Did Rod Blagojevich Receive Justice? Wednesday Journal #3

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was sentenced today to 14 years in prison for his recent conviction on multiple federal corruption charges.

Among his offenses were conspiracy to solicit bribes  for State contracts, mail and wire fraud, and most notoriously, his scheme to sell the newly-elected President's vacated Ilinois Senate Seat.

Just as shameful, after his convictions, Blagojevich seemed to take a cavalier attitude toward his convictions, proclaiming his innocence, and, seeming unaware of the gravity of his situation, appearing on late-night talk shows, humorous television advertisements, and "Celebrity Apprentice".

There is little to say in his favor. Sadly, he is in large company, having the dubious distinction of being the 4th Illinois Governor to be convicted since 1973.I believe Rod Blagojevich should serve justice for his convictions and for continuing a shameful tradition of corruption in Illinois politics.

But 14 years?

Who's afraid of Rod Blagojevich? 

I'm glad to finally be rid of Blagojevich (see "Good Riddance," June 28, 2011), but frankly his walking the streets does not make me fear for my personal safety. 

Prison is a punitive measure to be sure, and the Judge in the sentencing sought to make an example of the former Governor, as a deterrent to future corruption by state officials. 

But does anyone believe that is really going to work?  I would rather see those who destroyed the financial futures of millions of Americans take their rightful place in Federal Prisons.  The same goes for legislators who pass irresponsible laws, resulting in the deaths of everyone from soldiers and poor senior citizens, to desperate young mothers and innocent victims of petroleum disasters...to name a few.

Illinois' last Governor, George Ryan, was convicted in a Driver's License scandal that resulted in the deaths of a family of six.  This occurred before his tenure as Governor, while he was still serving as the Illinois Secretary of State.

Ryan got six years.

14 years for Blagojevich?  I think a more thoughtful judge could have come up with a more creative form of justice, one that would combine a shorter prison sentence with a more useful (and humbling) way to allow Blagojevich to pay his debt to the state. 

Now, we are merely paying his room and board for the next 14 years.

A Political Interlude: Sunday Journal

The Republican party must be breathing a collective sigh of relief.


Herman Cain, former Domino's Pizza CEO and one-time front-runner in the 2012 Presidential bid, has closed his campaign and has withdrawn from the race.  Allegations of sexual harassment, and a possible 13-year extramarital affair (scandals which always mean the death knell to"moral" Americans, stirred by the media into a self-righteous frenzy) sealed Cain's Presidential downfall.  So now, many conservative Republicans, "true" Americans (who hate Mr. Obama), no longer need worry about throwing support behind one of their own candidates who is of the "wrong" race.


And now, the attack dogs of Fox News seem to be nipping at the heels of presumptive front-runner Mitt Romney.  Romney's interview with Brett Baier last Tuesday was more than awkward, it was an uncommonly aggressive grilling by Fox News of one of their own.  Or IS Romney one of their own?  I don't like Romney as a politician or a Presidential candidate; I think he and his campaign are capable of the basest dishonesty in order to besmirch an opponents reputation. (See my post, "On Romney's Deception", Nov. 30). 

But much as I dislike Romney, I hate even more the seemingly heinous and transparent reason why other Republican candidates and the Conservative Fox news are going after him:  It seems to me they are trying to force a Romney meltdown, so that those same conservative Republicans no longer need to worry about throwing their support behind one of their own candidates who is the "wrong" kind of "Christian".

It looks like it's working, at least this week. New Gingrich, an old-boy politician, has now moved into the front-runner position in the Republican Presidential race.

Thus the collective sigh of relief, if my hunches are correct.

The Obama camp is thrilled at the Republican infighting, because they are now going after Romney for the same reasons that the Obama campaign itself would attack Romney, mainly, flip-flopping on major issues (see this article in Politico, Team Obama Cheers On Newt, Dec. 3).

Well, when it's all over, maybe Cain, Romney, and maybe even Gingrich, can supplement their book deal incomes with jobs as political "analysts" (emphasis on the first two syllables) on Fox News.

Mitt Romney's Deception... I Have To Speak Out

Republican Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney recently allowed a shockingly dishonest attack ad on TV.   The story was hot for a day or two, and then the media let it fade. 


This is the kind of story that should be played to death, until those responsible are forced to recapitulate, or apologize.  Even more shocking, there are scores of voters who actually fell for the ruse...or are willing to accept any lie that would hurt the reputation of Barack Obama.


In the ad, which was basically an attack ad on President Obama, Romney and his campaigners sought to cast doubt on Mr. Obama's commitment to help solve the country's economic problems.  They ran the film clip while in the background the President can be heard saying:

"If we keep talking about the economy, were going to lose."


Here's what Mr. Obama actually said, in context:

"...my opponent's (John McCain's)campaign announced earlier this month that they want to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose..."

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Barack Obama: Remarks in Londonderry, New Hampshire http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=84555#ixzz1fFJw6Bzb

When questioned about this, a Romney spokesman defended it by saying that   "he did say the words... that was his voice." Romney himself responded thus:

"There was no hidden effort on the part of our campaign...it was instead to point out that what's sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander."

 No other explanation was offered, as though a line of honesty had not been crossed. 

Of course politicians are manipulative, dishonest, and are willing and able to say anything, even contradict themselves, to sway the opinions of the electorate. But how cynical must a candidate be?  How low must a candidate condescend?  What it the lowest common denominator to which a candidate has to appeal?  And why aren't more people, especially media watchdogs, still crying foul?

More people like Arianna Huffington, that is, who wrote a brilliant editorial in the November 29 2011 HuffPost ("Mitt Romney Brazenly Lies and the Media Let Him Slide")

My voice is barely audible...but I had to speak out.

If Mitt Romney is capable of this kind of unapologetic, outright lying to win the office, to what extent will he lie through his time in office?  It wasn't even a subtle act of re-interpreting a candidate against himself, but a lazy lie that is so easily exposed that voters ought to be insulted.

In the video below, the statement in question appears beginning at 7:10.

Film Review: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a solid, effective political thriller.  It accomplishes the rare feat of guiding viewers through the tedious labyrinth of American politics by entertaining us with a suspense-filled story. 

The plot is almost too plausible to be far-fetched.  It might not say anything new about corruption, betrayal, backstabbing and one-upmanship that form the sorry state of American presidential elections; but it does stand out as a fine example of the highest levels of skill and polish that American movies have to offer.  "The Ides of March" is a sophisticated potboiler.

Ryan Gosling is the super-idealistic media manager for a Democratic Presidential candidate (George Clooney), who is in a tight race in the Ohio primary against an adversary that is known for playing dirty politics.  Gosling's character is a sincere and skillful player, an impressive spinner, who impresses Clooney with his knowledge of public opinion and how to manipulate it.  That is, until he gets involved with a pretty young intern (Evan Rachel Wood) with close family ties to the Democratic party. This eventually leads to his discovery that his hero Clooney is embroiled in a potentially career-ending scandal.

How he reacts to this discoraging development, and learns to survive by beating everyone at their viscious game, makes for a highly watchable if cynical piece of filmmaking.

The heart of the film is Gosling's character's slow movement into disillusionment.  It can be seen as the loss of innocence of a whole electorate; but I think the film wisely eschewed such ambitions. It's a good look at a particular character.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is the campaign's chief of staff, a seasoned and cynical politico, who knows  how to play dirty, but still holds to some notion of loyalty. Paul Giamatti (less annoying than usual but still hammy) is the manager of the rival campaign, a snake-in-the-grass among snakes, who makes a phone call that sets Gosling's desperate descent into motion. Marisa Tomei is an political insider, a reporter for the New York Times who cheerfully exploits everyone.  Jeffrey Wright (playing beneath his talents) is a senator whose hotly-sought endorsement is the catalyst for all kinds of double-dealing on all sides.



Gosling can carry a film, and is showing an interesting range.  This is the fourth film I have seen him in this year (I like to think that it's due to Gosling's good taste in selecting properties, ones that interest me!) along with "Blue Valentine", "Crazy Stupid Love", and "Drive".  He reminds me of the high-school jock who shocks everyone by how good he is in the drama club.  He commands the scenes he is in, and has a slow, deliberate manner of speech, like Brando with good diction.  It hope he continues to appear in mature roles in serious fare.


Clooney's is more of a supporting role. It was clever to cast himself as a Democratic candidate (a foreshadowing?) whose ideas are on the money for today's voters, practical and easy to support, while his character is ensnared in a morally indefensible dilemma.  Had this character been portrayed as  Republican, the film would have received the knee-jerk scorn of Fox-News types and those who are threatened by National Public Radio as being too partisan.

All other cast members performed well in one of the year's best ensembles.  Funny, but at times this movie seemed to be a stop-off for cast members on their way to do other films: Gosling and Tomei both in "Crazy Stupid Love", Hoffman in "Moneyball", Clooney in "The Descendants",  Giamatti in "Win-Win", Wood in "True Blood."  Perhaps this film was a labor of love, a film they all believed in.  If so, I applaud the involvement of each of them.

I was absorbed by the well-written and fast-paced film (screenplay by Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon based on his play "Farragut North").  During the intense climactic confrontation between Gosling and Clooney, shot in shadowy closeup, it hit me how nicely directed this movie is even though at that moment I had forgotten who directed this film.  It is, of course, Clooney's picture, a worthy follow-up to another compelling political drama, "Good Night and Good Luck".  Clooney is blessed with a strong technical crew; the look of the film, the design and lighting, are top-notch; and the film is edited down to the exact frame, moves quickly and goes down smoothly.

The plot turns on an accidental discovery found on a character's i-phone text.  Was this part of the original play? Maybe because this was the second consecutive film I saw where this plot device was used ("Like Crazy" was the other one), that I regarded this as a new, already tired cliche, one that should be banned from Hollywood films from now on.

I cannot imagine how this film plays to viewers from outside the U.S.  The machinations, the blackmail that are all a part of "politics", must seem insane, and counter-intuitive to the governance of this country.  If Clooney stays in Hollywood instead of Washington, he may do all of us a public service by continuing to create high-quality, well, played motion pictures like "The Ides of March" that raise audiences' awareness of the madness of our political system, and even move them to positive action.

Documentary Films Do Good--Let's Have "Motivation Stations" at the Occupy Locations

Recently this journal expressed a fervent hope that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which has organized sites globally, would become "Too Big To Fail". (That's the phrase that justified the outlandish tax-funded bailouts of financial institutions that proceeded to lay off millions and then pay their executives large bonuses).

The "Occupy" groups seem to have coalesced around more articulate "demands".  But now that the weather is becoming frigid and inhospitable, it would be nice if these protesters had something to keep them motivated.


I recently happened to catch both of the documentaries "Capitalism: A Love Story", and "Inside Job", running on our local cable stations.  Both of these films exposed, for anyone who cared to look, the corruption that led to the financial crisis that has finally moved average people to demonstrate.  Moore's film was especially prophetic.


The filmmakers and their studios, who have crafted important pieces of work that deserve, and need, to be seen, should be prevailed upon to make these films available for legal, free exhibition at the Occupy sites.


Set up what I would call "Motivation Stations". Put up tents filled with information about why the movement has begun, and yes, set up projectors, plasma TV's, laptop computers, anything that is handy, to run these films in continuous loops.


It was heartening to see Michael Moore show up at the Oakland site (click on this HuffPost link), and pay tribute to the Iraq War Veteran who was critically injured in the violent police action that sought to disperse the assembled demonstrators.


Moore, and Charles Ferguson, through their films, can be present at all the sites.  Make the films available, for free. Make sure the Occupiers never forget why they are there, and motivate them to keep going.

Chicago Film Festival Closing Ceremony Surprise! It's---"Margin Call"

The second-to-last night of the Chicago Film Festival traditionally offers a Surprise Film.  No one knows beforehand what the film will be. Speculation and excitement run rampant.  All you need to do to get in is wear a Festival T-shirt or sweatshirt.


Wednesday night was cold and damp, with fierce winds blowing the rain hard against your face and soaking your topcoat to an embarrassing degree.  An umbrella was no good against the gusts of 60mph or more.


That didn't keep true fans away.  When I arrived an hour before showtime, there was a contingent of almost 100 strong already, sitting in a snaky line in the lobby.  It felt like my days as a college residence hall director. 


As the time approached, everyone was abuzz with guesses as to what we would see.  "J.Edgar"?  "Rum Diary"?  "The Muppet Movie"?  The new Almodovar?    After a festival filled with riches from all over the world, with edgy and wonderful cinema to revel in, what would be the frosting on the cake?


We took our seats and got rowdy for group photos (ours should be posted on the Fest web site soon). The lights went down.  We held our breath....


Fade in to a helicopter shot of New York City...  The projectionist had no time to even frame the picture properly: the credits, which appeared on the bottom of the frame, were cut off!  That problem would plague the first 15 minutes of the movie.  Fortunately, the main title appeared dead center...and there was a strange, uncertain silence from the cineastes in my midst.  The film? "Margin Call". 


A relatively unfamiliar Hollywood product...  We were intrigued....Instead of excited applause, we all settled back to quietly check it out.....


*      *      *      *      *      *  

   
"Margin Call", the feature-film debut of writer-director J.C. Chandor, feels like it was made from a rough-draft of a screenplay that could have used a rewrite. 


Reportedly shot in just over two weeks on a tight budget, the film deserves some kudos for attempting to tell a human story of investment bankers who were seduced by easy money and created a global financial meltdown.  After the first fifteen minutes, I thought "Margin Call" was going to become some sort of "Die Hard" involving an idealistic corporate intern fighting the corruption of the evil rich.  Fortunately, the film moved in a quieter direction, and seemed to be making a sincere attempt to entertain and be topical.


The problem, for me, is that this movie is nothing more than two hours of guys (and Demi Moore) in suits, talking, about things that are both impenetrable (they need, literally, a rocket scientist to explain the trader train-wreck about to occur); and so familiar that we become impatient for some new twist, some new light that never comes. 



 Thus "Margin Call" is oddly contradictory.  It examines an issue that, today, has people taking to the streets in anger; and yet feels completely cut off from the real-life implications of its subject matter.  (Viewers will have been more stirred to angry action, and deeper understanding, from "Capitalism: A Love Story" or "Inside Job").  Instead, "Margin Call" seeks to generate some weird sympathy for these individuals who somehow had no idea what was about to happen, and asks us to accept them as victims.  Characters spend a lot of time looking at alarming stuff on myriad computer screens, but we viewers are neither invited to look at, nor to begin to understand, what's on them.



It all goes back to the script.  The film opens with a veteran employee (Stanley Tucci) getting fired, being offered a severance, and losing his office privileges and company cell phone.  He is ordered to clear out immediately. A "Soprano"-sized bodyguard is assigned to stand watch outside of Tucci's office and accompany him to the elevator, to be sure he does not steal any company secrets. And then, in the elevator right in front of this "escort", Tucci hands a flash drive to a young analyst he has mentored (the darkly handsome, newly "out" Zachary Quinto), tells him to have a look, and to be careful.... 

Which is exactly what the beefy bodyguard was assigned to prevent!!....and no comment is made.

At this point, all credibility collapses, and the film never really recovers.  Soon, the ever-loyal Quinto takes a look at his mentor's work, finds the missing piece that Tucci was about to discover before he was sacked, and his rocket-science training allows him to see what no one else was able to see (or having seen, admit to): that the company, like much of the world, was on the brink of financial collapse.  It occurs to a viewer that the massive layoffs, staged at the film's outset, had nothing to do with the company going under, since, at that moment, no one realized anything bad was happening.... So why not re-write Tucci's character as a new retiree, and skip the false intrigue?

"Margin Call" takes place in a 24-hour period, in one office building.  It's like a sedated version of "Glengarry Glen Ross" with today's headlines to give it legitimacy.  This movie, come to think of it, might have more energy if it were performed on a stage.

Lacking any filmic excitement, we are drawn in by a capable and excellent cast, who all perform with conviction, even though some rather lazy dialog often has a variety of characters using the same phrasing,  for no apparent comic or dramatic purpose.  Because of the actors (and Demi Moore), I will admit that I was, at least for two hours, held and entertained.

The aforementioned Quinto doubles here as one of the producers of the film.  He plays a likable character whose role too quickly diminishes into a supporting one (a gesture of modesty, perhaps?)  His cool, determined gaze and luxurious, magic-marker eyebrows make for some intense and satisfying closeups.  He also has, far and away, the best haircut of the entire cast...I have rarely seen so many glamorous stars look so sloppy in a film about high-rolling professionals.




Kevin Spacey, as the head of the division, looked alarmingly different in appearance.  To say his character is deglamorized is an understatement; at first I thought he was Gene Hackman.  Nevertheless, he works small miracles with this part, and should have been given a better-developed back-story. The script cheats Spacey out of what could have been an incredibly moving moment in the film.

Jeremy Irons chews up the scenery as the Big Boss, who helicopters in for the night, to gather enough information to put the final nail in the coffin of his troubled company, all for his enrichment. 

Paul Bettany is almost too treacherous, chewing Nicorette gum and seeming a lot more mysterious than he is. Penn Badgley is a naive innocent, a nerd who wears white socks with his suit, and pulls off a loyal frat-brother puppy-dog demeanor--I liked Badgely a lot. Simon Baker and Demi Moore are fine in bookend roles, as high-level investors who must find a quick way out of a jam, manipulating everyone like expert chess players.  Moore is surprisingly good, especially in her climactic dialogue with Irons.

Perhaps the most unfortunate failing of "Margin Call" is its inability to move an audience.  Spacey's character has, as a framing device, a poignant concern about his dog, who is about to die.  Is this a two-cent way of eliciting sympathy?  As a sucker for all things dog, and as one whose tears flow freely whenever a movie character has to bury a departed pet, I had no emotional reaction to this at all.  It all seemed so wrong, and so manipulative, in a film as steely-cold as "Margin Call".

"Occupy Wall Street" Should Become "Too Big To Fail"

"Occupy Wall Street" has become a world movement, from Times Square (above) to Europe. I saw images from protests in Rome.  Having just been there, I was filled with a mixed sense of pride, in their solidarity with us; and sadness, in that so many people so far away are feeling the same economic pain. 

Those who control the media, who would have some reason to feel threatened by this movement, can no longer ignore it.  They can, however, try to cast doubt on it.

The coalition of common people, union groups, workers and students was being painted by reporters as an inarticulate mob not unlike a crowd at a Grateful Dead concert.  The protest had no center; no one knew what the result of all of this unrest was supposed to be. 

The ostensible leaders of the Occupy Wall Street groups tried to turn this uncertainty into a virtue.  There was anger and frustration in the air.  There was a shapeless desire to "organize" around common goals that would stir the passions of the disenfranchised, goals that could realistically be achieved. 

But now that the oligarchs who are ruining our country and the world have successfully turned public opinion against the idea of unions (unions are not altogether blameless, either), the call to "organize", to fight against worker exploitation and economic corruption, wasn't stirring enough .  

Reporters make the whole thing seem pathetic just by asking a spokesperson, "What do the protesters WANT?" And the response is often indefinite, and vaguely idealistic, nothing urgent or threatening enough to force the the have-it-alls to concede to... to what?

I was pleased to see the Chicago Tribune publish a list of twelve clear, concrete goals from Occupy Chicago, demanding what needs to be done and by whom. See the list here. 

From my point of view, for anything to come to the table, something drastic has to happen. 

And so, if a reporter asks, "What do you want?",  I want the response to be something  simple like this (with the backing of the thousands in the streets to see it through):

"We want our homes back. We want our livelihoods back. We want our lives back.

We want to see those who were rewarded for taking these things from us be brought to trial and to humbling justice.

We want to force Congress to pass legislation to redistribute the wealth.

If that does not happen, we will invoke our Second Amendment rights, and redistribute it by force.

And we will be TOO BIG TO FAIL."


Rome "Day of Rage"


Madrid


Berlin


London

An Alarming Contradiction--Job Openings Are Going Unfilled

Make the school day longer, and then cut access to a free educational opportunity?

(We'll return to the world of movies later this week.)

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel caused a  furor recently by pressing legislation to lengthen the school day in Chicago Public Schools.  A typical school day had been from 9:00am-2:45pm, or 5 hours and 45 minutes. Emanuel sought to add about 90 minutes of additional instruction time per day.

Emanuel's primary concern, in an era when a well-trained workforce is crucial to a vastly changing job market, was that children would receive the additional instruction needed to prepare them for advanced study, or to qualify them for positions as skilled workers.

Then, I heard something that made me pause:

Today, Emanuel's first annual budget for the city was unveiled.  One of the many measures, proposed to close a multi-million-dollar deficit, was to shorten the hours at many Public Libraries.

That sounded to me like a mixed message.

Is Emanuel paying lip service to increased instruction and competitive education?  Why keep kids in school longer and then restrict citizens' access to materials that may help them learn and improve their lives?

As reported in the Tribune, libraries will be closed during their "least-used" hours.  But why not encourage heavier usage?  Why not turn the libraries into centers of workforce development and community education?  It makes no sense to decrease access to a center of free inquiry and self-improvement and education. 

Libraries should not be relegated to the dustbin of history.  There are a lot of materials, archived preserved, that are still useful, especially reference materials, that can still be used, to maintain a depth of knowledge, and a  more complete worldview.

I think it is dangerous to rely on the Intenet for all of one's information and instruction.  It's as absurd to think that the Internet is a reliable and objective source of all reference material, history, culture, and news, as it was assumed at one time that Television was all one needed for one's information and education.

Search engines are sponsored; search results as a result can be filtered.   Material on the internet is unfettered, much of it lacking the "antiquated" principles of accuracy and objectivity.  It's a wild frontier in many ways.

All of this feeds into my reaction to a surprising and disturbing story I have heard a lot recently, summarized well in the Huffington Post:

While 14 million people in the US are looking for work, 52 percent of U.S. employers have difficulty filling critical positions within their organizations -- up from 14 percent in 2010.

Many of the manufacturing jobs going unfilled require skills and knowledge in math and sciences.  In 1980 these disciplines accounted for 11.1 percent of college graduates. In 2009, it fell to 8.9 percent.

Older workers are retiring, and younger workers have either not applied to fill these vacancies, or else lack the proper background and training.  Many vocational training programs have been cut, or else are out of date.

We need to reinforce all opportunities to educate its citizens and potential workers, within the schools and within the community.  Make a case for extended schooldays (and, maybe, consider compensating teachers proportionately). Also, don't close a community center of free inquiry and exploration--the Public Library--but find ways to make it more active in workforce training.

American culture has to commit wholeheartedly to the idea of lifelong education, in all of its forms...and that means, not restricting access to educational materials, just to close a budget deficit.

Read the article to get an idea of the gravity of the situation in which thousands of jobs are going unfilled in this time of alarming long-term unemployment (which you can find on this link).

Murder Trial? Or Exploitation? Sunday Journal #1

I don't wish to alienate those who enjoyed Michael Jackson's music, or even his celebrity.  I listened to Jackson on the airwaves since he was a youngster (and, incidentally, so was I). I was not a  fan, although I enjoyed one or two of his recordings (like "Human Nature"); but I understand that it is hard to lose someone who provided pleasure through music or any other kind of performance or artistic endeavor. (To me, for instance, Heath Ledger's sudden death and the resulting loss of his potential, were tragic.)

Jackson had talent, and stardom at a young age.  His cult-worship today, however, seems totally out of sync with his contribution to art or music, or even culture.

Now, over two years after his untimely death, his absence is still unsettling to many people. Among them there is a lack of closure; and so there is some need to place blame elsewhere, rather than to accept the idea that perhaps Mr. Jackson made some unfortunate health decisions of his own, which contributed to his hastened demise.

And so we have another "trial of the century" in which prosecutors are seeking to identify a culprit.  

What offends me about the case of Dr. Conrad Murray is that it seems to have been "styled" like a reality show reminiscent of O.J. Simpson's 1994 murder trial, which was a media bonanza.  The purveyors of this new media circus have found a way to continue to exploit and profit from Jackson's fame, with this manufactured "event".

If Jackson were not so popular--or eccentric-- this "case" would appeal to very few, certainly not enough to warrant the coverage it is receiving...if it were tried at all.  

Does anyone else think Murray's trial is being programmed and orchestrated to remind "audiences" of the Simpson trial?   

Dr. Conrad Murray tried for Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson (2011)...


O.J Simpson on trial for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson (1994)...

War Movies, Gays and the Military, and a Sorry Show of "Patriotism"

I do not want to give heartless, opportunistic politicians too much sought-after publicity.  But I have to comment on what caused a big stir at last night's Republican Presidential debate.  Just a day after"don't ask don't tell" law had been lifted, a question was asked, via video, by a gay American soldier (Steven Hill).  Hill, who is serving in Iraq, was booed by some members of the Fox News audience.

And the question, which was given to hapless candidate Rick Santorum to answer, was this: whether the candidates, and the Republicans, would work to circumvent the repeal of the discriminatory law that forbade gay personnel to be open about their sexuality. 

Santorum began with:
"I would say any type of sexual activity has no place in the military."  Which is exactly the point...no place in the military.  And sexuality should not be made an exclusionary matter either. 

It makes me crazy that the party that wants to abolish government controls entirely, supports the most intrusive government controls when issues block the narrow view of the world they want to see.

*   *   *   *

I have always had an ambivalent attitude toward the military.

My father was in Germany right after WWII to assist in the reconstruction, just before he went to college on the GI bill.  He speaks with affection of his year in Munich.

My attitudes about war and the armed forces were shaped in part by images from the movies.  Everything from "The Best Years of Our Lives" and "The Longest Day", to "Patton, "MASH", "Coming Home", "Apocalypse Now" and "The Deer Hunter", among others, wrestled for my heart and mind.

Of course it wasn't that simple: Context was everything.  Unless you know the social climate and political environment that produced a work like "Hair", for example, you would not understand the deep emotional chord that is struck within those who absorbed the anxiety of the time.

Those movies did not look too closely, nor raise the possibility that any of their characters might be gay---except, of course, in a derisively satiric way (like Painless the Dentist in "MASH").

And so I adopted a vast array of opposing thoughts and emotions about military service, about honor and camaraderie and, later, about the suffering and madness of war.

I learned to respect the hard work of earnest people who honestly believed they were defending the lives, and the best ideals, of America.  I also began to question, and then disdain, the hypocrisy, bureaucracy and outright dishonesty practiced by the military, which some of these movies sought to portray.  I ceased to buy in to the heroics, the unquestioning patriotism that was the order of the day in early Hollywood war pictures.

And so I had a personal tug of war with the issue of gays serving in the military.  Of course, I loathed the reasons that gays were banned from service, and then allowed to serve as long as they lied about their lives and loves (while straight boys were encouraged to make vulgar displays of their heterosexual "prowess"). These same reasons were used as arguments against allowing a racially integrated military, or allowing women in combat positions.

But while I wholeheartedly supported the rights of gay people to serve openly, I also questioned why gay people (for whom I retain a romanticized, even stereotyped view as especially intelligent and sensitive, ) would want to be a part of an organization that reduces thinking people to blind obedience, preserves a culture of macho violence, and asks its soldiers to risk injury or death on often dubious pretexts.

I would not dream of denying anyone their life's passion or fulfillment, and if serving in the armed forces provides that, then one should pursue that path.  However, I think there would be poetic justice if gays suddenly, deliberately, boycotted military service. 

End of an Era: Gays Can Now Serve Openly in US Armed Forces

At 12:00 this morning (September 20), "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the US military policy that prevented gay and lesbian personnel from serving openly, officially ended.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will discuss the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law today at a news conference

More here in subsequent posts.  (Read the Reuter's article here.)

A Political Rant On Tax Hikes, Deficit Reduction, and American Voters

President Obama is now adamant about reducing the deficit by at least 3 trillion dollars in 10 years. He unveiled a plan at the white house to cut spending and ask the most fortunate citizens to increase their fair share in tax revenue.

I had some random thoughts about Obama's new strategy, and his chances for getting elected for a second term, considering the state of our electorate.....

--As far as the tax hikes, there have been many articles about what Obama's administration is calling the "Buffett Rule". It is named for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, who is tired of the rich being coddled with lower tax rates than most middle-class Americans.... 

--Obama made the tax-the-wealthy plan one of the planks of his election.  His vehemence at this particular time has caused many pundits, even his supporters (even Jon Stewart) surmise that he is merely campaign posturing.

Stewart had a great editorial a week ago about "Campaign Obama" (click HERE). 

--Ah, education...I could go on and on.  As Bill Clinton said this morning on the Today Show, many American voters adopt an ideology, even when it has no basis in fact.  And these Americans cast their votes accordingly.  I totally agree, in the eloquent statement made by a friend and fellow writer, that "ignorant, and naive voters probably do best by staying away from the polls..."

--Ironically, politicians, in spite of what they say, do not want an educated electorate.  For one thing, the current method of campaign advertising would not work among a high-functioning, thinking and reasoned populace.

--The Republicans have co-opted many of the disenfranchised and disadvantaged, and have appealed to their fears about issues that have little to do with their best interests.... 

--The "tea partiers" seem to be those who are comfortable with regimentation, who prefer to take orders, and WHO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD...which is why they look for a a "parental" leader, a "priestly" leader, even a "militaristic" one (follow orders, don't question them). These voters are easily led, are uncomfortable with logic, and vote "en masse", like lemmings.

--They can feel good about exercising their "patriotic duty" without having to take personal responsibility for their choices.

--Democrats have a harder road, in general.  They trade in abstract ideas (like civil rights. justice, etc.) which are ambiguous, not concrete.  Their voters require a thoughtful internalization of ideas before accepting them, and then they can take action.  For this to occur, these voters should be better-educated.  Democrats find it harder to appeal to the emotions of their core constituents.

(And politicians are a prime example that you don't have to be intelligent to be wealthy...)

Enjoy the Jon Stewart video..

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Transformer - Campaign-Based Economy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

In the News: "Pass This Jobs Bill Now!"

Last Thursday, President Obama gave his long-awaited speech before Congress.  In it he outlined a bill, which he has just submitted to Congress, to create new jobs in a variety of industries, generate tax revenue (especially by increasing the contributions of "job creators"), and grow the economy.


Our friends in the UK printed the full text of the speech, with a video, in The Guardian.  You can read and see it here.


Already, as expected, there is push-back from Republicans in Congress. Even though the resistance doesn't seem as heated as in early August with the "debate" over the debt ceiling, there is still a marked reluctance to give full support to this bill.


To me, Mr.Obama's speech was impassioned, stirring, and sensible.  If the bill he described is the bill he is asking Congress to pass immediately, I see no reason why reasonable people should not champion for it, and vote it into law.


My view?  Republicans should pass it, all of it, right now.  They should pass it for their own survival, if nothing else.


Much of the deadlock in American Government has been a result of a blind refusal by conservative Republicans to hand Mr. Obama anything that looks like a victory, even when these same Republicans have rallied for the same ideas Mr. Obama has proposed.


In other words, it is possible that Republicans may block this bill in spite of their support for many of its ideas,  BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE  IT MIGHT WORK, and might be the right bill for this moment in history.   And to let Mr. Obama claim credit for an economic victory would, for some Republicans, be akin to political suicide. Otherwise, I see LITTLE REASON why ANYONE would be reluctant to vote for this particular bill.


The bill seems no worse than anything else put forth so far by our political leaders.  Nothing else has worked, and there is very little time before the next election.  And people are hurting, as is our infrastructure and our economy in general.


IF REPUBLICANS FEEL THIS BILL IS GENUINELY THE WRONG SOLUTION TO OUR ECONOMIC WOES...All the more reason they should pass it, all of it, and right away.  If they feel that strongly about the bill's ineffectiveness, they should play the noble enablers, give Mr. Obama enough rope, as it were, and then say "we told you so" later.  If the bill does nothing to promote job growth or economic recovery, then Republicans will have an issue on which to hang their campaign; and the White House...and Congress...will be theirs in 2012.


Of course, if it passes, and the economy shows signs of coming back...Well, then the Republicans can at least have the satisfaction of having done something for the good of the economy and the country... A naive view on my part, as most of these leaders reside on a self-made plane of existence, far removed from the citizens they purport to represent. 


A very smart speech on the part of Mr. Obama, and an interesting quandary for the Republicans as a result....

Tax Breaks For "Job Creators"

Many Americans, concerned that essential programs will be cut to reduce the deficit, reasonably expect that America's wealthiest citizens and corporations be taxed at a higher rate, and contribute a more equitable share to the common good of the country.  Under such extraordinary economic circumstances as we see today, tax breaks that were extended to the wealthy, under former President George W. Bush, should be rescinded. 

The  monetary amounts raised by this requirement would help the country's financial health, and would hardly be felt as a dent in the pocketbooks of these enormously wealthy citizens and corporations

Yet, in an effort to block this reasonable requirement, many political figures, most of them among the country's wealthiest citizens, fight tooth and nail against this idea, stating that it is bad policy in a weak economy to tax "job creators".

The term "job creators" is rarely debated or questioned, neither in Congress nor in the White House.  But it is such a bald-faced misdirection that it cries out for immediate scrutiny from intelligent journalists, concerned citizens, and political leaders.  The protection given "job creators" should be a leading topic on the news, covered relentlessly.  So-called "job creators" should be made to justify the misleading title they seem to embrace.  I wondered why this concept was rarely challenged over the airwaves.

Based on a large number of writers in the blogosphere addressing this topic, I am not alone, which was a comfort, albeit a small one.

The lack of calling-out of these "job creators", who are getting rich on the backs of a dwindling workforce, is especially irksome in light of the recent bleak U.S. employment news, and the discouraging haggle over Mr. Obama's upcoming speech  to address the jobs crisis (as though either the Republican presidential debate, or the season premiere of the National Football League, were the ONLY two nights available to discuss a topic that should have been done two years ago--or whether these two competing events should have had any bearing on this address in the first place).

By the way, Mr. Obama acquiesced to the Republicans and their Presidential debate, and will now compete with a season-opener football game.  Bad judgement on the President's part; unnerving, almost laughable disrespect from the Republicans.  All political theater, on every side.  No matter.  My instinct suggests that a majority of football fans would not have tuned in to the speech, nor supported Obama's plan, no matter when the speech was scheduled to be given.  

Lila Shapiro's Huffington Post article on Friday, September 2, nicely summarized the alarming news that continues to bode ill for our economic recovery. Americans, meanwhile, remain either too scared or too complacent to take to the streets, preferring instead to retreat to their football games, or to their paternalistic Republican despots (who they naively think represent them), or to the two or three jobs (if they can find work at all) they must work to make ends meet:

The number of those out of a job for six months or more remained above 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the unemployed. A total of 2.04 million were out of work for 99 weeks -- the limit for jobless benefits in some states -- or longer, a slight rise from 2.01 million last month, according to BLS figures not in the report.

"Their horizon for a brighter day is moving away from them," said Carl E. Van Horn, a labor economist at Rutgers University and co-author of a recent report focusing on the long-term unemployed. "Their optimism has been crushed by reality: They are still not working, or if they are working they're making a lot less money. You're either devastated or you're hurting, that's the range."

Meanwhile, corporate profits remain at pre-recession levels of strength. Many experts say that robust corporate profits alongside stagnant wages and declining workweeks points to a grim future for America's workforce.

"Many companies have simply come to the conclusion that labor is just too expensive," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group. "We are moving increasingly into a labor-less society."

Perhaps there should be a requirement that tax breaks be extended to those who can demonstrate that they have created new American jobs each year, for Americans on American soil, whether they be a wealthy individuals, corporations, or small entrepreneurs who nevertheless have successfully grown to the need to hire workers.  Make it a simple process to account for added jobs; make loopholes difficult to create, or easy to dispense with.

Every one else on the highest end of society would have to ante up.

US Politics--Bachmann, Perry, and...Karen Armstrong

It's just too easy to poke fun.... The resemblances are far too striking:

A couple of weeks ago, Newsweek magazine published a photograph of Republican Presidential Candidate-hopeful Michelle Bachmann.  The photo, captioned "The Queen of Rage", stirred a controversy.  Critics complained that the photo made her look crazed, and did not reflect her true nature.

I am not so sure...

It is so easy to satirize these presumptive leaders, to turn them into parodies of themselves, to marginalize them and insist that they are simply eating at the children's table of politics, and can never emerge as leaders of the Free World.

(Besides...I think I would prefer to have snarling dogs running our government...At least they are honest about their feelings, and you always know where you stand with them.)

But we need to pay attention to these figures, and what they stand for, in order to understand their unlikely appeal, and to work around the irrationality and misplaced anger of their disenchanted, disenfranchised, and some of them unfortunately ignorant, followers. 

Otherwise, the rest of us might soon have to dance, reluctantly, to their tune.

The main point is that Michelle Bachmann, and her closest current rival Rick Perry, would not in themselves be prominent, threatening, nor even worthy of serious discussion, unless they happened to represent the ideas of a significant number of American citizens.

And that is frightening, unnerving, and sad.

Among other things, I have lately read and heard a lot about the political-religious doctrine called Dominionism, to which both Bachmann and Perry and others, especially among Tea Partiers, are connected. (It is cynically uncertain whether these political hopefuls actually believe in this idea.  Of course, they use it to their advantage.) 

Dominionism is a radical Christian sect that is gaining strength. In a nutshell, it states that their followers are entitled to hold dominion over the world, and will do this by infiltrating political systems, and expel the "demonic" ideas of abortion, homosexuality, and all non-Christian beliefs. Dominionists believe they must do this to bring about the end-times as prophecied in the Bible, to exorcise non-believers and prepare believers for the end of the world.


For more about this idea that is shaping American politics in an ominous way, check out the article by Michelle Goldberg in The Daily Beast.  

NPR's Fresh Air Interview from last week with Rachel Tabachnick, who researches the impact of the religious right and end-time narratives on American politics, was informative (if ominous). Check out also Tabachnick's writing on the web site, Talk To Action.

Best of all, I highly recommend the writing of Religious Historian and Theorist Karen Armstrong.  I found Armstrong's books, and read them immediately following the 9/11 tragedy. She helped guide me out of the darkness of my own ignorance to gain a better understanding of religion, conflict, fundamentalism, and politics.  Her book, "The Battle for God", is a lucid and comprehensive piece of work, well-researched, about why religious fundamentalism takes hold in societies, and why it is a major political force in today's world. (Read her interview on Faith L. Justice's blog HERE)

Armstrong, a former nun and self-proclaimed "freelance monotheist", goes deep but retains a conversational, commonsense approach to her vast and complex subject.

According to Armstrong, pre-industrial societies held to the notions of "mythos" and "logos".  "Logos" were practical , rational, scientific, and logical bases to run societies. "Mythos" was a concept similar to a primitive form of psychology, in which common stories, or "myths" were used to give meaning to peoples' lives. Religion was one form of mythos.  As science grew in spectacular fashion in industrial societies, myths lost their power, and those who clung to them became frightened, and needed some guiding force to comfort them or put meaning into their lives.  Their very existence was threatened until they were able to look up to leaders who assuaged their fears and created new myths.

Soon myths began to replace the rational and scientific bases for a reasonable society...and the battle rages on our political stage today.  Abortion and homosexuality are seen as just the most prominent symbols of a threatening, modern scientific existence.

I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's books, especially "Battle for God".

The rise of the Rick Perrys and the Michelle Bachmanns, by legitimizing and reinforcing the most irrational fears of the citizens who look up to them to lead them out of a world that terrifies them, is similar to the rise of religious fundamentalism. 

Perry and Bachmann and their ilk are successful because people are scared, and the way these political-religious figures exploit that fear is nothing short of demonic.  And these frightened people are also vocal, and also easily led---to the polls.  That's the most frightening of all.

Running mates?