The State of the U

The State of the Union address is fascinating theater. The claustrophic grouping of so many famous political figures reminds me of the Oscar red carpet celebrity parade. A Madame Tussaud's wax work of power and influence. Very impressive, very incongruous somehow, to see these power brokers all together.

The speech itself revealed once again The Two Bushes. Texas good ol' boy:

Bush started out his current term claiming a mandate from a slim victory. Domestically he has been, as the health care plan shows, in the pocket of wealth and power. The health care plan was written by large corporations and it is designed to benefit the wealthy and/or the healthy. The message: if you aren't rich, just don't get sick.

Honorable and decent leader:

The math/science initiative was right on. His affirmation of the importance of Iraq was well wrought. His line asserting the value of the action in Iraq and our national trait of involvement and assertion, of a desire to help, rather than retreat: “to allow an assaulted world to fend for itself” was noble in its resonance. Bush is a man who deeply believes in freedom — it comes across.

Sticking out: the lack of a sweeping condemnation of Iran. The Iranian despotic theorcracy provides a need for clarity, a drawing of lines. The maniacal leadership of Iran is outside the realm of civilized nations — it should have been made clear that we will not tolerate Iran realizing their plans for WMD.

Good Movies

After The Cider House Rules we rented another movie by the same director, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, director Lasse Hallström's 1993 movie about backwater entrapment and the complicated nature of human relationships. Hallström's gift is in portraying feeling. He is really amazing in his ability to evoke nuances of feeling — the way he strips down scenes to their emotional centers and is able to give that emotion its full voice. He trusts the material, the actors, the audience. The movies are both somewhat sentimental, a bit slow, but still engrossing; without embarrassment, both movies are affirmations. There are no bad people in Hallström's movies — they simply have problems, or are just doing their job. Mistakes are rectified, events are muted when painful. Not real life, not great art with its deeper ambiguities, but not a waste of time.

There is something to be said for a creative person who knows his limits and strengths; Hallström never veers away from the story and the characters, always gets terrific actors and fine scripts to work with. That is no accident. He is able to draw amazingly potent performances from star and bit player — from children. DiCaprio, very young in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, is just wonderful. The combination of Tobey Maguire, an actor with an elfin presence and resonant, heartfelt voice, with Michael Caine in The Cider House Rules was perfect. These are movies that pluck you out, lift you from the daily distractions. Both films are taken from novels that were then adapted by their authors. They both take place in marginalized hardscrabble country settings — away from the sensual energy and hardened joys of urban experience. What a relief these movies were.

Oprah Loses It

The to do about Oprah's displeasure with James Frey is attracting a lot of press. Oprah is the ultimate spokesmodel — anything she endorses turns to gold. Fabulously rich, completely in control — if people could see the life she lives they would be astounded at the privileges of great wealth — she seems an emblem of all that is good in American pop culture and the realization of success in America. Which is what she clearly believes about herself. She has convinced herself that she wasn't lucky and talented, but that she was destined. No one lies to destiny's child without a price being extracted. Poor James Frey was the catcher, Oprah, the pitcher.

NYT article:

…The conversation would end only when Ms. Winfrey felt sure that absolution was hers to bestow. Her magnanimity was over, and this time she wasn't going to wave her wand and excuse all sins…Finally, Ms. Winfrey turned to Mr. Frey, who had stayed silent for much of the program, as if fighting tears. She pressed him, and he conceded he had been lying.

I liked the commentator on Lehrer today — he said that Oprah's behavior towards Frey made Frey the sympathetic party, and ironically, made Oprah appear a “sanctimonious bully”.

The Election That Wasn't

Palestinians voted out corrupt criminals and voted in sociopathic terrorists. Their society was poisoned by years of Arafat's incoherent grandiosity and criminality, confining Palestinian options long ago, leaving them with a choice that is no choice, in an election that was no election; a mix of Palestinian despair, the degradations of their warmly embraced death cult mentality, the clown alley of the UN, and the confused detritus of a once admirable progressive Left, has enabled this bizarre outcome — an election from hell. I wonder if Jimmy Carter when he next bares his teeth, in what appears an attempt to provide a smile, will catch on, after his jabbering that it was “good” that Hamas was involved in the election process; what needs to be done, of course, is to pressure the Palestinians — a novel idea — towards, not an election, not democracy, but common decency.

DWTS Redux

Dancing With The Stars brings a smile to my face. Every time. If you have seen the PBS version of ballroom dance competition you can see now what is missing in that dreary enterprise. Joy, affirmation, fun, sexiness. DWTS is so well produced that when a dance exhibition by the professionals is shown, even that works.

John Updike once said that ice skating performances often moved him. I suppose that the dancers, there in the spotlight on the frozen impersonal expanse of ice, expressed for him the condition of our lives in some of its melancholic isolation, energy and joy. DWTS is having a similar effect on me — with more emphasis for me on the fun and affirmation of coupling; the enormous power of human connection, of the forces that run through us and pull us out of ourselves into the unexpected. Ballroom dancing at its best rides the life force as that energy expresses itself in the social sphere.

This is such a joyous and affirmative show — an antidote to the mire of daily news and deadening state of much of public life; of the endless parade of execrable examples of human behavior; of much that is regurgitated in the media. Even the competitive aspect of the show, which can often corrupt and desiccate human effort, adds a perfect balance of seriousness — the gravity of true adult play.

Brooks

David Brooks was on Charlie Rose last night. If there were a movie ad it would say “the provocative and engaging David Brooks”. Brooks' ideas have a compelling logic. He has built tremendous credibility by being moderate — in roiling times you listen to people whose eyes are not intellectually popping out of their heads; you want honesty, reflection, considered and informed opinion.

Underneath, Brooks is an ideologue as much as the next commentator. But he presents his ideas with modesty and decency — traits he praised in Alito and clearly holds in high regard. So do many of us.

Brooks tries to be both Tom Friedman global sociologist and Tom Wolfe social critic. Brooks regards himself as a “cultural determinist” rather than what he characterized as a “technological determinist” — like Tom Friedman. Cultural determinism — the idea that cultures and their received notions explain historical outcomes — seems credible; at least to the extent that any theoretical structure can explain reality. Too often theories impose themselves rather than offer explanation.

Brooks, as an ideologue, also sells tickets. He said that Bush was really smart behind the scenes but it just doesn't show in public. This reminds one of the same assertions made about Reagan. I remember an old SNL skit in which Reagan is portrayed in his public face, somewhat doddering and disengaged, a sympathetic grandfatherly figure, and then the moment the public event is over, and Reagan is in private, dealing only with his staff, he becomes a clipped master-builder — issuing staccato commands with assurance and absolute authority. It was hysterical. If Bush is really smart he should get an Academy Award.

More important than sheer intelligence, Bush does seem to have a grounded sense of what matters. He seems to understand we are involved in a war. Brooks said the briefings Bush gets each morning about the status of our war with Islamo-fascism are horrifying; that if anyone was in Bush's position they would do the same things. To me this is credible as well. Bush isn't blindly seeking power, he is trying to protect the country. There have been many mistakes along the way, but none that warrant the Democrat's excessive reaction to him or efforts to rekindle Viet Nam contentiousness. Democrats are making the same mistakes Republicans made with Clinton.

Brooks said that he gets Nexus printouts of all of NYT reporter John Burn's public appearances. Burns is so credible a reporter on the actual situation in Iraq that Brooks follows Burns' reports closely. I had the same reaction to Burns years ago. I remember how Burns criticized the press in Iraq for sucking up to a thug like Hussein for access. I noticed in TV reports that Burns always seemed to be thinking as he spoke, not regurgitating received notions.

Burns is a character out of central casting — seeming to have perpetually just gotten out of bed; disheveled, the antithesis of slick, Burns tells the truth without agenda; even more admirable, Burns seems able to sort out the chaotic war zone that is Iraq. It's easy to share Brooks' admiration for Burns.

Dancing With The Stars

Whoever came up with the Dancing With The Stars concept really got a winner. The show is fun to watch. That guy, Mayne, I think he is an ESPN host, as he attempted to wheel his nubile partner around the floor looked like a donkey trying to play a violin. But he was in on the joke — they are “casting” well; celebrities who have a sense of humor about themselves. The women looked great, sexy and in full high display. The men are making honorable tries, and even when they don't, like the rap singer, they still are fun to watch.

The problem is the judges are living in some other quadrant of the universe. Of the judges, only the older guy in the middle seemed to be able to see what was in front of him. Lisa Rinna was clearly the best dancer of the celebs. She really danced. She enjoyed dancing, she acted within the range of the dance, she exuded the deep pleasure in movement, she had grace and extension in her arm movements. It is surprising to see her flower this way because she has always seemed depleted, without a life-force, when she appeared in public. It turns out she has a warm personality. She is an attractive woman but looked just beautiful dancing on that night.

The producers should let the audience hear a little about the judges so you can figure out whether you want to totally disregard their opinions. It's not that they aren't experts, it is just that they don't know what they are talking about.