As John Boehner and 11 other Republicans exited the backroom of a hardware store in their shirtsleeves (oh, how hardworking they are!) to unveil their new "Pledge To America" on September 23rd, our great nation awaited this grand new plan with bated breath (ok, maybe not).
So what did the masses get for all their anticipation? Not much. The 21 page pamphlet (that's 1.75 pages per hardware store Republican if you're scoring at home) that the GOP unleashed on the populous sounds a whole lot like the crap that you've been hearing from them for the last 10 years. Tax cuts, spending freezes, and repealing "Obamacare" are the vague hallmarks of this latest conservative opus. I guess when it came to the "fresh new ideas" that Boehner had once promised us, they were, well, fresh out.
Let's start with the tax cuts. The Pledge would extend the George Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of our population at a cost of at least $700 billion over the next ten years. Their somewhat clever argument is that they will be extending the tax cuts for all Americans as opposed to the President who wants to continue the law for the middle class and down. The Republican argument is that one: you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession, and two: keeping taxes low for the wealthy will create jobs.
But would raising taxes on the rich really hurt the economy? Most economists will tell you different. Tax cuts for the rich are historically one of the least stimulative maneuvers you can make during a downturn. The wealthy are more likely to keep that extra cash in their pockets or bank accounts as opposed those of lower income levels. And as for the job creation myth, well, we've lost 8,467,000 private sector jobs since the George Bush tax cuts of 2001. If you believe that a sensible definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, then this pledge should have come with a straight jacket.
Let's move on to the spending freezes/cuts. The Pledge promotes $4 trillion in spending cuts. All while retaining the tax cuts for the wealthy, funding a missile defense system, and freezing spending on all domestic programs except for the military, homeland security, aid for veterans, and social security as well as other entitlements that affect our seniors. Programs which take up about 70% of the national budget as it stands now. So what is the price tag for the pledge? About $3.7 trillion. So at best, they would save tax payers $300 billion. Or, 7.5% of what they are promising.
Of course, there is no greater scourge in conservative circles than the Health Care Reform Bill. The Republicans have been talking about repealing it since the moment it passed. Even if you throw out the possibility that it will ever happen (it won't), what do they plan to replace it with? Well, according to the Pledge, they will put into action the ability to buy insurance across state lines, create high risk insurance pools, end denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, eliminate lifetime and annual caps on insurance benefits, end the ability of insurance companies to drop people when they get sick, and outlaw the government funding of abortion. Sounds great, right? But here's the thing, all that stuff is already in the bill. So they intend on replacing the bill with the same bill? Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.
Now to be fair, they do want to include tort reform as a part of their "replace" strategy. And that's fine, but you don't need to repeal the whole bill to do so. As well, they want to remove the "individual mandate" part of the bill. However, anyone who understands health care reform will tell you that you can't remove the individual mandate and retain coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate on the young and healthy--who don't always buy insurance--the overall cost of health insurance would go through the roof.
Another fascinating aspect of the Pledge is their desire to create a process that would require the certification of all bills as "constitutional" before they could be voted on. There are at least two problems with this idea. First, we have a whole other branch of government that decides on what laws are constitutional. It's called the judiciary. We've even got a Supreme Court and everything. Secondly, isn't it hard enough for congress to get anything done now without adding another layer of process?
Obviously, the Pledge is modeled on the GOP's "Contract With America" from 1994. A comparatively superior document that had the first rate intellect of Newt Gingrich behind it. The Pledge--like the Contract--is designed to be the exclamation point for the mid-terms. Something that if the polls are to be believed, they won't need to make huge congressional gains. Which is a good thing for them, because this document isn't worth the time it would take to shred all 21 pages of it.
In fact, if you really want to know what we can expect from Republicans after the mid-terms, you only need to read this quote from House Minority Leader Boehner, taken from the hardware store itself: "We aren't going to be any different than what we've been."
As Roger Daltrey once sang: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
God help us.
Sumo-Pop
September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
A Word About Our Forefathers
Nowadays, it has become increasingly popular to start a political argument by referencing the constitution and our forefathers. Not only is that a popular start to the back and forth, but it is often seen as an end to the discussion as well. As if our forefathers were so perfect in word and deed that any discussion beyond their original intentions is pointless and foolish.
But who were these men? Did their deeds always match their words? Not hardly.
Perhaps the most famous of our founders are Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. Four extraordinary men during extraordinary times, certainly. All far from perfect.
Franklin smoked weed, sired a child out of wedlock, and was a womanizer into his seventies.
Washington supported the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that sought to diminish free speech against the government.
Adams was a member of the Federalist Party formed by Alexander Hamilton that was lead primarily by urban bankers (and we all know how people feel about urban bankers don't we?).
Jefferson was perhaps the most paradoxical of the four. He was offended by intellectual women (save that of Abigail Adams), and was against women's suffrage in general. He wrote "All men are created equal" but owned slaves until the day he died. He coined the term, "Noble Savage" but made great efforts to push the American Indian west of the Mississippi.
In fact, three of these four men owned slaves (only Adams did not) at one time in their lives while claiming to be abolitionists.
Franklin's history with slaves is relatively brief and minor when compared with that of Washington and Jefferson. Franklin is personally (dis)credited with the ownership of two slaves although in his younger days he did buy and sell slaves out of his shop, performing a "middle man" service.
However, Washington--much like Jefferson--died on Mount Vernon with 123 documented slaves working on the grounds of his home. While Washington did free all of his slaves upon his death, he was not a completely benevolent slave owner (if such a thing can exist). He was not above flogging slaves (both men and women) if he found them to be lagging.
Of course, Washington had nothing on Jefferson, who sired multiple children with his slave, Sally Hemmings. It was also believed that Hemmings may have been the half-sister of Jefferson's wife, Martha. I bet the lady of the house was wondering when it was going to stop, to paraphrase Mick Jagger.
Washington and Jefferson were not much better when it came to the American Indian either.
Washington once compared the I ndian race to wolves--"both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape"-- and practiced a policy or extermination. In 1779 Washington charged General John Sullivan with laying waste "to all thee settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed."
Of the American Indian, Jefferson once said that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach."
Now, you might think that these are pretty un-Christian ideas, but it's worth noting that neither Washington nor Jefferson (or Franklin for that matter) would probably qualify as Christians. Their personal religious beliefs would probably fall under the category of Deism. Which is to believe that one supreme being has indeed created the universe. However, Deists do not believe in the divinity of Christ or an interventionist God, or even miracles for that matter.
All of which is worth remembering the next time you hear someone talk about our "Christian Nation," or protest the erecting of a mosque.
I mention all of these warts and flaws not because these four men didn't live exceptional lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, I bring these facts forward because they were able to sign (and in Jefferson's case, write) a document that declares the equality of all men, while owning slaves (save Adams) and attempting to eradicate the existence of the indigenous people (minus Adams and Franklin) whom they found on "their" land. I think it's fair to say, that their interpretation of the constitution was as elastic as the times warranted. Which in some ways, makes them as jacked up as anyone else.
In other words, they were men not Gods.
Act accordingly.
But who were these men? Did their deeds always match their words? Not hardly.
Perhaps the most famous of our founders are Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. Four extraordinary men during extraordinary times, certainly. All far from perfect.
Franklin smoked weed, sired a child out of wedlock, and was a womanizer into his seventies.
Washington supported the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that sought to diminish free speech against the government.
Adams was a member of the Federalist Party formed by Alexander Hamilton that was lead primarily by urban bankers (and we all know how people feel about urban bankers don't we?).
Jefferson was perhaps the most paradoxical of the four. He was offended by intellectual women (save that of Abigail Adams), and was against women's suffrage in general. He wrote "All men are created equal" but owned slaves until the day he died. He coined the term, "Noble Savage" but made great efforts to push the American Indian west of the Mississippi.
In fact, three of these four men owned slaves (only Adams did not) at one time in their lives while claiming to be abolitionists.
Franklin's history with slaves is relatively brief and minor when compared with that of Washington and Jefferson. Franklin is personally (dis)credited with the ownership of two slaves although in his younger days he did buy and sell slaves out of his shop, performing a "middle man" service.
However, Washington--much like Jefferson--died on Mount Vernon with 123 documented slaves working on the grounds of his home. While Washington did free all of his slaves upon his death, he was not a completely benevolent slave owner (if such a thing can exist). He was not above flogging slaves (both men and women) if he found them to be lagging.
Of course, Washington had nothing on Jefferson, who sired multiple children with his slave, Sally Hemmings. It was also believed that Hemmings may have been the half-sister of Jefferson's wife, Martha. I bet the lady of the house was wondering when it was going to stop, to paraphrase Mick Jagger.
Washington and Jefferson were not much better when it came to the American Indian either.
Washington once compared the I ndian race to wolves--"both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape"-- and practiced a policy or extermination. In 1779 Washington charged General John Sullivan with laying waste "to all thee settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed."
Of the American Indian, Jefferson once said that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach."
Now, you might think that these are pretty un-Christian ideas, but it's worth noting that neither Washington nor Jefferson (or Franklin for that matter) would probably qualify as Christians. Their personal religious beliefs would probably fall under the category of Deism. Which is to believe that one supreme being has indeed created the universe. However, Deists do not believe in the divinity of Christ or an interventionist God, or even miracles for that matter.
All of which is worth remembering the next time you hear someone talk about our "Christian Nation," or protest the erecting of a mosque.
I mention all of these warts and flaws not because these four men didn't live exceptional lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, I bring these facts forward because they were able to sign (and in Jefferson's case, write) a document that declares the equality of all men, while owning slaves (save Adams) and attempting to eradicate the existence of the indigenous people (minus Adams and Franklin) whom they found on "their" land. I think it's fair to say, that their interpretation of the constitution was as elastic as the times warranted. Which in some ways, makes them as jacked up as anyone else.
In other words, they were men not Gods.
Act accordingly.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fahrenheit Koran51
Well, I guess it had to come to this. With the nine year anniversary of 9/11 only a day away, a small man at a small church has decided to mark the occasion by burning the Koran. Why? Because God told him to.
Except maybe he isn't burning it after all. As I sit down to write this, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center has suspended his plan to burn the Muslim holy book because he was led to believe that the controversial Park 51 Muslim Community Center--set to be stationed 2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero in New York--will now be relocating further from the site of the former World Trade Center. Which turns out not to be true. The NYC Imam only agreed to meet with Jones somewhere down the road for an open discussion.
Now that Jones has learned this, he is going to pray on it more before he decides what to do tomorrow. So stay tuned, I guess.
In the meantime, what do we make of this Jones character and this current controversy?
Let's start with Jones. A mutton chopped moron attention seeking whore. You know how big his Gainesville, FLA congregation is? 50. That's 5-0. This guy who regularly preaches to a congregation that I can fit in my backyard and still have plenty of room for a swing set has been holding the media captive for the better part of the last week. The amount of power that has been given to this clown is staggering. His little bonfire has captured the headlines on newspapers, websites, as well as the cable and network news shows.
Even worse, the President, General Petraeus, and Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates have all made public (and in Gates' case private) pleas to this narcissist to reconsider this first amendment folly. This guy must be the happiest jackass on earth about right now.
It's hard to see what benefit having President Obama making a statement would be. In a country where 18% of the population believe that he is a Muslim, it's not hard to believe that Jones isn't a part of the other 82%. And since Jones believes that Islam is "the devil's religion," I can't imagine the Kenyan Muslim President having any effect on this pastor's (has that word ever been more misapplied?) decision.
Make no mistake, Jones beliefs about Islam are based in ignorance. He has admitted to not even having read the Koran. If he did, he would find the inclusion of positive portrayals of both Moses and Jesus, but why try to find common ground when you know that won't get your bigoted mug on CNN?
So now that this nonsense has been blown completely out of proportion by a media that can't find anything better to cover (are you kidding me?), why should we care?
We should care because the actions of this close minded individual will potentially have far reaching effects. If Jones goes through with the Koran burning--which he has crassly titled "Burn a Koran Day"--he will be putting our troops at a higher risk overseas as well as creating the best recruitment poster for Al-Qaeda since "Shock and Awe." Muslim extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan have begun distributing information about Jones' endeavor in advance of the foolishness that may take place tomorrow. It has already reached a level where the state department has issued a travel advisory to Americans roaming abroad to be on the lookout for anti-American activity.
But I have to say, I wouldn't put all the blame at the feet of Jones and the media--although they certainly deserve their share. No. I also blame us. Not all of us mind you, but definitely the nearly 70% of our citizenry who so vehemently oppose the building of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City. Or how about the 51% of us who are routinely suspicious of Muslims? And what about the 32% who believe that a Muslim should NOT be allowed to run for President? All of these percentages are appalling. Numbers like these foment Islamaphobia and create an environment that lets ignorant fools like Jones believe that they have a license for anti-social behavior towards Islam because, hey, doesn't everyone hate Muslims? If you look at these poll results, it's not hard to see how Jones might feel that he has the approval of this nation's citizens.
I wonder if the polling organizations started surveying those that oppose Islam in our country and asked them if Jones spoke for them, what they would say? My guess is most of them would be against his "Burn a Koran Day" celebration. Unfortunately, that thus far mythical poll won't be out before tomorrow. And in the meantime, Jones thinks that those who would oppose the constitutional rights of Muslims are with him. He can simply point to these opinion polls for support.
I'm sure he believes that if he gets the NYC Muslim Community Center to move, or simply goes through with his book burning, he will be hailed a hero by a large segment of our population. Between us and the media, we have certainly given him the standing that he has not earned.
Shame on us.
Sumo-Pop
September 10, 2010
Except maybe he isn't burning it after all. As I sit down to write this, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center has suspended his plan to burn the Muslim holy book because he was led to believe that the controversial Park 51 Muslim Community Center--set to be stationed 2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero in New York--will now be relocating further from the site of the former World Trade Center. Which turns out not to be true. The NYC Imam only agreed to meet with Jones somewhere down the road for an open discussion.
Now that Jones has learned this, he is going to pray on it more before he decides what to do tomorrow. So stay tuned, I guess.
In the meantime, what do we make of this Jones character and this current controversy?
Let's start with Jones. A mutton chopped moron attention seeking whore. You know how big his Gainesville, FLA congregation is? 50. That's 5-0. This guy who regularly preaches to a congregation that I can fit in my backyard and still have plenty of room for a swing set has been holding the media captive for the better part of the last week. The amount of power that has been given to this clown is staggering. His little bonfire has captured the headlines on newspapers, websites, as well as the cable and network news shows.
Even worse, the President, General Petraeus, and Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates have all made public (and in Gates' case private) pleas to this narcissist to reconsider this first amendment folly. This guy must be the happiest jackass on earth about right now.
It's hard to see what benefit having President Obama making a statement would be. In a country where 18% of the population believe that he is a Muslim, it's not hard to believe that Jones isn't a part of the other 82%. And since Jones believes that Islam is "the devil's religion," I can't imagine the Kenyan Muslim President having any effect on this pastor's (has that word ever been more misapplied?) decision.
Make no mistake, Jones beliefs about Islam are based in ignorance. He has admitted to not even having read the Koran. If he did, he would find the inclusion of positive portrayals of both Moses and Jesus, but why try to find common ground when you know that won't get your bigoted mug on CNN?
So now that this nonsense has been blown completely out of proportion by a media that can't find anything better to cover (are you kidding me?), why should we care?
We should care because the actions of this close minded individual will potentially have far reaching effects. If Jones goes through with the Koran burning--which he has crassly titled "Burn a Koran Day"--he will be putting our troops at a higher risk overseas as well as creating the best recruitment poster for Al-Qaeda since "Shock and Awe." Muslim extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan have begun distributing information about Jones' endeavor in advance of the foolishness that may take place tomorrow. It has already reached a level where the state department has issued a travel advisory to Americans roaming abroad to be on the lookout for anti-American activity.
But I have to say, I wouldn't put all the blame at the feet of Jones and the media--although they certainly deserve their share. No. I also blame us. Not all of us mind you, but definitely the nearly 70% of our citizenry who so vehemently oppose the building of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City. Or how about the 51% of us who are routinely suspicious of Muslims? And what about the 32% who believe that a Muslim should NOT be allowed to run for President? All of these percentages are appalling. Numbers like these foment Islamaphobia and create an environment that lets ignorant fools like Jones believe that they have a license for anti-social behavior towards Islam because, hey, doesn't everyone hate Muslims? If you look at these poll results, it's not hard to see how Jones might feel that he has the approval of this nation's citizens.
I wonder if the polling organizations started surveying those that oppose Islam in our country and asked them if Jones spoke for them, what they would say? My guess is most of them would be against his "Burn a Koran Day" celebration. Unfortunately, that thus far mythical poll won't be out before tomorrow. And in the meantime, Jones thinks that those who would oppose the constitutional rights of Muslims are with him. He can simply point to these opinion polls for support.
I'm sure he believes that if he gets the NYC Muslim Community Center to move, or simply goes through with his book burning, he will be hailed a hero by a large segment of our population. Between us and the media, we have certainly given him the standing that he has not earned.
Shame on us.
Sumo-Pop
September 10, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Machete Is Mashitty
When you go to a movie called Machete, you should probably do so with relatively reduced expectations. Which I did, but even by the low brow measuring stick which I applied to Robert Rodriguez's latest ode to grindhouse cinema, Machete falls well short. In fact, almost stunningly so.
Obviously, a movie based on a fake trailer from the Rodriguez/Tarantino double feature, Grindhouse in 2007 isn't efforting to be Citizen Kane. But shouldn't a movie that focuses on the very real issue of illegal immigration be about more than separating heads and limbs from their bodies?
As the titular title character, Danny Trejo is perfectly cast. The 67 year old Mexican-American actor has the body of Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler, and a face to match. In fact, Trejo's expressive, craggy mug looks like he wore it on the bottom of his shoe for every one of his sexagenarian years. And I mean that as a compliment.
Trejo, an ex-con and real life tough guy, has been working on the edges of Hollywood for nearly 30 years now, and it's great to see him get the chance to carry his own picture. I only wish Rodriguez had given him something more to work with.
You would think that a movie with explosions, extreme violence, and gratuitous nudity would at least be distracting. You would be wrong. I actually fought back the urge to nap while sitting in my seat. And to tell you the truth, it would have been time better spent.
The plot--such that it is--is centered around a former Mexican Federale (Trejo), who takes a job as a hit man bent on assassinating a Texas State Senator (Robert DeNiro, in his worst performance since Rocky And Bullwinkle--for real) who's brutal illegal immigration policy...oh, never mind. Going into the basic synopsis of the film will probably make it sound a whole lot better than it actually is.
Make no mistake, this is junk. Eclectically cast, stylishly lensed junk. But junk nonetheless.
I have to say, that I don't know why I expect anything more from Rodriguez. While he may be an endlessly resourceful filmmaker with an agreeably rough-and-ready directing style, he is so deliberately and relentlessly immature that he has become impossible to take seriously.
Rodriguez broke onto the scene in 1992 with his Spanish language actioner, El Mariachi, which he made for $7,000 but looks like it cost about 1,000 times that. Critics and film goers were rightly impressed by the then 24 year old director.
However, look at the movies he has made since:
Desperado, From Dusk 'Til Dawn, The Faculty, The Spy Kids series, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, Sin City, Sharkboy And Lava Girl, Planet Terror, and now, Machete.
While all these movies have a certain ragged charm, are any of them really all that good?
Sure, Desperado is pretty fun, Once Upon A Time has a great Johnny Depp performance, and Sin City is redeemed by the extraordinary work of Mickey Rourke. But even these movies come with a catch. All three are disposable and overstuffed. They all feel like a bit of a lark. As do all of Rodriguez's movies. He doesn't seem to take his subjects seriously, so why should you?
The closest thing to an exception among his oeuvre is the first 2/3 of From Dusk 'Til Dawn. For about 70 minutes, Dawn is about two hard-ass criminal brothers (George Clooney and Tarantino) until it devolves with a wild left turn into a south of the border vampire flick. And that's a shame, because for a while there actually appears to be something at stake (no pun intended). Tarantino gives his by far best performance on film as the psycopathic sibling while Clooney does a great job playing against type. There is a very real tension and sense of danger when the brothers kidnap Harvey Keitel and his two children. Then they enter a bar, Salma Hayek goes from stripper to bloodsucker, and the whole enterprise goes from sharp to stupid.
And that boys and girls, is the last time Rodriguez even tried to make a "real" movie.
Unfortunately, his good buddy Tarantino has caught the same disease. Every movie that Tarantino has made since Jackie Brown (a real step forward), has been marked by a continual regression. Both of them are essentially making better versions of crappy, low budget, midnight drive-in movies that they enjoyed as a kid. They are both selling themselves short.
Tarantino gets away with it more due to superior talent as a director and especially, as a writer. While Kill Bill 1&2, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds are basically superior cover versions of guilty pleasures from his youth, Tarantino's dialogue and ability to create a level of danger and unpredictability are resources that Rodriguez lacks. In spades.
The sad thing is that I think these are actually the movies that Rodriguez wants to make. Which is entirely depressing. He keeps his movies under budget (I swear, if you gave this guy a camera and a roll of duct tape he could produce a 90 minute feature in 48 hours), they make money, and he is therefore beholden to no one.
Which sounds great until you look at the results. It's not just what he chooses to make but how he chooses to makes it. From an intellectual perspective, his film making is no more thoughtful than that of Michael Bay.
They both make movies full of action that are targeted squarely at 15 year old boys. I'm not saying that Rodriguez is a worse director than Bay (I mean , who is?), only that they are both pretty much shooting for the same mark. Rodriguez's movies are scruffier and far less pretentious than Bay's, and they are a little smarter, but only just.
I long ago gave up on the idea of Bay ever making a "real" movie. After seeing Machete yesterday, I have now accepted the same defeat with regards to Rodriguez.
I guess it turns out that I like the "idea" of Robert Rodriguez a whole lot more than I do the reality of Robert Rodriguez.
Cue the bugle boy for the playing of "Taps."
Sumo-Pop
September 5, 2010
Obviously, a movie based on a fake trailer from the Rodriguez/Tarantino double feature, Grindhouse in 2007 isn't efforting to be Citizen Kane. But shouldn't a movie that focuses on the very real issue of illegal immigration be about more than separating heads and limbs from their bodies?
As the titular title character, Danny Trejo is perfectly cast. The 67 year old Mexican-American actor has the body of Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler, and a face to match. In fact, Trejo's expressive, craggy mug looks like he wore it on the bottom of his shoe for every one of his sexagenarian years. And I mean that as a compliment.
Trejo, an ex-con and real life tough guy, has been working on the edges of Hollywood for nearly 30 years now, and it's great to see him get the chance to carry his own picture. I only wish Rodriguez had given him something more to work with.
You would think that a movie with explosions, extreme violence, and gratuitous nudity would at least be distracting. You would be wrong. I actually fought back the urge to nap while sitting in my seat. And to tell you the truth, it would have been time better spent.
The plot--such that it is--is centered around a former Mexican Federale (Trejo), who takes a job as a hit man bent on assassinating a Texas State Senator (Robert DeNiro, in his worst performance since Rocky And Bullwinkle--for real) who's brutal illegal immigration policy...oh, never mind. Going into the basic synopsis of the film will probably make it sound a whole lot better than it actually is.
Make no mistake, this is junk. Eclectically cast, stylishly lensed junk. But junk nonetheless.
I have to say, that I don't know why I expect anything more from Rodriguez. While he may be an endlessly resourceful filmmaker with an agreeably rough-and-ready directing style, he is so deliberately and relentlessly immature that he has become impossible to take seriously.
Rodriguez broke onto the scene in 1992 with his Spanish language actioner, El Mariachi, which he made for $7,000 but looks like it cost about 1,000 times that. Critics and film goers were rightly impressed by the then 24 year old director.
However, look at the movies he has made since:
Desperado, From Dusk 'Til Dawn, The Faculty, The Spy Kids series, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, Sin City, Sharkboy And Lava Girl, Planet Terror, and now, Machete.
While all these movies have a certain ragged charm, are any of them really all that good?
Sure, Desperado is pretty fun, Once Upon A Time has a great Johnny Depp performance, and Sin City is redeemed by the extraordinary work of Mickey Rourke. But even these movies come with a catch. All three are disposable and overstuffed. They all feel like a bit of a lark. As do all of Rodriguez's movies. He doesn't seem to take his subjects seriously, so why should you?
The closest thing to an exception among his oeuvre is the first 2/3 of From Dusk 'Til Dawn. For about 70 minutes, Dawn is about two hard-ass criminal brothers (George Clooney and Tarantino) until it devolves with a wild left turn into a south of the border vampire flick. And that's a shame, because for a while there actually appears to be something at stake (no pun intended). Tarantino gives his by far best performance on film as the psycopathic sibling while Clooney does a great job playing against type. There is a very real tension and sense of danger when the brothers kidnap Harvey Keitel and his two children. Then they enter a bar, Salma Hayek goes from stripper to bloodsucker, and the whole enterprise goes from sharp to stupid.
And that boys and girls, is the last time Rodriguez even tried to make a "real" movie.
Unfortunately, his good buddy Tarantino has caught the same disease. Every movie that Tarantino has made since Jackie Brown (a real step forward), has been marked by a continual regression. Both of them are essentially making better versions of crappy, low budget, midnight drive-in movies that they enjoyed as a kid. They are both selling themselves short.
Tarantino gets away with it more due to superior talent as a director and especially, as a writer. While Kill Bill 1&2, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds are basically superior cover versions of guilty pleasures from his youth, Tarantino's dialogue and ability to create a level of danger and unpredictability are resources that Rodriguez lacks. In spades.
The sad thing is that I think these are actually the movies that Rodriguez wants to make. Which is entirely depressing. He keeps his movies under budget (I swear, if you gave this guy a camera and a roll of duct tape he could produce a 90 minute feature in 48 hours), they make money, and he is therefore beholden to no one.
Which sounds great until you look at the results. It's not just what he chooses to make but how he chooses to makes it. From an intellectual perspective, his film making is no more thoughtful than that of Michael Bay.
They both make movies full of action that are targeted squarely at 15 year old boys. I'm not saying that Rodriguez is a worse director than Bay (I mean , who is?), only that they are both pretty much shooting for the same mark. Rodriguez's movies are scruffier and far less pretentious than Bay's, and they are a little smarter, but only just.
I long ago gave up on the idea of Bay ever making a "real" movie. After seeing Machete yesterday, I have now accepted the same defeat with regards to Rodriguez.
I guess it turns out that I like the "idea" of Robert Rodriguez a whole lot more than I do the reality of Robert Rodriguez.
Cue the bugle boy for the playing of "Taps."
Sumo-Pop
September 5, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
By The Time Glenn Beck Got To Whitestock
"The price of hating other human beings is loving oneself less"--Eldridge Cleaver
Zach De La Rocha of Rage Against The Machine once claimed that "Anger is a gift." And for the most part, I agree with him. Anger, when well-harnessed and appropriately directed can be a great motivating force for change. But what of misplaced anger built upon hatred and misinformation?
What about the sort of anger and hatred that stems from poor economic times and people looking for a someone/thing to blame?
We live in these times, and the leader of this movement is named Glenn Beck.
While many were impressed by the large crowd Beck gathered on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial last Saturday, I think it's important to take a closer look at who these people are and who they are following.
Perhaps the easiest thing to take note of is the diversity within the crowd at last Saturday's event. Or rather, the lack thereof. It was white. Damn near all white. As Chris Rock once said years ago when he was covering the Republican Convention for Politically Incorrect: "It's so white that Joe Don Baker could open a movie in here." Of course, in and of itself, being white is not a bad thing. I myself have been white for a pretty long time.
No, the better question to ask is why doesn't this movement appeal to people of other races?
The answer is painfully obvious: This movement goes out of its way to marginalize and scapegoat those that aren't white, clean , and neat.
They fear that illegal immigrants (you know, Mexicans) are taking their jobs, so any law that might combat this influx of undocumented workers (Hello, Arizona!) is fine by them regardless of its constitutionality and whether it will violate the civil rights of legal Mexican-Americans.
Not only that, but let's repeal the 14th amendment that states that a child born here is automatically a citizen. They believe that immigrants are crossing the border en masse to have "anchor babies" here which will allow them to become citizens. Nevermind the fact that a child born here can't petition the U.S. Government on behalf of their parents for 21 years, why let facts get in the way of a little xenophobia?
And if you think Latinos have it bad with Beck's bunch, try being a Muslim. At Beck's rally, he positioned himself as a man of faith who wants to restore the vision of our forefathers. Fine. But what about that pesky "freedom of religion" thingy that these grand men placed into the constitution? It appears, because the writers of the document were mostly Christian, Beck and his zealots feel that religious freedom should only apply to their religion. Which of course, nullifies the whole idea of freedom of religion in the first place.
Case in point: The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" that is neither a mosque nor located on "Ground Zero." This group is against the locating of a Muslim Community Center over 2 NYC blocks away from the former site of the World Trade Center. Why? Because Muslims are the ones who blew up the buildings. And by Muslim, they apparently mean all Muslims. Not just the crazed radicals who hijacked the planes on 9/11.
I wonder how these folks would feel if Christians could no longer build churches in the south because of the KKK (which considers itself a Christian organization). Or what if Christians were told that they couldn't build a church within 2 blocks of the Oklahoma City Building because an insane Christian fundamentalist by the name of Timothy McVeigh blew it up?
I've heard some say that the Muslims can have their mosque when the Saudi's start building synagogues in their country. So let's get this straight, we want to use the government of Saudi Arabia as our measuring stick? Is that really the best we can do? I think not.
Of course, that doesn't stop Mr. Beck from fanning the flames of Muslim hate. Beck has done everything in his power to classify the Imam who is behind the NYC Community Center as a radical. He does so in spite of the fact that this Imam not only advised the Bush Administration on the subject of radical Islam, but actually traveled with Karen Hughes whom Bush put in charge of Islamic outreach. Hell, after 9/11, Beck had Imam on his own show and proclaimed him a "Good Muslim" (which is offensive as all get out since it implies that "good" and "Muslim" are mutually exclusive except for in the rarest of cases. They used to say the same thing of blacks in the south only with a particularly nasty epithet following the word "good").
The fascinating thing about Beck and his minions is how often they throw up the word "constitution" to make their point. Their argument is based around the idea of getting back to the "intentions" of the founders. "Intentions" that they seem to be able to divine better than the rest of us. Which of course, allows them to advocate changing the parts they don't like. It's also worth remembering that our founders were made up of slave owners (this means you, Thomas Jefferson) who built up this country on the backs of displaced Africans after stealing it from the indigenous people whom Plymouth Rock landed on. This thought that our forefathers were so perfect that they can be used to punctuate any argument and turn the tide to the favor of the mouth that roars is an overreaching one at best.
Now, as a fervent student of history, you might think that Beck would have been a little more sensitive about holding "Whitestock" on the same day and location that Martin Luther King Jr. himself gave perhaps his greatest speech on the subject of civil rights. But Oh, how wrong you would be.
With all manner of faux humility, Beck not only claimed to be unaware of the anniversary (I got some swamp land...), but went so far as to say that he was reclaiming the civil rights movement because they were the ones who started it in the first place. First off, who the hell do they think they are? There are people of all races who marched with Dr. King and fought and died for the cause when Beck was naught but a tyke. The very idea that he would place himself in the same regard as these brave men and women is not only outlandish, but downright comical.
To stand on the same spot as the "I have a dream" speech and look out upon a sea of almost nothing but white people and make that statement? There are bulls in the rodeo who lack a set that size.
Earlier this week, I had this argument with a supporter of Beck who pointed out that by its strict definition, civil rights does not have to apply to race. And while that's true from a Webster's Dictionary perspective, it is completely disingenuous in this case. He said he was "reclaiming" the civil rights movement. If so, what civil rights movement was he referring to? Is there another movement that I'm unaware of in this country whose most sterling moment took place on the same steps as Dr. King's greatest words?
I also wonder what Dr. King would think of the man who uttered these words about our first black President:
"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."
Forgetting the fact that I don't know what the hell he's talking about when he refers to President Obama as such, is he unaware of Obama's mixed parentage? That his mother and the grandparents who raised him were white people? A man whose Vice President is Catholic, his Chief Of Staff is Jewish, and his Secretary of State a waspy white woman? Racist? Really?
This coming from a guy who felt the need to tell his rally goers to not bring any signs, lest the liberal media showcase any that might be offensive/racist. If you have to ask that of your group, then what does that say about your message?
Now I know that not all members of the Tea Party are racist. I wouldn't even say that most of them are. But statistically speaking, when 31% of self-proclaimed Republicans think that the President is a Muslim and nearly the same percentage challenges his birthright despite all evidence to the contrary, I bet it's fair to say that many in his audience are, shall we say, insensitive?
And even if the Tea Party itself is not inherently racist, they sure don't seem to mind accepting the assistance of those who are. When have you ever heard of another Tea Party member taking one of their own to task when they are holding a sign of President Obama with a banana in his hand? I have yet to hear of such an occasion.
If the Tea Party wants to be a legitimate long term entity that believes in limited government, than that is more than fair. However, if they don't deal with the inherent racism that at minimum lines their edges, then their future is as bleak as the one they believe exists under the presidency of Barack Obama.
Glenn Beck believes that this movement, his movement, is not only a political one, but a religious one. In specific, a Christian one. At this point, it's worth mentioning that Beck is a Mormon. A religion that is often not accepted by mainstream Christians. Some of their beliefs are a bit odd (see Christ visiting the USA, multiple worlds and gods, polygamy--although not anymore, and magic underwear for starters), but you can find some strange stuff in any religion. What is more disturbing about modern Mormonism is that it only bestowed the full rights of membership upon black people in 1978. Before that, blacks were considered the "cursed children of Cain" and "less valiant" in the war in heaven.
Of course, that doesn't make Beck or any other Mormon a racist. It is, however, an interesting peek into the background of a man that has no trouble speaking to an audience lacking in almost any diversity. A man that can talk of "white culture" and the "reclaiming" of a movement that he had no part of. A man whom the leaders of his own faith did not allow the full participation of black members until ten years after Dr. King was assassinated? Hmmm...
There is that old saying that the finger that points is the one that has something to hide. So when Mr. Beck calls someone else a racist while swearing some sort of allegiance with the greatest civil rights leader this nation has ever known, me thinks he doth protest too much.
Regardless, there can be no denying that Beck is the leader of a movement. A movement that he is trying to equate with Christian faith. In a sense, he is establishing a church, with himself as it's minister.
Follow at your own peril.
Sumo-Pop
September 3, 2010
Zach De La Rocha of Rage Against The Machine once claimed that "Anger is a gift." And for the most part, I agree with him. Anger, when well-harnessed and appropriately directed can be a great motivating force for change. But what of misplaced anger built upon hatred and misinformation?
What about the sort of anger and hatred that stems from poor economic times and people looking for a someone/thing to blame?
We live in these times, and the leader of this movement is named Glenn Beck.
While many were impressed by the large crowd Beck gathered on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial last Saturday, I think it's important to take a closer look at who these people are and who they are following.
Perhaps the easiest thing to take note of is the diversity within the crowd at last Saturday's event. Or rather, the lack thereof. It was white. Damn near all white. As Chris Rock once said years ago when he was covering the Republican Convention for Politically Incorrect: "It's so white that Joe Don Baker could open a movie in here." Of course, in and of itself, being white is not a bad thing. I myself have been white for a pretty long time.
No, the better question to ask is why doesn't this movement appeal to people of other races?
The answer is painfully obvious: This movement goes out of its way to marginalize and scapegoat those that aren't white, clean , and neat.
They fear that illegal immigrants (you know, Mexicans) are taking their jobs, so any law that might combat this influx of undocumented workers (Hello, Arizona!) is fine by them regardless of its constitutionality and whether it will violate the civil rights of legal Mexican-Americans.
Not only that, but let's repeal the 14th amendment that states that a child born here is automatically a citizen. They believe that immigrants are crossing the border en masse to have "anchor babies" here which will allow them to become citizens. Nevermind the fact that a child born here can't petition the U.S. Government on behalf of their parents for 21 years, why let facts get in the way of a little xenophobia?
And if you think Latinos have it bad with Beck's bunch, try being a Muslim. At Beck's rally, he positioned himself as a man of faith who wants to restore the vision of our forefathers. Fine. But what about that pesky "freedom of religion" thingy that these grand men placed into the constitution? It appears, because the writers of the document were mostly Christian, Beck and his zealots feel that religious freedom should only apply to their religion. Which of course, nullifies the whole idea of freedom of religion in the first place.
Case in point: The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" that is neither a mosque nor located on "Ground Zero." This group is against the locating of a Muslim Community Center over 2 NYC blocks away from the former site of the World Trade Center. Why? Because Muslims are the ones who blew up the buildings. And by Muslim, they apparently mean all Muslims. Not just the crazed radicals who hijacked the planes on 9/11.
I wonder how these folks would feel if Christians could no longer build churches in the south because of the KKK (which considers itself a Christian organization). Or what if Christians were told that they couldn't build a church within 2 blocks of the Oklahoma City Building because an insane Christian fundamentalist by the name of Timothy McVeigh blew it up?
I've heard some say that the Muslims can have their mosque when the Saudi's start building synagogues in their country. So let's get this straight, we want to use the government of Saudi Arabia as our measuring stick? Is that really the best we can do? I think not.
Of course, that doesn't stop Mr. Beck from fanning the flames of Muslim hate. Beck has done everything in his power to classify the Imam who is behind the NYC Community Center as a radical. He does so in spite of the fact that this Imam not only advised the Bush Administration on the subject of radical Islam, but actually traveled with Karen Hughes whom Bush put in charge of Islamic outreach. Hell, after 9/11, Beck had Imam on his own show and proclaimed him a "Good Muslim" (which is offensive as all get out since it implies that "good" and "Muslim" are mutually exclusive except for in the rarest of cases. They used to say the same thing of blacks in the south only with a particularly nasty epithet following the word "good").
The fascinating thing about Beck and his minions is how often they throw up the word "constitution" to make their point. Their argument is based around the idea of getting back to the "intentions" of the founders. "Intentions" that they seem to be able to divine better than the rest of us. Which of course, allows them to advocate changing the parts they don't like. It's also worth remembering that our founders were made up of slave owners (this means you, Thomas Jefferson) who built up this country on the backs of displaced Africans after stealing it from the indigenous people whom Plymouth Rock landed on. This thought that our forefathers were so perfect that they can be used to punctuate any argument and turn the tide to the favor of the mouth that roars is an overreaching one at best.
Now, as a fervent student of history, you might think that Beck would have been a little more sensitive about holding "Whitestock" on the same day and location that Martin Luther King Jr. himself gave perhaps his greatest speech on the subject of civil rights. But Oh, how wrong you would be.
With all manner of faux humility, Beck not only claimed to be unaware of the anniversary (I got some swamp land...), but went so far as to say that he was reclaiming the civil rights movement because they were the ones who started it in the first place. First off, who the hell do they think they are? There are people of all races who marched with Dr. King and fought and died for the cause when Beck was naught but a tyke. The very idea that he would place himself in the same regard as these brave men and women is not only outlandish, but downright comical.
To stand on the same spot as the "I have a dream" speech and look out upon a sea of almost nothing but white people and make that statement? There are bulls in the rodeo who lack a set that size.
Earlier this week, I had this argument with a supporter of Beck who pointed out that by its strict definition, civil rights does not have to apply to race. And while that's true from a Webster's Dictionary perspective, it is completely disingenuous in this case. He said he was "reclaiming" the civil rights movement. If so, what civil rights movement was he referring to? Is there another movement that I'm unaware of in this country whose most sterling moment took place on the same steps as Dr. King's greatest words?
I also wonder what Dr. King would think of the man who uttered these words about our first black President:
"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."
Forgetting the fact that I don't know what the hell he's talking about when he refers to President Obama as such, is he unaware of Obama's mixed parentage? That his mother and the grandparents who raised him were white people? A man whose Vice President is Catholic, his Chief Of Staff is Jewish, and his Secretary of State a waspy white woman? Racist? Really?
This coming from a guy who felt the need to tell his rally goers to not bring any signs, lest the liberal media showcase any that might be offensive/racist. If you have to ask that of your group, then what does that say about your message?
Now I know that not all members of the Tea Party are racist. I wouldn't even say that most of them are. But statistically speaking, when 31% of self-proclaimed Republicans think that the President is a Muslim and nearly the same percentage challenges his birthright despite all evidence to the contrary, I bet it's fair to say that many in his audience are, shall we say, insensitive?
And even if the Tea Party itself is not inherently racist, they sure don't seem to mind accepting the assistance of those who are. When have you ever heard of another Tea Party member taking one of their own to task when they are holding a sign of President Obama with a banana in his hand? I have yet to hear of such an occasion.
If the Tea Party wants to be a legitimate long term entity that believes in limited government, than that is more than fair. However, if they don't deal with the inherent racism that at minimum lines their edges, then their future is as bleak as the one they believe exists under the presidency of Barack Obama.
Glenn Beck believes that this movement, his movement, is not only a political one, but a religious one. In specific, a Christian one. At this point, it's worth mentioning that Beck is a Mormon. A religion that is often not accepted by mainstream Christians. Some of their beliefs are a bit odd (see Christ visiting the USA, multiple worlds and gods, polygamy--although not anymore, and magic underwear for starters), but you can find some strange stuff in any religion. What is more disturbing about modern Mormonism is that it only bestowed the full rights of membership upon black people in 1978. Before that, blacks were considered the "cursed children of Cain" and "less valiant" in the war in heaven.
Of course, that doesn't make Beck or any other Mormon a racist. It is, however, an interesting peek into the background of a man that has no trouble speaking to an audience lacking in almost any diversity. A man that can talk of "white culture" and the "reclaiming" of a movement that he had no part of. A man whom the leaders of his own faith did not allow the full participation of black members until ten years after Dr. King was assassinated? Hmmm...
There is that old saying that the finger that points is the one that has something to hide. So when Mr. Beck calls someone else a racist while swearing some sort of allegiance with the greatest civil rights leader this nation has ever known, me thinks he doth protest too much.
Regardless, there can be no denying that Beck is the leader of a movement. A movement that he is trying to equate with Christian faith. In a sense, he is establishing a church, with himself as it's minister.
Follow at your own peril.
Sumo-Pop
September 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)