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.

Contradicting the MAN

Jack Gustafson


Outside of the way that television and Hollywood has spoofed, and will spoof, the end of Thelma and Louise, we must understand that the film itself is still relevant, even outside of the “gender wars”. Not much has changed since the early Nineties, at least in terms of how a rape victim would be treated by the law in that similar situation; most people would say, “she was asking for it”. This is a shame, but I highly doubt that attitudes towards this will change anytime soon.
The way that the film took off after the shooting of the racist may be over-the-top, but we must not see this film as realistic, but as highly representational. What Thelma and Louise represents is an overthrow of the system of male-authority. The best example of this is when the two women put the police officer in the trunk of his own car. What makes this notable is the way the power system changes so suddenly. At first, the cop (a man) is about to thwart their attempt for freedom, but they turn the table on him. They take his gun, his belt, and his ammunition, essentially emasculating the officer, leaving him a crying mess. While the officer is crying about his wife and kids, Thelma and Louise act in an authoritarian manner. This role-reversal is still relevant today in the arts.

The film may be dated---nineties fashion and Brad Pitt being a good actor—but we mustn’t see this as an indicator for us to think that these issues have been resolved. In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, we see the same issues played with in an even more representational fashion. This dystopian novel shows what happens under a purely male-driven authority system with a heavy Christian influence. Although religion does not explicitly play a huge role in Thelma and Louise, the residual effects of Christianity are given. Thelma’s relationship with her husband is evidence of this, and I am sure that her husband would not object to living in Gilead. Her husband expected her to be completely subservient to his wishes, and as much as she breaks that mold, the film says something about the consequences. Thelma and Louise rejects the traditional male society through the actions of the characters, but at the same time reaffirms the society. The ending shows that there is no hope for women like Thelma and Louise, they are destined to fail within our society’s structure.

Gender Wars

Thelma and Louise raises significant issues related to gender. I was not in attendance for the class screening, but have previously viewed the film and vaguely remember the outlines and mainpoints. I am not certain if it is because I am seething liberal or otherwise that I attribute merit and purpose to the film.

There were many instances that made me think and that reiterated the importance of bringing issues like rape and identity to the forefront of the American, popcorn eating consciousness. Furthermore, the film's intentional portrayal of what amount to 50's era female stereotypes reminds us that even though the film was made in the early 90's, the struggle for female equality has hardly ended.

Comparing the Handmaid's tale with Thelma and Louise is rather easy. Much like an odd version of the "Stepford Wives," the characters within both of the aforementioned works are considered comparable "peons" who serve the worthless and utterly slovenly corridors of high society. Both Thelma and Louise, like the character in the novel, are portrayed as subservient, "stay at homes," and sort of fulfill the archetype of the female "June Cleaver."

The interconnected nature of expectations and the simplicity of their daily existence, the females within the movie and the novel would never be readily believed if, say, like in Thelma case she was raped. The patriarchal nature of authority both in cinema and reality dictates that females often neglect to inform medical and legal personnel about the incident. Much like an invisible ceiling exists within corporate America, the perpetration of rape constructs a rather unavoidable "it is my fault" and wounded mentality that precludes women from rightfully expressing their hurt and victimization.

When contrasting "Thelma and Louise" with Handmaid's Tale is that, unlike Thelma or Louise,the Handmaid was a resident of a highly stratified class structure that disabled her from removing herself, by choice, from the negativity and economically deprived situation that she confronted.

Some critics of feminism would view (especially) the issue of rape as a matter of women's failure to "speak up," but that is a simplistic and rather flawed logic that fails to address the reasons why many women who were, like Thelma, abused do not curb future violence by way of non-disclosure. The film does an artful and tasteful job of demonstrating the necessity of continued feminism. While many males would like to believe that we have have "outgrown" the necessity of feminism, any female can underscore the very contrary and probably provide a "Thelma and Louise" like example to demonstrate their sentiment.

I would say that the end of "Thelma and Louise" reiterates the notion that an idea or movement must be externally reinforced and the problem sort of portrayed to be perpetuated for the issue to remain legitimate and relevant. Much like the NAACP and other organizations that strive for diversity, often only the negative or most extreme examples are promoted or publicly discussed because if nothing negative is happening the organization and leaders within are devoid of a continuance catalyst. In some instances it can be said that the overwhelming positive-in the instance of feminism the progress made, can be neglected or swept under the rug so that people do not perceive the issue or series of issues to be of diminished salience.

"Thelma and Louise" concluding with the idea that women will have a difficult time advancing by way of gender structure, is real. Unfortunately,the harsh reality of gender inequality will continue to so long as there exist societal members who deny rather than acknowledge pressing matters of inequity.

Corey S. Dutra

aWW-some

The question if this film is still relevant I believe is a yes, a resounding yes. It was cleverly done and while a lot of the movie I did roll my eyes or fail to see what would be liberating about just getting into a car and driving. I have done it several times and across complete states. When watching the movie I thought it had been done maybe in the 1980’s sometime it just seemed like a world apart, even though we found out they were from Arkansas but still the whole movie seemed alien to me. Why wouldn’t women be believed, why wouldn’t they be able to drive somewhere to go fishing. I thought the fishing premise was weird I only know one girl who likes fishing and even then she goes to get a tan. The fact a woman wouldn’t be believed by the cops or the whole premise of “she was asking for it” I mean that is what struck me as when was this thing made. Granted I were only four when this movie came out but the world I grew up in was nothing like that portrayed in the movie. The whole movie would have been over 30 minutes in had they just went to the police station and said what had happened, the movie deals with a lot of prejudices; women feeling/treated as second class citizens, women being subservient to their husbands, women lacking overall freedom. The movie revolves around all these ideas, the women themselves though were either blasé and air-headed or hard and cold. So the characters in my opinion are not what I picture or know most women to necessarily to be, so this movie has a lot of built in prejudices that help to keep this movie going. This movie also takes a weird turn when they decide to turn into paladins. So was the person exposed to get from that if woman have too much freedom look at what happens; tankers for some odd reason blow up, people get shot at, stores get robbed and police officers are held captive. I mean this movie just jerks you around from one spectrum to the other and maybe that was what it was going for. We cannot forget the easy going, honest, trusting cop because police officers don’t hold grudges at all they don’t have their own baggage they bring to the job. When answering the question is this movie still relevant, I feel you would have to defer the question to a woman since the movie was based on them. From looking around the room from time to time you could see girls in the class enjoying themselves and paying attention so I believe the movie still does have some relevance. I think it is a shame it does because it means there are still some prejudices out there and those I believe need to be removed. The movie I am sure served its purpose when it was out and opened people’s eyes but it seemed that many things in the movie were relics of the past. Robert Foster

Feminism Fantastica

Blog Question: What is the legacy of “Thelma & Louise” in 2009? Is this film relevant today or is just another relic from the gender wars of the past?
I have a feeling that this blog will bring out my inner feminist, which although has a largely negative connotation, I have to remind myself often that being a “feminist” is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. The term feminist dates back to the women who worked for women’s suffrage. Not only should I be damn proud to lump myself in with those astounding women, I should feel that I am hardly worthy of that title. That tangent aside, I would like to talk about “Thelma & Louise.”

There are many aspects of “Thelma & Louise” that I find very relevant in 2009. Although the movie was dated, with a young studly Brad Pitt, and, let’s be honest, Susan Sarandon does not look that young anymore, I think that all of the major issues are still very real in the lives of women (and some men) today. Let’s start with the first hiccup; the attempted rape. The issue of rape, specifically with reporting rape, is still very much around today. Many women feel that they can’t report for the same reason Thelma couldn’t. No one would believe her and even if they did, the finger would be pointed at her. Now I’m not here to debate the epic battle of men vs. woman, and I will openly admit that men deal with some of these same issues, and even to a different extreme, but today I will limit myself to a specific gender discussion revolving around “Thelma & Louise.”

There are many similarities and differences that exist between “Thelma & Louise” and The Handmaid’s Tale. Both women had appointed roles in their society that they were expected to fulfill. Offred to be a Handmaid and provide babies for unproductive high society wives. In the same way, Thelma is expected to stay at home, clean, cook, look pretty and wait on her husband hand and foot. When Thelma drinks and dances, she is expected to “put-out.” Louise plays the role of the raped and wounded, bitter, unmarried woman. If she’s single at her age there must be something wrong with her, at least that’s what society says, and the role that Louise fulfills. However, there are some differences. For example as it was at the time and is even more so now, woman have some choice as to what role they fill in society. We can choose to be single or married, have kids or not have kids. However, the Handmaid’s had no choice. They were appointed into roles given certain circumstances that existed in their lives prior to the creation of the new class system.

I think that Thelma and Louise, although it could never be as great as this version, especially because it was on the verge of the new feminist movement. This movie is a classic and I hope that they don’t mess with it.

Beth Goin

ConspireSmire

1. The Illuminati: group that plans to take over the world. Believe in one, united world. Their symbol (pyramid with the eye) on U.S. currency.

2. Area 51: nickname for an air force base in New Mexico believed to be a holding unit for alien spacecraft.

3. Kennedy Assassination: Kennedy killed by government leaders and agencies.

4. Martin Luther King Assassination: also killed by government because if he ran for president he’d have a chance to win.

5. Marilyn Monroe’s Death: government murdered her because she learned too many government secrets during her affair with JFK.

Beth Goin

More like POS!

How would I remake the movie “Red Dawn” in this post 9/11 world that we live in? I wouldn’t. Red Dawn may have been shocking at the time of it’s initial release in the 1980s, but after hundreds of movies destroying New York City due to global weather changes, giant amphibians, and super heroes, and the release of a hundred more “War on Terror” movies, you couldn’t possibly remake “Red Dawn” and have the same affect that it did on audiences in the ‘80s.

That being said, if some lame money hungry moviemaker was going to remake it- it would be terrorists instead of Cubans and Russians. And you can be almost positive those terrorists would hate the United States and everything they stand for. They would then attack our favorite places, the places were American greedy consumerism is at it’s best. Malls, amusement parks, airports, all those places were the masses flock to and where we like to spend lots of money. Unlike Red Dawn, small towns in the middle of nowhere would probably be safe, same for places we don’t spend any time anymore, public libraries (when is the last time you were in one of those) and any place of retail that only takes cash (because who carries that anymore.)

In conclusion, if you are thinking about remaking “Red Dawn” in today’s political world, please don’t.

Y2WHAT?!

Blog Question: Brainstorm 5 “unthinkable” things that absolutely cannot occur (according to conventional political wisdom) in the political world of 2009.

5 Unthinkable things that couldn’t occur in the political world of 2009 because we’ve become to fat & lazy to worry about such things:

1. Chemical warfare.

2. Depletion of heavily relied upon natural resources (such as gasoline.)

3. Global Warming turns out to be true.

Beth Goin

4. War taking place on U.S. soil (hasn’t happened in several generations-government & citizens would be completely unprepared.)

5. Y2K- except for real this time. All computer and information systems fail us. Then where would we be?

Conspire, Conspire!

My Five Favorite Conspiracy Theorists

The first theory is the Roswell Crash and Area 51 and the government cover up. I believe that this is the king of all conspiracy theories maybe because I was made to watch The X-Files when I was little with my father and uncles. The most interesting one because most believe we are not alone in this whole universe it is similar to thinking we are the center of the universe. Most Americans believe that aliens or something has landed on earth ad there has been many encounters between governments especially our own and something from not around here. The second conspiracy theory is closer to home, the Kennedy Assassination from actually watching the video to seeing Oliver Stones take on the whole thing everybody has a opinion on this. The Kennedy assassination was such a high profile case because it was a President, he were looked at by a doctor and the simple fact he was such a loved man who would want to kill him. The truth is Kennedy had made a lot of enemies in America and outside it, from the Soviet Union to the Italian Mob that helped him get elected. The shooter is also what raises the bar when discussing the death of the president. The next conspiracy theory is moon landing with a small but growing amount of people who see the magnetic field holding us back from getting deep into space and the more we learn about sun’s deadly rays. Many people look to the video from the lunar landing and people wonder why every flight doesn’t land on the moon and establish further our colonization of it. People look to varying things like no stars in the background, film tricks and the flag waving in the background. People see that space is very hostile from debris flying around from old space stations, gamma rays and solar flares that doubt has continued to creep into people’s minds. The fourth conspiracy theory is 9/11 and how people see the whole day and how the events played out. People see the fact that the Patriot Act was pushed through in less then 30 days and destroyed our civil liberties. People look to see the fuel, turbines and sheer velocity of a place hitting a building would knock it down. I personally doubt this one very, very much because of Popular Mechanics and the way they looked at the whole scenario along with the calls form the plane wishing the best to the ones they love. The last conspiracy theory was FDR knowing that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. People in history courses always say he knew and that he saw it was an advantage but I hope this is not true because a lot of Americans died that day. People see that the Ambassador was kept waiting for longer in the waiting area. The fact our aircraft carriers were conveniently out of the harbor that day it allowed us to still fight a war and defend ourselves. People see that America needed to get into the war to save Europe and even when the Germans didn’t do anything to us.

Robert Foster

WHOA!

Whoa, man. Have you ever really looked at your hands? They’re like maps of the universe. I bet God did that.

-jack gustafson


I have always loved to read about conspiracy theories, but I have always had an unchangeable prejudice towards those who actually believe in them. To me, people who hold on tighly to conspiracy theories are no better than the religious fanatics, in that both groups of people try to forge their identities out of sheer ridiculousness. With that said, here are my “Top 5 Favorite Political Conspiracies(!)”

1: Who shot JFK?
I don’t really care. If I am forced to answer the question “Who do you think shot JFK?”, I will tell them that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. Whether this is true or not, I do not care, I just like to get a rise out of assholes. Maybe there was someone on the grassy knoll, maybe Oliver Stone was getting on to something, maybe there was something “back and to the left”, but in all actuality it doesn’t matter. I will remain a sheep of the masses, blindly following the whims of the “ignorant”.


2: 9/11 was an inside job.

I wish all those Ron Paul followers would just shut the fuck up. I don’t care how complex their “theories” are of how the Twin Towers fell as a result of detonated explosives set up by the government may sound, they are full of shit. Islamic terrorists flew planes into the buildings, and they fell. Do us all a favor and smoke some more pot, and talk about how the government is out to get us, but just do it in your parent’s basement and not outside. You’re an eyesore.
3: Victims of Hurricane Katrina were intentionally ignored by the U.S. Government.
George Bush hates black people…well maybe he doesn’t, I don’t know, why don’t you ask him? The government didn’t let anybody down; bureaucracy was just doing its job. I’ve even heard some nutcases (see answer 2) say that the levees were detonated with explosives, and that’s why the city flooded so badly, but come on, that’s just stupid.
4: The Government has been infiltrated by communists(!)

Now for the way-back machine. Good-ole-boy Joe McCartney silenced his opposition by accusing people of being “card-carrying” communists. His actions were responsible for the destruction of many people’s careers, regardless of evidence. That sure was funny.

5: There are WMD’s in Iraq.

This may not technically be a conspiracy theory, but see what happens when you listen to the nutjobs that think like that. It’s our own fault.

Conspire this!

The top five political conspiracies of the “modern era” in my opinion are as follows:
NUMBER ONE: JFK | without dispute, I believe the number one political conspiracy is the legendary incredulity surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. In my opinion, the aforementioned conspiracy has fostered debate that is more scholarly, research and sheer mystery than any other in our thus far abbreviated national history.

Conspiracy Backgrounder: Refusing to believe traditional theories and conjectures about the assassination of JFK provided by the Warren Commission, hundreds of thousands of American citizens have embraced the idea that the former president was assassinated by the Secret Service because of his “radically progressive ideas.” The aforementioned conspiracy dictates that items such as Kennedy being permitted to ride in an open-air vehicle, the communications breakdown that ensued the tragedy, photographs that appear to have been professionally doctored and a skull that perhaps does not physiologically match that of the victim, are all indicators of a significant government concealment.

Number Two: MOON | While perhaps not political, the second greatest conspiracy is inevitably, whether the United States actually landed a rather combustible structure on the surface of the moon. Like the former conspiracy, this particular one involves the alleged doctoring of photos. Come on, can a flag wave on the surface of a celestial body devoid of atmosphere? Theorists cast aspersion on the legitimacy of lunar photographs that appear to have misplaced and inaccurate “cross marks” where the highly advanced cameras utilized in the endeavor would have captured the images. Of further note, is the similarity with which the Nevada desert resembles the lunar surface. While the significance or fervency around this theory have steadily diminished with the passage of time, it may be impossible to ever know whether this “out of the world” theory merits further skepticism or whether we should resign to the inevitable pride that resulted from the mission and avoid additional investigation on the matter.

Number Three: September 11, 2001 | definitely one of the more recent conspiracies to emerge, and maybe among the more sensitive to discuss, the attacks on 9/11 have been widely attributed to perpetrators other than Al-Qaeda terrorists. Theorists have stated that reviewing footage of a planned building implosion say, in Las Vegas, is identical to the explosion that flattened both 110-story buildings of the World Trade Center complex. Citing architect Minoru Yamasaki, the primary architect of the structures, theorists underscore that the complex was designed to withstand a direct contact with planes of comparable proportion. Mere jet fuel, these individuals state, could not have toppled the structures. The same experts cite the previous warning the government had received regarding the attacks-and their aligned lack of action thereon. The conspiracy-mongering citizens also point to the political capital and blanket political authority that was the resultant product of the attack as underpinnings for a governmental conspiracy.

Number Four: Lack of Marijuana Legality | Politicians often discredit the conspiracy rooted in this matter, because after all, how much legitimacy are bong-toking citizens afforded in America? Nonetheless, I find it a salient conspiracy theory rooted in unsound and minimally studied policies. Many who smoke marijuana or who are for its legalization, citing the lack of “underground” demand that they concomitantly believe will reduce gang presence and cartel-related homicides, believe that the government largely rendered their decision to outlaw marijuana based on the few voices of conservative, Christian influences. Further, these conspiracy theorists believe that government could legally tax the product much like cigarettes and that the benefits from doing so would be holistic. Sound research, not moral imperative is the modus operandi of the group valiantly fighting for this cause.

Number Five: Hurricane Katrina | this particular matter, while widely observed by a large audience, still has significant contributors. The theory alleges that the United States government intentionally and consciously avoided the amelioration of Hurricane-stricken areas because of the disproportionately African-American demographic of the affected communities. Theorists allege that attempt after rescue attempt, the lack of celerity with which aid arrived and solutions were delivered, among other items were evidential of Kanye West’s infamous line “George W. Bush does not care about black people.”

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Red Piece of...

The remaking of Red Dawn would be much different in a Post 9-11 world because since that time as well as the 1980’s major upgrades have been done to the U.S. military and with Homeland Security in place almost impossible. There are no longer nations who are anti- America with a major superpower backing them. An operation like that from a formal nation would not be possible since the U.S. is the only hyper-power in the world. In a post 9-11 world the most obvious enemy would be Islamic fundamentalists but they do not have the capacity to knock out major cities in one swift move or the adequate forces to suppress an uprising. The technology is not there nor the manpower. The United States is known as a hyper power for a reason and that is because no single nation can fight us on so many fronts. The advances in Homeland Security, cyber technology and reining military might would give no one nation even the ability to carry out that type of mission. The fundamentalists might be able to offer a blow or two but not cripple the nation on a financial, military and sustainable invasion, the United States as well believes in citizens owning their own guns, that would make invasion almost twice as tough. The invasion would take resources currently no nation has. The bullying of many nations against the United States would be the only way such a move would be applicable. The teaming up against the United States would not occur or be allowed by the majority of nations. The only way this could occur would be perfect precision from different cells working together and having the financial backing of Saudi Arabia or another wealthy nation. The remake of Red Dawn would need to have many nations or organizations who do not do anything together working as one for one goal. No such goal exists between so many nations and many benefit from American society in one way or another. Greed is everywhere.

Robert Foster

Red Dawn Remake...Please Do Not!

Remaking "Red Dawn," a film that portrays the then very real concerns of Soviet preemptive attack, would be rather easy in the Post-9/11 world. The media has served to feed the American citizenry with a continuous and ostensibly incredulous stream of bull-shit. Hollywood has capitalized on the trend and produced movies depicting Islamic terrorists demolishing large structures and authors have banked on the aforementioned tragedy by convincing us that America's demise is imminent.

The corny and rather redneck scenarios that interplay in "Red Dawn," a movie that depicts the unlikely invasion of Soviet trips into small-town America via means of parachutes, could be vastly improved upon. I could not help but internally chuckle as I observed the ridiculous escape of a few citizens and their safety from the occupying force.

It has been an all-too-popular and slovenly production trend to portray the physical invasion of an occupying national military. Our increasingly globalizing society has reiterated that future terrorist attacks will likely aim to detriment and destroy technological and intellectual capital, rather than, to conspicuously target exceedingly tall skyscrapers. Said attacks entail the type of sophistication only made recently available in the twenty-first century and would significantly cripple the day-to-day financial, physical and infrastructure operations of America.

Producing a cerebral film about the catastrophic, terrorist-provoked explosion of America's technological, energy and infrastructure grid would be undoubtedly difficult to attract the dollars and attention span of a nation largely obsessed with seeing how many pounds, dollars and 15 minutes of fame their fellow citizens can attain by participating in mindless reality programs.

The time has come, however, when the true effects of our disproportionately powered tech economy and an attack on it should be elucidated. Think about the aftermath. ATM's would not function, stop lights would cease to provide adequate protection against the insanity of our signal controlled traffic, energy facilities would be unable to generate power, airlines would be without direction, and Blackberry and iPhone consumers across the country would protest and angrily bitch about the dysfunction of it all. The film of technological disaster could illustrate the danger, disillusionment, and humor that a situation of such a magnitude could inspire.

In the interest of further creative liberties, however, the attack would need to be depicted as transpiring under the watch of the previous administration. The current president's anticipatory and contingency operations could potentially dull the imagery, by quelling the situation with strategy and intelligent insight.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Remaking Red [Yawn]...Dawn

As kitschy, ridiculous and dated as the film Red Dawn is, the point of the film does not get lost through bad haircuts and Soviet fears. The very real fear of waking up one day and having everything around you reversed, is a fear that has been with mankind ever since two rival societies decided to vilify each other, an attribute of humanity that I believe has been with us for thousands of years. Because a quality of mankind is to distrust others, and to allow our imaginations to take us to the worst possible conclusions, I don’t think that remaking Red Dawn in a post 9/11 world would be too difficult.

What I would do to remake the film is to have a series of dirty bombs detonate in major U.S. cities, causing extreme panic and governmental breakdown. In the aftermath of this, the Chinese, Saudi Arabia and Iran, would invade the United States from the coasts. The U.S. government would have to operate from Chicago, as the survivors would reside in the Midwestern United States from Utah to Ohio. For the remake of Red Dawn, most of the battle scenes could remain similar, hell we could even keep the corny haircuts, as most of the people in the Midwest haven’t really changed in the last 20+ years, we just have “the google” now, and our fears have been shifted from Soviets to “Islamofascists”.

It would be really easy to pray off the fears of Americans and remake this movie from a “post 9/11” stand. The only thing that has changed since the 1980s is that the systems of media have become even better at inspiring a complete and total fear in the hearts of the masses. So by playing off these fears, and our given absolute trust/”attempt at contempt with ‘mainstream’ media” we can create a world within Red Dawn that realistically appeals to people fears. The biggest effort of the new Red Dawn would be to avoid turning the film into a hate-piece against Islam, as most Americans already have a distrust of Islam and this movie, in the “post 9/11 world” would serve to that distrust. However, if we were to involve the original production crew, they probably wouldn’t give two shits about how Islam is portrayed, and would do whatever it takes to get the most tickets sold.

The way to sell the most tickets would be to do what the original film did, to rely upon the story as an über-nationalistic mouthpiece, talk about “courage”, and show that the Americans who courageously thought with their gut were able to take back the USA from those goddamned Ruskies, but now we replace Ruskies with “towel-heads”. Divide and conquer, inspire with-us or against-us attitudes and you’ll get your $200 million back in no time.

Jack Gustafson

Thinking the Unthinkable

Five Unthinkables for the political world of 2009:

1: A military coup will overthrow and ascend to power in the United States.

2: The European Union will dissolve as a result of Islamic extremists assuming power in Great Britain and France.

3: Nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran.

4: Turkey invades Northern Iraq as a result of Kurdish fighters detonating dirty bombs in Istanbul.

5: After failed peace talks between Japan and North Korea, North Korea sends missiles toward Seoul and Tokyo, followed by North Korean and Chinese ground troops fully invading Japan and South Korea.

Jack Gustafson