Inglorious Basterds

So I saw Inglorious Basterds, because when Quentin Tarantino makes a good movie, it's hard to ignore it, because it's probably a damn good movie. Tarantino may be the only person in Hollywood who enjoys his own insecurities. Fortunately for the rest of us, his talent - and ego - are greater than his nervous tics and personality quirks, so he can actually channel his bizarre obsessions in artistically productive ways. It's also quite helpful that his tendency towards self-indulgence is matched by a dedication to the craft of filmmaking. And it doesn't hurt that he's supported by a studio executive - Harvey Weinstein - with just about the same level of talent, ego, insecurities, and dedication to the craft.

Watching Inglorious Basterds, you get the feeling that Quentin Tarantino wakes up on the wrong side of ridiculous a little more than is really healthy. But you also get the feeling that one thing that pulls him back to the sublime is his technical brilliance, and his extraordinary command of pure technique. The cinematography particularly stands out. Much as I admire most of Pulp Fiction, I found the camera work uninspired. Not so here; Tarantino knows exactly how and when to take risks, and then pulls them off. There's not really anything flashy; it is simply superb. The same can be said of the performances. There is already much discussion of an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for Christopher Waltz as the Nazi Col. Hans Landa. He's certainly my favorite so far this year. I'm reminded of that old saying that the devil can be charming, and he almost makes you forget Hannah Ahrendt's observation that evil is banal. Until Tarantino cuts to shots of Hitler.

Brad Pitt won't be getting an Oscar nom, but only because he chose to deliberately go way over the top as Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds. This is one of Tarantino's riskiest bets, and it mostly pays off, but it definitely inches the film towards the absurd.

But then almost every other performance drags it back to wonderful. Melanie Laurent is a marvel as Shosanna Dreyfus, a Jew who runs a cinema in Paris. Diane Kruger shines as a German movie star. Tarantino's Promethean confidence in himself does wonders for his performers. His confidence is justified in part because he's providing them with the verbiage. One reason Brad Pitt can pull off a Tennessee accent that makes Bo and Luke Duke sound like Yankee frat boys is that he's interrogating German prisoners through the pen of Quentin Tarantino. It's not quite as memorable as Samuel L. Jackson's discourse on foot massages - which is one reason he's a movie star today - but it's still in the context of a Tarantino script.

Unfortunately for me, it's a little too much of a Quentin Tarantino script. What would a Tarantino script be without constant violence, highly choreographed gunfire, bodies everywhere? A more interesting movie, would be my guess. It's very tempting to analyze and criticize and comment and scrutinize and debate whatever message is in the movie, but I'm going to resist, not least because I don't think Tarantino himself really cares that much about a message. He's still having too much fun impressing himself and us.

Sitting in a bar afterwards, drinking a blueberry martini, I said to Peter, the friend that I had seen it with, "I'll be really impressed with Quentin Tarantino when he grows up." "But he never will," said Peter. Which with I could not help but agree.

Tarantino's technical ability as a filmmaker has progressed dramatically. He was always a brilliant writer, and he is now a craftsman of the highest order. But he is still too clever for his own good. I judge movies by their endings; whether or not everything comes together is the test, for me, of whether or not the director has had a clue what s/he is doing all along. The ending left me a little cold; the revenge fantasy felt too self-indulgent.

I can think of two reasons why Quentin Tarantino should ultimately grow up. One, because he will eventually be able to make the best movie that he possibly can, which I don't think he has done yet, and two, because then he might have a chance of winning the Oscar for Best Director.

A Difficult Hero: Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

I will miss Ted Kennedy. I will miss him for many reason; his leadership on so many good liberal causes, his support of Obama, his example of lifelong dedication to public service.

But Kennedy was a man of contradictions, some of which he only really resolved late in life, and those made him a difficult hero. He was a rich populist; a politician who fought for "the people," he was never really one of them. Born into high expectations, he achieved what few other Americans ever have, a status of legend, but he never reached his highest goal, the presidency. An eloquent and passionate speaker, in almost any other family in history he would be renowned as a great orator; but compared to his brothers, he was merely excellent; there are no great quotes from him that are embedded in the American cultural consciousness.

His family embodied the idea that with great power comes great responsibility; he, John, and Robert all accepted the burden of great responsibility. But the same family also seemed to believe that the same power granted rights and privileges that normal people did not have. In this sense they avoided responsibility. If they accepted responsibility in the political realm, they seemed to feel they could avoid it in the personal realm, giving themselves license to behave erratically, licentiously. If they worked hard, they seemed to think, then they were to be excused if they played hard, as well.

Ted Kennedy lived long enough that the vices he shared with his brothers - in his case, wine and women - caught up with him in a way that it never did with John or Bobby, but only, in their cases, because they, tragically, did not live long enough. We will never know if John's dalliances would have ever become a scandal; probably not. My grandfather, a conservative Republican, used to say that the only difference between LBJ and Nixon was that Nixon got caught. That was a crucial difference between Teddy and his brothers; he got caught.

But the most important difference was that he lived long enough to outgrow the burdens, expectations, and demons that he inherited with his name and his wealth. He was never as charming as John or Bobby, despite his intellect, political instincts, and oratorical abilities. But by acknowledging his limitations, i.e. that he would, at best, only be a senator, never president, he embraced his own abilities, and became a master of his domain like few others in history.

The ability to craft legislation is a difficult skill for the populace to appreciate, not least because it is hidden so well from even the most attentive eyes. We know more about what goes on in Congress today, with constantly updating blogs, but that also builds our sense of frustration, since we can witness the legislative process, but we are limited in our ability to influence it. So we must trust those who are so intimately involved with it.

Among all the accolades to Kennedy there runs a constant stream of testimony to his ability to shape legislation. That's great and wonderful, but I have to take it on faith. I can't see direct evidence of that, like I can see a home run being smashed, or like I can watch a great performance by an actress onscreen. I can see the results of the legislation after it has passed, but it takes a fair amount of effort and attention to detail to make the connection. Until all the eulogies, I doubt I could have listed any of Kennedy's signature legislative achievements.

But if I take evidence of Kennedy's great legislative ability on faith, it is a variation on my faith in American democracy itself. Which is both constantly being tested and constantly being rewarded. Damn those Founding Fathers; why did they have to make democracy such hard work? Couldn't they have made it easy? Of course not; democracy is no easier or harder than simply living on planet earth. Ted Kennedy knew how to get the most out of democracy as he knew how to get the most out of life. It's not a facile comparison; it is at the core of who he was.

Ted Kennedy was a man who inherited from his older brothers a tradition of soaring rhetoric, but learned how and why to sweat the details of American democracy. Then he learned how to sweat the details of the details, and then to connect those details to the big picture. He was born to wealth and privilege, and enjoyed it for himself, but worked much harder than he had to for people who had so much less than he did. He was a Harvard-educated, old-fashioned northeastern liberal intellectual when that was in style, and then when it went out of style. Then he survived long enough to see another Harvard-educated liberal intellectual become president.

He was a flawed man in a flawed system. If he achieved any kind of redemption, it was because that is possible in our system. Our failures as a country are a source of our guilt, but our successes as a country are a source of our salvation. And the same is true of our failures and successes as individuals. Ted Kennedy had sources of guilt in his personal life, but he found redemption in his political life.

He was a man capable of changing himself and a man who changed the country, working in a system that simultaneously creates opportunities for reform and demands respect for tradition.

I will miss Ted Kennedy, now most of all, when his goal of universal health care is so close, and his skills are so urgently needed. Conservatives will miss him, since they are now short one iconic liberal bogeyman for their scare-tactic fundraising letters. Too bad for them!

To borrow one of his brother's great phrases, when Ted Kennedy passed the torch to a new generation, he could be justly proud that he had kept it burning so well for so long.

Healthcare Reform: The End Game Begins

The healthcare reform debate has been going for a long time. Months in this Congress, years in the country at large. Negotiations are ongoing in the Senate Finance Committee, among the so-called "Gang of Six." President Obama is starting to get frustrated, and may go it alone, i.e. pass a bill without Republican support. That might be difficult, but it's possible.

Some liberals, progressives, and Democrats are nervous. Some aren't. I'm in the "not that worried" camp.

What we are watching now is equal parts flash and substance. There are strong, profound philosophical difference motivating the parties, and those differences are particularly pronounced in this debate. Government vs. free market; communal concern vs. individual rights; profit motive vs. co-ops and the "public option." Some of these are simply irreconcilable differences that come down to contrary worldviews. People like Max Baucus and Charles Grassley are trying to bridge those differences, but that is hard work.

But we are also watching a great deal of the politics, and the politics is far more interesting and obvious than the policy. For some of us, it's a game, and it's fun. Who's up, who's down, who has the better strategy, who made what mistakes?

But the politics are also far less inspiring, and far more discouraging. We are seeing compromise and gamesmanship. Most importantly, we are watching a few very powerful people bluffing.

Obama holds most of the cards, and the Republicans know it. He can pass some kind of health care reform without them; he can also pass some kind of healthcare reform with them. They, of course, want to force Obama to pass a healthcare reform with them. They want to do that because it will weaken him politically, partially by pissing off his base, but also because they honestly want some things in this bill.

What the Republicans don't know, and what terrifies them, is how Obama is going to play the end game. He is still a popular president. He is still an incredible and inspiring speaker. He is still a very charismatic leader. He has a great organization out there in the country drumming up support, gathering signatures. He still has many allies in Congress with their own organizations and teams out there fighting for their versions of the bill.

What really and truly terrifies the Republicans, so much so that many of them don't even realize it, is that they don't know which of their political weapons is going to work against Obama. They've dropped their biggest bombs, they've thrown as much mud as they can. The "death panel" claim is easily their most serious charge - the government is not only not going to help you, it's going to kill you? Some people believe that. But Democrats are not giving up fighting against it, and eventually they will win on that issue. Eventually the idea that the government is sponsoring "death panels" will be ridiculed as an absurd, extremist idea, because that's what it is.

Democrats did not take the "birther" mania seriously for a long time, but now they have spent some time and energy fighting it, and Orly Taitz was exposed as a flake and a crank.

Through all of this, Obama has looked calm and cool and collected, like he always does. Some people mistake that for lack of strategy, or aloofness, or lack of fighting spirit. But that's only in contrast to the previous administration, which worked by conniving, bullying, and subterfuge. Obama is playing it somewhat straight, because that's the way he is. He is making the strongest argument he can for the best bill he thinks he can get through Congress. Obama's problem, of course, is that he doesn't know what the best bill is that he can get through Congress.

I think Obama is going to surprise - and terrify even more - the Republicans in Congress by playing hardball at the end. He will rally the troops, like only he can. He will claim that he has been patient with Republicans, that he has listened to their concerns, that he has tried very hard to work with them, but that now is the time for decisions to be made. "Now is the time!" Imagine Obama leading a crowd with that rallying cry.

One of Obama's greatest weapons is the GOP failure to solve this problem for so many years. The absolutely last thing any Republicans want is to be reminded of is the squandered opportunities of the Bush years. Republicans do not want to be held accountable for the failures of Bush, but Obama is in a position to do exactly that. All he has to do is call the Republicans obstructionists who never offer solutions, even when they have the opportunity and the power. Obama's reputation for bipartisanship will come in very handy, because he will come across as a reluctant partisan warrior. He would much rather prefer to work with Republicans, but if he has to go it alone, so be it.

Obama is very different from the Republicans in one key respect: Obama is not afraid of his base. Obama may not agree with the Kossacks on everything, but he is perfectly comfortable using their energy and their talents. When the time comes, he will rally those troops. And he will not have to worry about whether or not rallying the base will alienate middle America. The Republicans, on the other hand, have to be scared to death of rallying their base, because they cannot control their base, and the followers of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have the potential to seriously alienate independents and the few moderate Republicans left.

So the end game begins. It's not quite a rope-a-dope; Obama is not feigning weakness. But neither is he telegraphing his strategy. Nor has he started deploying all of the weapons in his arsenal. He is keeping extraordinary strengths in reserve.

He can keep those strengths and those weapons in reserve because he is not afraid to use them. He is patient because he knows that he will know when to start the fight. He will know when to move. And then he will move very, very decisively, and very quickly. And that has the Republicans very, very afraid.

Whale Watching in Santa Barbara

I'm posting this just for fun. The LA Times has an article about whale watching off the Santa Barbara coast. Apparently this is a particularly good year for whale watching, because the humpback and blue whales are here at the same time, which is unusual. Also, krill are close to the surface, so the whales can be seen opening their mouths and scooping up a bunch of krill.

I'm also posting this as part of my campaign to reward the LA Times when it does something right, particularly on its Website. There's a good video associated with the story. I've been critical of the LA Times for not doing enough with video on its Website - hello, this is the filmed entertainment capital of the world - but this time, they got it right. It's a very good video, basically a mini-documentary. Good job, LA Times. I'm not even going to post it on this Website, I am going to encourage readers to actually click on the link above and watch it at latimes.com.

Lutherans Allow Gay and Lesbian Priests

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which I am a member, voted today to allow congregations to choose priests who are gay.

Way to go, Lutherans!

I'm a member of my Church Council, and attended a Synod Assembly in June, so I know how intense the debate over this is in the church. Conservatives are very upset about it, but liberals are thrilled. The church will undoubtedly lose some members over this, which is very unfortunate. There will be something of a schism.

But the far more important fact is that a very old wound has been healed, and much pain can now be put behind us. We aren't completely there yet: the ELCA still does not recognize gay marriages. But we can now say: Welcome one step closer to the center of the church, gay brothers and lesbian sisters.

Quote of the day

"[T]here's only one list of filmmakers more prestigious than the list of the filmmakers who've won the Palme d'Or, and that's the list of directors who haven't."

-Quentin Tarantino, who won the Palme d'Or at Cannes for Pulp Fiction.

Finally, Some Substance on Health Care

It has taken a while, but we finally have some substantive discussions going on about health care. A real, honest-to-goodness Canadian writes in The Denver Post about the differences between the US and Canadian health care systems (thanks to my Uncle Lenny for forwarding it to me). Bottom line: Canada spends less money for better health. She takes apart all of the myths about the Canadian system. My response is simple: ADT (About Damn Time). Most of the stories and myths about Canadian health care that I've heard are strictly anecdotal, the "I heard about this one guy who came to America because he couldn't get the surgery that he needed in Canada" variety. So it's nice to see some myths debunked.

Of course, many conservatives will dismiss this out of hand, but it will also give liberals more ammunition, make them more confident, and maybe even convince a few independents. Probably the strongest point in the piece is the one about doctors not needing any kind of pre-authorization to practice the medicine that they think is appropriate.

I have a question for conservatives about health care in Canada. Supposedly lots of Canadians are unhappy about health care in Canada, and they are coming to the United States. Where exactly are all these Canadian? Presumably they're coming across the border to Seattle, Detroit, Buffalo, and other border cities. Can we please get some statistics from conservatives proving that Canadians are coming to the US en masse for health care? Because if we can't get those statistics, I'm going to call it a myth.

Next, Patrick Appel, who is performing quite ably in the absence of his boss, Andrew Sullivan, writes a superb post about malpractice insurance and tort reform. This is another bogeyman of the right, largely derived from anecdotal evidence: there are too many frivolous lawsuits from ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the result of all those lawsuits is that malpractice insurance rates are going through the roof, which drives up health care costs. Maybe not so much.

Malpractice payments account for less than 1% of the nation's health care costs each year. Since 1987 medical malpractice insurance costs have risen just 52% despite the fact that medical costs have increased 113%. The size of malpractice damage awards has remained steady since 1991. Adjusted for inflation, the average malpractice payment has actually decreased since then. The number of payments for malpractice judgments of $1 million or more has never exceeded one-half of one percent of the annual total number of malpractice payments dating back to 1991.

The specific subject of the post is tort reform in Texas, which was supposed to solve the problem by limiting the size of malpractice awards. It hasn't, and there hasn't been the promised reduction in health care costs. The basic idea, which we also have in California, is that certain awards for damages in these suits are limited. The idea is that if the insurance company only pays out $250,000, instead of $5 million, malpractice premiums will decline. It hasn't worked out that way. The unintended consequence is that it is now more difficult for some patients to sue, because it's not worth it for the lawyers to sue, since there is a cap on how much money they can make.

I've always thot that the solution to absurdly high malpractice awards is to implement a better solution for disciplining doctors. Appel quotes a reader who wrote in with stats about how many doctors are disciplined. It's not much. Physician, heal thyself.

We owe Sarah Palin and the other wackjobs on the right a big thank you, because their ranting and raving have finally brought these arguments out of the woodwork. Rationality will eventually prevail, but it takes longer to deploy calmly constructed arguments than it does to throw out insane lies and bizarre innuendo. Palin, Glenn Beck, et al. have a slight advantage in this debate in terms of timing, because it takes them no time whatsoever to make something up and throw it out into the public discourse. Liberals, on the other hand, have to take the time to actually think and research and write. Fortunately, liberal arguments end up being much more persuasive, at least to people willing to listen to them.

Where Were the Tea-Baggers During Bush?

Wendy Kaminer at The Atlantic asks a good question: "What Constitutes A Police State?" Lots of the people protesting against Obama are making the bizarre and absurd claims that he is trying to impose some kind of a police state. This would be laughable if there weren't so many of these people, and they weren't so serious. The fact that many of them are carrying guns is also a little worrisome.

But where were these people during the Bush administration?

Driving civil libertarians crazy is probably not a goal of this month's town hall protesters, but it may be one of their signal achievements. Having openly applauded, tacitly supported, or simply ignored the Bush/Cheney national security state and the unprecedented expansion of unaccountable executive power, the right wing now defends freedom against the spectre (and it is only a spectre) of universal health care?

Of course, the real threat from Obama is that he might affect their God-given right to all the health care they can get, and their right to buy and keep all the guns that they want.

How do the town hall protests define repression? Apparently it comprises any government regulation perceived as a threat to any constitutional right or federally mandated benefit that the protesters enjoy.

All of this is fairly obvious to me, but it's nice to see it all put together in one piece.

That's How It's Done

Barney Frank is my hero of the day. I've always admired the fact that he is perfectly willing to use his superior intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of politics, process, and policy to just dismantle his opponents. He understands that sometimes politics is about listening, engaging your opponents, and compromise, and sometimes it is just about beating them. I'm a big fan of respectfully participating in civil dialogue, and I have been disappointed on countless occasions by my fellow liberals' refusal or inability to thoughtfully consider conservative or Republican arguments.

But there are limits to how long you can keep turning the other cheek when the other side insists on slapping you in the face. There is a time to disagree without being disagreeable. Conservatives doe not consider this to be one of those moments. So liberals are starting to recognize that there is a moment to be dismissive and argumentative, and this is one of those moments. There is a time to listen, and there is a time for flat-out ridicule. This is a time to be harsh, and call idiots what they are.

Obama himself is, as always, calm, cool, collected, and rational. I still think there are lots of Republicans and conservatives who are worth listening to, and who are capable of responding with intelligence and grace. But the inmates have taken over the asylum, and demagogues are framing the debate on the other side.

This is how it's done:

The Assholes and Idiots Theory Redux

For my 1,000th post, I wrote about something I like to call the "Assholes and Idiots Theory." The original post is a little long, so I thot I would provide a condensed version.

The Assholes and Idiots Theory is quite simple, and says that in every political party, movement, coalition, or sufficiently large organization, there are a certain number of assholes and idiots, and that one of the duties of the leaders of that party/movement/organization is to contain the assholes and idiots. The Assholes and Idiots Theory makes no distinction as to ideology; there are just as likely to be assholes and idiots on the left as on the right.

Assholes are people who believe that they have the right to impose their will on other people, regardless of how those people feel about it. Assholes tend to be addicted to anger; they're usually furious about something. They also tend to blur ethical or legal lines when trying to impose their will. One reason that there seems to be so much anger on the right now is that the last administration completely failed to contain either the assholes or idiots. Of course, the reason why is not hard to figure out: Bush & Cheney didn't contain the assholes or idiots in the GOP because, of course, they were both. They didn't just not contain the assholes and idiots: they appointed them.

Idiots are people who believe that they are smarter than reality, and that their ideas about how the world should work are absolutely right, whether or not there is any empirical evidence to support it, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Assholes and idiots tend to oppose compromise. This does not mean that people who oppose compromise are automatically either assholes or idiots; far from it. There are often very good reasons of principle and policy to oppose compromise on specific issues. The trick for leaders is knowing when people are opposing compromise out of principle or for good reason, and when they are doing so because they are either assholes or idiots.

People who are assholes and/or idiots will almost never admit to it. Which is why containing them is so difficult, but also why it is so important.

There are several strategies leaders, particularly presidents, use for containing assholes and idiots. Reagan had great credibility as a conservative, so he could compromise without completely alienating his base. Also, despite my strong feelings at the time, he was a decent human being, and not all that stupid. Clinton mostly contained the assholes and idiots because he had some credibility as a liberal on social issues (particularly race and feminism), and because he was just a damn good politician. Clinton also made it clear from the beginning that he would be willing to criticize those on the left. This was why the "Sister Souljah" moment was so important. Not that Sister Souljah herself was either an asshole or an idiot. But by criticizing her, Clinton read the public right; he angered some liberals, but not enough to lose them when it came time for the election, but he also scored points with moderates.

The assholes and idiots seem to be out in force on the right these days, although I see it that way because I'm a good liberal. Obama's strategy for containing the assholes and idiots among his opponents seems to be to stay calm and collected in contrast. Not a bad strategy, when your opponents are yelling and screaming. The most effective, but most expensive, weapon against assholes and idiots is time: idiots are eventually exposed as deeply wrong and in conflict with reality, while assholes eventually alienate too many people to have a base of support. Obama doesn't have much time in the health care debate, but he does have another three years before the next election. Which is crucial, because there is one crucial ingredient in using time to contain assholes and idiots. It is not enough that they prove themselves wrong. You have to prove that you are right. Which means that you have to be right.