Rogue One Review

Last night Katie and I attended the opening night of Rogue One and, long story short, I liked (didn't love) it. It started off pretty weak - I was actually fighting to stay awake for the first act of the movie - but finished really strong. Overall I would give it three stars out of five for some serious weaknesses but also some epic wins that are simply not to be missed by any Star Wars fan.

Following are some more detailed thoughts but WARNING: THERE BE SPOILERS BELOW!

THE GOOD

• The best part of this film hands down was Darth Vader. I loved that we had a glimpse of his lair  (which reminded me of the early concept art for Palpatine's throne room - see below) and I got chills during the finale as he effortlessly crushed rebel peons. It's the most menacing we've seen him since the opening scene of Episode IV - really well done. Some people have complained that we don't get enough of him in this movie but sometimes less is more and I think this is one of those times.

• The action sequences were really good. I enjoyed both on the ground fight scenes as well aerial battles.
• The visual effects were seamless and stunning. The filmmakers clearly had a commitment to continuity such that the design of everything from uniforms to spacecraft was quite in line with what we saw in Episode IV. Still, seeing those same, familiar designs rendered in today's technology and displayed in IMAX 3D was quite spectacular.
• Along the same lines, the motion capture was really good. Characters like Tarkin were photorealistic and looked convincingly like Peter Cushing circa 1977. Bravo, effects team!
• There were many new worlds and creatures in this movie and, although no time was devoted to their development, it was nice at least to see attention paid to such creative efforts that expand the universe - er, galaxy.
• Plenty of attention was paid too to numerous details. For example, when the rebels arrive on Scarif, they are assigned a landing pad far away from the citadel. When Director Krennic arrives, however, he gets a rockstar parking spot exactly as you would expect. Small details like this make the movie more believable and more immersive.
• With a female primary protagonist working closely with a male secondary protagonist, the temptation was strong, I'm sure, to force them into a love arc but I was pleased that the filmmakers didn't give in. The movie implied that there was some romantic tension there by the end but didn't give them a contrived kiss before dying. Indeed, young, good looking people can save the galaxy without becoming completely sidetracked by hormones. Thanks for that! 
• I liked that this was darker than many other Star Wars movies. They necessarily had to kill off all of the protagonists and they did so rather than finding some hand wavy explanation for them not being in the "subsequent" films.

THE BAD

• All that said, there were some serious flaws in this movie. The most egregious of which was the lack of characterization. They introduced a number of new characters but did a poor job of developing them. Many of the characters were cool and interesting - like Donnie Yen's Chirrut Îmwe - but I found myself not really caring when they died. K-2S0, mo-capped brilliantly by Alan Tudyk, was the one I found myself caring the most about and he was a bloody droid!
• The characters also had sudden and unbelievable 180 degree turnabouts - e.g. Cassian all of a sudden being behind Jyn and Jen all of a sudden being rah rah Rebellion. These felt to me much more like cheap plot conveniences rather than earned transformations during a character's journey.
• There was no compelling antagonist. Krennic was the primary villain and he just wasn't very . . . threatening. He didn't give me any sense of dread or foreboding that our protagonists were in danger.
• The lack of characterization of both heroes and villains made most of the tension in the film feel manufactured. Krennic inexplicably follows the rebels personally instead of getting the hell outta Dodge on his shuttle? Yawn. Jyn and Cassian have a passionate discussion about losing everything to the Empire? Yawn.
• Our protagonists also seemed to gain and lose superpowers whenever convenient for the plot. They struggled to traverse slippery rocks around the Imperial research facility but then performed death defying leaps, grabs, and climbs in the data vault. That aspect of the film felt like on demand Mary Sue / Gary Stu.
• I can't attribute the lack of characterization or all the plot conveniences to underinvesting in setup up front. In fact the first act of the film had a lot of exposition and laying of narrative foundation - but it was ineffectual and, frankly, boring. I found myself fighting off sleep for the first 45 minutes or so of the film.
• The plot also felt very choppy in parts. For example, Jyn receives a hologram from her father and then subsequently actually meets her father and talks to him in person. Or Jyn determines that Cassian is going to kill her father and then, half an hour later (theater time), confronts him about it. They aren't plot holes per se; they just seem narratively wonky and I suspect that they are symptoms of made-by-committee cuts, reshoots, and reshuffles.
• Much of the film's appeals to emotion are pretty heavy handed. The humor worked for me more often than not but, for example, there was a scene in which they put a bag over Chirrut Îmwe's head. Because he is blind, that's funny in a subtle way but they cheapen it by having him point out the irony explicitly. Similarly they overtly go back to the "hope" well over and over again in monologues, making for a much less elegant segue to Episode IV: A New Hope than what could have been.

THE UGLY

• Some of the acting is just plain bad. There's an informant with an injured arm who is just terrible and Forest Whitaker really fails in his attempt to bring something interesting to his character. Much of the acting was top notch but some of it was conspicuously bad. 
• There were also a number of Easter eggs in the film. Some of these were fine but some - like the two thugs from Episode IV's Mos Eisley Cantina scene bumping into our protagonists on Jedha - were ridiculous. I know they're trying to provide fan service here but, when we keep bumping into the same characters on just a few planets out of the entire galaxy, it serves to shrink the universe and seems utterly contrived.

Despite some serious shortcomings, the film was an overall positive one for me. Unlike The Force Awakens, I probably won't see it several times in the theater but I may go back once more just to see Darth Vader in all his glory again. Some people like this film more than others but it is definitely a must-see for any fan of Star Wars.

Has Obama Changed the Economy for the Worse? Conclusion

Over the past three weeks I have evaluated nine specific claims made by an article purporting to show that "Obama has changed the face of our economy for the worse." The article was presented to me as definitive proof that Obama has been "a train wreck" as President of the United States.

Of the claims and sub-claims, some of them have merit (2), some of them are technically true but don't actually support the conclusion they are meant to (4), and some are patently false (7).

I would encourage readers to go over each of the claims and my investigations of the but the exeuctive summary is that America under Obama really hasn't changed much during Obama's administration. Using these metrics you certainly can't conclude that Obama is "a train wreck." Given that these metrics were cherry picked to support exactly that conclusion, it is entirely possible that, choosing other metrics, you might even be able to conclude that Obama is "better than a train wreck."

If nothing else, this investigation should be a reminder to apply CRITICAL THINKING to "data" and "facts" with which you are presented - the "facts" presented in this article were mostly false and/or misleading. Nearly everything we see has been filtered through an agenda lens and is tainted with selection bias and interpretation bias. Given that we will each apply our own cognitive biases to information, it is crucial that we get as close to the unadulterated source material as possible.

My suggestion - especially as we head into election day - is to question what you read. If there are no links to sources, that is often an indicator of fabrication/manipulation so your BS radar should be at high alert. If there are links to sources, don't assume that those sources support the conclusions or interpretation of the article you are reading - quite often (This article was a case in point!) they don't.

If your reaction is that this all sounds well and good but you just don't have time to do that kind of research then I challenge you to examine your priorities - what could be more important than being informed as a voter in an election year? As Dumbledore would say, "We must choose between what is easy and what is right."

Choose what is right.

Is trust in Obama's leadership at historically low levels?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the ninth and final claim: that trust in Obama's leadership and administration remains at historically low levels.

Cutting right to the chase, I can't find any support for this claim. I suppose it depends on what the writer means by "trust" but the nearest metric I can find is presidential approval ratings.

Across 10 polls, Obama is currently ~53%, which is much higher than his lowest approval rating (37% in 2011 and in 2014):

Obama's current approval rating is also higher than every other president's lowest approval rating since Kennedy:

Obama's approval rating is neither low within the historical context of his presidency nor within the context of all presidencies. Therefore this claim is FALSE.

That said, Obama's average approval rating (47%) is the lowest since Carter's and is on par with that of W, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Truman - not the best of company. I'm not sure, though, if it's fair to compare approval ratings of today's polarized, partisan media-driven, post-fact world with those of a simpler time when people got their information with less spin and did more thinking - and approving - for themselves.

CONCLUSION: This is a baseless claim with no substantiation whatsoever.

Was America's credit rating downgraded for the first time ever under Obama's watch?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the eighth claim: that America's credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever under Obama's watch.

Yes, America's credit rating was downgraded from AAA to AA+ by S&P in 2011 so this claim is TRUE. The downgrade followed a record high deficit and public debt (See previous discussion.) but the actual reason for the downgrade was perceived risk that the government would default on its debts due to political posturing.

From S&P's Downgrade Announcement:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon."

and

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures."

This is akin to a credit agency reducing the rating of a married couple. They have good incomes but they also have significant spending, which would be fine but all they do is argue instead of presenting any real plan for repaying their mortgage.

CONCLUSION: Yes, America's credit rating was downgraded during Obama's administration - but the fault lies with both parties and especially in Congress. I hope everyone remembers how Congress (both parties) failed us in this incident when choosing to vote for/against congressional incumbents this election day.

Was there a record number of home foreclosures under Obama's presidency?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the seventh claim: that there were a record number of home foreclosures during Obama's presidency.

This one is pretty easy to research. According to these data from RealtyTrac and the Federal Reserve, indeed there was a record number of home foreclosures during Obama's first term so this claim is technically TRUE.

However, the author uses the claim to imply that the foreclosures are evidence of Obama's failure in economic policy. However, the record number of foreclosures began during the mortgage crisis, long before Obama even took office since the end of the crisis there has been a downward trend such that we are now back to pre-crisis levels:

Fore a detailed breakdown of foreclosure trends, see this report from RealtyTrac.

CONCLUSION: Yes, there was a record number of foreclosures during the worst mortgage crisis in history (duh), which began long before Obama took office. Now we're back to pre-crisis levels of foreclosures.

Are nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the sixth claim: that nearly 50M Americans are on SNAP (food stamps).

According to the Food and Nutrition Service, ~43M Americans (~13% of population) are on SNAP.
This number (both absolute and percentage) has been declining steadily since it peaked ~48M (~15%) immediately following the recession. It seems like a real stretch to call 43M "nearly 50M" so I suspect the author is either sensationally rounding up and/or intentionally using years-old figures because they better fit his narrative. As such, I rate his claim FALSE.

Still the absolute number and percentage are much higher than historical norms - 10 years ago only ~27M Americans (~9% of population) were on SNAP - so why is that?

Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office suggests that ~20% of the increased enrollment in SNAP is due to expanded coverage introduced during the first month of Obama's presidency but that the remainder is due to the economy. The CBO projects that SNAP enrollment will return to pre-recession in ~6 years:

Note that this CBO analysis is from 2012 - but that the number of SNAP participants has indeed fallen as predicted since then.

CONCLUSION: SNAP enrollment increased during the recession and in accordance with expanded coverage in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is now falling to pre-recession norms but slowly. Given the previous evidence of the general health of the economy and job market, I would conclude that the aftermath of the recession is disproportionately affecting lower-income Americans.

Are 46 million Americans Living in Poverty?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the fifth claim: that 46M Americans are living in poverty,

First off, what does it mean to be "living in poverty?"

According to the Census's most recent data (2015), to be living "in poverty" a household must have income below:
$11,770 for 1 person
$15,930 for 2 people
$20,090 for 3 people
... and so on.

As a quick aside, let's note that, in many parts of the world, "poverty" is defined as living on less than $1/day so let's take a step back and give tremendous thanks that we live in a country in which our poverty line is orders of magnitude higher than that. This in no way takes away from the plight of the US's lowest earners - but it does remind us how blessed we are even to be here.

Back to work, though, how many Americans are living in poverty according to this standard? In 2015 13.5% of Americans (43M) were in poverty. 43M is less than 46M so the claim is FALSE.

Still, 43M and 13.5% both sound alarmingly high to me so let's look closer at what these figures really mean. 13.5%, it turns out, is in line with recent historical norms.13.5% is a greater percentage of Americans living in poverty than 10 years ago (12.6%) but has been steadily declining since the recession - a good trend.

As one writer points out, though, these Census figures are a little misleading as they measure the number of people who would be in poverty without government assistance (through SNAP - food stamps - and tax credits), rather than those who are literally living in poverty. By his calculations, the percentage of Americans actually living in poverty is ~3.5% (~11M people) while the other ~10% are being buoyed out of poverty through government assistance. Obviously there is a debate about whether such assistance helps lift people permanently out of poverty, does nothing, or contributes to people staying in poverty.

CONCLUSION: the number of people actually living in poverty isn't as high/alarming as it sounds at first blush, but that's only due to assistance from the government. This seems to have been the case for some time without much change over the last decade. I, for one, would rather see investments in programs aimed at addressing the systemic causes of poverty rather than just helping those already in poverty to stay afloat. Such programs may already exist but I would question their efficacy given the low change in poverty rate over the last decade and I would support experimentation with new approaches.