RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Bush's Mission May Yet Be Accomplished Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 15:29

Ash writes: "ISIS, like U.S. neocon war planners, understands that polarization can lead to broader conflict. If Islamic nations and factions join the West in the fight against ISIS, they are doomed. But if the West can be baited into a conflict against Islam itself, then full polarization is achieved and ISIS has a chance to unite Islam against what it defines as 'the infidels.' Both U.S. neocons and ISIS would then have the broader global conflict they have long desired."

Nov. 16, 2015: French Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls stand with students at Sorbonne University in Paris. (photo: Reuters/Pool)
Nov. 16, 2015: French Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls stand with students at Sorbonne University in Paris. (photo: Reuters/Pool)


Bush's Mission May Yet Be Accomplished

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

18 November 15

 

he stated goals of George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” followed the traditional path of American war rhetoric. The old standby, market-tested themes of “defending America … fighting for freedom and democracy” were the cornerstones of every argument Bush administration officials presented to the American people in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That was the “made for television version.”

In fact the ideological basis for the War on Terror was set forth in policy statements by the The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990s.

PNAC was ostensibly, according to its founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan, a “non-profit educational organization.” To that extent PNAC’s early declarations proved true: an education of sorts was certainly in the offing.

The administration of George W. Bush would run deep with PNAC provocateurs. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, and Paul Wolfowitz were all original signatories to PNAC’s 1997 Statement of Principles and their subsequent 1998 Letters on Regime Change in Iraq, flat-out advocating a U.S. assault on Iraq to effect regime change nearly four years before the attacks of September 11th, 2001. In all, 10 (by some reports as many as 20) of PNAC’s original participants would serve in the Bush administration.

PNAC presented their rationale for overthrowing Saddam Hussein as a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.” That was a cornerstone philosophy of the PNAC gang.

Benevolent Global Hegemony

William Kristol’s personal brainchild was what he politely called “benevolent global hegemony.” Of American making, of course. Professor Gary Dorrien described the plan as one that “sought to prevent any nation or group of nations from challenging America’s global supremacy.” That was the ideology that formed the basis for the Iraq Regime Change Letters.

Presumably, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was an act of benevolence in the minds PNAC inhabitants of the Bush II-era White House. George H.W. Bush caught wind of the same thinking from Paul Wolfowitz in 1990 and wanted no part of it.

Additional acts of benevolence included a global torture program and the brutal assault on Fallujah to destroy resistance once and for all in the heart of the Sunni triangle. The same Sunni triangle that today is the hub of ISIS’s support and operations.

The Germans, the French, and Bush’s War on Terror

The Bush family’s sordid military history had its beginnings in World War II. That’s a story unto itself. But clearly George W. Bush viewed the military world through a World War II lens. To go to war, he believed, he had to have the support of the central World War II players, with the Germans this time joining the Allies.

Bush did succeed in unifying Germany and France, but not as he planned. Both Germany and France in 2002 and 2003 were dead set against the plan to invade Iraq. Both countries would flatly refuse to join Bush’s coalition or participate in what they viewed as a mistake of epic proportions.

Both German chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French president Jacques Chirac warned against an “adventure” that might lead to a “destruction of the coalition against terror.” Bush and Cheney reacted vindictively, tapping Schröder’s phone and threatening to ban French imports to the U.S.

Global Holy War

What would be most ironic at this well-removed juncture would be the belated joining of the War on Terror by France and perhaps Germany as well. ISIS is doing everything in its power to bait both nations into the conflict. In the wake of the murderously provocative attacks in Paris, France is already actively engaged in bombing missions against ISIS positions in Syria, and Germany is voicing its support.

Upping the ante, Russia has coordinated air strikes against ISIS with the French military since ISIS claimed responsibility for bringing down a Russian airliner over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula with a bomb planted in a soda can.

While Russia cannot be viewed as a Western nation by any stretch, its decades-old battle with Islamic militants in Chechnya and elsewhere make it ripe for participation in the current conflict. 

All of this plays directly into a highly polarized conflict between Islamic and non-Islamic nations and their populations. If you are looking forward to “full global jihad/holy-war” that’s where that train ultimately goes.

Why ISIS Needs a War With the West

The attacks in Paris, the webcast beheadings, the brash public pronouncements of mayhem to come are all part of a carefully designed strategy by ISIS to draw the West into a broad conflict. Not Just a conflict with the Islamic State but with the entire Islamic world.

U.S. presidential candidate and Vermont senator Bernard Sanders is right: the best strategy to thwart ISIS’s momentum is one that necessarily includes participation of Islamic nations and factions that are also threatened by its aggression. ISIS well knows that.  

ISIS, like U.S. neocon war planners, understands that polarization can lead to broader conflict. If Islamic nations and factions join the West in the fight against ISIS, they are doomed. But if the West can be baited into a conflict against Islam itself, then full polarization is achieved and ISIS has a chance to unite Islam against what it defines as “the infidels.” Both U.S. neocons and ISIS would then have the broader global conflict they have long desired.

In that way, George W. Bush’s original neocon mission would be accomplished.

Take care.



Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
My Letter to the Future Print
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 15:09

Pollan writes: "I know you will not read this note until the turn of the century, but I want to explain what things were like back in 2015, before we figured out how to roll back climate change. As a civilization we were still locked into a zero-sum idea of our relationship with the natural world."

UC Professor and author Michael Pollan. (photo: The Long Now Foundation)
UC Professor and author Michael Pollan. (photo: The Long Now Foundation)


My Letter to the Future

By Michael Pollan, EcoWatch

18 November 15

 

know you will not read this note until the turn of the century, but I want to explain what things were like back in 2015, before we figured out how to roll back climate change. As a civilization we were still locked into a zero-sum idea of our relationship with the natural world, in which we assumed that for us to get whatever we needed, whether it was food or energy or entertainment, nature had to be diminished. But that was never necessarily the case.

In our time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture still handed out subsidies to farmers for every bushel of corn or wheat or rice they could grow. This promoted a form of agriculture that was extremely productive and extremely destructive—of the climate, among other things.

Approximately one-third of the carbon then in the atmosphere had formerly been sequestered in soils in the form of organic matter, but since we began plowing and deforesting, we’d been releasing huge quantities of this carbon into the atmosphere. At that time, the food system as a whole—that includes agriculture, food processing, and food transportation—contributed somewhere between 20-30 percent of the greenhouse gases produced by civilization—more than any other sector except energy. Fertilizer was always one of the biggest culprits for two reasons: it’s made from fossil fuels, and when you spread it on fields and it gets wet, it turns into nitrous oxide, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Slowly, we convinced the policy makers to instead give subsidies to farmers for every increment of carbon they sequestered in the soil.

Over time, we began to organize our agriculture so that it could heal the planet, feed us and tackle climate change. This began with shifting our food system from its reliance on oil, which is the central fact of industrial agriculture (not just machinery, but pesticides and fertilizers are all oil-based technologies), back to a reliance on solar energy: photosynthesis.

Carbon farming was one of the most hopeful things going on at that time in climate change research. We discovered that plants secrete sugars into the soil to feed the microbes they depend on, in the process putting carbon into the soil. This process of sequestering carbon at the same time improved the fertility and water-holding capacity of the soil. We began to relying on the sun—on photosynthesis—rather than on fossil fuels to feed ourselves. We learned that there are non-zero-sum ways we could feed ourselves AND heal the earth. That was just one of the big changes we made toward the sustainable food system you are lucky enough to take for granted.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Patricia Highsmith's Carol and the Enduring Legacy of Lesbian Culture in America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 13:14

Rich writes: "Lesbians rarely receive the same measure of attention as gay men in our culture, pop culture included. There are some obvious reasons for this beyond a misogynistic strain in America."

Screenshot from the film
Screenshot from the film "Carol," an adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel "The Price of Salt" (later published under the title "Carol"). (photo: Flim4)


Patricia Highsmith's Carol and the Enduring Legacy of Lesbian Culture in America

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

18 November 15

 

n early December 1948, Patricia Highsmith took a Christmas-season temp job as a shopgirl in the children’s toy department at Bloomingdale’s. Highsmith, a 27-year-old native of Fort Worth, Texas, and a 1942 Barnard graduate, was a budding novelist who had been supporting herself for five years as a freelance action-comic-book writer, concocting stories for lesser superheroes like Spy Smasher and Black Terror — a rare gig for a woman in the golden age of comics. But her average weekly income of $55 no longer ­sufficed now that she had started shelling out $30 a week for psychoanalysis. Highsmith had sought a shrink’s help to deal with her qualms about her pending marriage to a British novelist named Marc Brandel. Up until then, her prolific love life had been defined by a string of affairs with women.

The therapy didn’t take, and the marriage never happened. The Bloomingdale’s job, which she loathed, expired in two weeks. But there was an incident in the toy department lasting a mere two or three minutes that would haunt Highsmith for life. As she would recount it publicly for the first time more than four decades later, “a routine transaction,” the sale of a doll to a suburban “blondish woman in a fur coat” seeking a gift for her daughter, had left Highsmith “odd and swimmy in the head, near to fainting, yet at the same time uplifted, as if I had seen a vision.” Back in her apartment after work, she feverishly plotted out a story inspired by her experience. As her first novel, Strangers on a Train, was being published in 1950, she retrieved the story as the basis for what would be her second, The Price of Salt. Still possessed by her “vision,” she took the train from Pennsylvania Station to Ridgewood, New Jersey, where the “blondish woman” lived — ­Highsmith had held on to her name and address from the Bloomingdale’s transaction — and spied on her. “The curious thing,” she wrote in her journal afterward, was that the experience “felt quite close to murder.” Murder, she mused, “is a kind of making love, a kind of possessing.” She fantasized about putting “my hands upon her throat (which I should really like to kiss).”

Strangers on a Train, in which two men, one a psychopath and the other a straight arrow, meet by happenstance and decide to swap murders of relatives they respectively despise, was well received and snapped up for the movies by Alfred Hitchcock. But ­Highsmith’s publisher, Harper & Brothers, rejected The Price of Salt, with its tale of the obsessive love of a 19-year-old department-store shopgirl, Therese Belivet, for a married, 30-something customer, Carol Aird. Coward-McCann published it instead, in 1952, under the pseudonym Claire ­Morgan. The next year, Bantam brought out a 35-cent paperback edition with leering cover art (one woman seductively touches another’s shoulder as the discarded man looks on helplessly from afar) and lurid ad copy (“The Novel of a Love Society Forbids”). It sold nearly a million copies. But Highsmith, who bridled that her first novel had been pigeonholed by Harper as a “novel of suspense,” didn’t want to be known as the author of a “lesbian book” either. She didn’t acknowledge Salt as her own for more than a quarter-century. She didn’t open up about its history until five years before her death, when she wrote an afterword for a 1990 British reissue that credited her as the author and retitled the book Carol.

Now Carol Aird may become more widely known than ever, in the form of yet another of the extraordinary performances we have come to expect from Cate Blanchett, who is paired with the no less impressive Rooney Mara as Therese in the director Todd Haynes and the writer ­Phyllis Nagy’s mesmerizing and moving film adaptation of Highsmith’s anxiety-laced romance. Since Strangers on a Train, there have been several screen treatments of Highsmith’s work — including three drawn from her best-known book, The Talented Mr. Ripley (1955), or one of its sequels, variously directed by René Clément (in 1960), Wim Wenders (1977), and Anthony Minghella (1999). (Blanchett appeared in Minghella’s, which starred Matt Damon as Ripley.) But none of these movies has burrowed into the heart of Highsmith as uncompromisingly as Carol, which is unfailingly true to the only explicitly personal novel among the 22 she wrote.

That the film happens to land in this particular historical moment adds another dimension to its fascination. It was during the long period of its gestation — Nagy was first approached about writing the screenplay at the end of the last century — that the tipping point arrived for gay rights in America. While those rights have not been firmly secured even in the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage — witness Houston’s revoking of its anti-discrimination ordinance this month — few would deny that a legal, political, and cultural transformation has occurred in straight America’s relationship to gay America.

Once America turns a corner like that, it tends to move on. We don’t make a habit of looking back at our history if a social injustice is thought to have been fixed. In 1977, well after the African-American civil-rights movement was celebrated as a done deal, executives at ABC were floored to find that 130 million Americans, representing some 85 percent of the nation’s television households, would watch the mini-series Roots; even at that late date, the history of slavery and its legacy turned out to be a revelation to much of that audience. (As we learned in this year’s Confederate-flag debate, that history is still murky to many.) Basking in the warm glow of America’s spate of gay-civil-rights victories, Hollywood can tell itself its work is done. Larry Kramer’s landmark 1985 play of the AIDS era, The Normal Heart, finally became a television film (almost 30 years after its theatrical premiere), after all, and movies like The Imitation Game and Dallas Buyers Club are routinely celebrated at the Oscars. Now that Modern Family is borderline retro, transgender characters are having a belated television moment, too.

But then you look at a film like Carol, and peer through the windows it opens onto both cultural history and actual history, and you realize how much we don’t know about a past that unfolded in the shadows until not very long ago. You also start to wonder how many cultural treasures and figures are buried in that antiquity, invisible to most of heterosexual America and perhaps to much of younger gay America, too. Highsmith’s “lesbian book,” its million paperback copies of six decades ago notwithstanding, is just such a case.

Even now, let alone in the past, lesbians rarely receive the same measure of attention as gay men in our culture, pop culture included. There are some obvious reasons for this beyond a misogynistic strain in America so durable that it’s still front and center in presidential campaigns. In the entertainment industry, men, straight and gay, hold many more positions of power than straight and gay women do, and those men, whatever their sexual orientation, are going to favor their own stories. Another factor is the overwhelming tragedy of the AIDS epidemic. It inevitably and properly pushed gay men to the fore once mainstream Hollywood (in 1993, with Tom Hanks taking the plunge in Philadelphia) at last mustered the will to address AIDS and its shunned victims head-on.

Yet gay women often had to settle for the crumbs of mainstream culture both before and after the AIDS crisis. Ellen DeGeneres broke a barrier when she came out in the fourth of her original sitcom’s five seasons, and there have been recurring lesbian characters in other network series, but there was no prime-time broadcast phenomenon for gay women as sustained as, say, Will & Grace. Once major Hollywood studios, for better and (often) worse, started to regularly turn out glossy entertainments with gay-male protagonists like In & Out and The Birdcage in the mid-’90s, most films with three-dimensional lesbian characters, from Desert Hearts and Go Fish to Heavenly Creatures, remained relatively ghettoized as low-­budget indies, imports, or box-office also-rans. Big-budget Hollywood was more likely to exploit a lesbian or bisexual female character — e.g., Sharon Stone’s star turn in Basic Instinct — as a soft-porn sex toy for straight men.

Carol is an Anglo-American indie collaboration that took a decade to get made. Haynes signed on late in the process, after a previous director, John Crowley, dropped out. It was a natural assignment for Haynes, who had previously collaborated with Blanchett on her gender-bending turn in I’m Not There, his 2007 cinematic meditation on Bob Dylan. Haynes has often put women in crisis at the center of his films, starting with the legendary 1987 short he made while studying for his M.F.A. at Bard, Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, in which the anorexic pop singer and other characters were played by Barbie dolls. (It exists now only as a bootleg because of a successful copyright-infringement action brought by Carpenter’s brother, Richard.) The obvious direct antecedent of Carol in Haynes’s filmography is Far From Heaven (2002), set later in the 1950s than Highsmith’s story. An homage to both the texts and subtexts of the director Douglas Sirk’s Hollywood melodramas of that decade, Heaven tells of a Connecticut wife and mother (Julianne Moore) coming to terms with both her husband’s closeted homosexuality and her own runaway passion for the African-American gardener performing day labor in her white, upper-middle-class enclave. Haynes is a gay man, but his greatest empathy was reserved for Moore’s trapped wife. As he has said, the closeted husband, “a white man in hiding,” still had more freedom to maneuver and get what he wanted than either a black man or a white woman in America before the dawn of the modern civil-rights and feminist movements.

That wider point of view kept Far From Heaven from being the gay-rights polemic its plot might suggest. With Carol, both Haynes and Nagy were similarly determined not to make what Nagy calls “an agenda film” and Haynes a “look how far we’ve come” film. The movie alters only a few details of the novel (most notably making Therese an aspiring photographer instead of an apprentice theatrical-set designer). Haynes shot the film in Super 16-mm. and draws on the collective iconography of mid-century American urban photographers like Ruth Orkin, Saul Leiter, and Vivian Maier to capture the grain and soot of a postwar Manhattan in transition to the booming Mad Men era soon to come. It’s a wintry city of lonely, Edward Hopper–esque spaces that, in Highsmith’s description, was marked by “that reddish-brown confusion of the side street” with its “familiar hodgepodge of restaurant and bar signs, awnings, front steps and windows.”

Most of all, Carol upholds Highsmith’s vision of her characters. “What still strikes me now,” Nagy says of the novel, “is how radical it was in terms of its overall conception — two central figures not giving a rat’s ass about sexual identity. No one frets about being gay; others fret on their behalf.” The men who do fret (or worse) — Carol’s husband (Kyle Chandler) and Therese’s intended (Jake Lacy) — are not presented as arch-villains; they are men of their time, as much baffled as judgmental and punitive. This is not their story, in any case. We see everything from the two women’s points of view.

Throughout, Haynes’s direction translates Highsmith’s hushed, spare, unnerving narrative voice into visual terms reminiscent of James Stewart’s feverish fixation on Kim Novak in Vertigo. Therese’s monomaniacal passion for Carol is a kind of stalking, not unlike that of the male (and often implicitly gay) stalkers who commit murder in other Highsmith works. When Therese and Carol go on the lam — in a cross-country road trip that strikes some contemporary readers of Highsmith’s novel as the immediate precursor of those in Lolita and On the Road — one of them packs a gun. But it is the crime of same-sex love, not murder, that has turned them into unlikely outlaws, and their sotto voce criminality is not to be confused with Thelma & Louise. Society dictates that Therese and Carol must act in code, much of it wordless, as they traipse across a barren swath of the Midwest. Which in turn means that Carol could not exist as a film without two actors capable of conveying so much intimacy with so little dialogue. By the end, we are locked into the delicate nuances of the couple’s own private language to such a degree that Blanchett can move an audience to tears with nothing more than an enigmatic half-formed smile that is the movie’s final, indelible image.

It’s hard to appreciate now the impact Highsmith’s book had on gay women when it was first published. “It was for many years the only lesbian novel, in either hard or soft cover, with a happy ending,” wrote Marijane Meaker in a wry 2003 memoir about her romance with Highsmith circa 1960. Under the pseudonym Vin Packer, Meaker herself wrote a lesbian pulp novel, Spring Fire, published the same year as The Price of Salt, in which one woman ends up returning to heterosexuality and another ends up in a mental institution, because an editor instructed her that only an unhappy ending could protect the book from being seized by the postal authorities as “obscene.”

Ellen Violett, now 90 and married to her partner of nearly 45 years, is a fabled television dramatist whose career began in the early 1950s and who traveled in some of Highsmith’s New York circles. She recalls how joyous it was to have a first gay affair and discover that you “didn’t die.” But she adds that “once you broke up, you had no one to talk to except a Freudian analyst or a priest.” For many isolated gay women and some gay men as well, Salt was a lifeline that helped fill that void. After it was published, “Claire Morgan,” via her publisher, was inundated by letters from readers eager to converse with the writer who had told them that they were not alone and all was not lost. As Fran Lebowitz points out, in the decades of the closet, at least gay boys discovering their sexuality knew there were others like them — if only because of the negative indicators of bullying and the ubiquity of slurs like “faggot.” For lesbians, invisibility was its own kind of torment. “I read every possible thing that had any possible allusion to homosexuality because that’s where you find yourself,” Lebowitz says. The letters Highsmith received from readers were alternately appreciative that her characters didn’t end up committing suicide and suffused with the loneliness of not being able to talk to anyone else who was gay, particularly if the correspondent lived in a small town. Highsmith would suggest moving to a larger town, but she knew that was no panacea. “Those were the days,” she later wrote, “when gay bars were a dark door somewhere in Manhattan, where people wanting to go to a certain bar got off the subway a station before or after the convenient one, lest they be suspected of being homosexual.”

If judged by contemporary dictates of political correctness, Highsmith is about the last poster woman for gay fiction and gay rights anyone would choose, and she’s all the more compelling and challenging for that reason. She has been the subject of two fat and captivating (if tonally anti­thetical) posthumous biographies, Andrew Wilson’s Beautiful Shadow (2003) and Joan Schenkar’s The Talented Miss Highsmith (2009). Highsmith is almost impossible to shoehorn into any category — political, literary, or psychological. She was an anti-Semite who revered Saul Bellow over all contemporary American authors. She was a fearless and independent woman who had no use for feminists. (As indeed some feminists had no use for lesbians: The historian Lillian Faderman writes in her authoritative new book, The Gay Revolution, of how Betty Friedan complained that the so-called Lavender Menace “was warping the image of the woman’s movement.”) As a young woman, Highsmith was moved by the Spanish Civil War to join the Young Communist League; she was antiwar in the Vietnam era and an environmentalist. But her views on race were anything but progressive. In New York in the late ’50s, Meaker knew the playwright Lorraine Hansberry, a closeted lesbian, but Highsmith spurned an invitation to attend an early screening of the film version of A Raisin in the Sun. “I know the plot,” Highsmith explained to Meaker. “Colored person thwarted, then colored person triumphant. It’s not my concern.”

The only consistent things about Highsmith are her tumultuous love affairs, which were nonstop from her teens until a few years before her death at age 74, her unchecked alcoholism, her tireless work ethic, and her misanthropic take on the human race. The misanthropy was well earned. Her mother, a commercial illustrator who divorced Pat’s father nine days before her birth and married a stepfather she hated three years later, took it upon herself to inform her daughter that she had tried to abort her mid-pregnancy by drinking turpentine. “It’s funny, you adore the smell of turpentine, Pat,” she added.

“Work is the only thing of importance or joy in life,” Highsmith wrote in a notebook in 1972. But her writing career was far from easy. Early on, she met with William Shawn at The New Yorker and wrote some “Talk of the Town” pieces on spec, but nothing came of it, and despite her efforts thereafter, no Highsmith story was published in the magazine until seven years after her death. (During her lifetime, her stories frequently found a home in Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine.) Her reviews were often favorable, and she had a few prominent literary champions, including Graham Greene. The film adaptations of her work gave her a slight celebrity and some subsidiary income (though she always complained of how Hitchcock secured the rights to her first novel in perpetuity for $7,500). But while her books had a loyal following in Europe, in the estimate of her longtime editor Larry Ashmead, she never sold more than 8,000 copies of a novel in hardcover at home.

Highsmith was about the work, not self-promotion, and her gruff personality was anything but user-friendly. Short of J.?D. Salinger, she was probably the least likely author to sit for a magazine profile or exchange quips on television with Dick Cavett. Her one major television interview, with Melvyn Bragg on London Weekend Television’s prestigious South Bank Show in the early ’80s, was laconic and dour. It didn’t help her career with American readers, either, that she moved to Europe for good in 1963, bouncing around England, France, and Italy before finally ending up in the tiny town of Tegna in Switzerland. She retained her American citizenship but was periodically dropped by her American publishers. When her final novel was rejected by her last imprint, Knopf, she died, in 1995, without one.

Not all of Highsmith’s books are equal, but she has a disorienting voice that’s all its own: stripped of literary ornamentation, devoid of sentimentality, and lacking a moral compass, no matter how horrific the behavior of her characters or the suffering of their victims. Almost every film adaptation of her work before Carol, starting with Hitchcock’s first, has bowdlerized her endings, whether by excising a final murder or insisting that a killer be brought to justice. That’s not Highsmith. “I find the public passion for justice quite boring and artificial, for neither life nor nature cares if justice is ever done or not,” she explained in her 1966 book Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction. Told at one point by an agent that her books don’t sell in America because the people in them are unlikable, she responded that “perhaps it is because I don’t like anyone” and proposed that in the future she write about animals. Indeed, her 1975 story collection, The Animal-Lovers’ Book of Beastly Murder, is about pets that kill their human masters. (Her own favorite animals were snails, which she smuggled through customs by hiding a half-dozen or so under each of her breasts.) In truth she often identified with her most amoral human protagonists, from the psychopathic Bruno of Strangers on a Train (“I love him!”) to Tom Ripley. In the early 1970s Highsmith contemplated writing a novel, as her biographer Wilson describes it, about a character obsessed with “the detritus of modern living—waste material including abortions, the contents of toilets, bedpans, diapers, hysterectomies.” And who might that character be? She answered the question in her diary—“myself.”

As a person, Highsmith was no less original and no less thorny. One of her last American publishers, Otto Penzler of Mysterious Press, who published seven of her books in the ’80s, told Schenkar that while he was a fan of Highsmith’s work, he found her “a horrible human being” consistent with her characters, whom he described as “mean-spirited people” with “no humanity, no spirit of shared experience.” Nagy, not yet a screenwriter but a young researcher at The New York Times Magazine when she met Highsmith in New York in the late ’80s, came away with a kinder judgment. Nagy had been assigned to be Highsmith’s companion on a walking tour of the Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn for a feature that was never published. (Highsmith was the magazine’s second choice, after Ruth Rendell declined.) When Nagy picked the novelist up at the Gramercy Park Hotel, she found a “little crumpled woman in the corner, who looked sort of like Jimmy Durante in a trench coat — scary, formidable.” In a brief exchange about the theater — Nagy was an aspiring playwright—Highsmith allowed that she had seen and liked Sam Shepard’s Fool for Love, then fell into silence for 90 minutes. She was scarcely more communicative during the graveyard tour, but once it was over that morning, she told Nagy, “I don’t need you, but I need a drink,” and offered her Scotch from her hip flask “as a challenge.” Then Highsmith invited her to lunch, “which consisted of beers in her hotel room.” A warm friendship and correspondence ensued. “She’d come to New York every so often,” Nagy recalls. “Every time she came she wanted to be taken to one of the old gay bars of her youth, but they were different in her dotage.”

They remained in touch until Highsmith took ill the year before she died. To the surprise of many, she left her entire estate and future royalties to Yaddo, the writers’ and artists’ colony in upstate New York where she’d spent part of the summer of 1948 working on Strangers on a Train, just a few months before she would meet her “Carol” at Bloomingdale’s. That residency had been secured largely through the intercession of Truman Capote, a friend at the time, and it had not been repeated in the nearly half-century since. Nonetheless, “she felt Yaddo was the only place that really nurtured her,” Nagy says.

“I never think about my ‘place’ in literature, and perhaps I have none,” Highsmith once said. Her work, while respected, is usually relegated to a rung below those who wrote in roughly her sphere like James M. Cain (whom she admired, rightly, as “a kind of genius”) and Jim Thompson. Do the travails of both her life and career have anything to do with the fact that her sex life was condemned as a perversion and punishable as a crime in the country of her birth? Highsmith was not prone to self-pity or self-martyrdom, and it’s hard to imagine that she would say so. In any case, it’s a question that can never be definitively answered. The question that can be answered is what other writers and artists and cultural treasures might have fallen through the cracks in the pre-Stonewall era. Carol is certain to bring new readers to Highsmith, and once they dig in, they will be ravenous for more.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Perils of Circus Politics Print
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 11:34

Reich writes: "The next president of the United States will confront a virulent jihadist threat, mounting effects of climate change, and an economy becoming ever more unequal. Our process for choosing that person is a circus, and several leading candidates are clowns."

Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


The Perils of Circus Politics

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

18 November 15

 

he next president of the United States will confront a virulent jihadist threat, mounting effects of climate change, and an economy becoming ever more unequal.

We’re going to need an especially wise and able leader.

Yet our process for choosing that person is a circus, and several leading candidates are clowns.

How have we come to this?

First, anyone with enough ego and money can now run for president.

This wasn’t always the case. Political parties used to sift through possible candidates and winnow the field.

Now the parties play almost no role. Anyone with some very wealthy friends can set up a Super PAC. According to a recent New York Times investigation, half the money to finance the 2016 election so far has come from just 158 families.

Or if you’re a billionaire, you can finance your own campaign.

And if you’re sufficiently outlandish, outrageous, and outspoken, a lot of your publicity will be free. Since he announced his candidacy last June, Trump hasn’t spent any money at all on television advertising.

Second, candidates can now get away with saying just about anything about their qualifications or personal history, even if it’s a boldface lie.

This wasn’t always the case, either. The media used to scrutinize what candidates told the public about themselves.

A media expose could bring a candidacy to a sudden halt (as it did in 1988 for Gary Hart, who had urged reporters to follow him if they didn’t believe his claims of monogamy).

But when today’s media expose a candidates lies, there seems to be no consequence. Carson’s poll numbers didn’t budge after revelations he had made up his admission to West Point.

The media also used to evaluate candidates’ policy proposals, and those evaluations influenced voters.

Now the media’s judgments are largely shrugged off. Trump says he’d “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, round up all undocumented immigrants in the United States and send them home, and erect a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.

Editors and columnists find these proposals ludicrous but that doesn’t seem to matter.

Fiorina says she’ll stop Planned Parenthood from “harvesting” the brains of fully formed fetuses. She insists she saw an undercover video of the organization about to do so.

The media haven’t found any such video but no one seems to care.

Third and finally, candidates can now use hatred and bigotry to gain support.

Years ago respected opinion leaders stood up to this sort of demagoguery and brought down the bigots.

In the 1950s, the eminent commentator Edward R. Murrow revealed Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy to be a dangerous incendiary, thereby helping put an end to McCarthy’s communist witch hunts.

In the 1960s, religious leaders and university presidents condemned Alabama Governor George C. Wallace and other segregationist zealots – thereby moving the rest of America toward integration, civil rights, and voting rights.

But when today’s presidential candidates say Muslim refugees shouldn’t be allowed into America, no Muslim should ever be president, and undocumented workers from Mexico are murderers, they get away with it.

Paradoxically, at a time when the stakes are especially high for who becomes the next president, we have a free-for-all politics in which anyone can become a candidate, put together as much funding as they need, claim anything about themselves no matter how truthful, advance any proposal no matter how absurd, and get away bigotry without being held accountable.

Why? Americans have stopped trusting the mediating institutions that used to filter and scrutinize potential leaders on behalf of the rest of us.

Political parties are now widely disdained.

Many Americans now consider the “mainstream media” biased.

And no opinion leader any longer commands enough broad-based respect to influence a majority of the public.

A growing number of Americans have become convinced the entire system is rigged – including the major parties, the media, and anyone honored by the establishment.

So now it’s just the candidates and the public, without anything in between.

Which means electoral success depends mainly on showmanship and self-promotion.

Telling the truth and advancing sound policies are less important than trending on social media.

Being reasonable is less useful than gaining attention.

Offering rational argument is less advantageous than racking up ratings.

Such circus politics may be fun to watch, but it’s profoundly dangerous for America and the world.

We might, after all, elect one of the clowns.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The GOP Clown Car Rolls On Print
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 10:12

Taibbi writes: "Not one of them can win, but one must. That's the paradox of the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, fast becoming the signature event in the history of black comedy."

Senator Marco Rubio is one of the few 'plausible' establishment candidates in the GOP primary. (illustration: Victor Juhasz/Rolling Stone)
Senator Marco Rubio is one of the few 'plausible' establishment candidates in the GOP primary. (illustration: Victor Juhasz/Rolling Stone)


The GOP Clown Car Rolls On

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

18 November 15

 

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is one of the few "plausible" establishment candidates in the GOP primary.

ot one of them can win, but one must. That's the paradox of the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, fast becoming the signature event in the history of black comedy.

Conventional wisdom says that with the primaries and caucuses rapidly approaching, front-running nuts Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson must soon give way to the "real" candidates. But behind Trump and Carson is just more abyss. As I found out on a recent trip to New Hampshire, the rest of the field is either just as crazy or as dangerous as the current poll leaders, or too bumbling to win.

Disaster could be averted if Americans on both the left and the right suddenly decide to be more mature about this, neither backing obvious mental incompetents, nor snickering about those who do. But that doesn't seem probable.

Instead, HashtagClownCar will almost certainly continue to be the most darkly ridiculous political story since Henry II of Champagne, the 12th-century king of Jerusalem, plunged to his death after falling out of a window with a dwarf. 

Just after noon, Wednesday, November 4th. I'm in Hollis, New Hampshire, a little town not far from the Massachusetts border.

The Hollis pharmacy is owned by Vahrij Manoukian, a Lebanese immigrant who is the former chairman of the Hillsborough County Republican Committee. If you come into his establishment looking for aspirin, you have to first survive dozens of pictures of the cannonball-shape businessman glad-handing past and present GOP hopefuls like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rudy Giuliani.

Primary season is about who most successfully kisses the asses of such local burghers, and the big test in Hollis today is going to be taken by onetime presumptive front-runner Jeb Bush.

Despite its ideological decorative scheme, the Manoukian pharmacy has some charming small-town quirks you wouldn't find in a CVS. There's a section of beautiful handmade wooden toys, for instance. There's also a pair of talkative parrots named Buddy and Willy perched near the cash registers.

While waiting for the candidate to arrive, I try to make conversation.

"Who are you voting for this year?"

"Hello," says Willy.

"Is Jeb Bush going to win?"

"Rooowk!" the bird screeches, recoiling a little.

It seems like a "no." Bush comes in a moment later and immediately hears the birds squawking. A tall man, he smiles and cranes his head over the crowd in their direction.

"Whose dog is that?" he cracks.

Technically, that is the correct comic response, but the room barely hears him. For Bush, Campaign 2016 has been a very tough crowd. 

It's hard to recall now, but a year ago, it appeared likely that Bush would be the Republican nominee. He had a lead in polls, and some Beltway geniuses believed Republican voters would favor "more moderate choices" in 2016, pushing names like Mitt Romney, Chris Christie and this reportedly "smarter" Bush brother to the top of the list.

Moreover, the Bush campaign was supposed to be a milestone in the history of post-Citizens United aristocratic scale-tipping. The infamous 2010 Supreme Court case that deregulated political fundraising birthed a monster called the Super PAC, also known as the "independent-expenditure-only committee." This new form of slush fund could receive unlimited sums from corporations, billionaires and whomever else, provided it didn't coordinate with an active presidential campaign.

Decrying the "no-suspense primary" and insisting, "It's nobody's turn," Bush announced his candidacy on June 15th. But he and his Super PAC, Right to Rise, had been raising money all year long.

Fifteen days after his announcement, on July 1st, the books closed on the first six months of Right to Rise's backroom cash-hoovering. Bush was already sitting atop an astonishing $103 million. That was about 10 times the amount of the next-biggest GOP Super PAC, Christie's America Leads fund.

A hundred million bucks, a name that is American royalty, and the apparent backing of the smoke-filled room. What could go wrong?

Only everything! Before his official announcement even, Bush iceberged his candidacy when he crisscrossed the country in mid-May tying his face in knots in a desperate attempt to lay out a cogent position on his brother's invasion of Iraq.

During a remarkable five days of grasping and incoherent answers, in which Bush was both for and against the invasion multiple times, it became clear that this candidate: (a) doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "knowing what we know now," and (b) doesn't know how to cut his losses and shut up when things go bad. People began to wonder out loud if he really was the smarter brother.

The real disaster was the second debate, when he decided to go after the other "plausible" establishment candidate, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and ended up getting beaten to gristle onstage. He was reduced after that episode to admitting, "I'm not a performer." He headed into his New Hampshire trip with reporters pronouncing his campaign "on life support."

The operating theory of the Bush campaign is that there's still a massive pot of donor cash, endorsements and support the Republican Party elders must throw to someone. But can Bush remake his candidacy in time to re-establish himself as a plausible vessel for all of that largesse?

In Hollis, there is little evidence of a remade Bush candidacy. His stump presentation is surprisingly half-assed. He tries to get over with lines like, "We've had a divider-in-chief – we need a commander-in-chief," which are so plainly canned that they barely register, even with a crowd jacked up for any put-down of Obama. 

Worse, he issues one of the odder descriptions of the American dream you'll ever hear from a Republican.

"We need to create a society," he says, "where we create a safety net for people, and then we say, 'Go dream the biggest possible dreams.'"

I look around. Did a Republican candidate just try to sell a crowd full of New Hampshire conservatives on a government safety net?

He has one near-excellent moment, when answering a question about Syria and Russia. "I don't want to sound bellicose," he says. (Why not? This is the Republican race.) "But my personal opinion is, we're the United States of f of America. They should be more worried about us than we are about them."

Bush could have become an instant YouTube sensation if he'd completed his thought and said, "We're the United States of Fucking America," but he couldn't do it. That's just not who he is.

Who is he? Minus the family imperative, Bush is easily imagined as a laid-back commercial lawyer in some Florida exurb, the kind of guy who can crack dirty jokes while he runs a meeting about a new mixed-use development outside Tallahassee.

He doesn't seem at all like a power-crazed, delusionally self-worshipping lunatic, and that's basically his problem. He doesn't want this badly enough to be the kind of effortless sociopathic liar you need to be to make it through this part of the process.

Toward the end of his speech, for instance, the pharmacist Manoukian puts the Jebster on the spot. The local apothecary has a proposal he's been trying to make state law that would give drug dealers special status.

"They would be like child molesters, always being registered," he says. He wheezes excitedly as he details his plan to strip dealers of all social services. I don't think the plan involves using hot irons to brand them with neck tattoos, but that's the spirit.

The reporters all flash bored looks at one another. People like Manoukian are recurring figures on the campaign trail, particularly on the Republican side. There's always some local Junior Anti-Sex League chief who asks the candidate in a town hall to endorse a plan for summary executions of atheists or foreigners or whoever happens to be on the outs that election cycle.

Bush absorbs the pharmacist's question and immediately launches into a speech about the dangers of addiction – to prescription drugs! Through the din of screeching parrots, Bush talks, movingly, I think, about his "precious daughter" Noelle's problems with prescription pills.

"There are some bad actors," he says. "You have people who overprescribe, people who are pharmacy shopping, doctor shopping..."

Everything he just said is true, but Manoukian, as he listens to this diatribe, looks like someone has hit him with a halibut. Does Bush know he's talking to a pharmacist?

Trump would have killed a moment like this, delivering some dog-whistle-ready line about gathering up all the dealers by their hoodies and shooting them into space with all of the child molesters. Who cares if it makes sense? This is the Clown Car. 

But Bush has no feel for audience. He doesn't know how to play down to a mob. Nor does he realize how absurd he sounds when a Lucky Spermer scion like himself tries to talk about his "small-business" experience (his past three "jobs" were all lucrative gigs with giant companies that had done business with Florida when he was governor). Despite all this, Bush doesn't seem crazy, nor even like a particularly disgusting person by presidential-campaign standards, which probably disqualifies him from this race.

Lynn Cowan, a Hollis resident, agrees. She thinks Bush comes across as a reasonable guy, but she also thinks his reasonableness is probably crippling in the current political environment.

"It's to his detriment," she says. "And it's sad that we've reached a point where these politicians can't even be on the level."  

A few hours later, Nashua, New Hampshire. Rubio strides onstage to a roaring young crowd at the Dion Center of Rivier University. He is like a cross of Joel Osteen and Bobby Kennedy, jacketless with a red tie and shirtsleeves. He is short but prickishly good-looking, all hair and teeth and self-confidence. He's the kind of guy that no group of men wants to go to a bar with, both because he spoils the odds and because he seems like kind of an asshole generally. 

There are young women in the crowd looking up at him adoringly, like a Beatle. It's a sight one doesn't often see in presidential politics, but even more seldom on the Republican side, where most candidates are either 500 years old or belong to religions barring nonprocreative use of the wiener. Rubio plainly enjoys being an exception to the rule.

His speech is a total nothingburger, full of worn clichés about America being an "exceptional country," where people are nonetheless living "paycheck to paycheck" and wondering if "achieving [the American dream] is still possible."

But he's so slick, he could probably sell a handful of cars at every speech. His main pitch is his Inspirational Personal Tale™. As he's told it, he's the son of refugees from Fidel Castro's Cuba (actually, they left Cuba before Castro, but whatever) who rose from nothing to reach the U.S. Senate, where he was eventually able to draw a $170,000 paycheck despite a brilliant Office Space-style decision to not quit, exactly, but simply not go to work anymore. Which is pretty sweet.

Actually, that last bit isn't openly part of his stump speech. But if you listen hard enough, you can hear it. Rubio has announced that he isn't going to run for re-election to the Senate, where he recently cast his first vote in 26 days and spoke for the first time in 41. He said he didn't hate the work but was "frustrated" ("He hates it," a friend more bluntly told The Washington Post).

In addition to the stories about laying down in the Senate, old tales about Rubio's use of an American Express card given to him by the Republican Party when he was in the Florida House began swirling again. The stories are complex, but the upshot is that Rubio once used party credit cards to spend $10,000 on a family vacation, $3,800 on home flooring, $1,700 on a Vegas vacation and thousands more on countless other absurdities.

Couple those tales with the troubling stories about his financial problems – the Times learned that he cashed in a retirement account and blew $80,000 on a speedboat he probably couldn't afford – and the subtext with Rubio is that he is probably both remaining in the Senate and running for president, at least partly, for the money.

A debt addict with a burgeoning Imelda Marcos shopping complex was pretty much the only thing missing from the top of this GOP field. Yet he looks like the party's next attempt at an Inevitable Candidate. 

It's easy to see why. Rubio storms through his stump speech in Nashua, blasting our outdated infrastructure with perfect timing and waves of soaring rhetoric. We have outdated policies in this country, he says. "We have a retirement system designed in the 1930s. We have an immigration and higher-education system designed in the 1950s. Anti-poverty programs designed in the 1960s. Energy policies designed from the 1970s. Tax policies from the Eighties and Nineties..."

The punchline is something about needing to burn it all to the ground and remake everything into a new conservative Eden for the 21st century. "An economic renaissance, unlike anything that's ever happened," he gushes.

I raise an eyebrow. Any vet of this process will feel, upon seeing Rubio in person, a disturbance in the campaign-trail force. He checks all the boxes of what the Beltway kingmakers look for in a political marketing phenomenon: young, ethnic, good-looking, capable of working a room like a pro and able to lean hard on an inspirational bio while eschewing policy specifics.

A bitter Bush recently pegged Rubio as a Republican version of Obama, a comparison neither Rubio nor many Democrats will like, but it has a lot of truth to it. The main difference, apart from the policy inverses, is in tone. 2008 Obama sold tolerance and genial intellectualism, perfect for roping in armchair liberals. Rubio sells a kind of strident, bright-eyed dickishness that in any other year would seem tailor-made for roping in conservatives.

But this isn't any year. It isn't just our energy, education and anti-poverty systems that are outdated. So is our tradition of campaign journalism, which, going back to the days of Nixon, trains reporters to imagine that the winner is probably the slickest Washington-crafted liar, not some loon with a reality show.

But in 2016, who voters like and who the punditocracy thinks they'll swallow are continuing to be two very different things. In the Clown Car era, if reporters think you're hot stuff, that's probably a red flag. 

Concord, New Hampshire, the Secretary of State's office, morning of November 6th. I'm waiting to see Ohio Gov. John Kasich officially register as a candidate for the New Hampshire primary.

In another election, Kasich might be a serious contender, being as he is from Ohio, a former Lehman Brothers stooge and a haranguing bore with the face of a dogcatcher. He exactly fits the profile of what party insiders used to call an "exciting" candidate.

At the moment, though, he's a grumpy sideshow to Trump and Carson whose main accomplishment is that he hogged the most time in the fourth debate (and also became the first non-Trump candidate to be booed). Kasich in person seems like a man ready to physically implode from bitterness at the thought that his carefully laid scheme for power might be undone by a flatulent novelty act like Trump.

Surrounded by reporters in the Concord state offices, Kasich seethes again about the tenor of the race. "I think there are some really goofy ideas out there," he says.

I've driven to Concord specifically for this moment. I want to ask Kasich if maybe this is the wrong time in American history for someone pushing cold realism as a platform. It's a softball – I think he might enjoy expounding upon the issue of America's newfound fascination with "goofy" politicians.

"The people with the goofiest ideas are at the top of the polls," I say. "Do you think maybe being the sane candidate in this race is disqualifying?"

Kasich doesn't smile. Instead, he shoots me a look like I'd just dented his Mercedes.

"No," he hisses.

The candidacy of Carly Fiorina, with its wild highs and lows, has exposed the bizarre nature of this primary season. She was in Nowheresville until midsummer, when she attracted the notice of Trump. At the time, reveling atop the polls in full pig glory, Trump told Rolling Stone that America wouldn't be able to take looking at Fiorina's face for a whole presidency. In the second debate, Fiorina responded, "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said."

Fiorina in the same debate implored Hillary Clinton and Obama to watch Planned Parenthood at work. "Watch these tapes," she said, staring hypnotically into the screen like a Kreskin or a Kashpirovsky. "Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.'?"

It was a brilliantly macabre performance, and, according to some, it won her the debate. Even by this race's standards, a tale of evil liberal women's-health workers ripping out the brains of live babies rated a few very good days of what they call "earned media," i.e., press you don't have to pay for.

Of course, Fiorina's claim that she had actually seen a video of someone trying to harvest the brain of a fetus with its legs kicking turned out to be false. Her story matched up vaguely with one video that included a description of a fetus having its brain removed, but no such footage existed, as fact-checkers immediately determined.

Called on her fib by Fox's Chris Wallace, Fiorina doubled down.

"I've seen the footage," she insisted. "And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn't exist."

The week after that appearance with Wallace on Fox News Sunday was her best week in the polls, as she reached as high as 11 percent in some, tying for third with Rubio. She'd clued in to the same insight that drove the early success of Trump: that in the reality-show format of the 2016 race, all press attention is positive, and nobody particularly cares if you lie, so long as you're entertaining.

America dug Fiorina when she was a John Carpenter movie about bloodthirsty feminists harvesting baby brains. But when she talked about anything else, they were bored stiff.

On a Thursday night in Newport, New Hampshire, Fiorina is laboring through her monotone life story of corporate promotions and "solving problems." It's like watching a thermometer move. "Wouldn't it be helpful," she asks, "to reduce the 73,000-page tax code to three pages?" 

I chuckle. Even by Clown Car standards, a three-page federal tax code is a hilarious ploy, right up there with Carson's 10-percent biblical tithe and a giant wall across the Central American isthmus. On the way out of the event, a few reporters are joking about it. "Three pages is good," one deadpans. "But I'd like to see her fit it on the label of a really nice local IPA." 

Polls have suggested that Fiorina, Carson and Trump were all fighting over the same finite slice of Lunatic Pie (the Beltway press euphemistically calls it the "outsider vote"), a demographic that by late September comprised just north of half of expected Republican voters. That means that for Fiorina to rise, Trump or Carson must fall.

The problem is that after a late-summer swoon, Trump's support has stabilized. And Carson has taken campaign lunacy to places that a three-page tax code couldn't dent. Forget about winning a primary: Carson won the Internet.

Traditionally, we in the political media have always been able to finish off candidates once they start bleeding. The pol caught sending dick pics to strangers, lying about nannies, snuggling models on powerboats, concealing secret treatments for "exhaustion," or doing anything else unforgivably weird is harangued until he or she disintegrates. The bullying is considered a sacred tribal rite among the Beltway press, and it's never not worked.

Until this year. Trump should have been finished off half a dozen times – after the John-McCain-was-a-wuss-for-getting-captured line, after the "blood coming out of her wherever" bit, after the "Mexicans are rapists" episode, etc.

But we don't finish them off anymore. We just keep the cameras rolling. The ratings stay high, and the voters don't abandon their candidates – they just tune in to hate us media smartasses more.

Enter Ben Carson. Reporters early on in the summer thought he was a Jerzy Kosi?ski character, a nutty doctor who had maybe gotten lost on the way to a surgical convention and accidentally entered a presidential race. In the first debate, he looked like an amnesiac who might at any moment reach into his pocket, find a talisman reminding him of his true identity, and walk offstage. 

Then he started saying stuff. First there was that thing about using drones on immigrants crossing the border. Then people began picking apart old stories he'd told, like that a Yale professor in a psych class called "Perceptions 301" had once given him $10 for being honest (nobody remembers that class), or that he'd helped hide frightened white high school students in a lab in Detroit during race riots (nobody remembers that, either).

Everyone who's ever been to an American megachurch recognizes the guy who overdoes the "before" portion of his evangelical testimony, telling tall tales about running with biker gangs or participating in coke orgies (this is always taking place somewhere like Lubbock or suburban Topeka) before discovering Jesus.

As some ex-evangelicals have pointed out, Carson fits this model. He claims in his autobiography, Gifted Hands, that he once tried to stab someone named "Bob," failing only because he accidentally hit a belt buckle. Also, he told reporters decades ago that as a youth he attacked people with "bats and bricks" and hammers. The hammer victim was apparently his mother. 

In Gifted Hands, none of this stuff seems any more real than the book's other inspirational passages, like the one where as a college student he prays to God about being broke and gets immediate relief as he walks across campus. "A $10 bill lay crumpled on the ground in front of me," he wrote (the magical $10 bill is a recurring character in Carsonia).

Soon, reporters were interviewing childhood friends, who were revealing what is clear if you read between the lines of Carson's book, which is that he was probably never anything but a nerd with an overheated imagination. "He was skinny and unremarkable," a classmate named Robert Collier told CNN. "I remember him having a pocket saver."

Carson lashed out at reporters for doubting his inspirational tale of a homicidal, knife-wielding madman turned convivial brain surgeon. "I would say to the people of America: Do you think I'm a pathological liar like CNN does?" he said.

This bizarre state of affairs led to stories in the straight press that were indistinguishable from Onion fare. "Ben Carson Defends Himself Against Allegations That He Never Attempted to Murder a Child," wrote New York magazine, in perhaps the single funniest headline presidential politics has ever seen.

Next, BuzzFeed reporters unearthed an old speech of Carson's in which he outlined a gorgeously demented theory about the Egyptian pyramids: They were not tombs for Pharaohs, but rather had been built by the biblical Joseph to store grain. The latter idea he accepted after discarding the obvious space-aliens explanation. 

"Various scientists have said, 'Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge,'" he said. "[But] it doesn't require an alien being when God is with you."

Scientists were quick to point out all sorts of issues, like the pyramids not really being hollow and therefore really sucky places to store grain. Then there was the fact that the Egyptians wrote down what the pyramids were for in, well, writing.

The pyramid story sent the Internet, which specializes in nothing if not instant mockery, into overdrive. Carson quickly became perhaps the single funniest thing on Earth. The Wrap ran a piece about Carson being "mocked mercilessly" on social media, where other "Carson theories" quickly developed: that the Eiffel Tower was for storing French bread, brains were actually a fruit, and peanut butter can be used as spermicide, etc. The whole world was in on it. It was epic. 

Poor Trump now had to concede that someone else in the race was even more ridiculous and unhinged than he was. The campaign's previously unrivaled carnival expert/circus Hitler was reduced to sounding like George Will as he complained somberly – and ungrammatically – about the attention the mad doctor was stealing away from him.

"With Ben Carson wanting to hit his mother on head with a hammer, stabb [sic] a friend and Pyramids built for grain storage," Trump tweeted sadly, "don't people get it?"

By the end of the first week of November, Carson did not experience, upon close scrutiny, an instant plunge in the polls, as previous front-runners-for-a-day like Rick Perry or Herman Cain had in years past. Instead, he remained atop the polls with Trump, having successfully convinced his followers that the media flaps were just liberal hazing of a black man who threatened leftist stereotypes. And so the beginning of the long-awaited "real race" stalled still another week.

Trump commented during a rally in Illinois: "You can say anything about anybody, and their poll numbers go up. This is the only election in history where it's better off if you stabbed somebody. What are we coming to?"

We are coming to the moment when Trump is the voice of reason, that's what.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 Next > End >>

Page 2261 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN