Political Theatre - Part 1 - The Quiet American

This afternoon during a button twiddling session in front of my family brain docking and memory wipe system, technically called a flat screen for its incredible ability to flatten points of view into single dimensions and to reduce the many folds of the brain into the torpid flatness of a greasy chain store pizza, I made my usual pit stop on channel 81 - TCM. It is one of my favourite channels. If you manage to catch it on the occasions when they play solid hollywood fare (noir, early silents, hard boiled Cagney or Bogie joints, 70s NY cinema etc) or on late night excursions when they have excellent foreign selections and avoid the overrated technicolour melodramas, Cary Grant romantic comedy marathons and dodge the escapist,white washed musicals one is guaranteed a good return on time spent.

I happened to land on TCM midway through what I later found out was the 1958 version of Graham Greene's -"The Quiet American" and quickly made the judgement that it would be well worth watching. This film deals with aspects of neo - colonialism and the idea of intervention, and the difficulty of maintaining political neutrality as seen through the actions of a British journalist caught in the middle of a love triangle. I must say that it is somewhat irresponsible of me to review this film without having seen it front to back or without having read the book it is based on. I will remedy the situation by getting a netflix copy of the movie and altering this review if I find any glaring errors in my analysis or my understanding of the plot. I think however that I got the thread of the story well enough to make the points I make and I read some plot summaries to fill the gaps in my knowledge. Also the readers may be interested to know that they remade this movie in 2002 with Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser. I wonder how they spun it this time around.

First of all I thought the movie, helmed by veteran director Joeseph Mankiewicz, was technically well made. The settings and outdoor shots seemed very authentic and I saw none of the shoddy studio shots of false, painted horizons and the mannered acting that mar a lot of older films. The only clue one has that it was filmed in Italy is the names painted on some of the sign boards and the relative lack of grime as could be expected in 50s Vietnam. The bit players looked pretty authentically Asiatic even if they seemed a little too westernised to be completely believable. Having passed the important first test of believability I found myself being able to accept the story being conveyed quite easily. Later, upon doing some IMDB digging I found out that the Asian female protagonist Phuong was played by Giorgia Moll - an Italian! Just the day before I saw Paul Muni in "The Good Earth" playing a character called Wang! However both these performances were pretty believable and not the grotesque parodies that some examples of yellowface or blackface can be so I was inclined to forgive them. (not sure though if Moll was of Asian descent so forgive me if I am wrong about this)

This movie, like most Hollywood movies based in Vietnam focuses on the Western characters and their power games in the midst of the personality devoid ethnic masses that fill out the frame in crowded marketplaces or in ballrooms and battle scenes. I happened to jump into the movie right in the middle of a pivotal scene where the older, more cynical British journalist Thomas Fowler is trapped in an observation tower with the younger American transplant(Audie Murphy) and two South Vietnamese soldiers. The American is an idealist who believes in bringing American style democracy to Vietnam, what he calls the third way, an alternative to homegrown communism and french colonialism. The Brit however is worldly wise and claims to be neutral to politics. The film was made in 1958, one year before American soldiers entered Vietnam and provides us an interesting view into the minds of American policies and thinking of that era.

As the two joust over politics we never hear what the soldiers might be thinking - they remain completely silent throughout the scene and only participate in the gunfight at the end that kills them both while the westerners escape narrowly. Indeed the only intimation we get of their thoughts is through the journalist's words when he tells Audie Murphy that they most likely don't have a political viewpoint but only fight for survival. Whether it is true or not, there is no clarification from the soldier's themselves. This argument presages several other Hollywood failures in making movies about the Vietnamese intervention; failures like 'Platoon' where the entire war is cast as a moral struggle for the American soul that only incidentally involves the inhuman, chattering, faceless Vietnamese soldiers. The left leaning Oliver Stone made the same mistake that the America-centric Mankiewicz made 30 years earlier, that of presuming to speak for the oriental other. A year before the American intervention in Vietnam, this movie already casts the American point of view and the western journalistic point of view as being more important than that of a native soldier's. The scene ends with the American risking his life to save the Brit's. In the end he is repaid for his kindness to the Brit by betrayal because he wins the heart and mind of the Vietnamese girl who has become disillusioned with the deceptions of the desperate journalist.

As the movie went on, one could see the director's point of view quiet clearly. The entire film is a propaganda effort aimed at proving the superiority of the American interventionist point of view in Vietnam. The wholesome American, because of his strong morals (as a church going do - gooder who romances the girl in an earnest fashion with an eye towards legitimising their relationship with a marriage) has the correct politics. The atheistic journalist who is willing to lie about getting a divorce from his absent wife to keep the girl, in other words a weak and decadent loser has the wrong idea about leaving Vietnam alone. His personal weakness makes him a natural fit for collaborating with the commies and his pretense to journalistic/political neutrality is easily shaken when his grip on his girl slackens. In other words, the right kind of love presages the right kind of politics in the director's rigid world view.

I understand that this is very different from the book where the American is shown in a less sympathetic light. Greene meant to show the imbecility of the American mindset when it came to stopping communism from spreading in third world countries. However since this movie was made just after the anti communist purge of Hollywood and on the eve of the Vietnam war the story was completely turned around and the British journalist and the commies depicted as villains. In the movie the American agent's politics are right because his personality is true and righteous - we get no real evidence that his politics are right because of the good they do for the Vietnamese people. He is depicted at first as a shady importer of plastics, which may or may not be used to make bombs,but eventually turns out to be a harmless capitalist idealist. On the other hand the Brit with his tendency towards journalistic impartiality and hence weak mindedness makes a fatal error of judgement, eventually succumbing to the seduction of the communistic viewpoint. As a result he betrays everyone around him and does wrong.

You are either with us or against us, the director says, and if you are against us then you are a terrorist(here a commie hit squad) sympathizer and an evil hedonist. The only right path is that of Godliness and free enterprise. You have to accept all the tenets of the American way piecemeal- the religion, the labour policies, the aggressive foreign policy, sanctity of marriage, the mainstream in all it's manifestations, if you want to escape the black hole of relativism and contradictions of opposing points of view. This movie is as relevant now as it was back then if you deconstruct its many ideological fallacies and compare them to the Neo-Con mindset. Seems like every war effort requires this kind of marshaling of values in order to ensure the defeat of internal opposition to conflict. When the initial invasion of Iraq ended the bush admin made sure to send its own idealistic republican youth brigade which was thoroughly vetted for personal politics. It became more important to have pro life conservatives in charge of running the various bureaucracies in charge of reconstruction than the most qualified experts in the field in question. Restarting business in the Baghdad stock exchange was a major priority for the people in charge of resuscitating life in that country - all because of the foolish idealism of war planners who believed exporting their mode of life was necessary for Iraqi freedom. The leap from Neo - Col to Neo - Con took 40 years and happened despite the lessons of Algeria and Vietnam.

The movie ends with a thanks to the 'government chosen by the people of Vietnam'(paraphrase) - as long as the government was a democratic government run along the lines of western examples one supposes. Communism could never be a free choice of the people but could only be an aberration in thinking that came about as a result of an incontinent morality. The only right choice is the true one of "freedom" with its blazoning bugles. The only true end of adult life is the bourgeoisie family unit with religion and state providing the backbone for a man's development. What a load of tripe we swallowed for centuries and whose cud we are still chewing on!

Here is an interesting fact - In a speech Bush gave in Aug of 2007 he had the audacity to reference the Alden Pyle character from the book - the same quiet American who creates the big mess - in support of American intervention to spread democracy. The irony of using a character conceived of as an embodiment of American idealism gone awry in an international intervention situation seemed to have escaped Bush's feeble attempts at speechifying. He ignored the bumbling idiocy of this character and instead used him as a segue to talk about the disastrous withdrawal from Saigon in 75. This is typical of Bush myth making - ignoring the misguided invasion that led to the withdrawal and instead focusing on the effects of such a withdrawal on international perception of American strength. What Bush - McCain want is for us to forget the lies and failures that set off this whole process - they want us to take an ahistorical view in order to excise and excuse failure and deception. Sorry Mr. President and Mr. Yesident that is impossible to do except unless we engage in some serious Orwellian doublethink. Just as watching this pro - American movie does not change the original story that Graham Greene meant to tell in his book. History came along and showed us the stupidity of pretending that the Vietnam adventure was anything but a colossal mistake. The movie became instantly invalidated and Greene's original point of view held fast because it was written from a perspective of reality - not idealistic hubris like the director's or Bush's point of view.

All said I would recommend this film as essential viewing because of the skill of Michael Redgrave in playing a complex and unsympathetic part in such a way that we are forced to empathise with the human motivations that drive him to do wrong. The interesting back story of the book and film versions also make it a fascinating study of the subversive politics of literary adaptations and mass media manipulation of an author's ideas.

ron paul finally hanging it up?

...or is he finally cutting his ties to the republicans? this just showed up in my inbox:

We invite you to watch the live video broadcast of Dr. Paul's rally tonight, June 12th, @ 9PM CDT in Houston, TX. Dr. Paul will be making a major announcement, and we would like you to be a part of it.

given that he plans to be holding his own mini-convention, i'd be willing to believe that a third party bid is afoot.

either that, or he's going to announce that his love of the constitution has led him to finding the map on the back that leads to the secret trove of freemason treasure.

--

UPDATE: yep, he's calling it a day. he's gonna dump all of his money into a new ngo called "the campaign for liberty," supporting libertarian-oriented candidates.

sinking the swift-boaters

the obama campaign has launched fightthesmears.com to combat all the harsh negative bullshit that's being used for character assassination.

right in one place, you can try to use knowledge bombs to destroy the following ideas:
-he's a muslim
-his wife's a racist
-he won't say the pledge.

good christ, does this mean that the republicans are going to have to resort to slamming him over policy?

they're so fucked in november.

adventures in political email: part 3

regulars to ichf will remember that this blog started because some conservative cat tried to belittle obama for being just "good looking and well-spoken" or some nonsense. i got mad, wrote a response email to the guy, and decided that i need to start a blog.

anonymous conservative jackass is at it again. this email showed up in my inbox this morning:

However great Obama may be, you're only as good as the company you keep. Now that we've seen his "religious leaders", here's one more reason Obama's not going to win:


Subject: McCain's Wife

Not just another pretty face!

The "Other" McCain.......(More than meets the eye.)

While Obama's wife has been hating America, complaining
about the war and undermining our troops serving in Iraq
and Afghanistan, McCain's wife has been worrying about
her sons who actually are fighting or planning to fight in
the war on terror. One, in fact, was until a few months ago
deployed in Iraq during some of the worst violence.

You don't hear the McCains talk about it, but their 19-year-
old Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his second tour of duty.
Their 21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from
Annapolis and also could join the Marines as a second
lieutenant.

The couple made the decision not to draw attention to their
sons out of respect for other families with sons and daughters in harm's' way.

Cindy also says she doesn't want to risk falling apart on the
campaign trail talking about Jimmy who was so young when
he enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical
tests before he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of soldiers who are serving or have been killed.

The McCains want to make sure their boys get no special
treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including
a daughter they adopted from Bangladesh. During a visit to
Mother Teresa's orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying
baby.. The orphanage could not provide the medical
care needed to save her life. So she brought the child home
to America for the surgery she desperately needed. The baby is now their healthy, 16-year-old daughter, Bridget.

Though all seven McCain children including two Senator
McCain adopted from his first marriage are supportive of
their father, they prefer their privacy to the glare of the
campaign trail.

Another daughter, Meghan, 23, helps him behind the scenes.
Cindy McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her
country, which in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing novelty. She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama's unpatriotic remarks that she only recently grew proud of America. 'I am very proud of my country,' Mrs. McCain asserted.

She also may be tougher than the other women in the race.
While Hillary thinks she's come under sniper fire on
mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen violence.
She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait during a trip with an international group that removes land mines from war-torn countries.

Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on
the board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic
surgeons to fix cleft palates and other birth defects. She also
has helped organize relief missions to Micronesia.

During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs.McCain
took a friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She
was shocked, and saddened, by what she saw. 'They opened
the door to the OR, where the supplies were, and there were
two cats and a whole bunch of rats climbing out of the sterile
supplies,' she recalled. 'They had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it was a U.S. Trust territory.'

As soon as she returned home, she arranged for medical
equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to treat the island children.

Michelle Obama contributes to CARE, which fights global
poverty and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board.


what what what what what WHAT?
WHAT THE FUCK?
just like all of you other righteously indignant types, i felt compelled to leave a reasoned response that masked my violent anger. analyst smash:

[Name Omitted], please do not send this uncited chain email garbage and pass it off as truth. It demeans everyone's intelligence, and turns the political process into rumor-mongering and gossip. Moreover, I think judging a person by the supposed quality of their spouses is a poor meterstick for a president's performance. After all, by that measure, we should all have voted for Hillary. I hear her spouse actually used to be president, too.

I have several issues with this saintly depiction of the McCain family. Let me tell you another story about John and his wife - his first one. This was during McCain's days at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, when he was more of a spoiled slacker playboy scion of an influential American family than any kind of leader (much like the man he's attempting to succeed). In fact, he graduated 894 out of a total 899 students (source: Wikipedia). Before John was sent to Vietnam and infamously imprisoned in a POW camp for five and a half years, he met and married to a beautiful woman named Carol. He even adopted her two children from a previous marriage, which you mentioned in your email.

When John got back from Vietnam, he was horrified to find out that Carol had changed dramatically from how he remembered her - she had been horribly disfigured in a car accident while he was gone, leaving her much shorter, and walking with a limp - a far change from the model (literally) that he married. This whole story, plus some strong words for McCain from Ross Perot, are available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html.

John met Cindy McCain when she was 25. He was still married, but that didn't stop him from "aggressively courting" her. He later divorced Carol, and married Cindy. It is well-documented that even after he married Cindy, he continued to sleep around. This continues to this day, with an under-reported story from last year about McCain's affair with a lobbyist, which may have led to improper governmental favors for her company (source: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1715403,00.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html). Incidentally enough, Cindy was heir to the company and fortune of Hensley and Co., one of the largest Anheiser-Busch distributors in America. While John was anything but a native Arizonan, Cindy was. Thanks mostly to the strength of her connections, the former POW and war hero become the junior Senator from Arizona but one year after he moved to the state (source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFDF1439F934A15751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=6). Kinda sounds this lady i know who ran for president on the back of her husband's coattails.

Also, please do not look down on Obama's "religious leaders" as you call them, while ignoring McCain's spiritual mentors. Jeremiah Wright is fucking crazy - we can all agree on that. However, the words of John Hagee and Rod Parsley, the men that McCain has called spiritual guides, are equally hateful and bilious. Parsley has gone on record as saying that Islam is an "Anti-Christ religion" and Mohammed as "a mouthpiece of spiritual evil" (source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4905624&page=1). You can believe this if you like, and you can ignore those comments from these guys as just pastors being pastors. Judging by what you have said in the past about your moral values, I have doubts that you care that these guys have upset one of the three Abrahamic religions, or that they think homosexuals are sinners, or that they want to make policy decisions based on the possibility of the rapture being at hand. Just know that ripping on Wright while turning a blind eye on these two makes a person look like a conservative tool at best and a racist at worst.

However, before you label me as some sort of apologist for religious extremists, understand that I am simply trying to avoid my country getting involved in a holy war (a clearly un-American endeavor). These hateful, closed-minded values are un-American, and make us all look just like the religious extremists that we are supposedly at war with.

So what if Michelle Obama was saying she was proud of America for the first time in her adult life? Yeah, that's bad PR. But I can tell you from my own personal experience, that for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of the democratic process on a federal level. I'm not going to go into an anti-Bush tirade here. We all know the man's an inept war criminal. Watching him shit upon the values that we all hold dear as Americans has turned me into the guy who writes political rants like this.

It saddens me that a man who values religion and family values so highly will look the other way on John McCain's many moral improprities in the name of a political party that he believes is speaking for him. I highly encourage you to look deeper at these candidates than the junk mail that shows up in your inbox, in the name of your fellow citizens and the country they live in.

i feel better now, and can get to work like a good little analyst.

Caption Contest

[Note: They wouldn't let me post this in the comment section, so I'm putting my submission on the front page, because I feel so strongly that is teh shit]


psssst... black power

libertarian quackery!

for those of you keeping track, there are now two libertarian candidates in the presidential field, each vying for their own share of third place, and a solid chunk of the republican field.

bob barr, republican-turned-libertarian, is the answer to the existential question "what if we held a campaign and nobody voted?" if i had to guess, it's because of ridiculous ideas like this:

After more than 50 years of American support, “South Korea is well able to defend itself,” notes Barr. The South has an economy that is estimated to be 40 times as large as that of North Korea; South Korea has twice the North’s population and a vast technological edge. “It is time for real leadership on this important national security matter,” Barr said, adding that “maintaining a large and costly American military presence in Korea largely because that’s the way it’s been done for more than half a century makes little sense, especially if we, as we should, maintain the capability to respond quickly to actual threats against us when necessary and where necessary.”

um yeah...why the fuck are we still in south korea?
they're so crazy about starcraft over there that i'm sure you could just round up the nearest kid from an internet cafe to lead a successful ground campaign against the north koreans. kim jong il's military strategy consists entirely of "zerg rush". nothing a south korean teenager couldn't handle.

meanwhile, the libertarian-turned-republican, ron paul, is planning an all-out gop coup. after his supporters have been marginalized at state convention after state convention (despite paul's continued high primary returns), he's finally deciding to throw his own gop anti-convention to run parallel to the actual convention in minneapolis:

A Paul campaign aide said the Texas congressman hopes to pack about 11,000 supporters into the Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota on Sept. 2, which coincides with the second day of the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in neighboring St. Paul.

just like the marginalized nerd he truly is, paul has decided to throw his own party. expect paul supporters to show up with their dungeons and dragons boards, and make several proposals to order a bunch of pizzas for the other convention.

parents just don't understand

i found this at thinkprogress, who are absolutely incensed at the fact that the dumb broad above suggested that it could be a "terrorist fist jab." sure, if that douchebag you beat at beer pong last week is planning to lay waste to american cities in the name of allah. this asshole even went so far as to call it a "Hezbollah-style fist bump," before he got slapped in the face by the giant cock of knowledge that is the internet at large. befitting the ignorant little conservative shit that he is, he later retracted the statement without even a strikethrough to show that he changed his post.

thinkprogress, you guys are fighting the good fight or whatever, but seriously, this is not enraging. this is hilarious.

which reminds me...
CAPTION CONTEST!



my submission:
no no NO michelle! you're getting it backwards...ONE bump if by nukes, TWO if by anthrax!

let's see what you guys got!

---

UPDATE: that idiot got fired. probably because old man murdoch loves obama. sweet.

ahp-edz: Karrzzzzzzzz (ai haz nun)

There isn't a link in this post. Don't look for it. You won't find it.

We've linked out quite enough to plenty of American heretical shit about how car culture is going to kill us all. Hell, we even got a little human on you and revealed that we plan on exiting said car culture ASAP.

I have been planning, since January of this year, to exit car culture as of July 4th, 2008. The date itself turned out to be purely coincidental, as I had a final appointment with my shrink on the third (just to catch up with the guy, because my shrink is somehow fully erroneously convinced I'm next Hemingway), and so the fourth of July was to be actually become my own sort of Independence Day.

While it was only coincidental, the charm of such a thing was not lost on me, and I quite looked forward to telling everyone that I cut the cord from my car on the day this country celebrates its first steps toward freedom from tyranny.

I was going to write a very proud and boisterous post, probably quite long-winded and full of itself. I would likely have been tangled up in the hubris of my own wealth of information and intellect, so happy with myself for seeing the writing on the wall. I can imagine myself being totally insufferable if such events had turned in my favor.

Fortunately for everyone, they did not. Not remotely.

What follows is a history of me getting rid of my car, unabridged and in dire need of editing:

Knowing I was going to be giving up my car soon, I had begun planning trips to Los Angeles (I reside in San Diego) to see many old friends. I planned these trips around things that were already happening, and I planned them in advance.

It bears noting that when I moved back to the west coast 18 months ago, a trip up to Los Angeles to see my friends meant that I was parting with a baseline of 30 dollars for a tank of gas. that was my jumping off point for "What this trip will cost."

The last time I went to Los Angeles, I had to take a friend to keep the baseline cost of gas near 30 dollars. It took 55 smackabuckafuckeroos to fill the tank of my car, a 12.x gallon Jetta. Manual transmission. No A/C the whole weekend.

I drive this car - this company car, mind you - to and from work daily to commute. I live far from where I work and am disinclined to own a vehicle. My job felt it was important for me to be in the office every day for the first year I was employed, so they provided me with a means of transportation. I believe they hoped that I would choose to buy a car of my own when all was said and done.

When I was given this car, it felt like a coronation of sorts, even as someone who has always had an aversion to car culture (but loves a good long road trip - one of the many things this recession has robbed young people of is their right to travel this whole country and see it firsthand). I knew that this car was nicer than any I'd ever known. I felt more important driving it. All in all, it just felt good to have that car.

I say this to illustrate that I am not trying to be holier than thou. I am not trying to say I am so good, but everyone else is so bad. I say these things to try to paint a human picture of what it was like to divorce myself from car culture. It's an odd thing, but more and more people you know are going to be doing it sooner than later.

The first thing that struck me, when I started speaking about getting rid of my car, was how many people just looked at me in shock or disbelief, as though I'd grown a spiraling horn from the top of my head and told them my taint smelled faintly of blueberries at all times.

I attempted to explain to people that I planned to move into the city center and utilize mass transit. California even offers businesses tax breaks if they promote use of mass transit among employees, so I could take the train to work for free. In the meantime, my roommate and I work within 10 miles of one another. Even in the worst case scenario in terms of gas usage, he and I each stand to gain 50 dollars a month in this deal.

Beyond that, I find myself rarely leaving my home to do things like eat at restaurants or spend money at a bar. One of the great functions of this recession is that you should have less money to go do things that require a car, therefore you should use your car less.

I would try to explain this to people, and I would say more than half understood my point of view and agreed that what I was doing was good. Some people are still really going to be shocked, but for the most part I see that people are sincerely waking up to the fact that we cannot live our lives the same way we've been living them for what.. 60+ years?

In what was likely the most stunning turn of events, my job didn't care. They gave me a car, for a year, and at the end of that year, I just gave it back (in need of an oil change, making a funny noise, and with one unpaid parking ticket, but that's neither here nor there) and told them I expected my schedule to shift accordingly.

Here's the kicker - they didn't say a fucking word.

In my opinion, my job has every right to be insanely pissed that they've just given me a promotion and a raise, after having given me a car for free for a year, and my response is to tell them they might experience a shift in my hours as I figure out how to live without a vehicle.

In my defense, I was saving money for awhile. Then I realized gas was going to be topping five bucks a gallon before 2009 (turns out WAY before 2009), and I had to 86 those plans.

If my job had raised issue, I would have simply told them that between my gas expenses (now running close to 300 dollars a month), on top of a car payment (150 dollars/month on any car worth having) and insurance (let's just say it's 150 bucks a month for total coverage), I'm looking at what amounts to a second living expense, just to drive around.

The fact is that had my job not provided me with a car for the past 12 months, I likely would have been forced to ask for a raise or quit and find a job that paid better.

And so, as of today, with little fanfare, no parade and shockingly no reprimand from my employers, I am exiting car culture. I know this is going to be a terribly rough transition, as I have surely grown dependent on my vehicle.

However, I truly do believe that the hardest part is over.

reuters staffers drinking kool-aid

i like to read reuters quite a bit, mostly because it's a more global and non-american perspective than the likes of the associated press. a non-american perspective, of course, keeps the journalism a little more neutral regarding american interests such as our wars, economies, and elections.

however, i saw a couple of items in there today that made me wince at how completely out of touch they seemed:

first: Goldman's Cohen: Mild Recession at Worst.

"I think it's fair to say it will not be as deep a recession, if it is a recession, as many people had feared not that long ago. There certainly is not a black hole developing in the U.S. economy," Cohen said. "Also, it is entirely possible we will not have a single quarter of negative GDP."

While there is little inflation pressure from wages, she said, commodity prices are a "complicating factor." She said the United States is importing commodity price inflation from overseas.

does anybody believe people when they say this anymore? or does this just strike you as pedantic number-crunching nonsense? a recession, by any other name, still smells like poverty. so what if we're not having negative gdp growth? she says it herself...commodity prices are a 'complicating factor.'

people die of 'complications' in hospitals all the damn time. that's all i'm saying.

second item: Gasoline to peak at $4.15/gallon in August.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. gasoline prices will continue to march to record highs this summer before peaking at $4.15 per gallon in August, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.

awesome, right?
oops! there's a caveat:

Last month, the EIA projected gasoline prices would peak in June at $3.73 per gallon of regular grade fuel.

so if i'm to understand this correctly - last month these guys completely screwed the pooch in their economic predictions, so as a consequence, reuters is going to credit their prediction in a headline like it's an immutable truth. great.

how is that acceptable journalism?

franken violates separation of comedian and state

the man responsible for such filmic works as 'stuart saves his family', along with the seminal political treatise 'rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot', is now running for senate.

that's right - al franken, formerly of saturday night live and air america radio, is the democratic nominee for senate in the state of minnesota. yes, that minnesota. the same people who put jesse ventura in the governor's mansion are now looking to put stuart smalley on capitol hill.

sure, he's politically motivated, and a keen satirist (though one of the more obnoxious blowhards belonging to the progressives). quoth the reuters, 'He said his books and radio show have given him a solid grounding in policy, and noted that two of his movies that tackled alcoholism are used widely in sobriety clinics.'

that would be great if you were sworn in by putting your hand on the bible and saying 'hi, i'm al, and i'm an alcoholic.' it would also be great if being a pundit qualified you in the slightest to be a governor.

hiring people for jobs based on their exposure in mass media as bothers the piss out of me. look at some of the people that the tv generation were instrumental in electing to various levels of public office - arnold schwarzenegger, ronald reagan, sonny bono, clint eastwood, and so forth. while arnold is doing a decent job, this just strikes me as symbolic of negative effect of visual culture in general and television specifically on our collective culture. it's well-documented that jfk's victory against nixon was partially due to his telegenic good looks. the same could be said for reagan, clinton, and obama.

it would be wise of you to take a page from jon stewart, mr. franken, and realize that the critics should criticize. let the politicians govern. continue slamming the actual leaders all you want, but that's your job - keeping them honest. bringing a pundit like you on board would only contribute to the divisive attack-dog bullshit that has characterized our politics for so long. i suspect you don't quite know what you're getting into, and how you'll likely turn into a corrupt twit very quickly. at this rate, look for 'al franken is a big fat idiot' to hit the bookstands by 2010.

Notes from the Right-Wing: Trade Deficit

I'm Joeverkill, and these are some notes from the Right-Wing.

The World Trade Organization is advising U.S. consumers to save their money, even as the U.S. government is trying its damnedest to get them to spend it. From the AFP:

Families in the United States have to save more if the country is to reduce a deficit in payments with the rest of the world, the World Trade Organisation said on Monday.
In a review of US trade policy, the WTO said that if consumers saved more and spent less, then there would be less demand for imported goods.
That would help to reduce a deficit on the balance of payments into and out of the country, it said.

I've always been more than a bit wary of the WTO. I'm an isolationist at heart, and I've always been suspicious of the WTO's push to liberalize the flow of goods and currencies between borders. However, they're raising a good point here. We're pushing ourselves into a deep hole of debt and deficit. In my own opinion, the U.S.'s import/export ratio has been too high for years now. The federal government is telling us to spend more, but if Americans are just spending that money on imported goods (which they mostly are), it's the economic equivalent of throwing shit on a shitfire.

As per usual, though, the WTO displayed a nearly sickening level of duplicity by
warn[ing] against any pressures for protective barriers to reduce imports, saying the world's largest economy should work instead to expand its exports to balance the account.

Okay, so the WTO doesn't want to piss off all the nations that export to the U.S. -- not necessarily the high road, but it makes sense -- but then they have the balls to rule against the U.S. in its complaint against India's high tariffs on imported alcohol products.

In the conclusion of its ruling, the WTO's dispute panel said that the United States has "failed to establish that the additional duty on alcoholic liquor is inconsistent" with India's WTO commitments.
The US had filed the complaint against India in May 2007, claiming that additional duties on alcoholic beverages were as high as 550 percent of the value of the product.

I'm not saying I oppose India's high alcohol tariffs. In fact, I support the right of sovereign nations to regulate trade. But is no one going to call the WTO out on this one? They shake their fingers at the United States, admonishing us for having too high an import/export ratio, then tell us not to raise tariffs, then support a country with already astronomically high tariffs in a decision that effectively restricts the U.S.'s ability to export. Why do we put up with stuff like this?

I'm Joeverkill, and this has been Notes from the Right-Wing.

Long Hot Summer Mess - Media trends and the general election

Rasmussen Reports finds that voters overwhelming feel that the media coverage of the '08 presidential campaign is skewed - in favor of Obama. "Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment." That figure by the way includes 27% of self declared Dems who believe reporters will try to help Obama win. When was the last time we saw that kind of comfort level among democrats with the slant of the media coverage? Not since before the embattled days of the Clinton presleazydency, I don't think.

Following the Lewinsky scandal and the self righteousness of that coverage we saw the naked, chest - thumping patriotism of the first Bush term that portrayed dem Dems as a bunch of apostate, commie, terrorism enablers. The Fox News aping partisan slide of the media slowed down after Bush's re-election when the lies and obfuscations that comprised the war sales job became public. As the failure of post invasion strategy became apparent and the tide turned in the favour of the Iraqi insurgency the media became more and more restive. The last two years have seen a definite slant against the Bush administration in terms of press.

Scott McClellan's decision to publish 'What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception' neatly bookends the end of an era. Make no mistake about it, he was and is a cowardly apologist for his former employers. He waited for the media climate to change and become safe for him to put out the book, and, even with the advantage of favourable press, refuses to admit to willful deception on Bush's part or on his own. I would be willing to accept a 'product of my environment' defense from a guy on the street busted for a robbery to survive poverty but not from the guy in charge of creating and controlling the environment. He makes it seem as if he wasn't even in the press conferences he gave and his press corp zombie incarnation took his place when he was spreading the administration's folderol. However that is a different story and I am getting carried away. The point I was trying to make is that the media tide has turned so much that it has now become profitable for former Bush cronies to come out and voice dissident opinions. The press is now going to ride the progress and change bandwagon in the opposite direction for the foreseeable future.

I am not one of those people who sees the press as being slanted permanently in one direction or the other. Except for the worst partisan hacks like Billo, most just bend with the wind as it blows. It is not as profitable to defend Bush when he has 30% approval ratings. What happens is that with their extensive sources and statistical data the press is the first to see the ball roll down the hill and they start to take defensive positions behind the most recent swing of the political pendulum. In doing so they help increase the momentum of the swing and inevitably with their bumbling enthusiasm they exaggerate the virtues of the currently favoured position. It happened to an unreasonable extent with the war and it is now happening with more justification for Obama and the democrats(My slant visible enough for you my readers!).

According to Rasmussen, all sides of the political divide seem to agree that the media has an inordinate influence on the election process - "Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans believe the media has too much influence along with 80% of unaffiliated voters and 65% of Democrats. " Maybe so, but I also believe that they are only reflecting a national trend in a more liberal direction and in doing so help reinforce that trend. The media are followers, not leaders. They are like the kids who always tried too hard to fit in, in high school - imitating and repeating watered down versions of the witty kid's put downs. So, to conclude, this is good news all around for Democrat supporters. Just two days after Hillary endorsed Obama his lead has increased 48% - 50%. They give him a 94.9% chance at winning.

Still, there is a long, hot, sticky summer ahead where meltdowns abound. Obama needs to learn from Hillary's hard tumble from 'inevitable candidate' to the victim of strategic blunders, overspending and overconfidence. He needs to keep the pressure on McCain up until his cool facade starts cracking - something that has happened several times already when he faced minor provocations such as during the debate on the GI bill. Obama has made a good first move by rejecting interest group money and forcing McCain into a position where he must follow suit in order to keep up his image of being a reformer and a man of integrity. With his vastly superior campaign war chest Obama can afford to refuse Washington money while McCain's lackluster showing on the fundraising trail makes him more reliant on shady money sourced through Bush contacts. This means more stories on the McCain - lobbyist connection which the dems need to keep plugging at. It will make McCain look like a hypocrite while weakening his fundraising ability and organisational strength. Already this scandal has forced him to completely overhaul his campaign's top faces and it will cost him more money to replace those people in the long run.

McCain's tactic of asking Obama to agree along with him to use public funding seems to have hit a wall for now. Considering the extent to which small donations helped build up the democratic war chest I believe Obama can easily make the argument that it is OK for him to use that money instead of going the public funding route and still look morally superior. Meanwhile the McCain campaign seems to be asserting itself like a street brawler - by repeatedly challenging Obama to one on one events where McCain has an advantage, like the idea for a joint visit to Iraq and the joint town hall meetings tour. So far Obama has not risen to the bait and needs to continue to counter intelligently to these one sided demands.

That is not enough however and he needs to ramp up his own political attacks on McCain's weak economic plank and ties to Bush and his support for the war- his two weakest flanks. The key to winning is putting McCain on the defensive and showing voters the prickly side of his suave aviator persona. The angry McCain is an ugly sight and it does not make him seem more interesting like he seems to believe it does. Straight talk is one thing but naked bellicosity and defensive posturing is best left to the wrestling ring. The media has noticed this and has commented about it in the past. With them on Obama's side it will be easier for him to show us this side of McCain and he must take advantage of it in the future. As someone with a short fuse I know that sooner or later that kind of personality must show itself in all it's irrational belligerence. McCain's strong desire to speak the truth, the way he sees it, means that at some point he is going to put his foot in his mouth and it will get press play. The next time he says or does something like sing - "Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran" the media must not allow him to get away with it without some clarification. In light of the short sightedness and failed intelligence that caused the war in Iraq that kind of impulsive aggression needs to be thoroughly scrutinised.

Also Obama needs to put forward a clear economic policy to counter McCain's and to address the number one issue on the public's mind at this point. He needs to make the case that decisive action is necessary to reverse the economic downturn and that his solutions are the best ones for them. I know that economic policy minutiae is not his strong suit but he needs to do his homework now and come across like the smarter guy during the fall debates. This is one aspect of his campaign that needs attention now; he has a good 3 months before the real muckraking starts and since Hillary has spared him the embarrassment and slow bleed of a prolonged campaign, he needs to use his time wisely and not simply expediently. The only way to counter the substance in a formidable opponent like McCain is with better material of your own, not just tall speeches. Considering that independent groups, especially libertarians, are going to be a key swing vote group in November, economic policy is going to matter. Also the best way to win over all the Hillary support is to understand and address their economic and health care needs. He can win those women and blue collar workers by emphasising the positive effects that his policy will have on their strained lives.

Besides, winning this election is just the first step. Given the hard conditions America is facing right now Obama faces an uphill task once in the white house. He has to start pulling things around very quickly in order to avoid the fallout of this worsening mess. Failure is not an option for him and I know he has the potential to be a two term monster like Bill Clinton given the right conditions and the right preparation.