What better way to spend Halloween than with some scary ghost stories? Here are three that won't disappoint. Each combines classic themes (lonely old houses, bumps in the night, apparitions) with top-notch acting, masterful cinematography, and clever plots that interweave perception with misperception. No need for cheap, slasher-style gore or incongruous 'happenings' to give you the chills. Instead, like the protagonists, you cannot resist being lead down a dark and winding path to uncover the terrifying truth. Good, intelligent films in their own right, these three pursue novel interpretations of stock ghost story elements that still leave you shuddering.
The Orphanage (2007) El orfanato
Laura (Belen Rueda), a former orphan, returns with her husband and her own adopted son, Simon, to renovate the abandoned orphanage where she was raised.
While his parents prepare the secluded building to be a home for special needs children, Simon has only his imaginary friend to play with. One day, Simon talks of six new imaginary friends, with names familiar to Laura, who tell Simon things about the past he could not know.
When Simon disappears during a garden party, his father calls the police, but Laura is convinced he has been abducted by ghosts from her past. Months pass, and when the disconsolate Laura calls in a medium (the perfectly cast Geraldine Chaplin) to contact Simon, her pragmatic husband returns to the city, leaving Laura alone in the orphanage to track down her ghosts.
Scariest Moment: A simple long shot down a hall, when Laura is uncertain whether her son or a ghost is approaching.
The Orphanage is a very, very scary movie that excels in every area. Sergio Sanchez' watertight plots mirrors a scavenger hunt game Simon plays with his mother, in which each object found is a clue pointing to the location of the next. The big, old building, empty yet with room after room cluttered with dusty old things, and perched on an isolated sea cliff, is employed subtly and never as a crutch or as a cliche. Director Juan Antonio Bayona's camerawork, especially his pans, are as good or better than any found in Hitchcock or Rosemary's Baby.
Running parallel to the ghost story is the subtext of Laura's unresolved issues about her childhood, which cloud her perception of events, and of her relationship with her family. Ultimately, The Orphanage is about the struggle for moderation between emotion and reason.
The Others (2001)
It is 1945, and Grace (Nicole Kidman), her husband not returned from the war, lives in a large, secluded mansion in the middle of nowhere. With her are her two young children, who suffer from a rare and dangerous photosensitivity disease, and must spend there entire lives in darkened rooms. The strain and the loneliness is getting to the tightly-wound Grace, so she hires a nanny (the marvelous Fionnula Flanagan) a cook and a gardener, who seem to know the old house better than they let on.
Before long, the inevitable spookiness begins-footsteps, objects disturbed, the faint sound of the piano being played in a locked room. With glee, Grace's daughter frightens her brother by telling him she has seen and played with one of "the others" who have invaded the house. As the hauntings become more frequent and extreme, Grace furiously tries to protect her children while solving the mystery.
Scariest moment: Poking through old clutter, Grace finds a photo album of Victorian portraits. She asks the nanny why the people were photographed sleeping, and is informed they are photos of the dead. (Note: such photos were common. Google "victorian death portraits" if you dare.)
The Others heightens the viewer's anxiety by presenting events through the unreliable eyes of Grace. Kidman gives us a Grace already about to burst when the story starts. Needing to monitor her children's every move lest they be exposed to sunlight, and also obsessed with their moral and religious development, Grace shows the visible effects of running a large house without another adult soul to accompany her. Grace is clearly not telling us everything (When is daddy coming home? Why did the previous staff leave? Why is her son afraid of mommy losing her temper?) But Grace also refuses to hear what is being told to her. When the poltergeists disrupt her micro-managed world, Grace rapidly unhinges as she desperately tries to keep her world intact.
The Devil's Backbone (2001) El espinazo del diablo
Near the end of the Spanish civil war, a remote orphanage run by Republicans awaits the impending arrival of the fascists. Young Carlos, a new arrival, is informed by the other boys of the presence of the ghost of a former occupant.
While the adults running the orphanage confront the demons of their past, as well as the ominous terrors looming on the horizon, Carlos explores the bowels of the orphanage to uncover the secret held by the ghost. As the various story lines swirl and converge, and the secrets are gradually revealed, the horrors presented by the dead cannot match those done by the living.
Scariest moment: Thinking he hears the ghost approaching, Carlos flees, struggling to squeeze through a partly closed door while something grabs at his leg.
With The Devil's Backbone, writer/director Guillermo del Toro explores much of the same ground as in Pan's Labyrinth (2006), but it is fertile ground. Here too, del Toro parallels a supernatural tale seen from a child's perspective with real-life, adult events. Del Toro often presents the same events from both angles, and the perspectives are interchangeable. To uncover the most monstrous apparition imaginable, del Toro tells us, one need not resort to ghosts. It can be found in the hearts of other people.
Imagery moves this story. The unexploded bomb lodged in the courtyard is a conscious metaphor for doom merely postponed. When a piece of debris from an explosion flies straight into the camera, it underscores the utter meaninglessness of random death. That an ugly old secret is not-so-secret after all, is revealed by panning cross-wall to follow muffled voices from one room to the next. The sense of safety from the war, provided by the orphanage's isolation, is undermined by frequent, nervous glances at the horizon.
It is no surprise that del Toro focused, as did the makers of i>The Orphanage and The Others, on isolated or orphaned children. Every good ghost story taps into our childhood fears of being alone in the dark. Beyond that, however, the child's viewpoint is allegorical. In these films, when the adults are blinded by preconceptions, it is the unclouded vision of the child which can perceive what is real. It is the child whose innocence lends the bravery to confront the horrific truth that the adult dismisses with wishful thinking.
From time immemorial, ghost stories have helped us make peace with our fears-with disease and growing old, with famine and wars, or simply with what lay beyond the flicker of the bonfire. These modern ghost stories tackle those same fears in new guises, those things beyond our control that make us feel as helpless as children.
9 more banks tank. One biggie in California - the nation's fourth largest. 115 failures so far this year. FDIC on the hook for 2.5 billion more as of this evening.
Obama's long decision making process regarding Afghanistan is increasingly indicative of a flaccid, but reasonably intelligent man, stuck between his compulsion to protect himself via his assumed intelligence and the countervailing need to take action as a leader. He's an ex-college lecturer who became a President who acts like a college lecturer. Whether this is true or not - it seems that way, and in all things Presidential, perception is a large chunk of reality.
At this point, there are few excuses for the length of this decision process that wash. It's nearly November. Over 2 months since his hand picked General made his recommendation. A recommendation he certainly knew was coming. How is it that a policy or, at the very least, solid policy objectives, have not been formulated and acted on by now? One is left wondering what ether is filling this very public vacuum.
-He's stalling because he knows something we do not that will change the situation.
-He's preoccupied. (But with what? What's more important?)
-He finds coming to a conclusion unbearable as he knows the result - whatever it is - will be his doing.
Hamlet is, of course, the Western cannon's great tragedy about indecision. The Danish prince does not trust his instincts or intellect, and spends five astounding acts unraveling himself before our eyes. The character of Hamlet - who represents a nation - equivocates for so long that by the end of the play he, his mother, step father, and a friend are dead on stage and with his last breath he's ceded Denmark to Norway.
Obama looks increasingly like Hamlet. (Though he does not contain Hamlet's dimensionality as a person. Hamlet is enormous in human scope. No ONE can be like Hamlet as everyone, finally, is Hamlet. The good news is most of us are not Presidents.) The longer he dithers the greater the chance outside events will harm our goals in Afghanistan - whatever they are now. Iran and Israel are on a collision course. Pakistan is teetering. The world knowing where America stands on the Afghanistan can't solve everything. But clarity and decisiveness changes outcomes. The goal isn't to avoid decisions. The goal is to make decisions in a timely and wise manner. The indecisive inherit the wind.
most!!! haunted!!! places!!! (turn off the sound. It's a riff on the X-files theme done in the once popular musical style called "90s Gay Bathhouse Death Disco")
Virtual stacks of scary stories and a little good writing here and and there too:Creepy Pasta.
How to find a Halloween Costume for your effeminate son:
I love a good apocalypse scenario. If you push me a bit I'll come out of the doomer closet. This is to say: I'm not optimistic about the immediate future. Admittedly, that's not exactly a groundbreaking position. Observe current reality and before long one easily concludes that we're in deep shinola. But I need my doom anchored by the sensible. Or at least some theory that appears so. Peak Oil is good for the doom prone. It makes sense. It makes certain actions on the world stage make sense. We are in the beginning stages of The Long Emergency - as Kunstler put it. Primarily this early stage is characterized by denial and a vacuous capacity to load up on hope and delusion in all its forms: inane entertainments, vanity as a way of life, even politics and news becomes morphs into entertainment in this phase. Of course, most obviously, this is the point in a great power's decline when politicians pedal hope and delusion as policy. Bread and circuses.
Taking a long view of Peak oil theory and its economic tentacles - it seems to me a lot of it has been correct so far.
Our dollar is backed by more than the "full faith and credit of the United States". It is backed by a commodity called oil. If you wanna buy oil, you gotta have dollars. American dollars. Everyone wants oil so everyone buys dollars. Or at least they did until recently. We all owe a big round of applause to whoever conned the world into making the oil trade the dollar trade. We had a hell of a run. About 4 decades.
The peaksters have been warning about this fly in the oil-ment for a while. It would have been fine and dandy if the petrodollars were backed by oil from the U.S. But we crossed over the hump into oil production decline decades ago. Drill here drill now will never change that.
This slush fund of credit from other oil hungry nations became the DOT com and then the housing bubble. Houses became the average Joe's ATM, enabling him to buy all manor of vanities made in those places that were buying our dollars. Everything was dandy. Every one's back was being scratched. Of course, the whole mess came crashing down. It was musical chairs on a grand scale. Everything was infinite - except the one thing that wasn't: oil. With all the talk last year of crazy derivatives, A.R.M.s and bogus wealth - that fact that oil skyrocketed to 145 dollars a barrel just before the financial crash was lost. Everything is connected to oil.
Then the economy and oil both crashed. This makes sense. Demand for energy falls for the homeless and unemployed. The response to this has been yet another incursion of Keynesian economics. And a rather half ass one at that.
(I'll interject here that they greatest Keynesian of the last 50 years is not Obama by a long shot - It's Reagan. Ronnie pumped billions into military spending. It worked. The economy came back to life after the 70's oil shocks. Reagan is called a "conservative" by conservatives since he primed the pump at both ends - cutting taxes and increasing spending. But the military money was borrowed, just as Keynes said it ought to be.)
My hunch - my current pet theory - is that Keynesian economics works wonders for a nation near or at its peak in power - that, nevertheless, suffers a set back. But it is bad economics when a country has passed its peak. A solid company borrowing some cash to get through in bad times is normal and often wise. Same for a nation borrowing - in essence- from itself. We pay down our debt in good times - as Clinton did in the 1990s. Or started to. Reagan borrowed. Clinton paid back.
The trouble is that America is not such a good investment anymore. Sometime during the last 8 years we passed our peak. Historians will argue about what the exact moment was. I'm going with the Iraq invasion for now. The reasons for it are varied but in the end it was an oil war. The invasion was the moment we refused to adjust to our new reality and began slipping into delusion. Instead of moving toward becoming a "post-oil" nation - our leadership decided we'd expend treasure and blood to ensure our place in the oil universe. I'll repeat a general theme I've had here for years - the Iraq invasion was about China - not Iraq. For nearly 100 years the tagline for the West in the Middle East has been simple: Oil must flow West. We took the oil so that others would not. In the process we became overstretched as every great power eventually does. Rome, Britain, the U.S.S.R. - take your pick.
The exact moment our decline started is irrelevant. We are in it. Can it be reversed? I suppose. But there is no faction with power taking steps toward revival - or any that have any real interest in it. The immediate goal is to keep America a viable as a going concern for the time being. Revolution insurance. The Prez has given the Secretary of Commerce a lot of power of late: I hereby delegate to you the functions of the President under section 1512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999(link is PDF). And where did the good Secretary fly off too with his new powers? China, of course. He's there now with the power to sell U.S. missiles. (another PDF link) Missiles might keep them buying dollars for a bit longer. Man, oh, man do we need them to keep buying dollars.
Obama's primary job is to serve his masters - the Goldman Sachs crew that chose and promoted him - the folks busy building very comfortable lifeboats. He's perfectly suited for this task. He's the ultimate "bread and circus". No one with real power believed McCain could pull off the next act. Obama on the other hand - now that's an inspirational leading man. If Obama can thread the needle in the next few years - keeping the downtrodden in line while keeping the mega rich in mega riches I will be surprised and relieved.
Being an apocalypto by instinct - I do not see us coming back from the latest borrowing spree. We've got little to bargain with. China is starting to realize that Indians want to buy stuff too- and now they can. Pakistan is exploding. He seems to hope Iran and Afghanistan would just go away. Meanwhile the oxymoronic phrase "jobless recovery" is fast becoming a painful insult to the masses.
The End of Money:...Greco is implying that the power of the elite is not only dated but illusory....it's time for people simply to walk away and set up their own economic and monetary systems...Read it all here. H/T anonomouse
Work fried me today. I can't get a head of steam up about anything. Though, I hear Michelle Obama got booed at Yankee Stadium tonight. That will make for a moment of fun internet surfing.
So an innocuous poll tonight.
I love this time of year. The months that end in "er" are my favorite months. College Football, the World Series, (though there's something wrong with baseball being played in November) all sorts of holidays, the brisk weather. What's your favorite thing about the end of the year?
RCP:Lieberman to filibuster the public option. Harry Reid is a putz. Regardless what one thinks of the public option it's striking that Reid got out in front of it yesterday without the votes.
I'm gonna fly blind for a bit - like Northwest airlines pilots - with a few questions. They could have reasonable answers - established in precedent - and I'm simply unaware...so correct me if I've missed the big, obvious answers.
1. The federal government is about to mandate the purchase of a service - called health insurance. Is there any precedent for this? Has the Federal government every mandated the purchase of a service or product? If so, what?
Please note that car insurance is a requirement in many states. It is not a mandate. It's a requirement if you own and drive a car. It is not mandated that everyone have car insurance. If you want to drive a car, the car must be insured. Non drivers are not mandated to buy car insurance. The comparison does not work with health insurance. For the analogy to hold - one could opt out of having health insurance if one did not have a physical body. Ghosts will not be required to buy into a HMO. Presumably, when Carol Anne from Poltergeist was trapped in the TV netherworld she would have been exempt from the health insurance mandate...but the moment Zelda Rubenstein got her back...that's another story....
Secondly, even if the analogy worked, states require car insurance. Not the feds.
so
2. Is forcing people to buy a service/product constitutional? The market argument is clear. If more healthy people are insured, the cost goes down for all. That's how insurance works. Further if an insured person becomes ill they are less likely to become a financial burden on the government - which is to say...us.
Still I'm going to go out on a limb with my nominal knowledge and say that forcing healthy people to buy a product they do not want, and see no need to have, raises issues with both the 9th and 10th amendments. Has something similar to this been litigated? I truly want to know.
A health insurance mandate will be signed into law in the next few months. Shortly afterward a healthy twenty something, with none of the mitigating exceptions written into the bill, will refuse to purchase insurance. She/He will also refuse to pay the fine, claiming the mandate and the punishment are unconstitutional. The ACLU or Judicial Watch or some similar organization will take the case. Depending on the lower court judges this case has all the earmarks of one that will travel quickly up the judicial ladder. Or one or more judges on the Roberts Supreme Court will bring the case to the top. Thomas or Scalia come to mind.
Is this is the elephant in the room? Maybe. Unless, of course, I am just ignorant of the settled law that pertains.
Color me - moderately - amazed. Reid said today that the public option will be in the final Senate health care bill. Now I try to avoid the prediction game - and often fail. (It's just so much fun!) I fully expected the public option to disappear by this point - and predicted it would. I don't like being wrong - or rather my ego doesn't - but in truth when I'm wrong out of pessimism I'm fine with it. The public option is the only part of the health care debate that counts as real reform. The mandate, the taxing of "Cadillac policies", the fines, the lack of cost controls - even the removal of the "pre existing condition" out for insurers - will have deleterious effects without cost controls in place. All have unintended consequences. Or , more on point, the consequences are being ignored. Consequences legislators are paid to ferret out.
The intended consequences of the public option are out in the open. The public option empowers people - actual people. It checks insurance company abuses. It draws a line in the sand. Yes, the public option will be of lesser quality than private insurance. Public schools often can't compete with private ones- but we need them and they serve a purpose. The post office can't compete with U.P.S. in terms of efficiency - but the public has a vested interest in basic postal service.
I'm not a delusional liberal about this either. I'm quite sure that IF (it's still a big if) a public option survives it will be an unholy mess for a while. Still, after single payer was taken off the table, the public option was the only element left that established some boundary against insurance company abuse. Without the public option health care "reform" amounts to mass indentured servitude to insurers.
I believe in the free market in most areas. Health care is not an area in which the free market can go unchecked. It too often penalizes those who need care. Not all who need care. Most who need it - get it. But enough don't to make it a moral imperative for the government to exercise some control.
And no, I'm not irrational and delusional about rationing and wait times. But I always return to this simple fact: rationing and wait times already exist in this country. Health care is often rationed for the middle class NOW. I personally know of two people - who by American standards are middle class - who are indebted severely becaue they needed treatment for real conditions. One simply did not follow through with her treatment and lives with the debilitating condition. Neither are poor. Neither are slothful or entitled. Both had insurance....THAT is rationing.
When Natasha Richardson sustained a lethal head injury in Canada some conservatives stated that her family brought her back to the U.S. because health care was better here. What was not stated was this: Health care IS better here...if you are rich. Yes, a public option will ration some care. Honest proponents of the public option should not refrain from stating this. A muscular public option will ration care in a more egalitarian way.
The cost will mortify. I've got no talking points handy to get around this fact. Nor do I want any. This is about priorities as much as it is about cost. Reasonable access to health care for as many as possible is a higher priority than TARP, or saving GM, or boneheaded stimulus packages, or even welfare - yes welfare. In 2009, do we need 18 military bases in Germany? The point is we can and should have a wide open debate about how we spend money.
I'm openly cynical here. Truth be told - the public option was viable during Clinton's surpluses. We are playing Russian roulette now. But we are playing it with or without the public option. We are broke. I know that seems contradictory of me - but the poor must prioritize. What is our priority? That's the question.
We'll see how Reid's inclusion of a public option plays out. It's gone much farther than I expected. I do not trust Reid's word and am still looking for the gamesmanship - the moment that becomes the excuse to bury the public option - allowing all the say "Hey, at least we tried!"
My support aside, in a purely political sense Conservatives better find a way to stop it. Once entitlements are in place they create constituencies. The long game for the Obama is clear. He's got to have something that looks like real health care reform to be re-elected. It's entirely feasible that it will be all he has in 2012. The deficit, Afghanistan, and - I bet - the economy will not be working for him in November of 2012.
First a question. Does anyone know of any instance in which the federal government forced the entire population to purchase a product or service? I am genuinely curious. The upcoming health care insurance purchase mandate seem ripe for a long court battle - yet next to know one is discussing this.
Shepard Fairey, Fraud. I am so sick of alleged artists believing that by virtue of calling themselves artists they get a pass on the law. Fairey's attempt to claim 'fair use' in his case with the AP is pathetic and groundless. He is saying that intellectual property rights do not apply to photojournalists - and more damning - that they do not apply to real artists. Had David Hockney painted a portrait of Obama could Fairey have legally traced it for his Hope poster? Can Fairey legally trace any Pulitzer prize winning news photo he wants? No, of course not. Fairey is a thief, not an artist and ought to be treated as such. I've no doubt that Fairey has certain skills. He's a craftsman not an artist.
Splendeey do: A fine good deed to put on your list this week here.
Libertarians and gay rights. Like them or not the national Libertarian party is clear on gay marriage rights.
Many people at 'liberal' sites taken over by Obama's avid followers are finally realizing that Obama is not exactly what they thought they were buying. Yet they are still equating Pumas with Republicans. They need to wake up and realize that we are the ones who begged them to stop and think, to evaluate him on the basis of his contradictory statements and deeds, to look at his record, meager as it was, before voting for him to be the Democratic nominee.
Obama claimed to be the anti-war candidate on the basis of one 2002 speech, but once in the U.S. Senate he voted for all the war funding Bush asked for. Kucinich has been introducing anti-war bills in the house since 2002; Obama, as the rising star black senator, might have done so with more success. He chose not to. Obama also said during the campaign that he would expand the war in Afghanistan and perhaps take on Pakistan, too.
Now that it's obvious that Obama's anti-war stance was just a campaign ploy, the anti-war movement has rolled over and died rather than fight 'the one'. Obama voters want to pretend these are still Bush's wars and that Obama has no power against DADT or DOMA, no power to get a Democratic congress to pass a good health care reform bill. The way things are going, the insurance industry and bigpharm will get a lot richer thanks to Obama so their large contributions to his campaign will pay off.
Obama was noted for voting 'present' in the Illinois state senate, showing he doesn't want to take positions he can be held accountable for. Barack Obama was not noted for legislative accomplishments in Illinois or in Washington, where he spent little time, breaking his promise not to run for president until after his first senate term. The signs of his lack of true convictions and his inexperience were abundant.
Hillary Clinton would not have done everything that we want but her competence and experience with government at the national level exceeds Obama's. if Hillary were president, she would have accomplished far more than Obama has in the first nine months in office. I think Hillary could have already gotten a good health care reform bill passed because she had worked hard on this during bill's first term and because she had proven herself in the senate and earned the respect of other senators.
Of course, that was her main problem: she's an intelligent competent woman in a country where misogyny runs deeper than racism. She was called a bitch and a ballbreaker because she is strong. Hillary's appearance was criticized because she wasn't young enough, hot enough; than the younger Sarah Palin was criticized because she was too hot.
But Republicans supported Palin, in fact they loved her, while the slogan of many Democrats was 'bros before hos.' I weep for the party I once believed in. I weep for my daughter and all American women.
I just read the phrase "President Pantywaist". Yes, it was directed at Obama here. So, of course, I googled it. 208,000 hits. Why am I the last one to this rude, but hilarious, party?
Can Matt Taibbi save America? - From Rolling Stone: Taibbi strikes again with a stunner on insider trading. "I've seen the SEC send agents overseas in a simple insider-trading case to investigate profits of maybe $2,000," says Brent Baker, a former senior counsel for the commission. "But they did nothing to stop this."
Tough call: Am I a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal? Probably more of a liberal conservative, actually. But I also an occasional socialist...with a muscular libertarian streak on certain issues...right now I'm calling myself a Frank Capra democrat. (small d) or an "It's a Wonderful Life Socialist" (read FBI Considered 'It's a Wonderful Life" Communist propaganda.) ...or a "You Can't Take It With You libertarian"....who knows.
Obama came in with a lot going his way. He won a mandate - though not a landslide. He had a huge majority in the House and a substantial majority in the Senate. Goodwill and, yes, hope, gave him sky high approval numbers with the population at large.
The majorities are still in place. But his poll numbers have dropped hard - more than any President in modern history. There are those who insist that this drop is because he has governed from the left after running from the middle. There is some truth in this - though it is a criticism that speaks more to the general lack of good information on Obama before the election and the electorate's unfortunate choices. Obama's governing style - if you could call it a "style" - was predictable if anyone had bothered to look at his history.
He's also dropped in the polls because be blew the health care debate early. He may have intended to blow it. Regardless, he either misunderstood the opposition or didn't care enough to fire back with the big guns until September. By then his numbers had dropped 30 points from their January high. He may win a sort of victory on health care but his credibility on the issue is shot. For the next 4 years every time some mentions anything negative about health care - Obama will be just under their breath.
What is most interesting and surprising are the moments he diminishes himself. Obama expends political capital in the oddest moments. He absorbed an entire week of cable news time with the "beer summit". His flight of fancy to Copenhagen to land the Olympics for Chicago was among the oddest choices I've ever seen a President make. It can only be explained as a literal ego trip. Now, he's taking on Fox news.
I'm not sure how to read this White House created "war with Fox". The most intelligent argument I've heard is that it's really about keeping CNN and MSNBC in line...if it comes from Fox it's not news, do not pick up the story. I buy this theory. It's hardball and has the same vibe as when Obama got shellacked by Hillary in the ABC/Pennsylvania debate. Word went out to the Obama minions to attack ABC for the questions....do not make excuses for Obama's performance....Attack ABC.
It's also a stupid warning to those Fox viewers who might be prone to cut Obama some slack. Fox's demographics are much broader than the other 2 cable news networks. Obama's slippage in the polls comes from the "Fox middle". He needs those voters - and he knows it. Yet, he's telling the millions who choose and enjoy Fox that their choice is false and wrong. Stupid.
Whatever the reason, the marching orders here appear to come from the very top. I sense the Obama Administration pique at Fox comes from Obama. The invocation of the paranoid Nixon into the 'war of Fox news' media narrative is under girded by the evidence that this was not cooked up by White House lackeys. The attacks are coordinated and ongoing. Emmanuel, Jarrett, and Axelrod are on the same page which indicates that their boss not only approves - but acted as instigator.
Obama seems to be a man who cannot abide 'looking bad' in any circumstance. It's why he's stayed out of the meat of the health care debate. It's why he punted the stimulus. It's why he would not announce the additional Iranian nuclear sites until his turn at the U.N. was done and the major players had decamped to Pittsburgh. It's why his foolish off the cuff remark about the Gates arrest was blown up into a 'summit'. His ego demanded that he lead a 'teachable moment' instead of just admitting he was wrong and moving on.
It goes without saying that nighttime programing at Fox News is biased. As it is as MSNBC. But Obama can't stomach being attacked nightly on Fox. Think back at when MSNBC revved up against Bush. Or when the media establishment ripped Bill Clinton to shreds daily. I'm sure there were power plays and attempts to punish journalists - but not a coordinated assault. This attack on Fox is based in Obama's weak ego.
Ego makes people stupid. Like the beer summit and the Copenhagen fiasco the attack on Fox is mostly just stupid. Obama is picking a fight he cannot win. Roger Ailes has the upper hand by virtue of one simple and obvious fact: He's not the President of the United States. Events win. Obama must contend with events. All Ailes has to do is send people out to report and comment on them. Obama's ego does not allow him to see that most people do not care one little bit about how he or his administration views Fox News. They care about events and how events affect them. If the market tanks again Obama has to explain it - not Fox. If Afghanistan disintegrates further, Obama has to explain that - not Fox. Obama has to answer for high unemployment - not Fox. Events happen. An event that will absorb us all - and the media - will happen. Soon, I suspect. When this event happens - an event that will not have a simple Right/Left answer - Obama's war on Fox will look all the more foolish. I'm not being Cassandra here - just stating that the world marches on for all Presidents.
President are not allowed the luxury of worrying about how they look. It's striking that Obama does not understand this. Not surprising - he's never had to earn anything or been forced to take his lumps - but it is still striking. He is not a stupid man. He just plays one when not on TV.
Politically, Obama has yet again chosen to expend capital on a losing fight. This trait of his, not health care, will be his Waterloo.
1. New Jersey Governor - the winner: Corzine. The entrance of third party candidate Daggett will save Corzine in this blue state. Also, in a close race that Obama is now invested in - there will be plenty of "help" coming Corzine's way.
2. Virginia Governor - winner McDonnell. Not going out on a limb here. This race is over unless McDonnell is caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
Neither race is very indicative of things to come in 2010. New Jersey is every bit as corrupt as Chicago - of course the Goldman/Obama man will pull it off...somehow...
Virginia habitually hires the person in the party NOT occupying the White House. Though, Virginia is the more telling of the two races. In the 1993 and 1996 the country elected Clinton, Virgina, however, voted GOP - then in 1993 and 1997 elected Republicans. The inverse was true in 2000, and 2004. Bush won Virginia then Democrats won in Virgina state the following years.
In 2008 Obama won the election and Virginia. A victory for the GOP candidate in Virginia is a more direct repudiation of Obama - only recently deemed a "swing state". For this election cycle at least, the independents have bolted the Dem fold big time in Virginia.
Watching Dick Cheney and the Obama administration engage in yet another round of bastard slapping is, I'll admit, highly entertaining. This is not said to diminish the life and death reality of the issue at hand - Afghanistan. I say it to point out an absurdity in the middle distance: Both sides seem powerless. Cheney is. Obama loves his power until he needs to make a decision that will displease some faction. So, at least for the moment, Obama has created a sense of powerlessness for himself on this issue . The impending Afghanistan decision lingers around him wherever he goes. Obviously, I can not know if Obama fears tough decisions...but it sure as hell seems that way.
Both Cheney's unwillingness to sail into the sunset and Obama's increasingly indecisive streak are an interesting clash. One man is a know it all with a horrendous track record, the other avoids tough decisions.
I've no patience for the "blame Bush" brigade in the White House. Even in those areas where Bush lead us astray, it's Obama's duty to lead and not whine about what he got himself into. The man wanted the job. Then again, Cheney is a piece of work. The former V.P. giving anyone advice on Afghanistan is like getting marriage counseling from a Gabor sister. Cheney and Bush screwed the Afghan pooch...big time...if there is one arena where Obama can rightfully blame the bushies it is Afghanistan.
On the other side -
What Cheney exposes in Obama is an indecisiveness that belies his stance as wise and above it all. ( Does Obama have H.I.D. - Hesitantly Indecisive Disorder? )Asking for a 6 month review of Afghan policy after he took office was all well and good. Having the review land on his desk in August, then ineptly kicking the can down the road was foolish.
The mitigating factors here are the leak of the report to the press and the corrupt Afghan elections. Neither, in my estimation, should have been surprises and neither should have caused a delay in Obama executing the task at hand. That the Afghan government is corrupt is not news. Why was a corrupt election treated as a point of consternation? Of course, American soldiers are fighting in a corrupt nation. Of course, the long arm of American power might have to slap Karzai around a bit. How can this be a surprise to Obama Administration officials? Forcing Karzai into a run -off ought to have no bearing of our military policy. Obama has to decide on American policy regardless who wins. I repeat: Afghan governmental corruption should surprise no one.
As for the leak - well, in D.C. a leak is like shit - it happens. This particular leak can't explain the last 2 months - that look for all the world like stalling. One ought to be able to assume that Obama was up to date on the facts in Afghanistan and McCrystal's report held few surprises. One also ought to be able to assume that Obama discussed all the eventualities with the pertinent administration players before the report was due. Any good chief executive would have.
Right?
Or are we to glean that Obama ordered the review, then walked away, believing he'd bought himself the better part of a year to deal with other things?
Cheney's value in snarking at Obama publicly is not in molding a policy discussion. He has no credibility on this issue. However, he does remind us that Obama should be further along on this issue by now.
This blog spends much time pointing out Obama's half ass commitment to many of his promises and the media's queasiness in talking him to task over much of anything. The public option is a fine example of Obama's bizarre lack of commitment to his much heralded promises. It also gets to the heart of the Obama's fundamental ambivalence and inability to lead: The opposing views of those who most vocally supported him and those who paid for his ascendancy. Keeping his base happy while dancing with off those who brought him is Obama's consistent political problem. It's the reason behind all the big showy speeches and the quiet deal making. The public option, one of Obama's many promises, pits his liberal base against the deals he made quietly with the health insurers.
To my surprise the public option is still alive and favored by most Americans. The reasons for this are twofold.
1. House Democrats have not rolled for Obama. Which says as much about their stamina as it does about Obama's inability to control his own party.
2. An insurance mandate, now a sure thing in any final bill, without a public option is infuriating and strikes many as blatantly unfair. It's akin to saying you must use U.P.S. for all postal needs. It's also a tax payer gift to the insurance companies. Or, more precisely, a form of enslavement to a segment of private sector. I know of no other federally forced purchase of a service. (Feel free to correct me.) Car insurance is mandated on the state level. The car insurance argument, recently put forth stupidly by Olbermann, is false. Forcing the purchase of health insurance on all Americans is unfair without a public option.
FDL gets to the real point: Obama does not really want a public option which is why his support for one has been increasingly tepid. I suspect that like Afghanistan and Don't ask Don't tell Obama hopes the public option issue quietly goes away. With this President, more than most, the deals he makes in private take precedence of the promises he proclaims in public.
If one wants to know why the dream of equality for gay Americans moves at a snail's pace - one can no longer blame the right wing homophobes. Their positions and tactics are established and as old as time. It's the gay elites, who subsume their principles to get along with a "cool" president who plays them for fools, combined with "stunt" tactics not worthy of the seriousness of the issue that are holding the gay rights movement back. The couple that hung Palin in effigy last Halloween are at it again this year. This year one of the "victims" is Carrie Prejean - who stated her views on gay marriage publicly - views that she was blasted for by the gay "community" even though they are in complete agreement with the President of the United States. This agreement is a fact. Facts are those things from which Obama Pod People recoil like vampires from sunlight. Ms. Prejean is "displayed" chopped in half. You go, boys. That will win some converts to the cause!
Many of these same gay Americans who vilify Prejean profess an orgasmic allegiance to Barack Obama without the slightest whiff of discomfort. For the sane, the equation is simple: IF PREJEAN IS WRONG, OBAMA IS WRONG.
Of course, the real problem here is not a vulgar Halloween display. It's the lack of vulgar equanimity. If these two men can slaughter a fake Prejean, can a person chop an Anita Dunn mannequin in half and place it on their porch? Plenty of people think Dunn's admiration of Mao is morally bankrupt and an invitation to evil - I'm one of them. Mao slaughtered more people than Hitler and Stalin. Imagine the hell that would fall on anyone who did in a fake Dunn for fun.
Stunts are no longer useful in the fight for gay equality. Nor are the whores that run the HRC. The only option for progress now is non-violent civil disobedience. Until the punks who think violent Halloween displays are "protest" and the gay elites grow up - gay Americans will be treated as third class citizens.
Here is a list on one day's worth of Obama campaign promises, ONE day's worth, mind you - July 7th, 2008
1.) So when I'm President, I'll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens,
1a.) and I'll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families.
2.) We'll also eliminate income taxes for every retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect.
3.) if you're a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes-not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
4.) I'll also help families who are struggling under the crushing burden of health care costs by passing a plan that brings the typical family's premiums down by $2500
4a.) and guarantees coverage to everyone who wants it.
5.) I'll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements;
5a.) ban rate hikes on debt people already had;
5b.) and ban interest charges on late fees.
6.) I'll also reform our bankruptcy laws to make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet.
7.) To make saving easier, we'll automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that stays with you from job to job.
8.) And for working families who earn under $75,000, we will start that nest egg by matching 50 percent of the first $1,000 you save
8a.) and depositing it directly into their account.
9.) To make a college education affordable for every American family, we'll provide $4,000 of tuition if students will provide community or national service when they graduate.
10.) To make it easier for families to own their own home and stay in that home, we'll crack down on predatory lenders,
11.) help more Americans refinance their mortgages,
12.) and provide ten million homeowners a mortgage tax credit that will take ten percent off their interest rate.
13.) To help those mothers and fathers who are juggling work and family, I'll expand the Child Care Tax Credit.
14.) extend the Family Medical Leave Act,
15.) and make sure that every worker in America has access to seven days of paid sick leave.
16.) I'll make sure that women get equal pay for an equal day's work.
17.) And to help those families who own small businesses that are the engine of prosperity in America, I will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses to encourage more innovation and job creation.
18.) all my new spending proposals would be more than paid for by spending reductions.
19.) I have a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq
20.) and reduce overpayments for private plans in Medicare
21.) I would also curb subsidies to banks making student loans.
22.) return earmarks to their 2001 levels
23.) and reform no-bid contracts.
24.) I'll make the sun rise in the west and set in the east.
Well, yes, I made up #24, but ALL the rest are the campaign promises Obama made in a single day. This list does not include all the campaign promises Obama made on other days, to other audiences.
To paraphrase Herbert Hoover (regarding the vice presidency), Obama's promises aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.
First -one question for tonight: Has anyone done an analysis of the similarities and differences between Obama's war on Fox and Chavez's war on the media in Venezuela? Speaking of Revolution: Kunstler - All these tensions beat a path into the holiday season when emotions run high, when blessings are counted and sorrows taste most bitter. So the big question now floating above the sheer data of Goldman Sachs profit announcement is: what kind of year-end bonuses will they dare to pay their executives and minions, and how will the "people" react? It seems to me that conditions are ripening for a bloodbath.
Bono, lead singer of U2, and all around world citizen wrote a piece for the New York Times in which he states: The world wants to believe in America again...
It goes without saying at this point that this is a statement that cannot stand without Bono's assumptions about Mr. Obama as the foundation. He is not saying: the world wants to believe in America again regardless who is President. He is saying: The world wants to believe in Obama. Which is the particular pathology Obama is masterful at exploiting. The want to believe in him - a desire so deep and driven that not only is evidence ignored - it's not part of the equation whatsoever. What Obama does has no affect on this desire. It is all about what Obama says.
Bono quotes one of Obama's speeches to make the point that Obama is a good and worthy man: We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.
Bono again:...these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity-if the words signal action. Notice that he tacks on the last 5 words to let us know he is not a complete dupe. Bono has standards. He tells us - Americans - as if we did not "get it" - that it's our President who is saying such noble things. Isn't that miraculous? You people who foisted Bush on us - now have done something right!
Alas,Bono fails prey to Axlerod's political skills. Speeches matter more than actions. Speeches are worthy of veneration and prizes. Actions come later...or we hope they do. But hope - the want, the desire, is all that matters. In the desire rest good feelings - and feeling good is the goal. This, as any first year psych student will inform you, is the definition of immaturity.
Like so many Europeans, Bono fundamentally misunderstands America's greatness. America's greatness DOES NOT spring from our Enlightenment ideals of republican democracy. Yes, you read that right. If greatness on the world stage came from lofty intentions and high ideals ancient Greece would still be a world power.
America's greatness springs from our republican values AND the people who were willing to embody them. Jefferson not only refined Enlightenment ideals for us- he became a traitor to his king. Susan B. Anthony did not merely make speeches. She got arrested. We owe as much to every black child who was water cannoned, arrested and killed in protest as we do to Dr. King. Bono does not understand this. The continued embodiment of American ideals by Americans is our strength. Thus far, there is no evidence that Obama is willing to sacrifice for an ideal. Any ideal.
Bono is, finally, a victim of a pervasive decadence that currently poisons the West. From this decadence comes the belief that intentions matter more than actions. The day Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize he snubbed the Dalai Lama - a perfect microcosm of the difference between judging someone on their intentions rather than their actions.
In Bono's world, Obama's speeches and alleged intentions alone are worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama makes Bono feel better. Do not be fooled: This belief is poison. It is the devil none of us fully know. Good feelings are not facts. Mistaking them for facts always has unfortunate consequences. Good feelings generated by good speeches won't stop Iran from getting the bomb, or bring peace to the Middle East, or stop Israel from attacking Iran, or convince the Chinese to keep buying our debt, or feed one hungry child. Not one. Yet, Bono, a man to be admired for his tireless good work, believes that Obama should be awarded for his intentions.
Finally, Bono's veneration of Obama in the New York Times can and should be dismissed for the simple reason that it's a campaign endorsement, not an assessment of President Obama's time in office. He's still riding hope. It's as if the last 10 months haven't yet occurred. The botching of the gitmo closure has not happened. The drone attacks on Pakistani civilians have not happened. The strengthening of FISA has not happened. The attacks on gay service men and women have stopped...
We, the realists, cannot allow our view to be clouded by the constant re-upping of "Hope" from the immature among us. Obama's goalposts cannot be moved every time the hope addicted need a fix. We must see the man and judge him on his actions. THAT IS THE JOB OF CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY.
Obama doesn't get it. He explained to some DNC money types that "he's busy cleaning up somebody else's mess. " Where did he say this? San Francisco, of course. The Pelosi Cone encases Democratic politicians when they alight in San Francisco like a hypoallergenic mattress cover. Obama blaming Bush (the "somebody else") 9 months in doesn't wash in most of the country. Most of the country hired Mr. Obama to:
A. Lead.
B. Clean up the mess, not whine about it.
C. Use his mandate and majorities in congress to affect change.
This far he's failed on all counts. Confusing, in classic Obama form, activity with action and intentions with accomplishments.
In less than a year Obama has frittered away his mandate. He punted both the stimulus and healthcare to congress. (It's impossible to imagine LBJ or FDR allowing congress to run the show.) Foreign policy under Obama ought to be called lovely intentions I read about in college. Most damning: he's refused to take control of the sick and criminal financial sector.
The remarkable aspect of Obama's comment above is that it is an outright lie. He is not "cleaning up" anything. TARP was of Bush's economic policy- Obama's extended and expanded it. When Obama asks Democrats to support his 'clean up' he's asking them to support policies Bush started. Support them if you like - but at least know where they originated.
Has he 'cleaned up' Iraq? No, he's following a plan started under Bush.
Afghanistan? There is no discernible Obama policy.
Health care? It's been botched by Democrats...lead - in theory at least - by Obama. The health care insures even managed to get an anti-trust exception - who needs Republicans with Democrats like these?
So what is Obama referring to when he claims to be our national cleaner? Nothing, except...wait for it...himself. He's President therefore - in Obamaland - things are automatically better.
Note: I found the image above randomly on the internet. I have no idea who made it. Whoever you are: I commend you.
4. Food For the Thoughtless: A fun post on 8 dollar cubes of ice that contains the sentence - Never trust an aesthetician who accepts coupons. What's not to like?
In the real world "Told ya so" can be deeply satisfying - but when the original prediction was grim, the satisfaction is short lived. I sense many a "told ya so" on the horizon. More than a few on the outskirts of the national conversation (Gloomsters and other assorted realists are rarely invited to the "in" cocktail parties) have been saying for some time that America was on borrowed money, energy, and time. I have almost always agreed. Not out of deep knowledge or professional specialty - I have neither. But obvious is obvious.
Driving past 2 bedroom lean-tos in South LA that were selling for high six figures in 05 and 06 one didn't have to be a nobel laureate in economics to conclude "sum thang ain't right here". In 2005 the teeny Long Beach house my Grandparents bought for $5000 cash in the 50's was "worth" nearly a million. That, my friends, was all the knowledge one needed to see the bubble that most of our brilliant economists missed.
We've been fantasizing our predicament away for a very long time. Fueling our fantasy with other people's oil, which we bought with other people's money. The decline in the dollar almost certainly means the bill is coming due. No one in a leadership position - and I mean no one - is willing to break the news to us. In fact, the opposite is true. We are told overtly or covertly that with a few adjustments here and there, after a bad year or two, then we get to pick up right where we left off. Bush had the housing bubble. Obama, the hope bubble. The psychological mechanism is the same: Defer pain. Defer reality. Pretend you're well off because BofA will loan you a million to buy a shack. Pretend the Bush years can be erased if you vote for the "elegant" black guy who talks the talk. Turns out we can have the house and the hope...but only for a season.
Easy money is dead and gone. This review of Peter S. Goodman's PAST DUE: The End of Easy Money and the Renewal of the American Economy lays it out. There is some real hope if one believes logic will win out. I don't. I see no evidence that American leadership or American citizens are interested in logic or reality.
As for Wall Street returning to its 1999 level - good for Wall Street. The fact is Wall Street is no longer a barometer of our economic health so much as it is a barometer of our overall insanity. Breaking the 10,000 barrier in this economy is a sign that the lunatics are running the asylum and nothing else.
Billions are about to be doled out to bankers in the form of year end bonuses. In a sane nation, which has only just indebted itself for decades to save these institutions, the proper and sane reaction would be tar and feathers for the godfathers at Goldman and the rest. But we are not sane. Many of us are distracted, controlled, overfed buffoons.
When crowds clog the streets of lower Manhattan demanding all bonuses cease, when Glenn Beck fires up the masses and rains electronic hellfire on financial criminals, when townhalls are overrun by citizens furious not about some alleged "liberty" they are losing if insurance companies are forced to behave morally - but about the malfeasance and looting of all Americans by Wall Street - then I will have hope. Hope that sanity and equilibrium have a fighting chance.
Until then I'll make due with the cold satisfaction of "Told ya so."
With the era of lower standards and/or no standards in full swing - kicked off by Barack "drone attack" Obama's surprise Nobel for "peace" - I do hereby introduce yet another periodic feature on Liberal Rapture: The Alternate Reality Awards! The "Surrealies" for short.Nominees are the least deserving or most bizarre and insulting choice in any given category...all selected by you! The first round is a good one. Nominations for future Surrealies are always open.
Who deserves the first Surrealie? Vote as many times as you want! Yes you can!
Latest scoop from our intrepid reporter, Tamerlane.
The Vatican: Pope Benedict XVI today announced the beatification of Barack Obama, paving the way for the US President's canonization as early as next week. The beatification was widely hailed as fitting and inspirational, although some questioned the pontiff's decision. The official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, was quick to point out that Obama was neither a Roman Catholic, nor had he met any of the grounds for beatification, such as divine intercession or martyrdom: "...facultatem facimus ut Venerabilis Servus Dei N. N. Beati nomine in posterum appelletur, eiusque festum...in locis ac modis iure statutis quotannis celebrari possit". But the paper saw the beatification as "encouragement" for the American leader: "Go out now and earn this honor, Mr. Obama, by curing some lepers or something!"
Obama's Many Miracles
Justin Rubin of MoveOn lists several of Obama's "saintly qualities" that already justify beatification. In an email entitled "Change We Can Worship", Rubin writes "President Obama has long been the subject of a cult of veneration-a Cultus Missa et Officium, was a virtual martyr to Bill Clinton's thinly-veiled racism, and during the primaries, performed the transubstantiation of his defeat in Indiana into a victory." Rubin also noted that Obama's 2007 speech calling for unilateral disarmament "will one day save the lives of millions who otherwise would perish in a nuclear holocaust, which is the same as raising the dead." Long-time Democratic insider James Carville concurred, saying "I find it somewhat miraculous that nobody properly vetted this jackass before nominating him." He's Not Bush
Obama's beatification is the latest in a string of awards and accolades richly deserved by the President. In a move seen as reflecting his predecessor's unpopularity abroad, last week Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for "never having accomplished a single mission ever." The extremely modest Obama admitted he did not deserve the Nobel, but vowed that he's "gonna wear the damn thing all the time. In the shower, even."
President Trumps Yankee Star
The Nobel came on the heels of Obama's MLB Gold Glove award for shortstop, for which the president just edged perennial winner Derek Jeter. Asked if he felt he deserved the Gold Glove, considering he was not a major league shortstop, Obama conceded he did not, but added, "neither does Jeter. Dude's got a rubber arm and no range!"
This was the second award which Obama has snatched in recent days from the Yankees star. Obama was also named by the Dissatisfied Wives of America as "mocha hunk I most often fantasize about while having bad sex with my husband." Jeter had won 13 of the last 14 DWA awards, losing only to Terrence Howard in 2005. Animal Rights Activists Break Ranks
One of Obama's accolades has drawn sharp criticism-his 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award from the ASPCA for his adoption of Bo, the First Family's purebred Portuguese Water Dog. Although the award was clearly earned by Obama, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) expressed anger that "a fly-murderer could receive an award from a humane society." In protest, PETA members across America threw their naked bodies in front of Mormon churches and Whole Foods stores.
More Laurels Coming
Future awards already won by Obama include the 2010 Grammy for Best Crossover Song (for the "O-Ba-Ma" chant), the Democratic presidential nominations of 2012, 2016 and 2020, and the 2011 Oscar for Best Picture (for a comment by Stephen Spielberg that "Terrence Howard would make a good Obama.")
A Selected Timeline of Obama Awards
1961 Conferred by Barack Obama Sr. with honorific tribal title "M'gembwe foto dujuri ahat" (transl.: "Little bastard (who) looks just like me")
1977 Recipient of Honolulu H.S.'s Mile High Club's "Golden Roach Clip"
1981-83 Seven-time winner of ACORN's "Employee of the Month" award
1985 Appointed one of nine editors of Harvard Law Review, based on his outstanding pigmentation
1993 Named "laziest g**-d*** n**** I've ever met" by Illinois state senator Emil Jones, Jr.
2004 Won Pulitzer prize for William Ayres' "Dreams of My Father"
2007 Appeared on Time Magazine's "Man of the Century" cover
2008 Named "Greatest President Ever" by American History Magazine
2009 Recipient of Golden Globe award for telecast of his inauguration
by 'tamerlane'
