Why Black Conservatives Stay Losing: The Cliven Bundy Edition

As you should know from living in 2014 and interacting with a variety of people or if nothing else, just from occasionally reading the various ramblings that show up in this space, Black Americans, and for that matter black people from across the diaspora are as politically, class, and increasingly ethnically diverse as anyone else. There are black people who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage and black people who strongly support gay marriage. There are black people who are feminists and those who are not. There are black people who support a strong aggressive military and black people who want to eliminate the military and smash the state. There are black people who are pro-union and who spend all their time organizing workers. There are black people who couldn't care less about unions and who spend all their time organizing corporate mergers. There are black people who are neutral or positive about immigration reform and black people who are vociferously against it. Blah, blah, blah. Yet despite all of this political diversity, when it comes to major elections black people generally vote Democratic by percentages that are usually over 90%. These days, a Republican or conservative candidate who receives more than 10% of the black vote is doing shockingly well. Black (and other) conservatives occasionally bitterly complain about this. But they generally have no solutions. One big reason that conservative leaning candidates do so poorly with the black electorate is that the conservative segment of the American political spectrum is filled with people of all races pledging fealty to white supremacy whether they be genial white racists like Cliven Bundy or apparently insane black conservatives like Kamau Bakari. Check out the bizarre campaign ad video below. 



Nevada's Congressional District 1 is about 10% Black, 40% Hispanic and about 9% Asian. Somehow I don't think that this ad is going to do particularly well in those communities, especially the black community there. But who knows? I could be wrong. Maybe the black community, like Kamau Bakari, is chomping at the bit to ally itself with a bigoted welfare rancher and call out Attorney General Holder. Maybe. But probably not. Black conservatives can have some good ideas sometimes. But when they run with racists and show no self-respect or self-regard they shouldn't be surprised when they get low support from the black community. Conservatives, black or otherwise, who want to appeal to the black community will have to stop making commercials like this. Of course if your primary appeal is to a different set of voters, then maybe this ad is just fine...

Music Reviews: Walter Hawkins-Love Alive

Walter Hawkins
Love Alive

If, to win a million dollars, I had to name the first three male gospel singers that came to my mind in 5 seconds, I would list James Cleveland, Edwin Hawkins and Walter Hawkins. It's almost certainly because those are the people whom I grew up hearing at home and at friends' or relatives' homes. I think of all of these people as downhome traditional gospel, especially in comparison to today's gospel music. Ironically though, at their height of popularity all these musicians, but especially the Hawkins Brothers were considered by some moldy fig gospel traditionalists to be somewhat avant-garde and too close to popular music, in particular rock-n-roll. As discussed previously, a great deal of early rock-n-roll actually came directly from gospel so no one should have been too surprised to hear gospel musicians turning it up and rocking out. People like Little Richard, Otis Redding, and James Brown borrowed heavily from the church. Musicians like Sister Rosetta Tharpe and Aretha Franklin came straight from the church. And as James Cleveland famously noticed in one of his sermons, the Lord liked music. He commanded people to make a joyful noise. And what could be more joyful than hard rocking Hawkins style gospel music. Not much that's for sure. This music brings back a lot of memories, mostly good, some bad. Some of the songs on this release are often played at funerals. But that's life yes? This is music designed to be played loudly. I don't think anything here could ever be described as background music. This is music to shake your moneymaker to or to be precise it WOULD be music to shake your moneymaker to were the lyrics not all about loving God, experiencing bliss through salvation, hollering how much you love Jesus and how after death you've been washed white as snow of your sin. 

Yeah. I suppose if superfunk, bootyshaking and Jesus don't quite go together for you, you could always do what Ray Charles and Willie Dixon did. Just change the lyrics from "can't no one do me like Jesus" to "can't no one do me like that woman" and lo and behold you have a new song which you wrote all by yourself. Repeat as necessary. If you sped it up just a taste "God is Standing By" would be more recognizable as rock-n-roll. And since on the second half of the song the singers and musicians do just that it's impossible not to see the family links between gospel, blues and rock-n-roll. There's also a few songs which Walter Hawkins wrote which I thought were almost certainly traditional. Hmm. I have to do some more research on that. Anyway this is an INCREDIBLE album, made more so by the guest appearance of Walter's wife, the equally talented Tramaine Hawkins.  What she does on "Goin' Up Yonder" and "Changed" are beyond amazing.  My favorite cut though is "I Won't Be Satisfied" where Walter's solo and his ability to sing behind the beat leave me in awe. The call and response between the choir and Walter make me want to get up and dance.

Regardless of your religious affiliations or lack of same this is all very inspiring music. This music has helped me through a few rough patches in life. It's definitely music I like to sing along with as I'm motoring along to my corporate drone peonage. I usually don't like to make comparisons with music but here it I think it's worthwhile. Walter Hawkins music here stands in stark contrast to today's overproduced, effete, synthesized gospel music. It has about as much relationship to modern gospel as a oak tree has to a dandelion. The choir sounds just like the choir I heard in my maternal grandfather's church. The choir is tight. Nobody but nobody is off or late. Everyone is together. This release was produced with just the right amount of natural reverb that immediately lets you know that this was recorded in the seventies. There is an emphasis on the downbeat that would make James Brown proud. There is never any doubt about where the ONE is. None at all. So if you're curious about gospel music but like something with a strong lively beat you could do worse than to pick this release up. Love Alive is a classic cut. It also crossed over to an extent. Likely many old school gospel fans or soul music fans above a certain age already have this CD. But if it somehow escaped your attention because either you weren't around during the seventies or just can't remember the seventies well check it out and see if it speaks to you. This is intensely communal music. This is music that lets you know no matter what you're not alone. And if you're going through bad times in life, keep going. 

Goin' Up Yonder  I Won't Be Satisfied  Changed  I'm Not The Same Follow Me God is Standing By

Upskirts, The Lincoln Memorial and Privacy

I believe in privacy. I also believe in free speech and free expression. Sometimes those values conflict. I have always believed that if an attractive lady has taken the trouble to put something on public display it would be rude not to look. And gentlemen should always strive to avoid being rude. The probability of me telling a non-related woman or a woman who I do not know from Eve that she is showing too much and should cover up is probably zero. I may have been tragically warped for life by watching too many Benny Hill skits at an impressionable age. That's my brother's hypothesis anyway. I don't say no to that. Nonetheless, if I did accidentally see something interesting, I definitely wouldn't grab a camera and start taking pictures. THAT seems a little bit, well creepy might be too strong of a word, but over the top would certainly fit. A gentleman doesn't do that. You take a quick glance, maybe offer a smile and keep moving. Discretion is important. You don't stand there drooling and staring like a fat man at a $2 all you can eat buffet. But everyone has different styles. When faced with publicly visible evidence of attractive femininity while visiting the Lincoln Monument, one Mr. Christopher Cleveland did more than take a brief look. He also chose not to approach the women to inform them in a non-threatening big brotherly manner that they might be revealing more than they intended. No. Mr. Cleveland decided that the right move was to whip it out (his camera that is) and start taking photographs. The local police noticed him. They forced him to stop taking pictures. They made him come away with them. Mr. Cleveland was charged with voyeurism. His camera's memory card had scores of revealing images of women in public places. And that's when things got interesting.

Apparently the crime of voyeurism requires that someone be trying to violate or actually violating your privacy. And when you are in public you have less of (none?) an expectation of privacy. In this particular case the judge, D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna, found that Mr. Cleveland did not look at anything that wasn't on public display already. She even disputed the prosecutor's characterization of Mr. Cleveland's actions as "upskirting". She tossed the case against Mr. Cleveland. The judge wrote that:

'This Court finds that no individual clothed and positioned in such a manner in a public area in broad daylight in the presence of countless other individuals could have a reasonable expectation of privacy.' 'The images captured were not 'incidental glimpses' and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view. 'The photographs recovered from Mr Cleveland's camera memory card depict a variety of images ranging from long shots of the Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool and groups of people sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, to close up photos of individual women seated or standing in the area.

'As Defendant's Response acknowledges some of these women are seated in such a way that their private areas, including the upper inches of their buttocks, are clearly visible.' However, all of these images were similarly available to other passersby in the area.'  The court documents added that there was no evidence Mr. Cleveland positioned his camera in any way or employed any photographic techniques , so as to capture images that were not already on public display.

So basically the judge ruled that if you are revealing something in public you can't charge people with a crime for looking at it or taking pics. If you are curious you can read the judge's decision here. When a similar case occurred in Massachusetts, legislators changed the law. In the Massachusetts case because the offender was taking steps to obtain photos that weren't readily visible to anyone I think there was a bit more expectation of privacy. I'm not certain that's the case here. There are occasions in life when we experience behavior that might be rude, tasteless or even reprehensible but isn't criminal. This might be one of those times. NYC hosts Puerto Rican Day, St. Patrick's Day and West Indian Day parades among others. Men from the entire eastern seaboard turn out in droves to watch, photograph and record women. Are those men all criminals? Some might say so but I wouldn't. Heterosexual men like looking at women. It's the nature of the beast. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. That is never ever ever going to change. If we make it a crime to photograph a woman would it also be a crime to look at a woman? If a man runs across a woman in revealing clothing should he be forced to avert his eyes on pain of prosecution? We don't have enough jails for that. If Cleveland had merely been looking instead of taking pictures would that have been okay?  I think I would feel differently if, instead of just taking pictures from afar, Cleveland had rigged cameras attached to his shoes, was dropping items in front of women, was putting cameras under skirts, or was otherwise going out of his way to violate decorum. That's criminal. Cleveland didn't do that. As the judge said, nothing he did was covert or surreptitious.

I think that you should expect privacy in your home, in your letters, when you're making whoopie, when you're in the bathroom, etc. But when you're in public, privacy isn't really a reasonable expectation. If in public, I notice a woman with a really short skirt or low cut/tight top, that's not being a voyeur. That's being human. If someone is taking pictures at a public memorial I don't want the police to be able to arrest the man, rifle through his photos until they find a woman's image and then charge the man with a sex crime. Increasingly governments and corporations are using surveillance of public streets and private areas both to maximize profit and prevent or solve crime. I find that a little creepier than an individual man looking at a woman but it could just be that I'm not a woman. I might have a different perspective if I were. But then again I might not. The judge was a woman and ruled as she did. The law must be above and beyond our personal biases.

What are your thoughts?

Movie Reviews: Neighbors

Neighbors
directed by Nicholas Stoller

This comedy film featured Seth Rogen in a lead role so I pretty much knew what I was going to get. Do you remember the first time that you fully understood you were an adult? For many Americans there's not really a bright line ritual that says after this you are a responsible member of our society. We have a legal drinking age of 21. Most states have legal ages of consent that are between 16 and 18. You can vote at 18. We speak of college "kids" but when a teen commits a crime for which we want to punish him beyond the strictures allowed by the juvenile system we talk of "young men." There have been, since the sixties, some social changes that can provide for an extended adolescence well past 18 or in some cases even past 21. Some entertainers whose teen years are far behind them often still seek to dress, act and talk like teens or young adults. I think that's silly and in some ways pathetic. It can be unhealthy for people and/or the larger society to demand too much responsibility and accountability from teenagers but on the other hand at some point you should be able to expect that someone past 21 be responsible and well, adult. The gray area between those two expectations are where Rogen has made a pretty good filmic comedy career.

Neighbors mines that gray area for all that it's worth. It's a funny film at times but much like We're the Millers I thought that the annoying insistence on gross humor, in this case excretory and sexual, didn't work. YMMV as this film did very well financially. I just didn't see the humor in one character angrily dismissing a frat pledge by telling him that another frat brother had had his penis in his mouth while he slept. The pledge proudly and unironically defended himself by claiming that he certainly wasn't asleep. Of course as mentioned this is a Rogen film so no one should be surprised. I liked the slapstick but could have done without all the gay jokes. Anyway.

Mac Radner (Seth Rogen) is married to Australian babe Kelly Radner (Rose Byrne). Their jobs aren't important. I don't even recall if Kelly works or not. What is important is that they have a newborn daughter who is the apple of their eye. However the reality of being parents means that their previously highly active, aerobic and adventurous sex life has taken a few hits. Mac doesn't want to have sex if the baby can see them while Kelly's nursing needs can interrupt their sessions. Additionally, being responsible parents means that they can't drop everything and go party with their dissolute divorced buddies Jimmy (Ike Farinholtz) and Paula (Carla Gallo). They don't have the energy for that any more. Having to clean up another human being's constant excretions, feed it at odd times during the night, and be aware of its needs 24-7 can drain a mother's and father's energy. So the couple is perched on a precipice, looking back at their old lifestyle, but not quite ready to see themselves as responsible, yuppiefied, boring adults. When a raucous fraternity headed by possible heterosexual buddies for life Teddy (Zac Efron) and Pete (Dave Franco) moves in next door Mac and Kelly vacillate between being outraged that there will be numerous loud parties that interrupt their sleep and that of their daughter and intrigued that hey, they still might be cool enough to attend some of those parties themselves. 

But as the saying goes you can't really go home again. Eventually disputes get escalated and all out war breaks out. This movie wasn't quite as funny as I thought it could have been. If you've ever worked with tyrannical neighborhood associations or had disputes with neighbors over things like loud music or parking spots or the like then you know there's a lot of comedy material there. Neighbors skips over most of that and concentrates on the slapstick and the odd relationship between Teddy and Pete. There are some fun spots in the movie but the story is completely and thoroughly predictable. Race jokes, jokes that would be anti-semitic if not written by Jewish people, tons of gay jokes, and so on abound. There is plenty of cleavage, some nudity and a tremendous number of penis jokes.This is low humor. So if you're feeling in the mood for that have at it. Neighbors was okay to watch on-demand but I'm glad I didn't spend the money to see it in the theater.  TRAILER

The Curious Case of Civis the Creepy Clerk

I ain't fooling, you need schooling
Baby you know you need cooling
Baby way down inside, woman you need love
Muddy Waters- "You Need Love"

Perv or Philanthropist?

Some people are more touchy feely than others. They like showing affection in public, not just in private. This could arise from genetics. It could be caused by how your parents raised you. It could come from how long you were nursed or any number of other reasons, including geographic, ethnic or national cultural preferences. American, and from what I hear Northern European, cultures are each supposedly a little standoffish while Southern European, Middle Eastern and some West African cultures are more relaxed about touching. I couldn't tell you for sure. I've known effusive Germans and cold Italians. What I do know is that like anything else with humans there is a continuum of behavior among people who seemingly can't connect to others without reaching out and touching them and people who would prefer that workplace/non-sexual touching of any kind be discouraged. I tend to fall in the second category. Work is work. So please keep your hands to yourself unless we are related or we are already intimate(or planning to be). In some states there isn't always a difference between these two categories but I digress. Snicker. It is a fact though that in the workplace, especially when there is a gender and/or a sexuality difference, many people prefer minimal physical contact, and ESPECIALLY no form of physical contact that could be possibly misconstrued as flirtatious, harassing or sexual. A hand shake is okay. A hand on a woman's hip, thigh, chest or behind definitely isn't. A fist bump or hand slap for closing a deal is fine. A facial caress isn't. A brief hug or shoulder pat to a co-worker who just lost a parent, spouse or child is usually acceptable. A tight full body embrace with a peer who has returned from an overseas trip just might send out the wrong message. Just saying. And so on. 

Americans generally recognize some responses as being reasonable for someone who is providing your nookie and totally inappropriate for someone who is not handling that task. This isn't rocket science, folks. Unfortunately a grocery store clerk in West Michigan has forgotten that it is truly not his job to provide hugs and bottom pats for women who, in his opinion, look like they might need them. 

Whitehall — When is a hug more than a hug? That is, when does it stop being what a resident called a “handshake from the heart” and turn into something another termed “sort of creepy”? The question lies at the heart of a controversy roiling this small town in western Michigan. In August, supermarket clerk Fred Civis was arrested and fired from his job of 39 years after a customer he hugged reported him to the store and police. Many in town have rallied behind the popular cashier, launching a boycott that has slowed business at Plumb’s Valu-Rite Foods. The growing anger also led to death threats against a woman wrongly believed to be the complainant. A woman said the hulking clerk once wrapped both arms tightly around her, stroking her and whispering things in her ear as he nuzzled her neck. He then followed her around the store. “I know the difference between a friendly hug and a grope,” the woman wrote on a local TV news website.

The controversy began in July when Kendall Maczka was checking out at a self-service lane at Plumb’s. Civis came over and, after bagging her items, put his arm around her shoulders, brushing his hand against her backside, according to a police report. She snapped at Civis, who walked away silently. She told police Civis had been hugging her for three or four years. She said it wasn’t an issue until the latest incident. She said he embraced her only when she shopped alone. When she was with her husband, Civis ignored her.

LINK

Civis was apparently previously warned about his behavior. So right now this doesn't appear to be a case of an overreaction by someone who can't stand to be touched or a one time misreading of someone's body language. Misdemeanor assault charges seem like a bit much but I don't know if that fits what allegedly occurred. I'm no lawyer. Who knows? More information could arise. Of course if we are being completely honest some people's (and by people's here I mean women's) reactions to unsolicited hugs could vary widely on just who's doing the hugging but that's life. There is nothing unusual or unfair about the fact that women, like men, have different reactions to people depending on their perception of that person's attractiveness. Still, when you are at work, I don't think it's too much to ask that you don't go around groping or hugging other people. I mean, how difficult is that? The purpose of working is to earn money. You need to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Perhaps you might make friends at work or even find someone who is more but that doesn't change what the primary imperative is. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with that. If I were to get fired from my job let it be for something like being a whistle blower about a bad product, standing up to a bigoted or incompetent supervisor or refusing to go along with bullying. 

I can't predict the future but I can safely say that I will NOT be fired from my job for putting my hands on women co-workers, customers or God forbid supervisors. Cause that would be kinda dumb.  I could never live that down. Can you imagine how the next job interview would go? "So, Shady is it? I understand you like to give hugs and pats on the bottom to women co-workers. Do you see any women around here that you think need physical comforting? We're just curious."

Thoughts?

President Obama Sells Out Workers

We all are hypocrites in one way or the other. It's just part of being human. Nobody is consistent across the board on everything. However I am amazed by the fact that the Obama Administration has managed to maintain so much support from labor and many members of the working class when it continues to display that it is not necessarily a big friend of the working class. Its rhetoric doesn't match its actions. One of the critical employee rights which we are supposed to have in this country, whether we are union or non-union, white collar or blue collar, is that if you work for someone else you should be paid for the time you're at work and the tasks you complete. There are a few marginal exceptions to this. The exempt professional worker usually does not automatically get time and a half overtime pay for more than 40 hours of work per week. Such pay might be made but it's much more likely to be compensated (if at all) in additional time off at some later date. Possibly. Maybe. It depends on your company's policy and boss's needs. Obviously in some professions, working 40 hours per week is considered slacking. You don't become partner at a law firm, trading boss at a hedge fund, or head surgeon at the hospital by only working 40 hrs each week. The flip side of that though is that if a salaried professional leaves early one day because they're sick or have a family emergency or just want to see a playoff baseball game, their next paycheck probably won't include a line item for pay docked. So in theory it balances out.

Still whether professional or not, if the company says you must do X as part of your job duties chances are you will do X as part of your job duties, if you want to continue getting paid. And getting paid is the key thing here. The company shouldn't be able to obtain work or time from you for free. Of course companies are amoral and increasingly want to do just that. And for some strange reason the Obama Administration is siding with the companies.
After his 12-hour shifts at an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, Jesse Busk says, he and 200 other workers typically waited in line for 25 minutes to undergo a security check to see whether they had stolen any goods. Upset that the temp agency that employed him refused to pay workers for that time, Mr. Busk sued. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about this hotly contested issue. The nation’s retailers are paying close attention because such security checks are common. The Supreme Court is to determine whether the check and related waiting time were part of Mr. Busk’s regular, compensable workday or, as the temp agency argues, were time after his workday and not compensable.

In its brief, the temp agency, Integrity Staffing Solutions, argues that the security check and the related waiting time are part of the “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities that are not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act, which Congress passed in 1947.  Mr. Busk’s lawyer, Mark R. Thierman, disagreed. “The antitheft check is integral and indispensable because the company said you have to do it,” he said. “If the company tells you to do it, it doesn’t matter whether it’s related to what else you do on the job.” The Obama administration has filed a brief backing Integrity Staffing. 

Some pro-labor groups voiced surprise that the administration was backing Integrity Staffing. “The administration says it’s time to put more money in the pockets of workers who work long hours with low pay,” said Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for workers. “Their position in this case is contrary to what they’ve been saying.”

LINK

Ok. Let me get this straight. The company pays its workers chump change and then is concerned that some of the workers will make up the difference by "liberating" some company merchandise for resale. It's a reasonable worry. The company could address this problem by raising everyone's pay so that getting busted for stealing some crap from a warehouse wouldn't be worth anyone's trouble. Unrealistic I know. Well. What to do then? Ooh! Ohh! I know! I know!! The company could maintain its security procedures, demeaning and insulting though they are, and PAY the workers for the extra time that they are spending at work being shaken down for possible stolen goods. This search is part of their job. Mr. Busk could not say "No, I'm not going through those searches tonight" and reasonably expect to have a job the next morning. This is not something that was externally imposed by the municipal, federal or state government where the company and/or the subcontractor could argue that they had no responsibility. And no this is not something where the Obama Administration is being forced by those "wascally Rethuglicans" to do something which is against its better nature. The Obama Administration, in the form of the Labor and Justice Department, is siding with the U.S Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Litigation Center and several other pro-business anti-labor groups. If the President didn't want this he could use his celebrated pen and phone to tell Labor Secretary Perez and Attorney General Holder to withdraw Administration support from the company's side of this dispute. This really is a watershed moment. As much as anything else this tells you which side the Obama Administration is on when it comes to conflicts between capital and labor. Hint, not labor's.

As mentioned, under the logic being pushed by Integrity Staffing Solutions and the Obama Administration, a company could order an employee to do ANYTHING after or even during his shift and then refuse to pay the employee by claiming that the task was not integral to work. So a boss could theoretically order someone to go pick up his dry cleaning and then refuse to pay because after all, retrieving your supervisor's laundry is not really a key task. But if you don't you're fired. Right. If the Supreme Court sides with the company you will see many corporations transfer more and more unpaid tasks to workers under the fallacious idea that these tasks aren't integral. Worker income will continue to stagnate or fall. Corporate profits will continue to rise. Under the current Supreme Court who can predict what can happen. But I will bet that Scalia and Thomas will side with the company and with President Obama. 

What do you think the right thing to do here is?

Why has President Obama sided with the company?

Have you ever been in a situation where your employer tried to extract unpaid work?

Book Reviews: Gentlemen of the Road, The Harlem Hellfighters, The Night Eternal

Gentlemen of the Road
by Michael Chabon

If you like adventure tales with a side order of mystery you might enjoy this book. Or if you just like buddy stories then this might be okay. And obviously if you can enjoy self-aware heroes who don't mind engaging in sarcasm or constantly arguing with each other about things that might not appear to be all that important to outsiders then this story could be up your alley.
Chabon dedicated this book to the sci-fi/fantasy author Michael Moorcock but it also pays homage to the fantasy author Fritz Leiber and his Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series. There is also more than a dash of cop buddy storyline here. I liked this book. I liked it even more because unlike many genre entries the book was short. My hardcover edition clocked in at just under 200 pages.  Imagine that. Someone wrote a good story without rambling on forever. So in yet another way this story is also a throwback to people like Leiber and Moorcook. Much of their best work was done in novellas or short stories instead of sprawling 900 page works, though of course Moorcock proved himself quite adept at that as well. The book's initial working title was Jews with Swords. As Chabon explains in the afterword this was probably a rejoinder and corrective to some people's (including his own) image of Jews as urbanized nebbishes who look and sound as if they stepped out of a Woody Allen movie. Chabon thinks that a people with a history of exile and pogroms, kingdoms won and lost, have just as much raw material for adventure stories as anyone else. I also enjoyed this book because a main character reminded me of Ice Cold from Fear of a Black Hat. I have to empathize with any character who's fussy about his style and accoutrement. After all they come a running just as fast as they can cause every girl is crazy about a sharp dressed man.

In the 10th century two Jewish friends and adventurers make a living as lovable rogues. Amram is a giant Ethiopian and former soldier who can use the business end of an axe to devastating effect. He's a big bad man so of course he names his battle axe "Motherf*****" or as Chabon slyly translates "Defiler of your mother!". Amram's axe is only slightly more deadly than his tongue as he can be verbally cutting with an insult. He has his own rarely discussed loss. His partner is a former physician and generally morose Frankish individual named Zelikman.  One reason he's generally morose is because as a child he saw his mother and sisters raped and murdered in an anti-Jewish pogrom. That will give anyone a different perspective on life. Zelikman likes his hats. He will go through a lot of pain and trouble before he will willingly part with one. And don't touch or otherwise damage his hat. Although not as large as Amram, Zelikman is just as deadly because of his skill with the sword. Zelikman tends to be much wordier than Amram. Alternatively working as con men, bodyguards, mercenaries and thieves (they refuse however to countenance slavery) the duo are in the Caucasus Mountains region when events conspire to throw them across the path of a whiny fugitive who claims to be the rightful heir to the throne of the Khazar Empire. Initially Amram and Zelikman just want back the money and horses that this young man stole. But despite themselves they are fascinated by the idea that there is a state where Jews not only live as free men and women but as rulers. So they wind up going after this desperado to see if he is telling the truth and whether they can profit by doing the right thing and helping him regain his throne.

The book has a lot of sardonic interplay between Zelikman and Amram and for that matter Zelikman and everyone.The duo has a rough sense of decency when pushed but they're not necessarily nice guys. In both prose and style the book very much reminds me of The Arabian Nights. Chabon is very skilled at describing without being wordy. This story, based in reality, is a good reminder that we don't need to look to non-existent worlds to find adventure, humor, perils, last stands and close calls. The book started a little slow but picked up. I only wish I had read it earlier. 




The Harlem Hellfighters
by Max Brooks

This was the third in a group of books featuring black heroes which I recently read. Although it is set in the early 20th century it's not a noir or pulp book. It is based on the very real exploits of Black American WWI soldiers who became known as The Harlem Hellfighters. The 369th Infantry Regiment, described previously in the fictional adventures of King Tremain, was a Black American/Black Puerto Rican US Army Regiment that fought in WW1. 
A recurring theme of American racism, and really racism anywhere is that the outgroup is considered as unmanly/unwomanly. The despised group is constantly in a position where group members must prove that they are just as good as the in-group. Of course racism being flexible even when such proof is offered up the racist just finds another line of argument to support his prejudice. Ironically, the first man to die in a military conflict for what would become America was a black man. Black men have fought and died in every conflict America ever had, even before they had citizenship rights. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, racists did their best to prevent black men from serving in the US military. If someone was man enough to fight and die then racist ideas about manhood, competence and non-citizenship would be proven untrue. And if a black man in segregated America saw that white men could bleed and die like anyone else then that would have dangerous implications for enforced white supremacy. No it was far better from a white supremacist point of view to prevent blacks from serving at all. If that wasn't possible then the idea was to only allow blacks to serve in segregated support units. And certainly the Army refused to allow any black who had somehow made officer to command white troops. This was both formal and informal military policy up until immediately after WW2.  But wars can change plans so occasionally black combat soldiers did manage to cover themselves with glory, generally to the chagrin of the white officer corps.

Although the 369th was part of the US Army and thus subject to all US Army regulations and civilian laws (most definitely including segregation), the US Army had no desire to appear to be sanctioning integration. The 369th was thus initially limited to cleaning and support duties. Eventually, via desperation, the 369th was assigned to the French Army. The US wanted nothing to do with them though racist US generals still issued orders reminding the French that social integration should not be practiced nor should the 369th get any ideas about 'liberty, egality and fraternity" that were a bad fit for blacks in the US. 

During their time serving with the French Army the 369th racked up a record for combat endurance and excellence that was unrivaled by any other Allied group. They were deployed in combat longer than any other group in the war.They became known as "The Harlem Hellfighters" by both friend and foe alike. In their most famous exploit, two members of the 369th made a last stand against an entire German platoon. The Hellfighters walked away to tell the tale. The Germans did not.
Brooks, the author of World War Z, tells the story of the 369th in an exciting black-and-white graphic novel format. The artwork is detailed but not overmuch. The book is about 230 pages, not counting the afterword and credits. It's a very quick read. Brooks did a tremendous amount of research at the Schomburg Center and elsewhere. This story is something Brooks was interested in since he was eleven years old. Brooks credits the actor LeVar Burton with encouraging him to keep at it. He also has some interesting stories about Hollywood's idea of what is considered marketable. His college black history professors also helped keep him on track. Obviously some characters and story lines were altered for entertainment purposes but not as many as you might think. In the afterword, which is just as interesting as the book, Brooks explains his creative process. This story has been optioned for a film. I think it would make a good one. The Harlem Hellfighters provided a virtual who's who roll call of 1920's era America. Such men as Benjamin Davis (the first Black general), Vertner Tandy (founder of Apha Phi Alpha), Bojangles Robinson (actor and dancer), Rafael Hernandez Marin (singer,actor and composer) and Noble Sissle (co-founder of Alpha Phi Alpha and jazz composer) all fought and bled with the 369th.




The Night Eternal
by Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan

This is book 3 of the trilogy upon which the FX series "The Strain" is based. In deference to those who haven't yet watched "The Strain" or haven't read the series I will do my best to avoid specific spoilers. The trilogy started out with much promise but by the end it's really grimly laboring on, much like Setrakian climbing out of the well in the last episode of "The Strain". Although the rebirth and re-imagining of the vampire as monster and virus instead of romance novel protagonist was well done and much needed the trilogy's plotline slowed down to a crawl somewhere in book 2. By book 3 the authors have long since made it quite clear that they are simply retooling Del Toro's storylines from Blade 2. By Book 3 we have a human-vampire hybrid with a special hatred for vampires, a ragtag bunch of vampire hunters who increasingly dislike and distrust one another, human traitors who scurry to do the Master's bidding and a man trying to put his family back together against all the odds. This last is what should be The Night Eternal's emotional center, and perhaps even that of the entire trilogy. However because the man, former CDC doctor Ephraim Goodweather, is such an unlikable, solipsistic, bossy and whiny character the story suffered a lot from making him the primary protagonist. I didn't and still don't care if he succeeded or not. Not everyone from the first book made it alive or unaltered to book three. In this book, as you are no doubt meant to ascertain from the title, the vampires are ascendant. In the US at least, Goodweather and company are one of only a few scattered resistance cells. Most humans are either enslaved, collaborating passively or actively, or have regressed to criminal savagery. Humans have no trust for each other any longer. Money is useless. Food, shelter, violence and sex are the currencies in use.

Humanity's only hope is a legendary tome which describes the origin of the Master vampire and may well hold the key to his destruction. Of course getting the book is only half the problem as it is written in several dead languages. The Night Eternal ran a turgid 500 pages and change. The other issue I had with the story was that some alterations which the vampires made in order to make the world more to their liking would have had the secondary effect of exterminating almost all of humanity. Humans, and almost every other living thing on this planet, simply can't survive for very long without sunlight. So cutting off access to the sun would have sown the seeds for the vampires' eventual doom by slowly removing their food supply. Without sunlight almost all the plants would die which would in turn destroy many animal species. And without plants our atmosphere and environment would be much degraded, further making human life harder to sustain. It doesn't seem well thought out. Stephen King did a better job of imagining such environmental catastrophe dominoes in Under the Dome. It would seem that the Master would have limited new vampire creation from self-interest. We learn the Master's origin story but I found it much too similar to Anne Rice's cosmology, which is ironic as the vampires here are otherwise 180 degrees apart from the languid effete omnisexual vampires which Rice prefers. The book can be read on its own. The authors also made many changes to the television adaptation of their trilogy. This unfortunately doesn't include Dr. Goodweather, who staunchly remains a pompous twit in film or in print.