Trump's Crude Talk About Women

The murder rate is rising. In a slowly improving economy the unemployment rate is ticking up. Russia just made a not so veiled threat against American armed forces in Syria. Another black man was shot dead by the police. The President's signature domestic achievement is undergoing an accelerating implosion, just as predicted here and here. Even the President himself admitted that ObamaCare needed some changes. More illegal immigrants have (allegedly) committed murder. The President, rebuffed twice(!) by the Supreme Court in his attempt to give illegal immigrants legal status and work permits, has nonetheless decided to suspend deportations for the latest round of illegal immigrants arriving from Central and South America (as long as they aren't Haitian). China continues to move forward on its claim to the entire South China Sea. Israel, despite literally unprecedented US financial and military assistance, continues its occupation and settlement of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza. In short there are a LOT of things going on in the world which will impact the standing of the US as a nation and have effects for good or ill on the lives of US citizens. And yet the big news of the day is that in 2005 Donald Trump made some crude nasty profane comments about women that he wanted to sleep with or failed to sleep with. Some of these women were married at the time as was Trump. Here I should probably state again that although I'm not going to discuss which candidate I'm going to vote for it certainly won't be Donald Trump. I despise him. All the same I believe there are plenty of issues to discuss in the debates and among the electorate that are at least as important as what a horny slimeball said in a private conversation eleven years ago. Maybe it's just me but I am given to understand that when men are in all male environments their talk can often turn to women. Shocking I know. And though I have no way to independently verify this information I have heard that women in all female groups sometimes talk about men in a manner that is rather less than ladylike. Imagine that. If you are stunned or surprised by Trump's filthy talk then you haven't been paying attention to what sort of man he is. Does his talk disqualify him for the Presidency? The voters will decide. He certainly wouldn't be the first President to use that sort of language. I think the sort of people who are likely to vote for Trump have already made their peace with the fact that he is a boorish crude man who sees unrelated women primarily in terms of their attractiveness to him. They may not be worried about a President who wants to grab women by their (insert bad word). Apparently Trump's marriage vows were restraints on his wife's sex life, not his. This video is intended to hurt Trump with that group of college educated suburban Republican white women who aren't crazy about Clinton but don't like Trump's persona. Will this video close the door on Trump's candidacy. I don't think so. But it will drag the race even further into the gutter. But with Trump as a candidate could it be otherwise? If Trump is truly surprised that this sort of stuff is coming out it again shows that he's not very smart. Watch video below.

Movie Reviews: The Conjuring 2

The Conjuring 2
directed by James Wan

This movie is not really all that different from the first installment but in this case that is a good thing. If you have reached a saturation point for gratuitous violence and sex in horror movies then this film series is for you. Wan continues to show that you can scare people and more importantly tell a good story without constant blood flow and barely covered heaving mammaries. Not that there's anything wrong with those things of course. Obviously though the previous sentence assumes that you are a horror film fan. If you aren't a horror fan this movie might leave you cold. Even so it's nice to see a horror movie get solid actors/actresses like Farmiga and Wilson to play leads. Their presence and competence give the film a certain gravitas that too often eludes works in this genre. What are the things that scare us most? Among the top three are probably death, being alone and darkness. You could argue that the second item in that list is just a subset of the first in many aspects. Even the most introverted among us still needs some human contact. That's why solitary confinement is a punishment. And death is the cessation of our existence and the ending of human contact-at least on this plane of existence. What could be scarier than that? And as animals whose primary sense is vision, we find it disconcerting to be in complete darkness. The primary method by which we experience information no longer works. Our sense of what's real or not can be shaky. The Conjuring 2 uses all of these primal fears to tell a frightening story of haunting and possession.  You're alone in the dark and someone who is dead is talking to you. Sound like fun?

Book Reviews: The Bone Labyrinth

The Bone Labyrinth
By James Rollins

This is another installment in a series of thrillers but believe me when I tell you that it's really not necessary to have read the previous books. This book stands alone. I thought that the introduction and first few portions of the story were pretty enjoyable but that the story dragged in the middle. Because this was a very long book I felt that the story could have been cut rather dramatically without losing the good parts. If you like mysteries, thrillers and stories that feature ancient historical whodunit conspiracies this book is solid reading-for at least the first third of the book. The Bone Labyrinth reads as if Michael Crichton and Dan Brown sat down to write together. It's unusual in that instead of making the bad guys inhuman, Russian or Muslim the author draws upon his own unpleasant experiences in a Chinese zoo as well as some of the nastier aspects of Chinese culture to make some very mean Chinese villains. I didn't get any feel of serious xenophobia from this but of course YMMV. The villains aren't cartoon characters. However this is definitely not a book which will be made into a movie directed at Chinese audiences. Rollins doesn't mince words about his disdain for dictatorships with no respect for human rights or life. As the author writes in the book and has stated in real life, the US might want to rethink a university system that instead of concentrating on the education of American citizens, is awarding a sizable proportion of advanced science, math and engineering degrees to foreign nationals, particularly Chinese. This has the impact of funding our own economic and political competition as well as leaving ourselves needlessly vulnerable to various security risks both public and private. The author has also been a veterinarian. Throughout the story, Rollins provides sympathetic description of how animals and humans interact with each other. If you like animals there will be a great deal of tugging at your heart strings interspersed in this story. If you don't like animals or have a tendency to only see them as a means to an end then much of this book may seem a bit mawkish to you. All the same I think it is worthwhile to think about the millions of species who share the planet with us and what our responsibility is to them.

Because the book's plot dominates and almost annihilates characterization it's really not important to discuss character names or their specific motivations. Two beautiful genius level twin female geneticists/archaeologists are on separate assignments in Atlanta and in Croatia. The one in Atlanta is working with a hybridized gorilla to find the limits of animal intelligence and perhaps the beginnings of human intelligence. Her sister is in Croatia where some very strange bones and other items have been found in a subterranean Catholic chapel. Both sisters are attacked; the one in Atlanta is shipped off to China along with her gorilla. The Chinese have been doing their own research into human intelligence. They've reached a point where they need the Atlanta geneticist's help for a stalled military project of their own. Or more precisely they have plans for her gorilla which don't necessarily require the gorilla's long term survival. The Chinese scientists and military personnel are completely without empathy when it comes to animals. The geneticist in Croatia initially avoids capture. The Chinese wanted to use her as a hostage to ensure her sister's good behavior as well as steal her current research. Not only does the geneticist avoid capture she, along with a Catholic priest and a few others, is pulled down the rabbit hole of coincidence, conspiracy, alternate history and unanswered questions about human nature. Sigma Force, a secret military team that answers to the Department of Defense, gets involved to rescue both women although as it turns out both sisters are pretty resourceful individuals all by themselves. We know that modern humans have been around for at least one hundred thousand years but we don't know what made us much smarter roughly 50,000 years ago in what some call the Great Leap Forward. We know that most people of European or East Asian descent have a higher percentage of Neanderthal ancestry than people from other parts of the world. We know that many religions or cultures have a story involving some sort of great flood. Why do certain things in Earth and the Universe seem uniquely positioned to support human life. What does all of this mean? Rollins provides some answers but raises more questions. One thing which several governments are doing or considering doing is to use animals for military research, something which Rollins seems to abhor. Although the Chinese are the specific baddies here all of the heroes admit to themselves that their governments likely would or are doing the same thing. All in all I thought this was an okay book but not something that was great. I didn't care about the characters very much but I was interested in the story.

The Detroit News Endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson

The Detroit News is the primary conservative newspaper in the Southeast Michigan area. When The Detroit News endorses someone for President it endorses the Republican. This time it decided to endorse the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson. Now you can probably point out that most people don't decide whom to vote for based on recommendations by a newspaper's editorial board, particularly not a small regional paper such as The Detroit News. And you're probably right. Still the reason I thought this was worthy of note was that no matter who wins in November, the definition of conservative will be changing. The Detroit News editorial board members Nolan Finley and Ingrid Jacques list the first two (and presumably from their view the most important) reasons not to support Trump as immigration and trade. Johnson is in support of the TPP and is for virtual open borders to the US. Anyone who wants to come in to the US (and is not a criminal) should be able to come in as far as Finley and Jacques are concerned. These positions track well with the free-trade and big business types among conservatives but they are utterly unacceptable to many of the conservative voters who successfully made Trump the Republican nominee. There is a question as to whether the nation's definition is more important or earning money is more important. That is a deliberate reduction of some complex issues of course. And Trump, the consummate internationalist businessman, is hardly the paragon of America First which he portrays himself as before certain audiences. But nonetheless there is a divergence of interests between the nativist, nationalistic, and even racist types who do not privilege earning money over what they see as national or racial interest and those conservatives who are eager to expand trade, transfer capital and labor abroad and welcome different types of people into the US because they see money making opportunities. These differences can no longer be papered over. At this time, I still think Trump will lose the election but regardless of November's outcome the Republican party will not return to a point where the free-marketers get to run it without opposition. The blood-and-soil people are there. They're angry. They're not quiet about it. Going forward there is going to be more infighting about what it means to be a conservative in the US.

First Presidential Debate: Trump vs. Clinton

Monday night, September 26, at 9 PM at Hofstra University, Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will meet for their first debate. The debate will run for approximately 90 minutes or so. I don't know that there are a whole bunch of undecided voters left out there but the latest polls show that the race is very close. I think for most viewers the debate will be more about trying to find some "gotcha" moment to rile up their base or confirm their own suspicions about their disfavored candidate. If you are convinced, as he has repeatedly shown in statements, that Donald Trump has no real understanding of foreign or domestic policy, constitutional framework or the workings of our government then I doubt the debate will do that much to change your mind. If you think that Hillary Clinton's theme song as she walks onto stage should be Ave Satani then no amount of displayed knowledge or executive command will serve to change your mind. Still, each candidate has weaknesses which the other will try to exploit. For Trump, as I've written before and everyone has noticed, it's his tendency to take everything personally and respond with ad hominem or in this case ad feminem attacks.This worked in the Republican primary debates because the Republican primary voters are highly unrepresentative of the larger electorate. Voting for Trump was a giant middle finger to the establishment from people who thought rightly or wrongly that they had been sold out by their country. They were looking for someone to hear their pain and give them someone to blame. Trump cannily exploited and amplified these fears to become the Republican nominee. But an angry numerically declining base which is already threatening violence and/or secession should Trump lose isn't enough to guarantee Trump victory. He has to convince more moderate Republicans, independents and a few conservative Democrats that he's not just a bully boy know-nothing with an out of control id. This debate is his first chance to do that. When Clinton attacks him will he deflect, defend and counterattack with facts or will he sneer and say "Look at that face!" ?

For Clinton this debate offers a chance to contrast her command of facts against someone who is pretty proud that he's mostly ignorant of relevant facts. Her job will be to bait Trump into swinging and missing. If Trump makes a few insane off the cuff statements Clinton can either skewer them on live tv in front of millions or just look at the camera and smirk. Clinton's weakness will be her involvement in foreign policy initiatives that haven't worked out well (Libya) and the fact that she's been around for so long. Many people do not like or trust her. There are millions of voters who aren't happy with the status quo. Clinton, despite being identified with the status quo, must convince those voters that Trump is a dangerous and even unacceptable alternative. I still haven't really heard Clinton express a compelling reason WHY she wants to be President. The debate should make for good television if nothing else. In my view it's too bad that one of these people will most likely be our next President. But that's the system in which we live.

Movie Reviews: Keanu, Blood Father, In A Lonely Place

Keanu
directed by Peter Atencio

I didn't routinely watch the comedy sketch show Key and Peele when it was still running. Every now and then I would see something online by the show stars Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele and remind myself that I probably needed to watch more of their work. Some of their comedy is really really good but much of it is just okay, nothing special. So when I heard that they were involved in writing and producing this movie, and that the film was directed by their former sketch show director, I watched it. Well the movie was just okay, nothing special. Meh. A theme which runs through Key and Peele's work as well as that of many black artists or creatives of all types is the surreal nature of race in America. In this particular case it's the expectations that people (and this includes all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or sexuality) can often have around black men or for that matter black boys. All of these stereotypes ultimately go back to slavery/colonialism/Jim Crow and may never really be rooted out. Rather than list them all here in gory detail it's probably safer to say that a great many people expect that most black men are hypermacho, supercool, and able to handle themselves physically in just about every situation. While these stereotypes can be embraced by blacks and used to individual advantage (most rap music over the past thirty years) they are more likely to be used by people outside the black community to black disadvantage (witness many black interactions with the police). So Key and Peele use the movie Keanu to investigate in a comedic way how silly these stereotypes are. They do this by simultaneously embracing and deconstructing the stereotypes. YMMV on how successful they were in doing this. This is stuff that goes back to Baraka's Dutchman and Ellison's Invisible Man. It was done better in those works. If the only way to succeed is to do the modern day equivalent of putting on blackface and tap dancing is that admirable? This isn't just a dry academic question. A black comedian referred to the black President with a racial slur. Many black people fell over themselves praising the comedian. Others passionately defended their right to call themselves racial slurs as unassailable proof of their racial bona fides. It's a strange, strange strange world in which we live.

Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby Kills Terence Crutcher

On September 16, 2016 Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby shot and killed one U.S. citizen named Terence Crutcher. Mr. Crutcher was unarmed. He had no gun on his person or in his vehicle. His vehicle had stalled or broken down. There were no warrants for Mr. Crutcher's arrest. Police did not apparently render any assistance to Mr. Crutcher. They evidently did not put out any hazard lights, offer him a jump, help move the vehicle off the road, try to determine the problem with the vehicle, or call for a tow truck or roadside assistance. These are the things that most citizens who are having car trouble would expect the police to do. After all police are supposed to serve and protect. Unfortunately Mr. Crutcher was a black man. The police immediately saw him as a threat. In no short time after their arrival the police are yelling things at Mr. Crutcher and have him surrounded. Mr. Crutcher has his hands up. A police officer in a helicopter says that Mr. Crutcher "looks like a bad dude". And shortly after that two police officers almost simultaneously tase and shoot Mr. Crutcher. The police don't even bother to tend to the dying man's wounds but instead let him bleed out. They appeared to be more concerned with making sure that Officer Shelby was emotionally okay. Shelby has not been arrested or charged yet. I'm not being fashionably cynical when I write that I will be surprised if she does goes to trial. Her attorney is of course reaching for the tried and true tactic of claiming fear of the "big black man". Quite often this is a literal get out of jail card for white police officers. As many people on twitter have pointed out at this point if someone doesn't understand that there is a problem with police use of force against black people, disproportionately black men and boys, then they don't want to know. Most people will have car trouble at some point in our lives. Imagine running into someone who is so consumed with fear and hatred of you that there is literally nothing you can say or do that will not be interpreted as a threat. Well Mr. Crutcher didn't have to imagine that scenario. He was a Black man in America. He knew the deal. He kept his hands up even though he'd committed no crime. And he still died.


The usual suspects are already lining up to defend the police and claim that if only Crutcher had done x, y, and z then he'd still be alive. Whatever. This is the pure essence of racism-the ignorant unreasoning and unconstrained loathing of blackness. Shelby and company constructed a threat in their minds that did not exist and then acted on it. If you are so racist that blackness itself is a deadly threat then you shouldn't have the authority of the state or be able to carry weapons. This is not a training problem. This is a consequences problem. For the record you can watch the videos below. So far the people who were blasting Colin Kaepernick for his protest about police killings and brutality haven't had too much to say. Mr. Crutcher's family and their attorney speak in the last video.

Attorneys and Family Press Conference Video