tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-158799682024-03-19T02:58:39.369-07:00I Don't go out for BrunchCommentary on myriad subjects, ranging from pop-culture, movies, music, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu/MMA (that's Mixed Martial Arts for you uninitiated out there), books, and the personal.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.comBlogger256125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-77559714643886115782020-05-15T07:19:00.005-07:002020-05-15T07:19:59.056-07:00Reposting my Planetary Ecologist blog here too. <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">FROM MY other blog:</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Planetary Ecologist: Examining SARs-CoV-2. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">SARs-CoV-2 and the cost of social distancing<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Currently there is a vocal minority movement, supported by forces within the Conservative Party and fanned by news cycles that cannot help but be drawn to conflict, whose aim is to open the US economy quickly and with few restrictions. There is even a movement within this movement seriously protesting the wearing of masks in public. These protesters say the economic costs of social distancing measures to the US will kill more people than COVID-19. “It will kill the economy.” They may be right, but I have seen very few predictions of how this might come to pass, based on actual data, or even on reasonable economic models.<i> </i>While I have not seen any good data-based projections for how a four or five-month program of social distancing will result in lives lost due to economic depression (damage to businesses, job loss, reduced family incomes etc), I have some data-based projections for how lives lost from Covid-19 might translate to a monetary cost based on known death rates and economic valuations of human life. I’ll be using Maine to draw example numbers from, and assuming a time frame of however long it would take for the disease to spike and fade without intervention or mitigation, which is basically what the “Open up Now” contingent is asking for. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Back of Maine’s Envelope. A tale of two fatality rates. (Case Fatality Rate will often be abbreviated CFR)<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">One of the data points used to make these calculations in the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), which is the number of people dying from COVID19 divided by the number of people infected with COVID19. For the following exercise I’m going to produce two sets of numbers for Maine. I’m first going to use the South Korean case fatality rate of 2.368%. In the second model, I’m going to use Maine’s numbers as they currently stand. While the South Korean numbers may tell us something important about how deadly the virus is in an environment with a robust response program, Maine hasn’t had that response, nor has the rest of the US as a whole. The Maine numbers, while they skew higher, may tell us something important about how Maine will fare with COVID-19. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Using South Korea’s case fatality rate, what could the Pine Tree State expect from SARs-CoV-2? Assume just a third of Mainers get the novel coronavirus. That is probably on the low end. Angela Merkel suggested Germany might face 70% infected, rather than the 33% this model is using. I worry my model will be dismissed as alarmist if it assumes a larger percentage of infected people. Hence the 33%. It is important to remember, my model is not intended to predict actual disease trends or epidemiological outcomes. The purpose of this model is to demonstrate that lives lost to COVID-19 also have real economic costs. As my model will show, these economic costs can be quite daunting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Maine has a population of 1,344,212 people. Assuming 1/3 of Maine gets infected, that would give the state 448,070 people with COVID-19. With a 2.368% CFR that gives us 10,610 dead. This would be the number expected if the disease only infected 1/3 of Mainers with the South Korean case fatality rate. No time frame, mitigation or further contagion is assumed. <i> </i>At present and <i>with mitigation</i>, we have only lost 65 people and our actual documented cases are massively well below 448,070. I haven’t been able to find the hospitalization rate for South Korea, so we will leave that aside. What would 10,610 deaths cost the Maine economy? <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The US government values </span><a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">a US citizen’s life at $10,000,000 USD.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> With that in mind it is pretty simple to derive an estimate. 10,610 deaths would represent a $106,000,000,000 loss to the Maine economy (10,610x $10,000,000). Even with South Korea’s smaller case fatality rate, this cost would be quite significant. The Maine GDP last year was 59,255,000,000. The economic cost to Maine at the South Korean rate dwarfs our state’s GDP.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Maine’s case fatality rate is 4.9% (calculated on May 8). Maine’s COVID-19 hospitalization rate is 14.9%. <i>Want to update with today’s data?</i> If these numbers are closer to Maine’s case fatality rate, and hospitalization rates, how many deaths, and hospitalizations can Maine expect with 1/3 of the population infected? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">448,070 x .049 = 22,153.3 deaths. Economic cost to Maine = $221,530,000,000 <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">448,070 x .1443= 64,656.5 hospitalized. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The economic cost to Maine’s economy of widespread hospitalization due to COVID-19 is harder to calculate, but lost productivity, lost discretionary spending would have to be enormous burdens on Maine’s local economies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">These kinds of numbers are interesting but what do they mean when set against the Maine economy itself? Maine GDP for 2019 was $59,275,000,000 dollars. Now that we have a couple of estimates of COVID-19 cost based on different case fatality rates, we can make some simple comparisons. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">South Korean CFR economic cost $106,000,000,000 > $59,275,000,000<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Maine CFR economic cost $221,530,000,000>>$59,275,000,000<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Even the current small number of Maine’s COVID-19 fatalities, (65 as of 13 May 2020) amount to a hefty $650,000,000 cost to Maine’s economy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><br />These are two examples, of course, and with this template one can examine a wide range of consequences by adjusting the CFR. I encourage everyone to play with these ideas. Personally, I would like to believe that the actual fatality rate for SARs-CoV-2 is much lower than any of the CFRs we have seen. We won’t know more until testing in the US becomes much more reliable and accessible. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">What is the actual case fatality rate of COVID-19? </span></i></b><span style="font-family: Palatino;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">There is an argument about what the real CFR is. So far, scientists don’t really know. Many people believe that SARs-CoV-2 is already wide-spread, not reflected in the confirmed cases’ because testing large swaths of the population hasn’t been possible. That would mean the actual pool of infected people (the denominator) is much larger, and thus the actual case fatality rate much lower than what is deduced from confirmed cases. This hypothesis almost certainly has some truth to it. We know there are asymptomatic cases. Given that we don’t know the true depth of infected cases, how can we proceed? How should we proceed?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">We should proceed cautiously and empirically. There are open questions to be sure, but the data we do have doesn’t give us a lot of reason to just assume COVID-19 (more specifically SARs-CoV-2) has a fatality rate below 1%, as many people posit. It may be. So far no one has been able to demonstrate that it is below 1%. I think, for the time being, we are stuck using the case fatality rates on offer, as wide ranging as they are. Above, I chose to use the South Korean case fatality rate of 2.368%. I think their rate is going to be closer to the <i>actual</i> fatality rate of COVID-19. This is certainly an assumption, but my reasoning is as follows. The South Koreans tested aggressively, isolated infected people and did robust contact tracing. Their health care system was never overwhelmed, and never experienced the reductions in quality of care present in overwhelmed systems. From the outside looking in, South Korea was able to keep infections low, find and isolate enough cases to keep transmission down, and manage treatment of patients with the full force of an unburdened modern health care system. I also chose the South Korean numbers because, on the low end, they seem conservative. Using the South Korean numbers is not wildly optimistic (by which I mean it doesn’t assume incredibly low fatality rates that have yet to be demonstrated). The estimate also isn’t high like the numbers in the UK or Sweden, which seem to be outliers on the high end (14.327% and 11.148% respectively- as of 13 May 2020)<i>, </i>given that so many other places have case fatality rates in the 3-5% range. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I did not try to factor in effects of mitigation or the effects of overwhelmed healthcare systems on the numbers, in part because I don’t want to make more assumptions and in part because I have no idea how to credibly add such effects to my model. By demonstrating that lives lost also have significant costs, all I really want to offer is an estimate of the economic cost of opening the economy too soon, causing more deaths than would otherwise happen, using a hopefully reasonable estimate of case fatality rate, and the empirically derived rate for Maine. At the end I will offer a sketch of what I think the implications for the numbers would be with and without mitigation efforts. I’m not factoring in population demographics (and fatality rates really shift a lot depending on age, economic status, and health related risk factors, so bear that in mind). This model is also uncomplicated. I hope, though, that its pared down simplicity helps people think about the problem clearly. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">A note about fatality rates.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The case fatality rate and the actual fatality rate are not the same thing. The <b><i>case fatality rate </i></b>is a number derived from known diagnosed cases vs deaths from diagnosed cases. It may overestimate or underestimate the threat of a disease-causing pathogen. How close this estimate (CFR) is to a pathogen disease process’ <i>actual fatality rate </i>will depend on how reliably that disease process leads to fatalities. For instance, a CFR will massively overestimate deaths if a pathogen is actually widespread but not very prone to actually causing symptoms or killing people. For instance, if it turned out that most of the world was already infected with SARs-CoV-2, the current CFR would be massively overestimating the lethality of SARs-CoV-2. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The <b><i>actual fatality rate </i></b>of a pathogen is much harder to derive. To discover this requires more intense and often more difficult investigation. In addition to knowing the CFR, epidemiologists must find out who has the disease, who has symptoms, who dies from the disease, who gets it and who doesn’t. This kind of estimate requires massive amounts of work. In relation to SARs-CoV-2, that detailed work is only just beginning. The bigger picture won’t be known for some time. For an examination of </span><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105506/" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">the case fatality rate, click this text.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> Crude as the case fatality rate may be, it is the most reliable data we have.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">A few notes about the back of Maine’s COVID-19 envelope<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">This is a simple model. I haven’t accounted for time frames, or contagion rates, mitigation efforts, or no mitigations efforts. My total deaths simply assume the disease runs its course and infection doesn’t extend beyond 1/3 of Maine’s population. These assumptions were meant to simplify the model. In reality the spread of the disease could be much greater than 1/3, or much lower. The fatality rate for SARs-CoV-2 will undoubtedly be refined as more data is gathered, as will COVID-19’s CFR. I think both will skew downward. The former because I expect we will find significant percentage of infected persons who present with no or mild symptoms, the latter because doctors, nurses and an army of medical scientists are going to figure out better ways to treat COVID-19. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><br />We can, even with this paucity of data, infer a few things, and posit a reasonable course (that can and should be corrected as new data comes in). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Given that the projected losses of life, as well as the costs associated with that lost life can be quite high, keeping as many people as possible from getting SARs-CoV-2 must be a policy goal. The other thing that seems obvious even if the CFR of COVID-19 is only as high as South Korea’s, is that it would be much better for the economy if Maine, the US, and world as a whole, spread those losses over a longer period of time so no one financial quarter absorbs the bulk of the losses. Additionally, a slower disease spread over a longer period of time would mean that health care workers would have greater resources, time, and space to treat sick people as they come in. This would almost certainly mean a lower death toll than any projected in my simple model. If that humanitarian argument doesn’t move you, it is also true that lower overall deaths would mean lower overall economic costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Plenty of Quibbling Room</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Palatino;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">There is plenty to debate in my model. Which estimate is likely to be closer to COVID-19’s actual fatality rate? Is a US life really worth ten million dollars? Does life devalue with age? Some might argue that earnings go down with age, but on the other hand, older people also spend a lot of money in the economy. How do population demographics affect fatality rates? Why are CFRs different across countries? The questions are endless and should absolutely be explored. The purpose of these back of the envelope numbers is more to frame issues in a more quantitative way. I want to present an argument in opposition to “Keeping Maine under social distancing will ruin Maine’s economy forever,” and “More people will die from social distancing than from COVID-19!” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The “Open Up Now” crowd rarely offers numbers to support their hypotheses. The discussion offered is consistently without links to economic analysis of reduced economic activity. We should definitely pay attention to the concerns of those who want to open up the economy immediately. However, those concerns, subjective as they are, can be hard to set into a robust economic analysis. One of the goals of this piece is to encourage anyone one considering the disease management issue to think more quantitatively and less qualitatively. Hyperbole gets us nowhere. Vague worries don’t help either. Quantitative thinking bolstered by facts and trends in the data can lead to much more fruitful discussions. They can help us see each other points and concerns much more clearly. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">As to what the economic costs of continued physical distancing might be projected to be, there is at least one comparable event, the 1918 flu pandemic, which seems to deflate the qualitative arguments of the “Open up now” contingent. The 1918 flu, which was also mitigated with physical distancing programs which were certainly economically costly, and came on the heels of a costly world war. However, a Planet Money analysis of a city by city approach to physical distancing (shorter less strict vs longer more strict) and the economic costs found that, "</span><a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/828345390" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">We found that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively actually experienced a relatively stronger bounce back in their economy in 1919, the year after the pandemic.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;">”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">It appears that at least in the 1918 flu pandemic, physical distancing did not equal financial Armageddon. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Important considerations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In Maine we currently don’t see widespread infection, or overwhelmed health care systems. There are only 65 deaths and, it seems, limited disease spread. Currently the Maine infectious rate for SARs-CoV-2 is </span><a href="https://covidactnow.org/us/me" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">1.08 and not the 2.4 found in COVID-19 hotspots.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> This is incredibly good news and seems to argue against some of the more dire financial and human costs in the model offered. An infection rate of 1.08 does mean that the number of infected is still growing in Maine, but at a substantially slower rate (down from a March 8, 2020 peak of </span><a href="https://covidactnow.org/us/me" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">1.58</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;">). It is entirely reasonable to wonder if Maine would ever see a third of its population infected SARs-CoV-2. Maine seems very nearly to have plateaued in infection. We most certainly want to avoid the exponential growth of which this virus is clearly capable. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I hypothesize that the part of that excellent trend is a product of Maine being an early adopter of physical distancing at both the government level and at the level of individuals. I also think Maine has benefitted from the natural physical distancing imposed by the state’s lower population density. There may be other local cultural factors too that have led to a lower overall rate of infection and fatalities. Maybe Mainers don’t actually travel that much within the state. Mainers may stay outdoors a lot more and don’t, especially in more rural areas, congregate in cramped poorly ventilated areas. If trends in grocery and supply hoarding is any indication, People, without direction from the federal, state, or local governments, began to self-isolate and limit their exposure to others. It is possible, even likely, that a combination of factors has likely been responsible for Maine’s good numbers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Will lifting restrictions lead to a “second wave” of infections? Will the number of infected approach the large numbers assumed in the model? What effect will an influx of tourists have on Maine’s rate of infection? Given that each state in the US is, in many ways, unique, should every state necessarily adopt the exact same strategy in dealing with SARs-CoV-2? Maine’s strategy probably shouldn’t mimic Massachussetts’ COVID-19 strategy for instance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Summary</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Palatino;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Given that the COVID-19 CFR for Maine, and for the US as a whole, is actually quite high, and that CFR represents the only really reliable data we have, we should certainly want our pandemic strategy to move forward cautiously. The economic and human costs associated with even moderately high CFRs make basing COVID-19 management policy on optimistic estimates of the actual SARs-CoV-2 fatality rate potentially quite dangerous. What we know means that letting SARs-CoV-2 run rampant through populations is irresponsible and unwise. The disease it causes is incredibly dangerous. There is no shortage of evidence that COVID-19 outbreaks can be very bad indeed. In the US we have several examples from places like </span><a href="https://www.heraldnet.com/news/virusupdate/" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Washington state.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;">, </span><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/us/new-mexico-town-lockdown-coronavirus-trnd/index.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Gallup, New Mexico,</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> </span><a href="https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-new-york.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">and New York City.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> The first known US citizen infected with SARs-CoV-2 arrived from </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/health/cdc-coronavirus.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Wuhan China on January 15, 2020.</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> In only about four months, COVID-19 has killed, in the US, </span><a href="https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">82,461 people (as of 13 May 2020)</span></a><span style="font-family: Palatino;">. We have no reliable treatments beyond symptom management. There is no vaccine to prevent it and no medicine to knock it down, or to reduce the severity of COVID-19. Remdesivir<i> </i>looks promising, but more work needs to be done to establish how effective it is in the treatment of COVID-19. There is also no herd immunity to insulate the vulnerable from the virus. A SARs-CoV-2 infection widely spread through the Maine population, even assuming a low COVID-19 CFR, would crush Maine’s economy. A prudent strategy, especially given the documented dangers as well as the many unknowns, would be to seek to limit the spread of SARs-CoV-2., while continuing to refine our understanding of SARs-CoV-2/COVID-19. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Maine is poised to be one of leaders in testing capacity. Within the week (13 May as of this writing), anyone who’s physician wants them to be tested for COVID-19 will be able to do so without needing to present the telltale symptoms. We are still a long way off from reliable antibody testing, and not just in Maine, but everywhere in the US. Maine, along with the rest of the country, must increase the ability and reliability of tests for COVID-19 antibodies. Current anti-body tests have a great deal of cross-reactivity (Abbie Smith personal communication). This means that the current tests have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between SARs-CoV-2 antibodies and antibodies from other coronaviruses. Accurate antibody testing would provide a much more accurate picture of how deadly this novel coronavirus actually is. It would reveal where it has been and give a better idea of who has had it, crucial since we know a significant percentage of those infected with SARs-CoV-2 have either no symptoms, or only very mild symptoms. Robust data collection could answer many questions that remain to be answered while driving a much more precise response to COVID-19, one reminiscent of the very successful South Korean model. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-33994555486775303292020-03-29T06:39:00.000-07:002020-03-29T06:39:31.199-07:00Brunch Book Review: The Call of the Wild, by Jack London<a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B084L79GFV&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_6nkGEb1FHA82J" target="_blank">A Brunch Book Review: “The Call of the Wild” by Jack London</a><br />
(Link takes you to Amazon)<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Brunch Book Review: <i>The Call of the Wild </i>by Jack London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I owe a lot to the previews for the new big screen adaptation of Jack London’s <i>The Call of the Wild. </i>The movie looked interesting to me, both Harrison Ford and the CGI enhanced dog looked adorable in all the right ways. The film didn’t look too maudlin, always a plus as far as I am concerned. After a few trailers for the film I was committed to seeing it. However, I also decided I needed to read the book, a classic of modern literature, before seeing the movie. I could not remember if I had ever read it. I thought that it might have been some required reading in high school. If I had read it, I could remember not a single detail. Thus, was a reading project born. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Jack London didn’t have to work very hard to please me. I am exactly the target audience for wilderness adventures set in the Northwest Territories, or Alaska, of adventurers, dog sleds and abundant wildlands. One of my favorite books ever, is <i>A Naturalist in Alaska, by Adolph Murie </i>(which probably deserves its own review). That book is about one of the great 20<sup>th</sup> Century wildlife biologists and his studies in Alaska. So, London was, as the saying goes, pushing at an open door. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Call of the Wild </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">is an adventure told from the point of view of a big dog named Buck. This is not an anthropomorphized animal adventure in which all the animals are given human voices, human inclinations, and are generally just humans in animal guises. That can work, as host of animated films, books and even comic book demonstrate. That is not how London approaches the adventures and trials of Buck the dog. London tries to get in the <i>canine </i>head of his appealing hero and explain Buck’s life through a lens filtered deeply by the genus <i>Canis. </i>Specifically, London’s pays a great deal of narrative attention to the things that would, and clearly do, matter to domesticated dogs. Buck’s world is chiefly focused on understanding and predicting human behavior, as well as the dominance hierarchies that drive all dog life. Both of these behavioral drivers become all important when Buck is conscripted into the life of a sled dog. There is a third thread to London’s narrative, and it may the most tantalizing part of the book. That thread is the meditations the narrator has about the very nature of a dog’s behavioral and mental life. These meditations form the core of London’s <i>call of the wild, </i>which is a tug I suspect London thought many domesticated beings felt. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Buck represents a dog who, perhaps like many dogs, really feels his wolfish origins deep in his sturdy frame. The further and longer Buck is kept in wildlands and left by the dog handlers to manage his own safety among the other sled dogs the more he seems hear an ancient part of his nature. He is, after all, behaving quite wolfish so how could the ancient rhythms encoded in his genes not help but be awakened? Buck seems to feel this <i>call</i> more than his pack mates. Most of them are actually sled dog breeds and seem born to life in the sled harness. They live to pull and will try to do so even when injured or too old to manage. The sled dog is as neurotic and obsessive in its way as is the herding dog, that lacking cattle or sheep to herd, will try to keep its family in a tight group on a walk or a hike through the woods. Buck is not a purebred dog. He is the product of a mixed breed pairing. Like many mutts, Buck has benefitted by having a robust phenotype, without showing many of the problems of dogs that are the product of long lineages characterized by excessive in-breeding. Buck demonstrates none of the neuroses of his sled dog fellows. He is huge, fast and smart. And while we never hear a direct anthropomorphized word from him, he is an interesting and engaging hero.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I don’t really want to overly summarize the novel. Better for Buck’s adventures to be a surprise revealed by turning pages and reading. Buck meets a lot of people and critters. Most of them are nice, or at least not mean. A few are the opposite, and some are plain bad. London also seems to know the culture of sled dogging of the time. Most of the sled pilots aren’t mean to the animals. Many even show clear affection for the dogs. The men aren’t engaged in sport though, and sled driving is a life of serious and often dangerous work. How accurate London’s portrayal of this life and its insular culture are is a mystery to me. Whether London is accurate or exercising creative license, his writing is so strong the description of life in the snow and ice feels more than accurate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I want to point out London’s attempt to grapple with natural history, and, whether he knew it or not, evolutionary history. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">London, like any author of popular fiction, wants to tell a rousing and engaging tale, but at times his narrator’s voice seems almost preoccupied with deep questions about animal lives. Buck is the lever London uses to pontificate about natural history. And Buck is a fine lever indeed. Like all domesticated dogs Buck straddles two behavioral worlds. As a mutt, he doesn’t’ necessarily share the neuroses of working dog breeds. His considerable intellect doesn’t obsess over a job like the minds of many working breeds seem to. He works so hard in the sled, because he enjoys the praise of the humans. Buck works hard to be dominant with other dogs too, and one suspects he does this for the canine accolades his pack mates give him for such efforts. London suspects that the dogs suffer different mental constraints, based on their history of breeding. The sled dogs hear the <i>call</i> only as it extends to the maintaining and governance of canine dominance hierarchies, which is to say a pack order. The sled dog team certainly needs a leader to guide it, but beyond that, the hierarchy serves no real purpose in the dogs lives anymore. For Buck it means more, because he isn’t shackled to or overly possessed by the singular purpose of pulling a sled. Buck seems as if he could take or leave the sled. This is not the case of every dog in his orbit. Buck’s instincts are different than the instincts of his sled dog pack mates. The only clear signals of Buck’s domestication are his fondness for, and comfort around humans. But he was, from the first moment we meet him, a dog with a strong wanderlust. This trait only grows more and more powerful in Buck as gets farther and farther from civilization. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">As an adventure novel, </span><i style="font-family: Palatino;">The Call of the Wild </i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">certainly works. It hits all the beats an adventure novel should. An added bonus? There is no badly written romance. But I think it really shines when London is contemplating the strange evolutionary history of dogs in a serious way. London seems to understand dogs, and the effects a history specific breeding may have on a dog’s mind. His observations may not actually be correct, but they are plausible ideas when set against the evolutionary history of </span><i style="font-family: Palatino;">Canis lupus domesticus. </i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The language is not the language of an evolutionary biologist but that of a person who knows quite a bit about nature, and dogs, and who seems to love them both. That said, the book is a product of its time. There is a black dog named Nig, for instance. But the casual racism that characterized the times is not as bad as it is in other novels of the same period. This is a classic you should visit, or revisit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">10/10.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-19558075502025084892020-03-21T08:52:00.002-07:002020-03-21T09:11:44.874-07:00Social Distancing Projects. The Omelett. Social Distancing has suddenly given me a lot of time to do things other than Jiu Jitsu, which has been my all consuming obsession for almost two decades. To take the sting out of that, I’ve decided to try to improve other aspects of my life. One of my current projects is to improve my range as a cook. I’m not bad around the kitchen, but I’ve always known there could be improvements. The current cooking technique on which I am focused is, the basic omelet. Here is my guide. Jaques Pepin. Here is another view of his approach as described in <a href="https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1013884-fines-herbes-omelet" target="_blank">The New York Times.</a> Pepin has a host of YouTube content and had a show on PBS for years called <i>Fast Food My Way.</i> That show is gold. I only recently discovered it, and you should watch it. It has a host of great ideas for your Distanced Kitchen.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X1XoCQm5JSQ" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
What are you doing during our time of social distancing? Catching up on reading, I’m sure, but what else? Put it in the comments below.</div>
</div>
</div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-21559490246199554392020-03-16T07:39:00.001-07:002020-03-16T10:34:13.788-07:00Brunch Book Review: “The Poppy War” by R.F. Kuang<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "palatino";"><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Poppy-War-Novel-R-Kuang/dp/0062662589/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1584369316&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Poppy War, </a></span></i><span style="font-family: "palatino";"><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Poppy-War-Novel-R-Kuang/dp/0062662589/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1584369316&sr=8-1" target="_blank">by R.F. Kuang</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Poppy War, </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">by R.F. Kuang<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">R.F. Kuang’s </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Poppy War</span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> begins as many fantasy novels do. It focuses on the challenges and ambitions of a much put upon young protagonist. In this case that much put-upon protagonist is an orphan of war, Rin (Runin Fang). Rin was adopted by almost universally awful in-law parents. They are anxious to marry the girl off, and collect a handsome dowry, as soon as they can. Both “parents” tend to utilize her as slave labor. She works in their store keeping the books, or takes care of her adoptive brother Kesegi. Kesegi is the only person in the family who cares about Rin, it seems. In addition to the chores her in-laws demand, Rin is studying for a test, the Kedju, which will get her into the realm’s premiere centers of learning. Success on this test is the key to a better life for an orphan being raised by hateful guardians. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Needless to say, Rin passes the Kedju. Not only does she pass, she scores the highest score in her province and has earned a free trip to the most prestigious school in her world, Sinegard. Sinegard, depending on a student’s strengths, can train people in a variety of academic and military disciplines. Martial arts are a core component that everyone must train in. Sinegard is an academy that trains the leaders -- military, academic, political -- of the nation of Nikara. As the training ground of Nikara’s future leaders, everyone at Sinegard is obsessed with a small island nation called Mugen. Mugen is a consistent source of military trouble. It may be small but Mugen’s military is strong and capable. That is probably enough background to allow me to review the book for people who haven’t read the novel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I started out quite enjoying </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Poppy War. </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">My interest and enjoyment flagged with almost every chapter. Especially after the Sinegard portion of the book ended and the “war” section of the book began. The book itself seems to begin showing a “Mulan/Brave/Cinderella” vibe. Young woman overcomes gaslighting in-laws, and class expectations is the basic story skeleton Kuang begins with. Quite abruptly she turns the book into a quite serious war novel. There is a spiritual subplot Kuang begins during Rin’s education at Sinegard. It involves the lost art of training and developing shamans. Shamans have special martial arts powers gifted to them by their relationship with Nikara's gods. With this thread, Kuang engages in her messiest storytelling. The gods can mostly only be accessed by consuming a variety of mind-altering drugs. It is hard to know what Kuang wants us to take from this situation. Rin and her allies will be ingesting quite a lot of drugs, some more serious than others (opium, heroin, mushrooms, and numerous nameless substances). The spirit world seems almost as dangerous as the drugs. The gods can take possession of the shamans’ bodies, or fuse personalities with shamans, or something. It’s all kind of confusing. Whatever the mechanics, a person’s individuality can be subsumed, unpleasantly, into the stronger personality of the god the shaman serves. More about that later maybe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The cover of the book was well blurbed. It has garnered praise from critics at the </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Washington Post </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">where it was, in 2018, rated one of the “top 5 science-fiction books of the year.”</span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">. </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">A critic at </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Booknest </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">said, “I have no doubt this will end up being the best fantasy debut of the year.” </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Wired </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">magazine, called it, “…. this year’s Harry Potter.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Needless to say, I don’t share any of these opinions. After seeing Rin’s resourcefulness, and kindness in her home village and her resolve at Sinegard, I liked her less and less as the chapters moved into the war story. Kuang seems to take every likable attribute of any character in the novel away from the reader. This leaves readers very little to hold on to. My interest in both the characters and their challenges diminished inversely with their increasing meanness. Rin, who begins the story strong, smart, and resourceful, devolves into a whiny, somewhat lovesick, increasingly stupid, and less than moral teenager. As this change happened, it became harder and harder for me to return to the novel. The challenge of returning to the book was made even more difficult by the depressing tone of the last part of the book. To be clear, Kuang leaves us with the following scenario at the end. The shamans can mostly only utilize the powers of the gods by becoming hopelessly addicted to hard drugs. The gods also don’t care about their champions or humans generally. They will do things for humans, but there always seems to be a price. The gods are assholes. The heroes are moody, morose assholes. The country this group of heroes fight for is very nearly lost to the forces of Mugen. Nikara is also led by a queen who commands total love, awe, and respect (she is a powerful shaman after all), but her chief mode of maintaining power is to betray her citizens and sacrifice them (and the occasional loyal soldier) to Mugen ambition. Strangely, this betrayal comes as a shock to Rin late in the book, despite the fact that at Sinegard Rin herself had reasoned that Nikara had sacrificed a whole people to affect peace with Mugen. “NO IT CAN'T BE” seems like a wrong-headed reaction from a person who has already deduced that her country would strategically make genocidal sacrifices.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">After the novel’s </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Part One, </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">I was never satisfied with any of the story elements. Many reviewers, both professional and amateur, commented on the epic world building Kuang does. Sadly, I did not see evidence of this. I was knocked out of the story over and over again by Kuang’s clear allegory. Kuang is dealing in the obvious and it detracts from the work. Nikara is China, Mugen is Japan. </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Poppy War </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">is the thinly allegorized history of the conflict, quite old, between Japan and China. Kuang clearly thinks Japan is the historical villain and makes this allegorical proxy as bad she can. Nikara (China) is the better half in this conflict (though not wholly great it has its social issues and civic challenges). Obvious allegory is maybe the worst thing a writer can do. The more obvious and heavy-handed the allegory, the more it denies the reader freedom to just appreciate a story as it is. Allegory can also damage the literary quality of timelessness. No matter where a writer sets an allegorical tale, it will always be about a specific time, a specific place, a specific event. A reader even mildly “up” on the allegorical subject matter will be unable to avoid said subject. For me, Kuang’s allegorical approach was simply too much. It also lacked nuance. Its allegorical Japan were almost horror show villains. The behavior of Japan’s government and military during WWII (and other times) has been far from wholly honorable, it’s true. But China also has its own fairly damning history of its own when it comes to authoritarianism, brutality, colonialism and Imperialism. </span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Poppy War</span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;"> sometimes felt like propaganda.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Added to this allegorical mixture is the fact that almost with each passing page, the likeable characters become more and more unlikable. Most of Rin’s school days nemeses become worse too. The net effect being almost no likable or relatable characters for almost two thirds of the book. That makes for some tough reading. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The appreciation of art is pretty subjective. My reaction to the story elements may not be your reaction. There are no really mechanical flaws in the book. It’s solidly written. It’s not overly saccharine, though there is a love story that seems more YA than adult reading. But that could also just be me. I find most love stories in most genre and media to be annoying, badly conceived, and bizarrely simpleminded. They almost never seem to imitate the way real people fall in love. Tastes vary of course, as do experiences. So, if you like reading about awful people, and depressing conflicts in which no honorable or kind action or impulse is ever rewarded </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Poppy War </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">may be the book for you. Kuang herself has said she wanted to make something that would appeal to </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Game of Thrones </span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">fans. I’m absolutely sure she has done this. Full disclosure, I also detested </span><i style="font-family: Palatino;">Game of Thrones. The Poppy War </i><span style="font-family: Palatino;">is dark and depressing but it isn’t poignant, enlightening or insightful. Its villains are wicked, violent, awful and utterly without compassion, but so too are most of the book’s protagonists. In the right hands a depressing book can be a good and worthy read. In the wrong hands reading is an unpleasant slog.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">6-7/10</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-39114214371899127272019-03-27T07:41:00.000-07:002019-03-27T07:50:38.127-07:00Attorney General Barr’s Summary and the Need to Publish the Mueller Report<br />
Attorney General Barr crafted a fairly, though fairly subtle, partisan summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. You can read the text <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html?module=inline" target="_blank">here</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html?module=inline" target="_blank">here.</a> My hot take on Barr’s hot take is this: It deliberately omits the massive findings and successes of the Mueller investigation, highlights the clearance on a Trump Campaign and Russian government conspiracy, and discusses the obstruction section in a deliberately obfuscatory way. Barr came to his conclusions in a relatively quick way that seems to impugn the credibility of the analysis he offered the Senators. Forty eight hours is a pretty short time to issue conclusive statements and prosecutorial decisions given a report that details twenty two months of deep investigation. AG Barr’s summary cannot be the end of the story, and it shouldn’t be his decision on whether or not congress gets to see the report.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Analyzing Barr’s Summary</i></b><br />
<b>From the letter:</b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Attorney General<br />
Washington, D.C.<br />
March 24, 2019<br />
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">The Honorable Lindsey Graham</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">United States Senate</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">290 Russell Senate Office Building</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Washington, D.C. 20510</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">The Honorable Jerrold Nadler</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">United States House of Representatives</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">2132 Rayburn House Office Building</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Washington, D.C. 20515</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">The Honorable Dianne Feinstein</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">United States Senate</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">331 Hart Senate Office Building</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Washington, D.C. 20510</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">The Honorable Doug Collins</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">United States House of Representatives</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">1504 Longworth House Office Building</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">Washington, D.C. 20515</li>
</ul>
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:<br />
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.</blockquote>
All pretty boilerplate and reasonable, though, any honest observer of Senator Lindsey Graham over the past two years will question the honorific “Honorable.” That will seem like a partisan sneer, but I don’t think it is, given how many centrist Republicans have also lost respect for Graham. Minor quibble and the language is unavoidable in any event.<br />
<br />
<b>Next section: </b>This could be titled methods and means<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 1rem;">"The Special Counsel's Report</span><br />
<blockquote>
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. $ 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.<br />
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.<br />
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.</span></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
This is a tricky bit of writing. Barr states his review is on-going, but that in the interest of the public confidence he will tell the Senators his conclusions. There is no way that doesn’t seem like a rush to judgement. The summary only gets trickier from there. Barr highlights the number of subpoenas, the number of investigators, the types of investigators, number of interviews etc but then declined to also summarize the number of indictments and guilty findings because these latter details have already been made public (by, one assumes good reporting by the media). However a lot of the investigative details were also already public knowledge. This has the appearance of softening the report while also not making partisan senators uncomfortable with successes of the Mueller probe. Many of them have refused to accept that Mueller and his team have been good investigators and uncovered quite a lot. Forcing them, along with the American public to look at the number of Trump’s close associates to have been found or pleaded guilty to criminal charges doesn’t seem like its an important point for Barr. The AG also knows this letter will be made public and it seems as if he is avoiding legitimizing the reporting of Mueller’s successes, including close associates of the President of the United States.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Barr Describes the Organization of Mueller’s Report</i></b><br />
<h2 style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin: 30px 0px 17px;">
"Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.</h2>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”<sup style="margin-top: -4px; position: absolute;">1</sup></div>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.</div>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. <b>But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.</b>”</div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
I’ve highlighted the last part because I think it is a key elision in Barr’s analysis. I think until proven otherwise we have to accept the findings of Mueller’s report. By all accounts he is a committed professional, ethical guy. Full disclosure? I think he is a kind of American hero. That isn’t to say he is perfect, or without flaw. However he seems, by all accounts to do the right thing. He ran a tight, and tight-lipped ship. Enter AG Barr. By denying people the ability to see the whole of the Mueller report Barr can highlight the lack of evidence of crime, but he denies us the ability to see what Mueller’s conclusions were about activities that didn’t rise to the level of criminal culpability but would have to be considered deeply unethical. Barr is focusing eyes on the the lack of coordination between Trump <i>et al </i>and the Russian government to win a US election (which would be criminal), but this glosses over the efforts by Trump allies, and perhaps Trump himself, to work with Russian oligarchs and other Russian citizens and murky assets. This also doesn’t address the fact that such people as Russian oligarchs exist largely at the whim of Putin. Among the Russian elite, it is very hard to know where the government ends and private citizenry begins. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
We do know that Trump himself encouraged Russian attacks on his political opponents. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 16px;">
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">"I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
-Trump at a press conference on his campaign trail. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
That may not be coordinated conspiracy but it does rise to the level of deeply immoral action in a US political election. If you are a Trump supporter and feel inclined to give him a pass here, ask yourself how you would feel if Hillary had asked China, or Britain to hack or steal Trump emails. After he asked this it appeared that Russians were listening, because they almost immediately started attacking and targeting Clinton. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
For a longer analysis of the episode above go <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282" target="_blank">here,</a> and <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts" target="_blank">here. </a></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
The Don Jr Trump Tower Meeting. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
Mueller didn’t indict on this or find that it met the criteria for coordinating with the Russian government. I’d like to read the report to know what the rational was for this, as I’m sure the Mueller team looked into it. Its a complicated story, but even if doesn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, it again, impugns, mightily, the character of every single person involved. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
What we know is that it was a meeting intended to profit on alleged Russian knowledge of Hillary Clinton that would have been damaging to her. A brief summary of the events is in order.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
My brief summary. </div>
A British music publicist emails Don Jr that a Russian pop star wants to arrange a meeting with Trump and some big Russian influencers to dish on some official Russian documents that would look bad for Hillary. British Pop music guy says that this stuff came from a meeting between Russian Pop Stars pop, and someone he called the Crown Prosecutor of Russia. British Pop guy also claims that this is part of Russia’s support for Trump.<br />
<br />
In the email exchanges that led to the now infamous Trump Tower meeting, Don Jr says, “<i style="font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold;">If its what you say, I love it especially later this summer.</i><i style="font-weight: bold;">”</i><i style="font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold;"> </i><span style="font-size: 16px;">This all happens on June 3 2016. </span></div>
On June 6, 2016 Don Jr and British pop guy arrange talks. Trump calls and is called by Russian pop star. After his calls with Russian pop star, several calls ensue from Don Jr. A long one to an unknown blocked number. We don’t know who this blocked number was and Don Jr rather lamely claims to not know who it belongs to. There is some credible speculation that the blocked number is Donald Trump’s number, and that Don Jr and Don Sr were discussing the particulars of the meeting.<br />
<br />
June 7 2016, Don and Goldstone (British pop music guy) confirm meeting. They will meet on June 9. Don Jr says, he will probably be with Manafort, Don Jr brother and of course Don Jr.<br />
At the same time Donald claims he will be making major speech about what he has on the Clintons. While not conclusive, it does lend support to the Cohen testimony that Trump Sr was in the loop, and was anticipating a pot of Russian gold. Given that the meeting didn’t actually produce much and Trump never gave that Monday take down, the worst interpretation of the Trump Tower meeting seems at least credible. Trump knew about the upcoming meeting, and was anticipating damaging content to deliver to the press.<br />
<br />
The meeting gets pushed back, and Manafort and Kushner are getting forwards of the email exchanges with Goldstone. This is now more people close to Trump in the loop. This increases, not decreases the likelihood that Trump Sr himself was also in the loop. It strains any semblance of verisimilitude. It seems unlikely in the extreme that all the people who knew about it were extremely close to Trump and that none of them discussed the meeting with Trump Sr. It could have happened that way. But given Trump Sr’s tendency to badly micromanage everything, that doesn’t seem very probable. Trump is in the building for three hours before the meeting, and no one mentioned to him that there was going to a major meeting with Russians to get Kompromat on Hillary?<br />
<br />
The meeting fails to produce dirt on Hillary as the Russians mostly wanted to complain about sanctions and the Magnitsky Act. Does any of this rise to the level of criminality? But given that the press had to shame Trump <i>et al</i> into being somewhat honest (ironically, the press had the emails) about the whole event doesn’t bode well for a high ethical bar being crossed by the Trump campaign team. From a legal layperson’s perspective (mine) it all looks like an attempt to coordinate with the Russian government to attack a political opponent.<br />
<br />
There is more we could say <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/trump-tower-meeting-timeline/index.html" target="_blank">on this meeting</a>, but Barr prevents anyone from having to deal honestly with what is at least an ethical breach by focusing on Mueller’s finding of no conspiracy with the <b><i>Russian Government. </i></b><br />
<b><i><a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/mueller-report-trump-tower-meeting-no-indictment-first-amendment-2020.html" target="_blank">Analysis of the decision to not indict anyone for the Trump Tower Meeting.</a></i></b><br />
<b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting#Participants" target="_blank">The Wikipedia Entry on the Trump Tower Meeting</a></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
It looks like AG Barr has spared or is trying to spare the Republican Party a broader reckoning with the full picture, denying Congress, the body that must decide what to do with Presidential malfeasance that same full picture, as well as denying the American public its own oversight privilege.<br />
<br />
Barr almost praises Mueller for the work the Special Counsel did on uncovering and describing the vast Russian effort to influence the US 2016 presidential election. This is a bombshell that Trump supporters, President Trump chief among them, refuse to acknowledge. Trump and his allies have been denying the US Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement consensus that Russia intervened in a major and concerted way to upset US democracy (as it done to democracy across the world) almost since Trump’s election. The Special Counsel investigation has exposed those lies, deceptions and spin efforts. Trump was either wrong or lying about Russia attacking the US elections. Given that he gets briefings and has had intelligence people telling him since before he was elected Russia was officially trying to help him, we can only assume he was lying. This finding by Mueller is was the central pillar of his investigators mandate, and with his report, he corroborated almost all of the reporting on Russian influence attacks. This makes a sham of the terms “witch hunts,” and “fake news.”<br />
<br />
Below I’ve highlighted some key points in bold in AG Barr’s summary of obstruction.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin: 0px 0px 17px;">
"Obstruction of Justice.</h2>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that<b> “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”</b></div>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<b>The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.</b> Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.<sup style="margin-top: -4px; position: absolute;">2</sup></div>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.</div>
<h2 style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin: 30px 0px 17px;">
Status of the Department’s Review</h2>
<div style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a “confidential report to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,</div>
<div class="g-footnote" style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<sup style="margin-top: -4px; position: relative;">2</sup> See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).”</div>
<div class="g-footnote" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<span style="font-family: , "georgia" , serif;">Again the AG crafts a carefully worded summary that fails to summarize the President’s action, by referring to the reporting on those actions. This is sort of funny in the sad way so much of American politics is funny these days. To cite the public reporting is to credit it as anything but “</span><i style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">fake news.</i><span style="font-family: , "georgia" , serif;"><i>”</i></span><i style="font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;"> </i><span style="font-family: , "georgia" , serif;">AG Barr must know full and well that the partisan Republicans he is addressing will not bother to look at those well reported actions by the president. We know that Manafort and Stone have been charged with obstruction and witness tampering. How likely is it that Trump is unlike his peer associates. Perhaps that is an unfair question. </span></div>
<div class="g-footnote" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<span style="font-family: , "georgia" , serif;">AG Barr is almost certainly correct that obstruction is a hard charge to prove because you must be able to establish the intent of the charged. Mueller left the question open, without recommendation, which may have been a mistake. Many legal scholars seem to think he wanted the decision to pursue that question left to Congress, whom he thought would read the full report. Barr has an extraordinarily narrow view of <a href="https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/20/read-bill-barrs-19-page-memo-ripping-mueller-probe/?slreturn=20190227103611" target="_blank">of obstruction of justice and extraordinarily broad view of Presidential power.</a></span></div>
<div class="g-footnote" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<span style="font-family: , "georgia" , serif;">Barr steps in it though, by electing to exonerate the president himself, despite the fact that even he admits that the Mueller report “fails to exonerate” the President of obstruction of justice. He makes the claim, sure to be challenged, that since the Special Counsel did not make a recommendation on whether a crime had occurred, it fell to him to make that determination. It seems unlikely that this is the case, given that crimes can only be established in a court of law and are not declared by Attorney Generals, or Prosecutors. </span></div>
<div class="g-footnote" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.35rem; margin-bottom: 17px;">
<span style="font-family: , "georgia" , serif;">Even if he was correct it seems AG Barr is the last person who should be making an adjudication on whether obstruction occurred given his well publicized hostility to the Mueller investigation and his commitment to the position that a President cannot be guilty of obstruction. This legal commitment makes Barr singularly unfit to render a decision to recommend or fail to recommend prosecution regarding obstruction. Mueller apparently laid out evidence for and against the case for obstruction. What was that case? We don’t know, and neither Barr, nor Trump or his allies want to us to know. </span></div>
The only path forward, I think is to release the Mueller Report, not only to Congress but also to the American People. Congress voted almost unanimously to release the report. In the senate, one of the most partisan Republican Senators, The “Honorable” Lindsay Graham doesn’t want it released, and clearly doesn’t want Congress to exercise its co-equal oversight powers. He is joined by many other hyper partisan Republicans. That smells as bad it looks. Transparency would give was all a chance to adjudicate on the actions of our representatives while allowing constitutional processes of checks and balances to move forward.<br />
<br />
Release the Mueller Report.<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-26876455579208626242018-10-04T10:36:00.001-07:002018-10-04T10:36:14.175-07:00An open letter to the US Senate: Why you should vote no on Judge Brett Kavanagh<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Dear Senators, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I’m writing you to urge you to vote no on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. He has, almost since the moment of his nomination by President Trump, betrayed a troubling tendency to bend the truth or lie when is suits his purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Judge Kavanaugh faces some serious and credible accusations about his past behavior. Leave those allegations to one side. We may never know, to our satisfaction what the truth is in those allegations and good, honest people can be agnostic on the question of did he, or didn’t he. However, while we may not ever be fully satisfied we know the facts of his past, we are confronted with his present behavior. This present Brett Kavanaugh should not inspire confidence in any one that he has the right intellectual commitments or temperament for a position on the bench of the highest court in our land. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino; font-size: small;">I will give only a brief over view of the lies and dishonesty that we have seen from Judge Kavanaugh. The list won’t be <o:p></o:p>exhaustive.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Palatino;">When he accepted the nomination to the court he praised President Trump in the following way. “No President has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” For any other position this kind of dishonest flattery might not matter. In a future Supreme Court Judge whose judgments and pronouncements must be measured, logically sound and evidence based, such a statement is ill fitting, and indicative of a comfort with disregarding the truth. It seems unlikely that a President who detests reading, spends most of his time watching television news, according to credible reporting, did a great deal of research or talked very widely. In any event there is no way Kavanaugh could possibly presume to know such a thing, and yet before the nation, and directly in front of the president and his own family he made such a statement.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Palatino;">He appears to have lied under oath several times. He stated he had no connections to Yale and got in by “busting his tail.” However, he did have connections to Yale. His grandfather attended and Judge Kavanaugh would have been a Legacy student. That isn’t a crime, or even indicative of a lack of qualifications.<span> </span>However it was a demonstrable falsehood, under oath no less. How can we trust the integrity of someone who lies about something so verifiably false? <span> </span>He said, “I have no connections there [Yale].” While in fact he did. He may have worked hard, and been qualified, but he definitely had a connection to Yale. He lied about this. In addition to this, he was referring to his getting into Yale Law School. He went to Yale as an undergrad and that definitely would have had an effect on his ability to network and get into the Yale law school. None of this is bad, or illegal or unsettling. What is bad about all of this is his lying about having no connections to Yale while under oath. The job to which he is being appointed is not as a short order cook, but to the highest court in the land.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Kavanaugh has tried to paint himself as a kind of choirboy. Why he has elected to portray himself this way I couldn’t guess. However his friends from both high school and college along with many of his own accounts flatly contradict this image he originally tried to paint of himself.<span> </span>When questioned about this past he has not been forthright, only grudgingly conceding the truth if he had been caught out. Under oath though he would not admit to what “Devils’ Triangle,” or “boofing” was (instead he offered definitions his classmates at the time quickly shot down), what he and his friends meant by “Renate Alumnus.” Judge Kavanaugh’s attempt to suggest that it was a kind of affection for a friend is belied by the other entries he and his friends had about Renate. They seem to specifically be referring to sexual conquest. Again, it isn’t a crime to like sex, or drinking beer (the underage drinking Kavanaugh engaged in would have been a crime-but one for which most of us would be found guilty). It isn’t even a crime to date a person who is known to have sex pretty early in a relationship. That is not what is troubling about Kavanaugh’s youthful errors. What is troubling is his inability to tell the truth about his past. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Palatino;">“Beach Week Ralph Club- biggest contributor. Judge Kavanagh seems to contradict his own words when he told the Senate Judiciary committee that entry in his high school yearbook that was a reference to his “weak” stomach. He is certainly in conflict with the recollections of his friends at the time, who say he wasn’t know for having a weak stomach, but rather for being a sloppy drunk. Again, Kavanaugh wouldn’t be the only person in Washington DC to have been a sloppy, belligerent drunk in their youth. He does seem to be unwilling to tell the truth about that past though, whether under oath, or not. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Palatino;">He as a history of being a partisan player, and has worked most consistently as a person whose raison d’etre is to see Republicans triumph over Democrats, to see a very specific brand of conservatism win at all costs over any liberal ideas. This isn’t a crime either. His angry ranting display, the disrespect, and hostility he showed Democratic Senators, his refusal to answer their questions must cast doubt on his ability to objectively perform the duties that are supposed to be above mere party affiliation. Judge Kavanaugh is a person who, according to David Brock, mouthed the word “Bitch” whenever he saw a picture of Hillary Clinton. Such partisan commitments are also no crime, but they can’t be part of a Supreme Court Justice’s deliberations. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a non-partisan place where our best and brightest examine the law, and let that knowledge of the law guide them. After Kavanaugh’s angry ranting, and his history as a partisan player, do you think he can set his party affiliation aside and objectively parse the law?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">At the end of the day, we will probably never know, to our satisfaction, whether or not Ford or Kavanaugh are telling the truth, or if they both are, or if the truth is more complicated. The events in question are now decades in the past. What we can assess, and what you Senator must honestly assess, is whether Judge Kavanaugh’s behavior in the here and the now reveals a person brimming with personal integrity, and deep personal commitments to honesty and truth, or if his behavior reveals a character deeply unfit to the highest court in our land. We live in a deeply partisan world, but don’t let the specter of losing an election, or being criticized by the President or members of your party stop you from making the right choice. History is watching, as is the nation. Do the right thing and vote no on Kavanaugh. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1918203131;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-972655542 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
-->
</style><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-44315612086767253442018-08-06T11:07:00.000-07:002018-08-07T06:56:20.279-07:00Sarah Jeong: A New York Times Own Goal.<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq9izEwoyLRL_tVjISUzlUjdX4sAgsoFAb2n7Y69wGqK7T5EHiZL8J1U4vsqCJ4ofVGBX90aTjBM5NhVJbJU_xiceLooY28TleUR1nrjOwwwnFrfcMu2K90AiOmgSaqWlmkkqhjg/s1600/jbareham_171019_2072_0099.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1067" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq9izEwoyLRL_tVjISUzlUjdX4sAgsoFAb2n7Y69wGqK7T5EHiZL8J1U4vsqCJ4ofVGBX90aTjBM5NhVJbJU_xiceLooY28TleUR1nrjOwwwnFrfcMu2K90AiOmgSaqWlmkkqhjg/s320/jbareham_171019_2072_0099.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<div style="color: #454545; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Imagine you read the following hashtag, #cancelbrownpeople. Would you have any trouble categorizing such a phrase, or the sentiments behind it as racist? Imagine the following tweet, was issued by a white person, “Black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” Classical racism no? No one would have any trouble identifying that sentence for what was. Or, try this: “Oh man, its kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old jewish men.” Imagine our tweeting racist let loose a barrage of this kind of thing. Further examples may not be necessary, but here we go:</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">“Black men are such bullshit."</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">“...it must be so boring to be black.”</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"Are Jews genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">“Fuck black women, lol” </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">If these kinds of tweets came steaming off the phones of the Richard Spencers of US (and of the world) we would hardly be surprised, and we would all call them, without apology, racist. However when such sentiments are uttered by people of color, the left has a serious problem of consistency. The examples above are all real by the way. I’ve only swapped out the races, and people in the examples to highlight the double standards at play on the left when it comes to speaking honestly about racism. The target of the tweet's racial anger was actually white people, and the tweeter in question is new tech writer for the New York Times, Sarah Jeong. Liberals, thanks broadly to a suite of bad ideas in modern sociology that have moved from academia into too many minds on the left, has convinced itself that people of color cannot be racist because, the argument goes, only the socially dominant race can be racist. There is a long argument here, not well supported by anything like evidence that is used to excuse the racist attitudes exhibited by some people of color against other races. Racism, many on the left will say, is about systems of power, that benefit the socially dominant group. I’m generously generalizing their framing here. The sweeping statements made by the left on matters of race are almost comically parochial. They are also, sadly, condescending. People of color, in this view are permanently relegated the status of victims, they have little to no autonomy and they are denied even the ability to behave as normal humans. They aren’t even capable of the basic, and ugly tribalism exhibited by the rest of the human race in this liberal view of race. They don’t even get to be racist. Increasingly in the liberal world view, only white people (whatever that might mean) can be racist. But look at the following sentence. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
“Act your age, not your skin color.” I heard that said to a little girl, who was white, by my Wing Chun instructor, who was black. he wasn’t joking. What is that if not racism?</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
I think I would not be as bothered by this argument of my fellow liberals were they bit more consistent in the deployment of their ideas about racism. They are not. And this is something our political opponents do pick up on, and with which they then go on to make political hay. Intellectually, I’m also bothered by inconsistency. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
The word racism, according to Wolfram Alpha seems to have been coined sometime in second half of the twentieth century, and its usage rises sharply there after. For most of that time, we have all operated under a fairly simple definition of racism. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<b>Racism:</b> </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1. <i>noun </i>the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">2. <i>noun </i>discriminatory, or abusive behavior towards members of another race. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
For probably more than fifty years, we have understood racism, and racist in this way. This definition has been incredibly robust, and useful. There were racists. Racist groups, racist ideologies, racist policies. Racism, and racist was simple and by attaching it to another concept, or person you could enable everyone to know exactly what was wrong with that concept or person. Jeong’s tweets certainly seem to fit within the definitional umbrella described above. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Academics on the left have, probably with the good intentions, sought to definitionally exempt minorities in the US from the charge of racism by trying to suggest that racism, despite the historic use of the term, is about structures of power that systematically and negatively affect minorities. In so doing these academics could exempt minorities, and probably some prominent leaders of various identity movements from charges of racism. By the definitional manipulations of the sociologists it seems that, if applied consistently, individual people actually can’t be racist, only systems can. There are those who benefit from these systems and those who don’t. Donald Trump can’t be racist. because racism is a system of power. It isn’t about individual behavior or attitudes. We have to abandon the word racism, and the label racist for individual people, and resort to bigotry and prejudice. That seems to be the broad implication of modern sociology’s ideas about race. Again, if left leaning race theorists were consistent in the manner in which they used these labels it would be okay. They don’t and okay it isn’t. The left deploys the classical definition of racism and racist all the time. And why not, its quite useful. However in continuing to do so, the left confuses issues by special pleading on behalf of minorities when they display obviously, classically racist attitudes, as occasionally they do. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
When Roseanne Barr tweeted of Valerie Jarret, “Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby= vj,” no one on the left had any problem identifying the racism, or calling Roseanne a racist. When ever Richard Spencer speaks, his race based generalizations and attitudes are quickly identified as racism, and he is regularly called a racist. Mel Gibson’s drunken rant about Jews, or his famously unpleasant prediction for his soon to be ex-wife, that she would be “raped by a pack of niggers,” clearly was, and was clearly labeled, racist by everyone. The left deploys the historical usage of racist and racism regularly. There is no logical reason people of color should be hand waved out of being able to be racist in that classical sense of racism. Doing so looks both like special pleading and condescension. If we on the left are going to use the historic well understood definition of racism as often as we do, we should be consistent, and admit that non-white people are as capable of such attitudes as anyone else, and not dehumanize people of color by condescendingly exempting them from being assholes. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Sarah Jeong’s tweets are obviously racist. Her deflections about her trolls and the massive harassment she received can’t really excuse her from that fact. I certainly do sympathize with her and would happily make common cause with her in limiting on-line harassment. However, she doesn’t attack her trolls specifically, she attacks a group and in sometimes awful terms. </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Consider:</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">“have you ever tried to figure out all the things that white people are allowed to do that aren’t cultural appropriation. there’s literally nothing. like skiing, maybe, and also golf. white people aren’t even allowed to have polo. did you know that. like don’t you just feel bad? why can’t we give white people a break. lacrosse isn’t for white people either. it must be so boring to be white.” </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Or, </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture.”</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Or,</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.”</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Or, </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”</span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Sarah Jeong could have gone after her trolls directly. She could have deconstructed the idea of race generally, and pointed out that idea of "white people” as a unified block is sort of preposterous. She could have clearly pointed out that “whiteness” didn’t equal culture. Instead her tweets demonstrated the exact same kind of lazy generalizing characteristic of all racist ideas, while at the same time exhibiting a lot of contempt for those unfortunate enough to be carrying the qualifying marker she decided to denigrate. There is nothing particularly difficult to parse out in “fuck white women, lol.” It implies a dislike, or hatred of, and utter disregard for “white women.” The Washington post allows <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/08/03/an-asian-american-womans-tweets-ignite-a-debate-is-it-okay-to-make-fun-of-white-people-online/?utm_term=.ca1ba3a07597">Nolan L Cabrera</a> to excuse Jeong’s tweets by putting them in context. He assumes that the outrage at Jeong’s tweets was created by the fact that Jeaong’s tweets were, “decontextualized, and ahistorified." This is giving her tweets more intellectual cover, by the way, than even Jeong did. How does the awfulness of US history, and it is indeed awful, justify, ‘fuck white women, lol.” What political power did they have for most of US, or even world history? Also which white women in particular were responsible for US immigration policy during the periods in which it was most hard on East Asian immigrants? Is Jeong referring primarily to white women of British decent? Were the white women in her mind’s eye, simply generalized Western European? Jeong’s not-pology specifically states she was primarily lashing out her trolls and harassers. She was not, according to her own reasoning, dwelling on historical grievances, or trying to draw attention to US history. She was counter trolling. Even if we did <i>contextualize</i> Jeong’s tweets, how does that justify her current racism? </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; min-height: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">A lot of ink is being spilt on the left, and indeed by the generally laudable <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html">New York Times</a> trying to explain away the racism of Jeong’s tweets. As noted above, Jeong herself has blamed her tweets on her trolls in her not-pology. Her defenders have said she was trying to use humor to combat the racism of her trolls. The NYT seems to be blaming conservatives for the controversy because they pointed out Sarah Jeaong’s racist tweets and because they noted the double standard on racism the Times, and more broadly the left, seems to have on matters of racism. It is (sad) funny that conservative media pundtrity is up in arms about Jeong’s racism given the current climate within the GOP itself. But the liberal double standard on racism does allow some intellectual cover behind which the right can hide and point an accusatory finger and say, “ you libs are racist too, just in a different way.” </span></div>
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
As a counter point to their behavior with Jeong, consider the following. The NYT, had absolutely no problem identifying the bigotry and potential racism of <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/why-quinn-norton-and-the-new-york-times-parted-ways.html">Quinn Norton</a>, and let her go once the news of her offensive speech surfaced. She had made some homophobic tweets and insisted she was friends with white supremacist. She hadn’t even tweeted anything so bad as “ group X is logically only fit to live underground like goblins.” Why the double standard? If you are an organization with aspirations to be “the paper of record” the appearance of a double standard should be anathema. Double standards are intellectually lazy things to have (in addition to being impossible to justify), and damage credibility. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br />
I don’t know if the Times should let Sarah Jeong go. I dislike catering to a mob, and she is probably a deft tech writer. I’m not particularly offended by her. Her ideas on race are clearly daffy and racist, but they don’t really affect me. If her apology had been more honest, less self-serving, and blame shifting, I would be a lot more comfortable with her presence at a paper I quite enjoy (and will continue to subscribe to). A more honest apology would imply some more intellectual honesty and integrity on her part. I’m much more bothered by my fellow liberals' attempt to defend Sarah Jeong’s racism. We liberals need to become a lot more consistent in the ways we use terms like racism. Obvious double standards weaken arguments, and they make it possible for people to dismiss even good points. Having sound arguments that avoid special pleading, and obvious double standards will never win over ideologically committed people. But why hurt your chances with honest intellectual opponents though? The New York Times has hurt its credibility by hiring and defending Sarah Jeong in the way it has. People in the middle, or on the fence may now be a little (or a lot) more inclined to dismiss reporting by the New York Times that is injurious to their issues, or to people they admire. “Well,” a center-right conservative might say, “they probably don’t report on the dems when they do the same thing.” A paper lives or dies by its credibility. Special pleading, and blame shifting apologies weaken credibility. Hiring Jeong was an own goal by the Times in favor of its ideological critics. Tucker Carlson, intellectual huckster, GOP double standard bearer now gets to make a good point about leftist double standards on race. He gets to deflect from the GOP’s appeal to serious racists by pretending the left is as bad, or nearly as bad on questions of race. Judging by the response of the right, and alt-right, he isn’t alone. </span></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-76595245854118277122018-05-17T11:13:00.002-07:002018-05-17T11:13:46.581-07:00A Brunch Movie Review: Thor: Ragnarok<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPU5Mtk8P08i5_GwwZcwuq_SkIsHT7VAb5D66pVzg9qHVHvxeKGpRrZL4KqUQuCwPL46-92Ohjh505mE2XoKqTWMCf3bpcNLb-gTpDYHiPYDRFwsEsRNWzgcBzWjwLaaUSnsu06Q/s1600/thor-ragnarok-end-credits-avengers-infinity-war-870508.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="590" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPU5Mtk8P08i5_GwwZcwuq_SkIsHT7VAb5D66pVzg9qHVHvxeKGpRrZL4KqUQuCwPL46-92Ohjh505mE2XoKqTWMCf3bpcNLb-gTpDYHiPYDRFwsEsRNWzgcBzWjwLaaUSnsu06Q/s320/thor-ragnarok-end-credits-avengers-infinity-war-870508.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>Thor: Ragnarok</i> is a very liberal adaptation of a lot of great Marvel source material, spanning two titles, <i>The Incredible Hulk, </i>and, of course, <i>Thor, </i>and probably decades worth of story. The film doesn’t exactly draw a lot of story elements from this source material so much as it grabs evocative images, and some loose ideas from them. It then knits these together, rather brilliantly, to continue the story of Thor, Loki, Odin, Hulk and the other Asgardians that began in 2011’s <i>Thor. </i>If you are a comic book fan who read Walt Simonson’s epic and character defining run on <i>Thor,</i> you will be happy to see his designs still rule the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s interpretation of Asgard. And if you recognize Simonson’s hand, you also recognize the ghost of Jack Kirby. I think the Simonson dominates the art direction and story design of all the Thor films. <i>Thor:Ragnarok </i>is no different. If you read <i>Planet Hulk, </i>you may have thought from Hulk’s out fit and gladiatorial digs that a great deal from that story would be on the screen. It isn’t the case. There are some elements of the story here, and some characters (written in wholly different ways) but the long sweep of <i>Planet Hulk</i> and its sadness are not really in evidence here. Someone might say that <i>Thor: Ragnarok </i>is the cliffs notes version of stories featured in the comics. That someone would not be me. It is just different from that source material even as it draws a lot of inspiration from it. That is okay. The MCU isn’t its print antecedents. If I want the Simonson material, I can look no further than my comic book boxes.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIQNeggEXXar2y5Xg-CuLT6ECdo8F1SfwMm_zk1xvhtpe5YtCLxVC241nKHRS2Obu38fY1i6Eeumtxt4IqUYjBpclaYrRGa8sK7jKOp3brNSWASf4gXDFM93CS4bs911dc-S3zuw/s1600/MV5BODg4Y2U2M2UtMWYxNi00MjkzLThlNjEtMzI0MmQxMmRjNGZjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc%2540._CR117%252C143%252C222%252C222_UX402_UY402._SY201_SX201_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="201" data-original-width="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIQNeggEXXar2y5Xg-CuLT6ECdo8F1SfwMm_zk1xvhtpe5YtCLxVC241nKHRS2Obu38fY1i6Eeumtxt4IqUYjBpclaYrRGa8sK7jKOp3brNSWASf4gXDFM93CS4bs911dc-S3zuw/s1600/MV5BODg4Y2U2M2UtMWYxNi00MjkzLThlNjEtMzI0MmQxMmRjNGZjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc%2540._CR117%252C143%252C222%252C222_UX402_UY402._SY201_SX201_AL_.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>Thor: Ragnarok </i>is a delightful blaze of color, action and adventure. It has a large cast of characters but manages its ensemble well. Watching the trailers one might come away thinking that it was going to be a simple buddy picture that sent Thor, Hulk and Valkyrie on a grand cosmic adventure, and the other characters being minimally developed, and holding places as mere window dressing. Taika Waititi does something much different. His film is interested in the greater Asgardian drama and he gave us a film that evolved the family dynamics. He didn’t have to do this. Waititi could have been content with the well worn sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki, but he and his script writers decided that would not do. The family dynamics evolved. For me, the film’s treatment of Loki and Thor’s relationship is one of its many triumphs.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHVjwYaV4dCFMNy2El-wIoB8mlt95IKaq0IfFxYydKqdKIsR2IpMiC62krh-V1GV6idLHQUpJ6X7LwQBm03tQZsTgolpchlBJYW8NPn49NiRe9kl_311ZMwxX1jIi0DcLnSZPTQQ/s1600/Thor_eyepatch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="1280" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHVjwYaV4dCFMNy2El-wIoB8mlt95IKaq0IfFxYydKqdKIsR2IpMiC62krh-V1GV6idLHQUpJ6X7LwQBm03tQZsTgolpchlBJYW8NPn49NiRe9kl_311ZMwxX1jIi0DcLnSZPTQQ/s640/Thor_eyepatch.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
What is the film about? Ultimately it is about family, the occasional failures of family, and history, and homeland. It is packaged in a rather glorious action adventure film. Thor is tracking rumors of Surtur’s rising and growing power (this is bad news for anyone familiar with Ragnarok), and looking for his father. The MCU gives us a Thor that isn’t necessarily mentally one of quickest heroes in the galaxy, but nor is he stupid. Thor is dogged and that tenacity is largely how he solves a lot our galaxy’s mysteries. The search for Surtur leads to Loki, and ultimately his father, and from his brother and father to greater troubles still.That trouble comes first in the form of an angry heretofore unknown sister, which then leads to unexpected exile on the world of a sadistic if superficially charming being known as the Grandmaster. His world is, in the comics, called BattleWorld. For people like Thor that means gladiatorial arenas and fights to the death. For the rest it means being as subservient as possible to Grandmaster, as pleasing him seems to be the only way to move up in the world if you aren’t a successful gladiator.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTUY6lZI9B5ii9DsBzEXSYeqFfUb9IHw0iX3npl01zWCl_bqirDU5LQOz92-WfC4_9FLP1UBRdIF9F45lUI3KMVCjKW9WHehQ5z07LshWs7ZpWPL4vM06Wgd7ft7hmB8w1IujU9Q/s1600/thorragnarok_2017_05_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="768" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTUY6lZI9B5ii9DsBzEXSYeqFfUb9IHw0iX3npl01zWCl_bqirDU5LQOz92-WfC4_9FLP1UBRdIF9F45lUI3KMVCjKW9WHehQ5z07LshWs7ZpWPL4vM06Wgd7ft7hmB8w1IujU9Q/s320/thorragnarok_2017_05_0.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="320" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWxphNQ5A5SXVG6JNw7biWjEOlJZi8LAOGxruROJyzrbBkua10LPgiBN97O1N7RV5b1ZmUOLHakzhIIgcj5sZ3UzXyT0gl7OLkIB5S3SICHiRNWfbNqBfgmB49G0kca8NbZy9aag/s1600/thor-ragnarok-gladiator-hulk-header.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="1200" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWxphNQ5A5SXVG6JNw7biWjEOlJZi8LAOGxruROJyzrbBkua10LPgiBN97O1N7RV5b1ZmUOLHakzhIIgcj5sZ3UzXyT0gl7OLkIB5S3SICHiRNWfbNqBfgmB49G0kca8NbZy9aag/s320/thor-ragnarok-gladiator-hulk-header.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This is a grand movie. It begins in the Asgardian realms, travels through many other place and ends in space, on an unknown but hopeful future.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-50456399629094876352018-05-17T10:38:00.002-07:002018-05-17T10:38:40.820-07:00Books: What I am reading now.Reading list.<br />
<br />
I have to drive a bit too and from the Jiu Jitsu gym, so Audible is a must. On deck for me at present is Bram Stoker’s <i><b>Dracula</b>. </i>I tried to read this as a first year in high school and it was a complete nonstarter for me. This full cast recording of the novel with the voices of some of Audible’s best readers, as well as big names like Tim Curry and Alan Cummings, is splendid. And the book is much better than I remember it.<br />
<br />
When I am not driving I am currently reading, and enjoying quite a lot, James Comey’s <i><b>A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership.</b></i> I’m about half way through it. This is a thoughtful book written by a man who seems to have been a very dedicated, if imperfect civil servant. It is an insider’s look at the life and leadership decisions of district attorney’s, Attorney Generals, and FBI Directors. The author seems honest, Comey is often highly critical of himself, self-deprecating and a thoroughly enjoyable writer. It is a revealing and insightful book.<br />
<br />
On the comic book front:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjy-L2ivKUr9fWX7sRJTLrl7pegLn1fIIjTscnWIUwGEkfKFAGts0PFNcA0PvvBisRmyB6aKPQsHaSXyEAqIDA3aczpUMGndL-kmLQFYrNpQX0Ki32PjSmK8AkKCNg5X9N_lNRkg/s1600/usagi-flag.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="229" data-original-width="585" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjy-L2ivKUr9fWX7sRJTLrl7pegLn1fIIjTscnWIUwGEkfKFAGts0PFNcA0PvvBisRmyB6aKPQsHaSXyEAqIDA3aczpUMGndL-kmLQFYrNpQX0Ki32PjSmK8AkKCNg5X9N_lNRkg/s320/usagi-flag.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Usagi Yojimbo by Stan Sakai</div>
<br />
<br />
Stan Sakai has a new seven issue story for his constant heroic samurai rabbit <a href="http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/" target="_blank">Usagi Yojimbo</a>. The subject mater is fairly daring. It concerns the rather ill received Kirishitans (Christians) of feudal Japan. I don’t think Stan is tackling the history very broadly, so far (two issues in for me) it looks like Stan is crafting another feudal murder mystery. This story sees Usagi paired with one of my favorite characters in the series, Inspector Ishida.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaDpdWeu1RO58tIC9KBgxbyw24S-tmFkR5h_a5KdFA8jpslYuf2Dx_e1X_N1c2BfpgAz_z92DoH1CYvacLCykk3wqVdhtVexJGZ3XHqCGAhUBbMLHpn8-Z5TVqrZQCItYV1wOU0w/s1600/usagi-yojimbo-140-cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="285" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaDpdWeu1RO58tIC9KBgxbyw24S-tmFkR5h_a5KdFA8jpslYuf2Dx_e1X_N1c2BfpgAz_z92DoH1CYvacLCykk3wqVdhtVexJGZ3XHqCGAhUBbMLHpn8-Z5TVqrZQCItYV1wOU0w/s320/usagi-yojimbo-140-cover.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Probably best to find on Comixology. Usagi has smaller print runs than you find for characters like Spider-Man, The Avengers etc, so if you aren’t having it put in your file at your local comic book dealer, you will discover that the print versions are hard to find. The trades are a lot easier. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Tom King’s run on DC Comics <i>Mr Miracle </i>is absolutely must read comic art. Mr Miracle is a citizen of New Genesis. It is a place of gods and beauty, but there may be some rot at the heart of it. That world has long been in hot and cold wars with the world and machinations of Darkseid. Our hero would rather say, subtly and with love, “<i>a pox on both your houses.”</i> He wants to be left out it, and enjoy his life with a former gladiator slave named Big Barda. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY713LqIrdCEHHrJ2bYPxkMQKO6_SY0WL0cqVFNKpoOwh9IBzUCkyJJ_CPUGh0dS34Zke-AEecayzCUXZgUZrUUEET-k2s0E790NYmRaDN1iMVFTZszwzgpNm6uKEJuFpU4YHoLQ/s1600/ComicsGallery_DC_20171213__MisterMiracle_5_5a31ab0b2722a9.96258136.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY713LqIrdCEHHrJ2bYPxkMQKO6_SY0WL0cqVFNKpoOwh9IBzUCkyJJ_CPUGh0dS34Zke-AEecayzCUXZgUZrUUEET-k2s0E790NYmRaDN1iMVFTZszwzgpNm6uKEJuFpU4YHoLQ/s640/ComicsGallery_DC_20171213__MisterMiracle_5_5a31ab0b2722a9.96258136.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I really can’t say enough good things about this title. GO FORTH AND READ IT!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Brief ass reviews of books I’ve recently finished.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Circe </i>by Madeline Miller</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
10/10</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This book is a must for fans of <i>The Illiad, The Odyssey </i>and greek mythology generally. I say this as someone who didn’t expect to like it. I had not been a fan of Miller’s previous effort in re-myth making, <i>Song of Achilles. Circe </i>tells the story of many greek myths through the eyes of <i>The Odyssey’s </i>key characters, Circe, a witch and nymph goddess. It is the best kind of revision. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic</i> by David Frum </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
10/10</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Frum, life long conservative as well as a writer and editor at <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a> has written one of the most damning and well researched works on the Trump administration, and of the president himself. Frum is a careful critic, he never goes beyond the evidence, he supports his assertions with verified facts. When he is speculating he says so explicitly. His work is certainly worth your time. He is more useful than most on twitter, where he can be found at @davidfrum. You can also find him at his <a href="http://davidfrum.com/" target="_blank">website</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump Whitehouse </i>by Michael Wolff</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
6.5 or maybe even 7/10</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wolff’s book about his year hanging out in the White House is a lot of fun. Its a bit repetitive, Its funny and fits with much of what we know about what was going on inside and outside the White House. I think Wolff is probably a shrewd observer, but he is not a careful reporter. Very often he would suggest things a personality in the White House was thinking, and it always provoked a “How can you possibly know that Michael” response in me. His hypothesis that Trump never intended or wanted to win seems wholly plausible. He doesn’t offer much evidence to support it. I suspect he has a bit of evidence in the form of tapes, notes, statements and the careless way he wrote was actually to provoke a lawsuit that would allow him to win big and force the admin to reveal a lot more than they want the world to know. That is all speculation on my part, but given that the Trump Admin has been burned by evidence and forced to back peddle and admit to actions several times already my surmise seems reasonable. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Gone </i>by Michael Grant 8/10</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Is it sci-fi? YA? Horror? Superhero story? It may be all of those things. Whatever it is, it is compelling. The book begins with an incident that leaves the world people only with kids under the age of fourteen. Some of these kids have strange abilities. What happens when the world of rules and adults vanishes and only a bunch of kids exist to maintain the bonds and promises of the social contract. What happens when kids who are fourteen turn fifteen? To say that trouble ensues would be an understatement. The first in a series of books <i>Gone </i>delivers the thrills. It didn’t score higher for me, because the author falls back on the trope of having smart characters occasionally do stupid things to maintain tension. However the characters are all well drawn, and it manages not to be <i>Lord of the Flies, </i>or <i>The Hunger Games. </i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-35395169002963508392018-03-20T07:32:00.000-07:002018-03-20T07:32:33.760-07:00Improving in Jiu Jitsu as a Beginning Student.<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">What follows is aimed
specifically at white through blue belt, but I hope there are useful tips for
all belt and skill levels.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">It is pretty rare that
anyone comes to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu without the intention of getting better at
it. There are the occasional people who just want to have something to do, who
just enjoy the camaraderie of a good academy and don’t put undue pressure on themselves
to get better at an accelerated rate (perhaps, counter intuitively, I have
noticed that sometimes these folks improve the quickest). For the most
part, it seems like people come to the Jiu Jitsu academy with some goal of
being very good at the art. The reasons are myriad, but the end point for most
is the same. Jiu-jitsu people want to achieve extreme proficiency. Whatever
kind of student you are, casual or ambitious, here are some pieces of advice
I have to improve your game. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><i><b>Private Lessons</b></i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">This will seem
self-serving. I’m a black belt and I can make a decent buck giving private lessons. “He’s just advertising now,” you might think, or
even say. Here is the thing though, I still take private lessons. I suppose I am an expert on BJJ,
but I am not an authority. I am pretty good at my game, but my game isn’t the
totality of BJJ. I go to other experts to help me make my game more robust.
I’ve always tried to supplement class instruction with private lessons from
people better than me. Private lessons have the benefit of giving a student one
on one time, with and the focused attention of the coach. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><b><i>Fundamentals Class. </i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Does your academy have a
fundamentals class? It does? Go to it as often as you can. The keys to the
success of almost everything in Jiu Jitsu lie in that class. That is to say,
success lay in the basics. There, you will be introduced to the most reliable
techniques, key principles of body mechanics, and have the opportunity to
practice them over and over again. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I’ve seen advanced belts
stuck in headlocks, and kesa gatame, not only unable to escape, but not even
knowing where to begin. I’m only guilty of minor hyperbole when I say most of the core mechanics of all escapes can be found
in your fundamental headlock escapes. These often don’t get much coverage in
your advanced classes, but you get to practice these basics over and over again
in Fundamentals. Mastery begins with sound fundamentals. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The following clip is pretty MMA related, but what you will see, over and over, and over, is very basic jiu jitsu honed to perfection. Almost every BJJ related thing you see, you will learn in your Fundamentals class. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sCOZsSMl5HA" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><b><i>How to Learn and Functionalize a New Technique.</i></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Palatino;">Pay attention
to the coach’s details. She or he, isn’t giving them for no reason. Nothing is
more frustrating for a coach than the moment immediately following “Got it?
Need to see it again” getting head shakes and verbal negatives only to see
that, in fact, folks didn’t get it, and needed to see it again. Coaches are
often more than willing to accept the problem of not <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“getting it” is often theirs, but please don’t
say you get if you don’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have not met
a coach who was loath to demonstrate Jiu Jitsu to a student.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I haven’t heard “Are you fucking stupid,”
seriously posed, since I was a Wing Chun student. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Palatino; mso-bidi-font-family: Palatino; mso-fareast-font-family: Palatino;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Steps.
Coaches are often building road maps for muscle memory and the formation of
sound structures for their students.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
will break a move down into steps. The steps become an order of operations that
will become ingrained, and form good habits. Observe the steps, and follow
them. If you are a white, or blue belt, or even a purple belt, don’t try to
improve on the steps, don’t think, “I can skip this and get straight to X.”
Chances are you actually can’t. The steps often anticipate obstacles and common
opponent reactions. That is not to say you can’t improve on the technique in
the future, but when you are first learning it, its always good to remember
that your coach comes from a line of people who taught them, and is also the
product of their own experience with the material. The steps, or order of operations,
are a refuge in rough spots. They reduce decision time but limiting choices.
All you have to think about is achieving the next step. Once that is achieved,
you move on to the next step, and so on. As you build a smooth technique, it
will seem as if the steps have disappeared (in the same way concrete positions
disappear), but their mechanics and basic structures will be there still.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Here is an example of how
focusing on the steps your coach lays out can help you perform under
pressure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A lot of my approach to Jiu
Jitsu and skills mastery can be attributed to the Steps mindset I learned and
cultivated under Marcelo Monteiro. Marcelo was a De la Riva guy, and there were
always a lot of steps and rules. What I found was that by following the steps
laid out for establishing a position, half-guard say, I was reducing the size
of the decision tree I had to deal with, and establishing small goals that are
much easier to focus on while under the pressure of a live roll or competition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, Marcelo had a several steps to
regaining the advantage from bottom half. If my opponent was on top, and had
head and under-hook control they had the advantage. Marcelo’s steps to get out
of that situation were: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">1. Get, as much as
possible, on your side<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">2. Build a frame to
regain control of your neck and head<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">3. Gain the under-hook,
or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">4. Build a frame with
your leg and formerly under-hooked arm, and with your bottom-side hand
establish sleeve or inside bicep control.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Don’t worry if you don’t
know what that terminology means, what I want to highlight is the refuge the
steps became in live rolls. Being in a terrible place is rough, and the end
goal (being out of said terrible place) can seem enormously daunting. Little steps
toward the ultimate goal however are much easier to focus on, and often
starting the process, step one, can help you build to the next small goal,
until eventually you have completed the chain of steps. The order of operations
is your refuge; the steps your coaches are giving you are the order of
operations. Pay attention. I have taken that step conscious approach to every
academy I’ve trained at since. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">As a final point in this
section, if you find a particular movement too troublesome, try breaking that
movement in to steps. If you can’t do it, ask your coach to help you. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><b><i>Slow down.</i></b> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Read that
again, I mean it. Or as I think I have heard Jay Jack put it, “Slow the fuck
down.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Your coach has just given
you the steps, demonstrated the technique and sent you off to practice. How do
you remember the steps? How do you ingrain that technique properly into your
muscle memory?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Don’t start with speed. <b><i>Slow Down.</i></b> Trying to do a new thing with speed is a great
way to start missing steps, losing the body mechanics, and generally building
bad habits or no habits. That is building failure into the new move. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">While you learn and
practice a new technique you should focus on performing each component
perfectly and acquiring the quality of smooth movement (be sure to ask
questions if you are having trouble). Speed will come with internalization of
the steps and the increasing smoothness of your movement. Do not worry if your
training partner is faster or smoother than you. Maybe they have trained the
move before, or have been training longer, and have some idea of their own
body’s capacity for movement. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><b><i>Progressive Resistance</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">You have been practicing
a new technique, you are mastering the steps, you are getting smooth, now how
do you apply that technique in live rolling? Do you try your new flying
triangle on a brown belt? You can, but don’t expect to build on the timing and
intuitions of the attack there, your new flying triangle is bound to get stuffed in that context. You build your attacks with progressively
harder people, but you don’t start building mastery with the toughest, and most
technical training partners in your gym. You try new techniques on people your
skill level and lower. The higher your rank the more you should be able to make
this kind of focused training really work. A purple, brown, or black belt can
direct the roll to the same situation again, and again against white and blue
belt. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However anyone can use the
principle of progressive training. You begin building the technique in a
situation of alive rolling, where resistance is present and will keep you
honest, but where you can concentrate on doing the technique. Once you are
confident in the technique in that that setting, you begin to try to apply it
at the next skill level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This kind of
progression is often its own trouble shooting. Timing improves, the mechanics
tighten, you see the common obstacles, and you either figure out the answers to
those obstacles, or you ask a coach who has. Eventually you are applying the
technique to equally skilled peers and even people who are generally better than you.
Progressive resistance doesn’t just build muscle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><b><i>Trust the Jiu Jitsu</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">This is something that
comes up a lot. People get shown a technique, they practice it in class, and
then, in live rolls, do a lot of other things that aren’t really sound Jiu Jitsu. They do everything
but the technique. They panic at resistance or the initial failure of the
technique and go to things that may occasionally work, or that give an illusion
of progression toward some end goal, passing the guard, escaping the mount, achieving
side control, whatever, but will get them no where against opponents possessing
superior skills or attributes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rejecting
Jiu Jitsu is not the path to improved Jiu Jitsu.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">If you think you are at a
good school (a topic of another essay perhaps) then you should trust what your
coaches are telling you. As a blue belt, or a white belt, you aren’t yet an
expert in Jiu Jitsu, or even in what works for your body. Your coaches have the
benefit of thousands of hours of learning, rolling, thinking about Jiu Jitsu
and teaching. You should definitely ask a lot of questions. Ask for help. “Can
you help me figure out X?” Coaches are pretty generous with their time, and
want you to get better. If they have time, they will help you figure it out. If
they don’t have time, consider that private lesson!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Here are two further
ideas suggested by friends who reviewed this piece that I thought were great
ideas. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><i>Dan Neumann</i>, a Jay Jack
Academy teammate, suggested the use of emulation as an aid in technical
development. You like Jiu Jitsu, you probably watch a lot of competition, you
probably have players, in MMA, no-gi, or gi competition that you admire and
whose game you are amazed by. It actually isn’t a bad idea to try to play like
someone you know to be an exemplar of the art. Is there a rule that says this
exemplar can’t be your own coach or someone in your academy? No, not at all.
However, I have found that people often utilize models outside their academy
for this emulative experimentation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think the reason for this is that we actually don’t get to watch our teammates
or coaches roll in practice. We are too busy training ourselves. I won’t tell
you who Dan said his models were, but one of my early models was Minotauro
Noguiera. At the time he had probably the best heavy weight BJJ for MMA around.
We were built similarly, small-framed heavyweights (230-240 lbs, which can be
small in modern heavyweight divisions). His style of play was pretty similar to
stuff I was doing at Marcelo Monteiro’s academy in Indianapolis. The similarity
made some sense, they were friends and trained together in and under the
Carlson Gracie umbrella. I tried to do what he did. I got my ass kicked a lot,
but in so doing, I learned a lot about escaping bad positions, and I also
rolled with people, upper ranks and people who had trained longer, who
understood what I was trying to do and helped me tweek this or that position,
or sweep. You probably have someone whose game you like, even if you don’t
understand it fully. Try it out. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rv53EDpri70" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><i>Alex Trafton</i>, a friend
who does high-end security and trains grappling for a robust set of
applications, suggested, cross training. This is a great idea. How much you can
do is probably time, finance and location dependent but it is worth your time to do however much you can do. Not everyone can be as thorough as Alex is with his
cross-training (he shoots, he boxes, he grapples in a variety of systems, he
has trained extensively in Muay Thai, and probably a bunch of stuff I am
missing). Not everyone has the time or money to do as much as they would like, or train at a location that can provide many different arts to explore. You can always do a bit of cross training though. So, try other grappling arts out if you can, and definitely drop into to other BJJ academies, as that experience can often be as different as training in another art. Across BJJ schools you will see a lot of similarities, but there are different styles of play, different games that, whether you adopt them into your own game, are good to be exposed to. Call ahead, see if it is okay to drop in for a class or open mat (it almost always is, there is often a reasonable drop-in fee) and explore!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-65583299385254239902017-10-03T19:49:00.000-07:002017-10-03T19:49:49.905-07:00Brunch Movie Review: It<i>It </i><br />
Based on the novel by Stephen King.<br />
Directed by Andy Muschietti<br />
Adapted by Chase Palmer<br />
Cary Fukunaga<br />
Gary Dauberman<br />
To see the full cast and crew go <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1396484/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm" target="_blank">here.</a><br />
<br />
<i>It </i>is a story of Derry a haunted town, and a town that is a haunt. <i>It </i>is also the story of the seven brave kids who decide to confront the evil that stalks through Derry’s Norman Rockwellian facade.<br />
<div class="style-scope ytd-sharing-embed-renderer" id="start-at-wrapper" style="--paper-input-container-input_-_box-sizing: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_cursor: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_font-family: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_font-size: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_font-weight: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_line-height: 40px; --paper-input-container-input_-_max-width: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_overflow: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_padding: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_text-overflow: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_text-transform: initial; --paper-input-container-input_-_white-space: initial; --paper-input-container_-_border-radius: initial; --paper-input-container_-_border: initial; --paper-input-container_-_cursor: initial; --paper-input-container_-_margin-bottom: initial; --paper-input-container_-_padding-left: initial; --paper-input-container_-_padding-right: initial; --paper-input-container_-_padding: 0; --paper-input-container_-_text-align: initial; --paper-input-container_-_width: initial; --yt-ad-badge-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-alert-background: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.4); --yt-app-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-backstage-cancel-background-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-backstage-cancel-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.4); --yt-backstage-image-alert-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-backstage-metadata-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-backstage-video-link-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.4); --yt-badge-background: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.6); --yt-badge-disabled-color: hsla(0, 0%, 53.3%, 0.4); --yt-border-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-brand-color: hsl(3, 81.8%, 49.6%); --yt-brand-paper-button-color: hsl(3, 81.8%, 49.6%); --yt-button-payment-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-button-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-channel-header-background: hsl(0, 0%, 98%); --yt-collection-badge-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-comment-metadata-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-comment-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-commentbox-border-active: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-commentbox-border-inactive: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-copyright-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-dialog-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-disabled-paper-button-color: var(--yt-disabled-text-color); --yt-disabled-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.3); --yt-expand-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-featured-channel-title-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 0%, 0.54); --yt-formatted-string-deemphasize-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-guide-background: hsl(0, 0%, 96%); --yt-guide-entry-hover-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 0%, 0.04); --yt-hovered-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-icon-active-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-icon-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.4); --yt-icon-disabled-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-icon-hover-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-item-section-header-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-main-app-background: hsl(0, 0%, 98%); --yt-menu-focus-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.2); --yt-menu-hover-backgound-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-metadata-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-icon-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-icon-hover-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-moderation-panel-background: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-panel-comment-metadata-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-panel-comment-text: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-moderation-panel-hover: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.8); --yt-moderation-panel-likely-spam-divider: hsla(0, 0%, 53.3%, 0.1); --yt-offer-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.4); --yt-owner-badge-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.4); --yt-paper-button-ink-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-paper-radio-button-checked-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-placeholder-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-playlist-background-header: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-playlist-background-item: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.6); --yt-playlist-message-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-playlist-sidebar-background: hsl(0, 0%, 98%); --yt-playlist-title-text: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-primary-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-primary-disabled-button-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-primary-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-searchbox-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-searchbox-border-color: hsla(0, 0%, 53.3%, 0.2); --yt-searchbox-legacy-border-color: #ccc; --yt-searchbox-legacy-border-shadow-color: #eee; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-border-color: #d3d3d3; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-color: #f8f8f8; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-focus-color: #e9e9e9; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-hover-border-color: #c6c6c6; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-hover-color: #f0f0f0; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-icon-color: #333; --yt-secondary-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-shopping-product-info: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-simple-badge-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-simple-menu-header-background: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-subscribe-button-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-survey-button-color: hsl(206.1, 79.3%, 52.7%); --yt-thumbnail-placeholder-color: hsl(0, 0%, 89%); --yt-toggle-color: hsl(206.1, 79.3%, 52.7%); --yt-transcript-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-transcript-cue-hover-background-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-transcript-toolbar-background-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-transcript-toolbar-text: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-vat-notice-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-video-publish-date-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-watch-card-album-header-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-watch-card-secondary-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); align-items: center; border: 0px; color: #212121; display: flex; flex-direction: row; font-family: Roboto, Noto, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 8px 0px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xKJmEC5ieOk" width="560"></iframe><paper-checkbox aria-checked="false" aria-disabled="false" class="style-scope ytd-sharing-embed-renderer" id="start-at-option" role="checkbox" style="--calculated-paper-checkbox-ink-size: var(--paper-checkbox-ink-size, -1px); --calculated-paper-checkbox-size: 18px; --paper-checkbox-checked-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --paper-checkbox-ink-size: 48px; --paper-checkbox-unchecked-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-ad-badge-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-alert-background: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.4); --yt-app-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-backstage-cancel-background-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-backstage-cancel-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.4); --yt-backstage-image-alert-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-backstage-metadata-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-backstage-video-link-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.4); --yt-badge-background: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.6); --yt-badge-disabled-color: hsla(0, 0%, 53.3%, 0.4); --yt-border-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-brand-color: hsl(3, 81.8%, 49.6%); --yt-brand-paper-button-color: hsl(3, 81.8%, 49.6%); --yt-button-payment-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-button-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-channel-header-background: hsl(0, 0%, 98%); --yt-collection-badge-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-comment-metadata-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-comment-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-commentbox-border-active: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-commentbox-border-inactive: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-copyright-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-dialog-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-disabled-paper-button-color: var(--yt-disabled-text-color); --yt-disabled-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.3); --yt-expand-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-featured-channel-title-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 0%, 0.54); --yt-formatted-string-deemphasize-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-guide-background: hsl(0, 0%, 96%); --yt-guide-entry-hover-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 0%, 0.04); --yt-hovered-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-icon-active-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-icon-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.4); --yt-icon-disabled-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-icon-hover-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-item-section-header-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-main-app-background: hsl(0, 0%, 98%); --yt-menu-focus-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.2); --yt-menu-hover-backgound-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-metadata-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-icon-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-icon-hover-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-moderation-panel-background: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-panel-comment-metadata-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-moderation-panel-comment-text: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-moderation-panel-hover: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.8); --yt-moderation-panel-likely-spam-divider: hsla(0, 0%, 53.3%, 0.1); --yt-offer-background-color: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.4); --yt-owner-badge-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.4); --yt-paper-button-ink-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-paper-radio-button-checked-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); --yt-placeholder-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-playlist-background-header: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-playlist-background-item: hsla(0, 0%, 93.3%, 0.6); --yt-playlist-message-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-playlist-sidebar-background: hsl(0, 0%, 98%); --yt-playlist-title-text: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-primary-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-primary-disabled-button-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-primary-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-searchbox-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-searchbox-border-color: hsla(0, 0%, 53.3%, 0.2); --yt-searchbox-legacy-border-color: #ccc; --yt-searchbox-legacy-border-shadow-color: #eee; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-border-color: #d3d3d3; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-color: #f8f8f8; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-focus-color: #e9e9e9; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-hover-border-color: #c6c6c6; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-hover-color: #f0f0f0; --yt-searchbox-legacy-button-icon-color: #333; --yt-secondary-text-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-shopping-product-info: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.8); --yt-simple-badge-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-simple-menu-header-background: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-subscribe-button-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-survey-button-color: hsl(206.1, 79.3%, 52.7%); --yt-thumbnail-placeholder-color: hsl(0, 0%, 89%); --yt-toggle-color: hsl(206.1, 79.3%, 52.7%); --yt-transcript-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-transcript-cue-hover-background-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-transcript-toolbar-background-color: hsl(0, 0%, 93.3%); --yt-transcript-toolbar-text: hsl(0, 0%, 6.7%); --yt-vat-notice-text: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-video-publish-date-color: hsla(0, 0%, 6.7%, 0.6); --yt-watch-card-album-header-background: hsl(0, 0%, 100%); --yt-watch-card-secondary-text-color: hsl(0, 0%, 53.3%); -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--yt-primary-text-color); cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; line-height: 0; margin: 8px 8px 8px 0px; white-space: nowrap;" tabindex="0" toggles=""></paper-checkbox></div>
<i>It</i> is an undeniably well made and mostly well written movie. The acting is all very good the production values are all very high. The film is filled with disturbing images and, sometimes, very often in fact, dense brooding atmosphere. There are even some very worthy jump scares.<sup>1</sup> Most of the characters from King’s novel are on screen. They come very close to feeling right. It is appropriate that Stephen King’s name isn’t on the poster though. The film feels like only a dim recollection of his novel. The experience of watching it, reminded me of seeing a high school student crash and burn on a book report they had only skimmed the night before in a desperate attempt to eke out at least a C-. The general outline is there, but the film as adaptation, like my imaginary book report, feels deflated, and skeletal.<br />
<br />
If you are a fan of the novel, I suspect this adaptation won’t work for you. It didn’t for me, a fact that made me incredibly sad, because this is a film I really wanted to like. I first read Stephen King’s <i>It </i>in the eighth grade, in the year 1987 (i had to wait for it to come out in paperback). In the intervening thirty years, I’ve read the novel through at least five times and have re-read bits and pieces here and there, to probably, if we are being generous, add up to a sixth reading. In some way or another, since that long ago year of 1987, <i>It </i>feels like it has been with me. To this day if I see a sewer drain,<sup>2</sup> or see clown, or see kids, obvious friends, riding bikes to parts unknown, <i>It </i>sends some signal to my frontal cortex for reflection. The geography, and dark character of Derry, its villains and its heroes form easy recollections. After 1987 Bill, Ben Stan, Bev, Richie, Mike, Eddie, (seven is a strong number the turtle would have noted) even Henry Bowers and dread Pennywise itself have traveled with me.<br />
<br />
When I could make myself forget about the source material I could appreciate the craftsmanship (generally quite good) of the film. Sadly the source material kept reasserting itself and ruining my ability to immerse myself in the film. The source material wasn’t alone. It was joined by the impossibly good and much better adapted 1990 <a href="http://In bad horror films these these are almost always ill conceived and the moment you stop to think about the mechanics of the scare the less sense they make. Bad jump scares ruin immersion for sharp eyed movie fans. It never annoyed me with them" target="_blank">tv mini-series starring Tim Curry</a>. The book and that mini-series crowded in, over and over again demanding that my mind make comparisons, always to the detriment of the new film. Netflix’s masterpiece <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4574334/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">Stranger Things</a> often joined in when it really shouldn’t have. However Muschietti and his writers elected to set part one of <i>It </i>1983. Thus the kids and the feel constantly evoke <i>Stranger Things. </i>This is too bad, given that the latter, owes so much to King’s dark novel. I think the decision could have worked in the absence of <i>Stranger Things</i>, but in that series' afterglow it looks too much like copying. This comparison is not helped by the presence of Finn Wolfhard who played Mike Wheeler in <i>Stranger Things. </i>Finn’s Richie Tozier is on the mark, and remarkably different from Mike Wheeler, never the less, comparisons, for me at least became unavoidable.<br />
<br />
I’m not necessarily a purist about adaptations. I thought Phillipa Boyens, with Fran and Peter Jackson, gave viewers a wonderful adaption of J.R.R. Tolkien’s <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> in their film trilogy. I didn’t always agree with their choices, but I thought, for the most part they captured the essences of both story and the characters.<sup>3 </sup>The goal in that adaptation was to attempt, as often as was possible, one to one correspondence with the book. It works. Or consider the adaptations faced by the comic book movie adapters. The kind of one to one correspondence Jackson <i>et al</i> did isn’t nearly as possible. Writers have narrative history spanning decades, and fans across generations. Here what is important are writing true to the characters and being true to the essences of the stories you want to adapt. Bryan Singer understood this when he tackled Marvel’s X-Men. The story had to be both new and old, but the characters had to be true. Wolverine couldn’t be suave and sophisticated and Charles Xavier couldn’t be a tap dancing kung fu master. So I get it. Movies aren’t the books they sometimes adapt and viewers should be able to set the two in different places. The two media do different kinds story telling. The adaptation has to be true though, and for inexplicable reason, the writer’s of this iteration of <i>It, </i>fail that the trueness test, thus as an adaptation worthy of the source material <i>It </i>also fails.<br />
<br />
That is a long preface to the following conclusion. If you aren’t as attached to the novel, love scary movies and don’t mind a few horror movie tropes (these tropes were not present in the novel) you will probably really like <i>It. </i><sup>4</sup> If you are attached to the novel, my guess is that the movie won’t work for you, and it won’t work in a big way. I could be wrong on either count, so you should definitely see the movie and decide for yourself. Tell me your thoughts in the comment box below.<br />
<br />
Verdict 1: <i>It </i>as straight horror film: 8/10 or if you prefer the old, and very forgiving Ebert method 3/4 stars.<br />
Verdict 2: <i>It</i> as adaptation 6/10 or 2/4 stars Ebert scale.<br />
<br />
<b><u>SPOILERS BELOW do not continue unless you don’t mind spoiling spoilers. </u></b><br />
<b><u>SERIOUSLY. </u></b><br />
<b><u>I’M NOT KIDDING. </u></b><br />
<b><u>WHY ARE YOU STILL READING THIS?</u></b><br />
<b><u>Okay, you were freakin’ warned.</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
As a straight horror film, <i>It</i> works fairly well. There is a lot of brooding atmosphere. In an early scene, one of our heroes Bill asks his younger brother Georgie to go down into the basement to get some paraffin to finish a paper boat. Its a pretty fine example of what the film does well in the first two acts. It builds its dread, with admirable patience. Its on old basement, dirt floors, not well lit, the lights don’t work, and the rain that has caused record flooding is backed by a dark gray sky and the basement’s tiny ground level windows don’t provide a strong light against the dark basement. Its stellar stuff. The film manages to keep it smart like this throughout. At the beginning of the turn toward the film’s conclusion though, the writers start introducing some stock horror movie contrivances, and the contrivances of bad or rushed writers everywhere.<br />
<br />
If the film is weak anywhere in its first two acts it is in the very underwhelming way in which it brings its protagonists together. Its also not terribly effective at demonstrating the deep almost mystical rapport of childhood friendships, which is the very heart of King’s novel. It brings the kids together I suppose, but it is all pretty perfunctory. Our heroes are Stuttering Bill Denebrough, Eddie Kapsbrak, Richie Tozier (who were friends before Georgie died), Ben “Haystack” Hanscom (he is the fat kid), Beverly Marsh (a working class girl with no real friends), and Mike Hanlon (in this film a black farm kid who lives with his weirdly dickish granddad). They call themselves the Loser’s Club. With exception of Richie Tozier, and Beverly Marsh, none of them feel terribly well fleshed out. I’m not even sure Richie and Beverly are all that well fleshed out, but they have some good lines, delivered by good actors. They are flat in a way they were not in the novel. They don’t have any real interests, so its hard to buy into their connections with each other, when we don’t feel connected to them. The Loser’s Club is opposed directly by Henry Bowers and his gang of knuckle dragging trouble makers, Victor “Vic” Criss, Belch Huggins. In the novel Henry attracted a couple of other high school psychos and kids who would rather hang with the bully than be one of his victims. The Loser’s Club is also opposed by It or its alter ego Pennywise the dancing clown. The town of Derry seems against them in many ways too. I hope I am not boring you with this summary, but its important ground work, and the film gets a C at establishing these players. It isn’t terrible for a standard horror film but it doesn’t work as an adaptation of <i>It. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Bowers and his friends terrorize the Losers here and there in mostly convincing ways. The Losers score a big victory when they defend Mike Hanlon from Bowers, who is increasingly demonstrating a willingness, even an eagerness to take his bullying too far. At the edge of a creek in Derry’s pine barrens he seems ready and willing to empty Mike’s skull of brains with a large rock. The Losers have numbers and lay waste to Henry and his friends, driving them away and picking up another friend.<br />
<br />
The film establishes that our heroes are fairly smart kids (that it seems to want to be both high school age and middle school aged). It doesn’t explore their interests, or explore their motivations very much at all, but more about that later. What we can conclude is that are not dumb kids. For some reason though, they start doing a great many dumb, dumb, dumb things. In their first confrontation with Pennywise, they march into its lair with no clue how to fight it, no clue whether they can fight it, despite the fact that they know it has been around for a very, very long time. But no, they just walk into monster’s house. Characters in dumb horror films are allowed to do dumb things. Characters in films that spend a lot of time setting a higher bar don’t later get to go under it with out commentary from the likes of me. Our heroes stupidly allow themselves to get separated. They get their asses kicked pretty good, which at least makes some sense. Then what follows is the trope of the sundering friendship. After getting a thorough drubbing from Pennywise, Richie Tozier does a riff on Private Hudson from <i>Aliens. </i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kyfriipc61A" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Bill concedes that Richie indeed grasps what just happened and suggests they try again. He suggests weapons next time, that they really-really not get separated next time. To which Richie, says, and I paraphrase, “whoa, whoa, fuck that noise.” Richie follows this reasonable stance up with some unreasonable and incendiary things, an insensitive reference to Bill’s missing, and likely dead brother Georgie being among them. Fight ensues. Bill and Bev plead, but the others are like, “nah, I’m out” and only two remain, Beverly Marsh and Bill Denebrough. What they decide we don’t know because the scene cuts away. Its all uncomfortably remeinsceint of the fight in <i>Stranger Things </i>and all uncomfortably foreign to the source material.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYjlrUwCQtmvqxKExYFwXEQiGRbHejKINkwY2VJcfeedh0__F3QxWt2H86t9rJkSa1KJnPKWJN2ZhLMx2EUhDAnR4HFGRvVvJC9y0r_jNLPBuRqktkmCiISe_ccLqzzKy17COsVQ/s1600/2918ffb7987745e287af6808c58d0ec0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="500" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYjlrUwCQtmvqxKExYFwXEQiGRbHejKINkwY2VJcfeedh0__F3QxWt2H86t9rJkSa1KJnPKWJN2ZhLMx2EUhDAnR4HFGRvVvJC9y0r_jNLPBuRqktkmCiISe_ccLqzzKy17COsVQ/s320/2918ffb7987745e287af6808c58d0ec0.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Not to worry the fellowship of The Loser’s Club reassembles about 15-20 minutes later. Pennywise kidnaps Bev (Bev, prior to her kidnapping, killed her dad..i think?). Stuttering Bill happens upon the scene of a big fight in Bev’s house, sees her dead prone on the floor, the tile below his head a growing pool of dark red. Pennywise has left Bill a message on the ceiling of Bev’s bathroom. “You’ll die if you try!” Bill is unimpressed and immediately Bill calls his friends (not paramedics I noticed) and with out any question they join in on the Beverly saving quest. The Losers coming back together is supposed to be a triumphant moment in the film. It almost was for me, but I also didn’t like the useless manipulation of the friendship fight trope.<br />
<br />
It is at this point that the film hits cruise control all the way to the finish. The Losers Club goes back to the lair, this time with a sheep puncher gun and some spikes from a wrot-iron fence. They vow not to get separated. They get separated. Pennywise has recruited Henry Bowers to help. Henry almost ruins the Losers ill conceived plans but takes a fall down a well at the hands of Mike that has to function like a kind of eraser for Bowers himself. The Losers get confronted with their fears, they save Bev, and then beat the shit out of It with impact weapons. The Loser’s Club drives It away with bats, rebar, and other improvised clubs. I’m not sure how that could work, given that earlier one of them drove a three foot make-shift spear through Pennywise’s skull, but, yeah, sure. Together they went medieval on its ass. There are some nice lines, and the action is pretty good. as I’ve said elsewhere, I probably wouldn’t have minded except...<br />
<br />
....except for the depth and wonder of Stephen King’s epic novel.<br />
<br />
The film lacks all of the depth of the novel. In the book the first fight the Losers have with it took place between 1957-1958. Why set it in the 1980s? Why high school(wish)? Why ignore the racial animus the Bowers feel toward the Hanlons? Why aren’t the Bowers also farmers, with a lesser farm than the one run by the Hanlons? King wanted to say some thing about the false world of the fifties with <i>It,</i> but by setting it in the 80s, the writers lose a lot of depth. Why do the kids have no real personalities? Why do they have no interests? Ben has an aptitude for engineering, Bill is a great story teller, Tozier is funny, imaginative and talented at making people laugh. Stan is logical and sharp, and Eddie is a great friend, Mike was an outsider even among outsiders in Maine in 1957. He knows a lot about Maine, so does his dad. Why the kill off Mike’s parents? Why make Richie fear clown instead of werewolves?<br />
<br />
The movie completely ignores the kids process of figuring out how you fight a creature like It. It becomes what you fear. In the book the kids find that It is afraid of them, in a daring sweatlodge, they sort of find out why. They go to the library and learn about Chimera, they surmise that by becoming what they fear, It also is makes itself vulnerable to their beliefs about those feared monsters. It was powerful but it played by rules. They embark on a sweatlodge, they...they do things to be able to beat the monster. They don’t just pick up improvised impact weapons and beat the shit out of Pennywise. They use Richie’s powerful fear werewolves to attack Pennywise, with the weakness of werewolves, silver. Its wonderful, insightful and sometimes sad novel from which writers could have plumbed deeply. With <i>It</i> as their starting point they could have given us a piece of art that did more than was merely an adequate and often good genre piece. They could have given us a film like Christopher Nolan’s <i>The Dark Knight, </i>a film that left genre behind. They could have given us just a great film.<br />
<br />
I say this a lot in my blog reviews, and I thought the past twenty years of movie history had finally driven the message home. Apparently my message hasn’t gotten to everyone. Source material is key and king. When it is ignored, or not honored a film adaptation is likely to go sideways. Adapting a big book, or even a small one (I’m looking at you Hobbit) is a tough task. The source material will often be a tragedy, for the adapter at any rate, of wealth. Adapting a good book must be a process or trimming. What gets cut and why? Can the writer’s combine events and characters? Do you cut and give a fan service reference? These are all tough spots for the writers adapting material, but the process should be one of what is absolutely necessary to tell this story, what events are too important to ignore? Pick the format, write a script that fits that format, and then rewrite until you have a movie that both fans of the novel will enjoy and that honors the material while grabbing new viewers unfamiliar with the source material . Also, when writing, have some faith in and respect for your audience. Marvel Studios, Peter Jackson and others have shown that if you write a good script, the audience will follow even if your hero is a talking raccoon spaceship pilot, or an Amazon warrior fighting Germany in World War I. We also see what happens over and over again, when filmmakers think they know better than the source material. Fox Studios abysmal <i>Fantastic Four</i> film is a wonderful example and by wonderful I mean awful. Michael Bay continues to produce fresh outrages of this sort with his direction or producing of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Transformers “films." The same happened in both G.I. Joe movies. The filmmakers essentially gave a giant middle finger to the source material and thought they knew better. Audiences, or critics and sometimes both gave the films their own middle fingers critique.<br />
<br />
Andy Muschietti’s <i>It, </i>doesn’t quite get as bad as the above unmentionables, it is a well made film after all. However, it is hard to deny that he and his team of writers have failed the audience by electing to ignore the novel far too often and do their own thing. This is too bad. They had a great plan. Break the book into two films. That should have given them (had they aimed for longer films, say 2 1/2 or even 3 hours) all the room they need to make not only a decent piece of horror film making, but also produce two great films, filled with nuance, and depth. They settled, and it seems we have to as well.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>1. In bad horror films jump scares are almost always ill conceived and the moment you stop to think about the mechanics of the scare the less sense they make. Bad jump scares ruin immersion for sharp eyed movie fans. <i>It </i>never annoyed me with them. Whew.<br />
<br />
2. After I first read <i>It, </i>I gave sewer drains a very wide berth for nearly a year. And at night, I added manhole covers to the list of avoidables.<br />
<br />
3. The film treatment of Faramir is the largest, most glaring, and mostly only, major misstep I felt Peter Jackson’s film made. I appreciated their reasons, for the their decisions, but I thought they probably should have trusted their audience more. That is a case to prosecute in a different blog.<br />
<br />
4. The third act begins with a suite of horror movie tropes and tension contrivances relied upon by bad writers, television writers or writers in a hurry. Smart characters doing dumb things, things they specifically said they would not do is the most glaring of these contrivances. “Lets not get separated.’ Smart characters immediately begin making bad decisions that result in separations. Tripping while being chased, which I am sure happens (though it happened pretty rarely when I was chased at these kids ages) was incredibly popular with Director Andy Muscheitti.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-66223257064747025032017-06-06T10:11:00.000-07:002017-06-06T10:25:01.855-07:00The Enduring Utility of MythologyThe other day, a guy I like and admire for his sharp mind, Sean Faircloth if you must know, posted a critique/complaint on his social media about the fact that blockbusters almost always tend to overshadow films of nuance, depth and reality. His jumping off point was <i>Wonder Woman</i>. He thought it was being oversold as a feminist track given that the film is full of explosions, and people hitting one another, and generally found superhero films to be not terribly engaging.<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFrxaESZWHHzCiAq3Gda8lk6u1uTzYWXDkjxXLOFYQO9wAkhCGogmop9AN-VPecvojaIW2HbE3Q758iVMYx5vGCPPDM_q665_S7iOlZIPRKRkL8Vqz1P7uxTIPrk1c5VewCXx3-Q/s1600/150910.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="640" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFrxaESZWHHzCiAq3Gda8lk6u1uTzYWXDkjxXLOFYQO9wAkhCGogmop9AN-VPecvojaIW2HbE3Q758iVMYx5vGCPPDM_q665_S7iOlZIPRKRkL8Vqz1P7uxTIPrk1c5VewCXx3-Q/s320/150910.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I got to see the great movie everyone's been waiting to see this weekend. You know, the movie about heroism, respect for different cultures and a reckoning with women's rights. I, of course, refer to The Lost City of Z (film), in which real people face real problems heroically and with compassion in a story based on real life. No superpowers, no tiara, no tight-fitting outfits. It'd be great to have magic powers, and comic book movies do make reliably big bucks for the studios, but I tend to prefer stories about actual humans, particularly flawed yet admirable humans like in The Lost City of Z.”<br /><br /> -Sean Faircloth</blockquote>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig06y1wc864QPkfh4I3TMt88Vk4W7jqZZyoVTj0XdZlo3pskXN10TE4kwUMo4r6FaHrcwGeKUvn_ndOMwug2M0BbkGl44TDtNR9hMGuQQD3zDwYvegpyEIKbkeRIirQSKWmIHZYQ/s1600/230572R3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="392" data-original-width="750" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig06y1wc864QPkfh4I3TMt88Vk4W7jqZZyoVTj0XdZlo3pskXN10TE4kwUMo4r6FaHrcwGeKUvn_ndOMwug2M0BbkGl44TDtNR9hMGuQQD3zDwYvegpyEIKbkeRIirQSKWmIHZYQ/s320/230572R3.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #353535; font-family: "applesystemuifont"; mso-bidi-font-family: AppleSystemUIFont;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br /><br />On another thread, in response to the push back from friends, Sean added the following. <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Well. It's just about a movie. so no big deal. and I don't think the people who disagree with me are stupid (like I said I know I'm the minority on comic book movies) -- but it fascinates me that the marketing department of a large corporation has convinced a huge swath of liberals that it is a "feminist statement" to buy tickets to a movie in which 2.25 hours of 2.5 hours is people hitting each other and blowing stuff up. It's good to have more women directors and stars, and were I these women, I'd be more than happy to have the opportunity (and the mega-cash), but it's like if the CEO of Exxon is a woman. It's not whether you are a woman. it's what you do in the job. I liked the director's other big movie, Monster, much more. and I think it was actually much more feminist. It was a real story dealing with real life. great movie.”<br />-Sean Faircloth.</blockquote>
<br /><br />In some ways this is simply part of an older debate about the superiority of the high brow to the low brow. <i>The Lost City of Z</i> is literature, whereas <i>Wonder Woman</i> is to be found in other sections of the bookstore, with the low brow offerings in Fantasy, or Science Fiction. These discussions also, and obviously, center on matters of personal taste. Some people can watch and enjoy a film like, The <i>Constant Gardner</i>, <b>and</b> <i>Captain America: The Winter Soldier.</i> Some people cannot. It probably isn’t fair to extrapolate from one’s own taste about trends in film, or get too declarative about merit. Plenty of big and small films are made every year. The high brow and the nuanced have always been smaller films, and, with sharp exceptions, lesser box office producers. The small films tend to be the winners of critical praise and dominate the film awards unless the initials of the awarding body begin with M, T and V. The big films tend be the winners of the summer, when younger viewers dominate. I’m not sure there is anything to complain about in this. In our entertainment, we have always valued the entertainment. We live in the real world every day. We see its nuance, its grays, and its Hobbesian unpleasantness. Escapism is useful for sanity.<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
I also think there is a failure of imagination at play on the part of people who hold Faircloth’s position. This is probably not a huge danger in our consumption of entertainment, and critiques of said, but it remains a persistent one. Such criticisms often, too often in fact, miss the utility of mythology and the idealized case. As it is in science, perhaps so it is in entertainment. The simplified model may help us better understand the phenomena in question. In addition to this, the simplification of mythology has real literary utility. Tolkien, who was quite harsh on allegory, referred to this utility as applicability. One reason his <i>Lord of the Rings</i> cycle has endured is precisely because it sits outside any specific time and place and isn’t a precise allegory. It is about themes in human nature, and not about specific places and people. Perhaps counterintuitively, <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> then becomes about all people, at all times and in all places. His vision of Middle-Earth in its time of conflict was no doubt inspired by time in which he was living, and the conflict World War I in which he fought, but he was writing about larger themes. <br /><br /><div>
Comic books have provided cinema with a new mythology to plumb. And as it was with the generic action heroes of the 80s and 90s, or the Westerns that preceded them, there are endless approaches to using the new mythologies to explore timeless human themes in an idealized way. <br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8BkZdJxThOZhB9NUhxEl121hpSwIEd7ZZ-VqofWhDQ4dKWokkEa_WC8nYGQYVEWAOupCJp7mFjtRrTwCAvA0cB9VUZkJAnqDEg61pMmXA6KOmDV15Eyy6mqKmP-OzudB96iagfQ/s1600/Captain-America-The-Winter-Soldier-HD-Wallpaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8BkZdJxThOZhB9NUhxEl121hpSwIEd7ZZ-VqofWhDQ4dKWokkEa_WC8nYGQYVEWAOupCJp7mFjtRrTwCAvA0cB9VUZkJAnqDEg61pMmXA6KOmDV15Eyy6mqKmP-OzudB96iagfQ/s320/Captain-America-The-Winter-Soldier-HD-Wallpaper.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<i>Captain America: The Winter Soldier</i> is as good an espionage thriller as <i>Three Days of the Condor.</i> It is also a great action film. In addition to all this, it has a lot of important things to say about the rule of law, and of standing on principle. Should we act pre-emptively to threats? This will become, as it was in <i>Winter Soldier</i>, an increasingly fraught question, because our digital footprint is allowing intelligent algorithms greater and greater predictive power. Currently this technology is effectively manipulating you to buy more than you need or really want, or spend more time on social media, or on certain apps. It could be used more nefariously. In the film, the good guys develop an algorithm capable of predicting future behavior. One of our heroes, Nick Fury, is so satisfied that it can predict future bad actions he is prepared to sign off on its implementation and essentially drone strike people who are going to, sooner or later, become threats to justice. Captain America is, hopefully the viewer’s surrogate self, and his reasonable, rule of law objections, kick off an investigation that uncovers the equally dark twin side of the algorithm. If it can predict bad actors, it can also predict people who would stand opposed to more fascist and authoritarian styles of power and the weapon could be used just as well against good and decent people, or people who will find themselves opposed and taking a stand. There are deep questions being asked by <i>Captain America: The Winter Soldier.</i> And all the while there are, for fans, wonderful character studies, and arcs to eat up along the way. We get the crushed Natasha Romanov, when she realizes Nick Fury, doesn’t trust her enough with what he discovers. He goes, not to her, his right hand, but to Rogers, who opposed the program. She is also unsettled by Rogers’ distrust of her. It is a rough thing to have the mirror reveal unpleasant things and Johansson’s acting choices as Natasha Romanov in response to each emotional reveal is more or less brilliant. I would argue this is fine filmmaking, and on par with much more somber espionage pieces like <i>Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy</i>, (which I found incredibly soporiphic) or the splendidly tense film<i> Breach</i>, starring the incomparable Chris Cooper. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN7QWKotffiVBRldWNF89A0152qxvpIv8j6vdAo-BiCyLf6nXVXEnLUmGt0DnRgMJ9tX6nPCCyJjUTA06YHwC8hZoLtpSxxAslQL-Yy1iREyyhSaoRpsdZFfbBieEm1eZo3IPJhg/s1600/breachcc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="311" data-original-width="576" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN7QWKotffiVBRldWNF89A0152qxvpIv8j6vdAo-BiCyLf6nXVXEnLUmGt0DnRgMJ9tX6nPCCyJjUTA06YHwC8hZoLtpSxxAslQL-Yy1iREyyhSaoRpsdZFfbBieEm1eZo3IPJhg/s320/breachcc.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Superhero films, like mythology, can be incredibly self-referential, involved in furthering character and story and still say a lot about principles and human nature and be worthy of one’s time. In this way they are very like the films of Wes Anderson, which are as far from reality as any comic book movie, but still manage to convey very real observations about human nature. <br /><br />Not everyone can open themselves up to such fiction and allow the immersion that fantasy requires. Some people just find certain genres unappealing. That is okay. It would be nice though, if those who can’t or don't could see, at least in principle, why others do find the fantastical useful, as well as why it endures.</div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-62826600862575661922017-05-31T09:48:00.000-07:002017-05-31T09:50:22.924-07:00An excellent breakdown of Gaeshi Waza by the great Kashiwazaki. Judo some times doesn’t always seem like it should work in the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu context. But I think just about every thing Katsuhiko Kashiwazaki does is BJJ appropriate. Here are a bunch of his Gaeshi variants. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YgOCElhRR7c" width="400"></iframe>Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-13416183160614682462017-05-26T10:43:00.001-07:002017-05-26T10:44:37.581-07:00Seth Myers Nails Paul Ryan. Seth Myers is on fire here.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D7hzxYvCIUo" width="560"></iframe></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-13464179067029934942017-05-26T10:22:00.002-07:002017-05-26T10:22:43.953-07:00Greg Gianforte: Symptom of American FailureGreg Gianforte is by any account, an American success story. He and his wife made a fortune on a tech company, RightNow Technologies. They made a larger fortune selling that company for over a billion dollars. He had an unsuccessful run for governor of Montana, no criticism there. He had a successful run as Congressman, being elected yesterday in a Montana special election.<br />
<br />
It was only in the last day when Gianforte became an example of what I am calling American Failure.<br />
<br />
A reporter for the BBC asked Gianforte to comment on the Congressional Budget Office’s latest report on the Republican Congress’ American Health Care Act. Not many Republicans in Congress want to discuss the CBO analysis because it fairly damning of the AHCA, and makes the efforts to push it through by Republican held Congress look as cynical as they probably were. This is why Ben Jacobs, of the BBC, thought it would be a good idea to ask Gianforte, then only a Republican contender for Congress, his thoughts on the bill in light of the latest report. Here, courtesy of the Atlantic <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/a-transcript-of-the-greg-gianforte-body-slam-audio/528102/" target="_blank">is a transcript of the attack.</a> If you follow the link you can also listen to the audio.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="ad-boxinjector-wrapper" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; clear: both; color: black; font-family: 'Lyon Text', Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<gpt-ad class="ad ad-boxinjector ad-loaded" data-google-query-id="CKeqt6v1jdQCFeO5swodiIQBzw" data-object-name="boxinjector" data-object-pk="1" id="boxinjector1" lazy-load="2" style="display: block; text-align: center;" targeting-pos="boxinjector1"></gpt-ad></div>
<br />
<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ben Jacobs</b>, a reporter for The Guardian: ...the CBO score. Because, you know, you were waiting to make your decision about health care until you saw the bill and it just came out...<br /><b>Greg Gianforte</b>, the congressional candidate: Yeah, we’ll talk to you about that later.<br /><b>Jacobs:</b> Yeah, but there’s not going to be time. I’m just curious—<br /><b>Gianforte</b>: Okay, speak with Shane, please.<br />[loud scuffling noises, an even louder crash, repeated thumping]<br /><b>Gianforte</b>: [shouting] I’m sick and tired of you guys!<br /><b>Jacobs:</b> Jesus chri—!<br /><b>Gianforte:</b> The last guy that came in here, you did the same thing! Get the hell out of here!<br /><b>Jacobs:</b> Jesus!<br /><b>Gianforte:</b> Get the hell out of here! The last guy did the same thing! You with The Guardian?<br /><b>Jacobs:</b> Yes! And you just broke my glasses.<br /><b>Gianforte:</b> The last guy did the same damn thing.<br /><b>Jacobs:</b> You just body-slammed me and broke my glasses.<br /><b>Gianforte:</b> Get the hell out of here.<br /><b>Jacobs:</b> You’d like me to get the hell out of here, I’d also like to call the police. Can I get you guys’ names?<br /><b>Unidentified third man:</b> Hey, you gotta leave.<br /><b>Jacobs</b>: He just body-slammed me.<br /><b>Unidentified third man:</b> You gotta leave.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the immediate aftermath of the alleged assault, Gianforte spokesmen blamed the “incident” as being the result of an aggressive reporter. Neither the written exchange, nor the actual audio of the attack (I can think of no other word) support the idea that the reporter was aggressive. Nor does the eye witness testimony of a fox news crew. The FoxNew crew describe <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html" target="_blank">the event as follows. </a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"During that conversation, another man — who we now know is Ben Jacobs of The Guardian — walked into the room with a voice recorder, put it up to Gianforte's face and began asking if he had a response to the newly released Congressional Budget Office report on the American Health Care Act. Gianforte told him he would get to him later. Jacobs persisted with his question. Gianforte told him to talk to his press guy, Shane Scanlon. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, "I'm sick and tired of this!"<br /><br />Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. Jacobs then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left."</b></blockquote>
Most importantly from the Fox News Report, "<span style="font-family: inherit;">To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff's deputies.</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The American </span>Failure<span style="font-family: inherit;"> of which I speak is the fact that for too many Americans, Gianforte</span>’<span style="font-family: inherit;">s frustrated, impulsive action seems like character. No one was </span>surprised<span style="font-family: inherit;"> when Montanans elected Gianforte to congress. Most news outlets predicted he would likely still win, or at the very least his </span>performance<span style="font-family: inherit;"> would be unaffected by news of the alleged assault. Indeed Montana </span>Republicans<span style="font-family: inherit;"> were, according to exit polling, unswayed. Some, in NPR interviews, even suggested that it was good what now Congressman elect Gianforte did. Voters favoring Gianforte thought it showed character. A friend of mine said, </span>“<span style="font-family: inherit;">Understanding consequences </span>and<span style="font-family: inherit;"> standing up for what you believe in is a quality behavior. This man has been repeatedly attacked by the alt left media and stood up for himself and his ideology. For </span>that<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I applaud him and make no apologies for </span>doing<span style="font-family: inherit;"> so.</span>” My friend further, said, “Play stupid games when stupid prizes.” He isn’t alone in his opinion. Though it is an opinion that seems to be untethered to the facts, so far, in this particular case. The conservative opinion seems to dramatically expand the definition of <i>attack</i> in the process of defending what just ten years ago would likely have been indefensible. Ben Jacobs, simply asked Gianforte, for his position on the AHCA, in light of the CBO report. Gianforte had been hedging on his support until that report. His reaction doesn’t follow citation of principles. The assault doesn’t follow aggressive action by Jacobs. It looks like nothing more than what it was, a frustrated, perhaps tired, man lashing out at a reporter asking him questions. Lets reflect a moment on what those actions appear to have been. In response to two questions, Gianforte grabbed a BBC reporter by the neck with both hands, forced him to the ground and began punching him. The “stupid game” and the “attack” my friend and his fellow conservatives refer to is the act of a reporter doing his job.<br />
<br />
Words aren’t violence. If the response to uncomfortable words is going to be physical violence, and if we are going to imagine that such violence is virtue, then I think the Enlightenment project that is the US is dead. Physically choking slamming someone who has just asked you a question doesn’t represent manly virtue. At best it represents the unenlightened first impulse of a frustrated tired man, having to address a bad bill on the eve of an election that shouldn’t have been as close as it was. At worst, it represents the first impulse of thug, with naked contempt for the press. There is no evidence of virtue in the assault on Ben Jacobs. Seeing virtue in it is an American Failure.<br />
<br />
My friend went on to say, that “The good people of Missoula disagreed with me.” The implication here is that since majority have spoken the right position has been discovered, or the majority makes right.” Strangely this same person would balk at the majority who spoke in the last Presidential election, but I digress. The good people of Missoula may disagree with me, but there is a notable exception to this majority that is perhaps cause of hope-though perhaps hope is premature. Whether hope is premature or not, the exception takes the form of Greg Gianforte himself, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2017/05/26/gianforte-apologizes-for-the-bodyslam-that-he-denied-yesterday/" target="_blank">who had this to say.</a><br />
<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Last night I made a mistake, and when you make a mistake, you have to own up to it,” Gianforte told a supportive crowd in his victory speech. “That’s the Montana way. Last night I made a mistake and I took an action that I can’t take back and I’m not proud of what happened. I should not have responded in the way that I did and for that I’m sorry.”</blockquote>
<br /> Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-68154945531801665092017-05-11T15:35:00.000-07:002017-05-12T09:59:18.649-07:00The Looming Disaster. The Trump Administration: The Apotheosis of the Worst Trends in American Thinking. <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">It has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">been a rough week</a> for the Trump administration, and it’s GOP allies. The cynicism of the Trump/Ryan push on the GOP health care bill, the <i>American Health Care Act (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Health_Care_Act_of_2017" target="_blank">AHCA</a>) </i>has already had a telling effect on GOP numbers. As <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trumpcare-vote-republican-house-seats-threatened-democrats-cook-analysis-a7720966.html" target="_blank">reported by the Independent, </a>Republicans who signed off on the AHCA are already seeing re-election chances fall. The hope of the GOP members of Congress is to present the illusion of success, while essentially giving the Senate a land mine. While claiming victory with no major legislation passed, they create an insurance policy they can point to should the Senate fail to do anything with the bill. “Well, we presented legislation, its not our fault the Senate failed to come up with a workable middle ground.” Trump sang the AHCA’s praises, even as its chances to pass, are <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/04/trump_on_the_ahca_passing_the_house_hey_i_m_president_can_you_believe_it.html" target="_blank">fairly slim. </a> The Senate isn’t terribly satisfied with the bill. The Congressional Budget Office report on the AHCA doesn’t help. Their summary, "<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486" target="_blank">CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 24 million in 2026 relative to current law</a>, makes a lot of people, lawmakers and constituents alike, uncomfortable. Of course, with Trump, it can get worse, and often does. His firing of James Comes, the sometimes controversial head of the FBI, generated massive, and predictable, except <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-trump-expected-only-applause-when-he-told-comey-youre-fired/2017/05/10/b66e2b48-358f-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.3550b9db6f02" target="_blank">apparently to President Trump alone,</a> backlash. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">According to the New York Times, some republicans have broken ranks with Trump to express dismay,</a> with the firing of Comey, whom Trump once praised for Comey’s October surprise reveal of a continuing investigation into Clinton’s emails. The President, his press secretary, and various other conservative megaphones, have tried out using the former director Comey’s handling of Clinton’s investigation as a rationale for the firing. It isn’t convincing and, in any event, the rationale continues to evolve. The evolving rationales look more and more like mendacity with each ad hoc permutation.* (<b>SEE ADDENDUM)</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The optics of the Comey firing looked worse than it might have, given Trump’s meeting, almost on the heels of Comey’s termination, free of a free press, with Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyack, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov. While Western Media may have been barred from the meeting, Russia’s state controlled press was allowed in. It doesn’t even take a paranoid mind to find that kind of move suspicious. In their <i>New York Times</i> article, <i>Sense of Crisis Deepens, as Trump Defends Firing, </i>Michael Shear, Jennifer Steinhauer, and Matt Fledgenhiemer, point out that Kislyack <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">is a central figure in the FBI’s sprawling investigation of Russian meddling, and possible collusion with elements of Trump’s campaign.</a> The pictures, released by Russian media, make the scene in the Oval Office seem almost celebratory. Who knows, maybe it was. We won’t know, because there was no free press present to record the event. If you were an ethical player in US politics, or even just a optics savvy one, would you meet with Kislyack in the absence of reporters? Or at all? And no where is there any of that saber rattling vibe that Trump’s Whitehouse and Moscow, both, seemed to have been trying to sell to the media a few weeks ago after Trump bombed a well warned Syrian air base. And, as if the optics could not get any worse, or the Nixon comparisons any easier, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-kissinger-side-trump-delivers-first-person-response-comey-firing/" target="_blank">Trump meets with Henry Kissinger.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What we do know is this. The FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling, and possible collusion between Trump campaign operatives and Russian elements was ramping up. The investigation had already damaged one Trump campaign member, then National Security Advisor <b>Michael T Flynn</b> so badly he was forced to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html" target="_blank">resign</a>. Before Flynn’s departure, <b>Paul Manafort</b>, a long time Republican operator, long time friend of Russian oligarchs, resigned, in part because of his own Russian ties. Manafort worked for the pro-Putin Ukrainian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, amid a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-manafort-dossier/495851/" target="_blank">swirl of ethical quandaries.</a> From <i>The Atlantic </i>article:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 18px;">The</span><span style="font-size: 18px;"> </span><em style="font-size: 18px;">Times </em><span style="font-size: 18px;">reports on handwritten ledgers that list $12.7 million in cash payments to Manafort from Yanukovych’s political party between 2007 and 2012. While it isn’t clear from the records whether Manafort actually received the money, the documents, obtained by the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau, sketch out some of Manafort’s many ties in the region:</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin."</span></b></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">As a political advisor, Manafort seems to have gravitated toward less than morally upright candidates. In addition to Yanukovych, Manafort also once worked with Filipino dictator <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos" target="_blank">Ferdinand Marcos.</a> If Manafort’s forte is polishing generally terrible people for public consumption, what are we to make of his decision to seek out and aid Trump? That is, perhaps, question for another blog. The fact remains, though, Manafort, has ties, and extensive ones to Putin backed lackeys. In addition to Manafort and Flynn, Trump’s foreign policy advisor <b>Carter Page</b>, has significant financial ties to Russia’s state controlled oil company Gazprom.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Trump’s Attorney General, </span><b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Jeff Sessions</b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">, </span><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/did-sessions-lie/" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;" target="_blank">was caught lying, or at least misspeaking, </a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">, under oath about meeting with Kislyack in a way that, in previous, less partisan times, would likely have doomed any other AG candidate. We don’t live in less partisan times. Sessions in response to the revelation that he had, in fact, met with Russians, announced he would recuse himself from the investigation of Russian meddling. Remember that for a bit, it is a subject to which we will return.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Enter President Trump, and his business association.</b> There is no shortage of ties between Trump and numerous Russian, pro-Putin business entities. To be successful in business in Russia is almost by definition to be pro-Putin. Trump once famously tweeted, by way of deflection, “I HAVE ZERO INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIA.” Having never released his tax returns, we of course can’t easily verify this. The statement of course is vulnerable to critical analysis. Is he being tricky with terms? He may personally have no investments in Russia, but what about his businesses? Related entities? Is he just lying? Whatever the answers to those questions are, they say little about how Russian entities might have <i>invested in Trump </i>himself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">As Time Magazine reporter Jeff Nesbitt eloquently puts it: </span></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"</span></b>Most of the coverage of the links between Trump and Putin’s Russia takes the GOP presidential nominee at his word—that he has lusted after a Trump tower in Moscow, and come up spectacularly short. But Trump’s dodge—that he has no businesses in Russia, so there is no connection to Putin—is a classic magician’s trick. Show one idle hand, while the other is actually doing the work.<b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #202020; font-size: 17.200000762939453px;">"</span></span></b></blockquote>
Citing the work of a multitude of reporters, Nesbitt asserts, with copious evidence to support him, that while Trump may not have businesses in Russia, many of his business holdings, are deeply entangled with Russian financiers that are "part of Putin’s inner circle.” Several of Trump’s advisors have had or continue to have deep business relationships within Russia. Trump’s brand can no longer get loans from US institutions, owing to his many bankruptcies, and in response sought out Russian investment. Nesbitt quotes, LA Times reporter Max Boot, "Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.” Many of Trump’s satellite businesses have been financed by a company called Bayrock. The company has been implicated in money laundering, tax evasion and connection to more serious <a href="http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/">criminal organizations.</a> Trump Soho, was such a complicated mess, even the shady Bayrock was troubled, and its Finance Chief Jody Kriss, sued Trump Soho, because of what Kriss referred to as the magical appearance of funds from Russian sources whenever Trump Soho needed funds, Nesbitt notes.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://torontolife.com/city/toronto-trump-tower-lawsuit-feature/">Trump partnered with two Russian investors on his lavish Toronto hotel.</a> We all, I assume, know how the story of Trump’s Toronto adventure ends, but if you didn’t, the words you are looking for are, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/08/513946283/trump-tower-in-toronto-is-up-for-sale-and-facing-legal-woes">disaster, and ignominy.</a> Lawsuits, debt and bankruptcy seem to be Trump’s real business legacy. From NPR, <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #202020; font-family: "pt" serif , "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; line-height: 1.70588235294118; margin-bottom: 1.17647058823529em; max-width: 680px; padding: 0px 15px; position: static; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;">
<b style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"</span></b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Investors bought condominiums in the tower that could be rented out by the hotel. The investors claim they were promised sky-high occupancy rates and returns on their investment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Toronto lawyer Mitchell Wine says those never panned out. Collectively, the investors lost millions of dollars. Wine represents 27 investors, and many are members of Toronto's Korean community who speak very little English.</span><b style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #202020; font-family: "pt" serif , "georgia" , serif;">"</span></span></b></div>
<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Trump has bragged about meeting with Russian Oligarchs. </span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">While Trump Sr likes to play down any Russian ties these days, Donald Jr., has been decidedly less reserved on the numerous and deep ties to Russian investment. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.3bd0f6edca77" target="_blank">“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., bragged. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Trump has been touting his ties and interest in Russian business, according to the Atlantic, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/trump-lawyers-up-conflicts-of-interest/526185/" target="_blank">for nearly 30 years.</a> It is only relatively recently that he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on the Russian Question. I don’t think I’ve even been exhaustive on the links Trump and his businesses have to Russian entities. Click through the links. There is more to see and all of it is troubling.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I bring up all this because it casts a dark shadow over the abrupt firing of James Comey. I’m not here to defend Comey, who seems fairly capable of that on his own. I am not a person who ever called on Comey to resign, or be fired, despite the fact I think he has been, at times (can you say October Surprise constant reader) clumsy. He has had some very good moments too, standing up to politicians of both parties, doggedly pursuing a potentially explosive investigation, to name just a few. Comey has earned both his criticisms and his praise. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Director Comey asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for more funding to pursue the complicated question of Russian involvement in meddling, and potential collusion with members of the Trump campaign in shaping the 2016 election, among other things. We know that after that request Rosenstein and Sessions both sent word to Trump that he should fire Director Comey. Its hard not to view Sessions recommendation as both self serving (he has himself been implicated as a liar on the Russian question) as well as a violation of his stated recusal from the investigation into Russian infiltration of our politics. We know, that upon receiving these letters, Trump, who was deeply <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/how-trump-decided-to-fire-james-comey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news" target="_blank">angry with Director Comey,</a> did exactly what Sessions and Rosenstein suggested and he fired Director Comey.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Individually none of these facts would be all that remarkable. The aggregate, though, is more than troubling. It is alarming. The shape of these facts do more than just suggest that powerful people in Washington are trying to stave off a potentially administration shattering scandal, the likes of which we haven’t seen in US politics since June 17, 1972. These facts demand a thorough, and uncompromised investigation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What scares me, and I think should scare you is this. The partisan era in which we live, and the fact averse society we have created, suggest that exactly what we need -an impartial investigation- will be an extra-ordinarily difficult undertaking. Paul Ryan, and many in the GOP in Congress seem to see Trump, more often than they do not, as useful idiot in producing their brand of ideologically driven policy. There is not, at present, a significant number of Democrats to drive such an investigation forward either. The chance that men like Paul Ryan would happily let things get worse, and American confidence in its government continue to falter, to achieve a very narrow set of political goals, seems very high to me. The righting of this ship, requires that the GOP see the Cyrillic writing on the wall. No. I take that back. They, except for perhaps the most naive among them, already see that writing. What is required is that they act accordingly, with integrity and resolve. Perhaps the truth will even allow them to keep their useful idiot. Or it may not. Regardless, a thorough, transparent examination of the Russian connections is absolutely necessary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Addendum: </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Shortly after I finished this piece, mere hours, a few new and shocking things came to light. The most damning permutation of President Trump’s rationale for his firing of James Comey came out in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt. Michael Schmidt, of the <i>New York Times, </i>closes a long troubling article about Trump demanding loyalty from Comey at a dinner between the two men with the NBC quote.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news" target="_blank">Mr. Trump said in the NBC interview, “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.” “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,” Mr. Trump said.</a> I recommend you read the Times’ piece, <i>In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demured. </i>The article is linked in the text above.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">But let us focus for a moment on the incredible quote, which must represent the most real rationale for Trump’s decision to fire Comey. There is nothing ethical to be gleaned from Trump’s words. He simply wants the Russian investigation to go away. “ ..<i>Russia is a made-up story” </i>He says. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Whether he really believes he has done nothing wrong, or understands that he has, is immaterial to the massive ethical violation of his office demonstrated by his reasoning. Whether he is innocent of any wrong doing (can one be held too responsible for incompetence?) he serves the interest of the American people. The commitments to the American people are no less for AG “Mr. Let me recuse Myself” Sessions, and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Of the people who form the heart of this article the only one who seems to have understood the nature of public service, for all his flaws, seems to have been former Director James Comey. Trump’s firing of Comey is an attempt, naked and contemptible, to close an investigation simply because it may make him look bad. The investigation into Russian meddling is an investigation demanded by the facts, and it is owed to the American people. Richard Dawkins, with an economy I think we all should envy, damned the whole affair in a simple tweet. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Cop: “You’re wanted by the police for questioning.”<br />
Suspect: “You’re fired.”<br />
Cop: “Oh, right then, sorry you were troubled sir.”</div>
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/862697453522477056">May 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<br /></blockquote>
It is nearly impossible to follow Trump, and his loyal tribe, and not make comparisons to Nixon or various Banana Republics. Trump’s own love of autocratic strongmen greases the wheels of these comparisons. The ease of these comparisons makes the observation that neither Trump, nor his administration care about their duty to the public hard to dismiss.<br />
<br />
Whatever Trump may personally think, his dismissal of the Russian story as “made-up” doesn’t align with facts. Even if he himself operated with no intentional collision, that wouldn’t mean members of his campaign did not. Or that he himself, or members of his campaign were not influenced by Russian attempts to influence both the American public, Trump himself, and his staffers. In fact, the Intelligence community has demonstrated that, even <i>sans</i> conscientious efforts at collusion, the Russian efforts to influence Trump and his campaign, and the American public worked to some degree. In what many are calling the most over looked news story of the day, that day being yesterday, the following exchange took place as the Senate continued its own investigation of Russian influence operations in the 2016 election.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
This was the biggest under-reported Trump/Russia story yesterday. This former FBI agent makes a devastating case against Trump as CIC. <a href="https://t.co/XloJT55klO">pic.twitter.com/XloJT55klO</a></div>
— This Is Not Normal (@NetworkJunkyz) <a href="https://twitter.com/NetworkJunkyz/status/847820472016404480">March 31, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
Clinton Watts' testimony before the Senate may be the most troubling two minutes of testimony the US has seen in a very long time. Trump’s twitter account was targeted by fake news organizations operated by Russian elements. Both Paul Manafort and Trump and others in his campaign parroted these fake stories. Trump supporters were targeted by these propaganda organs of the Russian state.<br />
This is what we know. I urge you to watch the video. It should unsettle you, and make you want to defend our institutions and our way of life even more.<br />
<br />
My final note to this blog post:<br />
I shared this post, in rough form, with several friends. They all offered their own feed back and observations, and various corrections. I want to say thanks to Alexandra, Jason G, and Jason C, and Dan. <br />
<br />
One of my friends suggested that “apotheosis" was apt, but seemed to suggest that more accurately, the Trump administration represents the culmination, specifically, of Republican populism stretching back to and beginning in the Goldwater era in 1964 (though Goldwater himself wasn’t a simple populist). This same friend, who can name himself in the comments if he chooses, also suggests a twin culmination. Republican populism has a twin, ineffectualism in governance. I think my friend is on to something here, but I will leave my title as it stands.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-60397317057523600422017-02-24T20:53:00.001-08:002017-02-24T20:53:48.246-08:00What I am Reading: I’m almost always reading (at least) two books at once and working on comic books in between. Should you be reading what I am reading? I don’t know, but here is what I am reading currently or have recently finished. If it is finished, each listing will say so and offer a rating ??/10.<br />
<br />
<i><a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B00EGJE4G2&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_0vqSybE0QDRP1" target="_blank">The Sixth Extinction:</a> An Unnatural History</i><br />
<i>by </i>Elizabeth Kolbert<br />
$10.87 at Amazon<br />
This is a book about one of the bigger environmental problems facing humanity today, mass extinction. The problem is intertwined with Climate Change, but climate isn’t the only problem. So far its fascinating if somewhat depressing reading.<br />
<br />
<i>Mind Over Muscle: Writings of the Founder of Judo</i><br />
<i>by </i>Jigoro Kano<br />
$14.60 at Amazon<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4r-uVLUbCy6Eelkb-KKyYsjg3CSVuecl_K1btBg4bH2GgtqXgrCZGYmavZSAj54mZNdnsnhGk7TirwkdloxRn5Oj3HB5XCIQSPQiRPNdWY-PUUGqtGjIkgm1dIG08jKCTH9twhQ/s1600/b753b5b862db4aeba4f2e3f9291a7c31.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4r-uVLUbCy6Eelkb-KKyYsjg3CSVuecl_K1btBg4bH2GgtqXgrCZGYmavZSAj54mZNdnsnhGk7TirwkdloxRn5Oj3HB5XCIQSPQiRPNdWY-PUUGqtGjIkgm1dIG08jKCTH9twhQ/s1600/b753b5b862db4aeba4f2e3f9291a7c31.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What did Kano intend for Judo? Well read this book and find out. Kano was an innovator but also something of social activist, and he thought Judo could be a force for good, not just for self-defense and sport minded individuals, but for societies as a whole. </div>
<br />
<br />
Comic books:<br />
<br />
<i>Patsy Walker, AKA HELLCAT: Hooked on a Feline Vol. 1</i><br />
<i>by </i>Kate Leth and Brittany Williams<br />
$11.40 at Amazon<br />
Finished 8/10<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk3iit_ZyfwPhOSgd4hRB_aOCMmuBLdksHjSu4C-IzSNEudM_qpnXgDaK8QEmuBLvYqYQiIT_lV0fx1zvdt5zQJ__67CDRaFQawGMhx_XENyrbsH6hxi2Vf5BkiKewf4hE0RDyEg/s1600/background.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk3iit_ZyfwPhOSgd4hRB_aOCMmuBLdksHjSu4C-IzSNEudM_qpnXgDaK8QEmuBLvYqYQiIT_lV0fx1zvdt5zQJ__67CDRaFQawGMhx_XENyrbsH6hxi2Vf5BkiKewf4hE0RDyEg/s320/background.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This I just finished and its a hoot. Not too serious and not silly, It hits all the right notes. Its the story of the former Defender Patsy Walker whose life has been fairly hard knock, but who manages to make the best out of bad situations by having great friends (and being one!).<br />
<br />
<i>Dragonball 3 in 1 edtion, Vol 1.</i><br />
<i>by </i>Akira Toriyama<br />
Finished 10/10<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmFqRITRCCeW8jnIj9QmGWf5dw0t43gK464t_fggSkWwEyzLNna5sH0p9ehxPe2_2DOyYkN8c8kjiUdOR0POvJeo-YJNY4_IKfEDwHH8aaGlM1N6wdyFazGPPQkoj_J-PigziFBQ/s1600/f4bd7fe3ea3d5af9145bcc74dc4edef9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmFqRITRCCeW8jnIj9QmGWf5dw0t43gK464t_fggSkWwEyzLNna5sH0p9ehxPe2_2DOyYkN8c8kjiUdOR0POvJeo-YJNY4_IKfEDwHH8aaGlM1N6wdyFazGPPQkoj_J-PigziFBQ/s320/f4bd7fe3ea3d5af9145bcc74dc4edef9.png" width="299" /></a></div>
<br />
$12.28 at Amazon<br />
I’m an extraordinarily late comer to the adventures of Son Goku, his band of adventurers and their quest to find the seven Dragonballs. Having finished the first volume of the 3-in1edition by VizMedia I can say better late than never. Its interesting having enjoyed some anime and manga that came after, to see how far reaching Toriyama’s influence has been.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-87035488407425250102017-02-24T20:16:00.000-08:002017-02-24T20:16:10.415-08:00Thinking about the Star Wars Cinematic Universe: The New Canon on the Big Screen? In the 1970s George Lucas, and his gifted team of writers, actors and other filmmakers introduced us to a galaxy far, far away and full of adventures that took place a long time ago. Since then the Star Wars universe has greatly expanded. To be honest it expanded once in a series of books, then contracted back to the original films (once the shape of Episode 7-<i>The Force Awakens-</i> coelesced), and what we now know to be the prequels (Episodes 1, 2 and 3 if you must ask). Now a new canon is emerging, with new books, movies, TV series and comic books (the comics are some of the best Marvel have produced in any genre) joining the back bone of the Star Wars Galaxy. I know many fans of the original expanded Universe, now published under the heading <i>Legends,</i> have been disappointed that <i>that</i> EU has been largely scrapped. But having read content from both, I have to say that the scrapping is for the best. Many fans won’t admit it, but the original EU produced moderately okay fiction generally, bad fiction often, but maybe only rarely (I think never) great <i>Star Wars</i> content. Not even Timothy Zahn’s Thrawn Trilogy holds up particularly well. That isn’t to say that it wasn’t entertaining. It didn’t live up, I don’t think, to the promise of Star Wars.<br />
<br />
Enter the animated series <i>Star Wars: Clone Wars, (</i>here after SWCW)<i> </i>and <i>Star Wars: Rebels. </i>The first series is a much richer exploration of causes, and players of the prequels, and actually gives sense making context the jumbled, mixed bag of <i>Star Wars: Episode 2 Attack of the Clones, </i>and <i>Star Wars: Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith. </i>SWCW gives us the Anakin that Obi Wan spoke of to Luke on Tatooine all those years ago. Great pilot? Check. Cunning warrior? Check. And most crucially of all, good friend? Big check.<i> Clone Wars</i> the animated series gave us the Anakin the prequels never did.<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="169" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5ZVDhbubV-s" width="300"></iframe><br />
<br />
This blog isn’t really about the glory that is STCW, except to say that if you are a fan of the Star War universe and its ability to produce quality family entertainment that is both, fun and serious you should check it out. I will say it is often realistically violent (within the scope of its space opera rules). It takes war and its cost more seriously than most popular fiction. It constantly addresses the morals of using clones to fight a war, and creates deep characters of them. So go watch it if you have not.<br />
<br />
The deep question of this blog is mostly for fans of <i>Star Wars: Rebels (</i>hereafter SWR)<i>. </i>For those who don’t know the show well (you should!) here is a brief fairly spoiler free synopsis. SWR is the saga of one tiny piece of the movement that would become the Galactic Rebellion. It tells the story of close knit group of friendly people trying to do the moral thing in a galaxy governed by gross immorality. There is the ship’s captain, Hera Syndulla, a rebellion sympathizer, Kanan Jarrus, a former pad wan, survivor of dread order 66, Ezra Bridger, a force sensitive kid, who has taken up the way of the Jedi under Kanan, even if Kanan insists he isn’t really a Jedi, Zeb a refugee, Wren Sabine, not exactly a refugee, but a Mandolorian outcast. Oh and the delightfully idiosyncratic astromech Chooper. Should any of the characters be featured in the new live action films of Disney? Keep in mind they have been hinted at. We know that the Ghost was at the Battle of Scarif in <i>Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. </i>We also know that Mon Mothma asked to see a certain General Syndulla. Many fans, myself among them believe this to be Hera Syndulla formerly captain of the Ghost.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu0XBrJ9NjZooBnHWWbTAGA3k4DXu8jqvH33w6i2h9FmNkXYSUSRFIvcEV482_Ehzq_4Nq8nzXC7_4GZakDsJFRcgMMe7iyv6W-Nxy87XNnc6JYEMg916FK7D5IcdZHaXvsU9tpA/s1600/Rogue-One-Rebels-615x242-1-615x242.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu0XBrJ9NjZooBnHWWbTAGA3k4DXu8jqvH33w6i2h9FmNkXYSUSRFIvcEV482_Ehzq_4Nq8nzXC7_4GZakDsJFRcgMMe7iyv6W-Nxy87XNnc6JYEMg916FK7D5IcdZHaXvsU9tpA/s320/Rogue-One-Rebels-615x242-1-615x242.jpg" width="320" /></a>the Ghost is in the bottom center left. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Photo courtesy of Nerdist and Disney Films.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I think the crew of the Ghost and their story belong on the big screen. What do you think and who should play the stalwart heroes of SWR? I think the Rebels do belong on the big screen, but I confess, I don’t have any clue who ought to play them. Here is what I got (all this could change depending on when producers want to give us a big screen <i>Rebels</i> tale. I would suggest any SWR film should take place between the <i>Rogue One </i>and <i>The Force Awakens.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Hera Syndulla</b>: Tessa Thompson, though an older Hera could be excellent, as the gang at moviepilot.com suggest, to see Rosario Dawson in the role.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Kanan Jarrus</b>: Tom Hiddleston</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Ezra Bridger</b>: Tom Holland</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Sabine Wren</b>: Rila Fukushima</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Zeb:</b> Moviepilot.com suggested Hugh Jackman, and now that I’ve heard it, its hard to get it out of my head. But I also like Woody Harrelson, Andy Serkis, or if it is completely CGI, for voice quality, I really like the idea of John Goodman. Goodman could even do the MO-CAP.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Chopper</b>: totally keep who ever is doing the voice for Chopper, but make Chopper, as much as possible a practical effect.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Rex</b>:Temuera Morrison..obvs.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Ahsoka Tano</b>: I like Rosario Dawson for this role too, probably more than for Hera. Mila Kunas would be great too. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Agent Callus</b>: Ralph Feines</div>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Hondo_Ohnaka"><b>Hondo Ohnaka</b></span><span class="mw-headline" style="font-weight: normal;">: Wes Studi</span><br />
<span class="mw-headline" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Maul</b>: Ray Park for the body, voice give to Sam Witwer, or just give the whole thing to Witwer.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<i><br /></i>Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-62619983278004354932016-11-07T19:31:00.000-08:002016-11-07T19:31:10.112-08:00Christina Rad seems to be back!Christina Rad goes after Donald Trump. Enjoy.<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jqyMFieKey8" width="460"></iframe>Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-5541396390708010532016-10-28T07:59:00.002-07:002016-10-28T07:59:22.920-07:00Syrian Refugees too liberal for German mosques?Click on the title to read the reuters story. Its a bit of an eye opener. It should also ease the minds of many who worry about Syrian refugees, at least somewhat. Many of the Muslims running from Syria, what precisely nothing to do with Islamism. Rather they want Coca Cola, good jobs, art, music etc.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-47511266674107408952016-09-09T09:27:00.001-07:002016-09-09T09:27:08.688-07:00The Curious Case of Sean Hannity and Julian Assange.Sean Hannity recently interviewed Julian Assange. In the interview Hannity closed by hoping for the best for Julian Assange. This is all pretty cheeky coming from partisan hack like Hannity. Here is Hannity from 2010:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><b><i>SEAN HANNITY: "All right. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will make an appearance before a British judge tomorrow. Now the appearance is related to sexual assault charges that he's facing in Sweden. Now this news comes just as there's word that Assange is apparently not done waging his war against the U.S., at least not yet."</i></b></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<b><i>"Revealing their identities, helping us and cooperating with us in our battle against the Taliban. These are real lives that are now in jeopardy and in danger. That was step one."</i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<b><i>"Then 390,000 other documents were released. Many of them classified documents. And now we have this. What is -- why? Why didn't they go after this guy and why didn't they arrest him? Why didn't they stop this from being published when we had so much time to do it?"</i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<b><i>"Why can't Obama do something about the WikiLeaks? We got this four months ago. You know, we can stop pirating a music and Hollywood movies, but we can't stop this guy from stealing highly classified documents that puts people's lives at risk?" </i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
During Hannity’s September 6, 2016 interview with Assange, it was all praise and applause. <span style="color: #424242;">“I do hope you get free one day.” Hannity said moistly. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<span style="color: #424242;"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Julian Assange must have been chuckling to himself at the spectacle of the now fawning Hannity, and indeed the entire FoxNews machine. Fox News is built on the idea of American Exceptionalism, America First, provided its Republican lead of course. Fox News, largely a propaganda are of the worst of US conservative politics champion essentially all the things that the </span></span><span style="color: #424242; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">narcissists Assange detests about the US. This isn’t to say that Assange likes much on offer by the Democratic wing of US politics either. Assange’s end game seems to be a destabilized US, or at least not a return to Bush II style politics. Assange likely views Hillary as a hawkish, Bush-lite. Assange is no friend of the US. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<span style="color: #424242; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em !important; width: 543px;">
<span style="color: #424242; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Hannity is probably not the only pundit to switch sides on the issue of the infamous Julian Assange. No doubt many highly liberal democrats are now castigating Assange as an enemy of the state now that Assange has switched ideological targets. I am not one of these. I’ve always distrusted Assange and thought his methods were incredibly dangerous. He may be an ideologue, or a narcissist or some combination, but he is no friend to the idea of a stable US. </span></div>
Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-90764713703174004562016-08-24T09:12:00.002-07:002016-08-24T09:12:24.455-07:00France’s Burqa and Burqini Ban: Illiberal and counter-productive.France has toyed with the idea of banning the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa" target="_blank">burqa</a> at various times in the last ten or fifteen years. Now a few towns in France have banned the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqini" target="_blank">burqin</a>i. The burqini is essentially a spandex body suit, with a hijab or hair covering. The idea of bans has always been both appealing to me, and troubling. The weight of my feelings about the idea of a burqa ban in France slanted always toward unease and opposition, though not always intense unease. I’m a fairly sharp critic of Islam, but I often find myself defending Muslims from illiberal polices proposed by conservatives in the US, who seem to not want intense competition in the conservative, woman-hating theocracy game. Understandable given the historical context. Christianity’s collision with modernity has left it largely-though not completely- toothless. It just doesn’t manufacture zealots like it used to. Well, not violent ones anyway. Islam globally doesn’t seem to have this problem, and even in Western Europe Islam can reliably produce radicalized people, willing to get into trucks to drive over people, find firearms to shoot people, or deliver bombs, or be bombs to blow up their neighbors. But that is all on one side. The burqa ban doesn’t really, can’t really address concerns about terrorism. Muslim women just aren’t often sources of radicalized violence. Any ban of the burqa, or its sibling the burqini can’t really be justified by the idea that such bans would have even a mild effect on radical violence.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>I mean I don’t like it, but should</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>it be banned?</b></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitQpAV641NYKXv5toa7dAuE4QRif6J864IvR3DGGWRkvIGhyphenhyphenUnl9YgaO7dFGqH1Z4yZix_MJ3suPpCa6fENJ3lUompwE43ceFdo1V2kE4vB6jh2GrO-1R5-nGyMm4EwKolKgv3Yw/s1600/800px-Burqini.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitQpAV641NYKXv5toa7dAuE4QRif6J864IvR3DGGWRkvIGhyphenhyphenUnl9YgaO7dFGqH1Z4yZix_MJ3suPpCa6fENJ3lUompwE43ceFdo1V2kE4vB6jh2GrO-1R5-nGyMm4EwKolKgv3Yw/s320/800px-Burqini.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So why has the idea of a burqa ban even kind of appealed to me? Because even if you factor out terrorism, Islam is, from the perspective of a secular humanist, a multifaceted problem. It tends to be conservative in nature, taking a dim view of classical liberal ideas (by liberal I am referring to the ideas of John Stuart Mill, and the civil libertarians- not to be confused with the confusing modern libertarians). The luminaries of Islam seem to look at freedom of speech, of the press, with a bit of skepticism, if not outright derision. The idea of a separation between Church and State seems anathema to many Muslims. Fortunately for the West, Christianity grew up in the shadow of state power, and that guarded that power jealously. As such the framers of Christian doctrine had to thread the needle vary carefully. Christian leaders certainly wanted temporal power, and influence, but they also wanted to avoid being annihilated, and so the bible is replete with face saving ways for the Church and the people it influenced to exist within a State. Islam doesn’t seem to share this evolution. It evolved not in the shadow of another power, but was the power that grew. That is probably an oversimplification readers can correct in the comments section.<br />
<br />
In western Europe, perhaps more than the US, Islam tends to toward a conservative view of its scriptures. Women are less than men, must be chaperoned, must be covered. Communities are insular. It is that insularity, coupled with religious conservatism that has always made me question whether or not Muslim women in Western Europe really have much of a choice in the matter of what they wear. If you can be shunned, beaten or in cases that aren’t rare enough, even be killed, and have few avenues of redress if you are bullied or tyrannized by family and community how much choice can you really be said to have in the matter of what you wear? This treatment of women, has very real costs for women in Islamic communities. Being chaperoned means they cannot speak freely with doctors, police, or other care givers. Face covering deprives people dealing with Muslim women of a very key piece of human communication, as well as making it sometimes difficult to know even to whom you are speaking. But really my major concern, above all the troubles the burqa might create in western societies, is the idea that women wearing them may not really want to wear them but feel they have no recourse. The choice to wear a burqa, or even the less restrictive burqini may not really exist. This is largely why I sometimes find myself not as strenuously objecting, while still objecting, to calls for bans. In these moments I wonder if a ban were passed would it not provide Muslim women a breathing space to exercise their own autonomy.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>But wait, would you ban this?</b></i> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtzgU8J9cxPfOUs3-iSqHNvn6Lk2q0an1UrbsKTXrstxEQFggazBqnjzrOP16RmTZAC_2kP9dYpE0wc4RYgRKjln5yzBGmWAH25XS3mLctXJIR91ZDSBCWwI6INw00lnVtT3IA3g/s1600/lucy-lace-pieced-and-patched-custom-denim-skirt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtzgU8J9cxPfOUs3-iSqHNvn6Lk2q0an1UrbsKTXrstxEQFggazBqnjzrOP16RmTZAC_2kP9dYpE0wc4RYgRKjln5yzBGmWAH25XS3mLctXJIR91ZDSBCWwI6INw00lnVtT3IA3g/s320/lucy-lace-pieced-and-patched-custom-denim-skirt.jpg" width="193" /></a></div>
<br />
Thinking honestly about a subject means entertaining doubts though, and so I continue to have this debate with myself every time calls to ban burqas come up. To this mix I can now add the burqini which has actually been banned from beaches in some French towns. While I think all these woman hating clothes are awful I can’t support a ban on them because such a policy would necessarily violate a person’s right to practice their religion, while unfairly singling Muslims out. One can’t imagine that the ankle length denim skirts worn by women in hardline Pentecostal communities represents an overabundance of choice for the women who wear them. Yet, we are largely silent on the matter of those women. It is hard to imagine a way any ban on Muslim dress can foment meaningful changes in the conservative attitudes about women that seem rife in Islam. Such bans, will only increase insularity, prevent Muslim women from interacting with a broader community, and increase opposition to secular governance, and secular values. It would probably also represent a source of radicalizing propaganda. On top of this bans would necessarily penalize the people I would most like to help, Muslim women. Banning the burqa, and burqini would mean that Muslim women would go out less, enjoy less.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-64413938219130540042016-08-16T08:44:00.003-07:002016-08-16T08:44:45.121-07:00The Troubling Case of Paul ManafortPaul Manafort is a lobbyest. In some more honest moments Manafort will admit that "influence peddler" is, at least, a somewhat apt description of what he does. He is currently the chairman of Donald Trump's imploding presidential campaign. This week the New York Times published a story about Manafort that can only be damaging to the Trump campaign mired as it is in links to Putin's Moscow.<br />
<br />
In the <i>Times </i>article Manafort's name appeared, along with names of companies he sought business with, in a secret ledger used by the ousted President Victor Yanokovych. If the handwritten ledger is to be believed, Manafort received 12.7 million dollars in undisclosed cash payments between 2007-2012. The special investigators trying to untangle the web of corruption that characterized Yanukovych's Putin friendly, administration are quick to point out that the ledger doesn't constitute direct evidence that Manafort actually received these payments. Unsurprisingly, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/08/15/490080762/trump-campaign-manager-dismisses-report-of-ukraine-payments-as-silly" target="_blank">Manafort denies ever receiving off the books cash payments.</a> For me though, the cash payments are the very least of my concerns. That Yanokovych would be corrupt and make illegal payments to people whom he wanted to influence, or have influence others is hardly surprising. Corrupt folks do corrupt things. Interestingly, Manafort's shady business in the Ukraine was why McCain chose not to hire him in 2008.<br />
<br />
Whether Manafort received unreported cash or not, the story produces some more troubling links to Putin's Russia as well as a willingness on the part of people of power and influence close to Trump, and whose opinions Trump values, to be deal with some awful, awful people. Manafort and his firm have represented some reprehensible people and regimes over the years. Prior to his firm's work advising Yanokovyvh and helping him win election, Manafort and his firm also represented Philippine dictator, and all around piece of shit <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos" target="_blank">Ferdinand Marcos.</a> But representing less than savory characters, and trying to win influence for them is a big part of what <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clients" target="_blank">Manafort does.</a> This is part of the problem of course.<br />
<br />
But Manafort's close association with Putin friendly oligarchs and presidents coupled with his association with Trump cast many of Trumps own pro-Putin, pro-Russia comments in a harsher light. Trump's financial ties to Russia <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html" target="_blank">are significant in their own right. </a>What conclusions can we draw from Manafort's close ties Russia with the fact that the Trump campaign forced the GOP to soften its platform on the annexation of Crimea? Or onn Trump's less than supportive ideas about NATO? What of the growing consensus that Russia hacked the DNC to benefit Donald Trump? We probably can't say anything too concrete, but surely Trump's associations must fail to inspire confidence.<br />
<br />
It may be premature to suggest this but I suspect a Trump administration might ape the Yanokovych Administration. State coffers would be raided, and funneled into private hands, and those hands are likely to be Russian ones.Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-6133068857379688742016-05-25T08:33:00.000-07:002016-05-25T08:33:50.395-07:00A Brunch Book Review: "Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed and Invented Their Stories of the Savior" By Bart Erhman<i style="font-weight: bold;">Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior </i>is the latest examination of early Christianity by Bart D. Erhman. Erhman continues in this his latest work to expand on themes he has written about in earlier books. His academic interests lie primarily in the ways the earliest manuscripts of Early Christian writings (from the gospels -canonical and non-canonical- letters etc) as well as the writings of historians contemporaneous with early Christian communities can tell modern historians about the <i>historical Jesus.</i> That is to say he is interested in the way these writings can tell us about the Jesus who actually lived -not the one described in the gospels or other writings Erhman is also deeply interested the way these early writings can inform historians about Early (and shockingly diverse) Christian communities. Erhman is deeply intrigued by the hunt for a more accurate <i>historical Jesus.</i><br />
<br />
Having read many of Erhman's lively, humane and informative books I must confess to a certain growing skepticism about the hunt for the <i>Historical Jesus </i>utilizing clues found in old manuscripts. The logic of the methods, a discussion of which would take us too far a field, seem defensible, and the arguments for what constitutes evidence quite clever and very seductive. This is to say that the arguments made by those using ancient texts to build a skeletal picture of what the actual Jesus was like are very convincing. The problem is that they are largely impossible to test. I can not overstate how the methods of these textual critics are incredibly plausible and logically sound, but I think an honest appraisal of what the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels, as well as other early writings, can tell us about the <i>actual </i>Jesus is this. The Gospels can't tell us very much about who Jesus actually was. Mostly what these earliest writings can tell us about is who the early Christian communities thought Jesus was as well as what they thought his mission was. Interestingly, on these points not even the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), agree.<br />
<br />
The work of scholars like Erhman with these early texts have produced -in very broad outline- the following picture of the <i>historical Jesus. </i>Jesus, most biblical scholars tell us, appears to have been an apocalyptic preacher, who preached that the end of the world would come with in the life times of his followers. He is thought to have ran afoul Rabbinic elders, or Roman law, or both and this led to his death. Historians like Erhman tell us that for his offenses Jesus found himself at the mercy of the rather unpleasant, and largely unmerciful Pontius Pilot, was likely unceremoniously executed and dumped in a mass grave. For a more compelling presentation of this case, as well as a deep and thoughtful examination of Erhman's argument, complete with his evidence I will direct you to the superior <i>Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. </i>I bring up this interpretation only to set Erhman's context. This picture of Jesus comes up a lot, and Erhman doesn't waste a great deal of text defending what is largely a consensus view among historians, the majority of which, according to Erhman, seem to think that outline is the most plausible picture of the <i>historical Jesus</i> given the evidence.<br />
<br />
Erhman on Early Christian communities, and early Christian writings, indeed on the logic and conclusions of Textual Criticism is hard to beat. All of his books contain interesting insight into the history and myriad, inconsistent and often mutually exclusive understandings of Jesus held by diverse groups of early Christians. In this, <i>Jesus Before the Gospels </i>is no different. It is often fascinating and includes some very important rebuttals to the methods of literalists. This book exposes their hypotheses to the cruel light of history. However, despite some very strong material this is Erhman's weakest book. The book feels like it is having arguments with several different factions, and its closing chapter is the very definition of tilting at windmills. All that said, the short version of my review is this. Flawed, and scattershot, but probably worth your time. Now to address to some particulars.<br />
<br />
<b>The Good</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Any historical approach to Christianity is bound to be met with a strong fundamentalist objection. Erhman has never shied away from meeting these objections and in this book he addresses several hypotheses offered by biblical literalists/fundamentalist in defense of the idea that the bible represents strong historical evidence.<br />
<br />
<i>Are the Gospels reliable historical documents?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The canonical Gospels, and indeed the non-canonical gospels, were not written by eye witnesses to the events in question. While each gospel has a name attached, no one knows who wrote any of them. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus, or knew anyone, who knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus. Nor can they be said to be entirely independent documents. The first gospel to be written, probably between the years 66-70, <i>The Gospel of Mark</i>, forms at least one source for the <i>Matthew </i>and <i>Luke </i>(both written, sometime between 80-100 AD). These three form the Synoptic Gospels, and while some startling differences and inconsistencies exist between them, they are not with out similarity. This is unsurprising. Two of them draw on Mark as a source, and seem to share another source as well. <i>The Gospel of John, </i>is much different than its canonical brethren, shares no sources with the Synoptics and seems to have a completely different message. It is also the last of the canonical Gospels to be written, between the years 90-110. These dates and their language of origin -decades later and Greek- strongly suggest that no one responsible for their production were eye witnesses to the events they purport to describe. Indeed, it would be hard square the actual ending of Mark, as written in the earliest and best manuscripts with an authorial witness. It will likely surprise some readers to learn that the original ending of Mark is at 16:8. The women flee the tomb and tell no one what they saw because they were afraid. Most scholars agree that this was the original ending. If that is so, and the gospel represents accurate history, how then did the author learn of the fleeing women who told no one what they saw? The author of the text clearly wasn't there. Problematic eh?<br />
<br />
The non-canonical gospels were all written much later and also don't provide any reliable information about Jesus. In aggregate, the gospels, are not primary sources of historical data, at least not regarding the history, ministry or life and death of their central figure. One thing that gospels may help interested historians understand is the communities that produced the gospels. What did these communities think was true about Jesus? What social context helped shape these views of Jesus?<br />
<br />
To give an example of how social context changed the Early Christian understanding of who Jesus was and what he preached, we can see, over time a dwindling of focus on an immediate end times message. From Mark to John, that preoccupation seems to dwindle as the idea of a swift return within the life time of Jesus' generation becomes less and less tenable with each passing year after Jesus death. By the time John is written it is hard to believe they can hold space as accurate representations of Jesus' message in the same book.<br />
<br />
There is much more I could say here, but Erhman says it much better than I do.<br />
<br />
<i>Eye Witness reliability. The difficulties of memory and observation. </i><br />
<br />
Before we proceed take the following test. Its important, how many times do the players in white pass the ball?<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vJG698U2Mvo" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
Did you get the right answer? Did you see everything the first time? A statistically significant percentage of people don't see everything that occurs in the video. That fact alone should increase one's skepticism at the idea of eye witness reliability.<br />
<br />
If you have talked about the bible at length with fundamentalists you will often be presented with the idea that the gospel accounts are produced by eye witnesses. I know I have personally heard "Eye witness testimony is the most reliable testimony there is."<br />
<br />
Lets leave aside what we just learned about the consensus of modern biblical scholars, which holds that none of the writings of the New Testament have been produced by any eye witnesses, or even anyone who spoke to eye witnesses. The question that we need to ask is this. Is eye witness testimony reliable? Incidentally, those who like to use this defense, seem strangely uninterested in the answer to this very germane question. Rather they like to cite judicial reliance on this kind of testimony.<br />
<br />
Erhman, citing actual research on eye witness reliability, and the accuracy of memories demonstrates that eye witness testimony is actually the least reliable form of evidence there is. Most people convicted of crimes and later exonerated via DNA evidence, for instance, were convicted wholly on the basis of eye witness testimony. Eye witnesses reliably get what they witness wrong, and their memories of actual events get worse over time.<br />
<br />
Research demonstrates that humans are actually fairly terrible observers and that our memories are quite malleable and prone to error. Erhman, with compelling use of evidence demonstrates that even if the New Testament produced by eye witnesses -it wasn't- their writing wouldn't be reliable without external corroboration. Erhman, in this book, only briefly addresses the subject of independent corroboration, but he does note that history contemporaneous with Jesus is silent. Erhman has addressed this paucity of external corroboration in the previously mentioned <i>Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The problem though, well explored by experts in the field of memory, and observation like Elizabeth Loftus is that false memories are easy to generate, impossible to distinguish from memories of real events and that the way we remember events is often influenced by social context and social pressure. Our presentation of our memories can even be influenced by how we want to be perceived within that social context. Researchers in this fascinating and troubling field have managed to implant false memories in subjects that subjects were unable to distinguish from real memories, and have documented the way in which our memories of events, even significant and visceral events (where were you when the space shuttle Challenger exploded say, or what were you doing when you learned of the attacks on 9/11) change significantly over time. Human memory isn't like a film reel laying down a perfect record of history. Erhman citing several studies demolishes confidence in eye witness accounts.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Prior to the writing down of the Canonical Gospels, the Early Christians, being Jews would have faithfully preserved their history and understanding of Jesus because they were a part of an oral culture and oral cultures are much better at preserving history and have better memories than literate cultures. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Another argument from fundamentalists that Erhman addresses is the alleged reliability of oral traditional cultures vs literate cultures. Oral cultures preserve history quite well, we told. Again, this hypothesis is offered without any actual evidence in support. Erhman again produces actual academic research that demonstrates that not only is it untrue that members of oral cultures have memories superior to literate cultures (the memories are more or less equal) oral traditions change all the time at the whim of the story teller. Sometimes the gist of the cherished traditions is preserved, but just as often it is not. The reasons for the changes are myriad, but chief among them is that story tellers are also entertainers and they tell their tales under a host of constraints and pressures. Anthropological research seems to suggest that oral cultures are actually much worse at preserving sound accounts of their history than literate societies.<br />
<br />
I don't want to give away too much of what Erhman explores here. He does a great job and you should definitely read his more compressive accounts and not my summary.<br />
<br />
<b>The Bad</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>But is memory the right word Bart?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
While I found this book quite interesting, I kept arguing with its use of terminology. Specifically I found his use of the word "memory" quite problematic. How do we remember Jesus? How do we remember Lincoln? In the case of the latter, which Erhman uses by way of example, why do different groups of people <i>remember </i>Lincoln differently?<br />
<br />
I was never very comfortable with this language. For instance, Erhman frames many of his accounts of Jesus in the following way, <i>why did the author of X remember Jesus in this way</i>? I kept asking the book, is "remember" the right word in this context? Lets imagine the author of <i>The Gospel of John</i> for a moment. It seems unlikely "remember" is the right way to describe the action of an author that has no actual memories of Jesus. The author is transcribing stories of other people, or stories in his community, or stories he is making up about Jesus rather than "remembering" events about Jesus witnessed by the author. No author in the New Testament was "remembering" things about Jesus they were telling stories they heard, making them up, or discussing something else entirely.<br />
<br />
In a very early chapter of this book, Erhman pits two flawed "memories" of Jesus against each other to illustrated some of what he will be discussing in the book. One "memory" is that of Reza Aslan's as depicted in his book <i>Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, </i>which holds that Jesus was a bit of radical, who like most Jews of his day detested Roman rule, but also thought he would rule the Jews once the yoke of Roman rule was cast off. The Jesus Aslan sees is one that is fairly sectarian, contradictory, with strong political ideas. Set against this "memory" of Jesus is Bill O'Reilly's "memory" of Jesus. O'Reilly's "memory" of Jesus is one who is conservative and annoyed with Roman taxation. Obviously right?<br />
<br />
Its unclear how either author's account of Jesus can qualify as memory rather than an attempt, none too subtle it must be said, to validate ideology with a tendentious bit of history. Is it really fair to call these stories memories? Some people might, but given the grounding in the work of the scientists of memory it seems like his use of words like "remember" and "memory" are ill advised, and, ultimately, a bit confused, as well as confusing. At the very least this usage seems imprecise.<br />
<br />
<i>Tilting at Windmills. </i><br />
The final chapter of the book looks like nothing so much as a whine. In recent years the rise of the Nones (that demographic that choses not to affiliate with any organized, or even disorganized religion) has led to a more serious examination of the hypothesis that Jesus never existed at all. To the Historical Jesus project we find, counter posed, an increasingly popular Jesus Myth Project. The latter project finds Jesus to be about as probable as Hercules, and unlikely to have actually existed. The Jesus Myth faction suspects, not with out strong arguments and evidence, that Jesus is a bit of an amalgam of local, similar mythologies that were thick on the ground in first century Palestine. It has become clear that Erhman has felt a bit harried by this branch of thought (he recently wrote an entire book rebutting it). Another pressure brought on, I think, by the rise of the Nones, and certainly a rise in the percentage of out of the closet atheists, is a disinterest in the actual history of Jesus. Atheists are, Erhman thinks, by and large, are disinterested in the bible and find lengthy studies of it, and indeed studies of the Early Christian community, to be huge wastes of time. Erhman spends paragraph after paragraph justifying to this group (I think) the importance of his field. The bible and its central figure represent, Erhman argues, a gigantic influence on Western Culture. Jesus may be the most important figure in history (this claim feels incredibly parochial to me but it is true that Jesus's figure has been influential on the world stage).<br />
<br />
It is unclear to me that Erhman is actual correct here. In the first place, atheists, especially those in the west are actually quite familiar with the Bible. Many even find its evolution quite fascinating whether they think Jesus was an actual person in history or not. This brings me to Erhman's worst argument though for taking the Bible seriously.<br />
<br />
Erhman goes on a lengthy tirade in which he points out that the bible is interesting simply as literature and is worthy of study whether or not it is accurate history. In this he is almost certainly correct, though mileage will vary with the claim that the bible actually represents great literature. Some passages are certainly well rendered in certain translations, but I doubt anyone could make a convincing argument that the begats of Genesis could ever make for exciting reading. On the whole though, I agree with Erhman. Like all great mythology Judeo-Christian mythology certainly provides a careful reader plenty to chew on. But Erhman then makes a slew of apples to oranges comparisons that feel, to use an uncharitable description, desperate.<br />
<br />
A sample:<br />
Shakespeare is interesting even if Shakespeare wasn't the author or sole author.<br />
Does great literature have to be true contain truth?<br />
Mythology is interesting because it contains ineffable truths about humanity.<br />
<br />
You can fill in any such deflection you have heard probably, because Erhman's list is long and exhaustive.<br />
<br />
Erhman though makes a claim about the figure of Jesus that can only be true if he is a real character in history who was actually who the myths say he was. Erhman argues that we should be interested in the New Testament specifically is because Jesus was one of the great moral teachers of history. Really? Certainly this cannot be said unequivocally because Jesus also said a lot of immoral things (leave your family, give no thought for the 'morrow, lest you hate your family etc) that can only be wise things to do if, in fact he is who the tales say he is. A great deal of Jesus' wise and moral counsel hinges on the question of his historical accuracy.<br />
<br />
But consider another great moral teacher: Spider-Man. Nothing Spider-Man says or does stands or falls on his actual existence. Spider-Man's moral teachings stand on their own whether or not he actually lives in New York using his great power with great responsibility. This is not the case with Jesus. His status as a great moral teacher rises and falls with, at least in large part, on whether or not he existed and was who he, or least his writers say he was. Erhman's literary deflections can't really change that fact. The Bible is more interesting than other mythologies only because so many people believe it is the inspired word of an all powerful deity.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15879968.post-63988830763816537372016-05-14T13:15:00.001-07:002016-05-14T13:15:24.023-07:00I just recently discovered Sarah Haider. I think she is an important voice, engaged in a difficult discussion about Islam. Like many American liberals who are engaged she gets attacked from many sides.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0plC24YuoJk" width="560"></iframe>Max IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04314080459983388024noreply@blogger.com0