Senator Obama recently took heat for his comments to fundraisers in San Francisco. Those remarks, for some reason, were never interpreted with a bit more cynicism and much less conventional wisdom: why can't we just speculate that Sen. Obama was simply pandering to what a particular, rich, liberal constituency wanted to hear (the rubes don't really believe that... religion and guns are simply symbolic painkillers to stop the sting of the economic Real)? It was the same pandering process that all the candidates have done, and must do, in order to get elected (see also: Senator Clinton and boilermakers; Senator McCain and John Hagee).

Sen. Obama's statements were construed as some sort of lazy (to his opponents on the left... "elitist" to his detractors on the right) allusion to Marx-cum-Gramsci base/superstructure theory masked in Thomas Frank jargon. So the talking points became simple: Obama's an elitist and a Marxist... oh my!

So at the expense of betraying my "Marxist" sympathies (and hopefully some of yours, too!), I had a great time laughing at the news of Miley Cyrus' spread in Vanity Fair. Annie Liebovitz's portrait hit Drudge and at 7am Monday morning Hannah Montana went from "tweenie-bopper" to "tworn-star."

And that's precisely the point where some of that basic, good, old-fashioned Marxist thinking about the "commodity" is helpful and can explain what the hell happened. This dust-up points to the fact that Miley Cyrus' body is a commodity that is controlled by two different sets of interests and agendas: those of Disney and those of her family.

Disney has an interest in making sure Miley Cyrus' body remains "Hannah Montana,"The Opium Of The People franchise par excellence, for as long as possible. I can only imagine the intense and numerous aneurisms felt throughout the Magic Kingdom when they saw this issue of Vanity Fair. They're very aware that this sort of thing happens often in our paparazzi-and-tabloid information age: the slippery slope of slut. Brittney and Lindsay went from bankable faces to disheveled snatch-shots. And now another golden-goose franchise is approaching the point where the Disney execs must awkwardly peek into the abyss and see the advent of their leading lady's libido. Based on recent trends, this can't be good (ahem: paging Jamie Lynn Spears). They must now contemplate the uncomfortable: how do you reconcile this development with the inconvenient truth that the Hannah Montana demographic, statistically speaking, has yet to even have their first period? If you're Disney, you make sure that your lawyers and a battalion of PR reps quash this disaster, ASAP.

On the other hand, the Cyrus family has an interest in maintaining the 15 year-old's body as "Hannah Montana" in the near and intermediate future, but from there they obviously need to be more flexible and shrewd. They must make sure that Ms. Cyrus can still work her moneymaker when this HM gig runs its course. The "Hannah Montana" empire has to make the delicate transition to the "Miley Cyrus" career. And (pace Simpson, Lohan, Spears) that task is a bitch. Yet, since womanhood is inevitable, the Cyrus family handlers made the (mis)calculation that Miley should begin some sort of long-term transition via the lens of the esteemed Annie Liebovitz.

But if you're feeling bad for Miley at this point, you may be expending too much sentiment for her, and not enough for your own kid. After all, the Mouse and Mr. Achy-Breaky-Heart wouldn't be doing any of this if they weren't trying to grab your cash.

Hanna Rosin, writing in Slate, made several points worthy of consideration while explaining her feeling of violation at the sight of Miley's bare back. In particular, though, I want to pay special attention to her remarks on the fact that it is, indeed, a hard call to judge the effects of the content of franchises like High School Musical and Hannah Montana on the attitudes of a/her tween audience. Specifically, her concern is:

Now there are shows we all consider clean: Hannah Montana and High School Musical, for example. And by any watchdog's standards they are: no sex, no exposed flesh, no cursing. This ensures that children as young as 6 or 7 (such as my daughter) will know all about them and love them. She doesn't see anything bad. She just listens to lots of teenagers sing and dance and go on and on about who's dating whom and who's in love and who broke up, etc. They are innocent and knowing at the same time. I can't easily say to her: Don't watch that, you don't want to be like that underage sexpot, do you? Because the actors look as cute and innocent as the Teletubbies. But something about all this sanitized high school chatter leaves me uneasy. Why does a 6-year old need to know so much about dating and breaking up?

Now I recognize that I may be a tad too reactionary and live with a post-Culture Wars hangover, but Hanna's suspicion seems correct. The sanitized, uncomplicated, and relationship-centric storylines of these TV shows are vehicles for mega-advertising dollars. In this case, the tween revenue stream is up for grabs and (surprise, surprise) the content of the shows prepare 8-10 year olds to recognize that adolescence, in general, and dating and breaking-up, in particular, are properly understood as consumer events that they will soon experience. Relationships aren't complicated interactions between human beings (how "silly"), but occasions to buy/wear the right clothes, conform to specific cliques, and spend the ‘rents money on dinner at the Cheesecake Factory and dates to the multiplex.

And let's not forget how these easy, chaste plots are good training for future consumption habits: if you keep the tweens around long enough with HSM and HM, then eventually they'll switch to Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy when melodrama with a character singing her "own" songs just doesn't compare to ABC-approved bands soundtracking the hijinks of those crazy "adults."

All I can do is shudder. Obviously, my response is a consequence of me not having kids. When I do have kids, I'll realize that life's not just abstracted, continual analyses of which commodities are better to support when one is given a limited set of possibilities from which to choose. Additionally, I'll find out, first-hand, how it sucks to have to be a responsible parent and strike a balance between letting your kid stay informed of the pop culture they share with their peers and, at the same time, help them develop a sense of ironic detachment from the incessant attacks from advertisers.

But while I'm able to have the luxury of watching this from the sidelines, I'm content to talk snark at the commodification of Miley Cyrus and the exploitation of the tween demographic. After all, they're targeting 8 year-olds, dude.

I grew up in a household that revered William F. Buckley. My father is from New York City and converted to Buckley in the ‘60s. In my childhood, National Review was always at hand. The specter of Buckley haunted me long before I was politically aware.

National Review, of course, has extensive coverage of Buckley’s death and legacy by many of his intellectual children, step-children, and grandchildren. One of Buckley’s protégés, David Brooks, discusses Buckley in today’s New York Times. One of the most insightful remembrances comes from John Judis in The New Republic:

Yet the key to Buckley is to understand that he was a rebel, but not a heretic. He fancied himself and his politics to be anti-establishment, yet he was part of the American establishment against which he rebelled.

And this is what inspires me when considering Buckley’s life and intellectual/political pursuits: his most outstanding moment was a legacy of (perhaps over-articulated) dissent.

The initial publisher’s statement of National Review, with its assertion of “standingBuckley's legacy athwart History, yelling, ‘Stop,’” is still a fun read because of the tone is one of congenial indignation. He objected to the ideological hegemony of New Deal liberalism. Instead of merely being a “nonconformist” to his era’s dominant model, he believed that he could collaborate with his fellow travelers (“those who have not made their peace with the New Deal”) to create a coherent and competitive alternative.

Dissent is sometimes overwhelming and lonely. Schopenhauer aggressively challenged Hegel's system; no one attended his seminars. The Clash stipulated that Beatlemania had bitten the dust. Have you heard what they call “Punk” music today? So, sometimes dissent fails.

Buckley dissented from the logic and consequences of the New Deal. Compared to other moments of dissent in the the 20^th century, Buckley's may lack the thrilling aesthetic punch of Modernist novels, Punk music, or Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Its impact also may be diminished by the fact that WFB was a WASP who, at first, just changed the minds of other WASPs.

But Buckley’s success was astonishing.

The ancient paleoconservative establishment had decayed and Buckley replaced it in National Review with a space where different genres of conservative thought were synthesized, sublimated, and, in some cases, excluded. Cultural paleoconservatives, suspicious of late-capitalism, were brought together with market-worshiping libertarians, anti-Communists, Straussians, neoconservatives), and right-wing Thomists. All were promiscuous with one another and spawned new generations of thought for the American Right.

Some may be horrified by that reality, but what is important about Buckley and the development of conservatism is that with Buckley at the helm, these couplings were premised on the condition of intellectual rigor and cosmopolitanism.

Due to that ethic, Buckley had the good sense to attack some of the Right’s mostStood athwart history notorious loons including the John Birchers and those dreadful Randian Objectivists. Some may demand that he should have denounced more groups within his coalition, but he had to start somewhere.

Looking back, many have pointed to instances where his opinions were wrong, in particular his evolving but persistent blind spot on matters of race and ethnicity. But one should not stop admiring Jean-Luc Godard simply because of his Maoist period, or Michel Foucault because he tried to vindicate elements of the Iranian Revolution within his schema of history, so William Buckley (rightly understood) certainly deserves admiration too.

There’s another worthy essay in the most recent New Republic that, coincidentally, dovetails with the passing of Mr. Buckley and his importance, Mark Lilla’s “The Pleasures of Reaction” (subscription required). It is Lilla’s brief explanation of the history of neoconservatism, but one important facet of the article is his emphasis on defining the “political reactionary":

We need to restore the term "reaction" to our vocabulary, not as an epithet but as a psychological and political category… Modern reactionaries and modern revolutionaries share a picture of history that theologians call apocalyptic: they are obsessed with ruptures in time, and see human experience as radically discontinuous. The revolutionary works to bring the apocalyptic moment about, ushering in paradise; the reactionary believes that moment has passed and that the gates of hell have opened.

[Editor's note: Earlier today, a mass anti-American and anti-Kosovar protest broke out in Belgrade. Protesters set fire to the US embassy.]

Remember when Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol (there they are again) condemned the majority party in Congress for not supporting the President’s war? Remember when Zbigniew Brzezinski and John McCain both agreed about the utility and necessity of American military intervention on behalf of a Muslim population to protect (and, yes, liberate) them from a murderous tyrant? Yes, who could forget those halcyon days: the Clinton administration’s adventure in the Balkans. You forgot? Well, here’s Richard Holbrooke (more on him later) to refresh your memory about what’s been going on since the United States’ last military “Victory.”

Kosovars march for independence Now recall a few weeks ago when President Bush described the current state of the union. During the “foreign policy” segment he warned how, given our extensive involvement in Iraq, the United States is in an awkward and painful position regarding the status of certain ethnic groups and their right to create their own nation-states. For instance, he talked about the irony of the US helping Turkey attack the Kurds (our allies in Iraq). And he also mentioned the fact that Russia’s attempt to reassert itself as a great power presents a troublesome predicament for the current (and next) administration.

Oh, wait. He didn’t talk about any of that.

Nonetheless, reality still refuses to bend to the president's will. This week, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Thousands of Albanians celebrated in Pristina.

Is this an opportunity to breathe a sigh of relief, applaud the birth of a nation-state, and watch an oppressed minority manifest its right to self-determination? Is it okay to be a neoliberal (or, for that matter, neoconservative) again? No.

While these developments seem nice and The Economist plays it cute with a graph that shows the national football team rankings for small, budding countries, this is the Balkans.

Continue reading...

The Kissers: John Currin's paintings spark controversy The artist John Currin is striving to bring sexy back, and he believes that the future of civilization depends on it.

The New Yorker profiled the artist's career last week, focusing on his recent pornography-inspired paintings. (A small portion of the article with artwork is online.)

Through "painting porn," Currin says that he seeks to challenge liberal, western societies that have disavowed -- and refused to defend -- artists who critique and attack puritanical, anti-sex ideologies, or offend the sensibilities of religious fundamentalists. His interest was piqued by the controversy over cartoons of Mohammed in European newspapers:

"That the Times decided it was not going to show the cartoons-O.K., they're terrible-ass cartoons from a quality standpoint, but the idea that those thugs get offended and we just acquiesce, that was the most astonishing display of cowardice. And the killing of Theo van Gogh, the film director, by some jihadist in Amsterdam-all of a sudden the most liberal societies in the world were having intimidation murders happen. That's when it occurred to me that we might lose this thing-not the Iraq war but the larger struggle." ... Currin talked about low birth rates in Europe, and people having sex without babies, and pornography as a kind of elegy to liberal culture...

Will Currin succeed in politicizing porn? Will his reaction-provoking paintings, such as "The Danes" and "Women of Franklin Street" inspire liberal societies to rise up against the forces of violent religiosity?

Maybe, but Currin fails to address an ominous paradox: He wants to spark resistance to censorship, but he's using a medium that has lost its ability to shock anyone. The pornography industry is suffering at the creatively destructive hands of the market. Sex has been sold, sold and sold. Consumers are past the point of saturation. The corporate extensions of the biz are in crisis due to Internet piracy and amateur video. High definition is "ruining" the "quality" of porn because every blemish becomes magnified, reducing those perfect bodies to flawed flesh with wrinkles and surgical scars.

Even the definition of pornography has been lost. The hyper-publicized paparazzi trophies of 2007 -- crotch-shots of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan -- blurred the line between pornography and celebrity gossip-mongering.

The label "pornographic" no longer elicits major outrage. The majority of our population would no longer hold book burnings to purify the world of sinful material. Instead pornography simply bores us.

Unless the mullahs of London and Amsterdam subscribe to the New Yorker or take a pilgrimage to the Gagosian Gallery, Currin's jabs at sexually repressed extremists might very well go unnoticed. (Will the same newspapers that were afraid to run the Mohammed cartoons decide to spotlight Currin's provocations?)

Nevertheless, Currin's intermingling of Hustlerian voyeurism with "Mannerist compositions echoing Old Masters from Baldung to Parmigianino" makes his work striking. Even if no political mobilization arises, Currin's "elegy to liberal culture" is a solace for those who are disgusted with flaccid western complacency.

Related: Arabs Hot For Israeli Porn