Republicans Fear and Enable Trump

Brian Beutler - Repeal ObamacareTrump can enforce discipline on congressional Republicans almost effortlessly, with a combination of carrots and sticks that are fixed aspects of his relationship with them. The carrots are the points of policy consensus between Trump and Republican members of the House and Senate. The sticks are the ways that Trump can credibly threaten the careers of many House Republicans, and even some Senate Republicans, if they challenge him.

Set aside the frighteningly real concern that Republicans who cross Trump will see their emails plastered all over the Internet. Trump’s unpopularity masks the powerful effects of partisan polarization. His overall approval rating may be a dismal 37 percent, but in a polarized environment, that level of support means he is overwhelmingly popular among Republican voters and beloved by the GOP base. For most Republicans, opposing him would invite bigger political problems than they’ll willingly accept…

By abandoning even the pretense of congressional oversight, Republicans are leaving it almost entirely to reporters to scrutinize Trump’s ethical and legal conduct. But as he demonstrated on Wednesday, he has no misgivings about slandering news outlets (or any institutions really) that reveal unflattering things about him.

And the same polarization that makes him broadly unpopular, but enduringly popular with GOP voters, will insulate him from the political consequences of scandal. The result is that Trump will be able to operate with impunity for the foreseeable future. If he becomes so reviled that Republicans are no longer scared of him, they might finally arrest the damage — but we’ll have to wait until then to know the full toll.

–Brian Beutler
Trump Is Exactly the Monster We Feared, and Republicans Are Enabling Him

Vanity Sizing Racism

Jenée Desmond-Harris - Vanity Sizing RacismPublic discussions of racism are notoriously frustrating, but there’s one especially aggravating related trend that took off during the election season and that I’d love for people to commit to eliminating in 2017: a push for vanity sizing.

Yes, vanity sizing for racism. The original term applies to the way clothing manufacturers have gradually adjusted their sizing in a way that appeases the growing number of large-bodied shoppers who, because of societal shame around weight, would rather see a label that says 6 than one that says 16…

As the vanity sizing debate proved, adjusting labels so that “bad” ones apply to fewer people is seductive. But even for people who associate thinness with health and virtue, it’s a superficial solution — it doesn’t change what we see when we look in the mirror.

We should all resolve to stop this vain, avoidant practice and focus on critiquing the beliefs and behavior that inspire the label “racist” instead of changing the rules so that the label doesn’t apply.

–Jenée Desmond-Harris
The Vain, Counterproductive Myth That There’s No Way Most Americans Can Be Racist

Jack Kirby’s Evolution

Jack KirbyWhat Jack Kirby drew is figures in time. The fist in the foreground is in a different time zone as the foot in the back. And I think he’s the only artist that I’ve ever observed who was able to do that.

Someone who might just blank out the power of his work, might look at something and say, “That’s a little out of drawing.” But that wasn’t the case.

I mean, Jack, in the beginning, academically, knew how to draw the human figure.

As he evolved as an artist, he became an impressionist.

Then I think he became an expressionist.

–Mike Royer
Interviewed in Jack Kirby: Story Teller

Hidden Figures: Film and Reality

Hidden FiguresI went to see the movie Hidden Figures recently. It is a movie about the women “computers” who were critical to the American space program. The twist, if that’s the right word, is that these weren’t just women; they were black women.

NASA’s Long History of Women Computers

Back in the day, NASA, along with it’s precursor the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), used people who were known literally as computers; “computer” was a job title. Starting with Virginia Tucker in 1935, NASA hired hundreds of women who had math or other science degrees to do the calculations for the work of the engineers. Since it paid more than being a teacher, plenty of women took these positions.

But the Langley campus did something remarkable: it recruited black women for the positions, and created a specific sub-department for them and assigned them as needed throughout the campus.

Hidden Figures Differences

In Hidden Figures, the timeline is a bit different than it was in reality. For instance, Dorothy Vaughn (PDF), who became the first black woman to be a supervisor (in 1949), actually learned programming before the film’s time. Desegregation occurred (legally) in 1945 with an executive order by FDR. Emotionally, it was another matter. However, it isn’t easy to say, “Oh yeah, this executive order made this possible.” It doesn’t relate to most film-goers because few know that he did that.

Setting it between the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the earthshaking change of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it showed how the black women of the time navigated the dangerous waters of their race and gender even in the federal government. By doing this it lets the average viewer see how the world was changing towards a more just outcome for these women.

One of the women, Mary Jackson obtained permission to attend an all-white high school right about the time that Brown v Board of Education was decided (in 1953). And she completed her courses to become an engineer in 1958. The movie has her doing so after the setting of 1961, as it once again, showed the problems that lingered despite the efforts of the federal government.

Hidden Figures Similarities

Where Hidden Figures was similar was in the difficulties that women still face — especially black women. Katherine Goble (later Johnson) was eventually assigned, in 1958, to the Space Task Force. This was the unit that did the calculations and other needed work for Alan Shepard’s and John Glenn’s first space flights. Right before that though, Johnson’s husband passed away leaving her the single mother of three girls. It became a balancing act between the needs of her family and the needs of the space program. Things get even more complex when she is wooed by an army colonel.

Bathroom Breaks

Hidden Figures shows the numerous times that women, especially non-white women, have to bite their tongues. Because of the segregation still left in place in many places, the black “computers” were relegated to colored-only bathrooms that in this case was a half mile from the main facility that Johnson had to do her work. That meant she had to do a mile hike just to use the restroom. In heels. As fast as she could.

Then one day, she has to do it in the pouring rain and that is, of course, the day that her boss wants to know where she disappears to for forty minutes. In a powerful, but short, outburst she explains exactly why she has to disappear for forty minutes with a simple reference to one other indignity: the coffee maker labeled colored. The next scene shows the boss personally smashing down the signs and saying as of right now, where you piddle is desegregated.

It is an important scene because it means that the black women are treated at least as equals to the white women. It is about respect and dignity and why things like fighting HB2 are so important even though they can have real political costs.

Final Thoughts

Hidden Figures was extremely powerful, but not overwhelmingly so. It was ably broken up by the parts that showed the home lives of the women, but focused mostly on the work that the women did. For me, watching this in the aftermath of the painful results in November, what struck me the most was how quietly and overwhelmingly competent these women were forced to be in order to simply get the minimum standard of respect that white men and, to a lesser extent, white woman got.

After the movie was over, the audience applauded. So did I. I cannot recommend it enough.

Afterword

For further reading on the ladies of NASA:

Real America: Get Ready to Be Screwed

EJ DionneThe Urban Institute studied the impact of the partial repeal of the ACA through the budget reconciliation process — precisely what Republicans are proposing to do. By 2019, the study found, this would increase the number of uninsured in Pennsylvania by 956,000 over what it would be if we simply kept the law…

In Tennessee, 526,000 more people would be uninsured… Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is threatening to hike the uninsured figure in Kentucky by 200 percent, or 486,000 people.

In Arizona… the number without coverage would rise by 709,000. In West Virginia… the ranks of the uninsured would go up by 208 percent, more than twice the national average, from 88,000 if the ACA were left in place to 272,000.

These are real Americans, and they all live in states carried by Trump.

Now Republicans will dispute data of this sort and claim that their “replacement” of Obamacare will take care of these folks. It will be, Trump has said, “something terrific.” Okay, if it’s so terrific, let’s see it and discuss it before we threaten the insurance coverage of so many of our fellow citizens.

But they don’t want to do this because they have no plan to replace it with, only fragments of partial solutions and a lot of empty words. Their un-Jeffersonian haste is part of a coverup, a con game in which voters are told to give up something concrete in exchange for — well, we’ll tell you later, maybe.

–EJ Dionne
Republicans Don’t Want to Hurt “Real America.” By Repealing Obamacare, They Will.

Only Marxists See the Water

Capitalism - Marxists See the WaterI was talking to a friend yesterday. He’s a smart guy. We almost never talk about politics, however; but the subject came up. And he mentioned that he was a centrist. He made what is, in some contexts, a valid point: that extremism in political ideology leads to catastrophe. But he mentioned Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. (He was most critical of the last.) But that’s a shockingly small Overton window. What about communists and fascists? What about the only political group I know of that takes our economic system seriously: Marxists.

From a more practical standpoint, did the Democratic Party having complete control of Washington really lead to catastrophe? The country barely changed. Was that extremism?!

I see the situation totally different. The libertarians are irrelevant — except that they give intellectual credibility to the others. The Democrats are a center, even center-right, party in a global perspective. And the Republicans are proto-fascists. A centrist should love Barack Obama, and actually, I believe my friend does. It isn’t my intention to indict him. Indeed, he is in favor of Universal Basic Income.

What’s Water

But his extremely limited notion of the political landscape is what pretty much everyone shares in America. Let me illustrate with a story that David Foster Wallace famously told in his commencement speech, “This Is Water.” (I’m sure most people have heard the story at one point or another in their lives):

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys! How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit and eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

To me, capitalism is the water that we swim in. And I find it really frustrating that most people can’t see it.

Oh sure: they know the word. They think it is shorthand for freedom and democracy. The slightly more sophisticated think that it is about economic markets and the profit motive. Capitalism is none of these things. And the way that capitalism normally operates, it is the enemy of these things.

Marxists Understand Capitalism

When I was a libertarian, I was struck by the fact that it was only when I talked to Marxists that I found people who seemed to understand capitalism. Of course, I thought they were wrong in their analysis, but they understood what it was. I thought that I was very knowledgeable, of course; I thought I understood capitalism too. But the truth is that I didn’t. Because, while they saw the water, I didn’t. My study of intro economics in college, if anything, made it harder to see the water.

Capitalism is a system where ownership entitles you to profit. And I’m not talking hammers here. It’s not a question of using capital to build things. It is rather more like the fallow land across the street from me. Someone could be farming it, but instead, it is just being held by someone who inherited it, waiting until the city expands to the point where they can sell it to someone else who will build condos.

See the Water

Now, I understand the arguments in favor capitalism. And I’m not completely against it. But unlike the average American who thinks they are centrists because they don’t see the economic waters they swim in, I side with the Marxists. They see the water. And that means they are able to see beyond the water.

Each year, roughly a third of our income comes not from creating things but from owning things. A third! That’s capitalism. That’s water.

You don’t have to agree with my beliefs about capitalism. But things will only get worse as long as you don’t see that capitalism is a choice that is mandated by the government. There’s nothing natural about it. Rape, theft, and murder are natural. Getting thrown in jail for trespass is not.

Be like the Marxists to the extent that you see the water. Then we all might be able to make some progress.

Some Republicans Rethinking Obamacare Repeal

Greg Sargent - Obamacare RepealAs of today, six GOP Senators have signaled real reservations. There are 52 GOP senators, so if they lose only three, repeal-and-delay would go down to defeat — meaning, in Bloomberg’s words, that right now, there are “more than enough” senators expressing doubt to “scuttle efforts to deliver swiftly on a central promise from President-elect Donald Trump.”

Here’s something to keep an eye on: The overlap between Republicans who are balking at repeal-and-delay with Republicans from red states that have expanded Medicaid.

Numerous GOP Senators have, in some form or other, recently said they don’t want to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act unless Republicans settle on a replacement first. Senator Tom Cotton said: “I think when we repeal Obamacare we need to have the solution in place moving forward.” Senator Rand Paul said: “I think it’s imperative that Republicans do a replacement simultaneous to repeal.” Senator Bill Cassidy also expressed reservations, pointing out that Donald Trump, too, had said he wants to see repeal and replace voted on “simultaneously.”

Senator Susan Collins today said that Republicans should have a detailed alternative blueprint of some kind in place before going forward with the repeal vote. Senator Lamar Alexander has also expressed serious reservations about repeal-and-delay with no guarantee of a replacement. So has Senator Bob Corker.

Senator Alexander’s reservations aren’t that surprising, because he’s the chair of the health and education committee, and probably wants (or so some Democrats believe) a big hand in a replacement bill. Senator Corker’s queasiness isn’t that surprising, either, because he prides himself on being a serious and deliberate lawmaker. Nor is Senator Collins’s reluctance, because she’s positioned herself as centrist-leaning in a bluish state.

But Senators Paul, Cotton, and Cassidy are surprising. They all come from deep red states, and aren’t known for exercising caution towards Obamacare. But all of them come from states that have expanded Medicaid.

–Greg Sargent
More Republicans Are Going Wobbly on Obamacare Repeal

The Great Snake Oil Sermon

Snake Oil SermonYesterday, we had a service for my brother Eric “Randy” Shultz, who died on 21 December 2016 at the age of 59. We did it at his conservative Baptist church. And I thought it was perfect — for Eric. It actually annoyed me a great deal. But before I get to the Snake Oil aspect of the whole thing, let me tell you something a bit more personal about the Good Christians™ who spoke at the service.

They all made a point of telling this story about how Eric had told them on first meeting them, “My friends call me Randy, you can call me Eric.” And then after they got to know him, they could call him Randy. But here’s the thing: that wasn’t really true. Everyone really crying at the service called him Eric. Whether you called him Eric or Randy depended on when you met him.

Eric vs Randy

When the first person brought up this “his true friends and family called him Randy” nonsense, it caused a slight stir in the church because his caregiver (and really, effectively his mother the last decade of his life), my younger sister, and I had already spoken with great emotion while referring to him as Eric. I got the impression that the man who first said it realized that he had blown it. But then two other people told the same story. Not one of these pretenders showed a hint of any emotion.

I am very often struck at just how callous Christians are. They’ve found their entry into heaven so they don’t really have to give much of a damn about other people. Oh, they’re nice enough. When I talk to them, they treat me the same way I would a terrorist at the birthday party of their child. There’s really only one way that they “care” about others and that is to get them to buy into the bankrupt spirituality of easy redemption. And need I remind everyone that this would been seen as sacrilegious by the early Christians who didn’t actually believe in the “one weird trick” to get into heaven.

The Sermon

And that leads us to the sermon that the pastor gave. By the standards of these things, it wasn’t that bad. For one thing, it was only about 20 minutes long. And there was a fair amount about Eric in it. But all the Bible quotes were from the Book of Revelation. I’m not fond of that book. You will note when I wrote about my brother, I culled from Matthew — about the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the gentle, and those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Those are the things that sum up Eric. So why Revelation?

Well, part of it is the whole “salvation on the cheap” that I so hate about most modern Christianity: Eric is with God, just as Hitler is now if he let Christ into his soul in that bunker. But mostly, it was all a big sales pitch. Pastors know that most people who go to funeral and wedding[1] ceremonies are not Christians, so it’s a great opportunity to make the sales pitch. “Today I’m offering you such a deal: just “believe” and Tinker Bell will give you everlasting life!”

I don’t need to be sold on the concept that Eric is a better place. His life was painful. Death is the absence of pain except in the minds of evil theists who think that not “believing” means you will be tortured for eternity. And I don’t like the fact that Christians use these mournful occasions as sales opportunities. I especially don’t like it when I know that I’m expected to make a pretty sizable donation.

As the sermon went on, I kept adjusting the amount of money I was going to give. But in the end, I gave the amount I had decided to give at the beginning. That’s because it was a sermon and service that Eric would have liked. And ultimately, it wasn’t about me. But I couldn’t wait to get out of there. I should have been medicated.

Afterword: Ignorant People

At one point during the sermon, the pastor said, “Most people think that AD stands for ‘After Death,’ but it actually stands for…” And my younger sister and I said, in unison, “Anno Domini.” That is Latin for “year of our lord.” And after the service I heard some people talking about how interesting that was. It boggles my mind. Even at 8 years old (when I independently came up with the “After Death” idea), I understood that it would leave about 30 years that are in this no man’s that no one ever talked about. No one ever said, “Oh, that happened in 12 DL.”

Am I a sinner? Sure. But I’d rather be an arrogant bastard than a simpering idiot.


[1] As Rick says, “Weddings are funerals with cake.”

American Workers Have Somewhere Else to Go

Thomas FrankExistential is a big word… I would use the word “historical.” It’s simpler. But the Democratic Party has been changing for a long time, and by the way, this is important when you’re talking about where they’re going to go because historical changes don’t just happen on a dime. They don’t just happen overnight. But the party that I grew up with and that I remember from the 1970s — Democrats have been drifting away from that for a very long time. And Hillary Clinton — Neera [Tanden] is absolutely right. On paper, she looked really excellent. The things she was saying were the right things to be saying, and she wasn’t able to make that sale.

Now, Trump — he’s done one massively important thing in this race, and that was when he went against the Republican Party stance on free trade. For decades in this city, Democrats and Republicans have had this kind of consensus on the trade issues. It was Democrats that got NAFTA. It was Barack Obama that was campaigning for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was Republicans that originally negotiated NAFTA. This was a consensus arrangement, and because it was a consensus arrangement, it allowed Democrats to do things like to get NAFTA passed and then go to organized labor — who were very bitter about that and are bitter to this day when you talk to them — and say, “You’ve got nowhere else to go.” If you go back and research the Bill Clinton era, this was a very common saying in Washington in the 1990s. Trump completely changed that dynamic. All of a sudden, these people did have somewhere to go, and it was kind of a genius move. But it’s not clear that he understands what he did or that the Democrats are going to play along with it.

–Thomas Frank
Everything Feels Relatively Existential Now

Eulogy for Eric Shultz

Eric as a Child With Family

[My brother’s memorial will be happening as this is published. I will read this at it — if I am able to. I have yet to be able to read much of any of it without breaking into convulsive sobbing. -FM]

I am not a Christian.

Having said that, I read the Bible an awful lot. I like the teachings of Jesus — in his calm reflections and in his fiery rhetoric. I would pick up a sword for him, because his cause was just. His cause was that of my brother Eric, who is, I think, a symbol for us all.

Please forgive me for quoting a bit of scripture from may favorite part of the Bible: The Sermon on the Mount. Even in translation, its poetry is unmistakably brilliant. But it is the content that I want to focus on. (This is from the New American Standard translation, which my seminary friends tell me is about as close to the Greek as one can find.)

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him.

He opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied…”

It’s hard to know where to stop. I would like to continue on to, “You are the salt of the Earth” and then, “You are the light of the world.” And I could get very political as Jesus does later in Matthew 5 and throughout Matthew 6. But I’m not here to complain that it is the evil world that killed my brother with a thousand cuts.

Eric was the gentle. That, I always knew. But as I became reacquainted with him over the last several years, I saw that he was also poor of spirit, mournful, and starving and thirsting for righteousness.

Bonding With My Brother

We bonded over film, comic books, even sports. These were the few areas where he would still let me in. And it was with much pleasure that over the years — it was a slow process — that he allowed me more inside his inner world, which was rich.

We made a curious pair. Eric was extremely smart — as smart as I am but without the ostentatiousness, which is my shield as much as reserve was his.

This caused some annoyance on my part, although I look back on it now and see it as charming. We would go and see a movie together. And afterward, as we waited for the bus, I would ask, “So what did you think of that?” And his response was, “Good.” I would push it, “What did you think of the part where Iron Man has to fix a turbine and Captain American has to pull the red lever at just the right time?” “Good.”

But his whole approach to seeing a film was different than mine. When we sat down in the theater, I saw a film. Eric entered another universe. He became lost in the film — to the point where I often had to jab him to get him to stop talking to the characters. He was especially prone to scoffing at the hubris of evil characters. You know the kind of scene in a James Bond film where the villain explains his evil plan for world domination. Eric would mutter, “Yeah, right!”

Meanwhile, I was focused on the jump cuts, bad bits of dialog, poorly rendered CG, and theme — oh, how critical I am on that score. I was offended for all of Christendom by the film Man of Steel.

Eric’s Special World

But I envied Eric. He not only got lost in the films, he was also aware of all the technical aspects of the films. He was just far more forgiving. I know this because over the years, he had more to say. If he’d been given another five years, he might have turned into as big a blabbermouth as I am.

Indeed, our last conversation was the liveliest that we had ever had — just a few hours before he died. It was about how Jack Kirby was the true brilliance behind Marvel Comics and how Stan Lee was an evil hack. Okay, that’s my side of things. Eric was sympathetic to both men. But he was generally a nicer guy than I am.

I know that the gentle are blessed in a metaphorical sense. And I hope that they are blessed in a concrete sense. Eric deserves that.

The Difficulty of Repealing Obamacare

Brian Beutler - ObamacareFor seven years now, the mantra “repeal Obamacare” has been both a spasm of revanchist rage and a cynical ploy to keep a segment of the electorate motivated to vote for Republicans. It was also frequently deployed in the belief that the GOP would not be thrust into a position in which those voters could expect them to make good on the promise.

But Donald Trump’s Republican Congress convened only three days ago, and members are already finding that eliminating Obamacare will be far messier politically than devising and implementing it was for Democrats…

Republicans got themselves into this mess at least in part because of a broad, conservative failure to treat Obamacare on its true terms rather than as an evil abstraction conjured by a political foe. In an important sense, there is no Obamacare anymore; there’s just the health care system Republicans are inheriting, and the one they will leave behind…

When Democrats controlled the government in 2009, they could have theoretically passed legislation that opened an existing public insurance system like Medicare or Medicaid to working-age people. But that would have unspooled existing insurance markets, creating significant disruption for consumers and relentless opposition from carriers and other powerful interests.

Democrats instead struck bargains with stakeholders across the health industry, which created political and economic space for a major coverage expansion but left most existing arrangements untouched. They subjected insurers to more regulation, but guaranteed them millions of new customers; they cut reimbursement rates to hospitals, but with the understanding that a spike in insured patients would help them recoup lost revenues. Most of those patients were expected to be poor people who would be added to state Medicaid rolls, in an expansion paid for almost entirely by the federal government.

The political downsides to this approach were fairly obvious at the time, and have become more clear as the law’s been implemented. It’s complex and inequitable; it doesn’t cover everyone; it turns people into customers in an amoral and unpopular market, rather than into users of a simple public utility. But the upside was that it could be slowly blended into the existing fabric of the health system without rending the whole thing and starting over. It’s not a single patch in a strange patchwork. Removing the stitching won’t just re-create a hole, but leave the rest of the quilt more tattered than it was before.

–Brian Beutler
Republicans Want Revenge for Obamacare and It’s Making Them Do Stupid Things

Blind Fury

Blind FuryMany years ago, when I was in grad school, I saw what I thought was a hell of a fun movie, Blind Fury. It stars Rutger Hauer — an actor I have very mixed feelings about because his work is so uneven. But there are times when you just can’t help but love him, and Blind Fury is one of those times. It’s Death Wish for the thinking man who really can’t stand to look at Charles Bronson’s face anymore.

Anyway, I was over at our only remaining video store. I didn’t imagine that they would have it. But I asked and they did! So I brought it home and watched it. Was it as good as I remembered? Well… I’m not quite the same man that I was 25 years ago. For one thing, I’m well aware of the Zatoichi films — about a blind masseur and sword expert. Between 1962 and 1989, there were 26 films made about the character. I haven’t seen any of them. In the 1970s, it was turned into a television series and 100 episodes were made. I own 5 of them on DVD.

Now, of course, watching Blind Fury is kind of like watching The Magnificent Seven after you’ve fallen in love with Seven Samurai. But what I’ve seen of Zotoichi is not exactly great. It’s fun. And so is Blind Fury. In fact, the film seems more like a television show. The ending even sets up a sequel. Too bad the film wasn’t a success.

Blind Fury Should Have Been a TV Show

It should have been like another film that Rutger Hauer was (unfortunately terrible) in that became a television series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It should have become Blind Fury: The Television Series, with Rutger Hauer walking away at the end of every episode scored with solo piano, like The Incredible Hulk.

The story is awesomely silly. Hauer is blinded during the Vietnam War. He is capture by some good Vietnamese — the kind who train blind men how to be total badasses with a sword. And I mean it. I mean like “chopping a mango into quarters as it flies through the air” badass. But now it is 20 years later and he has come to see his old army buddy to forgive him for letting him get all blind. But it turns out that his old army buddy is being held captive by a casino owner who is making him create designer drugs.

Good Clean Fun

Much kicking of ass follows. Unfortunately, much annoying 13 year old boy that badass with a sword must protect also follows. But it’s okay. Most people don’t hate child actors quite as much as I do. He’s not Quinn Cummings. (Note: if you are reading this Ms Cummings, Don DiPietro isn’t good enough for you. Call me! We’ll move to Ghana together!) And it doesn’t really matter. The film doesn’t take itself seriously. Remember: the mango.

Should you watch this film? I think so. It’s so much better than most action films. Even if you don’t like action films (and I don’t), how can you not love a film where a blind guy walks about kicking ass? It’s just good fun. Now if he were a masseur, well, that’s the stuff the greatness.