Robb Stark and The Red Wedding: All his fault??

Robb Stark's Mistakes

Whenever author George R.R. Martin is asked about the Red Wedding he cackles evilly and rants that he won't stop his reign of literary terror until every last Stark is dead dead dead  calmly points out that the normal myth cycle has often featured a boy becoming a man by rising up after his father's death and leading his family to prominence/revenge/justice. But Martin had zero interest in writing that story. So by Word of God Robb Stark had to die. Martin has said art is not a democracy. If you don't like his writing ,read something else. He's certainly not changing his story because of your preferences. I might have something to write on that later as some fans have a bone to pick with Martin and Benioff and Weiss about representation and stereotyping. A really nasty controversy broke out about 3 weeks ago concerning some Season 4 casting news from HBO. But I digress. Anyway the Red Wedding was gruesome to watch on screen. It was horrible to read and according to Martin it was extremely painful to write. That is why he saved it for last (although chronologically it occurs a little past halfway through book 3). But temporarily putting Martin's decision aside, I'd like to step inside the creation and examine if Robb could have avoided certain mistakes and/or the costs that he paid for those errors. 

Hindsight is 20/20. Robb should have realized that Lord Walder Frey was EXTREMELY upset about the broken betrothal. I would not blame anyone for not anticipating Frey's actions at a wedding. People forget that Robb took over family leadership at a very young age and lacked any older trusted male advisor on his father's side. Robb was my favorite character. I strongly identified with him. The North Remembers! With that in mind let's review Robb's biggest mistakes.*

• Not marrying Roslin Frey immediately. If Robb had married Roslin Frey immediately he couldn't have spurned the Freys for Talisa. The Freys being the Freys, backstabbing b******s that they are, likely still would have tried to switch sides if/when events turned against Robb, but they wouldn't have been able to get him isolated and alone at a wedding. The HBO series changed the reasoning for Robb's decision, making
  it something more romantic and understandable to show viewers. In the book Robb married someone else (she had a different name and background) as much out of obligation as out of love.
  
  He took her virginity and thus found himself, as he saw it, trapped between two clashing concepts of honor. Book!Robb is more sympathetic to me than Show!Robb. Show!Robb marries for love and is rebellious. But in either book or show Robb should have known that he could not break the Frey betrothal. His honor (in book) and his love and happiness (in show) are simply not as important as his obligations to the Freys and his need to protect his people. So I think it's fair to blame Robb for this mistake. In the book the Freys are already fighting for Robb and have lost loved ones when they learn of Robb's decision. 

• Not detailing his strategy to Edmure. The show handles this a little differently than the book does but the bottom line is that Robb intended to draw Tywin's armies west and then trap and destroy them through superior speed. This required that Edmure hold his position at Riverrun and not engage with Tywin's forces. Unfortunately Edmure was unclear on the "not engage with Tywin's forces" part, perhaps because Robb did not explicitly tell him not to do that. So Edmure attacks the Lannisters while Tywin and associated Lannister forces are not far enough west. When Tywin learns of Stannis' impending attack on King's Landing, he's still close enough to the capital to rush back and with the assistance of the Tyrell forces, defeat Stannis.
  
  In the book, although it's revealed afterwards that he's been quietly hedging his bets all along, it's at this point that Roose Bolton decides that now is the right time to secretly switch sides. Stannis' defeat was disastrous for the North. Robb could have bent the knee to Stannis. He could not have done so to the Lannisters. They killed his father. But by taking (temporarily?) Stannis off the board, the Lannisters convinced the Freys and Boltons that their victory was inevitable. I don't blame Robb for all of this as no one could have seen all the various dominoes that would fall. A leader needs disciplined subordinates who follow his orders, even if they don't fully understand them. Robb's plan may not have worked even if Edmure had done as directed. But with Edmure changing the script it had no chance. Given Edmure's capabilities, Robb should have explained his plan further. If you are expecting someone to do something against their every instinct, explain it to them.

• Sending Theon to treat with Balon Greyjoy. Robb and Theon are close in age and grew up together. Robb took no part in the suppression of the Greyjoy Rebellion (he would have only been 10 years old or younger when it took place). Therefore he has no personal animosity towards Theon or full understanding of the Iron Islands/Greyjoy violent culture. However people who do remember the Greyjoy Rebellion are not so trusting of the Greyjoys. IIRC in show Jaime says seeing Theon at Winterfell was like seeing a shark on a mountaintop.
  
  Catelyn knows what the Iron Islanders are like and begs Robb not to trust either Theon or Balon Greyjoy. In the book I believe she reminds Robb that Ned would not have sent Theon back. She is stridently against sending Theon as an envoy. Catelyn suggests that if Robb wants Balon Greyjoy's aid he send someone else. Robb doesn't listen, perhaps because he wants to show he's a big boy who's not afraid of Mommy and sends Theon anyway. Theon switches sides and through a toxic combination of shame, guilt, sibling rivalry and resentment attacks and seizes Winterfell, something his father did not order. Then via guile, Ramsay Snow is able to take and burn Winterfell and slaughter its inhabitants. The small garrison which Robb left is also killed while Brandon and Rickon Stark are believed to be dead (in books) or either dead or missing(in show). Symbols matter. You can't be King of the North if you can't protect your own castle/town. This was a serious blow to Robb's authority, legitimacy and reputation. Although Robb could not have known that Balon Greyjoy was already planning to attack the North, this is another instance where listening to Catelyn (even in private) would have yielded better results. Keeping Theon close would not have prevented a Greyjoy attack as Balon makes it clear repeatedly that he thinks nothing of Theon. But it would have prevented the sacking of Winterfell and Catelyn's subsequent release of Jaime Lannister in the belief that Robb and Sansa were the only children she had left. If there is no release of Jaime, there is no retaliation by Karstark, no execution of Karstark, no attempt to make amends with Freys, no Red Wedding. So yes I blame Robb for this.

• Accepting the King in the North title. While it was a serious bada$$ moment in both book and show to have the big bad GreatJon Umber spit at the mention of southern kings and declare that the Starks were the only kings he would accept, Robb should not have accepted this title. It didn't really gain him any alliances among the other Great Houses and immediately made a rival/enemy of the Baratheons, who were the only other people considering action against the Lannisters.
  
  If, after Renly's death, Robb had been able to coordinate action with Stannis, Tywin wouldn't have been able to get back to King's Landing in time. Stannis takes King's Landing and the Tyrells are suddenly not so interested in the Lannisters. In fact they might be trying to marry Loras to Shireen Baratheon and Margaery to Robb. Arya makes it to Riverrun. The Freys want everyone to know how they were on Robb and Stannis' side all along. If Stannis had been allied with Robb he might well have shared his experience of fighting the Ironborn and had the necessary gravitas to steer Robb away from the idea of sending Theon back to Pyke. Heck, if Robb accepted Stannis as King, Stannis could have ordered Robb not to do it. Unfortunately Robb had no way of knowing this. Stannis declared his intentions after Robb had accepted the title. But a man trying to fight his way from almost one end of a continent to the other needs flexibility and allies. Declaring premature independence isn't the way to gain either. Robb already had formidable enemies in the Lannisters. 

• Defending The Riverlands and The North The unfortunate fact about The Riverlands is that, as we discussed before, they are centrally located and not particularly defensible. Still that's Catelyn's homeland. Just as Ned before him, Robb had to act. Once The Riverlands joined his secessionist cause and recognized him as king it wasn't just a question of blood. A king must defend his people. The smart move would have been to stay north of The Neck and send the Westeros equivalent of Seal Team Six to find and rescue Arya and Sansa. Then there is no betrothal or alliance with The Freys or need to send Theon home. But if Robb did send Theon home Winterfell and the North are still strongly protected. Though this was the smart move, it would have been politically and personally impossible for Robb to stay north as his mother's people are attacked, his father is murdered, other Northerners are slaughtered and his sisters are placed in peril. He HAD to go to war. This was a mistake but I don't blame Robb for it.

• Executing Karstark. Karstark has clearly lost motivation after his sons are killed. The only thing he's living for is revenge. He doesn't seem impressed with his king chasing Talisa and we can only presume he's not too thrilled with the broken betrothal either. He wants to kill Jaime Lannister. He's temporarily prevented from doing so by Catelyn's command and then permanently prevented from doing so by Catelyn's release of Jaime for her selfish (albeit understandable) reasons.
  
  Seeing Catelyn escape what he views as meaningful punishment combined with Lannister children nearby is too much for Karstark to take. He murders the children. Not only does he do this (and thus as far as Robb knows put Sansa's and Arya's lives at risk) he also shows no remorse for it. Indeed he berates Robb and dares him to respond. I am torn on this because no military leader, particularly not one as young as Robb is, can tolerate subordinates disobeying orders and insulting him. If you are fighting for justice you can't have your people killing kids. Robb had a strict moral code and thus had no doubts on what Karstark's fate would be. But Robb leads a feudal army. "His" soldiers are primarily loyal to their local lords, not to Robb personally. Since he needed Karstark's people to reach his larger goal (rescuing his sisters and taking King's Landing), executing Karstark then, no matter how justified was a mistake. Send him to the Wall or imprison him but don't kill him.

So to summarize although I am a Stark bannerman and want the surviving Starks to reunite and destroy their enemies, at this point that looks unlikely. Though I will tease those of you who haven't read the books (which you should) and remind you all that Ned Stark said that when the snow falls and the white winds blow the lone wolf dies but the pack survives. The Stark wolfpack may be scattered but it's not yet destroyed. So we'll see. Robb Stark made many mistakes. They weren't all obvious at the time but I think Martin did a great job of showing how wars aren't just won on battlefields. They're also won by any other means. Like his father, Robb assumed that other people would try to be as honorable as he would be. Robb was a heck of a warrior and battle strategist but lacked cunning and political experience. And he paid for it.

*As usual, if you've read the books please don't detail anything that's yet to happen in show..

Music Reviews-The Soul Messengers, The Modern Jazz Quartet, The Pharaohs

The Soul Messengers

You may or may not be familiar with the phenomenon but there are some Black Americans who claim descent from one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, or who had African Jewish ancestors who were kidnapped and enslaved, or who converted to Judaism, or who simply very strongly believed that Black people in general were the original Chosen People. The competing religious claims, rivalries and varied histories of all these groups go back for decades and in some cases centuries. They overlap with Marcus Garvey and thus with religions and movements like The Moorish Science Temple, The Five-Percenters, Rastafari and other black nationalist based groups. It's a longer post than I want to write this at this time but suffice it to say that in mid sixties Chicago and Detroit there were Black Jewish citizens, separate from Euro-American Judaism, who were proud of both their Jewishness and Blackness. Ultimately some of these people, known as African Hebrew Israelites, or just Black Hebrews, decided that America was no longer the place for them. They decided to immigrate to what they considered Promised Lands: certain countries in Africa and of course Israel. Their experience overseas was not without headaches as they were pressured by natives to prove their racial/religious/ethnic bona fides. Many people then and now thought they were fake. They believed the same of many of their critics. Some Black Hebrews gave up and returned to the US. Others eventually settled in Dimona, Israel where after several legal battles they were allowed to stay. 

Anyway, politics and race aside, the Black Hebrews who settled in Israel brought with them intimate knowledge of the then current popular and religious music of African Americans. One group that is worth listening to is The Soul Messengers. Like Parliament-Funkadelic, this group had different names and satellite groups that it backed up but it was usually pretty much the same group of musicians and singers despite what the name on the album release might say.

I like this music. It's a melange of gospel, the gospel-pop rock that people like the similar sounding Hawkins Singers were exploring contemporaneously, classic soul, James Brown themed funk, traditional spirituals, reggae, black nationalist themed "spiritual jazz" that echoed people like Pharoah Sanders and Sun Ra, psychedelic soul a la Jimi Hendrix, and even some old school blues. Some of this sounds like very early Earth, Wind and Fire (WITHOUT Bailey's falsetto) . That's not too surprising since some of the group members who decided to go back to Chicago wound up playing for The Pharaohs, which was the group from which Earth, Wind and Fire took inspiration, influence and a few members.

Not everything on here is great. "Modernization" has a nice groove but the stiff lyrics don't really work for me. The song references ecological and personal dietary concerns. This is groove music. Although there are some extended solos they never ever get in the way of the collective groove. I like that these cuts all have a prominent and deep bassline. The religious elements are more implied than explicitly stated, with the exception of the classic song "Daniel". The recording production is a little dense at times but you can still usually make out the vocals. You will also recognize the song "Na Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" reworked into "Our Love and Savior" complete with Hebrew lyrics. If you are hip to the early seventies soul gospel, before the widespread adaptation of synthesizers, this music will sound quite familiar. Will you like it? I think you might. The lyrics are generally earnest and positive if occasionally less than polished. But the musicianship is pretty good though some of the songs start to run together and sound alike.

Messiah  Burn Devil Burn  Daniel  Heaven of Heavens  Our Lord and Savior
 Prince of Zeal  Do It  Victory  A Place to Be  Modernization





The Modern Jazz Quartet

Both of my parents were huge jazz fans. I think this might have been my Dad's favorite group though he usually avoided superlatives when it came to music. It is certainly the jazz music of which I have the earliest and therefore fondest memories. This group was special because it did not feature any horn players at a time when horn players were the public face of jazz. It was also special because years before the terms "world music" or "fusion" had become marketing tools The Modern Jazz Quartet (MJQ) was mixing bop jazz with a variety of different musics, most notably baroque classical-ESPECIALLY Bach. Also though the group could swing with the best of them they were notably not wild men on stage and often performed in tuxedos. This was an indication that they took their music as seriously as any classical performer and expected their audience to do so as well. In its way this was an expression of black pride as most people often expected black musicians to be more Dionysian than Apollonian. The MJQ by both their attitude and repertoire expressed the belief that serious music belonged to black people just as surely as it did to whites.

The MJQ had a history that went back to Dizzy Gillespie's glory days in the fifties. Like a lot of four man bands The MJQ featured two opinionated and occasionally clashing leaders (Jackson and Lewis) who took the lion's share of leads and solos and wrote most of the music and two guys who generally stayed more in the background, though when called on to show their stuff they revealed just as much skill on their particular instruments. The classic lineup was Milt Jackson (vibes), John Lewis (piano), Percy Heath (bass), and Connie Kay (drums).

The group briefly broke up in the seventies when Jackson wanted to do different (his own) things musically, make more money and get away from Lewis while Lewis wished to continue with the classical leaning jazz sound. They reunited in the eighties but of course by the nineties and early 2000's age and infirmities had caught up with them. They've all passed on now. But they left behind a very impressive body of work, one which spans quite a few jazz and classical genres. Milt Jackson (born in Detroit I must add) had an extremely distinctive sound on the vibes and often guested on various blues, jazz or soul releases by other artists. Jackson had a very slow very fat tone which was immediately identifiable. Of course I am not that familiar with too many other vibraphone players besides Lionel Hampton, Tito Puente and Bobby Hutcherson so take that for what it's worth. Either way, once you have heard Jackson play you tend to remember his voice on the instrument.

"Fontessa" is one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever recorded in human existence.
I also loved the MJQ's collaborations with The Swingle Singers. If you like that sort of thing you should look for the CD Place Vendome. And it's a personal pet peeve of mine but do kindly notice how the recordings from the 50s thru the 70's have plenty of body, tone and volume but are not recorded too hot or too loudly. Things are not overcompressed. You're able to enjoy the dynamics of the music. It's loud and full but there are also quiet moments. You can hear every instrument without feeling like someone IS YELLING AT YOU ALL THE TIME!!!. So I appreciated that.

Adagio from Concierto de Aranjuez  MJQ with Itzhak Perlman (Summertime)
Softly,as in a Morning Sunrise   All the Things you Are Blues in A Minor   Fontessa
Django   Round Midnight (Live)
Precious Joy aka Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring by J.S. Bach
Air for the G String by J.S. Bach with the Swingle Singers
Little David's Fugue with the Swingle Singers   Bag's Groove  Live with Sonny Rollins






The Pharaohs

As I mentioned above The Pharaohs were a musical group that also touched among all phases of African American music and sought to link these musics backed to their African antecedents (thus the name) The most obvious touchstone was of course West African, specifically Nigerian (Yoruban and Ibo) music. Some of their extended jam sessions could put you in mind of people like Fela Kuti.  It also helped their musical stew that a few of the members were not just African-Americans but actual Africans. So you can hear real time interplay between the music of the African Diaspora and the original African music which inspired it. The Pharaohs also happened to come along at a time when black people were generally calling each other brother and sister instead of n***** and b**** so most of their music, even the blues or other somber pieces generally tended towards positivity and communal experiences instead of negativity or one person standing alone. They tended to be a little more secular and jazz influenced than The Soul Messengers. 

 It's not widely known but blues recording label Chess Records, home of titans such as rock and roll superstar Chuck Berry and blues giants Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf, had by the mid sixties also become the operating base to younger forward looking house studio band members and producers. These folks could and did play old time traditional Chicago/Mississippi style blues when called upon to do so but were also moving in more progressive directions, fueled by the free jazz and Afrocentric approach around at the time. Some of these musicians, together with university students and a few other jazz musicians formed The Pharaohs. This group was heavy on percussion, featuring as many as six drummers, combined with other percussionists but all the same there was a lot of space in their music. With the exception of some jam sessions their music rarely sounds overcrowded and never seems overproduced.

Given that near the end of his life Hendrix was moving in a jazzier direction with more percussion, it would have been interesting to hear him record with The Pharaohs. Sadly that wasn't to be. Although they weren't that commercially successful (though they did do the music for Afro-Sheen commercials), part time member and supporter Maurice White eventually formed the group Earth, Wind and Fire and took things in an ever slightly more commercial direction to put it mildly. And he took some of The Pharaohs members with him. So the The Pharaohs basically disbanded. But they had produced two albums, one live and one studio (In the Basement, Awakening) which are hard to find but which, if you are as into that time period as I am, are essential listening. This music fits almost seamlessly with what contemporary musical giants like Pharaoh Sanders, Alice Coltrane, Santana and War were producing. There was something in the water in the late sixties and early seventies and in my view music hasn't been the same since. As always YMMV but if you like a mix of deep Afro-funk combined with a few reworked soul tunes and African percussion explorations you may want to check some of this music out. I think The Pharaohs' version of "People Make the World Go Round" on the In the Basement album is the best I ever heard. A lot of the early work by EWF sounds like The Pharaohs. "Great House" gives you a lengthy electric guitar solo over a steady vamp. Check out their take on the Motown hit "Tracks of My Tears". If you don't smile and dance to "The Pharaohs Love Y'All", then something is wrong with you.

Freedom Road   Ibo Great House Tracks of My Tears
The Pharaohs Love Y'All  Damballah  Love and Happiness  In The Basement (Entire Album)

Detroit Files for Bankruptcy

As predicted here recently, the City of Detroit just became the largest municipality in US history to file for bankruptcy. Typically for the ways things are done around here, even the filing was filled with some shenanigans as Governor Snyder and Emergency Manager Orr filed the bankruptcy just before a judge was set to grant a temporary restraining order preventing such a filing. I think this is a sad day. But it is probably one that was necessary. My only interest now is in hoping that the retirees and their dependents, some of whom are very close to me, don't get the shaft in whatever comes out of this process. But being the pessimistic sort I think they probably will.

The city of Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history Thursday afternoon, culminating a decades-long slide that transformed the nation’s iconic industrial town into a model of urban decline crippled by population loss, a dwindling tax base and financial problems. The 16-page petition was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Detroit.

Gov. Rick Snyder’s office was making plans this afternoon to hold a 10 a.m. Friday morning news conference at the Maccabees Building, 5057 Woodward in Midtown, according to his office. It’s the same location where the governor declared a financial emergency for Detroit on March 1.  Snyder authorized Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr to file bankruptcy under a law the Legislature passed in December that replaced the previous emergency manager law voted repealed last November.

The bankruptcy filing came minutes before Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina was set to hold an emergency hearing Thursday afternoon on a request for a temporary restraining order blocking Snyder from authorizing a bankruptcy filing. “It was my intention to grant you your request completely,” Aquilina told lawyers for Detroit’s pension boards.

The judge did grant temporary restraining orders against Snyder and Orr taking further action in the bankruptcy proceedings. Ronald King, an attorney representing the police/fire and general retirement pension systems, said he may file a motion Friday in the case seeking to require Orr, an officer of the state, to withdraw the bankruptcy filing. After the hearing, King expressed frustration with the governor’s office after filing a motion for a temporary restraining order at 3:37 p.m. and giving Snyder’s attorney extra time to get to the downtown Lansing courthouse. The bankruptcy case was filed at 4:06 p.m. and Aquilina convened the emergency hearing at 4:11 p.m.

The Chapter 9 filing could take years, experts say, despite hopes by the governor and Orr that the case can be wrapped up in a year. A bankruptcy judge could trump the state constitution by slashing retiree pensions, ripping up contracts and paying creditors roughly a dime on the dollar for unsecured claims worth $11.45 billion. During a month of negotiations, Orr has reached a settlement with only two creditors: Bank of America Corp. and UBS AG. They have agreed to accept 75 cents on the dollar for approximately $340 million in swaps liabilities, according to a source familiar with the deal.

The bankruptcy plan was expected to closely follow Orr’s restructuring proposal that was unveiled to creditors on June 14 — a proposal that drew criticism from some creditors who said the cuts were too deep and did not include the sale of city assets, including Belle Isle and a Detroit Institute of Arts collection worth billions. He proposed paying most of the money owed to secured creditors while pension funds, unions and unsecured bondholders would receive, in some cases, 10 cents on the dollar.

LINK

As I wrote previously there is no good reason that anyone with a working brain would accept 10% of what they're owed when someone else is getting 75% of what they're owed. You'd have to be extra special stupid to go for that deal. And how convenient is it that two of the more criminal banks that could be said to exist were going to get most of what they claim they were owed. It feels good to be a bank, no?  From a purely public interest standpoint there could be an interesting legal battle to determine if federal bankruptcy law can ignore the Michigan constitution which has generally been understood to prevent the alteration of public pensions. As we know in most cases the federal rules reign supreme. But there are still a few areas where the states can tell the feds to back up and go away. But of course it's not the state which is filing bankruptcy but the city. So yes this will all be "interesting". But that aside there are some good people who are gonna get hurt. Some of them I know. So this is not a good thing. 

Detroit has been on a downward spiral financially for years. This day has been probably inevitable since at least the late nineties. That was the time then to make the changes required to avoid this. The city needed to get rid of useless assets, collect taxes that were owed, cut taxes where possible to stop driving off businesses and citizens, deal with an intransigent and occasionally corrupt bureaucracy, take steps to get the crime under control, start an aggressive program to demolish abandoned homes, be unapologetic about requiring that Detroiters get work on projects inside the city (made more difficult by state rules against affirmative action), and do everything possible to bring in more revenue while cutting costs. Unlike the federal government cities can't create Keynesian stimulus on their own. They have to pay back their creditors. But for a variety of reasons, some good but mostly bad much of these things did not happen and here we are. Ironically some of the people that were cheerful about Detroit bankruptcy because they enjoyed seeing bad things happen to Detroit are suddenly somewhat worried about what a Detroit bankruptcy could mean to other (ie. THEIR) municipal or state borrowing costs. So stay tuned sports fans! This is going to be messy.

Thoughts?

Obama considers Ray Kelly to head DHS

One thing which my father and other mentors always told me is to pay less attention to what people say and more attention to what they do. Actions speak louder than words. A manager might say that she's impressed with your experience and skills but if she ensures she pays you less than everyone else in your department with equal or lesser experience then perhaps she's not really all that impressed. A couple might say they would enjoy coming to a get together at your house but if every time you invite them they're busy or you get voicemail then perhaps they're trying to politely send you a message. Another person might tell you that your business plan is going to take the world by storm but if he's unwilling to invest chances are he doesn't have faith in your supposed business acumen. 

So with all that in mind it was irritating to hear a President who has spoken eloquently about the evils of racial profiling in Arizona and elsewhere to, if not quite endorse, float a big fat trial balloon towards the appointment of NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to replace outgoing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has been lobbying to get Kelly that job. Obama offered Kelly praise, saying he would be "well-qualified" for the position.

Ray Kelly's obviously done an extraordinary job in New York," Obama said. "And the federal government partners a lot with New York, because obviously, our concerns about terrorism often times are focused on big-city targets, and I think Ray Kelly's one of the best there is.

The problem with that is as you may have known from reading this blog and others is that Commissioner Kelly has been the overseer and architect of an official racially based stop-and-frisk policy that targets black and Hispanic New York citizens. It's primarily aimed at young black males but anyone and everyone with the requisite level of melanin is targeted regardless of gender, age, income, style of dress or other characteristics. You can be a twenty something hoodlum in a hoodie looking for someone to rob, a thirty something professional dressed to the nines for a career changing job interview, a fifty something grandparent walking to church in your Sunday best or a sneaker wearing pre-teen going to school. It doesn't matter. The police have quotas to meet. And they intend to meet them, no matter what because those are the incentives that Kelly has laid down. And as far as Kelly's boss, Mayor Lord Bloomberg is concerned the NYPD needs to be stopping fewer white people and more black people. One wonders if the President agrees with Bloomberg's statements. Kelly has been a vociferously nasty defender of the stop-n-frisk policy even as it finally starts to wind its way through court challenges. Kelly shows zero signs of being concerned with the constitutionality of his policy, its complete lack of effectiveness or the fear and hatred that it engenders among the black and brown population. Kelly has the ability to stop and frisk people on a level than Zimmerman could only dream of. There are over 8 million people in NYC. There are 53,000 in Sanford. At the time of this writing only NY Representative Hakeem Jeffries has had the guts to publicly criticize the idea of having Kelly as DHS head. 

"He's been a good administrator, and perhaps I could even support his potential appointment to this position in the absence of the massive aggressive stop-and-frisk program that he's run, and the unconstitutional Muslim surveillance program, but that's kind of like saying, I had a good year, if you don't count the winter, spring, and fall," Jeffries said.

There's got to be an effective balance between national security or effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for our civil rights and civil liberties on the other. Ray Kelly, during his tenure as police commissioner under Michael Bloomberg, has consistently disrespected that balance, and that's why I think he would be a poor choice for secretary of Homeland Security"

We shouldn't be too surprised by President Obama's statements. After all it is under his watch and with CIA assistance that the NYPD has worked hand in hand with DHS/CIA to run surveillance of left-wing protesters and activists as well as Muslims of various backgrounds, outside of New York City and even outside of New York State. And the President has not as far as I can recall had an unkind word to say about Mayor Lord Bloomberg or Commissioner Kelly. NYC and NY State have not been threatened with loss of federal resources or sued in federal court after every policy change. This is is stark contrast to the President's words and actions against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  Again, neither of those people are running the kinds of programs which Kelly is running.  The Executive Branch has reigned them in. Actions speak louder than words.

If you are upset about profiling, if you think that Zimmerman was wrong to assume that Martin was up to no good because of his race and clothing then I don't see how you could possibly think that Kelly is doing a good job in New York City with stop-and-frisk or that he should be given national responsibility as DHS Secretary. The President often likes to have it both ways. He's a politician after all. But people nationwide and especially those in New York should recognize that the President's statements are troubling. You can't claim to be against racial profiling and speak positively of promoting one of the nation's most vigorous profilers. It would be a serious betrayal of the President's most fervent base to put someone like Kelly as DHS head. I think, as I have said before, that people in NYC and across the nation needed to make this stop-and-frisk policy a red-line issue in the same way in which Arizona's SB1070 became. This is a situation where the President must choose. It is also one where I think he already has...

What's your take?

Movie Reviews-Breaking Bad (Season Five), The Watch, Redemption

Breaking Bad (Season Five)
created by Vince Gilligan
Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall

Season Five was both better than Season Four and a minor letdown. This season stretched the believability of chemistry teacher Walter White's (Bryan Cranston) criminal descent. Now, he's not only a murderous drug dealer but also a resourceful jack of all trades who robs trains and monitors the DEA ? Some of this was too much. This is the terminal season. Hopefully another TV show and the author who inspired it will take some hints about having a beginning, middle and end. One of the producer/directors (Michelle McLaren) who works on Breaking Bad also works on Game of Thrones. Perhaps some of the urgency shown on Breaking Bad will bleed over to Game of Thrones. 

Season Five (it had a midseason finale before this year's August denouement) opened with Walter and others dealing with fallout from the epic Season Four power struggle between Walter and Gus (Giancarlo Esposito). As Walter coldly tells his wife, "I won.". The King is dead. Long live the King. But Gus' top hitman and effective underboss Mike (Jonathan Banks) is unhappy with this turn of events. Although Walter offers Mike a partnership, it doesn't change Mike's essentially negative feelings about Walter. Mike's defining characteristic is loyalty. Walter constantly appeals to Mike's self-interest to prevent Mike from killing him to avenge Gus. Mike is angry and exasperated. Mike is trying to protect "his guys" from Walter's incompetence and greed. He also wants out of the business. Mike has deep legal and criminal knowledge which Walter lacks.

Speaking of Walter's wife, Skyler (Anna Gunn), I was surprised to learn that Breaking Bad has so many women writers and directors. Skyler has always come across as a Queen (insert misogynist insult here) and does not change this season. I really tried to have sympathy for her but I couldn't find much. She hasn't murdered anyone yet but that's due to luck not intent. Skyler's self-righteousness is amazing. Let's quickly review her past actions with light spoilers. A bossy know-it-all woman notices that her nebbish husband is behaving oddly. At first suspecting an affair she discovers, via non-stop nagging, that her husband is a drug dealer. Does she leave, call the cops, or turn a blind eye? No. She insists, over Walter's tepid objections, on getting deeply involved in the business. She also sleeps with someone else from mostly spite, gives Walter's wealth to her lover, throws Walter out of the family home, almost kills someone, and narrowly avoids IRS attention. She blames Walter for ALL of this. This season was an extended Skyler temper tantrum. Last season she informed him at dinner, "I f****d Ted" . This season it's, "When are you dying?". Yeah, I want exactly that sort of supportive wife. 

Walter, callous criminal though he may be, is no Mr. Macho Man at home. There was never a chance of him, like a Michael Corleone, telling Skyler "Don't ask me about my business." This is not to excuse Walter, who is truly a despicable man. But Skyler's unhappiness stems from the fact that she's a control freak who wanted to be involved in her husband's criminal behavior. But their marriage has changed. Walter is no longer submissive and blandly agreeable around her. That bothers Skyler. It bothers Skyler that Walter is nonchalant about the murders he's committed or the danger to his family. Skyler blames Walter for her moral degeneration while ignoring her own responsibility. I feel sorry for Skyler but I would have divorced her decades ago.

Walter was in a kill or be killed situation with Gus. Gus dropped his nice guy facade and threatened Walter and his family. Ironically, Walter's problems with Gus actually started when he was trying to protect Jesse (and Jesse was trying to protect children). So evil came from good intentions. But even though Walter can and does come up with reasonable justifications for the evil he's done or witnessed, this season emphasizes some ugly truths about Walter. Walter's primary purpose in becoming a criminal has not in fact been cancer or financial fears for his family. He still tells Jesse and Skyler that but they don't believe it any more and neither will you. Walter suffers from the deadliest sin, pride. In grad school Walter took a buyout and/or was forced out of a biochem company that he and some buddies started. He sold out his interest for $5000. That company is now worth billions. Walter thinks it's his work that made the company successful. This has bothered Walter for the past twenty-five years. His criminal behavior is about proving to himself that he is somebody. Evidently he had no Jesse Jackson speeches available. Walter's ego and resentments are boundless.

Walter's arrogance may hurt him as his dependably supportive and mildly bigoted brother-in-law Hank has been promoted to head the local DEA office. Hank is smarter than most people (and by most people I mean Walter) realize. Hank notices the little things like Walter's expensive watch and the big things like the two new cars that Walter bought for himself and his son Walt Jr. Hank combines good intuition with dogged attention to detail. I don't quite think Walter wants to be caught but he definitely enjoys his underworld reputation as the top chemist and a baaaad muyerfuyer. Walter's interactions with Hank reveal that he's getting a little too happy laughing up his sleeve at Hank. Skyler's growing instability does not go unheeded by her sister Marie (Betsy Brandt). This explodes in a really powerful scene between the two siblings.

Walter must deal with the financial pressures of leadership as well as unexpected legal and political problems caused by Gus' demise. Gus had national and international connections of whom neither Walter or the viewer was aware. One of Gus' corporate partners/suppliers, a selfish neurotic woman named Lydia (Scottish actress Laura Fraser), gets worried after Gus' death and causes problems for Mike. Causing problems for a stone killer like Mike isn't smart. Lydia's actions could interfere with the supply. Without a guaranteed supply Walter can't make his 99.1% pure blue meth. Hank learns a lot about Gus' organization. He leans on some former Gus loyalists to  give up Gus' top chemist Heisenberg (Walter). Walter can't have people starting to talk. Fraser's Lydia character was realistic. To quote Solozzo from The Godfather, Lydia's not in the muscle end of the family. She is apprehensive of dealing with the murderously phlegmatic Mike or the increasingly choleric Walter. But she's keen on pursuing her own interests.

I liked this season though the unreality started to poke through. Walter gets sloppy. This could come back on him. Previously Walter only discussed criminal behavior with a few trusted people. Very few people knew his real name. Now he's working in criminal conspiracies with large numbers of people. Low level scrubs know he's "Mr. White". He was formerly a chemistry teacher with a drug dealer alter-ego. This season the alter-ego has taken over. Maybe that always was the real Walter White. In his Heisenberg persona his voice deepens and he snarls at people. Although Walter is verily an evil man brimming over with contempt for those he considers his intellectual inferiors (most other people) he usually won't deliberately seek to hurt people (besides supplying meth, that is). But if he's backed into a corner he'll come out blasting. Show him that he has a choice and he might be willing to let you keep living...unless it's just too much trouble for him. In Season One Walter agonized over killing a hoodlum who had tried to kill him. He cried when he murdered the thug. In Season Five he can watch an innocent child die and literally shrug his shoulders. He's a cold hearted man indeed. And he likes his job.

Cancer is such an apt metaphor for this show. Walter's repressed rage and ambition have poisoned him. For decades he's lied to himself that he was satisfied with a low pay/low status job, few material goods and a loving albeit pushy wife. Walter should have confronted his frustrations years ago. Heck, many such men might have had an affair, bought a new sports car, or changed careers. But Walter's pride is so great and has been held down so long that when it finally breaks free of moral restraint, it, like cancer, greedily devours all in its path. Jesse (Aaron Paul), whom Walter still manipulates, knows he can't trust "Mr. White" any more. He's unaware of Walter's Season Four betrayal, which gives their Season Five interactions poignancy and creepiness. Walter doesn't abuse Jesse physically/sexually but he certainly does so emotionally/psychologically. Jesse becomes Season Five's moral center, giving voice to the questions "How much is enough?" or "Is this really what we've become?".  Jesse and Walter were co-dependents. Walter was desperate for recognition of his brilliance; Jesse needed someone to guide and trust him. Jesse still has a small flickering conscience; he is smarter than Walter admits. This further strains their relationship. Gilligan has said he wanted to turn Mr. Chips into Scarface. He's done that. In ironic commentary Walter and his son watch the climatic scene of Scarface, their favorite movie. Is Gilligan foreshadowing? We shall see.

You really shouldn't watch this season without watching Season Four. Good stuff. Cranston rules.
TRAILER




The Watch
directed by Akiva Schaffer

I saw this film when I was planning to do something else. That something else would have cost money and required effort while the film was free. I can safely say I should have gone ahead and done that something else. This movie could have been better but it had lazy directing and lazy writing. And evidently someone on the writing staff is either suffering from gay panic and/or just wants to come out of the closet. So I would not recommend this movie, even if it is free and you're too lazy or cheap to do something else. I'm just glad I didn't see this in theaters because I think I would have had to hurt someone. The film uses a lot of cliches and tropes but here they generally feel tired and deflated. Others just aren't funny. The director is a SNL veteran and I don't like SNL. So there you are.

The story is that in a small relatively non-diverse Ohio town, a Costco security guard is killed, butchered, really by something unknown. A Costco senior manager, Evan Trautwig (Ben Stiller) takes this very personally and decides to start a Neighborhood Watch. Evan is almost annoyingly liberal, civic minded and something of a control freak. He spends a lot of time involved in public activities, at least in part so he doesn't have to go home and make love to his toothy and busty wife Abby (RoseMarie DeWitt). Abby wants to do the do and get knocked up but Evan's too ashamed to tell her that his love gun has an empty magazine.

The call to join the neighborhood watch only brings forth three other people, Bob McAllister (Vince Vaughn), Franklin (Jonah Hill) and Jamarcus (Richard Ayoade). Bob's a motormouth extrovert who wants to make sure his teen daughter stays virginal while he's out getting wasted. Franklin's a creepy wannabe cop who gives off vibes of interest in either sex but quickly zooms in on Abby. Jamarcus is a Black Britisher whose primary interest is in using his watch membership to get kinky opportunities with women, especially if they happen to be of the Asian persuasion. His race also will give the earnestly liberal Evan a chance to say he has a black friend.

The security guard was killed by an alien. Aliens intend an invasion of Earth and have picked a small Ohio town to start. The watch must stop them. I liked Vaughn's role. He's perfected the loudmouth fast talker type who always has a plan but has no concept of conversational niceties. Stiller does his normal rational but secretly seething man routine. There were one or two lines other people had that made me laugh. The rest of the movie is filled with lots of dumb jokes around sexuality, body functions, and gross out humor. In short this was mostly a really long and mostly dumb SNL skit. Sometimes I wanted to adjust my TV controls to try to make this film funnier. So as always YMMV. I don't like gross out humor. This film wasn't for me.
TRAILER





Redemption
directed by Steven Knight

Yes, it's another Jason Statham movie. But this one is different. Really. See this time he's playing a hard man with a past who cleans up nicely, shaves his head, starts dressing in sharp double-breasted suits and delivering PAIN to those who hurt him or his friends and...hmm. Yes I guess it's not THAT different after all. But it was trying to be anyway so I have to give it some style points. It relies a little much on the virgin/whore paradigm as well as Beauty and The Beast tropes so that could be a problem for you or it could be like slipping on a warm comfortable pair of shoes. You know exactly what to expect.
Joey Jones (Statham) is a former British Army (Special Forces?) veteran of the Afghan conflict who is haunted by atrocities he's witnessed or committed there. He's on the run from a court-martial and is now a homeless alcoholic in London. His only friend is a sexy street urchin/drug addict Isabelle (Victoria Bewick) who is recruited/forced into prostitution when gangsters come to roust the homeless for "rent" money.

Jones escapes the gangsters and rather implausibly manages to almost literally fall into the lap of luxury when he breaks into an apartment rented by an out of town actor/photographer. He starts to clean himself up, get off the booze and look for news of Isabelle. Obviously this is made easier by the fact that he now has access to clean clothes, a vehicle and plenty of cash. He also begins to send money to/hang out with another woman he has affection for, Sister Cristina (Agata Buzek). Sister Cristina is a nun and therefore not really open to Joey's clumsy flirtations. Joey feels he's in her debt because she helps to run the soup kitchen/medical clinic which got both Isabelle and him through some tough times. Joey does things like buy all the homeless people pizza or steak or send Sister Cristina a nice dress. And Sister Cristina might be hiding quite a bit under her nun's habit. Buzek used to be a model.

But Sister Cristina has her own past issues to deal with. She's a young nun and may not be ready for a lifetime of celibacy. Even so she's extremely diligent about her religious and moral duties as well as being a little street smart. She knows that Joey is not just getting money by working as a dishwasher but has instead graduated to becoming a driver, bodyguard and legbreaker for a Chinese syndicate run by the sad-eyed Mr. Choy (Benedict Wong). Choy thinks it's a status symbol to have a white man working for him. He also appreciates being able to discuss intimate things in front of Joey with no fear of being understood. So while Joey may or may not be hitting on Sister Cristina, she is trying to get Joey to change his hoodlum ways. She's both helped and frustrated in this when Joey learns that Isabelle was murdered by a john who was into rough stuff. And this john may be linked to the people that Joey works for. Joey goes on the war path.

But Joey is running out of time since the man whose identity he's stolen is coming home shortly.The Joey-Cristina relationship was the movie's most interesting part. The film could have been better if it had focused more on that and put most or even all of the violence off screen. This film shows Statham stretching his acting range a bit. The movie was about 100 minutes or so but unfortunately felt longer. So the pacing wasn't quite right. It was a melodrama with bits and spurts of action. Or it was a subdued action movie. I might have to watch it again just to understand a few things better. The film has something to say about regret but it gets its message muddled somewhat. This wasn't a must see film, but if you want to watch Statham do something ever so slightly different you can check this out. Can you through evil actions, actually do good? Or do you have to renounce evil entirely to be good? What if the only way to do good is to paradoxically do evil?

Dwight Howard and Criticism

Dwight Howard decided to leave the LA Lakers to take less money with the Houston Rockets. While there were quite legitimate basketball related reasons behind this move statements from both Laker partisans and Howard himself suggest that Howard was not ready for the LA spotlight or for the occasionally pointed and direct criticism from fellow Laker and famously intense competitor, Kobe Bryant.

I don't like criticism that much. I don't know many people who actually do like criticism. It can hurt your ego when someone explores your shortcomings. The critic's tone and who they are can outweigh their valid content. It's one thing when someone who is more successful or experienced than you in your chosen field and/or has the authority to oversee your work gives you some pointers. It's a different matter entirely when a person who has been homeless for a decade starts lecturing you on your career or finances. A firm and fair critique or a blunt discussion behind closed doors resonates with me more than a person who, when pointing out something wrong or dumb I'm doing feels the need to a) inform the entire world and b) throw in gratuitous insults about my intelligence, competence or immutable attributes. Ideally, both the person giving the criticism and the target of the critique should separate the criticism from the person.

However, usually without someone to push you, you simply can't grow. You'll constantly make the same mistakes. That's true in both personal and business relationships. You need honest feedback that lets you know where, to use corporate speak, you have "room for growth". So even though I dislike criticism, I've occasionally sought it out. If I know what my weaknesses are hopefully I can make changes to develop in a positive direction. This means checking my ego and investigating if the criticism is valid and useful. That's more important (usually) than the tone or motivation.

Growing takes work and sacrifice. Often people who are the best in their field aren't super patient with those who haven't done the work. There's a reason for the saying "Nice guys finish last". Isiah Thomas was a ferocious competitor who didn't mind starting fights or finishing them. Magic Johnson might have had a famous smile but he would also give you a forearm to the throat if you came down the lane. Larry Bird would talk trash all day long while dropping a triple double on you. Was there any NBA player who hated losing or lack of preparation more than Michael Jordan? He could make grown men cry with his verbal attacks. He bullied and sometimes punched teammates. LeBron James may not appear as relentless as Jordan but that doesn't stop him from giving Mario Chambers extended harsh public corrections. These men and others like them required the best each day from their teammates. And they demanded better tomorrow. They wanted to win. People in different disciplines had that same drive. Whether it was James Brown fining musicians for fumbled notes, late arrivals and unshined shoes or Jimi Hendrix yelling at Dave Mason "Why can't you get it right?" when recording "All Along the Watchtower", the best of the best (with some notable exceptions) are often perfectionists.Even if they're soft-spoken or non-confrontational, top performers will call you out for mistakes.

How much criticism can you take? That's different for everyone. I have had occasion to give but more often receive criticism. If one can put a wall around their ego and try not to take (or give) things personally criticism can be quite useful. Sometimes there is no time to sugarcoat things. Your program works or it doesn't. Your project is on time, in scope and within budget or it's not. The higher the stakes are, the less inclined people will be to care about hurting your widdle feelings. I think, given the statements by Shaq, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Magic, that Dwight Howard might have made a mistake in letting his ego and pride interfere with becoming a better basketball player. That's easy for me to say because I don't have Kobe Bryant in my face screaming that I ran the play wrong or running me down on the team flight. Still, no one said becoming a champion would be easy. If I'm Dwight Howard, I must consider how badly I want success. What will I do to win that championship. Maybe hearing crap from a past his prime Kobe is not worth it. Maybe Kobe is done. Nevertheless when people of the calibre of Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaq, and Kobe all question your work ethic, skills and approach, maybe you should listen.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar speaks on Dwight.

Did you work with Dwight Howard? “No. I had a real good meeting with him when he first came to L.A. He was like, ‘Yeah,’ but that was the last time I spoke with him. . .He’s charming, he’s charismatic, very nice young man. Maturity wise, he doesn’t get it.

”Imagine if you could teach Howard the sky hook. “At least he’d have an offensive move. He gets the ball on offense, oh, my god, he doesn’t know what to do. It’s usually a turnover, people come and take the ball from him or tie his arms up. Offensively, he doesn’t get it. Hasn’t made any progress. We (the Lakers when Kareem was an assistant coach) played them in ‘09, and when I saw him this past season, he was the same player.”

Dwight Responds to critics

What did you think of Kobe Bryant’s comments that he could teach you how to be a winner? DH: “He didn’t say anything of that sort. People twisted a lot of stuff that he said. But in my personal opinion, I’m a winner. I’m a winner because I’ve been playing for nine years when the average career for an NBA player is three years. I’m a winner because I made it to the NBA from a small school in Atlanta, GA, with 16 people in a class. I’m a winner because I’m succeeding in life. I’ve had problems and I’m not better than the next man, but I’m going to push myself to be a winner when it comes to winning a championship. But he didn’t say anything like that and a lot of people twisted what he did say.”

QUESTIONS

1) How well do you take criticism?

2) Can you recall criticism in your job or other arenas that actually helped you?

3) If someone who dislikes you gives you criticism, do you automatically dismiss it?

4) Does Dwight Howard lack maturity? Will he ever get a championship?