Sunday, November 7, 2010

On Maybe Being Better Than Everyone Else

The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson defends American exceptionalism against Michael Kinsley:

[T]he idea of American exceptionalism has the benefit of being true. The United States is fundamentally and demonstrably different from other countries. It is bound together by a founding proposition, and properly applied the proposition has brought freedom and prosperity to more people, and more kinds of people, than any other....


Fair enough; the United States was founded on an idea and not an ethnicity, which has served us well in the long run. It's part of why Muslim immigrants assimilate better here than in Europe. But this clean slate came at the expense of millions of African slaves and most of the original inhabitants of this continent. There's no getting around that. The story of this country has been the story of increasing freedom, not just around the world--and our record is hardly consistent on that front--but within our own borders. No society could improve the lot of blacks or gays without admitting there were shortcomings in the first place.

Ferguson's takeaway point underscores the problem with his thinking (emphasis mine):

For many sophisticated Democrats the belief [in American exceptionalism] is not merely childish but dangerous. It distracts us from the urgent matters at hand. “This conceit that we’re the greatest country ever may be self-immolating,” Kinsley wrote. “If people believe it’s true, they won’t do what’s necessary to make it true.”

This strikes us—and will strike most Americans, we’ll wager—as the precise opposite of the truth. Americans through time have already done “what’s necessary to make” the country unique in all the world; that’s why Glenn Beck and all those Tea Partiers prattle endlessly on about the Founders. Thanks to the ingenuity, persistence, and sacrifice of earlier generations, our obligation now is to conserve the arrangements that make us exceptional, reaffirm them, and prepare to pass them on, with an abiding faith in personal liberty. And this much should be obvious: If Americans don’t believe “we’re the greatest country ever,” we won’t be for much longer.


Again, the operating assumption is that the work is finished--and apparently, was finished with the Founders(!).

This is conservatism as embalming. It takes for granted that nothing need be done to improve the nation, that the American legacy--a legacy won only after overcoming the sometimes violent objections of the small government crowd--need only be "preserved" like a museum showpiece. Issues like declining auto factory wages, or life expectancy, or health care efficiency, or scientific literacy, are just details. Who does details anymore?

Conservative American exceptionalism fails even on its own terms, since conserving things like infrastructure (Ferguson cites the Stimulus without a hint of irony) and international standing and living standards require large government investments that just might wiggle a pinky toe in the direction of the dread Socialism.

Moreover, they require humility and consideration, and not the assumption that America is and will always remain right. That way lies madness: open-ended and unfunded wars, the enshrinement of torture in our intelligence-gathering, the demonization of over a billion adherents of a world religion, and so forth. No one can look at, say, Hurricane Katrina and its implications for poverty and government competence, and conclude that the hard work of bringing about American greatness is finished. It can never be "finished." But if one starts with American exceptionalism as a conclusion, one need not look much at Hurricane Katrina at all. And that's not so great.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

We Are All Narcs Now

This New York Magazine analysis of narcissistic culture and our electoral politics of late is very, very good. A sampling:

“The most provocative thing you say gets attention,” says Brian Baird, a Democratic congressman from Washington State who’s retiring at the end of the year, after six terms in office. Baird had his own unfortunate experience with this phenomenon this election cycle, though he isn’t running for anything. He was addressing an auditorium of 3,500, many of them tea-party enthusiasts, when a Marine veteran named David Hedrick grabbed the microphone and bellowed, “Stay away from my kids,” declaring that Obama’s health-care bill authorized compulsory training in child-rearing for parents. The video became a viral sensation, earning over 1.3 million hits. Hedrick appeared on the Fox News circuit and became a congressional candidate in the primary in Baird’s district, where he finished second out of three GOP candidates. Three weeks ago, he was arrested for allegedly striking his wife in the back of the head twice. You can, however, still purchase a “Stay away from my kids” tote bag online.


The takeaway:

That the left doesn’t recognize the similarities between the Obama and the tea-party movements is probably a function of just how good the Obama movement was at making its supporters feel special. But the fact is, this cycle, Republicans are taking advantage of this same desire for reempowerment, and they’re using the same tools. The tea-party movement is propelled by Facebook activity, copious tweets, and rallies celebrating the power of the audience. At the inaugural tea-party convention in February, Palin described the movement as “a ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they’re doing business, and that’s beautiful. This is about the people.” In other words, Yes, we can.


There was always a certain messianism about the Obama campaign (which the Right was only too eager to point out), but Obama himself always managed to stay grounded. What's more interesting is, as alluded here, the Tea Party has adopted that mindset.

Sarah Palin, for instance, is almost a Bizarro version of Obama. The superficial form--physical attractiveness, youth, outsider appeal--was for him a vehicle to sell the measured, thoughtful content beneath. But with Palin, the form is the content. There's heat but no light beneath the "hot librarian" exterior; a spiting anti-intellect spitting wanton fire, and nothing else. Remember the Celebrity ad? McCain juxtaposed Obama with Paris Hilton, and then went and made Paris Hilton his running mate.




Obama won a Senate seat and learned the ropes of national legislation between his 2004 Democratic convention speech and his victory in 2008. Palin, assuming she runs, may well be the first presidential candidate to have learned absolutely nothing about governance since the last time she "ran."

I'm wondering how Obama will recalibrate his pitch for 2012. Even the most fervent of his 2008 believers isn't going to believe in a second coming. But with the opposition painting him as the Antichrist, he'll probably be glad to get back down to earth.

[Edited for unnecessary name calling]

Friday, November 5, 2010

Fired Fox Browsing


In the wake of Keith Olbermann being suspended from MSNBC for making donations to Jack Conway, Gabrielle Giffords, and Raul Grijalva, I thought I would engage in some free association, some false equivalency, and poke around to find out, given Olbermann's anchoring anchor status, what, say, a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity would have to do to get fired from MSNBC rival Fox News.

Turns out he would have to quite a lot. Though there have been some local reporters fired from Fox affiliates for various causes over the years, when it comes to the parent network, there aren't too many high profile cases of sudden cannings, and certainly none of Olbermann's stature.

But there are a few firings, in any case. Roger Friedman, a movie reviewer, lost his job for pirating a bad Fox movie, (Wolverine) for one of his segments. And reporter "Fox and Friends" co-host Kiran Chetry had the temerity to try to get Gretchen Carlson fired when negotiating a contract renewal.

That's about it. E.D. Hill was let go after her "terrorist fist jab" comment, but she was allowed to finish her contract, so that doesn't totally count. And that was going by the quaint, 2008-era standards of political discourse. Fox today validates fears of people in "Muslim garb" in airports and has already floated the notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim, so for them Obama being a terrorist is 2+2. They report, you decide.

It should also be mentioned, especially in light of Olbermann, that Fox did fire reporter Jennifer Locke for telling John McCain, on air, that she voted for him. But come on. Given the million dollars Fox has given the Republicans, to say nothing of on-air shilling, this makes Locke the Lyndie England of partisan journalism.

No, Bill O'Reilly should be just fine, as long as he doesn't donate to Raul Grijalva.

Elliot Goldenthal's Othello Opera

I really need to see this in full:



His score for Julie Taymor's adaptation of The Tempest comes out sometime in December.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Nancy Girl

Dana Goldstein, filling in for newly engaged Ezra Klein asks and answers why Nancy Pelosi was so loathed:

Unfortunately, Pelosi’s openly feminist approach — as well as her disingenuous self-portrait of a housewife who just sort of stumbled upon political power (in fact, she was a canny operator who, over 23 years in Congress, carefully out-strategized the competition to ascend to the top of the party’s hierarchy) — allowed conservatives to caricature her all too easily. The attacks were vicious. A Republican National Committee campaign, “Fire Pelosi,” made careful, mocking use of her official title, “Madam Speaker.” When she criticized Gen. Stanley McChrystal for one of his many intemperate public comments about the administration’s Afghanistan strategy, ignoring chain of command, the Republican National Campaign Committee spokesperson said, “Taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place”—barefoot and in the kitchen, presumably, far away from important matters of war and peace.


I never had any hostility towards Pelosi--why would I?--but I was long mystified at why people loved her so. There was a snotty little arch-Democrat at my community college who absolutely revered her, talked about how wonderful she was, in my American Government class. This was in 06-07, the prelude and beginning of Pelosi's speakership, and this gay Las Vegas liberal was positively gaga for the San Fran Speaker.

I didn't get it, and continued not to until last winter's Health Care Reform wrangling. Pelosi was the only one of the Democratic leadership not to go ballistic in the wake of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, and she went right on and tamed her liberal caucus to hold their nose again and vote for the flawed Senate bill.

It was around that time that I noticed how much other legislation she had gotten passed--financial regulation, Cap-and-Trade..... This was impressive too, but it was her steely resolve in seeing the troubled health care bill to completion that made me realize how effective a legislator she is.

Make This Post Still Timely in Two Years

Reihan Salaam's modest proposal for compromise on the Bush tax cuts:

And on taxes, Representative Ryan and his Republican allies would do well to move beyond the polarizing debate over the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts by advocating the extension of all of the cuts for two years and then allowing them to expire, as the president’s former budget director Peter Orszag recommended in his first New York Times Op-Ed column. The expiration of the 2001 and 2003 cuts would serve as a downpayment on a comprehensive tax reform proposal, perhaps modeled on the Growth and Investment Tax Plan devised by President Bush’s bipartisan tax reform panel.


The only reason this is a polarizing debate is because raising taxes, any taxes, especially taxes on the rich, is considered a cardinal sin among Republicans. "Allowing them to expire" is what was supposed to happen. It's written into the tax cuts themselves! But a very influential bloc of conservative activists has convinced itself that returning the tax code to Clinton-era levels would be The Biggest Tax Increase in American History. Why would they change their minds two years from now?

h/t Sullivan

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Aftermath

It's quite late, but I felt I had to say something about the elections.

Russ Feingold is gone, and so is Patrick Murphy. Our awful drug policies remain in force in California, and, particularly odiously, Iowa threw out the state judges that legalized gay marriage. The Republicans swept and mopped the House and will likely maintain it for a very long time. Aqua Buddha may well prove a potent deity.

It wasn't all bad. The Democrats held on to the Senate. O'Donnell went down as expected, and kept us in stitches to the last. Harry Reid made quite the comeback and defeated Sharron Angle. And Lisa Murkowski looks like she will, improbably, pull off a rare write-in victory, neutralizing the last third of the Palinite triumvirate.

Still pretty wretched, though.

As for the near future, this cartoon only slightly exaggerates:

Moving Up in the World Wide Web

I've got applications to work on, so posting will be light today. I do want to share this email, which Google shows is not necessarily a scam, but merely odd.

Good Morning!
My name is Cameron and I’m part of the Promotions Team here at http://www.csnstores.com , a Boston based company. We have been seeking out high quality websites and blogs, gauging interest in doing a giveaway with one of our sites.
We love the look and feel of your blog and think that your US and Canadian readers might be interested in a giveaway with our sites www.cookware.com.
Have a look at a couple of our sites and let me know if you think that this might be something you’d be interested in. Perhaps we could give away a selection of our www.allmodern.com or www.toysandgamesonline.com . I’d be happy to brainstorm some other ideas with you if you’re interested. Alternatively you could do a review of something from our site.
Please let me know if you have any questions for me. I hope to hear from you to further discuss the details of the giveaway.
Kind Regards,
Cameron


Because after all, the unifying characteristic of the Benjamin the Ass readership is cookware.

I'm actually weirdly flattered that I'm getting a blog solicitation. I take it as a sign of progress. But I'll know I've really made it once I start getting hate mail. That's true success.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The Election

Statistics are not my bag and I can't keep track of the myriad factors at work in all the different races, so rather than pretend I know what I'm talking about I'll take a vague stab in the dark that the Republicans take the House but not the Senate.

I didn't pick up an absentee ballot before I moved, and you need proof of residency to register to vote in DC. Without having any utility bills to prove I've been here for two-and-a-half weeks, I am sad to say sitting this one out. I'm not happy about this, it's the first election I've been eligible for that I haven't voted in, but my vote in the Idaho Congressional races was already dead anyway.

Getting Antsy

Ron Rosenbaum is not necessarily wrong in calling out the conservative intelligentsia for prostrating itself before the incoming Tea Party juggernaut, but he's being awfully shrill about it:

Sadly the TPer has no tolerance for the complexity of genuine history. Here are two comments appended to a Radosh blog post that tries to combine criticism of Glenn Beck with some grudging respect for the TP. But the TP commenters will not have it. Consider the first comment as representative of the true thuggish, bigoted voice of the TPer when it meets with opposition and a venomous hatred of other races and religions comes out.


I'm pretty sure there's an internet rule somewhere which goes along the lines of "thou shalt not generalize based on cherry-picked comments, since most comment pages are but a step removed from bathroom graffiti." There are plenty of ignorant and ahistorical Tea Party figures one can make examples of without having to cite anonymous internet trollery.

I can't hold it against him too much, though. Tonight's going to be a massacre.

Dark Art


The Grapes of Wrath is John Steinbeck’s best-known work, but its epic nature tends to overwhelm the fact of Steinbeck’s economy of prose. The man dealt in plain, ennobled people, and his writing was appropriately lean and efficient; In Dubious Battle's description, for instance, of a shotgunned character, that “there was no face,” is a little masterpiece of understatement that leaves everything to the imagination and nothing to miscommunication. That Steinbeck’s other instant-recall classic, Of Mice and Men, was only a little over a hundred pages long made this point a bit more obvious. Yet it is a character-driven work, and its compaction requires a certain intricacy in the scenario it sketches.

The Pearl, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Based on a Mexican folk tale and dealing in stock characters and archetypes, its narrative is freed of psychology—the dialogue is spare and mostly functional—and free to pick up other tools with which to make its point. There are literal music cues, Songs of the Family, of the Enemy, the Pearl, that weave in and out, and a dreamlike quality given to its coastal Mexican setting. But most interesting is the way The Pearl makes use of the simplicity of its almost fairy-tale-like notions of black-and-white and light-and-dark, and turns the symbolism on its head.

The Pearl is a simple story of good people, the indigene Kino and his wife Juana, seduced into evil by the discovery of the Pearl of the World, the most beautiful pearl anyone has ever seen. The story is accordingly saturated with imagery of light and shadow from the very first sentence in the book.

“Kino awakened in the near dark.”

From there we read how “Juana’s fire leapt into flame and threw spears of light through the chinks of the brush-house wall and threw a wavering square of light out the door,” and how the sun was “breaking through its crevices in long streaks. And one of the streaks fell on the hanging box where Coyotito lay, and on the ropes that held it.” In another instance, “the yellow sun threw [Kino and Juana's] black shadows ahead of them so that they walked on their own shadows.” The sun does this pervasively: “even tiny stones threw shadows on the ground.” This may well be the overriding idea of the book: try as we might to escape the darkness, the light will bring it back, out of us, and inescapably.

For even at the beginning, the book hints that not this is not just the usual strict darkness=evil equation. Kino wakes up in near darkness, but it is the beginning of the day. Yet that is no comfort; it is the beginning of the most terrible three days of his life. And what should set events into motion but a scorpion, to which the sun streak falling on Coyotito’s box seemingly points? Light is in fact no comfort at all. Kino must look down “to cover his eyes from the glare” of the rising sun’s “explosion of fire,” and later on Juana makes him a shade “to protect him from the light” and puts her shawl over Coyotito “so the hot sun could not shine on him.” The idea of the sun as a threat becomes more explicit in a long passage describing Kino and his brother Juan Tomás approaching some pearl buyers' office:

The brothers, as they walked along, squinted their eyes a little, as they and their grandfathers and their great-grandfathers had done for four hundred years, since the first strangers came with argument and authority and gunpowder to back up both. And in the four hundred years Kino’s people had learned only one defense—a slight slitting of the eyes and a slight tightening of the lips and a retirement. Nothing could break down this wall, and they could remain whole within the wall.


Their approach to the blinding sun is the same as their coping with the intimidating power of the European colonialists: to squint.


This inverted relationship between light and dark is further warped with the introduction of the pearl. Kino’s first glimpse of it is “a ghostly gleam,” not quite real and vaguely threatening. But this gives way when he extracts the object from its oyster shell and finds it, “the great pearl, perfect as the moon. It captured the light and refined it and gave it back in silver incandescence.” Even its light seems unreal, of the moon, a celestial body associated with madness, lunacy. When Kino stares into the pearl the light does not reflect reality, but “dream forms” of what could be, of the riches and the life of privilege and education his son could have. Even Kino’s thralldom to its luminescence is twisted: rather than simple greed, the desires the pearl awakens in him are entirely to benefit his son.

For a time after, light and dark seem to regain their normal connotations. Fire shadows leap across Kino’s face as Coyotito receives treatment from a corrupt, colonial doctor, accentuating tension and conflict. “[W]ooden slats cut out the light so that only a soft gloom” can enter the office of the conniving pearl buyers. Darkness itself is used as a cover by would-be thieve no less than three times. During this time the spiritual darkness in Kino’s soul becomes explicitly literal:

“Who do you fear?” Kino searched for a true answer, and at last he said, “Everyone.” And he could feel a shell of hardness drawing over him.

After a while they lay down together on the sleeping mat, and Juana did not put the baby in his box tonight, but cradled him in her arms and covered her face with his head shawl. And the last light went out of the embers in the fire hole.


The pearl, once hidden from the world by an oyster shell, becomes hidden again by Kino, himself developing a hardening shell. “This pearl has become my soul… If I give it up I shall lose my soul.”

It is not long before the pearl’s perverse luminescence goes to work again. A killing at his doorstep shatters all chance of retaining a normal life in the village. With darkness “closing in on his family,” the literal darkness becomes a welcome state. For the black of night, at the beginning of the story and now here, has been an emblem of uniformity and order, an order disturbed when Kino’s hut is set afire: “[T]all flame leaped up in the dark with a crackling roar, and a tall edifice of fire lighted the pathway.” Now squinting is no longer sufficient for dealing with the light, Kino must hide, for “[the] light made him afraid… light was danger to him.”

And so the story barrels towards its catastrophe. On the run with Juana and Coyotito, Kino shuns the daylight, the sun, for the danger it poses to them, and the darkness becomes an ally when, pursued by hunters, Kino decides to strike at their night camp. Thus, as the pearl has turned Kino and the village on each other, the light has been turned back on the trackers, with just the flash of a match or a cigarette being enough to give their position away.

Yet even as Kino prepares to strike he must race against the moon, “an old and ragged moon,” the celestial pearl that once risen will expose him with its “hard light and hard shadow.” Here Kino’s own brown skin, the emblem of his Otherness when dealing with the nasty doctor, becomes his greatest asset, allowing him to creep “silently as a shadow down the smooth mountain face.”

But the pearl is working its evil, and under darkness’ cloak are done the darkest deeds, and by story’s end Kino and Juana have been utterly consumed. The blackness inside them, conjured by the afternoon light, brings shadows long. As they return to the village “The sun was behind them and their long shadows stalked ahead, and they seemed to carry two towers of darkness with them.” The pearl, the great deceiver, has lost all luster, is now “grey and ulcerous.” No longer giving Kino glimpses of its promise of prosperity, it can only reflect immutable disaster. Fitting then that, its spell broken and its awful work complete, the pearl vanishes from sight and story.

The Pearl is only 90 pages long. It certainly does not lack for incident, but it is straightforward in its presentation. The simplicity, however, belies the richness of its interplay of light and dark. Inner darkness manifests in outer shadow. Daylight is a menace, the night a refuge. Light and vision itself are deformed and debased by the siren pearl. The indigenous skin shade, so often a colonial hindrance, becomes a benefit. All of these, while existing within a relatively traditional black-and-white dichotomy. The Pearl is in its simplicity, deceptive.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Got Hope?

Jonathan Cohn is nervous that Obama is retaining his characteristic zen in the face of electoral bloodbath:

If you believe, as I do, that the primary factor in determining election outcomes is the economy, then tomorrow’s results have been a foregone conclusion for some time now. The midterms were more or less out of Obama’s control the day he signed off on a stimulus too small to create robust job growth. But what’s true of this election will be true of the election two years from now. And with a Republican Congress blocking new economic initiatives, Obama won’t have much ability to create jobs--or even help those who can’t find any. If the economy continues to recover this slowly, the Republicans won’t merely solidify their hold on Congress in two years. They’ll also be in a position to win the White House.


He also goes on to mention this much-circulated image, from the nightmare days when Sarah Palin first arrived on the national scene, and wonders if its message still rings true:



Obama campaign manager David Plouffe would consider the President "lucky" to be able to run against Sarah Palin in 2012. Obama would do well to ask his good friend and colleague Harry Reid how it feels to be an encumbant running against a manifestly unqualified candidate in a rocky economy.

Killer Queen

[EDIT: Redacted. Queen Noble says a lot of entertaining things, as you can see in the video, but it's a lot less funny when you consider her bipolar disorder has made her so paranoid that she refuses medication. Having even an ironic, good-natured laugh about her felt unseemly.]

Another Craigslist Scammer

*Sigh*

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your recent application to join the Bloomberg L.P. team as our new office assistant, and my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

We are currently receiving an increased number of applications, and as such we are asking that all potential employees correspond with us through the job.com platform. Please click the following link to proceed:

http://www.bloomberg-america.com/applications/priority

Once you have entered your contact information and uploaded your resume a member of our human resources department will get back to you within 24 hours.

We look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,

Anthony Scott
anthony.scott@bloomberg-america.com
Human Resources Director

This email was sent to benjamin.verschoor@gmail.com.
If you are no longer interested you can unsubscribe instantly:
http://bloomberg.createsend5.com/t/r/u/vqutk/khikjjdhh/


The insidious thing about these emails is that while there are a lot of visible warning signs, the looking-for-work reader is afraid of actually passing up a legit job offer. In order to be sure of his course of action, he has to waste a lot of time confirming his fears.

This was more difficult than before, since there wasn't anything hoaxy turning up on Anthony Scott or Bloomberg-America (the hyphenated name should have been an immediate tip-off), but nor was there anything at all showing up. Only after pasting some text from the body of the email did I find someone else who had gotten a similar offer, from a "Kevin West" representing "Thomson Reuters USA."

This makes two out of three blind Craigslist ads to end up bogus. I wonder when I'll be hearing from that "travel company" that's "near embassy row and shares a building with the Chinese Embassy’s visa office."

Throw My Hands in the Air


I've tried, twice now, to write something about the significance of the Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear, and I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe I'll find the words later on, but right now I keep getting sucked into a morass of postmodern protests and trying not to put Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck on an equal footing.

The rally was fun. I could have done without the Stephen Colbert robot morality play towards the end, but Jon Stewart redeemed it all with a call for turning the volume down, which is basically what he had said the rally would be about beforehand.

I still think the notion of an ironic rally is a coping device for what's going to be a pretty brutal election.