Book Reviews: Devil Dog, The Wheelman

Devil Dog
by David Talbot

The United States was created in a revolution against monarchy. So there is a long standing anti-authoritarian and anti-colonialist streak that runs weakly or strongly through huge portions of the American body politic. On the other hand many of the people who led the revolt against monarchy were slaveowning traditionalists who had no problem with colonialism and hierarchies based on race, class and other immutable characteristics. They were, even while piously making universalist claims about human rights and morality in their revolt against the British throne, eagerly engaged in exterminating or expelling the indigenous peoples in what would become the United States. And of course they wanted the ability to put down slave revolts or revolts of poor whites who got too uppity. (Shay's Rebellion/Whiskey Rebellion) To do this Americans also needed an appeal to authority, a glorification of militarism, aggressive policing, and a strong central government. So these two different streaks are both old and equal portions of the general American character. They aren't going away anytime soon. They are us. One man who may have embodied them both in equal measure at different times was Marine Major General Smedley Butler. Although a Quaker by upbringing, Butler was certainly no pacifist in his youth. He received multiple medals throughout his long military career, leading from the front long after his growing rank should have foreclosed such possibilities. He was in his early days by our current standards a racist man of the Right. Butler was best known for revealing a plot by business interests to overthrow President FDR. Devil Dog is not quite a graphic novel though it makes use of some lurid illustrations more typically associated with that genre. The book also utilizes historical photographs and primary source documentation to tell the story of Butler's life.  Butler had a front row seat to much of the imperialist wars and interventions that the United States fought. Butler gradually moved from someone who followed orders without question to someone who was disgusted with doing the bidding of the not so hidden big business interests. He became a man of the Left. Butler made this abundantly clear in the most famous quote from his book War is a Racket writing:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Devil Dog skillfully explains together how racism, greed, naivete and jealously of European colonies led the US, having "pacified" the Native Americans, to seek its own empire abroad. This was an ugly business. Butler's hands were figuratively and often literally soaked in blood. Although it's not clear from this book whether Butler actually believed the propaganda about bringing democracy and good government to the darker peoples, Devil Dog does show Butler being increasingly disturbed by the denial of self-rule and unhinged corporate greed that usually followed any interventions in which he was involved. But it wasn't until World War I, in which he was more directly engaged in battling bureaucratic indifference and war profiteering that several lights seem to have gone off simultaneously in his head. Whatever his politics were, Butler always had a well known reputation as a man of integrity who loved his troops, which according to him is why he was approached by the plotters (backed by the DuPont family among others) to oversee an "army" which would maintain order after the coup to take down FDR. The plotters misjudged Butler's loyalty to the military. They didn't realize that his belief in following the rules and having elections was greater than his desire for glory or money. This high quality hardcover book is just under 150 glossy pages. It's a worthwhile view into a piece of our history which has mostly been forgotten.  The title refers to a nickname for a US Marine. The tenacious Butler certainly lived up to it. Always do the right thing is something that is easier to say than to embody but Butler certainly came close by his standards. Sadly were he alive today there is probably very little that would surprise him, politically speaking. If you are unfamiliar with Butler's life or the interventions throughout what today be called Third World nations you might want to check this book out. Many of the arguments, actions and justifications will resonate with today's reader.






The Wheelman
by Duane Swierczynski

I like stories with lots of twists, protagonists with limited or incorrect information, people who are either opposing or supporting each other without realizing it, and protagonists who aren't necessarily angelic. I also like authors who can give you a very strong sense of place without turning you off to the story location. Swierczynski is a Philadelphia native , author, journalist and comic book writer who has set this story in and around Philadelphia. I have never been there nor am I likely to ever visit but after reading this book I feel like I am a bit more familiar with the city. This is a very fast paced novel which is just begging to be made into a movie. If you have enjoyed such films as It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Drive, Get Shorty, Pulp Fiction, Payback, or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels then you will enjoy this story. It will feel comfortable and not at all in a bad way. I liked how Swierczynski switched points of view through the story. His characters never have all the information that they need and as a result neither does the reader. There are double crosses, triple crosses, mistaken assumptions, betrayals that don't work out and plenty of nasty surprises for the characters and the reader. Some of these surprises I saw coming but many more I didn't. The author isn't afraid to shape events in a more realistic way. Just because you may like or identify with a character doesn't mean that they're safe. This book was about 250 pages or so. There is some comedy within but it's not really a comedic book by any means. Lennon is a professional getaway driver. He's good at what he does. He works on various heists-specializing in bank robbery jobs. Lennon is not a bank robber per se. Obviously if ever arrested he would be charged with that crime though. He certainly intends to take his share of the loot. No, Lennon stays in the car. While other people plan and execute the actual bank robbery Lennon meticulously plans the escape. He knows where the police are and how long it will take for them to arrive, the traffic flows at the time of the robbery, the layout of the local streets, what his car will do and what it won't do, and anything else he needs to know to keep himself and his partners out of Johnny Law's grasp. 

People like working with Lennon because not only is he an incredible driver but he's also mute. So if things ever go wrong, presumably it will be that much more difficult for Lennon to rat out anyone. But on this deal things go wrong very badly indeed. Instead of splitting up and reuniting as planned later to equally divide the money from the heist, Lennon and his two pals are deliberately targeted in an auto accident.  When Lennon wakes up he is on the verge of being tossed down a drainage pipe along with his dead friends. Being a resourceful man, Lennon swiftly rectifies that situation. However there are a lot of questions that Lennon must address before he can leave Philadelphia. Like for example, who sold out his team? There were very few people who knew the details of the heist.  The one person who did know all the details is the one person Lennon could not imagine betraying him. Where is the money? Why are both the Russian and Italian mobs involved as well as the Mayor? Lennon is not an implacable killing machine by any means. He makes mistakes and underestimates people. But he does want some answers. This story has very concise short punchy sentences. There aren't a tremendous number of wasted words. There are a tremendous number of plot twists. Plot, not character, drives the story. As mentioned above this story really does move very quickly. There's not a lot time given explaining who people are. I mean after all are you going to be too worried about someone's motivations if they are trying to stuff you down a pipe? This is fast food. Good fast food.

Movie Reviews: Ex Machina, Welcome to Collinwood

Ex Machina
directed by Alex Garland

This futuristic science fiction film was very well grounded in both the science and the moral questions that scientific advances raise. Unlike many speculative fiction stories Ex Machina was relatively quiet and didn't spend a lot of time invoking violence or showing off special effects. When it did get to those filmic aspects the movie was that much more impressive for doing so at its own leisurely pace. So if you're looking for something with a tremendous amount of nudity or stylized violence this is simply not that film. That stuff is there but only briefly. Long portions of this film are just two people talking. And talking some more. In many aspects this film reminded me of Splice. It also had some very obvious ancestors in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep/Bladerunner and Pgymalion. There might even be a few feminist or depending on how you look at it anti-feminist themes which are explored. Where does our morality come from? Well everyone has different ideas about that based on their religion or lack thereof, internal ethics and philosophy and culture. But most people would agree that the arc of history in what is called the West at least, has generally seen moral considerations extended to more and more out-groups. Or to put it another way, our sense of who deserves moral treatment, who is us, in other words becomes more sensitive over time. Race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion and sexuality are all important identifiers but with few exceptions most people today agree that those should not impact our moral relation to each other. That doesn't necessarily mean we pretend they don't exist, although there's obvious disagreement on that front. No, all that means is that you can no longer openly treat someone as less than or commit crimes against them and be blissfully untroubled by your actions because of their difference. Obviously not everyone has gotten the memo on this but many people at least give lip service to this idea. And that is quite different from the moral standards of say a century ago or even fifty years ago.

For many people this moral consideration in its strongest form stops at humanity. Despite the often hidden ugliness of killing animals for food or clothing or sport, most humans are not in favor of stopping this. And even those who are in favor of such limitations can be discomfited by the moral comparison of a cattle slaughterhouse or animal medical laboratory to a human slave plantation or concentration camp. Most of us still believe that there is some important difference between humans and everything else. We think that there is something special about us. Perhaps that is the soul? Maybe is it self-consciousness or the ability to create art and language or understand abstract ideas. Ex Machina challenges the viewer to define and understand what makes us human. It doesn't tell the viewer though. Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson) is a relatively low level programmer/analyst for Bluebook. Bluebook is a titanic company which among other things runs the world's preeminent search engine. No one is sure just what they are doing with all that data. Smith wins an internal company competition and is chosen to spend a week at the CEO's home. The CEO, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), is a certified genius and cutting edge talent in the field of artificial intelligence. As it turns out he has a plan for Caleb. Nathan has in secret (that whole genius thing again) created a humanoid appearing artificial intelligence. Being a man, he has given this AI female appearance and what he believes are female instincts and nature. He wants Caleb to interact with this AI, named Ava (Alica Vikander) and report back to him if Caleb can believe the AI is human, despite already knowing that it's (or is it she's) not. It's an experiment you see.

This kicks off a series of conversations between Caleb and Ava and between Caleb and Nathan. You could say that Nathan and Ava are each trying to seduce Caleb to their way of thinking. Of course it's arguable as to whether Ava actually has a way of thinking as she is Nathan's creation. But is she his creation as a car is a designer's creation or is she his creation the way a daughter is a father's "creation"? Those are very different concepts with extremely different moral requirements. You own a car. You can never own a child. Caleb is also hindered by the unfortunate fact of being physically and emotionally attracted to Ava. Although Ava's obviously a machine she also has exaggerated feminine characteristics which are suspiciously close to Caleb's internal ideal. Of course being attracted to a machine is problematic for other reasons but that's enough plot description I think. This is a very cold looking movie but that visual style works for the subject matter. Nathan is a cold person who's not fond of outside contact. There are some hidden and not so hidden Freudian motifs. Let's be clear. This is a movie based on ideas and talking and less so on physical conflict and special effects. It will make you think about what it means to be human and how we treat each other. There may or may not be an obvious bad guy in this film. Whether you think there is or not once again depends on how you define and experience your own humanity. Are you able to be described completely by a series of electrical impulses programmed by another human being? Where does your circle of moral inclusiveness stop?
TRAILER




Welcome to Collinwood
directed by Anthony and Joe Russo

This is another favorite older film which bears rewatching every so often. It didn't make very much money. In fact I think it bombed at the box office, despite having a cast of hot names and well known character actors who would only become even better known later in life. This film is worlds apart from the Russos' later work like Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It's a remake of an Italian comedy Unknown Persons.  I like intimate films like this that aren't afraid to show everyday people doing small time things. Although almost everyone in this film can at best be described as a loser I would argue that the film doesn't just laugh at them. It's laughing with them just as much. There are a few scenes which do fall flat however. Collinwood is a working class neighborhood in Cleveland (the Russos' home town) which during most of the post-WWII era was home to a mix of European immigrants and Black and White migrants from the South, all drawn to the heavy industry work available. When the work dried up the area declined. This film is set in the time of that decline. No one has any money. Even the criminals are hard up for cash. These aren't quite hoodlums with hearts of gold but they are by no means mad dog killers. They're working stiffs looking for the big score just as surely as the working suckers lining up to buy lottery tickets. And just like their non-criminal counterparts, the chances of these guys landing the big fish, perfect crime or in their patois, the "Bellini", are slim to none. But a man's gotta try doesn't he?

Local thief, con artist and loud stick up man Cosimo (Luis Guzman) gets busted for auto theft. While in prison he talks to an older con doing a life bid. The older man wistfully tells Cosimo of the Bellini he could never pull off: the burglary of a jewelry store with bad security. Excited, Cosimo tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) that she needs to find him a sap or "Mulinksi" who will confess to Cosimo's crime in exchange for payment, thus freeing Cosimo to pursue this Bellini. She also needs to put together a crew to assist Cosimo once he's out. But it's Cleveland so pickings are slim. For the sap Rosalind picks Pero (Sam Rockwell) a boxer whose incompetence is only matched by his swagger. And the crew she gathers includes Leon (Isaiah Washington), a well dressed and soft spoken man who's dangerously protective of his younger sister (Gabrielle Union), Riley (William H. Macy) a low voiced thug whose desire to throw a beating to someone is frustratingly modulated by the fact that he has to give constant care to his newborn (his wife is in jail), and Basil (Andrew Davoli) who basically defines cluelessness. Pero may look like a sap. He makes many mistakes throughout this story. But he's cagey enough to pull a double cross and try to go after the heist without Cosimo. The crew seeks help from arrogant self-proclaimed burglary expert Jerzy (George Clooney) while trying to avoid the suspicions of Detective Babbitch (David Warshofsky). Jennifer Esposito shows up as a love interest. Michael Jeter is Cosimo's original partner in crime who suffers from some divided loyalties and severe lack of brain power.

The film veers back and forth between more subtle comedy and out and out slapstick. You may find this uneven. There's some shameless mugging, particularly by Clooney, Jeter and Macy. Rockwell plays it mostly straight if only because his character is too dumb to know how dumb he truly is. Actually you could probably write that about a lot of the people in this film. But there is tenderness as well, both from a hidden romance and Riley's desperate quest to make enough money to pay for his wife's bail. He loves his wife and wants her out. This movie runs just under 90 minutes. If you enjoy heist films or comedies that are somewhat offbeat then this movie might be worth your time. These guys are NOT professionals, and some of them know it.
TRAILER

Republican Debate Demands

It is surreal that the Republican party, the political party that likes to posit itself as the implacable foe of political correctness and trigger warnings, the party that likes to claim the mantle of tell it like it is muscular masculinity and heterosexual he-man heroics, is wilting like the proverbial pansy in the face of a few tough or mildly irreverent questions from some debate moderators. The same people who were seemingly on the verge of physical release before grilling Hilary Clinton about Benghazi, her email server and anything else for eleven hours can't handle two plus hours of debate questions. They feel that the questions are biased or unfair. They want greater control over the questions, the tone, the time, the format, and oh yes, the thermostat. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Someone asked me tough questions! Mommy make them stop!! Make them stop! It hurts so bad!! It's not fair!
Watching this is like watching Tombstone and instead of seeing Kurt Russell's Sheriff Wyatt Earp tell his enemies that he's coming and hell's coming with him, we see Sheriff Earp curl up in a fetal position with some soy latte and mumble that he's written a very curt letter to the proper authorities about all the mean things those bad men did.They'll be sorry. Pajama Boy Earp complained about them. This is just pathetic. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the tough guys? They were supposed to be the ones who stood up and showed the rest of us how to live up to the American ideal of heroic individualism. I know that Trump doesn't like to spend a lot of time doing anything where he's not the center of attention. Bush is desperate to have any positive coverage. Carson probably would rather be sleeping than at a debate. But that doesn't mean that they or other candidates should be telling the media how to do its job by sending out the list of below demands and requirements.

• Will there be questions from the audience or social media? How many? How will they be presented to the candidates? Will you acknowledge that you, as the sponsor, take responsibilities for all questions asked, even if not asked  by your personnel?
• Will there be a gong/buzzer/bell when time is up? How will the moderator enforce the time limits?
• Will you commit that you will not:
  • Ask the candidate to raise their hands to answer a question
  • Ask yes/no questions without time to provide a substantive answer
  • Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning
  • Allow props or pledges by the candidates
  • Have reaction shots of members of the audience or moderators during debates
  • Show an empty podium after a break (describe how far away the bathrooms are)
  • Use behind shots of the candidates showing their notes
  • Leave microphones on during the breaks
  • Allow members of the audience to wear political messages (shirts, buttons, signs, etc.). Who enforces?
• What instructions will you provide the audience about cheering during the debate?
• What are your plans for the lead-in to the debate (Pre-shot video? Announcer to moderator? Director to Moderator?) and how long is it?
• Can you pledge that the temperature in the hall be kept below 67 degrees?

LINK

Not only does this show that the Republicans who are supporting this silliness are not really ready for prime time it also shows the weakness of many of the Republican policy proposals. If I'm running for President and have what I consider to be good ideas I should be happy to engage skeptics and show them where they're wrong. If on the other hand I have no answer to as to why my tax proposal won't increase the deficit or how I will bully a sovereign nation into paying for another country's border security other than to pout and cry foul then that should tell likely voters about the seriousness of my ideas. The deeper problem (and to be fair it's not solely a Republican one) is that when you spend too much time only listening and talking to people who agree with you on every little thing, you lose the ability to understand that there are people out there who see things differently. Your assumptions and even delusions become your reality because everyone you talk to shares the same worldview. I will write something else on this later I think because it's worth much deeper discussion. I think the Republican frustration over the debates also stems from the fact that there are so many candidates running that even with the field slightly trimmed there's little room to get a word in edgewise. But that has nothing to do with the media. The more candidates there are the less time any one of them has to get media attention. These are debates, not press conferences. For people who are already media-savvy or have methods beyond debate performance to get noticed this may not be an issue. But for some other candidates, it's a big problem. But in any event, crying like a baby who just dropped a mess in his pants is not going to be a winning formula to retake the White House. I'm no Obama legionary but it's incredible that even today there are racists who insult him and his family, wish for his death and believe he's not American. But if the President should even mention any of that, he's the one being divisive. And here we have Republicans who have not gone thru any of that or in some cases were the ones stirring up racist resentment of the President whining and complaining about questions. 

Maybe in my next management meeting when a supervisor asks about project status I should pull out my inner Republican and start whining about mean questions. Wow. Just wow. Man up.

President Obama: No Boots On the Ground In Syria!

One of the things that drives me crazy in any sort of relationship whether it be professional or personal is when someone changes their mind and/or does the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do. That's bad enough. But hey people change. Facts on the ground change. That's life. I can deal with that. We all have to deal. But, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken what can make me spit on my hands, hoist the black flag and start running berserk is when the person who has just changed their mind or reversed themselves has the sheer audacity to lie to your face and tell you that no they're not changing their mind. You just misunderstood them. Apparently you are just that stupid. It's not their problem that you apparently have a leaky brain. Actually they should get a medal for having to deal with your dumb behind. When dealing with people like this, black is white, up is down and good is evil. It literally does not matter what sort of proof you have of the person making declarative statements that they weren't going to do something. You can provide signed and notarized triplicate forms of the person telling you to do or not do something. Rest assured that none of that matters. The person will simply ignore reality until you agree that yes they were right all along. These folks are odious pious devotees of the Church of Cover Thy A$$. No matter what they are always right. If they predicted rain yesterday but it doesn't rain then as far as they were concerned they didn't predict rain. They are always right. Bottom line. It's easier to avoid these sorts of people in my personal life but unfortunately they are tremendously over represented among upper management and Presidents.

Remember that President Barack Obama made definitive statements that he would not put boots on the ground in Syria. Period. End of story. Also remember that after a rather public Hamlet like internal debate President Obama tried and failed to get Congress to authorize ground troops in Syria. Now in a functioning republic that's the end. Unfortunately we lack a functioning republic. We have one in which Presidents (Obama wasn't the first and won't be the last) have seized for themselves the right to attack, bomb and invade countries without any sort of Congressional permission. So yesterday we saw White House spokesman mouthpiece Josh Earnest announce that US Special Forces troops would be on the ground in Syria (they're probably already there). According to Mr. Earnest this didn't contradict the President's prior assertions. Also according to Mr. Earnest this didn't fall under the War Powers Act. Mr. Earnest claimed this was legal despite the fact that the government of Syria didn't invite US Special Forces. Mr. Earnest claimed that the 2001 AUMF gave the President all the authority he needed. That the President believes that a law created for one country and one organization gives him authority to interfere in another country without Congressional or for that matter United Nations approval is telling.


Anyway, here is what the President said on a prior occasion. His hardcore defenders, just as they did with the "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" statements will likely tie themselves in knots as Earnest did yesterday, trying to find some obscure loophole that apparently justifies this change. I'm tired of this. There aren't any good options in Syria. Nobody has clean hands. Some of the people we're assisting are Al-Qaeda affiliates. Others are considered terrorists by our NATO Turkish allies. It's okay if the President changed his mind. But he should admit that he changed his mind. Don't p*** on my head and tell me it's raining. And he should get Congressional approval before sending in troops. That is the law, even if no one bothers to obey it any longer. One of the really infuriating arguments which Earnest and presumably President Obama tries to put across is that if Congress doesn't do what the President wants (in this case give him an authorization for military action in Syria) then he has the right to act because Congress has "failed". Again, that is not how our system works.

Book Reviews: Detroit: An American Autopsy, Finn Family Moomintroll

Detroit: An American Autopsy
by Charlie LeDuff

Charlie LeDuff is a local "Caucasian" (more on that in a minute because it is relevant) Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, gadfly, pain in the a$$ and media showman who, after journalistic stints in New York, Los Angeles and a few other places circled back to Detroit to become a reporter for the Detroit News, one of two major local daily newspapers. LeDuff grew up close to Detroit, in the local suburb of Westland or as he puts it, the only city that he knows of that was named after its shopping mall. LeDuff is an inveterate chronicler of the absurd. And there is, was and probably always will be a lot that is absurd in Detroit and the surrounding areas. This book, is both a love letter to Detroit (and the tri-county area) and also a rambling screed about all the crazy stuff that goes on in the metropolitan area. As I've mentioned before and LeDuff points out constantly, this area has always had a tremendous amount of racial hostility and segregation. That colors (pun intended) every bit of news and information about well, everything. So you could read this book and come away convinced that black political leadership is hopelessly incompetent and completely incapable of running a major city. Or you could read this book and be just as convinced that white racism and greed are fatal flaws in the American political arena that will wind up destroying the nation. LeDuff doesn't explicitly let you know where he stands. He's a reporter. He calls it like he sees it. LeDuff is currently raising a little hell by reporting on the fact that Detroit's new white mayor Mike Duggan, has overseen an extremely suspicious rise in the cost of home demolitions by companies that may or may not be connected to the mayor's friends. So LeDuff would likely state that he doesn't care what color you are, if you're not flying right he's going to call you out. Some people might disagree with that. LeDuff has tons of phone and email messages calling him a "n*****-lover" and just as many others making unpleasant references to his whiteness. You'd have to read the book for yourself and make up your own mind. Detroit: An American Autopsy, examines some of the more infamous events that took place around here from about 2004 to about 2012. These would include such things as the Kwame Kilpatrick text message and municipal corruption scandals, Councilwoman Monica Conyers' various public eruptions of anger and foolishness, the near meltdown of the Big Three auto companies, frozen corpses found in abandoned factories owned by scofflaw billionaires, the perpetual and near hopeless battles of teachers, police officers and especially firefighters to get the equipment they need to do their job safely, and many other failures of public and private leadership and probity that kept Detroit and some other localities in the news. 

As a reporter, LeDuff was around for a lot of these events. Sometimes he not only broke the story, but helped create the story, in a manner which irritated some movers and shakers as well as media critics. But the book artfully combines those macro events with the smaller challenges and tragedies that aren't necessarily news. LeDuff mines his own family for many of these stories. His sister was a streetwalker who died in an accident caused by one of her clients. His sister's daughter, his niece, was a junkie who passed away from a heroin overdose. LeDuff writes of his guilt at ignoring her and not reaching out to her earlier. I would guess that every family has some people who don't make people happy when they call. When a relative you aren't crazy about calls you, you might try to rush them off the phone or listen in a resentful silence as you wait for them to get the courage to beg the favor or cash which you don't have to give. That appears to have been LeDuff's relationship with his niece. His brothers struggle with lowered financial expectations. One, being unable to afford a dentist, removes his bad tooth with channel locks and whiskey. Another, having lost his job pimping subprime mortgages, views a degrading and boring $8.50/hr job as something approaching penance. Their stories and a few others echo those depicted in the film Sunlight Jr. The string that ties these vignettes together is LeDuff's argument that Detroit (and he means the city in particular and the tri-country area in general) no longer works for the people who made it possible in the first place. That is you can't really argue with a straight face that if you're willing to bust your butt and put in a hard day's work that you can have a decent middle-class lifestyle while your children could aspire to more. That dream is gone. LeDuff is very angry about that. He doesn't spare himself either. He alternately views himself as a crusading hero for the little guy or just another remora out to make a buck off of the travails of the city. LeDuff details a domestic violence incident between himself and his wife.

I mentioned that LeDuff is "Caucasian". That's important in the framework of this book both because some of his city sources who were eager to leak embarrassing information about the city brass may not have shared such information with someone who wasn't white and because Leduff has relatively recent African-American ancestry. (And Chippewa ancestry too for that matter). LeDuff thinks that Detroit is America's future if wide sweeping changes aren't made. But he doesn't detail what he thinks those changes should be. He's just telling a story. As he writes "It's about waking up one morning and being told you are obsolete and not wanting to believe it but knowing it's true. Go ahead and laugh at Detroit. Because you are laughing at yourself".

This is a good book to read. It's not quite the ruin porn I thought it would be though obviously there are some people who see it as that and/or enjoy it on that level. Detroit still has a busload of issues but it's not as horrible as it used to be. It's not as nice as it used to be either. No matter if you think LeDuff is a muckraker who is needed to keep people honest or a leech who makes money from heartbreak you will find your opinion validated by this book. Fun fact , LeDuff, whose personal and familial encounters with alcohol permeate this book, recently avoided charges of assault, public drunkenness and urination.





Finn Family Moomintroll
by Tove Jansson

Tove Jansson was a Finnish writer and artist of Swedish descent. She was one of my favorite authors as a child. Like many of the best children's authors she was able to capture whimsy and fancy while not writing down to children. Also although her initial works are probably best enjoyed by children they still have things to say to adults. Her later works, while theoretically children's books, were either written for incredibly mature children or more likely adults. There was a lot going on. Finn Family Moomintroll was one of her earlier works in her Moomin series. The Moomins are a family of friendly, artistic, chaotic, bohemian trolls (many characters were modeled after the author's friends, family and love interests) who look like hippos but walk on two legs. This was one of the first books translated into English though it's not the first in the series. There are some people who do not like starting series except at the very first book but Jansson's style here allows a reader to get up to speed very quickly. Moomintroll is the child of Moominmamma and Moominpappa. Moomintroll has some of his father's restlessness and somewhat less of his mother's good sense. With his parents, he also lives with his friends Sniff and Snufkin. As Jansson writes "Moomintroll's mother and father always welcomed all their friends in the same quiet way, just adding another bed and putting another leaf in the dining-room table. And so Moominhouse was rather full--a place where everyone did what they liked and seldom worried about tomorrow. Very often unexpected and disturbing things used to happen, but nobody ever had time to be bored, and that is always a good thing." In some respects you could argue that the Moomins and their friends are idealized incarnations of Rousseau's beliefs. Snufkin in particular is a wanderer and good person who doesn't like authority one bit. He doesn't believe in it, doesn't understand it and will rarely if ever allow someone to tell him what to do. Sniff is a nervous little creature. There is also the Hemulen, who enjoys collecting and labeling things, something Snufkin doesn't care for. And there is the Muskrat, a lazy philosopher who believes everything is useless but is rarely late for meals.  In this particular story the gang finds a magical hat belonging to the Hobgoblin. This hat transforms anything placed inside of it in often unpredictable ways.

This is a fun read that is amazingly silly at some points. It sends up the legal system, the concept of private property, young love, loneliness, friendship and many other ideas and themes dear to adults and children alike. For those of you who don't care for winter there is a monster who is the literal incarnation of winter sadness and depression. But on the other hand she may be horribly misunderstood. This book has a fair amount of slapstick. Very few of the characters take themselves very seriously and those who do are often gently (or not so gently) mocked. This is a wonderful book that brought back childhood memories. And for those of you who never read this author before, this book may briefly put you back in touch with your inner child. Jansson had a very vivid and oft surreal imagination. This book is less than 200 pages.

Ben Carson and Donald Trump Watch the Democratic Debate

It is possible, albeit not likely that either Trump or Carson will be the next President of the United States. For the first time in the race, Carson is moving ahead of Trump in the Iowa polls. Generally the two men have ignored each other. That has started to change. For different reasons I think each man is unqualified to become President of the United States. Trump seems to think that he can run roughshod over the concept of separation of powers (and other countries' interests) by force of his personality and intelligence. Carson believes that the problem is that the previous Presidents have lacked morality and common sense.  From Carson's point of view being President isn't exactly brain surgery. Of course it's hard to always suss out what Carson believes due to his tendency to mumble. Either way the Republican race will continue to be more entertaining than the downright soporific Democratic race. You may have heard that candidate Lincoln Chafee dropped out of the race. His ten supporters were devastated. Everyone else spent about five seconds trying to remember who Chafee was and why he was running in the first place. Anyway, as you might expect Donald Trump did not take the news of Carson's Iowa surge well, first retweeting a snarky comment about Iowans' intelligence and then saying he didn't believe the polls, while taking a shot at Carson's super laid back demeanor.  MIAMI (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump dismissed polls that show him trailing Dr. Ben Carson in Iowa, calling the retired neurosurgeon "super low-energy" before a boisterous crowd in Miami on Friday night. The Iowa polls are a rare setback for the billionaire businessman's campaign. He's leading polls nationally and in other early primary states. Mimicking a television journalist reporting the breaking news of Trump slipping behind Carson, Trump ridiculed his GOP rival. "We informed Ben, but he was sleeping," Trump joked. The crowd roared. He also said the polls in Iowa "are wrong" and said most pollsters "don't like me at all."
LINK
I wonder what Carson and Trump thought of the recent Democratic debate? Fortunately there is footage of their discussion concerning that.

Television Reviews: The Last Kingdom

The Last Kingdom

This new BBC America series is based on Bernard Cornwell's series of historical novels set in 9th century England around the time of King Alfred the Great. In some aspects it shares DNA with James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking/Last of the Mohicans tales in that the series' primary character is a man who has mixed allegiances, based on the clash between his birth and his upbringing. It's also similar to Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles, which were reviewed earlier here. And like George R.R. Martin, without whose successful Game of Thrones adaptation this television series probably wouldn't have been made, Cornwell has not yet completed the books. Although I suppose being based on history there won't be too many surprises to be found in the remaining novels. I mentioned Game of Thrones. Like that series this series, at least based on the premiere doesn't intend to stint on the violence and general gray-blue tint which has seemingly become required for hack-n-slash dramas set back in the days when men were men and before anyone had discovered electricity or anti-perspirant. But the series also has or to be fair may have enough emotional involvement to hook viewers who otherwise might be bored silly watching some bearded men (or women for that matter) swing a bloody sword and declaim at length about how at long last their time for revenge/justice/payback has arrived. I'm not sure this history is well known outside of a relatively small group of English history buffs but 9th century England was (before the rise of Alfred) a place that was under constant attack by and slowly falling under the domination of the Vikings. 

Danish, Norwegian and even a few Swedish raiders and armies all invaded England or successfully extorted huge sums from English(Anglo-Saxon) nobles and rulers in order to put off an invasion.The English were not necessarily outnumbered but had no navy and little ability to coordinate defense against swift and sudden Viking attacks. The English were also divided and just as likely to fight each other as the VIkings. In the Kingdom of Northumbria, which is where this story starts, an English nobleman (Matthew Macfayden) whose demeanor virtually screams out Ned Stark, grimly tries to mount a defense of Bebbanburg, his piece of Northumbria. He doesn't get any help from the other lords, who have either made a separate peace with the Danes or dislike him so much they refuse to help even against the pagan. But things don't go well. His older son, whom he commanded to perform reconnaissance, instead tries to give battle and is killed. Undeterred the lord renames his younger son Uthred (the traditional name of the first born son), makes him heir, and rallies his men for battle. Despite their numbers the English lack battle sense, fall for Viking tricks, and are flanked and slaughtered. Uthred, disobeying orders and sneaking out to watch the battle, sees his father die. In insane grief the boy tries to fight but is obviously no match for grown men. Fortunately the Vikings are more amused than threatened and take Uthred as a thrall (slave).

After a bit of rape and pillage the Danes depart along with Uthred and an English girl his own age named Brida. Adding insult to injury Uthred's uncle claims rulership of Bebbanburg for himself, though the claim legally belongs to Uthred. Uthred's new Viking "owner", Earl Ragnar (Peter Ganzler) proves to have something of a soft spot for Uthred, as do his wife and father. Considering that in battle Ragnar is both vicious and merciless this is considered humorous by many. Ragnar prevents Uthred from being sold back to his uncle once he learns that the uncle intends to murder the boy. Uthred (Alexander Draymon) grows to manhood and is considered a son by Ragnar and company. He carries weapons and is greatly trusted. This is even more the case because Uthred protected his adopted sister (Ragnar's daughter) from a rape by the son of one of Ragnar's retainers. Ragnar dispenses a harsh justice. However no good deed goes unpunished. After a horrible bit of Viking-on-Viking treachery Uthred and Brida (Emily Cox) once again find themselves cast out with their adopted family murdered or enslaved. Uthred will need to find out who he really is. Christian or pagan? Saxon or Norse? Which father will he follow? Can his mixed identity be the key to saving England from the Danes or helping the Danes to stamp out the last vestige of English independence. One thing that Uthred already knows though is that he wants revenge.
Because a great many of the names sound like the noise somebody makes when you punch them in the solar plexus, the story can occasionally be hard to follow. The story is adept at looking at people from different points of view. Ragnar is a harsh, even brutal man but he's not even close to being the worst of the Vikings. And he gives good reasons (well good from his perspective) as to why the Danes have to do what they do. This is worth watching every now and then I think but I don't yet think it's must see TV. Time will tell.
TRAILER