Music Reviews: Fever

"Fever" is a Blues/R&B song which was written by the African-American singers/songwriters Eddie Cooley and Otis Blackwell. Both men had more success in the music business writing songs for other people than they did as performers under their own names. Blackwell in particular was a relatively unheralded early songwriter of many rock-n-roll hits. Elvis Presley considered Blackwell to be a favorite songwriter. Some of the Blackwell written Presley hits include such songs as "All Shook Up", "Don't Be Cruel",  and "Return to Sender". Blackwell also co-wrote "Great Balls of Fire" for Jerry Lee Lewis. "Fever" first was a hit for teen African-American singer Little Willie John in 1956. Afterwards, as was often the practice in those days and today, it was covered to even greater acclaim by Euro-American singer Peggy Lee. Lee's sultry voiced version turned up the sex appeal although ironically Lee dropped some of the original lyrics because they were thought to be too risque for the white market. Much as would latter happen with Aretha Franklin's version of Otis Redding's "Respect", most people probably know Lee's version of the song instead of Little Willie John's. There have been many different singers who have done versions of the song including Madonna, La Lupe, Beyonce and Buddy Guy. I like Little Willie John's version best although Buddy Guy's overwrought James Brown approved take on the song is certainly worthwhile listening. All of the good versions of the song, regardless of who is interpreting it, capture the utterly irrational and insistent nature of love and lust. People do things that they otherwise wouldn't do and may later regret under those influences. When that part of our brain is fully engaged insanity or fever may be the best way of describing the experience. Little Willie John was from Detroit. Despite only standing 5'4" (hence the nickname) Little Willie John was a pugnacious fellow with a quick temper who rarely backed down from fights. He died at age 30 in prison in the late sixties where he was serving time on manslaughter charges. A drunk 6'2 "fan" punched Little Willie John in the mouth. Little Willie retaliated by stabbing his assailant to death.

Cheryl Mills, Corruption, Infrastructure and Sweatshops

If there were a generic Republican who was running for President and we learned that this person had not only assisted foreign companies in setting up sweatshops in third world countries but also that this person's top advisor was doing the same while they were on the government dime many people would have an issue with that. Some people have argued and really believe that sweatshop labor is just what third world countries need to bootstrap themselves into prosperity. Other people argue that no one ever got rich providing slave labor for corporations. In my view the second view is closer to being correct. The business model simply doesn't allow for that. So it's a fair question as to why Clinton lawyer, advisor and former government employee Cheryl Mills has been helping a low wage textile firm to set up shop in Haiti while simultaneously using the company's expertise to pursue her own low wage business dreams in Africa and the Caribbean. 

As chief of staff and counselor to Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Cheryl D. Mills worked ceaselessly to help a South Korean garment maker open a factory in Haiti, the centerpiece of United States government efforts to jump-start the island nation’s economy after the 2010 earthquake. Ms. Mills took the lead on smoothing the way for the company, Sae-A Trading, which secured millions of dollars in incentives to make its Haiti investment more attractive, despite criticism of its labor record elsewhere. When she presided over the project’s unveiling in September 2010, she introduced Sae-A’s chairman, Woong-ki Kim, as the most important person at the ceremony, which included Mrs. Clinton and the Haitian prime minister. Mr. Kim would later become important to Ms. Mills in a far more personal way — as a financial backer of a company she started after leaving the State Department in 2013. The company, BlackIvy Group, is pursuing infrastructure projects in Tanzania and Ghana, the only African nations in the “Partnership for Growth,” an Obama administration initiative that Mrs. Clinton helped introduce that promotes investment in developing countries. 

Since teaming up through BlackIvy, Ms. Mills and Mr. Kim have maintained close business ties, appearing together last year for the opening of a new Sae-A factory in Costa Rica where they cut the ribbon alongside Costa Rica’s president, Luis Guillermo Solís. In Africa, representatives of the United States Agency for International Development have consulted with BlackIvy and Sae-A about efforts to expand the textile trade in Ghana, where BlackIvy says the country’s 23-cents-an-hour minimum wage “compares favorably” to higher wages in China, Bangladesh and Vietnam. 

Federal officials are barred from using their positions to negotiate future employment or exchange services for something of value, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that occurred with BlackIvy. Both Ms. Mills and Mr. Kim deny that his investment was influenced by the substantial assistance she provided his company while serving as Mrs. Clinton’s right hand at the State Department. 

BlackIvy’s rationale did not sway labor advocates like Scott Nova, the executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, who had criticized the Haiti project as a misguided American relief effort that glossed over Sae-A’s labor-relations history. “When you urge garment manufacturers producing in countries like Bangladesh, where wages are far too low for workers to adequately support their families, to move production to countries with even lower wages, it undercuts the efforts of apparel workers across the Global South to persuade governments, employers and major apparel brands to lift wages to a decent level,” Mr. Nova said. FULL STORY

If this sort of thing were going on in China or Russia or anywhere in the Middle East then we'd point and laugh and talk about those funny foreigners and their funny accents and their cultures of corruption or crony capitalism or so on and so forth. But it's happening right here, right now. And this is not a partisan problem. Both parties do this, have done it and will continue to do it. The only party difference may be which industries are favored. But that's not really a difference is it. I don't mind if government workers are well paid. I do mind if they are using government contacts to set themselves up for lucrative private business in the future. I do mind if they are using government power to assist private industry with the unspoken expectation that they'll get a little something something as soon as possible. I do mind if US government agencies are helping to outsource labor to cheaper markets.There is nothing illegal with what Mills has done but frankly that's the problem. Government policy should be based on what's best for the people of the United States, not what is best for a well connected cabal of wealthy lawyers, financiers, bureaucrats, corporations and lobbyists. The fact this group's membership may be more diverse than previous years is hardly something that should make any difference to the rest of us. I don't see that government assisted searching for sweatshop labor to make Mills and her friends richer does all that much for me. Black faces in high places means nothing if we have the same patterns of exploitation. This sort of both sides do it malarkey is exactly why the "tear the temple down" feeling is spreading in different ways on both the left and right. 

Michigan Trump Supporter Pulls Gun on Kids

The problem with extreme partisanship is that people can no longer distinguish between a group of people who do not agree with you on some important issues and a group of people who are evil and need to be violently suppressed, expelled or exterminated. This problem is something that impacts both putative sides in American politics. There is one side that is much more likely to be armed however, and when you start mixing politics and guns usually bad things happen. I can understand the sense of violation experienced when someone steals something from your porch or commits an act of vandalism on your property. However you can't threaten deadly force in retaliation. You certainly can't do that when the alleged offenders are children. And it's that much worse when the people you threaten aren't even the people who committed the offense. Then you're not a man standing up to protect your property or your family. You're just a hothead who wants to get revenge.
An Allen Park man upset that his campaign sign was destroyed, grabbed his gun and now he's facing charges for pointing that weapon at children. It appeared Michael Kubek wasn't home Thursday night after being released from lockup for allegedly holding six kids at gunpoint at about 8 p.m. Saturday night.
FOX 2: "Did the kids seem scared?"
"Yes, yes," said a neighbor.

The neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said she was spooked too. The News-Herald reports Kubek made the kids sit in the grass at the corner of Pennsylvania and Sterling in Allen Park as they stared down the barrel of his gun. Kubek was fuming because he thought they destroyed his Trump lawn sign.
FOX 2: "What was he saying to them?"

"He was using very profane language," the neighbor said. "Real bad language."
Kubek reportedly told police he neither saw or had proof the kids wrecked his sign, he only heard them outside of his house, saw the sign ruined and the kids running. He reportedly told police he showed the kids the business end of his gun because he felt threatened and outnumbered and his pistol was unloaded. Kubek is now facing six counts of assault with a dangerous weapon. He got out of jail on a $5,000, 10-percent bond. Legal experts say that's pretty low considering the circumstances.

When you consider that Michigan is among the states that doesn't prohibit guns at polling places Tuesday could be very interesting indeed. 


 

Movie Reviews: The Infiltrator

The Infiltrator
directed by Brad Furman

Sometimes I wonder about the employee vetting that is done by criminal organizations. It's true that that a middle manager in the organized crime syndicate GREED Inc. can't exactly call up his opposite number in FEAR LLC, and ask if the applicant sitting in front of him really did spend 4 years working in FEAR's murders and executions group and a productive fourteen months overseeing money laundering, import export tax fraud and various other white collar crimes in the Buenos Aires branch. FEAR likely doesn't keep the sort of hiring records and performance reviews that would be necessary to verify such claims. And FEAR might have little interest in sharing personnel information with GREED. All the same, in a milieu where trust is at a premium and various agencies are looking to put you in prison for utterly ridiculous amounts of time, I would think that if you were a criminal you'd want to make doggone sure that the people you're working with were also criminals and not say, U.S. Customs agents. So if someone gives you an Italian name and claims to be connected with certain important people in the New York underworld, wouldn't you try to find out if said person is telling the truth before you bring them into your inner circle and start doing business with them? Well maybe. But on the other hand a lot of criminals tend to be stupid, greedy and very short sighted. That's part of the reason that they are criminals in the first place. And drug use doesn't help. In the 1980s Florida based U.S. Customs Agent Bob Mazur (Bryan Cranston) is at the top of his game. During the day he busts bad guys. In the evening he goes home to his supportive wife Evelyn (Julie Aubry) and their two kids. There's a rather significant difference between Bob's kind helpful nature at home and his much sharper acerbic persona at work. That's probably not different than anyone who has to work though regardless of what their job entails.

Michigan: Michigan State Game

Michigan State has beaten Michigan in seven out of the last eight football games they've played. This has gotten Michigan's attention, perhaps even more so than the number one rivalry with Ohio State. In 2007 an ill-advised, albeit accurate off the cuff comment by former Michigan running back Mike Hart describing Michigan State as "little brother" enraged MSU players, coaches and fans. MSU head coach Mark Dantonio skillfully used that description to play up MSU's sense of resentment and puncture what some saw as Michigan's sense of entitlement. Since 2008, MSU has routinely taken Michigan to the woodshed and given them a whupping. With one or two exceptions the games were not as competitive as the final scores indicated. MSU had better players: bigger, faster, stronger, smarter and meaner. And MSU had the better coach. Former Michigan coaches Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke were mostly hapless against the sharper Dantonio.  For eight years I've had to hear it from relatives or friends who attended Michigan State. Eight long years. Finally the powers that be at my alma mater noticed that the former rivalry game was on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Dantonio's constant jibes probably helped with that process. Michigan hired former San Francisco Forty Niners (and Stanford) coach and U-M alum Jim Harbaugh, making him the highest paid coach in college football.  In his second year Harbaugh currently has the undefeated Michigan Wolverines ranked at #2 in the nation.  Although he has yet to beat the Spartans, Harbaugh has turned around the Michigan football program more quickly than anticipated. Meanwhile, after a long run of success the Spartans have fallen on hard times. They are winless in the Big Ten and have lost five games in a row, including to such powderpuff programs as Maryland and Northwestern. Although nothing is sure in college football (remember MSU beat Michigan last year on the very last play of the game) this year's game between Michigan and Michigan State should see Michigan prevail. 

But I don't want to just prevail. No, no, no that would not do. Not by a long shot.

I want to stomp MSU into whimpering submission. I want to run up the score. I want to go for two after every touchdown. I want to burn down East Lansing and salt the smoldering remains, speaking metaphorically of course. I want to beat MSU so badly that children yet to be born speak in hushed whispers of the 2016 massacre. So hopefully we'll do that this Saturday and start the long overdue process of restoring U-M to its rightful place as Kings of the North and Champions of the West.

Mary J. Blige, Divorce and Money

I don't really keep up with Mary J. Blige. I am not a fan of her singing style. But I wouldn't deny that she has talent and has put the work in to get where she is in life. Like a lot of different people in life she's come to the end of her road with her special someone. It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you make it's got to hurt when, to paraphrase Sam Kinison, your significant other comes home and tells you that s/he doesn't want to share anything with you any more and must drink a six pack each night to keep from decapitating you. Such is life though. If you live long enough that or something similar to that will happen to you. Now if a couple married young and worked and sacrificed and supported each other as they built a fast food franchise that morphed into a real estate empire that purchased a bank that later took over a professional sports team then they really did create something together. If they split in their later years, each person should get 50% of the value of all their businesses. Or if not 50% it should be pretty doggone close. But when one person in a marriage has the job of making all of the money and the other person has the job of spending all of the money I don't think there should be an even split of marital assets upon divorce. I think that just because someone once did something kind or ran through walls for their partner doesn't mean that he or she needs to keep doing that once the thrill is gone. And although I do tend to be more traditional in some aspects I feel this way regardless of the sex of the partner seeking to be taken care of post-marriage. There are lots of things that men and women do for each other when they're in love that are no longer done once the love is gone. That's just human nature. I don't think you can change that. I don't think that you can or rather I don't think that you should force people to continue doing those things with someone that they currently hate. Kendu Isaacs, who is being divorced by Mary J. Blige, is requesting a reported $129,319 in monthly spousal support. 

Kendu Isaacs lived a life of luxury during his marriage to Mary J. Blige, and he is determined to keep it going. Earlier this year, Blige filed for divorce from her husband of 12 years, and on Monday, Isaacs asked a judge to grant him temporary spousal support. But Isaacs wasn’t just Blige’s husband; he was also her manager—until she fired him after filing for divorce. Isaacs claims that Blige made between $1.5 million and $5.1 million over the last two years. Isaacs also insists that although a prenuptial agreement was signed, he did so without having a lawyer present. LINK

As you might imagine the former Mrs. Isaacs doesn't quite see the logic of her dear hubby's request. No. Not at all.

Mary J. Blige starts her concerts by displaying images of tabloid headlines covering her estranged husband's request for nearly $130,000 in spousal support in an attempt to embarrass him, her ex claims in their on-going divorce battle. Martin 'Kendu' Isaacs, 49, believes the R&B songstress is on a 'public campaign to destroy' his reputation, as well as 'shame' and 'financially suffocate him'. The singer 'opens her show by displaying various images of tabloids pertaining to this dissolution in an attempt to paint herself as the victim and Mr. Isaacs as the villain', according to court documents obtained by DailyMail.com. LINK

The couple has been married since 2003 so I don't think you could automatically claim that this was a short term fling where the non-famous person was just trying to grab the famous person's money. All the same though I would, were a judge, have a great deal of difficulty accepting anyone of sound mind and body claiming his ex-wife owed him $130K/month because he got used to the lifestyle she provided. Women may be the gender that's stereotypically more likely to do this but in my view it's wrong no matter which gender does it. Isaacs should get a small settlement because that's what the law allows. He should not get anything approaching $130,000/month. He's grown. He can and should take care of himself. If I were the judge I would give him one hundred thousand total and a CD of his wife's greatest hits. I don't think that divorce should be something that enriches anyone. If I were running this case Mr. Isaacs would just have to learn to live on his own abilities and talents. And I would say the same to women trying to do what Isaacs is doing.

Time to turn on the heat?

When do you turn on the central heating in your home? Or if you don't have central heating when do you start loading up fireplaces and turning on space heaters? Because I grew up in Michigan I like to think that I am inured to the cold. So I usually don't turn on the heat until the thermostat in the house is below 45 degrees or until mid-November, which ever comes first. It would appear however, judging by the plumes of white vapor I see rising from some homes in my neighborhood during my early morning walks, that not everyone feels that way. We are in fall; temperatures are dropping. I believe the nightly lows have lately been just above freezing. Smart or kind people are bringing in their dogs from the backyards. I was tempted to turn on the heat a few days ago but then I remembered how much I truly hate giving money to the local utility. In January and February when it's truly cold, I will be paying the utility hundreds of dollars a month. That's no fun. So not only would I rather delay the financial damage as long as possible but also because it's fall and not winter, temperatures can fluctuate dramatically. We're supposed to have highs of 70 degrees once or twice in the next ten days. So from my perspective there's not really a need to have the heat on just yet. If people get cold they can put on a sweater, drink some tea or burrow in under a quilt. When you pay your own bills you can finally answer that not so rhetorical question your parents asked you when you were ten and told them that you wanted to turn the heat up. You know the question. "Do you have turn the heat up money?". Then as now the answer was always no.The only exception to this no-heat policy before winter would obviously be guests and babies. A house guest should be made to feel as comfortable as possible while obviously a baby needs warmth. But growing up if I made the mistake of saying I was cold someone would almost certainly say that they had some work for me to do which would take my mind off of the temperature. That was also the same answer I got if I ever said I was bored. Hmm. So I think I will stick to my no-heat policy just as long as I can. I like the current low bills I get from my utility company.