Everybody Wants Some!!

Jake is fresh out of high school and has just arrived at college where he has a scholarship to play baseball.  It is late August and a Thursday.  Classes start Monday.  What's a fellow to do?  The baseball team - one of the nation's best - lives in off campus housing that isn't a dorm and isn't a fraternity.  Jake finds that his team mates are a lively bunch who provide constant entertainment.

The movie goes nowhere.  It was half over when I finally realized that there was no plot.  This is the weekend before school starts and we follow how the baseball team tries to get drunk, high, or laid.  They go to the local disco, the local country bar, they have a party in the baseball housing, they crash a party held by the drama club.  Through it all, there are witty exchanges, philosophical blather, and just plain silliness.  There is a lot of male bonding, complete with foolish bravado, idle boasting, and feats of great derring-do.

 

In the end, many parts made me smile or laugh but the lack of a story arc or any conflict to be overcome made it feel like an empty movie.  It is like eating one M&M: sweet but unfulfilling.  I liked it more than his last film, but that is a low bar.

The Jungle Book

Though I am sure I saw the animated version as a child, I have virtually no recollection of it.  I have never read the book (is it a book or a short story?) but Mowgli and gang are iconic enough that I still have a working knowledge of the story.  The movie followed my scant knowledge perfectly and was most entertaining.

Mowgli is a boy raised by wolves in the jungles of India.  We meet him as he is running from a panther.  It looks like he might escape when a branch snaps and he instead falls in the path of the mighty cat.  And then they start chatting.  Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) is an avuncular figure for Mowgli, the kind that usually scowls and scolds.  He has Mowgli's best interests at heart though he often seems dissatisfied with Mowgli in practice.  During a dry spell, Shere Khan (Idris Elba) the Tiger discovers a human among the animals and demands that he be handed over when the rains return.  So it is that Mowgli must leave the wolves, which results in a number of adventures.

 

Baloo (Bill Murray) steals the show as a honey-loving bear with a soft spot for the clever human but also a keen interest in what the boy can do for him.  Without question, he delivers the best lines and offers the most comic relief.

 

King Louie (Christopher Walken) was HUGE, an impossibly big orangutan.  In fact, he is supposed to be an extinct and giant variant of the orangutan because they are not native to India (at least, that is what I read on IMDB).  He is much more menacing than I expected.  His song during the credits was lots of fun.

 

All in all, a very enjoyable movie.

Common Sense?

If you go to an American political rally and wave the flag of another country, you are in the wrong country.

If Hillary's gender makes you more or less likely to vote for her, you are a sexist.

If Obama's race makes you more or less likely to support his agenda, you are a racist.

If you overlook misdeeds committed by your allies that you would vociferously condemn when committed by your opponents, you are a hypocrite and contributing to the ugly political landscape that you decry.

 

These are axiomatic.  They are tautological.  Ponder that.

The Enthusiasm Deficit

This story shows that Hillary has won fewer votes in this cycle as the leading candidate than she won last cycle as the trailing candidate.  It does demonstrate the lack of energy in the Democratic campaign.  Obama is far more charismatic than Bernie and Hillary combined.  His life story was far more compelling than Hillary's.  Also, the Democrats have had the presidency for two terms and are clearly disappointed; Bernie is trashing the status quo and getting substantial support from the rank and file Democrat voter.  As a matter of fact, part of the reason Bernie is ignored by the media is because he is not painting a flattering picture of Obama's economy.  Back in 2008, the Democrats had been out of power for 2 terms and there was natural excitement; look at the Republican primary campaign this time around.

 

Even so, it is a problem.  It shows that there is considerably less excitement on the Democratic side and less excitement for Hillary herself.  In the infamous 'who do you want to have a beer with' poll, Trump is going to win that by a large margin vs. Hillary.  I'm no Trump fan and don't drink beer but I would certainly choose him.  The two-terms for one party then switch pattern exists for a reason and the Republicans ought to win this time.  This story just gives another indication why that is probable.  Yeah, get ready for President Trump.  Sigh.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

There has been a push to move more toward a popular vote system for electing the president rather than the existing electoral college.  This proposal really came to life in the wake of the 2000 election where Al Gore got more votes but George W Bush had more electoral votes.  A number of states have agreed to allocate electoral votes based on the popular vote rather than winner-take-all.  This is a bad idea but the current system is a hard sell to the casual voter.  However, what if such a system had been in place for the last 100 years or so.  Here are the new results:

1912: Thanks to Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, the Republican vote was split and no one won a majority of the popular vote, though Wilson had the plurality at 41.8%  Dividing the electoral votes on that basis, no one wins.  The House - run by the Democrats - select Woodrow Wilson as President.  However, the Senate - run by Republicans - chose Nicholas Butler (Taft's running mate) - as the new Vice President.

1916: Running for re-election, Woodrow Wilson failed to win a majority of votes but again had a plurality of 49.2%.  Fortunately, the House and Senate are both controlled by the Democrats and he is selected for his second term with a Democrat VP this time.

1948: Truman fails to win a majority of votes but does get a plurality of 49.6%.  However, both the House and the Senate are controlled by Republicans so Dewey really does win!

1960: JFK has a narrow lead (49.7% vs. 49.6%) over Nixon in the popular vote but didn't win a majority.  As such, the election goes to the Democrat-controlled House and Senate who select JFK and LBJ.

1968: Though Nixon emerged with a plurality of 43.4% of the vote, the Democratically-controlled House and Senate select Hubert Humphrey.

1992: Bill Clinton won a plurality of 43% and the Democrat Congress selects him and Al Gore as President and VP.

1996: Though Bill Clinton won a plurality of votes (49.2%), the Republican-controlled Congress select Bob Dole as President.

2000: Al Gore wins plurality of the votes (48.4%) but the Republican-controlled Congress selects George W. Bush as President.

In every other election, the winner also had more than 50% of the popular vote.  It should be noted that in 4 cases (1916, 1960, 1992, 2000) the results are unchanged though the person who "won" would have been harmed by having been selected by Congress.  Also, three out of four of these cases would have hurt the Democrats.  In the other four cases, the results change.  The Republicans would have benefited from 1916, 1948, and 1996.  Democrats would have benefited in 1968.  Of course, all of those flipped elections would have been deemed corrupt.

Looking at the history, it does seem strange that those most supportive of using the popular vote are the very people who would have done worse under it.

Unexpected Danger

Here is something to ponder though it is amazingly unlikely.  What if no one reached 270 electoral votes (or a majority of the popular vote) and the election was therefore thrown to the House of Representatives?  After the inconclusive election, there is no mechanism for replacing a candidate who dies.  If one of those candidates were to die (heart attack, assassination, etc.), the House would not be allowed to choose the VP nominee instead.  Thus, assassination in the wake of an inconclusive election could be extremely effective in picking the president.

 

This problem becomes ever more likely as there is the move toward proportional electoral votes.  In the winner-take-all system that has existed, a third party candidate rarely gets any electoral votes.  Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992 but earned 0 electoral votes.  Under a proportional system, Clinton's electoral landslide (370 to 168) would have instead been decided in the House of Representatives.  Also under such a system, Dole would have won in 1996.  That is a discussion for a different post.

 

It is extremely unlikely that a candidate will die in the narrow space between the election (early November) and the convening of the new Congress (early January).  Nonetheless, with the two lead candidates nearly 70 years old, it would not be a bad idea to be prepared.  Both parties could get on board prior to the danger but if one or the other happened to die in December, the other party might block any efforts to assure their candidate wins in January.

 

 

This isn't News! It's Froth

This story observes the Donald Trump could get the most votes of any candidate in GOP primary history.  It is nothing but a puff piece.  Of course he has the most.  When was the last time that a primary wasn't decided by now?  For the last 40 years, the campaign has been long over by now with the nominee already chosen.  Once that happens, voter turnout plummets.  Now we are in a year where the nominee is not settled which inevitably drives up turnout.  Duh!  In our media-saturated world, nothing stories get written.  We have 24/7 news, which is why we have so much non-news, analysis posing as news, news agency run polls that become news on that news agency, and so on and so forth.  So much froth!

Who Gets to Refuse Service?

North Carolina has passed a law that requires individuals to use the bathroom that matches their biology.  This has the transgendered community and their supporters up in arms.  In fact, several corporations (e.g. Pay Pal), governments (e.g. New York State), and performers (e.g. Bruce Springstein) have decided to boycott, ban travel to, or refuse to perform at previously scheduled concerts.  In a free society, I have no problem with that.  However, these very companies, governments, and people considered it a crime when florists, bakers, and photographers refused service to people with whom they disagreed.  Can you say hypocrisy?

 

As someone who leans libertarian, I have no qualms with private individuals or companies refusing to associate with persons, places, or companies for whatever reason?  The first amendment provides for a Freedom of Association.  Why should government have the authority to force you to ignore your deeply held believes, no matter how ill-conceived they may be?  If Nancy refuses to bake a cake for me because she doesn't like the color of my eyes, my politics, or that I'm male, so be it.  I may offer a colorful epithet, write a scathing review on Yelp, and tell everyone I know that she should be avoided, but I can get a cake elsewhere.  However, if you are the kind of person who is going to sue Nancy, you are the problem.  You are intolerant.

Freedom can suck sometimes, especially when people who don't agree with you exercise it.  The alternative is worse.  Far too many people want the alternative.  While it works in their favor, they are pleased.  Eventually, freedom will be extinguished by inches and the tyranny that has been founded will crush the foolish who enabled it.

America First

Donald Trump recently gave a foreign policy speech which mostly boiled down to 'America First' as the guiding principal.  The idea that such would even need to be stated tells us how far the government had drifted.  Of course, America first.  Should American government put the interests of Thailand before those of South Dakota?  Clearly, the Iran Nuclear Deal seemed to be far more to Iran's benefit than to ours.  The flood of immigrants and refugees into the United States has been far more beneficial for them than for those already here.  It is on account of such incidents that 'America First' can resonate as a policy.

 

However, there is nuance that Trump does not explore.  He is big on getting formerly American jobs back to America.  Is that a good idea?  If Apple can manufacture an iPhone in China for $200 but it costs $300 to make it in the US, the American consumer is better off having it made over there.  However, a handful of American workers would be much better off if it was made here.  Who gets priority?  If it is millions of consumers vs. thousands of workers, I would side with the consumer.  People vote with their dollars and usually buy the least expensive option of comparable quality.

 

On another note, Trump indicates that he doesn't like America's role in maintaining the peace.  He wants to send a bill to all the countries that benefit from our military supremacy.  There is an argument to make on both sides of this issue.  By maintaining the peace, the US benefits.  Yes, there are costs and it may seem unfair that other countries are free riders, but dismantling or charging for the peace will likely end the peace.  Few would argue dissolving the police because homeless people, illegal aliens, tax dodgers, and others don't pay their fair share.  If the US abdicates the role, someone else will fill that vacuum and is not likely to be as benevolent as the US.

 

Trump is a foreign policy lightweight but, sad to say, I expect I would prefer his foreign policy to what has been in place for the last 7 years.  That's not to say it would be good, but it would be less bad.  Marginally.

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Batman (Ben Affleck) is the mover and shaker of this movie.  It turns out that he was in Metropolis on the day that Superman (Henry Cavill) tangled with General Zod (cf. Man of Steel) and witnessed the vast destruction.  Later, he argues to Alfred (Jeremy Irons) that Superman is too powerful to trust and that he should be treated as a villain.  To that end, he prepares for the battle.  However, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) also has grand plans.  He has gained access to the Kryptonian ship and General Zod's corpse (a very undemanding return role for Michael Shannon); Lex has grand plans.

 

The movie spends a lot of time being over-serious.  It is as if the director is unaware that his source material is a COMIC book.  There should be some light-hearted scenes.  Nope.  It is one long serious slog.  The only point of light was Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot).  Yes, her complete lack of backstory and joy in battle made her a breath of fresh air compared to the grim warriors of Superman and Batman.

 

For me, Christopher Reeve was Superman.  He took Clark Kent in a very different direction of George Reeves.  His Clark was something of a stuttering oaf whereas his Superman was a cheerful hero with a ready quip to make light of danger.  This wide gap in personalities made the silly glasses disguise more palatable.  Whereas Cavill poses as god figure who lingers on the scene for some adulation by the peasants, Reeves was a happy savior with a ready mood-lightening quip.  "Flying is the safest way to travel," he told Lois after rescuing her from a helicopter crash.  Henry Cavill's Clark is no different from his Superman; grim and serious.  Batman already has the grim and serious covered.

 

Yes, Superman dies.  Mostly.  I was really annoyed that the movie ended by essentially announcing Superman's resurrection.  Let's just undermine the emotional impact of his death.  In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock died.  His body was shot into space and that looked to be the end of Nimoy in the role of Spock.  Or, more recently, there is Jon Snow from Game of Thrones.  Yes, there is a priestess who may be able to raise him from the dead but such is left to be determined in the next season.  Heck, Jon Snow may REALLY be dead and out of the show.  I don't know and that makes it really cool.  With Superman, there is no doubt that he is alive and will appear in the Justice League movie.

 

Affleck's Batman was overburdened with dreams and visions.  His nightmares should have been cut from the film.  The elaborate post-apocalyptic dream sequence of Batman's troops battling Superman's minions was too much.  Okay, I GET IT ALREADY!  Yes, Batman distrusts Superman.  Quit hammering me over the head with that message.  Then there was the bizarre dream in which some bat monster bursts out of his father's tomb.  Why?  And then the Flash appears via time travel to offer a warning.  Can we focus on today's story and leave Justice League stuff for those movies.  If we must hint at them, hint!  Subtly.  SUBTLY!!!

 

Lex Luthor was a criminal genius but also a manic madman.  Yes, as is often the case with most of the roles Jesse Eisenberg plays, the character is jacked up on Mountain Dew or some other caffeine-rich substance.  He might even be using amphetamines.  Hetalksveryfastanddoesnotpauseforbreath.  The man must have a second job as an auctioneer.  However, I liked him.  He made for a fine and dandy bad guy.  Also, his manic act offered some much needed levity.

 

I liked it more than I expected I would.  I had heard a lot of negative reviews which may have inoculated me from having high expectations.  There is a good story here.  More stuff needed to end up on the DVD deleted scenes.  Too much of the tone reminded me of a soap opera.  Even the happy scenes are overwhelmed by this feeling of dread.  This movie needed Heath Ledger to show up and ask, "Why so serious?"

Midnight Special

Roy Tomlin (Michael Shannon) and Lucas (Joel Edgerton) pack some guns in bags in a motel room.  Anton Meyer, who is Roy's son, is with them.  The news on the TV is that Roy has kidnapped Anton and the public should report him if they see him.  The trio hurry out to a car just after sunset.  They eventually recruit Sarah Tomlin (Kirsten Dunst), Anton's mother, to the cause.  Anton is a very special child with peculiar powers.  He pulled down a military satellite, he causes blackouts and earthquakes, he is very sensitive to the sun (thus travel by night), and can intercept and decode radio signals (thus the government interest in him).  His powers spawned a cult in which he was the prophet, a facet of the story that was only tangentially explored.  Based on Anton's "prophecies," it is held that March 6th is a special day and Anton will protect them from whatever happens that day.

 

The movie starts in the middle.  Often, this is a very good choice for movies, especially if the background is common knowledge (such as story set in WWII).  Sometimes the background can be deduced by character actions and perhaps some dialogue.  Frequently, when movies begin in the middle, there are flashbacks used as a big reveal.  Perhaps it is non-linear storytelling (Pulp Fiction being the great example of that).  Midnight Special is not in these categories.  It feels as if we missed a lot of the story.  Most of the characters thus have no character arc; the turning points in their story already happened and we are merely seeing that play out.

 

There are some things that happen off screen that really shouldn't.  Why did Paul Sevier (Adam Driver) assist Anton in escaping the government installation?  We have Anton showing impressive powers to Paul and then... Oh, we're out of the building!  That middle bit might have been interesting.  Or what of Lucas?  We discover that he is a police officer who had been childhood friends with Roy.  Consider that for a moment.  Think of someone who was your friend until say 14 or 15 years old before he moved away.  20 years later, he shows up and asks to help him avoid the authorities while he absconds with his son.  Yeah, sign me up!  How about explaining the oddity that Calvin Meyer (Sam Shepard) - the spiritual leader of the cult - has adopted Anton.  Why did Roy and Sarah allow that?  It is never explained but it was an elephant in the room to me.  We see one instance where Anton "links" (for lack of a better description) with another character by way of blue beams from his eyes to the other.  From interviews, we learn that he imparts 'prophecy' by this manner but it appears to cause an earthquake.  It would have been nice to delve into this aspect of the character.  Anton is still a big mystery at the end with ill-defined powers and scant explanation of why he was born to Sarah and Roy.

 

I very much doubt that Jeff Nichols - the writer and director - could explain why Anton had to go to Florida on March 6th.  It is a chase movie with an artificial deadline and the reasons behind it are irrelevant to the chase.  This is about a father doing what he thinks is best for his son.  Roy's determination and perseverance is the best part of the movie.  Peel away the sci-fi and that aspect of the film would still be strong.  I would have preferred that.  It could have been like when Elian Gonzalez's mother gave her life to get her son to Florida, only with a happier ending.

Et Tu, Yahoo?

This is not a good sign for Hillary.  I found this on Yahoo!  Yahoo leans left on its news feeds and usually overlooks, or generously spins, Democrat malfeasance.  To prominently post this is to take Bernie's side in the campaign.  With his streak of victories, it does look like the tide may be turning in his favor.  Of course, even if he manages to win the majority from here out, he will lose based on super delegates.  In states Bernie has won, the majority of the super delegates have remained in Hillary's camp.  Might we see a change?  If her inevitability collapses, the odds of her indictment will rise.  Rough waters ahead.

 

I still think Hillary is going to be the eventual winner but it has been a more challenging campaign than the Democrats ever expected.  That hints at her unpopularity.  In 2008, Democrat voters had an alternative to the inevitable Hillary and took him.  In 2016, they have a less charismatic and historic alternative and are starting to lean in that direction.  If the Democrat base isn't enamored of Hillary, how is she going to do on the national stage?  She is going to need to make the Republican nominee toxic with negative ads.  Luckily for her, that shouldn't be too hard with either Trump or Cruz.