There are times and if you live long enough most of us have experienced them, when someone close to you rips your heart out, throws it on the ground, looks you right in the eye, and gleefully does the tarantella all over your bleeding broken heart. Although in later years you may look back at whatever occurred between you and your special rider and find if not exactly humor, some perspective and wisdom, at the moment when this happens most of us will be in a foul mood, caught between sadness and anger. Some among us who are more prone to anger will lash out at the person who did us wrong. If we can't reach them we may even try to hurt someone they loved or damage some of their property. This is of course a remarkably stupid idea. Any thing that involves possible criminal charges is as far as I am concerned not worth doing. And why would you want to give someone you don't even like anymore the satisfaction of knowing that they can still push your emotional buttons? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. However one Florida woman by the name of Carmen Chamblee allegedly decided that she wanted to make a point to her ex-boyfriend by burning his car. I'm guessing Miss Chamblee is a Waiting to Exhale fan. Well there are a couple of things you should keep in mind when you're burning your ex-boyfriend's car as retribution for whatever heinous thing he supposedly did. (1) You should make sure that you're not caught on video setting the car on fire and fanning the flames. (2) You should also probably make sure that the car you're setting on fire is actually your boyfriend's car. Because it would kind of stink to get caught doing something so foolishly vindictive as setting a car on fire and not even get the satisfaction of having burned the correct car. A Florida woman set fire to a car thinking it belonged to her ex boyfriend but got the wrong vehicle, authorities believe. Carmen Chamblee, 19, was arrested Saturday morning near Clearwater and charged with second-degree arson. She is accused of intentionally setting a Honda on fire earlier this month. Jennings' roommate was the one who alerted him that his car was on fire. The two men ran out with a pot of water to try to extinguish the blaze - but Jennings told ABC Action News it was 'too much'. Chamblee was taken to the Pinellas County Jail on Saturday according to online records. She was scheduled to appear in front of a judge on Sunday morning.
I guess that some will look at this story and think next time she should get the right car but obviously that would be the wrong lesson. As parents teach their children, when you feel that it's necessary to commit physical harm on something or to somebody, instead of doing that just stop. Take a deep breath, count to ten and use your words instead. Chamblee is actually fortunate that she wasn't burned or didn't hurt someone else by her dumb actions. There's a fine line between passionate and crazy. Chamblee crossed it.
If you have paid any attention to the news over the past two weeks you've seen that San Francisco Forty-Niners (former starting and now backup) quarterback Colin Kaepernick has attracted both praise and scorn for his act of refusing to stand for the National Anthem. Kaepernick is taking a stand so to speak to express his dismay at the status of black Americans and more specifically at the treatment of black Americans by the police. Kaepernick has mostly been met with outrage although he is starting to get more support (cautious and enthusiastic) from some of his fellow professional athletes outside of football, inside of football, and amateur brethren. And obviously since this is America a great deal of that criticism that Kaepernick has faced has been racialized. This has not just come from the usual conservative racists. People on both sides of the color line have questioned Kaepernick's self-described race, claiming that because he is biracial and relatively light skinned, he's not really black. People have called him ungrateful, ignorant, spoiled, entitled and all of the usual insults that accrue to someone who is going against the perceived grain. Those were the "nice" insults hurled by people who still needed to maintain public plausible deniability of their racism. Many people on twitter and blogs and website comment sections weren't restrained by such considerations and immediately reached for the tried and true racial slurs. Other people, including one pastor(!), just let their inner authoritarian come out to play and suggested shooting those people who didn't stand for the National Anthem. I didn't write on this earlier both because time to write has been at a premium of late thanks to a demanding Day Job and because I thought other people (including some of my blog partners) had pretty much already said everything worthwhile on the issue. Still, driving home a few days earlier listening to the condescending and clueless well known local radio host and writer Mitch Albom opine again on the issue as well as reading some other tweets I realized that maybe I did have something to write about this after all.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that for all intents and purposes Black Americans have legally been full citizens for a very short period of time in America. Until 1865 most Blacks in America were enslaved. Free or not, no blacks had any rights that a white person needed to respect. There was a Supreme Court decision making this crystal clear. Slavery ended in 1865. From 1865-1876 there was a halting and abortive attempt to redress the wrongs of slavery and extend full citizenship to blacks. This process was met with massive white resistance and terrorism. From the 1870s up until the 1960s Black Americans were effective non-citizens by force of law or threat of violence. It was only in the 1950s and 1960s that gradually and haltingly the most important laws that had enshrined black inferiority were removed or overturned. This also provoked massive white backlash in certain quarters, not just the South either. And although the law can make a bright line distinction as to what is no longer allowed the law can't automatically change what's in people's hearts and minds. You probably know all of this already. But I repeat it here to emphasize that for the majority of our country's history black people were non-citizens, either by law or by custom. As comedian Chris Rock said for Black people America is like a uncle who molested you as a child but later paid for your college education. There's a painful history there that can't be ignored or whitewashed. So it seems a little presumptuous to criticize any black person who doesn't ignore that history, particularly when as Kaepernick points out, some of the same ugly stuff that was in history books is still going on today.
Next, there has never been a protest or movement for black progress that the majority of white people have supported from its inception. Black agitators who are recognized and admired today by some politicians or media talking heads are usually conveniently old or dead. When these agitators were alive, young and raising a fuss they weren't very popular with the mainstream. The criticisms that Kaepernick, and by extension any protester, faces are par for the course any time a black person speaks out about something he or she doesn't like. This is in in sharp contrast to a white person like Donald Trump. Trump has risen to prominence claiming that America is going to hell in a hand basket and is turning into a third world country. Somehow it's ok for Trump and his ilk to point out what they see wrong in this country but if a black person should do the same they're wrong or being divisive? Really? A police department with a history of racist comments and questionable use of force incidents by officers thinks that Kaepernick should apologize to them???? What sort of upside down world do we live in? Kaepernick is standing in a long line of black athletes such as Paul Robeson, Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, Althea Gibson, Jackie Robinson and many others who have spoken up about the injustice they've seen or faced. After all in 1972, using language which is similar to what Kaepernick used recently, the military veteran and baseball legend Jackie Robinson explained why he felt he could not sing the National Anthem or salute the flag. Was he a spoiled punk, as Sarah Palin claimed of Kaepernick? And contrary to Kaepernick's critics his net worth doesn't and shouldn't prevent him from speaking up. The fact that he and some others are willing to lose money for their stands should at least make some folks realize that there are serious questions here. The people who slam Kaepernick and other athletes as being disrespectful to military veterans do not speak for veterans. There are some veterans who support Kaepernick's right to protest and/or agree with his points.
This is unacceptable. You should be proud to be an American. Especially on 9/11 when we should support each other. https://t.co/qFozwaH9Bu
Pride in being an American is not contingent upon standing for the anthem. As Kate Upton and Mitch Albom show, some people just don't get this. I doubt they ever will because they are self-evidently ignorant of this country's history and apparently indifferent to some current events. They can afford to be so because they don't have to worry about being harassed or brutalized by the police. They don't have to deal with trying to purchase a home and being steered away from the area they prefer. They don't have to accept living in a segregated community where properties either appreciate very slowly or depreciate over time because the larger community rejects people with their skin tone. They don't have to try to beg someone to try to rent lodgings to them or pick them up in a taxi. Their community doesn't have an unemployment rate twice that of the larger group's. If they are unfortunate enough to get caught up in the justice system they won't receive longer sentences for no other reason than their race. These things go on whether it is 9-11 or not. If you're nowhere to be found on these issues 364 days a year then I don't think you have the right to get upset when someone brings them up, even if it is 9-11. Cops are shooting black people dead and walking away clean. I must have missed Upton's or Albom's or Palin's outrage on those incidents. What I find unacceptable, to paraphrase Upton, is that the people who murdered John Crawford and Tamir Rice weren't even indicted. If you are angrier about some players declining to stand for the Star Spangled Banner than you are about a nationwide justice system that routinely produces such results something is wrong with your moral compass. What Upton and Albom and others don't seem to get is that protest by the very definition doesn't require their approval or sign off. All these conservatives who claim to be against "political correctness" sure do seem to have their own pc that that they are eager to enforce on everyone. Rather than write any more on this I think it would be useful to listen to Shannon Sharpe, former NFL star, give his take on the larger issue. No one has all the answers. But I have no use for anyone who tells Kaepernick or anyone else that they either must stand for the National Anthem (written by a slave owner who mocked black people btw) or should leave the country. Black people have been in America longer than most whites, after all. Perhaps the people insulting Kaepernick should go to another country?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"-Mark Twain Everyone makes mistakes. No one knows everything. There are so many different realms and levels of knowledge that you can, despite what Scott Adams thinks, spend a lifetime becoming expert in one particular area of human endeavor and still have more to learn. So there is no shame required if you are ignorant of a particular fact or unfamiliar with a given experience. No, the shame doesn't come with being ignorant. The shame comes with wanting to stay ignorant, being uncurious or trying to pass yourself off as an expert in a given field when actually you know nothing about the discipline. I saw two examples of this recently that I thought were humorous enough to share. One deservedly got more attention than the other because the man who made the gaffe is running for President, but both show that an unfamiliarity with facts is not good for people in high profile positions. As you probably know there is a multi-faction civil war in Syria ongoing. The largest city in Syria, Aleppo, is currently the site of a battle that involves just about every faction still extant, including foreign adventurers. Every faction has committed atrocities or has been accused of committing atrocities. The civilians are getting it in the neck, as is usually the case with civilians trapped in war zones. Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson, as Libertarians tend to be, has been skeptical of committing the US to new foreign wars or "interventions". This non-interventionist stance tends to drive the so-called "serious" foreign policy journalists and gurus (especially neo-cons) up the wall. They see it as dangerously naive and virtually treasonous. With this in mind MSNBC's Mike Barnicle asked Johnson what would Johnson do about Aleppo if he were elected President. Unfortunately Johnson, who looked tired and sounded even more inarticulate than normal said he did not know what Aleppo was. After Barnicle snidely explained what Aleppo was and where it was, Johnson gave a desultory dispirited answer that basically boiled down to using more diplomacy and avoiding foreign entanglements. But the story of the day wasn't that Johnson, like almost everyone else in the current or would-be foreign policy establishment, doesn't know how to fix Syria.
The story of the day was that Johnson didn't know what Aleppo was, possibly because he had been smoking too much bud. Many people thought that this seeming ignorance of basic foreign policy was disqualifying. Maybe it is; maybe it is not. The voters will have to decide. But I do think that Johnson's answer shows the danger of not doing the very basic work of knowing current politics and geography. If you want to be President you should know that stuff as least as well as a former plagiarist like Barnicle. When someone asks you about China's activities in the South China Sea or North Korea's nuclear tests or the settlements in the West Bank, they may well be trying to prove to their audience that your solutions are silly or won't work. But you don't do yourself any favors by appearing to not even have the most rudimentary understanding of geography and current events. Johnson later released a statement saying he thought Barnicle was using an acronym.
This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I’m human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict — I talk about them every day. But hit with “What about Aleppo?,” I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign. Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes. As Governor, there were many things I didn’t know off the top of my head. But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues, and making principled decisions. It worked. That is what a President must do.
Staying with MSNBC for a moment commentator Joy Reid, a Harvard graduate, has made no secret of her preference for Hillary Clinton and her intense disdain for Trump and for that matter Stein or Sanders. I have no real issue with this because at least you know where she's coming from. Spending too much time getting upset about someone else's political preferences is a losing battle. The few times I have tried watching Reid's show or other shows where she's a substitute host I have found her conversational style to be less that of a commentator or facilitator and closer to that of a district attorney. Reid seems to be personally offended and outraged that everyone doesn't see the world exactly as she does. She goes after the lies, mistakes, omissions or differences of opinions of Trump surrogates with a sarcastic zeal that would make Inspector Javert proud. I think that Reid is basically trying out for the job of Press Secretary for the Clinton Administration. I think she would be very good at it. She seems to like interrupting and correcting people. The problem with that though is that if you're going to live by the sword you have to be ready to die by the sword. When criticizing Trump for an apparent affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin Reid made these tweets
That said, for most Americans it's shocking to see an American presidential candidate openly touting authoritarian, communist Russia...
There are a few things wrong with Reid's grasp of facts which should be obvious.
Russia is not Communist and has not been since at least 1991 with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the (choose a term) imposition or acceptance of shock therapy free market capitalism. There have been numerous books, papers and studies written about this. It's sort of a big deal.
The American Communist Party hasn't run a Presidential candidate of its own since 1984. In every election since that time it has endorsed the Democratic candidate for President. This year is no different. The Communists have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
Trying to link American dissidents or gadflies with foreign Communists as Reid does with her "Putinite" and "Snowdenistas" slurs is an old old trick that goes back to at least the early 20th century. Almost every prominent black intellectual, labor activist, civil rights agitator, religious leader or politician eventually faced this tactic. Such moral exemplars as J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy used this slander against their enemies in their attempts to destroy any and all left wing political or social movements. To see Reid stoop to use this weapon, however ineptly, is just horrible. She has no shame.
If you think that Clinton just walks on water and sweats gardenia scent that's fine. If you don't like the fact that Sanders ran against Hillary or that Stein is running against her, have a Coke and a smile. I have no interest in trying to change your mind. But if you're going to write that 2016 Russia is Communist or that people to the left of Clinton are Putinites then you need to go get a refund from your University. Because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And if you're just making stuff up and refusing to acknowledge errors you're no different than your hated political opposites.
Although I will do my level best to avoid spoilers for this movie, there is probably going to be at least one spoiler for the previous (first) movie in this series. So if you absolutely can't stand anything along those lines then you know what to do. Although this movie had plenty of fun, including a tour de force computer room sleight of hand combined performance by the magicians known as the Four Horsemen, it was also, unlike the first movie, extremely predictable. If you didn't know exactly what was going to happen in most cases while you were watching this movie that's only because you either weren't paying attention or had been dropped on the head a few times too many as a child. Most people watching this film could probably call out almost all the changes and misdirections ahead of time. This didn't make this installment a bad movie. I wouldn't go that far. But it was something that you've seen many times before, like for example in the first movie, albeit not with the admittedly impressive and upgraded special effects and tricks. There were only a few plot surprises. So basically as long as you don't go into this film expecting the world from it you'll be ok. And you'll probably even enjoy it. It's more style than substance. Lizzy Caplan replaces Isla Fisher. Caplan brings a bit more snark and edge to her role as sole female member of the Four Horsemen. As we open this film the three remaining Horsemen, Daniel Atlas (Eisenberg), Merritt McKenny (Woody Harrelson) and Jack Wilder (Dave Franco) are bored and feuding with each other. A year has come and gone since they escaped the FBI but the new organization they've joined (The Eye) has no assignments for them or any magical secrets to share. They're wondering if they made the right decision by joining this group. They're also wondering if they can trust FBI Agent/Eye member Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) who claims to speak for The Eye and doesn't take kindly to any attempt to go over his head.
There are more similarities both musically and lyrically between blues and bluegrass than the casual listener might expect. Both genres, when done properly, can speak honestly about hard times, loneliness and loss among other themes. Bluegrass titan Bill Monroe wrote the song The One I Love is Gone specifically for fellow bluegrass luminaries Hazel Dickens and Alice Gerrard. Dickens and Gerrard came by their love of bluegrass and folk music in different manners. Dickens was born to an impoverished West Virginia mining/trucking family and grew up with the music. Her father was a Primitive Baptist preacher and musician. At least one of her brothers, a miner, died of black lung disease, an event that Dickens immortalized in her song Black Lung. As you might expect Dickens was a fierce supporter of the labor movement and women's movement. She expressed these sentiments in her songs They'll never keep us down and Don't put her down (you helped put her there). Gerrard was a college educated classically trained middle class woman who didn't start singing professionally until later in life. The women apparently met each other via their association with the famed Seeger family. Dickens was briefly in a band with Mike Seeger. Gerrard was married to Mike Seeger. The two women formed their own bluegrass group and had some success during the folk revival of the mid sixties and early seventies. They were one of the few if not only female led bluegrass groups when they started together. I was familiar with Dickens from her rollicking interpretation of the hard times song Coal Tattooand was moved to find other music that she created or performed. Thus, I found this song. It's really almost a blues waltz. Dickens' and Gerrard's voices may or may not be to everyone's liking but to me the two women have a honesty and directness which is special during any epoch of music. Monroe's lyrics are straightforward and simple. Loss stinks. The primary way that I interpret this song is that the singer has been permanently rejected and dismissed by her (his) lover. I think you could also make an argument that the singer has been driven mad by their loss and is addressing someone who is in the grave. Either way the loss is permanent. And that's no good. There's a lot of space in the Dickens/Gerrard arrangement. Lauren O'Connell created an updated electric version with more drive which I also like.
The great thing about telling the truth is as the saying goes the truth will set you free. If you really do have an advanced post-graduate or professional degree, if you really do have the professional certifications that are required for your chosen field, if you really did join and participate in service organizations or governmental organizations, if you really did graduate from exclusive competitive colleges or universities, if you really did pass exams which allow you to call yourself a doctor or lawyer, if you really did put in work as a combat hero in Iraq or Afghanistan, then there will be documented proof of all of your accomplishments. You can sleep easy at night if someone decides to do a little background checking on you. Any investigation will leave you unworried. You may or may not have a huge ego because of your past accomplishments but either way your work is something that no one can take away from you. On the other hand the world is full of small petty little men and women who either for egocentric reasons or more purely mercenary ones lie about their past achievements. Sometimes these lies are small ones. Some people claim on their resume to be team leaders or managers when in fact their entire past experience consists of taking orders from someone else. Some people might exaggerate the level of responsibility that they had for a project or initiative. These sorts of falsehoods are venial sins in the big scheme of things but lying is still wrong. If you're lying about the small stuff to get over then you'll probably lie about the big stuff as well. You're not someone I want on my team. I don't want to supervise you. I don't want to report to you. I can't trust you.
Other people, like Trump surrogate Pastor Mark Burns (if that is indeed his name), decide to throw caution to the wind. If you're going to lie you might as well lie big is apparently a mantra Burns takes to heart. It recently became apparent that Burns was lying about among other things:
His membership in the fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi (he's not a member)
Graduating from North Greenville University (he attended one semester and didn't graduate)
Pursuing his master's degree at Andersonville Theological Seminary (he's not even enrolled)
Serving in the Army Reserve (he was really in the National Guard)
When caught on these discrepancies Burns claimed his website had been hacked and that the media was out to get him because he was telling the truth and wasn't politically correct. These are the normal go to defenses of someone who isn't very bright or doesn't think quickly on his feet. Later, after presumably conferring with the Trump campaign, Burns issued a statement admitting his lies. Now Burns wasn't the first political operative to lie and certainly won't be the last. Remember the Hillary claim to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire? I thought Burns' CNN interview was humorous. But it was also a reminder that living honestly is a pretty good shield against media attacks. I also wondered about the intelligence and character of a man who lies about things that are so easily verified, like fraternity membership or college education. But apparently he's smarter than his congregation...
Although neither lead character is actually a cop, this is a cop buddy film. It touches most of the obvious themes and tropes you'd expect to see in these sorts of films. That is to say, two guys who don't really like each other and approach their shared work from vastly different perspectives wind up working together. After the requisite fracas and figurative measuring of body parts the two men realize that they may not make such a bad team after all. They're like peanut butter and jelly. Thunder and lightning. Salt and pepper. Spenser and Hawk. Fire and Ice. Canseco and McGuire. Murtaugh and Riggs. Watch out world! Well you get the idea. The director was the writer for the original Lethal Weapon. So the plot is not that important here. Large portions of it don't make much sense when you sit down to think about it. But who spends a lot of time thinking about acton film plots anyway? The problem with this film, and maybe "problem" is too strong of a descriptor, was that the film lacked a singular effective big bad or a female love interest. Missing one of those things wouldn't have really hurt the film but missing both of them slightly damaged my interest in the movie's storyline. Maybe you will feel differently. As is typical in the genre this movie has a fair amount of comedy, some of it slapstick. I thought this worked well. As mentioned there is not a female love interest (in the normal sense) for either lead but perhaps to make up for that there is some amount of female toplessness and bare flesh. It makes sense given the subject matter and surroundings. The film takes place in 1970s Los Angeles and like the movie Lovelace, reviewed here, The Nice Guys does an admirable job at recreating the look and feel of those times. This includes everything from the fonts to the clothes, music, cars, and technology on display. Like Lovelace this film examines some shady goings on connected to the adult industry. Unlike Lovelace, The Nice Guys keeps the actual nuts and bolts of that industry at a distance. With the exception of the opening scene and a few party scenes the sex industry is not really essential to the story line. This movie doesn't have an axe to grind on that front. Most of the bad guys are not even involved in the adult film industry. The Nice Guys wants to investigate corruption and malfeasance that goes far beyond the adult film industry.
