I read an article yesterday talking about how, for all the lip service this election from both campaign in favor of change and a radical shift from polarizing policies and politics, this election has quickly become a grudge match along the same lines as the last several. While the Democratic primary was a reasonably sedate affair, Obama v. McCain went nasty almost immediately after the Illinois senator secured the Democratic nomination and is likely to become notably even more mudslinging by the time it draws to an end in a little more than four months.
For those of us who love a good political fight and are incapable of seeing politics in any other manifestation, this kind of back-and-forth bickering is much in line with our desires and expectations.
For all of the talk of a new spirit of bipartisan compromise and the ability to seek commonality between the right and left, the instant the gloves came off, this too went by the wayside. I personally wasn't surprised that this came to pass but I'm left wondering if stalemate and partisan rancor are the best we can expect from this point forward.
A fellow blogger's recent post reminded me of something quite pertinent to today. He was talking about the idea of hope as a corrective to today's fashionable skepticism, if not outright cynicism. I think post-JFK's assassination, and particularly post-Watergate the times warranted a corrective measure that forced us to get out of an unrealistic, starry-eyed perspective that was rooted in good intentions, not reality.
The problem with this kind of mentality is that it was never meant to be the default lens by which we see the world. So often the metaphorical pendulum swings much too far in one direction, necessitating a polar shift that almost always end up too far in the other direction. Taken to an extreme, this kind of fatalistic defeatism is what has limited voter turnout, participation in politics, and an unwillingness to take much of an interest in the inner workings of government.
It's time to embrace a new spirit of optimism and a communal spirit of cooperation the likes of which many of us have never experienced personally. I am aware in saying this I will no doubt invite many to decry my words as naive and unrealistic, but I'm prepared to bear that kind of criticism. I've seen the role of an individual in government is not a way to skillfully divide us around ideological lines, but a manner by which we find a way to live in peace and harmony. It is not written in stone that humans must fight each other and squabble over every precept by which the direction our society is headed.
If not now, when?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Pulp McCain
As seen everywhere.
*I probably should have prefaced my posting of this by saying that I don't agree at all with the presentation, but by the very fact this video exists (and nearly got played on MSNBC) it ought to speak volumes about the kind of crap that gets massive attention and the quality kind of youtubes that never reach mass public attention.
*I probably should have prefaced my posting of this by saying that I don't agree at all with the presentation, but by the very fact this video exists (and nearly got played on MSNBC) it ought to speak volumes about the kind of crap that gets massive attention and the quality kind of youtubes that never reach mass public attention.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
10 Years Ago...
I'm not quite sure what reminded me precisely of Marilyn Manson. Perhaps it's my unapologetic lust for one of his many ex-girlfriends, the B-actress Rose McGowan. Pictured below.
*Yes, she is a redhead. And no, it's not her natural color, but I'll gladly overlook it.
Back in those ancient days of the late 90's, among a certain sub-faction of fashionable social defectives, said entertainer's flare for shameless self-promotion and hyperbole won him massive fame among the dark clothing, overly tatted, and pierced set. Manson hooked into teenage rebellion, open defiance of parental authority, and slaughtered a variety of sacred cows. In an effort to be as patently offensive as possible, Manson hyper-marketed his particularly glossy, cartoonish, and utterly overwrought take on heavy metal. And...(SURPRISE) made a tremendous amount of money in the process. Nothing sells quite as well as being the willful walking incarnation of all things wrong with American society, and for a two or three year period he was the most cited example of the corrupting influence of the entertainment industry on teh youth.
I never completely took the man seriously, though many of my contemporaries did. Among the women who could have easily been voted most likely to have borderline personality disorder or most likely to marry a complete loser, he was the epitome of attractive-- the kind of attractive guaranteed to unnerve adults, that is.
A cursory glance at the man reveals a dubiously talented misfit who like so many before him, managed to transform minimal talent and shock value into wealth and the obligatory fifteen minutes of fame rendered thereof. I remember once I tried to listen one of his albums and found myself unsurprisingly underwhelmed in the process. To this day, I completely fail to understand the appeal. One or two songs were slightly tuneful, though aside from the hype, the costumes, and the hyperbole is an amateur's command of the most basic heavy metal riffs and a massive reliance on studio trickery. Rehashing the kind of sound that Trent Reznor invented and did a far better job of presenting to the record-buying public, Marilyn slid by on an stretch of almost unbroken manufactured controversies.
And, to lay it on thick, a glance at his long history of girlfriends, each of whom fits a fairly unsurprising criteria: a) extremely attractive b) much younger than him shows him to be not that unspectacular a character: self-absorbed, narcissistic, and eager to dwell in a state of fashionable arrested development; Manson's nothing to write home about. Now that he has extinguished the attention of the notoriously fickle American audience, he's nothing more than a middle aged cad desperately trying to seem youthful, hip, and relevant. These days, he's none of the above.
*Yes, she is a redhead. And no, it's not her natural color, but I'll gladly overlook it.
Back in those ancient days of the late 90's, among a certain sub-faction of fashionable social defectives, said entertainer's flare for shameless self-promotion and hyperbole won him massive fame among the dark clothing, overly tatted, and pierced set. Manson hooked into teenage rebellion, open defiance of parental authority, and slaughtered a variety of sacred cows. In an effort to be as patently offensive as possible, Manson hyper-marketed his particularly glossy, cartoonish, and utterly overwrought take on heavy metal. And...(SURPRISE) made a tremendous amount of money in the process. Nothing sells quite as well as being the willful walking incarnation of all things wrong with American society, and for a two or three year period he was the most cited example of the corrupting influence of the entertainment industry on teh youth.
I never completely took the man seriously, though many of my contemporaries did. Among the women who could have easily been voted most likely to have borderline personality disorder or most likely to marry a complete loser, he was the epitome of attractive-- the kind of attractive guaranteed to unnerve adults, that is.
A cursory glance at the man reveals a dubiously talented misfit who like so many before him, managed to transform minimal talent and shock value into wealth and the obligatory fifteen minutes of fame rendered thereof. I remember once I tried to listen one of his albums and found myself unsurprisingly underwhelmed in the process. To this day, I completely fail to understand the appeal. One or two songs were slightly tuneful, though aside from the hype, the costumes, and the hyperbole is an amateur's command of the most basic heavy metal riffs and a massive reliance on studio trickery. Rehashing the kind of sound that Trent Reznor invented and did a far better job of presenting to the record-buying public, Marilyn slid by on an stretch of almost unbroken manufactured controversies.
And, to lay it on thick, a glance at his long history of girlfriends, each of whom fits a fairly unsurprising criteria: a) extremely attractive b) much younger than him shows him to be not that unspectacular a character: self-absorbed, narcissistic, and eager to dwell in a state of fashionable arrested development; Manson's nothing to write home about. Now that he has extinguished the attention of the notoriously fickle American audience, he's nothing more than a middle aged cad desperately trying to seem youthful, hip, and relevant. These days, he's none of the above.
Saturday Video
which goes deep into the past.
"Brown-Eyed Handsome Man" was the B-side to Chuck Berry's 1956 single "Too Much Monkey Business" and in addition reached number five on the R&B charts based on its own merits. Quite wisely for the 1950's, Berry deliberately changed his vocal delivery and intonation with the deliberate intention to sound white and skillfully incorporated white cultural motifs in an effort to reach beyond the scope of "race records", the euphemistic term for black music in those days. This was helped by the fact that he was raised in a middle class household, rare for African-Americans in those days.
I've always loved Berry's playful lyrics and equally playful guitar playing. One of the first artists to synthesize the blues with country music (then called hillbilly), Berry contributed as much to the formation of rock 'n roll as any other artist who can state a claim towards the genre.
He also had a thing for armed robbery, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and tax evasion, but let's not dwell on the negative aspects of his personality, shall we?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Femme Fatale
I was going to save this for tomorrow's American Street posting, but I awoke this morning to find that I have absolutely nothing of worth to denote, much less write about.
And when that happens, sometimes all you can do is just sing.
And when that happens, sometimes all you can do is just sing.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Guns. They're American for the Right of the People to Bear. Can't Take 'Em Away for Enfringement Purposes. Not Never.
Having read through opinions on both sides of today's ruling on gun control, it seems as though recent major decisions passed down by the high court fall in one of two major categories: hard paternalism or soft paternalism. Hard paternalism draws strict lines in the sand, believing that people cannot be trusted to make proper decision in their own behalf.
McCain was quick to strike back at Obama's supposedly elitist assertion that people cling to their guns out of a spirit of bitterness. Truth be told, as powerless as people feel these days, I understand how those who feel chronically disenfranchised would covet any rights given to them out of a desire to feel as though they have control of something in their lives. As this country and this world swell in population, and laws become more and more restrictive as a means to desperately assert some kind of control, this kind of stubborn resistance is an understandable response for some.
But unlike McCain, I hardly believe that owning a gun should be equated with solemn reverence, as though many Americans bow their heads in prayer to thank the Lord for a good meal, the blessings that life has bestowed upon them, and the right to carry a deadly weapon. I fail to understand how gun ownership could in any way be some sacrosanct valued commodity. Guns are instruments of death and destruction, no matter how you spin it, and even in a socially acceptable construct, I see little reason to deify them.
Again I am reminded of just how much of a plurality society we are in this country--so many different ethnic groups, races, cultures, mores, and differing ways of life that it's a marvel we can ever agree on much of anything. Gun control works in countries or societies where there is far less of a climate of fear and kind of commonality between citizens the likes of which that have never existed here and likely will never exist on these shores.
Criminalizing firearms is not much of a solution since gun ownership and guns themselves have had such an overwhelming role in American society. Legislation alone cannot remove a culture of violence and a culture of self-reliance, of which gun ownership factors into quite neatly. Rail against the decision of the Supreme Court if you wish, but rest assured that in a society with so many disparate groups, getting everything we want is going to be close to impossible.
Soft Paternalism, also referred to as asymmetrical paternalism and libertarian paternalism, is a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.”[1] The term "libertarian paternalism" is intended to evoke the idea that soft paternalism is an approach to public policy that can be endorsed by libertarians because it does not abridge individual freedom, though most self-described libertarians are firmly opposed to it. Asymmetric paternalism refers to two asymmetries: the policies are designed to help irrational people who are not advancing their own interests while not interfering with the autonomy of those who are making rational, deliberate, decisions. It is also asymmetric in the sense that the policies are designed to be acceptable to those who believe that people behave rationally and to people who believe that people behave less than rationally.
McCain was quick to strike back at Obama's supposedly elitist assertion that people cling to their guns out of a spirit of bitterness. Truth be told, as powerless as people feel these days, I understand how those who feel chronically disenfranchised would covet any rights given to them out of a desire to feel as though they have control of something in their lives. As this country and this world swell in population, and laws become more and more restrictive as a means to desperately assert some kind of control, this kind of stubborn resistance is an understandable response for some.
But unlike McCain, I hardly believe that owning a gun should be equated with solemn reverence, as though many Americans bow their heads in prayer to thank the Lord for a good meal, the blessings that life has bestowed upon them, and the right to carry a deadly weapon. I fail to understand how gun ownership could in any way be some sacrosanct valued commodity. Guns are instruments of death and destruction, no matter how you spin it, and even in a socially acceptable construct, I see little reason to deify them.
Again I am reminded of just how much of a plurality society we are in this country--so many different ethnic groups, races, cultures, mores, and differing ways of life that it's a marvel we can ever agree on much of anything. Gun control works in countries or societies where there is far less of a climate of fear and kind of commonality between citizens the likes of which that have never existed here and likely will never exist on these shores.
Criminalizing firearms is not much of a solution since gun ownership and guns themselves have had such an overwhelming role in American society. Legislation alone cannot remove a culture of violence and a culture of self-reliance, of which gun ownership factors into quite neatly. Rail against the decision of the Supreme Court if you wish, but rest assured that in a society with so many disparate groups, getting everything we want is going to be close to impossible.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Reconciling the Heart with the Head
Today's 5-4 ruling that rejects the death penalty for child rapists shows the clear divide not just on the Supreme Court, but in American society in large. If we needed any further example of how polarized we are in this country, decisions such as these are more than eager to point it out. If we needed a means to gauge how we have evolved over the centuries, this easily provides it.
This decision also makes a strong case for the need to elect Barack Obama in November. A McCain Presidency would swing the balance of the court ever more resolutely towards the right and undermine reform measures passed by what will likely still be a Democratic-controlled Congress. The majority of American society still favors the procedure, but our appointed and elected gatekeepers have asserted they know better than the rest of us and made the decisions for ourselves. This authoritarian impulse one either embraces as a necessary means of control or rails against as running contrary to the popular will.
Cases such as these test the very premise of the capital punishment divide. They are a direct challenge to death penalty opponents. You don't favor executing adults who kill other adults in cold blood, they argue, but what about adults who rape children, the most defenseless among us? Let's see how committed you are to this premise.
And I, as a recent convert against the practice, find myself with no small degree of ambivalence. There's a part of me who cries for blood justice when I read about offenses like these. Deep within the American psyche is an overwhelming desire to inflict directly proportional punishment upon the perpetrators of one of the most inexcusable crimes one can commit. There's a kind of understood life-for-a-life logic that even a young child can easily comprehend.
Similarly, abortion rights have been severely parsed and in doing so had each individual plank isolated from the whole as a means of calling into question every building block of a much larger established precedent. The scope of Roe v. Wade has been chipped away at over the years, and if conservatives had their way, each subsequent legal challenge will totally emasculate the practice until it is full of so many restrictions and limiting caveats that it is rendered practically worthless.
But back to the death penalty: having grown up in a solidly red state where scorn is openly heaped upon those who would be cowardly enough to not send convicted murderers of human beings of any age to our sanitized gallows, I have to reconcile my heart with my head. Doing so is never an easy task and old habits and convictions do not easily go to their grave.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty often characterize their position on a simple premise: to speak out against the practice is to advance a cause that pushes the human race forwards--it is a triumph of civilized impulse, by which humans step away from the Dark Ages and into a much more rational, reasoned viewpoint. Indeed, I feel the same way, but in saying so, I understand the kind of self-satisfied vantage point provided by those who still staunchly support the death penalty. It makes sense in some kind of primal way.
Those who would oppose war often find their ranks swollen with devoted adherents, that is, of course, until any preemptive attack a la Pearl Harbor or 11 September 2001 transpires. In the immediate aftermath, the clamoring for blood and the desire to even the score overshadows even the most noble intentions.
This decision also makes a strong case for the need to elect Barack Obama in November. A McCain Presidency would swing the balance of the court ever more resolutely towards the right and undermine reform measures passed by what will likely still be a Democratic-controlled Congress. The majority of American society still favors the procedure, but our appointed and elected gatekeepers have asserted they know better than the rest of us and made the decisions for ourselves. This authoritarian impulse one either embraces as a necessary means of control or rails against as running contrary to the popular will.
Cases such as these test the very premise of the capital punishment divide. They are a direct challenge to death penalty opponents. You don't favor executing adults who kill other adults in cold blood, they argue, but what about adults who rape children, the most defenseless among us? Let's see how committed you are to this premise.
And I, as a recent convert against the practice, find myself with no small degree of ambivalence. There's a part of me who cries for blood justice when I read about offenses like these. Deep within the American psyche is an overwhelming desire to inflict directly proportional punishment upon the perpetrators of one of the most inexcusable crimes one can commit. There's a kind of understood life-for-a-life logic that even a young child can easily comprehend.
Similarly, abortion rights have been severely parsed and in doing so had each individual plank isolated from the whole as a means of calling into question every building block of a much larger established precedent. The scope of Roe v. Wade has been chipped away at over the years, and if conservatives had their way, each subsequent legal challenge will totally emasculate the practice until it is full of so many restrictions and limiting caveats that it is rendered practically worthless.
But back to the death penalty: having grown up in a solidly red state where scorn is openly heaped upon those who would be cowardly enough to not send convicted murderers of human beings of any age to our sanitized gallows, I have to reconcile my heart with my head. Doing so is never an easy task and old habits and convictions do not easily go to their grave.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty often characterize their position on a simple premise: to speak out against the practice is to advance a cause that pushes the human race forwards--it is a triumph of civilized impulse, by which humans step away from the Dark Ages and into a much more rational, reasoned viewpoint. Indeed, I feel the same way, but in saying so, I understand the kind of self-satisfied vantage point provided by those who still staunchly support the death penalty. It makes sense in some kind of primal way.
Those who would oppose war often find their ranks swollen with devoted adherents, that is, of course, until any preemptive attack a la Pearl Harbor or 11 September 2001 transpires. In the immediate aftermath, the clamoring for blood and the desire to even the score overshadows even the most noble intentions.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Charlie Black, James Dobson, and the New Democratic Offensive
Often times elections are won and lost not by any forceful show of strength or a resolute offense, but rather by keeping overt miscalculations to a minimum. The office of President has often been won by the candidate who doesn't necessary make the strongest case to the American people, but instead makes the fewest mistakes. So if the first few rounds of the Obama/McCain battle royal reveals anything, it's that thus far the Illnois senator has managed to stay away from major problems on the campaign trail.
Obama has thus far run circles around McCain, who continues to seem old, tired, and out of sync by contrast. The Straight Talk Express looks like a decrepit museum piece, heavily antiquated and seemingly pulled from a completely different era, one certainly not our own. In addition, he can't seem to keep his advisers from saying stupid things. Case in point: Charlie Black.
It's a deeply hypocritical statement at minimum, considering the same charges were leveled against Democrats. Republican leaders and pundits openly accused their opponents of willfully wishing for major destruction in Iraq as the surest means to secure a Democratic majority in the Congress.
The other major McCain liability is his still lukewarm support among Evangelical Conservatives.
As a person of faith, James Dobson's comments criticizing Obama for his Christian faith don't seem rooted in anything substantive. It is interesting to see the Religious Right put on the defensive instead of the offensive for once, and I am certainly heartened that Obama so clearly extrapolated the views I hold dear. Too long the Religious Right claimed to assert that its interpretation of religion, faith, and doctrine was the sole view. Many of us on the left in our desire to make faith a private matter were all too eager to surrender that territory.
I just wish it hadn't taken decades for a leader on the left to push back and push back hard.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Just Another Politician. (And Your Point Was What, Again?)
Ever since Barack Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination, it has been both frustrating and interesting to see the way the news media has proceeded to chip away at his reputation as a reformer and as a new face in Washington. Some of these issues give me reason to pause, but most I shrug off as part and parcel of any politician running for high elective office.
I can understand why few people are willing to go into the meat grinder of politics. Those who run for elective office can never do much right but are capable of doing practically everything wrong. Political culture thrives on scandal and negative reinforcement, appealing to the part of us biologically programmed to recoil in disgust at the sinister side of human behavior. Every press expose seems to be designed specifically to induce outrage and rise everyone's blood pressure.
The role of lobbyists and money interests in politics is so deeply embedded in the framework that I would frankly be made uncomfortable if any candidate renounced them altogether. I'm not sure how any politician could escape their taint completely. The latest New York Times article that ties Obama to the ethanol industry is one such example.
While I agree that increased ethanol production is no panacea, it does provide a cottage industry and creates jobs. In this day and age, where many traditionally sound jobs in industry have been uprooted to other areas of the world where they are more cost-efficient, ethanol appears to be an effective way to boost employment, or at minimum reduce the unemployment created by the growing recession. It's certainly not a flawless attempt to reduce this country's dependence on foreign oil, but the underlying intentions are good.
Eliminating the graft and corruption that goes along with any industry is easy said, hard to accomplish in reality. And underneath this recent ethanol flap is the peculiarly American deficiency of failing to understand that instant gratification is a product of good luck, obscene wealth, and material excess. It is not a God-given right or entitlement.
Many of us good-government liberals insist that the natural role of regulation and oversight ought to be to aim to eliminate these kind of offenses. In theory, that is how government ought to function, but when compromise, power, and profit meet, the net result is usually far less noble. Reform ought to be a constant process, since for every layer of oversight and regulation we provide, those whose inner motive is purely profit and material gain will push the envelope and attempt to exploit existing loopholes, create new ones, and in the process dare gatekeepers to catch them.
So reform isn't a destination, it's a journey. Furthermore, it's a journey that requires our participation and our attention, else it be rendered worthless.
I can understand why few people are willing to go into the meat grinder of politics. Those who run for elective office can never do much right but are capable of doing practically everything wrong. Political culture thrives on scandal and negative reinforcement, appealing to the part of us biologically programmed to recoil in disgust at the sinister side of human behavior. Every press expose seems to be designed specifically to induce outrage and rise everyone's blood pressure.
The role of lobbyists and money interests in politics is so deeply embedded in the framework that I would frankly be made uncomfortable if any candidate renounced them altogether. I'm not sure how any politician could escape their taint completely. The latest New York Times article that ties Obama to the ethanol industry is one such example.
While I agree that increased ethanol production is no panacea, it does provide a cottage industry and creates jobs. In this day and age, where many traditionally sound jobs in industry have been uprooted to other areas of the world where they are more cost-efficient, ethanol appears to be an effective way to boost employment, or at minimum reduce the unemployment created by the growing recession. It's certainly not a flawless attempt to reduce this country's dependence on foreign oil, but the underlying intentions are good.
Eliminating the graft and corruption that goes along with any industry is easy said, hard to accomplish in reality. And underneath this recent ethanol flap is the peculiarly American deficiency of failing to understand that instant gratification is a product of good luck, obscene wealth, and material excess. It is not a God-given right or entitlement.
Many of us good-government liberals insist that the natural role of regulation and oversight ought to be to aim to eliminate these kind of offenses. In theory, that is how government ought to function, but when compromise, power, and profit meet, the net result is usually far less noble. Reform ought to be a constant process, since for every layer of oversight and regulation we provide, those whose inner motive is purely profit and material gain will push the envelope and attempt to exploit existing loopholes, create new ones, and in the process dare gatekeepers to catch them.
So reform isn't a destination, it's a journey. Furthermore, it's a journey that requires our participation and our attention, else it be rendered worthless.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Movie Review
What's always been the most interesting facet of film study for me is in observing the interplay between influences, particularly taking into account the screenplay and dialogue. I'm All Right, Jack is a clever satire and black comedy, true enough, but the most interesting facet of the film is how indebted it is to major works of literature, art, and satire. As a amateur music critic and Anglophile, having now seen the movie for myself, I recognize its impact the upon many of the major rock recording artists of the 1960's and 1970s. This is especially evident when one considers the referential lyrics of many songs subsequently written by British rock 'n rollers, particularly Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Kinks. To wit, the most prominent example that comes to mind of this kind of direct cross-pollination is Roger Waters' straight lift of the title into the 1973 hit "Money."
I'm all right, Jack/Keep your hands off of my stack
Peter Sellers' character, Fred Kite, spouts the pseudo-intellectual phrasings of the stereotypical working-class autodidact labor boss, while pontificating the self-important drivel and populist phrasings of a demagogue, right down to the Hitler mustache and unapologetic Communist leanings. Kite's service board/inner circle includes a man with a pronounced stutter, who has a habit of punctuating important points by means of forceful interjection. This is itself a direct reference to Robert Penn Warren's novel All The King's Men. In that work, one of Louisiana governor's Willie Stark's trusted advisors, a bodyguard with the auspicious nickname of Sugar-Boy, hangs close by the boss and seconds the pronouncement of his boss with the very same decided stammer.
Quite unlike many films that sometimes overreach in an effort to be a laugh riot, I'm All Right, Jack is a relatively droll affair. Nor, like many contemporary satirical films, does it resort to gross caricatures that by way of overstatement let the audience in on the joke. Though certain sections are indeed amusing, it's downright disconcerting how close to the truth and eerily plausible are the characterizations of each and every role, all players in a vast game built upon distrust and fear. The cynicism and fatalistic view advanced by the picture has dated not in the least with the passage of time and runs in tremendous contrast to the deliberate fantasies and romanticized clap-trap that passes for reality still churned out by studios on a constant basis. The best satire lets no one off the hook and never can be dismissed as partisan propaganda, even artfully presented propaganda.
The character of Stanley Windrush, a kind of naive ignoramus much in keeping as Voltaire's Candide, cuts through the crap and in the process doing so, demystifies the inner workings of the system. That it takes an idiot savant to reveal the conditioned inanity of pointed dysfunction reveals much about the kind of perverse, self-serving stalemate that passes for business as usual. No one comes off smelling like roses by the end and in the process, everyone's hands are shown as bloody, no side more than another. Selfishness and personal gain reign supreme and any utterances to the contrary are shown to be little more than window dressing that unskillfully disguise the sordid reality.
Yet, what is most striking to me is the mutual sense of paranoia shared between labor and management. Though both of them are being played for suckers by the top brass, and are little more than pawns being skillfully manipulated by upper-level elites with the sole purpose to produce the most profit for the highest up, neither side understands this. Nor would they likely admit to it even if they had indisputable knowledge to contradict their previous assumptions. The supreme irony is that management and organized labor both exist in conflicting parallel universes, but neither of them fully understand the true nature of the game. Due to the presentation, it's difficult to feel any kind of sympathy for anyone, least of all the working class.
At its outset, one almost expects this film to be the traditional paeon in black and white to the virtues of socialism and collective unity, but in keeping with the title of the film, everyone is obsessed only with material gain and personal profit. What is more, the insanity of the workings of the system supersede sense and any altruistic duty to one's fellow person. Voltaire ended Candide by insisting that actual works, productivity, and actions speak far louder than ceaseless philosophical ruminating to no apparent end. It's a damning critique of intellectualism but also a cautionary tale that making idols of our views, no matter what our station may be, is the quickest way to ruin.
It's fashionable in liberal circles to espouse wholehearted, full-throated support for labor unions and to not neglect to invoke the names of agitators, provocateurs, and stirring historical figures in doing so. However, one might do well to understand the kind of willful incompetence and ridiculous conflict between management and labor that fueled anti-union sentiment and in doing so did much to destroy its power. In the end, it's never as simple as us versus them.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
A Quick Note
Dear Readership,
Due to the fact I will be entertaining company for the remainder of the week, posting will be sparse until the first of next week.
Thanks for your understanding!
Due to the fact I will be entertaining company for the remainder of the week, posting will be sparse until the first of next week.
Thanks for your understanding!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Democrats' Different Strategy
Al Gore's endorsement last night in Detroit drew a fresh batch of sharp parallels between Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy and played up Gore's environmental credentials. This, in and of itself should come as no surprise to anyone. Prior speeches have seen the Senator from Illinois bill himself as a cross between Abraham Lincoln and JFK, with a smattering of other Democratic superstars thrown in for good measure. In a different candidate, I'd see this as empty chest-pounding, but Obama's earnestness and charisma make this characterization seem plausible.
One also can't help but notice that Obama's massive rallies have the character and the makings of a sporting event, right down to the cheering, chanting, and booing the opposing team at all the right moments. Gore and Obama both had to interrupt their speeches once or twice to set a somewhat unruly crowd straight a few times. Clearly both enjoyed the intensity of the rally, and the degree of passion and enthusiasm that the people in attendance felt strongly.
The strongest point in the roughly fifteen minute endorsement speech occurred when Gore invoked a litany of complaints and condemnations against the Bush administration, all bookended by the phrase, "Elections matter". Additionally, Gore also made a point to directly label Obama "young", effectively a direct challenge to the McCain campaign, who has been eager to paint him as naive and inexperienced. This struck me as unusually bold and taking the fight to the GOP, rather than the other way around.
One also can't help but notice that Obama's massive rallies have the character and the makings of a sporting event, right down to the cheering, chanting, and booing the opposing team at all the right moments. Gore and Obama both had to interrupt their speeches once or twice to set a somewhat unruly crowd straight a few times. Clearly both enjoyed the intensity of the rally, and the degree of passion and enthusiasm that the people in attendance felt strongly.
The strongest point in the roughly fifteen minute endorsement speech occurred when Gore invoked a litany of complaints and condemnations against the Bush administration, all bookended by the phrase, "Elections matter". Additionally, Gore also made a point to directly label Obama "young", effectively a direct challenge to the McCain campaign, who has been eager to paint him as naive and inexperienced. This struck me as unusually bold and taking the fight to the GOP, rather than the other way around.
Gore shot back, as if to say, "Yes, he's young. And so what?"
I give Obama all the credit in the world for going on the offensive and forcing McCain to play defense. For years, the strategy of whomever the Democratic nominee happened to be seemed to be a kind of hypervigilant damage control and an almost obsessive effort to draw in as many of the traditionally Democratic voters as possible, seeking not to offend any of them along the way. Walking on eggshells is a rather uninspiring method of leadership.
For starters, it's a weak negotiating point which has contributed to years of Republican victories. Many Americans would rather pick strong and wrong rather than weak and right. This in and of itself is one of the many miscues which led to John Kerry's defeat in 2004. The contrasts between that election and this one are so marked that four years ago seems like some distant parallel universe. Perhaps this time around, with the tide having turned so strongly against the Republican party, such a clearly ramrod and forceful strategy seems less risky. If this degree of putting the fight to the opponent had been utilized by prior Democrats, one almost wonders if more Presidential elections would have turned out for the party.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Limitation of Conventional Wisdom
Since September of 2007, I've kept close tabs on the latest poll numbers. It's been interesting to see the ebbs and flows of the Presidential race, particularly after Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech two Saturdays ago. As has been firmly established, the election in November will be close, which is why I practically dismiss off-hand (while hoping them to be true, of course) the first few pronouncements that have come in the form of deeply speculative stories---delivered in a tone of cautious optimism, each of which give Obama's election in November an air of inevitability.
We've seen inevitable candidates before, and as I recall, said inevitable candidate ended up in second place rather than as the presumptive nominee, hence the reason I'm inclined to not pay these accounts much mind. Meanwhile, it seems as though a mild bounce, post-nomination, is the best Obama apparently will receive now that the American people and, in particular, Clinton supporters have had time to digest the reality of the situation.
I consult polls, and polling data, as many of us do, as a means of trying to gauge the impact of public sentiment. Unlike many people, I hold strong political opinions, and I decided for whom I was going to cast my vote long ago. Those of us who swim in activist, political circles often end up inadvertently in a bubble of commonality and similar thought, so I know I can't often trust my fellows and close associates to provide any objective pictures of how the rest of the country reacts, processes, and responds to the fight now shaping up between Obama and McCain.
Even as early as it is in this general election campaign, and still two months from each party's convention/overblown pep rally, I wonder who out there still hasn't pretty much decided which candidate will receive their vote. The polarizing environment of recent elections, if still in force, and I have no reason to doubt otherwise, would dictate that most voters have made up their minds and made them up firmly.
The series of media driven nontroversies is perhaps my deepest annoyance--the latest of which is the hand-wringing, overblown, over-theatrical "Will Clinton Supporters Come Home to the Democratic Party?" These manufactured crises makes me wish there was not a school of thought based completely on hyperbole. These efforts are designed merely to attract ratings share and demographic profiles, but one wonders at which point manufactured reality becomes public perception.
And I can't help noticing how staid and relatively perfunctory the race has become now that the Democratic primary race has concluded. Is the lesson to be learned that Democrats do drama best?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
