Racism: Beauty and The Beast

It is occasionally comforting to imagine that the people of evil spirit all look evil or ugly. That way you can tell who they are ahead of time and avoid them. It is also comforting to imagine that the election of a black President meant that America was finally starting to move past its ugly history of white supremacy and racial hatred towards a "post-racial" era. However, both of those ideas are complete fairy tales. Racial hatreds persist. And it's not just the stereotypical obvious skinheads or toothless inbred Southerners driving pickup trucks who spew racial hatred of the other, especially black people. Nope this stuff is nationwide. It's found in high-class and low-class people. People of great beauty and people of astounding ugliness can agree on how much they hate blacks. People who are living paycheck to paycheck and people who can light Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills can find camaraderie in their shared disdain for citizens of African descent.

I am talking of course of two recent incidents. One incident involved mathematician and conservative columnist John Derybshire. The UK born Derbyshire (who is a walking example of why I think the US should have a more restrictive immigration policy) has a long history of writing hateful pieces about Black people. But in a recent piece for Takimag, he outdid himself in a scornful rebuttal to the idea that Black parents have to caution their children how to behave around whites, particularly white police officers. You can go read it there if you like. Basically his "argument" is that most black people are stupid and violent. He also thinks blacks are lazy and primarily have jobs via affirmative action. He sums up by saying he warns his children to avoid black areas or events with large numbers of black people. This is a typical excerpt.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

There was actually some conservative push back. A conservative economist was actually one of the first people to call for The National Review to fire Derbyshire for his Takimag article. The National Review did "fire" Derbyshire. Derbyshire himself did not seem too bothered by this. He has self-identified as a racist since at least 2003. No one who has ever read a representative sampling of his work can honestly say they weren't aware that Derbyshire has a special dislike for Black people and NAMS (Non Asian Minorities-Derbyshire is married to a woman of East Asian descent and evidently makes exceptions for that group).

The second incident of note was that a Chicago area bartender named Jessica Harr, decided to share with the Facebook world how much she hated Black people. She called for expulsion of blacks, used racial slurs, talked about how ugly and dumb black people were and said she'd never hire any blacks. Of course when the s*** hit the fan this MENSA member made her page private but by then it was too late and her employer decided that it was probably best if Harr found a new place to earn money.

UPDATE: Proof owner Mike Bloem, who waited almost 24 hours to respond to the situation, had this to say about the incident: "Proof would like to confirm its belief in equality, fairness and tolerance to all our friends and partners. Sadly, on occasion, we are all exposed to ignorance and racism. We believe that by continuing to be true to our ideals and leading through our actions that each of us can be an agent for positive change." 

Yeah, whatever. The truth of the matter is that women who look like Harr usually don't have a problem getting hired in the nightclub/food service/hospitality industry. I am certain that in a short period of time she will have a new gig. And perhaps she will only share her racist rants in person instead of on Facebook. Problem solved, right?

Well, not really. The issue is that Derbyshire and Harr both appear to have lots of supporters, judging by the comment boards of some conservative websites. And as I stated Derbyshire's attitudes have been crystal clear for years. He didn't all of a sudden decide that he hated Black people. So I don't really understand why now The National Review decided that it could no longer publish his work. The other interesting thing to me is that Derbyshire's relative openness about his attitudes is almost of benefit to me. I know exactly where he stands. I know that he doesn't like me and won't give me a fair shot. But Harr is the sort of person who smiles in your face but goes home to rant about how she wants you expelled from the country. Unless I'm looking for it, I may miss it. I have worked with and for people like Harr in the past. There's always some seemingly non-racial reason they have for why they're moving forward and you're not. And it's always delivered with a smile. Such people are dangerous.

QUESTIONS
1) Do you think the US is more racist now than before the 2008 election or are people just dropping their masks?
2) Is it fair to fire someone for what they wrote on their Facebook page? How about private email?
3) Had you heard of Derbyshire before now? Is there anything he said that was true? Do you think his attitudes are common among conservatives?
4) Why did The National Review decide to sever ties with Derbyshire now?
5) Ever worked with open racists? 

Music Reviews-Curtis Mayfield

Curtis Mayfield

Even among talented creative folks there are people who specialize and know their limitations. There are great singers who couldn't write a song to save their life. There are incredible musicians who can't sing. There are excellent songwriters who are far too shy and retiring to ever perform their own works. There are skilled performers who have zero business sense and defer all financial decisions to their managers, agents, attorneys and promoters. There are talented bandleaders who really shouldn't be trusted to engineer or produce their own recordings. And so on.

But sometimes, along comes a man who is capable of doing just about whatever is necessary to create his music and bring it to the public. Curtis Mayfield was such a man. He was at various times and oft simultaneously, a singer, songwriter, producer, arranger, bandleader, guitarist, A&R man, record company executive/owner, promoter, multi-media tycoon and social activist. So he was a giant among giants.

Curtis Mayfield had a masterful career both with The Impressions where he had become the primary songwriter and lead vocalist and later as a solo artist. If someone could be said to have his pulse on the feelings of Black America and transmit that musically it would have been Curtis Mayfield as much as anyone, and that includes heavyweights like James Brown, Donnie Hathaway and others. Songs like "Move on Up" , "Keep on Pushing" and "We're a winner" did become mainstays of the Civil Rights/Black Power movements.

As mentioned Mayfield was a very inventive guitarist. His peculiar chord structures and rhythms were picked up on by among others, Jimi Hendrix (just listen to Little Wing or Electric Ladyland) and Jeff Beck and provided an interesting different approach to the guitar than was common in the late sixties and early seventies. As a solo artist Mayfield often sang in a falsetto register, which was miles apart from his normal speaking voice. Again, Hendrix put this to great use, especially in Electric Ladyland.

There is occasionally a controversy about whether someone who describes brutal conditions of being black or poor in America and/or negative responses to those conditions is indeed endorsing such responses. This dinged Mayfield a bit with his songs "Superfly" and "Pusherman". But people who knew his work knew that the positive but realistic Mayfield was just telling it like he saw it. So in that way he was a forerunner of people like The Last Poets or the Watts Prophets or other rappers that would later come on the scene. He was also a collaborator, patron and producer of Donny Hathaway.

If you have the opportunity I would pick up just about any of Mayfield's music-starting with his gospelly/doo-wop with The Impressions thru his sixties soul with that group and the late sixties/early seventies movement into funk and funk rock as a solo artist. I'm a little iffy about some of his late seventies work as it's in the same universe as disco but even "bad" Mayfield work is better than "good" disco in my book. So if you're not hip to his work, please check him out. Sadly he's no longer with us, having passed away after a freak accident left him a quadriplegic, but he left more than enough music to show that he was indeed a master of 20th century music. You don't get inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice by just showing up. He worked. The below songs are just a very small sampling of Mayfield's solo and group work. His music takes me back to a more positive time.

People Get Ready   Miss Black America  Move on Up  When Seasons Change

Billy Jack  Get Down  Give Me Your Love(Live)   If there's Hell Below  Sad Sad Girl

Superfly Doo Doo Wop is Strong in here Pusherman We're A Winner

Stone Junkie  Fool for You  Big Mac Makings of You We People who are darker than blue

Meet the New Boss: Obama and Domestic Spying

I'm your new boss. I'm SO happy to see you!!!

One of the most intriguing things about human nature is how we respond to surface changes while the substantive policy remains the same. In short, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

In New York City for example former Mayor Rudy Giuliani made no pretense of having much use for the black community or so-called black leaders. Under his leadership the NYPD was unleashed to harass and search black and Hispanic citizens, primarily men or boys, who could literally just be walking down the street minding their own business. Occasionally this aggressive attitude would lead to brutal or even deadly uses of force on citizens. People were outraged. They marched, protested and called the snarling churlish lisping Giuliani all sorts of nasty names.


Enter Mayor Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a "feel your pain" kind of guy. He's (usually) articulate, soft spoken, reasonable and can insult you in such a nice way that you'll thank him for doing so. He had no problem meeting with black leaders and making the requisite noises of regret any time there was a questionable NYPD incident. But the underlying policy of stop and frisk, agitate and intimidate wasn't changed. If anything, it expanded. But because Bloomberg's surface persona was much more pleasant than that of the belligerent Giuliani, much of the public controversy over police stops initially subsided. Now, however, thanks to Commissioner Kelly's pugnacity and the aggressiveness of the NYPD in crossing jurisdictional and legal lines, people may finally be starting to resist and fight back.

There's a lesson there. You may recall the Total Information Awareness Program that was aborted under then President Bush. Democrats and civil libertarians all of stripes raged against this in editorials. They thundered against it in on the airwaves. They called it creeping fascism. So the program was "dropped". Soon afterwards Hope and Change arrived.

And then people went back to sleep, content that they had stopped this wicked idea dead in its tracks. But much like the Terminator or the car Christine, ideas like this don't die. They just slowly and patiently rebuild themselves until they are reborn. Now they might have a modified name or use slightly different people as fronts. But that's all window dressing. The bottom line is government is " like fire, a handy servant but a dangerous master". The government will now be storing information on you for five years. The previous limit was 180 days.

The U.S. intelligence community can now store information on innocent Americans for up to five years under new Obama administration rules, expanding previous authority to hold details on individuals with no ties to terrorism.
The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was previously supposed to immediately destroy intelligence information about Americans when there were no clear ties to terrorism, but now new rules that basically justify spying on innocent Americans are being justified by terrorism fear-mongers.

But wait there's more!!! Behind door number two we have this prize for you!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: A new exposé in Wired Magazine has revealed new details about how the National Security Agency is quietly building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah, as part of a secret NSA surveillance program codenamed "Stellar Wind." According to investigative reporter James Bamford, the NSA has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas. The Utah spy center will contain near-bottomless databases to store all forms of communication collected by the agency. This includes the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases and other digital "pocket litter."

AMY GOODMAN: In addition, the NSA has also created a supercomputer of almost unimaginable speed to look for patterns and unscramble codes. James Bamford writes the secret surveillance program "is, in some measure, the realization of the 'total information awareness' program created during the first term of the Bush administration," but later killed by Congress in 2003 due to privacy concerns and public outcry.

Do you get this? EVERYTHING that you communicate electronically, everything that shows who you are, what you read, where you go each day, what sorts of purchases you make, etc is being gathered up in databases where it will be perused and sifted through by government agents.
Now how is this possible if we have a Democratic President, one that taught constitutional law, someone who theoretically has an understanding of the Bill of Rights, of privacy, of individual rights?

It's possible because the neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any real commitment to or understanding of the Bill of Rights. Sure both sides will mouth pious platitudes to certain constitutional guarantees when they are important for some other purpose or to a favored interest group (Republicans and the gun lobby or Democrats and the abortion lobby) but ultimately neither side could give a mosquito's tweeter about the Bill of Rights as a general limitation on the executive branch's ability to investigate, monitor, arrest or compel behavior by the individual. The current President may not have southern swagger or Texas twang or other characteristics or behavior patterns which some progressives didn't like. But when it comes to civil liberties, make no mistake, President Obama is just as dangerous as any right-wing zealot and perhaps more so. Too many people are willing to give him a pass on things they never would have tolerated from President Bush. For example, that recent Supreme Court decision that allowed strip searches of all people arrested, even those arrested for minor non-violent offenses, was supported by the Obama Administration. This cartoon puts it perfectly.

If the below bill were to be proposed today as is with no other changes I don't think it would get passed. I think that Republicans would openly oppose it as a law which protected terrorists. Democrats might say (in front of the cameras) it was a good idea in theory but in practice (once behind closed doors) would carve out so many exceptions while CLAIMING they supported the law that even if passed it would be meaningless.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What's your take?
Are you bothered by the government gathering information on you?
If Republicans were doing this would we have heard more outcry?

Why aren't civil liberties important to more people? 

Television-Game of Thrones S1 Recap and S2 Anticipation

HBO's Game of Thrones FINALLY returns for Season Two tomorrow!!! 

Why did I like Game of Thrones? Because it's adult fantasy. It presents real characters with recognizable motivations and frailties. Few characters are one moral shade. Everyone has their own interests and limited information. Imagine The Wire or The Sopranos meets Middle Earth.

Season One started with the "hero" Ned Stark agreeing to work for the King. It ended with both the King and Ned murdered and Ned's family scattered. I hope you enjoy the Season One Recap below. Season Two Trailers are included within. There are no Season Two spoilers but Season One is detailed.

This is a series with a lot of moral complexity, backstabbing, double dealing, religious extremists, and examinations of the glory and horror that goes on when wars start. It breaks down the costs of honor and how difficult it can be to always do the right thing.
There was an asinine NYT review of Season Two that complained that Ned was dead, things weren't moving fast enough and there were too many characters. NEWS FLASH: Season Two does not complete the story. Season Two is primarily based on the second book of a series which is currently planned for seven. If you want simplistic heroes, quick results and feeble-minded plot lines, go watch a cartoon at the kiddies' table. If you have some patience for Dickensian complexity and appreciate good writing and great production values, check this out.

Season One Recap

Ned Stark, the Warden of the North, was invited by his oldest and closest friend, King Robert Barratheon, to become King Robert's Hand (Prime Minister). King Robert wants Ned's oldest daughter Sansa to marry Robert's son Joffrey. This will unite their families. Ned will be the father-in-law of one king and the grandfather of another. King Robert's wife, Queen Cersei Lannister, is committing adultery with her twin brother, Jaime. Ned's son Bran saw them. Jaime threw Bran from a window. Bran survived but was crippled and comatose. Someone made a second murder attempt. Based on her sister's information, Ned's wife Catelyn tells Ned that the Lannisters murdered the previous Hand, her brother-in-law.



Arya makes a point to big sis



Disturbed, nonetheless Ned goes south with the royals, his feuding daughters Sansa (a very traditional girl) and Arya (a tomboy), and some Northern soldiers. Ned left his castle Winterfell under Catelyn's authority. She and eldest son Robb will watch after Bran and the youngest son Rickon. Catelyn dislikes Ned's illegitimate son Jon Snow. Jon Snow is exiled to the Wall. Although, like most nobles, Ned and Catelyn have an arranged marriage, quite unusually they love, trust and respect each other.

Ned is shocked to discover that the Robert he remembers as a decisive leader and great warrior has become a brutish, lazy drunk who is simultaneously browbeaten by Cersei and regularly abuses and cheats on her. Ned finds that the Kingdom's true power is held not by the King but by (1) his Lannister in-laws, the king's creditors who have entirely too many soldiers around, and (2) the enigmatic royal advisers Varys (a spymaster) and Littlefinger (Treasury head who still carries a torch for Catelyn).

Lady Catelyn Stark

Catelyn Stark finds evidence that the Queen was present where Bran "fell". She thinks the second attempt proves Bran knows something dangerous. Incognito, she travels south to see Ned. Littlefinger tells both Starks that the Lannisters, specifically the dwarf Tyrion Lannister, were behind the murder attempts. Ned asks Catelyn to do nothing rash and sends her back to Winterfell. Ned will investigate. Ned's daughters see that Robert's teen son Joffrey is a mean and vindictive little brat.

King Robert learns that a previous regime princess, Daenerys Targaryen, still lives. Danerys is married to a Eastern king. She is pregnant. Robert wants to murder her. The moralistic and honest Ned disagrees. Ned resigns as Hand, greatly embarrassing and angering Robert.

Returning home Catelyn Stark (nee Tully) runs into Tyrion Lannister. As Catelyn is on her father's lands and close to her sister's domain, in one of Season One's greatest scenes she orders Tyrion's arrest. (This scene was also echoed in Boardwalk Empire)

This proves to be a very bad idea. Although he dislikes his sarcastic, prostitute patronizing son, Tyrion's father, Tywin Lannister is outraged by Tyrion's arrest. Tywin sends his most monstrous soldiers to rape, kill and pillage on Tully lands. Jaime Lannister attacks Ned Stark. Ned is crippled. His bodyguards are killed. The King remakes Ned the Hand.  Ned orders away more of his dwindling troop to defend his wife's lands.

Ned finally realizes that not only is Cersei having an incestuous affair but also all of her children are Jaime's. This is a capital crime. Rather foolishly, but in accordance with his morals, Ned tells Cersei that he knows everything. He gives her 48 hrs to leave town before he informs Robert. Cersei laughs, offers herself to Ned and when that fails, tells Ned she's not going anywhere and if he wants to get in the ring against her he better come heavy.

Cersei has arranged for Robert to be mortally injured in a hunting "accident". Cersei seduced her own cousin to set Robert up. The too compassionate Ned is unwilling to tell his dying friend of Cersei's crimes. Robert's brother Renly urges Ned to seize Cersei and her children and recognize Renly as King. Renly's soldiers will protect Ned and his family. Ned believes that Renly's older brother Stannis is the lawful heir and scornfully declines Renly's offer. Ned sends word to Stannis. Renly flees.
Increasingly desperate for manpower and advice, Ned turns to Littlefinger, who suggests Ned submit and play ball until such time as he can profitably reveal the incest. Ned rejects that idea as dishonorable. Out of options, Ned requests that Littlefinger pay the City Guard to support Ned until Stannis' arrival. Littlefinger agrees.

Robert makes Ned regent and dies. Thus armed with the law, his few remaining soldiers and the City Guard, Ned goes before Cersei, Joffrey and Lannister troops to claim his rights as regent.  Cersei says she doesn't give a flying f*** what Robert said. The only question now is if Ned will bend the knee to Joffrey. Ned says Joffrey is not the true king and orders Joffrey's arrest. But Littlefinger betrayed Ned. The City Guard supports the Lannisters. Ned is captured. His final loyalists are killed. Across the palace, Lannisters butcher Stark people. Arya escapes but Sansa is captured.


Ghost: Jon Snow's Direwolf

 Across the ocean Danerys Targaryen is now the last Targaryen. Her pervy older brother Viserys was upset that his sister's authority had eclipsed his own. Viserys wanted his brother-in-law Khal Drogo to invade Westeros immediately. Viserys threatens to kill Danerys but is killed by Drogo. Drogo and Danerys grow even closer together when the assassination attempt on Daneys fails. Mess with a man's woman and unborn child and you're going to get handled. Drogo promises Old Testament level retribution. 

But some of Drogo's men aren't supportive. They don't wish to go to war overseas for a foreigner. They are vociferously opposed to Danerys ordering them about.
One fool insults Danerys. Khal Drogo must make an example. They duel. Drogo is contemptuous of his adversary's weapon. In an example of "You may get yours but brother don't let me get mine", Drogo fights weaponless and leans into the other man's sword to get close enough to rip out his opponent's throat with his bare hands.

M-A-N indeed. But this Alpha Male Big Dog display costs Drogo. He is now either infected or poisoned and falls from his horse. A Khal who can not ride is no Khal at all in Dothraki culture. Danerys tries to save Drogo's life. She begs help from a witch. The witch "saves" Drogo's life by making him virtually comatose, which is no life for any Dothraki. The witch's sorcery also kills Danerys' unborn child and leaves her barren. Danerys mercy kills Drogo. The Dothraki horde deserts Danerys. She is left with a small core of women, children and Dothraki men who are either poor warriors or liberal/loyal enough not to mind taking orders from a foreign girl. In her first official act as Khaleesei (Queen) she creates a funeral pyre for Drogo and burns the witch alive upon it. Impulsively, she places dragon eggs on the pyre. She walks into the fire and the eggs hatch. Unharmed by the flames she is now the literal mother of dragons-three newborn dragons suckle upon her.

Sansa begs for her father's life

Hearing of his father's arrest, Robb Stark summons the Stark bannermen. As Robb is only 17 or so, some Northerners question his wisdom or authority but after Robb's Direwolf Grey Wind bites off a few fingers, they get with the program. Catelyn reminds Robb that the Lannisters still have his sisters. The Lannisters demand Robb's allegiance. Sansa Stark begs (now King) Joffrey to show her father mercy. Joffrey says he will do so provided Ned retracts his claim that Joffrey is not King and admits to treason.
Locked in a dungeon and in a VERY bad mood, Ned has no intention of doing any such thing. He's been in worse situations. For Ned, truth and honor are more important than his life. Varys, who refuses to help Ned escape, asks if Ned feels the same way about his daughters' lives.

Ned goes before the crowd including King Joffrey and recants his claim that Joffrey is not king. He falsely admits to treasonous acts. Varys has led him to believe that Ned will be exiled. This is Cersei's desire. Joffrey, however, has different plans. From pure spite Joffrey orders Ned's execution. Ned is beheaded while Sansa screams in horror. In a touching scene Ned sees Arya in the crowd and is able to tell a Night Watch man to save her. Bran Stark (who has awoken from his coma with no memory of Jaime and Cersei) and Rickon Stark see their father's murder in dreams. Bran is developing some form of ESP.
Ned's death means war. Good GAWD Y'all!!!




Robb "The Young Wolf" Stark



The North secedes and recognizes Robb Stark as their "King In The North". Robb Stark leads the Northern forces to initial victory against the Lannisters. He captures Jaime Lannister. Jon Snow hears the news. He wants to desert the Night Watch to fight alongside his brother but is convinced to keep his oath. There are strange happenings in the north. The Night Watch intends to ride in force to defeat the wild tribes and any undead creatures. Jon isn't the first prince forced to put Wall duty above family duty.

The sadistic Joffrey makes Sansa look upon her father's severed head and promises her that soon he'll put Robb's head next to it. Sansa responds that maybe Robb will make her a gift of Joffrey's head instead. In response Joffrey has his bodyguards beat Sansa for his enjoyment. They all do this except for The Hound, a brutal killer who murdered Arya's friend, but who evidently likes Sansa.

Daenerys Reborn

Got all that? Good because it will be on the test. Ned's dead. Robb Stark calls himself King but will Catelyn Stark take orders from someone whose bottom she used to wipe? The Starks will seek new allies. Jon Snow is riding North where his loyalty and honor will be tested. Arya Stark is going thru hell trying to get home. Sansa Stark is going thru hell being Joffrey's plaything. Bran Stark has strange dreams. Tyrion Lannister will become his nephew Joffrey's Hand, at Tywin Lannister's command. This puts Tyrion on a collision course with Cersei, who despises him. Cersei rages against the patriarchy but dare not disobey her Daddy. Both Stannis and Renly claim the throne. Daenerys Targaryen has dragons. Season Two will introduce several new characters. Harsh, austere and battle tested Stannis makes common cause with a religious redheaded strange seductive seer from the East while charismatic and militarily inexperienced Renly has Westeros' only female knight watching his back.

Other Houses must decide who to support. Some are just happy to see rivals wasting manpower and money.

Season Two New Character

There will be oodles of violence, sex, love and hate. In Season One HBO used dogs for the Stark Direwolves. Per books the wolves are large/dangerous enough even as pups to worry Stark enemies. As adults -and they grow quickly - they are supposed to be almost as large as small ponies. In Season Two the Stark Direwolves will be represented by a mixture of dogs, CGI and animatronics. I'm looking forward to this. Wow you read all this??? I would have quit a long time ago. =)  Well in reward for your patience here are some trailers for Season Two and a feature from Season One.
Season Two Trailers
The Cold Winds are Rising Trailer  
The More You Love Trailer   Price for our Sins Trailer 
Nowhere to Hide Trailer  Seven Devils Trailer
Arya Stark Feature

Detroit's Last Stand

As you may have heard about or read here in a previous post the City of Detroit is broke. The Mayor and Council have been unable and unwilling to fix the problem. The state review board has certified that Detroit is a hot mess. This started the legal process for Governor Rick Snyder to seek either a consent agreement between the city and state or to impose an emergency manager. The consent agreement is "emergency manager lite". Under a consent agreement the mayor and council would still have some fiscal influence, just not very much. A financial board would be set up to run the city's finances. Members would be appointed by the governor, the mayor and the city council. Union contracts could not peremptorily be thrown out. Under an emergency manager law, the mayor's and council's authority to do anything would be eliminated, not trimmed and union contracts could be reopened or rejected. Detroit has just a few days left before the city is obligated to either be in an consent agreement or the governor must impose an emergency manager. 

As you might imagine, this being Detroit nothing gets done easily or on time. Although the governor has said he doesn't want an emergency manager, he has refused to rule it out. But the Detroit political establishment also doesn't want a consent agreement and has so far refused to sign the agreement offered by the state. They are working on a different document, which they call a financial stability agreement but is a consent agreement by another name. This could come out today. This document pointedly refuses to give any review board final say over finances. So this is, obviously a sticking point. City Council member Kwame Kenyatta said the state-city relationship was akin to a "master-slave" one.


There were public meetings on the process to declare a financial emergency and of course people showed up to comment as is their right. One such person who got some attention was local activist, gadfly and New Black Panther Party member Malik Shabazz who said, well, just listen:

VIDEO INTERVIEW

As you might imagine this didn't go over very well with many people in or outside of Detroit. The general response from outside of the city about threats to burn it down seemed to fall into three categories:

• Go right ahead
• That's how we know you're insane
• How would we tell the difference?

SE Michigan remains one of the more racially divided population tracts in the US. It is what it is.
So after all the shouting, moaning, and testifying is over Detroit is really stuck with a number of unpleasant choices

1. Bankruptcy
2. Consent Agreement
3. Emergency Manager

That's it. Of course this being SE Michigan it is possible that the numbers are all awry and that Detroit actually has enough money to make it for another 3 months or another 6 months or more. It is possible that the state or federal government might create a bailout plan. 
It is possible that some liberal billionaire could write a check to bail the city out. 
It is also possible that I may win the lottery today.


But planning on such things is not how intelligent people organize their life.
There is of course no guarantee that a consent agreement or even an emergency manager will solve the problem. Detroit may be too far gone for that. The unfortunate truth is that there is not enough income and too much out-go. This spiral of higher costs and lower revenue has been obvious for at least the past decade. One needn't sign on to every last single right-wing austerity meme to recognize that unlike the Federal government, Detroit can't print money and can lose high numbers of citizens to areas that have better services, lower taxes and lower levels of crime.


Racism scars people. I understand that. It is extremely unpleasant for Detroiters to consider a future in which their elected officials have their authority trimmed or eliminated. But as I've said before, getting upset about such things now is like getting peeved when the bank decides to repossess the car that you haven't made payments on in 6 months. Sure, you can contact a bank rep and call her all out of her name if you like. It may make you feel better. But it doesn't change the underlying reality. Councilwoman JoAnn Watson can continue talking about what the state owes Detroit. But no one who cares is listening. It's EXACTLY like having a boss who promises you a raise but then the company runs into trouble and your boss leaves for greener pastures. The new boss tells you that not only are you not getting a raise but that pay cuts are imminent. I've been there. Ranting on and on about what you're owed doesn't make a dime's bit of difference. And for what it's worth it's not (just) a race thing. A predominantly white Detroit suburb may be getting an emergency manager as well. Things are tough all over.


QUESTIONS
1) If your city was at the brink, would you rather burn it down than accept an emergency manager/consent agreement?
2) Should the state of Michigan have refused to get involved?
3) Is bankruptcy a better option than state control?

Book Reviews-LA Confidential, Why is Sex Fun?, Weapons of Choice

L.A. Confidential
by James Ellroy.
I don't know what James Ellroy really thinks of black people or what he's like in real life. Absent other evidence, as readers we should be really wary of assuming anything about authors. On the other hand I think that over time you can and indeed must make some judgments about people based on what they write. It's tricky though. SM Stirling quote:
"And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law: There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.'"

I would like to provoke ambiguous responses in my readers. That's what I want. There's part of me that would really like to be one of Dudley Smith's goons and go back and beat up some jazz musicians, and there's part of me that's just appalled. I figured out a while back that I'm an unregenerate white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual. So are my men. Their racism and homophobia is appalling, but it's germane to their characters, and people will either get that or not get it. That's that.* Ellroy Quote

Also, so that we would know exactly what he thinks of people that have a problem with his prose style Ellroy thoughtfully shared this. 
In L.A. Confidential, Ellroy tells a multifaceted story of good and evil (perhaps lesser evil and greater evil or better yet different kinds of evil) in post-war Los Angeles. His primary protagonists are three LAPD officers. They make Daryl Gates look like Michael Dukakis. The men also almost exactly line up with id (White), ego (Vincennes) and superego (Exley) and rather less well with the old D&D alignments of Chaotic Evil (White), Neutral Evil (Vincennes) and Lawful Neutral (Exley)

These three generally unlikable men all have some small commitment to justice. There's Officer Wendell (Bud) White, a frightening enforcer who lets his fists and nightstick do his talking. White is among the LAPD's most violent cops. The department leaders use his skills to obtain confessions from hardcases or send a message to criminals. Out of town mobsters who arrive in LA are given a brutal meet and greet by Bud White and other members of an anti-hoodlum squad set up by Captain Dudley Smith and tolerated by Chief Parker.
As a boy White watched his father murder his mother. Now White spends his spare time visiting men paroled for domestic violence and putting the boot to them. White may not even bother "talking" to them. He always has a throwaway gun ready to plant on someone he killed in "self-defense". White is well aware that his bosses see him as a dumb brute. He hides that he's smarter than people think. White wants to be a detective. The quickest way to get hurt badly by White (besides calling him Wendell) is to insult or harm a woman. God help you if you raise a hand to a lady in his presence.

Chief Parker:LAPD



There's Lieutenant Detective Edmund Exley, a strait laced police officer and war hero who is caught up in Oedipal competition with his father Preston Exley, a former police officer and wealthy businessman.  Unlike White, Exley prefers doing things by the book. He usually avoids open profanity, racial slurs or abuse of authority, certainly not because he thinks any more of certain despised groups (blacks, hispanics, gays, prostitutes, etc) but rather because he has extreme confidence in his own intelligence and ability to get what he needs from people without the rough stuff. Exley and White hate one another because Exley testified against White and White's partner in a savage Christmas beating (this happened in real life) of defenseless Hispanic suspects. Exley's no nice guy though. He manipulates the rules to help his own rise and harm that of his rivals. If he does the right thing it's usually because that's what the law or code says he should do, not because he has any huge desire to protect citizens. When pushed to his limits his ability for violence may rival White's.
Lastly there's Sergeant Jack Vincennes aka Trashcan Jack. Jack is neither an open thug like White nor is he obsessed with rules, procedure and doing the right thing like Exley. Vincennes is a narcotics detective who works the Hollywood beat. He is the LAPD liaison for a Dragnet like TV show. He uses his film and music industry contacts to enrich himself and his friends, most specifically Sid Hudchens, the owner and publisher of the gossip magazine Hush-Hush. Blackmail and information is Vincennes' stock in trade. He knows which stars are drug addicts, rapists, pedophiles, or closeted homosexuals. He knows who's engaging in adultery or miscegenation. He knows all the pimps, prostitutes, pornographers, junkies and pushers. 


Vincennes channels this information back and forth to Hudchens and others, both for personal profit and to smear political rivals. Vincennes is pleasantly corrupt and goes along to get along whenever possible. He's self-interested and doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize collecting his full pension upon his swiftly approaching retirement. Vincennes is an alcoholic and not above sampling the drugs he confiscates. He has other more shocking hidden dirt. He may even have a hidden conscience.



James Ellroy

All three men are pulled into a nightmarish and complex case which starts with a gangland style massacre at the Nite Owl restaurant. Black hoodlums are blamed and soon after killed. This should be the end of the story. However for different reasons and at different times, all three cops pursue leads that suggest that the black hoodlums weren't the killers. In fact there may be a nexus of multiple conspiracies between the LAPD, business leaders and local organized crime that really explains what happened. Ellroy anticipated the Gary Webb Dark Alliance story. Eventually the officers team up and then the pillars of heaven start to shake. All three men have to compromise and change to crack this case. It requires each of the trio's special talents.

This is a very deep book. There are at least 7-8 different storylines that are going on. It's easy to get lost. Ellory has a staccato writing style. He uses short direct sentences. L.A. Confidential has so much going on that like the classic noir novels it's modeled on and surpasses, you may have to go back and reread a few chapters. Things are never what they seem. Just when you think you've got something figured out Ellroy writes a twist that shows you that no you didn't. I like that sort of writing. A recurring theme is that justice may require getting your hands dirty. There aren't always easy answers. Sometimes evil is required to defeat evil. Exley's father warns him that if Exley is, as he says, unwilling to shape a case as the prosecutor sees it, shoot a fleeing felon in the back, plant evidence on a guilty man, or turn a blind eye to brutality then he needs to find a line of work where he won't have to make those choices. Everybody gets a little dirty in the world of L.A. Confidential. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.


The racism, sexism, and contempt for homosexuals is of the times.  Reading this I was wondering if Ellroy was trying to prove that he could use every racial slur against blacks that had ever been invented. If he didn't reach that goal, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. Again though this is appropriate when writing a story about the 1950's era LAPD. So, if you like hardboiled noir, where the cops are tough, the hoods crack wise and the dames are all playing different angles, this could be for you. But if you like stories with clearly defined good guys and bad guys where everything is neatly wrapped up then this is definitely not a book for you. It is however a masterful piece of writing. The movie was excellent in a different way but definitely softened the uglier attitudes that are present in most of the characters.
*Ellroy Quote

Why is Sex Fun?
by Jared Diamond

This question might seem to answer itself of course but someone like Jared Diamond isn't satisfied with just leaving queries like that on the table. Diamond is a biophysicist, biologist, anthropologist and in general an all around smart guy. I suggest reading his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.
In Why is Sex Fun?, Diamond seeks to answer that question by looking at the total path of human sexuality. He examines how sexuality, posture, and brain capacity make us different from our nearest relatives, the great apes.

You don't have to have science degrees to understand this book as it appears to be quite deliberately written for the non-scientist. It's a very short fun read that tries not only to solve the title question but offers investigation into which animals have the oddest sex life, what men are good for, what signals we send purposely and unwittingly, why humans even have sex when there is no chance or desire for reproduction, why we have concealed ovulation, why privacy is important and several other questions or quirks that make humans quite different from other animals and other mammals. Why is paternal care for the young so rare among mammals?

This was written back in 1997. It has a very strong helping of evolutionary biology which some people may find problematic. Some of the information may be dated. But that's an argument for another day. Culture and biology work together and feedback to and reinforce each other. Diamond tries to avoid "just so" stories, which is what a lot of evolutionary biology is accused of being.

People with the relevant scientific backgrounds or of political persuasions that leave them skeptical of evolution or biological differences may find holes in some of this book's examples, logic and reasoning. It is a short book. It's just 160 pages. But I found it cogent, concise and well argued. YMMV.

Weapons of Choice 
by John Birmingham

Time travel may well be theoretically possible (at least going into the past) but as far as we know no one has ever done it. But what if someone did? And what if that someone were a 2021 multinational and multiracial carrier force, led by Americans and full of Navy and Marine personnel, that was sent back to 1942 just before the American - Japanese Midway battle?

You've likely seen stories like this before but Birmingham does a bang up job of making this book (the initial in a trilogy) really come alive. He does this by the simple fact of including human nature as a character in his book. The Americans from 1942 are initially happy to have assistance from the Americans of 2021 while the modern Americans are delighted to give it.

However this starts to change almost immediately as many of the 1942 Americans have zero use for feminism, racial equality, modern fitness techniques, non-smoking or any of the other ideas we take for granted. They become very wary of and coolly hostile to their countrymen and countrywomen from the future. They view the idea of taking orders from women of any race or blacks of either gender with profoundly deep disdain. They don't get why a carrier is named after a woman President (The USS Hilary Clinton)  And they are desperate to prevent these ideas from spreading. For their part the modern Americans think that the 1942 Americans all sound like actors from old Warner Brothers movies and are generally eager to change things as quickly as possible.

However not all of the multinational ships made it through the wormhole in one piece or under American or allied control. The 1942 Japanese, Germans and Russians have gotten their hands on some of the modern military technology and worse yet, on history books. So Stalin, Tojo, Hitler and others are able to see what mistakes they made. And the countries that had nuclear programs or were thinking about them are ecstatic or frightened to find out that not only are such weapons possible, but the future Americans have them.

This entire book is an example of chaos theory in action on political, scientific, military and even romantic relationships. Some members of the 2021 multinational force that came through the wormhole are Japanese or Indonesian. They're not sure they want to be fighting their own great grandparents or fighting on the same side as the 1942 British and Dutch who intend to reestablish white colonial rule in SE Asia. This was a really fun book that was crammed with realistic characters. You can probably pick it up for cheap. I did.

Gene Simmons Attacks Rihanna

When announcing their tour together KISS frontman/bassist Gene Simmons and Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee found it necessary to gratuitously attack Rihanna for alleged lack of musical ability.

"We're sick and tired of girls getting up there with dancers and karaoke tapes in back of them," Simmons told the crowd at the press conference, reports Billboard.com. "No fake bull***t. Leave that to the Rihanna, Shmianna and anyone who ends their name with an 'A.' "

The ironic thing of course is that although KISS was a fantastically commercially successful band in their heyday they were not considered then or now to be excellent or frankly even good musicians. They were known for exalting the stage show above any other consideration. Simmons (born Chaim Witz) in particular was known to be a greedy SOB who cared much more about the dollar signs and over the top stage performances than anything having to do with music. In short they were EXACTLY what they are accusing Rihanna of being.

And that goes DOUBLE for Motley Crue who really were the 80's equivalent of The Osmonds, The Partridge Family, Peter Frampton, etc. :something musically lame but that was loved by many teen (mostly white) girls and sold bazillions of records because of that. Few people speak seriously of Motley Crue's skilled musicianship. Motley Crue had about as much musical talent as your average saltine cracker. People talk about the various groupies they had, what they looked like in their tight pants, eye liner and long hair, and their copious consumption of drugs and alcohol. They were EXACTLY the sort of band that was mocked and (temporarily) killed off by the 90's grunge movement. They were known as hair bands and replaced by groups like Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, etc.

I am not a Rihanna fan. I don't like or dislike her music. It's just not my thing. She's very easy on the eyes but I just haven't heard much of her music. To each their own.

But there is an underlying racism and jealousy that you see in a lot of white rock bands. On the one hand they claim to be of greater musical integrity as compared to pop/dance. But on the other they are insanely jealous of the fact that dance-pop/R&B is what is in right now. It must be somewhat frustrating to have spent all your time ripping off people who ripped off people who ripped off black musicians only to find out in your old age that tastes changed.

Jazz, blues or classical musicians could make the same accusations of musical fraudulence about rock in general and KISS/Motley Crue in particular that Simmons and Lee are making about Rihanna. Music is not a competition. The fact you like one type of music doesn't prevent me from liking a different type of music. I may think your tastes pedestrian or silly but I don't necessarily need to share that with the world or insult you or your music.*

The underlying idea here, and this goes back a while, is that any music which is danceable is by definition less challenging and of little utility. Race plays a HUGE role in this. Post Beatles, most white popular music or rock has not been danceable. There's also a dose of sexism there to boot. Many of the greatest musicians are men but great singers are found equally in both genders. And most of today's greatest singers are women. I don't know if Rihanna is a great singer or not. But I know she's better than Simmons. Listening to him sing is like listening to a drunk hippopotamus break wind. I mean you could do it but why would you?

A band that is primarily known for the number of porn stars or Baywatch stars they slept with and the multiple sex tapes they made with these stars doesn't get to impugn the talents of a singer.

A multimillionaire senior citizen who dresses up in makeup, leather, high heels and spits fake blood and fire has no room to say anything about someone else's musical integrity.

And anyone with the mellifluous moniker of "Chaim Witz" certainly has no business making fun of anyone else's name.

Give it to me straight doc!

Well Shady on the last trip to Budapest you must not have protected yourself. You have Chaim Witz syndrome. It's incurable...

*Unless it's country or certain forms of rap music which have been scientifically proven to primarily be listened to by people who are missing chromosomes and/or the normal number of teeth...

QUESTIONS

1) Why do people feel it necessary to tear down other people in the same business?

2) Have you ever listened to any Motley Crue or KISS songs?

3) Does Simmons have a point? Is modern pop too fake?