I think very few people bother to read this page anymore. This is because of evil LJ-friends-list induced discrimination. I demand that you all (and this includes all you fatuous occasional LJ users) frequently read my web-log.

Scared myself by sitting down and recreating a sample game of go today, in order to better understand fuseki. I don't think I really achieved much. I wonder when I became the kind of person who would do this, and whether that's the kind of person I actually want to be? Of course, I'm trying to avoid angsting on this page, but although it's character is existential, I don't think this particular cogitation qualifies as angst. Blah, anyway. Should play less Tekken, and less go. Becoming obsessed with such trivial things doesn't endear me to people who have more interesting or pressing concerns. Cue risible tendency to attempt to curb bad habits.

Elizabeth showed Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi (I think that's it: translates roughly as Sen and Chihiro's Divine Abduction, apparently, which is a little weird given they're the same person (well possibly not on a metaphysical level)) in the UniSFA clubroom on Monday. It's definitely a winner, a fine and beautiful film which I didn't dislike despite my misplaced reputation for despising 'kids' stuff'. I dislike things which are bad, and like things which are good. It's quite simple, really. I don't feel like entering into a full-blown discussion of the film.

Warring on Terror

Across the field you see the sky ripped open
See the rain through a gaping wound
Pelting the women and children ...
Who run into the arms of America
U2, 'Bullet the Blue Sky'

Slightly corny quote, but I do love that song.

The press is absolutely stuffed with material about the anniversary of the WTC/Pentagon attacks and the potentially-impending 'preemptive' strike by the US on Iraq. So I've decided to note down my ill-informed opinions on the subject.

Predictably for those that know me, I am decidedly against an attack on Iraq. I'm one of those people you see derided in the right-wing columns of The Australian, a 'deluded anti-American'. I'm not actually anti-American, well I don't stand against all individual Americans in any case.

Here is what I consider to be a convincing list of reasons why a war against Iraq should not occur, and why if any such war does occur Australia should resist participating:

• Such a war would inevitably involve the loss of the lives of a large number of innocent Iraqi civilians, and also of the lives of many essentially well-meaning Iraqi and US/allied troops. These people don't deserve to die.


• The 'regime change' being pushed by the US would achieve nothing for the ordinary people of Iraq. The US is not contemplating a change of the form of the Iraqi government, merely the installation of a new military dictator who it is projected will create fewer problems for US foreign policy makers. One might question the likely validity of such projections, given that the US in the past has supplied direct military aid to both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, whose Al-Q'aida group is the actual instigator of the WTC attacks.


• There is no demonstrated link between the Iraqi government and the terrorists who caused the WTC attacks. There are, apparently, links between the Saudi government and Al-Q'aida, but since the Saudi government is more than willing to crawl to the US on the international stage, Saudi Arabia is not under threat of attack. Certainly though there is no justification for commencing an assault on Iraq as revenge for the WTC attacks, and neither was there such justification for the attacks on Afghanistan.


• Attacks by a Western alliance on Iraq would certainly fuel the hatred many Islamic fundamentalists feel for the West, and thereby increase the risk of more terrorist attacks in the future. The threat of these attacks can only be mitigated by reducing the number of people with reasons, good or otherwise, for hating the West.


• If there is an attack on Iraq, Australia should not participate because there is little evidence that it would be in our own interest to do so. Australia has large agricultural contracts with Iraq that would be cancelled in the event of Australian participation. The conflict would occur in a region that arguably has little geopolitical importance to Australia, and Australian involvement might prejudice our relationship with nearer Islamic neighbours such as Indonesia.


• The motivations for the assault should be questioned. There is no evidence showing that Saddam has or is near to having nuclear capability. It is debatable whether it is even possible for the threat of attacks using other forms of weaponry can even be eliminated. Given these premises, there must be other reasons why a strike is being considered. Perhaps an ulterior motive exists in the form of protection for US oil supplies into the future. Australia should not participate in a war conducted for these reasons because it would be immoral. It would also involve a titanic deceit of the American people, who are being led to believe by their leaders that such a war would be set in motion for reasons of national security. One wonders whether CIA analysts, following the WTC attacks, were not simply thinking 'Thousands of civilians dead. How can we turn this into political and economic capital?'.


• Australia should not contemplate allying itself with the US simply because of misplaced feelings of gratitude for US involvement in previous conflicts like World War II. The US did not enter World War II in order to protect Australian sovereignty on Australian soil, even if that was one effect of its efforts. I personally feel, and am prepared to claim without total justification, that throughout the twentieth century American foreign policy was motivated only by the power-mongering interests of the American nation. American interventions in governments in the Middle East, Asia, and South America causing the deaths of millions of innocent people largely support this view, in my opinion. The US has not in the past shied away from providing support for regimes of an evil and destructive character, such as that of General Pinochet in Chile.

That's about all I can think of for now. Suffice it to say I feel quite strongly that attacking Iraq without any real provocation, simply to replace the existing military regime with another similar but more pliant one, is not anything approaching a constructive act in relation to the problems facing the Middle East.

Review

Saw two movies over the weekend: Metropolis and Insomnia.

Metropolis is very impressive. In terms of style and the enormous amount of effort that must have been involved, it's probably the most amazing animated film I've ever seen. Scene after scene had backgrounds which must have taken artists weeks to produce. The animation itself was quite interesting, and seemed to borrow some elements of its style from the comics of the period from which the film takes its aesthetic inspiration, the 20s and 30s. The whole thing was a gorgeous, rococo art-deco masterpiece. Visually, that is. The plotline was average, the dialogue (subtitled from the Japanese) was even somewhat sub-par. But they weren't all that important.

The inspiration for the setting is Fritz Lang's early cinematic breakthrough of the same name. Robots and humans living in a mechanised society with the latter enslaving and subjugating the former. The similarities between this film and Lang's are not that great, however. For starters, the anime has much better special effects. Just kidding. To be honest I don't remember the original Metropolis that well. I saw it quite a while ago and remember finding it boring, which is not that surprising given that it was made practically before the invention of dramatic pacing in cinema (at this point I should duck to avoid the hail of rotting fruit from any film-school purists out there. Seriously though, a lot of old movies are just, well, dull). Anyway, enough to say go out and see it. It's far, far better than most things currently out. Even if you don't usually like being beaten about the head with blatant thematic and philosophical content.

Insomnia, Christopher Nolan's follow-up to the arguably superb (I'd argue it if I was in the mood, but it's certainly very clever, funny, and damned good) Memento, was approximately as disappointing as I was expecting it to be, given the vibes I'd received from people who'd already seen it. It's not a bad film. It has a decent cast (with a surprisingly inoffensive Robin Williams as the villain), a decent plot, polished direction, and whatnot. It's well-crafted. Unfortunately, it's pretty much just a straight-up cop vs. murderer psychothriller.

Al Pacino plays the 'hard-boiled' (euphemism) LA detective who's sent to Alaska partly to help out on a murder case, and partly to escape an internal affairs investigation. He doesn't sleep throughout (hence the film's title, eh) because of the permanent Alaskan summer sunlight. If you want someone to look tired, you should get Al Pacino. I don't think there would have been much makeup required, the man looks as if he hasn't slept in about a thousand years naturally. He was immensely predictable in this role and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else, someone a little less typical. The murder plot was almost irrelevant, which was also annoying. The whole movie seemed to just be an excuse for a few face-offs between Pacino and the sinister Williams in the Alaskan wilderness. Woo.

So, in summation, not bad, but definitely not Memento. Second outing's always the hardest though, just look at M. Night Shyamalan following up The Sixth Sense with the execrable Unbreakable. Go and see Metropolis first.