Friday, June 30, 2023

The Pitfalls Of Popcorn Fiction: Why I Don't Read James Herbert Nowadays

 

<'70s Cheesiness Incarnate: 
My original paperback copy of The Fog 
looked something like this...>

<i.>
Last week, I sold three paperbacks that have been quietly gathering dust on my bookshelves since the '70s, all by the British horror writer, James Herbert. As I stated in my description, if you wanted a quick 'n' dirty introduction, this trilogy does the job: The Rats (1974), which launched him as a mass market phenomenon; The Fog (1975); and The Dark (1980). 

These books played a key role in my preteen literary soundtrack, when fantasy, horror, and sci-fi writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs, Clive Barker, James Herbert, H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, and Stephen King ranked as must-buy, must-read affairs. My preferences also coincided with my interest in becoming a writer, one who'd presumably follow my heroes into the upper echelons of fantasy and weird fiction stardom.

D
ucking and dodging Herbert's giant, flesh-eating rats seemed like a more enjoyable pursuit than cranking out the next Great Expectations, or Great Gatsby -- which also grabbed me. But those works featured characters and settings that seemed distant and remote (the 1800s and 1920s, respectively). Like most 13- or 14-year-old boys, I felt too impatient to do the heavy research that such classic masterpieces invariably demand.

Such a task couldn't compete with the glamour of, say, writing the next Rats -- substitute giant sea slugs, spiders, squids, or some equally menacing, creepy-crawly creature -- and hoping to strike it rich, a fantasy undoubtedly fueled by blockbuster hits like Carrie (1976), Star Wars (1977), Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1978), The Shining (1980), and so on.

The small screen had heated up, too. Revivals of classic shows like The Twilight Zone, and upstart series like Tales From The Crypt -- essentially, the horror equivalent of "The Love Boat," where many an out of work actor popped up -- were drawing viewers, and turning heads. Horror, sci-fi and weird fantasy were big business again, thanks to stronger storylines, and rapid advancements in special effects.

No longer did we need to giggle through the campy spectacle of some stuntman in a fuzzy suit, battling overripe dialogue, and glaring technical glitches. Authors and filmmakers now had to serve up a first-class escapist experience, and on a purely commercial level, James Herbert definitely delivered. His 23 novels racked up 54 million sales, with translations into 34 languages (including Chinese, and Russian).

Yet Herbert -- who died a couple weeks shy of his 70th birthday, in 2013 -- remained far bigger in the UK. I don't recall my classmates dropping his name, the way they dropped Stephen King's -- an ironic twist, given Herbert's tag as "the English Stephen King." And there lies the sting in this particular tale, that I'm about to unfold. Sit back, and while you're at it, pass the popcorn.





<ii.>
We've all heard of the "popcorn movie," right? It's a commonly coined critical term for unapologetic mass entertainment. It's the kind of film that says: Hey, schmuck! Have we got a story for you! For the next 90 minutes, you're ours, and we promise one hell of a thrill ride. Sit down, relax, and don't think about it too hard, or it all falls apart. And oh, yeah. Pass the popcorn.

By this definition, we can call James Herbert a popcorn writer, a quality that's vividly apparent in his second novel, The Fog. Essentially, it's a dystopian thriller about a mysterious yellow fog that drives all who encounter it to commit unspeakable acts of depravity and violence -- ranging from rape and murder, to spectacular orgies of mass destruction, as we'll see shortly.

The Fog follows John Holman, a government investigator trying desperately to unravel the chaos spiraling around him. For starters, why the fog hasn't affected him? Eventually, Holman works out that the fog is actually some kind of military experiment gone wrong, an inconvenient truth that his employer naturally wants to keep secret. 

Herbert intercuts Holman's detective forays with interludes of people doing unspeakable things to each other -- such as lesbianism, or so I conclude, after revisiting Chapter 10, which opens with a distressed young woman, Mavis Evers, as she's contemplating suicide on the beach, in the coastal resort town of Bournemouth.

The reason, we learn, stems from the manipulative cruelty of Ronnie, a childhood friend who wastes little time initiating Mavis into the wicked, wicked ways of Sappho -- as an impressionable eleven-year-old. (Ronnie's a year older, which seems sufficient to cast her as the dominant partner.)

We're then treated to a brief scene of mutual masturbation, with overripe language that wouldn't feel out of place in Penthouse Forum ("Ronnie had suddenly asked Mavis if she had ever touched herself. Perplexed, she had asked where?"). It's creepy, and distasteful, but thankfully, Herbert doesn't linger on it for long.

Once their sexual frolics cool down ("Mavis had been surprised and excited by the strange tingle that had run through her"), the steelier, worldlier Ronnie heads off to London, where Mavis encounters her again -- this time, as an impressionable 21-year-old who can't find a flat, or even a friend. Without missing a beat, Ronnie cheerfully invites Mavis to spend the night. Why, you might well ask, when they haven't seen each other for several years?

The reason for that proposition soon becomes apparent after Ronnie suggests a bath for her weary friend. With that stereotypical cue, it's back to Penthouse Forum-ville ("She opened her legs slightly, so that the journey would not be hindered -- and Ronnie was there"). Coded language abounds, such as the author marveling at how their couplings "excluded any artificial contrivances" -- he means sex toys, like dildos, right? It makes me chuckle, but apparently, even the likes of Herbert couldn't go there then. marking a rare show of restraint, for such a sensationalist writer.

What's notable is how long Herbert leers over these proceedings, which ramble on for several overheated pages -- a luxury that he doesn't allow his other major characters (at least, in these books). Even if you accept this scene as a means of fleshing out Mavis and Ronnie's backstory, it's still a jarring interruption. The Fog would fare just as well without it.

Once this final bit of softcore porn concludes, Herbert speeds the story off to its inevitable, stereotypical conclusion. Ronnie gradually begins to withdraw her affections -- at one point, even knocking Mavis to the floor, "screaming that she must never touch her again" -- before she lowers the boom on her clueless, largely passive partner, whom she's ditching for good. For a man, as it happens.

Philip, it seems, is waiting for Ronnie in his car, blissfully unaware of the double-dealing bedmate that he's about to inherit 
("He doesn't know about us, and I never want him to"). Cue one final kiss-off from Ronnie, which is revealing for what she doesn't say, once you've read between the lines: "Believe me, Mavis, I didn't want this to ever happen -- I didn't know it ever could -- but it's the right thing. I think we were wrong. Forgive me, darling. I hope someday you'll find what I have."



<Caught in the promotional crossfire:
A reluctant celebrity greets his public,
"This Is Your Life," circa 1995>

<iii.>
At this point in our proceedings, a more astute reader might well wonder if Philip won't end up as chopped liver himself, given Ronnie's transactional duplicity -- and honestly, why Mavis isn't reaching for the nearest kitchen knife? Or, at the least, asking for a wad of pound notes -- maybe the keys to Philip's car --  to seal her lips, and ensure her silence?

Of course not! This is a popcorn horror novel, so Mavis stays true to her passive remit. After spiraling into a total emotional breakdown, she's off to Bournemouth for one final march into the sea, to join thousands of countless other unfortunates, all frozen in some hellish trance ("Most of the people were in their nightclothes, some were naked, as though answering a call that Mavis neither saw nor heard").

As the water grows colder, darker, and deeper, Mavis experiences a change of heart -- but, in the end, her renewed will to live means nothing. She drowns anyway, unable to escape a final trampling amid countless other fog-crazed human lemmings ("She fell to her knees again, and this time, as she attempted to rise, other bodies fell on top of her. She squirmed around beneath the water, becoming entangled in other arms and legs").  

Of course, we already got a suitable whiff of the epitaph, several pages beforehand: "She finally recognized their affair for what it was -- two women living together in an abnormal relationship. She had never accepted the fact that she was homosexual, but somehow, Ronnie's leaving took away all the sensitivity of their mutual inclinations and revealed Mavis in her true light. A lesbian!"

It's impossible to miss the gleefully vicarious bigotry of such a passage, or this one, as the author delivers his final verdict on Ronnie's actions: "She had found a 'normal' love and left Mavis unwilling now for any other kind of love. What would she become? A lonely, embittered lesbian. She cried out in self-pity."

There you have it. This type of relationship is unhealthy, and if you desire one like it, you'll end up on the bottom of some English seabed or other. See, you don't have it so bad, boys and girls, Herbert suggests, with a wink, and a nod. Aren't you glad you're boring and normal, after all? But it's not the first time that he's stacked the deck this way, as we'll see in our next section.



<More '70s Cheese: The Rats, original front cover>

<iv.>
Before The Fog came The Rats, which sold 100,000 copies in just three weeks, and launched Herbert as a full-time writer. However, although Mavis and Ronnie's relationship doesn't survive, at least they get to experience a few moments of bliss, and lustful abandon.

No such pleasures await Henry Guilfoyle, a deeply closeted paper company salesman who loses his job after colleagues learn of his relationship with a much younger co-worker, on whom he's laser focused (
"And then he knew -- oh, that glorious moment when he really knew").

In just over six pages, Henry goes from a promising management candidate (
"large orders were coming in, and he saw Francis most every day and most evenings"), to a total outcast, targeted by crude bathroom graffiti ("How could they? How could they destroy their precious love like this? Dirty little minds coming in here, sniggering"). Today, we'd call this an example of outing, the popular term for a revelation of gender and sexuality without the affected person's foreknowledge, or agreement.

By page seven, Francis abruptly quits, unable to stand his colleagues' homophobic bullying, and Henry soon follows, "to lose himself in the quagmire of countless other disillusioned people" (fitting description of pre-punk London, isn't it?). When he's not sleeping rough, Henry focuses on taking whatever odd jobs he finds, to earn enough money for his next bottle of gin.

He even squeezes in the odd evening of light entertainment, though it's one that has more in common with the disgraced Pee Wee Herman's antics: "At one time he'd been able to fill his sexual needs in dusty old cinemas, sitting next to men of his own kind. Only twice had he been threatened, once very quietly with menace, the other time with much shouting and fist-waving, as eyes in the cinema centered on his shame." 

Telling, isn't it? Especially the description of Henry's newfound tribe -- who aren't even described as "fellow homosexuals," but "his own kind." That pronouncement follows reminders of his lack of hygiene ("his body smelt of grime in the market and the sheds where he slept"), a condition that kills what desirability he still has left. But that's what happens when you're "a kind," or an "other," something to be feared, hated, and shunned.

As miserable as Henry's post-work life has become, it pales compared to what awaits him next, when he sneaks into a crumbling inner city house for a quick drink. Henry wakes up from his stupor, to find London's finest super-vermin making short work of him, in just over a page  ("Rats! His mind screamed the words. Rats eating me alive. God, god help me"). 

The final epitaph for Henry -- now referred to only by his surname -- leaves little doubt about the futility of a life disrupted by his own transgressive tastes: "He died with no thoughts on his mind, not even of his beloved, forgotten Francis. Just sweetness, not even pain. He was beyond that." 

Like fellow traveler Mavis Evers, Henry dies knowing that the emptiness he feels picked up steam from a sexuality that he apparently had no business expressing, anyway. Why else would he come to such a sticky end, in a dirty, deserted, rat-infested house? 


<The Rats: Original rear cover edition>

<v.>
Similar complaints of homophobia and lurid writing have dogged The Dark (1980), which I'm not exploring here, because frankly, I don't remember anything about it. Which says something about how little of an impression it made,  even at the time, and why I've turned to Google, to jog my memory.

The Dark focuses on Chris Bishop, a paranormal investigator who's looking into a malevolent darkness inhabiting a deserted house, that -- surprise! -- drives people to orgies of feral, amoral behavior, such as a stadium savaged by beserk soccer fans. (Hang on, doesn't that happen regularly over there? Right, never mind.
) Sounds very much like The Fog, only crossed with a touch of The X-Files.

The Dark marked a major shift from Herbert's earlier disaster-driven style, to a focus on religious and supernatural themes. As Herbert's commercial fortunes held, he even broadened his palette slightly, to alternative historical fiction. '48 (1996) imagines the maniacal German dictator, Adolf Hitler, unleashing a toxic plague on London, to avenge his crushing defeat.

Ash
(2012), his final offering, plunks the late Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadafi, down in a Scottish castle with Lord Lucan, press baron Robert Maxwell, Princess Diana, and her secret love child. Hmm... Maybe I should seek that one out, since it sounds rather different than his standard fare.

Whatever you take away from his books, though, don't expect much help from the author. The 23-minute Terry Wogan clip (see below) typifies the challenges that I encountered in trying to get the measure of the man -- who comes off as earnestly bland, low-key, a little vanilla, even.

The first half drags on, amid the usual banal shop talk ("If I'm in the study all day working, I'm 'James Herbert'" -- get this man the hook, Igor!). However, the temperature starts to rise when they're joined by a pair of mediums -- who plop on the couch, and argue passionately that they really can speak with the dead. For his part, Herbert mostly hangs back, though he tosses out an understated retort or two ("I'm not sure if it's quite the way you say it is").

It's left to Clive Barker, his younger, gayer counterpart, to
 inject whatever edge that the show has conspicuously lacked so far ("I don't argue that we go on," he tells the mediums. "Why do we hang around? That's the bit I don't understand"). Despite my best efforts, I haven't found out what Barker thought of his fellow author's depictions of "his own kind." But I can probably hazard a guess.



<"Lemme tell you about life with 'my own kind...'"
Clive Barker (left) and James Herbert (right) yuk it up
for Terry Wogan's Halloween special (10/31/88)>

<Coda>
The Dark didn't end up being the last Herbert novel that I read. That honor goes to The Magic Cottage (1986), the star of his so-called "supernatural period" -- though he'd mined those themes earlier, with The Survivor (1977), and Fluke (1978), about a killer dog. Wait, didn't Stephen King cover that, too, in Cujo? Right, never mind.

So why did I stop reading James Herbert, exactly? Punk rock happened, and then, life. in that order. Once I heard the Clash's and Sex Pistols's raging power chords, my tastes changed. I wanted to learn how to do that, instead. Suddenly, the image of hunching over a typewriter for hours on end, no longer seemed so appealing. My interests had taken a slight detour, if you will. I still planned on becoming a writer -- only one who'd also learn to perform, play guitar, and write songs.

My discoveries of punk, postpunk, and garage music also coincided with a family member struggling to cope with severe mental illness, an ordeal that lead to several hospitalizations during the late '70s and mid-'80s. Suddenly, the 3-D graphic scenarios of those books seemed so quaint, just so much old hat. They didn't resonate anymore for me.

So would I have kept reading Herbert, if those twin lightning bolts had never struck? No, because I'd worked out his bag of tricks, which were wearing thin. The best you can say for his style is that it's atmospheric, and efficient. At 186 pages, The Rats would rank as an outlier in today's literary scene, where authors routinely churn out epics of 600, 700, even 1,000-odd pages. 

Unlike those offenders, Herbert instinctively grasped that less is more, which I consider an outgrowth of his pre-fame career in advertising. Getting people to open their wallets is the game, so every image and syllable has to work toward that end. If your idea doesn't get people to buy, your boss won't let you try it again.

In hindsight, coming up in such a conversion rate-driven culture paid off handsomely for Herbert. If you're not fussy, and don't expect a lot, he gets the job done. That much seemed clear to me, when I reread sections of these books, before I slid them into the padded envelope. But if you want more than immediate gratification, you'll probably end up going elsewhere, after reading a book or two. 

For all the graphic energy that he pours into his gross-outs, Herbert often spaces out on surprisingly basic details. It's a tradeoff that only works if you don't think too hard -- 
 for instance, just how exactly does Mavis make it to Bournemouth, without showing any ill effects of the fog?

At other times, he struggles to breathe flesh and blood life into his characters. The stereotypical likes of Henry Guilfoyle, or Mavis and Ronnie, simply wouldn't fly in a pop culture where gays and lesbians now occupy major chunks of film and TV time. 

I get a similar vibe from heroes like Holman -- tough, practical men of action, who also seem cast of solid cardboard, unlike the clammy bureaucrats 
that they encounter, in book after book after book, when they're not rescuing girlfriends who seem little more than neurotic, needy accessories.

But that's the trouble with popcorn, isn't it? Once you've eaten enough kernels, you begin to yearn for something more substantial, and then you move on. Like I did. --The Reckoner


UK TV: Terry Wogan (Wogan Halloween, 10/31/88):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgIMMtcLKWg

Sunday, June 18, 2023

Looking Back On Unemployment, Punk Rock Style (Update & Re-Post From 6/5/13)

 

<Now Then... (1983): Original Cover Artwork>


Reckoner's Note (6/18/23): What a difference a decade makes, eh? This is a re-post, actually, after I noticed this particular entry had disappeared, for some reason. After a brief stab at some sort of detective work or other, to figure out why, I threw up my hands, and said, "Right. There's only one option left: re-post."

But I'm quite fond of this entry, simply because it marked the first of what's become a running theme here -- the personal essays on all manner of big topics. By then, I was well into my sixth year of self-employment, with the peaks and valleys that accompany it. So it only seemed natural for me to revisit my various forays with unemployment through a classic song by one of my favorite bands, Stiff Little Fingers. 

"Welcome To The Whole Week," the song referenced here, is on Now Then... (1983), the last album released during Stiff Little Fingers original five-year run. As singer-guitarist Jake Burns has suggested, the song aims to turn traditional views of joblessness on their head: "Why should they be made to feel guilty because, through no fault of their own, they had no employment. They've got as much right to be happy as anybody has -- that was the idea (Stiff Little Fingers: Song By Song)."

I'm not hugely familiar with Now Then... itself, which marked a lower-key, more muted version of SLF's trademark fiery punk attack. Not surprisingly, longtime fans found it a disappointment, prompting the band to fold its tent shortly after the accompanying tour (over to you, Jake, for the epitaph: "We felt we had to stretch our wings a bit, and our audience at the time was not willing to accept that").

I'll have to check out the sonic evidence for myself -- surely, you don't want your heroes chucking out minor variations of the same thing, right? But in the meantime, enjoy this re-post, which attracted 69 views. My original post follows below.


<October/November '82 UK Tour Advert:
Aural Sculptors blog,
http://auralsculptors.blogspot.com/2020/07/20-from-8212-stiff-little-fingers.html>

And now and then, when I'm in the mood
I might get up at the crack of noon
Then take a wander down to the arcade
Might as well clock up a great high score
>"Welcome To The Whole Week"<


<i.>
For better or worse, Americans have long defined themselves through their jobs. As that guy on "The Honeymooners" can attest, our identities come from being known as the providers, whether it's as the head of a household, or the "better half" of a couple. To entertain other notions gets you in trouble; during my college days, my father would get irritable, because I'd never ask what my friends did...or planned on doing...with their lives. "But, Dad," I'd say, "that's like asking somebody, 'What's your sign?' There's more to life than work..."

Naturally, Dear Old Dad would roll his eyes, and scoff, having worked for much of his life. As we all know, however, a lot of folks are getting more time on their hands lately -- like it, or not. According to a June 21 article in The Washington Post, unemployment applications are holding steady, at around 387,000 altogether (give or take). The nation's unemployment rate hovers stubbornly at around 8.2 percent, but might dip to 8.0 percent, according to the minds at the Fed.


<Found via eBay: Print ad for "Bits Of Kids,"
a single that preceded Now Then..., 
and regarded as one of its better songs>


If you don't mind, I've decided to live my life
Well, it's always something to do
My girl comes round and all we do is talk
For hours on end, or we don't talk at all
While we more, or less, do as we please

<ii.>
Mind you, that's the best case scenario. If that's the best, who wants to stick around for the worst? The Washington Post's article also mentions another interesting statistic: consumer spending fuels roughly 70 percent of the economy. While the recent gas price dips may help people feel a bit less pinched -- within the last three weeks, our area has seen a decline from roughly $3.75 to $3.46 -- it's safe to say that nobody's banging the pom poms just yet.

Given this current downward spiral, does it even make sense anymore for people define themselves by what they do for a living? Having lost three jobs in the last decade, I know the drill. Though I never defined myself through a job (too punk rock for that, sorry!), each swing of the layoff scythe made me wonder what the point had been.

What meaning could the latest job have, I'd ask myself, if my livelihood could be destroyed so easily -- to be crushed and tossed aside like a $2 paperweight from your friendly neighborhood airport gift shop? In that split-second gut-kick, I could feel myself go from Provider to Nonperson overnight. No more fripperies like health insurance and low co-pays, let alone steady income (which is always welcome, no matter how crappily you're paid -- don't let anybody tell you different!).


Some of you have got it in for me
I don't need that or your sympathy
So I have no job, welcome to the whole week


<Live, Brixton Ace, 1982.
Left to right: Jake Burns, Brian "Dolpin" Taylor,
Ali McMordie, Henry Cluney:
YouTube.com>

<iii.>
I'm not rerunning the movie in my head as much nowadays, but that nagging feeling of being sold a bill of goods (What...Was...The...Point...Of It All?) has never completely gone away, either. That's why I like this song, "Welcome To The Whole Week," from Stiff Little Fingers. When this song came out in 1983, there were roughly three million Brits out of work as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pursued her single-minded monetarist vision...the populace be damned, if they didn't happen to agree.

This lyric -- of which I've quoted portions above -- is brilliant, for two reasons. First, it turns the whole idea of feeling guilty about being jobless on its head. As the narrator who gets up "at the crack of noon" makes clear, he's not going to waste time feeling that way, when he can finally do things that make his life tolerable (his girlfriend, his LPs, and the local pub).

By implication, he also doesn't feel any stake in a system bent on denying his humanity, let alone his existence ("I never said that this was my ideal/But still I'm gonna feel and make it real/So I have no job, welcome to the whole week")...but that's OK, because he's decided that he should be as happy as anybody else. In a society stuck on test-driving the hoary conceit of trickle-down economics...that's pretty powerful stuff.

Ironically, I never actually heard this song until recently -- as it's tucked away on Now Then... (1983), which remains largely unheralded...presumably because the band called it quits shortly after its release (that is, until the first of many reformations kicked off in 1987). The kitschy early Mac-style computer graphic cover doesn't help matters, either.

Hearing these sentiments when I lost the latest job would definitely have bought some comfort, if not a smile...because the absurdity of investing your identity around your career would become apparent in a heartbeat. You'd realize that you were trapped on some eternal midway, where the carnies run thicker than flies, and there's always a gangling six-foot-tall goon with meth mouth to point out the marks, and hit on their weaknesses with all the subtlety of a flying mallet.

Maybe someone will convince Stiff Little Fingers to reissue "Welcome To The Whole Week" for the U.S, where there's 12.7 million people living in enforced idleness right now...at least there's plenty of company, right? The more things change...the more they stay the same.--The Reckoner


        I never promised you I'd go away
You can't ignore me cos I'm here to stay
So it's too bad, let me at the whole week...



<Live in Brixton, 1982:
Check out Ali's print shirt --
Slightly out of sync with the band's punk vibe, isn't it?
But it was the '80s. after all.
Henry (right) keeps his head down,
and does his best
to get the "dots" (frets) right!>





Links To Go (Why Don't You...Listen...To Your Heart?):

Live At The Brixton Ace, 1982:
Channel Four ("Whatever You Want," 2/83):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqYg7SRMLa4

Fascinating clip from the much-maligned Now Then... era. Having checked it out, I have to say, I don't find those songs so dismissable, but you can judge the results for yourself.

Rock & Roll GLobe: Jake Burns: 
Nobody's Hero: Stiff Little Fingers' Jake Burns At 65
:
https://rockandrollglobe.com/punk/nobodys-hero-stiff-little-fingers-jake-burns-at-65/


Monday, May 29, 2023

Snap Impressions: I Survived This Fiscal Chicken Theater (So Where's My Lousy T-Shirt, Already?)

 

"It Could Be Worse, Right?"/
The Reckoner>

There's no ink drying yet on any agreement, but the gatekeepers and scorekeepers aren't letting the grass grow under their feet. America has once again flirted with its bout of Fiscal Chicken Theater -- a/k/a, the brouhaha over the debt ceiling -- and, while it's too early to breathe easily just yet, seems likely to survive, with minimal room to spare. 

Now that the gory details are finally emerging, the only question that seems to grip the punditocracy, and its stenographers in the likes of The New York Times, and The Washington Post, is the elementary one. "Who won? Who lost? Who got served by whom?" the herd collectively thunders.

So goes the "baseball game/horse race/beauty pageant" model of MSM (mainstream media) coverage, as I call it, one that distills everything through a who's-won-who's down narrative, topped off by the predictably sketchy impressions of the players involved.

But what distills also distorts, as we know all too well. "It could have been worse" is the prevailing mantra being trotted out by MSM sages like Dan Pfeiffer: "People on the Left and the Right are unhappy, but that is to be expected. No deal gets the agreement of the Democratic president and the Republican Speaker and is universally praised.”

Perhaps. Possibly. Other outlets, like the New York Times, are casting the tentative deal as no worse than the sort that might emerge during budget negotiations in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives: "The agreement would protect the military and entitlements like Social Security and Medicare from spending cuts imposed on other parts of government.”

I suspect that this anguished Tweet served up on Saturday by Sarah Christopherson, legislative and policy director of Americans for Tax Fairness, a progressive think tank, captures the prevailing progressive mood more aptly:

"Jesus fucking Christ. $10 b from tax enforcement in a big ol gift to rich tax cheats; work requirements & time limits in SNAP & TANF to push poor ppl deeper into poverty; NDD [non-defense discretionary*] cuts of 5% in real dollars. Is there anything the White House didn't cave on?"

Ms. Christopherson is fundamentally accurate on every point. The poor, as they always do, got thrown under the bus; "It's the kidney machines that pay for rockets and guns," as Paul Weller observed in the Jam's 1980 classic, "Going Underground." Forty-odd-years later, it's saddening to see how little has changed since he wrote those lyrics.

And e
ven a five percent spending cut for domestic programs, however small it seems, will have markedly negative consequences for those who depend on them. Wealthy tax dodgers also have reason to celebrate, since any undercutting of resources from already overmatched regulators will surely kneecap the Biden administration's publicly stated quest to make the tax code work for everybody. 

As damaging as these outcomes are, however, they aren't the worst ones. Leading progressives, like Bernie Sanders, repeatedly urged Biden to stand up publicly to his antagonists, notably by invoking language in the 14th Amendment ("The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned"). Doing so, proponents argued, would allow Biden to bypass Congress altogether, and take the debt ceiling club off the table forever, at least, theoretically.

But that notion was always going to be a big ask of Biden, as a conventional politician who came up in a much more conventional era -- when games like Fiscal Chicken Theater simply didn't happen, because nobody envisioned their opposition pulling such a stunt to get their own way, at any cost.

Presumably, the various trial balloons that Biden trotted out publicly against invoking the 14th Amendment (I don't have time; It's an untested theory; It's too wacky to try; The markets wouldn't like it) sounded better than the obvious one he didn't say aloud (I won't do it, because it's never crossed my mind).

Would the high courts that right wingers have spent so much time and money to cherry pick really gone along with their brethren's attempts to blow up the economy over that untested 14th Amendment theory?

We'll never know, because nobody tried it. Certainly not President Biden. But even if they had, it's worth asking, who looks better here? The 99-year-old Granny Doe, faced with losing her Social Security check to pay rent? Or so-called Supreme Court justices scuba diving in Indonesia, thanks to some deep-pocketed patron with an unsettling fetish for Nazi memorabilia?


In the final analysis, this is the problem with orthodox liberals. Decades of legal and political dunking have beaten them down to the point of accepting stalemate as the only option that's worth pursuing. 
In this mindset, the mere avoidance of disaster is touted as some positive sign that the system works,  however dysfunctional it's become. Sleepwalking through a tired script is preferable to flipping it, because the latter task requires too much effort.

Apparently, nobody feels compelled to remind Biden and his inner circle of Churchill's famous aphorism, uttered after Britain's retreat from Nazi troops on the shores of Dunkirk, in 1940: "Wars are not won by evacuations."


For evidence, look no
 further than Biden's equally vexing refusal to push for the expansion of a Supreme Court whose uber-right majority is working night and day to hobble his Presidency. 

Would a Republican President, staring down a similar dilemma, stay so committed to such a resolutely passive course? If you believe that, I've got some Florida swampland you can all help me drain.

Until the Democrats make a stronger, more coordinated and disciplined push to unstuff and undo the various penalty boxes that they've been locked in, for decades -- the court captures, the filibusters, the gerrymanders -- their policy wishes will remain largely academic arguments, at best.

And yes, obviously, the next generation can't come onstage soon enough, as the gruesome spectacle of California Democrat Dianne Feinstein's ongoing cognitive decline amply demonstrates. Yet one moment of truth surfaced last week, amid reports of Feinstein's apparent inability to recognize her one-time colleague, Vice President Kamala Harris.

According to those reports, a befuddled Feinstein -- on seeing Harris acting in her major role, of presiding over the Senate -- asked her aides, "What's she doing here?"

It's a question that Feinstein, and most of the major players from her political generation. would do well to ask themselves, as well. Because if they ever asked us, they wouldn't like the answer they get. -- The Reckoner


[*Inserted here by yours truly, to fully explain the term, and avoid confusing the reader.]


Sunday, April 30, 2023

My Corona Diary (Take XLII): Who Was That Masked Man? (It's Not The Lone Ranger...)



<Self-Portrait In Mirror W/Mask: 3:00 AM/The Reckoner>


<i.>
Just over 10 days from now, the national COVID-19 health emergency will officially expire, and allow the Biden administration to formally close the books on it. Then again, I didn't need the President to draw a rhetorical exclamation point with his index finger whenever he takes the podium again, because the signs have been in the air, so to speak, for awhile. My community's no exception.

The major sign, from my standpoint, is that most people have largely given up wearing face masks. Those who still do, besides Your Humble Narrator, are mainly older people. As in, the advanced elderly, and those closer to my demographic (fifty and sixtysomethings). 

These days, masking is now optional for most public spaces, though if you're still feeling uneasy, the authorities suggest keeping yours on, and ask those around you for tolerance. But if it's optional, why should anybody have to worry? Doesn't that seem a little contradictory?

As you might imagine, this leads to odd situations. Our visiting doctor recently popped in to see the Squawker and I, so we dropped the question: "Do you think it's time to ditch the masks altogether, in light of the current situation? Have things eased up enough to allow that?"

She immediately fired back with a question of her own: "What, do you go around wearing your mask indoors?"

"Er, no," I suggested. "Not exactly. No need to do that, if it's just us."

"I have a lot of immuno-issues," Squawker responded. "So that's why we're still wearing ours."

Then again, getting a simple subject-verb-object sentence out of any medical professional is rather difficult. Whether it's fear of lawsuits, or a natural skittishness to give out too many compromising details, I've no idea, but doctors are often like Treasury Secretaries.

No sooner do they tout a pin drop in the interest rate, before they say: "But I can't promise you, that they won't go back up." You get the idea.


<"Me & My KN-95"/The Reckoner>

<ii.>
It makes sense, then, that I heard a totally different take on the issue, during an early evening run to Matthew's, for a few last minute food items. Right off the bat, the cashier asked me, pointing at my black mask: "Why are you wearing one? Are you still afraid of getting sick?"

"Er, something like that," I ventured. "It's not a John Wayne thing for me -- it just makes sense, doesn't it? Maybe there's another variant in the air, waiting for its chance to slip under the radar.'

I wasn't prepared for her response. "Well, good for you!" the cashier said.  Her voice rose a notch or two. "The shots don't work, anyway."

"Well, I can't say that I'm perfect," I said. "I haven't gotten around to it. Mainly, because I work at home, and it's not that I'm around people constantly, so..."

The bagger paused momentarily, from his work. "Are you afraid of needles? Does that something to do with it?"

"Well, yeah, there is that." I slid my debit card out of the holder. "I mean, it's not the whole reason, but you're talking to a guy who winces and squirms whenever they do blood draws. My forearm doesn't like those, either."

"I get what you mean," the bagger said. "Whenever I do anything like that, I have to think about something else."

I thank the crew, scoop up my bananas, two liters and assorted items -- a nine-grain bread loaf here, a package of Oscar Meyer lunchmeat there -- and head back to my virtual cave, the living room that's functioned as the nerve center of my existence for years and years, long before the COVID-19 bomb dropped, and rattled our bones like no virus had no ever done before.

One thought crosses my mind, as I head home. Drawing red lines and exclamation marks under anything isn't always so simple. Yes, May 11 may well be the day du jour, but events don't always bend to official declarations.

Maybe in a few more months, I can let go of the protocols -- stay six feet apart, wash your hands a little bit more often, wear those masks when you're out and about -- that have defined so much of my last three years.

But something tells me to keep my powder dry, for now, for just a little bit longer. "Who was that masked man," you say? Well, it's me. For now, at least. --The Reckoner

Sunday, April 9, 2023

Why Pack Journalism Sucks: Rethinking Chicago's Mayoral Race

 

<Brandon Johnson, after winning last week's mayoral runoff
https://workingfamilies.org/2023/04/victory-in-chicago-for-brandon-johnson/>


Pack Journalism (noun): 
<Journalism that is practiced by reporters in a group and that is marked by uniformity of news coverage and lack of original thought or initiative.>
(Merriam Webster's Dictionary)


<i.>
If you want a fitting metaphor for, "What's wrong with this picture," the opening paragraphs of this Chicago Sun-Times  article, from January 25, 2021, should suffice. The story focuses on a hotly-debated police training center project that Mayor Lori Lightfoot had opposed, as Police Board President, which now apparently seemed far-reaching enough to win her support: 

"Allocating funds for a police academy 'is viewed by many as further affirmation that needs of the people will never be prioritized over those of the police,' she said on that day.

"A month after taking office, Lightfoot dramatically changed her tune and embraced the project she had condemned, making it bigger and more expensive.

"On Wednesday, Lightfoot completed her about-face on a project that was once the target of nationwide protests, cutting the ribbon on the $170 million complex at 701 N. Kilbourn Ave., along the 4300 and 4400 blocks of West Chicago Avenue."

For progressives who'd supported her 2019 election, the groundbreaking marked one of many maddening 180-degree retreats from the themes she'd promoted during her campaign -- including greater accountability over one of the nation's most dysfunctional police departments.

As the writer notes, despite the protests, Liightfoot doubled down -- figuratively, and literally -- on the project, whose cost had once been estimated at $95 million. For Activist Ja'Mal Green, who became Lightfoot's youngest ,mayoral challenger, at 27, the center served as an especially glaring snapshot of his city's misplaced priorities:

“Making sure that young people have safe spaces, job opportunities, apprenticeships. Schools should be open throughout the day and on weekends. These are priorities. We have done none of those things. We couldn’t even get swimming pools open in the summer.

“The fact that young people are slapped with curfews instead of given safe spaces, but we had all of this money to put toward a police academy to do right now, while young people are literally suffering. It’s just about the timing and the prioritization, about how do we care or not care about people in the neighborhoods.”

Fast forward to February 2023. With Lightfoot looking more and more like a one-term mayor, how did the mainstream media characterize her failure to make last week's runoff?

In a word, with the C-word: crime, crime, and more crime, as verdicts poured in from CNN ("
the latest demonstration of growing concerns about crime in one of the nation's largest cities"), The New York Times ("a resounding defeat that reflected widespread dissatisfaction from voters over her handling of crime and policing in the nation's third largest city"), and Vox.com ("a referendum on her first four years in office and on crime in Chicago").




<"I Feel A Little Chilly In Here..."/
The Reckoner>

<ii.>
Some media outlets proved way less restrained than others in their hysteria, such as Politico.com ("Calling All Police: Lightfoot Needs A Lifeline"), the ever-reactionary New York Post ("Chicago Mayoral Race Is A Warning To Big Cities Everywhere"), or Bloomberg.com ("Chicago Mayor's Loss Has One Cause: Crime"). 

Still, we should expect a lot more from our established media outlets, who continued to treat the runoff between the eventual winner, progressive Brandon Johnson, and former Chicago Public Schools Superintendent Paul Vallas, as a personality-driven clash of wills. Only, one that crime (and its twin sister, COVID) would continue to dominate, as any number of headlines suggested:

"Chicago Mayor Candidate Backed By Police Makes It To Runoff" (Bloomberg, 2/28/23).

"Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's Struggle To Be Reelected" (New York Magazine, 2/21/23).

"Chicago Mayor's Race Shows Impact of Crime In COVID's Wake" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/01/23).

"Chicago Mayor's Race Dominated By Concerns About City Crime" (US News & World Report, 2/25/23).

"In Chicago Mayor's Race, Two Hopefuls Reflect Democrats' Split"
(Associated Press, 3/19/03)

"Progressive And Centrist Democrats Clash In Chicago Mayoral Race" (Financial Times, 4/06/23).

Notice the uniformity in style, and tone? This is what pack journalism does -- boil the prevailing narrative into one convenient, soggy, steam-pocked tea bag. Once the gatekeepers on the ground settle on one, nothing else is allowed to pierce the fog that results.



<"Idle Chatter":
The Reckoner>


<iii.>
Much of the coverage of the resulting Chicago runoff focused on claims that Johnson either planned to "defund the police," or at least, make that idea the centerpiece of his policymaking approach, if he ever made it to City Hall.

That seems like the gist of Politco.com's piece, which characterizes Johnson as "the left-wing challenger who’s threatening to deny her (Lightfoot) even a spot in the runoff." The writer makes a number of credibility-stretching claims, like this one: "What's more striking, and what's at the heart of Lightfoot's offensive, is that some of the same polls indicate that defunding the police is highly unpopular with Black voters."

Which polls, exactly? And which segment of Black voters? We're never told, beyond "some surveys I've seen," and "Polling from the campaigns and outside groups" -- surely, not the most reliable barometers in any race, no matter how heated, right?

Not done with speaking for all Black voters, the writer makes his biases clearer as the story progresses ("
Vallas has resurrected himself as the tough-on-crime favorite of the Fraternal Order of Police [FOP]"). For added punch, he also nods to the election of New York Mayor Eric Adams, another rising star of the stack-'em-like-cordwood crowd.

So 
what did Johnson have to say about all this, exactly? Plenty, if you visit the Issues section of his campaign website, as Politico's writer should have done:

"As mayor, I will chart a new strategy for public safety, rather than relying on the same failed approaches that have brought trauma to communities across the city. I will work with police and first responders to invest in community-based interventions that de-escalate conflict, reduce violence and make our neighborhoods safer. I will create an Office of Community Safety, reopen the city’s mental health clinics, fully fund year-round youth employment, and foster partnerships between communities and law enforcement to make critical investments preventing crime before it happens."

Johnson proceeds to offer a detailed overview of how he plans to attack the situation, "by investing in the basics: good schools, good jobs, housing and mental health." His proposals range from reopening the city's 14 public health mental health clinics, to doubling the number of youth summer jobs to 60,000.

As you'd expect, much of Vallas's website focuses on ideas for revamping the Chicago Police Department. His proposals range from allowing former officers to return with the same rank that they left, to boosting the number of detectives by 10 percent, and hiring more officers to patrol public transit.

The closest he comes to acknowledging different (read: non-stacking) ideas is his call for a summit of city, state and officials to discuss "holistic solutions" to crime, such as "street violence interruption, youth violence reduction, youth diversion, and returning citizen support agencies and programs."

How Vallas planned to pull off such a gathering, after pledging so much political capital to his FOP fanbase, is anybody's guess. Vallas's loss makes the point moot, I suppose, but it's a fair question to ask future stack-'em-like-cordwood advocates. Vallas wasn't the first of that breed, and he won't be the last.



<Joint Rally Poster:
Bernie Sanders' Facebook page>

<iv.>
For all the hoopla projected onto Lightfoot's missteps, and the runoff that followed, what's striking is how many Chicagoans just shrugged off the whole spectacle. Only about 35 percent bothered to cast a ballot, which is roughly half the turnout for presidential elections. 

Judged by that metric, Johnson's seems less impressive than it looks. Yet, in another sense, the game wasn't close as the box score indicated. As the ballot counting continues (through April 18), Johnson's total has grown to 302,619 votes, versus 282,406 for Vallas. Though it's hardly a rout, the resulting margin -- just over 20,000 votes -- is decisive enough.

Among those who did vote, there seemed a clear interest in taking a different approach. Yet, by and large, the mainstream media largely missed the boat, with some exceptions. The American Prospect and The Intercept did a good job of peeking behind the curtains of power broking, as well as public media outlets, like WTTW (see below).

But those were the exceptions. The most damaging effect of pack journalism is that the good questions never get asked, which ensures that good ideas never get a hearing.

Let's start with the obvious ones. Statistics show one in four children, and one in 10 adults, are living in poverty, or incomes of 50% below the federal poverty line. Seventy-six percent of students receive free or subsidized meals, and an additional 16,000 students are homeless.

With so many struggling to survive, how can Chicago call itself a world-class city? Yes, crime has ratcheted to levels not seen since the 1990s, but aren't such glaring disparities a key driver of it? 
How much difference, realistically, would putting a cop on every corner make in such an environment, when crime becomes a more attractive, if high risk, option?

How could someone like Vallas credibly handle those issues, given his longtime involvement with the for-profit (charter) school movement, and a campaign funded largely by the city's wealthy white power structure? How deeply does he support core Democratic priorities, when he once toyed with switching parties?

Voters should also have gotten a deeper dive into city finances, which largely took a back seat to all the feverish chatter about crime. As mayor-elect, Johnson will inherit estimated deficits of $360 million for the city, and $628 million for its schools. How much can he accomplish, especially if the City Council and state lawmakers don't pass all the new taxes he's proposing to fund his programs?

The power structure needed to hear the toughest questions of all. As the Sun-Times noted (see my previous post, "When In Doubt, Stop Digging"), the Black political establishment lined up mostly behind Vallas, almost to a person. So did Illinois's senior Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin. 

Why did so many of them endorse someone whom voters have rejected for governor (2002 primary), lieutenant governor (2014), and yes, mayor of Chicago (2019)?  How can somebody who's struck out so often at the ballot box ever present himself as a serious candidate?

We'll never know, because those questions barely get asked, so nobody had to worry about trying to answer them. The problem is that accountability and transparency are critical ingredients to ensuring a vital democracy, or at least, one that bears some resemblance to what you studied in government class.

Spoon feeding voters a steady diet of "beauty pageant" or "horse race" models of news coverage that reduce issues to mere personality clashes, or mindless handicapping (Who's up? Who's down?), drastically undercuts those ideals.

But this is the final, unhappy result, when journalists hunt in packs. The swells can sleep soundly behind for yet another night, knowing they've copped another hall pass for their sneaky behavior, because the watchdogs are dozing along with them, or too distracted to care much themselves.

More than anything else, I hope that Johnson's victory finally forces some long-overdue discussion of the social costs of enshrining a top-down, pay-to-play political culture, and who really benefits from it. It sure hasn't been the average Chicagoan. --The Reckoner


Links To Go: Hurry. Hurry,
Before The Pack Tosses A Distraction Bomb
:

The American Prospect:
Brandon Johnson's Ground Game
Defeats Obama Machine In Chicago
:
https://prospect.org/politics/2023-04-05-brandon-johnson-defeats-obama-machine-chicago/

Brandon Johnson: The Plan For A Safer Chicago:
https://www.brandonforchicago.com/issues/public-safety

Politico.com: Calling All Police: Lightfoot Needs A Lifeline
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/28/lightfoot-chicago-mayoral-election-on-politics-00084669

Paul Vallas: Paul's Comprehensive Public Safety Plan:
https://www.paulvallas2023.com/publicsafety

The Intercept:
Is Chicago Mayoral Candidate
Paul Vallas A Republican?:

https://theintercept.com/2023/04/04/chicago-mayor-paul-vallas-republican/

WTTW: Brandon Johnson Defeats Paul Vallas:
https://news.wttw.com/2023/04/04/paul-vallas-leads-brandon-johnson-tight-chicago-mayoral-race