Maria Bello, The Cooler
Hope Davis, American Splendor
Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation
Charlize Theron, Monster

I really wanted to like The Cooler. I like the people in it, I liked the idea of the film, and I liked the way first-time director Wayne Kramer shot the film. Unfortunately, it failed on almost every level. Even Maria Bello's role as a hard-luck casino waitress was deeply flawed. Despite the lack of cohesion from a writing level, Bello sold the role. The heart-of-gold role is usually played either vapidly or with world-weary wisdom. Bello gave it much more--her hard-luck waitress was playing out a losing hand, but she was still naive enough to believe it might change. Her sexiness wasn't played as object, but rather part of her personality. She made me believe that her character could have loved William H. Macy.

Hope Davis had the unenviable role of playing a human who happened to not only be alive, but featured in the very same film. What more can you say than she really became Joyce Brabner? Wonderful.

It's hard to imagine Lost in Translation without Scarlett Johansson. Maria Bello had to make us believe she could love an older man, but Johansson had to show us infatuation. She did it so organically that it almost seemed like not acting. Alas, how often have we seen the other side of that coin?

Charlize. Suffice it to say that the critics are divided. Ebert called it "one of the greatest performances in the history of the cinema." But the Post's Manohla Dargis was not amused: "Phony choppers and a startling resemblance to Jon Voight aren't enough to transform Theron into Wuornos, and I didn't buy either the performance or the character for a second." I don't know that I'd go as far as Ebert, but almost. After I saw the movie, I wrote that it put me in an altered state of consciousness that persisted for a good 24 hours. The movie itself was flawed, but Theron's performance was so good that I related to her as a person. I felt for her so keenly--not for the actress, but the character. I tend to shy away from the classic "big" performances that often win awards. Not this time. It was amazing.

And the Jeffy goes to: Charlize Theron.

For the men, the winner wasn't as clear. There were five performances I enjoyed, and I could make a serious argument for each as the best performance of the year. The nominations:

Chiwetel Ejiofor, Dirty Pretty Things
Johnny Hallyday, Man on the Train
Paul Giamatti, American Splendor
Bill Murray, Lost in Translation
Jean Rochefort, Man on the Train

In a movie almost no one saw (Man on the Train), Johnny Hallyday and Jean Rochefort give two delightful performances. I knew when I started the nominations that it was going to either have to be both or neither, because they were both so good. It's a story of odd couples where the couple are neither really so odd nor, despite appearances, so different. Hallyday plays a noirish thief, Rochefort a provincial school teacher. Their paths cross, and the lives of the other is a balm to each. The movie is itself a balm to anyone with blockbuster-itis.

Chiwetel Ejiofor also gives a very human performance in the similarly un-Hollywood film Dirty Pretty Things. Ejiofor plays an illegal Nigerian immigrant who drives a cab in London, but is in fact a doctor. He becomes the moral center of a movie that swims with immoral sharks. (Review here.) It's a generous character and a generous performance.

I reviewed Giamatti earlier this week, which leaves us with Bill Murray. When a guy like Murray finally gets a nomination, you hope he wins it for a life's work. That's how I feel about him now--except he also deserves to win. For a number of years now, Murray has been playing roles where his humor is a very modest side note. It's a part of his personality, in service to something a little sad or tired. A strange irony that after becoming famous for his comedic roles and his wild SNL lifestyle, latter-day Murray is all in a minor key. When she wrote Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppola had Murray in mind for the role, and it brings together all the depth he has had in recent films. It's the ultimate Bill Murray movie.

And the Jeffy goes to: Bill Murray.

Sean Astin in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Zlatko Buric in Dirty Pretty Things
John Robinson in Elephant
Andy Serkis The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Khleo Thomas in Holes

Neither Khleo Thomas, who played the wonderful character "Zero" Zaroni in Holes nor Zlatko Buric, as the morally neutral Ivan in Dirty Pretty Things has gotten any attention. They should: they give perfect supporting performances, adding depth and realism to a movie that doesn't seem possible without their vivid roles. Selecting anyone from Elephant is risky, because it's an ensemble piece. To the extent that John (who played the blond kid also named John in the movie) is our window into the movie, he could be called the central figure. Yet as the observer, he does play a supporting role in the narrative. Again, I can't imagine the movie without him.

Finally, the two performances from Lord of the Rings. For a movie who has such an embarrassment of riches, it's hard to argue that it gets slighted critically, and yet it does. The acting is perhaps--perhaps--the trilogy's greatest strength. These characters are far from cookie-cutter placeholders for the action. Jackson also did an interesting thing in the three movies by selecting one character who was a metaphor for the action. In the first film, it was Boromir, who demonstrated the power of the ring. In the second, Aragorn, who placed the narrative in dramatic and historic context. And in the final film, it was Sam Gamgee, loyal servant of the film's nominal hero, Frodo. If the entire trilogy is a meditation on the importance of humble contribution, it's Sam, not Frodo, who is the true hero. I felt that in the books, and I felt it again in the movies. Sean Astin held the movie together with his heroic humility. Andy Serkis chewed the scenery, but Astin carried the dramatic arc.

And the Jeffy goes to: Sean Astin.

Best Supporting Actress
In this category, the performances garnering the most attention were in the kind of film I avoided this year--studio-produced Oscar bait. Shohreh Aghdashloo in House Of Sand And Fog, Renee Zellweger in Cold Mountain, Holly Hunter in Thirteen Sad to say, but this was a very lean year for great supporting roles for women. I missed a few key performances as well: Patricia Clarkson Pieces of April and Miranda Richardson in Spider. The official Jeffy list:

Miranda Otto in Return of the King
Archie Panjabi in Bend it Like Beckham
Christina Ricci in Monster

I'm well aware of the lameness of this list. I might have tried to pad it a bit, just so I wouldn't look lame. But the truth is, this is really represents the performances I thought were worthy of mention (Maria Bello, who gave a great performance in The Cooler, was sometimes nominated in this category. I don't see how--she was clearly in the lead.)

Archie Panjabi plays the mother of Jess Bharma in Bend it Like Beckham. She had a small role, but really knocked it out of the park (if you're in the mood for a feel-good pick-me-up, this is a good movie). Christina Ricci gave an understated performance in Monster, one that has been derided and praised. I side with those who praise--this is the story of Aileen Wuornos; Ricci's character is there to help explain Wuornos's mindset. Ricci did a great job with the role. Finally, in another small performance, Miranda Otto played Eowyn, the daughter of Theoden. She'll always be remembered for her retort to the Nasgul who taunts her during battle: "You fool. No man can kill me." In reply, she pulled off her helmet, and declared "I am no man" before killing him. But actually, I liked her subtle performance off the battlefield, where she had to juggle showing longing for Aragorn and also pride and strength as a warrior and leader.

And the Jeffy goes to: Miranda Otto.

Ebert: "It simply looks at the day as it unfolds, and that is a brave and radical act; it refuses to supply reasons and assign cures, so that we can close the case and move on."

Christian Science Monitor (David Sterrit): "Van Sant gives no pat or easy answers. Instead he makes us squirm, worry, and think. That's why Elephant is a must-see movie."

Baltimore Sun (Michael Sragow): "The parable sums up the futility of finding the truth in any one man's observations. But the film itself is an exercise in frustration. Van Sant is too determined to show the impossibility of gleaning anything useful from a day in the life of high-school kids before they kill or are slaughtered."

New York Daily News (Jami Bernard): "A movie that takes impartiality to new places artistically. The film is infuriating."

Some great films are universally loved and acclaimed--The Godfather, for example. Elephant is in a second category of art: the controversial. In many ways, making a controversial film is harder than making a great film--finding that ribbon of gray area and exploiting it effectively is a tall order. Subtle changes in emphasis can turn a controversial film bad pretty easily.

I personally found Elephant revelatory. It's a meditation on human behavior, starting at the place that murderers possess the same emotional range as non-murderers. (Plot thumbnail: Elephant explores the lives of high schoolers on a day shattered by Columbine-like shootings; the two kids who commit the murders are in the ensemble, but their roles are not emphasized.) It explicitly avoids issuing a moral position, because Van Sant recognized that the moment a moral judgment is made, exploration and understanding stop.

Watching the film unfold, seeing the naivete in everyone's experience, it's hard to regard the shootings as a simple, dismissible act of evil or madness. In particular, watching what happens to the kids as they progress along the shooting spree, as madness comes to them, it's not even possible to regard them solely as perpetrators.

It's not surprising that some people loved it and others hated it: as a viewer, that's an uncomfortable place to find yourself.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday he will run again for the presidency, declaring that Washington has become “corporate occupied territory” and arguing there is too little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

My take, which is far from unique, is that this won't make a whit of difference. Without even the auspices of the Green Party, poor Ralph will be running alone and against most of his most ardent supporter's wishes. The worst thing about this news is that Nader's legacy, which is rich and wonderful, may be forever marked by his quixotic political campaigns.

Not this year, Ralph.

We and our colleagues at The Princeton Review have spent many years training students to take the SAT II, and have carefully analyzed the College Board's essay-grading criteria. To receive a high score a student should write a long essay of three or more paragraphs, with each paragraph containing topic and concluding sentences and at least one sentence that includes the words "for example." Whenever possible the student should use polysyllabic words where shorter, clearer words would suffice. The SAT essay will not be a place to take rhetorical chances. Flair will win no points; the highest-scoring essays will be earnest, long-winded, and predictable.

On a personal note, I knew of the SAT's failings even before seeing this article, because a twin version appears on the grad school version, the GRE, which my significant other (Sally) took late last year. She didn't do as well as she would have hoped. This isn't surprising, because she's a fantastic writer. Her prose is original, clear, and accessible--just what the College Board now instructs its graders to punish.

The article in the Atlantic is called "Would Shakespeare Get Into Swarthmore?" I find it ironic, because that's the school Sally went to, after a nearly flawless performance on a 1980s version of the SAT.

THE NOMINATION of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit was, from the beginning, a provocation on the part of the Bush administration. Yesterday Mr. Bush made that provocation all the more provocative by installing Mr. Pryor -- who has been held up by a Democratic filibuster -- by recess appointment. Mr. Pryor is the second judge the president has placed on the bench using this procedure, which allows the president to bypass Senate confirmation for appointments made on a temporary basis. The result is that Mr. Pryor will be a judge for now, but he will leave office unless both Mr. Bush and a filibuster-proof Republican Senate majority win election this year. In other words, his prospects of longer-term service on the bench will be bound up with the electoral fate of the Republican Party -- exactly the sort of political dependency from which judges are supposed to be insulated.

(AP) -- Bypassing angry Senate Democrats, President Bush installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as a U.S. appeals court judge on Friday in his second "recess appointment" of a controversial nominee in five weeks.

Pryor's federal appointment has been vigorously opposed by Democratic senators who have objected to his past comments and writings on abortion and homosexuality.

I can draw your attention to two locations should you wish to research the delightful Judge Pryor. People for the American Way have worked up a nice rap sheet, and at the Dossiers, you can get the full scope of the "activist judges" the President so hypocritically derides. Naturally, TalkLeft is also on the case. "Here's a nice summary by PFAW of some of his worst offenses:

Pryor is a leading architect of the recent states rights or federalism movement to limit the authority of Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other rights. He personally has been involved in key Supreme Court cases that, by narrow 5-4 majorities, have restricted the ability of Congress to protect Americans rights against discrimination and injury based on disability, race, and age. Worse, he has urged the Court to go even further than it has in the direction of restricting congressional authority. Just last month, for example, the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, rejected Pryors argument that the states should be immune from lawsuits for damages brought by state employees for violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

"Pryor believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes, and has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas Homosexual Conduct law, which criminalizes such conduct. Pryor believes that singling out gay men and lesbians in this manner does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the same brief, Pryor equated for purposes of legal analysis sex between two adults of the same gender with 'activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.'"

You think Bush is trying to send a message to Massachusetts and San Francisco (and the entire Democratic electorate)? Things are getting ugly...

Is cooking a hamburger patty and inserting the meat, lettuce and ketchup inside a bun a manufacturing job, like assembling automobiles?

That question is posed in the new Economic Report of the President, a thick annual compendium of observations and statistics on the health of the United States economy.

The latest edition, sent to Congress last week, questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers.

Sound familiar? Listen:

The Labor Department today announced a change in the way jobs will be classified. The Department called it an effort to reflect changes in the workforce over the past twenty years. The last time jobs were reclassified was in 1978, before computing altered the workforce.

The largest change will affect the manufacturing sector. Under the new rules, restaurant employees are being recategorized as industrial workers. "Most restaurant workers today are emplyed in the fast food industry," explained Roland Grimes, economic undersecretary. "These employees work on an assembly line and manufacture a product, pretty much just like Henry Ford's old factory workers, so we felt this made a lot of sense."

Employment figures released today show that industrial and manufacturing jobs were up 347% over last month. President Bush praised the figures and hailed the increase as further evidence that his tax cuts were spurring job growth.

I wrote that two weeks ago as part of my regular Friday satire series. Is that freakin' CREEPY or what?

"Kerry strikes me as just another side of the same old, tired coin. He's a war criminal, he's in tight with corporations, he's pro-war..."

"Edwards is supposedly trying to get Kucinich and Sharpton barred from the next debate. If that turns out to be true, the asshole just lost my vote even if he does get the nomination."

After a pretty nice honeymoon with the voters, one of the Johns is about to enter the phase of shock and awe--a fair amount of which will be friendly fire. Great.

John Kerry is no revolutionary. He's been around for 20 years, which means he's had to vote for or against a whole raft of legislation. And you know what? Politics doesn't work cleanly. Legislation gets bundled--you throw a little pork on top of a good bill in order to buy off enough senators to get the thing passed. That's how politics works. Blaming Kerry for being a politician is naive and short-sighted. He hasn't been the kind of politician who will only vote for the few pork-free bills that came down the pike. His calculus is the same as most politicians: to get you must give.

Truth: John Kerry has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. Truth: he has a nearly perfect record on the environment. Truth: the red herring of gay marriage aside, Kerry has a very strong record on civil rights.

Since the beginning I was only lukewarm about Kerry. He's a droner, he's boring, and he's firmly enmeshed with big money (though how he could become a US Senator from Massachusetts without courting corporate interests is beyond me). But he's a good guy, an honorable man, oh, and incidentally a liberal. If Kerry does become the nominee, he will be the most liberal Democrat we've had in 12 years.

I'm tired of folks on the left going scorched-earth on anyone with the temerity not to be their candidate. John Kerry isn't Dennis Kucinich. But calling him a war criminal or saying he's indistinguishable from Bush is just ignorant. He's a decent guy and I'll be proud to vote for him.

"I think it is what it is."

Scott McClellan, from today's beating (a gaggle not yet online, but available here.)

Well, there's no arguing with that.

[House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay has made plans to use a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable foundation created by him and operated by his daughter and several of his associates to fund political events at the Republican National Convention over Labor Day weekend. DeLay weakened House ethics rules last year, ending bans on free trips to and lodging at charity events where lawmakers mingle with lobbyists and businesspeople. His latest maneuver could free both political parties to use captive charitable organizations as vehicles for off-the-books influence peddling.

The brochure for DeLay's charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., openly solicits funds to be used to pay for a luxury hospitality suite for big donors, a yacht cruise, VIP tickets to Broadway shows, a golf tournament and a late-night party. For $500,000, a donor gets a private dinner before and after the convention with DeLay and colleagues as well as high-level staffers. These are functions for which political soft money was used during the 2000 conventions.

The President will not be satisfied until every American looking for work has found a job. (Bold theirs.)

President Bush, ladies and gentlemen: dissatisfied.

Meanwhile, Scott McClellan was getting his daily beating by the press. Tired of goring him on the President's military record, they went after jobs today. Some of the exchange:

Q Can you answer the specific question, though? Was this report -- was the prediction of this many jobs, 2.6 million jobs, vetted prior to publication by the entire economic team?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report, David. It goes through the usual -- it goes through the usual --

Q That's not the question. Was it or was it not vetted by the entire economic team?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report. It goes through the usual --

Q So you don't know, or it was, or it wasn't?

[Here there's a lot of badgering before McClellan finally answers the question.]

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it goes through the normal -- it goes through the normal vetting process.

Q So the answer is, yes. I'm not done yet, I've got another one.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q Why -- if you're suggesting that people will debate the numbers, that's kind of a backhanded way to say, oh, who cares about the numbers. Well, apparently, the President's top economic advisors do, because that's why they wrote a very large report and sent it to Congress. So why was the prediction made in the first place, if the President and you and his Treasury Secretary were going to just back away from it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I disagree with the premise of the way you stated that. This is the annual Economic Report of the President and the economic modeling is done this way every year. It's been done this way for 20-some years.

Q So why not -- why aren't you standing behind it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think what the President stands behind is the policies that he is implementing, the policies that he is advocating. That's what's important.

Q That's not in dispute. The number is the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but the President's concern is on the number of jobs being created --

Q My question is, why was the prediction made --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the President's focus is on making sure that people who are hurting because they cannot find work have a job. That's where the President's focus is.

Q Then why predict a number? Why was the number predicted? Why was the number predicted? You can't get away with not -- just answer the question. Why was that number predicted?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this, and I've asked -- I've been asked, and I've answered.

Q No, you have not answered. And everybody watching knows you haven't answered.

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree.

You can almost hear McClellan mutter under his breath "hey, these lame responses worked when Ari fed them to you; why are you comin' after me?"

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

Never mind that he was probably exaggerating this claim. (More likely, he was unaware of San Francisco until one of his advisors mentioned they were marryin' off gays there. But I digress.) What burns my bacon is the following statement : "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."

Well man, if you're troubled by activist judges, why do you keep nominating them?

In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end--it is just the beginning.

This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we’ve engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year’s record participation in the primaries and caucuses.

The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.

Yesterday I expressed the wish to hear him say roughly these same words. I know many folks thought he was a loose cannon or a sell-out; many felt he might even try to destroy the party on his way out. Perhaps his campaign was crushed as much by people's strong opinions of Dean (he was neither a mythic hero or villain) as by the whole "electability" issue. Who knows. But I'm pleased to see Dean leaving on the honorable note I expected.

More importantly, it appears Dean plans to continue working at the grassroots. He may well contribute more to the party than he would have as President. I've taken a lot of heat on this blog for backing Dean down the stretch after it was clear Dennis Kucinich wasn't going to emerge. My switch is fair game for derision and I'm happy to take the heat for it. But on the occasion of his departure, I'd like to thank Howard Dean for his vision and courage in the race. I hope everyone would extend the same thanks.

"The tax relief was a vital part of this economic recovery."

President Bush, today.

Much like "relief" here has a specific definition, I think we shoud recall what a Bush "recovery" looks like.

Of even greater concern, though, is the kind of emerging conservative rhetoric that paints liberals not only as "desperate" but evil vermin who deserve to be exterminated.

(Answer: as dirty as their creativity permits. It's going to be a back-alley knife fight.)

The reason is because the GOP strategy-setters have been co-opted by the neocon fringe (which is to say the fringe of the neoconservative wing). The Republican Party still a pretty varied stew--red meaters like Tom DeLay, sure, but there are also healthier ingredients like Olympia Snowe. In local politics, the GOP is even more varied. City republicans are as likely to be gay, nonwhite, or secular as their Democratic foes. But those folks aren't charting election strategies.

Francine Prose, in an article in the March Harper's (if you subscribe to only one magazine, Harper's should be the one), compared the philosophical underpinnings of the neocon wing to reality shows.

Observant readers may already have noted that the guiding principles to which I've alluded--flinty individualism, the vision of a zero-sum society in which no one can win unless someone else loses, the conviction that altruism and compassion are signs of folly and weakness, the exaltation of solitary striving above the illusory benefits of cooperative mutual aid, the belief that certain circumstances justify secrecy and deception, the invocation of a reviled common enemy to solidify group loyalty--are the exact same themes that underlie the rhetoric we have been hearing and continue to hear from the Republican Congress and our current administration.

If Democrats wish to defend themselves against this approach, they have several options, most of them bad. They can respond in kind--but unlike the group loyalty GOP overloards can expect, Dems will get a bronx cheer from their own camp, and drive waffling Republicans back to George. They can ignore the attacks, which is the classic Daschle Maneuver. But smiling and praising the guy who's carving you up in a knife fight has shown to have its flaws as well.

The Democrats have about a month to come up with a coherent response that works. Elements from the campaign--calling the GOP on these tactics rather than responding with slimier smears; demanding that the press ask hard questions about the behavior of politicians; demanding that the GOP stand behind its actual record rather than its PR--have worked. But they mostly worked among the Democratic faithful and during a relatively attack-free phase.

Another tactic is to target the moderates with a reasonableness campaign. Trying to separate the Snowes from the Bushes might be easier than Dems imagine--after all, with very soft support and a growing list of black marks, Bush may not even be around next year. Senators have a longer view. Congressional Dems can give support to this tactic by pushing for moderate legislation--in the Bush years, moderation is a wedge issue for Republicans.

In any case, soon the knives will start glinting under streetlights. How will the Dems respond?

The dominant theme of American politics since the nineteen-sixties has been freedom: cultural freedoms under Democrats, economic freedoms under Republicans. The pursuit of happiness became a private affair, and the sense of civic responsibility withered among liberals and conservatives alike. The political choice was between two versions of hedonism.

In the conservative case, ideological creep has led to a kind of democratic totalitarianism in which the urge to democratize comes at the point of a sword. The US no longer participates in international democratic institutions and foreign policy has become the "coalition of the billing"--the US dragging along whomever it can buy off. Thus the conservative vision offers conquered nations little hope of self determination. Weakened vassal state are dependent on their "liberators," and countries like Afghanistan and Iraq have little choice but to accept democracy on American terms.

But if the conservative vision offers too little self-determination, the liberal vision offers too little structure or support.

Certain mental traits that have spread among Democrats since the Vietnam War get in the way--not just the tendency toward isolationism and pacifism but a cultural relativism (going by the name of "multiculturalism") that makes it difficult for them to mount a wholehearted defense of one political system against another, especially when the other has taken root among poorer and darker-skinned peoples.

Liberals, for very different reasons, have not been willing to put in the effort to rebuild democracies, either. Stung by past quagmires, they are unwilling to stick around and do the hard work, hoping that liberation will become the source of democracy. Their impetus is further limited by the relatively smaller bump they receive in the polls at home.

The dimension Packer doesn't mention in his article (which has a different focus) is this: sincere regional commitments to democracy ask that US foreign policy be reshuflled entirely. Holding the line on "evil" Iran while protecting "good" Saudi Arabia and Israel completely undermines US credibility in the Mideast. This exposes the real strategic disadvantage of promoting democracies: it's risky. The best symbol for this conflict is Iraq itself. While the US wishes to appear supportive of democracy there, it can't really afford it--at least not in the short term.

If you want to lose that unwanted beer belly, eventually you have to come to the reality of physics. Either you cut back on the beer, or you exercise more. There are a lot of other options, but solutions are finite.

So it is with democracy. If the US has a sincere desire to promote it, the reality has to be confronted. Without the foundation of physical safety, economic stability, education, functional services, and so on, the country will be lost to chaos. Without a national commitment to democratic principles--free press, minority rights, civil liberties--the country's nascent democracy will be lost to tyranny. And without confronting the power of ideological opposition within a culture--generally fundamentalism in the Mideast--the country's democracy will co-emerge with its opposite embedded into government and have to fight a downward spiral of internal conflict.

The US must also put greater systemic changes in its own foreign policy into place. It must begin leading in international cooperation (whether through the UN or independently), and it must abandon policies that coddle dictatorships in neighboring countries.

Without the long-term commitment to building these structures and changing its own policy, "promoting" democracy will remain confused and contradictory and function mainly as domestic PR.