Murder Rates

Lately, I have seen this posted repeatedly:

Interesting.  Sounds like an attack on Democrats and gun control supporters.  If true, this is a strong argument against both.  Let's fact-check it.

First step: Does the US really have the 3rd highest murder rate?  A quick search returned this link and it has the United States way down at 76th, not 3rd.  As of 2018, the US had a murder rate of approximately 5 per 100,000 people.  El Salvador had 10 times that number.  However, if we look at just the number of people murdered, the US ranks 6th with 16,214 murders.  Just looking at the piles of corpses, Nigeria is the most deadly with 64,201 people murdered in 2016.  Based on this, it looks like the maker of the above graphic may have been using murder totals rather than murder rates.

Next step: How many murders are there in the listed cities?  The FBI maintains crime statistics by city that are available here.  The most recent data available that includes all of the mentioned cities is for 2018.  Let's go with that:

That does amount to 12.4% of all murders in the US for 2018.  Doesn't seem like that would move the US from 3rd place to 189th place.  In order to test, we need to subtract those murders from the total and see where the US places then.  16,214 - 2,325 = 13,889.  After changing that on the table used in step one, we get... 6th place.  Yes, 7th place was Colombia with 12,586 murders.  The US position is unchanged.

Let's try the murder rate.  Sure, it was at 76th place when we used the murder rate, but maybe we'll move the needle by using that instead.  So, we'll have to take out those murders from the total and, to be fair, we'll need to factor out the populations of the listed cities to calculate a murder rate for the rest of the country.

Look at that.  Our murder rate has been greatly improved.  After plugging in 4.37 and resorting by murder rate, the US moves from 76th all the way to 82nd, putting us between Chile (4.405) and Latvia (4.356).  That is a far cry from 3rd to 189th.

Conclusion: the graphic is propagandistic crap.

The Lost City (2022)

The story opens with Dr. Angela Lovemore (Sandra Bullock) and Dash McMahon (Channing Tatum) bound next to each other on a stone floor where they are surrounded by vipers while the nameless villain (Steven Lange) monologues that he will soon have the fabled Crown of Fire while they will be dead.

Delete.  Delete.  Delete.

Romance author Loretta Sage (Sandra Bullock) is entirely unhappy with the climax of her latest book and instead leaves it unresolved.  Her publisher, Beth (Da'Vine Joy Randolph), is not thrilled, but the deadline has arrived.  Her book, The Lost City of D, is published and a book tour follows.  Encouraged to wear a sequined purple jumpsuit (which serves as her totally inappropriate atire for the majority of the film), Loretta appears onstage with cover art model Alan Caprison (Channing Tatum).  The women in the crowd are more interested in asking 'Dash' questions than Loretta.  After an argument with Alan, Loretta storms off, only to be abducted by the oddly named billionaire, Abigail Fairfax (Daniel Radcliffe).  Fairfax has located the Lost City of D and, having read her book, discovered that Loretta has practical knowledge of the hieroglyphic language.  Indeed, her deceased husband was an archeologist and she used his research as a basis for her book series.  Fairfax needs Loretta to decipher some clues he has discovered at the ruins of D.

Meanwhile, Alan and Beth are desperate to recover Loretta.  Alan proposes contacting his yoga instructor.  Beth is baffled.  He explains that his trainer had been a Navy SEAL and CIA operative.  Jack Trainer (Brad Pitt) agrees to rescue Loretta, but will need her phone.  Alan agrees to deliver Loretta's phone.  Of course, Alan expects to be part of the rescue, repeatedly ignoring Jack's demands that he stay out of the way.  His tagalong routine is played for laughs.

The parallels to Romancing the Stone are obvious.  Lonely author finds herself on an adventure with a handsome man, just like in the books she writes.  However, Abigail is a laughable villain and Alan is a useless bumpkin.  The best action scenes of the movie occur during Brad Pitt's brief appearance.

Enjoyable to watch but far inferior to Romancing the Stone.

Uvalde Shooting

Ten years ago, I posted this:

Guns are not the cause of the problem

Once again there has been a shooting and there are immediate demands to ban guns. By this logic, we should ban cars. Vastly more people are killed in car accidents than by guns each year. Ban the car! Or maybe we should ban alcohol. I believe a majority of fatal car accidents involve alcohol. If we just ban alcohol, we could reduce car deaths. Of course, we tried banning alcohol and decided it was a failure. Even now the ban on marijuana is toppling in the states.

Interestingly, unlike the car, guns have an amendment in the Constitution denying the Federal Government from banning them. States and localities have enacted gun control laws that, oddly, seem to have the reverse of the intended effect. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws and also some of the highest murder rates.

Guns have been legal in the United States since its founding and yet these mass shootings did not happen until the 1970s and later. Why? The availability of guns is not the problem, otherwise we'd be able to point to school shootings in 1914, 1927, 1935, and so on. This is a modern phenomenon that can be traced to something that had changed in the last 40 or so years. I don't know what that is but it isn't that guns are legal.

We had less gun control in the 1950s than we have today and yet we didn't have school shootings.  Why?  Gun availability is obviously not the cause.  In those long ago days, a mentally ill person would have been forcibly committed.  We did away with that.  Could that explain the sudden appearance of mass shootings by mentally ill monsters?  Before modern media, a shooting in one state might never be reported in another state or throughout the entire country.  Might the notoriety gained from such reporting be an incentive?

Why are politicians who are protected by armed guards so eager to disarm people who did not misuse their guns?  By this logic, politicians should have demanded that we outlaw SUVs in the wake of Darrell Brooks killing 6 people in Kenosha, Wisconsin last year.  Really, who needs an SUV?  Let's limit everyone to a Smart Car that can't do as much damage as an SUV.  Let's punish law-abiding SUV owners for the crimes of one SUV driver.

Blaming the gun is misdirection.  If the gun explains all, then why are school shootings a modern phenomenon?

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022)

The story opens with the marriage of Tom Branson (Allen Leech) to Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton) with all the Downton regulars in attendance.  After the happy event where most of the characters are reintroduced, the story resumes at Downton.  A director is interested in filming at Downton and Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) is tempted; the money could be used to repair the roof.  Lord Grantham is not keen on the idea and thinks his mother (Maggie Smith) would be horrified by the prospect.  However, Violet Grantham has something else of interest; an old flame from the south of France has left a villa to her.  She plans to bequeath it to Sybbie, her great granddaughter by Sybil and Tom.  Of course, the old flame's widow is not so keen on relinquishing the villa.  With the filming at Downton, Lord Grantham thinks it a grand idea to investigate the villa and meet the residents.

Of particular note, the movie is a silent film that must suddenly be changed to a talkie.  Unsurprisingly, the lead actress has a horrendous accent and needs dubbing.  This facet of the movie bears an uncanny resemblance to Singin' in the Rain.  All the characters get their moment to shine.  Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle) wins acclaim again, the often awkward part-time footman and later school teacher proves to have a talent for dramatic writing.  Of course, it wouldn't be Downton Abbey if characters didn't start proposing to one another or having children.  Yes, romances are requited and new children are added to the Grantham family.

Good popcorn fun.

The Sign of Four (1987)

Mary Morston (Jenny Seagrove) arrives at Baker Street to consult Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett).  Watson (Edward Hardwicke) is immediately drawn to her beauty.  She explains how her mother died when she was an infant and her father, who was posted in India, sent her to live in England.  When she was 17, her father was to visit.  She went to his hotel, and he was absent.  She did recover a peculiar map that bore a mark, 4 in Sanskrit.  "The Sign of Four," Holmes remarked.  That was 10 years ago, and she has no idea what happened.  However, six years ago, she received a pearl.  There was a note enclosed that said she had been wronged and the pearl was payment.  Each year since then, another pearl has arrived.  Holmes grew impatient with her tale.  That morning, she had received a summons and was allowed to bring two companions, provided they were not police.

The trio arrived at the home of Thaddeus Sholto (Ronald Lacey), son of Major Sholto.  Coincidentally, Sholto was a former comrade of Mary's father in India.  Thaddeus explains that Mary's father had confronted his father about a treasure, died of a heart attack during the argument.  His father died six years ago, failing to reveal the location of the mysterious treasure to his sons though he did have a necklace adorned with pearls, the very pearls that Mary had been receiving.  His brother has finally located the treasure and Thaddeus is determined to share with Mary.

The four depart to meet with Bartholomew Sholto but find him dead in a room locked from the inside.  The treasure is gone.  The police immediately arrest Thaddeus.  Can Holmes unravel the clues and locate the murderers?  Obviously.  Like The Crooked Man, this mystery tracks back to events during the Indian Mutiny (1857).  It is just a matter of Holmes laying hands on the criminal and then having him explain the backstory.

Very entertaining.  Holmes makes use of the Baker Street Irregulars, which is both funny and brilliant.  His band of street urchins comb the city to make a search that he could not hope to perform.  Holmes also demonstrated his talent for disguise.  The one failing is that young actors should have portrayed some of the characters during the mutiny; the same man playing both 20 and 50 just didn't work.

Highly recommended.

The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1986-1988)

It is 1894 and Watson (Edward Hardwicke) is a practicing physician.  It has been four years since the death of Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett).  Inspector Lestrade wants his input on a recent murder, which Watson is only too happy to provide.  The two decide this was just the sort of murder that would interest Holmes.  Upon returning to his office, Watson is accosted by an elderly man who wants to sell him some books.  Watson is disinterested but polite.  The man proves to be Sherlock Holmes, resurrected!  Holmes explains the true events at Reichenbach Falls and his subsequent 3-year absence.  The remains of Moriarty's gang is still pursuing Holmes, but this recent murder offers a chance to turn the tables.  Holmes and Watson resume their old ways to take down the final threat in "The Empty House."  Holmes and Watson have another 10 adventures in this series.

David Burke, who played Watson throughout The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, was replaced by Edward Hardwicke.  This was a bit jarring initially, as Hardwicke is a smaller and older man, but he proves to be an excellent Watson.

One peculiarity was that Brett insisted that Holmes overcome his drug additions.  As part of The Devil's Foot, a side plot has Holmes overcoming his cocaine addiction and burying his hypodermic on a lonely beach.  Though outside of canon, Brett didn't want to be a bad influence on children who admired his portrayal of Holmes.  Fair enough.  This is one of the few versions of Holmes that included his use of cocaine; Rathbones' Holmes was a paragon by comparison.

Tales of the literary Holmes continue.  Very entertaining and highly recommended.

Fletch Won

Fletch has been with the News-Tribune for 3 months, is engaged to be married on Saturday, is supposed to meet his future mother-in-law at dinner, and has just been given the uninteresting job of interviewing an oily lawyer who is giving $5 million to the museum.  Of course, being Fletch, everything goes awry.  The lawyer is found dead in the newspaper parking lot.  Fletch views this as great news, since his story is now a murder case.  Nope.  Biff Wilson of the crime beat will take over.  He is sent to investigate an escort agency, something that he is less than keen to discuss with his fiancée.  Worse, there is a notorious robber who bears a striking resemblance to Fletch, causing him repeated problems.  Despite being pulled from the murder story, Fletch investigates, much to the irritation of his editor and Biff.

Chronologically the first book in the series, it is the 8th to be written.  In the previous novels, it had been revealed that Fletch was twice divorced, graduated from Northwestern University, worked as a reporter in Chicago, and had earned a Bronze Star while serving in the Marine Corps in southeast Asia (presumably Vietnam).  Here, he comes off as a fellow on his first newspaper job, stuck doing menial tasks and not having a desk to himself.  There are some funny hints at the future, such as when the society page editor mentions the Stanwyks (cf. Fletch) or he mentions his interest in art (cf. Confess, Fletch).

There is a bit too much slapstick and frequently surpassing the suspension of disbelief.  When Fletch is being throttled in the editor's office, I could only picture Homer throttling Bart in The Simpsons.  The police chase was just ludicrous.  Also, Fletch is getting married at the end of the week but has no chemistry with his fiancée.  The reader already knows they are getting divorced, so why bother working on any attraction between them beyond some sex scenes?  After his convincing affairs with Moxie, one expects some sparks with his first wife.

As for the mysteries, they are hardly worthy of note.  The book drags out the discovery of the murderer, which required almost no deductive reasoning at all.  As for the escort agency, Fletch largely outsourced that.  Sure, that's good work, but it was someone else's work.  Unimpressive on both counts.

Overall, disappointing.

Government Agencies Aren't Immortal?

"The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a Government Program."

Ronald Reagan

Only announced last month, strangely coincident with the pending sale of Twitter, the Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) has been shuttered.  For now.  Executive Director Nina Jankowicz, who made a splash with her Mary Poppins musical number about misinformation, has resigned.  Less than one month to end this ill-conceived government program.  It didn't even last as long as CNN+.

Government should never be in the business of fact-checking.  It may sound like a good idea to have someone in authority correct the misinformation that is inevitable in a free society, but once the government takes on that role, free speech is doomed.  Why?  The government will quickly find that its critics are the source of misinformation.  How convenient that is.  Once one part of government denounces the critic, the rest of government will soon follow.  Recall back in 2013, when Ben Carson spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and was critical of President Obama.  Soon after, he was audited by the IRS.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  The TEA Party had lots of visits from various government agencies, including the IRS.  By contrast, BLM and Antifa - both of which fundraise - have not reported similar harassment by the government.

Government is coercion.  The more government agencies that exist, the more freedom is constrained.

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Thomas Jefferson

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is running through a bizarre plane of existence where the wreckage of some ancient structure swirls about in a gravity-optional kaleidoscope.  Running beside him is a girl with unstated powers that she cannot control.  Chasing them is a demonic creature that appears to be nothing but a vast coil of flaming strands.  It is trying to steal America's powers.  Before Strange can prevent that by taking her powers for himself, he is killed.

Strange awakens from the nightmare!  He dresses, using his magic to tie his tie.  He attends the wedding of his love interest, Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams).  After the ceremony, he sees a disturbance and jumps into action.  He finds a one-eyed tentacle beast attacking... the girl from his nightmare!  After defeating this beast with the aid of Sorcerer Supreme Wong (Benedict Wong), they take hold of the girl and discover her name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) and her power, which she cannot control, is the ability to travel between the various realities of the multiverse.  Strange intends to protect her better than his other version did.  Their opponent proves immensely powerful, forcing Strange and America to flee across the multiverse in search of an ancient book.  On the way, more alternate versions of Strange, his enemies, and his allies are met in alternate realities.

Generally fun, but not without some glaring issues.  At one point, the villain is faced by several other reality 'Avengers.'  The male superheroes are eliminated with a barely any effort, hardly a wave of the hand.  The female superheroes prove formidable, but why?  Why couldn't they be as easily disintegrated as Mr. Fantastic or mutilated like Black Bolt?  Perhaps, with the villain being female, it was thought that brawling among women would be better accepted.  Rather than a sequel to Doctor Strange, this is more of a sequel to WandaVision, which I did not see.  For a second-tier character throughout the MCU, Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) is suddenly an immensely powerful character.  Maybe she always was and I just didn't notice?

America is mostly just a victim, a wandering McGuffin.  Other than a desire to eat pizza and to run in terror from the latest monster, she has no character.  Based on her backstory, her mode of dress and name don't make sense.  She has this American flag motif in her clothes and her name is America, but she's from some alternate reality where she had two mothers.  And her portals between realities are star-shaped.  Huh?

This is Sam Raimi's first movie in 8 years and marks his return to the superhero genre.  Sam brought along Bruce Campbell for a cameo as Pizza Papa.  I would have preferred him as Ash, especially since the undead arrive in the finale.  Indeed, something similar to the necronomicon also plays a major role.

Good popcorn fun.

A Primer on Inflation

John Taylor of Stanford was a guest on Econtalk.  Unique among most economists, Taylor has a widely-known rule named for him.  The Taylor rule provides guidelines on how to handle inflation.  He developed the rule in the midst of the Stagflation of the late 70s and early 80s.  Basically, Taylor proposes that the federal funds rate - which is set by the Federal Reserve - should rise with inflation (that is a gross simplification for which I apologize).  Oftentimes, there is guesswork to try to keep the rate low enough to encourage borrowing - which provides capital for investments - and high enough to tame inflation.  Taylor holds that the Fed has done an excellent job with the interest rate for most of the last 40 years.  However, the current rate of near 0% is entirely out of step with the inflation rate.

Much of the discussion is just a primer on what is inflation, how do you measure inflation (consumer price index), what are the causes of inflation, what are ways of countering inflation, and what are the consequences of not countering inflation.  Runaway inflation leads to barter economies.  Taylor was conservative on his estimates of the inflation rate and proposed that the Federal Reserve should be raising the nominal interest rate to fight inflation.  He proposed that they should have taken action in summer of 2020.  Russ asked about fiscal policy, but Taylor did not delve into that subject beyond saying that big deficits are not ideal.  It is better to have smaller deficits.  Way to take a stand.  He is a monetary economist and more interested in interest rates.

It reminds me of lectures from college. Recommended.

Fletch's Moxie

No sooner has Fletch arrived at the Florida filming location for Midsummer Night's Madness, the latest film by his on & off love interest, Moxie Mooney, than the producer is murdered on the set.  It turns out that everyone had a reason to kill Steve Peterman, especially Moxie.  Fletch absconds with Moxie and her even more famous father, legendary actor Freddy Mooney, to Key West.  The Fort Myers police are unimpressed.  Soon, the major cast members, the current director, the fired director, and a cast member's wife are in residence at the home Fletch had rented in Key West.  Fletch is unimpressed; this was supposed to be a hiding place but has instead become a stop on the local bus tours.  Per his usual, Fletch spends a lot of time trying to ferret out who murdered Peterman, frequently fearing that it may very well have been Moxie.  To add to his trouble, Freddy is a drunkard who often wanders off, which requires Fletch to scout the local bars to retrieve him.  Then there is the man from whom he rented the Key West house, who is apoplectic about the news that it is housing a suspected murderess and many Hollywood notables.

McDonald delivered another enjoyable page turner.  Unlike other notable sleuths, Fletch often comes to the wrong conclusions.  He followed the wrong track in Confess, Fletch; it was Inspector Flynn who solved the crime.  Of course, the crime was something of a sidetrack in that novel, as Fletch was investigating some missing paintings.  Here too, he goes on some wild goose chases before his epiphany.  He's an investigative reporter, not some Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot.  It makes him more human than some of the superhero detectives.  Plus, there's more humor.

In retrospect, there are some aspects that make no sense.  Peterman's machinations look to have been pointless and wasteful.  Maybe he was incompetent in addition to being crooked.  Nonetheless, it's a good read and definitely recommended.

Schumer says Roe v. Wade isn't Federal Law

"Today, I'm announcing that next week the U.S. Senate is going to vote on legislation to codify a woman's right to seek an abortion into federal law."

Senator Charles Schumer

By this very statement, Schumer explains why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  It was never legislated and yet is it law.  That is an oxymoron.  The courts are meant to interpret and apply the laws.  Sometimes when they do this, they overreach.  Roe is such a case.  The Congress did not legislate and yet a 'law' came into existence in 1973 through a court ruling.  This 'law' was created through a hundred-year-old amendment, which had not been viewed as saying anything on the topic.  Much as the Constitution is silent on murder, theft, burglary, assault, speed limits, building codes, or medical licensing, it is also silent on abortion.  These are all issues for states to legislate, provided they don't run afoul of the specific limits listed in the Constitution.  If Roe is overturned, abortion will face severe restrictions in some states and open support in others.  This would be very like how states treat gun rights, something that is specifically protected in the Constitution.

Let the Congress legislate, and face election based on the laws they pass.  That is how the system is supposed to work.  Too often, unelected judges and bureaucrats are making laws for which the people have no recourse.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Article 1, Section 1, US Constitution

All.  Not most.  Not the majority.  All.  If a citizen is compelled to obey, then it better have been passed by Congress and signed by the President.  If not, it's invalid.  Congress didn't legislate Roe.  It should be overturned.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1984-1985)

In this series, Jeremy Brett took the pipe and dearstalker and made them his own.  Though many actors had played Sherlock Holmes, Basil Rathbone was the definite Holmes when Brett took up the challenge.  His success cannot be overstated.  Brett's Holmes has far more range and nuance, adhering to the character that Doyle wrote.  Indeed, Brett had the benefit of bringing the short stories to screen, rather than some adapted screenplay with only slight links to the source material.  He is ably assisted in his portrayal by a first-rate Dr. Watson, played by David Burke.  Rather than the amiable clueless oaf of the Nigel Bruce era, Burke is a competent ally and sounding board for Holmes.  His role as a moderating influence, personal chronicler, and only friend are abundantly clear.  The only failing, which is minor, is that both are too old for the roles.  Holmes and Watson should be at least a decade younger.

The series begins with A Scandal in Bohemia, which is the only story to include Irene Addler, the usual love interest of Holmes.  As the only woman to ever outmaneuver him, he holds her in high regard though not as an object for his affection.  The series concludes with The Final Problem, where Holmes and Moriarty plunge to their presumed deaths at the base of Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland.  In between, there are many well-told tales from the pages of The Strand Magazine.  Charles Gray reprises his role of Mycroft Holmes; he had played the role nearly 10 years earlier in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution.

Brett played the character for another decade, though Burke's run as Watson concludes with The Final Problem.  I very much liked Burke in the role and wonder how I'll view his replacement.

Highly recommended for fans of Sherlock Holmes.  This is the closest depiction to the literary character.

Courting War

During the Korean War, American pilots found themselves in dogfights with Soviet MIGs piloted by Russian pilots.  Of course, we pretended that such was not the case, because if it was, that would mean the US and the Soviet Union were at war.  That could get out of hand very quickly.  Likewise, we accepted the Chinese involvement in the war but did not attack China.  The only Chinese targets that were valid were those that crossed the Yalu River into Korea.  As with the Soviets, this was to prevent an escalation.  China was newly converted to the communist cause and viewed as a Soviet satellite.  An expanded war with China might lead to war with the Soviets.

When the US supported Afghanistan in the 1980s, we started by providing Russian weapons, so it wasn't obvious.  Sure, the Soviets knew, but there wasn't a smoking gun of M-16s.  In Reagan's second term, he opened the floodgates and sent clearly American weaponry, most notably the Stinger missile.  As we had shown restraint during Korea, the Soviets did so with Afghanistan.  There were many proxy wars during the Cold War, where the great powers fought for global supremacy in some unfortunate country's backyard.

Now consider Ukraine.  The US is openly sending money and materiel.  President Biden called for the removal of Putin, a statement that was walked back by Jenn Psaki shortly after.  US legislators - including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - have visited Ukraine and declared support until 'victory.'  The Defense Department has posted a list of military support sent to Ukraine.  Now the news says that US Intel assisted in sinking the Russian cruiser.  The Russians can't pretend we aren't in this war.  Unlike previous clashes, this one is not some proxy war.  Where neither Stalin nor Truman were at threat in Korea, nor Reagan nor the various Soviet premiers at threat in Afghanistan, Putin is clearly in danger in this conflict.  This could be an existential threat to Putin.  And that should guide our actions.

According to the media over the last several years, Putin is a madman.  Worse, he's a madman with nuclear weapons.  We have spent decades appeasing the North Korean dictators lest they do something reckless with their nukes, but now we are undaunted by a dictator with an immense nuclear arsenal.  Putin has threatened nuclear escalation and still we poke the bear.  He's probably bluffing.  However, North Korea was probably bluffing too, but we didn't risk this kind of brinksmanship.

There are several possible explanations.  First, our leaders know that Russia will not escalate, either because we have contact in the Russian government who assure us that Putin would be deposed if he ordered a nuclear strike or we know their nuclear capacity has degraded to uselessness since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or something along these lines.  Second, our leaders have forgotten the risks.  It has been 30 years since the Cold War ended and the Cold Warriors are mostly gone.  This one is hard to swallow as President Biden himself was in Congress throughout the Afghan conflict and should know better.  Then again, Joe isn't all there these days.  Third and most cynical, the administration is in domestic freefall and needs a foreign conflict to dominate the news.  With rampant inflation, a stagnating economy, an uncontrolled border, and cratering poll numbers, there is reason to want the press to look outside the country for something to cover.

Carioca Fletch

Six weeks after Fletch left California with $3 million in cash, he is immersing himself in Brazilian culture.  While having drinks in the afternoon with his girlfriend, Laura, and a poet, Marilia, he spots Joan Stanwyk, widow of Alan Stanwyk and the source of the $3 million.  No sooner has he avoided her than an old woman accosts him, claiming he is Janio Baretto.  He speaks virtually no Portuguese, so he understands little of what she says.  Laura translates, explaining that Fletch is the reincarnation of her husband, Janio, and he must reveal who murdered him 47 years ago.  Though he views this as ludicrous, Laura warns that he won't rest until he finds his murderer.

It is Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, a time when people go crazy.  As predicted, Fletch suffers insomnia and cannot rest for the duration of Carnival.  He spends most of the time trying to avoid the various Baretto relatives who follow him with demands of solving his murder.  He is conscripted into the adventures of the idle rich, a quartet of young men known as the Tap Dancers.  By this means, Fletch discovers what it means to be Carioca, a native of Rio de Janeiro.

More travelogue than mystery, Fletch is along for the ride.  He spends most of the time complaining that he doesn't understand the culture of Brazil or why he should be expected to solve a murder from long before he was born.  The greatest failing of the book is that it is not Fletch.  Sure, he looks like Fletch and he has the same backstory as Fletch, but he has a completely new personality.  Where Fletch is usually out making things happen, learning what he can, playing aces that the reader doesn't see until the climax, this Fletch let's himself get dragged around and waits to be struck across the face, literally!  The book takes place between Fletch and Confess, Fletch, the two best books of the series.

Skip this one.  Not only was Fletch so unlike himself as to seem a different character, the travelogue was more of a warning to avoid Rio de Janeiro than an advertisement to visit.  I don't think that was the intent, which further diminishes the novel.

Chomsky for Trump!

In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky announced that only "one western statesman of stature" was pushing for peace in Ukraine and his name is Donald J Trump.  I would never have believed such a thing had I not watched the clip.  Even after watching the clip, I wonder if it was a deep fake.  When Trump came to office, Chomsky described him as a sociopathic maniac who would drive the country to civil war.  Now, a year and a half after his election loss, Chomsky sees him as a peace maker.  Though he does not directly state it, he views the expansion of NATO in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union as a key trigger for the current conflict.  He argues for a "partnership for peace" that would be open to membership around the world.  No military alliances.  Interestingly, he says that George H W Bush suggested such when the Soviet Union fell.  DeGaul had such a vision and Macron has sought something similar.

Does support for Trump make Chomsky a right-winger?  No, he has been anti-war since before I was born.  However, now that Trump is out of office and President Biden has established a record, the contrast has been stark.  Trump started no wars, the first president of that distinction since Carter.  Trump's team brokered the Abraham Accords, the first major peace agreement since... Carter and the Camp David Accords.  Trump de-escalated tensions with North Korea.  Trump even flirted with leaving NATO.  Though I generally disagree with Chomsky on most topics, I think he has a good point here.

Russell Brand, Right-Winger

As a performer, I was never impressed by Russell Brand.  I saw him on Saturday Night Live about 10 years ago and was unimpressed.  He's so manic and not particularly funny.  British comedy, right.  Get Him to the Greek was one of those rated R comedies that made liberal use of profanity as a punchline.  Oh, the humor.  His one performance I have enjoyed was that of Dr. Nefario in the Despicable Me franchise.  Of note, you would never know it was Russell Brand if not for the billing in the credits.

On the side, he has been a political activist, as most entertainers these days are.  He's called for the legalization of drugs, massive redistribution of wealth, supported the Green Party, supported the Labour Party, attacked Nigel Farage of UKIP (pro-Brexit), and called the Conservative Party a danger.  Standard leftwing talking points all.  Like him or not, he has all the bona fides of a leftwing partisan.  And yet, on a list of Joe Rogan guests that divides them as left-wing and right-wing, Brand was listed on the right!  He addressed this in a video on his YouTube channel.  The video is almost 3 moths old, but I only just learned of it.

Brand outlines his views, which are still classically leftist, but he has taken to attacking the ruling class of either side.  The left-wing parties are more often just elitists who espouse views that they do not then enact.  He's anti-war and feels homeless.  He wants to regulate big pharma while the main parties are in the pocket of big pharma.  What party does one join to roll-back the surveillance state?

It is no longer a left vs. right issue.  It is insider vs. outsider and has been for quite some time.  Glenn Reynolds described it as Front Row Kids vs. Back Row Kids.  The new nobility has control of government.  Their acolytes dominate the media and will denounce any who threaten the status quo.  Welcome to the outside, Russell.