The films that I liked but didn't love are an interesting bunch:
I had originally included She Wore a Yellow Ribbon at the bottom of my top ten but while I liked this film I didn't love it, so I chose to go with a top 8 instead. I hate to dis a fine performance by John Wayne, one of his few efforts where he's really stepping outside of his typical bravado pose. Here he is an aging, struggling outpost commander who's being retired and cast off and doesn't really quite know what to do with himself. He fears the uselessness that awaits and he doesn't have the sensibility necessary to embrace it the way his character in The Searchers does, so it all just plays like a downer here. Even the wild attempts at humor seem melancholy. A fine film but I found the romantic relationships confusing and a little intrusive.
All the King's Men is a good film, won the Best Picture that year but its driven by its captivating performances more than its grandiose political commentary. Watch for Broderick Crawford and then go read the novel.
House of Strangers veers back and forth between gripping drama and laughable melodrama--and it works both ways! Edward G. Robinson is a tough-minded Italian immigrant who does what it takes to survive and over the years builds a respected community bank. But when the depression comes, its tough times for everyone and the regulators start working over time to place blame on someone other than themselves. Though Robinson is a beacon of hope and goodness in his hardscrabble neighborhood, the symbol of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and becoming a success, it turns out maybe there was some double-dealing at work behind the scenes. And the double-dealing continues when the patriarch's sons squabble over who will take the blame and who will protect the family name. A very watch-able film, entertaining and Robinson is pretty solid with his broad Brooklyn Italian accent--won Best Actor at Cannes, if I'm not mistaken. (And I can't deny these people reminded me of my family, in good and bad ways)
White Heat is one of James Cagney's classic roles and it is a pretty cool flick. Cagney is a career criminal with an ingenious plan: avoid taking the rap for the big score but pleading guilty to a piddly score he had nothing do with. But the cops get wise to his scheme and send in an undercover to keep an eye on him. It all makes for a good gritty crime drama from back in the day. (Though I'll probably always remember this for Cagney's cameo in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. Martin: 'Say something like uh…no no ma look listen to me.' Cagney: 'No, no, ma. Look, listen to me--' Martin: 'That's good, good.')
Adam's Rib is not one of the films I watched recently, rather I watched this one a few years back when I was a kick of watching films adapted from plays. As I recall I liked it a lot and anything with Judy Holliday in her prime is fine with me. George Cukor directing a Garsin Kanin script will always be worth watching--Tracy and Hepburn are just a bonus!
On the Town, too, is one I watched years ago and I can't say as I remember it so well. Gene Kelly was just becoming a big star at this time and this was one of his first big showcases. From here it was on to American in Paris, Singin' in the Rain and then exile in France (eluding Senator McCarthy), which pretty much crippled his career.
Battleground was a solid war film for its time and a Best Picture nominee (perhaps it split the war movie vote with 12 O'Clock High allowing the politically cynical All the King's Men to take the top prize). It boasts a handful of intricate set piece battle scenes with a fine mix of the camaraderie moments that the great war films handle so well. A fine flick, producer Dore Schary followed this with Red Badge of Courage directed by John Huston.
The Set Up is the story of a washed-up fighter who wants to fight just one more time though his wife begs him to give up the whole dirty business. The fighter is feeling pretty good that night but little does he realize that his manager has assured the local mobster that he will take a dive. Since the manager has no faith in the boxer to win anyway, he sees no need to cut the fighter in on the deal. When the fighter comes out blazing, the mobster is pissed, the manager is in trouble and we see quickly that this is not going to end well. The characters are fine, the gritty realism works well and the story is compelling but unfortunately its all rather slight. There's not a heck of a lot going on and while the parts are satisfying, the totality leaves you hungering for more. Not bad, in fact I wanted to like it more than I did, but this movie is like half a lunch. (Also, I couldn't help but think that The Set-Up was Tarantino's inspiration for the early scenes of the Bruce Willis portion of Pulp Fiction)
Ah, Border Incident. This is the film that inspired this season's Netflix queue and it lands firmly in the middle of the pack. Howard de Silva gives a marvelous supporting performance and John Alton's command of light is in full effect. As a film its fine, perhaps a little risqué, even exploitative for its day. But it's got heart and a lot of talent oozing around the edges.
I've seen a few Elia Kazan films in the last few years (Gentleman's Agreement, Viva Zapata, Sea of Grass, Panic in the Streets), and while I haven't exactly gone loopy over any of the films, its easy to see what an up-and-coming force he was at this time. Still considered the finest theater director of the 20th century (along with Orson Welles, of course), Kazan came to Hollywood with a lot of muscle. It's hard to imagine anyone else making a film like Pinky in 1949. I didn't think it was an overwhelming film but the cultural taboos it sets its sights on are penetrating. Pinky is a light skinned black girl passing for white who has just returned to her backwoods Louisiana ghetto after a failed romance. She is goaded into caring for the ailing local matriarch (Ethel Barrymore) by her beloved granny (Ethel Waters) and finds herself at the center of a brewing controversy when the matriarch leaves Pinky all her money. The relationship between the two is always contentious but the lady respects Pinky and sees her as a capable human being and hopes that she will do good things with the fortune. (The film doesn't wonder aloud whether this is because of her abilities or her light skin but the question begs to be asked) In the end Pinky triumphs over petty cultural norms and claims her prize which she turns into a paradise for children. Rampant racism as shown in contemporary films always seems a little myopic and hackneyed to me, an easy target rather than worthwhile commentary. But to see its portrayal from 60 years ago, a time when Jackie Robinson was just becoming an accepted member of the American landscape, gives it a raw power--even when it looks exactly the same! This one was also imbued with recent events. Not even two weeks after the elevation of Barak Hussein Obama to Pennsylvania Avenue, it's hard to ignore the significance when Pinky asks her WASP boyfriend: 'Don't you know what kind of people live in that house?'
Sands of Iwo Jima was fine. It all seemed like a genre war movie, by the book, nothing spectacular but it did what it set out to do so its hard to give it a thumbs down. I liked John Wayne's excursion to the single mother's lonely home (and the by-gone morality of leaving without giving her the deep-dicking she truly desired). After Eastwood's recent Iwo Jima double feature this felt like an old-timey curio and that's all it was, wasn't it? Still, it was okay. Sunday afternoon with a hangover kind of movie.
Whiskey Galore! is one of those charming comedies that the British cranked out with regularity in the post-war years. I was never as huge a fan of them as most cinephiles but I don't dislike them and I can't deny their impact. This one is about a tiny village suffering through a wartime booze ration when a tanker filled with whiskey runs aground on their beach. The machinations the townspeople undertake to make the most of this gift from heaven is all pretty funny. But strangely none of the characters really stand out and that's a little bit disappointing. It all becomes a farce rather than something sweeter. That said, it is a harmless piece with plenty of laughs.
I was not an English major so I never read Madame Bovary. Also, somehow I'd never even seen an adaptation though there have been dozens, so my knowledge of the story wasn't as strong as I thought it would be. This version undertakes a curious bookend element: it begins and ends with the trial of Gustav Flaubert, the novel's author, trying to cast a light on the humanity of Madame Bovary (and keep himself out of prison). I don't think I needed that element but perhaps in 1949 the censors would've vetoed such a brazen display of romantic desire from a housewife. I wasn't so offended by her sexual needs as her incorrigible social-climbing which I found unnecessary and a little depressing, to be honest. She is a remote farm girl lucky to be loved by a successful, if only marginally talented, doctor. But when she discovers a whole new social scene as his wife, she is soon bored by her limited oafish husband. She craves more. But its not that she craves a new man (she quickly takes a lover at any rate), it is that she wants a whole new life. Now I understand that in the 1850s women weren't as free to have their own professional lives but when will we get the story of the woman who tries that route instead of simply trying to fuck ever-wealthier men? Madame Bovary is dissed by one lover and hounded by another, all the while devaluing the one man who believed in her and gave her a life she otherwise could never have had. I'm not suggesting she has to worship the husband or even stay married to him, but why can't she see him as a valuable piece of her life instead of an impediment? Oh well. This film was fine but the bookend elements didn't do anything for me and none of the performances were as noteworthy as this type of film probably requires. A fine adaptation but nothing superlative.
The Fountainhead is a tough one. I grew up on a steady diet of Ayn Rand and her precepts are well-known to me and in some sense still revered by me. While I want to like this adaptation of her magnum opus--she did write the screenplay herself--it really comes off as a parody of Rand more than an embrace. Everything is clipped and melodramatic so the rousing character of John Galt and his iron will seems cartoonish rather than admirable. There are still many fine moments (and it is a lot shorter than the book!) and Patricia Neal is particularly good so I still gotta give it a reluctant thumbs up.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Films of 1949 (part two)
Of the 17 films I watched only 3 did I really dislike.
Man on the Eiffel Tower is an attempt (directed by Burgess Meredith) at a Hitchock-ian thriller that just never develops the zest needed. Though it does pre-date Strangers on a Train (never one of my favorite Hitchcock films anyway), the story of a stranger willing to kill another man's nemesis (in this case his wealthy aunt) never gets off the ground. Its twisty-turny police procedural elements just get confusing and the humor never comes off the page. Also, it is one of the ugliest looking films I've seen in ages! It looks like it was shot through a dirty fishbowl. (This is where Michael Bay draws his aesthetic inspiration, I presume)
I Shot Jesse James, the directorial debut of the great Samuel Fuller, does earn points for being an off-kilter western but visually and structurally it never gets ambitious enough to be interesting. Westerns about gunslingers would've been standard in those days and this one goes for a more soulful element of the trepidation of killing the killer. But it is such a lackluster production with little energy that there's not much to get excited about. It hints at what Fuller the mad genius would become but it isn't in and of itself terribly noteworthy (no matter what Criterion Collection wants you to believe!).
12 O'clock High was a popular film in its day, won a Best Picture nomination, starred Gregory Peck in his prime and has survived to the present day as a bonafide classic. But for my money this movie sucks. It is the true story of an under-performing bomber unit during WWII that gets the personal attention of their commanding general, who shows up to inspire the unit. Peck's character, though, is really just capricious and strange, there's little inspiration to him at all. And the final 10 minutes are just maddening! The general gets mental at the end and sits back at headquarters while the unit performs their most dangerous mission. Didn't see how that was supposed to be inspirational at all! And then it ends on that note. Mystifying. The movie does boast a fine opening sequence: a B-52 without landing gear comes in for a dangerous touchdown and there's no special effects, folks, its all fo' r-izzle. The first few minutes are cool but it quickly goes down hill from there. Unless you're just on a Gregory Peck mission (which for some reason I have been recently), I think you can safely skip this one.
Man on the Eiffel Tower is an attempt (directed by Burgess Meredith) at a Hitchock-ian thriller that just never develops the zest needed. Though it does pre-date Strangers on a Train (never one of my favorite Hitchcock films anyway), the story of a stranger willing to kill another man's nemesis (in this case his wealthy aunt) never gets off the ground. Its twisty-turny police procedural elements just get confusing and the humor never comes off the page. Also, it is one of the ugliest looking films I've seen in ages! It looks like it was shot through a dirty fishbowl. (This is where Michael Bay draws his aesthetic inspiration, I presume)
I Shot Jesse James, the directorial debut of the great Samuel Fuller, does earn points for being an off-kilter western but visually and structurally it never gets ambitious enough to be interesting. Westerns about gunslingers would've been standard in those days and this one goes for a more soulful element of the trepidation of killing the killer. But it is such a lackluster production with little energy that there's not much to get excited about. It hints at what Fuller the mad genius would become but it isn't in and of itself terribly noteworthy (no matter what Criterion Collection wants you to believe!).
12 O'clock High was a popular film in its day, won a Best Picture nomination, starred Gregory Peck in his prime and has survived to the present day as a bonafide classic. But for my money this movie sucks. It is the true story of an under-performing bomber unit during WWII that gets the personal attention of their commanding general, who shows up to inspire the unit. Peck's character, though, is really just capricious and strange, there's little inspiration to him at all. And the final 10 minutes are just maddening! The general gets mental at the end and sits back at headquarters while the unit performs their most dangerous mission. Didn't see how that was supposed to be inspirational at all! And then it ends on that note. Mystifying. The movie does boast a fine opening sequence: a B-52 without landing gear comes in for a dangerous touchdown and there's no special effects, folks, its all fo' r-izzle. The first few minutes are cool but it quickly goes down hill from there. Unless you're just on a Gregory Peck mission (which for some reason I have been recently), I think you can safely skip this one.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Films of 1949 (part one)
During this past summer I got on a kick of throwing random old movies (mostly American films from the 1940s and 1950s) into my Netflix pile. I stumbled upon an Anthony Mann film called Border Incident (shot by the incomparable John Alton), and I dug it. I was impressed by the hard edge of the story of the underbelly of the people-smuggling trade along the California-Mexico border. The film didn't shy away from ruthless characters, violence or social commentary. It had that sharp black and white I love (even in the exterior shots) and Alton's telltale contrasting light and dark visual composition. A fine film, nothing superlative but a top notch B movie, a melodrama with elements of crime thriller. But I was knocked out by Howard de Silva as the bad guy. His command was superb, lightening the character's ruthlessness with an easy-going charm and good humor, and I wandered if that was perhaps the finest performance of 1949. So I've since been on a kick of watching films from 1949 to measure it all up.
Well, right off the bat, it was not the single finest performance. That hosanna belongs solely to Broderick Crawford in All the King's Men. I've long thought that Crawford's performance is probably the finest ever in the history of film! What he does is singularly unique to his skills (he never gave another performance nearly as fine), it fits the part of the bumpkin turned political powerhouse perfectly and he is the beating heart of this film--he alone is what makes the film worth watching. To test this thesis, compare and contrast Crawford to the great Sean Penn's lackluster turn in the lame remake from a few years back. I didn't give the remake much of a chance because frankly the original was driven by fine performances and was otherwise a fairly overrated film, so I had no high hopes for another attempt at it. I've heard nothing but good things about the original novel and I can imagine it being a novel too good for a film adaptation.
It is worth noting that All the King's Men won Best Picture, Best Actor (Crawford) and Best Supporting Actress (Mercedes McCambridge) but it did not win Best Director or Best Screenplay (both of which went to Joseph L. Manckiewicz for A Letter to Three Wives). Why is this worth noting? Because Best Picture is often the film that was the most popular or made more money than anyone would've thought possible or the film that captured the temporal zeitgeist, and is usually not the best picture or the one that will age well. When a film is really a badass accomplishment then it takes the other prizes as well. In this case, the power of the performances drove it to a popularity that the film itself did not merit. A Letter to Three Wives was a much better film, for example, which is why it took the 'artistry' prizes even if it didn't take the top award. (Don't fret for Manckiewicz: he came back the next year and won Director and Screenplay again and took Best Picture all for All About Eve, one of those rare Best Picture winners that really was the best picture!) And actually how The Heiress didn't win Best Picture that year, anyway, I don't understand.
More to come…
Well, right off the bat, it was not the single finest performance. That hosanna belongs solely to Broderick Crawford in All the King's Men. I've long thought that Crawford's performance is probably the finest ever in the history of film! What he does is singularly unique to his skills (he never gave another performance nearly as fine), it fits the part of the bumpkin turned political powerhouse perfectly and he is the beating heart of this film--he alone is what makes the film worth watching. To test this thesis, compare and contrast Crawford to the great Sean Penn's lackluster turn in the lame remake from a few years back. I didn't give the remake much of a chance because frankly the original was driven by fine performances and was otherwise a fairly overrated film, so I had no high hopes for another attempt at it. I've heard nothing but good things about the original novel and I can imagine it being a novel too good for a film adaptation.
It is worth noting that All the King's Men won Best Picture, Best Actor (Crawford) and Best Supporting Actress (Mercedes McCambridge) but it did not win Best Director or Best Screenplay (both of which went to Joseph L. Manckiewicz for A Letter to Three Wives). Why is this worth noting? Because Best Picture is often the film that was the most popular or made more money than anyone would've thought possible or the film that captured the temporal zeitgeist, and is usually not the best picture or the one that will age well. When a film is really a badass accomplishment then it takes the other prizes as well. In this case, the power of the performances drove it to a popularity that the film itself did not merit. A Letter to Three Wives was a much better film, for example, which is why it took the 'artistry' prizes even if it didn't take the top award. (Don't fret for Manckiewicz: he came back the next year and won Director and Screenplay again and took Best Picture all for All About Eve, one of those rare Best Picture winners that really was the best picture!) And actually how The Heiress didn't win Best Picture that year, anyway, I don't understand.
More to come…
Monday, November 10, 2008
Russell 2000 (Oct 31-Nov 7)
......... 537.52 (10.31.8) ...................... 505.79 (11.7.8)......
............................-31.83 for the week.......................
............................-31.83 for the week.......................
This week's economic events
Nov 3-7
Construction Spending Sep (-0.3%)
ISM Index Oct (38.9)
Auto Sales Oct (3.8M)
Truck Sales Oct (4.1M)
Factory Orders Sep (-2.5%)
ADP Employment Oct (-157K)
ISM Services Oct (44.4)
Initial Claims 11/01 (481K)
Productivity-Prel Q3 (1.1%)
Average Workweek Oct (33.6)
Hourly Earnings Oct (0.2%)
Nonfarm Payrolls Oct (-240K)
Unemployment Rate Oct (6.5%)
Wholesale Inventories Sep (-0.1%)
Pending Home Sales Sep (-4.6%)
Consumer Credit Sep ($6.9B)
Construction Spending Sep (-0.3%)
ISM Index Oct (38.9)
Auto Sales Oct (3.8M)
Truck Sales Oct (4.1M)
Factory Orders Sep (-2.5%)
ADP Employment Oct (-157K)
ISM Services Oct (44.4)
Initial Claims 11/01 (481K)
Productivity-Prel Q3 (1.1%)
Average Workweek Oct (33.6)
Hourly Earnings Oct (0.2%)
Nonfarm Payrolls Oct (-240K)
Unemployment Rate Oct (6.5%)
Wholesale Inventories Sep (-0.1%)
Pending Home Sales Sep (-4.6%)
Consumer Credit Sep ($6.9B)
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Thoughts on the first Thursday in November
Obama won. Should we all be proud as Americans? Dude, every time there is a smooth and peaceful transition of power it should make you proud to be an American. That's what makes America great!
'Change' doesn't really get me all jazzed up as a cultural buzzword. Its worth noting that at least half of the elections in American history were run on 'change', there's nothing older than change in American politics. Liberals in general want to use the government as a tool for social change but I think that's just a poor model: our founding fathers left us with a system intentionally designed to move slowly and to be above anyone's control. Change comes from society itself, not government, so I'm not sure exactly what it is Prez-Elect plans to do or even what his acolytes want him to do. To some the mere election of a black man is a bold step forward, but to me its just a historical inevitability that I happened to witness, somehow I'm not so blown away. I've seen 2 space shuttles go down in flames, the Berlin Wall get raized and the Red Sox win the World Series, I've had a busy life on that level. A 'black president' is just so much symbolism that doesn't illuminate anything to me. Barak Obama is a real person, not a symbol, and he may well make a fine president. I hope he does.
I don't think America's racial problems will be in any way changed by an Obama administration and as I blogged previously, any worthwhile social change will come from Mrs. Obama and the little girls, not the political paterfamilias. And to that end I'll go ahead and predict that Michelle Obama will be staggeringly popular--more even than Laura Bush, who was pretty staggeringly popular herself--and that she'd do well to simply ignore the right wing media. The left-y media will fawn over her for years to come and the Fox News crowd ain't ever gonna be swayed so I see little reason to even acknowledge them. I don't see her like Hillary, with her own political ambitions, rather I see her more like Eleanor Roosevelt: an impassioned, intelligent woman who will use her celebrity to speak out on causes for rest of her life. (Weird shift here) I never thought JFK Jr would run for office, I think he would've been content to run his magazine and be a political bigwig on the media side rather than actually getting in the meat grinder of politics. Similarly Michelle Obama will be a beloved first lady for the rest of her life now and that's probably way more useful for social change that being a senator from Illinois or trying to bigfoot the Democratic party.
Barak, on the other hand, will be fighting the left wing media throughout his administration. They will hold his feet to the fire in a way that he won't particularly much appreciate since he's convinced he got to this office solely on his own merits and without sucking up to his press corps. The right wing media will of course never warm to Obama and they'll gladly give succor to Congressional Dems who find themselves at loggerheads with the executive, but realistically I don't think they'll be that influential on him. Again, the Fox News crowd ain't ever gonna be swayed, so Obama needn't spend too much time trying to win them over (in an abstract sense, that is, here and there courting the right will present itself as politically effective).
I don't care about race. I never did. Skin tones in human beings range from very light to very dark and none of them are adequate representations of what any given individual may be like. I've met plenty of black people that I liked and plenty I didn't; I've known way more white people that I didn't like than all the other races combined I would suppose. I've never felt compelled to like or dislike anybody based on race (or gender, nationality, religion, etc.). None of those things make you good or bad, the conditions you react to and the choices you make are what you are and black people and white people are just as likely to make good choices as bad ones.
That said, I did have one racial moment during this campaign. One. While watching Obama give his coronation speech at the Dem convention, I made a kooky observation: his wife is black, he married a black woman. Barak Obama had a white mother, was largely raised by his white family, spent most of his time in white neighborhoods, white schools, surrounded by white chums and colleagues. The bulk of his self-identity, other than the face staring back at him in the mirror, would've been white. But he fell in love, courted and married a black woman. At that particularly moment that struck me as an odd choice, perhaps a brave choice or a cynical one, but an unpredictable one nevertheless. I don't blame the guy, I think she's pretty hot and I'm sure she's smart, kind and lovable in the way we all can be. The observation isn't 'racial' so much as 'sociological', it seems like he would've married a white woman. That's it, for all the talk or subtext about race, it never really much occurred to me that Barak Obama was anything more than a politician running for president.
Now he's president. Hey, I'm just glad the election's over! Its not an easy world he finds himself in. The economy, despite what politicians continually try to make us believe, isn't really controlled by the government. Oh, it has its sway here and there but for the most part its you and me getting up and going to work every day that shapes the economy into what it is. Will Obama being in the Oval Office make us all happier, more productive citizens? It might, hard to quantify but its not without its influence. Will his black skin save us from disaster? No. Will his black skin bring ruin to the Republic? No. His 'blackness' is now officially over, he's got to govern the same way the 43 white dudes before him did. (And he better keep his eye on Vladimir Putin...)
As for 'change', well I just finished reading The Last Hurrah by Edwin O'Connor, a marvelous political novel about an old timey mayor making one last bid for re-election. (spoiler alert) In the end he's bested by unknown upstart whose single finest moment was a TV appearance with his wife and kids and a dog they rented for the occasion (because their real dog was considered much too un-lovable). As the lighter side of the news reports on the Obama family shopping around for a new lovable pooch to join them in the White House, I can't help thinking that all this 'change' reminds me of a novel written 50 years ago.
'Change' doesn't really get me all jazzed up as a cultural buzzword. Its worth noting that at least half of the elections in American history were run on 'change', there's nothing older than change in American politics. Liberals in general want to use the government as a tool for social change but I think that's just a poor model: our founding fathers left us with a system intentionally designed to move slowly and to be above anyone's control. Change comes from society itself, not government, so I'm not sure exactly what it is Prez-Elect plans to do or even what his acolytes want him to do. To some the mere election of a black man is a bold step forward, but to me its just a historical inevitability that I happened to witness, somehow I'm not so blown away. I've seen 2 space shuttles go down in flames, the Berlin Wall get raized and the Red Sox win the World Series, I've had a busy life on that level. A 'black president' is just so much symbolism that doesn't illuminate anything to me. Barak Obama is a real person, not a symbol, and he may well make a fine president. I hope he does.
I don't think America's racial problems will be in any way changed by an Obama administration and as I blogged previously, any worthwhile social change will come from Mrs. Obama and the little girls, not the political paterfamilias. And to that end I'll go ahead and predict that Michelle Obama will be staggeringly popular--more even than Laura Bush, who was pretty staggeringly popular herself--and that she'd do well to simply ignore the right wing media. The left-y media will fawn over her for years to come and the Fox News crowd ain't ever gonna be swayed so I see little reason to even acknowledge them. I don't see her like Hillary, with her own political ambitions, rather I see her more like Eleanor Roosevelt: an impassioned, intelligent woman who will use her celebrity to speak out on causes for rest of her life. (Weird shift here) I never thought JFK Jr would run for office, I think he would've been content to run his magazine and be a political bigwig on the media side rather than actually getting in the meat grinder of politics. Similarly Michelle Obama will be a beloved first lady for the rest of her life now and that's probably way more useful for social change that being a senator from Illinois or trying to bigfoot the Democratic party.
Barak, on the other hand, will be fighting the left wing media throughout his administration. They will hold his feet to the fire in a way that he won't particularly much appreciate since he's convinced he got to this office solely on his own merits and without sucking up to his press corps. The right wing media will of course never warm to Obama and they'll gladly give succor to Congressional Dems who find themselves at loggerheads with the executive, but realistically I don't think they'll be that influential on him. Again, the Fox News crowd ain't ever gonna be swayed, so Obama needn't spend too much time trying to win them over (in an abstract sense, that is, here and there courting the right will present itself as politically effective).
I don't care about race. I never did. Skin tones in human beings range from very light to very dark and none of them are adequate representations of what any given individual may be like. I've met plenty of black people that I liked and plenty I didn't; I've known way more white people that I didn't like than all the other races combined I would suppose. I've never felt compelled to like or dislike anybody based on race (or gender, nationality, religion, etc.). None of those things make you good or bad, the conditions you react to and the choices you make are what you are and black people and white people are just as likely to make good choices as bad ones.
That said, I did have one racial moment during this campaign. One. While watching Obama give his coronation speech at the Dem convention, I made a kooky observation: his wife is black, he married a black woman. Barak Obama had a white mother, was largely raised by his white family, spent most of his time in white neighborhoods, white schools, surrounded by white chums and colleagues. The bulk of his self-identity, other than the face staring back at him in the mirror, would've been white. But he fell in love, courted and married a black woman. At that particularly moment that struck me as an odd choice, perhaps a brave choice or a cynical one, but an unpredictable one nevertheless. I don't blame the guy, I think she's pretty hot and I'm sure she's smart, kind and lovable in the way we all can be. The observation isn't 'racial' so much as 'sociological', it seems like he would've married a white woman. That's it, for all the talk or subtext about race, it never really much occurred to me that Barak Obama was anything more than a politician running for president.
Now he's president. Hey, I'm just glad the election's over! Its not an easy world he finds himself in. The economy, despite what politicians continually try to make us believe, isn't really controlled by the government. Oh, it has its sway here and there but for the most part its you and me getting up and going to work every day that shapes the economy into what it is. Will Obama being in the Oval Office make us all happier, more productive citizens? It might, hard to quantify but its not without its influence. Will his black skin save us from disaster? No. Will his black skin bring ruin to the Republic? No. His 'blackness' is now officially over, he's got to govern the same way the 43 white dudes before him did. (And he better keep his eye on Vladimir Putin...)
As for 'change', well I just finished reading The Last Hurrah by Edwin O'Connor, a marvelous political novel about an old timey mayor making one last bid for re-election. (spoiler alert) In the end he's bested by unknown upstart whose single finest moment was a TV appearance with his wife and kids and a dog they rented for the occasion (because their real dog was considered much too un-lovable). As the lighter side of the news reports on the Obama family shopping around for a new lovable pooch to join them in the White House, I can't help thinking that all this 'change' reminds me of a novel written 50 years ago.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thoughts on the first Tuesday in November
I know the blogosphere breathlessly awaits the endorsement of Eat Your Vegetables, so here it is. But first:
I won't be voting tomorrow. Truth be told, I think Democracy is overrated. Why? Because it leads to elections. Oh, to be sure, democracy is the least dangerous thing out there but it has its weaknesses. A propensity toward deficit spending is a trait fairly unique to democracies, for example. Think about that on Tuesday as your voting for a guy guaranteed to be out of a job in 8 years.
I should say I grew up in a strict Libertarian household and two things have remained ingrained: free markets are what it is all about and I've never been a partisan. In consideration of the economy the government is merely another agent trying to carve out for itself what it can from the collective production, just like the New York Knicks, Outback Steakhouse, General Dynamics and you and me and everyone when we know. It needn't be worshipped or feared. We should let the government do what it needs to do and get on with our lives, much as we do with the New York Knicks or Outback Steakhouse. The way to keep it manageable is to keep it minimal.
But this embarrassing partisan silliness we get barraged with every 4 years--this is the drawback of our form of government! Our national 'debate' gets hijacked by two extraordinarily wealthy corporations (Democrats, Republicans) who have colluded together to maximize duopolistic control of the processes of government. They overwhelm the collective consciousness with slickly packaged empty rhetoric larded with logical fallacies and call them 'issues'. Then they break us off into rigidly divided ethnic and cultural sub-groups and tell us how to vote. Frankly, I think it all sorta sucks.
Both of the parties are fundamentally flawed: the Republicans want unlimited economic growth but they don't want anything to ever change; the Democrats want unlimited personal expression but somehow they don't see that as a function of living in a thriving economy. Republicans think money just gets made and we gradually buy more expensive brands until we die. Money gets made because people are doing new things, they want new products, new experiences, they want improvement and progress. Money don't get made where things don't change! Democrats see the economy has something invented by and presided over by the government and that merely sitting in the seats will give you the power to spend on all the shit society 'needs'. But that just isn't how it works! The government prints the money but they don't create the value for the money, do you see? We do that! It is our products and services that are building the economy, not government fiat. When the government takes our money, it burns most of it in overhead--just like any other business or entity that exists in the physical world. The difference is the government doesn't go out of business so it has no incentive to ever do anything the right way. So Democrats enact policies that purport to help people but actually just raise prices. They love sticking it to the rich so much that they never notice the poor are paying more too.
So the system is creaky, the parties piss me off and in the end, I don't like either of these guys. I wasn't enthralled by either of them at first: McCain's too old, Obama's too young. But I didn't dislike either of them too strongly either. They both seem fine to me, this wasn't one of the more agonizing elections of my lifetime, I don't fear for the Republic whoever wins. But I will say as the campaign wore on, I liked McCain less. He strikes me not as a liar but as a man that'll ride what advantage is tossed to him. He'll say what he needs to say to be elected--not to the people, but to the hand-greasers behind the scenes. I don’t distrust McCain, I just don't like him that much. I don't think I like Obama any more than I did when I first saw him but he hasn't really had to do much this year. His fight with Hillary was faux, man, he had her whooped early. And McCain, too, was beaten soundly during the debate season, so Obama had little to do but hone his speech-making.
Obama is a smart guy, sure, I can dig that. But I had plenty of professors I wouldn't vote for, plenty of people I respected that wouldn't necessarily have made wise decision makers or been as cool in real life as they look when well-prepared. Smart people don't always make the best leaders. That's not an indictment of Obama, just of the notion that his smartness makes him worthy. I don't suppose it does, this country has had plenty of jackass idiot leaders. He's a fine public speaker and I can appreciate that. To be composed on stage requires composing back stage and he is a fine writer, his imagery and narrative style are perfectly pitched and he reads his audiences well. My one piddling complaint: when he's trying to ride the applause and talk through it, he has a tendency to get just a bit too close to the mic and the sound gets distorted. This leads to a melancholy realization though: I suspect that as Prez, he won't be making those soul-stirring speeches quite as often or effectively. That style is fine for abstractions like 'change' but not so good for dancing through the tough press conferences--or do you suppose no one will die in hurricanes any more with Prez Obama around to protect us? He's notoriously unpopular with his own press crew, his toughest opponent will be the media once he's in office. His race will neither save him or hurt him. It'll be the grandest non-issue in our nation's history.
So who would I vote for if I voted? I guess I'd vote for Obama. McCain just doesn't have anything to offer at this point. My thinking for most of the summer was that McCain would win and Obama would come back at defeat in 2012. If Obama truly is a 'change' than he'd still be a change in 4 years. I think I favored giving him some more seasoning before sending him to the White House. But 4 more years in the Senate would probably doom him politically: look what's it done to Joe Biden--far more qualified than any of these people and they've got him hidden away lest he embarrass himself! And what's 'seasoning'? McCain has been seasoning away all these years and look where its gotten him: a ride on the Bob Dole Express!
It’s a new era. For all the 'change' we've been promised I've got a feeling its gonna be a lot of the same. And right wing radio is gonna be louder than ever, you know? Is that a good thing?
I won't be voting tomorrow. Truth be told, I think Democracy is overrated. Why? Because it leads to elections. Oh, to be sure, democracy is the least dangerous thing out there but it has its weaknesses. A propensity toward deficit spending is a trait fairly unique to democracies, for example. Think about that on Tuesday as your voting for a guy guaranteed to be out of a job in 8 years.
I should say I grew up in a strict Libertarian household and two things have remained ingrained: free markets are what it is all about and I've never been a partisan. In consideration of the economy the government is merely another agent trying to carve out for itself what it can from the collective production, just like the New York Knicks, Outback Steakhouse, General Dynamics and you and me and everyone when we know. It needn't be worshipped or feared. We should let the government do what it needs to do and get on with our lives, much as we do with the New York Knicks or Outback Steakhouse. The way to keep it manageable is to keep it minimal.
But this embarrassing partisan silliness we get barraged with every 4 years--this is the drawback of our form of government! Our national 'debate' gets hijacked by two extraordinarily wealthy corporations (Democrats, Republicans) who have colluded together to maximize duopolistic control of the processes of government. They overwhelm the collective consciousness with slickly packaged empty rhetoric larded with logical fallacies and call them 'issues'. Then they break us off into rigidly divided ethnic and cultural sub-groups and tell us how to vote. Frankly, I think it all sorta sucks.
Both of the parties are fundamentally flawed: the Republicans want unlimited economic growth but they don't want anything to ever change; the Democrats want unlimited personal expression but somehow they don't see that as a function of living in a thriving economy. Republicans think money just gets made and we gradually buy more expensive brands until we die. Money gets made because people are doing new things, they want new products, new experiences, they want improvement and progress. Money don't get made where things don't change! Democrats see the economy has something invented by and presided over by the government and that merely sitting in the seats will give you the power to spend on all the shit society 'needs'. But that just isn't how it works! The government prints the money but they don't create the value for the money, do you see? We do that! It is our products and services that are building the economy, not government fiat. When the government takes our money, it burns most of it in overhead--just like any other business or entity that exists in the physical world. The difference is the government doesn't go out of business so it has no incentive to ever do anything the right way. So Democrats enact policies that purport to help people but actually just raise prices. They love sticking it to the rich so much that they never notice the poor are paying more too.
So the system is creaky, the parties piss me off and in the end, I don't like either of these guys. I wasn't enthralled by either of them at first: McCain's too old, Obama's too young. But I didn't dislike either of them too strongly either. They both seem fine to me, this wasn't one of the more agonizing elections of my lifetime, I don't fear for the Republic whoever wins. But I will say as the campaign wore on, I liked McCain less. He strikes me not as a liar but as a man that'll ride what advantage is tossed to him. He'll say what he needs to say to be elected--not to the people, but to the hand-greasers behind the scenes. I don’t distrust McCain, I just don't like him that much. I don't think I like Obama any more than I did when I first saw him but he hasn't really had to do much this year. His fight with Hillary was faux, man, he had her whooped early. And McCain, too, was beaten soundly during the debate season, so Obama had little to do but hone his speech-making.
Obama is a smart guy, sure, I can dig that. But I had plenty of professors I wouldn't vote for, plenty of people I respected that wouldn't necessarily have made wise decision makers or been as cool in real life as they look when well-prepared. Smart people don't always make the best leaders. That's not an indictment of Obama, just of the notion that his smartness makes him worthy. I don't suppose it does, this country has had plenty of jackass idiot leaders. He's a fine public speaker and I can appreciate that. To be composed on stage requires composing back stage and he is a fine writer, his imagery and narrative style are perfectly pitched and he reads his audiences well. My one piddling complaint: when he's trying to ride the applause and talk through it, he has a tendency to get just a bit too close to the mic and the sound gets distorted. This leads to a melancholy realization though: I suspect that as Prez, he won't be making those soul-stirring speeches quite as often or effectively. That style is fine for abstractions like 'change' but not so good for dancing through the tough press conferences--or do you suppose no one will die in hurricanes any more with Prez Obama around to protect us? He's notoriously unpopular with his own press crew, his toughest opponent will be the media once he's in office. His race will neither save him or hurt him. It'll be the grandest non-issue in our nation's history.
So who would I vote for if I voted? I guess I'd vote for Obama. McCain just doesn't have anything to offer at this point. My thinking for most of the summer was that McCain would win and Obama would come back at defeat in 2012. If Obama truly is a 'change' than he'd still be a change in 4 years. I think I favored giving him some more seasoning before sending him to the White House. But 4 more years in the Senate would probably doom him politically: look what's it done to Joe Biden--far more qualified than any of these people and they've got him hidden away lest he embarrass himself! And what's 'seasoning'? McCain has been seasoning away all these years and look where its gotten him: a ride on the Bob Dole Express!
It’s a new era. For all the 'change' we've been promised I've got a feeling its gonna be a lot of the same. And right wing radio is gonna be louder than ever, you know? Is that a good thing?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Russell 2000 (Oct 24-31)
......... 471.12 (10.24.8) ...................... 537.52 (10.31.8)......
............................+66.40 for the week.......................
This week's economic events
Oct 27-31
New Home Sales Sep (464K)
Consumer Confidence Oct (38.0)
Durable Orders Sep (0.8%)
Crude Inventories 10/25 (493K)
FOMC Policy Statement
Chain Deflator-Adv. Q3 (4.2%)
GDP-Adv. Q3 (-0.3%)
Initial Claims 10/25 (479K)
Employment Cost Index Q3 (0.7%)
Personal Income Sep (0.2%)
Personal Spending Sep (-0.3%)
Chicago PMI Oct (37.8)
Mich Sentiment-Rev. Oct (57.6)
New Home Sales Sep (464K)
Consumer Confidence Oct (38.0)
Durable Orders Sep (0.8%)
Crude Inventories 10/25 (493K)
FOMC Policy Statement
Chain Deflator-Adv. Q3 (4.2%)
GDP-Adv. Q3 (-0.3%)
Initial Claims 10/25 (479K)
Employment Cost Index Q3 (0.7%)
Personal Income Sep (0.2%)
Personal Spending Sep (-0.3%)
Chicago PMI Oct (37.8)
Mich Sentiment-Rev. Oct (57.6)
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Tuesday's almost here
Looking back over some old journals, I came across this election-era chestnut from way back in 2004. You're in control, you are the decider, its good stuff. Bush's 'Money Walk' is my favorite.
Debate 2004
Debate 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)