Film Review - The Girlfriend Experience

Whatever you think of Steven Soderbergh, you have to respect the director’s pathological experimentation. One could arrange his films in three broad camps: 1) the big budget Hollywood vehicle ala the Oceans 11 franchise, 2) medium budget indie-type films like Traffic or The Good German, and 3) low budget experiments like Full Frontal or Bubble. Soderbergh’s most recent release, The Girlfriend Experience, is decidedly in the latter category, having been shot on video in only a few weeks using mostly non-professional actors. The movie was filmed in New York towards the end of the 2008 presidential election at the height of the financial collapse. These real-life events are woven into the storyline as the film explores the transactions of a high-dollar escort prowling through the posh lofts, restaurants, and boutiques of Manhattan.

In a move of clever casting, the escort, Chelsea, is played by adult film actress, Sasha Grey (it's hard to say if that makes her a professional or non-professional actor.) Miss Gray is apparently famous in equal measures for her honest, unflinching eloquence regarding her porn career and her enthusiastic willingness to perform almost any act in that profession. That she is a slightly baby-faced 21 year-old makes both of those traits somewhat unnerving, and I'm sure Soderbergh hoped this tension would find its way onto the screen. It should be said, however, that there is not a great deal of sex in this film and only a few fleeting moments of partial nudity. The film focuses not on the sexual aspect of prostitution, but instead the commerce. In fact, The Girlfriend Experience is primarily obsessed with transactions, negotiations, and exchanges.

As Chelsea moves from one wealthy client to the next, many offer advice about how she should invest her money amidst the financial crisis. "Traditional" commerce only serves as the film's underpainting, however. What this film really enjoys exploring is the commodification of the very humanity of the characters. The title of the film refers to an acronym, "gfe," used in the parlance of escort services. A "girlfriend experience" is a term that advertises a more personal, intimate experience beyond simply sex. In a sense, Chelsea tries to act as a modern day Geisha, seeking to project herself as a cultured, well-bred woman who is as emotionally engaging as she is sexually desirable. However, she is very much a western, capitalist Geisha paying great attention to the brands of her lingerie and hiring multiple trade consultants to help her grow her business. Despite her occupation, Chelsea is in a committed relationship with her personal trainer boyfriend, Chris (Chris Santos), and the film takes great pains to draw parallels between the two professions. Of course, each job focuses on the physical body, but they also blur the lines between friendship and client resulting in awkward negotiations between the characters' personal and professional lives.

"Ruthlessness is so pervasive within these characters' lives that it is never experienced as abnormal much less painful."

It is these fissures between that client/friend dynamic that The Girlfriend Experience explores in scene after scene. The film exists mostly of one-on-one conversations between characters, often shot from a distant wide or medium angle. Of course, this distance is very intentional as the film suggests that emotion itself has become just another commodity in a market-obsessed culture. Most of the characters, both clients and servicers, seem to see themselves as products hoping for better marketing plans, re-branding schemes, and retail positioning. The election that occurs in the film's background illustrates just how much we have accepted political campaigns as marketing strategies, with one character mentioning how tired he is of hearing the word "maverick" to describe John McCain (it is interesting to note that the screenwriters chose not to pick on Obama's supercharged advertising techniques as well.) In fact, true and genuine emotion is nothing more than a liability to these characters when emotional manipulation is their very trade. It is only when Chelsea is conned by a character that we see her break down for a split second, and we wonder if she is upset by the betrayal itself or the realization that she actually has emotions to be disturbed. After all, ruthlessness is so pervasive within these characters' lives that it is never experienced as abnormal much less painful. Whether this exploration of cold detachment makes for great filmmaking is debatable.

At only a 77 minute run time, Soderbergh seems to recognize that most audiences probably don't want to spend a great deal of time with these characters. If you're looking for an evening of elaborate storytelling, this is probably not your film. However, if you're looking for a cerebral film whose intentional lack of emotional warmth is transplanted with an exciting cultural immediacy, you should arrange a discreet date with The Girlfriend Experience.

Cheney's Pet Donkeys

What a difference an election makes! Thank goodness we have rid ourselves of the disastrous Bush foreign policy based on fear mongering and our basest human tendencies. Before January 22nd, we had a government that hid evidence of its illegal torture of detainees, continued to escalate it's wars in the Middle East, had no plan in sight for closing Guantanamo Bay (a public symbol of all that has gone awry in America morality), and planned to use odious military tribunals to give the false impression of legitimate court proceedings for Guantanamo detainees (some of whom are undoubtedly dangerous terrorists and some of whom were swept up in incompetent dragnets.) Well, thank goodness that change swept into the White House offering a new hope for the nation's dysfunctional and immoral foreign policy. The Democrats have taken over the presidency and both houses of Congress, bringing new life and new ideas with them. A new day has dawn! Er, uh... Sorry. Someone is whispering in my ear. Excuse me, representatives from Amnesty International would like a word with me. I'll be right back...

(Five minutes later.) Oh, um, well... this is awkward. Apparently, I might have misspoken before. It seems that maybe a few things haven't changed from that list above. Or, um... I mean nothing on that list has changed. President Obama and his comfortable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress aren't adjusting too well to their new found power. You see, Democrats don't really like or understand power. Even less do they like principles. Sure, they talk a good game (especially when they are out of power - which is often), but when it's their turn to run the show, they seem to mimic their right-wing predecessors unfailingly. Frankly, it is more than a little sad. They are like abused children who grow up only to become abusers themselves.

Let's revisit the list of Bush-era transgressions from above. We still have a President who chooses to hide evidence of torture; we still have a President that escalates wars in the Middle East; we still have a Congress (including 90 members of the Democratically controlled Senate!) that want to keep Guantanamo Bay up and running (and, perhaps even still torturing to this day); and we still have a President that wants to avoid real court proceedings for Guantanamo Bay detainees in favor of the improvised sham military tribunals created by the Bush Administration. The Democratic party's herculean fecklessness is matched only by its monumental cowardice. It would be comical were it not so devastating to our country.

I can almost understand the Democrats' continued deference to corporate America (witness, for instance, Clinton's massive banking deregulation leading to our current financial crisis and Obama's sweetheart bailout to the same banks that caused it). It is disgusting, but at least these politicians are being well compensated with campaign contributions as they ruin the country. These spineless cavings on the transparency and legality of foreign policy, however, offer no real financial incentives. It is cowardice, plain and simple. For decades now, Democrats have been scared shitless to be tagged as "soft on... [insert disastrous policy issue here]." Soft on crime. Soft on drugs. Soft on terrorism. Soft on national security. "Soft on..." is like kryptonite to supposed Democratic principles. The irony, of course, is that as Democrats shamelessly scramble to avoid looking weak on these issues, they prove precisely how soft and spineless they truly are. Even as D.C. insiders discuss the misguided and confused state of the Republican party, the Democrats can't help but roll on their backs and whimper when they see someone who really knows how to use (and abuse) power. It's enough to force a crooked smile, isn't that right, Mr. Cheney?

Hops, Malt, Barley, and Hemp - The Politics of Pleasure

This is certainly an opportune time to celebrate American Craft Beer Week, as we sit in the middle of an economic collapse. Many of us are feeling the pains of a sluggish economy in the form of lost jobs, reduced income, and continued uncertainty. While it may not be the best way to cope with anxiety, one can hardly blame us for imbibing a well-crafted beer to help us through tough times. The hoppy pleasure of a well-balanced ale or the rich, malty sweetness of a dark porter offer our minds something pleasant to ponder while we wait for the alcohol to lift our spirits. Of course, most of us would prefer to pour a beer celebrating our economic prosperity rather than one distracting us from our financial woes. That is why it is maddening to realize that America's other vice of choice, marijuana, remains the untaxed black sheep of U.S. drug use when we desperately needs its revenues the most. Perhaps a look at the history and prohibition of beer in America can help inform us about the demonized weed.

American Craft Beer Week is recognized by the United States Congress in House Resolution 753. The resolution states that the Congress:

(1) Supports the establishment of American Craft Beer Week as a celebration of the contributions that American craft brewers have made to the Nation's communities, economy, and history and
(2) commends American craft brewers for providing jobs, improving the balance of trade, supporting American agriculture, and educating Americans about the history and culture of beer while promoting the responsible consumption of beer as a beverage of moderation.

This is a triumph for craft brewers for a couple of reasons. First of all, there was another House of Represenatives bill passed in 1919, HB 6810, that prohibited the production or consumption of alcohol in the United States. Of course, the prohibition of alcohol fueled untold criminal activity and helped fund and organize the American mafia. Thankfully, by 1933, American politicians realized the harm inflicted by prohibition. It became obvious that prohibition was a boon to organized crime and basically turned over would-be tax dollars and employment opportunities to criminal enterprises. The puritanical streak in American culture was beaten back by the competing libertarian and capitalist tendencies of the country. Fortunately, American evolved (at least in part) past its fundamentalist roots so that as I write this I can enjoy an Arrogant Bastard Oaked Ale.

"Those 'might is right' market realities almost destroyed the practice of craft brewing which would have left us with nothing but mass-produced, watered-down, tasteless lagers."

While the hyper capitalist tendencies of America helped (in part) to save her from an extended alcohol prohibition, they did little to help craft brewing. In fact, those "might is right" market realities almost destroyed the practice of craft brewing which would have left us with nothing but mass-produced, watered-down, tasteless lagers. According to beerinfo.com, the United States had 4,131 breweries in 1873, less than 1,568 in 1910, 498 in 1940 (only seven years after prohibition), 229 in 1960, and only 82 breweries by 1980, the year of Ronald Reagan's election. By 1983, six brewing companies controlled 92% of U.S. beer production. American beer manufacturers devoted their funds to cheap production and distribution models coupled with enormous marketing campaigns full of clydesdale horses, bikini clad women, talking frogs, and professional athlete endorsements.

Today, thanks to the ingenuity, creativity, and determination of craft brewers, there are over 1,400 breweries in the U.S., comparable to the years just prior to prohibition. The renaissance began in the 1980's, took hold in the 90's, and continues to expand today with craft brewers growing at a rate of almost six times their macrobrew cousins according to beertown.org.

"Apparently, spending our dwindling tax dollars imprisoning pot smokers takes precedent over the moral decay of allowing them to giggle and eat Twinkies in the comfort of their own homes."

One can only hope that we might one day see Congress enact an American Marijuana Horticulturalists Week, praising them "for providing jobs, improving the balance of trade, supporting American agriculture, and educating Americans about the history and culture of pot." The history does not look good, however, considering that pot has been illegal in all of the U.S. since 1937 (72 years) while alcohol was prohibited for only fourteen years. Sometimes inertia is a bitch, especially realizing that the very powerful alcohol and tobacco lobbies continue to fund anti-marijuana campaigns for fear of competition (why they wouldn't want to use their resources to legalize and sell weed for enormous profits is beyond me.)

Of course, the prohibition of marijuana, just like alcohol before it, only leads to a rise in crime and huge piles of money for criminals. The country spends a great deal of money on failed law enforcement efforts and unconscionable incarceration for (very) non-violent pot smokers, when we could legalize, regulate, and tax a drug that is very safe, if not sometimes annoying (given its tendency to promote drum circles and caucasian dreadlocks.) A 2005 study conducted by Harvard professor Jeffrey Miron that was endorsed by no less than Milton Friedman and over five-hundred other economists estimates a $10-14 billion annual net gain from marijuana legalization. At a time of economic turmoil, you would think that politicians would embrace any plan to generate revenues and cut costs. This is especially true considering that Americans as a whole are beginning to soften their positions on marijuana reform, and even mainstream media sources like CNN are featuring repeated segments on the issue. However, even though a huge number of Americans proposed marijuana legalization in response to the economic crisis on President Obama's own website, his response was simply to chuckle and dismiss these serious concerns (see video below.) Were one of his daughters or friends languishing in a jail cell for smoking a harmless plant, perhaps he would not so cavalierly dismiss these legitimate questions. Were he a governor wondering how to balance a budget deeply in the red, perhaps he would give his online audience more credit.



For the time being, however, we are doing our best Saudi Arabia impression, with our fundamentalist, puritanical roots firmly planted in hemp-free soil. Apparently, spending our dwindling tax dollars imprisoning pot smokers takes precedence over the moral decay of allowing them to giggle and eat Twinkies in the comfort of their own homes. While I am glad that our country's moralizers have made room for the sometimes raucous beer drinkers of America, I can't help but wish the bean counting capitalists would take a harder look at the peaceful potheads of the nation. Until then, let's toast a Dogfish Head 90-Minute IPA in honor of American Craft Beer Week and hope that one day our biggest complaint in the world of weed will be the corporate macro-growers of highly taxed, inferior, legalized marijuana.

Wire Creator David Simon for Secretary of Culture

After reading part of David Simon's testimony to Congress last week regarding the death of newspapers (though Congress titled the hearings The Future of Journalism), I was reminded what a man-crush I have on this guy. Simon, of course, is the co-creator of the great HBO drama The Wire. I am embarrassed to admit that I wasn't even turned on to the show until sometime within the last year, when I burned through all five seasons on DVD as quickly as Netflix could send them. It may sound hyperbolic to say that The Wire is the best television show ever produced, but, honestly, that description is woefully insufficient. The Wire is one of the best works of American art ever created. The show explores the inner-workings and interconnectedness of Baltimore's drug trade, law enforcement agencies, political machines, media institutions, public education system, and labor relations - sometimes in a single episode. It does so in a brutally honest, wholly non-patronizing manner while also managing to craft beautifully rendered story arcs filled with unique and compelling characters. It is addicting for all of the right reasons. The staggering achievement of this show alone is reason enough to nominate David Simon as the United States Secretary of Culture. However, hearing Simon speak so broadly and eloquently about the current state of America (see videos below) makes his absence from that office seem criminal. This is why I hereby nominate him to the head post at the Department of Culture. Of course, we must first create this position, so let's talk about that for a moment. I wasn't surprised in the least to discover that the idea of a Culture Secretary had already been explored by others when Googling the idea, but let me add my vision to the mix.


David Simon on Bill Moyers Journal, Part 1 of 2

First, this position should be a cabinet level appointment with some genuine power to advise the President, work with Congress, fund (or at least oversee) new initiatives in the arts and humanities, and provide leadership for existing cultural institutions. Former National Endowment for the Humanities Chair William Ferris suggested overseeing these organizations while advocating for a Secretary of Culture: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, NPR, PBS and the Smithsonian Institution. That is a good start. Of course, the Secretary should also have some role to play with regard to the aforementioned NEH as well as the National Endowment for the Arts, the latter of which seems to fund art appreciation more than foster new works of art. Perhaps the NEA's reluctance to fund artists directly results from budget cuts or perhaps from the political battles of the 1980's and 90's with Robert Mapplethorpe, Karen Finney, and others. It is hard to imagine that David Simon would ever shrink from a political battle or suffer hypocritical moralizing quietly (though he may not care for the pretensions of contemporary visual artists.) Regardless, I envision this position with a broader agenda than a defacto Secretary of the Arts (Quincy Jones's idea), which is one reason Simon is a perfect candidate.

Culture is broadly defined as a group's shared ideas, beliefs, and practices. While art is certainly an important aspect of culture and its expression, I think the agenda should be wider. We need a position that can use their bully pulpit to ask questions and prompt initiatives regarding the role of technology and media, including both news (definitely newspapers) and entertainment. Let's face it, most Americans spend a lot more time in front of their television and computer screens than they do in the halls of museums or symphony centers. We need an agency that can work with television networks and internet content providers to develop creative avenues of exploration. The agency should offer incentives to develop content with more brains than How I Met Your Mother and more balls than Masterpiece Theater. We need some mandates and charters for television stations and networks given that they use our public airwaves for free and have their licenses rubber stamped for an absurdly nominal fee. Currently, a few cheesy public service announcements and wholly unwatchable local news programming is all that's needed to check off the "programming in the public interest" obligation in their licensing agreement.* Simon obviously understands popular media and the impact it can have within a culture, but that is not his only qualification.

David Simon on Bill Moyers Journal, Part 2 of 2

He is an exceedingly intelligent man with broad-reaching knowledge and a populist bent. More importantly, he is not a politician. As fans of his know, he was a journalist with the Baltimore Sun for years and an author before working in television. Were this position ever to be created, I would hope a precedent would be set for non-politicians. While that idea is somewhat rare for cabinet level positions, it is not uncommon in other arts and humanities appointments. If Simon is unwilling, my next nominee is Princeton professor Cornel West whose intelligence, like Simon's, is varied, creatively expressed, accessible, and founded with a deep sense of moral integrity. Not to mention, I would love to see Dr. West explaining sociological theories through John Coltrane metaphors to someone like Orrin Hatch at his confirmation hearing. No matter the candidate, this a post our government needs.

America, with all of the brashness of the prematurely powerful adolescent, needs maturing in certain aspects of herself. A position such as this would help us to cultivate faculties that are currently underdeveloped. Besides, as another advocate points out, "pretty much all the most powerful nations in the world have one. There are Ministers or Secretaries of Culture in France, England, China, India, Russia, Brazil, Spain, Italy. And so on and so on." If nothing else, perhaps our hyper competitive nature will spur the development of this needed position (which could, in turn, help us diffuse some of that rogue competitiveness.) So, David Simon, I urge you to get involved on the grand stage. In the words of one of your characters, Omar, "The game’s out there, and it’s play or get played.” Regular Americans have been on the wrong side of that equation for too long; having you shake things up in the corridors of power might help even the score a little.

*(The first mandate needed for television stations is FREE time allocated to legitimate office seekers. Our current system forces politicians to raise tons of corrupting, agenda-influencing dollars so they can buy television ads to run on the PUBLIC airwaves.)

Loyalty, Democracy, Authority

A red carpet is rolled out after Air Force One arrives in Port of Spain, Trinidad on April 17, 2009. (Image and caption taken from Whitehouse.gov)

I don't know what triggered my memory, but something led me to revisit an essay I first read last summer. It was published in Harper's Magazine almost exactly one year ago in June of 2008 during the maddeningly slow-moving final months of the Bush Administration and the heat of a very uncertain presidential campaign. "Democracy and deference" is the essay's title by author Mark Slouka. If you're pressed for time, do yourself a favor and leave my blog immediately to go read it right now. Slouka elegantly communicates in only about three-thousand words all of the fear, anxiety, and frustration that eight years of a near-tyrannical administration inflicted on American culture. Actually, that's not quite right. His essay was much more poignant than that. Slouka never accuses the Bush administration of inflicting anything on us citizens. Instead, he points out what willing and gracious hosts we Americans were to the authoritarian impulses of the administration, and he makes a very convincing case.

Slouka's essay is especially timely as America sits at a crossroads of accountability for torture, civil liberty abuses, unjust wars, and titanic fraud perpetrated in collusion between Wall Street and Capitol Hill. The temptation is to sit back, relax, and pat ourselves on the back for having the wisdom to replace the past occupier of the White House with the current elegant, intelligent, and charming occupant. However, to forget how quickly and easily our media and populace became a tag-team of sycophantic, subservient subjects to the throne of monarchic power grabs will only make the next aspiring tyrant's job that much easier. More importantly, though, we should remember that just because Obama is elegant, intelligent, and charming, does not mean that he isn't susceptible to the worship of (what is now his own) authority.

"The temptation is to sit back, relax, and pat ourselves on the back for having the wisdom to replace the past occupier of the White House with the current elegant, intelligent, and charming occupant."

In fact, that is the very thesis of Slouka's well-argued essay - that American deference to authority (be it in the form of political, cultural, or economic power) is quickly replacing any democratic impulses that might still linger. Slouka describes the almost unnoticed power dynamics of the American presidential press conference and the regal manner with which the President is treated (Bush at the time of his writing, but the same applies to Obama). The exuberant chuckles at every modest quip are illustrative as is the palpably unequal manner in which each party addresses the other: "Thank you for taking my question, Mr. President..." vs. "Who's next? OK, Tony." Imagine the "scandal" that could erupt among the chattering classes if a Fox correspondent addressed the current president as "Barack" during a press conference or an MSNBC reporter addressed the former as "George." Of course, press conference protocol is not the meatiest example of deference to authority, but it is instructive nonetheless.

Slouka also discusses a White House interaction between Senator Jim Webb and President Bush. The supposedly liberal press (including the New York Times) criticized Webb as acting rudely and offensively for simply noting to Bush in fairly benign language that he wished his son, a Marine in combat, could get out of Iraq. The grand "Breach of Manners" (as the Times article put it) was that Webb dared express an unprompted difference of opinion in the "President's" house (which is our house, of course.) Slouka quickly points out that our culture is more than willing to tolerate, even celebrate, every manner of rudeness, crassness, and cruelty so long as the object of ridicule is in a less powerful position than the antagonist (witness the delight taken in the cruelty inflicted by American Idol's Simon Cowell to his defenseless targets.) It is only when someone in authority, someone better, or "more" as Slouka describes it, is challenged that we chastise the "offender" and not the "offendee."

The rhetorical stakes of Slouka's argument get decidedly higher, though, when he discusses Colin Powell's knowingly false U.N. testimony regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell's betrayal to himself becomes the essay's prime exemplar of an American ethos that reveres "loyalty to power, rather than to what one believes to be true or right." The essay states the consequences like this:

"Powell’s excuse—that he did not want to betray the ethic of the loyal soldier—was precisely the one used by the defendants at Nuremberg, and if you say that the analogy is a reckless one, that Colin Powell is no Rudolf Hess but a generally decent man—an A student, a team player, a loyal employee, a good soldier—I’ll agree, and say only this: God save us from men and women like him, for they will do almost anything in the name of 'loyalty.'"

These are the very thoughts that cross my mind when I hear Obama say that we need not bother with prosecutions or accountability regarding torture. This reflexive loyalty to authority is what I see when Obama economic advisers and longtime Wall Street fixtures Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers are described as the only ones "smart enough" to fix the very crisis they helped to create with reckless, shortsighted deregulation. When the millionaires and billionaires of Wall Street and Detroit are bailed out with taxpayer money at the same time that "progressive" Democratic Senator Charles Schumer proposes we can't use tax dollars to fund public health care, I can't help but think that Slouka's argument is correct.

Perhaps he's right when he says that American citizens "seem to believe, deep in our hearts, that the business of government is beyond our provenance." Despite all of our gooey rhetoric regarding democracy and equality, I sometimes find it hard to locate much evidence that we really believe in either. Instead, we seem to fecklessly hope that we've chosen a benign monarch to replace the failed tyrant that fooled us last go round. This is a dangerous mindset and only has one outcome if left unchecked. Slouka put it better than I could ever hope to:

"Once the idea of inequality is allowed to take root, a veritable forest of ritualized gestures and phrases springs up to reinforce it. The notion that some bow and others are bowed to comes to seem natural; the cool touch of the floor against our forehead begins to feel right: from classroom to corporate cubicle to the halls of Congress, deferential way leads on to deferential way, and at the end of the road, as Tocqueville foresaw, stands a baaa-ing polity 'reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.'"

While I am somewhat relieved to have a new administration with many tendencies toward democratic ideals, I also know that the machinations of Washington are such that nothing meaningful ever happens unless the populace as a whole demands change (or accountability or anything else.) I pray that Slouka's essay is a hyperbolic warning of what we might become and not a correct diagnosis of what we already are. Maybe this time next year I'll revisit "Democracy and deference" with an answer to that question.

Chuck Schumer's Magic Healthcare Tonic

As indicated in reports from the New York Times, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) seeks to water down proposals for a public health insurance plan by offering a new "compromise" with the private insurance lobby. The development of a public plan modeled on Medicare has been the dominant proposal in response to the failed, inflated, and corrupted private system that has left almost fifty million Americans without any health care and millions more under-insured. Of course, President Obama campaigned on the idea of a Medicare-style public health plan, and, to the best of my knowledge, won that campaign. So why is Schumer, the third ranking Democrat in the Senate, effectively trying to block healthcare reform?

According to the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, Mr. Schumer has received almost a million dollars from the insurance lobby during his Senate career. He has also received another seven million dollars combined from commercial banks and investment companies, many of whom were also intertwined with insurance companies (bailout recipient AIG being the most devestatingly notorious.) Sorry, New York citizens, but those are obviously Mr. Schumer's real constituents, as this horrible health care capitulation makes clear.

From what I can tell, Schumer simply proposes a new insurance plan designed almost identically to the failed private model, with the single exception that no one can be turned down. Here are the main pillars of the compromise as reported by the Times (with my responses in red):

• The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.

So, apparently we can give billions of tax dollars to failed private ventures like banks and auto companies, but Schumer will be damned if we dip into any tax dollars for affordable health care for regular citizens. Instead, let's just have the government create a private-style company dependent on high premiums and call it "public." I mean, people really just like the word "public," right? Affordability is hardly the point.

• The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.

Thanks again, Chuck! I appreciate you lobbying AGAINST discounts for consumers. After all, discounts might make the plan more affordable which is apparently what you aim to disrupt. Besides, how can a hospital hope to make a profit by only charging $8 per Tylenol instead of $10?

• The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.

Now you're talkin'! Let's make this baby as inaccessible as possible. That's like a three-for-one in your effort to keep this thing from competing with your insurance buddies. Limiting access means limiting growth which means limiting bargaining power which means... You guessed it! Higher prices!

• To prevent the government from serving as both “player and umpire,” the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.

You are so on fire, Chuck! Let's not give this "public" thing too much power. We don't want the dirty, rotten government that we, the taxpayers, own to have a leg up on those private, corporate insurance companies whose greed created this health care crisis in the first place.

Look, Schumer, I know you're in a tough spot here. On the one hand we, the taxpayers, pay your salary and vote you into your job. But on the other hand, those healthy campaign contributions the insurance companies give you provide the means to keep your sweet-ass job. And, besides, your insurance buddies have pinky-sweared to clean up their own act, according to the same Times article:

"Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, said, 'We are very, very grateful that members of Congress have been thoughtfully looking at our concerns.' But she said she still saw no need for a public plan 'if you have much more aggressive regulation of insurance,' which the industry has agreed to support."

So, the insurance companies are now publicly lobbying for "more aggressive regulation" of their own industry! Now, a true public servant might realize that when an industry makes their desperation that plainly obvious, you kind of have them by the short and curlies. Instead, Schumer labors to devise a "public" plan so watered down, ineffective, and uncompetitive that the private insurance lobby could actually endorse it. Schumer continues the Washington tradition of creating the perception of reform while continuing to cash in on the status quo. In other words, Dr. Schumer's Magic Healthcare Tonic is nothing more than snake oil culled from his own greased palms.

Film Review - Wolverine, Please Just Claw Out My Eyes Next Time

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a movie that starts with a mildly awkward title and only gets worse from there. Sure, a big, shiny summer popcorn movie is easy bait for snarky, dismissive reviews by pretentious, undeservedly self-important bloggers. It just so happens that this clunky blockbuster on watered-down steroids deserves every bit of exhausted criticism thrown it's way. Besides, big, bloated summer cash collectors have shown that they can have their cake and eat it, too. The Dark Knight (especially) and Iron Man (to a lesser degree) proved that adolescent-oriented explosionfests can successfully add some interesting cultural nuance to the mix. We don't even have to set the bar that high, though. The first two X-Men movies were just plain fun, and the candy-coated xenophobia-as-mutant-prejudice was not exactly nuanced cultural observation. Those movies succeeded simply because they offered well-told, well-crafted stories with lots of creative action sequences. Unfortunately, director Gavin Hood offered none of the above in Wolverine. There are a few spoilers in this review, but believe me, it's highly unlikely that you'll actually be interested enough in the film to care. Besides, the film's few attempts at plot twists are so predictable, that it's hardly fair to call any "giveaway" a spoiler.

The film begins showing us the childhood of Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Victor/Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber) in the 1850's. After an Oedipal incident of murder that forces the boys to flee their home, we learn that they are brothers with special mutant powers. Suddenly, we see them as adults serving in the Civil War, both World Wars, and Vietnam. Let's just stop right there. First of all, I don't recall the film offering any impetus for their becoming soldiers, other than the fact that they are both bad asses with crazy, bad ass powers. Secondly, if this film series indicated that mutants live forever or have prolonged lifespans, I had forgotten that and don't recall being reminded in this installment. Lastly, the film is supposed to tell us the Origins of these characters and I have yet to know why either of these mutants grow powerful claw-like appendages (Wolverine from his knuckles and Sabretooth from his fingernails.) True, I'm not a fan boy, but this is a film made for the masses, not simply diehard X-Men geeks. A summer blockbuster should not require prior research. But back to the plot. We had just finished a century's worth of wars.

During these awkwardly rushed battle sequences, we begin to see that Sabretooth is somehow becoming a dark, morally depraved mutant, attempting to rape a young village girl in Vietnam. The sibling rivalry of good vs. evil can now begin, I suppose. However, this, too, is never really explained or explored - it just is. Character development, schmaracter development. Who cares? Let's get back to some superhero fights, right? Well, that laziness might work if the action sequences were particularly interesting or compelling, but they weren't. They were generic, standard fare superhero duke outs not really trying anything new.

I won't bore myself by continuing to recount the film's lumbering plot except to say that it boils down to Wolverine and a few mutant collaborators working to foil an evil plan developed by Sabretooth and the non-mutant, mad-scientist William Stryker (Danny Huston). Stryker is holding other mutants captive and somehow usurping their powers in an effort to develop some "holy shit" kind of super-duper weapon for the U.S. military. The setting for this ? (spoiler alert) Three Mile Island. I guess there is supposed to be a metaphor in there somewhere? Anyhow, the setting allows for the final showdown to occur in and around giant nuclear reactors where the explosions and destruction can take place on a large, industrial stage. Even then, however, I was literally fighting to stay awake and just wanted the movie to end.

The problem with Wolverine is that it never seemed to know what it wanted to explore and certainly had no idea how it wanted to approach whatever that was. The movie was constantly shifting in tone. The worst example of a jarring tonal shift occurs during a scene when Wolverine is forced to fight a former mutant colleague, The Blob (Kevin Durand) who has become grossly and morbidly obese since Wolverine last saw him. The scene seems to be going for comic relief, but it simply comes off flat and out of place. Furthermore, the cheesy, Eddie-Murphy style fat suit enlisted for The Blob doesn't help. It is, however, a perfect metaphor for the movie as a whole: bloated, unconvincing, and clumsy.

DOJ Report Said to Excuse Torture Policy as "Lapse in Judgement"

According to the New York Times, an internal investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility found that Bush Administration lawyers in the DOJ should not be prosecuted for developing legal theories that enabled torture practices. The Times' article characterized the DOJ report as finding that the lawyers "committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted." (The previous is quoting the Times article, not the DOJ report itself.) This is very disappointing but not surprising. It would have been a shock for the Department of Justice to advocate prosecuting those that served in its own department.

Supposedly, the findings of the report are not final until Attorney General Holder signs off on them. It seems highly unlikely that Holder will unilaterally oppose the findings. However, one can only hope that Holder, who acknowledged that waterboarding is torture in his confirmation hearings, will decide to prosecute those who enabled that very crime (see video of Holder testifying about waterboarding below).

The most high profile targets of the DOJ report were John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury, who served in the DOJ's Office of Legal Council and wrote secret memorandums that rationalized torture techniques such as waterboarding, wall-slamming, head slapping, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, the deliberate placement of insects in cramped confinement cells, and more. I've heard the Office of Legal Council described as the "Supreme Court" for the executive branch; basically, they have the final say regarding the legality of policy positions.

This abusive legal maneuvering has resulted in untold harm to America's reputation and security. It has put our troops in incredible danger and helped to fuel insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the recruitment of anti-American jihadists all over the Middle East. These people deserve prosecution, period. It is especially disturbing to know that Jay Bybee currently serves on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is only one step below the Supreme Court. Yes, a proponent of torture currently decides the fate of American law for indefinite spans of time. Is this really America?

According the Times article, the DOJ report is likely to advocate that state bar associations take disciplinary action, including possible disbarment. Such action is long overdue and even disbarment, which is certainly deserved, would only be a slap on the wrist for war crimes (but a good first step nonetheless.)

If Holder and the DOJ can't summon the courage to take on their legal and moral obligations, there is some small hope knowing that a Spanish court will pursue criminal charges against Bush officials for sanctioning torture in Guantanamo Bay. Their targets include Yoo, Bybee, former Bush lawyer and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Cheney lawyer David Addington, and others. If nothing else, this puts pressure on American officials to deal with their own mess. Currently, all investigations point to attorneys, as they rightfully should. They should certainly not stop there, however. It is maddening to think that principals in the executive branch like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice should escape investigation. To exclude them for following discredited "legal" guidelines for "enhanced interrogation techniques" is akin to excusing a murderer for relying on legal advice that purports some instances of unprovoked, premeditated killing can be legal forms of "diminished lifespan interventions." It is truly tortuous logic.

Thus far, only the low level grunts who carried out Administration policies have been subjected to criminal investigations. It is time to move well up the chain of command. This latest report is simply more bad news on that front. Given the expected lack of political courage in the Obama administration (see video below), it is up to the public to push for accountability.

Film Review - Sin Nombre

Here we are on the cusp of another summer movie season full of mutant super-heroes, robotic villains, bombastic computer-generated explosions, and cinema-shaking sound designs. At a time when the vast, vast majority of films made and released in this country are designed for adolescents of all ages, it is refreshing to see a thoughtful film released before the late autumn Oscar season. Sin Nombre further impresses because it explores difficult social themes through compelling imagery and storytelling rather than forcing awkward political speeches into the mouths of its characters. I must forewarn, however, that while there are a few gunshots and chase scenes, I don't recall a single explosion much less a flying super hero.

In his feature film debut, director Cary Fukunaga presents an authentic portrait of a Honduran family attempting to immigrate into the United States through Mexico, a country bleakly portrayed as overwhelmed by poverty, political corruption and gang-violence. The story centers primarily around Sayra (Paulina Gaitan), a very young woman and one of the Honduran refugees, and Willy (Edgar Flores), an equally young Mexican gang member struggling against the brutal violence forced on his life. Rarely has their been a more terrifying antagonist than Willy's ruthless gang leader with his face covered in bold, sinister-looking tattoos. It is this pitiless gang leader who inadvertantly brings Willy and Sayra together as Sayra's family is traveling through Willy's gang territory. The family's only means of travel is limited to riding atop industrial trains with dozens of other would-be immigrants. The dangers these characters endure are not limited to obvious risks of falling from a moving train or losing limbs, but they must also deal with local gangs such as Willy's robbing them of their few possessions or kidnapping them for ransom. It is through a similar scenario that Sayra and Willy suddenly find themselves relying on one another in their desperate attempts to find a less oppressive life. While there is a taunting romantic element to their relationship, the film's real focus is elsewhere.

In fact, Sin Nombre is a film that romanticizes nothing but stops short of being brutally cold-hearted. Unlike another recent film, Gomorrah, which takes a decidedly unromantic view of the devastating consequences of the Italian Mafia for everyday people, Sin Nombre allows you to spend enough time with its characters to actually care about them. They are not simply mannequins on which to drape the director's themes of poverty, desperation, and exploitation. These are fully developed characters. While they are devastatingly aware of their dire circumstances and limited options, they are never patronized. This is what makes Sin Nombre the rare film that is effective as both a work of art and political provocation.

Fukunaga undertook exhaustive research in Mexico before making this movie, which undoubtedly deserves much of the credit for the authenticity of the characters and story. The images of these sprawling groups of aspiring immigrants dangerously riding on the tops of railroad cars for weeks at a time renders their desperation both visceral and heartbreaking. Apparently Fukunaga spent over twenty-four hours on one of these train rides with two Honduran immigrants even after the warnings of lost limbs and robberies understandably led his travel companions to back out of such dangerous research. The director also spent time meeting with gang members and police, visiting jails and border towns before actually shooting the film in Mexico. Thankfully, this intensive research did not tempt the director to try to make a sprawling tale encompassing every aspect of Latin American immigration and it's relationship to the United States. That relationship is hinted at, however, as these Mexican gangs discuss their fellow members in the U.S. Another nod to the relationship takes place late in the movie in a nondescript sprawling shopping center just over the U.S. border. A Sam's Club sign (the wholesale shopping chain owned by Wal-Mart) is quickly but conspicuously placed in one shot. I don't think this was any accident, but it was certainly not drawing undue attention to itself either. It was simply a fleeting image quietly teasing at the larger implications of immigration in America.

While the immigration debate burns and thrashes in this country, we rarely discuss in any detail the abject poverty and exploitation that inspires someone to risk their life in the hopes of a minimum wage job. It is even more rare that we look at how our political policies and consumer practices are intertwined with the misery depicted in Sin Nombre. Of course, many U.S. companies (and those of other wealthy nations before them) have long exploited these countries and propped up dictators for control of their limited resources, often agricultural (hence the term, "banana republic"). The resulting violence and oppression is not only responsible for the poverty and mass emigration depicted in this film, but the warring military coups and factions that spring up in response also have a relationship to the gang violence which spreads throughout Latin America and into the U.S. But, excuse me.... I've gone too far.

That was an awkward digression; the impressive debut film by Cary Fukunaga is the matter at hand. I must admit, though, I can only hope that this director's future endeavors have the same power to inspire digression. Until then, though, we can enjoy exploding robots, alien spaceships, and the other pyrotechnic innovations of American cinema this summer. Which gives me an idea... Perhaps we can dispatch Wolverine south of the border to take down the bad guys. Or maybe he won't need to travel so far.

Ann Coulter Sucks (an AdSense Experiment)

So, it's a horribly rainy Sunday in Nashville, and, admittedly, my energy level is depleted. However, even in a state of such laziness, I hope I would never fall to the depths of writing a post devoted solely to trashing Ann Coulter. After all, this is a woman who makes Michael Moore, Bill O' Reilly, and Laura Ingraham all look like bookish, shrinking violet intellectuals by comparison. Excoriating Coulter's ill-informed, tasteless self-aggrandizement deserves a metaphoric cliche beyond shooting fish in a barrel. Perhaps trashing Ann Coulter's talent, integrity, and intellect is more like challenging a cancer-stricken coma victim to a duel by chainsaw. Really, what's the point? It would be like trying to "prove" that Paris Hilton is sexually promiscuous or that Senator Byron "The Plastic Combover" Dorgan purchases hairspray by the metric ton. Why bother, right?

Well, here's the problem. I've started this little blog here and being the capitalist pig that I am, I've decided to put some Google AdSense banners on the site. Yes, I'll soon be building custom furniture from the stacks of hundred dollar bills these ads generate, but here's the problem in the meantime. Great big Ann Coulter banners keep showing up on my site. I realize this is a new blog and there aren't a lot of posts for the Google-bots to crawl through, but come on... Ann Coulter? I mean, don't they (Google) make money when people click the banners, too? Aren't those brainiac algorithms supposed to guess that a site whose link list includes Democracy Now!, Alternet.org, Real Time with Bill Maher, etc., etc., probably isn't cultivating a readership that is dying to read the newest book by a skeletal, attention-starved, right-wing wacko? It should be obvious that I'm hoping to cultivate a readership interested in a bloated, attention-starved, left-wing nut job like myself, right?

In summary, this is a test and only a test. My hope is that by shouting "Ann Coulter Sucks" in my post title, the Google-bots will realize that I am not going after the conservative, so-sexually-repressed-that-I-find-Ann-Coulter-hot demographic. Please take note, Google AdSense, and let's get some blame-America-first, bleeding heart, socialist banners in place, already. After all, I hate to think that Coulter might be getting a cut of the $0.30 my ads have generated thus far.

Justice Souter - Patriotism by Procrastination

My first thought upon hearing of Supreme Court justice David Souter's retirement was gratitude. I don't mean that as a backhanded compliment, as if to say I'm glad to see him go. I felt genuine gratitude regarding his public service, especially over the last eight years. Most of what I know about this man is from Jeffrey Toobin's excellent book, The Nine, which paints a penetrating portrait of the Rehnquist Supreme Court. The book describes Souter as an ascetic, almost monk-like intellectual who doesn't own a television and would likely be content to live a life of quiet solitude with only books to keep him company. Apparently, Souter was quickly disillusioned with Washington and was simply not equipped to stomach the posturing, grandstanding, hypocrisy, and ruthlessness of D.C. The most interesting anecdote in the entire book, however, was that Souter, already disgusted with the ethos of the city, considered resigning after Bush v. Gore. Here is an excerpt:

Toughened, or coarsened, by their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore.

Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept.

Souter was in a horrible position after Bush v. Gore, of course. To resign in protest might have seemed a noble gesture and would have certainly embarrassed his colleagues who shoehorned W. into the presidency. However, the end result is that he would have exponentially empowered the very man he felt was scandalously installed in office by giving Bush an immediate appointment to the court. (In retrospect, that would have allowed the most incompetent president in our history to appoint a full one-third of the current Supreme Court.)

Imagine coming to work everyday when you've lost all respect for the integrity of your colleagues who you feel have degraded the very institution you revere the most. And it's not as though the man couldn't find rewarding work immediately after leaving the court, either. Instead, Souter acted as a true patriot. This is a man who showed that he actually was humbled by the power of his position, unlike most who mumble similar cliches flippantly. He put his personal interests to the side for eight years, and, given that he has resigned at what is pretty damn close to his first opportunity after W.'s departure, one assumes he has been chomping at the bit to leave. To have the same week give us Souter's selflessness contrasted with Arlen Specter's self-serving shift in political "values" is almost poetic. They could each be the other's foil in a morality play about the struggle between integrity and the allure of political power.

A similar play was already written in prose by Jeffrey Toobin, however. After all, the primary theme of The Nine is that the Supreme Court is as much a political institution, and its appointed inhabitants raw politicians, as their campaign-obsessed counterparts in the other two branches of government. But maybe Souter slipped through the cracks somehow. His critics would have you believe he is a slippery shape-shifter, after all, considering that the George H.W. Bush appointee became a reliable liberal vote on the court. Of course, the opposite is likely true. Sometimes the power brokers in Washington forget amidst the swirling colors of their political kaleidoscopes that the object of their instrument's gaze is simply standing still as they spin, twist, and turn their lens. On the rare occasion they pull their eye away from their toy, they seem stunned to notice that their game was only a distortion of reality and not reality itself. For someone like Souter, who has little time for such childish play, life in Washington was bound to feel unbearable. Lucky for us he cared enough about his country to wait eight years for a return to adult supervision. Thank you, David Souter.