As predicted here recently, the City of Detroit just became the largest municipality in US history to file for bankruptcy. Typically for the ways things are done around here, even the filing was filled with some shenanigans as Governor Snyder and Emergency Manager Orr filed the bankruptcy just before a judge was set to grant a temporary restraining order preventing such a filing. I think this is a sad day. But it is probably one that was necessary. My only interest now is in hoping that the retirees and their dependents, some of whom are very close to me, don't get the shaft in whatever comes out of this process. But being the pessimistic sort I think they probably will.
The city of Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history Thursday afternoon, culminating a decades-long slide that transformed the nation’s iconic industrial town into a model of urban decline crippled by population loss, a dwindling tax base and financial problems. The 16-page petition was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Detroit.
Gov. Rick Snyder’s office was making plans this afternoon to hold a 10 a.m. Friday morning news conference at the Maccabees Building, 5057 Woodward in Midtown, according to his office. It’s the same location where the governor declared a financial emergency for Detroit on March 1. Snyder authorized Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr to file bankruptcy under a law the Legislature passed in December that replaced the previous emergency manager law voted repealed last November.
The bankruptcy filing came minutes before Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina was set to hold an emergency hearing Thursday afternoon on a request for a temporary restraining order blocking Snyder from authorizing a bankruptcy filing. “It was my intention to grant you your request completely,” Aquilina told lawyers for Detroit’s pension boards.
The judge did grant temporary restraining orders against Snyder and Orr taking further action in the bankruptcy proceedings. Ronald King, an attorney representing the police/fire and general retirement pension systems, said he may file a motion Friday in the case seeking to require Orr, an officer of the state, to withdraw the bankruptcy filing. After the hearing, King expressed frustration with the governor’s office after filing a motion for a temporary restraining order at 3:37 p.m. and giving Snyder’s attorney extra time to get to the downtown Lansing courthouse. The bankruptcy case was filed at 4:06 p.m. and Aquilina convened the emergency hearing at 4:11 p.m.
The Chapter 9 filing could take years, experts say, despite hopes by the governor and Orr that the case can be wrapped up in a year. A bankruptcy judge could trump the state constitution by slashing retiree pensions, ripping up contracts and paying creditors roughly a dime on the dollar for unsecured claims worth $11.45 billion. During a month of negotiations, Orr has reached a settlement with only two creditors: Bank of America Corp. and UBS AG. They have agreed to accept 75 cents on the dollar for approximately $340 million in swaps liabilities, according to a source familiar with the deal.
The bankruptcy plan was expected to closely follow Orr’s restructuring proposal that was unveiled to creditors on June 14 — a proposal that drew criticism from some creditors who said the cuts were too deep and did not include the sale of city assets, including Belle Isle and a Detroit Institute of Arts collection worth billions. He proposed paying most of the money owed to secured creditors whilepension funds, unions and unsecured bondholders would receive, in some cases, 10 cents on the dollar.
As I wrote previously there is no good reason that anyone with a working brain would accept 10% of what they're owed when someone else is getting 75% of what they're owed. You'd have to be extra special stupid to go for that deal. And how convenient is it that two of the more criminal banks that could be said to exist were going to get most of what they claim they were owed. It feels good to be a bank, no? From a purely public interest standpoint there could be an interesting legal battle to determine if federal bankruptcy law can ignore the Michigan constitution which has generally been understood to prevent the alteration of public pensions. As we know in most cases the federal rules reign supreme. But there are still a few areas where the states can tell the feds to back up and go away. But of course it's not the state which is filing bankruptcy but the city. So yes this will all be "interesting". But that aside there are some good people who are gonna get hurt. Some of them I know. So this is not a good thing.
Detroit has been on a downward spiral financially for years. This day has been probably inevitable since at least the late nineties. That was the time then to make the changes required to avoid this. The city needed to get rid of useless assets, collect taxes that were owed, cut taxes where possible to stop driving off businesses and citizens, deal with an intransigent and occasionally corrupt bureaucracy, take steps to get the crime under control, start an aggressive program to demolish abandoned homes, be unapologetic about requiring that Detroiters get work on projects inside the city (made more difficult by state rules against affirmative action), and do everything possible to bring in more revenue while cutting costs. Unlike the federal government cities can't create Keynesian stimulus on their own. They have to pay back their creditors. But for a variety of reasons, some good but mostly bad much of these things did not happen and here we are. Ironically some of the people that were cheerful about Detroit bankruptcy because they enjoyed seeing bad things happen to Detroit are suddenly somewhat worried about what a Detroit bankruptcy could mean to other (ie. THEIR) municipal or state borrowing costs. So stay tuned sports fans! This is going to be messy.
One thing which my father and other mentors always told me is to pay less attention to what people say and more attention to what they do. Actions speak louder than words. A manager might say that she's impressed with your experience and skills but if she ensures she pays you less than everyone else in your department with equal or lesser experience then perhaps she's not really all that impressed. A couple might say they would enjoy coming to a get together at your house but if every time you invite them they're busy or you get voicemail then perhaps they're trying to politely send you a message. Another person might tell you that your business plan is going to take the world by storm but if he's unwilling to invest chances are he doesn't have faith in your supposed business acumen. So with all that in mind it was irritating to hear a President who has spoken eloquently about the evils of racial profiling in Arizona and elsewhere to, if not quite endorse, float a big fat trial balloon towards the appointment of NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to replace outgoing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has been lobbying to get Kelly that job. Obama offered Kelly praise, saying he would be "well-qualified" for the position.
Ray Kelly's obviously done an extraordinary job in New York," Obama said. "And the federal government partners a lot with New York, because obviously, our concerns about terrorism often times are focused on big-city targets, and I think Ray Kelly's one of the best there is.
The problem with that is as you may have known from reading this blog and others is that Commissioner Kelly has been the overseer and architect of an official racially based stop-and-frisk policy that targets black and Hispanic New York citizens. It's primarily aimed at young black males but anyone and everyone with the requisite level of melanin is targeted regardless of gender, age, income, style of dress or other characteristics. You can be a twenty something hoodlum in a hoodie looking for someone to rob, a thirty something professional dressed to the nines for a career changing job interview, a fifty something grandparent walking to church in your Sunday best or a sneaker wearing pre-teen going to school. It doesn't matter. The police have quotas to meet. And they intend to meet them, no matter what because those are the incentives that Kelly has laid down. And as far as Kelly's boss, Mayor Lord Bloomberg is concerned the NYPD needs to be stopping fewer white people and more black people. One wonders if the President agrees with Bloomberg's statements. Kelly has been a vociferously nasty defender of the stop-n-frisk policy even as it finally starts to wind its way through court challenges. Kelly shows zero signs of being concerned with the constitutionality of his policy, its complete lack of effectiveness or the fear and hatred that it engenders among the black and brown population. Kelly has the ability to stop and frisk people on a level than Zimmerman could only dream of. There are over 8 million people in NYC. There are 53,000 in Sanford. At the time of this writing only NY Representative Hakeem Jeffries has had the guts to publicly criticize the idea of having Kelly as DHS head.
"He's been a good administrator, and perhaps I could even support his potential appointment to this position in the absence of the massive aggressive stop-and-frisk program that he's run, and the unconstitutional Muslim surveillance program, but that's kind of like saying, I had a good year, if you don't count the winter, spring, and fall," Jeffries said. There's got to be an effective balance between national security or effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for our civil rights and civil liberties on the other. Ray Kelly, during his tenure as police commissioner under Michael Bloomberg, has consistently disrespected that balance, and that's why I think he would be a poor choice for secretary of Homeland Security"
We shouldn't be too surprised by President Obama's statements. After all it is under his watch and with CIA assistance that the NYPD has worked hand in hand with DHS/CIA to run surveillance of left-wing protesters and activists as well as Muslims of various backgrounds, outside of New York City and even outside of New York State. And the President has not as far as I can recall had an unkind word to say about Mayor Lord Bloomberg or Commissioner Kelly. NYC and NY State have not been threatened with loss of federal resources or sued in federal court after every policy change. This is is stark contrast to the President's words and actions against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Again, neither of those people are running the kinds of programs which Kelly is running. The Executive Branch has reigned them in. Actions speak louder than words. If you are upset about profiling, if you think that Zimmerman was wrong to assume that Martin was up to no good because of his race and clothing then I don't see how you could possibly think that Kelly is doing a good job in New York City with stop-and-frisk or that he should be given national responsibility as DHS Secretary. The President often likes to have it both ways. He's a politician after all. But people nationwide and especially those in New York should recognize that the President's statements are troubling. You can't claim to be against racial profiling and speak positively of promoting one of the nation's most vigorous profilers. It would be a serious betrayal of the President's most fervent base to put someone like Kelly as DHS head. I think, as I have said before, that people in NYC and across the nation needed to make this stop-and-frisk policy a red-line issue in the same way in which Arizona's SB1070 became. This is a situation where the President must choose. It is also one where I think he already has...
Breaking Bad (Season Five) created by Vince Gilligan Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall
Season Five was both better than Season Four and a minor letdown. This season stretched the believability of chemistry teacher Walter White's (Bryan Cranston) criminal descent. Now, he's not only a murderous drug dealer but also a resourceful jack of all trades who robs trains and monitors the DEA ? Some of this was too much. This is the terminal season. Hopefully another TV show and the author who inspired it will take some hints about having a beginning, middle and end. One of the producer/directors (Michelle McLaren) who works on Breaking Bad also works on Game of Thrones. Perhaps some of the urgency shown on Breaking Bad will bleed over to Game of Thrones. Season Five (it had a midseason finale before this year's August denouement) opened with Walter and others dealing with fallout from the epic Season Four power struggle between Walter and Gus (Giancarlo Esposito). As Walter coldly tells his wife, "I won.". The King is dead. Long live the King. But Gus' top hitman and effective underboss Mike (Jonathan Banks) is unhappy with this turn of events. Although Walter offers Mike a partnership, it doesn't change Mike's essentially negative feelings about Walter. Mike's defining characteristic is loyalty. Walter constantly appeals to Mike's self-interest to prevent Mike from killing him to avenge Gus. Mike is angry and exasperated. Mike is trying to protect "his guys" from Walter's incompetence and greed. He also wants out of the business. Mike has deep legal and criminal knowledge which Walter lacks.
Speaking of Walter's wife, Skyler (Anna Gunn), I was surprised to learn that Breaking Bad has so many women writers and directors. Skyler has always come across as a Queen (insert misogynist insult here) and does not change this season. I really tried to have sympathy for her but I couldn't find much. She hasn't murdered anyone yet but that's due to luck not intent. Skyler's self-righteousness is amazing. Let's quickly review her past actions with light spoilers. A bossy know-it-all woman notices that her nebbish husband is behaving oddly. At first suspecting an affair she discovers, via non-stop nagging, that her husband is a drug dealer. Does she leave, call the cops, or turn a blind eye? No. She insists, over Walter's tepid objections, on getting deeply involved in the business. She also sleeps with someone else from mostly spite, gives Walter's wealth to her lover, throws Walter out of the family home, almost kills someone, and narrowly avoids IRS attention. She blames Walter for ALL of this. This season was an extended Skyler temper tantrum. Last season she informed him at dinner, "I f****d Ted" . This season it's, "When are you dying?". Yeah, I want exactly that sort of supportive wife.
Walter, callous criminal though he may be, is no Mr. Macho Man at home. There was never a chance of him, like a Michael Corleone, telling Skyler "Don't ask me about my business." This is not to excuse Walter, who is truly a despicable man. But Skyler's unhappiness stems from the fact that she's a control freak who wanted to be involved in her husband's criminal behavior. But their marriage has changed. Walter is no longer submissive and blandly agreeable around her. That bothers Skyler. It bothers Skyler that Walter is nonchalant about the murders he's committed or the danger to his family. Skyler blames Walter for her moral degeneration while ignoring her own responsibility. I feel sorry for Skyler but I would have divorced her decades ago.
Walter was in a kill or be killed situation with Gus. Gus dropped his nice guy facade and threatened Walter and his family. Ironically, Walter's problems with Gus actually started when he was trying to protect Jesse (and Jesse was trying to protect children). So evil came from good intentions. But even though Walter can and does come up with reasonable justifications for the evil he's done or witnessed, this season emphasizes some ugly truths about Walter. Walter's primary purpose in becoming a criminal has not in fact been cancer or financial fears for his family. He still tells Jesse and Skyler that but they don't believe it any more and neither will you. Walter suffers from the deadliest sin, pride. In grad school Walter took a buyout and/or was forced out of a biochem company that he and some buddies started. He sold out his interest for $5000. That company is now worth billions. Walter thinks it's his work that made the company successful. This has bothered Walter for the past twenty-five years. His criminal behavior is about proving to himself that he is somebody. Evidently he had no Jesse Jackson speeches available. Walter's ego and resentments are boundless.
Walter's arrogance may hurt him as his dependably supportive and mildly bigoted brother-in-law Hank has been promoted to head the local DEA office. Hank is smarter than most people (and by most people I mean Walter) realize. Hank notices the little things like Walter's expensive watch and the big things like the two new cars that Walter bought for himself and his son Walt Jr. Hank combines good intuition with dogged attention to detail. I don't quite think Walter wants to be caught but he definitely enjoys his underworld reputation as the top chemist and a baaaad muyerfuyer. Walter's interactions with Hank reveal that he's getting a little too happy laughing up his sleeve at Hank. Skyler's growing instability does not go unheeded by her sister Marie (Betsy Brandt). This explodes in a really powerful scene between the two siblings.
Walter must deal with the financial pressures of leadership as well as unexpected legal and political problems caused by Gus' demise. Gus had national and international connections of whom neither Walter or the viewer was aware. One of Gus' corporate partners/suppliers, a selfish neurotic woman named Lydia (Scottish actress Laura Fraser), gets worried after Gus' death and causes problems for Mike. Causing problems for a stone killer like Mike isn't smart. Lydia's actions could interfere with the supply. Without a guaranteed supply Walter can't make his 99.1% pure blue meth. Hank learns a lot about Gus' organization. He leans on some former Gus loyalists to give up Gus' top chemist Heisenberg (Walter). Walter can't have people starting to talk. Fraser's Lydia character was realistic. To quote Solozzo from The Godfather, Lydia's not in the muscle end of the family. She is apprehensive of dealing with the murderously phlegmatic Mike or the increasingly choleric Walter. But she's keen on pursuing her own interests.
I liked this season though the unreality started to poke through. Walter gets sloppy. This could come back on him. Previously Walter only discussed criminal behavior with a few trusted people. Very few people knew his real name. Now he's working in criminal conspiracies with large numbers of people. Low level scrubs know he's "Mr. White". He was formerly a chemistry teacher with a drug dealer alter-ego. This season the alter-ego has taken over. Maybe that always was the real Walter White. In his Heisenberg persona his voice deepens and he snarls at people. Although Walter is verily an evil man brimming over with contempt for those he considers his intellectual inferiors (most other people) he usually won't deliberately seek to hurt people (besides supplying meth, that is). But if he's backed into a corner he'll come out blasting. Show him that he has a choice and he might be willing to let you keep living...unless it's just too much trouble for him. In Season One Walter agonized over killing a hoodlum who had tried to kill him. He cried when he murdered the thug. In Season Five he can watch an innocent child die and literally shrug his shoulders. He's a cold hearted man indeed. And he likes his job.
Cancer is such an apt metaphor for this show. Walter's repressed rage and ambition have poisoned him. For decades he's lied to himself that he was satisfied with a low pay/low status job, few material goods and a loving albeit pushy wife. Walter should have confronted his frustrations years ago. Heck, many such men might have had an affair, bought a new sports car, or changed careers. But Walter's pride is so great and has been held down so long that when it finally breaks free of moral restraint, it, like cancer, greedily devours all in its path. Jesse (Aaron Paul), whom Walter still manipulates, knows he can't trust "Mr. White" any more. He's unaware of Walter's Season Four betrayal, which gives their Season Five interactions poignancy and creepiness. Walter doesn't abuse Jesse physically/sexually but he certainly does so emotionally/psychologically. Jesse becomes Season Five's moral center, giving voice to the questions "How much is enough?" or "Is this really what we've become?". Jesse and Walter were co-dependents. Walter was desperate for recognition of his brilliance; Jesse needed someone to guide and trust him. Jesse still has a small flickering conscience; he is smarter than Walter admits. This further strains their relationship. Gilligan has said he wanted to turn Mr. Chips into Scarface. He's done that. In ironic commentary Walter and his son watch the climatic scene of Scarface, their favorite movie. Is Gilligan foreshadowing? We shall see. You really shouldn't watch this season without watching Season Four. Good stuff. Cranston rules. TRAILER
The Watch directed by Akiva Schaffer
I saw this film when I was planning to do something else. That something else would have cost money and required effort while the film was free. I can safely say I should have gone ahead and done that something else. This movie could have been better but it had lazy directing and lazy writing. And evidently someone on the writing staff is either suffering from gay panic and/or just wants to come out of the closet. So I would not recommend this movie, even if it is free and you're too lazy or cheap to do something else. I'm just glad I didn't see this in theaters because I think I would have had to hurt someone. The film uses a lot of cliches and tropes but here they generally feel tired and deflated. Others just aren't funny. The director is a SNL veteran and I don't like SNL. So there you are.
The story is that in a small relatively non-diverse Ohio town, a Costco security guard is killed, butchered, really by something unknown. A Costco senior manager, Evan Trautwig (Ben Stiller) takes this very personally and decides to start a Neighborhood Watch. Evan is almost annoyingly liberal, civic minded and something of a control freak. He spends a lot of time involved in public activities, at least in part so he doesn't have to go home and make love to his toothy and busty wife Abby (RoseMarie DeWitt). Abby wants to do the do and get knocked up but Evan's too ashamed to tell her that his love gun has an empty magazine. The call to join the neighborhood watch only brings forth three other people, Bob McAllister (Vince Vaughn), Franklin (Jonah Hill) and Jamarcus (Richard Ayoade). Bob's a motormouth extrovert who wants to make sure his teen daughter stays virginal while he's out getting wasted. Franklin's a creepy wannabe cop who gives off vibes of interest in either sex but quickly zooms in on Abby. Jamarcus is a Black Britisher whose primary interest is in using his watch membership to get kinky opportunities with women, especially if they happen to be of the Asian persuasion. His race also will give the earnestly liberal Evan a chance to say he has a black friend.
The security guard was killed by an alien. Aliens intend an invasion of Earth and have picked a small Ohio town to start. The watch must stop them. I liked Vaughn's role. He's perfected the loudmouth fast talker type who always has a plan but has no concept of conversational niceties. Stiller does his normal rational but secretly seething man routine. There were one or two lines other people had that made me laugh. The rest of the movie is filled with lots of dumb jokes around sexuality, body functions, and gross out humor. In short this was mostly a really long and mostly dumb SNL skit. Sometimes I wanted to adjust my TV controls to try to make this film funnier. So as always YMMV. I don't like gross out humor. This film wasn't for me. TRAILER
Redemption directed by Steven Knight
Yes, it's another Jason Statham movie. But this one is different. Really. See this time he's playing a hard man with a past who cleans up nicely, shaves his head, starts dressing in sharp double-breasted suits and delivering PAIN to those who hurt him or his friends and...hmm. Yes I guess it's not THAT different after all. But it was trying to be anyway so I have to give it some style points. It relies a little much on the virgin/whore paradigm as well as Beauty and The Beast tropes so that could be a problem for you or it could be like slipping on a warm comfortable pair of shoes. You know exactly what to expect. Joey Jones (Statham) is a former British Army (Special Forces?) veteran of the Afghan conflict who is haunted by atrocities he's witnessed or committed there. He's on the run from a court-martial and is now a homeless alcoholic in London. His only friend is a sexy street urchin/drug addict Isabelle (Victoria Bewick) who is recruited/forced into prostitution when gangsters come to roust the homeless for "rent" money.
Jones escapes the gangsters and rather implausibly manages to almost literally fall into the lap of luxury when he breaks into an apartment rented by an out of town actor/photographer. He starts to clean himself up, get off the booze and look for news of Isabelle. Obviously this is made easier by the fact that he now has access to clean clothes, a vehicle and plenty of cash. He also begins to send money to/hang out with another woman he has affection for, Sister Cristina (Agata Buzek). Sister Cristina is a nun and therefore not really open to Joey's clumsy flirtations. Joey feels he's in her debt because she helps to run the soup kitchen/medical clinic which got both Isabelle and him through some tough times. Joey does things like buy all the homeless people pizza or steak or send Sister Cristina a nice dress. And Sister Cristina might be hiding quite a bit under her nun's habit. Buzek used to be a model.
But Sister Cristina has her own past issues to deal with. She's a young nun and may not be ready for a lifetime of celibacy. Even so she's extremely diligent about her religious and moral duties as well as being a little street smart. She knows that Joey is not just getting money by working as a dishwasher but has instead graduated to becoming a driver, bodyguard and legbreaker for a Chinese syndicate run by the sad-eyed Mr. Choy (Benedict Wong). Choy thinks it's a status symbol to have a white man working for him. He also appreciates being able to discuss intimate things in front of Joey with no fear of being understood. So while Joey may or may not be hitting on Sister Cristina, she is trying to get Joey to change his hoodlum ways. She's both helped and frustrated in this when Joey learns that Isabelle was murdered by a john who was into rough stuff. And this john may be linked to the people that Joey works for. Joey goes on the war path.
But Joey is running out of time since the man whose identity he's stolen is coming home shortly.The Joey-Cristina relationship was the movie's most interesting part. The film could have been better if it had focused more on that and put most or even all of the violence off screen. This film shows Statham stretching his acting range a bit. The movie was about 100 minutes or so but unfortunately felt longer. So the pacing wasn't quite right. It was a melodrama with bits and spurts of action. Or it was a subdued action movie. I might have to watch it again just to understand a few things better. The film has something to say about regret but it gets its message muddled somewhat. This wasn't a must see film, but if you want to watch Statham do something ever so slightly different you can check this out. Can you through evil actions, actually do good? Or do you have to renounce evil entirely to be good? What if the only way to do good is to paradoxically do evil?
Dwight Howard decided to leave the LA Lakers to take less money with the Houston Rockets. While there were quite legitimate basketball related reasons behind this move statements from both Laker partisans and Howard himself suggest that Howard was not ready for the LA spotlight or for the occasionally pointed and direct criticism from fellow Laker and famously intense competitor, Kobe Bryant. I don't like criticism that much. I don't know many people who actually do like criticism. It can hurt your ego when someone explores your shortcomings. The critic's tone and who they are can outweigh their valid content. It's one thing when someone who is more successful or experienced than you in your chosen field and/or has the authority to oversee your work gives you some pointers. It's a different matter entirely when a person who has been homeless for a decade starts lecturing you on your career or finances. A firm and fair critique or a blunt discussion behind closed doors resonates with me more than a person who, when pointing out something wrong or dumb I'm doing feels the need to a) inform the entire world and b) throw in gratuitous insults about my intelligence, competence or immutable attributes. Ideally, both the person giving the criticism and the target of the critique should separate the criticism from the person. However, usually without someone to push you, you simply can't grow. You'll constantly make the same mistakes. That's true in both personal and business relationships. You need honest feedback that lets you know where, to use corporate speak, you have "room for growth". So even though I dislike criticism, I've occasionally sought it out. If I know what my weaknesses are hopefully I can make changes to develop in a positive direction. This means checking my ego and investigating if the criticism is valid and useful. That's more important (usually) than the tone or motivation.
Growing takes work and sacrifice. Often people who are the best in their field aren't super patient with those who haven't done the work. There's a reason for the saying "Nice guys finish last". Isiah Thomas was a ferocious competitor who didn't mind starting fights or finishing them. Magic Johnson might have had a famous smile but he would also give you a forearm to the throat if you came down the lane. Larry Bird would talk trash all day long while dropping a triple double on you. Was there any NBA player who hated losing or lack of preparation more than Michael Jordan? He could make grown men cry with his verbal attacks. He bullied and sometimes punched teammates. LeBron James may not appear as relentless as Jordan but that doesn't stop him from giving Mario Chambers extended harsh public corrections. These men and others like them required the best each day from their teammates. And they demanded better tomorrow. They wanted to win. People in different disciplines had that same drive. Whether it was James Brown fining musicians for fumbled notes, late arrivals and unshined shoes or Jimi Hendrix yelling at Dave Mason "Why can't you get it right?" when recording "All Along the Watchtower", the best of the best (with some notable exceptions) are often perfectionists.Even if they're soft-spoken or non-confrontational, top performers will call you out for mistakes.
How much criticism can you take? That's different for everyone. I have had occasion to give but more often receive criticism. If one can put a wall around their ego and try not to take (or give) things personally criticism can be quite useful. Sometimes there is no time to sugarcoat things. Your program works or it doesn't. Your project is on time, in scope and within budget or it's not. The higher the stakes are, the less inclined people will be to care about hurting your widdle feelings. I think, given the statements by Shaq, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Magic, that Dwight Howard might have made a mistake in letting his ego and pride interfere with becoming a better basketball player. That's easy for me to say because I don't have Kobe Bryant in my face screaming that I ran the play wrong or running me down on the team flight. Still, no one said becoming a champion would be easy. If I'm Dwight Howard, I must consider how badly I want success. What will I do to win that championship. Maybe hearing crap from a past his prime Kobe is not worth it. Maybe Kobe is done. Nevertheless when people of the calibre of Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaq, and Kobe all question your work ethic, skills and approach, maybe you should listen. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar speaks on Dwight.
Did you work with Dwight Howard? “No. I had a real good meeting with him when he first came to L.A. He was like, ‘Yeah,’ but that was the last time I spoke with him. . .He’s charming, he’s charismatic, very nice young man. Maturity wise, he doesn’t get it.
”Imagine if you could teach Howard the sky hook. “At least he’d have an offensive move. He gets the ball on offense, oh, my god, he doesn’t know what to do. It’s usually a turnover, people come and take the ball from him or tie his arms up. Offensively, he doesn’t get it. Hasn’t made any progress. We (the Lakers when Kareem was an assistant coach) played them in ‘09, and when I saw him this past season, he was the same player.”
What did you think of Kobe Bryant’s comments that he could teach you how to be a winner? DH: “He didn’t say anything of that sort. People twisted a lot of stuff that he said. But in my personal opinion, I’m a winner. I’m a winner because I’ve been playing for nine years when the average career for an NBA player is three years. I’m a winner because I made it to the NBA from a small school in Atlanta, GA, with 16 people in a class. I’m a winner because I’m succeeding in life. I’ve had problems and I’m not better than the next man, but I’m going to push myself to be a winner when it comes to winning a championship. But he didn’t say anything like that and a lot of people twisted what he did say.”
QUESTIONS
1) How well do you take criticism?
2) Can you recall criticism in your job or other arenas that actually helped you?
3) If someone who dislikes you gives you criticism, do you automatically dismiss it?
4) Does Dwight Howard lack maturity? Will he ever get a championship?
I guess some people take "Until death do us part" a little too literally. I don't know how many stupid people have to get busted trying to solicit murder until the word gets out that trying to do this will almost inevitably wind up with the would be killer revealing themselves as an undercover police officer and the so-called shot-caller going to prison. I mean I think I read at least one of these stories every six months or so somewhere in the United States. I'm also a little surprised that the husband doesn't want his wife to go to prison. Heck if that were me I'd want her under the prison like yesterday. For me anyway, it would be more than a little dismaying to learn that the person who is supposed to be your other half, the woman who's got your back, the one person who you can really count on, is making plans for your funeral arrangements...and you're not even sick. I mean this woman had all sorts of ideas about the best way to commit murder and get away with it. I also think I might be a little cagey with my wife about exactly how much my life insurance was worth or precisely who the beneficiary was. But again, there's a thin line between love and hate and that's often quite evident in domestic violence cases. Six years seems a little light for sentencing but then again perhaps trying and failing to have your husband killed is better (or at least not as bad) than trying and actually succeeding in having your husband killed. Sometimes we wonder how much we're worth to the people that say they love us. I guess Mr. Merfeld knows the answer to that question. About $400,000 give or take.
An investigation into a 20-year-old West Michigan woman who later pleaded guilty to soliciting the murder of her 27-year-old husband included videotaped meetings with an undercover police detective. On the video, Julia Charlene Merfeld of Muskegon is heard telling the detective posing as a hit man that the killing would be "easier than divorcing him." Merfeld said that if he was killed she wouldn't have to worry about her family's judgment or "breaking his heart." Two videos made in April were released to WZZM 13 by prosecutors. Merfeld pleaded guilty last month to soliciting a murder. She's jailed ahead of sentencing July 30 and is expected to face prison time. Authorities say she wanted her husband's $400,000 life insurance policy, and promised to pay $50,000 for the killing.
Some believe that the modern US Civil Rights Movement started with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, reached its zenith in the March on Washington and/or the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and died with the assassination of MLK. This story version normally shows black people and some supportive whites being beaten, insulted, spit on, shot at, and even killed all without even trying to protect themselves. The blacks are long suffering martyrs who look mutely to Washington D.C. for guidance and protection. Well. This book puts the lie to that fantasy. While certainly MLK believed in non-violence as both a moral necessity and the only realistic tactical choice available to an outnumbered, mostly unarmed and incredibly despised minority, MLK's views never achieved 100% acceptance in the movement, even among people inclined to support him like many SCLC, SNCC, NAACP, and CORE members. Some people, even those who meant well, were under the incorrect impression that southern blacks were more comfortable with non-violence and turning the other cheek while those crazy blacks from the NOI or Panthers (usually from the North or West) were the ones supported defensive, retaliatory or pre-emptive violence. Some black movement participants had this viewpoint before they came south. This simply wasn't the case. The Civil Rights movement needs to be understood as not just something that happened in the fifties and sixties in the South but rather as an ongoing struggle by black people throughout American history to claim their independence and constitutional rights. Several southern born and bred black men and black women simply did not believe in turning the other cheek. The fact that occasionally they HAD to did not mean they accepted it. Some simply didn't do so under any circumstances. Often such people were considered "crazy n******s" and wound up dead, imprisoned or in insane asylums. But it did not go unnoticed that white racists normally gave such people a wide berth. It's one thing to abuse people who won't fight back. It's something else to mess with people who have guns and will use them.
In some very real ways the Civil Rights movement (The author focuses on Mississippi and prefers the term "The Mississippi Freedom Movement") wasn't about individual black people deciding they had had enough but rather different people linking together to struggle. There were lots of different ways to fight for freedom, all of which could be extremely dangerous, especially in Mississippi. This book examines the struggle in post WW2 Mississippi, perhaps the place which most fiercely embodied the racist dedication to white supremacy and terror. It was black southerners, often WWI/WW2/Korean War veterans with long bitter experience of racism, who provided housing, transportation, and security for many civil rights workers. It was black men and women, who eschewing non-violence, armed themselves and occasionally engaged in shootouts with Klan nightriders, wounding and allegedly killing a few of them. It was black southerners operating under southern gun-friendly laws, who occasionally showed up armed at civil rights protests, just so police and other reactionary forces would be marginally less likely to resort to violence. Black southerners created formal and informal paramilitary forces to protect civil rights workers, enforce boycotts and keep an eye on any unfamiliar (i.e non civil rights workers) whites in black neighborhoods. This was an indigenous movement that was organized and run by Black Mississippi citizens with a history of resisting white racism. They converted more SNCC workers to their POV than the other way around.
This was astounding stuff. There was American apartheid. Like apartheid elsewhere this system required, really demanded that black people accept their own inferiority. When black people stopped doing this and more importantly could not be made to do so, the system started to crumble. I was familiar with some stories but you would have to read the book or talk to someone who grew up under the Southern regime to understand how petty, cruel and arbitrary this all was. Are you black and wearing a suit during the week? You might have a problem. Contradict or disagree with a white person? Problem. Own your own land/business and thus don't work for white people? SERIOUS problem. Try to register to vote or actually vote? Look a white person in the eye or flirt with a white woman? Death was an immediate possibility. This book shows that armed resistance was a small but crucial movement element. The knowledge (or often even the bluff) that there were black men with guns who didn't mind shooting back gave many black people the courage to march, agitate and engage in protest and boycotts. The Klan, associated groups and police suddenly discovered that their regularly scheduled night time shooting and bombing ventures into black communities were not cost free activities. The simple deterrent effect of being armed was a much bigger factor than actual shooting incidents, though the book details many of those. We Will Shoot Back explains the how the singular heroism of such men as C.O. Chinn, who upon hearing that a white man rudely told his mother to get him involved in menial labor went to the white man's house with a gun and politely advised him to stay the f*** out of Chinn family business, was reworked into a collective response to oppression.
The Rise of The Fourth Reich by Jim Marrs
I try to be rational and find evidence for ideas before accepting them. Nevertheless I have a soft spot for some conspiracy theories, if only because so many things that most people once thought were outrageous and proof that the person who believed them had a leaky brain have since been proven true. Who would have believed that the US government would experiment on civilians and military personnel by deliberately exposing them to radiation or handing out LSD. But that's true. Who would have thought that the US government would make common cause with organized crime elements to eliminate Castro or destroy European political movements? But that happened as well. And do we really believe that an apolitical small time incompetent criminal murdered the leading civil rights personality of his generation and escaped overseas, after conveniently leaving behind "evidence" that he did it? Or that a crazy Palestinian murdered a Presidential candidate even though the candidate was shot in the head from behind while the assailant was always in the front? And who would have imagined that the FBI would run programs of murder, surveillance, intimidation and blackmail designed to disrupt and destroy black political movements. But they did just that. All the same I read this book skeptically. However as luck would have it I finished this just as the Snowden NSA revelations broke and otherwise liberal people (cough Joy Reid cough) fell over themselves to defend and praise the national security state. So that was ironic. Still, although this is a very interesting book, especially if you have a bent towards conspiracy theories, it ultimately can't sustain its argument.
The book starts with some facts which are not necessarily well known and then uses those to produce an overarching tale of conspiracy and secret history. For some these facts are enough to "prove" everything that comes afterwards. For me, even though I was definitely sympathetic to the argument, they weren't. For my money the author's thesis is strongest when he's sticking to what can be proved and making modest logical assertions based on those facts. But some later claims either can't be demonstrated to be true or could have a multitude of other causal factors which the author ignores or glides over. The book's theme is that the West and most especially the United States may have defeated the Nazis militarily but that the Nazi virus was not specific to German heritage. The author argues that for reasons of self-interest, ideology, and shared hostility to real democracy the US leadership class has internalized many Nazi ideals about authoritarianism, class, race, and military primacy. I don't necessarily disagree with this. I just disagree that by the seventies any Nazis were required for this process. I also don't think, as the author holds, that the Nazis found the Templar (Solomon's) Treasure or had put together a workable low yield nuclear bomb which they used at Kursk.
Marrs provides excellent documented information about how several US corporations aided the Nazis before, during and after WW2. Some prominent US families, including most infamously the Bushes and the Dulles, had Nazi ties. There's some fascinating (and I think probably true) arguments that Rudolf Hess actually provided a legitimate peace offer from Hitler to the British Royal Family, which had Nazi sympathizers within. The author details the various US or Vatican programs which assisted Nazis in leaving Europe and resettling in the US or South America. The US space program would have looked very different without Nazi assistance. Some people will find it offensive but the book makes a valid argument that Stalin intended to invade the West and Hitler merely beat him to the punch. The book is at its strongest when it sticks to wartime or immediately post-war actions. By the time it gets to the seventies and beyond the author has been reduced to arguing that the manner in which American society has grown (huge security state and military, low levels of dissent, lots of drugs, close connections between business and government) is congruent with how Nazis would have wanted things. This may or may not be true but it's certainly not akin to claiming, as the book does elsewhere that there are or by this time, were, secret societies, filled with former Nazis or sympathizers who sought to influence events to their liking. Several Republican ethnic outreach coordinators were either linked to or were themselves former Nazis. Pat Buchanan used to make a hobby of defending these folks. This was an interesting book. After the early chapters the remainder is a critique of American political, drug, criminal, economic and social practices. The Sundered Realm by Robert E. Vardeman and Victor Milan
My brother often teases me that there are many books I read as a kid that our parents probably wouldn't have let me read if they had known what was in them. Well I certainly wasn't going to tell my parents and with a few exceptions neither were my siblings or cousins. The Sundered Realm is definitely such a book. I recently reordered the entire War of Powers series and started re-reading. It was about as good as I remembered it to be. Certainly there are some things which haven't aged as well but generally I thought the story held up. There is also the hypothesis, which may be true, that my parents knew exactly what I was reading but had a strong belief in letting teens find their own way, within certain guidelines. Who can say. This book is miles apart from the works of Tolkien, in which apparently sex is not a primary motivating factor or those of Martin where seemingly everybody who wins is evil. Probably the closest comparison is to Robert E. Howard. In this story the heroes are often good but don't mind cheating on occasion while the bad guys have reason to be bad. And everybody who still can, enjoys sex. This is a raunchy tale. This book is the first of a six book series. However all six books combined are roughly equivalent to just one of Martin's tomes. This is quick reading, though admittedly not at all near the quality of a Martin or a Stephen King. Motivations are quickly detailed. The world back history is outlined at the beginning of each book and via character revelations throughout the story. So yes this might be considered the literary equivalent of fast food but heck sometimes fast food hits the spot. In a world with uneven seasons and where magic works, the dominant human realm is the Sky City. This is just what is sounds like, a city in the clouds that rotates around a fixed point in the ground. The humans who live here have access to advanced magic and technology. However they didn't create those things and don't know how to use all of them. The city was created by a race of evil lizard men who tried and failed to exterminate all of humanity. Eons ago, in a cataclysmic war involving demons and gods, humanity won and drove away much of the lizard men. However some humans took over the Sky City. They now view their fellow humans with much of the same contempt that the lizard men once did.They call such humans "groundlings".
Fost Longstrider is a low born "groundling". Women have reason to know that his last name doesn't just apply to his travel speed. Fost Longstrider is a courier and sometime warrior who is hired to deliver a vase/jug to a wizard. However when he reaches his destination he finds that the wizard is dead. Fost is then attacked by Sky City troops, whom he defeats and kills. It turns out the jug contains the spirit of the long since dead philosopher/magician Erimenes, who, when alive preached a pure asceticism and hatred of the body. So when he died, instead of transitioning to the next stage, his shade stayed on this plane. However in the 1400 years since his death, Erimenes has had a change of heart. He is now a hopeless horndog voyeur who thinks life is wasted on the living. He desperately craves to see sex and violence. And if none is forthcoming he'll try to stir some up. Erimenes knows the whereabouts of some VERY powerful magical amulets which is 1) why the dead wizard wanted him, 2) why the Sky City troops wanted him and 3) why Fost encounters a beautiful woman who tries to kill him and steal the jug. Their knockdown dragout fight turns into something equally vigorous but much more pleasurable. But in the morning the woman is gone, along with Erimenes' jug. The woman was Moriana, rightful heir to the Sky City throne, who needs Erimenes' knowledge to battle her older sister Synalon, usurper Queen of Sky City, and one EVIL albeit sexy woman. But Fost is not into one night stands unless he's the one doing the dumping. Anyway Fost's professional pride won't permit him to let anyone steal from him, even if he likes how she looks naked. He sets out after Moriana and runs into a buzzsaw of political and business intrigue, sorcerous sibling rivalry, war, torture, derring do, extremely dangerous adversaries, non-human plans for revenge, battle between gods and demons, and of course a vexing affection and perhaps ultimately even love for Moriana. This book was just over 200 pages and a fun read.
In case you missed the news the Obama Administration announced that by the authority vested in it from (I'm not sure exactly since the implementation date was specifically written in law) it was delaying the requirement of the employer mandate to provide health insurance or face fines until January 1st, 2015. It thus gave something of a victory to conservative and business groups who had argued that the employer mandate would cost jobs, lower wages and make the cost of doing business more expensive. Because most large companies already offer health insurance coverage for their workers the impact on worker coverage is not expected to be that great. Of course, many people who were against the law popularly known as ObamaCare had already pointed this out and claimed that the employer mandate was a tremendous interference in the private marketplace which was largely unnecessary. The Administration had previously ignored these complaints but for some reason recently changed its mind.
Employers who don't provide health insurance will be spared penalties of up to $3,000 per worker until 2015, a one-year delay of a major component of President Barack Obama's health care reform law, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday. Under Obamacare, companies with at least 50 full-time employees are required to provide qualifying health benefits to workers or face financial penalties called "shared responsibility payments." The provision of the law aims to shore up and strengthen the system that provides health benefits to most covered Americans. Under regulatory guidance to be published next week, the Obama administration will free companies from this mandate and from rules that they report information about their health benefits to the federal government next year.
"During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage," Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department, said in a statement. The change does not affect people who will buy health insurance on their own or small businesses that will buy coverage through the law's health insurance exchanges.
More than half of Americans, 170 million people, are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, according the census data. Of companies with at least 50 workers, 94 percent already offer health benefits, a survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation shows. The one-year delay of the penalties won't have a meaningful effect on jobs being the leading source of health care coverage, said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate with the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
"The fact is, employers have been offering coverage voluntarily for how many years now. They didn't drop it before the law was passed. They offered it for business reasons," Fronstin said. "I don't think you'll see a mass exodus because of this."
I am among other things an IT project manager, albeit a relatively low ranking one. Missing the implementation date is usually a very bad thing. It normally means that the project manager, team leaders and other project sponsors proceeded on bad information or that somebody at a higher level withdrew their support. It is definitely the kind of thing which gets you dinged on your performance review. Make a habit of it and you can expect to see a few "did not meet expectations" in your 360 degree comments. Pick up a number of those and you can forget about staying on track for your next promotion or salary increase. You might not get a good project the next time and/or be exiled to an undesirable area of your company. But I digress.
The Administration and supporters will probably wish to spin this as no big deal. And they may well be right. Things get delayed and pushed back all the time, (remember Bush's Medicaid Modernization Act ?) especially in an organization as huge as the US government. Trying to enforce employer mandates may have been a small section of ObamaCare and some supporters are arguing it wasn't even that important anyway. And for now anyway the mandate for individuals to purchase insurance is still planned to proceed on time. But this is at least the second time this year that the Administration has decided that what the law required wouldn't actually work and either delayed implementation or gave people a pass. In April the Administration admitted that workers at small businesses wouldn't actually be able to choose their own health care and would instead need to accept what their employers offered. I was not and am not a supporter of ObamaCare. I do not like the individual mandate. I do not think that premiums will drop for most people. But what really interests me about this latest move are two things.
What gives any President and/or his Administration to suspend implementation of a law. The fact that other Presidents have done this is of little interest to me. If President Obama can say well we aren't going to require this until 2015 what if anything prevents a future conservative President, as unlikely as that seems now, from saying we won't require it until 2175? So it's not technically a repeal, it's just a refusal to enforce the law. I'm not sure I'm fond of executives deciding which laws to enforce. Yes I know it may be necessary sometimes but this particular law had a hard date written into it. So let's stick to that date.
Am I being somewhat cynical in noticing that the new planned date for employer mandates just happens to be after midterm Congressional elections? To me that means that in the short term at least the Administration does not expect the benefits of employer mandates to be immediately obvious to voters. Because if they did they would be moving up the implementation date, not delaying it by a year.
But who knows. Perhaps I am just a dead-ender on this issue. I don't say no to that. I do find it somewhat humorous that people who waved bloody shirts and told us that any delay to this law in its entirety would make people DIE and opponents would be responsible, are now seemingly ok with a year long delay for, what looks like to me, primarily political reasons. I think, my feelings about this law aside, the Administration is setting a bad precedent by seemingly giving in to constant criticism. Because I can absolutely guarantee that now that the employer mandate has been delayed, people opposed to other sections of the law will now gleefully ask, why don't we delay these parts as well.
