What's This? Another Edition of Riku Writes Odds and Ends? Already?

I don't think of myself as old, I in fact feel pretty much as I did whilst in my early 20s, sans hangovers. But I remember pay phones, rotary phones and a world without mobile phones. I remember when watching a movie on TV meant watching what was being shown on TV and in real time and with commercial interruptions. I can even vaguely recall shorts and travelogues before movies in theaters and not a single commercial before the film.

Yesterday was a holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. For the life of me I can't figure out why we pretend to honor the man's legacy. He's become nothing more than an icon for the Civil Rights movement. This one day off in January is a way of acknowledging  America's terrible legacy of slavery and de facto apartheid. But the United States in no way recognizes Dr. King's salient message of non violence. Since his death nearly 43 years ago the U.S. has continued to export warfare across the globe, inflicting death and destruction to such far flung places as Vietnam, Iraq and Somalia. The country's military budget swells like the belly of a gluttonous pig. Within the country, gun violence continues and efforts to stem the tide are fought tooth and nail by the NRA which places a higher value on gun ownership than human life.  The African American communities which Dr. King strove to better are particularly riddled by violence and it's brother, poverty. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the poverty level among Blacks is 35% nationwide, compared to 14% for whites. And according to the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence African-American children and teens are almost five times as likely as their white peers to be killed by firearms (11.30 per 100,000 African-American youth vs. 2.31 per 100,000 white youth). Yes the U.S. has its first African American president. Some victory.

The wife and I watched the full five hour version of Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander (1982) this past weekend. It was like bathing in milk. Actually I don't know that I'd particularly care for bathing in milk. Let's just say that if you've enjoyed the theatrical release you'll love the whole shebang. If you loved the theatrical version, well you're in for an orgasmic experience. Five hours with this film practically flies by. It's so rich in its characters, colors, images and imagination. Add this to the growing list of films I need to devote a full post to.

Not without some justification many people think I'm three-quarters nuts. Particularly on days such as this when it is unseasonably warm, the sun is out and the sky is almost totally cloudless. While you normal people are veritably dancing in the streets I'm miserably awaiting the next cold snap or storm. I really should be living in Northern England. A good mate of mine (hello, Phil) lives there and complains of endless strings of cold, wet, cloudy days. I'd love it. My favorite activities are best or exclusively done indoors: reading, listening to music, watching films, working out, and one other that I shan't mention here as this is a family blog. Anyway I find sunny days boring. Give me clouds, give me sleet, give me high winds. My idea of hell would be living in Arizona year end. This leads to awkward social situations when everyone else is either celebrating the sun or bemoaning the overcast and I'm stubbornly stating the opposite view. Clearly a lot of people just wish I'd go with the flow and follow the weather comments script.

Anyone check out my top ten films for 2010? I presented it, as I've done in the past, without comment. Had I provided a preface or epilogue I'd have railed about what a sub par year it was in films. Usually I have six honorable mentions but this year could barely muster four. And it to have a decent top ten I included two movies that technically were not 2010 releases (The White Ribbon and A Prophet). A small part of the problem was that I wasn't gaga over some of the films that most of you lot loved. I thought The Social Network a fine film but nothing to set off fireworks over. The The King's Speech was, in my mind, flamingly mediocre. The Kids Are All Right was not at all right, in fact I thought it stunk. Almost as bad was Inception, a picture that captured the imaginations of seemingly every 18 year old male in the country. Still I'm not complaining about the off year. Hollywood has had a good run of late and was due for a bit of slump. I've got enough films from the past to catch up with or re-watch anyway.

Thought I should let everyone know that my latest business venture has gone belly up. It seems my idea for non alcoholic whiskey just didn't have a market. I'm now working on the prototype for a home colonoscopy kit. I tell ya, it can't miss!

Wanna get depressed? (Silly question, who doesn't want to feel that life is meaningless and horrid?) Just read the comments that attach themselves like so many barnacles to virtually any news story on the internet. For that matter to many sports or entertainment stories. It's bad enough that people spew such hateful and vile things, but they also carry on nasty arguments with one another. Never mind the total lack of civility, think of the wasted time and energy. It's clear that a lot of folks get in a real lather over what some anonymous bloke living who-knows-where has to say. That same bloke will later return to the article, see the comment on his comment and fire back. It's so bloody easy to be cruel, nasty or viciously sarcastic behind the cloak of anonymity. And such a damn waste of time.

Speaking of waste of times, I hope you enjoyed this latest version of Odds and Ends....

What is a Human Life Worth? Evidently More than $17!

Here's a headline from today's San Francisco chronicle: "Man in Bay Area for job interview killed for just $17."

The victim was the father of three. He was in the Bay Area for a job interview with google. This slaying was one of a seemingly endless series of tragic crimes that plague America's urban areas. But I have question about how this particular story was handled: why the emphasis on the fact that the perpetrators only got $17?  Would this be any less of tragedy if $5,000 were taken? How about $500? Maybe $100? At what number does someone decide: "that's not a heck of a lot of money to kill someone for"? Do the victims three sons mourn the death of a father over a lousy 17 bucks or is it possible the amount of money does not come into their grieving equation?

This is not an isolated case of one newspaper singling out the robber's tiny haul. I see it all the time and it gets increasingly infuriating.

Is this what we're saying: Folks, if, in the course of a robbery you're going to kill someone, you know, snuff out their earthly existence for ever and ever, make sure you get, oh let's say two grand. Killing someone, you know terminating their life and sending their family and loved ones into paroxysms of grief, for anything less is just plain sick.

By the way, the murder took place In Oakland which has a very high incidence of homicide. Within approximately 24 hours of this crime, a man pulled over by the CHP opened fire on officers. Later in a separate incident a police officer was shot at by a sniper. And across the Bay in San Francisco a man was charged with killing a 17 year old with said teen's own rifle.

Let's all take a moment to thank the NRA for their continuing efforts to defend our second amendment rights. Isn't it great to live in a country in which seemingly half the citizenry are armed to the teeth? Thank you NRA for fighting, at every turn, efforts to introduce any sort of gun control legislation. That's one powerful lobby you've got there. As powerful as a .45 magnum that blows the brains right out of a human being leaving that person's wife an early widow. What I'm trying to say NRA, is f*ck you!

The Good Old Days, They Sucked

Republican congressman John Boehner was quoted today as complaining that Democrats are "snuffing out the America that I grew up in."

That remark entitles Boehner, the House Minority Whip, to a great big "you're welcome!" from Democrats. Boehner was, you see, born in 1949 and so grew up in America where Jim Crow ruled in the South and was a presence in much of the rest of the country. It was an America in which gays were locked in their closets, women were expected to aspire to be nothing more than housewives (certainly not Supreme Court Justices) and civil rights took a back seat to state's rights.

It was an America in which pollution was released into the ground, air and water with little concern for the environmental impact. Seat belts were not regular features of cars, indeed many safety features we take for granted today in vehicles, equipment and in homes were not in wide use or in some cases even dreamed of.

In the America of Boehner's youth there were no African Americans in Congress, let alone the White House (except for the custodial staff). Handicap access ramps at schools and other public facilities were unheard of. TV, film and other media were stilted by stiff censorship. Of course today there's is a censorship being enforced -- on the advertising of tobacco products.

It may have been former president Ronald Reagan (who did far less damage to the country as a bad actor than he did as president) who started the myth of the good old days of white picket fences. Actually they were good days -- for straight white Christian males of means.

Progressives must keep pushing forward with vigor because there are plenty of folks like Boehner pushing back. They are afraid of change of a disruption of the old order that has served them (and them alone) so well. Many of these people have complained since Obama's election that they feel this is not their country anymore. Great, now you know how African Americans have felt for the last 200 years. Who said it was your country anyway? Shouldn't America be a place where everyone feels at home?

I leave you with this poem from the great Langston Hughes that I believe captures the feeling that many Americans have had for much of this country's history.

Let America be America Again

Let America be America again. Let it be the dream it used to be. Let it be the pioneer on the plain Seeking a home where he himself is free. (America never was America to me.) Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed-- Let it be that great strong land of love Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme That any man be crushed by one above. (It never was America to me.) O, let my land be a land where Liberty Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath, But opportunity is real, and life is free, Equality is in the air we breathe. (There's never been equality for me, Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.") Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark? And who are you that draws your veil across the stars? I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars. I am the red man driven from the land, I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek-- And finding only the same old stupid plan Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak. I am the young man, full of strength and hope, Tangled in that ancient endless chain Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land! Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need! Of work the men! Of take the pay! Of owning everything for one's own greed! I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil. I am the worker sold to the machine. I am the Negro, servant to you all. I am the people, humble, hungry, mean-- Hungry yet today despite the dream. Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers! I am the man who never got ahead, The poorest worker bartered through the years. Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream In the Old World while still a serf of kings, Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true, That even yet its mighty daring sings In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned That's made America the land it has become. O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas In search of what I meant to be my home-- For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore, And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea, And torn from Black Africa's strand I came To build a "homeland of the free." The free? Who said the free? Not me? Surely not me? The millions on relief today? The millions shot down when we strike? The millions who have nothing for our pay? For all the dreams we've dreamed And all the songs we've sung And all the hopes we've held And all the flags we've hung, The millions who have nothing for our pay-- Except the dream that's almost dead today. O, let America be America again-- The land that never has been yet-- And yet must be--the land where every man is free. The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME-- Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again. Sure, call me any ugly name you choose-- The steel of freedom does not stain. From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America! O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath-- America will be! Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death, The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies, We, the people, must redeem The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers. The mountains and the endless plain-- All, all the stretch of these great green states-- And make America again

If I Don't Like the Country, Why Don't I Move?

I can't look at news websites any more because they constantly quote complete morons. I don't want nor do I need to know the ravings of lunatics. Yet they are often reported as if newsworthy. Case in point: Among the top stories today on CNN's website was word that the organizer of the Tea Party movement agrees with a former Congressman who called Barack Obama "a committed socialist ideologue."

What, they couldn't find someone who called Obama a Martian or the re-incarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte?  Do we need to know the thoughts of every idiot who manages to get ahold of a microphone?

One thing that confirms the fact that Obama is not a socialist is that I'm not dancing in the streets. I am a "committed socialist ideologue" so I would be ecstatic if we had a socialist president. We don't.

I have it on good authority that there are dictionaries and encyclopedias and books of various kinds that offer definitions of a numerous terms. Socialist among them. Conservatives in particular may want to take advantage of these wonderful sources of information.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just wish that people who uttered their opinions publicly had considered opinions. You know, be able to back up what you say with a fact or two.

Instead of mislabeling people, why don't Americans try engaging in spirited debate about the issues. And how about if the media concentrates on that sort of discussion rather than giving voice to every jerk who opens his or her yap?

Ever since Obama was elected president there have been idiots of the right wing (is that an oxymoron?) making claims ranging from Obama not having been born in the U.S. to his being a Nazi. (Make up your mind, socialist or Nazi?) Fair enough, people are upset and want to ventilate, but so often its reported as news.

Of course one of the problems we have these days is what is laughingly offered as "news." There is an entire "news" network (hint: rhymes with box) that is nothing more than right wing propaganda. They don't report news, they re-interpret it for conservatives. They have a slew of blowhards whose sole purpose is to further entrench the opinions of their audience and to further inflame their passions. It is the very antithesis of journalism. This network has continually made itself part of the story meanwhile neglecting to report the story. Seriously, they hired Sara Palin to comment joining Karl Rove as one of their voices. Fair and balanced? You're kidding, right?

(Yes, MSNBC is guilty of some of the same from the left which is no excuse for Fox -- God, I miss Walter Cronkite.)

I'm not an apologist for President Obama. I don't think he's going anywhere near far enough to the left. I'm not happy at all with his policies which too me are just a tad to the left of the center.

I'm just tired of having to read utter poppycock being reported as news and intelligent people having to waste time refuting it. I swear to God sometimes this country gets on my last nerve.

The Difference Between Joe Wilson and Kanye West

Kanye was a jerk at a video music awards show.

Wilson was a jerk during a presidential speech before a joint session of Congress.

Kanye's claim is debatable.

Wilson's can and has been proven to be empirically false.

Kanye issued a sincere apology.

Wilson, not so much.

Kanye was vilified by one and all.

Wilson is a hero to many.

Is America a f*cked up country or what?

Stay Up in Heaven, Ed. Trust Me On This One.

Imagine if Edward R. Murrow returned alive and well to planet Earth today. Once he turned on a TV and watched what passes for news he'd perforce be sick and wishing himself dead again.

I became convinced of this after recently re-watching George Clooney's fine film about Murrow and his stand against Joseph McCarthy Good Night, and Good Luck (2005).

Murrow was the CBS newsman who gained notoriety and much respect for his World War II radio broadcasts from London during the Blitz. His claim to everlasting fame came in the 1950's with his bold TV news shows. Murrow epitomized the straight forward reporting, unafraid of controversy, that is the hallmark of great journalism. Murrow understood the need for objectivity but also understood that there were not two sides to every story.

One can only imagine Murrow's reaction to buffoons like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and the national laughingstock that is Glenn Beck. These men are to journalism what axe murderers are to surgery. Every broadcast comes with an agenda. Actually, that would be fine if that agenda was to speak the truth and expose injustice. But theirs is strictly political. They are attacks dogs for an ideology, and most of what they bloviate about is in pursuit of the axes they wish to grind. They swing wild punches using dubious claims and invented "facts." Moreover they do not engage in discussions or the exchange of ideas but give airtime to guests who support their views or belittle, berate and shout down those who disagree. The disease they spread has reached over to the left. Keith Olbermann was a voice of sanity on cable TV whose commentaries a few years ago had been likened to Murrow's. But he has become an ideologue in love with his own voice and obsessed with fighting his counterparts on the right. Lost in this is any perspective on the day's events. Chris Matthews is no better.

Murrow would be appalled.

Yes, there are broadcast journalists who live up to the best ideals of the profession. They find and relate stories that are important to viewers and do so in sober and measured ways. But for the most part they are on PBS stations and get nowhere near the viewers that the blowhards do. Certainly none can be found on the major networks where news magazine shows are devoted to lurid murder cases usually involving well-do-do families or to high-end celebrity gossip.

Network news is hardly any better. Wasting time on athletes and entertainers and on giving both sides to all arguments. Yes, you're supposed to give both sides to reasonable disputes. But when polemics make up silly charges against an opponent it should be permissible to give some of these short shrift. When fringe groups or the deluded insist that religious dogma be given equal educational footing with scientific fact, they can be ignored along with the Flat Earth Society.

Good Night, and Good Luck does an excellent job of showing today's audiences what TV news used to be like. It was like it's supposed to be. Murrow was the face of many broadcasts but, you should excuse the cliche, it was a team effort. What the film makes clear is that Murrow was often the driving force and was certainly the visible manifestation of CBS efforts but he was one part of a dedicated crew of journalists.

David Strathairn got the role of a lifetime as Murrow and he made the most of it, capturing Murrow's inflections, mannerisms and posture. Clooney played director Fred Friendly, himself a hero. Robert Downey, Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels and Frank Langella as CBS president William Paley also featured. McCarthy is played by himself which is to say that he and many of the other "characters" of that historical period are revealed through archival footage. Not just a nice touch but a means of making the story seem all the more like a historical document.

It has been mistakenly asserted that Murrow attacked the red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy. In reality Murrow shone a light on him. This was what good investigators do. They report what is being done. To attack suggests doing battle by whatever means possible, including name-calling, wild accusations and innuendo. Murrow and company simply sought the truth of what McCarthy and his investigations into communism was doing to individuals and the country. McCarthy responded to a Murrow broadcast not by refuting the facts presented, but by attacking the messenger. This is a common tactic in political discourse made into an art form by the likes of Karl Rove. You will note how often conservatives of recent vintage, unable to respond to the message, try to kill the messenger.

Good Night, and Good Luck is particularly good at showing the pressures that Murrow and company worked under. These came not only from McCarthy but from network advertisers and the suits in the front office (ain't that always the way? Seems whatever line of work you're in, certainly true in education, good work can be undone or at least threatened by the bigwigs who worship at the altar of the dollar sign). That's one of the reasons that teamwork was so essential to the CBS team. Clooney does a wonderful job of revealing this. Relationships are critical to the film, none more so than the one between Murrow and Friendly. This is very much a buddy picture.

Bookending the film are Murrow's speech at a 1958 banquet (four years after the story depicted took place) in which he warns his audience of the wasted opportunity that television can become if used primarily for mindless entertainment. Talk about prophetic! Murrow would not have been surprised to see what a great wasteland that television has become (are you ever shocked, as I am, to have literally a hundred more channels than you did as a child and not be able to find anything on worth a tinker's damn?). He doubtless could have envisioned all the insultingly stupid shows that pass themselves off (successfully, I'm sad to say) as entertainment. Low brow would be a step up for most of the crap we're exposed to. But I think even he would be very much disappointed at the current state of what calls itself news.

One might think that with 24-hour news channels there would be vehicles to bring important, well-told stories to a populace hungry for the truth. Sadly, these stations find themselves filling hour after hour with the type of shouting emotional thugs earlier mentioned. Other air time is taken up with endless repetitions of celebrity news and speculations about stories that are just developing. And for pity's sake, how many helicopter shots of cars pulling into or out of driveways do we really need to air? Many think the problem is that the news divisions have been co-opted by the entertainment sections of stations. I would, however, posit that the bigger issue is that news divisions are run by complete morons. In the case of Fox News the whole damn network is out of whack. There is no pretense of providing objectivity. It's not just a matter of one broadcaster, or one show, its a whole network that is closely associated in the public's minds with one party and one philosophy. MSNBC risks doing the same thing in the other direction. We are lucky indeed to have Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central to lampoon TV news and shine some light on the truth in the bargain.

Where have you gone Edward R. Murrow, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you...

Actually skip it, Ed, you'd hate it down here today.

It's Called Putting in Your Two Cents Because Two Cents is All its Worth

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on any subject. Sadly, too many people feel the need to share those opinions. Whether through call-in radio shows, internet message boards, letters to newspapers, or blogs, people today are not shy about telling you what they think.

The trouble with this is that many people treat all opinions as equal. Individuals who spend their days working in factories and come home to watch Fox news after listening to Rush Limbaugh on their car radios enter our public discourse on the most complex of legal, political or foreign policy issues. To deny them a voice would be a subversion of democracy. We are all equal.

We don't especially esteem education or the educated in our culture. The knowledgeable are brushed with the taint of elitism. Joe the Plumber is given a forum on television and has authored a book. In other words, people want to know what this man thinks. Why? Because he's famous. (Paris Hilton is famous too but no one asks her to comment on appropriate troop levels in Iraq.) More people have listened to his views about the economy than they have a Nobel Prize winning economist. Fact.

So it goes with art. You like the paintings of Monet better than the charcoal sketch of a buffalo my Aunt Minnie did? Yeah well that's just your opinion, buddy! You really think that Hemingway's writing is more insightful than Glenn Beck's? Yeah, well that's just your opinion, buddy. And you really think The Seventh Seal is a better film than the latest Transformers flick?* Now you're kidding.

There's also little room for discussion. You're either with us or against us. Black and white. People don't share insights or perspectives. They draw lines in the sand. They establish totally inflexible positions and hurl invective at "the other side." Watch political talk shows. Many are shoutfests. Bill O'Reilly doesn't engage guests in discussion, he tries to tear them down.

Wild generalities and mindless supposition are stated as fact. Barack Obama is going to cancel future elections. Young people will be sent to re-education camps. The U.S. is heading towards socialism (as a socialist myself all I can say to that is, I wish). And although the right is especially guilty of such paranoid ravings they hold no monopoly on insane ravings. The left also has seen conspiracies everywhere and Armageddon just round the bend.

Nationally known film critics are bombarded with hateful messages and attacks when they pan hit films. The films devotees react with vitriol. They don't just disagree with the review, they lambaste the messenger. Too frequently people are their views. Thus to take an opposing position is to be against not just the movie but them. You're either with us or against us. We are entrenched. Within our fortress is the computer that provides the internet that, when needed, provides anonymity. Much time is spent among like minded souls reaffirming our views and getting new ammo. On other occasions we go out on raids, leaving angry attacks on websites or dashing off nasty emails.

We treat everything as if its the week of the big game. Our opinions are neither nuanced nor open to discussion. They are part of our uniform, the colors we wear with fierce pride. People who hold views dissimilar to our own are not different, they are the enemy. Subtlety and negotiation have given way to unquestioning loyalty.

Some facts are treated as opinion while some opinions are treated as fact. Suddenly evolution is a theory (why not the theory of gravity?) while creationism is treated as a perfectly viable alternative to this "theory."

How prescient Stephen Colbert was in inventing the term "truthiness."

I would encourage everyone to have as many opinions as they like on all manner of topics. I would also advise discretion in sharing those views, particularly if one is not well versed in the subject matter. Perhaps more importantly one should be willing to hear opposing views and more important than that people should be willing to not hear certain opinions. Sometimes you've got to recognize where the opinion is coming from and be ready to dismiss it as poppycock. Certainly one should want to hear the views of the opposition party, but when they are being presented by a plumber or a three year old there's no reason to pay attention.

I often am asked for my opinions on films both past and current. Some folks have developed the impression that I have a bit more than a layman's knowledge of cinema and I'm not one to contradict such notions. A few times these questions have been traps because the questioner has seen the film they're asking about. When I state an opinion different from their own they pounce. If I share their general feeling about the movie they'll then look for different reasons we liked the same film. That's fine and can make for a lively discussion but too often the person just wants an argument. I hate manufactured arguments because they're not designed to reach understanding but as an exercise in and of itself. To me arguing for the sake of it is like doing a physical exercise that has no health benefits. Why sweat and strain for nothing?

I'm always glad when people want to share their opinions on a film or director or actor. I love the notion of it --sharing. Of course that presupposes that they want to hear my view. I saw a film once and was I was leaving the theater an acquaintance came up and asked what I thought of the movie. Before I could say a word he had launched into a lengthy review of the film, then bid me good day before I'd uttered a sound. Share and share alike. It's critical not to set out to change the other person's opinion. Better to try to expose a person to how you saw the film and why you liked or didn't like it and to hear the same from them. Maybe you'll get new insight and help someone else do the same. But it shouldn't be a struggle. Think of it as more of a I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

I've never quite figured out how to deal with someone whose views on film are, to be it charitably ludicrous. If, as has happened, someone takes issue with my love for No Country For Old Men and particularly its ending, that's fine. A person who prefers Peter Jackson's version of King Kong over the original is not someone I'm likely to have a whole lot in common with regarding cinema, but not someone who I would perforce dismiss. But what of someone who considers the Rambo films classic American cinema and derides The Godfather? Are we still dealing in the realm of opinion? Is all art a matter of taste? Are there no standards? If a person likes Tiny Tim more than Sinatra or finds Tom Clancy superior to John Steinbeck, is this opinion? In art, when do we move away from opinion and into, this person is a frigging idiot?

Can there be, should there be norms? For goodness sakes what if someone says cod liver oil tastes better than strawberries? I suppose we have some unwritten standards. Louis Armstrong, not to everyone's liking (he is to mine) is a great musician. To say otherwise is silly. Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, maybe the greatest and if you don't think so, maybe you've never seen the game. John Ford a great director and if you disagree how to account for the admiration he earned from so many fellow directors? Anti semitism, slavery, denying the women the vote are all terribly wrong. Homophobia will fall next.

There are some generally agreed upon truths. There is much room for opinion on innumerable topics but let's listen to one another carefully before hardening our position. Hey, that's just my opinion.

* Fun fact. On IMDb, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen which was released less than a month ago has received 50,787 user rating votes, including 10,373 perfect tens. The Seventh Seal, released many years before IMDb came into being has received 31,043 votes, of which 12,065 are tens. I am at least happy to report that The Seventh Seal's average rating is an 8.4 and the Transformers latest is a full two points lower at 6.4.

The Hope for Some Audacity

Here in Berkeley, California everyone is happy about Barack Obama's election. The only time Berkeley experiences more collective joy than what we saw and heard here on election night is after a Cal football victory. People have been positively beaming to one another; sharing hopes and dreams for a country that they despaired had permanently lost its way.

The election seems to be one of those transformative moments in our country's history. As with 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination, we'll start marking events as pre Obama election and post. November 4, 2008, a demarcation point. Of course, the whole thing could go rather badly. History teaches us to take nothing for granted. But I suspect that, at worst, a whole new generation will have come to believe in the possibilities of our political system and have hope. People without hope are defeated. The hopelessness that permeated much of this country has suddenly been replaced by belief. Most of the rest of the world shares our joy. This may or may not be the greatest country in the world but it surely is the most important. The rest of the world understands that and sees that we've taken a turn in the right direction.

It also appears that the current brand of neoconservatism is dead in the water. Young voters came out in force for Democrats. Surely conservatives will raise again like Lazarus, trying to prune government and bolster business. Meanwhile, there is an opportunity to use government for good and all, not for oil and the privileged few. The cynical politics of division can be set aside for a time and the Constitution restored. Hopefully the new form of conservatism will disengage from the religious right and hateful zealots like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I grew up when the Republicans were the loyal opposition of the likes of Nelson Rockefeller and Everett Dirksen. Even Barry Goldwater was a straight shooter. There was none of the Rovian slash and burn campaigning. Goodness, imagine if someone had suggested tried to Swift Boat..er, PT Boat, John Kennedy.

Obama's victory has inspired me to read the latest biography of another seminal political figure, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This one is a A Traitor to His Class by H.W. Brands. It has been, after all, months since I last read an FDR bio. In the immediate aftermath of Obama's victory I've been struck by the similarities between him and Roosevelt.

Both Obama and FDR come to Washington at times of economic crisis. Both follow an incompetent predecessor at the White House. Like FDR, Obama will be trying to fashion a bi-partisan and diverse cabinet and will be seeking bold government action to meet a crisis. Perhaps the most significant parallel between the two is that they inspire hope among the masses.

Roosevelt knew how to talk to the people, to make them understand, to calm them. Obama can do the same. It's not a joke to say that Bush could hardly talk at all. His mangling of the English language ceased to be cute in short order and betrayed a vacuous mind. Americans deserve, and again will have president with a great intellect. Obama's impressive educational pedigree, like FDR's and JFK's, bespeaks a mind able to deal in nuance and complexity. It's a positive boon to have a president skilled in oratory. But it's not just that FDR could and Obama can inspire with speeches. It's talking clearly and intelligently to people, not down to them. I remember as a little kid the shared excitement in my house when Kennedy would hold a press conference. We marveled at his verbal skills and skillful sparring with reporters yet understood what the deuce he was talking about ( a touch some intellectual Democrats like Adlai Stevenson and Al Gore never had.)

I hope Obama duplicates Roosevelt's and Kennedy's calls for sacrifice. Bush sent Americans off to war and asked nothing of the American people. Not so much as a victory garden. If asked, Americans will serve, sacrifice and give. Indeed the more government can ask of the people the less the government will have to do. Republicans have tended to ask nothing, do everything, run up deficits and continually bemoan "big government."

Reducing government power is usually not done in the interests of the people but at the service of big business. As a famous president once said, our government is of the people by the people and for the people. People derive power from the oversight provided by that government which they comprise and by overseeing that government. Privatizing former government institutions and responsibilities reduces the peoples' power. (If I sound like a damned socialist it's because I am.)

So President-elect Obama, please don't hesitate to ask. Remember that when JFK called for a Peace Corp he had thousands of applicants before the agency was even formed. And remember the thoughtful decisiveness of Roosevelt, the willingness to ruffle the feathers of the high and mighty at the service of the meek.

Yes, like tens of millions of other Americans, I have hope today. It's been awhile. I'm sure this is how many Americans felt after the 1932 election. Now if you'll excuse I think I'll get get to that book I mentioned.

A Guy Named Adolf

I'm reading a recent book by British economist Niall Ferguson called The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. The title quite nicely summarizes the book. I'll merely add that if you've any inclination at all to read it, do so. Ferguson does an amazing job of covering the breadth of world conflict in the 1900's theorizing as to why it was so terribly violent a century.

I'm about half way through the tome. Yesterday I was reading a section on Adolf Hitler, who of course must figure prominently in such a book. Not for the first time I found myself wanting to go back in time and trying to reason with him (which always seems easier than in reality it would be). I also recalled Bruno Ganz's brilliant portrayal of Hitler in the German film,  The Downfall (2004).  The movie came under some criticism, particularly in Germany, at the time of its release for humanizing Hitler.

I couldn't disagree with those criticisms more.  I think its a terrible mistake NOT to remember that Hitler, and other tyrannical leaders like Stalin were (or as the case may be, are) indeed living breathing human beings.  To make monsters out of them is to play a children's game of pretend.  If they are simply the bogeyman, ogres, Frankensteins we need not deal with a) how they sprung from among more reasoned humans or;  b) how other people endorsed and abetted their efforts. It's not like Hitler could have done it all alone.  Hitler had henchmen.  Not just a small cadre in his inner circle either.  There were a lot of people running concentration camps, there were a lot of people in the Gestapo and there were a lot of people who let the horrors of Nazi Germany take place.  If Hitler is merely a monster, what of all those other horrid Nazis?  Did Hitler cast a spell? We do ourselves no favor by mythologizing our real life villains.

The Downfall was a brilliant interpretation of not only Hitler the man, but some of those close to him.  We see the likes of Goebbels who was culpable in Nazi atrocities and Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge, a relative innocent whose recollections were the basis for the story.  Neither is a monster, but to varying degrees both are guilty parties.

Ganz played Hitler like a flesh and blood person, not like a cartoon character. Today I saw Heath Ledger's amazing performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight which should earn him a posthumous Oscar for best supporting actor. Ledger was playing a character.  Whatever else he did with the role (and trust me it was amazing) there was the make up and there was the context and we all know that no one like the Joker has ever walked our streets. But a Hitler has and likely will again appear.  The real monsters in our world are the serial killers, mass murderers and tyrants.  Serious films need to show them as people.  In comic  book movies you can do what you will as the villain.

One of the best film villains of all time was Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men (2007) played by Javier Bardem.  Chigurh was the personification of evil and somehow was at once all too human and seemingly super natural.  This is part of what made Chigurh so terrifying, he could be interpreted as in many different was.  As originally realized by author Cormac McCarthy in his novel upon which the film is faithfully based, Chigurh's origins (as with The Dark Knight's Joker) were unknown.  With no back story offered and a name and appearance that could evoke various interpretations, audiences were left to ponder whence this embodiment of evil came and what he might represent. Chigurh only seemed super human although his actions and talents bordered on other worldly, he was clearly from among us.  Hitler is a non fiction character with a documented back story and in a serious film needs to be seen as being from among the rest of us. That is precisely what makes him more chilling than the creature in Alien (1979).

On a not unrelated note, last night's Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, spent its first half hour focusing on the issue of U.S. condoned torture conducted these past few years.  Talk about monstrous behavior! As we have learned from congressional testimony and investigative reporters like Moyers' guest Jane Mayer author of the just-released, The Dark Side: The Inside story of the US War on Terror and How it Turned into a War on American Ideals. The fact of torture having been green lighted at the highest levels of our government, along with extraordinary rendition, is undeniable.  That people within our government can find justification for it is mind boggling.  The US has stooped to the level of the type of countries that were once its sworn enemies. Much of this disgrace allegedly stems from Vice President Dick Cheney.  It is often difficult to remember that he is human (I'll never forget his chilling response to an interviewer who pointed out that the vast majority of Americans opposed the continued US  involvement in Iraq:  "so," he replied contemptuously.  Yeah, what do you think this is a democracy or something?).  But Cheney came with Bush as dually elected leaders of the United States.  They need to be remembered as people no matter how little regard they've shown for our constitution or ordinary (i.e. non rich) Americans.  In our lampooning and demonizing of Bush, Cheney and company we on the left have found succor.  But just as with the more extreme cases like Hitler, it is incumbent to remember that these odious characters come, if not from the hoi polloi, by them. Their dark shapes are molded from the same genetic structures as ours.

Do I really have the audacity to suggest that Bush/Cheney can be compared to Hitler? Yes and I'm going further and saying we all bear a resemblance to the worst of us, just as we all are part of and resemble the very best we have to offer.

Health care for all

Should you have to be rich to get good health care? No of course not. You want a mansion, horses, yachts and vacations in Monte Carlo, then sure you need to be rich and I’m willing to concede that. But whether you’ve got ten million in the bank or ten cents the medical treatement you get should not vary. We are guaranteed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." To me that guarantee implies that your medical needs will be taken care of regardless of your bank account. It's not just flat our wrong that medical care varies based on income it's bloody Un-American. There should not even need to be a discussion here. Based on this view some people might call me a socialist. Go ahead, I'd welcome the label. Especially if it suggests that I'm opposed to greed, corruption and profit before principles. We're a filthy rich country with a little people living in filth. It's crazy and its crazy that some people's medical needs go wanting because they're poor. Just crazy.