Carbon Taxes: Is the time right?

I belong to the NRDC. I support many local and national initiatives designed to reduce carbon emissions and protect disappearing flora and fauna. Humans must live more harmoniously with the planet, as this appears to be the only place in our solar system where we can live. I believe that the relevant scientific data shows unambiguously that global climate change is real and that humans are a huge causal factor. I despise the idea of killing animals for fun or for backwards religious/medical/cultural beliefs (See post on "The Devouring Dragon"). If humanity doesn't change worldwide practices around energy use and resource consumption we could see an even more devastated planet. There will be higher temperatures and more floods. There will be less wildlife and fewer trees. And those unpleasant changes could arrive sooner than we think. And yet I find myself unable to fully support a carbon tax though I will admit that it’s probably the right thing to do. Hypocrisy?  Probably. Quite possibly actually. Heck, absolutely. But let’s examine why.

The basic idea of a carbon tax is that pollution is an externality to economic activity. Neither the seller nor the buyer is concerned with pollution because they aren't paying for it. Just as an amoral factory owner will, absent aggressive regulation, criminal penalties and civil liability, dump pollutants in the water, someone else, i.e yours truly or even the people reading this blog post, will engage in activities that increase carbon emissions because we are not paying the full price.

If the government taxes carbon producing activities, you will engage in them less. You will try to produce less carbon, saving yourself money and also saving the environment. Suddenly the monetary incentives and the environmental incentives are lined up together. You spend less money. Climate change slows. That’s the idea, anyway. The reality might be a little different. Although the whole “coastal elites” trope is beyond hoary it's useful to compare and contrast the different experiences of people who live in very densely populated urban areas and use mass transit to reach work and of people who live in more open areas and/or don’t use mass transit. I spend roughly about $300/month on gasoline. That's the cost of my commute. I live in SE Michigan which lacks consistent public transportation but does have massive suburban sprawl. If I lived in The Bronx or Harlem and worked in downtown Manhattan my transportation costs (assuming I didn’t drive) would probably be a little over $100/month. For now, I am locked into working where I do. Working closer to home would entail a significant pay cut. I'm not a fan of that. 

So if there were a carbon tax the million dollar question is how much would it cost. A CBO analysis claimed that a $21/ton carbon tax would raise gasoline prices by about $0.20 gallon. That would cost me roughly $5/week or about $20/mth, not counting other changes a tax would require. I wouldn't LIKE it but I could live with it. 

Some people think that such a small carbon tax doesn't really change behavior enough. They would prefer a carbon tax anywhere from double to twelve times the amount mentioned in the CBO analysis. They would like to see gas prices raised by $1/gallon or more.
I would be against that for many reasons but the biggest one is obviously that I just don't currently earn enough to be blase about $5,$6,$7 or more for a gallon of gasoline. Something would have to give. Maybe it's food, although a carbon tax would also increase food prices because so much of our food supply is delivered to market via fossil fuels. Maybe I eat out less or don't see first run movies or just buy less food or (horror) fewer books but I can't stop driving to work. A US carbon tax also gives US companies more incentives to move production to China, already the world's largest carbon emissions producer. China is taking steps which could mean game over as far as global climate change is concerned. The Chinese are increasing their use of refrigeration. This is wonderful if you are concerned about food spoilage, food safety and storage, fighting disease, and immediate access to varied foods. But if you're primarily concerned about climate change then the idea of 1.3 billion people deciding to live just like Americans makes you nervous.

An artificial winter has begun to stretch across the country, through its fields and its ports, its logistics hubs and freeways. China had 250 million cubic feet of refrigerated storage capacity in 2007; by 2017, the country is on track to have 20 times that. At five billion cubic feet, China will surpass even the United States, which has led the world in cold storage ever since artificial refrigeration was invented. And even that translates to only 3.7 cubic feet of cold storage per capita, or roughly a third of what Americans currently have — meaning that the Chinese refrigeration boom is only just beginning. This is not simply transforming how Chinese people grow, distribute and consume food.

It also stands to become a formidable new factor in climate change; cooling is already responsible for 15 percent of all electricity consumption worldwide, and leaks of chemical refrigerants are a major source of greenhouse-gas pollution. Of all the shifts in lifestyle that threaten the planet right now, perhaps not one is as important as the changing way that Chinese people eat.

Calculating the climate-change impact of an expanded Chinese cold chain is extremely complicated.  Artificial refrigeration contributes to global greenhouse-gas emissions in two main ways. First, generating the power (whether it be electricity for warehouses or diesel fuel for trucks) that fuels the heat-exchange process, which is at the heart of any cooling system, accounts for about 80 percent of refrigeration’s global-warming impact (measured in tons of CO2) and currently consumes nearly a sixth of global electricity usage.

You see the issue, yes? No American should tell any one in China that they shouldn't be using refrigeration. But it may be that what's good for the Chinese and their health is bad for the planet. Probably the Chinese wouldn't be too interested in altering their approach unless everyone else does likewise. Are you willing to give up refrigeration and other modern comforts that contribute to emissions? No? Then don't expect (insert foreign group here) to do so. Our ability to change our environment has outstripped our political control. I could support a carbon tax if every country has one as well. We can only fix carbon emissions via a planet wide solution. But that won't happen because each country has different goals and needs. It's easy to wax rhapsodic about saving the Brazilian rainforest but if your family's livelihood depends on lumber, then that rainforest will have to go. We're experiencing the classic prisoner's dilemma. From outside the system cooperation makes sense but rational actors within the system will not cooperate. Everyone is worse off. The usual solution is imposition of an outside regulator. 

For criminals this might be the Mafia. If criminals have certainty that talking brings swift and certain death, then each criminal keeps his mouth shut. No one is convicted and both criminals walk free. They are better off. But states are the regulators. Who can tell sovereign states what to do? How would we create a planet wide single regulator for carbon emissions. I don't see how it could be done. So that means that the climate change we're seeing now could be irreversible. It's not completely hopeless of course. China is moving towards greater usage of natural gas, not because of foreign concerns, but because of internal Chinese worries about air quality and dependency on foreign imports. But Australia just repealed its carbon tax because of some of the fears I listed above. People generally act in their own interest. The challenge is bringing the narrow national or individual private interest and the greater public or international interest into congruence. How do we do that?

What are your thoughts? Would you drive less if a carbon tax were imposed?

Are you concerned with climate change?

Would you give up refrigeration to save the environment?

Movie Reviews: Supernatural Season Six

Supernatural Season Six
created by Eric Kripke

What's your next move when you've told the story you wanted to tell, pulled off your greatest trick, completed all the narrative arcs and basically done everything with the characters you created that you could think of but find that there's still massive consumer demand for your story?

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle realized after he killed off Sherlock Holmes only to be browbeaten into bringing him back, some creative types learn that the show must go on no matter what. Supernatural creator, showrunner and executive producer Eric Kripke wrote, produced and oversaw an exciting, entertaining and occasionally masterful five seasons of a show that touched on everything from fatalism, predestination and free will to sibling love and rivalry, parental love and loss, heaven and hell, God's mysterious workings and the fatal blindness of evil. He wrapped everything up neatly with a tidy bow for fans. Kripke only intended for the show to last five seasons. Season Five completed everything. However, there was demand for more of the adventures of Sam and Dean Winchester. So Kripke bowed out as showrunner and turned over the show's reins to former writer and assistant producer Sera Gamble. I had mixed feelings about this. I thought it was an example of commerce winning out over art. If you're Sam and Dean after you've thrown a jerry wrench into the Apocalypse, saved the Universe, defeated Lucifer, The Archangel Michael, a host of Angels and Demons, conspired with Death, killed three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and (totally unwittingly) possibly talked to and hung out with God Himself, what else can you do that matches all that? I mean there's no place to go but down, isn't there? Well maybe...

Season Six really started emphasizing a theme that would become ever bigger in subsequent seasons. The Winchester Brothers have an extremely strong sibling bond, one that is made even stronger because of their parents' untimely violent demon caused deaths. They feel, often correctly, that's it's them against the world. And they intend to win. But it could be that this sibling love, this fraternal link is so ferociously tight, so intense that it's emotionally and psychologically unhealthy. There's little room for anyone else be they friend, lover or wife. It's a running gag on the show that Sam and Dean are often mistaken for a gay couple. Some fans both in-Universe and even in real life write "Wincest" fan-fiction. Right. I love my siblings. But if I spent every waking moment with them, working with them, traveling with them, etc, sooner rather than later we would go crazy and/or hurt each other. Good fences make good neighbors. That's just as true for family as it is anyone else. It may even be more accurate with family as relatives have the amazing ability to annoy you in ways that are both profound and prosaic. Whether it's the uncle who tells the same doggone story at every family gathering or the way your sister always sucks her teeth when she gets nervous, sometimes relatives can work your nerves.

At the end of Season Five, humanity avoided the Apocalypse, thanks to Sam, Dean and their Dad's trusty 67' Impala. Long story short, Lucifer, Michael and Sam were trapped in Hell forever. The Apocalypse was ended. The world was saved. And Dean lost his little brother, whom he was charged to protect. Dean has seemingly accepted Sam's death. He's living with Lisa (Cindy Sampson) and her young son Ben. Lisa has claimed that Ben is not Dean's son but Ben acts just like Dean and did so before they ever met. Lisa is that rare woman with whom the peripatetic and sometime clownishly macho Dean wants to settle down. Dean has deep and abiding feelings for Lisa, though they aren't married yet. Lisa also loves Dean. She has no problem with occasionally calling Dean on his bs. She's very supportive and quite nurturing but remains a truthteller. Dean and Lisa have something good, something real together. Dean has left the hunting lifestyle behind, though he hasn't been able to bring himself to sell the family heirloom, the Impala or get rid of the weapons and esoteric items in the trunk. And he still has his Daddy's trusty .45. When some strange events occur close to home Dean tries to ignore them. But you can't hide your true nature, even from yourself. And Dean is no longer just worried about himself. He takes his responsibilities to Lisa and Ben very seriously. He'll die for them. As his spidey-sense has gone off Dean takes steps to protect Lisa and Ben. Dean starts hunting again but he's rusty and out of shape. He's about to be killed by the monster-of-the week when surprise, surprise, he is rescued by Sam, back from Hell. Well. Dean is pleased and as shocked as you might be to see his little brother, once he verifies that it is Sam and not something else. But Dean quickly intuits that something is not quite right with Sam. Just as you can hear a loved one's voice and immediately know something is wrong, Dean knows something is up with Sam.

Being locked in Hell's cage and being the plaything of a frustrated Lucifer and Michael could certainly leave marks on anyone but it's more than that. Dean can't quite put his finger on it. Dean is annoyed when Sam casually reveals that he's been back from Hell for quite some time and has been working with their previously unknown maternal relatives, including their grandfather Samuel (Mitch Pileggi) whom Dean thought was dead. Even their godfather Bobby Singer (Jim Beaver) knew of Sam's return. Everyone kept the truth from Dean because they did not want to destroy his good thing with Lisa. Well that's what they say. Dean must make the decision on whether he wants to take up hunting with Sam again and if so what that means for Lisa and Ben. Season Six's other theme is than nature abhors a vacuum. With God having left Heaven for parts unknown, Lucifer and Michael trapped in Hell and Gabriel dead, the last remaining Archangel, Raphael (Demore Barnes), decided that he should rule Heaven. Raphael is something of a well intentioned extremist. He wants to restart the Apocalypse. Raphael thinks that if the Book says there's supposed to be a Final Battle then by God there will BE a Final Battle even if he has to start it himself.

The worldweary angel Castiel (Misha Collins), a Winchester patron, ally and friend, opposes Raphael, even though he lacks the power to truly go toe to toe with an Archangel. Pivoting from resistance to counterattacks, Castiel thinks that he should rule Heaven, for the greater good of course. He might need the Winchester Brothers' help. As they are actually just "intelligent wave frequencies" Castiel and most other angels do not fully understand humans or as they call them "hairless apes". Sam and Dean will learn how truly alien the thought processes of angels can be. Meanwhile in Hell, the demon Crowley, (Mark Sheppard) seizes power and crowns himself as the King of Hell. Crowley's plans range from sick and twisted to downright maleficent. Many of his plots involve the Winchester Brothers. He hasn't forgotten how they've ruined his previous designs. And immortals have memories that are well, immortal. Crowley intends to win no matter what occurs. He was the season's most interesting and convincing villain. 

Season Six's balance is concerned with Dean trying to figure out what's wrong with Sam and fix it. But Sam may not want Dean's help. Sam is after all, bigger and stronger than Dean. Dean can't physically make Sam do things. Sam has some secrets. He seems unconcerned with some things that used to be very important to him before. And who let Sam out of the Cage anyway? If someone can do that can Lucifer and Michael escape? And grandfather or not, Dean does not know Samuel. Dean saw his grandfather die. Dean doesn't trust Samuel or his newly discovered cousins. Dean doesn't like that neither Samuel nor Sam can tell him why they're alive. Dean thinks someone is playing him. And nobody plays Dean Winchester. As revealed in Season Five, some residents of Heaven and Hell are not so different from each other. The powerful players on either side (Castiel may be an exception)  generally have little respect or love for humans. The malevolence of demons is matched by the contempt of the angels. There's also a third force, something that has no allegiance to either Heaven or Hell but is feared by both, that is an ever growing threat in this season. Sam and Dean get wind of it and try to stop it.

Fellow hunters Bobby Singer and Rufus Turner (Steven Williams) show up to give advice and assistance or more commonly tell the Winchester Brothers that they're complete and total morons. This was an uneven season. It had some trouble finding its sea legs so to speak. There were some lighter moments, including a (Mel Brooks homage) trip to an alternate reality where Sam and Dean are actors on a show titled Supernatural and Dean's compulsive need to one-up Sam. And of course the brothers continue their trademark impersonations of FBI agents who all just happen to have rock star names. As this is almost a reboot, if you have never watched the series before you could almost start watching from this season if you were so inclined.
TRAILER

Cute Animals, Neoteny and Rights

The other day while I was finishing watching Season 8 of Supernatural, I noticed that my dog suddenly seemed very interested in something on the carpet. Well unlike Robb Stark, I make a point of paying attention to what my direwolf is trying to tell me. For someone with a pretty small brain the dog notices more than you might think. I halted the DVD and went to see what the dog was watching. It turned out to be a rather large spider. So I moved the dog away from it. Now usually I would have just killed the spider. But having read the recent special Time magazine issue on animals and how we think of them I decided against that. I retrieved some paper towels. I carefully picked up the spider and dropped it outside. Would I extend such mercy to a housefly? Doubtful. I'm not familiar with the exact details of the different habitats, hygiene and dietary habits of spiders and flies. However, when I see a fly I immediately think disease, dirt, filth and nastiness. A fly vomits on its food before eating it, eats fecal material, and most importantly looks disgusting to me. A spider also appears alien but does not immediately and automatically bring up to me all the images of decay and filth that a fly does. So it was easier for me to save the spider. Any fly that enters my house is going to be almost immediately swatted or chemically poisoned. Is that fair or logical? Probably not.

The Time issue pointed out some things that have intrigued me. People walk or drive down the streets in their neighborhood or their local university central campus and see squirrels running all over the place, jumping from tree to tree, roof to roof, playing, frolicking, hiding food or digging for food and occasionally making a nuisance of themselves. Few people are bothered by this. Many people think it's cute, especially in the fall. Some people will even put out food for squirrels or try to convince squirrels to approach them for food. But if you replace "squirrel" in the above sentence with "rat" most Americans would be physically disgusted. Nobody in their right mind puts out food for rats. And if you saw rats routinely running across the street or jumping from your neighbor's roof to yours you'd probably soon be looking for a new place to live, provided you had the resources to make it happen. Why is this? They're both rodents. Why do we have disgust for one simply because it has smaller eyes, lacks a furry tail and has more prominent or even frightening looking teeth? Why does the squirrel get such good PR when in some aspects it's just a furry tailed rat? Why do the words "dirty" and "rat" almost always go together as an insult? Does anyone call informers "squirrels"?

In part the answer is something called neoteny. We tend to be hardwired to respond positively to juvenile characteristics. Things like large eyes, big heads, and weak chins (at least in our own species and most mammals) may cause us to think of the possessor as "cute" or "young" and/or trigger protective responses. Creatures that retain some of these characteristics to adulthood might be more successful living with humans. This certainly seems to have been the case with dogs. When a creature lacks these things, is non-mammalian or has other characteristics that override any "positive" traits (like for example a long nasty looking rat tail) we might have trouble extending empathy and sympathy. As pointed out in the Time issue, Michael Vick horrified people not only by investing in and attending dog fight events but also by electrocuting, hanging or otherwise killing dogs that had lost too often, were old, or were considered bad investments. If Vick had invested in or invented some new rat poison product which killed 10000 times as many rats as dogs, few people outside of PETA would have noticed or cared. He would not have gone to prison or have become a target of disgust and protest. I understand that but to be fair I also have to admit that these feelings are logically incoherent. Presumably the rat who ate poison and died from internal bleeding, organ failure, suffocation or heart attacks wanted to live just as badly as the dog that was electrocuted, shot or hanged. It just happens to be the rat's misfortune that it has a face only another rat could love. So the other part of the equation could just be "speciesism" for lack of a better word. The more something resembles us, the more likely we are to extend empathy to it. Insects and arachnids are just out of luck, looking incredibly different than humans in particular and mammals in general. Few will describe them as cute or cuddly at any stage of their existence.

These things are hardwired in humans but they are also very much culturally based. The picture of the rats drinking milk comes from Rajasthan, India where apparently the rat has some sort of religious status. And there are several present day cultures across the world where the dog is considered food for consumption as much as it is considered a pet. I find these things incredibly disgusting and even immoral but that's my own cultural bias isn't it. Perhaps some day we (Americans) will look at the routine killing of animals we currently consider vermin to be morally challenged behavior. I don't know. So although human existence in and of itself means that some animals will die it might be wise to at least examine your actions where you have a choice. If you can avoid killing an animal when you don't have to isn't that a good thing? 

Thoughts?

Movie Reviews: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, Let's Be Cops

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (hereafter referred to as Sin City 2) stars Eva Green's breasts in the leading role. I think they ought to win an award. They dominate every scene they're in. Seriously. In the rare moments when Green is not topless or completely nude, she's usually braless in diaphanous clothing. Acting in support were Rosario Dawson's full lips and Jessica Alba's perpetual motion waist and hips. Some people may be impressed by this; others may yawn. The target audience for Sin City 2 likely includes many people who would be dazzled by Green's mammary glands which probably explains why they get so much screen time. Once you get past the "They're real and they're spectacular" aspects of Green's performance you realize that this noir cartoon has less going for it than its predecessor did. So if you have low expectations this film is for you. Green's sneering, red lipped, exaggerated, femme fatale performance would have been almost as enjoyable had she not spent the entire film showing what her mother gave her. There's nothing subtle here.

Dangerous men and even more dangerous women populate the corrupt hellhole of Sin City. Senator Roark (Powers Boothe) presides over the city with lip curling sadism and diabolical demeanor. No good deed goes unpunished. Everyone considers revenge to be the highest moral virtue.

Like the original, Sin City 2 has many different storylines that jump around in time. I will have to reread the graphic novels. I think that only one of the film storylines was directly taken from the graphic novel. Fan favorite hulking bruiser Marv (Mickey Rourke) is still alive. He died in the original. Marv appears throughout the film. Sin City 2 is better for that, though Marv doesn't have enough to do. Noble cop Hartigan (Bruce Willis) exists as a ghost and memory in Sin City 2. Fallen angel stripper Nancy (Jessica Alba) misses him greatly. Hartigan saw Nancy as innocent and had no lecherous interest in her. Nancy can't stop thinking about Hartigan's death and Roark's responsibility. Marv is Nancy's current platonic protector. Anyone who bothers her while she's working will have serious problems with Marv. Upsetting Marv isn't smart. I can't recall exact specifics but I remember reading that deceased New York City Genovese Family Mafia Boss Vincent Gigante liked to play gin rummy with his criminal subordinates. He would routinely declare gin. The opposing player would immediately throw in his hand without asking to see Gigante's cards. In most organizations, criminal or not, you don't beat the boss in whatever game he likes to play. That can be a real career limiting move. But young and possibly supernaturally gifted gambler Johnny (Joseph Gordon Levitt) couldn't care less. 

Armed only with his wits and his good luck charm girl Marcie (Julia Garner) Johnny challenges Senator Roark at poker, despite being warned repeatedly that this is folly. Roark wields immense institutional and personal power. Like the song says sometimes you got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. 

Private detective Dwight (Josh Brolin) shows his gallant side when violence starts between the cheating husband he's tailing (Ray Liotta) and the prostitute the husband is seeing. Afterwards Dwight is called by his ex-lover Ava (Eva Green). She needs his help. Dwight has an on again off again relationship with prostitute protector Gail (Rosario Dawson) but Ava really pushes his buttons. Ava is a woman who always leaves marks on a man, sometimes physical ones. Obsession is her calling card. When you look like Eva Green you can probably find numerous men ready, willing and eager to help you even if they, like Dwight, despise you. Eva Green steals the show. Despite my appreciation for her physical attributes I think this entire movie should have been played less over the top. Lauren Bacall showed us that you can be super sexy and still leave things to the imagination. It is fascinating that some women can make some men deliberately act against what they know is in their best interest. In extreme cases, such men are literally bewitched. It's a weakness but one that is a permanent part of the human, well at least the masculine, condition. Snicker.

Sin City 2 has an intense pulpy black and white palette combined with sudden splashes of blue, green or red. This is basically fast food noir. It hints at the great 30s-50s noir films. But Sin City 2 never transcends its comic book graphic novel origins. Green made the strongest impression but that's not saying much. The dialogue is generally flat. Unless you crave the Rodriguez-Miller cinematography, are a Green fan or need to see a woman ninja decapitate scores of bad guys you won't miss much by skipping this film or waiting for DVD release. The first film was exciting. But sequels rarely match the original. The film possesses a very strong "been there done that" aura. Sin City 2 is stylish but hollow. After the beheadings, beatings, tough guy one liners and sex appeal there's nothing to care about. This sequel took too long to arrive. This is the second film I've recently seen featuring Green as a freaky unhinged sexual siren. She may have found her calling. Other featured actors/actresses include Christopher Lloyd, Lady Gaga, Dennis Haysbert, Christopher Meloni, Jeremy Piven, Jamie Chung, Jaime King, Stacy Keach and Marton Csokas.
TRAILER







Let's Be Cops
directed by Luke Greenfield

How can Damon Wayans Jr., a full grown man who stands 6'2", have such a nasally, whiny high pitched voice? Where's the rumble in his mumble? Does he need a testosterone patch? Those were my first thoughts after watching this wildly uneven semi-comedy. The film might have worked better had it gone for full blown loony tune slapstick. Or maybe the director and writer(s) could have chosen an even darker route and riffed on racism, desperation to be somebody, fragile self-esteem, police brutality, corrupt cops, and other things that aren't necessarily light comedy. However the writers and directors decided to take the middle road and mix both of those approaches together, something that didn't really work for me. YMMV. There are some funny moments here or there I guess. I may have laughed once or twice. Maybe. I think I mentally checked out once the fat naked man showed up. Yes that was a turning point. I thought this was a comedy sketch that was drawn out far beyond the point where you stopped laughing. The film was probably 20-30 minutes too long. Sometimes less is more.

Justin Miller (Damon Wayans Jr.) and his best friend/roommate Ryan O'Malley (Jake Johnson) are Los Angeles residents who have just turned thirty. While their old college friends are getting married or moving forward in their careers, these two are stuck in neutral. Although Justin can't technically be called a loser because he actually has a paying job as a video game designer, at work he is ignored and insulted by his boss. His boss ridicules Justin's concepts. He does everything but wipe his bottom with Justin's ideas. The boss requires Justin to take notes as coworkers or the boss explain their supposedly much better ideas. Justin lacks any sympathetic woman to give him emotional support because he's afraid to put the moves on Josie (Nina Dobrev), a friendly waitress at his favorite restaurant. Ryan probably can be termed a loser because his paid jobs are rare to non-existent. Ryan was a college quarterback with pro potential. But he hurt himself in a freak accident before the draft. For the past decade or so Ryan has been reminding everyone about who he was, and reliving thrills by playing football with kids. Because a grown man hanging around pre-teen boys is not creepy at all. Uh-huh. Whatever else Ryan is, unlike Justin, shy he is not.

Justin is pragmatic. Ryan is given to flights of fancy. They promised each other that if they hadn't made their mark in LA by thirty they'd give up and return to Ohio. Attending a local college reunion party, the two dress up as cops. They thought it was a costume party when it really was a masquerade party. Leaving the event even more depressed, they slowly realize that their costumes fool everyone on the street, including real cops. For Ryan the received deference from people on the street and romantic or sexual interest from random women become ends in and of themselves. Ryan sees no reason to stop pretending he's a police officer. He inserts himself and Justin into real police work. In his cop uniform Justin finds the confidence to break the ice with Josie. Josie is looking for a good man and a protector. She thinks a cop might satisfy both needs. When Josie's parents' restaurant is shaken down by a nasty, hyperviolent Russian gangster (James D'Arcy) who's contemptuous of cops, Justin learns that you can't fake bravery. Will Justin discover an assertive side? Will Ryan find a purposeful life? Oh the suspense! Keegan-Michael Key plays a Black/Hispanic hoodlum. Natasha Leggero appears as a kinky sex mad cop groupie. Andy Garcia shows up to collect a check. Dobrev was underutilized. The Daily Show's Rob Riggle plays a straitlaced patrol officer who's slow to realize who Justin and Ryan are. A loud physically aggressive overweight black woman beats people up. You can't make a comedy without that I guess. This movie is something that you can safely skip. 
TRAILER

St. Paul Police Use Taser On Black Man For Minding His Own Business

Although this blog has discussed the issue quite often, over the past few weeks thanks to the events in Ferguson and elsewhere, there has been a great deal of media spotlight on the negative attention police give to black people, particularly black men. Whether it's a black man choked to death for allegedly selling unlicensed cigarettes or a black man shot and killed in Wal-Mart for considering purchasing a BB gun or a black woman brutally beaten for walking close to traffic it appears that police generally have a very low threshold for initiating and escalating violence against black people. Now we learn that in St. Paul, Minnesota back in January 2014 (the video was just released) the police tased and arrested a black man who refused to show them id. It is not necessarily a crime to refuse to show police id. Police can't demand id without some sort of "reasonable suspicion" that you're involved in criminal activity. Minnesota has declined to enact a "stop and identify" law. The police were originally called because the black man, one Chris Lollie, was sitting in a chair in a downtown skyway. A security guard claimed the chair was on private property and ordered Lollie away. Lollie left but apparently not as quickly as the security guard desired. When the video starts Lollie has already left the chair and is having a tense conversation with an officious female police officer. Lollie was waiting in the skyway (as he thought wrongly as it turned out) to pick up his children from daycare. Video below the jump.

When her male partner gets near the "conversation" becomes extremely threatening on the part of the police officers. Shortly afterwards Lollie is tased and arrested. Near the end you can hear the female police officer taunting him. The officer who tased Lollie told him that he wasn't his brother. He certainly got that right. When Lollie wants to know why he is being arrested the police tell him he'll find out. Lollie was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing legal process. The charges were thrown out because of the video. So once again we have a black man being abused and arrested not for anything he did (at least from what we can tell from the video) but because he did not give white police officers what they considered to be the proper level of shuffling deference. Too many police think that their job is to intimidate, subdue and assault. I think the job simply attracts too many authoritarian types. This sort of thing is exactly why there were groups like the African Blood Brotherhood or Deacons of Defense or Black Panthers. Police harassment of Black people is a serious problem. Unfortunately local municipalities, police unions and the courts have made it increasingly difficult to get bad police officers off the force let alone put them in prison. Lollie says that he is going to file an internal affairs complaint and is considering a lawsuit. Good luck with that. This is not something that can be fixed with retraining. This is something that needs to have a very clear "You can't DO that" tattooed into police officers' heads.  I am starting to think that Cliven Bundy had the right idea of how to deal with cops. Of course Huey P. Newton already showed us that. 

Story Link

Jon Stewart, Fox News and Ferguson: Race Matters

The all too predictable thing about many conservatives is that whenever there is a situation in which there is an abuse of power by state agents and the alleged victims are Black, conservatives, with very few exceptions, rush to defend the state agents, insult and smear the victim, and go out of their way to do to the alleged victim what a police dog allegedly did to the Michael Brown memorial.  In defending alleged or even proven abusive state agents on hidden or not so hidden tribalistic/racial grounds they often will claim no bias. In their view they are being objective. Obviously conservatives aren't the only people with blind spots and unchallenged assumptions. Liberals, libertarians and people of other political persuasions and ideologies have their own hypocrisies and instances of moral myopia. I just don't care to discuss those today. What I find fascinating about the normal conservative stampede to defend the police, provided the victim is Black, is that these are often the very same people who will work themselves up to a high dudgeon about overreaching government when it comes to the IRS, or Obamacare or bossy TSA agents or the EPA or nosy census questions or Common Core standards or any number of other instances of government bigfooting that usually fall far short of a policeman beating or shooting someone. These folks will wave the Gadsden flag and opine about "freedom loving Americans" but won't criticize police who wrongly harm someone provided that someone doesn't look like them. Such actions say everything about who's considered a "real American" and why the President has been dogged with false claims about his nationality, race and religion.

Ultimately though, we're all in this together regardless of race.  As Angela Davis said it they come for me in the morning they will come for you at night. Police who are comfortable insulting, harassing, abusing, assaulting and killing black people will do the same things to any "unworthy" white people. We've talked about that before. You let some dogs get off leash and they will bite whoever they see.  Unfortunately some conservatives, say Bill O'Reilly, can't see this.  Such conservatives assume that if a black person got hurt, that thug/thugette had it coming. These folks glory in their privilege even as they deny it. In his own inimitable manner Jon Stewart tried to explain this to Fox News watchers/hosts in general and Bill O'Reilly in particular.

Nine Year Old Girl Armed With Uzi Kills Arizona Shooting Range Instructor

I believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. I tend to be skeptical of many new gun control proposals. That said I am aghast that anyone would permit a child to attempt to operate an Uzi submachine gun in automatic mode. That makes about as much sense to me as letting a child drive a semi-trailer, fly a Boeing 777, represent someone in a death penalty case, or do anything else where the life of that child or the lives of others around the child will be put at risk by the child’s actions. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with me. You may have heard about the nine year old girl who apparently wanted to fire an Uzi.  Her parents took her to Bullets and Burgers Shooting Range in Arizona where instructor Charles Vacca assisted her in shooting the machine gun in single shot mode.  He then switched the weapon to automatic mode and moved to the girl's left. Unfortunately the recoil of the submachine gun was far more than a nine year old girl could handle. That's unsurprising.  I mean it's not like she was a veteran member of Spetsnaz or Shayetet 13. The Uzi's muzzle drifted upwards and to the girl's left. Vacca was shot in the head and died. It's a tragedy. But it's also a quite preventable one.  While gun safety experts, police or military veterans can review the video to determine if Mr. Vacca was in the proper area and/or can check the gun to determine if there was anything wrong with it, the rest of us can make an even simpler fix. Preteens don't get to fire automatic weapons. That's so freaking simple isn't it? If you wouldn't let a nine year old command a nuclear submarine then why would you let them operate an Uzi. The Uzi will still be there when that child grows up.  There's no rush. Ultimately the blame here must rest with the parents and with anyone else who thinks that children should be playing with guns. Guns aren't toys. Video below (it cuts off before the death).