Muhammad Ali

There aren't too many giants left who walk the earth. Muhammad Ali was one such man. I was sad when I heard the news of his June 3 passing at the age of 74 but at the same time I wasn't. Ali was a man who lived his life in line with his beliefs and principles. I wish he had lived longer. However often times when someone passes our sadness is more about how we're affected and not the end of that person's life. Ali stood up at a time when it was much easier to duck and hide. He paid a price for that. Maybe it's always much easier to duck and hide. I don't know if the later battles Ali had against fellow boxing titans Frazier, Foreman, Holmes and Norton brought on or worsened his Parkinson's Disease. I do recollect that even pacifist relatives who were otherwise steadfastly opposed to boxing tuned in to watch an Ali bout. Ali was larger than life. Unfortunately most of my memories of Ali boxing were when his skills had already visibly deteriorated. But even then there was always a glimpse of the speed, grace and power that made him the Greatest, as he would have been the first to tell you. But more than the classic fights which I was mostly too young to remember what I remember about Ali is how he made people I knew, especially the men in my family, feel. Ali was a Black man who defiantly seized and kept the right to name himself. He made his own decisions about what was good and what wasn't. He made Black people feel good about being Black. This is still a controversial stance today. Ali said I'm not going to have a European name based in slavery because I'm not European. I'm going to love myself. And he refused to join a war he didn't believe in, even though he likely would have been kept far away from any danger. He threw away three years of his career at the top just to stand on principle. How many of us would do that? How many of today's athletes would make that sacrifice? Ali helped to start a change in how Black athletes were perceived, how they performed and how they were marketed, one that is still going on today. Ali wasn't perfect. None of us are. And certainly there are probably some people who were more comfortable with the aged man who could barely speak than the young brash "Mouth Of The South" who cut opponents up with verbal wit even quicker than he did with his fists. But for my money Ali truly was The Greatest.

I’m the greatest thing that ever lived! I’m the king of the world! I’m a bad man. I’m the prettiest thing that ever lived.

It’s the repetition of affirmations that leads to belief. And once that belief becomes a deep conviction, things begin to happen.

It isn’t the mountains ahead to climb that wear you out; it’s the pebble in your shoe.

Book Reviews: Dead Man's Hand, Pimp

Dead Man's Hand
by John Joseph Adams

Dead Man's Hand, so named for the aces and eights or the black two pair poker hand supposedly held by gunfighter Wild Bill Hickok when he was murdered, is an anthology of short stories set in the Old West. The twist is that these tales are not just shoot em ups though a few of those exist. No the common theme that links all these stories is that they occur not in the West that was but rather the West that could have been. As the book cover indicates it is a anthology of the weird west. For those of you who read this and immediately assume that Dead Man's Hand is just another low rent horror book that you'd prefer to avoid, not being a horror fan, you are probably making a mistake. Yes, there are some traditional horror stories within though here traditional doesn't mean that you'd know exactly what to expect. But the emphasis is not on vampires, ghouls or ghosts. The emphasis is on the weird. So in one story you can read about a battle between a vampire and a righteous revered gunfighter and in the next read a feminist take on what happens when a vicious pimp tries to reclaim his "property" from the women who work in an enlightened bordello. Some of these stories work better than others but I don't think I was ever really bored reading this. As usual the best thing about anthologies is that if there is a story that you dislike it's okay because in just a few pages something new is coming along.  Other than always being set in the West these stories are often quite different in theme, tone, purpose and feel. There's something here for everyone, but I wouldn't say all of the stories are for everyone. My favorite story in this collection was Walter Jon Williams' "The Golden Age" which reimagines Gold Rush era California as something out of a Steampunk comic strip. An English sailor, unfairly cheated out of his gold claim, turns to a life of crime. He becomes known as The Commodore. He is alternately assisted and hindered by a motley crew of fellow superheroes and villains, most of whom will go out of their way to avoid killing each other outright but prefer old time radio serial favorites like leaving their enemy tied up over a flaming volcano. Other superheroes include Shanghai Susie, who uses Kung-fu to protect Chinese railroad workers or The Masked Hildalgo who fights for Mexican miners. Good or bad many of these people must put aside their quarrels when California is invaded by an Austrian madman with a blimp and an entirely unsporting attitude towards rivals. 

Mike Resnick's "The Hellbound Stagecoach" is a new twist on a very old theme. Ben Winter's "The Old Slow Man and His Gold Gun From Space" had some surprises which I don't think most people will see coming. "Stingers and Strangers" finds a boyfriend/girlfriend team investigating why some very dangerous oversize wasps have suddenly vanished. Tobias Bucknell's "Sundown" tells the story of an extremely pragmatic Black Federal Marshal who teams up with Frederick Douglass to deliver some righteous and legal retribution on some very bad people. In "Holy Jingle" Alan Dean Foster tells us the story of a man who was last seen at a Carson City brothel. When he's found he might be drained of something besides that which one would normally expect. Charles Yu's "Bookkeeper, Narrator, Gunslinger" shows us what happens when a mild mannered bookkeeper opens his mouth and discovers he's not such a bad shot. Alastair Reynolds' "Wrecking Party" informs us that a man who's smashing up the newfangled horseless carriages may not be an ignorant Luddite after all.

All in all this was a good read. Not every story was a winner but I can honestly say that the gold outweighed the dross. It's a little long but you can read it at your leisure.


Pimp
by Ken Bruen and Jason Starr

One of my favorite classic movies is It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. If you're unfamiliar with that film it's a slapstick comedy that details the escapades of seemingly normal people who, upon learning from a dying gangster the location of his last big score, chase after the buried money. In the process they become more desperate and nastier. However the film was made in the early sixties. It is mostly, a few ethnic jokes aside, painfully good natured and clean. No one gets killed. There's no nudity. Violence is limited and obviously played for laughs. The movie ends with a particularly annoying brassy bossy mother-in-law slipping on a banana peel that a man has thoughtfully thrown from his hospital bed. Typical Borscht Belt stuff. This film, funny as I find it, (especially the Jonathan Winters character) wasn't edgy even by yesteryear's standards. It runs on too long and has a few flat parts. Pimp owes something to It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World. It shares the theme of zany screwballs pursuing a big score. Alliances are made and discarded according to people's needs. I found the book hilarious. But that is where the similarities end. Pimp is short. Pimp is MUCH more similar to Everybody Smokes in Hell, reviewed here, in that it relentlessly satirizes and mocks the entertainment industry, specifically the publishing and television/film portions of that field. There is some real venom spewed here. Pimp also lacks ANY sympathetic characters. Just about everyone is a scumbag, a killer or would-be killer. Often the only reason the would-be killers aren't killers is due to their incompetence or factors outside of their control. The cops are more interested in busting people than in protecting the innocent. If you need someone to root for this is not the book for you. This is an adult book. People have sex. A lot. Some do so because well they like sex. Others only engage in sex only for manipulation. This second group is not stereotypically limited to women. A running joke throughout the book is that one pitiful male character attempts to blackmail other men about their presence at a famous  Hollywood X-Man director's pool party where lots of gay sex occurred among males, some of whom may have been underage. His extortion attempts often fail because people ask him "Well, what were YOU doing there?" I'm unfamiliar with literary rules concerning the usage of real names and situations but either they have changed or Bruen and Starr couldn't care less. They use real names throughout the book to great comedic value. This is a black comedy. It won't appeal to everyone, but I enjoyed the absurd situations and ridiculous characters. I've discussed some of Starr's solo work before here.

This book is a loose sequel to some of Bruen/Starr's previous work but it's not necessary to have read the previous books. In fact, given that many of the characters have WILDLY different interpretations of what really happened, it might even be preferable not to have read previous books. The primary two characters are Max Fisher, a criminal jack of all trades and his former secretary and girlfriend Angela Petrakos. They have a turbulent history together which ended up with Max being sent to Attica and Angela going on the lam as an adult actress, But bad pennies always turn up. Max has escaped from Attica. Max has discovered a new designer drug (the title of the book is the drug's street name: Peyote +Insulin +Mescaline +Psychosis) which he thinks will make him rich. Despite being described as looking like Phillip Seymour Hoffman post-autopsy, Max is a very dangerous individual who thrives in the confrontational world of drug dealing. A former associate of Max's, a failed writer named Paula Segal, convinces a publishing house to option her book called Bust, largely based on Max's adventures. The book becomes a massive hit. Angela gets wind of this and decides that she is the best person to produce a Bust inspired TV series. Various people, some connected to Max and Angela, many others not, crawl out of the woodwork trying to get their piece of the pie. Everyone from a Kardashian sister to Angela's old boyfriend(s) to a particularly scummy producer shows up looking to get paid. Many of these people do not like each other. Some have previously tried to kill each other. Max initially doesn't know about these events as with typical bravado he has set up his drug empire HQ across from a NYC police station. Max did this deliberately because that particular precinct is where his relentless detective pursuer works. In disguise, Max can't resist walking by the cops. 

This is a quick thrill ride of a book. It's not deep into characterization. It's more about the moment than anything else. Consider this some really good fast food. There are lots of pop-culture and meta-fictional riffs on the nature of the publishing business, including the book's cover. If you can enjoy absurd situations without feeling that you have to sympathize or empathize with the characters you may like this book. This book parodies everyone. A woman's German accent is described as "about as soothing as a swift kick to the balls". A would be gigolo with a resemblance to the author Lee Child impersonates the author in order to live off women. Unfortunately since he can't write a lick this scam's half-life is pretty short.

San Jose Anti-Trump Protests and the Right to Assemble

I will not vote for Donald Trump in the fall election. There are numerous reasons for this, too many to list here. I think that Trump is despicable for spreading rumors and lies about President Obama's birthplace and religion. I think Trump is a bigot with a history of bigoted words and actions. But there are many people who will vote for Trump. I don't think that all of these people are horrible racists and/or inbred rural residents with stingy dental plans and roiling resentment over Reconstruction. But even if that were indeed the case the fundamental deal in America is that everyone gets to have a say, including people that we dislike or even hate. This was actually going to be another post on the importance of the entire First Amendment. That post may show up later with a slightly different emphasis, I guess. It all depends on the Day Job workload. But if you didn't hear about it already, on Thursday, people who were apparently opposed to Donald Trump physically attacked a number of Trump supporters at a Trump rally in San Jose, California. Now there are better writers than I who will argue in flowery abstruse academic language that Trump has legitimized a certain level of political violence through his ugly words and/or has no problem with violence as long as "his people" are delivering the beatdowns. In this POV all the San Jose protesters were doing is responding to previous violence. It's Trump and his goons who are the real bad guys. Right. This sounds good but it completely misses the point. Every American has the right to peacefully assemble and support the candidate of his/her choice without being physically attacked. Period. If we can no longer agree on that basic point then this country really does need to break apart. Let's call it a day. There is no level of rhetoric that makes it okay to respond with violence. SAN JOSE, Calif. —Protests outside a Donald Trump rally in downtown San Jose spun out of control Thursday night when some demonstrators attacked the candidate’s supporters. Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning the hats and snapping selfies with the charred remains. “The San Jose Police Department made a few arrests tonight after the Donald Trump Rally,” police said in a statement. “As of this time, we do not have specific information on the arrests made. There has been no significant property damage reported. One officer was assaulted.” In one video circulating widely on social media, two protesters tried to protect a Trump supporter as other protesters attacked him and called him names. 


Perhaps the most jarring scene was that of a young female Trump supporter being attacked by a crowd of protesters. In multiple videos of the incident, the woman initially appeared to be happily posing in her Trump football jersey in front of the mostly male protesters, some of whom can be heard whistling and shouting at her. 
Then an anonymous arm rises over the crowd and tosses an egg at the woman, striking her in the head and eliciting howls and laughter from the crowd. A second later, a red water balloon bursts against the woman’s arm. At first, the woman tries to shrug off the attacks, smiling while appearing to reach out toward the Mexican flags that some protesters are waving. Objects keep crashing into the convention center windows behind her, however, and protesters can be heard screaming expletives at her. Suddenly, another projectile strikes her hard in the face. Eventually, someone comes to help her and, after she indicates that she is having trouble seeing, she is ushered back inside the convention center.

Although excessive American nationalism is unpopular with some, do protesters (citizens or not) really think that waving a foreign flag while attacking American citizens is going to make American voters more sympathetic to their cause? It irritated me and I despise Trump. It is a HORRIBLE bit of messaging. There's just no way around this. All the protesters are doing is confirming the stereotypical narrative of some Trump supporters. The proper way to respond to a charge that people of Mexican heritage and/or left wing political stances are violent is probably not for people with one or more or those characteristics to go into the streets and beat people up. I can respect the strong feelings of attachment to one's native land or to the land of one's parents. But carrying the Mexican flag while burning the US flag sends the wrong message to US citizens, even those who won't vote for Trump under any circumstances. In this country, ideally we have campaigns and elections in order to peacefully try to convince each other of the rightness of our positions. If political violence in the US becomes normalized again then I dare say we will start to look more like the countries which many of our current immigrants (legal or otherwise) fled. Or worse we will look like the US of the 1920s. And that would be a shame. Increased political violence based on ethnic grievance supports the thesis of people at both extremes of the political spectrum who are convinced that assimilation is a waste of time because demography is destiny. Whether it's an aged Trump supporter throwing elbows or a youthful Trump detractor punching someone political violence is wrong and dangerous. This needs to stop now before it winds up impacting the actual election. Do we really want to decide elections based on who can bring more button men to the polls? If anti-Trump protesters feel emboldened enough to beat up people for attending a Trump rally then what will they do to people who vote the "wrong" way? This may sound like fun and games if you're a thug who happens to live in an area where the overwhelming majority is demographically and ideologically identical to you. It's probably not so great if you are the lone Black family in the town of Keep Running N*****!!, Mississippi. No matter what your political beliefs may be using violence against people simply for having opposing thoughts is wrong. The only legitimate reason for violence is self-defense. Self-defense was not what happened in San Jose. That is not what this country is supposed to represent.

This isn't about whether we like Trump or not. I've been clear that I don't like Trump. It's about what's right or wrong. Since I called out the Trump bullyboys who felt empowered to throw elbows when they outnumbered people they didn't like I must do the same for the San Jose whack jobs who think they can put paws on their political opponents. That behavior is disgusting no matter who does it. Saying that Trump's supporters deserved some smacks is the same logic that blames an abused spouse for not shutting up and thus avoiding a beating. It's dumb logic. If the US can allow American Nazis to exercise their rights to protest, organize and march let's not have excuses claiming that the Trump supporters deserved what they got. I don't want a heckler's or rather rioter's veto on political speech. Once you start going down the path that your political opponents do not have the right to gather or speak then you're letting everyone know that you do not believe in or for that matter belong in a constitutional form of government. Again, some may believe and for all I know may be correct that Trump supporters are scum. But even scum get to vote and express themselves. On Thursday a small mob of people assaulted other people because they didn't like their political views. What happens when they decide they don't like what someone else wrote or what religion someone is? Free speech and the right to assemble are important elements of the fabric of democracy. When you start pulling those strings willy nilly the entire political quilt falls apart like a cheap suit. This crap needs to end. Because we know what the next move is. But who knows what happens after that? You want to beat Trump? You want to wipe the smirk off his face and those of his supporters? Register and vote. But attacking people at a political rally is stupid, counterproductive and morally abhorrent.

What's your take on these incidents?

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: Blood of My Blood

The show has moved past the published books, but nevertheless still has a few plot lines from the published books to explore. Although I think some of these worked better than others I am impressed with how well the show does with some themes that bored me to tears on the written page. But then again there are also some story lines which seem to be pretty circular. More on that in a moment. Anyhow we open up with Meera doing her best to drag Bran and his cart through the snowy forest. But Meera is not Brienne. And Bran is not a little kid anymore. Meera does her best but the walking dead are gaining on her and Bran. Bran is time traveling again but this time he's seeing events happen almost all at once. He's seeing his father's murder, the Mad King's pronouncements and death, battles, etc. The cart gets stuck. Meera is exhausted and finally can't go on any longer. At that point a horseman with a covered face rides up. He has a flaming flail which he puts to good use against the dead. He seemingly effortlessly lifts Bran and Meera onto the horse and rides off. Later on this fellow, who doesn't quite look all that healthy, kills a rabbit for food while telling Bran the last time that he saw him he was much younger. Yes you guessed it. It's long lost uncle Benjen Stark. When last seen Benjen was leading an expedition north of the Wall looking for White Walkers. Well he found them. He got a spear through his guts for his troubles. But the Children of the Forest healed him or rather, slowed the change from human to Wight. Benjen is certainly not completely human anymore. But neither is he the walking dead. He's something else. Benjen says that the Three Eyed Raven summoned him to protect Bran. And since he says Bran is the Three Eyed Raven now it's not clear if Bran has always been the Three Eyed Raven or if Benjen was referring to the previous man with that title. Bran says he's not ready but Benjen says that the Night King will come to the Wall where Bran will meet him. Only all of human existence may rest on Bran's shoulders.That doesn't look good for the humans, let me tell you.

Sam and Gilly are riding to Sam's home of Horn Hill. They have what appears to be an official escort. Sam yammers on about different trees and climates throughout Westeros but Gilly can tell that he's just talking because he's nervous. That's okay as she finds that preferable to uncomfortable silences. Sam reminds Gilly that it's a matter of some importance to remember that (1) as far as his family is concerned Sam Jr. is his biological son and (2) Gilly doesn't need to mention that she's a wildling. Sam's father Randyll, who is apparently one fierce dude, doesn't like wildlings. Sam is apprehensive of seeing his father again. Being around people who promise to kill you unless you leave home will do that I guess. Upon arrival Sam's mother and sister are happy to see him. His father and brother are out hunting. At the family dinner Gilly is uncomfortable with the finery and the silverware while Sam is downright petrified. Do you remember the last time one of your parents was really angry or frustrated with you? I don't mean normal annoyance but actual rage or contempt. Well multiply that by about ten thousand and you'll still not reach the intensity of the "What a putz" death glare that Randyll Tarly is giving his first born son. He doesn't think the Night's Watch has changed Sam at all. Randyll is direct and surprisingly canny. He's unimpressed with Sam's stories of small game hunting. When Sam asks for more bread from his mother his father interrupts to say "I guess you aren't fat enough already." Gilly can't take any more of this. She tells Randyll of Sam's deeds of daring, including protecting her north of the Wall and killing White Walkers and Thenns.

Well nobody believes in White Walkers, but Randyll picks up on the "north of the Wall" slip that Gilly made. He figures out that she is a wildling. He is disgusted that his son is literally sleeping with the enemy. He says that he thought Gilly was just a Molestown whore but apparently he overestimated his son. Imagine that. The women leave the dinner table., disappointed with Randyll's biting cruelty. Randyll gets down to brass tacks. He says that it's disgraceful that Sam brought such a woman to his dinner table. Gilly can stay and work in the kitchens but Sam needs to leave. He is not welcome. Not now. Not ever. Sam meekly accepts this. Later on Gilly tries to cheer up Sam. Sam apologizes for not standing up to his Dad. He says that making sure that she and Sam Jr. are safe is the most important thing. He leaves. But then showing he has some stones after all Sam says f*** it and comes back for Gilly and Sam Jr. He also takes his father's prized Valyrian sword, Heartsbane. Sam says that if Daddy wants it back he can come and get it. Tommen goes to see the High Sparrow (THS). Tommen is not happy about Margaery's upcoming walk of shame. Tommen is trying to find a way to stop this. THS lets Tommen see Margaery. Margaery is very calm. She speaks in platitudes. She claims THS has actually helped her understand and deal with her sins. Tommen's confused as usual. Margaery says that everyone needs to atone. Margaery seems to be bursting with happiness of all things. Jaime watches the Tyrell army enter, led by Mace Tyrell. The true Tyrell leader, Olenna, is in a coach listening to her son's bluster. No one seems super inspired by Mace's speech but orders are orders. Spears are lowered and shields are raised. Margaery, attended by THS and surrounded by crowds and the Faith Militant, is about to start her walk when Jaime, virtually radiating bad intentions, rides up to THS and tells him to back down. Give up Margarey and Loras or there will be blood. 

THS tells Jaime to a) come get one in the yarbles and b) he and his don't fear death, they welcome it. There's some more "Yeah you're gonna do what???" tough guy talk before THS seemingly backs down. He says there will be no walk of atonement for Margaery. But the reason for this is that THS says that Margaery has atoned by bringing someone else into the true light of faith. The doors of the Sept open and out walks Tommen, with Kingsguard wearing the seven pointed star of the faith. Mace doesn't understand but his mother peevishly tells him that THS has beaten them again. Shortly after this clusterf***, Tommen removes Jaime as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Attacking the faith is a big no-no. He's sending Jaime out of the city to go take Riverrun back. It seems that Littlefinger was telling the truth about the Tully regrouping. Later on, as the incest doublemint twins engage in foreplay, Jaime tells his sister that rather than leave her to go to the Riverlands, he'd rather kill THS. He thinks he can hire Bronn and a few good men to do that. Cersei, of all people, counsels patience. Sometimes you must smile in your enemies' faces. Jaime is worried about his sister's upcoming trial but she reminds him that she has the (undead) Mountain. We cut away before the twincest commences in earnest. Speaking of Riverrun Walder Frey is very angry that his sons have lost Riverrun and allowed the Blackfish (Catelyn's uncle) to make it a center of resistance. Walder reminds them that the Tullys have lorded it over the Freys for three centuries, but that the Red Wedding should have put an end to that. The Frey sons protest that it's not their fault but that some other families are rising up in support of the Blackfish. Sounding like several middle managers I have known Walder says that it IS their fault. Don't give him any excuses or bring him any bad news. He's tired of people laughing at the Freys. He tells his sons to make the Blackfish yield or else. To help them on this mission he tells them to take Edmure Tully with them and threaten his life.

In Braavos Arya watches the actors depict the events of the Purple Wedding, where Joffrey died. She likes seeing Joffrey die. She's impressed by Lady Crane's soliloquy as Cersei. The actress playing Sansa also watches Lady Crane closely even though she's not in the scene. Arya steals backstage. After a brief period of hesitation she poisons Lady Crane's rum. The play is over. The actors, excited and squabbling as usual, come backstage. One of the interesting thing about humans is that we are prone to recognizing faces after we've seen them a few times. Lady Crane recognizes Arya. Arya claims to be a fan named Mercy and even suggests a few changes to the script. Lady Crane is amused. She says she can only work with what she's given. THIS statement causes a big fight as one of the other actors, who apparently doubles as writer, takes offense. He's sarcastic about his writing not being good enough for an actress of Lady Crane's talents but it will have to do won't it? Resentments flare all around as the other actors seem to know that Lady Crane is better than they are. But Arya has deduced who wants Lady Crane dead. Arya's made a decision. She slaps the poisoned drink out of Lady Crane's hands. Arya points to the actress playing Sansa and tells Lady Crane to be careful of her, she wants you dead. However the Waif has also infiltrated the troupe. As you might expect she can't wait to run and tell Jaqen H'ghar what went down. Busy slicing a face off a corpse Jaqen says Arya's desertion is a shame because she had gifts. Oh well. He tells the Waif that when she kills Arya, don't let her suffer. Meanwhile Arya has retrieved her sword Needle. She's hiding out underground. In what I thought was the night's most pointless scene Daenerys reunites with Drogon. In a deliberate echo to her husband Khal Drogo's speech she asks her men if they will cross the black sea, kill the men in the iron suits and tear down their stone houses. When they reply in the affirmative she tells them that they are all her bloodriders. She will ask them more than any Khal has ever asked but they will accomplish more than anyone else ever has.

What I liked

• The conclusion of the Arya training storyline. She's Arya, not no one. It might have been more effective if we had ever had any doubt that she wasn't but so it goes.
• Randyll Tarly was everything that I imagined he would be. That "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" scene was well written and well acted. No death. No nudity. No magic. Just uncomfortable family dynamics.
• The show seems to do better, even though this episode was mostly transitional, when it cuts down on jumping between multiple scenes.
• Margaery is playing a long game. I'm not sure how it works yet but she knows that she can't trust Tommen to stand up for her. And she loves her brother very much. Of course Margaery didn't know of her father's and grandmother's plans.
• Good to see Walder Frey again. I wish him a slow painful humiliating death but it was still good to see him.
• Interested to see where this Tully last stand goes.
• The Daario throwaway line that Daenerys is a conqueror, not ruler could portend some changes in how the show depicts Daenerys. She's mostly been seen thru the lens of grrlpower and rightful ruler and liberator of slaves but that might not be how the people at the bottom see her. Remember that Robb Stark was the good guy but as that scene with Brienne showed us Robb had rapists and murderers in his army. You don't engage in war without harming innocents.

What I didn't like

• The Daenerys travelogues are starting to get more than tedious. Surprise the nasty misogynist men who underestimate you? Give inspiring speech? Burn enemies? Been there done that. Less talking more doing.
• As long as Uncle Benjen is going to show up just in time why couldn't he have been there before Hodor and Summer went the way of all flesh?
• Wouldn't Cersei and Jaime and Olenna have figured out by now that Tommen is the weak sister of the group. They should have ensured that Tommen was kept away from THS.

Movie Reviews: Exposed

Exposed
directed by Gee Malik Linton 

The listed stars of this film are Keanu Reeves and Mira Sorvino. But that is a bait and switch. They get a fair amount of screen time, well at least Reeves does, but they aren't very important to the story at all. Their roles could have each been played by other people with little change to the movie. We can't really judge effort but neither of the supposed leads appear to be giving it their all in this flick. As you might expect that's much more obvious with Reeves than Sorvino. While Sorvino is almost doing a parody of an east coast street smart extroverted Italian-American, Reeves is somnolent throughout the entire movie. He speaks in mumbles and is hard to understand. He is one low energy dude. It would be interesting to know what attracted Reeves and Sorvino to this movie. I wonder if they just really liked the script or were doing a favor for someone or wanted to help out lesser known people by attaching their name to this movie. Or maybe JUST MAYBE the studio wanted more marketable stars (read white stars) attached to a story that otherwise is dominated by less well known black and hispanic characters. The movie's Black director and writer, Gee Malik Linton, apparently became so irritated by interference with his film that he took his name off the movie in favor of a pseudonym. I don't like micromanagers either. Who does? But he who pays the piper calls the tune. Anyway I scribbled all that to inform you that if you decide to see this movie because of Reeves and Sorvino, please remember that they aren't the important ones in this film. This film fails miserably as a cop thriller because Reeves can't be bothered even to pretend to have the strutting testosterone drenched swagger so stereotypically associated with members of the NYPD. Reeves was miscast. 

Canadian Geese: Pest or Danger?

I live in a semi-rural suburban development. It's not too far from both a river and a lake. And there are many small and large ponds, brooks, streams and creeks near my residence. Combined with the trees this means there are lots and lots of birds. More to the point this means there are lots and lots of waterfowl: ducks, swans and especially Canadian geese. This last group is a big problem. First off they appear to have gotten used to staying in the area year round. Like annoying in-laws or distant relatives they drop in and never ever leave. Next they produce a truly astounding amount of waste material. Between the ducks and geese you really need to watch where you walk. And their biggest irritating feature, thanks in part to people feeding them, is that the geese seem to have lost most of the fear that wild animals normally have for humans. As this is their nesting season they are particularly aggressive around this time. And a Canadian Goose is already a pretty belligerent bird. Whereas the ducks usually waddle off at the first sight (smell?) of humans or dogs the geese do not. In the early mornings some geese congregate on sidewalks like they own the place. I wouldn't put it past them to start charging tax to walk on what they clearly consider their property. It's only when a large dog gets super close and gives verbal indication of impending bloodshed that the geese will reluctantly depart the immediate vicinity. I'm not a hunter or a fan of killing animals for fun. I realize that we're all part of the circle of life. But I'm also not a fan of playing hop-scotch on the sidewalk trying to avoid goose crap or watching ponds or lakes die because of the algae build up caused by goose crap. You don't know how much you can hate an animal until you are mowing your lawn and suddenly feel that disgusting squish that lets you know that yes you just stepped into another one of their leavings. And the germs and bacteria these things carry can't be good for pets either. The way I see it these creatures are vermin. We need to reduce their population and/or convince them to leave. Maybe this means extending hunting season. Maybe this means concerted usage of dogs. Maybe this means finding predators who eat Canadian geese or their eggs and bringing them into a target rich environment. Dunno. But I do know that if I see one more green pile of s*** then that's it.

State Department Inspector General and Hillary Clinton's Private Server

Well this is interesting. If Trump's statements and actions give his detractors reason to believe that he is essentially a carnival barker who is willing to say and do anything to close the deal then Clinton's statements and actions give her detractors reason to believe that she has a post-modern relativist understanding of truth. Truth may well be what Clinton says it is at any point in time. The State Department Inspector General report on the Clinton server issue shows that if nothing else Clinton did something she wasn't supposed to do and knew she wasn't supposed to do. 

WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general on Wednesday sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, saying that she had not sought permission to use it and would not have received it if she had. The report, delivered to members of Congress, undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s previous statements defending her use of the server and handed her Republican critics, including the party’s presumptive nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, new fodder to attack her just as she closes in on the Democratic nomination. 

The inspector general found that Mrs. Clinton “had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business” with department officials but that, contrary to her claims that the department “allowed” the arrangement, there was “no evidence” she had requested or received approval for it.  Hillary Clinton should have asked for approval to use a private email address and server for official business. Had she done so, the State Department would have said no. She should have surrendered all of her emails before leaving the administration. Not doing so violated department policies that comply with the Federal Records Act. When her deputy suggested putting her on a State Department account, she expressed concern about her personal emails being exposed. In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us." And Clinton's statements on the issue since then have been full of evasions, half-truths, misdirection and apparent lies. 

Now I suppose you could make the argument that this is no big deal, that all politicians dissemble to a certain extent. But this feeds into the Republican partisan argument that Clinton is congenitally unethical and simply can't be trusted. It also destroys the larger Democratic narrative that the only people making arguments about Clinton's trustworthiness are evil white male misogynist Republicans who strangle female puppies in their spare time. My take on this is that Clinton didn't think that the rules applied to her. This is no different than what I've seen or experienced in any large organization. The people at the top often feel free to ignore or selectively enforce rules to their own benefit for "good" reasons. There are rules and then there are rules. Some people can float through life serenely ignoring rules and rising in power and authority. Other people break one minor regulation and find themselves in an immediate world of hurt. The problem with this behavior is not just that the rules are being broken. It's that the pattern of winks and nods at rule breaking by the big shots and simultaneous punishment of rule breaking by the plebeians does a tremendous harm to the very concept of good governance. It raises cynicism and anger about political motives and promises. And that cynicism and mistrust is why Trump has done as well as he has so far. Saying that you should have an equal right to do just as much wrong as people of a different sex or race may be an accurate and even logical statement. But it's hardly an inspiring or winning political slogan. Clinton had better get in front of this as soon as possible. It's true that most people do not know or care about all the various laws and regulations concerning public communications. But people do care about someone who thinks she's above the rules. I understand if Clinton had a concern about privacy. I am a privacy nut. But when I sign on to my corporate server the very first thing I am reminded of is that I don't own communications sent over the company network. The company does. And the same thing is true of government employees. Official business should be conducted over government owned servers and in accordance with good security protocols.