Movie Review: Public Enemies

Folks, I'm as straight as they come. I absolutely adore my gay friends and neighbors. I just don't swing that way. Nonetheless, that Johnny Depp has got something going on. Aside from being an enormously talented actor, the man has got to be the single-most welcome individual at any university sorority house. (Just ask Maty, she'll tell you...) So, sure, go ahead and put me down as a Johnny Depp fan.

And I'm a sucker for a gangster flick, too. Whatever mutated virus resides at the base of American nerve cells, causing us to be fascinated with movies about organized crime and unsavory sociopathic criminal personalities, I've got it.

So, I was chomping at the bit to see Michael Mann's latest effort, Public Enemies. Maty and I went on Sunday.

The film depicts the last days of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), a Depression-era bank-robber who, according to director/writer Mann, was basically a good-hearted tough guy, just trying to make a more or less honest living by sticking it to "the man." The film follows Dillinger as he goes from bank to bank, hiding amid a public that admires him, living according to his ethos, and falling in love with coat-check girl Billie Frechett (played by Marion Cotillard). Pitted against him is Special Agent Melvin Purvis (played by Christian Bale), the FBI's rising star.

I found the camera work in the flick to be quite good. Dante Spinotti, the cinematographer, did an excellent job of capturing the light in each scene in such a way that it sets the mood, presages what is to come. For example, at the race track, as Dillinger and Billie are contemplating their prospects as lovers, a golden glow permeates the scene and viewers sense that the moment they are witnessing is probably the pinnacle of the two lovers' happiness; it can only get worse from here.

The acting was solid but not spectacular. I was particularly disappointed with the scene that came midway through, wherein Dillinger and Purvis meet. One had the feeling that both actors were willing to have a good run at it, but that director Mann, for some reason, failed to recognize the potential and held them in check. I had not seen Marion Cotillard before and I very much enjoyed her performance. And, besides Johnny Depp, who could breath life into any role, Stephen Graham turned in a good performance as Baby Face Nelson.

All in all, the movie didn't quite deliver on my expectations. I'm willing to allow some artistic license in defining the main character who, rather than a fair-minded hero of the people, was probably more likely just a murderous thug. But I really felt that the movie strayed a little too far into the realm of nostalgia. The Depression wasn't really such a great time, you know? There was desperation. There was hardship. Mann doesn't really touch on that.

But the biggest failing of the film, I think, is that it lacks a theme. It poses no questions for viewers to consider; Mann almost seems determined to avoid anything that might be construed as a challenge to his audience. None of the characters grew or changed. It was as if Mann created a set and then set them loose in it, to stumble about predictably like so many wind-up dolls.

I didn't leave the theater thinking about the flick. By the time the credits started rolling my mind was already on the drive home.

Don't get me wrong. There are worse ways to spend an afternoon than to watch Public Enemies. But as far as gangster flicks go, this ain't no Godfather, no Good Fellas, no Sopranos Season 5.

Adequate. That's how I describe it. This film is adequate.

Sarah Palin gets the word: Hit the road, honey!

Headin' back to Wasilla

Sarah Palin announced on Friday, July 3, 2009 that she would resign as Governor of Alaska effective later this month. Despite her rambling, enigmatic statement, it is unclear why she's doing it. She did make mention of growing weary of the persistent ethics complaints filed against her in the state of Alaska. (Well, jeez, Sarah... maybe you could clean up your act!)

She made the announcement on the Friday before the July 4 weekend. That, of course, was calculated to minimize the splash in the media. Coming on the heels of the death of Michael Jackson and on a Friday when many Americans are heading for the beach or the mountains, her announcement will be old news by Monday morning, when everyone gets back into their routines.

But the resignation is puzzling. Sarah Palin continues to be a compelling figure to the religious zealots, the plebs of the Republican party. She has continued to maintain a presence in national political circles, making speeches, pulling publicity stunts. So why the apparent sudden change of heart?

Here's what I think.

Somebody high up in the Republican party gave her the word: Hit the road, honey.

Despite the enthusiastic support Ms. Palin enjoys from the "base" of the party, some (so far unidentified) mucky-mucks in the Republican party wanted her gone. Consider: beyond the GOP base, Sarah Palin is loathed, even by some within the Republican party. Earlier this week, Vanity Fair published an article about Ms. Palin, quoting anonymous sources in the McCain/Palin presidential campaign, who said that she was a diva, undisciplined, hard to manage, hard to get along with.

My speculation is that Republican kingmakers were uncomfortable with the adulation Sarah Palin was getting. And as other potential Republican candidates for the 2012 race imploded (Mark Sanford, with his public midlife crisis, Rick Perry, with his acid flashback to 1861, John Ensign, with his pathetic confessions of adultery) these kingmakers began to fear that Sarah Palin might be the only candidate left standing by the time the nominating process started. Nightmare visions of a landslide defeat began to haunt their dreams.

The Republican party is in enough trouble, already. To nominate an intellectual lightweight, a laughably unqualified Alaskan rube, and then to have her obliterated in the general election might well be the final nail in the coffin.

So, some group of somebodies got together and made a decision. "We've got to rid ourselves of this woman." Somewhere along the line somebody flew up to Anchorage, got Sarah (and probably Todd, Sarah's "first dude") in a room, and there was a conversation. I imagine it went something like this:

GOP operative: Nice run, kid. But it's over. It's not your time.

Sarah: Huh?

GOP operative: Don't you want to spend more time with your family? Your son, Trig, for example. He needs you.

Sarah: What are you talking about? I'm Sarah Barracuda. People love me.

GOP operative: Sarah, the best time to exit the stage is when the audience is howling for more.

Sarah: But I'm a contender for the Republican nomination.

GOP operative: Sarah, let me put it to you this way. You're not rich, are you?

Sarah: No way.

GOP operative: You can't really afford heavy legal bills defending yourself against ethics complaints, can you?

Sarah: Uh...

Todd, the first dude: You've made your point. What's in it for us?

GOP operative: If Sarah weren't constrained by her duties as Alaska's governor, she could probably make a lot of money on the lecture circuit, with television appearances, think tanks. Potentially, millions of dollars. In fact, I probably know some people I could put you in touch with...

Sarah: What do you think, Todd?

Todd, the first dude: Life was a lot simpler when all I had to worry about was training my dogs for the Iditarod.

Sarah: I'll make a statement on Friday.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part. Some are saying that the resignation is a preparatory step for a run for the White House. That seems pretty far-fetched to me. And dig this little whine that Sarah included in her rambling statement: “You are naive if you don’t see a full-court press from the national level picking away a good point guard.”

That ices it for me. She was forced out from within the Republican party. Sarah, your down-home treachery and back-stabbing worked fine in backwoods Alaska. But when you accepted John McCain's offer and joined the ticket, you entered the Big Leagues. To continue with the basketball analogy: you went from college intramural straight to the NBA. You drove to the hoop, you put it up, and the ball got swatted right back into your face. Better for you to just hang outside the 3-point line and hope they forget about you.

Good riddance!

Avignon (Pt. XVII)

Note to readers: This is the seventeenth part of a recounting of my Grand European Tour, taken in the fall of 1999. You can read Part XVI here.

Uncharacteristic forethought caused me to book a room in Avignon from a telephone in Geneva. Nearly three months on the rails now, I had become weary of the frantic scramble to find accommodations after a long train ride. Plan ahead then, Dade.

Said accommodations consisted of a bunk bed in a rundown racquetball club just outside the old city of Avignon. The communal shower was a tad mildewy. Breakfast not included. Four US dollars per night.

Avignon. The old city exists within an ancient wall built by the Catholics. Originally a Celtic fort, eventually seized by the Romans as they pushed north and west across Gaul. Over the centuries Avignon was subjugated by Goths, Ostrogoths, Saracens, and Franks. In time she came under le Roi de France.

Palais de Papes

In 1305, Pope Clement V became the first non-Italian pope in the history of the Church. Like a good Frenchman, Clement moved the Papacy to Avignon. (Things were not so nice in Rome at that time, with plutocrats wielding private armies, engaging in turf wars. That was Clement's excuse.) The move did not sit well with Italian cardinals. A schism ensued. Catholic politics are a dense and tangled jungle. By comparison, the Amazon Basin is a well-tended garden.

The move instigated construction of the Palais du Papes: home for seven popes, from 1305 to 1378. Every one of them a Frenchman to the bone. Pope Innocent VI, my personal favorite, had a reputation for enjoying life's pleasures: food, drink, music. Very un-pope-like. During the Black Death, Innocent protected the local Jewish population from superstitious Catholics looking for scapegoats. Very pope-like. Nice guy, that Innocent.

Today, le Palais is a museum, with much religiously inspired art.

Peter, Mary, Baby Jesus

Wandering around outside the walls of the Old City, I came upon a gathering of elderly gentlemen playing bocce ball. I stopped to watch. When they noticed me they stepped up their game. I egged them on, loudly, enthusiastically, cheering for each pitch, carom, roll. Smiles and good-natured jokes were my reward. But in French; so I just smiled and nodded.

That afternoon, I met two American women at the racquetball club. Their names lost to the ages, I'm afraid. We walked into the Old City and found a sidewalk cafe. The evening was warm and gentle. We ate pasta and beef and cheese and drank wine. We talked politics, all staunch liberals. We were none-too-enthused about Gore, but would vote for him anyway.

One of them gave air to a puzzling phenomenon I had started to notice in my travels. Months of traveling, observing high art, ancient, incredible architecture, leads to a certain enervation. Believe it or not. "Oh, another cathedral. Oh, another masterpiece watercolor." That was how she put it. I disliked that I found it to be true.

They were sleeping in the two bunk beds next to mine. I was up early the next morning. I gently tapped one of the two on the shoulder after I had showered and packed my gear. "I'm off," I said. "Good luck." She smiled and nodded and closed her eyes.

I caught the train south to Arles.

To be continued...

• Pt. I Amsterdam - Arnhem - Copenhagen
• Pt. II Copenhagen - Oslo
• Pt. III Bergen
• Pt. IV Flam fjord - Goteborg
• Pt. V Stockholm - Gavle - Stockholm
• Pt. VI Berlin
• Pt. VII Prague
• Pt. VIII Budapest
• Pt. IX Vienna
• Pt. X Munich
• Pt. XI Salzberg - Innsbruck
• Pt. XII Venice - Florence
• Pt. XIII Siena
• Pt. XIV Rome
• Pt. XV Naples - Pompeii
• Pt. XVI Cinque Terre - Geneva
• Pt. XVII Avignon
• Pt. XVIII Arles
• Pt. XIX Barcelona
• Pt. XX San Sebastian
• Pt. XXI Bordeaux - St. Lo
• Pt. XXII Paris
• Pt. XXIII Brussels - Waterloo
• Pt. XXIV Brugge
• Pt. XXV Amsterdam at last

Al Franken gives Senate Democrats the magic 60

Al Franken: Magic Number 60

Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected all counts of the legal case that former Senator Norm Coleman brought to contest the results of the election last November to determine the Senator from Minnesota. Coleman finally conceded the race and congratulated Minnesota's soon-to-be junior Senator, Al Franken. Mr. Franken will be the 60th Democrat in the US Senate. And, in the Senate, 60 is a magic number.

The right wing base is crying foul, of course. In their minds, this election was stolen. After the initial tally, Norm Coleman was ahead by 206 votes. But after the recount, including all the legal maneuverings over the validity of various ballots, Al Franken's tally surpassed Coleman's total by 225 votes (out of some 3 million cast).

But the differences between this election and the travesty that occurred in Florida in 2000 are significant. First of all, in Minnesota, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty did not direct his Secretary of State to "cast as wide a net as possible" when purging voters (mostly black, Democratic voters) from the voter rolls as did Junior's brother, Jeb. Secondly, Minnesota's Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, was not a campaign chairman for Al Franken. In 2000, Florida's Secretary of State was the infamous Katherine Harris who, in addition to her duties overseeing the state election, was serving as Junior's state campaign chairwoman.

None of that will satisfy them. They'll believe what they believe. As long as the rest of us continue to reject their version of reality, things will be alright.

But, going back to the subject of Al Franken being the magic number 60, there is good news, and there is bad news.

Here's the good news: Republicans have their power in the US Senate significantly diminished. Their most potent legislative weapon, up to this point, has been the filibuster. This procedural tool allows for Senators to keep debate open on a particular piece of legislation unless 60 senators vote for cloture. Therefore, Franken's election means Republicans cannot sustain a filibuster without some crossover votes.

Here's the bad news: Instead of Republicans, we now have Democrats. No one should expect that the Democrats, in their new position of dominance, will stay above the ethical morass that has been the home of Republicans ever since Newt Gingrich and gang won congressional majorities back in 1994.

(For the record, I am a registered Democrat. But that is more the result of revulsion toward Republicans than support for Democrats.)

Anyway, in the short term, I think, this is good for the country. President Obama was elected because he advocated a change of direction from that set by Junior and the neo-conservatives. With a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a dominant majority in the House and with Rahm Emmanuel twisting arms, the President can probably get nearly all of his agenda passed. After all, that's what the voters wanted.

This might be good for the GOP, too. The Republican party, with their obstructionist tactics, seemed not to have understood how utterly their views were rejected by voters. When they begin to fully comprehend how repulsive they are to the majority of Americans, moderate elements in their party can start to pry the reactionary forces (those I call the neo-Confederates) from the levers of power within their own party.

As Al Franken might say: Good luck with that, you schmucks!

Stick it to the Man!

Life is good... if you're a pig!

Corporations in America resemble nothing so much as feudal overlords, skimming the cream off the milk pail of proletariat labor. Free market capitalism? It's a myth! A sick joke that, Lord knows, the corporate titans must surely chortle about as they gorge on their Volga River caviar. Marx called these creatures parasites, vampires feeding off the sweat of the people.

Examples abound: Remember back in 2005 when Congress passed legislation making it illegal to buy prescription drugs from outside the country? Junior peddled it as a safety measure, because, you know, all those Canadians were dying in the streets as a result of all those bad drugs manufactured up there. But, the truth was that US pharmaceutical companies were up in arms because their Canadian counterparts were selling drugs at lower prices, denying the US companies what they felt was their right to extort higher prices out of American consumers. Competition be damned! There was a pot of gold out there, and no north-of-the-border pill pushers were going to get in the way.

Or witness the vehemence with which health insurance lobbyists are fighting to kill any so-called "public option" in the new health care solution. They complain that a public option (which is, in itself, a compromise from the single-payer system that many advocate) would drive the insurance companies out of existence! They simply couldn't compete.

Or, on a more immediate level, Comcast, my cable television, internet, and home telephone provider, is currently pitching a new shtick to attract subscribers. It's a package deal. You buy all three services, signing a contract for 2 years, and you get the whole thing for $99/month. Well, I'm already signed up with Comcast for those 3 features, but I pay $127/month. I called them to say that I wanted to sign up for the cheaper deal and was told that the promotional only applied for new subscribers.

So, I said, "Well, what if I cancel all my subscriptions and then sign up again tomorrow? Can I get the lower rate?"

Reply: "The fine print on these promotional contracts is that the terms only apply to new customers."

Well, that's a bloody ripoff, and I let the poor shmuck on the other end of the line know it.

There is a myriad of other examples that a little research on the internet can readily illuminate, all indicating the same thing: our current system is designed to reward those at the top, and to keep them at the top.

I don't know about you, but this makes my blood boil. And that's why I take every opportunity I can to stick it to the man! Any time I can find a way to rip off an insurance company, corporate bank, or cable or phone company, I do it. From my perspective, it is not that I'm ripping them off. It's that I'm denying them the ability to extort money out of me in some petty way.

Examples: I once was involved in a fender bender in Portland. Totally my fault. I rear-ended the driver in front of me who inexplicably came to a dead stop in the middle of the Hawthorne Bridge. A heated conversation ensued and the other driver apparently got flustered by the --er --disappointment I expressed in his driving tactics. He ended up taking down my name incorrectly. When his auto insurance company contacted me to try to get me to pay up, I noted to myself that they had made a mistake, and that, in fact, they couldn't tie me to the incident. For the next six months, they called and wrote vaguely threatening letters, all addressed to a non-existent person with a name similar to mine. I gleefully took their calls and heaped abuse upon the callers, then hung up, laughing. Eventually, the calls and letters stopped coming. Joke was on them.

Then, there was the time I called to cancel my cable television subscription (it was another company, not Comcast). The caller registered my request and told me that a serviceperson would come out sometime in the next week or so to unhook my cable. Well, a week went by and nothing. Then, another week. Then, a month. Then, a year. All told, I got two years of free cable. Eventually, somebody wised up and came to unhook my cable. But they apparently knew better than to try and get me to pay for it. Truth be told, I was a little disappointed that they didn't at least make the effort. I would have enjoyed meteing out heaping helpings of scorn and ridicule upon them.

Let me be clear: I do not advocate stealing or petty theft from honest businessmen or credit unions, or ordinary citizens. And I think I'm accurate when I say that anyone who knows me considers me to be scrupulous and honorable.

Oink! Oink!

But when it comes to corporate parasites who milk us all, every month, for hundreds or thousands of dollars because we simply have no other options: stick it to 'em, people. God knows they're sticking it to us!

A child sees Neda die

A tragic crime unfolds on the tee-vee;
Sanguine rivulets from Neda's mouth, nose,
Flow freely; Astonished she seems, eyes wide;

A father's wail; scarlet pool, red as rose,
To mark the spot where bravely Neda died,
Until street cleaner hoses wash it free

From mem'ry; Hope, alas, is denied;
In America, we are feasting. Those
Faces faraway removed by degree.

Solemn youthful face, sitting at my side;
I'd spare him knowledge of these worldly woes,
This boy who cried to see the dying bee;

I bleed, as Neda's heart, for wizened youth;
His puzzled query, "But why did they shoot?"



*Thanks to Eugene for the inspiration.

Public health care option? Hell, yes!

The debate over health care reform is well underway, and one thing is perfectly clear: when it comes to influencing legislation, the health care insurance industry has a hell of a lot more pull with Congress (and especially the US Senate) than does the voting public.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on June 17th showed that 76% of respondents felt it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance." Seventy-six percent. That's a whole lot of support. You'd think that our elected representatives would be trampling each other to get in front of that parade.

Well, if you did think that, you'd be dead wrong. Here's why: all those billions of dollars that those of us who have health insurance pay in premiums every month, aside from paying for the yachts and private Lear jets of corporate executives, also pad the pockets of K Street lobbyists. And these lobbyists use that money to "lobby" (or, "bribe" as it is sometimes called) our congressional representatives.

Ostensibly, the objection to a public option for health care is that it is too expensive. But these protests generally do not make mention of the enormous costs associated with having 47 million uninsured persons in America who rely on emergency care as their sole recourse when they get sick.

Other objections point to inefficiencies in the two government administered health care related programs: Medicare and Medicaid. Well, government could always be streamlined and made more efficient. However, having worked in private industry for over 20 years now, I can tell you that inefficiency, sloth, and shoddy workmanship are hardly the exclusive purview of government. The amount of money I have seen squandered in private industry is staggering.

(As a side note, Republicans, who claim to not believe in government solutions only compound the problem when they are in charge. Their belief that government can't work is self-fulfilling.)

If we are going to have a health care solution for the country, it must either be implemented by government or private industry.

But, what is the function of private industry? It is to make a profit so that the profit can be distributed among shareholders. Therefore, it is in the insurance companies interests to deny as many claims on health insurance as possible.

There have been reports of health insurance companies offering bonuses to claims adjusters for denying claims. (You can read one such report here.) That is, the more claims an insurance claims adjuster denies, the bigger his or her bonus. Why? Because fewer claims mean bigger profits! As long as the profit motive is part of health care decisions, abuse and corruption are going to be rampant.

Government, on the other hand, does not have the profit motive. A bureaucrat does not make more or less money by denying a claim for health care. A bureaucrat's salary is not dependent on the success or lack of success of a private enterprise. Therefore, decisions about people's health care are not made with an eye toward increasing profit for the corporate entity.

Note that this does not mean that we shouldn't pay doctors an excellent salary. Doctors, nurses and health-care professionals should get top dollar for their work. But insurance company executives? Shareholders? If we remove the profit motive from health care the cost savings will allow us to pay health-care professionals more.

Also, by removing the profit motive, it seems more likely that poorer communities will get better health care facilities. In Oregon, the facilities at smaller communities are often exceedingly poor. Why? Because private corporations do not see any profit in investing expensive medical equipment into communities that have no money.

In the end, it all comes down to this question: Should a person's access to health care be dependent on his or her ability to pay? In other words, are rich people entitled to better treatment and better health than poor people? Or, taking a step back even further: Are there people that matter and people that don't?

And this: bribed Senators (Democrats and Republicans) can obfuscate and protest all they want, but it seems that the public is clear about what it wants. These trying economic times have made everyone aware and fearful about their vulnerability. Shrieks about encroaching socialism and out-of-control government expansion don't convey the same dread as does the fear of a cancer diagnosis or a sudden, massive stroke.

Besides, President Obama's proposal is to include a public option to private health insurance. This option would compete with private health insurance companies. And every good capitalist welcomes competition. Right?