18 December 2006
We Are the Aqua Teens
if you're not watching aqua teen hunger force, i'll sic the mooninites on you.
Non Ho Culpa
oh, the lovely taste of irony in the -- well, at any time of day.
so i notice that the berlin opera is gearing up for a rather intemperate future "audience" at its staging of mozart's idomeneo. i say "gearing up" because the berlin opera is installing metal detectors and other weapon-detecting devices at its entrance. i say "audience" because these devices are meant to prevent angry muslim extremists from blowing the place up when they see a staging of their prophet getting beheaded. these extremists, who have yet to materialize, are not your grandfather's opera aficionadoes -- unless of course your grandfather wanted to blow up an opera house when it saw its idol artfully degraded.
i think it's safe to say that we all recognize how ridiculous muslim extremists are. we recognize the need we all have for uninhibited artistic expression -- even if certain audiences think the "art" is offensive, stupid, and ill-considered (see the former UPN, anything britney spears has done, and of course the entire sandra bullock ouvre).
but aren't open societies -- societies that are at the forefront of quality of life for their citizens -- predicated on a shared willingness to entertain and explore any kind of expressive speech, be it offensive or brilliant or just plain low-brow (again -- UPN, britney spears, sandra bullock)?
hmmm -- granted. but, then, what of jimmy carter? what of this country's "discussion" of israeli policy toward palestinians and the sad sad bashing of his book for its alleged "anti-semitism" (i hardly need to link anywhere, though if you've been under a rock start with michael kinsley's review in the washington post for an idea of how unfairly carter is being treated)? i say "discussion" because virtually no where in this country is there an honest parsing of israel's conduct toward an occupied people. and i don't mean israeli treatment of suicide bombers. for, as carter details in his new book, the israeli army is completely justified in killing former or current terrorists. whether or not suicide bombing is a reaction to the desolate conditions of military occupation is irrelevant.
i say "anti-semitism" because carter makes exactly this point time and again. he also stresses the miserable and quite certainly illegal conditions under which native inhabitants of palestine are forced to live under. this is not a judgment about any essential idea of "jewishness." not in the least.
it's a socio-political analysis of state oppression and quite a lively one at that.
or not. and that's the point. let's at least talk about it. let's grant, at the beginning of this "discussion," that criticism of israeli governmental policy is NOT anti-semitism. then deal with carter's ideas and opinions on their merits. certainly there is a lot to disagree with from a policy perspective (though, if you haven't already imagined, i largely agree with him). i find myself, if we're being disagreeable now, a bit uncomfortable with the christian agenda he pushes -- but i'm not calling him a born again freak. i'm simply saying his analysis is at times a bit too fraught with christian symbolism to maintain a realistic claim on both parties.
i hate to say it -- actually, i relish saying it, so kiss off -- but until americans, who are right in condemning muslim extremist censorship, are willing to have a frank discussion about the ramifications of israeli policy in the occupied territories, we deserve the UPN. and britney. and sandra.
so i notice that the berlin opera is gearing up for a rather intemperate future "audience" at its staging of mozart's idomeneo. i say "gearing up" because the berlin opera is installing metal detectors and other weapon-detecting devices at its entrance. i say "audience" because these devices are meant to prevent angry muslim extremists from blowing the place up when they see a staging of their prophet getting beheaded. these extremists, who have yet to materialize, are not your grandfather's opera aficionadoes -- unless of course your grandfather wanted to blow up an opera house when it saw its idol artfully degraded.
i think it's safe to say that we all recognize how ridiculous muslim extremists are. we recognize the need we all have for uninhibited artistic expression -- even if certain audiences think the "art" is offensive, stupid, and ill-considered (see the former UPN, anything britney spears has done, and of course the entire sandra bullock ouvre).
but aren't open societies -- societies that are at the forefront of quality of life for their citizens -- predicated on a shared willingness to entertain and explore any kind of expressive speech, be it offensive or brilliant or just plain low-brow (again -- UPN, britney spears, sandra bullock)?
hmmm -- granted. but, then, what of jimmy carter? what of this country's "discussion" of israeli policy toward palestinians and the sad sad bashing of his book for its alleged "anti-semitism" (i hardly need to link anywhere, though if you've been under a rock start with michael kinsley's review in the washington post for an idea of how unfairly carter is being treated)? i say "discussion" because virtually no where in this country is there an honest parsing of israel's conduct toward an occupied people. and i don't mean israeli treatment of suicide bombers. for, as carter details in his new book, the israeli army is completely justified in killing former or current terrorists. whether or not suicide bombing is a reaction to the desolate conditions of military occupation is irrelevant.
i say "anti-semitism" because carter makes exactly this point time and again. he also stresses the miserable and quite certainly illegal conditions under which native inhabitants of palestine are forced to live under. this is not a judgment about any essential idea of "jewishness." not in the least.
it's a socio-political analysis of state oppression and quite a lively one at that.
or not. and that's the point. let's at least talk about it. let's grant, at the beginning of this "discussion," that criticism of israeli governmental policy is NOT anti-semitism. then deal with carter's ideas and opinions on their merits. certainly there is a lot to disagree with from a policy perspective (though, if you haven't already imagined, i largely agree with him). i find myself, if we're being disagreeable now, a bit uncomfortable with the christian agenda he pushes -- but i'm not calling him a born again freak. i'm simply saying his analysis is at times a bit too fraught with christian symbolism to maintain a realistic claim on both parties.
i hate to say it -- actually, i relish saying it, so kiss off -- but until americans, who are right in condemning muslim extremist censorship, are willing to have a frank discussion about the ramifications of israeli policy in the occupied territories, we deserve the UPN. and britney. and sandra.
15 December 2006
Alice
i recently came across a gorgeous essay by calvin trillin, from a march issue of the new yorker. it's a tribute to his late wife, alice.
i won't pretend that i've read much of trillin's work, though i've certainly read it on occassion and find it funny and stylish. i also won't pretend that i knew anything about his wife, alice, who seemed to be a woman of amazing beauty, intelligence, and kindness.
i link to the article above simply because it's a stunning piece that captures what it's like to be a man loved by a woman of extraordinary presence:
"Decades later—after we had been married for more than thirty-five years, after our girls were grown—I still wanted to impress her. I still knew that if I ever disappointed her in some fundamental way—if I ever caused her to conclude that, after all was said and done, she should have said no when...I asked her if we could have dinner sometime—I would have been devastated."
trillin is winking at us guys, reminding us never to forget how wonderful our own alices are.
i won't pretend that i've read much of trillin's work, though i've certainly read it on occassion and find it funny and stylish. i also won't pretend that i knew anything about his wife, alice, who seemed to be a woman of amazing beauty, intelligence, and kindness.
i link to the article above simply because it's a stunning piece that captures what it's like to be a man loved by a woman of extraordinary presence:
"Decades later—after we had been married for more than thirty-five years, after our girls were grown—I still wanted to impress her. I still knew that if I ever disappointed her in some fundamental way—if I ever caused her to conclude that, after all was said and done, she should have said no when...I asked her if we could have dinner sometime—I would have been devastated."
trillin is winking at us guys, reminding us never to forget how wonderful our own alices are.
05 December 2006
Bobby
one among walter benjamin's many great observations about art in the mechanical age of reproduction is that we no longer have to concern ourselves with originality. he wrote, in his characteristically disjointed but incisive manner:
"the social significance of film, even -- and especially -- in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic side: the liquidation of the value of tradition in the cultural heritage."
this is startling. but, when we think about it, we can see that this insight is critical to a nuanced understanding film. movies, because they are reproductions of some prior unoriginal act, do not represent reality as it was at that time, but a representation of a representation. that's it.
what's more, this notion that film destroys and liquidates "the value of tradition" is an inherently progressive idea. that is to say, because film is a representation of a representation it cannot have at its antecedent some grand cultural heritage available to only a select few (the aristocracy, as benjamin would have it).
benjamin was right to say that film would be a democratic medium -- after all, anyone can make one. with this much welcomed untethering of art from aristocracy also comes, however, a slightly nasty underside: if anyone can make a movie, anyone will, and so movies like britney spears' "crossroads" has to exist alongside a brilliant film like "das experiment."
i say all this, it so happens, to be able to make this claim about emilio estevez's new movie "bobby": it was feel-good, smarmy, and sentimental. it was also a brilliant if slightly fanciful account of the night of RFK's death that, to my mind, perfectly encapsulated not RFK's life but the aura surrounding the idea of bobby.
i think "bobby" is a great movie not because it pretends to represent a true and factual accounting of RFK's death (er, savage murder) but rather a representation of what RFK the man -- called by many who loved him "bobby" -- meant to americans. "bobby" is successful because it liquidates historical accuracy for the kind of sentimentalism only silly movies can offer.
to put it another way: if you liked RFK and believe, as i do, that the world would be a drastically better place if he had won the presidency in 1968 (and again in 1972), you'll love this movie. if you don't like RFK, you'll hate it.
"the social significance of film, even -- and especially -- in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic side: the liquidation of the value of tradition in the cultural heritage."
this is startling. but, when we think about it, we can see that this insight is critical to a nuanced understanding film. movies, because they are reproductions of some prior unoriginal act, do not represent reality as it was at that time, but a representation of a representation. that's it.
what's more, this notion that film destroys and liquidates "the value of tradition" is an inherently progressive idea. that is to say, because film is a representation of a representation it cannot have at its antecedent some grand cultural heritage available to only a select few (the aristocracy, as benjamin would have it).
benjamin was right to say that film would be a democratic medium -- after all, anyone can make one. with this much welcomed untethering of art from aristocracy also comes, however, a slightly nasty underside: if anyone can make a movie, anyone will, and so movies like britney spears' "crossroads" has to exist alongside a brilliant film like "das experiment."
i say all this, it so happens, to be able to make this claim about emilio estevez's new movie "bobby": it was feel-good, smarmy, and sentimental. it was also a brilliant if slightly fanciful account of the night of RFK's death that, to my mind, perfectly encapsulated not RFK's life but the aura surrounding the idea of bobby.
i think "bobby" is a great movie not because it pretends to represent a true and factual accounting of RFK's death (er, savage murder) but rather a representation of what RFK the man -- called by many who loved him "bobby" -- meant to americans. "bobby" is successful because it liquidates historical accuracy for the kind of sentimentalism only silly movies can offer.
to put it another way: if you liked RFK and believe, as i do, that the world would be a drastically better place if he had won the presidency in 1968 (and again in 1972), you'll love this movie. if you don't like RFK, you'll hate it.
03 December 2006
The Dialectic of Christopher Hitchens
in an effort to understand my own recent bout of sullen, quick-tempered wit and invective -- hurled at errant drivers and other equally obvious humans, be they walking in front of me too slowly or talking on their cell phones in a small, enclosed bookstore cafe -- i've been reaquainting myself with the works of christopher hitchens.
it strikes me now, as i write this, quite appropriate that i just posted on how the similarities between brett favre and jay cutler both excited me and gave me much pause. i feel the exact same way about christopher hitchens, and the dialect i refer to is the one of desire and derision.
hitchens' writings evoke in me the same mix of feelings: i read him because i want to write like him, with the same assurance, clarity, wit, phraseology, and insight. yet i find in his logic the same hypocrisy over which he so loves to crucify the american left. and his logical imperfections leave me frustrated and reactive.
it's quite possible, of course, that this is hitchens' intent. he is, after all, a self-described contrarian. he is also a self-described liberal interventionist. i consider myself a committed member of both camps, and yet, once the rush of excitement that only enlivened and brilliant writing can evoke washes over me, i want to unceremoniously shake him by the collar and pronounce him guilty of the same petty demagoguery he finds in, as he so often puts it (using the word "liberal" pejoratively), "every liberal in the world."
a quick anecdote to illustrate my point.
as described by ian parker in a recent new yorker article on the drunk writer -- a fair and honest accounting of hitchens, i would say -- hitchens rips into two women who, upon finding out that howard dean had not quite been truthful in an anecdote illurstrating why parental notification would impugn the rights of women. hitchens calls dean a demagogue, psycho, raving liberal who had the support of the left because he was anti-bush. he called him these names for telling the (partly-fictionalized, it turns out, though dean had made the audience believe it was a real patient of his) story of a girl who had been raped and left pregnant by her father. dean asked the crowd if parental notification laws seem like a good idea in such instances. the two women hitchens was talking with said that, to them, it didn't matter that dean had lied. he was a politician who was trying to make a point, and what mattered more than white lies were how he would govern.
hitchens would, naturally, have none of it. he told the women to "Fuck off" roughly five times. while i don't disagree with hitchens that being as truthful as possible at all times is important, especially in the case of politicians running for the highest office in the world, i think that, had dean simply said, "here's a possible scenario that we should consider when thinking about abortion laws," he would have been fine. but i don't he would have been for hitchens -- it's quite clear that if hitchens doesn't like you, which is usually the result of your disagreeing with him, he will simply cease his logical argument and hurl nasty invective after nasty invective directly in your face.
and that's where hitchens stops being a terrific writer and turns into a sodden, drunk, s.o.b. he does it, of course, with all the usual fanfare and witty prose you'd expect of hitchens. but that he does it is frustrating and symptomatic of a pompous, arrogant, and unilateral thinker. in another instance, hitchens concludes an otherwise spot-on essay wherein he explains his opposition to the death penalty for saddam hussein by writing,
"It is a shame that the Kurds were not part of the centerpiece of this trial, just as it is impressive that their leaders are the ones most in favor of magnanimity. And these, by the way, are the people that every liberal in the world is currently arguing that we should desert."
this is pure canard, and hitchens knows it. many liberals, myself included, argued against the iraq war because, in part, the kurds were already running their own part of iraq. further, many liberals want to see iraq divided into three areas, whether we pull out right away or not, to help protect the kurds' interests. very few liberals i know or read or talk to want to desert the kurds.
this single-minded assurance, arrogance, and simplistic thought reminds me of someone else: the very leader EVERY LIBERAL in the world despises.
it strikes me now, as i write this, quite appropriate that i just posted on how the similarities between brett favre and jay cutler both excited me and gave me much pause. i feel the exact same way about christopher hitchens, and the dialect i refer to is the one of desire and derision.
hitchens' writings evoke in me the same mix of feelings: i read him because i want to write like him, with the same assurance, clarity, wit, phraseology, and insight. yet i find in his logic the same hypocrisy over which he so loves to crucify the american left. and his logical imperfections leave me frustrated and reactive.
it's quite possible, of course, that this is hitchens' intent. he is, after all, a self-described contrarian. he is also a self-described liberal interventionist. i consider myself a committed member of both camps, and yet, once the rush of excitement that only enlivened and brilliant writing can evoke washes over me, i want to unceremoniously shake him by the collar and pronounce him guilty of the same petty demagoguery he finds in, as he so often puts it (using the word "liberal" pejoratively), "every liberal in the world."
a quick anecdote to illustrate my point.
as described by ian parker in a recent new yorker article on the drunk writer -- a fair and honest accounting of hitchens, i would say -- hitchens rips into two women who, upon finding out that howard dean had not quite been truthful in an anecdote illurstrating why parental notification would impugn the rights of women. hitchens calls dean a demagogue, psycho, raving liberal who had the support of the left because he was anti-bush. he called him these names for telling the (partly-fictionalized, it turns out, though dean had made the audience believe it was a real patient of his) story of a girl who had been raped and left pregnant by her father. dean asked the crowd if parental notification laws seem like a good idea in such instances. the two women hitchens was talking with said that, to them, it didn't matter that dean had lied. he was a politician who was trying to make a point, and what mattered more than white lies were how he would govern.
hitchens would, naturally, have none of it. he told the women to "Fuck off" roughly five times. while i don't disagree with hitchens that being as truthful as possible at all times is important, especially in the case of politicians running for the highest office in the world, i think that, had dean simply said, "here's a possible scenario that we should consider when thinking about abortion laws," he would have been fine. but i don't he would have been for hitchens -- it's quite clear that if hitchens doesn't like you, which is usually the result of your disagreeing with him, he will simply cease his logical argument and hurl nasty invective after nasty invective directly in your face.
and that's where hitchens stops being a terrific writer and turns into a sodden, drunk, s.o.b. he does it, of course, with all the usual fanfare and witty prose you'd expect of hitchens. but that he does it is frustrating and symptomatic of a pompous, arrogant, and unilateral thinker. in another instance, hitchens concludes an otherwise spot-on essay wherein he explains his opposition to the death penalty for saddam hussein by writing,
"It is a shame that the Kurds were not part of the centerpiece of this trial, just as it is impressive that their leaders are the ones most in favor of magnanimity. And these, by the way, are the people that every liberal in the world is currently arguing that we should desert."
this is pure canard, and hitchens knows it. many liberals, myself included, argued against the iraq war because, in part, the kurds were already running their own part of iraq. further, many liberals want to see iraq divided into three areas, whether we pull out right away or not, to help protect the kurds' interests. very few liberals i know or read or talk to want to desert the kurds.
this single-minded assurance, arrogance, and simplistic thought reminds me of someone else: the very leader EVERY LIBERAL in the world despises.
What About Brett Favre?
it occurs to me, watching jay cutler, that the broncos new QB is reminiscent of one brett favre.
brilliant arm, fast feet, good mechanics, quick release... but also sometimes not so accurate and wisened. cutler has missed about three open receivers, and he of course tried to throw a pass while horizontal and airborn.
isn't that brett favre in a nutshell?
this realization alernately thrills and horrifies me.
brilliant arm, fast feet, good mechanics, quick release... but also sometimes not so accurate and wisened. cutler has missed about three open receivers, and he of course tried to throw a pass while horizontal and airborn.
isn't that brett favre in a nutshell?
this realization alernately thrills and horrifies me.
02 December 2006
If I Hear Brent Musberger Say John David Booty One More Time
i'm gonna puke.
and then punch him in the neck.
and then punch him in the neck.
In Which I Proclaim Arrested Development the Greatest Show on Earth
well besides west wing, of course.
so, greatest comedy series, then.
so, greatest comedy series, then.
29 November 2006
The Friedman Fetish
i wanted to remark on the passing of milton friedman, that giant of pretty economic theories.
i'm not going to drink the kool-aid and say that friedman was the most influential economist of the 20th century. it's just not true. keynes was more influential. so was galbraith.
but no economist of the 20th century was so fetishized.
think about it. while liberal (not neoliberal) economic theory owes a great deal to keynes and galbraith -- hell, maybe it owes everything to them -- liberals have not, for the most part, held either one up to be a god-like figure. when i went in search of my first keynes text, i had to have barnes and noble order it for me. they didn't stock it in the store. sure, there were one or two works by galbraith there, but friedman had his own shelf!
now, obviously there are those who believe that there is good reason for friedman's continued popularity (hi brother!): simply put, he's right about economics. free markets deliver the most wealth to the greatest number of people than any other kind of economic system. so why not lionize him?
simply put, he's wrong about economics. oh, don't get me wrong, his theories are pretty. they make sense. they're easily provable and it's just so darn nice to think of humans as logical, rational actors who want nothing more than to maximize efficiency and utility with every single thing they do.
there's problem with these models, though. they're not realistic. like pure marxist theory, pure free-market economic theory can never work -- at least not in the way we're told it can work. just as marxists, when they insist that by eliminating private ownership and turning control of the market over to the government, are discounting human nature and what it means to be truly free, so freemarketeers, when they insist that government intervention in the markets -- if only to keep them from congealing in a monopolistic mass -- fail to grasp the complexities of human nature.
as chris hayes points out in this piece about economics 101 at the u of chicago, while friedman's ideas about the market and fun, logical if unchallenging, and tidy, they only describe things as they exist in theory. the reality of economic markets can be better understand by considering the lessons of political economy. one doesn't have to read liberal political economists like galbraith, stiglitz, delong, krugman, sen, or others to have a deeper understanding of market economics, either. read conservatives like desoto. read adam smith, for god sakes, who, though he made much of the "invisible hand of the market," still wrote that the government should, from time to time, make sure that the market does not congeal upward to create giant monopolies and quash competitiveness.
what real free-traders believe -- or should believe, in my opinion -- is that, in general, free trade and free markets are extensions of free thought. jefferson said as much when he claimed that from free men comes free trade. but, interestingly enough, jefferson went further and stated that free trade will not be enough to generate freedom of thought. he stated that before you can have free trade and free markets you have to have a governmental infrastructure that will support political and social freedom. then trade can be free.
i agree and i think this is what the friedman lovers miss. free trade hasn't worked -- and probably gets a bad rap -- from many placed around the world because there isn't political freedom to protect the people at the bottom from getting crushed. free markets naturally drift toward congealment, anticompetitiveness, and oligopolies. so, government intervention -- guidance, more like -- is necessary to mitigate these things.
i don't advocate complete government management of markets. not at all. i'm pro free trade. but only in so far as it respects the human rights of everyone involved, and is done in the spirit of fairness. i think there's nothing wrong with getting rich. not in the least. but there is something wrong with getting rich at the complete expense of those on the bottom of the economic ladder. if we agree as a society that free markets are best, we're must acknowledge that free markets, if left completely untouched, will erode public infrastructure, will impoverish and kill millions of people, and will result in drastically stark class division.
it's the difference between paper economics and realpolitik. friedman was brilliant, i agree. his ideas are attractive, sure. but they only exist in ether.
friedman would rest comfortably next to marx.
i'm not going to drink the kool-aid and say that friedman was the most influential economist of the 20th century. it's just not true. keynes was more influential. so was galbraith.
but no economist of the 20th century was so fetishized.
think about it. while liberal (not neoliberal) economic theory owes a great deal to keynes and galbraith -- hell, maybe it owes everything to them -- liberals have not, for the most part, held either one up to be a god-like figure. when i went in search of my first keynes text, i had to have barnes and noble order it for me. they didn't stock it in the store. sure, there were one or two works by galbraith there, but friedman had his own shelf!
now, obviously there are those who believe that there is good reason for friedman's continued popularity (hi brother!): simply put, he's right about economics. free markets deliver the most wealth to the greatest number of people than any other kind of economic system. so why not lionize him?
simply put, he's wrong about economics. oh, don't get me wrong, his theories are pretty. they make sense. they're easily provable and it's just so darn nice to think of humans as logical, rational actors who want nothing more than to maximize efficiency and utility with every single thing they do.
there's problem with these models, though. they're not realistic. like pure marxist theory, pure free-market economic theory can never work -- at least not in the way we're told it can work. just as marxists, when they insist that by eliminating private ownership and turning control of the market over to the government, are discounting human nature and what it means to be truly free, so freemarketeers, when they insist that government intervention in the markets -- if only to keep them from congealing in a monopolistic mass -- fail to grasp the complexities of human nature.
as chris hayes points out in this piece about economics 101 at the u of chicago, while friedman's ideas about the market and fun, logical if unchallenging, and tidy, they only describe things as they exist in theory. the reality of economic markets can be better understand by considering the lessons of political economy. one doesn't have to read liberal political economists like galbraith, stiglitz, delong, krugman, sen, or others to have a deeper understanding of market economics, either. read conservatives like desoto. read adam smith, for god sakes, who, though he made much of the "invisible hand of the market," still wrote that the government should, from time to time, make sure that the market does not congeal upward to create giant monopolies and quash competitiveness.
what real free-traders believe -- or should believe, in my opinion -- is that, in general, free trade and free markets are extensions of free thought. jefferson said as much when he claimed that from free men comes free trade. but, interestingly enough, jefferson went further and stated that free trade will not be enough to generate freedom of thought. he stated that before you can have free trade and free markets you have to have a governmental infrastructure that will support political and social freedom. then trade can be free.
i agree and i think this is what the friedman lovers miss. free trade hasn't worked -- and probably gets a bad rap -- from many placed around the world because there isn't political freedom to protect the people at the bottom from getting crushed. free markets naturally drift toward congealment, anticompetitiveness, and oligopolies. so, government intervention -- guidance, more like -- is necessary to mitigate these things.
i don't advocate complete government management of markets. not at all. i'm pro free trade. but only in so far as it respects the human rights of everyone involved, and is done in the spirit of fairness. i think there's nothing wrong with getting rich. not in the least. but there is something wrong with getting rich at the complete expense of those on the bottom of the economic ladder. if we agree as a society that free markets are best, we're must acknowledge that free markets, if left completely untouched, will erode public infrastructure, will impoverish and kill millions of people, and will result in drastically stark class division.
it's the difference between paper economics and realpolitik. friedman was brilliant, i agree. his ideas are attractive, sure. but they only exist in ether.
friedman would rest comfortably next to marx.
28 November 2006
dear john, dear coltrane
the tenor kiss.
lines from a poem by michael s. harper.
listening to coltrane now.
beautiful beautiful sounds.
lines from a poem by michael s. harper.
listening to coltrane now.
beautiful beautiful sounds.
Ass is in the Gate
or something like that.
i'm reading george packer's Assassin's Gate. i'm only one chapter in, so i don't think i should pass judgment yet (another joke, obviously).
but i've noticed a couple of things already that i'd like to share.
one is that packer can sometimes be imprecise. for example, chapter one is spent parsing out how neoconservative ideas came to be prominent in american foreign policy circles in general and in the second bush administration in particular. in so doing, packer has to, of course, address competing perspectives and give them historical treatment. while i'm extremely interested in packer's view on this -- he share's his own conversion from dove to hawk on iraq -- i'm not too fond of the way he equates the wilsonian ideal of liberal internationalism with that of liberal hawkishness. i'm not saying there aren't any lib-ints who weren't for the war, the bastards. but wilsonians are not, as a group, prone to military action to solve all international conflicts. while packer does a good job, in my opinion, talking about the ways in which many lib-ints wish to rely on international bodies like the UN or NATO to resolve conflict, he takes what i think is an oppositional bias and lets it color his understanding of where liberals positioned themselves in the run-up to -- and during -- the war.
the other is that, i REALLY like this book. i think packer is tremendously gifted as a journalist, and a great writer. terrific. not only that, i find that i agree with a lot of what he says. i've been reading packer for a while now, mostly in the pages of the new yorker. several of his essays there before the war sparked a lot of outrage from readers who felt he was way too hawkish on the war. i'll admit that i was pissed, too, and kept asking myself why a guy like packer was writing for the new yorker and not the new republic. he's not hendrick hertzberg, afterall.
but i see why now. oh, i still disagree quite vehemently with his pro-war essays that appeared in the new yorker several years ago. i make myself feel oh so important by reading them over and saying, i told you so. but the reason packer is writing for the new yorker, and doing a great job, is that he is willing to recognize that he was wrong before. that the war was ill-planned. that the war has come at a tremendous cost for, so far, very little good. he is writing for the new yorker because, after supporting the invasion, he wanted to get a first-hand glimpse of what the war has wrought. upon doing so, he would not let ideological bias blind him to emperical evidence.
there are still many writers at the new republic -- a magazine called by many, quite aptly in my mind, the "joe lieberman weekly" -- who will either, after gaining first-hand knowledge of how ugly the war is, refuse to change their minds for fear of appearing weak, or who will refuse to gain first-hand knowledge and sit back and continue to shill for this tragedy.
i've enjoyed packer's recent writings for the new yorker, and while i still disagree with some of what he says -- especially since i still get the sense from him that he thinks liberal internationalists should advocate preemptive wars -- i think he did the right thing in remembering that he is a journalist and that emperical evidence is the real story.
assassins gate is all the better for it.
i'm reading george packer's Assassin's Gate. i'm only one chapter in, so i don't think i should pass judgment yet (another joke, obviously).
but i've noticed a couple of things already that i'd like to share.
one is that packer can sometimes be imprecise. for example, chapter one is spent parsing out how neoconservative ideas came to be prominent in american foreign policy circles in general and in the second bush administration in particular. in so doing, packer has to, of course, address competing perspectives and give them historical treatment. while i'm extremely interested in packer's view on this -- he share's his own conversion from dove to hawk on iraq -- i'm not too fond of the way he equates the wilsonian ideal of liberal internationalism with that of liberal hawkishness. i'm not saying there aren't any lib-ints who weren't for the war, the bastards. but wilsonians are not, as a group, prone to military action to solve all international conflicts. while packer does a good job, in my opinion, talking about the ways in which many lib-ints wish to rely on international bodies like the UN or NATO to resolve conflict, he takes what i think is an oppositional bias and lets it color his understanding of where liberals positioned themselves in the run-up to -- and during -- the war.
the other is that, i REALLY like this book. i think packer is tremendously gifted as a journalist, and a great writer. terrific. not only that, i find that i agree with a lot of what he says. i've been reading packer for a while now, mostly in the pages of the new yorker. several of his essays there before the war sparked a lot of outrage from readers who felt he was way too hawkish on the war. i'll admit that i was pissed, too, and kept asking myself why a guy like packer was writing for the new yorker and not the new republic. he's not hendrick hertzberg, afterall.
but i see why now. oh, i still disagree quite vehemently with his pro-war essays that appeared in the new yorker several years ago. i make myself feel oh so important by reading them over and saying, i told you so. but the reason packer is writing for the new yorker, and doing a great job, is that he is willing to recognize that he was wrong before. that the war was ill-planned. that the war has come at a tremendous cost for, so far, very little good. he is writing for the new yorker because, after supporting the invasion, he wanted to get a first-hand glimpse of what the war has wrought. upon doing so, he would not let ideological bias blind him to emperical evidence.
there are still many writers at the new republic -- a magazine called by many, quite aptly in my mind, the "joe lieberman weekly" -- who will either, after gaining first-hand knowledge of how ugly the war is, refuse to change their minds for fear of appearing weak, or who will refuse to gain first-hand knowledge and sit back and continue to shill for this tragedy.
i've enjoyed packer's recent writings for the new yorker, and while i still disagree with some of what he says -- especially since i still get the sense from him that he thinks liberal internationalists should advocate preemptive wars -- i think he did the right thing in remembering that he is a journalist and that emperical evidence is the real story.
assassins gate is all the better for it.
14 November 2006
Big M or little h?
murtha or hoyer for the house democratic leadership position?
tough one.
murtha, obviously, has street cred. fought in vietnam. can attract a lot of support from the heartland, regular joe types.
hoyer is a liberal in a literal sense of the word. pro-trade (almost to the point of shunning fair trade, which gives me pause), pro-gay, pro-education, etc.
i dunno who would lead the democrats to where they truly want to be. murtha is good, it seems, insofar as the dems want to lead the country during a time of war and deep concern about the perils of globalization. hoyer might be better for growing the party over the long term and keeping the socially liberal but fiscally moderate folks in our camp for the foreseeable future.
what say you, lonely reader?
i vote hoyer.
murtha seems to be an ear-mark whore, and while i think it would be useful for dems to let a strong veteran be the face we display in the near future, hoyer has the right ideas about growing the party.
keep in mind i'm still a liberal's liberal. as in, viva canada. but i also love crushing convservative folk like the regressive bastards they are.
tough one.
murtha, obviously, has street cred. fought in vietnam. can attract a lot of support from the heartland, regular joe types.
hoyer is a liberal in a literal sense of the word. pro-trade (almost to the point of shunning fair trade, which gives me pause), pro-gay, pro-education, etc.
i dunno who would lead the democrats to where they truly want to be. murtha is good, it seems, insofar as the dems want to lead the country during a time of war and deep concern about the perils of globalization. hoyer might be better for growing the party over the long term and keeping the socially liberal but fiscally moderate folks in our camp for the foreseeable future.
what say you, lonely reader?
i vote hoyer.
murtha seems to be an ear-mark whore, and while i think it would be useful for dems to let a strong veteran be the face we display in the near future, hoyer has the right ideas about growing the party.
keep in mind i'm still a liberal's liberal. as in, viva canada. but i also love crushing convservative folk like the regressive bastards they are.
The Sucka Free
i was in san francisco with C this weekend.
man i love that city. every time i go there i'm enchanted.
the funny part is that the people aren't beautiful and gorgeous and amazing. but they comport themselves with an air of sophistication that is unmatched in any other city -- not NY, not Chicago, definitely NOT the diego (where the ratio of smoked out skank to normal girl, and drunk-all-the-time skater dude to normal guy, is about 10-1).
i know what people say about the sucka free -- too expensive, too liberal, too much BIG GOVERNMENT.
ok -- but that's part of what makes it wondrous. it's the paris of the U.S. and the people there REALLY ARE better than the rest of us.
they just are.
man i love that city. every time i go there i'm enchanted.
the funny part is that the people aren't beautiful and gorgeous and amazing. but they comport themselves with an air of sophistication that is unmatched in any other city -- not NY, not Chicago, definitely NOT the diego (where the ratio of smoked out skank to normal girl, and drunk-all-the-time skater dude to normal guy, is about 10-1).
i know what people say about the sucka free -- too expensive, too liberal, too much BIG GOVERNMENT.
ok -- but that's part of what makes it wondrous. it's the paris of the U.S. and the people there REALLY ARE better than the rest of us.
they just are.
The Island Should Have Been Left There
on the island, that is.
so i'm watching the island, the michael bay movie with ewan mcgrecor and scarlett johansson.
basically shit-ass. pretty much just a venue for displaying beautiful people looking beautiful running from fascists and evil -- but beautiful -- doctors. i liked this movie better when it was called EVERY SCI-FI FLICK MADE BY HOLLYWOOD EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EVER.
couple of observations.
no matter how dirty or wet or roughed up ewan mcgregor gets, his hair remains spiky, his stubble a day old, and his teeth milky white.
also, no scot has ever been in that good a shape. EVER. i should know. lots of the land of scot coursing through these veins.
you can take the scarlett johansson out of jersey, but you can't take the jersey out of... you know the rest. scratchy voice and thinks she's awesome but, babe, i got news for you: THE JERSEY SHORE IS ASS-UGLY AND GIRLS WHO SMOKE 30 PACKS A DAY ARE NOT SEXY.
luckily it has steve buscemi to keep it from completely sucking the biggest ass in movie-land. he's the sooth-sayer here.
how scary is that?
so i'm watching the island, the michael bay movie with ewan mcgrecor and scarlett johansson.
basically shit-ass. pretty much just a venue for displaying beautiful people looking beautiful running from fascists and evil -- but beautiful -- doctors. i liked this movie better when it was called EVERY SCI-FI FLICK MADE BY HOLLYWOOD EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EVER.
couple of observations.
no matter how dirty or wet or roughed up ewan mcgregor gets, his hair remains spiky, his stubble a day old, and his teeth milky white.
also, no scot has ever been in that good a shape. EVER. i should know. lots of the land of scot coursing through these veins.
you can take the scarlett johansson out of jersey, but you can't take the jersey out of... you know the rest. scratchy voice and thinks she's awesome but, babe, i got news for you: THE JERSEY SHORE IS ASS-UGLY AND GIRLS WHO SMOKE 30 PACKS A DAY ARE NOT SEXY.
luckily it has steve buscemi to keep it from completely sucking the biggest ass in movie-land. he's the sooth-sayer here.
how scary is that?
09 November 2006
Not Just Iraq
there is much to be discussed yet regarding what the "blue tide" of tuesday really means.
is it really all about iraq?
i don't think so. i'm not prepared to argue here that the country is ready to embrace gay marriage, choice on abortion (though, really, more than 50% of people support choice in the first trimester of pregnancy), or what i think really needs fixing -- a drastically cut military budget (by about $200B, which is then rerouted AS EISENHOWER ARGUED FOR to social programs).
but there was a lot of anger about more than just the lies and deception regarding our illegal invasion of iraq. the economy, for one. like it or not, not everyone is happy with globalization. and though i'm pro free trade -- fair free trade, meaning we work to reduce our trade deficit and insist that countries we trade with conform to labor laws and pay living wages -- i understand that workers here in the U.S. are upset about the bottom dropping out on them.
and what of healthcare? i think we can all agree that one way to strengthen the economy AND take care of our fellow humans is by initiating a national health care program that does away with employer-provided healthcare. believe me, pretty soon the fotune 500 is going to insist on this.
iraq played a big role in the elections, i admit. but i'd like to think that most americans are smarter than to vote just on that issue alone, and instead realized that the way iraq was handled was indicative of how almost everything else this administration and congress has done has been equally inept.
we'll see as as time moves on.
is it really all about iraq?
i don't think so. i'm not prepared to argue here that the country is ready to embrace gay marriage, choice on abortion (though, really, more than 50% of people support choice in the first trimester of pregnancy), or what i think really needs fixing -- a drastically cut military budget (by about $200B, which is then rerouted AS EISENHOWER ARGUED FOR to social programs).
but there was a lot of anger about more than just the lies and deception regarding our illegal invasion of iraq. the economy, for one. like it or not, not everyone is happy with globalization. and though i'm pro free trade -- fair free trade, meaning we work to reduce our trade deficit and insist that countries we trade with conform to labor laws and pay living wages -- i understand that workers here in the U.S. are upset about the bottom dropping out on them.
and what of healthcare? i think we can all agree that one way to strengthen the economy AND take care of our fellow humans is by initiating a national health care program that does away with employer-provided healthcare. believe me, pretty soon the fotune 500 is going to insist on this.
iraq played a big role in the elections, i admit. but i'd like to think that most americans are smarter than to vote just on that issue alone, and instead realized that the way iraq was handled was indicative of how almost everything else this administration and congress has done has been equally inept.
we'll see as as time moves on.
08 November 2006
BOOM!
had i world enough and time i would strut, gloat, and possibly get in people's faces and proclaim this the day reactionary conservative 'ideas' -- nice oxymoron -- were struck down.
i have neither.
but i DO go to bed tonight knowing that, in the end, i'm proud of my country. i'm proud of my party. i may not agree with everyone in it -- i wish quite dearly that senator-elect casey in pennsylvania were pro-choice, or that senator lieberman weren't a crazy war monger. and, to be honest, i feel bad that true conservatives like lincoln chaffee are no longer around to moderate some of their more rigidly conservative colleagues, but let's be honest: the republican party is no longer the party of principled conservatives. it's the socially conservative and activist party of deranged evangelical believers.
what of the democrats, now that we may have both houses of congress under our control? let's be agressive on iraq (withdrawal), minimum wage (i say $9 an hour, plus $2 for benefits), gays (no marriage amendment and strengthening of civil unions federally while supporting state initiatives for legalizing gay marriage), student loan interest rates (cut drastically), education (merit pay and more money for teachers, no NCLB), health care (coverage for everyone), meds (generic prescriptions at very low cost), ethanol and other alternative fuels (subsidize production of hybrid and alternative cars domestically)...
i could -- and should -- go on. there is a lot of work to do,
but for now i'm going to close my eyes and think about what it feels like to mesh with a strong majority of people in my country. i don't think it will last, obviously -- i'm admittedly a liberal peacenik -- but, for now, i'm going to savor it.
i have neither.
but i DO go to bed tonight knowing that, in the end, i'm proud of my country. i'm proud of my party. i may not agree with everyone in it -- i wish quite dearly that senator-elect casey in pennsylvania were pro-choice, or that senator lieberman weren't a crazy war monger. and, to be honest, i feel bad that true conservatives like lincoln chaffee are no longer around to moderate some of their more rigidly conservative colleagues, but let's be honest: the republican party is no longer the party of principled conservatives. it's the socially conservative and activist party of deranged evangelical believers.
what of the democrats, now that we may have both houses of congress under our control? let's be agressive on iraq (withdrawal), minimum wage (i say $9 an hour, plus $2 for benefits), gays (no marriage amendment and strengthening of civil unions federally while supporting state initiatives for legalizing gay marriage), student loan interest rates (cut drastically), education (merit pay and more money for teachers, no NCLB), health care (coverage for everyone), meds (generic prescriptions at very low cost), ethanol and other alternative fuels (subsidize production of hybrid and alternative cars domestically)...
i could -- and should -- go on. there is a lot of work to do,
but for now i'm going to close my eyes and think about what it feels like to mesh with a strong majority of people in my country. i don't think it will last, obviously -- i'm admittedly a liberal peacenik -- but, for now, i'm going to savor it.
06 November 2006
Tuesday Tuesday Tuesday
i don't see how tomorrow can go any way but the democrats' way.
i really don't.
it's like this: there is no way, even if you've been only half-way conscious since the late nineties, that you can't look at tomorrow and vote ACROSS THE BOARD for democrats (give or take a sensible republican or two -- judy rell, the connecticut governor, and lincoln chaffee, the rhode island senator). the republicans have had six years of near total power and look what it has wrought: the top 10% of earners are running away with more and more of the country's wealth than at any time since the 1920's; we're spending $11M an hour on a war that has killed nearly 3000 U.S. service persons, maimed tens of thousands more, and killed more than 100,000 iraqi civilans, and when we leave we will do so not having implanted a democracy in the middle east but rather having created the world's largest breeding ground for terrorists; scientific thought and research are under siege, so much so that scientific theories like evolution, which is recognized as legitimate BY THE POPE, have come under increasing fire; religion is being not only pushed but downright funded by the federal government; our schools are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world in math and science; a woman's right to do what she wants or needs to with her own body at a time of her own choosing for her own reasons is being curtailed at best and repealed at worst in almost every single state in the union; essential government services have been gutted or privatized or both, simultaneously; i could go on and on and on.
i don't see how, if you're an honest conservative, you can vote for any of the republicans currently running for office--unless, that is, you're not really a conservative but simply a partisan republican and only care about winning and enacting discriminatory social policy. it's amazing to me that roughly half the voting population is willing to cast for this class of thugs, who are neither small-government nor sensible nor pro-family nor adept at protecting our homeland. they care not for democracy or the future of our republic.
these corrupt, unprincipled, undemocratic, unamerican politicians and their cronies are ruining this country.
tuesday brings a chance for renewal.
i am hopeful that tonight is the last night i go to bed under the spectre of the hostile mediocrity towering over this great nation.
i really don't.
it's like this: there is no way, even if you've been only half-way conscious since the late nineties, that you can't look at tomorrow and vote ACROSS THE BOARD for democrats (give or take a sensible republican or two -- judy rell, the connecticut governor, and lincoln chaffee, the rhode island senator). the republicans have had six years of near total power and look what it has wrought: the top 10% of earners are running away with more and more of the country's wealth than at any time since the 1920's; we're spending $11M an hour on a war that has killed nearly 3000 U.S. service persons, maimed tens of thousands more, and killed more than 100,000 iraqi civilans, and when we leave we will do so not having implanted a democracy in the middle east but rather having created the world's largest breeding ground for terrorists; scientific thought and research are under siege, so much so that scientific theories like evolution, which is recognized as legitimate BY THE POPE, have come under increasing fire; religion is being not only pushed but downright funded by the federal government; our schools are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world in math and science; a woman's right to do what she wants or needs to with her own body at a time of her own choosing for her own reasons is being curtailed at best and repealed at worst in almost every single state in the union; essential government services have been gutted or privatized or both, simultaneously; i could go on and on and on.
i don't see how, if you're an honest conservative, you can vote for any of the republicans currently running for office--unless, that is, you're not really a conservative but simply a partisan republican and only care about winning and enacting discriminatory social policy. it's amazing to me that roughly half the voting population is willing to cast for this class of thugs, who are neither small-government nor sensible nor pro-family nor adept at protecting our homeland. they care not for democracy or the future of our republic.
these corrupt, unprincipled, undemocratic, unamerican politicians and their cronies are ruining this country.
tuesday brings a chance for renewal.
i am hopeful that tonight is the last night i go to bed under the spectre of the hostile mediocrity towering over this great nation.
31 October 2006
Campus Conservatives are Dumb
wow, that's a newsflash.
from an essay in the american conservative:
"The time when Young Americans for Freedom wore badges blazoned with the slogan “Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton” has long passed. Now College Republicans parade in shirts proclaiming 'George W. Bush Is My Homeboy.' The campus Right has almost always been more activist than intellectual, just as the wider movement has been more political than cultural. But where once students were at least familiar with the names Kirk and Weaver, or Mises and Nock, today they look to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for guidance. They’re little acquainted with the wisdom of the contemporary Right’s founding generation, and it shows."
if more than two conservatives on any campus can tell me who von mises is and what he wrote i'll fly like a pig.
and look at the douche on the cover. does he not look neanderthal-like and just, well, regressed?
from an essay in the american conservative:
"The time when Young Americans for Freedom wore badges blazoned with the slogan “Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton” has long passed. Now College Republicans parade in shirts proclaiming 'George W. Bush Is My Homeboy.' The campus Right has almost always been more activist than intellectual, just as the wider movement has been more political than cultural. But where once students were at least familiar with the names Kirk and Weaver, or Mises and Nock, today they look to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for guidance. They’re little acquainted with the wisdom of the contemporary Right’s founding generation, and it shows."
if more than two conservatives on any campus can tell me who von mises is and what he wrote i'll fly like a pig.
and look at the douche on the cover. does he not look neanderthal-like and just, well, regressed?
Truth to Power
so this is what the telling the truth rends.
i, for one, am in full agreement with kerry. it's the elephant in the room that no one -- least of all the military and those fat-cat congressman who make a killing off military contracts -- has the courage to discuss honestly.
what kerry is doing, i believe, is calling attention to the fact that because the american economy is so horrible in most parts of the country -- coupled with budget cuts in education and social services -- THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FOR MANY YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN BUT TO JOIN THE MILITARY.
these are the facts, and they are indisputable.
it's the perfect vicious cycle -- budget cuts, economic darwinism, and military spending all lead to an uneducated populace that keeps electing republicans to keep them safe.
i hope kerry and the democrats keep hitting bush and the republicans HARD. it's time the truth about the military-congressional-industrial-complex is talked about honestly in this country.
i, for one, am in full agreement with kerry. it's the elephant in the room that no one -- least of all the military and those fat-cat congressman who make a killing off military contracts -- has the courage to discuss honestly.
what kerry is doing, i believe, is calling attention to the fact that because the american economy is so horrible in most parts of the country -- coupled with budget cuts in education and social services -- THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FOR MANY YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN BUT TO JOIN THE MILITARY.
these are the facts, and they are indisputable.
it's the perfect vicious cycle -- budget cuts, economic darwinism, and military spending all lead to an uneducated populace that keeps electing republicans to keep them safe.
i hope kerry and the democrats keep hitting bush and the republicans HARD. it's time the truth about the military-congressional-industrial-complex is talked about honestly in this country.
30 October 2006
One Step Forward -- like, Seven Steps Backward
i've been thinking mucho about horkeimer and adorno.
i've been re-reading the dialectic of enlightenment and it informs the current moment with -- dare i say it -- mucho gravitas.
no really -- the basic premise is that as the dominant culture of any society progresses in terms of economics, social advancement, and culture, there is a reactionary segment that revolts against this progress and seeks to revert to the old order.
it's a timeless argument, one that these two members of the frankfurt school formulated while living and working near disney world.
apropos, yes?
what else, though, explains the rise of the right-wing? i think this cycle of reactionary conservatism was to be expected, and now, as people begin to step back and regain a sense of rationality, we'll move back to an enlightened state.
that's the hope, anyway.
i've been re-reading the dialectic of enlightenment and it informs the current moment with -- dare i say it -- mucho gravitas.
no really -- the basic premise is that as the dominant culture of any society progresses in terms of economics, social advancement, and culture, there is a reactionary segment that revolts against this progress and seeks to revert to the old order.
it's a timeless argument, one that these two members of the frankfurt school formulated while living and working near disney world.
apropos, yes?
what else, though, explains the rise of the right-wing? i think this cycle of reactionary conservatism was to be expected, and now, as people begin to step back and regain a sense of rationality, we'll move back to an enlightened state.
that's the hope, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)