Right Wing Editorial Troll William Kristol wrote an opinion piece for today's NYT which caught my eye because it referenced my hero, George Orwell. A lot of people have a lot of admiration for Ol' George, often including the last people you'd expect, such as rightist pundits and power-worshippers like Kristol. True, Orwell had some positions that they would have liked (he didn't shirk from the use of force against tyranny, which would score him some Neo-Conservative credentials) but a huge load of ideas that they would have had very little time for (such as his socialism and his frank contempt for conservative political thought). I think he's a confusing person for them, because he was virulently anti-Soviet and highly critical of some socialists--i.e. sandal-wearing vegetarians and others he considered embarrassing to the movement--which is something they like, so they just mentally breeze past the fact that he made all those criticisms pursuant to strengthening the socialist movement in the hopes of putting an end to capitalism and people like Kristol.
Anyway, to the editorial. Kristol begins his argument from something Orwell wrote about Rudyard Kipling, which was that Kipling was in one light disgusting because he toadied to the ruling class and supported their positions, but from another angle was admirable, because serving the rulers imbues one with a more concrete sense of what is desirable and responsible in governing. Being a member of the permanent opposition erases one's responsibility for coming up with serious ideas, as one merely needs to oppose, not actually govern. Orwell's criticism was once again very specific to his own context; he is aiming this barb at the people in his own movement who were intellectually sympathetic to Socialism but too doctrinaire or too eccentric to do much.
Kristol says, "aha! I have discovered that the Democrats are the irresponsible party of opposition and the Republicans are the practical, serious-minded governing party!"
There are a few problems with applying this to the American political scene, as Kristol tries to do:
1) There isn't really a "ruling party" in American politics. In the American system, unlike Parliamentary systems like that in Britain, it is possible for one party to control the executive and another to control the legislature. In this case one can consider the party in control of the executive the "governing party" but in practice it isn't quite so. This has been a fairly common situation in American politics, prevailing through the substantial part of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations.
2) I wouldn't trust the Republican party to run a lemonade stand and neither should you. Suggesting that the Republican Party is somehow more "responsible" than the Democratic Party is specious. Both Reagan and G.W. Bush dramatically increased expenditures while reducing tax revenue, with the effect that this two administrations caused a hugely disproportionate share of the national debt. Moreover, the Bush administration has proven itself utterly irresponsible many times in the past seven years (e.g., our disastrous war of choice in Iraq, widespread appointment of incompetent cronies as in the Katrina disaster, forgetting about the war in Afghanistan, squandering all of our diplomatic capital, taking zero action on critical issues like infrastructure, alternative energy, and global warming, etc. etc.).
3) Support for the Iraq war != Responsibility. One of Kristol's main points in how the Democrats are irresponsible is that they have failed to adapt to a changing situation "on the ground" in Iraq. (As a rhetorical sidenote, I am amazed at all the things going on "on the ground" in Iraq. With all the suicide bombings, corner-turning, adapting to win, listening to the generals "on the ground", I wonder how they have any room at all. Maybe that's why all of their intellectuals are doing their best to flee the country--lack of space.) Implicit in this argument is that things actually have changed substantially enough to require a real reassessment of our aims... which it hasn't. Violence has been reduced overall due to the overwhelming presence after the "surge", but there's no sign of political rapprochement and no reason to believe that violence will not resume just as before the moment our troop levels drop. Moreover, less people getting blown up each day is only one measure of progress, and other key indices (like oil production, employment, electricity, potable water access, and so on) haven't really improved.
Finally, and painfully, the Iraq responsibility argument has to go back to basics. George W. Bush and his Republican party aggressively sold the American people and Congress on an invasion of a country which was no threat to the USA, using deception and fear-mongering to obscure their real reasons. While Kristol (who has always been a big support of the Iraq War) no doubt still feels that it was the height of responsibility to go into Iraq, 64% of Americans now feel otherwise and, to avoid suggestion of argumentum ad populum, basically it's indisputable that we originally went in to find WMDs and depose a dictator, and we have found that there were no WMDs and the removal of Saddam hasn't really improved things very much at all.
4) Support for Warrantless Wiretapping and Telecom Immunity != Responsibility. Kristol also suggests that House Democrats are irresponsible because they failed to pass Bush's wishlist of wiretapping and immunity for the Telecom industry and so endangered America. I'll make no bones about this one--this makes William Kristol him a lying asshole. America is not in any more danger now, because we have simply defaulted to the old rules on FISA, which offer more than adequate freedom to our intelligence agencies and allows them to just wiretap the shit out of anybody they want... as long as they get FISA court approval for tapping calls within the United States (always speedily granted, in point of fact). This is the real rub for Bush and crypto-Fascists like Kristol; they want to be tapping people without any oversight or review whatsoever. The standard FISA rules would pretty much allow them to tap the same lines just as quickly (a FISA warrant can be acquired after surveillance has already begun), but it would leave a paper trail and record of what is going on. This is good for the protection of our freedoms but bad for limitless executive power, so as far as Kristol (and Bush) is concerned it has to go.
The second element is telecom amnesty. This is a long story which I'll briefly summarize (more information on it can be found on the internet, naturally). The NSA and other intelligence agencies approached telecommunications firms like AT&T and Verizon and asked them to help the government engage in activities which both parties knew to be totally illegal and grounds for everybody to get in big goddamn trouble if the story came out. Some telecoms refused, but others (like Verizon and AT&T) smelled huge profits and agreed. Later, as should have been predictable, they all got caught and they are now in big goddamn trouble, of the kind that has multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits attached. The Telecoms have replied to this by salting away large amounts of money to congresspeople in the hopes of getting something rather unprecedented: retroactive immunity. This would mean that, even though the telecoms knowingly and intentionally broke the law, a later action of congress will decide that it doesn't matter and they get away with it (additionally meaning that they will have no motivation to assist further investigation of the lawbreaking they colluded in, meaning that their co-conspirators in the government will also effectively get away with it).
Now, some people (lying assholes, as I said before) have suggested that we need to give this unprecedented, colossal giveaway to the telecoms for any number of reasons. Like if we don't, there'll be a chilling effect and they'll refuse to help future, legal requests from government agencies (bzzt, wrong, telecoms are legally obligated to comply with requests from the government, as long as the attorney general has certified the legality of the request--they can't refuse).
So what I'm saying is that William Kristol is a dishonest neo-authoritarian apologist for the worst presidential administration in American history, and that far from "preserving" anything, the bill that the House rejected was explicitly designed to prevent telecoms from being punished for their indisputable wrongdoing and to prevent the American people from finding out about future government aggression against their privacy rights. How did this happen here, I wonder? I mean, the government and the telecoms get caught breaking the law, and the response is to change the law retroactively to make their activities not illegal, and prevent people from finding out about the next time they choose to go all Stasi on us? Is this really America?
As a note, I find that I like William Kristol as a NYT featured conservative columnist a lot more than David Brooks, because he has some manner of intellectual gravity and can write in the English language. It's hard to get a good head of steam up talking about David Brooks, first because his writing is intellectually impoverished and has no depth to examine, and second because I simply find his lack of facility with writing bewildering.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Fanboy
Today I saw "There Will be Blood" with some friends, and I have to say that I enjoyed the film a great deal, but on further examination of my reasons for liking the film, I have to question my response to it. It is effectively a tour de force from Daniel Day-Lewis. He comes on the screen, dominates each scene, casts a tall and dark shadow over the rest of the cast (which the manic efforts of Paul Dano just barely manage to keep up with), and generally wows the hell out of the audience. At my viewing the audience gasped in unison at DDL's performance.
I also respect the movie for its rejection of the traditional narrative structure. There is not really rising action to climax followed by a falling action to epilogue. The plot actually manages to resemble a human being's life, with a series of significant events, horror, victory, ignominy, and a lesson that can be accepted or rejected as one pleases. I would call it a very good movie.
However, I have to admit that a certain amount of my enjoyment of this film derived directly from my love for Daniel Day-Lewis. I have seen him in multiple movies and he is among the ranks of the performers who I always enjoy. Daniel Day-Lewis, Edward Norton, Christopher Walken, and Johnny Depp are all actors who I can watch no matter what role they are playing. I am a fanboy for these Hollywood personalities. I would probably watch any movie they made. Edward Norton recently made a film, "The Painted Vail," which was given poor reviews and called a vanity project. I will see this movie eventually, purely on the basis of his involvement in it. I saw "The Score", starring Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, and Edward Norton--purely on the basis of Norton's appearance. I couldn't have cared less about the two giants of cinema being present on the screen. He was all I came for.
Day-Lewis is the single actor whom I most respect for the force of performance and his craft. He is a powerhouse. The Tom Hanks vehicle "Castaway" struck me as an unforgivably stupid concept--much as I like Tom Hanks, my interest in two hours of nothing but him and a volleyball is slight. But I would watch three hours of nothing but Daniel Day-Lewis. Thinking on "The Gangs of New York" I realized that Scorsese had made something that was not actually a good film. The plot is a little contrived; I feel that it leads inexorably, rather than logically to the climax. Some of the key performances are stale (Cameron Diaz and DiCaprio are both miscast). But all of this is made up for, and more, by DDL as Bill the Butcher. He grabs both of your eyes every time he appears. His every movement dominates your attention. You can scarcely see anything but him.
So what does this say about me, with regard to films? I would like even a terrible movie on the basis of one my favorites appearing in it. This is provable by example--I greatly enjoy "The Rundown", a rather odious Dwayne Johnson vehicle which happens to feature Christopher Walken. So is "There Will be Blood" actually a good movie? Probably. I think it is. So does the Academy, but hell, what do they know about anything? These people gave Halle Berry an Oscar the year before she was the Bond Girl in one of the worst films in the series. They stole Denzel's Oscar for "Malcolm X" and gave it over to Al Pacino's scenery-chewing blind-man romp, and didn't make up the error for nine whole years. So you can't trust them.
As a side note, I am hotly anticipating the coming "Incredible Hulk" movie, featuring Edward Norton in the starring role with a screenplay credit to boot. I would eat any poison pill if it had the right kind of sugar on it!
I also respect the movie for its rejection of the traditional narrative structure. There is not really rising action to climax followed by a falling action to epilogue. The plot actually manages to resemble a human being's life, with a series of significant events, horror, victory, ignominy, and a lesson that can be accepted or rejected as one pleases. I would call it a very good movie.
However, I have to admit that a certain amount of my enjoyment of this film derived directly from my love for Daniel Day-Lewis. I have seen him in multiple movies and he is among the ranks of the performers who I always enjoy. Daniel Day-Lewis, Edward Norton, Christopher Walken, and Johnny Depp are all actors who I can watch no matter what role they are playing. I am a fanboy for these Hollywood personalities. I would probably watch any movie they made. Edward Norton recently made a film, "The Painted Vail," which was given poor reviews and called a vanity project. I will see this movie eventually, purely on the basis of his involvement in it. I saw "The Score", starring Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, and Edward Norton--purely on the basis of Norton's appearance. I couldn't have cared less about the two giants of cinema being present on the screen. He was all I came for.
Day-Lewis is the single actor whom I most respect for the force of performance and his craft. He is a powerhouse. The Tom Hanks vehicle "Castaway" struck me as an unforgivably stupid concept--much as I like Tom Hanks, my interest in two hours of nothing but him and a volleyball is slight. But I would watch three hours of nothing but Daniel Day-Lewis. Thinking on "The Gangs of New York" I realized that Scorsese had made something that was not actually a good film. The plot is a little contrived; I feel that it leads inexorably, rather than logically to the climax. Some of the key performances are stale (Cameron Diaz and DiCaprio are both miscast). But all of this is made up for, and more, by DDL as Bill the Butcher. He grabs both of your eyes every time he appears. His every movement dominates your attention. You can scarcely see anything but him.
So what does this say about me, with regard to films? I would like even a terrible movie on the basis of one my favorites appearing in it. This is provable by example--I greatly enjoy "The Rundown", a rather odious Dwayne Johnson vehicle which happens to feature Christopher Walken. So is "There Will be Blood" actually a good movie? Probably. I think it is. So does the Academy, but hell, what do they know about anything? These people gave Halle Berry an Oscar the year before she was the Bond Girl in one of the worst films in the series. They stole Denzel's Oscar for "Malcolm X" and gave it over to Al Pacino's scenery-chewing blind-man romp, and didn't make up the error for nine whole years. So you can't trust them.
As a side note, I am hotly anticipating the coming "Incredible Hulk" movie, featuring Edward Norton in the starring role with a screenplay credit to boot. I would eat any poison pill if it had the right kind of sugar on it!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Snot-Rocket
Oftentimes when one is out walking, one will experience a buildup of mucus in the nostrils, due to atmospheric contaminants such as smog, pollen, excessive humidity, or cigarette smoke, just to name a few. Indeed, the human nostrils are quite sensitive to changes in environmental and, indeed, physical equilibrium. It is possible that the nose could become clogged by any number of events, from cold weather to the common cold itself.
During a constitutional, or as the German's call it ein Spaziergang, the problem of nasal mucus assumes serious proportions. The useful tradition of carrying a handkerchief on one's person at all times has in recent years become quite dated and in a crowd of twenty people under age forty, it would be unusual to find even a single man in possession of one. Moreover, when one is out for a walk, it is inconvenient and gauche to carry a box of tissue papers. What then, is the educated and stylish man about town to do about his nasal difficulties?
The solution is elegant in its simplicity. Place the index finger of the right hand against the exterior of the right nare (or nostril), applying pressure so as to seal it against the flow of air. Then, turning the head 45 to 90 degress to the left, expel air from the left nostril. This must be done suddenly and with all due force, similar to that resulting from a cough or sneeze, because only a vigorous expectoration can jar the mucus from the walls of the nostril. The end result of this process should be the emission of a small ball of snot (or "snot-rocket") from the left nostril to the ground, thus clearing the nasal passage. The action can then be repeated for the right nostril, all directions being reversed.
However, prospective snot-rocketeers should be aware that this tactic is often considered very rude and even disgusting in polite society. While walking with a lady of the fairer sex or other companion it would be advisable to distract them by reference to some interesting sight or other diversion before expelling any mucus.
Advanced users of this technique will note its potential as an insulting dominance display. It is vastly more derisive and offensive than merely spitting on another person, although considerably shorter ranged and more difficult to aim. Beginners should avoid starting fights with the snot-rocket, until such a time as they have been able to practice and perfect its application.
During a constitutional, or as the German's call it ein Spaziergang, the problem of nasal mucus assumes serious proportions. The useful tradition of carrying a handkerchief on one's person at all times has in recent years become quite dated and in a crowd of twenty people under age forty, it would be unusual to find even a single man in possession of one. Moreover, when one is out for a walk, it is inconvenient and gauche to carry a box of tissue papers. What then, is the educated and stylish man about town to do about his nasal difficulties?
The solution is elegant in its simplicity. Place the index finger of the right hand against the exterior of the right nare (or nostril), applying pressure so as to seal it against the flow of air. Then, turning the head 45 to 90 degress to the left, expel air from the left nostril. This must be done suddenly and with all due force, similar to that resulting from a cough or sneeze, because only a vigorous expectoration can jar the mucus from the walls of the nostril. The end result of this process should be the emission of a small ball of snot (or "snot-rocket") from the left nostril to the ground, thus clearing the nasal passage. The action can then be repeated for the right nostril, all directions being reversed.
However, prospective snot-rocketeers should be aware that this tactic is often considered very rude and even disgusting in polite society. While walking with a lady of the fairer sex or other companion it would be advisable to distract them by reference to some interesting sight or other diversion before expelling any mucus.
Advanced users of this technique will note its potential as an insulting dominance display. It is vastly more derisive and offensive than merely spitting on another person, although considerably shorter ranged and more difficult to aim. Beginners should avoid starting fights with the snot-rocket, until such a time as they have been able to practice and perfect its application.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The GOP Field
The New York Times today had a nice long article about how Giuliani was a beastly fascist toad as Mayor of New York, who delighted time and again in deploying the full powers of his station to settle ludicrously petty disputes with people much less powerful than him. At this point his standing at the polls is substantially lower than Ron Paul so we can basically write him off and declare his political career at an end. He will retreat back to the swamps whence he came and probably only venture back out to collect $100,000 per appearance speaking fees or maybe write a bestselling book about what a great leader he is. I'm a little sad to see Rudy fade away, though, because he represented the closest thing to Heinrich Himmler in American politics, i.e. a goofy Nazi thug with bad hair and an oddly shaped skull.
A while ago as well, Huckabee got people good and riled by saying
Of course, Huckabee goes completely the wrong direction with his idea. But this is to be expected from his sort of man. Huck is not a fan of the Enlightenment, if indeed he has any idea what it is. He is not a fan of the Scientific Revolution, either. I think he probably has some respect for the Protestant Reformation being as it is the conceptual basis of his liberation from Papism, but I'm sure he doesn't much hold with anything that's happened since then. I'm not calling him stupid, as stupid people don't become successful ministers and governors of whole states. Ignorant is a better word.
Fred Thompson dropped out of the race recently, so... so what? Who cares? Maybe his wife. I had some things to say about him on this blog way back when, but it doesn't matter now.
Ron Paul I might talk about in a later post, because I'd want to devote an entire post to him, as he's quite a loon. The internet is a great place for terrible ideas like Libertarianism, they can fail in practice and fail in the court of public opinion, but get a second chance in the modern equivalent of 19th Century New York's "burned over district".
John McCain has emerged from the early campaign knife-fights to look like some kind of front runner, though that's probably just the favorable media coverage (the media wuvs McCain) talking and he's neck and neck with Romney, at best. I'd say he's probably the best GOP candidate, because he's got the best to win the general election and he seems less likely that Romney or Huckabee to run the country even further into the ground once in office. However, he's still phony as all get out. It's embarrassing and infuriating that the press continues to pretend he is a maverick. He might have been, in 2000, but he gave all that up after the drubbing he got in that campaign, and has spent the last eight years trying to be a good soldier. He hasn't convinced the media... nor the GOP bosses. The Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, baby-eating troglodytes that run the party from the smoky back-rooms hate his guts, and this will be his greatest weakness.
My money is on Romney. He is made of plastic, has no actual positions or beliefs, and if you squint hard enough in low-light conditions he kind of looks like Ronald Reagan. He also has the support of the party elite, which counts for everything in the GOP, probably to the extent of making his coronation a near inevitability. But maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, because I think Romney is the very worst choice in the entire rogues' gallery. He's a Mormon with extremely weak credentials on abortion, so he'll drive many of the evangelicals away from the polls, and generally speaking he's got no personality or creativity. He'll be beaten savagely, like a cur, in November.
A while ago as well, Huckabee got people good and riled by saying
"What we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."which honestly shouldn't have surprised anybody. I actually admire him just a little bit for his daring, because here in America we like to pretend that the Founding Fathers were just splendid and the Constitution is perfect. People ought to spend less time polishing George Washington's shoes and more time thinking about what the Constitution and the laws of the land can really do for us today. I mean, we're talking about people who drank gin for breakfast, had sex with their slaves, and bathed twice a year. The best of them, Benjamin Franklin, electrocuted turkeys for fun. How much do they really have to tell us about how we should lead our lives, apart from Enlightenment principles which they stole from the French anyway? The Constitution is a fine basis to work from, and it has worked reasonably well in the past 140 years (I refuse to regard the history of the Constitution prior to Amendment XIII with anything but friendly contempt), but let's not pretend it was handed down by God or anything.
Of course, Huckabee goes completely the wrong direction with his idea. But this is to be expected from his sort of man. Huck is not a fan of the Enlightenment, if indeed he has any idea what it is. He is not a fan of the Scientific Revolution, either. I think he probably has some respect for the Protestant Reformation being as it is the conceptual basis of his liberation from Papism, but I'm sure he doesn't much hold with anything that's happened since then. I'm not calling him stupid, as stupid people don't become successful ministers and governors of whole states. Ignorant is a better word.
Fred Thompson dropped out of the race recently, so... so what? Who cares? Maybe his wife. I had some things to say about him on this blog way back when, but it doesn't matter now.
Ron Paul I might talk about in a later post, because I'd want to devote an entire post to him, as he's quite a loon. The internet is a great place for terrible ideas like Libertarianism, they can fail in practice and fail in the court of public opinion, but get a second chance in the modern equivalent of 19th Century New York's "burned over district".
John McCain has emerged from the early campaign knife-fights to look like some kind of front runner, though that's probably just the favorable media coverage (the media wuvs McCain) talking and he's neck and neck with Romney, at best. I'd say he's probably the best GOP candidate, because he's got the best to win the general election and he seems less likely that Romney or Huckabee to run the country even further into the ground once in office. However, he's still phony as all get out. It's embarrassing and infuriating that the press continues to pretend he is a maverick. He might have been, in 2000, but he gave all that up after the drubbing he got in that campaign, and has spent the last eight years trying to be a good soldier. He hasn't convinced the media... nor the GOP bosses. The Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, baby-eating troglodytes that run the party from the smoky back-rooms hate his guts, and this will be his greatest weakness.
My money is on Romney. He is made of plastic, has no actual positions or beliefs, and if you squint hard enough in low-light conditions he kind of looks like Ronald Reagan. He also has the support of the party elite, which counts for everything in the GOP, probably to the extent of making his coronation a near inevitability. But maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, because I think Romney is the very worst choice in the entire rogues' gallery. He's a Mormon with extremely weak credentials on abortion, so he'll drive many of the evangelicals away from the polls, and generally speaking he's got no personality or creativity. He'll be beaten savagely, like a cur, in November.
Monday, January 21, 2008
I read a book a couple days ago, golly
I read a book recently. Surprised?
What book, you ask. It was Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by one Hunter S. Thompson. The next question you ask is, "What in God's name are you doing reading topical new-journalistic work from 1972 in this day and age? Why, goddammit, in 1972 people thought we would have space-planes and robots and a telescreen in every living room. What can they have to tell us?"
This is a good question, but watch your language. I don't even know who reads this blog. There could be children involved.
I read the book because it interested me on several levels.
ONE-
Hunter S. Thompson at least invented--accidentally perhaps, but then again penicillin was an accident--something which was new and fresh and stunning, and '72 was perhaps the one time he made a concerted effort of applying his hand-crafted Gonzo New-Journalism monstrosity to the national stage. These days all you have to do is crack a Rolling Stone to read prose lifted right out of Thompson's brain and then run through a tenderizer nine or twenty times so it can meet standards. Paragraph after paragraph of neo-Gonzo pablum flung out in an article about goddamn Nickelback or whatever they want to pretend matters. Sometimes meta-Journalism, Gonzo, the act of the journalist turning away from objectivity and facing him/herself is the only sane response. I once read an article a nice young lady wrote about her attempted and aborted coverage of the Godless beast that produces the "Girls Gone Wild" tapes; the entire affair was such a damn travesty that it could only be understood as Gonzo.
But more and more published and televised journalism disgusts me. They've only got two flavors--the one that pretends to be objective but isn't, and the one that doesn't pretend but bores me anyway. Who neutered these people? I think they were fooling us when they did Watergate and the Pentagon papers. It was a trick. They wanted us to think we could trust them, just so they would have time to shiv Walter Cronkite in a back alley and then run credulous garbage about Iraqi WMDs.
At least when Hunter lied it was hilarious.
TWO-
Hillary Clinton is the new Hubert Humphrey. I mean, Jesus, let's qualify my statement a bit, Hell. What do I know about Hubert Humphrey? What I've read, what I've read. But all that indicates that he was some foul barbarous creature who represented the worst of Democratic machine politics and had no real positions apart from wanting to be president. Does this sound like anyone we know?
I watch the bloody primary season and marvel at the determination of some people to nominate the very worst candidate in the entire lot. She's the most conservative, most easily bought, most owned by special interests already, least responsive to the will of the people, indeed least respectful of the people, and she's carrying eight years of Bill Clinton-brand baggage that will hurt her numbers even if we completely discount her general weaknesses, which are manifold.
The only thing redeeming that sad mess is the fact that the GOP field is a bunch of feckless neutered liars who couldn't convince a man dying of thirst to buy a glass of water from them. Even a foundering vessel like Hillary Clinton can overtake a pack of rudderless and mastless cripples like the Republican candidates. I'm looking forward to November to an extent that would almost make a Hillary Clinton nomination worth it. What could be more poetic than watching Mitt Romney or whatever other shambling corpse they stuff into the Candidate Suit get the unholy tar beaten out of him by Bill Clinton's wife? Would they ever recover? I hope not.
Plus Barack Obama is still only 46. Even if Hillary becomes the first lady prez, if he kept his nose clean in the interim and led the liberal wing of the party (if could unseat Harry Reid, that noxious cretin, it would be beautiful), he could turn up as the heir apparent in 2016 and still be younger than Hillary is now. 16 years of Democratic leadership, God Willing.
THREE-
God, I've only come up with two levels. I'm in trouble now.
What book, you ask. It was Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by one Hunter S. Thompson. The next question you ask is, "What in God's name are you doing reading topical new-journalistic work from 1972 in this day and age? Why, goddammit, in 1972 people thought we would have space-planes and robots and a telescreen in every living room. What can they have to tell us?"
This is a good question, but watch your language. I don't even know who reads this blog. There could be children involved.
I read the book because it interested me on several levels.
ONE-
Hunter S. Thompson at least invented--accidentally perhaps, but then again penicillin was an accident--something which was new and fresh and stunning, and '72 was perhaps the one time he made a concerted effort of applying his hand-crafted Gonzo New-Journalism monstrosity to the national stage. These days all you have to do is crack a Rolling Stone to read prose lifted right out of Thompson's brain and then run through a tenderizer nine or twenty times so it can meet standards. Paragraph after paragraph of neo-Gonzo pablum flung out in an article about goddamn Nickelback or whatever they want to pretend matters. Sometimes meta-Journalism, Gonzo, the act of the journalist turning away from objectivity and facing him/herself is the only sane response. I once read an article a nice young lady wrote about her attempted and aborted coverage of the Godless beast that produces the "Girls Gone Wild" tapes; the entire affair was such a damn travesty that it could only be understood as Gonzo.
But more and more published and televised journalism disgusts me. They've only got two flavors--the one that pretends to be objective but isn't, and the one that doesn't pretend but bores me anyway. Who neutered these people? I think they were fooling us when they did Watergate and the Pentagon papers. It was a trick. They wanted us to think we could trust them, just so they would have time to shiv Walter Cronkite in a back alley and then run credulous garbage about Iraqi WMDs.
At least when Hunter lied it was hilarious.
TWO-
Hillary Clinton is the new Hubert Humphrey. I mean, Jesus, let's qualify my statement a bit, Hell. What do I know about Hubert Humphrey? What I've read, what I've read. But all that indicates that he was some foul barbarous creature who represented the worst of Democratic machine politics and had no real positions apart from wanting to be president. Does this sound like anyone we know?
I watch the bloody primary season and marvel at the determination of some people to nominate the very worst candidate in the entire lot. She's the most conservative, most easily bought, most owned by special interests already, least responsive to the will of the people, indeed least respectful of the people, and she's carrying eight years of Bill Clinton-brand baggage that will hurt her numbers even if we completely discount her general weaknesses, which are manifold.
The only thing redeeming that sad mess is the fact that the GOP field is a bunch of feckless neutered liars who couldn't convince a man dying of thirst to buy a glass of water from them. Even a foundering vessel like Hillary Clinton can overtake a pack of rudderless and mastless cripples like the Republican candidates. I'm looking forward to November to an extent that would almost make a Hillary Clinton nomination worth it. What could be more poetic than watching Mitt Romney or whatever other shambling corpse they stuff into the Candidate Suit get the unholy tar beaten out of him by Bill Clinton's wife? Would they ever recover? I hope not.
Plus Barack Obama is still only 46. Even if Hillary becomes the first lady prez, if he kept his nose clean in the interim and led the liberal wing of the party (if could unseat Harry Reid, that noxious cretin, it would be beautiful), he could turn up as the heir apparent in 2016 and still be younger than Hillary is now. 16 years of Democratic leadership, God Willing.
THREE-
God, I've only come up with two levels. I'm in trouble now.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Things I've Done in Iowa City during my Break
1) Watched internet videos of Queen performing live.
Freddie Mercury died of AIDS when I was five years old, denying me the opportunity to ever see him perform live. I regard this as a major loss. The man's energy is palpable even in video format. If I had a time machine, I would probably use it first to see the 1985 Live Aid performance by Queen, and only afterwards meet Abraham Lincoln. And I would probably only be able to talk about Freddie Mercury, the whole time I was hanging out with Lincoln.
2) Played video games.
I wrought electronic havoc, accomplished nothing tangible, yet felt nevertheless pleased. I can't imagine the mentality that went into pinball wizardry during the 1970s and '80s, but it must have been exactly the same thing. I spend time on an entertainment application which goes to nothing productive and illuminates nothing. What does this say about the futility inherent in the human condition?
3) Practiced drawing at work in the parking booth.
My friend Janani gave me an instruction book for drawing which was published in 1963 (or something) and contains quite dated instruction, which she picked out for her own reasons but is in fact exactly what I would have wanted! If I ever learn how to draw, ideally I would draw just like Jack Kirby. So the book is perfect. I practiced for about 2 hours aggregate (of a six hour shift I spent 2 hours reading history, 2 hours doing a NYT Friday crossword, and 2 hours drawing) and the improvement over my usual awful scribblings was tangible, even if I was using a pen instead of a pencil because I didn't have anything to sharpen with. I can draw my own portrait with some alacrity, and I tried to draw my friend Travis with minimal success. I think he may have a feminine jawline, though this is no judgment against his character. Maybe in subsequent revisions I'll be able to figure it out. I think I'll try to master the face and then move on, as the book suggests. Drawing is a frontier for me. Something that I can't do, that I want to learn how to do, that is probably possible for me to do. I'm looking forward to this.
4) Bought things with my Barnes and Noble gift cards, online.
I ordered a couple of graphic novels in the new Dark Horse "Conan" series, plus the deluxe version of Dethalbum, the album by the fictional cartoon Death Metal band Deathklok. I eagerly anticipate the arrival of these packages, lowbrow though they may be.
5) Slept 'til nearly 2:00 PM. And it was everything I thought it could be.
Freddie Mercury died of AIDS when I was five years old, denying me the opportunity to ever see him perform live. I regard this as a major loss. The man's energy is palpable even in video format. If I had a time machine, I would probably use it first to see the 1985 Live Aid performance by Queen, and only afterwards meet Abraham Lincoln. And I would probably only be able to talk about Freddie Mercury, the whole time I was hanging out with Lincoln.
2) Played video games.
I wrought electronic havoc, accomplished nothing tangible, yet felt nevertheless pleased. I can't imagine the mentality that went into pinball wizardry during the 1970s and '80s, but it must have been exactly the same thing. I spend time on an entertainment application which goes to nothing productive and illuminates nothing. What does this say about the futility inherent in the human condition?
3) Practiced drawing at work in the parking booth.
My friend Janani gave me an instruction book for drawing which was published in 1963 (or something) and contains quite dated instruction, which she picked out for her own reasons but is in fact exactly what I would have wanted! If I ever learn how to draw, ideally I would draw just like Jack Kirby. So the book is perfect. I practiced for about 2 hours aggregate (of a six hour shift I spent 2 hours reading history, 2 hours doing a NYT Friday crossword, and 2 hours drawing) and the improvement over my usual awful scribblings was tangible, even if I was using a pen instead of a pencil because I didn't have anything to sharpen with. I can draw my own portrait with some alacrity, and I tried to draw my friend Travis with minimal success. I think he may have a feminine jawline, though this is no judgment against his character. Maybe in subsequent revisions I'll be able to figure it out. I think I'll try to master the face and then move on, as the book suggests. Drawing is a frontier for me. Something that I can't do, that I want to learn how to do, that is probably possible for me to do. I'm looking forward to this.
4) Bought things with my Barnes and Noble gift cards, online.
I ordered a couple of graphic novels in the new Dark Horse "Conan" series, plus the deluxe version of Dethalbum, the album by the fictional cartoon Death Metal band Deathklok. I eagerly anticipate the arrival of these packages, lowbrow though they may be.
5) Slept 'til nearly 2:00 PM. And it was everything I thought it could be.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
I don't recall
Heres some fascinating news from MSNBC. Apparently the Reagan Library lost track of 80% of its inventory.
I find this just amazing and I am deeply impressed at the kind of administrative incompetence that would be required to allow such breathtaking theft. But isn't the Ronald Reagan presidential library the perfect place for kleptomania, piss-poor record-keeping, and plain forgetfulness? I think that this embarrassment is a more fitting capstone to the Reagan legacy than any amount of treasure could have been.
An audit by the National Archives inspector general concluded that the library in Simi Valley was unable to properly account for more than 80,000 objects out of its collection of some 100,000 artifacts, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site Wednesday night.
I find this just amazing and I am deeply impressed at the kind of administrative incompetence that would be required to allow such breathtaking theft. But isn't the Ronald Reagan presidential library the perfect place for kleptomania, piss-poor record-keeping, and plain forgetfulness? I think that this embarrassment is a more fitting capstone to the Reagan legacy than any amount of treasure could have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)