The Nobel Prize for Literature, given to as many horrible writers as worthy ones, is now of value only for two reasons: It makes its recipient rich (now up to $1.5 million), and it causes people to take account of the careers of some notable authors. Such is the case with this year’s Laureate, Mario Vargas Llosa. He achieved a broad international reputation in the 1980s and 1990s–indeed, for a time, he was probably one of the world’s best-known writers–but that has faded somewhat over the past decade. He is, quite simply, wonderful–a novelist and essayist of great wit, range, sagacity, playfulness, and high seriousness.
He first came to prominence in the United States with the late-1970s translation of his hilarious, joyful, and wildly original blend of novel and memoir, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, a study of the unique circumstances that led to his first marriage to a much older distant cousin; he draws a comic parallel between his life and the crazed plots devised by Peru’s leading soap-opera writer, a monastic lunatic who seems nonetheless to embody the creative process itself. The next work of his to appear in English was extraordinarily different and extraordinary in every sense of the word: The War for the End of the World, a highly realistic historical novel about a millenarian cult in fin-de-siecle Brazil. It offered a portrait, unparalleled in our time, of the way in which radical ideas can seize hold of ordinary people and drive them to suicidal madness.
This was the first of his novels to reveal Vargas Llosa’s mature world view: Almost alone among Latin American intellectuals of his time, he had become a liberal in the classic sense of the word, a believer in and advocate for Western-style free speech, free markets, and free inquiry. This was the result of an ideological journey not unlike the one taken by neoconservatives in the United States, except that in Vargas Llosa’s case it was even more remarkable given the lack of any kind of liberal culture in South America and especially in the world of Latin novelists, who were, to a man, radical Leftists either aligned with or entirely joined at the hip with Marxist-Leninist-Castroist activism. He made his decisive spiritual break with the Left plain with a short novel called The Real Life of Alejandro Meyta, which specifically linked radical Leftist thinking to the impulse to terrorism.
The same year he published that book, he became head of a commission in Peru examining the devastation wrought by a terrorist group called the Shining Path. He wrote one of the great essays of our time for the New York Times Magazine on the matter, called “Inquest in the Andes.” Alas, it appears to be unavailable on the Times website, suggesting Vargas Llosa withheld rights to its electronic distribution. That is a shame, but you can read the astounding essay he wrote for the same magazine entitled “My Son the Rastafarian,” about grappling with his teenager’s rebellion and the horror of being a judge at the Cannes Film Festival. (That son, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, became the editorial-page editor of the Spanish language edition of the Miami Herald and an even greater rarity among South Americans, a libertarian.)
It is important to note that Vargas Llosa really is a liberal, not a conservative in any sense of the word. His work is often frankly libertine, as his powerful erotic novel In Praise of the Stepmother demonstrates. He doesn’t have a populist bone in him, and suffered from his inability to connect with ordinary people when he ran for president of Peru — offering sensible austerity measures that caused him to lose to a dangerous populist named Alberto Fujimori who drove the country into chaos and then fled to Japan ahead of corruption charges. Imagine Saul Bellow as president of the United States and you get some sense of what it might have meant for Vargas Llosa actually to have won his race. He wrote a remarkable book about that too, called A Fish in the Water.
He is one of the most interesting men of our time and I’m glad he got the Nobel money. Doesn’t wash the Nobel clean by any means, but at least the proceeds will be spent by someone who deserves it. Vargas Llosa wrote a visionary essay for COMMENTARY in 1992 called “The Miami Model,” which we’re making available from our archives today. Sample:
This profession of faith—hatred for the United States disguised as anti-imperialism—nowadays is actually a rather subtle form of neocolonialism. By adopting it, the Latin American intellectual does and says what the cultural establishment of the United States (and by extension, elsewhere in the West) expects of him. His proclamations, condemnations, and manifestoes, with all their grace notes and glissandos, serve to confirm all the stereotypes of the Latin American universe cherished by much of the North American cultural community.
It’s an honor to have published it, and a pleasure to congratulate our contributor on his award.
There will be posters here who say this is irrelevant during a DOW massacre. But I would ask them: would it be relevant if the DOW was doing great? Of course not–to them. They would rather talk about anything other than bad news for The One. The irony is that the Democrats so often complain that Republicans are indifferent or hostile to democracy, yet here is a live example of the reverse, and suddenly it doesn’t matter. Go figure.
Why is Jennifer Rubin ignoring John McCain’s gambling addiction? McCain regularly gambles $100,000 per night playing craps, often he gambles $10,000 on every roll. What kind of character does this obsessive gambling reveal? Why is the MSM ignoring this problem?
“Did he know of ACORN fraudulent practices and when did he know of them?”
Let’s get something straight: Barack Obama is either a dumb man—or a big time liar. There is no in-between. This is an all or nothing proposition. Needless to add, I do not believe that the “Messiah” possesses a low I.Q.
#2: Sam Inzain, but wot’s the big surprise?
When did no pasaran become sam zain, anyway?
David Thomson – Can you tell precisely why it is – based on actual fact, e.g., I.Q. test, grade-point averages, that you do not believe Obama possesses a low I.Q.? (Allternatively, that he possesses an above average I.Q.) Perhaps, you do not know how Affirmative Action works. As an Indian, I have been a recipient of it and have other family members (a brother, a daughter) involved in it. I know how it works. That this glib blackman could make it as far as he has and be dumber than homemade do do (as another, less educated, brother of mine used to say more graphically) does not surprise me in the least.
“All of this should give voters pause. This isn’t ancient history and it isn’t “guilt by association.” It is a very problematic part of Obama’s political milieu, one that he worked in and helped fund (until 2002, when he left the Woods Fund). At some point he should be required to answer some basic questions: Did he know of ACORN fraudulent practices and when did he know of them? And does he approve of its hardball tactics and left-leaning agenda?”
Interviewer: Did you know about ACORN’s fraudulent practices?
Barrack Obama: No
Interviewer: Do you approve of its hardball tactics and left-leaning agenda?
Barrack Obama: No
Interviewer: OK, so, how about them Cowboys?! You think they’re going to the Superbowl?
Barrack Obama: Nice try, you know I’m a Bears fan!
Jennifer, do you know everything that is happening at Commentary Magazine, NPR, or any of the many entities you’re associated with? Are you privy to all of John Podhoretz’s business affairs? Do you know all of his associates?
Sam Zain: Evidence, please, of gambling “addiction”? Or if none, then please retract entirely.
Mitt: You are right. He could say this. But (1) he hasn’t been asked; and (2) these answers would not be credible, given (a) ACORN’s well known history, and (b) Obama’s other totally non-credible denials of knowledge (Rev. Wright, Ayers and under your hypo, ACORN). Really, how many times can someone claim not to know many things they should have known about and still be believed?
Los Angeleno: “He could say this. But (1) he hasn’t been asked; and (2) these answers would not be credible…”
Los Angeleno, not be credible to whom? You?
Although Jennifer Rubin claims ACORN isn’t “guilt by association” that’s precisely what it is; and any answer Obama proffers other than I contracted ACORN to fraudulently register voters, and steal money, won’t satisfy the people who don’t support him.
no pasarán: Qué patético, hombrecito. (by any name you choose to use, no one gives a damn…)
Mitt: If ACORN were the KKK, you would never deny that guilt by association is perfectly valid. I suspect you would be the first to raise it. Now, I don’t think ACORN is the KKK, but it appears to be a bad group. You can deny that of course. But logically, if it is, in fact, a bad group (like we can all agree the KKK is), then any association with it does, in fact, make the person guilty. They can defend all they want that (a) it wasn’t a bad group; or (b) I didn’t know it was bad or I wasn’t really in the group. Those are fine defenses. But they may not be true. You seem to be saying that guilt by association is not valid. It is valid, as I have proven. And of course, there is more here than mere association. There is also guilt by action. Obama may have been involved with some of the shady voter registration efforts that ACORN is known for. He also may not have been. I don’t know. But if the shoe were on the other foot, and McCain was involved with a group with this kind of history (and, especially if McCain had all the other shady dealings and relationships), woudn’t you start noticing a trend? I would have no problem calling McCain out on it if that were the case. You should have no problem calling Obama out on it.
“Now, I don’t think ACORN is the KKK, but it appears to be a bad group.”
ACORN is not a violent group like the KKK. This point must be conceded. It is, however, a corrupt—and racist organization that believes it is entitled to break our laws and violate our voting rights. ACORN embraces a radial socialist mindset that believes the end justifies the means. The so-called evil capitalist system must be destroyed one way or another.
Los Angeleno, although I understand your KKK analogy, all association does not imply agreement, and as such, does not imply guilt.
“I don’t know. But if the shoe were on the other foot, and McCain was involved with a group with this kind of history (and, especially if McCain had all the other shady dealings and relationships), woudn’t you start noticing a trend?”
I don’t know where you’ve been but…
“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.”
[John Hagee]
“How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.” [John Hagee]
“In his struggle to shore up his base, John McCain has once again cast aside his principles by embracing Rev. John Hagee, saying he was “pleased to have the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee,” despite his intolerant comments about Catholics, women, African Americans, Muslims and LGBT Americans. He repeated his support today, saying “I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people…I am not endorsing some of their positions.” [McCain Media Availability, 2/29/08]
“A review of campaign finance filings shows that the Arizona Republican has accepted more than $100,000 in donations from employees of Greenberg Traurig, the very firm where Abramoff once reigned.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, Feb 12, 2008]
Stein is of course, referring to Jack Abramoff who, as you know…
Mitt: McCain–Hagee is not comparable to Obama–Acorn/Wright/Ayers/Phleger:
You are right that “all association does not imply agreement”. That is the case with McCain, but probably not with Obama. There is no evidence that John McCain shares Hagee’s anti-Catholic views or theological views. What he probably does share is Hagee’s very pro-Israel stance. Obama, on the other hand, seems to share much of Acorn’s views–he hired them for this very election, and was an attorney for them, and he sat in boards with Ayers and the pews of Wrights’s church, and gave money to Acorn while on those boards. That’ is quite a bit of association. In other words, you do have to look at the degree of association, which I said in my post on this. McCain’s connection to Hagee: weak; Obama’s to Acorn, Ayers and Wright: strong. Plus, Obama has a multiplicity of bad associations over a long period of time, and his associations involved affirmative steps (giving money to Acorn, for example).
The Abramoff connection is tenuous. McCain has made his career going after this kind of stuff. Has Obama done anything to distance himself from his shady past, other than to cough up a speech when forced, and to generally obfuscate his dealings?
At the end of the day, this is a case where, if you weigh it all, it looks bad for Obama. No one thing leads to that conclusion, but 20 years of Rev. Wright (on his spiritual advisory committee for presidential campaign!) + 2 Boards with Ayers + Giving big money then and now to Acorn + apparent association with Michael Phleger + apparent membership in socialist New Party = A history of very bad associations = either bad judgment or bad character or both, but not neither.
Los Angeleno: “You are right that “all association does not imply agreement”. That is the case with McCain, but probably not with Obama.”
Thank you for so succinctly illustrating the point I made in post #9. As a McCain supporter, nothing Obama says or does will satisfy you. Thanks for the discussion.
Mitt: I tried to address your basic point by providing specific evidence, facts and argument distinguishing the McCain and Obama situations, rather than just a fiat statement that McCain is good, Obama is bad. If you choose to ignore it, so be it.
Have we all forgotten already that it was this group that Dodd and crew tried to divert 20% of all recovered proceeds from the original Paulson TARP rescue package. Also forgotten was their first attempt getting blown up by the Fannie Mae collapse.
Dodd and crew were literally trying to give ACORN billions of dollars through the Affordable Housing Fund.
Cleveland Leader, Barack Obama’s Involvement with ACORN Unearthed, Missing Article Recovered here
ACORN and voter fraud…
You know it’s bad when even CNN runs a report critical of ACORN and Obama’s ties to them. This video is from a segment of Campbell Brown’s show, in which reporter Drew Griffin looks into thousands of fraudulent registrations in……
For the most part, the Left and the Right seem to suffer from the same blindness when it comes to their candidate: neither seems very willing to admit the issues surrounding their respective candidate. The obvious and blatant left-leaning bias of the mainstream media only exacerbates this. As it lifts Obama up and places him on the donkey and fans him with palm leaves, it paints McCain as an out-of-touch, whining, angry old man more comfortable placing his compaign before the economic crisis for doing the same exact thing the Obama campaign has been doing for months. Why does McCain raise such ire when he brings up Ayers and ACORN while Obama gets nary a “tsk tsk” for bringing up the Keating Five?
This whole “guilt by association” argument works both ways, and is likely one of the primary reasons McCain has tus far been so hesitant to call some of the issues surrounding Obama into question. What moral ground, after all, does McCain have to nail Obama to the wall for his past associations when McCain himself has had some questionable associates in his past as well? He was, of course, exonerated of any criminal activity in the Keating Five scandal, but his role in it, however small or brief it might have been, nevertheless makes him guilty by association if we are to follow that argument. To call Obama out for his associates and past dealings (which he probably should do) would inevitably mean that McCain would need to be prepared to answer for his own.
To be sure, McCain has regretable associates and dealings in his past, but Obama clearly has McCain beat in numbers and gravity. To my knowledge, McCain has no ties to terrorists–domestic or otherwise–nor to corrupt organizations such as ACORN. To my knowledge, McCain never sat for years in the pews of a church whose pulpit was occupied by such a hate-filled, racist “pastor” as Wright. And, I will not even bother with Rezco. Obama, in his relatively short time in state and national politics, has already compiled a list of “questionable” associates longer than McCain in his three decades.
Regardless of what the MSM and the blind left might think, there is ample and justifiable reason for republican and democrat, liberal and conservative, alike to question this onslaught of corruption that pervades Obama’s associates. The same would be true of the blind right if it was McCain with such dirty laundry. This transcends politics and enters the realm of morality and values. For all of Obama’s posturing and denials, the facts are there and the facts are facts. How can any self-respecting, freethinking individual wish to be led by either of these candidates, especially Obama, who can barely even admit he knows the backgrounds of these associates, let alone the extent of his involvement with them? If Obama truly was so ignorant of the backgrounds, prior activities, and/or dogma of these people and organizations then he is either too easily duped or too dishonest to be president. If his ignorance was contrived after the fact as a defense against such scrutiny, then he obviously does not think too highly of the American people he is so assiduously and cleverly fighting to lead.
I am obviously for neither of these candidates. Personally, I feel that if these two are the best this country has to offer then we have far more to worry about than a 40% decline in DJIA or $850 billion bailouts. This country is bankrupt, and I am not referring to financials. In my opinion, the United States is in for a horrible four years regardless of which of these guys gets the nod. The question is, do we prefer the evil that we know (McCain) or the evil that we have yet to learn about (Obama)? It’s not much of a choice.
Once again, I find myself voting against someone rather than for someone.
lisam, me da totalmente igual lo que piensas, por hecho que eres fascista
el tango se baila con dos: existen vídeos de McBush gritando en casinos, jugando con miles de dolares a la vez….. vamos a ver si esto o el supuesto Ayers sale mas importante
“The question is, do we prefer the evil that we know (McCain) or the evil that we have yet to learn about (Obama)? It’s not much of a choice.”
We pretty well know what we are getting with the politically correct John McCain. I am, alas, not thrilled that he is the GOP candidate. Still, if I were placing a bet in Las Vegas—McCain is by far the safer choice. There is more than enough evidence to indicate that Barack Obama is a dangerous man who will do everything possible to take away our First Amendment rights. He is not the proverbial pig in a poke. Obama’s proven track record is very disturbing to say the least.
Los Angelino,
you’re wasting your time with Mitt. he’s a troll. He will never admit the truth, and he will support Obama no matter how dirty he is. You’d have better luck talking to a wall. At least the wall wouldn’t lie to you, or make asinine statements.
Jennifer, did you know of Bush-Cheney’s torture of prisoners and when did you know of it?
Jennifer, did you know of the plot to fire good civil servants and replace them with Republican drones and when?
Jennifer, did you know of the plot by Cheney to become the shadow President and when?
Jennifer, did you know of the upcoming collapse of the banking system and if so, WHEN?
Jennifer, did you know that Bush-Cheny planned to steal an election and when, exactly, did you find out about it?
Jennifer, did you know that the Bush Administration was planning on abandoning New Orleans if there was a major flood and when did you find this out?
Jennifer, did you know that the Bush Administration was pandering to televangelist asses and when did you know this?
It goes on and on, does it not?
I think that all of this means, Jennifer, that goose-stepping morons such as yourself should be READING books instead of burning them!
Ok Right-Wingers, let me spell it out for you yet again. This ACORN mess has nothing to do with Obama. By your own admission he hasn’t worked with the organization since 02. Do we have any proof of any wrongdoing by ACORN in 02 (6 years ago for the math challenged). Next, this is not voter fraud. It’s alledged voter registration fraud, meaning some stupid, greedy, criminal minded, lazy ACORN workers were trying to get paid by offering up fake registrations. They probably got paid by the number of registrants. Right wingers, this hurts Democrats…not you. How you ask. Democrats were assuming they had all these new registrations when they didn’t. There was no chance a “Tony Romo” was going to show up to vote in Las Vegas. Please Right Wingers get something that Obama ACTUALLY did himself, like abuse his power or something. Geez…have Palin show him how it’s done!!
This stuff is so transparently false and stupid. ACORN exists to help people register to vote. Allegedly sane people are comparing it to the KKK? You’re out of your mind. Furthermore, WHAT “radical” “leftist” agenda? Helping register voters is a left-wing agenda? It’s Fu*kin-A American agenda.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223436.php
The Republican party is grasping on to the ACORN story as a way to delegitimize what now looks like the probable outcome of the November election. It is also a way to stoke the paranoia of their base, lay the groundwork for legal challenges of close outcomes in various states and promote new legal restrictions on legitimate voting by lower income voters and minorities. The big picture is that these claims of ‘voter fraud’ are themselves a fraud, a tool to aid in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. But I want give readers a bit more detail to understand what is going because the right-wing freak out about ACORN happens pretty much on schedule every two years. The whole scam is premised on having enough people who don’t remember when they tried it before who they can then confuse and lie to. And this is clearly important because I’m hearing from a lot of people whose heart is in the right place thinking some real voter fraud conspiracy has been uncovered and that Obama has to distance himself from it post-haste.
ACORN registers lots of lower income and/or minority voters. They operate all across the country and do a lot of things beside voter registration. What’s key to understand is their method. By and large they do not rely on volunteers to register voters. They hire people — often people with low incomes or even the unemployed. This has the dual effect of not only registering people but also providing some work and income for people who are out of work. But because a lot of these people are doing it for the money, inevitably, a few of them cut corners or even cheat. So someone will end up filling out cards for nonexistent names and some of those slip through ACORN’s own efforts to catch errors. (It’s important to note that in many of the recent ACORN cases that have gotten the most attention it’s ACORN itself that has turned the people in who did the fake registrations.) These reports start buzzing through the right-wing media every two years and every time the anecdotal reports of ‘thousands’ of fraudulent registrations turns out, on closer inspection, to be either totally bogus themselves or wildly exaggerated. So thousands of phony registrations ends up being, like, twelve.
I’ve always had questions about whether this is a good way to do voter registration. And Democratic campaigns usually keep their distance. But here’s the key. This is fraud against ACORN. They end up paying people for registering more people then they actually signed up. If you register me three times to vote, the registrar will see two new registrations of an already registered person and the ones won’t count. If I successfully register Mickey Mouse to vote, on election day, Mickey Mouse will still be a cartoon character who cannot go to the local voting station and vote. Logically speaking there’s very little way a few phony names on the voting rolls could be used to commit actual vote fraud. And much more importantly, numerous studies and investigations have shown no evidence of anything more than a handful of isolated cases of actual instances of vote fraud.
To expand on this point let me quote from Richard Hasen, one of the most experienced and concise commentators on this question, from a June 2007 column in the Dallas Morning News …
At least in hindsight, the center’s line of argument is easily deconstructed. First, arguing by anecdote is dangerous business. A new report by Lorraine Minnite of Barnard College looks at these anecdotes and shows them to be, for the most part, wholly spurious. Sure, one can find a rare case of someone voting in two jurisdictions, but nothing extensive or systematic has been unearthed or documented.
But perhaps most importantly, the idea of massive polling-place fraud (through the use of inflated voter rolls) is inherently incredible. Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead or missing people on the registration rolls are, then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be that person, without any return guarantee – thanks to the secret ballot – that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate.
Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected and charged with a felony. And for what – $10? Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.
The Justice Department devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out fraud over five years and appears to have found not a single prosecutable case across the country. Of the many experts consulted, the only dissenter from that position was a representative of the now-evaporated American Center for Voting Rights.
Again, there have been numerous investigations of this. Often by people with at least a mild political interest in finding wrongdoing. But they never find it. It always ends up being right-wing hype and lies. Remember, most of those now-famous fired US Attorneys from 2007 were Republican appointees who were canned after they got tasked with investigating allegations of widespread vote fraud, did everything they could to find it, but came up with nothing. That was the wrong answer so Karl Rove and his crew at the Justice Department fired them.
Vote registration fraud is a limited and relatively minor problem in the US today. But it is principally an administrative and efficiency issue. It is has little or nothing to do with people casting illegitimate votes to affect an actual election. That’s the key. What you’re hearing right now from Fox News, the New York Post, John Fund and the rest of the right-wing bamboozlement chorus is a just another effort to exploit, confuse and lie in an effort to put more severe restrictions on legitimate voting and lay the groundwork to steal elections.
Why are all Americans who are eligible to vote not listed in one file Including addresses & dob .?
6 weeks before an election current addresses must be affirmed.
then when John A Citizen turns up to vote -answer 3 questions (full name address & DOB) & can go ahead & vote anywhere in the USA for the stated address.
if Jane Citizen is impersonating another then she is nabbed there & then. If the name has aready voten the former vote is deleted on provision of ID.
! person -! vote.
I forgot dead people. The confirmation of death includes wiping off the deceased’s name on the file.
We have a 99% federal vote turnout because we get fined if we dont turn up /register early /postal.
Voting is fun.
Amazing how many people – most of them, I suspect either born yesterday politically or merely passing along someone else’s political argument – like to play ACORN expert on the internet.
To make a long story short, activist organizations like ACORN (and party organizations like the New Party) were seized upon and to a large extent sustained and expanded by a generation of activists anxious in the ’70s and ’80s to re-package traditional socialism at a time that the “brand” had collapsed in the U.S. Barack Obama is just the most successful version of a certain type of “activist” that anyone who was active on the far left around that time amidst its street level front groups and way stations encountered many, many times. That he’s a pure product of that milieu doesn’t mean that he’s a secret Communist – as little as it means that I’m a secret Communist – but it does mean that he is, indeed, completely comfortable with a range of people, and a set of ideas about the world, that most Americans would walk across the street, or further, to avoid.
His reluctance to cop to the simple truth is understandable. It’s even traditional – and it’s obviously very well understood and accepted among his former allies, for whom the MO is second nature – but that doesn’t make it any less pathetic, dishonest, and disreputable.
$800k+ from the Obama campaign to ACORN, with the payment assigned fraudulently to another group in the FEC filing…no, nothing suspicious going on here at all, nothing at all…
She needs to catch up with De Kuntz, because Obama and Acorn were also busy demanding subprime mortgages.
ACORN POLITICAL PRANK
Saw this on craigslist:
Listed on craigslist with an ACORN office address with a free stuff ad.
Office closing, slow economy, everything tagged with a green, brown or white tag is free for pickup at xxxx xxxxxxx,xxxx,. After 6:00 everyday for next 2 weeks or all taken. Take all you want, so bring a truck. Door is open or key above door. Our loss is your gain. PS bring this ad with you.
Craigslist addresses
http://www.newyork.craigslist.org
Acorn addresses
http://www.acorn.org