Skip to content

Month: July 2012

“They refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.”

“They refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.”

by David Atkins

Robert Draper describes the results of focus groups done a few months ago by Democratic groups attempting to define Mitt Romney:

Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.

That’s really how bad the Ryan budget is: voters don’t believe that real politicians would actually do such a thing. The plan to gut Medicare in order to make room for tax cuts for the rich is egregious and embarrassing that groups like Politifact have to go out of their way to cover for them.

And then there’s Mitt Romney, a vulture capitalist responsible for mass layoffs and outsourcing, who supported the Ryan budget and continues to advocate for tax breaks for millionaires and austerity for everyone else. As Jonathan Chait says:

The basic theme of Romney as a super-rich guy who sees the world through the lens of his own class seems like a powerful and roughly accurate one. The attacks on Romney’s business career fit with the theme. I’m sure there will be more attacks on Romney’s secretive finances — Obama’s campaign keeps dropping the phrase “Swiss bank account” because, I would wager, focus groups find it a little suspicious.

Once they’ve established that frame for voters to understand Romney, then they have set the stage for a closing attack that focuses on the policy contrast. (Or so I have argued.)

One odd thing is that Romney has done so little to insulate himself against this line of attack. George W. Bush framed his entire campaign persona in 2000 so as to protect himself from charges of looking out for the rich — he called himself a compassionate conservative, he falsely claimed his tax cuts disproportionately benefitted the poor, he surrounded himself with cultural symbols of the middle class. Romney is a very rich man running on a platform of helping other rich people and doing almost nothing to deflect the most obvious political attack.

It’s almost as if the Republicans are planting gigantic targets on their backs, standing in the middle of the street and daring Democrats to hit them. It’s such openly flaunted evil that even the most jaded voters refuse to believe it’s actually real.

But then again, maybe they figure they’ll have so much money to tell lies with that it won’t matter how obvious the iniquity:

There was, however, one fundamental difference between Priorities and its conservative counterparts. According to Politico, Rove’s organization had vowed to raise $300 million for the 2012 election — which, when coupled with Restore Our Future ($100 million) and the outside groups of oil and chemical billionaires Charles and David Koch ($400 million), would amount to an $800 million war chest. Burton and Sweeney’s stated goal was $100 million.

$800 million of secret slush donations will buy calumnies galore. It will be interesting to see if voters can make heads or tails of anything remotely resembling the truth by the time November rolls around. The fact that they refuse to believe the Ryan budget is a real document isn’t a good omen.

.

Our betters, fretting in the Hamptons

Our betters, fretting in the Hamptons

by digby


The
LA Times reports from the Romney Koch fundraiser:

The line of Range Rovers, BMWs, Porsche roadsters and one gleaming cherry red Ferrari began queuing outside of Revlon Chairman Ronald Perelman’s estate off Montauk Highway long before Romney arrived, as campaign aides and staffers in white polo shirts emblazoned with the logo of Perelman’s property — the Creeks — checked off names under tight security.

They came with high hopes for the presumed Republican nominee, who is locked in a tight race with President Obama. And some were eager to give the candidate some advice about the next four months.

A money manager in a green Jeep said it was time for Romney to “up his game and be more reactive.” So far, said the donor (who would not give his name because he said it would hurt his business), Romney has had a “very timid offense.”

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. “I don’t think the common person is getting it,” she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. “Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

“We’ve got the message,” she added. “But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies — everybody who’s got the right to vote — they don’t understand what’s going on. I just think if you’re lower income — one, you’re not as educated, two, they don’t understand how it works, they don’t understand how the systems work, they don’t understand the impact.”

Right. What’s the impact for these people again?

Now maybe that very nice rich lady who said that the lower orders are too stupid to understand that Obama is hurting them is donating to Romney because while she’s doing well, she’s truly concerned about the poor and for some reason thinks he’ll be better for them. That makes her pathetically dumb herself, but at least her heart would be in the right place. But I’m going to take a wild shot and say that I would guess she’s just another self-centered moron who thinks that Obama is ruining everything because he’s taxing everyone too much — especially her.

Begging for pitchforks, I’m telling you.

.

Sweet

Sweet

by digby

They look very happy, just as you should on your wedding day:

Mr. Frank, 72, and Mr. Ready, 42, were married in Newton, Mass., part of Mr. Frank’s district, on Saturday in a low-key ceremony on the banks of the Charles River. Gov. Deval L. Patrick of Massachusetts officiated. The guests included Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, as well as Senator John Kerry and Representatives Dennis J. Kucinich and Steny H. Hoyer.

Mr. Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, became, in 1987, the first sitting member of Congress to volunteer that he was gay. He is now the first to be married to a partner of the same sex. Both bridegrooms said they recognized the historical significance of the ceremony, which lasted less than five minutes. Gov. Patrick told the guests that Mr. Frank had requested that the service “be short and to the point.”

And in vows written by the couple, Mr. Frank and Mr. Ready pledged to love each other “on MSNBC or on Fox” and “in Congress or in retirement,” a reference to Mr. Frank’s decision not to seek another term.

It was yet another signal moment for Mr. Frank, born into a blue-collar family in Bayonne, N.J., whose debating skills and legislative prowess made him one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington. He maintained that stature despite a 1989 scandal that threatened to derail his career when an ex-boyfriend’s activities led to an 11-month ethics investigation.

.

Liars and frauds: America’s Republican election officials

Liars and frauds: America’s Republican election officials

by digby

I wish I knew why more people weren’t incensed by this, but I guess they figure it won’t make any difference in the outcome so let them have their fun. I think it’s appalling:

“Some 1,500 people voted under dead people’s and prisoners’ names from 2008-11, according to Michigan’s auditor general. Many might be clerical errors, but this illustrates the need to ensure accurate voter rolls.”

Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson wrote this in a July 2 Times-Herald column, and she lied.

Johnson is a member of a fifteen-state consortium of right-wing elections officials that’s hellbent on purging voters. And her dishonest jousting in Michigan this week offers a window into how that consortium works—playing fast and loose with facts in order to create the impression of a problem that would justify their hardline solutions, and flouting the law themselves when necessary…

Despite Johnson’s constant refrain on dead people voting, her own Bureau of Elections has already established that there was no actual voter fraud in the auditor general’s report she referenced in her July 2 column.

While it’s true that the auditor general initially found close to 1,500 cases in which a dead or imprisoned person appeared to vote, the Department of State’s Bureau of Elections (BOE) said the auditor general was mistaken on all 1,500 counts (pdf; page 17). The auditor general reports that BOE informed investigators “that in every instance where it appears a deceased person or incarcerated person voted and local records were available, a clerical error was established as the reason for the situation. In addition, the Department [BOE] informed [the auditor general] that in some cases, voters submitted absent voter ballots shortly before they died. The Department informed us that the examples provided did not result in a single verified case that an ineligible person voted.” (My emphasis.)

Despite this, Johnson is determined to press forward with her original intentions. And regardless of Governor Snyder’s veto of the citizenship reaffirmation bill, Johnson said she will require that ballot application forms have a citizenship checkbox anyway.

Johnson will also continue this work through membership in the Interstate Cross Check Project. The architect of that consortium is Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who gained notoriety when he led a national movement to copycat Arizona’s immigrant profiling law. The consortium allows member states to share voter registration information in a database to find ineligible voters.

Kansas has the most restrictive, active voter ID law in the nation. That law, which is also called the Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act, is the model for what Kobach would like to see happen around the country, where state cabinet officials are sent on missions looking for dead people, dogs and “illegals” attempting to vote. The project claims it has discovered people who are registered in multiple states, and who may have even voted in multiple states during one election.

If there is nothing else that can convince thinking people that the Republicans are a malevolent, anti-democratic Party, this should. There is no evidence, none, that there is any ,election voter fraud, much less a systemic enough problem to turn elections, but there is ample evidence that if you make people go through ridiculous hoops to vote, a lot of them will give up. That’s the point, that’s what they’re trying to do, everyone knows it.

Now maybe it’s true that vote suppression doesn’t amount to anything and we needn’t worry. But we can prove that “vote fraud” doesn’t — the evidence is clear — so there’s no reason to take that chance.

.

GOP viciousness circle

GOP viciousness circle

by digby

You have to hand it to the Republicans. They are drowning that government baby in the bathtub. But they are taking down a whole lot of average working people with it.

The Scranton Times Tribune reports:

Amid Scranton’s ever-deepening financial crisis, Mayor Chris Doherty said his administration is going forward with a plan to unilaterally slash the pay of 398 workers to the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour with today’s payroll, insisting it is all the city can afford.

That will likely earn administration officials an appointment with Judge Michael Barrasse, who granted the city’s police, fire and public works unions a special injunction temporarily barring the administration from imposing the pay cuts after a brief hearing Thursday.

As Think Progress points out, this doesn’t have to happen:

Congressional Republicans repeatedly blocked efforts to extend aid to the states that would have helped shore up their budgets and keep these workers on payroll. In the case of Scranton, such aid may have helped the city actually pay its workers a living wage instead of a federal minimum that hasn’t been raised since 2006 and has less buying power than it had in 1968.

On the other hand, this will undoubtedly make people hate government even more than they do, so there’s a silver lining. For GOP sadists.

.

Toddlers, Tiaras and Tea Partiers

Toddlers, Tiaras and Tea Partiers

by digby

I think this kid provides a real insight into conservatism: they are emotionally and intellectually stunted. This kid was smarter than most, so he was probably a little ahead of the curve. I would suppose that the usual conservative mental age is around 15:

Four years ago, at the age of 13, I gave a speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). To be honest, I had no idea how big a deal it was to make a two-minute appearance on a B-list panel. But the speech blew up, and I became the child star of the right wing — like the conservative Macauley Culkin, except I’ve never had a drug problem or dated Mila Kunis, unfortunately.

My involvement at such a young age happened for manifold reasons: I always enjoyed writing (I had gotten my first paid writing gig when I was 9), I enjoyed politics (or at least the theory of politics), and I grew up in Georgia, where conservative ideologues dominated the radio and the populace. Mix those things with the naïveté of a kid and you’ve got the perfect recipe for a fresh, right-wing pundit. My star role worked out well for a while. I didn’t have to question any of the talking points I’d made in my speech, and I got to drone on and on about them at numerous Tea Parties and other conservative gatherings. I felt justified in my beliefs if for no other reason than no one actually told me I was wrong. Instead, men like Bill Bennett and Newt Gingrich hailed me as the voice for my generation and a hope for America.

But then, earlier this week, Politico released an interview in which I announced I wasn’t a conservative anymore — and the proverbial crap hit the fan. Since then, I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies. The Daily Caller, for instance, wrote three articles about my shift, topping it off with an opinion piece in which they stated that I deserved criticism because I wear “thick-rimmed glasses” and I like Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why don’t they just call me “four-eyes”? These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13…

Smart kid.

He’s currently in the mode of “a pox on both their houses” and perhaps he’ll stay that way. If I had just been through his experience I’d think that too. But at some point this smart kid is going to decide that some political things really do matter to him and he’ll look around and try to figure out the best way to make or preserve those things. And, like most of us, he’ll decide what political tools are available to achieve that goal. Without knowing how that will go, I think it’s fair to assume that tool will not be the Republican Party.

.

It’s not personal, it’s strictly business

It’s not personal, it’s strictly business

by digby

Yesterday I linked to a post by Jonathan Schwartz featuring a loony quote from a misanthropic billionaire and which fatured a quote from David Frum pointing out that one of the reasons billionaires are loony is because they watch Fox News too.

They also hear from the financial and banking industry. Here’s an email I received from a friend in the upper 1%:

I just received a 12-page analysis from my bank recounting the prevailing anti-Keynesian analysis of the ‘Great Recession’. It directly states that wages have to go down in the USA, that it’s inevitable, so draw your own political conclusions. It’s a long ‘apology’ (in the sense of explanation) for Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. It ends with the conclusion that the November election is a crucial tipping point.

First, the big lie:

Despite massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, the global economy failed to rebound briskly from the “great recession.” Growth in the major developed economies remains mired at a pace that is insufficient to absorb excess labor.

This sums up their economic analysis: “Krugman is wrong.” Truthfully, there hasn’t been a “massive fiscal” stimulus; instead, government spending (aside from transfer payments) continues to shrink, and teachers and firefighters are still getting fired.

But I’m not to worry about my own role in this. It’s not my fault that workers are getting screwed, it’s inevitable. The blame, apparently, lies with the Chinese people, who save too much.

As noted above, China saves and invests far more of each unit of GDP than does the United States. More importantly, Chinese households save more than half of their disposable income while U.S. households save only a few percent of disposable income. From 2002 to 2010 the averages were 54.0% and 3.8%, respectively. [Not really. This is mainly due to the increased ability to own capital in China. Land, house, cars.] Combining this fact with the on-going transfer of income and wealth from the United States to China means that the global saving rate is rising. This has two key implications for the economy and the markets:

�� Global aggregate demand will tend to fall short of aggregate output, creating a deflationary bias in the economy. [So wages must continue to fall.]

Read on:

The Macro Impact of China

It can be argued that China and India were not fully integrated into the global economy until shortly before China was formally admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001. With the integration of the world’s two most populous countries, the global supply of labor effectively doubled. In addition to its abundance, the new labor — both skilled and unskilled — was extremely cheap compared to labor in the major developed economies.

The textbook implications of such an event are fairly straightforward. [Actually not. Their textbook economic theory relies upon a mechanistic view of human beings. If you raise the minimum wage, people will quit because they don’t really need the extra dough, and ‘job creators’ will become slackers if you raise their marginal income tax rates, make them more progressive. And so on and so forth.] Real wages around the world should converge, rising in the newly integrated economies (for simplicity we focus on China) and falling in the previously high-wage developed economies. Capital and production should shift to China, equalizing the cost of production and the return on capital. With labor now much more abundant in the global economy, the share of income going to capital should rise and the share going to labor should fall. [My emphasis.] The net effect, however, is a shift of income, output, and wealth toward the previously low-cost, labor-abundant economy of China. As we discuss below, this shift of income has important implications for the current situation.

In reality, these adjustments take substantial time.

�� Wages and prices are sticky, so real wages and relative prices adjust only gradually.

�� During the process of adjustment, employment in the high-cost, developed markets will be susceptible to both sharp contractions and slow recoveries as firms cut costs aggressively to become competitive in global markets.

�� With respect to capital, physical capital does not move readily from one location to another. Instead, the capital stock in the developed economies must be reduced through depreciation and low net investment while the capital stock in China is ramped up by vigorous investment. During this process, the return on capital (profits) should be strong and rising as a share of output in the developed markets, but the value of capital in place (i.e., stock prices) will be depressed by the need to compete with the higher returns available abroad. In effect, existing physical capital becomes obsolete, not because it is out of date, but because it is simply in the wrong place. [The bolded type is my emphasis.]

Summing up, long and painful recessions will be the rule from now on, far more people will be unemployed, and wages won’t go up. The Masters of Capital (rich people like me) will get a larger and larger share of the nation’s output. The US economy won’t recover until we accept the fact that there have to be a lot more poor Americans. Industrial production has to be shifted to China. The 1% aren’t to be blamed. The real culprits are the Chinese people, whose savings rate is over 25% while our nation of working class slackers is 5%. Vote Mitt.

The world is their oyster. The rest of us not so much.

.

Not Entirely A Game For Suckers, But Quickly Getting There.

tristero

Organic. Big Food corporate consolidation, significant chemical processing, genetic engineering, and two square feet of living space per chicken. Sheesh!

Accountability is the best food for the confidence fairy, by @DavidOAtkins

Accountability is the best food for the confidence fairy

by David Atkins

The New York Times has yet another story about Iceland’s remarkable recovery in the wake of bailing out their people instead of their banks’ foreign creditors. We’ve heard this story in many ways and highlighted Iceland’s positive example of refusal to enact austerity before, but one of the most important features is also this:

Some Icelanders say they have been soothed, too, by the country’s bold decision to initiate an extensive criminal investigation into the financial debacle. Many members of the old banking elite have been identified as possible suspects, and some of their cases are beginning to come to trial; several people were convicted of financial crimes last month.

People in Reykjavik say that while things are hardly perfect, they are certainly better.

Chris Hayes’ book Twilight of the Elites shines a spotlight on the crisis of confidence in America’s major institutions. One of the many reasons that there has been this loss of confidence is the sense that the guilty are never truly punished; instead, the worst actors seem to fail upward in an endless stream of promotions, bailouts and golden parachutes.

People will regain more confidence in the economy itself when the economy’s bad actors are finally held accountable. As the JP Morgan and LIBOR scandals demonstrate, the sorts of regulatory and cultural changes that would need to take place in the financial sector have not even begun to be implemented. Criminal recklessness is still the name of the game, and will remain so until major bad actors are held to account and major regulation put in place.

Austerity won’t feed the confidence fairy. But accountability just might do the trick.

.

Saturday Night at the Movies: “Savages” (dueling reviews — digby vs dennis)

Saturday Night at the Movies

Note: By coincidence, I happened to see the movie Dennis is reviewing this week as well and since I had such a different take I decided to write a short review of my own so that you can see the other side of the coin. It’s at the bottom of the post — digby

The story of O: Savages

By Dennis Hartley

“Just because I’m telling you this story,” cautions the narrator in the opening scene of Oliver Stone’s Savages, “…doesn’t mean I’m alive at the end of it.” While this may conjure up visions of William Holden floating face down in Gloria Swanson’s swimming pool in Sunset Boulevard, this isn’t Hollywood hack Joe Gillis’ voice we’re listening to; rather it’s a young woman named “O” (Blake Lively). Blonde, Laguna Beach tanned, and, erm, quite “fit”, O could have materialized directly from Brian Wilson’s libido. However, hers is not a happy story of sun and surf…it’s a darker tale about guns and turf.

No stranger to dark tales about guns and turf, Stone takes the ball that novelist Don Winslow tossed him with his 2010 pot trade noir, and not only runs with it, but ratchets it up six ways from any given Sunday; transforming it into Scarface 2.0 for Millennials, with a touch of Jules and Jim. Indeed, it’s only five minutes before he has someone revving up a chainsaw (and not to cut wood). The power tools star in an exclusive (and gruesome) webcast targeting O’s two lovers, Ben (Aaron Johnson) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch). Ben and Chon are 20-something BFFs who run a thriving business selling weed touted “the best cannabis in the world.” It seems a Tijuana drug cartel, led by a ruthless widow (and prolific widow-maker) named Elena (a scenery-chewing Salma Hayek), wants a piece of their action. Her message is very clear: Use your head, or lose your head.

That sounds like a plan to Ben. A Berkeley alum with a business degree, he’s the brains; idealistic, California mellow, never fired a shot in anger, we can work this out, etc. His bud Chon, an ex-Navy SEAL, is the brawn. Fuck these guys, I’ve already got one in the chamber, let’s rock’n’roll, etc. He is also an Afghanistan war vet, with a few issues. As O helpfully clarifies in the voiceover, she “…has orgasms,” (when Chon makes love to her) whilst he “…has wargasms.” (And they said Sniglets were dead). Chon wants to call their bluff. After a meeting with Elena’s negotiator (Demian Bichir) ends in a stalemate, she sends in her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro) to use more “persuasive” methods. Ben and Chon do some brainstorming and continue to play for time, until Lado and his henchmen take O as a hostage. From that point, our intrepid duo decides that when Kush comes to shove, they will not be intimidated; so they proceed to call in some favors from the likes of a crooked DEA agent (John Travolta) and a few of Chon’s ex-SEAL buddies.

In real life, one suspects that Ben and Chon would end up starring in one of Elena’s snuff videos somewhere around the end of the first act (I’m not even sure they could locate their car after a Phish concert). I know… “It’s only a movie!” But I still advise that you be prepared to suspend disbelief regarding what ensues in this rote (if slickly made and beautifully photographed) Elmore Leonard-esque wannabe of double-crosses, triple-crosses, and ultimately, a lot of white crosses (although to be fair, Stone’s body count in this outing isn’t quite as high as it was in Natural Born Killers). All the Stone trademarks are here, except for the passion (not in the sense that he’s required to provide a political subtext in every movie, but that this is uncharacteristically joyless filmmaking). The cast does its best with woefully underwritten parts, but by the muddled third act, everyone’s acting in a different film. Travolta and Del Toro, who usually liven up things, regardless of script quality (especially when playing heavies) look too bored to even go for camp. None of the characters are particularly likable (even our “heroine” is a whiney ditz). Perhaps I’ve been spoiled by the All-Star Dutch Treat quality of Showtime’s Weeds and AMC’s Breaking Bad, but this narrative (independent entrepreneur outwits the big bad cartel) has been done to death…and frankly, with considerably more originality and élan.

Saturday Night at the Movies review archives

Savage twins

by digby

Let me say upfront that I’m a fan of Oliver Stone’s ouvre. I consider him to be one of the cinematic giants, so I go to all of his films with a sense of excited anticipation. This one didn’t let me down.

Dennis synopsized the plot in his review so I won’t take you through it again. Suffice to say that what he describes as a bit of plodding, not-even-good-enough-for-cable fluff, was to me a voluptuous, juicy slice of operatic pulp fiction with cinematic allusions galore, gorgeous people, beautiful scenery and a complex subtext about love, family and, of course, Stone’s favorite themes of duality and war.

Indeed, the film is about the drug war being a “real” war, and what that does to the people who are in it, particularly the men who fight it. It’s explicitly about the two sides of man’s nature and the constant battle between the saint and savior in all of us.(“O” even says of the two heroes, “together they are one man”) Revisiting once again the themes that animated his masterpiece Platoon, Stone delves into the perennial question: at what point do you fight? (Being an American liberal, it’s a question I often ask myself.) And once you go down that road, can you ever completely have yourself back?

The two female leads have a different duality, mother-daughter, youthful-aging, light and dark, hot and cool. As the film goes on, the black widow Drug “Queenpin” Hayek subtly becomes vulnerable, even idealistic, as the young beach goddess gets schooled in the ugly side of her idyllic, sun-soaked menage a trois. The two merge together in the desert, much as the two leading men do and become more human, more savage.

Mexican henchman Benicio Del Toro, oozing more than a touch of evil, and DEA agent John Travolta dripping with manipulative corruption are two sides of the same coin as well — mercenaries in the drug war, playing both sides. I thought both performances were as good as I’ve seen either of them play in years. Del Toro sports a magnificent pompadour contrasting (again) with Travolta’s bald pate and the two of them with equally riveting but wholly different eyes, relate to each other as old pals — the corrupt version of our two heroes, after the fall.

And then there’s the marijuana drug war — the most tragic duality of all. A benign herb that grows like a weed, never proven to cause harm, known to help people in pain, as the impetus for a form of bloody medieval violence that reflects, more often than is comfortable, our wars in the middle east. In the movie, the merging of the Iraq and Afghanistan tactics and the drug war in the southwestern desert was actually foreshadowed by the cartel’s beheadings, similar to the lurid Al Qaeda tapes and the killing of Daniel Pearl that horrified us after 9/11. Wars are wars. And the drug war is not a metaphor. It’s a real war, even more unnecessary and stupid than most.

Savages is beautifully filmed as Stone’s movies always are, but the editing was a bit more fluid, more classical than usual, even as the cinematography had the expected, and still exciting, melange of different stock, lighting and mood. It’s Oliver Stone’s signature and I would miss it if it weren’t there. Still, the film has a less frenetic feel than most of his work — a little touch of languid Bertolucci in the saturated, sunny look of the beach scenes and maybe a little homage to Welles in Benicio del Toro’s shadowy close-ups.

And keep in mind that all this is in the package of a beautiful, over-the-top, pulpy film noir in the Elmore Leonard vein — and despite all my film-schooly deconstruction above, this movie is just plain fun, which at this point in my jaded movie going life is a rare thing indeed.

So, here you have another duality. Dennis, with whom I learned to love film many years ago when we saw hundreds of movies together, thinks this one is boring and shallow. I think it’s one of the most entertaining and frankly, artistic, films I’ve seen in a long time. Waddaya gonna do?

.