Healthcare Passes . . . Media Buys Some Tea

So Obama appears to have passed a bill that some have been hankering for over 70 years. It is a major achievement, especially when one party is content trying to make sure government doesn't do anything before November and a series of corporations all interested in keeping the system as it is have been throwing a lot of money and influence around to back that position up. Sure the bill is flawed and doesn't include the public option, but it insures 32 million more Americans, cheapens drug costs for seniors, disallows insurance companies from not covering or dropping insurers with preexisting conditions, allows small businesses to pool together for better rates, and though conservatives have been challenging the CBO numbers -- the bill is predicted to CUT the deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years while saving 2.5 million jobs  Yet the media appears to have bought the GOP story that this will hurt the democrats. "Democrats could pay a price," warns the Washington Post while the New York Times tells us buyer beware: "A Major Victory, but at What Cost?" The LA Times adds "After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control" and Politico claims Democrats "face a potentially devastating backlash in the midterms." And that's just the "liberal press." William Kristol does a special for the Weekly Standard claiming "This year Obama has handed Republicans a one-item Contract with America, an item a majority of the public supports—opposition to, and therefore repeal of, Obamacare." Even before the bill is signed, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other party leaders are clammering for repeal and 12 states are already lining up to challenge it as unconstitutional: www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/twelve-states-plan-lawsuit-over-obama-health-overhaul-update2-.html. David Frum offers a more realistic position though, arguing repeal is all but impossible given what the bill offers and the legislative hurdles. In the end, the bill might hurt Democrats, but given that it will be paid for predominantly by insurance and pharmaceutical companies and the wealthiest Americans and will start us on the path to addressing one of the great dangers facing America in the future, I think it is a step in the right direction. It is also nice to see Democrats actually stand up for something collectively. Could this be the beginning of better days for the party, or the beginning of the end of their short reign? Stay tuned . . .

Tea Party Trolls Torment

Not that it is really surprising to people who are paying attention, but the mainstream media has finally gotten in on critiquing the group for their innate racism and general lunacy (www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/03/20/tea_party_racism) -- after an event yesterday where they yelled the "n" word at a series of Black politicians, spit on one, called Barney Frank a "faggot" and walked around toting signs that said they would kill those who vote for the healthcare bill: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun. It is extraordinary how much easier it is to get in the news for acting like a complete buffoon than for actually making a reasoned, rational argument about politics; or the media for that matter. Just ask Glenn Beck . . .

Corporations Finally Get into the Political Fray

After years of watching their interests go unheeded by Washington, corporations will finally have their say in the political arena. The Supreme Court decision last month giving corporations the full personhood they have so long deserved has once and for all eliminated those pesky campaign finance limits that have given the people far too much say in political decision in America. Now corporations can have their voice heard loud and clear, untethered by the will of the people and their silly notions of the common good. Should their really be limits on the interest rates banks can charge for loans or the fees they collect? Should insurance companies really have to insure high risk clients or those already sick? Why should pharmaceutical companies have to go through the onerous process of making sure their drugs are safe when that can be figured out after their product goes to market? Should cigarette and chemical companies really be limited by silly concerns about their safety, when it cuts into their profits? And why should corporations have to waste all that money on lobbying when they can simply buy the politicans that will best reflect their interests? The benevolent society of American corporations and the wealthy, aka the Chamber of Commerce, has certainly been asking these questions for years and are now ready to put their wallets where their mouth is, spending as much money as they can withdraw from their sheltered offshore accounts to make sure years of government interference in their profit-seeking behavior come to an end once and for all: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-chamber9-2010mar09,0,4230154,full.story. Let freedom ring! 

He Looks Like $50

A highway, airport, aircraft carrier and one of the biggest federal buildings in DC are all named after Ronald Reagan. But that's not enough for his conservative acolytes -- now they want to replace war hero turned corrupt president Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill (www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03,0,6008759.story). So I thought on the heals of this potentially momentus tribute to the greatest President of the 20th century we should look back on his many accomplishments . . .

- Cut the top tax rate down from 70% to 28%
- Cut the capital gains tax precipitously
- Both these helped increased income inequality to the worst in the developed world
- Moved us from the biggest creditor to biggest debtor nation in the world
- Increased the deficit from $700 billion to $3 trillion
- Oversaw the S&L crisis and 1987 Stock Market Crash
- Helped out those poor Contras in their fight against the insidious communists in Nicaragua
- Turned back the clock on the pesky civil rights movement
- Commenced those fun loving "blame the teachers" and "blame the victim" movements in America
- Got rid of annoying market oversight and regulation thus helping Walls Street make a lot more money *

and

- Ended communism single-handedly (and I have a share in the Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you)

Long live your legacy, our fallen king.

* This also helped cause the financial crisis we are currently mired in, but that's just nitpicking.

ACORN Exonerated!

Surprise, surprise . . . the two conservative pranksters that caused a media firestorm over five months ago charging that ACORN was giving advice to a pimp and prostitute about getting a mortgage appear to have doctored the video and no criminal charges will be filed by the Brooklyn DA. What's interesting is how the different media sources cover the story.

The New York Post claims on pg.2 in a short piece that sources claim the infamous videos were heavily edited and thus "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister." The New York Times takes a more moderate position, mentioning that charges are being dropped without noting the charges of tampering with the tapes: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/no-crime-in-acorns-advice-to-pimp-d-a-says/?scp=2&sq=acorn&st=cse. Finally, is Fox News, where they think there is still serious malfeasance and corruption to be unearthed, with the following paragraph: "But Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Monday that ongoing federal and state investigations 'will expose the criminal nature of ACORN's deliberate effort to abuse taxpayer dollars to advance a radical political agenda.'" (www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/acorn-videos-bring-problems-group-criminal-charges/?test=latestnews).

Actually, it appears the radical political agenda is being perpetrated by conservative operatives like this (remember Watergate?), with one of the two recently charged with three others in attempting to tamper with Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu's phone. Of course, while the media will dutifully report the story, there is no mea culpa -- just a nod to their absence of malice. Remember those Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? Well the media got that one wrong too, but it only cost us four extra years of Bush, so no bigee . . .

Healthcare Through the Backdoor

To those of us who has watched bumbling Democrats for the better part of 30 years it is a near miracle to conceive that they might actually pass an even flawed healthcare reform bill. Little resolve has existed in the party, they have been too wobbly kneed when it mattered most and lost the battle of words, ideas and elections too often. Democrats like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry failed to inspire, changed positions as if in a game of musical chairs and even Obama has seemed to wilt under the pressure of a conservative juggernaut unfazed by huge defeat less than two years ago and a media that has aligned themselves with conservatives far too often in recent years. Nancy Pelosi even said she is willing to give up seats to win this important battle. That is what our representatives are supposed to be about -- representing the public interest, even if the public is sometimes confused about what their interests are. The public option might not find its way to the final bill, but if it ends up on Obama's desk for a signature it will be a huge victory for Americans and our collective future. Lets hope that resolve holds up and the party finally gets something right . . .

Turning Schadenfreude on its Head

In an odd turn on the American love affair with Schadenfreude is a new website that will let friends anonymously tell you what they really think of you: http://www.failin.gs/. One has to wonder if anyon? Isn’t life better wie really want to know this? Isn't life better with the lies we tell each other and ourselves to make it bearable? Didn’t anyone see The Invention of Lying? Can we really take the ridicule that one assumes has to emerge from this site? And what about hackers? Our enemies can have a heyday at our expense. One way to get the news out on your new “bruise my ego for free” site is to provide a link on Facebook. Um, how about those lunatics with 500 friends? Even those of us with 200 have to know that many of these “friends” simply use us to increase their cyber popularity index, or maintain the link to spy on us; with our active approval, I should add. I don’t know about you, but I’m already rough enough on myself. Me thinks my friends doth protest just enough.

Ahistory 101

What do you do when history is working against you? What if people really do want to learn from history so they don't repeat it? Well, just rewrite it, of course. Republicans have been adept at this for years, most recently pretending the financial crisis started with Obama, or that Bush somehow solved it (even though it's still going on), or that they never blocked a nomination under Clinton. The latest incident is the so called "nuclear option," an apparently unprecedented attempt to circumvent the workings of democracy . . . or is it? In fact, the reconciliation process has been used 21 times since the 80s, mostly by Republicans. It was used for Reagan's huge tax cuts, for both Bush tax cuts and for welfare reform. Now Democrats want to take the political capital given to them in 2008 and using it to pass the healthcare reform most Americans want (unless it is labeled "socialist"): www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/24/840251/-Majority-rule-is-the-nuclear-option. But why allow history to cloud the fact that Democrats are actually using their majority in the House and Senate together with control of the Presidency to actually, gasp, do something without the Republicans. They seem to forget that that is exactly what they did for the first six years of the Bush administration; unless Dems supplicated (as they did on more occasions than they liked to admit). Thomas Jefferson once argued "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Of course, if we believe the lies why not believe we are free as well?

Brother Can You Spare a Quarter Million?

The Washington Post today reports that Wall Street is shifting its allegiance from Democrats to Republicans: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022305537_pf.html. Ever since the triangulation policies of Clinton and the New Democrats proved effective at winning elections, the party has in many ways been beholdent to their very rich benefactors. They have sold themselves as liberal on social issues but more conservative on economic policy. While the populist rhetoric occasionally emerges (Gore in the last two months of his 2000 run; Obama at times), the party generally does little to actually hold Wall Street accountable for their actions or, for example, change the tax structure so hedge fund managers pay a reasonable tax rate on the millions (and for some individuals billions) they earn every year -- rather than the paultry 15% they currently do. So while many will see this as bad news, particularly given the recent Supreme Court decision about campaign finance reform and the early forecasts for the midterm elections (slatest.slate.com/id/2245799/?wpisrc=newsletter), I wonder if some good news doesn't emerge from this trend? For one, could Democrats finally stand up to Wall Street and start reregulating the markets (as they did in a minor way with recent bills on bank and credit card fees)? Can they start to hold the postmodern Robber Barons accountable for their actions? Can they usher in a real debate on economic reform that will challenge the dramatic stratification that reigns supreme today? I wouldn't hold my breath just yet, but I think it could be a good sign if the American people believed Democrats were the party that actually stood up to the powerful for once. Otherwise, the small government movement may appeal to those who wrongly place the blame on government and not the markets and their architects (and I do use this word on purpose) for our current economic problems (much as Reagan placed the blame on feminism and the civil rights movement in the 80s).

Government the Problem?

It depends who you talk to. For those at the top of the income ladder, this is clearly the case. They benefit from a laissez-faire approach to economic policy and always have. But for the middle and the bottom? Then the story is different. As some economists start to talk of economic recovery and getting beyond the worst of the Great Recession, the stark reality for the poor and middle class in this country is a declining quality of life and dour long term prospects. A couple of weeks ago, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that unemployment varies dramatically along class lines. Those at the top of the income bracket has an unemployment rate of only 3.2 percent and the next highest only 4 percent. Contrast that with the bottom two brackets ($12,499 or less and $12,500 to 20,000), that suffer through 30.8 and 19.1 percent, respectively: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html. Some would argue that this makes sense, given the realities of the new economy and the nature of the crisis itself. Yet it is part of a trend that has been accelerating since the 70s, a growing gap in not only income and wealth but quality of life between the rich and poor here and across the "developed" world: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/21/business/main4535488.shtml. I think it would be naive not to recognize the relationship between this return to the Gilded Age of the turn of the century and the fall of communism. Without any alternative to fight, neoliberalism has ushered in a new phase where capital accumulation and consolidation of wealth accelerate dramatically. Services are being cut, marginal taxes lowered and the elites establishing rules that are skewed to their interests. The latest Supreme Court decision only punctuates the push away from democracy and popular rule and toward a theocracy of the market and its stewards. Is this sustainable in the long run? The history of capitalism is one of laissez-faire followed by economic crisis, calls for intervention and then deregulation soon after markets recover. Yet conservatives and business leaders are attempting to forgo any further intervention before the financial crisis ends. This could spell doom for America and across the globe. Will they wake up to the reality of the moment before it is too late, or allow their greed to trump our collective future? Here I turn to Edna St. Vincent Millay (with a minor edit) . . .

Thy candle burns at both ends
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends --
It gives a lovely light.

Sphincter Says What

"I'm not frightened by bipartisanship... We should be brave enough to stand up and say let's work together until we finish defeating the left and then we won't have to work with them as much."

-- Newt Gingrich, quoted by the Huffington Post.

Interesting definition of bi-partisanship. The real problem today is that conservatives have hunkered down to a degree where reality is just a pesky inconvenience that stands in the way of their agenda. They have radicalized to the point where facts and counterarguments do not move them, but simply strengthen their resolve. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Right now, in the midst of economic, environmental and global crises, most conservatives believe that returning to the past is possible, that somehow things will fix themselves and that the best thing to do is nothing at all. They want to continue policies that got us here in the first case. They rewrite history to support their position, get stuck on the one exception to the rule and change subjects whenever their positions are challenged. And who comprises the latest addition to the lunatic fringe? The lovely Tea Party and their inspirational wackado leader Glenn Beck (www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?pagewanted=print). But while there might be a populist element to this movement, I think we are kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that 1. They have been driven by conservative media personalities to their current position, 2. They are often led by old guard members of the far right 3. Their anger is largely based on irrational conspiracy theories and latent racism and 4. They are a force to be reckoned with, but not as large as some have led us to believe (www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/17/tea.party.poll/index.html?iref=allsearch). When you get right down to it, the media loves to report on fringe groups, but particularly right wing varieties. When they look at fringe groups on the left (real fringe groups, not the group now labeled as Leftists because the middle has moved so far right), it is usually in a mocking tone.

The one point that most Americans can seem to agree on today is that "government is broken." A CNN poll shows that 86% of respondents support this assessment: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/21/poll.broken.govt/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo. So what should we do about it? The interesting thing is that some believe we should just scrap the government altogether, leaving benevolent multinational corporations to fill the void. On the other side, there may be too much faith that government can solve our problems. In the end, hope seems to be the real victim -- washed over by expectations as ephemeral as the distance between first and second in the luge.

Healthcare Tango

So a growing number of Democrats are pushing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include the public option in the reconciliation bill, that can bypass a Republican filibuster. Reid is waiting to count votes before he decides, as is House leader Pelosi. In the meantime, Obama is backpedaling yet again, offering a modified plan that he hopes some Republicans will support: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/health/policy/19health.html?pagewanted=print. The reasonable party, however, doesn't really need to see one to decide that "no" is their answer: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/cantor-we-will-say-no-to-the-health-care-bill.php. So those most interested in the debate decided to actually ask people what they think: www.tonic.com/article/health-care-reform-bill-activists-poll-states-on-public-opinion. Early leaked results show a plurality supporting a bypass of the obstructionist Republicans, while 51% remain unsure (in Illinois). It's time for the feckless Democrats to finally get some backbone and take a chance. Poll after poll has shown that passing healthcare will have little to no effect on their prospects for November. Why not do something radical that could alter the future of the country? We will see if Democrats stand for anything other than supporting Wall Street and backpedaling every time they get close to taking a stand on anything . . .

Et Tu, Homer?

Simpson that is! A few articles in the past few weeks have called into question one of America’s favorite pastimes – namely, working. The Daily Beast had an article yesterday that labeled the U.S. as the laziest country in the world (www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-17/the-laziest-countries) Using Internet usage, calorie intake, aversion to sports and television viewing per day, they found Americans to be the least active of the OECD countries. But aren’t we the hardest working country in the world? Isn’t it our Protestant Work Ethic that made us great? Aren’t we the country that doesn’t have any time for fun, because we’re too busy working our, apparently bulging, asses off? Actually, wait – that could still be true. Methodology is often that underreported element of these silly studies we count on to give us information and determine the public will. Here the article appeared to be tongue in cheek, but just to be clear --- maybe Americans are so “lazy” because they work so hard they find it hard to find time for sports or other diversions (many Americans go to the gym, which is not generally considered sport – except to those wolves trying to pick someone up at the club). And calorie intake could actually be related to exercise, as those who exercise more would eat more to restore their energy – though a quick look around the streets of middle America and their middles does seem to indicate too many Twinkie aperitifs before and after dinner. A final thought on the study – Internet use. While I can’t speak for women, men use the Internet for a number of things – one of which actually could be considered exercise . . .

The second article goes back to December, when an adjunct instructor up in Boston argued Americans are the laziest students: www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/21/my_lazy_american_students?mode=PF. This caused an uproar among some, while others provided their strong agreement with the claim: www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2010/01/04/miller. Being a professor myself, I must agree that many American students seem lazy, uninterested, uninspired and in need of very specific, detailed instructions for almost any assignment – as contrasted with students from other countries, who tend to be harder working and generally turn in better work. Stereotyping students like this is, of course, wrought with peril, but it does seem true that the next generation does have a sense of entitlement and a lack of motivation for schools and intellectual pursuits. I find plenty of students that challenge this claim, but the aforementioned Internet and television usage, together with the Ipods, cell phones and other technology that keeps these students busy for 7.5 hours a day (according to Kaiser Family Foundation) certainly is a call for concern. On the other hand, the school where I teach has students that work part or full-time, take a full load of classes and do turn in their work on time most of the time. I’m not sure if laziness really describes the American today, but inactive in the traditional sense appears to be a fair claim. Time to go for a jog!

He Said, She Said Media

There is something wrong when Jon Stewart and the Daily Show staff are doing much superior work to the mainstream media. Why can't anyone in the media (besides the pundits) just make a declarative statement without attributing it to someone else? Why can't they fact check a claim rather than just tell us what both parties, or opposing sides on almost any issue, say? Why can't they seem to deconstruct the lies we hear every day, even when a fifth grader could do so with three minutes and access to google on his blackberry? These are the questions that try men's souls -- or at least mine. The latest example comes from the Washington Post today and this brilliant reporting, regarding the unexpected retirement of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, "Many Democrats blame Republicans for the partisan polarization in this Congress, citing in particular the GOP's near-unanimous opposition to the Democrats' health-care legislation. That presents Obama with his biggest near-term challenge." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974_pf.html) Um, yeah, thank God they found someone to make that claim, as there would be no other way to prove that it's true. In case you haven't heard, the say no to anything strategy is now really paying off as a new ABC Poll finds that only 44% think Obama should have a second term while 52% think no. (http://slatest.slate.com/id/2244975/?wpisrc=newsletter)

It's 8" . . . I Swear!

And now for something completely different . . . apparently American men are taking postmodernism to its absurd limits. Rather than buy a condom that actually fits, they are buying sizes too big to well, inflate their ego, I suppose. A new University of Kentucky study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8516654.stm) finds that upwards of 50% of men in the study bought the wrong size condom and then removed it during sex. The authors suggest clever marketing as the way to deal with this problem. Who really wants to buy a "small" or even "medium" condom. But how about vente or grande -- now that sound pretty good!

The Spin Zone . . . on Meth

So you’re thinking of running for office? What should you do to brand yourself and make sure you get sufficient exposure? Raise some money for commercials, visit community sites, engage in debates. Nah, those are all wrought with the potential for negative press coverage. Here’s a better idea – become a media personality yourself. That way you can spin all the news to your own favor and do “exclusive interviews” for the very company that employs you. What are the chances that station would have a negative story on your campaign? Probably a lot lower, eh? And you can use that platform to not only prop up your credentials and ideas, but to slam your opponent and their party. On top of all this, you will now be given the stamp of authenticity and seen as a provider of unbiased "truth," thus helping sell your platform and stump speech (together with their revisionist version of history and bold faced lies).

Most have obviously heard that Fox News hired Sarah Palin even as almost everyone knows she will be running for office in a couple of years. Fox also has former presidential candidate Huckabee and Next Gingrich who both are considering runs in 2012. And they are not alone. CNBC star and Teabag hero Larry Kudlow is considering a run for the Senate, as is ex-Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. of MSNBC and Lou Dobbs, who left CNN in the Fall. Former Fox analyst Angela McGlowan is running for a House seat in Mississippi and one can remember Pat Buchanon switching back and forth between TV and campaigns for President (Chris Matthews also seriously considered a Senate run in Pennsylvania).

In a New York Times article today, they make the point: “'It makes sense for candidates to seek out positions in niche cable, because it is a direct pipeline to voters,” said Jonathan Wald, a former senior vice president at CNBC and an adjunct professor at Columbia’s journalism school. 'It’s an automatic affinity group.' The benefit to the viewers is less clear. Some experts say the arrangements can cloud the objectivity of the news organizations." (www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15candidate.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print). Um, you think so? Could it be that Palin slamming Obama for everything he does might come across as less than objective? As TV pundits deconstruct the news, is it possible they are skewing it to their interests?

Objectivity in media has always been an obvious façade, used to give news the imprimatur of accuracy and truthfulness. The interests of the companies that report on the news always inflect what is reported, how it is reported, what is left out and what is ignored. This is most obvious on cable news stations like Fox and MSNBC, but it is true across the board. The picking of experts is one obvious place where this occurs (see Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, and Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media?), but decisions are increasingly made by huge media conglomerates with all kinds of conflicts of interests that even transcend their profit interest. Do we really need future, or even prior, politicians pretending to be “journalists” to make the point even more obvious? Journalism is in danger of completely abdicating its responsibility to inform the public and hold individuals and groups accountable. Thank God for the Internet, the only place where old school journalism seems to happen these days . . .

Obama Finally Goes on the Offensive

One wonders how long the current Republican strategy can be effective -- can it really carry them back into power by simply doing nothing? Obama has decided it's time to test their resolve and that of the American people. After a series of speeches and a press conference, Obama has gotten to work, attempting to use his executive power to either pressure Congress or bypass them altogether: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. He warned Republicans he would use recess appointments if they didn't act on all the nominations held up, and 27 confirmations went through within the next few days. He asked for a commission on the deficit and went Congressional Republicans balked at their own idea, he simply circumvented them and did it himself. Now he is planning to soften enforcement of "don't ask don't tell," allow the EPA to enact enforcement of emissions as the Senate bill continues to languish, among a series of other initiatives.

One should remember that Presidential bullying and resolve have been at the heart of two of the most important, widescale governmental initiatives in history -- the series of bills that became known as the New Deal (against strong opposition) and the ambitious Great Society of LBJ. Both are constantly debated among liberals and conservatives, based on the reality that admitting that both helped the country would undermine the essential myth of conservatism in America today.  I have spoken about both in this blog before, but in brief one can say the following -- the New Deal ultimately ushered in the longest substained period of economic growth in this countries history (1947-1973) and the Great Society cut Black poverty and overall poverty in this country in half and led to two decades of school desegregation that cut the racial achievement gap in half; besides a whole host of other achievements in education, the arts, civil rights, the environment and the like. Obama will never gain popular support for altering the nature of politics and economics in America, but he can still serve the nation by ignoring those corporate lackey's and others that refuse to acknowledge where the power lies in America today.

Jeez, Can't You Do Anything Right?

One of the most underreported problems in America today is childhood obesity. We do talk about it occasionally, but there is little dialogue on the long term costs to individuals and society for this growing problem (pun intended). What is behind it? Obviously, technology plays a huge role as does fast food, less gym in school and overprotective parents that don't let their kids go outside very much anymore. So Michelle Obama decided to launch a national campaign to address the problem. A lot less controversial then, say, trying to solve the healthcare crisis in America, right? Not according to some critiques, who think American kids should be allowed to be fat if they want to, dammit! (http://slatest.slate.com/id/2244210/?wpisrc=newsletter). America seems to become more and more like an absurdist novel or movie everyday. But luckily people are paying attention -- and they like it. The latest poll from Washington Post/ABC shows that our view of the Republican party has actually improved, there do nothing/"no all the time" politics is apparently just the kind of inspiration we need in these difficult times: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000010.html. Let freedom ring (as long as it doesn't cost tax payers anything)!

Who's to Blame?

Jacob Weisberg, Slate editor-in-chief, has an incisive critique of the political climate in America today. Rather than blame the politicians, or lobbyists or Obama, he blames the American people (www.slate.com/id/2243797/). And he has a point. Americans want the government to solve all of our problems quickly and cleanly, without any additional money, any tax increase, any change in our own behavior and any notion that there might be long term costs to society. In fact, Americans seem to think that the government has some sort of magic bullet not to kill a Kennedy, but to solve the financial crisis, healthcare debacle, environmental devastation and falling position of the United States without the public at large doing anything to help. Government is bad, but we still want it to fix everything that's wrong. But not at any cost to us. So what is the solution? It's hard to see how things can change for the better without some collective sacrifice, without some call for real change, without some faith that government can take on the interests of the power elites and actually improve society. But the underlying cynicism so endemic in America today, together with the general blithe ignorance to what needs to be done, leaves us immobilized and willing to support little. So Republicans can undermine the hope that seemed to bolster the nation a year ago. Now absurd charges of socialism, fear mongering about governmental death squads for the elderly, absurdist discussions of deficits and even more wild conspiracy theories dominate the debate while right wing loons like Palin and Beck dominate the airwaves with discourse that sounds resonable only to those who understand nothing. Postman is right, we really are amusing ourselves toward death, as individuals and a nation. And in this, we may well succeed.

The Party of No: Ad Nauseum

So a Senator from Alabama now thinks that it is acceptable to stop all 70 of Obama’s outstanding nominations until his fair state be given two important pork projects revolving around the only really important GOP talking point these days (besides saying no to anything and everything democrats like): terrorism -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06collins.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. I’m not sure if anyone in America still remembers, but since Clinton, the Republicans have been consistently blocking judges nominated to federal courts by Democratic Presidents. But when Bush was president for eight years we heard endlessly about the few pretty radical choices that Democrats blocked from the federal court. Lest us forget what has happened with the two most important selections that did get through (and a lot more got through in general than under Clinton), those two Supreme Court justices that just rewrote campaign finance in the U.S. to the benefit of corporations and against a reasonable definition of what democracy means. In any case, one wonders if Republicans might pay for their unrelenting dedication to absolute obstructionism? While the radical Tea Baggers, led by the suddenly media-savvy Sarah Palin and lunatic fringe TV personality Glen Beck, continue to show a willing blindness to the reality of the moment (and a penchant for ahistoricity that would make Big Brother proud), one wonders if the rest of America is ready to essentially shut down the government to allow Republicans back into power. Didn’t we elect Obama to get away from Bush and the mindless mantra of small government and free markets? It takes a while to teach old dogs new tricks, but if we don’t start teaching ourselves what role government has to play in our lives, we might find ourselves eating our beloved dogs to keep from starving . . .

Super Bowl Censorship

Over the past two decades, Superbowl ads have become almost as important as the game itself. At parties across the country, people who could care less about the game often shut up for the space between TV timeouts to catch the latest clever ads from Budweiser, Google, Coca Cola and the like. Some of the most famous and infamous ads come out that day at as much as $3,000,000 a clip. But what won’t be coming out are any gays on CBS. The papers have finally chimed in on their editorial pages to decry the decision to reject an ad that, gasp, has two men attracted to each other at the most masculine of American sports (besides maybe the no holds barred fighting that keeps gaining popularity): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403562_pf.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06sat4.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. Luckily CBS isn’t eliminating all political ads. They are ok with an ad by Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother arguing the pro life position. Well at least they’re consistent!

This is not the first debate that has occurred regarding Superbowl commercials. In fact the NFL and whomever is telecasting the biggest guacamole day in any year have pretty consistently supported conservative causes – whether it is celebrating American militarism, the war in Iraq, family values or, indirectly, God and his handicapping hand. NBC, for example, refused to air an anti-abortion ad last year (from Catholicvote.com that used an image of Obama and the tag “Life: Imagine the Potential”) and one about marriage equity. PETA and Moveon.org have been rejected in the past, and NBC did reject an ad in 2004 by the United Church of Christ that included the tagline “Jesus Didn’t Turn People Away. Neither Do We,” targeting gay parishioners. In the past rejection, CBS claimed it had a policy of refusing advertising that "touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance". Now with the Tebow ad (from Focus on Family) they claim: "[CBS's] standards and practices continue to adhere to a policy that insures that all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air.” Um, what? The first statement is troubling in its own light, given that we do live in a democracy and do have that thing called the First Amendment, that has thankfully been extended to our neighbors down the street (the big corporations that all but run DC already). A few others you might not have heard about that were rejected, can be found here: http://redstaplerchronicles.com/the-top-ten-rejected-super-bowl-commercials/.

Of course, football has arguably tacitly supported homosexuality for years. We have tight ends, quarterbacks who start every play in a rather salacious position while reaching their hands between the legs of their centers before screaming hike, an uncomfortable fascination with penetration by the defense among analysts, men in tights who often pat each other on the ass and openly embrace after big plays and throwing passes at each other or handing their balls to their “backs.” But I digress . . .

Teabagging, Sodomy and the Right

The Family Research Council has gone a step further than arguing that gay marriage will destroy America: news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/02/family-research-councils-peter-sprigg-lawrence-v-texas-was-wrongly-decided/. Actually, gay sex itself should be illegal they think. But, uh oh, just like those geniuses who named themselves after a rather unfortunate sex act (depending on the hygene habits of the recipient that is), Peter Sprigg wants to outlaw something plenty of God-fearing, heterosexuals probably partake of at least occasionally -- that nasty habit from the original twin city: Sodom. Does that mean that oral sex is ok? How about illicit airport bathroom sex without penetration between Senators and their willing constituents? One wonders in the end if rather than going around spreading their hate, these people simply spread their legs every once in a while, or those of someone else, they might find something to be happy about. Could it be that hate eminates from repression? Call me crazy, but me thinks the answer be oui (which is better than he or she) . . .

The Party of No: Part III

So now even legislation they support, or even came up with in the first place, they reject if it gets the imprimatur of the President. This is getting down right Dali Surrealist. The latest, as you probably heard, is rejecting a call to have a commission formed to figure out how to reduce the deficit: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832963/-Horrors%21-Republicans-Find-a-Deficit-They-Dont-Like. The line among some is that instead we need a commission to reduce spending (not, God forbid, raise taxes on the rich!)

The American people, on the other hand, seem to be growing tired of partisan deadlock and some are pushing for change. Obama has finally started calling out Republicans on their obstructionist ways, inviting them to offer alternatives to their “no all the time” mantra: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03bipartisan.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print. And a series of bloggers and pundits have moved beyond their keyboard quarterbacking to start an online campaign “Demand Question Time,” to hold regular, televised conversations like the exchange in Baltimore last Thursday (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=93AC0124-18FE-70B2-A896F3733FD5234E).

Is this what representative democracy is about? Whose interests, exactly, are senators representing when they undiscernibly say no to anything and everything? Oh, that’s right – the corporate lobbyists who seem to run the party now. At least with the Supreme Court decision last week, they don’t have to hide their activity anymore. Go capitalism! Down with the Republic!

* * * *

An interesting day in the news, by the way. Another story seems to challenge the idea that torture is necessary to get information out of potential (or successful) terrorists: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203738_pf.html. Not that Obama has been that great on this issue so far.

Congressional Success?

An interesting article in the Washington Post today argues that this congress has actually been the most successful since the Great Society years of 1964-65: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902516.html. What, you say? Ornstein does make some interesting points about the stimulus bill, tax cuts, impetus for green investment, increased regulation and the like. But the bigger issue right now is the obvious failure to pass healthcare right as we stood on the cusp of its success. Americans just don't like this idea of "big government." One irony of the Massachusettes election loss was that Mass. has a very successful public healthcare option that has relatively popular support among the populace. But put the word "Congress" in front of it, and it no longer sounds so great. The federal government has certainly screwed a lot of things up over the years. But what are our options now. The party of no has seemed to move us toward a country of no. Can we survive with pure negativity? It's hard to see how . . .

From Bad to Worse

This has been a bad couple of weeks for Democrats. If we add the election in November, things have been going downhill for a few months now, with the exception of the now moribund healthcare reform bill (which would have been a huge, baby’s got back, but). Obama has looked into the abyss and instead of finding himself, appears to be moving even further to the center (www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2010/01/25/obama_panicking?source=newsletter). I sometimes wonder if DC even knows that the financial crisis continues for a lot of Americans. Obama seems like he is going to shift to Republican strategies (with minor Democratic modifications): tax cuts, focus on the deficit and caps on spending. This seems like a really bad time to shrink the size of government, besides essentially putting up the white flag to the barrage of far right criticism (and contradicting what Obama said just a few days ago in Ohio). One wonders in the end if Obama has the resolve to stick to his guns? If we can say nothing else good about Bush, and I’m hard pressed to do so, at least he stubbornly adhered to his political philosophy. I cannot remember the last Democrat to do this. It might very well have been Lyndon Johnson who tirelessly and successfully pushed through almost his entire Great Society initiative. I have no idea what Kerry really stood for, am as confused about Gore in 2000 as he seemed to be, see Clinton as a major sellout (forgetting even the liberal social program side of his triangulation strategy after a couple of years) and could add a long list of other reptilian cowards to the list. With all the DNA testing going on, maybe our only hope is to clone FDR. Anyone have the number for those South Korean scientists?

Limited Liability Personhood

Now that the Supreme Court has further expanded the rights of corporations as individuals, I think it’s time to contemplate the issue from the opposite end. I think people should start incorporating themselves, thus limiting liability for their actions. Why not? Corporations were once given charters to serve the public interest, but that notion was replaced by the idea that profit maximization is in the public interest. While this isn’t implicitly untrue, it obviously often is in practice. So I have decided I want to be limited liability as well.

Thinking economically, my goal will be utility maximization rather than profit maximization, but the two are closely related. To maximize my utility, I need the guarantee of the court that I will not be held personally responsible for my actions. Feel free to sue the shareholders, in this case my parents, friends, community and anyone else you like – I no longer feel that I am personally responsible for my behavior beyond the notion of maximizing my utility. Toward that end, I have decided I will systematically eliminate all of my enemies. Beyond this, I will only follow those laws that serve the interests of my utility. Following the speed limit for example, is just too damn inconvenient. And limits on the money I give to political parties or individuals? That makes little sense to me. I will be giving $1,000,000 to my congressman next week (in a lovely alligator skin briefcase). This is my free speech right and should help with my ongoing problem in securing a liquor license for my apartment and any further impediments to my prostitution ring.

I have also decided that clothes are too large an onus on my finances. I will stop wearing them immediately. And those pot plants in my closet; I think I’ll move those to the back yard of my apartment. Doesn't the choice for what I do with my own property fall under the purview of free speech? Luckily New York City is already full of people that seem to make all their decisions in this manner already. A lot of them work on Wall Street, so maybe I will start spending time at the clubs and five star restaurants they frequent. A few other things I will now do include not waiting in line, refusing to pay taxi drivers I don’t care for, paying all my bills three months in arrears to allow me to earn more interest on my personal accounts, only paying doctors and dentist what I think are reasonable rates for service and kicking out my next door neighbor so I can double the size of my apartment. Let freedom ring!

The Truman Show (1998)

Is Truman Burbank the embodiment of us all? The character, played by Jim Carrey in The Truman Show (1998), won him a Golden Globe for Best Actor and numerous other awards for the film. In it an insurance salesman comes to recognize that his entire life is a lie, a television show he has unknowingly been the star of since birth. Truman entertains millions who watch his life unfold through cameras placed all over the huge globe set created by the director Christof (Ed Harris). The name is of course a reference to Jesus, as he carefully constructed the world in which Truman lives from one day to the next.

Yet the underlying message of the film appears to be a metaphor about media culture itself. Are we not in some ways the same as Truman? How do we decide what we want and need? Where do our dreams come from? Why do we believe marriage is the realization of a happy life? Why do we buy Heineken instead of Bud Light, or vice versa, or craze pizza or a big mac when we are hungry? Why do cigarettes or chocolate entice us like the sirens? Who tells us what is cool and passé? From where does our image of beauty emerge? And what of ugliness? How do we decide what we want to do with our lives? Why do we believe what we do?

Does all this develop from within? Or is it possible that the external world emerges inside of us and helps us refract the very lenses through which we view the world. Is our psyche in some sense colonized by the media/consume culture that surrounds us – rearticulating needs and desires and creating a revaluation of values that does little to bring satisfaction, contentment or that elusive goal of happiness? Or is it the very fount of happiness in a sad, saturnine world? Sure our parents, peers, teachers and communities help us develop into who we are. School, church, neighborhood, country and a whole other series of institutions help us define ourselves and our place in the world. But what of the culture industry? Recent studies have shown that media and technology take up an astounding 7 ½ hours of the lives of youth each day. How can we not pretend that their influence transcends all others? Sure everyone is not the same and all these other influences are important. But where do are parent’s identities emerge from, how about our peers? Media culture has arguably become the key rearing and reproducing institution in society – all the more powerful because many fail to recognize its power.

Ultimately, Truman escapes the ecosystem that defined his life from birth. He bowed to the cheering audience and took the exit sign to freedom, saying you are not in my head. Can we do the same? Can we escape the grasp of media, even if we try? Do we want to? What does it mean to recognize the externalization of all that we presume emanates from within? The truth is that truth itself is constructed just as we are. But as the existentialists argue, recognizing the social construction of reality before most, we are conditioned but not determined. Ultimately we have the power to find our own exit door and forge a different life. How many will make that choice?

Nobody Listens to What They Want

Why do we smile when lost in sadness we lay?
Why do we laugh when tears right the way?
Why do we hate when we’d rather create?
Stay in a circle when we wish to escape?
The sun shines a shadow on our lost today
Tomorrow become the heart led away
Yesterdays gone in regret and despair
Happiness on that rainbow somewhere over there
Why is our heart lost and astray?
Why do we listen when words just betray?
Why not be happy I heard someone say.
Fear it appears, stands in the way.
Who do we whisper to in the heat of the night?
Who made us empty in the darkness absent light?
Why do we leave when we’d much rather stay?
Something awry in this cold world today.

Wish You Were Here

The Supreme Court decision today is a smack in the face to democracy. Coupled with the result Tuesday, the hope the Obama presidency gave us seems to be disappearing in the dust of our collective stupidity. I think it may be that the country does not have the will to do what it needs to do to survive. Instead we are selling off America to the highest bidder -- in this case the corporations who will now run the government by fiat. Who are these people we chose to lead us? Does anyone have the balls to challenge this afront to our freedom? As John Adams sings in 1776: "Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?" and maybe most apropos "How quiet, how quiet the chamber is."

For some reason, the events this week make me think of one of my favorite songs (actually I know why) . . .

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

To finish on a positive note, here is a more hopeful part of the song

The croakers all say we'll rue the day
There'll be hell to pay in fiery purgatory
Through all the gloom, through all the gloom
I see the rays of ravishing light and glory!

Massachusetts Massacre

I haven't heard anyone mention the irony that MA happens to be the first state in the country to dabble in socialized medicine, when Dukakis was the governor in the 80s. This on top of the irony many have mentioned that Kennedy himself was a life-long champion of major healthcare reform. Now a late surge by a conservative candidate (in moderate clothes for the election) could jeopardize the bill only weeks after it looked like a foregone conclusion. Republicans are emboldened and the recriminations among democrats have begun. The most troubling discourse that has emerged, even as there appears to be some truth in it, is among the old New Democrat ilk (aka Clintonites). They argue that Obama has gone too far to the left and we should return to the fiscal responsibility and "liberal" agenda of the Clinton years. Um, sounds great, except we are now in the throes of a financial crisis and Clinton's nod to conservative economics helped put us where we are today. Given the reptilian backdone Democrats have had since the mid-80s, I'm afraid these voices of false moderation may win out and the party move back further to a center that has been moving right for the better part of 30 years. Can Obama find the will to challenge this push? It's hard to believe he will, given his record to date. But you never know. Many Presidents rise to the call that a moment ushers in. Let's hope he choses the more radical course (which is really just a moderate retro-70s disco move away). The real problem, as I've been writing about in this blog intermittently for some time, is the continued resonance of the small government discourse. Someone needs to challenge it, and the only one who seems able at the moment is Obama himself. Let's hope he gets back to those moving speeches that won him the election in the first place.

Lessons for Iran?

I occasionally read Esquire for pleasure, usually while taking care of some daily business. There was an interesting quote from Mohamed ElBaradei (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2005 and Director General, International Atomic Enger Agency) in the January edition: "Iraq has been pulverized. North Korea has been treated with kid gloves. The difference is that North Korea has nuclear weapons -- and this leson does not pass unnoticed."

This short quote explains the current impasses between Iran, the U.S. and Europe. Not only is there concern that Iran fundamentalists might actually use a nuclear weapon against Israel, there is the further concern that they will gain immeasurable power if they succeed in enriching uranium. Being in the belly of the beast, Iran is a much scarier place than North Korea and their strategic location makes the chaos they could reap that much more troubling. The United States knows this, and will do anything they can to stop this from happening. Does that include attacking Iran? I doubt it, though the Bushies certainly wanted to. But it does indicate the ongoing imbroglio and why concerns of nuclear weapons in the middle east far outstrip concerns for Israel alone. Troubling stuff . . .

Still Dominating the Debate II

The Post continues its discussion of the Obama presidency today, with E. J. Dionne offering his analysis of the current Conservative backlash and its success: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/17/AR2010011701934_pf.html. He makes the obvious point that the best way to confront conservative orthodoxy is by discrediting it and offering an alternative narrative. Obama was somewhat successful at this, though one could argue that really he just ran as not Bush and on a rather nebulous notion of “hope.” For that hope to be instantiated in the real, it will take a cogent, persuasive vision of where that hope should lead us.

As Dionne argues, “It's also striking that most conservatives, through a method that might be called the audacity of audacity, have acted as if absolutely nothing went wrong with their economic theories. They speak and act as if they had nothing to do with the large deficits they now bemoan and say we will all be saved if only we return to the very policies that should already be discredited.” I think the point is Democrats must continue the dialogue that Obama initiated during his inaugural speech. It is not if government is good or bad, but when it is necessary for it to intervene. Conservatives win American minds and hearts with simplistic, ahistorical messages that prove empty and disingenuous under the glare of real scrutiny. Yet the media does little to shine that light upon that discourse.

So it is the dual job of Democrats to both successfully challenge Republican lies and outdated economic theories with arguments not so wonky or complicated that the average American can’t understand them and to offer an alternative to the current order of things. If one really thinks about it, the last one to do so was Gore, in the last month or so of the 200 election, when he was arguably pushed toward populism by the insurgent run of Nader. Obama has also provided the frame of an ambitious new direction, but it needs more details to be truly compelling to the general public. What vision does the Democratic party have for America? What vision do they have for the role of government in the economy, healthcare and the environment? How are their policies going to help the economy recover and grow in the future? What is their vision for improving the quality of life for the average American?

Because conservatives have a clear (though obviously in my mind flawed) vision of what America should look like, well-developed frames and discourse to spread and reinforce that message, as well as outlets to galvanize their base into action, they tend to dominate the debate. Democrats need to find a vision they can embrace themselves so that they can escape the tendency to react rather than proactively act and thus always be on the defensive. It’s extraordinary that this situation continues as they control Congress and the Presidency. On MLKs birthday, it seems apropos to remember that being right is not enough – one must have the power to persuade others of what is right as well.

Still Dominating the Debate

Obama won a sizable election a little over a year ago. He came into office with high popularity ratings and a desire by the country for change. And yet one year later, the tired old discourse on small government continues to dominate American politics (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011602950_pf.html). The obstructionist party has been very effective at blocking major parts of Obama’s agenda, while the media continues to buy the rather absurd story that Obama is too partisan. He makes concessions and gets not one GOP vote. How could Obama be more conciliatory? Just accept the Republican position that we need small government, no new programs and no new regulation? Further privatize the economy? What exactly should he be doing to try to deal with the continuing financial crisis, a broken healthcare system that is draining resources from families and the economy and serious questions about the future competitiveness of America in the globe?

The Reagan revolution is still alive and well in the country, even as unemployment levels remain high, people lose their homes and the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. Pride in ignorance has always been a part of American life, but the ahistorical nature of this position is hard to fathom given what is currently going on. As I have said so often, I believe the media has a lot to do with this by abrogating their responsibility as the fourth estate and failing to report facts that could alter the debate. Instead people somehow believe corporations and the “free” market can solve our problems better than the government. It seems there is still an undercurrent of populism in the country, but too much of it is anti-government rather than anti- those who caused the crisis in the first place (by pushing for the very deregulation at the heart of the problem). Is there a way to change American beliefs as the great depression did; leading to a long period of sustained growth where everyone was made better off. Do things have to get worse to get better, as Lenin once argued? Or like so many empires before, will we simply allow ourselves to fall as a country through inaction and the greed and intellectual laziness of those in power? I think if the democrats pull out the senatorial race in Massachusetts on Tuesday, they should simply push through their agenda and hope that positive results occur before 2012.

Sometimes the only way change can occur is through the force of will of an individual or small group that go against the tide of popular opinion and live by their ideals rather than polling numbers (Margaret Meade anyone). FDR was that leader, as was Martin Luther King and so many other great personalities throughout history. It is time for the president to take a stand for the country, even if it means risking his political future. Let’s hope he can find that resolve.

On a Magic Ghetto Bus Ride . . .

What do you get for someone who has everything? A private jet, a limited edition Porsche, maybe a small island in the South Pacific? Well for those of us with a more modest budget, how about a trip through the heartland of LA gang activity (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/us/16tour.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print)? For $65 (which includes lunch), ex-gang member Alfred Lomas will lead you through the center of gang activity in the country today, replete with graffiti lessons, a drive by of LA’s biggest jail (“the unofficial home of 20,000 gang members”), four or five gang members on the bus in case you don’t see any “natives” on Saturday morning, and visits to famous sites like Watts. He and backer Kevin Malone (former GM of the Dodgers) did decide against their original plan to have residents shoot water guns at the bus and sell “I got shot in South Central” T-Shirts – but maybe you can still talk one of the locals into shooting you for a few bucks. In fact, the package includes a requisite release form warning of the danger of the tour and the possibility of death.

But is death that big a price to pay to observe these American icons in their native habitat? To be fair, Lomas says he is trying to educate people about gangs and will use the money for microloans to get gang members working. The question is whether exoticizing kids and adults who often turn to gangs to protect themselves and find family in poverty striken inner cities really helps them improve their circumstance. Of course maybe, given our economic prospects, some will take the tour to come up with their own plans to start their own gangs to compete for shrinking economic resources. Wall Street might be a better starting point though.

Foreclosures, Bonuses and the STREET Goes On

A number of articles today bring together an underlying theme of this blog. The first is from USA Today, detailing an unexpected rise in foreclosures for the first time since July (a presumed peak): www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-01-13-foreclosures-rise-in-december_N.htm. Just to give perspective, that is 349,519 families that lost their homes last month. Another 2.4 million are expected to happen in 2010. In 2009, the total was 2.8 million homes, the year before 2.3 million and around 1 million in 2007. These numbers are staggering when put together, but there is, of course good news as well.

Things are coming up roses for banking, which some have erroneously blamed for the financial crisis (read sarcasm here). As reported in the Wall Street Journal today: “An analysis by The Wall Street Journal shows that executives, traders, investment bankers, money managers and others at 38 top financial companies can expect to earn nearly 18% more than they did in 2008—and slightly more than in the record year of 2007.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704281204575003351773983136.html#mod=todays_us_page_one). That makes sense, right?

To bring the two articles together, is an oped by Nobel Lauriat Paul Krugman regarding the current Congressional hearings regarding reregulation of the financial sector (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hp). Krugman makes the very valid point that it is absurd to talk to Wall Street about fixing Wall Street, when they are so blind to the truth and so inured to the idea of profits over people and the common good. Historically, as I have mentioned many times before, the average person does better when markets are regulated. Wall Street does better when it is not. Yet the marginal return to regulation is better for everyone, given the pain almost all of us feel during financial crises like the Great Depression, 70s stagflation, the 87 crash and the current financial crisis. We need to remind politicians and Wall Street that the country is not built on the elite interests alone and that we need to rebuild a fair and just American economy before we are all forced to fold our cards and start the slow descent into third world country status. It is time for the people to stop listening to foolish talking heads regurgitating old Reaganomic lies and start listening to economists who know what they are talking about. Governments might be bad and dangerous sometimes, but they are necessary if we are to escape this mess.

The Party that Loves to Hate

So as Haitians are literally dying in the streets (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/americas/14haiti.html?th&emc=th), you assume all would rally to support them in their time of need. Of course, that would be a mistake. Not Rush Limbaugh et al, who are actually criticizing Obama for responding so quickly to the tragedy: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/13/824726/-Monster. You got that right – he responded too quickly, showing he cares more about Black Haitians than Americans who were unhurt by a failed terrorist attack. But this is mere trifling compared to the words of radical preacher Pat Robertson on the 700 Club yesterday:

"[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'Okay it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle on the one side is Haiti, on the other is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come."

Who is the real devil here? The good news is the GOP sets the bar pretty low and thus the new governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell invited Robertson to attend his swearing in. The hypocrisy of the grand ole party would be funny . . . if it wasn’t destroying the country.

Lobbying and Democracy II

An interesting article in the National Journal yesterday (http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php) highlights the fact that six of the biggest health care insurers were spending between $10 and $20 million last summer, through the Better Business Bureau, to air ads that argued against the very legislation they were supposedly working on with Obama and Congress. There is, of course, nothing implictly wrong with this -- in fact, Madison argued for the power of factions to battle each other and thus balance out power. Yet one has to wonder what faction is challenging the power these large corporations have to dominate the form and framing of the debate. This spending did seem to reap benefits for the private healthcare industry, by turning the public against the public option and reform in general based on a series of half-truths and lies.

"The ads sharply criticized the high costs of the separate bills, especially the House version. The commercials warned the legislation would raise taxes for Americans and hurt the economy as it tries to recover from the recession. And some chamber-financed commercials attacked setting up a government run plan to compete with private insurers -- a special sore point for the insurance industry -- which is part of the House measure. The U.S. Chamber has spent approximately $70 million to $100 million on the advertising effort, according to lobbying sources. It's unclear whether the business lobby group went to AHIP with a request to help raise funds for its ad drives, or whether AHIP approached the chamber with an offer to hit up its member companies."

Lobbying and Democracy

Some facts from Harper's Index this month:

# of registered drug-company lobbyists in DC for every member of Congress: 2
Average amount spent on Congressional lobyying, per day, by healthcare cos.: $1,500,000
Average amount the U.S. government spends on each child during first 18-years: $140,000

Is there something wrong with these numbers? As with the banks, companies are paying extraordinary amounts of money so they can drain more money out of your pockets. Of course they are scared of the government -- they have the power to make healthcare a public good, like it is in the rest of the world. The definition of a public good is one that is not owned privately, mainly because the social benefits and externalities are so great it is not well served by normal market function. Huh, might healthcare fit that definition? Could there be both individual, family and larger social good from a healthier population with more money to spend on other goods? Um . . .

GOP: “Jump!” --> Media: “How High?”

Item 1: The mainstream media in America has grown increasingly absurd in their obsequious acquiescence to any subject Republicans claim as important. The latest were the comments by Senator Majority leader Harry Reid in 2008. At the time, as I’m sure you heard, he spoke about Obama’s light skin and lack of “Negro dialect” as factors that could help him win the Presidency. Oh my God! He should quit! How could he say these abominable things! This is even worse than when Trent Lott said we would have been a lot better off if a staunch racist and segregationist had become president. Huh, now wait a minute . . . is this a good analogy? I think the GOP might be on the road to failing the standardized tests they love so much. Reid makes a Real Politik comment in support of a Black candidate for President, that probably holds some truth. Lott says the country would be better off with a racist. Me thinketh the lady doth protest out of her asseth: www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/01/10/reid_gaffe?source=newsletter.

Item 2: Last week ex-presidential and New York Gubernatorial candidate Rudy Giuliani goes on CNN and spews a line of bullshit that is hard to believe, arguing that there were no terrorist attacks under Bush, but one under Obama (www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/08/us/politics/AP-US-Terrorism-Giuliani.html). Is he that stupid? Is the media? Well, no one challenged him as he forgot the moment that made him a national superstar or the shoe bomber’s failed attempt, that huh, sounds pretty similar to the we’re talking about now. How daft is the media today? Do they even listen to what their guests are screaming at each other? Do they care? Here is what Host George Stephanopoulos said: ''All of you who have pointed out that I should have pressed him on that misstatement in the moment are right,'' he wrote on his blog. ''My mistake, my responsibility.'' I think maybe it’s time to bring back the “Stop the Insanity” loon Susan Powter, though her insanity should be fully focused on the most inept set of pundits and reporters in history. These clan makes Judith Miller seem like Edward R. Murrow.

Bud Lite Blows

Or at least one wonders if the bottle does, given their latest commercial. In it a young woman is asking her date/boyfriend about who he would save if she and another were going to fall off a cliff. He, of course, chooses her over the dog “buster” (in a riveting supporting role), and his mother, but not, alas, over a bottle of bud light. Now forgoing for a moment the reality that bud light, um, sucks, is why he wouldn’t save his girlfriend and then just buy a new beer. I hate to get too literal, but this level of silliness appears over and over again in beverage commercials.

I remember an old Heineken commercial where a man told a woman he loved her, just so he could have another drink from the beer the girl was blocking with her body. And there is the infamous Dr. Pepper ad where the guy chooses a Dr. Pepper over some other girl, with the Meatloaf ballad “I’d do anything for love.” The important lyrics here is “but I won’t do that,” which is share his soda. While these ads are funny at some base level, I have to wonder if the advertising execs repeating this theme over and over again are the biggest a-holes in the world or repeating these messages over and over again does get people to believe that beer and soda are more important than sex, love, family and friendship (more generally commodities are more important than people)?

Art as Propaganda

Mark Laita is a New York/Los Angeles artist who has just released a new book, "Created Equal." In the book he juxtaposes images of ordinary and famous people based on his journey across the 48 contiguous states over a 7 year period. He explains: "‘I photograph what I love about my country, which is the American. By that I mean the individual who is shaped from more than 200 years of liberty and independence missed with all the successes and failures that America has experienced in its short life. So here is a collection of these creatures. Tragic and wonderful, great and ordinary, they stand proud and ready for scrutiny.’” (http://www.faheykleingallery.com/photographers/laita/press/created_equal_new_work/laita_pr_cenw_frames.htm).  Look here for the images: http://flavorwire.com/gallery/12-30-09/index.html. He further explained in the original 2006 exhibit, "At the heart of this collection of portraits is my desire to remind us that we are all equal, until our environment, circumstances or fate molds us and weathers us into whom we become. America’s extremes seem to be getting more severe. The chasm between the rich and poor continues to grow; the clash between conservatives and liberals is stronger than ever; even good and evil seem more polarized. Created Equal attempts to remind us that we are all connected, no matter how separate our paths may be.” While I think the pictures are interesting and provocative, I am troubled by the racial dynamics of many, the underlying ideology he seems to be invoking and what appears to be a mocking portrayal of the ordinary and (extra)ordinary. Do we really need art right now that seems blatantly racist, tacitly sexist and celebrates the "American dream"? All art is implicitly valid in whatever it is attempting to do, but I find this trite and trivial and silly in its rather naive invocation of equality (while more interesting in exploring the increased polarity of American society).  

The Lunatic Fringe Goes Mainstream

Just whenI thought the tea baggers and Sarah Palin were the far right of the party, I learned crackpot ideas are back in the mainstream of the party (just kidding, they have always been there). Some examples . . .

Allen Quist, a Republican candidate seeking the nomination to go up against Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN), has made a serious pronouncement: That the political battle against the Democrats is the defining fight of this generation, even greater than the fight against terrorism: "I, like you, have seen that our country is being destroyed. I mean, this is -- every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom. This is our fight. And this is our time. This is it. Terrorism, yes -- but that's not the big battle. The big battle is in D.C., with the radicals. They aren't liberals, they're radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz -- they're not liberals, they're radicals. They are destroying our country. And people all over are figuring that out."

A Republican candidate for governor in Idaho, who once joked about hunting President Obama, is calling for God to save the U.S. Constitution: "To think that we can save the Constitution without God's help when the government of the United States is corrupt is absurdity," he said. "We are in America's second Revolutionary War to save our freedom, which we paid for with blood. We need God's help and I'm not ashamed to ask for it."

And this from NPR: "Well, it's always politically difficult for Democrats when they are dealing with an issue like terrorism. It remained the Republican's only winning issue through most of President Bush's second term, and it's a particular problem for a Democrat who hasn't served in the military. But the policy problem is that it takes up a great deal of the administration's time, and will from here on out - particularly when the Senate Intelligence Committee starts hearings in a couple of weeks."

Another lunatic right winger, right? No this was long-time pundit Cokie Roberts. Just to refresh my memory, did Bush actually "serve" in the military, or escape doing his service in Vietnam and rarely even showed up for duty? And Cheney et al were war heroes too, right? Oh wait, that is another fiction somehow escaping the mainstream media. It was Kerry who was the coward and liar in the end. That's right. Whew, thank God we resolved that confusion.

The Party of No: Part II

There is a good article in the Washington Post today, detailing the quandary of California and how it may foreshadow a continuation and amplification of the nation’s financial crisis: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123103487_pf.html. As author Klein argues, underlying the financial problems is a profound political problem, the unwillingness of Republicans to collect necessary taxes to provide the social services the state needs. California has a unique problem in that the passage of Prop 13 in the 70s limits the ability of the state to raise property taxes, the major source of income in many states (along with sales taxes). This is underlined by a Republican party that believes we need tax cuts when times are good and tax cuts when times are bad. Klein thus poses the question, "What happens when one of the two major parties does not see a political upside in solving problems and has the power to keep those problems from being solved?" The party of no has succeeded as never before at backing their political and economic ideology under the guise of the financial crisis. Funding for schools, roads, social services, universities, healthcare, retirement, policing and all those services that fall under the rubric of “quality of life” are being cut as states teeter on the edge of bankruptcy and financial ruin.

Too many Americans continue to believe the Reagan line that government is not the solution, but the problem. They believe that markets and individuals are better able to solve our social problems. But as Herbert Hoover all but proved in the late 20s and early 30s, counting on the kindness of corporate and non-profit strangers to serve the needs of the larger society does not always (or even generally) work. The profound crisis facing America requires the government to intervene in areas like economic regulation, healthcare, support for American manufacturing (see the article in Harper’s: www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/0082768), economic stimulation and support for those suffering through the crisis and a host of other problems that have only grown in the past few years. Republicans continue to claim that government can’t do anything and that it will only exacerbate the problem and destroy America. But what’s really destroying America? And can we really count on those doing the damage to suddenly reform themselves and change? Ultimately the question is whether obstructionism (a strategy first used very effectively by Newt in the 90s) is good for much more than winning elections (if even that anymore)? If I could place a bet, it would certainly be on the short side.

Top Ten Films of 2009

Here is my list of the best films I have seen this year. I have missed some critically acclaimed films (including Hurt Locker, Capitalism: A Love Story, An Education, Crazy Heart, Precious and Departures, among a host of others) and base this analysis on not only on artistic quality but the entertainment value of the work. So here it is . . .

1) The Soloist: A beautifully rendered story of how a friendship between a writer and a homeless musician helps both to grow. Robert Downey Jr. is exemplary and Jamie Fox continues to impress with the range of his acting skills.

2) The Invention of Lying: This film received little press or attention and was attacked vociferously by conservatives for its damning indictment of religion. The film does suffer from lack of imagination at times, envisions a dystopian world not fully explainable within the contours of the plot and ends on a formulaic note. But I believe Ricky Gervais again shine and along with Ghost Town (2008) has shown his ability to translate his skills to the big screen.

3) Inglourius Basterds: Quentin Tarantino continues to display his talent at writing gripping dialogue and creating scenes that capture the drama and nuances of human interaction. This is a Jewish wet dream that succeeds at all levels, even with Tarantino’s continuing penchant for excessive, gory violence.

4) Men Who Stare at Goats: George Clooney has had a busy year and this overlooked film by director Grant Heslov is a wonderfully sardonic satire on the military and new age absurdity. The movie is quirky and sometimes goes overboard, but has some of the funniest moments of the year and an underlying message that we should more seriously heed.

5) Watchmen: This adaption of what many consider one of the greatest graphic novels of all times (by Alan Moore) is inventive, visually stunning and provides a powerful critique of American hegemony within a sometimes convoluted plot. Definitely worth a view, even with a cheesy love story and some excessively graphic violence.

6) Drag Me to Hell: Raimi shines here in his usual mixture of gore and humor, here backed by wonderful work from the perky Alison Lohman and truly terrifying Lorna Raver (as Mrs. Ganash). The nod to the ethical conundrums of corporate America and corrupt world of commercial banking serve as a clever backdrop to a highly entertaining movie.

7) Sin Nombre: This extraordinary debut by Cary Fukunaga captures the perilous journey so many make to cross the border, intermingling human devastation and struggle with a beautifully rendered backdrop seen from atop a train traveling North toward freedom and escape.

8) A Serious Man: The latest from the Coen Brothers is a relatively muted morality tale of the struggles of a Jewish professor challenged by a series of ethical quandaries that threaten to tear his life apart. Michael Stuhlbarg does a wonderful turn as a modern-day Job, trying to do the right thing as a student attempts to bribe him, his wife starts sleeping with his best friend and the whole of his life unravels before him.

9) Avatar: Though at times cheesy in a relatively predictable and formulaic script, the film is a visual spectacle that moves the field of cinema forward (see below for full review).

10) 500 Days of Summer: This quirky romantic comedy succeeds even with clear shortcomings and failures. The indie characters are a bit too comfortable, a bit too materialistic and a bit too much like those hipsters that only play at bohemia. Yet the asynchronous narrative, the charming work of Zooey Deschanel and the nod to nerds like me that love obscure (and popular) cultural references, make it a satisfying venture.

The Party of No

Republicans have shown an adroit tendency to enact the material instantiation of postmodern ideas in the past decade. First was the recount of 2000, where they used revisionist and deconstruction discourses to disable democracy, callously arguing that a recount would undermine the will of the people and that machines were clearly superior to humans. They reinvented their own history (including that of Bush himself) to now claim that recounts were somehow unconstitutional and for maybe the first time in their history became strong anti-federalists (or federalists in the parlance of the constitutional convention), arguing that the Supreme Court should trump state power, leading to one of the most partisan and absurd decisions in recent jurisprudence (lest us forget Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scot decision). Since then they have enacted a series of language games that have been very effective in winning popular support for their deleterious policies including changing the inheritance tax to the “death tax,” advocating a “war to protect the peace,” rearticulating that war when no WMDs were found as the exportation of liberal democracy, speaking of 911 and Hussein together so often most Americans came to believe Saddam himself planned the attacks, claiming global warming as a plot by liberals to destroy capitalism (based on scientists who are almost invariably funded by oil companies) and an endless list of other examples.

This tendency has continued with the recent debates on healthcare, including absurdist complaints about the government advising people to die and blindness to the long-term effects of taking no action. Cheney et al have rewritten the history of the “war on terror” (http://rawstory.com/2009/12/massa-cheney-has-political-tourette) and have even convinced some that the current financial crisis is either Clinton, or more humorously, Obama’s fault. The most interesting aspect of their new strategy might be a nod to Adorno’s idea of the negative dialectic or Derrida’s perpetual critique. The Republican Party argues against everything Obama attempts to do, demands modifications to all major bills, and then still votes in unison against them. And interesting article by Fortune columnist and famed Reaganite Bruce Bartlett calls them out of this position of imminent critique: http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/30/republican-voting-politics-government-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html. He argues that current Republican obstructionism to the estate tax reauthorization is yet another example of negation as strategy.

The Republicans believe they can regain power simply by following the lead of the lunatic fringe and pundits like Limbaugh and Beck, becoming the obstructionist party of negation alone. The problem is the media irresponsibly reports their attacks without adequate accountability to the line between what they say and what they do and this strategy could succeed. The blurring line between fact and fiction is where the party resides today, in the desert of the real. Yet can we govern from this position? What will be done about the continuing financial crises, the rising costs of healthcare, the worsening position of too many Americans, the growing disparity between rich and poor, the looming environmental catastrophe, the continued irresponsible behavior of corporate and financial leaders and the declining economic prospects of America in the world? The market remains the answer to too many of these Reagan acolytes. And yet it is the same market that has caused all of the problems enumerated above. Negation alone cannot make the world a better place, particularly when that negation is only of change. You can never enter the same river twice, but Republicans seem to think they can damn that river and then reverse its course, returning us to a utopian past as fictional as their revisionist history. They claim the superiority of their position based on being realistic and pragmatic. But how pragmatic is existing in language games? If we continue to follow their lead, we end up in a literal desert of the real – America slowly marching toward its ultimate demise (with the whole planet to follow at some future date). Let us hope that a more authentic realism, intermingled with a healthy dose of idealism, stands in their way.

Movie Review: Up in the Air (2009)

Up in the Air is receiving rave reviews. George Clooney is winning renewed accolades as the cynical corporate traveler Ryan Bingham, Vera Famiga is up for a number of awards and director Jason Reitman, of Juno (2007) and Thank You for Smoking (2005) fame, has another quirky hit to add to his resume. The film has been nominated for six Golden Globes, won the Austin Film Critics award and Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards for Best Screenplay, National Board of Review awards for Best Film, Best Actor, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor and Clooney garnered the coveted New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor, among a host of other nominations and awards. Critics love the film and it already has created serious Academy Award buzz. But is the film worthy of this collective encomium?

I would say no. It is a relatively successful send-up of corporate America today, the alienation and emptiness of contemporary society, the heartlessness of technology gone wild and the true human costs of layoffs and corporate downsizing. Yet it does so from too safe a distance and with a muted humor and cynical ending that seems to undermine the ideological force of the whole film. It has a number of funny moments, intermingled with a lot of corny jokes and a saccharine love story that is too intent on reinforcing the theme of the dehumanizing effects of corporate profit-seeking to really inspire my interest. The people laid off in the film, with a few exceptions, are real people who have recently lost their jobs and who were recruited through the classifieds and told to treat the camera like those who just fired them. This leads to some compelling and funny moments, but in other cases the heaviness of these moments seems ill-advised given the failure of any of the main characters to actually change in any meaningful way. When we learn that one woman who threatens killing herself in fact does so, the heartless boss Craig Gregory (Jason Bateman) is more worried about the legal ramifications than the dead women. Bateman does do a wonderful job as a detached boss, intent on embodying the worst excesses or corporate America today. These moments do deconstruct how the corporation has dehumanized us and led the whole of society to lose its way, but for me the film suffers from a dullness that undermines the otherwise effective morale.

In fact the plot, based on the novel by Walter Kim, seems to revolve more around the dehumanizing nature of firing by technology in comparison to the personal touch of sending someone like corporate downsizer and empty shell Bingham to do the job. The approach is based on leading these workers to see their termination as the opportunity to lead better lives (in case we miss the point, the discussions between Bingham and the other workers at makes it clear that their services are about limiting backlash to the companies doing the firing). Bingham travels 290 days doing this job, living in hotels and eschewing any meaningful personal relationships. His apartment is without any personality, he is alienated from his family (until he saves his sister’s wedding) and his only relationships appear to be the superficial ones that one has with a bartender, co-worker or one-night stand. That is until he meets Alex Goran (Vera Famiga) who he quickly develops feelings for. She seems to be pushing him toward something more meaningful, just as his livelihood is jeopardized by newcomer Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), fresh out of the Ivy League and in some ways even more heartless than Bingham.

The two go out on the road so he can teach her the ropes of firing others effectively and to challenge her not to implement the telecommunication technology she wants to use to replace Clooney and the other company agents. Along the way, she pushes Clooney to contemplate how meaningless his life is – including the rather heavy-handed “What’s in Your Backpack” lectures he occasionally gives to convince others to eliminate “meaningless” personal relationships from their lives. As the story unfolds, Natalie and Ryan, of course, grow as human beings, though both suffer losses and heartbreak along the way (I don’t want to give away too much). In the end, the question is how much have they really grown? Particularly for Bingham, has he really found a way to reconnect with the world and find meaning in his life? Many will assume that he has and that the film is funnier and more meaningful than I found it. I found Clooney substantially more compelling in Michael Clayton (2007), and have rarely found Famiga to be much more than a pretty, saturnine actress with little personality or charm. Anna Kendrick certainly shines and Bateman does a wonderful reprise of his Michael Bluth character from “Arrested Development,” though here without a pesky heart to stand in the way of his affectless humor.

It seems at some level as if Reitman lost his will in the end, and decided to find some humanity in this inhumane world, though without the happy ending the audience is rooting for. In his desire to avoid the formulaic we are left cold, not only from the unsatisfying denouement, but from actors who, for all their accolades, seem to give performances that are too muted, too uninspired, too, well, alienating in their individual alienation. Clooney has developed the power to carry a film on his charm and charisma alone, but here it fails as he attempts to crawl into the body of his converse – a man who protects himself from the world by literally flying above us at a safe altitude. Just like his dank, sterile apartment, the film suffers from too dour a view of humanity. You might find it as some surprise that I would still recommend the film, but I do. It is worth a viewing for the underlying message and to watch huge ambition confront the challenges of serious critique within the Hollywood formula. But it is, in many ways, a lovely failure to observe. (B+)