Pray The Devil Back To Hell

Pray The Devil Back To Hell - This is the inspiring story of a network of Liberian women, regular women from all walks of life, who became fed up. Fed up with the constant struggle for power and wealth between dictators and war lords that turned young boys into rapists and murderers and turned the country into hell. The women begin by establishing an interfaith group that prays for peace, then courageously establish a peace vigil outside the presidential palace. When Ghana sponsors peace talks between Liberia's warring factions, some of the women travel to Accra to demonstrate for peace and monitor the talks. The war lords enjoy the good life and talk in circles, until the women get their attention with a sit-in that traps them in the the negotiating room until they promise to get serious. After a peace agreement is signed the women stay organized, supporting disarmament, voter registration and the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as Liberia's President.

The story is genuinely fascinating and inspiring, but the film is flawed. It's built around interviews with six of the women, and each is terrific, but something is missing: News stories that captured the concerns and the courage of the women that first stood up to the murderous dictator Charles Taylor by demanding peace outside his window; News stories of the sit -in by mothers and grandmothers at the peace talks in Ghana that trapped the macho warlords at the peace table. It's not director Gini Reticker's fault that the mainstream news coverage was limited mostly to atrocities. She uses what she can find and there is some archival footage, just not enough.

Pray The Devil Back To Hell is worth seeing just for the story, but wait for a video rental or PBS showing, don't spend $10 on a theater seat. There is a great movie in here somewhere, but this one spends a little too much time on talking heads. A full blown fictionalized epic with an exploration of Liberia's fascinating history could be a hit. A documentary that somehow captures the real tension of the story's highlights could do well, but this one needs at least a few more ingredients.

Dear Zachary - Just See It

Dear Zachary - Doctor Andrew Bagby is dead, murdered. His childhood friend, Kurt Kuenne creates a documentary about Andrew, one that begins as a letter to Zachary, Andrew's then unborn child. Much of the film is a powerful eulogy of a beloved, very human and immensely likeable friend, son and colleague who died too young. Like most moving eulogies, it has moments of hope and humor, but you will be crying throughout this movie.

Dear Zachary is also a true crime story, one with real suspense that will not be spoiled here. It's a telling indictment of the Newfoundland child welfare, extradition and bail systems. Finally, it is a tribute to Andrew's parents, who persevere through tribulations that make Job look pampered.

Kuenne is on the inside of this story twenty years before it begins, with footage of Andrew from the movies Kuenne shot as a preteen. He has the complete cooperation of Andrew's family and friends and he makes this film as a friend of Andrew with no bones about objectivity. This trips him up only once, when he overuses a mechanically yapping still photo of a judge who did not need any help from Kuenne to look ridiculous.

Kuenne has a lot of footage to work with and he generally edits wisely. While distracting you with the heartwrenching eulogy (most of the many tributes develop something new, but a few seem repetitive) Kuenne sneaks in character and story development and the documentary is suddenly grabbing you like a drama, one that's more powerful because it's real.

Kurt Kuenne produces, directs, scores, etc. MSNBC is distributing this film and it will open soon. Watch for it. An extended eulogy may not sound like a commercial smash, but see this movie. you will be glad you did.

Lone Star reps are sputtering mad

- Lone Star Rebellion Brewing - House Republicans from Texas (and elsewhere) are unloading on that well known liberal elitist George W. Bush in debate on the financial rescue plan. Barney Frank captured the spirit of the occasion:

“Madam speaker, I believe the gentleman was a little too harsh on the Bush
administration,” Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said after
one Republican blasted the bill. “I understand his point of view.”

The fossil version of today's NY Times includes a crude and fairly vicious political cartoon run as a full page ad (p. A11). The ad features Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as a Stalinist puppet master manipulating Congress and public opinion while Lady Liberty is turned into a Hooverized donation box for Wall Street Banks. The ad is paid for by Bill Perkins, who seems to run Small Ventures, USA - a Houston based venture capital and private equity firm.

It's possible Mr. Perkins has some bets down that will profit from financial collapse - but the look and feel of this ad suggest otherwise. Mr. Perkins seems like a true believer in free markets who is blowing his stack over the bail out and the expanded role for government that tags along with it.

Everyone is mad about the bailout, even those who believe it beats the alternative, but the Texans seem to be turning on Bush with the most fury, convinced that his moment of pragmatism in a crisis is proof that eight years in Washington have turned Bush into a traitor. This sudden, almost violent eruption against a man who was only recently a Texas standard bearer is the stuff from which revolts are made. The Dallas Cowboy's loss yesterday to - you guessed it- the Washington Redskins will add fuel to the fire, and the first shipments of munitions may already be on the way from Caracas to Houston, opportunistically disguised as hurricane relief supplies. Remember the Alamo.

Berserk NY Times Hails Turkmenistan Shift to Democracy as Greedy, Compares New Democracy to North Korea

Eye on Image, Turkmenistan Overhauls Laws - This is a proud day for Turkmenistan, a joyful day for the Turkmens and a day of vindication for As Good As News, the official blog of Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan's President, Doc Gurby, announced that a puppet legislature created by his predecessor will be disbanded, with power to be transferred to a new, democratically elected 125 member Parliament. Monitored parliamentary elections will be held in December.

Our joy is marred only by the Time's continued tawdry treatment of Doc Gurby. In this case, the Times shares the blame with Reuters. Somehow, Reuter's intrepid reporter has read Doc Gurby's mind and determined that this dramatic shift towards democracy is designed to enhance image and attract Western investment. There is absolutely no chance that Doc believes in democracy, no chance he wants to do the right thing for the Turkmens, no possibility that he wants to go down in history as the father of democratic Turkmenistan - no, it's all about attracting Western investment. Apparently the Time's is very cranky because Doc Gurby refuses to play the stereotyped role of greedy, isolationist dictator despite repeated efforts by the Time's to cast him in this part.

First, Doc is not running a secretive kleptocracy, whatever you might think from the constant battering by the Times. His well publicized approach to developing and marketing Turkmenistan's natural gas reserves makes it clear that he's getting the best deals possible for his country. Crooked leaders deal quickly and quietly, giving natural resources away at fire sale prices to the buyer offering the largest bribes.

Second, Doc doesn't need democracy or Western investment. He's already positioned Turkmenistan's natural gas reserves for sale to India and China, booming economies that are not squeamish about dealing with dictators. Doc has already lined up more than enough revenue to hold onto power, if that were his only goal. Even if one reason for democratization is the pursuit of Western investment, this is for the good of the country and its people, not Doc's personal bank account. Why does the headline scream "image" when Doc has announced a very real new constitution that includes a five year term for his own office. What facts justify treating Doc's announcement as if it were some kind of show intended for Western consumption? The story and its headline are long on presumption, short on fact.

Finally, consider the last paragraph of the linked story:

Turkmenistan retains, with North Korea, its status as the world’s worst violator of press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Is there any news here? Did Doc execute an editor, raid a newspaper office, toss a reporter in jail? Turkmenistan barely has a press, much less a free press. Nothing new has happened on this front since Joe Stalin ran the USSR. Well, OK, maybe Doc's security apparatus harassed some Radio Free Europe journalists in June, but that was nearly four months ago. Doc's the guy who let the Internet into Turkmenistan, the closest thing it's got to a free press and he's an improvement over Niazov. Doc's dramatic move toward democracy might be another step toward creating a free press, but instead of hailing him as a hero the story closes with a gratuitous knife in the back. Thanks again Times, by the way, you forgot to open that last paragraph with "Reclusive".

For a history of the NY Time's take on Doc Gurby, just search this blog for "Turkmenistan". The posts are best read in chronological order. What started as a tongue-in-cheek take on a tongue twister has evolved into genuine amazement at the Time's bias.

Payback's a ......political necessity

Issue Is Payback, Not Bailout - The linked column by David Leonhardt is focused and lucid - not always the hallmarks of the Time's business section. As Good As News always wants you to read, or at least skim, the articles linked at the beginning of each post, but this one is worth reading carefully. Now, here's another view on some of the points made by Mr. Leonhardt. [for a third view, more sophisticated than the one presented below but still readable see Daniel Alpert's mad as hell take on the same issues http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-mad-as-hell-series-continues/]

Even if the government spends a full $700 billion buying "toxic" mortgage backed securities, it will get something back when it sells the securities. True. These securities are bundles of mortgage loans. Some of these mortgage loans are not even in default, the homeowner is still making the full monthly payments. Even the defaulted mortgage loans are secured by homes which should, in theory, have a value greater than zero. In a market not driven by panic the value of the securities, the bundled mortgage loans, should reflect this value in the underlying mortgage loans and the homes that secure them. But, many of the underlying loans were made without a serious credit review. Many mortgaged properties are in neighborhoods where nothing is selling. Even if the bailout stops a financial crisis, it won't stop a recession or reverse the decline in real estate values. The government, or anyone else, who ends up dealing with individual mortgages and needs to maintain and sell properties obtained by foreclosure will have a prolonged and very expensive mess on their hands. Who wants to spend $70,000 on property taxes and maintenance over three years waiting for a property's value to bounce back to $60,000? Even if the property value bounces back all the way to $75,000 you still lose, because your recovery is all at the back end of a constant stream of expenses that start on day 1. The bundling and sale of the mortgage loans has also made foreclosure, and workouts to avoid foreclosure, more confusing and expensive than in the old days when a single local bank made the loan and held onto the mortgage. So the "panic" prices for toxic mortgage backed securities (panic being driven by lack of liquidity and fear of the impact of mark-to-market accounting) may actually be closer than we would like to the "rational" market prices we hope will emerge once a buyout plan is in place. In sum, don't get your hopes up too high, a lot of that $700 Billion will not be coming back as cash proceeds from toxic security resales by the government.

The government will likely need to buy toxic mortgage backed securities at prices greater than market value in order to save the financial system and it should get equity in the selling firm each time it does so. Yes and Yes, but watch out for a rough ride. Taking an ownership interest as part of each "rescue" purchase is the simplest and safest way to recover some of the tax money spent on this rescue mission. It will put the government into a messy, conflicted position - (it can let bank x fail and triple the value of its stock in bank y) and require some business smarts outside the government's normal skill set. Witness the pointless shenanigans of the leasing group within the Dept. of Interior, which mimicked all the worst elements of corporate excess without making any good deals. The problems are real, but taking some equity is the taxpayer's best hope. It's worth the risk.

Congress should not spend time right now on side issues like executive compensation. Narrow the focus to two issues - how much does the government spend and how can the taxpayer get pay back - to move a rescue plan through Congress ASAP and avert a disaster. Sounds good, but As Good As News is not sold. There is more than one kind of pay back involved here. The fastest way to get something through Congress is to recognize political reality and deal with it now, not spend weeks convincing Congress the crisis is so urgent they can't spend time on executive compensation. Any company that wants the government to buy its toxic securities should pay a price - limits on exec comp and clawbacks for any bonuses paid based on illusory income from selling toxic mortgage backed securities. The politics of the situation makes this a central issue, not a detail to look at later.

One final detail, which shouldn't stand in the way of a rescue. The American economy's recent growth has been driven by consumer spending, which apparently was driven by an ocean of bad mortgages and shaky credit card debt. One of the first ripples in the coming tidal wave of new (or in many cases, restored) regulation will be accountability for credit evaluation - no more mortgage loans to the unemployed based on a made to order property appraisal, no more applications begging ten year old children to sign up for credit cards. What happens to the economy, already on the brink of recession, once we pull the plug on the creation of bad consumer debt in order to preserve the financial system? Thanks to Reaganomics and the Iraq War the government deficit has reached the point where there's no room left for fiscal stimulus. The Fed is already holding interest rates steady in a crisis, it clearly sees little room for monetary stimulus. Can Americans, with help from a weak dollar, actually start making products that foreigners will want to buy again? Like an invalid's 99th birthday, saving the financial system beats the alternative, but Wall Street and Main Street may both be in for some serious belt tightening.

For an opinionated look at what might have been America's last chance to avoid some of this trainwreck see http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0, Kevin Hassett's (no relation) story for Bloomberg on the Democrat's refusal to rein in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in 2005. This Hassett is actually a widely known and respected economist, currently Director of Economic Policy for the American Enterprise Institute formerly a teacher at Columbia B and Fed Reserve economist. That would be a real economist, as opposed to an unknown comic who didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but knows a little about derivatives and has a few friends in the financial world.

The Lucky Ones

The Lucky Ones - Three wounded Iraq vets who meet on the plane home are stranded at Kennedy Airport by a power failure. Cheever (Tim Robbins) is a middle aged sergeant who has finished his hitch and can't wait to get back to the wife and life he had in St. Louis before his call-up intervened. Cheever decides to drive. His new buddies TK (Michael Pena) and Colee (Rachel McAdams), both headed for Vegas on 30 day injury leave before heading back to war, tag along to get to a functioning airport and a road trip ensues.

The road buddies establish their own family-like rapport as they deal with major personal problems and encounter civilian America in a trek that includes a tornado, an auto accident, faith healing, and a surprise sexual enounter. A more detailed plot summary runs quickly into the spoiler danger zone, as the film features a myriad of small twists, several driven by coincidence.

Pena handles the role of the know-it-all, hard case TK with just enough obnoxious edge and scared center. McAdams is believable and endearing as the very young and unsophisticated private Colee, whose fearless nosiness, good cheer and groundless optimism might be wisdom in disguise. TK is reluctant to talk about his groin injury, but Colee's going to get him help anyway - no matter how many people she needs to tell. Robbins as Cheever is probably the least convincing performance of the three, but he's more than good enough as a mature every-man hammered by a series of body blows just as he thought his life was about to go back to normal.

As Good As News enjoyed the film. For those who might not want to see an Iraq War movie - 1) there is only one, brief war scene, this is a USA road trip; 2) there are sad moments, but there are wacky developments and the atmosphere on the road is often light; 3) there is a significant component of humor. The film was getting some out-loud laughs from the symposium audience and it wasn't driven by slick Juno-esque banter but by the kind of things real people might say and a keen eye for the occasional absurd note in Americana.

Calling Dr. Couch

The Couch Doctor - When I decided to attend law school in NYC my college roommate and I signed a lease on a fifth floor walk-up near Columbia. We bought used furniture over the summer, then moved down from Boston in a rental truck. After a generally uneventful drive, interrupted only briefly by a discussion at knife point on 125th street in Harlem, we reached our destination. Moving into a fifth floor walk-up was no picnic, but the only serious problem was a green hide-a-bed sofa. This thing must have had a cast iron frame. It weighed at least 300 pounds and it was big enough so that every turn of the four flights of stairs was a challenge. When we finally got it up to our apartment, we discovered that it would not fit through the door. The "does not fit" call was not made lightly. Two very healthy MIT grads studied every angle, applied every ounce of force - and got nowhere.

Our solution? We had none. After a brief spasm of anger and a rest we lugged the couch down the stairs (again no picnic) and dumped it, like a homeless person seeking shelter, under an overpass we noticed on the way to the truck rental office.

Tonight I visited friends who had just moved from Brooklyn to the Upper West Side, to start grad school at Columbia, naturally. They had used professional movers who - after some consideration and measurement - had explained that there was no way one particularly large couch was ever going to fit into the new apartment. The solution? The short term solution was to leave the couch in the hall with a highly conciliatory note directed to landlord and new neighbors one and all.

The long term solution? Call the couch surgeon. The couch that won't fit through the door seems to be a recurring issue, and the movers made this intriguing recommendation as if it were completely routine. Of course the movers were looking for a way, any way, to escape an ugly situation involving a very disappointed customer and a very large couch abandoned in a narrow hallway. Mover's desperation notwithstanding, the couch surgeon is apparently a real phenomena, a specialist who will cut the iron and/or wood frame of the couch. Chainsaw is optional - but don't cut the upholstery or springs, they will bend around the corner once you cut the stiff parts of the frame. With its frame rendered limp at the crucial midpoint, the oversize couch can handle a bend. Once the move is complete, the frame is bolted back together.

For those with a nice couch (unlike our old green monster) the couch surgeon is well worth the investment, but never forget the basics - always avoid unnecessary surgery. You never know what might happen with good lubrication and some intensive, professionally directed pushing. So before you call the couch surgeon, try the couch obstetrician