The signs that there is something wrong with our system are everywhere and with the internet we can easily see each new environmental or humanitarian catastrophe around the world happening in real time. When I stop to consider the amazing things the human race is capable of and then compare that to the world we have created I see this massive gap. There is so much unnecessary destruction and suffering.
Ethos, in many ways a distillation, was an attempt to draw an overview of the systemic mechanisms that shape our world and how they connect. None of the ideas in the film are new and I am not so much standing on the shoulders of giants, but rather crawling humbly at the feet of the many great thinkers and filmmakers whose work contributed to this film. But hopefully, for example, drawing a direct line between the manipulation of consumerism portrayed in Alan Curtis's Century of the Self, and the Military Industrial Complex of Eugene Jarecki's Why we fight, thus connecting the dots between corporate foreign plundering and our societies insatiable consumer appetite, was useful . I think we can begin to see the part that each and every one of us plays and the responsibility we all bare.
When I began the film I wanted to point the finger, to blame, and while it is easy to do that it is still 'our' consumerism that drives all of this, that causes the wars, the pollution and the waste. Yes, we have been and are still manipulated but I find this is a very weak defense for an adult in the 21st Century. It is our responsibility as adults to learn the facts and act accordingly and hopefully this film will provoke these questions and keep the debate rolling.
Lastly, I wanted to try and defeat the helplessness that so many people feel and offer a tangible way for people to get involved and make a real difference. Right now money is all powerful in our system. Once you understand that all money/wealth/power is derived from consumerism it is only a small leap to recognize the incredible power of our consumer choices to bring change.
Showing posts with label documentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label documentary. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Director's Statement from Singeli Agnew and Joshua Fisher about "Pollen Nation"
From the beginning, we were interested in the idea of a science film that felt more like an American road movie. It was also clear to us that this was not just a story about bees and a little known migratory subculture, but a much larger tale about agriculture, and the human relationship with the natural world.
We started Pollen Nation in the fall of 2006, well before the news of a great bee die-off swept through the media. In the middle of production, two of our characters - Jeff Anderson and Dave Hackenberg - lost a substantial number of hives to what later became known as colony collapse disorder. We were suddenly in the midst of a national story, one which had been developing for years but which most people thought was brand new. Meanwhile the beekeepers had their heads in their hives simply trying to keep themselves in business. For many, this was just another setback in a long string of troubles.
What struck us about the news, and the public anxiety that followed, is that there was a great focus on finding a single culprit. After delving into the issues it was clear that there was not an isolated solution – identifying a pest, eliminating GM crops or a specific pesticide. This was a chronic problem, intimately connected to the demands of industrial agriculture that sustain our food economy. The beekeepers, in their struggle to keep their businesses alive, are caught in a cycle of short-term fixes that is leading to the long-term collapse of the honeybee. And modern agriculture, with its emphasis on efficiency and profit, has exploited the natural interactions that sustain it to the breaking point.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Director's Statement from Philippe Diaz about "The End of Poverty"
When we were contacted by a member of the board of the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation and asked about our interest in making a film on poverty, several questions rushed to my mind. First, could it be more than simply "a" film on poverty? Could it be a film which would explain the true causes of poverty and moreover, the true historical and political causes of poverty?
The second question was: Are we ready to invest time, money and years of our lives to such a noble but seemingly impossible cause? This answer came quickly: 'yes' on all fronts. We created Cinema Libre Studio with the idea that movies can make a difference. And for the last six years we have produced and distributed movies to that effect.
On a personal level it was the same: I had started making movies when I was 13 and then studied the philosophy of art as well as political philosophy at La Sorbonne in Paris, instilling in me the belief that movies could make a difference in the world. As a young producer in Paris, most of the 25+ feature films I had made tackled world issues in one way or another. In 1999, I had returned to directing for Nouvel Ordre Mondial (Quelque Part en Afrique)( The Empire in Africa) a feature-length documentary that explains that famine and hunger are not a natural phenomenon, as many people believe, but rather a political one. We chose to film in Sierra Leone, which had been embroiled in a terrible civil war for nine years. We were there for a month. (Even if it was the most difficult experience in my life, it prepared me for this new assignment.) The success and impact of this film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2000 and went on to garner many awards around the world, encouraged me to use documentaries as tools to make a difference.
So of course the answer was, 'yes'. I had spent most of my life using movies to try to make a difference in the world. After the screening of The Empire in Africa during the Cannes Film Festival a journalist asked me: "Why would you take so much risk to make a film?" I answered: because I am probably not courageous enough to take a weapon and fight against injustice like many people do, so I take a camera, it feels safer!
And of course this film is about injustice…and inequalities which grow wider and wider every year, and about answering the daunting question: Why, in a world of so much wealth, do we still have so much poverty, where billions of people live on less than one dollar a day? (This is also the introduction to the film as narrated by the wonderful Martin Sheen.)
In developing the concept for a poverty film, many other questions came to mind: Why is it that when we make all these technological advancements the poor grow poorer? Why, if we find more and more wealth every year, do the poor grow poorer? Why, when a company makes huge profits that their shareholders pocket, do the employees pay the price when that company fails yet the shareholders retain their profits? Why are the natural resources given to us by nature exploited -- to the extent of destroying the planet - by only a few people who reap the benefits while millions of others suffer as a consequence? It was clear to me that making this film would be a wonderful opportunity to dig deep into a system that has created so much suffering, a system which is still almost deified by so many.
After months of research, discussions and several proposals, the Foundation allowed me to expand the scope of the film beyond a narrow Georgist perspective, in order to explain the true historical and political causes of poverty in the world. Ultimately the goal of the film was to change the dialogue around the poverty debate from "poverty is a shame," to "poverty exists for a reason."
When we finalized the budget, it was clear that we would have to limit our travel to a few countries. That coupled with the fact that the issue of poverty is remarkably complex, meant we also had to limit the scope of our investigation to a few specific topics.
The production would eventually entail over one hundred hours of interviews and bring us to four different continents: South America (Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia), Africa (Kenya and Tanzania), Europe and North America. The criteria for the countries we chose were: countries with governments that were open to acknowledging and talking about the poverty challenges they faced; and secondly, countries that represented a specific issue in the thesis we were developing, such as land rights in Kenya. As absurd as it sounds, many Third World governments facing dire poverty are still ready to deny this even though one can see evidence on every street.
Originally I wanted to show both sides of the poverty debate. We even filmed several experts who were proponents of the "progress and technology will solve everything" mindset supporting the notion that mosquito nets and bags of fertilizer could solve the poverty conundrum. This is the theory that Bono's economic sidekick, Jeffrey Sachs, has touted all around the world. But the first cut of the film was more than three hours long, so many of these interviews were left on the hard drive of the editing system.
We decided to make the film with a small crew since we would be going into slums and the homes of poor people, which we knew to be small and crowded. Our itinerary was punishing and we planned to move fast and visit multiple cities in several countries, which required mobility.
The form of the documentary was of particular importance to me, not as much as the content of course, but we were going with a mission to change people's perception of the true causes of poverty. It was essential nevertheless because I saw too many documentaries ruined by their lack of form or too much of it. The stars of the film had to be the poor. And I knew that I couldn’t turn such a devastating subject into "cinema." I would therefore have to refrain from using zooms and any other effects unless they were absolutely necessary to the context of the scene. The camera would be mostly fixed on a tripod or handheld when necessary. I would create a totally different feel for the experts who would be interviewed in natural settings: it is easier to fight poverty from a comfortable office in a university or an international organization – which doesn't diminish the importance of what these experts who do – but it is another to live it on a day-to-day basis. To wake up hungry everyday without knowing where you can find enough money during the day to feed your family is simply not the same thing.
I decided early on that lighting choices would be my ally in this complex cinematic question. I would install my experts in a comfortable setting and light them with three to four light sources, ultimately using diffusion and colored gels. When filming those living in poverty we would use natural light, which very often, was almost non-existent. I also decided to shoot the poor subjects with a handheld camera, allowing me to follow behind them when they were showing us their miserable living conditions – unless the subject was seated. Our experts would be shot with a fixed and immobile camera.
Our experience in working with these poor people brought us to a level of understanding I never thought possible. Many of them had an understanding of their situations and of its causes that most experts would find accurate beyond belief. But the experts opened our minds in a no less interesting way. We started shooting in 2006 and most of the experts predicted an imminent financial crisis which would engulf the world, while most of our politicians and our media were glorifying the prowess of capitalism. One of the experts, Serge Latouche, put it in very simple words: Today 20% of the planet uses more than 80% of its resources. Moreover, every year we are consuming 30% more than what the planet can regenerate, therefore digging a giant hole under our feet and making it bigger every year. And of course, these resources come primarily from the countries of the (global) South. And the most condemning part is that in order to maintain our lifestyle in the North, we have to keep these countries at a level of dire poverty. Even worse, because the world's population continues to increase in order to maintain our lifestyle we have to plunge more and more people into poverty every year. Latouche makes the point that if everybody had the same lifestyle as the people in North America, we would need six planets.
I summarize here the main points made in the film. The question is: how did this catch all of our top economists by surprise last October (2008) when the global economy imploded? They had no idea and no way to predict. Funny isn't it?
Ironically, in the last year our movie became the film to explain the current economic crisis while it was touring the festivals. The Critics' Week at the Cannes Film Festival, selected the film when it was not even finished which started an international festival tour that has passed the 25 mark and is still counting. I've been invited around the world to present the film and explain why we have to change our understanding and our perception of poor people and of poverty. Because at the end of the day, as long as we remain rich, they will remain poor and we'll keep digging the gigantic hole under our feet… which one day, without a doubt, will swallow us all.
But we have to hope that we are more intelligent than to let that happen.
The second question was: Are we ready to invest time, money and years of our lives to such a noble but seemingly impossible cause? This answer came quickly: 'yes' on all fronts. We created Cinema Libre Studio with the idea that movies can make a difference. And for the last six years we have produced and distributed movies to that effect.
On a personal level it was the same: I had started making movies when I was 13 and then studied the philosophy of art as well as political philosophy at La Sorbonne in Paris, instilling in me the belief that movies could make a difference in the world. As a young producer in Paris, most of the 25+ feature films I had made tackled world issues in one way or another. In 1999, I had returned to directing for Nouvel Ordre Mondial (Quelque Part en Afrique)( The Empire in Africa) a feature-length documentary that explains that famine and hunger are not a natural phenomenon, as many people believe, but rather a political one. We chose to film in Sierra Leone, which had been embroiled in a terrible civil war for nine years. We were there for a month. (Even if it was the most difficult experience in my life, it prepared me for this new assignment.) The success and impact of this film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2000 and went on to garner many awards around the world, encouraged me to use documentaries as tools to make a difference.
So of course the answer was, 'yes'. I had spent most of my life using movies to try to make a difference in the world. After the screening of The Empire in Africa during the Cannes Film Festival a journalist asked me: "Why would you take so much risk to make a film?" I answered: because I am probably not courageous enough to take a weapon and fight against injustice like many people do, so I take a camera, it feels safer!
And of course this film is about injustice…and inequalities which grow wider and wider every year, and about answering the daunting question: Why, in a world of so much wealth, do we still have so much poverty, where billions of people live on less than one dollar a day? (This is also the introduction to the film as narrated by the wonderful Martin Sheen.)
In developing the concept for a poverty film, many other questions came to mind: Why is it that when we make all these technological advancements the poor grow poorer? Why, if we find more and more wealth every year, do the poor grow poorer? Why, when a company makes huge profits that their shareholders pocket, do the employees pay the price when that company fails yet the shareholders retain their profits? Why are the natural resources given to us by nature exploited -- to the extent of destroying the planet - by only a few people who reap the benefits while millions of others suffer as a consequence? It was clear to me that making this film would be a wonderful opportunity to dig deep into a system that has created so much suffering, a system which is still almost deified by so many.
After months of research, discussions and several proposals, the Foundation allowed me to expand the scope of the film beyond a narrow Georgist perspective, in order to explain the true historical and political causes of poverty in the world. Ultimately the goal of the film was to change the dialogue around the poverty debate from "poverty is a shame," to "poverty exists for a reason."
When we finalized the budget, it was clear that we would have to limit our travel to a few countries. That coupled with the fact that the issue of poverty is remarkably complex, meant we also had to limit the scope of our investigation to a few specific topics.
The production would eventually entail over one hundred hours of interviews and bring us to four different continents: South America (Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia), Africa (Kenya and Tanzania), Europe and North America. The criteria for the countries we chose were: countries with governments that were open to acknowledging and talking about the poverty challenges they faced; and secondly, countries that represented a specific issue in the thesis we were developing, such as land rights in Kenya. As absurd as it sounds, many Third World governments facing dire poverty are still ready to deny this even though one can see evidence on every street.
Originally I wanted to show both sides of the poverty debate. We even filmed several experts who were proponents of the "progress and technology will solve everything" mindset supporting the notion that mosquito nets and bags of fertilizer could solve the poverty conundrum. This is the theory that Bono's economic sidekick, Jeffrey Sachs, has touted all around the world. But the first cut of the film was more than three hours long, so many of these interviews were left on the hard drive of the editing system.
We decided to make the film with a small crew since we would be going into slums and the homes of poor people, which we knew to be small and crowded. Our itinerary was punishing and we planned to move fast and visit multiple cities in several countries, which required mobility.
The form of the documentary was of particular importance to me, not as much as the content of course, but we were going with a mission to change people's perception of the true causes of poverty. It was essential nevertheless because I saw too many documentaries ruined by their lack of form or too much of it. The stars of the film had to be the poor. And I knew that I couldn’t turn such a devastating subject into "cinema." I would therefore have to refrain from using zooms and any other effects unless they were absolutely necessary to the context of the scene. The camera would be mostly fixed on a tripod or handheld when necessary. I would create a totally different feel for the experts who would be interviewed in natural settings: it is easier to fight poverty from a comfortable office in a university or an international organization – which doesn't diminish the importance of what these experts who do – but it is another to live it on a day-to-day basis. To wake up hungry everyday without knowing where you can find enough money during the day to feed your family is simply not the same thing.
I decided early on that lighting choices would be my ally in this complex cinematic question. I would install my experts in a comfortable setting and light them with three to four light sources, ultimately using diffusion and colored gels. When filming those living in poverty we would use natural light, which very often, was almost non-existent. I also decided to shoot the poor subjects with a handheld camera, allowing me to follow behind them when they were showing us their miserable living conditions – unless the subject was seated. Our experts would be shot with a fixed and immobile camera.
Our experience in working with these poor people brought us to a level of understanding I never thought possible. Many of them had an understanding of their situations and of its causes that most experts would find accurate beyond belief. But the experts opened our minds in a no less interesting way. We started shooting in 2006 and most of the experts predicted an imminent financial crisis which would engulf the world, while most of our politicians and our media were glorifying the prowess of capitalism. One of the experts, Serge Latouche, put it in very simple words: Today 20% of the planet uses more than 80% of its resources. Moreover, every year we are consuming 30% more than what the planet can regenerate, therefore digging a giant hole under our feet and making it bigger every year. And of course, these resources come primarily from the countries of the (global) South. And the most condemning part is that in order to maintain our lifestyle in the North, we have to keep these countries at a level of dire poverty. Even worse, because the world's population continues to increase in order to maintain our lifestyle we have to plunge more and more people into poverty every year. Latouche makes the point that if everybody had the same lifestyle as the people in North America, we would need six planets.
I summarize here the main points made in the film. The question is: how did this catch all of our top economists by surprise last October (2008) when the global economy imploded? They had no idea and no way to predict. Funny isn't it?
Ironically, in the last year our movie became the film to explain the current economic crisis while it was touring the festivals. The Critics' Week at the Cannes Film Festival, selected the film when it was not even finished which started an international festival tour that has passed the 25 mark and is still counting. I've been invited around the world to present the film and explain why we have to change our understanding and our perception of poor people and of poverty. Because at the end of the day, as long as we remain rich, they will remain poor and we'll keep digging the gigantic hole under our feet… which one day, without a doubt, will swallow us all.
But we have to hope that we are more intelligent than to let that happen.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Filmmaker Chris Metzler Introduces "Greener-Schnitzels"
Ironweed filmmaker Chris Metzler (Plagues & Pleasures on the Salton Sea, Long Division) announces the launch of GREENER-SCHNITZELS - a new series of environmental webisodes that blends sketch comedy and documentary filmmaking to deliver funny truths about our warming planet. With energetic irreverence, the short videos provide some informative comic relief amidst the more serious Green programming you'll find this Earth Day. Come watch the first episode here: www.greenerschnitzels.com
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Considering Democracy & Policy Solutions by Keya Lea Horiuchi
Thank you for the opportunity to blog with Ironweed Films and thank you for the opportunity to be included in your lineup of (fabulous!) films.
“Considering Democracy” is a film that I hope will continue to widen the scope of debate in the United States as we look toward solutions. I feel that we are at a tremendous and momentous time within the United States of America. We are at the threshold of it all. As we go forward, we must do so as a country. Yet it seems that as individuals in America, we are divided, based upon the sources of our information.
During the same time that the film went out on Ironweed Films, I was touring the country, driving to different communities, screening “Considering Democracy” and having questions and discussion afterward. I found that there is currently a lot of emotion, together with polarization, along with a tremendous desire to define and work towards policy solutions that work for the People in America. It’s quite a combination. I think that change does need to come from the People, and with that, I think that it is up to us, as regular people in society, to begin discussing issues and policy with one another.
“Considering Democracy” offers a comparison of the U.S. to other developed countries, along with points of view from abroad. As I worked on the editing process, there was an earlier edition of the film that showed just the foreign point of view. People who looked at the early edition said that while it was interesting, they didn’t know if any of what people said abroad, was true. Thus, the research began and currently appears as quick bits of information throughout the film. I also looked at why the U.S. is drastically different in its policy than all the other developed democracies. The introductory segments with the weaver and the questions at the end of each section were a way to structure the film so that each chapter began and ended in a similar way. People have asked me if I want people to ask the questions, verbatim, to representatives, and while I do want people to be actively engaged in the political process after representatives are elected, I really want people to think about the issues.
It is my hope that the film can act as a catalyst to get people thinking about possible solutions. We must also be aware of the current political structure and how the system interacts with it. Once we vote our representatives into office, the lobbying mechanism will swing into action. The policy solutions are out there, but there will be a resistance from people who listen exclusively to conservative media formats. We need to begin to build bridges to these people. Please consider sharing your Ironweed films with other friends who might have different informational sources. Thank you for taking a look at the film.
- by Keya Lea Horiuchi, Director, Considering Democracy: 8 Things to Ask Your Representative (Ironweed Films Volume 35: October 2008) For more information, visit http://www.ironweedfilms.com
“Considering Democracy” is a film that I hope will continue to widen the scope of debate in the United States as we look toward solutions. I feel that we are at a tremendous and momentous time within the United States of America. We are at the threshold of it all. As we go forward, we must do so as a country. Yet it seems that as individuals in America, we are divided, based upon the sources of our information.
During the same time that the film went out on Ironweed Films, I was touring the country, driving to different communities, screening “Considering Democracy” and having questions and discussion afterward. I found that there is currently a lot of emotion, together with polarization, along with a tremendous desire to define and work towards policy solutions that work for the People in America. It’s quite a combination. I think that change does need to come from the People, and with that, I think that it is up to us, as regular people in society, to begin discussing issues and policy with one another.
“Considering Democracy” offers a comparison of the U.S. to other developed countries, along with points of view from abroad. As I worked on the editing process, there was an earlier edition of the film that showed just the foreign point of view. People who looked at the early edition said that while it was interesting, they didn’t know if any of what people said abroad, was true. Thus, the research began and currently appears as quick bits of information throughout the film. I also looked at why the U.S. is drastically different in its policy than all the other developed democracies. The introductory segments with the weaver and the questions at the end of each section were a way to structure the film so that each chapter began and ended in a similar way. People have asked me if I want people to ask the questions, verbatim, to representatives, and while I do want people to be actively engaged in the political process after representatives are elected, I really want people to think about the issues.
It is my hope that the film can act as a catalyst to get people thinking about possible solutions. We must also be aware of the current political structure and how the system interacts with it. Once we vote our representatives into office, the lobbying mechanism will swing into action. The policy solutions are out there, but there will be a resistance from people who listen exclusively to conservative media formats. We need to begin to build bridges to these people. Please consider sharing your Ironweed films with other friends who might have different informational sources. Thank you for taking a look at the film.
- by Keya Lea Horiuchi, Director, Considering Democracy: 8 Things to Ask Your Representative (Ironweed Films Volume 35: October 2008) For more information, visit http://www.ironweedfilms.com
Monday, October 13, 2008
Michael Moore's Free Film "Slacker Uprising"
You may have heard Michael Moore's new film "Slacker Uprising" is available for free to everyone in the United States and Canada. It is the first time ever that a major feature-length film is debuting as a free download on the internet -- legally.
Why did Michael Moore decide to do this? There are two reasons:
1. Next year it will be the 20th anniversary since his first film, "Roger & Me," so he wants to thank everyone who has supported his work.
2. Michael is hoping to motivate new voters to make it to the polls on November 4th.
"Slacker Uprising" takes place in the wake of "Fahrenheit 9/11," during the run-up to the 2004 election, as he traveled for 42 days across America, visiting 62 cities in an attempt to remove George W. Bush from office. His goal was to help turn out a record number of young voters and others who had never voted before. What follows is often surprising, funny, enlightening and frightening.
To stream, download, or burn a DVD of "Slacker Uprising" free of charge, visit here: www.slackeruprising.com.
[source: www.michaelmoore.com]
Why did Michael Moore decide to do this? There are two reasons:
1. Next year it will be the 20th anniversary since his first film, "Roger & Me," so he wants to thank everyone who has supported his work.
2. Michael is hoping to motivate new voters to make it to the polls on November 4th.
"Slacker Uprising" takes place in the wake of "Fahrenheit 9/11," during the run-up to the 2004 election, as he traveled for 42 days across America, visiting 62 cities in an attempt to remove George W. Bush from office. His goal was to help turn out a record number of young voters and others who had never voted before. What follows is often surprising, funny, enlightening and frightening.
To stream, download, or burn a DVD of "Slacker Uprising" free of charge, visit here: www.slackeruprising.com.
[source: www.michaelmoore.com]
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
9/11 & Government Bureaucracy by Ray Nowosielski
Another October is upon us once again. Crisp winds are begining to blow, the leaves are commencing their seasonal showing of spectral radiance, and another 9/11 anniversary has come and gone, begging us to remember that repressive legislation and worldwide carnage are the only things that stand between us and an Al-Qaeda victory party.
Fortunately for us, we are in an election year, so the nationalistic hyperbole was able to ring extra loud and hollow. Speakers at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions attempted to drive home the notion that they and they alone could shield us from an otherwise certain death at the wrinkled hands of Osama Bin Laden.
Though politicians would love you to believe that expensive wars in far off lands can wipe out terrorism, unfortunately, it must be said that tactics and concepts are impervious to bullets and bombs. (Civilians who happen to be standing nearby to persons who might make use of such tactics or hold such ideas, are not however.) Likewise, it should be mentioned that laws giving more power to government and law enforcement, while stripping the dearly held rights of the citizenry, are also not the key to preventing the actions of a few determined souls.
In fact, I would argue that the US government had all of the power, money, and resources it needed to prevent 9/11, on 9/11. As evidence for this claim, I submit the fact that the CIA was monitoring future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Midar, and Mohammed Atta for more than a year prior to the attacks. Not only were these would-be terrorists monitored, but the CIA was in posession of a copy Khalid al-Midar’s passport which included a multiple entry visa to the United States as far back as January 2000. Despite these facts, the FBI wasn’t warned about these characters until a few weeks before the attacks, and their names were never placed on terrorist watch lists.
All of this information comes straight from the Congressional “9/11 Report.” Mind you, most of it was buried in the footnotes. Perhaps you’re the type of person who would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Who wouldn’t? Consider then, that not only was the CIA aware of the movements of these Al-Qaeda terrorits, they were also aware of their associations to the embassy bombings in 1998 and the WTC bombing in 1993. On top of that, the CIA was monitoring a phone in Yemen which Nawaf al-Hazmi called from within the United States on several occasions using a phone that he had registered in his own name. Are we to believe that the big bad CIA couldn’t tell that these calls came from the U.S., thus demonstrating that Al-Qaeda was on our own soil?
Even after hijacker Khalid al-Midhar left the U.S. to assist with the bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden, the CIA refused to inform theFBI that terrorists were now operating out of our country. Of course, giant bureaucracies make mistakes, what with the magnitude of their work load, right? How then, are we supposed to make sense of internal cables being distributed within the CIA claiming the the FBI had been informed that these men were in the country, when in fact the FBI had not received one word that Al-Qaeda terrorists were within their jurisdiction?
How are we supposed to make sense of the fact that when an FBI agent tasked to the CIA tried to send on word of al-Hazmi’s and al-Midhar’s visas to enter the U.S., he was told by a CIA desk officer that, “This isn’t a matter for the FBI.”
Apparently, the CIA had everything they needed to locate terrorists, they only lacked the will to disrupt their plots. Though they weren’t up to sharing information with the FBI, they were very much inclined to make the President believe they had done so. On August 6th, 2001, when President Bush received his now famous PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US,” the FBI was given an advance copy to look over and approve. After they had done so, someone then inserted descriptions of over 70 active FBI field investigations into the terrorist threat. This doctored version would be the one that President Bush would see, thus giving the perpetually vacationing executive the notion that domestic law enforcement was alerted to and responding to the Al-Qaeda issue, though of course, they were not.
Over the course of this entire year, our filmmaking team has been seeking funding for a documentary about the preceding story, with no success. We think it's an important and intriguing tale that needs to be further explored. "A true-life espionage mystery thriller about a cat-and-mouse game between the CIA and FBI played over the fate of two future September 11th hijackers."
"9/11 is old news," we are told again and again. You can find this entire story for yourself in the 9/11 Commission Report and the FBI Inspector General's Report, provided that you know what to look for. However, thanks to a mainstream media that has not adequately educated us on the important issues involved here, most people who have read the report have not known what to look for or understood the ramifications of what the Commissioners have reported. Hopefully it won’t take too many more disasterous wars and a much further slide into bankruptcy for the public to wisen up, or next October might be a lot more bleak and dreary.
- by Ray Nowosielski, Director, 9/11 Press For Truth (Ironweed Films Volume 34: September 2008) For more information, visit http://www.ironweedfilms.com/films/past
Fortunately for us, we are in an election year, so the nationalistic hyperbole was able to ring extra loud and hollow. Speakers at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions attempted to drive home the notion that they and they alone could shield us from an otherwise certain death at the wrinkled hands of Osama Bin Laden.
Though politicians would love you to believe that expensive wars in far off lands can wipe out terrorism, unfortunately, it must be said that tactics and concepts are impervious to bullets and bombs. (Civilians who happen to be standing nearby to persons who might make use of such tactics or hold such ideas, are not however.) Likewise, it should be mentioned that laws giving more power to government and law enforcement, while stripping the dearly held rights of the citizenry, are also not the key to preventing the actions of a few determined souls.
In fact, I would argue that the US government had all of the power, money, and resources it needed to prevent 9/11, on 9/11. As evidence for this claim, I submit the fact that the CIA was monitoring future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Midar, and Mohammed Atta for more than a year prior to the attacks. Not only were these would-be terrorists monitored, but the CIA was in posession of a copy Khalid al-Midar’s passport which included a multiple entry visa to the United States as far back as January 2000. Despite these facts, the FBI wasn’t warned about these characters until a few weeks before the attacks, and their names were never placed on terrorist watch lists.
All of this information comes straight from the Congressional “9/11 Report.” Mind you, most of it was buried in the footnotes. Perhaps you’re the type of person who would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Who wouldn’t? Consider then, that not only was the CIA aware of the movements of these Al-Qaeda terrorits, they were also aware of their associations to the embassy bombings in 1998 and the WTC bombing in 1993. On top of that, the CIA was monitoring a phone in Yemen which Nawaf al-Hazmi called from within the United States on several occasions using a phone that he had registered in his own name. Are we to believe that the big bad CIA couldn’t tell that these calls came from the U.S., thus demonstrating that Al-Qaeda was on our own soil?
Even after hijacker Khalid al-Midhar left the U.S. to assist with the bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden, the CIA refused to inform theFBI that terrorists were now operating out of our country. Of course, giant bureaucracies make mistakes, what with the magnitude of their work load, right? How then, are we supposed to make sense of internal cables being distributed within the CIA claiming the the FBI had been informed that these men were in the country, when in fact the FBI had not received one word that Al-Qaeda terrorists were within their jurisdiction?
How are we supposed to make sense of the fact that when an FBI agent tasked to the CIA tried to send on word of al-Hazmi’s and al-Midhar’s visas to enter the U.S., he was told by a CIA desk officer that, “This isn’t a matter for the FBI.”
Apparently, the CIA had everything they needed to locate terrorists, they only lacked the will to disrupt their plots. Though they weren’t up to sharing information with the FBI, they were very much inclined to make the President believe they had done so. On August 6th, 2001, when President Bush received his now famous PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US,” the FBI was given an advance copy to look over and approve. After they had done so, someone then inserted descriptions of over 70 active FBI field investigations into the terrorist threat. This doctored version would be the one that President Bush would see, thus giving the perpetually vacationing executive the notion that domestic law enforcement was alerted to and responding to the Al-Qaeda issue, though of course, they were not.
Over the course of this entire year, our filmmaking team has been seeking funding for a documentary about the preceding story, with no success. We think it's an important and intriguing tale that needs to be further explored. "A true-life espionage mystery thriller about a cat-and-mouse game between the CIA and FBI played over the fate of two future September 11th hijackers."
"9/11 is old news," we are told again and again. You can find this entire story for yourself in the 9/11 Commission Report and the FBI Inspector General's Report, provided that you know what to look for. However, thanks to a mainstream media that has not adequately educated us on the important issues involved here, most people who have read the report have not known what to look for or understood the ramifications of what the Commissioners have reported. Hopefully it won’t take too many more disasterous wars and a much further slide into bankruptcy for the public to wisen up, or next October might be a lot more bleak and dreary.
- by Ray Nowosielski, Director, 9/11 Press For Truth (Ironweed Films Volume 34: September 2008) For more information, visit http://www.ironweedfilms.com/films/past
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Health, Money and Fear & Government Intervention by Dr. Paul Hochfeld
It was a great honor to have "Health, Money and Fear" included in the July edition of Ironweed Films. In the few months since I completed the film, I have been spending untold hours trying to distribute it with the goal of contributing to the debate.
Along the way, I have found a large number of sympathetic people. In my attempts to reach those who might not already be part of the choir, I have found a small but very vocal subset of apparently very bright people who have a violent reaction to any sense that our health care system calls for more government involvement which threatens "the magic of the marketplace."
To them I say that we have a health care non-system in which major business decisions are driven by the desire to maximize the profits gained from treating disease. There is relatively little money to be made from keeping people healthy. Accordingly, our current system will absolutely ensure that we have the most amount of disease from which we can profit. That's some kind of magic, eh?
As for more government involvement, that scares me too, but I don't think we have any choice. We are accelerating to the financial cliff and people are suffering because they don't have access to affordable health care. We need to develop a system in which somebody is leading the dialog about what medical services we can afford to provide to all our citizens.
I can almost guarantee that we will have a single payer system eventually... just like all our industrial competitors. It's the only way to control costs. Yes, "We are different", but what we have now isn't working.
-- Dr. Paul Hochfeld, Director, Health, Money and Fear (Ironweed Films Volume 32: July 2008)
For more information, visit http://www.ironweedfilms.com/films
Along the way, I have found a large number of sympathetic people. In my attempts to reach those who might not already be part of the choir, I have found a small but very vocal subset of apparently very bright people who have a violent reaction to any sense that our health care system calls for more government involvement which threatens "the magic of the marketplace."
To them I say that we have a health care non-system in which major business decisions are driven by the desire to maximize the profits gained from treating disease. There is relatively little money to be made from keeping people healthy. Accordingly, our current system will absolutely ensure that we have the most amount of disease from which we can profit. That's some kind of magic, eh?
As for more government involvement, that scares me too, but I don't think we have any choice. We are accelerating to the financial cliff and people are suffering because they don't have access to affordable health care. We need to develop a system in which somebody is leading the dialog about what medical services we can afford to provide to all our citizens.
I can almost guarantee that we will have a single payer system eventually... just like all our industrial competitors. It's the only way to control costs. Yes, "We are different", but what we have now isn't working.
-- Dr. Paul Hochfeld, Director, Health, Money and Fear (Ironweed Films Volume 32: July 2008)
For more information, visit http://www.ironweedfilms.com/films
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
