Felon for President

Here is yet another story about Hillary's emails.  When she left her position as Secretary of State, she was required to sign a form that affirmed that she had returned all work-related documents.  All.  Not most, not majority.  All.  Falsely attesting that all documents were returned could easily result in a perjury charge.  There is also the fact that she deleted these documents.  It is a crime to delete government documents.  Then we have the use of BleachBit to make sure all those deleted emails were not recoverable from her server, which sounds a whole lot like the 'intent' that FBI Director Comey claimed was absent and therefore nixed prosecution.  What is really interesting about the article is that it never mentions criminality.  It offers undisputed facts which constitute crimes but fails to point out that they are crimes.

 

So far, among the deleted emails are these 30 that discuss Benghazi and even more that demonstrate a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and action on behalf of the donor at the State Department, the very definition of political corruption.  Former President Bill Clinton would give a $100K+ speech to some company, the company would 'donate' millions to the Clinton Foundation, and then Secretary Clinton decided State Department policy in favor of that company.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Emails related to this process have been deleted.  Hey, it's an old story.  Really, at this point, what difference does it make?  Governor Bob McDonald was sentenced to prison for far less.

 

In 1992, the Democrats nominated a pot-smoking, draft dodging horndog who had protested his country while overseas.  He served two terms!

 

In 2008, the Democrats nominated a pot-smoking, cocaine-using, Islamic apologist with ties to terrorists and communists whose pastor had damned America in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.  He served two terms!

 

In 2016, the Democrats wondered just how much further they could push this.  Thus, they have nominated a breathtakingly dishonest, corrupt politician with a long history of demonstrable failure (Libya, Syria, Iraq, 1994 Healthcare Overhaul, getting Bill to keep it in his pants, etc.).  Currently, she is the favorite to win.

 

These are not good signs for the health of the Republic.  Rough waters ahead, regardless of outcome.

In the Heart of the Sea

Ron Howard's latest film is a fictionalized version of the true story that was the basis for Herman Melville's epic Moby Dick.  The movie opens in 1850 when Melville (Ben Wishaw) meets with the last survivor of the Essex, Tom Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson).  So, right out the gate the story ignores history.  In fact, both First Mate Chase (died 1869) and Captain Pollard (died 1870) were still living as were several others.  Melville has chosen the cabin boy as his primary source.  Nickerson begins his tale in 1819 by explaining how Captain George Pollard Jr. (Benjamin Walker) and Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) had only just met (in fact, this was not their first whaling voyage together).  Young Tom Nickerson (Tom Holland) signed on just before the Essex set sail.  The first encounter for the unhappy crew was a storm that caused considerable damage, the responsibility for the damage clearly laid at Pollard's feet.  After a year of sailing, they have hardly any whale oil but are told by some Spanish whalers of a vast number of whales thousands of miles out to sea but also mention a murderous white whale who sank their ship.  Desperate, the Essex sets out and finds more than enough whales to fill the hold with oil.  However, a white whale attacks the Essex, sinking it.  Using the whaleboats with jury-rigged sails, the crew takes three months to return to civilization.  The movie has the whale track them during this three month journey and kill some more of them.  Only Chase's act of not throwing a harpoon convinces the whale to let them go in peace.  Uh huh.

 

The story of a whaling ship being sunk by a whale and the survivors having to eat their dead crewmates in order to survive wasn't exciting enough.  Owen Chase wrote an account of the events in 1821 that the real Melville used as inspiration, which makes the Melville-Nickerson interview mostly pointless.  There was no hidden story that Melville was uncovering 30 years after the events.  Though virtually every character we see has made a living through whaling, there is a strong anti-whaling message in the movie.  The whale is the hero and the characters are deserving of their fate.

 

The CGI was very disappointing and even distracting.  The dolphins leaping in the water, the gloomy skyline from Nantucket, the backdrop from the Chase home are all really bad.  When it was purely CGI, such as the whales underwater, it was not so bad but whenever the actors were in front of a green screen, it was obvious.  The worst of it was when the whaleboats were on a "Nantucket sleighride" and it was 'filmed' from a camera that was catching the glare of the sun and getting splashed.  Though clearly intended to immerse the viewer, it had the reverse effect.  Really, who wants to get splashed in the face while a flashlight is shining in your eyes?

 

The tacked on Melville research story is mostly a waste of time and only serves to interrupt the voyage of the Essex.  If there is a desire to explain that the Essex is the inspiration for the Pequod, then just say that up front:

 

The adventure that inspired Herman Melville's Moby Dick!

 

Look at that, I just shaved twenty minutes from the film.  This would also lift the constant feeling of dread that assails the film.  Some added humor that didn't involve young Nickerson vomiting would have been nice.  Maybe provide some more likable characters so that the audience cares that they survive.  There is a great story here, as Melville's efforts attest, but Howard failed to tell it.  The white whale as avenging angel story arc undercut the harrowing tale of survival.  Really, the whalers got what was coming to them for engaging in such a barbarous trade!  Is it any wonder the movie flopped?

 

Skip this and watch Moby Dick instead.  I particularly enjoyed Patrick Stewart as Captain Ahab in the 1998 version.  Gregory Peck even had a cameo.

Alfred the Great

Having just seen the movie, I have to say I was less than impressed.  The story opens with Alfred (David Hemmings) being called from seminary only moments before he is to be ordained as a priest.  He finds his elder brother, King Ethelred, who was injured in battle, unable to lead the army against the encroaching Vikings.  Alfred reluctantly takes up the sword, devises a strategy, and trounces the Vikings.  However, the bloodshed troubles him because he enjoys it too much.  He swears never to kill with a sword again and make his return to the monastery.  His brother has other notions, arranging a marriage with Aelhswith (Prunella Ransome), a Mercian Princess.  No sooner are they married than Ethelred dies, making Alfred the king.  Lacking a sufficient army to beat back the Danes, Alfred pays Guthrum (Michael York) to go away and offers his new wife as a hostage.  Of course, Guthrum betrays and Alfred finds himself hiding in a marsh with Roger the Bandit (Ian McKellen).  Eventually, he assembles an army and defeats the Danes at the Battle of Edington.  The movie notes that Alfred is the only English king to ever earn the appellation of Great but it then fails to demonstrate why.  Perhaps this was made for an English audience that would realize that Alfred stopped the Danish conquest and dramatically reversed it in his later years.  This story only offers the point where Anglo-Saxon fortune turns for the better.

The movie only covers the period from about 868 to 878; Alfred ruled until his death in 899.  It shows Alfred marrying Aelhswith on the very day that King Ethelred died.  In fact, Alfred married in 868 and his brother died in 871.  For simplicity, the various Vikings who attacked during that period are consolidated into the single figure of Guthrum.  The sons of Ragnar (see The Vikings on History Channel to be misinformed about Ragnar) are generally overlooked though Ivar the Boneless does appear as one of Guthrum's underlings.

 

It was fun to see all the familiar faces.  In addition to Michael York and Ian McKellen, there was Peter Vaughan, who would go on to play Maester Aemon in Game of Thrones, as Aelhswith's father here.  Julian Glover, who appeared as Grand Maester Pycelle in Game of Thrones, is one of Alfred's chief nobles, Aethelstan.  They are all so young!

 

The movie puts entirely too much emphasis on a love-hate relationship with his wife that is not attested in the historical record.  Morever, it shows Alfred to be very foolish in his initial dealings with Guthrum.  Who would blindly agree to allowing Guthrum to pick the hostage of his choice?  Alfred is about the only person surprised and shocked that Guthrum chose Aelhswith.  And then we have Aelhswith falling in love with Guthrum and having an affair with him for the next 4 years of her captivity.  Really?  By what little is known, the marriage was successful and resulted in half a dozen children who survived to adulthood.  The movie shows Edward the future king (899-924) but omits his elder sister, Aethelflaed, future queen of Mercia.  This ill-considered love-triangle detracts from the main story and makes it hard to like Alfred.  It is no wonder the movie didn't do well and is mostly forgotten.

 

Alfred figures prominently in Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories and, though the central character has a contentious relationship with Alfred, Alfred clearly earns his greatness.  As most of Cornwell's historical novels, this is a great series for the history buff.  He plays a bit loose with history but he tells you where in his historical notes at the end of each novel.  There are 9 books in the series so far but Alfred only survives to the 6th one.

Endorsed by the Klan

In a speech she gave in Reno, Hillary Clinton said that Donald Trump was the candidate of white supremacists.  The kerfuffle regarding David Duke's endorsement figures in the article.  Of course, it should be recalled that Duke left the KKK in 1980 but remained a Democrat for another 9 years.  However, once he joined the Republican Party - over the party's objections - his KKK association stained the Republicans.  If Duke really wanted to help the Republican Party, he would rejoin the Democrats and celebrate the party's success in keeping blacks poor and mostly contained in the inner city.

No sooner has Hillary finished blasting Donald Trump than she got this endorsement.  It should be remembered that the KKK was established by Democrats in the wake of the Civil War and, even according to Senator Robert Byrd, it was important to join the Klan for a Democratic politician to get votes.  The Democrats and the Klan were discussed in a blog last year.  The funny thing about the video is when he airs his grievances about open borders and Islam in the schools.  That actually sounds like he should be a Trump voter.  Of course, being a member of the Klan, I would not doubt that he was too dim to realize that.

 

Trump should make an ad out of this video and also make one about how the Communist Party has endorsed Hillary.  This guilt-by-association game will be far more damaging to Hillary than to Trump.

The Coming Hypocrisy

At this very late date in the Obama Presidency, Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune suddenly sees a problem with bypassing Congress.  An admitted liberal, Ron expresses concern that Donald Trump might use exactly the same actions that Obama has employed during his tenure.  How can Ron demand that Trump not bypass Congress or the Constitution when he has not made such a demand of Obama?  Well, that is a quandary.  Thus we have this 11th hour article that takes Obama to task for his actions.  Now, if a President Trump or his minions challenge Ron's double-standard, Ron can point to this article and claim that he did criticize Obama's executive action.  He has seen the light just in time to oppose Trump.

 

More such articles will be written by media figures who have cheered as Obama enforced laws that Congress did not pass and failed to enforce laws that Congress did pass.  Obama rewrote the Affordable Care Act several times without Congressional involvement.  No media outcry.  Obama enforced the Dreamers Act that Congress expressly did not legislate.  Obama took the United States to war in Libya when the Congress did not authorize it, clearly abrogating the traditional interpretation of the War Power Act.  Who cares?  These same actions on the part of a President Trump will provoke media firestorms.  Grossman needed to make a sacrifice to fairness and equality and this mild (and far too late to matter) rebuke to the outgoing POTUS is his offering.

Arthur & George

It is 1906 and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's wife has died.  Guilt-ridden and suffering writer's block, a packet arrives from George Edalji.  George claims to have been wrongly convicted of maiming animals, a crime for which he spent 3 years in prison.  Educated to be a solicitor, Edalji's criminal history has barred him from pursuing his chosen career.  Of note, George is half-Scottish and half-Indian.  His father is an Anglican Minister in Great Wyrley.  Like Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle accepts the case and starts an investigation.  Arthur's manservant, Alfred "Woody" Wood, serves as a most effective Doctor Watson.  Though based on a true story, liberties are taken to provide some excitement.

George (Arsher Ali) is a peculiar fellow who seems determined to undermine Doyle's investigation.  At each turn, George shows up and thus ruins any alibi he might have regarding a resurgence of troubles.  Considering how we are told that he is clever and well-educated, he proves to be abysmally dim.  Arthur (Martin Clunes) is fun from start to finish.  He had a long platonic relationship with the woman who would become his second wife while his first was dying of tuberculosis.  Thus his crusade to clear Edalji's name serves as a way to make amends for the infidelity of his heart.  Woody (Charles Edwards) serves as a sounding board for Doyle's theories on the case, often providing the voice of opposition.

 

It is entertaining but far too neatly concluded.  In the wake of Edalji's incarceration, the crimes he 'committed' stopped.  The guilty were free but, oddly, decided to restart the crime spree when Sir Arthur came investigating.  It is much easier to investigate fresh crimes than 4 year old ones.  The comparatively young villain is somehow unable to outrun a pair of middle aged men and a man with a pronounced limp.  When caught, he offers an explanation for why he did the foul deed and promptly dies a gruesome death.  As such, the investigation mostly detracted from the more interesting personal story of Sir Arthur and his factual actions in clearing Edalji.  In the wake of Edalji's exoneration, the Court of Criminal Appeal was established.  Now there is an accomplishment for Sir Arthur.

Who Should Drop Out?

It is entertaining to see all the calls for Donald Trump to drop out of the presidential race because he is a jerk.  Not just your run of the mill jerk but a true professional.  He is the Andrew Dice Clay of politics.  Okay, maybe not that bad.  Still, he has proposed policies that the elites find anathema, though polls find overwhelming support for them.  Hmm.  The Wall Street Journal, a host of Republican Foreign Policy experts, George Will, and a variety of Republican politicians have called for Trump to withdraw and let Mike Pence lose in November.  Well, of course that is what would happen and they all know it.  Better Hillary than Trump.  Interesting.

On the other side, no Democrats are demanding Hillary withdraw.  She was all but indicted over her email handling by FBI Director James Comey.  If these same events had happened in a Republican administration the shrieks of corruption would be unending.  And rightly so!  But she dodged that bullet, only to have another one arrive in the form of the Clinton Foundation.  Despite efforts to stonewall on the issue, the Associated Press pieced together phone logs and Clinton Foundation donations to discover that more than half of the non-governmental people who met with Secretary Clinton had also given money to the foundation.  Huh.  The case of Uranium One is an excellent example.  Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, wanted to buy Uranium One.  Uranium One had a mine in the United States so the sale needed government approval.  During Hillary's time as Secretary of State, Uranium One's chairman donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.  Amazingly, the Clinton State Department approved the sale that made a Russian company the largest uranium producer in the world.  Hillary has a For Sale sign on the door and lots of foreigners are taking advantage.  With this in mind, why aren't Democrats who believe in ethical behavior demanding that Hillary step down and let Tim Kaine take over?

Each is a terrible candidate but no Americans died because Trump refused to give Christopher Stevens the added security he had been requesting for months.  Libya didn't become a failed state and a breeding ground for Jihadis because Trump wanted to bomb them.  Trump didn't abandon Iraq and provide the power vacuum that birth ISIS.  One of these candidates has a record of failure in foreign policy but the one with no such record should drop out.  So many are incredulous that the Republicans could nominate Trump but why isn't there equal, if not greater, incredulity at Hillary's nomination?

I would be all right if both dropped out and let it be a Pence vs. Kaine election.

Vince Foster in the News Again

23 years after he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park, Vince Foster is in the news again.  The very idea of bringing up Vince again after all this time sounds like a desperate effort to attack Hillary.  Back when he committed suicide, there were stories that Hillary and Vince had had an affair, that Vince had actually killed himself in his office, and other conspiracy theories.  However, it is beyond strange that files regarding the investigation of his death have gone missing.  The coincidences never stop with the Clintons!  I am fully willing to accept that Vince Foster was an emotionally fragile small town lawyer who descended into a suicidal depression from his time in high-stress Washington.  I will accept that story sooner than he was murdered and then his body was staged as a suicide or whatever other conspiracies were floating around back then.  If I, a Clinton critic for decades, do not hold the Clinton's responsible for Vince Foster, why are the files missing?  The story leads us to believe that Hillary browbeat Vince into suicide.  Did the investigation conclude that?  If it had, that might be grounds for 'losing' the documents rather than having Trump accuse Hillary of driving a man to suicide.

 

Seeing as they have vanished from the National Archives, I wonder if they were among the documents that Sandy Berger stole?  Berger was suspected of taking documents but was not confirmed to have done so until his 4th visit to the National Archives.  How much did he take and to what end?  Was he trying to get rid of some embarrassing material on Hillary to give her a better path to the Presidency or was it just an effort to save Bill from the wrath of future historians?

 

As we are on missing documents, what about the Rose Law Firm billing records.  Demonstrating Hillary's involvement in what became the Whitewater Scandal, these were conveniently missing throughout much of the investigation.  In fact, they were supposedly removed from Vince Foster's office within hours of his death.  Huh.  Whitewater saw 15 people convicted of fraud, conspiracy, tax evasion, and the like.  Governor Jim Guy Tucker, who was Bill's lieutenant governor, was among those convicted.  Bill and Hillary were surrounded by shady people but somehow were not tainted by it.  Well, the billing records demonstrated that Hillary billed for the meetings where the fraud was enacted.

 

With a history like this, is it any wonder everyone is suspicious of missing documents relating to Hillary?  If there is a deleted or missing document, odds are good that it is incriminating or embarrassing.  If she becomes president, how much do you want to bet there will be a continuing pattern of missing documents, records, or logs?  I'll pay 10 to 1 for any takers.

Pot: Making the Poor Poorer?

Here is a story that makes one reconsider some views.  Interestingly, I have changed my views on this subject before.  Back in the early 90s, I was opposed to the talk of legalization because the Republican Party was opposed.  There were some arguments about it being a gateway drug that sounded quite reasonable to me.  However, early in George W. Bush's presidency, I left the Republican Party.  The smaller, less-intrusive government I had expected if ever the Republicans held the House, Senate, and Presidency did not appear.  In fact, the reverse was true with a Medicare Drug benefit and a Department of Homeland Security.  It was at this point I encountered a talk radio host - Brian Wilson, I think - with strong libertarian leanings.  He pointed out that in order for the Federal Government to control alcohol, the Constitution had to be amended.  Where was the amendment for marijuana?  Cocaine?  Heroin?  He was not promoting drug use, merely demanding that the government stay within the bounds of the Constitution.  To expand those bounds requires an amendment.  Wow, that was powerful and really kind of obvious.  In fact, it was so obvious that I had to do more rethinking of my political beliefs.  After that, I was not so much for legalization as for federal decriminalization, which still has not happened.  However, the Feds have mostly ignored marijuana crimes in states that legalized it.  In the aftermath of multi-state legalization, we have some data, which is not good.  Marijuana legalization has had a disproportionate impact on the poorest citizens, increasing the likelihood that they will not escape poverty.  Is this evidence that marijuana should be recriminalized?  Perhaps.  However, I am still in favor of national decriminalization because the Constitution does not provide authority - except under the crazy interpretation of the commerce clause - to outlaw substances.  If the commerce clause wasn't good enough to use to outlaw alcohol then it isn't good enough to outlaw anything else.  Amend the Constitution or leave it to the states.  In a few more years, the data from the several states will give a much better indication of the costs and benefits of legalization.  Other states can continue to have pot illegal or not.  If states can decide on things like gambling and prostitution, why not pot?

 

People have a right to ruin their lives, just not at taxpayer expense.  Don't smoke pot.

LA Times Poll

Stumbled onto this poll a few days ago under the headline "New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton."  Huh.  Let's check it out.  The poll showed daily results since July 10.  At that time, Hillary trailed, 40.3% to 42.7%.  As of August 18, when I saw the headline, She was leading 44% to 43.4%.  Therefore, Hillary saw her numbers rise by 3.7 points in the selected window of time while Trump improved by less than a point.  However, this ignores the ups and downs that the poll shows.  Hillary fell to a low of 40% on July 14 and hit her peak of 46.3% on August 14.  Wow, she had lost 2.3 points in the 4 days prior to the headline.  Huh.  Trump fell to a low of 41.6% on August 14 (coincident to Hillary's high) and had a peak of 47.4% on July 28, during the Democratic Convention.  As of today, the poll shows Trump leading, 45% to 43%.  Based on that, Hillary is up 2.7 since the poll started while Trump is up 2.3.  So, who wasted the summer?

I have no qualms with the poll but the story associated with it was misleading.  Heck, if the story had been written a few days earlier, it could have taken advantage of Hillary's nearly 5 point advantage.  However, as of today, the numbers have turned and it is Trump who is up 2 points.  At this point, the polls are not particularly important.  Once both candidates start hurling mud in TV commercials, then the polls become more reliable.  Let's see what the polls say after the a debate or two and then we'll have something to discuss.

 

It should also be remembered that the US has 50 presidential elections, not just 1.  It should be recalled that Romney was within a point on several national polls but trailed in important swing states.  As such, Obama had a comfortable margin for his re-election.  Currently, Trump is trailing is some must win swing states, giving Hillary a clear electoral advantage.

Mr. Holmes

It is 1947 and Sherlock Holmes (Ian McKellen) has returned from Japan to his country home in England.  He is greeted by Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her son, Roger.  Mr. Holmes has been retired for approximately 30 years, having spent the time maintaining bees in the countryside and, as of late, going senile.  Shortly after the death of his brother Mycroft, he had dared to see a Sherlock Holmes movie, something he had never done.  There were elements that seemed familiar but there was something wrong in it.  He knew this was a retelling of his last case as written by John Watson but he could not recall the truth.

 

The movie tells three stories.  There is the case of The Lady in Grey, his final case and cause of his retirement.  There is his trip to Japan which turned out to be more than it appeared.  Then there is the case of the dead bees in the apiary.  Holmes is 93 years old and frail.  The first plays like a man with amnesia trying to remember something vital to the plot.  It struck me as unlikely that he would forget the case that led to his retirement.  In theory, every time he used his keen observational skills over the last three decades, he would be reminded of why he was no longer using them to solve mysteries.  He demonstrated repeatedly that his deductive powers were still very keen despite his age.  It would have been better had some obscure case become suddenly important in the present.  Holmes had traveled to Japan to acquire a rare plant that was supposedly beneficial in fighting senility.  Why he had to go personally rather than just purchase the plant is never explained.  However, the plant was to be found in Hiroshima, inside the blast radius of the atom bomb.  Really?  And Holmes has the opportunity to look horrified upon seeing the destruction.  Why is this in the movie?  Lastly, Holmes becomes close to Roger, who is a very bright boy who is fascinated by Mr. Holmes.  Roger is only too happy to assist with the apiary and ponder why bees are dying.

 

This is not a standard Sherlock Holmes story.  He solves nothing by means of deduction.  In fact, deduction is shown to be a parlor trick that may provide knowledge but does not provide satisfactory solutions.  In both the Lady in Grey case and his trip to Japan, his deductions are perfect but those who hear them are not consoled by them.  Cold logic is cold and these people needed warmth.  Holmes is made to feel guilty for not being a therapist.  Having read all of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, I have to say that Holmes was not a sentimental man.  He was usually an arrogant jerk but his brilliance mitigated his abrasiveness.  Of course, Mr. Holmes reveals that Watson had written a fictional version of him which offers an explanation why this Holmes seems so different.

 

Take it or leave it.

Amazon Pilot Season

Amazon has a trio of 30 minute pilots that are up for viewer vote.  I watched all three in the following order:

Jean-Claude Van Johnson: Jean-Claude Van Damme is leading a humdrum life in retirement when he spots a former flame at a hipster restaurant.  She gives him the brush off.  In order to reignite the flames, he comes out of retirement.  It turns out that JCVD's career as an actor was only cover for his job as a secret agent, codename: Johnson.  Self-deprecating humor abounds in the pilot and there are lots of fun nods to prior films, the action genre, and martial arts movies.  IMDb viewers give it an 8.6, which sounds about right.  JCVD might experience a new career as the Belgian Jackie Chan.  Would definitely like to see more of this.

 

The Tick: As one who loved the comic back in the 80s, the cartoon in the 90s, and the live action sitcom in the 00s, this seemed to be a strange take on the material.  Firstly, the Tick is secondary through the pilot.  Arthur is the central character and he has a considerable backstory that is offered.  Rather than a quirky accountant in a moth suit, he is a psychologically damaged youth who - twenty years ago - saw his father and his childhood heroes killed by the supervillian, the Terror.  Like a scene out of A Beautiful Mind, Arthur has a wall covered in paper clippings that track the possible location of the reportedly dead Terror.  It is there that he meets the Tick.  Is the Tick real or merely a figment of his troubled mind?  With the exception of the Tick himself, this does not play like comedy.  As for Peter Serafinowicz as the Tick, he has a tough act to follow.  Patrick Warburton was awesome as the Tick in the short-lived sitcom, both in look and tone.  Serafinowicz does a great job with the voice but his look isn't right.  Overall, I liked it and would definitely have watched the next episode immediately had there been one to watch.  IMDb viewers gave this a 7.9.

 

I Love Dick: A New York couple is leaving NYC for an extended period.  Sylvere (Griffin Dunne) will be involved in a writing workshop in Marfa, TX while Chris (Kathryn Hahn) will go to the Venice Film Festival where her film was accepted.  No sooner have they arrived in Marfa than Chris discovers that her film has been eliminated because she used a song without the artist's permission.  And thus she is still in Marfa to meet Dick (Kevin Bacon).  She is immediately infatuated by Dick even though he shows no sympathy for her rejected film.  In fact, he posits the idea that female-directed movies are rare because women aren't very good at filmmaking.  She is even more infatuated!  Through the pilot, Chris narrates snippets of love letters she has written to Dick.  Interesting, but the characters are mostly unappealing.  I found Dick to be the most interesting and likeable of the bunch but this is Chris's story and she is a basket of anxiety.  I would probably have clicked on the next episode just to get a better idea where this was going.  Just based on what is here, this looks like it should be a Lifetime movie rather than a recurring series.  IMDb viewers gave this a 5.7.

Amazon has produced some great shows, notably one of my favorites, Bosch.  I would like to see JCVJ and The Tick turned into series but I'm indifferent to I Love Dick.

Bill Clinton's Playbook

Pulling a page from Bill Clinton's playbook, Donald Trump is in Louisiana to visit the worst flooding of the state since Katrina.  Bill Clinton did this with the LA Riots of 1992, making the sitting president look indifferent to the troubles.  Obama, who is not in a reelection campaign, has no interest in cutting his vacation to visit a state that voted against him in 2012.  His reaction was much different when Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey shortly before his reelection.  Hillary should know this.  The first major candidate to show up is going to get some warm fuzzies from the populace.  If Hillary goes to Louisiana now, it will be seen as damage control.  What is funny is that Trump has taken as long as he has.  The door was wide open for Hillary, or even Bill, to wade into the state and win some positive press.

 

On a different tact, isn't it interesting how there is relatively little coverage of this when compared to Katrina or Sandy?  Katrina was blamed on George W Bush and the aftermath of that disaster contributed to the Democrats retaking the Congress the following year.  Sandy was a great PR miracle for President Obama during his reelection campaign.  Every mention of it on the news was like a free ad campaign for him.  But now, Louisiana has a Democrat as governor and the President is also a Democrat.  It is hard to spin as a pro-Democrat crisis and it is best avoided.  If a Republican was president during this, CNN would be broadcasting live from a raft in the flood waters to show us what an uncaring villain the president was.

"Smart" Diplomacy

The Iran Nuke Deal is in shambles but the administration dare not admit it.  Like Louis XV of France, Obama is expecting the deluge to come after he is safely out of office.  Either President Trump or President Clinton will have to address Iran's clear violations of the terms of the agreement, which is probably bad news in either case.  Obama has undermined US credibility by his failure to carry out threats regarding his redline in Syria.  A new president, whoever it is, will need to carry out some attacks before mere threats of force can modify behavior again.

 

Trump has shown a desire to limit US engagement overseas or, failing that, monetize our involvement.  You want US forces, you pay for US forces.  There's the for-profit business man thinking.  However, he will not browbeat Netanyahu on a regular basis and probably let the Israelis act against Iran.  In fact, it is possible that Trump will demand that regional powers start policing their own backyards.  That may sound good to many but that only confirms the withdrawal from the world that Obama has started.  Do we want a democratic America influencing countries around the world or totalitarian regimes like Russia and China?

 

Hillary is likely to stick with the Obama head-in-the-sand approach for as long as she can.  Partly because, as a Democrat, she would be inclined to stick with her predecessor's approach so as not to undercut Obama's signature diplomatic achievement.  Oddly enough, Hillary is the more hawkish candidate.  She lobbied for the attack on Libya and she was a proponent for more engagement in Syria.  While in the Senate, she voted for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  As such, she is more likely than Trump to use force against Iran but it will be limited to airstrikes, much like her husband.  Bill was averse to using ground forces but dropped bombs on three continents.  Unfortunately, the airstrikes will be more for media/public consumption than stopping Iranian misbehavior, not unlike Obama's bombing campaign against ISIS.  Therefore, unlike Obama vs. Iran, Clinton vs. Iran will involve sound and fury.  However, Obama's and Clinton's policies will both lead to the same end: nuclear armed Iran.  Unlike Trump, she will not be keen on letting regional powers act unless it is with US approval and leadership.  Thus, either we do it or no one does.

 

At this point, the odds are very high that Iran will test a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years and lead to a regional arms race.  Something similar is already underway in Asia where Japan and South Korea are allying against the continued belligerence of a nuclear armed North Korea.  However, US presence in Korea has kept talk of a nuclear arms race to a minimum.  As a state sponsor of terrorism, what are the chances that the Iranians give a nuclear device to a terrorist organization?  Much too high!

Dodging Questions

Considering that the media are hammering Trump for such things as joking that maybe the Russians could provide Hillary's missing emails while at the same time ignoring the pay-for-play scandal that shows strong ties between State Department actions and Clinton Foundation donations, why is Hillary avoiding a comparatively friendly press?  If she cannot face a largely sympathetic media, what is she going to do when faced by the obnoxious Trump in a debate?  She is going to hope most people tune into the football instead.  Looking at the email scandals, the resurfacing of Bill's sex scandals, apparent health troubles (coughing fits and unsteady on her feet), and Benghazi parents' lawsuit, Hillary might be a glass candidate.  She looks strong and more than likely to win but her campaign is fragile, like an impressive glass spire that might all come tumbling down.  Trump hasn't even started buying ads yet and Rasmussen shows only a 1 point gap between them.  This could all turn on a dime.

Iransom

Yes, it looks like the administration said 'no hostage release, no $400 million' but it wasn't a ransom because the US does not pay ransom.  The story is that the United States owes Iran for monies taken from the previous government of Iran, the one that was overthrown almost 40 years ago.  Yeah, that one.  So, to balance that account, we really needed to pay that.  Yeah, it is nothing but a coincidence that Iran had American hostages.  But since they did coincide, we had leverage to refuse the payment until they released the hostages.  See, it was actually keen diplomacy on our part.

Interestingly, Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,  and Bush did not feel obligated to repay this debt that had been owed to the Shah of Iran.  Heck, even Obama was in no hurry as he didn't make this overdue payment until 7 years into his presidency.  Maybe those previous presidents were waiting until there was an Iranian government that wasn't the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world (even the Obama Administration State Department has labeled it such).  Not Obama.  No, Iran has a bunch of Americans imprisoned and the Smart Diplomacy of the Obama Administration decided that now was the time to start repaying that 40 year old debt.

Media Bias Led to a Divided Nation

Austin Bay provides yet another column that demonstrates the worsening bias of the media.  What is funny is that a member of the media, Howard Kurtz, admits the bias but seems to think it is a phenomenon related to Donald Trump.  Bay gives a laundry list of bias through recent years.  I particular enjoyed the point how Hillary can have the father of the Orlando shooter as a supporter and prominently visible at her rally and the media shrugs.  However, David Duke endorses Trump and it becomes a media firestorm.  The open, and even self-admitted bias, has arisen in recent years partly because of Jon Stewart and his fellow travelers.  Rather than debate, they offered ridicule.  Liberals are far too willing to view Conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers as evil and/or stupid.  There is no engagement with their ideas beyond the most shallow misrepresentations.  A generation has been marinated in this.  Half the country suffers character assassination on a daily basis and yet those committing the libel are baffled why the country is so divided.

Vast Rightwing Conspiracy Expands?

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee for president, just made the case against Hillary Clinton.  From discussing the now exposed pay-to-play emails that Hillary had deleted from her private server (because it didn't apply to her job as Secretary of State) and the extremely careless handling of top secret information on that same server, the Green Party holds that investigation is fully justified.  Like many on the right, she observed that FBI Director Comey laid out a compelling indictment in his statement and later in his testimony before Congress to only then say there was no reason to indict.  Huh?  All this from a woman who volunteered to step aside and allow the self-identified socialist Bernie Sanders to take the reins of the Green Party; he declined and bought a third home for $600,000; some comrades are more equal.  From the Green Party point of view, Hillary is a right winger.  Yes, it appears that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary uncovered nearly 20 years ago has expanded to the Vast Right to Far Left Wing Conspiracy that is now after her.

 

For years I have been told that I need to listen to both sides on an issue, Right and Left, because the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Interesting.  The right says that Hillary committed crimes and the left says Hillary committed crimes.  Somewhere in between those two viewpoints is the truth.

Crocodile Dundee Trilogy

I spent the weekend watching the defining works of Paul Hogan and was generally happy with the time spent.  Interestingly, I only saw Crocodile Dundee II in the theaters.  I must have seen the first when it came out on VHS and my first view of Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles was this weekend, only 15 years after its release.  The most interesting thing about the series is that they each fall in a different genre though with some common elements.

 

Crocodile Dundee (1986): Sue Charleton (Linda Kozlowski) is a reporter on assignment in Australia.  She wants to do one more story before she goes back to New York City.  She has heard of a man who lost part of his leg to a crocodile but somehow survived and crawled back to civilization over a several week period.  She is less than impressed when she first meets Michael "Mick" Dundee (Paul Hogan).  However, as the two spend time together retracing his adventure in the outback, she becomes increasingly attached.  Mick is likewise attracted to her and returns to NYC with her.  The second half of the movie has Mick in an extended fish out of water routine that is quite fun.  This is a romantic comedy.

 

Crocodile Dundee II (1988): It has been several months since the last film and Mick is still in NYC.  Sue's ex-husband, a photojournalist, has sent a roll of film to her that will ruin a noteworthy Columbian druglord, Louis Rico.  Rico sends men to retrieve the film before it falls into the hands of the DEA, kidnapping Sue in the process.  Mick rescues her and then takes her to Australia where he can protect her from the druglord's reprisals.  The fish out of water routine constituted the first half of this film while Outback adventure was the second half.  This is an action comedy.

 

Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (2001): Mick and Sue have remained in the Australian outback since the last movie, Mick having resumed his Never Never Tours.  They have an 11 year-old son, Mick Jr.  When Mick returns one evening, Sue says that her father wants her to run the LA branch of his paper while he seeks a new editor; the last one died in a mysterious car accident.  Mick is happy to tag along and practice his fish out of water routine again.  Though the main story is about art smugglers using a movie company as a cover, most of the time is spent on sketch comedy.  Realizing that Mick can't be quite so clueless anymore, they import Jacko (Alec Wilson) as the wide-eyed newcomer to the big city.  This is a crime comedy.

Prior to his smash success with Crocodile Dundee (only Top Gun earned more in 1986), Paul Hogan had enjoyed success with The Paul Hogan Show, a sketch comedy show.  The Crocodile Dundee movies lean heavily on this history, most heavily in the last of the trilogy.  One can imagine Hogan saying "wouldn't it be neat if Mick killed an Indian snake charmer's cobra?"  Well, the story takes place in the outback and NYC, both lacking snake charmers.  Nonetheless, while strolling through a mall, Mick kills a cobra while the snake charmer isn't looking.  Really, who wants to wait for Crocodile Dundee in Calcutta to see that comedy sketch?  Hogan: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to have Mick chat with a jumper on the ledge of a skyscraper?"  Hmmm, maybe we can shoehorn that in by having Mick deliver... Stationary!  Yes, he can be a stationary delivery man!  Uh, huh?  Such sketches 'jumped the shark' when Mick and Mick Jr. caused a traffic jam on an LA freeway in order to rescue a skunk.  That may have been forgivable if only it had been funny rather than mildly amusing.  One oddity, especially to the modern audience, is that each movie gets laughs at the expense of gays and transsexuals.  I wonder if these scenes are cut for TV reruns in the current PC culture.

All three movies are enjoyable.  The first is the best.  The second leans a bit too campy for the NYC portion of the film, especially with Leroy Brown (Charles Dutton) as the shady character who sells... stationary!  The third goes purely for laughs and doesn't much care about the plot except as an excuse to stitch together some humorous sketches.  More than its predecessors, this feels like a throwback to his old TV show.  Also, by the time this was made, Steve Irwin - a real crocodile hunter - was famous; his Collision Course (2002) proved a success where Dundee in LA was a flop.

All the Crocodile Dundee movies are funny and entertaining.  Definitely worth watching again if you haven't seen them in a while.  If you have never seen them, you need to address that.

Which Life Mattered?

Milwaukee, a city that last had a Republican mayor in 1908, has seen "a night of violent protests" (as opposed to rioting) in the wake of the death of Sylville Smith.  Sylville ran from officers during a traffic stop.  Sylville was armed and reportedly raised the gun in the direction of the pursuing officers.  He was shot in the chest and arm.  The incident was captured on body cam footage though that footage has not yet been released.  The important part to the rioters and the Black Lives Matter crowd is that a black suspect was killed by police.  Anything beyond that is irrelevant.

And now for the rest of the story: the officer who shot Sylville Smith was black.  If the officer had not taken down Sylville but instead had been killed by him, would there still have been a riot?  In either case, a black life would have been lost.  Which life mattered?  Black Lives Matter is an anti-law enforcement group that is presenting itself as a civil rights group.  That the sitting president supports them is a clear message to police across the country.  After decades of declining crime rates, there has been an uptick since Black Lives Matter arose.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Also, isn't it strange how all these 'racist' shootings keep taking place in cities where Democrats have had single-party rule for decades?  Why doesn't anyone ever seem to notice that?

Phone App Predicts Trump Win

I stumbled upon this article and was intrigued.  I had never heard of the Zip app and thought a voluntarily-installed app created a self-selection that should invalidate the poll, more so when you consider that it claims answers are anonymous.  Still, I was curious and decided to download the app and swipe through the questions.  Quite a few of them did determine valid factors about who was answering.  There was a question about black or white (92% of respondents were white), male or female (56% male), over 50 or under (48% were over), Conservative or Liberal (85% conservative).  Yikes, that last one is a real killer.  Of course, I understand that one can weight the numbers and get interesting data but I'm still skeptical.

Having played with the app and gone through 40 or 50 questions, the answers of which leaned heavily conservative, it was time to check Google.  A search offered links to several stories that date back months.  There was one that claimed to predict the victor for each party of the New Hampshire primary and another predicting Super Tuesday results.  Still, not impressed.  When it proves right when a standard poll proves wrong, then I'll give it some credit.

 

The big selling point is the anonymity aspect, which should minimize or eliminate the Bradley Effect in the responses.  Bradley, a long-serving mayor of Los Angeles, ran for governor twice.  Though the polls showed him leading, he lost.  The theory goes that voters didn't want to admit they were going to vote against the black candidate and thereby be labeled a racist.  It has been thirty years since Tom Bradley lost the race in California and I suspect that pollsters have mostly determined how to overcome the effect.  Obama polled like he was going to win and then won.  However, if Zip app proves correct, will there then be a Clinton Effect regarding voters saying they will vote for a woman for president but then choosing the male candidate in the privacy of the voting booth?

Where will the Hacking Stop?

Yet again, the Democrats have been hacked.  First, it was Hillary at State, then the DNC, and now it is Nancy Pelosi.  If you want to secure something, DO NOT give it to the Democratic Party.  Considering the willful failure of the Democrats to secure the national borders, it should come as no surprise that they can's secure their email either.

With all this hacking and, thanks to it, the demonstrated fact that the DNC did indeed put a finger on the scale in favor of Hillary through the recent primary against Bernie, there is unsurprisingly a discussion of how secure is voting.  With the proliferation of hacking, is it rational to put trust in electronic voting?  I discussed this in another blog.  Whereas electronic voting provides the opportunity to hack from anywhere in the world, a paper ballot must be forged onsite.  That makes it both tougher to corrupt and, if it is, easier to narrow down the culprit.  What paper ballots lack in instant tabulation is more than offset by immunity to foreign hacking.

 

Being in the computer field, I have long regarded electronic voting with skepticism.  I want there to be a hard copy that can be examined if their are any doubts.  Electrons on a silicon chip are much easier to manipulate than holes punched in paper or ink markings.

Rewriting History

I just read this article where the writer proposes that bombing Nagasaki was a war crime.  As we get further from World War II, this revision of history is going to take hold, particularly among the historically illiterate.  Sadly, that cohort is growing by leaps and bounds.

 

When I was in college, I took a semester of Chinese History.  When we reached World War II, the professor expressed his disapproval of the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Though he clearly didn't agree, he allowed that one could argue for the dropping of the first bomb.  However, the second was unseemly.  Really, Truman only gave them three days before dropping another bomb.  What was not discussed was the other possibility: amphibious landing like in Normandy followed by a steady advance through Japan.  How many thousands of US soldiers would have died in that effort?  How many Japanese would have died resisting it?  As it happens, we had a good idea.

 

Iwo Jima is a volcanic island about 8 square miles in size.  It took a little over a month for the US Marines to secure the island in February and March of 1945.  The Japanese had 21,000 troops on the island.  Against this, the US threw 500 ships and over 100,000 Marines and sailors.  In the fierce fighting, nearly 7,000 Americans were killed, more than 19,000 were wounded.  The Japanese forces had 18,000 dead and only 216 taken prisoner.  Japanese forces suffered 85% killed and only 1% captured.  Wow, those are some dedicated troops.

 

The United States had made plans to invade Japan.  It was Operation Downfall.  The expectation was that the invasion would begin in November 1945 and the war would conclude by 1947.  Japan has an area of 145,935 square miles, equivalent to 18,241 Iwo Jimas.  The estimated military of Japan was 4,335,500 men in arms and 31 million conscripted civilians.  Let's just ignore the civilians for the sake of this example.  That means that Japan had 206 times as many troops as had been on Iwo Jima.  Let us suppose that Japanese soldiers on Japan were only half as determined as those on the outlying island of Iwo Jima, willing to suffer only 40% dead before surrendering.  How many Japanese soldiers will die in that scenario?  1.7 million.  For every 2.6 Japanese soldier killed on Iwo Jima, an American was killed.  Let's do the math: 1.7 million Japanese soldier killed during Operation Downfall divided by 2.6 equals 654,000 Americans killed.  Seeing as the Russians were going to invade from the north, the US could expect to take only half of those casualties.  Of course, if they proved as determined as those on Iwo Jima, double everything.

 

Clearly, the projections are horrendous and the death toll is astronomical.  With this in mind, how does 130,000 to 246,000 killed in atomic bombs sound?  Not so bad.  Actually, a really good trade-off.  In fact, one could say that Operation Downfall would have been the war crime.  It is easy to say what was done was wrong or immoral when the alternative is not mentioned.

 

What of the idea that Truman should have paused the bombing.  What part of unconditional surrender did the Japanese not understand.  Here is a thumbnail sketch of the last days of the Pacific War:

 

USA: Surrender Unconditionally

Japan: No

Hiroshima: BOOM!

USA: Surrender Unconditionally

Japan: Your weapon is impressive but you cannot have very many of them.  We will endure

Nagasaki: BOOM!

USA: Surrender Unconditionally

Japan: We have several conditions

Emperor Hirohito: ARE YOU MAD?  WE MUST SURRENDER!

Japan: We will surrender with 1 condition

USA: Sigh.  What is your condition?

 

The condition was that Emperor Hirohito would remain the sovereign ruler of Japan.  This allowed the Japanese Monarchy to escape the war crimes trials that followed and remain intact to this very day.  Of course, the Japanese Imperial House is very similar to the British Monarchy, almost exclusively ceremonial.

 

Nagasaki tipped Hirohito.  Without Nagasaki, the Japanese would have continued to fight and thousands of American Marines, sailors, and soldiers would have died.  Yes, many of the military commanders opposed the bomb.  Recall that the US staged daylight bombing runs of Germany to increase bomb accuracy to reduce civilian German casualties at the cost of American airmen.  There is no precision bombing with an atom bomb.  Truman was right and untold thousands of Americans and Japanese survived the war thanks to his decision.

Repudiate Taliban Supporter?

During a campaign rally not far from Orlando, Seddique Mateen was prominently visible behind Hillary as she spoke to the crowd.  Mateen has openly supported the Taliban.  Oh, he is also the father of the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen.  Though he has said his son should not have done it, he holds Pulse partly to blame.  Of course.  Obviously, the Clinton Campaign has explained that it was an open event and everyone was welcome.  It happens that Mateen is a registered Democrat and even had a sign to show his support for Hillary.  Awesome.  However, the people seated directly behind the candidate are generally screened.  After all, it could be embarrassing if some bozo jumped up to reveal a Vote Trump shirt or Hillary for Prison.  It turns out the campaign screening process failed but they will do much better screening 10,000 Syrian refugees.

 

The press jumped all over Trump for not immediately repudiating the support of David Duke, a former KKK member.  Trump eventually did repudiate him but the negative stories had already run amok by then.  Too late.  Where are the demands that Hillary repudiate support from Seddique Mateen?  Where are all the stories that her failure to immediately disavow Mateen can only mean that she is homophobic and pro-terrorist?  Interesting how differently the story is covered.

Open Mouth. Insert Foot.

Trump is the Republican version of Joe Biden.  Biden is a walking gaffe machine but, as VP, that isn't much of a problem.  Besides, Joe is a genial guy that even I find entertaining.  After observing that federal judges appointed by Hillary Clinton would be amenable to eliminating the 2nd Amendment through court rulings, he offered the most clumsy 'vote for me' statement imaginable:

"By the way if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know."

When you consider how quickly his suggestion that Russia release the rest of Hillary's emails became prima facie evidence that he was committing treason, it will take even less time for this to be converted into a call for assassination.  The campaign later clarified with a slightly less awkward appeal for votes.  One of the best things about Trump is that he is not scripted.  One of the worst things about Trump is that he is not scripted.

Losing Turkey

President Erdogan is on his way to Russia for talks with Putin, presumably to improve the Turkish-Russian relationship.  As mentioned in an earlier blog, Turkey and Russia have had a long and contentious relationship.  However, Russia has succeeded in encircling Turkey in the last few years.  Russia has been a booster of Iran, assisting with its nuclear program.  Russia annexed the Crimea, giving it a bigger footprint on the Black Sea.  Of course, back in the Bush Administration, Russia managed to carve out a part of Georgia.  For the last year, Russia has placed forces in Syria, Turkey's neighbor to the south.  How has the United States responded to this constrictor snake tactic?  Empty red lines, toothless proclamations, demands that countries live up to their international obligations.  In short, meaningless rhetoric.

Erdogan has never been a believer in secular Turkey.  He is an Islamist and has sought to undermine Kemalist Turkey for decades.  The recent failed coup is looking more and more like the death knell of secular Turkey.  Again, a largely hands-off America has been a boon to that effort.  The US has been abandoning the Middle East for most of President Obama's tenure and Russia and Iran have been filling that vacuum.  Luckily, domestic fracking has done wonders for American gas prices despite the increasingly turbulent Middle East.

 

In the ongoing real game of thrones, Putin is playing chess and Obama is playing checkers.  Future historians will marvel at how badly our foreign policy was handled.

Poldark

Last year, I started watching Poldark, based on the novels by Winston Graham, on Masterpiece Theater.  I had it on the DVR and caught episodes here and there.  Sadly, the last two were erased before I watched them.  By happy accident, I discovered that all 8 episodes were available on Amazon.  I watched the last two this weekend.

The story opens with Captain Ross Poldark (Aiden Turner) in America during the American Revolution.  A British officer from Cornwall, he is captured in a sudden attack, taking a blow to the head that leaves him with a distinctive scar down the side of his face.  Eventually, he is released and returns to Cornwall with notions of finally marrying Elizabeth.  Sadly, during his long absence, she became engaged to his wealthy cousin, Francis.  Moreover, Ross discovers that his father has died, leaving the estate in ruins and with few financial prospects.  The Poldarks own copper mines along the Cornish coast.  The series follows the relative rise and fall of the two branches of the Poldark family.  Ross proves resourceful and rises while, Francis proves hapless after his father dies and leaves him to run the mining company.  All of this serves as background for the love story that arrives with Demelza (Eleanor Tomlinson) in Ross's life.  To my surprise, the last two episodes did not complete the series.  In fact, Ross is led away by soldiers in a cliffhanger ending.

 

It is funny to see yet another series that involves English gentry on the cusp of bankruptcy.  There are characters who, when their loans are called due, fully expect to find themselves in debtors' prison.  These are the well-to-do and their finances are that precarious.  How strange that seems but it is such a common theme to these British period dramas.  All through Downton Abbey there were great houses that were going under with the changing times.  It is a wonder that any great houses remained.

 

Ross Poldark is an admirable man who is probably too idealistic, too loyal, and too willing to risk ruination to aid those far beneath his station.  On the other hand, Francis sees slights where there are none, resents Elizabeth's previous attachment to Ross and emotionally punishes her for it, fears that he cannot measure up to his father, and is all too prepared to throw in the towel when he meets adversity.  This contrast is almost certainly intentional so that Graham could provide a morality tale.

 

It is an enjoyable series and I look forward to the next installment.

Communists for Hillary

What does it say when the Communist Party supports your candidacy?  Indeed, I did not realize (or maybe I had forgotten) that the Communist Party also supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012.  America's greatest enemy of the last half of the 20th century is now supporting the candidates in the Democratic Party.  It would appear that the long march through the institutions has progressed far enough that one party is sufficiently subverted by Communist ideology that the Communist Party can openly and happily support it.  Thanks to the Venona Papers, we know that the Soviet Union made exactly that effort in the United States with an alarming level of success.

 

As the party on the left, the Democrats have incrementally implemented policies that have, through the decades, led them further and further along the path of leftism.  The party never reached a point and said, "Here and no farther."  If one does not stop somewhere along the leftist path, Communism is the final destination.  The Democratic Party had an open socialist get more than 40% of the vote.  When asked to explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, Hillary couldn't do it.  The difference is vanishingly small.

 

Imagine if the Communist Party supported Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, or Bill Clinton.  Each of them would have been embarrassed by such an endorsement and immediately have repudiated the Communist Party.  I can hardly wait for the media to demand that Hillary repudiate communist support like they demanded Trump repudiate David Duke.

When the President does it, it's not Illegal

President Obama has admitted to committing felonies under US law and that's okay.  Yes, there is a stink over the $400 million to Iran but everyone is pursuing the ransom angle.  What about the funding terrorism angle?  The US State Department still lists Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.  The absence of a financial relationship between the US and Iran based on our desire not to fund terrorism.  Obama himself points out that the cash was necessary because a banking relationship with Iran is illegal.  Yes, that also includes cash!  Obama admits that we had to use cash to bypass US Law.  It is a given that some of that cash will fund terrorist operations, which is the reason we don't want to funnel money to Iran.

Of course, the DOJ - which was opposed to the cash payment - will not indict the administration.  The spineless Congress will not seek to impeach anyone.  Therefore, the law is meaningless.  If it can be so cavalierly ignored, it ceases to be law.  As I have mentioned repeatedly, the rule of law is dead.  Nixon is looking good by comparison.

Unsecured Servers Kill

Through some skillful intelligence work, the US managed to recruit an Iranian nuclear scientist to keep us abreast of Iran's nuclear program.  Unfortunately for Shahram Amiri, he was mentioned in Hillary Clinton's unsecure emails only days before the US sent him back to Iran.  His cover story was that he had been held against his will by Saudis and Americans.  In fact, we were paying him handsomely.  Iran has executed him, noting that he was a spy for the Great Satan.

With news like this, recruiting foreign spies will be much more difficult for US intelligence.  It will be nigh impossible if President Clinton is inaugurated.  With the DNC email hack and the Clinton's email hack, it would be foolish to trust the US now.  Whether Amiri was revealed by Hillary's emails or through some other means makes no difference.  This is a heavy blow that will hamstring our intelligence gathering abilities for years to come regardless of who is elected president.

Doctor Thorne

Fresh from his smashing success with Downton Abbey, Julian Fellowes adapted an Anthony Trollope novel into a four episode miniseries on Amazon.  The story opens in 1836 when Henry Thorne is confronted by Roger Scatcherd (Ian McShane) regarding Scatcherd's sister's honor.  Thorne is rather dismissive of Scatcherd, who shoves Thorne, unintentionally resulting in his death.  The story resumes 20 years later with Mary Thorne visiting the Greshams, a local noble family with whom she has been acquainted all her life.  She and Frank Gresham are particularly close, which causes Lady Gresham considerable annoyance.  The Gresham Estate is in hock (amazing how common a theme it is to have nobles on the brink of bankruptcy) and Frank must marry well; Mary has no money.

 

Henry Thorne's brother, Doctor Thorne (Tom Hollander) is both a doctor and a financial advisor.  He is the most trusted man in the region, all holding his honor in the highest regard.  As such, he is in the middle of all the various machinations and, though in a position to steer things to his and Mary's betterment, he does not do so.  Not even by omission does he allow himself or Mary to benefit.  Such forthrightness was refreshing but, oddly, Doctor Thorne is a rather bland character.  He is kind, wise, and concerned but there is little joy in the man.

 

The end of the story is revealed before the first episode ends.  Yes, there are some twists and turns but it is a foregone conclusion that Mary will come into vast sums of money and thus be able to marry Frank Gresham.  Those who need to die for that outcome have the good graces to do so just when required.  Better yet, those who die are sots or bullies who will hardly be missed.  This predictability may not have been so obvious to readers in 1858 but is painfully clichéd to a viewer in 2016.

 

Each episode is bookended with a commentary by Julian Fellows.  It was very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, albeit a completely different genre.  Fellows has that same bald, plump Englishman aspect and a resonant voice.  It has a Masterpiece Theater look and feel to it.

 

As with Downton Abbey, the look is outstanding though perhaps a bit too pristine.  England of 1858 is entirely too lovely here.  This is a period drama, not a historical documentary of the time.  Of course, it takes place in the country, not Dickens' London.

 

It is just okay.

Which Party is more Tolerant?

If you are the editor of film footage, you can usually prove whatever point you want to prove.  Still, I find this one entertaining.  Republicans ignored a Hillary supporter but Democrats swarmed a Trump supporter.  I think part of this comes from Republicans being very cautious in what they say or do because even the slightest error can expand to unimaginable proportions.  For example, Mitt Romney and his 'binders of women.'  The media always assumes the worst of a Republican or Conservative.  By contrast, Democrats are used to getting away with a lot because their heart is in the right place.  Bill Clinton was impeached, has had multiple affairs, paid a sexual harassment settlement to Paula Jones, lost his law license, and much more but he is still a beloved figure in the Democratic Party.

 

I am reminded of when Nancy Pelosi and members of the black caucus walked through a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill during the passage of Obamacare.  There were claims of racist remarks and spitting.  However, despite a huge award offered for video proof, none was found.  In the age of cell phones that take video, it is hard to make such claims.  Even so, I suspect a lot of people on the left still believe that racial epithets were hurled that day.

 

Trump fits more into the mold of a Democrat on this score.  Where a Republican will usually ignore opposition signs, Trump attacks.  This is one of the reasons why he is not liked by the Republican establishment but has gained support from voters.  To paraphrase President Obama, he punches back twice as hard.  That is often counterproductive with a hostile media.  Maybe he'll figure that out by Labor Day.

Head Firmly in the Sand

Despite numerous attacks by refugees of Middle Eastern origin throughout Europe and open claims by ISIS that they are infiltrating Jihadis among refugees, President Obama is pushing ahead with his plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.  Why?  Because those are our values!  Here is a man who would have demanded an increase in Japanese immigration during World War II.  This is so obviously stupid as to be inexplicable.  As mentioned in an earlier blog, we cannot hope to effectively screen them.  Some will certainly be Jihadis who will go on a killing spree while shouting "Allahu Akbar!"  Most Americans are afraid of being accused of racism for opposing this sort of insanity, which is why we are getting more and more of the insanity.

Elektra

Having gone to the trouble of rewatching Ben Affleck's Daredevil, it becomes a requirement to comment on the companion film, Elektra.  Though she clearly died in Daredevil, a spinoff film allowed Jennifer Garner to play the role again.

The movie opens with DeMarco (Jason Isaacs) explaining to the chief of his security detail that Elektra was going to get him.  He wasn't even sure why he bothered to hire bodyguards.  While he is narrating his several escapes from previous attempts on his life, Elektra is busy dispatching the security detail.  The security chief only stops scoffing at his boss's story when he realizes the cameras are down and his men aren't answering.  He too is dispatched and only Elektra and DeMarco remain.  Before DeMarco can even lift his gun, a sai impales him through his chair.  Clearly, Elektra is a top assassin.

 

McCabe, Elektra's agent, has another job for her but she declines.  She is burnt out and needs a rest.  However, curiousity makes her ask and she accepts the job thanks to the huge payment.  Oddly, she is required to 'hang out' for a couple of days before the target will be revealed.  During this time, she has visions of the distant past, visions of the recent past, visions of the near future.  Yes, all these visions get rather confusing and annoying.  However, this does explain why she isn't dead.

It turns out that efforts to revive her in the ambulance after Bullseye killed her... didn't succeed.  Still dead.  No, it wasn't until Stick (Terrance Stamp) used his mystic healing that she came back to life.  She stayed with Stick and his band of martial artists.  She proved a tremendous fighter but not the kind of material that Stick sought.  So, he sent her away and, as we saw in the opening, she became a hired assassin.

Between intense workouts and hallucination-filled swims in the lake, Elektra meets Mark and Abby Miller, a father and daughter who live in a neighboring cottage.  It comes as no surprise when it is revealed that they are the target.  Unable to do the job, she becomes their defender against later efforts.

The fights are mostly silly and involve inhuman leaps, spins, and otherwise unbelievable action.  I'm not clear on why that bad guys burst in the brimstone clouds when killed.  Are they demons?  In the penultimate battle against Kirigi, Elektra is completely at his mercy a couple of times and he declines to kill her.  Why?  Basically, the villain chose to lose when victory was at hand.  Also, Kirigi could move at superspeed, almost like the Flash (maybe I should say Quicksilver since this is Marvel, not DC), but he would slowdown when making his strike.  Why?  Again, it just didn't seem like he was interested in winning.

The pacing is bad, providing long tedious lulls in the action.  The see-the-future power was generally useless, only providing an opportunity to have characters get seemingly killed before rewinding to try again.  Elektra is entirely too emotional and soft for an assassin.  If there is one thing that defines Jennifer Garner, it is her ability to emote, which really doesn't fit the character.  Steely-eyed killers don't get emotionally attached after one dinner with the target.  Though she was staring in the popular Alias at the time she got the Elektra gig, she just wasn't suited to the character.

Best avoided.

Ransom to Iran

Not only did President Obama negotiate a terrible "Nuclear Deal" with Iran, he had to sweeten the pot with $400 million.  Oh, and it is only a coincidence, pure chance, that Iran released 4 American prisoners when the pallets of cash arrived.  Reagan was a terrible president because he "traded arms for hostages" in the Iran-Contra Affair.  Obama traded 5 high-ranking Gitmo prisoners for one AWOL soldier who is currently awaiting court martial on a variety of charges.  Now he is paying the number one sponsor of terrorism (according to his State Department) $1.7 billion for...  nothing.  Iran has already broken the 'deal.'  Ergo, the money is either being flushed down the drain or it was paid as a ransom.

 

The current Republican Congress allowed this travesty to happen.  They let the Iran Deal skate so that big time donors (like Boeing) could do business with Iran.  The treaty ratification process was turned on its head to allow this disaster that only gets worse as more news comes to light.

 

With leaders like these, is it any wonder that the voters were unwilling to vote for any of the establishment politicians?  The DNC managed to stave off Bernie's insurgency by scheduling virtually no debates and getting their media allies to either not cover him or paint him negatively.  The RNC demonstrated its comparative incompetence since Trump won the nomination.

 

A Hillary Clinton presidency promises more of the same.  If this is okay, vote Hillary.