Dollhouse Lessons: Echoing America

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 08:30


Boyd: What you're doing could have consequences you can't predict or control.  Some people are not ready to wake up.

Echo: I don't care. Something bad is coming, like a storm, and I want everyone to survive it.  They need to wake up.

Last week, Joss Whedon's Dollhouse had a particularly telling episode, that spoke to me on two big, broad issues--maybe even meta-issues, one might argue.  First is the issue of moral accountability & the awakening of conscience where it has previously been absent.  Second is the issue of awakening awareness & power, that was addressed by tremayne earlier this week in a really perceptive dairy, "On Reality-Based Optimism".  For those of you not familiar with Dollhouse, what's wrong with you?  TV doesn't get any better than this.  As good as, here and there.  But not better.

Anyway, it's contemporary science fiction.  And to get you up to speed, Wikipedia will do rather well:

The story follows Echo, a "doll" or "Active" for the Dollhouse, an organisation which hires out reprogrammable human beings to wealthy clients who use them for a range of purposes, such as sexual encounters and high-risk illegal activities. Echo, like her fellow dolls Victor and Sierra, exists in a child-like blank state [tabula rasa], until the programmer uploads her with the skills and memories to make her a whole other human being. Actives such as Echo are ostensibly volunteers who surrender their bodies to the organisation for five years in exchange for a vast amount of money and a solution to any other extenuating circumstances in their lives. Echo, however, is unique in remembering small amounts even after personality "wipes", and gradually develops an increasingly cognizant self-awareness and personality. This emerging personality is even distinct in some ways from that of her original identity, college graduate Caroline Farrell. This concept allows the series to examine concepts of identity and personhood.

As Echo continues to evolve, and learn to work beyond the limits of her current personality imprint or default programming, she runs the risk of going to "the Attic", a place for broken dolls. She is an object of fascination for the escaped doll Alpha (a genius and serial killer who sees Echo as a potential mate) and FBI Agent Paul Ballard, whose obsession with the urban legend that is the Dollhouse costs him his career, before he comes to work for the organisation as Echo's bodyguard or "handler". Ballard sees the Dollhouse's activities as immoral and illegal, but becomes increasingly complicit in the business which he equates with murder and sex traffic. Within the house, opinions are divided; director Adelle DeWitt sees her role as honourable, programmer Topher Brink's view is entirely scientific and amoral, and handler-turned-head of security Boyd Langton, like Ballard, is more concerned with the ethical and theological implications of the Dollhouse's technology.

From the beginning, there've always been some fundamental mysteries.  Like WTF is going on here, anyway?  The purpose of the Dollhouse is unknown.  It's a business, but it has a purpose beyond just making money. How do we know?  Well, we've been told several times.  And even though we know very well not to trust anything, this admission of a hidden purpose is just about the only thing you can trust.

But a little more basic is the question of how the dolls came to be there in the first place.  Which is sort of a big deal, since they're essentially slaves--albeit "only" for five years.  We're told that it was "voluntary," but this is where the whole "not trusting anything" ethos really kicks in. We've seen bits and pieces of Echo's "voluntary" process--she was in some really serious trouble, though big pieces of the story are missing.  We know that another doll had lost a daughter, and probably was suicidal.  That kind of thing.  But we've never been "fully briefed" as they say in the trade.  And this most recent episode was as close to a linear accounting of how one doll--Sierra--came to the dollhouse as we're ever likely to get (told entirely in flashbacks, of course).  And in the telling of this tale, a good deal more is both revealed, and altered.  

Paul Rosenberg :: Dollhouse Lessons: Echoing America
I really hate spoilers, so I'm not going to go into too much detail.  I'll leave most of it vague.  But Echo starts things going by discerning something disturbing in paintings by Sierra, another active who arrived at the Dollhouse almost at the same time as she did. And she brings it to the attention of one of the main characters who works at the Dollhouse--the programmer, Topher Brink.  In turn, Topher and the director, Adelle DeWitt are really disturbed to discover that Sierra didn't come to them in the way that she appeared to. Yes, she was mad.  But not really.  Not in the way that she seemed. There was a whole backstory they were entirely unaware of.  And the reason this resonated for me is two-fold--one within the fictional world, the other in ours.

In the fictional world, this resonated because the Dollhouse is so blatantly immoral, yet the people working there are not. They all have forms of morality, however compromised, damaged, or incomplete. The Wikipedia entry calls Topher "amoral," and he's identified as such within the show as well.  Yet, he's always had a strong teen geek's arrested development sort of morality, the sort born of aesthetic judgment concerning the way that things work.  Nor does Adelle simply 'see her role as honourable'--she sees it as honourable at least partly because she's knows it could well be otherwise.  She knows it's a contestable view that she herself might even come to doubt (even if she doesn't quite let herself think about that).  What happens in this episode is that Sierra's true story shakes both of them up--badly.  And the very fact that they can be shaken up shows that they're capable of being much more moral than they have been heretofore.  Whether they will or not, only time will tell.  But there's a moral capacity in both of them that's been largely dormant in Topher's case, and "compromised" or "flawed" in Adelle's. This has both made them suitable to work at the Dollhouse in the first place, and it has been reinforced by working there.

War on terror, anyone? Or, more broadly, all of post-Vietnam America?  This is the second way in which this episode resonated.  It spoke to the possibility that broken people can find ways to heal themselves, even those who might seem to have no interest in being healed.  But to do so, they have to face up to the nature of what they are actually doing.  And here I thought specifically of how Obama has staunchly refused to hold anyone accountable for anything, and how he somehow thinks he's doing them all a favor.  And I thought of how blind his thinking this was.  To be sure, virtually no one who's done really reprehensible things wants to be held accountable for them.  And yet, without facing up to what they have done, there is no possibility of redemption.

This is why we need a national truth and reconciliation process, at the very least.  It may seem rather late in the game to be bringing this up, but hey, Clinton failed to do this in 1993, and I was still bringing it up last year, and earlier this year, too.  In fact, I'm bringing it up right now.  This is perhaps the most fundamental way in which Obama thinks like Bush and Cheney.  Like them, he sees accountability in terms of punishment--and only those lacking in establishment connections will ever face any kind of accountability. And needless to say, the accountability they will face will mostly be perverse and perverted, like the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure for little or no real fault of their own, aside from trusting a system that never intended them anything but ill.

That is the issue of moral accountability & the awakening of conscience.  Long story short: Obama is opposed to both, without even realizing it.  

Issue #2: The issue of awakening awareness & power.  This was represented in the Dollhouse episode by Boyd Langton's discovery that Echo is far more conscious than he had realized, and far more intent on saving those around her from an ominous danger she is certain is coming. Boyd is a deep enigma, overtly skeptical of the Dollhouse, but inhrently trustworthy, in a Samurai-code kind of way. Echo's consciousness and continuity of memory when she is supposed to be in the tabula rasa state has been growing continuously since the beginning of the show, along with her sense of protectiveness for those around her, her fellow dolls.  In one episode, a clever attempt was made by DeWitt to let Echo's desire play itself out, and thus subside.  In this episode, however, we suddenly learn how totally that earlier attempt to reign Echo in has failed.  Not only is she still determined to save those around her, she's discovered ways to accumulate and remember information.  She communicates with herself across the memory wipes she still is subject to. And we discover this in the only episode so far in which Echo plays a relatively minor role.

I immediately flashed back to this aspect of this last episode, reading tremayne's diary this week, "On Reality-Based Optimism". For it seemed that he was writing about the same thing--a struggling toward awareness from a state of deep and unrecognized sleep. He wrote:

The bulk of your "A list" progessive bloggers are now between the ages of 30 and 50. Many blog readers also fall into this age range. Those of us in this demographic are too young to have personal memories of progressive political power. There was some of that in the 1960s according to what I've seen on the History Channel and in books but I've never felt it.

This age group is also too old for unfettered idealism. Our political memories include the dark Bush-Cheney years, the "pragmatic" Clinton years (and an impeachment) and, for some, the Reagan-Bush years and the less-than-successful Carter years. There may be some idealism still lurking inside but it's, well, fettered idealism.

And so, perhaps unsurprisingly, your thinking can become limited by what has been rather than what could be. I think that, in part, explains the persistence of voices, even in Democratic circles, underestimating the chances for real progressive change. Today Nate Silver is acknowledging his error on the chances of success for the public option (though he noted, presciently, that is wasn't a done deal yet). As usual, Nate is trying to be reality-based when making predictions. He has not been alone is expressing pessimism on the public option's chances.

To me, this is a spot-on explanation for why so many in the blogosphere seem to share the low expectations that pervade Versailles, even when we openly scorn the Versailles rationales.  This is why I think it's very important for progressives to start picking fights--because winning fights you pick is key to actual political power, as opposed to merely looking like you have political power.  I also think it's important to have a broader sense of history, both what we're up against, and what winds are at our backs--or could be, if we align ourselves properly.  And this is what Echo was found to be doing in this episode:

Boyd: Are you looking for this?  It's a bookmark.

Echo: It's a leaf. It's pretty.

Boyd: Is the book pretty?  There aren't any pictures.

Echo: I can make out some of the words.  It's fun. Exercising our brains makes us our best.

Boyd: Echo, when did you learn how to lie?

Echo: Am I in trouble?

Boyd: Not from me.  But there are people who would be very upset if they knew what you were doing.

Echo: Reading?

Boyd: You brought the painting to Topher. You're pushing.  The actives, the staff. What you're doing could have consequences you can't predict or control.  Some people are not ready to wake up.

Echo: I don't care.

Something bad is coming, like a storm, and I want everyone to survive it.  They need to wake up.

Boyd: Echo, you've stirred things up,  You might bring on the storm yourself.

Later, however, without words, without explanation, with only music, we see Echo finding a different sort of bookmark. A gift from Boyd:



If she can struggle out of the pit of total annihilation of her self, and take it upon her to save those around her who haven't an inkling of their state, then what excuse do we have, with all the self-awareness we posses?

Oh, sure, it's "only a story."  A story remarkably reminiscent of the slave rebellions lead by men like Denmark Vesey, Gabriel Prosser and Nat Turner--rebellious slaves who centuries after their deaths remade America in their image. And what is history, then, but a story we write in our own blood, sweat and tears?


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Radicalization (4.00 / 3)
Radicalization has been on my mind a lot lately.  Contrary to what's often depicted, I started out left and as I have aged, I have gotten farther left.  Well, I can explain that. Life has not been as smooth as I planned.  But life has not been as smooth as many people planned and I don't see a massive changeover.  Sometimes radicaliuzation kicks in, and sometimes it doesn't.

Sure there's FDR.  Polio, I think, really changed the man for our better.  There's Lincoln.  But for every FDR and Lincoln there's Nixon and Reagan.  

Nixon's mind and psyche were definitely altered by the Depression.  But rather than blaming the system, he blamed luck and connections.  Dad seems to have been a hard man who was hoodwinked (the "poorest lemon ranch in California" was sold and "they found oil."  Mom was overwhelmed and I guess tried to find her way and her family's way through prayer and meditation.  Nixon called her a "Quaker saint."  Nixon was a tortured soul who bought everything about luck and connections and applied every down turn to the luck and connections of the Kennedys, etc.  But he felt guilty.  No transformation.

Reagan in a sense was transformed.  From a liberal Democrat to a really anti-tax Republican.  This is often attributed to his fascination with Goldwater but could just as easily be attributed to the winding down of the big money part of his movie career and his failure to avoid taxes by using the legal loopholes the rich used in the 40s and 50s.  He was a fool and we all paid.

Two people stick out for me.  Bobby Byrd lost his beloved grandson in Vietnam and became strongly anti-war but it didn't effect his other politics so much.  

William Tecumseh Sherman somehow went from pro=Southern (but unionist) to who we remember today.  LA offered him a commission before either his home state of Ohio or the Federal government.  Early in the war he protected the Memphis business community.  Yet this is the guy who let Atlanta burn and who ordered the burninh of Columbia, SC.  This is the guy who sent his cavalry back to Tennessee and relied on local black slaves in Georgia and the Carolinas to provide him with information, food, and combined with his "bummers" a security cordon.  This is the guy who gave those slaves 40 acres and a mule and threatened to march on Washington if that and his other plans were disturbed.  Sell out or moderate to radical.

I've read at least three biographies of Sherman.  Some of this may be the criticism of him as "crazy" in 1862 but mostly this came later.  Nothing makes this clear.  And the war failed to radicalize many others.

So what makes a radical and how far will he or she go.  To be determined both nationally and on The Dollhouse.


For Reagan (4.00 / 3)
His transformation came from his business associations, starting with MCA and then moving on to GE.  In particular, see the most important, and overlooked book on the man, Dark Victory: Ronald Reagan, MCA, and the Mob The link is to chapter 1 online, which begins thus:

President Ronald Reagan's professional life--his acting career, his personal financial fortune, and his rise in politics--has been interwoven with and propelled by a powerful, Hollywood-based entertainment conglomerate named MCA.  For nearly fifty years, Reagan has benefited both personally and financially from his association with this sixty-two-year-old company--formerly known as the Music Corporation of America--as well as from his close association with the firm's top executives:  Jules Stein, Lew Wasserman, and Taft Schreiber.

Everyone involved has greatly profited from this relationship.  MCA helped to make its client, actor Ronald Reagan, a multimillionaire; and the favors that were returned by Reagan, the former president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the former governor of California, have helped to transform MCA into a billion-dollar empire and the most powerful force in the entertainment world today.

Reagan and his closest friends have portrayed and defended the president's business transactions with MCA, which date back to 1940, as being totally above suspicion.  But there remain numerous unanswered questions and allegations about the relationship between Reagan and MCA.  These doubts raise delicate issues that involve possible personal and political payoffs--as well as links to major Mafia figures, particularly Beverly Hills attorney Sidney Korshak, who has been described by federal investigators as the principal link between the legitimate business world and organized crime.

In 1962, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice tried to resolve some of these questions, but their secret investigation was settled out of court before the evidence could be presented.  The results of the probe were never made public, and no one close to MCA was ever indicted.  However, through the Freedom of Information Act, many of these documents have been recovered and are excerpted in this book.

These records show that Reagan, the president of SAG and an FBI informant against Hollywood communists, was the subject of a federal grand jury investigation whose focus was Reagan's possible role in a suspected conspiracy between MCA and the actors' union.  According to Justice Department documents, government prosecutors had concluded that decisions made by SAG while under Reagan's leadership became "the central fact of MCA's whole rise to power."

Over the past two decades, Ronald Reagan has refused to answer any in-depth questions about how he amassed his personal wealth--currently estimated at more than $4 million.  In 1976, when he first ran for president, and again in 1980 and 1984, Reagan managed to avoid any intense scrutiny of his finances.  His financial ties to MCA have been virtually ignored, relegated to the category of ancient history.



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
RE: MCA (0.00 / 0)
You know, of course, that Katrina VandenHeuvel, the brilliant Editor (and owner) of the very liberal Nation magazine, is the granddaughter of Jules Stein, one of the founders of MCA.

[ Parent ]
Just As The Bush Clan (0.00 / 0)
did deals with the Nazi's while working for the Harrimans.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sherman's letters (4.00 / 1)
I've read at least three biographies of Sherman.

Brooks Simpson and Jean Berlin edited the Civil War letters of Sherman in their book, Sherman's Civil War. Reading these letters give a better idea of his thinking because you see the development over time. Many were sent directly home to his wife for safekeeping, so they are very candid.


[ Parent ]
Best biography (0.00 / 0)
The best biography of Sherman that I read was "Sherman: Fighting Prophet."  It was written in the late 20s or early 30s and I got it as a loaner from a friend in a Civil War club via the mail.  Very good book.

I'll try and get my hands on the letters.


[ Parent ]
Dollhouse is such a great show (0.00 / 0)
Fox had better not cancel it.

That is all.


You might be interested in this: (4.00 / 1)
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009...

Maybe because of the target Demo and that it airs on Friday nights, Dollhouse has a huge percentage of viewers who record it and watch it later on DVR. Sadly for the fans, as of now, DVR numbers don't seem to be very influential on whether the network heads decide to renew a show or not. Here's a snippet from that link above:

Disclaimer: all the numbers we have seen point to a scenario where the additional days of DVR viewing beyond the Live+SD numbers play almost no role in a shows' fate.  In a recent conversation with the head of research for a broadcast network he agreed that perhaps 10% of the viewing beyond the Live+SD period serves to increase the C+3 commercial ratings that are used to price advertising


[ Parent ]
OTOH (0.00 / 0)
They have to know it's a long-term goldmine on DVD or whatever comes next.  So I'm utterly baffled why they didn't renew for 22 episodes, instead of just 13.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Different revenue streams (0.00 / 0)
Fox doesn't make any money off of future DVD sales, only the company that makes the show itself.  Even if both sides are Fox, I don't know if they are or not, each division is responsible for its own revenue stream.

Before DVD, a producer of a show needed to see 100 episodes in order to get a real profit.  That is five seasons worth, which means it can be played in daily reruns.  The original broadcast was just to break even, the real money was in the reruns.  Today the principle still holds, but DVDs and overseas broadcasts change equation.

However, the TV network doesn't care about that.  They just want viewers each night so they can sell commercial time.  They don't get any revenue from future reruns or DVD sales.

BTW, my understanding is DVR viewings within 24 hours count as "real" viewings.


[ Parent ]
Ed Schultz says as much (0.00 / 0)
He regularly says that TIVOing counts, but has never mentioned to watch within 24 hours.

[ Parent ]
Hmm.... (4.00 / 1)
I guess that I expected some of that "creative financing" I'm always hearing about would manifest itself in some sort of form--you know, share a little revenue with the TV side, so that you actually have a DVD franchise.

Silly me!

And, yes, I realize that the 100-show syndication limit is somewhat passe as a necessity, but still, more shows sooner does mean more product sooner in all forms downstream.  Well, like I said, silly me.

Me, I DVR Dollhouse while viewing. Do I get/am I a cookie?  A bookmark?  A leaf?

Heck, to get these images, I watched online. Even downloaded their latest viewer. Do I get a medal?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
"Do I get a medal?" (0.00 / 0)
Well, can a Sister get a "Rec" or two for the initial comment? : )

[ Parent ]
The moral mulligan (4.00 / 3)
Looking forward, not back is presented as a plea to respect the fragility of civilization, but what it amounts to in fact is an acknowledgment that only the powerful have rights, and not just rights, but identities which must be respected. We didn't need Jeffrey Dahmer, so he could be disposed of tout de suite. No one needed to respect his identity, even enough to study how he came to be what he was. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, gets a pass, even though his crimes were equally horrific, and who, given the fact that he wasn't technically insane (arguable, I realize) was, on the face of it, even more morally culpable.

We can't truncate the narratives of folks like Cheney because they're the ones through whom our national story is being told. Chop Cheney, and the whole glorious story of America suddenly becomes suspect. God knows, we can't have that, can we?

Well, there are in fact other narratives -- crime and punishment, sin and redemption -- and only genuine immortals can escape them forever. Fuck up enough, and no one will be interested in your personal inviolability. Some one should ring up the White House and tell the President that those wolves he hears howling at night along Pennsylvania Avenue mean exactly what he thinks they do.


Where's your evidence that Dahmer was insane? (0.00 / 0)
The defense argued for a paraphilia diagnosis, but paraphilia is not a mental illness and instead rather a mental disorder. Paraphilia is also probably the most disputed diagnosis within the DSM, given that it ed to include homosexuality and still includes "transvestic fetishism." Cheney could easily have a mental disorder, such as narcissism or sociopathy, both disorders that are much better defined than paraphilia. But, given the mentally ill are, statistically, vastly more likely to be victims of violent crimes, you're perpetuating a really dangerous myth about the nature of mental illness here.

[ Parent ]
FWIW (4.00 / 1)
A guy up the street here in NJ claims that while he was in Milwaukee he was given a new hire to train.  After one day he wanted (he claims) nothing further to do with him.  The new hire was Jeffrey Dahmer.  Long before he was caught, Dahmer was very strange.

[ Parent ]
My evidence? (4.00 / 1)
Well...cough...ahem.... Full disclosure: I'm not a mental health professional, but if those who are deny that this guy was (in common parlance) stark raving bonkers, then clinical psychology -- like the law in certain instances -- is a ass.

[ Parent ]
Well, I guess weak evidence is better than none. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Weak? (4.00 / 2)
The guy killed people, cut them up and ate them. If that doesn't make him insane, then perhaps the word has no useful meaning.

[ Parent ]
Picking fights (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, it looks like after picking a fight and actually looking strong for a little while there, the Progressive Block is caving in just like the scoffers said it would.

Unbelievably, some are saying "they did good; they got a White House meeting - so they can go home and curl up with their sense of validation", which sounds like a sneering joke a right winger should be making.

This is an absolute debacle. And now we're being told that the bright side is that in 2015 (!!!) we'll get to crawl on our hands and knees to some unelected bureaucrat, lick his boots, and beg him to let us into the "public option".

I don't know where to start ripping into what's wrong with that.

Two lessons that should have already been clear, but which this disaster further confirms:

1. You cannot regulate entrenched rackets. They will absolutely trounce every attempt to reform them, first by gutting almost everything during the legislative process itself (as we've seen with health care; as we're seeing with the banks), and then, through regulatory evasion, arbitrage, corruption, and capture, preventing the enforcement of any rump regulation which does get through.

All the evidence proves this. To still deny it bespeaks either timidity or bad faith.

Where it comes to feudal rackets the case is clear: You can either destroy them or remain their slaves forever.

2. The Democratic structure as a whole is hopeless and worthless. Any attempt to "lobby" it for any decent measure whatsoever is foredoomed.

The only effect real progressives could have on it is to  support only the few officeholders who are acting for the people while trying to get rid of vulnerable criminals through primary challenges and direct attacks.

Beyond that, we should organize as a movement outside the structure, and make demands from the outside. The system is absolutely rotten, and trying to work the inside, accepting its frames and values (those of the Dem establishment, the MSM, and other cowards and hacks), is guaranteed to accomplish nothing, to probably lead to even worse outcomes like this reactionary health bill, and just get oneself infected with the rot.

Sorry about the rant, I'm just very frustrated and angry from reading about how every day brings a further demolition of what miniscule hopes for health "reform" were left, how these villains are going to grab every last crumb and smash every last window, while those who were supposed to fight are going to seize every opportunity for surrender (not compromise; we're waaaaaaaaaay beyond compromise).

And that's only a sideshow to my day-to-day rage about the banks. What a cesspool this world has become.

http://attempter.wordpress.com


It would be nice if those who are actually picking (good) fights... (0.00 / 0)
... would get a little bit more support from "progressive" blogs.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

Turn to the laws, and enforce them (4.00 / 1)
>>This is why we need a national truth and reconciliation process, at the very least.<<

That was the takeaway on the Bill Moyers Journal last night when he and Prof. James Galbraith discussed the criminal fraud perpetrated by Wall Street and some government entities operating in collusion. When Moyers wondered if the responsible persons could be found, and held accountable, Galbraith assured him that the laws are strong enough now, it just takes a determined effort to investigate.


Quite True (0.00 / 0)
There is no accountability, because that's the way Obama wants it.  It's up to us to change that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sen Durbin's staff may be thinking along those lines (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps in response to my e-mails to his website (tho' they called me once, some years ago), I have been invited to attend a statewide grassroots convention in Springfield. This may be an effort to rouse Democrats across Illinois in view of our still-muddled politics, since the hosts include the Democratic county chairmen, but also DSCC, OFA, AFL-CIO, Citizens Action-Illinois, and Friends of Durbin. When they say they want to "protect Obama's Senate seat," they mean that we face a tough Republican in Mark Kirk, and we have several Dems in the Feb. 2 primary election.

Durbin often steps up, as he did for the protest of the bankers' meeting. I made the trip to Springfield for Obama's announcement, so it would be fitting to attend with the goal of demanding accountability.


[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
The "liberal senator from Illinois" was always Durban, not Obama.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
To be fair (4.00 / 1)
There's no accountability because that's the way everybody in the Village (or, at least, almost everybody) wants it.  Institutions are always more powerful than individual people--even Presidents.

I watched the first season of Dollhouse, but I've missed the second one so far because I'm studying abroad.  But I'm DVRing them and plan to watch them all when I get back for Christmas.


[ Parent ]
My bloggy routine... (0.00 / 0)
...is an alphabetical RSS list, so Benen's Political Animal came up right after I read your thought-provoking piece. I've been thinking of Dollhouse as metaphor for a while now, too--actually, I think there was a stray comment fairly early on last year from someone in the Whedonverse that initially suggested that it might be--but anyway, Benen had a post:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

...about an NBC/WSJ poll regarding how Obama should handle the economy, with suspiciously smelly results: 62% think we should be concentrating on deficit reduction, and 31% think we should be trying to boost the economy.

My first thought, having just read your piece, was "did I fall asleep?", the line the Dolls use immediately post-wipe, as they come to. As in, we've been placing an inordinate amount of trust in polls, for some inexplicable reason, for as long as I can remember. Unpack that specific poll. That's Jack Welch and Rupert Murdoch telling you something (programming you) that has no reason to be credible, given their rap sheets. Are our pollsters publically regulated in any way? I seriously don't know, but am inclined to think not. So why do we believe them?

Benen (a vociferous Dollhouse fan--listen to his Poli Sci Fi Radio show on Sundays at 4 pm EST here):

http://www.poliscifiradio.com/

...and no slouch as a political writer and analyst, either, immediately says in the next paragraph, "once in a while, public opinion is wildly wrong, and this is one of those times." Um, Steve...? Love ya, but could it be that polls conducted by Versailles Villagers might be trying to make you think that this is the way America thinks, when it's probably the exact opposite?

And, for me, you can extend the "programming" out all through the corporatocracy/Versailles Villagers. I like Rachel Maddow, but she's done some shoddy things at MSNBC along with the admittedly good work. The only thing I really trust on broadcast/cable media is Democracy Now!, and about 75% of "progressive talk radio"/Pacifica.

Well, those and Dollhouse, of course.


I'd like to be wrong, (4.00 / 2)
but I suspect that poll is neither deceitful nor incorrect.  What I think that poll represents is some really good "programming."  People are pretty conditioned to worry about federal budget deficits without even understanding what it actually is, or means.  In the same way people are pretty conditioned to worry about the relative strength of the dollar.  There is a time and a place to find both of those things potentially worrisome.  But, this is not one of those times.  The misery of the dismal science; on the one hand - on the other hand.  Unfortunately, people like "fixed rules."  If a thing is bad, it should always and forever be bad.  That's not true for either deficits or a strong dollar.  Krugman extended Matt Yglesias' argument further.

[ Parent ]
Micro / Macro (4.00 / 1)
In times like these everyone needs to cut back on their personal spending for their own families welfare.  It just makes intuitive sense that the same is true for the country as a whole, but that intuition is wrong.  Combine that with the liars and charlatans on tv, it is easy to see why people think this way.

But in reality they want the problems solved.  Politicians who vote for programs that work will be rewarded, even if their electorate worried about the vote at the time, as long as the success can be felt before the next election.


[ Parent ]
True, But (4.00 / 1)
if any politician were ideally gifted to educate the country about the paradox of thrift, that politician is Barack Obama.  It's so frustrating to see him not even make the effort to educate people in defense of his own policies, much less more progressive ones that could create space on the left to make him seem more centrist.

Where, oh where is the 113-dimensional chess when we really need it?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I humbly and gently submit that you're repeating a very "convenient" theme. (4.00 / 2)
It's not micro vs macro.  It's domestic policy vs foreign policy.  It's the Village conditioning people to think that deficit spending on domestic policy (eg; health care) is unacceptable, while, at the same time, conditioning people to think that deficit spending on foreign policy (eg; wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran?) is not only "acceptable," but necessary.

"America's Priorities," by the Beltway elite

It's convenient, for the Village to invoke household spending as a model for domestic policy, while dismissing that very same model when they approach foreign policy.  If we wanted to invoke "fixed rules," either deficit spending is okay, or it's not.  But, that's not the way it's discussed.  For some odd reason, deficit spending to effect domestic policies is not okay, but deficit spending to promote and support foreign aggression is never even broached.  I wonder how people think we are paying for all of this so-called National Security?


[ Parent ]
Well, It's Possible (4.00 / 2)
Those poll results could well be true.  People are very confused about economics, hardly a surprise as it's the most propagandized subject out there. Both our debt (cumulative) and deficit (yearly) are almost entirely of Republican doing, but anger over them is only roused against Democrats, so this latest poll is understandable as evidence of the success of this longstanding hegemonic effort by conservatives.

I have a diary later this weekend (still toying around with when to run it) that deals with another economic issue that adds to this economic confusion--tax expenditures (deductions and exemptions that function just like spending, but work through the tax code).  From where I stand, it's very much a reflection of the intentional deception of the American people about the nature and function of government.  Tax expenditures account for more money each year than discretionary domestic spending--even more than direct military spending. But they are very rarely talked about except on an individual basis, and even then rarely in a confrontational or controversial way. And, of course, they are heavily slanted toward the affluent.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I think the problem here (0.00 / 0)
(assuming that the wording of the questions and structure of the survey were not a problem) with how we read polls, not with those polled.

Being Too Literal

First, does saying you want to reduce the deficit (on a closed ended question that is asked using terms that are not the kind normal people use then they talk about politics) really mean that they want to reduce the deficit, or is it expressing the view that the government wastes money and / or gives it to the wrong people (i.e. bankers, the poor, etc.) Often people are expressing their values more than an answer to a specific question. Given that other questions would not reveal a neo-liberal world view among most voters, it suggests to me that this question isn't being answered literally.  We have to read survey questions in the right context, rather than plucked out of those contexts (which is how the corporate media reports on polls.)

Which Context

In addition, we tend to read that question as saying people want to reduce (certain kinds of) domestic spending (not increase taxes or reduce military spending.) Certainly, there is nothing about the question itself that demands this interpretation. We do that because we read polls through the lens of the conventional right-left spectrum of elite American politics. That only makes sense if we assume that most regular people also look at the world through a similar lens, which is pretty much known to be false.

Elites versus the Public

Despite decades of tax cutting, (domestic) government is bad, corporations are good propaganda, most Americans strongly support government efforts to ensure economic opportunity for all, even if it means more government and paying higher taxes.  Elites have consistently worked to reduce wages and social insurance, and thereby demand, thereby enabling a Las Vegas style economy crash and burn.  

If a single poll question makes regular Americans look foolish compared to the Punditboro, I am immediately skeptical.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


[ Parent ]
<i># You must enter a subject for your comment</i> (I sometimes find myself at a loss for subjects) (4.00 / 1)
If she can struggle out of the pit of total annihilation of her self ... then what excuse do we have, with all the self-awareness we posses?

Oh, sure, it's "only a story."  A story remarkably reminiscent of the slave rebellions lead by men like ... And what is history, then, but a story we write in our own blood, sweat and tears?

This, apparently, is a question on lots of people's minds.  Greenwald taped a session with Bill Moyers.  It's up at his site in three parts.  At minute 9:03 in part 3, through minute 11:40 Moyers asks, and Greenwald speculates, on why there haven't been riots, or why Americans haven't stormed the Bastille.  Greenwald offers learned helplessness, and notes that Obama himself warned of this outcome if/when the electorate decided that their government was fully unresponsive to them.  Just a bit of irony there as this all plays out.

My own thoughts tend toward Janis Joplin and Me and Bobby Magee.  Still too many people with too much to lose.  I often worry that a charismatic leader with the chops to pull it off might emerge before enough people with nothing left to lose arrive at that consensus.

Have you ever tried/participated in the simulation Star Power, Paul?


Things Take Time & Don't Just Happen (4.00 / 2)
While I don't mean to contradict anything you've said, it's important to remember that even in the Great Depression things took quite some time.  FDR was elected 3 years and one month after the Great Crash.  Obama was more like 3 days and one month.  So that's one thing.  The other is that progressive institutions have been tremendously demobilized over time, becoming more and more players in a system heavily slanted against them.

Educationaction has a diary coming up tomorrow that will get into this somewhat.  He and John Emerson have both been writing about slightly different but related facets of how elite/middle class/progressive and mass/working class/populist forces have been in tension over time.

The real tragedy is that many folks don't realize they have nothing left to lose, until they're already so deep in debt they can only dream of just having nothing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
TV doesn't get any better than this.

Actually, yes it does. I'll give you a couple examples - Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly. Dollhouse has serious problems and Joss Whedon is capable of much better.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Yeah, The "Good Old Days" Syndrome (0.00 / 0)
I know it well.  Sid Ceser.

But, just for the sake of argument, say I agree with you.  None of those shows are on TV now. (Well, Angel's on cable, but that's about it.)  So what would you say is better now?

FlashForward?  I don't think so.  It started strong, but every episode seems weaker and weaker.  The characters are like ents compared to those on Dollhouse.  There are a number of shows I enjoy as familiar companions.  But that's not the same thing at all.  So what?  Mad Men is a very nice period piece, but that only goes so far.

Really, there is nothing close to the way I look forward to Dollhouse.

(And btw, I have dozens of Angel episodes DVRd. I never seem to get around to watching them. With Dollhouse on a brief hiatus, I'll be re-watching them instead.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
Dollhouse is much better than Buffy was at this point in the show.  We are now 17 episodes in.  For comparison, the 17th episode of Buffy was Reptile Boy.  Early Buffy is a bit like the early Beatles, a guilty pleasure no one would care about today if not for what came to pass later on.

That isn't to say early Buffy was bad.  The analogies between Horror and High School were interesting and there were several very good episodes early on; Witch was only the third episode, for instance.

But Buffy didn't become Buffy until Surprise/Innocence.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search