The predictable reactions about the recent murders in Isla Vista were that people immediately used the tragedy to argue for previously accepted conclusions. So if you already felt that whiteness, white masculinity or even masculinity itself are all highly problematic or needed to be interrogated and altered you felt that your premise was vindicated by these murders, never mind that Rodger was half white. He clearly identified with white privilege and saw himself as better than other non-whites. If you thought that interracial marriages and immigration are bad ideas then you looked at the British born half-Asian Rodger and argued those characteristics were somehow salient to his actions. If you were convinced that the path to better living is found via psychiatry and aggressive state law enforcement intervention then you were outraged that therapists or police didn't do something earlier, as surely you would have done were you in their position. If you think that pick up artists or game theorists are synonymous with misogyny, hatred and terrorism then you probably wanted to know why the NSA, FBI or other agency weren't keeping tabs on Rodger's online presence and targeting him with drone strikes. If his last name hinted at Muslim heritage maybe agencies would have been watching him. If you think that youthful "bullying" will often bear dark poisonous fruits in later years then you were outraged that teachers or other authority figures didn't pick up on and correct Rodger's persecution feelings earlier. There were even some people who thought that the delicate featured Rodger was dealing with gay panic. And of course if you think that the NRA is the source of all evil then you were upset that Rodger was able to legally purchase guns in the first place. And so on.
You can find all of these perceptions and more across the net if you deign to search. Some might even have some validity. But I think that most of them are the worst examples of Monday morning quarterbacking. For those who have lost loved ones or have had their lives altered by being wounded by this madman, I would not contradict anything they might say in their grief. But the rest of us must step back, analyze what happened and see if we can prevent such things. I don't think we can. I think it's only too human for everyone to look at this incident and immediately argue that they are justified in whatever preexisting conclusion they already had. It is understandable of course but it would make for bad public policy. First off let's look at the guns. Rodger bought the guns legally roughly a year before he went on his killing spree. He passed all the background checks. The guns were not "assault rifles". They had limited capacity magazines. In short, there was nothing under current law, which in California is tilted towards more restrictive purchasing standards, which would have prevented Rodger from buying a gun. Nothing. Absent outlawing guns in private hands, I'm not sure what more gun control advocates would like to see done. Keep in mind that Rodger stabbed three men to death and ran over at least one more with his BMW. For those who fixate on the guns I would just like to know what law, what standard would they seek to impose that would be able to distinguish between a monster like Rodger and the thousands of other people who purchase guns each year?
Next look at the opportunities for intervention. If someone is thought to be an imminent danger to himself or others, there is an ability to place that person under a 72 hour hold. But the key word there is imminent. No one except the therapists and police involved know how Rodger presented himself but evidently they did not see the threat. It is easy after the fact, as some CNN windbags did, to pompously talk about missed signs. But the reality no one knows what any human is capable of, given the right stimuli. Our justice system is designed to convict people for what they have done after a trial by jury. It is not, with very few exceptions, designed to imprison or convict people for what they might do, on the say so of family members, police or mental health experts. If you want to open the floodgates and start locking people up for things they haven't done, well you will need to radically change our concept of law. Most people with mental health problems are not violent. I don't want people to be arrested for what they might do or even for their hateful ideologies. Rodger could accurately be described as a loser, a racist, a misogynist, a misanthrope. He attempted to find other people who shared his views. Despite his outwardly directed hatred the person he most despised appears to have been himself. His sense of race and class based entitlement was apparently very strong. There was a yawning gulf between who Rodger was and who he thought he should be. Unable to stand it any more he wanted to make everyone else pay. I can't think of any consistent method to identify and intervene with people like this. Maybe if Rodger had improved his social skills with (white) women he would have reduced his frustrations and found happiness. Or perhaps not. Maybe eventually he would have snapped and killed any girlfriend or other sexual partner he had. We don't know and will never know. Anyone who tells you they have the answer to stop horrific events like this is mistaken. I understand and sympathize with the urge to find the reason why this happened and get the government to fix it. But sometimes there simply aren't answers. Rodger Manifesto
My father drove up to Santa Barbara to meet me a few days later. When we sat down at our table, I saw a young couple sitting a few tables down the row. The sight of them enraged me to no end, especially because it was a dark-skinned Mexican guy dating a hot blonde white girl. I regarded it as a great insult to my dignity. How could an inferior Mexican guy be able to date a white blonde girl, while I was still suffering as a lonely virgin? I was ashamed to be in such an inferior position in front my father. When I saw the two of them kissing, I could barely contain my rage. I stood up in anger, and I was about to walk up to them and pour my glass of soda all over their heads.
My two housemates were nice, but they kept inviting over this friend of theirs named Chance. He was black boy who came over all the time, and I hated his cocksure attitude. Inevitably, a vile incident occurred between me and him. I was eating a meal in the kitchen when he came over and started bragging to my housemates about his success with girls. I couldn’t stand it, so I proceeded to ask them all if they were virgins. They all looked at me weirdly and said that they had lost their virginity long ago. I felt so inferior, as it reminded me of how much I have missed out in life. And then this black boy named Chance said that he lost his virginity when he was only thirteen! In addition, he said that the girl he lost his virginity to was a blonde white girl! I was so enraged that I almost splashed him with my orange juice. I indignantly told him that I did not believe him, and then I went to my room to cry. I cried and cried and cried, and then I called my mother and cried to her on the phone. How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves.
This is a remake of a 1986 film of the same name that had a predominantly white cast. This film has a predominantly black cast. Each film was based on a David Mamet play. There was a recent interesting discussion at The Atlantic about the need to make more non-white and/or non-male people the center of story lines instead of just being at best the sassy best friend. Judging by some of the comments by self-identified whites you would have thought that the writer was suggesting harvesting women's ovaries to sell for cheap in Eastern Europe. It was sort of depressing but also quite predictable how many people not only accepted but defended the idea that they wanted no black characters in their books or movies, not a one. They thought that cinematic and literary monochromatic depictions were not only normal and realistic but preferred. Similarly although this remake was directed and written by white people, the writer talks of the ugly, skeptical, and horribly racist reactions she received from some white people in so-called liberal Hollywood when it became known that her film would have a predominantly black cast. "I heard some very interesting reactions to the casting, specifically from white people who work in the movie industry. While I was doing the rewrite, I got dozens of really mean jokes, most of which I don’t feel comfortable putting into writing here because they were sometimes racist and always hurtful. The most clever one (still lame) was: "How’s your David Blamet script going?" It was like my script was suddenly not as good or less than or just plain not cool because of the casting. Whatever. Those people suck."
I would say that the writer, Leslye Headland (who also wrote the Bachelorette film), and director Steven Pink (who wrote High Fidelity and directed Hot Tub Time Machine) did a good job at creating a funny romantic comedy. It's only occasionally harsh but is always very honest. Hopefully much like Bill O'Reilly's surprise when he visited a Harlem restaurant and learned that black people weren't actually cursing each other out or shooting each other, perhaps some white people who might otherwise dismiss this as a "black" film will give it a shot. To dip into cliche for a moment, the story and themes are universal. They aren't made any less so because the lead characters are black. Lastly if I recall correctly this film had no racial caricatures. Specifically there were no morbidly obese or masculine black women, no thugs and no drugs, and no black best friend of either gender who only exists to help the white character along his or her journey to love and happiness with someone else. In other words this film was a breath of fresh air. When I was very young it was not uncommon for my relatives to call people on the phone to let them know "Black people were on TV!". It didn't matter what the black people were doing, just being on TV was sufficient. That had started to dissipate by the time I was in second grade as black politicians and other movers and shakers became more common. Still I want to give a virtual shout of "Black people in a movie!" in a nod to those long gone days.
Ok. Enough with the social commentary already. What's this film about? Well as mentioned it is an acerbic romantic comedy which has four lead roles. There's Danny (Michael Ealy) and Bernie (Kevin Hart), good friends who work as salesmen/distributors in the Los Angeles restaurant supply business. Bernie is a confirmed player (and he gets the lion's share of the film's funny lines) who doesn't really believe in love. He thinks that his hopelessly romantic friend Danny needs to stop moping around about being dumped by the love of his life Alison (Paula Patton-man that is one sexy lady) and get back in the game. To this end he has invited Danny along on his date with Joan (Regina Hall), a sexy and occasionally over the top dentist. Joan has asked her roommate, Debbie (Joy Bryant), a telecom exec, to tag along. In a recurring theme throughout the film Bernie and Joan are more down to the earth than their friends and often (occasionally hysterically wrongly) think that they know what's best for Danny and Debbie. Unsurprisingly Bernie and Joan hook up. Somewhat more surprisingly so do Danny and Debbie, after Debbie is impressed with how Danny is not threatened by her prior relationship with Terrell Owens (playing himself). It's been a while for both Danny and Debbie. Debbie is looking for a gentleman and Danny seems to be just such a man.
Now it wouldn't be a romantic comedy if there weren't some conflict. This film delivers on that front. It makes some very funny and true to life observations about the challenges couples face in meeting each other's friends and family, moving in together, accepting or rejecting each other's quirks and flaws, dealing with the reality that you probably weren't your lover's one and only, being honest about the emotional vulnerability that saying "I love you" brings, and learning how to handle conflict with your significant other. That last could mean that you shut up and smile or become willing to respectfully but passionately fight on an issue that's important to you. In a modest subplot Danny doesn't like his job very much, especially since it brings him in conflict with his deceased father's best friend Casey (Christopher McDonald) a tavern owner who is chronically unable to pay his debts or update with the times. But Danny is concerned that quitting his job will lose him Debbie's respect since as he ruefully tells Bernie "There's a good chance she makes more than I do". In what seems like a tip of the hat to (500) Days of Summer, this film occasionally uses animated sketches that morph into real life sets. There is some blink and you'll miss it toplessness from Joy Bryant and extended (though not full frontal) nude scene from Michael Ealy. Again although EVERYONE did a great job in this flick special note must go to Kevin Hart. His character's manic behavior and utter pragmatism really drove the humor. TRAILER Interview with Headland Rage directed by Paco Cabezas
Rage stars Nicolas Cage. There are some people who will automatically not watch the film just because of that fact. A lot of times Cage seems to act as if he is zoned out on Quaaludes. And in the instances where that's not the case he's often incredibly frantic, looking or sounding as if he's pumped up on speed. Well that's the impression I often get anyway. I can't recall too many recent movies where he wasn't at one polarity or the other. Well that's also the case with this film but in a bit of a surprise it actually fits the character and his situation. The issue with this film was that there really wasn't a strong second actor or actress role for Cage to well..rage against. Rachel Nichols has a toned down/desexed role as Cage's wife. Danny Glover has a small part as a cop who may or may not be trying to help Cage. But the bad guys lack a little panache, a little style a little badness. Paul Maguire (Nicolas Cage) is a businessman. He appears to be a developer and real estate investor. He has a pretty younger wife Vanessa (Nichols) and a cute teen daughter Caitlin (Aubrey Peeples). Paul also has a large home, nice clothes and everything else that one would expect a middle aged man of means and substance to have in this great country of ours. His daughter is the apple of his eye. He dotes on her. Her mother died years ago. Like many fathers in that situation, Paul holds on fiercely to his little girl because she's the only reminder of his deceased wife. She's growing up quickly though. The boys are starting to come around. Although Paul is accepting of this fact as all men must become some day I suppose, he is still protective.
You may have heard that the New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recently fired Executive Editor Jill Abramson and replaced her with Managing Editor Dean Baquet. Baquet becomes the first Black person to serve as Executive Editor. Abramson's dismissal was met with wails and shrieks from many prominent women in the media who were immediately either convinced or worried that Abramson's termination was based in sexism. I waited to write on this because (1) I wanted to see if any other information about this termination arose (it did), (2) I was very busy at my own job and lacked the time to write and (3) I wasn't convinced that it was something about which I had enough interest to write. But I got a little amused and even annoyed by some of the hysterical hyperventilating happening around this incident. So now that the crisis has hopefully dissipated in my own workplace and my job is safe, I have a little time to share some thoughts about what I now think of as a much hyped non-event. When your former co-workers give a standing ovation to the person who replaced you it could indicate that you weren't super well liked. I've had both men and women bosses. If you're younger than 60 and have worked any serious amount of time in corporate America you probably have also had bosses of both genders. I wouldn't dare speak for you but I've had women bosses that I admired, respected, and emulated and those that I despised and hated with the white hot intensity of one thousand supernova. And the same is true of male bosses to whom I've reported. Some were decent. Some were middling. Some were superstars. Some were incompetent. Some were downright malevolent and/or bigoted.
In a former workplace I once worked with a black contractor who was a few years older than me. Our company was flexible on start time, especially for direct hires, but expected everyone to put at least 8-9 hrs each day. Most us started between 6 AM and 8 AM. 8:30~9 AM start times were considered late and would cause some raised eyebrows or snide comments. On a good day this fellow would not arrive until 9:30 AM. 10 AM wasn't uncommon. He never stayed late. His tardiness caused problems with management and resentment with peers. One morning he wasn't around when a business group manager needed him for something important. And when he did arrive he ignored her requests. Well that was a mistake. She took a personal interest in documenting his late arrivals and bad mouthing him to her fellow managers and supervisors. Shortly afterwards the man was fired. There is a stereotype of black men being incompetent or tardy. I've dealt with it. But if you really are consistently tardy and get fired you or your friends can't whine about stereotypes. That stuff is on you. Similarly if (and I say if because nobody outside of a few people at the NYT really knows what happened) Abramson really was an abrasive and/or ineffective leader then terminating her was just and fair. If not then I expect a lawsuit will result and we'll be able to read about it in the papers. It's important to remember though that men get fired for among other reasons, being abrasive, including one of Abramson's predecessors at the NYT. Just because someone gets fired for what some people might deem stereotypical reasons, doesn't automatically mean that the firing was unjustified. There actually are a few harsh unpleasant women in this world. According to the NYT, contrary to what some of Abramson's media partisans claimed about her unequal pay, Abramson's compensation was comparable to or exceeded that of her male predecessor.
On Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger said, as he did in an earlier public statement, that Ms. Abramson’s pay package in her last year in the job was 10 percent higher than Mr. Keller’s. “Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country — one that The New York Times often covers,” Mr. Sulzberger wrote. “But it doesn’t help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal.”
Until Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger had said only that her removal was due to “an issue with management in the newsroom.” His new statement cited a pattern of behavior that included “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.” Mr. Sulzberger said that he had wanted Ms. Abramson to succeed and had discussed these problems with her. But he ultimately concluded that “she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.” The decision to replace her, he said, was “for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender.”
LINK Of course what else will a boss say about someone whom he just fired, right? So I wouldn't necessarily take everything Sulzberger says as gospel. Still it is a reminder that there are usually at least two sides to each story. It's not as cut and dry that male bosses get away with acting unpleasantly and female ones don't. If you are a boss at any level your job includes overseeing and evaluating people's work. You must let them know where they're doing great work, where they could improve and occasionally even unilaterally give them opportunities to succeed elsewhere. But it's also just as important if not more so to get people who want to work for you and with you. Because sometimes if your perceived management style failings are greater than the benefit the company obtains from keeping you on, your actions and attitude could be helping you to dig your own grave, figuratively speaking of course.
I am just dismayed at the rush of judgment by so many people to assume that Abramson's firing was a case of sexism. From what I can tell Abramson tried to dilute Baquet's power and role by bringing in another woman to take away some of his workplace responsibilities. Not working at the NYT I couldn't say if this was justified or not. But I do know, particularly in hyper competitive workplaces, taking work from someone is often seen and meant as a precursor to a less than excellent performance review or worse as cover for pushing them out. There's a HUGE difference between you going to your boss and requesting that s/he hire someone because you're doing the work of five people and your boss deciding on his/her own that the work you're doing isn't quite up to par and you need help. Given that Baquet was a previous finalist for Abramson's job he apparently saw her move as a preemptive strike and responded accordingly. Sulzberger had other issues with Abramson and that was that. Now it's true that Abramson has every right to hire as she sees fit. But let's reverse the genders/management roles. Say Baquet is Executive Editor. If he had tried to hire another Black man to help Abramson do her job the same people complaining about Abramson's firing would be pointing to Baquet's aborted hiring attempt as proof of sexism and the old boy's network. They would be cheering Baquet's firing as a blow against sexism and for transparency. Heads I win. Tails you lose. There is racism, sexism and every other ism in the world. That's obvious. But before we lead a lynch mob on behalf of Abramson, who apparently was not underpaid, let's find out what's going on first. It sounds to me like she made a power play and lost. It happens. It happens to men all the time. Now that more women are in high paid, high stress positions, it will happen to them as well. That's my take anyway, with the evidence I see. What are your thoughts? Do you think that abrasive women are still treated differently than abrasive men? If you work for other people what qualities do you look for in a boss?
This was another transitional episode, moving things into place. However keeping with the book it's modeled after it had its share of important and/or stunning moments. If last week saw some ugly Lannister family business publicly revealed in court this week showed some painful Tully family dynamics. As usual the show has created its own narrative, departing from the books in ways great and small although it still mostly ends up in the same place. I am getting increasingly nervous about this not only because I don't always know what will happen next, which is a good thing, but also because I'm not convinced that the changes made are always quality ones.Anyway we're reintroduced to the recast Mountain, seen practicing his butchery on prisoners. That is one HUGE man. He has muscles on his muscles. Cersei greets him fondly as he is to be the Court's Champion in the trial by combat which Tyrion has demanded. Cersei is rarely in a better mood than when she is planning something nasty for Tyrion. She's happy.
Jaime is huddled with Tyrion in his jail cell. Jaime is upbraiding his little brother for messing up the plan but Tyrion says he couldn't stand to listen to Shae lie and reveal all that private sex talk. Love hurts. Tyrion also says no matter what it felt good to mess up Tywin's plans. Jaime is not good enough to fight anyone yet, let alone The Mountain. Tyrion asks his brother to find Bronn. There's a blink and you missed it scene at the Wall where Janos Slynt and Alliser Thorne are saddened by Jon Snow's return and even more upset to see how popular he's becoming with the brotherhood. They're like, dang, we keep trying to get this muyerfuyer killed and he keeps surviving. What's up with that? Feeling petulant Thorne pulls rank on Snow and ignores or shoots down all of his advice about the impending wildling attack. He also gives him night's watch...outside of course. Thorne is the quintessential simple minded bureaucrat found in many large organizations who insists on sticking to the rulebook no matter what new events take place. Such people can't think outside of a very narrow set of strictures and get upset when other people try to help them to do so. They lash out. Also keep in mind that Janos Slynt helped to kill Ned Stark.
Arya and The Hound are continuing their road trip. They have a brief philosophical conversation with a dying peasant before The Hound finishes him with a stab to the heart, clinically explaining to Arya how it's done. They are attacked by criminals trying to collect Tywin's bounty. One of these men bites The Hound before being dispatched. Arya recognizes the other as one of the people being taken north by The Night's Watch. She remembers him as a man who threatened to rape her. When he identifies himself as Rorge, she stabs him dead, right in the heart just as instructed. A day or so afterwards The Hound is miserable from the bite and curses the day he decided to help Arya. He admires the fact that Arya's brother Jon gave her her sword and tells of his mutilation at the hands of his brother, The Mountain. The Hound refuses to let Arya use fire to burn the infected flesh. So Arya cleans his wound with water and sews it up. In the other mismatched road trip Podrick and Brienne are at an inn being served by the expansively garrulous Hot Pie. When Brienne drops the name Sansa Stark Hot Pie claims all the Starks are traitors and he doesn't know any. But when the duo leaves he tells Brienne of his travels with Arya Stark, whom everyone thought was dead. He's once again baked a wolf shaped loaf of bread. He would like Brienne to give this to Arya. Brienne decides to look at the Eyrie for both Stark girls. Despite the good luck with Hot Pie, Podrick cautions Brienne that dropping the Stark name after Joffrey's assassination and the war might not be the smartest or safest thing to do.
Bronn, wearing fancy new clothes, goes to see Tyrion. He's made a deal with Cersei and has been too busy to see Tyrion. He's going to marry Lollys Stokeworth, a large dimwitted woman. Although Lollys is not the heir to her father's lands as Bronn explains to Tyrion, accidents can happen to older sisters. Bronn is a mercenary but for old time's sake he's willing to see if Tyrion can beat his sister's offer. Tyrion is obviously cut off from Lannister wealth but is still married to Sansa Stark. If Bronn would fight for him, Tyrion could offer some Northern lands. Bronn declines as the reward of cold northern lands isn't worth the risk of fighting The Mountain. I liked how these two men, not quite friends, but a bit more than employee/employer were constantly divided by the sunlight streaming into Tyrion's cell. Tyrion doesn't take Bronn's refusal personally.
In Meereen there is some female gaze instead of the male gaze for which so many feminists have criticized the show. Daario, who has climbed into Daenerys' suite is ordered by Daenerys to strip before they finally play the game of give a queen what she needs. The next morning a happy Daario is leaving Daenerys' chambers. He runs into Ser "I'm just a friend" Jorah and of course can't resist telling him the good news. I win, you lose. Jorah isn't happy. Jorah tells Daenerys not to trust Daario. Looking like the cat that just swallowed the canary Daenerys responds that Daario is just like Jorah. Well except for the tiny little fact that Daario does things with Daenerys that Jorah doesn't. Daenerys has sent her lover to retake Yunkai and kill every slave owner. After Jorah points out that by her logic Ned Stark would have killed Jorah, Danerys relents and changes her order. The slaveowners can change or die. Hizdahr is also going to go to Yunkai to help convince people to change their evil ways.
In Dragonstone, Selyse visits Melisandre while the latter is bathing. This makes no sense but whatever. Perhaps Selyse has some unacknowledged attraction to Melisandre? Whatever else Melisandre is she's attractive and young while Selyse is neither. Selyse is a fanatic who is unamused when Melisandre reveals that some of her magic is mere trickery for the rubes. Selyse really doesn't like her daughter Shireen and does not want to take her along on their next campaign. She wants Melisandre to convince Stannis. Melisandre disagrees. She wants to keep Shireen close. Melisandre shows Selyse something in the flames, saying she needs her to be strong. Hmm. Oberyn approaches Tyrion and lets him know that Cersei approached him. Tyrion says that his sister is excellent at "making honest feelings do dishonest work" and would be happy to see him dead. Oberyn agrees and reveals he was not taken in by Cersei. Oberyn talks of seeing Tyrion as a baby and being both somewhat disappointed that Tyrion wasn't a monster and taken aback that Cersei hated her brother so. But that's the past. The important thing here is that Oberyn learned at a very early age not to believe what Lannisters say. Oberyn says he wants justice. He will be Tyrion's champion. There are only a handful of men who would choose to fight The Mountain. Oberyn is one of them. I liked how this was shot. Oberyn was very serious. We see him from Tyrion's point of view. He fills the screen.
It's snowing at the Eyrie. In the courtyard Sansa has built a replica of Winterfell. Her idiot cousin Robin comes to see what she's doing. As he is only interested in killing people he is upset to find out that Winterfell has no Moon Door to throw people from and that Sansa didn't attend executions. He has a temper tantrum and destroys her work. Sansa slaps him. It's actually a pretty good belt right across the kisser. Pow! Right to the moon! Robin runs off. Lord Creep, Littlefinger, reveals he was watching the whole thing. He says that Robin needed that and more. When Sansa asks him why did he kill Joffrey, Littlefinger talks of how much he loved Catelyn and asks Sansa what do we do to those who hurt us. He also plays with Sansa's hair and kisses her. He tells Sansa that she's more beautiful than her mother and should have been his daughter. Lysa sees/hears this from the balcony. Lysa summons Sansa to the throne room. No one else is there. The Moon Door is open. Now if you already know that a relative is a little bit off and you see them cleaning a gun, sharpening a knife or I don't know, standing next to a door that opens to an 800 foot drop, would you get closer to them? Well bless her heart Sansa does. The crazy we saw in old aunt Lizzy last episode comes back twice as strong. After she talks about how bodies explode on impact from the fall she grabs her niece and calls her a whore. She boasts that everyone who tried to come between her and Littlefinger is dead. She has every intention of throwing Sansa through the Moon Door when Littlefinger appears. He commands her to let Sansa go. He says he will send Sansa away. Lysa says that she's lied and killed for Littlefinger. Lysa lets Sansa go. She and Littlefinger embrace. Littlefinger calls Lysa a silly woman and tells her he's only ever loved one woman.
Her sister.
He pushes Lysa thru the Moon Door.
What I liked
Nice to see Melisandre again if you know what I mean. Heh heh. Seriously though she is just as crazy as Selyse. I think she does mean harm to Shireen based on the whole "king's blood" deal.
Lysa's pains and resentments were key to Littlefinger's plans and essential to the story. Nobody except Littlefinger knew just how f****** up she really was and how much she hated her family. You can argue that she needed to put on her big girl drawers and woman up but people really do hold on to irrational family resentments for years. Not everyone helps to start a war and murders family members but that aside Lysa was a realistic character. Selfish, crazy and even evil but quite realistic. Both Lysa and Littlefinger fell in love with someone who didn't love them. They each wanted revenge. The situation reminds me of the Harold Lauder character in Stephen King's The Stand.
The goodbye between Bronn and Tyrion. They had some fun but business is business. In his relationship with Bronn, unlike his interactions with Shae, Tyrion was never under the illusion that love was involved.
If Littlefinger was watching the courtyard, surely he must have known Lysa would be as well. There are some interesting implications there.
Robin has every sign of being another Joffrey. I think Sansa saw this or feels it. I think the slap was not just for the destruction of her snow castle but also in response to everything she's been through. It could herald a more active Sansa Stark.
Daenerys learning that life may not be as black and white as she thinks. Some of her responses to challenges are coming from her life of being the underdog and the subject of numerous plots and assassination attempts. Now that she's in charge she has a lot of psychological damage to process. And let's not forget her parents were siblings. The crazy could be in her.
What I didn't like
Jorah still laying in the cut. If there was ever a time to open your heart and put it all out there Jorah, you may have just missed it. Daenerys looked a little too happy.
I thought we'd get a quick info dump on how Shae came back. Was her ship boarded or had Bronn already been bought off by Tywin and Cersei.
No Stannis this week.
*This post is written for discussion ofthisepisode and previous episodes. If you have book based knowledge of future eventspleasebe kind enough not to discuss that here. NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS.Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea....
Decades ago I saw bits and pieces of the movie based on this book on Detroit's ABC Channel 7 4:30 movie. I was only a kid and didn't remember much about it other than Robert Mitchum, who played the title role, was one suave dude. Over the intervening years I have read or listened to multiple people rave about how this book is a crime classic that kicked off a more realistic and less operatic or moralistic wave of modern crime stories. It was supposedly Tarantino before Tarantino. Tarantino did use the name of a story character for a movie title. So I finally decided to read this book. It's a good story though it's more Death of a Salesman transferred to the criminal world than a mob shoot em up. The cops and criminals are marking time and punching a clock instead of having any sort of dedication or zeal to catching felons or making criminal scores. They just do their job and go home. The reader may be positively impressed by the book's dialogue which dominates the text. The criminals and cops like to talk. But they aren't speaking theatrically of how "Our true enemy has yet to reveal himself" or " What I never knew until this day was that it was Barzini all along". No. Higgins is not that kind of writer. His characters are meat and potatoes guys and gals. They whine about how they can't get any sleep because they've been on the road too long, complain of their boyfriend's crude public comments on their body/sexual skills or pitch a fit about not having the proper sandwich condiments. So yes I think this book and the movie it inspired probably influenced many later writers. The story read like a play. Like many books that are mostly dialogue it can initially be a little difficult to follow what's happening as the people talking to each other already know the unspoken assumptions concerning the subject matter under discussion. This book deglamorises organized crime. Although the Mafia is in the background and spoken of obliquely, the book examines folks who are not Mafia members, though they may work with or be related to them. This is set in Boston. So most of the criminals and cops are of Irish background.
Eddie Coyle is an aging gangster. He's a criminal jack of all trades. You looking for some sex movies? Eddie can help. Are you in need of fireworks or bootleg liquor? Eddie's the one to see. Eddie knows the rules but is a fading player. Small time. No one on either side of the law fears or respects him. Eddie's current primary business is gun dealing. Eddie was recently busted in New Hampshire for transporting bootleg whiskey across state lines. Eddie kept his mouth shut about whose whiskey this was but his sentencing is approaching. Eddie thinks he's a bit too old to go back to prison. He could be looking to make a deal. However Eddie must be careful about his demeanor because his "friends" are alternately worried that Eddie is too scared about going back to prison or that Eddie is not concerned at all about going back to prison. Either conclusion could be harmful to Eddie's future life plans. Eddie thinks about sharing information on some small crimes here or there to uncaring federal agent Foley, who may or may not have other informers. Eddie also supplies guns to a Mafia backed group of bank robbers. Eddie gets the gats from youthful gun runner Jackie Browne. Watching over all of this is bartender and part time hitman Dillon, who is the local liaison to "the boys" (mob). I liked the book but I don't know that I would run around raving about how good it was. I thought it was okay. Strangely enough it reminded me of the penultimate scene in Cooley High in that mistaken assumptions can be deadly. No one can trust anyone in this book. I imagine that's what the real underworld is all about. This was a very quick read. You can finish it in a week or less quite easily. This book oozes fatalism. George Higgins also wrote Cogan's Trade which was turned into the film Killing Them Softly.
American Desperado By Jon Roberts and Evan Wright
Speaking of the real underworld I remember watching the 2006 documentary "Cocaine Cowboys". This film centered on the Miami drug trade and its associated violence. Most of the violent players were Cubans and Colombians. But there were other people involved. One such person was a smuggler/manager for the Medellin Cartel named Jon Roberts. This older man had a very pronounced NU YAWK accent. He looked scrawny. He was going to seed physically. I figured he was a small time hustler/player. WRONG on all accounts! Jon Roberts was actually John Riccobono, the Italian-American son and nephew of some rather scary mobsters in the Gambino Crime Family. Although he was not formally inducted into the Family that proved to be no impediment to his criminal successes. In New York, Roberts spearheaded the Mafia's control of nightclubs, restaurants and concert booking. He also started dealing cocaine and reading between the lines may have done a little pandering. He certainly gained a reputation as a violent up-and-comer. One of his favorite schemes was to pretend to sell drugs to hippies or college students and rob them instead. This was in equal parts pure predation (hippies rarely fought back or went to the police) and class resentment. When Roberts got caught up in a kidnapping/extortion plot that went bad he took the judge's choice to enter the Army. He served in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne. After a short period in regular service Roberts was supposedly recruited for special programs. He does not name them but he's very obviously referring to the CIA's Operation Phoenix. I won't describe everything in detail that Roberts said he did here but utter depravity including murder, torture and mutilation pretty much covers it. The author was unable to verify many of these claims. You'll have to decide for yourself if Roberts was telling the truth.
In this book Roberts is frank about his involvement in some civilian murders, presumably those he had already confessed to and a bit less forthcoming about some others. A typical phrase describing those in the second category goes something like "I won't say what I did but so-and-so was found in the street a month later". Roberts is extremely and disturbingly frank about the evil he's done. Perhaps this is associated with being a lapsed Catholic? He's clear that when he dies he thinks he's going to hell. But Roberts also believes that no matter what anyone says, evil is stronger than good. Evil gets things done in this world. One reason Roberts may have felt this way was that as a child he saw his father commit murder. Guilt is not something that Roberts seems to feel or even understand but he does have a little disdain for people who glamorize his lifestyle (filmmakers and rappers). There are only one or two incidents he details where he ever claims to feel anything close to remorse.
After his discharge from the Army Roberts returns to New York and takes up where he left off. But when a police officer is killed (I wonder who did that?) Roberts decides that Miami might be a better location to operate. Miami is also an "open" city in that no one Mafia family can claim hegemony. Anyone can operate down there. And anyone does. Jon moves there, hooks up with a Cuban drug dealing maniac as well as a few killers who would later become CIA assets, and becomes a criminal extraordinaire. He builds his own small drug network and continues to run nightclubs and commit armed robberies. Nothing if not ambitious Roberts rises in the loose Florida criminal network to become Max Mermelstein's right hand man. Mermelstein was an in-law of ranking Medellin Cartel members. Mermelstein was responsible for overseeing smooth importation and delivery of cocaine to distributors and getting the proper monies in return. But per Roberts, Mermelstein was a coward, a weak man who never killed anyone. Mermelstein couldn't even stand up to local Cuban thugs, let alone his mad dog Colombian employers/relatives. Roberts took over 95% of Mermelstein's responsibilities, making him a boss in name only. With a few notable exceptions Mermelstein was ok with this. He got to throw parties and act like he was important. Roberts had a very low opinion of his "boss" and was happy to "manage upwards", leaving Mermelstein out of the loop on many decisions. Roberts was the Cartel's point man for importations, distribution, and payment. Roberts could also be held personally responsible if anything went wrong. He describes one such misunderstanding.
Many CIA assets and informers weave in and out of this story. I am suspicious as to exactly when Roberts became a CIA asset. I think it happened MUCH earlier than he admits to. He details his involvement in the CIA contra arms for drugs scandals. This book pulls the curtains back on the cesspool of corruption that was (is?) Florida politics, the rivalries between and among various law enforcement and criminal organizations and the fact that General Noriega and some of Roberts' criminal associates were pedophiles. Roberts could not have worked as long as he did without the passive and active assistance of many law enforcement officials at every level. Funny, vicious and occasionally extremely disturbing this fascinating tale reads like a combination of Boogie Nights and Wiseguy. Roberts has a lot of interesting stories about some famous people. Some he identifies by name, others he does not. Some people mentioned include Jimi Hendrix, Mercury Morris, Frank Stella, Bruce Lee, the actress Toni Moon (an ex-wife), OJ Simpson, Meyer Lansky and James Caan. If you're curious about proper pistol whipping techniques, need to know what to say or not to say at a Mafia sitdown or for strictly professional reasons must practice using the minimum energy necessary to beat someone with a baseball bat, this is the book for you. As Roberts flatly tells the reader "Most of the time I've been on this earth I've had no regard for human life. That's been the key to my success".
Paris: A City Revealed by Mike Gerrard and Donna Dailey
This is another coffee table book that I picked up from a bookstore bargain section quite some time ago and only just recently got around to reading. So it goes. Paris is a city I've always wanted to visit. However some people that I know who have been there say I might not enjoy it all that much. I don't care for cigarette smoke in the air and dog waste on my shoe in this country so why travel thousands of miles to have the same experience somewhere else. Still I love Gothic, Baroque, Art Deco and Romanesque architecture so I imagine at some point before I shuffle off this vale of tears I will take a trip over there. This book is written by a husband and wife travel writing duo who got engaged in Paris and evidently know the city quite well, judging by the book's text. I think that people need beauty in the world, whether they find that beauty in other human beings, creative pursuits, art, buildings, nature or other things. Life is too short to look at ugliness. Why hurt your eyes? This book is stuffed full of beauty. It virtually glows with it. Just flipping thru this book will cause you to have renewed appreciation for this natural glories of nature and vibrate in harmony with the universe as you are struck with awe at the things that humans can build once they put their mind to it. Ok there might be a little hyperbole in that last sentence. Nevertheless this book seizes your attention with its photography.
The book is arranged in ten different sections,(St. Germain and the Left Bank, Montmartre, Central Paris, etc) each of which discusses a different area or aspect of Paris, complete with lavish high quality photography and short concise descriptions which will answer some questions and hopefully pique your interest even more. Paris probably originated from a small fishing village settled around 250 BC. Much of the architecture that impresses me was built in the Middle Ages or Renaissance. As I've said before you can say what you like about the peoples of those times long past, what with their superstitions, lack of plumbing or personal hygiene and by our standards, barbarity, but they knew how to build things. And they built to last. If you've been to Paris then of course some of these photos and stories will be quite familiar. If you've never been then this is the next best thing. It's like taking a trip without having to deal with all the hassles. Amazon is charging $63 for a new edition but you'd be a sucker to pay more than $12.98.
Stereotypes are always tricky things. There are actual national differences, ethnic differences, gender differences and maybe even racial differences. But there's a thin line between having a honest good natured laugh at what everyone (or almost everyone) agrees is a difference and between (maliciously??) poking fun at something that not everyone agrees is a difference or is even funny at all. I don't watch a lot of television so even though this Haagen-Dazs gelato commercial has apparently been out there for a while I just recently saw it. After watching it I had two thoughts. My first thought was that the ad was a little stereotypical. My second thought was I wondered what the actress' name was. There were some people of Italian descent who had a serious problem with the commercial while others I know were not bothered in the slightest because it was clear to them that the commercial was spoofing stereotypes about Italians and not Italian-Americans. Of course if you must be stereotyped, being thought of as passionate, hot tempered, sexy and intense is not necessarily the worst stereotype to bear. Or is it?
Of course like any other stereotype, positive stereotypes can come along with a huge unseen cost attached. People who endorse stereotypes consciously or not may have some difficulty treating members of that group fairly and on an individual basis. Or they may not. People are complex after all. Just because you laugh at a joke in the abstract doesn't necessarily mean you will treat the real life object of that joke as less than. You also may remember the Pepsi Max "Love Hurts" commercial in which we saw a large black woman constantly comically assault her boyfriend/husband because he wasn't eating right. Near the end, annoyed that he smiled at a blonde white woman, she threw a can at his head, missed and hit the other woman instead. The couple then ran off. Some people didn't necessarily find that commercial or its use of Three Stooges type violence and stereotypes very funny. Other folks might think in either case no harm is intended or being done and those who claim offense need surgery to remove the broomstick that has apparently inserted itself somewhere unpleasant in their body. I can't call it. Sometimes everything is funny until it's your group being mocked. Then again there is very offensive racist humor out there that's not funny except to people who really do hate the group that is the object of the joke. Did you think the Haagen-Dazs Gelato commercial was humorous?
Do you see any difference between the Haagen-Dazs and Pepsi commercial?
Has society become too uptight on issues like these?
One of the reasons for encouraging people to use less gasoline and more green technology was not only to help reduce pollution but also to reduce wear and tear on the roads. Ultimately for pollution's sake it might be better for us all to be driving hybrids or electric vehicles. Or for the roads' sake more of us should be bicycling or taking mass transit. But in the mean time the auto companies should be compelled to increase CAFE standards while consumers should be encouraged to car pool, bicycle, walk to work, use mass transit and do other things which will result in less use of gasoline. One person who's almost comically gung-ho about this is NYT Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Thomas Friedman, who has a 70% chance of working his support for a carbon tax into any column he writes, no matter the subject matter. Mid-East Peace? Carbon tax will solve it. Islamic Terrorism? Carbon tax will hit the spot. Russia making ominous noises? A carbon tax will settle their hash. China polluting the entire planet? Obviously we need a carbon tax. Donald Sterling situation? A carbon tax would have prevented it. And so on. Vehicles are more fuel efficient than they used to be. Gasoline costs more than it used to. And people don't buy as many cars or drive as much as they used to. So you would think that the state would be happy about this right? We're cutting back on emissions and getting more out of less: the very definition of efficiency. That's good, right? Well not so fast partner.
You see all that fuel efficiency and higher CAFE standards and bicycling to work may be good for the environment and for politicians who have made it their business to be seen as standing up against older methods of energy generation but they're not good for state revenue. When people buy less gasoline they also pay less gasoline tax. Less money coming into the state coffers means the state either has to (a) be wiser and smarter with less or (b) find a way to shake citizens down to make up the difference. If you know anything about Michigan politicians (or politicians anywhere) you can hazard an informed guess about which choice they would likely prefer.
LANSING— Michigan could solve its road funding problems by being one of the first states in the nation to move to a system where motorists pay a feebased on the number of miles they drive, according to a University of Michigan report to be released today. The report, prepared for the Michigan Environmental Council by Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation (SMART) at U-M, says fuel consumption is declining as traditional vehicles become more efficient and electric vehicles more common. Together, those trends are making road funding models based on fuel taxes obsolete, the report says. Instead of continuing to raise fuel taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure a mileage fee could more fairly allocate costs based on the number of miles driven, the time of day, the route taken, and the weight of the vehicle,” the report says. Elizabeth Treutel, a master of urban planning candidate at U-M and one of the authors of the report, said moving to such a system is probably five to 10 years away, but the report is partly intended to start a conversation.
Let me be perfectly clear, as our President likes to say. Climate change is real. I support less pollution, better roads, and within reason, certain higher CAFE standards. Lord knows I've spent more than my share of money because of issues caused by potholes. But as you might have noticed I also have this strange preoccupation with privacy. I just don't think it's any of the state's business how much I drive each year. I don't think there is any non-intrusive method for them to obtain that information. And if you're going to make people pay for the number of miles they drive then frankly I would just as soon the state (speaking federal and Michigan here) get out of the business of twisting arms to get companies to produce little hybrid/electric clown cars that at least in Michigan are not super popular. I have a 45 minute one way commute on a good day. I don't think it's "fair" to charge me more because I was not fortunate enough to find a job closer to home. And by "fair" I also mean in my interest. There are people who outearn me by factors of five, ten or more who may have a 10 minute commute. Is it really right that they would pay less tax than I do? I also don't like the baked in presumption that that the state is guaranteed some fixed amount of revenue from citizens. They wanted us to use less gasoline; we're using less gasoline. Now that's no good because their tax revenue is declining? That is not my problem. If I were running things I would suggest cutting the truck weight limits in half and giving businesses more incentive to transport items by train. There are far too many semi-trailers or other large trucks on Michigan roads. That's where the road damage starts if you ask me. I also think the standards for roads are far too low. Other states in the upper Midwest don't seem to have the kinds of roads with which Michigan is cursed so I don't think the problem is weather related. So right now I'd want to know more about who's fixing the roads and why are they doing such a poor job before I'd support giving them more money.
But what's your call?
Is a tax based on mileage rather than gasoline usage fair?
If you were the state what would you do when faced with declining gas tax revenue?
