Judd Apatow and the “Sensitive Male Agenda”

A new Double X column examines whether Judd Apatow’s films are just “chick-flicks for dudes.” This is a point I’ve been trying to drive home for a while. I do like Apatow’s films. I enjoy their sense of humor, their nostalgia and pop culture sensibility (very few modern films are sharp enough to acknowledge great pop culture of the past), their appreciation for Westside Los Angeles lifestyle (Rogen and Heigl doing their morning after breakfast at the Swingers on Lincoln), and their embrace of Generation X’s adulthood (basically, every Paul Rudd charcter is an early-90’s Ethan Hawke character who has flashed forward to his late-30’s).

But every one of the films breeds an aura of suspicion around the “sensitive male agenda” it promotes. Follow me if you will. Basically, in every Apatow film, a male character (Seth Rogen in Knocked Up or  Jason Segal in Sarah Marshall) finds vindication in his sensitive side and realizes that a life of productivity, responsibility, and vulnerability with women is the remedy for his angst. The guy stops worrying about getting laid, drops his goofy friends to focus on his vocation, and ends up having the girl crawl back to him now that he has asserted his Manly independence.

There’s nothing wrong with promoting the benefits of being productive, independent, and genuine, but some of Apatow’s characters (I’m looking at you Peter Bretter) just get too soapy and wussy about it. The reason Apatow is able to get away with it is that he punctuates his films with moments of unbridled crassness that let us know that while he may be trying to get us to mature, he appreciates the benefits of douchebaggery. In Sarah Marshall he makes sure to make Russell Brand’s character appealing and appreciable. Had he just made him a douchebag, he might as well have cast Meg Ryan in the lead.

So yes,  Judd Apatow’s films are the apotheosis of Generation X’s transition from video game playing slackers to reluctantly mature adults. It’s about time. Those guys are freakin old.

Why Obama Is Screwing the Pooch On the Health Care Pitch

The national health care system is a myriad of give-and-takes and unintended consequences, and since I am not quite knowledgeable enough about it to comment on specific policy proposals, I figured I’m better off addressing why the Obama Administration seems to be failing in an area where they previously had experienced such success: sales. Despite the fervor and interest surrounding the issue, Obama has not convinced the American people that whatever phone-book thick proposal is being put through Congress is going to be a major step-forward. Polling magician Nate Silver takes on the sales pitch problem by grading the administration on a 5-point promotional plan put forth by Democratic pollsters/consultants James Carville and Stan Greenberg. Here are the points with my thoughts:

1. Voters need to hear clearly what changes health care reform will bring.

The public explanation has been seriously  lacking in details. How many people who hear the President explain the health care program can answer 1) How will this improve my care? or 2) If this won’t necessarily improve my care, how will it contribute to the nation’s fiscal health and/or significantly improve the care of a majority of the nation’s individuals? Instead, they just hear about how the plan will raise the deficit.

2. Build a narrative around taking power away from the insurance companies and giving it to people.

Say what you want about a populist narrative, but it’s got traction right now. His opponents mis-fire when instead of proposing better reforms, they rant about how the system shouldn’t be screwed with and any attempt to do so will take us on a straight path to Stalinist Russia. Well the American public certainly doesn’t think the current health care system is the bees’ knees and their grievances are for the most part aimed at insurance companies. And deservedly so. You don’t have to turn into Huey Long, nor stretch the truth. Simply highlight the fact that reform will break the strangehold of the insurance companies. Not too hard.

3. The president and reform advocates have to explain concretely the changes that will mean lower costs.

Here’s where they are really blowing it. Marginal cost is not the same as total cost. Of course the total costs of providing the nation with healthcare will rise if you start covering 50 million new people. But the goal is to reduce the marginal cost, meaning the cost of the next single person getting health coverage. The idea being that while total costs will rise in the short term (due to a wider coverage base), the marginal costs will decrease (as a result of efficiencies, competition, taking on the insurers, etc.), and will eventually lead to a reduction in total costs. Not to toot my own horn, but I think I just explained this fairly clearly. I don’t see why the President cannot.

Numbers 4) and 5) are pretty self-evident: 4) Show all voters that there are benefits for them, including prescription drugs, and 5) All of these points should be made with the dominant framework that continuing the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. As Silver points out, #5 (in addition to being scarily true) is probably the only one the Democrats are doing effectively. However, it just might not be enough.

The Daily Show Starring Jon Leibowitz?

A young Jon Leibowitz

Should Jon Stewart change his name back to Jon Leibowitz? Being a non-practicing Jew with an open disdain for the more invasive aspects of formal religion, I would be an unlikely candidate to tackle this issue and that of modern Jewish self-identity. But I dig on media and social commentary so away we go. The Jew-WASPifies-his-name-for-assimilation-purposes-in-order-to-make-it-in-Hollywood phenomenon has been operating since the advent of modern media. In the 20’s and 30’s, Jewish studio moguls were worried that the abstract Jewish names of its stars would seem too ethnic and scare off the dime-cinema masses. Flash forward a few decades and Mel Kaminsky becomes Mel Brooks, Issur Demsky becomes Kirk Douglas, and Robert Zimmerman becomes Bob Dylan.

The practice became so ingrained that no one really noticed or questioned it. Stewart (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz) launched his career in the mid-80’s, started gaining some traction in the mid-90’s, and hit the mainstream just after the turn of the millenium. I’ll spare you my oft-repeated hypothesis that Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David, by embracing their nebbishness, did for Jewish pop culture penetration what Jackie Robinson did for black athletes, but one has to wonder if it’s necessary any longer.

Ron Rosenbaum doesn’t seem to think so and writes an open letter to Stewart requesting that he embrace his roots. Rosenbaum makes reasonable comment that this re-naming is outdated and antiquated, but let’s face it, Jon Stewart is known as Jon Stewart and his personal brand value and maketability lies in the name, Jon Stewart. And anyways, why single out this guy? Last time I checked, Gene Simmons was still kicking and I can assure he ain’t changing his name back to Chaim Witz any time soon. Well, Rosenbaum has a good foundation for why Stewart is the most appropriate candidate to lead the charge back:

I think it has something to do with what I like most about your show, which is that you, like the best satirists, focus on making fun of those who put up a false front. Not that Stewart is false in any malign sense of the word. (It was your middle name—well, Stuart was!) But that it’s a kind of mask, and you spend most of your time making fun of the pretentious masks that politicians, celebrities, and big shots adopt.

Hmm, he’s got a point, Jon.

God I Love Hollywood

Straight from Nikki Finke, a TV agent chimes in on recently departed NBC Entertainment Chairman Ben Silverman’s future career prospects.

“I have a better chance of converting to Catholicism than Ben Silverman does ever selling a TV project to Nina Tassler or Steve McPherson or Kevin Reilly.” (Remark to me today by one prominent Jewish TV agent.)

Prideful Hypocrisy Is Her Favorite Kind

Everyone knows where I stand on Sarah Palin, so I’ll just take the opportunity of her Quitter Speech to point out the most ludicrous hypocrisy of what she claims to represent. She bloviates on rugged individualism, free markets, capitalism, and the dangers of “socialism”, meanwhile, she presides (or presided, should I say) over the state with the largest share of redistributive outlays to its residents. Moreover, she gladly promotes this fact!

As New Majority conservative David Frum puts it:

Sarah Palin’s most notable achievement as governor of Alaska was to increase the payout from the state’s energy tax take by $1200 per resident. Isn’t it odd then that she would use her farewell address to warn against the danger of government handouts?

So Chicken Little running around screaming “socialism” is one of the biggest culprits herself. Maybe if she looked up the actual definition of socialism she’d stop making her socialist policies the cornerstone of her marketing platform, but that would take actual intellectual effort and we all know how she frowns upon that.

Captain Obvious

New study shows that actually counting your money increases happiness. Well, I mean, duh. Just ask Scrooge McDuck.

Pro Sports Playin Game of Monopoly

Da Bears!

Little does the average sports fan know, but a great deal of what they spend their time obsessing over is an intricately constructed extension of labor and anti-trust law. With a seminal case in the history of professional sports coming up before the Supreme Court, American Needle v. NFL, it looks like Bill Swerski’s Superfans are gonna have to brush up on the Sherman Act in between rounds of Budweiser and buffalo wings. To explain, the primary issues facing professional sports leagues are labor issues (concerning franchises’ relationship to their players, i.e. labor) and anti-trust (concerning the league’s existence as a business entity and the relationship of the individual teams to each other and to the league as a whole). Anti-trust law is governed by The Sherman Anti-Trust Act under which

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

This legislation, along with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, are in place to prevent monopolies, collusion, and other practices which unreasonable restrain competition and, therefore, are detrimental to the consumer. The Rule of Reason is the doctrine generally applied by courts to determine which restraints to trade are unreasonable and, therefore, illegal. In order to determine what is unreasonably restrictive in a market, you must determine what that market is.

The point of contention in terms of sports leagues is encompassed in the NFL’s “single entity” defense. The NFL contends that it’s conglomeration of 32 teams should be considered a single entity (in the form of the league) and that the market it is competing is the entire market for entertainment (i.e., its competitors are film, internet, music, etc.). That interpretation has typically been rejected by the courts, with the market considered to be professional football activities, with the 32 teams as separate entities competing against each other (would serve to figure, right?). The NFL is challenging this interpretation and trying to establish a Supreme Court ruling affriming the league as a “single entity” in its defense of a claim by a former NFL apparel licensee, American Needle. ESPN legal correspondent Lester Munson outlines the case and its implications for pro sports in general. A ruling in favor of the league will basically eviscerate any anti-trust or labor regulation of the leagues’ activities and player’s unions may become a thing of the past. Leagues will be able to set salaries, restrict free agency, and cut merchandise and media deals that would otherwise be unimaginable. In Munson’s words:

If the NFL is successful, then players, maverick owners, networks, paraphernalia manufacturers, fans and others will find themselves conducting business with what would be one of the most powerful cartels ever.

All professional sports would seemingly be exempt from anti-trust scrutiny and federal regulation. The shock and horror of exploding player salaries over the past 15 years may land you on the side of the league…at least until you go to Foot Locker and realize that DJ Mbenga jersey just went up $50 bucks. Luckily for Bill Swerski, he’s still rockin that ‘85 Jim McMahon jersey with reckless abandon.

No One Needs A Cheerleader

President Obama met with the leaders of major Jewish organizations on Monday to address concerns about the apparent disconnect between his administration and Netanyahu’s on the settlement question. Other than a few holdouts, the majority of the leaders acknowledged that while the administration was making certain demands of the Israeli government (i.e., stop settlement activity), this was far less than he was demanding of the Palestinians (i.e., reform your entire economic and politial system, and ensure Israel’s safety).  However, Malcolm Hoenlein suggested that public tension between America and Israel, regardless of its substance or fairness, could be harmful to Israel’s interests. Obama’s response:

“With all due respect, I would disagree. For eight years under the prior administration, there was no daylight between the two sides and there was no progress on the peace front, and no hard decisions were confronted, no progress was made.”

Amen. For 8 years the American government basically shrieked “Rah rah gooooooooo Israel” and look what happened: the only parties who got stronger were Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I’d prefer an administration that has an interest in Israel’s long-term progress, not in using Israel as a political talking point. We’ve seen some progress with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the popular uprising in Iran. We’ve even got the Pakistani government actually fighting the Taliban on the Pakistani border (a shocker, I know). Hopefully we can keep up the momentum. And I can guarantee you it won’t be accomplished by agreeing with Netanyahu just for the sake of it.

Lakers Pull Lamar Offer

…But I’m not sweatin’ it. Basically, Lamar’s contract negotiation this year should be a slam dunk, but agents are always concerned that if a negotiation goes too easily, they look like they’re not worth their commission. There’s no one out there who can offer Lamar much more than the $9 mil a year that the Lakers have offered him and on the off chance Portland steps in and bumps it up a million or so (which they most likely won’t) the Lakers will match. Since Schwartz is playing hardball, Kupchak and Buss are daring him to go find a better offer. I don’t see it happening.

The Tyranny of False Dichotomies: Judicial Version

There are a number of unfortunate false dichotomies currently operating in American politics and one is rearing its ugly head in the judicial confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor. By false dichotomies, I mean the cramping down of particular issues into convenient politically packaged opposites that entirely fail to account for the true complexity of the issue. The most pervasive false dichotomy of the judicial system is “strict adherence” vs. “legislating from the bench”, i.e.  judges either adhere to the rule of the established law, or under their own accord and desire, make the laws as they go along based on personal preference.

The idea that our entire legal system exists solely as a set of clearly defined, hard and fast, black letter laws is simply false. If that were the case, there would be no need for appellate courts, including the Supreme Court. Judicial responsibilities are the application of the law to the facts and particular circumstances of each case. In doing so, courts (particularly the Supreme Court) many times are dealing with cases of “first impression” for which no distinguishable law has been established or are establishing precedent as pertains to the application of law to a specific set of facts. That is why we have a judicial system, to make these tough interpretations in the most fair and honorable manner possible.

Republicans have continually harped on Sotomayor’s comment that she “hoped” that a woman of Latina background would make wiser decisions than a comparably wise judge who did not have similar experiences and challenges to overcome. Sotomayor’s most vocal critic, Senator Jeff Sessions, seems to believe that that comment (although flying in the face of a long judicial record that shows little to no evidence of bias nor radicalism) translates to discrimination: “”I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual . . . who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision.”

Now I know that Sen. Sessions has to appeal to his base, most of whom are incapable of using a light dimmer as opposed to a light switch, but he should really try to make his attempts at critical overreach less transparent. In fact in the case which conservatives believe is the silver bullet proving Sotomayor’s radical views, white firefighter Frank Ricci’s discrimination claim against the city of New Haven, she in fact adhered to the previously established law. So I guess that “legislating from bench” is horrifying unless it is in favor of a conservative cause (*disclaimer: the foregoing in no way reflects on my personal views of the Ricci case, it is simply an illustration of my point that the “adherence” vs. “policy-making” dichotomy is irrelevant).

The idea that one incorporates their life experiences into their world view which in turn may influence and inform their application of the law to certain circumstances inevitably leads to discrimination, bias, and disregard of the law is completely disingenuous.  If our personal experiences did not shape and mold our world view, then all of us would think exactly alike. Sotomayor’s personal experiences inform her views just as Clarence Thomas’, Antonin Scalia’s, and Sandra Day O’Connor’s do them. The idea is not that a judge’s views and experiences be entirely neutralized, but that they inform their interpretation of the law instead of overwhelming it. Judging a job applicant’s viability based on their unyielding adherence to immutable certainties is more appropriate for math teachers. For judges, it’s simplistic and unrealistic.