The Republicans took back the House and most of the Senate yesterday on a message of extending tax cuts for the wealthy, deficit reduction, and cutting spending. But as they take power, it will be interesting to see how they plan on executing that message, because it doesn't add up.
To begin with, it would have been nice if the same outrage over deficit spending emerged when Bush II was waging two unfunded wars, but that's another matter. The problem here is that you can't argue for both extending tax cuts for the wealthy while complaining about the deficit. The Bush tax cuts are responsible for $200 billion of the deficit annually, far more than Obama's stimulus plan.
Similarly, the GOP argues for spending cuts as a way toward deficit reduction. But they only favor cuts in domestic spending, not defense, which accounts for over $300 billion, and not by ending the war in Afghanistan, which is one of the largest impacts on the federal deficit. In the GOP's "Plan for America," they outline $100 billion in domestic spending cuts. Merits of that aside, how would that alone be an answer to the deficit without addressing these larger expenditures?
You won the election, GOP, but now you have to tell us how you'll make sense of your agenda.
The Fighter, the unimaginatively titled boxing film starring Mark Wahlberg as junior welterweight Micky Ward, will be released in December of this year. Ward is best known for his exciting trilogy against Arturo Gatti, but unfortunately, it will not be included in the film.
Two of Ward's three battles with Gatti were awarded "Fight of the Year" by Ring Magazine. The first was the best, though, with many calling it the "Fight of the Century," and its 9th round dubbed "Round of the Century" by commentator Ernie Shavers. The matchup was intriguing because of its contrast in styles: Ward, the tough body puncher who would march straight in, taking punishment while waiting to land a shot, and Gatti, the faster, more mobile "boxer" of the two. The two men fought at a frantic, desperate pace, both taking a beating and showing great heart. As a viewer, you come away appreciating both fighters. There are more skilled boxers out there, but none have been in fights this entertaining. During the trilogy, the two men became great friends, until Gatti's untimely death (murder?), still under investigation.
Here's a link to the first fight in its entirety:
And for you immediate gratification types, here's the 9th round:
Unbelievable. Excluding these great battles from a film about Ward would seem to diminish its potential, but I'll withhold judgment until I see it.
I'm no boxing expert, but I do like ranking things, so I thought I'd compare three heavyweight fighters whom I consider the best of their eras to determine who reigns supreme. I should note, the nominees are just my sentimental favorites, and completely omit the contemporary era as well as the earliests.
The first is Mike Tyson. In his prime, Tyson was a vicious, highly skilled and well-trained fighter, the youngest heavyweight champion in boxing history, who demolished most of his opponents in an average of 3.5 rounds. Tyson was unique because he possessed devastating power, but also lightning fast hand speed. Combined with his punching accuracy, he was an overpowering fighter with animal-like aggression. Here he is, at his peak, taking on undefeated champion Michael Spinks. It must have been a real letdown for people expecting this internationally-hyped heavyweight championship fight to go the distance.
Michael Spinks vs. a Wild Animal:
When Don King took over Tyson's career and fired his original trainer, he stopped bobbing and weaving and using his jab and combinations, instead looking for one punch knockouts. As a result, he started losing, first to Buster Douglas in what's considered the biggest upset of all time. He never got up from a knockdown, and when his fights went into later rounds as they did against Holyfield and Lewis, he became far less dangerous. But Tyson in his prime would have a good chance at beating anyone from any era.
Muhammad Ali was a true "boxer" - meaning he relied on technique and ring strategy rather than going toe to toe with opponents - with incredible speed and agility. A man of great conviction, he proved he could take punishment when he fought Foreman and Frazier, but more importantly, knew how to avoid it. After a long career, the guy's face shows no damage.
A bad, bad man:
Beause he wasn't a power puncher, he relied on flurries of shots to wear down his opponents. His habit of backing up while throwing jabs was a good defensive technique, but also weakened his power. Ali was a gutsy, talented, and intelligent fighter. He was an Olympic champion and won the title three times.
Rocky Marciano was a hard-hitting brawler with incredible stamina. He's the only undefeated champion in heavyweight history, and suffered only two knockdowns during his professional career. Marciano would be a light heavyweight in the modern era, but he had knockout power on par with some of the strongest punchers in history. His stamina meant that he would continously attack opponents, bombarding them from every angle without letting up. Marciano was a relentless warrior who beat everyone he fought to a pulp.
Marciano hurting people:
Marciano could also fight through massive punishment, winning one fight with his nose literally split in half. In an era when fights were allowed to become much more dangerous than they are today, he proved to be a fighter of remarkable toughness. Nearly every fight in the above video would have been stopped much earlier by today's standards.
Marciano's weaknesses included being a wild puncher, not caring what he hit. He also lacked speed, and was a slow starter, with most of his fights going several rounds.
So who's the best? For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to assume we're talking about these fighters in their primes. In Tyson's case especially, after his peak, he wasn't nearly the same fighter. Also, as a disclaimer, I'm not even considering the earlier eras of boxing which would feature Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis.
Tyson vs. Marciano: The key would be the early rounds. If Marciano could survive Tyson's initial onslaught, he would have the advantage in later rounds because of his superior mental toughness. Tyson proved to be weak mentally when really challenged. Tyson is kind of like a scared animal who lashes out violently at first, but whose weak psyche wilts if faced with strong resistance. Marciano is a somewhat sentimental choice, though, and my head tells my that Tyson's movement, power, and accuracy would end the fight early.
Ali vs. Marciano: there was a cool computer simlation done in the 60s that determined Marciano would win. Ali and a then retired Marciano were filmed doing a simulated fight. Afterwards, Ali said that his arms were left bruised from Marciano's punches. It would be a long fight. I'm going to agree with the simulation and go with Marciano for his stamina and guts, wearing down Ali over a long fight.
Ali v Tyson: Ali defeated two of the hardest punchers in history in Foreman and Frazier. I imagine against Tyson, he'd be able to dance and stay away from him in the early rounds. Again, I'd bet against Tyson in a 12-15 round bout.
Tyson was once asked about how he'd do against various opponents from other eras. He replied that without actually having to face them in a fight, one could never really know, a wise answer I think.
When I first saw the trailer for The Kids Are All Right, my initial reaction was one of despair. At the time, I was shopping my own comedy spec about a sperm donor who's discovered by his sperm children (in my script, there were 412 of them), and suddenly found myself in a jam. The director who'd attached himself to the project was no longer interested, and I was stuck without many places to go. So for several weeks, I avoided seeing the film, but the buzz was so good I knew I had to see it before it left the theaters.
It turns out that The Kids Are All Right is the best film I've seen all year. I enjoyed Inception, but its lack of character development kept me from becoming strongly invested in the story. The Kids Are All Right has an honest script that lets things play out realistically, flawed characters who drive the story by their choices and mistakes, and an incredible cast. I've never liked Julianne Moore or Mark Ruffalo as much as in this film, and Annette Bening is top notch as usual. And because it's ultimately more about the family than the sperm donor, it's different enough from mine that I still may have a shot. So I forgive you for making a great film.
Mark Olson, founding member of the seminal alt-country group The Jayhawks, recently released his second solo album, "Many Colored Kite." It's a great album, gentle and beautiful. Admittedly, Mark's nasal, wavering voice and decidedly unslick songs are an acquired taste. But since his days in The Jayhawks, Olson has proven himself to be a premier Americana singer/songwriter.
Mark's music is earnest, unflashy, and favors expression over musicality. His melodies often sound constrained, and he revels in such simplicity that sometimes it's hard to hear a strong melody or musical hook. But when the songs are embellished with harmony vocals, bass lines, or additional instrumentation, the full beauty of his music is revealed. When he was in The Jayhawks, bandmate Gary Louris had the more pleasing lead vocal, but the soul of the band was Mark (which is why The Jayhawks became a mediocre pop band when Olson left). All the same, I think Olson sounds best when paired with Louris or his girlfriend Ingunn Ringvold's crystal clear voice to compliment his gravely sound and bring out the song's hidden beauties. Mark may not have the best voice or delivery, but what he does provide is a rock solid foundation for great songs.
The GOP’s outrage over building a Mosque at Ground Zero is more revealing of their simple-minded bigotry than any accusation I could make. The simple problem with their position is that they equate Islam with Al-Qaeda. Islam is one of the world’s largest religions. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist network. We see this all the time from the GOP though, and there’s a word for it: intolerance.
Certainly, Al-Qaeda would not approve of this Mosque, because they accept no form of Islam other than their own. And for all the GOP’s talk about freedom, what about religious freedom? Typically, they only support freedom when it’s for their own beliefs. But the real indication of freedom is allowing it for people different from yourself.
By the way, there’s already a Mosque at another 9/11 site: there’s one inside the Pentagon.
I haven't seen many movies since the beginning of the new year because there really haven't been many I've been interested in seeing, but last night I stumbled across a unique documentary that demonstrates how truth can be stranger than fiction. Prodigal Sons begins as a story about a transexual's return to her rural hometown in Montana, but it becomes more about her relationship with her estranged tragic brother, and explores universal questions of identity, sibling rivarly, and nature versus nurture. Paul was valedictorian, class president, and quarterback of the high school football team, but after graduation, he moved to San Francisco and became Kim. Marc is Kim's older adopted brother, who was held back in preschool, didn't graduate from high school, and suffered a brain injury at 21 that left him severely emotionally unstable. While Kim tries to leave her past as a man behind her, Marc only wants to live in the past, and find out who his real parents are. In one of the strangest twists I've ever seen in film, Marc learns that he's the grandson of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth. A film about two brothers dealing with identity shifts while hoping to reconnect with each other, this film is continually engrossing and unlike anything you've seen.
The Academy Awards continues to confound me every year. How did The Hurt Locker, a film which is essentially a series of bomb set pieces, win the Oscar for Best Screenplay? Here's a story with no character arc, which blatantly states its theme in the opening credits, and is mostly an exercise in suspense. It also bugs me that people praised the film for NOT making a strong statement about war. Why is that a good thing? Ironically, I think the film actually DOES say something about war, namely that it can make people crazy, so the fact that right-wingers have embraced the movie because they think it doesn't have a political message indicates their frequent inability to understand art. At any rate, I expect a Best Picture winner to be a revelation, which The Hurt Locker isn't. I would have given the Oscar to An Education.
