Shitty SHIT SHIT!

Question #1: “Is True Lies a flattering or not-so-flattering portrayal of the U.S. Intelligence community? Why or why not?”

True Lies is a flattering portrayal of the U.S. Intelligence community, at least to people who cannot separate hyperbolic representation in film from reality. Yeah sure, if True Lies was real I would be more than proud of my badass government agents who tirelessly work behind the scenes to ensure my security. Do I even have to answer the rest of this question? It’s True Lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger for Christ's sake; anyone who watched the movie for thirty seconds can tell that the intelligence community (and all its’ covert violence) was glorified.

Question #2: “Should Americans worry about nuclear terrorism like al-Qaeda’s ‘American Hiroshima’ project or the nuclear terrorism depicted in True Lies? Why or why not?”

Yeah, but “worrying” about al-Qaeda acquiring a nuclear device won’t actually stop them from getting one. Maybe if I worry real hard. The fact is that I trust the American intelligence agencies enough to protect the United States, and even if I didn’t, I live in a flyover state, I’m not worried about getting nuked. I know what you said in class about terrorists’ plotting attacks against shopping malls and the like in less populated areas, but since I think that al-Qaeda’s strength has diminished, I don’t think that they are going to risk their existence on Oak Park Mall.

Question #3: How are Muslims/Arabs depicted in True Lies and Prayers for the Assassin? Are there any positive Arab portrayals in either True Lies or Prayers for the Assassin? Please provide justifications from each work for your answers.

Generally, pretty bad. Arnold’s sidekick (not Tom Arnold) seemed Arabic, so it appears that he is the exception to the James Cameron rule. In Prayers for the Assassin, the very protagonist of the novel, Rakkim, is a Muslim, albeit a lapsed one. However, most of the novel, along with most of True Lies sets Muslims up in the “bad-buy” role that has been sorely undeveloped since the end of the Cold War. Without the “Evil Soviets” us stupid Americans need a knee-jerk ethnic group to mass-demonize.

Jack Gustafson

Explosions, Exaggerations and Stereotypes, OH MY!

Blog Question 1:

Superficial and non-essential intelligence community portrayal aside, I absolutely adore "True Lives," because it provides the sort of humorous, action-packed and explosion-laden plot that Americans generally crave. Immediately upon seeing the names Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Arnold on the cast list, one is put on notice that the film will likely be an entertaining combination of humor and "please, do not take this seriously." I just pray, to whomever, that the actual individuals presiding over our intelligence community do not engage in the sort of "Cheaters," television show and personal investigative behavior-of their significant others, as is depicted in the film. If our intelligence community actually does act in this way, the way of constant-personal-relationship paranoia, summon God, the Saints and any other available deity to America's side, because we are unsafe against a dark and ominous, furtive evil.

Blog Question 2:

I watched an interview recently, incidentally, it was not on a real, corporate media-ran news interview program-but "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," featuring an author who has written a book on the nature of fear and how business, government and regular people capitalize on it. Sadly, I feel that without fearing us to death, many individuals in America and academia would be devoid of employment. With this being said, however, I do not advocate the utter ignorance of threats or the necessary planning that should accommodate them.

Blog Question 3:

After 9/11, I procured a copy of the Muslim Holy book, the Qu'ran and thoroughly reviewed it. Additonally, I served in the role of Islamic-Student-Affairs coordinator and worked in association with C.A.R.E. to provide fact-based answers to traditionally stereotypical question. In this respect, I can recognize a Muslim negative portrayal when I see one.

Robert is correct, Muslims and Arabs generally have contributed innumerably to our society. In Mathematics, economics and otherwise. For anyone to marginalize Arabs and Mulsims in the default category of "terrorist," is to be wholly ignorant to this group's credit for improving our modern world.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

GREAT Points, Bob! (and now for a slutty picture)

Question #1

It is a not so flattering portrayal of the intelligence community, it seems that while terrorists are trying to kill Americans these agents spy on their wives and try to get there sad lives back together. The movie was more up to date then three days of condor and is more accurate. The only thing I believe to be true was the fact Arnold got mad when he asked for an illegal wiretap and his buddy reminded him it was against the law and he said they are doing thousands a day. I completely believe that all the patriot act and 9/11 did was give these agencies legitimacy for activities they had been doing for years. This was exposed to be a spoof on the CIA and movies that deal with this type of material while they did try to be more serious about the subject matter and it showed from time to time it was exposed to entertain not inform. These “agents” worried more about bad leads and troubled marriages then anything else.

Question #2

Absolutely, Americans should worry and worry a lot because it is only a matter of time. It is simply Moore’s law applied to nuclear technology while Moore’s law states over a certain time frame that technological power will double and the price will decrease, as technology comes easier the threat rises. The doomsday clock and the scientists predicated this after the Soviet Union fell, unstable governments with nuclear weapons, a growing black market and growing number of well funded groups will gain access and materials to make their own weapon. With technology now being understood by younger people, viruses being created by kids in high school it is only a matter of time before a group that does not act reasonable or rational will release destruction on America. We are the perfect target because we are the freest nation ever to be on earth, we have the best economy, best system of government and a common belief that ties us together and pulls us forward, the American Dream. With technology such as a nuclear weapon out in the world it is only a matter of time before the worst thing imaginable happens and a way of life is erased from the face of the earth. It will not matter if it is in the Florida Keys or New York fear will destroy this nation and cease the way we live today

Question #3

The way Arabs/Muslims are depicted in the movie and in the book is not positive at all we believe that they cling to religion, something we don’t understand by its nature because it seems alien and old fashioned. We forget that these people were once the peak of human understanding they were the great mathematicians, the great alchemists, the great warriors. Europeans imported numbers from them, they rediscovered Plato and other ancient world thinkers. Europeans ran in utter fear when they saw the Islamic armies marching toward Europe. Americans do not remember all this because it happened on another continent in a time long before our own. Armies of Islam ruled from Spain to the Pacific Ocean while not under one crown, they have a rich heritage and are a powerful people. The people from those lands have been rising empire after empire and they will continue to do so. In most movies they are shown to be weak with only religion being their own knowledge, this idea needs to change or we will underestimate people we should not ever underestimate.

Robert Foster

Oh, so true

Blog Question #1

The three things I learned about the intelligence agency is that the website was wide open. It allowed me to click on any tab and provided enough information about jobs, what they do and other organizations they are connected with. The website also had videos, speeches and other reports that were informational to knowing the website and what goes on, I had figured the website would have fake links or things that seemed planted. The website seemed to be created by a business man because it laid out objective, who they are, how I can help out and what I would get out joining or signing up from this website. The clear and easiness of the website is very welcoming and almost made me forget that NSA probably scanned my whole system and will track me for the rest of my life.

Blog Question #2- Now you see it, now you don’t

The intelligence community in the Three Days of Condor is seen as a very mysterious and dangerous animal. It is a place with no transparency or accountability it seems, the main protagonist of this film does not know who he can trust much less his own name. It seemed to take a innocent and good boy who reads comic books and likes a woman he works with into a person nobody in a free society should have to be. The idea that the intelligence community is supplying a market of assassins for hire is also very sickening. The community is portrayed as confusing and at the highest levels not completely controlled or managed, where is the oversight and checks and balance system. With one cell destroying another cell simply because one could break there codes and possible ruin their cover. The community did make one good point at the end when discussing the way people act, what they want and how they expect it to be there for them. Americans do expect everything and do not like hearing they can’t have something a good and a bad thing at times. My opinion as long as moods and demand are the same as they are now then these government agencies who work for us will have to deliver what we want.

Blog Question #3- Whose your maker?

I think the warning at the end of the movie was dead on, absolutely. I believe it applies completely with the older generation and their views on the world now as my generation begins to grow in society it might not be as true. My parent’s generation had a very privileged idea of America and being the first citizens of the world, like it or not it was true being the only free superpower. The expectations can be seen in the fact we consume a disproportionate amount of oil to the size of our population. I do see my generation accepting the fact we are one among equals when looking at other cultures and nations, my generation has already shown that taxing us is not a problem it is not our main concern. The fact our generation had a lot to do with electing the first black president is huge as well. I expect my government to do the utmost to ensure we get all the resources we need or would want but within certain boundaries there has to be a moral aspect to this thinking. The government is there to serve the people but there is a difference between dictating something to us and knowing what people want. I am aware that it is almost impossible to get it right 100% of the time but I wouldn’t expect the C.I.A. to invade Brazil to obtain their sugar supplies just for American citizens.

Put it in Bullets!

I agree with my colleague Jack that the CIA and the intelligence community, generally suffers from an incredible lack of technological foresight, or, even aesthetic inspiration. The CIA's official web presence is characterized by early 90's hyper linked, visibly highlighted text and difficulty of navigation. What the CIA needs is the sort of fluidity and "flash," interactivity of white.gov, a site that previously suffered the same sort of aesthetic and functionality ailments. Whereas picture less, visibly hyper linked text was previously the norm, it is no longer so and the CIA's website must reflect accordingly.

Furthermore, the CIA and the other reviewed intelligence website-the Office of the Intelligence Director, are fatigued from the same problem that the majority of other governmental agencies and departments face, which is an over emphasis on written text. Most Americans do not want to wade through paragraph after paragraph of written text cascading in the glory of the agency---put the shit in bullet points, something that will simultaneously reduce website clutter and appeal to the Adderal attention spans of our citizenry.

The intelligence community as portrayed in "Three Days of a Condor," another film that I practically fell out of my chair in boredom while watching, can be said to be rather accurate. Depictions of inter-departmental and agency suspicions and politicking are largely the types of behavior that have been reportedly at play within said institutions. While certainly dealing with issues of utmost national security, these agencies and organizations still rely on human occupation which is "dog eat dog."

I was not awake nor alert enough to capture the concluding blog answer. Again, the sheer lack of physicality in the plot, combined with wretched soundtrack music and a general feeling of fatigue, precluded me from capturing the entirety of the film in any way that I could honestly state its impact.

Corey S. Dutra

QUICK. someone update the Incredibly Cold-War Intelligence Websites!

Question #1:

Three Things I learned from the websites that Dr. Meiers Listed:

1. The link to the games in the “CIA for Kids” section suck. (https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/games/index.html) I mean, if I was an easily persuadable kid, I wouldn’t give two shits about word finds or any other namby-pamby “games”, I would want to see a waterboarding simulator. I guess the DHS website for kids makes up for it with muppets.
2. Both the websites supplies have terrible graphics and are difficult to navigate. It looks like they haven’t been updated since the Cold War. They obviously do not care if the “Intelligence Community” bores the majority of the population, and I’m sure they would be happy if “Joe 6-Pack” didn’t even know that they existed.
3. The “intelligence” website says more by not saying very much at all.




Question #2: How is the U.S. intelligence community depicted in The Three Days of the Condor

Poorly, but that’s what makes the movie so fun. I don’t really care if the CIA has a CIA within itself, or if Robert Redford’s level of ass-kickin’ has been enhanced, I don’t care, what I care about is that the film accomplished everything that a film is supposed to accomplish, which is to be entertaining. It’s fun to think about the conspiracies that are hatched and carried out under our noses, and it’s fun to see them dramatized on the big-screen, but that’s all it is, fun. Do I think that the Intelligence Community operates in the fashion exhibited within the film? No. Do I think it could happen? Maybe, but I handle this thought with the same disgust that I handle Ron Paul supporters. Does the Intelligence Community deserve the treatment it received in the film? Why not, when an organization operates with extreme security it is only natural for people to ponder the extremes of the philosophy that is partially hidden by the agency itself, and Hollywood is the perfect tool for it.

Question #3: Is the warning given by the Cliff Robertson character Higgins to the Robert Redford character Turner at the end of the film accurate or not?

I’m sure it is. Maybe not the exact details, but I’m sure that Turner is a marked man. Even if the New York Times were to print the story, I’m sure that the Intelligence Community (at least in this film) would do everything to silence the matter, including the murder of Turner. However, this is thinking that the story will be printed which we are not guaranteed is a possibility. Turner’s big mistake was revealing his cards too early. Turner should not have told Higgins what he was going to do, he should have let it come as a surprise, now Higgins has the opportunity to reach the editors of the Times before the article is printed. For this reason, we know that Turner’s luck may finally have run out. There have been many instances of characters within the Intelligence Community commenting on Turner’s luck as the only thing that has gotten him so far, and now we can concur that as the film finishes, so too will Turner’s life.


Jack Gustafson

Artificial ASS Movie

I believe that the global warming and overpopulation issue in the movie was the only similarities I could really see. Now the world and even New York doesn’t have people sleeping in the stairwells but I am sure many places such as Calcutta, cities in China and Mexico City do. The warming of the planet is another connection with the movie; the constant heat shown in the movie while many details were left out was a frightening outcome. My generation has lived their lives with the threat of global warming we do not have the nuclear war that was prevalent in the last 40 years of the 20th century but this threat is a much tougher problem. We need to figure out an answer and Soylent Green showed what could happen. While I seriously doubt a company could figure out a way to turn dead people into food because we can’t even figure out that too much greed is bad for everyone. I cannot see America turning into well the Soviet Union anytime soon. The separate classes shown in the movie resembled the how that communist system was set-up. While it was a scary movie the comparisons fall very short to anything that resembles the world today. The world has changed, until recently it was a brighter world with a lot of the dystopian ideas all seeming to not be as relevant or possible. The world has changed so much from the time period this film tries to get across the Soviet Union has broken and many of the flaws seen in society have been fixed or just passed over. The culture war has changed, the worry about nuclear war is less of a worry and our attitudes toward many things in society have little in common with causes that people believed would destroy the world or society. The global warming theme is incredible accurate though and has past true to the test of time.

Robert Foster

SOYLENT [SNORE]

I am not certain was actually more disastrous the potential devastation wrought by the wholly unrealistic and fictional "Soylent Green:" scenario, or the the film in holistic form.

The underwhelming and quite frankly tacky portrayal of environmental dystopia in "Soylent Green," was yawn-inducing and quite uninspiring. In fact, the entirety of the film I was literally engaging in self talk and saying "is there ever going to be any action, or are we going to continue to focus on the bullshit, closet scene of the frazzled hair elderly man and the obnoxiously immoral rent-a-cop?

Based on the mere idea alone of the sort of "absolute anarchy" power depicted within the film, the movie reiterates its artificiality. Any individual who has studied anarchy can and would conclude that the essence of a nation being devoid of a government, for instance, Somalia, is a chaotic and lawless iteration of Thomas Hobbes' "State of Nature," in which individuals are unable to govern themselves and all hell ensues. "Soylent Green," inaccurately casts anarchy in the light of modern monarchy-in which the majority of citizens' lives are dictated by a scripted, and Orwellian central institution.

Truthfully, I searched for the "environmental" portion of the movie, between the half-ass love triangle, horrible decor and focus on the two nimrods tediously climbing over the homeless, the film's actual base was ostensibly non-existent.

The Malthus theory of disease being the preeminent method in maintaining population, is clearly ignored by the film. I understand that "Soylent Green" is a piece of science fiction, yet science fiction is generally not completely liberated from existential reality.

Overall, I believe that human nature and cyclically inherent processes would preclude the sort of doomsday, farcical garbage portrayed by "Soylent Green."

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Soylent WTF?!

Jack Gustafson


I think it is highly unrealistic to think that Soylent Green could ever be an actuality, not just because I’m basing this off of a Sci-Fi movie, but due to human nature. I find it highly unrealistic for there to be massive overcrowding, food shortages, and an environmental catastrophe without there being massive disease to weed out the human population. Without a doubt, I believe that most of the Earth would die out by the time living becomes as bad as in Soylent Green. Disease becomes the odds-on favorite for weeding out the population as there would be shit-ton of people with malnutrition running around; I’m sure people would start eating each other before there could be the illusion that they weren’t, for them that would be a godsend.

Okay. Ignoring disease and cannibal armies, we should expect law and order to completely collapse with an anarchic society occurring rather than an authoritative one. I think it is unrealistic to think that any government would be able to stay in power when there are that many people who have little faith in their government. You may point to China or North Korea but we can see that the population is controlled and conditioned to understand that their way of living is the best, but there is no way that the entire planet could be made to act like that without considering the extreme loss of life that would go along with that action.

The chances of Soylent Green actually occurring are incredibly low, even considering all the conditions that existed within the film. Perhaps I just see things in a black-and-white manner, but I think that humanity as we know it would cease to exist before anything like what happened in the film could happen. People in general are only concerned about their basic needs, so I believe that if we had massive overcrowding, overcrowding to the extent that we saw in the film, most people would support extermination of minority peoples in order to stay alive. I hate to think that I am so pessimistic about human nature, but I think that would be the natural outcome, that or vigilante groups doing what the government wouldn’t do.