In some ways, it was a heartbreaking weekend for the old timers – with Tom Watson blowing it on the 18th hole of the British Open (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/sports/golf/20cink.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print) and Lance Armstrong all but ceding the Tour de France after his teammate Alberto Contador burst ahead in the final 3 ½ miles of the 15th Stage (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/sports/cycling/20tour.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print). On the other hand, Watson’s near victory was an extraordinary achievement at 59. The oldest major winner in golf history was Julius Boros at 48 years old (1968 PGA Championship), with the second oldest being the more famous 1986 Master’s winner Jack Nicholas at 46. But Watson has not had the game to compete with the youngsters in 20 years. It was only in returning to Turnberry, where he won the shootout with Nicholas in 1977 that the old magic that won him 5 British Opens returned. The stage was set, everyone was ready to cheer and then cruel fate sent his second shot over the green and the third putt ran just long enough for his Achilles heal to send spasms of fear into Watson and the millions of cheering fans around the green and television sets. He missed with a weak effort and suddenly a playoff was on. It is the odd tendency of golf to too often end with the leader choking on the last day, or sometimes the last few holes. Crowd favorite Phil Mickelson has made a career of it (with a few stirring exceptions), Greg Norman will always be remembered for it (particularly his masters collapse) and a long list of others are forever memorialized as snapshots of near majesty; at least in their own subconscious bitterness.
Watson’s miss is a bit more bittersweet than most, as it reflected the collective resolve that keeps many of us pushing forward against the tides of age and deterioration. It was more than a golf story, it was the story of humanity itself and our struggles against the intractable march toward obsolescence and our desire to transcend a world that is increasingly defined by the wants, needs and largely manufactured desires of the young. We have deified youth like no previous generation, and particularly in the United States where marketers long ago realized the buying power and manipulative potential of the young. From Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers to the aging Hillary Duff, Amanda Bynes, Christina Aguilera, Lyndsey Lohan and, of course, Brittany Spears, the public sphere of entertainment has become increasingly dominated by those who have the business savy of the middle aged but none of the wisdom that provides anything but cookie-cutter entertainment to their peers. Enough adults play along with these rather crass marketing campaigns to keep a new generation of pre-adolescents dreaming of the fame that a few lucky ones are guaranteed to achieve.
Lance Armstrong’s loss had a similar story line, though at 37 he is only old within the confines of his sport. Armstrong against symbolizes the push against the tide of youth though, together with the broader significance of his achievement – coming back from cancer to win the European-dominated ultimate test of endurance seven times. He is a symbol of American resolve and arguably, because of this, despised by the power brokers of the sport, who are constantly harassing him as a doper. Armstrong did not have the legs to keep up with his younger competitor yesterday, but he does sit in second place and has shown that even at his age, he is among the elites of a sport that is defined by the acumen to accept pain most of us would run away from, not towards.
In both cases I was reminded of an argument made by Hans Gumbrecht (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/gumbrecht.html) a few years ago at a summer program I attended at Cornell – that sports offer entryway to the sublime. In sports, we have the opportunity to sit as spectators and watch the fading opportunity for glory – that once defined much of ancient life. We can see the spectacle of physical feats that seem to transcend our limits as humans, to see last second heroics that bring sweet victory, to witness historic wins and losses and to align ourselves with our favorite players and teams and share in their thrills and agony. We experience the heightening of emotions that accompanies our strange identification with the players and teams, our sense that something is at stake in our own lives with each success and failure. In fact, we often speak of “we” when describing the home team, as if we were out there on the field toiling away for victory, as if we were making decisions about the team, as if we had the power to root our brethren toward victory. The truth is we sometimes do – as almost all teams do better at home than away. Sports thus offer not only access to the sublime through its transcendence of the mundane and quotidian, but that sense of community that I believe we all long for. In Armstrong and Watson, we have seen two ad hoc communities form – built around a collective desire for age to win out over youth just one time, to cheat the omnipresent but cloaked hints of death for a moment longer and to prolong that too short march toward the sweet hereafter with dignity and aplomb. Even in loss they have won that battle not only for themselves but all of us.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Horatio Alger Story 2009: Paid for by Uncle Sam
Two articles today highlight the competing visions of America’s future. In the first in the Washington Post, we learn that AIG wants to give its top executives their promised bonuses: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070902702_pf.html. Largely unmentioned in the article, is why they should be paid bonuses. Hasn’t AIG contributed substantially to the global financial crisis? Aren’t bonuses usually given for actually doing a good job? And should the tax payers really fund bonuses for those who still have jobs, when so many don’t? On top of these questions, is the reality that AIG could soon be insolvent: ‘“Our valuation includes a 70 percent chance that the equity at AIG is zero,’ Joshua Shanker of Citigroup wrote in a note to investors. He cites the continuing risks posed by the company's exotic derivative contracts, called credit-default swaps, and its sale of assets at low prices. AIG's stock plummeted by more than 25 percent yesterday.”
In the second article in the New York Times, the House has come up with an interesting plan to fund half of the new healthcare initiative – paying for it with a surcharge tax for those making over $250,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/health/policy/11health.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print). This seems in line with the populist undertones that helped Obama win the election, but Republicans and conservative “blue dog” Democrats are already trying to undermine the plan. Will we see a profound change in the way our government does business or eternal return to the same as our future stands in jeopardy? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
In the second article in the New York Times, the House has come up with an interesting plan to fund half of the new healthcare initiative – paying for it with a surcharge tax for those making over $250,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/health/policy/11health.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print). This seems in line with the populist undertones that helped Obama win the election, but Republicans and conservative “blue dog” Democrats are already trying to undermine the plan. Will we see a profound change in the way our government does business or eternal return to the same as our future stands in jeopardy? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The Taking of My Money 1 . . . 2 . . . 3
Remakes are a tricky undertaking under the best of circumstances. Take Landslide by both the Dixie Chicks and Smashing Pumpkins. I find the former wanting in several ways and the latter a worthy update to the original – written and performed by Stevie Nicks for her father. Clearly the poet of the alt-rock scene, Billy Corrigan, was doing something different with the song and, at least for me, it resonated at a number of levels. The Dixie Chicks remake smacks of interest in fast money, and based on the radio play alone, I assume it has succeeded at that level. But there is not much done to improve the song or make it their own. I also think of Stan Ridgeway and his remake of Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire. Again the creator of Mexican Radio put his own signature on a classic and gave us his quirky, compelling rearticulation (which I find more interesting than Social Distortion’s take, by the way).
But to a largely unimaginative movie industry remakes tend to be gold on the cheap. Just find a good director, some big (not necessarily good) actors and/or actresses and boom – money, money, money. Making the remake worthy of viewing, on the other hand, is a more complicated process. The first question that comes to mind is why are we remaking this film? Is there a reason, or is it simply to make money? Second, what am I adding to the original? Anything compelling? Third, why should I see this rather than go to the rental store or add it to my Netflix list? To start, I'll offer a series of decent remakes: Casino Royale (2006), The Departed (2006), Heat (1995), The Thing (1982), Scarface (1983), Cape Fear (1991), The Ring (2002), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), Dawn of the Dead (2004), The Fly (1986) and The Count of Monte Cristo (2002). Horror films fare well on my list and that of many others (see http://www.popsyndicate.com/column/story/the_list_25_best_movie_remakes_of_all_time_part_i for a list, though I disagree with many entries). Making clever foreign films into American fare, less so – as is every Tim Burton attempt (who I consider one of the most overrated directors in the history of film). Here is my long list of forgettable ones from just the past few years: Alfie (2004), The Out of Towners (1999), Sleuth (2007), The Ladykillers (2004), Vanilla Sky (2001 - Original Obre Sus Ojos), The Italian Job (2003), Planet of the Apes (2001), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), City of Angels (1998), The Truth About Charlie (2002), Scent of a Woman (1992; I know many will disagree) , The Invasion (2007), Poiseidon (2006), Pyscho (1998, why?????), The Stepford Wives (2004), War of the Worlds (2005), The Wicker Man (2006), Pink Panther (2006), The Jackal (1997) and The Omen (2006) to name a few. In all cases, the formula involves bringing in a a young or aging established actor is brought in to give us a new interpretation of the classic (Steve Martin appears a couple of times here, the fading Marky Mark twice and exes Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman twice each) and make the film marketable, the story is generally updated to give it contemporary relevance, cinematography and costuming are generally important and, if applicable, the humor is generally over the top and stupid (like most Steve Martin and Robin Williams films in recent years).
And that brings us to the less-talented of the Hollywood Scott brothers. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of the most pointless remakes I have ever seen, and up there on the list of all-time most pointless movies for that matter. John Travolta plays a completely unredeemable character that kills for no other reason than his own greed and revenge against the city that caught him in his Wall Street scam. Caught in the middle is Denzel Washington, who while capable as usual, does little here to keep my attention. After building tension in the middle part of the movie, the first two bad guys are caught too easily in the middle of the street and the final chase scene with Travolta as uninteresting a denouement as one can imagine. The plot twist might make unemployed Hedge Fund traders salivate, but it left me cold. Gone is the clever cynicism of the original, the compelling acting of Walter Matthau, the mercurial malevolence of Robert Shaw as Mr. Blue, the frenetic energy of the mayor and police and the buildup to a clever escape plan, only to be foiled in the end. Here the escape plan is faultily hatched and uninteresting to watch as it unravels. The humor is sparse and the pointless death less interesting than any Schwarzenegger film I can think of. Tony Scott has been making bad films for some time now, including the truly terribly Domino (2005), Man on Fire (2004), and the Last Boy Scout (1991), the entertaining (if not good) Déjà vu (2006), Enemy of the State (1998), Days of Thunder (1990) and Revenge (1990). But he did do the classics True Romance (1993), which introduced the world to Quentin Tarrentino (as a writer), and Top Gun (1986). Maybe I was just expecting too much of someone who peaked 16 years ago. (C-)
By the way, I reviewed Public Enemies a few days ago, and while that is a loose remake, it would certainly fit on my list as well. The point seems to be that it is best to leave ideas already created in the can unless you have some way to actually improve on them – as is often the case with horror films, but less so with classics. The point for us viewers is to stop going to these crap fests so Hollywood finally starts to make quality films in months that don’t start with a D.
But to a largely unimaginative movie industry remakes tend to be gold on the cheap. Just find a good director, some big (not necessarily good) actors and/or actresses and boom – money, money, money. Making the remake worthy of viewing, on the other hand, is a more complicated process. The first question that comes to mind is why are we remaking this film? Is there a reason, or is it simply to make money? Second, what am I adding to the original? Anything compelling? Third, why should I see this rather than go to the rental store or add it to my Netflix list? To start, I'll offer a series of decent remakes: Casino Royale (2006), The Departed (2006), Heat (1995), The Thing (1982), Scarface (1983), Cape Fear (1991), The Ring (2002), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), Dawn of the Dead (2004), The Fly (1986) and The Count of Monte Cristo (2002). Horror films fare well on my list and that of many others (see http://www.popsyndicate.com/column/story/the_list_25_best_movie_remakes_of_all_time_part_i for a list, though I disagree with many entries). Making clever foreign films into American fare, less so – as is every Tim Burton attempt (who I consider one of the most overrated directors in the history of film). Here is my long list of forgettable ones from just the past few years: Alfie (2004), The Out of Towners (1999), Sleuth (2007), The Ladykillers (2004), Vanilla Sky (2001 - Original Obre Sus Ojos), The Italian Job (2003), Planet of the Apes (2001), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), City of Angels (1998), The Truth About Charlie (2002), Scent of a Woman (1992; I know many will disagree) , The Invasion (2007), Poiseidon (2006), Pyscho (1998, why?????), The Stepford Wives (2004), War of the Worlds (2005), The Wicker Man (2006), Pink Panther (2006), The Jackal (1997) and The Omen (2006) to name a few. In all cases, the formula involves bringing in a a young or aging established actor is brought in to give us a new interpretation of the classic (Steve Martin appears a couple of times here, the fading Marky Mark twice and exes Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman twice each) and make the film marketable, the story is generally updated to give it contemporary relevance, cinematography and costuming are generally important and, if applicable, the humor is generally over the top and stupid (like most Steve Martin and Robin Williams films in recent years).
And that brings us to the less-talented of the Hollywood Scott brothers. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of the most pointless remakes I have ever seen, and up there on the list of all-time most pointless movies for that matter. John Travolta plays a completely unredeemable character that kills for no other reason than his own greed and revenge against the city that caught him in his Wall Street scam. Caught in the middle is Denzel Washington, who while capable as usual, does little here to keep my attention. After building tension in the middle part of the movie, the first two bad guys are caught too easily in the middle of the street and the final chase scene with Travolta as uninteresting a denouement as one can imagine. The plot twist might make unemployed Hedge Fund traders salivate, but it left me cold. Gone is the clever cynicism of the original, the compelling acting of Walter Matthau, the mercurial malevolence of Robert Shaw as Mr. Blue, the frenetic energy of the mayor and police and the buildup to a clever escape plan, only to be foiled in the end. Here the escape plan is faultily hatched and uninteresting to watch as it unravels. The humor is sparse and the pointless death less interesting than any Schwarzenegger film I can think of. Tony Scott has been making bad films for some time now, including the truly terribly Domino (2005), Man on Fire (2004), and the Last Boy Scout (1991), the entertaining (if not good) Déjà vu (2006), Enemy of the State (1998), Days of Thunder (1990) and Revenge (1990). But he did do the classics True Romance (1993), which introduced the world to Quentin Tarrentino (as a writer), and Top Gun (1986). Maybe I was just expecting too much of someone who peaked 16 years ago. (C-)
By the way, I reviewed Public Enemies a few days ago, and while that is a loose remake, it would certainly fit on my list as well. The point seems to be that it is best to leave ideas already created in the can unless you have some way to actually improve on them – as is often the case with horror films, but less so with classics. The point for us viewers is to stop going to these crap fests so Hollywood finally starts to make quality films in months that don’t start with a D.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Palin vs. Obama
Interesting news day. The spectacle of Jackson’s funeral, of course, leads the papers and online mags (http://www.slate.com/id/2222409/), but two stories show the growing chasm between both democrats and republicans and republicans and any semblance of reason. Obama has, in my estimation, taken another step in the right direction by arguing for limiting oil speculating (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/08cftc.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper). This is just the latest step in his attempt to restore some regulation over the markets and corporate activity – a necessary structural adjustment if we are to see a real, shared economic rejuvenation in the future. USA Today, on the other hand, reports that almost three in four Republicans would vote for Sarah Palin for President (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-07-palin-poll_N.htm). Should I write that again – three in four Republicans would vote for Sarah Palin for president! I thought Bush was the least qualified president in history, but Palin makes him look like a near genius. Has the party lost its way this much? Has the insanity of the lunatic fringe moved to the mainstream? Can anyone truly believe Palin is ready to run the country, dealing with the financial crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan, Healthcare reform, or any of the challenges now facing the country? She seems as petulant and uninterested in anybody else’s opinions as Bush was (outside of Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course), and just as lacking of knowledge about the U.S,. and the world. Isn’t it time to move beyond the cult of celebrity and actually consider worthy candidates for president? Apparently not yet.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Summer Movies
The early summer movies have been pretty disappointing, as has been the case for several years. Wolverine was episodic without any real heart and lacked substance beyond the explosions, special effects and salivating scenes of Jackman’s body (for women that is). The Proposal had some funny moments, but lacked genuine chemistry between the two leads Bullock and the likable Reynolds and sufficient time building up the budding romance so we cared about the de rigeur break up and reunion. Terminator Salvation was interminably long and again lacked sufficient character development to make me care (see below).
Maybe most disappointing is the downward turn in Mann’s talent that Public Enemies seems to hint at. Mann’s best work includes contemporary crime dramas set in Los Angeles (Heat, Collateral), historically compelling films like Last of the Mohicans and the politically charged The Insider. Here he follows his Miami Vice redux with another dud, on the heals of the disappointing Ali. Only Collateral saved a general decline in his work following the success of The Insider. Mann has certainly succeeded in the past with pensive, moody pseudo-thrillers like Manhunter and Heat (that seem to reference De Palma while moving beyond his aesthetic sensibility and adherence to Hitchcock-envy), but here there is little to back up impressive cinematography and acting by the two leads. The story lacks a coherent plot line, sufficient character development and a reason to like Dillinger, besides the fact that he’s played by the aging heartthrob Depp; that both men and women seem to equally love. The movie languors on much longer than needed, placing too much focus on enlongated shoot outs and not enough on what Hollywood has gotten better at – asking the why question regarding our favorite heroes and villains (too much with superheroes in my estimation). And the love story also lacks sufficient development to explain the depth of their connection. Like much of Hollywood mainstream fare these days, the film has all the elements to entertain us but none of the substance to keep up interested. Only Star Trek has really lived up to the hype so far, and this may be because I’ve always liked the series.
Veteran TV executive Barry Diller was recently quoted in Salon as saying “"Talent is the new limited resource . . . There's just not that much talent in the world, and talent almost always outs." (http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2009/07/06/scott_rosenberg/print.html) One wonders if he’s right. There seems to be far too many scions of the powerful acting, directing and producing in Hollywood, huge budgets for subpar films and a general decline in quality even as moviemaking itself improves. The troubling trend I see in American society in general is a growing distance between quality and success (film, business, etc.). What makes it more troubling is the quality that continues to exist on the edges. France’s Tell No One was a great thriller without most of the shortcomings we find in Americans films these days and a great plot twist at the end. The Brothers Bloom, while self-consciously derivative (particularly of the fading talent Wes Anderson), was fun, smart and engaging entertainment. And the crass, stupid The Hangover was downright funny, if nothing else. With so much talent swimming around, one wonders how Hollywood keeps finding ways to make money out of complete crap. But maybe that's because financial success is the only talent America truly esteems.
Side note: I did like Raimi’s Drag Me to Hell, which did have a $30 million budget. It was compelling film with a clever intermingling of spine-tingling surprises, over the top blood and gore and humorous mocking of itself.
Maybe most disappointing is the downward turn in Mann’s talent that Public Enemies seems to hint at. Mann’s best work includes contemporary crime dramas set in Los Angeles (Heat, Collateral), historically compelling films like Last of the Mohicans and the politically charged The Insider. Here he follows his Miami Vice redux with another dud, on the heals of the disappointing Ali. Only Collateral saved a general decline in his work following the success of The Insider. Mann has certainly succeeded in the past with pensive, moody pseudo-thrillers like Manhunter and Heat (that seem to reference De Palma while moving beyond his aesthetic sensibility and adherence to Hitchcock-envy), but here there is little to back up impressive cinematography and acting by the two leads. The story lacks a coherent plot line, sufficient character development and a reason to like Dillinger, besides the fact that he’s played by the aging heartthrob Depp; that both men and women seem to equally love. The movie languors on much longer than needed, placing too much focus on enlongated shoot outs and not enough on what Hollywood has gotten better at – asking the why question regarding our favorite heroes and villains (too much with superheroes in my estimation). And the love story also lacks sufficient development to explain the depth of their connection. Like much of Hollywood mainstream fare these days, the film has all the elements to entertain us but none of the substance to keep up interested. Only Star Trek has really lived up to the hype so far, and this may be because I’ve always liked the series.
Veteran TV executive Barry Diller was recently quoted in Salon as saying “"Talent is the new limited resource . . . There's just not that much talent in the world, and talent almost always outs." (http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2009/07/06/scott_rosenberg/print.html) One wonders if he’s right. There seems to be far too many scions of the powerful acting, directing and producing in Hollywood, huge budgets for subpar films and a general decline in quality even as moviemaking itself improves. The troubling trend I see in American society in general is a growing distance between quality and success (film, business, etc.). What makes it more troubling is the quality that continues to exist on the edges. France’s Tell No One was a great thriller without most of the shortcomings we find in Americans films these days and a great plot twist at the end. The Brothers Bloom, while self-consciously derivative (particularly of the fading talent Wes Anderson), was fun, smart and engaging entertainment. And the crass, stupid The Hangover was downright funny, if nothing else. With so much talent swimming around, one wonders how Hollywood keeps finding ways to make money out of complete crap. But maybe that's because financial success is the only talent America truly esteems.
Side note: I did like Raimi’s Drag Me to Hell, which did have a $30 million budget. It was compelling film with a clever intermingling of spine-tingling surprises, over the top blood and gore and humorous mocking of itself.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Pathology of Victimhood
Josh Marshall at TPM has an interesting snippet today on the way that Palin has built her entire career around victimhood at the hands of liberals, elites and even David Letterman: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/can_i_get_a_witness.php. This seems to go with the general pathology of conservatives, who were victims even when they controlled the levers of government for most of the past 40 years. Now that they have fallen momentarily in the hinterlands of their own construction, it is interesting to see them further embrace this notion of victimhood. They are victims of the “liberal” media, victims of liberal professors, victims of liberal elites who listen to NPR and drink lattes, victims of reverse discrimination from women and minorities, victims of gays and their perverse lifestyles and victims of illegal immigrants who are taking all the good jobs in America (cutting lawns, bussing our tables, cooking our food, taking care of our children, etc.) The victim mentality was first harnessed to some success by Richard Nixon and his incantation to the “silent majority,” but reached fever pitch under Reagan – who redefined the elites as those who actually cared about knowledge and truth (see Thomas Frank’s book What’s the Matter with Kansas).
But the persistence and growth of this pathology has only amplified under Bush and now those on the outside looking in. Palin is a good example. When she was interviewed by a surprisingly tough Charlie Gibson after being chosen for VP, it was her fault that she didn’t seem to know much about anything of importance. When her teenage daughter got pregnant, again showing the lapsed “morality” of much of the Christian right, it was the media’s fault for bringing up this painful family problem. And now that she makes a near insane choice to leave office 18 months early for no real discernible reason (except to starting running for president really early), it is the media’s fault that they haven’t embraced this decision without question. This weekend I had the opportunity to speak with some sensible and less sensible conservatives, and what strikes me is how far the radical right has moved from any semblance of semblance. They truly have become the lunatic fringe, still blaming Clinton for some of our problems, claiming Obama’s presidency has already failed and that we can’t look back at Bush when discussing the deficit or financial crisis (even though they constantly look backwards for blame), claiming global warming is a corporate conspiracy to make money, etc., etc., etc. I only hope this implosion continues into the distant future; it is a lovely spectacle to witness.
But the persistence and growth of this pathology has only amplified under Bush and now those on the outside looking in. Palin is a good example. When she was interviewed by a surprisingly tough Charlie Gibson after being chosen for VP, it was her fault that she didn’t seem to know much about anything of importance. When her teenage daughter got pregnant, again showing the lapsed “morality” of much of the Christian right, it was the media’s fault for bringing up this painful family problem. And now that she makes a near insane choice to leave office 18 months early for no real discernible reason (except to starting running for president really early), it is the media’s fault that they haven’t embraced this decision without question. This weekend I had the opportunity to speak with some sensible and less sensible conservatives, and what strikes me is how far the radical right has moved from any semblance of semblance. They truly have become the lunatic fringe, still blaming Clinton for some of our problems, claiming Obama’s presidency has already failed and that we can’t look back at Bush when discussing the deficit or financial crisis (even though they constantly look backwards for blame), claiming global warming is a corporate conspiracy to make money, etc., etc., etc. I only hope this implosion continues into the distant future; it is a lovely spectacle to witness.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Rolling Stone
Several years ago I received a Rolling Stone with N' Sync on the cover. This followed a Brittany Spears cover and one for Backstreet Boys a few weeks earlier. This was too much for me and I soon sent them a letter I'm sure they never read along with my subcription cancellation. I have never bought an issue since. Maybe a silly elitist stance, or a music snob taking his utterly meaningless revenge on a music industry that has grown increasingly homongenous, uninventive and thoroughly unimaginative. Sure there is still great music on the edges, in local bars, available for download and even among the increasingly undifferentiable mainstream acts. But we essentially have three popular tones today -- the angst-ridden, attitude filled, empowered young female star singing of lost love, sex and the random musings of her mind, angt-ridden, ethereal males exhorting their own failed love, successful love and other largely meaningless though truthful confessional tunes and a variety of geriatic has-beens that continue to play because nothing better has come along to replace them. Nostalgia is certainly a strong impulse, but do we really still need to see the Rolling Stones creak their old bodies across the stage or revive the old Allman Brother with a mere two original members and fewer hit tunes than brain cells since 1973?
A little more than a decade ago, the hybrid move of music showed great promise for the future. Since then, Ipods, p2p and other technological advances have seriously endangered the fate of the music industry. Their response has been to charge astronomical prices for concerts of the hottest acts, to create carefully constructed brands that safely replicate the past and to reduce their catalogs and focus on one has been rejuvenation after another and anything teenage girls and boys will listen to. In line with this general movement is the latest Rolling Stone issue, which treats the maligned Jonas Brothers with far too much earnestness and respect. The boys have no life outside music, of course, except some dating that does not include sex (the three have signed on to abstain until marriage) and seem to have more business acumen than actual talent. Is this really the future we want for our children and our art? It's nothing new really, but the encomiums we too often offer to teenage stars and their skills at branding, marketing and essentially selling themselves as what other teenagers want may be overlooking the overarching trend to commodify everything in sight. I will stop here for now, but continue with this theme this week . . .
A little more than a decade ago, the hybrid move of music showed great promise for the future. Since then, Ipods, p2p and other technological advances have seriously endangered the fate of the music industry. Their response has been to charge astronomical prices for concerts of the hottest acts, to create carefully constructed brands that safely replicate the past and to reduce their catalogs and focus on one has been rejuvenation after another and anything teenage girls and boys will listen to. In line with this general movement is the latest Rolling Stone issue, which treats the maligned Jonas Brothers with far too much earnestness and respect. The boys have no life outside music, of course, except some dating that does not include sex (the three have signed on to abstain until marriage) and seem to have more business acumen than actual talent. Is this really the future we want for our children and our art? It's nothing new really, but the encomiums we too often offer to teenage stars and their skills at branding, marketing and essentially selling themselves as what other teenagers want may be overlooking the overarching trend to commodify everything in sight. I will stop here for now, but continue with this theme this week . . .
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Jobless Recovery: Good for Absolutely No One
The LA Times leads today with the likelihood that we will have another jobless recovery, following those of 1990-91 and 2001 (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobless-recovery2-2009jul02,0,4591258,print.story). Many jobs have been permanently lost, consumer spending is unlikely to truly recover in the short run and employers will probably increase hours for those who are lucky enough to have kept their jobs before they actually hire anyone new. Two points should be made about this recovery though. First, the magnitude of unemployment is different here – currently hovering at 9.4% and expected to top 10% next year. The reality is that the U.S. has been underreporting both unemployment and inflation since the 70s and the situation is thus even worse than it appears. Second, these jobless recoveries point at a more fundamental problem in the U.S. economy today – namely the lack of quality jobs and consumer spending. The latter has been the driving force of the American economy for some time, but with credit dried up, underpaid and underemployed (or unemployed) Americans can no longer afford to spend money they don’t have. While the recovery will implicitly lead to a rise in GDP, it is unclear that it has done much to address this central problem with the economy today. This is particularly true given the fact that we have permanently lost high paying jobs on Wall Street and among the most well-paid blue collar jobs (in the auto industry). It is further amplified by those who are underemployed (working part-time, without benefits or in jobs they are overqualified for). The large temporary workforce and outsourcing that have grown in recent years increase insecurity and the tenuous line between financial stability and crisis for far too many Americans.
The fundamental issue is the unequal distribution of costs and benefits in society. Since the 70s, the income gap between rich and poor has been increasing and the U.S. economy has continued to grow primarily because of unrewarded productivity increases that have largely gone to the top of the economic ladder and spending far into debt by everyone else. This is unsustainable in the long run. Obama talked about addressing this fundamental issue during the campaign, but beyond rhetoric has done little to really confront the central problem – i.e., government must intervene to ensure more equitable distribution. In fact, the relief and recovery act has done more to exacerbate the problem, by alleviating the risk associated with prior bad decisions for those at the top of the economic ladder while doing little to help the disempowered victims of those decisions. In the long run, this is the only way to have a real recovery that will benefit the average American.
The fundamental issue is the unequal distribution of costs and benefits in society. Since the 70s, the income gap between rich and poor has been increasing and the U.S. economy has continued to grow primarily because of unrewarded productivity increases that have largely gone to the top of the economic ladder and spending far into debt by everyone else. This is unsustainable in the long run. Obama talked about addressing this fundamental issue during the campaign, but beyond rhetoric has done little to really confront the central problem – i.e., government must intervene to ensure more equitable distribution. In fact, the relief and recovery act has done more to exacerbate the problem, by alleviating the risk associated with prior bad decisions for those at the top of the economic ladder while doing little to help the disempowered victims of those decisions. In the long run, this is the only way to have a real recovery that will benefit the average American.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Conservative Discourse
This story is a few days old, but a perfect example of the increasingly common Republican tactic of invoking their victimhood at the hands of a "liberal media," activist judges, successful "feminists" and women in general, Blacks and Latinos, godless liberal professsors and everyone else that disagrees with them in any way. When Bush was in powers, the victim mentality was insane -- but now they can at least take umbrage from the fact much of America disagrees with them. Unfortunately, the feckless "liberal" media does continue to allow Republicans to largely frame the debate and have effectively turned the discussion to deficits at a time that unemployment rates are near 10% and the American economy continues to fester in its worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
Fox News Suggests The Media May Be Pushing Obama's Agenda
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jun 21, 2009 6:00pm
Oh noes! None of the right wing talking points that Roger Ailes has been distributing to his minions seems to be taking hold. Despite their best effort to throw all sorts of poo at the president, Obama still appears to be very popular with the American people. What's a RNC propaganda outlet to do? Declare that the mainstream media is in bed with Obama, naturally.
WALLACE: So let’s go over the record, and let’s put it up on the screen. CBS is running an interview today with Barack Obama , “An American Dad.” ABC is running coverage throughout the day on Wednesday of President Obama’s health care plan including a prime-time town hall. NBC just ran two specials, “Inside the Obama White House.” Tom Brokaw was named this week to a presidential commission. And Newsweek has put Mr. Obama on the cover 19 times since 2004. Steve Hayes, how do you explain all of that?
HAYES: A lot of people call Newsweek now “Obamaweek” because they’ve put him on so often. Look, I mean, clearly, his joke about rolling over and finding Brian Williams is more than just a joke. I mean, I think the sense is -- and you’ve provided evidence that it’s true -- that he’s in bed -- the media are in bed with Barack Obama.
Wow. The media is covering the "leader of the free world"! That's some seriously deviant and ideologically-driven behavior...right? Right?
Or maybe not so much. Aside from the Freudian implications of using the "in bed with" metaphor, I'm curious when Fox News decided they weren't mainstream. Haven't they been insisting that the country is right and they are correctly reflecting the country's values?
But the general lack of self-examination is comical. Fox News--who never met a Bushie that they didn't kneel before and service--thinks the media is too kind to Obama? Uh right. That's why we had stories within the first month all over the media debating whether the honeymoon was over?
Even Mara Liasson, no big friend to the administration, admits that the comparison to the favorable coverage of Bush and Clinton is not entirely fair, since Bush was still embroiled in the aftermath of his contested ascension (and taking vacation days) and Clinton flubbed up badly, pushing too aggressive an agenda. But Wallace doesn't want taint this smear with any actual facts:
LIASSON: On the other hand, some of those numbers are reflective of -- look, Bill Clinton had an incredibly chaotic first 100 days. There was a pratfall every other day to cover. George Bush was the result of -- I’m assuming that was the first term -- was the result of...
WALLACE: Yes.
LIASSON: ... a contested election. And Barack Obama came in as a real majority winner. He has a big majority in Congress.
WALLACE: Oh, come on, don't you think some of it is because he’s got liberal ideas?
Does Wallace not realize that by characterizing this all as being mainstream--the love of Obama's "liberal" ideas (and as a liberal, I wish he was way MORE liberal) and the monolithic media that love him--he is de facto admitting that Fox is out of the mainstream?
Damn conservatives, their logic fails them every time.
WALLACE: And that was President Obama at a dinner with reporters Friday making his own joke about what many believe is a sweetheart relationship between the White House and the mainstream media.
WALLACE: Byron?
YORK: You know, this has led to a certain undertone of contempt from Obama to the press. Did you -- I felt that in the Brian Williams joke and at the earlier White House Correspondents Dinner. Obama said, “Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.”
But the Pew poll that you mentioned earlier about the positive coverage said that in this case, in Obama’s case, as was not the case with Bush or Clinton, an enormous amount of the coverage focused on the president’s personal characteristics, his personal appeal, rather than his policy stuff, what he actually wants to do.
And the question and the test for the press is going to come this summer where we do have a huge debate over health care. I guess ABC has voted already. But we are going to have a huge debate over health care, and will they really cover specifically what it is he wants to do?
Fox News Suggests The Media May Be Pushing Obama's Agenda
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jun 21, 2009 6:00pm
Oh noes! None of the right wing talking points that Roger Ailes has been distributing to his minions seems to be taking hold. Despite their best effort to throw all sorts of poo at the president, Obama still appears to be very popular with the American people. What's a RNC propaganda outlet to do? Declare that the mainstream media is in bed with Obama, naturally.
WALLACE: So let’s go over the record, and let’s put it up on the screen. CBS is running an interview today with Barack Obama , “An American Dad.” ABC is running coverage throughout the day on Wednesday of President Obama’s health care plan including a prime-time town hall. NBC just ran two specials, “Inside the Obama White House.” Tom Brokaw was named this week to a presidential commission. And Newsweek has put Mr. Obama on the cover 19 times since 2004. Steve Hayes, how do you explain all of that?
HAYES: A lot of people call Newsweek now “Obamaweek” because they’ve put him on so often. Look, I mean, clearly, his joke about rolling over and finding Brian Williams is more than just a joke. I mean, I think the sense is -- and you’ve provided evidence that it’s true -- that he’s in bed -- the media are in bed with Barack Obama.
Wow. The media is covering the "leader of the free world"! That's some seriously deviant and ideologically-driven behavior...right? Right?
Or maybe not so much. Aside from the Freudian implications of using the "in bed with" metaphor, I'm curious when Fox News decided they weren't mainstream. Haven't they been insisting that the country is right and they are correctly reflecting the country's values?
But the general lack of self-examination is comical. Fox News--who never met a Bushie that they didn't kneel before and service--thinks the media is too kind to Obama? Uh right. That's why we had stories within the first month all over the media debating whether the honeymoon was over?
Even Mara Liasson, no big friend to the administration, admits that the comparison to the favorable coverage of Bush and Clinton is not entirely fair, since Bush was still embroiled in the aftermath of his contested ascension (and taking vacation days) and Clinton flubbed up badly, pushing too aggressive an agenda. But Wallace doesn't want taint this smear with any actual facts:
LIASSON: On the other hand, some of those numbers are reflective of -- look, Bill Clinton had an incredibly chaotic first 100 days. There was a pratfall every other day to cover. George Bush was the result of -- I’m assuming that was the first term -- was the result of...
WALLACE: Yes.
LIASSON: ... a contested election. And Barack Obama came in as a real majority winner. He has a big majority in Congress.
WALLACE: Oh, come on, don't you think some of it is because he’s got liberal ideas?
Does Wallace not realize that by characterizing this all as being mainstream--the love of Obama's "liberal" ideas (and as a liberal, I wish he was way MORE liberal) and the monolithic media that love him--he is de facto admitting that Fox is out of the mainstream?
Damn conservatives, their logic fails them every time.
WALLACE: And that was President Obama at a dinner with reporters Friday making his own joke about what many believe is a sweetheart relationship between the White House and the mainstream media.
WALLACE: Byron?
YORK: You know, this has led to a certain undertone of contempt from Obama to the press. Did you -- I felt that in the Brian Williams joke and at the earlier White House Correspondents Dinner. Obama said, “Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.”
But the Pew poll that you mentioned earlier about the positive coverage said that in this case, in Obama’s case, as was not the case with Bush or Clinton, an enormous amount of the coverage focused on the president’s personal characteristics, his personal appeal, rather than his policy stuff, what he actually wants to do.
And the question and the test for the press is going to come this summer where we do have a huge debate over health care. I guess ABC has voted already. But we are going to have a huge debate over health care, and will they really cover specifically what it is he wants to do?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Fox News Follies
Fox News has a wonderful habit of labelling Republicans as Democrats whenever they do something wrong: http://crooksandliars.com/node/29158/print. I think focusing on Fox is a mistake though, given that the rest of the mainstream media is where I see the problem. Everyone now knows how biased Fox is, except maybe the majority of people still watching it who blindly follow conservative orthodoxy. The problem is the more cloaked conservative bias of the mainstream media. I've mentioned this before, but Pew found in 2000 that while the media is the left of the general public on social issues, they are to the right on economics and foreign affairs. I think we saw that obviously in the buildup to the Iraq War and the 2000 and 2004 elections. Given how bad a campaign McCain ran, it changed to some extent last year -- but while most are arguing the media is having a love affair with Obama, it seems absurd at times how quickly they expect him to fix all the problems in the world, how much they continue to allow conservative voices to frame debates and how quickly they attempted to end the "honeymoon period." The key concern for me is the quick change from a focus on a still faltering economy (where unemployment continues to climb toward 10%) to deficits. True recovery may be a year and a half out and I wonder when and if they will start blaming the crisis on Obama rather than its rightful heirs (Reagan, Clinton and Bush).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Terminate the Terminator Franchise
Terminator Salvation, the fourth installation in the Terminator series, is a major disappointing, putting the latest Star Trek triumph into even higher esteem. Here the talented, but often morose, Christian Bale takes on the role of John Connor -- the last hope for humanity against Skynet and its complexified, insidious army of Terminators. The film, like so much blockbuster fare these days, suffers from too much attention to pyrotechics, pornographic violence and, often senseless and overly long action sequences. It also suffers from an increasingly common trend in action and superhero films today -- an overly somber tone that ignores the old humor and light-heartedness that once dominated the genres. Instead we are thrown into a dystopian, technophobic world where machines roam the planet attempting to kill off the last humans left after the Skynet induced apocalypse. Clear innuendos to 911 juxtapose with the sort of mystical future, past these films so often invoke (think Mad Max, Matrix when not in the Matrix, etc.). John Connor and the resistance have discovered a new technology that could destroy Skynet and end the war for good. But in a time travel paradox that is hard to fully embrace, he must first save his own father, who was sent from the future to impregnate his mother (Sarah Connor), in the first film. A new character emerges here, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) to complicate matters further though, a killer from the past whose body and brain have been integrated into a cynbernetic machine, though he appears to maintain those aspects of humanity the film attempts to juxtapose with the machines. He becomes an ally to the humans, but in a somewhat predicable turnabout, is thrown into a moral quandary that tests his allegiance. Arnold makes a camio as well, in a culminating scene that would be suspenseful but for the necessary denouments of films like this. The action scenes are often bracing, the cinematography striking and the ability of director "McG," aka Joseph McGinty Nichol of Charlies Angels "fame," to develop drama and surprise through the camera work, is impressive. But where did the plot go, dude? Where are the truly compelling characters? Why do I care? I found all these questions difficult to answer. In the end, the film was too long, too boring and too overwrought in its attempt toward profundity.
The more interesting question with films like these is whether the narrative structure inflects fears of technology induced terrorism and destruction or a deeper fear that technology has destroyed our humanity. Is the film the latest incarnation of ongoing fears about technology and human destruction that go back to WWII and the cold war? Does it reflect the "culture of fear" sociologist Barry Glassner has catalogued, where our inability to control our lives from outside influences leads to constant, unabiding fear that dismantles the ability to act and intervene in the world? Or is it a deeper critique of the dehumanizing effects of technology like tv, videogames, ipods, cell phones and the like that increasingly dominate our lives and undermine those aspects of ourselves that we take as constitutive to being human? In potentially giving the filmmaker and writers too much credit, one could argue that it is a combination of all three ideas. Humanity has been all but destroyed by the technology they themselves built, but fight on to save themselves from the machines that have mastered their techniques of warfare and duplicity. They, of course, use their own advanced technology in the war, but otherwise live in a sort of prehistoric future that would make a Neo-Luddhite ecstatic. The machine that we find out has been sent to destroy them by playing on their implicit desire to create a unified human defense, maintains aspects of his humanity (even as a convicted killer who is executed in the opening scene) that make him an ally to the humans after all. In the final scene, the machine gives Christian Bale his heart to save him, thus completing the metaphor – we must restore our humanity by dismantling the machines that now control us.
The more interesting question with films like these is whether the narrative structure inflects fears of technology induced terrorism and destruction or a deeper fear that technology has destroyed our humanity. Is the film the latest incarnation of ongoing fears about technology and human destruction that go back to WWII and the cold war? Does it reflect the "culture of fear" sociologist Barry Glassner has catalogued, where our inability to control our lives from outside influences leads to constant, unabiding fear that dismantles the ability to act and intervene in the world? Or is it a deeper critique of the dehumanizing effects of technology like tv, videogames, ipods, cell phones and the like that increasingly dominate our lives and undermine those aspects of ourselves that we take as constitutive to being human? In potentially giving the filmmaker and writers too much credit, one could argue that it is a combination of all three ideas. Humanity has been all but destroyed by the technology they themselves built, but fight on to save themselves from the machines that have mastered their techniques of warfare and duplicity. They, of course, use their own advanced technology in the war, but otherwise live in a sort of prehistoric future that would make a Neo-Luddhite ecstatic. The machine that we find out has been sent to destroy them by playing on their implicit desire to create a unified human defense, maintains aspects of his humanity (even as a convicted killer who is executed in the opening scene) that make him an ally to the humans after all. In the final scene, the machine gives Christian Bale his heart to save him, thus completing the metaphor – we must restore our humanity by dismantling the machines that now control us.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Dialectics of New Media
The Iranian political situation is demonstrating the complex nature of contemporary media, where libratory and repressive dynamics play out side by side. An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today shows the potentially repressive power of modern media: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html#printMode, given the complex and comprehensive control Iran appears to have over its internal Internet access while reports have detailed the ways in which Twitter and other web-based technology helped to develop and bolster the oppositions revolt against what appears to be a fraudulent election (http://arirusila.cafebabel.com/en/post/2009/06/22/Iran-%E2%80%93-Twitter-%E2%80%93-Revolution). As with all countries, control of information is paramount to control of the people. America is certainly not immune, and one can think of the buildup to the Iraq War as a perfect example of controlling information and spreading misinformation with incredible acumen; while the large scale anti-war protests were orchestrated predominantly through the use of new media to challenge mainstream media's silence. The difference, of course, is that American journalists and media are largely complicit through their laziness, ability to be manipulated and bullied and tacit complicity with those in power. In other countries, it is often a question of life and death or access to information and the ability to disseminate it. In any case, Iran is showing the critical importance of media and technology to political action today and the possibilities and perils of relying on it for positive change.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Movie Review: Interview (2007)
The 2007 remake of the van Gogh dutch film Interview (2007) will not go into the annals of great, or even good, indie films. And yet director Buscemi does capture a number of interrelated cultural trends. The first is our continued diefication of the famous and the attempt to contemplate the space between the myth and reality of fame as a route to happiness or alienation. Nothing terribly reveltory develops here -- famous B actresses are actually smarter than we think, and often much more damaged than their public persona. Much more interesting to me, were the dual issues of female empowerment and the resultant castration anxiety that seems to accompany it for older men enticed and repulsed by the emancipatory power young women seemed to have found in the public and private arenas. Young female sexual prowless abuts against the limits of love and sexual pleasure. Pierre Peders (Steve Buscemi) is a cynical political reporter sent in to do a fluff piece on a B-movie and television actress Katya (Sienna Miller, of Jude Law lover fame). After a disastrous interview that Pierre is completely unprepared for, a chance accident leads him to her large loft and a cat and mouse game of revelation and lies. Pierre both loves and hates the young actress, who is clearly more complicated and intriguing than we initially think. In the scenes that follow, the actress uses both her sexuality and intelligence to manipulate Pierre, until the ultimate moment when she tricks him into admitting a murder. Pierre seems to embody the postmodern man, stricken by his failures and alienation, drawn toward youth and a presumed innocence and naivety that does not exist. He is castrated by his own inability to accept his own desire and belief that she is in fact attracted to him (also a problem for the audience, I imagine). Katya, on the other hand, "plays" Pierre for her own amusement, or maybe as revenge for his initial lack of interest in her and her career. At a deeper level, it appears as if the film captures the difficulty in finding real intimacy in a world where affectation overrides affect. Our growing alienation from our own desire that both capitalism and postmodernity have introduced, leads us to a protective shell where we lie to others simply out of fear of the alternative. The big lie in the film revolves around Pierre secretly reading Katya's journal, that admits that she does not love her boyfriend and is comtemplating death. She turns this into a lie about cancer and the real reason she had her breasts reduced. Pierre struggles with his budding attraction and almost fatherly feelings for Katya and his chance to impress his editor and rejuvenate his failing career. He chooses the later, but learns in the end that he has been manipulated; partially because of his inability to recognize that the scene relates to her television character. The media savvy young women capitalizes on the generation gap to play the ultimate trick on the journalist. But to what end? What was his crime? Was it that he didn't revere her as so many other do? Was it that he failed to fall fully for her sexual advances? Was it the revelation that he was a murderer and his life was falling apart? In any case, it seems as if the theme again relates to our inability to find real connection in a world where all social relations seem mediated in some manner, whether through technology or the precarious distance between truth and fiction. Again, in the end, we see youth win out over the cynicism of age, but with a cynicism so endemic to the young -- the cynicism of irony. Buscemi loses the game of attempting to confront the newfound youthful strength of feminity, but is that feminity without its flaws. It is hard to know in the end. She seems disaffected, lies and manipulates her way through the movie, does seem troubled by her relationship to her own fame and its distance from talent and her abuse of drugs and alcohol. She wins but appears as unhappy as Pierre. In a fair to middling film that runs a scant 84 minutes, Buscemi captures many of the troubling aspects of contemporary society and the new forms of alienation that malign contemporary society. (B)
Friday, April 03, 2009
CEO Speech
I recently did a presentation on political discourse, and started with this speech by the "CEOs of America Benevolence Society" . . .
In these difficult times, it is incumbent upon us to remember that markets are still better than government. Are we socialists? Have we forgotten the foundation of this country. Government does not solve problems, government is the problem. If they start to regulate markets, how are we supposed to afford our third homes in Vermont and Colorado. If they limit our salaries, how are we supposed to pay for the gas on our private jets. Do you really want to live in a world where we have to take commercial flights and wait in line with you schlubs. We are paid 300 times the average worker, but we contribute so much more to the economy. How are the waiters at posh restaurants going to live without our 10% tips. How can the hotel industry stay open without our $2,000 a night rooms. How can we survive as a country if I do not continue to buy $100,000 jewelry for not only our wives but our many mistresses as well. The point is that America only works if the few can maintain beautiful, luxuriously lives that you can read about in magazines and salivate over on television. Don’t forget, you too could someday become rich yourselves.
In these difficult times, it is incumbent upon us to remember that markets are still better than government. Are we socialists? Have we forgotten the foundation of this country. Government does not solve problems, government is the problem. If they start to regulate markets, how are we supposed to afford our third homes in Vermont and Colorado. If they limit our salaries, how are we supposed to pay for the gas on our private jets. Do you really want to live in a world where we have to take commercial flights and wait in line with you schlubs. We are paid 300 times the average worker, but we contribute so much more to the economy. How are the waiters at posh restaurants going to live without our 10% tips. How can the hotel industry stay open without our $2,000 a night rooms. How can we survive as a country if I do not continue to buy $100,000 jewelry for not only our wives but our many mistresses as well. The point is that America only works if the few can maintain beautiful, luxuriously lives that you can read about in magazines and salivate over on television. Don’t forget, you too could someday become rich yourselves.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Republican Myopia
I'm back from a self-imposed hiatus and hope to start again with daily updates. Obama has just passed a bill that radically alters the social contract, at least for the short run. We are in the midst of a crisis and the government often steps in to address these situations and then steps back and puts their faith back in the unfettered market. As sociologist Karl Polanyi once argued (The Great Transformation), this has been the general trend in capitalism. People demand government intervention in times of financial crisis and when the income gap grows too large. When times are good, the government retrenches, deregulates and alters the tax policy to the advantage of elites.
Republicans have shown a general ignorance of this trend and, I suspect, a planned ignorance of the fact that the longest sustained period of economic growth in the country occurred after WWII; from about 1947 to 1973 or so. During that period, the benefits of society were distributed relatively equally across the economic spectrum. Poverty decreased precipitously (among Blacks and Whites), a huge middle class developed and those at the top agreed to take less so that the American economy could remain strong. Since the 70s and particularly starting in the 90s (as the last vestiges of communism disappeared), there has been a concerted effort to dismantle the social safety net and to allow the accumulation of wealth at the very top of the economic ladder. This trend has been coupled with the call for small government and limited intervention in the economy. We are now seeing the effects of that policy.
And yet Republicans continue to decry any attempt at addressing the issue as "socialist." They are continuing the mantra of "small government" as if the economy was fine and the average American wasn't in financial peril. Can this platform work? Probably not in the short-run, but I wonder if Americans are actually ready to reconsider the role of the government in the economy. Are we ready to alter the tax policy to benefit the average American? Are we willing to reconsider the importance of unions and labor power in ensuring equitable distribution of income and wealth? Are we willing to address persistent economic and educational inequality?
There are certainly hints that the answer could be yes. But first we must start the long process of redefining the social contract, of rearticulating citizenship as moving beyond consumption to civic engagement and of asking people to think collectively rather than simply about their own interests. This is not as easy process and certainly demands a concerted effort to confront the complicity of education, media and political discourse in eternal return to the past. Obama stands at the forefront of this effort at the moment, and one only hopes he continues to impart hope as a central part of his message. It is the job of everyone else to move beyond being stirred by his words and actually act to restore hope across the political and social spectra.
Republicans have shown a general ignorance of this trend and, I suspect, a planned ignorance of the fact that the longest sustained period of economic growth in the country occurred after WWII; from about 1947 to 1973 or so. During that period, the benefits of society were distributed relatively equally across the economic spectrum. Poverty decreased precipitously (among Blacks and Whites), a huge middle class developed and those at the top agreed to take less so that the American economy could remain strong. Since the 70s and particularly starting in the 90s (as the last vestiges of communism disappeared), there has been a concerted effort to dismantle the social safety net and to allow the accumulation of wealth at the very top of the economic ladder. This trend has been coupled with the call for small government and limited intervention in the economy. We are now seeing the effects of that policy.
And yet Republicans continue to decry any attempt at addressing the issue as "socialist." They are continuing the mantra of "small government" as if the economy was fine and the average American wasn't in financial peril. Can this platform work? Probably not in the short-run, but I wonder if Americans are actually ready to reconsider the role of the government in the economy. Are we ready to alter the tax policy to benefit the average American? Are we willing to reconsider the importance of unions and labor power in ensuring equitable distribution of income and wealth? Are we willing to address persistent economic and educational inequality?
There are certainly hints that the answer could be yes. But first we must start the long process of redefining the social contract, of rearticulating citizenship as moving beyond consumption to civic engagement and of asking people to think collectively rather than simply about their own interests. This is not as easy process and certainly demands a concerted effort to confront the complicity of education, media and political discourse in eternal return to the past. Obama stands at the forefront of this effort at the moment, and one only hopes he continues to impart hope as a central part of his message. It is the job of everyone else to move beyond being stirred by his words and actually act to restore hope across the political and social spectra.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Election Post-script #1
It's morning in America and hope has been restored for those of us who see a road forward to the future, not an idealized, mythical past to which we should return. I am hopefuly again for the first time in a long time. I am not the sort to look at America with a totalizing critique. I still see it as an unrealized dream: of democracy, freedom and equality of opportunity. The election of Obama certainly does not address all of the problems in America today, but he has built a movement and lit a torch that can push the country forward with a progressive agenda for change that increases opportunity, heightens civic engagement and responsibility, challenges neoliberalism and its cynical policies that largely serve the elites and restores America's image the world over. This is a moment for real change in America and it is up to not only him but us to struggle forward against the past and toward a better tomorrow.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election Day
Been off the past few days, busy with other tasks. Today we find out who the next president will be. I was teaching a class yesterday and argued that this election is a referendum on a number of issues. I believe it truly could be the most important election for a long time to come. If McCain wins, we can assume the strategy and policies of the past will continue. If Obama wins, no matter what he does as President, real change will come to American politics. Here are the larger stakes of this election, at least in my mind . . .
1) Race/Racism in America: if Obama wins, it could challenge the idea that elections can be won or lost on this issue alone. If Obama wins in Virginia, Florida, North Carolina or anywhere else in the South (less likely), it could signal an end to the Republican stranglehold on that region and the need for the Republican party to redefine what they stand for (and clearly what they oppose). While his election will not immediately change the racial dynamics of the country, it is clear it will be a signal moment in race relations in this country and symbolic of the possiblity for real equality of opportunity and an end to racism as policy. If McCain wins, one has to acknowledge that racism played a relatively major role.
2) Economics: it is clear this election returns us to Obama's argument in his book -- can we create a "New" New Deal, that recognizes the role the government can play to soften the edges of capitalism and more equitably distribute the benefits (and risks) of American capitalism gone wild. In traditional terms, this is an election between Reagan and FDR/Keynes and could fundamentally challenge our current notions of markets and government. This will clearly depend on what Obama actually does if he wins, but if McCain wins it appears to continue the argument that "liberal" is a bad word in America and taxes (even during a financial crisis) make all the difference; even to those who will not benefit from still more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
3) The Nature of Campaigns: a number of changes have emerged in the election this cycle, and a Obama victory could alter the dynamics and strategies of elections for the foreseeable future. Here are the issues:
a) Populism: can an effective Democratic ground game undermine the effectiveness of the Republican machine and its policy of attack, attack and then attack some more? More generally, are we about to see a dramatic upshift in turnout and thus the voice of the people in elections.
b) Rovean electoral strategy: relates to "a", if Obama wins -- will the idea of running exclusively or prodimantly negative campaigns lose steam. This is not a new trend, but it is clear the virulence of hatred-mongering and lies in recent elections has altered the public sphere to our collective disadvantage.
c) Media: can an Obama win force the media to consider its role in the spectacle-dominated politics of today? I don't have great hope in this area, but maybe pressure can mount for issues-based coverage over horse-race and character focus.
d) Money: Obama undermined public financing laws, which make many like me very uncomfortable. But at the same time, the populist nature of his fundraising provides hope that the people can challenge the stranglehold the elites and corporations currently have on elections and daily business in Washington. This will depend first on who wins and then later on the ability of the Obama team to keep this swell of popular participation activated for future campaigns and, hopefully, for more local effors for change. MoveOn.org certainly provides a model for maintaining these networks between elections.
I am so nervous . . . and hopeful.
1) Race/Racism in America: if Obama wins, it could challenge the idea that elections can be won or lost on this issue alone. If Obama wins in Virginia, Florida, North Carolina or anywhere else in the South (less likely), it could signal an end to the Republican stranglehold on that region and the need for the Republican party to redefine what they stand for (and clearly what they oppose). While his election will not immediately change the racial dynamics of the country, it is clear it will be a signal moment in race relations in this country and symbolic of the possiblity for real equality of opportunity and an end to racism as policy. If McCain wins, one has to acknowledge that racism played a relatively major role.
2) Economics: it is clear this election returns us to Obama's argument in his book -- can we create a "New" New Deal, that recognizes the role the government can play to soften the edges of capitalism and more equitably distribute the benefits (and risks) of American capitalism gone wild. In traditional terms, this is an election between Reagan and FDR/Keynes and could fundamentally challenge our current notions of markets and government. This will clearly depend on what Obama actually does if he wins, but if McCain wins it appears to continue the argument that "liberal" is a bad word in America and taxes (even during a financial crisis) make all the difference; even to those who will not benefit from still more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
3) The Nature of Campaigns: a number of changes have emerged in the election this cycle, and a Obama victory could alter the dynamics and strategies of elections for the foreseeable future. Here are the issues:
a) Populism: can an effective Democratic ground game undermine the effectiveness of the Republican machine and its policy of attack, attack and then attack some more? More generally, are we about to see a dramatic upshift in turnout and thus the voice of the people in elections.
b) Rovean electoral strategy: relates to "a", if Obama wins -- will the idea of running exclusively or prodimantly negative campaigns lose steam. This is not a new trend, but it is clear the virulence of hatred-mongering and lies in recent elections has altered the public sphere to our collective disadvantage.
c) Media: can an Obama win force the media to consider its role in the spectacle-dominated politics of today? I don't have great hope in this area, but maybe pressure can mount for issues-based coverage over horse-race and character focus.
d) Money: Obama undermined public financing laws, which make many like me very uncomfortable. But at the same time, the populist nature of his fundraising provides hope that the people can challenge the stranglehold the elites and corporations currently have on elections and daily business in Washington. This will depend first on who wins and then later on the ability of the Obama team to keep this swell of popular participation activated for future campaigns and, hopefully, for more local effors for change. MoveOn.org certainly provides a model for maintaining these networks between elections.
I am so nervous . . . and hopeful.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama Expands Lead . . . Republicans Get Downright Silly
The latest polls seem to show Obama expanding his lead, and while I was teaching when his 30-minute ad ran -- it appears to be getting popular support among some: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/poll.wednesday/index.html?eref=rss_topstories.
Meanwhile the embarrasing McCain campaign just keeps getting worse . . .
1) Palin is bringing up old news about Obama's relationship with a pro-Palestinian professor, who she claims is a "PLO Spokesperson." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) Even if Obama did support Palestinian legitimate claims about mistreatment from Israel, does that mean he is a radical? Certainly to some in the US, but Obama has made his position on Israel clear. By the way, there is talk of her running in 2012. Is anyone seriously considering her as President? I'm not sure she should be running a local McDonald's chain.
2) The infighting over Palin within the McCain camp this late in the election cycle, seems to indicate a recognition that they are going to lose. And even as Palin says she thinks they will win, she already appears to be setting herself up for 2012. One senior aid went as far as calling her a "whack job." http://www.politico.com/playbook/1008/playbook476.html
3) From the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_bruck. Chuck Hagel refused to endorse McCain, but his recent comments are even more damning. "In good conscience, I could not enthusiastically—honestly—go out and endorse him and support him when we so fundamentally disagree on the future course of our foreign policy and our role in the world," he said, then later added about Palin "I don't believe she's qualified to be President of the United States. The first judgment a potential President makes is who their running mate is—and I don't think John made a very good selection."
4) Daily Kos reports on the McCain healthcare plan and how it could negatively affect so many Americans: The Obama campaign] This morning, the McCain campaign's top economic policy advisor unleashed an October Surprise of straight talk when he finally admitted that the health insurance people currently get from their employer is 'way better' than the health care they would get if John McCain becomes President. ... Senator McCain has been trying to cover this up for months, but his advisor's brutal honesty today is certainly better late than never, and it should give every American pause about electing a candidate who has proposed such radical and dangerous changes to our health care system.
5) I was listening to conservative radio on my way home, and one caller actually compared Obama to Stalin. While Bob Grant disagreed, the socialist claims are getting downright absurd. Again, how are tax cuts for most of the population a "socialist" policy, particularly when the increase in taxes for the top 5% amount to returning to Clinton-level rates. He is certainly not supporting the top tax bracket of the late 70s (70%) or the 50s (90%). McCain has clearly and irrevocably shown himself to be even worse than Rove: use any strategy, lie and if that doesn't work lie some more.
6) The McCain campaign is airing an old ad that they know quite well is ridicuously misleading, taking Obama's words out of context to argue he claims Iran isn't dangerous. The ad and the truth (this disclaimer should come with every McCain ad: this ad might cause anal leakage because the makers of the ad are lying out of their asses) . . .
This afternoon, McCain re-released an ad first unveiled two months ago. The voiceover tells the viewer:
"Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.
"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat.' Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'?
"Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."
And here's what Obama actually said, back in May:
"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.' And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall."
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015412.php)
7) Finally, from Indiana Secretary of State on Blacks and Democrats "Who's the Master and Who's the Slave?" Um, who's race baiting again?
Meanwhile the embarrasing McCain campaign just keeps getting worse . . .
1) Palin is bringing up old news about Obama's relationship with a pro-Palestinian professor, who she claims is a "PLO Spokesperson." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) Even if Obama did support Palestinian legitimate claims about mistreatment from Israel, does that mean he is a radical? Certainly to some in the US, but Obama has made his position on Israel clear. By the way, there is talk of her running in 2012. Is anyone seriously considering her as President? I'm not sure she should be running a local McDonald's chain.
2) The infighting over Palin within the McCain camp this late in the election cycle, seems to indicate a recognition that they are going to lose. And even as Palin says she thinks they will win, she already appears to be setting herself up for 2012. One senior aid went as far as calling her a "whack job." http://www.politico.com/playbook/1008/playbook476.html
3) From the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_bruck. Chuck Hagel refused to endorse McCain, but his recent comments are even more damning. "In good conscience, I could not enthusiastically—honestly—go out and endorse him and support him when we so fundamentally disagree on the future course of our foreign policy and our role in the world," he said, then later added about Palin "I don't believe she's qualified to be President of the United States. The first judgment a potential President makes is who their running mate is—and I don't think John made a very good selection."
4) Daily Kos reports on the McCain healthcare plan and how it could negatively affect so many Americans: The Obama campaign] This morning, the McCain campaign's top economic policy advisor unleashed an October Surprise of straight talk when he finally admitted that the health insurance people currently get from their employer is 'way better' than the health care they would get if John McCain becomes President. ... Senator McCain has been trying to cover this up for months, but his advisor's brutal honesty today is certainly better late than never, and it should give every American pause about electing a candidate who has proposed such radical and dangerous changes to our health care system.
5) I was listening to conservative radio on my way home, and one caller actually compared Obama to Stalin. While Bob Grant disagreed, the socialist claims are getting downright absurd. Again, how are tax cuts for most of the population a "socialist" policy, particularly when the increase in taxes for the top 5% amount to returning to Clinton-level rates. He is certainly not supporting the top tax bracket of the late 70s (70%) or the 50s (90%). McCain has clearly and irrevocably shown himself to be even worse than Rove: use any strategy, lie and if that doesn't work lie some more.
6) The McCain campaign is airing an old ad that they know quite well is ridicuously misleading, taking Obama's words out of context to argue he claims Iran isn't dangerous. The ad and the truth (this disclaimer should come with every McCain ad: this ad might cause anal leakage because the makers of the ad are lying out of their asses) . . .
This afternoon, McCain re-released an ad first unveiled two months ago. The voiceover tells the viewer:
"Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.
"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat.' Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'?
"Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."
And here's what Obama actually said, back in May:
"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.' And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall."
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015412.php)
7) Finally, from Indiana Secretary of State on Blacks and Democrats "Who's the Master and Who's the Slave?" Um, who's race baiting again?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
More on the "S" Word
This from an Amazon disscussion board (I'm quoting it verbatim, with thanks to MDS) . . .
Congressional Quarterly gave this a rare twice over, once for McCain and once for Palin. In both cases they explain that you've been lied to.
McCain: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/27/playing-dirty-s-word
Palin: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/826/
Few serious policy makers - including McCain - consider progressive taxation socialist. In fact, on the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain stood by a comment he made in 2000 that "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more" in taxes when you "reach a certain level of comfort." "You put into different, different categories of wealthier people paying, paying higher taxes into different brackets," McCain told host Tom Brokaw, as if to say progressive taxes are a no-brainer.Indeed, progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a "duty of three per centum" on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000.Obama's proposed top tax rate of 39.6 percent, (up from today's 36 percent) is considerably higher than that. But it's not particularly high in the context of modern times; as he pointed out to Wurzelbacher, it's about what top earners paid in the Clinton years. In 1987, the top tax rate was 38.5 percent. In 1944, it was 94 percent for the highest portions of high incomes.So no, Obama's tax increase on those making more than $250,000 would not represent a transformation of the U.S. system of government. His desire to "spread the wealth" through progressive taxation makes him no less a capitalist than McCain, or Lincoln. Palin's allegation that Obama wants to "experiment with socialism" seems designed less to inform than to inflame. That's Pants on Fire wrong.
Amen. Progressive taxation is not socialist, it follows a long tradition of recognizing that the ideas of the "American Dream" and democracy itself depend on a vibrant public sphere and the participation of educated, informed citizens. Jefferson made this argument in our early years, Jacksonian Democrats agreed, as did the "Young Americans," Teddy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Maynard Keynes, LBJ and a host of others. It is time that we return to these more sensible views of American Democracy and forever scrap neoliberalism and its blind faith in markets and greed. If too much wealth accumulates in the power of too few, not only does democracy fail but the economy as well.
Congressional Quarterly gave this a rare twice over, once for McCain and once for Palin. In both cases they explain that you've been lied to.
McCain: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/27/playing-dirty-s-word
Palin: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/826/
Few serious policy makers - including McCain - consider progressive taxation socialist. In fact, on the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain stood by a comment he made in 2000 that "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more" in taxes when you "reach a certain level of comfort." "You put into different, different categories of wealthier people paying, paying higher taxes into different brackets," McCain told host Tom Brokaw, as if to say progressive taxes are a no-brainer.Indeed, progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a "duty of three per centum" on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000.Obama's proposed top tax rate of 39.6 percent, (up from today's 36 percent) is considerably higher than that. But it's not particularly high in the context of modern times; as he pointed out to Wurzelbacher, it's about what top earners paid in the Clinton years. In 1987, the top tax rate was 38.5 percent. In 1944, it was 94 percent for the highest portions of high incomes.So no, Obama's tax increase on those making more than $250,000 would not represent a transformation of the U.S. system of government. His desire to "spread the wealth" through progressive taxation makes him no less a capitalist than McCain, or Lincoln. Palin's allegation that Obama wants to "experiment with socialism" seems designed less to inform than to inflame. That's Pants on Fire wrong.
Amen. Progressive taxation is not socialist, it follows a long tradition of recognizing that the ideas of the "American Dream" and democracy itself depend on a vibrant public sphere and the participation of educated, informed citizens. Jefferson made this argument in our early years, Jacksonian Democrats agreed, as did the "Young Americans," Teddy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Maynard Keynes, LBJ and a host of others. It is time that we return to these more sensible views of American Democracy and forever scrap neoliberalism and its blind faith in markets and greed. If too much wealth accumulates in the power of too few, not only does democracy fail but the economy as well.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Hate on the March Again . . .
Just out from the AP, two young white supremist males planned to go on a killing spree they hoped would end with the assassination of Obama. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/27/obama.plot/index.html?eref=rss_topstories.
In California, the hate mongers are again attempting to outlaw Gay marriage; a strategy that arguably helped Bush win in 2004: http://www.protectmarriage.com/
And in Colorado, one of the strictest abortion laws in the history of the country is on the ballot: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-right-and-wrong-and-colorados.html. The bill, it is argued, could make it a crime to for example get in a car accident without a seat belt on and lose your fetus. Giving a fetus the same rights as a citizen from the moment of conception goes against even the Catholic Church and its stance from the middle ages.
The first incident clearly involves extreme hatred by young men (a not uncommon problem in America today), but the other two again show a Republican party attempting to limit the freedom of individuals. The tyranny of the majority is always a danger in a democracy, but the ongoing attempts to limit equality to gays and freedom over their own bodies to women get at the heart of the hypocrisy of the Republican party.
On a related note, a very interesting article in the New York Times yesterday details the changing narrative of the McCain campaign from one moment to the next. It appears to provide further evidence of the failure of leadership of McCain during this campaign; seriously undermining his argument on his experience and leadership in general. And I again have to say that the arguments about "socialism" and now "communism" are beyond absurd. The only move toward socialism I see are coming from the Bush administration and the bailout package. Giving tax cuts to the middle class and reinstituting a progressive tax system in America is simply not socialist. And this idea about "redistributing your money" in particular rings hollow, given that McCain is simply calling for more tax cuts for the top 5%, who are rarely at his rallies anyway.
In California, the hate mongers are again attempting to outlaw Gay marriage; a strategy that arguably helped Bush win in 2004: http://www.protectmarriage.com/
And in Colorado, one of the strictest abortion laws in the history of the country is on the ballot: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-right-and-wrong-and-colorados.html. The bill, it is argued, could make it a crime to for example get in a car accident without a seat belt on and lose your fetus. Giving a fetus the same rights as a citizen from the moment of conception goes against even the Catholic Church and its stance from the middle ages.
The first incident clearly involves extreme hatred by young men (a not uncommon problem in America today), but the other two again show a Republican party attempting to limit the freedom of individuals. The tyranny of the majority is always a danger in a democracy, but the ongoing attempts to limit equality to gays and freedom over their own bodies to women get at the heart of the hypocrisy of the Republican party.
On a related note, a very interesting article in the New York Times yesterday details the changing narrative of the McCain campaign from one moment to the next. It appears to provide further evidence of the failure of leadership of McCain during this campaign; seriously undermining his argument on his experience and leadership in general. And I again have to say that the arguments about "socialism" and now "communism" are beyond absurd. The only move toward socialism I see are coming from the Bush administration and the bailout package. Giving tax cuts to the middle class and reinstituting a progressive tax system in America is simply not socialist. And this idea about "redistributing your money" in particular rings hollow, given that McCain is simply calling for more tax cuts for the top 5%, who are rarely at his rallies anyway.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Palin Pontifcates . . . Republicans Panic
An article today details the growing rift between Palin and McCain aides: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html?eref=rss_topstories. The most troubling aspect of the story is the idea of some that Palin is looking out for herself and actually perceives herself as the future leader of the party. It's good news for Democrats, but has one of the two parties in this country gotten that desperate?
Some details from the story:
1) Palin has called robocalls "irritating"
2) Palin disagreed with the campaign decision to leave Michigan
3) Apparently, Palin is not good at "process questions," which I can only assume means questions without prefabricated responses . . .
A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
4) One McCain aide claimed ""She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else." Is this really someone we want a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Particularly when this sounds a lot like another "renegade" who has done quite a bit of damage in the past 8 years.
5) Regarding her limited press interactions since the Gibson and Couric fiascos:
But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her press interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse.
They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain's record.
"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."
Um, do we really want a VP so unprepared for the presidency . . . or a president who makes such a poor choice in choosing someone that could very well take over for him; given that he would be the oldest entering president in history (Hitchens went so far as to claim McCain might be "senile" recently)
This is becoming the most embarassing and inept campaign in history, and one can only hope it leads to a major Democratic rout. The question then will be whether this could be the next step in a major political realignment, or a break in the continuing move of the country to the right? I believe an Obama victory and a positive push through the economic crisis could wake Americans up to their complicity in elite rule today.
Some details from the story:
1) Palin has called robocalls "irritating"
2) Palin disagreed with the campaign decision to leave Michigan
3) Apparently, Palin is not good at "process questions," which I can only assume means questions without prefabricated responses . . .
A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
4) One McCain aide claimed ""She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else." Is this really someone we want a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Particularly when this sounds a lot like another "renegade" who has done quite a bit of damage in the past 8 years.
5) Regarding her limited press interactions since the Gibson and Couric fiascos:
But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her press interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse.
They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain's record.
"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."
Um, do we really want a VP so unprepared for the presidency . . . or a president who makes such a poor choice in choosing someone that could very well take over for him; given that he would be the oldest entering president in history (Hitchens went so far as to claim McCain might be "senile" recently)
This is becoming the most embarassing and inept campaign in history, and one can only hope it leads to a major Democratic rout. The question then will be whether this could be the next step in a major political realignment, or a break in the continuing move of the country to the right? I believe an Obama victory and a positive push through the economic crisis could wake Americans up to their complicity in elite rule today.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Latest on the Polls . . .
Salon has a short article, that doubts the validity of the two polls that show the race closer. Interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/25/obamas_lead/print.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/25/obamas_lead/print.html
Friday, October 24, 2008
AP Poll . . .
Well, some have already covered the infamous poll (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_presidential_race/print;_ylt=Ap_Grnc1XPrQKXWcInnqE7th24cA), but I thought I would add my voice of outrage to the poll. Essentially the AP ran a poll that included 44% white, evangelical Christians. Yes, that's right, 44%. They then report that the race is getting closer while waiting several paragraphs to admit that other polls show huge leads for Obama and even this poll is being misreported. This is the sort of reporting that has longed cause major consternation among liberals and the public in general.
Lest us forget that at the same time the New York Times and Washington Post were essentially supporting the party line of Republicans regarding the war, more progressive publications like Salon, the Nation and Slate were already seriously questioning the strength of the evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction. And this was supported by widespread questions throughout Europe and among those actually doing the inspection. And the media didn't change their mind until after the war started, with an disingenuous mea culpa that was way too late.
The issue appears to be the need for serious media reform. The media used to be considered the "fourth estate" of government and actually actively lived up to that role. In recent years, they seem to be more interested in their own interests -- of keeping audiences engaged through spectacle and scandal coverage and of undermining real critique based on their own corporate interests. Marginal groups on the internet and a few non-profits have pushed the media to have more accountability, but only the public can ensure that they return to more critical, substantive coverage and sufficient local coverage. Those movements have succeeded in the past and it appears to be time for another popular movement for change. Let's hope its in the offing . . .
Lest us forget that at the same time the New York Times and Washington Post were essentially supporting the party line of Republicans regarding the war, more progressive publications like Salon, the Nation and Slate were already seriously questioning the strength of the evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction. And this was supported by widespread questions throughout Europe and among those actually doing the inspection. And the media didn't change their mind until after the war started, with an disingenuous mea culpa that was way too late.
The issue appears to be the need for serious media reform. The media used to be considered the "fourth estate" of government and actually actively lived up to that role. In recent years, they seem to be more interested in their own interests -- of keeping audiences engaged through spectacle and scandal coverage and of undermining real critique based on their own corporate interests. Marginal groups on the internet and a few non-profits have pushed the media to have more accountability, but only the public can ensure that they return to more critical, substantive coverage and sufficient local coverage. Those movements have succeeded in the past and it appears to be time for another popular movement for change. Let's hope its in the offing . . .
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Top Five Reasons Obama Supporters Shouldn't Rest Easy
Moveon.org asked bloggers to post this message. While I have some reservations, here it is . . .
1. The polls may be wrong. This is an unprecedented election. No one knows how racism may affect what voters tell pollsters—or what they do in the voting booth. And the polls are narrowing anyway. In the last few days, John McCain has gained ground in most national polls, as his campaign has gone even more negative.
2. Dirty tricks. Republicans are already illegally purging voters from the rolls in some states. They're whipping up hysteria over ACORN to justify more challenges to new voters. Misleading flyers about the voting process have started appearing in black neighborhoods. And of course, many counties still use unsecure voting machines.
3. October surprise. In politics, 15 days is a long time. The next McCain smear could dominate the news for a week. There could be a crisis with Iran, or Bin Laden could release another tape, or worse.
4. Those who forget history... In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote after trailing by seven points in the final days of the race. In 1980, Reagan was eight points down in the polls in late October and came back to win. Races can shift—fast!
5. Landslide. Even with Barack Obama in the White House, passing universal health care and a new clean-energy policy is going to be hard. Insurance, drug and oil companies will fight us every step of the way. We need the kind of landslide that will give Barack a huge mandate.
If you agree that we shouldn't rest easy, please sign up to volunteer at your local Obama office by clicking here: http://pol.moveon.org/obama/office.html?source=blog&id=14534-4783301-gHBhzgx&t=1
1. The polls may be wrong. This is an unprecedented election. No one knows how racism may affect what voters tell pollsters—or what they do in the voting booth. And the polls are narrowing anyway. In the last few days, John McCain has gained ground in most national polls, as his campaign has gone even more negative.
2. Dirty tricks. Republicans are already illegally purging voters from the rolls in some states. They're whipping up hysteria over ACORN to justify more challenges to new voters. Misleading flyers about the voting process have started appearing in black neighborhoods. And of course, many counties still use unsecure voting machines.
3. October surprise. In politics, 15 days is a long time. The next McCain smear could dominate the news for a week. There could be a crisis with Iran, or Bin Laden could release another tape, or worse.
4. Those who forget history... In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote after trailing by seven points in the final days of the race. In 1980, Reagan was eight points down in the polls in late October and came back to win. Races can shift—fast!
5. Landslide. Even with Barack Obama in the White House, passing universal health care and a new clean-energy policy is going to be hard. Insurance, drug and oil companies will fight us every step of the way. We need the kind of landslide that will give Barack a huge mandate.
If you agree that we shouldn't rest easy, please sign up to volunteer at your local Obama office by clicking here: http://pol.moveon.org/obama/office.html?source=blog&id=14534-4783301-gHBhzgx&t=1
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Real American?
Republicans are in trouble, so go back to the old stock answer. We are more like you (Palin pick; socialist, Joe the Plumber, "real American"). Palin just apoligized for the "more American" reference in her last speech: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.sitroom/index.html?eref=rss_topstories. Congressman Robin Hayes was also caught saying "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God." (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/10/21/liberals_americans/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room). This is how Bush and Reagan won, acting like average Americans while they were anything but. Will it work again?
The more important question is who are "real Americans." Real Americans do not blindly pledge their allegiance to the flag. Real Americans don't blindly follow leaders who don't hold themselves accountable. Real Americans believe in democracy and equality of opportunity. Real Americans are elites, the middle class and the poor. They are Republicans and Democrats. They recognize that this country was born of those who feared too much democracy and those who feared too little. Today the Republicans support those who fear too much democracy while pretending to be populists simply by fighting elites (read liberals who read, drink latte, think the superrich are underming the country and democracy and care about people). At the same time, they continue to support elite interests, even as those same interests have led the country to our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Is ignorance and blind allegiance really what America is about? Is fear of the other implicitly a positive attribute? Can people who will suffer under a Republican presidency continue to fall prey to these false calls? I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks . . .
The more important question is who are "real Americans." Real Americans do not blindly pledge their allegiance to the flag. Real Americans don't blindly follow leaders who don't hold themselves accountable. Real Americans believe in democracy and equality of opportunity. Real Americans are elites, the middle class and the poor. They are Republicans and Democrats. They recognize that this country was born of those who feared too much democracy and those who feared too little. Today the Republicans support those who fear too much democracy while pretending to be populists simply by fighting elites (read liberals who read, drink latte, think the superrich are underming the country and democracy and care about people). At the same time, they continue to support elite interests, even as those same interests have led the country to our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Is ignorance and blind allegiance really what America is about? Is fear of the other implicitly a positive attribute? Can people who will suffer under a Republican presidency continue to fall prey to these false calls? I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks . . .
Monday, October 20, 2008
Hannity and Bloomberg (True Believers)!
I was listening to Hannity on the way home today. One must admire him for his resolve and the myopia that seems to cloud every thought he has. With Limbaugh there is a recognition that he is an entertainer, but with Hannity there seems to be an almost blind faith that everything he stands for is absolute truth, as if ordained by God. His discourse on the election would be laughable if it did not so closely align with McCain's desperate grab for the presidency. Obama is a terrorism, a socialist, a proponent of welfare and redistribution and Biden the most arrogant man in history (ever look in the mirror my friend?) What has been sad the past two weeks is how much McCain is aping his every word -- a renegade who is more doctrinaire at this point than even Bush ("compassionate conservatism").
Bloomberg also appears to be a similar true believer, though his belief is simply and wholly in himself as an almost God like figure, who can trump the will of the people because he knows better than the rest of us. The most troubling aspect of his ploy to undermine democracy itself would be a little less troubling if he wasn't using people who benefit from their decision (the city council) to do his bidding. Why not add a referendum to this election or one in the Spring? Because he could lose that? And what of the election? Using $80 million of his own money should ensure that reelection be a foregone conclusion. But is this democracy? And if not, what does it say about American politics today?
Bloomberg also appears to be a similar true believer, though his belief is simply and wholly in himself as an almost God like figure, who can trump the will of the people because he knows better than the rest of us. The most troubling aspect of his ploy to undermine democracy itself would be a little less troubling if he wasn't using people who benefit from their decision (the city council) to do his bidding. Why not add a referendum to this election or one in the Spring? Because he could lose that? And what of the election? Using $80 million of his own money should ensure that reelection be a foregone conclusion. But is this democracy? And if not, what does it say about American politics today?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Another Republican Breaks for Obama
And this one is big . . . Colin Powell. Given the differences on the Iraq War and McCain's claims on terrorism, the choice by Powell to go with Obama seems to undermine one of McCain's strengths. I'm sure some Republicans must be surprised by this turn and pretty pissed off:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081019/ts_nm/us_usa_politics/print;_ylt=Ap_Grnc1XPrQKXWcInnqE7tg.3QA
Of course, McCain now claims he is the true "champion of the middle class." How you might ask?
McCain casts himself as middle-class guardian based on "Joe the Plumber," who ironically admitted that he would actually have his taxes cut by the Obama plan. But in American politics, inconvenient truths like that just don't matte. He was ushered on to Mike Huckabee's show last night and continues to be trumpeted by McCain as a symbol of Obama's "class warfare." The answer to that charge should be: a little class warfare is exactly what we need in this country right now . . .
Evoking "Joe the Plumber" near his hometown in this pivotal state, Republican John McCain on Sunday cast himself as the guardian of middle-class workers and small-business owners who fuel the economy.
"If I'm elected president, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. (Barack) Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs," McCain said of his Democratic opponent during a rally at the convention center. "I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs, not send to Washington."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/mccain/print
On a lighter note: http://gawker.com/5065216/the-definitive-john-mccain-crazy+face-gallery.
And as a cultural critic, I have to wonder if anyone is upset that "Americas Game" is being shown on TBS: which those without cable or the most basic form would be unable to watch it . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081019/ts_nm/us_usa_politics/print;_ylt=Ap_Grnc1XPrQKXWcInnqE7tg.3QA
Of course, McCain now claims he is the true "champion of the middle class." How you might ask?
McCain casts himself as middle-class guardian based on "Joe the Plumber," who ironically admitted that he would actually have his taxes cut by the Obama plan. But in American politics, inconvenient truths like that just don't matte. He was ushered on to Mike Huckabee's show last night and continues to be trumpeted by McCain as a symbol of Obama's "class warfare." The answer to that charge should be: a little class warfare is exactly what we need in this country right now . . .
Evoking "Joe the Plumber" near his hometown in this pivotal state, Republican John McCain on Sunday cast himself as the guardian of middle-class workers and small-business owners who fuel the economy.
"If I'm elected president, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. (Barack) Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs," McCain said of his Democratic opponent during a rally at the convention center. "I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs, not send to Washington."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/mccain/print
On a lighter note: http://gawker.com/5065216/the-definitive-john-mccain-crazy+face-gallery.
And as a cultural critic, I have to wonder if anyone is upset that "Americas Game" is being shown on TBS: which those without cable or the most basic form would be unable to watch it . . .
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Terrorist, Socialist, Not One of Us . . . Take Your Pick
The night of the debate, David Brooks suggested that John McCain stop the negative campaigning and restore his image. Fox News, with the exception of "real believers" like Hannity and O'Reilly, seemed to realize the hopelessness of their man's victory. And Christopher Hitchens and William F. Buckley Jr. came out for Obama. So would McCain get back to running a clean campaign? What do you think?
Robo Calls on Ayers (BS 1): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_robo_calls/print
ACORN Controversy (BS 2):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_ge/fraud_or_foolishness
Socialist (BS 3):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
The "socialist" tag might be the most absurd, but at the same time the best reason not to vote for McCain. We have the largest income gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country in the world (and it has been growing dramatically under Bush). We have the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality rates, least amount of leisure time, among the worst public education system, highest childhood poverty rates, largest percentage of uninsured and a superrich class that few dictatorships could dream of. But raising their taxes to more equitably allocate the benefits of society is socialism? We are in an economic crisis very close to the depression and yet we need to freeze government spending and provide more tax cuts for the rich? Are you serious? Only in America could a discourse this ridiculous have any currency (pun intended). It's hard to believe the same people that accepted government intervention after 911 could so quickly fall for this ploy. Then again, we did elect Bush two times (or one if you count voter fraud). I won't be happy until the moment McCain concedes the election; which given his behavior lately might be 2012 even if he loses in a landslide.
P.S. I am still amused by McCain's claim that he wouldn't have gone dirty if Obama had accepted his call for an endless series of town hall meetings (McCain's presumptive strength). What happened to a civil debate? McCain realized he couldn't win it. So like every Republican since Nixon, he decided to turn ugly.
Robo Calls on Ayers (BS 1): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_robo_calls/print
ACORN Controversy (BS 2):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_ge/fraud_or_foolishness
Socialist (BS 3):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
The "socialist" tag might be the most absurd, but at the same time the best reason not to vote for McCain. We have the largest income gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country in the world (and it has been growing dramatically under Bush). We have the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality rates, least amount of leisure time, among the worst public education system, highest childhood poverty rates, largest percentage of uninsured and a superrich class that few dictatorships could dream of. But raising their taxes to more equitably allocate the benefits of society is socialism? We are in an economic crisis very close to the depression and yet we need to freeze government spending and provide more tax cuts for the rich? Are you serious? Only in America could a discourse this ridiculous have any currency (pun intended). It's hard to believe the same people that accepted government intervention after 911 could so quickly fall for this ploy. Then again, we did elect Bush two times (or one if you count voter fraud). I won't be happy until the moment McCain concedes the election; which given his behavior lately might be 2012 even if he loses in a landslide.
P.S. I am still amused by McCain's claim that he wouldn't have gone dirty if Obama had accepted his call for an endless series of town hall meetings (McCain's presumptive strength). What happened to a civil debate? McCain realized he couldn't win it. So like every Republican since Nixon, he decided to turn ugly.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Final Thoughts
Not only the "liberal media" seemed to think Obama won the debate. Even Fox News and George Will admit that they're not sure what McCain stands for and they Obama wins the debate because McCain didn't do enough to really overcome the Bush-clone charges. If you actually listened to his policy prescriptions, the very good line about "if you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run four years ago" rings hollow. McCain is offering more of the same and I just don't think enough people want that for him to win. Obama has the lead, more money, a stronger base and the advantage of being a democrat during a financial crisis. We might be on the precipice of a historic election that could change race relations and the Republican party for years to come. Will Obama change the democratic party? That's less than a month from becoming the question of the next four years.
The Debate
1) We started with the traditional "class warfare" arguments that use "Joe the Plumber" to stand in for large corporations and the super rich in the country. A similar argument, you might remember, was used by Bush and Republicans under the rubric of the "small farmers" that couldn't leave money to their children. The truth was that many of the richest Americans were willing to pay the "death tax" and that the farmers that had over a million dollars in savings are really the agribusiness groups that have supplanted the small farmers that once made up this country. The lie that taxes for 95% percent of the people is "class warfare," or "socialism" as many conservative radio hosts and TV hosts have charged, is a lie. Can this discourse really work when so many working class and middle class people are hurting?
2) The attack dog is out, as might have been expected. What might not have been expected is how much contempt he is showing for Obama. The smirk that President Bush so famously uses appears to have been coopted by McCain. Will this work? The one thing I notice, is that Obama is getting a little annoyed and that might not play well with the public. Some of this may related to a latent racism that goes back to old “uppity negro” discourses. McCain’s behavior seems to be in this mode. And he keeps interrupting Obama, which famously hurt Gore against Bush.
3) Obama just showed a great ability to bring out the “8 more years” discourse that should resonate with a lot of people, arguing McCain has sided with Bush on tax, energy and spending policy. McCain did not really answer that question. His consistent use of the “8 failed years of policy” is a brilliant, though obvious, ploy to tie McCain to Bush and McCain has really done little to differentiate himself from Bush (or Reagan) or the failed policies of the past.
4) Good job to Bob Shaeffer for asking the question about the negative tenor of the campaigns and whether they were willing to say these things to each others face. McCain’s answer follows Republican strategy – don’t really answer the question and turn it around and blame it on Obama. Obama’s answer was perfect from my perspective, welcoming a more positive campaign and claiming that 100% of his ads are negative. Also, I like his answer that not having as many debates as McCain wants naturally leads to negative ads is true and the public thinks McCain is more negative by a two to one percentage. On Lewis, good answer by Obama as well – what Lewis said is largely true. Again McCain looks like a petulant child and an elitist who has no respect for his opponent. The question actually allowed Obama to return to his message of a new politics and culture and fighting against the cynicism that dominates McCain’s campaign. McCain, of course, follows his campaign attacking Obama for Ayers and Acorn.
5) Shaeffer just threw Obama a softball. The VP pick is a big issue here and I can’t wait to hear what McCain says . . . “Palin is role model to women . . . a reformer . . . cut size of government . . . . faced down oil companies . . . reform true and true . . . a breath of fresh air . . . Autism.” It’s a sad answer. “She has united our party and people all across the country.” Schaeffer: “Is she qualified to be President?” Obama stepped around the answer effectively, and talked about autism costing increased money (“across the board” spending cuts). Then McCain attacks Biden and actually says he’s only qualified in some areas, and how his foreign policy is often mistaken. Then McCain “Obama’s answer is always ‘we need to spend more’ . . . what about accountability and oversight.”
6) On energy policy “extreme environmentalist.” Give me a break!!!! I find Obama weak on this point – ethanol, nuclear power and off shore drilling. McCain is playing his own attack dog and I wonder if it will work outside his base . . . “I admire so much Obama’s eloquence.” This is so mocking, it’s unbelievable. McCain “I am a free trader.” McCain sounds more and more like a conservative commentator tonight (Hannity) and is acting a lot like Bill O’Reilly (a bully who clearly hates Obama and doesn’t seem to respect him at all. Obama is clever in my mind in talking about human rights and unions (a clear call to union, working class folks). And who the hell is McCain looking at? I think his famous temper is coming to the fore here. Obama wants to “restrict trade an raise taxes” and then McCain compares him to Hoover. Obama seems much more respectable, but not in the weak way we saw with Kerry four years ago.
7) This “Joe the Plumber” metaphor is silly and plays to the conservative base. I know I’m being biased, but again I have to say Obama wins on healthcare. His approach is to scare us about a “single payer” plan compared to Canada and England and about “increased bureaucracy.” Then again he returns to redistribution, essentially calling him a socialist. Then “big government” charges. Here gain we see major misstatements from McCain supporting Christopher Hitchens charge yesterday (see below) about McCain having some serious mental issues.
8) Roe vs. Wade: McCain talks about a litmus test until challenged, then moves to talking about being a federalists. McCain wins a point here for voting for more liberal judges, while Obama voted against the two latest nominees – even though I agree with Obama’s vote. Obama then gets to make the point that the next president will probably decide the fate of Roe vs. Wade (helping conservatives on the wedge issue, but making a nice call to women to think about this choice within the context of the election). Hard to say who wins on this point – in the past conservatives, but who knows this year.
9) On education, as an educator, I fundamentally disagree with McCain’s plan. Choice and competition is not the answer to a public good like education where I believe corporations and the economic interest have far too large a say in what happens in schools (essentially sorting and training without anrey broader program for personal and social development, and an undervaluing of too many children in America today) – and has shown very mixed results. He also argues against “throwing money at schools.” This fundamentally misunderstands the funding differentials that dominate in America today and the disadvantages that minorities and the poor have in public schools today.
Overall, McCain calls himself a maverick, and is essentially running as a traditional Republican at this point who is closer to Ronald Reagan and Sean Hannity than he is to the renegade he claims to be. This follows from his campaign team, who are a bunch of lobbyists that have little interest in actual reform to government. Obama does sound more like a populist and an FDR democrat, but at this moment I wonder if this will not resonate with the people. I think we are probably ripe for this message and the polls support that thesis. McCain calls for change in his conclusion, but where is it? Obama closes with a call to his strength – tying McCain to Bush and talking about the economic crisis and his call for real change, through sacrifice, service and compromise. This has been a better debate, but I really think Obama wins (debating better than I have ever seen him before).
2) The attack dog is out, as might have been expected. What might not have been expected is how much contempt he is showing for Obama. The smirk that President Bush so famously uses appears to have been coopted by McCain. Will this work? The one thing I notice, is that Obama is getting a little annoyed and that might not play well with the public. Some of this may related to a latent racism that goes back to old “uppity negro” discourses. McCain’s behavior seems to be in this mode. And he keeps interrupting Obama, which famously hurt Gore against Bush.
3) Obama just showed a great ability to bring out the “8 more years” discourse that should resonate with a lot of people, arguing McCain has sided with Bush on tax, energy and spending policy. McCain did not really answer that question. His consistent use of the “8 failed years of policy” is a brilliant, though obvious, ploy to tie McCain to Bush and McCain has really done little to differentiate himself from Bush (or Reagan) or the failed policies of the past.
4) Good job to Bob Shaeffer for asking the question about the negative tenor of the campaigns and whether they were willing to say these things to each others face. McCain’s answer follows Republican strategy – don’t really answer the question and turn it around and blame it on Obama. Obama’s answer was perfect from my perspective, welcoming a more positive campaign and claiming that 100% of his ads are negative. Also, I like his answer that not having as many debates as McCain wants naturally leads to negative ads is true and the public thinks McCain is more negative by a two to one percentage. On Lewis, good answer by Obama as well – what Lewis said is largely true. Again McCain looks like a petulant child and an elitist who has no respect for his opponent. The question actually allowed Obama to return to his message of a new politics and culture and fighting against the cynicism that dominates McCain’s campaign. McCain, of course, follows his campaign attacking Obama for Ayers and Acorn.
5) Shaeffer just threw Obama a softball. The VP pick is a big issue here and I can’t wait to hear what McCain says . . . “Palin is role model to women . . . a reformer . . . cut size of government . . . . faced down oil companies . . . reform true and true . . . a breath of fresh air . . . Autism.” It’s a sad answer. “She has united our party and people all across the country.” Schaeffer: “Is she qualified to be President?” Obama stepped around the answer effectively, and talked about autism costing increased money (“across the board” spending cuts). Then McCain attacks Biden and actually says he’s only qualified in some areas, and how his foreign policy is often mistaken. Then McCain “Obama’s answer is always ‘we need to spend more’ . . . what about accountability and oversight.”
6) On energy policy “extreme environmentalist.” Give me a break!!!! I find Obama weak on this point – ethanol, nuclear power and off shore drilling. McCain is playing his own attack dog and I wonder if it will work outside his base . . . “I admire so much Obama’s eloquence.” This is so mocking, it’s unbelievable. McCain “I am a free trader.” McCain sounds more and more like a conservative commentator tonight (Hannity) and is acting a lot like Bill O’Reilly (a bully who clearly hates Obama and doesn’t seem to respect him at all. Obama is clever in my mind in talking about human rights and unions (a clear call to union, working class folks). And who the hell is McCain looking at? I think his famous temper is coming to the fore here. Obama wants to “restrict trade an raise taxes” and then McCain compares him to Hoover. Obama seems much more respectable, but not in the weak way we saw with Kerry four years ago.
7) This “Joe the Plumber” metaphor is silly and plays to the conservative base. I know I’m being biased, but again I have to say Obama wins on healthcare. His approach is to scare us about a “single payer” plan compared to Canada and England and about “increased bureaucracy.” Then again he returns to redistribution, essentially calling him a socialist. Then “big government” charges. Here gain we see major misstatements from McCain supporting Christopher Hitchens charge yesterday (see below) about McCain having some serious mental issues.
8) Roe vs. Wade: McCain talks about a litmus test until challenged, then moves to talking about being a federalists. McCain wins a point here for voting for more liberal judges, while Obama voted against the two latest nominees – even though I agree with Obama’s vote. Obama then gets to make the point that the next president will probably decide the fate of Roe vs. Wade (helping conservatives on the wedge issue, but making a nice call to women to think about this choice within the context of the election). Hard to say who wins on this point – in the past conservatives, but who knows this year.
9) On education, as an educator, I fundamentally disagree with McCain’s plan. Choice and competition is not the answer to a public good like education where I believe corporations and the economic interest have far too large a say in what happens in schools (essentially sorting and training without anrey broader program for personal and social development, and an undervaluing of too many children in America today) – and has shown very mixed results. He also argues against “throwing money at schools.” This fundamentally misunderstands the funding differentials that dominate in America today and the disadvantages that minorities and the poor have in public schools today.
Overall, McCain calls himself a maverick, and is essentially running as a traditional Republican at this point who is closer to Ronald Reagan and Sean Hannity than he is to the renegade he claims to be. This follows from his campaign team, who are a bunch of lobbyists that have little interest in actual reform to government. Obama does sound more like a populist and an FDR democrat, but at this moment I wonder if this will not resonate with the people. I think we are probably ripe for this message and the polls support that thesis. McCain calls for change in his conclusion, but where is it? Obama closes with a call to his strength – tying McCain to Bush and talking about the economic crisis and his call for real change, through sacrifice, service and compromise. This has been a better debate, but I really think Obama wins (debating better than I have ever seen him before).
Hitchens Comes Out
One of the interesting post-mortems on the 2004 election was the revelation that Kerry did in fact appear to be a flip-flopper within his own campaign. While the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were unearthed as anything but, the truth was that Kerry wasn't sure who to listen to among the competing voices in his campaign and had a hard time making important decisions on strategy and issues. Christopher Hitchens has just written a piece for Slate.com reinforcing a point that has been in the back of my mind -- that McCain does not seem well-equipped for the rigors of a Presidency at this point in his career:
"Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience." (http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2202163)
Hitchens has been a major disappointment to progressives since 911, when he became an adamant and unapologetic supporter of the Iraq War and, to some extent, conservative doctrine in America. Here I think he unearths a truth that few are talking about. McCain's not just running a bad, dirty campaign -- it seems to indicate a lack of judgment that comes on top of serious concerns about his age and long history of erratic and irrational behavior (including an infamous temper that is not well-suited to the presidency). Lest us forget what happened the last time we had a President who had lost it? Iran-Contra . . .
On a related note, I happened to listen to Sean Hannity today on the way home. The ways conservatives alter the truth would be laughable if it didn't resonate so strongly with their base. He actually argued that Obama ads are the ones that are lying, that the press should be paying more attention to this baseless charges about Ayers and provide more scrutiny of his relationship to Wright -- even as he never mentions the lobbyists that populate McCain's campaign or their relationship to the financial crisis. As if the financial crisis wasn't happening, he then went on to laud capitalism and free markets and said that the tax cuts Obama was offering were a new "welfare" program. This was followed by the tired old deification of Reagan and absurd calls for a return to his failed neoliberal/neoconservative policies including what sounds a lot like the very supply-side economics McCain can't seem to escape, and that most of the architects of the approach discredited themselves in the early 90s. How does this bs go unchallenged? Because it is easy to sequester oneself from the truth in these safe spaces of myth and lies that sound good unless one does the careful, and apparently painful work, of actually thinking. Could we be nearing the end of this absurdity?
"Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience." (http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2202163)
Hitchens has been a major disappointment to progressives since 911, when he became an adamant and unapologetic supporter of the Iraq War and, to some extent, conservative doctrine in America. Here I think he unearths a truth that few are talking about. McCain's not just running a bad, dirty campaign -- it seems to indicate a lack of judgment that comes on top of serious concerns about his age and long history of erratic and irrational behavior (including an infamous temper that is not well-suited to the presidency). Lest us forget what happened the last time we had a President who had lost it? Iran-Contra . . .
On a related note, I happened to listen to Sean Hannity today on the way home. The ways conservatives alter the truth would be laughable if it didn't resonate so strongly with their base. He actually argued that Obama ads are the ones that are lying, that the press should be paying more attention to this baseless charges about Ayers and provide more scrutiny of his relationship to Wright -- even as he never mentions the lobbyists that populate McCain's campaign or their relationship to the financial crisis. As if the financial crisis wasn't happening, he then went on to laud capitalism and free markets and said that the tax cuts Obama was offering were a new "welfare" program. This was followed by the tired old deification of Reagan and absurd calls for a return to his failed neoliberal/neoconservative policies including what sounds a lot like the very supply-side economics McCain can't seem to escape, and that most of the architects of the approach discredited themselves in the early 90s. How does this bs go unchallenged? Because it is easy to sequester oneself from the truth in these safe spaces of myth and lies that sound good unless one does the careful, and apparently painful work, of actually thinking. Could we be nearing the end of this absurdity?
Monday, October 13, 2008
New York Times Says It May Be Over
Looking at historic trends, the NYT asks whether McCain can makeup the growing deficits in the polls that show a potential landslide in the making:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
I hope democrats don't take this too seriously and fail to show up at the polls. Um, remember 2000 in Florida, where the early call might have given the election to Bush and the last eight years to the rest of us? This sort of coverage is understandable, but is it responsible? Hard to say, but I would rather hear more about what the candidates are going to do and less about their friends and historical precidents and daily polls.
By the way, the Washington Post's latest polls do tend to support the assessment of the New York Times: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101202333_pf.html. One positive that could come out of this election if Obama wins is a serious challenge to the idea that negativity alone can win elections. Could 2012 be the campaign McCain promised this time? Well, a boy can dream . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
I hope democrats don't take this too seriously and fail to show up at the polls. Um, remember 2000 in Florida, where the early call might have given the election to Bush and the last eight years to the rest of us? This sort of coverage is understandable, but is it responsible? Hard to say, but I would rather hear more about what the candidates are going to do and less about their friends and historical precidents and daily polls.
By the way, the Washington Post's latest polls do tend to support the assessment of the New York Times: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101202333_pf.html. One positive that could come out of this election if Obama wins is a serious challenge to the idea that negativity alone can win elections. Could 2012 be the campaign McCain promised this time? Well, a boy can dream . . .
GOP Gets Desperate . . . and, of course, Ugly
The Virigina GOP Chairman, Jeffrey Frederick, has taken the campaign to a new low that, well, reminds this writer of Bush and the Iraq War. Apparently as he sent staff out to drum up votes in this surprisingly close state, he told them to focus on the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: “Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon,” he said. “That is scary” (http://donklephant.com/2008/10/12/virginia-gop-chairman-compares-obama-to-osama/). This stupidity just reinforces the truth about Republicans that we will see come out in the final weeks of the campaign:
- They are willing to win at any cost
- Fear and hatred are their two favorite emotions
- If they can't win on the issues, subterfugre and lying are best
- It's ok to be anti-democratic and try to suppress the vote, particularly if those who don't vote are poor or minorities
- Ignorance is their greatest ally.
On the other hand, don't question the increasingly questionable race-baiting of the McCain-Palin ticket or you will be the recipient of McCain's wrath . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/mccain.interview/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Representative John Lewis of Georgia has called attention to the ways in which McCain has increasingly used absurd charges (because Obama knows Bill Ayers, he supports terrorists) to focus attention on racist tendencies among some of his constituency. By mentioning George Wallace, Lewis might have been drawing an unfair comparison, but there appears to be a palpable anger among McCain crowds that is turning increasingly ugly (and generally racist).
- They are willing to win at any cost
- Fear and hatred are their two favorite emotions
- If they can't win on the issues, subterfugre and lying are best
- It's ok to be anti-democratic and try to suppress the vote, particularly if those who don't vote are poor or minorities
- Ignorance is their greatest ally.
On the other hand, don't question the increasingly questionable race-baiting of the McCain-Palin ticket or you will be the recipient of McCain's wrath . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/mccain.interview/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Representative John Lewis of Georgia has called attention to the ways in which McCain has increasingly used absurd charges (because Obama knows Bill Ayers, he supports terrorists) to focus attention on racist tendencies among some of his constituency. By mentioning George Wallace, Lewis might have been drawing an unfair comparison, but there appears to be a palpable anger among McCain crowds that is turning increasingly ugly (and generally racist).
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Cynicism Reigns Supreme
I've talked a lot on this blog about the underlying cynicism of the McCain campaign. Unfortunately, it appears as if cynicism is rampant across the board. McCain has nothing to run on, so he's been running an almost exclusively negative campaign: fear this unknown guy Obama, who is "not like us" (read Black), has dangerous friends (read is a terrorist in wait) and is a "tax and spend" democrat (read, playing on tired old cliches that have worked for Republicans for years). On the other hand, I really feel as if there is an underlying cynicism in the Obama camp as well. They have told us very little about what Obama is really going to do. He is for off-shore drilling, nuclear power, ethanol production, etc. and has said little lately about what he really means by change. He's essentially saying I'm better than McCain (true) and have to be better than Bush (obviously true). But what does he really stand for? I can't say. Yes he is cutting taxes on most Americans and raising taxes on the rich and corporations. These are good things. But overall, is he calling for more regulation? Will be push for campaign finance reform and really challenge the crisis of lobbying today? How quickly will he get us out of Iraq? Will he help Israel and Palestine move toward peace or continue the hard line support that makes that possiblity unlikely.
And now he is getting ugly. Yes Palin might have tried to get her ex-brother in law fired, but if he really was threatening his wife's life -- should this be the focus of the campaign. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/troopergate_report_finds_palin.php I do think it's a problem, but I am hearing less and less of the positive message that originally emboldened me to support him. He can probably win with this careful strategy and effective negative ads, but will this set the stage for his Presidency, or will he remember those early promises. A part of me remembers eight years ago when incantations of "compassionate conservatism" rang hollow in my ears (before the election, of course) . . .
And now he is getting ugly. Yes Palin might have tried to get her ex-brother in law fired, but if he really was threatening his wife's life -- should this be the focus of the campaign. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/troopergate_report_finds_palin.php I do think it's a problem, but I am hearing less and less of the positive message that originally emboldened me to support him. He can probably win with this careful strategy and effective negative ads, but will this set the stage for his Presidency, or will he remember those early promises. A part of me remembers eight years ago when incantations of "compassionate conservatism" rang hollow in my ears (before the election, of course) . . .
Friday, October 10, 2008
McCainomania
We are seeing the true stripes of Republicans yet again. Financial crisis, skyrocketing oil prices, the decline of America both politically and economically and growing poverty and hardship for average Americans. The GOP answer: hatred and lies. McCain on the campaign trail these days . . .
"Senator Obama has a clear radical, far-left, pro-abortion record," McCain said after being asked about the issue.
The answer prompted a shower of boos from the crowd members. They booed again when he mentioned William Ayers, who bombed U.S. facilities to protest the Vietnam War as part of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground. They booed again at the mention of Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal from Massachusetts.
McCain spends most of his time at his rallies and town hall meetings lambasting his rival, often calling him a "co-conspirator" with congressional Democrats in what he argues are the seeds of the financial crisis at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"Will you assure us," one woman asked, "that, as president, you will take immediate action to investigate, prosecute and name the names of the people actually responsible?"
"I will," McCain answered.
"The same people that are now claiming credit for this rescue are the same ones that were willing co-conspirators in causing this problem that it is," he said, raising his voice to be heard over the crowd. "You know their names. You will know more of their names."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903169_pf.html
The real issue is that capitalism is in crisis. The idea of free markets and limited government has proved distastrous to the poor and middle class here and abroad. Keynesianism has again reared its "ugly" head; reminding us that capitalism without limits served only the power elites. We need a sensible progressive tax policy, more oversight and government intervention to limit the power of real elites and the monied class to undermine the common good and a reckoning on how to accomplish real equality of opportunity in this country (including major educational reform).
McCain stands for tired old ideas that have long proved ineffective for the average American (or global citizen for that matter). Tax cuts, less regulation, shrinking government and supply-side, trickle down economics. Is he serious? He is so out of touch, it's hard to imagine anyone respecting this guy anymore. What's left when the world is falling apart and you stand at the fulcrum of the crisis, offering policies that have incited the decline? Fearmongering and empty patriotism are your only refuge. The currency of these tactics (or are they strategies; damn Obama and I can't keep those two straight) has worn off for Bush -- I think they will only take McCain to a sound defeat.
By the way, McCain is one of the few people around who seems to think we will "win" in Iraq. Most others acknowledge that improving conditions certainly do not add up to "victory" in the traditional sense. Terrorism and Al Queda have rebuilt their operations, Osama (no relation to Obama for those who are confused) is still alive and America has lost much of its international standing. A matter of fact, one could ask the crass question of whether McCain has ever been on the winning side of any war. It's in poor taste, but isn't everything McCain has stood for these past several months in this vein?
"Senator Obama has a clear radical, far-left, pro-abortion record," McCain said after being asked about the issue.
The answer prompted a shower of boos from the crowd members. They booed again when he mentioned William Ayers, who bombed U.S. facilities to protest the Vietnam War as part of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground. They booed again at the mention of Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal from Massachusetts.
McCain spends most of his time at his rallies and town hall meetings lambasting his rival, often calling him a "co-conspirator" with congressional Democrats in what he argues are the seeds of the financial crisis at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"Will you assure us," one woman asked, "that, as president, you will take immediate action to investigate, prosecute and name the names of the people actually responsible?"
"I will," McCain answered.
"The same people that are now claiming credit for this rescue are the same ones that were willing co-conspirators in causing this problem that it is," he said, raising his voice to be heard over the crowd. "You know their names. You will know more of their names."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903169_pf.html
The real issue is that capitalism is in crisis. The idea of free markets and limited government has proved distastrous to the poor and middle class here and abroad. Keynesianism has again reared its "ugly" head; reminding us that capitalism without limits served only the power elites. We need a sensible progressive tax policy, more oversight and government intervention to limit the power of real elites and the monied class to undermine the common good and a reckoning on how to accomplish real equality of opportunity in this country (including major educational reform).
McCain stands for tired old ideas that have long proved ineffective for the average American (or global citizen for that matter). Tax cuts, less regulation, shrinking government and supply-side, trickle down economics. Is he serious? He is so out of touch, it's hard to imagine anyone respecting this guy anymore. What's left when the world is falling apart and you stand at the fulcrum of the crisis, offering policies that have incited the decline? Fearmongering and empty patriotism are your only refuge. The currency of these tactics (or are they strategies; damn Obama and I can't keep those two straight) has worn off for Bush -- I think they will only take McCain to a sound defeat.
By the way, McCain is one of the few people around who seems to think we will "win" in Iraq. Most others acknowledge that improving conditions certainly do not add up to "victory" in the traditional sense. Terrorism and Al Queda have rebuilt their operations, Osama (no relation to Obama for those who are confused) is still alive and America has lost much of its international standing. A matter of fact, one could ask the crass question of whether McCain has ever been on the winning side of any war. It's in poor taste, but isn't everything McCain has stood for these past several months in this vein?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
The Debate
Quick thought now, and then more tomorrow:
McCain likes to talk about Obama's naivety, and how he "just doesn't understand." The truth is while Obama did not lay out any groundbreaking policies to deal with the crisis, McCain continues to speak as if supply side/trickle down economics is the answer. History has told us this is exactly the wrong response. Tax cuts for the rich and a small teaser for the rest of us? Is that really how to solve this problem. McCain also trumpeted his role in the bailout, while reality appears to indicate he called for more tax cuts for corporations and more lax regulation. Is he for real?
The truth is we need another new deal -- a program of government intervention to save us from the greedy leaders of business who made hundreds of millions of dollars while destroying not only the U.S. economy, but the world at large. The testimony by the Lehman Brothers CEO yesterday indicates the depths of the decadence and irresponsibility that reigned supreme on the cusps of the crisis. We need more government regulation, a more equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of the economy and methods to ensure that the middle class does not fall into debt and poverty in the coming years. That will not be accomplished by more tax cuts for the rich and continued ignoring of the reality of capitalism today. We do need change, and even as Obama thrusts himself closer and closer to a middle that has moved right for 40 years, he still offers the only opportunity to change the country for the better. McCain should run his campaign on the platform "4 more years; of the failed policies of the past 28)!
McCain likes to talk about Obama's naivety, and how he "just doesn't understand." The truth is while Obama did not lay out any groundbreaking policies to deal with the crisis, McCain continues to speak as if supply side/trickle down economics is the answer. History has told us this is exactly the wrong response. Tax cuts for the rich and a small teaser for the rest of us? Is that really how to solve this problem. McCain also trumpeted his role in the bailout, while reality appears to indicate he called for more tax cuts for corporations and more lax regulation. Is he for real?
The truth is we need another new deal -- a program of government intervention to save us from the greedy leaders of business who made hundreds of millions of dollars while destroying not only the U.S. economy, but the world at large. The testimony by the Lehman Brothers CEO yesterday indicates the depths of the decadence and irresponsibility that reigned supreme on the cusps of the crisis. We need more government regulation, a more equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of the economy and methods to ensure that the middle class does not fall into debt and poverty in the coming years. That will not be accomplished by more tax cuts for the rich and continued ignoring of the reality of capitalism today. We do need change, and even as Obama thrusts himself closer and closer to a middle that has moved right for 40 years, he still offers the only opportunity to change the country for the better. McCain should run his campaign on the platform "4 more years; of the failed policies of the past 28)!
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Examples abound . . .
John Dickerson, Slate's Chief Political Correspondent . . .
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2201336
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2201336
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
