Clinton Wiretaps Your Phone!
73741...@compuserve.com
| | | |
TUESDAY
JANUARY 19
1999
•
Charles Smith
is a journalist
and President
of SOFTWAR,
a computer
security
company
based in
Richmond, VA.
He writes
frequently
on issues of
national
security
and information
warfare.
•
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton's war on your privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1993, President Clinton has engaged in a secret effort to bug America.
No president has worked harder to protect his personal privacy while
attacking the privacy of Americans. The Clinton war against personal privacy
includes invasions of medical, financial and digital privacy. According to a
top secret document obtained from the National Security Council, the Clinton
secret project to bug America started in late 1992. The NSC document details
secret meetings between top Bush administration officials and the Clinton
transition team.
According to the documentation, AT&T had developed new secure telephone
technology that also blocked federal wiretaps. The Bush administration
presented a recommendation to the Clinton transition team that the federal
government secretly purchase the secure phones from AT&T to keep them out of
the American public market.
According to the NSC documentation, AT&T eagerly agreed to the secret sale.
In early 1993, President Clinton issued an executive order that authorized
Janet Reno to purchase secretly the entire inventory of secure phones from
AT&T. Reno purchased the secure phones using money confiscated from the war on
drugs. Reno tasked Webster Hubbell, the former Whitewater partner of Hillary
Clinton, to run the phone buyout from AT&T.
Hubbell arranged for a follow-up contract with AT&T to modify the secretly
purchased secure telephones with a newly developed government chip. AT&T was
paid to rip out the secure chip they developed for the telephones and replace
it with the special chip that had a secret, Watergate-style, bug hidden in it
at the micro level. The chip was called "Clipper."
In 1993, the Clinton administration allowed a select set of civilians from
AT&T and other companies to go inside the National Security Agency to examine
the Clipper chip in detail. The civilians obtained access to classified
details under special clearances that swore them all to secrecy.
AT&T scientists were not the only civilians authorized to view the secrets of
Clipper. The project also included the first lady. Mrs. Clinton wanted every
American to carry a Clipper chip. Mrs. Clinton's efforts to nationalize the
medical industry included the Clipper chip in her health-care legislation.
According to information obtained by the Freedom of Information Act, each
American citizen was to be issued a national ID/health care card with a
Clipper chip installed inside. In fact, one medical health care card
manufacturer complained that including the special chip was too expensive.
In 1993 the Clipper "exploitable" feature was exposed to the public and the
entire project fell into disfavor until it was officially canceled in 1996.
Clipper violated the first rule of information warfare -- secrecy. A secret
back door (bug) must remain secret to be useful.
Yet, Clipper was never really canceled. Nor has the covert program to bug
America stopped. The exposure of the Clinton bug-on-a-chip project did not end
with its cancellation. The publicity only drove the effort back undercover.
Back into the black world of "codeword" secrets and Clinton cronyism.
Admiral McConnell was the NSA Director under Clinton and Bush. Admiral
McConnell is often thought of as the father of the "Clipper" chip. During an
exclusive interview, the former NSA director made it very clear that the
computer security point man for President Clinton was "John Podesta."
According to secret White House e-mail sent by current CIA Director George
Tenet, "John Podesta" -- then deputy executive secretary to the President, was
the top Clinton official on all policy matters concerning computers and
encryption.
"We had a long meeting this morning in John Deutch's office on encryption
which included Admirals McConnel, Studeman, John Podesta and other
luminaries," wrote Tenet in December 1993.
Further evidence that John Podesta controlled computer policy is revealed in
dozens of letters from top computer executives, all complaining about the
Clipper project.
In the early 1990s, several U.S. computer CEOs formed a joint lobby
organization called the CSPP or Computer Systems Policy Project. By 1994,
Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta, ran the multi-million dollar
corporate lobby effort through his firm, Podesta Associates, using his
employee, Ken Kay, as the CSPP executive director.
In 1994, the CSPP association with Tony Podesta quickly paid off. Several CSPP
members won exclusive trade deals through Clinton and Ron Brown. One CSPP
computer CEO, James Treybig of Tandem, traveled with Ron Brown to China in
August 1994. Treybig concluded an exclusive $150 million export of mission
control computers for the Chinese Army Long March space rocket.
In June 1995, Ken Kay led the delegation of CSPP CEOs into a closed meeting
inside the White House. In the 1995 White House closed meeting, the CEOs from
AT&T, Apple, Compaq, Digital, HP, Unisys, Cray, Silicon Graphics, Tandem and
others were sworn to secrecy. The CEOs could not talk under penalty of law.
Clinton used the same tactic employed with AT&T earlier in the Clipper
project. The Clinton administration made top secret designs and top secret
contracts available to the CSPP computer companies. In exchange for their
cooperation and silence, the companies would be given lucrative export deals
and access to even more advanced chip designs left over from the Cold War
days.
According to an official documentation from the CSPP, the computer companies
were given several secret briefings on advanced encryption technology with
back- door features. The CSPP refused to comment on whether any of these
designs have made it into domestic production.
Yet, while it is true that CSPP members have thrived on high-tech exports
authorized by the Clinton administration, it is also true that Clinton and
Gore thrived on the millions of dollars in donations and soft money made
available from CSPP members such as Apple, AT&T, Digital and Silicon
Graphics.
For example, once inside the White House, the CSPP executives were given a
detailed briefing by a State Department expert on supercomputers and nuclear
weapons. Shortly after the meeting, CSPP member Silicon Graphics sold several
super-computers to a Russian nuclear weapons lab under the pretenses of
"civilian" uses. Silicon Graphics has never been prosecuted.
Other examples of Clinton export waivers for CSPP members are not hard to
find. In 1995, AT&T supplied secure fiber-optic technology directly to the
Chinese army in the Hua Mei project. In 1998, Digital sold supercomputers to
the Chinese University at Xian without verification. The computers are now
being used for chemical and biological warfare.
Nor is the Clinton cronyism hard to find. In response to a request for an
interview, White House lawyers acknowledged that John Podesta did indeed have
a conflict of interest problem with his brother Tony. According to White
House counsel, in 1997, President Clinton solved the Podesta problem by
signing a legal waiver absolving John Podesta from any conflict of interest.
The White House has to date refused to show the legal waiver obtained by John
Podesta. Nor has it explained why John Podesta felt it necessary to obtain a
waiver in 1997 for actions he took in 1994 and 1995. Of course, a government
waiver for possible criminal actions in the past is not a waiver but a pardon.
CSPP Executive Director Ken Kay has also supplied evidence of corruption.
Kay's lawyer, C. Boyden Gray, the former White House counsel for George Bush,
denied in writing that his client made thousands of dollars in donations to
the DNC. Instead, according to Gray, his client only donated "$2,500," of
which "$1,250" was returned to him by the DNC in the form of a "painting."
However, the claims made by Gray conflict with the official records from the
Federal Election Commission. In fact, none of Kay's many donation records
amount to $2,500 or $1,250.
The DNC refused to comment on Kay and has offered no explanation for the art
deal. Neither Kay nor the DNC would comment on why the political party would
give out valuable art. Neither Kay nor the DNC will acknowledge that the so-
called "painting" in question is actually worth many times the claimed
"$1,250" value.
Gray also claimed that the CSPP officials did not engage the administration in
secret meetings in June of 1995 at the White House. When I offered Gray a copy
of the official Commerce Department records showing the CSPP secret meeting in
June 1995, he noted that he used the legal term "engage" and that the official
CSPP classified briefings did not begin until November 1995.
Why the "legalese" from the former Bush lawyer? Is this client loyalty or
protecting a dumb idea generated so long ago inside a Republican White House?
The CSPP documents show that a "covert Clipper" project is in operation
today. The covert Clipper project has thrived in the dark, growing secretly
behind closed doors, into American phones, computers and our lives. Domestic
sales of the same secretly bugged products under covert Clipper will also
allow domestic wiretaps on a scale that only Stalin would have dreamed of.
Perhaps the real truth is far worse than simple bi-partisan corruption. The
concept was to bug computer and communications products being exported to
China such as secure satellite communication systems. The project came to
life under the guise of national security. Somewhere the concept to protect
America expanded and became a project to monitor America. Uncle Sam became
Big Brother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED ITEMS:
TOP SECRET & Secret source documents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-MAIL CHARLES SMITH | GO TO CHARLES SMITH'S ARCHIVE
CONTACT WND | SUPPORT WND | GO TO PAGE ONE | SEARCH WND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1999 Western Journalism Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page was last built 1/19/99; 2:16:07 AM Site scripted with UserLand
Frontier
Direct corrections and technical inquiries to webm...@worldnetdaily.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
73741...@compuserve.com
Law Threatens Every American's Privacy H.R. 3694, the Intelligence
Authorization Act Conference Report, authorizes YOUR phone to be wiretapped,
in secret and without court review, simply if a suspect happens to be nearby!
"This is the worst sneak-attack on American privacy in three generations." -
Stanton McCandlish, EFF Program Director Latest News This legislation passed
both Houses and was signed into law by President Clinton. Legal challenge
will be difficult, and the best tactic will be to work to have this measure
repealed. Many legislators are not pleased with it, as it was introduced and
passed deceptively, without hearings and without any oversight. See "Act Now"
section below. (Dec. 6, 1998)
Previous News Controversial "roving wiretap" language has been added to H.R.
3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act Conference Report, by a joint
House/Senate Conference Committee, behind closed doors and with no hearings,
to give the FBI and other U.S. police agencies frightening new surveillance
powers reminiscent of the Soviet KGB. In fact, Congress explicitly rejected
these provisions several years ago in open debate, as a too-invasive threat
to privacy, and neither the House nor Senate versions of this bill contained
these provisions when they passed each respective half of Congress. The
conferrees, a handful of legislators, decided on their own in an
anti-democratic maneuver to ignore a clear message from Congress representing
the will of the people, and added major points from an FBI "wish list" to the
bill with no debate, no notice, no recorded vote - no accountability.
Unfortunately, the House has rubber-stamped this sneakily-amended
legislation, and it only remains for the Senate to consider the final bill.
Unless concerned Americans speak out immediately, this legislation is certain
to pass into law. (Oct. 8, 1998).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT NOW!
Urgent action is needed NOW. Call/fax your Representative, Senators and the
President and demand that this sinister, KGB-like legislation be repealed
immediately in 1999. This See http://www.vote-smart.org/ce/ to look up contact
info for your Senators and Representative (and the President).
Urge your elected Congresspersons to work to REPEAL the new wiretapping
provisions of the 1998 Intelligence Authorization Conference Report, and urge
the President to support and sign the repeal. Some talking points: Remind
them that Congress already rejected this legislation twice, when it was
introduced openly, and adding it into the Conference Report was sneaky and
anti- democratic "Roving wiretaps" threaten privacy - anyone could be
wiretapped, KGB-style, simply because a suspect in an investigation happened
to be nearby Secret ex-parte subpoena and wiretapping powers have no place in
a democracy and undermine the bare-bones protections afforded by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background Wiretapping law permits a particular entity's phone to be tapped,
at the discretion of a judge, based on evidence that criminal activity is
likely to be taking place and that the investigators need the surveillance
authority to tap that specific phone. The new H.R. 3694 language would expand
police wiretapping powers in the following ways:
any phone used by a suspect can be tapped, no matter whose it is, with no
need to seek a new warrant; any phone "proximate to" (near) a suspect can be
tapped, no matter whose it is, with no need to seek a new warrant; any person
can be compelled to produce documents or can be subjected to wiretapping (and
related pen register and trap-and-trace surveillance), in secret and without
judicial scrutiny, if the Attorney General claims that revealing the
investigation would affect national security; this prevents the adversary
judicial process from protecting the public such as by eliminating obvious
errors, constitutional violations, or overreaching on the part of the
government; this new "secret national security wiretap/subpoena/pen-register"
authority completely bypasses the minimal safeguards of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send any questions or comments to webm...@eff.org
In article <781tkh$p4c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Schuyler Hupp
From: schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: 29 Jan 1999 22:16:57 GMT
Organization: UT Austin
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <schuyler-290...@mac39.util.utexas.edu>
References: <76tk3s$g7n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<trichome-050...@dyn-5.blackbox-2.netaxs.com>
<76uq1o$jh2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<trichome-060...@dyn-47.blackbox-2.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-180...@dial-108-16.ots.utexas.edu>
<trichome-200...@dyn-37.blackbox-2.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-260...@dial-92-7.ots.utexas.edu>
<trichome-280...@dyn-37.blackbox-2.netaxs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac39.util.utexas.edu
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3351
In article <trichome-280...@dyn-37.blackbox-2.netaxs.com>,
tric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's true, that subtle qualities of light rarely survive the
> transfer to television playback unmolested. But better to
> create Cinema, and risk cheap shots by those who miss the
> greater picture.
>
> My favorite aspect of Lynch's work is that he can
> keep the ambiguity of many symbols open throughout
> a film, never forcing a meaning of key specific part, except by
> linking it to the themes of the whole piece.
This is a key issue for me as well. If there's no mystery to a story,
then it usually isn't very compelling. After one has seen a relatively
large number of films, many common story elements and patterns become
apparent. It's refreshing to experience something in which the
collaborators aren't afraid to be creative, to follow their muse, and to
give their audience a little room to use their own imaginations...
That's a difficulty with mainstream, trying balance on that razor edge
between commerce and art. I'm as amused by obtuse goofy twists or
convolutions of plot as the next person, but eventually, resorting to such
an approach leaves one wanting more. How ridiculous will things get?
With regard to surrealism, it seems that as our culture evolves, it takes
more and more extreme ideas and behaviors to shock people, to evoke some
kind of significant response: Hyperbole. Fortunately, there's another
side to it; leaving certain issues, certain aspects of a plot line or a
scene, unresolved can be a wonderful thing, I think.
>
> The greatest documentaries are similar for me: they
> *show*, without forcing you into one obvious interpretation.
> If your camera only points to unambiguous, overdetermined
> symbols, then no discovery, no paradigm-undermining insights
> are likely. And those viewers who only know how to be
> coddled by relentless, redundant, stereotyped film and tv
> production techniques, well, they fix on something else like the
> lighting to complain about.
Yes; the language of television has become sublimated to the degree that
people take it for granted, like driving a car or brushing their teeth.
Television audiences are like deer in the headlights of oncoming machines,
moths fluttering about a light bulb... I'm afraid it doesn't take much to
engage a television audience. Perhaps it's an issue of seduction through
the use of psycho-visual techniques, primal button pushing: Sex,
violence, action, birth, death, obvious techniques that have long been
perfected through the evolution of advertising and propaganda... and
Hollywood. Why else would one watch a 'show' in which a child can
predict darn near everything that happens, even basic dialog?
Personally, I prefer watching (and listening to) a few logs burning in the
fire place.
So about these other avenues of expression? Some of my favorite music is
either void of lyrics, or perhaps employs the use of nonsensical word
salad, but ambiguity is a significant element. Given the introduction of
a certain degree of vagary, it's astonishing as to how much can -still- be
effectively conveyed. Lynch uses such broad strokes of the cinematic
brush in some instances, leaving some emptiness in there, and perhaps
introduces a little chaos as well, which definitely makes for an
interesting and often thought provoking experience.
Schuyler
Path: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu!user
From: schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler Hupp)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:55:08 -0500
Organization: UT at Austin
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <schuyler-100...@dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu>
References: <trichome-080...@ppp39.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<19990209015724...@ng108.aol.com>
<trichome-090...@ppp18.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3400
My suspicions are that Lynch would likely get a chuckle at this lengthy
thread of convoluted analysis; splitting hairs as it were. True, Lost
Highway is a complex film, if one attempts to fill in the gaps
logically... However, I would advocate thinking of the film in terms of
it's 'gestalt', to revel in the ambiguity of it. A detailed, and
-logical- explanation for every piece of the Lost Highway puzzle is
probably not necessary (but fun!). Lynch has often included the depiction
of -irrational- elements, or -supernatural- forces in his other works,
things which actually defy analysis; so when searching for a logical and
equilibrius structure to superimpose on Lost Highway, to satiate one's
need for such explanations, we're playing right into the director's
enigmatic intentions! Certainly one can examine the film on a broader
scale, with regard to psychological/anthropological ramifications,
cultural context/meaning, metaphor, and so forth... Also, the visual
style, textures, movement, and wonderful use of sounds in concert with
visuals shouldn't be understated, as his films are most powerful, I
believe, in this regard. Anyway, Lost Highway remains one of the most
interesting and thought provoking films I've come across... And it
remains a mystery!
Schuyler
Path:
geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!news-toy.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!netaxs.newsread.com!trichome
From: tric...@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:30:54 -0500
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <trichome-110...@ppp31.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
References: <trichome-080...@ppp39.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<19990209015724...@ng108.aol.com>
<trichome-090...@ppp18.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-100...@dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp31.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.1
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3406
In article <schuyler-100...@dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu>,
schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler Hupp) wrote:
>My suspicions are that Lynch would likely get a chuckle at this lengthy
>thread of convoluted analysis; splitting hairs as it were.
Look, if you find this analysis convoluted, yet provide no
specific illustrations of over-enthusiastic analysis, I have to wonder
if you actually disagree with the details; or if you just find
the idea somehow disturbing that Lost Highway was intentionally
written with a tightly conserved logical narrative structure, so you
reject it in a polite discussion, feeling no need to illustrate your claim.
You are welcome to present any opinions you like.
But some opinions are worth more when supported by the Text.
And some opinions are merely empty, and condescending.
If you are going to condescend to me, I hope you will have the
decency to do so on the merits of my arguments.
Trichome
>True, Lost Highway is a complex film, if one attempts to fill in the gaps
>logically... However, I would advocate thinking of the film in terms of
>it's 'gestalt', to revel in the ambiguity of it. A detailed, and
>-logical- explanation for every piece of the Lost Highway puzzle is
>probably not necessary (but fun!). Lynch has often included the depiction
>of -irrational- elements, or -supernatural- forces in his other works,
>things which actually defy analysis; so when searching for a logical and
>equilibrius structure to superimpose on Lost Highway, to satiate one's
>need for such explanations, we're playing right into the director's
>enigmatic intentions! Certainly one can examine the film on a broader
>scale, with regard to psychological/anthropological ramifications,
>cultural context/meaning, metaphor, and so forth... Also, the visual
>style, textures, movement, and wonderful use of sounds in concert with
>visuals shouldn't be understated, as his films are most powerful, I
>believe, in this regard. Anyway, Lost Highway remains one of the most
>interesting and thought provoking films I've come across... And it
>remains a mystery!
There is no mystery. Your non-specific paragraph above could have
been written about any film. The word that comes to mind is "reactionary".
Re*ac"tion*a*ry, n.; pl. Reactionaries ().
One who favors reaction, or seeks to undo political progress or revolution.
There is more precise meaning in Lost Highway than you are willing
appreciate. I would like to continue this exchange; but since you dismissed
my ideas so perfunctorily, I don't expect you will attempt to prove your
your case.
--
Multiple simultaneous parallel systemic failures = Y2k
Y2k arrives in < 11 months. ~210 work days left for repairs.
Path: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!mac22.util.utexas.edu!user
From: schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: 11 Feb 1999 20:53:15 GMT
Organization: UT Austin
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <schuyler-110...@mac22.util.utexas.edu>
References: <trichome-080...@ppp39.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<19990209015724...@ng108.aol.com>
<trichome-090...@ppp18.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-100...@dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu>
<trichome-110...@ppp31.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac22.util.utexas.edu
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3407
In article <trichome-110...@ppp31.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
tric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Look, if you find this analysis convoluted, yet provide no
> specific illustrations of over-enthusiastic analysis, I have to wonder
> if you actually disagree with the details; or if you just find
> the idea somehow disturbing that Lost Highway was intentionally
> written with a tightly conserved logical narrative structure, so you
> reject it in a polite discussion, feeling no need to illustrate your claim.
>
> You are welcome to present any opinions you like.
> But some opinions are worth more when supported by the Text.
> And some opinions are merely empty, and condescending.
>
> If you are going to condescend to me, I hope you will have the
> decency to do so on the merits of my arguments.
>
> Trichome
Sounds to me like you're just venting your anger. Please don't take my
ideas as an assault on your interpretation of the film; it's just my
opinion. You don't have to agree with it! I appreciate your ideas, all
very interesting. And it is your right to be angry, but I have to wonder
where the anger comes from... Certainly a few comments on my behalf
regarding one's philosophical approach to the interpretation of a film is
not worthy of such anger? To further qualify, I was merely relating what
I believe to be true, as based on attending lectures by film makers,
writers, and so on... The directors, artists, authors I've heard, read
about, talked to seem to reflect the sentiments in my commentary with
regularity. Tuesday, Charles Burnett did a Q&A session after a screening
and responded to the inquiry of some film students in a similar
fashion... Everyone's interpretation is valid, but not necessarily what
that film maker or artist intended. My comments were intended to be
positive in nature. I don't see how you interpret them as being negative
or personally directed at you. They were not. Let's just celebrate the
films and share ideas, and enjoy!
Peace
Schuyler
Path: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!mac22.util.utexas.edu!user
From: schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: 11 Feb 1999 21:07:45 GMT
Organization: UT Austin
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <schuyler-110...@mac22.util.utexas.edu>
References: <trichome-080...@ppp39.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<19990209015724...@ng108.aol.com>
<trichome-090...@ppp18.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-100...@dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu>
<trichome-110...@ppp31.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-110...@mac22.util.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac22.util.utexas.edu
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3408
P.S.
The theme I employed, of Lynche's script/narratives as being deliberately
constructed to convey a series of mysteries that can not be resolved is
something I obtained directly from the David Lynch interviews I've read on
the net. "Deliberately constructed to convey a series of mysteries that
can not be resolved" are not his exact words, but it's essentially what
he's conveyed when confronted with frustrated critics or patrons who
wishes that he'd tie up all the loose ends in his narratives! Naturally,
everyone is entitled to their own interpretations.
Schuyler
Path: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!mac22.util.utexas.edu!user
From: schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: 11 Feb 1999 21:20:30 GMT
Organization: UT Austin
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <schuyler-110...@mac22.util.utexas.edu>
References: <trichome-080...@ppp39.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<19990209015724...@ng108.aol.com>
<trichome-090...@ppp18.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
<schuyler-100...@dial-18-7.ots.utexas.edu>
<trichome-110...@ppp31.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac22.util.utexas.edu
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3409
"I hope you will have the decency to do so on the merits of my arguments."
"There is no mystery."
This is the antithesis of what Lynch says about his own film! Check out
the interviews!
Path: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!mac44.util.utexas.edu!user
From: schu...@mail.utexas.edu (Schuyler)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.david-lynch
Subject: Re: Lost Highway Decrypted
Date: 12 Feb 1999 22:47:20 GMT
Organization: UT Austin
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <schuyler-120...@mac44.util.utexas.edu>
References: <schuyler-110...@mac22.util.utexas.edu>
<19990211231117...@ng-fd1.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac44.util.utexas.edu
Xref: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu alt.movies.david-lynch:3418
In article <19990211231117...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
cante...@aol.com (Canter2001) wrote:
> Geez! I leave for a couple days and they're breaking out the blowtorches!
>
> In all fairness, Schuyler, ten minutes after I watched *LH* the first time, I
> came to the same conclusion you did. But after the movie stewed in my
brain for
> a while (which I believe was Lynch's intent), I began to make logical
> cause-and-effect connections between events in the film that would seem to me
> to be a waste of Lynch's time if he simply wanted us to regard the *magnum
> mysterium* of the plot as "unsolvable".
>
> Just because Lynch doesn't spoon-feed us the answer doesn't mean there isn't
> one. Sure, the film can be appreciated from the perspectives you advocate.
> Sure, Lynch would get a great chuckle on hearing all this. Do you think he
> intended any less? I think you sell him short to say the movie should instead
> be understood in what you call the "broader sense" of
> "psychological/anthropological ramifications,
> cultural context/meaning, metaphor, and so forth...". Any movie can be
> understood in these terms. *Lost Highway* is not *any movie*.
>
> It's true, the movie is worth seeing for all the reasons you suggest. But I
> feel the genius of the film lies elsewhere. I encourage you to seek it, but if
> you feel we're just "splitting hairs", then by all means talk all you want
> about the lighting, the sociological ramifications, etc. To be honest,
I'd love
> to hear about it! I think the film is fucking great, to use a cliche, "any way
> you look at it".
>
> By the way, I would love to have a look at the interviews you keep referring
> to. Are they posted on the net anywhere?
>
>
> Orville
Yes!
What you say makes sense... I was thinking that it is certainly possible
that Lynch had a very specific narrative in mind, but didn't 'spoon feed'
us, i.e. left out a considerable amount of detail in order to add to the
mystery. Kubrik's 2001 is similar in this respect. If one reads Clark's
various renditions of the story (See '2001, a Space Odyssy' and 'The Lost
worlds of 2001'), it makes a perfect sense, but Kubrik was artful and wise
enough to leave some of it up to our imaginations. This is especially
true for the ending of the film, in which the journey through an
interstellar 'grand central station' and the ensuing metamorphosis of the
protagonist into a 'star child' leaves most audiences totally lost. With
regard to the interviews, I've had very good results with the Alta Vista
search engine. Various combinations for key word searches will work; e.g.
"Lynch, interview", "Lynch, film", "David Lynch", etc. Web sites are in a
constant state of flux, but I'll post some of the URL's when I get home.
I appreciate your comments and would like to emphasis that I'm not trying
to negate any of your interpretations. References to how various elements
of the film relate to Greek literature/mythology are helpful I think. I
do not believe, however that a definitive narrative can be pinpointed,
i.e. gaps filled in, based on the 'evidence' and framework of the story to
the extent that there's no mystery left.
Schuyler
Lost Highway Re: Encrypted
$ .02 !
My feeling is that if one attempts too literal an interpretation, upon
witnessing an abstraction or deliberately amorphous, emotive work of art
(film, literature, and so on), then they may actually diminish it's
impact; as in the saying: 'Can't see the forest for the trees'. If one
approaches such forms of expression metaphorically, then a more direct
translation is possible. Lynch himself asserts that it is a lost cause to
engage in endless discourse about a particular film, that one merely need
watch it! From reading Lynch's interview's, I also believe that one can
come to an understanding that emotion or intuitive 'impressions' elicited
by his films, the 'gestalt', are just as important as the individual
'deconstructed' elements. Learn to think metaphorically as well as
logically... It's a bit like Zen: Lynch loves unsolved mysteries (It
drove some Twin Peaks fans crazy, but other's loved it!). What he's going
for is perhaps the feeling one gets when confronted with such mystery, a
kind of 'Satori'.
Schuyler
Lynch on being asked what his films are about:
"It doesn't annoy me. But I think they (the audience) really do know what
it's about. Maybe it's hard to say in words, or they're afraid to say
it. Film can do amazing things with abstraction, but it rarely gets a
chance. People are treated like idiots, and people are not idiots. We're
hip to the human condition, the human experience, and we love mysteries."
"Film is what film is. You can't interpret it."
"The talking about it (film) is always a failure. It's always less than
what you want to say and less than what the film is."
Interviewer: You love mysteries and secrets. Are there any you would not
want to uncover?
Lynch: "Mysteries are everywhere and it is wonderful to feel that there
are things we know absolutely nothing about. Any one of us can become a
scientist of investigator. The mysteries in film work like a magnet to
attract people. But the answer can be disappointing because they are not
complete, and sometimes you will learn something that turns into another
mystery. You are right, mysteries are what I love."
Natasha Gregson Wagner on Lost Highway (Pete's girl friend):
"We all have our own fantasies about what the secret of Lost Highway is.
At times, in David's direction, he'll give you an idea and you'll think
you're on to something. Then the next day it will be completely the
opposite."
"I think it's up to everyone's own imagination: The audience's, and that
of the actors playing the roles. If you want to be incredibly literal you
could be, but I don't think this is the place to be incredibly literal. I
filed my literal side away, for another movie."
Barry Gifford (co-writer) on Lost Highway:
"The basic thing I can tell you is that fred Madison creates this counter
world and goes into it, because the crime he has committed is so terrible
that he can't face it. This fugue state allows him to create a fantasy
world, but within this fantasy world, the same problems occur. In other
words, he's no better at maintaining this relationship, dealing with or
controlling this woman than he was in his real life. The woman isn't who
he thinks she is, really, so all the so-called facts of his known life
with Renee pop up again in Alice Wakefield." (The Mystery Man)"...is a
product of Fred's imagination too. I think the phone call scene at the
party is pretty interesting. A lot of work went into it. It's supposed
to be seamless; it's supposed to look easy and sound normal. But there's
a lot that goes into writing this kind of thing. It's the first visible
manifestation of Fred's madness. No one else can see the Mystery Man."
And: "Some people didn't quite understand things at first, especially in
the longer version (of the test screening). My youngest son, who's 21,
got it all. He's amazing that way. Some people had some resistance, I
think, just because they were trying to make sense out of it, but if you
keep an open mind, the sense comes to you; you see what it is; and you can
interpret it several ways."
David Lynch, comments on Lost Highway
"The movie (Lost Highway) describes what could be a sickness, it's name
psychogenic fugue, describes someone who escapes from himself to become
another one. That's what happens to Fred in prison: He incarnates in
Pete. It's not a dubbing, it's not a pure hallucination, it's a real
transformation from the clinical point of view."
Interviewer: Well, I was wondering if there was any kind of random
quality to the writing of this film. And indeed there were. You brought
two unrelated stories together to help propel you into this.
David Lynch: "Uh, yeah, there's always fragments that are strange because
you don't know how they're going to arrange themselves. And so Barry
(Co-writer) and I were further down the road before we realized what it
was that was happening; and so it's a surprise. It's like being inside an
experience and it tells you how to go."
"So human beings love mysteries... I love a mystery, that at the end of
the mystery, allows you room to dream; continue the dream."
"And you start someplace and the mystery leads you deeper either into the
material world or an emotional world and we're searching and adding up
information and it's just the way it is."
"There is nothing to explain in Lost Highway. There's no need to explain
the uprising of a thousand of sights of the unconscious, of the dark
inside of the conscience. It's that and that's all."
"It's a dangerous thing to say what a film is."
"Film is what film is. You can interpret it in different ways. It didn't
attempt to bewilder you intentionally. There are situations, mentally,
that are beyond any doubt abstract, but in which we can still recognize
everything. That's what it's all about."
"When it comes down to explaining things, I stop. With most films, there
is no problem understanding them, there's no room to dream or to find
yourown interpretation, and I don't' want my thing to get in the way of
anybody else's idea."
"Basically it's a mystery (Lost Highway), that's what it is, a mystery."
2/12/1999
People build realities inside their heads, like little fortresses... And
we really get upset when something threatens our sense of order, or
nature, the way things are. Maybe it's a survival thing, but on a
psychological, not a physical level directly. In any case, it translates
into the physical world through our actions, behaviors.
Is thought, the mind, the self, an illusory byproduct of the brain? Or
organic, quantifiable electro-chemical processes?
When people respond to challenges of their beliefs with anger, it's
usually an indication that they are on 'shaky ground'.
Waffle conspiracy
At the cusp of dawn awakened, poured a glass of orange juice (orange
colored, sweetened synthetic, mostly water and similar enough to the real
thing that over the years, we've all been conditioned to accept as real
orange juice) and placed a couple of Eggo brand waffles into the toaster
oven. Having refrained from the enjoyable habit of waffle consumption for
a few months, I was looking forward to the taste, texture, and so on...
Hey, they're massed produced frozen food products, but not too bad, if I
remembered with any degree of accuracy. But this morning was peculiar. I
seem to have succumbed to strange forces, drawn into the vortex or
undercurrent of some nightmarish alternate reality. A bit groggy, I
didn't take notice at first, but after sinking my teeth into the first
waffle, I became aware of a remarkable difference. Darned if the little
convoluted wheels of injection molded batter weren't thirty percent
smaller than the last time I'd seen one! Hmm... Well, they were still
packaged in the same sized box (which is now ridiculously huge in
comparison to the meager contents), but somehow the waffles had diminished
in quality. The taste and texture seemed a bit different too, although
this was more difficult to define. "Was it my imagination?", I thought.
Ah! I realized that this was in fact another case of food evolution!
Yes, that's right! You know, the devolving of corporate manufactured
products such that in order to maximize profits the package is made into
an enormous opaque, hypontically colored, and blindingly bright
navigational beacon? The contents of which are subject to a regression in
which they all but vanish? Naturally, the transition is deliberately
slow, so as to avoid inducing psychological trauma. At some point,
however, the consumer is content to buy a box of nothing! So I smiled and
chewed, and chewed and smiled, and reveled in the card-boardy tasting
waffles. In one swallow, all of the distressful thoughts that had
troubled me so, were completely gone! That apparent disturbing sense of
lost time and space receded, and I happily returned to my bed, lay down,
closed my eyes, and decided that this was nothing more than an absurd
dream, and that I would no doubt wake up in another few minutes. Then I
would joyfully wander to the kitchen, pour a tall glass of orange juice
(from concentrate), and place some Eggo brand waffles in the toaster, to
fuel my body deserving body, and set yet another glorious day on this
beautiful blue planet of ours, into motion...
Copyright 1999 Schuyler Monroe Hupp
In article <7a4sj9$18e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, 73741...@compuserve.com wrote:
>Dec. 6, 1998 Electronic Frontier Foundation Alert Sneaky New Surveillance
>Law Threatens Every American's Privacy H.R. 3694, the Intelligence
>Authorization Act Conference Report, authorizes YOUR phone to be wiretapped,
>in secret and without court review, simply if a suspect happens to be nearby!
This is why I always speak utter gibberish when talking on the phone. As
of late, I have been employing this technique at home and at work, even
when in public too. Another method of fighting back is to take drugs,
such that everything you say is totally incomprehensible anyway. In
addition, I always pay a little more than what I owe to the IRS and I'm a
good consumer. That's all they really want, just for us to work and then
spend our money, injecting it back into the 'system'.
Oh yeah,
I also fly a black helicopter to work, but don't tell anyone, I wouldn't
want to alarm the neighbors.
PS
If there is any truth to your reports, this is indeed serious, although I
must conclude that even in that case, humor is one effective way to
cope...
I have read that the NSA has engaged in eavesdropping on communications of
a certain nature already, for decades, although I'm not privy to the
criteria of what constitutes something worth listening to. Personally, I
think their job would be a very dull one. I mean what are they likely to
hear if they listen to my phone? Even if they 'bugged' my house, the most
interesting thing they might hear or see (cameras are getting extremely
tiny too) is me taking a bit of Scotch on the rocks and watching a log or
two burn in the fire place, perhaps talking to my mom on the phone, or
depositing ridiculous posts on the Internet, like this one, just to keep
from passing out as a result of boredom. Come to think of it, they
probably still use those super-computers to monitor for key words (which I
won't add here, as I don't want to trip any of their alarms!). Still,
when you consider that the population of The United States is about 280
million and growing, I don't see how one would really have much to worry
about, unless you had one half of the population spying on the other
half. This was indeed (and still may be) in the former Soviet Union
perhaps? A scenario in which people would monitor their neighbors and
turn them in if anything 'suspicious' was noted. Naturally, this type of
arrangement is open to all sorts of corruption and abuse, distortions
abound! Reports of subversive activity were no doubt proportional to the
financial needs of the domestic spies involved. A very interesting
subject with regards to human nature, at least the psychological aspect:
What would lead one to spy on someone else and what would the threshold of
personal gain have to be before it became profitable? Also, it is widely
known that such spying is not limited to governments, actually being more
likely, in terms of corporate or private institutions (as opposed to
public) spying on one another to gain an edge. I think if any of this
stuff was really flagrantly out of control I'd have run across it once or
twice in my career. I have been a radio/telecommunications technician for
about the last twenty years and would like to think that I keep abreast
with the latest technologies, supplementing my studies with physics, so as
to more clearly understand the tasks I am challenged with, and to allow
creative, improvisational approaches to solving communications problems,
to better serve the needs of my customers. Hey, come to think of it, I
did find a radio transmitter bug in an elevator once... No joke! (This is
actually true!) When I reported it to the police, they weren't the least
bit interested. Then there was that time I... Oh, but that's a secret.
Schuyler Hupp
my computer went goofy and a bunch of earlier junk popped out. Here's the
message I had originally intended to post:
In article <7a4sj9$18e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, 73741...@compuserve.com wrote:
>Dec. 6, 1998 Electronic Frontier Foundation Alert Sneaky New Surveillance
>Law Threatens Every American's Privacy H.R. 3694, the Intelligence
>Authorization Act Conference Report, authorizes YOUR phone to be wiretapped,
>in secret and without court review, simply if a suspect happens to be nearby!
>"This is the worst sneak-attack on American privacy in three generations." -
>Stanton McCandlish, EFF Program Director Latest News This legislation passed
>both Houses and was signed into law by President Clinton. Legal challenge
>will be difficult, and the best tactic will be to work to have this measure
>repealed. Many legislators are not pleased with it, as it was introduced and
>passed deceptively, without hearings and without any oversight. See "Act Now"
>section below. (Dec. 6, 1998)
>
>ACT NOW!
Oh yeah,
PS
PS PS
Again, if what your post suggests is actually occurring, then we are in
the midst of a really volitile situation, but I think there's always room
for humor, obtuse or otherwise!
SGH