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?

What is wrong with government in one sentence

WASHINGTON -

President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they're tough on illegal immigration.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought our government only existed to represent us (US citizens) and help solve larger social issues that individuals couldn't solve themselves. Assuming that is true-and again, help me out if I am mistaken-shouldn't the solution to a problem for US citizens be the only goal of the US government since it is it's sole purpose of existence? I concede that reality is never as clean a machine as theories are on paper and that this fact seriously undermines the actual reaching of solutions, but isn't that what politics are? Wikipedia defines politics as the process and method of making decisions for groups. First off, it's worth noting that there's no distinction between the quality of the decisions being made. Making horrible decisions for the group is still politics.

Here is where I start talking about intentions. Intentions are important. It's one thing if someone slaps you in the face because you have just been fired from your job and are suffering such severe panic as to be hyperventilating, hiccuping and sobbing simultaneously and they feel a good slap in the face is just what you need, but it is quite a different story if someone slaps you in the face because they are hoping that seeing you in pain will make them feel better about themselves. Sure, in both instances you have a face that is red and swollen but in only one of the cases was the other person well intentioned.

Although this does not change the current situation of your face, it changes all future situations drastically. Once the well-intentioned person realizes that the slap, in fact, did not work as well as intended, they know now that they will need to try something different next time. The next try might not work any better, but eventually something will and that person will have successfully helped you. The ill-intentioned person, however, has not only slapped you in the face this time, but as long as they are only taking into account their own well-being, there is no guarantee that eventually that person will stop slapping you in the face.

What are the intentions of our politicians? Are they making decisions for us or for themselves? Can we expect to eventually stop getting slapped in the face?

Watch out world!

But despite this shout, and despite the honest emotion behind it and even despite the exclamation point, the world paid no attention. After all, what was one man? A mouse to an elephant? No, only a fool would think of himself as a rodent compared to the size of the world...even if he were really, really fat. I don't expect the world to listen, or for my voice ever to be noticed among all the breathing and shuffling and that is okay because that is not why I write. I do not write so others may hear me and think of me one way or another with the hope of feeling more real or more alive. I write to hear myself and discover the person I am and the kind of person I hope to be in the future. And if people happen upon this inner dialogue, my only hope is that they perhaps guffaw or shrug or shiver or gasp or yawn or yell or sigh or anything really. I will be happy with anything. Any little scrap that proves that they are one living thing bumping into the life of another in this one moment out of all eternity.

That's not too much to ask, right?

Man of the Year

I am all about low expectations. This is something that's very important to know about me. I have a whole philosophy built around them that I won't get into right now. Let's just say I always strive to keep my expectations as low as possible in order to maximize the number of times in life I am pleasantly surprised while simultaneously minimizing the amount of disappointment felt.

For example, a couple days ago when my girlfriend and I went to the movies I did not expect to find anything interesting playing, but when we got there, we saw up on the big board in great scrolling red LED lettering The Prestige and lo and behold, I was pleasantly surprised. See how great my philosophy is? However, we decided to get food and by the time we got back it was sold out and we were disappointed. Why? Because we let our expectations get too high. The only other movie playing that looked even remotely worthwhile was Man of the Year and despite a deep foreboding feeling that accompanies every mention of Robin Williams, we decided to take the plunge.

We really wanted to see a movie. It was one of those cold, rainy days that come so rarely in Seattle and the idea of sitting in a warm, dark theater sounded really appealing. I was not worried. I knew it would be okay because as we waited in line and bought our tickets and while we waited in line to buy popcorn and all through the previews and ads, I focused on my philosophy. By the time the lights went down, my expectations could not have been lower. And yet, two hours later, as the credits started to roll, try as I might, I was overcome by that unmistakable feeling of...utter disappointment.

The film, as it turned out, didn't know what to expect of itself. It didn't know whether it wanted to be a lighthearted satire with bits of drama or a serious drama with bits of lighthearted satire. What it ends up being is confused and this keeps the drama from being too dramatic and the comedy from being too funny. What's infinitely more disappointing than thinking about the $20 I shelled out to see this movie, however, is that the topic addressed, the state of modern American politics, is in such dire need of criticism and reform. Now, of course I don't expect a mainstream movie to do this. I don't expect mainstream movies to revolutionize or reform anything. On the other hand, though, is it too much to expect something fresh and incisive from a film about how politics has been reduced to nothing more than a choice between candidates who could be clones of each other? My philosophy of low expectations says no, but I am beginning to believe there are exceptions to it.