Tibet Protests and the Dalai Clique

I'm sitting here trying to untie the plastic wiring on some figurines I bought for my daughter. For those of you who have seen these additions to toys, tying them up to the box, making it virtually impossible to untie without pliers - I'm struck at the metaphor of how this is the way China has tied the feet of the world around it. The US is neck deep in debt to China, the toys, the clothing, our drugs, our food, everything is manufactured there (when a democratic, capitalist inclined, english speaking India waits next door) - and like the Tibetans bound in Drapchi prison, these toys are trapped in this box. Oh maybe that's pushing the metaphor a bit.

Some ingenious Chinese laborer has devised a way to make me never get this thing untied. Or perhaps, it's the prisoner's only way of reaching out to let us know how tied he or she is - sitting in a prison cell perhaps, making toys for people in the West. It reminds me of when I spoke to Robert MacNamara in Delhi. I asked him "Why has our country always aligned itself with Pakistan, when it's neighbor India, is democratic, a capitalist country and speaks English?" And he said "1. India's not capitalist, it has too many tariffs, 2. It's not democratic because it's not the same kind of democracy as ours, and 3.." at this point he put his arm around me, as if we were old friends. I thought "I'm being MacNamarized." He leaned over and said "off the record. They're a pain in the ass to deal with." So. I wasn't interviewing him, I wasn't a reporter, I was a filmmaker in Delhi, so as far as it being off the record - well, there you have it. Why we aligned ourselves with Pakistan and not India for forty years. And why all our goods are made in China.

Here's Elton John in San Francisco protesting on behalf of Tibet. Good job Sir Reginald (Elton).

This is a letter I wrote, published today in the Chicago Tribune. Enjoy.

(The original letter from the spokesman for the Chinese embassy was posted at the Tribune on April 7, complaining about the media being addicted to the "Dalai Clique.")

Tibetans speak for themselves

With reference to "Chinese restore order in Tibet," as a documentary filmmaker who interviewed Tibetan refugees who had recently arrived in Dharamsala, I think it's important to hear Tibetans speak for themselves about the Chinese occupation of their country.

Mostly children and monks, they make the dangerous trek over the Himalayas for many reasons, including the following:

*Parents send their children to learn Tibetan language and culture they can't learn at home.

*Some monks were tortured in prison for possessing photographs of the Dalai Lama or for putting up banners that read "Free Tibet."

*A doctor left because he was being forced to sterilize Tibetan women.

(watch the videos on the right panel to hear them speak for themselves.)

The language the Chinese government uses, claiming these protests are instigated by the "Dalai Clique" (separatist forces for Tibetan independence, both in and outside China), is reminiscent of Nazis blaming unrest in Poland on the Jewish ghetto. Trying to tie freedom-rights protesters to the Nobel laureate is telling of profound Chinese distaste for all things Tibetan.

I interviewed Han workers in Lhasa who spoke of their distaste for the food, the altitude, the people of Tibet; the only reason they remain is the triple wages they earned for relocation. If members of the Beijing Clique wants to earn the world's respect by hosting the Olympics, they might consider treating their adopted Tibetans as brothers instead of servants and claim the Dalai Lama as one of China's greatest resources.

--Richard Martini

Filmmaker

"Tibetan Refugee"

"Journey Into Tibet"

Santa Monica, Calif.

The "True Nature" of the Dalai Lama vs China's true nature

China Urges U.S. to see "True Nature" of the Dalai Lama

Wed Apr 2, 11:21 PM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) - China urged the United States to understand the true nature of the Dalai Lama clique, which it blames for stirring up last month's violence in Tibet, and support China's "just position," state media said on Thursday.

China blames Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, whom it labels a separatist, for stirring up the Lhasa violence in which it says 19 people died. The Tibet government-in-exile says around 140 people died.

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi "explained the truth of the Lhasa riots, and expounded the stance of the Chinese government" in talks with visiting U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the China Daily said.

"He stressed that the measures taken by the Chinese government according to law had not only gained support from the Chinese people, but also won understanding and support from majority of the countries in the world."

U.S. President George W. Bush awarded the Dalai Lama one of the highest U.S. honors, the Congressional Gold Medal, in October and called on China to open talks with him.

Paulson met President Hu Jintao, Vice Premier Wang Qishan and Yang, among other officials. He is due to meet Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday.

Paulson declined to say whether he had raised the issue of Chinese treatment of Tibetan protesters directly with Hu.

"I talked about this in an appropriate way. I'm not talking about what message I had for any particular leader," Paulson told reporters, but added he had expressed U.S. regret at the violence.

Chinese leaders accuse the Dalai Lama of orchestrating the wave of demonstrations from his home in exile in India, where he has lived since a failed 1959 uprising against Communist rule.

China says his intent is to disrupt the Beijing Olympics, which run from August 8-24, and to ultimately win independence for the remote, mountain region.

The Dalai Lama's representatives deny the charges and the 72-year-old has repeated that he is seeking greater autonomy for Tibet, not independence.

(Reporting by Nick Macfie and Glenn Somerville; Editing by Valerie Lee)

THE DALAI LAMA'S RESPONSE:

An Appeal to the Chinese People from His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

Today, I extend heartfelt greetings to my Chinese brothers and sisters round the world, particularly to those in the People's Republic of China. In the light of the recent developments in Tibet, I would like to share with you my thoughts concerning relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, and to make a personal appeal to you all.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in the recent tragic events in Tibet. I am aware that some Chinese have also died. I feel for the victims and their families and pray for them. The recent unrest has clearly demonstrated the gravity of the situation in Tibet and the urgent need to seek a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution through dialogue. Even at this juncture I have expressed my willingness to the Chinese authorities to work together to bring about peace and stability.

Chinese brothers and sisters, I assure you I have no desire to seek Tibet's separation. Nor do I have any wish to drive a wedge between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. On the contrary my commitment has always been to find a genuine solution to the problem of Tibet that ensures the long-term interests of both Chinese and Tibetans. My primary concern, as I have repeated time and again, is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people's distinctive culture, language and identity. As a simple monk who strives to live his daily life according to Buddhist precepts, I assure you of the sincerity of my motivation.

I have appealed to the leadership of the PRC to clearly understand my position and work to resolve these problems by "seeking truth from facts." I urge the Chinese leadership to exercise wisdom and to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan people. I also appeal to them to make sincere efforts to contribute to the stability and harmony of the PRC and avoid creating rifts between the nationalities. The state media's portrayal of the recent events in Tibet, using deceit and distorted images, could sow the seeds of racial tension with unpredictable long-term consequences. This is of grave concern to me. Similarly, despite my repeated support for the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese authorities, with the intention of creating rift between the Chinese people and myself, assert that I am trying to sabotage the games. I am encouraged, however, that several Chinese intellectuals and scholars have also expressed their strong concern about the Chinese leadership's actions and the potential for adverse long-term consequences, particularly on relations among different nationalities.

Since ancient times, Tibetan and Chinese peoples have lived as neighbors. In the two thousand year-old recorded history of our peoples, we have at times developed friendly relations, even entering into matrimonial alliances, while at other times we fought each other. However, since Buddhism flourished in China first before it arrived in Tibet from India, we Tibetans have historically accorded the Chinese people the respect and affection due to elder Dharma brothers and sisters. This is something well known to members of the Chinese community living outside China, some of whom have attended my Buddhist lectures, as well as pilgrims from mainland China, whom I have had the privilege to meet. I take heart from these meetings and feel they may contribute to a better understanding between our two peoples.

The twentieth century witnessed enormous changes in many parts of the world and Tibet, too, was caught up in this turbulence. Soon after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet finally resulting in the 17-Point Agreement concluded between China and Tibet in May 1951. When I was in Beijing in 1954-55, attending the National People's Congress, I had the opportunity to meet and develop a personal friendship with many senior leaders, including Chairman Mao himself. In fact, Chairman Mao gave me advice on numerous issues, as well as personal assurances with regard to the future of Tibet. Encouraged by these assurances, and inspired by the dedication of many of China's revolutionary leaders of the time, I returned to Tibet full of confidence and optimism. Some Tibetan members of the Communist Party also had such a hope. After my return to Lhasa, I made every possible effort to seek genuine autonomy for Tibet within the family of the People's Republic of China (PRC). I believed that this would best serve the long-term interests of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.

Unfortunately, tensions, which began to escalate in Tibet from around 1956, eventually led to the peaceful uprising of March 10, 1959, in Lhasa and my eventual escape into exile. Although many positive developments have taken place in Tibet under the PRC's rule, these developments, as the previous Panchen Lama pointed out in January 1989, were overshadowed by immense suffering and extensive destruction. Tibetans were compelled to live in a state of constant fear, while the Chinese government remained suspicious of them. However, instead of cultivating enmity towards the Chinese leaders responsible for the ruthless suppression of the Tibetan people, I prayed for them to become friends, which I expressed in the following lines in a prayer I composed in 1960, a year after I arrived in India: "May they attain the wisdom eye discerning right and wrong, And may they abide in the glory of friendship and love." Many Tibetans, school children among them, recite these lines in their daily prayers.

In 1974, following serious discussions with my Kashag (cabinet), as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the then Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies, we decided to find a Middle Way that would seek not to separate Tibet from China, but would facilitate the peaceful development of Tibet. Although we had no contact at the time with the PRC - which was in the midst of the Cultural Revolution - we had already recognized that sooner or later, we would have to resolve the question of Tibet through negotiations. We also acknowledged that, at least with regard to modernization and economic development, it would greatly benefit Tibet if it remained within the PRC. Although Tibet has a rich and ancient cultural heritage, it is materially undeveloped.

Situated on the roof of the world, Tibet is the source of many of Asia's major rivers, therefore, protection of the environment on the Tibetan plateau is of supreme importance. Since our utmost concern is to safeguard Tibetan Buddhist culture - rooted as it is in the values of universal compassion - as well as the Tibetan language and the unique Tibetan identity, we have worked whole-heartedly towards achieving meaningful self-rule for all Tibetans. The PRC's constitution provides the right for nationalities such as the Tibetans to do this.

In 1979, the then Chinese paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping assured my personal emissary that "except for the independence of Tibet, all other questions can be negotiated." Since we had already formulated our approach to seeking a solution to the Tibetan issue within the constitution of the PRC, we found ourselves well placed to respond to this new opportunity. My representatives met many times with officials of the PRC. Since renewing our contacts in 2002, we have had six rounds of talks. However, on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete result at all. Nevertheless, as I have declared many times, I remain firmly committed to the Middle Way approach and reiterate here my willingness to continue to pursue the process of dialogue.

This year the Chinese people are proudly and eagerly awaiting the opening of the Olympic Games. I have, from the start, supported Beijing's being awarded the opportunity to host the Games. My position remains unchanged. China has the world's largest population, a long history and an extremely rich civilization. Today, due to her impressive economic progress, she is emerging as a great power. This is certainly to be welcomed. But China also needs to earn the respect and esteem of the global community through the establishment of an open and harmonious society based on the principles of transparency, freedom, and the rule of law. For example, to this day victims of the Tiananmen Square tragedy that adversely affected the lives of so many Chinese citizens have received neither just redress nor any official response. Similarly, when thousands of ordinary Chinese in rural areas suffer injustice at the hands of exploitative and corrupt local officials, their legitimate complaints are either ignored or met with aggression. I express these concerns both as a fellow human being and as someone who is prepared to consider himself a member of the large family that is the People's Republic of China. In this respect, I appreciate and support President Hu Jintao's policy of creating a "harmonious society", but this can only arise on the basis of mutual trust and an atmosphere of freedom, including freedom of speech and the rule of law. I strongly believe that if these values are embraced, many important problems relating to minority nationalities can be resolved, such as the issue of Tibet, as well as Eastern Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia, where the native people now constitute only 20% of a total population of 24 million.

I had hoped President Hu Jintao's recent statement that the stability and safety of Tibet concerns the stability and safety of the country might herald the dawning of a new era for the resolution of the problem of Tibet. It is unfortunate that despite my sincere efforts not to separate Tibet from China, the leaders of the PRC continue to accuse me of being a "separatist". Similarly, when Tibetans in Lhasa and many other areas spontaneously protested to express their deep-rooted resentment, the Chinese authorities immediately accused me of having orchestrated their demonstrations. I have called for a thorough investigation by a respected body to look into this allegation.

Chinese brothers and sisters - wherever you may be - with deep concern I appeal to you to help dispel the misunderstandings between our two communities. Moreover, I appeal to you to help us find a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem of Tibet through dialogue in the spirit of understanding and accommodation.

With my prayers,

Dalai Lama

March 28, 2008

Note: translated from the Tibetan original

Tseten Samdup Chhoekyapa
Representative of H. H. the Dalai Lama

I've got news for the Chinese govt; the "true nature" of the Dalai Lama is not who they think he is. They've been absolutely wrong about him since they first met him. It never ceases to amaze me the idiocy of their arguments, and their complete disregard for reality. It's like the U.S. asking for the world to see the "True Nature" of Sitting Bull when he was a great Lakota chief, so they could continue to slaughter the Sioux.

I've had numerous posts on my youtube page from kids in China who believe what their govt has been telling them. It's amazing in this information age, that this drum beat from the Chinese govt is actually picked up by news agencies like Reuters. Why not just print; "Chinese are out of their minds again."

Now.. I must say, I've been to China - I like China - I had a film in the Shanghai Film Festival some years ago, called "Point of Betrayal" which was known as "Bei Pan" in Chinese. ("Back Stab") And the 3000 seat theater was sold out every screening - and after one screening, a man in a Chairman Mao outfit (blue pajamas) surrounded by Chinese soldiers came up to me and said "I want to ask you some questions about your film." I grabbed a young student who spoke English who had been at my screening, just to make sure I didn't insult someone, or that I understood what was asked of me. (I had introduced the film by saying "Comrades, thank you for coming to my screening!") So this man sat me down, surrounded by guards and said "Why did you make this film?" and I said.. "Because I felt it was a good story.." Not knowing what the answer was supposed to be.

And he said "I'm the film critic for the People's Daily, and I think everyone in China should see this film." I nearly fell out of my chair. The film was about respect of parents and how absolute money corrupts absolutely. Anyways, much to my relief, he loved my film. No one saw it in the US, but I can only hope someone copied it and showed it to all of China.

But I like Chinese people - I just happen to think that the 4% of the country that belongs to the party in power - the Communist party - is off their rockers. And once the rest of China realizes that these old blowhards don't speak for them, the country will transform into something else. But that's up to China.

I'm just saying - in a country that shows so much respect for its elders, you'd think they'd show some respect for their brothers the Tibetans. God forbid the Chinese are ever treated as poorly as they treat their Tibetan brothers.

That's a wrap.

The Martini Shot: Response to Patrick French's "Dalai Lama" op-ed

The Martini Shot: Response to Patrick French's "Dalai Lama" op-ed

Death by Prozac: curing yourself from depression via Tibetan meditation

FROM THE BBC.CO.UK WEBSITE:

Anti-depressants' 'little effect'

Anti-depressant prescription rates have soared

New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests.

A University of Hull team concluded the drugs actively help only a small group of the most severely depressed.

Marjorie Wallace, head of the mental health charity Sane, said that if these results were confirmed they could be "very disturbing".

But the makers of Prozac and Seroxat, two of the commonest anti-depressants, said they disagreed with the findings.

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Seroxat, said the study only looked at a "small subset of the total data available".

Reviewed data

And Eli Lilly, which makes Prozac, said that "extensive scientific and medical experience has demonstrated it is an effective anti-depressant".

There seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients Professor Irving Kirsch University of Hull Q&A: Anti-depressant study Popularity of 'happy pills'

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, has announced that 3,600 therapists are to be trained during the next three years in England to increase patient access to talking therapies, which ministers see as a better alternative to drugs.

Patients are strongly advised not to stop taking their medication without first consulting a doctor.

The researchers accept many people believe the drugs do work for them, but argue that could be a placebo effect - people feel better simply because they are taking a medication which they think will help them.

In total, the Hull team, who published their findings in the journal PLoS Medicine, reviewed data on 47 clinical trials.

They reviewed published clinical trial data, and unpublished data secured under Freedom of Information legislation.

They focused on drugs which work by increasing levels of the mood controlling chemical serotonin in the brain.

These included fluoxetine (Prozac) and paroxetine (Seroxat), from the class known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), alongside another similar drug called venlafaxine (Efexor) - all commonly prescribed in the UK.

The number of prescriptions for anti-depressants hit a record high of more than 31 million in England in 2006 - even though official guidance stresses they should not be a first line treatment for mild depression.

There were 16.2m prescriptions for SSRIs alone.

The researchers found that the drugs did have a positive impact on people with mild depression - but the effect was no bigger than that achieved by giving patients a sugar-coated "dummy" pill.

People with severe symptoms appeared to gain more clear-cut benefit - but this might be more down to the fact that they were less likely to respond to the placebo pill, rather than to respond positively to the drugs.

Lead researcher Professor Irving Kirsch said: "The difference in improvement between patients taking placebos and patients taking anti-depressants is not very great.

"This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments.

"Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed to provide a benefit."

Professor Kirsch said the findings called into question the current system of reporting drug trials.

Reviewing guidance

Dr Tim Kendall, deputy director of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research Unit, has published research concluding that drug companies tend only to publish research which shows their products in a good light.

These medicines have been licensed by a number of regulatory authorities around the world, who looking at all the evidence, have determined that they do work better than placebo Dr Richard Tiner Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Readers' experiences

He said the Hull findings undermined confidence in the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the merit of drugs based on published data alone.

He called for drug companies to be forced to publish all their data.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently reviewing its guidance on the use of antidepressants.

Marjorie Wallace of Sane commented: "If these results were upheld in further studies, they would be very disturbing.

"The newer anti-depressants were the great hope for the future.... These findings could remove what has been seen as a vital choice for thousands in treating what can be a life-threatening condition."

Dr Andrew McCulloch, of the Mental Health Foundation, said: "We have become vastly over-reliant on antidepressants when there is a range of alternatives.

"Talking therapies, exercise referral and other treatments are effective for depression.

"It is a problem that needs a variety of approaches matched to the individual patient."

Dr Richard Tiner, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said there was no doubt that there was a "considerable placebo effect" from anti-depressants when treating people with mild to moderate symptoms.

But he said no medicine would get a licence without demonstrating it was better than a placebo.

Dr Tiner said: "These medicines have been licensed by a number of regulatory authorities around the world, who looking at all the evidence, have determined that they do work better than placebo."

Some years ago I met this Swiss filmmaker in Moscow. She was there with her husband's film at the film festival, and was in mourning because he'd just killed himself. I asked what she thought happened. She said "I don't know - he was happy, ready to come to this festival, and he went to his doctor because he was exhausted, and he gave him some pills and the next thing I know he kills himself." I asked if the pills were Prozac. She said yes.

I told her about another friend, in Italy near my ancestral home town in Cadore. This guy was in his 60's, a happy go lucky fella who didn't have a care in the world. He told his doc he was tired, and needed something to help him sleep. Same story. Started taking Prozac, killed himself.

Most people don't know that Congress had hearings to try and figure out why so many people were killing themselves after taking psychotropic drugs. The results? Zippo. Inconclusive. Hard to prove someone didn't want to kill themselves.

Look at most of the gun shootings in high schools and you'll find psychotropic drugs were involved with the students (Columbine included) Here's the deal as I see it:

We have a fight or flight part of our brain that keeps us on the planet. When you're driving down the street, you don't turn into oncoming traffic because of this modulator in your head. I once did a series of interviews with severely depressed people, one of whom described walking "around the planet, trying to figure out ways to kill himself." This part of his brain was malfunctioning - telling him to kill himself instead of to protect himself.

Apparently, up to 10% of the people who take psychotropic drugs have a 'side effect' which disrupts this mechanism in the brain. So.. they stop having the ability to feel happy or sad, because they're being modulated, and they lose the ability to tell the difference between their inner and outer worlds - if they feel rage, but have no outlet for it, it can translate into 'let's pick up a gun' or 'let's kill ourselves.' Or as I call it "Death by Prozac."

When history looks back on this era, it's going to be the time of the drugs which altered people's psyches. I'm not a fan of Scientology, I firmly believe that it's a fantasy religion created from L. Ron Hubbard's psyche, and has no more roots in reality than Joseph Smith did. (I also believe they probably had similar psychic experiences that influenced them profoundly, but that's a topic for another time). However, the Scientologists, Tom Cruise included, are spot on when they try to point out that psychotropic drugs are bad for you. Where we differ greatly is how to cure depression. I don't think getting clear is the answer, as it's another panacea, and leaves your treatment in someone else's hands. I think the most promising research in the area has been done by Richard Davidson of the Univ of Wisconsin.

(Davidson with HHDL, photo Waisman Center, Univ. of Wisconsin)

I recently attended a conference at UCLA, filled with psychiatrists, who had come to hear Davidson talk about his research into the amygdala, the part of the brain that regulates depression and happiness. And basically, as Time magazine noted, he laid out the skills that people can learn to make themselves happier, less depressed, and drug free. The questions from the audience were from doctors concerned about giving teenagers psychotropic drugs. Davidson's work is profound, and I think should be included in every doctor's bag - even pediatricians. Here's an article from Science Daily a few days ago.

The cure is pretty simple. A Tibetan meditation called "Tonglen." (I know it's Tonglen because I asked him after the lecture which specific Tibetan meditation he asked his subjects to use to get the profound results.) I won't describe the meditation here, because in order to learn it requires a certain amount of skill, education, and perhaps a guided teacher. You don't have to study under the Dalai Lama to learn it, however, it would be better if you sought out a teacher of meditation, a yoga class for example, which can teach the breathing meditation to begin. Once you've mastered ten minutes a day, you could graduate to a next level. However, Davidson did tell me that in his version of the Tonglen meditation, he asked his subjects not to meditate on curing the ills of a particular person, but on the society in general. This note will make sense to those of you who know about Tonglen meditation, and for those who might be depressed and want to learn about it, check out Davidson's work, or Tibetan meditation in particular.

Anyways, if you have a loved one who is depressed, or if you're depressed, I'd think it would be worth trying to figure out a natural method to cure it, before risking that you'd be part of the ten percent who die from this drug use. What have you got to lose?

That's a wrap.

Translated text of a Chinese petition for tolerance re: Tibet

(photo from students for a free tibet.org)

Below is the translated text of a petition made by Chinese artists and writers in response to their government's position on Tibet. I think they're pretty brave to stand up in this way, and I post it here to honor that move on their part. I walked in two anti-war protests, wrote as many letters as I could, but my protests that the War in Iraq was fake, there were no WMD's, no connection to 9/11, fell on deaf ears. But then I didn't have to fear that police would show up at my door and kick my **s. If you're curious about the Tibetan situation, there are some pretty cool clips on youtube showing monks and people marching in the streets of Tibet, and for some interviews, check the panel next to this for clips from my documentary on the subject.



March 22, 2008

Twelve Suggestions for Dealing with the
Tibetan Situation by Some Chinese Intellectuals

1. At present the one-sided propaganda of the official Chinese media is having the effect of stirring up inter-ethnic animosity and aggravating an already tense situation. This is extremely detrimental to the long-term goal of safeguarding national unity. We call for such propaganda to be stopped.

2. We support the Dalai Lama’s appeal for peace, and hope that the ethnic conflict can be dealt with according to the principles of goodwill, peace, and non-violence. We condemn any violent act against innocent people, strongly urge the Chinese government to stop the violent suppression, and appeal to the Tibetan people likewise not to engage in violent activities.

3. The Chinese government claims that “there is sufficient evidence to prove this incident was organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated by the Dalai clique." We hope that the government will show proof of this. In order to change the international community’s negative view and distrustful attitude, we also suggest that the government invite the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights to carry out an independent investigation of the evidence, the course of the incident, the number of casualties, etc.

4. In our opinion, such Cultural-Revolution-like language as “the Dalai Lama is a jackal in Buddhist monk’s robes and an evil spirit with a human face and the heart of a beast ” used by the Chinese Communist Party leadership in the Tibet Autonomous Region is of no help in easing the situation, nor is it beneficial to the Chinese government’s image. As the Chinese government is committed to integrating into the international community, we maintain that it should display a style of governing that conforms to the standards of modern civilization.

We note that on the very day when the violence erupted in Lhasa (March 14), the leaders of the Tibet Autonomous Region declared that “there is sufficient evidence to prove this incident was organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated by the Dalai clique.” This shows that the authorities in Tibet knew in advance that the riot would occur, yet did nothing effective to prevent the incident from happening or escalating. If there was a dereliction of duty, a serious investigation must be carried out to determine this and deal with it accordingly.

If in the end it cannot be proved that this was an organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated event but was instead a “popular revolt” triggered by events, then the authorities should pursue those responsible for inciting the popular revolt and concocting false information to deceive the Central Government and the people; they should also seriously reflect on what can be learned from this event so as to avoid taking the same course in the future.

We strongly demand that the authorities not subject every Tibetan to political investigation or revenge. The trials of those who have been arrested must be carried out according to judicial procedures that are open, just, and transparent so as to ensure that all parties are satisfied.

We urge the Chinese government to allow credible national and international media to go into Tibetan areas to conduct independent interviews and news reports. In our view, the current news blockade cannot gain credit with the Chinese people or the international community, and is harmful to the credibility of the Chinese government. If the government grasps the true situation, it need not fear challenges. Only by adopting an open attitude can we turn around the international community’s distrust of our government.

We appeal to the Chinese people and overseas Chinese to be calm and tolerant, and to reflect deeply on what is happening. Adopting a posture of aggressive nationalism will only invite antipathy from the international community and harm China’s international image.

The disturbances in Tibet in the 1980s were limited to Lhasa, whereas this time they have spread to many Tibetan areas. This deterioration indicates that there are serious mistakes in the work that has been done with regard to Tibet. The relevant government departments must conscientiously reflect upon this matter, examine their failures, and fundamentally change the failed nationality policies.

In order to prevent similar incidents from happening in future, the government must abide by the freedom of religious belief and the freedom of speech explicitly enshrined in the Chinese Constitution, thereby allowing the Tibetan people fully to express their grievances and hopes, and permitting citizens of all nationalities freely to criticize and make suggestions regarding the government’s nationality policies.

We hold that we must eliminate animosity and bring about national reconciliation, not continue to increase divisions between nationalities. A country that wishes to avoid the partition of its territory must first avoid divisions among its nationalities. Therefore, we appeal to the leaders of our country to hold direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We hope that the Chinese and Tibetan people will do away with the misunderstandings between them, develop their interactions with each other, and achieve unity. Government departments as much as popular organizations and religious figures should make great efforts toward this goal.


Signatures:

Wang Lixiong (Beijing, Writer)
Liu Xiaobo (Beijing, Freelance Writer)
Zhang Zuhua (Beijing, scholar of constitutionalism)
Sha Yexin (Shanghai, writer, Chinese Muslim)
Yu Haocheng (Beijing, jurist)
Ding Zilin (Beijing, professor)
Jiang peikun (Beijing, professor)
Yu Jie (Beijing, writer)
Sun Wenguang (Shangdong, professor)
Ran Yunfei (Sichuan, editor, Tujia nationality)
Pu Zhiqiang (Beijing, lawyer)
Teng Biao (Beijing, Layer and scholar)
Liao Yiwu ()Sichuan, writer)
Wang Qisheng (Beijing, scholar)
Zhang Xianling (Beijing, engineer)
Xu Jue (Beijing, research fellow)
Li Jun (Gansu, photographer)
Gao Yu (Beijing, journalist)
Wang Debang (Beijing, freelance writer)
Zhao Dagong (Shenzhen, freelance writer)
Jiang Danwen (Shanghai, writer)
Liu Yi (Gansu, painter)
Xu Hui (Beijing, writer)
Wang Tiancheng (Beijing, scholar)
Wen kejian (Hangzhou, freelance)
Li Hai (Beijing, freelance writer)
Tian Yongde (Inner Mongolia, folk human rights activists)
Zan Aizong (Hangzhou, journalist)
Liu Yiming (Hubei, freelance writer)

Response to Patrick French's "Dalai Lama" op-ed

(photo taken in Tucson, public talk. All rights Res)

He May Be a God, but He’s No Politician

By PATRICK FRENCH
Published: March 22, 2008

London

NEARLY a decade ago, while staying with a nomad family in the remote grasslands of northeastern Tibet, I asked Namdrub, a man who fought in the anti-Communist resistance in the 1950s, what he thought about the exiled Tibetans who campaigned for his freedom. “It may make them feel good, but for us, it makes life worse,” he replied. “It makes the Chinese create more controls over us. Tibet is too important to the Communists for them even to discuss independence.”

Protests have spread across the Tibetan plateau over the last two weeks, and at least 100 people have died. Anyone who finds it odd that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rushed to Dharamsala, India, to stand by the Dalai Lama’s side fails to realize that American politics provided an important spark for the demonstrations. Last October, when the Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the Dalai Lama, monks in Tibet watched over the Internet and celebrated by setting off fireworks and throwing barley flour. They were quickly arrested.

It was for the release of these monks that demonstrators initially turned out this month. Their brave stand quickly metamorphosed into a protest by Lhasa residents who were angry that many economic advantages of the last 10 or 15 years had gone to Han Chinese and Hui Muslims. A young refugee whose family is still in Tibet told me this week of the medal, “People believed that the American government was genuinely considering the Tibet issue as a priority.” In fact, the award was a symbolic gesture, arranged mostly to make American lawmakers feel good.

A similar misunderstanding occurred in 1987 when the Dalai Lama was denounced by the Chinese state media for putting forward a peace proposal on Capitol Hill. To Tibetans brought up in the Communist system — where a politician’s physical proximity to the leadership on the evening news indicates to the public that he is in favor — it appeared that the world’s most powerful government was offering substantive political backing to the Dalai Lama. Protests began in Lhasa, and martial law was declared. The brutal suppression that followed was orchestrated by the party secretary in Tibet, Hu Jintao, who is now the Chinese president. His response to the current unrest is likely to be equally uncompromising.

The Dalai Lama is a great and charismatic spiritual figure, but a poor and poorly advised political strategist. When he escaped into exile in India in 1959, he declared himself an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance. But Gandhi took huge gambles, starting the Salt March and starving himself nearly to death — a very different approach from the Dalai Lama’s “middle way,” which concentrates on nonviolence rather than resistance. The Dalai Lama has never really tried to use direct action to leverage his authority.

At the end of the 1980s, he joined forces with Hollywood and generated huge popular support for the Tibetan cause in America and Western Europe. This approach made some sense at the time. The Soviet Union was falling apart, and many people thought China might do the same. In practice, however, the campaign outraged the nationalist and xenophobic Chinese leadership.

It has been clear since the mid-1990s that the popular internationalization of the Tibet issue has had no positive effect on the Beijing government. The leadership is not amenable to “moral pressure,” over the Olympics or anything else, particularly by the nations that invaded Iraq.

The Dalai Lama should have closed down the Hollywood strategy a decade ago and focused on back-channel diplomacy with Beijing. He should have publicly renounced the claim to a so-called Greater Tibet, which demands territory that was never under the control of the Lhasa government. Sending his envoys to talk about talks with the Chinese while simultaneously encouraging the global pro-Tibet lobby has achieved nothing.

When Beijing attacks the “Dalai clique,” it is referring to the various groups that make Chinese leaders lose face each time they visit a Western country. The International Campaign for Tibet, based in Washington, is now a more powerful and effective force on global opinion than the Dalai Lama’s outfit in northern India. The European and American pro-Tibet organizations are the tail that wags the dog of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

These groups hate criticism almost as much as the Chinese government does. Some use questionable information. For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure. The question that Nancy Pelosi and celebrity advocates like Richard Gere ought to answer is this: Have the actions of the Western pro-Tibet lobby over the last 20 years brought a single benefit to the Tibetans who live inside Tibet, and if not, why continue with a failed strategy?

I first visited Tibet in 1986. The economic plight of ordinary people is slightly better now, but they have as little political freedom as they did two decades ago. Tibet lacks genuine autonomy, and ethnic Tibetans are excluded from positions of real power within the bureaucracy or the army. Tibet was effectively a sovereign nation at the time of the Communist invasion and was in full control of its own affairs. But the battle for Tibetan independence was lost 49 years ago when the Dalai Lama escaped into exile. His goal, and that of those who want to help the Tibetan people, should be to negotiate realistically with the Chinese state. The present protests, supported from overseas, will bring only more suffering. China is not a democracy, and it will not budge.

Patrick French is the author of “Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land.”


Mr. French writes that the Dalai Lama should drop his "Hollywood strategy" in favor of "back channel diplomacy." He asserts the protests by the "Dalai Clique" cause the Chinese to "lose face" when visiting the west. As a filmmaker I've been drawn to the Tibetan's tragedy not because of its celebrity. Interviewing monks who were chained to walls, electrocuted -- a doctor who left Tibet because he was forced to sterilize women at the behest of his Chinese overseers -- or the children who walked across the Himalayas, some who lost limbs from frostbite so they could learn to speak in their native tongue -- All of whom said goodbye to their family and country in order to keep their culture alive.

Because I live in LA, am I supposed to turn my back on their story for fear of making Chinese officials "save face?" It was Jiang Zemin who claimed he was like Abraham Lincoln because, in his words, "He freed the slaves of Tibet." To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen; "We know Abe Lincoln, Abe Lincoln is a friend of ours. And the Beijing Clique ain't no Abraham Lincoln."

As Mr. French knows, only 4-5% of China belongs to the Communist party, (73 million according to their official number) so a cadre of officials roughly the population of Shanghai, gets to dictate what the rest of the world can or can't think about Tibet. Why does this sound like a Nazi solution to me?

The Chinese may have no intention of giving up Tibet - but they didn't in 1906 either when they attacked Tibet after the British and Younghusband had withdrawn. Their forces were routed by the army raised by the 13th Dalai Lama, who kept Tibet Chinese free until 1949. For Mr. French to claim he found no evidence of the 1.2 million Tibetans reportedly dying as a result of the Chinese invasion, he neglects to offer a number that he thinks did die. 10,000? 100,000? It reminds me of the casualty figures that come out of the Iraq war. What is the number that would make you happy, Mr. French? And if it's under 500,000, should we doff our caps to those Chinese soldiers who merely starved the rest of those Tibetans to death?

It's appalling to hear Mr. French attack the Dalai Lama as if he'd devised a plan of popularity with a clique of "Hollywood phonies" instead of catering to those Beijing phonies who have claimed that "All religion is poison." In the history of China, what land have they ever given up voluntarily? In the history of China, what ruler negotiated a fair terms for the people they'd nearly wiped off the face of the earth? The same could be said for countries of the West - only an idiot would think that a dialog with charlatans, who continually claim the Dalai Lama is a "splittist" would amount to anything. "We have peace in our time," trumpted the biggest falsehood prior to "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The Tibetans only hope, according to Mr. French, is for the country to fall under the weight of its own banking system, and one day, like the Sioux Nation in the BlackHills of Dakota, their slave masters will fade into the woodwork once they've taken out all the gold, ore and uranium they can muster.

I personally interviewed a dozen Han Chinese shopkeepers in Tibet, while making my last documentary there, informally asking them if they could give me a frank assessment of why they chose to live in Lhasa. Every single one of them expressed a hatred for Tibet, and wished that they could return home to the lower altitudes of their native country. One pointed out that pregnancy results in being removed from Lhasa, because the altitude causes complications with delivering babies. To a man and woman, they all said the only reason they were in Tibet was because they were earning triple their normal salary. One day those salaries will fall, as law of supply and demand tells us; and those people will catch the first train home if a Chinese soldier doesn't stop them from doing so.

Mr. French does a disservice to Tibetans everywhere by claiming the Dalai Lama and his "Hollywood strategy" have done nothing to help Tibetans inside Tibet. Certainly those released from Drapchi prison due to international pressure, filmmaker Ngawang Choepel comes to mind, might beg to differ. While filming in Tibet, a monk came up to me with tears in his eyes and hugged me. He said "thank you for caring about Tibet. And thank the American people for not forgetting us." I prefer to think his tears were worth every effort of every person who tries to pressure the Chinese. The fact that they become intractable under pressure, is like saying during the 1930's; "Don't annoy the Nazis. They're only going to become more difficult to dealt with."

I invite anyone interested to view my documentary "Tibetan Refugee" which features interviews with recent arrivals from Tibet. It's available, for free, on youtube, (links provided next to this post - it's free - and only 50 minutes) and Mr. French can judge for himself what the Tibetans think about helping the Chinese government to save face.

you can't hurry love

check this out...

you can't hurry love

here's the short film that it was based on:

Video Valentino

Teaching a Class at The LUC Rome Center

Martini Shot on Oscar Hopefuls

(Holding Curtis Hanson's Oscar for LA Confidential)

I was talking to a friend about this year's Oscar Globular hopefuls. I hate being critical. I loathe critiques of my own work. Well loathe is too extreme. I usually don't read them. Unless I like them. Then I read them over and over .. and over. "Hey, listen to this," I'll usually say. And make others listen. I guess that's a testament to how few good reviews I get. Anyways, my friend said "You should write a blog about your take on the Oscar contenders." Why? Just another annoying voice in the netverse? I'm a filmmaker myself - I've written and/or directed 8 flicks - I want to work again. Why bite the hand that feeds me? Oh, it hasn't fed me lately? There's a strike on? Oh, okay, I'll take out time from helping my 4 year old play on Sesame street (.com) to jot down some thoughts.

That being said. Can we talk?

"Into the Wild." Wasn't wild about it. Didn't care for the lead character. The actor was good, I love Sean Penn's pov mostly, but I just didn't like this guy's character. Or his story. He was kind of annoying. Kind of a jerk to his family - and he goes off the deep end for no reason I could really gather - his parents yelled at each other. Oooh. Hide the kids. It's not like Perry's father beating the crap out of him in "In Cold Blood" or his mom having sex with men while he was on the next bed. I mean.. c'mon. Then the kid trecks cross the country and winds up in a trailer in Alaska - just yards from where a bridge that crossed the raging river he was stuck behind.. where he would have found civilization. I'm sure he was a great brother and a wonderful son. I'd hate for my son to run off to Alaska without saying goodbye. But it reminded me of a George Carlin riff he did about people swimming in the East River, drinking pollution when he grew up. "Some people aren't supposed to survive childhood." Maybe this story will convince someone else to give their parents a break. Or phone home more often. Or carry a cell phone. Or a map? He came to an apotheosis, a realization about the meaning of life when he died - but I'd come to the same realization two hours earlier; don't go to Alaska without a hat.

"No Country For Old Men." This should have been called "There will be blood in this country where old men are" I loved this movie. Up until the last reel. Maybe two reels. Suddenly the film goes.. What? Did someone load up the wrong reel? Then I read that the Fabulous Cohens chose the book to adapt because the third act was so wacky. I'm paraphrasing but it was "we loved that this key moment happened off screen." C'mon. Our lead character has his epiphany.. off screen? Where's Billy Wilder when we need him? Okay, that's novel, but that's as in - "that belongs in a novel." We're in a movie theater. Don't make us think about the structure of this story while you're screwing up a story. Then.. the inexplicable - at least to this seasoned viewer - ending. I won't go into details. Why should I? Tommy Lee Jones telling us about a dream he had. "Then my Pa rode by me on his horse, didn't say nothing. Nope. Just went on down the road.." (sorry I'm paraphrasing again) Felt like I was watching an episode of Rifleman. The effervescent Tess Harper, looking radiant, wasted, we know she's been his wife for the past two hours and they decide to introduce her to us now? She sits across and listens to him opine about his dream. Speaking of wasted - Woody, phone home. What was billed as - or at least story wise - a great matchup between two bad guys.. was .. um.. anticlimactic? Hmm. "Should I answer the ringing telephone or shoot this hombre's head off? Let me flip a coin." It really annoyed me, but then after reading other blogs, I know I'm not the only one. So if it wins, audiences around the globe can be annoyed as well.

"There Will Be Blood." Ok. I got two problems with this movie. One is John Huston's ghost. The other is the ghost of Ghoulardi. That's an inside joke, and if you don't know who Ghoulardi is, look 'er up. But why the brilliant DDLewis decided to do a (spot on mind you) imitation of the great John Huston, is beyond me. It's like DeNiro doing young Brando in Godfather II - brilliant - the voice, the stature, everything - DDL is doing a young John Huston who grows up to be Hollis Mulray in Chinatown. It's eerie to hear Huston in a film - but there you have it. PT Anderson has gone on record that he watched "Treasure of Sierra Madre" a bunch to imitate it - and the bug eyes scene where DDL loses his temper with his brother - some of these scenes were great homages to John Huston's film. (Yes, I know it was Walter who starred in the film - brilliantly so, the leading man taking off his hairpiece and his fake teeth for an Oscar worthy part) but what irks me about this film is the story. Did I feel satisfied with it? Why? Well, for starters there's no third act. Again. We're in the Greystone mansion where Doheny was murdered by his son. Why isn't DDLewis murdered by his son? The scene is set for it - but it doesn't happen. Something else happens. And I for one, was laughing throughout. Over the top? Over the bowling lanes for my money. But what do I know? The other beef I have is the music - it was great - but as I sat there looking at these long shots of barren Texas countryside, I was thinking "this music is making me tense, but there's absolutely nothing happening in this frame. Or in the story? So why the mock tension?" Also - one final dart - lots of behavior (kissing of his son - its understandable, I kiss mine - but this character?) It felt like it was something out of the 1990's and not the 1890's. Just.. didn't.. buy.. it. Great filmmaker. Great actors. Not so great story.

"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" I was looking forward to this - Harwood's script, Kaminski's the DP - both oscar worthy folks. And then Julian Schnabel shows up - at our screening no less - to talk about his contributions to the film. Which, from I can tell so far, he didn't look at Harwood's script (which is the person who came up with the POV idea) or he shot the film himself.. Janusz was on the sidelines listening to the great painter paint. Somebody give me a Tums. And the film at the end is dedicated to Schnabel's dad - that's lovely - except it's not Schnabel's story, it's not his film - and I can't help but feel like this great story has been inundated by some over eager ego. "Let go of my ego." That's all this director needs, more accolades as to the genius he imagines himself to be. I've yet to hear anyone on the streets of LA who doesn't feel the same about the guy. I was glad to see him speak at my screening - I thought I might be wrong about him. I asked him it was like to work with Janusz. He said, and I quote, "I called him on the phone. He came to my hotel." Ok. How about a compliment in someone else's direction? And how convenient is it that every woman in this film is a babe? Even Fellini, when surrounding himself with beautiful women, found a way to highlight real people. Not too many real people in this film. And why should we care about him? Because he had a stroke. Guy has a chance to redeem himself in front of his wife.. but doesn't. Eh. But the visuals are stunning. Janusz could shoot the laundry and make it look fabulous.

POST SCRIPT: Saw Herr Schnabel speak about his film at the DGA awards. His producer's introduction was so over the top, that for a moment I thought "Maybe JS really isn't such a bad guy - just misunderstood." Then he got up to accept his nomination - made a comment about Kathleen Kennedy sending him the script and some woman in the audience said something. He froze. He glared at her. "You want to finish my speech? Here, you finish it." and then acted like he was going to walk off. Furious. The music cued him off. Then he stopped. He must have realized how petty he was being.

I immediately thought to myself "the woman has turrets. This is a Larry David episode." And then it all came back to me.. The producer said it was the Director's idea to have the first 38 minutes of the film from the victim's pov. How brilliant! Only if that's true, then Ron Harwood is a liar -(WGA article) he says that was in the script. It was his idea to make it from the writer's POV. The script that was sent to Schnabel by the producer Ms. Kennedy. The finished product Schnabel claimed, in a DGA forum no less, that the script "bore little resemblance" to the finished product.

Wow. Then in the trades (Hollywood rep 1-23-08 - "Schnable in Rome)" at what he regarded was a snub of his film for not being nominated for a Best Picture award "Of course, I think it's the Best Picture." News flash: A writer wrote this story. A novelist in fact. Then an award winning WGA screenwriter. Two gentlemen who created this story that Il Regisata has never thanked in any speech I've heard or seen. Even if its oversight, it appears to be deliberate neglect to mention others as being part of the success of the film. Then the dedications at the end of the film - to the Director's parents. What about the original writer's family? Whose story is this? Who do we care about in this story? It's not the Director. It's the author's.

And then the audacity! the horror! Sean Young dares to interrupt his nomination acceptance speech!! The one where the Director neglects to thank the two key people who wrote this film.. Sean Young was ejected, but when she said "Get on with it," she might as well have said "Don't forget to thank the writer for this film." It's a lovely film, but I feel like someone's trying to sell that fact that they invented muslin, paint, and how to put it onto the canvas. Or as I often quote an old Hollywood maxim: "I'll see you on the way up, and I'll see you on the way down."

American Gangster - Haven't seen it yet. Seen the trailer. Feel like I've seen the movie.

3:10 to Yuma. Still can't get Russell Crowe throwing a phone at a bellhop out of my head. Hard to find sympathy for him - although the filmmakers seem to think its his story. Hence why we leave our hero in the dirt, and follow the bad guy onto the train. Awful third act. It's all about the hat.

In the Valley of Elah this is one film I didn't see but I read. (being on strike gives you time to actually read what the Guild sends you.) I like Paul Haggis. A son is murdered after coming home from Iraq, his pop tries to find out who and why and how. He finds out his son was involved in creepy stuff while in Iraq. We're about to have a whole nation full of veterans who've been tortured by this inane war. I live close enough to the VA hospital to viscerally feel how awful going to Vietnam must have been - 70% of all homeless people in the country - it's estimated - are Vietnam vets. Get ready for a lot of homeless veterans. I like the script - well written - but I read a more powerful story about an Iraqi vet in the LA Times. He was the guy called the "Marlboro Marine" because of the LA Times photo of him smoking a butt. He came home, his life shattered. But he said one thing that stayed with him - as he killed Iraqis there was this moment when their lives flashed through his mind. For an instant he was connected to them - and could see their lives as he killed them. That's what's haunting him. Wow. Imagine if they taught you that in school - if you take someone's life it will smack you in the face and haunt you with their ghosts. That's interesting to me. That's a film I haven't seen. However, Paul gets my vote for best script, because well, he's a good writer.

Lars and the Real Girl He's great. She's not. Okay, I have to agree with the Geezers of youtube when I wished there was some drama in this film. Or sex. Or something. When I saw that same story the writer of this film did, on HBO's show "Real Sex", about this company making Real Girls or whatever they're called... During the "Real Sex" episode on HBO they showed a writer who was living in a cabin with his mannequin - and smirking about sex with her - I thought "that's a weird film." And dang it all, someone beat me to the punch - but if you put ten writers in the same room and gave them the same concept.. I don't know - it should have been something more - funnier. Still, filmmaker did a good job - just not a great one.

Juno. I heard this awful review on the radio - Wall Street Jrnl? - and they played a clip from the movie claiming it was annoying. It was the scene where she goes to the prospective adopters with her dad - and while listening to the clip, I had to agree. It sounded like an annoying film. But since then, I've revisited the trailer, had a laugh, so I finally saw it. The film surprised me in every way - the lead actress - brilliant. Bravura performance. I liked the dialog, the setups, the changes, the first, second and third act. I didn't know what would happen. It took me back to my teen years, and my own traumas, which I'll revisit through my writing someday.. I hope. But it's a great film. Also gets a nod for best script and the direction as well. Good work all around. Kudos to Diablo.

My opinion of the best film this year? Ratattouille. I can't spell it. I can eat it. I've seen it a dozen times. My kids want to be Remy and Emile. Not easy to take a rat and make him your hero - make him a chef to boot, and create 3 dimensional characters. When I wrote for Epicurean Rendezvous a great chef once told me "Every great chef has the taste of his mother's cooking in his mouth." And the moment when Anton Ego tastes Remy's dish - and his mind races back to his childhood - I had tears in my eyes.. I so understood that moment, how brilliant it was. And it was the only film this year that made me wish I'd written that scene.. If you can get a four and two year old (my daughter and son) to want to play with and be better rats.. - then that's what Rocky did to me when I first saw it, what Chinatown did to me before I grew up to go to film school and then got to work for Robert Towne, what the Godfather did to me before I grew up and got to meet the incomparable Francis Coppola. These guys can tell a story. It's a shame that so many filmmakers these days are skating when it comes to giving us a beginning, middle and end, even if it's told completely out of order. Gimme Wilder anytime.

That's a wrap.

Charles Grodin's book: "If I Only Knew Then"

Hey. I'm in a book.

One of many essays in a book about learning from mistakes, yours truly has an essay in this one.

I also helped Sally Kellerman and Robert Towne craft their essays - in the former case, Sally told me the story over lunch at a local eatery in Santa Monica, in Robert's case I went to his house with my laptop and had him tell me the story so I could type it up for him. Essentially they both edited them into the stories that appear in the book, but are hilarious nonetheless.

A perfect gift for your family - who make a lot of mistakes, don't they?

If I Only Knew Then

Hockenberry Vs Zucker - who do you believe?

By Paul J. Gough Wed Jan 2, 9:06 AM ET

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - A former "Dateline NBC" correspondent claims that in the aftermath of September 11, the network diverted him from reporting on al Qaeda and instead wanted him to ride along with the country's "forgotten heroes," firefighters.

John Hockenberry, who was laid off from "Dateline" in early 2005, wrote in this month's Technology Review that on the Sunday after the September 2001 attacks he was pitching stories on the origins of al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. He claimed that then-NBC programming chief Jeff Zucker, who came into a meeting Hockenberry was having with "Dateline" executive producer David Corvo, said "Dateline" should instead focus on the firefighters and perhaps ride along with them a la "Cops," the Fox reality series.

According to Hockenberry, Zucker said "that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine."

NBC News wasn't impressed by this or any of Hockenberry's other claims.

"It's unfortunate that John Hockenberry seems to be so far out of touch with reality," an NBC spokesperson said. "The comments are so utterly absurd, we will have no further comment." Another NBC executive said it didn't sound like Zucker, who was promoted out of the news division and was at one time "Today" executive producer.

Hockenberry is a distinguished fellow at the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, Mass. But for more than 20 years, he was a broadcast journalist working at National Public Radio, ABC News and from 1996-2005, a correspondent at "Dateline." Hockenberry's blistering article trained much of its fire on the controversial NBC newsmagazine, which has been criticized for its "To Catch a Predator" series -- a "highly rated pile of programming debris," in Hockenberry's words.

Another bombshell is Hockenberry's claims that General Electric, NBC's parent company, discouraged him from talking to the Bin Laden family about their estranged family member. Hockenberry asked GE, which does business with the Bin Laden family company, to help him get in contact with them. Instead, a PR executive called Hockenberry's hotel room in Saudi Arabia and read a statement about how GE didn't see its "valuable business relationship" with the Bin Laden Group as having anything to do with "Dateline."

In another instance, Hockenberry claimed a story he did about a Weather Underground member wouldn't appear on the Sunday edition of "Dateline" unless its lead-out, the 1960s family drama "American Dreams," did a show about "protesters or something." And for another story on the abuse of mentally ill inmates, Hockenberry was told by a producer that video of a fatal attack on a prisoner by guards wasn't enough.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter


Happy New Year. This year, can we all just speak a little truth to power? When the executive says "print the lies," we all say "no." When the programmer says "edit that story so it reaches the common denominator" we say "Sorry, can't do it." Or the story editor says "It's show business, not show art" we say "Is that what you tell your children at night?"

I love that NBC responds as if this award winning journalist is out of his head. Why didn't they just say "Look, the guy's in a wheel chair - he's off his rocker!!" Hockenberry is just pointing up the picky idiot things that those in power constantly asks people to do with their work. Instead of aiming for the truth, they aim for the bottom line - or the bottom of the barrel. The only way to say no to that is.. to say no.

Here's the article: http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=19845

Kudos to JH for speaking truth to power.

And Happy New Year anyways.

कीथ Olbermann Let's Bush Have It

Sicko - A Great Film!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html

I normally wouldn't weigh in on a movie review. (I did see and love "Knocked Up" on Father's Day" - The family played in the Malibu playground while dad went across the street for his holiday treat.. and it was a treat - and in retrospect the 'perfect father's day film' - as it's all about taking you back into the birthing experience; I roared with laughter thruout)

Which brings me to Michael Moore - whom I saw do a Q & A tonight with Ron Howard at the DGA, talking about his film and screening it as well. I didn't attend the free outdoor screening he gave tonight to the homeless folks down on San Pedro street in downtown LA - which is a pretty wild gesture - but despite the polemic that follows Moore around this really is a great film. It has no real political stance, as both Republicans and Democrats have embraced the film (those that have seen it.) It's a really funny, touching look at America in a way - since HMO's didn't come into existence until 1971 - he does a great job of showing both sides of the coin, as per the Fox review above. I can't recommend it higher for a really unusual mirror held up to our country, its health care system, especially in comparison to the rest of the world. Much has been made of his trip to Cuba; I can only say that if I ever have to face a life threatening illness without insurance I'll be on the next plane to England, Canada, France or Cuba.. it's amazing what he reveals. A really terrific film.

xo

R'cardo

Immigration Policy revisited

I'm so glad we're finally putting up a fence. I'm so sick of these immigrants showing up illegally at our shores!!! the country used to be a nice place before they started showing up in droves and bringing their stinky, smelly diseases across our shores. but while we're getting rid of the latest gang, can I ask that we get rid of the frickin' irish while we're at it? Belching, farting, full of cabbage - they drive me crazy!! and those obnoxious Italians. Talk about garlic breath. And then those krauts. Man, I've had it up to here with the rules and regulations - acting like a much of anastazis. Let's not forget the slaves they all brought with 'em.. comin' over here and demanding their 40 acres and a mule. Can we talk about the Polee for a minute? Chicago used to be a city of broad shoulders .. and now it's all eastern euros! Those russkies have shown up in record numbers, and now, we're gonna have this huge influx of iraqis showing up wondering why we blasted their country to kingdom come and won't let 'em in the front gate. Speaking of gates, we're not even close to keeping those pesky canadians out of here.. next thing they're going to swamp us with their frickin health care system and their cheap knock off drugs!! It gets my gall! And not to mention the Gauls!! If we had just kept the danged French out of our shores we wouldn't have lost the first revolution!!! Those ridiculous frogs bringing all their china and linen.. did someone say China? If someone had been smart enough, we wouldn't have had the country ripped in half by Chinamen putting up a railway system. We should have known better - it's just so hard to tell them apart when so many of them look like Apaches. So I'm outraged as well.. put up the damned fence and keep the whole lot of them out, which I said we should have done against those freakin' Spaniards.. but no.. everybody told me this Columbus guy was going to bring his 'new world' to our benefit. Some benefit!!! Should shot him through the head with an arrow when I had the frickin' chance!!! signed Chief Kick-In-The-Pants.

Thomas the Tank Engine Recall

For all those parents out there..

I wish this wasn't true - but have checked it out. The people who own Thomas have been letting the Chinese use lead based paint on the red painted wooden train cars. This means James, Fire Engine, etc, etc.

You can get a complete list from www.rc2.com - been checking in to just what to do - the company is requesting that you return the piece IMMEDIATELY for a refund and a gift certificate.

However, some pediatrician websites are recommending that you NOT return the piece if it was a favorite toy of your child - take the piece in to your pediatrician and discuss if your child should be checked for lead poisoning... which as we all know, leads to some pretty creepy side effects. (and if, God forbid, something awful does happen, better to have the evidence in your possession.)

I remember back in the 60's the psychic Jeanne Dixon (who predicted JFK's assassination) said something about a wave of poisonings coming from China.. of course this was the 60's, and she associated it with willful acts - but there's that old Confucious saying "man who lie down with dog wake up with fleas."

So - if your kids (like mine) are Thomas fanatics, double check your red engines.. and go to the site. Here's more details from the CPC:

Thomas & Friends Toy Recall
Thomas Train RecallThe U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and RC2 Corp. have recalled about 1.5 million Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys because 'surface paints on the recalled products contain lead.'

If your kids are at risk and played with Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys that were purchased between January 2005 through June 2007 and may have been involved in this recall, more importantly than simply trying to get your money back or a replacement toy, take them away and contact your pediatrician to see if a lead test should be done on your children. This would be especially important if your kids frequently put the Thomas toys in their mouth and/or you notice chipped or flaking paint on the toys.
Kids who only occasionally played with these toys are likely not at any risk for lead poisoning, but it would be a bigger risk if they were his favorite toy and he played with the trains on most days. If your child always carried one of the Thomas trains around, like a security object, and puts it in his mouth or puts his hands in his mouth a lot, then he could also be at risk for lead poisoning from this exposure and a lead test should likely be done.
Related:

* Lead Poisoning
* Lead Poisoning Risks from Lead Paint
* How do I protect my kids from lead poisoning?
* Lead Poisoning Alert
* Metal Toy Jewelry Recall
* Target Recalls Various Toys Due to Lead and Laceration Hazards

There's a notice at the consumer protection agency (www.cpsc.gov) from jun 13th, and one at the company's home site.

Here's the company link..

http://recalls.rc2.com/recallinfo/RecallPoster_Wood061407.pdf

or visit http://recalls.rc2.com/