Tips on Corporate Life from Ned Stark

This week I will begin the latest installment from George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series which started with the book A Game of Thrones. HBO recently completed an adaptation. The book describes human rivalries in a world similar to our own past. As humans haven't really changed over the years it became apparent that Ned Stark, a key character from A Game of Thrones, provided us an excellent example of how not to win in Corporate America. I thought it would be amusing to list some of Ned's mistakes to see how they relate to our own workplace challenges.

This has some spoilers-including a pretty big one-so if you intend to read the book or watch the series when it's released on DVD/Blu-Ray and don't want to know anything about it you need to skip this post. On the other hand if you've already read the book/watched the series or are just curious by nature hopefully this post will be humorous.

SERIOUSLY. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO READ SPOILERS DO NOT READ PAST THIS POINT!!

1) Don't rest on your laurels. Your old friend may like you but business is business. Robert and Ned were tight but King Robert refused to counter Queen Cersei's command (against Ned’s pleas) to kill Ned's daughter's pet. You may have been close with a college buddy but don't assume you still have their loyalty-especially if they're your boss now. Bosses stick together-just like kings and queens do.  It’s rare that a boss will openly side with you against another boss.

2) Always know what's going on. If Ned had had his own intelligence network not only would he have known the secret about the Queen he wouldn't have needlessly endangered himself by clumsily looking for this secret and alerting his enemies. Similarly if you are part of a network you may well know about hirings, firings and transfers before they happen. Information is key to success. Just ask Littlefinger.

3) Be aware of what you have to lose before doing something rash. It may be quite exciting to stand up in that next status meeting and tell your boss exactly just how inept, bigoted, stupid and smelly you find them to be. You'll be keeping it real, just like Ned Stark did. Now your boss may not hold your daughters captive or have the power to order your execution. But getting fired can have almost the same impact on your family. Sometimes even the most honest man has to know when to keep his mouth shut.

4) Choose your allies and subordinates carefully. Ned trusted his wife Catelyn and her friend Littlefinger. Although only Littlefinger betrayed him, Catelyn arguably set things off by arresting Tyrion without her husband's knowledge or permission at a time when her husband and daughters were already in a weak position. Ned could hardly have disavowed his wife's actions and it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway since HE was the one in charge. Similarly, at work, if someone reporting to you does something stupid, you will be blamed. It is essential that everyone on your team understands which decisions they are allowed to make and which ones they aren't.

5) Understand the difference between de facto and de jure power. Sometimes, a person with the title or formal authority isn’t necessarily the real boss.  Often someone with REAL power may prefer to be the man behind the throne. I've known project managers who don't use the bathroom without checking first with some supposed underling. Occasionally someone who's not a formal leader may have such detailed business knowledge that higher ranking managers defer to her wishes. You need to know who the real players are. Don't be like Ned Stark and ASSume that because you have a title that everyone must do what you say or that someone who has no title (Littlefinger) may be safely used or ignored.

6) Be flexible. There are many ways to solve a problem.  Be willing to investigate these methods. Don't just automatically reject them and/or insult the people who suggest them. Even if you decide that they don't work for you, do your due diligence beforehand. In extreme cases (ie. hiding evidence in a capital case or ordering the murder of a pregnant rival heir to the throne) you may well be morally justified in declining to endorse them. If so, also keep in mind that the powers that be will not see this as a principled stand but will rather mark you down as an enemy. Flexibility also means you’re less predictable which means your corporate rivals or sworn enemies can't easily foresee and counter your next move. Ned was not flexible and paid a price.

7) Expect the worst from your enemies. 

Life isn't a game and your enemies and rivals are just that. There are after all only so many corner offices, promotions, or thrones to go around.  If you have one of these, I guarantee that someone else also wants it. If you are trying to take one from someone else or prevent someone from getting ahead, they will probably react quite badly.  

So if on Monday you tell your bitter rival manager that you're going to reveal to the entire department in Friday's status meeting that she never went to college and thus has no right to her position, don't be too shocked if on Wednesday you are falsely accused of financial improprieties or sexual harassment and immediately terminated. People play for keeps. Fair play is not something that is common in corporate America or feudal Westeros. Ned Stark had to learn this the hard way but you certainly don’t.

8) Take jobs that make sense and have room for growth. Many of us have taken jobs for money or obligation. Quite often these don't turn out well. If you don't like the job, chances are you won't be very good at it. If the job has no room for growth or any chance of success, then you are doing yourself and/or your family a disservice by taking it. A more self-interested Ned would have told Robert, "Thanks but no thanks. I just found out the last guy to take that job was murdered. When my brother and father went South they were also murdered. I also hear that the Kingdom is deeply in debt to the Lannisters, of whom I'm not overly fond.  And frankly I'm not too good at being #2 or in playing nice with others. So I'm not seeing much upside here, bro. Think I'll just stay North and raise my family."

  

9) Have a strong backup plan. Despite your best efforts sometimes things just don't work out. You get fired. A psychopathic little punk with Mommy issues decides to chop your head off.  It happens. But when this occurs, you should have a backup plan. But since your older brother, sister and father were already dead, your remaining brother was unavailable to help your family, your daughters were too young to have been married off to allies, and your sons and wife are tough but not exactly ready for prime time, perhaps you should have kept quiet until you had put your affairs in order. Similarly in the real world the time may come to quit your job, but try not to do that until you have a new career, a new job or lots of money saved.

10) Listen to what people tell you. Sometimes people tell you who they are, purposely or not. When this happens pay attention. When you get the promotion or the plum assignment and someone on your team tells you that he wanted it: believe him. Chances are this fellow wouldn't mind seeing you fail.  So his "advice" needs to be taken with that caveat in mind. When the on-site project manager calmly and coldly tells you he didn't want/need you on his team and you're only there because the home office wanted to make their "bench" stats look better for month-end, (yes this did once happen to me) know that this person probably won't be a career mentor.

 Similarly when Ned learns that Littlefinger used to have a SERIOUS longing for Ned's wife and Littlefinger openly tells Ned not to trust him, why in the world would Ned trust him? When Renly ,who despite his other issues, knows Cersei FAR better than Ned does, warns Ned that Cersei will NOT heed the will of a dead man, why doesn't Ned listen? When Cersei herself tells Ned that,  "You either win or die There is no middle ground", why doesn't Ned hear the warning rattle of a rattlesnake?  Listen to what people tell you. Pay attention!!!

Movie Reviews-The Eagle, Battle:Los Angeles, Elizabeth and more

The Eagle

The Eagle gives a different take on the Roman Ninth Legion's disappearance, which was source material for the film Centurion which I watched earlier. The Eagle starts the story about two decades past the events shown in Centurion. Marcus Aquila (Channing Tatum) is a Roman centurion who is the son of the Ninth's commander. He comes to Britain to wash away his family's shame by recapturing the Legion's standard, the eagle. 
Everyone thinks this is ridiculous but after Aquila proves his mettle as garrison commander he wins his soldiers' respect. However they still have no wish to follow him north of the wall, the massive fortification which separate the wild lands of Caledonia (Scotland) from Roman conquered Britain. And once the injured Aquila is forcibly retired from the Army, his men are under no obligation to help him regain the standard. And they don't. 

Ironically the only person that Aquila can even remotely count on in his quest for his father's standard is a Pictish slave, Esca (Jamie Bell) who he capriciously saved from the gladiator's pit and on whom he will rely for translation and to lead him through the North. Despite his rescue from death Esca is not fond of Romans in general or Aquila in particular. Seeing your female relatives raped and your male relatives killed tends to have that effect on you.


This should have been a better movie but really it seems like the director and Tatum were both channeling too much Huckleberry Finn. The  Northern Celtic tribes look like American Indians and the Aquila/Esca relationship doesn't work. The battle scenes stand up to those in Centurion but there is no real antagonist for Aquila to test himself against or for the audience to get invested in seeing Aquila defeat. So-so.   The Eagle Trailer


Battle:Los Angeles

This is the movie that Skyline should have been. Much like Skyline there is an alien attack on Los Angeles that everyone initially mistakes for a meteor shower. So a group of Marines, including a veteran Staff Sergeant (Aaron Eckheart) who had just put in his discharge paperwork are ordered to help with civilian evacuation.  What is a movie without some form of "One Last Job". 
His new platoon includes several types-the naive rural guy, the virgin, the just-engaged guy,  the heavily accented African, the street smart east coast Italian wiseass, the green leader (a lieutenant who is on his first assignment and wants to do everything by the book) and so on but none of this is portrayed offensively. The platoon is indeed a diverse group of men.

The main issue between the Staff Sergeant and his new platoon is that in Iraq, during an ambush the Staff Sergeant allegedly made some mistakes that got several Marines killed, including the brother of one of the platoon Corporals. So between the green nervous Lieutanant and Eckheart the men don't exactly feel like they have the best leadership. 
Once the battle between humans and aliens REALLY kicks off though Eckheart shows that his leadership skills and ass-kicking qualities are second to none. This is an enjoyable action movie. It doesn't require a lot of deep thought but I liked it because no character does anything mind numbingly stupid and some black people actually survive. Go figure.

Elizabeth

Not Prince's backup band circa 1984

Elizabeth has a very deliberate visual and thematic similarity to The Godfather. The director, Shekhar Kapur, purposely did this, was not shy about pointing it out and shamelessly lifted the entire infamous "Communion" scene from The Godfather, right down to the ominous baroque music and church motifs. But the film is more than The Godfather meets Hamlet and may be enjoyed completely on its own merits, by people who have never seen, do not wish to see, or did not enjoy The Godfather.

I can not say this enough-Elizabeth is a masterfully shot and choreographed film. The scenery, settings, lighting and clothing are incredible. The film does play fast and loose with many many facts surrounding this period but that's why it's a movie, not a history book.

Elizabeth starts with an ugly scene of heretics being burnt alive. They are Protestants but for the determinedly Catholic Queen Mary I of England, known as "Bloody Mary" for just these sorts of actions, Protestantism IS heresy.  As Queen, Mary embarked on a crusade to purge England of Protestants as well as eliminate actual or possible challengers to her throne-primarily her own relatives.

A person who was both Protestant and a possible threat to Mary's rule was Mary's younger half-sister Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett). Mary keeps her under arrest and monitors her communications but for whatever reason decides not to kill her. Mary is old and sick with uterine cancer. She dies, leaving the religiously divided kingdom in the hands of a young unsure girl.  

The Pope (Gielgud) doesn't intend to tolerate a Protestant ruler. The Royal Treasury is running low. The Anglican Church and Parliament are each convinced they have a puppet to use. Elizabeth's lover, Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) may have a wandering eye and ulterior motives. Mary of Guise (regent of Scotland) and the Spanish are in open opposition to her. Some English nobles think accepting a woman ruler is preposterous and are certain they could do a better job as ruler. Elizabeth's primary counselor, the avuncular but totally ineffective Cecil (Richard Attenborough) won't stop bugging her about getting married, as since she is "just a woman" , she can't possibly hope to rule on her own. 

The film portrays a hero's journey for Elizabeth. She must change and grow from a young naive girl who is manipulated by others to a strong Queen who states "I will have one mistress and no master! " Power is who Elizabeth marries and the film grimly shows exactly what that entails. Again, the use of light and scenery is superb. Some of the film's scenes were shot in Durham Cathedral and the viewer gets to enjoy the late Romanesque/Early Gothic feel of that place. 

Look for Geoffrey Rush as Walsingham, a sort of combination Luca Brasi and Tom Hagen for Elizabeth. He is very dangerous, very intelligent and extremely loyal. He handles her intelligence services. Other names of note include Mr. Monica Bellucci (Vincent Cassel), Christopher Eccleston, Daniel Craig, Emily Mortimer and Fanny Ardant. This was a fun film. It is literally impossible to picture anyone other than Blanchett in this role. She was that good. Don't bother seeing the sequel. Elizabeth Trailer

Malena

Malena starred Monica Bellucci in the title role. At the time of the film's release Bellucci was (still is??) one of the planet's most beautiful women. Bellucci also spent much of the film in flattering attire that emphasized her feminine traits. 

The initial story concerns a Sicilian young boy on the verge of "adulthood" who has a desperately strong and totally unrequited and unnoticed crush on Bellucci's character during the waning days of WWII. So yes indeed, some parts of this film will primarily appeal to those people who used to be 12 year old boys and still remember the anticipation and angst of that condition. But this film is much more than the memories of a raunchy kid. It actually has some important things (beyond the carnal) to say to everyone about how human beings react and respond to each other. 

Malena (Bellucci) arrives in a small town accompanied by her father, a sickly schoolteacher. Malena's husband is at war. Malena soon becomes the object of bitter jealousy by the townswomen and the object of open and honest lechery by the remaining men. There are a lot of African-American blues songs about trains and cabooses and evidently there are a few Sicilian jokes about such things as well. 
Malena's young admirer Renato attempts to defend her against her detractors but as is repeatedly pointed out by all and sundry in the film, he's just a punk kid who doesn't even wear long pants yet so what could he know? Renato spends a lot of time daydreaming of winning Malena's favor. That is what he intends to do just as soon as he is allowed to wear long pants. This is played for very broad earthy comedy at first-almost like a more modest Italian American Pie or Porky's.

The film takes a darker turn however when Malena receives bad news about her husband and her father suffers a tragedy. As the war comes closer to home Malena faces some difficult choices about survival. Her neighbors' attitude towards her, which was previously depicted as something akin to slapstick, morphs into something uglier and much more dangerous. Renato is even less able to "protect" her from what is coming.

I like how the director, Giuseppe Tornatore (best known for Cinema Paradiso)  balances the comedic, dramatic and horrific arcs of this film. This movie combines sadness, nostalgia, humor, lust, maturity, honor and conflict all in equal measure. Bellucci carries the film even though she doesn't have a lot of lines. She shows that she's much more than a pretty face. It's a shame she did not have a more serious career in American films.


The Man Who Wasn't There

I really enjoy the Coen Brothers' work and for my money this film was their best. It has a superb cast that includes Billy Bob Thornton, Frances McDormand, James Gandolfini, Tony Shalhoub, Jon Polito, Michael Badalucco, and Scarlett Johansson. This movie was shot in color and transferred to black and white. It has a very heavy noir influence-specifically that of the crime writer James Cain, whose novels were the source material for the films Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. So if you like noir you will enjoy this film.

The story is that in a post WW2 California town Ed Crane (Thornton) works as a strangely dissatisfied barber. He can't quite put his finger on it but he knows that something is wrong with his life. He's not sure that he enjoys or dislikes working in his talkative's brother-in-law's (Badalucco) barbershop but something isn't right. Ed discovers that his alcoholic and unpleasant wife Doris (McDormand) is having an affair with her boss Dave Brewster (Gandolfini). Ed isn't even sure how to proceed with this knowledge until he is approached by one of his customers Tolliver (Polito) who is looking for suckers investors to give him money for his new dry cleaning business. Then Ed decides to blackmail Dave (secretly of course) to get money to invest with Tolliver.  


Of course things don't go as Ed would like. And that is probably the understatement of the post.
The direction, acting, writing and production of this film are top-notch, top-notch!! And the soundtrack wasn't bad either. It is always fascinating to enjoy artists at the top of their game-whether that be film, artwork, music, literature, whatever. And the Coens and their actors bring it.  I really enjoyed the uses of light and shadow in this movie. Philosophically this film has a heavy heaping of existentialism.

Affirmative Action in Michigan

In 2006 Michigan voters, via a voter's referendum, constitutionally banned public sector affirmative action for race and gender in education, employment and contracting. This meant that race or gender could officially no longer be taken in account when deciding who was accepted to a given school, which company won the bid for a state or local contract, or who got hired to a public sector job. This referendum was named Proposition 2 and passed easily by a 58-42 margin. The impact of this was mixed to say the least, as there is a Federal Executive Order 11246 ,which under certain circumstances requires federal contractors (ie. public universities) to have affirmative action programs or goals. 

But honestly few people in Michigan cared too much about the impact on employment or contracting so much as they did about the impact on education. Proposition 2 was passed as a reaction to two cases involving the University of Michigan and two different plaintiffs,  Jennifer Gratz (pictured above with Ward Connerly) and Barbara Grutter, who upon being denied admission to the undergrad program and the law school program respectively, threw the mother of all temper tantrums and literally decided to make a federal case out of it. Ultimately Gratz won her case and Grutter lost, for reasons which I am sure The Janitor can explain in great detail. Basically the Supreme Court decided that the undergrad affirmative action admissions policy was too strict and too close to a quota while the law school admissions policy was more narrowly structured, although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that she did not expect that the law school's policy would be necessary 25 years from her decision approving it.

A 50% win wasn't good enough for Grutter and especially Gratz so in short order they hooked up with Ward Connerly, a man who proves that yes you can still make a living as a token minority, and convinced the majority of Michigan voters to alter our constitution to make it crystal clear that public sector affirmative action wasn't allowed any more, no way no how. Period.

Now here's where it gets kind of tricky. The other side (i.e. the good guys) decided to fight this ban in court. Although it was a long shot and I wasn't totally convinced of the validity of the legal arguments, to many's surprise, recently they actually won in federal court-The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court said Proposal 2, which was [passed] by a 58-42 percentage margin, is unconstitutional because it restructured Michigan’s political process in a way that placed special burdens on minorities that deprived them of equal protection under the law.“The majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities,” Judge R. Guy Cole said in an opinion joined by Judge Martha Daughtrey. Judge Julia Gibbons dissented, saying she didn’t think Proposal 2 impermissibly restructured the political process.Cole and Daughtrey were appointed by President Bill Clinton. Gibbons was appointed by George W. Bush.Attorney Washington said Michigan colleges and universities provide preferential treatment to a variety of groups, including veterans, the poor and students from rural areas. He said Proposal 2 discriminated against blacks, Latinos and native Americans.Today’s decision is the latest development in a long and bitter battle over race admission policies in Michigan colleges and universities.

Needless to say Miss Jennifer wasn't too happy about this turn of events:

Gratz, however, said the majority opinion is “ludicrous and illogical.”
“This court is saying that we place a burden on minorities by treating them equally with non-minorities…that we have to treat people unequally in order to treat them equally,” Gratz said, “That is insane.”

And Michigan, which is now under Republican management, has promised to appeal.

But Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said this afternoon the decision will be appealed to the full 6th U.S. Circuit, and that, in the mean time, Proposal 2 will remain in effect.
"MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law," Schuette said in a statement. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law."

Article

Court Decision

I think that Grutter's and Gratz's arguments were ultimately unconvincing because there were several white people that had received admission to the law school or undergraduate program that had less competitive scores or grades than they did. In addition as supporters of affirmative action court pointed out there were several other categories of students who received diversity points in the admission process (geographical/poverty/veterans) besides just racial minorities. However I also must confess a slight bias against affirmative action in so-called objective criteria (i.e. grades/tests) while having a HUGE bias for it where the criteria aren't objective (real life/the workplace). In the workplace I've just seen and experienced too many instances where it's not what you know but who you know, who you are, how people respond and relate to you. I've seen whites with high school degrees making the same or more money than blacks with college degrees. I've seen whites picked out and groomed for promotion by white managers while blacks languish in the same area for years.  In virtually every organization I've been in the further up the chain you go the fewer and fewer black people you see. There I think some form of affirmative action is not only a good thing but required.

However one can make a convincing argument that because of historical and ongoing segregation, discrimination and consumption and endorsements of racist beliefs that blacks are still suffering from a disbelief in their own abilities and that this shows up in tests and grades. If this is really the case then it is incumbent upon society to provide some form of corrective to this reality.

Although I find this argument to have merit I don't think that Gratz or more importantly the Supreme Court will. Honestly I think this is just a road bump to the Supreme Court allowing Proposition 2 to stand. It's a huge step from saying that you can allow affirmative action to you must allow affirmative action.

QUESTIONS:

What's your take?

Do the voters of Michigan have the right to ban state public sector affirmative action?

Do you think affirmative action is a winner politically?

Do you find the Court of Appeals' reasoning valid?

Rules of Engagement

I think there is a pretty strong consensus that marriage proposals and engagements supposed to be special, memorable, and – dare I say – conditional.? I think it is safe to say that there are rules that most folks would agree too. Of course, these rules are… fuzzy…and can be subjective. But for the most part, you would get most folks to agree that there were a couple of things that went wrong in Roy Williams' proposal to his girlfriend Brooke Daniels.

Let me give you the background in a nutshell. Just before Valentine’s Day, Williams, an NFL wide receiver with the Dallas Cowboys, attempted to propose to his girlfriend Daniels, a former Miss Texas. This proposal, which was sent by mail (yes, mail – USPS), consisted of a signed baseball for her brother, money for school and dental bills (Destiny’s Child – Pay My Bills?), a recording of his proposal, and a $75,000 engagement ring. Got all that? He mailed a baseball, money for school and dental bills, a recording of his proposal, $75,000 engagement ring. After receiving her care package, Daniels rejected Williams leading to him asking for his ring back. Daniels said she lost the ring so Williams filed an insurance claim on the “lost” ring. Of course, the insurance company isn’t going to just pay the claim on a near $80K ring – right? Of course not; they investigated. During their investigation, they found that, in fact, the ring wasn’t lost; it was in the possession of Daniels’ father. Neither Daniels nor her father had plans to the ring to Williams. So, what started off as an act of “love” ended up as a law suit for a $75K platinum ring.


A lot's going on wouldn’t you say? Now, I’ve had many-a conversation with friends and family – as I’m sure you have as well. It is pretty apparent to me, that there are some pretty straight forward rules both Williams and Daniels broke:

1.) The only time recording a marriage proposal is acceptable is if: If you’re going to do a recording a marriage proposal, you must be:

a. You are in the military or away in another country,
b. You put it on the big screen at a professional sports event (or high school/college if it is big in your town), or
c. You record it, but then you pop up from behind the curtains or something yelling “Surprise!” Bottom line, you need to BE THERE!!! 

OBSERVE

Otherwise you just look like a lazy asshole who isn't interested in actually putting forth the effort for a face-to-face proposal thereby making it appear as if you aren't interested in the person.

2.) You MUST be more than 90 – 95% (or better) sure that the young lady (or gentleman) you are about to propose to will say “YES!” If the rule – for non-NFL folks – is to spend upwards of three times your monthly salary on your engagement ring, you need to be damn sure there’s a YES on the other end of that question. Clearly nothing is 100%; some folks will get cold feet or what-have-you. But we are in a recession; I don’t know about you, but a little more homework is needed prior to taking that leap. I don’t know, maybe some sort of consultation with your partner… Just a thought.

3.) IF proposal is made and/or you break off your engagement, YOU DO NOT GET TO KEEP THE RING!!! This isn’t a “gift” it is an engagement ring. If there is no longer an engagement, then there is no longer a ring! Even if that ring is delivered in a piss ass way – like through the mail – neither you nor your father get to keep said ring!

Oh, just as a practical matter, you should NEVER - EVER - EVVVER, put jewlery in the mail - let alone something worth $75 grand!

Understand this isn’t a complete list. There are plenty of other “Rules of Engagement.” I pretty sure that list is dynamic and changing all the time, but I had to pause for a moment and ask “WTF” with this story.

Am I wrong, or are these pretty universal rules?
Was a marriage proposal through the mail romantic or tacky?
Should you have to give the engagement ring back?
Are there more rules? What are they?

He Say, She Say: The DSK Case

Rich man flirts with poor woman. Flirting becomes aggressive sexual advances. Agressive advances become F*** me and I'll pay you. Poor woman sees the payday and agrees. After it's all over she decides to cry rape.

Sound familiar?

No this isn't the scenario of the latest episode of Law & Order: SVU this is the case of one of the most powerful men in the world Dominique Strauss-Khan former head of the International Monetary Fund.

Nearly two months ago the man was pulled off his plane to Paris and arrested on sexual assault charges. The accusation was made by a hotel maid. Working in television news,I have followed this story closely. Immediately after his arrest, I ran a story in my show from France with women's reactions there. The general consensus was that this arrest was coming because he's always been a playboy; the kind of man that gets whatever girl he wants even if it is by force.

He was arrested, charged, spent a day in jail, and then released on a six million dollar bond, and put on house arrest in a penthouse in TriBeCa. As he stay holed up in luxurious confinement the case against him began to fall apart.

It was found out that the 32-year-old Guinean woman accusing Strauss-Khan of rape waited to report the incident. She cleaned Strauss-Khan's room, as well as another room, and then made a phone call from a pay phone saying she was about to get paid, all before reporting her rape to the police.

Furthermore, the Guinean woman is now found to be an illegal immigrant, one who did not gain asylum to be in this country and may find herself deported when all of this is over. Meanwhile, Strauss-Khan may be able to save his political career and run for President of France; another sexual assault case in his home country not-withstanding.

So what have we here, a potential rape victim who's lost all credibility because she's told more lies than Casey Anthony, and a playboy regaining his only slightly blemished reputation day-by-day by doing nothing.

This is a problem not only for rape victims and the justice system but the way society looks at such crimes as a whole. For the better part of the summer, women in the United States, Canada and elsewhere around the world have been holding "Slut Walks." The initial protest was against a Toronto cop's statement at a college campus safety event. The cop said, "Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

The sentiment is not one that women haven't heard before. The line of questioning for a rape victim that goes, "What were you wearing? Did you in anyway suggest sex?" For true rape victims these questions, I assume, are humiliating. No woman wants to be forced into sex against her will.

Yet when cases such as the one against the Duke Lacrosse Players or Dominique Strauss-Khan come about, the validity of rape as a crime as a whole is undermined because the victims have ulterior motives even if they are truly victims.

Strauss-Khan now joins a long line of men who have been able to take advantage of women, either by force, coercion, bribery, or charm and get away with it even after an investigation is initiated.

No one is winning in these cases. Not the men who get off freely or the women who are reduced to greedy whores and gold digging sluts. We are all losing. A violent crime is reduced to a game of who touched who first and how will the alleged victim profit from it.

Real victims are losing out at the hands of high profile would-be suspects and less than witness stand ready victims. The charges against DSK may be dropped come his next court appearance on July 18th, and his accuser may be deported, but what happens to the women just doing their jobs as a hotel maid, a secretary, a waitress, a teacher, an executive Vice President or even a CEO that is approached for sex by a colleague, a friend, or even a stranger and the advance is more sour than sweet, more power than love, and the aftermath is hatred and humiliation, shame and embarrassment? What happens to those women and their cases?

If we've learned anything from this DSK case it is that it is not the named suspects and victims that we should concern ourselves with over their guilt or innocence, but the ones whose names we don't know, whose statuses are not front page news, whose backgrounds are average, who are just like us, who are hurting more than any rich man and his accuser that sees dollar signs.

Questions:

1. Do you believe DSK actually raped the Guinean woman?

2. Do you think the crime of rape is being trivialized by every high profile sexual assault case that falls apart?

3. If there was any blame who does it fall on?

Music Reviews- Earl Greyhound and Joe Tex

Earl Greyhound

Earl Greyhound is a power trio rock band from Brooklyn, that has been tagged as the "next big thing" for more than a few years now. Unfortunately and rather strangely they've never quite lived up to expectations in terms of sales or media attention. They give very energetic live shows though and could well be one of the better rock bands no one's ever heard of. Earl Greyhound consists of Kamara Thomas on vocals and bass, Matt Whyte on vocals and guitar and Ricc Sheridan on drums.

Yes, in some respects they are a seventies revivalist rock band but if that hook can propel the Black Crowes and Lenny Kravitz to fame and fortune, why not Earl Greyhound? Anyway they're more than seventies wannabees. That they are a mostly black band working in what has come to be a mostly white genre may not help matters as well as the fact that they only release an album every four years or so. It's hard to build excitement and following with such a leisurely release schedule. But these days albums are just about dead anyway. Hmm.

Anyway the obvious comparisons are to Led Zeppelin (especially because of Thomas' banshee vocals and Sheridan's crushing bass drum work) but actually because of the vocal interplay between Thomas and Whyte, on some cuts they sound more like what The Carpenters would have sounded like if they had turned everything up to 11. The call and response between Thomas and Whyte is one of the best things about this band. Whyte's guitar work may owe some debt to Marc Bolan, Big Star, Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrix but he's not just an empty copycat. He has his own, still evolving sound.

Earl Greyhound only has two official full length releases: 2006's Soft Targets and 2010's Suspicious Package. Their first album was almost entirely very very very loud blues-rock and hard rock while their second album showed some serious expansion both musically and tonally. The second album showed some hints of progressive rock influences (imagine Pink Floyd with better rhythm) as well as samba and Afro-Cuban interests. It also had slightly better sound production. If you are interested you could do worse than to check them out when they come to your town. They tour incessantly.

SOS            Shotgun          Acoustic version of "The Eyes of Cassandra"   Misty Morning

Live version of "Yeah I love You"    Live Version of "It's Over"


Joe Tex

Joe Tex (1933-1982) was a soul/R&B/funk singer. He was also a member of the Soul Clan, a short lived  and mostly informal supergroup of soul and funk singers who generally first made their mark in the sixties.

Like James Brown, a sometime romantic and musical rival, Joe Tex was not really a great singer per se but helped to create funk with a great many herky-jerk syncopated songs that straddled the bridge between soul and funk. He talked or rapped over songs as often as he sang over them.

He did sing a great many tearjerker ballads but is probably best known for his takes on "Tramp (Papa was too)", "Skinny Legs and all", and especially "I Gotcha".
Joe Tex usually used an integrated band in the studio (often the F.A.M.E. Studio)  and had more than a passing familiarity with country music. This mix of gospel, blues,soul, country and later funk was a lot of fun. If you go back a few years there are more than a few similarities between country and soul. Like many other singers of his time, he was eclipsed by the rise of disco in the early seventies and after a few game attempts at that style he withdrew from music. He died far too young from a heart attack.

I Gotcha!   Skinny Legs and All   Don't make your children pay  Papa was Too

I want to be free  You're Right, Ray Charles  A woman can change a man

International Treaties and Texas

Humberto Leal Garcia

Texas has given us a lot of good things:  Albert Collins. James Lee Burke. Freddie King.  ZZ Top. Cornell Dupree.  Barbara Jordan.

Texas has also given us a justice system that makes it very clear that if you do the crime you most definitely are gonna do the time. Texas has no issue with the death penalty. Since the death penalty was allowed again, Texas has executed more people than anywhere else. Texas also has a reputation for not really seeming to care too much about that whole dotting the i's and crossing the t's thingie when it comes to getting convictions. 

Humberto Leal Garcia was convicted of raping and murdering a 16 year old girl. Her name was Adria Sauceda. She was kidnapped, raped, sodomized, and finally bludgeoned to death with a hunk of asphalt. 


Now, 17 yrs after her death, Leal is due to be executed for that crime. In the meantime he has discovered that he is a Mexican citizen and evidently didn't talk to his consular before his trial and conviction. This is required under international law. But during the Bush Administration, faced with a similar case, in Medellin v. Texas, the SC has ruled that absent a law from Congress the US government can't tell Texas what to do on this issue. 

Apparently the Feds are all hat, no cattle when it comes to Texas. Leal has also claimed that he was molested by a Catholic priest. The Catholic Church has added its voice to those calling for a stay of execution. You can read Leal's pov here. But Texas Governor Perry doesn't seem inclined to stay or commute the sentence. So absent a miracle, on July 7 Leal will be executed. The blog members hashed this out and as usual everyone had different opinions. Mine is pretty apparent so I'll skip that.

GrandCentral said this:
As a nation we have a moral obligation, to honor our commitments and lead by example. When an American citizen commits a crime abroad, it is not only presumed, but often demanded that the individual be given adequate legal representation and access to the US Embassy. The United States should respectfully extend the same courtesy to any individual who is convicted of a crime here. 

Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two American journalists, were convicted of illegally entering North Korea and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. According to the North Korean government, they committed a crime. Their families along with the US State Department,  pleaded with the North Koreans and demanded their release. We cannot expect fair treatment of our citizens abroad, when we don't extend the same courtesy to citizens of other nations.


The Janitor pointed out:
When it comes to criminal laws of a state, the feds are pretty much powerless to intervene with the sovereignty of a state's internal judicial process.  You violate a law of the state, the state has jurisdiction over you.  The feds can't intervene UNLESS there is some constitutional violation, in which case the feds can overturn state convictions.  That's the general rule.

This case presents a rare exception where international law may apply.  Things get tricky once you start talking about conventions and treaties and whatnot.

"While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-984.ZS.html
And in this case, Congress has not implemented any statutes implementing the Vienna Convention.  In fact, in 2005 the U.S. opted out of the convention's international court provision that would have allowed the international court to decide whether or not a Mexican like the guy in this case should be able to overturn his conviction by Texas state law. So is the US a party to this treaty?  Yes.  Is it binding on the States? No, thanks to the SCOTUS.

However, even if it isn't LEGALLY binding on the states, Texas should realize there is an internationally political aspect here that is bigger than the wishes of one state to execute one person.   If we execute this guy, as much as he may deserve to be executed, then we are basically giving other countries the green light to disregard our rights to consult with our embassies overseas whenever we get in trouble. Texas needs to be a team player here, but somehow I doubt they will.


The Fed stated:

This is where I DISAGREE with the SCOTUS... State law is NOT Supreme law in this country! HOWEVER, along with the constitution, treaties and international agreements are.  This isn't an issue of State's Rights vs Fed's Rights.  States HAVE NO RIGHTS on this issue.  They should stop trying to force their make believe rights. The US signed an agreement that said XYZ.  PERIOD.  As a result, Texas can't decide it doesn't want to follow that law. What good are treaties if states don't have to follow?

QUESTIONS:
Is this impending execution problematic? If so, why?

Should Congress pass a law preventing state executions where there's a conflict with a treaty?

Is an execution that takes place 17 yrs after the crime any sort of deterrent?
Should the Administration seek other ways to pressure Texas absent a bill from Congress?