Jon Stewart and Late Show: Donald Trump

Jon Stewart has a special talent for the describing the phenomenon which is the Donald Trump campaign for President of the United States. Below is his appearance on the Late Show where he goes in on the double standards that the conservative media uses when discussing President Obama and the birther running for President, Donald Trump. I liked what Stewart had to say about conservatives not owning America. It's a point worth repeating over and over again. A lot of Trump's support comes from dismay with or fear of THOSE people. This fall election is going to be very interesting from a blogging perspective, regardless of who wins.

Melania Trump and Plagiarism

Donald Trump has run a deliberately disruptive and occasionally amateurish campaign for President. He's gotten as far as he has by breaking or ignoring the normal rules of political decorum. You can't argue with success I guess. But one rule that Trump and his team probably shouldn't ignore is that you use your own words to tell your own story. Doing otherwise goes against a major theme of Trump's campaign: that he's the only candidate who's honest enough to tell it like it is. Trump's wife, Melania Trump, seemed to violate that campaign focus last night when in her speech, which she claimed to have written herself, she used not only the same theme found in a previous speech by First Lady Michelle Obama, but several of the exact same words and phrases. It was something that was pretty obviously lifted from Michelle Obama's speech. Plagiarism is not only dishonest but it's lazy. In this day and age where anyone and everyone can look up what was said previously, plagiarism is also pretty stupid. The whole point of a wife's convention speech (I guess at the Democratic convention it will be the husband's speech) is to humanize the candidate. The spouse theoretically knows the candidate better than anyone else, so he or she can explain to the world exactly why the candidate is the right person for the job. That's it. It's not rocket science. The speech doesn't have to be anything too personal or intimate. And it can't be something where everyone thinks that the spouse had to have his or her arm twisted to say something positive. All it has to be is something in the spouse's words that make everyone feel good about nominating his or her better half to be their Presidential candidate. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the Trump organization couldn't meet that admittedly low bar of competence. Although the plagiarism scandal is not in truth all that important compared to other world events it is humorous to me. As the saying goes,"If I can't trust you with the small stuff, why would I give you greater responsibility?". Why should Americans vote for a candidate who brings in an immigrant wife to steal American speeches? And if Trump's lady is going to steal speeches why would she steal from the Obamas? I thought the Trumps hated the Obamas? 


Since presumably Trump is not going to fire his wife (not yet at least) I would imagine that after a round of blameshifting and denials, someone is going to have to face the axe. Someone in the Trump campaign presumably had the job of ensuring that Melania's speech was grammatically correct, fit in the allotted time slot and wasn't lifted in whole or part from other speeches. Whoever that person was needs to be unemployed today. Trump is trying to sell people on hard work, authenticity and taking the country back from THEM. That's a hard sell when your wife is cut and pasting swaths of Michelle Obama's speeches. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe as one of my cousins sarcastically noted on Facebook, "Word is your bond" is a phrase found as much in Slovenia as on the South Side of Chicago...

Ms. Trump, Monday night:

“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Mrs. Obama, in her 2008 speech:

“Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Ms. Trump:

“I was born in Slovenia, a small, beautiful and then-Communist country in Central Europe. My sister, Ines, who is an incredible woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hard-working mother, Amalija, introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father, Viktor, instilled in me a passion for business and travel. Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflects to this day on me and for my love of family and America.”

Mrs. Obama, in 2008:

“And I come here as a daughter — raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue-collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother’s love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters.”

 LINK

Book Reviews: Monster Hunter International

Monster Hunter International
by Larry Correia

I had heard different things about this book. Judging by some of his blog posts the author seemed like an optimistic sort though we certainly wouldn't agree on very much politically. Correia has said that this book and the resulting series was inspired in part by his love for classic and cheap horror movies, the kind that come on late night or on Saturday afternoons. This book's premise shared some themes with the Supernatural tv series. So I decided to give this older book, Correia's first and initially self-published novel, a chance. It was an okay read. I liked the opening. I didn't like some of Correia's right-wing swipes at his political betes noires. But compared to some authors (cough* Stephen Hunter* cough) for the most part this book didn't have too many political statements. The characters' behavior is itself an explicit political statement. People tell aspiring writers to write what they know. I guess Correia took that advice. The story protagonist is a Correia avatar in terms of looks, attitude, career path, size and politics. Owen Zastava Pitt is a huge (6'4"+, 300lb+) recent college graduate who works as an accountant. Owen has an interesting family background. His Green Beret father was a disciplinarian survivalist. Owen's father insisted that his sons learn to handle weapons and protect themselves. Owen may be white collar but he can fight, thanks not only to his father's training but also to Owen's past employment as a bouncer and underground cage fighter. When pushed Owen has a bad temper. However in the corporate arena the size of your paycheck means more than your physical size. And Owen doesn't make much money. He's under the thumb of a boss who can charitably be described as an a$$hole. Owen doesn't care for his boss. And the feeling is definitely mutual. One night while Owen is working late with no one else around, his boss calls him into the office and explains that he never did like Owen. And then the boss shifts form and tries to eat Pitt. Yes you see the boss is a werewolf. But Owen is not a man who runs from confrontation. More importantly, he can't outrun a werewolf. dies easily. A knockdown, drag out no holds barred fight ensues. It doesn't help Owen's chances that a werewolf can almost immediately heal itself from most wounds. This was both an exciting fight and something that was almost satire. Long story short, Owen manages to throw his boss out of a 14th story window. Even a werewolf can't regenerate from that. Owen is severely wounded and technically briefly dies. 

Owen wakes up in a hospital regarded cautiously by unfriendly government agents who inform him that if he should tell anyone of his experiences he will disappear, likely permanently. Owen is also greeted by a chain smoking man of indeterminate age who introduces himself as Earl Harbinger and a beautiful serious young woman whose name is Julie Shackleford. Earl and Julie run Monster Hunter International (MHI). MHI is a private company licensed to capture or kill monsters-vampires, werewolves, ghouls, etc. All of these things exist. All of these creatures have various government bounties attached for hunters. MHI gives Owen a check for the werewolf he killed. The fact that Owen was able to kill a werewolf all by himself and hasn't had an emotional breakdown or gone insane means that he's exactly the kind of person that Earl and Julie want to hire. That is,they want to hire him if he's got the stones. Well, stones Owen has in abundance. He will join MHI for the money, the camaraderie, the excitement, the training, the guns and the chance to get next to Julie. She's just Owen's type. There's just a few problems. (1) The enigmatic Earl, Julie's relative, warns Owen that if Owen ever hurts or disappoints Julie, Earl will be displeased. (2) Julie already has a boyfriend with whom she appears to be content. Owen and Julie's man, a MHI supervisor, take an immediate dislike to each other. (3) Although Owen isn't afraid to mix it up physically with any one at any time and is something of a smarta$$, he gets tongue tied around Julie. Either he can't find the words to say to her or stupidly blurts out too much information at exactly the wrong time. But Julie doesn't have time for Owen's goo goo eyes. MHI has new teams to train. They've lost good people chasing monsters. They need to get the new recruits up to speed as soon as possible. Atypically some master vampires have started working together. MHI can't figure out why. But Owen thinks he knows why. Since his short "death" he's been having visions and warnings from a ghostly WW2 era Eastern European Jewish hunter. This hunter knows what's coming and intends to get Owen ready to fight it. And only all existence is at stake.

I thought the book was too long. The description of the swamps and caves where much of the action takes place is excessive. Correia, along with being a former accountant, is also a former firearms instructor and gun dealer. So there is a lot of information about guns. There's endless exposition on choosing the right gun for a particular person or job.  Correia likes guns. YMMV on this. Unlike some of Stephen Hunter's later work though, none of this knowledge is transmitted with a sneering exclusionary "I'm a real American and you're not" tone. MHI rushes from one crisis to another. Some family secrets are revealed. Owen has a self-deprecating sense of humor, most of which revolves around his massive size. The main thing I didn't like about this story is that Owen is too often a deus ex machina when his team gets into a tight fix. That damaged my ability to care about some of the characters. The humor carries this book through some of the (from my POV) leaden political statements or people occasionally doing stupid things to advance the story. All in all I'll probably read the rest of the series. Although the book is in my opinion too long it rarely drags. There's a lot of action. Hijinks and narrow escapes occur on almost every page. I liked Owen's run-ins with the laconic federal agent Franks, who is about as big as Owen and to Owen's dismay MUCH faster and more skilled at fighting than Owen.

Miko Grimes and Anti-Semitic Statements

I was raised to believe that no matter what your family should be united against the outside world. So this means that if your brother gets into a fight with the local college football team you jump in to protect him even if he started it and was utterly in the wrong. If he gets his behind kicked then you'd better be right there on the floor taking the beating with him. If someone calls your sister stupid or otherwise insults her then you rise to her defense even if you think to yourself that the person making that statement may actually have a point. You can cuss out and fight with your relatives later. But if someone else bothers them then that someone else has a problem with you. And this would obviously go double for your husband or your wife. After all you took a vow which, depending on when you were married, probably included some language about forsaking all others, honoring, obeying, and/or protecting your spouse in sickness and health, in good times and bad until you are separated by death. That's not just boilerplate. It's pretty serious stuff. You're taking an oath, after all. None of these ties and bonds, whether familial or romantic, mean that you are always going to like your family or your nookie providers or agree with them. You may well believe that a relative had to have been dropped on their head as a child to be so dumb or idly wonder if your spouse will indeed bequeath an unpleasant trait to your children. But it's your right to have and express those beliefs, no one else's. I'm not going to publicly criticize or distance myself from family even if I think they are 100% offbase. I'll have a discussion with them in private about what I think they're doing wrong. I'm not going to criticize family because an outsider says I should. But I am not married to Miko Grimes, who has a history of statements and actions which would sorely test my commitment to handling family business behind closed doors.
Miko Grimes, the wife of former Miami Dolphins and current Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Brent Grimes, blasted Miami brass on Monday, using anti-Semitic language that she later tried to clarify. In a tweet referencing Dolphins owner Stephen Ross and executive vice president of football operations Mike Tannenbaum, Miko Grimes tweeted:

Gotta respect ross for keeping his jew buddies employed but did he not see how tannenbaum put the jets in the dumpster w/that sanchez deal?

Reached by the Tampa Bay Times, Miko Grimes remained adamant that the insult was only directed at two people and that no one else should be offended by what she said. "What would I have against Jewish people?" she wrote to theTimes in an exchange Monday afternoon. "Why is this the first time I'm being called anti-Semitic, as big as my mouth is, if I really have an issue with Jewish people? Is anything I said false? Do Jewish, Catholic, Christian and frat brothers, etc. hire their own people? … I was intending to offend the Dolphins, specifically Stephen Ross and Mike Tannenbaum. Anyone else that chooses to dive in front of those bullets is their own fault."

Asked about the insinuation that someone would get a job only because of religious ties, she did not back down from her stance. "If you are a GM in the NFL and you happen to be Jewish, nine times out of 10 you will get another job if fired because the majority of the owners are Jewish and 'rumor has it' Jewish people take care of their own," she wrote. "I'm actually quite envious of them. I think it's dope!" The comment was picked up by several national sports sites and ESPN, and the nature of the "Jew buddies" comment has relevance with the Bucs because the Glazer family, which has owned the team since 1995, is Jewish. Bucs co-chair Bryan Glazer last year donated $4 million to a new Jewish Community Center in West Tampa that will carry his family's name. The Bucs were aware of the comment Monday but had no immediate response.

LINK

Leaving aside the substance of Miko Grimes' comments for now, statements attacking alleged Jewish excessive clannishness are indeed often meant and experienced as anti-semitic insults. There's no way that an adult does not know that in 2016. And even if Miko Grimes didn't mean it that way and (insert eyeroll) was just trying to start a serious conversation about (ahem) having a more diverse hiring profile in the NFL, using the term "Jew buddies" isn't the way to go about that. This is especially the case when her husband's new bosses, the people who sign his checks, happen to be Jewish. This isn't the first time that Mrs. Grimes has had some outrageous stuff to say. Her self-described big mouth is part of the reason her husband now works for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers instead of the Miami Dolphins. But this is the big leagues. Racial comments and slurs are not exactly unknown in professional football, in the locker room or out of it. NFL owners and for that matter players can be quite tolerant of bad behavior or loose talk provided they believe that a player can help the team win. Just ask Riley Cooper.  However Brent Grimes is on the downside of his career. He's not as quick or as fast as he used to be. He will likely soon transition out of the NFL. While I wouldn't say Grimes is a marginal player I would say he's at the point where a team might think twice about adding him and his loose cannon wife to the payroll. The competitive benefit might not outweigh the off field headaches. I don't think that the NFL or the Bucs can or should fine Brent Grimes because of what his wife said. She's her own woman. She doesn't work for the NFL. But NFL or not, making public derogatory comments about your spouse's new boss's ethnicity or religion is just not a very smart move in any business setting. Now every relationship is different. We don't know if Miko is speaking for herself or if she's saying things Brent wishes he could say. If I were Brent at the very least I would probably have a short blunt conversation with the wife on things we don't say in public.

What's your take? Should people be responsible for their spouse's statements?

Philando Castile, Dallas, and Blowback

On July 6th, in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, local police stopped a car driven by school cook Philando Castile. Castile was a black man. Also in the car was Castile's girlfriend Lavish Reynolds and Reynolds' four year old daughter. According to Reynolds the police demanded that Castile produce his license and registration. Although I'm not sure he was legally required to do so Castile allegedly informed the officers that he was a licensed gun permit holder and had his weapon with him.  An officer, allegedly Jeronimo Yanez, then shot Castile multiple times as Castile reached for his paperwork as directed. The police yell and and freak out as Castile slumps in his seat, dying. Reynolds was prescient and calm enough (with guns pointed at her and her daughter) to livestream the post-shooting events to Facebook. You can watch it here if you want to do so. The police ordered Reynolds out of the car. They handcuffed and detained her. Reynolds broke down later. To literally give the devil his due we don't see the events that occurred before the shooting. But we do know that Castile was legally entitled to have his gun. We don't know when and why the officers unholstered their guns. The lawyer for Yanez stated that the traffic stop was initiated because Castile resembled a robbery suspect because of his "wide nose". Reynolds stated that they were told they were stopped because of a malfunctioning tail light. But that doesn't really matter. Castile is just as dead. His crime? Being black and following instructions. Problematic doesn't even begin to describe this. Because Castile had no felony record the normal post death smears to his reputation won't be as easy to do. However the lowlifes who do things like that are even now poring over Castille's and Reynolds' social media accounts to find something to justify Castille's death. Some mental midgets were stating that Reynolds must have stolen her cigarettes. 

I would love to believe that if I just did A, B and C then I and people who look like me would be safe from police violence. But that's just not the case. You can have a pristine record, be entirely innocent, follow the officer's instructions (legal or not) to the letter and still wind up insulted, brutalized, humiliated or dead. Police initiate negative contact with black people, especially black men, at higher rates than they do with white people. If you are black the officer is more likely to search you or your vehicle, regardless of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Anything other than instantaneous abject compliance can cause the officer to resort to deadly violence. And as Castile and Reynolds found out, even compliance isn't enough. 

These incidents would be bad enough if officers who broke the law or violated departmental regulations were punished when the evidence supports punishment. But generally speaking they aren't. A cop can be caught on video unlawfully beating or killing someone, but it's still a good bet that s/he won't be charged. It's a big deal if an officer even loses his job. Officers are rarely charged and even more rarely convicted of crimes against black citizens. Local district attorneys work with police and greatly value that relationship. The FBI isn't any better because it investigates itself and to my "great surprise" (LOL)  always finds shootings by FBI agents to be justified. Judges are often former district attorneys. Black people are underrepresented in jury pools. Segregated housing tracts and deformed voting registration patterns produce jury pools which are not only whiter on average than the country's population but also may lack first hand experience with police who are not the Officer Friendly stereotype. Officers can, as is their right, avoid jury trials. And if all that fails and against all odds a police officer somehow finds himself on trial he can pull out his ace card and say "I feared for my life." That pretty much trumps everything. Going to prison for murder or manslaughter is not a normal outcome for killer cops.

This is a problem. It's not just that police commit needless violence against black citizens. It's that too many people of all races have come to believe that the justice system won't or can't do anything about it. The reason we have a justice system is so people won't take the law into their own hands. But it appears that police are above justice. So what is the logical next step once you have the firm belief that the justice system can't be fixed or reformed? It's violence. It's what we saw in Dallas on July 7th when an Army Reserve Afghan war veteran, one Micah Xavier Johnson, allegedly murdered five white police officers. Supposedly his rationale for doing that was because, like many other black people he was upset about the cycle of black death at the hands of police. Johnson felt justified in reaching out and sharing this pain. People tend to get very upset when anyone points that out. People say violence is never the answer and so on. Well, let's be real.This country was founded on violent revolution. The Founding Fathers didn't engage in sit-ins, talk about loving and forgiving their enemies or claim that God would make everything ok at some unspecified future date. They started shooting the British. They continued shooting the British until the British decided that keeping the American colonies wasn't worth it. This country expanded via application of superior violence against the indigenous inhabitants. If you live in the US you live in a country that had one of the most successful genocidal conquests in history. Many of the very same people who are demanding we weep for the cops murdered in Dallas will turn around and claim that the elimination of Native Americans is nothing to be ashamed of. Stuff happens, you know. Slavery was only ended via violence. Our movies, books and other entertainment constantly lionize the hero who takes matters into his own hands defeats or kills his enemies. There is a fundamental strain in American politics and culture to dismiss people who can't or won't fight back. It's seen as weakness and viewed with contempt. Very few people in any position of power have any respect for the man who follows Jesus' advice during the Sermon on the Mount to "resist not evil." and "turn the other cheek." Maybe we'd all be better off if we did heed such words but the truth of the matter is that as Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown) pointed out a long time ago, "Violence is as American as cherry pie". If you won't stand up for yourself in this world no body else will. It's only when Black people turn to violence that the larger society's outrage over violence becomes palpable. We actually have someone suing the President and other black men for inciting racial hatred. Think about this for a moment. People on the right have called the President and his family monkeys and apes and subhuman and everything but a child of God. They have prayed for the President's death, depicted his death and threatened his life. They've claimed that he's not American. They've said nasty things about his mother. Many have it made it crystal clear via vile jokes and plain direct statements that they hate black people. Now some fellow travelers of these yahoos are suing the President for inciting racism. If this wasn't so serious you'd just have to laugh.

I could condemn people who kill innocent police officers and police officers who kill innocent civilians but too often many police in this country refuse to acknowledge that there even is such a thing as an innocent black civilian. There are just blacks they haven't gotten around to frisking or arresting yet. Some police shoot first and ask questions later. While politicians and police are falling over themselves to share their sympathies for the murdered police officers in Dallas, you will never see an outpouring of police support for murdered black citizens. The best you might get is a bland statement about process. Often you'll get callous indifference. At worst you see jokes, glee and even celebration. Politicians, district attorneys and media pundits will sneer that the murdered black citizen's family is only out for money. Some will claim that hey this dead black (wo)man was no angel. So if this country in 2016 is still unwilling to charge and convict police officers who kill black citizens then it should prepare itself for more Micah Johnsons. There's only so much that people can take before they finally realize that they aren't the only ones who can bleed. Everybody bleeds. If we want to stop more shooting of police officers then we need to stop police shooting of black civilians. We're at a crossroads in American society. We've tried retraining police, marching, praying, boycotting, begging, pleading etc to no avail. This is not about individual good or bad cops. This is about a systemic institutional framework that views black people, especially black men and boys, as threats to be monitored or eliminated. This is a problem which impacts all black people, regardless of class, wealth, status, sexuality, gender, political stance or other characteristics. Conservative South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, with whom I disagree probably 75% of the time has stories to tell of being racially profiled and harassed, even as an elected official. How do we fix all of this? I don't know. Black people were never supposed to be citizens in this country. But I do know that we can't have any more Tamir Rices or Aiyana Stanley-Jones. I have loved ones in New York and other cities with aggressive combative police. If something happened to them and a police officer walked free I would be hard pressed to sing kumbyah. I love my kin just as much as the family members of the slain officers in Dallas loved theirs.

This is not 1920s America. You'd be foolish to believe that. I don't live in the same world my great-grandparents inhabited. But there's still too much today that would be bitterly familiar to them in terms of police behavior and the larger society's refusal to hold police accountable. Typically, conservatives have sought to blame the messenger, though there are a few conservatives who recognize that there's a problem and have some ideas about what to do next. As NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick wrote, "This is what lynchings look like in 2016".  Either we rebuild the system to reduce the possibility of police violence and punish unlawful police violence as severely as we do that of other citizens or we all get guns and start shooting back. No one wins but black people won't be bleeding alone.

Movie Reviews: 10 Cloverfield Lane

10 Cloverfield Lane
directed by Dan Trachtenberg

This film tries and succeeds in having it both ways. It  could be a sequel or even a reworking of the 2008 movie Cloverfield and a film that stands completely on its own. The events in Cloverfield are only obliquely referenced if at all. In fact for the vast majority of 10 Cloverfield Lane the events of the previous film do not matter. As the previous film came out 8 years previously 10 Cloverfield Lane would have to be its own film anyway. This movie is mostly a psychological thriller. If you are the sort of person who has a low tolerance for violence this film is generally safe to watch as violence doesn't occur very much. There are only three primary characters in the entire film. On the other hand the film definitely uses a variety of techniques to make you think that violence is imminent. And when the violence does happen it's not cheap or played for laughs. It actually has a purpose. You care about the people it touches. The film regularly ratchets up and relieves tension or makes you think that it relieves tension. Although the film touches on the weird and the abnormal mostly near the ending of the film, everything else that has happened prior is really the meat and potatoes of the movie. The comedian Louis C.K has a thoughtful little bit about how weird, strange, and wonderful it is that women ever go out with men at all considering that men can pose significant physical dangers to women. Humans do not have the greatest sexual dimorphism in mammalian species but our average sexual size differences are great enough that most people would cringe at the idea of a woman fighting a man. I was reminded of Louis C.K.'s bit watching this movie. There is a strong argument to be made that this entire film is actually a parable about domestic violence. 10 Cloverfield Lane puts me in mind of some old Tales From The Crypt or Twilight Zone episodes. This movie is an example of how a low budget and limited sets need not harm a movie if the acting and writing are good, as is the case here. Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a tall but slightly built woman (5-8, 120-130lbs?) who just had an argument with her boyfriend, She hits the road. But she doesn't get too far before she's sideswiped by a truck and forced off the road. Her car tumbles and flips.

She's hurt and blacks out. When Michelle wakes up she's chained to a wall in a basement somewhere. Her cell phone doesn't work. The man who brings her food is the hulking (6-2, 250lb+) Howard (John Goodman). Howard claims to have found Michelle at the accident site and brought her home to his underground bunker. He doesn't explain why he chained her to the wall. Howard may or may not have sexual interest in Michelle. The movie keeps that ambiguous. Is Howard looking for a daughter surrogate or a sexual surrogate or a friend or some whacked out combination of all three. We don't know. What's isn't ambiguous is that Howard is both a lonely man and a domineering one. Although he eventually unchains Michelle he won't let her leave the bunker. Howard says that there has been some sort of big attack. The air is unbreathable and radioactiove. It could be the end of the world. A former military man, Howard has been waiting and preparing for just such an occasion. That is why he has a bunker and little ameneties like backup generators, air purifiers, toilets and showers that share water and everything else your friendly neighborhood survivalist could possibly want. Howard thinks that it could be a year or more before it's safe to leave the bunker. Michelle may as well forget about any friends or family she has. They're dead. Michelle should be very thankful to Howard as far as Howard is concened. And if she's smart she'll let Howard know how grateful she is. As Howard outweighs Michelle by over 100 pounds, is apparently a few fries short of a happy meal and is never without his revolver, Michelle finds that agreeing with Howard is usually the path of least resistance. But she has plans and questions. She haltingly shares these with the other bunker resident Emmett (John Gallagher), a handyman who believes at least some of Howard's story. Howard doesn't seem to like Emmett very much. Howard only reluctantly let Emmet into the bunker. Howard definitely doesn't want Emmett talking too much to Michelle. Over time this group of people slowly learns to live together. But Michelle finds too much that is odd or questionable about Howard's story and for that matter Howard himself. Howard's need for emotional and physical control makes for an unstable living arrangement. Just do what I say and don't make me hurt you is not an ethos which adds to domestic tranquility. Michelle is too smart to ignore logical inconsistencies for long. The viewer will enjoy watching Michelle pick up on things in Howard's story that bother her or contradict evidence of her own senses. There's a lot of gaslighting going on in this story. That technique is actually Howard's go to weapon. Howard also notices more than he lets on and is much smarter than some people realize.

The vast majority of this film takes place in very small areas. This adds to the claustrophobic feel of the movie. Goodman is very impressive here. He is self-pitying without being whiny. He can give off dangerous vibes just by asking simple questions. If you have ever seen or lived with emotionally volatile people Goodman's character of Howard will be familiar.  Michelle and Emmet each have a vested interest in reading Howard's moods and trying to figure out his thoughts ahead of time. An angry Howard is a dangerous Howard. Michelle is realistic in that she uses the tools she has to attempt to discover what's truly going on. There is also some foreshadowing put to good use. Howard compels Michelle to do something for his benefit that can only be done by her, not realizing that the canny Michelle will later do this same thing for her own purposes. All in all this was a good movie. But don't watch it if you are expecting butt-kicking babes, tons of special effects or loads and loads of violence.
TRAILER

Professor Nagel Sires 22 Children

A little over a decade ago the film director Spike Lee made a movie which was titled She Hate Me. Among other things this film depicted the plight of a desperate biotech executive who, running into political, racial and financial problems at work, starts a lucrative side hustle of being the sperm donor for (primarily) lesbian women looking to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term. The movie's hook was that the executive and many of his clients preferred that the actual impregnation occurred in the old-fashioned face to face "hands-on" way. Well it wasn't always face to face strictly speaking (snicker) but no turkey basters, laboratories or other artificial methods were involved, thank you very much. I watched this movie mostly for Dania Ramirez, Monica Bellucci and Kerry Washington, all of whom are as far as I'm concerned, good enough reasons to watch most movies. Critics generally panned She Hate Me as dumb, unrealistic and of course "misogynistic". All the "serious" critics and sexuality "experts" told us that such a thing would never happen. Lesbians would never ever ever do such a thing. After all, by definition lesbians are not interested in intimate or romantic contact with a man, right? This film was just fevered sexist fantasy no doubt inspired by male fears over the rightfully lessening cultural and economic importance of masculinity. The movie was not only a critical flop but a financial one as well. And beautiful actresses not withstanding I would have to admit that the movie was not Lee's best work. Not by a long shot.  It was actually a film that made me think that I should probably wait to see what lots of other people thought of a Spike Lee film before I spent money or time on it. Well sometimes life is just as strange as fiction. In New York, some folks who apparently watched She Hate Me a few times too many have shown that the central premise of Lee's film actually does work for some people. 

On a busy night last week at the Target on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, Ari Nagel, 40, emerged from the men’s bathroom looking a little flushed and quite pleased with himself. “It’s better when it’s fresh,” he told them. “It” is Nagel’s semen, and it’s in demand. The 6-foot-2 CUNY Kingsborough math professor has served as a sperm donor for dozens of locals, siring 22 kids over the past 12 years with 18 women of various backgrounds. For lesbian couples and single ladies looking to have a baby without the expense of going through a sperm bank (which can run in the thousands of dollars), he’s the No. 1 dad. “This isn’t time-consuming, and I’m doing it anyway,” he says of his hands-on hobby. “It’s very easy for me to do.” His oldest child, now 12, was conceived with a woman he was in a committed relationship with, but all of his offspring since, he says, have resulted from his donations.

About half the time, he provides his seed the old-fashioned way. Sometimes, a lesbian looking to conceive will have her partner in the bed for moral support while she and Nagel engage in intercourse. “She’s never slept with a guy before, so the partner’s in bed, holding her hand,” Nagel explains. “Sometimes, it could be a little painful, then after a few times, they’re comfortable to do it on their own.” Other times, he supplies his goods in a cup, which he prefers. And Nagel’s seed-sowing isn’t a drain on his love life. He doesn’t make a point of mentioning it on dates, but when it comes up, ladies typically don’t mind. “Never underestimate the desperation of a single woman on the Upper West Side,” he says.

But it’s not all sunshine and babies. The first five women he worked with successfully sued him for child support, and nearly half of his paycheck is garnished for his offspring. “I don’t know what’s more surprising: that five sued or that 17 didn’t,” Nagel says. “They were all well aware there was no financial obligation on my part. They all promise in advance they won’t sue.” Crystal, a Connecticut woman who has two sons, 6 and 7, by Nagel, says she wasn’t aware of any such arrangement.

The 45-year-old mom, who took Nagel to court for child support, says that she was expecting to co-parent with him and that she didn’t know of his plans to father an entire baseball team. Nagel’s progeny isn’t limited to the tri-state area. He has kids in Florida, Illinois, Virginia, Connecticut and Israel. Some he sees once a week, some he sees once a year, some he’s never met.

I don't really care how people live their lives. And I don't care about how many children any person has or doesn't have. That is a personal decision. If you have the time and resources to raise and support your children go for it. As the song goes, it's your thing. Do what you want to do. I can't tell you who to sock it to. But one thing that is worth mentioning is that Nagel and the women with whom he's interacting are deliberately depriving the children of a parent or at least of a father. There are consequences to running around and being irresponsible that don't just impact the adults who are involved. At the extremes this sort of behavior raises the chances, however slightly, of accidental incest as there are a number of half-siblings created who will not know each other or grow up together. Ugh. But even putting that aside I've always thought that it's just a crappy thing to do to bring a child into the world when you lack the ability or desire to build a parental relationship with that child. And it turns out that Professor Nagel is still married. So you can throw adultery into the mix as well. We've written before about men who acted in good faith as sperm donors for lesbians or single heterosexual women. Some of these men later get sued by the state or the women for child support. In many of those cases the men had either a written agreement or verbal understanding with the women that they would not be a father in any sort of way. The women changed their minds or the state big footed its way into what was a private relationship. In those cases I do think the men got a raw deal. But in Nagel's case I think he's just a fool. He deserves whatever comes his way. As far as the women are concerned I think it is amusing and a little sad that in a time where women complain loudly and incessantly about men who impregnate them and disappear, several women are lining up to be impregnated by a man who will disappear and not be a father to the resulting children. I guess it all depends which men are doing the pumping and dumping. There are apparently a lot of desperate and yet picky women out there. People are strange.

Though she has yet to actually meet Nagel, Simmons has no qualms about the notoriety of the man comedian Chris Hardwick recently called “Johnny Peopleseed.” She says, “I’m OK with [Nagel’s newfound fame]. I’m OK with people knowing who my child’s father is, because I know he’s a great man.” Blandine Rodney, a 43-year-old Brooklyn nurse who wants a child with the college math professor, agrees. “He’s handsome, he’s a genius. I’d be proud to have my child say Ari is his father.” The divorcée, like all of the other women The Post spoke to, is black (Several of Nagel’s 22 children have black mothers). “Someone said [to me] he’s trying to whitewash the black community,” says Rodney. “It’s not whitewashing! More white men should give sperm to women who need it.”

LINK1

LINK2

What are your thoughts?