and kilcher. :)

  3. -S- says:

    Hmm…while I have not (yet) seen THE NEW WORLD, I do intend to. So, thanks for these links — for the review and also trailer.

    ABOUT this idea of the world at the time of John Smith, however, being “new” — it’s poetic and prosaic and to many, it is also historical, but it isn’t real, nor accurate. The Americas were not newly discovered nor explored neither by Pocahontas and her people nor by Smith, et al. (I do recognize that within the scope depicted here — Smith’s arrival and the response to him and that by those receiving him in the Americas — it’s “real” enough, limited enough by the in situ circumstances.)

    Therefore, I have a degree of lack of satisfaction from ongoing films that base their self-defined “fiction” on history and yet modify history for purposes of theatre. What results is that politically-correct memes and themes and perspectives of the time of production are hyped and thereby accepted as “historical fact” and “history” by audiences who don’t know any better. To be blunt, most audiences don’t know otherwise and are limited to what they do know by equally meme-modifying public education and are affected by all too many cultures arrived in the U.S. who are educated to a limiting standard and/or are politically and most often marxist-politically influenced by what education they have received (elsewhere and even, worse, in the public educational system of the U.S.).

    Thus, there is proliferating the ongoing “heroic ‘native’ versus the disgusting European” mythology and it is, however fanciful (and inaccurate) also politics at it’s most propogandized.

    This does look like an appealing film, from a theatrical point of curiosity. However, even the review captures the inaccuracies of perspective as to the inability to distinguish hype and fancy from history. I refer to the following from that review (and although, yes, a good review, it’s still fancy):

    “There are two new worlds in this film, the one the English discover, and the one Pocahontas discovers. Both discoveries center on the word ‘new,’ and what distinguishes Malick’s film is how firmly he refuses to know more than he should in Virginia in 1607 or London a few years later. The events in his film, including the tragic battles between the Indians and the settlers, seem to be happening for the first time. No one here has read a history book from the future.”

    Nor has anyone read the archaological record or a history book from the past, apparently.

    Pocahontas and her “people” were hardly proprietary arrivees in “the new world,” but were, in fact, later arrivees following several waves of human populations who had previously walked all over both North and South America for quite a while prior to…

    I think when films, such as this one, represent individuals from our known history, real identities who forged real contemporary history by mere fact that they are known to contemporary history for the lives they led and those they interacted with, I think there is an ethical obligation to be accurate in what’s presented, despite whatever socio-political perspectives and needs, even, that a filmmaker has. At least present people sincerely, in a sincere representation of who they were, along with their deeds as they are known, and then put that to play within whatever socio-political message a fillmmaker finds him/herself inspired to present, even if the two presentations collide, conflict (in which case, present the conflict but don’t modify the conflict by misrepresenting history and actual persons because there’s a preferable history desired and if that IS done, then call it the fiction that it is afterward).

    I recognize that to Pocahontas, she and her community may not have been aware of previous history available to them. What’s being revealed more often lately through archaeology, however, is that prior civilizations WERE known to most later arriving populations but were removed from cultural appreciation and familiarity due to socio-political memes. Removed, denied, refused to be recalled — scratched from memorials, so to speak, rubbed out of history if and when the later or conflicting socio-political memes of pursuit would require modification by acknowledging previous or opposition (a “civilized” process of theft of craft, theft of identity — in fact, literally uncivilized when done, the ruination or denial of previous inorder to maintain conflicting socio-political process/es).

    I think Malick is a wonderful filmmaker as to the art of film. I am literally warey, at this point, however, as to the ongoing manipulation for socio-political needs and intentions as to human history. Which then definitely affects my ability to enjoy some filmmaking, particularly when it requires the use of historical personalities inorder to accept the theatre on screen. To accept it is to accept falsehood, in that sense. When using history to this extent, then it’s best, to my view, to just call it fiction and avoid the culpability and responsibility to be accurate as to names, dates, actual known personalities. Or else be responsible for being intentionally misleading, for whatever the motives are — and they are almost always socio-political motives when done otherwise.

    I read elsewhere where someone wrote that they would not be surprised if but what the tomb of the first Emporer of China was eventually excavated and was found there a Nordic, tall, red-haired man.

    Me, either, especially since much of what is now being discovered as to archaology is that people just like that were in Northern Asia and the Americas long before those from Southern Asia were. The “tall, red-haired” people along with the tall, dark Australian Aborigines were, so far, in the Americas long, long before those from Asia. I have an abundance of information about this, if anyone would like to read it (links).

    But, otherwise, if films and socio-political needs are going to continue to drive this “innocent, precedent-laying native versus the evil European exploiter” meme, at least they can start labelling it the fiction that it is.

    I’ll go see Malick’s film, however. Nice to see Wes Studi again (trailer link here, THE NEW WORLD).

  4. -S- says:

    Yes, the casting of and performances by Colin Farrell as John Smith in the film) and Q’Orianka Kilcher (I had to look that one up) as Pocahontas seem to add up to a winner. Genuine love stories of friendship and courage are always great to see…this one looks like that’s what it is. ~;-D

  5. justaguy says:

    Some clips, etc…

    This review pretty much sums up my feelings…

    The use of various classical pieces was amazing…for instance Wagner’s “Das Rheingold: Vorspiel”

  6. -S- says:

    Well, that second review is just more emphasis as to what I was earlier writing…theatrical misrepresentation of real people with lives they didn’t live as presented. But it looks like EVOCATIVE and “good” theatre!

    I had the same reaction to WALK THE LINE after I read the Cash family comments about how Johnny Cash was depicted in the film (inaccurately, to their view, as to marriage relationship/s more than anything), and although it’s a great film (I agree that it is and that Joaquin Phoenix’s work as Cash in that film is superb — deserves the Academy Award this year), it’s one of those titles that intends to misrepresent (I write, “intends to” because I can’t believe filmmakers of these magnitutde would be so devoid of academic knowledge and if they are, woe unto our civilization).

    I had the same response to THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS. It was just wonderfully enacted and entirely well done but the book upon which it was adapted is said by Sellers’ family to depict him inaccurately. And the characterisation in the film — I didn’t know Sellers firsthand but even I wondered about the characterisation when viewing an otherwise enjoyable and raptuous film — of Sellers was for that reason uncomfortable.

    Meaning, these disparaties in charaterisation and story line undermine the believability of a film and defeat the purpose of the art. My method here goes: if it’s a film depicting a person who is known to history, there’s an ethical (and academic) responsibility to represent them sincerely, to reflect known aspects to their lives — otherwise, label the film as fiction and make it clear that the characterisation is an imagining, collaborative or otherwise.

    Interesting aspect as to the score…