Culture Filter!

SciFi Twins: Republican Primary Edition

2012-01-19T10:10:00.000-08:00

We all have our SciFi Twin. We here at Culture Filter explored this phenomenon in the Obama-Clinton-McCain-Go-Round a few years back. Now that we've had a chance to meet the 2012 guys, their fantastical counterparts can at last be revealed.

Fortitude. Rigor. Big ideas. Newton Leroy Gingrich is master of them all. But, it was his "crushing" performance in the debates that shows us his true SciFi Twin:

Yes, Newt stomped over his competition like The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man stomped through Manhattan, leaving Mitt Romney "terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought." One need only look at Dr. Gingrich in his academic regalia to know this dude packs all the punch of a fleshly incarnation of Gozer the Gozerian...

"I see you checking me out, baby."

On the other hand, Mitt Romeny is stylishly coiffed, well manicured, and incessantly effusive over his "business background."

Given the name of his company, I was tempted to dub Romeny "Darth Bain." However, Darth Bane (whom readers of Star Wars novels know as the creator of the Sith's "Rule of Two") was a deeply committed idealist. As we know, that doesn't describe Romney at all. Rather, one must look to the SF business community. Only in the private sector of the future can Mitt's SciFi Twin be found:

"I totally saved Staples. Deal with it."

Dapper, successful, and willing to do what it takes to get an American City back on track (while generating multiple income streams), Romney's future self is OCP Senior President Dick Jones from Robocop.

Dick Jones was more than just the mastermind behind ED-209. He also used an independent coalition of operators to neutralize his rivals and consolidate his power. Of course, he maintained a layer of deniability between himself and these operatives, much like Mitt does with his Super PAC.

If elected President, Expect to see an Enforcement Droid guarding the State of the Union Address each and every year...

Bain & Co. boardroom, in the near future.

Rick Santorum has become more famous for his age-inappropriate sweater vests than for his politics. He even sells the things for a $100 donation on his Web page.

Warm at the core, loose and cool in the arms. Not since the 1980's have we seen a vest worn so well.

Yes, Rick Santorum's SciFi Twin is Carter Burke, the pesky Weyland-Yutani executive from Aliens.

And if you think this dude wouldn't lock Ron Paul in a room with a couple of Face Huggers, you better think again. Santourm appears to become physically ill just at the mention of Ron Paul...

Ron Paul cautions against war with Iran. Rick Santorum reacts...

Speaking of Congressman Paul, he seems like the only politician that regularly smiles and laughs. It's all the more unusual since most of the republican field regularly paints him as the anitchrist.

"Indeed!"

Something about his upbeat demeanor is on the same wavelength as David Lo Pan, the sorcerer from Big Trouble in Little China.

And while, many of Paul's opponents vocally regard him as a "basket case on wheels," one need only mention civil liberties to transform him into a "ten-foot tall roadblock" with light coming out of his mouth!

"'Defense spending' and 'military spending' are not the same thing!"

Hide your green-eyed girlfriend.

Movie Review: Melancholia

2012-01-09T19:34:00.001-08:00

As many of you know, "Melancholia" is the story of the annihilation of Mother Earth (and all life in the universe) via collision with a humongous rocky blue rogue planet. How potent is this movie? It gave me a zit. And I'm in my 30's. I physically reacted to this flick!

You will talk about this movie. You will think about it. I'm willing to bet that you haven't been inspired to do much talking or thinking about a movie in quite a long time. Even if you take issue with the message or the material (which is pretty likely, in fact), viewing this movie will affect you.

Bring Clearasil.

Hysteria and the Fourth Estate

2010-12-09T08:16:00.000-08:00

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787

My wife is sick of hearing me talk about Wikileaks. Rather than go on ad infinitum on the topic, let me make this suggestion: Don't listen to the opinions of talking heads or politicos where Wikileaks is concerned. Let's consider what the Founders would have thought, instead. Here's a list of Great Americans who would have applauded Wikileaks:

Benjamin Franklin (author, scientist, publisher, philosopher... the archetypal American)

Thomas Paine (philosopher, pamphleteer, the voice of the American Revolution)

Thomas Jefferson (philosopher, diplomat, author of the Declaration of Independence)

Samuel Adams (citizen revolutionary, first to propose a continental congress)

Alexander Hamilton (right hand to George Washington, co-author of The Federalist Papers)

James Madison (primary author of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, co-author of The Federalist Papers)

Let us brook no ambiguity: when Madison wrote the protection of a free press into the First Amendment (at the demands of the American people), it was not to defend the nauseating prattle of Katie Couric and her anchor desk counterparts. It was to insure the legal protection of Wikileaks.

Almost all of Wikileaks activity has resulted in critical news stories for the past two years. While the major networks were telling us about Tiger Woods, Michael Jackson, Dancing with the Stars, and the "Swine Flu" nonevent (et cetera, et cetera), Wikileaks brought us Climategate and the Iraq & Afghanistan War "diaries." This activity is not anti-governemt. It is pro-citizenty. It is the functioning of The Fourth Estate: the healthy and necessary pressure applied by a free press to keep governments and powerful social bodies honest and accountable.

The dissemination of this information is absolutely critical for an informed electorate to participate in their republic. If you believe that your government has the right to lie to you, then you also believe that your vote is pointless. How can you participate in a republic if you have false information? You can't.

Those on the American right who decry the "liberal media" on a daily basis yet who have been calling (literally) for the blood of Wikileaks frontman Julian Assange are engaged in the most base hypocrisy. Here is a non-editorializing journalistic source that withholds nothing and creates no narratives. Wikileaks content may be embarrassing, controversial, or dangerous. But it is the most fair media organization that I can think of. Those on the left who are stumbling to silence Wikileaks prove conclusively that they are no friends of civil rights, freedom of speech, or democracy. Without an informed citizenry, there is no democracy.

"As long as the liberty of the press continues unviolated, and the people have the right of expressing and publishing their sentiments upon every public measure, it is next to impossible to enslave a free nation. Men of an aspiring and tyrannical disposition, sensible of this truth, have ever been inimical to the press, and have considered the shackling of it, as the first step towards the accomplishment of their hateful domination, and the entire suppression of all liberty of public discussion, as necessary to its support. For even a standing army, that grand engine of oppression, if it were as numerous as the abilities of any nation could maintain, would not be equal to the purposes of despotism over an enlightened people."

-- "The Freeman's Journal," Philadelphia, 1787.

The 4th Amendment

2010-11-16T09:50:00.000-08:00

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I have an open question for Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano and her staff: Is there any hypothetical TSA screening procedure that you would describe as "too much," or "too invasive?" Is there a conceivable limit to what you would adopt as normative? I'd like to know what your limit is... and if you have one.

Zeitgeist and Post-Apocalyptic Visions: “The Walking Dead”

2010-11-02T10:21:00.000-07:00

Contrary to my normally plush sensibilities, I love zombie stories. From George A Romero to Max Brooks, I am a fan. I was naturally thrilled when I learned about AMC’s series “The Walking Dead,” and the show’s first installment delivered beyond expectations.

Near the middle of act 3, I found myself struck by the imagery: Our hero, clad in his sheriff’s uniform from a department that no longer exists, slowly rides into a silent, lifeless downtown Atlanta. The camera follows him as he looks at the abandoned metropolis, his eyes tracking over the empty skyscrapers and the traveler-less roads, as the sound of the wind whirls against the blank steel and marble facades.

I found these pictures so rattling that they snapped me out of the narrative, and I found myself asking, “What do these images mean? Why am I being shown this?”

Then it struck me: these are not images of surrender and extinction. This image is an expression of a profound need for spiritual rebirth.

Allow me to justify myself.

The zombie movie genre isn’t exactly “horror.” It’s apocalipticism. The zombie apocalypse is just one more way the world can end, along with plagues, war, asteroid impacts, alien invasions... whatever floats your boat.

It’s my contention that these stories of apocalypse are cultural barometers by which we can access the Zeitgeist. They are expressions of what we, as a culture, are feeling at the time. If you don’t believe me, simply consult Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan calendar, and so forth.

When I look at the apocalyptic stories from my birth era, the Cold War, the theme was always a warning: Do not destroy yourselves. “Mad Max.” “Planet of the Apes” (the original). “Logan’s Run.” “Silent Running.” “Soylent Green.” “The Terminator.” Even “Maximum Overdrive!” In all of them, we were the architects of ruin by means of our weapons, and stubbornness, and technology, and inhumanity. We destroyed ourselves, and the survivors were able to stand as witnesses to our violence and folly... warning the viewers to make the wholesome, human choice.

As the decade turned to the 1990’s and into the recent present, a truly horrible nihilism sank into the bones of our culture. Again, our apocalypses reflect this back at us. “12 Monkeys.” “Resident Evil.” “28 Days Later.” “Delicatessen.” The Tim Burton “Planet of the Apes” remake. “Terminator 3” (which directly repudiates the theme of freedom of choice presented in T2). Of course, “The Matrix” trilogy where The One exists to save humanity so that it can be destroyed over and over again. The new “Battlestar Galactica,” where the repeated destruction of humanity is preordained by the One True God. The theme here is no longer a warning; by this point, the notion that we will destroy ourselves had become so certain and well accepted that it was treated as a given. Despite the real fact that we had come through our 40-year deathgrip with our Soviet foe with neither side electing to burn our Earth, tales of warnings had become the tritest of cliché. Fatalism is shot through these stories... a fatalism that is immune to any reasons why or why not it should come to pass.

I believed that this was the moment in which we still lived, until I saw the quiet Atlanta of “The Walking Dead.” I interpret those images as a gripping spiritual compulsion to burn down the cultural era of nihilism and fatalism, and start fresh. Our hero is not searching those empty streets in an effort to scavenge and scrounge through the “new normal,” bereft of dignity or aspiration. He’s looking to restore the life that has been lost. To build a world of meaning again. This is not a depiction of death and oblivion, but of death and renewal.

Our culture is changing again.

Playing the Fiddle

2010-06-02T09:58:00.001-07:00

The Gulf Oil Spill represents an unprecedented failure of government, industry, and social cohesion. We all know this; it can only be disputed by idiots. Even today, we learn that the saw that took five weeks to find in BP's tool shed has gotten stuck. They actually took time to have a press conference about this rather than just hooking up a second one, pronto? This. Is. Pure. Incompetence. I propose an indefinite boycott of BP.

Why? This crisis is a threat to national security: with Liouisiana, we have an American state faceing a "permanant economic damage" to its entire economy and its entire unique culture. Shipping, fishing, tourism, and the energy supply itself will all sustain lasting, severe disfigurement. That constitutes by definition, a threat to the country worthy of militarizing the accident site, opening solutions up to the full range of American (and worldwide) resourcefulness, and seeing them executed with the proficiency, speed, and sobriety that the situation demands.

And what is our leadership doing? Today our president returned from a vacation to Chicago to give some obviously-critical accolade to Paul McCartney. The brief photo op he held at the poisoned banks of the Gulf was quite enough for him to call it a day. This. Is. Pure. Incompetence.

So far, American Presidents of the Twenty-First Century have a 100% incompetence rate.

According to the ledgend, at least the Emperor Nero played the fiddle himself as Rome burned. Our leader has enlisted a scabberous old hippie to play for him as our country suffers. While the full attention of our Executive Branch is brought to the task of blowing sunshine up the ass of an ex-Beatle tonight, the crisis goes on and on.

Lyman Millard Saves Cleveland

2010-03-17T08:43:00.000-07:00

Yes he does.

Product Review: Bud Select 55

2010-02-01T19:58:00.000-08:00

Certain lifestyle changes (including reduced exercise time, metabolic changes due to being over 30, and a complete lack of sleep) have led my household to experiment with lite beer. While such a thought would have been appalling only a few years ago, the ability to shave off a few calories holds a real appeal today. In this spirit, many a lite light lager has passed beyond our lips.

However, we have now found reason to stop this madness: Bud Select 55.

The lite-est of lite (and light) beers, this beverage has only 55 calories. That’s about half of Bud Select, Heineken lite, Amstel, etc. But here’s the bite: It doesn’t taste quite like beer, although it is similar. It carries some of the scent of beer, a few flavor undertones, but doesn’t actually belong in the beer family.

One must wonder how such a beverage is produced. After all, Select 55 doesn’t taste like diluted beer (as diluted beer would still be beer), but a cousin of beer... a byproduct of beer. How do the Master Brewers at Bud create this confection?

Then it occurred to me: I had smelled a few of those beer-like undertones in my childhood. At the old home of the Cleveland Browns, Cleveland Municipal Stadium. In the john.

Indeed, the mens room (and the ladies too, I bet) were breweries of the same sort that Select 55 comes from, where real beer is filtered through the liver and kidneys, heated to 98-degrees-Fahrenheit, and dispensed into the world. In fact, I bet the Master Brewers’ recipe goes just like this:

In Step 1, genuine, delicious Budewiser is consumed by happy workers. Their bodies process the raw material, removing half of the calories!

In Step 2, the same worker dispenses the newly filtered Bud Select 55 into bottles for transport to a retailer near you.

Be sure to enjoy some at your next barbecue.

Secure

2010-01-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

When we use the word "security," what exactly are we referring to? Does the definition display logical and internal validity? Is the definition reasonable given the context of experience?

I have my own answers; I’m sure that you, Gentle Reader, have yours. However, I wonder, is there is an official government definition of this much-used word "security?" Is there an official media definition? Does anybody in public life have any discrete concepts bound up with the term, its implications, and the cost-benefit structure associated with it?

I pose this question because the President is beginning his 2010 with "security" at the top of his memo sheet. As such, I wish to offer the following observations... Not as polemic, not to be scathing, but simply to observe and to reflect.

1993: The World Trade Center is bombed from within its parking garage by an Islamic terrorist with organizational backing. Despite the FBI having been tipped off, the government did not avert the attack.

2001: We all know what happened in September. Once again, the Federal government did not avert the attack, despite having years worth of credible intelligence at their disposal. However, once the atrocities began, regular citizens aboard United Flight 93 -your neighbors- arose to fight and die rather than allow Islamic terrorists in their midst to kill anybody else.

2001: In December, a murderous asshole attempted to blow up a plane in the name of his faith. Flight attendants discovered him in the act of lighting a fuse on his bomb, and he blew his cover by assaulting them. In turn, the passengers on the flight administered him a sensible beat-down, saving the lives of their neighbors onboard.

2009: A traitor in United States Army launched a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. Around 45 people were shot until the perpetrator was brought down by a civilian cop, who was herself hit thrice by the treasonous zealot. Under PATRIOT Act provisions allowing for the monitoring of international communications, Federal authorities were entirely aware that the traitor had been in contact with a radical Islamic cleric with established terrorist ties and that his "martyrdom" had been discussed. Further, military authorities were long aware of the traitor’s radical tendencies, because he spoke of them plainly. Still, no Federal employee moved to prevent the murder spree, succeeded in stopping it once it had begun, nor has been held accountable for his/her ineffectuality.

2009: Yet another pious jackoff with a bomb in his underwear decided to try his hand at the airline terror game. After managing to ignite a small blaze while attempting to detonate his charge, a passenger threw himself into action and stopped him. Others kept him restrained until the plane could land.

The commonalties in these incidents should be clear to all. The government has not prevented any terrorism, despite it’s stated devotion to "security," and the extraordinary burden it places upon the public. All the incidents that were stopped were stopped by civilians, except the Fort Hood atrocity which ended at the hand of a local cop.

I offer this not as polemic, only as observation. But, I would challenge the President to publicly define the term "security," and allow that definition to be unpacked and scrutinized in good faith. And I will add this: do not fear your neighbors, nor your neighbors’ liberty. Do not fear their rights, or hold them under suspicion. They are your "security." In conditions of extreme duress, it has been proven that they are the ones who will try to save your life.

Movie Review: A Christmas Carol (2009)

2009-11-26T21:40:00.000-08:00

When "family entertainment" becomes "kid film" no good can come of it. As such, this new distortion of "A Christmas Carol" saps all profundity from the source material while offering up numerous images of an old man hurtling through the air and suffering multiple falls as "humor."

Jim Carrey, who plays all major characters, performs Scrooge by stealing Darth Sidious' exact vocal affectations... And he gives us The Ghost of Christmas Past by doing Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo. It's uncanny.

And then there's the presentation: we saw the film in "Real D" 3-D. By now everybody has heard the hype surrounding this technology-- how it's set to "revolutionize" cinema. Believe me, 3-D in the 21st Century is the same gimmick it was in the 1950's. It adds nothing to the art of storytelling. Furthermore, looking at the screen through the glasses gave me a mild headache... at first. By the end of act 1, I began to feel eyestrain, and even an earache. Soon this pattern began to cascade, leading to sore throat, dizziness, labored breathing, muscle twitching, uncontrollable sneezing, violent flatulence, drooling, hemorrhoids,... And Tourette's.

Drink, Drink, Drink! Smoke and Fight! Drink, Smoke, and Fight!!!

2009-06-26T18:14:00.000-07:00

The Asylum for Shut-Ins.

Club

Clean the Boot

Noticing

2009-06-01T22:23:00.000-07:00

Evening fell over Ohio. My wife was putting the kids to bed; I had just finished mowing the grass, and I found myself sitting on my front porch. My coffee had turned lukewarm, my Montecristo uncharacteristically harsh; I must have been sitting there fifteen full minutes before lifting my eyes up from the lawn, over the roof of my neighbor's house.

The color of the sky tilted from powder blue, to azure, to lapis. Pink clouds streaked a candy patchwork through the blue, reflecting the sunset in all its glory. Luna, half in Mother Earth's shadow, blazed through the blue, through the pink, more brilliant than any gem I have ever seen.

And I though to myself, "My God! What other beautiful things have I failed to notice today?"

Point a Finger, Three Fingers Point Back At You

2009-03-19T13:13:00.000-07:00

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IOWA: "The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, "I'm sorry," and then either do one of two things, resign or go commit suicide."

I can't take this hypocrisy anymore.

All of America is furious about the AIG Bonus Scandal, but not furious enough, and not with the right people. I watched much of AIG boss Edward Liddy's testimony before congress on CSPAN. Our "representatives" flailed into him, heaping on accusation, blame, disgust, loathing. Senator Grassley's comment (reprinted above) is typical of the horseshit grandstanding of our incompetent Federal legislative body.

In case you didn't hear, AIG paid $200 million in "bonuses" to their executives, taken from the bulk of the $175 billion Bailout payment our "representatives" chose to give them.

Here's the news: AIG is a powerful corporation, and I'm sure it's staffed with assholes. But AIG, Edward Liddy, and his staff of filthy rich executive dirtbags is not to blame for this scandal. No company has the power to reach into the bank accounts of the working poor and transfer their money to the super rich. Only the government can do that.

Simple as that. Not only did government alone set the conditions for this ongoing disgrace, Sen. Chris Dodd crafted the bailout language to specifically protect executive bonuses.

So, Senator Grassley, my advice to you is the same as you would wrongly give to Liddy and his people: Follow the Japanese example. Call yourself a little press conference, and come before the American people. Admit your responsibility for your part in this unbearable assault against the poor and middle class. Bow, and apologise. Then resign. Or kill yourself.

"Change" = A Bigger Helping of What You Just Had

2009-02-12T09:27:00.000-08:00

We live in strange times. Not only have we seen an age where our elected leaders have the ability to fundamentally imperil the nation through their financial policies, they have actually exercised the will to do so.

God bless President Obama for signing the order to do away with Gitmo. But in the matter of the financial crisis -- a crisis created by a totalitarian-esque, feudalist, inflation-loving, and debt-mongering investment banking class -- President Obama is George W. Bush on steroids. The new "Stimulus" bill, a bill identical to the Paulson/Bush strategy (except 3x bigger), will transfer a huge portion of the money sitting in your wallet to billionaire banking juntas while transforming what remains into comparative garbage. And that's only the beginning.

Nevermind the so-called "pork" in the bill. The "Stimulus" breaks down thusly: The government borrows money against future taxes leveraged against you. They give you the money they borrowed, so that you can spend it at a retailer near you (thereby transferring it upward again, as the retailers use the cash to pay back debt to banks). They then tax you at interest to pay off the loan. So at the end of the day, they took your money to transfer it upward to the banking class via retailers' debt, and they stick you with the interest to boot. But the real bite is that the money that's been borrowed must be printed in dollars, significantly reducing the value of all dollars.

So here's the Central Bankers' Gambit: Keep inflation high enough to hold the maximum number of institutions and individuals in debt (permanently if possible), but not so high that the money they receive in debt payments is entirely valueless.

To debase the currency is to spread poverty. If the dollar in your pocket doesn't buy your daily bread as it did yesterday, then the government has visited a violence upon the people.

It's the new face of indentured servitude. We are in the midst of a full-blown class struggle, right out of Marx and Engles.

I express this sentiment with the greatest hesitation, the greatest care, and sincere sorrow. In the interest of full disclosure, Gentle Reader, let it be known that I am a principled free marketeer, student of Austrian economic theory, advocate of hard money, and a proud capitalist. If I could send a buff cyborg back in time to terminate Karl Marx's mother before she could give birth to the son-of-a-bitch (thereby preventing the bloodiest, most murder-inciting ideas in history from being written), I'd do it with champagne in hand.

Why do I feel this passion? I believe the only proper way to frame structural economic issues is in light of their impact on civil rights. My deep commitment to capitalism stems not from a desire to lash others to the machines in my factory, but to liberate them from those machines, and any machine not of their own choosing. The widespread access to economic advancement by all citizens is inextricably integral to democracy itself. Monetary policy is civil rights policy. And as a secular humanist, I judge those things which extend human dignity and prosperity to greater numbers of people as sacred.

What we are witnessing is the governmentally facilitated consolidation of the nation's wealth (your money, your employer's assets) through debt to central banks via inflation-- an acquisition that would never be possible without inflation having debased the currency first. If the money in my pocket covers my expenses, I have no need to borrow any. In order for the bankers to get my money, they have to compel me to go into debt... and the only way to make sure I do that is by making my money too dilute to cover my expenses. I often see our elected officials and media talking heads making statements such as "Businesses need credit!" and "We must act to ensure businesses get the credit they need!" This is pure garbage. Businesses don't need credit. They need purchasing power, and are forced to resort to credit (debt) because government fiscal policy has ruined the currency that used to cover expenses, but doesn't anymore. I'll bet 90% of Americans' salaries are paid in money their employers had to borrow. How does that make you feel about your job security?

We need deflation. We need it for the survival of the American Dream.

Everybody has always hated bankers; it's their historical lot. The Medici family, whose contribution to human culture through their patronage of the arts is invaluable, still managed to be despised and feared in their time of power. Yet, historian Niall Ferguson observes that the development of banks in cultures always coincides with elevated standards of living and general societal advancement. I mention these things to clearly express the developmental need for banks and lending. But just as banks can help a civilization thrive, we are now seeing how they can cause a civilization to fail.

Date with Elvis

2009-02-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

Lux Interior... dead.

Of the 10,000 versions of "Route 66" that were recorded, he sang it best.

Cajones

2009-01-14T13:37:00.000-08:00

"Amigo, the only thing in this world that gives orders is balls. Balls. You got that?" - Tony Montana.

As usual, Tony Montana's existential observations paint him as the quintessential fictional American prophet/sage. In times of confusion, I often seek council from the classical masters (Yoda, Morpheus, Professor Xavier), and Tony offers us the only plausible explanation for the recent disgrace in the United States Senate.

Just before New Year's, Roland Burris was appointed junior Senator for the State of Illinois by the baldly corrupt Governor Rod Blagojevich. This week, the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid chose to welcome him among their ranks... despite Sen. Reid's early and very public assurance that such a tainted appointment would never be allowed to stand.

For those of you who do not know, Gov. Blagojevich was arrested, impeached, and is awaiting trial for alledgedly trying to sell (for dollars!) the IL Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. Some could rightly consider corruption of that level a full-blown subversion of democracy... Even treason. After getting pinched on a wiretap by the FBI, Blagojevich rushed to use his authority as governor to appoint a Senator of his own choosing before his powers and office are stripped from him.

The sitting Senators reacted strongly; they announced publicly that any appointment made by Blagojevich would be refused entry among their company. They must have rightly sensed that allowing a flagrantly corrupt criminal governor to skew and distort the Senate of the United States of America via a tainted appointment would not only damage the nation, but also reduce their own clout by denigrating the office itself (and making them look like chumps, to boot).

But being a proactive rogue, Blagojevich was one step ahead of them-- appointing Roland Burris to one of the most powerful offices in the world. Why would Blagojevich do this? One can make two reasonable assumptions: (1) Burris will carry out some kind of function that will improve Blagojevich's circumstances, and (2) Blagojevich finds it gratifying to impose his will on the Senate, particularly over their objections.

In an attempt to redeem the dignity of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the airwaves to address the issue on Meet the Press, with David Gregory. From the official transcript:

MR. GREGORY: OK. Let's move on back home and talk about the controversial appointment of

Roland Burris by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Back when this story first broke, when the charges of corruption were brought against Governor Blagojevich, you put him on notice. And you had a letter that was signed by all Senate Democrats that said, in part, the following: "We write to insist that you step down as governor of Illinois and under no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois Senate seat. Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request ... and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article 1, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated." In other words, you can reject that appointment. You did that because Governor Blagojevich defied that letter, defied you. He appointed Roland Burris. Roland Burris also defying you.

SEN. REID: Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that's pretty clear. And the

reason that he's done what he's done is to divert attention from the arrest that was just made of him and the indictment which will be coming in a few days, according to the U.S. attorney in Illinois. That's why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr. Burris is tainted... We determine who sits in the Senate, and the House determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to. This goes back for generations."

And so, there it was: Blagojevich versus Reid, with the very honor of America's Federal democratic apparatus at stake. The result? Burris was accepted into the Senate two days ago, and is preparing to take the oath of office.

Reid never had a chance. Why? Balls. Given all that was at stake (clout, power, public perception, and the integrity of the government), balls is the only explanation that makes any kind of sense of the ultimate outcome.

Say what you like about the (alleged) criminal villainy of Rod Blagojevich. The man has balls.

As can be clearly seen in Figure A, Blagojevich's balls are substantial, robust, hugely engorged orbs of command. These are the kind of balls of which Tony Montana spoke: the cajones that give orders.

By contrast, Senator Reid's balls (as illustrated in Figure B) are shriveled, hairless, childlike micro-nads, lacking any substance or power.

These are the balls of a man who fails to defend the integrity of his office and the integrity of America's democracy.

So, Reid isn't giving any orders at all... none that stick, anyway. He isn't directing the outcome of anything connected with Blagojevich or Burris, even when it is his sacred trust as an elected official to do so. Blagojevich is calling the shots, within the walls of Reid's own house.

I'd sincerely prefer if Blagojevich had appointed himself Senator. At least there would be some kind of strength in the Capitol building. There seems to be none there now.

Movie Review: Valkyrie

2009-01-03T16:41:00.000-08:00

I went into this movie with extreme skepticism.

As most of us know by now, the flick chronicles the failure of a conspiracy of German politicians and military officers to assassinate Hitler, known now as the "July 20" plot. The marketing materials for the film give us catchy lines such as "Some Saw Evil... A Few Dared to Stop It," and something about "letting the world know not all Germans were like Hitler." This made my bullshit alarm ring-a-ding-ding. Unless I'm very mistaken, the same Whermacht that was trying to kill Hitler in 1944 did his bidding for nearly a decade prior-- in Spain, France, Poland, Austria, North Africa, Holland, Hungary, a bunch of Eastern European countries who have now different names and borders, the USSR, beneath the waves of the Atlantic Ocean, and over the skies of Great Britain, to say nothing of the tyranny directed against their own homeland. Nobody was trying to kill Hitler when Germany was winning their war of conquest. But with America liberating Germany's conquered nations and the Bolsheviks storming toward them like a bloodthirsty tidal wave, are we to believe the German military suddenly got an attack of conscience? Hardly. What they wanted out of Hitler's death was protection: American & British protection from the vengeance of Stalin. These men whom the film's marketing department claims "dared to stop evil" were not liberators. We, the Americans and our Western Allies were. And the July 20 plotters were among the ones putting our people in coffins.

That having been said, Valkyrie is an outstanding film, and everybody involved did superb work. Despite his triumph with The Usual Suspects (a classic), director Brian Singer has failed to impress me (Superman Returns = floating turd braid) with some of his other offerings (X-Men = waste of talent). After the first 15 minutes of Valkyrie, I became acutely aware of the fact that I haven't seen a new film that truly looks like a film in a good five years. There's almost a 1970's-era quality to the images and editing. Shots look like shots. Cuts are smart and gentle. There is a minimum of spectacle, but a wealth of things to look at, nevertheless. Visual, auditory, and pacing gratuity is nowhere to be found. In short, the played-out MTV visual aesthetic that has so virulently corrupted our media arts has been banished from Valkyrie... Banished as if it had never been popular at all. The subtle, high quality of the filmcraft alone is reason to see the movie-- you will be refreshed. And Tom Cruise? Let's be real, Gentle Reader: this guy can carry a picture all by himself and make it look effortless. With Valkyrie's supporting players having all been bussed in from London's West End, the acting is first rate down to the last cast member. Even Kenneth Brannagh manages not to overact... Sort of.

As for my skepticism of the film's theme, I'm happy to report that the revisionist distortions advanced by the marketing materials aren't representative of the film itself. The theme isn't "liberation" or "stopping evil." It's patriotism... With the conflict stemming from the condition that being a patriot under the circumstances required an act of high treason. While the head plotter, Stauffenberg (Cruise), is portrayed as a man acting under his conscience and moral principals (a portrayal that is apparently based in fact), Singer is careful not to heroize the Whermacht plotters unduly or for artificial dramatic effect. Given the hundreds-of-thousands of people who sacrificed much-or-all to defeat "Hitler's Germany," that was Singer's duty. He fulfilled it.

Grade: A-

Movie Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

2008-12-26T11:45:00.000-08:00

I don’t remember much about the original (even though it was directed by the great Robert Wise), other than some alien dude and his pet Terminator show up at the start of the Cold War and tell us not to use the atom bomb.

This time around, he shows up to inform us that humanity deserves to die for using gasoline.

I have seen Triumph of the Will. I’ve seen Battleship Potemkin. Both of these movies are the hallmark media productions of the two most murderous regimes of the most violent century in world history. And while both the Nazis and Soviets engaged in systematic, industrialized slayings of their own citizens, neither of their calling-card movies has the temerity to admit that 7-figure and 8-figure body counts were part of their programs.

The Day the Earth Stood still argues for the moral correctness of the total extermination of the human race to prevent us from driving, using electricity, or engaging in any other eco-taboo. In the film, Klaatu/Keanu is sent to wipe out every man, woman, and child for our transgressions against our planet. He begins this process (killing many human beings along the way), but ultimately decides not to go through with it due to his own sentimental reasons (he gets sweet on an Earthwoman). But make no mistake: even though Klaatu/Keanu decides not to fulfill his mission, he stops his genocidal rampage because he feels like it, not because he determines it to be morally wrong.

Never in my life have I beheld a movie openly arguing for the ethical correctness of genocide… not even Triumph of the Will. But this film does.

The filmmaker, Scott Derrickson thinks it’s a viable, righteous, and wholesome option to “save the planet” by killing you, your children, everybody you love, and probably himself too. The kicker of the film postulates that we may be worth something based on our love for each other.

But the slave camps of the Gulag could not be stopped by love. The death-mills of the Jewish Holocaust could not be stilled by love. And for the filmmakers to argue that love could hold back the sword of extra-terrestrial genocide is just their pathetic attempt to wash their hands of the fact that their movie puts forth the claim that all us watching it would better serve the planet (and the galaxy) if we were dead.

Fuck you, Scott Derrickson.

"... And Your Enemies Closer"

2008-11-19T20:37:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is a master student of Machiavelli.

The masterpiece of his election to the Presidency was not his defeat of John McCain and his aimless, hapless Republicans. Rather, the defeat of the Clintons was his true victory, and it puts perspective on the scale of his accomplishment: Obama staged a full-blown power realignment in the Democratic Party, turning out an established controlling legacy, before dealing the weak Republicans their justly earned defeat.

And now that he’s finished with the GOP, he’s returned his attention to the Clintons. Obama rightly intuits that any challenge to his power will not come from the confused remains of the Red Guys, but from the Clintons’ efforts to revitalize. To that end, his moves have been masterful.

Rohm Emmanuel: Obama’s first move was to deprive Hillary of the architect of her victories during the campaign. By bringing the formidable Emmanuel into his camp as chief of staff, Obama has significantly reduced the Clinton’s effectiveness (and preemptively kneecapped any possible Hillary 2012 campaign), while enhancing his own power. Brilliant.

Further of his appointments are Clinton Administration veterans, and Obama has been taking fire for making “change” look a little like changing back to ’93. But by bringing Clintonians into his fold, he’s also taking them away from Bill and Hillary… so, when they rear their heads in search of leadership privileges again, their most trusted operatives will no longer be on their side.

Offering the Secretary of State post to Hillary Clinton is nothing short of a checkmate-level gambit: if she accepts, she’s finished as a leader unto herself. Not only will Bill be unable to conduct his normal lucrative international activities, but Hillary herself will become Obama’s instrument—carrying out his policies, rather than developing and furthering her own. No longer a rival or a rallying figure for intra-party dissent, she would be his simple functionary.

Best of all, this move makes him look like magnanimous... rather than calculating.

By taking this path, Obama’s control of the party becomes opposition-free-- now, and into the future of his career. His administration is being very carefully laid out as a lean, mean machine.

This guy is craftier than Michael Corleone. I’m impressed.

Sicker by the Hour

2008-11-18T08:48:00.000-08:00

I was astonished today to read that a survey shows 49% of doctors want to leave the medical field. Half of them!

The implications here are truly staggering, but let's cut to the chase: we need doctors! Why don't they want to stay in the field?

Simple: they can't make any money, and bureaucrats make their daily life miserable. Put yourself in a doc's shoes... You've racked up decades of debt on your med school education, and put off family and outside interest to focus on study and residency. When you finally arrive in a job, you have precisely 13,0213 bureaucratic hoops to jump through due to government, insurance companies, and HMO's. Paperwork supersedes the rigors of continuing education, growing the practice, and even patient care. Your professional liability insurance rates are so high, after you pay the receptionist you won't be able to make rent. Of course it's a rotten deal. Who wouldn't want to quit?

Once again, the answer is simple: Abolish HMO's. Destroy all these middlemen, before they destroy the medical field. Frankly, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment to annihilate this collective of vampires and charlatans. They are bringing us to a Sovietesque immobilization-of-services due to their ponderous, slothful bloat. Replacing this nightmare of managed care, HMOs, medical insurance providers, and their infinitely deep retinue of "distributors" with one layer (even a thick one) of taxpayer-supported government employees managing a national healthcare plan will reduce the cost of medicine by a massive degree... maybe even enough to leave some cash to pay the doctors with. Specifically limit the circumstances under which trial lawyers can lay waste to doctors, and we just may be able to have a 20th Century level of medicine available to our citizenry by the middle of the 21st..

Colors

2008-10-31T13:36:00.000-07:00

The ubiquitous media talk about “red states” and “blue states” has been nagging at the back of my mind like an itch. Everywhere I look, from TV news to the internet, somebody is always throwing up a map of the USA painted in red or blue zones of power.

I knew that I had heard of a struggle between red and blue factions before… but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was.

Then it dawned on me: they’re talking about gangsters! Red and blue, fighting it out over territory ala the Crips and Bloods, just like in the movie Colors! Given how disappointed I’ve been in the candidates (both supporting FISA, both supporting The Bailout and a nationalized banking sector, both supporting NATO expansion, neither interested in shoring-up the value of the dollar), nothing could be more appropriate. The Democrats and Republicans are, in fact, behaving like gangsters.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ice-T:

"I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking
Living life like a firecracker quick is my fuse
Then dead as a deathpack the colors I choose
Red or Blue, Dem or Repub, it just don't matter
Suckers dive for your life when my shotgun scatters
We gangs of DC will never die - just multiply"

"You don't know me, fool
You disown me, cool
I don't need your assistance, social persistance
Any problem I got I just put my fist in
My life is violent but violent is life
Peace is a dream, reality is a knife
My colors, my honour, my colors, my all
With my colors upon me one soldier stands tall
Tell me what have you left me, what have I got
Last night in cold blood my 401k got shot
My financial sysyem got jacked

My President's on crack
My Speaker of the House can't work cause her arms show trax"

Fall Down Go Boom

2008-10-13T09:28:00.000-07:00

If there were a way to spit via blogging, I’d be doing it right now.

The world economic meltdown is becoming more of a lightning rod for fear and dunce-like reactionary-ism than the terror threat could ever have been. The immorality and totalitarianism of our government’s response can only be taken as evidence of their complicity. But before I get too far afield, let me tell you why you should not fear the Wall Street contraction.

To the point: the value of the entire market was grossly and intentionally inflated, and was so for several years. Talking heads have been lamenting the disintegration of “trillions of dollars from our economy” due to these losses—but those trillions of dollars were never based on the realities of commerce in the first place, and should never have been accepted by any intelligent person. Here’s the straight dope:

Once upon a time, companies made a profit by selling goods or services. They had to make sure that their wares were of competitive quality and affordability so that as many people as possible could (and would want to) buy them. Easy model—money passes from consumers to producers in exchange for products.

The notion of publicly trading shares of a company (“stocks”) evolves from the concept that a company’s ability to please consumers with quality stuff would make that company profitable, and that profitability would attract investment from outside parties who believed they would realize their own gain because so many people held that company’s products in esteem. This is the Free Market Capitalism model, and it rules. Consumers get the best products and services at competitive prices, and the opportunity to invest in companies whose output they deem particularly excellent. Companies profit by the continued business of their customers and the opportunity to expand their customer base through private investment (the selling of shares and payment of dividends on shares sold). Investors get to profit by the continued growth and excellence of the company, as the company’s expanding customer base generates funds to pay back dividends on top of their investment. Freedom, progress, justice… all in the same place!

All parties in this model benefit, but it requires adherence to an essential principle that cannot be compromised: The profit source of companies is the sale of goods or services to consumers.

I don’t know when it happened, or how. But that is no longer the business model followed by companies either domestically or globally. Behold the downfall of capitalism, Gentle Reader: companies no longer rely on the sale of goods or services to make a profit. Companies profit through the sale of stock.

Under this model, investors and companies exist in an incestuous, exclusive reinforcing spiral that aggressively insulates itself from the realities of material trade-based economics by misidentifying stock as a product in-and-of-itself. It is not.

Consider this: the average big corporation has a profit margin between 2%-8%. That’s barley incentive to show up for work, and what trickle of cash they can realize is subject to repressively high levels of taxation—some of the highest in the world.

Consider further: when an investor buys stock in a company, that money passes directly from the investor’s hands into the company’s bank account. No waiting for clients to pay. No paying employees and managing their associated complications. No selling of any kind of product or paying for its manufacturer. No damnable 2%-8% profit margin. No corporate tax. They got the money! And do you know what they do when they get it? Spend, spend, spend. When you see those TV spots for Exxon and Merc and General Electric, they are not trying to entice you to buy gasoline or pills or jet engines. They are wooing you to buy their stock.

Honestly, why should companies go through the reprehensible level of red tape associated with turning a meager buck when they can slash through their operations (or just cook the books) and get paid directly by investors? Investors certainly like it, because the more of them who buy into this model, the more of them will profit. This fundamentally transforms the motivation of investors from the expectation of earning dividends from companies conducting profitable real commerce to the expectation that the company’s stock will grow in value from quarter-to-quarter as a valued commodity in-and-of itself. The profitability and sustainability of the company is no longer necessary to them… only the speculative future resale value of the stock (and thier ability to borrow against it).

Companies recognize this in full clarity. For many years now, they have been gearing their operations toward short-term increases in stock value, and tearing themselves apart to realize them.

Here’s the fix:

Empower the SEC to place a cap on the quarterly value of every stock, basing that maximum value on both profit margins and evidence of actual consumer-based trade. Every person on Wall Street will object, and it is a major government intervention/regulation, but this will instantly refocus companies on the conduct of real commerce, rather than the pleasure of investors… returning them to a sales oriented profit model, over an investment oriented one. Most importantly, it regulates the financial sector without nationalizing it.

Next, government must allow these companies to actually turn a significant profit. Reduce the governmentally imposed costs of doing business, particularly the barbarically high corporate tax levels. Close any loopholes, but make rates sustainable and in line with averages for the industrialized world. This may not be a popular stance, but let us use logic: if government takes an ever-increasing slice of an ever-shrinking pie, that pie will either be consumed or moved to a country where it won’t get devoured. Either way, no more pie for us.

What could aid best in this task is not an inflation-boosting taxpayer bailout, but a strong dollar.

Unfortunately, your government and business elite are utterly blind, if not completely corrupt. They wish to preserve the status quo. They wish to preserve the conditions of strip mining companies’ future viability to please investors—both because they crave the influence and money of high-roller investors with fortunes tied into this scheme, and because they love being able to tax everybody’s retirement savings through the antisocial instrument of “capital gains.”

That is one purpose of the bailout, but the least immoral. The most immoral purpose is to preserve the status quo of the Debt Industry, but that is a topic for another day.

The United Corporate Welfare States of America

2008-09-29T07:28:00.000-07:00

The “Bailout.”

It’s 9:30am as I sit to write this. The $700 billion bailout bill is on the floor of the House, but still hasn’t come up for a vote. It’s still our country for now.

But by lunch, I suspect We the People will have lost it.

What we are seeing unfold is nothing less than a total failure of democracy. Everybody in the citizenry opposes this monstrous rape of our nation’s wealth. Everybody realizes clearly that it will undermine the future solvency of all under age 40. Everybody realizes it’s morally wrong. Everybody, that is, except for 100% of elected Democrats and 75% of elected Republicans… and the ultra-rich Investment Capital Class to whom they are thralls.

Witnesseth, Gentle Reader: this day, your representatives shall transfer the meager savings of the struggling poor to the vaults of billionaires.

What can be said when a government acts in almost total opposition to the will of the governed for the express purpose of stealing from the poor to give to the rich? This is a failure of democracy, and totalitarian in its very nature. For it is pristinely clear that representation in Washington is available for only the ultra-wealthy class of underwriters—those with more money than literally everybody else.

Even being super-rich isn’t power enough to buy representation in Washington anymore. The super-rich of Wall Street stand to have government control shoved into their day-to-day investment activities as added protection for the ultra-rich. Surely, the ultra-rich cannot afford to have their money mismanaged by the merely super-rich. So in addition to giving the ultra-rich $10,000.00 from every working American home, Washington will permanently insert itself into the street-level functionality of finance.

There are some who will protest that this "bailout" is a necessary evil, required to prevent a depression. Some, such as our President and his gang, and Speaker of the House Pelosi, make the claim that this will prevent an economic collapse that would effect every household in the country.

These claims are entirely false. The "mortgage crisis" could be solved completely and simply: rather than the government buying the debt from these banks, they could simply pay off part of, or all of everybody's mortgages. This includes the added positive that everybody in the country would actually own their homes, and those institutions who traded debt as a commodity would survive, but not prosper. But this condition is precisely what the "bailout" is designed to prevent. The debt we citizens carry is the engine of the wealth and power of the ultra-rich, and that power (and your commensurate lack thereof) is what your elected representatives are diligently working to protect.

They are nationalizing the investment sector. Just like Hugo Chavez. Just like Lenin.

I once wrote about my disappointment with the “ownership society,” saying essentially that due to debt in our lives, the banks own everything (“the bank owns my house; the bank owns my car,...” etc.). But now the banks will be controlled by the Federal government. So, get this straight, because after today:

The government owns your house.
The government owns your car.
The government owns your education.
The government owns whatever you finance on a credit card.
And the government is owned by the ultra-rich.

We the People have lost. It’s their country now. We’re just tenants. We’re only renting here.

Machiavellian Opportunity

2008-08-09T09:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I awoke to the news of Russia’s move against Georgia. We’ve got to hand it to “Prime Minister” (perhaps “Dowager Tsar?”) Putin: only the most devious mind would use the cover of the Olympic Games’ opening ceremony to launch an attack. The eyes of the whole world are on China. It’s the perfect shield to mask underhanded dealings. Just ask John Edwards.

Bush and Putin are both in Beijing, so they had a little face time on the matter. One can imagine the confrontational tone of their conversation:

Bush:

Georgia is a legitimate democracy friendly to the USA and the West. Stop your attack.

Putin:

Georgia is a rouge state oppressing its people. Our troops are being greeted as liberators. Besides, this is our backyard, and the USA, the EU, and the UN have no business telling us what to do in it.

Bush:

The international community will not agree.

Putin:

The international community needs us. They need the weapons we sell to them. They need the oil pipelines we administrate. Most of them have Stockholm syndrome from the days when we were terrorizing the planet, anyway. They won’t say a thing.

I’m sure that right now, wheels are turning in the State Department to find a diplomatic/economic way to forcibly halt Russia’s advance. That is a waste. Russians love rolling their tanks, and they haven’t had a chance to do it since they rolled them out of Afghanistan. They’re not stopping until they’re satisfied.

At the risk of sounding like a bad guy, I’d like to propose an alternative.

Let’s tell PM Putin that he can have Georgia. He can enjoy his little war to his heart’s content, and the USA will not say a word, nor organize world opposition (as we seem to be doing even now).

But there is a price, a quid-pro-quo: Russia and its allies must remain silent when Israel and the USA inevitably strike the Iranian nuclear reactor at Natanz.

In his inaugural address, President Kennedy wanted the word to go out to world that the USA would support any friend and oppose any foe in support of “the cause of liberty.” That is a beautiful vision for our place in the world, and it appeals to my idealism. My compromise shafts Georgia and its friendly government. But let’s be honest: if we want to stop this conflict, we either oppose the Russians by force of arms, or not at all. And we’re not going to shoot at them.

For good or ill, Georgia’s fate is in the hands of Putin. Let’s use that fact to our diplomatic advantage when we are finally compelled to strike.

Jonesing for Indiana

2008-07-03T14:54:00.000-07:00

Since my two favorite film critics (Ms. DuPont and Mr. Taylor-Taylor) have remained mute on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’ll serve up my two-cents.

I saw the flick on opening weekend, and I like it less and less as I have had time to reflect on it. A simple (and accurate) surface criticism is that the movie fails in exactly the way the Star Wars prequels do: the characters are exposed to a paucity of real danger, and are in no way dangerous themselves. Not only does Indiana Jones not fire a single shot in 120 minutes (other than an RPG into a tank), he doesn’t even go by the name “Indy,” being addressed as “Henry” by almost all the characters. The most daring thing he does in the entire story is fail to wear a condom while he’s boning Marion… and that happens off-screen 20 years prior to the events of the film.

As we all know, Shia LaBeouf shows up as Indiana Jones’ long lost bastard, “Mutt.” The name “Mutt” is certainly a shout-out to George Lucas’ boyhood dog Indiana, the inspiration for both Dr. Jones and Chewbacca previously. And LaBeouf? The guy is a movie star—not being blown off the screen by Ford in his (arguably) most iconic role is an achievement all its own. Besides, Shia LaBeouf (pronounced “Le Boff”) has the filthiest name in acting since Hedy Lamarr, so I like him as a given.

We learn that Marion has been shacked up with Indy’s old roommate Oxley for the past decade, with Oxley taking on something like a father’s role for the boy, reading him evil legends before bedtime, and teaching him the finer points of archeological terror. When Oxley goes missing, Marion dispatches her son to recruit the one graverobbing professor wiley enough to find him.

And this is where the film falls into dross. One would presume that Oxley and Marion have a loyal loving relationship. After all, this Oxley guy has been raising her son for years, and she’s exposing herself and Mutt to the bad guys in order to bring him home. When she is ultimately reunited with Indy and Oxley, “The Ox” is not only ejected without so much as a word, his emotional connection and the respect due him as a member of her household is simply never addressed. As for Oxley himself, he has nothing to say about Marion and her thoroughgoing instant betrayal, except to smile like an asshole while she marries herself off to Jones at long last.

Where is the passion? Where are the emotional stakes? I can forgive Spielberg transforming the despicable, irredeemable Soviets into a bunch of cartoonish stooges (while using wardrobe to transform Cate Blanchett’s ass into a helipad), but I cannot excuse him for failing to capitalize on the enormous emotional rawness and built-in drama the situation creates. What would have made this film succeed is for Marion to come to terms with her love for and attraction to Jones, and then go home with Oxley. Or she could have followed her passion and dumped Oxley, but with an accordant sense of gravity with regard to the emotional consequences and drastic change to their lives. Beyond that, Oxley should have shown considerable resentment towards his rescuer (Jones), as well as displaying a need to keep this serious threat to his romantic life at bay, whatever the outcome may have been. And what about poor Mutt? How does he feel about seeing his surrogate father kicked to the curb in favor of the jackass who dumped his mom years and years ago?

I know it's supposed to be an action movie, but all this stuff is built into the story by the situations the filmmakers deliberately created. It doesn't have to be the center of the movie, but to entirely ignore all this deep subtext makes the onscreen action meaningless and disposable. There was a real movie in here, and the filmmakers spared no pains in ripping out all its teeth.