What a Friend we have in Dog

On the weekends I run many different errands. Over the past weekend I stopped at the vet to retrieve some medicine and specialty food for my German Shepherd. While I sat in the reception room waiting for my order to be fulfilled, I noticed that there was another gentleman there with his dog. His dog was a male 14 year-old Beagle. That is positively ancient for just about any dog. This Beagle was completely blind. He had suffered some sort of disease that required his eyes to be removed. The medicine (or maybe it was just the age and stress of surgery) had also caused his fur to turn completely white. Nevertheless despite his advanced age and blindness the beagle was still lively, running around to sniff everything. Obviously this was a bit problematic because he would often bump into things or me. This is probably why his owner had the Beagle wrapped in a thick doggy-sweater in order to minimize bruising. Talking to the owner I could see that he had a lot of love for his dog. He described changes that he and his family had made to their daily routine, two story house and yard in order to ensure that their dog could go about his daily affairs with a minimum of discomfort. The man's face shone with love for his pet. I thought this was interesting because in the old days for many people dogs were more utilitarian than they are today. Down south my grandfather had Beagles which he used to assist him in hunting. I don't think people forty or fifty years ago would have been willing to spend thousands or even hundreds of dollars on extreme health measures for an old dog. People probably would have done a quick cost-benefit analysis which placed high emphasis on the costs and not so much on the benefit to the dog. Obviously veterinary science has improved since the sixties but even so we view our pets differently than we used to do. This man was willing to spend no small amount of money on surgeries and medicine to save his dog's life and ensure that his dog would be as comfortable as possible in the short time that remained to it. I think that is a good thing.

Although we may view our pets more favorably than we used to it seems as if police officers are more frequently looking for reasons to shoot and kill our pets. There is a continuous stream of stories about police officers shooting dogs on private property regardless of whether the officer is in danger of being bitten or not. I think too many police officers get off not just on killing animals but from the pure power rush of messing with people. Society needs to do a better job of screening people who apply for any job where the worker can exercise legal or physical power over other citizens. The Hupp family called the police to their property to deal with a dispute with a neighbor. Apparently the police officer doesn't like dogs. Tiffanie Hupp ran to stand in front of a police officer who was on the verge of casually shooting her family's chained dog, after the dog ran towards the police officer. The police officer attacked and arrested Mrs. Hupp. She was charged with obstruction of justice. She went to trial after refusing a plea deal. The officer lied and claimed that Mrs. Hupp menaced him with a crossbow, something which the video clearly shows was not the case. Fortunately Mrs. Hupp was acquitted of the false charges. Even more fortuitously she wasn't shot. It should be clear to most rational people by this time that there is a culture of bullying and sadism that occurs in too many police departments. I suppose what you think of Mrs. Hupp's actions depend at least in part on what you think of dogs. I don't think that volunteering to sacrifice your life for that of your dog is a particularly smart move but neither could I stand by and watch some preening thug with a badge kill my dog just because he felt like it. Something would have to be done right then and there. The fact that the officer was going to shoot Mrs Hupp's dog and tried to confiscate anything which could have been used to record his actions shows once again that too many cops use their badge not to serve the public but to bully it. The fact that Mrs. Hupp was willing to risk her life to save her dog and prevent her children from seeing the dog killed shows once again how much people love their dogs.

A West Virginia woman who stood between her dog and a cop who was about to shoot it was acquitted by a jury of obstruction charges on February, 29th, 2016. West Virginia state trooper Seth Cook testified that he was not afraid of the dog, but was following training that required him to kill all dogs that approach him, even if it was chained and wagging its tail as Buddy was doing in this case. 

And because Tiffanie Hupp tried to stop him from doing so, she was arrested...
Cook had just talked to her neighbor’s and had stepped onto her family’s property when Buddy began barking and approaching the officer, reaching the end of its chain.That’s when Hupp’s husband, Ryan Hupp, 25, began recording.
“If it wasn’t for him recording, there’d be nothing,” Hupp said.“He knew about police brutaty before I did. But that’s why the camera is shaking, because of the adrenaline. When they read those words ‘not guilty’, we were relieved. It’s hard to describe the feeling unless it’s actually happening to you. Justice is good, though.”

As Buddy approached and began barking at Cook, he pulled out his gun on the dog. And that’s when Hupp stood between the two.

Trump's Fascist Rallies and Violence

If you have ever wondered about the sort of people who attended lynching parties in the America of the 20s, 30s or 40s and asked yourself how could they watch, cheer and participate in the brutalization, torture and murder of their fellow human beings you can satisfy your curiosity by looking at a Donald Trump rally. Human fecal emission John McGraw, 78 years old, thought that he would be a big brave man by throwing an elbow to the eye of 26 year old Rakeem Jones. Jones was being led out of a Trump rally. Unsurprisingly immediately after the assault the police swarmed on Jones, the victim of the crime and not McGraw, the perpetrator. At 78, McGraw mostly missed out on the classic period of American lynching, in which lynchings were announced days beforehand and whites sent each other postcards and other memorabilia to commemorate the event. But McGraw is the perfect age to have been one of the people protesting the desegregation efforts of the 50s and engage in some of the violence that took place then. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that McGraw was among those who flocked to Woolworth's sit-ins to insult, spit on or attack civil rights protesters. Trump has consistently exhorted his followers to violence against protesters in his rallies. He's talked about how things would have been handled back in the day. Trump initially refused to disavow David Duke and the KKK. So it's not at all surprising that his supporters, riding his rhetorical wave of hatred, have felt emboldened to lash out against the other, that is anyone not supporting Trump, especially black people. People can talk about Trump's position on trade or illegal immigration or whatever. But it's clear that for a not insignificant number of his supporters, their support arises from the fact that Trump panders to their worst instincts. They want to beat up people who disagree with them. They want to torture or kill the families of terrorism suspects. And they want to kill dissenters. There is no reasoning with people like McGraw. McGraw's a coward of course. He never would have put his hands on Jones were they mano a mano on the street. But there are a lot of people like McGraw in this world. They get courageous when they and likeminded people outnumber you 10,000 to 1. However there is a solution. North Carolina and several other states are stand your ground states. Jones and other protesters should obey the law but make it clear that anyone illegally laying hands on them won't get a chance to do so again. 
LINK

Michigan Primary Results

Last night Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders managed to beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the March 8 Michigan Democratic Primary by 49.83% to 48.3%. This slim margin of victory for Sanders was astounding given that polls shortly before the vote showed that Clinton was ahead by double digits. Michigan has a primary which is closed (technically defined as closed because you have to declare party affiliation before you can get a ballot) but there is not a requirement that you are a registered member of one party or another. So there might be some sour grapes among partisans of one party or another who are convinced that their preferred candidate only lost because of those rascally rapscallions of the other party who lied about their party affiliation just to cast a vote in a different primary. But at this point there is no evidence of that. Michigan is different from the southern states which Clinton was winning handily (like Mississippi which Clinton won 83-17) in that (1) there are still white Democrats in Michigan, (2) there is still an active (but dying) union movement, and (3) Michigan lacks a huge Hispanic or Asian population. Sanders' attempt to make his case to Black voters paid off in Michigan. He got roughly 30~35% of the Black vote, which coupled with a more competitive percentage of the white vote allowed him to win. In Michigan in particular there's a strong undercurrent of discontent over NAFTA, "free trade" and globalization which was likely more fertile ground for Sanders' message. Michigan is ground zero for the loss of high wage middle class manufacturing jobs. In any event Sanders still has an uphill battle for the nomination but last night showed that it's not time for his political funeral just yet. Clinton will need to alter her message a bit so that it can resonate with a few more male voters in the Midwest, especially white ones. I think it's interesting that Clinton has mostly run up the score in states that will almost certainly be in the Republican column on election day. Michigan is whiter than the nation as a whole but it's also a state which usually leans Democratic. That Sanders won here after being down by such a huge margin has to give pause to some people in the Clinton camp. The big question will be if Michigan is just a bump in the road to the inevitable Clinton nomination or is it a harbinger for a comeback which hasn't been seen in modern times.

Donald Trump won the Republican Primary in Michigan with 37% of the vote. I also think he won in part because of his nationalist stance on trade issues. I think he will be the Republican nominee. Cruz came in second at 25% while Ohio Governor Kasich finished third at 24%. Marco Rubio finished fourth with just 9% of the vote and lacks any reason to keep going other than spite. Rubio did win in Puerto Rico but of course Puerto Rico provides no electoral votes. Perhaps Rubio will soldier on until the primary in his home state of Florida but he's currently behind there. 

HBO Game of Thrones: Season 6 Trailer(1)

Well this was unexpected. Enjoy the new Season 6 HBO Game of Thrones trailer. Very interesting. It looks as if some unanswered questions from last year will be addressed. And what's up with Bran standing? Dreams I would guess but who knows? And it looks like the Cersei we know and hate is ready to show the Faith Militant that you don't mess with live lionesses. We shall see. There's a lot to unpack in this short trailer. Hopefully there will be more to come. The fact that Daenerys is walking among a people who think that to walk when you could ride indicates low status doesn't bode well for her standing. All in all I think the trailer raises more questions than it answers, which is exactly what it should do, right?

Movie Reviews: Black Mass, Fatal Instinct

Black Mass
directed by Scott Cooper

This is a horror film masquerading as a gangster movie. I don't mean that it does so because of the explicit violence. Compared to some Tarantino and maybe even Scorsese films this movie is not all that explicit. 

Of course that said I am likely a little inured to cinematic mayhem so maybe you should take that last statement with several grains of salt. When I compare this to a horror film I mean that Johnny Depp, portraying pitiless South Boston Irish-American gangster James "Whitey" Bulger, does masterful work depicting the soulless cold black hole of a human being that Bulger was during his days of dominion over Boston. Bulger is less a human being than a ghoul. He's something almost unnatural. Depp's Bulger kills at will from cold calculation. 

He inspires others to kill, often out of pure fear. If nothing else Depp's version of Bulger will put you in mind of Nosferatu. His Bulger is all bulging forehead, bad teeth, stringy hair and arctic blue eyes. He's a predator of other humans. His gravelly voice commands, insults and frightens. Bulger is rarely kind to anyone other than his aged mother, sickly son, brother and less occasionally his wife. Everyone else he regards as someone to be ignored, used or consumed. When Bulger loses two people close to him he sheds all but a thin veneer of humanity. 

HBO Game of Thrones Extras

There is a new Game of Thrones season starting up in a little less than two months. So far HBO and the involved actors, producers and writers, perhaps stung by last year's leaking of multiple episodes, have been a bit more reticent (with the notable exception of new cast member Ian McShane) about providing information on the new season. Usually by this time there have been one or two trailers which show various teases from the new season. I'm sure that we'll get something as the premiere of Season 6 approaches. But for now there's been bupkis, as my high school chemistry teacher might have said. So what's a fan to do? As it turns out the DVD/Blu-Ray of the past season will be available in a few days. Both to stir up interest in that release and get you excited for the new season HBO has put some of the extras from that package online. These include Ser Barristan Selmy remembering how Robert's Rebellion got started and some more detailed information on the Many Faced God (God of Death). This is as you recall whom Arya Stark is supposed to be serving, that is once she can forget that she is Arya of House Stark and instead become no one. I rather doubt that is likely. Much like Inigo Montoya, Arya Stark has an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. Blind, crippled or crazy I expect her to continue seeking to get some payback on those who destroyed her family. Anyhow please enjoy the two short videos below. They give some greater context to people who haven't read the books. They also provide reminders to those who have read the books but have forgotten one detail or another from roughly two million words of text. In April both book readers and show watchers will pretty much be starting from the same point..

Melissa Harris-Perry and MSNBC

When you work for someone else, as most people do, there are limits on when and how you can express your frustrations with your co-workers and especially your bosses. These limits can vary based on your immutable characteristics. Like it or not, some people can get away with more stuff than others. The limits also depend on your internal makeup. At work, when some people are upset everyone in the room has to know about it ASAP while others grimace, quietly seethe and make plans to depart. But the most obvious limit on what you can say and do at work is how valuable you are to your employer and how in demand you are elsewhere. If you are producing profits for your employer and would be difficult to replace then you can get away with things other workers can't. Money talks and bovine emission walks. But if you aren't producing profits or quality work for your employer your ability to cause work disruptions will be limited. Your boss may be looking for opportunities to bid you farewell. We saw an example of that this past weekend when Wake Forest professor Melissa Harris-Perry (MHP) and former MSNBC host of the eponymous news analysis show decided that she could no longer tolerate what she saw as hideous disrespect from her employer, MSNBC. She decided to boycott her own show this weekend. And she let everyone know why in a scathing letter that implied racial animus:
Dearest Nerds,
As you know by now, my name appears on the weekend schedule for MSNBC programming from South Carolina this Saturday and Sunday. I appreciate that many of you responded to this development with relief and enthusiasm. To know that you have missed working with me even a fraction of how much I’ve missed working with all of you is deeply moving. However, as of this morning, I do not have any intention of hosting this weekend. Because this is a decision that affects all of you, I wanted to take a moment to explain my reasoning...
Here is the reality: our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season. After four years of building an audience, developing a brand, and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced. Now, MSNBC would like me to appear for four inconsequential hours to read news that they deem relevant without returning to our team any of the editorial control and authority that makes MHP Show distinctive. The purpose of this decision seems to be to provide cover for MSNBC, not to provide voice for MHP Show. I will not be used as a tool for their purposes. I am not a token, mammy, or little brown bobble head. I am not owned by Lack, Griffin, or MSNBC. I love our show. I want it back. I have wept more tears than I can count and I find this deeply painful, but I don’t want back on air at any cost. I am only willing to return when that return happens under certain terms.
I have a PhD in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nation’s top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars...

You can read her entire letter here.

Now in most professions there is a rule that this move is not the best way to leave your workplace , emotionally pleasing as it might be. That reaction makes finding similar work in the same industry more difficult than it needs to be. I'm not sure that bit of received wisdom applies in this case. It seems that people are more tolerant of ego eruptions in the media business. Also MHP is already an author and tenured professor. MSNBC did not provide her entire income. Effectively her show at MSNBC was a well paid side gig. I'm sure that she'll be just fine financially. Still I think that MHP lost sight of the fact that (1) the ratings for her show weren't very good and (2) during an election season it's not out of line that supervisors ask you to focus a little more on election results and analysis and a little less on the oppression of overweight multiracial transgender bisexual women who suffer from hirsutism, critical though that issue may be. Mentioning a competitor's interest in your situation,as MHP did, will rub your boss the wrong way. If you publicly call out your company co-workers or invited guests as "relative novices and certified liars" then you should expect to be looking for new work soon. Challenge your bosses to fire you; get fired. And unsurprisingly, MSNBC has allegedly confirmed that MHP will not be working for them again. I hate micro managers but sometimes micro managers are created by less productive employees. If I were a cable executive overseeing a low rated show and the producer/talent resisted talking about election politics during an election season I would take a firmer hand with them. I'd want to know what their plans were for improving ratings, what sort of topics they intended to pursue and which guests they felt were worthwhile.

I liked MHP though I didn't agree with her on everything and didn't go out of my way to watch her show. Apparently not many others did either. Again, if her show was must see TV I bet that her bosses would try to find a way to turn the other cheek and tell everyone that this was all a big misunderstanding. But as her show wasn't exactly ratings gold MHP didn't have the leverage that she may have thought she did. Or maybe she knew she lacked leverage but had just had enough. I don't watch much television or MSNBC but when I do watch it seems as if Chris Matthews, Brian Williams and Rachel Maddow are on every last show doing political analysis. I can certainly understand and sympathize if MHP felt overlooked and discarded as she writes in her letter. Who among us doesn't have a story to tell about how someone did us dirty at our job? Everyone has a different tolerance for work nonsense. Joy-Ann Reid, Alex Wagner, and Andrea Mitchell all had MSNBC shows. They all lost them. But they were professional about it. So they still have jobs at MSNBC doing reporting, news analysis or substituting for other hosts. To each her own I guess. If I worked for the MHP show and lost my job because Fearless Leader threw a temper tantrum I don't think I could be even tempered about it. Boyce Watkins and Yvette Carnell point out that with the impending end of the Obama Administration there may not be the demand for black public intellectuals which was partially met by MSNBC. (Unlike Carnell?) I take no glee in this turn of events but neither do I think there is some huge crime here.