Tuesday, March 18, 2008
'Stop-Loss' Syndrome?
I saw an interesting bit of pop culture today that got me thinking--the trailer for a new movie called Stop-Loss. There have been a lot of films critical of the Iraq debacle, mostly documentaries such as the award-winning Fahrenheit 9/11, or the more critically-acclaimed No End in Sight and the must-see, superior Why We Fight. These are all good or great films, but they are at the end of the day tailored to a predictably liberal, anti-war audience. They generally preach to the choir.
What struck me about the trailer for Stop-Loss was the seeming audience--red-state, middle America. The visuals, the music, the themes were 100 percent NASCAR nation.
The film title itself refers to the deplorable military contractual clause where in times of crisis the services can bolster their depleted ranks by keeping troops who have finished their agreed-to service of contract on a bit longer than they thought--and of course send them back to the worst possible places, regardless of their last deployment. And, on Hollywood cue, conflict and mayhem ensues.
Its a great bit of film history that movies critical of a particular war tend to come out well after the conflict has ended. And even then they will likely be controversial, such as France's 1919 J'Accuse, about the horrors (and ultimate futility) of World War I. All Quiet on the Western Front is better known, especially as it was one of the first works banned by the war-glorifying Nazis upon their rise to power. There were many years between the final shots of the Vietnam War and the production of Coming Home or the exquisite The Deer Hunter (Local note: best Pittsburgh movie ever, though Wonderboys is up there).
But how will this anti-military, anti-government film play in the ill-named 'flyover-states?' My guess is it will do OK. The thing that remains to be known at this point is what the end results will be. Easy Rider changed my mind as a teen (wrongly, or rightly?) about travel through the south. Will Stop-Loss begin to change rural and small town America's willingness to send its sons and daughters into military service, given a potential 100-years in Iraq? And thus, if it is well-received, could such a pop culture film impact our upcoming election?
I saw an interesting bit of pop culture today that got me thinking--the trailer for a new movie called Stop-Loss. There have been a lot of films critical of the Iraq debacle, mostly documentaries such as the award-winning Fahrenheit 9/11, or the more critically-acclaimed No End in Sight and the must-see, superior Why We Fight. These are all good or great films, but they are at the end of the day tailored to a predictably liberal, anti-war audience. They generally preach to the choir.
What struck me about the trailer for Stop-Loss was the seeming audience--red-state, middle America. The visuals, the music, the themes were 100 percent NASCAR nation.
The film title itself refers to the deplorable military contractual clause where in times of crisis the services can bolster their depleted ranks by keeping troops who have finished their agreed-to service of contract on a bit longer than they thought--and of course send them back to the worst possible places, regardless of their last deployment. And, on Hollywood cue, conflict and mayhem ensues.
Its a great bit of film history that movies critical of a particular war tend to come out well after the conflict has ended. And even then they will likely be controversial, such as France's 1919 J'Accuse, about the horrors (and ultimate futility) of World War I. All Quiet on the Western Front is better known, especially as it was one of the first works banned by the war-glorifying Nazis upon their rise to power. There were many years between the final shots of the Vietnam War and the production of Coming Home or the exquisite The Deer Hunter (Local note: best Pittsburgh movie ever, though Wonderboys is up there).
But how will this anti-military, anti-government film play in the ill-named 'flyover-states?' My guess is it will do OK. The thing that remains to be known at this point is what the end results will be. Easy Rider changed my mind as a teen (wrongly, or rightly?) about travel through the south. Will Stop-Loss begin to change rural and small town America's willingness to send its sons and daughters into military service, given a potential 100-years in Iraq? And thus, if it is well-received, could such a pop culture film impact our upcoming election?
A Wee Dram of Sanity?
Well, not from Obama when it comes to the asinine Reagan-mandated national drinking age of 21. The candidate with the mostest told a group of young vets that he didn't support lowering the drinking age to something sane like those that exist in every other reasonable functional Western democracy. Sure, they're fighting and dying and going insane of PTSD at an incredible rate, but why be able to drop a Bud at the corner bar? Not like it matters too much in many quarters. When I was in that awkward time between 18 and 21 in Pennsylvania, back before too many khaki-clad folks were dying in deserts, I never knew one person with a military ID card that ever got denied drinks at a local watering hole. Things have tightened up all over since those times, of course. Lets be real--we should all deal with the fact that our laws are way out of sync with reality.
Well, not from Obama when it comes to the asinine Reagan-mandated national drinking age of 21. The candidate with the mostest told a group of young vets that he didn't support lowering the drinking age to something sane like those that exist in every other reasonable functional Western democracy. Sure, they're fighting and dying and going insane of PTSD at an incredible rate, but why be able to drop a Bud at the corner bar? Not like it matters too much in many quarters. When I was in that awkward time between 18 and 21 in Pennsylvania, back before too many khaki-clad folks were dying in deserts, I never knew one person with a military ID card that ever got denied drinks at a local watering hole. Things have tightened up all over since those times, of course. Lets be real--we should all deal with the fact that our laws are way out of sync with reality.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Pulling the Nails from Hillary's Coffin
So it looks like a mea culpa is in order--to some extent. Hillary indeed did win both Texas and Ohio, as I did not think she would, thus invalidating my premature announcement of her demise. Conventional wisdom is now that she's back. I do have some problems with that. A few points are in order:
The races were Clinton's to lose Look at the compiled tracking data courtesy Real Clear Politics from Texas. Around mid-February Clinton had an aggregate 10+ point lead over Obama in the Lone Star State (as much as 16 pts in one Rasmussen survey). She pulled out the stops, threw in alot of money, placed some effective and perhaps reasonable, albeit scaremongering, TV spots, and won by a mere 3.5 pts on March 4. Granted, she did overcome the statistical tie they were in just a few days before the primary to pull ahead with last minute voters (usually Obama's forte), but all along this was supposed to be a Hillary state. The same holds for Ohio, where Clinton held an almost 20pt lead on February 14, and ended up winning by roughly 10 percent.
Rather than looking at these contests as a Clinton comeback phenomenon, the case could easily be made that all of her effort and smears only prevented Obama from delivering a knockout blow in states that she's totally dominated since the get-go.
The nomination is Obama's to lose Regardless of the outcomes in Texas and Ohio, and even my beloved Keystone state come April 22, there is little chance that Clinton will be able to overcome Obama's delegate lead going into the convention. {Quick aside: I noticed that this very evident meme got little play outside of wonky politics blogs leading up to the March 4 vote, emerging with some surprising frequency only afterwards. To me further evidence that the MSM only wants to keep the storyline moving--which I guess makes sense since it's how they earn a paycheck. But still, I'm left to wonder how either big state would've played out had this been featured as prominently from March 1-3 as it has been since March 5?} We're left with some uncomfortable and contorted tales for the Clinton camp to weave. For her to gain the nomination she'll need to rely on superdelegates. They have recently been defecting to the Obama camp, though they are free to alter their preference at any time until their votes are actually cast on the convention floor. Further, 2/3 of voters in democratic exit polls say that the superdelegates should follow the results of their state's caucus or primary. As John Dickerson noted in Slate:
"Clinton is pleading for time, arguing that voters should be allowed to have their say in future contests. But even in this she comes up against a contradiction posted by Obama's lead. Because she must rely on the superdelegates to beat back Obama's likely lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, she is essentially asking those superdelegates to listen to the people—but only long enough to be persuaded to vote for her. Then she expects them to undo the will of the people by voting against Obama in Denver."
Those eager to revive the halcyon days of Clintonism must be enthused. . . that is some serious 'slick willie' style triangulation.
Still, I think it is up to Obama to counter Hillary's criticism about his being 'all hat and no cattle,' as they say in Tejas. Given his strong and disciplined campaign so far I think its likely he can and will do so.
So it looks like a mea culpa is in order--to some extent. Hillary indeed did win both Texas and Ohio, as I did not think she would, thus invalidating my premature announcement of her demise. Conventional wisdom is now that she's back. I do have some problems with that. A few points are in order:
The races were Clinton's to lose Look at the compiled tracking data courtesy Real Clear Politics from Texas. Around mid-February Clinton had an aggregate 10+ point lead over Obama in the Lone Star State (as much as 16 pts in one Rasmussen survey). She pulled out the stops, threw in alot of money, placed some effective and perhaps reasonable, albeit scaremongering, TV spots, and won by a mere 3.5 pts on March 4. Granted, she did overcome the statistical tie they were in just a few days before the primary to pull ahead with last minute voters (usually Obama's forte), but all along this was supposed to be a Hillary state. The same holds for Ohio, where Clinton held an almost 20pt lead on February 14, and ended up winning by roughly 10 percent.
Rather than looking at these contests as a Clinton comeback phenomenon, the case could easily be made that all of her effort and smears only prevented Obama from delivering a knockout blow in states that she's totally dominated since the get-go.
The nomination is Obama's to lose Regardless of the outcomes in Texas and Ohio, and even my beloved Keystone state come April 22, there is little chance that Clinton will be able to overcome Obama's delegate lead going into the convention. {Quick aside: I noticed that this very evident meme got little play outside of wonky politics blogs leading up to the March 4 vote, emerging with some surprising frequency only afterwards. To me further evidence that the MSM only wants to keep the storyline moving--which I guess makes sense since it's how they earn a paycheck. But still, I'm left to wonder how either big state would've played out had this been featured as prominently from March 1-3 as it has been since March 5?} We're left with some uncomfortable and contorted tales for the Clinton camp to weave. For her to gain the nomination she'll need to rely on superdelegates. They have recently been defecting to the Obama camp, though they are free to alter their preference at any time until their votes are actually cast on the convention floor. Further, 2/3 of voters in democratic exit polls say that the superdelegates should follow the results of their state's caucus or primary. As John Dickerson noted in Slate:
"Clinton is pleading for time, arguing that voters should be allowed to have their say in future contests. But even in this she comes up against a contradiction posted by Obama's lead. Because she must rely on the superdelegates to beat back Obama's likely lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, she is essentially asking those superdelegates to listen to the people—but only long enough to be persuaded to vote for her. Then she expects them to undo the will of the people by voting against Obama in Denver."
Those eager to revive the halcyon days of Clintonism must be enthused. . . that is some serious 'slick willie' style triangulation.
Still, I think it is up to Obama to counter Hillary's criticism about his being 'all hat and no cattle,' as they say in Tejas. Given his strong and disciplined campaign so far I think its likely he can and will do so.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Putin's Not-Nearly Last Stand
Voting is going on today to determine the next president of thoroughly-reformed democratic Russia. OK, just kidding. . . everyone but the most naive observer knows the fix is way in. Putin leaves his eight years in office with an intensely high approval rating befitting the benefactor of a cult of personality. That alone should easily be enough to elect his anointed successor Dmitry Medvedev. Moreover, Medvedev has pledged to appoint Vlad as Prime Minister, allowing him to retain substantial influence.
But wait there's more. . . just in case there should be any vague chance that Medvedev might come close to not winning by a landslide. The first round of elections was so skewed and corrupt that it ensured all but the worst and least effective potential rivals would be on the slate against Medvedev. The Europeans refused to send international observers because in the first round they were so brusquely handled by Russian authorities that they concluded participation would be totally useless.
And to top it off, word today that there were two explosions targeting police authorities in the region bordering Chechnya. Kremlin watchers may recall that a vicious bombing campaign blamed on Chechen rebels helped Putin consolidate his power and distract Russia with a second border war against the rebellious province. Putin critics have always held doubts about the origins of that bombing campaign. Reporter Anna Politkovskaya supposedly had proof the security services may have been involved--she was mysteriously murdered before her information was published. Coincidences?
Voting is going on today to determine the next president of thoroughly-reformed democratic Russia. OK, just kidding. . . everyone but the most naive observer knows the fix is way in. Putin leaves his eight years in office with an intensely high approval rating befitting the benefactor of a cult of personality. That alone should easily be enough to elect his anointed successor Dmitry Medvedev. Moreover, Medvedev has pledged to appoint Vlad as Prime Minister, allowing him to retain substantial influence.
But wait there's more. . . just in case there should be any vague chance that Medvedev might come close to not winning by a landslide. The first round of elections was so skewed and corrupt that it ensured all but the worst and least effective potential rivals would be on the slate against Medvedev. The Europeans refused to send international observers because in the first round they were so brusquely handled by Russian authorities that they concluded participation would be totally useless.
And to top it off, word today that there were two explosions targeting police authorities in the region bordering Chechnya. Kremlin watchers may recall that a vicious bombing campaign blamed on Chechen rebels helped Putin consolidate his power and distract Russia with a second border war against the rebellious province. Putin critics have always held doubts about the origins of that bombing campaign. Reporter Anna Politkovskaya supposedly had proof the security services may have been involved--she was mysteriously murdered before her information was published. Coincidences?
