EDIT: Hey, I just realized I already wrote another version of this almost exactly a year ago.

One thing I am regularly criticized for is an inability to stop arguing a point, even after I've won the dispute. The problem is that I enjoy a good debate. I enjoy understanding why people think the way they do, especially when they are incorrect in their thinking. I don't form opinions lightly and I, incorrectly, assume most people do extensive research on topics when they decide how they feel about politics, religion, education, or what football team they root for.

I also have a knack for analogizing. Just read the archives of this blog and you'll find my writing career compared to digging a mine and my last relationship compared to a Lifetime movie. When I create a good analogy, I want to share it.

Unfortunately, if you've already swayed someone to your way of thinking, they don't care how brilliant your analogy putting stem cell research and marketing a new airline all in one bucket together may be, especially if it takes fifteen minutes to hit all your bullet points.

It's because of this, that I empathize with PBS's "Frontline." For the last two decades, "Frontline" has consistently produced some of the best investigative journalism in the world. Where other networks are content to set up hidden cameras and lure guys from internet chat rooms into a house for implied sex with a minor only to have some condescending ass confront them or to hire actors to make people uncomfortable to see "what they will do" and call it "investigative journalism," PBS actually interviews sources, finds untold stories, and reveals worlds we had no idea existed.

At least, some of the time.

Lately, the worlds are ones we do know exist. Largely, we know they exist because Frontline has done such a good job showing them to us.

It's not that "Frontline" doesn't have important stories to tell or a good point to make, quite the opposite! In the last five years, we've gotten several different stories about Iraq from many different angles. Each had it's own perspective and a varied cast of characters, but ultimately at the end of every episode you thought, "Damn, I can see why we went into Iraq, but we probably shouldn't have. I feel bad for all the people who have died and even worse for all the people who've been crippled, but feeling bad isn't going to make everything all better. We have a mess to clean up and there's clearly no easy way to get it done."

Two weeks ago, there was an episode called "Sick Around America" that told stories of how people without health insurance or with bad health insurance have been ruined. This was a follow up to the very interesting "Sick Around the World," which explained how universal health care programs in six different countries work and what aspects would and would not work in America.

Unlike "Sick Around the World," "Sick Around America" because a piling on of sadder and sadder stories. From the CEO of a health insurance giant who's had heart surgery and therefore couldn't ever get private health insurance ("I really can't afford to lose my job," he half-jokes.) to the 63-year-old who had to sell his house and declare bankruptcy because of surgery after he got laid off and lost his insurance through work and now lives with his mother, hoping against hope that he'll live two more years so he can qualify for Medicare to the woman who had her health insurance revoked, died of cancer, then received a letter informing her (survivors) that there was a paperwork mix up and her health insurance never should have been revoked, we are constantly sent the same message: Health coverage in this country is woefully inadequate and while we may not know what the solution is, we better find a solution soon or we're all going to be screwed.

The dilemma is that while I find the stories interesting, I also find them time-consuming and repetitious. While I respect the reporters who went out of their ways to find these sterling examples to illustrate the problems we face, just as I hope someone will respect my ability to encapsulate my arguments with my ex's family as a study of the Iraq War, I can't help but feel I'm spending an hour (sometimes two) being told a five minute point.

Tonight, I opted not to watch "Poisoned Waters," a two-hour documentary that reveals 90% of its findings in its title. I can't help but chide myself and remember the adage about judging and books and covers, especially because so many episode have proven themselves so much more than a simple thesis statement. But as I find myself with less and less time (despite what you may discern from the fact I read 24 Encyclopedia Brown books last week), I find myself more inclined to skim the support materials at PBS.com for five minutes instead of spending two hours being told that chemicals and poisons are bad for the environment.

I just watched Inheritance, a documentary that seemed a can't miss prospect for tear-jerking, nail-biting, gut-wrenching fascination. Unfortunately, the filmmaker seemed to come to the project knowing all this and brought nothing else to the table.

Wow! Amon Göth's daughter, Monika, grows up first knowing only that her father "died for his country in the war," then later learns that he was executed for being a Nazi. It's not until she visits the set of Schindler's List and sees Ralph Fiennes's cold-blooded portrayal of Göth that she learns the truth about her father... from Steven Spielberg! Apparently, when she protested that the scene where Göth orders the execution of the Jewish woman engineer wasn't a realistic portrayal of her father, Spielberg had to lay out some facts for her.

So to help herself come to grips with her legacy, she contacts Helen, a woman who was spared the concentration camp only because she was enslaved by Göth to clean his house. The two agree to meet at the site of the Plaszlow camp.

The stories leading up to the meeting are interesting as Helen tells of her experiences in the villa and Monika relates what she was told about her father growing up and what she's learned since. How can this not be riveting viewing when these two cross paths?!?!?

Unfortunately, as soon as the two first make contact, everything goes south. In that preview clip above, you'll notice a central line is Monika's "I hope she will understand I am not like my father." Well, in the movie, that is followed almost immediately by a clip of Helen saying, "Oh, I understand she's not her father and I feel for her."

And that's the heart of Inheritance's failure. There is no conflict. You have two people who are tied to a tragic event, but have had 50 years to largely come to grips with it. Neither holds any personal grudge against the other and, in fact, are overly sympathetic to one another. And James Moll largely just let's the conversations between the two roll, without either saying much of value. For example, before the two meet, Helen apologizes for the fact she'll be referring to Amon Göth as "Göth" and not "your father," to which Monika agrees since she calls him "Amon" and never "father."

The two go to Poland and arrive at the memorial site separately, eventually meeting up in the first of a few awkward exchanges. Have you ever gone to a party and someone tells you, "Oh, you've gotta meet Lisa. She's totally into that thing you're really into. You'll have so much to talk about"? Then you meet Lisa and quickly realize the only thing you two have in common is a shared interest in one thing, be it Batman comics or rock climbing or car repo auctions, and otherwise have no interest in speaking to one another? Now imagine how the scene would play out if that one thing you and Lisa had in common was that Lisa was hit by a drunk driver who happened to be your dad, and you'll have a fair idea of how the rest of the movie unfolds.

The two stand and talk near a memorial plaque, largely just trying to think of things to say. "Um... my mom is buried somewhere around here. Yup... I'll never know where. Did I mention Göth killed my boyfriend?" The most memorable part of the whole scene is that a bee keeps buzzing around Helen's head and Monika swipes at it repeatedly, which, when you consider Helen was relating stories about Monika's father having an insatiable need to kill, should tell you something about how compelling the movie is. The interaction between the two throughout the film isn't helped by the fact Monika appears to be about 6'3" and Helen is roughly 4'8" and Monika wants to keep hugging.

After several awkward minutes, the two say good bye to one another and go their separate ways, which kind of blew my mind. I mean, the movie is supposed to be about a holocaust survivor meeting the daughter of the guy who ran the camp where she was taken. I expected them to spend more than five minutes together.

I have to imagine the producers then stepped in because Helen and her daughter then decide to go visit Göth's villa, so they go find Monika and invite her. When they arrive at the villa, the movie fails on another level. Helen begins rattling off details about the house that might be interesting if they weren't so random. Monika, unsure of what to say much of the time, just finds herself repeating whatever Helen says, but with a question mark at the end, to which Helen answers by repeating herself and creating a feedback loop of uninteresting commentary.

"These doors were this same color of red,
"They were the same color of red?"
"They were the very same red."
"These doors were red?"
"Just like this. They were red just like now."

Other observations like "this shelf wasn't here" or "there was a table over there" serve no purpose and only distract from the few poignant moments, such as when Helen looks out the window of her old bedroom and relates what it was like watching people walk to the factory every day. Of course, this emotional scene of Helen expressing how she was jealous of those people because she was a prisoner in the villa degrades into another feedback loop of which direction the people were walking.

"They walked left to right in the morning and right to left in the evening."
"So in the morning they were coming from there on the left?"

The only moment of conflict comes when Helen, who is in the midst of a nervous breakdown, snaps at Monika for repeating some of what her mother had told her growing up. Again, you can see this scene in the preview above, but while it plays well in a six second clip, it's frustrating in its entirety because Monika is simply expressing how overwhelming it is that what she was told--that her father killed a few Jews for sanitary purposes because they refused to use the toilets--and reality are so far apart. But Helen refuses to let Monika express this, cutting her off repeatedly, saying, "I'm not even going to let you say that. He killed them for being Jewish." Yes, and Monika acknowledges that. Now shut up and let her speak because personally I find it fascinating to know someone tried to justify the Holocaust as a necessary evil because six million Jews refused to use toilets.

After a tour of the house, they split up again and we get a series of interview clips that Moll must have felt needed to get into the movie even though they really didn't fit anywhere else. Helen's description of how her husband, another Holocaust survivor, went mad and eventually killed himself might have been compelling if it wasn't a three minute story introduced 72 minutes into an 80 minute film.

At the end of the film, we're left with nothing more than we came with. In a post-movie "we have 15 minutes until the next show comes on" filler interview with Moll, the director says, "People ask me, 'Aren't there enough Holocaust movies?'" Moll seems to think he's made something to change their minds, but rather Inheritance lends credence to their question.

One of my favorite shows lately is "History Detectives" on PBS. Every episode gives me inspiration for some kind of writing.

However, the music over the opening credits--a portion which shows up in the end of the above video--is always a bit distracting. They use Elvis Costello's reggae-inspired "Watching the Detectives" as a theme song, which seems an obvious case of some video editor plugging "detectives song title" into Google and using any song he could find with the word "detectives" in the chorus.

When you first see the video introduction of the four history nerds (and I say that with all due respect and as a amateur history nerd myself) and hear "Watching the detectives..." it makes sense. Then you get "I get so angry when the teardrops start! But he can't be wounded 'cause he's got no heart!" and things go off the rails a little. Here's the full song if you want to listen to it.

If I have a fault--and I'm not saying I do--it might be that I cannot drop something once it's been resolved. When I win an argument, I will continue to heap evidence proving my point upon those who've already acknowledged my view is the right one.

Jake: Peanut butter is healthy. It has protein and riboflavin.
Agreeable sort of guy: Yeah, you're right. It's tasty too.
Jake: You're probably thinking, "But peanut butter is nothing but fat--
Agreeable sort of guy: Actually I wasn't thinking that at all.
Jake: --but the fat from peanuts is polyunsaturated fat. It will lower your cholesterol, chump! Furthermore...

As much as my friends and family may hate this, I can't help it that I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things and don't enter into disagreements without doing a little research. The fact that you and I are on the same page about lutefisk doesn't negate the fact I just read fifty pages of State Department analysis of Sweden and took the time to summarize it all for you. Now sit there and listen!

Unfortunately, I've come to understand how this can annoy those close to me through my viewership of PBS's "Frontline."

"Frontline" has consistently been one of the greatest sources for investigative journalism for nearly three decades. It once brought us a wide variety of topics, ranging from foster care to Sea World to Nazi gold to sexual abuse by Catholic priests to Shakespeare's true identity. The least interesting topics often made for the most fascinating shows.

However, this week's two part episode is "Bush's War." Next week is "Bad Voodoo's War," the story of a group of National Guardsmen in Iraq who call themselves "Bad Voodoo Platoon." The previous episode was "Rules of Engagement" about the soldiers accused in the Haditha massacre. Last year we got "Showdown with Iran," "Cheney's Law," "Endgame" (about the surge in Iraq), "Gangs of Iraq," "Spying on the Homefront," and a handful of other episodes that all seem to be making the same point.

Even the staunchest Bush supporters acknowledge at this point that the current administration has made a metric ton of errors. The only justification they can offer is that "When Harry Truman left office, people hated him too, but now he's considered one of the greatest presidents ever!" In other words, "We know Bush sucks... now... but in fifty years things might get better and then everyone will think he was a genius... maybe."

So I'm torn with every new episode of "Frontline" that comes on. On one hand, I know it will present some new information that I'd never heard and it will open my mind to new ideas. On the other hand, the same theme remains... the same depressing theme. Imagine if you wore a pink spandex catsuit to your nephew's bar mitzvah. How many times would you want to watch different people show you their videos of the event with their own narration of why it was a poor fashion decision on your part? Every episode of "Frontline" has become just another reporter's explanation of "why we shouldn't have elected Bush," "where congress and the courts fail to check or balance the White House," and "reasons the rest of the world hates us for giving Bush four more years to spit on them and their attempts at diplomatic relations."