US Accent Map

I'm from Michigan where we have no accent. (Smirk) The way we speak is actually the way that American English is supposed to be spoken thank you very much. We drink pop, not soda. Mary, Marry and Merry all sound the same to me. Gratiot is pronounced "grass shut". Inland North!!!!
From time to time I have had cause to travel to some other states, generally outside of the Upper Midwest, where for whatever reason the residents feel the need to mangle the English language so much that it's occasionally hard to understand them. They just don't seem to realize that they're speaking incorrectly. I mean why can't they sound like people from Michigan so that I can understand them?? Snicker. Whether it's people from Boston dropping "r's" every chance they get, people from the South taking ten to fifteen seconds to pronounce each and every vowel they come across, or people from New York throwing "au" vowel sounds seemingly randomly across their speech and trying to break North American land speed records for number of words spoken within ten seconds, accents have always been fascinating to me. I like hearing different people speak and trying to figure out where they're from.

Check out this dialect map and find your particular accent. Do you still have the accent that the map claims you do? Have you changed your accent since childhood? Do you switch back and forth between accents depending on to whom you're speaking?

HBO Game of Thrones: Race and Representation in Fantasy and Sci-Fi

This post was originally supposed to run four to five weeks prior but other events happened and a little thing called paid work reared its ugly head. So it's quite different than the first draft. We've noticed that there seems to be a consistent level of modest interest in the Game of Thrones posts we've done so hopefully this may spark some discussion. It's a long wait until next April when the wolfpack gets its revenge..or not (cue evil laughter).

In case you missed it the character Oberyn Martell aka The Red Viper was recently cast for Season Four of HBO's Game of Thrones. It's difficult to discuss this without too many spoilers but I'll do my best. As always if you've read the books or know exactly what this character does, please keep it to yourself. Let's just say that Oberyn is a fan favorite. He's a Dornish noble who has a serious grudge to settle with the Lannisters. Oberyn Martell has relatives of various complexions. Martin has written in A Storm of Swords that Dorne itself is home to people with differing skin tones and features.                                                                       

The salty Dornishmen were lithe and dark, with smooth olive skin and long black hair streaming in the wind. The sandy Dornishmen were even darker, their faces burned brown by the hot Dornish sun. They wound long bright scarfs around their helms to ward off sunstroke. The stony Dornishmen were biggest and fairest, sons of the Andals and the First Men, brown-haired or blond, with faces that freckled or burned in the sun instead of browning.

This description of the different Dornish phenotypes gave some readers hope that a definitively non-white actor, likely Middle Eastern or North African or perhaps even South Asian or African-American or of other African descent might get a chance to play some Dornish roles and more specifically the role of Oberyn Martell, who is simply put, a bada$$.

But the HBO Game of Thrones producers cast Chilean actor Pedro Pascal to play Oberyn Martell aka "The Red Viper". As you may have noticed Mr. Pascal is relatively light skinned. Some might even call him white. Other writers already had some concerns about Martin's handling of race. When the news of the Martell casting broke a certain faction of Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire fans hit the proverbial roof and were not exactly mollified by Martin's statements on the matter.

So let's talk about the internet controversy about Oberyn. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I commented on my blog. You can find a more studied response there. I made a couple of comments as to what people said about that. I always pictured Oberyn Martell in my head as a — what I call a Mediterranean type. I know people attacked me for that by saying "He's ignorant, he doesn't know that Africa is on the Mediterranean." No, I know Africa is on the Mediterranean. But in common parlance, when you say Mediterranean. you are thinking Greek, Italian, Spanish. When you are thinking Moroccan or Tunisian that’s North African. That’s the way people talk about that. I always pictured the Martells and the salty Dornishman as Mediterraneans, so the casting I think is perfectly appropriate with what I wrote in the books.

I do sympathize. I mean, I understand. Some people have written me some very heartfelt letters, and I've tried to respond to them, about how they wanted to see someone who looked like them in the books, and how they were [disappointed]. They had pictures of the Martells looking like them, and they were disappointed. I understand that, but it still wasn't my intent to make... Even the terminology here is such a land mine. I don't even know what words to use here "black" or "African." I used African at one point, sort of like African American. [But] if you use "African," you are guilty for saying all Africans are the same. I don't know.

I am drawing from history, even though it's fantasy. I've read a lot of history, The War of the Roses, The Hundred Years War. The World back then was very diverse. Culturally it was perhaps more diverse than our world, but travel was very difficult back then. So even though there might have been many different races and ethnicities and peoples, they didn't necessarily mix a great deal. I'm drawing largely on medieval England, medieval Scotland, some extent medieval France. There was an occasional person of color, but certainly not in any great numbers.

This is a TV show based on Martin's fantasy series. Martin said Pascal is close to his concept of Oberyn Martell. Martin has pointed out before art is not a democracy. He alone creates and describes his characters in his books. Benioff and Weiss get to interpret them for their television adaptation. Those are the rules. If you don't like it, go home. Or better yet, create your own best selling stories, have a coke and a smile and shut the f*** up. Pretty simple, right?

Well, yes and no.
Reading the books I never really thought that Oberyn Martell (one depiction to the left) looked much like Isaac Hayes if only because Martin tends to get incredibly, predictably and occasionally offensively specific when describing a black character. His black characters are super dark skinned. IIRC none of them so far have had any POV chapters. And the other characters who do have POV chapters can't go three pages without commenting on how different a black character is. In the book Martin is somewhat coy about how Oberyn Martell looks other than saying he's relatively dark compared to the more northerly Westerosi. Oberyn Martell has relatives of differing complexions. More importantly in the book Martin gives a description of Prince Oberyn from Tyrion's POV that makes it clear that although Oberyn is "dark", he is also clearly within the middle spectrum of Dornish complexions.

The princeling removed his helm. Beneath, his face was lined and saturine, with thin arched brows above large eyes as black and shiny as pools of coal oil. Only a few streaks of silver marred the lustrous black hair that receded down his brow in a widow’s peak as sharply pointed as his noise. A salty Dornishmen for certain. 

But because in America at least, "white" can range from someone as pale and light eyed as Tilda Swinton to someone as dark and dark eyed as Caterina Murino, you would think that the HBO producers might realize that "black" can also include people as light as Wentworth Miller or Jennifer Beals. Both Miller and Beals could easily fit the book's description of two out of the three Dornish types described while someone like Michael Ealy could believably fit into one of the three. Heck, from pure acting ability as well as eye candy for the ladies, Idris Elba could have played Oberyn Martell. He's certainly got the bada$$ intensity for the part. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch and would go a long way towards making the series even more popular among some demographics that might give it a side eye. Oberyn Martell is supposed to be someone that ladies like. A lot. Although Isaac Hayes didn't automatically come to mind for Oberyn Martell or the Dornish people, the musicians of Tinariwen certainly did. But maybe that was just me. 

The issue here is that people want to, need to, desire to engage in stories that involve people who look like them. Maybe not all the time, but definitely some of the time. I think a big part of the reason that a hack like Tyler Perry has been so successful with a large segment of the black community is that he shows black people on screen. It's just that simple. Usually at this point some people of good will and even a few of perhaps not such good will, will question why does race need to be brought into everything? That is the stories being told in A Song of Ice and Fire/A Game of Thrones are indeed universal so why does it matter if most of the characters and so far all of the important characters are Caucasian? Can't we just enjoy the show and books and not worry about real life race issues? I mean it's not like GRRM, Benioff or Weiss are racists like HP Lovecraft or Robert E. Howard. Can't people just stop nitpicking? I mean really come on now!!!

That's a legitimate question, even if it is often used to peremptorily dismiss problematic casting issues. I'll address it by pointing to the long history of whitewashing non-white fictional and even real life characters for Hollywood movies. This was most ridiculous when applied to the EarthSea trilogy by legendary fantasy author Ursula K. LeGuin. LeGuin, who is white, deliberately wrote her books as a corrective to the widespread presumption of default whiteness. In her trilogy, almost all of the protagonists are non-white. But in the film adaptation, this was changed to the reverse, over LeGuin's objections. Whether it's a question of racist Hollywood producers or amoral businessmen/women making sober judgments about what will sell, the fact remains that the predominantly white market seems most comfortable with watching protagonists that look like them, even if the source material must be changed to reflect this. So people claiming that there must be 100% fidelity to source material don't seem to object when the material is changed to their presumed benefit, as it was in the "brown and black people worship their white savior Daenerys" finale. The slaves in the book are literally from every race in the world. But in the TV show no one seemed to notice that making the slaves all people with high levels of melanin might have some unfortunate implications. You almost wonder where people might have gotten the idea of changing source material to fit their own ideas of what is good.

The Oberyn Martell character was and Dorne still is a good opportunity to bring some legitimate (not that different from the book) diversity to the Game of Thrones cast. So while it was nice to hear that the British-Indian actress (and babe) Indira Varna will be playing Ellaria Sand, Oberyn's paramour, I still have to ding the show for missing the opportunity to make a leading House and many of its leaders people of color. 

To quote frequent commenter Webb

Boardwalk Empire on HBO is going to feature a whole story line about HARLEM this season and Black Gangsters Galore!!!
Unlike Game of Thrones...where the only black character of significance last season was named "worm" and really a eunuch with about five lines of dialogue--and then call that diversity?!?!?

Another blogger went in on GRRM here for what they saw as his contradictory statements regarding Dorne. It's a great read and I don't have too much more to add to it. Webb raises a good point though I would note that in the books that Grey Worm, Salladhor Saan and Xaro Xhoan Daxos weren't black. The black characters who have so far been dropped from the TV adaptation were arguably either MORE offensive than Grey Worm or they were relatively minor figures. But the show may have inadvertently(?) created more problems by depicting black men as eunuchs, pirates and greedy merchants. This changes in book five.

The bottom line is that I think that GRRM has the right to create his own fictional world as he sees fit. You have the right to enjoy it or not. I think that GRRM and HBO could have done some things better. I think that people who want to see different or more inclusive images must support the people trying to create those images. That is one reason that I contributed to Barnes-Due crowdsourcing of their film Danger Word.

What do you think?

Is this controversy much ado about nothing?

Are you able to enjoy stories featuring people who don't look like you?

Will the Starks ever get revenge?

Military Coup and Violence in Egypt

Imagine that the US Armed Forces, whose officer class generally tends politically conservative, lose patience with President Obama. The generals don't approve of what they see as his Constitutional end runs, his recess appointments, or his defense policies. Troops surround the White House, easily and casually disarm, subdue or eliminate any laughably outgunned loyalist Secret Service/FBI agents/DC police officers. They take the President and his associates into custody. The military shuts down unfriendly media. Liberal supporters lead marches or sit-ins but the military brass has given the green light. Protesters are arrested or killed by the dozens. The military also issues arrest orders for hundreds of other Administration supporters, who flee overseas or go underground. 

The military appoints John Boehner temporary President. But Boehner is a patsy. Reporters speak to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the real boss. The Chairman speaks vaguely of future elections but won't commit to a date. He won't even admit that he initiated a coup. He claims that his actions were necessary to save democracy. The Department of Justice finds new crimes with which to charge former President Obama. 

Undeterred, the deposed President's supporters organize a massive sit-in at the Washington Monument. They are surrounded by police and military personnel in tanks. After 10 days of peaceful protest, one morning without warning the military and the police move in. This time instead of dozens being killed, it's hundreds and possibly even thousands. People are gunned down from helicopters without regard to age, sex or actual threat. Snipers target protest leaders. Those who are lucky enough to get arrested face charges that could place them in prison for decades. There are then bloody revenge attacks on police, military and civilians who are believed, rightly or wrongly, to support the coup. Fox News, Investors Business Daily, The Washington Times, The WSJ, The National Review, and other "responsible" media speak of the need for stability and the necessity of fighting the liberal-socialist threat.

Well that is what has been going on in Egypt over the past six weeks. Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, was heading down a political path that was unpopular within broad segments of the country, though it's unclear whether the majority wanted him out. Unfortunately for Morsi however, what he saw as reforms or political consolidation, was seen as unacceptable by the military, who overthrew him on July 3. Defense Minister General Abdel Fatah-el-Sisi gave the order. I do not wish to defend Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't care one way or the other about them. But whether the US liked it or not Morsi was the freely and fairly elected President of Egypt. There is a system by which Morsi can be checked and/or removed from office. Military intervention should not be part of that system.

US law clearly indicates that US military aid is not supposed to go to a nation which has had a coup. In a move that is sadly typical, the Administration has claimed that although that may be the law, it is not required to determine if a coup has taken place. Additionally Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the generals were "restoring democracy".

This weak response may well have emboldened the Egyptian military establishment to give the orders for the latest bloody assault on the protesters and also for the apparent murder of 36 prisoners who were alleged to support the deposed President Morsi. At least 1000 people have died so far. Most of them were apparently demonstrators.

CAIRO — The Egyptian government acknowledged that its security forces had killed 36 Islamists in its custody on Sunday, as the country’s military leaders and Islamists vowed to keep up their fight over Egypt’s future.

The deaths were the fourth mass killing of civilians since the military took control on July 3, but the first time so many had died while in government custody.The news of the deaths came on a day when there appeared to be a pause in the street battles that had claimed more than 1,000 lives since Wednesday, most of them Islamists and their supporters gunned down by security forces.

The Islamists took measures on Sunday to avoid further confrontations, including canceling several protests over the military’s ouster of a democratically elected Islamist-led government.

While confirming the killings of the detainees on Sunday, the Ministry of the Interior said the deaths were the consequence of an escape attempt by Islamist prisoners. But officials of the main Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, described the deaths as “assassinations,” and said that the victims, which it said numbered 52, had been shot and tear-gassed through the windows of a locked prison van.

Both the country of Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have lobbied the US not to cut off military aid. The second group has even offered to make up any loss in aid to Egypt out of its own pocket. After all the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wouldn't want its own subjects to look at successful democracy in Egypt and start to get big ideas about political changes. There are also US interests to consider. These include favorable access to the Suez Canal, overflights and refueling over Egyptian airspace, as well as concerns about the nature of the state that Morsi or other Muslim Brotherhood backed politicians might seek to run. I mean, judging by some of their supporters' actions, religious freedom and safety for minority points of view or minority public safety don't appear to be high on their agenda.

So there aren't any good answers. But there is a right answer. The US simply can't try to gin up support for the overthrow of Syrian President Assad by piously claiming "He's killing his own people" when Egyptian generals are doing the same thing. The US can't claim to support democracy and lecture other nations on free and fair elections and then turn a blind eye to a military coup. The lesson that the US and its Arab client states are teaching opposition movements is clear. Elections don't matter. If you win we will try to get rid of you via other means, including violence. So opposition movements will not try to engage in electoral politics, rationally deciding that such things are meaningless. This means more radicalization and violence in the long term. Now this is good if you happen to be the world's largest arms dealer like the US, but I'm not sure it's actually good for living beings who aren't weapons merchants. The US should follow the law and suspend the military aid (which is frankly a subsidy to US military contractors) Also I don't think it's in the US interest to let any client state dictate what our response should be. The tail doesn't get to wag the dog.

Thoughts?

Movie Reviews-Lovelace, The Conspiracy, Bullet to the Head

Lovelace
directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman

It's tricky making a Hollywood movie about adult entertainment. The producer and/or director must decide if the adult performer is a victim/survivor to be pitied and helped or a low life scumbag who's responsible for their own decisions. Lovelace goes for the first interpretation. Linda Lovelace was an adult actress whose performance in the seminal film Deep Throat and skill at a certain sex act made her a household name in the early seventies. This movie kicked off an acceptance of a certain bluntness and crudity about sex, a penetration of mainstream culture by porn that is ongoing until this day. Strange as it seems now, Deep Throat was a pop culture phenomenon. Late night comedians riffed on it. The film uses actual news footage from that era. The New York Times ran ads for it!!! Roger Ebert reviewed it. Couples attended it together. Not being Travis Bickle I can't imagine taking a date to an adult movie but the mating habits of the early seventies species Citizenus Americanus were odd indeed. 

Lovelace is based on Linda Lovelace's (Boreman) autobiography, Ordeal. Linda denounced her past actions and claimed her husband coerced her into everything. She said her scenes were nothing more than forcible rape. Some people disputed those allegations. But Linda did pass a lie detector test regarding some statements in her book. Good luck trying to sort those claims out. Linda became a crusader against the adult industry who nonetheless later claimed feminists had used her as a tool for their own interests just like adult industry producers.

Unsurprisingly the film is sympathetic to Linda. Somewhat strangely though the film also (inadvertently?) softens Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard), Linda's abusive husband. Domestic abuse is an ugly frightening thing. But in this movie there is maybe only one scene that reaches the viewer with the emotional power of films like Things Behind the Sun, What's Love Got to Do With It, or Once Were Warriors. So even though the viewer will definitely hate Chuck I don't think that the directors succeeded in getting us to have the white hot searing level of visceral disdain, rage and contempt that we had for the male villains in the three other films mentioned. I'm not saying that you will feel sympathy for Chuck. You won't. But Chuck is a cipher. Why would Linda would be with him? His intelligence, swagger and ambition seemed very low. This film has toplessness, brief nudity and some violence.  I think this film might have played well on Lifetime or OWN. This was neither Wonderland, a frightening look at the scummier side of that industry via a brutal murder/robbery that adult actor John Holmes allegedly helped arrange, nor was it Boogie Nights, an overarching morality tale about the death of idealism, lost youth, family break up and the brutal imperatives of capitalism and misogyny.

In what seems like a hackneyed intro Linda Boreman (Amanda Seyfried) is a guileless girl who is already viewed with disappointment by her uptight distant judgmental mother (Sharon Stone). Her somewhat uninvolved father (Robert Patrick) is a WW2 vet and former cop. A chance encounter with a laid back Chuck Traynor at a roller rink leads to dates and rather outrageously Traynor pleasuring Linda in her parents' kitchen during dinner. Shortly after that they're married. Traynor owns a restaurant and club but he's obviously a pimp. The movie never explicitly spells this out but if you, like 99% of the viewing audience are smarter than Linda is depicted, you'll pick up on this quickly enough. After Linda bails Traynor out of jail because some of his employees were turning tricks in the parking lot, (completely without his knowledge of course) he tells her that they have no money left. Needless to say he has an idea. Linda Boreman becomes Linda Lovelace. He's been grooming her for just this sort of thing.

This film didn't emotionally engage me. I'm not a woman. But I've been around enough women to know that, generally speaking, a new bride would probably not look kindly upon her husband's suggestion, really more order, that she have sex with other people on film for money. Linda was initially ok with this. The film can't tell us why but it suggests that the ugly relationship Linda has with her mother might have been responsible. The first time we see the mother she's yelling at Linda. I wouldn't necessarily say her mother wore the pants in the family but apparently she was the one who disciplined Linda. The movie should have gone deeper into the complex family dynamics that made Linda ripe for exploitation by Traynor. Do people flee from one domineering relationship to another because that's all they know? Maybe. The film wasn't ultimately satisfying. It just lurches from scene to scene. Lovelace faithfully recreates the early seventies feeling of wide lapels, wah-wah pedals, poodle cuts, Cooper Black and Harlow fonts and anything goes sexuality. Seyfried does an ok job. She shows Linda's vulnerability. 

Lovelace brings in some big names in backing roles but you never forget that they're acting, except for Bobby Cannavale as a mobbed up film producer. Other actors/actresses include Hank Azaria (from The Simpsons but unfortunately he does not do the Chief Wiggums voice), James Franco, Chris Noth, Debi Mazar, Chloe Sevigny, Wes Bentley, Adam Brody, and Eric Roberts. Noth oozes understated menace as the paternalistic mafioso handling movie distribution. To an extent, he tries to look out for Linda. He's not fond of Chuck. This is okay viewing if you aren't expecting a masterpiece.
TRAILER





The Conspiracy
directed by Christopher MacBride

I think I mentioned before that I have a soft spot for conspiracy theories and therefore a soft spot for movies about conspiracy theories. So I watched this film. This movie is a faux-documentary complete with lost footage a la The Blair Witch Project. It tells the supposedly true tales of two young filmmakers, Aaron (Aaron Poole) and Jim (James Gilbert) who decide to film a documentary on conspiracy theories and the people who promulgate them. They come to focus on the charismatic, honest, good hearted and quite possibly loony Terrance G (Alan Peterson), an evangelical conspiracy theorist who combines incredible and occasionally offsetting intensity with a rueful sense of humor. Terrance G is looking for the Unified Field of Conspiracy theories, something that will tie in 9/11 with the World Wars with the Kennedy Assassination and so on. He thinks there's a secret group behind these events.

As Terrance explains to his skeptical chroniclers, it's no good if only he knows the truth or if he's the only one searching. He thinks it's critical to share what he knows with other people so that maybe tomorrow one other person is convinced , a week later maybe two people are listening, a month after that maybe four people are listening seriously and so on. To that end he puts on his sandwich board, pulls out his trusty megaphone and trolls the streets for converts. This generally doesn't work. The film depicts this in a pretty sensitive, almost heroic, manner. It reminded me of the Jehovah's Witnesses who continue to show up on your doorstep with an earnest smile despite being rejected and/or insulted almost everywhere they go. Heck it brought to mind some hardcore socialists in my own circle of friends and family who are convinced despite all available evidence that the Revolution is at hand. Even though Terrance knows he will be mocked, spat at, harassed, insulted and possibly assaulted, he continues on.

One day, while conversing with Aaron and Jim, Terrance notices a man on a bicycle who he's convinced has been following him for weeks. He calls the man out. Of course Aaron and Jim think Terrance has lost it. But soon after that incident Terrance disappears. And his apartment has been ransacked. The police don't appear to be all that interested. Aaron and Jim retrieve some left over information and news clippings from Terrance's apartment. They start to look more seriously into what Terrance was doing. As is later explained in the documentary that was probably a bad idea. It's on the level of greasing yourself up with seal fat, cutting open an artery and going swimming with great white sharks during mating season sort of bad idea.
The film heightens the sense of paranoia by shooting closeup with handheld cameras and not introducing that many more characters. Names and faces of some characters are blacked out or redacted. Unfortunately the film's final third is utterly predictable but nonetheless it does share with us quite a few tense moments. It was somewhere between Eyes Wide Shut, They Live and Kill List. This was a low budget movie. It does combine some real life uncomfortable questions with flights of fancy. This was a passable film, not outrageously good but not bad. If you are open to the idea that there are secrets being discussed and elites with interests that aren't necessarily in line with your concerns you may enjoy this movie. Also if you have ever jumped both feet into doing something only to get a sick sense later on that things are going drastically wrong, you're in way over your head and you can't find your way home you may feel some empathy with some people here.
TRAILER






Bullet To The Head
directed by Walter Hill

Sylvester Stallone mumbles and grumbles through another action movie. Would that the story were as impressive as his physique. Of course I don't necessarily look for great stories in action movies so there's that. Walter Hill needs no introduction of course. The man directed 48 Hrs, The Warriors, Red Heat, Last Man Standing, Trespass, Undisputed, and The Getaway. He produced Prometheus and Alien among other films. So he's a heavy hitter. This movie was in its way both a Western and a buddy movie. My issue with the film was something that was hard to initially put my finger on but became more and more obvious as the film continued to progress.

Stallone's character takes almost ALL of the good lines. He's shown as much more competent than his partner. He always has the last word in arguments with his partner. And he won't stop dropping snide little asides about his partner's race. This I guess is supposed to be ethnic banter showing their comfort level and how close they are but his Asian partner doesn't really give very much back. The co-star was supposed to be the (Caucasian) actor Thomas Jane but the producers wanted to have a non-white in the role to hopefully reach a larger (presumably overseas) market. So over the objections of both Stallone and Hill, Jane was dropped and Sung Kang was inserted. So I can't help but wonder if the decidedly secondary role and the racial stuff are deliberate digs not only at the actor but at the producer. Either way it didn't work. I think that if Jane had remained in the role the movie would have depicted more of a battle of equals. 

Anyway, Stallone is a well dressed New Orleans hitman named Jimmy Bobo. He works with his partner and surrogate son Louis Blanchard (Jon Seda). They've been together for about six years. On a hit assignment in a hotel room they take out a corrupt cop named Hank Greeley. Shortly afterwards they adjourn to a bar where they're supposed to get paid. While Bobo is in the can, Keegan (Jason Momoa, Khal Drogo from A Game of Thrones) who has been watching the duo decides to make his move. Showing great dexterity, he moves through the crowded bar and quickly kills Louis. He then follows Bobo into the bathroom and tries to kill him too. But Bobo doesn't like other men walking up to him while he's relieving himself and is on guard. A short brutal fight breaks out. Keegan escapes. Washington D.C. police officer Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang) arrives in town. Evidently Greeley was also former D.C. police who was known to be shady. In short time Kwon has sussed out Greeley's connection to Bobo and Blanchard and tracked down Bobo. He offers a partnership to Bobo which is eventually grudgingly accepted. The two men try to figure out who wanted Greeley dead and who is Keegan working for. 

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Adebisi from Oz) has a meaty role as the Big Bad and Sarah Shahi has a predictable but delectable role as the babe who must be saved. She is Bobo's daughter and Kwon's love interest. Hello! Christian Slater is suitably slimy. The man just looks greasy. If you think of someone who is likely to stab you in the back Slater's face always comes to mind. There is a fair amount of nudity and lots of violence. However the violence is almost cartoonish. I don't mean in how it's handled. I mean the visuals don't quite look real. I did like how although both Keegan and Bobo are bad guys they also have a code. Each of them will get very angry when this code is broken. Momoa in particular seemed to be having fun with this. He's a pretty evil guy but he does have a sense of humor. However this wasn't a movie to see in theaters. It's definitely a free rental or a what the hell I'm bored type of film.
TRAILER

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner: Bad Behavior

Perhaps you've heard about San Diego Democratic Mayor Bob Filner, who by all accounts makes people like Herman Cain, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Mark Sanford, Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood look like gentlemen greatly concerned with women's dignity. He is currently being sued for sexual harassment by his former communications secretary. And I wouldn't be surprised if other lawsuits are upcoming. The man appears to have been a sleazebag. Filner's behavior towards women allegedly ran the gamut from simple pickup attempts or investigations of interest through unambiguous textbook sexual harassment to what could conceivably be called attempted sexual assault. Or as one woman ruefully told me it could just be another day at the office. There is a joke by Chris Rock in which he claims that "Sexual harassment is when an ugly man tries to get some". I can't really call it but Filner doesn't quite appear to be an Adonis. 

Some of the claims against Filner would seem to suggest that the man had been watching too many Benny Hill skits. I'm a HUGE Benny Hill fan but somehow I manage not to use a comedian's fictitious behavior as a guide book for interacting with women in the workplace. In the first place that would be wrong and in the second place I really really really need my job. I'm not getting fired for doing some dumb stuff like Filner allegedly did. I mean how do you explain that to friends and family. It's one thing to get fired because you stood up against some racist stuff going down or because you blew the whistle on some shady finances or illegal dumping. I would be proud of that. It's something else again to get fired because you grabbed somebody's butt. How do you explain THAT on a resume? All kidding aside, other claims indicate that Filner had been crossing some very clear redlines around sexual harassment or worse. Since men are traditionally the initiators, unless a man takes a chance and makes his intentions clear, things might not happen. The challenge is that different women have different ideas about which men they consider attractive, when and where it's appropriate to field offers of interest, and of course how direct or bold such offers should be. A woman may think that one man's crude approach is refreshingly direct, masculine and flattering and think that the exact same approach from a different man is creepy, degrading and actionable harassment. It all depends. You just don't know until you try. David Letterman evidently knew how to be smooth. Filner did not. 

However in today's legal and cultural environment it's usually, especially for men, a good idea to avoid making the workplace your happy hunting grounds. I've seen it work for some people but I've also seen others make a big mess. And more importantly than that it's CRITICAL not to hit on people that work for you. That's virtually the definition of sexual harassment. It's a big freaking no-no. Trying to make sex some sort of quid pro quo arrangement is also wrong. Filner doesn't seem to realize that. And obviously putting your hands on people is also just not done. Does it rise to assault? I don't know. The lawyers can answer that. But there are just some basic obvious things that anyone should know. Unless you have some sort of explicit invitation keep your hands to yourself. It is known. How difficult is this? If the women Filner harassed had punched or slapped him or their husbands, boyfriends or other male relatives had gone looking for him with bad intentions, I would think he got what he deserved. But aside from the obvious assault-like nature of some of the allegations, to give the devil his due, other allegations are simply a man trying (ineptly and crudely) to make a move. Headlocks and forceful kisses or grabbing someone's behind = unethical, immoral and illegal. Asking someone who doesn't work for you if she has a man or telling her that you think she's attractive and asking her out to dinner = normal life.

Her job was to escort Filner from table to table during the dinner. At one point, Fink said, an attendee singled her out for praise saying, "this girl has worked her a$$ off for you." At that, Fink said, Filner told her to turn around.
"As a staffer, I know it sounds silly to say that you just do it, but you just do it," Fink said. Once she'd turned, Fink said, Filner "took his hands, patted my posterior, laughed, and said: 'No, it's still there!'" For a moment, Fink said, she was in shock, "and it certainly gave the people at the table pause."

Read this account of thirteen different women retelling their experiences with Filner. Let everyone know what you think.

Was all of this sexual harassment?
Should Filner have been arrested/voted out of office a loooooong time ago?
Should Filner be recalled?
If you worked with someone like Filner (as a peer, subordinate, or boss) how would you handle him?

Ban the Box Laws-Needed or Not?

Let's say that you were going to hire a babysitter/choose a day care center for your children, nieces and nephews, or other younger relatives. Would you want to know if the person to whom you were entrusting your next generation had spent time in prison for assaulting kids? If you wanted to hire (male) security at a domestic violence/rape crisis center would you think it relevant to know that the 6-4 teddy bear of a man who earnestly says he abhors violence against women just did ten years in federal prison for kidnapping, raping and pimping young girls? If your pre-teen son needs a math tutor would you send him to the home of a math professor who's not only a NAMBLA member but twenty years prior was convicted of child sex abuse? If you run a cash business and need to hire someone to make regular deposits of thousands of dollars to various banks, would you be nonchalant about hiring a woman who was just paroled after serving time for embezzlement and has ties to gangs specializing in armed robbery?

I think that most of you would probably think twice about hiring those people for those positions, if you knew their previous history. It may not be anything personal. You may be making a mistake. But you'd still want to know what they did right? You may not care if the fellow you hired to paint your house has some misdemeanor marijuana convictions. But there are other positions (akin to the above) where greater trust or intimacy is required or the crimes are relevant to the job duties.

The honorable city leaders of Richmond, California have decided that if you're a private city contractor who employs more than nine people you can't ask ANYTHING about an applicant's criminal record, otherwise you'll lose your contract.


So checking into an applicant's criminal past is now illegal. There are exceptions for jobs considered to be "sensitive" or jobs where background checks are required by state or federal law.

RICHMOND, Calif.—City officials in this San Francisco suburb passed an ordinance this past week prohibiting city contractors from ever inquiring about many job applicants' criminal histories. The move in this city of 100,000 people, which is troubled by crime and high unemployment, is part of a growing national trend that supporters say is designed to improve the community's employment prospects amid wider incarceration.

Under the ordinance, approved by the City Council in a 6-1 vote and set to take effect in September, private companies that have city contracts and that employ more than nine people won't be able to ask anything about an applicant's criminal record; otherwise they would lose their city contracts. The ordinance is one of the nation's strictest "ban-the-box" laws, which are so called because many job applications contain a box to check if one has a criminal record. 

"Once we pay our debt, I think the playing field should be fair," said Andres Abarra of Richmond, who was released from San Quentin State Prison in 2006 after serving 16 months for selling heroin. Mr. Abarra, 60 years old, said he lost his first job out of prison, at a warehouse, about a month after a temporary agency hired him. The agency ran a background check and "let me go on the spot," he said. He now works for an advocacy group called Safe Return that campaigned for the ordinance. 

Others say the laws potentially endanger both employers and the public. "We have a responsibility to protect our customers, protect other employees and then the company itself" from potential crime, said Kelly Knott, senior director for government relations of the National Retail Federation, an industry group in Washington, D.C., which hasn't taken a position on ban-the-box laws but has cautioned against federal guidance that could limit how employers use background checks. 

Richmond, with a population of about 100,000, joins 51 other municipalities that have passed similar ordinances, many in the past five years.

I'm not sure that this is a good thing. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand the US and its constituent states put too many people in prison. California is currently being forced by the federal government to release people from prison because of overcrowding. It would be useful both on a macro level both from a humane and a pragmatic perspective to ensure that these people get meaningful employment. That helps reintegrate them into the community and hopefully cut down on recidivism. 

But if at work I sit down at the "wrong" lunch table and a co-worker has a flashback to his San Quentin days and responds accordingly, after I get out of the hospital I might want to discuss with my firm and a civil jury why this savage was hired in the first place. I remember attending a party hosted by a lady quite close to me. Unbeknownst to us both someone else had taken it upon themselves to invite a friend who was just recently released from prison. His crime? Armed robbery and theft. Is that the sort of person you want roaming around your home?

There are some jobs where a criminal record is mostly immaterial to the work being done. There are others where a criminal record is quite relevant. I think that that decision needs to be left up to the employer, with only modest input from the state. I don't think that an arrest record or even a misdemeanor record should be able to be considered. But felonies? A possible employer needs to know about that. It's not like we have a labor shortage in this economy.
Obviously the elephant in the room is race. As we've discussed before the criminal justice system is racially biased at every level. Black people are disproportionately represented in the system. We must take steps to address this and deal with the consequences. This is why I'm against stop-and-frisk, the War on Drugs, racist police, snide bullying prosecutors and judges, armed bureaucrats, no-knock warrants, three strikes laws and a federal criminal code that has expanded almost exponentially since the sixties. I think that once you've served your time you should be able to vote again period. We also know that a white person with a criminal record has an equal or better chance to be hired than a black person without one! And we know that the EEOC is suing two companies for discriminating against black people by utilizing criminal background checks.

All that said, however there is a difference between someone who went to prison for driving without a valid license and someone who went to prison for stabbing someone in the neck. If I'm an employer I need to know the records so I can make the appropriate decisions. In the WSJ article a woman who spent six months in prison for arson states that she campaigned for the new law. Sorry but again, if I am looking to hire someone, I would really like to know if they're going to burn my company down. This is an excellent example of where the individual and group goals may conflict. On a group level I want and need responsible ex-cons to be productive members of society. On an individual level? Ehhh....




What do you think?

Should employers be able to use criminal background checks for applicants?

Should employers be liable if an ex-con they hired engages in criminal activity at work? 

If you believe in background checks for purchasing guns why not a background check for a job?

Book Reviews-Fear of the Dark, Joyland

Fear of the Dark
by Walter Mosley

Often when people operate at a consistently excellent level for a long time other people come to expect that and take it for granted. So in order to impress they can't just do their normal great work. They must go above and beyond to get people to see them in a different light. I had a boss once who told me that in pretty much those exact words. Maybe she was telling the truth that day in my performance review and maybe she wasn't. All the same though there is something to be said for getting used to excellence. I was reminded of that reading both books listed here. If you are familiar with the authors these books aren't anything new. Of course if someone else had written them I'd be raving about the strong new voice and colorful characterizations. So it goes. For me it was like sinking into a favorite comfortable broken in chair. Good story telling makes me happy.

Fear of The Dark is the second (?) in the series featuring mid century Los Angeles reluctant amateur sleuth and bookstore owner Paris Minton and his buddy, the debonair, dashing and downright dangerous Fearless Jones. As usual Paris is minding his own business (technically that's not quite accurate as he is also trying to mind the business of Jessa, a Caucasian woman who likes black men and likes the short con) when he's pulled into a world of trouble.

Paris is in his bookstore when his shiftless cousin Ulysses stops by. He's in bad trouble. Except for his mother, no one likes Ulysses. He uses people. He lies. He always has a big plan that fails. He won't pay back favors or money. Everyone calls him Useless. The last time Paris saw Useless, Useless hid stolen gold in Paris' bathroom without Paris' consent. The suspicious Paris checked the bathroom. He found and moved the gold, right before some highly unpleasant encounters with the police and an angry gangster. He's upset to see Useless. Paris is not interested in the desperate Useless' invocation of blood ties or his impassioned plea that he really needs aid. Paris shuts the door in his cousin's face and moves on.

But he can't move on because Useless disappears. Paris doesn't care. But Useless' mother arrives on Paris' doorstep, looking for her son. She knows Paris saw him. She wants his help in finding Ulysses (she always uses her son's given name). Paris dare not say no to Three Hearts because not only has his aunt always been kind and loving to him but she is also believed to have the evil eye. People who upset or annoy her seem to come to bad ends. Paris is not overly credulous but he's not in a hurry, even in 1956 Los Angeles, to go up against Louisiana hoodoo.

So, needing backup, Paris calls Fearless, who is now body guarding bail bondsmen. This kicks off an adventure across the greater metropolitan Los Angeles area, one that is full of gangsters, tough talking dames, whores with hearts of gold, racist police, horny lawyers, insurance scams, blackmail, and commentary on race, class and gender relations. Paris is more aggressive than in the first book. Fearless remarks that he thinks that Paris is the tougher of the duo. Coming from Fearless that means a lot as Fearless maintains his street reputation as a stone cold killer and defender of the defenseless. Fearless' aura as a man not to be f***** with is never more clear than when Fearless and Paris ask a favor of Bubba Lateman, who also has a certain reputation. Bubba has heard about Fearless but seems unimpressed. He asks Fearless what Fearless would do if Bubba ordered his killer wolf-dog to rip out his throat. Fearless calmly replies that it was a beautiful dog but that if it jumped him he'd snap its neck like a chicken. And then he'd proceed to teach Bubba a lesson that he'd carry down into his coffin. After a tense moment Bubba starts to laugh. I loved that scene.

There's another point when Paris is reading alone in the park. Thinking that he must be up to something, being black and all, police stop by to harass, insult, and search him. Frustrated and confused that Paris is not a criminal and they can't legally prevent him from being where he is or doing what he's doing they try to bait him into physical confrontation. It was quite reminiscent of this scene from real life. Some things don't change.

As before there's plot complexity as many different people are involved in Useless' plans but it's very engaging writing and moves quickly. The book runs about 300 pages. Despite relative cowardice, Paris has no problem with the ladies. There are two different femme fatales and three to four other major women characters. Paris is involved with three of them.




Joyland
by Stephen King

In a happy accident as I was finishing Joyland last weekend I ran across this profile of Stephen King and his family, most of whom are also writers. You should read it if you're a King fan. Good stuff. Anyway Joyland is King's second(?) book for the Hard Case publishing house, which has made a niche for itself publishing crime novels, shoot-em ups, and revenge stories, either done in the style of the old pulp masters or actually written by some of the old pulp masters. The covers, as you can see, are often lurid and erotically charged. It's supposed to remind you of the dime store novels from the fifties and sixties.

Well Joyland could be described as a crime novel or detective novel if you like but it's is just as much a coming of age story, a story of a writer looking back at his life, a trip into nostalgia, a screed against the unfairness of this world where children die of cancer while Dick Cheney keeps on going strong, and of course a ghost story. King knows just which buttons to push and he does it so well that you forget that this is fiction. You get totally immersed into his world. Reading this book I almost felt compelled to simultaneously listen to Same Auld Lang Syne or American Pie. There was a very strong mix of wisdom, love, regret, nostalgia and hope mixed into this book, just like those songs, in my opinion.

The book jumps around in time but perhaps it's something that happens to us when we get older, as the narrator is. Some physics I've read suggests that time is only an illusion and that past, present and future are all one. Maybe that is the case. The narrator goes from present day describing the recent death of a close friend to detailing in present tense the day he met that friend in 1973.

It's 1973. Devin Jones is a college student, a virgin, who is madly in love with his classmate Wendy Keegan. However what's apparent to the reader immediately but unfortunately doesn't become apparent to Devin until much later is that Wendy has friend-zoned Devin. She doesn't mind messing around with Devin but certainly won't do THAT thing with him. As summer break approaches she stops spending time with Devin, is vague about her locations and has her roommate answer his phone calls. Eventually, once Devin's at his new summer job, while he's pretending not to know what it means that Wendy's roommates openly laugh at him when he calls or that Wendy never calls him, he gets a "Dear Devin" letter explaining what everyone already knew.

King writes:

"I never saw Wendy again...There wasn't even a final phone call filled with tears and accusations. That was on Tom Kennedy's advice and it was probably a good thing. Wendy might have been expecting such a call [from me], maybe even wished for it. If so she was disappointed. I hope she was. All these years later, with these old fevers and deliriums long in my past, I still hope she was. Love leaves scars."

Devin's new summer job is at Joyland, a North Carolina independent amusement park/carnival. Joyland is almost defiantly old school carnival. It is not corporate owned. It lacks modern rides and events. In fact it's a struggle each summer for Joyland to stay in the black financially. But Joyland does have loyalty from its workers. Against the odds Devin finds that not only does he like the work but that he's good at it, especially the draining and dangerous task of putting on a dog costume in hot southern summers and entertaining the kids.

But Joyland has secrets. A ride is supposedly haunted. A few Joyland employees have unusual abilities which the thoroughly skeptical Devin can't entirely ignore. But it's when Devin meets Annie and her chronically sick son Mike, that he's inspired to look further into the history of the Joyland ghost as well as a string of murders that have occurred across the southeast. Devin also makes friends with fellow college students and co-workers Erin Cook and Tom Kennedy. Sadly for Devin, the beautiful Erin only has eyes for Tom, but unlike Wendy, Erin is honest.

This is a very good book. There are no gross out scenes in it. Supernatural elements are very muted. I hate to keep going back to this as an example but once again this story reminds me of what I think of as King's masterpiece "The Last Rung On The Ladder". Joyland is not about things that go bump in the night. It's about the darkness in the human heart. Pick this one up. It's just under 300 pages.