Quantcast
Channel: The Urban Politico
Viewing all 1892 articles
Browse latest View live

Book Reviews: Black House, Ricochet

$
0
0
Black House
by Stephen King and Peter Straub
This is a sequel to the book, The Talisman, penned all those years ago by the same two authors and good friends. It is not necessary to have read The Talisman in order to enjoy Black House. The Talisman was, briefly, a story of a 12 year old boy who has to travel to an alternate reality in order to obtain the titular object, a source of immense magical power, and also save his dying mother. This reality, which the boy, Jack Sawyer, calls The Territories is similar to our own except that magic works and the world is smaller. Time and distance are also somewhat warped so that travel in The Territories doesn't match up exactly with travel in our world. Most people in our world have an alternate self or "twinner" in The Territories. These alternate selves are not necessarily aware of each other but usually have the same desires and goals. They are also linked. What happens good or bad to one version of a person usually happens, albeit in a different way to the other version. Jack is unique or at least rare in that he doesn't have a twinner. He survived his twinner's murder. He can thus physically flip between the two worlds (most people can't do that). Ultimately Jack is able, after much heartache and loss of life, to save his mother, prevent his murdered father's partner Morgan and Morgan's twinner from obtaining The Talisman or stealing his father's company, and save the life of the Queen of The Territories (his mother's twinner).

But similar to how C.S. Lewis detailed the Narnia series, children grow up and unlearn the wisdom of their youth. A little over two decades after the events in The Talisman, Jack is a thirty something retired LAPD officer who had been on the fast track to Chief of Detectives and likely even Chief of Police. He has no memory of The Territories, the heroic role he played there or friends and enemies made in that realm. The only qualities he's retained from his time there are a very reliable intuition, an ability to quickly read people and an ever so slight foresight. These, along with a rock-solid moral sense and disdain for bullies help his meteoric rise in his chosen profession. But when a case in LA unknowingly reminded Jack of things he had forgotten, he abruptly decided to walk away from his career and retire to French Landing, Wisconsin. He assisted on a case there once and immediately made a friend for life in the decent but overwhelmed Police Chief, Dale Gilbertson. 

But there's no rest for the weary. There is a killer loose in French Landing. The worst kind of killer is roaming free, one who kills children. This man models himself after the serial killer Albert Fish and is thus known as The Fisherman. Dale begs for Jack's help, recognizing that whatever is going on is beyond his ability to prevent or solve. Jack initially refuses. But Jack is having dreams, both when he's asleep and when he's awake. He can't understand them or explain them. Ultimately the man who first summoned Jack to the Territories, Speedy Parker (a blues musician in our world and a relentless gunslinger/marshal in The Territories) is able to break the wall in Jack's mind and restore his memory and ability to flip between the two worlds. And Jack finally learns what King/Straub reveal almost immediately to the reader, that these killings are not the work of a human, or at least not something that is completely human. There has been some slippage between our world and The Territories. Battle is joined.
This is very hardcore horror so if that is not your thing ordinarily I'd advise those not so inclined to pass on this book. But the writing is so sublime that even if you're not into horror it would be a mistake for you to skip this book. Of course I am a fan of horror and King and Straub so take that recommendation with a rock of salt. It is interesting to read this and try to pick out which parts were written by King and which were written by Straub. They usually have pretty distinct voices but here they seem to have melded into one super-writer. There aren't any jarring discontinuities. Straub is from Wisconsin. I think he provided a lot of the descriptions of that area. I would also bet that Straub wrote most of the jazz stuff (much of the action takes place in a senior home where blind DJ Henry Leydeen plays jazz and pop music for the residents) as Straub is known to be a jazz aficionado but other than that it's anybody's guess. The book is seamless and quite rewarding. The story has been retrofitted to include references to King's Dark Tower series. As is usual in most of King's work, the everyday and prosaic is so very well depicted that when the supernatural appears you are so invested in the tale that you have no choice but to believe it.





Ricochet
by Ovid Demaris
Some gangsters like Carlo Gambino, Meyer Lansky, and Sidney Korshak generally stayed in the shadows. These men were either lucky enough or smart enough to avoid imprisonment or murder and die of natural causes as free men. Other gangsters like John Gotti, Albert Anastasia or Bugsy Siegel disdained living quietly and so aroused the ire of law enforcement or their fellow mobsters. These men often died in prison or were removed from the planet in a much more abrupt manner.

Nicky Scarfo, former boss of the Philadelphia Mafia Family, belonged in the second category. He became boss after a period of internal and external strife in and around the Philadelphia organization. Philadelphia mobsters hoped that Scarfo would return the group to its days of quiet profit under the late Angelo Bruno. Well that didn't happen. Scarfo was, like Gotti, a loud brash man who loved killing and public recognition. He even ordered the murder of a judge who had doublecrossed him. Ultimately Scarfo's violent reckless nature -- he enjoyed being present at actual murders ---a no no for a boss, caught up with him. Scarfo's preferred solution to problems was to kill people. People inside the family started worrying they would be next, especially after, (shades of The Red Wedding) Scarfo murdered the Family's putative heir because the man backed out of an arranged wedding with the daughter of a Scarfo ally. Informants proliferated. Scarfo received multiple sentences for murder, extortion and RICO.


Ricochet fictionalized Scarfo as Tony Allio. Tony Allio is a short quick tempered patricidal mob boss who is good with a knife. He's a bully and a thug. He's got his little fingers in prostitution, narcotics, extortion, and everything else that goes on in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area. Tony seeks revenge on the book's protagonist, one Frank Conti. Frank and Tony have known each other since childhood and never liked each other. In high school, Tony already had a dangerous reputation and his own group of budding mafia wannabees. Frank stepped in to protect his girlfriend when Tony's friends attempted to molest her. Tony and company beat him to within an inch of his life. Frank ignored his policeman's father's pleas to either let it go or let the police handle it. Frank recovered and bided his time until he got Tony alone and returned the favor in spades, afterwards fleeing into the Army and the Vietnam War. 

Now Frank is back in South Philly, a decorated vet and former Green Beret who's a rising corporate banker. But Tony Allio didn't mind waiting decades for payback. He has plans for Frank. He intends to hurt Frank and his family thru Frank's wife Nancy. Nancy has a gambling problem. And Tony is all too happy to indulge her. But Tony forgets that pushing the buttons of a Green Beret isn't smart. There is an interesting subplot with Joey Bucci and his girlfriend Joyce. They are mob hangers on who get close to Allio and find themselves getting in too deep. You won't feel sorry for Joey although you might empathize with Joyce. Joey is a walking example of how one bad decision leads to many more until you're at a kill or be killed crossroads. Demaris was a detective novelist and reporter who had written multiple investigative exposes on organized crime. So he knew his stuff. His storytelling skills were not to the level of King or Straub. This book was a little less than 300 pages but was a very quick read. 

Tom Perkins: Return to Aristocracy

$
0
0
There has been a lot written of late about inequality. Unsurprisingly people on the Right tend to defend inequality in general and the massively increased inequality of the past 40-50 years as a good thing. People on the Left tend to consider increased inequality a bad thing while some go so far as to consider virtually any inequality as problematic. The Right, or at least corporations and the monied class have been winning this argument for a very long time. To the extent there is increased energy on the Left about this it's a last ditch stand or cynical media posturing by politicians who'd like to change the subject from their own complicity in the workings of the machine while keeping those campaign contributions rolling in. But there are some people of the Right who are not content with being wealthy, not content with paying relatively low taxes by historical American standards or by the standards of other First World industrialized nations, and not content with having money treated as speech and having political bribery virtually legalized. Some people, aristocrats in all but name, are starting to wonder why those damned peasants have the right to vote at all.

I mean if you're so awesome and so intelligent that you've built or expanded multinational corporations, discovered new medicines, increased the limits of knowledge about the universe, or at the very least made yourself and your family more money than could be spent in one lifetime, is it really fair that some sap who hasn't even made a million dollars gets the same vote as you do? Some rich people think that they should have more say in society while more of us peasants should have no say. Venture capitalist Tom Perkins, last heard from comparing the wealthiest 1% Americans to Jews hunted and exterminated during the Holocaust, is such a man.

"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said. "But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?" 

The audience at the Commonwealth Club reacted with laughter. But Perkins offered no immediate indication that he was joking. Asked offstage if the proposal was serious, Perkins said: "I intended to be outrageous, and it was."






It is hard to overestimate how profoundly undemocratic and unAmerican this proposal is. There is always a tension between the private sector in which the boss can more or less operate as he sees fit (especially without unions) and the public sphere of democracy and a republican form of government in which everyone has a say and both private power and public power are limited by constitution and law. Evidently Perkins doesn't like our system any more. Perhaps he should consider leaving the country and resettling in a place like Afghanistan or Somalia where whatever the local Big Man says, goes. He might be much happier. The entire swath of American political history has tended towards expanding the franchise, not limiting it.

Perkins offers no reason as to why it would be a better thing if only rich people voted or had even more of an outsize impact on elections than they already do. I guess to him it's self-evident. But I think he's going to have to come up with a better argument than "I'm rich and dislike the current President."
An aristocratic system tends not to last if you have other elements like an educated middle class, social safety nets, unions and other non-government support groups, etc. Because sooner or later people without the vote or with limited political say realize that they greatly outnumber the rich and have no need to bow and scrape before them. But to be an American is not to bow and scrape before anyone NOR to want anyone to do that before you. Perkins should learn how to be an American. I think he was apparently born in the wrong country and wrong century. If nothing else, Perkins should realize that a society that moves too far towards plutocracy and autocracy eventually gets balanced out by a Robespierre...

Michael Dunn Guilty on 4 Out of 5 Counts

$
0
0
Per USA Today:

JACKSONVILLE — Michael David Dunn faces at least 60 years inside a prison cell for firing 10 bullets toward a group of teenagers in a sport-utility vehicle during an escalating argument over booming rap music in a gasoline station parking lot.
But they deadlocked on whether Dunn murdered Jordan Davis, 17, when he shot at the SUV. Three of the nine bullets that hit the car struck Davis, who was in the rear passenger seat. The gunfire missed the other teens.

Bob Mack, AP
Michael Dunn returns to the courtroom during jury deliberations in his trial in Jacksonville on Feb. 13, 2014.



After almost 32 hours of deliberations over four days -- on the eve of what would have been Davis's 19th birthday -- a Duval County jury convicted Dunn on three counts of second-degree attempted murder Saturday night. Assistant State Attorney Erin Wolfson said each count carries a 20-year minimum mandatory sentence. These sentences must run consecutively, said Jackelyn Barnard, spokeswoman for the State Attorney's Office.
Jurors also convicted Dunn, 47, of shooting or throwing a deadly missile. This felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, Wolfson said.
The trial was the latest Florida case to raise questions about self-defense and race; Dunn is white and the teens were black. It came six months after George Zimmerman was acquitted of any crime for fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, about 125 miles south of Jacksonville. The Dunn trial was prosecuted by the same State Attorney's Office as was the Zimmerman case.
The case is not likely over.
Circuit Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial on the first-degree murder count. State Attorney Angela Corey said after the verdict that her office would retry Dunn for first-degree murder.
Davis' parents each left the courtroom in tears.
Dunn showed no emotion as the verdicts were read. But afterwards, he turned to his lawyer, Cory Strolla, and asked, "How is this happening?"

HBO Game of Thrones Season Four Trailer: Vengeance

$
0
0
Payback is a mother...... or so some people say. Other people say that you set out for revenge you had better dig two graves. Still others were known to say that when winter comes and the cold winds blow the lone wolf dies but the pack, the pack survives. Robb and Catelyn Stark are dead and gone but the Stark wolfpack, while scattered and young, is a long way from destroyed. Is this the season of their vengeance? Time will tell. And what's Danerys up to? Is she going to get back to Westeros and take what is hers with fire and blood? We shall see. 
Enjoy clip below but as usual if you know what some of these scenes entail or book derived answers to the above questions, please keep them to yourself. Thanks! 




Thank You Note

$
0
0
We'd just like to throw up a quick post thanking all of our readers, old and new, current, past and hopefully future, for stopping by to read what we have to write, think about it and hopefully comment. Whether you agree or disagree with what's written, whether you think someone is pretty much in alignment with your own political and social views or self-evidently a sub-literate loony biased hack,  the fact that you took the time to read and hopefully comment on one of our blog posts is what we "work" for and how we are "paid". It's really the commenters who make this blog something worth reading. So as bluesman Little Milton was known to say (paraphrasing): "We'd like to take five minutes and recognize the real stars of the show. And by real stars I mean you all and I'll tell you why. There may be one reader or one thousand readers, but without you there would be no blog. So give yourselves a round of applause!" Seriously though, all kidding aside thanks for reading. We learn from people who comment on what we write. We hope that you continue to read and provide your feedback both on the blog and via email, twitter or facebook, as to what sorts of things you'd like to read about, how often and what times you read the blog, what we can do better in your opinion, what we need to do less of and so on and so forth. By the way, be sure to check back over the next couple of days as there may be another time critical thank you of a slightly more material nature...

Game of Thrones Complete Season Three Offer

$
0
0
Greetings!
We have four copies of HBO's Game of Thrones Complete Season Three. There are two Blu Ray/DVD copies and two DVD copies. Some special features include deleted/extended scenes, introductions to new characters, backgrounds on Westeros/Essos groups, cast/crew reactions to The Red Wedding and interviews with and commentaries by actors, producers, directors and Martin. We'd prefer to give these discs away to regular contributors to thank them for reading our blog. You must have commented on this blog at least twice during the past 120 days. These items will be given away to the first four people (non blog moderators) to send the correct answers to the below questions, along with their blog id, mailing address/name*, and their preferred version (DVD or Blu-Ray) to our email address.  Please use subject line "GAME OF THRONES GIVEAWAY". Answers must be received today before 5 PM EST. Answers should be as specific as possible. Proper names are preferred. A correct answer is "X is so-and-so's brother", not "His brother is that guy with the big nose who dresses in black". Ties will be resolved by blog management. 

If no one is interested or can answer the questions correctly then perhaps we'll just keep these items for ourselves. Otherwise winners will receive their copy within seven to ten business days. Comments are/will be disabled for this post so please don't place your answers here, the contact page or anywhere else on the blog. Doing so may lead to executions bannings. I'm sure as an upright honest person you'd be fine with the Stark honor system. But it might be a tragic mistake to remain honorable and spend precious time searching your fading memory while your more pragmatic Littlefinger type competitors search Google (or posts on this blog) and thus win "your" prize. Well winning isn't everything. It's the only thing. You saw what happened to Ned when he tried to be righteous. Good luck, whichever road you choose. Snicker.
*If you really prefer not to use your government name because the Mob is looking for you that's perfectly ok as long as you can provide us a valid mailing address. PO Boxes are fine.

QUIZ QUESTIONS
  1. Including Jon Snow, match each Stark child (living or deceased) to his or her direwolf (living or deceased).
  2. Which character is derisively called "halfman" by his allies and routinely threatened with having his manhood chopped off and fed to the goats?
  3. Which house uses the song "The Rains of Castamere" as a warning to its enemies?
  4. Who was Renly Barratheon's lover (not his betrothed)?
  5. Who constantly says "You know nothing, Jon Snow!"
  6. Who is the Hound's big brother? Nickname or partial name is acceptable.
  7. Which house has the words "We do not sow".
  8. Bonus Question: If you get this correct you can get some other questions wrong and still win (if you are among the first four respondents). What is Littlefinger's sigil?

Juror #4 in Michael Dunn Trial Speaks Out

$
0
0
Right on schedule! Juror #4 in the Michael Dunn trial has hit the interview circuits, with her first apperance on ABC's Nightline.



I am pretty upset about this verdict and even more stunned to hear that someone on this jury saw this Dunn's actions as self defense.

Let's chat.....


Share your thoughts....

Obama Administration: DHS Proposal for National License Plate Tracking

$
0
0
If you're like millions of other people, you probably woke up this morning, had breakfast, and performed the usual toiletries that clean, psychologically normal and healthy people perform. You then bustled yourself off to yet another exciting day of work, school, raising your children, enjoying your retirement or any other number of productive or leisurely activities. One thing you probably didn't do is stop by your local police station or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office and provide those kind men and women a detailed, hour by hour itinerary of your plans for the day, how long you thought these things would take, who you'd be seeing and where you'd be for most of the day. I know that you're probably pretty busy. Perhaps the critical importance of letting the government and its running dog corporate lackeys know where you were slipped your mind. Never fear. DHS has got you covered.

In a sad reminder of just how far government has sunken and how contemptuous many governmental bureaucratic or law-enforcement types are of a citizen's right to privacy and to be left alone, the DHS confirmed that it is seeking a private agency to assist it in building a database of every US license plate and its real time location.

The Department of Homeland Security wants a private company to provide a national license-plate tracking system that would give the agency access to vast amounts of information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers, according to a government proposal that does not specify what privacy safeguards would be put in place.The national license-plate recognition database, which would draw data from readers that scan the tags of every vehicle crossing their paths, would help catch fugitive illegal immigrants, according to a DHS solicitation. But the database could easily contain more than 1 billion records and could be shared with other law enforcement agencies, raising concerns that the movements of ordinary citizens who are under no criminal suspicion could be scrutinized.
The agency said the length of time the data is retained would be up to the winning vendor. Vigilant Solutions, for instance, one of the leading providers of tag-reader data, keeps its records indefinitely. Nationwide, local police as well as commercial companies are gathering license-plate data using various means. One common method involves drivers for repossession companies methodically driving up and down streets with cameras mounted on their cars snapping photos of vehicles. Some police forces have cameras mounted on patrol cars. Other images may be retrieved from border crossings, interstate highway on-ramps and toll plazas.

Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which is part of the Justice Department, also have deployed cameras along the country’s borders. But DHS’s effort appears to be the first time a federal law enforcement agency is seeking such extensive access to a broad repository of data capturing the movements and images of American motorists from metropolitan ­areas...
If you've read this blog for more than a month or so you know where I stand on civil liberties and privacy. So you can probably guess what I think of this idea. Very simply this is bovine excrement. Wet stinky greasy foul bovine excrement. This is precisely the sort of thing that we read about states like Communist China or the former East Germany doing. A government that tries to know what its citizens are reading, with whom the citizens are communicating via phone, email, letter, and where the citizens are traveling and why is not a government that I have any respect for. It's a government that needs a radical haircut in its powers and so-called authority. If someone from the government wants to know what I did today they could ask me. And I could tell them to go  attempt airborne copulation with a rapidly revolving pastry. Unless I am under formal government control via imprisonment, parole or probation, who I talk to, why I talk to them, who I sleep with, where and why I travel, who my friends are and so forth and so on are none of the government's business. If the government REALLY needs to know, get a warrant. This is most definitely not a partisan issue. The great problem as I see it is that these increasing attacks on civil liberties and stepped up surveillance of citizen movements are sort of a Nixon to China moment. It took a right wing politician to attempt to woo China into the capitalist marketplace and make diplomatic concessions to the Chinese. This neutralized and isolated the rabid right-wing base that would have otherwise fiercely opposed such an action by a centrist or left leaning politician. Similarly if it had been widely reported under a Republican Administration that the FBI/DHS etc were seeking to maintain records of individual travel by all Americans, I suspect that many more left leaning activist groups and politicians might have slightly more than a few mild concerns to express. But because Obama is behind it you won't hear more than a few mumbles from most progressive people. This is wrong. Everyone should oppose these steps.


There are some fair minded people of goodwill who nevertheless still wonder why civil libertarians were so angered by warrantless wiretapping, metadata gathering, email and social network monitoring. They claim that as long as the government keeps us safe what's the big deal. To those people I would say that the big deal is exactly that giving the government a pass on the above activities, as we have largely done, just emboldens the government to take other bites out of our freedom. This really is a slippery slope.  People who come up with these sorts of ideas never ever have enough information. There's always someone out there who may have some fig leaf of privacy left. That bothers control freaks. There are many people who were alleged to have said this but it really is true that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  If you're still not convinced that this expansion is problematic I'm not sure what to say to you. The opportunities for abuse are endless in such a system. We know that the government already targets people with political views that it doesn't like. Is it such a leap to believe that armed with a real time database of people's travels that further abuses would proliferate?  Let's imagine for a moment that there is that is a pugnaciously righteous attorney general or governor of a large east coast state. This man has numerous bitter rivals and enemies among the political and financial establishment. So his detractors monitor his movements until they realize this pompous populist gadfly is spending quality time at a brothel or house of a woman not his wife. So the politician's rivals then try to blackmail this man into softening his stances or failing that charge him with a crime thus destroying his ability to seek higher office or threaten established financial power. Of course nothing like that would ever happen would it? I'm just being paranoid...

Self-Defense In Detroit Home Invasion

$
0
0
A Detroit mother opened fire Monday night when three suspects broke into her home. Surveillance cameras caught it all.The mother tells 7 Action News she "didn't have time to get scared." When she heard the door to her home on Woodrow Wilson being kicked in, she immediately warned the three teenage intruders and then opened fire. One of the teens dropped a handgun on his way out the door. He then tried to get back inside the house a second time, but was again met with gunfire. Once again, he took off and all three were arrested shortly after the incident by Detroit Police.  These young criminals were indeed fortunate that they were not killed as they tried to break into this woman's home. Although incidents like this may indeed be statistically rare if you are the person confronted with this behavior that's small comfort indeed. Notice that the woman defended herself and her children with a scary looking "assault rifle". Unfortunately there are people in this world who are "bad", "warped", "bent", "evil" or whatever other pejorative word you wish to use. Ultimately I suppose you could pity such people but in my view such pity can only be doled out once they're safely behind bars or six feet under the ground. If one happens to be unfortunate enough to run into such miscreants bent on taking something that is yours, immediate and massive counter force is the only thing which they will respect. Incidents like this are why I am unsympathetic to people who tell us we don't "need" guns to protect ourselves or that no one "needs" a magazine capacity with more than an arbitrary number of rounds. As far as I am concerned the only bad thing about this incident was that the mother didn't light up all of the home invaders. Please note that although the police arrived quickly after the fact and arrested the criminals it was impossible for the police to be there at the moment that the thugs decided to break down the door. We are ultimately responsible for protecting ourselves and those we love. Watch video here.

Movie Reviews: Ender's Game

$
0
0
Ender's Game
directed by Gavin Hood
Ender's Game was based upon the book of the same name by the author Orson Scott Card. I had not read the book so I watched the movie with no preconceptions. There were some people who said they would avoid the movie because of Card's political and religious views but as a fan of H.P. Lovecraft it takes a whole lot to get me to boycott art, as has been discussed before. Although I can't say for sure I think that there was a lot left out from the book. There are a lot of dead ends and things left unexplained in the movie that I imagine might have been clear to me had I read the book. In some very real ways Ender's Game is a morally didactic movie. It definitely has a message of tolerance and understanding. All the same the message is muddled and bent. Perhaps it's the problem of translation from one medium to another. Perhaps it's the danger inherent in having child actors, although I doubt it. The young man playing Ender is pretty accomplished in his field, despite his youth. I also doubt it's the director as he has won Oscars for some of his previous work. Maybe it's just the sadness and a little ugliness in the source material. I'm not sure. I am sure that this was not a must-see film despite its A-list cast and impressive special effects.

In the not too distant future Earth has been attacked by a race of interstellar insectoids known as the Formics. Millions of people die. The Formic invasion is only halted by the self-sacrifice of pilot Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley), who just like Randy Quaid in Independence Day, rams his aircraft and its payload into the unprotected belly of the Formic mothership, destroying it and causing other Formic ships to either crash or flee.


Since that time Earth has been obsessed with the possibility of a new Formic attack. It appears that the military has taken political control from civilians and silly little things like nation states have dropped by the wayside. And parents need permission from the state to make whoopie or at least make the kind of whoopie that results in another human being joining this world. I don't know if this is from the book or not but that was my impression from the film.  A new way of war is being propagated. I thought it barely made sense when you think about who spends time playing video games. The new style of warfare requires massively integrated intellectual capacities combined with fearlessness and intuition. These are characteristics which are disproportionately found among children. These children will be trained as if they are actual warriors but their "fighting" is done via computer screens from which they control drones, fire systems and ships with actual adult men and women in them.


So the Armed Forces are always on the lookout for a few good boys and girls. One such boy is Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield). Ender combines a sharp intelligence with an appealing amorality, especially when he's placed in bad positions. He intends to win and will do what he has to do. As a young cadet he comes to the attention of Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Anderson (Viola Davis) who place Ender in difficult circumstances to see how he responds. Something which appeals to Anderson but irritates/intrigues Graff is that although he can be extremely ruthless and pragmatic, Ender nonetheless has a well developed (and equally well hidden) conscience and just as strong of a dislike of any illegitimate authority. This kicks off a series of set action/drama pieces which sees Ender promoted to greater level of responsibility, have more intense training and have deadlier confrontations with bullies. Ender does not like bullies and does not like being manipulated. However the higher he rises in the Armed Forces the more he runs into both. Interestingly enough, perhaps because Ender is supposed to be even younger than he looks, there is no love interest of any kind. Ender's interest is primarily in ensuring the safety of his older/protective sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin) though he does make good friends with another girl who initially outranks him, Petra (Hailee Steinfeld).
This movie features the slight Ender dealing some serious pain to bullies but at the same time I'm not sure you would root for the character in part because it looks like Ender also has some coldness/darkness within him that he struggles to keep on a chain.  Ender could just as easily be the hero or the precocious kid that uses a graduate level knowledge of physics and chemistry to murder the entire school. Davis and Ford don't have a whole lot to do. Their characters are pretty much defined in the beginning of the film and don't change a whole lot. Davis' character worries about Ender's emotional wellbeing while Ford's role requires that he constantly snarl "I don't give a damn what he feels like. I need him trained!!" Sergeant Dap (Nonzo AnozieXaro Xhoan Daxos from A Game of Thrones) has a small role as the drill sergeant who must beat these kids into shape. There is room for a sequel to this film but I doubt there will be one. The big surprise is telegraphed too early. And as mentioned earlier it was difficult for me to empathize with anyone in this film. This kinda bothered me a little but it is what it is.
TRAILER

Racism and Ted Nugent: Then and Now

$
0
0
Asa Carter Then:




Ted Nugent Now:

Any Questions?
The enemy is the same as it's always been. I'd like to know where are the Republicans who constantly bleat that the base of their party is not in large part animated by racism. Where are the politicians and media types who hounded President Obama to denounce, disassociate, and differentiate himself from people like Jesse Jackson, Reverend Wright, Cornell West, or any other bête noire of the day? Where are Nugent's high profile friends or media enablers like Mitch Albom or Nick Cannon? Will they denounce such language?
Probably not. I'd like to think that people would reject and shame white right-wingers who say things like this but it very rarely seems to work that way. We'll see.
At the time of this writing the only high profile Republican political operative to openly criticize Nugent's hateful speech is Senator Rand Paul. So far no one else has the stones. Either that or as is more likely they agree with him regarding President Barack Obama. Just as Klansman Asa Carter ultimately lost the fight to keep segregation and ban rock-n-roll, the Republican party is doomed to keep losing national elections unless they separate themselves from the extreme right-wing fringe. There just aren't enough angry white men with fecal matter for brains to keep voting Republican. Nationwide, that is. Texas is apparently a different story.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetos SB 1062 "Religious Freedom" Bill

$
0
0
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetos SB 1062 "Religious Freedom" Bill
 

My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona. When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear… Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona’s economic Comeback. From CEOs -- to entrepreneurs -- to business surveys -- Arizona ranks as one the best states to grow or start a business. Additionally, our IMMEDIATE challenge is fixing a broken Child Protection system. Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.

I'm very disgusted with the Arizona State Senate and Arizona House of Representatives. The fact that they have purposely chosen to ignore the serious and important issues that exists in Arizona, is an irreprehensible offense to all people. This bill posed a serious infringement on the rights of not only gay people in Arizona, but on all people. It would have stomped out the entire civil rights movement of the 1960's along with the little progress that the LGBT community has achieved in their fight to end their own discrimination. All under the guise of religious freedom. I'm embarrassed that a legislating body in the United States could carry out such an offensive act.
 
For anyone who has been sitting on the sidelines during the fight for equality for the LGBT, let this be an eye opener. Legalized discrimination against human beings was a signature away from becoming law, just a few hours ago. If the legislators in Arizona could launch such a stark and archaic attack on the LGBT community, they could do the same to Disabled Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans, women,  or people of non-christian religious affiliation.
 
We have to become a united force of this issue. If we fail to reverse course on discrimination against the LGBT community, we will only have ourselves and our stubborn silence to blame for what lies ahead. It won't be pretty.
 
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
Think about that for a moment......
 


Feminist Marriages: More Equality, Less Sex?

$
0
0
I wanted to write on this quite some time ago but the person who reviews my paid work had different ideas about my priorities. So this is a modified and much mellower version of the original post. The idea expressed in the post title is something that's been floating around the blog-o-sphere for quite some time. It finally penetrated the firmament of the New York Times Sunday Magazine. When I read this recent article I thought I was in a real life Geico commercial. Because I thought everyone already knew that. It seems that whatever the benefits of "egalitarian" style marriages may be, more sex and less divorce aren't among them. Surprisingly, it appears that heterosexual women may have some unacknowledged preferences for a certain level of well, difference and maybe even virility or dominance (shut your mouth!!!) in their husbands. As this finding very much does not comport with the modern progressive orthodoxy regarding house husbands, 50/50 sharing of chores, lean in bromides and the fiction that men and women are exactly the same except for internal plumbing, some of the people quoted in the article seemed to be suffering from very bad cases of cognitive dissonance.

I wrote previously on how there are some household tasks which are (often arbitrarily) considered more masculine. It seems that some women, or at least some married women agree. Whether we believe that it's mostly biological, mostly cultural, or imo some combination of the two, it appears that men and women appreciate each other's differences and look for a partner that exhibits divergent characteristics. According to the fascinating article quoted below a husband who becomes too similar to his wife or to put it another way a man who is too complaisant and gallant runs the very real risk of discovering what a Stephen King character ruefully noted in the book Joyland : "What I know now is that gallant young men rarely get *****. Put it on a sampler and hang it in your kitchen".

A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.
The chores study seems to show that women do want their husbands to help out — just in gender-specific ways. Couples in which the husband did plenty of traditionally male chores reported a 17.5 percent higher frequency of sexual intercourse than those in which the husband did none. These findings, Brines says, “might have something to do with the fact that the traditional behaviors that men and women enact feed into associations that people have about masculinity and femininity.” 
As Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to “lean in” — by which she means that they should make a determined effort to push forward in their careers — it may seem as if women are truly becoming, as Gloria Steinem put it, “the men we want to marry.” But these professional shifts seem to influence marital stability. A study put out last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that if a wife earns more than her husband, the couple are 15 percent less likely to report that their marriage is very happy; 32 percent more likely to report marital troubles in the past year; and 46 percent more likely to have discussed separating in the past year. Similarly, Lynn Prince Cooke found that though sharing breadwinning and household duties decreases the likelihood of divorce, that’s true only up to a point. If a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce increases. Interestingly, Cooke’s study shows that the predicted risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income.
LINK 

Of course studies are like opinions. Everyone has one. And statistics only apply to populations, not individuals. There must be a wife who is ecstatic to have her husband darning socks, fixing dinner, making quilts and cleaning the toilet while she changes the oil in the family car, cleans the gutters or installs the new sump pump. And I know for a fact there are husbands who are pleased as punch that their wife earns multiples of what they do, giving them the opportunity to stay at home with the kids or work for years on the Great American Novel that they somehow never complete. 

Stories like this reinforce why I think the great feminist dystopia"utopia" will never arrive although some people continue to argue that if we just use more corporate and government coercion incentives we'll get there. Although in total men and women are much more alike than we are different, we do seem to prefer different characteristics in our significant others. This is primarily biological in my view although different cultures express it differently. And these different preferences, minor though they are overall, drive marriage, mating, and what sort of jobs people look for.

In other words, women and men bear equal responsibility for how social relations work. It is logically impossible for women (as a group) to want total pay equity in the workplace but continue (as individuals) to be attracted to men who earn more money and/or express more dominance than they do. The incentives don't match. What is good in the public arena of work is apparently not so good in the private arena of relationships. I think that the best that society can do is to ensure workplace equal opportunity regardless of gender, race, sexuality, etc. Equal results, based on how they are defined, may remain ephemeral. And that may be ok.

Thoughts?

Movie Reviews: Almost Human, Orphan

$
0
0
Almost Human
directed by Joe Begos
No this is not the Fox Sci-Fi drama starring Michael Ealy and Karl Urban. It is however a low budget 80s style throwback horror flick that is deliberately reminiscent in credits, style, pacing and formatting of such iconic 70s and 80s films as Evil Dead, Re-AnimatorThey Came from Within and Halloween. It's a film with plenty of graphic bloody violence including an attempted(?) sexual assault. So if that sort of thing doesn't meet your criteria you know what to do. This is definitely not something that should be watched by people who are only familiar with the shallow end of the horror pool. Nope this film is made for folks who can dive and swim in the deep end. It has a short running time (80 minutes) and leaves a lot of questions unanswered, which for this movie works well. There are a few people who do stupid things, particularly near the ending, but at least some of this is called out in the film itself.
The acting is not super convincing, which is occasionally a serious problem, but by genre standards it's not the worst I've ever seen. Some of the lead actors actually also worked on editing and other behind the scenes tasks. I guess that saved money. The film is set in the 80s. The producer(s) and director did an admirable job in ensuring that sets (mostly rotary phones thank you very much) and automobiles were of a piece with decades gone by. Almost Human is set in Maine. There's a blink and you'll miss it shout out to Stephen King. 
The photography/cinematography is not what I would call crystal clear. Even on a HDTV the film remains rather blurry and in some scenes appallingly so. That could have been a deliberate attempt to put viewers in mind of the aforementioned classics or it could have just been a byproduct of not having the best equipment. Either way I think you ought to take the time to put your best foot forward technically. I don't think this film always did that. So shame on the creators for not doing so. If money was saved on the acting it wasn't immediately apparent that it was being spent on photography and SFX.

Nevertheless, regardless of its quirks and shortcomings this film still has a certain energy and drive that perhaps could and should have been more adequately expressed with a slightly higher budget and a "name" actor or two. But what the heck, we all have to start somewhere. And there's always going to be room in the world for low budget horror films. Under the right circumstances this could be a cult hit. I don't know what those circumstances might be but life is strange, you know? One day you're on the bottom. Two decades later work like this is being revered as ahead of its time and something that was woefully under appreciated in its day.
Ok, all that said what's this film about? Quite simple. Two years prior, a frightened Seth (Graham Skipper) is driving like a madman to his friend Mark's (Josh Ethier) home. IIRC it's left unexplained why Seth was going to his buddy's home in the middle of the night in the first place. Heck my family and friends generally know not to even call me past 8-9 PM unless there's an emergency but that's not important right now. What is important is that Seth has a harrowing story to tell about bright lights, nose bleeds, high frequency sounds and alien abductions. To hear Seth tell it, one of their mutual friends was kidnapped by aliens, right out of the truck. Mark, a much burlier and more aggressive man than the slight Seth, doesn't believe this. And Mark doesn't like the semi-hysterical Seth scaring Mark's girlfriend Jen (Vanessa Leigh).  Although Seth thinks he was followed he-man Mark scornfully dismisses this and marches outside where amid blue lights and high pitched noises he promptly disappears. Mark is brawny but evidently not too brainy.


Two years pass. Seth escaped being charged with Mark's kidnapping by the narrowest of margins. Most people still think Seth knows more than he's telling and shun him. Seth can't remember much and Jen can't remember anything. Jen has married/moved in with another man and doesn't count Seth among her circle of friends any more. When she looks at him you can almost see her brain trying to determine whether Seth is just a LOSER or instead a LOONY BIRD. Either way she would prefer not to be around him. Seth is a slacker at a hardware store. He routinely gets in late, is often sick, and just mopes around. Nevertheless he's starting to remember more of what went down that night two years back. And he's having nosebleeds again. Something's indeed happening, as Seth tries to tell Jen. Unknown to either Seth or Jen. Mark has just returned to this world. Or to be accurate, what's returned is mostly something that is wearing Mark's body. And it wants to reproduce. It can do that in a lot of different ways, as we see. But the remaining Mark portion would very strongly prefer to reproduce with Jen. Her willingness is preferred but not strictly speaking necessary. Carnage ensues as what could have been a true alien invasion story somewhat morphs into a slasher movie. A huge guy with an axe/chainsaw/shotgun/big hands goes on a killing spree.
TRAILER





Orphan
directed by Jaume Collet-Serra
A parasite is a strange being. Usually it doesn't intend to kill its host but attempts to live in a symbiosis. Depending on its needs it might occasionally influence the host to behave in ways that are not necessarily good for the host, but are required for the survival of the parasite. Sometimes of course the parasite's survival or reproduction may require the death of the host. And then you have the cuckoo bird, which often lays its eggs in other birds' nest. The cuckoo baby upon hatching, destroys the eggs of its host and may even kill its host's children, therefore monopolizing the resources of its "parents". This is known as brood parasitism. This is where the word cuckold comes from. Those sorts of thoughts were all brought to mind re-watching Orphan. Other thoughts that came up included how vulnerable we all are to our intimates. I mean if someone in your house goes bad, there's a pretty good chance your guard will be down in a way that would never occur outside the house. Trust is key to maintaining romantic or familial relationships. I thought I had reviewed this 2009 thriller before but a quick search didn't reveal anything. Hmm. So if I did review this film before, my apologies. The local Blockbuster is closing down. As I thought this film worth having permanently, I picked up the DVD for cheap 5 weeks back. I'm generally a Farmiga fan so I decided I'd write something short about this movie here. I thought this was a pretty good thriller. It has a few plot devices of course but nothing which I found outrageous. 
The director would go on to helm Unknown with Liam Neeson. I won't say whether Orphan has any supernatural aspects. It is one of those old school thrillers that can manage to get scares out of something as prosaic as a orphaned child offhandedly showing that she's a skilled concert pianist. I kept expecting Mrs. Blaylock from The Omen to show up and tell the little girl to "Have no fear little one. I am here to protect thee." Orphan is not the sort of movie that would make you welcome unknown children into your life. You won't want to give this kid a pinch on the cheek and take her home. Like the film We need to talk about Kevin, Orphan asks you what would you do if a child of yours was simply no damn good and/or downright dangerous? Like that film, but in a much more extreme fashion Orphan engages in or should I write indulges in some serious psychosexual drama. In both cases it's the mother who sees the danger most clearly while the husband/father thinks that his wife is losing her marbles. In Orphan this might as well come with big red signs indicating FREUDIAN DRAMA RIGHT HERE! YMMV on this. There is a rather significant item revealed about 2/3rds of the way thru the film. It may change how you see things. Some people thought it was lazy writing or was designed to save the film from some rather truly unfortunate implications. Some of the disturbing elements come out of left field at the viewer.


John Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard) is an architect. His wife Kate (Vera Farmiga) is a musician/music professor. They have two children, a son Danny (Jimmy Bennett) and a daughter Max (Aryana Engineer). Although the family is financially successful with a huge home and lands that just barely miss the size cutoff to be called an estate, like most families they have problems beneath the surface. Max is deaf/mute. Danny is something of a jerk. Kate is a recovering alcoholic. The couple recently lost a stillborn child, a daughter. Deep down inside Kate worries that John might blame her for this loss. She still grieves for the child. And John, well, let's just say he's not averse to playing house with other women. So, hoping to recover from the stillbirth, John and Kate visit a Catholic orphanage and adopt a nine year old girl from the former USSR. This girl is named Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman) Esther is unusual on at least two levels. It's not just that Esther always dresses in very formal, even archaic wear and is never seen without her high/frilly collars or chokers covering her wrists and neck. It's that Esther is far more self-assured, confident and sexually aware than a nine year old girl should be. When the couple accidentally allows Esther to become aware of some of their intimate activities, Kate haltingly tries to explain to her adopted daughter that married Mommies and Daddies who love each other very much sometimes like to spend time together in a beautiful and natural way which is totally private. Esther dismissively replies "Oh you mean you were f*****g." and goes about her business. Kate starts to take a dislike to Esther. 


When a schoolgirl bully who insulted Esther meets with a nasty accident, Kate goes back to the orphanage to check on Esther's background with the head nun Sister Abigail (CCH Pounder). The nun is torn between her professional desire to place this orphan and her personal dislike for the little girl. Sister Abigail tells Kate that accidents happen to people who get on Esther's bad side. Meanwhile, Esther is bullying Danny and Max. Max is under Esther's spell while Danny is too frightened to say anything. But John likes Esther, who gives every indication that she's very happy to have a Daddy. And John doesn't care to listen much to what he's starting to think of as the paranoid ramblings of his drunk and needlessly jealous wife. John is not bright. Although the overlong ending is utterly cliche driven the beginning and middle are interesting and full of ominous build ups. When either spouse is caught doing something wrong by their partner they often return fire by criticizing something else their accuser did years before. Kate doesn't mind reminding John of his infidelity. John is not above measuring the liquid level in whiskey bottles and looking questioningly at Kate. Farmiga and Fuhrman have the meatiest roles. Fuhrman's character is sporadically sympathetic but mostly suitably creepy. Farmiga's character gets to have more range. She does motherly protectiveness and pugnaciousness quite well. That is, once her character stops whining. 
TRAILER

And the Winner is ......... 12-Years a Slave!

$
0
0

Before Steve McQueen brought this story to film, non of us knew the story of Solomon Northup. Personally, I had never heard of the Mr. Northup or his autobiography. Honestly, I didn't even know that free slaves were kidnapped from the north, taken to the south and put into slavery. As an American, I should know something like this. Slavery was a travesty that will never be written right. Today, in 2014, we can still see the residual affects of slavery in our communities (black and white). Yet, we've heard elected officials make callous comparisons to slavery or say things like "black people should to get over slavery." There is even a movement of people who believe that slavery was "not that bad." 

Who could forget this????



How do we counter ignorance like this?? We bring these stories to light in an intellectual, dignified and respectful manner. Yes, the moron in the movie probably won't see these movies, but someone else will and could potentially educate him on his ignorance. I'm usually against movies like this, because Hollywood has a weird way of glorifying these types of movies to the point of rewarding an embarrassment. However, 12-Years a Slave was perfectly made, promoted and rewarded.

Our stories need to be told. It shouldn't take a British director by the way of Brad Pitt, to bring such an important American story to the our screens. I don't expect 12-Years a Slave to be the pixie dust that changes everything and gets Hollywood to focus on black film makers, actors and actresses. However, I do expect the conversation to expand and more film makers be given the opportunity to make important historical films with deep subject matters.

The Wins:

Best Picture: "12 Years a Slave"
Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o
Best Adapted Screenplay: John Ridley


Your thoughts....

1) Did you watch the 86th Academy Awards last evening? if so, what were your thoughts on the show?
2) Were you surprised that 12-Years a Slave did so well?
3) Were you familiar with Solomon Northup or his autobiography?
4) What does the success of this film mean for American black film makers?

Fellow Christians, the Law Does NOT Belong to Us

$
0
0
Most of you are familiar with the phrase "separation of church and state."  It's a doctrine that our country was founded upon after our founding fathers learned the hard way that mixing religion with the law is a recipe for disaster.  Accordingly, the very first thing they did after they drafted the Constitution was to make this thing called the First Amendment which explicitly says that while the citizens in our country are free to practice the religion of their choice, this country will not choose any one religion to be the official religion of our nation:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - U.S. Const. amend. I

This is the bedrock of the United States of America. Religious freedom.  A land where people are free to choose their own religion -- or no religion at all -- without government intervention, and also a land where the law cannot force any one religion onto the people. We should be grateful that the founding fathers had this much foresight.  But lately it seems that some people have become willfully ignorant of this core principle.


Recently Arizona, Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Oklahoma and my home state of Kansas put forth proposals that would allow businesses to legally refuse goods and service to same-sex couples if the notion of homosexuality goes against their religion.  Namely, Christianity. To be fair to my Christian religion, there are plenty of people who oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage based upon religions other than Christianity.  However, the majority of the state legislators who are putting these laws forward are Christians, and many of them are unapologetically citing Christianity as the driving force behind the proposal. Indeed, the Kansas Catholic Conference put out a release in support of Kansas' proposed law. 

Look, it's great to be a Christian.  I love it.  My faith in Christianity has kept me grounded and motivated me to do many positive things, like helping others.  I could spend a whole day talking about it.  But one thing that bothers me about some (not all but some) of my fellow Christians is that we seem to think that our religious beliefs need to be codified into law.  It's not good enough for us to live our lives according to the Bible, we need to pass laws making EVERYBODY ELSE live their lives according to our Bible too. 

In a nation of 300 million diverse people, that's problematic.

Not everybody believes what we believe as Christians.  Nor should they.  At some point you have to realize that that's ok. In fact, it's more than ok - that's America!  That's how our nation's founding fathers -- many of whom were Christians themselves -- chose to establish this great country of ours.  They could have easily written the First Amendment to say that Christianity is the official religion of the United States of America.  But they didn't.  And there's a reason for that: freedom. 

In this country, we value freedom.  We cherish freedom.  We take pride in freedom.  But then the moment a couple of people exercise that same freedom to love each other in a way that we disagree with religiously, we want to pass a law as quickly as possible to stop them from doing so.

That's not right.

You've heard the phrase "with great power comes great responsibility"? Well, with great freedom comes great tolerance.  Last time I checked, tolerance was a virtue preached in the Christian Church.  So rather than go through all of this trouble to create laws that would allow us to be intolerant of others, why don't we make this easy on ourselves and just practice tolerance towards those we disagree with and keep it moving? 

To be clear, I'm not saying that you have to agree with same sex marriage.  All I'm saying is that if we're going to continue to live in a free country (and I don't exactly see anybody rushing to find the exit), then that means we're going to have to learn to tolerate those who we may disagree with - not pass laws that will disrupt the lives of millions of people just so that we don't have to deal with our own issues of intolerance.




Dogs and Ice Cream

$
0
0
Technically speaking you're not supposed to give your dog milk or milk based products or anything with artificial sweeteners included. But many pet owners don't know that. And many other pet owners can't resist large soulful eyes looking at them with all the pleading their canine owners can summon. Of course dogs will generally try anything that their human offers them. And if it tastes good to them they'll eat it without asking questions about safety or whether this is good for them. Of course some dogs have better table manners than others as this video makes quite clear.



Book Reviews: Two Trains Running, Flesh

$
0
0
Two Trains Running
by Andrew Vachss
I hadn't read anything by Andrew Vachss in a long time. Two Trains Running (the title comes from a Muddy Waters blues song) is a period piece and one of the hundreds of books in my library which I'm trying to finish reading before time runs out. Most of the books by Vachss I've read have been set in modern New York and are noir detective stories, often featuring his cynical damaged antihero Burke. Those are enjoyable books which I would certainly recommend. Two Trains Running is both different than Vachss' usual work and yet familiar enough to be suitable reading for those people already accustomed to Vachss' style. Two Trains Running is set in 1959 in a town named Locke City. IIRC the state is never named. It's not on the East Coast and definitely not in the deep South. But it could be a border or lower Midwest state. It could be Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri or even Indiana or Iowa among others. It's not that important. This story is a noir crime novel or at least that's what you're inclined to think at first. But although the crime element does drive some of the plot, it soon becomes clear that this novel is not so much about crime as it just is about people in general, especially the various tribes of post-war America. It's a slice of life story about people who all come together in Locke City during a few months in 1959. Crime is just a catalyst here. The story could have just as easily used railroads or coal mines or steel mills to provide background. I liked that. Although there is some violence, it's not critical to the story nor is it really that common. There are at least four different love stories that bring out some pulpy sub themes.


In Locke City Roy Beaumont leads the dominant criminal organization. His sister Cynthia is his trusted partner. Roy and Cynthia have protected each other for a very long time. They've experienced some very bad things. Although Roy despises the word "hillbilly", that is who he is and who makes up his organization. Roy is crippled. He relies on his wheelchair and Cynthia to get around. But don't be fooled. Roy started his organization by personally eliminating previous gangsters. Roy knows he's a big fish in a little pond. This becomes clear when Sal Dioguardi, a formerly New York based mafiosi, starts nosing around Locke City, offering Roy "assistance" in running some rackets and blatantly taking over others. Dioguardi has a violent reputation of which he is quite proud. He's not in a business which rewards weak or retiring people. Dioguardi doesn't practice his mean looks in front of a mirror, as some real life mafia hoodlums were known to do, but he does spend a lot of time lifting weights and working out to ensure that subordinates and rivals are suitably intimidated.
But Roy won't give in easily. So, wanting some plausible deniability in case Dioguardi is indeed fully backed by the Mafia, Roy calls in Walker Dett. Dett is a hitman for hire, a white Korean War veteran who combines a quiet ruthlessness with a deep sadness and maybe even a hidden soft heart. Careful and methodical, Dett restricts his violence strictly to business. He's the very definition of professional. He's neutral or even occasionally kind to people not in the life. Despite himself, Dett falls in love with one of the few naive and innocent women in Locke City. Meanwhile Rufus Hightower, a black hotel bellhop, does his best to hide a fierce intelligence and disdain for racists while at his day job. He shows most whites what he thinks they want to see or what he thinks they need to see. Secretly Hightower leads a nascent black nationalist organization. Like Dett, he also is falling in love with an innocent woman. Vachss juggles numerous subplots and characters. Some of these include Sherman Layne, the town's only honest cop who bears hidden pain, two feuding juvenile street gangs looking to settle turf wars, a racist hotel clerk with a hidden past, a neo-Nazi organization, informers within Beaumont's group, an interracial Romeo-Juliet story, a pathetically lonely man who spies on people to feel connected, IRA recruiters, political fixers and the FBI keeping tags on everyone. These groups and people are all linked though not everyone knows it. The author goes for the kitchen sink approach.

Two Trains Running is very dialogue heavy. There's little third person description/narrative. Usually you only know what's going on because someone is talking to someone else. There aren't long explanations of key past events given, because the people speaking to each other already know about them. The style comes across very similar to the old Dragnet radio show. Each terse paragraph opens with the date, location and time. As referenced, this is really not, despite its subject matter, a book about gang violence or organized crime. It's more about post-war America and how some things have changed since 1959 and others have not. It's a meditation on human behavior, damage and longing. So if you would normally skip crime books, this might be worth reading.





Flesh
by Gus Weill
In many respects the big shocker of this short (~200 pages) little horror novel isn't really a shocker at all. The author has hints all over the place, not least of which include the cover of the novel. The somewhat dim and rather horny protagonist figures out what's really happening about 2/3rds of the way thru the story. The fun part comes from a) the fact that neither the hero nor the reader wants to believe that such things are possible and b) the hero is feverishly trying to turn the tables on his enemies while pretending that he doesn't know what's going on. This is made more difficult because the bad guys have very good reason to think at various points that the hero really does know what's going on. So this is like one giant poker game where the stakes are your life. As Flesh is told in first person there is an urgency given to the story that will keep you turning the pages to see what will happen next. I really think this book might have worked better as a short story but the ending is so fitting and the journey so breakneck that you may not mind. You could argue that this is less a horror novel and more of a satire on class relations. A lower middle class musical college student with the unlikely name of Marion Anderson, is a middling pianist (hismother had the true talent there) but a very good lyricist/composer. He is just brimming with ideas for lyrics and arrangements but lacks the ability to create exciting new music to go along with them. What great luck for Marion it is then when he accidentally meets a fellow student who has talent on the piano equivalent to that of Glenn Gould. This man's name is Justin Caeser. Justin and Marion become fast friends.


Marion is convinced that he has found the perfect collaborator for a planned Broadway musical. For the better part of a year the duo work together. When they reach an artistic impasse, Justin thinks they need some isolation and quiet time. He suggests they visit his family home. Marion agrees. Justin's family home is actually a 52 room mansion on a private island off the Maine coast  Justin's family is to say the least eccentric. Justin's father is a giant of a man given to sudden rages and just as sudden bouts of laughter and bonhomie. His mother is a tiny woman who vacillates between excessive politeness and sudden coldness. Justin's sister Annabelle Lee (the name is from the Poe poem) defines oddness but takes a liking to Marion. Justin's other sister Eleanor is so doggone va-va voom desirable that Marion immediately falls in lust with her although she already has a fiance, Timothy. Marion initially finds that he doesn't want to leave the island, especially if he can get hot and heavy with Eleanor. He's turned on by Eleanor's flirting, her low cut dresses, her beauty and her salaciousness. He's also comparing the Caesers' wealth unfavorably with his father's Social Security job. Marion refuses, as he sees it, to settle for less, like he believes his parents did. However Timothy's cryptic warnings, pleas from other people and increasingly odd behavior by Justin awaken Marion's lust damaged suspicions. A cat and mouse game is played but who's the cat and who's the mouse? This book could very easily have been a Tales from the Crypt or Twilight Zone feature. It's a fun read if not necessarily a great novel. The author has many skills. He was also a PR specialist and counterintelligence Army officer. James Carville was Weill's protege. And Weill worked for Otto Preminger back in the day.

HBO Game of Thrones Season Four Trailer: Secrets

$
0
0
Another promo trailer drops for the new season. As usual if you've read the books or otherwise know what happens this season please keep that fascinating information to yourself, won't you? Interestingly enough many of the show's actors have said this season is even more dramatic than last season and will be paced differently with climaxes occurring throughout the season instead of just episode nine. We shall see.



Why we need Government: North Carolina and Duke Energy Ash Spill

$
0
0
I'm not a huge fan of overly expansive government. I think that, especially on matters of conscience, privacy and police powers, the federal and state governments have over the course of the last fifty or sixty years, become far too intrusive, too powerful, and dangerously unresponsive to the individual citizens they purport to represent. I still believe that. However government does have some fundamental core duties. One of these is broadly what I'll call public safety. Public safety is often thought to comprise the cop on the street or a military member guarding the nation. That's correct but public safety goes beyond that. Public safety also encompasses the ability to enjoy clean air and water. It involves the ability to eat food anywhere in this country without worrying that you have an excellent chance of consuming deadly molds, bacteria, viruses, fecal material, or other items unfit for human consumption. It means you can purchase goods and services and get what you pay for without always having to bring along your violent ex-con cousin to guarantee that the seller doesn't pull a fast one.

So far so good right? However there is a conservative and occasionally libertarian streak in politics which is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government interfering with individuals business. When such people actually gain control over the government the results are often no different than if the drug dealer paid off the chief of police. The people on the streets suffer. This truism was recently affirmed in North Carolina, home to my maternal kin. Read the article excerpted below:



RALEIGH, N.C. — Last June, state employees in charge of stopping water pollution were given updated marching orders on behalf of North Carolina’s new Republican governor and conservative lawmakers.
“The General Assembly doesn’t like you,” an official in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources told supervisors called to a drab meeting room here. “They cut your budget, but you didn’t get the message. And they cut your budget again, and you still didn’t get the message.” From now on, regulators were told, they must focus on customer service, meaning issuing environmental permits for businesses as quickly as possible.  Big changes are coming, the official said, according to three people in the meeting, two of whom took notes. “If you don’t like change, you’ll be gone.”
But when the nation’s largest utility, Duke Energy, spilled 39,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River in early February, those big changes were suddenly playing out in a different light.  Federal prosecutors have begun a criminal investigation into the spill and the relations between Duke and regulators at the environmental agency. The spill, which coated the river bottom 70 miles downstream and threatened drinking water and aquatic life, drew attention to a deal that the environmental department’s new leadership reached with Duke last year over pollution from coal ash ponds. It included a minimal fine but no order that Duke remove the ash — the waste from burning coal to generate electricity — from its leaky, unlined ponds. 
Environmental groups said the arrangement protected a powerful utility rather than the environment or the public. Critics say the accident, the third-largest coal ash spill on record, is inextricably linked to the state’s new environmental politics and reflects an enforcement agency led by a secretary who suggested that oil was a renewable resource and an assistant secretary who, as a state lawmaker, drew a bull’s-eye on a window in his office framing the environmental agency’s headquarters. 
“They’re terrified,” said John Dorney, a retired supervisor who keeps in touch with many current employees. “Now these people have to take a deep breath and say, ‘I know what the rules require, but what does the political process want me to do?’ ”
LINK

This is what happens when government is captured by private actors. Government's beneficial roles are diminished, limited or as Grover Norquist approvingly said ,"made small enough to drown in a bathtub". I like "small government" when we're talking about nosy NSA operatives or SWAT teams in Iowa that invade people's homes for non-violent crimes or bossy child protective services mandarins that seize children first and ask questions later. But when you're talking about things like clean air and water I'm not so sure that small government is the answer.
Or to put it another way smaller government may still be a good thing but not if it's one that is subservient to big business. I see government as similar to a referee in some instances. As the saying goes, the best referees do their jobs and are barely noticed. A really bad referee insists on enforcing every last single rule violation, no matter how petty. A worse referee may even make up violations that don't exist, hand out technicals and expulsions like free candy and have both teams so on edge that the game itself suffers. A different but equally bad referee may be so incompetent that they don't know the rulebook and/ or may not care about the game enough to enforce it even if they did. He may sit back in blissful apathy and say "let the teams work it out". And then finally there are those referees that actively prefer one team over the other and so only call violations on one side while ignoring those of the other. If you were a coach and found out that your game referee was the brother-in-law of the rival coach, his poker buddy or a member of his church you'd probably want a different referee. But if you were the corrupt referee who had already worked for a super rich coach and knew you were going to make millions more after fixing the game for him you'd probably have a really stupid grin on your face and be very happy with life.


None of those types are any good for the larger game society. What we need is, prosaically enough, a balance. Now it's true that for me, as opposed to some other writers here that balance would be slightly more tilted to government staying out of people's business but even I wouldn't argue that government has no role to play. The North Carolina incident is the result of business control over government. We should never forget that by definition, if something is an externality to a business, as pollution certainly is, under our free-market system the business has no immediate economic interest in trying to reduce that externality. The free market is largely unable to influence the business on externalities, hence the name. What keeps the business in line is accurate information about the externality shared with an intelligent informed citizenry, the fear of being hauled into civil or criminal court, and the ability of referees regulators to throw the flag via fines and prevent the business from producing that externality or at least make the business capture the true cost of its process. 

Too many conservatives and libertarians have converted to the almost religious belief system that state and federal government never ever ever have any positive role to play in any business regulation and that we should let the free market sort everything out. This is not only wrong but very dangerous to humans and other living creatures.
Duke Energy’s coal ash pond in Eden, N.C., which dumped 39,000 tons of poisonous sludge and slurry into the Dan River on Feb. 2 — the third-largest such spill in U.S. history — has refocused national attention on the environmental damage these holding ponds can render. But the damage isn’t just confined to when the sludge leaks into busted storm-water drainage pipes that never should have been running under the ponds to begin with, like the situation in Eden. It’s quite possible the damage from coal ash ponds is ongoing even in the absence of accidental spills. 
“These coal ash ponds are unlined, and people don’t realize that,” said Dean Naujoks, the Yadkin Riverkeeper who has been monitoring the Dan River spill. “They are continuously leaching arsenic, chromium, cadmium, mercury, all kinds of toxic heavy metals, into the ground and eventually into groundwater. Duke Energy has 32 of these ponds on 14 sites around the state, and every one of them is unlined. Every one of them is a threat to groundwater.”

We see this over and over again. Government is not always the answer but neither is it always the problem. We must reach a balance between private power, which is only accountable to ownership, and government power, which theoretically represents and is accountable to everyone. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory worked for Duke Energy for twenty-eight years. He has worked as Governor for the people of North Carolina for a little over one. I wonder which employer has influenced him more. I certainly know which employer has paid him more.

Thoughts?

Viewing all 1892 articles
Browse latest View live