Detroit Teacher Fired For Using Broom To Break Up Fighting Students

"She ain't wait. That's who she deserve."

I didn't go to Detroit Public Schools until high school. It was private school/parochial school until then. And the high school I attended was something akin to a charter school. You had to pass an entrance exam. This cut down on the knuckleheads and riff raff. The violence was minimal, almost non-existent. Kids will be kids but I can't even remember fights in school. Sure you had a few smart wannabe hoodlums but once you got to know them they were nice people. I'm told my old school has changed since then. But I still don't think it's anything like Pershing. Pershing has always been a school for dummies and real hoodlums. So that there was a fight in a Pershing classroom didn't surprise me. A fight at Pershing is like shooting at a gun range. It's what you expect. The small female teacher tried to break up the fight by smacking one of the assailants with a broom. This didn't work. The brawl continued until other male students decided to end the fracas. But the teacher, who was not supposed to leave the room and didn't have any way to call for help, was fired for hitting one of the combatants. Her case allegedly could also be referred for child abuse investigation.

Yes, that makes sense. NOT. Her termination surprised me. I respect the heck out of teachers. But I could never be a teacher. They have too many stupid rules. They deal with too many stupid people. And if a classroom fight occurs, God forbid they try to stop it lest they lose their jobs. Years ago a relative told me there was very little learning going on in some Detroit schools. And he was right. A football star who body slams a security guard gets a plea deal and goes back to school in apparent violation of state law while a teacher trying to restore order to a classroom is fired. Gee, that must do wonders for employee morale, huh? Words don't really do justice to this scene so check out the video below. And folks wonder why people are leaving DPS...



Fox 2 News Headlines

Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: The Jason Patric Situation

We've discussed some of the issues around child custody and parental rights before. If you are a man and you impregnate a woman, whether you are married to her or not, there is the strong possibility that the state will force you to, if not act as an actual on site father to your child, to at least pay some of your income to the mother for child support. The amount you pay can depend on a number of factors including how good your lawyers are, what the child has become accustomed to, how rich you are, how much of your income or wealth is legal and easily estimated and identified by child support auditors, how easy you are to locate, which judge you get, how aggressively the mother of your child wishes to pursue child support and how aggressively you wish to pursue joint or sole custody. And if you're married and your wife is playing house with other men, well generally you're also responsible for financially supporting any resulting children even if you don't find out about it until years after the fact. Deal with it. We hear a lot about how too many men refuse to support their kids, to "man up" and marry the mothers of their children or prefer to run around impregnating various women who apparently had the bad luck to slip and fall on the man's you know what. Some people even argue that the rise in single motherhood and/or out of wedlock births is mostly men's fault.

Well maybe. But if there's one thing I know for sure it's that it takes two to tango. The recent story below the fold about the actor Jason Patric and his struggle with one time girlfriend/friend with benefits/paramour/booty call Danielle Schreiber to be included in their son's life was fascinating to me. It reminded me of some of our previous discussions as well as the unacknowledged dangers inherent in alternate family units and new reproductive technologies.

LOS ANGELES — He is a movie star who shot to fame on a motorcycle in “The Lost Boys.” She is a California massage therapist from a prominent East Coast family. Four years ago, with his sperm, her eggs and the wonder of in vitro fertilization, they produced a child. From there, the tale gets very, very messy. For the last two years, Jason Patric and Danielle Schreiber have been waging what has become one of the highest-profile custody fights in the country — one that scrambles a gender stereotype, raises the question of who should be considered a legal parent and challenges state laws that try to bring order to the Wild West of nonanonymous sperm donations. 

Ms. Schreiber, an American civilization graduate of Brown University who runs a Rolfing massage practice in Los Angeles, met Mr. Patric in 2002 when he went to her as a massage client and the two became a couple, dating off and on for a decade.  She had long wanted to be a mother, according to a family member. But pregnancy attempts with Mr. Patric did not go well. “I even had a surgery to increase our chances,” he said in an interview last week. They decided in 2009 (at a time when they were not romantically involved but still friendly) to pursue artificial insemination. Along came Gus, named after Ms. Schreiber’s paternal grandfather.  

The baby eventually helped rekindle a romance between Ms. Schreiber and Mr. Patric, although they never formally moved in together. For the next two years, Mr. Patric said that he played a parental role (“I took him to get circumcised when he was 8 days old”) and that Gus, now 4, referred to him as “Dada” in videos and messages. “Thank you for teaching me to pee in the toilet, watch airplanes, learn Beatles songs. I love you Dada, Gus,” read a card that was written by Ms. Schreiber, given to Mr. Patric and later presented as evidence in court.  Then, in June 2012, the couple broke up for good. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Patric filed a paternity suit for shared custody. According to both sides, there was legal mediation, during which time Gus continued to see Mr. Patric. But then, according to court filings, Ms. Schreiber abruptly started to withhold visits....

LINK 

Now I know of some men who are pretty crappy fathers. I also know of some women who are horrible mothers. It's just part of life. I have friends of both genders who occasionally vent about how much they hate their ex. I can sympathize. However absent some clear proof of threat, violence or unfitness, I don't think either parent should be able to unilaterally exclude the other parent from their child's life. I don't think that the child's relationship with their parent should be hostage to how the other parent feels. Again, obviously this idea of mine doesn't apply to child molesters, drunks, substance abusers, rapists, abusers, other criminals, etc. I can count the women I truly hate in this world on the fingers of one hand and still have most fingers left. Fortunately I do not have children with them. But if I did I would have to find a way, even if only for the child's sake to be (temporarily) civil, and allow the child to have a relationship with his or her mother. It's not my right to interfere with that. In my view it's almost sinful. That goes for either gender. I am suspicious of Schreiber's restraining order, coming as it did in a custody dispute.

So I think it's a little unfair and hypocritical for society to castigate men for shirking fatherly responsibilities and then turn around and try to prevent a man from doing just that. But maybe Patric should never have agreed to donate his sperm. Maybe he should have insisted on marrying this woman and/or doing things the old way. So maybe he's just out of luck. I certainly don't think that we should use this case to tear down anonymity for egg/sperm donors or allow such anonymous donors to show up out of the blue years later and start demanding parental rights. But to focus on the in vitro aspect of this case as Schreiber's partisans would like to do misses the point that this child, however he was conceived, was the product of two people who had an ongoing relationship with one another.

If we say that Patric has no parental rights because he was unmarried and/or used the wrong sort of technology to become a biological father then it seems we'd have to make other changes. Should we also say that no unmarried man has the right to demand fatherly rights AND that no unmarried woman has the right to demand child support? Somehow I think that second part would get more people's attention. Not married to the father? Sorry lady, no child support for your child. Better luck next time. Most people, and certainly not just unmarried mothers, would see that rule as horribly unfair to the child. Well isn't it horribly unfair to a child to prevent him or her from having a relationship with the father?

Thoughts?

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: First of His Name

One of the increasingly interesting and baffling things about both this series and to a lesser extent the books upon which it is based is how great shocking moments can come in both very big obvious build ups and in little asides which the casual reader or viewer may not even notice unless they go back and re-watch, re-read or think about it for a second. This episode was one such event. It tied up what was a completely different storyline from the book and had other things happen in different ways. The creators have obviously found their sea legs so to speak. Sometimes this is good and sometimes this isn't. More on that quiet shocking moment in a second.
In King's Landing Tommen is coronated. We also see a more pensive and calculating Cersei. It could all be an act but it seems that she's made a certain peace with Joffrey being gone, even as she says a mother always has a special spot for her firstborn. She admits that Joffrey shocked her. Cersei seems to reach an understanding with Margaery, claiming that Tommen will need a good wife to advise him. Margaery, as is the Tyrell way, claims not to even have given thought to marrying Tommen. Cersei sees through that, obviously, but is not interested in having a fight with Margaery at that point in time, even smiling as Margaery calls her sister. If you remember Cersei had previously threatened to have Margaery killed if she presumed such familiarity again.

Margaery will have to talk to Mace Tyrell to get permission to marry Tommen. 

Cersei is also mellow when she talks to Oberyn, asking after her daughter Myrcella. She bemoans the inability of the powerful to protect all they love but agrees that they can take revenge. And Cersei is even polite to an atypically worried Tywin, who admits to his daughter that the famed Lannister bank accounts have just about run dry. The crown owes a lot of money to the Iron Bank, who is infamous for not taking no for an answer and getting their money back no matter what. Tywin also sympathizes with his daughter about her upcoming marriage to Loras Tyrell and confides in her that he never liked Robert. Of course, worried or not Tywin still is a shrewd man and refuses to discuss Tyrion with Cersei. Cersei asks her father that what good are the sacrifices they've all made for the Lannister future if Tyrion killed it.

Littlefinger has escorted Sansa to the Eyrie where she is to pretend to be Alayne Stone, an illegitimate relative. This pretense need not be carried out in front of Lysa Arryn or her son Robin. Lysa appears to be happy to see her niece and despite youthful insensitivity to death, so is Robin. Of course Lysa is much more happy to see Littlefinger, whom she intends to marry. They've been doing the do for quite some time. When Littlefinger talks of having a marriage later Lysa one ups him by producing the septon and witnesses and getting married immediately. The wedding consummation keeps everyone up at night just as Lysa bragged it would. O-kay. I could sort of feel for Sansa. I mean who wants to listen to their aunt run through her heptatonic orgasm scale?

And now about those quiet shocks. You may remember in Season One, when the Starks were united, safe, happy and blissfully ignorant of and far from King's Landing, that Catelyn Stark received a coded letter from her sister Lysa. This letter informed Catelyn and Ned that the King's Hand Jon Arryn, Lysa's husband and Ned's godfather, had been murdered by the Lannisters. This set off a chain of events that brought Ned and his daughters to King's Landing, put the Starks and Lannisters at each other's throats and culminated in war and the seeming destruction of House Stark. Well, as Lysa reminded Littlefinger in this episode, it was at his insistence that she put those drops in her husband's wine and wrote the letter to Catelyn blaming the Lannisters. Did you get that? Because there will be a test later. As Vito Corleone might have said, Joffrey was a punk. He never could have outfought Ned. But what we never knew until this day was that it was Littlefinger all along! Lysa did what Littlefinger told her to do. She murdered her husband and set up her sister's family. Now she wants the payoff. Well what might make a woman behave that way? 
Jealousy. Sibling rivalry. Lust.

In a great scene Lysa is sharing family stories and lemoncakes with Sansa but we soon learn that the intense look in Lysa's eyes towards Sansa is not relief at seeing what she thinks is her only remaining niece but suspicion that Sansa is out to steal Littlefinger. Lysa also has IMMENSE resentment towards Catelyn for being older and prettier. She even claims that Catelyn was fat.  Have you ever been backed into a corner by a large dangerous dog snarling at you? Because that's what Lysa does here. It's only when a frightened Sansa says she's a stupid virgin that Lysa relents. The crazy in her eyes subsides a bit. Well only a little bit. If I were Sansa I would not want to be around Lysa if there is anything sharp in the near vicinity.

Brienne and Pod and The Hound and Arya are still on their respective road trips. Brienne intends to go to the Wall to find Sansa. These scenes bookend each other as the older member of each group is skeptical (Brienne) or contemptuous (The Hound) of the younger member's martial skills. Ironically Brienne is impressed that Podrick killed Ser Meryn (a Kingsguard) while The Hound is scornful of the fact that Arya's sword instructor Syrio Forel was apparently killed by Ser Meryn, whom The Hound held in quite low regard. The Hound is still on Arya's list. In Meereen Daenerys has heard of Joffrey's murder. Daario has commandeered some ships. Her advisers think it's time to invade although they lack numerical superiority. Upon hearing that the previous cities she liberated have been re-enslaved or fallen into chaos Daenerys decides that she must fix those problems first. Jorah gets some alone time with Daenerys but STILL doesn't make a move. Jorah, does seize the moment mean anything to you? Jorah obviously needs to learn some Game. Send me 19 gold crowns Jorah and I will teach you the three things you never tell a queen, how to deal with pretty boy rivals and the tricks a knight needs to avoid falling into the friend zone.

The episode's balance was taken up by the Night's Watch's attack on its renegade members at Craster's keep. The "good guys" win after a few hairy moments. Bran wargs into Hodor to kill Locke. A freed Ghost kills Rast. Jon Snow kills Karl with an assist from one of Craster's wives/daughters. Under advice from Jojen, Bran decides not to reveal to his brother that he was there. He continues heading North. This storyline was created for the show. As long as they're changing stuff like that it might have been MORE interesting had Bran returned with Jon to the Wall. Public knowledge of Bran's survival makes Roose Bolton's Wardenship of the North very iffy. Of course the Night's Watch is supposed to be neutral. If Bolton, with the authority of the Iron Throne, had sent a force to the Night's Watch to demand Bran Stark, legally speaking the Night's Watch would have had to give him up. But I doubt Jon Snow would have tolerated that. Anyway they didn't go that route.

What I liked

• The quiet reveal of Littlefinger's and Lysa's responsibility for starting the conflict. It was done a little differently in text but works ok here.
• The fact that Arya tries to kill The Hound, just as she said she would. It doesn't work but girl's got heart.
• The ferocity of Lysa's lust for Littlefinger and disdain for Catelyn. The actress really brought this out. The scene with Sansa and the lemoncakes was something else. The large eyes helped quite a bit.
• The fact that Jon Snow used Commander Mormont's family sword to kill Karl felt very fitting.

What I didn't like

• The attack on Craster's Keep just felt cliched. The bad guy is more skilled at street fighting than the good guy. Jon is just about to be killed when Karl is stabbed from behind. How many times have we seen something like that in movies?
• There has been some controversy about the use of rape as a dramatic device. Although this episode was directed by a woman (Michelle MacLaren) I still thought the threatened and attempted rape of Meera Reed was cheesy. Bran, Hodor and the Reeds getting captured in the first place wasn't believable as the Reeds, particularly Meera, are supposed to be almost unparalleled in woodcraft. It's unlikely that renegade Night's Watch members would have been able to sneak up on them.
• Locke's death before Jon Snow could learn his true purpose there.

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events please be kind enough not to discuss that here.  NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS. Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea..

Game of Thrones and Rape Criticism

There are some people, both media critics and other bloggers who have an axe or two to grind over the Jaime/Cersei rape scene in particular and how  A Game of Thrones handles rape or violence against women in general. Some of them claim that the show and/or the books upon which the show is based takes a titillating (pun not intended) or dismissive view towards female sexuality and/or rape.
“The ‘no means yes’ thing is there in the books,” said Sady Doyle, an essayist who often writes about “Game of Thrones.” “The sexualized punishments are there. It’s in the text and it’s vital to the text. It’s something that comes up, over and over again.” But, she added, “At a certain point, you get the feeling that you can’t walk through a chapter without expecting something horrible — almost always to a female character — just to prove that this is indeed a very scary and dark piece of literature.”

“To have sexual violence treated so cavalierly, it’s very difficult to see that,” said Mariah Huehner, a writer and editor of comic books who has contributed repeatedly to the online debate. “It’s too upsetting to see, and I just don’t know that I can keep going with that.”

I thought the show creators poorly handled the Jaime/Cersei scene. They took a consensual book scene and turned into a rape. It did unnecessary violence to Jaime's character and continued the show's baffling trend of making Cersei far more sympathetic than she ever is in the books. But the idea that Martin or the show creators Benioff and Weiss are endorsing rape is pretty silly. The show has gotten a lot of things wrong. Neither Martin nor the HBO creators are beyond criticism. But Book!Jaime did not rape Book!Cersei. I usually don't quote from the books because most people here haven't read them. I definitely don't want bookreaders to start spoiling events yet to occur. And I mean that. There's a lot of stuff that's yet to occur or may not occur. Reading the books is no longer a guarantee that you know what's going to happen. But just this once, especially since the scene already happened, I want to use a relevant quote from the book.

She touched his face. “I was lost without you, Jaime. I was afraid the Starks would send me your head. I could not have borne that.” She kissed him. A light kiss, the merest brush of her lips on his, but he could feel her tremble as he slid his arms around her. “I am not whole without you.” There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. “No,” she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, “not here. The septons…”

“The Others can take the septons.” He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother’s altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart.

One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon’s blood was on her, but it made no difference.

“Hurry,” she was whispering now, “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei’s heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.

Does that sound anything at all like something that is unambiguously non-consensual? No it does not. It sounds at worst like this classic scene.

Even so I have heard some people whose opinions I generally respect claim that the show is too invested in violence against women. Hmm. I try to be fairminded and use evidence. I'm not saying I am but I do try. Maybe I'm missing something and women or girls are indeed singled out for harmful acts. So let's examine what other violent acts have been depicted or referenced in the television series so far:

• The initial protagonist, a good man, is murdered in front of his two daughters.
• A boy who is a companion to one of those daughters is murdered by being stabbed through the throat. Much later, the daughter finds the man who did it and returns the favor.
• The man's son who seeks justice and the rescue of his sisters is murdered along with his friends, wife, unborn child, mother and untold thousands during a wedding.
• A boy is defenestrated and crippled. He's later almost assassinated in his bed.
• Both the male protector and the male counselor/tutor to this boy are murdered.
• Two other boys are burned and have their corpses displayed.
• The man who committed or allowed the above two actions is beaten, flayed, has extremities cut off, psychologically tormented, threatened with homosexual rape, raped by women and finally castrated.
• The man who ordered/did all this also kills his own followers for fun.

• An unpleasant man uses magic to murder his own brother then pretends he doesn't know about it.
• This same man considers killing his own nephew and later burns his brother-in-law alive.
• The continent's leading warlord is best known for exterminating two houses that rebelled against him (including non-combatants and children)
• The above fellow also tells his son that he would have killed him at birth were it not for the pesky rule about kinslaying and the fact that he can't prove that he was cuckolded. He takes special delight in bullying his son every chance he gets.
• Several male peasants are tortured or robbed for fun by partisans of all sides.
• A female knight stabs a rapist through his groin.
• The man who threw the boy from the window murders his own cousin in an escape attempt. He later has a hand amputated because he annoyed a captor.
• A so-called "good guy" murders captive boys to express his discontent with his leader's decision making. He's later killed.
• The Queen Regent threatens a male cabinet member with death because she dislikes his tone.
• A male tyrant in the making is murdered in front of his own parents by a supposedly kindly old woman.

• A bard has his tongue ripped out on orders of that same tyrant.
• A friendly and shy male peasant is beaten and robbed by a series anti-hero.
• This same anti-hero kills a boy on orders of the Queen and reigning Prince.
• The Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is betrayed and murdered by his own men.
• Thousands of men are burned alive by wildfire.
• A self-righteous queen orders slave owners (evidently all male) to be crucified.
• She also has a growing habit of having her dragons sautee those she considers threats or insufficiently respectful.
• A spymaster is possibly gleeful to have the opportunity to torture and kill the man who mutilated him years ago.
• When a Queen thinks her army will lose she decides to kill her trusting middle son.
• A king's son narrowly escapes being tortured by having rats gnaw through his stomach and is later tortured by being cut so that leeches can have his blood.
• Several babies or children of the previous king are murdered.
• Two wolves have been killed unjustly. One was later mutilated and paraded around to jeers, along with his dead human male companion.
• A female wildling routinely coldly kills non-combatant male peasants.
• Another male wilding likes to eat those same non-combatant male peasants.
• A truly demented wilding leaves his incestuous boy babies outside in apparently sub zero temperatures. If they survive the exposure they get kidnapped by ice zombies.

That's what I can remember in five minutes. I know I forgot/overlooked a lot. And there's more to come in future episodes (PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS IF YOU KNOW)

In short, things are tough all over. Evidently the people complaining about violence directed at women or girls missed all of the above instances of violence directed at men or boys. Men and boys are just as likely if not more so to be targets. There's a war going on. In war men and women kill, die and do horrible things to each other. It is in my view utterly ridiculous for the folks wringing their hands about the Jaime/Cersei scene to have apparently missed all of the male on male or female on male violence. It's like looking at pictures of Nagasaki and talking about all the women who died. Obviously (sarcasm on) GRRM is a horrible misandrist. He hates men and just enjoys writing prose where they die.

The first problem is that most of us (with the possible exception of Sean Connery) are initially culturally conditioned to consider violence against women as worse than violence against men. This is regardless of our political or ideological stances or genders. A woman getting punched in the face is a taboo. A man getting punched in the face is pay per view entertainment. So that's why some people can zoom past all of the fictional examples of men being killed and complain of the fictional rape. In real life the atrocities of the Nigerian terrorist organization Boko Haram did not penetrate into some Western minds as long as Boko Haram was killing boys. It's when they started kidnapping large numbers of girls that suddenly everyone became outraged experts on their evil. The second problem is that some people have forgotten that the same Show!Jaime who had the sensitive come to Jesus moment with Brienne also tried to kill Bran Stark and did kill his cousin. He's not a "good" guy though I disagree with the show's choice to remind viewers of that via rape.

The books of A Song of Ice and Fire are longer than the Bible. So it's unsurprising that there will be different interpretations. I do think that the showrunners have taken every opportunity to show bare breasts and total nudity for both genders, even when I thought it unnecessary. If you're okay with fictional depictions of men being chopped up, stabbed, mutilated, castrated, beheaded and burned alive but suddenly have an issue with a fictional depiction of rape I would very much like to understand why.

Movie Reviews: You're Next, Danger Word

You're Next
directed by Adam Winguard

Much like Cabin in the Woods, You're Next is a horror movie which shows that you can still have intelligent premises and writing in horror films without sacrificing scare or gore. This film does have gore and plenty of it, let's be clear about that, but it's very rarely what I would call gratuitous. This movie also features legendary scream queen actress Barbara Crampton (Re-Animator) which is probably why I was willing to give it a look see. Time has been very kind to Crampton though her role here is of course nothing like her spot in the 80s classic Re-Animator. She's now the graceful older woman instead of the bouncy co-ed menaced by the dirty old professor. Speaking of Re-Animator, much like that film, You're Next is that uncommon find of a movie that was cheaply made but doesn't really look all that cheaply made. That's quite a talent. I think this will also be a cult film some day in the very near future.

Although I did not stop and pick through this movie frame by frame I don't recall any obvious errors like messed up sound levels, visible boom mikes, or actors looking at the camera inadvertently. Sometimes those things can plague relatively low budget movies but they're absent here. This is an inexpensive well-crafted film that did not immediately, automatically and unnecessarily insult the viewer's intelligence. Some filmmakers with larger budgets and bigger names would do well to check out this movie. Of course that said I LIKE the horror genre a wee bit more than the average person does. So if you're just not into horror at all then I suppose you will probably skip this film. To each their own and all that. But to my mind anyway you'd be making a mistake. Like many good horror movies this film features a wealthy family gathering at a large estate. I know there are some readers who would probably stop right there but bear with me just a little longer won't you.

It's the parents' anniversary. All of their children are coming to visit, along with their spouses and significant others. The four siblings (three brothers and a sister) and their family dynamics will be familiar to anyone with large or close families. It remains a fact that no one can love you like family or get under your skin like family. Whether it's grown people jockeying for their parents' favor, older siblings making fun of what they see as younger sibling's silly preoccupations, outright bullying, or younger siblings' long hidden resentments bubbling up to arguments these scenes ran true to life for me. Has your sibling or cousin ever gotten romantically involved with someone with whom you have immediate mutual dislike? Do you have a parent or other older relative who has yet to make peace with your career path or political beliefs and thinks you're throwing away your talents? Have you ever got tired of trying to prove to a parent or older sibling that you actually aren't incompetent? These scenes are hastily etched in this movie but I thought they worked.

The parents are very well off. The family patriarch, Paul Davison (Rob Moran) is owner/CEO of a successful defense contracting company. As he moves into retirement age (neither he nor Crampton look quite old enough to have the kids they do) he and his loving wife Aubrey Davison (Crampton) have purchased a large isolated mansion. They intend to refurbish it. They want to make it the future center for family celebrations and a fun place for grandchildren yet to come to remember fondly. They love all their kids though as mentioned , there are some tensions between and among the family members. I won't mention all of the siblings as some of them are not that important but a younger son Crispian Davison (A.J. Bowen), a stereotypical bumbling beta professor, is the first to arrive along with his perky and head over heels in love girlfriend (and former student) Erin (Sharni Vinson), an Australian with a broad accent. Shortly after that irritating and argumentative big brother/alpha male Drake Davison (Joe Swanberg) and his snooty wife Kelly (Margaret Laney) show up. Another brother and his goth girlfriend appear. And finally cute little sis and her wannabe filmmaker beau come to join the fun. But during dinner someone from the outside shoots the filmmaker right in the head with a crossbow bolt. That will ruin your evening.

And that's where I'll stop because just about everything else I could write would full of spoilers. That would be unfair to the film though I think roughly halfway thru the viewer will have figured some things out. The twist is more horrific than the actual violence displayed. This film is violent. More importantly it's scary. Right up until the very end all of the deaths and violence are emotionally involving. You care about what happens to all, well most, of these people. Nobody, (well only a few people, this is a horror movie after all), does remarkably stupid things just to keep the story moving. This is a witty film but its occasional forays into black humor once the bodies pile up don't work. There is some toplessness. Like The Purge, Funny Games, The Strangers and other home invasion films this movie will make you think about the exits and entrances to your home, who you really trust and the number of readily available self-defense implements you have laying around. This is a great movie to watch late at night, just after dark. It both confirms and upends horror movie tropes.
TRAILER






Danger Word
directed by Luchina Fisher
I can't really disinterestedly review this horror short as I contributed to its crowdfunding. It was written by the authors Steven Barnes and Tananarive Due. It is based on one of their young adult novels. I am very happy to finally see it. The novel it's based on, Devil's Wake, has been optioned for adaptation by the filmmaker and producer Tonya Lewis Lee, who among other things happens to be Spike Lee's wife. I've always liked the actor Frankie Faison, in part because he reminds me a bit of my own father. So it was fun to see him here. I wonder why zombies have become so important in the American mindset. Some people think it's about consumerist fears; others might point to immigration or sublimated class conflict but I doubt anyone really knows. Sometimes things just catch people's interest. I'm waiting for werewolves to come back into horror fashion.

Anyway self-financed independent movies like this are a reminder that no matter what you do or who you are it's often more productive to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. If you don't think that Hollywood or the literary world or even the humble blog-o-sphere has a perspective that you can respect or relate to then by all means get off your rump-o-potamus and start shaking your tailfeathers so that everyone can see what you have to offer. After all you wouldn't have the talent that you have if you weren't meant to share it with someone. Check out the short film (20 minutes) below.

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: Oathkeeper

Well. That was different. Benioff and Weiss have consistently said that they are adapting the entirety of A Song of Ice and Fire, not just a one to one book to season ratio. They are the creators of a television adaptation, not slavish recreators of a series of novels. Last week, with the alteration of the Jaime-Cersei encounter that became quite obvious. This week there were even more dramatic changes from the book narrative with scenes that were very different from or simply did not exist in the literary version. I have mixed feelings about this but I'll discuss that more after the season. The creators know some of Martin's intended ending so I must hope that they had good reasons for changes. I will say that this episode kept me on my toes more than usual because I honestly had no idea what was going to happen next. And if a show can do that then it's a good show. Anyway enough about the books. I suggest reading them. Let's not discuss them here.* 

When we last left everyone's favorite platinum blonde princess she was shooting barrels of broken shackles over the walls of Meereen. Daenerys interrupts Missandei and Grey Worm, who are bonding over shared stories of loss, to tell Grey Worm that it's time. Grey Worm doesn't look too happy at having his "me" time with Missandei interrupted but hey, it's not like he can do anything with Missandei anyway. Jorah, lame as he is, has a better chance with Daenerys because he has his original equipment. You can't drive a manual without a stick.

Grey Worm leads a group of Unsullied into Meereen via the sewers to a slave meeting. The slaves are considering their chances of uprising, which don't look good. However after an inspiring Grey Worm speech the slaves' fortunes look better when Grey Worm unveils a wonderful assortment of machetes, falchions, short swords and daggers. In an evident stand in for the unseen uprising a particularly stupid slave owner is caught out in the open and stabbed to death by a thousand slaves from the casts of Gladiator, 12 Years a Slave, Django Unchained, Glory and Spartacus. Shortly afterwards Daenerys enters Meereen to adoring cheers. Barristan counsels her to show mercy to some of the surviving slave owners but possibly getting high on her own supply a self-righteous Daenerys has 163 of them crucified in a deliberate payback for the dead children. She also has her family sigil flying from the highest point in Meereen. The Targaryens are back.

Jaime is getting better sparring with his left but still can't beat Bronn, who "cheats". Of course Bronn doesn't recognize the concept of cheating in fighting. Bronn doubts Tyrion killed Joffrey. Poison is not Tyrion's way nor does Bronn think Tyrion a murderer. Jaime visits Tyrion, who as you might suspect is a bit down. We know that Tyrion didn't do it of course. We also know that Peter Dinklage can emote more with his eyes than many actors can do with 10 minutes of dialogue. Tyrion repeats to Jaime that neither he nor Sansa killed Joffrey, his brother's son.

Speaking of Sansa she's on a ship to the Eyrie, where Littlefinger is to marry her aunt Lysa. Proving that despite what some say about her being the slowest Stark, she actually has some brains, Sansa works out that Littlefinger killed or helped kill Joffrey. What she doesn't know is why. She knows Dontos didn't do it on his own. Littlefinger, looking every bit the proud teacher, asks Sansa if she noticed a stone missing from her necklace. Littlefinger points out that it's always best to be the man no one suspects. He found Joffrey unreliable; his new friends were adamant that Joffrey had to go. And who might those new friends be? Well who did Littlefinger meet with to arrange a marriage with Joffrey? Why that would be the Tyrells. And by Tyrells I mean Lady Olenna. While telling her granddaughter that she'll need to move fast to cut Tommen off from Cersei's influence, the Queen of Thorns also flatly states that Tyrion didn't murder Joffrey. Lady Olenna says there was no way she was going to leave Margaery to Joffrey's tender mercies. So there you have it. Littlefinger and Lady Olenna murdered Joffrey.  

Did you notice at the time that Lady Olenna came over to talk to Sansa and fussed with her necklace? Did you see her palm a stone? Did you catch her laughing up her sleeve about how murdering someone at a wedding was horrid? Of course you did because you're smarter than the average bear. Taking her grandmother's advice about men (boys) Margaery sneaks into Tommen's room to talk to him. The new plan is that they will get married to cement the Lannister-Tyrell partnership. Tommen is nothing like Joffrey. He's more malleable. And Margaery won't have to worry about being beaten or used for target practice. Cersei, who's constantly drinking and practicing her screwface, blames Jaime for Joffrey's death. She wants him to increase Tommen's guard. Cersei is suspicious of Jaime's release and wants to know if he would find and kill Sansa. When he demurs and says that Tyrion is innocent, Cersei has her answer and coldly dismisses him. Possibly feeling a bit chagrined, Jaime gives Brienne a new suit of armor as well as one of the swords melted down from Ice. He's charging her (and himself) to honor her oath to Catelyn Stark and find and protect Sansa Stark (Arya is thought dead). You can see that Brienne cares very much about oaths and hopes that Jaime does too. Brienne names the sword Oathkeeper. At Jaime's request she takes Podrick as her new squire.

At the Wall a newly confident Jon Snow is sharing fighting techniques and his knowledge of the Wildlings with an attentive audience. One audience member is Bolton's man Locke, who we know is charged to find and kill Bran, Rickon and Jon. When a jealous Alliser Thorne breaks up the tutoring session, Locke tries to bond with Jon by sharing his bogus story of exile to the Wall. A worried and observant Janos Slynt warns Thorne that Jon Snow is getting too popular. They should let Jon lead the attack on Craster's Keep in the hopes that he'll be killed and be unable to contest the election for Lord Commander. Thorne agrees and allows Jon to go, but with only volunteers. In a speech that is reminiscent of too many other cinematic wartime speeches to list, Snow convinces a handful of his brothers to follow him. He gets more than Thorne or Slynt thought would go. Locke volunteers as well even though he's technically only a recruit.

At Craster's Keep we see that instead of one demented rapist killer we now have several. Their leader is Karl, who after Rast balks at an order to "go feed the beast", gives a soliloquy on why he's so evil and dangerous. The whole thing was very reminiscent of Apocalypse Now. When a boy is born the women moan that the proper thing to do is to give it to the gods (leave it exposed for the White Walkers). Karl agrees. The suitably frightened Rast hurries to obey as he is unwilling to fight Karl. It's probably that Karl is drinking wine from Lord Commander Mormont's skull that does the trick. Rast leaves the baby in the woods and goes to feed the "beast" or rather Ghost, Jon Snow's direwolf. Of course he torments/teases the animal. Bran, Hodor and the Reeds are nearby and hear the baby crying. Against advice Bran wargs into Summer to go see what's going on. Bran/Summer sees Ghost locked up but the bond is broken when Summer is caught in a trap. Getting close the next morning, Bran and his party are captured by the rogue Night Watch members. Hodor is beaten and stabbed. But it's not until Meera and Jojen are threatened with rape and murder that Bran reveals his identity. We also learn that White Walkers apparently reproduce by placing human babies inside a small version of Stonehenge and touching their flesh/cutting them.

What I liked

• The reveal of the Littlefinger-Olenna plot was very nicely done. I also liked or rather was impressed with how Littlefinger switches back and forth between a tutor/protector of Sansa Stark and something considerably more sexual/sinister.
• Ned Stark and Robb Stark were surrounded by traitors and murdered by those they thought they could trust. Jon Snow is also surrounded by people who would like to see him dead and/or people with no honor at all. The difference is that he knows it. He's not aware of Locke (yet???) but he's certainly picked up on Thorne's hostility and knows that Slynt was involved in Ned's death. I am interested to see how the show handles this going forward.
• I liked the Tyrion:Jaime initial discomfort and acceptance of the sibling incest. Tyrion's attitude is non-judgmental, at least as far as Jaime goes, because he loves his big brother.
• I liked Bran revealing his identity to protect his bannermen. Again, House Stark may be down but when you have mutual loyalty like that are you out?
• The constant interplay of the class tension, whether implicit in Bronn taking Jaime's golden hand and beating him with it or Karl slapping Bran and saying that elsewhere he would have lost a hand for that crime was really well done. As has been repeated throughout the series, regardless of who sits upon the Iron Throne, the feudal system is not really one that is fair or decent for peasants. When the best someone can hope for is to have a "good" lord like a Stark or Tully, there might need to be some social changes.

What I didn't like

• I don't think that Jon Snow would have been uncurious about where his direwolf is. So I didn't like that at all. I'd have to go back and rewatch the show to see exactly when Jon and Ghost parted company but it seems to me that capturing a fullgrown direwolf is not an easy task.
• Sam realizing that maybe taking a woman away from being surrounded by rapists and thieves and putting her in a whorehouse might not be the best move. Dude, that was like obvious at the time. But you do the best you can. Stop whining.
• The scenes at Craster's Keep were a bit much, not just on their own but in combination with other unnecessary nudity. We know that the men there are rapists. This menace and the fact that the women's lives have worsened could be shown in a understated way. In the movie Winter's Bone when a wife doesn't obey her husband the man tells her in a cold quiet tone "I told you once already with my mouth". Sometimes less is more.

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events please be kind enough not to discuss that here.  NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS. Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea..

Book Reviews: The 47th Samurai, The Unscratchables

The 47th Samurai
by Stephen Hunter

I like Hunter's Bob Lee Swagger novels. This novel came out a few years ago but I just got around to reading it a few months back. I've read books in the series both before and after this one but generally Hunter's writing style is such that most of the books can be read on their own. Bob Lee Swagger aka Bob The Nailer is a fair minded, prickly, stubborn, direct and unfailingly polite old coot Vietnam War veteran Marine gunny sergeant who has a knack for getting himself wrapped up in trouble. He remains among the world's deadliest snipers, even at his advanced age. Swagger comes from a long line of tough guys, some morally good, some otherwise, all of whom have uncanny speed, scary aptitude with firearms, and an often underestimated intelligence. Although Swagger looks, sounds like and frankly is an Arkansas hick, he's also something more than that. So I was predisposed to like this book and I mostly did. The problem however was that suspension of disbelief was stretched. In his books, Hunter has provided well researched explanations of military and gun culture, gun mechanics and the various traits that allow some men to react immediately in deadly situations while other people are standing around. Hunter has explained that although the Swaggers do have that extra something special in terms of speed, cunning and aggression, NONE of that would mean anything without years of dull repetitive practice and real life experience. This includes weapons practice and the use and internalization of applied physics, chemistry and biology.

A sniper must account for gravity's effects on the bullet. He must know exactly where to place the bullet to achieve a single shot, single kill outcome. He must account for wind, bullet weight, humidity and even the rotation of the earth. He needs an instinctive working knowledge of trigonometry and calculus. He must be able to remain still for long periods of time while waiting for the target. Regardless of a man's natural talent, it takes time to achieve the professional skill level that someone like Bob Lee Swagger possesses. When Bob Lee Swagger picks up a gun, it's just an extension of his will. 


The gun is hardly the only such tool which requires dedication and practice. It requires an investment of time and resources to master any tool or art. In this book, however, Swagger is, in a relatively short period of time, able to become deadly with the quintessential Japanese sword, the katana. This is like The Matrix's Trinity or Neo downloading the information they need to fly helicopters or perform martial arts. It didn't really work for me. In fact it was ridiculous. You might like the guitar and have natural musical ability. But no matter how intense your desire or how skilled your teacher, two weeks of training won't turn you into Jimi Hendrix.

As the title hints, this book references the classic story of the 47 Ronin, recently adapted into a motion picture starring Keanu Reeves. Bob's father Earl Swagger, was a WW2 war hero, who received medals and honors for his actions on Iwo Jima. At Iwo Jima he may have killed an equally honorable Japanese officer, Captain Hideki Yano. Captain Yano's son Phillip has sought out Bob Lee Swagger. He bears no malice. Both he and Bob Lee are ex-military. They commiserate over war's foolishness and their much missed fathers. Phillip Yano is looking for his father's sword. Well, Bob Lee Swagger doesn't remember any sword but then again his father rarely talked about the war. But out of respect as well as interest in having something to do Bob Lee finds the missing Yano sword via his aging network of family and old Marine buddies. Bob Lee insists upon visiting Japan to return the sword personally to Yano and his family. This he does, even though Bob Lee's wife worries that he's getting into something again. Yano is something of a sword expert. He determines that his father's sword is not actually a regular Japanese Army sword but something that is much older and much more valuable. Shortly after Bob Lee has returned the sword however, Yano and his family are slaughtered. The sword is stolen. Inconceivably, the Japanese authorities are dragging their feet. The embassy tells Swagger to go home.

Well sir, nobody does that to Bob Lee Swagger's friends. This kicks off a detective/action/crime/revenge adventure that involves high conspiracies, dangerous Yakuza who are contemptuous of the hairy gaijin, and the aforementioned gaijin trying his best to learn how to kill with the sword as efficiently as he does with the gun. And oh yes in training ,Swagger has to avoid getting badly beaten by a ten yr old girl. You might think that guns would make swords completely superfluous. In close quarters though, especially with the advantage of skill or surprise, a bladed weapon might win more often than one would think. Swagger is occasionally assisted by a Japanese-American woman with her own interests that don't always align with those of Swagger. It's not that kind of relationship though as Swagger is happily married and doesn't cheat. This was a fun read if you enjoy these types of books.






The Unscratchables
by Cornelius Kane

I like old noir detective stories, whether they be told in radio, print or television. The bad guys are bad, the dames are playing both sides against the middle and the good guys can handle anything with their trusty .45. This book is both a homage to all those old time detective stories and a parody of them. It can be enjoyed straight but of course the hook is that the characters in the story are dogs or cats. Yes you see the primary character in the story is Crusher McNash, a bull terrier detective who likes nothing more than doing things the old school way and putting fear into criminals or suspects. If you give him any barkback, well that's when you learn why they call him Crusher. When two dead Rottweiler gangsters are pulled out of the river, Crusher wonders if a new syndicate is making a move in The Kennel or if other rival hoodlums (Shepherds? Dobermans?) got the jump on the Rotties.
One thing he's not sniffing for is the involvement of a cat. But when forensics, headed by an old Hound who does not like Crusher tells him that it was a cat who did the killing, Crusher can't believe it. This doesn't fit with the other evidence. Crusher's beagle squad can't find traces of any cat on the scene. But when other dogs start to die including the Doggywood actor Jack Russell Crowe, the police chief has had enough. He and Crusher go way back. But the Chief has no desire to lose his job and wind up sniffing luggage on the airport beat again. It's an election year. President GoodBoy can't afford any heat. The Chief brings in the FBI, over Crusher's vehement objections. The FBI (that is the Feline Bureau of Investigation) sends the prissy, highly intelligent, cultured and much more dangerous than he looks Cassius Lap, a Siamese cat agent, to work with the blue collar and anti-cat bigot Crusher.

Of course the not so dynamic duo will have to get over their mutual dislike for each other to shake the pillars of heaven. They make the fur fly from Kathattan to the Kennels and all places in between in their search for the cat serial killer. This book is packed full of satire, puns and parody. It's an easy read and even pulls in some current personalities that you will recognize. One thing that stood out is that just as our primary sense is sight and many of our metaphors and sayings have to do with eyes or vision, a dog's primary sense is smell so most of the quips or metaphors in the Unscratchables have to do with nose or odors.