Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: October 2008

SNOW ANGELS (2007): RETROSPECTIVE

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Snow AngelsThis downer relationship picture is fatally hampered by its lack of sympathetic lead characters and its bizarre mid-winter tableau, in which we see Fall season high school football and marching band activities. Add to that little action except for two shocking tragedies, and you get one more example of a weak story that is too small for the silver screen.

The movie opens during a strangely snowbound high school marching band practice. Just as the band leader (Tom Noonan) is admonishing his charges to do better, two gunshots ring out, and then we’re sent back “a few weeks earlier.” This might be a foreshadowing, but it comes with scant suspense, since we are sure to guess at least one of the victims in fairly short order.

Slowly and painfully, we are introduced to single mother Annie (Kate Beckinsale), estranged from loser husband Glenn (Sam Rockwell), and Arthur, the kid she once babysat for. Of course, marital discord rears its ugly head again with Arthur’s parents getting separated. Add to the mix that Annie is sleeping around with her best friend’s husband—himself hardly a bargain, as he is pursuing several other women—and the plot looks like it was stolen from the daytime soap operas.

The only enjoyable part of the film is the budding relationship between Arthur and cute, nerdy Lila (Olivia Thirlby). Needless to say, it’s not a good sign when you want to see more of the minor characters and less—or even none—of the leads.

***Spoilers follow***

Excessive critical praise has been heaped on virtually every element of this film. Yet, the direction does nothing to speed up the proceedings, and even those who like the film admit that it is slow. The performances are adequate at best, with the kids stealing the show. Sam Rockwell is way over the top as Glenn, but can be excused somewhat since the character is simply awful. Kate Beckinsale doesn’t work as Annie, since this casting-against-type is a joke. Zero effort was made to hide her classic beauty, and thus she is not credible for a moment as a white trash lowlife.

A great unintentionally humorous line from one of the critics was that “Snow Angels is Kate Beckinsale’s Monster’s Ball (2001).” The point was that just like Halle Berry, glamor girl Kate could get down and dirty in a plain Jane role, and run through the full gamut of emotions. True, Berry got an Oscar for Monster’s, but many feel that it was not at all deserved, in that screaming and crying are not acting. As such, this was not a compliment, even if some would think it to be.

By the same token, Beckinsale “acts out” herself at the absurd conclusion of Snow Angels, in which Glenn comes to her house to kill her, and her emoting ranges from anger to completely illogical acceptance. Indeed, her willingness to get her brains blown out by Glenn is mind-numbingly stupid, as is the tragic death of her daughter.

The story is going nowhere until Annie falls asleep on the couch, whereupon the little girl breaks out of the house, falls into a pond, and it freezes over her. In a weak attempt to unite characters, her body is discovered by Arthur, after some delay. Never mind that in a real search, watery locations would be the first thing checked.

To add insult to injury, if there ever would be a time for overwrought emotions, it would be when a mother finds out about her child’s death. Inexplicably, Annie’s reaction is subdued.

Much is made of Glenn’s finding religion, to help him deal with his many failures. However, I defy the writer of the source material to produce a real-life individual who would ask for God’s guidance just before he goes to his ex-wife’s house to kill her.

In short, Snow Angels is nothing more than a portrayal of what urban sophisticates believe about small town America, and it comes up dead wrong on nearly everything. More than that, its unrelentingly negative, almost nihilistic tone tends to appeal to those same sophisticates. Those who like this movie are revealing quite a bit about themselves.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Posted on by Posted in History

Technically, the term “unintended consequences” refers to never anticipated possible side effects, resulting from any purposeful action of mankind. For the most part, the term is applied to government actions, since the government tends to do big things, and, in general, exhibits the greatest amount of hubris. Many sources cite the example of a highway bypass, intended to relieve traffic congestion, but attracting development and itself becoming congested.

Examples abound:

  • Legalized abortion led to more, not fewer illegitimate children (presumably because abortion fostered a more permissive environment).
  • The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1992 led to less, not more hiring of the disabled (presumably since employers were afraid of its many punitive aspects).
  • In its zeal to protect consumers, the FDA makes it so difficult to get drugs approved, that more lives are lost by the delays. However, the agency acknowledges this, and as a double unintended consequence, eased up on the requirements on certain drugs, only to have them withdrawn after a year or so, since they WERE harmful.
  • Social Security, supposedly created to protect those of retirement age, imposes a tax burden on everyone, leaving less money for savings and investment. Worse, because of its overblown promises, often discourages people from saving for their retirement.

No doubt, there are those who will argue that these consequences really were unintended, and no bad will entered into any of the policies that spawned them. However, assuming that is true, what excuse do they proffer for lack of foresight?

Even though many in the lunatic fringes of the environmental movement are against any means of reducing disease, and thus maintaining or increasing population, few among those calling for the DDT ban are publicly celebrating the deaths of millions in Africa from malaria. Still, if you doubt the bit about loony Greens being in favor of death, consider these quotes…

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”

John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

What about unintended consequences from the Civil Rights Act of 1964? In 1965, LBJ signed Executive Order 11246, which provided that employers “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” No problem, except that it led invariably to quotas, and widespread complaints of reverse discrimination.

Heck, the current banking and financial crisis stems in part from efforts to open up lending policies, but they resulted in massive defaults and bank failures. Ironically, the very malefactors in government who created these policies tried to blame it all on “Wall Street greed,” despite the rather obvious point that the entire easy credit driven economic boom was based solely on greed.

By now, you may be asking, “So what?”

Here’s what: While there will always be unforeseen effects of any human action, it has become far too easy to explain them away as being merely unintended consequences. This term is now little more than an all-purpose excuse for lack of foresight and incompetent leadership.

THE CATHOLIC VOTE

Posted on by Posted in Politics

Many observers view the Catholic “bloc” as the key swing vote in the upcoming election. After all, there are an estimated 47 million Catholic voters, and perhaps 120 million votes will be cast on November 4th. The problem is, of course, that there is no monolithic Catholic vote, as we will explore further…

No doubt, if all people who called themselves “Catholic” actually did adhere to the teachings of the Church by putting them into practice in their daily lives, a Catholic bloc might exist. Right now, though, there are many factions.

First of all, there are millions who call themselves “Catholic,” simply because they may have been raised in a nominally Catholic family. Some of this group never actually go to Mass, or may appear once or twice a year. They were probably baptized Catholic, and will likely have Catholic funerals. Surveys have probably been done on what these people believe—doctrine by doctrine—but it is doubtful that Catholic theology would affect their voting behavior.

Then, there are the “social justice” Catholics, who seems to hide behind their religious identity as a way to promote socialism—or worse. While the Church has a grand tradition of helping those less fortunate, the main focus of this has always been on the individual, and not government. Indeed, the Church has more often found itself at odds with civil authorities on issues of social justice.

Still, it was this social justice movement that drew Catholics to the Democrats, even if it was the abortion issue that began to drive them away. There is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic, anymore than there can be a Jewish Nazi, or a circumnavigating sailor who belongs to the Flat Earth Society. The fact that such persons may self-identify as such is irrelevant. Any group has fundamental precepts, and to violate them means that you are not in, or should not be in the group.

Certainly, there are those such as Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who claim to be pro-life, but feel that they must “balance” this with other issues, and therefore support Barack Obama, despite his record as the most pro-abortion member of Congress. Interestingly, Kmiec claims to attend Mass daily.

Let’s clear this up right now. No social justice is possible for a baby that has been aborted, so in that sense, the abortion issue does trump all others. By the same token, while it was tragic that a Supreme Court decision such as Roe could occur, it was not surprising, and it was but one rotten decision in a long string of them, starting in the early 1960s.

Moreover, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a “single-issue voter.” If a particular candidate advocated confiscation of all private firearms, it would not matter what his other positions were, would it? Surely, you can think of many absurd positions that would be sufficient to reject a candidate on that issue alone.

As to Kmiec being a daily communicant, this is certainly an ideal for Catholics, but proves little in itself. I know a goodly number of daily Mass attendees, and many of them do this at least as much for social as for religious reasons. Many daily communicants—out of necessity—are retired, and meet with their friends for breakfast after Mass. Others have created a convenient schedule for themselves, on their way to work, and cherish the quiet time before being thrust into the stress filled office. I have known daily communicants who are shockingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine, and are confusing rigor with true devotion.

Catholics are ashamed to admit that notorious FBI spy Robert Hanssen was a daily communicant.

As to Roe being overturned, it will never happen, and it does not matter. Abortion and the overreaching interpretations of the 14th amendment are so much part of the fabric of America, that it will never go away. All removing Roe would do is put the authority back to the states, where it was in the first place. However, a candidate who so boldly celebrates abortion on demand (Obama) betrays moral bankruptcy; thus, it is no surprise that questions of his character and past associations are met with stonewalling and obfuscation, rather than answers.

Black Catholics, though small in number, are often quite devout, and on a doctrinal basis alone would be inclined against Obama. Hispanic Catholics are by no means monolithic, but tend to be more anti-abortion than many other minorities.

To summarize, Catholics actually following the teaching of the Church cannot vote for Obama. Estimates as to how many fall into this group range from five to 20 percent. As to other Catholics coming into this cohort, no one knows. Wait until November 5th.

For what it’s worth, I’m not terribly thrilled about McCain, either.

LIVING IN INTERESTING TIMES–1

Posted on by Posted in Current Events

Let’s see…

We’ve just gotten off the worst week for the Dow in history, ending up on 10/10 at 8451.19. But then, oil is way down to $77.70 per barrel, and the euro has dropped from a July 14th peak of $1.59 to $1.33. 30-year fixed rate mortgages are at 5.97%, and 48-month car loans are at 6.83%.

It is important not to conflate “the economy,” which relates to all goods and services, to financial markets, that deal only with money. The two are related, but failure in one does not necessarily lead to failure in the other. Still, you hear crazy stories, such as when my wife told me that the nail salon she goes to was way down in business, presumably because of “the economy.”

It’s hard to believe that the clientele of that place would be so dominated by financial executives who might have recently lost their jobs. Rather, this is a silly, but dangerous symptom of foolish panic.

Certainly, anyone living off stock market related investments is unhappy right now, since their apparent value has dropped—at lot—since the beginning of this year. And, anyone with a 401(k) plan has seen its value erode over the last few weeks. However, unless you are going to retire soon, this is of no real concern. After all, the market does have its ups and downs, although for some years, “experts” have been telling you that the stock market—and housing prices—can only go up.

We are told that one cause of the banking sector problems is that mortgage loans were given to people who could not pay them back. It is bad to make loans to people who can’t repay. Then, against the wishes of perhaps 90% of Americans, a gigantic bailout bill is passed, and money will be given to certain businesses (such as AIG) that cannot pay it back. I suppose that it is good to make loans to certain favored businesses that can’t repay.

The presidential race appears to be tight, with daily “tracking polls” going back and forth, but usually showing a lead for Obama. Given that there will likely be more than 120 million votes cast on November 4th, it is not at all clear to me how interviewing 1000 voters can possibly give an accurate picture of the American electorate. Consider that every single interview represents 120,000 voters.

The pollsters will argue that they can come up with some magical cross-section in this sample of 1000 voters, such that every single demographic, psychographic, and cultural parameter will be met. Or, if the cross-section is not so perfect, they would say it doesn’t really matter. For example, they believe that most Blacks and Jews will vote for Obama, and this can be tweaked to a chosen percentage in the overall software.

But, what other factors are being missed? Let us assume that there is a certain component of the White voting bloc that is simply racist, and will never vote for Obama. Note that I am NOT talking about the so-called Bradley effect, whereby Tom Bradley, a Black man, was always polling ahead (8-14 points) of George Deukmejian in the 1982 California gubernatorial election, yet lost (narrowly by 49.28% to 48.09%). Usually not mentioned in these discussions is that Deukmejian crushed Bradley in the 1986 rematch (60.54% to 37.38%).

Instead, I am wondering if the pollsters have actually built in a White racism component into the software. Or, do they include in the profile of 1000 voters a White racist interview? If they do, exactly how have they determined that the interviewee is a racist? More than that, are there high and low demographic White racists?

And, what about Hispanic racists? It is well-known that a goodly number of Mexican-Americans (primarily in California and Texas) are not crazy about Black people. Some have even suggested that these sentiments could put California—a longtime blue state—in play in this election. One wonders how this effect has been dealt with in polling software, not to mention the interview process.

One thing is for sure. Campaign 2008 has been covered to death, and most Americans will be glad when it’s over, and even more glad if their candidate wins.

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE ROAD TO HELL

Posted on by Posted in Current Events, Politics

It’s paved with good intentions, of course, and one would hope that good intentions with pure motivation are behind the massive bailout passed last Friday. Good intentions or not, the whole exercise is completely misguided, but this bill, or something akin to it might just be a political necessity in these days of the welfare state.

While the public was overwhelmingly against the bailout, stories—many of which were obviously false—started making the rounds, speaking of credit suddenly tightening up, and the entire economy being on the verge of implosion. Yet, when examples were shown in the media, they invariably were of dicey enterprises, such as popcorn boutiques, which were questionable business models even in the best of times.

Is it more difficult to get a mortgage loan than it was a few weeks ago? Definitely, but if you have good credit and the appropriate down payment, there is little problem obtaining financing. After all, banks are still in the business of making loans, only these days they actually have to be good loans.

As has been noted elsewhere, the original bail out bill took up all of three pages, and was defeated. The successful bill grew to an amazing 442 pages, including a host of unrelated measures, such as:

 

  • Dozens of assorted tax breaks for favored industries
  • Various eco-friendly provisions
  • Increased powers for the IRS
  • Certain provisions against excessive compensation for failed financial industry execs
  • A boost in FDIC coverage

 

Notably, both presidential candidates came out in favor of the bailout. One can’t help but speculate as to what the reaction would have been if “Maverick” John McCain had come out against it—even knowing that it still would pass.

For what it’s worth, my proposal would have cost almost nothing, and could have solved the crisis in confidence almost instantly:

1.   Get rid of the absurd mark-to-market accounting rule, that deflated banks’ assets for no good reason. No doubt, many of the homes being financed had decreased in value, but so what? The majority of the owners were making the payments. Thus, the banks had performing loans, and cash flow was fine. This would be the equivalent of lowering an employee’s salary if he happens to be sick for a few days, since at that exact moment, his value to the employer is diminished. What nonsense!

2.   Instead of giving Henry Paulson $700 billion, create a mortgage repair agency, whose sole function is to meet with homeowners who are having trouble making the payments, and try to work out deals with them, either in terms of lowering interest rates or extending terms. For those who simply want out, regardless of any deal, engage local real estate agents to sell these properties on the normal market.

3.   Let banks either fail, or get gobbled up by their stronger brethren. This sort of thing happens in other industries all the time. What’s so special about banks? Indeed, the only special thing about banks is that they DON’T create wealth, but simply move it around a bit. At best, they provide money for growth, but why should their investments—uniquely—be protected?

The only problem with this proposal is that it flies in the face of the expectation that dates back to even before FDR that the government will intercede and help the people in any crisis—real, imagined, or caused by the government itself.

Ironically, the oft-quoted and mocked line “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” reflects the public’s ambivalence with government solutions to problems. Yet, the cavalcade of expensive budget-busting socialistic programs continues.

It promises to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.