Month: December 2008

Saturday Night At The Movies

You put THAT one on your list? No. Seriously?

By Dennis Hartley

It’s that time of year- for the obligatory Top 10 lists. Recently, I took a look back at what I thought were some of the best DVD reissues of 2008. Tonight, I don my Kevlar vest once again, to humbly offer up my picks for the best films that opened in 2008. I should qualify that. These would be the “top ten” movies out of the 40 or so first-run features I have selected to review on Hullabaloo since January. Since I am (literally) a “weekend movie critic”, I obviously don’t have the time (or the bucks, frankly, with admission prices these days) to screen every new release (especially with that pesky, soul-sucking 9 to 5 gig that takes up my weekdays-y’know, the one that pays the rent and junk).

And yes, I am aware that 2008 isn’t officially “over” yet, and we all know that the movie studios like to save their big guns (read: Oscar bait) for late December. There are a handful of such releases I still haven’t had the time or energy to catch (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Doubt and The Reader) and the one I am most anticipating (The Wrestler) isn’t even slated to open in Seattle until January 9th (DAMME you, sirs!).

A gentle reminder, dear reader, that I’m just one of the ordinary motion pitcher watchin’ folks, plopping down my hard-earned kopeks at the box office like everyone else, and not a high-falootin’ critic who is comped into advance screenings or receives DVD screeners in the mail (OK…sometimes) or feted at Cannes (never!). I have resigned myself to the fact that, on the evolutionary scale of film criticism, I will never be held in the same esteem as a Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael or even a Jeffrey Lyons (although I would sincerely hope that I am taken more seriously than, let’s say, a Ben Lyons). So, with no asses to kiss and no promises to keep, may I present The List, in alphabetical order:

Burn After Reading– A welcome return to the type of dark, absurdist cringe comedy that the Coen brothers truly excel at. Leave it to the Coens to mash up the elements of screwball comedy, door-slamming bedroom farce, spy spoof, political satire, social commentary and self-parody into a perfect cinematic cocktail. The breezy script (penned by the brothers) is tighter than a one-act play, and capped off with a great zinger. It’s a rarity in film these days: an expedient, highly satisfying denouement. In other words, the film neither overstays its welcome nor feels rushed; it wraps up just when it needs to. With George Clooney, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt. Full review.

The Dark Knight– There was one part of the considerable hype surrounding this film that didn’t blow smoke; the late Heath Ledger is mesmerizing in every single frame that he inhabits, and his performance alone makes this one a must-see. He plays his Joker to Christian Bale’s Batman like John Wayne Gacy, coming for your children with a paring knife (and in the clown costume). I don’t know what war-torn region of the human soul Ledger went to in order to find his character, but I don’t think I’d ever want to go there, even just to snap a few pictures. Stylishly directed by Christopher Nolan. Full review.

The Gits– In the summer of 1993, Seattle musician Mia Zapata, lead singer of The Gits, was beaten, raped and killed, her body unceremoniously dumped in a vacant lot. Her murder remained unsolved until an astounding break in the case in 2003 helped bring her killer to justice. This random, brutal act not only had a profoundly disheartening and long-lasting effect on Seattle’s incestuous music community, but symbolically represented the beginning of the end for the city’s burgeoning music renaissance. Super-fans and first time filmmakers Kerri O’Kane and Jessica Bender have constructed an engrossing, genuinely moving portrait of Zapata’s legacy in a rockumentary that admirably avoids sensationalizing the tragedy; it instead gives us an inspiring portrait of four close friends truly committed to each other, their music and their fans. Full review.

Happy Go Lucky– Concerning a young Londoner named Poppy, whose improbably infectious giddiness is brought to life with amazing verisimilitude by Sally Hawkins, in one of the best performances by an actress this year. I venture to say that British director Mike Leigh is making a somewhat revolutionary political statement for this cynical, post-ironic age of rampant smugness and self-absorption; suggesting that Poppy’s brand of bubbly, unflagging enthusiasm for wishing nothing but happiness unto others defines not just the root of true compassion, but could be the antidote to societal ills like xenophobia, child abuse and homelessness. Then again, I could just be dreaming. Full review.

Honeydripper– Writer-director John Sayles transports us back to the deep south of the early 1950s, evoking the earthy blues poetry of the Delta, outfitting it in shades of August Wilson and transferring it to the screen. Essentially a languidly paced folktale, set in an Alabama backwater called Harmony, Honeydripper rolls along, slow and steady, like a glass bottle sliding up a steel string, and is easily his most engaging ensemble piece since Lone Star. With Danny Glover, Charles Dutton and Mary Steenbergen. Full review.

Man on Wire– On the surface, this may appear to be a straightforward documentary about an eccentric high wire artist who is either incredibly brave, or incredibly stupid. But if you look closer, you might discover one of the best suspense thrillers/heist movies of 2008, although no guns are drawn and nothing gets stolen. It is also one of the most romantic films I’ve seen this year, although it is not a traditional love story. Existential and even a tad surreal at times, it is ultimately a deeply profound treatise on following your bliss. Directed by James Marsh, featuring music by Michael Nyman. Full review.

Milk-Gus Van Sant’s stirring (and very timely) biopic about San Francisco politician and gay activist Harvey Milk (assassinated in 1978) is one of the most straightforward efforts from the frequently abstract and self-consciously arty filmmaker since his surprise mainstream hit Good Will Hunting in 1997, yet it arguably stands as his most important work to date. The excellent script (by Dustin Lance Black) is richly engaging, yet never strays too far from Milk’s own words and deeds. And most crucial to the success of this film is the powerhouse performance that lies at its heart from Oscar shoo-in Sean Penn, who never falls into exaggerated caricature, opting instead to ostensibly channel the wit, passion and genuine humanity of this remarkable individual. A must-see. Full review.

Slumdog Millionaire– Leave it to Danny Boyle, who somehow managed to transmogrify the horrors of heroin addiction into an exuberant romp (Trainspotting), to reach into the black hole of Mumbai slum life and pull out the most exhilarating love story of 2008. Slumdog Millionaire defies category; think Oliver Twist meets Quiz Show in Bollywood. Just like the best Bollywood offerings, Boyle’s most epic tale to date (co-directed by Loveleen Tandan with a script by Simon Beaufoy, adapted from Vikas Swarup’s novel) is equal parts melodrama, comedy, action, romance and kismet. It’s a perfect masala for people who love pure cinema, infused by colorful costume and set design, informed by fluid, hyperkinetic camera work (from cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle) and accompanied by the type of rousing, pumping, eclectic music soundtrack that you’ll want to download into your MP3 player immediately after leaving the theatre. Full review.

Vicky Christina Barcelona– Dare I say it? Woody Allen’s latest is his wisest, sexiest and most engaging romantic comedy in, um, years. Okay…truth? To rate it on a sliding scale: as far as his own particular brand of genial bedroom farces go, it may not be in quite the same league as, let’s say, Hannah and Her Sisters, but it still handily blows the boudoir doors off of any other romantic “comedies” one suffers through at the multiplex these days. Penelope Cruz deserves any awards she may receive for this performance; she’s a real force of nature here. A museum-worthy rarity: a comedy for grown-ups. Full review.

The Visitor– If Richard Jenkins doesn’t get an Oscar nod for his amazing performance in Thomas McCarthy’s culture-clash comedy-drama, I will personally picket the Academy. Writer-director-actor McCarthy’s previous effort was the critical favorite The Station Agent, and once again he draws us into an extended family of very believable, warm-blooded characters, generously giving all of his actors plenty of room to breathe. The “strange bedfellows” setup of the plot may resemble The Goodbye Girl or The Odd Couple on paper, but this not a glib Neil Simon play, where characters throw perfectly timed zingers at each other; these people feel, and interact, like real human beings. There is plenty of humor, but there is also genuine heartbreak and bittersweet melancholy. The important thing is that it is all perfectly nuanced, and a joy to behold. Full review.

And just for giggles, a special nomination for The Most Fun I Had Trashing a Film in 2008: My review of the (unintentionally) pre-hysterical 10,000 B.C., which many of Digby’s readers appeared to enjoy (just in case you missed it). Happy New Year!

.

R.I.P. Harold Pinter

By Dennis Hartley

We had some sad news on Christmas Day. Renowned playwright, screenwriter, poet, and Nobel Laureate (for literature) Harold Pinter lost his battle with cancer. Simply put, his demise represents a great loss to the art of the written word. Indeed, “Pinteresque” has become part of the lexicon in the world of movie and theater criticism. For deeper background on his overall achievements in the arts (and his political activism), I will defer to the insightful and well-researched tribute posted by one of our long-time Hullabaloo supporters, film critic and author David Ehrenstein, over on his website.

If I had to pick my favorite Pinter screenplay, it would be his masterpiece of sublimated loathing, the 1963 British drama, The Servant, which I consider to be the best of his several collaborations with director Joseph Losey. There are no axe murderers lurking in the closet, but this decadent class-struggle allegory matches Polanski’s Repulsion as a classic of psychological horror. Dirk Bogarde delivers a note perfect performance as a “manservant” hired by snobby playboy James Fox (in his screen debut) to help him settle into his new upscale London digs. It soon becomes apparent that this butler has a little more on the agenda than just polishing silverware and dusting the mantle. Actors talk about giving the character “an inner life”-just keep an eye on Bogarde’s facial expressions and watch a craftsman at work. A young and alluring Sarah Miles is memorable as Bogarde’s “sister” who is hired as the maid. The expressive chiaroscuro cinematography sets an increasingly claustrophobic mood as the story progresses; watch for the clever use of convex mirrors to “trap” the images of the principal characters. BTW, if you happen to be a fan of the 1960’s British folk scene, you’ll want to keep your eyes peeled for a brief, unbilled, rare glimpse of guitarist Davey Graham (who composed the classic instrumental piece “Anji”), playing and singing in a scene where James Fox strolls into a coffeehouse.

More to explore: The Caretaker , The Pumpkin Eater, The Quiller Memorandum, AccidentThe Birthday Party, The Go-Between , The Homecoming, Butley, The Last Tycoon, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Betrayal, Turtle Diary, Sleuth (remake).

.

The Power Of One Man

by dday

This activist Tim DeChristopher, who bidded up parcels of land sought by oil and gas interests for drilling is really a hero. I guess the Bureau of Land Management was all upset because an auction broke out at their nice little auction.

The process was thrown into chaos and the bidding halted for a time before the auction was closed, with 116 parcels totaling 148,598 acres having sold for $7.2 million plus fees.

“He’s tainted the entire auction,” said Kent Hoffman, deputy state director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Utah.

Hoffman said buyers will have 10 days to reconsider and withdraw their bids if they think they paid too much.

Huh? Paid TOO MUCH? If a buyer is paying millions of dollars for oil-rich land, they obviously think it’s worth it. What DeChristopher did was prove that the BLM was giving away federal land, basically owned by the taxpayers, to noncompetitive interests at obscenely low rates, and that the bidders would clearly pay more if forced. I thought these capitalists believed in the free market?

Now, DeChristopher did win some auctions, about 22,500 acres’ worth, and he fully intends not to pay. Then again, this is hardly different from the oil companies who buy up these lands with no intention of using them, just to pad their stock price. The oil companies get enough tax breaks to cancel out their below-market payments for the land, and it merely becomes an asset in their list of oil reserves. It’s the same thing.

Selma Sierra, who heads the BLM in Utah, said only 6 percent of lease parcels would ever see drilling because of the “costly and speculative” nature of the business. The federal government also typically imposes environmental safeguards on drilling parcels, Sierra said.

In other words, “Drill here, drill now” is a fiction. Thanks to this BLM official for making it so clear.

Considering how rapidly we’re experiencing the effects of climate change, and considering how long this oil company racket has lasted without anyone inside or outside the government stepping up, I’d call this perfectly justified. Not only should the government drop charges against DeChristopher, they should thank him for resetting the market. And activists can learn a lot from the creativity of this guy.

.

We Just Disagree

by digby

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I think Americans are probably not destined to all come together in comity and good will to work toward the common good any time soon. And you also know that I don’t think there’s anything especially wrong with that. If politics is war by other means then that’s the way things are supposed to work.

Ezra Klein wrote a good piece on this the other day about the “president of all America” thing that I think makes an especially good point in this regard:

… the whole “President of all America” descriptor is popular these days, but a bit vague for my tastes. You’re president of all America when you win more than 270 votes in the electoral college. Not when people stop disagreeing with your agenda. There’s a tendency to downplay the degree to which America is riven by legitimate disagreements over the path forward. Those who think the occasional moment of symbolic outreach to Rick Warren will overwhelm arguments over socialized health care, or taxes, or abortion, aren’t paying respect to our essential commonalities so much as dismissing genuine arguments. Few in this country battle to see their policy preferences respected. They battle to see them enacted.

That is exactly correct. And the idea that it’s all about “respect” is falling into a conservative movement trap. They complain that they aren’t respected, and use that alleged lack of respect to hobble their opponent’s ability to make their arguments in good faith to the American people. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Warren’s agenda is a great example. Nobody says that you can’t make common cause on any issue on an ad hoc basis. If Warren and the environmentalists agree on how to deal with climate change, that’s terrific. But by Warren’s own reckoning, his primary agenda is social conservatism and it’s based on deeply held beliefs that aren’t going to be changed by liberals being told to stifle or believers being told to stay out of the public square.

Ed Kilgore writes about that in this thoughtful piece on Beliefnet about the historic differences between the Christian sects, which have retreated (I would argue perhaps only temporarily) in American life. But he notes that a far greater schism exists and it’s so fundamental that it’s almost impossible to see how we can bridge this gap:

Nowadays, in the United States at least, such ancient indicia of “belief” have largely receded into the background. And among Protestants, the old disputes have been supplanted by one big dispute: the proposition of biblical inerrancy, and with it, a host of highly political and cultural arguments over issues of gender and sexuality, from the preeminence of men in family and community life, to gay and lesbian “lifestyles,” to abortion.

This mattered to me sitting there in that Southern Baptist Church because I am a conventionally orthodox Protestant according to virtually all of the traditional measurements of “belief,” but an enemy of the faith to those who demand subscription to biblical inerrancy and the patriarchal, homophobic, anti-scientific and culturally conservative attitudes that come in inerrancy’s train. I am acutely aware that what conservative Protestants (and for somewhat different reasons, conservative Catholics) view as God’s ordinances on the limited role of women in church and society, the “unnatural” condition of homosexuality, and the righteousness of war, I view as irrelevant cultural background noise that detracts from and in many respects contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I understand the gulf that separates those who somehow find in scripture an unambiguous condemnation of abortion as homicide from those who don’t. The former quite naturally think that ending the “holocaust” of legalized abortion is far and away the preeminent moral and political duty of Christians in this day and age; the latter either don’t see it as a religious issue at all, or like me, view abortion as a decision best left to the gender that God entrusted with responsibility for child-bearing.

So: according to these very contemporary and terribly polarized definitions, am I a “believer,” or just a disguised semi-pagan who profanes the Holy Name while seeking justification for “ungodly” behavior? And if I am a “believer,” what does that say about the Christians who believe I’m not? Are we in communion?

I can’t really answer these questions, but do know they can’t be avoided or papered over by pleas that Christians just link arms and learn to get along. I can no more abandon what I consider to be the God-given rights of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters or of the majority of God’s children who happen to be female, than conservatives can abandon the rights of the millions of “unborn children” they believe God is calling them to defend.

Imagine how it seems to we unchurched and atheistic types who depend upon the constitution to protect our rights from a majority who are so vocal in their loathing that they can say things like this and still get invited to speak at the inauguration:

Warren told his congregation that someone had asked if there was any kind of president he would not vote for. “I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, ‘I don’t need God,’ ” Warren said. “They’re saying, ‘I’m totally self-sufficient by [myself].’ And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It’s too big a job.”

That is, of course, his privilege. He doesn’t have to vote for anyone he doesn’t want to. But I vote for religious people every election day without giving it a second thought despite my own belief that a politician who doesn’t believe in God would not be saying that he can do the job “all by himself.” (I think it’s pretty clear that they all depend upon many, many other people to help them. ) Yet, I’m being admonished constantly for being intolerant and disrespectful of religion. (When is the last time anyone said that it was intolerant to proclaim that you could never vote for an atheist?)

As Ezra says, it’s not enough that everyone has their views “respected” in any case. I don’t even know what that means when it comes to fundamental issues of freedom, liberty, faith, duty etc. Of course I respect everyone’s right to their beliefs and I will fight the proverbial fight for them to be allowed to express them. But I don’t have to respect every view that comes down the pike and I certainly don’t have to willingly make room in my political coalition for people to enact their agenda if it goes against what I believe in. Why would anyone think I should?

The truth is that it’s disrespectful to sincere people on all sides to suggest their disagreements are so shallow that they can be dealt with by pretending that all we need to do is proclaim that we respect one another. Even if you respect someone, sometimes there’s no avoiding a fight.

Now, if we’re talking purely about civility in language, well, fine. We could theoretically all agree not to call each other names, act in good faith and be honest and transparent in our politics. (You’ll have to pardon me for waiting until Rush, Coulter and Mitch McConnell sign on the dotted line before I fall in with that — and somebody might want to ask Warren to rethink that stuff about gays being like pedophiles and women who have abortions being like Nazis, too.) But I’m perfectly willing to be more temperate in my language (I’ve always believed in acting in good faith and with transparency) if it doesn’t mean that I also have to respect the belief that Creationism is as valid as evolution or that the state should decide women’s reproductive decisions for them or that gays marrying will have some negative effect on my own marriage.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to be enough for the Rick Warrens and Tony Perkins types, though. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are intent upon actually enacting their agenda and my respect for their views isn’t something they particularly care about unless I’m helping them do that. In that we are in perfect agreement. I don’t require that they respect my views either. I’m going to fight for my agenda and they can fight for theirs. We’ll see which one the country supports. The last I heard, that was what we used to call politics.

Update: A huge huzzah to Chris Hayes for saying essentially the same thing today on the CNN “after party” roundtable. (And another bug huzzah for his being able to keep his head when forced to debate the profoundly dishonest Stephen “Al Qaeda really was in cahoots with Saddam” Hayes. )

.

.

Smart Guys

by digby

The Wall Street guys on the Fox News money shows are saying that global warming is bunk because we’re having record cold weather.

And we wonder why the financial system imploded.

.

The Great And Powerful Left

by digby

I just saw a truly depressing interview with Dennis Miller. He says that he isn’t going to be like the left and try to make Obama fail the we did to Bush and claims that he hopes to be a fervent Obama supporter four years from now.

The reason that’s depressing is because it means that he’s probably going to try to slither back over to the liberal side. It’s not entirely surprising. It’s the smart career move for sleazy political opportunists and there is no more sleazy a political opportunist than Dennis Miller.

And speaking of the hateful left, Atrios had an interesting Deep Thought the other day:

Remember when the obnoxious tone of anonymous blog commenters on liberal blogs was going to doom the Democratic party forever? Good times

Actually, we’ve moved up. As hard as it is to believe, this story about liberal bloggers destroying the CIA by tanking the good soldier John Brennan’s nomination just won’t go away. CNN was running it all day:

MALVEAUX: There’s still a conspicuous hole in Barack Obama’s national security team, the case of the vanishing CIA chief. Did bloggers force the president-elect’s choice to go away?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: While the president-elect is on holiday in Hawaii, he may be taking some time to mull possible candidates for CIA chief. And he may be mindful about reaction on the blogs, given what happened to his first choice.

Our Brian Todd is here.

Brian, this opening in Obama’s national security team really seems to be a hot topic in the blogosphere. Tell us why..

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It certainly has been, Suzanne, and it has got people using a term called “blogocide.” I had never heard that one before. That’s because there are implications that bloggers caused the demise of Obama’s first nominee as CIA director. The transition team says that’s nonsense.

But the political ramifications of this post are significant right now. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): In an otherwise well-received transition, one prominent hole remains. The Obama team is still looking for a CIA director.

Former top counterterrorism official John Brennan withdrew his name, citing “strong criticism in some quarters prompted by my previous service with the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Some liberal bloggers had blasted Brennan’s past support for rendition, the capturing and transporting of terror suspects to other countries for interrogation and detention. Some also claimed Brennan supported harsh interrogation techniques, which he strongly denied.

Two knowledgeable sources tell CNN the Obama team pressured Brennan to withdraw. Obama transition officials say it was his own decision.

Was this nomination torpedoed by blogs?

JEFF STEIN, NATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY”: I don’t think the bloggers knocked him out, so much as that they realized they would have to have a fight at his confirmation hearing.

TODD: Analyst says, if Brennan didn’t support harsh interrogation, his overall ties to the post-9/11 era at the CIA, with the prewar intelligence flap and all the controversial tactics in the war on terror, would have made him tough to confirm.

Human rights officials are throwing down their gauntlet.

ELISA MASSIMINO, CEO AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST: It really is incumbent on the incoming administration to choose people for those slots who don’t have any baggage from the previous policies and can demonstrate a clear break from those policies.

TODD: Elisa Massimino says that doesn’t mean everyone who served in the CIA then should be automatically disqualified. But analysts say it will be hard to find a really qualified spy chief who doesn’t have some tie-in to that period.

A former CIA officer says, if the Obama team can find someone like that:

TYLER DRUMHELLER, FORMER CIA CHIEF OF EUROPEAN OPERATIONS: They have a unique opportunity to make changes now in the agency, the way the agency fits in to the intelligence community, get back to the real core mission of the service, to recruit agents and have — collect intelligence through classic espionage.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Tyler Drumheller says the ideal person for that would be, not a former analyst, but someone from the operations side of the CIA, the division that actually carries out missions in the field. So, the challenge right now for Obama’s team, find someone like that who is not associated with the controversies of the past eight years.

Suzanne, it’s going to be a very tall order. That really narrows the field.

MALVEAUX: OK, Brian Todd, thank you so much.

First, I have never really bought the idea that bloggers actually tanked this nomination. (If we had that kind of power, do you think we’d be faced with Rick Warrens greasy visage on inauguration day?) So this insistence among the press, and presumably their sources at the agency, is a bit hard to swallow. Indeed, the report itself, which they teased with the headline “was Barack Obama’s first choice to be CIA chief torpedoed by bloggers? all day, pretty much says it’s bs.

I would not be surprised if the Obama team told Brennan that was the reason. (They deny it, so there’s no clear answer.) But frankly, this story just doesn’t make sense no matter how you look at it. If the Obama team wanted to drop Brennan, let’s hope they used a more believable excuse than “bloggers” made them do it. If Brennan believed them, then it shows that he is far too gullible to be the head of the CIA. And if people in the CIA are using this as a way to make Obama look weak or foolish, they are being unpatriotic asses.

And then there’s the press. They get the story wrong over and over and over again. This is a Fox story which CNN has decided is juicy enough for them to flog with a Fox style misleading headline all day long. There’s just no end to it, despite the fact that Glenn Greenwald and others have been very precise in their criticisms of Brennan, never once implying that anyone who was in the CIA during the Bush administration is disqualified.

I have to say that it’s more than a little bit disconcerting if anonymous members of the CIA are focusing their ire on liberal bloggers. Considering the vast powers of the agency, it has a tinge of a threat to it. As I pointed out before, liberal bloggers have long defended the CIA’s analyses and never held the torture and rendition regime against the rank and file, while the right wing was defaming them at every turn, blaming them for 9/11 and the failure of Iraq.

But Brennan was at the top of the food chain and he made statements after he left the agency indicating he supported some aspects of the program. To those of us who believe that torture, Guantanamo and rendition are serious threats to national security as well as an immoral degradation of American ideals, it’s important that Obama not send the wrong signals to the world by appointing someone who has made such public statements.

I suspect that’s the same conclusion the Obama transition team came to as well, which is why they made it clear that he wasn’t going to be chosen. Whether they rather lamely blamed bloggers or Brennan just seized upon some criticism he read while googling his name isn’t particularly relevant. But the fact that members of the CIA are still obsessing over this and using Fox and the NY Daily News and now CNN to pimp this story is fairly creepy. The Obama administration should clear this up. This is a typical bureaucratic power play, but allowing the CIA to blame political bloggers for ruining their careers is nothing to fool around with.

Update: And “clearing it up” like this is the exact opposite of the right thing to do. If “pro-Brennan” members of the Obama transition team are also blaming bloggers, then the team has a problem. I don’t know who tanked Brennan, but the fact that a whole bunch of people are still whining about bloggers doing it a solid month after it happened strikes me as a sign that something’s amiss.

.

Kitsch Overload

by digby

I know I’m dead inside and all, but I just don’t think I can take any more of this Obama kitsch. First it was this infomercial, featuring the opening lines, “Now you can own a piece of history commemorating the day the world changed forever. His confident smile and kind eyes are an inspiration to us all…” (I particularly like the nice white family sitting around the coffee table featuring the plate, saying “I never thought this day would come,” which strikes me as more than a little bit creepy.)

Now we have this hideous junk being sold to people who probably can’t afford it:

Be among the first to have this sought-after coin collection, celebrating the most significant event in Presidential Elections since the Founding Fathers established our great country.

“The day the world changed forever…the most significant event in presidential elections since the Founding Fathers established our great country.” A bit over the top, don’t you think? This is an historic election, but I don’t think it changed the world forever.

I guess all this commercial adulation just makes me nervous. After all, it was just three years ago that we had this stuff all over the place:

President Bush is a Leader who has the courage to lead. It is political courage. It is not poll driven it is conviction driven. It is consistent and does not change because of pressure or threats of political survival. It is reconfirmed every day. It differs from combat courage in that it is thought oriented not reaction oriented. Combat courage does not necessarily translate into political courage. Combat courage is admirable and you only know if you have it when you are in combat. President Bush has demonstrated that he has political courage and this is why he was re-elected. By owning a bust of President Bush, Commander in Chief you will be making a statement and in a politically charged environment, it takes courage.

I’m not generally a superstitious person, but I could be easily convinced that the more presidential kitsch the worse the backlash.

And anyway, as some friends pointed out to me yesterday, if the president’s image is going to be a commodity, shouldn’t the taxpayers get the money? If Elvis’s heirs get a percentage of every set of salt and pepper shakers sold with his picture on them, shouldn’t the treasury get a piece of presidential knick knacks?

.

Insider Culture

by digby

Dean Baker wrote an interesting piece this week about the fact that the only two regulators over the past decade who actually did their jobs were women. He speculates that it was because they weren’t members of the boys club.

He uses Bernard Madoff’s scheme as an example:

If we needed any further evidence that the financial industry suffered from too much deference to insiders, Bernard Madoff filled the gap. He apparently ran a simple-minded Ponzi scheme for 30 years, stealing tens of billions of dollars from wealthy individuals, private charities and even large banks.

When some investors and reporters raised suspicions about Mr. Madoff, no one bothered to seriously investigate because he was such a good guy. After all, he belonged to all the right clubs, generously supported charities and was even a founder of the Nasdaq.

The regulators don’t investigate respectable people like Madoff, and this is precisely the problem.

I would suggest that the political world suffers from exactly the same insider culture — with exactly the same results.

.

Welcomed With Flowers, Sweets And Prescriptions

by dday

I suppose I shouldn’t be alarmed by this, but I have to confess to being a little taken aback by the snickering and high-fiving in the blogosphere over the CIA’s attempt to curry favor with Afghan tribal leaders by offering them Viagra.

The Afghan chieftain looked older than his 60-odd years, and his bearded face bore the creases of a man burdened with duties as tribal patriarch and husband to four younger women. His visitor, a CIA officer, saw an opportunity, and reached into his bag for a small gift.

Four blue pills. Viagra.

“Take one of these. You’ll love it,” the officer said. Compliments of Uncle Sam.

The enticement worked. The officer, who described the encounter, returned four days later to an enthusiastic reception. The grinning chief offered up a bonanza of information about Taliban movements and supply routes — followed by a request for more pills.

There’s a certain logic to using personal items as barter (or bribery, if you prefer) for warlords and tribal leaders to extract information about the Taliban insurgency. At the same time, does anyone credibly think that those four women this guy is married to are entirely willing spouses, and the consequent sex performed as a result of the Viagra entirely consensual? One of the most persistent problems in Afghanistan – indeed, one of the ostensible reasons used by people like Laura Bush to justify the invasion beyond the need to root out al-Qaeda – is the terrible life circumstances for women. I fail to see how use of erectile dysfunction pills created by men and for men improves their quality of life. Megan Carpentier gives the explanation with which I concur:

SPENCER: So what should we understand to be the anticipated effects on Afghan women of this Viagra-based counterinsurgency effort?

MEGAN: Well, one could argue that by supplying the aging warlords with Viagra, you are depriving their wives of a needed and biologically expected semi-permanent respite from performing unwanted sexual acts that would otherwise be forced upon them. In the interests of fairness, I suppose its possible that these warlords attempt to treat their wives with the utmost care and respect and provide them with sexual satisfaction instead of using them as living, visible extensions of their power over people that the warlords can additionally stick their dicks into.

SPENCER: But that’s not where we should take this discussion! Are we in a situation where the expected consequence of the CIA Viagra program is marital rape? Should everyone who isn’t Dennis Prager find this problematic?

MEGAN: Well, are we in a situation where we would deny that such is a possibility? I don’t think we make good policy by ignoring the consequences, nor am I saying that giving the dudes Viagra is not preferable to giving them, say, weapons. But is it possible that we’re providing them with the means to force themselves on their wives (who likely had no choice in being their wives) that nature has otherwise denied them? Yes. Plus, I did have to go find a way to relate it to women’s issues […]

SPENCER: Right, but now that we’ve got that covered: what should we do next? Stop the program?

MEGAN: Well, I’m not exactly one to go around advocating marital rape. Nor are — one assumes — operatives on the ground in any position to survey the wives of the warlords to determine whether the dick pill sex is consensual or wanted. Nor do the women in question have the vocabulary — culturally speaking, that is — to likely describe the sex as coercive or forced. In a society in which wives are expected to submit to their husbands and sex is not intended for their benefit or pleasure, nor are their moods or desires taken into account, they probably wouldn’t consider a formerly impotent husband with a handful of Viagra and some impotent time to make up for much more than their unlucky lot in life. And, if the benefit — as you stated above — is not only that the formerly impotent husband doesn’t take said impotence out on our troops but also refrains from taking it out physically on the wives, are they substantively better off being unhappily sexed than physically beaten? The fact that women in America have those choices and the freedom to think about them is a great thing, and handing out or not handing out Viagra to impotent warlords doesn’t give Afghan women those choices or freedoms. Nor does allowing a Taliban or al Qaeda-led insurgency to win back the government. But that doesn’t mean that our choices should remain unexamined.

There’s a top-rated diary on Daily Kos right now entitled Dennis Prager Endorses Marital Rape. Somebody explain to me how the CIA isn’t doing functionally the same thing.

And there’s a larger point. We barge into foreign societies without a coherent understanding of the underlying culture and try to use whatever means to get the locals on our side, and the unintended consequences that result are never examined either before or after the fact. They are considered prices to be paid for “success,” whatever that means. I think it’s actually fairly impossible for me to determine the full effects of giving Viagra to Afghan warlords, in much the way that introducing a change in where a butterfly flaps its wings in the past can alter the future. But I’m fairly certain that those effects are completely ignored by the elites who think they can control events thousands of miles away through little inducements and bribes. I haven’t read all of
Legacy of Ashes but I wonder if I’d find anything if I searched the index for the part where anyone games out the ripple effects of the agency’s actions. Probably not.

Maybe what should be considered, instead of the boner pills, is why we’re in Afghanistan in the first place. Rather than social engineering, we could use local law enforcement and intelligence sharing to limit or remove the capacity of anyone in the region striking beyond their borders, and we allow local and regional actors to determine their own way forward instead of arrogantly assuming we know what’s best for these people, and trying to install a central democracy where none has ever existed. Alternatively, we could figure out what other drugs they might like.

.

Your Daily Blago

by digby

The press seems to have decided on one of the subplots to the Blago storyline: Obama didn’t adequately answer the press’s “questions” (and treated them very badly in their estimation) resulting in Obama failing the most important test of any presidency — scandal management. Of course, there’s no way for him to have passed the test, but that’s beside the point.

Random MSNBC Host: The story’s still alive, it may be because it’s the holidays, but it also calls into question how they do crisis management and just what was going on back then in Illinois.

And while most Republicans are following Newtie’s unctuous talking points and slobbering all over Obama as if he’s the second coming of Ronald Reagan, there are some who can’t help but blurt out their fondest hopes and dreams:

Republican strategist Ben Porrit: Well if you look back to 2005 when a scandal plagued the Bush administration you could look at one parallel and that is that president Bush and president elect Obama had an electoral mandate to govern and this negatively affects their ability to do that. This is ammunition for critics and political opponents where they raise speculation and try to crystallize conspiracy theories into facts. When you live in a age where your ability to govern is affected by every political poll that comes out, there’s certainly going to be some negative connotations to this and his ability to effectively implement his agenda.

I assume the scandal he speaks of is Plame, but it could be any number of things, depending on how you define scandal. but the man inadvertantly committed honesty. If they can make that happen, they will be very happy.

On CNN this morning Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorff actually had to explain how this scandal is different than the Ken Starr investigations that led to Clinton’s impeachment. (He wasn’t very convincing.) We are 25 days from Obama’s inauguration.

Blagojevich’s lawyer said today that he wants the impeachment committee (or whatever it’s called) to subpoena Rahm, Jarret and others. Oy. But you can’t blame him. After all, they will supposedly say that there were no discussions of quid pro quos. Meanwhile, Fitzgerald will probably fight it to preserve his case.

And it all adds up to the gasbags continuing to bloviate and speculate. And their daily bloviation and speculation will be seen as further proof that Obama is terrible at crisis management.

.