Author Archives: nate

Getting Out the Vote

The Democratic candidates were at their silliest a few weeks ago at that one debate when everyone was asked if they thought Dean could beat Bush, and (Dean excepted) they all said “No.” What poppycock. None of them will have an easy time of it, but _any_ of the major contenders has a real chance at victory. The main reason for this — and this is by no means an observation that originates with me — is that we’re a nation divided. Four years ago the popular vote was split right down the middle, and Bush’s policies have only served to cement the convictions of his supporters and detractors.

I thought about all of this as I looked over “my notes on Bush’s inauguration”:http://www.polytropos.org/archives/000272.html. If I was annoyed then at the fact that Bush was behaving as if he had a popular mandate when he clearly did not, and troubled by the sense of entitlement displayed by many of his supporters, I don’t have a word for how I feel about it now. A couple things I said back then are particularly interesting in retrospect:

On the other hand, the protestors’ fundamental right to do what they were doing was challenged and belittled at every turn. The media coverage I saw didn’t reflect the extent or the passion or the sheer presence of the protests.

This is a dynamic that was repeated during the run-up to the war.

For those who do object not only to Bush’s politics but to his very legitimacy, it’s going to be hard to stay present in the public eye for two or four years. But I think it’s important that they do. This inauguration was not ritual-as-usual. Its circumstances were unique in American history. I am eager — and very curious — to see how the American people will comment on it all the next time we all head for the polls.

That ‘next’ time was the midterm election, and as far as the American people commenting on the previous election: they didn’t. It didn’t help that the DNC had its head up its tuckus, to boot.

The hope for a Democratic victory in November lies less with swaying swing voters and more with getting out the vote. I get the sense that many more people than usual have already made up their minds, and the important question is how many of them will actually get to the polls. Kerry, Dean, Edwards — whoever wins should remind America of the last presidential election. He must drive to the polls everyone who _didn’t_ vote in 2000 and said to themselves afterward, when they saw how close it was, “Man — I guess I should’ve voted.”

Inspiring the populace to action isn’t easy, and whoever wins the Democratic nomination had better be good at it. This is my biggest reservation about Kerry, and a strength for Dean and especially Edwards (who Bush is “clearly afraid of”:http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/bal-bz.malpractice27jan27,0,4324470.story?coll=bal-health-headlines). But again — any of them _could_ pull it off.

And please, oh please, let Ralph Nader keep to himself this time around. “There’s no real difference between Gore and Bush” — remember _that_ poisonous bit of nonsense?

Smallville

I’ve said it before when talking about Alias: the way to watch good TV shows is to rent them on DVD. You have to wait a couple years, but in that time you can usually get a sense, through your friends or through the grapevine, of which shows start good and stay good. The latest proof positive of this technique is Smallville, which we’re renting through Netflix interspersed with Alias and The Sopranos. (It’s been a while since we’ve rented an actual movie—with Ella around, we’re far more likely to have forty-five minutes to spare than a couple of hours.)

Those of you who are already Smallville fans will have to pardon the enthusiasm of somebody who’s only four episodes in. But for those who have no clue: the show airs on the WB, and traces the life of Clark Kent as a high school student, as he’s gradually discovering his powers and before he’s decided upon life as superhero. Practically speaking, of course, he is the hero of the show, but has to wrestle with fitting that role into the rest of his life in a way that fits very well with Jim’s idea that “the superhero story is the literature of ethics.”

The show is obviously and, at times, derivatively post-Buffy. It runs the same “supernatural metaphors mapped onto adolescent experience” schtick, replacing the Hellmouth with kryptonite meteors as an explanation for the strange goings-on. But what really puts the show on a rung below Buffy is the fact that neither its characters nor its actors are anywhere in the league of folks like Willow, Xander, and Giles.

Except Lex. Lex Luthor in Smallville is a striking, sad, and intricate character, brilliantly played by Michael Rosenbaum. We know the villain he’ll become, but it’s clear that that path will be a tragic arc—right now he’s the spoiled rich kid just trying, like Clark, to find his own sense of self, in his case out from under the thumb of his father, the Bad Businessman. He alone makes the show worthwhile at some points, rather like how scenes with Londo Mollari would redeem an otherwise mediocre Babylon 5 episode.

Smallville doesn’t have dialogue that’s as clever as Buffy (though it’s very good), or that show’s wonderful fantasy setting, but its plots are tighter and (comparing season 1 to season 1 so far) more elegant. The pilot is masterful, and the following three episodes are solid fun. Having Clark only gradually discover his powers is a great narrative device, because the audience knows all the things he’ll eventually be able to do and can’t wait to see exactly how it all plays out. I can already see the stuff that threatens to get old about the show, though. Having kryptonite scattered everywhere thanks to the meteor shower is both a brilliant idea for balancing out Clark’s powers as well as a plot crutch waiting to be overused. But the thing that will make the show hardest to stick with is not even a weakness: I’m not the target audience. Buffy was a high school show written for adults thinking back on their rotten high school experiences; if actual adolescents loved it was a happy accident, they were unusually sophisticated, or they were just swooning over David Boreanaz and/or Sarah Michelle Gellar. Smallville, by contrast, is very much geared toward the teenybopper set. There are plenty of emotional moments that don’t click at all now, but that I know would have just killed me when I was fifteen. And I’m a little old at this point to get excited about a wall-sized poster of young Lana Lang. Still, such is the fate of those who favor the groundbreaking, imaginative, quirky sorts of shows that network TV would never touch. (Babylon 5, Buffy, Firefly, Smallville—insert your own favorites.) Loving them is always a little bit of a labor of love, but always worth it.

Ah! So this is the plan, then. I’ll unveil Smallville for Ella when she’s fourteen, and save Buffy for when she’s eighteen. It goes without saying that whatever’s airing on TV at that time will be unwatchable crap . . .

Ultimate Magriel Power

If I haven’t piped up with much backgammon news lately, it’s not because I haven’t been playing — just not playing very often. But the relative decline in mindshare taken by the game of kings increased again with my Christmas present from Suanna: “Backgammon”:http://www.gammoned.com/books/magriel.html by Paul Magriel. This book is rightly referred to as the Backgammon Bible, and while certain later texts (like Robertie’s) are generally understood to improve on Magriel in certain aspects of advanced play, _Backgammon_ is unmatched as a comprehensive and well-written survey of the game’s strategy.

Getting the opportunity to read the book had started to become an obsession for me. It’s out of print, so you have to get it used or direct from the author. French, a good friend and frequent backgammon opponent whom I’ve “mentioned before”:http://www.polytropos.org/archives/000075.html, got a copy of Magriel a while back but has been judiciously keeping it to himself. After losing badly at “the club”:http://www.polytropos.org/web/backgammon.html on occasional Mondays, I would often say to myself “Man. I have _got_ to read Magriel.”

In Michigan I only read the first half, which is a survey of basic strategy that for me was pretty much review. Even so, having read it a part of me felt somehow enlightened — empowered, even. This feeling lasted only until I actually got to play the game again back at “The Grounds”:http://www.commongroundsarlington.com/ against Steve, who decimated me ruthlessly. Turns out — surprise! — that as with any game, playing a lot and staying in practice is far more important than anything you can learn from a book.

My New Year slump ended Sunday afternoon — sort of. French, Steve, and I headed up to Bethesda to compete in the bi-monthly tournament of the “Beltway Backgammon Club”:http://www.beltwaybg.org/. The matches were longer and the play more intense than at the Virginia Club, our usual haunt, so I was very pleased to go two and two. Steve even won the loser’s bracket and took home a bit of money. Far more satisfying than that, though, were the money games I played on the side, where I netted a total of twenty, ah, “points” against French. Both experiences reinforced what I’ve known for a while: my checker play is pretty solid, but I’m still a rank novice when it comes to understanding the subtleties of the cube. The big mistakes I made in the tournament — at least, the ones I was aware of — all involved mishandling of the doubling cube.

I still have that second half of Magriel to plow through — that must be where all the truly powerful backgammon lore is hid. If I can just finish the book, _then_ I’ll be unstoppable. Yeah. That’s it.

Oscar Nomination Chatter

I’m a sucker for the Oscars. It’s a form of masochism. The movies I want to win never seem to win, and even the nominations never quite get it right. But I still tune in faithfully every year, even an hour early to watch the stars strut down the carpet. It’s my one capitulation to the American cult of celebrity.

Nominations are out today, and while there are many nominated films I haven’t seen, I won’t let that stop me from nattering. This year, it’s all about _The Return of the King_, both for its intrinsic merits and because _The Lord of the Rings_ has yet to be recognized by the Academy in a meaningful way. I thought that each of the previous films deserved the Oscar for Best Picture, especially _Fellowship_, making the past two Oscar nights particularly painful. This time, finally, hoping for a LOTR win isn’t entirely unreasonable.

On to the categories!

*Actor in a Leading Role*

Johnny Depp — _Pirates of the Caribbean_
Ben Kingsley — _House of Sand and Fog_
Jude Law — _Cold Mountain_
Bill Murray — _Lost in Translation_
Sean Penn — _Mystic River_

I’m only 2 for 5 in this category, and I’d be happy with either Murray or Penn winning. Slight edge to Murray. Baseless prediction: Sean Penn. I do plan to see both _Pirates_ and _Cold Mountain_, so all this may change.

*Actor in a Supporting Role*

Alec Baldwin — _The Cooler_
Benicio Del Toro — _21 Grams_
Djimon Hounsou — _In America_
Tim Robbins — _Mystic River_
Ken Watanabe — _The Last Samurai_

Where the deuce is Sean Astin? Samwise Gamgee is the very definition of a “supporting role.” He deserves the win here and he doesn’t even get nominated. I hereby boycott the category.

*Actress in a Leading Role*

Keisha Castle-Hughes — _Whale Rider_
Diane Keaton — _Something’s Gotta Give_
Samantha Morton — _In America_
Charlize Theron — _Monster_
Naomi Watts — _21 Grams_

Yikes! 0 for 5! I’ll keep my mouth shut, except to say that I know a lot of people who were big fans of _Whale Rider_ and will be delighted that that actress got a nod.

*Actress in a Supporting Role*

Shohreh Aghdashloo — _House of Sand and Fog_
Patricia Clarkson — _Pieces of April_
Marcia Gay Harden — _Mystic River_
Holly Hunter — _Thirteen_
Renee Zellweger — _Cold Mountain_

1 out of 5. Prediction: Renee Zellweger, based on _Cold Mountain_ trailers.

*Cinematography*

_City of God_
_Cold Mountain_
_Girl with a Pearl Earring_
_Master and Commander_
_Seabiscuit_

_Excuse_ me?! Where the heck is _Return of the King_? The cinematography was one of the best things about the film. Another boycott. Humph.

*Directing*

_City of God_
_The Return of the King_
_Lost in Translation_
_Master and Commander_
_Mystic River_

At last, we get to the categories I really care about. It is more important to me that Peter Jackson win this award than that _Return of the King_ win Best Picture — but it’s also less likely to happen. Haven’t seen _City_. _Master_ was fun but has no business in this category. Clint probably has another Oscar-worthy movie in him, but _Mystic_ isn’t quite it. I wouldn’t whine if Sophia won for _Lost in Translation_, though.

*Writing (Adapted Screenplay)*

_American Splendor_
_City of God_
_The Return of the King_
_Mystic River_
_Seabiscuit_

Given its “glaring omissions and bad cuts”:http://www.polytropos.org/archives/000222.html, I’m not convinced that _King_ should win this one. I think perhaps I’ll have to watch this _City of God_ flick and find out what the big deal is before deciding/predicting.

*Writing (Original Screenplay)*

_The Barbarian Invasions_
_Dirty Pretty Things_
_Finding Nemo_
_In America_
_Lost in Translation_

Go _Translation_! I’ll stick with that even though I haven’t yet seen three of the others. Nice to see an animated picture get some attention here.

*Best Picture*

_The Return of the King_
_Lost in Translation_
_Master and Commander_
_Mystic River_
_Seabiscuit_

Obviously, if _King_ doesn’t win here I’m swearing off the Oscars forever. It’s both my pick and my prediction. The only one in the same league is _Lost in Translation_, which is what I’d probably be gunning for in a Tolkien-less world. What’s most alarming about this category is what’s missing — I thought _Cold Mountain_ was supposed to be all that? _Master_ and _Seabiscuit_ both strike me as “Pick me! Pick me!” movies that don’t really have any business being nominated here.

Updates to follow as I get a chance to see the movies I haven’t seen yet. Then again, in past years I’ve always seen fewer of those than I mean to, and that was pre-parenthood. Time will tell.

Inauguration Day 2001

Thinking about the upcoming primary and election put me in mind of the last presidential election. I went back to reread something I had written the day George W. was inaugurated, when I had gone into DC to wander around and take notes on what I saw. (Pity I didn’t have a digital camera back then.) It’s amazing to think of all that’s changed in the intervening years. I plan to make some more comments eventually that springboard off of my observations from back then, so I’m including the old essay below. I’m being just a little self-indulgent in doing so, since it’s only the last two paragraphs that I’m really going to be using; you can safely skip past all the descriptive stuff to those if you like.

Inauguration Day

George W. Bush got himself inaugurated last Saturday, at the end of an all-too-ordinary campaign and an all-too-unusual post-campaign struggle. Given the prospect of celebration happening alongside protest, the fundamental grinding of conflicting ideologies at the epicenter of world politics, I wanted to be there. It was just across the river, after all.

I had an opportunity to get an actual ticket to the Inauguration Ceremony itself, but passed that up. I was more interested in what would be going on at the periphery, among the protest and boundary lines. But I wasn’t going as a protester myself, either. As nervous as I am about Bush being President, I didn’t share either the visceral emotion or the perspective of those who, for example, were holding up signs that simply said “COUP.”

I went to watch, to see what I might see, and in wandering around the Mall area (in an extraordinarily wide arc, given the barriers) I saw a lot. Here are some highlights.

The Metro ride there, in a way, said it all best. The city was filled with partisans of both stripes and precious few people in between. The car I rode in was two-thirds filled with Bush supporters. The rest were bound for the protests. I was amazed at the degree to which they were readily identifiable by clothing and appearance.

The Bushies: Short hair, clean-cut, often with primary-color windbreakers. Walking advertisements for L.L. Bean. One guy was showing his “Luana Hills Golf Course” cap to his friends, talking about how cool it was to be golfing in Hawaii. A significant Bushie subset were the Texas Aristos: generally older, with guys in suits and ladies in fur, fur, and more fur. A smaller subset were the Russ’ Restaurant crowd: the Midwesterners in dowdier clothing, often carrying pro-Bush signs and wearing t-shirts with slogans.

The Antibushies: Long hair, scruffy, granola. Many woolen sweaters and sandals. Lots of pierced skin. Mostly college-age or in their 20’s. The main subset: African-American protestors, mostly middle-aged women. Nearly everyone with a sign of one kind or another.

I’m stereotyping here, but only a little. Both on the Metro and wandering around the Mall, I’d say the above descriptions, taken together, accounted for 80% of the crowd. One exception was two grey-haired women not far from me who ended up sitting across from each other. They could have been sisters, but one of them was clearly with some Bushies and the other had a “Hail to the Thief” t-shirt on. There was an awkward silence in that part of the train at that moment. The Bushie lady broke it.

“Is that about Jack Kennedy in 1960?” she asked.

“No, it’s for Bush—you know, the one who didn’t get the popular vote?” the other replied.

The Bushie lady nodded. “Well, maybe we can work on changing the system now. But what’s done is done.” She smiled in an awkward way, clearly trying to avoid a sense of tension. They looked at each other for a moment, each of them perhaps reaching for some common ground. But there was nothing. They probably led hauntingly parallel lives back home, but that day the gulf between them was immense, insurmountable. They both looked away.

Just outside the Metro, a throng of African-American and Latino teenagers were loudly peddling “W Stands for Winner” t-shirts.

Not far from there was a Bushie counter-protestor, of a sort. He was taking great pleasure in standing on the counter and periodically shouting, victoriously, “Al Who?”

A brief rant: It’s the attitude symbolized in that statement that irks me the most. Even though Bush was elected under dubious circumstances without the majority of the country behind him, many of his supporters are proceeding with a disturbing degree of smugness—indeed, a tangible sense of entitlement. Worse, “Al Who?” carries some weight of truth—the media has for the most part left Gore behind, and the coverage of the protests that I saw treated it more as an occasionally-disruptive curiosity than one of the vital poles of a nationwide debate.

I came across the second most profound juxtaposition of the day on Independence Avenue across from the Botanical Gardens. A bunch of protestors clustered there, and a charasmatic young guy with a goatee paced back and forth with a loudspeaker, reciting a litany of grievances against Bush, the Supreme Court, Republicans, and John Ashcroft. He was building to a climax as deftly as any pulpit-pounding preacher, with the words “I love my country! I love democracy! But today that democracy has been stolen from us! I cannot accept this man as my President! And I will not rest and I will not be silent!” At that exact moment, the loudspeakers from the Inauguration Ceremony a hundred yards away were blaring the National Anthem. Behind him, a small cluster of Bushies who must not have had tickets to the ceremony put their hands over their hearts and glared at loudspeaker guy. Right in front of him, half a dozen tourists captured every word and gesture with handheld video cameras.

The plaza in front of the Supreme Court was jam-packed with protesters, mostly African-Americans. A few nervous policemen tried to keep the sidewalk open for those just passing by. But the whole scene was eerily muffled by the presence of a dozen huge tourist buses idling loudly on the street. I’m sure it was just an unfortunate coincidence, but if I was into conspiracy theories, I’d theorize that the buses had deliberately been parked there in order to drown out the protests.

Here and elsewhere, I was mistaken for a reporter while standing to the side and scribbling observations into my notebook.

“Are you with the Washington Times?” one guy asked.

“No.”

“The Post?”

“No, I’m not a reporter.”

He looked skeptically at my notebook. Then he asked ominously, “Are you an agent?”

“Nope, not that either,” I replied, though I should have said “Agent of what?” For his part he must have concluded that I was a reporter, because he gave me his card and started talking about who he was with and the nature of their protest (“The Texas Racist”), filling in for me the questions I wasn’t asking him.

The periphery of the Mall was filled with innumerable anti-Bush slogans and logos. “Hail to the Thief” was the most common, though “Selection Not Election” was also very popular. The endless variations on the same core puns got old rather quickly. Consequently, when I passed by some guys in scarlet shirts that simply read “FUCK BUSH” in black letters, it was refreshing.

By the Capitol, a Texas Aristo lady in fur and heels was trying to cross a street crowded with protestors. After unsuccessfully trying to make headway through the throng, she took a step back and bellowed: “Would you PLEASE get out of my WAY!” Every fiber of her being quivered with annoyance.

Problems like that were rampant along the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue. I got down there well before the parade to look around, but after a short time things started getting very, very crowded. The cops had blocked off streets so that there were only certain access points to the route, plus the bleachers created a lot of bottlenecks on the sidewalk. Even before the parade attendees started streaming in en masse, it was sardine-crowded. The weather up until that point had been wet and miserable, but a full drizzle kicked in to make it even worse.

Which brings me to the most profound juxtaposition of the day: on the sidewalk, protestors, dripping, huddled, halfheartedly belting out their slogans in the face of the weather. Occasionally, cops jogging by in formation (wearing “soft” riot gear) to attend to a particular hotspot. But above it all, on the second and third and fourth floors of the office buildings and hotels, Bushies in suits stood watching through big bay windows in one of dozens of private viewing areas rented out for the occasion. Sipping wine. Peering bemusedly at the chaos below.

I had to clear out of there before the parade got started. Claustrophobia. But when I finally got free of the crowd, I was consumed with a desire to beat the system—to get into one of those tall buildings and find some un-rented window view of the parade. In short, I wanted to infiltrate.

Main entrances were out of the question – there were security guards at the doors and people taking tickets or invitations to whatever exclusive gathering was going on in the upper stories. But buildings have many entrances. I slipped into the parking garage of the Marriott and from there through an inconspicuous double door leading to a maintenance tunnel of some kind. From there I tried—oh, I tried—to find something that would get me up and into the building past the security checkpoints. And I almost succeeded. I found a service elevator that fit the bill perfectly, but the hotel had covered their bases—it was locked down. I also found a fire escape stairwell that wound all the way to the top, but each and every door leading out was locked. No exceptions.

By that time, back outside, it was raining even more and the parade still hadn’t started. I decided to call it a day, and headed home.

I don’t know what conclusions to draw from all these impressions. On the one hand, I don’t agree with the protestors about a lot. I’m not happy that Bush is President, but I don’t see it as a failure of democracy. A failure of supposedly-impartial judicial institutions, yes. A failure of Gore’s political campaign, sure. And Bush has certainly angered me since, nominating a depressingly partisan and old-school batch of Cabinet members in the face of his pledges for unity and non-divisiveness. But the system worked. Messily, lurchingly, sometimes unsatisfactorily, but it worked.

On the other hand, the protestors’ fundamental right to do what they were doing was challenged and belittled at every turn. The media coverage I saw didn’t reflect the extent or the passion or the sheer presence of the protests. And I heard and saw far too many Bushies, awash in their sense of entitlement, angry at the very presence of the protests, refusing to acknowledge their right to be there or the profound issues that they represent, however extremely.

For those who do object not only to Bush’s politics but to his very legitimacy, it’s going to be hard to stay present in the public eye for two or four years. But I think it’s important that they do. This inauguration was not ritual-as-usual. Its circumstances were unique in American history. I am eager—and very curious—to see how the American people will comment on it all the next time we all head for the polls.

Blogreading

* Josh Marshall has a good “New Yorker article”:http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040202crat_atlarge on the American empire.
* “Eve Tushnet”:http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_eve-tushnet_archive.html#107484497646215295 ruminates after a long-overdue first reading of _Watchmen_, and “Jim Henley”:http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2004_01_25.html#004983 has an excellent response that drifts into a broader consideration of the role of superhero fiction:

And of course the core question, “what could possibly make [volunteer firemen] think that it was worthwhile to risk their own lives to save others,” can be spun and flipped in a number of important ways. From _Why do firemen do what they do?_ to _Why don’t the rest of us do what they do?_ to _Why shouldn’t the rest of us do what they do?_ and even _What right do we have_ not _to do what they do?_ To me, superheroes become an interesting way of addressing these questions. I would argue that, if science fiction is the literature of ideas, the superhero story is the literature of ethics. Or say, rather, _it should be_.

* “Ed Hand”:http://homepage.mac.com/edahand/iblog/B1323778479/C1181413705/E1681227363/index.html comments on the new “Firefly”:http://www2.foxhome.com/firefly/ DVD. This prompted me to wonder why I hadn’t received my copy yet, which I ordered from Amazon a while ago. This in turn led to the discovery that I _hadn’t_ actually ordered it, but only marked it to buy later. Now it _is_ ordered — look for mucho Firely talk in a couple weeks.
* Via “Ed Heil”:http://ed.puddingbowl.org/archives/001821.html via “Beth Wheeler”:http://soli.inav.net/~penfold/, this gem: “The Lord of the Rings: A Source-Criticism Analysis”:http://www.mark-shea.com/LOTR.html. Priceless.
* Hearty congratulations to Michael Hall of “Puddingtime!”:http://www.puddingbowl.org/archives/stork/001816.php on the birth of a healthy baby boy, Benjamin Arthur Dunfree Hall. (I’ll be sure to steal that name the next time I’m in a Call of Cthulu game.) 10 lbs., 4 oz., 22″, to which I can only say: holy crap!
* UPDATE: Everyone will be happy to learn “the real story behind the Blizzard of ’96”:http://www.biblenews1.com/history3/20030216.htm. Hat tip to alert reader Bryan, who stumbled on the info while searching for ‘washing dc snowstorms.’

Bikini Hits

I’ve been puzzled by the large uptick in hits that Polytropos has been getting from Google the past couple of weeks; only today did I examine the logs in enough detail to figure out what was going on. Hundreds and hundreds of people have found my Gencon entry by doing a Google “image search”:http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q= on the word “bikini.” This is because one of the pictures I posted was the requisite shot of a woman in a chainmail bikini, which I named “bikini.jpg”. That picture made it up to page two of the search results.

Something tells me that people who find the site via a bikini search aren’t likely to stick around for the articles, as it were. So I took the picture off, though I can’t quite believe I’m doing something in order to _reduce_ traffic to this site.

If you’re reading _this_ entry because of a search for bikini pictures on the Internet: get a life! Well, maybe not a _life_ exactly, but: read blogs! Start “here”:http://www.polytropos.org, or, if you’re put off by my shameless self-promotion, “here”:http://slacktivist.typepad.com/ or “here”:http://www.highclearing.com/.

People Persons

I was watching CSPAN while giving Ella a bottle just now; they were showing John Kerry mingling with supporters somewhere in New Hampshire. He was clearly feeling under the weather, but nevertheless talked one on one with dozens of people, each with their own individual problems or comments. He posed for pictures. He answered questions. And it struck me: what’s this nonsense about him being “wooden?” Here he is, obviously exhausted, and he can still work a crowd with the best of them. Of _course_ he can: he wouldn’t have made it this far if he couldn’t.

This goes for everybody else, too. Kerry isn’t wooden. Gore wasn’t a robot. Dean isn’t angry, either, and Bush isn’t stupid. Heck, I saw Lieberman on CSPAN a few months ago doing the same sort of thing as Kerry, and even _he_ was impressive. They all do have their individual tics, their strengths and weaknesses, but if they didn’t have that weird ability to _connect_ to perfect strangers, they wouldn’t be in this business in the first place. We do all candidates a disservice by judging them by their performances in front of the bright lights, and by going along with the shorthand evaluations that a culture of sound bites inevitably creates. In a perfect world each citizen would be able to look each candidate in the eye; as it is, everyone should watch them mingle with the crowds on CSPAN. You’ll learn a lot.

Outkast Meets Charlie Brown

I find this much cooler and definitely more endearing than Viking kittens singing The Immigrant Song or Superfriends wassuping: “Hey Ya, Charlie Brown”:http://www.venisproductions.com/movies/heyyacb.html. Be sure to check it out before somebody sends them a cease & desist order for blatant copyright infringement. I hadn’t even heard the song before — clearly I need to be listening to more Outkast. I resolve to emulate Linus’ dance style at the very next wedding reception I attend. Complete with blanket if I can swing it.

Hat tip to Scott Stegenga.

UPDATE: Down in the comments, Ryan King, one of the piece’s creators, provides a mirror link that works “here”:http://www.files.funfreepages.com/videos/heyyacb.mov.

Seizing Arab Oil

Harper’s finally has a website worth speaking of—nothing to match The Atlantic’s just yet, but at least they’re putting some actual content up on the Web, and they have a good, elegant design. On their front page at the moment is an article from their archives: Seizing Arab Oil, by a guy writing under the pseudonym Miles Ignotus (Latin for ‘unknown soldier’). I read it with interest, never having heard of the article or the guy before—apologies if all of this is old news for people savvy to Cold War history and those who were politically aware in 1975, when it was first published.

Briefly, “Seizing Arab Oil” addresses the threat that OPEC posed to the world economy, especially after the oil embargo of 1973. After surveying the extent of the danger, the author discounts all possible responses other than direct military action, and then goes on to describe in considerable detail an operation to literally invade Saudi Arabia and take control of the Dharan oil fields. The remainder of the article addresses the geopolitical consequences of such an action and argues that if it was done with enough surprise, Russia wouldn’t be able to respond.

Wacky, wacky stuff. The whole while I thought that it sounded like something written by Henry Kissinger—it was well-articulated, sensible enough if you went along with some of its shakier premises, and displayed keen appreciation of global power politics without a single thought for loss of human life or other concerns of morality. But halfway through, Ignotus remarks disparagingly on Kissinger’s current solution for the OPEC problem.

Turns out, though, it was Kissinger who wrote it. Probably. All the info that follows is just a google search away; I’m sure there are historian bloggers out there who can flesh this all out, and I hope they do.

James Akins, then U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, criticized the article, saying in a television interview that whoever wrote it was “either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union.” The basis for that last comment was the fact that Ignotus’ estimates for how long it would take to get the oil fields running again post-invasion were way off, and in the meantime (Akins argued) the European economy would certainly collapse, leaving it wide open to Russian aggression.

That’s not a critique that occurred to me while reading it; the most glaring weakness was the author’s blithe assumption that the rest of the world wouldn’t mind unbridled American aggression as long as it helped keep the price of oil down. (The world’s response to the Iraq invasion, which was not a surprise and even had a pretext, bears that out.) Also, Ignotus completly fails to consider the possible actions of the Arab populace, assuming them to be a passive mob safely under the thumb of the royal family who will adjust equally well to U.S. dominance. How’s that for naive? He also paints what is, in retrospect, a nonsensical view of the consequences if Saudi Arabia is not invaded:

For if we do not do it, [we’ll end up with] a somewhat impoverished America surrounded by a world turned in a slum. Almost everywhere, this would be an authoritarian slum, the product of utter hopelessness among the poor and mass unemployment among the former rich, all of us being forced to finance the executive jets of the sheiks and the fighter bombers of the dictators.

But back to Akins: he received a rude awakening when he discovered that it was Secretary of State Kissinger who had penned the article under the Ignotus pseudonym. This is the part I’d love to be able to confirm; it’s something that’s mentioned in a number of articles but nowhere absolutely definitive. At any rate, Akins was fired a month after he gave that interview.

According to some sources from the far left, “Seizing Arab Oil” is a foundational document of the neoconservative movement, and evidence that the Iraq War is something that’s been decades in the making. The most interesting and most-linked article on the subject is The Thirty-Year Itch, by Robert Dreyfuss, published in Mother Jones. All these articles, though, glide over the fact that “Seizing Arab Oil” argues that only by cutting into Saudi Arabia can OPEC be broken; in 1975, the author’s main concern about Iraq was that it would ally itself with the Soviets in response to America’s attack on its southern neighbor. (Oh, how times change . . .) The article is far too specific in both place and time to serve as a general blueprint for future Gulf aggression.

Anyway. It’s an interesting read, especially because a matter-of-fact policy argument that’s so brutally aggressive would never fly today. We’re left with the question of whether, in those smoke-filled back rooms, the architects of America’s current foreign policy look back on assessments like Ignotus’ with chagrin or with nostalgia.

One point on which “Seizing Arab Oil” is right and continues to be right even today: Saudi Arabia has us by the balls. There’s no solution to that problem that isn’t messy beyond measure.

UPDATE: Jim Henley offers another possible take on the article: it’s a bluff.

What if the article was the plan? That is, what if the point wasn’t to advocate seizing the Saudi oil fields, but to be seen to do so – to send a Kissingerian message about not pushing the US too far? If that were the case, you would want the Saudis to be able to figure out who the real author was, and you’d sacrifice Akins (who got fired about a month after the interview).

Jim’s theory is definitely supported by the excruciating logistical detail that dominates the middle part of the piece. Why get that specific unless you were trying to make a point? Of course, the plan requires the element of surprise, which is lost the minute the plan gets published. Then again, the fact that other versions of it appeared in several different publications again suggests that that may have been the point.

UPDATE: Then again, consider these links.