On Denis Johnson's novel "Nobody Move"

Apparently out of luck, compulsive gambler Jimmy Luntz finds himself on the run from his creditor's goon, Gambol. Denis Johnson's novella Nobody Move presents this brief manhunt like scenery on a short trip in a beat-up Sedan DeVille. A solid, short list of characters waltz in from the sidelines during this game between chance and hopelessness, enhancing the conflict found in this fast, fun read.

A short thing in Salon about Rocky

Night of the Underdog, a flashback piece about a great film.

When is a whistleblower not a whistleblower?

An anonymous source leaked internal documents from Libertarian thinktank Heartland to hydro-climatologist and climate debate figure Dr. Peter H. Gleick. These documents discussed fundraising and strategies for fostering climate change doubts within schools. Under someone else's name, Gleick pursued the leak and received more documents, which he then turned over for publication. He's (1) commendable for truth-seeking and/or (2) guilty for his methods.

In the op-ed "The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats—and We All Lose", Time magazine's Science desk Going Green columnist condemns Gleick, citing journalistic standards (because Gleick publishes on Huffington Post) and drawing support from a confession the would-be whistleblower himself published in Huffington Post. In that confession, Gleick admits to "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and says he regrets his actions.

No doubt Gleick disapproves of Heartland's tactics and holds a higher standard for himself in this climate "debate" messaging war. He is very clear about this. He's also clear on where he stands in the larger debate. The Time columnist shows less courage, condemning the confessor while saying nothing substantive of its context. The point of his column is that "if a reporter lies in the pursuit of facts, the resulting story will be much harder to believe, even if it really is true". If in this case that happens to be true, it's only thanks to columnists like this who, cynically writing under the header Going Green, further obfuscate the debate, leaving casual readers to come away thinking "another global warming advocate lied".

Notes:

• Where is the story on Heartland's tactics?
• If global warming/climate change was my issue, this would frustrate me.

Their fortunes changed

On a brisk February morning he found her on his front yard wrapped in a dirty tarp. On her person, only a pair of new, red sweatpants. The way those legs folded out from under the tarp brought to mind a deflated Christmas display. Blood, smudges and streaks crimson black, hers, he guessed, sprung from where her fingernails had been ripped off. After this brief exam he pulled the tarp over her feet, secured the arrangement with three cinderblocks, then picked up the morning paper. Though she was already a celebrity in his mind, he figured he'd check the news for a second opinion.

About the TV show "Leave It to Beaver" (1957-1963)

Compared to "grittier", more recent television shows like Norman Lear's work in the 1970's and early "Rosanne", "Leave It to Beaver" is often critically dismissed for three reasons: (1) it's bourgeoisie idealism, a show (often seen as representative of other shows of the era) whose producers were either too disconnected or too disinterested to deal with darker, more important themes and problems; (2) the parenting it portrayed set too high a bar for those in the real-life business of parenting; (3) it oversimplified life with cut-and-dried narrative archs. (An example of this last criticism lies in the IMDB plot summary for the show: "Unlike real life, these situations are always easily resolved to the satisfaction of all involved and the Beaver gets off with a few stern moralistic words of parental advice.")

After watching the show the last several weeks, these critical write-offs seem way too hasty.

That the setting is a middle class suburb, that Ward and June can make it look pretty easy, and that problems arise and see resolution within the episode are all arguable enough. But none of these issues are unique to "Leave It to Beaver" or shows of its era. Moreover, consider the show's context: first, the middle class was booming then, so upward mobility was real (more so than now); second, the show was aimed at families, so its arch and content were built accordingly.

So those criticisms are a little unfair. Worse, they are conventional. They are conversation enders that cut off any real consideration of the show's merits. And it definitely had merits.

It wasn't like Beaver would just drop his lollipop in the mud and learn to be careful. No, the conflicts and themes could be substantial. Beaver might learn about the nature of trust--that trust is often necessary, that trust can be betrayed, and that trust can redeem the trusted and the trustee. He might learn about making choices by feeling regret. He might learn about responsibility after being disappointed or disappointing others. He might learn that there can be more to a person than the impression they make. And there were episodes in which he saw and met people outside his privileged suburban middle class world. Jealousy, money, status, honesty, popularity, peer pressure--all covered, and not always "to the satisfaction of all involved". In some episodes it was Ward and June whose eyes were opened.

Not every episode hit a home run but "Leave It to Beaver" deserves way more credit than it usually gets.

Note:

• In one stellar episode called "Eddie Spends the Night", Eddie Haskel, whose parents are out of town, is invited to stay at the Cleavers. That evening he and Wally fight and in protest Eddie goes home to an empty house. At first the Cleavers are relieved, but soon Ward and June remember their responsibility and lobby Wally to re-invite Eddie. Wally finds Eddie home alone and evidently a little scared of being by himself, though he tries not to show it. After first pretending (for Wally's benefit) to demand his father allow him to return, Eddie rejoins Wally. The next day Eddie confesses to Beaver that he hates being alone because, even though he acts like a big shot all the time, he can't pretend to himself that he's as confident and popular as he wants to be.

A thing on "The Spirit of Terrorism", essays by Jean Baudrillard

Was disappointed with these essays. Baudrillard alternates between skin-deep pontifications on the symbolic meaning of terror and basic leftist moralizing against the methods and consequences of US hegemony. Too bad: despite the volumes of writing on the attacks, I expect there's a real dearth of good literature on the subject.

Baudrillard doesn't argue points so much as reflect on them, so his writing is loosely structured. The edition I read was translated by Chris Turner.

Facilitating the man who facilitates change

In the recent New Yorker magazine article titled "The Obama Memos", a journalist tells the story of Obama's first few years in office by interpreting released White House memos. Two things stand out.

First, the journalist's description of the President's communication method with advisers:

President Bush preferred oral briefings; Obama likes his advice in writing. He marks up the decision memos and briefing materials with notes and questions in his neat cursive handwriting ...

If the document is a decision memo, its author usually includes options for Obama to check at the end. The formatting is simple, but the decisions are not.

Depending on the circumstances and personalities involved, a team of advisers can be understood to inform their leader and/or steer their leader towards a course of action. I find it interesting that the President's advisers are steering him in the formatting of their memos, which discourage response and nuanced discussion in favor of decisive decision making.

Second point of interest is this claim forwarded by the journalist:

A President’s ability to change public opinion through rhetoric is extremely limited. George Edwards, after studying the successes of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan, concluded that their communications skills contributed almost nothing to their legislative victories. According to his study, “Presidents cannot reliably persuade the public to support their policies” and “are unlikely to change public opinion.”

Nope, not buying it. Are you telling me that Roosevelt's fireside chats didn't make his audience more amendable to the unprecedented policies of his administration? That all Kennedy's talk of the "New Frontier" didn't help the success of the space program? That Reagan's pronouncements about "Morning In America" didn't inspire support? The argument and content around this passage feels as if it was inserted haphazardly. Whether (and how) Obama used rhetoric effectively once he was in office is a question that would require more research.