NYPD officers abuse teen-caught on audio

It is often instructive to look back at the history of white supremacy in this country and see how non-whites had to deal with openly racist whites who had no problem being violent. When we look at the pictures or video of peaceful civil rights protesters having dogs set on them or being beaten with tire irons or having things thrown at them it is hard, in 2012 not to at least occasionally question how people could allow that to happen or why didn't more people stand up and fight back or so on. Those are painful questions to be sure. At any given point in time most people are just trying to survive. By definition, most people are not heroes. Cemeteries are full of would be heroes. People did what they had to do to survive. There is no shame in that.

But although those days are thankfully gone, there are unfortunately quite a number of people who would have fit right in working for Bull Connor or Ross Barnett. Evidently many of these people are NYPD police officers. We've written before on the stop-and-frisk program that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly have instituted that is primarily aimed at Black and Hispanic men, especially young men or boys. This program doesn't catch many people carrying either drugs or guns but it does put a lot of fear, anger and rage in many New York Black and Hispanic citizens. Unfortunately until very recently this has not received any attention in the mainstream press and what attention it has received has been cautiously positive or only mildly critical. Generally speaking the people that write or edit for the New York Times or the New Yorker or the Wall Street Journal or the American Enterprise Institute are not the people being stopped and frisked so they tend not to have the mad rush of killing rage I had when I saw the below video. This is a racial quota which doesn't seem to excite their delicate constitutional sensitivities.

One thing that it is really important to understand is that the stop-and-frisk program, which has been expanded to include public housing and some private rentals as well is NOT a program in which someone does something suspicious and only THEN receives police attention NOR it is a program in which Officer Friendly and Dudley DoRight stop you and politely ask you a few questions before apologizing and sending you on your way after some sports discussions.

No.

It is as the video shows, a program in which young men of color are criminalized just for existing. It is a program in which showing signs of manhood and citizenship like demanding to know why you were stopped, asking for badge numbers, looking in someone's eyes or refusing to answer questions causes insane and profane racist rage, insults to your family, threats of arrests or beating, and occasional actual beating. This is the kind of stuff that was supposed to have gone out of style in 1960s Mississippi but as we can see it is thriving in 2012 NYC, under a supposedly enlightened Mayor, a relatively liberal Governor and a President that claims to understand civil liberties.

This is why come what may, with no offence intended to anyone who is a police officer, or is related to or married to a police officer, I really really don't like cops. Period. Never have and never will. Fortunately I have never had an experience to the extent of the young man in the video but I've had a few run-ins in my time. This is also why I do not like NYC and have little desire to visit, though I have friends and family there. Imagine if Alvin was your son, brother, cousin or husband. What does that sort of physical and verbal abuse from so-called authority figures do to racial relations? This is why it is ridiculous to claim, as some do, that affirmative action is harming racial relations. No, the NYPD is harming racial relations!  

The NYPD has a serious problem and it needs to be fixed yesterday. I simply do not get why Black and Hispanic New Yorkers have not gone after Bloomberg the same way they went after Giuliani. Malcolm X once joked that anywhere south of Canada is Mississippi and this video shows the truth of that joke. Honestly if I were in that situation I would definitely be in fear of my life and have to act accordingly. I'd rather be judged by a jury than those two beasts. Listen to full audio of Alvin's stop here, courtesy of The Nation.

Questions

1) Ever been in a similar situation with police?

2) How can we fix the police department?

3) Is the teen a hero?

4) Should the police officers be fired?

5) Where are the Feds?

Detroit Police Sex Scandal: Ralph Godbee and Angelica Robinson

If it's Tuesday it must be time for another Detroit political sex scandal. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick fired two police officers who, in a separate investigation, were close to discovering evidence of Kilpatrick's infidelity. In the resulting civil trial for damages, text messages confirming Kilpatrick's adulterous relationship with chief of staff Christine Beatty were revealed. Since that time and Kilpatrick's subsequent resignation I would have thought that people would have changed. If you absolutely and positively just HAD to cheat at work, I would have expected you would be prudent enough to avoid creating proof in the form of text or phone messages, emails, Facebook posts, tweets or other electronic droppings that made it clear that your mule was kicking in somebody else's stall. I mean that's in the player's handbook-bolded and marked in red just for any extra special stupid player out there.

That's not how we roll in Detroit. The disturbed woman depicted is Detroit Internal Affairs police officer Angelica Robinson, who is currently (probably not happily) married. Officer Robinson was having an affair with Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. She posted the picture of herself with her city issued sidearm on her twitter account. She learned that Chief Godbee (who is married but proceeding to divorce) allegedly was also dipping his nightstick into another woman. I don't know if the other woman is also a Detroit Police Officer. I wouldn't be surprised. To paraphrase Moe Green from The Godfather, no wonder we can't get police response in Detroit. The chief was banging officers two at a time!

Godbee only became DPD Chief when the previous DPD Chief Warren Evans was forced out for having a relationship with yet another police officer, Monique Patterson. Evans and Patterson were single during their dalliance. Godbee, who is a minister, was also seeing Patterson. Godbee got the gold mine (promotion to Chief) while Evans got the shaft. So when news of Godbee's troubles first hit, Evans was obviously, shall we say, somewhat less than sympathetic.
Video below:

Detroit doesn't need more bad publicity. So Godbee is no longer DPD police chief. Whether it was a firing, tantamount to a firing (asking for a resignation), or an actual resignation is really something that is only of interest to Godbee and the Pension Board. Occasionally there are different consequences for pension and severance pay depending on how you leave. I couldn't care less. He's out (retired).

What I do care about is that at this time Officer Angelica Robinson has been cleared to return to duty and has been given her gun back. This seems wrong to me on at least two levels. Firstly, unless she is going to allege some sort of sexual harassment, extortion or rape, Robinson was a willing participant in whatever she and Godbee did together. If Godbee didn't scream, she didn't holler. Apparently there is no written policy in the DPD against supervisor/subordinate relationships. On a local radio show other officers questioned Robinson's assignment to Internal Affairs and hinted she was unqualified for the position.

She has no right to make snide comments or judge Godbee or really say anything about him. She was doing wrong herself. She calls him a "sex addict" but if so then evidently she was the dealer. Godbee lost his job for setting a poor leadership example. Robinson should lose hers as well. If you are a Detroit police officer who discovers corruption, shocking idea I know, are you going to take that information to Internal Affairs, knowing that Internal Affairs is LITERALLY in bed with upper management? Is Robinson the sort of sober and judicious person you want in Internal Affairs? She can't handle her own internal affairs. This delicate flower and paragon of purity is now supposedly planning on suing the City of Detroit. Again.

Secondly, what ever happened to the idea of everybody plays the fool? Maybe Robinson got played. Maybe. But she really played herself. She was checking out but someone else was checking in.  Robinson didn't mind cheating on her husband but lost it when she thought Godbee was cheating on her? Since when does that entitle you to angry self-righteousness? Since when does that mean you put a photo of yourself on social media sucking on the business end of a pistol? Should that really be the public perception of the Detroit Police Department? Not only are they telling people that the city is too dangerous to visit but they're threatening suicide? I really don't want suicidal people given weapons and the awesome authority of a police officer. Because when they decide that it's their time to go they might decide to take me with them. And it might not be my time to go.

Questions:

1) If you're cheating with someone, can you really get upset if they're cheating with someone else?
2) Does Officer Robinson (who has sued the city before over wanting (paid) light duty for pregnancy) have any legal case against the city?
3) Should Robinson be fired?
4) Is it ever okay for a workplace supervisor and subordinate to be intimate?

Book Reviews-Charisma, The Long Fall

Charisma
by Steve Barnes

Charisma is both a thriller (but NOT a horror novel) and a hidden essay on nurture vs. nature and success or failure. If you've read Barnes' blog or listened to his radio show this book will seem extremely familiar. Barnes has an intense interest in self-improvement, intelligence, and the process by which boys and girls become men and women with healthy self-images and strong vibrant bodies. Evil, for lack of a better word, is whatever seeks to retard, pervert or prevent that maturation. Evil creates adults who have warped internal messaging and faulty reality maps. There are also a few characters who seem to be fractured reflections of Barnes himself. Across the country a group of mostly minority children at, approaching or just past puberty are showing signs of advanced intelligence. This is not expressed solely in terms of book smarts, but in the ability to read people, to anticipate future events and to swiftly solve real life problems.

The kids also have unnatural reflexes and a certain physical grace normally only found among peak level professional athletes. Many were involved in a day care scandal years ago. They remember little and their parents don't seem to know what happened either. The children have similar nightmares. They are almost psychically in tune with one another, even when they've never met. Many are devotees of the legendary Japanese Samurai Musashi and try to apply his teachings to their everyday life. I hadn't heard of Musashi before I started reading Barnes some years back so it was interesting to see a novel posit a realistic method for how the knowledge contained in Musashi's The Book of Five Rings can apply to the lives of people today. For example:

Those who sincerely desire to learn my way of strategy will follow these rules for learning the art:

1. Do not harbor sinister designs. Think honestly and truthfully.
2. The Way is in training. One must continue to train.
3. Cultivate a wide range of interests in the ten skills and ten arts. 
4. Be knowledgeable in a variety of occupations, and learn the thinking of people who work in them.
5. Know the difference between loss and gain in worldly matters.
6. Nurture the ability to perceive the truth in all matters. It is important to build up an intuitive judgment and understand true values.
7. Be aware of those things which cannot be easily seen with the eye. Develop intuitive judgment and a mind that freely controls one's body.
8. Do not be negligent, but pay attention even to the smallest details. Keep them in mind all the time, so as to avoid unexpected failure.
9. Do not engage in useless activity. Do not argue about useless things. Concentrate on your duties.

This is not (just) a coming of age story. There are many different protagonists. Renny Sand is a print journalist and would be novelist. After his story about CIA involvement in inner city drug dealing fell apart in lies and bad sourcing, he was demoted to his newspaper's backwaters, one step above gossip columnist. Renny is frustrated and lonely. He thinks he's missed his chance to make his mark. He covered the day care scandal. He decides to do a follow up "where are they now" human interest story. His motives are not 100% professional. Renny is attracted to Vivian Emory, a beautiful Washington state costume store owner who is the mother of Patrick Emory, a perceptive boy who was involved in the scandal, and the soon to be ex-wife of Otis Emory. Otis is a huge dockworker who accepts that he's losing his wife but remains extremely protective of his son, Patrick. Otis has had a few run-ins at work with the even larger Cappy Swenson, a violent racist and criminal biker. Patrick is on Cappy's radar. This is not a good thing.

Renny learns that his newspaper's late owner, one Alexander Marcus, may have had some connection to the day care scandal. Alexander Marcus had almost superhuman accomplishments. He was a black business mogul, war veteran, civil rights financier and adviser, supreme athlete and warrior who was considering a Presidential run before his untimely death in a plane crash. His elderly mother and a few trusted associates keep his memory alive and run his various businesses and foundations.

In a small Arizona town a retired elderly Secret Service agent named Kelly Kerrigan, who was assigned to Marcus' security detail and knows a few things about him doesn't get along with Tristan D'Angelo, who is town Mayor and served in Vietnam with Marcus. D'Angelo is the type of person who looks at you in a certain way and makes your kidneys stop working. D'Angelo doesn't like Kelly and likes her husband even less.

Renny discovers some things about Marcus which he doesn't want to know. Guardians of Marcus' legacy will kill to keep these secrets. There are conspiracies within conspiracies here. There is nothing supernatural. Charisma examines some personal horrors, including but not limited to racism and child abuse. The book's biggest question is how do we improve human performance? Are some people just dumb by nature? Can environment and training make people grow and change? Whatever your thoughts may be I doubt that this book will change your mind. You may be more open to ideas though.

Charisma reminded me of some of Stephen King's or Dan Simmons's works because much of the story takes place from children's POV. If you are sensitive to depiction of endangered children be aware that that happens in this story. The book was ultimately worthwhile but was just a tad longer than I liked.

The Long Fall
by Walter Mosley

The Long Fall is a metaphor for the protagonist's life. The title immediately reminded me of Milton's Paradise Lost. What if the Devil wanted to repent? Could he?

Now Leonid Trotter McGill (L.T. to associates) isn't the Devil but he's still in a moral pit. He's an amateur boxer and NYC private investigator who has spent most of his professional life working the shady side of the street. He probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger on you himself but if a Mafia captain wanted you found, Leonid would find you. If an unscrupulous prosecutor (or defense attorney) wanted evidence planted or removed, Leonid would arrange it. If someone wanted their spouse compromised, Leonid would happily produce an apartment, seducer and camera. You want an anonymous quote placed in an investment journal or on a website in order to move the stock market? Talk to Leonid. Leonid knows all of the slimy fixers, attorneys, mob hitters, pimps, etc that exist in Gotham. Money is what interests Leonid. He's got a million aliases, thinks fast on his feet and packs a mean left hook.

But now he's trying to go straight. After a scheme victim killed herself, Leonid's long dormant conscience awakened. He's having bad dreams and ruefully remembering what his father, a Black Nationalist and Communist, tried to teach him about brotherhood and solidarity. Leonid resolves only to take straight investigation jobs-those that don't involve breaking the law (very much), harm innocent people or help kill anyone.

So when a new assignment ends in a murder, Leonid won't shrug and move on. He wants to find out who hired him and why. He calls in a few solids owed and pulls the strings of some important people. When someone tries to kill him in his own office it becomes very personal.

I like Mosley's style. In his books the hero often has a naturally violent and rather unstable partner he can call upon in his hour of greatest need (Mouse, Fearless Jones, etc.)
Here that partner is Hush. Hush is white and skinny where Leonid is black and stocky. But Hush also happens to be the most feared assassin on the East Coast, someone who makes other vicious killers mess their pants. If Hush wants you dead, you will be dead. You may go quick and easy or you may go slow and painfully but you will go. Hush never misses. Capriciously, Leonid once did Hush a tremendous favor. Hush has not forgotten. He is a man that Leonid can rely upon. All the same, Hush makes Leonid very nervous. Mosley writes "Sitting next to Hush was like sitting next to a King Cobra who had slithered up to the bar stool and declared that you were his friend. You might not like the company but you certainly weren't going to turn your back or make any sudden moves".

Leonid also struggles to do right in his personal life. From moral obligation he remains in an almost totally loveless marriage with his wife, Katrina, who is repeatedly described as blonde, Nordic, and beautiful (I imagined Heidi Klum or Christie Brinkley) and completely incapable of fidelity. Katrina has produced three children during the marriage but only one of them is Leonid's. Snicker. It's unclear as to which spouse started cheating first. Leonid still maintains a friendship and maybe more (?) with his own girl Friday. The only reason that Katrina still remains with Leonid is because her last sugar daddy fell on financial hard times. At Katrina's age, Leonid might be her best remaining option. Can you imagine a spouse or significant other looking at you and pretending sincerity while you see through them? To keep the peace you then pretend not to notice their falseness. That's Leonid's marriage.

Ironically the child with whom Leonid is closest, Twilliam (Twill), is not his own. The teen aged Twill is going down the same amoral path that Leonid travelled. Leonid works to keep an eye on Twill's schemes and keep him out of deeper trouble. Meanwhile, ignoring Leonid's desire to go straight and unconcerned with who tried to kill him, some organized crime "friends" want Leonid to do a favor for them, just like the old days. And these aren't the sort of people who like to repeat themselves.

This is a quiet descriptive book that is occasionally punctuated with bouts of conflict and violence. I liked it but could have used a bit more action. It's written in first person. Leonid constantly describes himself as somewhat short and a tad overweight (he's 5-8) but he never backs down from a fight. He grew up in an orphanage after his parents died and from his description anyone who tried to punk him or push him around ended up either missing a few teeth or worse. He works out daily and boxes weekly. There aren't really any classical heroes here. Leonid, despite his turn towards the light, remains a morally gray person, but then protagonists in these stories usually are. Good stuff.

Affirmative Action, Education, Stuyvesant High School

The Supreme Court will shortly start its new term. It is going to take up yet another affirmative action case. Hopefully The Janitor will have a post on this with his normal attention to historical and legal detail. I want to talk about educational affirmative action from a slightly different and rather painful aspect. First things first. I am a strong supporter of workplace affirmative action. I have seen too damn many people get hired, groomed, and promoted for reasons that have little to do with qualifications. I actually did pretty well on standardized tests and naively had a belief that advanced degrees and skill sets mattered. I was shocked to learn that other things matter much more. Does your boss like you? That is really the greatest single factor on whether or not you're going to succeed in your job, though perhaps not your career. I have performed superhuman feats for bosses who for whatever reason didn't like me and didn't find my diligence worthy of reward or even notice. Other times I have been less than heroic but still received strong support and encouragement from bosses that liked me. Go figure. Since blacks and whites generally live apart and inhabit separate social worlds is it really possible for whites to judge blacks fairly? Can I get a fair evaluation at work from someone who, outside of the work environment, does her best to avoid people who look like me?

My career has occasionally suffered because I'm not plugged into certain (white) social networks. You need to know which assignments to take or decline. You need strong allies not only among your peer group but also among higher level managers. Otherwise, you can spend years grinding away and then look up and wonder why people with similar or less education and experience have zoomed past you. I sometimes think it would be wise for workplace promotions, hiring and assignments to be based on standardized aptitude testing. Either you know the material or you don't. There would be no more worries about losing promotions to a peer whose husband is a business partner of a higher ranking boss or to another peer who plays golf with your direct boss. Yes both of these things happened to me. It seems I am still peeved. Snicker. Of course companies would HATE this idea because it would prevent managers and company officers from hiring and promoting as they see fit. Managers might correctly argue that a workplace test alone doesn't provide enough useful information about the person's professional competence. If the below people all pass the test, should they be promoted?

• Someone who ignores basic American hygiene standards and makes people scheme on how to avoid sitting next to him in meetings?  
• Someone who dresses like she's working a street corner and has her peers making weekly bets on how much leg or chest she will show?
• Someone who falls asleep in meetings or at their desk? 
• Someone who refuses to travel even though the promotion requires travel?
• Someone whose accent is so bad that few people can understand him and everyone makes fun of him behind his back?
• Someone who knows her theory but freezes in crisis or when reality and theory clash?
• Someone whose first response to any idea is always negative and who enjoys spreading bad news? 
• Someone who is expert in his field but is also a loud profane bully that delights in humiliating people who make mistakes and picking fights just for fun?
• Someone who gets in a squabble with a subordinate and then makes fun of that person in front of their children?

And yes these are all real life examples with which I am directly familiar. So in the workforce, where there are other considerations besides pure knowledge, a single test isn't the best way to determine aptitude. I might have to concede that.
But in an academic arena, shouldn't pure knowledge be the ONLY consideration? And if so, what is the best way to measure that knowledge? Or should there be other things besides knowledge taken into account to measure academic success?

NYC's Stuyvesant High School has been in the news recently for a couple of reasons, neither one much good. A number of kids were caught cheating. Stuyvesant is a hyper-competitive school in which only the best of the best are admitted. Admission is based solely on a standardized test which is used by the eight top schools in NYC. Stuyvesant has the highest cut off. Stuyvesant has a student body which is, shall we say, different from the usual demographics of NYC schools. The school is roughly about 72% Asian and 25% Caucasian. This has resulted in some people trying to tip toe around some unfortunate implications while others snicker and glory in same. Recently a group of apparently mostly Black and Hispanic civil rights and educational groups decided to file a complaint with the Department of Education. Their claim is that use of the test violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it causes racial disparity. I think their heart is in the right place but I'm not sure I can support their framework here. I remember occasionally having teachers in college or before who radiated contempt for black people. Few things were more pleasurable to me than to score among the highest in the class or correct them when they were wrong. There is something wonderful about objective knowledge. No matter how much someone might believe in black inferiority, they can't stop you from succeeding educationally. As I wrote above I wish I still had that clear approach in corporate life. I think it is approaching shamefulness to make a public argument that amounts to "this must be discrimination because I'm not good at it". Obviously the Caucasian and Asian parents don't wish to change the admissions criteria because their children are succeeding under the rules. Manjit Singh's statement is likely reflective of his parents' thoughts as well.

The test-only rule has existed for decades, as have complaints about its effect on minority enrollment. In May 1971, after officials began thinking about adding other criteria for admission, protests from many parents, mostly white, persuaded the State Legislature to enshrine the rule in state law.  Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Thursday that the schools were “designed for the best and the brightest” and that he saw no need to change the admissions policy or state law. “I think that Stuyvesant and these other schools are as fair as fair can be,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “There’s nothing subjective about this. You pass the test, you get the highest score, you get into the school — no matter what your ethnicity, no matter what your economic background is. That’s been the tradition in these schools since they were founded, and it’s going to continue to be.”

When asked the uncomfortable question of why the racial imbalance existed, some students mentioned the intensive tutoring services that are out of reach of poorer families. But others did not hesitate to say that they believed the family culture of Asian and white students put a higher value on educational achievement than others.

“African-American and Hispanic parents don’t always seek out extra help for their kids and their kids don’t score as high,” said Manjit Singh, a senior. “But it’s the same test for everyone, so how can it be discriminatory? If you can’t handle the test, you can’t handle the school, and you’re taking up someone else’s spot.”

Noah Morrison, a senior who is black, was not ready to change the policy, either, but he agreed that “there needs to be more racial diversity at this school.”
“There are no black people and it’s horrible,” he said. “The test is fine, but there need to be more opportunities for people to do well on it. There need to be more test-prep programs in underachieving middle schools with high black and Latino populations. It’s a socioeconomic problem.”

Ms. Miles, for her part, said the city needed do a better job disseminating information about the test and the free preparatory programs available. The city’s Education Department has been offering such a program, with weekend and summer coaching sessions to promising but disadvantaged sixth graders — and, this year only, seventh graders — for more than 20 years. Its original mission was to increase the number of blacks and Latinos, but after a legal challenge in 2007, income became its main eligibility criteria. Since then, however, the program has shrunk —2,800 students attended in 2008, down from 3,800 two years before — and even among those who participated, black and Latino students were far less likely to take the entrance exam than Asians and whites.

So it's rough. There is a question then about why Black and Hispanic students aren't doing as well on the test or even taking the test as often as Whites and Asians. I think there are a number of reasons for that which need greater discussion than we can do in just one post. Poverty, single parent homes, hunger, exposure to lead based paint, low birth weight and other factors all have impact on educational achievement. But the big factor here and one I have struggled with myself sometimes upon entering the cold cruel corporate world is living up (or down) to stereotypes. Henry Ford once said "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right".  Dr. Claude Steele, Shelby Steele's twin brother, has done some research which confirms Ford's off the cuff observation. And not only are black people watching too much television but media often subtly or not so subtly tells black people that they aren't worth s***.

And if you don't think that the attempt to succeed will make any difference in your life because of false stereotypes and very real racism in the job market and the justice system, then you might want to protect your ego by not even trying. After all, being admitted to a competitive high school in NYC won't stop the NYPD from harassing and insulting you if you happen to be Black or Hispanic. Hearing "I don't care if you are an A+ student, put your black a$$ against the wall!!" would tend to mess with your equilibrium.

It also comes down to just doing the work. This isn't easy. But if you believe that people are basically the same, then you have to accept that work can get you where you want to go. We all have different gifts. There are few people who can play professional sports or have the patience for delicate lab work in physics or biology or can sit down and create new music or so on. But when you go to a concert and see someone play a guitar for three hours without a mistake or go to a basketball game and watch someone seemingly defy gravity it is worth remembering that you are watching the end result of years and years and years of hard work, competition, dedication, and insane drive. Academics aren't any different.

So my solution to the Stuyvesant issue is not to file a federal complaint of racial discrimination. I don't think that is warranted here. My solution is to change the culture, put down the video games, turn off the television and hit the books. And as I support affirmative action I think that there must be more public and private partnerships to identify and nurture talented Black and Hispanic children, convince them that they can succeed and give them all the training and then some that they need for the test. Success is their heritage not failure. If WEB DuBois could get a Ph.D. from Harvard in the 1890s, near the nadir of American racism, today we have no reason to let a little high school admissions test stop us. Because the Manjit Singhs of the world aren't going to have sympathy for you.
I usually do my grocery shopping in an area close to the U-M engineering and physics schools. The demographics have changed rather significantly since I went to U-M. There are a lot of East Asian nationals and Asian Americans who have settled nearby and work or attend school. They've evidently put in the work to get those jobs or attend the classes. So go and do likewise ladies and gents. Go and do likewise. Game on.



Questions:
Is there a valid Federal racial discrimination complaint here?
Why aren't there more Blacks and Hispanics attending the best schools?
Should disparate impact be removed as a possible racial discrimination cause?
What sort of school reforms do you want to see implemented?
Do you think intelligence is racially based?

Movie Reviews-The Cabin In The Woods, Beowulf, Blue Collar, Secretary

The Cabin in the Woods
directed by Drew Goddard and written by Joss Whedon

This horror movie was an intelligent update on the whole "college kids go into the woods, have sex and get stalked by incestuous cannibals" or "geeky loser who everyone thought was dead is out for bloody revenge" or "undead entity brought back to life by someone who does something incredibly stupid" type of film genres.

It's the equivalent of a really smart person slumming in a GED class. One minute the person is pretending to be dumb and the next minute they're giving you detailed explanations of Maxwell's Equations, the Copenhagen Interpretation and superconductivity, right before they remember they're supposed to be dumb. You might say what was that and they're like who me, I'm just a dummy.

Of course if you really really don't like horror films regardless of their twists or differences then yeah, this movie won't be pretending to be dumb, it really will be dumb. So different strokes for different folks. If that is you I salute you but think you're missing out. This film is similar to Tucker and Dale... in that it messes with your initial expectations.

Ok. I hope some minor description won't spoil things. Five college friends, Curt (Chris Hemsworth), Holden (Jesse Williams), Jules (Anna Hutchison), Dana (Kristen Connolly) and Marty (Fran Kranz) head off to an conveniently abandoned rural cabin for a fun weekend. Of course "fun" means drugs and sex. Curt and Jules are an item while Curt is trying to set up Holden (his smart teammate) and Dana. So Marty is literally a fifth wheel but he doesn't seem to mind. Anyway, Jules might be up for a little extra fun with Marty if Curt isn't watching...or even if he is. Jules likes to do the do.

From the beginning we are aware that someone is monitoring the students' whereabouts and reporting back to a underground terminal center which seems to be run by Gary (Richard Jenkins) and Steve (Bradley Whitford). Jenkins and Whitford really make this movie work as they PERFECTLY embody just about every midlevel IT manager I've ever known. But we don't know who these people are or why they're interested in these kids. In fact we're not even sure that they ARE interested in the kids. And that's really all I can say without delving into spoiler territory. This was written and produced by Joss Whedon, who directed The Avengers. It's worthwhile if you are a fan of classic horror movies but are also looking for something that is both a tad more intelligent. It has lots of well placed humor and a cameo by "Ellen Ripley" herself.

I really liked this film. It shows that horror movies don't have to be dumb and gross-out, though it has its share of gore. Like any other genre, if you put good writing together with top notch production, direction, writing and lighting, and throw in some decent actors and killer special effects you can make a high quality entertaining movie. The Cabin in the Woods both mocks and endorses some common horror tropes, often at the same time. And no the black guy does not die first. If you're a horror fan don't miss this one. And if you are iffy about horror this could be a good intro.
TRAILER



Beowulf
directed by Alan Zemeckis

The poem Beowulf is the oldest surviving Old English epic poem. In Annie Hall Woody Allen famously joked that you shouldn't take any college class where they make you read Beowulf. Hmm. In college I did take classes where they made us read Beowulf though I had previously read it. It is a favorite. Beowulf was written and experienced in an evidently pre-ironic time. There's nothing that is postmodern, cynical or feminist about it. Zip. The poem's eponymous Geatish (southern Swede) hero comes to Denmark to further his name and fortune. The Danish King Hrothgar has been having his feast hall raided and his men murdered by some ogre named Grendel. A King who can't provide wealth, protection and merriment for his sworn companions is no King at all. Beowulf arrives. Upon hearing that no weapon can harm Grendel, Beowulf decides to fight him mano a mano with bare hands and match him strength for strength. One translation of the poem reads  "All at once that master of wickedness [Grendel] discovered that he had never come upon a stronger hand-grasp on this planet, in any other man in the regions of Earth."

This cat Beowulf is a bad mother....shut your mouth!!! Beowulf defeats Grendel by ripping his arm from his body. When Grendel's monstrous mother seeks revenge Beowulf kills her in an underwater battle royale. Beowulf returns home and becomes King, where decades later in his old age he must give his life to protect the land against an awakened dragon. Believe me this sounds MUCH more majestic in Old English. There's some overlay of Christian themes (Grendel is thought to be a descendant of Cain) in Beowulf but not much. This was written for and by people who either still believed in the Old Gods or had only recently converted to Christianity and retained a certain appreciation for the old ways and pagan heroism.

Zemeckis' movie captures some of the story's excitement in the knock down dragout fight between Grendel and Beowulf. But, unfortunately from my pov, the creators couldn't resist adding some modern cynicism, deconstruction, and TONS of Judeo-Christian guilt and sacrificial imagery. There's also, depending on how you look at it, either an unsubtle feminist critique, or an overwhelming fear of the female principle. The film tremendously changes the character motivations and storyline. Among other things, rather than being savage, unreasoning and implacably evil, Grendel is portrayed as being misunderstood and ultimately rather frightened and pathetic.

It's almost like going to watch The Lord of the Rings movie and learning that the One Ring wasn't at all a talisman of evil that belonged to the Evil Overlord Sauron. Instead, imagine that Sauron was a misunderstood schmuck who had given his mother's wedding ring as an engagement gift to the beautiful but vain Galadriel who had then capriciously rejected him but refused to give the ring back. And thus the war of the Ring got started. Everything else was just vile propaganda put out by Galadriel and her lover Gandalf. How you feel about these changes will depend on how you felt about the Beowulf story to begin with. If the story is new to you then you likely won't care about the changes. The changes are internally consistent at least so there's that. I just wasn't that interested in sympathy.

Arguably the original poem leaves out so much that it is nearly impossible for a film adaptation not to put in a lot of rework and new ideas. Otherwise the film would only have been about 30 minutes long. This film's screenplay was written by noted author Neil Gaiman. Some of it touches on short stories he had previously written about Grendel.
Despite those changes the film Beowulf remains interesting and even exciting. The film's major draw is the special effects, primarily the motion capture animated images of the actors. This is most obvious with Beowulf (Ray Winstone) and Grendel's Mother (Angelina Jolie) but you will be intrigued by the altered versions of several other well known actors. These include Grendel (Crispin Glover), Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson), Unferth (John Malkovich), and Queen Wealtheow (Robin Wright Penn) I like Winston's acting. His work, I guess that would be mostly voice, is pretty good here. It's hard to remember that you are watching animation. Although it's animation, it's really not for kids. Nope. There is a bawdy song about Norse wenches and glaciers, plenty of cleavage and Angelina Jolie...
TRAILER
I am Beowulf!!




Blue Collar
directed by Paul Schrader

Have you ever arrived to a restaurant only to find that the host has double booked you and someone else and invites you and your group to share a table? Or maybe an airline has done the same thing with your ticket?Perhaps your boss promises you a raise and a sweet position but has also promised the same thing to someone else. When that becomes apparent he tells you to just work it out and stop bothering him for Christ's sake.

Well if that happened to you I'm betting you wouldn't like it very much. You might even make a stink, threaten someone's job, or get into a fist fight. That is pretty much what happened in the movie Blue Collar (perhaps even including the fight though that is just a rumor). Rising stars Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto and Harvey Keitel were all lured to do the movie with the promise that they would be the film's breakout star. After they started filming, they all learned each of the two other men had been told the same thing and the film was really more of an ensemble piece. None of them were happy with the director or with each other. The tension could be felt in the film (in a good way and a bad way) and may have caused the director to temporarily lose his marbles.

This was Schrader's directorial debut. Previously he had been best known as the screenwriter for Taxi Driver, which presumably explains the Keitel connection. This movie has a very strong realistic and seventies feel to it. I like a lot of movies from that period. Filmmakers back then weren't afraid to take chances and take a strong point of view. They also weren't afraid to take their time and let things play out. Scenes are shot and develop very organically. It's rare that you remember that you're actually watching a movie. Blue Collar shows that Pryor may have missed his calling as a dramatic actor. He turns in very strong work here. In a different world he could have become like Robin Williams, known as much for his dramatic roles as for comedy. There's some small comedy here but it's balanced over a knife's edge of danger and drama. I think this is Pryor's best dramatic work. If you only know him as the wild and crazy profane comedian or as the enfeebled fool or old man from his later roles you may be rather surprised by his work here. It's too bad he didn't have more roles like this.

Blue Collar is a film that is close to my heart because it is set in Detroit, (although much of it was shot in Kalamazoo) and shows the lives of people that aren't seen in the movies very much, blue collar auto workers. These aren't guys who can goof off and daydream on company time or company property. They can't come in late and leave early or take 3 hour lunches. These guys don't work with computers. They work with their hands, their back and every single muscle they have anywhere from 8-12 hours a day or more. They're on the clock and must produce every minute while they're there or someone will immediately get in their face and demand to know why. Some relatives worked in the plants. They were adamant that it was not a job they wanted their children to do. It's hard, tough, backbreaking and monotonous work.

Zeke Brown (Richard Pryor), Jerry Bartowski (Harvey Keitel), and Smokey James (Yaphet Kotto) are Detroit autoworkers who have put years of blood, sweat and tears into their jobs and don't have much to show for it. Honestly they don't have anything to show for it. For Zeke and Jerry, who are married men, this is really becoming a problem as they struggle to provide for children's medical and educational costs, pay back loans and taxes and maintain their wives' respect as family providers. This last is crucially important and is something that has until recently been overlooked in modern life. No matter what people say most men and women still expect the man to be the primary provider. If he can't handle that role, and Zeke and Jerry are slipping, the marriage will suffer. Smokey is single and has no family to complicate things but he's tired of the bs all the same.

Zeke is smart enough to figure some angles. He works hard, knows the rules and isn't afraid to stand up to management or his union rep. But he's not smart enough to find a way out for himself. Smokey lives by a one day at a time, don't f*** with me and I won't f*** with you ethos. And Jerry is a true believer in hard work and the union but is really too scared to imagine that there might be something else out there. The only thing the trio have going for them is occasional parties with women not their wives, alcohol and some drugs. And those pleasures are fleeting. Because the next day they're still poor with no future. Feeling oppressed not only by the auto company but by an indifferent and corrupt union they get the bright idea to rob the union office. This will allow them to pay some bills and get out from under.
Unfortunately there is very little money in the safe but there is something more valuable and much more dangerous: information. And the powers that be want that information back. Now.

The three friends come up against a mostly unseen and seemingly unbeatable enemy that will endanger them physically and seek to corrupt them and/or break them apart from each other. How they deal with this is a quiet tragedy. If you liked movies like Norma Rae, Matewan or Harlan County USA you may like this film. It's a little didactic, especially near the end, but it's more than worthwhile in my view. It's very rare that you see a film that so openly discusses the class issue. This wasn't played for laughs. The story was serious. I would like to see more movies like this being made today. I think there could be a market for them. I loved the soundtrack by Jack Nitzsche. This film can be hard to find but if you do come across it please give it a look see. I think you might be impressed by it. "Enjoy" is probably the wrong word to use here.
TRAILER






Secretary
directed by Steven Shainberg

Ok, just up front this movie is not for everyone. But you should probably already know that because it stars James Spader. It is occasionally explicit. It's certainly not for kiddies. This film is, in a weird twisted way, a romantic comedy. It's a fairy tale, a modern day Cinderella. It follows the primary tropes associated with that genre; a strong minded yet traditional woman convinces, after struggle, a high status man to settle down with her and her alone, after both she and her prince have proven to each other that they are indeed worthy of one another.
The difference is perhaps minor and perhaps quite major. It all depends on your point of view. I was reminded to watch this film again by both the current frenzy over 50 shades of Grey and seeing a commercial for Maggie Gyllenhaal's new movie, Won't Back Down.

The twist is that both the Cinderella and her Prince in this story are deeply disturbed, even warped beings, who nevertheless find something useful in each other.

Lee Holloway (Gyllenhaal) is a young woman recently released from a mental hospital. She cuts herself. Lee is an extremely shy person and is an introvert even among introverts. Socially inept doesn't even begin to describe her. Her parents (Lesley Ann Warren and Stephen McHattie) are unpleasant people. I wouldn't want to spend time around them either. Seeking a new start while also dealing with an on-again off-again relationship with dweeb Peter (Jeremy Davies), Lee answers an ad for a legal secretary for lawyer E. Edward Grey (James Spader). As it turns out Grey is a domineering perfectionist who notices everything and misses nothing, not Lee's cuts and certainly not her typing mistakes. If there's one thing Grey can't stand it's a typo. Grey is something of an oddball himself and has trouble talking to people, especially women. When his verbal reprimands of Lee fail to have the desired effect he corrects her physically. As it turns out this is something that turns Lee on IMMENSELY. She wants things to continue down this path. Grey does as well but is afraid to admit that. He's ashamed of what he likes and is more than a little disturbed by the fact that Lee's needs mesh perfectly with his own.

In a deliberately parallel story to the idea of gays coming out of the closet first in self-acceptance and later to the greater society, Secretary tells the story of two people who are perfect for each other, provided they can each admit and accept their outre desires. YMMV for this film. It is occasionally funny but the ending is over the top. I suppose you could call it a happy ending though. Probably one of the more important things in life is to be honest about who you are and what you want. This is true even if, or rather especially if, society finds who you are to be disgusting or shameful. Watching this film I of course remembered this song by Tom Lehrer, which I heard on the Doctor Demento show many many years ago. Snicker.
TRAILER

Free Speech, Mona Eltahawy, Pamela Geller and Censorship

As we've discussed before there are people who make money, get media attention, and have fun baiting Arabs and Muslims with speech that is either deliberately insulting or could be inferred to be insulting. This is wrong BUT it is something which they have every right to do. There are plenty of things to be critical of in the Arab or Muslim world. Some critics want to see a form of modernity and rationality emerge in some areas to improve people's lives. Other critics just like irritating people. And thin-skinned people of any creed are usually irresistible targets for trolls, whether it be online or elsewhere. If I know that you're going to go berserk every time I say the word "Rosebud" I just might, were I so inclined, amuse myself by saying that word and watching the world burn.

Sometimes though, criticism originates from a place of hatred and racial/religious superiority rather than love, from a place of contempt rather than attempted understanding. The criticism may be stated in blunt ugly antagonistic terms. This is usually the case with the noted conservative racist birther blogger Pamela Geller, who has built her career in part by saying nasty things about Muslims, Arabs and occasionally blacks or President Obama as well. Evidently, Geller has paid for ads to run in NYC (and other) subway systems which read "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad"

Obviously I don't agree with the ad's implication that anyone who is opposed to the current Israeli government's policies is a "savage" or in support of jihad. And it is ironic beyond words that Geller, who was vehemently opposed to Muslim Americans building a mosque in New York City that she felt was "too close" to ground zero, and sought to limit other people's property rights and rights to practice their religion has wrapped herself in the same First Amendment that she seeks to ban for others.

But that we are all hypocrites to one extent or another doesn't change that fact that in America, we ALL have the right to free speech. The government can't tell you what to think, what to believe, prevent you from expressing your opinion, or send you to jail or fine you for expressing your opinion. It also means that other people can't (either individually or as part of a mob) prevent your speech from being heard in the public arena. This second part is a little trickier because of course your right to free speech ends where someone else's ownership rights begin. You have a right not to be put in jail for speech. You have no right to a blog post or comment, to be published, to have your ad accepted. So while I can appreciate journalist and occasioal MSNB contributor Mona Eltahawy's passion and righteous indignation at seeing that message, I can't agree that attempting to deface and censor the message is really "free speech". The proper response should have been to organize and get her own message out there. Geller has every right to put her message in the public square. It is, perhaps worth pointing out, if you are not familiar with Eltahawy, that she is not a fundamentalist but a liberal who advocates for women's rights. She has been scathingly critical of several aspects of the Arab world's politics and traditions. In Egypt she's been arrested and assaulted for her activism and reporting.

Of course I haven't recently strolled by an ad implying that millions of my countrymen and co-religionists are savages so it's easy for me to take a somewhat detached look. Defacing ads is small potatoes in free speech wars. People have done it in other situations but that doesn't make it right. It is important to confront "racist speech" but the way you do that is by more speech, not by trying to censor. That's what I believe. Geller has every right to imply that some people are savages. That right must be defended. Free speech is not negotiable.  Again, though this particular "speech" didn't quite trip my outrage wires the same way that this cartoon might have so I think we all have limits. Bottom line is that as I don't want you deciding what I can read, think or say you probably wouldn't want me determining your correct thoughts or statements. Watch the video as Eltahawy defaces the ad and Pamela Hall, president of Stop the Islamization of America, another Geller group, tries to stop her.

What do you think? 

Is the ad free speech?

Should there be a hate speech exemption to the First Amendment?

Is Eltahawy's response appropriate?

Lynyrd Skynyrd: Heritage not Hate Dodge

South East Michigan has many people (both black and white) who have parents, grandparents or great grandparents that came from the South. This was because of the 20th century automotive industrial boom. So many Southerners migrated here that certain Detroit suburbs or neighborhoods got the pejorative suffix "tucky" as in "Kentucky". The southern (white) migrants also brought a virulent racism which would be a causal element for riots in 1943 and 1967, not that Michigan was a sauna of racial tolerance before they arrived. I haven't been down South in a while but I always thought it was odd that I've seen more Confederate Battle flags in Michigan than I ever did down South. Usually that flag is attached to a pickup truck bumper or displayed in a gun shop or military surplus goods store.

My earliest memory of the city where I now work was two white men in a pickup truck with a Confederate Battle flag attached, slowing down to spit and hurl racial slurs at my then babysitter as she drove me and another child home. Such brave men, yes? So I usually associate that flag with racial hatred, white supremacy and above all, losing. The South lost the Civil War. I'm glad they lost because that meant that my great-great-great-grandfathers/mothers no longer had to live in slavery. So this was an unambiguously good thing as far as I was concerned.
Not everyone feels that way.

Some think that slavery was a good thing or at the very least not all that bad and black people should stop whining talking about it and find the positives. Others will, at least in public, not defend slavery or white supremacy but nonetheless will try to find some good things about the antebellum South and connect this to a pride in (white) Southern heritage. One such person would be Gary Rossington, famed guitarist of the reconstituted Southern Rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd.

CNN news anchor Fredricka Whitfield—who, it may not be irrelevant to mention, is African-American—mentioned the history of the band using the Confederate flag in concert and album art, saying, "We don't see that anymore. At what point did you make a decision to lose that, or what was the evolution of that?"

Rather than tell her she was mistaken, Rossington—the sole remaining member of the group's classic 1970s lineup—launched into an explanation of how the flag has been misappropriated. "It became such an issue about race and stuff,"

Rossington explained on camera, "where we just had it at the beginning because we were Southern, and that was our image back in the '70s and late '60s, because they kind of branded us from being from the South, so we showed that. But I think through the years, you know, people like the KKK and skinheads and people have kind of kidnapped that Dixie or rebel flag from the Southern tradition and the heritage of the soldiers. That was what it was about, and they kind of made it look bad in certain ways. We didn't want that to go to our fans or show the image like we agree with the race stuff or any of the bad things."

Singer Johnny Van Zant, who replaced his late brother Ronnie in the group, chimed in: "If nothing else, we grew up loving the old blues artists and Ray Charles. We just didn't want to be associated with that type of thing".

LINK

Since the early seventies the band has been associated with the Confederate Battle flag. So many fans gave a rebel yell at the idea of their band changing the imagery that Rossington was forced to reverse his stance and repudiate his comments. Having had tragicomic accidental exposure to classic rock radio at an impressionable age I actually liked a few Lynyrd Skynyrd songs. In some areas during the seventies/eighties it was literally impossible not to hear the mournful slide tones of Freebird or the boogie of Sweet Home Alabama somewhere on the radio or blasting out of someone's Firebird. Somewhat ironically the hook for "Sweet Home Alabama" is so catchy that other musicians like the Geto Boys used it. Even more ironically Black women singers provided backup vocals for "Sweet Home Alabama".

Just as some rappers and artists have sought to take what is referred to as "the n-word" and put their own meaning into it, others have tried to redefine the Confederate Battle flag as not being symbolic of a struggle to maintain slavery and white supremacy but as a simple pride in Southern heritage, not backing down from a fight and standing up for your beliefs. Some more honest people also try to attach a "non-racist" white pride to it, claiming that if everyone else can be proud of their ethnic heritage and ancestral deeds, why can't southern (or southern identified) whites?

I think this argument is sort of disingenuous though on the surface it's somewhat compelling. The Confederates initiated an armed rebellion against the United States, one which even today remains the bloodiest war the US has ever fought. And they did so precisely because of a fierce belief in slavery and white supremacy. Don't just take my word for it, look up what they wrote about why they were rebelling.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

The Confederates wanted to make sure everyone knew what they thought about blacks.
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

And like I said..they lost. When I see that flag I think of a racist loser. So I see nothing to honor or be proud of.
It is true that the Confederate Battle flag has been associated with white power movements, the Klan, and American Nazis. Rossington is correct about that. What he misses, most likely deliberately, is that there's a reason for that. It's not so much that the Confederate Battle flag has been misappropriated as it is that it's an almost perfect beacon for many of the beliefs that white power movements, the Klan and Nazis have.

There were many brave men who fought for the Confederacy. I have no doubt about that. There were also many brave men who fought for Germany in WW2. Some Waffen SS men laid down their lives trying to protect German civilians (and especially German women) from rape and death at the hands of the Russians. But if a German woman hoisted a Swastika or Waffen SS flag today and claimed that she is not supporting Nazism but is merely honoring the bravery of her ancestors, would anyone believe her? Probably not. Those symbols are fixed in their meaning. And despite the bravery of individual soldiers the cause for which they fought was so wrong that even attempting to honor them feels wrong somehow. They weren't the good guys.

The problem is that the South, unlike post war Germany, never had to admit that it was wrong for starting the war or wrong for having slaves. There weren't war crimes trials which ended with slaveowners dancing at the end of a rope or overseers being lined up against a wall and shot. There were never generations of education in the postbellum South which emphasized the wrongness of human bondage. And of course there were never reparations paid to the slaves. There was a brief attempt to ameliorate some of slavery's effects which was met with sullen and later openly violent Southern white resistance. The North shrugged its collective shoulders and by the 1890s or so the South had been left to handle its own affairs and write its own version of events, one which surprisingly enough was generally accepted by the North, at least insofar as black people were concerned. Slavery had nothing to do with the war. Slavery wasn't that bad. The South were genteel farmers who were were resisting an invasion by northern industrialists. Slaves were fat happy people who loved giving relationship advice to white people. And so on...

At a time when Confederate Battle flag enthusiast Kid Rock gets an NAACP award and says he loves black people and is not racist, is it time to look past imagery and judge people more by actions? Or is some imagery so disgusting that that's impossible to do. The great Southern writer William Faulkner famously wrote "The past is never dead. It's not even past'. I think that quote is quite applicable here. The Civil War and slavery still cast a heavy shadow over America, in part because some of the issues we thought were resolved then haven't quite been. And because historically speaking the Civil War wasn't that long ago it's not necessarily easy to let go of certain things. I doubt, by way of comparison that too many British are still too sensitive over the Norman invasion of 1066 or the War of the Roses. Why? Because those things are long long past. The winners and losers have merged. You can't tell a Norman from a Saxon. The issues have been forgotten or no longer matter. None of that is true in the American context of state's rights, discrimination, race relations, etc.

Questions

1) What does the Confederate Battle flag mean to you?
2) Is it possible to redefine symbols like the Confederate Battle flag?
3) Is it possible to have white pride without being racist?
4) Had you ever heard of Lynyrd Skynyrd before?