Thoughts on Miss Sloane (A Geek's Perspective)

(This post was updated and edited on 8 February 2022, 7:35AM, GMT+8.)

During a recent trip to Japan with Cleo, I watched Miss Sloane during the flight. Though it has its critics and bad reviews, I still find the dialogue riveting, cutting and completely enjoyable. I've chuckled at, and mentally filed away, so many quotes. Not just the Pollyanna one. So, I'm having a geek moment, triggered by the legal and political issues forming the film's context - not just the gun debate (which was bound to be polarising, duh). They were all well researched and seemed realistically portrayed. (Not surprising, given the screenwriter Jonathan Perera is a corporate lawyer turned teacher.) For a geek, there are so many real-life gems, legal and philosophical references scattered throughout the film. But I do not think the conclusion of the film was possible, as discussed elsewhere.

Preparation is the key to success.

So says Miss Sloane at the start of the film."Before anything else, preparation is the key to success" said Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor we owe our telephone to. But since Sloane is preparing for her Congressional hearing, and given the main plot of the film, I think she probably had Sun Tzu in mind. Oh, she most likely has read the ancient Chinese military treatise The Art of War by Sun Tzu. ("Ancient" as in 6th century BC.) The text has is not just required reading for military training; these days, it is also considered useful for those in business.

Sun Tzu extols preparation. In the first chapter, titled "Laying Plans" (始計), he states:

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

兵者，詭道也。故能而示之不能，用而示之不用，近而示之遠，遠而示之近。利而誘之，亂而取之，實而備之，強而避之，怒而撓之，卑而驕之，佚而勞之，親而離之。攻其無備，出其不意，此兵家之勝，不可先傳也。(Source)

And in the third chapter, titled "Attack by Stratagem" (謀攻):

Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. These five are the way by which we know which side will win.

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

故知勝者有五：知可以戰與不可以戰者勝，識眾寡之用者勝，上下同欲者勝，以虞待不虞者勝，將能而君不御者勝；此五者，知勝之道也。

故曰：知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必敗。(Source)

In short, preparation, preparation, preparation.

The 'Nutella Tax'

The 'Nutella Tax' (6:32). Sloane says (6:37) "Palm oil is a key ingredient in Nutella. If the Federal Government taxes it at 300%, it'll cost more for us to gorge ourselves on it." In 2012, France proposed a surcharge on palm oil which Indonesia protested, and it was nicknamed the 'Nutella Tax' because palm oil is a key ingredient in Nutella.

And yes, palm oil is also a key ingredient in soap.

Socrates

"Socrates never actually wrote anything" (7:37). Well, yes, loosely speaking. There are no surviving writings left by Socrates. Information on Socrates, his beliefs and philosophies all come from secondary sources, and are strongly debated. In other words, they are all hearsay. Why bring up Socrates in Miss Sloane? Not sure, but my guess is because the Greek philosopher neatly references much of what the film is about.

First, Socrates himself embodied a problem - the Socratic Problem. As his existence and philosophies were told only through secondary sources, it became a problem because there were differing and contradictory accounts/interpretations of Socrates, his beliefs and his philosophies. This parallels a central theme in Miss Sloane - about the narrative and those controlling the narrative. What something really is vs. what others say it is, i.e. fact/reality vs. interpretations/the narrative as controlled by others. Not only about the subjects she works on (such as gun control, explored further below), but also her own reputation.

Second, Socrates contributed to the field of ethics and moral philosophy (based on Plato's accounts), a core theme in Miss Sloane, whether for lobbyists, politicians or the voting public.

Third, Socrates was depicted as a sophistic philosopher in Aristophanes' parody, Clouds. Historically, sophists were disdained by some philosophers for their (allegedly) deceptive and fallacious arguments. The rise of sophistry was also linked with the increase of participatory democracy in Greece. Many parallels in Miss Sloane, in particular, the arguments raised by the pro-gun lobbyists (more below). Perhaps lobbyists are the new sophists in today's democracy (failed or otherwise).

Next, his contributions included the Socratic method, a form of debate intended to stimulate critical thinking, and Socratic questioning, which is extensively employed in education (especially law schools). The purposes of these methods include exploring complex ideas, truth-seeking, uncovering assumptions, logical analysis of arguments. All of which come up, and are employed, in Miss Sloane. That's probably why, in my humble view, it's also really a film about critical thinking and analysis...and might be a reason why the film can be alienating.

Finally, Socrates is probably best remembered (immortalised!) for his trial for alleged moral corruption and impiety, and his subsequent execution by hemlock. There are several interpretations of his trial by contemporary scholars. That Socrates was made a scapegoat by the Athenian state because he challenged democracy and popular rule. Or that his death was a voluntary act motivated by a greater purpose, to speak the truth or to resolve Athens of its political confusion and bring about political harmony. This touches on so many themes in Miss Sloane, and her own Congressional hearing - truth vs. interpretation, the narrative and who controls it.... Potentially, even, Miss Sloane as the modern-day Socrates, the scapegoat for the gun lobby, on 'trial' before Congress, voluntarily playing the role of gadfly in order to rid America of its political confusion and Congress of its moral/ethical bankruptcy.

The IMF rally

The IMF rally being discussed (7:58) is most likely one of the IMF bank bailouts rallies following the 2008 Financial Crisis. Sloane remarks (8:32):

"The guy shouting about corporate greed becomes a lot less credible standing next to a hobo from central casting, with a banner that reads 'Abolish money'."

  

Right there is an example of how people challenge credibility in order to change or control the narrative on a particular issue. This tactic is also used by the gun lobby to challenge Sloane's credibility with the aim to kill the gaining momentum of her cause (the Heaton-Harris bill).

Occupy Wall Street

Following Sloane's remark (above), Pat Connor says (8:39): "'Shit is fucked up and bullshit'. Best banner at Occupy." Pat(sy) here is referring to the 17 September 2011 Occupy Wall Street protest movement on income inequality, corporate greed, corruption, and the influence of corporations on governments. You know, the "We are the 99%!" movement.

See that.... Isn't that what Miss Sloane is mostly about? Economic inequality, a system that doesn't reward those who play by the rules, corruption, the undue influence that corporations have on governments, corporate lobbying and political funding. Lobbying can be considered a form of advocacy, or persuasion - something which screenwriter Jonathan Perera stated. However, lobbying in the US is controversial and complex, though generally viewed negatively. Corporate lobbying in the US is seen as damaging to the political process, as they influence and shape policy-making on the Hill.

Oh and..."Shit is fucked up and bullshit"? Seriously? That's so lame. No wonder you got played.

Shmallow Cakes

Then, there is the Shmallow cakes tax thing, a question on whether sales tax applies to cakes and/or cookies (8:50). Using Pat's muffin as the pretext, Sloane says (23:10):

"A muffin, let's see... eggs, milk, flour, butter, sugar, cocoa powder, chocolate. That sounds exactly like a cake..."

 
She then says to Franklin (23:23):

 

"Shmallow cakes aren't really cakes. They're marshmallow paste sandwiched between 2 cookies covered in chocolate. While our tax code deems cakes luxury items...cookies are obviously necessities and therefore exempt.... Have Shmallow cakes re-designated as cookies. Argue 'cake' in the name is merely marketing puff. You need evidence in court but get a team of scientists to opine that they are in fact 80% cookie and 0% cake."

This little dialogue gem might not seem very significant to the average movie-goer, but it rings a bell for those in law, accounting and tax. It is a reference to the Jaffa cake case, an infamous legal classic that still gets trotted out for discussion in and outside of law school classrooms (in common law jurisdictions). (A throwback to screenwriter's corporate lawyer past perhaps. I do agree with one of the reviews that the film does come across as a lecture on lobbying...with so many references being thrown about. But hey, I'm a geek, I like them.)

And "merely marketing puff". Another legal titbit, referencing the term "mere puff" from an English contract law case that every law student (in common law jurisdictions) will know: Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256. Basically, the term means what it means, that a statement made was mere puff, intended for marketing purposes but not intended to be taken seriously, and therefore with no intention to contract at all.

The US Tax Code

So, Sloane says to Franklin (9:56), "When I see you this afternoon, you'd better be ready to recite that tax code in Esperanto." And Franklin looks horrified and already overwhelmed. Not surprising because the US Tax Code is notoriously long and complicated. It is so notoriously complex that many Americans, including former IRS Commissioner himself, pay third parties to prepare their tax forms.

Tax, by the way, is one of the most heavily lobbied issues in the US, by corporations and trade associations. Sloane herself mainly specialises in tax and Federal Government interference in free enterprise (at 11:30).

Esperanto

Again, on the remark she made to Franklin at 9:56 (above). Esperanto is a constructed language that was invented by L.L. Zamenhof in the 19th century. It was intended to be an international auxiliary language that would enable people of different languages to communicate.

It would have been really cool if Sloane had said that to Franklin in Esperanto. "Kiam mi revidos vin hodiaŭ posttagmeze, vi prefere estu preta reciti tiun impostan kodon en Esperanto." (I don't know how accurate is Google Translate.)

Low voter turnout

The character Rodolfo Schmidt says: "Public opinion is overrated. Midterm re-election rate for senators was 82%. Voter turnout was 36." Indeed, voter turnout for US midterm elections has always been low, lower than presidential elections. The 2014 turnout was at 36.4%, according to US Elections Project, or at 41.9%, according to the US Census Bureau.

Constitutional interpretation

The heated exchange that Sloane and Pat Connor have with respect to the US Constitution during the TV debate (1:13:07 onward) is another legal bone, referencing a long-standing debate on constitutional interpretation - usually between the Living Constitution (sometimes called the living tree doctrine) and the originalism doctrine. It's a debate that happens in some other countries as well, but possibly not as politically fraught as it is in the US.

Moving on to the main issue major subject that forms the background context of the film, the gun debate. (Background context, not the main plot theme!) In terms of context, Miss Sloane pretty much hits all the key points and events in the gun debate.

The Heaton-Harris bill

It first comes up in Sloane's meeting with Senator Bob Sandford (from 10:54). The Heaton-Harris bill's real life inspiration would be the Manchin-Toomey bill, a bipartisan gun-control bill requiring background checks on all commercial gun sales. The Manchin-Toomey bill needed 60 votes to proceed, but unlike its fictional counterpart, it fell short of 6.

The Heaton-Harris bill is like Socrates. We only know of/about it through secondary sources. It's interesting how, in the entire film, the bill's actual provisions are not shown or read out. We only ever hear and see what people say about the bill, from their various perspectives and narratives. This was best shown in that first meeting between Sloane and Sandford (at 10:54):

Sloane : Why exactly are you here? Killing bills like Heaton-Harris, that's food and drink to you guys.

Sandford : So you've read it?

Sloane : No, but I know what it is. It's a bipartisan gun bill requiring universal background checks.

Sandford : On all sales of firearms. Now, come on. A father and his son, lifelong friends. It just means longer delays. It's some kind of Big Brother type criminal and mental health database. An unconstitutional fetter on the Second Amendment which, as you said, we will eat for breakfast.

I suspect Sloane is lying. (She lies a lot in the film. She admits to being adept at it because she had to, one of the few human facets that either slip out or she let slip.) Given her meticulous nature, emphasis on knowing one's subject, and the level of preparation she puts in, I can hardly believe she did not prepare for this meeting with Sandford, let alone not read the bill.

The disconnect with female voters

In the meeting with Sloane, Sandford tells her of his problem with connecting with female voters (11:50, 12:27):

"Women. Our polling data is telling us that we're not connecting with the female voter. So, we want to change the narrative. From mothers losing their kids to guns, to mothers protecting their kids with guns. From a battered wife threatened by a bullet, to fending off her violent husband with a .38. Now Liz, imagine a new organisation, pitched at women who are deterred by the strong rhetoric of the Second Amendment groups, and by our association with the political right. But no links to us, no baggage. No overt position on guns. And you will build it up, you will drive its agenda, and slowly but surely, you will turn those members into paid-up guardians of the Second Amendment."

Clear references to school shootings and domestic violence-related homicides. His simplistic understanding of these issues speaks clearly for itself. That he thinks that "Guns as tools of female empowerment" and "God created humans; Samuel Colt made them equal!" are great slogans likewise speaks for itself. This rhetoric is so contrived, condescending and chauvinistic, it doesn't bear repeating. Is it no wonder that his rhetoric is not connecting with female voters?

Interestingly, it seems that in the US, women do tend be consistent Democrat voters. However, the issue is not one that will so easily be surmounted by Sandford's proposed solution. According to this 2020 The Atlantic article:

"As for why women overall become consistent Democrats, according to Cascio, the brief answer is: Women's politics changed a little, and party politics changed a lot. The longer answer starts with Ronald Reagan.

With the nomination of Reagan for president in 1980, the Republican Party moved sharply to the right on a handful of issues relevant to women. The party dropped its support of the Equal Rights Amendment, embraced an anti-abortion position, and courted conservative Christians who lamented the effect of working women on "traditional" families. Although Reagan handily won election, he lost women by eight points. "It wasn't until Reagan that Republicans clearly showed women that there are sides," Kathleen Dolan, a political-science professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, told The Washington Post. ... ...

In the next few decades, the parties became more polarized. Conservative elites sorted into the Republican Party, while liberal elites sorted into the Democratic Party; and voters followed. This alignment had specific ramifications for the gender gap. Since the beginning of modern polling in the U.S., men had consistently held more conservative positions than women on a range of issues, including welfare spending, homosexuality, and use of force in foreign policy. As the parties became more ideological, the gender gap kept growing—from eight percentage points in 1980, to 12 points in 2000, to 13 points in 2016. Notably, Democrats lost all of those elections, as men moved even more sharply into the Republican Party. Since 1980, a majority of men have never once supported the Democratic candidate for president. In 2016, a paltry 41 percent of men (and just 32 percent of white men) voted for Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps because the Democratic Party has become reliant on winning female votes, its policies are attuned to women's priorities. Women are more likely to live below the poverty threshold and rely on food stamps and other welfare services—part of a global phenomenon known as "the feminization of poverty." This fact may make them more receptive to Democrats' relatively consistent promises to expand the welfare state. As the Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell writes, women are also more likely to work or be employed in government and government-regulated sectors, such as education and health care. It stands to reason that these employment trends make women less likely to vote for a Republican Party that has, for four decades, consistently promised to slash taxes and shrink government.

The gender gap may be a reflection of other schisms in the electorate, like education and geography. Women account for a majority of college graduates in the U.S. and a majority of residents in most metro areas. Both college education and density correlate with Democratic voting."

Clearly, to address the disconnect, one's going to have to address a whole lot more issues than just guns and gun violence in the US.

Battered wife fending off her violent husband

This reference by Sandford does beg the question on whether her abusive husband would even be able to obtain a firearm if it was subject to universal background checks as per the bill in question. It also indicates how superficially he views the issue with domestic abuse and battered women. And he wonders why the disconnect with female voters....

This also refers to an interesting area in legal cases in the last decade or so. Largely known as the "battered woman syndrome", "battered person syndrome" or "battered spouse syndrome", it was a theory developed in the 1970s that is not in the DSM but has been associated with PTSD. It was raised as a legal defence to murder in England in the 1990s, and subsequently in some other common law jurisdictions such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Since then, there has been growing information and research on this condition. However, acceptance of this condition as a legal defence or even as a condition in support of an existing legal defence (provocation or self-defence) has been mixed across various jurisdictions. In my home jurisdiction of Singapore, it is not yet tested or accepted as a defence per se. In the US, this defence was accepted by the Florida Supreme Court in Kathleen Weiand vs. State of Florida, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999). Even so, the condition is not an established defence and is still subject to much legal critique.

Dildoes are illegal in Texas

In the first meeting between Sloane and Schmidt after an event on the Hill (19:35-19:43):

Schmidt : Dildos are illegal in Texas, but Joe Public can walk into a sports store and walk out with a shotgun.

Sloane : That would explain the low rate of dildo-related murders in Texas.

Schmidt's statement is a spin-off from a long-standing joke that "it's easier to buy a handgun in Texas than a vibrator". Yes, sex toys such as dildos are regulated in the Lone Star State by Texas Penal Code Title 9, §43.21, aka Texas obscenity statue. It is rather timely of Miss Sloane, as just a few months before its release, on 1 August, the new Texas "campus carry" law went into effect. The passage of this "campus carry" law was protested against by Texas University students with a Cocks Not Glocks campaign (yes, dildos). The timing of this "campus carry" law also leaves much to be desired, as the new law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of the 1966 University of Texas shooting.

The Brady Campaign

The Brady Campaign does generally refer to the gun-control lobbyists, although there are other top well-known gun-control lobby groups too. The campaign took its name from James Scott "Jim" Brady and his wife Sarah Brady. Jim Brady sustained a gunshot wound, which left him permanently disabled, during the 1981 attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Subsequently, he and his wife became passionate advocates for gun control gun violence legislation. (I'm going to start using a neutral phrase such as "gun violence" or "gun safety" from here on.)

Political Spending

"The Brady Campaign? I know they're gonna lose because their total budget is less than what the gun lobby pays to get their shoes shined," so says Sloane (20:05 to 20:10). The gun lobby's political spending does by far outstrip the gun-control lobby's, though the 38:1 expenditure ratio may possibly be exaggerated. Reports put it at 7:1 in 2012, with the NRA as the biggest spender (hardly surprising). Other reports put it at around 15:1 in 2010, again with NRA as biggest spender. But frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the figures were 38:1. It is hardly surprising that the NRA is reportedly the biggest spender. It is funded by the gun industry, with which it has had a long relationship and holds much influence. Clearly, taking a pro-gun stance in support of the gun industry also holds much benefit for the NRA itself.

The 'concealed-carry' ban in Illinois

In the film, the character Esme Manucharian's unsuccessful fight to preserve the 'concealed-carry ban' in Illinois references reality. In late 2012, the said ban in Illinois was overturned when the 7th Circuit Court struck down the ban as unconstitutional. Subsequently, a 'concealed carry' law was passed in 2013, allowing Illinois residents to carry firearms in certain public places, if they have a valid 'concealed carry' licence.

School shootings, and mass shootings

The film also references fictional and real-life mass shootings. Sloane mentions that her personal position on responsible gun laws "solidified somewhere between Columbine and Charleston" (at 15:14). She is referring to the 1999 Columbine High School massacre and the 2015 Charleston church shooting.

In the film, victims of gun violence are given a face and a voice - Esme Manucharian, a character who is a victim of the Bloomington High shooting in the late 90s (41:27 and 1:15:17). The Bloomington Massacre most likely references the Columbine High School massacre. Besides the high profile shootings in Columbine High, Virginia Tech (2007) and Sandy Hook Elementary (2012), there are many more school shootings in the US. Additionally, besides Charleston, there have been many other non-school mass shootings, including the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.

According to a CNN July 2019 news report, there have already been 22 school shootings in the US in which a person was injured or killed. Since Sandy Hook, there have been 2,188 mass shootings in the US (as at 22 August 2019).

Gun violence is a contentious issue in the US (as Miss Sloane makes clear.) The US is the easiest country in the world to buy and own a gun; it even has the most relaxed gun laws compared to other developed nations. It is widely reported that there are more mass shootings in the US than any other country. However, it has also been claimed that it is a myth or a common misconception that the US leads the world in mass shootings rates. The question of whether the US leads the world in mass shootings is a separate enquiry that ought to be explored. However, it does not change the fact that the US has "an unusually high rate of gun violence and mass shootings for a highly developed and wealthy nation" (source), making it "a uniquely American problem". Compared to 22 other high-income countries (including Canada), gun-related homicide in the US is 25 times higher. 

The gun lobby's arguments against gun violence legislation

The film also takes a shot swipe at the pro-gun lobby's rhetoric. Sloane says (at 45:55):

"The gun lobby's rhetoric is based on the falsehood that we want to take something away from people. We don't. We want to make it more difficult for dangerous people to buy firearms. If we can't burst this fallacy, we may as well go home."

True actually. Besides the negativity attached to the phrase "gun control", the gun lobby's rhetoric does employ fear-mongering and fallacious arguments including confiscation and violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The Frank McGill episode in Miss Sloane, and the gun lobby using it to support their position, reference NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's statement (also an NRA mantra), "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." The character of Frank McGill would be poster boy for the gun lobby's good-guy-with-gun shooting bad-boy-with-gun. McGill is from Chicago and was carrying a legally-registered concealed 9mm - another reference to the Illinois 'concealed-carry' law, mentioned above. He shoots the bad-guy, the white pro-gun guy who's threatening to (about to?) shoot Esme Manucharian. (Also, is it me reading too much into it, or is there some kind of reverse racial stereotyping going on here, with the whole white guy pointing gun at black girl?)

Well, this good-guy-with-gun stopping bad-guy-with-gun has been challenged as a romantic myth. And I'm going to be geeky and point out that this has also been referenced, and criticised, in The West Wing. In episode 2 of season 2 ("In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part II") following the shooting of the character President Josiah Bartlet, the White House Press Secretary C.J. Cregg said in a press briefing:

"This is our fifth press briefing since midnight. Obviously, there's one story that's going to be dominating the news around the world for the next few days, and, uh, it would be easy to think that President Bartlet, Joshua Lyman and Stephanie Abbot were the only people who were victims of a gun crime last night. They weren't. Mark Davis and Sheila Evans of Philadelphia were killed by a gun last night. He was a biology teacher, and she was a nursing student. Gina Bishop, Belinda Larkin were killed with a gun last night; they were 12. There were 36 homicides last night. 480 sexual assaults, 3,411 robberies, 3,685 aggravated assaults. All at gunpoint. And if anyone thinks those crimes could've been prevented if the victims themselves had been carrying guns, I'd only remind you that the President of the United States was shot last night whilst surrounded by the best trained armed guards in the history of the world."

And here I was reminded of Kennedy, Roosevelt and Reagan.

There is also another narrative that the film also highlights - when Schmidt said (at 1:30:50):

"McGill was a legal owner of a registered weapon, Heaton-Harris wouldn't have touched him, but it might've made it a little harder for the other son-of-a-bitch."

And in the words of the hard-ass Miss Sloane (at 1:36:20 and 1:36:42):

"...what is important to remember here is that Frank McGill is exactly the kind of law-abiding, responsible gun owner whose rights the Heaton-Harris bill protects. ... ... Why not report that the majority of gun owners favour more extensive background checks? That the gun lobby's fear-mongering rhetoric is trying to paint Heaton-Harris into something that it's not?"

Now what was it I mentioned, above, about the Socratic Problem? Notice we never actually see the actual provisions of the Heaton-Harris bill in Miss Sloane? We only see what people say it is about.

Following from that, as discussed above, much of the film is about a theme of the film seems to involve critical thinking, analysing arguments, forming well-reasoned arguments or opinions. Also quite neatly highlighted when Sloane says in respect of her opinion on gun violence (at 40:11):

"As if I can only see the merits in an argument when I feel the effects personally. There was a Congressman - I don't remember his name, his whole career, he was against gay rights, only to do a complete u-turn when his brother comes out. What a well-reasoned basis for an opinion!"

See again the point on Socrates and critical thinking, above. Sloane's statement may also be referencing reality: Senator Rob Portman's u-turn on gay marriage when his son came out.

But let's face it. If a person is strongly convinced by sound-bite arguments that confirm their closely held beliefs, reasoned arguments using facts or statistics that rebut them may not change that person's mind anyway. No matter how accurate or well-reasoned. Or to quote a caption in an article in The New Yorker, "The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight". So we can talk about the facts and the math of mass shootings gun violence until we are blue in the face to some hardcore pro-gun supporters or gun safety supporters (whichever end of the spectrum), probably with little result.

It's kind of like showing evidence of Trump's indiscretions and questionable morality to people like James Dobson, Mary Colbert, Jerry Falwell Jr., etc. After all, they're they appear willing to overlook and wave away Trump's indiscretions mainly, if not solely, on the basis that he supports the evangelical right-wing position on same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. Dobson stated he supported Trump because Trump purportedly supports overturning Roe v Wade, and promised to protect "our religious liberties". (Dobson, the same person who has advised parents that disciplining a child is like beating a dog likened a child's strong-willed behaviour to that of a dog challenging authority, a dog that he seems to proudly talk about beating into submission. What is that anecdotal advice supposed to imply?) Colbert believes Trump, though not perfect, is chosen by God. Falwell thinks Trump is the dream president.

The same person who bragged about getting away with outraging women's modesty, and even seducing a married woman. Trump is hardly poster boy for respect towards women, the sanctity of marriage, or for the god-fearing (wo)man of principle. Falwell did say that Trump's so-called locker room talk deserved forgiveness, the way the Bible teaches forgiveness. But forgiveness is a separate question from whether he justifiably ought to be endorsed for the highest office in America. For example, a victim of domestic violence may forgive his/her abuser, but that does not make the abuser's domestic violence acceptable. As for Trump, it is said that he has flip-flopped on quite a few major issues, and his position on abortion is hardly consistent. We can forgive him for inconsistency, but does that make it justifiable to endorse him?

And the religious liberties of whom? Of white males? Of the evangelical right? Of anyone who agrees with everything you say/stand for? Or the religious liberty of all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or background?

Semi-automatic firearms

No gun debate can be without mention of semi-automatics, especially the AR-15. Miss Sloane casually, but effectively, slips it in during 2 instances. First, when she draws a contrast on the waiting time to get an x-ray against the waiting time to get an AR-15 (at 46:45). Second, when she remarks during the TV debate against Pat that she thinks "we can extend our definition of 'dangerous machinery' to semi-automatic firearms" (at 1:12:50).

Anything touching on the US gun debate would touch on the AR-15 - military-style, semi-automatic assault rifles, based on the US military's M16 and M4. Much of the gun debate centers on the AR-15 due to its capabilities, and popularity among gun owners in the US. Gun debates also focus on the use of semi-automatics and assault rifles in mass shootings in the US.

The contrast drawn by Sloane on waiting times also highlighted the issue of waiting periods for obtaining firearms, and how easy it is to obtain a standard AR-15 in some states.

Finally, I think perhaps the genius in that one sentence is: it clearly refers to the 2 major issues that have been hotly contested in American politics/public affairs for the longest time - healthcare and gun violence - and so succinctly delivers condemnation. All without needing to spell it out. And ironically, delivered so casually by a lobbyist.

What was it that Sloane and Schmidt said about conviction lobbyists in the film? She said, "Conviction lobbyists must only believe in their ability to win." And he replied, in writing, "A conviction lobbyist can't only believe in her ability to win." Sloane sure sounds like she has personal beliefs in these 2 causes.

All that on guns but at the end of the day, what was the film really about? If anything else, Miss Sloane points to the influence of lobbyists and potentially the moral bankruptcy of American politics, perceived or real. (I just enjoyed it as a geek.)