Blood Work

Living on a boat in San Pedro, CA, Terry McCaleb is a former FBI agent who received a heart transplant.  It has been two months and he is recovering quite nicely.  He has plans of restoring his father's boat and moving to Catalina Island.  However, Graciela Rivers shows up on his boat and asks him to solve his sister's murder.  Having gained public notice in his FBI days, he is used to such requests and initially declines.  Then Graciela reveals that her sister provided his transplanted heart.  Against the direction of his doctor, McCaleb takes the case, infuriating the LAPD detectives who haven't solved it.  The story refers to events in previous novels, notably The Poet.  In fact, McCaleb is credited with being on that case though I don't recall him from the novel.  He even mentions Agent Rachel Walling.  LA Times reporter Keisha Russell, who appeared in at least a couple of the Bosch books, appears here too.

 

The mystery continually expands and soon becomes far more complex than one would expect from the start.  Like previous Connelly novels, there are no coincidences.  Everything is important and it is only thanks to the detail-oriented nature of his protagonists (Bosch, McEvoy, McCaleb) that the loose ends are tied and impossible cases solved.

 

Great book and highly recommended.

 

The Pawn

Who is Greta Thunberg?  Obviously, I know who she is but why is she Time's Person of the Year?  There are countless people who have made climate change their life's work but somehow this teenager from Sweden is the face of the movement.  How did that happen?  When some accomplished person starts lecturing me, at least I can see that they are accomplished.  When Warren Buffet calls for higher taxes, I may disagree but I understand why he has the platform to say this.  His success as an investor earned him a platform to opine about how his taxes are too low.  So what did Greta do to get her platform?  She ditched school.  Lots of teens ditch school and that is a pretty low bar as far as accomplishments.  Why would some Swedish teen rise to such heights on a topic where she has no special knowledge?  Why not Al Gore or any one of the frequently stated 97% of scientist who say climate change is real?

 

As someone who believes taxes are too high and government spends too much, who would be a better spokesperson for that cause: Arthur Laffer or a random teen from Nebraska?  For some reason, the climate change folks have chosen the random teen over the a PhD in the subject.  Why is that?  Greta is not trying to convince anyone with her knowledge of the issue but rather with the emotions she can evoke.  The evidence has failed to achieve the goal so now the guilt trip.  You have stolen my childhood.

 

Greta is a pawn, a useful figure to pull heartstrings.  She is not the first.  Back in 1992, there was Severn Cullis-Suzuki.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJICmLMb06Y

 

Severn has since gone to Yale where she earned a BS in ecology and evolutionary biology.  Gee, she sounds like a better advocate.  Well, except that her 1992 doomsaying didn't come to pass.  Back then, the big concern was the ozone layer of the atmosphere and global warming was only just getting traction as a topic.  We don't hear much about the ozone these days.  Huh.

 

Greta and Severn were plucked from relative anonymity because they were useful pawns for the environmentalists.  Kids are often used as pawns.  Kids parrot what their parents tell them.

Fury (2014)

The tank crew of the Fury are the sole remaining tank out of a platoon.  Upon returning back to the nearest base, they are assigned a new machine gunner/backup driver; the last one was killed during the previous action.  Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman) is a clerk who can type 60 words a minute but has no tank experience.  Sgt. Collier (Brad Pitt) is not happy to have such a raw recruit but has no other option.  Here is a story of Norman being thrown into the deep end of the pool to either sink or swim.

It is April of 1945 and the US Army is overrunning Germany but the casualties are very high.  Joining another 4 tanks, the Fury heads back into the action.  Along the way, they tackle gun emplacements, clear a town, face a Tiger tank, and defend a crossroads.  The action is intense and sometimes graphic.

 

The role of each tanker is detailed quite well.  Gordo (Michael Pena) is the driver, Swan (Shia LeBeouf) is the gunner, Travis (Jon Bernthal) is the loader, and Collier is the commander.  The workings of the Sherman and the teamwork involved in operating it is the best part of the movie.  Where Patton had tanks swarming around, this is a detailed look at one tank and its crew.  Very enjoyable.

 

The ending was disappointing.  The German column would have marched around the tank rather than throwing away a third of its force to repeatedly attack it.  Maybe the tank should have been named the Alamo instead.

 

Angels Flight

It is 2 in the morning and Harry Bosch is waiting for a call from his wife.  She went out last night and he hasn't seen her.  When the phone rings, he is surprised to find that it is Deputy Chief Irvin Irving.  Howard Elias, a high profile lawyer who made a career of suing the LAPD, has been murdered.  Elias was about to go to trial on a case involving cops torturing a black suspect so everyone suspects a cop killed him.  The city is on edge and there are fears of a repeat of the 1992 riots.  Because police themselves are high on the suspect list, Internal Affairs Division is called in to assist.  Detective Chastain, a long-standing nemesis to Bosch, is suddenly his subordinate in this explosive case.  They have hardly gotten started when the FBI are brought in to allay fears that the LAPD would whitewash the case.

 

Not as good as previous books.  The plot is too intricate and comes across less real than others in the series.  The inclusion of Eleanor leaving Bosch is unsatisfactory and felt tacked on to provide additional stress.  Bosch's love life is a constant disaster.  To date, he has been involved with Eleanor (felon), Jazz (felon), Sylvia (the wife of a cop who he killed), and Theresa (coroner).  He sure can pick 'em.  Much like The Black Echo, everything matters.  There are no loose ends and just about everyone proves to be corrupt.  It is a very dark picture he paints.  One does not expect cops to have a sunny disposition.

 

Were it not for Jeffery Epstien, the pedophile ring among the wealthy elite that is exposed in the book would have been farfetched.  Nope, turns out Connelly was onto something despite writing this book in 1999.

 

Overall, a good book and worth your time.

 

Militant Normals

In this book, Kurt Schlichter explains how it is that an outsider like Donald Trump was able to harness the frustration of normal Americans into an electoral victory over the elites of both parties.  Mostly, normal Americans - apolitical folks of middling to low education - have been content to live their lives with only occasional concern for what is happening in Washington DC.  This worked well enough for most of the 20th century.  After all, the elites had won WWII and put a man on the moon.  The economy was mostly great from the post-war period until the 2008 crash.  However, there was a growing rift between the elites and the normals.  The elites, who have always looked down on the normals, became a lot more open in their disdain.  Hillary's 'deplorables' comment is the most noteworthy but there are many others.  Then there is the two-tier justice system.  Crimes by the elites are not treated the same as crimes by the normals.  Much of this was tolerable when the elites actually did a competent job of governing but the repeated unwinnable wars, unchecked illegal immigration that neither party took seriously, and nearly 2 decades of a stagnating economy riled them.  First, they responded with the TEA Party movement and were trashed and defamed by both parties.  Donald Trump, a man who spent most of his life among the elites, tapped into the unrest among the normals and rode it to the Republican nomination and the presidency.

 

The best part of the book was his ripping into Conservative Inc., the voices of conservatism who have spent decades writing about policies and ideas that are never enacted, even when Republicans have been in office.  Amazingly, most of Conservative Inc. became the Never Trump movement, despite the fact that Trump has enacted many of the policies that these very writers and pundits have promoted for decades.  Looking only at the judges who have been appointed, conservatives should be ecstatic for the Trump Presidency but they are not.  Schlichter posits that they are elites first and conservatives second.

 

The book is an easy read and highly-relatable.  Though a retired colonel, trial lawyer, and syndicated columnist, he writes more like a guy ranting at the dinner table than a professor lecturing the unlearned.  There is no mincing of words.  Great stuff.

Loserthink

Scott Adams latest book gives advice on how to avoid unproductive thinking, Loserthink is the term he coins.  Perhaps the most common type of loserthink is to believe one can read minds.  For example, when someone says they are opposed to illegal immigration, critics invariably accuse the person of racism.  The critic presumes what is in the mind of the border control advocate.  Such does not advance opposing sides to a reasonable solution but only hardens differences and makes a compromise more difficult.  That is a key factor in loserthink; it doesn't lead toward resolution and is thus unhelpful.

Each chapter proposes that one think like a different kind of professional: economist, entrepreneur, historian, psychologist, leader, etc.  Each has a particular way of viewing issues that is unique to them and a cure for various types of loserthink.  Some of the suggestions are:

- Use ego as a tool, not an identity.  Too often ego prevents one from recognizing errors.

- The past is gone.  Don't let it influence current thinking.  Don't throw good money after bad.

- If the big picture is good, don't get caught arguing over the little things.
- Fairness is subjective.  The best you can do is equality under the law.
- Arguing by coincidence/anecdote is usually just confirmation bias.
- Analogies are good for explaining, not predicting.

There are many and all far more thoroughly discussed.  Everyone is in a bubble of their own biases and these are tools to help recognize when you are in a bubble and also how to pop the bubble of others.  He freely admits to committing loserthink on a regular basis himself but these techniques have helped to identify when or, in many cases, have it shoved in his face by others who have read the book.

 

Worthwhile read.

 

The Current War (2017)

It is 1880 and Thomas Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is on the march.  His 13 hour light bulb will revolutionize the world and he has plans to electrify the country.  He has opted to use Direct Current (DC).  His influence is so great that he dictates what JP Morgan will pay him to accomplish this goal.

Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, George Westinghouse (Michael Shannon) has plans to provide light to the country.  He views direct current as limiting, requiring power generation stations at short regular intervals.  He opts to use Alternating Current (AC), which has almost limitless range.  This proves surprisingly effective.  Unfortunately, though he can provide light, he can't power machinery with AC, a big drawback in his competition with Edison.

Recognizing that Westinghouse is providing power at a cheaper cost, Edison declares AC to be too dangerous to use when compared to DC.  To prove his point, he electrocutes a horse for a press gaggle.  As Westinghouse is undeterred, Edison eventually agrees to help design the electric chair as long as it is credited to Westinghouse's alternating current.

 

Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult) arrives from Europe to witness the lighting of Wall Street as Edison gives the command.  He then gets a job working for Edison.  He is soon disillusioned and strikes out on his own.  Lacking the resources of either Edison or Westinghouse, he is soon destitute.  However, he has overcome the problem of powering machinery with alternating current.

 

The competition comes down to who will light the Chicago World's Fair: Edison or Westinghouse?

 

There is much more to the film, detailing the lives of these titans of industry and invention.  Normally, movies in this time period are Westerns.  Most of the action is in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.  Great film, highly recommended.

Judy (2019)

The story opens in Los Angeles as Judy Garland (Renee Zellweger) takes her daughter and son to a club where she performs, using them as stage props.  Afterwards, she takes them to her hotel but she is turned away.  She is in arrears on her bill and is ushered out the door.  Without options, she takes her kids to the home of her ex-husband, Sidney Luft (Rufus Sewell).  With the kids in bed, she sets out for her daughter's house.  Liza Minnelli has a party in full swing when Judy arrives.  Judy meets Mickey Deans (Finn Wittrock) and hits it off with the younger man.  Broke and with a long track record of unreliability, Judy cannot find steady income and Sidney wants custody of the kids.  Desperate, she gets an offer from London and sees no other options.  Off she goes.  While in London, she demonstrates her unreliability again and again.  She also marries Mickey Deans, her 5th and final husband.

 

If I wanted to make a movie that would make people dislike Judy, this is the movie I would make.  It is hard to like Judy.  There are flashbacks to her time as a young actress for Louis B Mayer where she developed many of her self-destructive habits.  Was this an effort to blame 46 year-old Judy's problems on Mayer and the studio system?  It sure felt like it.  Beyond The Wizard of Oz, I can't think of another role where I saw Garland, thus it is hard to judge how well Zellweger did in capturing her.  Though she may have captured the personality and mannerisms, she didn't get the voice.  Renee sings well but she's no Judy Garland.

 

Not recommended.

Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

Finally saw this film and I was most let down.  The movie - set 25 years after the original - opens with a pair of lawyers posting an eviction notice on the door of the Banks' home.  Michael (Ben Whishaw) had taken out a loan after his wife died and has absent-mindedly failed to make payments for the last three months.  Though willing to pay the three month due, it is too late for that.  He must pay off the entire loan.  Not a problem, he has shares in the bank from his father.  But he has misplaced them.  When finally discovered, he had used the share certificate to draw a sketch because he must have been short on paper.  Only by happenstance does his youngest son save the sketch - not to frame or save as a family keepsake - to cut in pieces to patch an old kite.  Michael is a pathetic, incompetent man-child, a hopeless buffoon.  I disliked him from start to finish.  To make matters worse, Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) declares that she will stay until the door opens.  Which door is that?  The door that allows Michael to view the world as he did in childhood.  Helpless widower with three children retreats into childhood.

 

Then we have Michael's older sister, Jane (Emily Mortimer).  She is a spinster who spends her time picketing for workers' rights, a throw back to her mother's suffragette marches in the original film.  It is unclear how she earns a living or why, at this late date, she should be romantically attracted to Jack the lamplighter (Lin-Manuel Miranda).  She acts like some teenaged girl with her first crush around Jack.  Jane is in her mid-thirties and should have had much better options than Jack that she clearly skipped.

 

All the dazzling musical numbers, the return of Dick Van Dyke, and talents of Miranda and Blunt  can't overcome these underlying facts.  Michael is a failure and will continue to be a failure.  He escaped his deserved fate this time thanks to Deus ex machina.  He and his children will not be so lucky next time.  Jane's romance with Jack is just a fling; if she was seeking marriage, she would have long since been married.  Clearly, if this is the adults they came to be, Mary Poppins failed them as a nanny.

 

Watch the original instead.

Downton Abbey: The Movie (2019)

It is 1927 and King George V is coming to Downton Abbey.  Behold the excitement, the pageantry, the test of wills between the King's servants and the servants of Downton.  An occasion this momentous calls Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) out of retirement and Mr. Molesly eagerly resumes his footman post for the opportunity to serve the monarch.  As one expects, Lady Violet (Maggie Smith) trades barbs with Isobel (Penelope Wilton) in the ongoing battle of wits.  There are multiple plotlines that revolve around certain characters though Tom Branson (Allen Leech) shines best: man of action, giver of wise counsel, romantic gentleman.  Of course, Anna (Joanne Froggatt) leads the skirmish against the invading royal servants with Carson's reluctant approval.

 

The movie plays as an oversized episode of the show, offering an opportunity for the gang to reunite and for the audience to catch up on the latest news from Downton.  Most of the characters merely function in the storyline of the king's visit, making preparations and voicing concerns.  Lady Violet has a reunion with a cousin who has no intention of letting her estate go to Earl Grantham despite him being the nearest relation.  Lady Violet has other plans.  Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) once again wonders if she should abandon the estate and live a more modest life, which felt like a retread storyline.  Didn't they already address that?  Irritated by the return of Carson, Mr. Barrow (Robert James-Collier) sallies forth to potential ruination?  Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael) misses her job as a publisher, finding her life of 'leisure' to be tedious.  Moreover, her husband might be leaving for Africa for several months.

 

When Branson first appeared, I was not keen on him.  An Irish Republican as a chauffer to a noble family was a bit awkward and his whirlwind romance with the feisty and rebellious Sybil was even more so.  However, I have come to like him more than most of the family.  He is more relatable than most of them, a common man adapting to a life among the uppercrust.  I suspect his role grew for exactly that reason.

 

If you are a fan of the show, this is a must see.  The estate on the big screen is quite impressive.  A feel good movie with a dozen happy endings and plenty of potential for a sequel.

Return to the Batcave (2003)

While watching a rerun of his old TV series, Adam West hears the doorbell.  When he answers the door, no one is there but an invitation has been slipped under his door.  It is for tonight!  Calling upon Alfred - "My name is Jerry, sir" - to make arrangements, he is soon on his way to a charity auction.  To his surprise, his old chum Burt Ward also received an invitation.  Among the items available for auction is the original Batmobile!  Adam announces that he still has the key, proudly displaying it; he had taken it as a souvenir.  The lights go out and the Batmobile is stolen by some dastardly villain who took Adam's key!  No need to call the police.  Adam and Burt are on the case.

 

The campy present is spliced with events that happened during the filming of the show some 35 years earlier.  Adam is convinced that the car thief has returned from their past and they must recall that past to expose him or her.  In 1966, Adam West (Jack Brewer) is enchanted by the quirky comedy in the Batman script.  Despite his agent's misgivings, he wants the part.  He beats out Lyle Waggoner (who eventually starred as Steve Trevor in the 70s version of Wonder Woman) for the part.  Bert Gervis Jr. (Jason Marsden) won the part of Robin; he changed his name to Burt Ward almost immediately.  Marsden is outstanding as young Burt, outshining the actual Burt Ward of the present.  The things that Burt endured for the part serve as comic fodder but are true!  There is a scene with Cesar Romero refusing to shave his mustache for the role of the Joker.  Burgess Meredith doesn't like smoking for the role of the Penguin as it makes him cough, leading to his peculiar Penguin squawk.  Mostly, the scenes from the past are just fun background about the series, exploring the impact on the actors lives with the rise and fall of the show.

 

Of course, there are plenty of guest stars.  Lyle Waggoner plays the narrator, Lee Meriwether (one of the three actresses to play Catwoman) appears as a waitress, and Julie Newmar (the original Catwoman) has a part as a bar owner.  Frank Gorshin (the Riddler) also has a role.  Ah, look at all this nostalgia.

 

That Adam and Burt play themselves as would-be sleuths is often awkward.  It is particularly campy when they get into a fist fight (Adam was 74 at the time).  Unlike their alter-egos, Adam and Burt prove pretty clueless.  Still, it is a fun movie that will entertain any fan of the series.  Thumbs up!

Ready or Not (2019)

Grace (Samara Weaving) marries Alex (Mark O'Brien), a scion of the wealthy Le Domas family.  Alex fled the family years ago and the wedding, hosted at the family estate, serves as a tense reunion.  Though outwardly all smiles and support, it is clear that most view Grace as a gold digger; she is an orphan raised in foster homes, hardly the pedigree for a Le Domas.  After the ceremony, a peculiar ritual is performed.  Whenever someone new joins the family, they must place a blank card into a small box.  When removed, the card will list a game.  In most cases, it is something harmless like checkers or Old Maid.  However, if hide & seek appears, the hunt is on.  Unsurprisingly, Grace draws hide & seek.

 

While Alex tries to smuggle Grace out of the mansion, his family chases her with a variety of old-fashioned weapons, from 19th century revolvers, crossbows, and even a battle axe.  Not everyone is keen on killing Grace.  Alex's older brother, Daniel (Adam Brody) is a sad drunk who didn't flee the family madness but only marginally follows the rules of the game.  Can Grace survive until dawn?

 

The movie is more often comedy than horror.  Clearly out of practice - the last hide & seek had been 30 years ago, the family is mostly incompetent.  The incompetence gets overwhelming as the story progresses.  The ending was surprisingly gory and not really satisfying.  Even so, it was fun to watch.

9/11 + 18

18 years after the war began, Trump appears to be looking for an out that doesn't include winning.  If we've spent 18 years fighting and haven't won, then maybe we should just quit.  Throw in the towel.  Have a meeting with the Taliban and threaten them with furious retaliation if they start hosting al Qaeda again.  Oh, that'll work just great.

 

Like his predecessors, Trump is unwilling to identify the enemy.  If you can't say what you are fighting, you can't win.  We've been fighting symptoms - Islamic terrorists - for years but haven't even thought to address the disease: Islam.  Islam is not a religion of peace.  Read a biography of Muhammad and there is no way you can view him as a peacemaker.  He was a warlord and conqueror.  The religion he founded calls for the subjugation of all non-Muslims and views martyrdom - death in the cause of Islam - as the most praiseworthy thing a Muslim can do.  Is it any wonder so many are willing to blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings?  This isn't some crazy misinterpretation.  This is the religion.

 

The only way to win is to wipe out Islam.  That is an impossibility in the world today.  The West cannot do that.  In fact, the West is happily allowing Islam to migrate and takeover.  Charles Martel stopped the invasion of the Muslims into France but modern French leaders are inviting them in and paying welfare to have them.  This will not end well.

 

I said Trump's new plan wouldn't work and it hasn't.  Like his predecessors, he will not do what it would take to win.  The argument used to be that we fight over there so they don't show up here.  Well, they are showing up here because we've rolled out the red carpet to show how tolerant we are.  Fighting there just creates pressure for them to migrate to the West (see Syria).

 

"There is no substitute for victory."  Douglas MacArthur

 

Is it time to admit that we lost?  Is it time to cut and run?  So it seems.  But maybe we can spin it to look like a win.  Or at least a tie!

Republican Presidential Contenders

Incumbent presidents do not usually face primary challengers; the party likes to stay in power and primary challenges to a sitting president usually lead to the other party winning.  For example, Reagan challenged Ford in 1976 and Carter won.  Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980 and Reagan won.  Pat Buchannan challenged George H W Bush in 1992 and Clinton won.  Challengers never get the nomination and usually sabotage the general election.  This is well-known, which means the challengers are spoilers.  The three challengers thus far are:

 

Joe Walsh is a one-term Congressman who was elected to the House in 2010 and lost in 2012 after his district was redrawn.  He has no other elective office experience.  He has spent most of the years since as a radio talk show host.  He admitted to saying 'racist things' on air, which is going to sink him in an instant.  He's going nowhere but maybe he can raise some cash and increase his name recognition.

 

Mark Sanford is the former governor of South Carolina who went 'hiking' but was discovered having an adulterous affair in Argentina.  He dodged impeachment but was censured 102-11 by the South Carolina House.  He has served in Congress since 2013, managing to make a political comeback though it was a demotion; he had previously served in Congress from 1995 to 2001.

 

The most formidable of the bunch, Bill Weld is the former governor of Massachusetts (1991 to 97).  Despite a huge re-elect margin in 1994, he decided to run for Senate against Kerry in 1996.  He lost.  Then he accepted a nomination by Bill Clinton to be Ambassador to Mexico.  Didn't get it.  He resigned his governorship with 18 months left.  Boy, I'll bet the voters loved that.  Then he moved to New York and ran for governor there!  Mercenary politician.  In 2016, he was the VP nominee for the Libertarian Party.  He's a Republican like Bernie Sanders is a Democrat.  He is older than Trump and nixes age as a factor.

 

All three of these men would have been bottom tier candidates during the 2016 campaign.  Trump's overall approval ratings have hovered between 40% and 50% but are phenomenal among Republicans, the very voters who will participate in choosing a nominee.  Even if everything goes awry for Trump, primary challengers never win the nomination.  This is the longest of long shots.

Good Old Joe

Sometimes, politicians say stupid things.  It's inevitable.  If you talk for hours and days on end, there will be time when you get tongue-tied or speak before you think.  Of course, these verbal blunders can haunt politicians.

 

"I'm not a crook" President Richard Nixon

 

"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" President Bill Clinton

 

"I'm not a witch" Christine O'Donnell, Republican Tea Party Candidate for Senate in 2010

 

"I want to be clear, I'm not going nuts."  Former VP Joe Biden, Presidential Candidate

 

That one is going to show up in a campaign ad before too long.  Joe may not be going nuts but senile is another matter.  Joe once explained how FDR got on TV in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash.  Then there is his recent proclamation that he chooses "Truth over facts."  Though he has been in the lead since he announced, I suspect Joe isn't going to make it far in the primaries.

Suicide or Murder?

Jeffery Epstein's death has been fodder for conspiracy theories.  No sooner had the man been arrested than there were claims - half in jest - that he would not survive to trial.  He had dirt on too many rich and powerful people.  Less than a month after his arrest, he was found barely conscious on the floor with bruising on his neck.  Failed suicide?  No determination was made though he was put on suicide watch in the wake of that incident.  A couple weeks later, he's dead of suicide and there are a list of procedures that were not followed.

 

He had already failed at a suicide attempt so heightened security is a no brainer.

 

Guards did not check on him every 30 minutes.  There was a 3 hour window where he was not checked.

 

Guards falsified records.

 

Prisoners with a suicide risk are assigned a cellmate but Epstein was alone.

 

Is it any wonder that there are conspiracy theories that he was murdered to keep him quiet, from cutting a deal with prosecutors to reduce his sentence?  If there was ever a prisoner that the Bureau of Prisons should have kept safe, this was the one.  Epic fail.

 

Suicide or murder?  Almost certainly the answer is suicide.  Epstein was a brilliant guy and had plenty of time to plot his death and find the ideal moment.  If the choice is between criminal conspiracy or government incompetence, I'll choose incompetence every time.  Whitey Bulger was killed within hours of being transferred to a US Penitentiary in West Virginia last year.  More government incompetence.

No Warming Trend Continues

In 2005, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established 114 temperature monitoring stations in isolated locations throughout the contiguous 48 states.  Since they were established, there has been no warming.  The temperatures, at least in the United States, are static.  This is yet another data point to explain the change in terminology from Global Warming to Climate Change.  Climate Change is a much more flexible description, allowing virtually any weather pattern to be alarming and in need of more tax dollars.

 

Coincidentally, the Obamas have purchased a $15 million beachfront mansion on Martha's Vineyard.  Clearly, they are confident that rising sea levels aren't going to drown their new residence.

Duel with the Devil

December 1799, New York City

A few days before news of George Washington's death, Elma Sands went out for the evening and did not return.  The landlord's wife heard Elma leave with a man, presumably Levi Weeks.  Also a tenant at the boarding house, Levi claimed no knowledge of Elma's whereabouts; he had been at his brother's house that night.  In early January, Elma's body was found in Manhattan Well and fingers soon pointed at Levi.  Levi's older brother, Ezra, was a successful builder.  In fact, he was involved in designing and building Gracie Mansion, the home of the mayor.  He was also working on Hamilton Grange for Alexander Hamilton and had ties with Aaron Burr.  Both men were indebted to him and he called on both to defend his brother.  The political rivals joined forces to clear Levi's name.  The author, Paul Collins, proposes that Richard Croucher, another boarder who had testified against Weeks, was the true culprit.  Hamilton himself suggested that in the trial.  The book continues after the trial, thus including the biographies of many of the characters.  Of course, Hamilton and Burr have the duel.  Despite being acquitted, Levi was unable to remain in New York and relocated to Natchez, Mississippi.  The judge of the trial was later elected mayor.  Henry Brockholst Livingston, the third member of the defense dream team, went on to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

A true story, the book reads more like a history book than a novel.  The events are described but the characters are flat.  This is more a narration of specific events than a novelization of true events.  Nonetheless, it is engaging and provides a broad look at the city of New York at the time and a sense of the era.

 

Thumbs up.

Split Second (1992)

The year is 2008, Global Warming has left much of London flooded, rats are everywhere, and Detective Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer) is on the trail of a killer.  He arrives only moments before the murderer strikes but fails to catch him.  Playing to the cliché of such faire, Captain Thrasher (Alun Armstrong) blasts him with a profane harangue before returning his gun and badge and sending him to the streets.  However, he must now work with Detective Dick Durkin (Neil Duncan).

"I work alone."

Ha!  Talk about clichés!  What kind of name is Dick Durkin?  Sounds like he belongs in a porn film.  Dick proves to be the over-educated know-it-all who is nonetheless shown up by the grizzled veteran.  Who cut and pasted this script?  It turns out that - no surprise at all - the murderer had killed Foster McClaine, Stone's previous partner.  Michelle McLaine (Kim Cattrall) was having an affair with Stone at the time of Foster's death.  Awkward.

The murderer proves to be either a demon from hell or a genetic oddity, the story never decides.  It looks kind of like Venom.  It has a fondness for human hearts and painting crime scenes with buckets of blood.  For some reason, it opts not to kill the primary characters despite having multiple opportunities to do so.  It is bulletproof except at the very end when it isn't.

Rutger Hauer has no character arc.  He's a tough guy with a psychic connection to a monster, a cookie-cutter loose cannon.  Neil Duncan goes from a by-the-book straight-laced cop to a pale imitation of Harley Stone.  Sadly, Duncan doesn't sell the transformation and it just comes across as goofy.  Other than going topless during a shower scene, Kim Cattrall brings nothing to this bland and undeveloped role.  She is a mostly overlooked love interest and run of the mill damsel in distress.  There wasn't much chemistry between her and Rutger.  Pete Postlethwaite is wasted in a tiny role as a cop who dislikes Stone, and for good reason.

It is funny to see a film made in 1992 that proposes Global Warming was going to flood the world in the distant future of 2008.  Didn't happen.  Blade Runner (1982) took place in the even more distant year of 2019 when pollution was going to leave LA in darkness.  Didn't happen.  Now Climate Change is going to destroy the world in 12 years.  I was promised a dystopia by now!

An extremely mediocre film with a plot that never congeals.  The ending even offers the possibility of a sequel.  Ha!  I watched this on account of Rutger Hauer's death; not the best choice of films.  Skip this one.

RIP Rutger Hauer

The Boys

Hughie Campbell (Jack Quaid) is an ordinary guy who works at an electronics store.  He's walking down the street with his girlfriend when she is vaporized when A-Train (this setting's version of The Flash) accidently runs into her.  A-Train is a member of the Seven (think Justice League), which is owned by Vought International.  Vought offer to pay Hughie for Robin's death as long as he signs a non-disclosure agreement.  He declines.  Enter Billy Butcher (Karl Urban).  Billy seeks to recruit Hughie in his vigilante efforts against Supers.  Vought is just a marketing and PR firm that makes the Supers look like heroes when they are, in truth, more like villains.  Hughie agrees and goes way down this rabbit hole.

Meanwhile, Annie January (Erin Moriarty) is a small time superhero named Starlight who works in Iowa.  When a slot opens in the Seven, she applies.  To her amazement, she is accepted!  She has hardly entered the citadel of the Seven when her naivety is pounded into the dirt when another superhero has his way with her.  But things get worse as her heroics become scripted and she is excoriated for rescuing a woman from rape while out of costume.  Most of the Seven have lost their idealism, if they ever had it.

 

Madelyn Stillwell (Elisabeth Shue) is a VP for Vought and in charge of the Seven.  She treats the heroes as products that require branding and marketing.  She has a strange relationship with Homelander (Antony Starr), leader of the Seven.  He is clearly obsessed with her and jealous of her newborn.  Homelander is an ultra-dark version of Superman, having no qualms about killing criminals or even non-criminals who present a threat to his interests.  However, he can be charming, which makes him all the more creepy.

 

Great series and highly recommended.  However, it is extremely violent, painting rooms with blood on more than one occasion.

Good Omens

Crowley (David Tennant) the Demon is given the job of delivering the Antichrist to the hospital, allowing the nurses to swap him out for a newborn.  Though he does his part, he is not keen on the Antichrist's arrival.  He rather likes the world and - despite being a demon - he'd rather have the status quo.  Aziraphale (Michael Sheen) the Angel has been Crowley's rival since the Garden of Eden.  Despite the wishes of Archangel Gabriel (Jon Hamm) to have a final battle between Heaven and Hell, Aziraphale sides with Crowley in trying to prevent Armageddon.  Together, they try to influence the Antichrist as he grows to adolescence.  It is only a few days before Armageddon and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have assembled when they discover they have the wrong boy.  Yes, the nurse switched the wrong baby.  The series is quirky with tongue firmly in cheek.  Ironically, Aziraphale says "I'll be damned" while Crowley says "For Heaven's Sake."  There is a lot of that.  The end of days are surprisingly comedic.

 

Thumbs up!  It is available on Amazon.

President Troll

The Democrats are in the midst of a civil war.  The squad, led by AOC, is accusing Speaker Pelosi of being a racist.  Republicans break out the popcorn.  After all, if your opponent is making a fool of herself, the age old advice is to stand back and watch.  President Trump chose otherwise.  He tweeted that the squad should return to their countries of origin, even stating that Nancy Pelosi would be only too happy to make travel arrangements.  PowerLine holds that this was an unforced error that will haunt Trump.  No, I don't think so.  Why not?

To Democrats and Never Trumpers, everything Trump says or does is wrong.

Trump has sided with Nancy Pelosi over AOC and the Squad.

Democrats who side with Speaker Pelosi will be in agreement with Trump.  Unacceptable.

Democrats who side with the Squad will exacerbate the civil war.

Though beloved by the SJW left, the Squad is viewed unfavorably nationwide.  AOC has a 22% favorability while Ilhan Omar has a 9% favorability.

By siding with the more moderate wing of the Democrats, Trump herds Trump-hating Democrats toward the more leftist side and improves his re-election chances.

The veracity of his tweet is irrelevant.  He's trolling.

The Richest Man in Babylon

Want to be wealthy?  This is the book for you.  Written by George S. Clason in 1926, it provides sound financial advice on how to amass a fortune.  The earlier you get started, the better off you will be.

The ten chapters are parables set in ancient Babylon.  In the first, we meet Benzir, a chariot maker, who finds that despite years of work, he is still living a hand to mouth lifestyle while his childhood friend, Arkad, has become the richest man in Babylon.  He had never thought of Arkad as anything special and yet, in the intervening years, Arkad was doing something right and Benzir wanted to know what it was.  Arkad offers insights in how to save and make those savings earn.  The top advice is to 'pay yourself first' with 10% of your income; that is yours to keep.  More is better if you can afford it.  Live off the remainder.  Other suggestions are to invest in what you know, insure your wealth, work and determination will lead to wealth, do not spend beyond your means lest you be enslaved by your debts, and more.

 

It is an easy read, very engaging, and offers excellent financial advice.  I wish I had followed the advice in my youth.

 

The Razor's Edge (1984)

Larry Darrel (Bill Murray) is a well-liked rogue from Illinois who volunteers to drive an ambulance in France during the Great War in the days before the US joined the war.  The war has a profound effect on him and his plans for marriage to Isabel (Catherine Hicks) and get a job as a stock broker no longer appeal to him.  Setting out on a voyage of self-discovery, he works blue-color jobs in France before traveling to India and then Tibet.  By the time he returns, the Depression has hit and Isabel is married.  He is fine with this though Isabel still carries a torch for him, so much so that she becomes jealous of Sophie (Theresa Russell), his fiancé.

 

This was Murray's first big venture into serious acting and it shows.  Viewers who loved him in Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, and Tootsie were baffled by this movie.  I know I was.  Even though this is a 'serious' role, he introduced a lot of comedy, some of it quite funny.  I really enjoyed his flight from the children asking for money in India.  The impression of a seal, silliness with Tibetan vegetables, and other flashes of goofiness all undermine the seriousness of the story.  He feels miscast.  In fact, much of the cast is wrong for their parts.  Catherine Hicks is usually a sunny sort and the conniving didn't come naturally to her.  By contrast, Theresa Russell is probably best known for her role in Black Widow as the woman who kills her husbands, managing to shift from irresistible charm to black-hearted murder quite convincingly.  These two should have swapped parts.

 

An interesting footnote in the mostly comic career of Murray.  In order to get funding for this movie, he agreed to star in another comedy.  When The Razor's Edge wrapped, he went to NYC to start filming that other movie: Ghostbusters.

Ross Perot

My political awakening happened during the 1992 presidential campaign.  Prior to 1991/92, I was mostly oblivious to politics beyond a knee-jerk reaction to the story of the day.  When the campaign began, I was in favor of Bob Kerrey, a Democratic Senator from neighboring Nebraska (I lived in Iowa at the time).  Kerrey had a dim view of Governor Clinton and I adopted that view.  As such, I was less than thrilled when Clinton won the Democratic nomination.  Enter Ross Perot.  Perot was a straight shooter who sang one of my favorite tunes: the government spends too much.  His TV infomercial was highly enjoyable though it was more diagnosis than prescription.  He ripped both Bush and Clinton, but more Bush as I recall.  However, he was also a bit of a crank, offering a nutty story about President Bush threatening to ruin his daughter's wedding.  Huh?  But for his inexplicable withdraw and then return to the campaign, Perot might have actually won.  Probably not but when you consider the alternates were Bush and Clinton, it was possible.  And that may be the spark that brought about the Trump Presidency.

 

Ross Perot wasn't a politician or a general, the two sources for presidential material throughout US history.  Even so, he won 19% of the vote in '92, 8% in '96, and started the Reform Party.  Guess who briefly ran for the nomination in the Reform Party in 2000: Donald Trump.  If a man who reminded me of Little Caesar - "Pizza pizza" - could win almost 20% of the vote after having left the campaign then anything was possible.  If Barry Goldwater's embarrassing defeat was a precursor to Ronald Reagan's two landslide victories, then one could argue that Ross Perot blazed a trail for fellow billionaire Trump to win the White House.

 

RIP

Shazam! (2019)

DC may have turned the corner and finally discovered how to make a fun movie.  in 1974, Thaddeus Sivana is with his father and older brother in a car.  Suddenly, the car windows get covered in frost and his father and brother are gone.  Stepping out of the car, he finds himself in a cave where a wizard (Djimon Hounsou) tests to see if he is worthy of the power of Shazam!  Sivana fails and immediately finds himself back in the car.

In the present day, Billy Batson (Asher Angel) embarrasses a pair of police officers before going to a house where he thinks he will find his mother.  It is not his mother.  And the police show up.  Billy has been in foster care since he was separated from his mother in a crowd when he was 4 or 5.  A regular runaway from every foster home, he is placed in a new one with a mix of kids.  While on the subway, the windows freeze and he finds himself tested by the wizard.  He is worthy!  Shazam!  Having no idea how to be a superhero, the antics of Shazam (Zachary Levi) are quite funny.  Any heroics are accidental.

 

Elsewhere, Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong) has not been idle.  He has spent that last 45 years trying to find his way back to the cave.  He has tracked down a vast number of people who had the same experience as him, all having been rejected by the wizard.  Unworthy of the power of Shazam, he instead frees the power of the seven deadly sins.  Shazam may be powerful but he's only 14.

 

Humor, excitement, uplifting, epic action, and just an overall great time.  Highly recommended.  More like this for the DC-verse, please.

Long Shot (2019)

Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) is Secretary of State and has ambitions of running for President.  Her boss, President Chambers (Bob Odenkirk), had played president on TV and loves to watch reruns of his glory days.  In fact, he has decided not to run for re-election so he can establish a movie career.  He is not averse to offering his support for her candidacy.  At this key moment, Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) re-enters Charlotte's life.  She had been his babysitter, which is weird in flashback.  He's 13 and she's 16.  Huh.  Fred is an unemployed reporter with a drug habit.  Oh, Seth Rogen as a pot smoker?  This is my shocked face.  :|  Despite the wise counsel of all her advisers, Charlotte hires Fred as a speechwriter.  Charlotte is entranced by Fred glowing memories of her high school campaign for class president.  Yeah, the hyper-successful woman jumps in the sack with this unkempt doper.  If it played as a true comedy, that might work.  Instead, Charlotte is an environmental activist with a Bees, Trees, and Seas agenda that is getting chipped away by political realities.  Ugh.  And Fred is an absolutist who loses faith in her for cutting deals.  Ugh.  This is a comedy, right?  The movie has lots of profanity, some drug use (including by the Secretary of State who is running for President), cringe-inducing masturbation (meant to be funny), and a completely unconvincing love story.  This is a comedy, right?

 

Best avoided.

Support for AOC

To my complete surprise, I find myself in agreement with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She has proposed that elected representatives should be barred from becoming lobbyists upon 'retiring' from Congress.  This practice is similar to insider trading.  The problem isn't just elected representatives.  How many regulators leave the various government agencies to then turn around and lobby their former colleagues on behalf of the industry being regulated?  Ted Cruz offered support, suggesting a lifetime ban on former members becoming lobbyists.  Though I like the goal, I suspect courts would strike down such a law.  Are there other professions from which people can be banned except in the case of conviction of a crime?  Even so, I hope to see the Ocasio-Cortez-Cruz bill proposed in Congress.  I give it long odds at getting through the House or Senate but Trump would gladly sign it.

Hamilton

I saw the musical Hamilton last week during its swing through Texas.  Hamilton's life is faithfully told and one cannot help but be impressed at his achievements and grieve for his losses.  However, I don't care for rap and this was mostly that.  Rap battles among Washington's cabinet members - complete with mic drops - did not impress me.  There is a lot of overt politics that reference the modern day rather than the time in which the story takes place.  The most obvious was when Hamilton says to Lafayette "Immigrants getting the job done."  Sigh.  Lafayette was not an immigrant.  He was a French aristocrat who was abroad in war.  Patton would never have referred to himself as an immigrant while fighting in Africa or Europe.  Same goes for Lafayette.  As for Hamilton, he was a British subject who moved from one colony - Nevis in the Caribbean - to another - New York.  In modern terms, that's like moving from Oregon to New York.  Again, not an immigrant in the sense the play implies.

 

Some characters come off very well, reflecting modern understandings of them.  Washington is steady, humble, and wise.  Hamilton is brash, brilliant, and arrogant.  Burr is given a sympathetic portrayal.  He is seen as second best to Hamilton for decades, which is a stretch.  Burr had many acquaintances and was prone to intrigue, aspects that don't show here.  In fact, it is Jefferson who is the schemer to undermine Hamilton.  Jefferson is shown as self-absorbed and more arrogant than Hamilton, not an easy task.  Madison is relegated to Jefferson's fawning sidekick, a slap to the Father of the Constitution.  As an interesting aside, Aaron Burr introduced James Madison to his future wife, Dolley Madison.

 

The play repeatedly declares New York to be the "greatest city in the world" which certainly thrilled Broadway during its run but is again for modern audiences.  New York may have been the greatest city in the colonies but it was a shadow to the great cities of Europe.  I love New York but this again took me out of the setting and placed me in the modern day.  The casting is intentionally non-white, which made it a bit difficult to know who was who at the beginning.  Artistic license or yet another political statement?  Meh.  On the positive, if this can introduce American history to a wider audience, that is terrific.  Maybe some rap lovers will read the Federalist Papers to get the deeper story.

The Draft

The draft (i.e. Selective Service) has been ruled unconstitutional in that it only applies to men.  Either both sexes need to be subject or the draft needs to be abolished.  I prefer option 2.  By its very nature, a draft is essentially slavery.  Either risk your life for meager wages or go to jail.  But some might say that a draft is necessary to save the country in times of war.  Any country that can't muster enough volunteers to risk life and limb to save it deserves to fall.  The draft hasn't been used since Vietnam and the US has managed to engage in plenty of wars with volunteers.  Here is the perfect opportunity to abolish it.  Rather than conscripting women too, end conscription altogether.

Cherry 2000 (1987)

In the distant future year of 2017, Sam Treadwell (David Andrews) drives his topless 3-wheeled car home from work in Anaheim and is greeted by Cherry (Pamela Gridley).  She is gorgeous but not terribly bright but Sam loves her.  After an awkward dinner, he starts making love to her on the kitchen floor as the sink overflows in a cascade of bubbles.  Then Cherry short-circuits!  Sam is devastated.  The Cherry 2000 is a classic model that is no longer in production.  There are tales of Cherry 2000s in Zone 7 but that would be dangerous.  If he can put her memory disk in an identical model, she'll be back as good as ever.  Sam heads east to Glory Hole, the last settlement where law still functions.  He needs a tracker, a person who braves the lawless zones.  Sam hires E. Johnson (Melanie Griffith), a heavily armed redhead with a tricked-out 1965 Chevy Mustang.  Unsurprisingly, Sam slowly falls for the real woman on his quest for his sex robot.

 

This is a post-apocalyptic future with some strange features.  Much of manufacturing was destroyed in an unexplained apocalypse and recycling is a huge industry.  Sam is a workaholic at a recycling center.  There are multiple clubs where one can go to find a sex partner for the night but not before extensive legal documents are signed.  Laurence Fishburne has a small role as a lawyer drafting a contract for a couple of Sam's co-workers to have sex that night, outlining what is okay and what is off-limits.  No wonder Sam has a sexbot.

 

There is plentiful A-Team like action where lots of bullets and rockets are fired but our heroes are never harmed.  The craziest sequence is when the Mustang is lifted by a crane and held high over the desert for all the goons to blast it.  E, which proves to be short for Edith, intentionally drove into this 'trap' because it was the easiest way to cross the river.  What?  Why didn't the crane operator just drop them after he lifted them a hundred feet in the air?  Why did he keep them moving and thus make them a tougher target for his allies?  Why did multiple rockets hit the Mustang and cause no damage?  Very campy at times.

 

Melanie Griffith is horribly cast in this movie.  She has this little girl voice that does not fit a hardened veteran of the lawless lands beyond the bounds of civilization.  Many of her lines are comical rather than bad-ass.  David Andrews is rather wooden and doesn't really know what to do with the character.  He goes from dopy business executive to action hero, which is okay but it is revealed late in the movie that he is a veteran of the Border Wars.  His claim of being a veteran was a big surprise because he is such a hapless oaf in the first act.  Pamela Gridley is great at Cherry.  This early role only demands she be pretty.  Her flat delivery is great for a robot.

 

Lester (Tim Thomerson) is a quirky warlord who has a 50s-style motel for a base where the guys wear colorful bowling shirts and the ladies lounge by the pool.  There is this idyllic feel to the place until Lester puts an arrow through the head of a captive.  Lester has a short fuse and enjoys killing.  Thanks to the blandness of the two leads, he shines by comparison.

 

Elaine/Ginger (Cameron Milzer) is Lester's quirky girlfriend.  It turns out that Elaine is Sam's ex-girlfriend and changed her name to Ginger upon moving to the zone.  She is the only person who can interact in complete safety with Lester.  She has sandwiches ready and counsels a go along and get along policy even while Lester is killing trespassers.  She is unflappable and entirely unconcerned by the violence around her.

 

This is clearly a movie of the 80s and fits with movies such as Slipstream, Cyborg, Steel Dawn, or Road Warrior.  Goofy but fun.

Happy Death Day 2U (2019)

Ryan (Phi Vu) wakes up in his car at Bayfield University and immediately heads back to his dorm.  He enters to find Tree (Jessica Rothe) and Carter (Israel Broussard) making out.  He is immediately run out of the room and he heads to his lab.  He is working on a device that will slow time though it hasn't works so far.  However, his fellow students on the project show that the device had a huge power spike last night.  Huh.  What was that about.  Moments later, Dean Roger Bronson arrives to shut down the project on account of the power outages.  Then, Ryan is murdered!

Ryan wakes up in his car at Bayfield University and is confused.  As he heads to the dorm, all the same encounters repeat.  Weird.  By the time he enters the dorm, he is freaking out and refuses to leave.  He explains to Tree and Carter that he was just murdered.  Tree knows exactly what this means.  She briefly recaps her experiences and organizes everyone to find Ryan's murderer before he is killed again.  When she sees Ryan's project, she suddenly understands why she was stuck in a loop the previous day.  Rather than save Ryan, Tree gets thrown back into her loop!  Worse, everything is a little different so she has to start all over to solve the mystery.

 

Despite playing the same situation with the same character, there are enough new twists and reveals to make this a surprisingly good sequel.  It even ends on a teaser for a third entry.  It plays as less of a horror than the last one and plays up the romance between Tree and Carter, giving it a bizarre Rom-Com vibe at times.  The one gripe is the switch from Ryan to Tree.  Having completely forgotten Carter's ill-treated roommate from the previous movie, it wasn't until he entered the dorm that I realized he was a return character.  And though they uncover his murderer, that entire plotline vanishes the moment Tree is shoved back into her loop.  Maybe that will be explored in the next movie.

 

Thumbs up!

The Virtue of Nationalism

Yoram Hazony was a guest on EconTalk and discussed his recent book that argues in favor of nationalism.  He contrasts nationalism with imperialism.  Before the Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended the 30 Years War, empires were the standard.  This was a culmination of earlier hints of national self-determinism such as Henry VIII enacting the first Brexit when he founded the Anglican Church to escape the supremacy of Rome.  Empires seek a one size fits all approach to governance and culture.  Nationalism provides a people with a shared history and culture to rule themselves.   He has an idealistic vision of nationalism as a sort of global federalism, which he links to American federalism of the Constitution.

 

Among his more shocking claims are that freedom can only exist as a byproduct of ingrained mutual loyalty.  He declares John Locke's ideas clearly false and mostly idealistic.  In fact, he places Hobbes and Rousseau in the same ideological boat of liberals in the more classical sense of that word.  They approached politics like mathematicians, positing axioms that do not describe any government that had existed or currently exists.  Their ideas are aspirational rather than historical.  Yes, it would be ideal if civil society was based on the consent of each person but it isn't.  No one chooses their family or the country in which they are born.  Considerable loyalty to one's family, clan, tribe, and nation is developed long before one can engage in thoughtful consent.

 

Hazony argues that the current push toward globalism and borderless nations is founded on the benefits of economic freedom.  The fewer barriers to trade, the wealthier all societies become.  However, what works for economic theory does not work for political theory.  Nations built on mutual loyalty are better and healthier than diverse peoples bound together under an imperial authority.  So says Yoram Hazony.

 

It is a fascinating discussion and worth a look.  I may have to buy the book.

 

Stan & Ollie (2018)

Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (John C. Reilly) are at the peak of their success in 1937.  In fact, Stan thinks they should strike out on their own and found their own studio, like Charlie Chaplin.  Stan jumps ship when the time comes but Ollie balks; he stays with Hal Roach and makes a film without Stan.  Sixteen years later, the two go on tour in England.  Despite having made many films together in the intervening years, Stan is still irked that Ollie didn't follow him.  They're popularity never reached that same level and now Abbot and Costello are the headliners.

 

The movie explores the final tour of the famed duo and showcases their classic skits and homely humor.  I've never been a fan of Steve Coogan but he is outstanding as Stan Laurel.  John C. Reilly is positively amazing as Oliver Hardy.  If these two got together to make a new Laurel and Hardy movie, I would see it.  The support cast is also impressive, especially the wives.  Nina Arianda is hilarious as the self-flattering Russian Ida Laurel while Shirley Henderson as Lucille Hardy plays it straight in the frequent exchanges between them.  The banter between the wives was far more cutting than that between their husbands.

 

Terrific film and highly recommended.

Hoaxed (2019)

Hoaxed is a movie about the fake news, mainly told by fringe figures of the media landscape.  Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, Scott Adams, Jordan Peterson, James O'Keefe, Tim Pool, and other online personalities provide their perspectives.  Having read two of Scott Adams' books, Jordan Peterson's book, and being a regular viewer of Tim Pool's YouTube channel, I was familiar with most of the complaints leveled.  Of course, the leftist slant of the media is covered, which was old news to me.  However, there were some surprises.

 

Cassie Jaye, an actress turned documentary director, had some success with feminist films.  She decided to tackle the men's rights movement in her next film.  Though she expected to uncover bigotry and misogyny, her interviews and research led her to different conclusions.  To her surprise, she was attacked by former allies for creating a pro-male film and abandoning feminism.  Though I have not seen the film, I did watch her Ted Talk.  She diverged from the party line and was attacked.

 

Multiple personalities noted that the media highlights conflict because it leads to more viewers on TV or more clicks on the internet.  If it bleeds, it leads.  That's hardly a surprise.  However, a Black Lives Matter activist was interviewed.  While in Washington DC with his group, he had seen some All Lives Matter folks and things looked tense.  But he was invited to speak and the two groups found common ground.  He was cheered by the crowd.  Here was the feel-good story of the day and somehow it didn't make it into the news.  The BLM activist was asked if he had heard of Dylan Roof storming into a black church in South Carolina.  Of course.  How about Emanuel Samson (a black man) storming into a church and shooting white people in Tennessee?  No, had not heard that story.  Nor had I.  One fits the America is racist narrative and the other doesn't.

 

The big surprise was that the media hypes conflict.  Conflict generates viewers and viewers generate money.  A war provides a 24/7 news cycle and high ratings.  Does the media provide fake news to lead to war?  The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.  The media floated the government line and Vietnam escalated dramatically.  Was the media more circumspect the next time government pushed for war?  Well, it has since been proven that the babies being yanked from incubators story that turned opinion for the first Gulf War (1991) was false.  Never happened.  Again, the media was fooled.  Or were they?  CNN had awesome ratings throughout the Gulf War.  Was Saddam really trying to build nukes as George W Bush said?  Judith Miller was eventually dumped by the New York Times because her stories about weapons of mass destruction proved inaccurate.  Oh, but the ratings were fabulous.  This is a really dark view of the media.

 

This only scratches the surface of topics from the two-hour movie.  It is an exploration of what the media has become.  The media has become an echo chamber - best exemplified by Twitter - and it thrives on conflict.  Rather than providing news, it sows division.  At least, that is what is argued here.  Check it out.

Tit for Tat

In answer to Speaker Pelosi canceling President Trump's State of the Union address, Trump has canceled Pelosi's world tour, unless she wants to fly commercial.  Two can play this game, Madam Speaker.  I love this shutdown.  May it go on for years.  That absence of government - at least that part that is furloughed - has had no impact on my life so far, beyond the entertainment value.  The longer the shutdown goes, the more likely people will realize that we are paying $100K salaries to perform unnecessary jobs.  If the shutdown lasts 30 days, various departments can move for a Reduction in Force.  We've done without you for a month so we're just going to eliminate your position.  Oh, that would be SO great.  That's one way to drain the swamp.  Most of these people vote Democrat anyway (Hillary won over 90% of the vote in DC) so it's not as if Trump or the Republicans are punishing their voters.  That's leverage that Trump will have on his side in a week.  Of course, Trump is in high-stakes territory.  Loss on the shutdown could sour his base of support.  Failing to get concessions from the Democrats now will mean he never gets concessions.

 

Uncontrolled immigration has successfully turned California from a reliably red state into a reliably blue state.  Texas and Arizona are trending toward blue.  Continuing this policy of unenforced borders benefits the Democrats.  Of course, it also benefits Republican donors who like the cheap labor.  No wonder everyone hates Trump.

 

Much of this current fight can be related to some of Trump's Elements of the Deal as detailed in The Art of the Deal.  Here are a few I see in practice.

 

1. Use Your Leverage: The shutdown makes Trump a bottleneck for spending.  Until the Congress can muster the votes to override a veto, he is in the driver seat.  He was able to cancel Pelosi's trip and he may soon get to reduce the federal workforce.

 

2. Get the Word Out: Trump is nothing if not a self-promoter.  No previous Republican president has ever pushed his case in a shutdown as hard at Trump has.  In fact, they just cave and lose.

 

3. Fight Back: Where George H. W. Bush served as a punching bag during a shutdown during his administration, Trump is fighting back.  He doesn't have the decorum bone in his body, making it hard to shame him into surrender.

 

4. Deliver the Goods: You can self-promote and blather for only so long before people realize you haven't done anything for them.  If Trump doesn't build the wall or some convincing facsimile thereof, he's toast.  He knows this.

 

5. Contain the Costs: Trump has requested $5.7 billion for the wall.  The federal budget is over $4 trillion.  The US spends $6 billion a year subsidizing the sugar industry, which is why American's pay more for sugar than the world market rate.  California's bullet train is going to cost almost $80 billion!  The wall is a bargain.

 

6. Have Fun: Whatever you think of Trump, it is pretty clear he is having fun.

 

Long live the shutdown!

300 Days of Sun

Joanna "Jo" Millard has lost her job and escaped her long-term relationship.  She has come to Portugal to learn Portuguese with vague plans for rebooting her career as a journalist.  While taking language classes in Faro, she meets Nathan Emberlin.  Nathan is a lively young fellow who asks her advice for finding people.  He wants to find a family friend.  Jo makes some inquiries and soon meets Ian, an English Expat who urges her to read a 1953 book that is a thinly disguised autobiography of the author.  The book tells the tale of a woman who escaped Paris and took refuge with her husband in Lisbon.  The book switches from the first person account of Jo in the present to the 3rd person account of Alva Barton in the 1940s.

 

The book never decides what it is.  Is it a mystery, a thriller, a historical fiction novel, a romance, a travelogue?  It is a mixture of all of the above.  If one had to pick the central theme, the issue that most needs resolution, it would be child abduction.  The prologue opens in the late 1940s with Alva searching desperately for her son on a beach.  Has he been taken?  Nathan believes that he was abducted in the early 1990s and enlists Jo to help him dig up the story.  Clearly, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007 is inspiration for some of the story.  It is initially proposed that lots of kids have vanished from the Algarve region but the book doesn't pursue that beyond Nathan.  There is a villain who doesn't appear until the end of the third act and is easily overcome.  He was never a real threat, just a boogeyman to provide some tension for Jo and Nathan.

 

It is an easy read and keeps one's interest but the conclusion is a letdown.  Worse, it provides a couple pages where Jo tells how her relationship with Nathan finally ended and that she still has doubts about whether he found his real parents or not.  They lived ambivalently ever after.  Meh.

 

The author's note discusses how she had gone on a junket to Portugal in the 80s and told her various hosts and guides that she would write a glowing piece.  At the time, she only managed to get a few paragraphs published and felt a bit guilty.  So, this book is an apology?  An effort to write the promised piece several decades later?  As with the ambivalent epilogue, this author's note could have been nixed.

 

Face for Success

 

I saw this picture on Drudge Report.  This is Juan Guaido.  He is the opposition leader in Venezuela.  Brazil has recognized him as the president of Venezuela despite Maduro's inauguration on January 10th.  That's all interesting but what caught me is that he looks like a cross between Barack Obama and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

He has a face for success.  He should be nicknamed BaRock.

The High Mountains of Portugal

The book tells the stories of three men over a period of 80 years.  First, there is Tomas in 1904.  Tomas has made a great discovery in an 300 year old diary and believes a precious artifact can be found in the high mountains.  His wealthy uncle lends him an automobile - a marvel of the day - to go on his quest.  By the time he reaches his destination, the car is a wreck and he's killed a little boy on the road.  The artifact does not fill the void in his life and he has a mental breakdown.

Thirty five years later, a pathologist is working late.  His wife visits him and discusses how Agatha Christie novels illuminate the Bible.  The Bible is a murder mystery with Paul as the Hercule Poirot of his day and Jesus as the murder victim.  No sooner has his wife departed than a woman arrives with her dead husband.  She proves to be the mother of the boy who was run over by Tomas those many years ago.  She guides the coroner in performing an autopsy on her husband, during which he extracts unusual items.  In the morning, the secretary arrives to find the pathologist asleep at his desk and feels great sympathy for him since his wife died.  However, she also finds the dead husband and the suitcase of unusual items.  How much of the events described were hallucination and how much was real?

Lastly, a Canadian senator Paul Torvy is alone after his wife dies.  To get away for awhile, he accepts a junket to Oklahoma where he tours a facility that studies great apes.  He is drawn to one of the chimpanzees and purchases him.  Abandoning Canada, he migrates to Portugal with his chimpanzee and settles in the town where he was born some 62 years ago; his parents migrated to Canada when he was 2.  Endlessly amazed by the chimpanzee, Paul is entirely absorbed in the care and maintenance of him.  It is not until his son visits that Paul discovers he is living in the very house where he was born and that the boy who Tomas ran over was his grandfather's nephew.

 

Each story is engaging but none satisfactorily resolved.  The book ends with a list of questions for the reader.  This is a book aimed at book clubs.  Each character is a widower who is in the midst of grief when the related events occur.  With Tomas, a considerable time is spent describing the use and maintenance of an automobile when such were a rarity.  It is funny to compare the ordeal for Tomas to drive a relatively short distance in Portugal vs. Paul driving from Oklahoma to New York with a Chimpanzee in the car!  The tale of the coroner is the oddest since the crazy autopsy clearly took place though perhaps not as he perceived it.  What does it mean?  Discuss among yourselves.

 

The book is written by Yann Martel, the author of Life of Pi.  There is symbolism to decipher and much to ponder.  Mostly enjoyable.

 

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957)

Wyatt Earp (Burt Lancaster) is riding through Texas on the trail of Ike Clanton.  He drops in to see an old friend, Cotton Wilson, and discovers that Cotton let Ike ride through unhindered.  Once a tough as nails lawman, Cotton is now interested in feathering his nest.  Earp leaves unhappy.  At the hotel, he finds Ed Bailey (Lee Van Cleef) lying in wait for Doc Holliday (Kirk Douglas).  Though he doesn't know Holliday, he still feels obliged to warn him.  Warned, Holliday kills Bailey in a duel and flees a lynching with Earp's reluctant help.

 

Back in Dodge City, Earp is irritated when Holliday shows up.  He tries to drive the gambler out of town but finally agrees to let him stay provided 'No guns, no knives, no killing.'  Holliday has a reputation.  In the ensuing days, Holliday helps Wyatt on a few occasions and a friendship develops.  Also, Wyatt falls in love with Laura Denbow (Rhonda Fleming) and plans to give up his badge in order to marry her.  Then word comes from his brother Virgil in Tombstone: Ike Clanton is making trouble.  Reluctantly leaving Laura, he rides to Tombstone.

 

After some preliminaries that result in the death of James Earp (Martin Milner), Billy Clanton (an astonishingly young Dennis Hopper) meets with Wyatt to schedule the gunfight at the O.K. Corral.  Wyatt, Virgil, and Morgan (played by DeForrest Kelly, better know as Doctor McCoy from Star Trek) are joined by Doc Holliday.  The gunfight is more like a military skirmish that lasts five minutes rather than the historical 30 seconds.  In the end, every Clanton and McLaurey is killed, as are Johnny Ringo, and Cotton Wilson.

 

Though entertaining, it is far from historical.  Rather than Wyatt being Charlie Basset's deputy, this has it the other way around.  Burt's Wyatt is clean shaven, as are all of his brothers.  The Earps are known for their full handlebar mustaches.  Ike Clanton survived the O.K. Corral and Ringo wasn't even there.  The only fatalities were the McLaury brothers (Tom and Frank) and Billy Clanton.  Tombstone (1993) does a far better job with the history though it too has its faults.

 

Kirk Douglas makes for a good Doc Holliday.  By contrast, Lancaster plays Wyatt Earp as some proto-Boy Scout, which is far from the mark.  A clear product of the 50s, it is nonetheless fun.