Stewart And Kristol: Mano A Mano

For all you Bill Kristol bashers out there (like me) here's a good interview on John Stewart. It's always a little amazing that Stewart does better interviews and hold peoples more accountable than mainstream news interviews.

Dept. Of Paradoxes

This is how complicated this country, and the issue of race, is (it's hard to see, but there is an Obama sign on the front lawn):

When You Get Questions Like This, All You Can Do Is Laugh

Obama's Narrative Is Coming Into Focus (For Now)

This is something I've wanted to write about for weeks now, only I haven't had the time (stupid work!)

I have criticized Obama in the past for never figuring out an instantly understandable narrative for his campaign. I think it has been his one big flaw from the beginning. A really good candidate is able to connect something about his policies and, even better, something about himself, to a simple, clear message. A candidate needs a story that tells you what he or she represents, how it fits into historical context and gives you a sense of what the future will feel like with this person in office: paint me a picture of what you will do so that all I have to do is look at it and, in an instant, I can say, "yes, I get it now". Obama has never been able to do this. His rhetoric and style has always been unifying and uplifting, but he has never been able to express a view of governance and policy the way Bill Clinton did in '92 when he said he was about, "the end of welfare as we know it." In a flash, that statement said what he wanted to do, tied into the mood of the country at the time, and defined Clinton as no ordinary Democrat. Obama, for all his policy detail, was never able to summarize his campaign in this way.

But, as a result of the financial crisis, I think that this has finally changed. Obama's temperament in reacting to the crisis has defined him in the public eye in the same basic, gut-level way that Clinton's statement did sixteen years ago. During the crisis Obama was steady, smart and reflective. He didn't panic. He wasn't impulsive. The narrative has become this: In tough economic times Obama is the responsible, calm manager of our future. He is the guy that you would give your money to in order to safeguard your retirement. He would take your life savings and invest it well by diversifying it and taking a long term view. He doesn't invest in risky things. He goes for the smart, safe, responsible strategy.

And this clear picture of Obama has been helped, in no small part, by McCain. McCain is the investment manager you want to stay away from. He would bet your life's savings on a hunch. He's the guy with the risky stock tip: "Hey, put all your money in the Iraq War! Invest everything you got in conflict with Iran! I promise blockbuster returns! It's a guaranteed lock!"

All this hasn't been made explicit by the campaign, but I think it's what's going on subconsciously throughout the country. He seems to have finally become solidified in the minds of a lot of people. He has, "closed the deal".

However, is this finally the clear picture of Barack Obama? Well, this is a separate question, and I think the answer is no. I think it's only true for the time being. Though I think this goes a long way to solve his identification problems, it actually is still not a complete fix. (Though maybe this is overstating it. At this point it looks like Obama is going to win, so in a way, he doesn't really need anything fixed) First, it needs to be pointed out that this is a narrative that he has fallen into because of the serendipity of events, both by the economic crisis and by being paired with an opponent who highlights his strengths. He didn't create his own message. The world did it for him.

But more importantly, seeing him as a measured, cautious, responsible person goes against his message of change. A responsible money manager is not a change agent; he just returns things to "normal", to the place the world was before the Bushes and McCains of the world wrecked things.

But the problem is: the world will never return to that place. The next four years will be incredibly tough for this country. Obama is going to have to be a change agent, and a tough one at that, if the changes are to do any good. When he has to propose his tax plan, or health care plan, or his vision for energy that he has brewing (more on this in a future post -- hopefully soon!) will the public say "This isn't the plan we signed up for, this is too radical!"? Will they feel that this wasn't the guy they elected? I think it's still an open question how the country will react to his presidency and whether or not we will ever feel that we fully know him, whether or not he will ever solve the problem of his narrative. It seems that for Barack Obama, there might not ever be one narrative, one identity, one clear picture that we have of him where we can say, "Yes! That's who he is." He might always be at a remove from us and never completely pinned down. He is fluid, multifaceted, multi-racial, multi-identity to the core.

Advice McCain Probably Won't Take.

Nate Silver, who runs my favorite polling site FiveThirtyEight, has come up with a couple of things McCain could do to maximize his chances. As Silver points out, there is no magic pixie dust here, he simply has to concentrate his efforts where he can get the most bang for his buck.

1. Give-Ups. McCain should concede Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.

2. Offensive Targets. McCain should remain engaged in New Hampshire and New Mexico.

3. Defensive Targets. Some reasonably vigorous defense is required in Viginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and North Carolina.

4. Gambles. McCain should limit his activity in Florida, Missouri and Indiana, and hope a national surge of some kind brings those states back into his column.

The reason I think McCain won't take it is because Marc Ambinder, a very good political reporter for the Atlantic Monthly, points out that the McCain campaign is set to make many appearances in Pennsylvania this week.

If you want to go a little more in depth and understand the recommendations a little more, the site has two maps on the right of the page, "Tipping Point States" and "Return on Investment" that show how much any state is likely to respond favorably to an increased attention.

Opie and Richie for Barry

No matter how hard he tries, Ron Howard is always an extremely dull, uninteresting filmmaker. That's a little sad to say, because he really is a very cool guy with a decent sense of humor. Speaking of which:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

That's What I Said!

George Packer makes an observation about the change in McCain over the last year and asks questions about his psychological makeup that I also asked on my very first post on this blog. Packer writes:

Back then [in January] he was witty, he was relaxed, he was appealingly combative, he was generous. For sheer talent at engaging with voters he had it all over both Obama and Clinton. The contrast now is so severe that it makes running for President seem like a personal disaster on the scale of a prolonged nervous breakdown leading to physical and psychological ruin. This campaign has done something terrible to McCain.

Compare to what I wrote:

A man that had, or felt that he had, so much personal honor has had to endure wave after wave of soul-eating compromise over the course of the last two years... Politicians break their promises and change positions with the winds all the time, of course. But, this is John McCain with his enormous ego and enormous belief in his personal honor that we’re talking about. What has he had to do, psychologically, to enable him to betray his own personal sense of honor on so basic a level?

Ok, Packer is more eloquent (of course!) but I don't my observation is all that shabby. And the fact that I wrote this on September 7th while Packer wrote his post on October 16th gives me extra points!

Is There Anyone Left On This Ship?

Scott McClellan endorses Obama! Though, it shouldn't be so surprising after his tell all, score-settling book and the subsequent White House reaction. Boy, I am really enjoying this election more and more.

On The Road To The White House

My friend Jordan is currently traveling the country, every day or two making a short documentary for the Guardian. Check it out here. There are a bunch of videos (that I couldn't embed) so I'll point out two that I liked. First, one that is about the town of Hasty, Colorado and the hardship they're going through. There's an interview with an old Obama supporter that doesn't fit any of the stereotypes. And then one about the fence separating Mexico from the U.S. is filled with sadness as well as telling me something very interesting that I didn't know. That the fence is actually increasing our immigration problems in one way: Before the fence there were immigrants that stayed in the U.S. temporarily and then went back to Mexico. But now, since it's much harder to cross, many of those immigrants can't go back. In some ways, the fence actually increases our immigration population.

Will Ferrell Is Back!

Hope Vs. Fear

This audio slideshow of Obama's speech in Richmond made me tear up. Yes, Obama has been much less lofty for many months now, but this speech reminds me of why I was so inspired by him in the first place. I need to firmly remember that Obama is a politician, that he is perfectly capable of lying to us, that he has made promises he won't keep, that he will most likely make less-than-honorable compromises, but this speech reminds me that the inspirational side to a president, and more than that, what he symbolizes, is just as important as the specific policy positions he takes and decisions he makes. A vote for Obama can have less to do with him and be more about what he represents: an America of diversity, of the possibility of anyone rising to do what they want, of bridging divides and an end to seeing certain groups as the "other". The Republican party in the last few weeks has revealed itself to be, for the moment, the party of the "other": a party of division, resentment and fear-mongering. Once it's over, if Obama wins, we... should be on his case all the time, skeptical, calling him out on the bullshit that will surely come. But for right now, it doesn't seem hyperbolic to me to say that this election is a choice between hope and fear. Hope must win.

Auteurs For McCain!

What would McCain's commercials look like if they were made by John Woo, Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson? (The last one, by Anderson, is the only one that's really worth it, to my mind.)

The Palin Oval Office

Click around and see what could happen if Palin became the president.

Supporters McCain Should Be Proud Of

This is unexpected, and great -- something to make me think there is still civility and intelligence on the right. A group of Muslim and Christian McCain supporters take on a few anti-Islamic whack-jobs.

The Empty Vessel

Peggy Noonan, who I never thought I would like, can be very insightful, and she comes through in this column on Sarah Palin:

In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

I do, however, disagree on one point: that we don't know what Palin stands for. I think this is wrong. We know exactly what she stands for: herself. Palin strikes me as a person almost entirely of pure ambition, not grounded in anything that gives her serious cultural or ideological shading. Though she is a conservative, there are many examples that give me the hunch that she is willing to bend her values if it's necessary to achieve power, or that simply makes her look like a pragmatist and not ideological: She has, way before she became the veep nominee, said very positive about Obama and what he represents; she has questioned the Iraq War and whether or not we have an exit strategy; she has not used her position in Alaska to further a hard anti-abortion agenda. And, now that she needs to play to the red-meat base, she gives the base what it wants. She changes into the persona she needs to be for the role she is playing. Her own religious beliefs and conservative values, in political terms, strike me more as a means to an end than anything else. She is really an empty vessel, content to be filled with whatever substance is necessary to achieve power, power that is desired, ultimately, for it's own sake. That's what she stands for.

In This Economy, Racism Is A Luxury

From FiveThirtyEight:

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

In this economy, racism is officially a luxury.

I've been thinking this myself recently. When their basic livelihood is at stake, racism is less of a force in determining who people will vote for. It is possible to have negative views of African-Americans and still think that Obama will be better for the economy and your own pocketbook. If it does anything, I hope this election puts an end to the idea that racism is an absolutely permanent and monolithic fixture in our society, particularly in the traditional working class and "middle" America. Even if Obama loses, he has already done more than anyone thought possible just one -- ONE -- year ago. That a black man is leading in national polls, in all the blue states and even in some red ones is proof that social values change. Yes, he may lose and racism is not dead in this country. (Just read down on the story I took the above quote from to see something really repellent.) But it is simply not the force it was.

And, if Obama wins, I think it's possible, particularly with the tough economic times ahead -- the kind of event that causes cultural dislocation, but also pushes a society in new directions -- that we may one day look back and talk about these next few years as the beginning of a new social era in this country. This won't be an era where racism doesn't exist, just one where racism, so central to much of the cultural evolution of the country, no longer plays the dominant role that it has for centuries, and where race is finally decoupled from so many other cultural issues.

UPDATE: Though I think the reason racism in society (as expressed by Obama's popularity) is changing is partially because people are simply more open to a black man being president, I have to admit that another reason is money.

McCain = Rush Limbaugh

I forgot that I wanted to mention this, McCain's worst line:

We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

His transition is now complete from straight-talkin', common-sense, bipartisan to extreme Limbaugh-like crank.

McCain Looking REALLY Presidential

One More Debate Post

I'm sick of these debates, but I'll quote James Fallows, at the Atlantic, who always has good insights.

In general-election debates, it's a losing strategy to "rally the base." That's what your own campaign events, and your fund-raisers, and your targeted ads, and your running mate are for. Especially by the time of the second and third debates, the job is to "rally the center." That's where most of remaining persuadable and undecided voters are.

Everything about Barack Obama's approach to this debate, and all debates, was consistent with this reality. Almost nothing about John McCain's approach was.

After All Three Debates, The Bottom Line

For me, it's this: who do you want in the White House when that 3am phone call comes? The petulant, impulsive, wandering guy, or the cool, in-command, sober one?

The Last Debate (Thank God!)

A snore if you ask me. McCain seemed more animated, though animated like a smart-ass frat boy. He didn't, doesn't, look presidential. Obama looked tired and less commanding than in any of these three debates -- it reminded me a little of the primary debates. He also a seemed a little professorial, technocratic. He was boring, frankly, but Andrew Sullivan has the best observation about that:

The first black president will only get there by boring a lot of white people. And haven't we had enough drama in the last eight years? Boring is fucking awesome after Bush.

Best line for McCain: "I'm not Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have run four years ago." Best for Obama: "I think [your attacks] say more about your campaign than they do about mine."

(Minimally) Live Blogging The Debate

10:25 - I'm just not able to stick with this anymore. The next 20 days can't go by fast enough.

10:14 - I didn't know that Obama supports a ban on late term abortion (with an exception for the life of the mother.) Good for him. UPDATE: My friend Frank points out this is more common among Democrats than I thought. So it's not such a big deal. But I think it is mildly significant that he called it a moral issue. It's a sign of how the Democratic party is shifting it's approach to this issue.

10:11 - zzzzzzzzz....

10:08 - McCain's Roe v. Wade answer is incoherent.

10:05 - 10:1 that the talking points coming out of the McCain campaign will relish using "senator government".

9:58 - "We can do both." Come on.

9:52 - McCain is making a lot of small verbal slips and previously so did Obama, more than I think either of the other debates. They must be exhausted.

9:45 - Obama has to say whether or not Palin is qualified and he hesitates like mad. It must kill him to not call her an idiot.

9:42 - I know he's my guy, but right now Obama is boring me to tears. He seems tired. McCain actually seems a little more energetic. Most memorable moments right now: the Joe The Plumber conversation, which McCain won, and the Ayers stuff, where Obama smartly points out that all it does is distract from the issues. Also, the ways he has gone against his party.

Obama May Be Palling Around, But The Other Side Gives Money

I think this post from Andrew Sullivan says it all.

I think Obama's relatively weak but nonetheless real interactions with William Ayers are a legitimate campaign issue. But Obama's best response, after telling the facts of the relationship, is to point out who else supported him. Republican machers Walter and Leonora Annenberg gave the former terrorist $50 million. They also gave money to Rick Santorum, Strom Thurmond and Mitt Romney. Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to Britain. If Obama is "palling around with terrorists," the Republican Annenbergs are funding them.

Yesterday, the McCain campain put out a press release boasting that Leonore Annenberg had just endorsed him for president. Why is McCain happy to accept the endorsement of a funder of terrorism?

I agree with him that the Ayers, even the Reverend Wright issue, is legitimate. However, the insinuations they're making with it are not. They are just ugly, irresponsible fear-mongering.

My Apologies

The people who read this blog regularly (about 8-10 people and growing!) might have noticed I haven't posted anything since my massive blast of posts on Saturday. That's because I've started an editing job yesterday and now I have much less free time to do self-absorbed things like blogging. But, I still plan on posting, at least every other day, and hopefully more than that.

Sincerely, your humble blogger.

Bill Kristol: Vote For McCain Because He Has More Interesting Taste in Movies

In the recent issue of The Weekly Standard, New York Times columnist and de facto McCain spokesperson Bill Kristol quotes from interviews where Katie Couric asks Obama and McCain to name their favorite movie.

Obama gave an utterly conventional answer: "Oh, I think it would have to be The Godfather. One and two. Three not so much. Umm. So-so, but, but that--that saga--I love that movie.

...I mean there's this combination of old world gentility and, you know, ritual with this savagery underneath. It's all about family. So it's a great movie. Lawrence of Arabia. Great film. One of my favorites--and then Casablanca. Who doesn't like Casablanca?"

That's Obama. He's glib, conventional, won't make a real choice, shows nothing about himself, and says nothing offputting and says nothing impressive.

McCain's answer was in no way conventional:

Viva Zapata! It's a movie made by Elia Kazan. It was one of the trilogy of A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront and Viva Zapata! Marlon Brando stars in it. He plays Zapata. It's a heroic tale of a person who sacrificed everything for what he believed in, and there's some of the most moving scenes in that movie that I've ever seen...

Which one of these two men do you want to be president in a time of crisis and difficulty? Viva McCain!

Why on earth is Bill Kristol given space at the Times? Why? Why? Why?

She's Nailed!

The Alaska Inquiry concludes what I suspected. Palin abused her power for personal gain.

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Will it have an effect on the race? Maybe a small amount. Will she or her supporters care? No.

UPDATE: I missed the most depressing aspect of this report: the seemingly irreconcilable findings that effectively exonerate Palin. Even though the report concludes with

[Palin] knowingly, as the term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the governor's office and the resources of the governor's office, including state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get trooper Wooten fired.

The second finding in the report states that

Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

The first finding says she violated ethics laws through the actions of her husband, but the second finding says she did nothing wrong in the specific act of firing Monegan. So... did she do anything wrong? Cynical politics in 2008 says a resounding "No!"

Writing this blog certainly isn't a way to cheer myself up.

Republican Rage: Where Does it Go?

Just some thoughts about the recent nutiness we've seen coming out of the Far Right lately. Anyone have any thoughts?

First, how much worse will Far Right rage get in the next few weeks leading up to the election? As the Republican crazies become more and more confronted by the fact that their new president will be a socialist, Arab terrorist that wants to destroy the country does anyone think we'll see some violence? I wouldn't be surprised. As my mom said, I hope Obama's security team is really good.

Next, How much control will McCain exert over the crazies? My guess is he's a little conflicted between ambition, his own contempt for Obama, and his desire to emerge from all this with some of his reputation intact. Plus, I can't imagine that he isn't appalled by some of the worst stuff.

Then, what happens to all this anger and bile after the election? My gut feeling is that it keeps going, with an exception. We'll have the usual stuff about how Obama isn't legitimate, is dangerous, destroying the country, getting high in the White House, etc. -- all the stuff from the Clinton years. However, this hatred will come from a smaller group than it did than in the 90's. There is already a group of moderate conservatives that is speaking out against this rage, and I think they are totally ready to move on from the resentful, meaningless, unproductive culture wars. My prediction? After the election, it's World War III... in the Republican Party.

My First Post Criticizing Obama

Here is a tough, negative Obama ad for North Carolina from Wednesday:



The problem is that I think Obama may not believe a word of this protectionist message. Obama has never struck me as one to be very isolationist, to recognize that the reality of today is that globalization is here to stay. More importantly, during the primary season, Austan Goolsbee, one of his chief economic advisers, was caught downplaying Obama's protectionism to the Canadian consulate in Chicago, saying they shouldn't put too much stock in his recent (at the time) anti-free trade rhetoric. My guess is that this is probably true. However, that doesn’t meant that Obama, cautious as always, has any problem shamelessly pandering to working-class anxiety if it gets him a couple more votes in North Carolina.

For me, this points to a potential problem I see with Obama's presidency: he doesn't like to take risks and sees pandering or accommodation as a solution too often. Now, this is all well and good, up to a point -- his caution has served him extremely well so far and is probably about to make him president. But, if he wins, he will be faced with a daunting set of problems, probably greater than any president has had in recent history. Some of these problems will have popular solutions that he should be able to get enacted (if we can afford it!) – health care comes to mind. But other problems won’t be easily addressed. The Iraq War, energy independence, to name a few, could all face extremely tough opposition. To get anything really substantive done will take strong, risk-taking leadership. But, I have yet to feel satisfied that Obama has this within him. So far, he strikes me as more of a manager than a visionary, challenging leader: On policy he has never taken significantly controversial positions, such as, for example, John Edwards, when he took on the phrase “War on Terror”. Also, the campaign that started as a ray of post-partisan hope has, over the summer, become much more conventional. Obama really should have taken McCain up on his town hall debates. It was a risk, of course, but that’s the point. He has talked so much about changing the way things are done in Washington, but hasn’t been willing to make any real sacrifices to make it happen.

We are in a point in time right now where if certain things aren't done, like on climate change, or certain stances aren't taken, like on executive power or torture, it's possible that the chance to solve these problems in any meaningful way may be lost forever – each year they will be entrenched deeper and deeper into the status quo. Many have warned of the very limited window of opportunity we have to transform our economy in line with the realities of climate change. Effective solutions, such as a gas tax, won't come without pain for both business and the public, yet Obama is offering pie-in-the-sky promises – lying, basically – about ending our dependence on foreign oil within ten years. The Bush Administration has entrenched executive power in every aspect of government. This power needs to be brought back to a place where it’s accountable to the public and Congress, yet will Obama be able to resist the temptations to just go around Congress and the country if he can’t convince them?

Obama is an incrementalist – he's always been skeptical of revolutions. He talks about change coming from the bottom-up, but what happens when it needs to be lead from the top-down? Obama may have to buck conventional wisdom, public opinion, or opinion within his own party. Will he be able to rise to the challenge? From what we’ve seen so far, my answer would have to be: no.

The Dark Knight: The Denial Of Our Times

Several weeks ago I wrote a post about how much I admired The Dark Knight’s moral sophistication, calling it a, “blockbuster that truly speaks to our times.” But in the September 20th Times there was an op-ed by the novelist Jonathan Lethem that had different take on the movie. Lethem had heard that it was the summer movie everyone had to see, and even more, understand. But, after seeing it he didn’t feel like he was enriched. Instead he felt demoralized and brutalized. The movie was saying something about our times, yes, but what he saw was moral defeatism and denial, not sophistication:

In its narrative gaps, its false depths leading nowhere in particular, its bogus grief over stakeless destruction and faked death, “The Dark Knight” echoes a civil discourse strained to helplessness by panic, overreaction and cultivated grievance. I began to feel this Batman wears his mask because he fears he’s a fake — and the story of his inauthenticity, the possibility of his unmasking, counts for more than any hope he offers of deliverance from evil.

Behind the morality tale of the Batman versus the Joker, in it’s hidden assumptions, lied difficult, but real truths about ourselves, truths that we have conveniently been able to keep from looking at too directly. (On a side point I want to bring up a completely different point: why is it that for some writers it’s almost mandatory to write in a way that is so oblique that you have to read something three times to fully get it? It’s like a prerequisite for being taken seriously as a writer: don’t write anything with directness or implicity!)

Though I still really like The Dark Knight – I do think it deals in concepts seldom seen in mainstream movies, captures the feeling of a world on the brink of chaos held together by one man, and has some great action set pieces – Lethem made me see that there was a lot that I unthinkingly glossed over.

In my post I argued that Batman represents the forces of not just humanity, but of civilization, fighting against the anarchy and barbarism of the Joker. Batman may cross many lines, but there is one he will not cross: he won’t kill. In his total adherence to this rule, he represents the civilizing force of moral principle. But, is that one rule enough for him to legitimately be our savior and standard-bearer? All the other morally questionable, or downright immoral things he does really don’t matter? Batman kidnaps a Chinese citizen, drops a mobster from a fire escape, beats up the Joker once he’s been, and uses an all-encompassing surveillance system that I think I can safely say is Dick Cheney’s ultimate wet dream.

But… in the last eight years we’ve done all these things! Renditions? Check. Illegal surveillance? Check. Torture? Check. The reality the movie doesn’t confront us with is that our government, our representatives, have done all these things in the War on Terror. The audience is asked to go along with questionable actions without making us ask any of the questions.

This was Lethem’s insight. What The Dark Knight does, and what is so troubling, is it takes all this for granted. We, the audience, accept that Batman is going to have to do these things. In Gotham, criminals rule the streets and the police are mostly corrupt. What else is he going to do? And for us, it’s the same: To question torture, rendition or surveillance too much is to either be un-American (if you’re on the right) or naïve (if you’re on the left). It’s either, “sometimes you have to do terrible things because the people we fight are inhuman monsters,” or, “of course the government is going to do these terrible things, the people who run it are monsters.” Things we used to think abhorrent are now accepted, either enthusiastically or grudgingly, and we just assume that’s the way it is. What else are we going to do?

The movie is able to get away with all this by presenting us with the fantasy of the incorruptible hero. Batman cannot be bought, doubts himself, is forced into crossing lines, relinquishes excessive power, and is even willing to become a social outcast if that’s what it takes. But, in real life, the Bush Administration can be bought, never doubts itself, crosses lines by choice, doesn’t relinquish power and scapegoats anyone but itself. Who doubts that in real-life Batman would have killed the Joker? And yet we keep our eyes shut so we don’t have to admit that our leaders are far from heros. The Dark Knight is a movie of our times, very much so, only in a much more profoundly troubling way than I first realized. It is part of the denial, the cognitive dissonance of our times, where every time some new revelation comes out we just barrel on through it, hoping that it will all be over soon. All we really seem to want to do is put the Bush years, with all the moral compromises they’ve implicated us in, behind us.

At the end of The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent, Gotham’s D.A. and hope for the future, has become a murderer. Batman protects his reputation with a lie: he killed Harvey’s victims. He does this because society wouldn’t be able to handle it if it found out the truth -- everything would fall apart. But, does this really make sense? Dent’s image is that powerful that without him Gotham City just devolves into a lawless mob? In my earlier post I called this detail the saving grace of the movie, and I think it’s so interesting that it still is, to an extent – it points to the underlying fragility of the movie’s argument. But it also points to something else, and is Batman’s dirty little secret: He really doesn’t have any faith in humanity. He doesn’t think that the truth about Dent can be explained to the city and that it will be accepted. Apparently, the citizens of Gotham were able to avoid the temptation to blow up a boat full of hardened criminals in order to save themselves, yet they’ll fall into hopeless despair if they learn that a good man was driven mad by the loss of the woman he loved. Ultimately, the Batmans of the world, the Bushes and Cheney’s, don’t have any faith in ourselves. More importantly, the blanket of comforting denial that the movie wraps us in shows us that, for now, neither do we.

This Picture Explains It All

This is from The Economist, 1987.

Palin To Be On SNL??

I'm excited. This is the first time I'm posting something that has been in very limited circulation on the web. Fox News reported today that Sarah Palin may be on Saturday Night Live soon, though Lorne Michaels wasn't specific as to how or when. Later, SFGate reported the specific detail that she will be spoofing Tina Fey's American Express commercial and that it will happen on the 18th, but the site doesn't show any sources so for now this part seems like a total rumor.

White Stereotypes Love Obama!

Meatheads, lesbians, yuppies, townies, gays and teens all love Obama.

Today Is NOT Like The Great Depression

I just listened to a report on NPR that makes the excellent point that what is happening now is not likely AT ALL to devolve into something like the Great Depression. Then there was 25% unemployment, and 9000 bank closures. Today, as a result of the Great Depression we have learned how to handle economic crisis a lot better. In that time the government raised taxes, reducing the money supply and therefore economic activity. The relatively quick response of the government today is a result of learning from that crisis. Plus, today we also have New Deal institutions to help us out -- the FDIC, Social Security. It seems to me that if part of the current crisis is psychological, the financial media should bear some responsibility and not exaggerate the situation.

Make Your First Vote A Special One

This is one of the best Colbert Report segments I've seen in a while:

Technology is Magic

Even though the economy is in the toilet, innovation is still going on. A new type of technology allows you to recharge your cell-phone, Blackberry, iPhone by just laying it on top of a small pad. There's no more need to use an individual charger. Check it out. The future is here.

The Right Picture For The Occasion

Ever thought about the hard task of choosing the right photo to run with an article on the financial crisis? Here is a guide.

Could I Love Alec Baldwin More?

Alec Baldwin takes on Palin:



UPDATE: It seems this video is no longer available for embedding. You can still see it on YouTube.

Obama at 9:1

My favorite polling website, FiveThirtyEight, has an analysis of the latest numbers. Obama is as high as he's ever been in their election scenarios, with a 9:1 chance of winning. My cautious optimism is every day a little less cautious, a little more optimistic.

Another Frightening Show About Money

A few weeks ago I posted a link to a This American Life episode on the financial crisis called The Giant Pool of Money. Now comes part 2, Another Frightening Show About Money. It focuses on the last few weeks: Lehman, AIG, commercial paper, credit default swaps -- and it's really informative and clarifying, like the first episode. If you have an hour, it can really help you make sense of the crisis.

Who's Really Open And Who's Really Closed?

Over the last few days McCain steps up, uh, rather down, his attacks on Obama, bringing up his connection to Ayers and Wright and calling him a liar. This, obviously, is where McCain's character and integrity really shine. One thing I find kind of funny is that McCain said in a speech in New Mexico today:

For a guy who's already authored two memoirs, he's not exactly an open book.

Of the two candidates, I'd say it's McCain that has revealed that he has been the closed book all this time, and he's written five books.

THE Question Of The Twenty-First Century

An interesting and disturbing article on how 20% of the world's animal species are dying off. Reading this article and watching a good documentary last week on the global issues surrounding water -- it's called Flow and my friend edited it, by the way -- it occurs to me that THE question of the next century probably has to be: is the modern world sustainable? The impression of impending doom certainly isn't helped by our current financial meltdown, but, on a grander scale, the question goes beyond our momentary crisis and deals with the heart of the principles upon which our life is built: technological progress, democracy, capitalism. In other words, will a world which believes that everyone is entitled to strive for equality and deserves to live a good life of material wealth and also one of individual freedom, which seems to lead to ever-increasing needs, will this world outstrip its global resources or will it be able to accommodate itself to those resources?

Apocalypse Watch

Nouriel Roubini knows how to be terrifying:

"It is now clear that the US financial system -- and now even the system of financing of the corporate sector -- is now in cardiac arrest and at a risk of a systemic financial meltdown. I don't use these words lightly but at this point we have reached the final 12th step of my February paper on "The Risk of a Systemic Financial Meltdown: 12 Steps to a Financial Disaster" (...)

So we are now facing:

- a silent run on the huge mass of uninsured deposits of the banking system and even a run on some insured deposits are small depositors are scared;

- a run on most of the shadow banking system: over 300 non bank mortgage lenders are now bust; the SIVs and conduits are now all bust; the five major brokers dealers are now bust (Bear and Lehman) or still under severe stress even after they have been converted into banks (Merrill, Morgan, Goldman); a run on money market funds; a serious run on hedge funds; a looming refinancing crisis for private equity firms and LBOs);

- a run on the short term liabilities of the corporate sector as the commercial paper market has totally frozen (and experiencing a roll-off) while access to medium terms and long term financings for corporations is frozen at a time when hundreds of billions of dollars of maturing debts need to be rolled over;

- a total seizure of the interbank and money markets.

This is indeed a cardiac arrest for the shadow and non-shadow banking system and for the system of financing of the corporate sector. The shutdown of financing for the corporate system is particularly scary: solvent but illiquid corporations that cannot roll over their maturing debt may now face massive defaults due to this illiquidity. And if the financing of the corporate sectors shuts down and remains shut down the risk of an economic collapse similar to the Great Depression becomes highly likely."

Oh. My. God.

Tina Fey IS Sarah Palin

It's uncanny.

Palin Insights

There is so much to say about Palin and what a farce and a travesty she is, but many people have said much more insightful things than I can, so I'd rather that they speak for themselves. Here are a couple of observations from readers of Andrew Sullivan:

First:

The shocker is not that Palin was chosen, or that she turns on Rich Lowry. (Let's face it: Palin is incredibly attractive, she uses her sex appeal to make straight men wither, women have been using that strategy since Cleopatra, and men will continue to cave in to such tactics until at least the next Ice Age.) The real shocker is that conservative Republicans -- after 8 years of George Bush -- are *again* willing to put all their hopes into a charismatic, folksy leader who is ideologically rigid and intellectually stupid. With her complete inability to express herself on complex issues, and her willingness to mask that with folksy charm and talking points, Palin is a carbon-copy of W.

Wouldn't you think that conservatives would be more wary of her after seeing the destruction that George Bush has wrought? The fact that they splash Palin's picture on the cover of the National Review with the words "The One," while knowing full well she lacks any intellectual fortitude and will therefore require a shadow presidency (is Todd Palin the next Dick Cheney?), tells me it will take a deeper collapse of America's foundations for conservatives to realize that this strategy is, has been, and always will be, fundamentally flawed.

And another reader:

Really any woman who considers herself a conservative or identifies with the Republican party should be embarrassed by Sarah Palin. Seriously, this is the female face of the party. The debate was a joke, setting the bar so low that as long as she didn't drool all over herself it's considered a victory. That is what Republican women should be proud of? Her winking and talking "folksy", you betcha goshdarnit, that's the way the party wants to represent itself to the country and the world?

The fact that so many other qualified women in the party, like Olympia Snowe (whom I admire greatly), Kay Baily Hutchinson, Christie Todd Whitman (my former governor) are able to communicate and connect with the American people, were passed over for this disaster of a candidate, is greatly disheartening to me as a young woman. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but she didn't ask to be treated differently. She was able to take on the big boys and even throw some elbows, too. I just can't believe this is the example that the Republicans want to set for the future and for young women especially.

Dueling Jewish Comics

Jackie Mason responds to this post.

Dept. Of You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Conservative pundit Rich Lowry:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

Palin Debate Flow Chart

This is a great.

Tragic Sign of the Times

This is an amazing report from Southern California about foreclosed houses that are being emptied of everything in them once the former owners leave. People's despair at losing their home is so great that what they leave behind is striking: computers, family pictures and even birth-certificates.

Two Down

My reaction is no different from what most people are saying this morning. Biden won the debate -- crushed her, actually, if one were to see it as a real debate (and why would we want to do that?) There was really only one person up there that could credibly become president if he/she had to: Biden answered questions, knew what he was talking about and showed confidence; Palin just ignored questions if they didn't suit her and spouted talking points -- most of her answers either made no sense or were superficial. Taking expectations into account it was a tie: Palin showed confidence, energy, an ability to attack (a lot) and that she could grow quickly -- her cramming this time worked much better than with the Couric interviews (though it was clear that she really didn't know them any better than before). Biden also performed better than expected: no gaffes, disciplined (except at the beginning when he sometimes sounded too wonky), and respectful.

What will the effect be on the race? First, I'm going to go out on a small limb and say that the public will think that Biden won the debate -- it isn't hard to see that her answers were memorized talking points. But, I don't think that will have any effect on the polls whatsoever. Everyone expected Biden to do well and by all he did was confirm that expectation. But Palin's performance was a bit of a surprise and will reassure nervous conservatives and bring a little hope back into their lives. Maybe the polls go up a bit for McCain as a result, though it's certainly no game-changer.

The really salient aspect of the whole thing is that it was terrible, just terrible. No follow-ups, no challenges on most questions or non-sensical statements. And, that fault has to lie at the feet of Gwen Ifill. I don't know if it was the format or the accusations of bias that made her into a pussy-cat, but she was awful! It wasn't a debate, it was a just a platform for each candidate to recite positions. A real debate would have pierced through the theater-of-denial that is Palin. Sigh. In a rational universe this wouldn't even be a contest. It just makes me more depressed for the stupid, irresponsible, tragic media circus that is contemporary politics.

Homer Votes For Obama

I guess its true what they say about those Hollywood filmmakers.

Palin on Supreme Court Decisions She Disagrees With

I can't resist.

Headline Of The Day

Woo-hoo!:

ObamaPollSplosion: He Breaks 50 Everywhere

You sort of need a ticker to follow it all.... CNN/ORC Florida: Obama at 54% among registered voters (really)...Obama up by four among likely voters in Nevada...up by double digits in Minnesota...tied in Missouri...nine points ahead among likely voters in Virginia...polls from Time...NBC News/WSJ/MySpace......the AP...

Though Marc reminds me:

The same Democrats who three weeks ago were chanting to themselves "polls reflect the daily news, polls reflect the daily news" are now enthusing about a blitz of state polls showing Barack Obama up everywhere, above 50 percent everywhere and even nationally.

35 days to go.

Obama's World-View

A friend asked the interesting question: if Bush and McCain have a Manichaean world-view -- "those who are with us" vs. "those who are against us," "those who put the country first" vs. "those who are selfish and corrupt" -- what is Obama's world-view? Or, at least, what is his moral framework? Well, here goes. The first thing to be said is that it's not Manichaean: Obama does not divide the entire world up into two simple moral categories, one of which must fight and defeat the other. Second, he separates religious morality from secular morality: he has said that religious values should be part of public debate -- they're an important part of the culture and can't and shouldn't be avoided -- but they should be translated into a universal language that can form a basis for universal communication. You can't say, "I believe this is wrong because the Bible says so," in democratic debate; it just ends the conversation. Third, Obama is pragmatic in his politics because he is not someone who grew up in the culture wars of the 60's and so doesn't have an emotional investment in ideological purity -- he has less of a problem incorporating elements of right and left in his policies than other politicians. Lastly, he is self-reflective: In Rick Warren's Civil Forum back in August, when asked, "Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?" this is what Obama said:

... one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world; that is God’s task. But we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil because, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

[Warren: In the name of good?]

In the name of good.

And I think, you know, one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good.

Obama chose to become a Christian, and that's key to understanding him. As a child, he grew up exposed to several different religious points of view, including Islam and secularism and later came to Christianity after much searching. He understands that a person's identity, and world-view, can evolve and change. As a man who is half-black and half-white, he is at heart a reconciler and a compromiser. He sees the world in fluid moral terms because his whole life has been fluid, constantly shifting from one world to another.

Bill Clinton: There Is No One Better Than Biden

I can't think of anyone else that makes me go from throwing fits and making me want to strangle him to making me stand up and cheer as much as he does (a little dramatic but you get the point):



Sometimes he is just great.

McCain Really Is Like Bush

McCain has his character challenged at a newspaper editorial board meeting. Watch his reaction: his anger and contempt at the suggestion that he is not "100 percent" honest is clear as day:



The more I think about it, the more I see similarities between McCain and Bush. For starters, they both divide the world according to a Manichaean world view: for Bush it's a religiously inspired moral framework and for McCain it's a nationalistic, tradition-bound framework. But even more, McCain has the same lofty conception of himself that Bush has, one that cannot be punctured no matter how low he sinks or what facts he is presented with. If this image is challenged, like Bush again, he gets indignant. Listen to the clip at the end when he talks about his service to his country. McCain's Vietnam experiences have become an excuse that he can lean on to tell himself that at his core he is always a selfless man of honor. Whatever he is doing, whether its approving of a disgustingly inaccurate TV ad, or picking an unqualified person for veep just to win, it's justified because his ultimate motivations are beyond reproach.