The pill or the cross? A trumped-up debate

This is a carefully balanced proposal. I think it's high-minded, but I think it's fair-minded. In other words, it's got something to offend everyone. -The Firm (1993)
     Today in the teacher workroom one of my colleagues declared that President Obama is attacking the Catholic Church with a vengeance. And this teacher is not alone. Obama is currently envisioned by many as the contemporary incarnation of the Roman emperor Nero, burning Christians in the backyard of the White House, feeding them to starving circus beasts at the local amphitheater, and cackling gaily all the while. Recent polls show more than half of Catholics taking issue with the President's recent decision regarding enforced health care coverage of contraception.
     Nevertheless, there is no great conspiracy by the current administration to aggravate one of the largest voting bodies in the country. There is no secret plan to undermine the Amendments to the Constitution in order to install an oppressive bureaucracy to control hard-working American men and women. Obama is not a Jew-hating, anti-papal Muslim brother. For the record, he's an intellectual Christian drawing from many traditions. He's not Jacobean.
     What is going on is a centuries-old war between the current liberal landscape, whose crown jewel is the utterly dispassionate and fair medical establishment, and the awkwardly-defunct-but-in-denial religious establishment, codified supremely as the Catholic (=universal! at least claiming such) Church. Sadly, this much more interesting issue will not be addressed in this article. Another time, perhaps. (In the meantime I will refer you to a related issue I wrote about last month.) The scope of this post is simply to outline the facts of the debate and argue its present status as being no longer front-page news material.
     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which constitutes the chief legislative reform to the American health care system, is known pejoratively as "Obamacare." It requires health care providers to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions and preventative services. It also increases nationwide coverage by thirty million. The majority of states have appealed PPACA as unconstitutional, hearings in the Supreme Court will take place in late March, and a decision is supposed to be reached by June.
     The health care controversy is obviously complicated enough to reach the highest Court in the land, and I only wish to address the issue of requiring religious organizations to provide contraceptive coverage. This issue has been raising hell for a month or so, now, and like the proverbial bad penny, won't take a hint and go away.
     Let's look at the facts first.
     Before PPACA, women were protected from paying higher premiums for medical coverage just for being women if they received that coverage through their employer. However, if they were shopping for individual coverage, no such protection existed. Women paid higher premiums on average (legal in 37 states), even though they did not receive a corresponding increase in service. Since women are more likely to be unemployed or only employed part-time and in 2010 made up 55% of the individual health care market, this is a substantial problem.
     Let's be clear why. Women who got pregnant could suddenly lose their health insurance coverage without remuneration. Other cost sharing such as additional deductibles because they were treated as a rape victim or got a C-Section (regularly required by a medical doctor as the safest procedure for both mother and infant). Because of this legal discrimination, many women chose not to get any health coverage at all.
     I believe that one of the fundamental marks of authentic civilization, alongside universal education and transparent political system, is a universal health care system. When a society lets its poorer and more vulnerable members suffer physiologically, it is violating their right as human beings to physical dignity. I don't care if you're a crack addict, a pedophile or a jobless ninny. As long as you're a citizen of my country, if you have a disease - even one you suffer from because of your vice - you have the right to receive quality medical treatment for your ailments.
     PPACA stopped this gender-discrimination and requires all employers to provide women with preventative services such as gestational diabetes screening, regular gynecological checkups, contraceptives and related counseling, breastfeeding supplies and relevant support. An exemption to this rule (for contraceptive coverage only) exists for for employers defined as religious institutions.
     The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
     This exemption is rife with potential for abuse. Let's say I'm a health care provider and I want my individual rates (not through an employer) to be competitive. Covering women raises the average cost of my plans because women require more medical service than men. I need to find a way to offset that additional cost. PPACA prevents me from raising premiums for women simply for being women. However, if I can legally choose to withhold certain medical coverages that women typically want, they will be less likely to purchase health care coverage from me. In this way I can still encourage them to find coverage elsewhere. To benefit from the exemption clause, all I have to do is claim that I morally oppose contraception on religious grounds. According to the First Amendment, the government cannot legally force me to freely exercise my religious beliefs. I get to exert my religious beliefs over my employees' and beat my competitors' rates.
     Thankfully the writers of the PPACA were smart enough to limit the exemption to religious employers. To qualify as a religious employer, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the institution must "(1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization[,in other words,] churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order."

     In the case of a religious employer and a woman who needs contraceptive care we have a conflict of interest. Both parties have rights. Women as human beings have a right to quality health care (as stated above) and that includes contraceptive treatment. If you are an employer and you deny that coverage, you are discriminating against an employee. That's illegal. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs." Many women sincerely believe that it's morally right to have an active sexual life without overpopulating the planet with additional mouths to feed, that it's morally right to enjoy sex for the purpose of interpersonal intimacy rather than procreation. An employer must respect that belief. That's the law. Otherwise, why shouldn't an employer choose not to hire you because of your religion? your lifestyle? your ethnicity? your sexual orientation?
     The EEOC has been around for more than fifty years, and it's the reason employers are no longer allowed to discriminate in covering their employees. In 2010 PPACA took that same principle and extended it to health care providers, because even though they aren't employers, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate either.
     So how do we uphold both the woman's individual rights and the institution's rights? The solution is simple. Provide coverage to the woman without going through her religious employer at all. The health care provider must offer it without charging the church. Now the church is not spending its monies for what it perceives to be a sinful action. No cost sharing on the part of the employer or the employee.
     And that's exactly what the rules are.
     So why are people still accusing Obama of attacking the church?
1. People think the definition of "religious employer" is too narrow. Catholic universities and hospitals should be included, it is said.
Response. Maybe the definition could be widened. But we still need to provide contraceptive coverage to the woman. She has her rights too, as explained earlier. And in no way does the nuance of the definition of "religious employer" constitute "an attack" on Catholics. It's something to be considered by people of intelligence and experience.
2. People generally want to blame the President for everything. This is especially bad during a recession, and especially especially bad during the last year of his first term in office.
Response. People love to complain and find someone to blame. Frankly I can't think of a perfect solution to this problem, but I certainly can't think of a better solution than the one currently in place. Every alternative I've seen crushes the rights of either the employer or the employee.
3. The President doesn't have a positive religious identity. As a Democrat, Obama is already on the back foot, and worse, was labeled a closet Muslim, despite clearly being a liberal Christian. Contrast Obama with Bush Jr., who during his first term claimed to read Oswald Chamber's classic My Utmost For His Highest (a daily reading of wishy-washy Christian moralisms) on a regular basis.
Response. Personally I don't think Obama's religious beliefs are a problem. I'm betting he's fairly non-committal, which means as a politician he's looking to create and maintain a system in which the beliefs of all are respected, as long as they don't impinge on the beliefs of others. And that's exactly what the government of a religiously free country is supposed to do.
     Since representatives of the Catholic Health Association and Mount St. Mary's University not only accepted the accommodation (while reserving the right to negotiate certain minor details), but praised the President's willingness to listen and respond to legitimate concerns, we can confidently declare that the rest of this nonsense is no different than the long-winded spectacles of Obama's birth certificate, Solyndra, and the Ground Zero Mosque.
     Ongoing questions: The battle between the medical establishment and the old, defunct religious establishment.

Untitled Short Story (Part 2)

      Nigel pushed open the swinging door and entered a dimly lit and poorly ventilated room. He bore a backpack, brown and thread-bare, and with every step the muffled clanking of canisters filled the silence. Head held high, he walked to the back wall, where a dusty red block of four lockers sat. The two on the left were decorated with combination locks; the two on the right were empty. Nigel opened the door of the end locker, slung off his backpack, and placed it inside. He reached into the zippered pouch and grabbed his own lock, closed the door and clicked the shackle shut.

      He turned toward the door and saw someone seated in an antique rocking chair in a particularly dark corner of the room. The man's face was silhouetted and he brought a cigarette to his mouth. A shttt and a flame suddenly breathed to life.

      "You're not allowed to smoke in here."

      "So you're Vowler." The man spoke with the cigarette between his teeth as he worked to light it. His voice was husky with a touch of derision. "The superintendent told me you might be dropping off your shit before the end of the shift."

      "I believe there's a designated smoking area one floor down. There's also the..."

      "I'm Hutchinson," the man interrupted as he finished his first drag. "I'm the head of the windows team." He got up slowly and stepped into the light. He was dressed in jeans and white, short-sleeved shirt loosely tucked in, and his gut tugged at the bottom. "Shut the hell up about the cigarette."

      Chastened and unsure how to proceed, Nigel silently watched the trails of smoke wander upward. He closed his eyes and visualized the sooty ash on the floor, the slight, mucomembranous coating built up on the white paint, the musty after-smell. His lips tightened.

      Hutchinson continued, "Enrique works under me. We do fine. I'm not sure that we need a third man. Where were you set up before?"

      "General indoors custodial."

      "Why'd you get moved?"

      Nigel hesitated to give Hutchinson too much information so quickly. "I... I requested it. I wanted a change of scenery."

      Snort. "You have problems playing with others? That's usually why people move."

      "I work well with my peers."

      "You do what you're told?"

      "When what I'm told is reasonable."

      Smirk. "Who decides what's reasonable? You?"

      Nigel couldn't think of an amicable response and remained silent. Mercifully, Hutchinson was undeterred. His eyes were fixed on Nigel's, as if Nigel were a lock that inexplicably would not open and was enjoying the brute challenge of prying and prodding, searching with worn and dirtied fingers and thumbs for weaknesses.

      Nigel tightened his lips again, a sign of his determination not to speak next, but as a consolation dropped his eyes to Hutchinson's cloying mouth, visibly putrid, unshaven, with coarse, solitary hairs jutting out from charred moles. He sucked again on the cigarette.

      "I don't want to dally. It's almost seven. But this is it. You want to work under me, you do what you're told. No arguing. Unreasonable or not." He paused to let his words sink in. "I know the buildings like the back of my hand and I know my business like that, too. Your business is to be my fucking squeegee, ok? You do that and my department stays in the clear, we're paid well and no one interferes."

      Nigel remained entirely still and expressionless. "I understand."

      "Report here at noon tomorrow and I'll give you the tour. You'll work with me until you've got a handle on things."

      "Good night, sir."

      As if on cue, Hutchinson bristled with pleasure and his eyes softened. "Good night." He flicked his cigarette between thumb and forefinger. Ash plunged down onto the tiled flooring.

      Nigel immediately turned on his heel and walked out the door. He marched down a long corridor toward the pair of elevators, and decided he positively hated Hutchinson, that power-monger, falsely ebullient, sans pedantry, without nuance or delicacy in words – and hence, it was clear, without the philosophical spirit that lent itself to a true, immaculate fastidiousness. How could he possibly be a professional cleaner? And how could he work with such a clumsy goon? No. Hutchinson had to go.

      And this Enrique was the key. Nigel closed his eyes and let his fingers trace the white stucco beside the call button. He would start to work tomorrow at noon.

Untitled Short Story (Part 1)

      Without fully knowing how or why, Nigel had stepped over the Rubicon, as Julius Caesar had two thousand years ago. There was nothing he could do to undo what he had done. As a matter of fact, were Nigel aware of the irreparable and unavoidable consequences of his decision, it is doubtful he would have chosen differently. He was like that.

      His boss, a rather homely woman with a prominent mid-riff, stared into the space directly up and left from his eyes, her mouth slightly agape. Perhaps God would miraculously intervene and puppeteer Ms. Galski into offering Nigel an encomium for the rare honesty she had just witnessed in her carefully manicured, window-less office. Her breath was audible and deep, and the purple buttons on the front of her rose cardigan glimmered rhythmically in the white fluorescent light. He could almost hear the fabric stretching in an obedient effort to contain her girth.

      Absent-mindedly, Nigel glanced over his shoulder to see if Galski was, in fact, looking at something. He saw on the wall by the door a framed photograph. In the center were two elderly women smiling gaily at him. One wore a bright blue sweater with two flamingos in Santa costumes, each holding a colored stocking in its beak. The other wore a white, short-sleeved blouse with green polka-dots. Why is one dressed for winter and the other for summer, he wondered as he turned back toward his superior. Perhaps she was related to them. He considered asking her but could not decide in time.

      "Mr. Vowler." She licked her lower lip in earnest. "It is unfortunate that you feel so antagonistic toward your colleagues." She swallowed and kept her eyes on the flamingos.

      "Yes, I agree." Nigel watched Galski as she scratched the inside of her thumb with her index finger with short, quick flicks.

      "Have you told them what you told me?"

      "No."

      "Are they in any way aware that you hold no respect whatsoever for them?"

      "That's not accurate." Nigel finally gave up waiting for Galski to meet his gaze, and let his eyes wander along the wall behind her. "I respect them as people. I simply don't respect them as professionals."

      "Are they aware that you do not respect them as professionals?"

      "I don't think so."

      Galski creased her brow in consternation, apparently disappointed that Nigel had not yet taken the opportunity of his short shrift. She was finding him less malleable than she had anticipated.

      He felt sorry for her and decided to offer some help. "I didn't tell them precisely because I don't respect them as professionals. They can't change. Their incompetence is..." He paused, trying to think of the appropriate word. "... plenary."

      "Yes, you have already communicated your opinion of their work." She hurried and gave the impression Nigel's opinion made her uncomfortable. She took a deep breath, and her cardigan shuddered visibly. She finally looked directly at him, and with a stentorian delivery made her formal inquiry. "Mr. Vowler, are you able to continue to work alongside your colleagues?"

He allowed himself a small smirk but matched her tone. "I cannot." Does she think I'm mocking her?

      "Do you wish to be transferred to another department?"

      "It depends who I would be working with."

      "Who do you want to work with?"
      "Professionals."

      Galski probably wanted to roll her eyes but instead let out a thick sigh. Her eyes fell to the carpet and she resumed scratching her thumb. "Do you have anything in mind?"

      Finally, he could let his guard down! An unashamed smile formed over his frowsy visage. "As a matter of fact, I do."

     And so, just as the army clamored up the river bank into Gaul to begin a decade-long war, Nigel, too, readied himself to enter a new territory and chapter of his life. The ramifications of his decision would, likewise, be war and death, the transfer of power and the remuneration of old debts - although of these eventualities both Nigel and Ms. Galski were entirely ignorant.

Film in 2011 (Part 3)

     Behold! the final six movie reviews of 2011, a comparative chart of all eighteen reviews for your convenience, and my predictions for the Academy Awards this weekend. If you missed the last six, you're welcome to check them out.
     Despite my tireless efforts, I still missed several key nominees - Albert Nobbs, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Transformers, Harry Potter Part Sixty Three - and I never did review The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, although in my opinion, it was entirely redundant - it didn't have anything to add to the 2009 Swedish iteration - so why talk about it?
     Let me state once for the record that my rating system is somewhat unusual and I leave a lot of room at the top so as to properly distinguish the merits of true classics. For more information, go here.
     Did I mention spoilers? There will be some small ones. Ok, here we go.

     A Separation. ★★★★★ (an Iranian drama and an all-time classic) It's rare that a soap opera-styled story over two hours long will keep you on the edge of your seat, but this one succeeds, and with gusto. Acting so heartfelt and camera work so transparent it feels like a documentary. The narrative seamlessly weaves together intra-familial conflict with inter-familial conflict, judicial law with Shariah law, religious piety with filial loyalty. It keeps you guessing as to who is telling the truth, and where each character's motivations truly lie. That this film was filmed and produced in Iran is a testimony to the true creative potential of a people stereotypically unimaginative and bound by censorship. It is an true opportunity to be told a story like this from a native storyteller, and I guarantee you, you will consider in depth a side of the Muslim middle east you never even knew existed. The Western world could watch a hundred more and still not possess the sympathy and understanding our fellow human beings across ocean and desert deserve. But it's a start. Nominations: Best foreign language film, Best original screenplay.

     Midnight in Paris. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) I am a lover of France, its language, culture, and the streets and places of Paris. I am also a lover of literature, poetry, and art in general. This Woody Allen film was an unexpected delight. Owen Wilson, whose acting is always somewhat surreal, fits well in the City of Light. He plays Gil, a nostalgic American writer, who climbs into a magic motorcar and escapes to 1920s France. The material is treated lightly and it's a joy to watch Gil begin to realize his true passions. We play the spectator with him as he interacts with the intellectual cusp of bygone eras and meet great authors firsthand, before the world deigned to pronounce them great, and we chuckle at the audacity of the situation, as we are meant to. We watch Gil stumble around in a life he shouldn't be living, slowly gaining the understanding and confidence he needs to break out. The music keeps the wool over our eyes and we, too, don't want to leave this magical world - but in the end, we must, and hopefully we, like Gil, recognize the tragic necessity of embracing our own world instead of pining for an illusion. Nominations: best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best art direction.

     The Help.  ★★★ (a drama deserving some acclaim) This is a bit of a tear-jerker. Emma Stone plays Skeeter Phelan, a recent graduate returning to Mississippi to care for her sick mother as she attempts to establish a career in writing and reconnect with her uppity troupe of well-to-do ladies. Seeing her old world through new eyes, she discovers the untold story of the black maids as they daily bear the brunt of racial prejudice, still at almost full force in the 1960s. Stone has her moments but in general was a questionable choice for first billing. Thankfully she is surrounded by an exceptional supporting cast, including Davis and Spencer, who carry the story as the featured maids, Aibileen and Minny. Also doing a fantastic job is Chastain, who plays a small-town girl trying unsuccessfully to live as a proper southern lady. That the story centers around the publication of a book is an unworthy frame to the real drama of these women and their true stories. As the civil rights movement unfolds before them on the television, we see them caught between two worlds and attempting to survive, yet pining for that basic human dignity almost in their grasp - and we long for them to finally take hold. Nominations: Best picture, Best actress (Viola Davis), Best supporting actress (Jessica Chastain), Best supporting actress (Octavia Spencer).
    Crazy. Stupid. Love. ★★ (a comedy probably worthy of a single viewing) I watched this film with French dubs and English subs so I can't comment on the acting. Suffice it to say that the plot is what makes this comedy great. There's one particular scene near the end where everything comes to light, and it's one of the most hilariously written in recent history. The transformations of our leading characters are fairly sudden but feel reasonably authentic - after all, love has been known to make those involved seem decidedly pathetic, as Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) confesses. Sadly, the Gosling/Carrell subplot, blessed with the movie's most talented comedic and dramatic actors, falls flat. Chalk it up to an over-used storyline. Still, though the build-up is slow, the ending is worth the wait. I might even pull it out again next Valentine's Day.  Nominations: none.

     Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. ★★ (a drama probably worthy of a single viewing) The story explores the emotional heartache of the families who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks. The central figure, stricken with Asperger Syndrome (or mild autism), in an attempt to rid himself of the pain and guilt of his loss, goes on what is essentially a scrap-booking quest through the five boroughs of New York City. Thomas Horn, the actor, really does suffer from Asperger's, which explains the credibility of his performance. Surprisingly the voice and idiosyncrasies borne from his disability render him the perfect everyman to represent the people of NYC. Alas, his quest is rather boring and unrealistic, and we discover at the end it was, actually, even more so than we'd thought along the way. Further, the same conclusion robs the story of its emotional force by effectively saying everything outright, just in case you weren't paying attention along the way. It felt cheap. So did his mother's acting. She is a completely uninspired character. So if you want to get inside an autistic boy's head, read Mark Haddon. And if you want to get incredibly close to the Twin Towers, go visit the memorial and museum at Ground Zero. This movie almost had both, and it's a shame it didn't end up delivering on either. Nominations: best picture, best supporting actor (von Sydow)

     War Horse. ★ 1/2 (a drama of negligible aesthetic and moral value) This review was written before the second half because it was already clear it wasn't going to say or do anything else. Here's my big question. How can a film be nominated for Best picture when the story is dull and the acting is terrible? Answer? Get Spielberg to direct it. With few exceptions, the actions or words don't feel like they belong in any reality other than the instinctual imagination of a director whose best days have come and gone. Sure, some of the equestrian-centered scenes are beautifully breathtaking, but that's not what makes a movie. Every line feels scripted and and mini-moral unto itself. Not once did I feel convinced that any of the characters would actually give two shits about the equine. Every character is a type and every element of plot rehashed from greater stories of long ago. Black Stallion. Black Beauty. It's as if actors were chosen for looks rather than ability and then told to move and speak as if they were on a multi-million dollar film set. To make matters worse, the story centers on the English at war with the Germans, and alternates starring cheerful peasants and fearless soldiers. And if you guessed that the German officers are heartless and the English are warm and laid-back - you'd be right. This is a film destined to say nothing because everything's already been said and everyone involved in its production knows it. I don't mind old-fashioned, but - think The Actor - even something looking old should say something new. Well. At least it's pretty. Nominations: Best picture, Best cinematography, four more. 

COMPARATIVE CHART

Title	Genre	Rating	Noms.
A Separation	Foreign Drama	★★★★★	2
Hugo	Family Drama	★★★★1/2	11
Tree of Life	Modern Drama	★★★★	3
Mid. in Paris	Modern Drama	★★★1/2	4
The Artist	Silent Drama	★★★1/2	10
Descendants	Adult Drama	★★★1/2	5
The Help	Adult Drama	★★★	4
Moneyball	Sports Drama	★★★	6
Young Adult	Modern Drama	★★★	0
Drive	Adult Action	★★★	1
Ides of March	Political Drama	★★1/2	1
Bridesmaids	Comedy	★★1/2	2
Crazy.S.Love	Comedy	★★	0
Extremely Loud	Modern Drama	★★	2
Super 8	Family Thriller	★★	0
Rango	Children's Animated	★★	1
Adjustment B.	Drama/Thriller	★1/2	0
War Horse	Drama/Action	★1/2	6

MY PREDICTIONS

Award	My choice	Winner
Best picture	Hugo	The Artist
Best director	Terence Malick (The Tree of Life)	Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
Best actor	Jean Dujardin (The Artist)	Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
Best actress	?	Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
Best supporting actor	?	Chris Plummer (Beginners)
Best supporting actress	Octavia Spencer (The Help)	Octavia Spencer (The Help)
Best original screenplay	A Separation	Midnight in Paris
Best adapted screenplay	Hugo	The Descendants
Best foreign film	A Separation	A Separation

 Who cares about the other awards, right? And anyway, in most of the other categories I didn't see many nominees - or any, in some cases.

No Child Left Behind, left behind

     It's the end of an era.
     The 2002 law dubbed No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which mandated states to set measurable standards for public school education and rendered federal funding contingent on achieving them, is no longer binding. As 2014 looms ever nearer, states may apply individually for relief from NCLB provisions, providing they demonstrate they are on track to improving education even if they won't attain freakishly high proficiency levels tomorrow in English and Math. On February 9 ten states (including Oklahoma) were granted such wavers.
     Thank God, right?
     NCLB asked every state to find a way to climb Mount Everest without telling them how or giving them any equipment. Only two years after the bill was signed into law, a series of meetings were held to identify its flaws and pave the way to its reform. 135 national organizations originally signed the Joint Organizational Statement, which recommended we:
     1. emphasize academic growth alongside objective and universal standards;
     2. move from relying solely on standardized testing to employing multiple types of assessment;
     3. find effective ways to increase accountability on all levels;
     4. design effective methods of assessment and decrease the frequency of national tests;
     5. increase quality of professional development for teachers and administrators;
     6. apply sanctions only if they don't undermine existing, effective reform efforts, and otherwise replace them with constructive interventions;
     7. ensure necessary state funding to meet federal requirements, especially with respect to schools serving low-income populations.
     20 more organizations appended their signatures since the statement was originally published.
     It's been eight years since then. With all these great recommendations and practically the whole country in agreement on them, it should be a fairly straight and sunny path to reform, right?
     Wait. What exactly has Washington done since 2004 to address the education crisis and salvage NCLB?

      2009: Race to the Top. Over $4 billion dollars of Obama's Stimulus were allocated to reward states able to execute specific educational policies and demonstrate high quality education through testing. Result? Most importantly, nearly every state adopted common national standards. Monies were split between twelve winning states, each receiving between $75 and $700 million. Certain states changed their education policies to be more competitive in the Race. (By the way, the Race is over, in case no one told you.)
     And... that's it? Sorry, President. Big speeches don't satisfy me here. The DREAM Act was never signed into law. And even if it had been, it would have joined a painfully short list of approved bills that address secondary issues. Student loans. Various re-authorizations and extensions of older legislative material. Nothing revolutionary.
     Of course, due to the current political climate, Obama has no choice but to remain largely inactive with respect to his grand promises to reform education. In this, he follows in the footsteps of those before him -- every president since... Nixon?... has promised to deliver in this area, and nevertheless, in every term education continues to stagnate. One by one, countries around the world pass the United States.
     NCLB will remain my generation's cautionary tale for education. Everyone's optimistic right now, because the general consensus is NCLB was a Big Mistake, and that admission creates possibility for the future - at least on paper. NCLB, we say, reacted impulsively and even destructively to a disappointing reality. It saw the problems, yes - but did it understand them? Did it take the time necessary to see the true nature behind the nation's failings? Like doctors, a law can address symptomatic pain or structural problems. If you see a long line of infants floating down a raging river toward a waterfall, you can wade in a save a couple babies from certain death, or you can head up the bank and stop the one who's sending them down the river in the first place.
     As an inner-city educator, what do I see? I see a lot of frustration in our students and in our teachers. I see huge administrative paychecks and little accountability. I see lot of people so used to failure that they have lost the confidence needed to step forward without stumbling backward. I see a broken network between families and schools. I see a lot of passing the buck and finding someone else to blame. I see children (who were, legally, considered property of their parents not long ago) rebelling openly against those whose vocation it is to oversee their transformation into adulthood, whose hands are tied, who are thus unable to effectively direct their own institution.
     And what, then, is the solution? As educators, we've been patient but not pragmatic. We've been dedicated but not diligent. We need to raise the teaching profession to the same level of dignity and expertise as doctors and lawyers. This, in turn, requires a complete overhaul of the way teachers are trained, and the kind of people hired to teach. Earning the responsibility to oversee the development of the mind should be no less taxing than earning the responsibility to oversee the health of the body. (After all, don't these two areas together constitute the chief evidence of a truly civilized society? Why isn't Obama putting the same energy into education that he put into health care?) Let master teachers be supported by apprentice teachers still studying for full certification. And so on.
     In terms of ongoing bureaucratic issues, well, I don't think the problems caused by unions and lobbyists and poorly-constructed hierarchies and departments can be addressed satisfactorily until our political system is reformed. Until then, money will continue to have more power in deciding the fate of our children than it deserves.
     This is my gut instinct. I'll be the first to admit that I'm still pretty ignorant about the systems that determine who and what gets funding and what rules the games are played by. When I look at countries with higher student academic achievement, the same frustrations exist but on a significantly smaller scale.
     The Joint Organizational Statement is something I'd sign, but unless we find people strong enough to create a road map of how to get there, and give them the resources and authority to do so, it's not worth the paper it was written on.

Tae Kwon Do: how to compete and win

     In the past three years I've competed in five Tae Kwon Do tournaments - and just today experienced my first as a Black belt. I didn't do as well as I'd hoped, mostly because I didn't prepare as much as I should have. Now, at least, I have some goals to meet so I can place more highly in next year's big tournament.
    While I did train in TKD as a kid, I never went to tournaments, not even to watch. I was intimidated and I felt inadequate. I've since realized that those are terrible reasons to skip competition. The only way to get better is to make risks by trying something new. The only way to overcome your fear is to face it. So now, as an adult, I started competing at the very first tournament held at our gym. And it was a big confidence booster to defeat opponents who were complete strangers, perform well under pressure, and win big trophies.
    I compete in forms and sparring and have little interest in other categories (board breaking, weapons, self-defense, etc.). Mine are the most traditional - and the most competitive - categories.
     The tournaments I attend follow the rules of the World Tae Kwon Do Federation (WTF - a great acronym, right?) with very few modifications - mostly to discourage inexperienced fighters from making too many head shots. Besides Judo (which is more like wrestling anyway), this is the only martial art that is recognized at the Olympic Games. In other words, Tae Kwon Do is a sport just as much as it is a discipline and an art form.There are standards and there are rules, and you can't just do it any way you like and expect to become successful.
     Identify your weakness and work on it every day you practice - not just when you're about to compete, but whenever you kick, imagine yourself sparring, imagine yourself doing your form, even if you're just kicking the air. Skills are mastered through intense, meaningful repetition.
     I don't pretend to be an expert, and I don't win every sparring match. But I do think about Tae Kwon Do a lot, I ask lots of questions to my senior instructors, I'm pretty observant, I'm deemed competent enough to be a corner judge or a center referee, and I've got six years' experience. So for what it's worth, here's my opinion on how to prepare yourself for a martial arts competition.

     Poomsae. To win a forms competition, your priorities are as follows, in descending order:
     1. Form. Maintain good posture. Correct stance, straight back, good angles, both feet flat on the ground, and so forth. Eyes toward your (imaginary) opponent. Take the time to develop good habits.
     2. Snap. Every movement (except for the less common slow movements) should cause your uniform to audibly sound, whether your sleeve (if you're attacking or blocking) or your pant leg (if you're kicking). This constitutes the tangible evidence that your moves have speed and power and are technically correct. The judges are listening.
     3. Understanding. Live and breathe the significance of your form. Each form has a philosophical and spiritual meaning, and each movement has practical application. Knowing the deeper concept behind the moves and focusing on it while you practice your form will result in a form that looks right.
     4. Timing. Don't be too fast or too slow. Each move should be held, frozen, for a full second, so your judges can see your posture. More than a second is unnecessary and may give the impression that you've forgotten the next move.

     Sparring. To win a sparring competition, however, your priorities are very different.
     1. Knowledge of the tournament rules. The deduction system, which is basically: no punches to the head, avoiding the match, leaving the ring, being unsafe or unsportsmanlike. The point system, which varies, but is approximately as follows: 1 for a regular attack, 2 for a head shot, +1 if you land a spinning kick, +1 if your attack knocks down your opponent. And the biggest thing is what counts as a point. Most 90-second rounds have dozens of kicks, but only a handful of points. Parents and competitors get really angry because they think the score should be three zillion to two zillion.
     2. Speed. Your kicks need to be like lightening. The fastest kick is the roundhouse so you should be doing some variation of that 90% of the time. And your blocks (for head or chest) need to be nearly as fast. You need to be able to move in and out of the "danger zone" (in kicking range) like lightening, too. Speed requires surprise. Learn not to telegraph your moves with tells, which warn your opponent as to your intentions.
     3. Endurance. Be in shape - enough for two intense back-back 90-second rounds (or two minutes for adult Black belts). Don't waste your energy by being overly aggressive. Relax. You don't want to tire first.
     4. Control. Don't get hurt by overextending or throwing a power kick into your opponent's elbow. Be smart. Leave emotion outside of the ring - don't get angry. Don't get scared. You've trained your body into a living weapon - to some degree or another - and you have to think of your body that way.
     5. Strategy. Look for an opening. Wait for your opponent to make a move, dodge or block it, and counter. Fake. Execute different kinds of attacks. Don't punch unless you can knock down your opponent. Don't do jumping or spinning kicks unless you're countering and capitalizing on an opponent's mistake. Don't even kick unless you expect to get a point. Any kick that is blocked or only hits air is a waste of your energy, and even worse, could set up your opponent to score a point, while you're off-balance or in a forward position.
     6. Power. If you can hurt your opponent, even if you don't score a point, you're more likely to score a point next time. If you can knock out your opponent, it doesn't matter how many points they have - you win. Note:for colored belts or young fighters, don't try to hurt your opponent if you're bigger or stronger than them - and full contact to the head is against WTF tournament rules.

Rage against the music industry: Grammy report

     "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." -Rhett Butler, Gone with the Wind
     Ok, maybe that's not as true as it once was. Nearly 40 million tuned in to watch the Grammy Awards this year, the second most-viewed in its fifty-four year run, and 50% higher than in 2011.
     More important than viewer volume are significant and long-overdue changes that will take effect in 2013. Last year music executive Steve Stoute became the unofficial Voice of Reason when he paid $40,000 to run a full-page open letter in the New York Times, addressed to NARAS (the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, i.e. The Academy) and its president, Neil Portnow. In it he complained that the Grammy Awards, in an attempt to be a popular show, has lost touch with popular culture and has failed to correct strong prejudices against cultural shifts in art form.
     The Academy responded and is now on track to make amends. Fewer categories. A cleaner and fairer voting process. Still, it's irritating that alternative music is recognized in all of one award, and most other categories get at least four. Ironically there's more innovation here and more independent albums released in this genre than any other. About half the music reviews on Metacritic would only be eligible for this one award, besides the general awards.
     Recording Academy President/CEO Neil Portnow says that the Grammy award is chosen by fellow music professionals (not fans) and is thus highly regarded. He also says that half of the entries last year were independently produced, and that there's a lot of talent in that field. Then why are they reluctant to give more of these artists more of the actual awards? Shouldn't the ratio of entries to genre-specific awards be somewhat consistent from genre to genre? Portnow says it's complicated. I believe that much.
     Here's what the powers-that-be did think was spicy-hot. Adele won Record of the year, Album of the year, Song of the year, Best pop solo performance, Best pop album, and Best short form music video. Everything she was nominated for, she won. Stoute, tweeting live from the show, was happy with the result, but felt that hip hop was not getting the same respect as pop. I'll agree to that, and extend the bias to other genres, too. High production value, right?

 

     Let's look specifically at rock. The Foo Fighters were nominated for six and won five. Wasting Light wasn't a bad album, but it certainly wasn't the greatest alternative / rock / non-pop achievement of 2011. On the Metacritics poll it ranked 19th. That's a big disconnect, people.
     On the other hand, I'm glad Bon Iver was honored as the best up-and-coming artist and won Best alternative music album. I'm glad Mumford & Sons were honored with nominations for both Album of the tear and Song of the tear. I'm glad Alisson Krauss won Best bluegrass album and I'm glad South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone won Best musical theater album for The Book of Mormon. All this is evidence that NARAS is cleaning up its act.
     But if I was ready to give a damn about the Grammy Awards, I'd still be disappointed in the great talent that was barely mentioned or ignored entirely. El Camino by the Black Keys. Let England Shake by PJ Harvey. St. Vincent's Strange Mercy. Not a single nomination for any of them - yet ranked #3, #5 and #8, respectively, in Metacritic's User Poll for the best overall music albums of 2011. Pitchfork's user 2011 lists aren't much different: St Vincent is 6th, PJ Harvey is 8th, Black Keys (oddly) comes in at 29th. And I'm sure if I was more familiar with the year's music, many more discrepancies like these would readily present themselves. Let me predict that St. Vincent might soon rank among the likes of Lady Gaga and Adele in terms of fame and acclaim.
     Not even mentioning other albums I personally loved but failed to garner the same widespread acclaim (such as TV on the Radio's Nine Types of Light, Yuck's debut eponymous, Mother Mother's Eureka), why is there an ongoing disconnect between the Grammy Awards and the peasant audiophile?
     Interestingly, a similar distance exists between film lovers and the Academy Awards - but in this case it's manageable. The same Metacritic poll cited earlier shows that out of the top twenty films of 2011, three were snubbed - Melancholia at #8, 50/50 at #10, and Source Code at #19. Well, since most award categories are limited to five nominations, a few could be easily missed. (Coincidentally, two of the three are Sci-fi thrillers. Prejudice?) But more significantly, there are fewer Oscars to award (only 24!), there are very few genre-specific categories, and none of the top five popular picks were snubbed. As opposed to two (or 40%!). Are the fans really so misguided?
     To clarify, we're not talking about music and film of greatest "critical acclaim." Rotten Tomatoes lists the top 100 movies of the year according to professional movie-reviewers. Most of them I've never heard of, much less seen. And only a handful received nominations. I think that's fine. There are many films that don't make a box office showing or are released in very few theaters. There are oodles of great documentaries and short films most people will never watch. That's a different issue. I'd never expect these televised award ceremonies to cater to the artistic elite. I would just expect a greater agreement between critical acclaim and popular opinion. Production value be damned (in a perfect world).
     And we're all aware that neither ceremony picks nominees and winners based on a clear and objective rubric. You gotta pay your respects, yo. If Radiohead packaged their own vomit in vinyl and plastic, it'd still get a nomination somewhere. On the other hand, the Oscars are no less political. Think Spielberg and Transformers - neither it (3 nominations) nor War Horse (six nominations) even broke Metacritics' top 20.
     Perhaps the shortcomings of the Grammy Awards can be explained numerically. After all, 35,000-40,000 albums, EPs and singles are released each year, but less than 1,000 new films are shown in theaters. The playing field is so much bigger, so a lot of greatness is missed almost of necessity.
    Whatever the reason for its existence, the disconnect between the audiophile and the music industry continues to exist, and consequently most music nerds continue to snub the ceremony, if for no other reason than to exact some vengeance on the institution that first snubbed a highly significant and personally favored artist.
     That's life.
     Some forgiveness might be at hand, were NARAS to create a category to honor innovation and experimentation. Even if the final product didn't have the same glossy finish as so many radio-ready Pop and R&B singles, at least the monied community would be supporting the advancement of its own art form. After all, art by its very nature is constantly evolving. Sadly, when an institution throws all its accolades at traditional forms, money follows fame, and evolution is slowed, if not stopped. And if the powers-that-be don't give a shit about that, then why should anyone with half a brain tune in anyway?
     I think that's why I didn't. Maybe next year.

Acts of God (Part 2)

     As promised, behold! the second and final set of natural disasters, each rated in terms of:

1. chance of pants-, uhh, sullying (CPS),

2. wake of destruction (WOD),

3. badass requirement for survival (BRS).

     If you didn't catch the first installment, read it first! At the end of this post you can find a table useful for comparative analysis. You are welcome to agree - or disagree! - with my conclusions, provided you've already accepted that your conclusions are wrong.
     So, without further ado...

Earthquake (tremor): the shaking of the ground caused by a sudden release of seismic energy in the earth's crust.

CPS 80% A fissure in the ground itself - reaching to the very depths of hell?? No one's comfortable with the idea of falling down one of them. Worse than that is the distortion of reality. Everything around you shaking. You can't see the danger, you have no idea where it might be safe - and these come without warning, despite ongoing efforts to discover a scientific means of prediction. The moment a vibration begins, you freeze like a deer caught in headlights, trying to figure out if it's just a passing truck. Aww, shit. It's not.

WOD 50% We've been told that the Big One is going to sink half of California. Not to mention earthquakes can in some cases cause volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, avalanches, and probably wildfires, too, if power lines were to fall down. However, a single earthquake isn't gonna do it all - either tsunamis or huge gaping fissures, not both. You'll probably still be able to drive your car - just be extra careful of potholes.

BRS 70% Sorry, kids, but hiding underneath your school desk just isn't going to cut it. Without working electricity, water and gas, the world is essentially turned into a post-apocalyptic zombie fest. While it's happening, you have to jump from side to side to avoid heavy things crushing you. And afterward, cleaning up sucks, but you may not even have the option if a gas line has been ruptured and your home suddenly catches fire. And if you're away from civilization, as we know from Descent, even a simple cave-in can trap you in the darkness with dozens of hungry human-like creatures.
Total score: 200

Viral epidemic (pandemic): An unstoppable outbreak of a new or unusual disease in a large human population not localized to a particular region.

CPS 80% Depends what the virus does, and so many possibilities exist. Children of Man came slowly but decisively; 28 Days Later and I Am Legend came swiftly and biting your face. Most seem to turn ordinary postal workers into violent and angry denizens of an ever-growing zombie army. (Well, maybe not so unfamiliar after all!) Regardless, a virus is another invisible foe, and worse still, one who attacks from the inside and the outside. The flu isn't scary, but the flu that causes you to eat your dog's genitals is another matter.

WOD 50% Human civilization? Gone. Everything else? Eerily intact. The only hope is to establish a quarantine area in time, but by the time you've slowed down an epidemic you've typically let it spread to multiple continents.

BRS 100% This has the potential to be absolutely the most demanding survival test of all time. Not everyone's infected, but the majority are, but you can't always see who is and who isn't. You have to become completely self-sufficient, yet still looking for friends. And once they've all died off, you are king of the world!
Total score: 230

Gamma ray burst (GRB): an explosion from another solar system in our galaxy, cooking the earth with radiation.

CPS 30% No one talks about this one. There's not really anything we could do about it. If it were to happen, we'd see a bright light flash, equivalent to a second sun. People would make inquiries, and our leaders would be reluctant to tell us what happened - at least until we had trouble breathing. Suffocating at an almost imperceptibly slow speed without knowing why might not be a bad way to go, actually.

WOD 100% In the unlikely event that a burst were to occur close enough to our solar system to affect us, the Nitrogen Oxide produced would destroy the Ozone layer. Just apply more sun block, right? Tell that to the countless trillions of photosynthetic plankton in the oceans that provide well over half of earth's oxygen. After that, the food chain must somehow reconstitute itself, a process that probably won't happen fast enough to stop us all from starving to death.

BRS 10% Even the biggest badass needs food to survive. The only human beings that might survive this one are scientific minds who find a way to turn rocks into hamburgers, or figure out how to individually coat each little plankton with sun screen. It'd have to be the water-proof kind, too - none of that cheap stuff.
Total score: 140

Plague of locusts: normally solitary grasshoppers swarming by the billions

CPS 60% People who are afraid of giant flying bugs (and that's most people) will be absolutely horrified. Thankfully, you can shut the door until they pass. But that doesn't stop the incessant buzzing, which I doubt many home stereo systems could block out. Not to mention the particularly biblical flavor of this disaster - Prince of Egypt-style, right? If you believe God's out on a warpath, you're going to be trembling even if you're safely inside.

WOD 60% Locusts eat their body mass each day. Which means a swarm a billion strong, each weighing about two grams, consume two million kilograms daily. They will consume nearly any food crop, including pearl millet, rice, maize, sorghum, sugarcane, barley, cotton, fruit trees, date palm, vegetables, rangeland grasses, acacia, pines, and banana. Did I mention their feces are toxic? Can you imagine how much there'd be? Bleh. The famine that follows will devastate any pre-industrial civilization. I guess that means we're ok.

BRS 30% Well, I guess you're gonna be hungry, and you might starve unless you can stomach locust droppings or kill that fatted calf in the back yard. Scrounging for food doesn't sound very badass to me. Eating grasshopper poop even less so. No wonder there's never been a successful film about it.
Total score: 150

Impact event (asteroid collision): the earth's collision of a sizable meteor or comet.

CPS 70% Since this has never happened in our lifetime it's difficult to be afraid. Or maybe it's that much easier. Deep Impact, right? Humanity panics, riots break out, the government starts putting all the scientists and professors and artists (only the good ones) in caves. People who aren't chosen are entitled to soil themselves. Still, you might not even see the asteroid coming, much less hit. And its effects would take hours to manifest themselves over the entire planet.

WOD 90% Well, life as you know it is over. If a big one hits (think Melancholia). Thankfully, none is expected until 2880, and hopefully the scientists are right. But what do they care? They know they'll be safe in the underground bunkers a mile below the surface with six gazillion frozen dinners. This remains the most likely cause of the human race's extinction. If the asteroid hits land, a dust cloud blocks out all sunlight for years, basically equivalent to a global nuclear winter - extinction. If it hits water, we get tsunamis and a lot of extra rain, minor earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - no extinction.

BRS 90% In the worst case - a ground impact - I'm thinking something like The Postman, where the world's a desert inhabited by violent tribal societies? Governmental control goes to hell after the bullets and the hot dogs run out, and after fifty or a hundred years of rotting inside a cave, people get impatient and come back out. Then we finally get down to business - survival of the badassest.
Total score: 250

	Chance for Pants-Shitting	Wake of Destruction	Badass Requirement for Survival	Total
tsunami	90	60	40	190
hurricane	40	80	20	140
tornado	100	30	50	180
wildfire	50	30	80	160
eruption	90	70	80	210
earthquake	80	50	70	200
epidemic	80	50	100	230
gamma rays	30	100	10	140
locusts	60	60	30	150
impact event	70	90	90	250

And the winner goes to: impact event, by a nose!
Runner-up: viral epidemic.
Scariest : tornado.
Most destructive: gamma ray burst.
Most challenging: viral epidemic.

Film in 2011 (Part 2)

     The 84th Academy Awards are awarded in two weeks. This year I've decided to attempt to watch the Oscars with an awareness of the nominees, and my own set of expectations. However, since there are about twenty films of interest nominated for important awards, I've definitely got my work cut out for me.
     I've already seen and discussed six titles up for nominations (or not). Here are my personal reviews of six more. I've seen all these films exactly once and have not read any professional reviews to inform my opinion. "It's all me," in the words of Mr. Kruger.
     The final set of six I plan to review before February 26 are War Horse, The Help, Midnight in Paris, The Muppets, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and A Separation. I'm working on it. I'll also include my own nominations (and predictions). Stay tuned for this final installment.

     The Tree of Life. ★★★★ (a drama deserving universal acclaim) During a recent interview, Daily Show host Jon Stewart told Brad Pitt, "I've seen it five times and still have no idea what it's about." Well, I do, and I plan to revisit it in more depth in the near future. Basically it's somewhere between Steinbeck's East of Eden and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Its subject matter is as ambitious as its title, and it's too bad that will make it inaccessible to most of the people who have seen it. Its dramatic and endless montages will confuse viewers and make them uncomfortable; its scrutiny into the truth of the 1950s American Dream lifestyle will leave them morose and disillusioned. For me, it became gripping with a small act of defiance, and after that I was sitting on the edge of my seat. Between this movie and Hugo, I'm starting to expect children to possess the acting skills their roles deserve (and soon I will wish I was unfettered from this foolish dream). Spectacular performances from all leading roles. Beautiful cinematography depicting the natural environment, which is intended simultaneously as fact and marvel, given the film's message. Grace beats nature, we're told in the opening. Keep that in the forefront of your mind and you won't stray far from the point of it all. Nominations: best picture, best director, best cinematography.

     The Artist. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) My opinion here doesn't matter much, since I've never seen an actual silent movie from the early twentieth century. I'd think I'd need to, if I wanted to fully appreciate what French director Hazanavicius is doing. At the same time, most modern viewers probably haven't seen a single silent film, either, so we're all in the same boat. I was impressed at how well the story was told without hearing the characters speak. I was also impressed at the ways in which the story plays with the concept of silence, especially how it's used as a window into the eroding psyche of the title character. The acting was impeccable and the climax will have you second-guessing your better judgment. And I'll never forget that exploding feather. In terms of what it was trying to achieve it was undoubtedly successful, although personally it doesn't suit my tastes - I am and will remain happily addicted to sound. Nominations: best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best actor (Dujardin), best supporting actress.

     Moneyball. ★★★ (a drama deserving some acclaim) I love sports movies and I loved this one. It's a feel-good film, a story of doubt followed by success, with a few water coolers thrown across the room in between for good measure. Not to mention it's based on a true story, which for me is a bright red cherry on top. Solid acting. Jonah Hill's ability in this regard has grown so much since Superbad, and Brad Pitt deserves some sort of extra award for starring in two very different movies that both deserve such high acclaim. As his character struggles with ongoing defeat both in past and present, we find that we too want his luck to finally change. The irony is that his method isn't supposed to leave anything to chance. The best scene, though, is one in which he's haggling and bluffing to buy or trade for undervalued players. Nominations: best picture, best actor (Pitt), best supporting actor (Hill), best adapted screenplay, 2 more.

     The Ides of March. ★★ 1/2 (a drama probably worthy of several viewings) Good writing made great by strong acting all around. Still, for the first hour, this film is nothing more than a glorified West Wing episode. Politicking on the phone, walking in pairs while hammering out polling data and strategies, the candidate's choice to be honest or cunning. Then the heat's turned up, and by the final scene you are face to face with the inherent corruption everyone playing the political game confronts. In this regard, Ides is a tale of defeat, but one in which the viewer is not allowed to judge too harshly - reminiscent of The Flaming Lips' opening track on At War with the Mystics, "The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song (With all your Power)". The movie doesn't bite off more than it can chew. In this regard it almost feels as if it was produced independently, and might even pass as such if it were stripped of its glossy finish and all-star cast. A particularly suitable film to see before the Republican presidential nomination is decided this summer. Nominations: best adapted screenplay.

     Bridesmaids. ★★ 1/2 (a comedy funny for several viewings) The Hangover for the ladies. Well, not nearly as over the top. This film needed some tightening - two hours is a bit much - but you won't regret spending an evening watching a psychopathic maid of honor reach rock bottom. Funny, especially Melissa McCarthy, who plays the equivalent of the "Alan Garner," and is equally revolting and obnoxious. While all the characters and their interweaving relationships are fairly stereotyped, I didn't find it jarring, since the characters don't take themselves too seriously, either. A good comedy needs to be consistent in this respect. You'll love, pity, and despise the women who populate the screen, but more than anything, you'll be eagerly anticipating the next hilarity. Nominations: best supporting actress (McCarthy).

     Super 8. ★★ (a thriller perhaps worthy of a single viewing) Proof that it's always dangerous to cast children in lead roles. These ones are better than, say, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, but not good enough to make me care about what happens to them. The scary parts aren't scary enough, the sappy parts don't quite hit home, the funny parts fall flat. Is it supposed to be a real disaster flick or just a light-hearted imitation of one? The director, J. J. Abrams (Cloverfield, TV show Lost), can't seem to decide. The film works best before everything goes crazy, but the actors struggle to express an appropriate sense of fear and frustration. They're too comfortable with an extremely dangerous and utterly foreign situation. The mysterious accident that starts the movie moving and the strange disappearances that pepper the opening act keep you guessing, but others seem awkward and unclear as to their significance (e.g. dogs fleeing en masse for dozens of miles). The best part is during the closing credits, when you finally get to see the film you've really been waiting for. And that one does not disappoint. Shortlisted for best visual effects.