Category Archives: Politics

Movie Review: Official Secrets

Playing in a limited run throughout the United States Gavin Hood’s drama Official Secrets  starring Kiera Knightly and Ralph Fiennes the story is inspired by actual events surrounding the United Kingdom’s skullduggery in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Knightly plays Katherine Gunn a language translator working for the GCHQ, Government Communication Head Quarters the heart of British signals intelligence where Gunn translates foreign language communications by suspected enemies of the United Kingdom. As the United States attempts to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, Gunn’s department is directed to intercept personal communications of ambassadors on the Security Council in order to provide leverage for the United States to ‘convince’ the Ambassadors to support the invasion. In other words hoping to find blackmail material to rig the vote. Faced with such maleficence leaks the memo running afoul of the UK’s ‘Official Secrets Act’ and when the press, through the actions of journalist Martin Bright played by Matt Smith, publishes the memo an intensive investigation for the source of the breach is launched threatening Gunn with decades in prison.

Official Secrets  is Hood’s second foray into politically charged controversial cinema, following up on his masterful film Eye in the Sky  that used a fictional operation to crack open the complex morality surrounding drone warfare. Hood’s approach in Eye was even handed, presenting the complexities of combat where stark right and wrong often evaporates in the fog of war.  In Official Secrets  there are few shades of grey but that could be my own viewpoint coloring my opinion as I was staunchly against the invasion and firmly support that idea of whistleblowers that expose governmental misdeeds. What I can say is that the film is excellent in every regard, the writing, the directing, the acting, all create a reality that is tense, taunt, and never overblown. There is a temptation in drama inspired by actual events to heighten the action, meaning figures in the dark, high-speed chases down airport runways, to think that action is required for stakes and that is a misplaced concern. Official Secrets  opens with Gunn having to enter her plea and when the film return to that moment there is no doubt about the enormous stakes that rest on her answer.

I can fully recommend this movie to anyone who’s entranced by superior dramatic fiction.

Share

A Democratic Decision

It seems clear that the field of Democratic candidates for President can be divided into the leading three, Biden, Warren, and Sanders, and then the rest of the field hoping for a break out that would allow them to replace on of these leading personalities.

What I think is interesting is that the leading three represent very different points of view on the future of the Democratic Party and America’s political system.

Biden’s holds the conceptual space that they system is not broken and that with the right leadership we can return to a mode of operation that operated in the past. That with good will and proper leadership the hyper- partisan combat can be cooled and normalcy can be restored.

Sanders is operating from the presumption that the system is irreparably broken and that not only is there no ability to return to a previous normal, that the previous normal itself was bad. His stand seems to be that the old ways and the old systems must be brushed away and replaced with a new way of doing things. Burn it down and build a new political reality is the strategic aim of the Sanders camp and it is fitting considering that the candidate is not even a member of the Democratic Party.

Warren stands between these two poles. Her position rejects the ‘return to normalcy’ of the Biden campaign and rejects the revolutionary nature of the Sanders. It is fitting that Warren grew up on the Republican side of the political spectrum before finding herself and her voice with the Democratic Party. It is reminiscent of Reagan’s voyage from Democrat to Republican decades earlier. She vocally takes the stand that she is a capitalist and wants to save capitalism while advocating for deeper systemic changes than Biden seems willing to tolerate.

It is likely that the nominee will come from one of these three people and it will be fascinating to see what direct the Democratic Party moves.

Share

Where Are the Conservative Solutions?

With my political reading and podcasts I try to read and listen to writers, publications, and thinker from both the liberal and the conservative perspectives. I’ll admit that I have yet to find a conservative podcast that seems to be about ideas and not about endless ad hominem  attacks on the viewpoints that they find disagreeable, but the search continues.

One thing I have noticed as I visit various conservative publications is what seems to be a scarcity of proposed solutions to challenges facing us today.  There is a lot of ink and bandwidth dedicated to attack solution proposed from liberals, endless streams of outrage over proposed or actual changes to our social order, and an infinite supply of arguments defending the current administration that are simply at odds with everything these publication have professed to stand for in previous years. It boils do to a lot of ‘We can’t do that!’ while offering nothing as a counter proposal.

This is not how has always been.

I think that what is happened and has been happening for about a decade or so is that we have reached the end of the life cycle for the current wave of conservative thought. I think that political thought comes in the large massive periods and when a version becomes dominant it will remain essentially unchanged for many years.

From the Great Depression through the first Bush administration the liberal political thought was very much just variations on FDR and his legacy. Until Bill Clinton’s campaign the music played at National Democratic conventions was Happy Times are Here Again   a Depression era song. Clinton, sensing that the Conservative era ushered in my Reagan had not yet passed, charted a ‘third way’ for his politics, seeking to appease conservatives as he tried to implement his programs. It was often said during his two terms that it was better to be his enemy than his ally because he would sell out his ally to gain from his enemy. Obama in my opinion represents the final breaking from the FDR legacy and is the threshold as we cross into a yet undefined period of liberal thought. It is why the three leading Democratic candidates for President lead such different coalitions.

On the conservative side the victories of Ronald Reagan broke forth a new dawn, pushing aside the conservative thought of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and that ilk for a new way of thinking. However that victory happened in 1980, 39 years ago, and the last of Reagan ideology has been falling away. We are at the end of Reagan’s period of dominance and conservatism, particularly now that the Cold War is over, must find a new philosophy and new thought and it hasn’t done that yet. Trump represents one possible future for conservatism. It is a bitter, hate-filled future of endless nasty attacks and a very tribal warfare but it is a possible and it holds no solutions only political warfare that never ends. A decided defeat of Trump in 2020 will be a good step in closing off that future, but it will take more than one humiliation to kill that monster.

Share

It is Probably a Bad Movie Anyway

Some weeks ago I first saw the trailer for the thriller The Hunt and I was unmoved and uninterested. If you are familiar with the classic story The Most Dangerous Game, a piece of literary fiction that has been adapted into film several time or the Ozploitation movie Turkey Shoot  then you are aware of the basic set-up for The Hunt, a group of people are forced to the objects of a big game hunt and must fight and use their wits to survive. When I saw the trailer my thoughts went to Turkey Shoot  and frankly seeing that again prompted more interest.

Last weekend a conservative friend of mine brought up the film because of controversy that was apparently bubbling over at conservative websites. The movie grand satire was that gun-toting liberal elites were the hunters and that they had selected ‘deplorables’ Trump supporters and the like as their game. Under fire for this set-up, with Trump taking part in condemning the movie, and the horrific tragedy of three mass shooting events, one certainly politically motivated, within seven days, Universal pulled the movie indefinitely from their release schedule.

Ruben Baron at the website CBR reports having read the script by Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse and compares it to an episode of South Park  where both the liberal hunters and conservative prey are presented in a bad light. In an attempt to be even handed apparently the script treats the liberal hunters as stereotypes and the people selected for the hunt are guilt of more than simple right-wing political positions but are also spousal abusers and such. (Though that itself ignore that domestic violence spans the political spectrum and reveals more about the screenwriters than perhaps they intended.) The central hero is a Red Stater who was selected by mistake when her name is confused for the hunt’s actual target.

I find it amusing that before Fox News, Trump, and PJ media jumped into the fray certain that this was nothing more than a liberal hit job on ‘real’ America that the most sympathetic characters were likely to be the conservatives being hunted. Narrative fiction, at least in the European tradition, is about character struggling to overcome adversity to achieve a goal and in that mold the characters an audience is most likely to root for are the ones fighting to survive. They have with the highest stakes in the conflict, are the ones suffering at a disadvantage, and the ones more likely to fail. I am reminded of a WWII training film about enemy interrogation where an allied aircrew is captured by the German and subject to various tricks, threats, and subtle techniques to divulge classified information. When I watched the film it was very difficult not to root for the Germans. They had the objective, they were facing the clock, and to win all the Americans had to do was shut up and say nothing. I suspect this script, in addition to being bad satire, would have placed the audience sympathies with the hunted.

youtube placeholder image

youtube placeholder image

 

Share

The Missing Parallel

Often my mind will wander down counter examples when I hear a familiar phrase or explanation. For example many years ago during a conversation when a friend who had been in the US Navy with me discussed a bit of debauchery ashore during liberty in a foreign port he excused his behavior by saying ‘I’m only human.’ It occurred to me that no one ever says that when doing good actions even though altruism is also a very human thing to do.

Recently my mind has tripped over a familiar construction and the missing parallel to it, Judeo-Christian.

The phrase Judeo-Christian is often used as a stand in for Western European, though both elements of the phrase originate from the Middle East. Judeo naturally relates to Judaism, that ancient religion tracing its history back through Genesis and Adam and Eve. Christian of course refers to the religion that sprang up around Jesus, a Jewish holy man from the early Common Era and whose life and teachings represent the fundamental break between the two religions. The two religions have had a quite contentious and violent history as over the centuries followers of the Christian faith have engaged in pogroms, Inquisitions, conspiratorial slander, and murderous hate against the Jewish minority. This recent and mostly fictional welding of the two philosophies in a single Judeo-Christian tradition is really at odds with their history and is primarily propaganda. A propaganda that for the most part the Jewish people are not participants in. Consider this counter construction, Judeo-Islamic.

Islam, just as with Christianity, traces its history and origins through the Jewish faith and traditions. Where Christians believe Jesus was the final prophet from a long line of Jewish holy men and the living god made flesh the Islamic faith views Mohammed as the final Prophet that culminate the linage begat in the Old Testament. Where the Jewish faith traces its origins to Abraham’s son Isaac, the Islamic tradition is to trace their heritage Abraham’s other son, Ishmael. All three religions site Abraham as the man God selected to give birth to a chosen people and the followers of these major religions are often referred to as ‘The people of the Book’ because of their common origin and yet I have never heard any speak of a Judeo-Islam culture or tradition.

Share

When You Stare Into The Art The Art Stares Back Into You

Obviously this post’s title is a play on the famous statement about staring into the void and how that changes you what I am speaking about is not so much about change as revelation.

With the release of Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time In Hollywood his largest box-office opening to date, there have been a slew of reviews with interesting takes on what the themes and cultural significance of this cinematic fairytale. Given the subject matter, 1969, the Manson Murders, the transition from ‘Old Hollywood’ to a new star system, and the failure of the ‘Hippie’ movement as the idealistic 60s gave way to the cynical and dark 70s Once  quickly became a mirror that reflected the philosophies, politics, and morals of those critiquing the film.

It is an interesting and I think often forgotten aspect of critique that what once comments upon, compliments, or derides in any work of art but particularly with narrative pieces, says as much about the reviewer as it does about the art itself.

In my writers circle I often say ‘No honest review can be wrong,’ as a truthful critique, one that if reflected of the person’s sincere thoughts and reactions, paints the art as it impacted and moved, or failed to move, that person.

It has been fascinating watching the political chatterers liberal and conservative react to Once  revealing their internal biases, talking past each other, and illuminating the very real differences between those world-views. It could be an interesting experiment for some writers to write phony reviews in their characters’ voices.

Share

The Strangely Enduring Relevance of Shock Treatment

This week I re-watched 1981’s curious film Shock Treatment. Originally conceived as a sequel to the cult hit The Rocky Horror Picture Show  Shock Treatment  evolved into something darker, deeper, and more serious that that beloved rock musical. On one level the story is a simple straight forward sort of musical faire, Brad and Janet’s marriage is tested by temptation, fame, and manipulation by romantic rival for Janet’s affections until they ultimately triumph and literally ride off into the sunset. yet the film is also a biting commentary on television, the slippery nature of truth, and the power audience surrender to performers and content creators. Shock Treatment  is a deeply symbolic film with an approach that has more in common with David Lynch than most conventional filmmakers and it asks audiences to accept a level of unreality that transcends conventional narrative construction. Released long before the plague that is ‘reality’ programming this film speaks to the inherent deceptive quality of television and the dangers of accepting as ‘real’ anything that is presented in that flicking tube. And even though cathode ray tube and raster scans have vanished from out living rooms the film’s themes resonate stronger then they ever did in 1981.

Corporate control of mass culture, celebrity invasion of politics, and the deadly siren lure of instant fame, dangers we grapple with today are all major elements in Shock Treatment’ssly satire. The sinister similarity between Farley Flavors and Donald Trump feel more real to me than that other cinematic creation his inspired, Back to the Future’s  Biff Tannen. Lies are the beating heart of Shock Treatment,  the lies that seduces us, the lies we tell ourselves, and the lies we endure to simply ‘get along’ and in that theme I can’t help be feel that Shock Treatment’s  cinematic cousin is Craig Mazin’s outstanding series Chernobyl.

Nearly forgotten it is shocking just how relevant Shock Treatment  remains in 2019.

Share

Is ‘Moscow Mitch’ Unfair?

Recently Mitch McConnell GOP Senate Majority Leader blocked from coming to a vote via unanimous consent two Democratic bills aimed at tightening US Election security from foreign manipulation. Broadly one would have required paper records of each vote and the other would have required campaign reports attempts by foreign nationals and power to influence the election. For blocking these bills, and because the Russian interference in the 2016 that sought to assist Donald Trump in both the primary and the general election is ongoing many on the left gave McConnell the nickname ‘Moscow Mitch.’

Granted it did not look good but that may have been the point, in politics it is a common tactic to advance a proposition simply to force the opposition to vote it down or block because on the face it looks terrible when in fact there may be legitimate reason to defat any particular bill. Given that all of the recent foreign interference has benefits or sought to benefit the Republican Party it can’t be dismissed that at this time election security cuts against the GOP’s self-interest.

I poked around on general news, liberal, and conservative sites looking for various perspectives on these bills and McConnell’s action blocking them. Over at National Review I found a piece defending McConnell and that it very illuminating.

Rich Lowry’s defense of Leader McConnell falls into three major premises.

1) The American system localizes election and it is wrong for the Federal government to dictate to local officials how to conduct elections.

2) Broad legislation, law, and regulation are ‘more likely’ to capture minor and innocent transactions and incidents.

3) McConnell has already passed 380 million dollars of election security assistance.

In our federal system our election system is highly localized, so on that point Lowry is correct. Our decentralized election system has even been touted as a safeguard against electoral tampering because manipulating 8000 individual election authorities is vastly more difficult than attacking a single national system. And that would be argument for the safety and security of a decentralized system IFwe elected our president with the popular vote but the Electoral College turns that strength into a weakness. A bad actor seeking to manipulate our presidential contest doesn’t need to attack every election district in every state but rather merely a handful of districts in perhaps as few as one or two states to change the results of the election. Insisting on localism in this context means we are pitting the Cleveland Registrar of Voters against the combined might of the Russian Federation’s Security apparatus. This requiresfederal intervention.

To Lowry’s second element there is even less supporting his position. It is certainly a good ‘rule of thumb’ to consider how vast sweeping regulations and generalities interact with reality but when the focus is on a particular piece of law or proposed law then it becomes a requirement to showwhere it is overly broad and how that is counter-effective and Lowry’s doesn’t even attempt to do that. He spouts a platitude as though it is an argument and moves one.

Lowry’s third defense is also quite weak. 380 million dollars may sound like a lot of money to average people dealing with rent, utilities, and the minutia of life but in terms of large-scale projects it is a pittance. The reported budget for Avengers: Endgame  is 350 million dollars and certainly securing out elections if vastly more critical than even a very entertaining Hollywood feature. Remember there are about 8000 election authorities in the United States and 380 million dollars works out to each one getting less than $5000.  McConnell’s ‘assistance’ is barely more than lifting a finger.

Still, calling him ‘Moscow Mitch’ fair?

No, because his slavish devotion is to GOP power and not Moscow. If the Russians suddenly switched to helping the Democratic Party McConnell would become consumed with stopping them.

What we can say is that McConnell with his devotion to his party’s power at all costs and an utter disregard for all our political norms history and his willingness to advance our enemies cause if it helps his is that he is no patriot.

Share

Nazis, Socialism, and Madonna’s First Movie

It has been brought to my attention recently that there are still, and I imagine going on forever, people insisting that Nazis are actually socialists and by extension left wing politically. The arguments fail to convince me and I’ve laid out in other posts why I think the Nazi fall clearly on the right. What I find fascinating about this argument is contorted logics employed in services of preconceived conclusions; they are rationalizations and not reasons.

Back in 1985 I engaged in the strange habit of renting the worse movies I could possibly locate on VHS. A little mom-and-pop shop just around the corner from where I lived had the most interesting collection of odd movies with titles such as Hitchhike to Hell  and then one night the gem A Certain Sacrifice  appeared on the shelves. This micro-budgeted movie shot in 1979 and 1980 and looking as though the film stock was all of 8 mm wide included an unknown performer, Madonna. By the mid 1980s her stardom had exploded and the filmmaker capitalized on this by releasing his movie on home video. Thought Madonna attempt to stop the release she failed in the courts and I was treated to a truly terrible movie.

What does this have to do with the question if Nazis were or were not socialists?

After watching the film with my roommate one of the games I engaged in was arguing that A Certain Sacrifice  was not in fact a bad movie but a masterpiece of filmmaking rich with metaphor and symbolism. My arguments were artistically sound and of course utterly untrue. The fact that I could spin a consistent narrative that ‘explained’ all the bad film choices as something smart and creative did nothing to change the facts of the matter. The same is true in this political argument.

You can quote from the early years of the Nazi party to prove points, ignoring the uncomfortable truth that those elements were brutally eliminated during the night of long knives. You can construct logical arguments that proceed from a foundation that everything totalitarian is socialist and get to your preferred conclusions, but linguistic dexterity and slippery arguments do not change facts on the ground.

But how can we know the facts on the ground? How can we test this concept?

Easy, watch actual Nazis and see where they place themselves politically.

It is on the right.

People giving Nazi salutes election night 2016 were not bemoaning a loss.

People marching by torchlight and chanting ‘Jews will not Replace Us’ did not organize a ‘United the Left’ protest.

It was not the Democratic Party that found itself represented by an actual Nazi in the 2018 congressional elections.

Nazis nearly always self-sort to the right, their behavior betrays their natural placement on the ideological spectrum.

Share

Complicity, Willful Ignorance, or Denial

The most recent racist attacks by President trump are not the straws that broke any camel’s back. Politically accepting that Trump has a multitude of racist bones in his body was established when he took that escalator ride down into the Trump Tower Lobby and proclaimed Mexican people as ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists’ while reserving the privilege of assuming that ‘some’ were good people. The reports of Trump’s deep racial animosity stretches back throughout the entirety of his public life, including Federal law suits over his refusal to rent to African-Americans, and the ‘understanding’ of his casino floor managers that when trump visited to move African-Americans employees out of sight.  Nothing he has done as a businessman, public figure, or elected servant has contradicted this portrayal. Simply put, Donald Trump is racist.

The question is what do the rest of us do about it?

For independents and members of the Democratic Party this answer is obvious, oppose him, fight to defeat him, and drive him from the public square. But that’s a goal the Democrats and many others would have regardless of Trump bigotry.

For Republicans the challenge is far more consequential and very few appear to have the moral courage to meet it. At this date if one is unwilling to denounce and defeat this vile racism then you are left with just three options.

Complicity – you are a part of it. Your silence and refusal to take action make you into an ally in his smears, slanders, and bigotry.

Willful Ignorance – you ignore the facts, studiously avoid learning any of the man’s history, and pretend that in this media saturated environment you somehow have remained unaware of the truth.

Denial — One of my favorite authors once wrote ‘Mankind is not a rational animal but a rationalizing animal.’ This is never truer then when people invent fantastic leaps of logic in order to avoid the simplest and most obvious of conclusions. If you are finding byzantine explanation for how these numerous and repeated attacks are not ‘really racist’ congratulations you are in the state of Denial.

So which state is yours?

Share