The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Our story opens with a lengthy history of the Lonely Mountain, the rise of its power, the greed of its king, and finally its fall to Smaug the Dragon. Added to this you have the fact that the elves declined to aid the Dwarves in the fight against the mighty dragon, thus explaining Thorin Oakenshield’s animus toward elves.

With that prologue, the story picks up with Bilbo working on his memoir of his great adventure on the very day that Gandalf is expected for his birthday party (see the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring). It was fun – though unnecessary – to see Frodo (Elijah Woods) as he leaves Bag End to intercept Gandalf. More importantly, this gave an opportunity for Bilbo (Ian Holm) to provide a bridge to his younger self (Martin Freeman).

Finally, our story begins. Gandalf and the dwarves arrive at Bilbo’s home and enlist him into the cause of reclaiming the Lonely Mountain from Smaug. Bilbo refuses but then chases after them to join. The plot generally follows the book though it is massively augmented with other events in Middle Earth. This is useful in a big picture sense but detracts from the story, especially since this is supposed to be Bilbo’s memoir. Furthermore, many events are turned into huge battles. The flight from the goblin caves is turned into a running fight where all of the dwarves survive essentially unscathed. No sooner are they out of the caves than some orcs on wargs show up and the dwarves are helpless and must climb trees. Really?

The band is safely carried away from the orc threat by giant eagles and deposited on a picturesque peak where they can see the Lonely Mountain in the distance. The dwarves talk among themselves that perhaps Smaug is dead, as he hasn’t ventured out in many decades. The movie ends with the great piles of gold suddenly disturbed to reveal the head of a dragon; Smaug yet lives.

Though generally enjoyable, this isn’t The Hobbit. This is a prequel to Lord of the Rings, bringing in characters who have no business in the story and outlining events that are referenced in other works. Radagast the Brown Wizard never appears in The Hobbit but he has a sizable role here. Saruman (Christopher Lee) scolds Gandalf and Galadriel (Cate Blanchet) gives him tentative support. In the book, Gandalf often vanished from the party without much explanation but the movie version isn’t going to leave that a mystery. It is no wonder that Peter Jackson is stretching this into a three movie epic. The Hobbit was a modest book, smaller than any of the three books of Lord of the Rings and yet we are promised as much film time as the trilogy. Of course, the trilogy left out some things; that certainly won’t happen with The Hobbit.

One of the benefits of being so long is that all those dwarves get a bit of personality. Thorin was noteworthy in the book for being the dispossessed King of the Lonely Mountain and Bombur was a plump fellow who cooked but the rest were just a collection of names. Now Balin is an old veteran who is an adviser to Thorin. Dwalin is a monster fighter with a bad attitude, Bofur is an amiable dwarf and friend to Bilbo, Kili is a master archer, Ori is the youngster of the bunch, and so forth. I expect some of the ones I haven’t mentioned will get their due in the next two movies. Each dwarf is very distinctive in appearance so that it is hard to confuse them. I wonder if these personalities are taken from the writings of Tolkien or are they from the imaginings of Peter Jackson.

Despite its flaws, it is a fun movie; too much movie but still enjoyable.

The Nuclear Option

Back when the Republicans threatened the Nuclear Option of changing Senate rules so that a simple majority could confirm nominees, Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid were all in strenuous opposition.  Of course, they were the minority then.  The nuclear option was not exercised and the filibuster remained.  Today, the filibuster has been tossed aside.  Sure, they said it only applies to judicial (except for the Supreme Court) and executive nominations but the precedent is now set.  If the majority wants to change the rules to get its way, the majority shall change the rules.  In other words, there are no rules.

The Senate is meant to put the brakes on the more volatile House.  It is supposed to preserve the rights of the minority, which is a large part of why the supermajority filibuster exists.  The Senate has made a huge leap to being just another House of Representatives.  As I've said before, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment so that Senators are chosen by the state legislatures rather than the citizens.  Then they would protect the independence of the state rather than weakening it.  However, that is a tough sell.

As for the effects, I am ambivalent.  I think a president should get the nominees of his choice in most cases, especially those that expire with his term.  Nominations that outlive his presidency (such as judges) deserve greater scrutiny.  However, since this simple majority will apply to Republican nominees in the future, it comes out even.  Likely to get more extreme nominees this way.  Democrats will rue the day when they are no longer the majority.

President Asterisk

During the Presidential election, there was a miraculous and timely burst of employment that resulted in the unemployment rate dropping below the 8% mark.  No president since FDR had been re-elected with unemployment above 8%.  Here is my blog on the subject:

http://hicsum-musings.blogspot.com/2012/10/peculiar-numbers.html

Today, I was checking the links at Instapundit (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/) and came across the following article:

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

This may explain the peculiar numbers from last year.  Combined with the IRS harassment of Tea Party groups and the stonewalling on Benghazi, and the continued assurance that Obamacare would allow voters to keep insurance plans they liked, it appears that President Obama was making a full-court press to get re-elected, even if it required some tactics that are shady at best.  Such shenanigans are why some want to mark his re-election with an asterisk.

The Obamacare Fix

President Obama held a press conference today in which he announced a fix for the mass cancellations of health policies in the private market.  He has announced that health insurance companies may continue to offer those policies through 2014 (it is purely coincidental that the extension will cover the next election).  If the president only extends it through 2014, won't we find ourselves in this same situation a year hence?  Isn't he just kicking the can down the road?

The plan has a problem.  There is this law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was passed by Congress and signed by the President.  This law does not allow for the substandard policies that President Obama would like to extend through next year.  If insurance companies do offer these policies, they will be in violation of the law.  It is the law of the land, I've heard Harry Reid assert on multiple occasions.  The only way the president's fix can be instituted is through new legislation.  Of course, that didn't stop him when it came delaying the employer mandate, so why should that stop him now?

Let us suppose that the insurance companies do offer to restore those substandard policies, trusting that this latest executive waiver from the law will hold up in court.  Will it still be the same price?  The economics of health insurance have been altered and that must be reflected in all policies.  Sure, it might not be as expensive as the Obama-approved plan but it will still be more expensive than it was.

 

This is all political theater.  The only reason President Obama offered this 'fix' was to prevent Democrats in Congress from legislatively fixing it.  If legislation is on the table, the whole thing could unravel quickly.  Was this enough to keep the Democrats onboard with Obamacare?  Many of those up for election are nervous.

Terrorists have won?

I've read a couple of pundits announce that the terrorists have won on account of the nonsense that we now tolerate.  Who would have thought that Americans would submit to taking off shoes, belts, and even allow themselves to be frisked in order to board a plane?  Who'd have guessed we'd be so indifferent to massive data collection by the government?  It seems that the much ballyhooed right to privacy only applies to abortions but not email, phone calls, and internet searches.  The massive inconvenience of the modern security state only promises to get worse.  But are we safer?  Is it worth it?

I was listening to EconTalk not too long ago and the guest argued that all the expense was not justified, that we'd be better off just absorbing the occasional terrorist attack than creating Homeland Security and spending billions of dollars.  Wow, that was a heck of a thing to say.  But let's look at it in comparison to other issues.  The death toll from terrorism is miniscule when compared to heart disease, cancer, stoke, accidents, diabetes, influenza, or even suicide.  You are vastly more likely to kill yourself than die in a terrorist attack.  Can you imagine a Department of Suicide Prevention?  It would make more sense than Homeland Security based on the numbers.

Many would argue that we have stopped lots of plots thanks to the security state and that is probably why the death by terrorism numbers are so low.  I'd call that post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.  The terrorists had one really impressive attack on 9/11.  That attack cannot happen again, because passengers will never sit idly by again.  It was like the Trojan Horse; you can't pull that stunt a second time.  So, short of a nuclear bomb, mass casualties are virtually impossible.  Look at the Boston Marathon attack that killed 3.  That same day, approximately 1,600 Americans died from cancer, 350 died from strokes, and about a hundred committed suicide.  We are reacting to the threat based on fear, not rational choices.

 

I mentioned a nuclear bomb.  If Iran develops a nuke, all of a sudden the calculus changes.  A nuke could turn a city of millions into a smoking hole.  Nuclear proliferation would justify many of the expenses and inconveniences of the security state.  This scenario is becoming more likely every day as we twiddle our thumbs while Iran continues to enrich uranium.

 

I don't think the security state means the terrorist have won but it does pretty clearly indicate that they have instilled a lot of terror.  There needs to be an analysis of costs vs. benefits.  The money spent on Homeland Security, the TSA, the NSA, and so forth might save far more lives if it was spent elsewhere, preferably not by government.

How Far Government Has Fallen

Scary comparison.  From start to finish, we won the war in Europe during WWII in less time than the current government had to develop a healthcare website that doesn't work.  Check out the link:

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/11/09/the-healthcare-gov-mess-in-historical-perspective/

Ender’s Game (movie)

In a strange twist from the usual, I liked the movie better than the book. First off, the siblings’ desire to rule the Earth was dropped completely. This is Ender’s story and his elder brother’s quest for world dominance is best left out of it. Next, the adults actually interact with the students. In the book, it often seemed like the space station was peopled only with prepubescent kids who battled in zero-g and developed tactics that had never been conceived. That is retained to a large degree but adult supervision and training is evident; these kids are being given a foundation on which to build rather than left to their own devices. Where I thought the novel was ludicrous in relying on a 12 year-old to save humanity, the movie paints it in a more plausible light. The battles come across as extremely advanced video games where youths can adapt quickly rather than relying on old tactics that a veteran would have a hard time discarding. Moreover, the idea of telling them that it is merely a simulation rather than the real thing allows them to take risks that few commanders would dare.

In some ways, the movie made odd choices. The original invasion by the Formics is shown as happening in the modern day with fighter jets battling swarms of alien craft in the atmosphere whereas in the book the battle took place in space. Rackham, the hero of that battle, is shown as just a random pilot rather than a commander of a fleet. In the book, Ender defeated the enemy while in the Solar System, not traveling to the Formic colony where he finds a queen’s egg until years afterward; that would make for a long and clunky epilogue so the change is understandable.

One of the things that the movie completely overlooks is the distances. There is a reason that it has been 50 years since the war and that there is a specific deadline for the counterattack. Humanity sent fleets decades ago but, on account of distance, they aren’t arriving until now. This setup allowed for the military on earth to train commanders for the remote fleets. Also not discussed – though it did get mentioned – is the ansible. The ansible is a physics-defying communications system that allows instant communication between Earth and these distant fleets. Handy.

Asa Butterfield does a good job as Ender. He manages to be calculating and cold-blooded while still remaining a sympathetic character. Perhaps his youth provides that. It is hard to say much on the adult roles since they were almost footnotes in the book. Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) figured most prominently in opening dialogues for each chapter, commenting on how Ender was fairing. The movie provides more interaction between the two than I recall from the novel. As for Rackham (Ben Kingsley), the fact that he is still around 50 years after the battle that made him famous is never explained. In the book, he traveled around at near light speed to make him available for when the fleets would arrive. The movie supposes that he was a young pilot and is now an old veteran.

The movie does repeat some of my problems with the book. For instance, why is it that the Formics only attempt communication with Ender? There are scores of kids at Battle School and one supposes that many of them play the game that allowed Ender to communicate with the aliens. Apparently like the adults of Earth, they too knew that Ender was ‘the one’ and focused their efforts on him. Knowing that humanity is coming to wipe them out, why didn’t the Formics dispatch some ships to establish new colonies to escape extinction rather than depend upon the kindness of their exterminator? I understand the idea of culling through all of humanity for a super genius tactician but is it necessary that all his junior officers are his age? Couldn’t veterans follow orders as well, if not better, than adolescents?

Nitpicks aside, I enjoyed the film and give it a thumbs up.

Obama Lied, Health Insurance Plans Died

I've been meaning to address this for a while but there is so much to say.  I found someone who has said a good portion of it.  Here's the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363538/obamas-massive-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy

Government Ponzi Scheme

When I was 17 and taking a civics class in high school, my teacher - Mr. Lindfors - asked the class how many of us thought Social Security would still be solvent when we retired.  The majority didn't think so.  Imagine, 30 young and dumb teenagers in 1984 had concluded that Social Security wasn't going to be around in 2036.  And the current numbers show that to be a perfectly rational assumption.  If those teenagers from 1984 get Social Security, it will be nowhere near as generous as it has been for current and past beneficiaries.

The first person to get a Social Security check was Ida May Fuller.  Ida retired in 1940 after having paid $24.75 into her 'lockbox.'  Her first benefit check was for $22.54, more than 90% of her contributions!  Then she lived to the ripe old age of 100, collecting $22,888.92, more than 900 times the amount she had paid into the system.  This was perhaps the greatest investment in the history of investments.  I can think of nothing else that had that kind of return.  Of course, Ida was an early investor in a Ponzi scheme.  Early investors do quite well.

Prior to Social Security and even after it for at least a generation, couples had children in order to support them in their old age.  But as Social Security seeped into the collective consciousness, many figured out that the government would force other people's children to take care of them in their old age.  Oh, it isn't sold that way.  "You paid into the system and now that you're old you get to take out."  Like Ida?  No, the returns are no longer quite that impressive but with longer life expectancy, people are taking out all they paid and then some.  This is possible because of the Baby Boomers, a huge cohort from the post-war years but, as noted, fertility rates have since dropped.  No one expects their kids to take care of them anymore.

Social Security is currently paying out more than it collects.  This means that rather than being a pool of money that Congress can spend (while slipping an IOU in a cabinet), it is now required to allocate current revenues to pay liabilities.  It will get worse as more Baby Boomers retire.  The same thing has happened in Europe.  They stopped having children and the governments responded by allowing more immigration (sound familiar) to make up the coming shortfall.  And it is still going to pot.

I freely admit that I was pretty dumb as a teenager but somehow on this issue, my classmates and I were wiser than we had any right to be.  In fact, we weren't any wiser, we were just honest.  The coming collapse of Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and all the other unfunded entitlements is the most predictable crisis in American history.  If government had to follow the same rules they impose on business, all of the listed programs would be subject to criminal prosecution.

Obama Success

Yes, Obama has had a success and I had thought it was a massive blunder at the time.  I vented my irritation at the President in a blog post.  However, events have come to pass that show great promise at lower cost.  No, not Obamacare but space exploration.

When NASA's Constellation Project was slashed so the president could expand the food stamp program and his doomed Stimulus, I was aghast.  The US had space superiority and now we were hitching rides on Russian Soyuz capsules.  The US space program looked to be a casualty of Obama's spending priorities.  As it happens, the private space companies are making leaps and bounds.  SpaceX is the standout with its Falcon rocket and Dragon space capsule; SpaceX is running resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) and will soon be able to shuttle astronauts for a fraction of the price of the space shuttles.  Orbital Science Corporation (OSC) is a big player in satellites but is aiming to also resupply the ISS with its Cygnus spacecraft.

What is truly funny about this is it fits what I have long said about most issues: get the government out and the prices will drop and more will get accomplished.  How did I end up on the wrong side of this argument?  Mostly, it is because space is still a government domain.  Even all this private activity is funded through government contracts.  Getting into space and bringing back something of value is still a ways off.  This is why space tourism is likely to be the first moneymaker for private companies (e.g. Virgin Galactic).  Eventually, we'll see mining operations on the moon and then elsewhere but that is still beyond the market.  But not for long.

The Mars One project has a hundred thousand volunteers to migrate to the red planet in 2023.  It would be a one way trip and yet there are plenty of applicants.  Even the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, plans to die on Mars.

Here is the interesting point: Obama's success is a case where he defunded a government agency and let the private market take over.  This is precisely the opposite of what he has done with health care, the car companies, banks, mortgages, student loans, etc.  While all of these are seeing rising costs, NASA is seeing a drop in the price of resupply missions.  Perhaps the president could learn from this.