The original publishing of this post contained a spelling error in the name of the film reviewer mentioned. The error has since been corrected.

Consequence of Sound  is an entertainment site that I follow quite closely. I read some of their posts daily, and usually find the site a reliable arbiter of tastes that mesh nicely with my own. When I saw Blake Goble’s review of 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi cycle into my RSS feed, I was anticipating a carefully constructed, dispassionate dissection of Michael Bay’s latest effort. Instead, I was treated to the ramblings of a reviewer loudly disparaging a popular movie based almost solely on its challenges to his worldview and a review that only resorted to movie craft critique in the smallest of places.

Blake Goble’s CoS review can be found here. 

It should first be said that asking a movie reviewer to render an entirely objective analysis is a bit like asking a dog not to bark. Film review, I would concede, no doubt falls under the category of opinion journalism. But for my money, “F” grades from reviewers penning subtitles like “unwatchable, unlikeable, and unworthy of respect” are reserved for media barely qualifying as film. These are sentiments to be applied to movies with no discernable elements of style, tone, or story. Goble has not so much reviewed 13 Hours for what it is as he has lambasted it for espousing themes he finds objectionable and dangerous.

First, credit where credit is due: Goble’s lamenting of the shot Bay stole from himself is justified. The “top-down tracking shot of a falling bomb” actually had its place in an otherwise awful Pearl Harbor, delivering the opening volley to the anticipated violence the audience knew was inevitable. In 13 Hours its inclusion is simply a superfluous CGI indulgence. Goble was good to point out the laziness in the inconsistency of daylight in scenes supposedly telling a story in chronological order. There is also a great deal of Hollywood overdramatics present, as Michael Bay and company are wont to commit. Goble noted this, too. I’m not sure why Bay insisted on computer generated gore. Is he too good for corn syrup and red food dye? The Mexican standoff early in the film is needlessly included. It is indeed possible to create drama in a military flick without enemies pointing weapons at each other and not using them. You would think the screenwriter (an award-winning novelist behind Prince of Thieves, upon which the Affleck-helmed The Town is based) might understand this. 

Fortunately, it’s also possible to render a reasonably negative review without resorting to hysterics. Here’s one for comparison. 

In his opening paragraph, Goble hurls an insult at the “Oz” character and, by extension, the film. The insult? “Oz” likes shitty beer:

He’s been shooting Libyans all damn night, he’s been stuck on the roof of this compound in Benghazi, he’s probably all out of Budweiser (but not ammo), and he is bushed.

This does a great job in setting the tone for the following review. More importantly, it lets me as a reader know that this reviewer has already decided that the characters he will be evaluating don’t deserve his respect, regardless of how well or how poorly the filmmakers developed them. He eventually makes some fair observations about the film’s characters and their lack of depth, but not before ensuring his readers know what they are in essence: hyper-masculine, swill-imbibing morons.

That’s some poor trigger discipline, John.

As I’ve already mentioned, the Mexican standoff scene was a bit silly. The same drama could easily have been conveyed by having the protagonists deliver the same dialogue about the drone overhead (that may or may not exist) while simultaneously reaching for the sky so as to avoid their hasty execution. Goble is again correct in implying the needless Hollywood-ness of the scene, but in earlier paragraphs also wishes some elements of “Saving Private Ryan’s sincere attempts at jangled realism” were present in the film. Interesting, then, that the Spielberg picture he mentions contains the same Hollywood-ized standoff within its frames:

Goble also seems rather incensed by the notion that, to the contracted CIA security personnel stationed in Benghazi, “Everyone in the country is a potential suspect.” Now I’m not a military security specialist, but I kind of assume this is how I would operate were I bounding about the streets of a Middle Eastern country that recently deposed its dictator, some of whose people are pretty openly hateful towards my countrymen, all the while hearing heavy machine gun fire popping off a mile away from me.

You see, one of the unfortunate side effects of allowing one’s preconceived notions about the world to get in the way of one’s ability to evaluate a piece of film is that the empathy for the plight of the characters becomes prematurely absent. Gone before the studio logos are rolling is the ability for the reviewer to effectively suspend his or her disbelief, particularly in lightly fictionalized accounts of actual events. One no longer feels compelled to imagine how they might behave if they found themselves in one of the macho army men’s shoes.

At the end of the day, then, these are the Blake Goble’s justifications for an “F” rating: This is a Michael Bay film, so this film is unwatchable; guys who carry firearms for a living are soulless, dimwitted meatheads motivated only by bloodthirst, so this film is unlikable; the film is unrealistic, so this film is unworthy of respect.

Of course, Goble has a right to his opinion, and he has a job writing at a respectable entertainment site…so what do I know?

I am by no means an authority on film. I did not study it at university and I have no formal training in its discipline. These are simply the writings of a hobbyist moviegoer. I am certainly guilty of holding similar prejudices to that which I’ve accused Mr. Goble. I’ve spoken with friends and colleagues many times about this proclivity. When faced with the prospect of consuming media I’ve pre-judged I must talk myself down. I must convince myself to evaluate a film, a book, an album, not for simply the latest in a long string of an artist’s patented style or tone or for its membership in a genre I find uninteresting, but for a work in and of itself to be judged independently of anyone’s record. I try to stick to this plan at least until I see the ending credits. I do not always rise to this challenge. My grievance with Mr. Goble is that it did not seem like he even tried.

At any rate, 13 Hours is far from “unwatchable.” Americans spent $16 million this weekend seeing it. 88% of audience reviewers over at Rotten Tomatoes liked it. Perhaps those numbers are driven by the obvious controversy surrounding the film, or perhaps it was just a cool movie depicting what is pretty clearly a heroic event in modern history. Maybe it’s a self-indulgent yarn from a perpetual adolescent of a filmmaker, or maybe it’s a good little war picture alongside Black Hawk Down and Lone Survivor. Either way, it’ll never be as bad as some people want it to be.

For some perspective, here’s Tony Zhou’s “Bayhem” episode of Every Frame a Painting:

This post originally appeared on the authors Medium profile, 15 January 2016.

You are now entering a zone of entertainment value hypothetical political thought-experiments.

As we see the unexpected momentum of Bernie Sanders’ campaign continue apace, I thought of what is (at least to me) an interesting hypothetical. Would a President Bernie Sanders issue an executive pardon to Hillary Clinton if she were indicted and convicted on criminal charges?

As anyone paying attention is aware, Clinton is currently under investigationfor a number of instances of misconduct relating to the use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, upon which official State Department business was conducted. There are many concerning elements to the scandal, not the least of which is Mrs. Clinton’s apparent deliberate instructions to an aide to send classified information through non-secure channels, even though she knew this to be a breach of protocol and the law.

I think it’s safe to assume that, if Clinton is indicted or is otherwise rendered incapacitated in the 2016 presidential race, Bernie Sanders will eventually earn the DNC’s nomination. Momentum within the Sanders campaign is strong, and — chatter about a late entering by Vice President Joe Biden notwithstanding — there isn’t another candidate in the Democratic field able to take up the mantle as quickly or effectively. And it is this writer’s opinion that anyone not taking the notion of Bernie Sanders in the general election as a serious concern is guilty of a certain disconcerting hubris. Perhaps I’m speaking from my Millenial predisposition, but Sanders seems to command an Obama-esque commitment from his base. Sanders gets progressive voters (particularly the young ones) excited about the upcoming election in a way that won’t be replicated by another Democratic candidate in 2016.

So, let us for a second assume that we see a President Sanders in 2017. Could we see a presidential pardon for Hillary Clinton?

It certainly doesn’t seem like an action far outside the realm of possibility. We already know that Sanders is tired of hearing about Hillary’s “damn emails,” and corruption disguised as beneficence among the ruling class is hardly a novel concept in modern American politics.

While I’m sure it would be painted as a caring act of true justice, I think a pardoning of Clinton would indeed be a case of obvious corruption, and maybe serve as a satisfying olive branch to elite old guard progressives. But the precedent for both controversial (if not legally or ethically dubious) and legitimate presidential pardons is long established. Both Washington and Adams pardoned convicted traitors in the wake of the Whiskey Rebellion. Jefferson pardoned those convicted of violating the Sedition Act. Millard Fillmore pardoned two men convicted of smuggling slaves to freedom. James Monroe pardoned a gang of convicted pirates. Lyndon Johnson pardoned a congressman convicted of bribery at the behest of Bobby Kennedy. When Gerald Ford assumed the presidency in 1974, one of his first official actions as president was the pardoning of Richard Nixon. George W. Bush pardoned “Scooter” Libby.

Clinton’s pardon, of course, would have to (hopefully) make its way through the formal process of a presidential pardon. But something tells me they would find a way to make it seem legit at least.

The point is that Hillary Clinton currently has two lights at the end of a tunnel that might otherwise lead to her imprisonment: either the Department of Justice will continue to avoid her indictment indefinitely or President Sanders may become her savior.

Watching the final GOP debate of 2015 on Tuesday night, it appeared to me that there was really only one major takeaway: Ted Cruz was bad. Really bad.

There were some other minor headlines. Carly Fiorina again demonstrated her remarkable talent for coherent and concise tough talk. (My girlfriend noted that she seemingly always completed her comments before the bell.) Trump looked like an oaf in managing to string together near incomprehensible sentences regarding foreign policy, which is arguably his most glaring area of policy ignorance. John “The Karate Kid” Kasich showed us his only real talent is talking with his hands. Poor, lovable Ben Carson apparently has a cold. Rand Paul groupies were in high attendance.

Again, the real story last night was Cruz. It must be said that I think Cruz is right on a great many things, but he has become his own worst enemy on stage. I believe he fancies himself a great orator, which he is not (his long career of arguing in front of SCOTUS notwithstanding). He fancies himself a folksy charmer, which he is not. Here is a man that is best suited to work behind closed doors within the constitutional channels of government to affect meaningful change. That is to say, I love the idea of him as a Senator or, as has been suggested by others, perhaps even a Supreme Court Justice. But not as a POTUS.

As far as his performance in the debate and its effect on his presidential run, I think there were three big things that will turn people off his candidacy going forward.

First, on immigration — possibly the most important issue in the general election — Cruz just plain lied about his record. In one of many exchanges with Sen. Rubio, Cruz said, “I have never supported legalization…” Except he definitely did in 2013. With this slip up, he has given to his detractors a soft target that will be easily exploited for weeks to come.

Weird, did he just lie? #Cruz #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/Mirr2O3LmE

— Elisa (@LadyEli4Liberty) December 16, 2015

Second, Cruz continually felt entitled to interrupt, interject, and continue speaking well over the agreed upon time limit on numerous occasions. He is widely respected as a talented debater, yet couldn’t convince himself to remain within the consensual boundaries of the debate format. These actions serve only to proliferate the perception that Cruz is “unhinged.” The general “rudeness” he displayed last night will sully his reputation with many prospective Republican voters.

Third, Cruz’s bromance with Donald Trump is borderline despicable. The image of “The Donald” applying an awkward pat on the back of Cruz is burned into my retinas. Those of us that recognize how damaging and dangerous Trump’s candidacy is to true conservatism know that this unholy alliance is born of nothing but sheer political expediency on the part of Cruz. For a candidate with a genuine conservative pedigree fighting the good fight for years through legitimate legal processes to throw his arm around Trump is Cruz betraying everything for which he stands. There is, of course, room for reasonable compromise in the face of political realities, but we usually see that as a necessary staple given our separation of powers — or more to the point — as a necessity of actually being the president and not just running for the office. We are therefore left with two candidates on essentially polar opposite ends of the Republican spectrum appearing unnaturally friendly to the other’s position. This lends itself nicely to the progressive narrative that all conservatives are essentially Trump, which is an idea the media might use quite effectively against Cruz should he become the nominee.

The bottom line is that for a perceived maverick often touted as the antidote to the plague of the Republican establishment, Cruz is looking more and more like business as usual in a party begging for anything but.

This afternoon my fantastic father, as he is wont to do, emailed me a story from PowerLine wherein Steven Hayward dissects the reaction of mainstream media types to Donald Trump’s recent call for a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States. Putting aside for a moment the fact that I’d already seen the story in my Feedly, the piece highlighted what I think is a silver lining to Trump’s candidacy, abhorrent and nonsensical as it has generally otherwise been.

Hayward examines the media’s reactions through the microcosm that is the NBC Nightly News report from Tuesday evening. He rightly points out that while Trump is essentially the GOP’s worst nightmare at any given moment of the 2016 election cycle, he is simultaneously the media’s best friend. Hayward observes that from a traditional journalist’s point of view,

covering presidential campaigns is really boring. Most leading candidates are fairly disciplined, and stick to a standard stump speech. They don’t make a lot of national news, with the exception of having to respond to events (or in this case, respond to Trump). If you’re covering Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio right now, you aren’t getting much broadcast airtime or front-page space. Covering Trump has to be the best thing since the invention of moveable type: you never know what he’s going to say.

Now it first must be noted that this is inherently dangerous to the Republican field. If Trump were to somehow win the nomination after continuing to spout as he has, he would thereby become the de facto poster boy of the party. At which point, those in the Democratic opposition will continue to have at their disposal a panoply of examples with which to exclaim, “You see what absolute lunacy conservatives and Republicans stand for?!?!” and the prospect of a Republican being elected president might well be doomed.

However, should Trump continue to absorb fire from the left by being himself to his fullest potential only to not earn the Republican nomination, the eventual nominee will seem starkly sane and reasonable in contrast. This is perhaps not true for the media or dedicated Democrats, who will always find ways to portray conservative and libertarian types as the very incarnation of evil. But perhaps to my more moderate or independent millennial contemporaries, a great many of the current field of GOP candidates might seem quite appealing in comparison once it comes time to cast votes.

The silver lining to Trump’s candidacy is exactly the characteristic at which myself and others commence to eye rolling on a daily basis, and it’s precisely why he will not be the Republican presidential candidate on the ballot come next November. Simply by being his loathsome oafish self he is effectively throwing his doughy body atop the media hand grenade, and whether it’s his or his campaign’s conscious decision or not, he is clearing the path for a real conservative to earn the nomination.

I dislike Trump greatly, but much as he is hated by many conservatives and progressives alike, I do believe he’s contributing a net positive to America’s political environment.

And just so we’re clear, Jimmy Carter enacted a pretty similar proposal to Trump’s in 1980:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office for just the third time in seven years on Sunday night, offering what can be summarized as a series of carefully considered platitudes, overly simplistic descriptions of what is likely an extremely complicated multinational strategy of military action against the Islamic State, and a dash of Orwellian doublespeak sprinkled atop pleas for racial tolerance and “new” gun control legislation. Most of the writers and thinkers I hold in great esteem have done a terrific job of illustrating the feelings of uselessness and steady-as-she-goes inaction the address no doubt promulgated in the hearts and minds of Americans, but I thought it prudent to echo some of those thoughts in my own words here, as well as offer observations I think some folks might be overlooking. 

Before I do that, let’s give Barack some credit. Afterall, he did indeed correctly identify the recent violence in San Bernardino, CA as “an act of terrorism” and that its perpetrators “had gone down the dark path of radicalization.” I’ll even let him slide for refusing to use this language until now even after his own FBI pointed it out in a press conference last week. He finally admitted that the Ft. Hood, TX shooting of 2009 was also an act of terrorism. This is all welcome talk from the president. This was good.

And the bad?

When it comes to speeches delivered by this president, there is often a good number of his talking points that are easy to find slightly disturbing or even utterly reprehensible. Last night, Barack Obama had at least one utterly reprehensible turn of phrase when beginning to outline his plan to address security concerns domestically: (emphasis mine)

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

Now a lot of people listening to Obama’s remarks (or those who were watching NFL highlights on NBC and watched or read the speech later) probably nodded their heads at this point. I would direct those folks to venture capitalist and Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen, who likely had the most sensible and succinct answer to this preposterously obvious question:

Innocent until proven guilty, due process, and the Second Amendment? https://t.co/NYNQHkf8T7

— Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) December 7, 2015

Exactly, Mr. Obama. Otherwise known as quintessential American values.
That the president would submit such a ridiculous pop quiz to the American people is instructive of two things. First, Barack Obama is very serious about making his last year in office revolve around the issue of gun control. He will continue to associate as many news items with our “gun epidemic” as he can get away with (if he doesn’t blame climate change first) and Americans will continue to flock to Academy and Cabela’s to buy as many guns and as much ammo as they can for fear of the enacting of new “common sense gun laws.” Fortunately, with an opposition Congress, it is severely unlikely any new gun legislation will be passed during the remainder of Obama’s term. Which leads us nicely to the second, and far more reprehensible tenet of the current administration we learned of yesterday evening.

Over the years there have been many examples of Barack Obama’s disdain for following constitutionally prescribed American legislative and regulative processes. However, it is doubtful he has ever demonstrated to the country his disregard for the due process of law as clearly as he did this Sunday. Make no mistake. This president believes that if you are suspected of being a terrorist and placed on a no-fly list pursuant to that suspicion (your inclusion upon which is not subject to any process of appeal), that you should be denied your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is the antithesis of due process. An executive may not simply suspend the rights of a citizen because he or she is suspected of anything, nor would it be acceptable to pass congressional legislation with similar intent. Couple this with the notion that since at least 2007 the process by which individuals are added to the no-fly list produces less than ideal results, and the question of “what could possibly be the argument…?” is one that should make every American shudder with the same contempt that our president seems to hold for our classically liberal beginnings.

Whether or not our next Commander-in-Chief will behave any differently is another matter entirely. 

Let’s briefly address this absurd bag ban in Austin.

On March 1st of this year, the ordinance passed by the Austin City Council for the regulation of single-use carry out bags went into effect. It states:

Beginning March 1, 2013, a business establishment within the City limits may not provide single-use carryout bags to its customers or to any person.

Not only that, but businesses continuing to offer single-use bags will be charged a fee payable to the city. I’m sure that’s convenient for owners.

At first glance this seems like a good idea, right? Austin consumers will no longer contribute to the plague of plastic bags polluting bodies of water, and hunters will no longer be able to suffocate deer and turkey like they’re the protagonist of a low-budget snuff film. But what about folks who want to tote their heads of lettuce and six packs home from H-E-B in a plastic bag? All this bag ban represents is yet another swift fall of the axe blade against choice of the consumer, and consequently, against letting people do the right thing of their own volition.

Instead of purchasing my goods, transporting them to my abode in single-use bags, and promptly dropping said bags in a recycling recepticle like the responsible citizen I am, I’m now forced to modify my behavior to satisfy the concerns of men and women at City Hall. Now I must tote with me reusable bags, which KUT notes in their write up of the situation can harbor E. Coli virus if not washed correctly. Awesome.

I’m all for environmental responsibility. Recycling is good times. Cutting up those plastic rings sodas come with is fun. But I can’t understand why citizens are okay with being told what to care about by city ordinance. Divert public funds for education about why plastic bags will destroy our planet all you want, but don’t force our hands.

A parks worker in Indiana once said, “It is a basic rule of government that you shouldn’t offend people.” There seem to be a lot of things happening in the real world lately that violate that rule.