Barack Hussein Obama -- Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!

[Worm]

Well stated by both of you as ever. As this conversation seems to be winding down at least for the moment, I'll only add briefly that I think Obama has been both, a disappointment on what will probably be three major fronts (two wars, health care reform and wall st reform), but also a success in what probably is the most important category, which is the economy (success confirmed by the economic indicators and the CBO), as well as being a success in numerous other lesser significant, but still very important areas such as conservation, banning torture, banning federally registered lobbyists from federal boards and commissions, issuing transparency directives and much much more. But like Anaesthesine, I'm not willing to write him off just yet because the numerous crises that he's confronted are mind-numbingly complex singularly and almost intolerable in combination, and at the same time, he has to fight an incredibly complex opposition, and then consider how all of this preserves the ideals that he's trying to pursue while not ceding power back to the republicans. We're only 11 months into it. In my view, there's plenty of room for him to improve on his achievements thus far.

Your post makes a lot of sense, McLovin, except in one regard: "incredibly complex opposition". Pac-Man looks complex, too, until you shoot through the maze eating dots. Then it looks pretty simple, no?

The simple fact is, the Republican Party is on life support, the tea baggers are loud but-- with respect to legitimate channels, anyway-- not a major threat. They'll chew each other up before they hurt the Democrats, as seen in the last election. And in any event, the Democrats enjoy a strong majority in Washington. Certainly not overwhelming power, as the health care debate shows, but strong nonetheless.

Obama and many pundits talk about the complexity of the problems, and they're right. But Obama and the Democrats are in Washington to cut the Gordian knots and solve these problems, make them un-complex. You want to give Obama a pass for not being able to solve these difficult problems because you can't figure them out (nor can I). Well, here's the rub: it's not our job to figure it out. It's his. It's Obama's job to figure out how to push his party to crush the opposition and pass meaningful health care reform, and it's Obama's job to figure out how to curb unemployment, and it's Obama's job to understand the Afghanistan situation for what it is, an empire-slaying sinkhole. And he can do this job with or without the support of the opposition. In fact, if Obama were to stonewall the right and do what's best for this country (single-payer or robust public option, out of Afghanistan, major economic reform, and more), not only would he go down as one of the great Presidents, he'd effectively destroy the GOP forever. The next two to four Presidents would also be Democrats.

He's not going that way.

Have you considered the idea that Obama's "serious complexity" theme is merely a calculated way of speaking to his half of the country in terms it understands, just as Bush's "yee-haw simplicity" was his way of reaching his constituents?

Tonight on "60 Minutes" Kroft asked Obama, point-blank, how we could expect to succeed in Afghanistan when it's not a country but a loose collection of tribes, and at any rate what passes for a central government is run by gangsters and drug dealers. Obama basically said, "Well, hey, it's not ideal". That's no answer. It's insanity, and I'm not going to savor the astonishing irony of the United States' re-commitment for years nine, ten, and eleven in a war in Afghanistan on the (roughly) twenty-year anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Well, whatever. You're as better-informed than anyone else here, so I hope you know something I don't.

 

[Worm]

I'm so disappointed that nobody has the balls to call the insurance industry on their grossly immoral practices. We need an Upton Sinclair--somehow Michael Moore is not getting the job done. Why does nobody listen? Why does nobody really believe that this is a real problem that will really affect them?

To declare the answer is to call for changes nobody has the courage to make.

And we don't need Michael Moore or even Upton Sinclair (although I'd like a new Sinclair!). We need the President and some people in Congress to say and do the right things to reclaim our government from special interests, Wall Street, and the military-industrial complex. Don't hold your breath.

As long as we continue to prioritize needed health care as a "luxury," we are all at risk. It's sheer superstition and fear that keeps people from acknowledging that they are at risk.

Fear and superstition do look a lot like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, though, don't they?

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

To declare the answer is to call for changes nobody has the courage to make.

And somehow we've come to the point in society where popstars are supposed to be sages. Nobody expects any elected officials to accomplish anything that doesn't come from a popular direction. Bono is supposed to be figuring all this out for us, isn't that why he's God--I mean, richer than God?

Fear and superstition do look a lot like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, though, don't they?

You know, I've said it before and I will keep saying it: the root of this is a philosophical denial of our own mortality. We are too distanced from death; we seek retribution when the inevitable happens. Everybody wants to know WHY somebody died--it must be someone's fault, mustn't it?

The truth is that it doesn't matter. She was going to die anyway. The end just came a bit sooner than anyone expected. And that's the thing about death. He just shows up. Health insurance won't ward him off, denying that there is a problem and that you might get really sick and need health insurance won't keep him away either.

I maintain that on a subconscious level, people think that having health insurance will prevent illness. Reminds me of those horrible Gerber life insurance commercials which perpetrate that myth: for $x a month, you can protect your child! From dying? No, you can't.

And, like many things people are in denial about, they have to ignore the real issue in order to keep the illusion going.

The facts are very simple. We are all going to get sick. We are all going to die. The American Cancer Society estimates that half of American men and a third of American women will have cancer at some point in their lives. And, despite minor differences in risk due to financial status, age, weight, race, etc., I think we're all roughly equally likely to get sick. And we are certainly all 100% likely to die.

The only sensible, the only ethical answer is to figure out what it will cost to cover everyone, and spend it. There are ample places to cut costs--like my aforementioned triple-billed glorified xray. And if they can't find someone to just DO IT, dammit, appoint me. I'll take the fallout. I will make it happen. I have two little boys, I'm used to small, whiny men trying to manipulate me.

 

[Anaesthesine]

I'm so disappointed that nobody has the balls to call the insurance industry on their grossly immoral practices. We need an Upton Sinclair--somehow Michael Moore is not getting the job done. Why does nobody listen? Why does nobody really believe that this is a real problem that will really affect them?

If you lose your job, you are f***ed. You won't have insurance, and once you get sick or let it lapse because you can't afford the premiums, you won't be able to buy insurance on the open market under the current system--no one will sell it to you, because they are allowed to assume that you won't be profitable.

As long as we continue to prioritize needed health care as a "luxury," we are all at risk. It's sheer superstition and fear that keeps people from acknowledging that they are at risk.

Pregs, There is an awful lot of magical thinking going on out there, and it's inexplicable.

What really is dispiriting is the fact that so many American's are fighting AGAINST the right of their fellow Americans to obtain the necessary health coverage to keep themselves and their loved-ones alive, and to finally control costs in a meaningful way. It's insane - it's like a particularly twisted civil war; it boggles the mind.

Michael Moore did his best - he's been going on about this subject forever; the problem may not be the message or the messenger, but the audience. Talk about cognitive dissonance - the current health care debate pushes that notion to new levels.

Where is our new Upton Sinclair? I think it's like punk rock - that just can't happen again.

Obama and many pundits talk about the complexity of the problems, and they're right. But Obama and the Democrats are in Washington to cut the Gordian knots and solve these problems, make them un-complex. You want to give Obama a pass for not being able to solve these difficult problems because you can't figure them out (nor can I). Well, here's the rub: it's not our job to figure it out. It's his. It's Obama's job to figure out how to push his party to crush the opposition and pass meaningful health care reform, and it's Obama's job to figure out how to curb unemployment, and it's Obama's job to understand the Afghanistan situation for what it is, an empire-slaying sinkhole. And he can do this job with or without the support of the opposition. In fact, if Obama were to stonewall the right and do what's best for this country (single-payer or robust public option, out of Afghanistan, major economic reform, and more), not only would he go down as one of the great Presidents, he'd effectively destroy the GOP forever. The next two to four Presidents would also be Democrats.

You radical leftist, you.

So far attempts to curb unemployment, fix the mortgage crisis, stabilize the banks, overhaul the health care system, withdraw from Iraq and draw-down in Afghanistan and restore the rule of law while simultaneously reconfiguring our energy policy and mercilessly crushing the obstructionist right haven't been going all that smoothly, but progress has been made. This health care bill has gotten further along legislative channels than any other President has been able to push it (although I fear that it will end up watered-down to nothing). The mortgage crisis is being parsed right now - heaven willing the lenders will begin to cooperate. The Iraq draw-down was never going to be anything less than brutal, and Afghanistan is a mess that, I agree, looks like an ongoing disaster. As for climate change, the transition to a system based on green technology is truly, unimaginably complex, but tax subsidies and serious government support for the science is happening.

I want Obama to stonewall too; I don't know why he's taking the middle-course. I'm going to have to assume that the political calculus is beyond my ken. It seems that the Democrats simply don't have the free-and-clear votes on these issues, and any attempt to hard-line these efforts would result in instant legislative defeat.

Have you considered the idea that Obama's "serious complexity" theme is merely a calculated way of speaking to his half of the country in terms it understands, just as Bush's "yee-haw simplicity" was his way of reaching his constituents?

Do you think that this is an overstatement by this administration to deflect criticism? If anything, it seems like an understatement on their part. If people in the other half of the country really think that things are "yee-haw simple," then they cannot be reasoned with.

Tonight on "60 Minutes" Kroft asked Obama, point-blank, how we could expect to succeed in Afghanistan when it's not a country but a loose collection of tribes, and at any rate what passes for a central government is run by gangsters and drug dealers. Obama basically said, "Well, hey, it's not ideal". That's no answer. It's insanity, and I'm not going to savor the astonishing irony of the United States' re-commitment for years nine, ten, and eleven in a war in Afghanistan on the (roughly) twenty-year anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

I missed the interview, so I don't know if Obama seemed glib on the subject. Personally, I don't know what to believe at this point: we can't prop up an illegitimate regime, we can't unite warring tribes, we can't defeat a movement that operates as independent cells, and we can't impose our morality at gunpoint.

I no longer believe that decisions on Afghanistan are based on Biblical prophesy, however, nor do I think that this administration is in the grip of insane neocons who have such a twisted sense of American exceptionalism that nuclear war and genocide seem like acceptable risks. For this I am grateful.

The Geminid meteor shower is about to start here in the Northeast - I'm off to contemplate the heavens...

 

[McLovin]

Worm, Anaesthesine's post articulates my feelings on the matter and then some. But I'll add a few more of my own.

Your post makes a lot of sense, McLovin, except in one regard: "incredibly complex opposition". Pac-Man looks complex, too, until you shoot through the maze eating dots. Then it looks pretty simple, no?

The simple fact is, the Republican Party is on life support, the tea baggers are loud but-- with respect to legitimate channels, anyway-- not a major threat. They'll chew each other up before they hurt the Democrats, as seen in the last election. And in any event, the Democrats enjoy a strong majority in Washington. Certainly not overwhelming power, as the health care debate shows, but strong nonetheless.

In my haste to write a brief post, I didn't properly articulate what I meant by "incredibly complex opposition". I wasn't only referring to the GOP. As you suggested, there's plenty of reasons to think that they're getting fractured by the tea baggers and/or becoming marginalized by their intransigence in not creating room for moderate views. But nevertheless, they are the other major political party, and they have clout whether we like it or not.

Adding to the fluctuating "opposition" list is members of his own party, e.g., blue-dog democrats. Also Lieberman. Also, those others in congress whose votes have been bought on numerous other important issues.

Adding to the list is big business. Yes, they already contribute heavily to the GOP, but it's also clear that they contribute significantly to the Democratic party as well. Money of course is very important for re-election, but also to retain democratic seats in Congress as well as ensuring that those votes don't get bought as well. It seems clear to me that, as president, there has to be some give and take to ensure survival. That's just politics.

The potential "opposition" list includes citizens whose votes are swayed even by seemingly minor decisions. Take for example the excise tax in the health care reform. Sounds reasonable enough...until you consider that small businesses widely oppose it. And now he has to consider its effect on the reform overall while considering its effect on who benefits (or cynically put, how many voters will benefit from it or even recognize that they've benefited from it) as compared to those who won't. And this is just one small aspect of a vastly complex bit of legislation, which is only one crisis of a vastly complex series of crises.

The potential "opposition" list also includes the potential fallout that may occur from pushing the agenda no-holds barred. You say that the GOP will be crushed, but would that really be true? After all, Lyndon Johnson pushed through some of the most progressive social agenda ever, but his party lost immediately in '68. Roosevelt and Truman brought the country out of utter despair only to lose immediately in '52. If Obama pushes through his agenda with vigor, and fails because of a lack of votes, then what? An impotent president? And how will that impact his re-election bid, his party and his party's agenda? I don't think the answer's all that clear.

Worm, you make excellent points. Also, like you, I'm quite frustrated by the potential disappointments in three major fronts. But as I had mentioned before, I'm not ready to consider this a lost cause either.

Have you considered the idea that Obama's "serious complexity" theme is merely a calculated way of speaking to his half of the country in terms it understands, just as Bush's "yee-haw simplicity" was his way of reaching his constituents?

My understanding regarding the complexity of his undertakings is simply based on my own interpretation of things. I hardly ever listen to Obama talk. I also avoid listening to or watching the pundits, talking heads, et al., as much as I can. They make me nauseous.

Well, whatever. You're as better-informed than anyone else here, so I hope you know something I don't.

Please tell me you're rolling your eyes at how frustrating this whole scenario is and not at me.

 

[Worm]

And somehow we've come to the point in society where popstars are supposed to be sages.

How do you think we got there, though? It didn't happen by magic, did it? I wish I knew.

You know, I've said it before and I will keep saying it: the root of this is a philosophical denial of our own mortality.

You're right. When you're right, you're right.

I saw a piece about regenerating body parts on "60 Minutes" last night. They take tissue from the lining of pigs' stomachs and put them into patients' bodies. The tissue helps trick the body into re-growing body parts, apparently activating a "switch" that gets shut off shortly after we stop developing. Though it's experimental right now, and only in limited use, it shows promise. A cancer patient and a wounded soldier both showed "miraculous" improvement with regenerated parts (a new esophagus and a new thigh muscle, respectively).

We're not moving toward a society in touch with its mortality, that's for sure. But taking the optimistic view, perhaps the "new, improved" humanity will be infinitely better, just unlike anything we can imagine now. What I picture is a bleak mix, drawn on class lines: someday medicine will be able to re-grow our bodies to keep us alive forever, barring violent destruction of our brains, only it will be accessible only to the rich. And they way we're going, there are going to be a few citadels of the rich and great masses of the poor, with nobody in between. It'll make this health care "debate" look like an episode of The View.

And that's the thing about death. He just shows up.

Yes, usually on holidays and birthdays; he tends to resemble one's mother in law, I'm told.

I think we're all roughly equally likely to get sick. And we are certainly all 100% likely to die.

You're harshing my mellow. I'm going to listen to some Christmas music and chill out.

The only sensible, the only ethical answer is to figure out what it will cost to cover everyone, and spend it. There are ample places to cut costs

That's the thing-- single-payer is by far the best option and the cheapest. The hand-wringing the Democrats are doing about the cost of the plan is an outrageous farce. Everyone knows what the best plan is, and that it saves money, but because of...why again?...they won't enact it.

I'll take the fallout. I will make it happen. I have two little boys, I'm used to small, whiny men trying to manipulate me.

ROFL

Look, I'm sure your kids on their worst days aren't as bad as Joe Lieberman. You want to deal with that little homunculus? You'd better re-think your offer. As Truman Capote had cause to note, "More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones".

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

How do you think we got there, though? It didn't happen by magic, did it? I wish I knew.

Laziness. Faith in the free market. Pop culture has replaced religion.

Haha. Read that Joyce Carol Oates story I've been dropping references to for weeks now. "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" Death shows up on Sunday in an Elvis-like guise, takes the maiden.

You're right. When you're right, you're right.

Keep talking like that and you might get somewhere. Wait, what am I when I'm wrong?

And the way we're going, there are going to be a few citadels of the rich and great masses of the poor, with nobody in between. It'll make this health care "debate" look like an episode of The View.

I've been thinking about what will come next after Postmodernism. Nobody really has put forth a decent definition of postmodernism, except to say that it's where we are now. Everything after modernism is postmodernism. So what's after that? The post-apocalyptic. We haven't actually had one big apocalypse, but it sure feels like we're dancing around the edge of one. And I think everyone is very aware of our proximity to utter ruin. Witness the rise in disaster flicks and zombies in pop culture. Zombies are the hottest thing now. There is zombie porn. There are zombie books for little kids.

Get a fiddle and get ready to watch Rome burn.

Yes, usually on holidays and birthdays; he tends to resemble one's mother in law, I'm told.

I have no photographs of mine. But yes.

As Truman Capote had cause to note, "More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones".

Good thing mine are never answered.

 

[Worm]

and it's inexplicable.

I disagree. Nothing is inexplicable (except Adam Lambert). Capitalism relies on mystification, and its number one trick is to infuse in us the notion of "inexorable fate". Its next favorite trick is "magical thinking", as you know from your Marx. We're not totally in the dark about what's going on. As I said, the answers are too massive to contemplate.

You radical leftist, you.

I just sneezed into my Corrosion of Conformity T-shirt.

progress has been made.

Jury's still in the back yelling and lunching on ham sandwiches.

tax subsidies and serious government support for the science is happening.

I do think things are looking better on the green front. Obama does understand the urgency and we are seeing some broader changes in thinking. The question is, will it be fast enough? But yes, on the impending world catastrophe of global warming, he's changed the climate in Washington.

I want Obama to stonewall too; I don't know why he's taking the middle-course. I'm going to have to assume that the political calculus is beyond my ken.

But it isn't beyond your ken. Come on now.

It seems that the Democrats simply don't have the free-and-clear votes on these issues, and any attempt to hard-line these efforts would result in instant legislative defeat.

See, you're thinking like a wussy Democrat.

Half of what goes on in Washington is kneecap-breaking, arm-twisting, deal-cutting, and (like Joan in "Mad Men") breaking vases over the head of your partner. You're thinking of men and women in a big room debating bills. Think instead of Don Corleone putting a horse's head in the Hollywood producer's bed. That's how the Republicans work, and that's how Obama and Rahm Emanuel should be working ("Thatch tha Chicagow way!", I can hear Sean Connery saying in "The Untouchables"). Joe Lieberman should be up on Capitol Hill singing hymns to Michele Obama's booty, trembling in fear and loathing at Rahm's footsteps, not obstructing health care reform.

Do you think that this is an overstatement by this administration to deflect criticism?

What I'm saying is, for eight years we had a guy in the White House who didn't speak "our" language-- didn't really speak English at all, some might say. Now we do. Fine and dandy, except we have to remember that Obama has speechwriters just like Bush did, just like they all do. There's a danger in feeling too comfortable with Obama's explanations of things-- having our own identities soothed and comforted by somebody who, so we think, is "one of us". You can see the same dynamic at work every night on "The Jon Stewart Show", "The Rachel Maddow Show", and others of that kind. For eight years we thirsted for a President who could at least talk seriously about the problems we faced, instead of pretending like we're running out the clock before Armageddon. Now that we've got such a man, we still have to think critically about what he's saying-- and on the two main issues I've been talking about, there's a lot of hot air surrounding issues which, in fact, can be reduced to digestible simplicity.

I missed the interview, so I don't know if Obama seemed glib on the subject.

He wasn't glib. Just dismissive. He started his non-answer to Kroft by saying, "Look, Steve, I've asked myself all the same questions", flattering Steve (and the viewing audience) by admitting, hey, the President's stumped too. Well, sorry, but the "difficult question" about nation-building in Afghanistan boils down pretty nicely to a big fat lump of "NEVER FIGHT A LAND WAR IN ASIA".

I no longer believe that decisions on Afghanistan are based on Biblical prophesy, however, nor do I think that this administration is in the grip of insane neocons who have such a twisted sense of American exceptionalism that nuclear war and genocide seem like acceptable risks. For this I am grateful.

Sure, I feel that way too, but will we really continue to feel this way when the nation is bankrupted by war, stripped of its status as a superpower, and several thousand more American troops are dead or wounded, not to mention thousands of dead Afghan civilians? The distinctions between Bush and Obama will melt away at that point, in my estimation. He blew it. He was bullied into the "surge" by McChrystal and by the wussy Democrat fear of being labeled soft. And he disgraced himself a week before he accepted his Peace Prize. There's no getting around it, IMHO.

 

[Worm]

they have clout whether we like it or not.

They have clout, but I don't care if the numbers are 51 Blue State and 49 Red State. The Dems have enough to push forward good plans for America and they aren't doing it.

Don't you think, if Obama and the Democrats acted forcefully, that by 2016 a lot of the "opposition" would actually join their side if financial regulations brought sanity back to the economy, we weren't fighting any wars (i.e. in a state of peace), there was money for public education, and everyone had access to good health care? To me it's the definition of political myopia-- and just plain cowardice-- not to see that by dragging half of these reluctant citizens into the light they will not only face no backlash but will instead win their votes. In other words, change the nation, and you change the opposition. We all believe that universal, affordable health care will be a major benefit to each and every American-- well, if we believe it, why don't we provide health care to everyone and reap the rewards in 2012 and 2016?

The Democrats act as if they can't change half the country's mind. Well, a lot of those minds will start changing, and fast, when they can get good drugs, have surgery, or get preventative screening for low or no cost, and have all these things without "going socialist". We already have proof: Medicare. We're talking about real, tangible benefits for the entire country, gains that are easily measurable. We're not talking about trying to convince Joe-Bob in Arkansas to love gay people.

The potential "opposition" list includes citizens whose votes are swayed even by seemingly minor decisions. Take for example the excise tax in the health care reform. Sounds reasonable enough...until you consider that small businesses widely oppose it. And now he has to consider its effect on the reform overall while considering its effect on who benefits (or cynically put, how many voters will benefit from it or even recognize that they've benefited from it) as compared to those who won't. And this is just one small aspect of a vastly complex bit of legislation, which is only one crisis of a vastly complex series of crises.

You have a very detailed understanding of the situation, obviously. I don't deny anything you're saying is true. But it's also true that while there are compelling facts which force certain decisions, there are equally, if not more compelling, facts on the other side of the ledger which also decisions that trump the first. Obama has to have the guts to say, "Look, it's going to hurt, but it's the right thing to do financially and morally for this country". If we're more concerned about the bottom line for "small businesses", our new sacred cows, then we're not "God's Country" anymore, we're just a consortium for money-making. And he needs to say this, lead the fight, lay down the parameters of the debate. That's what a liberal would do.

After all, Lyndon Johnson pushed through some of the most progressive social agenda ever, but his party lost immediately in '68. Roosevelt and Truman brought the country out of utter despair only to lose immediately in '52. If Obama pushes through his agenda with vigor, and fails because of a lack of votes, then what? An impotent president? And how will that impact his re-election bid, his party and his party's agenda?

I answered this above-- most of us are 100% convinced that we're not arguing anymore about "liberal" versus "right-wing" politics. We have a party with flawed ideas on what to do about our problems, and a do-nothing party full of idiots and zealots. On wars, on health care, on the environment, we're not debating about one approach versus another. We're debating about doing something versus doing nothing. It's not that the teabaggers have a different view of how to stop global warming. They have no view of any kind, except the denial of science. If this is so, we need to have the courage of our convictions and say that if we do the right thing-- the necessary thing-- then sooner or later our fellow Americans are going to come around to the truth.

To make a silly but useful analogy, it's like food recommendations. How often have we had to deal with friends, or young children, who have some ridiculous mental block about a certain kind of food, say, sushi? "Yuck! I'd never eat that". Well, if we believe that sushi is really tasty, what do we do? We twist their arms to dine out at the local sushi joint because-- well, why? Because we know that after about five minutes of actually tasting the food they'll like it. Could be sushi, could be tofurkey, could be any damn food.

Like I said above, you let all these Red Staters in the South and Midwest start going to the doctor regularly, for cheap or no costs, and watch them have access to "socialized medicine" (ROFL), you'll see them come around pretty quick to liking these so-called "impossible liberal projects" we're all so worked up about now. And when we put these unemployed Red Staters to work in green jobs, and allow them to put money away knowing their investments aren't going to tank because of a Wall Street meltdown, they'll start voting Blue.

The Democrats must have the balls to believe in what they're doing, because if they are right about medicine, global warming, and so forth, they will convert the opposition-- or, at least, enough of the opposition to keep them in power.

Please tell me you're rolling your eyes at how frustrating this whole scenario is and not at me.

Of course I'm not rolling my eyes at you. I wish more of us had the sharp understanding of these problems that you have. In my view, though, we have to hold our side accountable for what they're doing or not doing. For me, the health care debacle and the "surge" in Afghanistan really put Obama into a new and unflattering light, that's all. As Cornel West said last fall, "I'm Obama's biggest supporter now, but the day he takes office I'm going to be his biggest critic".

 

[Anaesthesine]

I've been thinking about what will come next after Postmodernism. Nobody really has put forth a decent definition of postmodernism, except to say that it's where we are now. Everything after modernism is postmodernism. So what's after that? The post-apocalyptic. We haven't actually had one big apocalypse, but it sure feels like we're dancing around the edge of one. And I think everyone is very aware of our proximity to utter ruin. Witness the rise in disaster flicks and zombies in pop culture. Zombies are the hottest thing now. There is zombie porn. There are zombie books for little kids.

Postmodernism is so 20th Century. I've been referring to the current state of things as pre-apocalyptic.

As for zombies and vampires, they have always been with us. It doesn't get any better than the Italian goremasters like Lucio Fulci or Dario Argento - the 70s and the 80s were the best time to revel in cheap undead thrills.

No, what's new now is torture porn, which really does signal the End of Days.

Get a fiddle and get ready to watch Rome burn.

*sigh*

But it isn't beyond your ken. Come on now.

But it is, it has to be, it just has to be...

Half of what goes on in Washington is kneecap-breaking, arm-twisting, deal-cutting, and (like Joan in "Mad Men") breaking vases over the head of your partner. You're thinking of men and women in a big room debating bills. Think instead of Don Corleone putting a horse's head in the Hollywood producer's bed. That's how the Republicans work, and that's how Obama and Rahm Emanuel should be working ("Thatch tha Chicagow way!", I can hear Sean Connery saying in "The Untouchables"). Joe Lieberman should be up on Capitol Hill singing hymns to Michele Obama's booty, trembling in fear and loathing at Rahm's footsteps, not obstructing health care reform.

Joe Lieberman has such a nice committee chairmanship, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it, you know what I mean...

What I'm saying is, for eight years we had a guy in the White House who didn't speak "our" language-- didn't really speak English at all, some might say. Now we do. Fine and dandy, except we have to remember that Obama has speechwriters just like Bush did, just like they all do. There's a danger in feeling too comfortable with Obama's explanations of things-- having our own identities soothed and comforted by somebody who, so we think, is "one of us". You can see the same dynamic at work every night on "The Jon Stewart Show", "The Rachel Maddow Show", and others of that kind.

I think Stewart and Colbert have been fairly critical of this administration - pretty scathing, actually. I seldom get to watch Rachel Maddow, but I'm fond of her nonetheless.

For eight years we thirsted for a President who could at least talk seriously about the problems we faced, instead of pretending like we're running out the clock before Armageddon. Now that we've got such a man, we still have to think critically about what he's saying-- and on the two main issues I've been talking about, there's a lot of hot air surrounding issues which, in fact, can be reduced to digestible simplicity.

Yes, I am often lulled into a false sense of security by the soothing tones of voices from the fact-based community. I'm a sucker for empirical nerds.

Sure, I feel that way too, but will we really continue to feel this way when the nation is bankrupted by war, stripped of its status as a superpower, and several thousand more American troops are dead or wounded, not to mention thousands of dead Afghan civilians? The distinctions between Bush and Obama will melt away at that point, in my estimation. He blew it. He was bullied into the "surge" by McChrystal and by the wussy Democrat fear of being labeled soft. And he disgraced himself a week before he accepted his Peace Prize. There's no getting around it, IMHO.

We have already been bankrupted by war and stripped of our status as superpower. We are in the post-imperial phase. We must never lose sight of who forced us into this debacle, and who would do it again without "blinking."

McChrystal isn't the only one who thinks that some kind of "surge" is the answer here. The Democrats know that this war is increasingly unpopular, and I think it would have been easier to declare victory and leave than allow it to drag on somewhat indefinitely. The hawks would have choked on their own regurgitated bile, but the resultant victory-dance by "The Enemies of Freedom" would have been another form of political suicide.

There are no good solutions any more. Obama is left holding a sack of dead kittens no matter what he does, and nobody likes dead kittens.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

No, what's new now is torture porn, which really does signal the End of Days.

There are no good solutions any more. Obama is left holding a sack of dead kittens no matter what he does, and nobody likes dead kittens.

I think Republicans secretly do.

 

[Worm]

Laziness. Faith in the free market. Pop culture has replaced religion.

Okay, but could you identify where that came from? I mean, just trying to speak in crude generalities. For the sake of argument. Could you maybe put your finger on when pop culture began to replace religion? Which cultural forces contributed to this change?

Wait, what am I when I'm wrong?

When you're right, you're right. And when you're wrong, well, when you're wrong you'd better be charming.

Nobody really has put forth a decent definition of postmodernism, except to say that it's where we are now.

Fredric Jameson would agree and disagree with you, as is his wont.

And to the extent that he disagrees with you, he might gently whisper in your ear that postmodernism is the cultural logic of late capitalism, a statement that encapsulates the problem and implies a solution.

Everything after modernism is postmodernism. So what's after that? The post-apocalyptic. We haven't actually had one big apocalypse, but it sure feels like we're dancing around the edge of one. And I think everyone is very aware of our proximity to utter ruin. Witness the rise in disaster flicks and zombies in pop culture. Zombies are the hottest thing now. There is zombie porn. There are zombie books for little kids.

But the post-apocalyptic isn't really a cultural development or a political project. If anything, the recent rise in vampire, zombie, and disaster flicks is proof that although in some sense we recognize the danger we're in we can do nothing about it, which is itself a political fact to be examined and dealth with. Unless you're just saying we're f***ed and we might as well kiss kittens, steal Mars bars, and ride on the back of bread vans...

Good thing mine are never answered.

There's still a chance Morrissey will knock on your door for a cup of afternoon tea and naked Twister. Don't give up hope. The way things are going in Morrissey's life these days, nothing is out of the question...

 

[Worm]

As for zombies and vampires, they have always been with us. It doesn't get any better than the Italian goremasters like Lucio Fulci or Dario Argento - the 70s and the 80s were the best time to revel in cheap undead thrills.

Isn't it interesting that arguably the greatest 70s zombie film, George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead", was inspired by, and takes place in, a Pittsburgh shopping mall? A satirical element seemingly absent in today's productions, and certainly absent in Zach Snyder's remake.

I think Stewart and Colbert have been fairly critical of this administration - pretty scathing, actually. I seldom get to watch Rachel Maddow, but I'm fond of her nonetheless.

I'm fond of all three, too, but there's a risk of complacent thinking, of which I'm often guilty myself.

Ahem.

Now. How can you say this...

I'm a sucker for empirical nerds.

...and follow it with this...?

There are no good solutions any more.

If we're empiricists, there are good solutions. If we're empiricists, not all, but many of the fools can be pushed into the light of the truth.

Like I told McLovin, we're facing a set of existential crises that require very specific solutions that have little to do with political ideologies.

The health care system doesn't work and will eventually bloat us into bankruptcy. It has to be fixed.

Wars aren't helping us and will eventually ruin our military and bloat us into bankruptcy. These must be ended.

The economy is poisoned at a basic level and will eventually destroy the middle class and continue cycles of painful crises. It must be overhauled.

The planet is dying. It has to be saved, and the changes have to start now.

All empirical problems are also political problems, which carry with them a host of complexities, but that's precisely why we elect politicians to address them. If you love empirical nerds, elect some and make 'em act like they, y'know, actually believe in empiricism. I thought we'd done that with Obama, but it's looking iffy right now.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Which cultural forces contributed to this change?

Madison Avenue? Products used to be sold because they were convenient and met existing needs. Then advertising figured out that they could create a need, so that we'd want the product they were selling. Now that we're so manipulable (really, I never perceived a problem when I baked brownies before. Dip your knife in hot water, they cut like butter. But apparently, brownies are so inconvenient that it's a wonder anybody bothers! Until now...) they can create any need and sell us anything. It's doubletalk, it's increasing our chocolate rations to 50g a week!

Really, I think the privation of the Depression and the anxiety of WWII led to a generation that was willing to work as hard as it took to make sure their kids had everything. And we're those kids' kids. Two generations of spoiled, and one crucial generation away from seeing how much work it took to create that much excess.

And our tolerance for pain, suffering, and death is at an all-time low. The free market has gotten away with so much that inconveniences are just not tolerated. And maybe that's it, maybe a free market in which anybody is allowed to sell us any piece of shit they can manufacture and tell us any lie they want to get us to buy it. Now our food is made of chemicals and our clothes and toys are made with slave labor. We just outsourced the slaves to China.

So, my answer? The unchecked free market is to blame. If you allow anybody to profit from any scam they can dream up, disaster will follow slowly behind. We needed our parents to limit what we could spend our allowances on. Our parents didn't do that, they were busy buying cool video games so they could play after we went to sleep.

So why the hell can't anyone sell the need to fix health insurance? One good 30-minute infomercial would do the trick. If we can talk people into needing blankets with arms on them... I think it just goes to show how much money there is to be made in NOT letting people have coverage.

And to the extent that he disagrees with you, he might gently whisper in your ear that postmodernism is the cultural logic of late capitalism, a statement that encapsulates the problem and implies a solution.

Well, yes. Late capitalism is our problem. Profit is immoral. There is really no moral justification for taking more than you need.

I sound drunk here, but listen: capitalism = vapid-alism. We sold our brains for a Jolly Rancher and a Chinese-made capgun.

Unless you're just saying we're f***ed and we might as well kiss kittens, steal Mars bars, and ride on the back of bread vans...

Kissing kittens makes my lips itch. Can I hang around my apartment and write stories instead?

There's still a chance Morrissey will knock on your door for a cup of afternoon tea and naked Twister. Don't give up hope. The way things are going in Morrissey's life these days, nothing is out of the question...

Naked Twister with Morrissey? Who do you take me for? That's a totally different set of threads. I have never licked the relics- I mean shirt scraps- I own.

f*** it, I'm moving to Sweden. I can prove my Swedish lineage, maybe I can get a passport. And God knows I love the furniture...

 

[Anaesthesine]

Isn't it interesting that arguably the greatest 70s zombie film, George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead", was inspired by, and takes place in, a Pittsburgh shopping mall? A satirical element seemingly absent in today's productions, and certainly absent in Zach Snyder's remake.

George Romero was a prophet, to be sure. "Dawn of the Dead" is a masterpiece because it was smart, funny and felt like the truth, somehow.

Still, the Italians were FUBAR. Everything now is a retread with much higher production values, which kind of ruins it for me.

If we're empiricists, there are good solutions. If we're empiricists, not all, but many of the fools can be pushed into the light of the truth.

Like I told McLovin, we're facing a set of existential crises that require very specific solutions that have little to do with political ideologies.

Yes and no. There are solutions out there, but they're as unpalatable as they are necessary, and they have everything to do with political ideologies, because that is what's preventing them from being implemented.

The health care system doesn't work and will eventually bloat us into bankruptcy. It has to be fixed.

Witness the awesome power of a disloyal opposition to wring it's own neck (and ours) by proclaiming that a win on health care would be a political win, so we must all lose.

Wars aren't helping us and will eventually ruin our military and bloat us into bankruptcy. These must be ended.

Ditto, plus war has always been a popular pastime for "leaders" who feel powerless, and the citizens who love them.

The economy is poisoned at a basic level and will eventually destroy the middle class and continue cycles of painful crises. It must be overhauled.

And again.

The planet is dying. It has to be saved, and the changes have to start now.

You'd think that would overcome any form of political opposition, but the opposite appears to be true.

All empirical problems are also political problems, which carry with them a host of complexities, but that's precisely why we elect politicians to address them. If you love empirical nerds, elect some and make 'em act like they, y'know, actually believe in empiricism. I thought we'd done that with Obama, but it's looking iffy right now.

As has been noted. Obama is butting his head up against the cold, hard wall of political reality. I truly believe that he is the Nerd we've been waiting for, but he plays far too nice. His inner professor says that you can win any argument with empirical evidence and enlightened, reasoned discourse, but you cannot win an argument with such a fatally intransigent opposition, which is what politics is often about.

Seneca may have spoken sense, but it was Nero who held the power and had him killed. That's about what happens when might meet right.

Oh, the humanity...

 

[Worm]

advertising figured out that they could create a need

Undoubtedly true.

But you only explained half of your interesting comment.

For advertising to replace religion, Madison Avenue not only had to step in as the dominant force in the culture, but something, or several things, had to vacate the dominant position-- perhaps religion, perhaps another social institution like schools.

Looked at another way, what ground could we occupy from which we might meaningfully critique advertising? Doesn't the ground we try and occupy shift under our feet? Isn't the critique of advertising already contained in most modern advertising itself?

When the Geico gecko sits in his office, listening to an ad manager pitching slogans for the new Geico commercial, is this not an ironic presentation in which Geico is laying bare the mechanism of advertising as the very subject of a piece of advertising? Indeed, the gecko suggests the slogan "Fifteen minutes will save you fifteen percent on your car insurance", and a moment later the voiceover on the commercial repeats the line verbatim in a pointedly "classic", "voice-of-God" commercial voice. Does the ad require us to "believe" in it the way, let's say, a housewife in 1957 "believed" an ad for laundry detergent? Clearly not. The housewife (let's give her credit) didn't believe her husband and children would be as euphoric in their clean shirts and socks as the family was in the ad she saw in The Saturday Evening Post, but certainly she didn't have to navigate a heavy dose of irony in the very way in which she made sense of what she was given.

Irony is indeed one of the primary characteristics of postmodernism, even (or especially) in its notable absence. In many cases, it's the inability to tell if something is ironic or not in the first place that defines postmodernism. Pastiche, for example, is blank parody. In the case of advertising, we are forced at every moment to confront a central irony, one which works on a few different levels. A catchy phrase Theodor Adorno came up with many years ago was "See through and obey". Believe, and don't believe; but buy the product. Accept, and don't accept; but buy the product. Don't fall for advertising's lie, and fall for it; but buy the product. (Or oppose the war, and support the war; but send the troops.)

In other words, advertising is the problem, but the way advertising works is borrowed from somewhere else, and requires that other dynamics be in place to succeed.

How did we learn to see with two sets of eyes, so to speak? When did irony become the dominant mode of our culture? Any particular culprits?

Our parents didn't do that, they were busy buying cool video games so they could play after we went to sleep.

Yet video games are now a huge business, on the level of Hollywood studio productions, so clearly we have forgiven them. Adapting what I said above, can a nation of video-game players effectively criticize their parents?

Well, yes. Late capitalism is our problem. Profit is immoral. There is really no moral justification for taking more than you need.

But there's no moral justification for not taking more than you need, right?

I sound drunk here, but listen: capitalism = vapid-alism. We sold our brains for a Jolly Rancher and a Chinese-made capgun.

f*** it, I'm moving to Sweden. I can prove my Swedish lineage, maybe I can get a passport. And God knows I love the furniture...

You get two for that one.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Witness the awesome power of a disloyal opposition to wring it's own neck (and ours) by proclaiming that a win on health care would be a political win, so we must all lose.

This is a big part of why this is so frustrating. This isn't a Friday night game of poker played for the change from the top of everybody's dresser. This isn't the NFL, within which they just trade trophies and everybody win$ in the end. This is people's real lives. It doesn't matter at all to me whether the people at the head of the table, the people in the Washington, call themselves Republicans or Whigs or Socialists or Democrats. There is very little difference, as long as they get shit done and meet people's needs. And that's not happening, because they're busy doing the political equivalent of the Greek Games in the Revenge of the Nerds films.

And it's all driven by money. I read in the Chicago paper this weekend that many prominent Chicagoans who held fundraisers for Obama are getting pissy because they're not getting Lincoln Bedroom and Camp David invitations. They say, "This is not the level of access we were expecting. This is not like what we were treated to with the Clintons."

I don't know, does that restore your faith in Obama at all, Worm? Maybe he's just shy.

Ditto, plus war has always been a popular pastime for "leaders" who feel powerless, and the citizens who love them.

See, we were made to read 1984 and Animal Farm and Brave New World, as were our parents, and apparently NOBODY paid any attention or realized that those were more than cool stories. There was a reason those books were written, and they are in the canon for a reason.

I'm quite frustrated and unsure how to proceed. I only have one weapon, and you're looking at it. Words on paper or screen. And words are cheap, even good ones. Hell, good ones are cheaper!

But you only explained half of your interesting comment.

I know, my attention is divided between this and another project. I should focus on that for now.

Looked at another way, what ground could we occupy from which we might meaningfully critique advertising? Doesn't the ground we try and occupy shift under our feet? Isn't the critique of advertising already contained in most modern advertising itself?

What ground? The aisle at Safeway? Flip it over and spot the block. They can't hide all the truth.

The meta-awareness of advertising is simply a new rhetorical technique. It probably has an old name, but that's for next semester. It's meant to say, "Yeah, I know this is a cheesy commercial, but really, we're just having a little fun and asking you to take a second look at our product! We know you'll like it once you try it."

Does the ad require us to "believe" in it the way, let's say, a housewife in 1957 "believed" an ad for laundry detergent? Clearly not.

No, they're not selling household stuff with the same sense of magic. It's much more, "We know housekeeping's a chore. We're gonna help you get it done quicker and easier--and our products smell great, so it's practically spa therapy!" Seriously- go check out the cleaning products aisle at a big supermarket. You can't find "lemon" and "pine" anymore. It's all java acai lavender pomegranate. Floor polish. I liked lemon.

How did we learn to see with two sets of eyes, so to speak? When did irony become the dominant mode of our culture? Any particular culprits?

Hm... my memory only goes back so far. I'm thinking the sixties. The Kennedys, and the civil rights struggle with all those deaths. Then advertising shifted to vanity-based tactics, selling image to jaded people. Now we're meta-aware and skeptical. Today's household shopper is buying it cause they're all the same and this one smells better.

But there's no moral justification for not taking more than you need, right?

If I take more, there is less for someone else. If I take too much, I have nowhere to put it, and it will spoil before I use it.

Books are excepted. I will take others' share of books without a qualm. They weren't really going to read them anyway.

You get two for that one.

I'm honored.

Back to Edna Pontellier.

 

[Worm]

I don't know, does that restore your faith in Obama at all, Worm? Maybe he's just shy.

No. To regain my faith, Obama needs to announce a $500 billion bail-out of the publishing industry.

There was a reason those books were written, and they are in the canon for a reason.

Orwell is cited as a hero by the right as often as the left. That tells you something.

I know, my attention is divided between this and another project. I should focus on that for now.

What, arguing fruitlessly on an Internet forum isn't time well spent?

The meta-awareness of advertising is simply a new rhetorical technique. It probably has an old name, but that's for next semester. It's meant to say, "Yeah, I know this is a cheesy commercial, but really, we're just having a little fun and asking you to take a second look at our product! We know you'll like it once you try it."

Perhaps you refer to Richard Lanham's "bi-stable" relationship in which rhetoric is instinctively read in two different modes. This would be correct except for the fact that the bi-stable relationship supposes that the mind moves freely between two different modes of consciousness and ultimately, on some level, is conscious of the poles and the movement between them. What if the two modes are collapsed into one? What if one's cognition were so crossed-up that one floated helplessly between the two poles such that the instability and uncertainty of the mind itself was the persuasive factor leading one to a pre-determined end? "See through and obey": we do not have to believe the things we believe in.

It's all java acai lavender pomegranate. Floor polish. I liked lemon.

Yes, and that's precisely it. Why "java acai lavender pomegranate" instead of "lemon"? Because (as was always true) the product wants to flatter your taste. The floor polish tells you, "Lemon was okay for your mother. But you shop at Crate & Barrel; you drink lattes; you were raised to appreciate Mother Nature and all her organic foods and spices".

Levi's tells you, "You're not like your parents. You believe in a struggle for higher things, you are free and sexy, you will find love if you bravely face the future, you will find sex if you courageously soldier forth to change the world".

Apple tells you, "You appreciate elegant design. You don't just want a machine, but a device that is almost alive, seems to have a personality of its own. Of course, that personality is entirely yours, which is why our products have the letter 'i' in front of their names. Machinery is nothing without human design, and our designs satisfy your refined tastes and our products allow your personality total expression. We help you be you, only more so".

T-Mobile tells you, "You're not like your parents. You are a special human being, unique in your tastes and ways of expressing yourself, and yet you also believe in the human community. You reject all the false values of war, division, and group-think. You want to be yourself, but yourself within a larger community. An individual but with a strong 3G network".

Let's see.

Return to nature and organicism.

Love and sex. Optimism. Broad, positive social change.

Free self-expression.

Individuality within community. Loving connection with others.

Do those ideas add up to any particular social, cultural, or political movement you can think of?

Our culture put a lot of value on these things long before Madison Avenue started using them to sell products.

Our culture continues to put a lot of value on these things, even with Madison Avenue using them to sell products.

Our critique of our culture relies on these ideas as we struggle to understand how our civilization uses these ideas to support or subvert these ideas.

See the problem?

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

What, arguing fruitlessly on an Internet forum isn't time well spent?

Worm, you know I love few things better than fruitless intercourse... I mean, uh, "discussion," with you, but I have a paper due in a few hours.

Levi's tells you, "You're not like your parents. You believe in a struggle for higher things, you are free and sexy, you will find love if you bravely face the future, you will find sex if you courageously soldier forth to change the world".

Is this true? Damn. I'm doing all those things, but my jeans are from The Gap. Maybe that's why I'm not getting laid.

Return to nature and organicism.

Love and sex. Optimism. Broad, positive social change.

Free self-expression.

Individuality within community. Loving connection with others.

Do those ideas add up to any particular social, cultural, or political movement you can think of?

Yes, but then we're hippies completely subsumed by materialism. Hippies with Gold Amex cards. Worst of both worlds.

Our critique of our culture relies on these ideas as we struggle to understand how our civilization uses these ideas to support or subvert these ideas.

See the problem?

Yes, but how to sell asceticism? Can we make privation sexy? Everybody's terrified of the word "socialism" and they don't even know what it means.

I'm sorry to be so frivolous. I do take this discussion seriously, I just can't focus on it right now. This makes me sad. If only I had a job, like everybody else, then I'd have lots of free time to post on Solo.

 

[Worm]

Worm, you know I love few things better than fruitless intercourse... I mean, uh, "discussion," with you, but I have a paper due in a few hours.

lol

Write away then, and more power to you.

Yes, but then we're hippies completely subsumed by materialism. Hippies with Gold Amex cards. Worst of both worlds.

Well, yes-- hippies. I was going back a bit further in the historical record: Romanticism. I say this not to be "academic" about it, but to point out that the original movement was much older, vaster and more influential than a bunch of smelly potheads in a muddy field in '69. We have to understand the extent to which certain ideas have permeated our culture if we have any hope of finding a way out of our problems.

Yes, but how to sell asceticism?

This is the crux of the dilemma, and you have, consciously or not, made a very striking comment on the nature of the dilemma in choosing the word "sell". Between the idea and the acceptance of the idea there is an entire institution to be reckoned with: the marketplace, with its innumerable laws and mechanisms. Put differently, between the idea and the acceptance of the idea there is a mediated field-- clue number one.

I'm sorry to be so frivolous. I do take this discussion seriously, I just can't focus on it right now. This makes me sad. If only I had a job, like everybody else, then I'd have lots of free time to post on Solo.

As the man once said, throw your homework onto the fire!