Followers & Readers

Facebook Follow

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Intel to provide Facebook with hardware, Jedi secrets

Intel to provide Facebook with hardware, Jedi secrets

Recent rumors of Intel employees signing up for Facebook accounts en masse might not have been totally unfounded: Facebook has chosen to use Intel's Xeon 5400 processor-based servers to deal with its hardware and software demands. Additionally, the two companies have signed an agreement so that Intel can continue to assess how Facebook can stay stable and improve performance.

Facebook will have "thousands" of Xeon servers, a release said.

It's not an earth-shattering announcement by any means, but Intel's pretty psyched. "Intel is excited to engage with Facebook as they are a dynamic force in the evolution of the Internet," Kirk Skaugen, vice president and general manager of Intel's Server Platforms Group, said in Thursday's release. "Facebook's selection of Intel Xeon processors for their next round of infrastructure growth is a testament to the performance, energy efficiency and technology benefits Intel can provide." Translation: it's a big deal for Intel to be able to say it makes the hardware of choice for Silicon Valley's cool kids.

Facebook's not growing quite as fast as it once was, but it's still been expanding steadily and now has over 90 million active users across the globe. With photo- and video-sharing now an essential part of social networks, their server demands can skyrocket--and it was technical difficulties that likely doomed the initial frenzy of growth at social-networking pioneer Friendster, as early execs willingly attest.

Posted by Caroline McCarthy

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10003614-36.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5





/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart

Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart

Courtesy Obama Campaign

NOT AFRAID TO PROVOKE Barack Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. Former students say he tested many of the ideas of his presidential campaign in the classroom.


CHICAGO — The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count. At a school where economic analysis was all the rage, he taught rights, race and gender. Other faculty members dreamed of tenured positions; he turned them down. While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship.


Following are Barack Obama's old class materials: the syllabus and assignments for his "Racism and the Law" seminar, as well as a set of his constitutional law exams and a partial set of memos he wrote about the answers.

This is part of a series of articles about the lives and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations.

At a formal institution, Barack Obama was a loose presence, joking with students about their romantic prospects, using first names, referring to case law one moment and "The Godfather" the next. He was also an enigmatic one, often leaving fellow faculty members guessing about his precise views.

Mr. Obama, now the junior senator from Illinois and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, spent 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. Most aspiring politicians do not dwell in the halls of academia, and few promising young legal thinkers toil in state legislatures. Mr. Obama planted a foot in each, splitting his weeks between an elite law school and the far less rarefied atmosphere of the Illinois Senate.

Before he outraised every other presidential primary candidate in American history, Mr. Obama marched students through the thickets of campaign finance law. Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured. And before he posed what may be the ultimate test of racial equality — whether Americans will elect a black president — he led students through African-Americans' long fight for equal status.

Standing in his favorite classroom in the austere main building, sharp-witted students looming above him, Mr. Obama refined his public speaking style, his debating abilities, his beliefs.

"He tested his ideas in classrooms," said Dennis Hutchinson, a colleague. Every seminar hour brought a new round of, "Is affirmative action justified? Under what circumstances?" as Mr. Hutchinson put it.

But Mr. Obama's years at the law school are also another chapter — see United States Senate, c. 2006 — in which he seemed as intently focused on his own political rise as on the institution itself. Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, was well liked at the law school, yet he was always slightly apart from it, leaving some colleagues feeling a little cheated that he did not fully engage. The Chicago faculty is more rightward-leaning than that of other top law schools, but if teaching alongside some of the most formidable conservative minds in the country had any impact on Mr. Obama, no one can quite point to it.

"I don't think anything that went on in these chambers affected him," said Richard Epstein, a libertarian colleague who says he longed for Mr. Obama to venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. "His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he's always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he's never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings."

Mr. Obama had other business on his mind, embarking on five political races during his 12 years at the school. Teaching gave him satisfaction, along with a perch and a paycheck, but he was impatient with academic debates over "whether to drop a footnote or not drop a footnote," said Abner J. Mikva, a mentor whose own career has spanned Congress, the federal bench and the same law school.

Douglas Baird, another colleague, remembers once asking Mr. Obama to assess potential candidates for governor.

"First of all, I'm not running for governor, " Mr. Obama told him. "But if I did, I would expect you to support me."

He was a third-year state senator at the time.

Popular and Enigmatic

Mr. Obama arrived at the law school in 1991 thanks to Michael W. McConnell, a conservative scholar who is now a federal appellate judge. As president of The Harvard Law Review, Mr. Obama had impressed Mr. McConnell with editing suggestions on an article; on little more than that, the law school gave him a fellowship, which amounted to an office and a computer, which he used to write his memoir, "Dreams From My Father."

The school had almost no black faculty members, a special embarrassment given its location on the South Side. Its sleek halls bordered a neighborhood crumbling with poverty and neglect. In his 2000 Congressional primary race, Representative Bobby L. Rush, a former Black Panther running for re-election, used Mr. Obama's ties to the school to label him an egghead and an elitist.

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.

His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers.

"Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?" Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.

For all the weighty material, Mr. Obama had a disarming touch. He did not belittle students; instead he drew them out, restating and polishing halting answers, students recall. In one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. "Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?" he asked in a mock-innocent voice.

A favorite theme, said Salil Mehra, now a law professor at Temple University, were the values and cultural touchstones that Americans share. Mr. Obama's case in point: his wife, Michelle, a black woman, loved "The Brady Bunch" so much that she could identify every episode by its opening shots.

As his reputation for frank, exciting discussion spread, enrollment in his classes swelled. Most scores on his teaching evaluations were positive to superlative. Some students started referring to themselves as his groupies. (Mr. Obama, in turn, could play the star. In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama's hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. "Take Barack Obama, there's a good-looking guy," he would introduce a twisty legal case.)

Challenging Assumptions

Liberals flocked to his classes, seeking refuge. After all, the professor was a progressive politician who backed child care subsidies and laws against racial profiling, and in a 1996 interview with the school newspaper sounded skeptical of President Bill Clinton's efforts to reach across the aisle.

"On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection," Mr. Obama said.

But the liberal students did not necessarily find reassurance. "For people who thought they were getting a doctrinal, rah-rah experience, it wasn't that kind of class," said D. Daniel Sokol, a former student who now teaches law at the University of Florida at Gainesville.

For one thing, Mr. Obama's courses chronicled the failure of liberal policies and court-led efforts at social change: the Reconstruction-era amendments that were rendered meaningless by a century of resistance, the way the triumph of Brown gave way to fights over busing, the voting rights laws that crowded blacks into as few districts as possible. He was wary of noble theories, students say; instead, they call Mr. Obama a contextualist, willing to look past legal niceties to get results.

For another, Mr. Obama liked to provoke. He wanted his charges to try arguing that life was better under segregation, that black people were better athletes than white ones.

"I remember thinking, 'You're offending my liberal instincts,' " Mary Ellen Callahan, now a privacy lawyer in Washington, recalled.

In his voting rights course, Mr. Obama taught Lani Guinier's proposals for structuring elections differently to increase minority representation. Opponents attacked those suggestions when Ms. Guinier was nominated as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993, costing her the post.

"I think he thought they were good and worth trying," said David Franklin, who now teaches law at DePaul University in Chicago.

But whether out of professorial reserve or budding political caution, Mr. Obama would not say so directly. "He surfaced all the competing points of view on Guinier's proposals with total neutrality and equanimity," Mr. Franklin said. "He just let the class debate the merits of them back and forth."

While students appreciated Mr. Obama's evenhandedness, colleagues sometimes wanted him to take a stand. When two fellow faculty members asked him to support a controversial antigang measure, allowing the Chicago police to disperse and eventually arrest loiterers who had no clear reason to gather, Mr. Obama discussed the issue with unusual thoughtfulness, they say, but gave little sign of who should prevail — the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the measure, or the community groups that supported it out of concern about crime.

"He just observed it with a kind of interest," said Daniel Kahan, now a professor at Yale.

Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically, as Ms. Guinier's writings had hurt her. "He figured out, you lay low," Mr. Epstein said.

The Chicago law faculty is full of intellectually fiery friendships that burn across ideological lines. Three times a week, professors do combat over lunch at a special round table in the university's faculty club, and they share and defend their research in workshop discussions. Mr. Obama rarely attended, even when he was in town.

"I'm not sure he was close to anyone," Mr. Hutchinson said, except for a few liberal constitutional law professors, like Cass Sunstein, now an occasional adviser to his campaign. Mr. Obama was working two other jobs, after all, in the State Senate and at a civil rights law firm.

Several colleagues say Mr. Obama was surely influenced by the ideas swirling around the law school campus: the prevailing market-friendliness, or economic analysis of the impact of laws. But none could say how. "I'm not sure we changed him," Mr. Baird said.

Because he never fully engaged, Mr. Obama "doesn't have the slightest sense of where folks like me are coming from," Mr. Epstein said. "He was a successful teacher and an absentee tenant on the other issues."

Leaving the Classroom

As Mr. Obama built his political career, his so-called groupies became an early core of supporters, handing out leaflets and hosting fund-raisers in their modest apartments.

"Maybe we charged an audacious $20?" said Jesse Ruiz, now a corporate lawyer in Chicago. Mr. Obama was sheepish asking for even that, Mr. Ruiz recalls. With no staff, Mr. Obama would come by the day after a fund-raiser to stuff the proceeds into a backpack.

Mr. Obama never mentioned his humiliating, hopeless campaign against Mr. Rush in class (he lost by a two-to-one margin), though colleagues noticed that he seemed exhausted and was smoking more than usual.

Soon after, the faculty saw an opening and made him its best offer yet: Tenure upon hiring. A handsome salary, more than the $60,000 he was making in the State Senate or the $60,000 he earned teaching part time. A job for Michelle Obama directing the legal clinic.

Your political career is dead, Daniel Fischel, then the dean, said he told Mr. Obama, gently. Mr. Obama turned the offer down. Two years later, he decided to run for the Senate. He canceled his course load and has not taught since.

Now, watching the news, it is dawning on Mr. Obama's former students that he was mining material for his political future even as he taught them.

Byron Rodriguez, a real estate lawyer in San Francisco, recalls his professor's admiration for the soaring but plainspoken speeches of Frederick Douglass.

"No one speaks this way anymore," Mr. Obama told his class, wondering aloud what had happened to the art of political oratory. In particular, Mr. Obama admired Douglass's use of a collective voice that embraced black and white concerns, one that Mr. Obama has now adopted himself.

In class, Mr. Obama sounded many of the same themes he does on the campaign trail, Ms. Callahan said, ticking them off: "self-determinism as opposed to paternalism, strength in numbers, his concept of community development."

But as a professor, students say, Mr. Obama was in the business of complication, showing that even the best-reasoned rules have unintended consequences, that competing legal interests cannot always be resolved, that a rule that promotes justice in one case can be unfair in the next.

So even some former students who are thrilled at Mr. Obama's success wince when they hear him speaking like the politician he has so fully become.

"When you hear him talking about issues, it's at a level so much simpler than the one he's capable of," Mr. Rodriguez said. "He was a lot more fun to listen to back then."

Published: July 30, 2008


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all

/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 28, 2008

Why Cuil is No Threat to Google

Why Cuil is No Threat to Google

 

Rest easy, Google ... The much-hyped new search engine Cuil (pronounced "cool"), purports to index more Web pages than any of its rivals. But based on its Monday debut, the new site poses little immediate threat to industry leader Google, or even its nearest competitors, Yahoo and Microsoft, in either relevance or breadth of results it delivers.
 

"Anybody who thought [Cuil] was this Google killer can really see now that no, that's not going to happen today — and the likelihood is that's not going to happen a year from now," says Danny Sullivan, internet search guru and editor-in-chief of SearchEngineLand.

Despite its lackluster performance, Cuil (which means wisdom or knowledge in Gaelic) got so many visitors on Monday, that its servers crashed around 3 p.m. E.T. "Due to excessive load, our servers didn't return results. Please try your search again," the site read intermittently throughout the afternoon. But even when it was working, the results were fair, at best. Enter a keyword such as "mint" and the first result that comes up isn't the herb or flavor but the U.S. Mint. Type in "Obama," and one of the sub-categories Cuil suggests is "Hispanic-American Politicians". And Cuil lacks the special tabs for news, video, local and image results used by the leading sites.

The hype over Cuil, in fact, may be testament to the power of a great back story. Cuil is the brainchild of ex-Google staffer Anna Patterson — who developed the TeraGoogle indexing system that Google still uses today — and her husband Tom Costello, who developed search engines at Stanford and IBM. Cuil indexes some 120 billion Web pages. (Google, on the other hand, claims to scan more than a trillion pages, but only indexes those that are useful, according to the company.) The Cuil team generated so much buzz for its venture that it managed to raise some $33 million in financing. But the acid test of any search site is the results it generates, and for now, anyway, Cuil falls way short of the industry's leaders, and even for that matter, of many startups.

Cuil's distinctive design, in which results appear in three columns across the page, also allows for longer previews of each site's content. But other search sites make better use of page real estate. SearchMe, which launched earlier this year, offers full-page snapshots in its results, through which you can flip like the album covers on iTunes. And the number 4-ranked search engine, Ask, also uses a wider layout to display both images and sub-categories for refining one's search.

Cuil has a distinctive, if old-fashioned, approach to indexing websites. Instead of ranking them based on popularity, as Google does, it focuses on the content of each page. That may make sense in theory — after all, the most popular restaurants, for example, rarely serve the best food — but it is precisely the model that Google broke away from in order to give users more relevant results. That could explain why a Cuil search on "insomnia" directs the user to the American Insomnia Association rather than to the Wikipedia entry on the subject pulled up first by most other search engines.

The one area where Cuil excels, however, is user privacy. Whereas Google stores user-specific searches for up to 18 months, Cuil never stores personally identifiable information or search histories. Privacy has become a growing concern among users of search sites ever since America Online inadvertently released the searches of 658,000 of its users in 2006. But that's unlikely to be enough to persuade most users to switch from their search engine of choice. "Anybody who thinks the next Google killer is going to come along is banking on something that's unlikely," says SearchEngineLand's Sullivan. But if the Cuil story is any indication, that won't stop people spending fortunes on beating the odds.

Monday, Jul. 28, 2008
By ANITA HAMILTON



/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe


Sphere: Related Content

http://www.cuil.com/ or Ex-Google team take on Web giant

Ex-Google team take on Web giant

  • Former Google team members set up new search engine Cuil, launched Monday
  • First time Google faced a general-purpose search engine created by former workers
  • Backed by $33 million venture capital, claims it indexes more pages than Google
  • Through May, Google held a 62 percent share of U.S. search market

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Anna Patterson's last Internet search engine was so impressive that industry leader Google Inc. bought the technology in 2004 to upgrade its own system.

Google now faces its first rival launch by former employees in the form of Cuil.

Google now faces its first rival launch by former employees in the form of Cuil.

She believes her latest invention is even more valuable -- only this time it's not for sale.

Patterson instead intends to upstage Google, which she quit in 2006 to develop a more comprehensive and efficient way to scour the Internet.

The end result is Cuil, pronounced "cool." Backed by $33 million in venture capital, the search engine plans to begin processing requests for the first time Monday.

Cuil had kept a low profile while Patterson, her husband, Tom Costello, and two other former Google engineers -- Russell Power and Louis Monier -- searched for better ways to search. Now, it's boasting time. What do you think of the new Cuil search engine?

For starters, Cuil's search index spans 120 billion Web pages.

Patterson believes that's at least three times the size of Google's index, although there is no way to know for certain. Google stopped publicly quantifying its index's breadth nearly three years ago when the catalog spanned 8.2 billion Web pages.

Cuil won't divulge the formula it has developed to cover a wider swath of the Web with far fewer computers than Google. And Google isn't ceding the point: Spokeswoman Katie Watson said her company still believes its index is the largest.

After getting inquiries about Cuil, Google asserted on its blog Friday that it regularly scans through 1 trillion unique Web links. But Google said it doesn't index them all because they either point to similar content or would diminish the quality of its search results in some other way. The posting didn't quantify the size of Google's index.

A search index's scope is important because information, pictures and content can't be found unless they're stored in a database. But Cuil believes it will outshine Google in several other ways, including its method for identifying and displaying pertinent results.

Rather than trying to mimic Google's method of ranking the quantity and quality of links to Web sites, Patterson says Cuil's technology drills into the actual content of a page. And Cuil's results will be presented in a more magazine-like format instead of just a vertical stack of Web links. Cuil's results are displayed with more photos spread horizontally across the page and include sidebars that can be clicked on to learn more about topics related to the original search request.

Finally, Cuil is hoping to attract traffic by promising not to retain information about its users' search histories or surfing patterns -- something that Google does, much to the consternation of privacy watchdogs.

Cuil is just the latest in a long line of Google challengers.

The list includes swaggering startups like Teoma (whose technology became the backbone of Ask.com), Vivisimo, Snap, Mahalo and, most recently, Powerset, which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. this month.

Even after investing hundreds of millions of dollars on search, both Microsoft and Yahoo Inc. have been losing ground to Google. Through May, Google held a 62 percent share of the U.S. search market followed by Yahoo at 21 percent and Microsoft at 8.5 percent, according to comScore Inc.

Google has become so synonymous with Internet search that it may no longer matter how good Cuil or any other challenger is, said Gartner Inc. analyst Allen Weiner.

"Search has become as much about branding as anything else," Weiner said. "I doubt (Cuil) will be keeping anyone at Google awake at night."

Google welcomed Cuil to the fray with its usual mantra about its rivals. "Having great competitors is a huge benefit to us and everyone in the search space," Watson said. "It makes us all work harder, and at the end of the day our users benefit from that."

But this will be the first time that Google has battled a general-purpose search engine created by its own alumni. It probably won't be the last time, given that Google now has nearly 20,000 employees.

Patterson joined Google in 2004 after she built and sold Recall, a search index that probed old Web sites for the Internet Archive. She and Power worked on the same team at Google.

Although he also worked for Google for a short time, Monier is best known as the former chief technology officer of AltaVista, which was considered the best search engine before Google came along in 1998. Monier also helped build the search engine on eBay's online auction site.

The trio of former Googlers are teaming up with Patterson's husband, Costello, who built a once-promising search engine called Xift in the late 1990s. He later joined IBM Corp., where he worked on an "analytic engine" called WebFountain.

Costello's Irish heritage inspired Cuil's odd name. It was derived from a character named Finn McCuill in Celtic folklore.

Patterson enjoyed her time at Google, but became disenchanted with the company's approach to search. "Google has looked pretty much the same for 10 years now," she said, "and I can guarantee it will look the same a year from now."




/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

White House projects record deficit for 2009

White House projects record deficit for 2009:

The spender in chief prints his own money

  • Senate budget panel chairman sharply criticizes Bush fiscal policies
  • Deficit in budget year 2009 expected to grow to $490 billion, official says
  • White House spokeswoman says increased deficit needed to spur economy
  • White House points to faltering economy, budget stimulus package for increase
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/9/bush_200bill.jpg
   The spender in chief prints his own money

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year, a senior government official told CNN.

The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.

The deficit would amount to roughly 3.5 percent of the nation's $14 trillion economy.

The official pointed to a faltering economy and the bipartisan $170 billion stimulus package that passed earlier this year for the record deficit.

The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.

The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing a lack of authorization to speak publicly ahead of an official briefing later Monday by Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.

"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," Perino said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.

"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year.

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

A Democratic point man on the budget, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, blasted the administration for its "reckless fiscal policies," blaming the president's tax cuts for driving the government into deficit and saying Bush "will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history."

Conrad, who chairs the Senate's budget committee, accused the president of "squandering" the deficit he inherited from President Bill Clinton and said the increased debt the government has taken on to cover the deficit has undermined the value of the dollar and hurt the overall economy.

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."

But the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in March projected the deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends September 30, would be $357 billion. It predicted the 2009 deficit to be $342 billion, if the president's proposals were adopted.

Both assumptions, however, were made before the economic stimulus package was passed by Congress and signed by the president this spring. The CBO said it would release revised deficit estimates in September.

From Brianna Keilar
CNN Washington Bureau

http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe


Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Comics, Superhero Flicks Whip Up a Cultural Superstorm

Comics, Superhero Flicks Whip Up a Cultural Superstorm
 
Overview_dc


SAN DIEGO -- Think this summer was overloaded with superhero movies? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Thanks to advances in CGI and comic books' ready-for-the-big-screen stories, superhero stories are all the rage in Hollywood. In the next few years, Tinseltown will be cranking out more movies featuring men in tights than ever before. In turn, successful flicks like Iron Man are driving blockbuster comic sales: Comics and movies are tighter than Batman and Robin ever were.

It's a financially lucrative feedback loop that's a happy byproduct of obsessive geek culture in the iPod era, according to Paul Levitz, president and publisher of DC Comics.

"Part of what's going on is a cultural shift," he said, with the everyday injection of miraculous technology into people's lives creating a generation that's "much more open to the literature of the fantastic."

Couple that youthful enthusiasm for amazing ideas with comics' colorful back catalogs and the technology to bring Iron Man realistically to life on-screen, and you've got a media whirlwind that feeds upon itself to sell not just movie tickets and pulpy reading material but T-shirts, toys and all kinds of collectibles. From comics and movies to television and the internet, geek obsessions are creating entertainment empires.

If comics and other fanboy obsessions are creating a perfect cross-media storm, Comic-Con International is its eye. Each year, the show draws thousands of geek-entertainment connoisseurs to the San Diego Convention Center, where they snap up comic books and paraphernalia, mob their favorite stars and get sneak peeks at the latest film trailers. This year, the show sold out in advance, with more than 125,000 people expected to swarm into San Diego, and many TV networks, movie studios and retailers joining the party.

"Superman started all of this," said Stan Lee during a Thursday panel at Comic-Con. The former head of Marvel Comics co-created some of Hollywood's hottest costumed properties, including Iron Man, Hulk and Spider-Man. Now, comic-based movies have taken on a life of their own.

"This is not a flash in the pan," said Lee. "These kinds of movies are going to be with us for a long time."

Comic-Con's superfans are willing to spend considerable time and money to get a whiff of the next big thing. This crowd can make or break a franchise: Director Jon Favreau has credited a 2007 Comic-Con screening with generating the all-important buzz that helped Iron Man, the first movie from Marvel Studios, launch this year's billion-dollar-and-counting summer of the superheroes.

Oni Press founder Joe Nozemack says he first came to Comic-Con in 1985. He says the company he founded 12 years ago, when "it seemed like comics needed a kick in the ass," now has 10 titles being turned into movies, including next year's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Whiteout.

"As much as geek culture, it's a change in media in general and the way you need to let things gestate," Nozemack said. "Comic-Con is just an example of that. The people here are early adapters.... They're passionate enough about movies, comics, videogames, that they're willing to go through those hurdles to get down here. That's why this audience is so important to generating early buzz."

This year, DC's putting its money on Watchmen, an influential comic book series from the mid-'80s that's being turned into a film for release next March. The movie provides a snapshot of the incredible cross-pollination that's possible these days.

Last week's release of the movie's trailer sent sales of a paperback collection of Alan Moore's original Watchmen comics through the roof. The graphic novel now sits at the top of Amazon.com's literature and fiction sales list.

"That's never happened before," said DC's Levitz. "We literally can't print enough…. I don't think we've been able to kill any more trees fast enough."

And the buzz is building. Friday at Comic-Con, the Watchmen panel drew an overflow crowd.

"Nobody else is getting in," a security guard told disappointed fans from beyond the security cordon outside the Friday session. "If somebody comes out with a little ticket to go to the bathroom or something, you probably want to offer them a hundred dollars."

A Watchmen movie deal was originally signed more than two decades ago, Levitz said, with several studios failing to bring the influential comic to the screen. One reason Warner Bros., which owns DC, has been able to pull it off this time around is the astounding technological advances that put new tools into filmmakers' hands.

"The tech to do it has evolved amazingly," Levitz said.

Now that moviemakers can bring convincing superheroes to the screen, Hollywood can't get enough. Dozens of comics movies are in the production pipeline.

 

"This is [the studios'] new well to go to," said Lee Krause (pictured, left), owner of Comics Madness in Chino, California.

Enrique Munoz (pictured, center), who works for Krause, witnessed firsthand the powerful effect that movies have had on the comics biz. Before Favreau's movie soared into theaters this summer, Iron Man comics weren't selling that well, he said. After the movie hit, everything changed.

"I couldn't keep Iron Man on the shelves," Munoz said, with customers clamoring for Shellhead comics, toys and other collectibles.

The success of 2008's bumper crop of comics flicks also means Hollywood is looking beyond the big names like Marvel and DC. Studios are scouting indie publishers for new source material, said Brian Warmoth, marketing manager at Devil's Due Publishing.

"You can look at it as a doorway that a lot of Hollywood people are stepping through now who now recognize that comics are like short stories, or novels, [or] kids cartoons from the '80s," he said. "It's one more place where they can harvest stories."

The Dark Knight's advance buzz spurred record-setting box office numbers as fans lined up for after-midnight showings on opening day. It also propelled sales of a new hard-cover edition of Batman: The Killing Joke, a graphic novel said to have informed Heath Ledger's influential portrayal of the Joker. That kind of cross-platform success has people in the comics industry betting the winning streak's far from over, as .

"It bodes well for all the things we want to do in the future," said DC's Levitz.

At Comic-Con, the spillover from geek obsession into the mainstream is literal, as thousands of superfans stroll through the streets of San Diego dressed in wild costumes and comics-inspired T-shirts.

At Dick's Last Resort, a Gaslamp Quarter restaurant near the convention center, staffers wear costumes and comics gear during the Comic-Con, and general manager Gabe Nicolella hires extra workers to deal with a week that's about twice as busy as usual.

"Oh it's huge, huge for business," said Nicolella.

 

The comics fans are good eaters, said Cassandra Dump (pictured, in Superman T-shirt), a waitress at Dick's, but they're not necessarily big drinkers.

"Nerds are hit or miss," she said.

When it comes to entertainment, though, the appetite of comics fans seems to be unfailing -- as long as the creative types keep their eyes on the ball.

"We've had writers come to us and say, 'I have this idea that would make a great movie, and we're like, 'Not interested,'" said Oni Press' Nozemack. "Tell us something that will make a great graphic novel. If it makes a great movie afterwards, then fine."

Additional reporting by Hugh Hart.

Photos: Jim Merithew/Wired.com

By Lewis Wallace July 26, 2008 | 2:45:46 PMCategories: Comic-Con, Comics, Movies

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/07/comics-whip-up.html


/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

"Death-defyin' ": Next week's Meadowlands run may be the Boss' last at Giants Stadium

Next week's Meadowlands run may be the Boss' last at Giants Stadium

Few people know what it's like to be 57 and play a stadium rock show. Max Weinberg does. And he can tell you, it's not easy.

"It is athletic, it is physical," said the drummer. "At points in the show, particularly in the first half-hour or 40 minutes, every muscle in your body is screaming."

Sunday, Monday and Thursday, Weinberg -- a member of New Jersey's leading rock group, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band -- will perform at the state's largest concert venue, Giants Stadium.

Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band played at Hartford Civic Center, Conn., October.

The band, which has presented some of the hardest-driving shows of its career on its 2007-08 "Magic Tour," has played at the stadium 16 times, with six shows in 1985, at the height of "Born in the U.S.A."-fueled Brucemania, and 10 in 2003.

The upcoming stand will be epic rock-'n'-roll. But it also raises a question: Will these be Springsteen's last Giants Stadium shows?

The stadium is scheduled to be closed and demolished in 2010, to make way for a new stadium. But it's not just that.

Springsteen is still a stadium-level attraction in Europe: He just completed a successful stadium tour there. But in the States, he mostly plays arenas. On the leg of his tour that begins tonight and ends Aug. 30, in Milwaukee, he has booked only one other Giants Stadium-sized venue: Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass., Aug. 2.

The Giants Stadium concerts, with a capacity of 55,000 per night, did not sell out immediately -- a rarity for home-state Springsteen shows -- and there may be empty seats at some of them.

That doesn't mean he can't play a Jersey stadium again. But he may think twice about it.

TEARDROPS ON THE CITY

Springsteen, who declined, through a representative, to be interviewed for this article, is 58. The oldest E Streeter, saxophonist Clarence Clemons, is 66.

In April, keyboardist Danny Federici became the first E Street Band member to die, succumbing to cancer at the age of 58.

"It's been brutal," said guitarist Nils Lofgren, 57. "I've stood in front of Danny and run up on his riser for the last 24 years, and most of the guys go back a lot further than that."

Lofgren praised Federici's replacement, Charles Giordano, as did Clemons, who added, "It's like losing a limb and having to replace it with something else. It works, but it's not what it was."

When Springsteen was inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame in a May 4 ceremony at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark, he didn't mention Federici by name. But it was impossible not to think of him as Springsteen meditated on the passing of time.

"You get a little older," he said, "and when one of those crisp fall days come along in September and October, my friends and I slip into the cool water of the Atlantic Ocean. We take note that there are a few less of us as each year passes."

Maybe Springsteen was thinking also of Terry Magovern, his longtime friend and associate, who died in July 2007. Springsteen wrote a song about him for his funeral, and included it as a bonus track on his 2007 "Magic" album. "All I know's I woke up this morning and something big was gone," Springsteen sang.

Bill Chinnock and Big Danny Gallagher, Springsteen contemporaries who helped put Asbury Park on the rock-'n'-roll map, died last year, too. And Madam Marie, the boardwalk fortuneteller immortalized by Springsteen in his song, "4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)," passed away in June, the same month that Springsteen, still in Europe, sang via satellite at the memorial service for his friend and fan, broadcaster Tim Russert.

There are many references to death on "Magic" -- they are mostly of a political nature, reflecting Springsteen's horror at the war in Iraq. But the current tour, which has included dark "Magic" songs such as "Last to Die" and "Long Walk Home" on a nightly basis, has not been a mournful affair.

And judging by the set lists of the recent European shows, it's getting giddier by the minute, with covers of high-energy, crowd-pleasing songs such as "Twist and Shout," "The Detroit Medley," "Seven Nights To Rock" and "Summertime Blues," as well as lots of Springsteen-written rarities.

"The set lists are going nuts -- 'Drive All Night' being the big one, for me. That came out for the first time since the (1980-81) River Tour," said Christopher Phillips, who edits and publishes the fanzine, Backstreets. "For the most part, I prefer to see him in smaller venues. But when he gets to the stadiums, he tends to bring out covers, and those bigger songs that will really reach to the rafters. So to me that's one of the upsides of the stadium shows."

Some of the rarities have been inspired by signs that audience members hold up. Springsteen started honoring requests made in the manner in March and has continued doing so since.

British journalist Sarfraz Manzoor, who wrote about his extreme Springsteen fandom in his 2007 memoir, "Greetings From Bury Park," said Springsteen's willingness to take requests and shake up his set lists could mean he's thinking this will be his last time around, in stadiums.

"The spectacle of seeing him singing 'Hungry Heart' in front of 60,000 people ... I don't know when that's going to happen again," said Manzoor. "And I kind of get the feeling that he knows that himself. That probably explains why the set lists have been so loose, and this idea of taking songs from placards in the audience.

"Just before the summer holidays break up, in school, you go a little bit crazy -- I think there's a little bit of that, maybe."

FURTHER ON UP THE ROAD

It's impossible to say when the E Street Band will work together again. Springsteen's previous tour was with his newly formed folk-roots ensemble, The Seeger Sessions Band. Before that, he toured solo.

He may be contemplating more non-E Street projects. And one band member, Weinberg, may be compromised by another commitment. He leads the house band on the television show "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" and has taken time off from that job to back Springsteen in recent years. But he may not be able to continue juggling in this manner when O'Brien's show moves from New York to California. O'Brien replaces Jay Leno as host of "The Tonight Show" next summer.

"I make no assumptions about the future," said Weinberg, adding that he has found ways to balance his two jobs in the past and can do so again. He doesn't see being in California as a deal-breaker necessarily, as other E Street members are scattered all around the country (California, Arizona, Montana and Florida).

Lofgren and Clemons both said they have no interest in trying to predict the band's future.

"This is not a farewell tour in any sense of the imagination," said Lofgren. "Nobody's spoken a word about it having any kind of significance at that level."

"I never think beyond right now," said Clemons. "I'm concentrating on what we're doing now. And what happens in the future happens in the future."

Springsteen has never publicly suggested that he has given any thought to putting an end to any aspect of his career. And he probably never will.

"There ain't gonna be any farewell tour," he told Backstreets in August 2007. "That's the only thing I know for sure. ... You're only gonna know that when you don't see me no more."

REASONS TO BELIEVE

Even though the three Giants Stadium shows weren't instant sellouts, the best seats were snatched up quickly and are being sold, in many cases, for hundreds of dollars above face value, on websites like eBay.com and StubHub.com. And if there hadn't been so many Jersey E Street shows in recent years -- 40 since 1999, not counting solo, Seeger Sessions or holiday shows, or New York gigs -- there would be more demand.

There is a precedent, of course, for musicians continuing to rock stadiums into their 60s. The Rolling Stones are doing it. The current lineups of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd -- two groups that predate the E Street Band -- could fill stadiums, if they wanted to.

There is little doubt that if Springsteen wants to keep the band going -- even if some of the musicians are unable, or unwilling, to participate -- he will do so. There have been many versions of the E Street Band over the past 35 years, and there could be more.

On April 21, Springsteen eulogized Federici at a funeral service at Red Bank's United Methodist Church. He ended by describing Federici as a lifelong member in good standing of the E Street Band.

He didn't just say E Street Band, though. As he has often done while introducing the band in concert, he prefaced the band's name with a stream of overblown adjectives: "house-rockin', pants-droppin', earth-shockin', hard-rockin', booty-shakin', love-makin' ... "

He kept going, starting to pick phrases more suited to the occasion. First came "heart-breakin'." Then "soul-cryin'."

And then, an unusual one to use at a funeral.

"Death-defyin'."



by Jay Lustig/The Star-Ledger
Saturday July 26, 2008, 11:40 PM

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/next_weeks_meadowlands_run_may.html



/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Criticism: F. R. LEAVIS AND QUESTIONS OF VALUE

Criticism: F. R. LEAVIS AND QUESTIONS OF VALUE

http://www.lilithgallery.com/arthistory/romanticism/images/WilliamBlake-Newton-1795.jpg

One cannot discuss criticism, its function within society, its essential aims and nature, without reference to the work of F. R. Leavis (1895–1978), perhaps the most important critic in the English language in any medium since the mid-twentieth century. Although his work today is extremely unpopular (insofar as it is even read), and despite the fact that he showed no interest in the cinema whatever, anyone who aspires to be a critic of any of the arts should be familiar with his work, which entails also being familiar with the major figures of English literature.

Leavis belonged to a somewhat different world from ours, which the "standards" he continued to the end to maintain would certainly reject. Leavis grew up in Victorian and Edwardian England and was fully formed as a critic and lecturer by the 1930s. He would have responded with horror to the "sexual revolution," though he was able to celebrate, somewhat obsessively, D. H. Lawrence, whose novels were once so shocking as to be banned (and who today is beginning to appear quaintly old-fashioned).

Leavis was repeatedly rebuked for what was in fact his greatest strength: his consistent refusal to define a clear theoretical basis for his work. What he meant by "critical standards" could not, by their very nature, be tied to some specific theory of literature or art. The critic must above all be open to new experiences and new perceptions, and critical standards were not and could not be some cut-and-dried set of rules that one applied to all manifestations of genius. The critic must be free and flexible, the standards arising naturally out of constant comparison, setting this work beside that. If an ultimate value exists, to which appeal can be made, it is also indefinable beyond a certain point: "life," the quality of life, intelligence about life, about human society, human intercourse. A value judgment cannot, by its very nature, be proved scientifically. Hence Leavis's famous definition of the ideal critical debate, an ongoing process with no final answer: "This is so, isn't it?" "Yes, but …" It is this very strength of Leavis's discourse that has resulted, today, in his neglect, even within academia. Everything now must be supported by a firm theoretical basis, even though that basis (largely a matter of fashion) changes every few years. Criticism, as Leavis understood it (inT. S. Eliot's famous definition, "the common pursuit of true judgment"), is rarely practiced in universities today. Instead, it has been replaced by the apparent security of "theory," the latest theory applied across the board, supplying one with a means of pigeonholing each new work one encounters.

It is not possible, today, to be a faithful "Leavisian" critic (certainly not of film, the demands of which are in many ways quite different from those of literature). Crucial to Leavis's work was his vision of the university as a "creative center of civilization." The modern university has been allowed to degenerate, under the auspices of "advanced" capitalism, into a career training institution. There is no "creative center of civilization" anymore. Only small, struggling, dispersed groups, each with its own agenda, attempt to battle the seemingly irreversible degeneration of Western culture. From the perspective of our position amid this decline, and with film in mind, Leavis's principles reveal three important weaknesses or gaps:

  1. The wholesale rejection of popular culture. Leavis held, quite correctly, that popular culture was thoroughly contaminated by capitalism, its productions primarily concerned with making money, and then more money. However, film criticism and theory have been firmly rooted in classical Hollywood, which today one can perceive as a period of extraordinary richness but which to Leavis was a total blank. He was able to appreciate the popular culture of the past, in periods when major artists worked in complete harmony with their public (the Elizabethan drama centered on Shakespeare, the Victorian novel on Dickens) but was quite unable to see that the pre-1960s Hollywood cinema represented, however compromised, a communal art, comparable in many ways to Renaissance Italy, the Elizabethan drama, the Vienna of Mozart and Haydn. It was a period in which artists worked together, influencing each other, borrowing from each other, evolving a whole rich complex of conventions and genres, with no sense whatever of alienation from the general public: the kind of art (the richest kind) that today barely exists. Vestiges of it can perhaps be found in rock music, compromised by its relatively limited range of expression and human emotion, the restriction of its pleasures to the "youth" audience, and its tendency to expendability.

    Hollywood cinema was also compromised from the outset by the simple fact that the production of a film requires vastly more money than the writing of a novel or play, the composing of a symphony, or the painting of a picture. Yet—as with Shakespeare, Haydn, or Leonardo da Vinci—filmmakers like Howard Hawks (1896–1977), John Ford (1894–1973), Leo McCarey (1898–1969), and Alfred Hitchcock (1899–1980) were able to remain in touch with their audiences, to "give them what they wanted," without seriously compromising themselves. They could make the films they wanted to make, and enjoyed making, while retaining their popular following. Today, intelligent critical interest in films that goes beyond the "diagnostic" has had to shift to "art-house" cinema or move outside Western cinema altogether, to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Iran, Africa, and Thailand.

  2. Political engagement. Although he acknowledged the urgent need for drastic social change, Leavis never analyzed literature from an explicitly political viewpoint. In his earlier days he showed an interest in Marxism yet recognized that the development of a strong and vital culture centered on the arts (and especially literature) was not high on its agenda. He saw great literature as concerned with "life," a term he never defined precisely but which clearly included self-realization, psychic health, the development of positive and vital relationships, fulfillment, generosity, humanity. "Intelligence about life" is a recurring phrase in his analyses.

    He was fully aware of the degeneration of modern Western culture. His later works show an increasing desperation, resulting in an obsessive repetitiveness that can be wearying. One has the feeling that he was reduced to forcing himself to believe, against all the evidence, that his ideals were still realizable. Although it seems essential to keep in mind, in our dealings with art, "life" in the full Leavisian sense, the responsible critic (of film or anything else) is also committed to fighting for our mere survival, by defending or attacking films from a political viewpoint. Anything else is fiddling while Rome burns.

  3. The problem of intentionality. Leavis showed no interest whatever in Freud or the development of psychoanalytical theory. When he analyzes a poem or a novel, the underlying assumption is always that the author knew exactly what he or she was doing. Today we seem to have swung, somewhat dangerously, to the other extreme: we analyze films in terms of "subtexts" that may (in some cases must) have emerged from the unconscious, well below the level of intention.

This is fascinating and seductive, but also dangerous, territory. Where does one draw the line? The question arises predominantly in the discussion of minor works within the "entertainment" syndrome, where the filmmakers are working within generic conventions. It would be largely a waste of time searching for "unconscious" subtexts in the films of, say, Michael Haneke (b. 1942), Hou Hsiao-Hsien (b. 1947), or Abbas Kiarostami (b.1940), major artists in full consciousness of their subject matter. But in any case critics should exercise a certain caution: they may be finding meanings that they are planting there themselves. The discovery of an arguably unconscious meaning is justified if it uncovers a coherent subtext that can be traced throughout the work. Even Freud, after all, admitted that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"—the validity of reading one as a phallic symbol will depend on its context (the character smoking it, the situation within which it is smoked, its connection to imagery elsewhere in the film). The director George Romero expressed surprise at the suggestion that Night of the Living Dead (the original 1968 version) is about tensions, frustrations, and repression within the patriarchal nuclear family; but the entire film, from the opening scene on, with its entire cast of characters, seems to demand this reading.

Why, then, should Leavis still concern us? We need, in general, his example and the qualities that form and vivify it: his deep seriousness, commitment, intransigence, the profundity of his concerns, his sense of value in a world where all values seem rapidly becoming debased into the values of the marketplace. Leavis's detractors have parodied his notion that great art is "intelligent about life," but the force of this assumption becomes clear from its practical application to film as to literature, as a few examples, negative and positive, illustrate. Take a film honored with Academy Awards®, including one for Best Picture. Rob Marshall's Chicago (2002) is essentially a celebration of duplicity, cynicism, one-upmanship, and mean-spiritedness: intelligent about life? The honors bestowed on it tell us a great deal about the current state of civilization and its standards. At the other extreme one might also use Leavis's dictum to raise certain doubts about a film long and widely regarded by many as the greatest ever made, Citizen Kane (1941), directed by Orson Welles (1915–1985). No one, I think, will deny the film its brilliance, its power, its status as a landmark in the evolution of cinema. But is that very brilliance slightly suspect? Is Welles's undeniable intelligence, his astonishing grasp of his chosen medium, too much employed as a celebration of himself and his own genius, the dazzling magician of cinema? To raise such questions, to challenge the accepted wisdom, is a way to open debate, and essentially a debate about human values. Certain other films, far less insistent on their own greatness, might be adduced as exemplifying "intelligence about life": examples that spring to mind (remaining within the bounds of classical Hollywood) include Tabu (F. W. Murnau, 1931), Rio BravoMake Way for Tomorrow (McCarey, 1937), Letter from an Unknown Woman (Max Ophüls, 1948), and Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)—all films in which the filmmaker seems totally dedicated to the realization of the thematic material rather than to self-aggrandizement. (Hawks, 1959),

There are of course whole areas of valid critical practice that Leavis's approach leaves untouched: the evolution of a Hollywood genre or cycle (western, musical, horror film, screwball comedy), and its social implications. But the question of standards, of value, and the critical judgments that result should remain and be of ultimate importance. One might discuss at length (with numerous examples) how and why film noir flourished during and in the years immediately following World War II, its dark and pessimistic view of America developing side by side, like its dark shadow, with the patriotic and idealistic war movie. But the true critic will also want to debate the different inflections and relative value of, say, The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941), Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944), The Big Sleep (Hawks,1946), and Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947). Or, to move outside Hollywood and forward in time, how one reads and values the films of, for example, the German director Michael Haneke should be a matter of intense critical debate and of great importance to the individual. A value judgment, one must remember, by its very nature cannot be proven—it can only be argued. The debate will be ongoing, and agreement may never be reached; even where there is a consensus, it may be overturned in the next generation. But this is the strength of true critical debate, not its weakness; it is what sets criticism above theory, which should be its servant. A work of any importance and complexity is not a fact that can be proven and pigeon-holed. The purpose of critical debate is the development and refinement of personal judgment, the evolution of the individual sensibility. Such debates go beyond the valuation of a given film, forcing one to question, modify, develop, refine one's own value system. It is a sign of the degeneration of our culture that they seem rarely to take place.






/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Mon Dieu: Goodbye to France's 35-Hour Week

Goodbye to France's 35-Hour Week


france europe working laws 35 hours politics labor

French Labor Minister Xavier Bertrand (L) holds a satirical newspaper during a parliamentary session to debate a government-backed law to ease the 35-hour workweek

France's ruling conservatives are celebrating the mothballing of what they've long derided as the most destructive legacy of Socialist rule: the 35-hour workweek. Late Wednesday, a government text gutting the left's decade-old labor innovation was voted into law, provoking cheers from rightist politicians that France Inc. could now better fulfill one of President Nicolas Sarkozy's key campaign slogans: "work more to earn more."


"Companies will at last be able to operate management policy based on a secure legal framework," Danièle Giazzi, a labor specialist for the ruling Union for Popular Majority party (UMP). "It's a remarkable advance for the economy." France's Labor Minister, Xavier Bertrand, the bill's author, hailed an "historic" revision of a law conceived by the country's "archaic" left, now in opposition. "It's the end of the imposed 35-hour week," he crowed.

Yet Bertrand's own wording belied a glaring incongruity in the law: while it allows employers to demand that workers spend more time at work, 35 hours remains the reference length of the French workweek. That's a smart move, since polls show the French are fond of the 35-hour week, and quashing it outright could prove unpopular.

Sarkozy's previous efforts to keep employees on the job longer relied on making overtime pay less costly to businesses and more profitable to workers. But that softer pitch was never popular with government officials and UMP members who saw the 35-hour week as an ideological red flag.

The new law lets companies ignore the nominal 35-hour maximum and negotiate — or impose — longer hours for staffers. In doing so, bosses will no longer have to worry about compensating extra time with days off, as they were previously obliged to do to keep any worker's average workweek over the year within the 35-hour limit. What's more, overtime work will no longer come attached to a 25% bonus, but with one as low as 10%, to be determined through negotiation.

Opponents of the new measures complain employers will now be able to impose non-optional overtime on employees, who would have to fear being fired if they refuse. They also expect businesses to stick to the lower-end 10% scale in paying for extra time, knowing that workers fearing for their jobs may not be able to stand up to their bosses for more money. That will be especially true in smaller companies, labor experts say, where staff organization and union representation don't match levels in bigger groups.

In any case, the new law means the de facto death of the 35-hour week introduced in 1998 with great fanfare and considerable controversy by the Socialist government of the day. The measure was designed to stimulate job creation by cutting up the pie of available work into smaller pieces. Socialists claimed the creation of 350,000 new posts in its first five years; similar numbers were provided by independent economists and organizations monitoring labor activity. However, conservatives have consistently accused the law of shackling French businesses and undermining economic growth. They've also noted that state subsidies softening the impact of the reduced workweek on businesses have cost taxpayers billions. The new legislation, its backers say, will leave companies freer to demand more work from staffers when needed, and allow employees to heed Sarkozy's appeal to help lift the economy — and their own slumping purchasing power — by working more.

Thus far, lower-paid workers appear ready to do just that. Ironically, the new law looks more set to cramp the style of middle and upper managers, whose long work days and greater disposable income made them the 35-hour week's biggest fans. Under the previous scheme, most so-called cadres happily logged 12-hour days, knowing they'd eventually be compensated with days off as compensation, in some cases making three-day weekends routine and further extending France's five weeks of paid vacation. Not surprisingly, several hundred cadres were the only ones protesting as legislators voted to reform their cushy work arrangement into obscurity. In that way, the new law already produced one small labor miracle: it made private sector executives sputter with a rage normally seen only among militant public sector strikers.



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826227,00.html

/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Facebook: Movement or Business?

Facebook: Movement or Business?

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, delivers a keynote address at the company's annual conference in San Francisco on July 23

It's been a heck of a year for Facebook, everyone's favorite social network. That was obvious when founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stage at F8, the annual developers' conference in San Francisco on Wednesday.

With a series of slides that looked like textbook examples of "hockey stick" growth, Zuckerberg showed how quickly his network has taken off. A little over a year ago, Facebook had 24 million users. Today? Zuckerberg claimed that 90 million folks — two-thirds of whom are outside the U.S. — use the network. He pretty much guaranteed that the number of active users would hit 100 million by year's end. Some 200,000 programmers are making applications for Facebook, and have attracted more than $200 million in investment. That's a lot of users and developers, and a spectacular amount of dough. Zuckerberg and his team ought to feel pretty great about what they've built in a relatively short period of time.

So, I don't mean to be a total tool when I say: Knock it off already with this talk of a "movement." That's what Zuckerberg called Facebook throughout his hour-long presentation yesterday: A movement. As in, "Last year at F8, everyone here together at the San Francisco Design Center started a movement!"

O.K., it was cute when he said it at the first F8, last year. It got your attention. It was exciting. Especially coming from the tech world's Doogie Howser. But now?

Zuckerberg may want his users to think of Facebook as a movement, but to the grown-ups it's a business — and one that's working very hard to be profitable. But it's got a ways to go before it's in the money, and all this "movement" talk makes me suspicious — like Zuckerberg's putting something over on me. I'm not saying he is. I'm just saying.

Yesterday, while he talked about the movement and how Facebook's goal was to be a place that promotes sharing and connecting, I couldn't help thinking about Beacon. You might recall that Beacon, an advertising play, was intended to broadcast Facebook users' purchases from external websites. Initially, it was forced on users; there was no opting out. But that turned out to be a nightmare for the young company. Zuckerberg had to apologize and retreat. "We made a lot of mistakes during the past year," he admitted yesterday. Clearly, explaining to your users how advertising works on a social network was one of them.

And so at the developers' conference yesterday, we saw a kinder, gentler Zuck who, though he embraced "transparency" as a laudable goal, was charmingly opaque.

"When we talk about the movement we're a part of, it's important for us to have a very clear sense of our mission and the purpose behind what we're all doing," the new "What, Me, Beacon?" Zuckerberg told the audience. Then he launched into a story about how he and the Facebook team were trying to come up with a mission statement for the movement about six months ago, when he had to go on vacation to Istanbul right in the middle of the discussion. Once there, he had dinner with a local entrepreneur and had a terrific time, feeling a powerful connection with this person. Afterward he had an epiphany about what Facebook should be: "I really want to see us build a product that allows you to really feel a person and understand what's really going on with them and feel present with them."

That became part of the new mission statement for Facebook: "Giving people the power to share, in order to make the world more open and connected."

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that sounds lovely, really nice. I love sharing, especially the steak on my wife's plate and TIME Inc.'s money. This is sharing — and then some.

"Sharing" at the conference referred to the new features that Facebook unveiled this week for its redesigned user profile pages, which now make it even easier for me to broadcast the stuff I like. "News feeds" (a Facebook term I've always found vaguely offensive, since it trivializes actual news) are now simpler to manage. When you read a "story" on your news feed and find out a friend has just enjoyed a Big Mac, you can comment on it ("OMG! Me too!!!"), right in the feed. And FacebookConnect, which will start showing up on finer websites and blogs everywhere this fall, is an ID system that lets you log in to places — for commenting, say, or Digging stories — with your Facebook ID.

All of this makes it easy to publish and discuss all the things you do — the books you read, the clothes you buy, the movies you see — on Facebook and off. All these things you "share" help connect you to your friends, but more importantly, they connect you to advertisers. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. But you need to be aware of it.

Advertising is the essence of Facebook's business; it's the great and shining hope of that company and social media in general. Maybe even all media. But so far, it's not exactly justifying valuations. There has been loads of investment coming in, but not much real, sustainable revenue coming out. That's why the company is working so hard to add all the new sharing/connecting/movement features: to make advertising work the way it should on a social network.

At Fortune's Brainstorm Conference earlier this week, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said the privately held company isn't feeling any pressure from its investors to produce profits yet, but she pointed out the obvious: that Facebook's real potential was in the "unusual and extraordinary opportunity" afforded by advertising. What she's talking about is inserting brand advertising into the shared experiences of Facebook's users. And the only kind of movement that is, is the movement of money.



http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1826081,00.html

/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Real Che Guevara....and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him

The Real Che Guevara....and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him

http://www.cofc.edu/~friedman/golf3.jpg

If I don't make a hole in one I'll execute 50 handicapped golfers. Ernesto "Che" Guevara on not making the PGA or LPGA.

Review by David Forsmark of the book, 'Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him', By Humberto Fontova

Time magazine recently made the ludicrous decision to exclude President George W. Bush from its list of the "world's 100 most influential people. Adding to the insult was the inclusion of such figures as Sacha Baron Cohen and America Ferrara, whom even fans of their characters -- Borat and Ugly Betty, respectively -- probably would not recognize in their real life personas.

But that's not the first time Time has included essentially fictional characters on a similar list. In its list of the 100 most important people of the 20th Century, under "Heroes and Icons", the magazine's editors included the fictional creation known as Che Guevara.

Wait, you argue, Ernesto "Che" Guevara was a real person. True enough, as the thousands of his murdered victims would attest. However, as journalist Humberto Fontova shows in Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, Time magazine didn't come close to including the real Che Guevara on its list.

The Che portrayed by Ariel Dorfman on Time's list was a concoction whom the magazine helped to invent in the 1950s and '60s. In fact, almost nothing in Dorfman's 1999 wallowing in messianic hero worship in the century list article is true.

Basically, everything most people think they know about Che Guevara is wrong. Okay, maybe not everything, since Frontpage readers at least, who have seen Fontova's work, are likely to include "bloodthirsty, Communist thug" in their description. But most of the details are wrong, as the story perpetuated by The New York Times, CBS News and Time are drawn from propaganda put out by the Castro organization, much of it made up from whole cloth — including everything Time said about him in its century-end profile.

In fact, Dorfman's gushy ode to his vicious hero serves as a perfect outline for the myths of Che and the dose of reality Fontova deals to each of them.

Time: "(T)he story of the obscure Argentine doctor who abandoned his profession and his native land to pursue the emancipation of the poor…"

Fontova: There is no proof that Guevara ever actually earned a medical degree, much less had a profession to abandon. As we will see later, Guevara's only effective military campaign was against poor campesinos in the Cuban countryside.

Time: "After a guerrilla campaign in which Guevara displayed such outrageous bravery and skill that he was named commandante, the insurgents entered Havana and launched what was to become the first and only victorious socialist revolution in the Americas."

Fontova: Che had a particular talent for being nowhere around when any skirmish broke out. In fact, many of the pitched battles trumpeted in The New York Times and other MSM outlets of the time never took place. In one battle that the NYT proclaimed deaths of over a thousand, Fontova writes convincingly that total casualties on both sides probably numbered around five. Talk about creative math.

Fontova shows that Che was responsible for more deaths of non-communist anti-Batista fighters than of soldiers fighting for the regime — most of whom were bribed to flee. After the revolution, Che oversaw not only the executions of tens of thousands of innocents, but he also was in charge of forcibly collectivizing thousands of small farms. In fact, Che Guevara conducted the longest counter-revolutionary campaign in the Americas, with a brutal 6-year war against Cuban peasant farmers.

Time: "Che the moral guru proclaiming that a New Man, no ego and all ferocious love for the other, had to be forcibly created out of the ruins of the old one."

Fontova: When mothers or wives came to plead for the life of their loved one, he would show his "ferocious love for the other" by picking up the phone and ordering that man or boy's immediate execution in front of the sobbing woman.

As Fontova points out, the 14,000 executions by firing squad and other Cuban deaths attributed to the Castroites are dwarfed by the numbers killed by Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot, but, as a percentage of the population, the Cuban communists are right up there with the other moral gurus who were also trying to create a "New Man."

Time: "Che the romantic mysteriously leaving the revolution to continue…, the struggle against oppression and tyranny."

Fontova: Che was run out of Cuba by Castro who tired of the competing cult of personality, and was a spectacular failure in Africa and South America where he rallied no one to his cause and was ignored-- or mocked—by guerillas on the ground there.

Time: "His execution in Vallegrande at the age of 39 only enhanced Guevara's mythical stature. That Christ-like figure laid out on a bed of death with his uncanny eyes almost about to open; those fearless last words ('Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man') somebody invented or reported;"

Fontova: "Invented," indeed. The only place Che's defiant last words appear are in Cuban accounts. Every eyewitness tells a different tale — of a Che Guevara trying to ingratiate himself to every guard, officer or CIA agent at the scene, spinning the notion constantly that he would be "worth more alive."

But radical Duke professor Dorfman is not the only purveyor of the Che Guevara myth that Fontova deconstructs. Herbert Matthews of the New York Times was among the useful idiots who most helped Castro come to power.

As Fontova puts it, this was not a battle in the Cuban countryside or the streets of Havana but a PR war won on the pages of the mainstream press in Washington and New York.

Fontova also spends a fair amount of time discrediting New Yorker writer Jon Lee Anderson's hagiography, Che: A Revolutionary Life, which was hailed for its "balance" in the mainstream media and widely considered the ultimate Che biography. Probably all you need to know about this 814 page book is that Anderson writes "I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent." Fontova points out that Anderson spends 200 pages on Che's largely fictional guerilla campaign to oust Batista, but deals with his 5-year slaughter of the farmers in one dismissive sentence.

Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him also takes on an ironic tone similar to Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say, when dealing with fawning American Che worshipers who help keep his glowering face on tee shirts and coffee mugs everywhere.

Guitar hero Carlos Santana provides comic relief with spaced out statements that "Che was all about peace and love, man," or his loopy comment that Che was the first person to allow women in Cuba's casinos. Of course, Che mainly closed the casinos, persecuted anyone who listened to rock and roll — much less performed it —and his big contribution to feminism was granting women equal access to face firing squads.

There was never any excuse for the media to get it wrong. As Fontova points out in the book's opening, Che came to the UN and shouted his love of executions from the podium in a speech as subtle as Hugo Chavez's recent visit. That earned him a party at Bobo Rockefeller's place in an early example of what Tom Wolfe would later call Radical Chic.

Today's liberals outraged that there is a place in Cuba today where the US holds genocidal thugs, who are not read their Miranda rights. Meanwhile they continue to not only glorify a murderer from four decades ago, but the regime he co-founded where people are still tortured for decades for speaking their minds-- if not put up against a wall so covered in gore that its original color is no longer discernable.

Che a hero? No, he was a monster, a foul beast. To the ash heap of history he goes. Deservedly.


FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 31, 2007 | David Forsmark

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842731/posts

/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Yeats Meets the Digital Age, Full of Passionate Intensity

 Yeats Meets the Digital Age, Full of Passionate Intensity

Courtesy of The National Library of Ireland
William Butler Yeats in an undated photo.

 

 

DUBLIN

 

SO here, under airtight, light-shielding glass, is a notebook given to William Butler Yeats in 1908 by Maud Gonne, the beautiful, brainy feminist Irish revolutionary and object of Yeats's infatuation across five decades, the muse — well, really, the furnace — for his poetry of yearning and his willing partner in what they called a mystical marriage. As far as actual marriage, Gonne became expert at wielding the word "no."

Bound in white vellum, the notebook served as their metaphysical marital bed. Yeats used it to keep track of their shared fixation with the occult and each other. One morning in July 1908 Gonne wrote from Paris to report that she had been seized by a vision. "I had such a wonderful experience last night that I must know at once if it affected you & how?" she wrote. "At a quarter of 11 last night I put on this body & thought strongly of you & desired to go to you."

Yeats taped the letter into the notebook. Now, a century later, that book is on display at the National Library of Ireland, opened to a page that is just barely visible under the indirect lighting prescribed for aged ink treasures. Yet every syllable — every comma-deprived sentence, every curve in her script, every ampersand — is legible. Next to the display case the entire notebook has been digitally reincarnated. With the stroke of a finger on a touch screen, a visitor can flip through pages written 100 years ago and summon an image of this letter, or any other entry. If needed, Gonne's handwriting can be deciphered on a pop-up screen that types out her fevered scrawl.

The notebook is one of thousands of elements in a dazzling exhibition, "The Life and Works of William Butler Yeats," more like a life-size, walk-through Web site than an ordinary museum show. With audiotapes, four short films and software that brings light and breath to aging manuscripts, it amounts to a digital resurrection, allowing Yeats to stride again along the hinge of the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

 

A photo of Maud Gonne

 

The exhibition, which opened in 2006 and will run until January, then move to the United States if the library can find a suitable host, was mounted in part as a gesture of gratitude to the Yeats family. Soon after the poet's death in 1939, his widow, George, began giving his papers to the National Library. Those gifts continued from his daughter, Anne, an artist and stage designer who died in 2001, and from his son, Michael, an Irish senator who died in 2007.

The papers now occupy 38 yards of shelves; his personal library of 3,000 volumes has its own space. Catherine Fahy, one of the curators, said the family believed his papers belong to Ireland. "There was also the practical problem of scholars coming to George Yeats for access to them," she added. And thanks to various loans, paintings by Yeats (he was briefly an art student) and by his accomplished father, John Butler Yeats, and brother, Jack B. Yeats, are put to excellent use.

The exhibition draws its power not only from nimble navigational tools but also from the intimacy of the encounters. The four films are shown in cozy rooms that can seat only five or six at a time, in spaces decked out like his study, a backstage corner of the Abbey Theater and Thoor Ballylee, the chronically damp tower in County Galway where Yeats tried to set up home. The first stop is at a chapel-size octagon of screens. The bustle of the Dublin streets falls away, replaced by recordings of a dozen famous poems.

All his verse was meant to be heard, not read. Yeats once said, '"Write for the ear, I thought, so that you may be instantly understood as when an actor or folk singer stands before an audience."

Here the words roll across one screen, while evocative pictures fill the others. The opening of each poem commands silence:

When you are old and gray and full of sleep

And nodding by the fire, take down this book.

The readers include Seamus Heaney, Sinead O'Connor and Theo Dorgan, but it is the voice of Yeats himself, reciting "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" at a sing-song pace, that comes as a revelation. Yeats "had a very distinctive Irish country accent, from Sligo," noted Patrick McAfee, a visitor earlier this month. "That was amazing. And the way he was reciting was very peculiar. My friend said it was rather beelike, like a bee in a glade."

 

 

 

A pastel portrait by Maud of her daughter, Iseult. Yeats had, at various times, asked both women to marry him.

 

In the four films Yeats (1865-1939) is presented as public man, poet, lover and occultist, a figure of towering achievement, eccentricities and pretensions. Less than 50 years after famine had decimated the island, and as tensions with England persisted, he championed a distinctly Irish cultural identity. He collected folklore, helped start the Abbey Theater and promoted John Millington Synge, Sean O'Casey and others. On being awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1923, he said he regarded it as "part of Europe's welcome to the Free State."

As a member of the Irish Senate he spoke against a law underwritten by the Catholic hierarchy that banned divorce, and recalled that some of Ireland's greatest figures had been Protestant. His instinct, Seamus Heaney says in one film, was to find and stand by underdogs as power in society shifted. He also found his way into a eugenics society in 1936, and before then dabbled with the fascist Blueshirt movement. "A flirtation," Mr. Heaney says, "but not an affiliation."

At its core the exhibition offers Yeats's papers not as relics but as living documents.

The visitor sees a manuscript of "Sailing to Byzantium." Next to the display a digital tutorial shows how he kneaded the words and notions of the poem. Only in later drafts did he find a streak of lightning to open the poem:

"That is no country for old men."

Elsewhere software developed by the British Library allows visitors to page through digitized manuscripts. For Henry Kerr, a visitor who had chanced into the exhibition, the technology gave him handholds into Yeats's work. "It works very well, the touch screen and flipping through books, zooming in," Mr. Kerr said. "It opens it up a wee bit."

And there is eloquence too in the older media, in the static dignity of oil paintings, or even in an understated line or two on a display card. These elements are especially helpful in tracing the poet's elaborate romantic entanglements. "I don't know how he could have done all of it and wrote so much at the same time," said Sharon Callaghan, a visitor.

At their center was Maud Gonne, whom Yeats met in 1889, when, as he wrote, "the troubling of my life began." With her in mind for the lead role, he composed a play, "The Countess Kathleen." It took him 10 years. "The play was performed at the opening of the Irish Literary Theatre in 1899," the exhibition notes. "Maud Gonne refused to take part in it."

Unknown to Yeats, Gonne had an affair with a French journalist and secretly gave birth to a boy, who died at the age of 2; she returned with her lover to the child's tomb to conceive again, believing that reincarnation would bring back the lost son.

The ordinary brushstrokes of life glow in their links to Yeats's art. She kissed him on the lips for the first time in 1899, then immediately confessed the truth about the affair and the children she had told the world were adopted. Their friendship survived her regular refusals to marry him, but he was devastated after she took another nationalist, Major John MacBride, for her husband. When that marriage went bad, Yeats comforted her. They apparently were physically intimate near the end of 1908, but she ended it a few months later.

In 1916, at 51 and still a bachelor, he consulted an astrologist, then turned again to Gonne with an offer of marriage. She declined. With her permission he proposed to her 22-year-old daughter, Iseult, who had been conceived at her brother's grave. She too said no.

Besides being barking mad, everyone in this circle, it seems, could paint. "She is just fabulous looking," Ms. Callaghan said, gazing at a portrait of Iseult by Maud.

Yeats eventually married Georgina Hyde Lees (he called her George) in 1917, when she was 25 and he was 52. They had two children. At last, his Maud obsession seemed to ebb, nearly 30 years after they first met. His love life remained a tangle. Late in life he had a vasectomy, believed at the time to improve men's potency. He charged ahead with a dizzying series of affairs, and on his death in January 1939, both his wife and his last lover stood vigil at his bed.

Until nearly the end of his days he and Gonne kept an eye on each other. In 1938 he wrote "A Bronze Head" about her frequent appearances at political funerals, a "dark tomb-haunter," so transformed from the light, gentle woman of his memory.

Almost from the beginning she had been a figure of memory. In the opening pages of the 1908 notebook he looked backward: "She said something that blotted away the recent past & brought all back to the spiritual marriage of 1898. She believed that this bond is to be recreated & to be the means of spiritual illumination between us. It is to be a bond of the spirit only."

Flipping ahead in the digital pages, one lands on Yeats's July 26 entry and learns that he too had relished the astral meeting that Gonne would chronicle so ecstatically. "Noticed also that for the first time for weeks," he wrote, "physical desire was awakened."

When her letter arrived, he would learn they were not quite synchronized. "Material union is but a pale shadow compared to it," she wrote. "Write to me quickly & tell me if you know anything of this."

Yeats knew it well.

 

By JIM DWYER

Published: July 20, 2008

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/arts/design/20dwye.html?_r=1&oref=login&pagewanted=all




/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

A Veil Closes France’s Door to Citizenship

A Veil Closes France's Door to Citizenship

 

 

LA VERRIÈRE, France — When Faiza Silmi applied for French citizenship, she worried that her French was not quite good enough or that her Moroccan upbringing would pose a problem.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/092Bd1j2Yi2PV/610x.jpg

Fadela Amara, center, France's urban affairs minister and a Muslim, backs a ruling to deny citizenship to a Muslim woman.

 

"I would never have imagined that they would turn me down because of what I choose to wear," Ms. Silmi said, her hazel eyes looking out of the narrow slit in her niqab, an Islamic facial veil that is among three flowing layers of turquoise, blue and black that cover her body from head to toe.

But last month, France's highest administrative court upheld a decision to deny citizenship to Ms. Silmi, 32, on the ground that her "radical" practice of Islam was incompatible with French values like equality of the sexes.

It was the first time that a French court had judged someone's capacity to be assimilated into France based on private religious practice, taking laïcité — the country's strict concept of secularism — from the public sphere into the home.

The case has sharpened the focus on the delicate balance between the tradition of Republican secularism and the freedom of religion guaranteed under the French Constitution, and how that balance may be shifting. Four years ago, a law banned religious clothing in public schools. Earlier this year, a court in Lille annulled a marriage on request of a Muslim husband whose wife had lied about being a virgin. (The government later demanded a review of the court decision.)

So far, citizenship has been denied on religious grounds in France only when applicants were believed to be close to fundamentalist groups.

The ruling on Ms. Silmi has received almost unequivocal support across the political spectrum, including among many Muslims. Fadela Amara, the French minister for urban affairs, called Ms. Silmi's niqab "a prison" and a "straitjacket."

"It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and is totally lacking in democracy," Ms. Amara, herself a practicing Muslim of Algerian descent, told the newspaper Le Parisien in an interview published Wednesday.

François Hollande, the leader of the opposition Socialist Party, called the ruling "a good application of the law," while Jacques Myard, a conservative lawmaker elected in the district where Ms. Silmi lives, demanded that face-covering veils be outlawed.

In an interview at her home in a public housing complex southwest of Paris, the first she has given since her citizenship was denied, Ms. Silmi told of her shock and embarrassment when she found herself unexpectedly in the public eye. Since July 12, when Le Monde first reported the court decision, her story has been endlessly dissected on newspaper front pages and in late-night television talk shows.

"They say I am under my husband's command and that I am a recluse," Ms. Silmi said during an hourlong conversation in her apartment in La Verrière, a small town 30 minutes by train from Paris. At home, when no men are present, she lifts her facial veil and exposes a smiling, heart-shaped face.

"They say I wear the niqab because my husband told me so," she said. "I want to tell them: It is my choice. I take care of my children, and I leave the house when I please. I have my own car. I do the shopping on my own. Yes, I am a practicing Muslim, I am orthodox. But is that not my right?"

Ms. Silmi declined to have her photograph taken, saying that she and her husband were uncomfortable with the idea.

Eight years ago, Ms. Silmi married Karim, a French national of Moroccan descent, and moved to France with him. Their four children, three boys and a girl, ages 2 to 7, were born in France. In 2004, Ms. Silmi applied for French citizenship, she said, "because I wanted to have the same nationality as my husband and my children." But her request was denied a year later because of "insufficient assimilation" into France.

She appealed, invoking the right to religious freedom. But in late June, the Council of State, the judicial institution with final say on disputes between individuals and the public administration, upheld the ruling.

"She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," the ruling said.

Ms. Silmi, who resides in France as a legal immigrant, will not lose her right to stay. She has given herself until September to decide whether to make another attempt to acquire citizenship.

Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave, the government commissioner who reported to the Council of State, said Ms. Silmi's interviews with social services revealed that "She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal, and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind."

The unease with a very small but growing number of Muslim women wearing face veils is not unique to France. In Denmark, the government barred judges from wearing religious garments and symbols after a rightist political party whose support it needs campaigned for such a ban. Its campaign featured posters showing a judge in a niqab. In Britain last year, a schoolteacher wearing a niqab was told to go home. Several Belgian cities have enacted outright bans on burqas.

M'hammed Henniche, of the Union of Muslim Associations in the Seine-St.-Denis district north of Paris, says he fears that the French ruling may open the door to what he considers ever more arbitrary interpretations of what constitutes "radical" Islam.

"What is it going to be tomorrow?" he asked. "The annual pilgrimage to Mecca? The daily prayer?

"This sets a dangerous precedent," he said. "Religion, so far as it is personal, should be kept out of these decisions."

In a sign of the nature of some of the criteria used to evaluate Ms. Silmi's fitness to become French, the government commissioner approvingly noted in her report that she was treated by a male gynecologist during her pregnancies.

The Silmis say they live by a literalist interpretation of the Koran. They do not like the term Salafism, although they say literally it means following the way of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions.

"But today 'Salafist' has come to mean political Islam; people who don't like the government and who approve of violence call themselves Salafists," said her husband, a soft-spoken man who bears two physical signs of devotion in Islam: a beard and a light bruising on his forehead caused by bows in prayer. "We have nothing to do with them."

His wife said that in 2000 she decided to wear the niqab, which is usually worn on the Arabian Peninsula, because in her eyes her traditional Moroccan djelaba — a long flowing garment with a head scarf — was not modest enough. "I don't like to draw men's looks," she said. "I want to belong to my husband and my husband only."

France is home to about five million Muslims, three out of five of them French citizens, experts estimate. Criteria for granting French citizenship include "assimilation," which focuses on how well the candidate speaks French. Ms. Silmi's French is fluent.

Lately, though, President Nicolas Sarkozy has stressed the importance of "integration" into French life. Part of his tougher immigration policy is new legislation to require foreigners who want to join their families to take an exam on French values as well as the French language before leaving their countries.

Ms. Silmi's husband, a former bus driver who says he is finding it hard to get work because of his beard, dreams of moving his family to Morocco or Saudi Arabia. "We don't feel welcome here," he said. "I am French, but I can't really say that I am proud of it right now."

 

By KATRIN BENNHOLD

Published: July 19, 2008

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/europe/19france.html?ei=5087&em=&en=0c46e94a03cabd0e&ex=1216699200&pagewanted=all

 







/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 17, 2008

The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand

The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand
http://www.moonbattery.com/che_guevara_time_magazine.jpg

The terrorist murderer Che Guevara


Che Guevara, who did so much (or was it so little?) to destroy capitalism, is now a quintessential capitalist brand. His likeness adorns mugs, hoodies, lighters, key chains, wallets, baseball caps, toques, bandannas, tank tops, club shirts, couture bags, denim jeans, herbal tea, and of course those omnipresent T-shirts with the photograph, taken by Alberto Korda, of the socialist heartthrob in his beret during the early years of the revolution, as Che happened to walk into the photographer's viewfinder—and into the image that, thirty-eight years after his death, is still the logo of revolutionary (or is it capitalist?) chic. Sean O'Hagan claimed in The Observer that there is even a soap powder with the slogan "Che washes whiter."

Che products are marketed by big corporations and small businesses, such as the Burlington Coat Factory, which put out a television commercial depicting a youth in fatigue pants wearing a Che T-shirt, or Flamingo's Boutique in Union City, New Jersey, whose owner responded to the fury of local Cuban exiles with this devastating argument: "I sell whatever people want to buy." Revolutionaries join the merchandising frenzy, too—from "The Che Store," catering to "all your revolutionary needs" on the Internet, to the Italian writer Gianni Minà, who sold Robert Redford the movie rights to Che's diary of his juvenile trip around South America in 1952 in exchange for access to the shooting of the film The Motorcycle Diaries so that Minà could produce his own documentary. Not to mention Alberto Granado, who accompanied Che on his youthful trip and advises documentarists, and now complains in Madrid, according to El País, over Rioja wine and duck magret, that the American embargo against Cuba makes it hard for him to collect royalties. To take the irony further: the building where Guevara was born in Rosario, Argentina, a splendid early twentieth-century edifice at the corner of Urquiza and Entre Ríos Streets, was until recently occupied by the private pension fund AFJP Máxima, a child of Argentina's privatization of social security in the 1990s.

The metamorphosis of Che Guevara into a capitalist brand is not new, but the brand has been enjoying a revival of late—an especially remarkable revival, since it comes years after the political and ideological collapse of all that Guevara represented. This windfall is owed substantially to The Motorcycle Diaries, the film produced by Robert Redford and directed by Walter Salles. (It is one of three major motion pictures on Che either made or in the process of being made in the last two years; the other two have been directed by Josh Evans and Steven Soderbergh.) Beautifully shot against landscapes that have clearly eluded the eroding effects of polluting capitalism, the film shows the young man on a voyage of self-discovery as his budding social conscience encounters social and economic exploitation—laying the ground for a New Wave re-invention of the man whom Sartre once called the most complete human being of our era.

But to be more precise, the current Che revival started in 1997, on the thirtieth anniversary of his death, when five biographies hit the bookstores, and his remains were discovered near an airstrip at Bolivia's Vallegrande airport, after a retired Bolivian general, in a spectacularly timed revelation, disclosed the exact location. The anniversary refocused attention on Freddy Alborta's famous photograph of Che's corpse laid out on a table, foreshortened and dead and romantic, looking like Christ in a Mantegna painting.

It is customary for followers of a cult not to know the real life story of their hero, the historical truth. (Many Rastafarians would renounce Haile Selassie if they had any notion of who he really was.) It is not surprising that Guevara's contemporary followers, his new post-communist admirers, also delude themselves by clinging to a myth—except the young Argentines who have come up with an expression that rhymes perfectly in Spanish: "Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué," or "I have a Che T-shirt and I don't know why."


Consider some of the people who have recently brandished or invoked Guevara's likeness as a beacon of justice and rebellion against the abuse of power. In Lebanon, demonstrators protesting against Syria at the grave of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri carried Che's image. Thierry Henry, a French soccer player who plays for Arsenal, in England, showed up at a major gala organized by FIFA, the world's soccer body, wearing a red and black Che T-shirt. In a recent review in The New York Times of George A. Romero's Land of the Dead, Manohla Dargis noted that "the greatest shock here may be the transformation of a black zombie into a righteous revolutionary leader," and added, "I guess Che really does live, after all." The soccer hero Maradona showed off the emblematic Che tattoo on his right arm during a trip where he met Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. In Stavropol, in southern Russia, protesters denouncing cash payments of welfare concessions took to the central square with Che flags. In San Francisco, City Lights Books, the legendary home of beat literature, treats visitors to a section devoted to Latin America in which half the shelves are taken up by Che books. José Luis Montoya, a Mexican police officer who battles drug crime in Mexicali, wears a Che sweatband because it makes him feel stronger. At the Dheisheh refugee camp on the West Bank, Che posters adorn a wall that pays tribute to the Intifada. A Sunday magazine devoted to social life in Sydney, Australia, lists the three dream guests at a dinner party: Alvar Aalto, Richard Branson, and Che Guevara. Leung Kwok-hung, the rebel elected to Hong Kong's Legislative Council, defies Beijing by wearing a Che T-shirt. In Brazil, Frei Betto, President Lula da Silva's adviser in charge of the high-profile "Zero Hunger" program, says that "we should have paid less attention to Trotsky and much more to Che Guevara." And most famously, at this year's Academy Awards ceremony Carlos Santana and Antonio Banderas performed the theme song from The Motorcycle Diaries, and Santana showed up wearing a Che T-shirt and a crucifix. The manifestations of the new cult of Che are everywhere. Once again the myth is firing up people whose causes for the most part represent the exact opposite of what Guevara was.


No man is without some redeeming qualities. In the case of Che Guevara, those qualities may help us to measure the gulf that separates reality from myth. His honesty (well, partial honesty) meant that he left written testimony of his cruelties, including the really ugly, though not the ugliest, stuff. His courage—what Castro described as "his way, in every difficult and dangerous moment, of doing the most difficult and dangerous thing"—meant that he did not live to take full responsibility for Cuba's hell. Myth can tell you as much about an era as truth. And so it is that thanks to Che's own testimonials to his thoughts and his deeds, and thanks also to his premature departure, we may know exactly how deluded so many of our contemporaries are about so much.

Guevara might have been enamored of his own death, but he was much more enamored of other people's deaths. In April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his "Message to the Tricontinental": "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine." His earlier writings are also peppered with this rhetorical and ideological violence. Although his former girlfriend Chichina Ferreyra doubts that the original version of the diaries of his motorcycle trip contains the observation that "I feel my nostrils dilate savoring the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy," Guevara did share with Granado at that very young age this exclamation: "Revolution without firing a shot? You're crazy." At other times the young bohemian seemed unable to distinguish between the levity of death as a spectacle and the tragedy of a revolution's victims. In a letter to his mother in 1954, written in Guatemala, where he witnessed the overthrow of the revolutionary government of Jacobo Arbenz, he wrote: "It was all a lot of fun, what with the bombs, speeches, and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in."

Guevara's disposition when he traveled with Castro from Mexico to Cuba aboard the Granma is captured in a phrase in a letter to his wife that he penned on January 28, 1957, not long after disembarking, which was published in her book Ernesto: A Memoir of Che Guevara in Sierra Maestra: "Here in the Cuban jungle, alive and bloodthirsty." This mentality had been reinforced by his conviction that Arbenz had lost power because he had failed to execute his potential enemies. An earlier letter to his former girlfriend Tita Infante had observed that "if there had been some executions, the government would have maintained the capacity to return the blows." It is hardly a surprise that during the armed struggle against Batista, and then after the triumphant entry into Havana, Guevara murdered or oversaw the executions in summary trials of scores of people—proven enemies, suspected enemies, and those who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In January 1957, as his diary from the Sierra Maestra indicates, Guevara shot Eutimio Guerra because he suspected him of passing on information: "I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain.... His belongings were now mine." Later he shot Aristidio, a peasant who expressed the desire to leave whenever the rebels moved on. While he wondered whether this particular victim "was really guilty enough to deserve death," he had no qualms about ordering the death of Echevarría, a brother of one of his comrades, because of unspecified crimes: "He had to pay the price." At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture.

Luis Guardia and Pedro Corzo, two researchers in Florida who are working on a documentary about Guevara, have obtained the testimony of Jaime Costa Vázquez, a former commander in the revolutionary army known as "El Catalán," who maintains that many of the executions attributed to Ramiro Valdés, a future interior minister of Cuba, were Guevara's direct responsibility, because Valdés was under his orders in the mountains. "If in doubt, kill him" were Che's instructions. On the eve of victory, according to Costa, Che ordered the execution of a couple dozen people in Santa Clara, in central Cuba, where his column had gone as part of a final assault on the island. Some of them were shot in a hotel, as Marcelo Fernándes-Zayas, another former revolutionary who later became a journalist, has written—adding that among those executed, known as casquitos, were peasants who had joined the army simply to escape unemployment.


But the "cold-blooded killing machine" did not show the full extent of his rigor until, immediately after the collapse of the Batista regime, Castro put him in charge of La Cabaña prison. (Castro had a clinically good eye for picking the right person to guard the revolution against infection.) San Carlos de La Cabaña was a stone fortress used to defend Havana against English pirates in the eighteenth century; later it became a military barracks. In a manner chillingly reminiscent of Lavrenti Beria, Guevara presided during the first half of 1959 over one of the darkest periods of the revolution. José Vilasuso, a lawyer and a professor at Universidad Interamericana de Bayamón in Puerto Rico, who belonged to the body in charge of the summary judicial process at La Cabaña, told me recently that

Che was in charge of the Comisión Depuradora. The process followed the law of the Sierra: there was a military court and Che's guidelines to us were that we should act with conviction, meaning that they were all murderers and the revolutionary way to proceed was to be implacable. My direct superior was Miguel Duque Estrada. My duty was to legalize the files before they were sent on to the Ministry. Executions took place from Monday to Friday, in the middle of the night, just after the sentence was given and automatically confirmed by the appellate body. On the most gruesome night I remember, seven men were executed.

Javier Arzuaga, the Basque chaplain who gave comfort to those sentenced to die and personally witnessed dozens of executions, spoke to me recently from his home in Puerto Rico. A former Catholic priest, now seventy-five, who describes himself as "closer to Leonardo Boff and Liberation Theology than to the former Cardinal Ratzinger," he recalls that there were about eight hundred prisoners in a space fit for no more than three hundred: former Batista military and police personnel, some journalists, a few businessmen and merchants. The revolutionary tribunal was made of militiamen. Che Guevara presided over the appellate court. He never overturned a sentence. I would visit those on death row at the galera de la muerte. A rumor went around that I hypnotized prisoners because many remained calm, so Che ordered that I be present at the executions. After I left in May, they executed many more, but I personally witnessed fifty-five executions. There was an American, Herman Marks, apparently a former convict. We called him "the butcher" because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot. I pleaded many times with Che on behalf of prisoners. I remember especially the case of Ariel Lima, a young boy. Che did not budge. Nor did Fidel, whom I visited. I became so traumatized that at the end of May 1959 I was ordered to leave the parish of Casa Blanca, where La Cabaña was located and where I had held Mass for three years. I went to Mexico for treatment. The day I left, Che told me we had both tried to bring one another to each other's side and had failed. His last words were: "When we take our masks off, we will be enemies."

How many people were killed at La Cabaña? Pedro Corzo offers a figure of some two hundred, similar to that given by Armando Lago, a retired economics professor who has compiled a list of 179 names as part of an eight-year study on executions in Cuba. Vilasuso told me that four hundred people were executed between January and the end of June in 1959 (at which point Che ceased to be in charge of La Cabaña). Secret cables sent by the American Embassy in Havana to the State Department in Washington spoke of "over 500." According to Jorge Castañeda, one of Guevara's biographers, a Basque Catholic sympathetic to the revolution, the late Father Iñaki de Aspiazú, spoke of seven hundred victims. Félix Rodríguez, a CIA agent who was part of the team in charge of the hunt for Guevara in Bolivia, told me that he confronted Che after his capture about "the two thousand or so" executions for which he was responsible during his lifetime. "He said they were all CIA agents and did not address the figure," Rodríguez recalls. The higher figures may include executions that took place in the months after Che ceased to be in charge of the prison.

Which brings us back to Carlos Santana and his chic Che gear. In an open letter published in El Nuevo Herald on March 31 of this year, the great jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera castigated Santana for his costume at the Oscars, and added: "One of those Cubans [at La Cabaña] was my cousin Bebo, who was imprisoned there precisely for being a Christian. He recounts to me with infinite bitterness how he could hear from his cell in the early hours of dawn the executions, without trial or process of law, of the many who died shouting, 'Long live Christ the King!'"


Che's lust for power had other ways of expressing itself besides murder. The contradiction between his passion for travel—a protest of sorts against the constraints of the nation-State—and his impulse to become himself an enslaving state over others is poignant. In writing about Pedro Valdivia, the conquistador of Chile, Guevara reflected: "He belonged to that special class of men the species produces every so often, in whom a craving for limitless power is so extreme that any suffering to achieve it seems natural." He might have been describing himself. At every stage of his adult life, his megalomania manifested itself in the predatory urge to take over other people's lives and property, and to abolish their free will.

In 1958, after taking the city of Sancti Spiritus, Guevara unsuccessfully tried to impose a kind of sharia, regulating relations between men and women, the use of alcohol, and informal gambling—a puritanism that did not exactly characterize his own way of life. He also ordered his men to rob banks, a decision that he justified in a letter to Enrique Oltuski, a subordinate, in November of that year: "The struggling masses agree to robbing banks because none of them has a penny in them." This idea of revolution as a license to re-allocate property as he saw fit led the Marxist Puritan to take over the mansion of an emigrant after the triumph of the revolution.

The urge to dispossess others of their property and to claim ownership of others' territory was central to Guevara's politics of raw power. In his memoirs, the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser records that Guevara asked him how many people had left his country because of land reform. When Nasser replied that no one had left, Che countered in anger that the way to measure the depth of change is by the number of people "who feel there is no place for them in the new society." This predatory instinct reached a pinnacle in 1965, when he started talking, God-like, about the "New Man" that he and his revolution would create.

Che's obsession with collectivist control led him to collaborate on the formation of the security apparatus that was set up to subjugate six and a half million Cubans. In early 1959, a series of secret meetings took place in Tarará, near Havana, at the mansion to which Che temporarily withdrew to recover from an illness. That is where the top leaders, including Castro, designed the Cuban police state. Ramiro Valdés, Che's subordinate during the guerrilla war, was put in charge of G-2, a body modeled on the Cheka. Angel Ciutah, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War sent by the Soviets who had been very close to Ramón Mercader, Trotsky's assassin, and later befriended Che, played a key role in organizing the system, together with Luis Alberto Lavandeira, who had served the boss at La Cabaña. Guevara himself took charge of G-6, the body tasked with the ideological indoctrination of the armed forces. The U.S.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the perfect occasion to consolidate the new police state, with the rounding up of tens of thousands of Cubans and a new series of executions. As Guevara himself told the Soviet ambassador Sergei Kudriavtsev, counterrevolutionaries were never "to raise their head again."


"Counterrevolutionary" is the term that was applied to anyone who departed from dogma. It was the communist synonym for "heretic." Concentration camps were one form in which dogmatic power was employed to suppress dissent. History attributes to the Spanish general Valeriano Weyler, the captain-general of Cuba at the end of the nineteenth century, the first use of the word "concentration" to describe the policy of surrounding masses of potential opponents—in his case, supporters of the Cuban independence movement—with barbed wire and fences. How fitting that Cuba's revolutionaries more than half a century later were to take up this indigenous tradition. In the beginning, the revolution mobilized volunteers to build schools and to work in ports, plantations, and factories—all exquisite photo-ops for Che the stevedore, Che the cane-cutter, Che the clothmaker. It was not long before volunteer work became a little less voluntary: the first forced labor camp, Guanahacabibes, was set up in western Cuba at the end of 1960. This is how Che explained the function performed by this method of confinement: "[We] only send to Guanahacabibes those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail ... people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals, to a lesser or greater degree.... It is hard labor, not brute labor, rather the working conditions there are hard."

This camp was the precursor to the eventual systematic confinement, starting in 1965 in the province of Camagey, of dissidents, homosexuals, AIDS victims, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, and other such scum, under the banner of Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Producción, or Military Units to Help Production. Herded into buses and trucks, the "unfit" would be transported at gunpoint into concentration camps organized on the Guanahacabibes mold. Some would never return; others would be raped, beaten, or mutilated; and most would be traumatized for life, as Néstor Almendros's wrenching documentary Improper Conduct showed the world a couple of decades ago.


So Time magazine may have been less than accurate in August 1960 when it described the revolution's division of labor with a cover story featuring Che Guevara as the "brain" and Fidel Castro as the "heart" and Raúl Castro as the "fist." But the perception reflected Guevara's crucial role in turning Cuba into a bastion of totalitarianism. Che was a somewhat unlikely candidate for ideological purity, given his bohemian spirit, but during the years of training in Mexico and in the ensuing period of armed struggle in Cuba he emerged as the communist ideologue infatuated with the Soviet Union, much to the discomfort of Castro and others who were essentially opportunists using whatever means were necessary to gain power. When the would-be revolutionaries were arrested in Mexico in 1956, Guevara was the only one who admitted that he was a communist and was studying Russian. (He spoke openly about his relationship with Nikolai Leonov from the Soviet Embassy.) During the armed struggle in Cuba, he forged a strong alliance with the Popular Socialist Party (the island's Communist Party) and with Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, a key player in the conversion of Castro's regime to communism.

This fanatical disposition made Che into a linchpin of the "Sovietization" of the revolution that had repeatedly boasted about its independent character. Very soon after the barbudos came to power, Guevara took part in negotiations with Anastas Mikoyan, the Soviet deputy prime minister, who visited Cuba. He was entrusted with the mission of furthering Soviet-Cuban negotiations during a visit to Moscow in late 1960. (It was part of a long trip in which Kim Il Sung's North Korea was the country that impressed him "the most.") Guevara's second trip to Russia, in August 1962, was even more significant, because it sealed the deal to turn Cuba into a Soviet nuclear beachhead. He met Khrushchev in Yalta to finalize details on an operation that had already begun and involved the introduction of forty-two Soviet missiles, half of which were armed with nuclear warheads, as well as launchers and some forty-two thousand soldiers. After pressing his Soviet allies on the danger that the United States might find out what was happening, Guevara obtained assurances that the Soviet navy would intervene—in other words, that Moscow was ready to go to war.

According to Philippe Gavi's biography of Guevara, the revolutionary had bragged that "this country is willing to risk everything in an atomic war of unimaginable destructiveness to defend a principle." Just after the Cuban missile crisis ended—with Khrushchev reneging on the promise made in Yalta and negotiating a deal with the United States behind Castro's back that included the removal of American missiles from Turkey—Guevara told a British communist daily: "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression." And a couple of years later, at the United Nations, he was true to form: "As Marxists we have maintained that peaceful coexistence among nations does not include coexistence between exploiters and the exploited."

Guevara distanced himself from the Soviet Union in the last years of his life. He did so for the wrong reasons, blaming Moscow for being too soft ideologically and diplomatically, for making too many concessions—unlike Maoist China, which he came to see as a haven of orthodoxy. In October 1964, a memo written by Oleg Daroussenkov, a Soviet official close to him, quotes Guevara as saying: "We asked the Czechoslovaks for arms; they turned us down. Then we asked the Chinese; they said yes in a few days, and did not even charge us, stating that one does not sell arms to a friend." In fact, Guevara resented the fact that Moscow was asking other members of the communist bloc, including Cuba, for something in return for its colossal aid and political support. His final attack on Moscow came in Algiers, in February 1965, at an international conference, where he accused the Soviets of adopting the "law of value," that is, capitalism. His break with the Soviets, in sum, was not a cry for independence. It was an Enver Hoxha–like howl for the total subordination of reality to blind ideological orthodoxy.


The great revolutionary had a chance to put into practice his economic vision—his idea of social justice—as head of the National Bank of Cuba and of the Department of Industry of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform at the end of 1959, and, starting in early 1961, as minister of industry. The period in which Guevara was in charge of most of the Cuban economy saw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America's four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship.

His stint as head of the National Bank, during which he printed bills signed "Che," has been summarized by his deputy, Ernesto Betancourt: "[He] was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles." Guevara's powers of perception regarding the world economy were famously expressed in 1961, at a hemispheric conference in Uruguay, where he predicted a 10 percent rate of growth for Cuba "without the slightest fear," and, by 1980, a per capita income greater than that of "the U.S. today." In fact, by 1997, the thirtieth anniversary of his death, Cubans were dieting on a ration of five pounds of rice and one pound of beans per month; four ounces of meat twice a year; four ounces of soybean paste per week; and four eggs per month.

Land reform took land away from the rich, but gave it to the bureaucrats, not to the peasants. (The decree was written in Che's house.) In the name of diversification, the cultivated area was reduced and manpower distracted toward other activities. The result was that between 1961 and 1963, the harvest was down by half, to a mere 3.8 million metric tons. Was this sacrifice justified by progress in Cuban industrialization? Unfortunately, Cuba had no raw materials for heavy industry, and, as a consequence of the revolutionary redistribution, it had no hard currency with which to buy them—or even basic goods. By 1961, Guevara was having to give embarrassing explanations to the workers at the office: "Our technical comrades at the companies have made a toothpaste ... which is as good as the previous one; it cleans just the same, though after a while it turns to stone." By 1963, all hopes of industrializing Cuba were abandoned, and the revolution accepted its role as a colonial provider of sugar to the Soviet bloc in exchange for oil to cover its needs and to re-sell to other countries. For the next three decades, Cuba would survive on a Soviet subsidy of somewhere between $65 billion and $100 billion.


Having failed as a hero of social justice, does Guevara deserve a place in the history books as a genius of guerrilla warfare? His greatest military achievement in the fight against Batista—taking the city of Santa Clara after ambushing a train with heavy reinforcements—is seriously disputed. Numerous testimonies indicate that the commander of the train surrendered in advance, perhaps after taking bribes. (Gutiérrez Menoyo, who led a different guerrilla group in that area, is among those who have decried Cuba's official account of Guevara's victory.) Immediately after the triumph of the revolution, Guevara organized guerrilla armies in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Haiti—all of which were crushed. In 1964, he sent the Argentine revolutionary Jorge Ricardo Masetti to his death by persuading him to mount an attack on his native country from Bolivia, just after representative democracy had been restored to Argentina.

Particularly disastrous was the Congo expedition in 1965. Guevara sided with two rebels—Pierre Mulele in the west and Laurent Kabila in the east—against the ugly Congolese government, which was sustained by the United States as well as by South African and exiled Cuban mercenaries. Mulele had taken over Stanleyville earlier before being driven back. During his reign of terror, as V.S. Naipaul has written, he murdered all the people who could read and all those who wore a tie. As for Guevara's other ally, Laurent Kabila, he was merely lazy and corrupt at the time; but the world would find out in the 1990s that he, too, was a killing machine. In any event, Guevara spent most of 1965 helping the rebels in the east before fleeing the country ignominiously. Soon afterward, Mobutu came to power and installed a decades-long tyranny. (In Latin American countries too, from Argentina to Peru, Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years.)

In Bolivia, Che was defeated again, and for the last time. He misread the local situation. There had been an agrarian reform years before; the government had respected many of the peasant communities' institutions; and the army was close to the United States despite its nationalism. "The peasant masses don't help us at all" was Guevara's melancholy conclusion in his Bolivian diary. Even worse, Mario Monje, the local communist leader, who had no stomach for guerrilla warfare after having been humiliated at the elections, led Guevara to a vulnerable location in the southeast of the country. The circumstances of Che's capture at Yuro ravine, soon after meeting the French intellectual Régis Debray and the Argentine painter Ciro Bustos, both of whom were arrested as they left the camp, was, like most of the Bolivian expedition, an amateur's affair.

Guevara was certainly bold and courageous, and quick at organizing life on a military basis in the territories under his control, but he was no General Giap. His book Guerrilla Warfare teaches that popular forces can beat an army, that it is not necessary to wait for the right conditions because an insurrectional foco (or small group of revolutionaries) can bring them about, and that the fight must primarily take place in the countryside. (In his prescription for guerrilla warfare, he also reserves for women the roles of cooks and nurses.) However, Batista's army was not an army, but a corrupt bunch of thugs with no motivation and not much organization; and guerrilla focos, with the exception of Nicaragua, all ended up in ashes for the foquistas; and Latin America has turned 70 percent urban in these last four decades. In this regard, too, Che Guevara was a callous fool.


In the last few decades of the nineteenth century, Argentina had the second-highest growth rate in the world. By the 1890s, the real income of Argentine workers was greater than that of Swiss, German, and French workers. By 1928, that country had the twelfth-highest per capita GDP in the world. That achievement, which later generations would ruin, was in large measure due to Juan Bautista Alberdi.

Like Guevara, Alberdi liked to travel: he walked through the pampas and deserts from north to south at the age of fourteen, all the way to Buenos Aires. Like Guevara, Alberdi opposed a tyrant, Juan Manuel Rosas. Like Guevara, Alberdi got a chance to influence a revolutionary leader in power—Justo José de Urquiza, who toppled Rosas in 1852. And like Guevara, Alberdi represented the new government on world tours, and died abroad. But unlike the old and new darling of the left, Alberdi never killed a fly. His book, Bases y puntos de partida para la organización de la República Argentina, was the foundation of the Constitution of 1853 that limited government, opened trade, encouraged immigration, and secured property rights, thereby inaugurating a seventy-year period of astonishing prosperity. He did not meddle in the affairs of other nations, opposing his country's war against Paraguay. His likeness does not adorn Mike Tyson's abdomen.


Alvaro Vargas Llosa


Alvaro Vargas Llosa is Senior Fellow and Director of
The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. He is widely published and has lectured on world economic and political issues including at the Mont Pelerin Society, Naumann Foundation (Germany), FAES Foundation (Spain), Brazilian Institute of Business Studies, Fundación Libertad (Argentina), CEDICE Foundation (Venezuela), Florida International University, and the Ecuadorian Chamber of Commerce. He is the author of the Independent Institute books The Che Guevara Myth and Liberty for Latin America.
July 11, 2005
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
The New Republic



http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535



/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Che Guevara T-shirt depicts 'pathetic and brutal legacy'

Glenn Beck:Che Guevara T-shirt depicts 'pathetic and brutal legacy'

  • The Columbian Army infiltrated highest level of terror group to free 15 hostages
  • Beck: Uniform of choice when fooling terrorists in Colombia is Che Guevara T-shirt
  • Che, who was a "revered superhero," wasn't even a good revolutionary, Beck says
  • Beck: Instead of glorifying him, Che T-shirt could depict "pathetic and brutal legacy"
http://www.thechestore.com/prodimages/shirts/T20-large.jpg
                              Terrorist on a T-Shirt


"If you have any respect for humanity, you shouldn't be wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt," Glenn Beck says.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What T-shirt should you wear when you need to blend in with terrorists? Incredibly, we have an answer to that question.

Robin Meade conducted an exclusive interview that aired this past weekend on Headline News with Thomas Howes, Keith Stansell and Marc Gonsalves, three of the 15 now-former captives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. It is a leftist terror group that has specialized in kidnapping during its war with the Colombian state and capitalism in general.

After their plane crashed, the captives spent five torturous years hoping to see their families again, at times being locked in boxes at night around rats, pigs and bats. Sometimes they had weights chained around their neck and were led around at gunpoint with a dog leash.

Upon finally escaping, Keith Stansell emotionally described the moment he laid eyes on his 5-year-old twins for the first time.

It took a rescue by the Colombian Army to reunite them with freedom and probably save their lives. The army posed as terrorists, persuading FARC to turn the prisoners over to them, saving 15 innocent victims of the brutal terrorism that has ripped Colombia apart for years.

But how did this happen? How did FARC get fooled?

Colombian Army members infiltrated the highest levels of the organization, telling FARC they were going to take the hostages to meet an "international mission." They landed in a helicopter and spent 22 minutes on the ground collecting the captives and speaking in code to one another before taking off and letting the victims (who included a former Colombian presidential candidate) know that they were safe.

So, what is the uniform of choice when fooling terrorists in Colombia?

Sure, there's plenty of talk of one intelligence team member, nervous about the mission, who wore a Red Cross symbol against orders. But other accounts confirm the use of something you can probably pick up at any mall: a Che Guevara T-shirt.

That's right, the same T-shirts you see Hollywood celebrities, starving pseudo-artists and confused hipster teens wearing around local coffee shops. To all those who decide that you want to be coffee house communist-chic, remember this: When you are wearing a Che T-shirt, you're wearing the same shirt that makes terrorists believe you're just one of the gang. I hope that latte is tasty.

How Che became such a revered superhero of the hard-core left is laughable. First of all, he wasn't even a good revolutionary. He failed in his attempt at world revolution almost as badly as communism has failed in the places it was actually tried.

"This is a history of a failure" is how he himself described his efforts in the Congo. He was killed in Bolivia, trying to fire up another failure of a war. Earlier, he even managed to drop his gun and shoot himself in the face.

But more important than his incompetence is the fact that the man was a mass killer. Hundreds were reportedly executed on his watch, and that doesn't include the deaths incurred in the wars he was constantly trying to start. He described his maniacal lust for war in his writings, saying he savored "the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy's death." How this guy is a hero to the anti-war crowd is truly perplexing.

I should also point out what seemingly gets eliminated from the Hollywood movies attempting to glorify him: his bouts with racism. When describing the differences in the strife between "Europeans" and "the black," the supposedly progressive-minded Che wrote, "their different attitudes of life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead."

Ohhhhh, so the "European" is a hard worker while "the black" is a fanciful drunk. Now I understand the difference.

I wonder if that quote would inspire the volunteer office of Barack Obama's Houston supporters to remove their Che flag. After it was spotted on the wall in a local news video, Obama's campaign, far from a haven for right-wing nut jobs, went out of its way to make sure everyone knew that it had nothing to do with the flag and didn't approve of its use. If Che were such a hero, why would that be necessary?

Revisionist history's fusion with fashion sense isn't exactly new, but its popularity seems to be growing. When actress Cameron Diaz showed up in Peru, she thought she had a trendy bag that might garner some jealous stares. People were staring, sure, but for all the wrong reasons.

The bag, purchased in China, featured a red star and the words "Serve the people" on it. The problem? That was Mao Zedong's most famous political slogan, and it stirred up memories of the Maoist Shining Path insurgency, which, according to the BBC, was responsible for 70,000 deaths in Peru during the '80s and '90s. Diaz apologized later for "inadvertently" offending anyone.

It's been five years since the story of convicted abortion clinic bomber and Olympic park bomber Eric Rudolph led the news. As he was evading police capture for months, stories of townspeople donning "Run Rudolph Run" bumper stickers were correctly greeted with horrified disdain.

With the exception of the fact that Che killed a lot more people, what's the difference? You shouldn't be wearing an "I heart abortion clinic bombers" T-shirt, and if you have any respect for humanity, you shouldn't be wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, either.

Perhaps I should cash in on a Che T-shirt featuring his clichéd image too. Except this time, instead of glorifying him, it could specifically be designed to point out his pathetic and brutal legacy.

Honestly, though, I'm afraid I'd be sued. The communist revolutionary who dedicated his life to fight capitalism has now become nothing more than a piece of merchandise. Lesson learned: In the end, capitalism always wins.

When your only option is a Che shirt, maybe it's just better to go topless.



/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Nabokov's Master Class

Nabokov's Master Class


By ELIZABETH HARDWICK


LECTURES ON LITERATURE

By Vladimir Nabokov.

Edited by Fredson Bowers

Introduction by John Updike


 http://www.vouspensez.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/514446751_0ab676f235.jpg


When Vladimir Nabokov died in Switzerland in 1977, a life chronically challenged by history ended in the felicity of a large, intrepid, creative achievement. Nabokov left Russia with his family in 1919, took a degree at Cambridge University and in 1922 settled among the Russian colony in Berlin, where he began his work as a poet and novelist in the Russian language. In 1937, after 15 or so un-Teutonic years "among strangers, spectral Germans," he pushed on to France for three years, to those "more or less illusory cities" that form the emigre's past. In 1940, with his wife and son, he arrived in the United States, "a new and beloved world," as he calls it in his autobiography, "Speak, Memory," where, among other adaptations, he patriotically stopped "barring my sevens."

To America, Nabokov brought his supreme literary gifts and wide learning and a great accumulation of losses: childhood landscape devastated, gravestones blurred, armies in the wrong countries, and his father murdered, hit by a bullet intended for another on the stage of one of those intense political debates among the Russian exiles in Berlin.

From 1940 to 1960, here he is among us, cheerful it seems, and unpredictable in opinion. Not a bohemian, not at all, and not a White Russian dinner partner, but always dramatic, and incorruptible. On the present occasion he is standing before his classes at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, delivering the now published first volume of "Lectures on Literature." He is 49 years old, an outstanding modern novelist in the Russian language, and still in need of money. During the next 10 years, the Ithacan afternoons and evenings will be spent writing in English: "Pnin," "Speak, Memory" and his uncompromised masterpiece, "Lolita," a financial success that released him from one of the cares of the literary life. When he goes back to Europe, to settle with his wife in an old, interesting hotel in Montreux, Switzerland, he will be one of the great 20th-century novelists in English.

Not much happened during the American years that escaped transformation to the mosaic of the Nabokov page, with its undaunted English words glittering in their classical, rather imperial plenitude, a plenitude that is never superfluity. Although Nabokov himself was unassimilable, and his imagination is astonishingly porous. It is rather in the mood of Marco Polo in China that he meets the (to us) exhausted artifacts of the American scene. Motels, advertisements, chewing-gum smiles, academics with their projects like pillows stuffed under an actor's tunic, turns of speech advancing like a train on his amplifying ear -- for Nabokov it is all a dawn, alpine freshness. He is a romantic, prodigal imagination, with inexhaustible ores of memory buried in the ground of unprovincial history. "And one day we shall recall all this -- the lindens, and the shadow on the wall, and a poodle's unclipped claws tapping over the flagstones of the night. And the star, the star."

As a teacher, Nabokov had, before Cornell, spent a good deal of time at Wellesley College, and not much time at Harvard. His misadventures with the Comparative Literature Department at Harvard, told in Andrew Field's biography, "Nabokov: His Life in Part," have the comic "Russianness" of some old head-scratching tale of serf and master. Nabokov lectured at Harvard in 1952. There the exile's brightly confident dimming of a long list of classic authors and works shed its blackening attention upon Cervantes. Professor Harry Levin, on behalf of the old Spainard, said: Harvard thinks otherwise. The remark, put into Professor Levin's pocket like a handkerchief, has the scent of Nabokov's own wicked perfume on it . . . but no matter. And all to the good indeed. Cambridge, Massachusetts was not the proper setting for the touching derangements of Nabokov's created Professor Pnin and Dr. Kinbote -- and not the right New England village in which Humbert Humbert would marry Lolita's mother. So, it was to be Cornell.

The published lectures are, apart from everything else, dutiful, even professorial. They are concrete, efficient, not the wanderings of an imported star who takes off early by way of discussion periods. We are told by Andrew Field that Nabokov's scientific work on butterflies was "painstaking" and marked by a "scale by scale meticulousness." There is something of this also in the approach to the performance before as many as 400 students and the acceptance of certain ever-returning weekends with 150 examination papers to be read.

The young audience is there to hear him, even if he does not know what they may have brought with them. Nabokov stands aside in the beginning, perturbed, it may be imagined, not only by the rarity of literature, but by the rarity of reading, true reading. He solicits rather poignantly from the students the ineffable "tingling spine" and "shiver" of the esthetic response, all that cannot be written down in notebooks and which is as hopeless of definition as the act of composition itself.

The first of Nabokov's Cornell lectures, as printed here, was given to Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park." This author and this particular novel had been urged upon Nabokov by Edmund Wilson. Wilson was dismayed by Nabokov's cast-offs, those universally admired works that seemed to be resting in overflowing boxes in the Nabokov vestibule, as if waiting to be picked up by the Salvation Army. A lot of it appears to be mischievous teasing by Nabokov, good-humored, even winking, if such a word may be used. ("Henry James is a pale porpoise.") Satire is one of Nabokov's gifts, and nearly all of his novels are appliqued with little rosette-asides of impertinent literary opinion.

In any case, "Mansfield Park" finds Nabokov laying out the plot with a draftsman's care, patiently showing that one parson must die so that another can, so to speak, wear the dead man's shoes. And Sir Bertram must be sent off to the West Indies so that his household can relax into the "mild orgy" of the theatrical presentation of a sentimental play called "Lovers' Vows."

Here there is a curious intermission in which Nabokov tells the class about the old play, summarizing it from the original text. And again when Fanny cries out against a plan to cut down an avenue of trees, "What a pity! Does it not make you think of Cowper? 'Ye fallen avenues, once more I mourn your fate unmerited,'" Nabokov takes time out for a reading of the long, dull poem, "The Sofa," by William Cowper. It is true that Nabokov liked to remember the charm of vanished popular works of the sort that slowly made their way over land and sea to the Russian household of his youth. Still the diversion to these texts is strikingly unlike the microscopic adhesion to the matters at hand in the other lectures. There are brushings of condescension in the Jane Austen chapter, delicate little streakings, like a marbleizing effect. She is "dimpled" and "pert," a master of this dimpled pertness.

"Style is not a tool, it is not a method, it not a choice of words alone. Being much more than all this, style constitutes an intrinsic component or characteristic of the author's personality." Nabokov's method in these carefully prepared lectures is somewhat less impressionistic and darting than one might have expected from his irreplaceable book on Gogol and the fantastical commentaries to "Eugene Onegin." Words and phrases, even the words of Joyce, Proust or Dickens, are not themselves often the direct object of inquiry. Plots, with their subterranean themes, are the object, plots to be dug up tenderly so as not to injure the intention of the author by too gleeful an excavation.

Nabokov goes along the plot, step to step, telling us where we are now and what is happening there; and the steps are not mere exposition but attended by readings aloud from the text. About Joyce's "Ulysses": "Demented Farrell now walks westward on Clare Street, where the blind youth is walking eastward on the same street, still unaware that he has left his tuning fork in the Ormond Hotel. Opposite number 8, the office of the dentist . . ."

Flaubert's punctuation and syntax most interestingly command Nabokov's attention. "I want to draw attention first of all to Flaubert's use of the word and preceded by a semicolon." And the use of the imperfect form of the past tense in "Madame Bovary." Translators are rebuked for not seeing, in Emma's musings about the dreariness of her life, the difference between, "She would find (correct translation) again in the same places the foxgloves and wallflowers," as against the simple "she found." These moments are the grandeur of Nabokov in the act of reading a novel. And when he speaks in the voice we know from his own novels, "Notice the elaboration of the moonlight in Proust, the shadows that come out of the light like the drawers of a chest . . ."

"Madame Bovary," "Mansfield Park," "Swann's Way," "Bleak House," "Ulysses," "The Metamorphosis" -- two in French, one from the German, two from English, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," a Nabokov surprise, so as not to confound expectations. The mad pseudoscience of "Dr. Jekyll" appeals to Nabokov, who in his discussion of "Bleak House" lingered lovingly on the "spontaneous combustion" of the gin-soaked Mr. Krook. He likes the "winey taste" of the novel, and "the appetizing tang of the chill morning in London." "Appetizing" is the word most often used about the Stevenson fable. The plan of Dr. Jekyll's house is the back and front of the man himself. Not too little and not too much is made of the work, "a minor masterpiece on its own conventional terms" and far from "The Metamorphosis," with its "five or six" tragic dimensions.

Kafka is "the greatest German writer of our times." Yes, yes -- pause -- "such poets as Rilke or such novelists as Thomas Mann are dwarfs and plaster saints in comparison to him." So, proceed. "The Metamorphosis," an exceedingly painful tale about Gregor Samsa waking up one morning to find that he has turned into an insect, arouses in Nabokov in the most passionate and emotional moments in the lecture series. As an entomologist, he pronounces Gregor a large beetle, the lowly cockroach being just that, too lowly, for the largeness of Kafka's descriptive inventions. The doors, the poor beetle's legs or teeth or whatever finally turning the lock, the family theme, the "Greek chorus" of the visit of the clerk from Gregor's office, the "coleopteran's" food slipped under the door, the appalling suffering: all of this is tragically affecting once more as the lecturer puts it before us.

Nabokov judges Gregor's world with great feeling, even with indignation. The Samsa relatives are "parasites" exploiting Gregor, eating him "out from the inside." His beetle carapace is the "pathetic urge to find some protection from betrayal, cruelty." But it is no protection and he remains as a beetle as vulnerable as his "sick human flesh and spirit had been." Gregor's sister, in the beginning the only one to acknowledge the metamorphosis and to act with kindness, becomes his worst enemy at last. Gregor is extinguished so that the family can go out in the sunlight once again. "The parasites have fattened themselves on Gregor," Nabokov wrote in the margin of his copy.

If it were not the trade name of a commercial series, Nabokov's lectures might be called "Monarch Notes," in honor of their stately, unfatigued progress through the crowd of words, styles and plots. What is most unexpected is the patience. "Bleak House": "Now let us go back to the very first paragraph in the book." "Madame Bovary": "Let us go back to the time when Charles was still married to Heloise Dubuc." "Ulysses": "Bloom's breakfast that she is to make for him that morning continues to fill her thoughts . . ."

Following these lectures with their determined clinging to detail, and with the insistent foot on each rung of the scaffolding of the plot, is to be asked to experience the novel itself in a kind of thoughtfully assisted re-reading, without interpretation. There is very little ripe, plump, appreciative language. "Beautiful" turns are acknowledged by "note" and "mark." In "Madame Bovary" "note the long fine sunrays through the chinks in the closed shutters" and "mark the insidious daylight that made velvet of the soot at the back of the fireplace and touched with livid blue the cold cinders." A novel is a rare object. Look at it with a magnifying glass and the earphones turned off. And curiously each work is alone, not milling about among its siblings, "Emma," "Our Mutual Friend," "Portrait of an Artist" and so on and so on.

Novels are fairy tales; "Madame Bovary" "yet another fairy tale." Of course, with Nabokov a thing is asserted to counter a repellent, philistine opposition. A novel becomes a fairy tale so that it will not be thought to be a sociological study or a bit of the author's psycho-history, two ideas he may rightly have believed to be running like a low fever among the student body.

Nabokov's own novels very often end, and no matter what the plot, in a rhapsodic call to literature itself. "I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita." Also in his novels there are books within books and literature is almost a character. About "The Gift," Nabokov said, "Its hero is not Zina, but Russian literature." The brilliant "Pale Fire" is entirely a deranged annotation of a dreadful poem.

Perhaps in the end it is not surprising that this writer who has walked every step of the way in two languages should look upon style as the self in all its being and the novel as a slow, patient construction of a gleaming fairy tale. "Let us look at the web and not the spider," he writes about Dickens. The web, the inimitable web, is what these lectures are about.

 

Elizabeth Hardwick is the author of "Sleepless Nights," a novel, and "Seduction and Betrayal," criticism.

 

October 19, 1980

 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/07/26/specials/hardwick-nabokov.html?_r=1&oref=login





/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Alejandro Escovedo: Real Animal In Chelsea

Alejandro Escovedo: Real Animal In Chelsea

  http://www.alejandroescovedo.com/wp-content/themes/hemingway/images/AE_bed.jpg

It wouldn't be fair to call Alejandro Escovedo the grandfather of alternative country, in spite of his well-known designation by No Depression magazine as the 1990's "Artist of the Decade". He's more like the scene's awesome uncle who's seen it all, and who has the stories to show for it. After making a name for himself performing with the Bay Area punk band the Nuns (who opened the final Sex Pistols show in 1978), Escovedo lay down the prototype for alt-country with his bands Rank and File and the True Believers in the 1980s. He then continued to define the genre with his solo work throughout the 1990s and has been releasing ever-stronger blues and punk-infused Americana all the while "alt-country" has become a more and more vague classifying term. Even as he has remained relatively unknown in the mainstream and, more seriously, even as he nearly died battling the abiding ravages of Hepatitis C, his creative work is prodigious, and the degree to which Escovedo is respected in the business cannot be overstated. 

Real Animal is Escovedo's tenth recording, and it's being talked up as his career album. To some degree that designation is almost indisputable—Real Animal may be arguably his best album (to my mind coming right in line with his truly stellar 2001 recording A Man Under the Influence and 2006's John Cale-produced The Boxing Mirror), and it is to date both his most straightforwardly autobiographical and the strongest synthesis of Escovedo's many disparate musical impulses. If anything, Escovedo's desert twang is the least prominent musical direction featured on this album, subordinated to the volume and direct rhythms of his punk loves, which mark about half the album, and the carefully orchestrated melodies that fill the chamber pop of the other half. Escovedo enlisted Chuck Prophet to co-write the album, and it is produced by Tony Visconti, known for his work with David Bowie, T. Rex, and Thin Lizzy, and the punk and glam sensibilities Escovedo cultivates with his two collaborators are shot through the veins of the album like the "creature in [his] blood" of which Escovedo sings. 

Throughout Real Animal, a pattern emerges: Escovedo alternates his gritty punk and rock shouts with longing, string-filled ballads, and the pairs complement and reinforce one another. The harder-edged songs are also the most explicitly autobiographical and filled with precise scene-setting from his past and the names of the acquaintances and friends. The quieter songs are more oblique; their invocations of the feelings of Escovedo's times past induce goosebumps like a visit from one of Dickens' Christmas ghosts. Each song feels like a plot-filled chapter or impressionistic poem coming out of the long narrative of Escovedo's life.

The powerful dualities of the album are most potent on a pair of songs early in the album, "Chelsea" and "Sister Lost Soul". "Chelsea" lengthens the list of great songs written about New York's Hotel Chelsea, where Escovedo lived for a time when the Nuns relocated from San Francisco to New York in 1978. "We came to live inside the myth of everything we'd heard", Escovedo sings over menacing strings and pulse-quickening drum and bass lines. The song doesn't try to shatter the myth of the place where the chaotic energy of the romanticized rock and roll dream turned bewilderingly dark and too real. The chorus of the song devolves into a yelled call-and-answer in which a choir of voices gainsays Escovedo's own contradictory feelings about the scene: "It makes no sense (It makes perfect sense!) / It makes perfect sense (It makes no sense!)". The tune pounds into the future as Escovedo concludes, "We all moved out / And we all moved on", which sounds defiant and almost flippant, until the wall-of-sound opening chords and bells of "Sister Lost Soul" segue into a mournful postscript: "Nobody left unbroken".

Easily one of the loveliest and most wrenching songs of the year, "Sister Lost Soul" is a lonesome elegy for all of the wanderers who drift off and away, but whose spectral presence is still felt constantly by the singer. "You're not the first or last I've lied to / I'm lying to myself right now, you're still here", he notes, and when he calls out for his sister and brother lost souls—"I need you"—the swelling reach in his voice on the note of need reminds the listener of both the inevitability of loss and the fundamental impulse to hang on. Back to back, the two songs create their own richly detailed but ephemeral world: the "poets on their barstools…addicted to the pain" of the first song become the spectral presences lingering in the shadows of neon lights evoked in the second. 

The musical pairings continue as the album progresses. The fast bluesy guitar ramble and manic strings of "Smoke" locate themselves concretely in the rock clubs where Escovedo and his friends spent so much time ("Come on baby come on / Let's do the stroll / Come on take my hat / I'll teach you how to roll") while simultaneously gossiping about what became of those friends. That song leads into "Sensitive Boys", an homage to the high hopes of wide-eyed young troubadours infused with a '70s R&B tempo and chorus and sax and strings that hang in the air like the cigarette smoke curling the poster edges in the clubs Escovedo describes. The noir of "Golden Bear", in which Escovedo muses on his illness and asks "why me?" in a tone that is plaintive but never self-pitying, transitions to the recalcitrant pulse of "Nun's Song's" never-look-back tribute to his first band. The carnal growl of "Real as an Animal" (Escovedo's tribute to Iggy Pop) contrasts with the civilized classical string section of "Hollywood Hills", but both are concerned primarily with the authenticity of instincts and the reality beneath a dream. 

Though the songs' power is amplified by their relationships with each other, all of the songs are strong enough to stand on their own. Late in the album, the lilting waltz of "Swallows of San Juan" is singularly perfect. Escovedo describes the annual return of enormous flocks of swallows to nest at San Juan Capistrano, and he uses the swallows, a long-lived literary metaphor of return, to evoke both the nostalgia for his childhood and his own desire to return to some basic universal musical source. Likewise, as far back as Homer, the "singing of the bow" has been likened to a swallow's call, and here the violin and cello duet together and then float away, and as the song ends, the strings dive and tumble down the scales and just as quickly soar up again with the light touch of birds in flight. "I'm gonna crawl up on the shore / Roll in the mud and the hay", Escovedo sings, "and like the swallows of San Juan / I'm gonna get back / Get back some day", and with this song, you kind of believe that Escovedo has found the source spring of inspiration he's looking for.

If there's one theme that brings the album together, it's expressed most succinctly on album closer "Slow Down":

Slow down, slow down
It's moving much too fast
To live in this moment
Gotta let go of the past.

Escovedo seems to be fighting time throughout, trying to live simultaneously among his ghosts while relishing the present moment, which always passes as quickly as it came. "We still got time / But never quite as much as we need", he notes, only half-somberly, and the listener knows that while Escovedo probably will never has much time as he could assuredly fill, one is confident that he still has quite a bit more. It's not an original thought among critics to lament that Escovedo's music has yet to be brought to as wide an audience as it deserves, but Real Animal only reinforces that notion.  Music this rich and evocative should be heard by everyone, and one can only hope that more and more people will hear as Escovedo continues to write his own story.


(Back Porch)

US release date: 24 June 2008

UK release date: 24 June 2008

by Maura Walz

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/58995/alejandro-escovedo-real-animal/


/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Don Quixote de la Mancha: Analyzable or Unanalyzable?

Don Quixote de la Mancha: Analyzable or Unanalyzable?

 http://www.lemur.com/dore-1887-quixote-0600-crop-gray-rot180-scale-1024x1291.jpg

 

The purpose of this address is to reopen the question of whether it is legitimate, even possible, to psychoanalyze a literary character. The chorus of consensus, even among critics styling themselves psychoanalytic critics, is a resounding "no" to this proposition. The Cambridge scholar Maud Ellmann, editor of a distinguished retrospective anthology of classic articles called simply Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism (1994), echoes the standard incredulity in her highly competent Introduction, which concentrates on successive Freudian and Lacanian readings of the Oedipal drama and its place, or role, in literature and literary criticism. Taking Ernest Jones's famous psychoanalytic study of a literary character Hamlet and Oedipus (1949) as her whipping-boy, Ellmann finds absurd Jones's claim that: "[Queen] Gertrude herself confirms [Jones's] suspicion that Hamlet is a matricidal tragedy, closer to the Oresteia than to Oedipus: for she is terrified that Hamlet means to murder her when he invades her closet, speaking daggers, and the ghost is forced to intervene to protect her from the prince's misdirected vengeance" (1994, 3).

     According to Ellmann, Ernest Jones "makes the fundamental error of treating Hamlet as a real person, vexed by unconscious impulses unfathomable even to the text itself" (1994, 3). Jones defends this error, she argues, by protesting that the anguished prince has more vitality than the moribund majority of living people. "True,"

she responds, "but Hamlet has the disadvantage that he cannot contradict his psychoanalyst. Unlike a real analysand, he cannot lie down on the couch and free associate about his dreams or recapitulate the traumas of his infancy" (1994, 3). Resorting to italic emphasis, Ellmann goes on to say: "Amusing as it is to speculate about his early history, Hamlet never had a childhood. Jones ignores the difference between a human being made of flesh and a character made of words, and thereby overlooks the verbal specificities of Shakespeare's text to focus on its universal archetypes" (1994, 3-4).

     Taking Don Quixote de la Mancha as the literary exemplum by which to carry this polemical issue forward, I plan to cast doubt on such casual and, perhaps, unexamined use of terms like "real person," "real analysand," and "a human being made of flesh." Invoking the theories of Lacan in particular, I shall argue that disregard for the Lacanian category of the Real; the ambiguity of the term persona meaning "mask" or "guise" in Latin; Ellmann's claimed status for some "real analysand" outside literature; the blurred biological difference between a human animal made of flesh, as against a human being made of language: all combine to skate over a series of distinctions that conveniently obscure what is actually at stake in the psychoanalytic process of the clinic or, with the proper terminological safeguards, in the exercise of psychoanalytic literary criticism.

     Psychoanalysis, in Lacan's extension of Freud's discovery, is the scrutiny of human language as perforated by lack, desire, and the fundamental division of the subject. This same human language is the stuff of all prose fiction. In consequence, I shall argue for the case that there is only one human condition and only one signifying system of language. Further, invoking Umberto Eco's claims for the "small worlds" of fiction, I shall appeal to the celebrated novelist and critic's contention, according to which we may assume anything in the heterocosm (or fictional universe) that fails to contradict what we know about the historical universe, holds equally in both the fictional world and the empirical world of sense experience (Eco 1994a; 1994b).

     We're never told by Cervantes that Rocinante inhales, for example, but we may assume that he does; we are never told that Rocinante defecates, but we may assume that he does eat the grass occasionally mentioned in the text and is, moreover, not a carnivore; we are never told, as I recall, that Rocinante had a tail, but the bronze sculptor responsible for the magnificent double equestrian statue of mounted Knight and Squire still standing today on the Plaza de España in Madrid obviously assumed that he did.]

     In a recent book, focused almost exclusively on Part II of Cervantes's masterpiece, I have myself argued that the sequel of 1615 is a salvation epic, in which Don Quixote and Sancho are made to pass through a Purgatory in this life. The book's chapter 3 adduces abundant theological testimony from sources in the Counter Reformation, especially tracts of St. John of the Cross and the Spanish Jesuits, which sustain precisely this Catholic view of one possible and perfect road to salvation. My chapter 4 undertakes the more controversial enterprise of reconstructing the hero's transition from madness to sanity over the course of the 74 chapters that comprise Part II, using a predominantly Lacanian psychoanalytic approach.

     The Lacanian argument of this chapter 4 may be briefly reconstructed as follows. At the second novel's beginning, we are left in no doubt by the opening anecdote concerning the Graduate and the Seville madhouse, put in the mouth of the barber (DQ II: 1, 32-34), that Don Quixote is still thoroughly insane. I fully concur with Carroll B. Johnson that Don Quixote's special brand of lunacy would nowadays be termed paranoid psychosis, in line with Freudian or Lacanian nosology alike (1983, 27, 51). I also concur with Johnson in seeing the immediate, trigger cause of the hidalgo's insanity as the coming to womanhood, under Don Alonso's very eyes, of his nubile, teenaged niece, Antonia, described to us in the opening of Part I. But this dementia, precipitated by his round-the-clock reading of romances of chivalry, is, I would submit, a symptom not only of the repression of incestuous desire in the middle-aged or ageing, virgin male, but the symptom of a wider and deepening crisis which has been waiting to happen since childhood: paranoid psychosis, occasioned by foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father and the still unbroken tie, in unconscious fantasy, of incest with the mother. More of this presently.

     Sancho's trick of presenting the ugly peasant-girl in Part II, chapter 10 as the "real" Dulcinea determines the balance of the second novel's trajectory: if she is enchanted, she must be disenchanted. This is the subject of Don Quixote's dream, deep in the Cave of Montesinos: a view separately supported by E. C. Riley (1982, 106, 111-12, 115-16), John Jay Allen (in a letter to me of 1992), and Diana de Armas Wilson in her recent article "Cervantes and the Night-Visitors: Dream-Work in the Cave of Montesinos" (1993). Although not even a character as agent in the novel, the "sage Merlin" (el sabio Merlín) becomes the place to which Don Quixote addresses his question about whether what happened in the Cave was true or false. Merlin, therefore, occupies the position of analyst in the sense of Lacan's

"supposed subject of knowledge" or sujet supposé savoir. "His" direction of the cure, in the form of impersonations of the wizard on the Ducal estate, substitutes like the talking head, the wise ape, "Merlin's" fashioning of the wonder horse Clavileño, all shape the subsequent plotline of Part II.

     The influence of Merlin in the position of analyst comes out most strongly in the fake wizard's disposition that Dulcinea be disenchanted through the penance of Sancho and the self-inflicted 3,300 lashes. In the role of martyr for his Master's desire, Sancho comes to teach Don Quixote about lack in the other. The Knight finds Sancho obdurate in failing to carry out the lashing, thus coming to stand between Don Quixote and the attainment of his Master's jouissance. The Knight must then ask himself the, for him, unimaginable question for a psychotic lacking in lack: what would the other want or lack, that I could provide him with, which would then bend him to my desire? The answer turns out to be money.

     I view the Countess Trifaldi episode as a parodic, shaggy-dog allegory of Don Quixote's confrontation with his own emotional difficulties. I also regard the role of Altisidora in a special light. Though often characterized in the Cervantine critical literature as a brazen hussy, if not actually demonized, Altisidora may reasonably be viewed as an agent of divine Providence (Sullivan 1994). This is because her name is a Cervantine neologism, a Greco-Latin hybrid derived from the Latin Altissimus, meaning "the Most High," and the Ancient Greek doron, meaning "a gift" (the neuter plural of which is dora). Hence, this sassy vixen's name means "Gifts of the Most High" and she would appear, in Cervantes's scheme of things, to be carrying out the will of God. This would not be the perception of the celibate, middle-aged Knight, however, who finds her sexual forwardness a source of "fright" [asombro] and "some great disaster" [alguna gran desgracia] (DQ II: 44, 753-54). This fear is enhanced by the "pussy" imagery of chapter 46, aptly entitled by J. M. Cohen "The alarming cats and bells."

     But, by Altisidora's counterfeiting of the entranced Dulcinea in her own fake death or suspended animation, she is one of several "real women," in Carroll Johnson's expression, who deprogram Don Quixote about sex, his niece, and teenage girls in general. Indeed, to quote Johnson, she has a "purgative effect on him," helping to accelerate the eventual cure of the Knight (Johnson 1983, 182). This cure is completed by the decoding of the signs, or mala signa of the cricket-cage and the hare pursued by greyhounds in chapter 73, interpreted by Don Quixote as signifiers for his never seeing Dulcinea

again. Don Quixote then becomes "disenchanted" with Merlin's prophecies, sees through his bogus authority and, just as in the case of dropping the analyst at the end of the cure like a residue (un déchet), recovers from his dementia and is plunged into the melancholy inseparable from the end of any analysis.

     Other points raised in this Lacanian reading of Part II are that Dulcinea del Toboso's ontological non-existence, within the heterocosm of the novel, is explicable in terms of the, for some, controversial Lacanian axiom that " Woman does not exist" (la Femme n'existe pas). I also draw the irresistible implication that the non-existent non-relationship of Don Quixote and Dulcinea is an anticipatory novelization of the Lacanian proposition "there is no such thing as a sexual relationship" (il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel) (Fink 1991). My overall aim was to view the saving of the soul and the healing of the psyche as etymologically and semantically synonymous, and to construe ascetic theology as a divinized psychoanalysis and ascetic psychoanalysis as a secular theology. For both frames of reference, the ultimate ground is the void or "zip" (Presberg 1996).

     As John Jay Allen warned me in a recent, friendly letter, the Total Relativity School would have a field day hearing Sullivan, the critic, claim that the Quixote had any fixed meaning whatever, let alone its being a "salvation epic." This skepticism comes from the academic Left. From the academic Right come the misgivings concerning psychoanalytic criticism of the Cambridge Cervantes scholar, Anthony J. Close, who, having perused Grotesque Purgatory on loan in MS, concludes a letter to me of December 10, 1995 with the words: "I hope you won't mind my having a go at you quite candidly in a letter. It is what you may expect from people like me in reviews" (folio 2V). Immediately after this, the author adds a final sentence, squiggled out or placed sous râture, which can still be read as follows: "Better that you should be forewarned privately so that you may take pre-emptive measures —if you think that necessary" (December 10, 1995, folio 2V). Whatever side one may eventually come down on, Close's critiques really push the question of Cervantes, literature, and psychoanalysis to the point where the ball is now solidly in the Freudian-Lacanian court.

     On the aesthetic front, no one doubts that Don Quixote was written in accord with the canons of plausibility that prevailed in Cervantes's time. Such canons were certainly not coterminous with later, nineteenth-century standards of "Realism." That Positivist Realism, in my view, rested on the false claim that the Real and reality are identical. But Cervantes's canons of verisimilitude were

mimetic, to say nothing of their dimension of moral verisimilitude. His fictional world does contain things that may be improbable, but it does not contain anything fantastic and/or impossible. Secondly, the Spanish writer puts forth the protagonist as what Aristotle, in the Poetics, had called "a human like ourselves," subject to the same constraints of time, matter, and space as we are in the empirical world. The Quixote is, in the phraseology of Charles D. Presberg, "an unstable compound of poetical and historical truth" (1996).

     I think the best way to follow Anthony Close's advice and "take pre-emptive measures," after the irretrievable fact of the book's publication, is by making a psychoanalytic plea that clarifies why I believe human animals and human beings are not the same thing. I shall preface my discussion of the biological difference between a human animal made of flesh and a human being made of language with a review of the key Lacanian distinctions among the Symbolic, the Imaginary, the Real, and the Symptom.

     The Symbolic, perhaps the easiest of the four registers to grasp, is the order of synchronic language, human culture and exchange: exchange of words, objects, gifts, money, debts, contracts, pacts, badges, tokens, honors, etc. The Symbolic is neutral and athematic, even though it imposes a "weight" of obligation on human subjects by the very fact of its existence. A good example of this would be the global telephone system. The system is neutral, in the sense that it can be used to send good or evil messages at the will of the caller, or to transmit information plain and simple. But we feel obliged to respond to the telephone when it rings, even though we do not know the identity of the caller. Another example of athematic, Symbolic obligation would be the impartial conventions imposed on drivers by the highway code.

     The Imaginary is the order of a human, species-specific merger (originating in Lacan's mirror-stage between 6 to 18 months of age), during which the neonate takes on an identity ("image") from its primary caretaker (usually the mother). In the 1970s, Lacan called it the order of the body. The Imaginary is as much the register of "like and unlike" as of "like and dislike"; of love and hate, rivalry, grandiosity, narcissism, fantasy, and so on. But, although first set down in childhood and then potentiated as part of the Oedipal drama, or what Freud termed in German the "family novel" (Familienroman) (Freud 1898; 1908; 1934-38; Laplanche & Pontalis 1967, 427), the Imaginary carries on over into adult life and continues to affect the way in which we interact with other people or relate to them, often at the level of unconscious perception.

     The Real is the hardest order to grasp, because it is, ex definitione, radically ineffable, and one can never "say" it except in bits and pieces. The Real is, in one measure, the recalcitrance of created Nature to either Symbolic-order articulation, and/or Imaginary-order representation. In Lacan's words, it is "that which resists symbolization absolutely" (Lacan 1988, 66); or, again, the Real is "the domain of whatever subsists outside symbolization" (Lacan 1966, 388). It is the realm of trauma. We try to articulate and represent the Real in language, but we fail, and our failures expose the Real of impasse. The universe of created Nature existed long before the advent of human beings or human language; human beings are entirely expendable at the cosmic level; and the universe would continue to exist, Real and ineffable to nobody, if human beings were to disappear from the planet altogether. In another measure, the Real refers to the historical period of time past, before which no subject can conceive of his or her own universe or subjectivity in any way (Fink 1995, 24-31). Yet again, it is the Real of the organism which eventually decides when we die. Death belongs pre-eminently to the order of the Real (Ragland [-Sullivan] 1984, 183-95; 1995, 84-114). By that, I also mean an order of traumata and fixations that do not just disappear.

     The Symptom, or fourth order, is that area of psychic life where all three of the above-mentioned orders coincide. In Lacan's model of the Borromean knot (see diagram), it is the hatched or shaded area at the center of the intersecting rings which is simultaneously and always an effect of the Symbolic, Imaginary and Real combined. Moreover, this symptomatic intersection is not generalizable, but necessarily peculiar to a given human subject and to no other: a concept which gives us a clue to the reasons behind what we loosely, or in quotidian psychological shorthand, call "individuality" and "personality" in the people we know well. The Symptom is not, therefore, a derogatory term of pathology but, rather, a descriptive term without any possibility of prescription.

     From the above review, it emerges that the human "being" as an animal "made of flesh" (Ellmann), belongs to the order of the Real. The human subject made of language corresponds to the intermesh of being, founded in the Imaginary, and its subsequent, ego-splitting sublation into the order of meaning in the Symbolic. The human organism and the body, therefore, are not the same thing. What we commonly call the body is, paradoxically, an equivalence of the Imaginary. Indeed, as stated, the very idea of a body is an image that is formed in the Lacanian mirror stage, an image which furnishes a fundamental aspect of the structure of subjectivity.

 Lacan's Four Orders

 

     But Lacan broadened his original 1936 concept of the mirror stage in the early 1950s, no longer regarding it as simply a moment in the life of the infant (from around six months of age onwards), but viewing it as also representing a permanent feature of subjectivity, the very paradigm of the Imaginary order. It is a stadium (stade) in which the subject is permanently caught and captivated by his own image (Evans 1996, 115). In his 1951 article, "Some Reflections on the Ego," Lacan wrote: "[the mirror stage is] a phenomenon to which I assign a twofold value. In the first place, it has a historical value as it marks a decisive turning-point in the mental development of the child. In the second place, it typifies an essential libidinal relationship with the body-image" (Lacan 1953, 14). Dylan Evans observes that, as Lacan further developed the concept of the mirror stage, the stress fell less on its "historical value" and ever more on its structural value (1996, 115). Thus, by 1956, Lacan could say in Seminar Four: "The mirror stage is far from a mere phenomenon which occurs in the development of the child. It illustrates the conflictual nature of the dual relationship [of the divided ego]" (Lacan 1994, 17).

     So it would be correct to say that the Imaginary body is an interpretation made by the little subject of its own organism in the order of the Real. And, one is tempted to add, rarely the twain shall meet. Narcissus, after all, was enraptured by his own image in a pool, a beautiful optical illusion, not by his own organism. Similarly, ideas about what makes a body-image beautiful undergo constant revision and reinterpretation, regardless of the empirical biological fact that homo sapiens sapiens is an upper primate. The paintings of Rubens, to take an obvious example, have notoriously given rise to the euphemism "Rubenesque" to describe fat, even unlovely women. But Rubens's contemporaries thought these nudes lusciously desirable. I, Henry Sullivan, don't happen to like skinny, oval-faced women, who look too long in the shanks, but Modigliani obviously did or he wouldn't have painted so many of them.

     Body-images of males change with fashion too. Praxiteles and Phidias captured perfectly the musculature of the male organism in stone statues, but they did not depict their gods and Olympic athletes with a build like Arnold Schwarzenegger's. And male and female organisms, quite a different matter from body-image, are reproduced genetically, without Imaginary interpretation or any aesthetic, Symbolic intervention from their parents. Indeed, apart from the initial copulatory act which fertilizes an ovum, human animals, like any other animal, have remarkably little to do with their own reproduction. Moreover, human organs properly speaking (the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, etc.) function —from womb to tomb— as if the Imaginary and Symbolic orders did not exist, or despite the fact that they actually do. It is only at the level of the Symptom that the Real of the organism re-enters the picture. I am thinking of such things an outbreak of skin rash or hives in moments of mental trauma, psychosomatic forms of urticaria which then proceed to disappear as mysteriously as they arose in the first place.

     The project of this paper, then, is to call into question the automatic assumption that "real person" means only a biological human mammal who has, or had, a historical existence. What is at stake is the virtual psychic reality of personae in literature whose life extends beyond the time of their literary creation into an indefinite posterity. It is possible, if improbable, that a man suffering from a form of insanity like that of Don Quixote should exist in our empirical world. Despite such possible improbability, Cervantes's novel is, nonetheless, cast in biographical form: the text spans the time from his fall into madness until his death. The riddle concerns what sort of "life" we are talking about here. Let me suggest a convenient  example. I dare say there are not as many people round the world on the eve of the third millenium who have heard of King Philip II of Spain as there are people who have heard of Don Quixote de la Mancha. We could perhaps make something out of this to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword. But more interesting to me is the exercise of distinguishing between the King and the Knight as a "real person" and "not a real person."

     This distinction can be made as follows. King Philip II of Spain lived from 1527 to 1598 and was a real person. Don Quixote de la Mancha "lived" from 1556 to 1615, in Cervantes's diptych novel, and was not a real person. Don Quixote admittedly has an Imaginary body in Cervantes's fiction, frequently referred to; and the protagonist's persona, either in his personality as hidalgo or as deranged Knight, is the locus of his Symbolic-order discourse as a speaking subject. But, whereas no one for a minute claims that the Knight was a human organism, everyone takes it on trust that the King of Spain was. Perhaps only a daring New Historicist would advance the theory that King Philip II was a fiction invented by his doctors and a conspiratorial mafia of historiographers, all intent on hoodwinking posterity.

     But I would put it to this audience that any attempt to write a theological and psychoanalytic account of the career of Philip II would present dilemmas similar to those thrown up by the psychoanalysis of literary fiction, even though the Spanish monarch was the so-called "real person" and Don Quixote was not. This is also the dilemma of a thoughtful biographer trying to get inside the "mind" of any dead author or historical figure and wondering "what made him tick?" All the material for the King's psychoanalysis would have to be mediated, as in a novel, through language and imagery: letters, diaries, royal decrees, contemporary accounts, paintings, marble busts, statues, and the like. The problem lies in the fact that the only method of recuperating human culture is through the medium of human culture itself. It is always referring to itself.

     What happens, then, when we subtract the dead organism of history from the "real person" Philip II or, to quote Ernst Kantorowicz, remove one of the King's Two Bodies, "the body mortal" (1957, 7)? In the analytic clinic, it is not the organism of a human mortal that is treated, of course, but the human subject. For disorders of the organism, we seek help from a physician and the apparatus of medical science. According to Lacan, the human subject on the couch is a speaking being who has been captured, through her acquisition of speech, by the world of meaning: the big Other. Her

unconscious itself, in one of the most famous of Lacanian axioms, "is structured like a language." So, where language, Imaginary representation and Symbolic articulation are concerned, it does not matter whether the dead organism of the past is present or not, any more than the presence of the motionless, reclining organism on the couch matters for the purposes of psychoanalysis. The personae of a "real person" or a fictional character belong solely to the Symbolic and Imaginary orders.

     My claim in this paper is that we also risk creating a false distinction if we divide off the world of lived speech, being, and meaning —the conveniently designated "real world"— from the heterocosm of fictional worlds. Novels and plays can only be fabricated from human language and the same signifying system of Imaginary-being-within-Symbolic-meaning which we use in life, however asymmetrical and duplicitous that system may prove. It is not self-standing Nature, or Aristotle's physe, which is being imitated in novels like Don Quixote, but the human condition as constituted by language and culture. And this same human condition —language and culture— is the domain proper of psychoanalysis.

     In my view, we have allowed ourselves to be persuaded by materialist philosophies and the rise of experimental science over the last three and a half centuries that "real" is a synonym of visible, tangible, or mensurable. For Lacan, the order of the Real is precisely none of these things, nor can we even say "it" except fragmentarily. The ineffability of the Real can, however, be captured in fiction, and this fact goes a long way towards explaining literature's uncanny power to mesmerize and hold us while we read, or play on our mind even when we have finished reading. Indeed, I would offer this power of literature to "move" readers in the unconscious as one definition of the sublime: the raising of the object a that forms our connection with the Real to a plane of utterance captured in the immortal amber of words.

     So, having attempted to "debiologize" human subjects in the fashion described above, much as Lacan's theories have debiologized the theories of Freud, I trust that my reasons will have become clearer for seeing the psychoanalysis of literary characters as not only a possible enterprise, but a legitimate one. This is why I am not convinced by my Cambridge colleague's observations that run as follows: "I find that your addition of three or four preliminary chapters to Don Quixote, Part I [Sullivan 1996, 116-17], filling in all the kind of psychic family history that Cervantes deliberately excludes —obsession with nubile niece, inability to wean himself away from his

mother, erasure of paternal presence— is naked psychologism, a conversion of Don Quixote into a flesh-and-blood analysand" (letter of December 10, 1995, folio 2R). I would take issue with three difficulties here: 1) the reappearance of the by now familiar "flesh-and-blood analysand"; 2) any critic's claim actually to know what "Cervantes deliberately excludes" in his fiction; and 3) an understanding of the psychotic's unbroken psychic bond to the mother as Don Quixote's "inability to wean himself away from his mother."

     In the first place (as I have set the issue out above), when an analysand goes for analysis, it is not his flesh and blood that the patient wishes his doctor to analyze. It is his psychic pain, from which he is seeking some yearned-for measure of relief. As regards weaning the Cervantine protagonist away from his mother, this is, of course, no claim of mine. Weaning, it will be observed, is a process solidly located in the order of the Real of the organism. Lacan's strict definition of need, as against desire and demand, belongs to this realm. Need can be summarized as "those requisites of the organism without which it could no longer survive. These include fluids, food, warmth, nitrogen, oxygen, and so on" (Sullivan 1996, 184). Weaning involves precisely such an organic transition: gradually replacing the suckling's fluid food-source from the mammary glands with a solid food-source rendered soft and easily digestible by human culinary art. Here again, I see our Modern Age obsession with materialist philosophy, the natural sciences, and neo-Positivistic empiricism, as the circumambient influences making it easy for certain people to confuse the origins of psychosis with some putatively bad experience undergone during the weaning process.

     The critical posture with which I disagree most of all, however, is the British scholar's claim to know "the kind of psychic family history that Cervantes deliberately excludes" (my emphasis). How can any critic in the year 1997 possibly know what Cervantes "deliberately" excluded or included in his novel? Such a claim would represent a position of apodictic omniscience to which even the most foolhardy of Lacanians would never aspire. I prefer instead to invoke Umberto Eco's claims for fictional possible worlds, according to which the protagonist would have any and all genealogy that is not precisely denied by Cervantes in the text. Cervantes nowhere states that Don Alonso, the hidalgo, was not born of woman; that he was not sired by a father surnamed Quesada, Quejana, Quixano or, more probably, Quixada; that he never had a paternal grandmother; that his great grandfather was not the fifteenth-century "real person," Gutierre de Quixada, whose rusty armor he refurbishes; that

he did not have a sister or brother who was the parent of Antonia Quixana, his niece, living under the hidalgo's roof as his ward. Not only does Cervantes not deny any of this, he actually specifies all of these details in the text, barring only some explicit reference to Don Quixote's mother or father. But we can assume his parents' existence, I would submit, as virtual psychic realities in Cervantes's heterocosm of fiction.

     And the very omission of explicit reference to mother or father invites comment, especially given Don Quixote's clamorous statement to the Canon of Toledo about Gutierre Quixada "from whose stock I am descended in the direct male line" (DQ I: 49, 438). The novels of chivalry regularly opened with a parade of the knight's lineage, emphasizing his noble or illustrious parents. The picaresque novel Lazarillo de Tormes (1554) begins with a spoof of this convention, when Lázaro makes a point of cataloging the plebeian nobodies who gave birth to him. The hidalgo, however, seems like an orphan. The Name-of-the-Father is purposely confused by Cervantes (Quesada, Quejana, Quixada, Quixano) and he is missing in the hero's lineage. Who knows what woman raised him? Presberg, the author of Adventures in Paradox: Praising the Folly of Truthful Tales in Cervantes's Don Quixote, has suggested the paternal grandmother mentioned in the text as a possible candidate. When he was a child, the Knight explains that his paternal grandmother would invariably compare every dueña whom she happened to observe to "Quintañona" (Sullivan 1996, 117). As Presberg points out: "That name refers to the fictional character of Arthurian romance, only as retold in the Spanish ballads, who acts as a bawd in the adulterous union between Lancelot and Guinevere. The vividness of the protagonist's memory suggests that such monologues were a frequent occurrence during his most impresionable years. Joined to the conspicuous silence about his parents, that memory also suggests that it was the paternal grandmother alone who raised the hidalgo, probably because both his parents, and his grandfather were dead. It thus seems likely that our hidalgo of the opening chapter grew to adulthood with no male models of behavior. (Exit moral exemplarity and Lacan's 'Law of the Name-of-the-Father')" (Adventures in Paradox, MS, ch. 6, 22).

     Maud Ellmann, it will be remembered, was amused by Jones's "fundamental error" about Hamlet because, as she emphasizes, "Hamlet never had a childhood" (1994, 3). But, in The Limits of Interpretation (1990; 1994), Umberto Eco had unwittingly answered her objection four years earlier. He opens his chapter 4 on "Small

Worlds" with these words: "It seems a matter of common sense to say that in the fictional world conceived by Shakespeare it is true that Hamlet was a bachelor and it is false that he was married. Philosophers ready to object that fictional sentences lack reference and are thereby false —or that both the statements about Hamlet would have the same truth value [Russell 1919, 169]— do not take into account the fact that there are persons gambling away their futures on the grounds of the recognized falsity or truth of similar statements. Any student asserting that Hamlet was married to Ophelia would fail in English, and nobody could reasonably criticize his/her teacher for having relied on such a reasonable notion of truth" (Eco 1994, 64; my emphasis).

     Now, just as it is a reasonable notion of truth to state that in Shakespeare's fictional world Hamlet and Ophelia were not married, it is an equally reasonable notion of truth to state that this same Hamlet had a childhood. Shakespeare nowhere specifically asserts that he didn't. By the same token, it is an equally reasonable notion of truth to state that the hidalgo of rural La Mancha had a mother and a father, whatever their fate, since Cervantes nowhere specifically denies this either. What we are told by Cervantes, and this is the fundamental datum of Parts I and II alike, is that the Knight, Don Quixote de la Mancha, is mad. As a madman, he resembles some unfortunate persons in this "real world" of ours, but, by the same token, he is dissimilar to most other humans.

     If, as readers, our wonder about his strange and deranged humanness is an illegitimate feeling, are we not being forbidden from reading the novel? Indeed, to hit the critical ball back into the opposing court, if we accept Peter Russell and Anthony Close's "funny book" argument, then the only way to read Cervantes's masterpiece is as a diverting seventeenth-century parody of the romances of chivalry. All subsequent readings, i.e., the whole reception history of Don Quixote —from at least the late-eighteenth century to the present— constitute some kind of colossal "Romantic," perhaps "pre-Romantic" blunder: an implicit invitation not to read Cervantes's novel at all except within the limitations of one historical time and place.

     But we read Don Quixote and wrestle with its meaning anyway. Charles D. Presberg, makes the point that when the fictional small world takes a particular, finite fix on the real world, and this is aesthetically successful, then the heterocosm resonates with the infinite. Or, as he puts it, citing Raúl Galoppe (1994, 1995), the novelist has "hit the aleph" in the sense that José Luis Borges intended the term:

namely, a transfinite cardinal numeral or —used as a noun in combination— the aleph-null and aleph-zero, meaning the smallest transfinite cardinal numeral, or the cardinal of the set of positive integers (Galoppe 1994, folio 11).

     Presberg has come independently to my recent book's conclusion that speculation on the perfect marriage and the perfect career form the double thematic of Part I of Cervantes's novel, and that the double thematic of the perfect death and the perfect road to salvation inform the subtext of Part II. But, in an arresting stroke of insight, he shows that the worldly themes of marriage and career in Part I are the same, but divinized, in Part II. The eight troubled couples' quest for the perfect marriage of Part I becomes divinized in Part II as spiritual marriage, or beatitude, in the fusion of the immortal soul with God: "amado con amada / amada en el amado transformada" (Rivers 1966, 139). Similarly, the quest for fame and wordly glory in Part I —the immortality of his deeds to which Don Quixote de la Mancha constantly refers— becomes in Part II the pursuit of salvation and heavenly glory. This thesis would certainly lend strength and a greater inner cohesion to the interpretation of Part II as a salvific Purgatory in this life, as well as throw light on how Cervantes resolved the dilemma of writing a sequel to Don Quixote that had to be simultaneously different and not different from the bestseller of 1605.

     For Close, there is no pain involved in Part II: certainly no Purgatory in this life. The cruel japes to which Don Quixote and Sancho are submitted on the Ducal estate are just good, clean fun, or what he has recently termed "seemly pranks" (1993). This strikes me as a perplexing insensitivity to what Diana de Armas Wilson once termed the second novel's "appalling darkness," and what Charles Lamb in 1833 and Friedrich Nietzsche in 1875 also characterized as "a bitter tale" (Lamb 1980, 346-47; Drake and Finello 1987, 27). In the concluding paragraph of that recent article, Anthony Close writes the following: "All the qualities which Cervantes finds meritorious in the episodes in the Duke's palace —their lavish and ingenious device, their aristocratic cachet and pedigree, their solicitation of the two heroes' credulity, the wit and style of their performances, and the communal merriment that all this brings— tend to be seen as blemishes by his modern critics. The purpose of this article has been to remove any grounds for assuming that Cervantes shares this distaste. The burlas in the palace are all that good burlas should be. Cervantes would hardly have expended such lavish and ingenious artifice on them if he had not thought so" (Close 1993, 87).

     But Presberg's theory of the "divinizing" of worldly themes in Part II, as set out in his forthcoming Adventures in Paradox, provides new counter arguments against this position and grist for my own mill. If we share his view that ascetic theology is divinized psychoanalysis, and ascetic psychoanalysis is secular theology, then the worlds of soul and psyche are reunited in a way that they have never been united since the Lutheran Reformation and the schism of Western Christendom. Christian theologians were, during the slightly extended millenium stretching from the time of the Church Fathers in late Antiquity to the death of Francisco Suárez in 1617, the leading intellectuals and thinkers of their age. By the same token, the only discipline in the post-Modern era that takes the psyche —psyche or soul— seriously as the scientific object of its study is psychoanalysis. I would add, particularly the Lacanian, language-based variety. And indeed, in the Écrits, Lacan did not reject the theological parallel with psychoanalytic treatment; psychoanalysis is, in Lacan's words, a "long subjective ascesis" (1977, 105). So, it seems appropriate to me not only to take theological doctrines of Purgatory seriously in reading Part II of the Quixote, but also to take seriously the most recent discoveries of the Freudian-Lacanian tradition in what might properly be termed post-Modern psychoanalysis. In both cases, we are talking about the soul in pain. And the Don Quixote of Part II is a soul in pain.

     I shall close this paper by trying to sum up my differences with Ellmann, Close, and similarly minded thinkers. Without actually realizing it, I suspect many people mean by the expression "real person" something akin to: "a still-living motile cadaver, born on a given date, which bears or bore a name." This would certainly be closer in concept to Lacan's order of the Real, construed as the organism of the human mammal in its descent from created Nature. But nothing of "real humannness" is accounted for here. Human being, mind, and meaning are constructed in the subject's own lifetime, as we know; and if they are constructed, they can also be analyzed. I submit that the same set of observations apply, mutatis mutandis, to virtual psychic realities embodied in literary personae, where "body" does not mean an organism in the realm of the Real: virtual psychic realities created by great novelists in the heterocosm of fiction.

     Finally, to make an end to this polemic, I shall recall that Freud said, in "Analysis Terminable and Interminable" (1937) (the work paraphrastically giving the title to my own talk): "[if] one is prevented by external difficulties from reaching this goal [of 'the end of an analysis'], it is better to speak of an incomplete analysis rather than an unfinished one" (SE 23: 219; Freud's emphasis). There is no risk, in my view, that we have finished analyzing Don Quixote de la Mancha, or that we ever will. The status of that question will always remain "incomplete."

 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA


 

OBRAS CITADAS

Allen, John Jay, ed. 1977. El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha. By Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. 2 vols. 6th ed. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, 1984.

Close, Anthony. 1978. The Romantic Approach to "Don Quixote". Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

——. 1993. "Seemly pranks: The Palace Episodes of Don Quixote Part II." Art and Literature in Spain, 1600-1800: Studies in Honour of Nigel Glendinning. Ed. Charles Davis and Paul Julian Smith. London: Tamesis: 69-87.

——. 1995. Letter to the author of December 10.

Cohen, J. M., trans. 1950. The Adventures of Don Quixote. By Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Drake, Dana B. & Dominick L. Finello. 1987. An Analytical and Bibliographical Guide to Criticism in Don Quijote (1790-1893). Newark, Del.: Juan de la Cuesta.

Eco, Umberto. 1994a. Six Walks in the Fictional Woods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

——. 1994b. The Limits of Interpretation [1990]. Bloomington: U of Indiana P.

Ellmann, Maud, ed. 1994. Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism. London & New York: Longman.

Evans, Dylan. 1996. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London & New York: Routledge.

Fink, Bruce. 1991. "'There's No Such Thing as a Sexual Relationship': Existence and the Formulas of Sexuation." Newsletter of the Freudian Field 5.1-2: 59-85.

——. 1995. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton: Princeton UP.

 

HENRY W. SULLIVAN

Cervantes

Freud, Sigmund. [1898]. "Letters to Fliess." Standard Edition 1: 265. London: Hogarth Press, 1966.

——. [1908]. "Family Romances." Standard Edition 9: 236-41. London: Hogarth Press, 1959.

——. [1937-38]. Moses and Monotheism. Standard Edition 23: 11-15. London: Hogarth Press, 1964.

——. [1937]. "Analysis Terminable and Interminable." Standard Edition 23: 211-253. London: Hogarth Press, 1964.

——. [1940]. "Splitting of the ego in the process of defence." Standard Edition 22: 1-182. London: Hogarth Press, 1964.

Galoppe, Raúl A. 1994. "Todos los puntos, el punto: 'El Aleph' de Borges, o el acceso a la totalidad." Unpublished lecture delivered at the University of Missouri-Columbia, October 17, 1994.

——. 1995. "El triángulo de 'El curioso impertinente' como eje de la triangularidad de Don Quijote." Unpublished paper. University of Missouri-Columbia, December 1995.

Johnson, Carroll B. 1983. Madness and Lust: A Psychoanalytical Approach to Don Quixote. Berkeley & Los Angeles: U of California P.

Jones, Ernest. [1949]. Hamlet and Oedipus. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1954.

Kantorowicz, Ernst. 1957. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Lacan, Jacques. 1953. "Some Reflections on the Ego." International Journal of Psychoanalysis 34: 11-17.

——. 1966. Écrits. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

——. 1977. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications.

——. 1988. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli, notes by John Forrester. New York: W. W. Norton.

——. 1994. Le Séminaire: Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 1956-57. Ed Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Lamb, Charles. 1980. "John Martin" [1833]. Lamb as Critic. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P. 346-47.

Laplanche, Jean, & J.-B. Pontalis. 1967. Vocabulaire de la Psychanalyse. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Presberg, Charles D. 1996. Private conversation of December 12.

——. Adventures in Paradox: Praising the Folly of Truthful Tales in Cervantes's Don Quixote. Forthcoming in 1998.

Ragland-[Sullivan], Ellie. 1986. Jacques Lacan & the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis. Urbana, IL: U of Illinois P.

 

——. 1995. Essays on the Pleasures of Death: From Freud to Lacan. New York: Routledge.

Riley, Edward C. 1982. "Metamorphosis, Myth and Dream in the Cave of Montesinos." Essays on Narrative Fiction in the Iberian Peninsula in Honour of Frank Pierce. Ed. R. Brian Tate. Oxford: Dolphin: 105-19.

Rivers, Elias, ed. 1966. Renaissance and Baroque Poetry of Spain. With English Prose Translations. New York: Scribner's.

Russell, Bertrand. 1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin.

Russell, Peter E. 1969. "'Don Quixote' as a Funny Book." Modern Language Review 64: 312-26.

Smith, Paul Julian. 1988. Writing in the Margin: Spanish Literature of the Golden Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sullivan, Henry W. 1994. "Altisidora: ¿Cómo 'Regalos del Más Alto' acelera la cura de Don Quijote?" Actas del XI Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas (Irvine 1992). Ed. Juan Villegas. 5 vols. Irvine: U of California-Irvine, Department of Spanish & Portuguese. 2: 86-93.

——. 1996. Grotesque Purgatory: A Study of Cervantes's Don Quixote, Part II. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

Wilson, Diana de Armas. 1993. "Cervantes and the Night-Visitors: Dream-Work in the Cave of Montesinos." Quixotic Desire: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Cervantes. Ed. Ruth Anthony El-Saffar and Diana de Armas Wilson. Ithaca & London: Cornell UP: 59-80.

 

HENRY W. SULLIVAN

 

 

http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics98/sullivan.htm

 




/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

In Paris, Burgers Turn Chic

In Paris, Burgers Turn Chic


Burgers and waiting diners at the Café Salle Pleyel.

EVEN if you couldn't be on the Champs-Élysées for Bastille Day on Monday to watch seven parachutists float down in front of President Nicolas Sarkozy, you can still celebrate the greatness of France with a new local tradition.

Eat a hamburger.

Beginning a few years ago but picking up momentum in the past nine months, hamburgers and cheeseburgers have invaded the city. Anywhere tourists are likely to go this summer — in St.-Germain cafes, in fashion-world hangouts, even in restaurants run by three-star chefs — they are likely to find a juicy beef patty, almost invariably on a sesame seed bun.

"It has the taste of the forbidden, the illicit — the subversive, even," said Hélène Samuel, a restaurant consultant here. "Eating with your hands, it's pure regression. Naturally, everyone wants it."

It is a startling turnaround in a country where a chef once sued McDonald's for $2.7 million in damages over a poster that suggested he was dreaming of a Big Mac. Hamburgers were everything that French dining is not: informal, messy, fast and foreign.

But as French chefs have embraced the quintessentially American food, they have also made it their own, incorporating Gallic flourishes like cornichons, fleur de sel and fresh thyme. These attempts to translate the burger, or maybe even improve it, strongly suggest that it is here to stay.

"It's not just a fad," said Frédérick Grasser-Hermé, who, as consulting chef at the Champs-Élysées boîte Black Calvados, developed a burger made with wagyu beef and seasoned with what she calls a black ketchup of blackberries and black currants. "It's more than that. The burger has become gastronomic."

Some of the most celebrated chefs in the city have taken up the challenge. Yannick Alléno, who earned a third Michelin star in 2007 for his precise, rarefied cuisine at Le Meurice, serves a thick, succulent hamburger at his casual restaurant, Le Dali. Mr. Alléno's baker, Frédéric Lalos, a winner of one of the country's fiercest cooking competitions, makes the buns. With smoked bacon, lettuce, dill pickles, mustard, mayonnaise and fries, the burger at Le Dali costs 35 euros, about $56.

Romain Corbière, the chef at Alain Ducasse's restaurant Le Relais du Parc, in a Norman-style manor near Trocadéro, cooks a seasonal burger a la plancha. This summer Mr. Corbière, a veteran of Mr. Ducasse's Louis XV in Monaco, is substituting a shrimp and squid patty for the beef burger he served in cooler weather.

L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon offers Le Burger, actually two small burgers topped with slabs of foie gras of almost equal size.

The only thing more surprising than the about-face in chefs' attitudes may be the enthusiasm with which their patrons have devoured these haute burgers.

"I didn't think we would sell so many," said Sonia Ezgulian, guest chef at Café Salle Pleyel, which Ms. Samuel opened last fall in an airy, modernist space inside one of Paris's most prestigious concert halls.

On some days, as many as a third of her customers order the burger, which is offered alongside Mediterranean-inspired dishes like sea bass with fennel confit and pistachios. "Sometimes we say we have no more," she said. "It's just too much."

When a new guest chef replaces Ms. Ezgulian at the end of August, he will keep the burger on the menu. It's in his contract.

IT is not as if hamburgers were unknown in Paris. American restaurants here like Joe Allen have long served them. Ms. Grasser-Hermé ate her first in 1961 at the American Legion, 11 years before McDonald's unveiled its golden arches in France. But with few exceptions the local burgers were flat, overcooked and shunned even by American expatriates.

Other forms of ground or chopped beef have been enjoyed here for years as well. Butchers sell kilos of ground meat destined to become steak haché, a pan-seared patty made with lean meat, pressed into an oval, and served without a bun.

And while steak tartare shows up on practically every brasserie menu, chefs now recognize that a hamburger is not simply six ounces of chopped lean beef grilled until crusty.

"No, that would be an error," said Ms. Grasser-Hermé.

"A hamburger is the architecture of taste par excellence," she explained. "The meat needs to be a mix of fatty and lean. Not raw, not rare. It must be medium rare. At the same time the bread needs to be smooth, tepid, toasted on the sesame side. I like to brush the soft side with butter. There needs to be a crispy chiffonade of iceberg lettuce. Everything plays a role."

In developing the Salle Pleyel burger, Ms. Samuel and Ms. Ezgulian felt the weight of tradition. "We're a little terrified of making a mistake," said Ms. Samuel. "We cling to things like the soft buns, sweet-and-sour pickles, onions, tomatoes, cheese. We need these guideposts because we don't have the history, the context. Otherwise, for us, it's not a burger. It's a hot sandwich."

Yet Ms. Ezgulian has taken some liberties. The current version of her burger is a riff on steak tartare. She's kneaded a mixture of chopped sun-dried tomatoes and tangy cornichons and capers into the ground meat. Parmesan shavings stand in for the usual Cheddar.

Céline Parrenin, a co-owner of Coco & Co, a two-level place devoted to eggs that opened in St.-Germain last year, didn't feel any such compunction when she and her business partner, Franklin Reinhard, invented the Cocotte Burger. The Cheddar cheeseburger, with pine nuts and thyme mixed into the meat, sits on a toasted whole-wheat English muffin pedestal. In a wink at the restaurant's egg theme and recalling the time-honored steak à cheval, a fried egg is placed on top.

All the chefs are making hamburgers for the first time, and they are uncertain about the exact cuts of beef they are using. Mr. Alléno, for example, simply relies on his butcher, Yves-Marie Le Bourdonnec, whose shop, Le Couteau d'Argent, is in the Paris suburb Asnières.

For Mr. Alléno's burgers, Mr. Le Bourdonnec delivers a mix of chuck and beef rib. But the butcher thinks the American T-bone steak is an ideal cut. The T-bone does not exist in France, but to make his point, Mr. Le Bourdonnec made his own. He combined a piece of filet, which is tender but less flavorful, with a piece of contrefilet, which is marbled and tasty, but slightly less tender.

Using a long, razor-sharp knife, he sliced the meat into quarter-inch dice, chopped it fine with a cleaver and shaped it into patties, to be cooked rare in a hot skillet filmed with olive oil. No bun, no pickles, no cheese, no special sauce; only a few grains of fleur de sel.

"What you have is texture and the flavor of meat," he said. "No artifice."

"That's not a burger, Papa," pointed out his 13-year-old son, Paul. "There's no bread."

HOW did the dripping, juicy hamburger come to be one of the signature dishes of Paris? For one thing, expatriate French chefs reinventing American classics in the United States made it safe for their countrymen to try it back home.

"I didn't have this burger culture," said Ms. Samuel. "A hamburger, what's that? I didn't get it. Then I tasted it at DB Bistro Moderne," she said, speaking of Daniel Boulud's restaurant in Midtown Manhattan. "If Daniel hadn't done it, maybe I wouldn't have either. He helped me understand."

Mr. Corbière grew up with burgers, but he didn't think of putting one on the Relais du Parc menu until he tasted Laurent Tourondel's Black Angus burger at BLT Market in New York last October.

Both Mr. Tourondel and Mr. Boulud laughed when they were told that they had helped the hamburger conquer Paris.

"I think it's shocking, but at the same time the French are realizing that a burger is real food, it's good," said Mr. Boulud.

Mr. Tourondel grew up in a small town where, he said "nobody ever saw a burger until 10 years ago. Everybody was against it, but everybody goes to eat it."

Whether the interpretations are classical or whimsical, Americans would probably recognize most of the burgers in Paris. They might be flummoxed, however, by the etiquette associated with eating them.

Ketchup does not automatically come with a burger. If requested, it may appear in a porcelain bowl. At the Café Salle Pleyel, servers do produce a ketchup bottle on demand. At lunch there one recent day, a businessman shook the ketchup onto his plate, then, taking a knife in his right hand, spread the condiment onto a forkful of hamburger in his left hand before lifting it to his mouth.

Alicia Fontanier, the co-owner and chef at the tiny gourmet bar Ferdi on the rue du Mont-Thabor, laments that many of her customers insist on using silverware. Ms. Fontanier is the sister of Maria Luisa Poumaillou, who owns a couple of boutiques down the street, and many of the socialites, expatriate international types and fashionistas who shop there invariably stop in for her burger, the Mac Ferdi, and guarapita de parchita, a potent drink of cachaça and passion fruit juice.

"Eating with your hands is part of the pleasure," Ms. Fontanier said, seated in a dining room decorated chiefly with her 15-year-old son's childhood toy collection. "But nine out of 10 people use knife and fork. I'm happy not to see it. I'm in the kitchen."

At Floors, a three-story diner in a former printing shop near Sacré-Coeur that features custom burgers, Emil Lager, a waiter, said that many of the diners seem self-conscious about ordering.

"Another thing I've noticed is that the muscled guys order the boeuf double with bacon, egg and fries, and a Diet Coke," he said. "Then they share a cheesecake. They don't want to gain weight."

Also, he explained, Parisians don't really understand about drinking a milkshake with the burger. They order it as dessert.

By JANE SIGAL
Published: July 16, 2008

PARIS

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/dining/16paris.html?ref=style&pagewanted=all



/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Fantastic Journey: Alejandro Escovedo retraces his steps by Dave Marsh

Fantastic Journey: Alejandro Escovedo retraces his steps
BY DAVE MARSH

http://www.aclfestival.com/artistdiscovery/images/artists/AlejandroEscovedo.jpg
For the last 16 years, Alejandro Escovedo has been one of America's two or three greatest popular music artists, but if you just moved to Austin, you probably don't know it. If you live somewhere else and know the longtime local, perhaps it's because you saw the YouTube video of him performing "Always a Friend" with Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band, April 14 in Houston. Maybe you were a subscriber to the late, great No Depression, the roots-music bible that in 1998 named him Artist of the Decade. They got it right.
It's almost funny Escovedo became more prominent singing one song at the Toyota Center arena than he did in 15 years of playing some of the most thrilling shows anywhere. I've seen him solo in a room with 20 people, as a duo with another guitar or a violin, with the scabrous glam rock band Buick MacKane, and with the Alejandro Escovedo Orchestra. I've dragged people by the ear to see him at midnight simply by saying, "Other than Bruce, he's the best live artist I know." I got it right, too.
Real Animal, his ninth release, is his Born to Run, the album that justifies every superlative ever thrown at him, and it does so by retracing his journey from Orange County, Calif., where he grew up, to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The focus centers on the music he loved and the life he lived before arriving in Austin in the early 1980s. It's not a throwback to other bands he's played with or led, Rank and File, the True Believers, and Ronnie Lane's last Slim Chance. Rather, it's a throwback to the music of the Stones, Bowie, T. Rex, the Stooges, and all the other rock bands that inspired him. It was even produced by Tony Visconti, who made all those great Bowie and T. Rex records.
(Starting with this album, my wife, Barbara Carr, began managing Escovedo, which has nothing to do with me, other than it's my pleasure to report it. She and her partner, Jon Landau, also manage Bruce Springsteen, as they have since 1980. If I weren't married to Barbara, what I'd do is toss in a few superlatives about how great it is that Escovedo has such prominent, empathetic, and professional management.)
The new disc is the second Escovedo effort to appear on Back Porch, a division of major label EMI, not a milestone most great performers have to wait until they're in their 50s to achieve. Like the man says in "Chelsea Hotel '78," his new song about living in the legendary New York City bohemian hotel at the same time that Sid and Nancy were getting themselves dead there: "It makes perfect sense (it makes no sense). It makes no sense (it makes perfect sense)."
One reason Real Animal is so much better is that Escovedo's superb instinct for finding the right collaborators kicked into overdrive for this project. Even before EMI's Ian Ralfini hooked him up with Visconti, he had begun songwriting with fellow roots-rockist Chuck Prophet. Eventually, they'd write every song on the album together.
"Chuck was a perfect foil, because he had grown up in Orange County," explains Escovedo. "He knew the culture. He was also a surfer. He understood all of that stuff."
The payoff comes in a song like "Swallows of San Juan," a latter-day "Surf's Up." The surfers "crawl up on the shore, roll in the mud and the clay," and behind them the surf is "breaking bigger and harder than anyone's ever seen." It's a song about going back, except you can't. You can't stop trying either.
"For us, it was wanting to roll around in the music. The source, right?" said Escovedo in early May, when we talked at the Sirius Satellite Radio studios in New York. "The metaphor being the swallows would always build these beautiful mud nests. They would also always come home to this beautiful mission. It was gorgeous. We always went there as kids, in elementary school, on field trips to the San Juan Capistrano Mission.
"My parents would also take all our relatives that would come to visit there because it was so beautiful. I remember it came to represent everything that was beautiful about Southern California at the time. So now, of course, there aren't as many swallows coming back. …
"[The song] was just about really wanting to get back and roll around in it again. Just roll around in the mud. It's kind of Darwinian, I guess, very much about that primitive, that primal scene."
"Swallows" is a slow song – not a ballad in any other sense – but there are plenty of hard-rocking parallels on Real Animal, notably the title cut, an anthemic tribute to Iggy Pop and his Stooges (but mostly Iggy). One smart decision was using Escovedo's road band. It's an odd assortment for a guy who declares at the beginning of one new song, "All I ever wanted was a fourpiece band." If you don't expect that to mean guitar, bass, drums, and strings, you don't know Alejandro Escovedo's music. These are essential collaborators.
He's worked with drummer Hector Muñoz, who plays like a mighty beat beast throughout Real Animal, for 25 years; violinist Susan Voelz for about 20; Brian Standefer, the cellist, for 13; guitarist David Pulkingham, with whom he does live gigs when he's playing acoustic, for six. Bassist Josh Gravelin, formerly of Cotton Mather, is the newcomer. Prophet was until lately the other guitarist. He departed to fulfill commitments to his well-trenched solo career.
Real Animal is "the first record in which the band has been involved in the creation of the whole project," affirms Escovedo. "And I mean from the very first. The first song we wrote together was a song called 'Slow Down,' which closes the album. I think it was two days later, maybe that very night, that I took it to the band. We were playing Antone's, and we ran through it at sound check, and we played it that night. We had a lot of gigs going on at that time, so all these songs, as they were coming, we were playing them the very same night that they were written. It was a year in writing the record. By the time we prepared to make it, we had been playing these songs for over a year."
This is where Tony Visconti's skills really came into play. The album's virtually live. Moreover, Visconti's also a terrific arranger and can do charts on the spot, thanks to his handy song flute.
"To work with Tony Visconti was a dream come true, really," says Escovedo. "Not only because of the Bowie and T. Rex records but the way he used strings on those records. I hope I'm not giving away any of his secrets, but he carries a recorder with him all the time, the kind you have in elementary school. So as he's listening to these tracks being played, he's suddenly coming up with a melody figure. Like 'Hollywood Hills,' let's say.
"He's playing it on his recorder, and then he writes out these perfect charts for a string quartet. And they're very well-written. He hands them out to the strings, and they go over it a couple of times, and it's done, and there you have it. It's an all-in-one thing with Tony."
He pauses. Escovedo often speaks most softly when making his most passionate statements. He does that this time.
"Not only is Tony qualified with all these talents, he's a wonderful human being, too. So it was a pleasure, a real pleasure."
Except for a few tracks on 1998 live compilation More Miles Than Money, no other Escovedo album comes as close to the full spectrum of music he generates onstage as does Real Animal. The basic mode is classic rock, but only if your version of classic rock includes the Stooges and strings. What it most reminds me of is the Stones' Sticky Fingers, with lyrics by Pete Townshend, although it's been a very long time since even Townshend wrote these kinds of confessional narratives. The opening bars of "Sister Lost Soul," which is blatant Phil Spector, find Hector Muñoz getting closer to the heart of the opening beats of "Be My Baby" than anyone I've ever heard.
We're not talking concept album, exactly, much less rock opera. Not all the songs relate to the theme. "Sister Lost Soul," arguably the musical heart of the album – its "Sway" – doesn't. There's a trio of songs, for instance, addressing the world to which his parents moved him from San Antonio in 1957, when he was 6.
"My parents told me we were going on a vacation. We never went back to Texas. We left everything behind. I mean we left our horse, we left the dog, the cats, everything. We were literally going on vacation. It was my grandmother, my mom, my dad, and all the kids in this little sedan, stuffed into this complete Grapes of Wrath thing. And we went west, you know."
In Orange and Huntington Beach, Calif., Escovedo's father found work as a plumber. "He said that we left because of discrimination in Texas and that the unions in California, which they didn't have in Texas, made it a right-to-work state."
The Escovedo patriarch, Pedro, who died in 2004 at age 97, also worked as a musician sometimes. Eight of his 12 children grew up to be musicians, notably Coke and Pete, adept Latin-jazz drummers, and Javier, with whom Alejandro formed the True Believers. It wasn't only the music, either. By the time Alejandro was entering his teens, he was completely submerged in Southern California culture.
"Surfing, surf music, all the great ballrooms that were having bands," he relays. "And this one record store where this guy would order me all the import records from England and all the magazines. I'm reading about Bowie and those guys in Sounds and NME and Melody Maker, and stuff like that."
Neither the surfing culture nor the rock culture provided absolute insulation from the culture of his own home. In his 2002 play and accompanying album, By the Hand of the Father, Escovedo described the plight of immigrants from Mexico like his father, who came to the U.S. early in the 20th century. He'd written about it once earlier, in the True Believers' "The Rain Won't Help You When It's Over," his first great song, and the first song he ever wrote. What he couldn't get at was his own generation's dilemma: a loss of connection with Chicano roots that went hand in hand with being refused full acceptance within the modern Anglo world.
"I really wanted to address the fact that the children of these men who crossed the border and started new families in the Southwest – courageously and recklessly – were now immersed in this new Sixties culture. Influenced by English bands, I used to wear green velvet suits and snakeskin boots, wanting to have Keith Richards' haircut and be a surfer at the same time.
"Surfing was an Anglo kind of thing. Very racist in a way. And in the Chicano culture, you were abandoning your culture by wanting to be a surfer.
"So I was stuck in this kind of no-man's-land. They used to think I was Hawaiian as a surfer, right? I would go for it so I wouldn't get my ass kicked. So I was Hawaiian for the day or whatever it took to get out of some hairy situation. It's an interesting thing; I've always wanted to write a whole thing about that."
I'm not sure he's done it here, either, but it's an important point, because the distanced eye of a troubled outsider can be felt in several of the lyrics, like "Smoke," which is set in Rodney Bingenheimer's English Disco, the Sunset Strip nightclub frequented by very young Anglophile teenagers; "Swallows"; and the forlorn barfly lover in "Hollywood Hills."
The music's about inclusion, the way rock & roll always is, even when the words complain about being excluded. Escovedo describes the Nuns, his first band (he was 24, a late bloomer in every way), as the product of crashing film courses in San Francisco.
"We just wanted to make this film, based on the Stooges in a loose way, like Iggy's song 'The Dum Dum Boys.' It's about these misfits who can't really play. Since we couldn't play, we thought we'd play ourselves because we kind of looked cool. So we became the band, and the movie was never finished. We became the Nuns. That was the beginning of my musical career, really. We rented a guitar from a music store.
"We were horrible people," he adds. "We were despicable."
He's kidding (he's not kidding).
"It's one of those things where we never should have been a band. The singer had never been in a band, didn't even really listen to records other than Stones records. His girlfriend loved Mick Jagger, so he had to emulate Mick Jagger. We did everything wrong. We had two lead singers, and then a keyboard player who was also a singer. Her thing was so different from the rest of the band. She was our Nico. She did this very Germanic, all-dolled-up kinda thing.
"We were just complete misfits."
Yet from the time they first played Mabuhay Gardens, with a band led by Chip and Tony Kinman of Rank and File as the other act on the bill, the Nuns helped define the San Francisco version of punk. The city's eclecticism was what made that scene different from New York's or London's or the one in L.A.
"San Francisco had such a bohemian atmosphere. We'd go around North Beach and hand out free tickets to the Cockettes – what was left of them – the Angels of Light, and you know, Bruce Conner and all the people who hung out at City Lights bookstore. So it was a slightly older crowd, a totally different trip. We brought in all kinds of things. It was a multimedia circus in San Francisco."
That's an insider speaking. Directly afterward, the outsider shows up.
"The Nuns could never find a gig, because San Francisco was pretty much run by Bill Graham. So for bands like us to play, you had to find your own gig … or find somebody who was crazy enough to let you play in a bar.
"We got a gig on Fisherman's Wharf. It was one of those things where they had the speakers out on the street to lure the tourists in. As soon as we plugged in and cranked it up, within half a song they threw us out of the bar. We had lost our gig right away. So we went back to our rehearsal studio on Folsom Street and put up a sign: 'If you came to see the Nuns, we're at so-and-so address on Folsom.' The only two people that showed up were Chip and Tony, who had come to see us. So they came to our rehearsal, and we performed for them. We did our full set for our girlfriends and Chip and Tony."
Back to the insider again. Except that he then says the Nuns are still a band, only "now they're supposed to be vampires."
On Real Animal, "Nuns Song" and "Chip n' Tony" have very little to do with each other, except that both are among the album's more belligerent songs. (The title track, by far the most antagonistic, wouldn't have been out of place in Buick MacKane's set list.) Why "Chip n' Tony" is set this way is interesting, since that pounding beat is exactly what Rank and File reacted to. They stepped outside of punk, keeping the attitude but not the beat. From this outsider move came alt.country, which is, let's face it, one long insider story.
Even here the stories tumble together, much the way Escovedo's musical interests haven't so much blended as converged. "Chelsea Hotel '78″ describes living in the New York landmark, where he moved just after the Nuns had opened for the Sex Pistols' final show at Winterland in San Francisco. 1978. It was punk time.
"We came to New York, we lived in the Chelsea, and we toured the East Coast by Amtrak. We were on $5 per diem back then. I remember the day that I came down to the lobby and Sid was checking in, him and Nancy, with Jerry Nolan and Johnny Thunders [of the New York Dolls] in tow."
The change came when Chip Kinman moved to New York, too, and he and Escovedo decided to do a country-punk band. Rank and File belonged in New York about as much as an orange grove.
"It was the worst. We used to put ads in the paper looking for a country western drummer, and we'd get guys who'd say, 'Yeah, I love the Riders of the Purple Sage.'"
They landed a tour: seven gigs in seven weeks. On the night Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, they left for Dayton, Ohio, with $25, a bag of pot, and a roast chicken. All of it was gone when they reached the first show. Eventually, they made Austin, which was filled with people they didn't know, except for Lester Bangs, who had moved there because he had friends, or a friend, in writer Ed Ward.
 
"We played at Raul's; it was still open. The Armadillo had just closed. And I just fell in love," smiles Escovedo. "I remember calling New York and saying, 'I wanna move here.'
"Everyone was just so friendly, and the food was so great, and the musicians … I mean, suddenly I see Townes [Van Zandt] in person for the first time. Blaze Foley is there, Pat Mears, Jubal Clark – all these great songwriters, man."
He hadn't written a song yet, but songwriters were already a passion.
Leaving Austin, Rank and File finally made it to its last few dates, which were in the Pacific Northwest. Along the way, they picked up Tony Kinman. Chip on his own was one thing. Chip and Tony together were another. On the drive back, the rhythm section quit. Escovedo and the Kinmans reconstituted the band back in New York and stayed just long enough to be able to afford the move to Austin, where they lasted a year or so, just long enough to permanently embed Escovedo as part of the city's music culture.
This account untangles the story in a way that does no justice at all to the flow of Real Animal, which is a narrative of something else: of perseverance, commitment, faith, perhaps even aging wisely.
"The first solo album, [1992's] Gravity, is really the Austin experience. That and Thirteen Years," he says. "With this record, I really wanted to get away from those things. I didn't want to address the things that I had on The Boxing Mirror. I'm done as far as that's concerned."
2006's The Boxing Mirror, produced by another one of his heroes, John Cale, is a journal from a dark night, the period when Escovedo's father died and when he faced death himself as a result of hepatitis C. During this period, benefits were held and Por Vida, a tribute album, appeared, all the kinds of things that usually happen when a beloved musician is dying.
 
Then Escovedo found a hepatitis treatment that worked. Today, he looks great, with that shining, high-cheekboned face, the brilliant child's smile, and the pomaded hair slicked back, clothes always chosen to fit perfectly, and sometimes, amazing shoes. (The current pair is very red and very pointed.) To see him, you wouldn't guess he has seven children, the oldest almost 40, the youngest under 10, let alone that he was sick unto death not long ago.
At the Continental Club, on the Sunday night of South by Southwest 2008, where he performed the whole show without ever touching his usual quartet of guitars, he was in command of his material in a new way. The energy level remained as ever in the red, but the attitude behind it demonstrated a different confidence. He introduced "Slow Down," the first song he and Prophet wrote, which wound up as the last track on Real Animal, by talking about what it means to get older. To get old, even. Losing one's father does that.
"That was huge. You know how you think you're prepared for all these things? I was not prepared," he says. "[The Boxing Mirror] is a really beautiful album, a dark album, somewhat dark. Not in a downer way, but it addresses some serious things, you know. With this album, I just wanted to tell a story. I wanted it to be like a movie."
Real Animal tells the story he has to tell: His own. A story so old it always seems new, because it is, as James Baldwin wrote, "the only light we have in all this darkness." Looking back, the pain of it never outweighs the pleasure. The Nuns may have been crazy enough to turn into vampires, but Alejandro Escovedo not only survived the experience, he got a great song out of it. The Chelsea may have been the place punk rock went to die, but it was also where you could meet up with Neon Leon, who was busy prefiguring Prince. Ronnie Lane may have had his life wrecked by a horrible illness, but Alejandro Escovedo, who once faced a similar horror, has just made his finest album and looks fit enough for many more.
"If you asked me what my music is like, I really couldn't answer that in one sentence. I couldn't give you a sound bite," he insists. "Because it's about so many things. It's about my brother's bands, the larger bands, and the arrangements of Duke Ellington, which somehow seeped into all the stuff that I was doing. Then you take 'Sleepwalk' by Santo & Johnny, and Brian Eno, Mott the Hoople, and Ian Hunter's songwriting. You take all those things and throw them into one thing, and somehow you come up with what we've tried to create over the years."
"Slow Down," the first which is last, begins with an incredible scene. The singer walks the beach holding hands with his new love, out on the strand. On the pier, a band plays. "Close your eyes, and you can hear the music in the wind," he tells her. "Out on the pier, that's the Ike and Tina Turner Soul Revue. I don't know what this means to you, but it was everything to me."
I know this is his story. It's also mine, though somehow, in my version, it might easily be the Alejandro Escovedo Orchestra up there. The image is indelible. It does slow you down, the way anything does when it takes your breath away. It's a gift, and like most gifts, it both makes no sense and makes perfect sense. And the person who gives it is always a friend.



/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Edmund White: In Love with Duras

Edmund White: In Love with Duras

http://blocs.mesvilaweb.cat/media/ZHVyYXM=.jpg


Wartime Writings: 1943–1949

by Marguerite Duras, edited by Sophie Bogaert and Olivier Corpet, and translated from the French by Linda Coverdale

New Press, 296 pp., $26.95

The War: A Memoir

by Marguerite Duras,translated from the French by Barbara Bray

New Press, 183 pp., $14.95 (paper)

The North China Lover

by Marguerite Duras, translated from the French by Leigh Hafrey

New Press, 231 pp., $14.95 (paper)

 

Marguerite Duras was a huge presence in the 1980s and early 1990s when I lived in Paris. She was very old—in her seventies—and very alcoholic, and her disintoxication cure in late 1982 at the American Hospital was much written about (not only by journalists—she wrote about it, and her companion Yann Andréa did as well in a book called M.D.). Just when people thought her liver or her kidneys would give out, she rose from her ashes and wrote The Lover (1984), a story drawn from her youth in Indochina that sold a million copies in forty-three languages and became the inspiration for a major commercial movie.

Before her cure, she was holed up in her château dictating one much-worked-on line a day to Andréa, who would type it up. Then they would start uncorking cheap Bordeaux and she'd drink two glasses, vomit, then continue on till she'd drunk as many as nine liters and would pass out. She could no longer walk, or scarcely. She said she drank because she knew God did not exist. Her very sympathetic doctor would visit her almost daily and offer to take her to the hospital, but only if she wanted to live. She seemed undecided for a long time but at last she opted for life since she was determined to finish a book that she'd already started and was very keen about.

There was always something preposterous about her. When she was feeling well enough she surrounded herself with courtiers, laughed very loudly, told jokes, and had opinions about everything. She was an egomaniac and talked about herself constantly. Almost three years after her cure she created a scandal by speculating recklessly about the most famous (and still unsolved) murder case in recent French history—the case of Little Grégory. This child, Grégory Villemin, had been killed and trussed and dumped into a culvert. He was just four and a half years old. More than a hundred journalists were hovering around the site of the murder, the village of Lépanges near Épinal in the Vosges.


And then on July 17, 1985 (273 days after the murder), Marguerite Duras (once again drinking heavily) visited the town briefly, studied the house where Little Grégory had lived, and published a front-page article in Libération announcing to the world that she knew who had done it: the mother, Christine Villemin! Duras's main evidence was that there was no garden around the little house. This proved that Christine was unhappy, that her husband was forcing sex on her, that she was just staring into space all day and sitting about without any occupation at home, dreaming up atrocious crimes. It was a modern tragedy, Duras claimed, in the tradition of Racine. Even though the mother, who had at first been arrested, had been freed because of the lack of evidence and had specifically refused to speak to her, Duras had no doubts that Christine had done it. She was careful to point out that she didn't judge the young woman. Any woman was capable of this sort of violence, Duras assured her readers, especially if she was being subjected by her husband to bad sex.

Serge July, the editor of Libération, was so embarrassed by Duras's article that he printed a less heated version of the events beside it—a virtual disavowal that she considered an unforgivable betrayal. Hundreds of readers wrote in, most of them disapproving of Duras's article. Many prominent women, including Simone de Beauvoir and Simone Signoret, attacked the article. Duras never looked back or admitted she'd been intemperate. The title of the article had been "Christine Villemin, Sublime, Necessarily Sublime." Duras said that she was sure that Christine "had killed perhaps without knowing it just as I have written without knowing it." (Since Duras drank in order to write she seldom recognized her own writings when she reread them.)


Immediately afterward (between July 1985 and April 1986) Duras and François Mitterrand (then president) granted several long interviews to the magazine L'Autre Journal, discussing among other things their role in the Resistance. (These interviews were later turned into a hit play, Marguerite and the President.) Mitterrand, after working for the Vichy government, had indeed been a cell leader of the Resistance under the name François Morland; he had organized Frenchmen who had been captured before France's surrender and held as prisoners of war by the Germans and later released (Mitterrand himself escaped his German prison). And Duras had indeed used her apartment on the rue St.-Benoit (around the corner from the Café de Flore) as a meeting place for resistants, and after the liberation by the Allies she'd edited a newspaper, Libres, reporting on the whereabouts of French men, women, and children coming back from the camps.

Her husband, Robert Anthelme, had been arrested for his Resistance activities and sent to a concentration camp, Bergen-Belsen. When he was liberated a year later, he could barely walk. As Duras writes in one of the rough drafts reprinted in Wartime Writings:

When he weighed his eighty-four pounds and I used to take him in my arms and help him pee and go caca, when he had a fever of 105.8, and down at his coccyx his backbone was showing, and when day and night, there were six of us waiting for a sign of hope, he had no idea what was going on.

What is being reprinted in paperback as The War: A Memoir is called in French La DouleurSuffering). It is a terse, action-packed, nonfiction notebook hastily scrawled during the war, with no regard to prose style, and published by Duras only in 1985. The notes provide a blow-by-blow account of her fears for her husband's survival, his long convalescence, and her alternating moods of joy and panic. This text fills seventy pages. It is followed by other accounts of Duras's war, including a fairly preposterous one ("Albert of the Capitals") in which she claims that she tortured a French collaborator right after the Liberation. Duras's biographer, Jean Vallier, denies that she ever acted in this way. She wasn't a torturer at the interrogation center, Vallier writes, but a canteen waitress (une popotière), which in French doesn't sound very warlike. (

In their interviews with L'Autre Journal neither Mitterrand nor Duras mentioned their activities earlier in the war. The young Mitterrand had served the Vichy government as a clerk concerned with French prisoners of war and had received a medal—the Francisque—for his activities from Pétain. But by 1942 he was already using his contacts with former POWs to start an underground alliance against the Germans. After he was elected president in 1981, however, he would never explicitly condemn the Vichy government and he had dinner in the Élysée Palace with René Bousquet, an old friend and ally in the Socialist Party who had, not incidentally, ordered the arrest of Jewish children in Paris and their transportation to the death camps (thereby exceeding the demands of the Nazis themselves). Bousquet was welcomed by Mitterrand as a frequent guest until 1986, when a public outcry made their friendship difficult to maintain. Nevertheless, the French government under Mitterrand dragged its feet in prosecuting Bousquet, who was finally shot by a madman in 1993—fortunately for everyone, especially Mitterrand.

Duras never mentioned that she, too, had worked as a minor bureaucrat under the Occupation. When she was a young and aspiring but unpublished author, she accepted a position with the government organization that decided on a book-by-book basis whether a publisher would be given paper with which to produce a given title. Essentially, the service of "paper control" for which she worked from July 1942 to the end of 1944 was acting as a state censor. D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover was withdrawn, as were titles by Freud, Zola, and Colette. Quantities of paper, however, were allotted to the publication of Goebbels's memoirs, Paul Claudel's Ode to Marshall Pétain, and the vilest anti-Semitic garbage of the period, The Ruins by Lucien Rebatet, who, as Jean Vallier writes, had "a sewer mouth that all by itself was able to dishonor an entire epoch."

It was perhaps because Duras held this sensitive position that her own first novel, Les Impudents (which had been turned down by several publishers), was now accepted and received a glowing review from the brilliant collaborationist critic Ramon Fernandez (who also worked for the paper control service and whose wife Betty was Duras's best friend). Duras at least was able to admit it years later:

If my first novel finally appeared ...it was because I was part of a paper commission (it was during the war). It was bad....

To be sure, everyone not independently wealthy had to have a job, but her position as censor for the Nazi occupiers was certainly one that Duras was eager to forget. Nor did she want to remember that before the war she had worked in the publicity department representing France's colony in Indochina during the late 1930s, especially at the 1937 International Exposition, the last great manifestation of French colonialism. Most of the French did not object to France having colonies at the time. But Duras, with her considerable powers to mythologize the past, knew how to invent a suitably leftist record for herself.

And she could see her present in a similarly self-serving way. She loved herself, she quoted herself, she took a childlike delight in reading her own work and seeing her old films, all of which she declared magnificent. When toward the end of her life she ran into Mitterrand in a fish restaurant, she asked him how she had become better known to people around the world than he was. Very politely he assured her he'd never doubted for a moment that her fame would someday eclipse his.


It's easy enough to make fun of her narcissism and her prevarications. But her work was fueled by her obsessive interest in her own story and her knack for improving on the facts with every new version of the same event. For instance, in Wartime Writings there are some previously unpublished pages (about fifty) that are among the most arresting she ever wrote. Written by hand in a notebook during the war, these pages recall her growing up in Indochina and give the first version of the "affair" with the man who would eventually become "the Lover." There are also fragments that Duras later assembled into her first successful novel, The Sea Wall (1950), which is based on her childhood in Indochina as well.

In her notebook (which was published in French only two years ago) Duras writes in an aside to herself:

It was barely thirteen years ago that these things happened and that our family broke up, except for my younger brother who never left my mother and who died last year in Indochina. Barely thirteen years. No other reason impels me to write of these memories, except that instinct to unearth. It's very simple. If I do not write them down, I will gradually forget them. That thought terrifies me.

In this first version of the story, there is as in later versions the initial meeting with the Chinese lover on the ferry from Sadec to Saigon. But in this version, in which he's called Léo, he's ugly, pockmarked, humble, awkward. After two years of his pleading, Marguerite goes to bed with him just once —and she finds him repulsive. Léo invites Marguerite and her mother and two brothers to expensive Chinese restaurants. The brothers barely speak to him, since he is "beneath" them as a Chinese. The mother counsels little Marguerite to get as much money out of him as possible but never to sleep with him. Marguerite herself has contempt for him:

Léo was perfectly laughable and that pained me deeply. He looked ridiculous because he was so short and thin and had droopy shoulders. Plus he thought so much of himself. In a car he was presentable because one couldn't see his height, only his head, which, albeit ugly, did possess a certain distinction. Not once did I agree to walk a hundred yards with him in a street. If a person's capacity for shame could be exhausted, I would have exhausted mine with Léo.

Duras's parents were both teachers in Indochina, employees of the French government. Marguerite was born near Saigon in 1914. She had two older brothers. Her father, sent back to France on sick leave, died there in 1921. After a few years spent with her mother's relatives in the north of France, the family returned to Indochina. Her mother bought a farm near the Gulf of Siam and attempted to build a sea wall against the Pacific. But the wall was destroyed by crabs and the rice fields were inundated and ruined. The collapse of the family fortunes was a theme that Duras would return to again and again.

After the rice fields were flooded and the farm abandoned, the family retreated to a small house where her mother would beat her, and, Marguerite writes, her older brother soon picked up the mother's "habit":

The only question became who would hit me first. When he didn't like the way Mama was beating me, he'd tell her, "Wait," and take over. But soon she'd be sorry, because each time she thought I'd be killed on the spot. She'd let out ghastly shrieks but my brother had trouble stopping himself.

In the notes, we see a family living in poverty, the mother encouraging her daughter to soak her Chinese suitor for money; she was after all conferring a favor on him even to let him spend time with them, since they were, as whites, innately superior. Racism, colonialism, family sadism, extreme poverty, greed—the gritty life of this young woman is quite different from that of the androgynous seductress she becomes in The Lover. In this first version she recalls that she was so badly dressed (in a man's hat and gold lamé shoes) that she was almost ridiculous. Léo has to spend a month to convince her that her felt hat is in bad taste and doesn't suit her, so entirely sure is she that her mother (who gave her the thrift-shop hat) knows everything about fashion.


In the first fictional and published version of this story, The Sea Wall (in French Un Barrage contre le Pacifique), the Lover is called Monsieur Jo. He isn't handsome but he is rich enough to have an elegant car and a big diamond ring. Otherwise, there is nothing desirable about him; the girl's brother dismisses him as a monkey. In The Sea Wall, the diamond is very generally described as enormous, magnificent, royal. But by the time Duras has progressed to the very last incarnation of the story, The North China Lover (1992), the ring has acquired a history —now the Chinese says:

It could be worth tens of thousands of piastres. All I know is, the diamond was my mother's. It was part of her dowry. My father had it set for me by a famous Paris jeweler after her death. The jeweler, he came to Manchuria to pick up the diamond. And he came back to Manchuria to deliver the ring.

Most important, the Chinese character in both The Lover and the later book, The North China Lover, is handsome—a proper romantic hero. The story is no longer one about family abuse and greed, about a desperate mother who exploits her virginal daughter. Now it's become a love story between a European Lolita and a Chinese Humbert, except in this case "the child" (unlike Lolita) is excited by her older lover. Her painful deflowering is carefully recounted, as are the many nights of ecstatic pleasure that follow.

Duras's editor, Jérôme Lindon at Éditions de Minuit, thought that, after the worldwide success of The Lover, she was making a mistake to follow it up with another version of the same story. Marguerite was outraged at this hesitation on her editor's part. She switched to Gallimard and brought out the book—again to great success.

The North China Lover bears obvious traces of having started out life as a screenplay. In fact, Duras had been unhappy with the screenplay proposed (and eventually used) to make the film version of The Lover. She had her own ideas. After all, she was a distinguished filmmaker in her own right and had created two (strange, static) masterpieces, The Truck and India Song, as well as many lesser but no less experimental movies. What's remarkable about Duras's entire long career is how often she switched from a novel version of a story to the movie version and then to a play, or moved in a different order among the three modes, or modified the story or bits of it from novel to novel, play to play, film to film.

In The North China Lover Duras has combined the movie and the novel forms, while referring explicitly to the preceding novel, The Lover. She writes (referring to herself as "the child"):

The man who gets out of the black limousine is other than the one in the book, but still Manchurian. He is a little different from the one in the book: he's a little more solid than the other, less frightened than the other, bolder. He is better-looking, more robust. He is more "cinematic" than the one in the book. And he's also less timid facing the child.

Her prose, always incantatory, has now become the scenarist's shorthand:

Him, he's Chinese. A tall Chinese. He has the white skin of the North Chinese. He is very elegant. He has on the raw silk suit and mahogany-colored English shoes young Saigon bankers wear.

He looks at her.

They look at each other. Smile at each other. He comes over.

In the earlier versions of the "affair" (The Sea Wall and The Lover), the figure of the Lover himself was left vague (perhaps because these versions were based on fairly cloudy memories). Now that in old age Duras has succumbed to a "cinematic" form of wish-fulfillment and given up the shadowy, unflattering reality, the Lover has become distinct, tall, good-looking—and the affair itself has taken on weight and body.


Perhaps most novels are an adjudication between the rival claims of daydreaming and memory, of wish-fulfillment and the repetition compulsion, Freud's term for the seemingly inexplicable reenactment of painful real-life experiences (he argued that we repeat them in order to gain mastery over them). And as with music, the more familiar the melody, the more elegant and palpably ingenious can be the variations.

Duras certainly loved to return to the same handful of themes again and again. For instance, she invented the character of a French vice-consul (based on a Jewish fellow student she'd encountered in Paris during her university years and who became her lover—or so she claimed). This man, in real life called Frédéric Max, was supposedly the original of the disgraced French bureaucrat in The Vice-Consul (1965) who has been transferred from Bombay to Lahore. There in the book he falls in love with a married Frenchwoman, the curiously named Anne-Marie Stretter. The story is retold in the 1972 play India Song (published in 1973), which Duras directed as a film by the same name in 1975 with a cast including Michael Lonsdale, Matthieu Carrière, and Delphine Seyrig, the star of the earlier, equally stylish, and static Last Year at MarienbadHiroshima Mon Amour. (with a script by Alain Robbe-Grillet). That film had been directed by Alain Resnais, who in 1959 had directed Duras's remarkable script

Other events and encounters got recycled in a similar way. For instance, Duras met the much younger (and gay) Yann Andréa (she gave him the euphonious last name) in 1980, fell in love with him, and kept writing again and again about their spiritual closeness and physical frustration until her death in 1996. Her "Yann" books include L'Homme atlantique, La Maladie de la mort (a frightful attack on homosexuality), Les Yeux bleus, cheveux noirs (a truce with her beloved's homosexuality), La Pute de la côte normande, and Yann Andréa Steiner.

I suppose an entire dissertation could be written about this theme of the older woman artist and her gay sidekick or "walker." I'm thinking of Marguerite Yourcenar and the young gay man she wanted to inherit her fortune, though he surprised her by dying (of AIDS) before her. Or Germaine Greer and David Plante. I'm reminded of the elderly French widow who said to one of my bitchy friends, "I don't really like homosexuals," to which he replied, "That's a pity, Madam, since they are your future" ("Dommage, Madame, c'est votre avenir").

In Duras's case, Yann Andréa was by her bedside taking down her last sporadic ravings, which he published in 1995 as C'est tout—a fairly dubious or at least controversial move, a bit like the promotion of de Kooning's Alzheimer paintings. Certainly Duras while she was still in her right mind wrote some beautiful pages about Yann, especially in the little book Yann Andréa Steiner.

Preposterous, self-obsessed, eloquent, unstoppable, Duras left her mark on French letters, theater, and cinema. She produced a bibliography of fifty-three titles, though some are very short (La Pute de la côte normande is just twenty pages long). Elisabeth Schwarzkopf once said that to be a successful opera singer you have to have a distinctive voice and be very loud. By those standards Marguerite Duras was a great diva indeed.

 

The New York Review of Books:

Volume 55, Number 11 · June 26, 2008

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21556





/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 14, 2008

Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama

Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama


Barack Obama on the South Side during his first campaign, for the State Senate. An outsider in Chicago's system, he was meticulous about constructing his own political identity and coalition. Photograph by Marc PoKempner.

Barack Obama on the South Side during his first campaign, for the State Senate. An outsider in Chicago's system, he was meticulous about constructing his own political identity and coalition.

One day in 1995, Barack Obama went to see his alderman, an influential politician named Toni Preckwinkle, on Chicago's South Side, where politics had been upended by scandal. Mel Reynolds, a local congressman, was facing charges of sexual assault of a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer. (He eventually resigned his seat.) The looming vacancy set off a fury of ambition and hustle; several politicians, including a state senator named Alice Palmer, an education expert of modest political skills, prepared to enter the congressional race. Palmer represented Hyde Park—Obama's neighborhood, a racially integrated, liberal sanctuary—and, if she ran for Congress, she would need a replacement in Springfield, the state capital. Obama at the time was a thirty-three-year-old lawyer, university lecturer, and aspiring office-seeker, and the Palmer seat was what he had in mind when he visited Alderman Preckwinkle.

"Barack came to me and said, 'If Alice decides she wants to run, I want to run for her State Senate seat,' " Preckwinkle told me. We were in her district office, above a bank on a street of check-cashing shops and vacant lots north of Hyde Park. Preckwinkle soon became an Obama loyalist, and she stuck with him in a State Senate campaign that strained or ruptured many friendships but was ultimately successful. Four years later, in 2000, she backed Obama in a doomed congressional campaign against a local icon, the former Black Panther Bobby Rush. And in 2004 Preckwinkle supported Obama during his improbable, successful run for the United States Senate. So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama.

Preckwinkle is a tall, commanding woman with a clipped gray Afro. She has represented her slice of the South Side for seventeen years and expresses no interest in higher office. On Chicago's City Council, she is often a dissenter against the wishes of Mayor Richard M. Daley. For anyone trying to understand Obama's breathtakingly rapid political ascent, Preckwinkle is an indispensable witness—a close observer, friend, and confidante during a period of Obama's life to which he rarely calls attention.

Although many of Obama's recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn't. "I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors," she told me. "I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure that's the way that he approached his public life—that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have."

On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. "It's a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners," she said. "It's a good place for a politician to be a member." Preckwinkle was unsparing on the subject of the Chicago real-estate developer Antoin (Tony) Rezko, a friend of Obama's and one of his top fund-raisers, who was recently convicted of fraud, bribery, and money laundering: "Who you take money from is a reflection of your knowledge at the time and your principles." As we talked, it became increasingly clear that loyalty was the issue that drove Preckwinkle's current view of her onetime protégé. "I don't think you should forget who your friends are," she said.

Others told me that Preckwinkle's grievances against Obama included specific complaints, such as his refusal to endorse a former aide and longtime friend, Will Burns, in a State Senate primary—a contest that Burns won anyway. There was also a more general belief that, after Obama won the 2004 United States Senate primary, he ignored his South Side base. Preckwinkle said, "My view is you have to bring your constituency along with you. Granted, you have to make some tough decisions. Granted, sometimes you have to make decisions that people won't understand or like. But it's your obligation to explain yourself and try to do your supporters the courtesy of treating them with respect." Ivory Mitchell, who for twenty years has been the chairman of the local ward organization in Obama's neighborhood—considered the most important Democratic organization on the South Side—was one of Obama's earliest backers. Today, he says, "All the work we did to help him get where he finally ended up, he didn't seem too appreciative." A year ago, Mitchell became a delegate for Hillary Clinton.

The same month Mitchell endorsed Clinton, the Obama campaign reached out to Preckwinkle, and eventually she signed on as an Obama delegate. I asked her if what she considered slights or betrayals were simply the necessary accommodations and maneuvering of a politician making a lightning transition from Hyde Park legislator to Presidential nominee. "Can you get where he is and maintain your personal integrity?" she said. "Is that the question?" She stared at me and grimaced. "I'm going to pass on that."

 

 "WHO SENT YOU?"

 
Obama likes to discuss his unusual childhood—his abandonment by his father and his upbringing by a sometimes single mother and his grandparents in Indonesia and Hawaii—and the three years in the nineteen-eighties when he worked as a community organizer in Chicago, periods of his life chronicled at length in his first memoir, "Dreams from My Father." He occasionally refers to his time in the United States Senate, which he wrote about in his second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope." But his life in Chicago from 1991 until his victorious Senate campaign is a lacuna in his autobiography. It is also the period that formed him as a politician. Some Obama supporters professed shock when, recently, he abandoned a pledge to stay within the public campaign-finance system if the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, agreed to do the same. Preckwinkle's concern about Obama—that he is a pure political animal—suddenly became more widespread; commentators abruptly stopped using the words "callow" and "naïve."

Chicago is not Obama's home town, but it's where he chose to forge his identity. Several weeks ago, he moved many of the Democratic National Committee's operations from Washington to Chicago, making the city the unofficial capital of the Democratic Party; his campaign headquarters are in an office building in the Loop, Chicago's downtown business district. But Chicago, with its reputation as a center of vicious and corrupt politics, may also be the place that Obama needs to leave behind.

Simply moving there, as he did after graduating from Harvard Law School, was a bold decision. Chicago, where the late mayor Richard J. Daley and his son, the current mayor, have governed for forty out of the past fifty-three years, is not hospitable to political carpetbaggers. Abner Mikva, who was a congressman from Hyde Park and later the chief judge on the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court, was one of the first Chicago politicians to successfully challenge the Daley machine, and it took him years to overcome people's skepticism about his Wisconsin roots. Mikva, who is now eighty-two, tried to recruit Obama to work for him in Washington as a law clerk. Obama turned him down, replying that he was returning to Chicago to run for office. "I thought, Boy, does he got something to learn," Mikva told me recently. "You just don't come to Chicago and plant your flag."

I met Mikva at the Cliff Dwellers, a private dining club atop a downtown office building. As we looked out over Lake Michigan, he told me a story that has often been repeated by others to capture the essence of politics in the city. "When I first came to Chicago, Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas were running for governor and senator," he said. "I had heard about the closed Party, closed machine, but they sounded like such great candidates, so I stopped in to volunteer in the Eighth Ward Regular Democratic headquarters. I said, 'I'm here for Douglas and Stevenson.' The ward boss came in and pulled the cigar out of his mouth and said, 'Who sent you?' And I said, 'Nobody sent me.' He put the cigar back in his mouth and said, 'We don't want nobody nobody sent.' "

There was another tradition in Chicago politics, the so-called Independents, which grew up in opposition to Richard J. Daley—Boss Daley—whose reign lasted from 1955 to 1976. Anchored in Hyde Park and nurtured by the University of Chicago community, the Independents brought together African-Americans and white liberals in coalitions that became the city's main alternative to the Democratic machine. The Independents arose after the Second World War to challenge the closed patronage system that controlled the city, and became a serious political force in the mid-nineteen-fifties. Their numbers increased with a new wave of black activists energized by Martin Luther King, Jr.,'s Chicago organizing in 1966, and with white liberals outraged when antiwar protesters were beaten and teargassed by Chicago police during the Democratic National Convention in 1968.

Mayor Daley died in office in 1976, at the age of seventy-four. He was replaced by a reliable and ineffectual machine candidate, Michael Bilandic, whose appointment marked the beginning of twelve years of chaotic, balkanized politics, sometimes called the "inter-Daley period." David Axelrod, who has been Obama's chief strategist since 2002 and is the foremost political consultant in Chicago, was a witness to all of it, first as a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune and later as the chief consultant to two mayors: Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor and a hero of the Independents, and the current Mayor Daley, whose last name still carries negative connotations in the precincts of Hyde Park. Axelrod, who is fifty-three, is by nature subdued. He wears a mustache that curls down the sides of his upper lip in a permanent expression of melancholy. We met in a Houlihan's, off the lobby of the building that houses the Obama campaign headquarters.

Axelrod recalled the election, in 1979, of Jane Byrne, Chicago's first female mayor, which he wrote about for the Tribune. Byrne's campaign, assisted by snowstorms that shut down the city and showcased Bilandic's incompetence, was the first successful insurgency in modern Chicago history. "It was a great reform campaign," Axelrod said. "I then chronicled, for the next four years, her systematic abrogation of every commitment she had made to reform. She became sort of a parody of a machine mayor." In office, Byrne aligned herself with City Council officials who were hostile to the city's black leadership, pandered to the voters of the most racist wards of the city, and purged African-Americans from key positions. On the South Side, there was a backlash; Washington, who had run a spirited campaign for mayor in 1977, was elected to Congress in 1980. In 1983, he was essentially drafted by a Hyde Park-based coalition desperate to unseat the disappointing Byrne. Washington won a three-way primary, with thirty-six per cent of the vote, and went on in the general election to defeat a white Republican who ran, briefly, on the implicitly racist slogan "Before it's too late." Washington's first term was dominated by warfare with a City Council controlled by white aldermen determined to stymie every proposal. But in 1986 he took control of the council and the following year was reëlected. Seven months after his victory, he collapsed at his desk, dead of a heart attack at the age of sixty-five. Axelrod saw much of this history from the inside, as Washington's strategist; Obama saw it from the perspective of an organizer who occasionally had brushes with the powerful at political events or meetings at City Hall. "He saw the jagged edges of Chicago politics and urban politics pretty close up," Axelrod said.

Obama spent three years in the city, from 1985, after he graduated from Columbia University, to the end of the Washington era. As a community organizer, he tried to turn a partnership of churches into a political force on the South Side. But the work accomplished very little.

"When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way," Obama told me last year. "It was to some extent informed by my years in Indonesia, seeing extreme poverty and disparities of wealth and understanding sort of in a dim way that life wasn't fair and government had something to do with it. I understood the role that issues like race played and took inspiration from the civil-rights movement and what the student sit-ins had accomplished and the freedom rides.

"But I didn't come out of a political family, didn't have a history of activism in my family. So I understood these things in the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn't wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place."

 

CONSTRUCTING A NETWORK

 
In 1988, Obama left for Harvard Law School, returning to Chicago twice for summer stints at élite law firms, including, after his first year, Sidley Austin. (Sidley Austin is where he met Michelle Robinson, whom he married in 1992.) He returned to Chicago permanently when he graduated, in 1991. In a short period, he built a notable résumé and a network of connections. During the 1992 Presidential campaign, he ran a voter-registration drive that placed him at the center of the city's politics. That year, Illinois elected the first African-American woman to the U.S. Senate, Carol Moseley Braun, and Bill Clinton became the first Democratic Presidential candidate to carry Illinois since Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. Meanwhile, Obama practiced civil-rights law at a firm admired in the city's progressive circles, and became a popular lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago. He was on the board of two liberal foundations that spread grant money around Chicago, and he settled in Hyde Park.

It was a neighborhood in transition when Obama arrived. The Hyde Park Herald serves as a sort of time capsule. It reported that crime was rising; a series of violent robberies was another reminder that Hyde Park existed as a middle-class island in a sea of high-crime urban poverty. New data showed that white enrollment was steeply declining at one local school. During the Martin Luther King, Jr., celebrations, the newspaper noted in passing that Jeremiah Wright was scheduled to give a speech at the University of Chicago. Considerable coverage was given to two institutions: the local food co-op, where Obama shopped every Saturday, and the Independent Voters of Illinois–Independent Precinct Organization, or I.V.I.-I.P.O., one of the neighborhood's most influential political groups. There was a new political force in Hyde Park as well. Real-estate developers were swooping in to rehabilitate low-income housing. On more than one occasion, the Hyde Park Herald reported on the rise in campaign donations from these developers to South Side politicians; in 1995, it ran a front-page article about Tony Rezko, who was then a very active new donor on the scene.

While it's true that nobody sent Obama in the sense that Abner Mikva meant it, one of Obama's underappreciated assets, as he looked for a political race in the early nineties, was the web of connections that he had established. "He understands how you network," Mikva said. "I remember our first few meetings. He would say, 'Do you know So-and-So?' And I'd say yes. 'How well do you know him? I'd really like to meet him.' I would set up some lunches."

The 1992 voter-registration drive, Project Vote, introduced him to much of the city's black leadership. "If you want to look at the means of ascent, if you will, look at Project Vote," Will Burns, the former Obama aide, said. In Chicago progressive circles, Burns, who is thirty-four, is described as an up-and-coming African-American legislator in the Obama tradition. Obama's refusal to endorse Burns in his primary earlier this year infuriated and mystified a number of Chicago Democrats, though Burns himself displays no bitterness and is now an adviser to the Obama campaign.

At Project Vote, Burns said, Obama "was making connections at the grassroots level and was working with elected officials. That's when he first got a scan of the broader black political infrastructure." It was also the beginning of a dynamic that stood out in Obama's early career: his uneasy relationship with an older generation of black Chicago politicians. Project Vote "is where a lot of the divisional rivalries popped up," Burns said.

In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year's long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, "Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn't respect their role"—Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—"in the struggle and the movement. He didn't engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack's cheap, too. If you can't do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you're not going to work with him." Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama's neighborhood, says of Obama that "he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that 'I can do anything and I'm willing to do it overnight.' "

During Project Vote, Obama also began to understand the larger world of Chicago's liberal fund-raisers. "He met people not just in the African-American community but in the progressive white community," David Axelrod said. "The folks who funded Project Vote were some of the key progressive leaders." Obama met Axelrod through one of Project Vote's supporters, Bettylu Saltzman, whose father, Philip M. Klutznick, was a Chicago shopping-mall tycoon, a part owner of the Bulls, and a former Commerce Secretary in the Carter Administration. Saltzman, a soft-spoken activist who worked for Senators Adlai E. Stevenson III and Paul Simon, took an immediate interest in Obama. "I honestly don't remember what it was about him, but I was absolutely blown away," Saltzman says. "I said to several people that this guy, who is now thirty years old, is someday going to be President. He will be our first black President."

Obama's legal career helped bring him into Chicago's liberal reform community. In 1993, after he finished his work with Project Vote and was seeking to join a law firm, instead of returning to Sidley Austin he took a job at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a boutique civil-rights firm led by Harold Washington's former counsel, Judson Miner. Miner had perfect anti-Daley credentials, routinely filing lawsuits against the city, and was a founding member of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, which was to Chicago's legal élite what the Independents were to the Democratic machine.

Working at Davis, Miner enhanced Obama's profile. "When you go work for Judd Miner's law firm, that's another kind of political statement," Don Rose, a longtime Chicago political consultant, who ran Jane Byrne's campaign, told me. Will Burns said, "I think it might have been helpful with a certain group of people that Barack may have wanted to have at his back at the outset. So you get the support of the liberals and the progressives and the reformers, and then that gives you a base to then expand to pick up other folks. And then folks would be willing to give money to the bright, shiny new candidate." Joining Miner's firm, like living in Hyde Park, was a way of choosing sides in the city's long-running political battle between the machine and the Independents. Toni Preckwinkle explained Miner's legal work this way: "They've shown a remarkable willingness to take on the Democratic organization and the Democratic establishment in this city and win. Which is why I like them and a lot of people hate them."

If Project Vote and Miner's firm introduced Obama to the city's lakefront liberals and South Side politicians, it was his wife who helped connect him to Chicago's black élite. One of Michelle's best friends was Jesse Jackson's daughter Santita, who became the godmother of the Obamas' first child. Michelle had worked as an aide to the younger Daley—hired by Valerie Jarrett, who is now one of Obama's closest advisers. (Jarrett, an African-American, was born in Iran, where her father, a doctor, helped run a hospital; she and Obama formed a bond over their unusual biographies.) It was also through Michelle that Obama met Marty Nesbitt, a successful young black entrepreneur who happened to play basketball with Michelle's brother, Craig. (Nesbitt's wife, Anita Blanchard, an obstetrician, delivered the Obamas' two daughters.) Nesbitt became Obama's closest friend and a bridge to the city's African-American business class.

Obama seems to have been meticulous about constructing a political identity for himself. He visited churches on the South Side, considered the politics and reputations of each one, and received advice from older pastors. Before deciding on Trinity United Church of Christ, he asked the Reverend Wright about critics who complained that the church was too "upwardly mobile," a place for buppies. Though he admired Judson Miner, he was similarly cautious about joining his law firm. Miner once told me that it took "a series of lunches" and hours of discussion before Obama made his decision. At the time, Obama was working on "Dreams from My Father."

Many have said that part of the appeal of "Dreams" is its honesty, pointing out that it was written at a time when Obama had no idea that he would run for office. In fact, Obama had been talking about a political career for years, musing about becoming mayor or governor. According to a recent biography of Obama by the Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, he even told his future brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, that he might run for President one day. (Robinson teased him, saying, "Yeah, yeah, okay, come over and meet my Aunt Gracie—and don't tell anybody that!") Obama was writing "Dreams" at the moment that he was preparing for a life in politics, and he launched his book and his first political campaign simultaneously, in the summer of 1995, when he saw his first chance of winning.

Many people who knew Obama then remember him for his cockiness. He had good reason to be self-assured. A number of his accomplishments had been accompanied by adoring press coverage. When he was named president of the Harvard Law Review, in 1990, he was profiled by, among others, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vanity Fair, and the Associated Press. Even then, the essential elements of Obama-mania were present: the fascination with his early life, the adulatory quotes from friends who thought that he would be President one day, and Obama's frank, though sometimes ostentatious, capacity for self-reflection. ("To some extent, I'm a symbolic stand-in for a lot of the changes that have been made," he told the Boston Globe in 1990.)

His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded. In 1993, Crain's Chicago Business reported that Obama had "galvanized Chicago's political community, as no seasoned politico had before," and an alderman told Crain's, "Under Barack's leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I've ever been involved with." When "Dreams from My Father" was published, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive; Booklist included the memoir in a "guide to some of the best books of 1995."

Obama knew that Hyde Park, despite its reputation as the center of anti-machine progressives, was not exempt from other Chicago political traditions. During the first half of 1995, when he was preparing for his campaign for the State Senate, a big story in the neighborhood was a race for alderman marked by accusations of dirty tricks (endorsement flyers from a phony group of gay African-Americans were distributed the day before the election, apparently in an effort to stoke homophobia) and anti-Semitism (the campaign of one of the candidates was accused of being run by "Jewish overseers").

 

 THE SOUTH SIDE CHOOSES

 
Obama's campaign began without much excitement. He had ties to so many of the city's élite factions that the local press described him as "a well-connected attorney." In August, the Chicago Sun-Times noted that Valerie Jarrett was hosting "a private autograph party" for Obama. His memoir was turning him into a figure of some acclaim. The same month, the Hyde Park Herald, which later called the book "a local indie hit," ran a flattering profile that highlighted a theme from "Dreams": how Chicago helped Obama end a long journey of self-discovery, a narrative that helped defuse any notion that Obama was a carpetbagger. "I came home in Chicago," he told the newspaper. "I began to see my identity and my individual struggles were one with the struggles that folks face in Chicago."

A month later, on September 19th, Obama invited some two hundred supporters to a lakefront Ramada Inn to announce his candidacy for the State Senate, and some of what he said sounded very much like the Obama of recent months. "Politicians are not held to highest esteem these days," he told the crowd. "They fall somewhere lower than lawyers. . . . I want to inspire a renewal of morality in politics. I will work as hard as I can, as long as I can, on your behalf." Alice Palmer introduced Obama, and an account in the Hyde Park Herald quoted more from her speech than from his; it was, after all, chiefly her endorsement that certified him as a plausible candidate. "In this room, Harold Washington announced for mayor," Palmer said. "Barack Obama carries on the tradition of independence in this district. . . . His candidacy is a passing of the torch."

Also in attendance that day were Toni Preckwinkle and Will Burns, who was then a recent University of Chicago graduate. (He went on to get a master's in social sciences; Obama helped persuade him to leave the university before he got a Ph.D., telling him, "You shouldn't be too academic.") Obama's talk of a "renewal of morality in politics," which previewed themes that emerged in this year's campaign, also tapped into a desire for generational change—similarly consistent with his current rhetoric. He was able to capture the imagination of some young African-Americans frustrated by their local leadership. Burns said, "You have to understand, it's 1995. It's the year after the Republicans have taken over control of Congress, and in Illinois all three branches of government were also controlled by the Republicans. So it was a really dark point. I was looking to be engaged in something that would mean something, that would actually get something done and that was beyond symbols. Around the same time that I started up with Barack, volunteering on his campaign, I had gone to some of the old community groups and nationalist organizations. I respected what they had done, but I didn't feel like that was really where I wanted to be."

However, the campaign was no insurgency. Obama abided by the local way of doing things. He had lined up support from Preckwinkle, his alderman, and Ivory Mitchell, the local ward chairman, and Palmer's endorsement brought with it two organizational assets: local operators and local activists. The operators helped Obama get on the ballot and handled the mechanics of his election. Two key operators were Alan Dobry and his wife, Lois Friedberg-Dobry, then in their late sixties and leaders of the Independent movement. "When you go to a political meeting, and you see a couple of guys or girls at the back of the room, and they aren't glad-handing or anything, those are the operators," Alan Dobry told me recently. There was a machinelike quality to the way the campaign unfolded. Palmer's endorsement was the only signal that the Dobrys needed to start the slow, detailed organizing necessary to win a State Senate seat for Obama, whom they had never met, though they lived in his neighborhood.

Palmer's imprimatur was also helpful with a small group of Hyde Park activists, some of whom she asked to hold fund-raising coffees for Obama. At her suggestion, Sam and Martha Ackerman, who were leaders of Independent Voters of Illinois, hosted a coffee at their home. Unlike the Dobrys, they insisted on a meeting with Obama before backing him, and their support was important enough for him to spend an hour with them in their dining room, submitting to an interview. Their reaction to him was a common one. "I don't think he said he wanted to run for President, but he indicated that he was into public service for the long haul," Martha Ackerman told me. "I remember very clearly I said to Sam, 'If this guy is for real, he could be the first African-American President of the United States.' "

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, another activist Hyde Park couple, also held an event for Obama. Forty years ago, Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of the Weathermen, the militant antiwar group that bombed the Pentagon and the United States Capitol. By the time Obama met Ayers, the former radical and onetime fugitive had been accepted into polite Chicago society and had been reborn as an education expert, eventually working as an informal adviser to Mayor Daley. (Those ties remain intact in the jumbled culture of Chicago politics. When Obama's association with Ayers first became a campaign issue, Daley, whose father, in 1968, sent his police force into the streets to combat Ayers's fellow-radicals, issued a statement praising Ayers as "a valued member of the Chicago community.")

Obama seemed sure enough that he would win the State Senate primary, to be held in March, 1996—in Chicago, winning the primary is tantamount to winning the seat—to take time, late that summer, for a brief book tour, which started in Hyde Park and carried him as far as California. In October, he was one of the thousands of African-Americans from Chicago who travelled to Washington for the Million Man March. (Obama criticized the march, telling a local alternative newspaper that it was a waste of energy.) When he returned home, he had more immediate problems. In December, 1995, the South Side coalition that he had cobbled together began to fall apart. Palmer's congressional campaign was eclipsed by her Democratic-primary opponents—Jesse Jackson, Jr., who had star power, and Emil Jones, a longtime leader in the State Senate. Several weeks before the primary, a group of her supporters—mostly older black activists, not unlike those Obama had tangled with when he was running Project Vote—realized that Palmer was destined for defeat and summoned him to a meeting. The Chicago Defender reported that Obama was asked "to step aside like other African Americans have done in other races for the sake of unity and to release Palmer from her commitment"—so that she could reclaim her State Senate seat. Obama left the meeting noncommittal.

Palmer was soundly defeated by Jackson—she got only ten per cent of the vote—and there were more insistent demands that Obama withdraw. He refused, which angered Palmer and her husband, Buzz. Buzz Palmer was a founder of the Afro-American Patrolman's League, a reform group within the Chicago police department, and the couple had many ties to the city's black leadership. Palmer, announcing that she had been drafted back into the State Senate race, went from being Obama's most important supporter to his chief challenger; the woman who had launched his political career now threatened to end it. "That's Chicago politics," Obama told a reporter—with a sigh, the account said.

The South Side political community was forced to choose. The Ackermans went with Palmer, the Dobrys with Obama. Emil Jones announced his support for Palmer. Alderman Preckwinkle stayed with Obama. "I had given him my word I would support him," she told me. "Alice didn't forgive me, and she's never going to forgive me."

"These old nationalist guys start beating a drum—probably not the right metaphor—about how Barack should let this elder back in and how seniority's important," Burns said. "And they're writing essays in the Defender and N'Digo"—another local paper covering Chicago's black community. A comment in the Defender by Robert Starks, a professor of political science at Chicago's Northeastern Illinois University and one of Palmer's chief supporters, was typical: "If she doesn't run, that seat will go to a Daley supporter. We have asked her to reconsider not running because we don't think Obama can win. He hasn't been in town long enough. . . . Nobody knows who he is . . . We need someone with experience."

But, almost as fast as the threat to his campaign appeared, Obama stamped it out. The Dobrys were surprised that Palmer had so quickly gathered the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. They went to the Chicago board of elections and reviewed her petitions; as they suspected, they were filled with irregularities. One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine's tactic of challenging ballot petitions, and the Dobrys were experts at this Chicago ritual. Publicly, Obama was conciliatory about the awkward political situation, telling the Hyde Park Herald that he understood that some people were upset about the "conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms." Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer's name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well. "He ran unopposed, which is a good way to win," Mikva said, laughing at the recollection. And Palmer said last week, "Anyone who enters Chicago politics and can't take the rough and tumble shouldn't be there. Losing the seat was just that—not the end of the world."

Instead of arriving in Springfield as the consensus candidate of his district, Obama was regarded as a troublemaker. "He had created some enemies," Emil Jones, who in 2003 became president of the Illinois Senate, said. Burns described the fallout of the Obama-Palmer race this way: "It established a reputation that 'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.' I think it established him as a threat. You have his independence with Project Vote, you have his refusal to knuckle under during the Alice Palmer thing, and so now you have a series of data points that have some established leaders in the black community feeling disrespected. And so the stage is now set for the comeuppance during the congressional race. That was their payback."

 

 ILLINOIS TURNS BLUE

 
In the political culture of 1996, two years after the ascendancy of the Gingrich Republicans, many Democrats ran as chastened and cautious politicians; among them was Bill Clinton, who turned his reëlection-campaign strategy over to Dick Morris (who had worked for Jesse Helms and Trent Lott, as well as Democrats) and the militantly centrist pollster Mark Penn (the Morris protégé who helped run Hillary Clinton's primary campaign). By then, Bill Clinton had abandoned his effort for universal health care and was about to sign into law a welfare-reform bill that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had denounced, saying, "For the first time since it was enacted in 1935, we are about to repeal a core provision of the Social Security Act." The bill was one of the most important factors in securing Clinton's reëlection.

Had Obama not been running for office in one of the most liberal districts in Illinois, he would have drawn notice as a fairly bold Democrat. To judge by his public comments, he seemed both appalled and impressed by President Clinton's political skill. In an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, published a few days after Clinton said that he would sign the welfare-reform bill, Obama talked about the Presidential campaign, saying that Bob Dole "seems to me to be a classic example of somebody who had no reason to run. You're seventy-three years old, you're already the third-most-powerful man in the country. So why? . . . And Bill Clinton? Well, his campaign's fascinating to a student of politics. It's disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically it seems to be working."

Soon, Obama began writing a regular column—"Springfield Report"—for the Hyde Park Herald. In the first one, on February 19, 1997, he wrote, "Last year, President Clinton signed a bill that, for the first time in 60 years, eliminates the federal guarantee of support for poor families and their children." The column was earnest and wonky. It betrayed no hint of liberal piety about the new law, but emphasized that there weren't enough entry-level jobs in Chicago to absorb all the welfare recipients who would soon be leaving the system.

In effect, while President Clinton and the national Democratic Party were drifting to the right, State Senator Obama pushed in the opposite direction. The new welfare law was one of the first issues that Obama faced as a legislator. "I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," he said, choosing his words with care during debate on the Illinois Senate floor. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems. But I'm a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons." Perhaps the law's most punitive aspect was that it cut off aid to poor legal immigrants, a provision that Clinton, in his 2004 memoir, called "particularly harsh" and "unjustifiable." The law that Obama helped pass in Illinois restored benefits to this group. (In a continuing effort to produce lemonade, Obama's first ad of the 2008 general-election campaign says that he "passed laws moving people from welfare to work.") Obama resisted the national rightward trend of the mid-nineties in other small ways. He sponsored an amendment to the state constitution that would have made health care a universal right in Illinois and helped pass an ethics bill that reformed Illinois's antiquated campaign-finance system.

In hindsight, little of his legislative record seems controversial. Some of the bills that he sponsored, statements that he made, and votes that he cast could be caricatured in a Presidential campaign. (In one 1997 column, he said, "I supported Governor Edgar's plan to raise the income tax," and in a 1999 debate, speaking of himself and his two opponents, he noted that "we're all on the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.") But 2008 is not 1988, and Republican attacks on tax hikes and calling an opponent a liberal lack much of their formerly compelling electoral power.

Obama has benefitted from impeccable timing. As the national Party entered a period of ideological timidity, he was at the vanguard of a Democratic revival in Illinois that had begun in 1992, when Clinton and Braun won the state, and grew stronger when, four years later, Democrats took over the Illinois House of Representatives. It continued through 2002, when Democrats won the State Senate and the governor's office. By 2004, when Obama ran for the United States Senate, Illinois was a solidly blue state.

Not all of this was due to Democratic ingenuity; during this period the state Republican Party collapsed under the weight of corruption scandals. That is something of an Illinois tradition: four of the last nine governors have been indicted on charges of corruption, and three were convicted. As Saul Bellow once remarked, "Politics are politics, crime is crime, but in Chicago they occasionally overlap. The line between virtue and vice meanders madly—effective government on one side, connections on the other."

There were further changes under way in Chicago. Obama had won his first campaign by using old-fashioned Chicago machine tactics at a time when the notion of machine politics was increasingly anachronistic. As the political consultant Don Rose and his colleague James Andrews explain in a chapter for a book about the current Mayor Daley's first victory, the machine literally provided voters with access to food, health care, and a job. In most American cities, that model vanished after the Second World War; by then, the blue-collar base was leaving for the suburbs and reform movements were challenging machine politics. In Chicago, Rose and Andrews say, the elder Daley updated and preserved the system by creating a modern machine that combined "big labor and big capital, blue and white collars, and minorities"—a hybrid model that died with him.

Gradually, Chicago caught up with the rest of the country and media-driven politics eclipsed machine-driven politics. "It became increasingly difficult to get into homes and apartments to talk about candidates," Rose said. "High-rises were tough if not impossible to crack, and other parts of the city had become too dangerous to walk around in for hours at a time. And people didn't want to answer their doors. Thus the increasing dependence on TV, radio, direct mail, phone-banking, robocalls, et cetera—all things that cost a hell of a lot more money than patronage workers, who were themselves in decline, anyway, because of anti-patronage court rulings." Instead of a large army of ward heelers dragging people to the polls, candidates needed a small army of donors to pay for commercials. Money replaced bodies as the currency of Chicago politics. This new system became known as "pinstripe patronage," because the key to winning was not rewarding voters with jobs but rewarding donors with government contracts.

E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. "They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest," Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

At the time, Obama was growing closer to Tony Rezko, who eventually turned pinstripe patronage into an extremely lucrative way of life. Rezko's rise in Illinois was intertwined with Obama's. Like Abner Mikva and Judson Miner, he had tried to recruit Obama to work for him. Chicago had been at the forefront of an urban policy to lure developers into low-income neighborhoods with tax credits, and Rezko was an early beneficiary of the program. Miner's law firm was eager to do the legal work on the tax-credit deals, which seemed consistent with the firm's over-all civil-rights mission. A residual benefit was that the new developers became major donors to aldermen, state senators, and other South Side politicians who represented the poor neighborhoods in which Rezko and others operated. "Our relationship deepened when I started my first political campaign for the State Senate," Obama said earlier this year, in an interview with Chicago reporters.

Rezko was one of the people Obama consulted when he considered running to replace Palmer, and Rezko eventually raised about ten per cent of Obama's funds for that first campaign. As a state senator, Obama became an advocate of the tax-credit program. "That's an example of a smart policy," he told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in 1997. "The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace; but at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts." Obama and Rezko's friendship grew stronger. They dined together regularly and even, on at least one occasion, retreated to Rezko's vacation home, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.

 

 "WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS"

 
Obama's subtle understanding of the way the city's politics had changed—with fund-raising replacing organization as the key to victory—surely encouraged him in his next campaign. Almost as soon as he got to Springfield, he was planning another move. He was bored there—once, he appeared to doze off during a caucus meeting—and frustrated by the Republicans' total control over the legislature. He seemed to believe, according to colleagues at the time, that he was destined for better things than being trapped in one of America's more notoriously corrupt state capitals. Obama spent little time socializing with "the guys basically from Chicago," the veteran senator Emil Jones said. "He hung around a lot of the downstaters. They became good friends."

Obama's relations with some of his black colleagues from Chicago were dreadful from the beginning. On March 13, 1997, Obama introduced one of his first pieces of legislation, a modest bill to make a directory of community-college graduates available to local employers. There was a response from Rickey Hendon, a state senator from the West Side of Chicago who had been close to Alice Palmer. After Obama explained his bill, Hendon, who has dabbled in film and television work, earning him the nickname Hollywood, rose to ask a question, and the following exchange occurred:



HENDON: Senator, could you correctly pronounce your name for me? I'm having a little trouble with it.
OBAMA: Obama.
HENDON: Is that Irish?
OBAMA: It will be when I run countywide.
HENDON: That was a good joke, but this bill's still going to die. This directory, would that have those 1-800 sex line numbers in this directory?
OBAMA: I apologize. I wasn't paying Senator Hendon any attention.
HENDON: Well, clearly, as poorly as this legislation is drafted, you didn't pay it much attention either. My question was: Are the 1-800 sex line numbers going to be in this directory?
OBAMA: Not—not—basically this idea comes out of the South Side community colleges. I don't know what you're doing on the West Side community colleges. But we probably won't be including that in our directory for the students.
HENDON: . . . Let me just say this, and to the bill: I seem to remember a very lovely Senator by the name of Palmer—much easier to pronounce than Obama—and she always had cookies and nice things to say, and you don't have anything to give us around your desk. How do you expect to get votes? And—and you don't even wear nice perfume like Senator Palmer did. . . . I'm missing Senator Palmer because of these weak replacements with these tired bills that makes absolutely no sense. I . . . I definitely urge a No vote. Whatever your name is.

Although the exchange was part of a longstanding tradition of hazing new legislators, the tensions between Hendon and Obama were real. On another occasion, Obama voted—a parliamentary error, Obama says—to block funding for a child-welfare facility in Hendon's district. Hendon rose and criticized Obama for the vote. The two men became embroiled in a yelling match on the Senate floor that looked as if it might become physical; they were separated by Courtney Nottage, then the chief of staff for Emil Jones. Nottage led Obama off the floor to a room that legislators used to make telephone calls. "It looked like two men that were having a serious disagreement and they had walked up to one another really close," Nottage told me. "I didn't think anything good could come of that."

Hendon told me, "He's the one that got mad, because he said I embarrassed him on the Senate floor. That's when he came over to my desk." Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, "I'm going to kick your ass!" Hendon said, "He said something like that." He added that more details will appear in a book that he's written, entitled "Black Enough, White Enough: The Obama Dilemma."

Obama's friends were not surprised when, in 1999, he decided to challenge Bobby Rush, who has represented the South Side in Congress since 1992. Rush had run against Daley in the 1999 mayoral primary, and Obama interpreted Rush's defeat in that citywide race as a harbinger of his declining popularity in his congressional district.

The race against Rush was the turning point in Obama's political career. It started with a brilliant bit of oratory that alluded to Abner Mikva's story about the insularity of Chicago politics and sought to turn Obama's disadvantages into strengths. "Nobody sent me," Obama said at his campaign kickoff, on September 26, 1999. "I'm not part of some long-standing political organization. I have no fancy sponsors. I'm not even from Chicago. My name is Obama. Despite that fact, somebody sent me. . . . The men on the corner in Woodlawn drowning their sorrows in alcohol . . . the women working two jobs. . . . They're all telling me we can't wait." It was the best moment of his campaign.

Obama was financially outmatched. Although he raised about six hundred thousand dollars, sustained television advertising in Chicago cost between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand dollars a week, according to Dan Shomon, Obama's campaign manager at the time. A series of unusual events defined the race. A few months before the election, Rush's twenty-nine-year-old son, Huey Rich, was shot and killed, which made the incumbent a figure of sympathy, and in the final weeks of the campaign Rush's father died. Obama made a serious misstep when, visiting his grandmother in Hawaii, he missed a crucial vote on gun-control legislation in Springfield. Even worse, on the day of the vote a column by Obama about how the gun bill was "sorely needed" appeared in the Hyde Park Herald, under the headline "IDEOLOGUES FRUSTRATE GUN LAW." Obama protested that his daughter was ill and unable to travel, and that he saw his grandmother, who lived alone, only once a year, but the press treated the trip as a tropical vacation.

Obama lost by thirty-one points—a humiliating defeat. On Election Night, at the Ramada Inn where he had begun his political career, he sounded dejected, hinting that he might leave politics. "I've got to make assessments about where we go from here," he said. "We need a new style of politics to deal with the issues that are important to the people. What's not clear to me is whether I should do that as an elected official or by influencing government in ways that actually improve people's lives." The defeat marked not so much the beginning of a new style of politics for Obama as the beginning of Obama's mastery of the old style of politics.

Obama had misread the political dynamics of Rush's unsuccessful mayoral campaign. "He thought he would get some help from Daley because Rush had run against Daley for mayor," Mikva said. "He thought that Daley might use the opportunity to get even. That's not the way the Daleys work. It's not the way the machine works. When Barack went in to see the Mayor, whom he knew slightly, Daley said what his old man used to say: 'Good luck!' "

Mayor Daley concurred. "Bobby Rush was very strong," he said. "When you lose a race, you can be strong in another avenue, and he was always strong in his congressional district. It was a learning experience when I lost to Harold Washington. The next day, I endorsed him." He added, "You learn from defeat. If you don't learn from defeat, then you go away as a sour politician—you think that people turned on you. Barack Obama understood that. The lesson from that campaign is you can't just run for any office saying you thought someone lost an election and you thought they were weak. He realized that and he rededicated himself."

 

THE INNER SANCTUM

 
Obama learned the exact nature of his appeal, as well as his handicaps. Unlike Obama's State Senate district, where the University of Chicago and the multicultural Hyde Park produced most of the votes, Rush's congressional district extended deep into black neighborhoods where Obama was unknown. His academic background was a burden, too. Will Burns explained, "Even though the University of Chicago is one of the largest employers on the South Side of Chicago, it is seen by some, particularly black nationalists, as a bastion of white political power, as a huge entity that doesn't take into account the interests of the community, that doesn't have a full democratic partnership with the community, and does what it wants to the community in maintaining clear boundaries about where black people are. It's seen as an expansive force, trying to expand into Bronzeville and into Woodlawn"—historically black neighborhoods adjacent to Hyde Park—"and put poor blacks out of the area. The University of Chicago is not a brand that helps you if you're trying to get votes on the South Side of Chicago."

Obama's fund-raising success and his professional networks were also viewed with suspicion. Chicago is still a city of villages, and Obama was adept at gliding back and forth between the South Side, where he campaigned for votes, and the wealthy Gold Coast, the lakefront neighborhood of high-rise condominiums and deluxe shopping, where he raised money. One day in Hyde Park, I mentioned the name Bettylu Saltzman (the Project Vote supporter and daughter of a Bulls owner) to Lois Friedberg-Dobry (the South Side operator). "I don't run in those circles," she said. Later, over lunch with Saltzman at a café in a gourmet supermarket on the Gold Coast, I mentioned the Dobrys and Obama's Independent Voters of Illinois friends, and she said, "You know, the North Side and the South Side of Chicago—it's like two different worlds."

A South Side operator named Al Kindle, a large man with a booming voice, was a field operator for Obama's race against Rush. He had helped elect Harold Washington, and he saw Obama's congressional campaign from the street level. We met one evening at Calypso Café, a Caribbean restaurant that Obama has said is his favorite place to eat in Hyde Park, and Kindle described some of the worst moments in the campaign. "The accusations were that Obama was sent here and owned by the Jews," Kindle said. "That he was here to steal the black vote and steal black land and that he was represented by the—as they were called—'the white man.' And that Obama wasn't black enough and didn't know the black experience, the black community. It was quite deafening in terms of how they went after Alderman Preckwinkle and myself. People would say, 'Oh, Kindle, man, we trust you, you being fooled. Obama's got you fooled.' And some people called me a traitor."

The loss taught Obama a great deal about the components of his natural coalition. According to Dan Shomon, the first poll that Obama conducted revealed that the demographic he could win over most easily was white voters. Obama, who hadn't shown any particular gift for oratory in the race, now learned to shed his stiff approach to campaigning—described by Preckwinkle as that of an "arrogant academic." Mikva told me, "The first time I heard him talk to a black church, he was very professorial, more so even than he was in the white community. There was no joking, no self-deprecation, no style. It didn't go over well at all."

But, as he had in his 1996 campaign, Obama had attracted a young and zealous corps of campaign workers. "I remember one of the candidates in the race used to talk about how crazed our volunteers were, because they were passionate, energized," Will Burns said. "You'd come by the office on Eighty-seventh Street and there'd be a bunch of guys with no teeth waiting to get their next Old Grand-dad and then these Shiraz-drinking, Nation-reading, T.N.R.-quoting young black folk. It was a random-ass mix. It was beautiful, though. When I see the crowds now, they're very reminiscent of what was happening then."

Emil Jones told me that, after 2000, Obama moved decisively away from being pigeonholed as an inner-city pol. During one debate with Rush, he noted that he and the other candidates were all "progressive, urban Democrats." Even though he lost, that primary taught him that he might be something more than that. "He learned that for Barack Obama it was not the type of district that he was well suited for," Jones said. "The type of campaign that he had to run to win that district is not Barack Obama. It was a predominantly African-American district. It was a district where you had to campaign solely on those issues. And Barack did not campaign that way, and so as a result he lost. Which was good." Meaning, it was good for Barack Obama.

One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called "the inner sanctum." Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual—fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district. Corrigan was the Democrat in charge of drawing all Chicago districts, and he also happened to have volunteered for Obama in the campaign against Rush.

Obama's former district had been drawn by Republicans after the 1990 census. But, after 2000, Illinois Democrats won the right to redistrict the state. Partisan redistricting remains common in American politics, and, while it outrages a losing party, it has so far survived every legal challenge. In the new century, mapping technology has become so precise and the available demographic data so rich that politicians are able to choose the kinds of voter they want to represent, right down to individual homes. A close look at the post-2000 congressional map of Bobby Rush's district reveals that it tears through Hyde Park in a curious series of irregular turns. One of those lines bypasses Obama's address by two blocks. Rush, or someone looking out for his interests, had carved the upstart Obama out of Rush's congressional district.

In truth, Rush had little to worry about; Obama was already on a different political path. Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his "ideal map." Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew. First, it retained Obama's Hyde Park base—he had managed to beat Rush in Hyde Park—then swooped upward along the lakefront and toward downtown. By the end of the final redistricting process, his new district bore little resemblance to his old one. Rather than jutting far to the west, like a long thin dagger, into a swath of poor black neighborhoods of bungalow homes, Obama's map now shot north, encompassing about half of the Loop, whose southern portion was beginning to be transformed by developers like Tony Rezko, and stretched far up Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast, covering much of the city's economic heart, its main retail thoroughfares, and its finest museums, parks, skyscrapers, and lakefront apartment buildings. African-Americans still were a majority, and the map contained some of the poorest sections of Chicago, but Obama's new district was wealthier, whiter, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated. It also included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in Chicago.

"It was a radical change," Corrigan said. The new district was a natural fit for the candidate that Obama was in the process of becoming. "He saw that when we were doing fund-raisers in the Rush campaign his appeal to, quite frankly, young white professionals was dramatic."

Obama's personal political concerns were not the only factor driving the process. During the previous round of remapping, in 1991, Republicans had created Chicago districts where African-Americans were the overwhelming majority, packing the greatest number of loyal Democrats into the fewest districts. A decade later, Democrats tried to spread the African-American vote among more districts. The idea was to create enough Democratic-leaning districts so that the Party could take control of the state legislature. That goal was fine with Obama; his new district offered promising, untapped constituencies for him as he considered his next political move. "The exposure he would get to some of the folks that were on boards of the museums and C.E.O.s of some of the companies that he would represent would certainly help him in the long run," Corrigan said.

In the end, Obama's North Side fund-raising base and his South Side political base were united in one district. He now represented Hyde Park operators like Lois Friedberg-Dobry as well as Gold Coast doyennes like Bettylu Saltzman, and his old South Side street operative Al Kindle as well as his future consultant David Axelrod. In an article in the Hyde Park Herald about how "partisan" and "undemocratic" Illinois redistricting had become, Obama was asked for his views. As usual, he was candid. "There is a conflict of interest built into the process," he said. "Incumbents drawing their own maps will inevitably try to advantage themselves."

The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama's early political life. It immediately gave him the two things he needed to run for the Senate in 2004: money and power. He needed to have several times as much cash as he'd raised for his losing congressional race in 2000, and many of the state's top donors now lived or worked in his district. More important, the statewide gerrymandering made it likely that Obama's party would take over the State Senate in 2002, an event that would provide him with a platform from which to craft a legislative record in time for the campaign.

Obama's political activity from 2001 to 2004 reveals a man transformed. The loss to Rush drained him of much of the naïveté he once exuded. For instance, when Obama arrived in Springfield, in 1996, he was still enamored of the spirit of community organizing and determined to apply its principles as a legislator. In an interview with the Chicago Reader in 1995, he laid out this vision:



People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change. What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.

Obama took at least one concrete step to turn this notion of the legislator as community organizer into a reality. In his first column in the Hyde Park Herald, the same one in which he addressed welfare, he announced that he was "organizing citizens' committees" to help him shape legislation. He asked his constituents to call his office if they wanted to participate. That kind of airy talk about changing politics gave way almost immediately to the realities of the job. I asked a longtime Obama friend what ever became of the committees. "They never really got off the ground," he said. By 2001, if there was any maxim from community organizing that Obama lived by, it was the Realpolitik commandment of Saul Alinsky, the founding practitioner of community organizing, to operate in "the world as it is and not as we would like it to be."

In electoral politics, operating in the world as it is means raising money. Obama expanded the reach of his fund-raising. Every network that he penetrated brought him access to another. Christie Hefner, Hugh Hefner's daughter, who runs Playboy Enterprises from the fifteenth floor of a lakefront building, explained how it worked. Hefner is a member of a group called Ladies Who Lunch—nineteen Chicago women, most of them wealthy, who see themselves as talent scouts and angel investors for up-and-coming liberal candidates and activists. They interview prospects over a meal, often in a private dining room at the Arts Club of Chicago. Obama's friend Bettylu Saltzman, a Ladies Who Lunch member, introduced Obama to the group when he was preparing his Senate run. Hefner, who declined to support Obama in 2000, was ready to help him when he came calling in 2002.

Not long ago, Hefner and I talked in her office; we were seated at a granite table strewn with copies of Playboy. "I was very proud to be able to introduce him during the Senate race to a lot of people who have turned out to be important and valuable to him, not just here but in New York and L.A.," Hefner explained. She mentioned Thomas Friedman, the Times columnist, and Norman Lear, the television producer. "I try and think about people who I think should know him."

 

THE SPEECH


One insight into the transition that Obama was making during the short period between his painful loss to Bobby Rush and his Senate victory can be gained by comparing his reactions to the two major national-security crises of the time: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the Iraq war. For many Illinois state legislators, September 11th was not an event that required much response. The attacks occurred just before an important deadline in the redistricting process. John Corrigan, the Democratic consultant in charge of redistricting, told me that he spent September 12th talking to many legislators, Obama not among them. "It was like nothing had happened," he said. "Everybody came in and all they cared about was their districts. It wasn't any one particular legislator from any one particular community. I learned a lot about state government. Their job was not to respond to September 11th. They were more worried about making sure that they had a district that they could run in for reëlection."

Obama's response to the event was published on September 19th in the Hyde Park Herald:



Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.

A year later, Obama agreed to speak at an antiwar rally in downtown Chicago, organized by Bettylu Saltzman and some friends, who, over Chinese food, had decided to stage the protest. Saltzman asked John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago—and, later, the co-author of the controversial book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"—to speak, but he couldn't make it. "He was one of the main people we wanted, but he was speaking at the University of Wisconsin that day," Saltzman said. Then she called her rabbi and then Barack Obama. Michelle answered the phone and passed the message on to her husband, who was out of town.

Saltzman also called Marilyn Katz, who runs a Chicago public-relations firm and is close to Mayor Daley. Katz managed to get Jesse Jackson as a speaker, and handled many of the organizing details. Katz, a petite woman who was, improbably, the head of security for S.D.S. at the 1968 Democratic Convention, described what she felt the political mood was at the time of the rally. "Professors are being turned in on college campuses, Bush's ratings are eighty-seven per cent," she said. "Among my friends, there hasn't been an antiwar demonstration in twenty years. There's huge repression, Bush has got all this legislation. They're talking about lists, they're denying people entry into the country. . . . Bush's numbers were tremendously high, but we had no choice. Unless we wanted to live in a country that was fascist."

Despite the politics of Saltzman and Katz, Obama's now famous speech was notable for the absence of the traditional tropes of the antiwar left. In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama's speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, "He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!"

The sensitive language of his September 11th statement was gone. Instead, Obama distanced himself from the pacifist activists who were surely present. "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances," he told the crowd. He then went further, defending justifiable wars in almost glorious terms. "The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars." It took some nerve to tweak the crowd in this way. After all, it was unlikely that many of the protesters knew who Obama was, and in a lengthy write-up of the event in the Chicago Tribune the following day he was not mentioned. Yet the speech reads as if it had been written for a much bigger audience.

During this period, Obama also became more of a strategist, someone increasingly comfortable discussing the finer points of polls, message, and fund-raising. According to his friends, Obama does not delegate campaign planning. Marty Nesbitt, his best friend, who became a familiar presence on the campaign trail this spring, flying in to play basketball with Obama on primary days, described the first meeting in which Obama pitched the idea of running for the U.S. Senate to his closest advisers and fund-raisers. This was in 2002, and things seemed to be going his way. The incumbent Republican, Peter Fitzgerald, was unpopular, and the race was attracting a large field of Democrats.

"He didn't start telling people he was interested in running for Senate until he figured out what the road map was," Nesbitt said. "He had a good sense of the odds, and he knew there were certain things that had to happen. . . . The first thing he said was, 'O.K., nobody with approval ratings like this has ever been reëlected, so it's not gonna be him, right?' And then he said there's a bunch of candidates who can potentially run, one of whom was Carol Moseley Braun. And he said, 'If she runs, I probably don't have a chance, because there's gonna be certain loyalty within the African-American community to her, even though she had some mistakes, and I'm probably not gonna get those African-American votes, which I need as my base if I'm gonna win. So if she runs, I don't run.'

"Then he just laid out an economic analysis. It becomes about money, because he knew that if people knew his story they would view him as a better candidate than anybody else he thought might be in the field. And so he said, 'Therefore, if you raise five million dollars, I have a fifty-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise seven million dollars, I have a seventy-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise ten million dollars, I guarantee victory."

That year, he gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform. Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama's, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich's campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich's victory. He and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor," Emanuel said. "We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two." A spokesman for Blagojevich confirmed Emanuel's account, although David Wilhelm, who now works for Obama, said that Emanuel had overstated Obama's role. "There was an advisory council that was inclusive of Rahm and Barack but not limited to them," Wilhelm said, and he disputed the notion that Obama was "an architect or one of the principal strategists."

David Axelrod, the preëminent strategist in the state, declined to work for Blagojevich. "He had been my client and I had a very good relationship with him, but I didn't sign on to the governor's race," Axelrod said. "Obviously he won, but I had concerns about it. . . . I was concerned about whether he was ready for that. Not so much for the race but for governing. I was concerned about some of the folks—I was concerned about how the race was being approached." Axelrod's unease was warranted. Blagojevich and people close to him have been tied to a seemingly endless series of scandals. The trial of Tony Rezko revealed that Rezko used his influence in the Blagojevich administration to profit from companies seeking business with the state. There is speculation that Blagojevich will be the next governor to be indicted, and the Democratic Speaker of the Illinois House, Michael Madigan, has raised the issue of impeachment.

Part of Obama's political success is that he has been able to exploit relationships with important yet ethically dubious figures in Illinois while still maintaining his independence. In some ways, this is an Illinois tradition. When the liberal reformer Adlai Stevenson ran for governor, in 1948, one Democratic boss reportedly noted that he would "perfume the ticket." The earnest Lincoln scholar Paul Simon stood out in the Senate for his moral rectitude and his commitment to good government even as his state wallowed in scandal. "The political bosses knew they had to have what they used to call in business a loss leader—the showcasing," Don Rose, the Chicago political consultant, said. "The car that you sold for under its value for advertising purposes. While you had at the top of your ticket a shining star, under that it was like turning over a rock."

Obama has said little about the scandals in his home state. Besides the Rezko and Blagojevich cases, there have been indictments and convictions against the Daley administration concerning hiring and contracting practices. Getting close to the sullied political leadership in Illinois was probably an unavoidable cost of winning the U.S. Senate seat. Emil Jones told me that another of the lessons Obama learned after his 2000 loss was the importance of political sponsorship.

Jones and Obama have had a complicated history. As a community organizer, Obama led a protest against Jones, and in his memoir he unflatteringly describes him as an "old ward heeler." ("I guess he figured I was part of the establishment," Jones told me, objecting to the description. "He didn't know too much about politics and he was very idealistic.") Years later, Jones backed Palmer over Obama in the State Senate race. But their relationship changed dramatically after 2000. When Obama praised Jones as "my political godfather," Jones began using the theme music from "The Godfather" as his cell-phone ringtone.

I spoke to Jones in his office minutes after he left a meeting with the Governor, a close ally whom he has defended during the recent difficulties. Jones, who is seventy-two, is a former sewer inspector and insurance salesman; he speaks in a soft rumble and practices politics in a characteristically Chicago manner. He recently explained his support for a proposal to increase the salaries of legislators by saying, "I need a pay raise." In May, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Jones "provided himself with tens of thousands of dollars in interest-free loans from his campaign fund," which, the report noted, is not illegal in Illinois but is "highly unusual." A spokesman for Jones said that Jones "has always made it a practice to pay back the loans and continues to do so."

Being in the majority has proved hard for the Democrats. They were having trouble agreeing on a budget deal, and the newspapers were filled with those murmurs of impeachment. For Jones, discussing his long history with the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee—from target of the youthful Obama's anti-establishment organizing to political patron in Springfield—seemed a welcome relief, a reminder of happier times for Democrats in Illinois.

"When he ran that race against Bobby Rush, he had no one supporting him who had political influence over others and whom people respected, so he was out there as a lone wolf in that race," Jones said. That's why, in 2002, as Obama planned his next campaign, he sought out Jones. "We never discussed it, but he had to analyze that race and recognize he had no other powerful elected officials supporting him," Jones said. "And so he felt I could be very, very key if he was going to make the run for the U.S. Senate.

"In politics, you must know who is connected to whom," Jones continued. "The Mayor of Chicago and the father of Dan Hynes"—one of Obama's primary opponents—"when they were both state senators they shared an apartment together in Springfield, so there's a relationship between those two. And the Governor? One of his chief financial supporters in his first run was also in the race. I work with both the Mayor and the Governor, so, by my jumping in strong behind Barack Obama, they didn't want to alienate me and have me upset with them, so they stayed out of the race."

In the State Senate, Jones did something even more important for Obama. He pushed him forward as the key sponsor of some of the Party's most important legislation, even though the move did not sit well with some colleagues who had plugged away in the minority on bills that Obama now championed as part of the majority. "Because he had been in the minority, Barack didn't have a legislative record to run on, and there was a buildup of all these great ideas that the Republicans kept in the rules committee when they were in the majority," Burns said. "Jones basically gave Obama the space to do what Obama wanted to do. Emil made it clear to people that it would be good for them." Burns, who at that point was working for Jones, was assigned to keep an eye on Obama's floor votes, which, because he was a Senate candidate, would be under closer scrutiny. The Obama-Jones alliance worked. In one year, 2003, Obama passed much of the legislation, including bills on racial profiling, death-penalty reform, and expanded health insurance for children, that he highlighted in his Senate campaign.

 

 ONE STEP AHEAD

 
Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago's churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. "You have the power to make a United States senator," he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war.

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.

Obama's establishment inclinations have alienated some old friends. During the 2004 Senate primary, Obama sometimes reminded voters of his anti-machine credentials, but at the same time he shrewdly wrote to Mayor Daley's brother, William, who had backed one of Obama's primary opponents, asking for his support if he won the primary. As he outgrew the provincial politics of Hyde Park, he became closer to the Mayor, and this accommodation, as well as his unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reëlection, have some of his original supporters feeling alienated and angry. "I am not thrilled with Barack, simply because we elected him as an Independent, and he switched over to Daley," Alan Dobry said. Ivory Mitchell, speaking of Obama's Senate race, said, "When he won the primary out here and he went downtown, it appears as though Daley took over the campaign for him. . . . We were excluded." David Axelrod told me, in response, that some of the Independents on the South Side blame Daley for just about anything. "I think there's kind of this Wizard of Oz mystique," he said. "Daley had virtually no role in the Senate campaign."

Another transition from primary to general election is now under way for Obama, and it is causing him a similar set of problems, all of which stem from a realization among his supporters that superheroes don't become President; politicians do. Judging by the reaction to Obama's most recent decisions—his willingness to support legislation to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, his rightward shift on interpreting the Second Amendment, his decision to "refine" his Iraq policies—some voters will be crushed by this realization and others will be relieved. In another episode that has Obama's old friends feeling frustrated, Obama recently blamed his first campaign manager, Carol Anne Harwell, for reporting on a 1996 questionnaire that Obama favored a ban on handguns. According to her friends, Harwell was furious that the campaign made her Obama's scapegoat. "She got, as the saying goes, run over by a bus," Lois Friedberg-Dobry said.

Obama's rise has often appeared effortless. His offstage tactics—when he is engaged in the sometimes combative work of a politician—are rarely glimpsed by outsiders. Penny Pritzker, a friend and fund-raiser for Obama, remembers meeting with him at her office in 2006 to discuss his Presidential campaign. Pritzker, whose family, one of the wealthiest in Chicago, owns the Hyatt hotel chain, was as crucial to Obama's next campaign as Toni Preckwinkle's was to his first. "We were talking about whether he was ready to do this or not," Pritzker told me. She was blunt, telling Obama, "As I see it, the two things that you're going to need to address are your executive leadership skills, because your résumé doesn't have that in it, and the second would be your credentials in national security." Obama returned with an organizational chart indicating how the campaign would be structured—one of his great tactical advantages over the disorganized Clinton campaign—along with a list of advisers. Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair. Obama has frequently been one step ahead of his friends and the public in anticipating his own rise. Perhaps it is all those people he has met over the years who told him that he would be President one day. The Reverend Alvin Love, a South Side Baptist minister and a longtime Obama friend, said that Obama called him in December, 2006, seeking advice about whether to run for President. "My dad told me that you've got to strike while the iron is hot," Love recalls saying, and Obama replied, "The iron can't get any hotter."

Obama has always had a healthy understanding of the reaction he elicits in others, and he learned to use it to his advantage a very long time ago. Marty Nesbitt remembers Obama's utter calm the day he gave his celebrated speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in Boston, which made him an international celebrity and a potential 2008 Presidential candidate. "We were walking down the street late in the afternoon," Nesbitt told me. "And this crowd was building behind us, like it was Tiger Woods at the Masters."

"Barack, man, you're like a rock star," Nesbitt said.

"Yeah, if you think it's bad today, wait until tomorrow," Obama replied.

"What do you mean?"

"My speech," Obama said, "is pretty good."

by Ryan Lizza July 21, 2008


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

/ `--'( ,,,
< [] []////////|:::)
\_.--.(realdeltablues

http://bustill.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/riZe

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama: My Plan for Iraq

Barack Obama: My Plan for Iraq

http://www.barackobama.com/images/email/iraqspeech_email.jpg


THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq's leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq's security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis' taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq