Archive for Politics

The Abdication

Everyone at the office just gathered around the TV to watch Governor Spitzer’s resignation.

In a culture in which “If I offended, I apologize” is considered an apology rather than the mealy-mouthed avoidance of true responsibility (see: John McCain), I thought his brief speech was an exercise in dignity and decency. He took full responsibility, apologized, and acknowledged that he had not lived up to his own standards. In his famously pugnacious style, he took a moment to say his standards were right. Possibly that was ill-timed. Also in poor taste, but apparently de rigeur these days, was the presence of his wife at his side. She looked haggard and drained. It must have been torture for her. She should have been spared the additional burden; she’s been burdened enough. People speculate on what goes on behind closed doors. And rightly so; not every marriage is the Cleavers. But this was clearly not a woman who’d known all along.

So, New Yorker have our first black governor, and I believe our first blind governor as well. David Patterson is, by all reports, very well-liked.

And life goes on.

Monday Movie Review: The Silence of the Lambs

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 10/10
FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) interviews Dr. Hannibal Lecter—”Hannibal the Cannibal” (Anthony Hopkins)—a psychiatrist who is one of the most dangerous incarcerated serial killers. Starling’s supervisor/mentor (Scott Glenn) believes that Lecter can help find another serial killer known as Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) who skins his victims. Directed by Jonathan Demme.

As the final credits for The Silence of the Lambs roll, a character walks through a crowd. We are interested in watching him, but he walks away from us, off into the distance as the crane shot recedes. The credits obscure the scene, and when they briefly clear, he is gone. We cannot find him, our fear has disappeared into an ordinary, pretty street scene. The fear remains within.

Maybe everyone has already seen this movie, and there is no point in avoiding spoilers. Indeed, the movie is excellent, and watchable, and terrifying, even when thoroughly and completely spoiled. Yet out of respect for its genius, I think I’ll leave its mysteries intact.

Only three movies in history have swept the Oscars’ four major categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Actor. In 1934 it was It Happened One Night, in 1975 it was One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and in 1991 it was Silence of the Lambs. (All three also won Best Adapated Screenplay.) As it happens, I adore It Happened One Night and Cuckoo’s Nest. I’d seen Silence of the Lambs once before, but it was censored and cut up, and it hadn’t impressed me. I was determined to give it another go, and TCM‘s recent uncut showing gave me the opportunity. So here I am, reviewing a movie everyone’s already seen. Go know.

People say “they don’t make ’em like that anymore” with alarming disregard to what is and is not being made nowadays, or what was made in the past. Yet in regard to Silence of the Lambs, I have to say it’s probably true. They stopped making horror movies that scared by making you imagine, and not see, shortly after Psycho. Silence of the Lambs is about what we don’t see. It is the taut, tightly constrained body of Hannibal Lecter, who is sometimes straight-jacketed and muzzled, but always looks like he is even when his limbs are free. It is the expressive stare of Clarice Starling, who flinches even while not allowing herself to flinch. It is the derangement of Buffalo Bill, whom we barely ever see clearly at all; he is almost always in the side of a shot, or bent over so his face is obscured, or seen in so tight a close-up that his features are distorted, so that the one clear shot of him, bizarre, vulgar, intimately revealing, is actually more shocking, than the autopsy or the head in a jar.

The filming is deceptive in its apparent straightforwardness. Opening at the Quantico, Virginia FBI training facility, it has the grainy look of a made-for-TV movie. But look again. Starling works her ass off on the training course, and then diverges, leaving it incomplete. She runs inside, a small, slight woman, while a group of larger men runs in the opposite direction. And that’s Clarice: Smaller, running in the opposite direction, off-course, tough but out of breath. At the end of the movie, she’ll be in the same position; off-course, out of breath, relying on incomplete training while her compatriots move in the opposite direction. Jonathan Demme clearly studied his Hitchcock; symmetrical film-making of that sort is the kind of thing you learn from the master.

Much has been made of the chilling intimacy of the relationship between Clarice and Hannibal. He is the dark side of the mentoring relationship she seeks with Jack Crawford (Glenn). As she reveals her childhood losses, one can see why reaching towards mentors is appealing to her. And with Lecter, there’s also the sheer joy of winning; anything he reveals to her hasn’t been revealed to anyone else. She’s infinitely special and can reflect this success back to her real mentor.

There is also a feminist undercurrent to the film. Starling is a little bird, preyed upon everywhere by larger men. She is a surrogate for the female victims of Buffalo Bill, who likes large women whom he makes helpless. Instead she is a small woman who can fight back. She can connect to Lecter even though he terrifies her, because he is just the worst possible version of every man who surrounds her, looks down on her, judges her, and tries to victimize her. Like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, she’s the poor sexy little girl running away, who turns around and kicks ass.


So here’s what I did

I voted for Clinton but I voted for Edwards’s delegates.

Should be a lively convention.

Damn it!

John Edwards is dropping out.

Yeah, I know. Underdog. No chance. But Edwards was more eloquent on poverty, more dignified and honest, had the best healthcare plan, didn’t pander, and was more gracious when wrong.

I’m from New Jersey. New Jersey’s primary used to be in June. June! For all my life I never got to vote for my candidate of choice, because he’d always dropped out by June. I’ve never been able to cast a vote for a true progressive, because by June all that’s left is the moderate centrist mealy-mouthed compromise candidate. Then I moved to New York, and yippee skip, I got to vote for Bill Bradley like the week before he dropped out.

I just want to cast my vote, GODDAMN IT.

A little more about Juno

Apparently, Juno is all controversial. It’s unkind to people who were adopted as well as to birth mothers to create a comedy about adoption. There’s a lot of discussion about whether Juno is anti-choice.

Shut! Up!

This is where I part ways with many feminists and other activists; where they start criticizing or trying to restrict art based on content. It’s not better to object to a movie based on its supposed anti-choice values than it is to object to a movie based on its supposed liberal values. It all feels like Social Realism thinking to me. I get that a birth mother might not want to see Juno, and might find it painful. And I sympathize. But that doesn’t mean that the subject matter should be off-limits. There are definitely things I never want to see in movies, and movies I avoid as a result. Comedies that everyone loves that I’ve never seen because they feel like they would trigger some serious pain for me.

But that doesn’t mean those comedies shouldn’t be made, nor that they are “not funny” by some objective standard. There is no objectivity with humor.

The more touchy the subject, the harder to do it right. One of my problems with Waitress, which was basically very charming, was the attempt to have a humorous abusive husband. This wasn’t triggering for me; I’ve never been the victim of domestic violence, but it made me uncomfortable.

I didn’t come away from that movie thinking this subject should never be addressed in a comedy. I came away thinking that maybe it can’t be done well, and this movie definitely didn’t do it well. But who knows? If beautifully written and acted, maybe it could illuminate the characters without feeling way out of line. Maybe.

If so, some people will choose to skip that movie anyway, because it hurts too much, and it’s not funny for them. I get that. I just don’t feel like it should be censored in advance, and I don’t feel that people who do find it funny should be accused of being less enlightened or feminist or socially responsible than thou.

Blog for Choice: What Do We Choose?

Blog for Choice Day

Here’s a thing about “Blog for Choice:” It’s really important to ask what the choice is. What is being chosen?

I’m finally coming to terms with the notion that I’m aging. Like, getting older. Like, I had to see my gynecologist about perimenopause, because I was having some difficulties. The doctor ended up prescribing the Pill. And I said to him, “You know, I’m not going to be getting any of the ancillary benefits out of this thing. I’m not fertile.”

And he said, “There are so many benefits to the Pill, if it wasn’t birth control, everyone would take it.” (He probably didn’t mean everyone. He probably didn’t mean men. Or children. Or, I dunno, pregnant women.)

I’ve been thinking about that a lot, and then Blog for Choice day came around, and it all tied together.

Why does the Pill being birth control prevent it from being used more widely for other things? Okay, in some cases, it’s because someone is trying to get pregnant, but I’m sure that’s not what my doctor meant. It seems to me that it’s because there’s a stigma on birth control.

You would think that anti-abortion activists would be interested in doing the one thing that is statistically proven to reduce the number of abortions: Prevent unwanted pregnancy. And in doing the one thing that prevents unwanted pregnancy: Provide access to birth control and accurate information about preventing pregnancy. But in fact, anti-abortion activists repeatedly oppose these things. They spread misinformation about birth control, claim that Plan B is an abortifacient rather than birth control, promote abstinence-only education which has been repeatedly proven to be a failure, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and in other ways prevent access to it…in fact, go out of their way to promote unwanted pregnancies, thereby ensuring the demand for abortion cannot decrease.

This is because these activists are not anti-abortion. They are anti-choice. And the choice they are against is sex. Specifically, women choosing to be sexual. They are anti-female-sexual-choice.

I don’t think the anti-choice movement can ever show its hand in a more horrifying way than in its opposition to the HPV vaccine. Folks, they’re against preventing cancer. Think of that the next time you hear the phrase “pro-life.” Because, you know, the only way to get HPV is to have sex, and we musn’t prevent people from dying of sex!

Anti-choice-to-have-sex. Anti-female-choice-to-have-sex.

Slut shaming. Abstinence-only “education.” Lying about Plan B. Anti-abortion propaganda. It all ties together. It’s all about preventing women from choosing sex.

The Pill can help regulate perimenopausal changes. It can help with menorrhagia and dysfunctional uterine bleeding. It can help clear up adolescent acne. But access to the Pill for these things is problematic because the pill allows women to choose sex.

Beware the word “consequences” in this context. They want to say that the pill allows “sex without consequences,” but what they mean is “sex without punishment.” They want abortion to be inaccessible and HPV vaccines to be off the table, because unwanted pregnancy and cancer are just desserts for sluts who choose to get laid.

It’s so important to remember this. It’s so important to remember that only pro-choice candidates are actually interested in doing things that prevent abortion: Provide real access to preventing unwanted pregnancy through education and birth control.

Actual electoral numbers

h/t to Bitch, PhD, here’s how it boils down.

Electoral reality vs. media spin

Very few people will tell you this, but in terms of the actual results of the New Hampshire primary, Clinton and Obama tied.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama each won nine delegates in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, followed by former Sen. John Edwards with 4 delegates, an AP analysis of primary results shows. All 22 of New Hampshire’s delegates to the national convention this summer have been allocated.

This just kills me, because the entire conversation about New Hampshire for weeks has been predicated on the assumption that there are winners and losers, whereas in fact delegates are assigned proportionately (so that the losers are everyone other than the top three in each party, who took home no delegates at all).

This is a perfect, and maddening, example of how the media urge to create a horserace story actually ends up lying to us about the real process of our democracy.

Who really won the NH primary?

All of the news reports will tell you that Clinton and McCain won, or that Clinton and Obama were virtually tied, with Clinton winning narrowly, and McCain won on the Republican side. But let’s look at this a different way—by actual number of votes.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 111,899
Barack Obama 104,148

John McCain 87,991
Mitt Romney 74,871

John Edwards 48,434
Mike Huckabee 26,613
Rudolph W. Giuliani 20,304
Ron Paul 18,159

Bill Richardson 13,164
Others (R) 5,485
Dennis J. Kucinich 3,877
Others (D) 3,661

Fred D. Thompson 2,860
Duncan Hunter 1,218

Joseph R. Biden Jr. 626
Mike Gravel 397
Christopher J. Dodd 202

Tom Tancredo 66

So, both Clinton and Obama handily beat McCain. And hello, 66 people who voted for Tancredo? He dropped out. Kthxbai.

Now, I added up the figures, and I have
Total Democratic votes: 286,408
Total Republican votes: 237,567
Total voter turnout: 532,975

Of these voters, approximately 150,000 were registered Independents, but I can’t figure out how many Independents voted each way because so far this morning, I haven’t been able to find the statistics on how many were registered Democratic or Republican. If anyone has that, I’ll update the post.

It’s like some kind of tic

Giuliani has moved beyond being the “Mayor of 9/11” and of playing the 9/11 card tastelessly and often. He now simply says it over and over. I think he has 9/11 topping on his breakfast cereal.

Mentioning it—virtually randomly—in response to Hillary’s “emotionalism” today, and last week in response to his Iowa caucus loss; I mean, what is that except some kind of mental deficit?

Jesus H. Christ.