It's Official, the At The Movies Guys are idiots

Neither Michael Phillips nor A.O. Scott picked any Lord of the Rings movie in the top 10 of the last decade.  The movie that I, and their viewers, picked as number one.  What did they pick as number one?

A.O. Scott picked WALL-E.  A very good movie.  But even my wife, who loves cute animated films, dropped her jaw at this pick.  We will have to rent it again to see.

Michael Phillips picked There Will Be Blood.  This is the kind of movie that critics love, because they can fire their full rhetorical blasts of praise and compare it to another good but completely overblown movie, Citizen Kane.  Check some of the comments, easily available via a cursory Google search:

"a film of Darwinian ferocity, a stark and pitiless parable of American capitalism"

"(director) Anderson is an artful renegade who restores your faith in the harsh power of movies. This is his bloody and brilliant Citizen Kane."

"about Day-Lewis. "Gargantuan" is a puny word to describe his landmark performance."

"epic American nightmare, arrives belching fire and brimstone and damnation to Hell"
 

But Roger Ebert has it right:


"its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp"

I've seen There Will Be Blood.  In my opinion, it was a movie written and directed with the express purpose of appearing to be "great".  Designed to appeal to critics, arriving with hoopla and Oscar buzz.  But not a great movie.

Best Movies of the Decade

I don't watch "At the Movies" much (since it isn't Siskel and Ebert anymore) but did catch it the other night, and they were counting down the "Best Movies of the Decade".  Since each critic had his own selection, and we were at #2, that's a total of 18 films.  I have seen none of them.  My wife has seen only one of them.  Maybe we are really out of touch.  Several of them I haven't even heard of.  For what it's worth, which isn't much, only one (Million Dollar Baby) won the Academy Award, though several were nominated.

I'm really wondering about their choices next week for the best film.  For them to have any credibility with me, it has to be one of the Lord of the Rings movies.  But these guys are really into filmaking and art - maybe they will be like the the Editors at the Modern Library who didn't even rate Lord of the Rings in the top 100 novels of the last century, instead preferring more "literary" works like Ulysses, Lolita, and Sons and Lovers, while the common people voted for books people actually read, like Ayn Rand, Tolkien, To Kill a Mockingbird, and, in a particularly insightful pick, H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness.  Some of the popular votes are dubious and repetitive (there's way too much Ayn Rand and Hubbard), but, all in all, I think they did a better job than the "pros".

So, drum roll please...  Here are my picks for the ten best movies of the last decade

1. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - my favorite of the three
2. Heaven
3. The Wrestler
4. Walk the Line
5. The Bourne Identity  - again, my favorite of the three, though all were strong
6. Bend It Like Beckham
7. Finding Nemo
8. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
9. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World  (if only for the music)
10. Little Miss Sunshine

Plus a few honorable mentions (the two critics get 20 total)

• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 
• The Fountain  this one was weird and ultimately baffling, but had wonderful visuals and tried to be something
• O Brother, Where Art Thou?  it's bonafide!
• The Bank Job
• Legally Blonde  (a guilty pleasure)
  

Is Conspicuous Consumption America's Enduring Legacy?

Noted sci-fi author David Brin argues for this in a recent article and on his blog.  He argues "that the period of Pax America has been generally positive", and considers U.S. policy in the years just after World War 2.

Instead of annexing territory and looting the defeated enemy, (e.g. Franco-Prussian war, Treaty of Versailles) President Truman, Nobel Peace Prize winner George Marshall, and General Douglas MacArthur,developed an unprecedented historical policy of "countermercantilism" to lift up the defeated. 

"the clearly stated intention was for the United States to lift up their prostrate foe, first with direct aid.  And then, over the longer term, with trade."

Before this, normal empires practiced mercantilism, favoring home industry, and using other countries, particularly colonies, as sources of raw materials and as export markets.  The British Empire is a prime example of this, but so were the Chinese, Moguls, Romans and Greeks.

"America became the first power in history to deliberately establish countermercantilist commerce flows.  Nations crippled by war or mismanagement were allowed to maintain tariffs, keeping out American goods, while sending shiploads from their factories to the United States ....

What this amounted to, however, was the greatest aid-and-uplift program in human history. A prodigious transfer of wealth from the United States to Europe, Asia and Latin America."

Now, some of this was done to defeat totalitarian Communism.  Which was also, overall, a good thing for humanity.  While he makes it clear that he is no neo-conservative, Brin calls for the reflexive America loathers to give it some credit:

"Even if America is exhausted from having spent its way from world dominance into a chasm of debt, the United States does have something to show for it the last six decades. A world saved. Billions of human beings lifted out of poverty. That task, far more prodigious than defeating fascism and communism or going to the moon, ought to be viewed with a little respect."

Should the 21st century become the "Chinese Century", as many have postulated, when historians look back upon it, will they find any similar commitment to uplift the human race?  One can hope.
 

Book Review: "Espionage"

I've been slowly working my way through the book "Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets" by Richard Bennett, published in 2002.  I'm up to the Es.  There's some interesting general information.  Many  of the details are wrong.  (I've seen few positive reviews)  But there's some real weirdness.

On the rear jacket cover, where you have a short bio of the author, you see three authors listed.  In addition to Bennett, David Shayler and James Bamford are listed.  They both write prefaces.  Shayler's writes, amongst other dubious anti-establishment things, that "The main job of the intelligence in the years to come will concentrate on the conflict created by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip..."  I almost stopped reading there, as my "he's a nutcase" radar lit up.  You might want to read the unsettling wikipedia article linked above.  Bamford is perfectly respectable, yet you know he has a some history with the CIA and NSA.  In any case, I'm confused as to why Shayler and Bamford appear so prominently, yet aren't listed as authors.  Not sure how much they contributed, but the book does share their biases.

Now, for an innocent yet really strange entry, ANDRE, Major John (1751-80).  Here's the first line:

Major Andre of the 54th Foot regiment was a courageous British officer during the rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, popularly known as the American War of Independence.

Who the F calls the American Revolution the"rebellion against the crown"?  "Rebellion against the crown" refers to all such rebellions, such as the Irish, Scots, etc.  So it's imprecise.  Instead of the short and familiar two word term, "American Revolution", the author insists on making a rhetorical point by using nine words in a less familiar phrase.  Does Bennett refer to the French Revolution as the "rebellion against Louis XVI by his French subjects and the unfortunate beheading of his Queen"?  You can Google other instances of uses of this term for the American Revolution.  But at least one of the blogs is, well, unsettling, very conservative Catholic - go read it and his posts.  He legalistically analyzes whether the Revolution was a "just" war, and calls the claims in the Declaration of Independence "boring and silly".  And the fact that I've read two really unsettling posts or blogs in researching this article is, well, unsettling.  :-)

Speaking of legalistic, Espionage concludes its post on Major Andre with legalistic quibbling of it's own:

Until the new state had finally won its freedom, the lands of N America still belonged to the Crown of England.  Therefore it can be argued that Andre could not have been a spy in his own country...

I've always believed that legalistic interpretations of International Law and War don't mix well.  That was further evidence.  I prefer the practical advice from (I believe) Shogun, that the only valid legal defense for treason is victory.  If the USA had lost, would Bennett refer to "rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, and the glorious hanging, drawing, and quartering of the traitorous leaders"?

O.K., now for a few examples of "serious" entries that show bias.  How about the entry on ASSASSINATION?  There's one short introductory paragraph that says, in effect, "everybody does it".  Then there are ten paragraphs, some speculative, of litany about the CIA's possible escapades, the Church hearings, etc.  The tenth paragraph is a huge list of foreign leaders whose assassination was supposedly "considered" by the US.  Most of them died naturally or are alive.  The US has "considered" invading Canada.  Doesn't mean much.  The book presents no information about possible KGB, Mossad, or MI6 assassinations. 

DIRTY TRICKS.  Again, one paragraph of general, what does it mean.  Followed by nearly four pages of litany of supposed CIA dirty tricks.  Apparently, the KGB, Mossad, MI6 etc. are have not performed many dirty tricks.  Or is it that the CIA is usually good at them?  Hooray for the USA - your tax dollars at work.


Now, for the most interesting point.  This book is clearly, shall we say, skeptical (one review said "disgusted with") of US Intelligence fairness and veracity.  But under BIOTERRORISM he writes  (remember - the book was written in 2002)

"the chance that rogue Russian scientists have helped expand the Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan and North Korean CBW capabilities is very high"  ...

"Chemican agents have been mass-produced in ... Iraq, Iran and Libya and there is little doubt that Osama bin Laden has been more that a little interested in ... these weapons"

Now, officially I haven't read the entry on Iraq, but a quick glimpse at page 132 reveals

"The Salman Park complex is also the base for intensive training courses for terrorist groups"  ... "in the use of chemical, biological, and possibly crude nuclear devices."

Bennett then writes about training to hijack planes for suicide attacks.  In other words, Bennett, in 2002, details the "Axis of Evil", and then makes a convincing case for war with Iraq that mirrors that made by the Bush administration.

Der Spiegel has an interesting juxtaposition of articles

In the Nov 18 issue (temporary link here , but I think this will point to the current paper, not the specific issue), the front page has two articles that interested me.

One article blasts President Obama on climate change.  And it contains this hyperbole:

"If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil."


But the real interesting section is Part 2, Americans Do Not Look Beyond Their Own Borders.  And it includes this analysis:


"For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance"


What's another article on the front page?  Actually, it's an entire section about the fall of the Berlin wall.  Now, it seems to me that us insular Americans had something to do with that.  Maybe we do look beyond our borders.  But you wont see that in any of their articles (at least in the headlines).  The Wall just mysteriously fell.  American power had nothing to do with it.  Thanks for nothing Der Spiegel.

A Belated Cheer for the end of the Berlin Wall

For those, like me, questioning President Obama's realism/pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, such as with Iran, here's some counterpoint.

Is it time for Obama to tell Tehran "Tear Down This Clerical Oligarchy"?  Hmm, maybe I don't have a future career as a speechwriter...

More Marginal Tax Concerns over Health Care Reform

Greg Mankiw comments on the CBO analysis  of the House's version of health care reform.  In a nutshell, the House bill establishes significantly higher marginal tax rates than the Senate bill.  The Senate Bill imposes a marginal tax rate of roughly 23% on low to moderate income Americans, and the House bill increases this to 32%.

As I discussed in an earlier post (about the Senate bill), this rate, when added to other marginal taxes on that tax group, which range from 28% to 50% depending on how you do your math (and make your assumptions), the House bill will impose a marginal tax rate of somewhere between 60% and 82% on working class Americans.

Economists disagree on how people react to such high tax rates.  Mankiw discusses it here.  One can certainly guess that this may be a disincentive towards increasing your income.  Or reporting it.  Mankiw concludes, and I agree:

"None of this necessarily means that health reform is not worth doing. President Obama’s push for reform is premised on the belief that access to good health care should be a right of all Americans — a proposition better judged by political philosophers than economists. But we should not forget the cost of translating that noble aspiration into practical policy."