The Ides of March - another Hollywood Masturbation Opus

Though I had seen no previews or read anything about the film, last night I watched The Ides of March based on the suggestion of a friend. I was told it was somehow about presidential elections or something and, after seeing it, the "or something" is the description which best fits. 

Time: Democratic Primaries in March (the ides of March, get it?)

Place: Ohio. 

Characters: 

George Clooney as Gov. Morris, the top contender for the ticket, a man with a vision he actually believes in and refuses to compromise on. "I said I wouldn't make compromises like that and I mean it!" 

 Ryan Gosling as Stephen Meyers, Morris' press secretary, who despite being experienced with the campaign world ("I've been involved with more campaigns than people who are 40!") has swallowed Morris' Kool-Aid and isn't sure if Morris will win, but knows he has to win.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as Paul Zara, campaign manager, a man who smokes a lot and makes seemingly deep proclamation about life and politics.

Paul Giamatti as the campaign manager for "the other guy", who also makes deep proclamations - must be part of the job.

Marisa Tomei as Ida Horowitz, a sassy, cynical reporter for the Times (I assume New York?) who will do anything in order to get the big scoop. You know she is a seasoned reporter because of her large, dark-framed glasses and messy hair. Not a clichéd character at all!

Oops! Almost forgot Evan Rachel Wood, who plays Molly, an intern working Morris' campaign, who, much like her Showgirls namesake, gets fucked, literally and figuratively.

Let us begin at the beginning, where thirty minutes into the movie I had to ask myself, "What is the plot of this damn thing?" Up to that point the movie revolved around snappy "in-the-know" one-liners about Washington politics (I was almost convinced that K Street is the only street in DC) and a campaign wish-list spouted by Clooney, um, Gov. Morris: abolish the death penalty; mandatory youth service, which then pays for college; pro-choice; elimination of the internal combustion engine in ten years (yes, this was actually said!); no reliance on foreign oil; and pulling ours heads out the (Saudi Arabian) sand. What reality does this movie exist in? I have no idea, but it is not K Street. Nevertheless, I felt the movie was going the of that other Hollywood masturbation great, Lions for Lambs, which was, of course, a lecture by Robert Redford. A thin plot eventually unfolds: Meyers sleeps with Molly, finds out she is pregnant from a one-night stand with the illustrious governor; she gets an abortion; she kills herself. In the meantime, Meyers meets with the enemy (Giamatti) and is subsequently fired by Zara for this betrayal. Meyers then has to maneuver himself back into the campaign. 

The Right Questions for Gov. Perry

I read this article in the Austin American Statesman today: "Questions need answering before Perry runs for real". How true, I thought to myself. Potential supporters need to ask how Perry will manage the Federal budget when he is unable to properly manage Texas. Or how can he claim to support better education efforts while firing hundreds of teachers and spending public funds on a Formula One track?

That is where my mind went, before reading the article: pertinent questions concerning policy. However, the point Mr. Ken Herman, the author, is making is this: is Perry ready to have his personal life come under complete public scrutiny? Almost immediately after George W. was inaugurated the papers became running articles on Laura Bush's choice of shoes and reported that peanut butter sandwiches were being served in the White House. Gasp! Governor Perry, this (apparently) is the only question you need to ask yourself: "Do you ever want to be able to fish alone again?"

Aren't these questions better discussed between Perry and his family, rather than the subject of a newspaper article? Mr. Herman, do you ever want to do any political reporting? Seems to me your answer is simple: No.

Uganda Elections and Some Other Things

Uganda's presidential elections were over a week ago (February 18) and I apologize for taking this long to express my opinion; I blame the tests and trials of moving. Museveni garnered over 68% of the vote, winning a fourth term and surprising no one. Despite claims of irregularity (voting materials arriving late at some locations, security personnel seen as intimidating at others) there was relatively little violence (less than one hundred people were arrested for fighting and bringing weapons to polling stations)the vote is widely held as valid and M7 will lead Ugandans through 2016 and undoubtedly bring Ugandan politics to a new level of corruption.

M7's practice of dirty politicking is not a secret:all Ugandans know that he pays off MPs in order to have Parliamentary votes swing in his favor; that he uses government funds for private purposes (such as this most recent election campaign); and, though he claims to work for and understand the poor rural masses, M7 actively retains money in the urban centers, making Uganda's poor poorer. But he stills gets votes because on one side you have people who align themselves with the M7 and the NRM, thus hoping to benefit from the spoils, and the other side you have those who become apathetic and no longer believe it is worth it to try and vote Museveni out of office. He will leave when he leaves, so why not just wait?

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for M7) there are other countries who currently demand our attention: Cote d'Ivoire, Libya, Bahrain, and now Oman (not to mention continued attention being paid to Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen.) Additional thoughts on Ugandan corruption will have to wait.

South Sudan Well on the Way to Independence

At the beginning of polling there had been fears of voter intimidation and violence, but the vote for independence of south Sudan was largely "peaceful and credible", with 95% voter turnout and 96% supporting succession and, so it seems, with Khartoum and Bashir fully supporting the southern decision for independence. Though media attention has turned to the uprising and subsequent establishment of a new government in Tunisia, the Sudan issue is neither resolved nor by any means over; it is has merely reached a checkpoint.

While George Clooney and his minions spent the week in Juba monitoring the voting process in order to point out any possible genocides-in-action (despite the inherent futility in the endeavor - but that is the subject for a genocide post, coming soon!), the time for monitoring will be in July, when the referendum takes effect and the status of southerners in the north (and vice versa) becomes uncertain. Or when (and if) the oil-rich Abyei district votes for succession of independence. Or if Darfur rebels, recently expelled from southern Sudan in an attempt to appease Khartoum, will now view the south as much of an enemy as the north. Or is opposition leaders in the north continue to call for reform and are continually silenced through arrests.

And those are only external possibilities of violence: in the various articles covering the vote last week I read one in which southern Sudanese believe a independent South Sudan will better protect them from the Lord's Resistance Army. The LRA has used Sudan as a base of operations for years and since at least 2005 has perpetrated attacks on Sudanase living in the south. Khartoum stands accused of supporting the LRA, especially during the north-south civil war in Sudan (to effectively weaken the south.) The general belief is that with Khartoum no longer in control of the south, the new government will be better able to protect its citizens from invasions and raids.

My worry - and I am sure I not the only one, Western, African, Sudanese, what-have-you - is that a new South Sudan will not be able to immediately assuage the concerns of southern Sudanese. Al-Bashir himself, in a non-pedantic, honest assessment, pointed out that the initial stages of countryhood will be rough and uncertain for South Sudan. Being an American in the age of Obama, I know how fickle a population can be, especially when demands are not immediately answered. While I hope the government of the new South Sudan will diligently fulfill the hopes and allay the fears of its populace, I also hope that populace will be understanding during the grace period any new country needs. It remains to be seen, but as long as an independent South Sudan remains true to the southern Sudanese our hopes can remain positive.

What the F--k! Arizona?

I try not to be an emotional person but as I scrolled through the pictures of the shooting in Arizona yesterday (January 8th) I could not help myself. It is a tragedy on many different levels: a domestic terrorist attack resulting in the deaths of six people, including a 9-year-old girl; an attack on an elected official and member of the judiciary; and an indicator of the extreme hate and violence currently present in American politics. Tea Party supporters and those of the far right have been quick to state that the gunman (Jared Lee Loughner) was not a member of the Tea Party movement; that the Tea Party does not espouse violence; and that the left will blame the Tea Party and far right for the shooting in order to put politics first. Of course, when the Tea Party puts politics first it's a completely different matter:

“While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died, we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing,” he wrote. “Within the entire political spectrum, there are extremists, both on the left and the right. Violence of this nature should be decried by everyone and not used for political gain.” (from this article at The New York Times)

What needs to be remember now is that, yes, the Tea Party and far right do not officially condone violence or violent methods, but that does not mean they do hold responsibility for inciting violence. Sarah Palin's website included Gabrielle Gifford's (the congresswoman targeted and shot) district in a gun's cross hairs; Glenn Beck has warned that "it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid" and "the war is just beginning", or, even more darkly, "[we are reaching] a point where the people will have exhausted all their options. When that happens, look out." Seriously, what the fuck? Regardless of whether Mr. Loughner was a member of the Tea Party movement or any other political faction is largely beside the point when violent rhetoric has become par for the course in American politics. It is not sufficient to claim innocence and hide behind the First Amendment: if you encourage and promote violent means to ends then you are indirectly responsible for the violence that may ensue. As my friend Foxy by Nature recently pointed out, the First Amendment does not protect against speech that causes harm to others. The Tea Party movement and far right may not have been directly involved in yesterday's shooting, but that does not absolve them from filling today's political climate with the "vitriol" that led to deadly violence. Until that responsibility is accepted, I do not think the violence is over.

Sudan Prepared for Referendum Vote

Tomorrow balloting begins on the referendum for southern Sudan independence. The process is will take 7 days and 60% is the percentage of "yes" votes needed to determine whether or not southern Sudan will become its own country. There have been concerns over security and the willingness of Khartoum to accept a possible yes for independence, but President al-Bashir visited Juba on January 4 and pledged to honor the outcome of the ballot and to work closely with the south on post-referendum concerns, such as whether north or south will control the oil-rich district of Abyei.  In face, Abyei faces its own referendum to determine its boundaries and future status in Sudan - north, south or unified. Oil is Sudan's main export and main contributor to the country's GDP; which side will benefit from this wealth?

The coming week is sure to be tense, but Covering the Globe hopes and believes that the balloting will occur will relatively little violence; events following the vote, however, may not be. Will Sudan remain united yet face renewed conflict from detractors in the south? What will happen to Darfur rebels if southern Sudan splits, yet retain positive diplomatic relations with Khartoum? Darfur rebels were recently expelled from southern Sudan in order to appease the north - in what way will separation affect the ongoing conflict in Darfur?

This sounds horrible, but this event is damn exciting; literally, it's quite historic. I'll keep a close eye on the situation and keep you informed as to results. You can also check out allAfrica.com for up-to-date information.

Nuke 'Em!

When I read the op-ed piece by John Bolton and John Yoo (about the New START treaty with Russia involving, what else?, reducing and better controlling nuclear arms) I thought I mistakenly eaten some psychadelic mushrooms: it is surreal. I had to step away halfway through because, for a moment, I thought they were arguing within today's reality - they're not! To claim that the treaty would reduce America's capacity to defend itself when actually the States would retain over 1,550 nuclear warheads is ridiculous. There aren't even 200 countries in the world and only 7 - 7! - have nuclear arms. Say what?  The first paragraph really does say it all:

  Voters want government brought closer to the vision the framers outlined in the Constitution, and the first test could be the fate of the flawed New Start arms control treaty, which . . .  awaits ratification. The Senate should heed the will of the voters and either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense. 

I read that connection as such: People love red Twizzlers therefore clothing manufacturers should only produce red textiles. Doesn't really flow, does it?

I can't deride their fantasy with any justice; luckily, Fred Kaplan over at Slate can. Read it, please, and remember you are as sane as you thought you were yesterday.

Catching Up with the News

Some recent news out of Africa and elsewhere:


Osama bin Laden and the Sahel: From Al Jazeera, on how bin Laden has internationalized the situation in the Sahel (Mauritania, Mali, Niger, but can also include Burkina Faso, Senegal and even Morocco) with video messages supporting kidnappings and condemning Western influence in the region, while the European Council has attempted discretion over the matter. The "situation" refers to the kidnapping a French national in July and the nine hostages currently being held by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM), a creation of the Algerian DRS, a strong "terrorist" influence in the region. I can't go into details because I admit a high degree of ignorance concerning the Sahel in particular and North/ West African in general - it's not my area - but I recommend it because one, it's a reminder of just how large Africa is that a situation involving several African nations and France is considered "obscure" and two, it's healthy to have some understanding of the current events, obscure or not. For background on AQIM, the hostage crisis and why the European Council is involved in what originally were France's solitary actions, read the articles here, here and here.

Facebook, You're So Naughty: an employee was fired after posting disparaging remarks about her supervisor on her Facebook page, a post which prompted additional caustic remarks from co-workers. The employee is claiming unlawful termination. Will be interesting to see how this plays out and how much control companies will lose (or gain!) over their employees.

And check out Scocca on Slate: funny, relevant, biting - everything I wish I could be.

Election Day Blues

Millions of Americans are voting today. For the past two days I mentioned the elections, giving reasons both for and against voting, but today I filled with sadness over the emptiness of elections and the elected officials they bring to office. In today's New York Times there is this opinion article by Frank Rich describing how the Tea Party movement has enabled the GOP to maintain and, in some cases, strengthen its hold on politics. The most telling quote comes from Senator Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." How can that make you want to do anything other than weep? That sentiment means two years of political deadlock, with the president unable to pass anything through Congress and Congress refusing to offer bills palatable to the president. Never mind about what might be best for citizens as long as politicians retain their hold on power, the ruling party is ousted, and lobbyists and corporations continue to cash in. A new Gilded Age is either here or right around the corner, with money being the only political power with any weight. Who will our Teddy Roosevelt be?