US Government Whatdown?

Democrats and Republicans are fighting each other here on Capitol Hill…
Image credits: whisky21178

Confused about the Americans? Wondering what their government is playing at? Don’t fear, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson is here!

If you have ever watched The West Wing, you might remember the don’t-mess-with-me way in which President Bartlet stares down the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and denies his last-minute blindsiding demand for a budget decrease of three per cent, instead of the previously agreed one per cent. Without agreeing to it, he will be responsible, he is warned, for shutting down the federal government. “Then shut it down,” responds President Bartlet, and the lights shut off, one by one, to black. If you never have, just imagine it. Trust me, it’s cool.

Jump forward to 2013, and I like to imagine that in the current situation such a cutting response occurred in Washington, D.C as Republican and Democratic congressmen locked horns over the government budget and the federal government closed its doors, furloughing thousands of employees in the process, unpaid. But although it may be a fascinating story for politics students and interested members of the wider public as another one of those quirks in the American system of government, the reality is that it is the catalyst for a great number of problems and represents  a fundamental rupture between two sets of elected politicians.

As all governments do, the central government of the United States has to pass a budget to be able to run the country and pay its bills, including the debt and interest that it owes. This Act of Congress is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, and allows for the raising of the government debt ceiling. The Senate is supposed to debate it, but as a key part of the running of government, ultimately agree to it so the President can sign it into law.  This is where the current problem lies; between a Republican House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House, this essential bill has not yet been agreed.

For further explanation on the often-bizarre way in which the Americans do politics, allow me to return to another of Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing explanations. Imagine that the government has “maxed out the national credit card,” and to rectify it they have “a quick vote to raise the limit on the credit card”. Such a vote is usually held close to the deadline so that no member of Congress will attempt to attach a controversial amendment, which would cause other congressmen to vote against it and sink the budget, therefore causing something akin to “the immediate collapse of the US economy, followed by Japan sinking into the sea, followed by a worldwide depression the likes of which no mortal can imagine, followed by week two,” as Sorkin so reassuringly puts it.

Over one of these controversial amendments is exactly how the fallout has occurred, as congressional Republicans – who are not generally fans of President Obama’s healthcare reforms – have refused and continue to refuse to pass a bill without some form of defunding or dismantling of what they believe to be overly-socialist healthcare legislation and impingements on the freedoms of American citizens. Because Democrats and Republicans could not agree, as the 30September budget deadline passed, the government closed its doors.

It is not a great spectator sport either for the millions of government employees sent home without wages. Most of 400,000 Pentagon employees – mainly workers for the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense – have now been brought back to work and promised back-pay for their unforeseen time off, but they are presently the minority.

National parks, monuments and Smithsonian museums are closed, tours of the United States Capitol building cancelled, and the Lincoln Memorial cordoned off. National food programs aiding malnourished and poor pregnant women and new mothers are closed and state-run supplies are estimated to last a week; public health services, including the national influenza vaccination program, are shut; international travellers have been warned to expect severe delays through immigration – as if the wait were not already long enough.

And the Democrats here in the White House.
Image credits: Tom Lohdan

Week one of shutdown has not yet seen quite the aforementioned dramatic tales that Sorkin foretold, but the situation is not even gradually improving. Republicans and Democrats in Congress persist in arguing between themselves and with the Democrats in the White House; it is quite something when the leaders of the free world are reduced to that which resembles a playground scrap. Whilst the “he said, she said”  continues, the deadline of the 17 October to resolve the crisis looms, leering at lawmakers, at which point the United States of America defaults on its loans.

Everything would be funny if it were not so serious. Whilst the current shutdown of services is not ideal, a US default on its debt would be worse. As the world’s biggest economy and as the beginnings of global economic upturn are starting to appear, the last thing we need is for the USA to not be able to pay its interest and debt and see us all tumble back into financial despair. The Treasury echoes such comments, and in the meantime the Labor Department will not be releasing its September report on jobs, leaving businesses guesstimating what it might have said, and how best to react.

If the inconveniences were not sufficient, every additional day that it takes the legislature to reach a fair deal is a strain on international affairs: Obama has already cancelled a trip to Asia, including an economic summit, with the White House citing it a “consequence of the House Republicans forcing a shutdown of the government”, and referring to the “difficulty in moving forward with foreign travel in the face of a shutdown”. Japan and China have both spoken up urging the US to make a speedy agreement, with China’s vice-Finance Minister saying they were “naturally concerned about developments in the US fiscal cliff”.

It is a mark of how much the American right-wing despises Obamacare that they would risk a shutdown, the likes of which have not been seen for seventeen years, over it. Clinging gladly to the NHS (despite its problems), British perspective is difficult to reconcile with American concerns; it is irresponsible for a group of elected representatives – supposedly experts in the political field – to fight over a healthcare act widening access to health insurance, which was thoroughly debated and passed in 2010 and subsequently ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, resulting in a hijack of the ability of a government to actually govern. Whilst many congressional Republicans scream, Obamacare currently appears somewhat vindicated. Despite some start-up glitches, more than seven million people attempted to log into the new healthcare system online during its first three days of service.

For now, the end does not appear in sight and it is doing no one any favours, not least the politicians involved in the mess. Whilst the people they serve suffer the consequences of shutdown, they suffer the consequences of causing it as blame is apportioned to everyone to a greater or lesser extent. With the only solution being through Congress and President Obama able to use only his influence among the power games (Treasury Secretary Jack Lews has explained that, “There is no option that prevents us from being in default if we don’t have enough cash to pay our bills,”), with the tennis ball being thrown from one party’s court to the other’s and half-hearted attempts at stopgap measures to reach a deal, it looks like we are all going to have to hang on just a bit longer.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

So what exactly is the Booker Prize?

Anyone with half an eye on the literary world can’t help but notice the hype around the Booker Prize which is everywhere at this time of year. Recently, this Booker frenzy has only been intensified by the contoversy surrounding the decision to make American authors eligible for the prize. But what exactly is all the fuss about? Elli Christie, Books Editor, takes a closer look…

Photo Credit: TheManBookerPrizes

The Man Booker Prize, or as it is more commonly known, the Booker, is a prize which many British and Commonwealth writers have long yearned to win. Soon it will be possible for writers the world over to join in this yearning, since it was recently announced that from 2014 the prize will open up to any work which is written in English and published in the UK.

This news of change has created a uproar in the literary community. The Booker has been at the heart of British publishing since it was first started in 1968, when it was originally known as the Booker McConnell prize due to the company which sponsored it. However, this change in criteria is not the first in the Booker’s history nor is it the first controversy. Previous arguments have seen Trainspotting removed from the longlist in 1993, Anthony Burgess refusing to turn up and many of the judging decisions being called into question.

Those in charge of the Man Booker committee also love to have spin-off competitions; which has led to Midnight’s Children winning The Best of the Booker, the Booker of Bookers prize and the Man Booker itself. In 2010 there was also an attempt to rectify the misfortune of losing a year when the rules were changed in 1970 so that books were no longer considered from the previous year but instead from the current one. J. G. Farrell’s Troubles won this prize after a shortlist was given to the public vote.

This year the shortlist has proved to once again epitomise the eclectic nature of the Man Booker prize, ranging from Colm Tóibín’s The Testament of Mary to Eleanor Catton’s The Luminaries and also including NoViolet Bulawayo’s We Need New Names, Jim Crace’s Harvest, Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Lowland and Ruth Ozeki’s A Tale for the Time Being. The winner will be announced on 15 October, having been previously slimmed down from a long list of 13 titles and a possible pool of 140 novels by a judging panel chaired by Robert Macfarlane.

Elli Christie, Books Editor

Americans Say No To Guns

As America continues the controversial debate on gun ownership, Meg Lawrence visits one of the States most affected by recent gun crime and asks local people what they think should be done.

Alana and her daughter

In a week when President Obama visited Colorado to talk about gun law and a court determined that James Holmes should be given the death penalty if found guilty of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others in an Aurora cinema, it is unsurprising that gun crime is a topic on most Americans’ minds.

Obama is calling for Congress to pass stronger gun-control laws. He visited Denver, where  new gun-control legislation was passed last month to limit magazines to 15 rounds of ammunition, to require universal background checks for all gun buyers and to charge the owner for the cost of these checks.

‘The good news is Colorado has chosen to do something about it,” the President said. ‘Look, this is a state that has suffered the tragedy of two of the worst mass shootings in our history- 14 years ago this month in Columbine, and just last year in Aurora.’

Sandy Hook Remembrance Necklace

But how do citizens of Colorado feel about the implementation of stricter gun legislation in America?

Exeposé asked a sample of people in a Colorado high street in Breckenridge whether they thought gun legislation should be changed.

A shopkeeper, who did not wish to be named, felt strongly that the gun laws had to be made stricter. She said: ‘What’s happening, in Aurora, and the babies that were killed at Sandy Hook, that broke my heart.’

The woman wore a necklace inscribed ‘short is life, but long is love.’ On the back of the necklace was the number 26. She explained that the necklace represented each person who was killed in the Sandy Hook shootings, and that all the proceeds of its sale went to the Newtown Memorial Fund. The woman added that those who were against the proposed legislation were ‘making America backwards’.

Representing the 26 victims of the Sandy Hook shootings

A common concern was that there needs to be more checks on who is able to get a gun. One Breckenridge woman, Alana, said: ‘There’s no need for assault rifles and there should be a better oversight as to who gets them.’

Bruce runs a business giving horse and cart rides to Breckenridge visitors. He said: ‘I agree with background checks. If people have nothing to hide they should have nothing to worry about.’ He added: ‘I agree with magazine restrictions but they are too difficult to regulate. We can’t govern the amount of ammo people buy.’

Jessie Jones, who worked in the local information centre, also agreed with toughening gun legislations. However, she said that she doesn’t know the best way to enforce the legislations, stating that it is a ‘complicated issue’.

Perhaps surprisingly, local Police Officer Caitlin Kontak is against the proposed legislations.

Bruce

She stated that gun legislations in the US are ‘fine’, and discredited the magazine restrictions. She said: ‘It only takes one bullet to kill someone.’

The President is aware he needs to win over the likes of Caitlin Kontak. He told his Denver audience that he wanted to hear opinions from the people who have been most affected by the mass shootings.

‘I want to listen and hear from all of you, having gone through the process here in Colorado, how you think we can best frame some of these issues,’ he said.

Jessie Jones

It seems that people in Colorado do believe that Obama’s legislations are a positive step towards a safer community now it’s up to the rest of the country to make up their mind.

 Meg Lawrence, Online Features Editor

Awards Season Review: Argo

If Argo wins Best Film on Sunday night at the Oscars it will be the first film since 1989 to win the award but not to be recognised for Best Director, reflecting further the strangeness of this year for the Academy, with it being one of the most open races for Best Film in decades.

Image Credit: BBC

Upon accepting the Bafta award for Best Director Ben Affleck (The Town) described Argo as his ‘Second Act’; his third stint behind the camera is proving to be a hugely successful one, with Argo favourite to win Best Film at the Oscars in a few days.

 

Affleck both directs and stars as the main character, the daring CIA agent Tony Mendez. The film follows the imaginative agent as he constructs the bogus sci-fi film ‘Argo’, to be filmed on location in Iran in order to extract six American diplomats hiding in the Canadian embassy in revolutionary Tehran. Adapted from a true story, Chris Terrio’s head spinning script entertainingly mixes the glam of Hollywood with the unstable Middle East, and showbusiness with government bureaucracy.

 

Billed as a comedy, the film’s selling point is CIA agent Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston) sarcastically describing it as “the best bad idea” they had. However, the gripping suspense and paranoia is also its founding appeal. As the film flits between three settings of crowded and volatile Tehran, the claustrophobic offices of the CIA and sunny L.A, you are left biting your nails as Mendez and the six diplomats attempt to literally scramble out of Iran. Performances by the always captivating Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) and Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), who is really growing into serious roles, added real class to the cast of the film.

 

Through Affleck’s directing, Argo refreshingly combines a big issue with beautiful cinematography. Each location has its own cinematic feel in order to assist the audience through the fast narrative. For example, all the footage in Tehran is on handheld cameras, reminiscent of news footage or a documentary.

 

Where Argo falters however, is the failure to create any great measure of audience empathy for the diplomats in Tehran. Despite being hooked into the suspense of the six diplomats hiding in the embassy, there is no real feel of personal attachment to them, despite the inclusion of the home footage monologues for each character. The spectacle and the entertainment of the film aren’t in any doubt but there isn’t real substance to the horrific situation of the six individuals, nor that of Iran itself.

 

At the core, although it brings the shocking realities of Iran to the attention of Hollywood (both in the film and today) it fails to get its hands dirty. You feel there could be more done with this goldmine of a story by getting under the skin of the audience about an event that still scars the country. The film is also strictly from an American perspective, the Iranian people are portrayed as merely religious and violent, whilst the role of the CIA is glorified and the impact of the Canadian Embassy is downplayed.

 

Film critic Peter Bradshaw perfectly described it as ‘semi quirk’. It is as if Affleck grapples with what kind of film he wants Argo to be, which is endearing, but ultimately harming. This is reflected through the last ten minutes, where Affleck’s work of laying down the foundations of a ‘quirky’ film is lost through a Spielberg-esque cheesy hugs and tears montage of celebrations, which is fitting for the American patriot theme of these awards. However, the film’s ending, with the US flag waving outside a picture book American house, is just a little too much American nationalism to be swallowed comfortably.

 

Argo is a safe option for the Academy, appealing, entertaining and fun, but it will show a reluctance to again reward a certain Quentin Tarintino for Django Unchained and a foreign speaking production in the French film Amour.

 

My Rating: 3 Stars.

 

Flora Cresswell

Awards Season: Django Unchained, a history steeped in blood

Quentin Tarantino’s latest blockbuster hit Django Unchained tracks the story of one slave turned bountyhunter as he searches for his wife and seeks revenge for the injustices that were brought upon them. The film may have been a cinematic success, with five Academy Award nominations and counting, but its plot comes from darker and more sinister sources. Olivia Johnson looks at the literary heritage of Django Unchained and the tradition of slave narratives that have influenced its style…

Poster for Tarantino’s “Django Unchained”

The cinematic power in Tarantino’s Django Unchained comes from its realistic and savage depiction of slavery in 19^th century America. Brutality, powerlessness, even self-racism – themes which pervade the film – are so moving and believable to audiences because they stem from authentic sources. Such difficulties are highlighted in the narratives of the slaves. Anyone moved by the film should also take the time to read some of the literature contemporary to the slave movement. The biographical slave narratives are the true testaments to a bloody and horrific culture and convey the raw pain of servitude.

Django’s rise from oppression is the crux of the film. At the beginning of the film, he is physically unchained by a man, Dr. King Schultz, who Django soon joins as his fellow bounty hunter. Yet, more appealing is Django’s retribution, which comes at the climax of the film. One man against several, he successfully defends himself using logic and skill in marksmanship, until he is forced to stop by threats made against his wife. At the very end, he once again relies on intelligence to revenge the death of his mentor and escape a free man.

The underlying theme, which is so attractive to audiences, is that physical strength and prowess in fighting is the ultimate tool to beating oppression. In many ways this was true; often, brute strength was the only means to power in a savage world. In the narrative of Frederick Douglass, the man is also forced to undergo a similar feat, beating his master in physical combat when he attempted to assault him. Such basic, savage acts draw the admiration of the reader because it is drenched in imagery of good versus bad. It is once again David against Goliath – though both may be matched in strength, prejudice against Douglass, as a slave, weighs him down considerably. When Douglass wins, the victory is as poignant and powerful to the readers as it must have been to the man himself.

The tragic and ironic depiction of self-racism is another powerful element in the film. Samuel L. Jackson’s portrayal of Stephen, the loyal house slave to plantation owner Calvin J. Candie reflects another, far more disturbing motif. Stephen is a visual manifestation of an “Uncle Tom”, an epithet which has come to depict a person who is excessively subservient to figures of authority, even to the extent that they become an active participant in the oppression of their own group. In the film, Stephen as an “Uncle Tom” serves his master to the detriment of Django and the household slaves; he condemns the slave Broomhilda’s attempts to escape, encourages her horrific punishment and is key in Django’s capture. The “Uncle Tom” stereotype came from spin-off works from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Yet, ironically, the original character of Uncle Tom is very different.

Harriet Beecher Stowe: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”

 

In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the titular character is in fact show to be a martyr, who died by refusing to reveal the whereabouts of two women who escaped from slavery; an ironic reversal from the film’s depiction. Like the film, the book also depicts the savagery of slavery – the slaves are cruelly beaten, stripped of almost any identity and even forced to turn on each other. Yet, while Django Unchained conveys scenes of violence against, and between slaves, the protagonist is liberated from oppression, acting as his own agent for most of the film. The book contains the realistic horror of lives confined within claustrophobic quarters. However, the book’s conclusion does satisfy a modern audience to a certain extent. Tom is killed, life goes on, and the readers are filled with a grim acknowledgement of the transience of life in a world where the death of a slave is a common, justifiable occurrence. However, with the journey of two of the characters, Cassy and Emmeline, into Canada, the reader is left with a certain amount of hope and the certainty that Tom’s sacrifice was not in vain.

It is essential that each of us remember the horrors of slavery, which happened not too long ago, so that we do not repeat them. In the same sense, it is important to remember and mourn for a series of lost generations, as well as to acknowledge, even admire, the attempts by individuals like Frederick Douglass to overcome oppression. However, in terms of enjoyment, it has to be said that Django Unchained is far more satisfying as a form of entertainment than many of the slave narratives because it provides us with something they cannot; a cathartic, albeit unrealistic, ending. Tarantino forces us to uncover and remember the brutal past, yet with the victory of the protagonist at the end of the film, exorcises those shadows.

To see what Exeposé Online Screen made of Django Unchained, follow this link:

By Olivia Johnson – Exeposé Online Books Editor
Ed. by Georgina Holland – Exeposé Online Books Editor

A is for Awesome… and Austin. ASAP.

Stereotype busting Sophie Hay gives us the low down on Austin, Texas and why we should all visit as soon as possible!

Photo credit to Americanmethod.com

Texas. The Lone Star State. Perhaps not the most obvious choice when planning a trip Stateside. However, Texas isn’t all cowboy boots, BBQ and country music and if you look hard enough you can find meccas of cool hidden amongst the fast-food joints and mega churches. Ladies and gentleman, let me introduce Austin, the coolest place in Texas (and maybe even the world?).

Home of the famous South by Southwest festival, the University of Texas campus and the flagship Whole Foods store it is clear from the moment you arrive that the city is one of contradictions. Around the campus, gated sorority houses are placed alongside thrift stores. Huge football players with t-shirts ablaze with the University’s notorious longhorn skull share the pavement with aged barefoot hippies making friendship bracelets from old pieces of leather embossed with slogans such as “YOLO” and “FREE THE WEED”.

Being a city with a student population topping 50,000, it is not surprising that Austin has a huge number of bars and restaurants, but what it is perhaps most famous for is its live music – so much so it christens itself the “live music capital of the world”. This is not Nashville, so country music is not the only thing on the menu (although it can never be fully escaped) and the city’s famous 6th street is lined with dive bars, souvenir shops full of tye-dye and BBQ joints hosting live music day and night.

So if you had 48 hours in Austin what would I recommend? Spend a day as an Austinite and head down to Barton Springs – a natural spring in the city where children play amongst tattooed hipsters – it’s possibly the best place to people watch in the city. Sit on the grass and watch bombing competitions between old men. Then grab something to eat from one of Austin’s famous food trucks. Never has street food seemed so glam – everything from Chinese to cupcakes can be bought! Then spend the evening strolling down South Congress Street. “SoCo” is the home of cool in Austin and is lined with antique shops, incredible restaurants, bars, and of course – more food trucks. If you have more time, hang around the UT Austin Campus, grab some fro-yo and wander down to the Texas capitol building.

Texas Capital Building.
Photo credit to Daniel Mayer.

 

So next time you plan a trip to the USA, don’t avoid Texas, and certainly don’t avoid Austin. After all, what is not to like about a place whose city slogan is “Keep Austin Weird”?