On the oppression of male youth in Palestine and the US

Today's guest post comes to us from Temple University graduate, Michelle Zei. Michelle is a freelance journalist who recently visited the Aida Refugee Camp in Israel. Her experience gave her a unique perspective on the turmoil surrounding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. 

During the summer, most Americans probably took vague notice that peace negotiations resumed in the Middle East. “Peace in the Middle East”, a phrase often thrown around allusively with little context, and a general attitude of futility. ‘There will never be peace,’ most people might think, ‘Why even try?’

“There's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East.” Tupac said it in the 90’s and it rings true today.

But approaching any situation as an endless conflict has never helped in the past and to take it a step further seeing the ‘Israeli- Palestinian Conflict’ as continuously hopeless doesn’t garner interest from the American public. 

The conflict that is portrayed as ageless is, in fact a military occupation dating back to 1948. There are not two equal parties at war but rather an indigenous group pushed inside narrow, shrinking borders under Israel’s on-going military rule. The occupation of Palestinian land and people, like other forms of colonialism, consists of the destruction of communities and culture: crippled economies, displacement of people, separation of families, millions of refugees, and the arrest of young males without warrant. Additionally, the arrest and disenfranchisement of so many men makes families and communities struggle for unity and economic strength. Women often bare immense burdens of maintaining households and trying to raise and protect their children- to teach them pride, strength and hope in the midst of a threatening reality. 

Many young Palestinian males share rights of passage of harassment and captivity similarly to young men of color in other parts of the world, even here. The U.S. injustices rooted in displacing natives, relying on slavery for economic growth, and later administering discriminatory laws under Jim Crow have put the U.S. in a place where black men have been systemically criminalized and assumed guilty until proven innocence. 

How can these people be innocent and receive empathy in a country where they’ve been pegged as violent aggressors without historical context (that includes them being the recipients of violence for generations)? Palestinians are faced with this dilemma as well. 

Under an oppressive judicial, police or military system, these young males are presumed as a threat before they even act. Even youth are suspects; building the foundation for them to be devalued and mistreated. Legal systems set the tone for how citizens view youth and adults.

In the U.S., we have the recent examples of Kimani Gray who was shot and killed by N.Y.P.D. officers and George Zimmerman’s murder of Trayvon Martin.

Palestinian youth also receive brutality and harassment from Israeli soldiers and citizens. For example, last year Jamal Julani, a Palestinian teen was attacked by Israeli teens in Jerusalem until he was left unconscious. This year in Aida refugee camp, 13-year-old MohammedAl-Kurdi and 15-year-old Ahmed Amarin were fatally shot by Israeli soldiers in front of a community center.

The power of social media led active community members to seek justice for Trayvon Martin. A change.org petition circulated and raised an overwhelming amount of support in favor of charging Zimmerman  and finally the state responded. Even when justice wasn’t served, adults and youth continued fighting to illuminate the legacy of racism and racial profiling- to advocate for young black men and stand in unity.

However much like Kimani Gray’s death, the deaths and imprisonment of many Palestinian youth go unreported and misunderstood in the U.S. media. We must challenge ourselves to learn the names and circumstances of those, local and internationally whose deaths and suffering never make headlines.

Minors behind bars

Just as many American activists from groups like Decarcerate P.A.  and the Youth Art & Self-Empowerment Project address issues of imprisonment and the charge of minors as adults, children as young as 12 are held in Israeli military detention without charge, for renewable, six-month periods. According to the UN, in 2011, 200 Palestinian youth were arrested per month.  

The double standard for how Palestinians are treated within the Israeli courts is just one facet of apartheid in Palestine-Israel, reminiscent of that in South Africa and Jim Crow south.

Respected figures in the civil rights movement like Alice Walker have long admonished the occupation and chosen to stand with the Palestinian people. Walker wrote Alicia Keys a letter to join the cultural boycott of Israel a couple months ago but her letter wasn’t understood or received by the public or perhaps Keys herself. 

In addition, Nelson Mandela’s friend Ahmed Kathrada who also was imprisoned for fighting against apartheid wrote a letter to Morgan Freeman, asking him to pull out of a fundraiser for HebrewUniversity.

Other public figures like Angela Davis and Lenny Kravitz have spoken out against the Israeli military occupation as well. These people recognize the importance of connecting local concerns and action to international solidarity and advocacy.

The fight for Palestinians to be recognized and have freedom is an ongoing struggle. Peace negotiations will inevitably resume at some point, with the U.S. playing referee. As American citizens, we often hear in political discourse that Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle East, a beacon of light and example of democracy. However as we know, young democracies built on the displacement of others are imperfect and in need of constant examination and changes so that more people can thrive and live in peace.

Many refugees and immigrants from Palestine, like other regions of the world are now American citizens, continuing life in a place with its own contradictions and injustices. Stories of pain and persecution are more often silenced than shared. Learning more about other countries, especially where the U.S. government has a large presence is a way to better understand our country, its people and influence.

I encourage you to look into the rich history and culture of the Palestinian people, learn the names of politicians, artists, and even innocent boys whose lives have been cut short by unpunished crimes.

Movie Reviews-Breaking Bad(Final Season), World War Z

Breaking Bad, Season Five (Part Two)
Created by Vince Gilligan

Although I do not list or discuss every spoiler that happened here, some are inevitable and may freely be discussed in comments if you wish. The show is over and that's that.

And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.
So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.
"Time" -Pink Floyd

Walter White's (Bryan Cranston) greatest strengths (and weaknesses) are his intelligence and rationality. Some have used the show to criticize whiteness or masculinity. I think those critics miss the point. Walter White did not feel entitled because he was a white man. Walter was angry because through a mostly unexplained chain of events during or immediately after graduate school he either left or was pushed out of a company he co-founded which later became a billion dollar entity. He spent the next twenty years trying to forget about that. And what did he have to show for that time? He had a son that was more respectful of and responsive to his uncle than to Walter, a patronizing nosy sister-in-law, two low pay low status jobs, maxed out credit cards and a pushy, occasionally bossy wife. So when Walter received a terminal cancer diagnosis he had nothing to lose by breaking bad. Walter has accurately believed that he's always the smartest person in the room. He thought that he could successfully apply rationality and intelligence to the criminal world the same way that he's done in the chemistry lab. He was wrong.

Walter White's double life gave him everything he wanted. Walter won although he was estranged from his apprentice and partner Jesse (Aaron Paul). Despite a few minor hiccups, such as personally murdering a co-worker from pique, watching another child die, considering murdering another female co-worker on multiple occasions, and hiring neo-Nazis to murder redundant workers, Walter avoided the spotlight and prevented any family member besides his wife Skyler from discovering his actions. Walter had some close calls but via luck and inventiveness, stayed off the radar of his outwardly jovial DEA ASAC brother-in-law Hank Schrader (Dean Norris). 

With the assistance of canny and paranoid corporate executive Lydia Rodarte-Qualye (Laura Fraser) Walter expanded his meth empire overseas. Walter earned so much money that Skyler could neither launder nor hide it. Once Walt realized he was worth over $80 million, finally even his greed and pride were satiated. He retired and turned over his supply chain to a local business partner. 
But can we just immerse ourselves in evil and sin and then walk away clean? I don't think so. Not in Gilligan's story. Perhaps if you repent and seek forgiveness it's possible but repentance is not on Walter's agenda. So the muck sticks. Lydia, and Laura Fraser did a bang-up job, is not pleased with the new supplier's quality. She pesters Walt to unretire but he declines. She even visits his car wash to convince him. This is exactly what Skyler was worried about. Lydia's nervous tics, good looks, stiletto heels and bright red lipstick mask a very cold and calculating, even brutal nature. She's not to be underestimated. Lydia takes steps to improve the batch quality. It's all about numbers with her.

Another person who Walt underestimated was his brother-in-law, Hank Schrader. At the end of Season 5A, purely by accident, Hank found evidence linking Walter to a now deceased meth cook. The evidence wouldn't be enough to convict and wasn't really enough to get a search warrant. But Hank is much smarter and more resourceful than Walt realized. And as both Hank and Walt emphasize, they're family. They know each other's habits. And now that the curtain has dropped Hank knows when Walt is lying. Everything has become clear to Hank. Hank's anger, pride and integrity won't let him let this go. People whose opinions I respect disagree with me but I think that when the chips are down Hank's a good guy. Yes, he is a blowhard Type A personality, can flirt with bigotry, and can be offensively patronizing both to women and to men he finds insufficiently masculine (i.e. Walter). But he's not corrupt and still has the love and respect of his wife, something that Walter can't say. Hank puts drug dealers, drug suppliers and murderers in prison. Walter has created an international meth empire. If Hank turns a blind eye there's more likelihood that he could be charged as an accessory. But coming forward also risks charges and would likely end his career as a law enforcement official. At best he would be a laughing stock. He could be forced out and lose his pension. Telling the truth will also obviously end his relationship with Walter and Skyler.

It says something about Hank's stubbornness and sense of duty that he continues his investigation anyway even after Walter makes an oblique threat to Hank by advising him to "tread lightly". What would you do in Hank's place? If you discovered a family member was a serious criminal and you were law enforcement how would you handle it? Whatever sins Hank has committed (getting snippy with his wife during his paralysis, assaulting Jesse, making a few ethnic jokes) they are as nothing compared to Walt's. Hank doesn't poison kids. Walter does. And Hank freely accepts responsibility for his mistakes, something that Walter won't do unless and until he's forced. Hank may well be the most righteous major character on the show.

Walter's hubris and greed catch up with him and leave him vulnerable to more violent and greedier rivals. Although Walter had problems with both Gus and Mike and eliminated them, Season 5B showed the dangers of escaping the frying pan only to fall into the fire. In season 5A, Walter used the deceptively kind looking Todd (Jesse Flemens) and his friendly but sarcastic Uncle Jack (Michael Bowen) as his new muscle to tie up loose ends between him and the remnants of the Gus Fring organization, more specifically those people who had worked for Mike. But Todd and Jack (who are neo-Nazis) are more dangerous to Walter and his family than Gus or Mike ever were. Walter's actions were like putting down a dangerous Boxer and bringing home a rabid Cane Corso. 

Hank pressures Walter and Skyler, which in turn forces both Skyler and her sister Marie (Betsy Brandt) to choose sides. This has tragic familial consequences as several of Walter's and Skyler's lies are revealed. Both sisters go into "stand by your man, until death do us part" mode. If you had to choose between a spouse and a sibling, who do you choose? Walter is at DefCon 4 status. He makes it painfully clear to Hank that bringing him down will have quite negative results for Hank and Marie on personal and professional levels. Hank and Marie are more hurt by the fact that Walter would threaten them than by the actual threat. Hank is crushed. Marie so quickly goes into "hate Walt" mode that you have to wonder if she had pre-existing reasons to hate Walter. I guess the sense of familial betrayal can explain a lot of it.

The two groups are at an impasse when Jesse, disillusioned and clinically depressed, discovers something that allows him to deduct correctly that Walter poisoned Jesse's girlfriend's child, Brock. This transforms Jesse into a living incarnation of rage and revenge. His formless frothing fury finally forces Walter to turn against Jesse while the embittered and desperate Hank sees someone who can be used to bring Walter down. But Jesse is the catalyst for events that spiral out of Walter's or Hank's control and result in ruin and death for many people. No one gets away untouched. Just as in The Wire, when the dissolution of the Barksdale organization preceded the rise of the even worse Marlo Stansfield group, Walt learns the hard way that Todd, Uncle Jack and Lydia are more vicious than his previous muscle or distributors. 

Todd is completely without mercy. He enjoys killing and does not hesitate to kill women or children. And for Lydia the balance sheet is all that ever counts. The moment that she thinks you are a debit and not a credit is exactly when you need to back away slowly from Lydia and exit the room. Her extermination of the inferior supply network showed that.

This season had incredible shootouts, several tense standoffs, incredible brutality, emotionally shocking moments and a few moments of catharsis. The showdown with Agent Gomez and Agent Schrader on one side and the Nazis on the other was amazing television. It's rare that just the sight of a pickup truck making a turn contains so much menace. Of course the car showing up right before Ricky gets shot in Boyz n the Hood surpasses it. Hank goes from what he sees as his greatest triumph to fighting for his life. And Walt goes from someone who is loved if not always obeyed by his son Walt Jr.(R.J Mitte) to someone who is rejected by his son as a murderous and abusive figure. Breaking Bad took five seasons to ask and answer the question if Walter White is someone who really broke bad out of very good reasons and was just playing the role of ruthless druglord or was the milquetoast high school science teacher really the false role all along? Walter had quietly rotted away from the inside. He was seething with resentment over being "overlooked" by life. From his POV  a man as intelligent as him shouldn't have been working as a high school teacher.  Walter aka "Heisenberg" is an evil SOB but he's also someone who tries to protect his family even as his actions destroy it. Walter shows he has some remaining humanity when he attempts to make the police think that Skyler was innocent. Of course Skyler had suggested murdering Jesse so innocent she's not.

As Walter finally admitted to Skyler he liked doing what he did. He enjoyed it. Although he regrets the destruction and loss that finally touched his family, I honestly don't think he would have changed very much. He's going to die and go to hell, if such a place exists, and he's ok with that. The wages of sin are death. Walter's cancer has returned and it's terminal. There's no exit and no escape. But just like Milton's Lucifer, Walt still retains his pride and intelligence. There was a reason that Hank's last words to Walter were "You're the smartest man I've ever known." It was ironic that although Walter often felt emasculated by both his wife and brother-in-law, it's Walter who's constantly seen doing a tremendous amount of stereotypically masculine work, whether it's putting in a new hot water heater all by himself or building various mechanical devices, including one that helps him settle scores with the Nazis. That he doesn't make it out alive should not surprise anyone. Gilligan said that he wanted to turn Mr. Chips into Scarface. I think he succeeded. 

Breaking Bad gave us definitive closure. Walter may have started as an anti-hero but by the end he was just as evil as Gus or Mike or Tuco. He only tried to end what he had started when the filth he worked with touched his family. But it was his own pride and need for adulation that brought his house of cards crashing down. A viewer may be happy to see Walter take revenge (I was to an extent) but like the mantra from A Bronx Tale, there's nothing sadder than wasted talent. And Walter White certainly wasted his. Ultimately he was a wicked SOB who got what he deserved and a tragic figure.
TRAILER
Read Dean Norris' interpretation of Hank and Walt here.




World War Z
directed by Marc Forster

This Brad Pitt vehicle wasn't half-bad. It was based on a novel that is in the ever expanding stack of books I bought but have not read yet. I've heard that there were significant differences between the book and the film but since I never read the book I couldn't tell you what they were. I had no pre-conceived notions about what to expect. Who knows why zombie films, books and television shows have become so popular of late? What does that say about our fears? Vampires touch on sex and death (or lately quite specific female-centric romance interests). Werewolves seem to have currently dropped off the cultural radar but obviously play off our fears of the beast within, our id. Do zombies touch on our fear of being a slavish member of the collective, just another brick in the wall? Could be. Or it could just be that zombies are monsters that are frightening but easy to kill with no moral qualms.

This movie was a little longer than it needed to be in my opinion but nonetheless it was a very fun ride that gave some fun updates to the zombie mythos.

Anyway Gerry Lane (Pitt) and his wife Karin (Mirielle Enos) and their two daughters are in traffic in Philadelphia. They've heard some strange reports about disturbances and imposition of martial law in some places. In the film's most impressive action sequence (and there are plenty) the Lanes are witness to and caught up in the zombie attack. This is shot, for lack of a better word, realistically. Gerry (and the audience) can't really see what's going on. People are running (or driving) away with no thought for who they hit in their frantic attempts to escape. It's literally like I imagine a herd of antelope must react when the lions attack. If you don't start moving RIGHT NOW, you're going to get trampled.

Gerry gets his family out of their now damaged car. He's able to see the first of the zombies and also see a human turn into one. Calling these "zombies" may not be technically correct as it's unclear that the humans die first. It's also apparently not anything supernatural. Nonetheless the zombies are no longer human, have an apparent bio-chemical change and are driven by a hunger for human flesh, or least a desire to bite people. They also move fast.

Gerry is not a man without resources though. He's a former UN war crimes investigator and is able to call in some chips to have the UN Deputy Secretary General Thierry Umotoni (Fama Mokoena), an old buddy, send a team to extract him and his family. But the Lanes need to survive the night first. Not only are there zombies about but with the breakdown of law and order there are rapists roaming the streets as well. There are some exciting siege pieces before the Lanes escape, along with a young boy, to the relative safety of a US aircraft carrier. Whatever's going on is worldwide. The scientists believe that it's something which is viral and that in order to discover a vaccine, they must find patient zero. They want to send Gerry and a top ranking scientist (Elyes Gabel) to one of the earliest outbreaks they know about, in South Korea. Gerry demurs at first but the military commander makes him an offer he cannot refuse.

This kicks off an increasingly audacious worldwide search to discover how the zombies were created and to find a method of protecting humans from the zombie plague. This was a fun movie that doesn't fall into the video-game/special effects trap that so many movies in this genre do. Well it straddles it though. A while back I wrote that Quarantine 2 would have been scarier and more effective if it had investigated the zombies on a plane motif a little more. Well World War Z does just that. Again, I think this film could have cut about 10-20 minutes but all the same it moves fast. This is something I should have seen in the theater. Enjoy.

TRAILER

Revenge Porn Outlawed

Let's say that you're happily married or otherwise paired up. Or let's say that you're not but all the same you've found someone with whom you like to pretend you're married on a regular basis. Well over time and this time can be a relatively short period for some people you will probably relax around this person. That is, after all, the very definition of intimacy. This man or woman will know things about you that no one else does. Pillow talk can be quite revealing. During this relationship you and this person might even exchange notes, pictures, letters and e-mails that are really for your eyes only sort of stuff. Some people share more than others but if you're human and have been in a relationship no matter how brief or fleeting, your partner has some information about you which is not available to the general public. Few people stay together forever. Ideally if a break up occurs it's a mutually agreed upon thing where two people decide that they can't or shouldn't live or sleep together any more and respectfully and calmly part ways. Right. Unfortunately many breakups aren't mutual. And they certainly aren't respectful or calm. Insults may be hurled, tears may be shed, threats may be uttered and decades long feuds may develop over who paid for (and thus owns) mutually enjoyed items. 

Something else that may occur during or after a breakup is that one or both parties to the breakup may decide to share with the world (or at least their former lover's/spouse's circle of friends) the kind of information I detailed above. This is most definitely NOT a morally good thing to do but the urge to hurt someone the way that you think they hurt you, ESPECIALLY if you were the dumpee and not the dumper, could be overwhelming. I think this is wrong but emotions can overwhelm morality when it comes to affairs of the heart. If a man suddenly gets a text message from his wife that she's dumping him, doesn't ever want to talk to or see him again and oh by the way she's been playing house with her co-worker for the past two years, you might understand why this fellow might start venting some negative emotions about said woman. Of course this is not gender specific. Each gender is equally capable of being emotionally swept away by tidal wave feelings of hostility and revenge that could arise from imagined or real mistreatment. 

As the cost of photography and storage has dropped while the ability to produce your own naughty photographs has increased tenfold, some people (mostly women) have discovered that perhaps sending certain intimate photographs to people (mostly men) that they loved or at least lusted after wasn't a good idea. When the breakup happens some people who find themselves in possession of naughty pics decide to post them to certain internet sites.

SACRAMENTO, California — California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups.

Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

"Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims," the bill's author, Sen. Anthony Cannella, said in a statement. "Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted."  Cannella, a Republican, has said revenge porn is a growing problem in the age of social media, when photos and videos that were made privately during a relationship can find their way onto hundreds of websites. Before the criminal law was enacted, California allowed victims to sue their virtual assailants, but that is an expensive and time-consuming option.

LINK
This is crude and crass and really pathetic but I don't think it's really that different than people sharing love letters or telling other people stories which are designed to show their ex in a bad light. It's just part of human nature. People say that all is fair in love and war. I'm not sure that's really the case but I am sure that I don't want to send people to jail or prison because they posted a picture of their ex. It's not ladylike or gentlemanly behavior but is it worth taking away someone's freedom? Not from where I sit. The chance that something like this might happen can be reduced by not creating these sorts of pictures in the first place but this sort of privacy violation can never ever be eliminated. If you've ever been intimate with someone in your life, they know things about you.  And if you break up with someone, s/he may say negative things about you. That's just part of the risk of being a healthy adult. All you can do is try to be intimate with people who have some sense of morality and honor. It's all in the game. I don't think the state needs to be involved here.

QUESTIONS

1) Should this sort of thing (posting pics of your ex) be illegal?

2) If you give a picture/note/e-mail to someone, who owns that item?

3) Is all truly fair in love and war?

4) Are there free speech implications?

Bohemian Gravity

I understand very little about physics and even less about string theory. But I think I understand a tiny bit more after watching this video. This was created by Canadian Tim Blais, a musically talented McGill University physics Masters candidate. As it turns out Queen guitarist Brian May, besides having co-written the song (Bohemian Rhapsody) that inspired this cover, also happens to be a professor of astrophysics. He linked to this song on his website and called it astonishingly good. So if you want to get a quick explanation of what string theory is or just like hearing another version of Bohemian Rhapsody, check this out.

Blais said that it’s important that people need to understand the world around them.

“Science also makes you appreciate the immense complexity and beauty of seemingly mundane everyday occurrences; even something as simple as a stirred cup of tea…” he said. “So I would say that people should also understand science just because the world is so much more interesting when they do.”

Blais is no stranger to music: he plays the drums, piano, guitar and other stringed instruments. He’s taking time off from school and turning to music. But, he added, “I’m never going to stop being a scientist at heart.”

LINK

Book Reviews-313:Life in the Motor City, Frank Frazetta: Icon, Great Feuds In History

313: Life in The Motor City
by John Carlisle

John Carlisle is a native Detroit journalist who has written about and photographed the city for the local "alternative" newspaper, The Metro Times. 313: Life in the Motor City is a collection of photographs and columns about the city and its various people. Most of these stories are broadly speaking positive but quirky. There are a few tales that will make you look strangely at the people described or the author, a few that might make you say you'll never visit Detroit and a lot that will make you say you want to get on the next plane and see things for yourself. 313 is the telephone area code for Detroit.

The theme of the book is that Detroiters, good, bad or otherwise are survivors and hustlers. When I write hustler I mean that in the best sense of the word though there are a few legally or morally dubious people detailed. This book shows Detroiters as people who may never quite reach the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but they certainly won't stop working to get there. Hard work pays. Most of the people in this book are hard workers. They make the best out of what they have to work with, which in most cases ranges from nothing at all to not very much. But they keep punching and fighting no matter what. That is the Detroit way.

Although the stories in this book were written and published before the recent events around the emergency manager and pension funds, the book definitely captures the sense of general decline that would lead to those occurrences. But the stories, though often gritty are nonetheless often optimistic. There's a lot of good news in this book. I wouldn't term it poverty porn. Carlisle is obviously interested in seeing the city and its people do well.


Some of the more interesting stories in this book are

• A Second Chance: This is about a father and son run vacuum cleaner repair shop. The father can't charge very much for his services or compete with Sears or Walmart but tries to help out the community and leave a business for his son, who is the only one of his children who didn't go to college.
• The Last Song: This details the closing of Pearl's Record Shop. This was a locally owned Mom-n-Pop music store and live club operation that was an East side oasis of music of both old school blues and jazz and new R&B/rap stars. Beyonce visited when she was with Destiny's Child. People like Toni Braxton and Usher stopped by. This store had such a strong connection with the neighborhood that the local hoodlums guaranteed its safety. Pearl's had no iron bars or bulletproof glass. The ONLY time it was ever robbed the money and goods were returned two days later with a note apologizing for the robbery.
• It's a Man's World: Greek-American barber and former Green Beret Pete Kithas runs his downtown barbershop with a mixture of tough guy bravado and Old World grace. He has a gaggle of stories but few of them are suitable for women or children.
• Rites of Spring: The Debutante Cotillion Ball, which had died out in 1996, started up again as an attempt to bring meaning back to celebrations which formally welcome young people, in this case girls, into adulthood. And if it has the side impact of bringing back social grace, and elegance and recognizing the importance of femininity and masculinity then so much the better. Debutantes and their escorts are trained in etiquette, table manners, waltzes. The debutantes also attend various outings like chamber music performances at the Detroit Institute of Arts, afternoon teas, in addition to doing volunteer work in Detroit.
• Custom Revival: East Side Riders is a bicycle club. That's right, a bicycle club. Although it was started by two brothers who certainly have the mass and girth stereotypically associated with outlaw motorcycle clubs, East Side Riders is a bicycle club for all ages and both genders. The members make customized bicycles out of junk bikes that they find and repair on the street. They also provide some male role models and traditionally masculine skills for those kids who lack them as well as doing good work in the community.

This was a really good book which my cousin turned me on to. Having read this book I'd rather not give it back to her but since I HATE HATE HATE when people do that to me I'll have to purchase my own copy and return hers. I don't even loan out my books any more because there are so many people who conveniently "forget" to return them in proper time or worse, return them with damage they didn't have before. People. Geez.  Anyway this book fairly and accurately depicts the city I love. Some of the people featured within have left this mortal coil but their stories live on. If you are just curious about what sort of people live in Detroit or what life in Detroit is like or simply like quirky slice of life stories, you might enjoy this book.






Frank Frazetta: Icon
Edited by Cathy and Arnie Fenner

They say you can't judge a book by its cover. That's generally true. All the same Frank Frazetta was such an incredible painter and artist that I bought several books, most notably Conan reprints, simply because he was the cover artist. And I don't think I was the only one. Frazetta was simply put one of the greatest commercial artists working in the 20th century. He had a special flair for fantasy and sci-fi creations but worked in just about every genre, including comic books. Frazetta, like most great artists had an individual flair that was often copied. He influenced many who came after him but his style was never truly duplicated. In a time before the internet and video games, Frazetta's work was both pure escapism and intensely realistic. You could look at one of his paintings and almost write a story around it. You could almost walk into the painting and partake of the energy expressed. To look at Frazetta's work is to inhabit the scene he's depicting. His stuff is so meticulously detailed you could be forgiven for thinking it's photography instead of created art.

His work was intensely physical. Both men are women are presented in idealized, yet non-caricatured visions of male and female grace and beauty. Although some people have wrongly imo called his work sexist, I don't think anything could be further from the truth. What was true was that Frazetta was unambiguously and unapologetically male. He liked women. He often drew women. Sometimes he drew them with few or no clothes on. His women, clothed or not, are rarely submissive. Indeed his wife was a model for many of his fantasies. Frazetta had an eye for all forms but especially the feminine.

Most of his artwork, particularly the later works, gives off the feeling of action. It's very rare that you look at one of his pieces and experience it as a static set. Something is always going on.
Frazetta worked in a variety of media, including oil, pencil, and watercolor.  He once did artwork for Lil' Abner and Playboy magazine. Icon is also a partial Frazetta biography as much as it is a retrospective. It details his early identification by family members as a talented artist, his work to make himself better, his skills as a minor league baseball player, his tough guy Brooklyn days, his wooing and winning of his wife Ellie, his lifelong battles against ripoffs and for artists' rights, and his stunning depictions of characters from the Robert E. Howard, Karl Wagner, or Edgar Rice Burroughs universes. Ok. Enough. It's difficult to write about what can only be viewed so check out some of these representative pieces below. If you like them, pick up Icon for your library. It's the first in a three book series. It's 206 pages of art. Much like Frazetta's life, this book is oversized.

Great Feuds In History
Ten Struggles That Shaped The World
By Colin Evans

Are you the sort of person who forgives easily and quickly? Because I am not. I can forgive family or other loved ones pretty simply but other people...not so much. I'm very slow to anger but very slow to forgive and forget. Ok, I'm much better at this than I used to be. Trust me. There's a reason there's a saying that when you seek revenge, you ought to dig two graves. Nevertheless there is still and always will be a part of me that bristles at what I think of as maltreatment and seeks to repay whatever someone does to me, good or bad, in double. That's just the way I am. Sometimes I believe in that line from the Godfather that "Accidents don't happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult". I was reminded of some long past interactions while reading this book, which examines some pretty bitter rivalries that turned into heated feuds. Many of these did not end until someone died. While I can safely say I have never felt compelled to take things to that level nor do I expect to do so I also must admit that in some cases I can understand. If there's death on the line, I want to make sure I'm the one that lives to tell the tale.

Some feuds came about from simple, even petty misunderstandings. What was needed was someone who could knock heads together, arrange a sitdown and enforce a peace. When that was lacking things went from bad to worse quickly. Other feuds arose from fundamental political, philosophical and profoundly personal differences. Have you ever met someone you just disliked immediately. Let's say the feeling was mutual. What if there are only so many goodies to go around and it comes down to between you and this person. Even if you are conflict-averse and prefer to keep the peace, it's quite possible that a nastier side of your personality could emerge. You might surprise yourself.

Some of the famous feuds detailed include

• Joseph Stalin vs. Leon Trotsky: Trotsky considered Stalin his intellectual and oratorical inferior and was shocked, angered and outraged by Stalin's post-Lenin power grab. Stalin considered Trotsky a bigmouth dilettante who lacked political realism. They also had completely different ideas about the need to have worldwide socialist revolution (Trotsky) or consolidate socialist gains in Russia (Stalin). Once Stalin had gained complete power he exiled the loquacious Trotsky, a move he soon regretted as Trotsky became even more of a pain in the fundament. Stalin had his people chase Trotsky all over the globe. In 1940, one of Stalin's hitters caught up with Trotsky and delivered Stalin's rebuttal to Trotsky's constant denunciations. Stalin's rebuttal was an icepick. There was no counterargument.

• Elizabeth I vs. Mary, Queen of Scots: The two cousins were of different religions. Arguably Mary had a better claim to the English throne than did Elizabeth as King Henry's divorce was not recognized by the Catholic Church and thus any children born from subsequent unions (i.e. Elizabeth I) were thus the product of bigamy and quite illegitimate in the eyes of the Papacy and more importantly, France and Spain. When Mary, via marriage, became Queen not only of Scotland but also of France and rather pointedly refused to renounce all claims to the English throne, family or not, the conflict was on. 
• Hatfields vs. McCoys: This is probably the most famous feud in American history. It was fought between the mostly West Virginia based Hatfields and mostly Kentucky based McCoys. There had been bad blood for years,especially since the recent murder of a McCoy man, an ex-Union soldier by the generally pro-Confederate Hatfields. But it was when a McCoy pig went missing and somehow wound up on a Hatfield farm and was NOT returned, that tempers flared and blood began to flow. Not even an abortive common-law marriage between the two families could stop what was to come.

The book also investigates the Montgomery vs. Patton crackup, Johnson vs. Kennedy, Hoover vs. King and a few other feuds. I enjoyed this book. It was a quick read. It detailed the people or groups on each side of the feud and their strengths and weaknesses.

Jury Duty: Who Are Your Peers?

What is a peer?

Well according to the dictionary a peer is a person who belongs to the same age group or social group as someone else.  A peer is one that is of equal standing with another or especially one who belongs to the same societal group based on age, grade or status.

You have a constitutional right to a criminal trial by a jury of your peers. I will leave it up to the experts like The Janitor or Old Guru to fully break down exactly what are the exceptions to that rule and what peers mean in a legal setting but for many non-lawyers I think it's safe to say that in that context peers would mean adult US citizens. There are of course some questions about whether or not a criminal defendant is guaranteed to have a jury made up of people who share their immutable characteristics (I don't believe this is the case) or whether the state can deliberately and maliciously exclude people who share such characteristics with the defendant (also I don't think this is, with a few exceptions, the case).

But in today's world of ever increasing globalization and immigration, should peer be restricted to US citizens? And when it comes to such things as elections and jury duty who really gets the last word? The federal government or the states? Well that answer can often depend on which side you're on when it comes to such things as immigration. People who point to federal supremacy when a state like Arizona tries to make life more difficult for illegal immigrants often turn a blind eye when a state like California tries to make life easier for them. And people who scream about the primacy of states rights when Alabama attempts to kick out illegal immigrants wax poetic about federal supremacy when California, Illinois or New York try to do end runs around specific federal programs designed to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

The latest proposal coming out of, you guessed it, California, does not, despite what detractors imply, apply to illegal immigrants, but it does seek to extend rights and duties usually thought only to accrue to citizens to legally resident non-citizens.

LINK

SACRAMENTO — Legal immigrants who are not American citizens would be able to serve on juries in California under a bill that lawmakers sent to Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday.The measure joins a proposal already on the governor's desk that would also allow legal permanent residents to serve as poll workers in California elections.The bills are among a handful that would expand immigrant rights in California and have sparked rancorous debate in the Legislature.

Immigrants "are part of the fabric of our community," Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) said during the floor debate Thursday. "They benefit from the protections of our laws, so it is fair and just that they be asked to share in the obligation to do jury duty."

Republicans opposed the measure, which passed the Assembly with a bare majority. The Senate approved the bill Monday."I do think there is something called the jury of your peers," countered Assemblyman Rocky Chavez (R-Oceanside). "Peers are people who understand the nuances of America."

He noted that some immigrants come from countries where suspects are guilty until proven innocent and where people are taught to obey authority, not question it.The bill, AB 1401, was authored by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which seeks a way to expand the pool of eligible jurors in California...

I think you can probably guess what I think of this proposal but just in case you can't I will spell it out. There is an argument that can be made for the elimination of the nation state. There is also an argument that can be made that nationalism is just another form of bigotry and them vs. us thinking. You could argue that separating people or granting them rights based on where they were born on this planet is not really all that different than basing their level of rights on other characteristics over which they have no control such as their race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. Non-citizens have legally voted in previous elections.

I am wholly unsympathetic to these arguments. The nation state isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Neither are different cultures and different ways of understanding the world or different ideas about how a criminal justice system works.

There is a process by which anyone on this planet can become an American citizen. Depending on which year you're referencing, about a million or so do each year, in which case they can vote, serve on juries and do other things which, usually but not always in the American political system have been reserved to citizens. When you vote or serve on a jury you are exerting influence over a political system you are invested in and for which you have some form of loyalty or hopefully understanding. This isn't perfect of course. There are plenty of stupid or malicious people who vote or serve on juries (how else can you explain the election of Ted Cruz or the acquittal of Casey Anthony) but that is our system. In many respects it's the least bad of all the others.  

My peers are American citizens. I do not wish to be judged by non-citizens. I do not want American elections to have non-citizens participating in them as poll workers or really in any capacity. I know that there are many smart, sober, well-read and intellectually curious permanent non-citizens in this country. I work with several and have no problems saying that some are far more intelligent than I. All the same though this isn't their country unless and until they become a citizen. I don't think it's too much to ask that jury duty and any sort of election work be restricted to US citizens.  

Am I wrong?

Should permanent legal residents be able to serve on juries?

What should be the distinctions between citizens and legal residents?

Does the President Need A Different Style?

Recently with the self-imposed confusion over policy in Syria, new threats over government shutdown, the debt ceiling, gun control defeat, the sequester, the liberal revolt over Larry Summer's possible appointment as Fed Chairman, and a few other so-called controversies there were quite a few articles and columns questioning, mocking or outright attacking President Obama's personality and leadership style. Some were questioning his manly vigor. These ranged from the snarky and mean to the more level headed and analytical:

Maureen Dowd

With a shrinking circle of trust inside the White House, Obama is having trouble establishing trust outside with once reliable factions: grass-roots Democrats and liberals in Congress. As Peter Baker wrote in The Times, the president is finding himself increasingly “frustrated” by the defiance of Democrats who are despairing of his passive, reactive leadership. 

Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana on the banking committee, told Jonathan Martin for Politico in February, after he scraped through to a second term, that the president was not engaged with the Hill, that he had not met with Obama at the White House since 2010, and that he was sorely missing aides like Rahm Emanuel, who tirelessly worked and stroked Democrats in Congress. Tester was one of three Democrats who spurned the president on his favorite to run the Federal Reserve, Larry Summers. The White House didn’t call Tester until Friday, when it was too late; Summers was allowed to twist in the wind, like Susan Rice before him. Top Democrats who used to consider Obama one cool cat now muse that he’s “one weird cat,” as one big shot put it.

NYT

In recent weeks, disgruntled Democrats, particularly liberals, have bolted from the White House on issues like National Security Agency surveillance policies, a planned military strike on Syria and the potential choice of Lawrence H. Summers to lead the Federal Reserve. In private, they often sound exasperated describing Mr. Obama’s operation; in public, they are sometimes only a little more restrained. 

They complain the White House has not consulted enough and failed to assert leadership. They say Mr. Obama has been too passive and ceded momentum to Republicans. 

“If you read the papers, you almost think the Republicans are in control,” said Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and vigorously opposed Mr. Summers until he withdrew from consideration. “They’re constantly on the offensive. Democrats are on the defensive. ”The lack of strong leadership, he added, has created a vacuum. “I think you’re going to see more independents saying, ‘Mr. President, we look forward to working with you, but we’re not simply going to accept your leadership and your ideas,’ ” he said. “ ‘We’re not going to follow you. You’re going to have to work with us.’ ”

Washington Post

Style points? Seriously? Style points? That’s what President Obama thinks the criticism of his zigzag Syria policy amounts to? As presidential spin, this is insulting. As presidential conviction — if this is what he really believes — it’s scary. Presidential actions have ripples beyond ripples. Obama may have lucked — or his secretary of state accidentally may have stumbled — into an approach that averted “The Perils of Pauline” moment. But the indecision, the mind-changing, the lurching — and, note, Obama did not dispute such characterizations so much as dismiss them — have consequences. 

“Style,” as the president would have it, matters. Adversaries and allies, foreign and domestic, take a measure of the president’s steel. They judge whether he can be trusted, whether he will back down, whether he has what it takes to lead his country and the world. In the past few weeks, I have encountered not a single person outside the White House, Republican or Democrat, who has kind words for Obama’s performance. 

The President is an introvert. Although politics is often thought to be a more welcoming realm for extroverts there have been enough introverted Presidents or other political leaders to call that assumption into question. But as someone who is decidedly introverted himself and thus somewhat sympathetic to the President on this issue, I think the issue of introversion vs. extroversion misses the point. All introversion means is that you recharge and relax by being alone or around a small circle of close friends and by thinking, reading or writing rather than talking. Extroversion is the opposite in that you prefer to be around people and engaged with them. You like to talk and interact with people. You gain energy and comfort by doing that. These different personality traits might be stereotypically associated with leader/follower roles but they don't have to be. There are extroverted type A personalities who make truly horrible leaders and introverted analytical close-mouthed people who nonetheless manage to shine and rise quickly to prominence once they're in the Big Seat.

The President's perception issues stem from the fact that he can argue against himself in his speeches, can back down in the face of opposition, evidently feels that the glad-handing and personal touches that are important to build relationships are beneath him, and hasn't given a consistently strong indication of what he thinks his second term goals are. This has emboldened his opposition while confusing or disheartening his supporters. It's far far too early to consider him a lame duck but perception can become reality if he's not careful. The same rationality which allows him to see and understand multiple sides of an argument can be a liability if he can't fight for his side of the argument and explain himself in broad, simple strokes. Otherwise the President leaves himself open to interpretation by friends or foes who have their own interests to pursue. 

The President, like just about every other Black man working in America, has most certainly had to watch his step and restrain his emotions lest he be seen as an "angry black man" and lose public support. There's no doubt about that. The fact that someone as milquetoast and mainstream and pro-business as President Obama is seen by a sizable minority as an anti-American, anti-white, militant, Muslim, foreign, revolutionary and treasonous Nat Turner/Malcolm X Mandingo thug from Chicago shows you that this is hardly a post-racial society. However people rightly or wrongly often respond to strength. I think the President too often fails to convey that emotion. And I think that's what animates much of the criticism in the linked articles. Note that this criticism is coming from people who for the most part are broadly supportive of the President's stated policy goals. It's not coming from Tea Party folks. Some criticized the President's previous lack of executive experience. That was a fair criticism even if it was often mouthed by people who were anything but fair when it came to the President. After having been President for four years and seeing the opposition that he faces, one would think that he would have realized that, even if he thinks it's silly, he will have to do some things differently. 

Most Republicans, especially in the House, are simply beyond his ability to reach. The vitriol and irrationality are too deep. But when Democrats are complaining publicly of a White House that ignores them and doesn't return phone calls, when labor Unions are deriding Obamacare, there's a leadership problem. Whether it's rooted in personality, principled contempt for politics, or simple uncertainty on how to proceed, he needs to fix it. The President's greatest advantage is that his Republican opposition is incompetent and mostly incoherent. They can't agree on anything other than hating Obama. That's not enough to win on as they found out in 2012 and 2008. But if President Obama wants to push forward, he needs to change perceptions. My perception is that he can be reactive. 

Questions
1) Do you think President Obama is a firm, decisive leader?

2) Do you think this criticism of his leadership style is unfair?

3) What traits are important to lead others?