Mountain Views News     Logo: MVNews     Saturday, June 29, 2013

MVNews this week:  Page B:6



 Mountain Views News Saturday, June 29, 2013 



Book Reviews by Jasmine Kelsey Williams 


Directed by: Mark Forster 

Written by: Matthew Michael Carnahan and 

 Drew Goddard & Damon Lindelof

In 2007, a biding war with Leonardo DiCaprio’s Appian Way production company transpired 
as Brad Pitt’s Plan B company secured the rights to Max Brook’s 2006 novel, “World War Z.” 
Plagued with script rewrites, major setbacks, and reshoots, Brad Pitt’s summer blockbuster was 
destined to be a massive failure. While it’s far from the flop that it was shaping up to be, this 
loosely adapted version of the novel it shares the 
same name with doesn’t have much heart amongst 
the bloodshed. 

The novel itself is divided into separate individual 
accounts of a post zombie invasion, while the film 
is purely centered on Gerry Lane (Pitt), a retired 
U.N. employee who must travel the world to find 
a way to bring to an end this “zombie” endemic. 
I believe that the source material would have 
benefited a lot more with a mini-series or one complete season that spans all the elements of 
the book instead of Hollywood focusing on one, contained, traditional plotline. However, the 
audience was delivered an easy, disposable, textbook, typical blockbuster that could have been 
much worse I admit, but at the same token, so much greater in the end. 

To be clear, there’s nothing terribly wrong with “World War Z.” The major problem was how 
the film started shooting without an exact ending. Paramount brought in screenwriter Damon 
Lindelof to help write the third act, but since he was busy messing up another script I’m sure, 
they got another hot writer named Drew Goddard. Lindelof, in my opinion, was responsible 
for butchering the original “Prometheus” script last year making it the biggest disappointment 
of 2012. What really irked me in “World War Z” was the faux resolution. I felt cheated with 
the ending that proves this film is merely the first installment of a two-part series or perhaps a 
trilogy. I much rather would have favored a completely self-contained story than receiving one 
that purely ends up being a two-hour trailer for the next installment of something greater years 
from now. In addition, with the exception of Gerry Lane, our protagonist, you don’t get a feel for 
anyone else in this movie. Not one of the principal players makes a strong impact. Characters 
like the one David Morse plays feels terribly wasted. He’s an ex-CIA operative imprisoned in 
South Korea for treason. He aids Pitt’s character in telling him to go to Jerusalem where they 
may have had prior information leading up to the outbreak. Unfortunately, “World War Z” 
lacks a true spirit in this human story that’s somewhere buried under the epic zombie tale. 

As far as the direction goes, Mark Forster does a competent job with the film. However, with the 
exception of some jolts here and there as well as keeping up a moderately swift pace, nothing 
was eye popping in regard to its visuals. In fact, the color palette was sort of dull and ordinary. 
With its quick edits and sharp cuts, some of the action became muddled along the way. And 
did I mention this film is PG-13? Don’t expect much of any blood and gore as “World War Z” is 
more of a thriller in vein of “Contagion” than a survival horror movie like the far more superior 
“28 Days Later.” Despite some bad decisions made by the creative team, “World War Z” can be 
enjoyable and it rarely bores. However, nothing about it truly stands out. 

When all is said and done, we’re left with a wickedly ordinary film that squanders away all its 
intrinsic potential in being the extraordinary movie most of us film enthusiasts were hoping 

Grade: 3 out of 5

By The Way - HAPPY JULY 4th!


By Rhonda Byrne

I recall that the mention of enlightenment was 
given notice from my previous review of “Maya’s 
Notebook”, and now that mention will be brought 
up again this time in “The Secret”. “The Secret” by 
Rhonda Byrne is not just enlightening, but also 
compelling, thought-provoking, and when the principles 
are applied with a positive state of mind, actually 
very helpful. 

 Copyrighted in 2006, having a film adaptation, and 
receiving praise from Publishers Weekly, “The Secret” 
deviates away from typical self-help books and 
focuses instead on the law of attraction. Now you 
may be skeptical from this point, but Rhonda Byrne, 
along with the many other contributors who add in 
their own words, boldly and wonderfully explains 
how the law of attraction can help us throughout 

 Basically, we are all magnets in one form or other, 
and as a result, what we put out into the world, we attract in the same sense. Byrne points 
out how when we think in a certain way, our thoughts act as magnets and it comes to us; 
however, a crucial aspect that is also brought into play is our state of mind. Depending on 
if we are in a positive or negative mind frame completely changes the outcome of what we 
attract and even when it is attracted to us. Another factor that Byrne also stresses is that the 
law of attraction also takes time; when immediate results are not given, discouragement can 
take place really quickly. In turn, when we practice the law of attraction consistently, one will 
be surprised and pleased when the results we wanted are provided to us in the end, which 
reinforces are positive thinking and will continue to bring what we attract out of life. 

 Rhonda Byrne reveals basically one of the great secrets of life with “The Secret” and shows 
how a gradual paradigm shift of our perspectives can have a lasting impact throughout the 
rest of our lives.



We’d like to hear from you! 

What’s on YOUR Mind?

Contact us at: or
mountainviewsnews AND Twitter: @mtnviewsnews


By Tina Dupuy

On Wednesday, the highest 
court in the nation 
decided the Clinton-era 
Defense of Marriage Act 
(DOMA) was unconstitutional. 
The same day, they sent California's 
Proposition 8 back to the lower court. The result? 
A minority of Americans will now enjoy basic 
rights with a partner of their choosing without 
being unjustly double-taxed.

Most Americans' lives will not change at all. It's 
just your proverbial "bachelor" uncle is going to 
be making some arrangements with his long-
term "roommate" involving more flowers than 
usual and possibly a large cake. That is, if he lives 
in one of the 13 states where it's legal and he never 
chooses to move.

Edie Windsor, the 84-year-old widow at the center 
of the DOMA case said when she heard the 
ruling, "I cried, I cried!" Mike Huckabee, former 
Arkansas governor, current rightwing widget 
peddler, tweeted: "Jesus wept."

Tears of happiness. Tears of Mike Huckabee's 
imagination. It was an emotional day!

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (whose obviously 
straight husband accepts taxpayer dollars 
to cure gays of homosexuality) said, "The Supreme 
Court, though they may think so, have not 
yet arisen to the level of God."

Then as always a reporter had to ask the other side 
of the aisle what they think about what someone 
who's financially invested in the stigmatism of 
homosexuality said.

Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, instantly and away 
from the mike shot back, "Who cares?"

Possibly the best answer the Beltway has seen 
since Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a 

Yes, who cares? This should be the answer to all 
questions about Bachmann comments. Why does 
anyone have to come up with an articulate counterpoint 
to someone who calls on the media to 
"probe" Congress for those who are anti-America? 
What do you think, non-Republican?

Who cares?

The same goes for other formulaic right-wing 
agitators: Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, 
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle 
Malkin and Erik Erikson (hat tip to my Twitter 
pals for the suggestions). If their livelihood is saying 
offensive things so lazy journalists can write 
about that instead of—I don't know—learning 
how to use Excel or cultivating sources—then 
we should stop caring. We really should. It's junk 
food. It gets us going and then we crash. Empty, 
fat and sad.

This is the basic premise of our political discourse. 
He flame, she flame. It's not balance. It's 
baloney. It's TMZ of aging flag pin pushers.

Crazy is captivating. Shameless is fascinating. 
And our politics is a tween Twitter war.


On the Daily Show, John Oliver, pinch-hitting for 
Jon Stewart over the summer, covered Sarah Palin's 
triumphant return to Fox News after a five-
month recess. "I think I've just realized something," 
said the fill-in host. "This is exactly what 
she wants. Just because I walked into a turd supermarket 
doesn't mean I have to buy anything."

We can just ignore her, assured Oliver.

Yes we can. What do you think of what Sarah Palin 
thinks of what the President is thinking?

Who cares?

To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds 
discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; 
Small minds discuss what people who make 
money from saying crazy things say.

I stand with John. And I stand with Nancy.

Now, I'm aware "Pelosi" is a four-letter word in 
some parts of the country. Appalachian trail-nee 
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford debated 
a life-size cutout of her when he was running for 
his old seat in Congress this past April. Instead of 
sparring with his opponent he enlarged a photo 
of the first female Speaker of the House and made 
a speech. He won the seat.

But Pelosi is right on this one.

What do people who marginalize gays think of 
these Supreme Court rulings?

Who cares?

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the 
editor-in-chief of Tina can be 
reached at



HOWARD Hays As I See It

“Nobody doubts my 
partisanship, but a lot of the 
activity is nonpartisan.”

- Norman Lear

 I planned on writing about 
new Supreme Court decisions, 
but was afraid if I waited for them to come out 
I’d miss another column. Globe-trotting Eric 
Snowden is still in the news; he now says he 
purposefully sought employment with contractor 
Booz Allen Hamilton specifically to obtain 
the highly classified information he sought to 
disclose. He was confident it wouldn’t be hard 
to pull off; not as if he were working directly 
for the NSA or some other government agency. 
That confidence itself should cause concern over 
outsourcing our nation’s security.

 There was news of President Obama selecting 
a “Republican, ex-Bush official” for an important 
post. Early this year there was similar news as 
the president nominated former Republican Sen. 
Chuck Hagel (NE) to be the first enlistee, NCO 
combat veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense. 

 Last week, President Obama nominated former 
Bush official James Comey to be FBI Director. 
In the Snowden story, there’s conflict between 
protecting our security through intelligence-
gathering and protecting our rights through the 
Constitution. Snowden’s been called everything 
from “hero” to “traitor” – by Republicans. 
James Comey was a central figure in one of the 
most dramatic personnel incidents of the Bush 
Administration, involving this very conflict 
between rights and security. He took actions 
I’d call “heroic” – not least because there wasn’t 
any apparent consideration on his part of their 
publicity value. 

 Raised in New Jersey, James Comey helped 
prosecute the Gambino crime family from the 
U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Working 
out of Richmond, Virginia, he was the lead 
prosecutor in the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist 
bombing, bringing indictments against a dozen 
al-Qaeda-affiliated militants. He joined the Bush 
Administration as Deputy Attorney General in 

 Domestic spying on foreign enemies has since 
1978 been governed by the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, which established a three-
judge panel to rule on requests for specific 
targeting. It remains in effect, though amended 
numerous times. President George W. Bush 
never questioned its legitimacy, but insisted the 
Patriot Act of 2001 allowed him to ignore it. He 
insisted that Congress having authorized the use 
of military force allowed him to ignore it. He 
insisted the Chief Executive’s “inherent authority” 
under our Constitution allowed him to ignore it.

 As cover, the administration sought periodic 
approval of its warrantless surveillance program 
from its appointees at the Justice Dept. As James 
Comey testified before Congress, a review in early 
2004 by the Dept.’s Office of Legal Counsel raised 
“concerns as to our ability to certify its legality.” 
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft was briefed on March 4 
and agreed that changes would have to be made. 
That evening, Ashcroft was rushed to the hospital 
with severe gallstone pancreatitis, and five days 
later had his gallbladder removed.

 With his boss incapacitated at the hospital, 
James Comey became acting Attorney General. 
March 10 marked the eve of the 45-day deadline 
for reauthorization of the surveillance program 
and, as acting Attorney General, Comey refused 
to endorse its legality.

 On his way home that night around 8PM, 
Comey received a call from Ashcroft’s chief of 
staff, who’d received a frantic call from Ashcroft’s 
wife telling him that Bush’s chief of staff Andrew 
Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales 
were on their way to the hospital. Comey ordered 
his driver to turn the car around and raced to the 
hospital himself, managing to get there before 
Card and Gonzales. 

 As Comey testified, “I was concerned that, 
given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that 
there might be an effort to ask him to overrule 
me when he was in no condition to do that.” FBI 
Director Robert Mueller himself was on the way 
to the hospital, and ordered Ashcroft’s security 
detail not to allow Card and Gonzales to eject 
Comey from the hospital room. 

 Card and Gonzales arrived, handed Ashcroft 
the executive order authorizing continuation 
of the warrantless surveillance program, and 
presented their arguments. Then, according to 
Comey, Ashcroft “lifted his head off the pillow 
and in very strong terms expressed his view of 
the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which 
stunned me.” Ashcroft then explained, “But 
that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney 
general. There is the attorney general.” - pointing 
at acting Atty. Gen. James Comey. 

 The next day, President Bush decided to 
personally reauthorize the program anyway. 
Comey drafted his letter of resignation, effective 
March 12. “I couldn’t stay, if the administration 
was going to engage in conduct that the 
Department of Justice had said had no legal 
basis.” He got a call from Ashcroft’s chief of staff, 
though, asking him to hold off for a bit, until 
Ashcroft was back on his feet again – so they 
could resign together.

 There was a threatened group resignation of the 
nation’s top law enforcement officers; Atty. Gen. 
Ashcroft, Deputy Atty. Gen. Comey, both their 
chiefs of staff, and FBI Dir. Mueller. Bush agreed 
to make the changes – though we’ll probably 
never know what they were.

 Alberto Gonzales succeeded John Ashcroft 
as attorney general; forced to resign less than 
three years later in the wake of the scandal over 
the mass-firings of U.S. Attorneys not over 
performance issues, but over doubts of their 
being “loyal Bushies”. 

 The results are in: Justice Antonin Scalia helped 
gut the Voting Rights Act, arguing that Congress’ 
near-unanimous renewal of the Act in 2006 was 
wrong. He was unable to preserve the Defense of 
Marriage Act, arguing it would be wrong for the 
Supreme Court to nullify an act of Congress.

 James Comey demonstrated his conviction 
that partisanship and ideological agendas are 
antithetical to defending our rights under the 
Constitution (a good attribute for a Director of 
the FBI). By his appointments, President Obama 
has demonstrated he shares this conviction. 
Meanwhile, certain justices of the Supreme Court 
have clearly demonstrated that they don’t.