Working Girl (1988) was on as a late night movie last night,* not to be confused with the also superior Working Girls, concerned with prostitutes. The connection of the two titles is relevant, especially to the degree Tess (Melanie Griffith -- who seemed ready for success, but had her career soon fall in a tailspin) felt taken advantaged of by her bosses. A short term boss here was played by that great character actor, Oliver Platt. Tess wondered why she and her boss (S. Weaver) was basically the same age, but Tess was stuck in a career rut. Well, partially, it might be the case that Griffith really is about eight years younger ... though by now, sorry, it shows less given how her face aged.
The movie has various well known aspects, including the Carly Simon soundtrack, and her trips on the Staten Island Ferry. Joan Cusack, playing her sister, also had another one of her fun supporting turns, with some great lines such as "you can dance in your underwear, but that still doesn't make you Madonna," and a "yeah, I goofed" comment about the perils of misuse of Valium dosage. Overall, it is a nice little movie, and I really enjoyed it at the time. Watching it now, one thing that struck me are the computers, in particular the text and resolution. This was so in another movie that was on recently from the same era -- this cheap looking low resolution block-like green-tinged sort of deal. Ah, the '80s.
Talking about a reminder of the past, I must admit this whole Iraq business depresses me. I simply cannot get into the nitty-gritty of the dynamics of the current military situation there -- this is probably a character flaw or something, but yes, I am simply not someone who keeps close track of the situation. Why? Since, it in effect seems all so f-ed up. We shouldn't have gone in, we went in with leadership who cannot handle the job, and there is simply no easy way out. No path will be without pain and risk.
And, it is aggravating -- oh so much -- to hear people in effect saying that we cannot get out, since hey, that would just make things worse. Yeah, we sort of f-ed up, but that is water under the bridge. It's like in 1990, when we didn't warn Saddam, darn, but had to go in when he (not totally unreasonably) thought we didn't mind him invading Kuwait.** No it isn't! You damn assholes. You screw up, but we are stuck with you, since the alternative apparently is worse.
Okay, I know I am not really an expert on this -- note the above admittance -- but I simply do not see all the good we are doing now. It also is priceless about how we are upset that the Iraqi leadership is not playing ball with us. Darn people aren't on the same page on "benchmarks" that will give an excuse to leave. They aren't letting us to use our military willy-nilly however we want on their soil. It would even suggest that they think they are sovereign actors ... oh please. Such dodges are only involved when we wish to claim no responsibility for contractors or acts of the "coalition authority” (us and a few supporters).
I know one must suck it up, and wallow into the muck, but I will let others do that. My nonexistent hat off to you. One person I usually respect for wallowing in similar muck is Glenn Greenwald, but his recent attack on an attempt to have Germany practice "universal jurisdiction" over Rummy for his alleged war crimes was a bit overblown. Let's cite a few small things first. The extended comments replying to the post is (as usual) well worth reading, and he took part in them (again, as usual). His suggestions that people who support this path are lawless sorts not much better than the U.S. who wanted to break the rules to invade Iraq are over the top. One can disagree with the principle -- I had this debate with someone here already -- but it is a disagreement with a clearly recognized (if controversial) principle of international law. Bush et. al. cheated.
[The comments at various points tossed in annoying red herrings. Thus, we are told that once the U.S. let go a traitor who released nuclear secrets, since it could not release secret documents to prove the point. They did not cheat and seize him without due process. Fine. The people here -- Germany rejected a similar attempt partially based on the fact Rummy was an acting government official -- are not cheating either. They are following the law. GG clearly doesn't like the law, though he disagrees with how some understand it, but that's a different story. This red herring -- OJ was raised too for some reason -- was repeated more than once, confusing the debate.]
Ditto his clear distaste about international law as a whole -- as I noted, I thought one reason why the recent MCA was deemed so bad was that it took away the authority of federal judges to rely in part on international law. Something that he rather dismissively considers rather vague and almost fictional. This is a valid approach, of course, but (as some comments noted for other matters) goes far beyond this one issue. Also, if he is going to take a principled but unpopular stand like this, GG really should look at the big picture. What about other international tribunals that try people outside of the general jurisdiction of the countries involved? I understand the concern with giving one country such power, but I still hold to the opinion that someone should have it when certain particularly horrible crimes are at stake. Something akin to the International Criminal Court.
Finally, it doesn't seem like people seriously think that Germany will have the power to extradite Rummy, though apparently if convicted, DR will not want to go to many places out of the country. This is quite different, that is, from our policy of "rendering" people we deemed dangerous, or perhaps, just want to question about something. Likewise, the net result is to keep Rummy out of Germany. This is the bottom line -- in effect, the idea is that such purveyors of crimes against humanity are dangerous to international well being, and a mark of infamy can be placed on them. This would allow countries to keep them out of the country -- if they did try to go there, they could be arrested. Why exactly does GG think Germany et. al. does not have the power to do this? Don't countries have the sovereign power to control their borders? How exactly is this like invading Iraq?
The idea this suit would actually go thru is dubious. But, let me put down my bottom line. My preference -- as was the case with Saddam Hussein -- is for such accused violators of international law (which we agree to be bound to by treaty and general obligation as lawful members of the international community) to be tried by international tribunals. This is so after the home nation is given a chance to do so, if the situation allows it. [Not quite so -- see the dead defense attorneys -- in the Iraq situation.] So, I do not want one nation to have the authority to by judge and executioner. All the same, if said nation wants to make a determination that a person is persona non grata because of his/her crimes against humanity, they can so hold. This determination can be a tricky matter -- especially if the person is tried in absentia -- but yes, international law can factor in.
And, given the principle real life effects is to keep the person out of the country -- a legitimate act if done on sound grounds -- this seems to me workable. Overall, I'm sorry; some accounting has to be made here. Here and in the world community. Simply sighing, calling them assholes, and being happy they won't be in office too much longer doesn't quite do it, does it? I guess, in real life, it will likely to be the case. Throw in, hopefully, the judgment of history. But, it seems off that even the suggestion that Rummy et. al. will be tried in such a way that ultimately will only put a crimp in travel plans -- for acts that said people fully agree are horrible invasions of basic human rights -- warrant such horror.
Yeah, Cuba might do this too. So, Rummy cannot travel there either. Yippee. If Cuba decides to send people here to render people against our will, or tries to pressure us to look the other way (naughty naughty!), we can hypocritically say how horrible that is. That is not what is at stake here, ultimately, however. And, this overblown rhetoric against international law overall will come back to bite you ... if you want to be so principled about everything, that is.
[To the degree, this matter involves more, I admit there are some troubling implications. But, looking at the bottom line, I stick to the above remarks. BTC News has a nice take on "serves ya right" nature of this whole thing. He also has good background material links. Again, the GG comment thread is worth reading as well.]
---
* It was on basic cable, so an admittedly gratuitous topless shot of the woman Alec Baldwin -- Tess' boyfriend -- was having a quickie with was cut out, but we did see the equally gratuitous (uh ... guess there was some character related reason for it) extended shot of MG in black underwear while getting dressed. BTW, you look better with your hair short, Tess.
** To remind, we also sent mixed signals (at least) to the Shia after the war that we would support their rebellion, but decided to hold back, even when Saddam (again, not totally unreasonably) swooped in and cruelly put it down. We, without irony, cite this (along with chemical attacks that were followed up by continual U.S. support) as underlining how horrible the man is. For some reason, some people find this tack a bit ... how to put this ... totally hypocritical.