EGYPT AND US

Tunisia and Egypt and other countries in the Middle East are seeing a new kind of unrest, not led by fundamentalists but by ordinary citizens fed up with the wealthy few who control the major businesses and corporations and whose profits continue to grow while the rest of the citizens see their finances stagnate or decline.

It's a familiar pattern in the so-called "developing world"—but it has also become a familiar pattern here in the richest country on earth. Despite all our national wealth and so-called "middle-class" lifestyles, we too find ourselves at the mercy of corporations that continue to see record profits and a greater share of the wealth going to those who run those corporations, and yet a decline in our finances while we are asked to pay for what these same corporations should be using their profits to pay for.

The horrendous once again rise in oil prices is being explained as a result of the "world demand" for more oil, and yet the oil companies are making greater profits than ever, as they have for what seems like forever. It seems obvious the profits are coming from the raises in prices, just as it seems obvious that despite all our supposed nation's wealth we are still, as Obama pointed out in his State of the Union message way behind many other nations in not just new infrastructure, like faster trains and cleaner energy (and the jobs that go with creating that) etc. but even in just maintaining what we have.

I remember the first time I came back from a European airport into one of ours and realized we were no longer the future, we were the fading past (which began under Reagan in my personal travel experiences and got much much worse under Bush/Cheney).

The people of Egypt are complaining of the corruption that allows a wealthy and powerful few to control most of the wealth and maintain monopolies in certain industries. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar.

A close friend just suffered through a few days of no power in the middle of winter because he happens to live in a part of the country that has one of the poorest performing power companies in the USA, but that didn't stop the top execs from raking in millions or from the company making outrageous profits while allowing their equipment to break down again and again. My friend has power outages every winter and they often last for days.

Where I now live we have power outages every summer which often last for days. At those times, it feels like we're living in Iraq or some other war torn country where outages are a regular occurrence, even though ours are nowhere near as frequent or as bad, nonetheless, they are worse than they used to be, because the infrastructure has not been replaced with new lines and equipment to service them etc.

Below is a reprint of a message from a local elected official in my friend's area, a perfect illustration of how all this works in the form of a summary of the problem. Read it and see if it doesn't sound like the kind of thing that happens in Russia, or Egypt, or...what county do you live in?

Pepco’s Shocking Profits

By Hans Riemer
At-large Member, Montgomery County Council

The first winter storm of 2011 has revealed once again what Montgomery County residents know too well: Pepco is incapable of restoring power outages in a reasonable period of time.

Surprising, then, that Pepco is as profitable as ever.  Just last October -- despite a year of intense criticism about failing service -- Pepco raised its estimated earnings per share for 2010 by up to 38 percent.

The “thundersnow” began on Wednesday afternoon. According to Pepco officials, 127,000 Montgomery residents lost power by the following morning. Forty-eight hours after the storm hit, the Washington Post reported that 64,843 Montgomery residents were still without power – more than the combined total of 42,667 residents without power in all other Washington-area jurisdictions.

As one resident wrote to me bitterly, Montgomery County has become a “laughing stock” in the region. Of course there is nothing amusing about seniors trapped in apartment towers with no lights, heat, or elevator service.

Pepco has offered a variety of excuses for its failure to restore power promptly in the past. The company once blamed its performance on trees, telling regulators that the region has the “fourth most-dense” tree canopy in the nation. But the Washington Post found no support for that claim in a December 15, 2010 article and exposed equipment failures as the real reason for outage problems.

Pepco has also blamed plowing problems for its inability to access neighborhoods. But Montgomery County’s Department of Transportation plowed the vast majority of roads 24 hours after the most recent storm had passed and still more than 100,000 county residents were without power.

The problem is not trees or weather, it is Pepco’s management.

In its December investigative article on Pepco, the Post found that the company’s reliability problems have been steadily growing worse for five years. Its customers have experienced 70% more outages than customers of comparable large utilities and their power has been out more than twice as long. By 2009, Pepco had fallen to the bottom quarter of U.S. utilities in customer satisfaction.

Pepco’s proposed solution to its problems is its six-point “reliability enhancement plan,” in which it intends to spend $51 million annually in Maryland over the next five years, with additional sums for DC.

Where will it get the money? Ratepayers, of course. Pepco wants to increase rates on its customers to pay for its improvements. What the company is not telling the public is that it does not need a rate hike to improve its infrastructure. According to Pepco’s financial disclosure documents filed at the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), Pepco’s profits have exceeded $200 million every year since 2004.

In October, 2010, Pepco raised its guidance on full-year earnings from 80-95 cents per share to $1.00 to $1.10 per share, and affirmed  2011 guidance at $1.10-1.30.  Pepco’s outage performance has been declining over this same period.

Pepco’s top eight executives, including its retired chairman, collected $12.7 million in compensation in 2009. They have reaped huge gains despite failed service.

Pepco paid out $238 million in dividends last year and could cut that amount to pay for its capital improvement program. But since its board and management collectively own over 750,000 shares of Pepco stock and its executives have been granted over $11 million in stock awards over the last three years, the company would rather stick ratepayers with the tab.

Pepco’s failure to ask for extra crews until Wednesday’s storm was well underway is yet another sign that it is managed badly. It is galling to think that Pepco’s executives rake in the bucks when service declines and will rake in even more when we pay to fix the problems they created.

Pepco must face a financial penalty for providing poor service. The Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) should fine Pepco for every kilowatt hour lost by its customers due to outages. This would set an appropriate performance incentive.

The MPSC should also demand service improvements without the ratepayer increase. Let Pepco’s executives and investors pay to get Washington area customers back to an acceptable level of services. After all these years of increasing profits despite declining services, the balance sheet should not be tipped in their favor yet again.

As a Bethesda resident wrote to me, “When I moved to Montgomery County, I never imagined that I would struggle to keep my baby warm.” I couldn’t agree more.

The time for talking about Pepco’s problems is over. The time to act is now.




[PS: And as my dear friend "Alameda Tom" points out with this link he supplied. Exon's 4th quarter profits "surged 54%" and they still raised the price of oil!]

A NECESSARY CORRECTIVE

Here is an article that articulates beautifully a corrective to the failed memories of so many, including some historians, of what the Reagan years really wrought. It does it much better than I could and with appropriate links to back it up (though there are hundreds more factual resources to support this perspective).

THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, BEING THERE & THE YOUNG VICTORIA

Caught three old(er) movies the last few nights I think of as "classics" in their own ways.

Or at least I did the last time I saw them (or first and only in the case of YOUNG VICTORIA).

But after watching them again this time, it became clear to me that only one of these really holds up (at least for now and for me) as truly a classic: THE ASPHALT JUNGLE.

Directed by John Houston and shot by Harold Rosson, it is an extremely stylized example of "film noir" at its darkest and most potent. Every shot is framed like a work of minimalist expressionism, and every line of dialogue (Houston shares credit for the screenplay, adapted from a "pulp fiction" novel) like an existentialist hipster's line of poetry.

Yes, sometimes some of the acting seems over the top and some of the lines melodramatic, but the directing is so restrained within the framework of the genre that it comes across as a kind of introductory course in mid-20th century philosophy, Wittgenstein and all.

Anyway, I used to think it was worth it just for Marylin Monroe's first real exposure as the dumb blond bombshell but with her own unique twist on that, but it's worth it for everything about it. A true work of art.

BEING THERE I used to feel the same way about. And it's certainly worth watching. Sellers is at his peak as another unique movie star, and Melvyn Douglas is so good as the dying conservative gazillionaire (and at the time he was not only dying but was still courageously standing up to the real conservative gazillionaires and their lackeys in real life) and Shriley McClain as his trophy wife that it still works for the most part.

But ultimately, there's a lot about it that's dated and not in the beautifully stylized way of ASPHALT JUNGLE, more as in the way TV shows from the '80s are dated, uninterestingly for the most part and sometimes uncomfortably.

And it isn't shot near as artistically, though director Hal Ashby is obviously going for that (and some scene do pull it off). It's meant to be pretty stark in its own way, as ASPHALT JUNGLE is perfectly. But BEING THERE comes across in some scenes as not as pictorially focused or thought out, while in others as too calculated to impress. And some scenes seem almost randomly framed rather than deliberately, and not in the good "randomness" of chance or inspiration or deliberate rawness but rather in the bland and overlit way of, again, bad TV of the 1980s.

And THE YOUNG VICTORIA is still a small gem of a movie, directed and shot and acted to match the best of that kind of royal Brit cinematic drama. But, as beautiful as it is to look at, the intimate scenes between the young Victoria and the handsome young Prince Albert in their marriage bed, seemed like something out of a cable serial from the beginning of this century, rather than the real private life of "Victorians" from two centuries ago.

I felt like I was watching two hot young British actors of these times rather than Victoria and Albert, unlike say the Cate Blanchett movie about Elizabeth the first, or Helen Mirren's about the present Queen Elizabeth, where the private and public lives seem consistent with what we know about the actual people and their times.

I got great pleasure from watching all three movies, as I do from any move that has something worthwhile in it to watch. But if I ever get the urge to make a list of movies I consider to be true "classics"—only THE ASPHALT JUNGLE of these three will be on it.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM (OR PART OF IT)

Here's a quote from the most moderate candidate among all those being mentioned for the 2012 Republican presidential nominations:

"This president and his fellow travelers in Washington fundamentally don't understand America," Romney said [as quoted in last week's TIME]. "They don't understand what it is that makes this nation so successful, so powerful, so good."

That's a moderate Republican talking, and it shows precisely one of the main things that is wrong and has been wrong about any kind of "partisanship"—"bi" or otherwise—in our country.

It's a time honored old rightwing trick to not argue policy or the merits of policies, but instead to just question the nativist or nationalist credentials of their opponents and accuse them of not being "American" enough, as if, number one only the right has the definitive take on what makes "America" America, and an "American" and American, but number two, that no one's motives are pure except for theirs.

The fact that a moderate Republican feels it necessary to use McCarthy era terminology ("fellow travelers" being the McCarthy era term for those who weren't "card carrying Communists" but who supposedly sympathized with them, as in supported the struggle for civil rights for non-whites, etc.) and to actually state that our democratically elected president "fundamentally doesn't understand America" or what makes it "so successful, so powerful, so good"—as if only he and his fellow Republicans know that—is not just smug and self-righteous, it's not true.

Now any reasonable person knows this, just by using logic. How could a president who has more experience outside the country, and as an outsider within the country, not in fact "understand America" better than any previous president? He's seen and experienced it more widely and from more perspectives than any politician in the modern age, if not ever.

The one area of "America" where he hasn't had personal experience is in the military. But otherwise, he knows what it's like to be a poor "American" a "middle-class" American and a rich American. Romney only knows what it's like to be rich.

Obama knows what it's like to be a "white American" and a "black American" as well as a "half white half black American" as some have called him. He knows what it's like to be a victim and target of racism (probably now more than ever) and to transcend it. He knows what it's like to achieve success on brains and hard work alone, unlike Romney and many other Republicans who inherited wealth and spots at elite schools rather than earned it as Obama did.

I could go on endlessly. But I just wanted to point out that this kind of simplistic, propagandistic use of language to portray your opponent as not just "other" but as incapable of even understanding his own country...well, in not just being confined to the fringe right anymore, it makes real political dialogue pretty difficult if not impossible.

Here are two examples of how the left posits arguments for their perspective using reason based on facts:

The first is Paul Krugman's response to the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address, and the second Jon Stewart's response to someone on the left using hyperbole to make a point and the hypocritical response from the right to that (you have to watch it for a while before he gets to the main point), if you haven't already seen them.

WINTER WONDERLAND (CONT'D)

Another big snowstorm here in my part of Jersey, dropped what appears to be a foot or more [after I went out and shoveled my car out with some help from some of my fellow apartment dwellers, I realized it was closer to two feet!]. Added to the accumulation that was already on the ground and now when we shovel a tunnel down the front sidewalk the snow on the sides is above my hip in some spots.

It is so beautiful out today I can't even express how grateful it makes me to be out in such an extraordinary landscape. Pure white soft snow covering all the trees, outlining the leafless branches otherwise dark from the wetness, the stark contrast making it feel more like living inside an art work than a neighborhood.

And again the quiet, as most things come to a halt, except for the sound of shoveling or people's voices now and then, but muffled, as if the entire scene were wrapped in tons of cotton. I know it's a hassle (my car is covered and surrounded by so much snow, and they haven't plowed the lot where I pay to park it, so even if I had the energy to shovel through to get to it there's no way I can drive it out) but the way I see it, it's the universe's way of saying, hey, slow down, take your time, enjoy the moment without having to get somewhere and fulfill some overbooked schedule, relax and dig mother nature's bountiful variety show.

At least that's the way I'm taking it. Wish you were here to dig it with me (well, wish most of you were anyway).

[PS: Oh, and how many times do rightwingers have to be told that severe winters are not a sign that there is no "global warming"—climate change and weather extremes is in fact just the opposite, proof that there is, and once again in case anyone missed it, 2010 was a record breaking winter for many of us in terms of snowfall etc. and 2011 looks on track to beat it, but 2010 also was the warmest year on record for the earth in general, and saw some of the severest weather on record as well, but the poor dears on the right can't hold two contrary ideas in their minds at the same time, that's why they need the simplicity of concepts limited to one simple idea that if repeated enough not only convinces them it's true but makes them feel better. As I've pointed out, early in my recovery from brain surgery when my mind was working on a very limited basis, I couldn't take the layers of subtleties and ironies embedded in The Daily Show, it made my head feel like it would explode, which gave me the insight into rightwing success, that most rightwingers brains are wired in such a way that their brains start to actually hurt or just quickly reject anything too complex and they reach for the simplest ideas and formulas that make their brains feel much better, but they do have to have those simple ideas reaffirmed on a daily basis, or even more often, which is why (as my friend Fred Liberman has pointed out) Fox and Rush and other rightwing media are so popular because to feel okay rightwingers need to be reassured constantly and have their simple ideas reaffirmed constantly whereas the rest of us can drop in on various media and form our own opinions and ideas with a little from here and a little from there etc. and accept that not everything is black and white simplistic.]

THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH

President Obama's Tucson speech was more moving and inspiring. But his "State of the Union" speech last night was still good.

He co opted a lot of "conservative" issues, ala Clinton at the midpoint in his first term (like when Obama spoke of lowering the corporate tax rate and paying for that by fixing loopholes and getting corporations that haven't been paying taxes to ante up, easier said than done), which was a smart political move.

And he co opted a lot of criticism from the left by saying the tax cuts for the wealthiest should not be made permanent, that servicemen and women could not be discriminated against not only because of their race or religion but also because of "who they love"—which got a big response from many in the chamber.

But I feel he could have said a few things more clearly and simply, ala the way the right has learned to do with their researched linguistics (like "death panels" and "death tax" etc.). He referred to the accomplishments of his administration in an almost indirect way. He should have listed them simply and clearly.

As in: "We saved the American auto industry" etc. By not listing all the terrific things the stimulus package did, the jobs saved and created, the businesses saved and created, the infrastructure saved and created, etc. he left himself open to the Republican's rebuttal from their supposed economics "expert" (whose figures and historical facts have been proven wrong over and over again) Ryan, that the stimulus was a failure, which isn't true, but as we all know, if you tell the same lie often enough a lot of people will come to believe it.

But in the end, it was another display of Obama's terrific intellect and command of the facts as well as of his mostly solid solutions to the surplus of problems still facing us from the damage done by the previous administration. Slowly but surely, he is addressing them and resolving them, beginning with avoiding another Great Depression, restoring the stock market and the jobs market, even if too slowly for many of us, etc.

I give the speech an A- after the Tucson speech's A+++...

THE OSCAR NOMINATIONS

The Oscar nominations came out this morning, and the biggest disappointment for me was the absence of BARNEY'S VERSION in almost every category, except "best makeup"—a well-deserved category for the people involved, but one I don't care that much about in terms of the artistry of the main filmmakers.

In their 10 movies "Best Picture" category, the Academy came up with: THE BLACK SWAN, THE FIGHTER, INCEPTION, THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, THE KING'S SPEECH, 127 HOURS, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, TOY STORY 3, TRUE GRIT and WINTER'S BONE.

I haven't seen 127 HOURS, but intend to within the next few days, so for my taste the only films out of these ten that would be on any "Best Picture" list I'd make would be: THE FIGHTER, THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, THE KINGS SPEECH, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, TRUE GRIT and WINTER'S BONE. And like I said, at the top of my list would be BARNEY'S VERSION.

As for the other categories. "Best Supporting Actor" nominations went to Christian bale for THE FIGHTER, John Hawkes for WINTER'S BONE, Jemery Renner for THE TOWN, Mark Ruffalo for THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT and Geoffrey Rush for THE KING'S SPEECH.

My five nominations, out of what I've seen so far, would go to Bale and Rush for sure, but also to Mickey O'Keefe for THE FIGHTER, John Hutcherson, one of the kids in THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, and Dustin Hoffman in BARNEY'S VERSION.

For "Best Supporting Actress" nominees, the Academy chose Amy Adams and Melissa Leo for THE FIGHTER, Helen Bonham Carter for THE KING'S SPEECH, Hailee Steinfeld for TRUE GRIT and Jacki Weaver for ANIMAL KINGDOM.

I haven't seen ANIMAL KINGDOM, but otherwise my choices would be Melissa Leo, Helen Bonham Carter and Hailee Steinfeld for sure, but for the other two I'd choose Mia Wasikowska, the other "kid" in THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT" and Minnie Driver for BARNEY'S VERSION.

For "Best Actor" the Academy chose Javier Bardem for BIUTIFUL, Jeff Bridges for TRUE GRIT, Jessie Eisenberg for THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Colin Firth for THE KING'S SPEECH and James Franco for 127 HOURS.

Even though I haven't seen it yet, I've never seen Franco do anything that doesn't deserve an Oscar nod, so I'd probably include him for "Best Actor" for 127 HOURS and definitely for HOWL. For the other four, again BARNEY'S VERSION is at the top of my list with Paul Giamatti, and though I know I'll get a lot of flack from some of my friends for this: Ben Affleck for his roles in THE TOWN and COMPANY MEN, Colin Firth and Jesse Eisenberg (even though it seems to be a distortion of what Zuckerberg is really like, it's still a powerful acting coup).

As for "Best Actress" (almost always one of the most competitive and best categories, and no exception this year), the Oscar nominations went to Annete Bening for THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, Nicole Kidman for RABBIT HOLE, Jennifer Lawrence for WINTER'S BONE, Natalie Portman for BLACK SWAN and Michele Williams for BLUE VALENTINE. Unfortunately I haven't seen BLUE VALENTINE or RABBIT HOLE yet, so my choices are more limited, but at the top of my list are both Bening and her co-star in THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, Julianne Moore. Lawrence would also be one of my choices, but then would come Rosamond Pike in BARNEY'S VERSION and Noomi Rapace, the girl in all those THE GIRL WITH movies, which probably aren't eligible, but she deserves at least a nomination for all three movies.

For "Best Director" the Academy chose Darren Aronofsky for BLACK SWAN, David O. Russell for THE FIGHTER, Tom Hooper for THE KING'S SPEECH, David Fincher for THE SOCIAL NETWORK and the Coen brothers for TRUE GRIT.

My choices would include Russell, Hooper, Fincher and even Aronofsky (I'm too squeamish and critical for BLACK SWAN, despite some well-executed horror film tropes and melodramatic firsts, but there's no doubt Aronovsky is a brilliant filmmaker), but I'd again have BARNEY'S VERSION at the top of my list with the director Richard J. Lewis (and I'd like to throw an honorary nod to Ben Affleck for pulling off a Clint Eastwood in THE TOWN, i.e. directing himself and doing a very efficient accomplished job of pulling of a terrific caper movie if nothing else).

For "Best Adapted Screenplay" they chose Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy for 127 HOURS, Aaron Sorken for THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Michael Arndt for TOY STORY 3 (?!), the Coen brothers for TRUE GRIT and Debra Granik and Anne Roselini for WINTER'S BONE.

I'm down with Sorkin and Granik/Roselini. But for my others I'd choose again Michael Konyves for his adaptation of Mordecai Richler's BARNEY'S VERSION, and Peter Craig, Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard for their version of Chuck Hogan's novel PRINCE OF THIEVES, and then I'm out of choices but suspect, though I haven't seen it, FAIR GAME might be on my list from what I hear.

For "Best Original Screenplay" they chose Mike Leigh for ANOTHER YEAR, another movie I haven't seen but hear great things about, as always with Leigh, Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson for THE FIGHTER, which I'm totally down with, Christopher Nolan for INCEPTION, which was too confusing for my taste to be considered for this award, Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg for THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT and David Seidler for THE KING'S SPEECH, both of which I concur with. So I'd just have to come up with one more for my choice and I guess I'll have to wait until I see the rest on my list.

The only other category I'm really interested in this year (I used to be obsessed with everything about the Oscars in my pre-brain-op list-making compulsiveness, but that seems to have faded post-op) is cinematography. The nominations were for BLACK SWAN, INCEPTION, THE KING'S SPEECH, THE SOCIAL NETWORK and TRUE GRIT.

This is one of the few categories I believe BLACK SWAN deserves a nomination for (the other would be editing). And I can go along with the rest of the nominations as well.

As for editing come to think of it, the nominees were 127 HOURS, BLACK SWAN, THE FIGHTER, THE KING'S SPEECH and THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I'd replace THE SOCIAL NETWORK with BARNEY'S VERSION, the best edited film of the year for my taste.

The only other category I have a little interest in is film score, for which the Academy chose 127 HOURS, HOW TO TRAIN A DRAGON, INCEPTION, THE KING'S SPEECH and SOCIAL NETWORK. I have to say the latter, SOCIAL NETWORK was the most originally compelling score for my taste, but the soundtrack collection of period tunes in BARNEY'S VERSION was another favorite.