Inspired by Vanity Fair: M-M 2:0

Had to give up on this one when I misplaced my copy. Seriously. It had some very clever stuff in it, but so hard to find!


This issue of ours will tail along with the current (March) issue of Vanity Fair. Since it'll be March soon, VF in their wisdom had very little in its "Annual Hollywood Issue", neither preview nor recap. Clever fellows--after all, they own Oscar Night in Hollywood.

More grist for the emill, they might say (except I just did, first).

This issue lives up to whatever is promised by being a "Collector's Edition"--perhaps just because as it says, after the dot, "Our Biggest Issue Ever!" And thus, the biggest issue for any NY mag not purely a fashion book, or something. Who cares? The point is, this issue delivers.

From the viewpoint of our Common-sense Consumer, the Real Question is whether subscription to this, the most elevated of gossip magazines, makes sense. This one's $4.95, and all those cards that drop out from inside the issue offer "12 Issues, $15". Thus, if there were anything more than three decent (news-stand-price-worthy) issues in a year, subscription would be valuable. It should be a slam dunk.

Thing is, it's not. VF produces a high percentage of totally worthless rag content. They'll milk this issue (and the Oscar-night Morton's party) for three months of throwaway effort.

Compared to them, our Mid-Monthly performance last year, with 7 legitimate submissions (OK, somewhere between 4 and 6) is a much better deal. Even if the timing was a bit erratic.

The first 121 pages of the VF Collector's Edition issue of March, 2007
29 pages of Ads to start out, for VF, is hardly excessive. Notable Scarlett, Angie.
one page of the table of contents
15 pages of ads
one more page of table of contents
19 pages of ads
third page of table of contents
8 pages of Calvin jeans ads
1 page of Vanity Fair auto-promotion
20 pages of ads
1 more page of VF auto-promotion
5 pages of ads
Vanity Fair's masthead (page number 102 by both our counts)
4 pages of ads
1 more page of VF auto-promotion
a mere 2 pages of ads
a second masthead page--this one corporate
12 pages of ads

What's to say of all this? It's so socially useful, it actually keeps the money flowing. Kate Moss count down (finally!) from previous months. I detect a healthy trend toward using offbeat celebrities, rather than models, as mannequins. Good on you.

Graydon Carter's intro to the issue (page 122):
This guy, who's become a celebrity as the impresario of Oscar night, is an editor who leaves his point of view out there for all to see. Here he points out how this issue goes deep into both worlds--"real and reel". He's got a point, but the virtual/fantasy/entertainment/sports/gossip world of deeds that are not real has breadth that goes far beyond movies. This consensual hallucination universe now rivals the dream world and the real world for compelling story lines, excitement, and share of audience attention span. These three spheres of mutual lack of influence govern our lives in the 21st century.

25 pages more of ads, mixed in with three pages of profiles of this month's Contributors

The Big Shoot--Annie Leibovitz talking about making her VF cover--three pages of that, mixed with one more page of other VF self-promotion and 20 pages more of ads

page 174--Letters to the editor (six pages) mixed with 17 pages of ads. As I suggested, the last issue was a weak one, so the letters are pretty uninspired. It seems they get a lot, though, every month.

FanFair--31 days in the life of the culture--also 31 pages. Of which, 17 pages of ads. Most notable the Dior j'adore perfume ad in which Charlize Theron is pulling down (!) her strapless dress and apparently taking off her right dangly earring. The most important pages in this section are always Hot Type and Hot Tracks, which feature one-sentence reviews of dozens of new books and recordings. It's way too much, but it can give a tipoff to something new you might want, and tons of grist for the emills. The rest of FanFair is basically fluff, but with a nice portrait under "Beauty" of beautiful Aerin Lauder, and the "Planetarium" horoscope section is worth scanning for the portraits of celebrities (always different, always trendy ones) it shows under each sign.

page 220--James Wolcott. Finally, the issue, this one, seriously begins.

Pre-Oscars: The Mexican Wave

We're going to the Oscar night gala here at Shadows: Bar and Grill. Black tie, but not a bow (can't be found)--you think a bolo might work? I'm going to try for a table that has a direct line of sight both to the front door, and to the street (opposite each other)--that way I'm in a good strategic position wherever a ruckus may start. Is this the "Mexican wave" to which my title refers? I sincerely hope not.

But seriously, I'm not in a good position to comment on the Oscars' races this year. The first thing I want to say is, IT'S NOT ALL MY FAULT! The intersection of Oscar-worthy and commercial didn't happen this year, not even for "Dreamgirls". (OK, maybe for "Monster House", but we'll see if it wins best animated.) "Last King of Scotland" hasn't arrived, "Notes on a Scandal" just this weekend, "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Pan's Labyrinth" just a week ago. So, I haven't seen any of the nominees for Best Actress or Best Actor. Some is definitely my fault; I expect to catch "Letters" in the big screen, and to find the videos for "Queen" and "Little Miss Sunshine" over the next couple of weeks).

I did make it a point to see all three of the quality movies by the Mexican directors: "Children of Men", "Babel", and "El Laberinto del Fauno". I would say that each is valuable, but I give a clear nod to "El Laberinto del Fauno" ("Pan's Labyrinth" is the somewhat inaccurate translation used to market the movie; I don't think the faun ever gives a name.) I found the story well thought through, the characters sharp and memorable, the visual elements exciting.

With regard to "Babel", I thought a third of it--the wild scenes with the couple's kid and their housekeeper on their journey across to Mexico and their return--was excellent, the main third--the scenes in Morocco with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and the local family whose youngsters accidentally shot her--unconvincing, and a third--the scenes in Japan with the crazed mute girl--superfluous.

As for "Children of Men", I think the execution of the story was superb (Clive Owen, as always, slays; the setting in England was well chosen), but the story premise was flimsy. I imagine the germination of the story to be a simple thought--"The Miracle of Childbirth". Now imagine a world in which the simple fact of a child's birth would actually be considered miraculous. Now contrive some story to make that world a reality--don't worry how plausible.

I see "El Laberinto" possibly winning three Oscars, which will put it near the top, just behind "Dreamgirls", (which is sure to win a couple for sound/music, and probably one for each of the supporting actor/actress categories). I think "The Departed" will win for Scorsese, and possibly for Best Picture (in an upset over "Babel") and best adapted screenplay. If I'm right, "Babel" will end up losing out frequently (splitting the vote in Best Supporting Actress, when Adriana Barranza should win), and "Queen" will basically be limited to wins for Helen Mirren, and possibly an upset win for Original Screenplay.

"Costume Design" would seem to be an early indicator to me: if it goes to "Dreamgirls" or "Queen", that film could have a surge going (to use a word with currency). Otherwise, "Curse of the Golden Flower" would mean a broad distribution of awards, as I've suggested here.

I see 2006 being, like 1999, basically a writer's year. A fairly weak one for major releases, but some interesting plot twisting going on.

GWOT: Other Fronts than the Central One

...that being Washington, D.C.

I have heard GWOT referred to as World War III, or as World War IV (if you count the Cold War as III). I think we should avoid the Roman numeral, and globalizing our wars. We should remember the example of the NFL and the Super Bowl: I and II went according to form, but III upset everything.

Afghanistan

After too many hours of the Iraq debate from the House, C-Span2 happened to show something far more interesting and critical: a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan.

The key witness in the hearing was Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now Asst. Director of NATO's Afghanistan Commission, previously Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. It was striking how good this guy was, and he was remarkably confident--if he got the $4.8 billion and additional 5,000 forces that he was before the Senate to ensure--that this year NATO, rather than the Taliban, would have the offensive.

Many other aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were disclosed, which add up to a remarkable contrast with the Iraq one in so many ways:
1) the sense that the truth is being told to us;
2) the fact of cooperation from other nations (though it is insufficient from Europe);
3) ability to fulfill a complex mission (for example, there is a U.S. force that fights under NATO, and there is one that fights under the U.S. flag);
4) the seeming lack of internal dispute or controversy within U.S. government representatives.
5) the lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan, under the best of circumstances. Eikenberry felt the situation though was relatively good for the Afghanis, though, compared to the continuing disaster of the previous 25 years.

One thing that was like in Iraq, as Eikenberry and Co. told it, was the rising reliability of the army and the poor reliability of the police.

The most interesting questioning regarded the border with Pakistan and cooperation with Pakistani forces--very wisely, Senators were feeling out the idea of crossing the border into the al-Qaeda havens in North Waziristan, where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has backed off and agreed to a truce.

Eikenberry does not criticize Musharraf but simply points out that the truce has not worked. He complimented the Pakistani border people for their tactical cooperation. In classified session, he will confirm that it is the secret service of Pakistan where we must obtain better results, as they subtly provide support to the Taliban in Pakistan (and among whom should be found key leaders of al-Qaeda) outside the Afghan borders in these areas beyond Pakistani national control.

This is quite intricate and complex stuff. I would not be surprised to see a paratrooper assault on certain areas within Pakistan's borders before Bush departs. In this case one could only hope for a swift victory and withdrawal, followed by heavy indebtedness to Musharraf--whether we like it or not, and going beyond the near-certain revolt that would follow. It could well be another Shah of Iran type situation; we are that unpopular.

Iran
Hoo boy, all the elements are there: the fleet, air force, cruise missiles, a grand quantity of targets relating to nuclear labs "and their support facilities", a need to distract, unfinished business, and if those were not enough, the probable next prime minister of Israel (after Olmert gets out of the way, already) Benyamin Netanyahu egging us on. The "subject matter experts" tell us that they are advising the Deciders to go with "just an all-out aircraft and missile strike"; no land war this time. Thanks for the small favors, teste merdose.

It's got to be tough for the Bushites not to pull the trigger, dare Congress to do anything about it, and send things spiraling down even further. I'm thinking, though, that they will not. Instead, they will go down the sanctions road--with frequent bullying--in the hope that the pressure will force Ahmadinejad out. It won't, but I think the mullahs will opt for someone else next time around, if that's any consolation to the Bushites.

It should be; I don't think Iran will get around to testing a bomb during the remaining year's of Ahmadinejad's term, and he won't get another.

Unlike the North Koreans, who have absolutely no scruples and little else besides the bomb, the Iranians have lots of assets and no bomb. There won't be any deals anytime soon, either.

The "assisting the terrorists" bit about Iran and the Shiites is so much Bushism; it won't work. The simple fact that 92% of casualties to US forces is attributed to Sunni forces kind of puts that smelly sea creature in the box labeled "red herring".

This is a war we can dodge, and one that we must postpone past January, 2009 at all costs. If we can do that, there is no reason why we should have war.

North Korea - I give the US team some credit here. This is our most imminent threat, and our guys bit the bullet and made a deal. Kudos to Russia, and especially to China, for signing on. I think it was the Chinese role to send a discreet signal to these bozos, at the right time, that this was the most they were going to get. As for South Korea, they are studying the history of Germany in the 1990's very closely: they have a historic opportunity coming, and they'd like to get it right. Japan's position in the new government is incoherent: they hate the deal and don't want to contribute to it, but they agreed to it.

As a strategy, the deal is poor, and that gives our right-wing extremists (like John Bolton) a chance to denounce it. Good riddance to bad advice, and thank you Sen. Voinovich for vetoing Bolton's butt out of there in the lame-duck session. As an interim vacancy appointment, Bolton, you were an intolerant bore. As a permanent appointee, you would have been a disaster.

As I say, though, it's bad strategy: the international community is letting all these tinhorn dictatorships know that our nonproliferation efforts can be funneled down into a willingness to pay ransom.

I expect that the North Koreans will comply with the terms of this agreement, at least until 2009, then will try to figure out some new way to offend international sensibilities and threaten the peace. This will continue until the regime change, which I would guess is about 10 years away. Bless their hearts!

SCIA--I was absolutely shocked by the report I read in Vanity Fair this month about this shadowy, unknown organization (even though it went public last year), which is making the most hay of any of the Beltway Bandits off GWOT--so much hay, I think there's a real ethanol opportunity if we just mulch and boil down the whole place. I will save further comment for my review of the issue in next month's Mid-Monthly!

Palestine/Israel: The Saudis put in the shoe leather, getting the Damascus head of Hamas and al-Fatah's head Mahmoud Abbas, and literally locking them in the room together in Mecca (check?) and throwing away the key. They produced something, and the incompetent combo of Condi and Sharon-wannabe Ehud Olmert have combined to squander it. Another opportunity to begin to transform GWOT into something winnable lost.

Iraq--anything happening there? If it is, I don't think it's the US' "scourge", no "surge"; really, the correct word for the Baghdad operation is "purge". The idea is to cleanse a few of Sadr's rogue elements while he lies low and lets the "crazy Americans" do their thing.

It would seem that this "thing" is the actual invasion; they're getting some zones that were missed in the process of going after Saddam and the Baathist irredentists. Like much of the first invasion, this one will not be strongly opposed, but there will be some legitimate fighting, and there will be some success. These will be temporary, but it should give cover for some "diminution" in six months or so.

There's still a legitimate fight against a ferocious enemy force in Anbar province, and beyond that, Syria is a potential target for a variety of reasons. Syria's regime is a lot like Saddam's old one, though more crafty, and it seems like the logical place for Iraq's chaos to spill over, especially as the Shiites consolidate their control in Iraq. Even if the Bushites (or their successors) don't start trouble, and the Israelis don't start trouble, Syria is a likely candidate for strife.

Notes from the Iraq Debate

The Senate was smart to have punted on the non-binding res. For now--their day for this circus sideshow may still come.

Still, watching this debate is a good opportunity to showcase the House: the new Congress, the new Congressmen, the players for foreign and military affairs.

Right now, the way it's working is very disciplined, controlled straight from the Majority leadership. This is not unreasonable since the discussion is still primarily one for electoral advantage. When real legislation comes forward there will be a test of whether they learned how to play the game while being abused in the minority, or whether, as so often occurs in society, the abused become abusers.

It's also, a good opportunity to smack 3-D in the face for his obduracy. For that reason, I expect few Republican defections and very close to a party-line vote in the House.

A few comments on the individual speeches:

David Kildee--MI-5; best analysis of how we got here. The "I had this one right all along" that some have taken is surely the only stance on this farce that shows a respectable level of intelligence (and thus, worthy of having their words heard this time). Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen who can take it, and, in general, the more nuanced, interesting speeches come from those who voted for initial authorization in October '02.
David Obey--WI (Appropriations Chairman); best summation of what we should do. (Inform the Shiites that they must agree to amend the Constitution to form a confederation and divide up the oil money, or we take our bats and balls and leave.)
Steve Pearce--NM-2; quoted Thomas Jefferson on the evils of Islam. Represents the lunatic fringe on the right, but in his frank acceptance of that role has some interesting commentary on the motives of the left.
Heather Wilson--NM-1; Breaking down, went for the "but what about the body armor for those people being sent over now?" melodramatic intentional misreading of the bill as a way to dodge.
Adm. Joe Sestak, PA; I've been suprised to see that he's too shy! He let them cut him off, and didn't even ask for additional time.

A lot of martial talk, some of it very vaguely related to the debate. It reminds me that one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion was to find an outlet for Americans' urge for revenge against radical jihadists.

This particular debate seems to be very frustrating to the Republicans, some of whom are looking to express their displeasure with Bushite strategy, though this doesn't look a likely vehicle (harmless though it is). I'm very sympathetic to any Republicans who truly wanted to contribute to a modification of Iraq war policy through House legislation, but surely they should have known better than to expect something like that.

Why Don't We Just Pass a Resolution to Stop the War?

The last posting didn't seem to stop this slow-motion train wreck on national Iraq War policy from continuing, so we'll try again:

While trying to force our 3-D President to change his plodding mind, we seem instead to be embarked like a Capitol-bound cruise missile on a collision course for a constitutional crisis on controlling Bush's war "surge" . This is a lot like the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton; for that matter, it's a lot like what it would be like if the Democrats try to impeach Bush. Doomed to fail, totally symbolic, somewhere between irrelevant and inconvenient with regard to short-term conduct of the war.

The 2008 Presidential candidates seem to be lining up predictably. The many who are in the Senate want to fight it out honorably, in debate of the terms of debate of a non-binding resolution.(1) Those who are not in the Senate but are also running (of both parties) can take a different point of view, saying quite accurately that such a resolution, were it to pass, would not be enough.

The rest of us can't even pretend to do anything about it, in the short term. Essentially, it's already happened.

Twelve, even six months down the road, it's a different story. The Bush Administration has seen the writing on the wall in its new budget: it's included the Iraq war as an ongoing expenditure rather than a special item. They went in with a semi-legitimate figure (given their totally illegitimate war plans) for the first year, then a lowball one for the second. You can guess the rest: it is in controlling the future budget for this misguided adventure that the war will be won, and battle is already engaged--it actually begins in the House.

The target is the rate of spending six months from now, and there are several ways to hit it (without having to vote against providing support to the troops over there). There will be a Congressional consensus that the rate of spending "blood and treasure" will have to slow by early 2008, and that means a "diminution" six months from now (right, Condi?) (2) What the Bushites will say six months from now won't matter then; once the funds are cut, they won't get them back.

The sense of drama some have tried to create around these procedural votes for bringing to the floor a meaningless resolution is entirely unwarranted.


1) I think Chuck Hagel might be the exception, and that may be an explanation for his otherwise incomprehensible vote against bringing the measure to the floor: He is smart enough to figure out that this is not the vehicle to make happen a change that he sincerely wants. The others are playing the issue in the way they think will benefit them in the long run, which is only natural but provides not a clue to identifying a superior strategy.

2) "Augmentation" is what she called the increasing portion of the curve. As a musician, she would be familiar with the augmented chord; its complement is the diminished one.