Quantum of Solace

“Casino Royale” and the new James Bond, Daniel Craig, warmed up the American public for a sequel oddly titled “Quantum of Solace,” which is never explained, although we find out that Quantum is like SPECTER, a secret organization up to no good. The box office take on the opening weekend, $70 million, reflected the keen interest in the new blond Bond, who is as physically adept as previous Bonds but who is a more serious character, not a dandy or gourmet or outrageous womanizer, and a man with a tragic vein through his inner life. In other words, in this new film Craig seems well on his way to redefining who James Bond is. His character is more psychologically intense, and much more subtle and melancholy, and relentless in everything he does. The death and betrayal of Vesper Lynd (Eve Green) has turned him into a man tormented and driven; and he pursues her killers like a man on a personal mission. He is so bent on his goal he has no time for corny puns, gourmet meals, and fancy drinks (unless they help him sleep) and not much sex, which is very unlike all the other Bonds. He is also more brutal and than normal in this narrative, as a deep inner anger makes him not give a damn. He dispatches several characters almost as if he enjoyed offing them, rather then it being an inevitable part of his job. One scene more than any other typifies what I mean. A carry-over character from the first film, Mathias (Giancarlo Giannini), who accompanies Bond to Bolivia, becomes a shield for Bond in a shoot-out with some cops. And then after a tender death scene, when Mathias tells him to forgive Vesper and himself, he dies in Bond’s arms. So what does he do? He takes the money out of Mathias’ wallet and throws the body in a dumpster. Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is with him and she is shocked by his crude attitude to his friend. “He would not mind,” he answers. Try to picture Sean Connery or Roger Moore doing that.

Camille is one of three women that Bond must deal with in “Quantum of Solace.” She is a fellow traveler interested in revenge; she never becomes a sex object for Bond, more a compatriot on her own mission, which is to kill General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), a fascist pig who wants to take over the Bolivian government with help from Quantum. Camille wants to kill him because, when she was a little girl, he raped and murdered her mother and sister. She teams up with Bond to accomplish her goal, one more indication that this is a new Bond. They become and eventually part as good friends. He does bed one agent named Strawberry Fields (ho, ho) who is killed by the bad guys and her death is Homage to “Goldfinger.” But the lovemaking is brief and tossed off like it has little significance; there is no dwelling on it like with other Bonds. Finally there is M (Judi Dench), his boss and to an extent a maternal influence in his life. She moves from mistrust to total trust in him. She’s not real happy with his new “Dirty Harry” approach to adversaries, but she knows he will get the job done.

Mathieu Amalric plays Dominic Greene, a fake ecologist out to do in legitimate governments and to swindle countries with predatory environmental schemes. He is one of many Quantum agents doing their dirty work around the globe. Amalric is the actor who was so fine in “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.” He was not the best villain that I have ever seen, but sufficiently scummy to be repulsive. He’s worse then General Madrano who is a simple brute. He pretends to be a do-gooder.

There is the usual collection of action set-pieces, a car chase, a running chase, shoots outs, buildings blowing up, the whole catalog of mayhem and violence, but not much in the way of gimmicks or techo-magic. Craig handles it all with aplomb. The movie is also a travelogue, as the story wanders from Italy to London to Haiti to Austria and finally to Bolivia. And it is whiz-bang all the way.

As a final observation I would say there has been a process of cross-fertilization between the Bourns series and the last two Bond movies. I think there are some obvious similarities; both in terms of action and how things are filmed. They are both characters operating as solo artists in their trade, as action heroes of tremendous physical prowess, and with racecar driving skills and acute survival instincts. And both have lost a woman they loved. Like Jason Bourne, James Bond is indestructible and too damn tough to be handled by any mere mortal on two legs.

"Bailout to Nowhere."

Tom Friedman writes a biweekly column for the New York Times. On Wednesday Night he was on the Rachel Maddow Show to discuss that day’s column in the paper that was highly critical of the Detroit carmakers for coming again hat in hand to the government asking for additional money so they don’t go under before the first of the year. After having received $25 billion already the Big Three want $150 billion more to be taken out of the $700 billion package designed largely by Henry Paulson. Incidentally, the money in that package, we learned yesterday was detoured to the banks rather than used to buy up the toxic assets that we were told it was originally designed for. Paulson decided to do it that way because those assets were difficult to handle and decipher and would take too long to unscramble. One wonders does anybody know what is going on? Nothing seems to work and the hole we are in keeps getting deeper.

Friedman’s critique of the Big Three is merciless and persuasive, for everyone knows they have been in denial since the oil crisis in the early 1970s. They have failed to convert their factories to smaller more fuel-efficient cars and are now caught in a vise of their own making. They have continued to produce gas-guzzling vehicles that the Industry has taught the American public to want, that they believe they must have to be strong and protected. Well, the chickens have come home to roost, as the carmakers are now paying their dues for their tardiness and delinquency in regard the cars now called for by circumstances that even a fool could see were coming. The trouble is they are paying their dues with OUR money, making the American taxpayer foot the bill for their lack of vision and imagination, and their inept management of their business. Moreover, the Bush Administration is not insisting on transparency or real oversight on these deals with the car companies--or the banks. No one is really sure what the Big Three did with that original money they were given to presumably retool the plants. To the layman it is an outrageous rip-off without dictating terms and having close scrutiny over what was going on. Like AIG they probably handed out bonuses to the company’s hierarchy, in short, it ended up corporate welfare. To hell with saving the industry and the three to five million people who depend on it for a living. Social responsibility seems a foreign concept to these people. Selfishness is the only credo they live by.

Near of his comments Friedman quotes Paul Ingrassia of the Wall Street Journal who used to be bureau chief in Detroit and knows the car business very well. He’s as fed up and disgusted with the carmakers as Friedman. He thinks for them to get direct government aid the shareholders should lose what equity they have left and a government-appointed receiver should call the shots in regard the retooling of the plants, and he or she should be hard-nosed and nonpolitical. It also means tearing up existing contracts with the unions, dealers, and suppliers; some operations will have to be closed and others sold off, and the companies will have to be downsized. And for heaven’s sake, don’t give them a blank check. Make them demonstrate proof of retooling; we don’t want a lot of smoke and mirrors and then end up with more of the same kind of vehicles and business as usual. Look for the renegades and eccentrics with ideas and the will to be inventive and innovative, like conventional designers won’t be.

Getting down to brass tacks in regard a bailout, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said on Thursday that there aren’t enough votes in the upcoming lame-duck session next week to pass the legislation, and its problematical that it can be achieved after Obama is sworn in as President, as it appears there just isn’t the Republican votes to do it, plus there are a number of Democrats who are skeptical, as they see it as throwing good money after bad. The Democrats would have to able to reach 60 votes and that doesn’t seem likely at this juncture, although it might change when all races are resolved.

Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, the ranking party member on the Banking Committee, has said he will not support bailout legislation and was quite prepared to let the Auto Industry collapse. “The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem, but their problem.” The Republican Leader in the House, John Boehner of Ohio, was even more explicit. “Spending billions of additional federal dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automaker’s competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy.” The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was in favor of the first loan but he has not indicated he would support additional monies for Detroit.

Then today, Friday, David Brooks met the problem head on. His column was called “Bailout to Nowhere.” I recommend it to everyone, as he calls a spade a spade. He is against helping the automakers because it’s contrary to the principles of Capitalism, what he calls “creative destruction,” what deserves to fail should fail, to be replaced by something better. Cars will still get made in this country. To give Detroit more billions of dollars when they have shown no will to change over three decades is to support the notion that some corporations deserve a kind of immortality and become, not healthy and profitable, but part of a system of corporate welfare, which is based on political power not sound economics. Do you remember when it used to be said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”? Does anyone still believe that? I doubt it. And isn’t it true that if you help the automakers aren’t you opening doors to every other business in trouble, say, Circuit City. If you help one aren’t you inviting everyone to come with a hand out asking for money? To help the carmakers is to encourage corporate stagnation, exactly what we don’t need. “ There is no one who believes the companies are viable without radical change. A federal cash infusion will not infuse wisdom into management. It will not reduce labor costs. It will not attract talented new employees…. In short, the bailout will not solve anything—just postpone things.” He suggests, and I would certainly go along with this idea, that some of that proposed bailout money be used to help the workers who would be displaced by the transition away from the old way of doing things. No one is saying this can be easy, but we all can get through it, if the government does the right thing and puts money where it needs to be.

Just remember Obama’s slogan, YES WE CAN.

Two Kinds of Conservatives

Okay, now that Barack Obama is the President Elect and is busy doing things out of sight of cameras, the Republicans are having a crisis of identity now that they have been toppled from power. Since John McCain more or less opted out on Tuesday night on the Jay Leno Show, by saying he was going back to the Senate and it was up to a younger generation to worry about the next election. So there are two questions for the party:: Who are we, and who shall be the new leader?

Bill Kristol and David Brooks both work for the New York Times as the paper’s representative conservatives and both commented this week about the post-election situation. Kristol sees no need for any kind of ideological realignment, where Brooks does.

As far as Kristol is concerned, Obama’s victory is not a landslide and there is a good chance the G.O.P. could make a comeback in two years, like the Party did in 1994. He sees the vote for Obama as really a vote against Bush, a gesture toward his failed administration. That doesn’t quite explain a poll this week that indicated a belief that President Obama would see to it we are better off 4 years from now. 78% said they felt that way. That sounds unquestionably pro-Obama. Despite the dawning of a newly generated Liberal Era, Kristol thinks we remain a center-right country. President Obama would have to stumble in a major way for 1994 to be repeated. I don’t think it’ll happen.

David Brooks sees things differently. I dare say more realistically. In his estimation Obama has the Gravitas, discipline, and requisite skills to stay in office 8 years. Neither does he buy the notion of an anti-Bush vote. Rather he thinks it was inevitably a Democratic year with Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Paulson on everyone’s shit list, which signaled it was time to try the other Party. As for McCain, he lost because he was too moderate for the base, too old, too erratic, and too out of touch with most Americans and the Digital Age. In fact, moderates were one casualty of this election; they have all but disappeared, especially from the Northeast. Brooks once called himself a “progressive conservative,” which is like having the best of both worlds. He argues there are two varieties of Republicans: The Traditionalists and the Reformers. The Traditionalists were led by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the dynamic duo of Mediadom, who believe the R-Party should stick to core principles, that is, cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration, pro-guns, anti-choice, anti-intellectual, anti-Liberal; and they should rally around Sarah Palin and push the idea that we are still a Christian nation. They are, to say the least, hard-core, and there is no compromise with the evil Liberals, who, according to the likes of Ann Coulter, make their bed with snakes and cockroaches. There is a legion of these types on talk radio that keep something on the order of 20 million zealous listeners agitated and in line. They take a dim view of people who don’t think like they do. They are, for example, very glad the moderates have been purged from the Party.

Posed against these angry traditionalists are the pale-faced Reformers. (There are no African Americans in evidence in either group.) They are a camp largely made up of center-right intellectuals who lack the institutional support the Traditionalists enjoy (Think Tanks, Talk Radio, FOX NEWS, lobbyists, publicists, the Religious Right, the base.) Brooks counts himself with the Reformers. The Reformers think the Far Right’s priorities are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, especially those who live in the larger cities on the West and East coasts, all the way down to Virginia, North Carolina, and even Florida, plus the upper Midwest and the Northeast. The Red States are in the South, the plains, the Mountain West, and part of the Southwest, with the exception of New Mexico and Colorado, which went for Obama this time around. Actually, Obama made inroads in several Red States, which may come in handy two years from now. The populations of the Red States still cling to the land, to church and the Rotary Club, to old time values, including rugged individualism. The Blue States combine a more secular approach and a polyglot spirituality, and more strikingly urban culture, with all its attendant pleasures and problems.

Brooks has a sociological perspective as thinker and writer. When he mentions religion, it belongs to someone else not him. He tends to see society as a collective entity influenced by the environment and human interaction. Rugged individualism is a myth that has had its day. His view is secular, pragmatic, and tinged with Behaviorism. He disagrees with Limbaugh and the rest of them about slashing government; their view is unsupportable, as governance has social relevance and responsibilities. (Just think of the taxpayer money given to Banks and the Auto Industry, and the partial nationalization of both.) He also thinks the R-party must address the growing inequality in our society and the Middle Class anxiety about our reeling economy. Nor should the Party cater so categorically to the rich, which is other side the equality coin. They must also make an appeal to the Hispanics, the Independents, and the younger voters, or Republicans won’t be voted in as Dog Catcher. Reformers see compromise as the essence of Democracy and how to get something done.

In my estimation, David Brooks’ analysis of the Party’s dilemma makes much more sense than the ranting opinions of the Zealots of the Far Right. For example, Limbaugh is already blaming the recession on Obama when he not even in office yet. The man foams at the mouth as a substitute for thinking.

Letter to a Friend: The Election

Dear Pete,

I told you that the American people would not put another Republican in the White House for a third term in a row. The odds were against it, especially following the gross incompetence and lack of truthfulness of the Bush Administration. Like it has happened many times before, it was time to give the other Party a chance.

Actually, I am still riding the tsunami of euphoria, which is still makng it’s way around the globe. However, I am sober enough to consider doing a post-mortem of the two campaigns, to draw a profile of why Obama proved the skeptics wrong and the polls correct. The profile of the McCain campaign should address the question, why did the tact he took fall so flat with millions of voters?

Firstly, how did Obama do it?

Timing. Obama knew that it was unlikely that the voters would return a Republican to office in 2008. They would not be in the mood to trust more Republicans on the heels of a failed administration, and John McCain had admitted he voted with Bush 90% of the time. That’s probably why he entered the race in the first place. There was a confluence of factors that encouraged Obama’s kind of candidacy. He also aligned with the Zeitgeist. In contrast, McCain had no clue, rooted as he was in his Vietnam past, the military history of his family, and his personal wealth and Life Style. Obama understood the Spirit of the Times, the hunger for a sea change in Government; the people were tired of the same old thing and partisan bickering which seemed endless and fruitless. McCain picked up on the theme of change but he never found a central, consistent, and believable argument to sell his version of change. It sounded like the retread it was.

Money. Unlike the last few elections, when the Republicans were the fat cats, this time the shoe was on the other foot, as Obama discovered that the Internet could provide the Golden Egg, to the tune of $640 million for his campaign. It made quite a difference in two critical areas, the number of paid people on the ground and the number of TV ads. It gave him an enormous advantage.

Broad Attack. The campaign sent ground troops everywhere, not just to certain important states. It paid off because he won 7 red states and made inroads into others.

Caucuses. It was an early tactic for the primaries that really worked against

Hillary Clinton. She concentrated on the big states but came up short. Many

Pundits thought Obama would have difficulty winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, and

Florida in the general election, but he won all three, plus Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, states also thought to be problematic.

Independents. This group of voters was supposed to be a gold mine for McCain but Obama ended up winning 52% of them, compared to 44% for McCain.

Other factors:

Obama won 66% of the under 30 vote. In 2000 Gore won 40+ percent of the vote. Kerry in 2004 won 54%. The young not only turned out for rallies, they turned out to vote and were a critical segment. They also look promising for the future vote.

Hispanic vote: It was 67% for Obama.

African American vote: 96% for Obama.

Educated Whites: 47%. Total white vote for Obama was 43%. McCain got 55%.

Negative factors for McCain:

Sarah Palin. Katy Couric and Tina Fey, who simply held a mirror up to her, did her in She was a very poor choice for VP. And it reflected poorly on McCain’s judgment. She was called inept and unqualified by a dozen conservative intellectuals. The McCain people are bashing her now, turning her into a scapegoat. However, the base still loves her. It’s anybody’s guess if she has a future with the G.O.P.

Negative Ads. They did not have the impact they did in previous elections. The voting population was sick of them.

Erratic Campaign. McCain and others were changing the campaign’s focus every other day. In vivid contrast, the Obama campaign was a model of consistency and discipline. From the top down they were tightly disciplined and on the same page.

The Election Left The R-Party In A Bad Way. Only the far right of the Republican Party seems in tact. They refuse to understand their defeat as a repudiation of conservative philosophy, you know, limited government, no taxes, self-reliance, pro-gun, free trade, this is a Christian country, etc.etc. If they keep that up they’ll never win another election. Most of the remnant needs an anger management class.

Moderate Republicans. They peeled off or got beat. They are a vanishing species, or, pseudo-Democrats.

Mission Accomplished

It is Thursday night, two days after the election of Barack Obama, which still has my feet off the floor. This is my first attempt to write about it, although I have sent some E-mail to friends in various parts of the country and overseas. Actually, it’s plugging into the post-election euphoria that is circling the globe, a high that takes heart in the elevation of the freshman senator from Illinois and the dethroning of W and his neocon cohorts. (As Dave Letterman said last night, “Can Bush leave early?” Oh, that would be nice.) Somehow things seem better today; a pall has been lifted from the land; the sun is peeking through the dark clouds on the horizon. I know what I sense is at best a sense of exciting potential, but it does feel like a new era is dawning. As they say in sports, although one team may be favored to win, you have to play the game.

Sarah Palin is back in cold storage in Alaska, her nine weeks of fame over and done with, maybe for good, or maybe not. The McCain people are bashing her. She’s being accused of meeting people with just a towel on, of not knowing her geography, and god knows what else. I almost feel sorry for her. After all, McCain picked her. That is fact number one. As for McCain, he is in Sedona licking his wounds. No one has heard a peep out of him.

I will always remember that moment when CNN declared that Obama had swept the three west coast states, California, Oregon, and Washington, after he had already won in Pennsylvania and Ohio, which meant he had passed 270 and was in like Flynn—he was the president elect. The impossible dream was suddenly a reality! The tens of thousands gathered in Grant Park in Chicago exploded with joy and happiness, and I sat in my chair at home pumping my fist in the air like Tiger Woods, with tears streaming down my cheeks, like Jesse Jackson in the crowd in Chicago. What a moment it was, as so much came together in a flash; it was an emotional catharsis the likes of which I have experience only a few times. The first thought I had was, my god, a black man has made it all the way to the White House; this country had finally crossed a threshold the far right could not even imagine. It felt like we had graduated as a nation—and it was about time! Frankly, I never expected to see this in my own lifetime. What a tremendous breakthrough it was; we will never be the same again; the diverse and multicultural America has finally taken root.

Three cheers for Obama!

Three cheers for all of us.

Top Dogs Republicans

What’s a Republican? It appears McCain has made a little headway the last few days; the uptick was widely predicted. His harping on taxes, socialism, class warfare, spread the wealth, and “build from the bottom up,” has had some positive effect for his cause. The Bill Ayers thing and “He’s a secret Muslim” have faded into the background; they were issues that never did work for him, except with the base, who needed red meat. He’s gone back to traditional Republican issues, you know, “He’s going to raise taxes and hurt the small businessman,” like that phony, Joe the Plumber, who’s brazenly capitalizing on his notoriety.

In contrast to the Democrats, the GOP builds from the top down—the trickle down theory, their old stand-by. They are the Party of top dogs, and have little compassion for, say, the bottom fish, which exist in the lower quarter of the social strata. Think back to Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism: How long did that stay on his agenda? It was only a gimmick to lure the Reagan Democrats to vote for him. It disappeared once he felt secure in the Oval Office.

The top dogs of the GOP are the Businessmen of America; they are the role models of virtue and success; they produce the bounty that flows downward and supposedly lifts all boats. The businessman and entrepreneur are the highest and finest fruit of the capitalist system. Howard Roark’s speech to the jury in THE FOUNTAINHEAD spells that ideal out in fine detail. They are the uber-men, the kings of finance, technology and progress. They make everything go. As a group, they constitute the dream team. In addition to being affluent, influential, and successful, they hold firm to tradition—to God, family, apple pie and patriotism. They distrust foreigners or ‘the Other.’ Sarah Palin has said, “They aren’t like us; we are the real Americans.” These days they are virtually all white, too, as the Republican Convention made clear. The key to their philosophy is the supremacy and dominance of the innovative and exemplary individual, the person who rises above the Herd, who makes his mark in an always-evolving upward cycle of progress. Such outstanding servants of free enterprise contribute significantly to that mythic edifice of the Republican imagination, “the shinning city on the hill” that President Reagan liked to celebrate. At a certain level of achievement and reward, the heroes of capitalism are virtually untouchable, almost godlike. Money rains on them like rain drowns the vermin at the bottom of the social ladder..

The Republicans are the Party of property, wealth, and anti-taxes; of tradition and Law and Order; and an ever-expanding Militarism. (Check the career of the journalist Robert Kaplan. He’s gone from the frugal world traveler to the apologist for our Military Might.) They always want to cut spending and deep down they wish it were Medicare and Social Security, those socialist programs initiated by LBJ and FDR. It is usually some form of social program, whatever they think they can get away with at any given time. With a shrug of regret, they say, as Barry Goldwater once said, “The poor will always be with us.” Actually, they would prefer the churches would take on the burden of the poor, as it shouldn’t be the responsibility of the government. Their most ardent ideal is a very limited government; for them that would mean ignoring our numerous social problems, like decaying infrastructure and 47 million Americans without health insurance, and instead vote billions for defense and war-making around the globe. They like to say, as I heard Ken Lay once comment to a young admirer at ENRON, keep at it and someday you too can have your turn at the top. They like to proffer ideals and paradigms that all lead to being a millionaire and a mover and shaker; such a success is held out like a carrot for acolytes interested in fame and fortune.

But from the perspective of the bottom fish, it all boils down to the rich getting richer and the poor, which now includes many of the middle class, getting the short end of the stick. They end up with the bills of the elite who periodically fail through their own mistakes and reckless behavior. That’s when we learn their philosophy all along was “privatize profits and socialize losses.”

Will we never learn?

A Cartoony Election

I printed two political cartoons from the New York Times this morning, cartoons that pretty much reflect where I am at right now. Tony Auth shows a wild pack of people speeding toward a finish line marked Nov. 4. It is a mob reaching out to end their misery, to burn out their obsession with this ever-lasting campaign. The other cartoon was by Ben Sargent. There’s a guy safe and dry inside a building; he carries a picnic basket that is mark AMERICAN VOTING SYSTEM. There is something 19^th century about his costume. (Just for your information, the law to vote on the first Tuesday in November was passed in 1843, when the country was an agrarian society.) In the doorway is another man dressed in rain gear and buffeted by a roaring storm outside. Water splashes in around him. Above him is the word TURNOUT. That man comments to the other, “You-uh-haven’t seen a weather report, I take it…” In short, voting on Tuesday is not going to be a picnic and you don’t need a weatherman to know the flood of people could overwhelm the system.

Auth’s cartoon speaks to the nervous exhaustion and anxiety so many of us feel at this point of the process. We just want to get it all behind us and to move forward to the next hurdles we have to negotiate. Of even greater concern is the possible turnout. If the early voting is any indication, it could be as high as 80%, which I’ll have to see to believe. But if it is that high I suspect there is no way everyone who wants to vote on Tuesday will be able to. Then what happens? People won’t vote because the system is stupid and antiquated? Do we say tough luck, better luck next time? How fair is that?

It appears that the early vote in 32 states took care of 25% to 30% of the vote nationally. It took days; there were long lines and 4 to 6 hours waits in some places.

As an ex-boss of mine was fond of saying, if I were king I’d make these changes…We’d vote over a three day weekend, or even better, over the space of a week, and we’d dump the Electoral College nonsense and make it a simple referendum. And there is nothing wrong with paper ballots with some kind of scanner device. We need to make it as easy as possible rather than a briar patch to crawl through. Personally, my wife and I did mail-in ballots. Took us ten minutes to mark the ballot and put it in an envelope.