"Some Kind Of Monster" - A Review

Yesterday afternoon I went out and purchased my copy of the new Metallica documentary titled "Some Kind Of Monster", now out on DVD. This was a HUGELY entertaining film. The filmmakers put you right in the center of all the turmoil that threatened to tear apart my very first favorite band. The film follows the band through the loss of a bass player (Jason Newsted) to his side project "Echobrain", rehearsals for "St. Anger" (their latest album), therapy sessions to try and save the band from it's individual members egos, James Hetfields (the leading creative force in the band) entrance into rehab and his subsequent reappearance fourteen months later, how the band is trying to balance family with being "Rock Stars", and the members themselves questioning their own relavence in todays musical climate. I would suggest this movie to anyone. This isn't your typical rock movie where the band is shown as infallible. The film team of Berlinger and Sinofsky (Brother's Keeper and Paradise Lost) show the band members as vulnerable as you and I to growing older and trying to balance work and family. The only difference being you or I aren't members of a band that's sold over 90 million albums. It was great to see Metallica with their guard down and to see what REALLY goes on behind all the PR the record companies throw at you. Most of behind the scenes documentaries I've seen on bands are your cookie cutter, "Here's the band backstage, here's the band doing promotion for the record, here's the band joking around with each other and showing what great musicians they are". This had very little of that. It's the most unvarnished portrait of a number one selling rock band you'll probably ever see. Most of the credit has to go to Metallica for allowing such unprecedented access to a film crew. Say what you want about whether how "Rock & Roll" it is to hire a "performance coach" for therapy, it's immenensely entertaining to watch as a fly on the wall. You don't have to like Metallica to enjoy this movie. It's a great documentary.

Liberalism and America bashing...

Conervatives love to scream about how much liberals hate America. Sometimes it does sound like SOME liberals have a tendency to scream at America too much and not enough at other nations. I think the reason for this is that Liberals love this country so much that sometimes we wish it would do more. For example, the trendy new fad outrage in conservative circles is to scream about how the American government leads among all nations in charitable giving, and the liberals just don't get that. I agree that America gives a lot and often doesn't get enough in return. But for conervatives to say our government gives enough is just plain wrong. Per capita, we are TWENTY SIXTH in the world among what we have given in Tsunami aid. I get tired of hearing from the O'Reilly's of the world about how our Government is number one in giving and the left wing media can't handle that and they and the liberals hate America and if it weren't for our giving, the whole world would collapse. Give me a break. I hate to tell you this Billy boy, but most of America is now owned by foreign entities and it's only getting worse with each day. The world can (and in many cases is starting to) get by without us. Back to my original point though, here's a breakdown of what countries have given so far to the Tsunami relief effort, and then a breakdown of what we've given per person:

Top 10 Donor Countries
The Christian Science Monitor of January 6 reported the top 10 donor countries in Asian Tsunami aid as
Australia with $764 million;
Germany, $680 million;
Japan, $500 million;
U.S., $350 million; (Sure seems like a lot at first glance don't it)
Norway, $182 million;
Britain, $96 million;
Italy, $95 million;
Sweden, $80 million;
Spain, $68 million;
France, $66 million.

As for the government outlays on a per capita basis, the top 10 are:
Norway, $39.35 per person;
Australia, $38.37;
Qatar, 29.75;
Denmark, $14.04;
Taiwan, 9.52;
Sweden, $8.90;
Germany, $8.25;
Kuwait, $4.43;
Japan, $3.93;
Ireland, $3.43.
The U.S. ranks 26th per capita with $1.19. (uh... what? You've got to be kidding me.)

Now, I'm not saying we need to be first, but I think we should at least be in the top ten as rich as our society is. One caveat though, these lists do not represent giving that you and I make from our own families checkbook. These numbers are what the government gives only. I don't think this should be a contest about who's giving more either. It just gets back to my original point that my government can and should do better. (God bless my people, the Norwegians, for being so big hearted!)

PS - I believe a loofah costs around a 1.19, so it shouldn't be too hard for someone like O'Reilly too see that it isn't a lot of money. (Sorry, that was such a cheap shot)

Rwanda...

In a promise on my earlier post, I wanted to research what happened in Rwanda in 1994. The west (the UN and US under Clinton) basically turned it's back and offered nothing but empty political speak. What happened is proof that maybe the UN is neutered and no longer a viable organization to protect the helpless. (See modern day Sudan for more proof of this). What you see is history repeating itself. Kofi Annan comes out and says (and I paraphrase) "Well, gosh that's just awful what's going on over there, sure wish we could do something, but my hands are tied." For an actual quote, continue reading.

Kofi Annan, head of U.N. peacekeeping, testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the issue of Rwanda:

"When the Belgians left it was clear that the U.N. could not implement the mandate it had, and either the mandate had to be changed, or reinforcements introduced ... I do not know what the Council will decide after they have reviewed and reconsidered the situation today. If the council is going to recommend reinforcement, the reinforcement that goes in has to be well equipped, very mobile, and also able to protect itself. If we do not send in that kind of reinforcement ... then I'm not quite sure they'll be able to bring about a sort of law and order ... that will lead to the end of the massacres ... here we are watching people being deprived of the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, and yet we seem a bit helpless ..."

You sure got that right. You really are helpless. While this massacre went on, the UN and US (again, under Clinton), were arguing about the costs of who would pay for the deployment of peacekeepers and equipment. If the UN can't be counted on to intervene in these types of massacres, they must be dissolved. Period.

"Although disease and more killings claim additional lives in the refugee camps, the genocide is over. An estimated 800,000 Rwandans have been killed in 100 days."
-From Frontline's "Triumph of Evil" special.

Just take a moment and put that in perspective against, say, the Tsunami death toll. That's FIVE tsunami's folks. While the US (under Clinton) and the UN (under Kofi Annan) sat back and argued about the expense of stepping in, 800,000 people were killed. The world paid a much greater expense by not stepping in. The blood of this GENOCIDE (I'll call it that, even though to Clintons administration and Annan's neutered group, Genocide apparently doesn't start until the death counter hits 500,000!!!), is all over the UN/US's hands in my opinion. The link to a timeline of this slaughter is the title of this post. Kofi Annan gives good speeches, maybe it's time for him to resign so he can go on the lecture circuit to give them. I'll help him with a title, "How I failed the world, again". I liked Bill Clinton as a president and I felt he really did some good things. I would see this though as one of his failures. I'm sure he was a bit trigger shy to repeat what had happened in Somalia to US troops, but something needed to be done. Both the US and the UN failed. I wish President Bush wouldn't be repeating the same mistake in the Sudan but it appears that is the case. Take this quote from reporter Phil Cox:

On the heels of the 10th anniversary since the Rwanda genocide left nearly a million people dead in 100 days, Cox said not much has changed.

"The world is not dealing with this. We know it is happening. Ignorance is not an excuse now. And in the light of these commemorations and talk about Rwanda, it comes as increasingly double standards again by the international community,"

The vicious cycle continues. It does make one wonder if the world will ever have a lasting peace.

Favorite Twenty Five Artists...

25) Howlin' Wolf
24) U2
23) Eric Clapton
22) Radiohead
21) Miles Davis
20) Buddy Guy
19) The Shins
18) Johnny Cash
17) Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band
16) Muddy Waters
15) Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble
14) The Beatles
13) Led Zeppelin
12) The Black Crowes
11) Pink Floyd
10) Primus
9) Wilco
8) The Tragically Hip
7) The Jayhawks
6) The Rolling Stones
5) Ryan Adams
4) Bob Dylan
3) Jimi Hendrix
2) Jeff Buckley
1) Smashing Pumpkins - WOW!! What a shocking choice!! Nobody saw that coming!

Hotel Rwanda...

I recently read a review about this new movie called "Hotel Rwanda". It's getting great reviews and all that, but what made my eyes pop out of my head is the death toll. 800,000 estimated killings while the UN sat on it's hands? Is that possible? My ignorance on this issue apparently only matches the mass of my sizable head. Why didn't the UN step in and help during this crisis. I'm going to have to become more well read on this topic. More to come on this in the future...

The Five Albums You'll Find Me Listening To This Month...

January 2005
1) The Verve - A Storm In Heaven
2) The Shins - Chutes Too Narrow
3) Bob Dylan - Blood On The Tracks
4) Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder - Live at Charleston Music Hall
5) Ken Burns Jazz: Duke Ellington

I'm going to make this a monthly feature. It'll allow me to track what I was listening to throughout the year. It's more for my amusement than anyone else's. After all, if I can't amuse myself, who can I amuse?