HBO Boardwalk Empire Season 3 Finale

I haven't discussed HBO's Boardwalk Empire on the blog very much nor have I written any recaps. Recaps take a lot of time to write and edit before the next morning so I'd rather save that energy for when Game of Thrones starts up again on March 31, 2013 (if you haven't heard me mention that 10,000 times already).
But Boardwalk Empire is nevertheless a favorite show and one that you should check out. I'm not sure yet if I will write reviews of previous seasons. On Sunday, December 2, HBO aired the season 3 finale. This saw a tidying up of quite a few different storylines but also left a few things open and unresolved for future seasons.

So what's this series about? A lot of different things actually. The dominant thread is actually the quintessentially American spirit of making money and not looking too closely at how that money is earned. On the simplest level Boardwalk Empire tells the story of 1920's Prohibition and its impact on a variety of people in three cities-Atlantic City, New York and Chicago. Enoch "Nucky" Johnson was a real life Atlantic City, New Jersey political leader, who despite avoiding more prominent elected roles, was understood by everyone to be the political boss of New Jersey and the man to see if you wanted to get business done, legal or illegal. Johnson was a corrupt facilitator of bootlegging and somewhat "half-a gangster". There is no evidence he ever murdered anyone or ordered anyone's murder, though he certainly rubbed shoulders with men who did.
Boardwalk Empire has cannily fictionalized Nucky Johnson as Nucky Thompson (Steve Buscemi). This allows HBO to explore more than the bare facts of Johnson's life and create an intoxicating mix of real life events with purely fictional occurrences. In this time period such men as Al Capone, Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano are not yet the powerful mob bosses they would become but struggling young hoodlums with big ideas who have to defer to older men. They're young puppies with big paws, to use a reference from The Wire. Speaking of The Wire, if you liked that show you may enjoy seeing "Omar" reimagined as Chalky White (Michael K. WIlliams), the crime boss and godfather of the Atlantic City black community. He steals every scene he's in.

It's hard to discuss everything without detailing spoilers for past seasons or making this post about three times longer than it should be. Let's just say that for most of Season 3, Nucky took his eye off of business and missed the fact that a few people, namely the sexy MILF (and that's a literal definition) Gillian Darmody (Gretchen Mol), a madam with delusions of grandeur, and a stereotypical NY Italian hothead mafioso, Gyp Rosetti (Bobby Cannavale), each decided that the world would be a better place if Nucky weren't in it. Nucky asked for help from New York gangsters, especially Arnold Rothstein, but was rudely rebuffed.

By the finale, Nucky was on the run for his life. Rosetti has eliminated many of Nucky's men and taken over his hotel and casino. Rosetti has also moved into Gillian's brothel over her muted objections. Her objections are muted as Rosetti is the sort of man who takes everything personally and can find deadly insults in the most innocuous of comments. Saying "Good Morning" to him can be hazardous to your health. He combines an inferiority complex with a dangerous and sadistic temper. The heavy lidded Cannavale pulls this off perfectly. Rosetti exponentially raises the testosterone level of a room just by entering.

The acerbic, profane and generally unpleasant Nucky finds that he must rely on people whom he had previously overlooked and insulted, including a loyal aide-de-camp Eddie Kessler (Anthony Laciura), Chalky White and his crew of black gangsters and Nucky's younger brother Eli (Shea Wigham) the former sheriff, who previously plotted against Nucky out of familial resentment at being passed over (shades of Fredo from The Godfather).

But Nucky's (and to a lesser extent his brother's) power doesn't just come from gunmen but from the ability to outthink rivals and quickly determine the best way by which to corrupt someone. As a political boss, Nucky has an unparalleled ability to give people what they want or in some cases seem to give them what they want.  Nucky's brother Eli makes a deal with Al Capone (Stephen Graham). Capone is looking to make moves of his own as Torrio gives him more executive authority. Capone brings in squadrons of gunmen and together with Chalky and his men they strike back at Rosetti's forces.

As the war rages on Rosetti's patron Joe "The Boss" Masseria (Ivo Nandi) tires of the waste of resources and tells Rosetti to finish it or else. Everyone is double dealing on this show. There are double crosses within triple crosses. Meyer Lansky (Anatol Yusef) and Lucky Luciano (Vincent Piazza) were looking to invest in a heroin shipment but their boss Arnold Rothstein (Michael Stuhlbarg-he was also in Lincoln) disapproved. So Meyer and Lucky went to Masseria for the money. To prove their good faith they shared what they knew of Nucky's plans, thus allowing Masseria's men to surprise and kill Nucky's top assassin, Owen. Now Lucky thinks he's found a buyer for the heroin. Meyer gets cold feet as he doesn't know the buyers. The buyers prove to be police. However not only are they police but they're on Rothstein's payroll. Rothstein and Masseria split the money and drugs, leaving Meyer and Lucky with nothing. Luciano is infuriated and threatens Rothstein and Masseria while the calmer Lanksy counsels patience, recognizing the danger he and his friend are in.

Nucky has previously made a deal with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (James Cromwell) to run a distillery that Mellon owned. Now, desperate for assistance and cash Nucky makes a deal with Rothstein for Rothstein to run the distillery. In return Rothstein will have Masseria pull his support from Rosetti. But the greedy Rothstein demands 99% of the profits. Reluctantly, Nucky agrees.

Meanwhile Gillian is unhappy with letting Rosetti setup shop in her brothel. She is starting to realize just how dangerous Rosetti is. She doesn't like having it thrown in her face that she is a madam and a whore. She doesn't like that her grandson Tommy is witness to rough language and public sex. But the black widow like Gillian is infuriated when she discovers her grandson's bodyguard and protector Richard (Jack Huston) making plans to take Tommy and go live with his girlfriend. She has Rosetti's men escort Richard from the brothel. This is a mistake. It's mostly backstory which is not important here but the mild mannered quiet disfigured war veteran Richard was in business with Jimmy Darmody, Gillian's deceased gangster son. Richard is a soldier with a very strict (albeit warped) code of right and wrong and the single most dangerous killer on the show, bar none. By separating him from his friend's son, Gillian tripped his wire and trigged a killing spree that gives shout outs to both Shane and Taxi Driver. (Martin Scorsese is an executive producer so the Taxi Driver reference was especially nice). Richard returns to the brothel with guns up the wazoo and coldly eliminates over a dozen men. He was a wartime sniper. Murder does not bother him and he never misses. He takes Tommy to go live with his girlfriend's family. Just an aside here, Huston likely does the best acting in the show as he can only use about half his face and has to speak in an gravelly monotone. Other than killing people Richard is an intensely moral person who does not like bullies. He will kill and die to protect Tommy. He finds it very difficult to connect with other people. He was painfully shy even before his injuries. Some of the show's sweetest moments involve Richard trying to engage with his girlfriend Julia (Wrenn Schmidt)

Masseria is good on his word and removes his men. But Capone and Chalky gun down all of Masseria's men as they leave. No survivors. Chalky and Capone had previously been at each other's throats but it looks like this could be the start of a beautiful relationship.
Nucky and his brother Eli enter the brothel looking for Rosetti. Rosetti had been involved in kinky sex games with Gillian which ended when she tried to kill him and Richard went on his rampage. Rosetti escaped. Nucky and Eli find the drugged Gillian rambling and one of Rosetti's men hiding in a closet. Andrew Mellon calls a prosecutor to talk about the distillery he owns. Supposedly he has discovered that it's fallen into the hands of the gangster Arnold Rothstein. He wants the full force of the federal government to be brought down on Rothstein. As Nucky told his brother, sometimes you have to use big bait to catch a big fish. Nucky set Rothstein up.

Rosetti is relaxing with his men on a beach making plans for his next moves. When he's not actually torturing or killing people Rosetti is a nice guy, a real man's man, someone you'd like to hang out with. Rosetti is philosophical about his setbacks. He's singing when his right hand man stabs him in the back, killing him. This is the same man who Nucky and Eli found in the closet. They send him back to Masseria with a message that if Masseria wants peace he can have peace, but if he wants war they're ready for that too. Stay out of Atlantic City. Finally Nucky tries to make amends with his estranged wife Margaret (Kelly MacDonald). I don't like Margaret. Nucky saved her from an abusive marriage and impoverished existence by having Eli kill her husband. Nucky has brought her wealth, safety and social status.
She however has never stopped judging Nucky for his crimes or her guilt. She even gave away his property to the Catholic Church. Nucky is raising her children as his own. Margaret has cheated on Nucky with his bodyguard and just had an abortion. 

The show leaves it up in the air as to whether the two will get back together. Although Margaret had little to do in the finale, believe me the show spends a LOT of time, too much in my opinion, on her storyline through the seasons. If I were Nucky I would not have listened to her whining or moral judgments more than twice. I would have just opened the door and told her "Sorry it didn't work out. Here's your old life back!". But that's just me. I would not care to hear financial, moral or spiritual lectures from someone that without me had no money, no home and would have been beaten to death by her ex. At the end Nucky tells Eli that they must work in the shadows even more. When recognized on the street he turns away in disgust and throws away his signature red carnation. The main difference between Nucky and Margaret is that Nucky is accepting of human evil. He did not kill his brother even though his brother was involved in a plot to kill Nucky. Nucky uses evil for good and thinks it all works out in the end. Margaret doesn't appear to be able to accept the existence of evil though hypocritically that didn't stop her from taking Nucky's money, using his name and power for her own interests (an interesting subplot around women's rights and women's health), or making whoopie with Nucky's bodyguard. The finale was heavy on action, a little too heavy actually. The yet to occur St. Valentine's Day Massacre shocked Americans and yet only saw seven deaths at once. But this series actually intelligently and sympathetically shows how attitudes in America grew and changed, or didn't change around everything from race, women, wealth, child abuse (Nucky could not forgive his abusive father) immigration, etc. Give this show a look see. 

Movie Reviews-Lawless, Take the Money and Run, Game of Thrones S2: Making Histories

Lawless
directed by John Hillcoat

I wanted to like this movie a bit more than I did. It was entertaining but there was just a little missing. I'm not quite sure what. It hit all the right notes, period clothing, taciturn roughnecks with hearts of gold, brutal gangsters and equally brutal lawmen, and of course loyal fallen angel babes that are eager to offer their honor to previously mentioned taciturn roughnecks.

I think I just couldn't buy Shia LaBoeuf in his role. But that was a personal issue I guess. Anyway Lawless is based on the real life adventures of the Bondurant Brothers, Virginia bootleggers during Prohibition. They are based in Franklin County, Virginia, also known as the "wettest county in the world" because literally everyone and their mama is cooking moonshine. Moonshine is the country business. The Bondurants are perhaps first among moonshiners but this isn't really explained how and I guess it's not that important. There are three Bondurants.

The oldest brother is Forrest Bondurant (Tom Hardy, Bane from The Dark Knight Rises) a man of few words, deep thoughts and quick fists who is rumored to be indestructible on account of having survived not only some horrible battles in World War I but also the Spanish Flu of 1919 upon his return. You don't want to get on Forrest's bad side as there are several stories of his fearsome capacity for violence. He'll take you places you don't want to go. But he's a fair dealing man. His word is bond and he's no bully. The middle brother is Howard Bondurant (Jason Clarke), who is even bigger than Forrest and faster with his fists though he's not quite as mentally sharp.

Finally there's kid brother Jack Bondurant (Shia LaBoeuf) Obviously Jack is the center of the story. He's not allowed to go on moonshine runs by himself and his brothers take pains to distance Jack from any violence. There is a flashback of a young Jack being unwilling to kill a pig for dinner. His brothers don't think he's got the grit for deeper involvement in the business. Like Michael in The Wire Jack is the small puppy with big paws that strains against the unfair rules and rough guidance that he gets from his older brothers.

But deeper involvement is of course what's going to happen. The local corrupt district attorney has decided that the free market in booze needs to end and all sales (and a generous commission) need to come through his office. To this end the DA spreads some loot around to get most of the police on his side and brings in a Chicago gangster/corrupt lawman named Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) who is deputized to intimidate, arrest, or eliminate anyone who won't join the new syndicate. Rakes has nothing but contempt for the country bumpkins as he sees them and can't wait to start breaking heads. Pearce does an okay job with this but it's almost a cartoonish role. He even has an evil laugh. He does everything but wear a sign saying "I'm the bad guy". He reminded me a lot of Jack Palance in Shane.

Well Forrest isn't intimidated by Rakes or the DA and tells them so to their face. And when police come by their club to attempt to arrest them, Howard lays a brutal two-step stompdown on the police. So that leaves elimination as the remaining option, which is what the sinister Rakes preferred anyway. When Forrest is left for dead after trying to defend the honor of burlesque dancer Maggie (Jessica Chastain) Jack decides that he needs to step up. This is even more so the case as the previously relatively soft Jack had his own run-in with Rakes, one which embarrassed Jack and greatly damaged the Bondurant reputation.

There is a lot of violence in this film. Some of it is rather explicit. There is some (female) nudity. There is also a slightly comedic love story that develops between Jack and the preacher's daughter Bertha Minnix (Mia Wasikowska). Preacher Minnix has no truck with bootleggers and doesn't want Jack sniffing around. Even being caught talking to Bertha can be hazardous. Jack learns the hard way that the business he's involved in has no tolerance for mistakes. And neither do his older brothers. Family or not, business is business. The Bondurants are in a fight and they don't have time to handhold little brother any more. Step up or step off is how it has to be at this time.

This movie was just under 2 hours long but moved pretty quickly. Gary Oldman has a small role as Floyd Banner, an independent gangster and bootlegger with ties to the area.
Tom Hardy carries this film. I was really more interested in his story and the development of his character's relationship with Chastain's character than I was in LaBoeuf's character. Hardy and Chastain get a fair amount of screen time but really they should have gotten more. All in all a fun film but not something that's gonna knock your block off.
TRAILER



Take the Money and Run
directed by Woody Allen

For many people Woody Allen is a love him or hate him sort of director. His style of ironic humor is not for everyone. Sometimes it can leave me cold or go over my head completely. But I am a fan, especially of his older work. I really thought I mentioned this movie before but a search didn't turn anything up. Apologies if I did write on this before. Getting old I guess. As I had some time off this week before the December rush at my job I re-watched this movie, which was the second film Allen ever directed. It is uneven and hesitant in some places but how good were you early in your career compared to where you are now? This movie stands out because of its wild slapstick visual style. It is miles away from the sort of understated urbane ironic NY humor that would come to define much of Allen's work. This is broad stuff definitely aimed at the cheap seats. It's straight out of the borscht belt in terms of timing and riffs. I found it very funny but as mentioned, I am generally well disposed towards slapstick. Even though it's a short film, it probably runs about 15 minutes too long. There are some scenes that don't work all that well and a few ethnic humor riffs against Allen's particular in-group that he could get away with because he's part of that particular in-group.

The film purports to be a serious documentary about the rise and fall, well really more fall and fall of would be dangerous but almost thoroughly inept criminal Virgil Starkwell (Woody Allen). Virgil Starkwell is a bullied child who turns to crime to try to compensate. His parents, hilariously interviewed in Groucho Marx masks to attempt to disguise their identities, admit that Virgil was a bad seed from day one. Even as Virgil's mother attempts to defend him his father says he was a rotten kid. The documentary also interviews Virgil's high school music teacher who says that Virgil was the worst cello player that he ever came across. The teacher claims Virgil had zero idea of how to play the instrument and that he once caught Virgil blowing into it. Bad cello music is heard and a cello is thrown out of the window. Despite this Virgil was determined to play and joined the high school marching band as cellist. This is shown in flashback. The film is full of sight gags like this.

When an adult Virgil meets the woman who will become his wife, Louise (Janet Margolin) he gives a voiceover to the documentary saying that "..After five minutes I knew I was going to marry this girl. And after fifteen minutes I completely gave up the idea of stealing her purse".

From attempts to escape prison to failed bank robbery attempts to blackmail to singing blues songs on the chain gang, this film zooms along from skit to skit. Not everything works as I said but there were enough belly laughs for me to say that this could be worth a look for you. Again, for better or worse this is nothing like his later work.
Cello Scene  Blackmail scene Gonna See Miss Liza



Game of Thrones
Season 2: Making Histories

HBO just released this video which details some insider information about the making of season 2 and also gives a Ygritte (Rose Leslie) voiceover about the history of the wildlings. I could literally listen to her talk all day, every day. Anyway there are no spoilers in the video for future events but other sites' comments are FULL of them, literally infested with slimy lowlifes that want to spoil things for folks. That is why the video has comments disabled for you to watch here, totally unspoiled, if you are so inclined. If you already know future events, kindly keep those to yourself. If you wanted to know why the wildings or Free Folk as they call themselves, have the society which they do, Ygritte explains it succinctly and in her rather extreme (to my ears) accent.

The UN welcomes Palestine as Observer State

As discussed the Palestinians want independence. They tried and failed to get the UN Security Council to recognize Palestine as a state. So roughly a year after this effort failed in the Security Council the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas tried again in the General Assembly where there is no veto. And this time despite threats of bad consequences from Israel, the United States and a few other nations, the bid for recognition as a state finally passed!

UNITED NATIONS — More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations, a triumph for Palestinian diplomacy and a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel.

But the vote, at least for now, did little to bring either the Palestinians or the Israelis closer to the goal they claim to seek: two states living side by side, or increased Palestinian unity. Israel and the militant group Hamas both responded critically to the day’s events, though for different reasons.

The new status will give the Palestinians more tools to challenge Israel in international legal forums for its occupation activities in the West Bank, including settlement-building, and it helped bolster the Palestinian Authority, weakened after eight days of battle between its rival Hamas and Israel.

But even as a small but determined crowd of 2,000 celebrated in central Ramallah in the West Bank, waving flags and dancing, there was an underlying sense of concerned resignation.

“I hope this is good,” said Munir Shafie, 36, an electrical engineer who was there. “But how are we going to benefit?”

Still, the General Assembly vote — 138 countries in favor, 9 opposed and 41 abstaining — showed impressive backing for the Palestinians at a difficult time. It was taken on the 65th anniversary of the vote to divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, a vote Israel considers the international seal of approval for its birth.

“The question is, where do we go from here and what does it mean?” Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, who was in New York for the vote, said in an interview. “The sooner the tough rhetoric of this can subside and the more this is viewed as a logical consequence of many years of failure to move the process forward, the better.” He said nothing would change without deep American involvement.

Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was dismissive of the entire exercise. “Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade,” she said. “And the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about their lives has changed, save that the prospects of a durable peace have only receded.”

LINK

Rice's contemptuous declaration is of a piece with other similar statements she's made in the past about the Palestinians and similar to what Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, had to say about consequences for the Palestinians seeking status upgrade. "As you know we also have money pending in the Congress for the Palestinian Authority, money that they need to support their regular endeavors and support administration of the territories. So obviously if they take this step it's going to complicate the way Congress looks at the Palestinians".

In other words...Nice little shop you got here Mahmoud.You've got a wife, some kids, a good little business. Now you wouldn't want any accidents to happen, right? So you'll wise up and do the right thing, right? The Don has always thought of you as a friend.

The US, Israel and some other countries tried to prevent the Palestinian Authority from receiving observer state status and having failed to do that then tried to extort assurances from the Palestinian Authority that it would not try to join the International Criminal Court or join other UN agencies or that it would reopen negotiations with the Israelis. The Palestinian Authority turned down all of those "requests". What the US and nations who voted against the resolution failed to realize is that for better or worse the Palestinians need a win. Pride and human dignity demand it. It is simply not possible to keep people under military occupation for 45 years and not have attempts at removing the occupation. Israel has refused to stop settlements in the West Bank or Jerusalem. And at the time of this writing Israel just announced plans for expanded settlements in East Jerusalem. This is of course punishment for the Palestinian Authority's move.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said on Friday that the decision was made late Thursday night to move forward on “preliminary zoning and planning preparations” for housing units in E1, which would connect the large settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem and therefore make it impossible to connect the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem to Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Israel also authorized the construction of 3,000 housing units in other parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the official said.

As we've discussed before you simply can't have a two-state solution and have ongoing settlements. They cancel each other out. I still believe that a one-state solution, which no one will like initially, remains the best way out of a bad situation. If South Africa and Rhodesia could come to accept that the state included more than whites then the Israelis and Palestinians will as well. Eliminationist fantasies on either side will need to be put down. One state, equal rights for all, and special rights for none. What's wrong with that?

A more canny US and Israel would have welcomed a Palestinian "state" on the West Bank since as is obvious such a state would be one in name only. But the need to continually humiliate Abbas and the Palestinian Authority meant that Abbas had nothing to lose by going to the UN. This was especially important in recent times as the Palestinian Authority had nothing to show for "good behavior" except more settlements while Hamas was seen to be fighting back. If you tell people they're going to lose no matter what, often people would rather go down swinging. 

So what does this all mean? As new announcements of settlements show, not a whole lot right now. But whether it's through violence or non-violence, the Palestinians intend to resist the narrative that they don't matter or that they should just fade into irrelevance. There will be renewed spotlight on the occupation and increasing diplomatic pressure to create some sort of solution. The US has done itself a disservice by continuing to enable the most right-wing elements of the Israeli body politic. The Palestinian Authority will seek to make the occupation cost Israel more than it has in the past. Will they be successful? The future's a devious thing to predict. But things that can't go on forever don't. And the occupation is one of those things.

Obamacare, Tax Incentives and Patriotism

Now that Obamacare (PPACA) is being implemented we can see what the response to some of the law's incentives have been. Because the PPACA requires employers of a certain size to provide health care coverage to any full time worker, employers have an additional incentive to limit full time workers to only those who are absolutely necessary. If you happen not to be absolutely necessary or your employer's business model does not provide for a large number of full time workers, then your employer might decide to limit your hours so that you don't get full time work.

Employers from community colleges to Darden Group (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse) to Applebee's have indicated that workers' hours could be limited to avoid health care liability. Stryker, a medical device manufacturer, is not very happy about the new 2.3% medical device excise tax, paid regardless of a company's profits, and has announced that it is reducing staffing levels by 5%. Stryker had other problems already of course, but no one who makes medical devices is pleased with the new tax. Papa John's founder John Schnatter, said that while he was happy that everyone would be getting health care, nothing was for free and he couldn't predict what the independently owned and operated franchises might do.

One study claims that increased costs under Obamacare for small businesses will be negligible thanks to statutory exclusions and tax credits. The problem is that the real world data doesn't line up with the study. Only 170,000 small employers, not 1,000,000 or more, claimed a tax credit. Per the GAO report, this is far fewer employers than originally estimated. It may well turn out that the employers know their business needs and costs better than the federal government does. And if it doesn't make financial sense for them to purchase health insurance they won't do so. It may be cheaper for a company to pay a penalty or reduce staffing rather than to provide health care insurance.

Fewer small employers claimed the Small Employer Health Insurance Tax Credit in tax year 2010 than were estimated to be eligible. While 170,300 small employers claimed it, estimates of the eligible pool by government agencies and small business advocacy groups ranged from 1.4 million to 4 million. The cost of credits claimed was $468 million. Most claims were limited to partial rather than full percentage credits (35 percent for small businesses) because of the average wage or full-time equivalent (FTE) requirements. 28,100 employers claimed the full credit percentage. In addition, 30 percent of claims had the base premium limited by the state premium average.

One factor limiting the credit’s use is that most very small employers, 83 percent by one estimate, do not offer health insurance. According to employer representatives, tax preparers, and insurance brokers that GAO met with, the credit was not large enough to incentivize employers to begin offering insurance. 

In addition, since there is a good chance that taxes will increase in whatever deal the President and Congress work out, some people are making moves now to reduce their tax burden by all available legal means. This could backfire on these people because taking a smaller gain now with a lower tax rate might not net them as much as a larger future gain with a higher tax rate but each individual must make the financial decision that is right for them. If you think the future gains won't offset the higher taxes then recording income now while taxes are low could be the smart move.

Business owners and investors are rapidly maneuvering to shield themselves from the prospect of higher taxes next year, a strategy that is sending ripples across Wall Street and broad areas of the economy.Take Steve Wynn, the casino magnate, who has been a vocal critic of higher tax rates. He and his fellow shareholders in Wynn Resorts, the company announced, will collect a special dividend of $750 million on Tuesday, a payout timed to take advantage of current rates. Experts estimated that taking the payout this year instead of next could save Mr. Wynn, who owns a sizable stake in the company, more than $20 million. 

For the wealthy like Mr. Wynn, the overriding goal is to record as much of their future income this year as they can. This includes moves as diverse as sales of businesses, one-time dividends and the sale of stocks that have been big winners.“In my 30 years in practice, I’ve never seen such a flood of desire and action to transfer a business and cash out,” said Kenneth K. Bezozo, a partner in New York with the law firm Haynes and Boone. “We’re seeing a watershed event.”Whether small business owners or individuals saving for retirement, investors are being urged by their advisers to reconsider their holdings.

Along the way, many are shedding the very investments that have been the most popular over the last year, contributing to recent sell-offs in formerly high-flying shares like Apple and Amazon. Investors typically take profits in their own portfolio at year-end, but the selling appears to be more targeted this year. Stocks with large dividends, for instance, are seen as less attractive because of the perceived likelihood of a sharp increase in the tax rate on dividends.

These moves were thoroughly predictable. Some people who opposed the PPACA pointed these things out before hand but they were often ignored. These decisions seem to have incited some derision and anger among people who supported the PPACA and higher marginal tax rates. Some have argued that paying (higher) taxes is patriotic. Certainly the late NY Mafia Boss Frank Costello thought so. But regardless of your patriotism and love for your country, business is business. Nobody in their right mind sits down to do their taxes and then decides to pay more than what is owed to the Federal government. If the Federal government passes a law that says if you do x, y, and z then you owe this amount, it should not be surprised or upset if people do their best to avoid doing x, y, and z. The government might get less than what it expected to get in revenue because, ceteris paribus, people suddenly find incentives to change their behavior. If the behavior being taxed is not strictly speaking 100% necessary or otherwise unable to be changed, when you tax something you will generally get a little less of it.

And tax avoidance is 100% legal. It's tax evasion that will get you in trouble. If a state raises its income tax I can move. If the federal government tells me that capital gains are taxed more lightly than income, I can start buying more stocks, real estate and start or purchase a business. If a city tells me there is a toll involved in using a particular expressway, I can take another route. If the federal government tells me that I pay less in taxes by using an IRA or 401K to save for retirement, then I may well investigate doing so. If I am paying $2000/mth in rent and discover that I could pay the same amount for a mortgage and deduct local property taxes and interest from my federal taxes, you know I just might consider that move. And if the federal government tells me that hiring this person will cost more than I think the employee is worth, then I may do my best to get along without hiring that person. This is the essence of economics. People respond to incentives.

People supported the PPACA because they thought it was the just thing to do. And maybe it was. Time will tell. The costs involved and changes made may be quite small once all the dust settles. But that doesn't change the fact that it will cost. At the margins, some behaviors will change. I don't see this as especially surprising or troubling. What I do see as troubling is the outrage and bewilderment among supporters of the PPACA that people actually make decisions based in part on economic incentives. Just as there is an observer effect in physics, there is a taxing effect in economics. No one likes The Taxman.

Questions

1) Do companies have the right to investigate changing staffing and pricing in response to the PPACA? Are you surprised by these moves?

2) Are some companies and individuals blaming the PPACA for their own poor financial decisions? Are these just post-election temper tantrums?

3) Do you pay more taxes than you owe? Is it unpatriotic to limit your tax liability? 

Breaking News: Florida Stand Your Ground Shooting - Michael Dunn kills Jordan Davis

I don't like music that is audible at insanely high decibels outside of your vehicle. Not everyone is a fan of whatever your particular music may be. I think it's rude to make everyone else listen to your favorite music whether they like it or not. Were I an officer of the law I would be handing out numerous disorderly conduct tickets for such behavior.

But despite the fact that I am irritated by such behavior I've never had a desire to shoot people for playing their music loudly. See not only is shooting someone morally worse than playing music loudly, it would probably result in me going to prison for a very long time where chances are, I'd have to get used to much much more offensive behavior patterns than someone playing music at a level I found unpleasant.

But evidently some people aren't bothered by the possibility of going to prison.
From the same state that brought you the Trayvon Martin situation comes another case where a Caucasian or non-black man shot and killed an unarmed black teenager and then tried to say he was threatened.


                 

Florida’s controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ law is back on the national stage after the murder of yet another unarmed, black teenager. Michael Dunn, a 45-year-old Florida resident, is invoking the controversial law after a recent confrontation turned fatal, The Orlando Sentinel reports. According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.

Dunn was arrested on Saturday and charged with murder and attempted murder. His lawyer said that her client acted "responsibly and in self defense." During a telephone interview with ABC 25, Dunn’s daughter Rebecca defended her father, saying he did not intend to kill anyone and was responding to a threat. "He got threatened and had to do what he had to do, and it's sad, so sad," Rebecca Dunn said. "A terrible tragedy on both sides. It really is. I don't know. What are you going to do in that situation? You don't know what you are going to do. He just reacted".

I am not offended by the defense attorney or Dunn's daughter making the statements they did. That's what I would expect them to do. I am offended that someone who isn't an officer of the law apparently feels it necessary to initiate a confrontation with someone, kill them and then claim self-defense. As usual, we should wait to see what other facts may arise but right now it doesn't look good for Dunn. I have had road rage. I get angry at people on a regular basis. If I shot everyone who ever annoyed me I would have run out of bullets by now. But somehow in my time on this planet I've managed not to murder anyone. That's because I have control over myself and know the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately some people don't. Or worse, some people think that they don't have to control themselves around certain other people. I think that the public image of young black men, heck black men in general is so bad that independent of context, everything they do can be considered a threat by someone who sees them in a certain light.

A black musician responding in kind to a white comedian's nasty insults becomes a verbal rapist. A teen allegedly playing loud music becomes a threat to your life. For some people the mere existence of black people can be threatening, evidently. I don't know how to fix this. One way to start would be to repeal the Stand Your Ground law, but that's really an after the fact solution. Certainly it should be made clear to everyone that you can't start a confrontation and then kill someone in "self-defense". I fully expect that Dunn's defense team will try their best to find any dirt they can on Jordan Davis. Maybe he spit on the sidewalk once. Maybe he jaywalked when he was ten. Maybe he got into a fight in kindergarten. But his true crime was annoying Michael Dunn. And for that he received the death penalty.

**UPDATE. Our very own Leigh Owens aka The Godson discusses the case. Special thanks to Leigh and to the Storyteller for getting info out.

Questions

1) What is wrong with Florida?

2) Is it time to repeal the Stand your Ground Law?

3) Do you think Dunn was drunk?

4) How do we avoid these sorts of things in the future? 

Movie Reviews-Lincoln, The Campaign

Lincoln
directed by Steven Spielberg

Some people believe that Abraham Lincoln was the country's greatest President because he successfully kept the country intact during the bloodiest war the US experienced. Lincoln not only defeated the traitors but started the legal machinery to reduce and/or eliminate formal statutory support for white supremacy. However, though he opposed slavery, as Lincoln took pains to make clear throughout his life he wasn't necessarily overly fond of either abolitionists or black people and would have been content to keep the Southern states and slavery in the Union. It was the Southern states' intransigence, paranoia, arrogance and fatal inability to count that resulted in the Civil War, the effects of which still ripple throughout American society today. At some points Lincoln thought that "colonization", by which he meant the removal of Blacks from America and their placement in Africa, was the best solution to the race problem.

Steven Spielberg's film Lincoln, isn't quite a hagiography but it's pretty doggone close. Often films like this can be problematic, especially if the subject is still living or has well known faults. With Abraham Lincoln neither of these things is true so Spielberg is free to paint Lincoln in broad heroic colors. He is much aided in this by the title role actor, Daniel Day-Lewis, who really ought to receive an Oscar right now. Day-Lewis becomes Lincoln. He is Lincoln. I think he will be Lincoln for anyone who sees this film. Method acting. It works. Like much of Spielberg's popular work , Lincoln has a gauzy, upbeat, optimistic message.

America is a can-do place. Anyone standing in the way of freedom and doing what's right is just a temporary and probably misguided obstacle. Such people should be more pitied than hated. The film's music soundtrack, by John Williams, suitably tears at the heartstrings or makes one want to pump their fist in the air where appropriate. This is of course manipulative, but all the same it's good film making if you know what you're doing and obviously that's the case with Spielberg. 

Lincoln has a lot of exposition. Be aware that this is a LONG film. It is 2.5 hrs. Very little of this is battle scenes, with the exception of the intro which shows Black US troops engaged in a desperate struggle with Confederates who had recently massacred other black troops. As a black soldier later explains to the President "We decided we weren't taking any prisoners that day". Black soldiers are also displayed prominently throughout the film. This is historically accurate but has been so rare in Civil War movies that one wonders if Spielberg wasn't taking a subtle shot at the still common myth that white men alone fought and died for Black people's freedom. No there were a lot of Black men fighting, something that infuriated the Confederates, as their entire casus belli was that blacks were an inferior cowardly race that couldn't fight and were only suited for slavery. The Confederacy generally refused to take black soldiers prisoner or treat them as POW's instead of escaped slaves, something that hindered prisoner exchanges, increased brutality toward POW's and lengthened the war.

The struggles in the movie Lincoln are not primarily on the battlefield but within Lincoln's family, his cabinet and the House of Representatives.

As Lincoln explains, the Emancipation Proclamation could be legally justified as a war act but it might not necessarily pass legal muster post-war, especially in slave owning Union border states. No, what Lincoln wanted was the Thirteenth Amendment, to outlaw slavery for once and for all. In this he is fiercely opposed by the Congressional Democrats, who coalesce around Ohio Representative George Pendleton (Peter McRobbie). Lincoln's own cabinet is lukewarm to the idea. It appears the amendment lacks the votes needed to pass. As Lincoln's Secretary of State and close friend William Seward (David Strathairn) reminds him there are plenty of Northern whites who dislike slavery but don't want free blacks living in their state. Other white leaders like NY Congressman Wood (Lee Pace) fear that any sort of anti-slavery legislation is just a Trojan Horse that will cause mandatory black voters, black representatives, black educators and most disgusting of all, black intermarriage with whites. In Wood's view to tolerate is to require.

Wood spends a great deal of time baiting Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) who as a "radical Republican" really does believe in what was called "social equality" between black and white. Other Lincoln advisers want him to go slow on the whole anti-slavery thing as there are back door negotiations for Southern surrender with Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens (Jackie Earle Haley).

Mrs. Mary Lincoln (Sally Field) combines a fierce sharp tongued public loyalty to her husband with emotional volatility and vicious grief derived guilt tripping behind closed doors. She is determined to prevent their oldest son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) from enlisting in the Army. And as she calmly explains to her husband she had better get what she wants or he'll have no peace. So as you can see the President has many issues to resolve. Lincoln deals with this stress by listening to everyone and then telling a story or joke from his frontier days. This provides some of the film's comic relief. Many of Lincoln's jokes are slightly offensive or simply not funny. People get bored with his stories. As legislative debate is mundane Spielberg tries to spice this up with cutaways to the attempts to "influence" legislators by the 1865 equivalent of lobbyists, who then as now, are professionally and personally offended by a man who won't stay bought.

There's no drama in the outcome since, as you know we DO have a Thirteenth Amendment. The drama is in the process. Spielberg takes some liberties with history but it's a movie not a documentary. Watching people as they might have been in 1865 I am of course quite happy that I didn't live then. This is not only for the obvious but also for less apparent items or behavior that we take for granted, like refrigeration, anti-perspirant, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, sterile dentistry, medical treatment that goes beyond amputation, and less visible body hair (on BOTH genders).

Lincoln makes a play at straddling the line between approving principled and unyielding opposition to evil (as embodied by Thaddeus Stevens) and pragmatic actions to get most of what you want when faced with real world difficulties and opposition (as embodied by Abraham Lincoln). Unsurprisingly the film comes down on the side of pragmatism. There have been few men who never compromised at some point, especially in a democratic system. But I would also point out that often, societal changes are brought about by men who generally eschewed compromise. Your views may vary on this. Should a representative reflect the views of his constituents or lead them as his conscience requires? This tension between purism and pragmatism will never go away. Without pragmatism, purists can fall into a cold white light or empty black hole that makes no allowances for human frailties or needs. So purism can be rejected. But without purists pushing and kicking them, pragmatic politicians become undistinguished grey men who have no other beliefs other than the pursuit of money and re-election. They do things like vote present on the great issues of the day so that they don't jeopardize future presidential bids, say they voted for the war before they voted against it or claim in public that they want every American's vote while privately dismissing 47% of voters as lazy leeches.

Lincoln did a great job of capturing the flowery and precise high language of the day as well as some of the earthier slang. Thaddeus Stevens certainly knew how to insult a man. Other actors/actresses in this film include John Hawkes, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, Gloria Reuben, Lukas Haas, David Oyelowo, Tim Blake Nelson, Julie White, Wayne Duvall and many many more. This was the best movie, or at least the best acting I've seen in a while. Day-Lewis knocks the ball out of the park but Tommy Lee Jones shows that Day-Lewis wasn't the only heavyweight actor in the film. As mentioned, Lincoln has only a few scenes of violence. It's PG-13 not R. There are some long views of battlefields after a skirmish has been concluded and some visits to a blood spattered field hospital. 
TRAILER



The Campaign
directed by Jay Roach

I thought this comedy film was very funny but it is not a subtle satire like Election. It's really more slapstick. In fact it's probably best understood as a collection of skits, most of which hit but a few of which miss. So if you don't occasionally mind something that wears its silliness on its sleeve and doesn't try to hide it, you will probably enjoy this movie. It's quite predictable but sometimes knowing where you're going doesn't matter as long as you enjoy the ride. 

Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) is a rather dim North Carolina Democratic congressman. He's running for election unopposed though as many of his constituents are either just as dim as he or simply turned off from the political process. Although Brady talks in broad generalities of Jesus, football and America he's really forgotten why he entered politics in the first place. The only thing he cares about now are the side benefits of political office, such as adulation from flunkies and intimate one on one meetings with dedicated supportive female voters. 

This last causes a problem for Cam as possibly drunk he left a remarkably detailed message on what he thought was his girlfriend's home phone detailing his erotic plans for her, some of which are still illegal in the state. But Cam dialed the wrong number and actually left his sexual fantasies and instructions on the voicemail of a born again Christian couple while they were eating dinner with their children. The voicemail goes viral.

Although Brady has always played ball with corporate interests, two prominent and rather unethical businessmen, the Motch Brothers (John Lithgow and Dan Ackroyd) think that it might be time to hedge their bets. They decide to run a candidate on the Republican ticket against Brady. They choose the naive, pudgy and somewhat less than masculine Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) who is the town tourism director. Marty is the son of a  Motch Brothers' employee. Marty is a source of continual disappointment to his hard driving father Raymond Huggins (Brian Cox), a unreconstructed bigot who satisfies his longings for the bygone days of segregation by having his Asian-American housekeeper speak as if she walked in from an Amos-N-Andy casting call circa 1946. YMMV as to whether this is funny. I didn't think so.

Cam quickly patches things up with his icily attractive blonde hypocritical wife, Rose (Katherine LaNasa) who doesn't care what Cam does as long as he wins and moves on to higher office. Cam can't really take Marty's challenge seriously. Cam thinks Marty will fade into irrelevance once Cam shares some pictures of the rather fey Marty working out at the women's gym Curves and doing some other things which don't fit into a virile image. But Marty has some unseen strengths that he derives mostly from his sweet, supportive and overweight wife Mitzi (Sarah Baker) and somewhat less so from the ruthless Motch approved Sith Knight campaign manager Tim Wattley (Dylan McDermott). Marty finds that nice guy or not, he wants to win and after a few reservations, starts to get just as negative as Cam. Cam turns to his good old boy campaign manager Mitch Wilson (Jason Sudeikis) for more ammo and the fight descends to new depths.

You can probably tell where this all ends up but as I wrote, it's the journey which is funny. I enjoyed this movie but then again I like slapstick. If you like slapstick you will probably like this as well.

TRAILER

Gender Quotas for US Elected Offices?

There will be 20 women in the US Senate in 2013. This is a record. But if you're anxious to smash the patriarchy and make everything "equal" this isn't anywhere near good enough. Thus some people wonder if the time hasn't come to dust off Title IX. Instead of applying it to college or high school sports or ridiculously threatening to expand its jurisdiction to the scientific classroom, some think the US should have political gender quotas for elected seats. Some people would want women to be guaranteed at least 30% representation in elected bodies while others demand 50% representation in the US Senate.  Each state would have to have one man and one woman as its Senator. 

It is a source of constant amusement to me that Harrison Bergeron, a dystopic satire by a left-leaning writer, has instead become a virtual guidebook for some earnest current left-wingers (and a bete noire for right-wingers) who really are obsessed with trying to enforce equality of results no matter what. 

You don't have to be a fervent racist or chauvinist to understand that people aren't the same and have different interests. Looking at the state of the world today I wouldn't argue that men are better at leadership but they definitely seem to be more interested in leadership. Should we pretend that the gender that is literally awash in testosterone and aggression and gets certain (ahem) benefits from the other gender for seeking, holding and expressing status and power would not then on average show greater interest in obtaining formal leadership positions? Every single American man who's been elected to office in the past ninety two years has had to appeal to women voters. What we see is what the electorate, men and women, want. Maybe the electorate is wrong, bigoted, behind the times, etc. Maybe. But ultimately power resides in the people.

It may well be a feminist truism that men and women are roughly identical and interchangeable and thus any societal differences are solely an example of invidious discrimination. But just believing something doesn't make it so. We still have a legal and constitutional system that would, I hope, make it difficult for gender quotas to be used. I don't think that such quotas could be reconciled with equal protection concerns or the right to freedom of association. How can we tell voters that their choice will be limited by gender? 

And enforcement would be unpleasant if not impossible. Let's say that a insurgent political movement led by a honest, hardworking charismatic man arises and defeats the moribund ineffective Democratic (woman) Senator. But as the state's Republican Senator, who's not up for re-election this year is a man, that would mean that the state would then be sending two men to the Senate. No good. All those votes for the new guy were thus meaningless. Are we going to tell the rising star that sorry, he can't serve in the US Senate because he has an outie instead of an innie? Does that sound remotely American?

Bad policy arises from bad ideas. There are two bad ideas here. The first is that you can only or best be politically represented by someone who shares your immutable physical traits. If everyone felt that way then we'd not have the President we have nor would a decent politician like Steve Cohen ever have served. What matters is not so much what you look like but what you do. 

The second bad idea is that men and women are interchangeable and ought to be doing the exact same things in the same proportion. That's never been and never will be the case in human society. Men and women are of equal value but they are rather obviously not identical. And women can be just as mean, greedy, short-sighted, ignorant and bigoted as men. There is certainly no guarantee that having more women making or executing law will produce better results. Would you enjoy a President Palin? Michele Bachmann as head of HHS? Is it better for South Carolina pro-choice women that right wing pro-life Nikki Haley is governor instead of a right wing pro-life man? There is no law preventing interested women from running for office.
There is no law preventing political parties and interest groups from encouraging women candidates, donating to women candidates or even leaning on male potential candidates to sit an election out because the party wants more women to run. 
There is no law preventing current women (or men) elected officials from identifying and mentoring potential women candidates. 

Right now, if you've got the guts, intelligence and the heart to do it you can run for political office. There should not be a federal law preventing you from doing so because of your gender. Period. Gender quotas are the political equivalent of giving everyone in a sports event a trophy. It's a silly idea and debases the challenge. This idea also shows a nasty hostility to the voter's choice.

I believe in equality of opportunity. I don't believe in legally requiring equality of results. I think our system can occasionally get away with a small thumb on the scale where there is historical or ongoing discrimination. But quotas go way beyond that. There is a tension between freedom and equality just as there is between freedom and safety. The US body politic has mostly tended towards freedom. Our constitution is set up that way. However there are some powerful currents that tend toward equality and safety at the expense of freedom. 

The voters must be able to choose the best woman or man for a particular job without being prevented from doing so by a particular interest group that decides it doesn't like current gender (or any other kind of) political demographics. Black people are roughly 13% of the population and have no Senate seats. Jewish people are about 3% of the population and have eleven Senate seats. Hispanic people are about 15% of the population and have three Senate seats. Left-handed redheaded bisexual agnostics are 2% of the population and on and on and on. If you go down the path of political quotas, pack a lunch because it's gonna be a long haul.

Questions

1) Do you think there will ever be proportional gender representation in Congress and the Senate?

2) Do quotas have any place in American politics? Do you think they're legal?

3) Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron?