Book Reviews-The Job, Avalon, Take The Rich Off Welfare

The Job
by Douglas Kennedy

Do you play chess? Do you know the feeling of dread when you're playing against a far superior player who manipulates you into a situation where your only available moves are bad and worse? There's often a sick sensation in the bottom of your stomach when you must finally admit to yourself that you were outmaneuvered and slaughtered because you weren't as smart, experienced or as skilled as your opponent. You didn't see the moves and possibilities they saw until it was far too late. You're making moves that you think are in your best interest and you find out later that the moves you were making were truly in the best interest of your opponent.

Well, theoretically anyway, unless you really are dumb,  you can read and learn more about chess, practice and play this person over and over and over again and get better and better until at some time in the not too distant future the game's outcome is no longer a foregone conclusion. You might be able to make this person sweat some and even beat them on occasion. It all depends on how hard you work. Life is different. The stakes are much higher and unlike chess, if you lose you don't necessarily get to reset the board and start over. That's this book's theme although the book has nothing at all to do with chess. It was just an example I found useful.

The protagonist is Ned Allen, a high flying computer ad salesman for a NYC based company. He's a top salesman and executive who is second in command to Chuck Zannussi, the branch lead and good friend. Ned's married to Lizzie, a similar up and comer in the PR business. They make a lot of money and don't have any kids yet. You'd think they'd be banking it. Nope. As some on this blog have pointed out, Manhattan is an expensive place to live. The couple (especially Ned) lives only for today. Though he's earning over six figures, Ned is pretty deep in consumer debt. He's quite dependent on his next paycheck and year end bonus. Ned lacks much savings to rely on let alone retirement or emergency funds. He's juggling credit card payments, club membership fees, and other creditors.


When Ned's company is sold to a German conglomerate, Ned thinks his prospects for advancement are looking up. But much like another fictional Ned, Mr. Allen is rather naive about how the world really works, how the game is played, who his friends really are and how tenuous his status is. In short time he's out of work, blackballed from his industry, homeless and on the verge of divorce. The book bluntly details Ned's decline, the constant pressures salesmen face and the impact on their lives and marriages. Some of them don't make it. I found this quite realistic. If you lost your job today and were vindictively prevented from working in your field again, how long could you survive?  If you're married how long would your spouse really be patient with your failures and excuses? It's a cold world and as Ned discovers, money talks and bull**** walks.

Ned runs into an old high school associate, Jerry. Jerry hires him for a job with a private equity fund that's owned from afar by Jack Ballantine (I thought of a combination of Donald Trump and Dan Marino), a former NFL superstar who has become a real estate giant, financial market sharpie and motivational speaker guru. Ballantine wants Ned to find the next big company for the fund to invest in. But Ned is warned that he is not under any circumstances to disclose Ballantine's ownership. Despite noticing a few other oddities, Ned is not in a position to turn down a job offer. Things get much worse from there. 

Again I liked how little moves early in the story set the stage for much greater later betrayals and slip-ups. In another life I used to sell financial products. I appreciated how well the author depicted the salesman's barely hidden desperation, the customer's genial indifference and the relentless pressure from the boss who must quickly fire anyone who isn't meeting their quota. Nothing personal, just business.

The book is told from first person perspective which works well for this story. Often the wife can come off unsympathetically in stories like this but that's not the case here. Lizzie has good reasons for acting as she does. Most (not all) of what goes wrong is Ned's fault. Of course as Lizzie would point out Ned tends to claim too much responsibility for things because he's controlling and secretive so you may or may not be sympathetic to Ned. I liked this book. It was just under 500 pages. So it was a little long but rarely dragged. In a bit of a stereotype, Ned has an Italian-American buddy who owes him one and happens to "know people who know people".




Avalon
by Anya Seton

I remembered reading (skimming?) this book as a child. It was my mother's book. Recently I was able to find the original 1965 edition with the blue cover and re-read it. I was somewhat chagrined to discover that in some very real ways it's as much romance novel as it is historical fiction. Go figure. Likely if it had had the modern cover which is more obviously aimed at the romance novel crowd I never would have picked it up. Still as historical romance or mystery intrigue it's a great read and probably goes a way towards explaining my lifelong interest in Dark Age and Middle Age times. It's quite a story. The book takes place in the 10th century.

Although battle and violence are always close at hand in this book it's really a fictionalized telling of the life of the French Saint Rumon. And the important thing in Rumon's life is his always interrupted relationship with Merewyn, a Cornish girl who claims descent from King Arthur. Do you have or did you have someone in your life where the timing was never right between you two? When you wanted them they didn't want you? When they wanted you, you just got married? When they're begging to sleep with you you've just taken an oath of celibacy? 

That's basically the story of Rumon and Merewyn. The book starts with Rumon meeting Merewyn, who is six years younger than he. Rumon is 20 and a well read, well spoken handsome nobleman who boasts descent from both Charlemagne and King Alfred the Great. He was shipwrecked on the English coast. He intends to visit his cousin the English King Edgar. Not to be outdone Merewyn can't stop talking about her own royal descent, though since she lives in a hut with her dying mother, it must not mean that much. Rumon learns from the mother that the attractive but not beautiful Merewyn is actually the product of a rape by Vikings. The mother begs for and gets Rumon's oath not ever to tell Merewyn. She charges Rumon to take Merewyn to court with him, as it's not safe for a young girl on the verge of womanhood to be alone. 

And that kicks off a detailed and satisfying story of royal intrigue, murder, glorious last stands and true love. Over decades Rumon's and Merewyn's lives diverge, go on parallel tracks and intersect. Both Rumon and Merewyn go through hell and back but the story doesn't end up the way you think it might. Modern love stories have cliche scenes where someone frantically must make it to the airport, train station or bus station before their baby leaves them forever. Well imagine that transposed to ships at a time where Viking raids were quite common and nobody in Europe even knew about Greenland let alone America. So that part was fun.

And if you like dirty plans hatched in secret you will enjoy the goings on at court, where Rumon falls under the spell of Queen Alfrida, a beautiful and power hungry woman who will stop at nothing for her own son to be on the throne, even if means the current heir needs to have an "accident". Rumon will have a lot to answer for because of his involvement with Alfrida but no one will judge him more harshly than himself.

Seton flows back and forth between Saxon England, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland and North America. If you like George Martin's work I suppose you might be positively disposed to this. There are some big differences though. First off, Seton gives excellent detailed descriptions of how the peasants lived. Merewyn spends a great deal of her life in relatively modest circumstances. Next, religion and belief in God are very real parts of everyone's life. Even evil people believe in God and though they may not all come to bad ends, many are shown to seriously fear Hell. Next, although there are no women warriors and rapes are a big part of what motivate Viking attacks, women also have power not just as wives but in their own right as noblewomen and abbesses. And obviously Seton knew more about being a woman than Martin does. So her depiction of the Middle Ages world is more balanced and probably more accurate than Martin's admittedly fantastical work in that aspect. Seton was famed for doing a lot of research for her work and it shows in every page. You really do feel like you've gone back in time. This book was just over 400 pages and a pretty engrossing read. It's sad but I think you, like the characters, will have gained wisdom after it's over.





Take The Rich Off Welfare
by Mark Zeppezauer and Arthur Naiman

Regardless of the actual demographic profile of the population on welfare or the actual definition of the word, the connotation of "welfare" often brings up the idea of a loud, aggressive and obese woman of African or Hispanic ancestry who may have multiple children by multiple partners and seeks to avoid paid work the way Billy Gibbons avoids razors.

This book is not interested in the sexual habits or racial characteristics of those Americans who receive public assistance. This book seeks to explode the myth that public transfers of money to private individuals only happen from rich to poor in terms of welfare. This book examines the myriad methods by which we all give money to the rich in order to help them get rich in the first place or become richer. 

This book is really more of an extended pamphlet. It is about 200 pages and is lavishly and extensively footnoted. It's also somewhat dated having being written back in 1996 but the underlying issues are exactly the same today and the numbers (the authors' lowball estimate of what they call wealthfare is $448 billion per year or 3.5 times the amount spent on welfare for the poor) have if anything worsened since 1996.

So what are some of the issues the authors rail against? Well there are a lot of them. And you may not think of all of these as unearned rents or wealthfare but most of them go to the well-off disproportionately or are specifically designed for the wealthy and well connected to use. These include such items as favorable tax treatment for capital gains, subsidies for sports arenas, export subsidies, tax breaks for oil and gas exploration, excessive government pensions, accelerated depreciation tax breaks, subsidies to agribusiness, legalized tax avoidance by multinational corporations, mortgage interest deductions and 1031 exchanges, Pentagon waste and fraud, cheap prison labor and so on. 

The authors definitely are impassioned. Some would say they have an axe to grind. The writers would say there is a fundamental difference between helping someone to survive and avoid starvation on one hand and "helping to finance industries that pollute our air, water and soil". They point out the insanity of some subsidies such as (and I don't know if this still exists) an Interior Department program which subsidizes irrigation water for agribusiness and an Agriculture Department program which pays those same companies not to grow crops with that water. The companies sell the subsidized water back to local governments at a nice little profit. This book has something to say to people across the political spectrum whether you are a libertarian who's opposed to any government picking of winners and losers, a liberal who wants more spending on the poor, or even a conservative who's uneasy about the large corporate march away from the free market.

Catherine Kieu and Domestic Violence: Double Standards

Driving into work this morning unfortunately there was nothing on the sports stations I was interested in listening to so I decided to check out the talk show host Mildred Gaddis. She splits her show between political sections and relationship sections, with the latter coming second. I was running very late this morning so I caught her show in the relationship segment. She, and most of her female callers were laughing at something. Most of the male callers didn't think whatever they were talking about was funny at all and that, (paraphrasing one) "the woman should spend life under the jail". I was intrigued but still didn't know what they were talking about. And I was getting closer to work. There were a few commercial breaks. Finally, after one woman caller said "the man deserved it", another woman caller said "it's too bad the garbage disposal didn't work better" and another woman caller said that "she allowed him to call 911, how bad could she be?" and yet another claimed "men need to learn how to act" ,all of which was met with roaring laughter by Gaddis, it started to click for me. They were talking about the beginning trial of alleged (although it's conceded she did it) genital mutilator Catherine Kieu , who in a fit of jealous rage, poisoned her estranged husband, chopped off his penis and threw it in the garbage disposal.


Remember this story?

SANTA ANA, Calif. - A Garden Grove man tearfully testified Wednesday that his estranged wife "murdered him" the night she allegedly laced his food with a sleep drug and tied him to his bed before castrating him and tossing his penis into a garbage disposal.

Catherine Kieu, 50, is accused of slashing off her the victim's penis with a kitchen knife on July 11, 2011.
"She murdered me that night," he testified Wednesday afternoon.

According to the prosecution, Kieu was furious that her estranged husband was dating a former girlfriend, so she drugged him by lacing his meal with Ambien, and when he passed out, tied him up, castrated him and tossed his penis into the garbage disposal.
Catherine Kieu's attorney countered that his client suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and did not have the required mental state to be convicted of the charges she faces -- aggravated mayhem and torture, with a sentence-enhancing knife-use allegation.
If convicted, she faces up to life in prison without the possibility of parole....

Link

As I mentioned, I was way behind schedule this morning due to an unfortunate series of events so I did not have the interest or opportunity to check all of the various reactions over the past two years to this crime. But as far as I know the victim has to this day not been invited to the White House to discuss any Violence Against Men Act nor has any Senator or Congressman/woman adopted him as a cause celebre in the struggle against domestic violence. No one with mainstream media access has angrily pointed to his case as an example of the need to teach women not to mutilate. I do remember that when this story first broke, some women, just like the women I listened to on the radio this morning, thought that cutting off a man's penis and throwing it down the garbage disposal while he bleeds out was quite humorous. In fact one claimed that if she were Maria Shriver, that's what she would have done to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ok. Well we're all adults. Sometimes we may find things that are horribly inappropriate funny. Everyone has a different sense of humor after all. But see I'm a bit confused. We're constantly bombarded with messages that there's no excuse for violence against women, rape (of women) is never funny, dongle jokes aren't funny, fat jokes aren't funny, stop blaming the victim, blah, blah, blah. 
Fair enough. But violence against anyone should be deplored, not just that against women. 
And when some of the same people that would howl the loudest if someone made a joke about male on female domestic violence yuk it up over a woman permanently mutilating her estranged husband, it sends a mixed message at best. At worse it shows that some people are some horrible hypocrites.  Domestic violence against men is much more common than people realize.

If we're going to teach people that domestic violence is wrong it has to go both ways.  No matter how angry (justifiably or not) someone may become because their partner isn't doing what they want or is cheating on them or whatever, there must be a firm no hands rule enforced equally regardless of gender. Violence, particularly horrific violence that changes someone for life, isn't funny. Kieu is someone who should be locked up for life. Her victim is someone who deserves sympathy, not mockery. Your spouse, significant other or provider of thy nookie is "yours" only in the sense that they want to be. You don't own them. You can't punish them as if they were children or dispose of them as if they were property. When people forget that, male or female, they get into trouble. The fact that Gaddis ,and many but not all of her listeners, thought this story was funny and that the man somehow deserved it, says something not very good about gender relations. I can't imagine too many male media personalities making fun of a maimed female victim and keeping their jobs.

Thoughts?

When Will Democrats Learn??

You've heard me say this numerous times on this site, but it bears repeating. I have the utmost respect for the Republican Party when it comes to their precise timing and alignment of party, during elections. Granted, their alignment over the last few years has been around the WRONG candidate, you have to commend their strategy and overall execution. Republicans know how to get in line. I don't know if there is some secret head person that convenes a secret session and hands out the orders, but they do it flawlessly. For the life of me I can't understand why Democrats lack this skill, and have chosen to ignore this one very important play from the "Republican Play Book on Politics." I guess the Democrats aren't scared of losing a race -- the race for Mayor of New York City.



The City of New York is preparing to crown a new mayor. After twelve-years, Lord Bloomberg (that's for you Shady) must abdicate the thrown, and "we the people" must now elect some fresh blood. People are quite divided on Bloomberg's performance over the last twelve years, so the race could go to either party. For Democrats, this should be a no-brainer, a walk in the damn park. At least I thought so, when Speaker of the New York City Council Christine Quinn finally ended speculation, and threw her Manolo's into the race. NOOOOO! In typical Democratic fashion of chaos, division, and lack of unity, they are headed down the path of over complicating the race, and they just could lose this thing. 

This morning as I watched the news in captions during my workout, I saw a headline that stopped me in tracks -- "Anthony Weiner Considering Run for Mayor of New York City." 

Are you F*%KING kidding me??? Has Anthony lost his god forsaken mind??

In a New York Time Magazine Interview, Weiner says he does not know when he will decide about entering the race: 
“the fact that I don’t know tells me I shouldn't run. Or I should not run now.” 

On the current Democratic contenders, Weiner said: 
“I know them all. I like them all.” 

On Christine Quinn's candidacy: 
“The term-limits thing, as an issue, was a deal breaker for me. But, I think the polls are right: Chris Quinn is leading, and then someone will get into a runoff with her. I don’t like runoffs, and I don’t think we should have them so you don’t have these divisive primaries anymore.”

Here is my issue with all of this.... Anthony Weiner shouldn't be saying anything right now. He shouldn't be doing a single interview, and if he does, he should keep his mouth shut on the mayoral race. Let me remind everyone, this is the same crap that happened in 2001 that allowed Bloomberg to cruise in. So if Democrats want to see a repeat, they should certainly continue down this path. Weiner himself, admits  that he wouldn't want to see a runoff debacle occur, yet he is proposing his own candidacy, which would certainly split the vote and force us to runoff territory. This is where the Democrats fail, when it comes to election strategy. You  don't put two high profile candidates up against each other. This is common sense. 

Listen, I'm all for second chances and restarts. However, part of second chances and restarts is demonstrating growth, and in demonstrating that growth I need to see a common sense signal that tells me you are smart enough to know when to embark on all of this. Weiner clearly has not gotten to this stage. It's only been two-years since Weinergate. This timing also shows me that he is still the self absorbed bastard that he was, when he felt comfortable sending inappropriate pics of himself through Facebook to women. He has not learned a damn thing. He is just regaining some semblance of balance and trust, with his wife and 13-month old son. Why in the hell would he even think about dragging them through the mud pit again? Come on!! This reminds me of that over zealous nut job Governor (whom shall remain nameless here), who choose her own self-glorification and political ambition over the needs and sensitivity, of her own daughter. Maybe five-years from now Weiner can make some sort of triumphant comeback to politics. Now is not the time for that comeback, or for Weiner to even play with the thoughts. When will Democrats learn this?

What do you think??

1) Should Anthony Weiner make a return to politics? if yes, then when?
2) Should Anthony Weiner run for Mayor of New York City? If not, why?
3) How would a Democratic Primary look between Quinn, Weiner and Liu?
4) What are your thoughts on Speaker Quinn's decision to vote yes on Bloomberg's term limit extension?

BREAKING NEWS: Terrorist Attack at the Boston Marathon (VIDEO)

UPDATE: President Obama addressed the nation at 6:10pm: "Make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of  this!"

From ABC NEWS:  

Two bombs exploded in the packed streets near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing two people and injuring more than 70 others in a terrifying scene of shattered glass, billowing smoke, bloodstained pavement and severed limbs, authorities said.
  
A senior U.S. intelligence official said two other explosive devices were found near the end of the 26.2-mile course.

"They just started bringing people in with no limbs," said runner Tim Davey, of Richmond, Va. He said he and his wife, Lisa, tried to keep their children's eyes shielded from the gruesome scene inside a medical tent that had been set up to care for fatigued runners, but "they saw a lot."

"They just kept filling up with more and more casualties," Lisa Davey said. "Most everybody was conscious. They were very dazed."

There was no word on the motive or who may have launched the attack, and police said no suspect was in custody. Authorities in Washington said there was no immediate claim of responsibility.

The twin blasts at the race took place almost simultaneously and about 100 yards apart, tearing limbs off numerous people, knocking spectators and at least one runner off their feet, shattering windows and sending smoke rising over the street.

Some 23,000 runners took part in the race, one of the world's oldest and most prestigious marathons. One of Boston's biggest annual events, the race winds up near Copley Square, not far from the landmark Prudential Center and the Boston Public Library.

Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis asked people to stay indoors or go back to their hotel rooms and avoid crowds as bomb squads methodically checked parcels and bags left along the race route. He said investigators didn't know whether the bombs were planted in mailboxes or trash cans.

He said authorities had received "no specific intelligence that anything was going to happen" at the race.

The Federal Aviation Administration barred low-flying aircraft from within 3.5 miles of the site.

President Barack Obama was briefed on the explosions by Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco. Obama also told Mayor Tom Menino and Gov. Deval Patrick that his administration would provide whatever support was needed, the White House said. (Continue Reading)

HBO Game of Thrones Recap : Walk of Punishment

Last week we heard of Hoster Tully's death and Robb Stark's decision to attend his maternal grandfather's Riverrun funeral. We are introduced to the new Lord of Riverrun, Catelyn's younger brother Edmure Tully and her uncle Brynden "Blackfish" Tully, so called because of his fierce arguments and rivalries with his brother Hoster. In an opening scene that neatly encapsulates the defining characteristics of both men, after Edmure is thrice unable to light the floating funeral bier with burning arrow, the Blackfish steps in and makes the now much longer shot. He contemptuously returns the bow to his nephew. It's not just anger over the messed up funeral rite that animates Brynden however. In a somewhat clumsy information dump we discover that Tywin Lannister was able to return to King's Landing in time to defeat Stannis because Edmure Tully attacked Tywin and the Mountain too soon. Edmure disregarded Robb's orders and spoiled Robb's plan to draw the Lannisters into a trap. Robb shows some serious anger at his uncle here and is not mollified by the capture of a few distant Lannister relatives. Robb can't afford a drawn out war in which the Lannister numbers, augmented by Tyrells, will turn the tide. Robb's wife Talisa attends to the wounded Lannisters and plays with their fears of Robb's supernatural battle prowess. This ALL should have been in Season Two in my opinion. It's a bit rushed to put it all here. Robb's intense rage comes out of nowhere and we lack context for it.

At the Small Council meeting in King's Landing, Cersei makes a big deal about sitting at her father's right hand. Tyrion makes just as big a deal of sitting at the opposite head of the table. Tywin is upset that no one knows where Jaime is. He decides to send Littlefinger to the Vale to woo Lysa Arryn and hopefully get her support in the war against the North. Mostly just to mess with Littlefinger Tyrion claims that the Treasury is too important to be left with no one to run it. Just like with any other management meeting the person who draws attention to the problem is the person tasked to fix it. Tywin puts Tyrion in charge as Master of Coin. Has that ever happened to you? That's why I try to keep my mouth shut at status meetings. However it's possible this is what Tyrion wanted. We'll see.
Arya and Gendry depart with the Brotherhood without Banners but Hot Pie decides to stay behind and work at the inn. In a surprisingly touching scene he has baked Arya some bread in the shape of a wolf as a parting gift. I liked this scene.

Catelyn and her uncle reminisce about the good old days. Catelyn is emotionally worn out. Brynden tells her she must be strong for Robb no matter how guilty she feels about missing her father's death or the fate of her younger children.
Beyond the Wall Mance Rayder, Jon and the wildlings reach the remains of the battle between the White Walkers and the Night's Watch. They find only mutilated horses but no dead men. Showing he's Captain Obvious Mance tells everyone the missing men are now undead. He also thinks the time has come for the wildlings to make their move. Mance orders Tormund to climb the wall, take Jon Snow with him and wait for his signal to attack Castle Black, a Night's Watch stronghold.
Speaking of the Night's Watch they have straggled back to Craster's compound. He's not pleased to see them. Still they are many and he is one so he lets them in though he declines to share his best food, can't stop cracking jokes about their sorry state and doesn't like the way some of them are looking at his daughter/granddaughter wives. When Craster takes a shot at Sam's weight, Sam gets peeved and walks out. Gilly, the girl Sam earlier wanted to rescue, is (loudly) giving birth. Unfortunately it's a boy. Craster has no use for boys.

At Dragonstone, Melisandre is leaving. An unusually passionate Stannis is upset. Will I see you again? Will you call send ravens? Tell me something Sexy Red! He's suspicious of her intentions and more than a little horny. Showing that he's well aware that his creation with Melisandre killed his brother, Stannis wants to ride Melisandre's pony again, so that the result will kill Robb Stark and Joffrey Lannister. She sadly tells him he just doesn't have it like that any more. His pencil is out of lead and won't write any more. His mule's got no kick. His train can't leave the station. And since cialis or viagra have sadly not been invented yet the duo must use another method to produce the magic they made before. And it will involve royal sacrifices. Melisandre owns Stannis.

In Astapor, Danerys, Barristan Selmy and Jorah Mormont stroll along the Walk of Punishment, which is where slaves who have displeased, disobeyed or insulted their masters have been crucified. They seek the head slaver, Kraznys. Jorah and Barristan have different ideas about war. Barristan doesn't like the idea of using slave soldiers, mostly for moral reasons. Jorah is more cynical, saying that in war innocents are always hurt. He speaks of witnessing rapes. The trio reach Kraznys, who is his normal fount of sexist and ethnic insults, which his slave Missandei, softens in translation. Danerys decides to purchase all 8,000 Unsullied and Missandei as well. In return she will have to part with one dragon, the biggest. Barristan and Jorah both think this is a terrible idea and say so. Daenerys later tells both men she values their counsel but not to ever correct her in public again. It's quite Michael Corleone like.

Littlefinger turns over the financial books to Tyrion. Littlefinger claims to be curious as to how Cersei got the idea that Roz was Tyrion's special lady. Tyrion demurs. Littlefinger advises him that numbers can be made to say anything. Later Tyrion discovers that Littlefinger has had the crown not only borrowing money from Tywin Lannister, which is bad enough but also from the Bank of Braavos, which is notorious for never losing money no matter what they have to do to recover it. Tyrion paid for three prostitutes to take his squire Podrick's virginity. Tyrion and Bronn are a little put off and actually intrigued to discover Podrick got laid and didn't have to pay. Podrick evidently has hidden talents. Or perhaps Roz, Littlefinger or even Varys arranged it for some other reason?
Theon is released by the unknown young man and told to ride east to his sister. But after a few hours Theon is hunted down and captured by the men who tortured him. After a quick and brutal beating the men are preparing to take turns sodomizing him when suddenly the would be rapists are killed by the unknown young man who is evidently quite the shot with bow and arrow.

Brienne and Jaime have been captured by the bounty hunter Locke, a lowborn man who works for House Bolton. Jaime and Brienne are still arguing about who won their fight and who would have won if they could have finished and whether or not the fight was fair. Jaime has an apparent attack of conscience and warns Brienne she will be raped and it's best not to resist as then she would be killed. Brienne scoffs at this advice.

Later that night just as Jaime predicts, Locke and his men come to the bound prisoners. His men attack Brienne. She attempts to fight but they are many and she is one. She's beaten, overpowered and hauled off into the woods. Looking pensive, Jaime appeals to Locke's greed and explains that Brienne's father is rich and would pay quite handsomely for the return of an undamaged and unraped Brienne. Locke listens and then orders the attempted(?) rape to stop and for Brienne to be returned. Feeling a bit more confident Jaime continues to talk about his own father's wealth and how the North's cause is doomed. He says his father can make Locke a wealthy man.  He convinces Locke to unchain him and give him some food. Seeming a bit chagrined, Locke does just that. Things are looking up for Jaime. That is until Locke's men kick his feet out from under him and a furious Locke informs Jaime that he's tired of hearing about Lannister wealth. Locke threatens to take Jaime's eye. Instead just to remind Jaime that Daddy is not around to protect him he chops off Jaime's right hand. Just like that the greatest swordsman in Westeros is permanently crippled.

This episode really showed the casual brutality that is and always has been part of war. No matter the initial "good reasons" one side or another has for war, it always turns to brutality against the innocents and guilty alike. And in Westeros, rape is just another tool of war. Rape of women is most common, but as Theon's captors showed, rape of men or boys is quite possible. This episode moved the story forward in some quite useful ways. It also removed some characters' illusions. Brienne learned that skilled warrior or not she is still a woman in a sexist brutal world while Jaime found out that not everyone is motivated by money.

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes. If you have book based knowledge of future events please be kind enough not to discuss that here. Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea....

Music Reviews-WAR, The O'Jays

WAR

WAR is one of my favorite funk/rock/soul/R&B/blues groups. The band was one of the founding proponents of the seventies West Coast funk/Latin sound. They could and did play some traditional blues numbers from time to time but they generally made updated urban blues that stretched out into many different genres. WAR was an excellent example of how several musics across the African diaspora are related. They created music that was often Afro-Cuban based, combined it with other Latin elements, threw in some jazz and funk and soul and were off to the races. As a group they also had one of the coolest (and largest) group of Afros ever seen in the seventies and probably since then. They were a "world music" and "jam band" before those terms had entered the popular vernacular. If I could only use one word to describe WAR that word would be organic. WAR was similar to a lot of other self-contained funk groups around in the late sixties and early seventies. They stood apart because of fearsome musicianship and a sense of togetherness and brotherhood. Most of the songwriting was credited equally to all group members. Everyone had a chance to sing and shine instrumentally. Although I wouldn't say any of them were great singers individually, their whole was greater than the sum of their parts. They sounded great harmonizing. While a few of them might have been tenors most were definitely bass or baritone voices. This gave their sound a certain depth and for lack of a better word, testosterone. WAR was the last band Jimi Hendrix jammed with.

Over time WAR's guitarist , Howard Scott, who probably was in truth the primary songwriter, took slightly more lead vocals. But unlike most other guitarists working in popular music then he very very rarely took long loud solos in the studio, preferring instead a very rhythmic and almost orchestral sound. Sonically, he was usually in the background. Live, it was sometimes a different story but even there WAR's primary emphasis always remained groove. There is a lot of space and silence in their music. Scott never lets his guitar get in the way of the groove. There's times when you can hardly hear him but then you immediately notice when he drops out. He shied away from a lot of effects. With a few glorious exceptions his solos are short or even non-existent. 

The drummer Harold Brown combined New Orleans second line drumming with the power of Buddy Miles or John Bonham and the swing and shuffle of Bernard Purdie or Earl Palmer. On some of his work I thought there were two drummers. I love it when the bass drum is audible and/or is a separate event from the bass guitar. There's usually no missing where the "one" is in WAR's music but "Low Rider" might initially fool you as Brown plays on the upbeats instead of the downbeats. BB Dickerson, the bassist and Scott's nephew, must be mentioned as one of the better, or at least louder bassists. He's always audible and holding down the bottom register. Listen to him laying down a typically thick sound on "The World is a Ghetto". That song gives the lie to the notion that black performers and audiences had turned their back on the blues post sixties. The harmonica player, Lee Oskar, was from Denmark and showed you didn't need to be black or even speak English yet to be bluesy or funky. Check out his deep delta blues work on "Blisters". Aside from Stevie Wonder was there a more popular harmonica player in the seventies? Lonnie Jordan, the organist and pianist did many of the vocal leads which Scott didn't do. Charles Miller, the saxophonist and lead vocalist on "Low Rider" and clarinetist on the cabaret jazz style "Babyface" and Papa Dee Allen, the conga player and percussionist, rounded out the ensemble. Everyone doubled on percussion and backing vocals. Often you'll hear Miller and Oskar playing harmony lines so perfectly that you might not be able to tell the difference between their two instruments.

WAR came out of Compton, California. They were first discovered by Deacon Jones the football player. They were then calling themselves Night Shift. After a few lineup changes they came to the attention of producer Oscar Goldstein. Goldstein hooked them up with English ex-Animals singer Eric Burdon, who was looking for a new band, and Lee Oskar. With new members and new name they went on tour. During this time they weren't quite Burdon's backup band but they weren't what they became later either. I like many of the songs they did during this period ("Spill The Wine", "Beautiful New Born Child", "They Can't Take Our Music Away") but when Burdon had medical issues during a tour WAR decided to soldier on without him and they amicably parted ways soon afterwards. 

WAR's musical and financial success improved after Burdon's departure and they became the quintessential live funk band, touring with people like Isaac Hayes, Santana, The Wailers, Mandrill and other now classic bands. Bob Marley acknowledged WAR's "Slipping into Darkness" as a primary influence on his own "Get Up Stand Up". "So" is a generic R&B song that somehow becomes more while "All Day Music" is a soul tune greatly influenced by Pharaoh Sanders' "The Creator has a Master plan". Isaac Hayes once kicked them off a tour because he found it too hard to follow their opening act. I don't know if they ever toured with The Allman Brothers but they really should have because both groups were dedicated to long flowing jams that started in one spot and over a period of time wound up someplace else entirely. 

All good things must come to an end of course and though they had a game try at disco and simpler funk styles by the 80's the band had run its creative course. Miller and Allen had died.
The band reformed briefly in the nineties with additional band members but it wasn't the same. They also discovered that long time producer Goldstein had somehow obtained sole rights to the name WAR. The band split up again with Goldstein and Jordan continuing to book performances with various other musicians as "WAR" while the remaining original members, or who I think of as WAR are now forced to perform as The Low Rider Band. Again, it just shows you how important it is to keep an eye on your so-called friends. Because everyone who claims to have your best interest at heart might not actually be looking out for you. When it comes to wealth and control people do strange things. Folks get funny when it comes to money.

Low Rider  The World is a Ghetto  Ballero(Live) Hey Senorita  Spill The Wine
Slipping Into Darkness(Live)  Leroy's Latin Lament   Why Can't We Be Friends
The Vision of Rahsaan  So  Where was you at 
Seven Tin Soldiers  Heartbeat  Bareback Riding
Beautiful New Born Child  River Niger
They Can't Take Our Music Away  Get Down (Live -partial)  Four Cornered Room
Blisters  Me and Baby Brother (Live)  All Day Music 
Babyface Sun Oh Son (Live) Cisco Kid  Galaxy




The O'Jays

The O'Jays were not a self-contained band like WAR but rather a singing group. They were also a close runner up to WAR for best Afros of the seventies. But WAR couldn't touch the O'Jays when it came to harmonized singing. Few musical groups could. The O'Jays had much greater vocal range than WAR.  The O'Jays were originally from Ohio but of course reached their greatest fame and fortune working out of Philadelphia with legendary songwriters and producers Gamble and Huff. As part of the process of turning the up and coming group into superstars Gamble and Huff smoothed out the rough edges, gave the trio much better material to sing and improvise over and got them working with quite talented musicians, including but not limited to people like Anthony Jackson, bassist extraordinaire and inventor of the six string bass guitar. Jackson's playing can be heard on the song "For the Love of Money". Obviously the O'Jays also worked with the famous session band, and later stars in their own right, MFSB.

The O'Jays walked that fine line between glamour and grit and were able to satisfy people who liked both or either in their music.  During the classic period the group included Walter Williams, William Powell and of course Eddie Levert. All three men sang lead and backup. There was a nice tension between Levert's slightly rougher voice, particularly in some of the ballads, and Williams' smoother one. I would kill to have Levert's voice.  My favorite O'Jays song of all time is not "For The Love of Money" or "Don't Call Me Brother" but "You Got Your Hooks In Me". If you don't know any other O'Jays music you should know that one. It doubles as a slow jam to dance with your baby and as a fun sing-a-long when you're driving home.

The O'Jays recorded lots of love songs but also served as a vehicle for Gamble and Huff's social commentary with songs like "Ship Ahoy", "Don't Call Me Brother"  and obviously "For The Love of Money". All of their music had excellent production. It wasn't overly loud but had clarity without sterility. I don't know whether you'd call them a funky soul group or a soulful funk group but I love their music. A lot of it is heard in commercials these days but there are some gems, the aforementioned "You Got Your Hooks In Me" and "Ship Ahoy" an extended somber suite about slavery.

Don't Call Me Brother  For The Love of Money  Give the People What They Want 
You Got Your Hooks In Me  Love Train   Living for the Weekend (Soul Train Line) 
 Use Ta Be My Girl  992 Arguments  Back Stabbers (live on Soul Train)  
 Put Your Hands Together  Time to Get Down  Ship Ahoy

Melissa Harris-Perry: Kids Belong To Communities

If you ever watch MSNBC you may have noticed a series of LEAN FORWARD commercials featuring their on air opinion talent earnestly giving bromides about how we're all in this together and we need to work collectively for the common good. Usually these things are calculated to be just this side of irritating to more moderate or conservative viewers as the unsaid implication in the spots is often that conservatives are doing every thing wrong. In some respects the commercials are examples of liberals being sore winners. A recent spot featured Professor Melissa Harris-Perry. The terminology and phrases she used sent conservatives as well as a few libertarians over the deep end in rage. 

Of course I doubt this was by accident. On some other boards I frequent occasionally extremely conservative or extremely liberal people will post stories or make comments that are designed to do nothing other than get a rise out of the other side. Flame wars can easily get started that way. I won't claim I've never done that in my life (ha-ha) but it is a pretty cheap way of getting responses and in my opinion usually not as good or mature as actually creating and sharing a deeper analysis. The person who instigates this often pretends innocence and claims to be above the obviously irrational, emotional and gratuitously nasty responses the other side is showing. Sure I poked the caged tiger in the eye with a stick but that's no reason for it to get upset...

When I read the phrases the good professor used I have to believe that she or the commercial creator had to be trolling somewhat. It was reminiscent of the old Looney Tunes cartoons when Foghorn Leghorn would stroll over to the sleeping dog and kick it in the behind. Foghorn would then wait just outside the limit the chained dog could reach. When the dog choked on its collar, sputtering in rage, Foghorn would say "Aw shaddup!!" and hit the dog again. What could the Professor have said to make some people start barking and shaking their jowls in rage? Well let's see.


            

She starts out and ends with the usual progressive idea that we don't spend enough on public education and need to spend more, or as she would put it invest more. Conservatives generally disagree of course. There are good arguments on both sides here and there's room for legitimate debate. I would tend toward Professor Harris-Perry's side on this but I can see the other side. So if she had just stated that of course conservatives would have disagreed as they usually do. But what turned the intensity of disagreement up was her statement that "..We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or that kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

Game recognizes game. This sent conservative trolls like Beck, Palin and Limbaugh into fits of fury. It also set off alarm bells of warning in more libertarian circles. Do you see why? 

It is a deliberate oversimplification for brevity but conservatives (with some hypocritical exceptions) broadly speaking generally want the federal and to the lesser extent the state governments to have less power regarding the individual and the family. Liberals tend to feel exactly the opposite way, feeling that the federal government ought to have more authority. Some look suspiciously at the family, often seeing it as a breeding ground for patriarchal and generally wrong-headed ideas.

So when you say that we need to get rid of the idea that kids belong to their parents or families, you probably shouldn't be surprised that that hits a nerve with conservatives and they respond. Of course in the strictest sense kids don't belong to anyone. Adults are stewards of the next generation, not owners. But that's just semantics.

Parents, not society, have the primary responsibility for children. Parents, not society, get to make virtually all of the critical decisions for children. If someone doesn't like the way someone else is raising their children, that's tough. It's the parent's job to make sure that their child has enough to eat, attends a good school, learns how to resolve conflicts, stays in good health, figures out the birds and the bees, and any number of other things. I do believe that society, or rather government has a role to play in ensuring there's a baseline to help parents do all those things but in my view that's where everyone else's role ceases.  And it must stop there. Why? Because to start with, we live in an increasingly diverse society and everyone has different ideas about how to raise children. The only way we can live together is for people to mind their own business and absent abuse let parents raise their kids as they see fit. There was another video of MSNBC personality Krystal Ball talking to her five year old daughter about gay marriage and coaching her to support it. Some conservative members of society were outraged and considered this abusive. Would Professor Harris-Perry think that since kids belong to entire communities the community would have a right to step in and teach the daughter differently? I doubt it. If you don't like how someone is raising his/her kids, either have some of your own and raise them differently or go sit down and be quiet. Those are really your only two choices unless you happen to be the child's other parent.

Secondly although it's somewhat harsh to say it, parents care more about their children than society does.That's their direct biological investment in the next generation. That's why parents have such an incentive to make sure their child does well. Law doesn't mess with that relationship lightly. Professor Harris-Perry had a follow up to her ad in which she argued that she was just deliberately misunderstood by right-wing cretins. Well maybe. But I doubt that anyone with the command of the language that the professor possesses didn't realize that confidently stating "we have to break through the private idea that kids belong to their parents" would invite attacks. And what she says in her post is different from the ad.

The elephant in the room around all of this is the fact that recently for the first time in American history there were more minority births than white ones. This raises legitimate questions and fears across the political spectrum about what will be the policy outcome of this change. Seniors or people without children already may have issues with taxes to support families. Will a more diverse workforce wish to fund retirement and medical coverage for a very white older generation? Will that white older generation feel it necessary to pay higher taxes to support schools full of children who do not look like their grandchildren? Time will tell. I think this is what the professor was really referencing.

Thoughts?

Do you agree with Professor Harris-Perry's ad?

Was she trolling?

Is this much ado about nothing?

Do you think kids belong to the community or to their parents?