The feud that is the Democratic Party just became more pronounced. It seems to me that Ted Kennedy looked at how divided the party had become thanks to the Clinton campaign strategy and a national media all too eager for a mano a mano storyline, and decided to back probably the only candidate who unite more than he can divide. With the exception of the Clinton camp of course. The interesting thing to watch will be once a candidate is decided, will the losing camp support them? I don't see Obama's supporters flocking to Hillary's and vice-versa, and the result I think could be another Republican president. This in a year when the only way the Democratic Party couldn't win would be to shoot itself in the proverbial foot. Of course, much depends on the Republican nominee. McCain has broad appeal. Romney though I think would be loser, simply because he represents a continuation of our current blaise political experience.
I haven't listed the rest of the Republican nominees because I think it is coming to be more of a 2 person race in each Party. Huckabee is still a factor, Edwards less so.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Movie Review: There Will Be Blood
I just saw the movie There Will Be Blood. Many commentators have pointed out the obvious parallels in the movie's depiction of the unholy relationship between religion and oil and to that same relationship today. It is a movie that should not be contemplated hurriedly once the lights come on at its ending, but should be savored for a time afterwards, so that it can be fully turned over in one's head and appreciated more richly. There are many powerful scenes that will linger for a long time. One in particular is early on, as Daniel Day-Lewis' character, Daniel Plainview, sits silently with his infant son on a train, leaning his head in for the child to play with his face. Not a word is spoken, but the early impression we have of this hard scrabble man having a soft spot on the inside is gone at movie's end, nearly 30 years later. Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of a man who nearly literally digs his way to madness is remarkable. Nearly all the reviews are universal in their praise of his performance, and I do not differ. With a voice borrowed from John Huston, we see a portrayal of the toxic effects of obsession and greed on a man's soul, symbolized otherwise by the oil rigs and toxic oil pits which more and more scar and disfigure the landscape. Eventually people are just an obstacle, in the way of his ambition, as he relates in a memorable conversation with his half-brother; and when he says "these people", referring to humanity in a sneering, detached way, you can feel a chill go up your spine. His antagonist is played well by Paul Dano, a young actor with a promising future (many of you will remember him from Little Miss Sunshine). He plays twin brothers Ron and Eli Sunday. Eli is the local preacher who locks horns with Plainview. We eventually however come to see the two as being 2 sides of the same coin. Both promise wonders for the town of Little Boston, but both are really snake oil salesmen, interested only in promoting themselves at the town's expense.
Yet it is not a perfect movie. For all its power, incredible acting and cinematography, and a gripping score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, the film somehow feels to be less than the sum of its parts. The film seems to end suddenly and maybe unsure of itself, ending perhaps because it didn't know where else to go. We are then left wondering about the meaning of all we have just seen, with powerful images to fill our head that do not necessarily form a complete whole. We marvel at what we have seen but are not sure of what to make of it.
Despite that, the movie has enough to warrant viewing from an aesthetic viewpoint alone. And the issues that surround our addiction to oil to this day give the movie an added resonance. On a scale of 5 stars, I give it 3 1/2.
Yet it is not a perfect movie. For all its power, incredible acting and cinematography, and a gripping score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, the film somehow feels to be less than the sum of its parts. The film seems to end suddenly and maybe unsure of itself, ending perhaps because it didn't know where else to go. We are then left wondering about the meaning of all we have just seen, with powerful images to fill our head that do not necessarily form a complete whole. We marvel at what we have seen but are not sure of what to make of it.
Despite that, the movie has enough to warrant viewing from an aesthetic viewpoint alone. And the issues that surround our addiction to oil to this day give the movie an added resonance. On a scale of 5 stars, I give it 3 1/2.
My not too distant future
April 30th is coming up fast... The thought of fatherhood brings a wider range of emotions than I would ever have suspected, ranging from a giddy and joyful anticipation to an absolute feeling of dread and anxiety. I suppose most new fathers are like this, though I don't know if my waiting till my 40's and hence the wisdom of age helps me deal with this better or being an old fogey set in my ways makes me more ill prepared. I think of John Leguizamo's stage performance Sexaholic, where he tells his newborn son he is going to fuck him up in all the ways his father did with him. And my father was only 27 years old when I was born, I will be 41 when my child arrives, a lot more grumpy old man to impart.
Can the Democrats blow it (again)?
Sad to say, but I think we are seeing from the Clintons what I have always accused them of: putting their short term political fortunes above the long term interests of the Democratic Party. While I thought Bill Clinton was a step up from the wrong headed Reagan/Bush years, one of my biggest gripes was their moving the Democratic Party towards the right. In essence, their response to the demonization of the left and liberalism from the right wing was to say "We're not liberals anymore" and sell the American public on that. They essentially forced the Republican Party, and by extension the country, further to the right. They played a big part in why the word "liberal" these days is considered an epithet by many, despite the long proud history of liberalism. The failure of this strategy though showed up in the takeover of Congress by the Republicans shortly after Clinton's election and the subsequent failures in years after for the Democrats to regain power or to make any real meaningful change to the country (something which Obama pointed out and which earned the special wrath of Bill). Now we see the Clintons essentially dividing the party and potentially alienating black voters (whom the Democratic Party will need at the voting booths come November if they are to win) in a scorched earth drive to become the Party's nominee. Despite my loathing for Ronald Reagan, his famous truism of "Thou shall speak ill of no Republican" remains sound political advice for a political party hoping to make long term gains. The Clintons, if they are serious about putting this country in a better state, should speak ill of no Democrat. But for them it is about power, not the good of the country. And if the Democrats fail at this unique and crucial moment in our history, it will be unforgiveable. And the terrible disrepair of the last 7 years will go unchecked and unchanged.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
FOX ATTACKS! Obama Staffer
Anybody who still takes FOX news seriously is suffering from serious Republican Dementia.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Off the cuff
As I was watching the presentation of the American Film Institute's 100 Greatest American Movies, I found myself oddly troubled by something Steven Spielberg said. When discussing Schindler's List, a great film which made the Top 10, he stated that the Holocaust was the greatest crime in recorded history.
To begin with, let me state flat out that I am not one of those whacky Holocaust deniers. The kind that go to pretzel like bending of the facts to deny it ever happened, and then vote for Pat Buchanan for president. Those that deny the Holocaust are not only denying recorded history (the Germans were meticulous in their documentation, so the truth is plain for all to see), but they are denying the unspeakable grief and angst experienced by millions of survivors and relatives. My issue is simply as follows. I don't think it right or desirable to compare historical atrocities, at least from a barbarity standard. If you want to argue that the Nazis systematically killed more human beings just for the sake of their ethnic or cultural identity than anybody else in human history, fine. But I think when you compare one atrocity to another in terms of the barbarity, then in my view you start down a road of "My suffering was worse than yours because mine was part of the greatest atrocity ever" etc. In effect you create a "gold standard" of suffering. And then you begin to lessen the suffering of those who were victims of a "lesser" atrocity. Does it help an Armenian or a Cambodian that somehow their suffering was part of something "less"? Did they somehow suffer less because their numbers were less? Did they lose less in the process? If you were a Gypsy in a Nazi camp, you had a greater chance of being killed statistically than if you were Jewish; does the fact that less Gypsies died (because they had a smaller population to begin with) make their pain any less significant? The genocide in Rwanda was done with gruesome barbarity; a majority were hacked to death with machetes; many women were raped. In terms of butchery, it might not have the same number of dead as the Holocaust, but the savagery is possibly worse, if physical mutilation is your criterion.
Also, please do not take this as some sort of anti-Semitic rant. I do not mean it that way at all, and certainly do not want to imply the converse, that somehow victims of the Holocaust somehow suffered less. The unfortunate effect of all this seems to me to be like a child looking for the biggest roller coaster at the amusement park; only the biggest is worth his or her attention. Unfortunately we are not talking about children's amusement here, but sobering facets of our history as a species that should give pause to any idea of innate human goodness. These are ugly aspects to our shared humanity which we must come to grips with if we are to evolve into something better as a species. It doesn't help when we indirectly tell someone that their suffering doesn't hold the same validity as someone else's, because somehow it wasn't up to the gold standard of suffering.
To begin with, let me state flat out that I am not one of those whacky Holocaust deniers. The kind that go to pretzel like bending of the facts to deny it ever happened, and then vote for Pat Buchanan for president. Those that deny the Holocaust are not only denying recorded history (the Germans were meticulous in their documentation, so the truth is plain for all to see), but they are denying the unspeakable grief and angst experienced by millions of survivors and relatives. My issue is simply as follows. I don't think it right or desirable to compare historical atrocities, at least from a barbarity standard. If you want to argue that the Nazis systematically killed more human beings just for the sake of their ethnic or cultural identity than anybody else in human history, fine. But I think when you compare one atrocity to another in terms of the barbarity, then in my view you start down a road of "My suffering was worse than yours because mine was part of the greatest atrocity ever" etc. In effect you create a "gold standard" of suffering. And then you begin to lessen the suffering of those who were victims of a "lesser" atrocity. Does it help an Armenian or a Cambodian that somehow their suffering was part of something "less"? Did they somehow suffer less because their numbers were less? Did they lose less in the process? If you were a Gypsy in a Nazi camp, you had a greater chance of being killed statistically than if you were Jewish; does the fact that less Gypsies died (because they had a smaller population to begin with) make their pain any less significant? The genocide in Rwanda was done with gruesome barbarity; a majority were hacked to death with machetes; many women were raped. In terms of butchery, it might not have the same number of dead as the Holocaust, but the savagery is possibly worse, if physical mutilation is your criterion.
Also, please do not take this as some sort of anti-Semitic rant. I do not mean it that way at all, and certainly do not want to imply the converse, that somehow victims of the Holocaust somehow suffered less. The unfortunate effect of all this seems to me to be like a child looking for the biggest roller coaster at the amusement park; only the biggest is worth his or her attention. Unfortunately we are not talking about children's amusement here, but sobering facets of our history as a species that should give pause to any idea of innate human goodness. These are ugly aspects to our shared humanity which we must come to grips with if we are to evolve into something better as a species. It doesn't help when we indirectly tell someone that their suffering doesn't hold the same validity as someone else's, because somehow it wasn't up to the gold standard of suffering.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire
Unlike the pundits who are expressing their usual "Gee willakers!" wonder over the results in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, I have a much darker view. Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has been tirelessly leading the cause concerning voting machines much of this decade, and prior to the New Hampshire primary she expressed concern about the voting machines in New Hampshire. Looking at the anomalies between polling and actual numbers, Edwards and Obama are about what you expect, while Hillary's disparity is ridiculous, even though the writer seems to think it makes sense due to undecided voters (all the undecideds voted for Hillary? That seems to be what the majority of pundits and pollsters are saying. How likely is that really?). Where electronic vote tallying was used, they went for Hillary; where hand ballots used, Obama. All this talk about women moved by Hillary's tears and the Bradley effect aren't enough to explain this. If my hunch is right and the vote was rigged, who is behind it? On the surface, one would expect the Clintons. There is speculation though that the Republicans would prefer Hillary over Obama though. And we've seen these shenanigans before, usually on the Republican side.
I do admit the possibility that I'm wrong, and I really hope I am. Is it too much though to ask our media to maintain the sort of skepticism one would think is necessary to do their jobs? Instead we get the reaction of naive wonder one would expect from a 6 year old watching a firework display.
I do admit the possibility that I'm wrong, and I really hope I am. Is it too much though to ask our media to maintain the sort of skepticism one would think is necessary to do their jobs? Instead we get the reaction of naive wonder one would expect from a 6 year old watching a firework display.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The Conspiracy nuts are at it again...
This has them in a tizzy. They seem to think this is proof of the big governmental cover-up, and Bhutto was murdered to protect that cover-up. These people really need a life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)