Monday, April 11, 2011

FORCE OF EVIL





Joe Morse is a hotshot lawyer who has fallen in with a powerful gangster, Tucker (played by Roy Roberts). Together, they conspire to consolidate all the numbers rackets being operated in New York City. By rigging the numerical combination that will hit on July 4th (the popular 776), they can then swoop in and overtake the smaller businesses that will be decimated by the overwhelming loss of capital this miracle outcome will produce. The only hitch for Joe is that his brother happens to run one of these small-time operations and regardless of his desire for upward mobility, he still feels a sense of love and loyalty toward his sibling. Leo Morse (played wonderfully by Thomas Gomez) helped get Joe through school and sacrificed for the betterment of his brother. Joe, like most noir protagonists, is conflicted between achieving a level of success and wondering what his actions will eventually cost him. Force Of Evil is adamant about showing realism and truth. No bad luck prevents Joe from achieving his desired happiness. The narrative circumstances that afflict him are purely based on his personal choices. We sympathize with Garfield’s character because even if he is a selfish crook who is willing to cheat the masses, there is still a distinct goodness in him to help the one person he cares about. The chance for redemption is always a possibility. Garfield’s Joe Morse must eventually pay for his transgressions. The biblical-infused Force Of Evil makes sure of that. The penalty is one that is somewhat different than most inhabitants of the genre face. Near the end of the picture, New York becomes an empty shell for Morse. The financial district is displayed as a hallow ghost town where little life moves within it. By the 75th-minute mark, we all journey with our suffering guide as he recounts, “I was feeling very bad there. Because I went down there. I just kept going down and down. It was like going down to the bottom of the world.” Where he is going reflects the epitomized conclusion of his greedy actions. The corpse of his brother has been thrown away on the rocks. Throughout the film, Joe Morse tried to accomplish two things…and neither was achieved.

Polonsky was blacklisted after this movie and only directed two more features, Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here and Romance Of A Horse Thief, both which were made in the early 70s after his moviemaking ban was rescinded. A real tragedy for film noir fans as the artist would of most likely continued making quality pictures in the genre. The destruction of his career means we will never really know how great of a director he might have been. I always equate him with Charles Laughton who also only directed one film noir (Laughton’s scarcity in filmmaking was more due to financial and box office disappointment) and we can never know what kind of filmography these two talented men would have forged. Still, we should at least be grateful that Abraham Polonsky was able to make at least one absolute masterpiece. That film is called Force Of Evil and maybe that is more than enough.

I would also like to point out the incredible contributions of David Raskin and George Barnes. The cinematography throughout Force Of Evil is peppered with breathtaking location photography and tight claustrophobic scenes of entrapment. The music by Raskin conveys the mood perfectly and really hits a high point in the end when it gives a hint of hopefulness amidst images of bleakness.

on March 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm Reply Jamie “While I could go on and on about the social message fused within the script and throughout this late 40s film noir, I find myself uninterested in discussing this aspect of the picture. My primary love and enjoyment of film noir has little to do with politics or social causes and more with investigating the struggle of the individual to battle personal demons and existential feelings. My favorite noirs are mostly about protagonists fighting the inevitable cruel hand of fate or trying to overcome bad choices they have foisted upon themselves. Force Of Evil is primarily concerned with economic realities and institutional injustices, but I primarily watch it (these days at least) for the way that Joe Morse fits in with the typical noir anti-hero. He is generally a good guy who lets materialism guide his actions until certain tragedies befall him.” This is a nice passage, one I just don’t necessarily agree with. It’s impossible to deal with this film and separate the economic messages and the characters eventual outcomes. Their fates as you call it, are directly linked to financial enterprises, forever impossible to avoid. It’s a sobering fact about how small humans are, as Paul Weller said of the reality of existence: “a pound (or dollar to Americans) or a fist it’s as clear as this”. Yes, we are weak and succumb, but it’s also because it’s virtually un-scalable. As Joe says partway through the film (a line that contains the entire truth of the picture) “I wasn’t strong enough to resist corruption, but I was strong enough to fight for a piece of it.” Strange I just watched this this past weekend (it was my second viewing in about a weeks time) and like you I looked for kernels of brilliance elsewhere (other then the anti-capitalistic message). I found some, but then thinking further I was again led back through the money trail. I think all the love stuff I was especially moved by, particularly the scene in the beginning where Joe and Doris talk in the back of a taxi. It’s beautifully shot in a romantic soft focus, they discuss hopes, dreams and possible futures, futures she particularly knows they can’t have as long as he’s tied up in the numbers racket. It’s heartbreaking, and eventually every scene they have together advances these points further and becomes the center (and heart) of the film… it’s through her (ala Bresson’s PICKPOCKET) that he can finally find transcendence and forgiveness at the films close. A damn shame she isn’t mentioned at all in this review.



Beyond aesthetic or formal value, a major work of art identifies itself through themes able to resonate long after their initial appearance. For example, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) remains a literary milestone not only for its freewheeling plot, revolutionary use of narration, and subversive humor, but also because its ideas about what it means to be an “American”, particularly regarding race, continue to hold true. Abraham Polonsky’s Force of Evil represents a similarly resonant cinematic achievement. At once, a gripping melodrama, a prototypical example of film noir, and an expressionistic moral fable, the film also offers “one of the fiercest dissections of laissez faire capitalism ever to come out of Hollywood” (1). In the wake of recent corporate scandals (such as Enron), presidential election controversies (Bush vs. Gore in 2000), and a war launched under dubious pretenses (Iraq), Force of Evil’s central theme – what is the meaning of success in America? – is perhaps more compelling than ever. Beyond aesthetic or formal value, a major work of art identifies itself through themes able to resonate long after their initial appearance. For example, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) remains a literary milestone not only for its freewheeling plot, revolutionary use of narration, and subversive humor, but also because its ideas about what it means to be an “American”, particularly regarding race, continue to hold true. Abraham Polonsky’s Force of Evil represents a similarly resonant cinematic achievement. At once, a gripping melodrama, a prototypical example of film noir, and an expressionistic moral fable, the film also offers “one of the fiercest dissections of laissez faire capitalism ever to come out of Hollywood” (1). In the wake of recent corporate scandals (such as Enron), presidential election controversies (Bush vs. Gore in 2000), and a war launched under dubious pretenses (Iraq), Force of Evil’s central theme – what is the meaning of success in America? – is perhaps more compelling than ever.

Based on Ira Wolfert’s novel Tucker’s People, Force of Evil details attorney Joe Morse’s (John Garfield) attempt to convert New York City’s daily “numbers racket” into a legal lottery. Working for gangster Ben Tucker (Roy Roberts), Joe plots to ensure “776” as the winning number on July 4th (4 July 1776 being Independence Day in the United States), knowing that superstitious working class people will bet on it. When the number hits, Joe expects every “bank” to ask Tucker to help cover their losses, thereby allowing Tucker to assume control of the entire operation. Unfortunately, Joe’s brother Leo (Thomas Gomez) manages one such bank and rejects Joe’s attempts to get him out in time. Orphaned after their parents’ death, Leo sacrificed his own future so that Joe could attend law school, generating resentment and jealousy between the brothers. Joe’s struggle to divide loyalties between Tucker, Leo and Doris (Beatrice Pearson), Leo’s assistant, comprise the heart of the melodrama and lead to a tragic, if ultimately, redemptive conclusion

Son of a Jewish pharmacist, Polonsky grew up in New York, graduated from City College and Columbia Law School, and developed a strong political conscience early in life. Speaking about the Great Depression, Polonsky said, “I came of age in a country that had come to a standstill, with fifty million unemployed and the banks closed” (2). Although he encountered early success writing for radio in the late 1930s (including for Orson Welles’ Mercury Theatre of the Air), he decided to work as the educational director and newspaper editor of a regional CIO union north of New York City. An unapologetic Marxist, Polonsky’s commitment to left-wing values never wavered and he continued as an educator throughout his life. Although he was hired as a screenwriter by Paramount in 1945, his first big success came with his screenplay for Body and Soul (Robert Rossen, 1947), produced independently by Enterprise Productions. The film garnered strong reviews, even stronger box office, and producer and star Garfield encouraged Polonsky to direct his own film as a result. Polonsky wrote Force of Evil as a vehicle for Garfield and the collaboration remained the last major work for either artist before they were blacklisted in 1951. Garfield died of a heart attack one year later (most agree that stress related to the HUAC hearings and the ensuing blacklist directly contributed to his death), while Polonsky would not direct another movie for 21 years (3). A quarter of a century before The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972), Force of Evil exposes the striking similarities between American business and organised crime. Early in the film, Joe predicts that the new lottery will become “legal, respectable and very profitable” in ways similar to horse racing or lotteries in Cuba. Consequently, defending his plan to force small banks into Tucker’s grip, Joe explains, “We’re normal financiers!” Moreover, Joe and Tucker consistently refer to their new venture as “the corporation” and others quickly accept the term. When Bauer (Howland Chamberlin) arrives late for work on the first day following the takeover, Leo instructs him, “You’re working for a big corporation, not a little man”. Similarly, when Bauer rejects a competitor’s proposition by calling him a gangster, the man surprisingly replies, “What do you mean gangsters? It’s business.”

Throughout the film, Leo weakly attempts to draw a distinction between his small numbers operation and that of Tucker’s mob. He tells Joe, “I’m an honest man here. Not a gangster with that gangster Tucker… I do my business honest and respectable.” Rejecting Tucker’s strong arm tactics, he employs a dependent band of misfits – the orphaned Doris, the meek accountant Bauer, a childlike cab driver who suffers from horrendous claustrophobia – perhaps unconsciously recognising crime as the only survival method available in the slums. When Joe pleads with Leo to leave before the takeover, Leo replies, “I’m not that big of a crook”, promising to deliver on placed bets. Harshly, Joe points out the hypocrisy of Leo’s “moral superiority” and reminds him that his bank operates on the “nickels and dimes and pennies of every sucker”. As Danny Peary notes, “Joe and Leo are equally part of the pervading corruption; and the longer they stay in, constantly moving up the wobbly ladder of ‘success’, the closer they come to self-destruction” (4). Thomas Gomez’s brilliantly manic performance physically reflects the schizophrenic nature of his frustration. He alternately rants, sweats, and screams as he feels his life slowly spin out of control. When Joe suggests that “money has no moral opinions”, Leo reflects, “I find I have, Joe. I find I have.” Polonsky illustrates that morality and success remain mutually exclusive in the current economic system and Leo’s inability to reconcile his profession with his morality leads to betrayal, neuroses, and death. In Martin Scorsese’s description, “It’s not just the individual who’s corrupted, but the entire system” (5).

Using numerous biblical references, Polonsky creates a contemporary moral fable, eschewing reality for a symbolic discourse on preserving moral integrity. The film begins with a bird’s-eye view of Wall Street, prominently featuring Trinity Church, immediately identifying money as the new religion. When Joe argues with Leo about the lottery scheme he pleads, “I’m paying you back, Leo. I’ll make you rich with an office on Wall Street in the clouds.” For Polonsky’s characters, heaven now exists in New York’s financial district. Of course, the brothers’ relationship mirrors that of Cain and Abel, directly quoted when Leo complains to Joe, “All that Cain did to Abel was kill him”. Interestingly, though, while the brothers fight heatedly, they also defend each other against outsiders. For example, when Leo suspects that Bauer may become an informer, he screams, “I’ll kill you with my own hands rather than let you put the mark of Cain on my brother”. Routinely, characters speak about moral quandaries in terms of good and evil. Disappointed with Doris’ decision to leave him, Leo says, “Black sheep like to make everybody else look black”. Meanwhile, the film’s celebrated “ruby” sequence replays the temptation of Eve and the apple as Joe outlines his philosophy of life,

Garfield performs the speech magnificently, prompting Andrew Dickos to describe him as “the most biblically angry of all the young men of the screen” (6). Fortunately, for Joe, Doris resists the desire for wealth at all costs – without giving up on Joe’s potential for salvation. With the film’s title, Polonsky describes the greed at the heart of American capitalistic culture. In his view, while wealth and power comprise success in America, they also contribute to spiritual and physical death. In fact, despite film noir’s reputation as a fatalistic genre, no other film noir (or any other movie, for that matter) comes close to matching the number of death references offered by Force of Evil: in the film’s opening moments Joe proclaims, “If you don’t get killed, it’s a lucky day for anybody”; when Joe first contacts Leo regarding the lottery scheme, Leo angrily tells him, “Come back around when I’m dead”; meeting Doris for the first time, Joe explains, “You can’t tell about life until you’re all through living it”; defending Leo’s erratic behavior, Joe tells Tucker, “Just because I’m killing myself over that dumb brother of mine doesn’t mean I’m ready to die for anyone else”. Most poignantly, Leo ruminates about the fleeting nature of life itself just before his murder, “I’m a man with heart trouble. I die almost everyday myself. That’s the way I live. Sometimes you’re dying while you’re breathing.” A pervasive atmosphere of death slowly grows over the course of the film, creating the desperate sense that while everyone strives for success, no-one wins. Salvation, instead, comes through personal responsibility and a decision to change the system. As Polonsky told Sherman and Rubin, “Having reached the absolute moral bottom of commitment, there’s nothing left to do but commit yourself. There’s no longer a problem of identity when you have no identity left at all. So, in your next step, you must become something.” (7) In turn, Joe must create his own moral universe and follow Doris’ lead toward a vision of people over profit

Produced at a time when film noir began to incorporate documentary-style techniques in films like Call Northside 777 (Henry Hathaway, 1948) and The Naked City (Jules Dassin, 1948), Force of Evil remains proudly expressionistic. Its abstract compositions, extremely high and low angles, and single-source lighting (inspired by Edward Hopper’s paintings), convey a claustrophobic world of difficult choices. Like many of Hitchcock’s films, dangerous stairwells abound and typically signify an impending moral struggle: Joe and Tucker slowly walking down a large spiral staircase as Tucker plants seeds of mistrust; the tall, steep stairwell Joe must climb to visit his brother’s slum apartment; Bauer’s fruitless escape attempt up a stairwell during a police raid; Joe’s lonely walk down stairs and across Wall Street after he discovers his office has been bugged. Polonsky saves the largest staircase for last. Learning that Leo has been murdered and left near rocks along the Hudson River, Joe rushes to the base of the George Washington Bridge. “I just kept going down and down”, says Joe as he traverses seemingly endless stairs. “It felt like I was going down to the bottom of the world, to find my brother.” Echoed by David Raksin’s evocative score, Joe reaches Leo’s body, accepts his culpability and begins his physical and spiritual regeneration with Doris at his side. It’s a remarkable journey, particularly for an 80-minute, low-budget, crime picture. However, using “highly stylized conventions… to create critical social messages”, Polonsky replaces Huckleberry Finn’s river with city streets to update America’s struggle for identity (8). 57 years later, in the age of corporate globalisation, its lessons remain more important than ever. As Jean-Luc Godard famously said of the equally brief, yet profound Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966), “it’s the world in an hour and a half”. Endnotes Nicholas Christopher, Somewhere in the Night: Film Noir and the American City, The Free Press, New York, 1997, p. 100. Patrick McGilligan and Paul Buhle, Tender Comrades: A Backstory of the Hollywood Blacklist, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997, p. 483. For the best available Polonsky biography and a detailed history of the blacklist, see Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner, A Very Dangerous Citizen: Abraham Polonsky and the Hollywood Left, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 2001. Danny Peary, Cult Movies, Delta, New York, 1981, p. 102. Martin Scorsese Presents Force of Evil, Republic Pictures Home Video, 1996. Andrew Dickos, Street With No Name: A History of the Classic American Film Noir, The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 2002, p. 70. Eric Sherman and Martin Rubin, The Director’s Event: Interviews with Five American Film-Makers, Athenaeum, New York, 1969, p. 16. Buhle and Wagner, p. 125.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Today's Tanya Lesson Nissan 7, 5771 · April 11, 2011 Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 40 Listen Online MP3 Download Having stated that love and fear of G‑d elevate one’s Torah and mitzvot on high, the Alter Rebbe continues: ובזה יובן היטב הא דדחילו ורחימו נקראים גדפין, דרך משל, כדכתיב: ובשתים יעופף This explains clearly why fear and love are figuratively called “wings”, as it is written:1 “And with two wings he flies,” alluding to the two middot of love and fear. וכמו שכתב הרב חיים ויטל ז״ל בשער היחודים פרק י״א שהכנפיים בעוף הן זרועות האדם כו׳ (2As Rabbi Chayim Vital, of blessed memory, stated in Shaar HaYichudim, ch. 11:) For wings are for a bird what arms are for a man; just as it is written, “Chesed (corresponding to love) is the right arm, and Gevurah (fear) the left arm,” similarly, the “wings” represent these two middot. ובתיקונים פירש שהעוסקים בתורה ומצות בדחילו ורחימו נקראים בנים It is also explained in Tikkunei Zohar, that those who engage in Torah and mitzvot out of fear and love are called “children”; ואם לאו, נקראים אפרוחים דלא יכלין לפרחא otherwise (i.e., if their Torah and mitzvot lack the fear and love of G‑d), they are called “fledgelings” who cannot fly.* *NOTE In this note, the Alter Rebbe elaborates on the correspondence of “wings” to fear and love. He quotes Tikkunei Zohar, where the subject is treated extensively. ובתיקון מ״ה דעופא הוא מט״ט In Tikkun 45 it is written that [the figure of] a bird represents the archangel Metatron. רישא דיליה י' וגופא וא"ו ותרין גדפין ה' ה' כו' His head is the letter yud of the Divine Name (yud-hei-vav-hei), the yud representing Chochmah; his body is the vav, the six middot; and his two wings are the two letters hei and hei, representing Binah and Malchut, respectively. והיינו עולם היצירה שנקרא מט"ט This corresponds to the World of Yetzirah, which is called Metatron. Thus, applying the various elements of the figure to their corresponding aspects in Yetzirah, we obtain: ובו3 הן גופי הלכות שבמשנה Vav, the “body” of Metatron, represents the “body” of the laws in the Mishnah (since Mishnah is at the level of Yetzirah, as will soon be explained), for the “body” of the laws, i.e., the actual rulings determining what is permitted or forbidden, who is guilty or innocent, and the like, are related to the middot, which are represented by the letter vav. ורישא דיליה הן המוחין ובחי' חב"ד שהן פנימיות ההלכות וסודן וטעמיהן His head represents intelligence — the level of ChaBaD, which are, in terms of the Mishnah, the inner depth of the laws, their esoteric meaning and their reasons. ותרין גדפין דחילו ורחימו הן ה' עילאה שהיא רחימו The two “wings” denoting flight, namely fear and love, represent [respectively]: the higher hei, which is an allusion prevalent in the literature of the Kabbalah to love; וה' תתאה היא יראה תתאה עול מלכות שמים ופחד ה' כפחד המלך ד"מ and the lower hei, alluding to “lower-level fear,” namely “the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom,” and the dread of G‑d similar to the dread of a king. שהיא יראה חיצונית ונגלית Such fear is external and revealed, and is therefore alluded to by the lowest level (i.e., letter) of the Divine Name. משא"כ יראה עילאה ירא בושת היא מהנסתרות לה' אלקינו “Higher-level fear,” however, meaning “awe consisting of shame before G‑d’s greatness,” is of those “hidden matters belonging to G‑d, our L‑rd. והיא בחכמה עילאה יו"ד של שם הוי"ה ב"ה כמ"ש בר"מ It is on the level of Supernal Wisdom, alluded to by the yud of the Four-letter Divine Name, blessed be He, as is written in Ra‘aya Mehemna. END OF NOTE FOOTNOTES 1. Yeshayahu 6:2. 2. Parentheses are in the original text. 3. The Rebbe notes that there seems to be a typographical error - ובו instead ואו (spelling out the Hebrew letter vav). Accordingly, many of the difficulties in this note are resolved. Additionally, the text that follows is more clearly understood: “Vav represents the ‘body’ of the laws in the Mishnah”; and thereafter, “his head...,” and so on.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

'THE HIPSTER ' AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE 50'S NIHILISM AND THE DISILLUSIONMENT OF DOSTOEVSKY , AND THE UNERGROUND CULTURE


http://www.realitysandwich.com/agent_apathy Haddow, Douglas. "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization." Adbusters. 7/29/2008. Accessed on 11/24/2010. http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html Weir, David. Decadence and the Making of Modernism. 1995. p. xv. Accessed on 11/24/2010. http://books.google.com/books?id=WOb26cxGBfMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dec Leland, John. Hip: The History. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. p. 112 Kerouac, Jack. The Subterraneans. New York: Grove Press, 1958. p. 23. Charters, Ann. Kerouac: A Biography. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973. p. 185. Mailer, Norman. "The White Negro." 1957. Reprinted in Dissent, 6/20/2007. Accessed on 11/24/10. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=26 Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. 1963. New York: Dell Publishing, 1983. pp. 186-187. Curtis, Adam. The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom. BBC. 2007. Wilson, Robert Anton. Prometheus Rising. 1983. Tempe, AZ: New Falcon Publications, 2007. p. 58. Italics his. Trow, George W.S. Within the Context of No Context. 1980. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1997. p. 25. THE DEADEND OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS A PERCEPTION OF THE UPDATED PHENOMENON OF NIHILISM BORN OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AND UNDERSTANDABLE ABERRATIONS OF DOSTOEVSKY'S WRITINGS IN EXPERIENCING AN INTERNAL WORLD OF INEXPRESSIBLE PAIN BORN FROM HIS EXPERIENCES OF THE TOPSY TURVY WORLD OF EXPERIENTIAL CHAOS, AN OUTGROWTH OF THE BIGOTRIES COMMONPLACE AND CONCENTRATED OVER THE SPAN OF 1000 YEARS SINCE THE ROMAN WARS AND THEIR CATACLYSMS SINCE THE HADRIANIC WARS AND THE AFERMATHS OF THE EXODUS AND THE SETTLEMENTS OF EUROPE , THE BED OF THE DECADENT OF THE WEST . THE HIPSTER PHENOMENON, THE BEATNICKS, WAS THE INEVITABLE OUWARD FACE OF THIS URBAN WASTELAND, A FACE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND A REVERSION OF THE AMERICAN PURITANISM OF THE PAST. ELIOT'S WASTELAND IS REMINISCENT OF THE WASTELAND CREATED INTHE AFTERMATHS OF THE TWO HORRENSOUS WORLD WARS. YES, INEVITABLE. WESTERN SOCIETY'S ANGER AND ARROGANCE AT LOOKING AT DEATH IS EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR POETIZING AND PERHAPS ROMANTICIZING ONE'S OWN VISIONS OF OVERLOOKING AND VIEWING THESE OBSCENE URBAN VISTAS AND EXPLAINING THEM IN A GREATER SPIRITUAL CONTEXT. I VIEW MY RATIONALE TO BE WHEN THE DIVINE HIS ITS FACE FROM US PARTLY FOR OUR OWN GOOD AS THE LIGHT OF THAT UPERNAL WORLD WOULD BLIND US IN THE TATE OF OUR PROGRESSING INFIRMITIES AND BLIGHT BORN OF OUR SELFISHNESS EMBEDDED SELF RIGHTEOUSLY IN OURCAPITALIST CREDO GLORIFYING THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THAT WAS OUTLINED IN NEW TESTAMENT TEACHINGS WHICH ROCKED THE WORLD OF THE FIRST MANIFESTATION OF THE EPIPHANY OF THE OTHER WORLDLY AND THE GODLY. WE JUSTIFY ITS ANTITHESIS BY SMUGGLY CALLING IT SELF RELIANCE BUT MORE APTLY SHOULD BE CALLED THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. THEN WHY NOT HONESTLY DENOMINATE IT SO AND BE DONE WITH IT , SHATTERING ALL THE ACCUMULATED PRETENSE. The following is excerpted from the upcoming book All These Serious Faces Will Only Drive You Mad. This is Part 1 in a series. Read Part 2 here. To learn more about the book, please click here. Over the last decade the cultural figure known as the "hipster" has increasingly turned into a target of scorn, despite an apparent disagreement over what the term means and to whom it refers. In his 2008 Adbusters article, "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization," Douglas Haddow provides one of the keenest descriptions of this trend in its current form. "Take a stroll down the street in any major North American or European city and you’ll be sure to see a speckle of fashion-conscious twentysomethings hanging about and sporting a number of predictable stylistic trademarks: skinny jeans, cotton spandex leggings, fixed-gear bikes, vintage flannel, fake eyeglasses and a keffiyeh…" (1) As with most recent media examinations of hipsterdom, the article laments the passing of better cultural times. Haddow argues that—whereas the usual role of youth culture has been to attack the superficiality, inauthenticity, and decadence of mainstream adult culture—today's hipsters share few mental proclivities but apathy and irony, comprising "a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society." (2) But it seems today that everyone uses the word "hipster" to identify a different kind of person. The most consistent thing about the term is that no one will self-identify as a hipster. At one time the word "hip" meant little more than "cool," yet Haddow claims that hipsterdom "is set to consume the very core of Western counterculture." (3) As to why this happened, Haddow provides two clues: the phenomenon is most highly concentrated in North America and Europe, and it marks the end point of something that started—or at least became solidified—when World War II ended in 1945. Actually, "decadence" may be a more direct precursor to today’s hipster than the word "hip" itself. In his book Decadence and the Making of Modernism, David Weir connects the artistic movement of decadence to the lifestyle movement of bohemianism, and designates the French poet Baudelaire as an "archetypal decadent figure." (4) Weir writes that decadent art is distinguished by its focus on decay, realism (as a departure from romanticism), misogyny, and a stated "superiority of art to nature." To Weir, Baudelaire’s 1856 poem "Un Charogne"—which ponders an animal carcass in the road—represents Western society beginning to stare directly at death instead of allowing it to lurk behind the veil of conscious thought. Weir says "the poem looks at death with a scientist’s eye, and sees the decaying corpse, not merely as a fact, but as the only fact, a new absolute whose power exceeds that of religion." (5) But instead of leading to humility or grace, decadence seems defined more by anger and arrogance, a sort of violent spasm of the ego following in the wake of despair. It’s basically an aesthetically impressive middle finger held up to death or God—a fabricated confidence, or a defiant defense mechanism. As to why this happened, Haddow provides two clues: the phenomenon is most highly concentrated in North America and Europe, and it marks the end point of something that started—or at least became solidified—when World War II ended in 1945. Actually, "decadence" may be a more direct precursor to today’s hipster than the word "hip" itself. In his book Decadence and the Making of Modernism, David Weir connects the artistic movement of decadence to the lifestyle movement of bohemianism, and designates the French poet Baudelaire as an "archetypal decadent figure." (4) Weir writes that decadent art is distinguished by its focus on decay, realism (as a departure from romanticism), misogyny, and a stated "superiority of art to nature." To Weir, Baudelaire’s 1856 poem "Un Charogne"—which ponders an animal carcass in the road—represents Western society beginning to stare directly at death instead of allowing it to lurk behind the veil of conscious thought. Weir says "the poem looks at death with a scientist’s eye, and sees the decaying corpse, not merely as a fact, but as the only fact, a new absolute whose power exceeds that of religion." (5) But instead of leading to humility or grace, decadence seems defined more by anger and arrogance, a sort of violent spasm of the ego following in the wake of despair. It’s basically an aesthetically impressive middle finger held up to death or God—a fabricated confidence, or a defiant defense mechanism. Weir also surveys literary critics who see in decadent art a deeper investigation of the subconscious mind, following its "discovery" by the romantics. But until Sigmund Freud published the first works establishing the field of psychoanalysis in the late 1890s, the subconscious was only known to very creative individuals who intuitively sensed the importance of one's inner life: thoughts, feelings, dreams, visions, etc. The common person living during the last 150 years has actively avoided any exploration of the subconscious. Today's hipster is a prime example, since he displays only superficial traits and seems fearful of psychic forces not in direct control of the conscious ego. The hipster's preference for alcohol and opiates over psychedelic substances reflects this notion. And death is the only concept that causes today's decadent more fear than the subconscious. So evidently Baudelaire's indignant stance toward human mortality didn’t mature into an acceptance of death—only passed through time as the "enlightened despair" that Weir points out. Angry at God or—since the decadent renounced all belief in God—angry at one's mother for subjecting him to life, the original decadent found himself detached from both family and religion. Decadent art lines up historically with the Industrial Age, when the majority of the world's population moved from rural to urban areas. This is how urban bohemian life arose, by a preference for the emerging hodgepodge of cultural hotbeds over the apparent dead-end of the rural lifestyle and the Victorian social structure. If anything, it was a willingness to subject oneself to a world of artificial decay, as opposed to the natural decay of friendships and families occurring "back home." People adapted to the urban wasteland by convincing themselves that they played a part in something immense, much in the way religion used to provide a similar feeling. The system of urban life was more realistic and therefore more profound than the intangible system espoused by the church. The flashy distractions of the city offered people an angle of self-reflection that omitted all insecurities and dark uncertainties. Finally, Weir says the decadent mentality admits its own ineffectual role as scapegoat. He quotes the Italian critic Poggioli: "The very notion of decadence, at least its modern version, is practically inconceivable without this psychological compulsion…to become the passive accomplice and willing victim of barbarism…to play a passive, and yet theatrical, role on history’s stage." (6) This acceptance of victimization carried through to the "post-modern" or "post-war" era. In his book Hip: The History, John Leland calls the span from about 1947 to 1959 "the golden age of hip, a Cold War convergence of art, image, dope, clothes, celebrity, intellectual arrogance and rebel grace." (7) Leland divides this golden age into two main movements: the jazz style then emergent known as bop, and a group of writers now ubiquitously known as "the Beat Generation." "[Charlie] Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonius Monk and a small handful of peers transformed America’s music, jazz, from a reflection of national aspirations to an unblinking critique of them. […] A generation of white writers, led by Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg, could only clock in and follow in kind." (8) In my mind, Kerouac is the ultimate hipster archetype, despite his professed disinterest in their world. Kerouac’s 1958 novel The Subterraneans provided one of the clearest visions of the post-war urban hipster. In between descriptions of a brief but heated interracial affair, Kerouac explains with hurried abandon the "subterranean hip generation tendencies to silence, bohemian mystery, drugs, beard, semi-holiness and, as I came to find later, insurpassable nastiness..." (9) Kerouac’s book formed a direct link between the '50s hipster scene and the writers of the mid-19th century. As Kerouac specifies, "The book is modeled after Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground, a full confession of one's most wretched and hidden agonies after an 'affair' of any kind. The prose is what I believe to be the prose of the future, from both the conscious top and the unconscious bottom of the mind, limited only by the limitations of time flying by as our mind flies with it." (10) Kerouac also documents the hipster's superficial traits that have survived to present time—for example, "…a woman of 25 prophesying the future style of America with short almost crewcut but with curls black snaky hair, snaky walk, pale pale junkey anemic face…her hand holding a short butt and the neat little flick she was giving it to knock the ashes…" (11) And Ann Charters, Kerouac's first biographer, writes that "at Allen’s apartment everybody hung out in grimy undershirts, torn T-shirts and battered sneakers.” (12) While Kerouac painted them as a mostly harmless bunch, Norman Mailer provides a much grittier description in his 1957 essay "The White Negro." The first hipster seems to have been a product of the exact same forces that inspired Baudelaire’s decadent poetry, only on a much larger scale. Mailer describes a type of young adult attempting to actively engage the frightening new terrain of Cold War America: "It is on this bleak scene that a phenomenon has appeared: the American existentialist—the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition is to live with instant death by atomic war…or with a slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled…then the only life-giving answer is to accept the terms of death…to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self." (13) According to Mailer, a specific lingo defined the hipster more than anything else. "Hip" and "beat" existed in opposition, with hip being the more desirable state. Mailer’s description makes it clear that it was more of a pseudo-philosophy of abstract rationalizations, centered around the multifaceted concept of freedom. The hipster hoped for inner freedom just as much as outer freedom. Strangely, Mailer even called it a "cool religious revival," despite the lack of church-goers in the scene (other than Kerouac, a believing Catholic). Mailer probably meant "religious" more in William James’s sense of relating to a divine concept or presence. In other words, hipsters were mainly concerned with forming a subjective philosophy or value system based on one’s own life experiences. And as for what hipsters considered divine, sex was high atop the list. Objectives other than sex weren’t so specific, often getting muddled in language about motion. And an intense interpersonal competition pervaded all aspects of the hipster lifestyle. Mailer writes, "Unstated but obvious is the social sense that there is not nearly enough sweet for everyone." (14) This is an enormous part of the plot in The Subterraneans, both in literary and sexual endeavors. Thus, friendships were built on flimsy foundations, and hipsters dropped their loyalties at the first indication that the "sweet" could be obtained. Another part of pursuing sex was the hope of liberating oneself from restrictive moral codes that appeared to be governing the very people who had orchestrated the horrors of World War II. Naturally, the hipster turned to those who had never had power: African Americans, especially bop musicians. In a strange way, Mailer’s hipster represented a broadening of the social conscience, a budding awareness that the ideals at the foundation of the United States of America—freedom most of all—had never been fully realized. The recognition of jazz’s supreme expressive force inevitably led to a glorification of the bop scene and the "morality of the bottom." (15) The bop player and hipster alike "lived in the enormous present" and "subsisted for his Saturday night kicks, relinquishing the pleasures of the mind for the more obligatory pleasures of the body." But something about this kick-seeking annoyed or even infuriated the greater culture, as is evident from Mailer’s epigraph calling the hipster an "enfant terrible turned inside out." In the second-wave feminist manifesto The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan took a moment to chide the beatniks for their inaction, listing Mailer as a leader of the pack. "It was easier, safer, to think about love and sex than about communism, McCarthy, and the uncontrolled bomb. […] Norman Mailer and the young beatnik writers confined their revolutionary spirit to sex and kicks and drugs and advertising themselves in four-letter words." (16) Friedan recognized the need to take advantage of increases in higher education and career opportunities in order to make post-war America as constructive as possible. Mailer and the Beats, on the other hand, saw the immense price of creating and maintaining so-called "security" in America and called it an immoral sham. Thus, a schism formed in the general flow of American culture, giving birth to what we now call the "counter-culture." While many today celebrate the Beats for their rebellious appeal, those writers also marked a dawning appreciation for the concept of individualism. This was the first large-scale manifestation of what writers and artists had begun at least 100 years prior: looking at one's inner life, like trying to open a clock to see how the gears work. Mailer saw the hipster’s infantilism as a sign that one was working through repressed urges. Because of this volatile state of growing self-awareness, Mailer thought the hipster could be considered a "philosophical psychopath," struggling to figure out what role the individual person played in the near-catastrophe of nuclear armament that had developed in the world. In other words, all humans were acting in an infantile manner; hipsters were just externalizing it in deliberately extreme ways in order to conceptualize and hopefully change that part of one’s nature. Still, the "bohemians" in the city found themselves in a new sub-culture of frenzied panic. In The Subterraneans, Leo and Mardou claim that hipsters lived by the motto, "you take care of yourself, I’ll take care of me." (17) To these two, the American form of Existentialism was a particularly cruel and self-serving philosophy. Somehow the hipsters didn’t see that they were acting the same way as America as a whole. Minds like game theory mathematician John Nash engineered this Cold War mentality in America, promoting an picture of humans as selfish and paranoid animals. (18) Nash and others at the Rand Corporation actually recommended this stance, in order to create a social equilibrium in which one person's selfishness would be balanced against everyone else's. National leaders encouraged this behavior, and it became a staple of both domestic and foreign policy. Similarly, Mailer notes that psychopathy was on the rise in 1957. Since it was "present in a host of people including many politicians, professional soldiers, newspaper columnists, entertainers, artists, jazz musicians…and half the executives of Hollywood, television, and advertising, it can be seen that there are aspects of psychopathy which already exert considerable cultural influence." (19) While the hipster may have been largely unaware of it, he shared a hostile power drive with those running the country. This marks the onset of a key characteristic of post-war American society: an inevitable hypocrisy. From the very start, what was perceived to be a revolutionary counter-culture was based on the same foundations of human psychology that underpinned the mainstream culture, including in politics and the media. There’s no denying that the hipster’s lingo masked a lust for power, even if his top prize was an orgasm, which Mailer alternately refers to as the "holy grail" and "fountain of youth." (20) Greed, deception, and even violence characterized the hipster’s crusade for that prize, the same as any crusade. Therefore, the hipster's everlasting battle over the "sweet" played out as little more than a mammalian dominance game with major similarities to what we call free market capitalism, just as game theorists like Nash had calculated. While Mailer understood that the possibility of thermonuclear warfare was a major impetus for the hipster's existence, he didn't seem as aware that it thrust the hipster—like all Americans—into a psychologically primitive state. The hipster lived proudly with his declaration of self-interest, but in reality he had little other choice. As Robert Anton Wilson writes in his book Prometheus Rising, "Throughout human life, when the bio-survival circuit senses danger, all other mental activity ceases." (21) This would be a good time to specify that the character I'm referring to as the "hipster" is not a real person. It is a cultural construction, an approximation of certain social phenomena used to describe movements happening in society. It's an attempt to make a coherent picture out of relative chaos. Since the term has persisted from the mid-20th century into the 21st, it signifies that these social phenomena still exist in some form. But as Korzybski used to say (and Wilson used to quote), "The map is not the territory"—so please keep in mind that I’m using the term "hipster" first and foremost for convenience. As the second half of the 20th century progressed, the sexual and violent aspects of the hipster largely faded along with his philosophy. The Age of Mass Media picked up enormous speed with the appearance of the television, which pervaded most American homes by the end of the '50s. In 1980 the critic George W.S. Trow argued that TV had eliminated the common ground—or "middle distance"—between the individual and any kind of real culture, and that something would have to fill the gap. (22) But I think that the counter-culture was this first new common ground, a more youthful culture that teens and young adults felt they could interact with instead of just having it fed to them. Hence, hip urban neighborhoods served as the principal geographic component of the middle ground. And the hipsters who achieved the most fame in the '50s and early '60s—specifically those who fall into the group we call the Beat Generation—are the ones remembered today as the most authentic or admirable. People probably emulate this "golden age of hip" because it was only temporarily sampled by the Mass Media Machine. The world portrayed by Kerouac in The Subterraneans still feels more real or genuine than the post-modern world depicted on TV. __________________________________________________________________
True Radicalism in the Modern Age Submitted by Sean Strange on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 20:59. The true radical today is one who rejects global capitalism, techno-fetishism, shallow liberalism and the religion of progress in favor of tradition, timeless wisdom, spirituality and local culture. Modernity is played out; we are living in global Weimar, awaiting the collapse of the progressive project. The next prophet will not resemble William Ginsberg, Timothy Leary or Terence McKenna, but Adolph Hitler. Oddly enough, this revelation came to me first through psychedelics, and it is a vision which, though I initially resisted it, has become ever more prophetic as our culture has spiralled further downward into materialistic nihilism.

Re: True Radicalism... Submitted by Nick Meador on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 23:54. Are you sure your psychedelic visions of a coming Hitler weren't a warning about the persisting state of totalitarianism? Your comment made me think of "Pink Floyd's The Wall," with Roger Waters's visions of marching hammers and evil dictators...in the 1980s, not the '40s. Anyway, we could also argue that the likes of Ginsberg, Leary and McKenna haven't yet fulfilled their role as "prophets." I only learned about McKenna a few months ago, about the same time I found out that Leary had ideas other than "tune in, turn on, drop out." These names aren't just historical—they're part of an ongoing process.

re: what is hip? Submitted by Nick Meador on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 23:52. Thanks for writing. My goal wasn't to pidgeonhole anyone, whether Baudelaire or Dylan. My hope was to give some perspective to this character we call the "hipster," since clearly "he did not just spring out of nowhere" either (even though it sometimes seems that way). I turned 17 in 1999, and I felt it was impossible to get any real context about the world pre-1980s. It took a lot of reading to feel like I understood those eras at all. Then I noticed that some elements from the second half of the 19th century artistic, literary and intellectual movements were very foundational in our "modern" world. Not until we understand those historical ties and the progression of tendencies through time will we be able to shape our future instead of just watching it unfold.


But actually I knew little about those people I saw. I’d agree with you that people can’t be generalized according to stereotypes. What I’m saying is that the anger in Haddow’s article, and the anger I used to feel (and still sometimes feel) is natural and signifies a real social problem. But in my opinion it’s not a problem with fashion or recreation—so it has nothing to do with you or your friends. I think it’s a problem with every human being alive, regardless of nation, religion, etc. That problem will be further explained throughout my book, but the core of it is that we’re all in a spot where we feel helpless in the face of an invisible global totalitarian empire


What each of us should be doing every minute of every day is trying to find a way to break this empire down. But since that would be a superhuman task, we ultimately have to repress some of that anger to get on with our lives. The “hipster” is just a made-up idea, a symbol for that part of ourselves that is totally incapable of revolting against this machine. I think what we really hate is decadence. That shows up in various places—and we hate it the most when it's present in our own lives. However, there must be some reason we’re all projecting this anger onto urbanites. That’s what the rest of the chapter explores. It’s a question of self-knowledge and psychological development. The process of individuation requires an adequate amount of time spent totally alone, uninfluenced by the bigger forces of society. A city is the exact opposite of an individual human being; it's the furthest from "alone" that a person can get.


If you see a lot of people dressing the same way, doing the same repetitive things, and frequenting the same “scene” hot spots—that can be the mark of a collective infection. It’s the same infection that people leave in the suburbs when they move to the big city (that’s what my 2nd chapter is about). No matter how "liberal" we take ourselves to be, we're all addicted to and enslaved by a horrifying machine.


I think the anger is really because post-modern liberalism that has failed to "save" our country. Young adults in cities and universities were supposed to liberate us from the Eisenhower-model empire in the 1950s and '60s, but they didn't.


SHUTDOWN AVERTED

Federal shutdown avoided, 2012 budget fight loomsYAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 8903239, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/ap_on_re_us\/us_spending_showdown", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/ap_on_re_us\/us_spending_showdown", title: "Federal+shutdown+avoided%2C+2012+budget+fight+looms+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown&h2=T&h3=519", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/ap_on_re_us\/us_spending_showdown\/print" }, c Analysis: So much for change coming to WashingtonYAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 85115982, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", title: "Analysis%3A+So+much+for+change+coming+to+Washington+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/20110409/ap_on_an/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis&h2=T&h3=2282", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis\/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Barack Obama waves after visiting the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, April 9, 2011, in Washington. … Play Video Video:President Obama and John Boehner Seal Budget Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Raw Video: Obama visits Lincoln Memorial AP Play Video Video:GOP Address: Spending crisis still looms AP By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – Sat Apr 9, 7:57 pm ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised to change Washington's ways. Yet he's as caught up in them as ever. As the week began, Obama kicked off his re-election bid with a sunny video of people talking about their hopes and needs, the very image of life outside Washington politics. By week's end, Obama was mired in budget negotiations, canceling trips and scrambling to stave off a government shutdown that could only undermine the public's faith in his leadership. It was the messy business of governing, and how it's going to be in this long campaign for incumbent Obama. Beyond the vision for economic competitiveness he wants to talk about, Obama is chasing a second term while trying to make a deeply divided government work. He got bogged down in legislative tactics in his first two years, even when he won fights on health care and other issues. The goal now is to avoid all that. He can't. In this test of leadership, the White House says Obama wrangled the budget compromise he wanted, spending cuts he supported without shelving his priorities or accepting unacceptable policy changes. His administration portrayed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation of the highest stakes. Yet the government was on the brink of closing, and many people were wondering how that could happen, or why. This is change? The showdown was a reminder that for all a president's powers, there's much beyond control. Think Libya, Egypt, Japan's earthquake, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case, the new House Republican majority, led by Speaker John Boehner, seized on a must-pass budget bill to give voice to frustrated voters and tea party conservatives who demanded spending cuts. It was brinksmanship mode again in the capital, where nothing gets done until the deadline. Sometimes not even then. In public, Obama tried to keep it at arm's length. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget," Obama said as the time got short this week. In fact, he was up to his neck in it. Obama used a veto threat to make clear he would not accept the scope of GOP spending cuts. He said he would accept no more temporary extensions to keep the government running for a few weeks at a time unless there was a broader deal in hand. He kept saying leaders had to act like grown-ups. The White House said his strategy was to stay behind the scenes, work the phones and let his senior aides do the negotiating. That type of role provided an opening for Republicans to question his leadership. It also led to rumblings from frustrated lawmakers in his own party who wanted the president to openly attack the cuts Republicans wanted. The White House figured it would take those hits. It did. A Gallup poll in late March found declining numbers of people who said Obama was a strong and decisive leader: a little more than half of those polled, compared with 60 percent one year ago and 73 percent two years ago. The White House believed that a better result would come if Obama didn't try to overheat the issue. Officials believed that people were worried about gas prices, not a spending squabble and that voters didn't hire Obama to be a legislator. Obama would go public when it meant the most. That was Tuesday. The president suddenly got vocal. He said Americans didn't want games but results. The pragmatic approach is what White House strategists believe will bring back the election-turning independents to Obama. "There are some things we can't control," he said. "We can't control earthquakes; we can't control tsunamis; we can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done." But it wasn't getting done, and his voice was not the only one setting the tone. "The president isn't leading," Boehner said Wednesday. "He didn't lead on last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget." Obama met with Boehner and Reid four times in the White House during the week. He still went to the Philadelphia area Wednesday to talk about energy. He looked comfortable, almost carefree, as he laughed with workers at a wind-turbine company about their families and their cars. But Washington had sucked him back in. By Friday, he canceled a trip to Indianapolis, scrapping the attention he wanted to give to clean energy. He scrapped a weekend getaway with his family to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. While working to avoid a shutdown, Obama's team thought the White House would come out OK in the public's mind if it came to that. The thinking was that the president had presented a reasonable case of agreeing to spending cuts without going too far, and that people would be angry with Republicans if the government closed up partially over a policy disagreement about abortion. Only when the standoff grew most dire did it end. But the budget mess showed how government isn't supposed to operate. No matter who's to blame, all will be, including a president running for election this time from inside Washington's ways. Analysis: So much for change coming to WashingtonYAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 85115982, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", title: "Analysis%3A+So+much+for+change+coming+to+Washington+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/20110409/ap_on_an/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis&h2=T&h3=2282", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis\/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Barack Obama waves after visiting the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, April 9, 2011, in Washington. … Play Video Video:President Obama and John Boehner Seal Budget Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Raw Video: Obama visits Lincoln Memorial AP Play Video Video:GOP Address: Spending crisis still looms AP By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – Sat Apr 9, 7:57 pm ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised to change Washington's ways. Yet he's as caught up in them as ever. As the week began, Obama kicked off his re-election bid with a sunny video of people talking about their hopes and needs, the very image of life outside Washington politics. By week's end, Obama was mired in budget negotiations, canceling trips and scrambling to stave off a government shutdown that could only undermine the public's faith in his leadership. It was the messy business of governing, and how it's going to be in this long campaign for incumbent Obama. Beyond the vision for economic competitiveness he wants to talk about, Obama is chasing a second term while trying to make a deeply divided government work. He got bogged down in legislative tactics in his first two years, even when he won fights on health care and other issues. The goal now is to avoid all that. He can't. In this test of leadership, the White House says Obama wrangled the budget compromise he wanted, spending cuts he supported without shelving his priorities or accepting unacceptable policy changes. His administration portrayed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation of the highest stakes. Yet the government was on the brink of closing, and many people were wondering how that could happen, or why. This is change? The showdown was a reminder that for all a president's powers, there's much beyond control. Think Libya, Egypt, Japan's earthquake, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case, the new House Republican majority, led by Speaker John Boehner, seized on a must-pass budget bill to give voice to frustrated voters and tea party conservatives who demanded spending cuts. It was brinksmanship mode again in the capital, where nothing gets done until the deadline. Sometimes not even then. In public, Obama tried to keep it at arm's length. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget," Obama said as the time got short this week. In fact, he was up to his neck in it. Obama used a veto threat to make clear he would not accept the scope of GOP spending cuts. He said he would accept no more temporary extensions to keep the government running for a few weeks at a time unless there was a broader deal in hand. He kept saying leaders had to act like grown-ups. The White House said his strategy was to stay behind the scenes, work the phones and let his senior aides do the negotiating. That type of role provided an opening for Republicans to question his leadership. It also led to rumblings from frustrated lawmakers in his own party who wanted the president to openly attack the cuts Republicans wanted. The White House figured it would take those hits. It did. A Gallup poll in late March found declining numbers of people who said Obama was a strong and decisive leader: a little more than half of those polled, compared with 60 percent one year ago and 73 percent two years ago. The White House believed that a better result would come if Obama didn't try to overheat the issue. Officials believed that people were worried about gas prices, not a spending squabble and that voters didn't hire Obama to be a legislator. Obama would go public when it meant the most. That was Tuesday. The president suddenly got vocal. He said Americans didn't want games but results. The pragmatic approach is what White House strategists believe will bring back the election-turning independents to Obama. "There are some things we can't control," he said. "We can't control earthquakes; we can't control tsunamis; we can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done." But it wasn't getting done, and his voice was not the only one setting the tone. "The president isn't leading," Boehner said Wednesday. "He didn't lead on last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget." Obama met with Boehner and Reid four times in the White House during the week. He still went to the Philadelphia area Wednesday to talk about energy. He looked comfortable, almost carefree, as he laughed with workers at a wind-turbine company about their families and their cars. But Washington had sucked him back in. By Friday, he canceled a trip to Indianapolis, scrapping the attention he wanted to give to clean energy. He scrapped a weekend getaway with his family to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. While working to avoid a shutdown, Obama's team thought the White House would come out OK in the public's mind if it came to that. The thinking was that the president had presented a reasonable case of agreeing to spending cuts without going too far, and that people would be angry with Republicans if the government closed up partially over a policy disagreement about abortion. Only when the standoff grew most dire did it end. But the budget mess showed how government isn't supposed to operate. No matter who's to blame, all will be, including a president running for election this time from inside Washington's ways. onfig: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Obama poses for photographers in the Blue Room at the White House in Washington after he spoke … Play Video Video:Government Shutdown Averted: Obama Announces Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Government Shutdown Avoided ABC News Play Video Video:Planned Parenthood and the budget fight AP By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press – Sat Apr 9, 9:16 am ET WASHINGTON – A last-minute budget deal forged amid bluster and tough bargaining averted an embarrassing federal shutdown, cut billions in spending and provided the first major test of the divided government that voters ushered in five months ago. Working late into Friday night, congressional and White House negotiators finally agreed on a plan to pay for government operations through the end of September while trimming $38.5 billion in spending. Lawmakers then approved a measure to keep the government running for a few more days while the details of the new spending plan are written into legislation. Actual approval of the deal is expected in the middle of next week. "Americans of different beliefs came together again," President Barack Obama said from the White House Blue Room, a setting chosen to offer a clear view of the Washington Monument over his right shoulder. The agreement was negotiated by Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The administration was poised to shutter federal services, from national parks to tax-season help centers, and to send furlough notices to hundreds of thousands of federal workers. All sides insisted they wanted to avoid that outcome, which at times seemed inevitable. Shortly after midnight, White House budget director Jacob Lew issued a memo instructing departments and agencies to continue normal operations. Boehner said the deal came after "a lot of discussion and a long fight." He won an ovation from his rank and file, including the new tea party adherents whose victories last November shifted control of the House to the GOP. Reid declared the deal "historic." The deal marked the end of a three-way clash of wills. It also set the tone for coming confrontations over raising the government's borrowing limit, the spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 and long-term deficit reduction. In the end, all sides claimed victory. For Republicans, it was the sheer size of the spending cuts. For Obama and Reid, it was casting aside GOP policy initiatives that would have blocked environmental rules and changed a program that provides family planning services. Not all policy provisions were struck. One in the final deal would ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. A program dear to Boehner that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools also survived. Republicans had included language to deny federal money to put in place Obama's year-old health care law. The deal only requires such a proposal to be voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the necessary 60 votes. The deal came together after six grueling weeks as negotiators virtually dared each other to shut down the government. Boehner faced pressure from his GOP colleagues to stick as closely possible to the $61 billion in cuts and the conservative policy positions that the House had passed. At one point, Democrats announced negotiators had locked into a spending cut figure — $33 billion. Boehner pushed back and said there was no deal. During a meeting at the White House this past week, Boehner said he wanted $40 billion. The final number fell just short of that. In one dramatic moment, Obama called Boehner on Friday morning after learning that the outline of a deal they had reached with Reid in the Oval Office the night before was not reflected in the pre-dawn staff negotiations. The whole package was in peril. According to a senior administration official, Obama told Boehner that they were the two most consequential leaders and if they had any hope of keeping the government open, their bargain had to be honored and could not be altered by staff. The official described the scene on condition of anonymity to reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations. The accomplishment set the stage for even tougher confrontations. House Republicans intend to pass a 2012 budget in the coming week that calls for sweeping changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs and even deeper cuts in domestic programs to gain control over soaring deficits. In the Republican radio address, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., warned of a coming crisis. "Unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on everything else, including national security. It will literally take every cent of every federal tax dollar just to pay for these programs," Ryan said Saturday. That debate could come soon. The Treasury has told Congress it must vote to raise the debt limit by summer. Republicans hope to use this issue to force Obama to accept long-term deficit-reduction measures. ____ Associated Press writers David Espo, Andrew Taylor, Erica Werner, Julie Pace and Ben Feller contributed to this story. ___ Online: Obama weekly address: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_us/storytext/us_spending_showdown/41020567/SIG=10s7oir5b/*http://www.whitehouse.gov/ GOP address: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_us/storytext/us_spending_showdown/41020567/SIG=11dd369tp/*http://www.youtube.com/republicanconference Analysis: So much for change coming to WashingtonYAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 85115982, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", title: "Analysis%3A+So+much+for+change+coming+to+Washington+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/20110409/ap_on_an/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis&h2=T&h3=2282", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis\/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Barack Obama waves after visiting the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, April 9, 2011, in Washington. … Play Video Video:President Obama and John Boehner Seal Budget Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Raw Video: Obama visits Lincoln Memorial AP Play Video Video:GOP Address: Spending crisis still looms AP By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – Sat Apr 9, 7:57 pm ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised to change Washington's ways. Yet he's as caught up in them as ever. As the week began, Obama kicked off his re-election bid with a sunny video of people talking about their hopes and needs, the very image of life outside Washington politics. By week's end, Obama was mired in budget negotiations, canceling trips and scrambling to stave off a government shutdown that could only undermine the public's faith in his leadership. It was the messy business of governing, and how it's going to be in this long campaign for incumbent Obama. Beyond the vision for economic competitiveness he wants to talk about, Obama is chasing a second term while trying to make a deeply divided government work. He got bogged down in legislative tactics in his first two years, even when he won fights on health care and other issues. The goal now is to avoid all that. He can't. In this test of leadership, the White House says Obama wrangled the budget compromise he wanted, spending cuts he supported without shelving his priorities or accepting unacceptable policy changes. His administration portrayed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation of the highest stakes. Yet the government was on the brink of closing, and many people were wondering how that could happen, or why. This is change? The showdown was a reminder that for all a president's powers, there's much beyond control. Think Libya, Egypt, Japan's earthquake, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case, the new House Republican majority, led by Speaker John Boehner, seized on a must-pass budget bill to give voice to frustrated voters and tea party conservatives who demanded spending cuts. It was brinksmanship mode again in the capital, where nothing gets done until the deadline. Sometimes not even then. In public, Obama tried to keep it at arm's length. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget," Obama said as the time got short this week. In fact, he was up to his neck in it. Obama used a veto threat to make clear he would not accept the scope of GOP spending cuts. He said he would accept no more temporary extensions to keep the government running for a few weeks at a time unless there was a broader deal in hand. He kept saying leaders had to act like grown-ups. The White House said his strategy was to stay behind the scenes, work the phones and let his senior aides do the negotiating. That type of role provided an opening for Republicans to question his leadership. It also led to rumblings from frustrated lawmakers in his own party who wanted the president to openly attack the cuts Republicans wanted. The White House figured it would take those hits. It did. A Gallup poll in late March found declining numbers of people who said Obama was a strong and decisive leader: a little more than half of those polled, compared with 60 percent one year ago and 73 percent two years ago. The White House believed that a better result would come if Obama didn't try to overheat the issue. Officials believed that people were worried about gas prices, not a spending squabble and that voters didn't hire Obama to be a legislator. Obama would go public when it meant the most. That was Tuesday. The president suddenly got vocal. He said Americans didn't want games but results. The pragmatic approach is what White House strategists believe will bring back the election-turning independents to Obama. "There are some things we can't control," he said. "We can't control earthquakes; we can't control tsunamis; we can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done." But it wasn't getting done, and his voice was not the only one setting the tone. "The president isn't leading," Boehner said Wednesday. "He didn't lead on last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget." Obama met with Boehner and Reid four times in the White House during the week. He still went to the Philadelphia area Wednesday to talk about energy. He looked comfortable, almost carefree, as he laughed with workers at a wind-turbine company about their families and their cars. But Washington had sucked him back in. By Friday, he canceled a trip to Indianapolis, scrapping the attention he wanted to give to clean energy. He scrapped a weekend getaway with his family to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. While working to avoid a shutdown, Obama's team thought the White House would come out OK in the public's mind if it came to that. The thinking was that the president had presented a reasonable case of agreeing to spending cuts without going too far, and that people would be angry with Republicans if the government closed up partially over a policy disagreement about abortion. Only when the standoff grew most dire did it end. But the budget mess showed how government isn't supposed to operate. No matter who's to blame, all will be, including a president running for election this time from inside Washington's ways. HE DEALT WITH THE REALITY SUPERIMPOSED ON HIM SKILLFULLY IN THE BEST WAY HE COULD. PRAGMATISM SUPERCEDED THE THREAT OF A SUPERVENING IDEOLOGY COME WHAT MAY. WISDOM WAS GENERATED BY THE PREIDENT BUT NOT INVOLVEMENT IN A NO WIN TUG OF WAR OF OPPOSING INTERESTS BUT EXERTING A WINNING EDGE OF PRAGMATISM AND EXHORTATION WHICH GOT THE JOB DONE OF COMPROMISE WITH OUT THE EMOTIONALISM OF OBNOXIOUS IDEOLOGY WHEREIN SUPREME LEADERSHIP WITH NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS OF BEING IN CONTROL BUT NOT OBVIOUS CONTROL. IT IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS AND THE SEEMINGLY AD HOS RESPONSES OF THE PRESIDENT, YET IN CONTROL OF THE EVENTS.

THE LIGHT THAT NEVER GOES OUT,ETC



The writing below is the extent our secular mind can come to in making sense in a world that G-d has hid his face from and it would really impress upon our souls the conclusions that Nick has come to even if in peremptory fashion.a rekindled romantic light is an admission not to give in to a darkness "which comprehends not" the exile of our wanderings. It is the light hidden by the divine, a light too blazing for us to be blinded by, without a doubt.We live in an ellipsis of despair of our own subliminal devising,and hence of our own making, Nick Meador. http://www.supraterranean.com/2010/05/24/the-light-that-never-goes-out/# http://www.nickmeador.org/essays/ In short, this film made me miss feeling completely and utterly alive. I think the sensation is usually described as the loss of innocence, but somehow that doesn’t fit here. I don’t think innocence is necessarily lacking in the many adults (at least, other than by extrapolation to society as a whole) who have retreated from the outer world, safeguarded by their beliefs, their televisions, and the locks on their door. In the zombie-fied glare that dominates most of our so-called activity, I don’t see a gap of innocence; I see the slow victory of death, mashed together with untended guilt and regret. The other popular explanation most would offer is that this is what it means to “grow up.” I’m not convinced by that either, mostly because of the persisting juvenile state in which the human race has currently settled. * * * Certain visionary writers and spiritual leaders have suggested that it’s possible to reinvigorate that state of heightened awareness and persist in an appreciation for the privilege of life. (500) Days forced me, through pure emotional assault, to consider that prospect in my own life. Yes, the hardships are ridiculous, the world does seem to be getting worse instead of steadily progressing, and some days I’m glad I don’t have a loaded gun in my home. But there’s still love, there’s still music, babies still laugh, daffodils still sprout early each spring, and Orion still dons his diamond-studded belt each clear winter night. Romanticism doesn’t work as an ideology, a paradigm to understand all the workings of our civilization. Furthermore, our culture has lost most of its faith in the romantic pursuit, cordoning it off to mass-marketed movies, sitcoms and paperback books. Perhaps this is just my way of not ruling out something that felt so true earlier in my life. Though I can’t deny that it’s been present all along, albeit in a subdued, damaged form. And in a way all the strife, loathing and bloodshed seem to happen in response to our romantic ideals not manifesting themselves automatically. Maybe the romantic spirit is still a worthwhile aspect of Western culture (or of human nature) – maybe we’ve just lost track of it. It could be that the last decade was a painful but necessary transitioning period, a pessimistic winter extending from the nuclear winter that was never consummated by the Cold War. It seems every day there are signs of a greater awareness of humanity, fostered largely by the Internet and, to a lesser extent, by psychoactive drugs. People seem to have a sturdier conviction that we are here for good and there will be no exit, nor any sanctuary. Now our only task it to build the garden that’s been stuck in our collective dreams, the one that has always seemed to be our lost place of origin, not our imminent destination. That nagging sense of guilt we’ve felt for millennia – that is surmountable. Just as Tom longs to regain his love with Summer, we lament the loss of the summers of our youth, the season wholly representative of innocence. But like Tom did, we’ll inevitably see that the innocence was never gone, that its loss was an illusion – a temporary injury, perhaps one that encourages adaptivity in us. That insight is how Tom opens his heart to a woman named Autumn – a simple enough plot device, but one that’s all too relevant. After all, to see the purity of human life once summer has passed it to recognize that the purity is an inextricable part of what it means to be alive. * * * I’m still not convinced that any of this is preordained. I think of it more in terms of a natural progression. It’s the way of our evolution. If not, we would have blown each other up by now. What I’m suggesting is the possibility that Summer was right, that the outcome of their love was meant to be. Even the most secular of scientists could admit that natural processes happen in the world with total disregard as to our foresight or comprehension. What’s required is a willingness to open oneself up, time and time again, in the face of disaster and adversity. Then maybe our notion of the romantic will be transformed from a joke to an actual possibility, with all the layers of false beliefs stripped away to expose the core aspect of humanity that lies therein. That thought is best represented in the film by a classic Smiths’ song – the one playing on Tom’s headphones when the main characters first connect. Since it was written in 1986, the song has revived an endless number of shriveled hearts, thanks largely to Morrissey’s calming British croon and his repeated declaration: “There is a light that never goes out.” So here’s hoping it never does. Similar Posts: Film Review: ‘Up in the Air’ by Nick Meador The Science of Disasterology by Nick Meador A Reflection of One’s Genetic Architecture by Nick Meador A Supraterranean Manifesto by Nick Meador The Self-Directed Initiation of a Writer by Nick Meador