Movie Reviews: Last Knights, Da Sweet Blood of Jesus, The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires

Last Knights

directed by Kazuaki Kiriya

Imagine 47 Ronin redone for a world where people of different races all live together in the same area marrying, loving, hating and killing each other without regard to skintones. Imagine a A Game of Thrones subtheme (a man too proud and rigid in his definition of good refusing to play the game and bringing ruin onto his family) brought to the big screen. That isLast Knights. There is a continual conflict between deontology and consequentialism in life. If we discover that a little league team championship baseball team has inadvertently(?) broken the rules should we remove their title? If the text of a law creating health care subsidies has a glaring mistake within should we invalidate the law though that will harm millions of people? Should a proud and good lord refuse to pay bribes to a greedy minister and then call out the corruption even though by doing so he insults the emperor? Does anyone really believe "Let justice be done though the heavens fall"? Yes, some people do believe that. We may consider such people to be heroic martyrs or dangerously rigid idealists. Although few people are absolute deontologists, those who tend towards deontologist mindsets tend to have tremendous respect for rules, codes and laws whether they be externally imposed or internally accepted. A man's gotta have a code pretty much sums up their outlook. They will think long and hard before breaking such strictures and will usually support punishing those who do, even themselves. A deontologist believes that a person should do the "right" thing and/or follow the rules regardless of the consequences. Doing the right thing is reward enough. Giving consequences serious consideration doesn't factor heavily into a deontologist's moral calculus.

This is especially true of deontologist types who happen to be warriors. For them obedience unto death is a job description. These are the sort of people, who if ordered to guard their lord's children or to make a hopeless last stand, will grimly do so with no complaint and no expectation of survival. On the other hand, a consequentialist, or rather a utilitarian, will have much less faith in rules or codes and much more interest in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So for example if they must falsify evidence to convict a clearly guilty rapist, or occasionally turn a blind eye to some smaller corruption to avoid war or save the lives of loved ones or keep quiet in order to live and fight another day they will do so. Neither position is necessarily "good" or "bad". Moral and immoral people can be found at every point on and between these two poles. Lord Bartok (Morgan Freeman) is definitely a deontologist. The Stark Bartok clan is an old proud much respected family that has produced many great warriors and leaders. But times are changing. Lord Bartok has no son to inherit his name and sword. His biological sons predeceased him. The Emperor (Payman Maadi) is centralizing power. The Emperor uses his execrable minister Geza Mott (Aksel Hennie) to do this. Mott, with a wink and nod from the Emperor, shakes down the various noble families for extortionate bribes. Refusal to pay a bribe is disrespecting Mott. Disrespecting Mott is disrespecting the Emperor. The Emperor has a highly negative response to anyone challenging his power or authority. The arrogant Mott has finally ordered Lord Bartok to come to the capital. Obviously Geza is expecting a bribe and can't wait to boast how he made the old warrior Lord Bartok bow and scrape.

Lord Bartok arrives at the capital, along with his personal guard of hardcore warriors led by Commander Raiden, (Clive Owen) his foster son and most loyal and feared retainer. But after a brief oblique discussion with Raiden about the nature of right and wrong and the future of their clan, Bartok tenaciously holds true to his beliefs. There is a high price paid. Although everything that happens next is legal everyone knows that legal or not, Winter Revenge is Coming. It's only a question of when or if Raiden will pull himself out of depression and self-hate to put the band back together. The action scenes are well shot but nowhere near as graphic or as exciting as films like Hammer of the Gods or Ironclad. Cliff Curtis does his normal solid work as Raiden's second, Lt. Cortez. Park Si-Yeon is Hannah, Geza Mott's long suffering wife. The Iranian actress Shoreh Aghdashloo is Lord Bartok's wife. As with any good war or heist movie there is the requisite number of betrayals, the cocky young kid looking for an opportunity to prove himself as a man among men, the honorable enemy who dislikes his evil master's orders but is sworn to obey them, damsels in distress and grim boasts. This was an okay film but clearly Freeman and Owen are capable of better. I liked the multiple races/ethnicities employed. Last Knights was blandly enjoyable but aside from a few exceptional setpiece battles this film wasn't something that was going to stay in your mind after the ending. I do like revenge movies though. You've heard of comfort foods? This was a comfort movie.
TRAILER




Da Sweet Blood of Jesus
directed by Spike Lee

This is a remake/reinterpretation of a movie, Ganja and Hess, which I haven't seen. Perhaps if I had seen that film I would have a different, complete or better understanding of Da Sweet Blood of Jesus (DSBJ) but we can only play the hand we were dealt. I am not interested in seeing Ganja and Hess now. The good part about DSBJ is the cinematography. I don't know if there is another American director of any race who routinely shows black people in such beautiful lighting and settings. Chocolate, mahogany, caramel, cafe latte, ebony, all are shown here in exquisite loving detail. You could make a coffee table artbook from the photos. Obviously good looking actors and actresses of any race are going to look well, good, but Spike Lee always brings that something special. And he does so here. The fact that he made this film via Kickstarter for a relatively small amount of money makes me more impressed with his visual skills. The film looks very rich and colorful. Unfortunately the bad parts about DSBJ include almost everything else. To be polite I would say that that this movie was outre and challenging. To be honest I would say the film was virtually incoherent. The music, normally a strong point in Lee films, was WAY too loud and intrusive. The music chosen was often completely wrong for the scenes. It took the viewer away from what was going on in the shot instead of emphasizing it. 

DSBJ is about addiction more than vampirism. There are many themes. There's questions about black masculinity and femininity, African history, AIDS, black upper class guilt, homosexuality, white cultural theft, capitalism, religion, the black church, wealth, assimilation, forgiveness, sexual abuse and many many more social issues. I didn't think that these elements were mixed together very well. The film also ran about thirty minutes too long. It felt more like a play than a film. There's an iciness and distance that pervades the entire movie. There's no tension or fear or character development. You won't identify with anyone. Dr. Hess Greene (Stephen Tyrone Williams) is a wealthy anthropologist and art collector who splits his time between Martha's Vineyard and NYC. Greene is a cold and distant man. One night at his home Greene is attacked and murdered by his depressed research assistant/fellow anthropologist Dr. Hightower (Elvis Nolasco), who afterwards commits suicide. It's unclear as to why Hightower was suicidal and murderous. He may have had unrequited sexual feelings for Greene. Who knows? Although Hightower stabbed Greene in the heart with an ancient Ashanti dagger, Greene is shocked to find himself returned from the dead. He also has a sudden lust for human blood, which he temporarily slakes by drinking from Hightower's body. Greene sprouts no fangs and doesn't spontaneously combust when the sun touches his skin. He doesn't sleep in a coffin.

After a short period of preying upon Black and hispanic single mothers and hookers in NYC, Greene returns home one day to find Hightower's estranged, brassy and beautiful English wife Ganja (Zaraah Abrahams) demanding to know where her husband is. But Greene falls in love with Ganja. This film isn't the first work of art to make a connection between the religious doctrine of transubstantiation and the needs of someone who is addicted to blood. That is found in vampire stories from Stoker's Dracula to King's Salem's Lot. DSBJ uses this theme but it never really decides what it wants to say about it. If vampires are just blood addicts should they be pitied or destroyed? This film can't decide. In fact it's not interested in even asking that question. It doesn't really take a moral side. So this was a movie during which I found myself constantly checking how much time was left, not because I didn't want it to end but because I did. There is full frontal nudity here from both genders. If you could not live without seeing Felicia Pearson (Snoop from The Wire) nude then this is a film for you. The hair stylist Nate Bova makes her acting debut but (fortunately? unfortunately?) it's in an extremely explicit, detailed and lengthy lesbian scene. I think this film might be more of interest to film students who can appreciate the technical challenges of low budget filmmaking than it would be to the casual viewer who is just looking for an engaging story. But as with everything YMMV. Katherine Borowitz (aka Mrs. John Turturro), Rami Malek, Joie Lee, Cinque Lee, Raphael Saadiq, Valerie Simpson, Thomas Jefferson Byrd and Donna Dixon have roles.
TRAILER




The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires
directed by Chang Cheh and Roy Ward Baker
"Everybody was kung-fu fighting/Those kicks were fast as lightning"

In the late seventies the Rolling Stones jumped on the disco bandwagon with Miss You. In the eighties Aerosmith reignited their career by doing a version of their song Walk This Way with the then hotter rap group Run-DMC. Similarly in 1974 Hammer Films was reeling financially. Its bosomy period horror flicks were out of style. So the Hammer producers and studio execs tried to duplicate what was popular. Hong Kong kung fu movies were popular. Motivated by pure profit based opportunism, Hammer tried to revive its fortunes by co-producing a horror/kung fu movie with the famous Hong Kong Shaw Brothers Studio. It didn't work. Perhaps the usual Orientalist aspects of Hammer productions didn't mesh with the more independent, modern and proud Chinese Shaw Brothers approach. Perhaps it didn't work because the Chinese and English crews couldn't really understand each other and didn't get along that well when they did. Perhaps it didn't work because kung fu horror wasn't what people wanted, then or now. Peter Cushing did his normal good work as the eternally doubted vampire hunter Van Helsing but he's really in the wrong film. Dracula (John Forbes-Robertson) looks and sounds very much like he wandered in from La Cage Aux Folles. He's about as scary as Count Chocula. Perhaps recognizing a camp Dracula doesn't work, the directors mostly keep Dracula offscreen. They do this by having Dracula possess the body of a Chinese villain which is ironic considering this is basically what Hammer was trying to do with the kung fu genre.

In the 1800s an evil Chinese monk goes to Transylvania to ask for Dracula's help in restoring the power of seven Chinese vampires. In the 1900s Van Helsing lectures at a Chinese university about the legend of vampires who have terrorized a remote Chinese village for centuries. It's not explained why the villagers didn't just move. But if that question comes to mind the horror genre isn't for you anyway. The professors and students dismiss Van Helsing as a nut and leave. Everyone departs except for Hsi Ching (David Chiang) the leader of a band of kung fu expert siblings. He tells Van Helsing that the legend is true. His grandfather killed a vampire. Hsi Ching wants Van Helsing's help in eliminating the other vampires. Hsi Ching thinks that with his family's kung fu skills and Van Helsing's knowledge, they can't lose. The wealthy Norwegian widow Vanessa Buren (Julie Ege) agrees to fund the expedition but only if she can come along. She's got eyes for Hsi Ching. Her character only exists to show off impressive cleavage. Throughout the film more and more articles of her clothing either get wet or come off though Ege apparently (unless there's an unedited edition available) had a no toplessness clause in her contract, something the Chinese extras didn't. When someone asked Baker why he cast Ege he incredulously asked the person to look at her. Ege had been Miss Norway and a Penthouse Pet. Fair enough.

Special effects and cinematography are surprisingly worse than Hammer's work fifteen years before this film. Heck, they're worse than Universal did FORTY(!) years before this film. I'm talking obvious fake bats on strings and stop motion decaying deflating vampires. The film looks very very cheap. The picture and colors lack definition. I wonder if the director of photography was drunk. The indifferent dubbing only makes matters worse. The fight scenes are ok and of a piece with the times. No one is going to mistake this for Five Deadly Venoms (a later Shaw Brothers masterpiece) or Enter the Dragon. The Chinese siblings, with the exception of Hsi Ching and his sister, who likes Van Helsing's son, are never differentiated from one another. Still they are the best part of the film, particularly in an early set piece where the entire family joyously runs to meet the enemy. Aside from that I was joyous when this film concluded. I'm not including the trailer because Hammer actually ineptly revealed the entire ending in the trailer. You're not missing much though.

Religious Freedom, Discrimination and Airplanes

I am not religious though I have respect for people's religious beliefs. I avoid needlessly poking fun at them. There are limits to this respect but in general I don't see the point in deliberately pointing out fallacies and flaws in someone's faith unless they try to push it onto me. Lately religious freedom has come to be used primarily by people on the political right to avoid otherwise generally applicable laws. There's no reason that religious freedom should be a partisan issue. There are just as many historical and current controversies where people on the political left have cited religious freedom to avoid participating in things the right supports (saluting the flag, pledging allegiance, being drafted, etc..). So it should go both ways. I see religious objections as just a smaller and fiercer subset of conscience objections. And I often admire people who are truly motivated by individual conscience. There is one small caveat though. I may respect people who are standing up to the state or business or other members of society who are trying to make them do something. I don't have any use for people claiming religious freedom who are trying to burden OTHER people. I have the religious freedom to abstain from eating pork or shellfish. It's not religious freedom however for me to try to make you live by my dietary restrictions. It's a small but crucial distinction. Recently some male members of the growing and politically active ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have made some news by refusing to sit next to unrelated women while using transportation. Presumably this problem would also extend to unrelated men sitting next to traveling ultra-Orthodox Jewish women. 



Francesca Hogi, 40, had settled into her aisle seat for the flight from New York to London when the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move. Laura Heywood, 42, had a similar experience while traveling from San Diego to London via New York. She was in a middle seat — her husband had the aisle — when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions. Ms. Heywood, offended by the notion that her sex made her an unacceptable seatmate, refused. “I wasn’t rude, but I found the reason to be sexist, so I was direct,” she said.  

A growing number of airline passengers, particularly on trips between the United States and Israel, are now sharing stories of conflicts between ultra-Orthodox Jewish men trying to follow their faith and women just hoping to sit down.
Representatives of the ultra-Orthodox insist that the behavior is anomalous and rare. “I think that the phenomenon is nowhere near as prevalent as some media reports have made it seem,” said Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs at Agudath Israel of America, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews. “The haredi men I know,” Rabbi Shafran said, using the Hebrew word for the ultra-Orthodox, “have no objection to sitting next to a woman on any flight.”

The ultra-Orthodox have increasingly seen gender separation as a kind of litmus test of Orthodoxy — it wasn’t always that way, but it has become that way,” said Samuel Heilman, a professor of sociology at Queens College. “There is an ongoing culture war between these people and the rest of the modern world, and because the modern world has increasingly sought to become gender neutral, that has added to the desire to say, ‘We’re not like that.’”
LINK

I don't really care how you behave in the privacy of your own home. And as mentioned I modestly sympathize with some people who feel that they are being bullied by an ever expanding government determined to enforce, pardon the pun, orthodoxy, around questions of gender, child raising practices, sexuality and what have you. But that sympathy stops here. If you are older than say five years old and still believe that women have cooties, if you think that you will be tempted, seduced or made impure by every single non-related women you run across in life, if you think that you have the right to demand that society adapt to you rather than the other way around, maybe this country isn't really the right place for you. You're a dummy. There is no other way to put it. Being descended from people who did indeed have to give up seats, switch seats or otherwise adjust their lives to the fears and anger of bigots, I have absolutely no truck with any man or woman, regardless of their religion, who seeks to impose any sort of segregation in public accommodations. If you want to do that in your synagogue, mosque or church, knock yourself out. But don't try it in the public square. And certainly don't try it around me. Because you're opening up yourself and your religion up for public mockery. Nobody should ever switch seats because someone refuses to sit next to them due to gender. Nobody. And if some idiot is preventing the departure of a bus or plane because of this, throw them off the vehicle, and do not refund their money. If this happens often enough, word will get around. I believe that similar to how the Mormons had a revelation that black men could actually be priests, the Orthodox Jews pitching a fit over the possibility of sitting next to an unrelated woman, will suddenly discover a new interpretation allowing them to do just that. Ridiculous.

What do you think?

If you are a woman would you move?

If you are a man would you switch seats with a woman to remedy this situation?

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: The Wars to Come

"The freedom to make my own mistakes is all I ever wanted."

Well we're back. Season Five is underway. We open up with a flashback memory as ten year old Cersei bullies her friend into accompanying her to visit a local witch who can supposedly see the future. Using the ever effective threat of an angry Tywin Lannister, the young Cersei makes the witch tell of Cersei's future. It's grim. Not only will she not marry Prince Rhaegar but her future husband will be a king who has twenty children while she will only have three. All of her children will have golden crowns and golden shrouds. A younger more beautiful queen will eventually cast Cersei down. This prophecy helps explain why Cersei, who clearly was already a bad seed as a child, has become such a paranoid and vindictive adult with an especial dislike for Margaery. Visiting her father's body before the public viewing, Cersei blames Jaime for releasing Tyrion and urges him to find their little brother. Jaime is well aware that Tywin's death will embolden Lannister enemies. Twyin was a bada$$ but now he's just a dead bada$$. At the wake Cersei can barely tolerate the fake condolences and murmurs of support. She's drinking herself into numbness. Cersei is stunned to see her cousin and former lover Lancel, who has joined the religious fundamentalist group known as the Sparrows. Judging by Lancel's appearance these people appear to be into poverty, chastity and bad haircuts. Lancel tells Cersei that he truly regrets playing "Mama's got a squeezebox" with a close relative and one who was married. He also is contrite about helping her to murder the king. He wants her forgiveness and for her to confess her sins. Unsurprisingly, Cersei is not huge on the whole confession thingie and denies knowing what Lancel is talking about. To be fair, confession really didn't work out so well for Ned Stark, now did it?

Margaery may pretend innocence with King Tommen but we're reminded again it's all an act when we see her interrupt Loras and his lover. Showing a disturbing lack of respect for familial privacy Margaery sits on the bed and forces the other man to leave. She wants to talk to Loras in private. She tells Loras that he should be more discreet with his boy toys but Loras sees no reason to do that now that Tywin is dead and Loras' forced marriage to Cersei is likely off. In fact the more open Loras is about his sexuality the lower the chances of marrying Cersei are. Loras feels liberated and unafraid. No dummy, Loras quickly realizes that Margaery wants Cersei married and far away from King's Landing and her. The siblings' interests are diverging. In the Vale Brienne is depressed about losing Arya and is venting her frustration on Podrick. She's tired of having him around and looking up to her. Podrick reminds her that she swore to find both Stark girls. Sansa (with Littlefinger) is traveling just a few hundred yards away from Brienne and Podrick. Lord Pervert and his charge have left Robin Arryn with Lord Royce after Littlefinger received a message which he notably declined to share with anyone. As Sansa later noticed, Littlefinger told Lord Royce they were going somewhere other than their true destination, which appears to be The North. We'll see. In Pentos while Tyrion grumbles over the indignity of spending the entire sea voyage in a box and the horrors of having murdered Tywin and Shae, Varys plays him the world's smallest violin. 

Varys openly admits that he's been working for the restoration of the Targaryens because Robert Baratheon was a crappy king. He thinks that Tyrion could help with that goal. Varys, like Littlefinger, is a remarkably pragmatic individual, though he seems to lack Littlefinger's deliberate cruelty. Or does he? I mean who could have predicted that a released Tyrion would confront and kill Tywin? In Meereen, an Unsullied soldier goes to a brothel. He just wants some snuggling but once he relaxes he's murdered by a pro-slavery reactionary. These people are known as the Sons of the Harpy. Missandei queries Grey Worm as to why an Unsullied would go to a brothel. This is her way of asking Grey Worm if he just lost his berries or did he lose root and stem. Grey Worm declines to answer THAT question. Daenerys continues to learn that leadership doesn't just mean that everyone does what you say. Hizdahr zo Loraq has returned from Yunkai and pronounced the diplomacy a success. He and the leaders of Yunkai do have one request though. They want to reopen the fighting pits, this time with free men, instead of slaves, though in truth almost of the fighters will be former slaves. Finding the idea abhorrent Daenerys peremptorily refuses.

However later after her special "adult time" with Daario, she learns from Daario that the fighting pits are part of the culture. Daario's a veteran of the pits. He thinks the pits were a good thing. Daario suggests that Daenerys show her strength not by keeping the fighting pits closed but rather by openly displaying the dragons again. Daenerys visits the cave where she chained two of her dragons. They're larger than before and don't exactly appear happy to see their "mother". If you think unruly mastiffs are an issue try having untrained dragons. You are probably aware that people give each other a look when they want to do the do. Melisandre, appearing like she stepped out of an erectile dysfunction commercial, gives that look to Jon Snow when she summons him from training to meet Stannis. She even inquires if he is a virgin, and is pleased to learn that he isn't. Mercifully Stannis isn't interested in Jon's sex life but rather his political value. Stannis reminds Jon that Jon is the illegitimate son of Ned Stark. The traitor Roose Bolton, who murdered Jon's brother Robb Stark, now holds Winterfell. As everyone who saw Roose murder Robb is either dead or allied with the cautious Roose, one wonders exactly how Stannis would know these precise details. Did the normally circumspect Roose send out messages boasting that he stabbed Robb through the heart? Anyway Jon isn't having it, reminding Stannis, Davos and Melisandre that he is a member of the Night's Watch and thus beyond revenge or inheritances.

Davos points out that Jon is not necessarily a well liked member of the Night's Watch, particularly by such men as Alliser Thorne and Janos Slynt. As Jon won't be tempted by Winterfell, Stannis appeals to his sense of compassion for the wildlings. Stannis intends to dispose of Roose Bolton but needs additional men to do that. He wants to add the wildings to his army. In return he will allow them to settle south of the Wall and become citizens. It's a good deal. But Stannis being Stannis he insists that the wildling leader Mance bend the knee. Convinced that the wellbeing of the wildings is more important than any principle, Jon tries to persuade Mance Rayder to kneel to Stannis and to authorize the wildings to fight for Stannis. In the episode's most powerful and moving scene Mance bluntly refuses. Jon accuses him of putting his pride above everything else. Mance rejects that frame. It's not about his personal pride. To bend the knee to a king would be to betray the whole Free Folk ethos. Mance would lose his people's respect and involve them in someone else's war. Why should they bleed for other people? Mance embodies the New Hampshire state motto. Stannis respects this but still orders Melisandre, arrayed in her typical cleavage bearing gown, to burn Mance alive. Disgusted, Jon puts Mance out of his misery before the flames can finish doing their work.

What I liked

• As Jaime pointed out, Tywin can't inspire fear from beyond the grave. Without the dominant personality of Tywin to compel obedience, many people will feel entitled to push back against the dwindling(?) Lannister power. 
• It's one thing to die in battle. You may never see the sword or spear with your name on it. But to be imprisoned and have time to consider your own death is another thing entirely. Mance is scared because being burned alive is a horrible fate. But like any martyr he holds true to his beliefs even at the cost of his own life. How many people would do such a thing? 
• Varys being atypically confident and direct with Tyrion. No simpering. Straight honest talk. 
• Daenerys initially claiming that as she wasn't a politician she did not need to worry about pleasing people or making alliances. After all she won. Well like every other executive, elected or not, she will see that it's always easier when people buy into your program. 
• The calmness of the fanatic/true believer as exemplified by Melisandre and Lancel is disturbing. They simply aren't able to be reasoned with or influenced by material considerations. You are either with them or against them. Period.

What I didn't like

• I wonder if the producers were sensitive to charges of too much female nudity. Anyhow this episode had more male butt than a toilet seat in a Turkish bathhouse. Not really my thing but if you like seeing this, this was an episode you didn't want to miss. 
• Varys was too chatty with Tyrion . It seemed a bit too much out of character. It felt like an unnecessary information dump. 
• Tyrion's self-pity party.

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events or have seen future leaked episodes 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: Suspicion

Suspicion

by Joseph Finder

This was a very quick read and satisfying mystery/thriller story. A few characters are underdeveloped but fortunately they're not critical ones. I picked up this book on sale. A few twists were predictable; many others weren't. I enjoyed Suspicion. As we have discussed before the executive branch of the Federal Government, via its agencies such as the DoJ, the IRS, the DEA and the FBI among others, has a tremendous amount of flexibility to prosecute and effectively even define crime. Most of us citizens smallfolk do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars in our money market accounts, millions more in stock or bond mutual funds and incredibly skilled, connected and aggressive $800/hr defense attorneys on speed dial. I can't call a US Senator or Cabinet Secretary on his or her private line and snarl at them to tell some overaggressive US Attorney to back up off me or else. So for the average schmuck the Federal Government can bring a frightening amount of resources to compel co-operation. The average person usually won't win fighting the federal government and doesn't even have the wherewithal to try. Do you have $250K to give as a retainer to a lawyer before he or she will even look at your case? Most people don't. Danny Goodman is such an average person. He's a widowed single father in the Boston area who's raising his teen daughter on his own. Danny writes historical biographies. Danny's income stream is unpredictable. But Danny loves his daughter Abby very much even though she often annoys him (and vice versa). Danny has enrolled Abby in a very expensive private school, which he can't really afford. It's far beyond his means but pride and love can make parents do things that may not make financial sense. Danny can't pay for Abby to take school field trips abroad. He's behind on tuition, and it's not the first time.

Although Danny tries to hide his financial condition from Abby, Abby is only young, not stupid. At school, Danny runs into Thomas Galvin, the parent of Abby's best friend. The two men bond together. They have similar ethnic and class backgrounds. Like Danny, Thomas grew up lower middle class/poor in South Boston. 

Thomas Galvin is among the richest men in the Boston area. Thomas owns a hedge fund and is worth hundreds of millions. When Thomas learns that Danny might have to pull Abby from the school he insists on providing an emergency $50,000 loan to cover tuition plus anything else Danny needs. Danny can't decline this consideration because the unpleasant school headmistress is virtually salivating at the prospect of kicking Abby out. Thomas is delighted that his sensitive daughter Jenna won't lose Abby as a friend. 

Upon accepting the loan however, Danny is braced by two officious and bullying DEA agents who claim that the mild mannered classic rock fan Thomas is really the North American investment manager for the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel. By accepting the wired money Danny has just opened himself up to multiple charges of money laundering, wire fraud, tax evasion, racketeering conspiracy and anything else the two agents can find that might apply. Either Danny becomes a cooperating witness and gets actionable evidence of Thomas' criminal activities or the agents will arrest Danny. They'll go to trial where the Feds have a 95% conviction rate. Danny can then enjoy spending the next thirty years in federal prison trying to convince hardened criminals that he's not a snitch and doesn't want to play hide the salami. The DEA agents don't really care. So Danny decides to cooperate. This is no spoiler as it happens almost immediately. It's what occurs afterwards which makes Suspicion a worthwhile read. Danny can't trust anyone. He doesn't know how to plant bugs on Thomas' phone or accomplish the other things the DEA orders him to do. He's a naif thrown into deep shark infested waters. Danny must navigate the cautions of Thomas and his family and the uncertainty of Danny's girlfriend Lucy. Danny's fears deepen when he watches some internet videos displaying how the cartels deal with witnesses. Throughout Suspicion, Finder ratchets up Danny's tension and worry. I would have liked to have seen a few events from Thomas' or Celina's (Thomas' wife) POV. I appreciated the theme of a man who makes one mistake and finds himself being controlled by powerful malign forces. This is more thriller than mystery but if you are a fan of either genre you might enjoy this story. You can finish this book in 2-3 days. It's a page turner. The prose is not dense.

As with the Taken movies I was amused by narrative incidents when a spouse or girlfriend became angry at her husband or boyfriend because he lied to her or omitted details in order to keep her safe (as he saw it). I can understand that emotion but the proper time to discuss issues of sharing, trust and intimacy probably isn't when the bad guys are closing in on the family. This would make a good movie. 

Sesame Street: Game of Chairs and Jon Snow: Dinner Guest

Do you remember watching Sesame Street as a child? Sometimes things are so silly that you just have to laugh. The next ruler of Jesteros will have to play and win the Game of Chairs....(cue music)

Speaking of silly I didn't realize how intense and serious Kit Harrington's cadence is as Jon Snow until he was invited as a dinner guest by Seth Meyers. Depressed and orphaned Night's Watch members apparently make pretty bad dinner guests. Who knew?

And here are some more quick draw summaries for your enjoyment. 

Season Four Recap.

                               

The life of Catelyn Stark

                         

The life of The Hound

                            

Kendrick Lamar, Skin Tones and Personal Choice

There is no reason, as an older mentor once advised me, for anyone to worry about what’s on another man's or woman’s plate. That just gets you agitated and envious. Your life won’t improve. Every person has different skills, gifts and characteristics which will attract people. What's a "must have" attribute to one person can easily be a "can't stand" quality for another. I recalled that advice when some Facebook friends shared what a self-described so-called “dark skinned activist” named Rashida Strober had to say about the upcoming nuptials of rapper Kendrick Lamar and his fiancée, one Whitney Alford. Now I don't listen to Kendrick Lamar's music. I couldn't care less about who he is sleeping with or his marriage plans. This news didn't put any money in my pocket or make me sleep better at night. But I thought the idiotic response by this alleged activist was worth discussing if only because it is a view into a mindset that if not exactly widespread, does have a ugly tenacity, sort of like cockroaches or scabies. Now the normal response when you learn that someone will be getting married is either happiness for them (if you know them personally) or perhaps bemused indifference (if they happen to be one of the 7 billion people on the planet you don't know). However Rashida Strober decided to take the news of Lamar's engagement personally, very personally indeed. 
“Well, well, well would you looky here. ANOTHER FAKE CONSCIOUS MUTHERF-KER EXPOSED. I will never support him nor his music with one dime of my money and encourage all dark skinned women not to either!”

FAKE CONSCIOUS COON ASS RAPPER KENDRICK LAMAR PART 2.
I see calling out and exposing self hating fake black men who speak about consciousness but date and marry NON DARK SKIN WOMEN brought you haters to my page. WELL SHARE THIS MUTHERF**ING POST!!! These type of fake coons are the worst of the worst. DARK SKIN is the essence of true blackness and if these fakers were really and truly conscious they would MARRY DARK SKINNED WOMEN!!! You pissed ?? GOOD!!!

LINK

These ugly words really tell you more about what’s in her head than what’s in Kendrick's. It’s a fact that “black people” come in various different skin tones and facial features. Children in the same family with the same parents can and do vary in skin tones. In the US, at least any sort of visible or acknowledged African ancestry has usually caused the possessor of such ancestry to be identified as "Black" by others and more importantly, Tiger Woods not withstanding, often to self-identify as Black. Other than Kendrick Lamar himself or people who are very close to Kendrick Lamar, no one knows all the reasons why and how Lamar fell in love with this woman. So to reduce his reasons for loving her to just her skin tone seems silly. But I will go further. Even if Kendrick's fiancée were Caucasian with translucent skin it would still not be anybody’s business other than the couple’s as to why and how they fell in love. Life is very short. Too short. Love is a very private and personal thing. It’s not something that should be weighed or measured by others. The political is not necessarily the personal. Someone's commitment to justice, however that is defined, is simply not measured by the level of melanin in their boo's skin. Anyone stupid enough to say that dark skin is somehow the essence of "true blackness" must not have heard of Walter White, Kathleen Cleaver, Julian Bond, Angela Davis, Randall Robinson, Nelson Mandela, Diane Nash or brother Malcolm..

The only reason to be concerned about someone else's romantic choices is if that person rejected you or cheated on you. Obviously you may have nasty thoughts about seeing that person with someone else. But we all deal with rejection. The resulting sadness or anger should only be temporary. Sure, some people's "temporary" may last for a few years. But we should always remember that we do not own anyone else’s good thing. To paraphrase Little Milton, when the good Lord made one (wo)man , Hallelujah, don’t you know that He made two. The world is full of acceptable partners. I just can't understand getting upset about the romantic choices of strangers. Some people live vicariously through celebrities. But that is a dumb way to live your life. You should find your own pathway through life and allow others to do the same. This woman Strober obviously has had pain in her past. Well so has everyone else. That's no excuse for being stupid or controlling. Has this Strober raised a fuss about Eve, Halle Berry, Rihanna, Mellody Hobson or several other black women who have found love with men who are significantly lighter or rather whiter than they are? I'm guessing not. Internalized racism and the need to control other people are horrible sins. But the sheer narcissism on display here (you must marry someone who looks like me otherwise you're a horrible person) is somewhere between amusing and horrifying in its scope. This is bad thinking. 

Jackie's UVA Rolling Stone Rape Allegation Falls Apart

It should scarcely need to be said but obviously rape is one of the worst crimes a person can commit, second only to murder. So society should do its best to prevent rape and failing that, to punish rape harshly. You may recall that a while back we did a skeptical post on the fact that Rolling Stone magazine was forced to retract its story about a gang rape at UVA. Since that time the local police looked into the story. They did everything in their power to avoid saying that "Jackie", the alleged victim, was lying. What they did say is that there was no substantive basis to support her story. Similarly Rolling Stone outsourced an investigation of its journalistic process and procedures surrounding this story to Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. The School recently released its report. The report wasn't good in the same way that someone who comes home with 6 F's and one D on her report card didn't have a good semester. You can read the very long Columbia report for yourself if you are so inclined. For those of you who do not have the time or interest to read through 12,000 words let's just say that the report calmly eviscerates the lax reporting, fact checking and editorial standards at Rolling Stone magazine. If Erdely had called Kathryn Hendley and Alex Stock – their true names – to check their sides of Jackie's account of Sept. 28 and 29, they would have denied saying any of the words Jackie attributed to them (as Ryan would have as well). They would have described for Erdely a history of communications with Jackie that would have left the reporter with many new questions. For example, the friends said that Jackie told them that her date on Sept. 28 was not a lifeguard but a student in her chemistry class named Haven Monahan. (The Charlottesville police said in March they could not identify a UVA student or any other person named Haven Monahan.) All three friends would have spoken to Erdely, they said, if they had been contacted.

I always thought that "Jackie" was making stuff up. Let's say I said I'm going on a date. I show you a picture of my date and it's a 1970s picture of Pam Grier. I state that this woman is not Pam Grier but rather an old high school classmate whom I haven't seen in decades. You might reasonably conclude that I was lying through my teeth. This would especially be the case after you tracked down that old high school classmate and she told you that she hadn't talked to me since high school and had never dated me. 

Unfortunately similar to witch trials or child abuse accusations we have allowed the country and its institutions of higher learning among others to become infected with the feminist idea that to even question a rape victim's story is proof of a misogynistic and rape apologist mindset. If a story can't be questioned and can't be weighed against alternate explanations, then how can we have a justice system? An accusation should be enough. Whether we're talking criminal charges, civil suits or journalism, a small but healthy amount of skepticism is important to keep close at hand. When someone already has a strong pov about an issue as Sabrina Rubin Erdely clearly did, it's essential to watch out for confirmation bias and ensure that questions are asked which will challenge the hypothesis.

You may hear some people saying that we should automatically believe victims. Well that's well and good for people I know intimately. I will believe them if they tell me that X happened. But for everyone else I'm going to require some level of proof. And I would certainly expect that other people who don't know me or mine would feel the same way. I wouldn't be offended if you were non-committal in automatically believing something you were told by someone I knew well but you did not know at all. It's why we have society wide procedures set up to determine if someone was a victim in the first place. It's only after that critical fact has been determined when we can start "believing victims" or "helping victims find their voice" or so forth and so on. Rolling Stone Publisher Jann Wenner has so far stood by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the freelance writer of the untrue article, as well as the other editors and supervisors involved in this nonsense. Erdely will continue to write for the magazine. No one will lose their job. This is of course completely ridiculous. It shows how deep the rot has gone in traditional media. Too many readers and viewers no longer care what the truth is. They just want to have their biases supported. Every event must be placed into service to one or another ideological goal, no matter how much fact-bending or "truthiness" must be deployed. Even though Jackie is an apparent liar some people are trying to place all the blame on Rolling Stone. They simply can't find it in themselves to say Jackie lied.

We all have biases. I am not overly fond of police officers. If I were on a jury where there was strong evidence of police misconduct, the accused had better hope God has mercy on him because I surely won't. But if there is equally strong or even stronger evidence that the person accusing the police officer of a crime is lying then I have to vote to acquit. It doesn't matter how much of a problem I think police brutality is in society. Truth is more important than "social justice". Women who lie about rape do a disservice to everyone. They should own that. The fraternity is apparently going to sue Rolling Stone magazine. I don't know how much of a case they will have. Legal experts can give their opinion. But if that is the only way to make Rolling Stone change its practices, then I'm all in favor. It's important that rape victims come forward. It's also important that liars and hoaxers be revealed as such.