Teaching Liberty

January 4, 2010

Following the diaper bomber’s attempt to blow up a plane with explosives in his underwear, there has been a flurry of news articles about what English universities have done or should do to curtail the radicalization of their students.  According to this piece in the WSJ, the British government adopted a program in 2008 to curtail radicalization called “Promoting Good Campus Relations, Fostering Shared Values and Preventing Violent Extremism in Universities and Higher Education Colleges.” 

Reading about this I started to wonder whether the appreciation of liberty, tolerating the words and actions of people with whom one disagrees, is something that can be taught.  Is the love of liberty natural in the sense that people will value liberty without any external encouragement or conditioning?  If not, how do people learn to value liberty?  Can schools play a role in promoting liberty?  If so, what does a liberty curriculum look like?

I’m interested in hearing what everyone thinks.


Creative Destruction Uber Alles!

December 31, 2009

 (Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

And the winner of the Aughts is….GOOGLE! Chris Thompson account of Google’s decade reminds me of a bands name: And You Will Know Us by Our Trail of Dead. Thompson concludes:

In industry after industry, by offering services for nothing, Google has metastasized the modern economic dilemma: Everything is free, but no one has a job. This was probably inevitable, and maybe we should thank Google for forcing us to face reality now, and in such a dramatic fashion. But as we look back on the last 10 years, one thing is clear: Google should change its slogan from “Don’t be evil” to “Be everywhere.”

Now if these guys would team up with Oxford to offer free university degrees…

Happy New Year!


Pass the Popcorn: Time to Get UP!

December 30, 2009

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Over Christmas I finally saw UP with my mom and brother. They both thought it was as good as anything Pixar has ever done. At least on first impression, I’m more inclined to agree with Marcus that it’s not quite as good as the very best Pixar has ever done, but it’s close.

But I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks, and here’s why. What I think is holding this movie back from being quite as good as Toy Story 2 or Finding Nemo is its somewhat less organized plot structure. Like Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo, UP has a main character who needs to learn something about the meaning of life, and over the course of the movie he learns it. But while UP is an oustanding movie, I felt that it didn’t “earn” its moment of epiphany quite as well as its predecesscors. A little more careful organization of the plot leading up to the epiphany might have put it over the line into the top circle.

However! On second thought, it occurred to me that a careful “earning” of the epiphany may not suit the particular subject matter UP has chosen to treat. As you’ve no doubt picked up, UP is a movie about the desire for adventure. And I won’t be spoiling anything if I tell you that it’s especially about the masculine form of this desire. Other than the protagonist’s wife, who appears only in flashback, the only female “character” on the screen is a big squawking bird. And the bird is very distinctively an animal rather than a character with personality. Her animal-ness is constantly obtrusive; we’re never allowed to think of her as even a quasi-person. By contrast, the dogs we encounter (all of them male) are very deliberately personalized. The female is not devalued in this movie; it just happens to be a movie about something that is distinctive to the male.

And part of the distinctive masculinity of this movie is the way important things are understood without having to be said. If you’ve seen the movie, I’m thinking in particular of the moment when Carl is first called upon to fulfill the promise he made to Russell; the moment when he first has to choose between fulfilling that promise and fulfilling another promise he made to someone else; and the moment when he changes his mind. In most movies, each of those moments would have required a lot of dialogue or a long soliloquy. In UP, the first and third involve no dialogue at all, and the second involves only a few very short lines from Russell – Carl says nothing about his decision. Russell understands Carl without anything needing to be spoken.

So I’m open to the possibility that this particular movie may be better without the clearly organized buildup to the epiphany. Before I decide, I’d like to see it again knowing from the beginning what it’s all about and where it’s going.

But in any case it looks like I’m going to need to offer a thorough repentence of my guardedness about this movie before it came out. I was cautious partly for supersitious reasons (with every other Pixar movie I hated the trailer and loved the movie, but with this one I loved the trailer so I was afraid I’d hate the movie) and partly because the creative team – Pete Docter and Bob Peterson – was untested. But Andrew Stanton was untested until he made Finding Nemo.

Looking back, I’d say this is more vindicated than ever. It’s clear that Pixar is not just about John Lasseter. He was its founding father, and let’s give credit where it’s due. But the continued maturation of creative teams able to reproduce what Lasseter did proves that Pixar is not a man, Pixar is a business model. And it’s the best one to come down the pike in Hollywood since the studio system broke up.

One more housekeeping note. As I feared, it does appear that anyone who saw UP is eligible for a rebate on this.


Worst. Decade. Ever.

December 29, 2009

At least since the 90s, so says Reason TV.  It’s not nearly the erudite conversation we had assessing this decade, but it’s still pretty, darn funny.  Enjoy.

[HT: Patrick Gibbons]


Pass the Popcorn: Taking Chance

December 28, 2009

(Guest post by Jonathan Butcher)

It’s rare that I make it to the theaters to see a new release.  So, in a house sans Netflix, my wife and I work our way through the DVD rack at the library.  My browsing consists of the 1.5 seconds I get in front of the shelves to find something that’s either a) not a sequel or b) isn’t starring someone who just got out of rehab (or prison) before my 2-year-old empties the bottom shelf of foreign films onto the floor.

At the library last week, I miraculously snatched something from my “must see” list and a romantic comedy with one swipe.  Only after I got home did I realize that the romcom (Music and Lyrics) actually stars a leading man who has a mug shot and a female co-star who’s been to rehab–a twofer!

However, it’s the other film I picked up that gets a blog post: Taking Chance, starring Kevin Bacon.  The rest of the cast of this film is unremarkable, save for the brief but meaningful appearance from Tom Wopat (better known as Luke Duke from the Dukes of Hazard) and a quick spot from Matthew Morrison, star of the FOX series Glee.  Bacon is Lt. Col. Mike Strobl, a Marine escorting a fallen Marine’s body (PFC Chance Phelps) home from Iraq for burial.

 

What is remarkable about Chance is that the film was released in January 2009, well into the media’s apathetic phase of war coverage–even past the antagonistic phase.  Yet the film is startlingly authentic and bravely patriotic.  It holds both of these qualities without pressing for the viewer’s political stance.  The film, a made-for-TV piece produced by HBO, is possibly the most watchable 75 minutes of sincere acting and dialogue I’ve ever seen.  So much about this story could have been manipulated to be uncomfortable, awkward, or confrontational, but it did not wallow in any of these.

The sequence of events and the performance of the actors was reasonable to the point of predictable but it was not sterile.  Bacon is a caring, responsible father who has less than five minutes of total screen time with his children in the whole film–but those moments are rationed so well that nothing is wasted.  As he leaves the house for his trip, we see him scribble quick notes to both of his children on a sticky pad, press them on a package of snack cakes and tuck them in his children’s backpacks.  As he walks to his car, he picks his son’s bike up off of the lawn and stands it up by the porch (an act he repeats at the end, on his return home).  That’s it.  All of the interactions, up to the final scenes with Chance’s family, are like this–carefully scripted so that a few facial features and gestures and a precious few lines of dialogue convey precisely the correct emotion.

The airline representative who moves Strobl up to first class for his flight says, “Thank you.”  Bacon carefully looks back at her, pauses, then gives a short nod and walks away.  The gesture is appreciated and takes just long enough for the viewer to understand what has happened yet not long enough for you to writhe with awkward sympathy.  The screenplay is artfully done and doesn’t rely on pages and pages of dramatic dialogue to get its point across.

Yet dialogue is used well at the appropriate points.  In a short conversation with a veteran the night prior to Chance’s funeral service, Strobl has a moment of self-pity regarding his safe assignment behind a desk but is snapped back to reality with a few lines from the veteran.  The script is treated as a precious commodity, used sparingly and directly.

This is such a welcome change from the typical Hollywood fare that that spends an hour and a half dragging you through tired explanations of feelings and, as is becoming the trend, awkward sequences meant to make you squirm at bizarre attempts at humor.  At one point, on the final leg of the trip, as Strobl drives in a rental car behind the hearse, cars begin to pass the hearse on the left along a narrow stretch of road through the mountains.  Accustomed to drama, perhaps, or dreading an unwelcome twist meant to spice up the plot, I was ready for a car accident or a semi-trailer skidding across the road–or even for the casket to fly out of the back of the hearse.  But in a quick series of three frames, we see a line of cars turn their lights on before and behind the hearse and Strobl’s car, forming a short, spontaneous funeral procession.  And the strangers don’t suddenly become a part of the plot, following the hearse all the way to the funeral; the scenes involve a few frames with probably a dozen cars, and then the story moves on.

The plot is touching, and even if it had mediocre cinematography and an average script it would be worth seeing if for no other reason that its respectful treatment of the military, especially with Hollywood’s growing list of films with questionable (at best) portrayals of of the U.S. military.  But in addition to an excellent story, beautiful cinematography and a rational dialogue is a sense of respect for the subject and viewer.  No shots are wasted, no lines are superfluous, and no plot elements are left hanging.  The film is worth seeing both for its subject and for the care involved in the writing and editing.


Pass the Clicker — Stories in 60 Seconds

December 25, 2009

Some ads are pure genius.  In 30 or 60 seconds they can tell stories that capture the human experience more beautifully than many 2 hour movies (certainly better than Avatar does in 3 hours).

Check out the ad above for Coke and Wal-Mart.  Yes, it’s sappy.  But so are many movies.  What’s great is the way this ad captures certain relationships with little more than a gesture and a look in a few seconds.  I particularly like meeting his best friend and the on-line date.  Notice how the best-friend puts his arm around the date and she reacts uncomfortably and then relaxes, just like someone would on a first date. 

I also think the protagonist’s declaration of love for the first girl he ever kissed is just brilliant.  Notice how she is clearly there with her boyfriend and they are both shocked by his declaration.  She is then flattered and the boyfriend is diminished.

These are essential parts of the human experience and they are captured in just seconds.  Think about how many takes they probably had to do to get it just right.  Think about the acting skill involved.  This is art.


Pass the Popcorn — Nazis Need Killin’

December 24, 2009

I finally saw Inglourious Basterds and entirely agree with Matt’s earlier review.  My concern with past QT films is that they aren’t really about anything other than references to other pop culture.  It’s cool just for the sake of cool and that grates on me.

But this movie has all of those pop culture references and cool but it also has what I think is a real message — Nazis do need killin’, as Brad Pitt’s character says.  Some critics have picked up on this theme and find it morally repulsive.  I find it morally profound.  If we can’t identify evil in the world and enthusiastically destroy it, then we are really denying that good and evil exist.  I prefer a world in which there are bands of Jewish GIs roaming the French countryside killing Nazis.


Merry State-Secret Christmas!

December 23, 2009

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

On top of the administration’s penchant for government control of newspapers and creating bogus “emergencies” in order to claim emergency powers, now the indispensable Andy McCarthy brings us the news that it has quietly signed an executive order to permit Interpol (the international criminal justice organization) to operate in the U.S. totally immune from all U.S. law, including the Constitution itself.

In addition to all the obvious threats this raises – such as the denying of basic civil rights to targets of Interpol’s investigations, and Interpol’s close relationship with foreign governments and international agencies hostile to the United States – McCarthy also notes that the executive order means Interpol archives, housed in the Justice Department, will be exempt not only from FOIA or any other form of transparency, but even from subpoena by Congress or the courts.

McCarthy asks:

Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

And these people think they’re the guardians of civil rights and we’re the aspiring tyrants!

Merry Christmas. Hope you’re all still here in the New Year.


Metaphor Alert!

December 22, 2009

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Priceless video of Gordon Brown, with great ceremonial pomposity, leading Al Gore into a closet.

Update: Watch their faces as they come out. Brown, to his great credit, is laughing his hiney off. Gore still has his game face on. Like the fate of the treaty depends on his not looking bad as he walks down the hallway. Then, after what feels like an eternity, he seems to realize that he’ll look like an idiot if he doesn’t smile. So he scruches his face up into a sort of smile-like contortion.

HT Daily Telegraph, via Mark Steyn


Mike Thomas: Florida Teacher Unions Contemplate Hari Kari

December 22, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel points out the beyond-the-pale hypocrisy of Florida’s teacher unions in standing against Florida’s Race to the Top application.  Money quote:

If the Florida Education Association manages to block this grant, the political fallout will be brutal. Florida has an 11.5 percent unemployment rate. It is losing more jobs than any state in the union.

Given all that, imagine the headline: Teachers’ union blocks $700 million for schools.

Followed by the headline: Schools face $515 million shortfall.