Inner Space

Spacemen are from Mars

Sep 27th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Half a century of space exploration has actually served to illuminate the Earth

FIFTY YEARS ago the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite. Sputnik burst into orbit on October 4th 1957, in the midst of the cold war. It was a surprise to the world, a shock to many Americans, and the starting gun for the space race between the superpowers. Thereafter, America vied with the Soviet Union for supremacy in aerospace's equivalent of “mine's bigger than yours”, as successively taller rockets lobbed larger payloads further afield.

The legacy of all this posturing is a view of space travel as a macho, gung-ho affair, all about the conquest of the solar system by men with shiny suits and very big rockets. In the 1950s many people imagined that in the decades to come the new frontier would be beaten back by pioneers bent on interplanetary colonisation. By the end of the millennium there would be a moon base at the very least. Probably, there would be hotels in orbit, frequent missions to other planets and mines on asteroids extracting metals considered rare and precious on Earth. To extend John Gray's metaphor about men and women: space was from Mars.

As it has turned out, space is actually from Venus. People have hardly travelled anywhere at all—although a scandalous amount of money has been wasted on the conceit that voyaging across the cosmos is humanity's destiny. Instead, what has happened is inward-looking and Venusian in an almost touchy-feely way rather than outwardly directed. Most of the satellites in orbit round Earth look down, rather than up, and the biggest mental change wrought by spaceflight has been not an appreciation of the vastness of the universe, but rather of the smallness, fragility and unity of Earth.

Third rock from the sun

This mental change began in a very Martian way. Before Soviet engineers built the rockets that put Sputnik in orbit, warfare was seen as being, in some sense, a limited thing. Even in the atomic decade that had preceded the space age, bombers flown by real people would have to deliver nuclear death to their targets. Negotiations could take place while they were in the air. They could be shot down. And those that got through would probably not destroy everything. After Sputnik, megadeath would arrive in minutes by rocket, non-negotiably, and in such quantities that global annihilation looked on the cards.

But bellicose intercontinental ballistic missiles were not the only spawn of Sputnik's launch. There was also the satellite itself. Today almost 900 of the things are in orbit around Earth, operated by more than 40 countries. Some are old-fashioned martial spy satellites, but many more are Venusian—watching the weather, the oceans, the changing climate and the use of land. Others broadcast television programmes, relay telephone calls, or send out the signals that tell people exactly where they are on the Earth's surface. Such satellites have enabled scientists and engineers to treat the planet as a single thing in a way that they previously did not.

More subtle—and just as far-reaching—was the message epitomised during the next leg of the space race when the crew of Apollo 8 photographed Earth-rise over a lunar horizon on Christmas Day, 1968. Earth is a fragile pocket of life in a very large and lonely universe. Looking back at a small, blue-green planet from outer space and seeing its unity and its vulnerability also changed perspectives. It was a force behind the environmental movement, which began at about that time. Rather as a foreign country helps a traveller understand his home, so it has taken space flight to understand Earth.

Some insist that humanity must hurry on with the Martian vision, to explore and ultimately to colonise other planets to secure the species's future. That may be necessary one day and many countries, and some companies, still pursue this vision of space. America's government wants a moon base, the Chinese are interested in going there, too. There might be a rekindling of the kind of nationalistic fervour of yesteryear.

The lesson of the past 50 years, however, is that the more humanity discovers about space, the rarer and more precious life on Earth seems. For the moment Venusian voyages to understand mankind's home planet are better than Martian ones to understand how to abandon the mother ship.

Sticking it to Ahmadinejad

There are a thousand arguments to be made both for and against someone like Ahmadinejad being invited to speak at an American university, but what's sure is that you will rarely come across as poignant and public a stand against such a figure as that offered today by Columbia's president and dean, Lee Bollinger.

Here's to free speech, and the courage to confront evil when you see it:


My questions for President Ahmadinejad

Editor's note: Bollinger delivered these introductory remarks on Monday, Sept. 24, prior to a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs World Leaders Forum.

By Lee Bollinger

I would like to begin by thanking dean John Coatsworth and professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the role of the School of International and Public Affairs and its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead for all of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout this academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today's geopolitics.

Before speaking directly to the current president of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize.

First, since 2003, the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

Second, to those who believe that this event never should have happened, that it is inappropriate for the university to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech and academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is "an experiment, as all life is an experiment." I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can, that this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech, the American university and Columbia itself.

Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.

Fourth, to be clear on another matter -- this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any "rights" of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.

We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.

Lastly, in universities, we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power. We cannot make war or peace. We can only make minds. And to do this we must have the most full freedom of inquiry.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

Over the last two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Axima; and just two days ago Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a Ph.D. in urban planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Teheran, under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country. Let me say this for the record, I call on the president today to ensure that Kian Tajbaksh will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Dr. Tajbaksh to join our faculty as a visiting professor in urban planning here at his alma mater, in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. And we hope he will be able to join us next semester.

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today's speaker to even appear on this campus.

But at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year -- 21 of them on the morning of Sept. 5 alone. This annual total includes at least two children -- further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more.

Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called "soft revolution." This has included jailing and forced retirements of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government "believes that the United States ... is planning a Velvet Revolution" in Iran.

In this very room last year we learned something about Velvet Revolutions from Vaclav Havel. And we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening -- President Michelle Bachelet Jeria of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won't be shy in criticizing yours.

Let's, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

Why in a letter last week to the secretary general of the U.N. did Akbar Gangi, Iran's leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world's attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran? In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.

Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked to speak here today. And while my colleague at the Law School Michael Dorf spoke to Radio Free Europe [sic, Voice of America] viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country, I propose going further than that. Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?

THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST

In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a "fabricated" "legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we've provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the "debate" over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL

Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel "cannot continue its life." This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

FUNDING TERRORISM

According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it's well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ

In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240 mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to "a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support."

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

FINALLY, IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS

This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the U.N. nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind-set that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many goodhearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Praying with Borat

My father’s best friend (dating back 60 years to their childhood in Israel) has become quite friendly with Borat – aka Sacha Baron Cohen – since the latter moved to LA a year or two ago. So when the Jewish holidays rolled around this year, and Sacha’s brother (an electronic artist from the UK incidentally) decided to visit and asked his bro to find them a temple to attend, Sacha turned to my dad’s buddy who in turn called my father and asked whether he would mind dialing in a favor at the temple (its being just before the holiday, of course, all the seats at the “good” temples were already taken). My father – who found himself in complete hysterics at the goofy Kazakh speaking Hebrew in the theater last year – jumped at the chance, naturally. So when Yom Kippur rolled around, there we were…praying with Borat.

To see a room full of stiff, ascetic septuagenarians and octogenarians ogle all over this pop culture phenomenon of crudeness is just surreal. All these orthodox men approaching him in the middle of services – introducing themselves, thanking him for his comedic genius. I’ve never seen anything like it. Deep into the second day he busts out the smelling salts, shoving them into the faces of the statues around him – a pandemonium of snickering and giggles propagates. Unbelievable.

Not surprisingly, the guy’s got an amazing voice – it towers above everyone else’s (but the cantor’s) and fills the room with glorious song and prayer. He could be a tenor in Italy for Christ’s sake. The cantor eventually invites him up to the bimah where they sing together, the old man clearly starstruck like the rest of us. He later thanks our special guest publicly before the entire congregation…this time for his voice, not his jokes. We are all glad that he has joined us on this once somber holy day.

Borat may not gel in the Deep South, but on Olympic Blvd. in Beverly Hills, at orthodox shul, he’s just another one of the boys.

Some genius – precisely, Marc Ecko, the guy who brought you the video hoax of himself tagging the wing of Air Force One – has come up a plan re: Barry Bond’s record-breaking ball #756: he’s putting its fate in your hands.

You have three options – send the ball to Cooperstown, imprint the ball with a big fat asterisk then send it to Cooperstown, or launch it into space never to be seen or heard from again. Absolutely Genius.

Vote here. Voting starts today and lasts for a week.

(Note: asterisks are your friends.)

Another Osirak?

After a week and a half of sketchy reports and mass confusion, it seems some facts (read: speculation) re: Israel’s supposed strike on Syria are now emerging. If the rumors are to be believed, we’re looking at a brazen unilateral strike reminiscent of Osirak. It most likely will be years before the truth is known, but one thing’s certain – something, something momentous, seems to have occurred here…


Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’

Secret raid on Korean shipment

From The Sunday Times (of London)
September 16, 2007

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv, Sarah Baxter in Washington and Michael Sheridan

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know ? Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria ? the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.

(Note: The British Observer now states that up to eight F-16s & F-15s, pictured above, were involved in the strike.)

Wishing you lots of health and happiness...

The Best Ever

Allow me to begin by saying that this list is completely, utterly 100% biased. It reflects nothing but my own personal prejudices, and skews heavily toward the era through which I’ve lived.

That said, inspired by my brother’s now ten-year-old list which lives on in infamy (and obsoletism), here are my Top 100 Films of All-Time:

1. Goodfellas
2. Star Wars (original trilogy)
3. Casablanca
4. Ferris Bueller's Day Off
5. L.A. Confidential
6. The Lord of the Rings (trilogy)
7. The Breakfast Club
8. American Beauty
9. Magnolia
10. Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
11. The Princess Bride
12. Die Hard
13. The Usual Suspects
14. The Shining
15. The Wizard of Oz
16. Raiders of the Lost Ark (trilogy)
17. Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil
18. The Anniversary Party
19. Top Gun
20. Back to the Future (trilogy)
21. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
22. Spy Game
23. Good Will Hunting
24. Stand by Me
25. Eyes Wide Shut
26. Dazed & Confused
27. Sexy Beast
28. Finding Neverland
29. 2001: A Space Odyssey
30. Goldfinger
31. Chinatown
32. Traffic
33. A.I: Artificial Intelligence
34. American History X
35. North by Northwest
36. Swingers
37. The Green Mile
38. Patton
39. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
40. Beverly Hills Cop (I & II)
41. Oliver!
42. Contact
43. Ronin
44. The Graduate
45. Alice in Wonderland (Disney)
46. The Untouchables
47. A Few Good Men
48. Ghostbusters
49. The Matrix
50. Lethal Weapon (I & II)
51. The Silence of the Lambs
52. The Godfather (I & II)
53. Spartacus
54. Amadeus
55. Terminator 2
56. Apocalypse Now
57. Casino
58. Edward Scissorhands
59. The Virgin Suicides
60. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
61. The French Connection
62. The Thin Red Line
63. Rain Man
64. Toy Story (I & II)
65. Boogie Nights
66. Goonies
67. Jerry Maguire
68. Scent of a Woman
69. Gladiator
70. Beetlejuice
71. Fargo
72. War Games
73. Memento
74. Saving Private Ryan
75. Donnie Brasco
76. Pulp Fiction
77. Dog Day Afternoon
78. What About Bob?
79. Twelve Monkeys
80. The Hunt for Red October
81. Total Recall
82. Heat
83. Manhattan
84. King Kong (2006)
85. Black Hawk Down
86. The Piano
87. A Beautiful Mind
88. Billoxi Blues
89. Mary Poppins
90. Miller's Crossing
91. Three Kings
92. Kill Bill: Vol. 2
93. Midnight Run
94. Swimming with Sharks
95. Sunshine (1999)
96. What's Eating Gilbert Grape
97. Scarface
98. Forrest Gump
99. The Insider
100. A Christmas Story

The Boys Who Love the Girls Who Love the Spotlight

Vanity Fair on the male hangers-on who attach themselves to the partying H’wood starlets of our day, for fun, fame and frenemy freakiness.

Kevin Federline, Pete Wentz, Steve Aoki, Benji Madden, Cisco Adler, and Joel Madden get down in Brett Ratner's basement disco. Photograph by Brett Ratner.

A Time to Serve

TIME Magazine leads this week with a proposal to institute a non-compulsory, non-military, national volunteer program. The program would be multi-faceted, and would aim to attract participants both young and old through financial-based incentives.

It strikes me as a fine idea. Too often in this country, you have kids blindly shuttling from high school and AP exams to college and a major they care or know little about. We have no so-called “gap year”, as they do in many other Western countries, so our kids rarely stop and take an opportunity get out into the world, find out what they really want to do, and – most of all – think of and help someone other than themselves.

This could be a great catalyst for change. And every American would benefit.

Read the full proposal here.