Breaking News: Obama Administration to give work permits for Illegal Immigrants!!!

The Obama Administration intends to grant work permits to illegal immigrants. This is great news for the people so impacted (i.e. illegal immigrants)  and also some people of goodwill who support some form of legalization but believe you me this will cause venomous opposition from some other voters. Some people will not understand why at a time of 8% unemployment you would want to increase the workforce. The Obama Administration is probably gambling that most people that will be opposed to this were already opposed to the Administration. Perhaps. We shall see. Although the US Latino population has increased dramatically over the past two decades that growth is not reflected at the ballot box, something that worries some Democrats. This could be a game changer either way for the election. I have to do more research to understand how this is even possible without some form of Congressional assent. There's no way that I see this as anything other than horrible pandering to one group at the expense of other groups, not to mention law and order but that may be a minority opinion here. Let us know what you think!!!

LINK

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to announce the new policy Friday, one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.

The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods.

Bloomberg, Broccoli, Smoking and Health Care

As we wait for the US Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (popularly and derisively known as "Obamacare" ) it might be useful to remember the slippery slope/limiting principle argument against the mandate to purchase private health insurance.  This was often referred to as the Broccoli argument. Opponents invoked the spectre of an empowered and leviathan Federal government ordering everyone to eat their vegetables. The law's supporters thought that this argument was completely ridiculous, not worth a response, and prima facie evidence that the mandate's opponents either had damaged amygdalae or had spent too much time surfing libertarian websites looking for pictures of S.E. Cupp.

I am not a fan of NYC Mayor Lord Michael Bloomberg because I think his bland corporatist persona is the cover for a raging power mad nutter who seeks control over other people just because he knows what's best for everyone. He may not have Sauron's One Ring but he certainly acts as if he does. This is most evidenced by his out of control NYPD that on his orders has effectively disregarded the Fourth Amendment for Black and Hispanic citizens in Gotham, especially if they happen to be young and male. Bloomberg says it's for their own good of course. But his need for control over people is not just limited to continuously stopping and frisking every single black male within the city or spying on Muslim citizens in other states. No, Bloomberg is convinced that he knows what people should be eating and how they should be eating. So his health department is poised to ban 32oz sodas. Of course that didn't go far enough and his health department, no doubt emboldened by the impending soda ban as well as the current trans fat ban, publicly mused about the desirability of banning milkshakes and popcorn as well.
LINK

The 11-member health panel met on Tuesday in Queens and approved the plan. A public hearing on the issue on July 24, with a final vote is scheduled for Sept. 13. If approved, the new regulations would go in effect on March 2013.Certain members spoke up, however, saying that the proposal should include other items. Board member Bruce Vladeck questioned why large tubs of popcorn were not included in the ban, according to the New York Daily News. Another member, Dr. Joel Forman, pointed out that even 100 percent juice and milk-containing beverages have large amounts of calories and should not be excluded.While Dr. Kenneth Popler, board member and president of the Staten Island Mental Health Society, recognized that it would infringe on New Yorkers' rights, he felt that the health benefits were worth it, the Wall Street Journal reported. Obesity has led to 5,800 deaths a year in New York City and costs taxpayers $4 billion, according to statements presented at the meeting.

So, while the kommissars in NYC were deciding how next to extend their personal preferences under color of law, one of the largest employers in the Metro Detroit area decided that it would no longer hire people who smoke. Period. 

Job seekers who smoke aren’t welcome at the Detroit Medical Center. The health system on Wednesday joined a growing number of companies to require new applicants to be tested for smoking.The policy does not apply to current smokers, though they are encouraged to stop smoking and participate in cessation programs, the DMC said in an announcement. In Michigan, the DMC joins the Lansing-based Sparrow Health System, the Oakwood Health System in Dearborn and the Crittenton Hospital Medical Center in Rochester to adopt the no-smoking policy for applicants. “I think it’s becoming a pretty common practice across the country, especially in hospitals and (other) health care” employers, said Paula Rivera-Kerr, spokeswoman for Dearborn-based Oakwood Healthcare System, which adopted a similar policy Oct. 1. 

Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, a University of Michigan physician who is director of its Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, said that because businesses spend significantly more on health costs for smokers than for non-smokers “it’s no surprise to see various types of screening and benefit-design changes” to discourage smoking, among current and future employees. “Projections about increased health costs are a major concern to employers right now,” he said. While several states have passed laws banning such hiring policies, Michigan has not, leaving smokers without legal grounds to challenge such a hiring decision, said Tim Howlett, an attorney with Detroit-based Dickinson Wright law firm and acting chair of the State Bar of Michigan Association’s labor and employment law section.

LINK

Now just to get the obvious out of the way I don't smoke. I don't permit smoking around me. I try to eat right. I fully understand that if you don't eat well and exercise you're more likely to live a sub par existence. I have little patience for fat people that try to protect their ego by trying to pretend that fat people don't have health issues. I get that large agribusinesses and food interests often push poisonous products onto consumers.  I think that everyone should minimize or eliminate things like sugar, fat, salt, blah, blah, blah from their diet.  And I actually LIKE broccoli. But those things are individual choices. Should your employer be able to discriminate in hiring based on lifestyle? Well if your lifestyle is related to your job, I would say yes. You won't find too many overweight cheerleaders or bodybuilder jockeys. But if you're doing something that is unrelated to your job on your private time, what business is that of your employer's? And if we say well it's because of health costs, then how far do we want to go? You may have a family history of chronic diseases. Should your employer be able to not hire you because of that? And if we allow discrimination in hiring because of smoking why not obesity? But that's in the (semi)private marketplace so the rules may be different.

In NYC though we have the city government seizing the ability to tell you what you can eat and how much of it you can eat. Again, they claim to be doing so because of health costs. This health cost argument was the same reason the federal government claimed the right to be able to force you to purchase health insurance. Now if you don't bend the knee to Lord Bloomberg and accede to his latest caprice, then you, as a business owner will be fined. Of course if you decide to ignore the fines and tell Lord Bloomberg exactly what he can do with them, sooner or later large serious men with guns will magically appear to either shut your business down or take you away to some place unpleasant. But it's for the public good.

Now can someone tell me again why the broccoli argument was so outrageous?

What's your take?

Should private companies be able to refuse to hire smokers? Obese people?

Is Bloomberg out of control or is this (considering rising obesity rates) a necessary and good decision? Should the government be involved in determining portion sizes and food choices?

Things I just don't understand!!!

I've been on the planet for a while now and I like to think I'm a little wiser than I was when I first arrived. However there are some things that I've seen that I just don't understand. Perhaps you can help me out because I just don't get them.  After all these years I have to admit these things are still a mystery to me and probably always will be. But maybe I'm just not that bright.  I don't say no to that. Can you explain these things?

• People-usually teens-walking down the middle of the street in a subdivision when the city or township has been thoughtful and kind enough to put sidewalks on not one, but both sides of the street. The low iq people who do this usually have the nerve to give you a dirty look when you blast the car horn to get out of the way. You don't see me driving on the sidewalk so why don't you stay out of the street.  If my car hits you, which one of us do you think will have more regrets? Hint, it won't be me.   

• Women that wear a micro-miniskirt to work and then spend the entirety of their workday tugging down on the skirt or engaged in an epic struggle to either sit down in their chair or get up from it without showing the entire office something special. If modesty is really important, why are you wearing the miniskirt? The way I see it if you've gone to the time and trouble to put all that on display it would be rude not to look.

• A Masons' recruitment drive with the catchy slogan of "Share the secret". Um. Isn't the whole point of being in a secret society that it's secret? Do you know anyone past five years old that tells you that they have a secret and then tries to convince you to listen to them tell it? If you're having recruitment drives I guess the secret must not have been compelling enough to keep membership high. Back in the day if you were in the Masons you kept your mouth shut and if you weren't in you wanted to get in to find out what the deal was. Now they're having forlorn recruitment drives on the side of the road. Sad.

• Sagging pants on men. Do women like this? Do homosexual men like this? What is the possible message sent by a grown man walking around with his over sized pants falling down? What you're too cool to wear clothing correctly? Who was running around saying that they needed to see men's behinds/boxers in public? Fess up!! Cause it wasn't me. Nope, not me. I think I would remember that. I didn't get a survey or anything.

• Police that stop you for speeding or violating some other esoteric moving ordinance and then once you've rolled down the window ask "Do you know why I stopped you?" Well gee, you're probably gonna tell me. Is this a trick question? If I was doing 85mph in a 60mph construction zone I could perhaps take a guess.  If I guess right will you get back in your rinky-dink car and leave me alone? What are they looking for? Contrition? Confession? "Bless me officer for I have sinned. It has been two years since my last ticket". Just ticket me or better yet do not ticket me and send on my way but stop wasting my time with dumb questions, Officer Donut. As you can no doubt tell, I'm in a bit of a rush.

• People (usually men) that think that their ride is not complete without a 10,000 watt power amp blasting vulgar lyrics and/or teeth rattling bass so that everyone within the tri-county area can hear their music, whether they want to or not. Is this a mating behavior? Do women actually come out to judge decibel levels?  Will they be attracted to the man with the largest....sub woofer?

• Creflo Dollar
• Banks that have started printing deposit or withdrawal slips with Spanish next to English. Hmm okay. But what if I speak Farsi? Or Armenian? Or Portuguese? Or Amharic? Or Khoisan? You're discriminating against me! How dare you assume that if I've come to the United States of America I have learned how to communicate in English but a Spanish speaking person hasn't. I demand equal translation slips!!!

• Co-workers who don't understand that when the meeting organizer or boss asks just before the meeting's end "Is there anything else?" , he or she is posing a RHETORICAL QUESTION! That means it's time to go!! That is not the time to pose some long detailed inquiry which a) is designed to make you look smarter than you are, b) was likely already answered while you were coming up with your oh so super smart question and c) is likely to make me stay later while people answer your super smart DUMB question which was already answered. People that do this at the end of the day are just asking for a "correction" which I will be delighted to administer. 

• People who feel that a minimum daily shower and deodorant are optional hygiene choices. If your co-workers consistently arrive to a staff meeting early so that they don't have to sit next to you and /or the minute the meeting is over the whole team breaks Olympic sprinting records running for the door to get some fresh air away from you, maybe you should consider increasing the frequency and efficacy of your showers. Just thought I'd mention it.
• Bosses that ask you are you happy? Now why would I possibly be honest and forthcoming about that answer? All you really need to know is that I am at work and productive. Anything beyond that gets into either my personal life or my career plans, neither of which would necessarily be prudent to share with you.
• People that get dogs and then complain about barking, shedding or housebreaking. Duh. They're dogs!!
• Magazines that charge more for a subscription than for a newsstand edition.
• People who drive way under the speed limit in the left lane. This is called the passing lane for a reason that ought to be obvious. Why are they doing this?

Can you explain any of these? Got any others to share?

HBO Game of Thrones: Difference Analysis

Ok. I can't take it anymore. This post assumes you have seen both seasons of HBO's Game of Thrones. If you haven't seen them, don't know what happened and aren't interested in them skip this post. This post also discusses a few key differences between the books and the HBO series. I don't (and won't) mention anything that has yet to happen in the HBO storyline but again, if you haven't read A Game of Thrones or A Clash of Kings and don't want to know anything about what happens in those books, skip this post. And as always if you have read beyond A Clash of Kings and/or know exactly what happens PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS IT. This post is ONLY about some differences that annoyed the **** out of me in HBO's Season 2. I am not a book purist. I don't think GRRM is a god. I fully accept and am aware that a different medium requires different editing and writing choices. I think that Weiss and Benioff are doing a good job adapting, in general. I enjoy the HBO series and hope it continues for years to come to rave reviews. But I just have to say a few things:

SPOILERS FOR BOOKS 1-2 AND SEASONS 1-2 DISCUSSED BELOW!!!

Catelyn Stark was not well served in this season. She just wasn't.

Some of this was caused by aging Robb up. A 17-18 year old will not be as deferential to his mother as a 15 year old (Book Robb's age) would be. But having read a lot of blogs and listened to my partners' dismay and dismissal of Catelyn's actions I have to point out one key difference in the book. In the book, Catelyn Stark released Jaime Lannister ONLY AFTER hearing that Winterfell had been taken and Bran and Rickon Stark had been murdered. Now think about this. Lady Stark was already worried about her daughters in Lannister hands. Now as far as she knows her baby boys have just been murdered!!! She wasn't there to protect them. She doesn't think that Robb Stark is, due to the requirements of patriarchy, putting enough value or urgency into getting the girls back. So wild with grief and desperate to seize control of events rather than just react to them she makes a gambit.  Is this wise? I can't call it. But I hope that you can understand the difference in the book and why Lady Stark does what she does.
People simply do not make rational decisions when in a short period of time their home has been burned down, they have lost their spouse and two youngest children, and other relatives are in peril.

Like everyone else Catelyn has limited information. She is not as interested in justice or revenge as much as she is interested in getting her daughters back. Additionally in the book (and it was mentioned in season one but not shown in season two) Catelyn has blood family.  If you remember her arrest of Tyrion at the inn is ONLY POSSIBLE because she's on her family's land and reminds various bannermen of the loyalty that they owe her father. Her family of course supports Robb's secessionist claim and fights for him. We'll see Robb's maternal uncles and relatives in season 3. They should have been in this season. It is after all their lands where most of the fighting is taking place.  Robb Stark relies heavily on his Tully kindred. As the book points out over and over again, Robb Stark takes after his mother's side of the family physically. All the Stark children look more like Tullys than Starks except for (obviously) Jon Snow and Arya. And it is Robb's uncle's mistake that allowed Tywin Lannister to escape Robb's carefully laid trap and return to King's Landing in time to relieve the siege by Stannis. Book Catelyn does not see Littlefinger in camp but even show Catelyn would not have let Littlefinger escape alive had she known of his treachery. Grey Wind would have had a special treat that night.

Robb Stark is not an arrogant young lordling.

In the show "Talisa" is a spunky, sassy little proto-feminist who doesn't mind giving attitude to the self-styled "King in the North" and evidently just hangs around his camp flirting with him. Ok. That's that whole modern "I am intrigued by your sassiness woman, so I must have you" trope that really belongs more in 1940's screwball comedies than A Game of Thrones. In the book, "Talisa" (she had a different name and background) was helping the wounded Robb after he had stormed her castle. It was only then that Robb learned of his brothers' "deaths". Overcome with grief and guilt, he turned to physical interaction with "Talisa". The show makes it seem just like he was just a horny lad. Well maybe but there's more going on here. Book Robb is many things but an arrogant frat boy he is not. Robb married "Talisa" out of both love and obligation. He took her virginity. And a honorable man marries a woman after doing that. Again, consider that book Robb is only 14-15 years old. Many of his reactions are based on "What would Dad have done in this situation?". From Robb's POV he was faced with a choice between two warring concepts of honor. This goes back to Jaime Lannister's lament that there are so many different obligations that a man is unable to keep them all. Robb Stark was not crazy about marrying the Frey girl but in the book his decision to marry "Talisa" is based much more on the idea that a Stark man does not just copulate with a girl and leave her.

One theme that flows through the books is the difference between what we learn from our parents and how that fits with real word experience. Sansa is the child who most embodies this but all of the Stark children have to experience this, obviously much earlier than they should have. Part of growing up is learning to mix the lessons we get from our parents with what we learn every day in our varied environments. Often times a parent's wisdom will have to be modified to work; sometimes it may not work at all. Times change. Think of the lessons you've learned from your own parents.

Although there is some friction between Robb and Catelyn in the book it is minor and nothing compared to how much they rely on each other. Robb shares a lot of his fears with his mother, who does her best to support her first born without undermining his authority. It's a tricky situation. A lot of book Catelyn's insights, thoughts and dialog was given to Robb. I think the show suffers for that.

The Stark Wolves-I need more.

It's mentioned in season one that the direwolves haven't been seen south of the Wall in years. In the South they're even considered almost extinct or legendary. But the Stark direwolves all have a VERY strong connection to each of the Stark children (and possibly the North as a whole). They are just as much part of the return of magic as are the dragons.

In A Game of Thrones when Tyrion Lannister visits Winterfell, he is surrounded and stalked by a snarling Grey Wind and Summer, who herd him into a position where he can be attacked from behind by Shaggydog.  It is only Robb's embarrassed intervention that saves Tyrion's life. Ghost also attacks Tyrion when Jon Snow gets annoyed with him. Nymeria attacks Joffrey to defend Arya. Arya drives Nymeria away but Nymeria starts a wolfpack of her own, grows to become the biggest female direwolf anyone's ever seen and leads her pack to attack and harass Lannister troops across the South. It's actually Ghost, not Sam, who finds the ancient obsidian spearheads and the horn. All of the Stark children have dreams in which wolves play a part, though Bran's are the most vivid. The wolves are hypersensitive to dangers that the children face and seemingly in tune with the children's emotions without a word being said. Bran's connection with Summer is the precursor to greater abilities which I can't mention here. It's probably not an accident that the captured Stark child looks more like a southern princess (i.e. her mother) than a northern lady and not coincidentally is without her wolf, Lady, that was foolishly killed by Ned. The wolves are an incarnation of Northern "wildness" and an early warning system (the aborted attack on Tyrion) against Stark enemies. It is not just their size that worries Stark enemies but also their intelligence (Grey Wind finds the secret path that allows Stark forces to flank and destroy a Lannister army).

Cersei Lannister is pure evil.

The show has played up the wickedness of Joffrey (again he's been aged up somewhat) and given a slightly more sympathetic version of Cersei. I don't like this. In the penultimate episode we saw what I think of as the real Cersei. That's good. I hope that continues next season. In the book, it is Cersei, not Joffrey who orders the murder of all of King Robert's illegitimate children. Cersei and Joffrey are not at odds with one another. Although Cersei thinks Joffrey is hard to handle sometimes there is never any hint of physical violence between them and definitely not a threat of matricide. The fact that from her point of view Cersei has legitimate gripes about not being able to hold power in her own right because of her sex doesn't change the fact that she is a ruthless manipulative vindictive woman who employs murder and torture to get what she wants and thinks nothing of starving thousands of the smallfolk if that is what is required. Her attempted murder of Tyrion in the show is of a piece with previous attacks against her brother going back to childhood.

There is a lot more that I want to say but obviously can't so I'll stop now.
Please do yourself a favor and read the books. They're long but worthwhile. The first three books redefined fantasy literature and are just magnificent works with deep insights into human nature. If you don't have time to read them, check them out on audiobook versions. The shows are good works and stand on their own. But all in all season two deviated a bit more from the books than season one. So I didn't enjoy it quite as much. I'm not talking about changes done for budget or timing so much as I'm talking about storyline or theme changes which in my opinion weren't needed. But what do I know. Again, please read the books.

Movie Reviews-We need to talk about Kevin, Unknown

We need to talk about Kevin
directed by Lynne Ramsay

When I was raised there was a definite boundary between parent and child. The parent was not there to be the child's friend. There was no doubt about who was in charge and who wasn't. It was unwise for a child to give attitude or profanity or snark. Today things are different. Corporal punishment is often considered abuse. If someone sees you hit a child you may be pulled into the social services system, which doesn't really seem to accept the principle of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to adults.

But what if how you raise a child doesn't make any difference? Some traits are apparently hardwired. I was never particularly talkative or sociable as a child and I'm not now. That's genetic. It occasionally bothers some people (who are too talkative from my POV) but I can't and won't change that characteristic. What if other things are passed down? What if "evil" or psychopathy is genetic? What if there are some children that are such bad seeds that the parents would be wiser to do a "post-birth abortion" and go back to the drawing board? And if the parent knows there's something  wrong with the child what is his or her responsibility? Especially if the spouse can't see the problem or there are other, normal children in the household that might be victimized by the evil kid, should the parent act? This is more complex when the child is of a different gender than the worried parent and the same gender parent seems unconcerned.

Tilda Swinton is a very talented offbeat actress with a rather striking and occasionally unsettling appearance. She can look quite androgynous (witness her turn as the angel Gabriel in the film Constantine) or extremely feminine (title character in the film Julia). I'm usually interested in her films. In We need to talk about Kevin, she is Eva, a travel writer who, after a wonderful, nay ecstatic time at a gorgeously rendered Spanish tomato festival finds ecstasy of a different kind with Franklin (John C. Reilly). Well apparently one time was all it took because she becomes pregnant, marries Franklin, and bears their first child, Kevin. Of course this requires a lifestyle change. Although she does not remain a stay-at-home mother it appears she becomes one for a while. It's not explained what Franklin does for money but evidently both husband and wife are financially very successful judging by the homes they acquire.

Young Kevin ( Rocky Duer and Jasper Newell) however is a bit of a cipher and later a monster. What is evil? At the simplest level I think it is the taking of pleasure in harming others. Kevin shows this almost from birth. When he becomes capable of speech he refuses to do so out of what appears to be petulance and spite. Kevin has the same willfully negative approach to toilet training and causes chaos seemingly just to watch other people react. To an extent you can wonder if Kevin is just an incarnation of his mother's mixed feelings about him. Eva is now scarily intense and buttoned up. She shows little joy from being around her son. Her attempts at maternal bonding or play appear to be done out more from either grim obligation or from something she read in a book than from pure motherly love. After a scary interaction with Kevin she throws him against the wall and he breaks his arm. But what happens afterwards is even worse as Kevin (who could not be more than 4 or 5 at this point) lies to his father and tells him that he fell. He does this so he can blackmail his mother. This is a creepy little kid and definitely not one you'd turn your back on. He deliberately destroys things his mother loves and then says he was trying to help. He's smart enough as a toddler to express loathing in a scarily adult manner.

This is all told in a non-linear fashion. I wouldn't really call it flashbacks. Time is something that is meaningless in this film. The past and present are one. The movie opens with Eva living alone in a dinky little home, which is a far cry from the McMansion where she formerly resided. There is red paint thrown across her home and car. She cleans it off and the next day someone does it again. A woman who bumps into Eva on the street asks to confirm her identity. When Eva does the woman slaps her as hard as she can. Eva, who once ran her own business, is reduced to being a typist and admin at a travel agency. We learn that the teen Kevin (Ezra Miller) is even more disturbing than young Kevin. A boy in a wheelchair sees Eva and tells her that he may walk again. By the time Kevin puts his little sister's Celia's hamster in the garbage disposal (this is not shown but just heavily implied) you may start to wonder why his father hasn't picked up on his issues. Again, I wouldn't have wanted this guy around me as a toddler. As a sarcastic quietly contemptuous teenager he is even less pleasant. I would have thought alarm bells would have been going off. But again hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it.

It becomes pretty obvious what has happened. This film looks back across the years and ask if there is anything different that Eva or the mulishly optimistic Franklin could have done. Kevin is simply not like other people. It's a tragedy that the only person who sees that is his mother, who doesn't like him, but can't convince her husband that there is anything wrong. These looked like difficult roles for Swinton and Miller to portray but I liked what they did with them. You can almost see inside Kevin's head that the train is off the tracks. But things go to their inevitable conclusion nonetheless. This was an impressive and quite disturbing film based on the book by Lionel Shriver (despite the name the author is a woman) that digs deep into maternal ambivalence without blaming everything on Mommy, though some of the characters seem to do so. Is it nature or nurture? What are the limits of love? Is there redemption? You may be undecided about those questions after watching this movie. This film wasn't financially successful but I thought it was worthwhile viewing on DVD/on demand.
TRAILER



Unknown
directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

Liam Neeson is an A-List actor and brings a bit of gravitas to this film. Unknown is a great example of how great acting can make you watch and even enjoy films that otherwise you might not get into if you really really thought about them.
I'm not sure whether to call this a drama or action film as it has elements of both but since the "action" segments are short and mostly at the end I guess drama it is.

Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) and his wife Liz (January Jones) arrive in Berlin for an international biotechnology summit. As they check into the hotel,  Martin realizes that he left his briefcase with passport and other critical information at the airport. Their taxi is just pulling away. He flags down another taxi driven by Gina (Diane Kruger) and tells her to step on it. However there is a bad accident and their taxi goes into the river. Martin suffers a minor head injury. Gina pulls him from the water. After 4 days in a coma  he wakes in the hospital. He has some minor personal effects like a notebook , watch and some cash but no id or cell phone. Martin remembers who he is and goes back to the hotel. However with no id he has trouble getting in. Being a rather convincing fellow he manages to bluff/schmooze/intimidate the staff into letting him talk to his wife, who he sees in the ballroom. But when he speaks to Liz she claims not to know who he is. She says he's not her husband and that she's married to a different man named Martin Harris. There's no footage which shows  Martin at the hotel. When he tries to bring up a picture of himself on the university website he finds that "Martin Harris" is actually the other man. Making a scene by this point, he leaves before the police can be called. He's confused because the doctor did tell him that his head injury might cause disorientation and confusion.

Martin notices a man following him on the subway. He finds Gina but she doesn't want to talk to him.  As it turns out she's an illegal Bosnian immigrant and lost her job because of the taxi accident. The next day, having written down in his notebook what he believes to be his itinerary, he goes to the University to meet with a professor but finds that the other Martin Harris is already there. This other man has id and even a picture of himself with Liz.

Martin passes out and wakes up in the hospital wondering if he is going mad, how damaged he was by the head injury and who he really is. And then someone murders his nurse and tries to do him in as well. This film is very reminiscent of North by Northwest before it starts to remind me of Taken. It ramps up the tension pretty effectively and although the final third of the film is somewhat predictable the first two parts are not bad. Not bad at all. It is scary to think about how would you prove you were who you said you are if you didn't have papers saying so. Is your identity based on your papers or are you you because of how other people react and respond to you? For a while this film looks like it's going into some philosophical questions raised by Camus and Sartre but shifts back to murderous Germans, time sensitive assignments, secret police, set ups and car chases.
Although there is some violence it is not that explicit. Again, Neeson holds it all together for me. But he has some help from Bruno Ganz, Frank Langella, Aidan Quinn, Rainier Bock, Sebastian Koch, and Eva Lobau. I liked this film.
TRAILER

Detroit Messes Its Pants

I don't like being negative about my home town. Who does? I have previously written about the financial and criminal crisis that Detroit faces and the reasons that it has those problems. To paraphrase Ronnie Van Zant, there's good people in Detroit. And I hope that you all remember that!!! But sometimes it's hard to remember that because the political leadership has failed so miserably over the past few decades.


If you recall when last I wrote about this Detroit was facing an unpalatable choice among three outcomes.

1. Immediate Bankruptcy
2. Emergency Financial Manager
3. Consent Agreement

Now no one in Detroit political leadership liked those choices but there they were all the same. It wasn't necessarily the fault of the current political leadership that they had those choices but nonetheless they were the ones that had to make the tough call. Again, unless you are from here I don't think you can fully understand the (primarily but not exclusively) racial disdain and divisions that plague SE Michigan. On local message boards and newspaper comment sections the glee expressed by some suburbanites at Detroit's horrible dilemma was in direct proportion to the anger and frustration and blame placed on the state by some Detroiters. But still when it came to it, a consent agreement was the best of bad options. After some posturing and anger, the City Council voted 5-4 to accept a consent agreement. This agreement between the city and state allowed a mutual (though state dominant) working relationship between the city and state to attempt to stave off municipal bankruptcy, which could have unforeseen and unpleasant impact on areas outside of Detroit. The state sent Detroit funds to allow for bond refinancing and avoid missing paydays. So despite some final vituperation expressed by my friends among the kente cloth and kufi wearing set, all's well that ends well. Right? Well not exactly.

No, for you see Detroit had also recently changed its charter to allow the city legal department to act independently of the mayor and city council. And the chief city counsel, Krystal Crittendon, was quite close to the council members that had rejected the consent agreement. And since Detroit had enough money from taking the deal to last a little while longer, Ms.Crittendon decided that it would be a great idea to sue the state for money it allegedly owes the city. And to her mind, the fact that the state "owes the city" means that the consent agreement was null and void. Oh yes, some of the alleged debt includes parking tickets. 

MASON -- Detroit's top lawyer expanded a list of debts allegedly owed by the State of Michigan to include bills for storm-water disposal and lighting, along with $1,255 in unpaid parking tickets, in a lawsuit she filed in Ingham County seeking to nullify the financial stability agreement reached two months ago by state and city elected officials. Corporation Counsel Krystal Crittendon's complaint, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court on Monday, says Michigan is in "default" on an additional $1.6 million in alleged debts, and that the agreement violates the Detroit City Charter, which prohibits contracts with "one who is in default." Crittendon's lawsuit also cites $224 million in revenue-sharing payments and a $4.7-million water bill at the former state fairgrounds among state debts to Detroit, the issues she raised May 11 in a letter to state Treasurer Andy Dillon when she first claimed that entering into the financial stability agreement violated the charter.  Dillon responded that the state-city agreement, an alternative Gov. Rick Snyder had to naming an emergency manager to deal with the city's financial crisis, was valid "from both a legal and commonsense perspective," and had been entered into voluntarily by the City Council and Mayor Dave Bing.

LINK


The State of Michigan was not amused and pointed out that it would withhold the remaining monies under the consent agreement, since Detroit thought the agreement was null and void. And the Mayor's office admitted that without that money the city would be broke within a week.

Detroit— The city could run out of cash by next Friday if the dispute over a lawsuit challenging the consent agreement isn't resolved, opening the door to a state takeover, Mayor Dave Bing's administration said today.Bing, who spoke this morning flanked by high-ranking members of his administration, said he has urged the city's top lawyer to drop the lawsuit but added he is powerless under the new city charter to force Krystal Crittendon to comply. Political pressure on her would not work, he said.The mayor said the lawsuit has made this a "potential worse situation than we were in, meaning that we could eventually in a short period of time run out of cash.""It is an emergency," Bing said, indicating the consent agreement with the state would be violated if the city runs out of cash. "It is a crisis and we've been in a crisis for a long time. This just ups the ante more than anything else. And I think, from a leadership standpoint, it's incumbent upon us as leaders to deal with this expeditiously, which means ASAP."Jack Martin, the city's new chief financial officer, said the city would "probably make payroll, but we'd be in a deficit position." When asked directly if the city would be broke, Martin agreed that could happen.Martin said at least $35 million has been already drawn down from the city's escrow account, but based on a letter sent Thursday by the state Treasury Department, "we don't believe they will let us drawn down any more money against that escrow account." That account was where $80 million in interim financing from the state was deposited under the consent agreement to help the city get through its cash crisis.

LINK

So you see what a mess this is. To make this even more ridiculous the Mayor just admitted that the city could not pay for the annual fireworks show  and would have to ask for financial and security assistance from, you guessed it, the state and suburbs. So let me get this straight, Detroit. You're walking around with a big load in your diapers but don't want anyone to help you, clean you up and make sure you don't do it again? You're independent and reject the consent agreement you just signed but you still want suburban/state money? You're the most violent city in the nation, but think the most pressing problem is whether or not you choose a consent agreement or emergency manager? Okay. Fine. As I've said before I understand the fierce sense of anger and independence that is part and parcel of Detroit. It was passed down. It's part of our history. Heck, the white chairman of Compuware gets it. Racism is real and it has ongoing effects. 


But when it comes to the very particular question of what are you going to do right now at this instant, what happened in the past is just not material. The political leadership of Detroit is a joke. Who signs an agreement and then turns around and sues so that they can go bankrupt and have an emergency manager put in over their objections. Just stupid. I said before and I'll say it again. Given the extreme racial and other hostility between city and suburb, city and state, the state would have been wiser just to stay out of Detroit's affairs all together. Because it is more important to the political leadership in Detroit to rule in hell than to serve in heaven. I can (almost perversely) admire such bullheadedness. I just hope that the citizens of Detroit understand that no one is riding to the rescue. Times are tough all over. I still have friends and relatives in the city who are basically held hostage to the foolishness.
What's your take?

President Obama's Kill List: Murder Incorporated Drones

Obama kills children. I meant to write on this last week but due to work requirements I had to table it. Let's get back to some serious questions. You may not have noticed it what with all the media's fawning over the President at the White House Correspondents Dinner, the President's oh so brave announcement that he supports gay marriage that made some people fall out in Messianic ecstasy or the sudden Democratic "discovery" and "shocked outrage" (just in time for the November election) that the US income and wealth distributions have continued to ever more sharply tilt toward the well off but the undeclared war of worldwide drone attacks that the President has sanctioned and directed has continued. It's worse than I thought and probably worse than any of us know. 


No, while Democratic partisans were girding themselves for holy war over the pressing issue of forcing the Catholic Church to underwrite birth control for middle class women, hunting out homophobic heresies among comedians and preachers or stating with a straight face that a federal mandate to give money to huge corporate insurers without price controls was actually a progressive position, the Obama Administration was taking the so-called war on terror (a term it avoids because Bush used it) to a level of lawlessness and violence undreamed of by President Bush. The most striking aspect of Obama's first term has been not the ugliness with which some low-information racist voters oppose him, but the extent to which Obama's policies around war and civil liberties have been a continuation, well really a degradation, of Bush programs. 


That's right. There may be some mild debate among the elites on homosexual marriage or abortion but when it comes to killing or spying on people without warrant, judicial or congressional oversight, this Administration fits perfectly with the previous one. You can vote for a Republican and get war or vote for a Democrat and get war. Yummy. What great choices we have in our duopolistic plutocracy.
The New York Times, which is generally supportive of President Obama, recently did an expose of the Murder Incorporated campaign which the President is personally overseeing in contravention of law and morality. It is quite lengthy but I strongly urge you to take some time, okay a lot of time, and read it here.

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program. This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants. But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.

I am the law!

Did you get that? Everybody who looks like a terrorist is a terrorist so there haven't been many civilians killed because we only kill terrorists. The President said so. So it must be true. This is hogwash!!! The fact that a Black man is saying it doesn't change that fact. It shows how ridiculously premature and insane it was to give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. But hey I'm sure that the families of those killed from afar by our brave philosopher warrior-king will take solace in knowing that their loved ones were either terrorists or up to no good. And it's not like the Third World is running out of people so what's the big deal, right? Every male we kill is a terrorist until someone can POSTHUMOUSLY prove otherwise. Hmm. Isn't that the EXACT same mentality of the NYPD supersized steroid gobbling thug who rousts, harasses or kills black men? You're black so you must be up to something. And even if you weren't doing anything wrong this time well let this arrest/insult/beatdown be an example to those who were. This is the mindset that is processing the Global War on Terror, uh excuse me Overseas Contingency Operation. 

But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official.  Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued. Now, in the wake of the bad first strike in Yemen, Mr. Obama overruled military and intelligence commanders who were pushing to use signature strikes there as well. “We are not going to war with Yemen,” he admonished in one meeting, according to participants. His guidance was formalized in a memo by General Jones, who called it a “governor, if you will, on the throttle,” intended to remind everyone that “one should not assume that it’s just O.K. to do these things because we spot a bad guy somewhere in the world.”Mr. Obama had drawn a line.  But within two years, he stepped across it. Signature strikes in Pakistan were killing a large number of terrorist suspects, even when C.I.A. analysts were not certain beforehand of their presence.  And in Yemen, roiled by the Arab Spring unrest, the Qaeda affiliate was seizing territory. Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know. Officials say the criteria are tighter than those for signature strikes, requiring evidence of a threat to the United States, and they have even given them a new name — TADS, for Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes. But the details are a closely guarded secret — part of a pattern for a president who came into office promising transparency.

Future Terrorist Stopped!!!

Whoa Nelly... The Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know. This is amazing. So we don't even need to know your name, what your alleged crime was or who you are. All we need is that some soft bureaucrat or politician without the stones to put his own life on the line gives an order, no doubt while munching on arugula salad or sipping decaf latte, and halfway around the world another human being is blown to bits. What a country we live in. How wonderful it is that a President's courage can be written down in the blood of other people's children. Historians will doubtless write admiring biographies detailing President's Obama's steadfast grim determination to stay the course in the face of absolutely no serious political opposition on this issue.


But hey he's a good guy because he's trying to get people to drive Volts and help women in their struggle for "reproductive justice". Perhaps this is just what President Obama had in mind when he said that after he was elected that this would be the moment when the planet began to heal. I think his idea of healing the planet and mine are somewhat different but what do I know. Maybe you really can bring peace to the world by dropping bombs on brown and black people you don't like. I had a much longer diatribe planned but this is long enough already. If you really think these actions are just fine there's not much I can write to convince you otherwise. I'll just make a few final points and stop since work beckons. 

• Drone attacks on countries with whom we have not declared war are a particularly odious and dare I say cowardly way of conducting foreign policy. The Constitution lays out a clear road map to declaring war. I don't care what other Presidents did in the past. You either do the right thing or you do not. 
• The US is setting a very very bad precedent here. Does the US think it's the only country with grudges to settle with so-called terrorists? Do you know the name Luis Posada Carriles? If you don't then you should. He is a terrorist with a very long history of violence against Cuban and Venezuelan people, including an airliner bombing. But as far as the US military and intelligence community is concerned, he was killing the right people so he is a popular fixture among the insane right-wing Miami Cuban-American community. Cuba and Venezuela would very much like to get their hands on him but the US has refused. Now what do you think would be the US response, what would be your response, if one or both of those countries started a series of drone attacks across south Florida, killing dozens or even hundreds of people until they got Carriles? And when the US protested, Cuba responded "Hey well, people knew who this guy was. The way we see it, anybody hanging around him was a terrorist so we won't lose sleep or apologize over what we did. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs so quit your crying."
• The US is making more enemies than it is killing with these drone attacks. Again, what would you do if someone starting shooting at your relative's wedding because they had information that your second cousin twice removed was there. And he was a bad guy. But let's say your cousin wasn't there and scores of your relatives and friends and their children were wounded and killed. Chances are you wouldn't be in a joyous mood. In fact you might be so angry and desperate that you and some other like minded people would get together to plan a little payback. It might take a while. It might happen two decades later and then just like with 9-11 naive and historically illiterate Americans would wonder why "they" hate us. It's already starting to happen. 
• It is of course I'm sure a mere coincidence that one of Obama's earliest big money contributors just happens to be the billionaire Lester Crown, a previous chairman of and primary stockholder in General Dynamics, which wouldn't you know, makes drones. How lucky Crown is then, that the politician he supported has increased demand for his company's product. 

The NYT story is only concerned with process and how this might play politically. The NYT is not that concerned with the number of children killed. If Bush or Cheney had been overseeing this program I suspect there might have been a different tone to the article. The ugly truth about this though is that the Times story not withstanding this system of extra-judicial murder and unsanctioned war is something that is deeply bi-partisan. Neither major party presidential candidate would stop this program. In my view, neither man is worthy of being President or has much use for either the Constitution or basic morality. Many people who got on their high horse and attacked President Bush over Guantanamo, torture, assassinations or cherry picked intelligence are quiet as church mice now that it's their guy sitting in the big seat. There are a few brave consistent souls, Ralph Nader for one or Jeremy Scahill, who have the integrity not to change their beliefs about murder, based on which party the President claims. Good for them. There's something rotten in America's soul when these actions pass without comment. Should we get a President Romney I don't want to hear a mumbling word from some snide slug of a delinquent Democrat who has, post-election, miraculously rediscovered his or her dedication to constitutional limitations on Presidential actions. Not. One. Word.

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -Abraham Lincoln

What's your take?