There’s Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

February 9, 2010

I went to the local Rite-Aid to buy some aspirin the other day. When I went to the check-out counter, there was the usual assortment of gossip and women’s magazines. However, there was an addition that I’d never seen before. It was a special edition magazine titled “Sarah Palin: The Untold Story”. It promised “100 pages of must-see photos”. Below that were the words “Faith, Family, Tradition” (Kinder, Kueche, Kirche). Below that was the question: “Can She Save America?” (Do pigs have wings?)

Experience has taught me to be wary of conspiracy theories. Still, I can’t help thinking that there is something fishy about this whole Sarah Palin phenomenon. Here is a woman who has failed to distinguish herself in any way, who was treated as a national joke when she ran for vice-president. Yet the media are constantly promoting her. And not just the right-wing media. Last year, Barbara Walters did a TV special called “The Ten Most Fascinating People of 2009”. Sure enough, Sarah Palin was one of them. Her speech at the Tea Party convention was broadcast by CNN, as if it were a major event. One really has to wonder if there is something behind all this.

Anyone, even a conservative, who thinks Palin is presidential material, must live in a cave. First of all, she’s clearly not very bright. It apparently never occurred to her that her comment about Obama reading a TelePrompTer might open her up to ridicule, since it is well known that she uses hand notes. Her lack of education is embarrassingly obvious. As a public speaker, she is just awful; she sounds like the most annoying teacher you had in grade school. What’s more, she’s prone to scandal. The real reason she resigned as Governor of Alaska is because the Republican-controlled state legislature found evidence that she abused her office. She tried to pressure the Public Safety Commissioner to fire a state trooper who was her former brother-in-law. This should have ended her career. (Blagojevich became a political pariah, even though what he did really wasn’t any worse than this.) It’s recently been revealed that she hasn’t paid property taxes for some cabins she owns.

Palin doesn’t alway seem to get along with her fellow Republicans. One of the more interesting moments during the 2008 election was when McCain criticized Obama for using the expression, “putting lipstick on a pig”. What does it tell us that he automatically assumed that Obama must be referring to Palin?

So, who, or what, is behind this big Sarah Palin push? And what are they trying to accomplish by this? We should start demanding answers.

Non-Controversy of the Month

February 6, 2010

In a society in which we are discouraged from discussing the truly outrageous things that are going on in the world, it’s perhaps inevitable that people would contrive to be offended by trivialities.

I found this on the Internet the other day.

According to the article, NBC has issued an apology (to whom?) because, during Black History Month, their cafeteria served a meal that consisted of fried chicken, collared greens with smoked turkey, white rice, black-eyed peas and jalapeno cornbread. (Sounds like damn good eating to me.) The article doesn’t make clear who was supposedly offended by this. It is common in our society to associate certain foods with certain ethnic groups, and no one is bothered by this. Italian-Americans don’t get offended when a movie shows Italians eating pasta. I am of German descent, yet if the UO dorm cafeterias were to celebrate Oktoberfest by serving bratwurst and sauerkraut, I would not find this offensive.

The article quotes the chef, Leslie Calhoun, who is Black, as saying:

    I don’t understand at all. It’s not trying to offend anybody and it’s not trying to suggest that that’s all that African-Americans eat. It’s just a good meal. I thought it would go over well.

I would have thought so, too.

I spent nearly ten years of my life in the awful city of Los Angeles. Yet I will always fondly remember the soul food restaurants that I went to there. There is this place in Hollywood that I would go to called Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles. (What two things could possibly go together better than chicken and waffles?) They have this dish called Stymie’s Choice. It consists of a heaping pile of fried chicken gizzards and grits, covered with gravy. Damn, it’s good.

There’s one soul food restaurant here in Eugene. It’s called Papa’s Soul Food Kitchen. (I recommend the gumbo.) It was, until his recent death, owned by a guy who called himself “Papa Soul”. He was a fixture in the local music scene. He would play the washboard with local bands. Lately, the place has started having live blues shows.

So, I don’t feel much sympathy with people who take offense at finding fried chicken and collared greens in the NBC cafeteria. All I can say to them is: “Get a life”.

Avatar

January 31, 2010

I initially did not intend to see James Cameron’s latest film. I am not a James Cameron fan; I’m still traumatized by the dialogue in Titanic. (I have occasional flashbacks, but they’re becoming less frequent.) However, this film has become a subject for debate on the left. While some, such as Louis Proyect, have praised this film for its anti-imperialist message, others have complained that it follows the “White Man Saves the Natives” formula of such movies as Dances with Wolves. I felt obligated to investigate a film that has provoked so much serious debate. (Okay, the real reason I went to see this is because I’m a sucker for anything that’s in 3-D.)

The film does follow the “White Man Saves the Natives” paradigm, and it does so in a way that’s painfully predictable. Although the dialogue is better than in Titanic, it still has some clunky moments. (When Sigourney Weaver is shot in the stomach, she jokingly says, “My whole day has been ruined.” Does Cameron really believe that if he were shot in the stomach, he would say this?) Nevertheless, the most striking thing about this movie is how anti-military it is. It’s perhaps the most anti-military film I’ve seen since Dr. Strangelove. (The scene in which the army destroys the Naa’vi’s home is horrifying.) It signals a complete rejection of the militarism that has increasingly dominated American society in recent years, a militarism that is often reflected in Hollywood blockbuster films. I sometimes felt a sense of disbelief as the audience rooted for the killing of U.S. soldiers by the denizens of Pandora.

Avatar is anti-military and anti-capitalist. The fact that this is the most popular movie in America is significant. The refusal of some ultra-left blockheads to recognize this just shows how useless they are.

Oh, and the film is visually brilliant. Pandora is depicted in a thoroughly convincing manner without being a carbon copy of Earth. As for the 3-D effect, it’s pretty good. Some of the aerial scenes gave me a slight feeling of vertigo. However, a few scenes look like pop-up greeting cards.

Now, if Cameron could just learn how to write…

J.D. Salinger (1919-2010)

January 30, 2010

It’s been a busy week for the Grim Reaper: first Howard Zinn, then J.D. Salinger. Both men had a strong influence on American culture, albeit in very different ways. It’s been said that reading The Catcher in the Rye has virtually become a rite of passage for young people. It’s not hard to see why a young person would find the book appealing. It tells the story of a bright, idealistic teenager who is narrowly saved from going completely bonkers. A certain type of person can easily imagine this as his or her own story.

Salinger almost became more famous for being a recluse than for being a writer. In the early sixties, he stopped giving interviews and he soon stopped publishing anything. Now, one sure way to draw attention to oneself is to noisily proclaim that one wants to be left alone. Salinger reportedly built a six-and-a-half foot tall fence around his property in New Hampshire. People in that part of the country are more likely to simply put up “No Trespassing” signs. Ultimately, Salinger’s reclusion proved futile. His own daughter wrote a book about him. His former girlfriend, Joyce Maynard, wrote a book describing in intimate detail how they had sex – telling us more than we ever really wanted to know about Salinger.

Mark David Chapman, the nutjob who shot John Lennon, was reportedly reading The Catcher in the Rye when the police arrested him. Perhaps one of the reasons Salinger became a recluse was that he may have sensed that his work appealed to people like that.

All of this talk about The Catcher in the Rye reminds me of a story. Years ago I worked at a bookstore. (This was before I worked for that behemoth, Barnes & Noble.) One of the managers there was the daughter of the store’s owner. (I wonder how she got her job?) It was embarrassingly obvious that she knew nothing about books. What’s more, she was often mean to the employees, and she was sometimes rude to the customers as well. One day, Berry Gordy, the founder of Motown, came into the store. Word went around among the employees that a celebrity was in the building. This manager got wind of this, and she asked one of the head managers who the celebrity was. This guy was a snooty little fellow who had a deliciously wicked sense of humor. He told her that Holden Caulfield was in the store. She then went around saying to people, “Holden Caulfield is here.”

I grin whenever I think of this story, but at the same time something about it strikes me as being kind of awful, partly because I feel a bit sorry for this woman, and partly because of her ignorance. I wonder what Salinger would have made of this.

Howard Zinn (1922-2010)

January 28, 2010

I was saddened to learn of the death of Howard Zinn. This is a great loss, because there is no one else on the U.S. left quite like him. There is Chomsky, of course, but, because of the latter’s dry academicism, he has never been able to have the same visceral appeal that Zinn had. Through his writings Zinn was able to make people feel excited about history and about politics. He could present ideas in a way that made people care about them.

Although I knew people who knew Zinn, I never actually met him. (The closest I ever came was when I helped organize a book signing he did in Los Angeles several years ago.) I once did the lighting for an L.A. production of Zinn’s Marx in Soho, which starred Brian Jones. My job was pretty simple. I would turn the lights up at the beginning and turn them down at the end, and I would flicker them a couple of times in between. Sitting through so many performances, I got so that I could recite much of the play by heart. I was struck by the shrewd way the play is constructed. The topics are brought up in such a way as to have a maximum emotional effect on the audience. Zinn had a great feel for the theatre in addition to being a great historian.

I first heard about Zinn in the 1980’s when I was living in Massachusetts. Zinn was teaching at Boston University at the time, and he had gotten in a public feud with the university’s politically ambitious president, John Silber, a darling of neoconservatives. The media sided with Silber, portraying him as an advocate of “tough love” for the university, while dismissing Zinn as “politically correct” and clueless. It’s nice to know that Zinn had the last laugh. His reputation has grown, while Silber has been largely forgotten.

Zinn will be missed.

Broken Embraces

January 23, 2010

One of my New Years resolutions was to spend less time in bars and more time going to the movies. So yesterday I went to see Broken Embraces, a new film by the Spanish director, Pedro Almodóvar. At the beginning of the film, we meet Mateo (Lluís Homar), a blind screenwriter who prefers to be known as “Harry Caine”. He is looked after by his agent, Judit (Blanca Portillo), and by her son, Diego (Tamar Novas). One day someone from Mateo’s past shows up at his door, and he seems deeply disturbed afterwards. Diego demands that Mateo explain why. After some initial reluctance, Mateo opens up. He tells about how back in 1994 he directed a film called Girls with Suitcases (this was before he went blind).

The film stars an actress named Lena (Penelope Cruz), who is the mistress of the film’s producer, a wealthy financier named Ernesto Martel (José Luis Gómez). Ernesto’s creepy son, Ernesto, Jr. (Rubén Ochandiano) wanders around on the set with a video camera, ostensibly doing a documentary. During the filming, Mateo and Lena fall in love with each other. Just as you expect, Ernesto learns about their affair from watching his son’s videotapes. In a jealous rage, he pushes Lena down a flight of stairs, causing her to break her leg. After the film is done, Mateo and Lena run away together. Ernesto then seeks to exact revenge on the both of them.

Throughout this film, Almodóvar maintains a careful balance between comedy and seriousness. The light-heartedness of some scenes is contrasted with the violence (both real and threatened) in others. The result is a funny, suspenseful, and ultimately moving story about a man finding peace with his past and with himself. One of the many strengths of this movie is the very good acting. (Penelope Cruz is wonderful as Lena.) I highly recommend this.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

January 17, 2010

I just saw The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. It tells the story of Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) a thousand-year old man who runs a traveling sideshow. It features a mirror through which a person can travel into another world with fantastic landscapes that reflect his or her personality. Parnassus is accompanied by his two assistants, Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Percy (Verne Troyer); and by his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole). Parnassus has made a deal with the Devil (Tom Waits), according to which he must give the latter his daughter when she turns sixteen, which is to happen in a few days. The troupe rescue a stranger, Tony (Heath Ledger), who then tries to help them foil the Devil’s plot.

My response to this film was mixed. On the one hand, Gilliam has a brilliant visual imagination. I envy any artist who can create the kinds of scenes he can. On the other hand, I found it hard to care about the characters in this film (though Plummer does manage to evoke sympathy as Parnassus). There were too many seemingly interminable scenes of the characters arguing with one another, and it wasn’t always clear what they were arguing about. The film really only comes alive during the scenes in the Imaginarium (including a scene that pokes fun at Bono). I should mention here that Ledger died before the filming was finished. Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell successively take his place during the Imaginarium scenes. (I must say, Depp does a pretty good imitation of Ledger.)

An interesting note: Gilliam has said that Tony is based on Tony Blair, who “would say the most insane things and probably he’d believe them himself”.

This film is worth seeing for the Imaginarium scenes, but be prepared to have your patience tested at times.

Our Man in Haiti

January 15, 2010

Guess who Obama just picked to head, along with Bill Clinton, the US relief effort in Haiti? That’s right, it’s George W. Bush. Is this a sick joke or what? I guess this is just another example of the “change” that Obama promised us. This is an insult to the people of New Orleans, especially since Obama has reneged on his promise to help them. This just goes to show that in US politics nothing succeeds like failure. After all, Obama kept on Ben Bernanke as his Federal Reserve Bank chief, and he chose as his Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, whom one Wall Street analyst described as a man who “has failed at everything he ever tried to do.” Obama seems to have a soft spot for incompetent people; he picked Joe Biden as his vice president. And he picked Larry Summers as his chief economic advisor. This is a man who once said that Africa is “under-polluted”.

Sometimes one has to wonder whether Obama is extremely cynical, or whether he’s just not as smart as he sounds. He continued Bush’s bailout of the banks. He’s digging himself into a hole in Afghanistan (and soon he may be digging himself into another hole in Yemen). He’s getting ready to sign a health care “reform” bill that Americans will come to hate. His chances of getting re-elected look slimmer all the time.

Blowing My Own Horn

January 10, 2010

Since I’ve never shied away from shameless self-promotion (just ask my friends about this), I’ve decided to give myself a plug. A couple of photographs of mine can be found on an online journal, Unbound, on pages 28 and 29.

I took the photos over a year ago in Springfield, Oregon. (Yes, this is where the Simpsons live.) They had started building a housing project there just before the economy tanked. There were streetlights and sidewalks and “No Parking” signs, but no houses. At night, the streetlights would all be lit up, which, with no houses being there, made the area look eerie. The place also struck me as an ironic comment on the economy. (I haven’t been by there in a long time. I should go to see whether any houses have gone up since.) I went out there one night with a camera (the photos were all taken around midnight). I took very long exposures to try to emphasize the creepiness and loneliness of the place. I hope one day to do an exhibit that will include all the photos I took there.

Wrapping Up the Naughts

December 30, 2009

Well, not only have we come to the end of the year, but we have also come to the end of the decade. All the reviews of the 2000’s that I’ve read have been pretty much the same. There seems to be universal agreement that this decade sucked big time. W.H. Auden once called the 1930’s a “low, dishonest decade.” The 2000’s certainly had more than their share of dishonesty. Just think of the mind-numbing barrage of lies during the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

This is all the more dismaying considering that the decade started out promisingly. The Anti-WTO demonstration in Seattle in November 1999 had reinvigorated the left. People wanted to do things, to get out in the streets and make a statement. During the Democratic National Convention in 2000, 40,000 people marched through the streets of Los Angeles, in the face of intimidation by the police. When George W. Bush stole the 2000 election, that didn’t put any damper on things. To many people, it just confirmed their suspicion that the system is totally corrupt. The police repression at the Genoa demonstration in the summer of 2001 did disturb some people, but still they felt that they could accomplish something.

I remember that summer I was living in Los Angeles, and I was involved in a solidarity campaign with the Immokalee farm workers. They had called for a boycott of Taco Bell, to get them to pressure the growers into raising their wages. Once a week we would have a demonstration in front of a Taco Bell in East Los Angeles. Each week the protest got bigger and louder. People from the neighborhood would join in, as well as students from nearby East Los Angeles College. They wanted to make a difference in the world. Teenagers would go up to cars in the drive-thru and explain to people why they shouldn’t buy from Taco Bell.

Then September 11th happened.

Suddenly people were all driving around with American flags on their cars and bumper stickers saying, “United We Stand.” This was an understandable visceral response to the attacks, but I could see that it would only lead to trouble. The media suddenly stopped treating Bush as a joke and began touting him as a national hero (even though he hid out at two air force bases during the day of the attacks.) In the economic slump that followed the attacks, Bush urged people to go out and shop. The media treated this as serious advice.

The left never really recovered from what happened. I think it fair to say that most of the people who marched through the streets of Seattle probably voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election. This is really sad, especially when you consider that Kerry is an enthusiastic supporter of everything those people were protesting against. (And Kerry was promising to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq.) “Anybody but Bush” became the mantra. Anyone who questioned this immediately found himself a pariah, if not threatened with physical violence. Kerry’s campaign slogan was “Help is on the way.” I guess people didn’t think they needed help, since Kerry lost the election.

Four years later, we had Obama promising us “hope”, which sounded a little catchier. Then there was the financial meltdown, and Obama became a shoo-in. The irony here was that Obama is a firm supporter of the economic policies that led to the meltdown. Sometimes hope is just that.

The year started off with Israel’s savage attack on Gaza. Not a murmur of criticism from Obama or any of the other Democrats. Once in office he impressed everyone with his ability to form complete sentences, such a refreshing change from his predecessor. He put forward an economic stimulus plan (mostly tax cuts) that was too timid to have much effect. The Republicans immediately started screaming “socialism”, and they’ve been like a stuck record ever since. In October it was announced that, for no clear reason, Obama was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. (It seems that the prize was actually for not being George W. Bush. The legacy of W.’s presidency is that the bar has been lowered on just about everything.) Shortly afterward, Obama announced he was going to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Now, the Democrats in Congress are on the verge of passing a Health Care “Reform” bill that has nothing progressive about it and is in some ways actually reactionary. One hopes that the way this bill made its way through the Senate will make people question the way our government is set up. The Senate (originally modeled after the British House of Lords) is an inherently undemocratic institution. Every state gets two senators, regardless of its size. Thus, California, which has a population of 36 million, has the same number of senators as Wyoming, which has 544,270 people. (More people live in the city of San Francisco than in the whole state of Wyoming.) This problem is compounded by the filibuster rule. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. (The idea here seems to be that having a simple majority just isn’t good enough.) So, we had the disgusting spectacle of Senate Democrats groveling at the feet of Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (pop. 3 million) and Ben Nelson of Nebraska (pop. 2 million). The most hilarious moment of the year came when Lieberman announced that he had suddenly changed his mind about the Medicare buy-in (which he had supported for years). He was now opposed to it, just because he had heard a liberal congressman say that he liked the idea. (This is the conservative mentality in its purest form: if the liberals are for it, I’m agin’ it!) So the Medicare buy-in was immediately jettisoned, without a murmur of protest. As for the cynical promises that were made to Nelson to get his one lousy vote, you can expect the Republicans to be making hay out of them in next year’s congressional elections.

Everything is not bleak, however. There have been a few glimmerings of a fightback, such as this summer’s G20 protests and the demonstrations at the Copenhagen climate conference. And there were the Viva Palestina convoys to Gaza. Interestingly, there has been an upsurge in struggle in Iran. It seems I was right in guessing that last summer’s demonstrations were about more that just a stolen election. So, I guess Obama wasn’t completely wrong about there being “hope”. It’s all a matter of what one does with it.

(By the way, the Immokalee workers eventually won concessions from Taco Bell. This was one of the few labor victories of this miserable decade.)