A Defense of the President?

Note: The Carnival of Cinema and the Carnival of the Vanities were kind enough to feature some posts of mine, so I’m linking to them here.

I think I might be the one person that likes W.

I’m not a fan of this “let’s spend tons of money” approach he has, but I understand the rationale: the only way to change the culture of gov’t is bureaucratic turnover. One has to show that conservative measures and ideas work, and that means spending a lot of money in order to reorient the bureaucratic machinery that already exists to fulfill very different purposes.

I’m also not a huge fan of this “the only good gov’t is democracy” rhetoric, which ignores that key allies in the War on Terror – like Jordan – aren’t exactly democratic. But I understand that he says this stuff without meaning badly for those regimes, and that a liberal would have to be openly hypocritical, not just mistaken, if he asserted the same.

I wonder about all these polls that show Iraq fatigue, and the GOP poised to lose nearly every Senate and House race this November there is. My own feeling is that we’re just a bunch of big babies. We want a country to rebuild itself over night, and we have a ton of conspiracy theory and a lot of lousy “ideas” for restoring order where there is none to stand in place of “endurance” and “staying the course.” Our anger at Mr. Bush is not that we’re losing in Iraq, it’s that we have a foreign policy in the first place, I suspect.

Against this post of mine a million articles and arguments can be cited, many of which I’m familiar with. What criteria do they need to meet, do you think, in order for them to not just be ranting for the sake of saying “war is bad” or “the Bush administration is evil?” What constitutes legitimate criticism of the ruling party, and how is it possible for a rabid, foaming at the mouth populace to level that criticism without being so arrogant it assumes it knows the answers before the questions are even asked?

How to Kill Time

Advanced Global Personality Test Results

Extraversion |||||||||||||||||| 76%
Stability |||||| 26%
Orderliness |||||||||| 33%
Accommodation |||||| 23%
Interdependence |||||||||||||||||||| 90%
Intellectual |||||||||||||||| 70%
Mystical |||||||||||| 43%
Artistic |||||||||||||||| 70%
Religious |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Hedonism |||||||||||| 50%
Materialism |||||||||||||||||||| 90%
Narcissism |||||||||||| 43%
Adventurousness |||||| 30%
Work ethic |||||||||| 36%
Self absorbed |||||||||||||||| 63%
Conflict seeking |||||||||||| 50%
Need to dominate |||||||||||||||||||| 90%
Romantic |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Avoidant |||||| 23%
Anti-authority |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Wealth |||||||||||||||| 63%
Dependency |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Change averse |||||||||||| 50%
Cautiousness |||| 16%
Individuality |||||||||||||||||| 76%
Sexuality |||||||||||| 50%
Peter pan complex |||||||||||| 50%
Physical security |||||||||||||| 56%
Physical Fitness |||||||||||||||| 64%
Histrionic |||||||||||||||||| 76%
Paranoia |||||| 30%
Vanity |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Hypersensitivity |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Female cliche |||||||||||||| 56%

Take Free Advanced Global Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

The “trait snapshot” is gold:

craves attention, messy, open, rash, irritable, likes large parties, low self control, weird, fragile, does not like to be alone, emotionally sensitive, worrying, depressed, heart over mind, does not respect authority, dependent, not rule conscious, not good at saving money, more interested in relationships than intellectual pursuits, likes to fit in, very social, frequently second guesses self, phobic, suspicious, not careful, outgoing, vain, compassionate, aggressive, likes to make fun, hates to lose

An Impassioned Beauty Speaks

I sat alone
the only one in the audience
She stood alone
the only one in the room

He, next to me, about to cry,
She, next to me, with wild eyes,
I, inside me, staring around,
until my eyes set on the ground,
itself unmoved.

I noticed her head, the parted lips,
the nervous twitching of the hips,
that sometime whisper, sometime shout
from a usually soft voice, seeking –

Seeking what? Clout? Out?
Perhaps just wanting to spout?
An incoherent stream of consciousness,
words falling as if in a rainstorm,
a truly babbling brook.
No book can help me understand this.

Was she reaching out to me?
Were we naked, under a tree,
My bare back scratched slightly by the bark,
her bare arms, uncoiling like a snake towards me?

Oh, if only I could see!
But I was alone
the only one in the audience

Note: An old poem of mine. From September 2002.

On "The Departed:" Honor, Identity & Dignity

Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves—goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying Whát I do is me: for that I came.


Jack Nicholson’s character, Frank Costello, rejects the Church in The Departed for no less purpose than to play God. Why should he participate in the Eucharistic meal, where two or three meet in Christ’s name, Christ becoming all in all, when he can make his own way? The question only comes up late in the movie whether anything after his own existence can be assured; I am not speaking of eternal life.

The Departed refuses to give a vision of criminality that shies away from the word “evil.” Most times we want to think of criminals as merely those who don’t have and steal for survival. Or they have lost something great and a void has emerged in their hearts. We don’t want to believe evil exists. We want our criminals to be motivated by want of survival or the manifold problems which accompany love. In some ways, this line of thought comes from political philosophy post-Hobbes. To say that we’re primarily scared of violent death, that we’re only concerned with self-preservation, is to neglect focusing on criminal psychology. It’s to say that we all have the same motives in a sense.

The unfortunate consequence of this sort of reasoning – reasoning which human equality can be built from – is that we can’t say that cops are better than criminals. Pajiba’s review of this movie falls prey to that ridiculous notion, that DiCaprio’s good cop and Damon’s corrupt cop are really alike. They’re nowhere near alike: this movie makes it very clear that there is a big difference between one who would take a bullet for someone he doesn’t know and another who would kill just because he could.

If we take the questions this movie raises through its characters seriously, we can see even larger differences between our typical worldview and the one which has Jack Nicholson’s villain who-would-be-god on the one side and DiCaprio’s cop forced into not being himself. DiCaprio’s cop, William Costigan, merits further comment. He became a cop because his family had always been involved in crime. It disgusted him, and he literally wanted to make the one person who counted (Mom, of course) proud. But he is pressed into going undercover in Costello’s gang, so he has to do jail time, see a court-ordered shrink, and only a few cops can actually know he’s a cop. His ability to have the identity he wants is taken away from him for the sake of justice. He not only can’t be honored in such a way as to make Mom proud, but he can’t even have the dignity that might attend a normal person working a regular job.

Nicholson’s villain has the identity he wants, that of being a tyrant, receiving a warped honor from his thugs. But ultimately, given that everyone thinks he’s psycho or sleaze, what is most telling about his identity is his holding complete control over honors dispensed. Because of him, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) can rise as a cop with an immaculate record to the near top of the police force, being an informant for his gang the whole while. The villains in The Departed have a curious control over how we normally see the world. Their real expertise lies not in drug-dealing or stealing or killing. It’s in corrupting our institutions and using them for their purposes. To get justice, one will have to lack nobility and have a fluid sense of identity. This is a superhuman burden to carry, as you’re being told by what you’re fighting for that you’re not allowed to be yourself.

One might be dismissive of the idea of having one’s identity stolen like this. The question of honor usually concerns how others regard the self through the institutions we have set down. We could say that truly striving for self-knowledge should be a more than adequate replacement for such honor. Self-knowledge doesn’t stem from sociability through institutions but through the persistent quest for a Good that transcends any given institution or time. Considerations of honor, on this view, collapse into mere considerations of desire.

Costigan (DiCaprio) transcends honor because of the link between self-knowledge and his assertion of identity. All Costigan has is self-knowledge and the doubt which attends it. There is no family, there isn’t much money, and he has no power. He possesses nothing remotely characteristic of honor other than self-sacrifice. The link between his want of justice and being honored is almost coincidental. No one can say he didn’t lead a good life.

However, that’s where he ends up. I ask you to consider the cost. To not be sure who you are while having to assert yourself; to know you’re right, but at the same time be suspect under the law you fight to uphold. Self-knowledge and identity link to honor, truly: if anyone should be honored, it’s this cop. The price of having to doubt society and yourself – a doubt which, in truth, is knowledge – is having a life in this world.

Which brings us back to the concept of dignity, which we claim all men have, and purposely place lower than other, “higher” honors. All men may not necessarily be equal in the same way. That we extend an equality of dignity to all means that we need to recognize the virtues that accompany truly having dignity. We try to extend dignity to all because of those few who really do stand above. It’s only coincidental Costigan is publicly honored, but that’s because of the irony that his relation to honor is the most fundamental.

technorati tags: , , , ,

A Daughter to Her Parents on Their Anniversary

I wonder about you two.
Togetherness does not seem
Exciting, not like my time.
Over me the sun and moon
brood silently. Shopping bags
rustle during the day, later,
there is laughter, there are hot meals.
Finally, under the quiet silver moon,
there is the swift cutting of air in the park,
where there are two, apart,
riding bicycles beside each other.

I suppose all is motion for you also.
But it is motion oriented elsewhere,
to say the least. The days began
worrying about how bills were to be
paid, for then and later. Lunch was
arguing and coldness, never seeming
to go beyond the beginning. And finally,
there was no rest under the white moon,
because there was me crying, demanding
to be fed.

The sun and moon look down on me,
for the same reason they are scared
to speak to you.