Hungry Politics

Politicians give speeches in which they promise to combat poverty at gala dinners that cost tens of thousands of dollars to throw while wearing tailor made suits, while wearing solid gold cuff links. The meals served at these extravaganzas can include up to six or seven courses. This abundance of food often causes some unique moments. During speeches at these events, for example, often something particularly applause worthy is said. This could possibly be about the tragedy of poverty or just how important the fight against it is but regardless, the people at their tables are moved to become involved in the sentiment and show their whole-hearted support. They do this by applauding. This happens without a hitch for most of the people, but not all. Some of the people attending will have their forks full of fillet mignon or duck confit or chocolate mouse in mid arc on their way to their mouths at these moments pregnant with well meaning forcing them into making a split second decision to either halt that arc and put down the food laden silver or to continue their current course to their mouths so they can be part of the applause that echoes off the hundreds of square feet of hardwood floor and makes the marble pillars of the ballroom quake. It's always surprising just how many end up clapping fervently with everyone else around them as their teeth work the gourmet food. They clap and clap while thinking that the menu was better last year.

All this fanfare to exude an air of financial success which seems to be the only measure of success left today. Humans who want other humans to follow their lead need to appear successful. Why would anyone want to follow a failure? Since today's measuring stick of success is money, leaders and humans who want to be leaders need to appear financially successful. This becomes the priority. So, instead of a discussion of what matters—poverty for example—all the effort is put into looking successful. The waste of time and resources is shameful. What's even worse is the muddling of facts and skewing of reality that occurs when the 'leaders', who are the spokespeople for this issue, say things not to help make a positive change, but to make sure that they keep their power. It's almost a conflict of interest. If these 'leaders' are successful and actually eradicate whatever issue that they speak against, they lose the very thing that provides them with power. Not that anyone has to worry about them being effective. How can they possibly be effective when being effective is not their priority? What are the chances of any serious issue in our world being resolved when they are all merely means to the ends of keeping a job, keeping power and of keeping intact an image of success that so much effort goes into sustaining?

Writing for Profit

The article in the Dec 4^th New Yorker titled Killing Habeas Corpus is one of those wonderful little gems that, after reading it, makes you regret that people can make money by writing. That might sound funny coming from someone who wishes they could do that very thing, but I'm okay with sounding funny. That's preferable to someone who sounds as though they are writing merely to fill a bank account. People who write simply to make money do not write because they have something important enough to say to make them put it on paper. Money is the primary goal of this person. All other motivation takes a back seat to it. The search for truth, clarity, beauty—these things remain important only if they are profitable. It is articles like this one that reveal first hand the effect that capitalism has on art.

The article in question is about Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican senator and his relationship with Habeas Corpus, the phrase which accords prisoners the right to challenge the legality of their incarceration. The bulk of the article is about Specter's long career in which he is painted as a champion of such human rights as Habeas Corpus and abortion, often putting him at odds with many of his fellow Republicans. Specter's career is presented in a light that makes him out to be a roguish outlaw who isn't afraid to ruffle feathers as long as he is fighting for what's right. The Specter of this article is the perfect character for the kind of reversal which you might find in the pulp section of popular culture. It is a reversal that actually happens at the end of this article, just about the time when the reader might be getting a little bored hearing how much good Specter has done over his career. Everyone knows that the best good guys have a bad streak in them. What's the fun in seeing someone always do good? It's so predictable.

The writer springs his carefully constructed reversal on the very last page of the eight page story in the form of Specter voting for the Military Commissions Act which basically, as the title so provocatively puts it, killed enemy combatants' right to Habeas Corpus. This character reversal acts to turn the otherwise flat narrative of Specter's hardworking and honest career into a real, honest-to-god, story that sells! It also supplies a great title—a title with a good verb that implies action and plot. People eat this up. This is what people want. Right? Never mind that the Military Commissions Act passed by a margin of 31 votes and therefore Specter's vote was of little consequence and never mind that he voted for it knowing full well that the Supreme Court will strike it down anyway and never mind that in our political system you have to try and fit yourself into one of only two parties and that this means constantly playing a very delicate game. Never mind all that, I worked hard on this story, now where's my money?