Hooray for Tom Cruise!

So I see that Tom Cruise has landed on his feet with a new two-year deal forged with Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

To which I say: Fabulous. I am so glad.

First, let me say that my view of Tom Cruise’s movie career is something of a paradox.

On the one hand, I have never thought of him as a great actor and I certainly don’t expect him to ever win an Academy Award.

On the other hand, many of the pictures he has starred in are among my favorites (including Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, A Few Good Men, Born on the Fourth of July, The Color of Money, and Mission Impossible, to name just some!). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he is in all these films. He is a big part of what made them great.

So I look forward to seeing him in yet more great movies in the years ahead. Which is also why I continue to be amazed and dismayed at the extent to which Cruise’s off-screen behavior has apparently affected the ticket sales of his movies. Frankly, unless he has done something illegal or grossly immoral, I could care less.

As far as I can tell, the problems with Tom center on three main incidents: (1) his couch-jumping on Oprah; (2) his beliefs in Scientology and (3) his critical remarks about taking anti-depressants for post-partum depression.

To which I reply in turn:

(1) It was a bit weird to watch but, come on, it was just silliness. What does it matter whether he climbs a couch or not?

(2) Scientology is about on the same level as a belief in little green men on Mars. So I think Tom must be ignorant, stupid, or lying when he says he believes it. But many or even most movie stars can be stupid or ignorant on occasion. So what’s the big deal here?

(3) I believe the statement was wrong and offensive. I think less of Tom as a person as a result. But it still won’t affect whether or not I see his movies — unless I were to decide to boycott his films as a form of protest against his remarks (which I am not even contemplating doing).

Personally, I think the public’s interest in and over-reaction to Tom’s behavior is much weirder than anything Tom has done. So I am glad that, despite the public response and Paramount’s decision to dump him, he is going to be just fine.

Of course, with his money, even if he never earned another penny from his films for the rest of his life, he would still have millions more than I (or almost anyone else in the world) will ever see. So it’s hard to feel sorry for him no matter what happens.

Losing it over Lost!

I love Lost. The TV series.

It is currently my favorite series on TV. And I look forward to the next season as much as anyone.

But the producers of the show seem on a mission to destroy it with product tie-in overkill.

The latest example are the Lost jigsaw puzzles.

“What’s wrong with this?” you may ask. What’s wrong is what is stated on the box covers: “Spoiler warning: Secrets are revealed.”

This can only mean one of two things, both of them bad:

• No secrets (at least none of any consequence) are really revealed. So, even if you don’t get the puzzles, you won’t be missing anything. In other words, the box cover is essentially a lie.

• Secrets of consequence do get revealed. This is the greater of the two evils! This means you now need to buy games, and possibly DVDs, books, and other paraphernalia, just to keep up with what is happening on the show itself (which is already a bit difficult to follow and which I am already a bit miffed over how long it takes them to reveal any significant secrets). If this is the case, I am about ready to give up on the show. I don’t have enough time nor enough interest in spending my money to reward this crass commercialism and exploitation of the show’s fans.

Yes, others have done it before. Recall the Matrix movies, where the animated Animatrix filled in plot details not covered in the movies. And, of course, Star Wars has turned this concept into a full-fledged industry.

But it seems particularly annoying in the case of Lost, where a big appeal of the show depends precisely on its secrets. To require spending money on a bunch of tie-in merchandise, in order to discover what these secrets are, is just an insult perpetrated by the producers of the show. Shame on them.

Is there too much democracy on the Web?

According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in the immediate aftermath of the latest airline terrorist threat, bloggers on both the left and ride side of the fence went more than a bit overboard. Comments were as extreme as claiming the entire incident was a right wing hoax designed to keep Republicans in power.

You know, looking at all these blogs, I can’t help but wonder: maybe there is too much democracy on the Web. I know, you may be asking: “How can there be such a thing as too much democracy?”

And isn’t it a bit ironic that I am criticizing blog writing in a blog I am writing? Yes it is.

And far be it from me to cast a big net over blogs. I have made a living in recent years by creating what is essentially a blog (not this one!) and writing for others. And I have always touted that one of the greatest strengths of the Web is the level playing field it presents to all comers. It’s how a single user’s startup blog with no capital can wind up having as much influence and readership as, say, the New York Times. The currency on the Web is eyeballs, not how much money you have. And the opportunity to get eyeballs is still pretty open. If you have something interesting and valuable to say, you will get heard.

It has injected a new energy into our political landscape, among other landscapes, leading to “netroots” campaigns that rival the older grassroots ones.

But there is a problem. And it’s a big one. There is no editorial oversight for blogs. A blogger can write whatever is currently in their brain with no filter between their neurons and their Web output. When this gets amplified by thousands of bloggers doing it at the same time, the result can be a cacophony so loud and confusing that it becomes impossible to separate fact (or even supported opinion) from wild speculation or outright fraud.

Yes, fraud happens even at respected institutions such as the New York Times (remember Jayson Blair?). But that’s part of my point. A person like Blair makes big news precisely because it is such an unusual case and because it shows weaknesses in the Times editorial policy, weaknesses that the Times seeks to correct.

At least the Times has an editorial policy – unlike blogs. Where are the fact checkers and technical editors for blogs? Non-existent.

People often claim that blogs help people learn what is really going on – because they publish news that the traditional media refuse to cover. True enough. But with the increasing number of people depending on the Web for their news, I also wonder if the proliferation of blogs is making it ever more difficult to know what is really going on – because separating honest news and opinion from a background noise of “craziness,” for lack of a better word, is getting harder and harder to do.

Karate lessons and the Mideast

In almost every kung-fu/karate/samurai movie I have ever seen, there is usually one scene where the master teacher instructs the younger student in one of the key concepts of these Eastern fighting techniques. Paraphrasing, it goes something like this:

“You must learn to use your opponent’s strengths against him. If a bigger opponent comes lunging towards you, don’t stand your ground. That’s how you lose. Instead, step to the side at the last second, grab his arm and continue to pull him forward. That will cause him to accelerate his forward motion beyond his control. The next thing he knows, he will slam his head into the wall behind you.”

There are other variations of this theme. But you get the idea. Often, in these cases, the object of such deftly administered defeats is some lumbering Western fighter, trying to use old-fashioned boxing techniques, or simply wild punching, in the erroneous belief that size and muscle power advantage will inevitably determine the outcome.

The message behind these lessons is that you don’t have to be bigger and stronger than your opponent to beat him. Sure, you have to be in good shape, but after that, it’s more how you use what you have that matters. Take advantage of every weakness of your opponent and capitalize on all of your strengths. Don’t fight the battle that your opponent is prepared to fight; fight the one he does not expect and can not win.

All of this comes to mind in recent weeks, as I continue to watch the deteriorating situations in Iraq, especially the escalating violence in Baghdad, and in Lebanon-Israel.

In both cases, the traditional Western power (the U.S. in one case, Israel in the other) expected its size advantage and superior weapons to carry the day.

In the case of Iraq, the Bush administration could not have been more wrong. With generals now admitting that the country is already in a state of civil war, and the prospects for peaceful future looking bleaker than ever, our hopes for anything that resembles a “victory” are fading fast. It almost brings me to tears when I think of the damage that Bush has done both to our country and to the world at large in pursuing his misguided foreign policy: alienating friends, creating new enemies, weakening our domestic resources, destroying our civil liberties and polarizing our citizens—while lost in some deluded world where flying a “Mission Accomplished” banner could ever be seen as reflecting reality. The Bush administration simply did not have a clue as to the consequences of their actions in Iraq. And they continue to fail at every attempt to tilt the situation to their favor, precisely because they continue to lunge forward while the opponent steps to the side.

Israel now finds itself in a similar predicament in their fight against the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Air superiority and a well-trained superbly-equipped ground force have been unable to stop the enemy. Hezbollah rockets continue to pummel the Israeli landscape. And Hezbollah continues to win the political war. Despite the fact that their rockets deliberately target civilians, while Israel is at least attempting to stick to military targets (while admitting the difficulty of doing this when the enemy intermingles with the civilian population), it is Israel that receives the brunt of the world’s criticism for civilian deaths. As with the U.S in Iraq, Israel lumbers forward while Hezbollah steps to the side.

As others have pointed out, we are in a new generation of warfare. And western powers must learn to adjust, learn the new rules, or perhaps learn that their is no longer a fixed set of rules, if we are to come out on the winning side.

Still, returning to movie metaphors that led off this piece, I am reminded of the endings of many of these movies, such as The Last Samurai or even the non-Eastern but similar in theme Dances With Wolves. In these movies, while the Samurai/Indian strategy worked in small battles and even succeeded for awhile in larger ones, eventually it was doomed. Eventually, the sheer numbers and overwhelming firepower of their enemies carried the day. Today, the Indians and the Samurai no longer exist as powerful forces within their countries.

Perhaps, the same fate eventually will come to Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East. Perhaps, a generation from now, the “war on terror” and its related battles will all be relevant only in history books.

Or perhaps not.

Every great and powerful civilization in the past eventually met its downfall, from the Greeks and the Romans to the British Empire. Perhaps, the time of our own downfall is near. Personally, I doubt it. But I suppose that’s the way Romans felt before the fall as well.

But one thing I am certain of. A sustained peace is nowhere on the horizon. We have never lived in peace for long and I doubt we ever will. In the last hundred years alone, the U.S. has fought in at least seven “wars” (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I and Gulf War II). The number of others wars that have gone on during this period, ones where we were not a major participant, probably number in the hundreds. There must be some irony in the fact that, despite all the technological and biomedical advances of the last century, our political world remains as bloody as ever.

The Islamic fundamentalists may some day fade into history. But, if they do, another “enemy” will soon take its place. Battles may end. Wars may end. The fighting never ends.