It has been some time since posting here, and I apologize. The deluge of news, most of it bad, has left me at a loss for words. The sorry state of affairs in this country has sometimes made me ill, and sometimes extraordinarily angry. But my silence ends today.

Seems ABC and the folks at the mouse house are putting out a little mini-series this Sunday night called “Path to 9/11”. The “docudrama” is causing quite a stir, raising the ire of many on the Left while at the same time receiving accolades by many on the Right. Especially if you ask Rush Limbaugh, one of the lucky few who have actually seen the film.

Consider my ire sufficiently raised.

Before this tirade builds up any steam, let me address one thing. Some are already saying “What’s the big deal? Michael Moore made “Fahrenheit 9/11“? Why can’t we have our own movie.” Well if your among the 40+ percent in a recent CNN poll who believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you also probably don’t know the difference between a docudrama and documentary so move to the back of the line.

First of all “Fahrenheit 9/11” was a movie at the “movie” theater, that you had to PAY to see. Also there was no illusion that this film passed through the filter that is Michael Moore, a controversial and opionated documentarian often prone to hyperbole, as demostrated in his previous films. Also of note, Disney refused to distribute the film, as not to become entangled in the political process of an election year (allow me to lift one ass cheek in response as the gas, I mean hypocrisy begins to build).

The “Path to 9/11” however has a few notable differences. It will play on TV… not at you local cinema, for FREE, carried over the airwaves the FCC has so graciously licensed for our enjoyment. It is based soley on the 9/11 Commision Report (apparently) and purports to have the air of fact and truth about it. Its airing coincides with 5 year anniversary of the attacks of September 11, and also comes on the eve of what may be the most crucial midterm elections in this nation’s history. Depsite growing criticism, ABC/Disney is moving forward with it’s airing despite its pre-election timing (other cheek is now airborne, followed by a resounding “whoosh”).

Give me an F’ing break.

Let’s talk a little truth.

• Only right wing media (in additional to the usual bevy of TV reviewing publications) have been allowed to preview the film and have subsequently praised it as gospel; the same media that slammed that Reagan film a few years ago which eventually aired on the sleep-inducing Lifetime network.
• The film contains factual inaccuracies (dramatic license I’m sure), most notably a scene that never actually happened, and was improvised on the set. Said scene infers that the Clinton administration had the chance to capture Osama (essentially troops standing outside his door, awaiting orders to go in) but declined.
• Its writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a conservative activist, who has spoken out against Michael Moore and Bill Clinton, and praises the Patriot Act. The film is factually-based on the 9/11 Commission Report (at least up until yesterday). In addition, Nowrasteh has granted interviews only to right-wing sites, no mainstream of left-wing interviews to be found.
• At least one member of the 9/11 Commision has denounced a key scene in the film.
• Scholastic Press has pulled it’s “Path to 9/11” discussion guide from distribution in high schools, saying the materials “did not meet their high standards.”

You know I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this film if it was showing at the theatres, where people actually paid to see it, you know, like that other film. Many say that other film contains factual errors too. I feel however that “Path to 9/11” is imminently more dangerous then “Fahrenheit 9/11” (as viewed by the Right) ever was. It masquerade’s as historical fact, delivered into every home’s idiot box without cost but plenty of bias (smells like the “P” word). It could certainly affect the positions of those on the fence, particularly those mentioned in that earlier poll. And the timing of the film certainly plays into the hands of the Right desparately attempting to hold power past November.

If nothing else, with something as important as 9/11, ABC/Disney is seriously remiss in not telling a story as accurate as possible, and in doing so dishonors those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. It also insults the intelligence of the 50+ percent in that poll who heard and understood when Bush said that Iraq hand nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.

As of this writing it appears ABC may be re-editing the film to give it a more balanced view of the events. Too little. Too late. The damage is done.

I would like to apologize to Randy Quaid on behalf of the gay community. Seems the world-famous actor of such notable and immensely profitable films as “The Adventures of Pluto Nash” and “The Magical Legend of the Leprechauns” feels he was duped into receiving a lower salary for playing the homophobic rancher in the recent hit Brokeback Mountain. He is now suing Focus Features for $10 million. Mr. Quaid claims that the film’s producers lured him in with their fancy talk, and he accepted a nominal fee for the role in what was described as a low-budget film with no commercial potential. Just like 99% of all the gay-themed movies ever made.

Mr. Quaid indicates that his usually salary is in the neighborhood of 7 figures, and after reviewing the rich tapestry of his work on IMBD, it is clear why. Mr. Quaid is an actor of immeasurable talent, and it is clear he was taken in by a business that favors low-budget and low-gross projects over more commercial and profitable fare. Brokeback Mountain’s tremendous commercial success had clearly been planned from the beginning, and it is painfully obvious that their intent was never to share that profit with Mr. Quaid, but instead with the third-rate actors he starred with.

Here’s hoping that residuals from “The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle” will carry him through until the suit is resolved in his favor.

It is with great admiration that I and the gay community give Mr. Quaid the single finger salute.

I encourage you to watch the video attached to this post. It is the full 60 Minutes piece which ran Sunday, March 19 on global warming.

It is sobering look at how the views of scientists genuinely concerned for the survival of this planet are passed through a prism that is highly partisan and driven by special interest. The report makes a strong and compelling case, and it is frightening to think that the the words of warning by scientists are edited by lawyers and lobbyists before they are passed on to the public. Coupled with the recent resignation of a Bush appointed NASA spokesperson who not only lied on his resume but often censored statements coming out of NASA with regards to global warming, it is clear that this adminstration does not take the potential threat of global warning seriously.

Before the story aired its credibility was attacked by Kenneth Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. Keep in mind this a highly conservative think tank that often aligns itself with the current administration’s policies, and hardly objective in these matters.

Ignoring the potential of global warming could be dangerous. Allowing polticians to rewrite science… doubly so.

Oh and Phil Cooney, the fella who was Chief of Staff on President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, he went on to work at ExxonMobile.

In what I hope will be the first of many guest appearances, I am very pleased to feature the following column by my partner Chad Belicena. Relying on almost 13 years of experience in the psychiatric field (most recently as an advanced practice nurse), and an interest in all things entertainment, Chad weighs in on the recent Tom Cruise debacle, his views on postpartum depression and psychiatry in general.

Take it away Chad.

I have been following Mr. Cruise’s crusade lately against the use of psychiatric medications and his plight to convince everyone of the power of Scientology. We all know that Mr. Cruise is a follower of the Church of Scientology and its teachings, and one of its teachings is against Psychiatry. Just recently Mr. Cruise has made several unsupportive comments to another fellow actor, Brooke Shields, when she came out with a book that talks poignantly about her battle with postpartum depression and the use of antidepressant medications and therapy.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out a couple of clinical studies that have been done on postpartum depression. One study on the risk factors associated with the development of postpartum mood disorders shows that there is evidence that hormone-related phenomena are related to the occurrence of the disorder. The results go some way to support the hypothesis that the etiology for postpartum mood disorders may be related to hormonal sensitivity and that such risk factors should be included in any assessment of the risk for these disorders. (Pub-Med, June 2005)

In other related studies where the symptoms were severe, the first-line recommendation was antidepressant medication combined with other treatments (generally psychotherapy). For the treatment of milder symptoms in such situations, the researchers gave equal endorsement to a couple of different treatment methods, such as:

• psychobehavioral approaches/hormonal replacement and,
• others preferred psychotherapy to medication (during conception, pregnancy, or when breastfeeding)

In milder cases, however, antidepressants were recommended as at least second-line options and the specific antidepressants preferred depended on the particular clinical situation. The study was conducted so that that future research data will provide some direction for addressing common clinical dilemmas in women. Such results can be used to inform clinicians and educate patients regarding the relative merits of a variety of interventions. (Pub-Med, May 2001)

And in other smaller studies that have been carried out on the treatment of postpartum depression, clinicians must currently rely on general recommendations for the use of antidepressant medications as the main treatment for depression. In general practice, antidepressant medications have been shown to be effective when used as prescribed. However, research has shown that depressed patients consistently receive either no medication or consistently low doses of medication. These studies suggest a need to improve information about medication for postpartum depression. If this information is not provided, women are likely to continue to self-manage medication at a dosage that may be clinically ineffective. (Pub-Med, Sept 2004)

So in citing these documented studies, I question Mr. Cruise’s credibility in his knowledge on postpartum depression and in mental health as a whole. In his interviews, he is as knowledgeable about the science of mental health as I am of acting. To be blunt, Mr. Cruise is obviously not a woman for him to know what a woman undergoes physically and psychologically during pregnancy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cruise is not an expert on women’s health and does not have the knowledge base behind the changes that a woman experiences through life.

In defense of Ms. Shields, her book details her numerous attempts to get pregnant via IVF (in-vitro fertilization) only to experience a miscarriage in 2003. When she finally gave birth to her daughter, she subsequently suffered a devastating aftermath to that birth. She mentioned being in a bizarre state of mind and experiencing feelings that ranged from embarrassment to stoicism to melancholy to shock, practically all at once. I personally think her work brings the disease in full view and builds public awareness about the disease. Mr. Cruise’s comments about her experiences and challenges with postpartum depression is not only dismissive but is a disservice to women and to a disease that is widely misunderstood. Mr. Cruise mentioned that Ms. Shields should have taken vitamins during her depression. We all know that vitamins may be essential in our daily nutrition but it is not considered a treatment in battling postpartum depression. In retrospect, I wonder if Mr. Cruise and other Hollywood Scientology celebrities would be interested in taking in a homeless, psychotic and non-treatment compliant individual into their church, sit right next to them and offer them vitamins as a means of treating their disease.

Hollywood, as we know is a world filled with gimmicks and sensationalism so that one can further his or her career. We are all aware that in the past 2 to 3 months Mr. Cruise has had a couple of significant changes in his life and one of these changes was that he recently hired a new agent to handle his career (a Scientology follower also) which might explain why we are witnessing this sudden change in Mr. Cruise’s behavior.

As a final note, it was quite interesting to discover that the founder L. Ron Hubbard who happened to be a genius of some sort slipped from relevance and respectability to madness and paranoia. Mr. Hubbard became a recluse and appeared to have been sheltered by his close cohorts from exposure to the outside world. Need I say more?

Chad Belicena RN, MSN
Advanced Practice Nurse
Behavioral Health & Gerontology Nursing