To that actuary, we salute you.

Ramblings Post #413
Don Lemon got fired from CNN today and it's almost a non-story. I kinda liked Don a while back, and yes, he has had his moments we all cheered that he was there, but you gotta be able to see where things around you are changing and adapt. I don't bear him any ill will and hope he lands on his feet, but man you gotta learn to check yourself from time to time, for the good of the long term. Now normally, Don might have been the focus. But sometimes you just gotta go with your gut. 

I think somewhere, in a small office at Fox News HQ, a small bespectacled man (or woman) of middle age did some very interesting math (actuarial science), emailed his boss and that boss emailed Rupert. At that Rupert called the lawyers and I'm guess five minutes after that they turned Tucker's badge off. Er, I mean, they told Tucker that he'd agreed with them to part ways.

While this is most certainty a tax write off for Fawx, as a cost of doing business, a good portion of these damages will probably be covered by insurance, the nature of which is referred to as media liability coverage. No doubt Fawx probably upped their coverage last year if it was an option, just in case. But settling with Dominion means that the impending suit with Smartmatic will probably have a similar outcome. It's kinda hard to argue when the judge starts with the premise that the defendant is guilty as hell. There may be a firm up for it, but I don't know who they might be. And as such there is a high probability that the settlement will be similar in size if not larger. Fawx has as cash on hand at this moment even after Dominion if need be, so no worries, and it too will be written off and handled by the insurer.  

But here is where the math comes in, and truth be told it's very likely that Capitalism is what did poor lil Tucker in. Let's guess that the total payout for both cases is around $1.8 billion. You may or may not be aware, but no insurer wants to pay out $18, much less $1.8 billion, although they're probably really only on the hook for 60-70% of it. But you've ever made a claim, you know what happens next: your rate goes up. So, with the Dominion payout and the the soon to be Smartmatic payout, either Fox's insurance rates just went through the roof, or any NEW policy they can find will no longer cover these circumstances - i.e., knowingly lying on the air. It's just too expensive. And although they admitted no wrong doing in the settlement, their current method of "news dissemination," which it didn't look like they planned to alter, was about to become more expensive.

So what does all that have to do with Tucker? Aside from the former producer's discrimination lawsuit? Well, it seems that on his show on Friday, Tucker stared out at the camera and denied that a Dominion settlement even existed.
 
Which brings us back to the at small bespectacled man (or woman) who was looking at future projections and realized what level of risk a continuation of current "news authentication" and "news opinion" was placing to Rupert's checkbook. The term "pattern" comes to mind, and patterns tend to increase judgments and therefore settlements that would come before them. The Dominion case, the Smartmatic case, the discrimination suit, the Shareholder suit I just found out about. My understanding is that Fawx literally ran the promo for Tucker's show right before the segment where they announced he that he and Fawx had decided to part ways. So, I'm thinking this decision was last minute.

I personally hope that he and his rhetoric are the first of many people that Fawx can no longer afford to keep supporting. To be clear, I doubt this ends the channel or anything else dramatic. I can already see the transition to podcasting or AM radio. But I do hope it returns some degree of civility to the majority of conservatives of this country and causes some degree of tempering of the most extreme conspiracy bound elements that seem to have been pushed the forefront as of late. I doubt that will happen, but one can dream.

Barkeep. Whiskey. The good kind. It's that kinda day. 

We Let Them Off The Hook

Ramblings Post #412
I need to get some focus. To find a center, calm the raging torrent of creativity trying to get out and find somewhere to start. And finish. At least a first draft. I've likened my production process for anything to that of freight train - slow at first, plodding but then picking up speed until once fully in motion I will put the rest of reality on hold to accomplish my goals. So, looking back, I'm thinking that might not be a good thing.

You let'em off the hook! 

In another reality, Dominion rejected the 788 million dollar settlement offer and went to trial. There there in a marathon session they went into detail about all 7,000 of their exhibits detailing what the court had already determined: That Fawx Nooz had lied. It took on Simpson trial proportions, with a nightly update in eighty three countries around the world. It was so damning even NewsMax pretended they hadn't lied as well and began covering it. That the network became a literal punchline. Then, the jury having tripled the damages to almost 5 billion, as part of the final ruling Fawx would have to make to the audience it hadn't even told it been in litigation an on-air admission. And so, in the form of an ongoing series of 1-minute spots to replace one commercial per hour - starring all the various hosts who'd pushed the election lie would tell there viewers that a)They'd been sued about their election coverage, b)that Fawx had lost, c) that the election hadn't been stolen and most importantly d) that they'd known that the election hadn't been stolen the whole time but told them that anyway. And that the judge would order these ads run on Fox, every hour in rotation, until the next election.

But Dominion took the money because...they're a business, not a national crusade and they needed the money. But to quote former Cardinals Head Coach Dennis Green, we let'em off the hook. And quite frankly it's more than a little sad.

Now, to be honest I hadn't expected a magical Matlock moment, a Legally Blonde realization or a My Cousin Vinny deduction at the last minute. It was always going to be more along the lines of an event Law & Order episode where at the end they look resigned to knowing that they'd given it the very best they could. In retrospect it was too hopeful to think this was about something larger than damages. The lawyers talked up the loss of reputation aspect a lot as we lead up to court day, but without a VERY public apology and/or a retraction of their characterization of Dominion's machines, it means that the national disinformation machine slips back into fifth and frames these damages as "minuscule" and "addressing a nuisance." The folks who believe Dominion was and still is compromised will still believe it - primarily because those people, some of whom control voting in local jurisdictions, only watch Fawx. With this little bump out of the way they will return to their bias affirming comfort propaganda with pockets just a touch lighter but not a wit wiser. The network is going to chalk this up as a victory, I can promise you that.

I can't really blame the lawyers here. They listen to their clients as to settlement. So it falls to Dominion. And I think their management was a bit short-sighted in their version how the future needs to play out. But then they have duty to their shareholders on down the line. In the end the people who choose the voting machines and who only watch Fawx are going to wake up next week and possibly not even know about the case. Dominion might have secured the bag, but at what cost. Maybe money alone wasn't the best fix if it doesn't address the long term perception, one which Fawx news can heavily influence?  

One hopes that the next defamation case, one by Smartmatic which should get a boost from this settlement, gets a little juicer. But I wouldn't count on it.     

Barkeep. A nice gin and tonic. For old times sake.

Deja Voo....all over again

This is a political post. 

How are we HERE again? 

I have avoided writing about the Chauvin Trial.

As someone said on Instagram the other day, I'm just not up for anymore black pain and suffering. It is becoming a carousel that we can't get off for some reason and the longer we take the more dangerous the pressure grows.

I did catch snippets of the closing arguments. When his defense attorney argued that the framing of the prosecutors "completely disregards" what happened before Floyd was pinned to the pavement it brought back an old memory. After the riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict long ago, one of the daytime talk show people had an episode where they went down into the neighborhood and white and black people together. And I remember distinctly a young white woman standing up and trying to justify the beating Mr. King took at the hands of the police. She pleaded with the crowd to understand that "we don't know what happened before the video started." And an older white woman stood up, as young girl stood there repeating we just don't know and put her hand on the girl's shoulder. Her words were profound. She simply told the young woman that "there is nothing he could have done to have deserved what happened to him."

There was nothing that George Floyd did that day, or any other day, that deserved a penalty of death. Period.

And for the record, his medical condition and previous drug use should be no defense. The eggshell plaintiff rule should be in full effect here. I'm still amazed that the defense attorney characterized Chauvin as feeling threatened by the crowd, despite all the testimony and video showing otherwise. I'm not sure if he was expecting cheers as casually killed a man by leaning on his neck ..with his hands in his pockets. Threatened? I'm really not sure what was going through his mind. And frankly I kinda don't want to know.

Now, even if you don't believe in defunding the police (still a dumb name for a good idea) as many of the jurors indicate they do not, the concept of watching a man in custody being killed in slow motion, casually as it was, should move something inside you. I hope. As the prosecution stated, "To be very clear, this case is called the State of Minnesota versus Derek Chauvin. It is not called the State of Minnesota versus the police." The idea of bad cops getting away with it, time and time again, only undercuts the idea of the police as the good guys in the eyes of the public. And will eventually begin to increase the real, not just perceived, danger that officers face out in the field. This nightmare scenario has to stop somewhere, so why not here? Believe it or not, if you think about it, this actually is a pro-police prosecution.

And considering that during this trial we have experienced the deaths of Daunte Wright at the hands of the police just a few miles from where this trial is taking place, and Adam Toledo's death while his hands were raised as instructed. Meanwhile, another part of the same state a man who rams two police cars, assaults an officer and led the police on a chase with an officer hanging onto the side of the truck is taken into custody. I can only wonder what the difference in circumstances was.

I'm hoping for the best. Maybe we've woken up that continually granting ultimate power on an individual basis to people usually not vetted for bias or other dangerous tendencies probably isn't a good idea. I mean, the evidence should be clear here. Because if not, then I think 2021 is coming for 2020's Most Turrible Year belt. 

Gawker ye shall be missed.

Ramblings Post #319
You never really miss something until it's gone. Because usually, and quite mistakenly, we all have a tendency to believe that those things we care about, or at least like, or have gotten familiar with will be around until we come back to it. It's that sinking feeling when you get a taste for something, then ride over to get it only to find that the place that served that certain something is now a Starbucks. Unless you wanted Starbucks, in which case I'm ashamed for you. 

Gawker. Good Media. Gone too soon.

I used to read Gawker a lot. It was kind of what I like to call Buddy Media, and by that I mean that it's selection seemed more like things a guy you actually know would chose than an actual media outlet. A smart guy, but a guy you know, like from school or the bar. Sometimes it was insightful and meaningful stories that made you think. Other times it was dumb or silly reporting that made you wonder if people actually got paid for that crap. But, it was always interesting. And now, out of spite, it's gone.

Online media has always been an odd play for real news. Professional organizations like CBS and NBC seemingly just edited their regular news stories down and stuck them on the web. Other professional groups, like Slate, takes serious questions and cuts them down into a mix of short articles, bite sized chunks and blurbs. So how to differentiate yourself? That would have been Gawker, whose slightly opinionated occasionally off kilter and sometimes oddly refreshing and informative news articles kept you coming back. Important journalism, with things you didn't even know you needed to know, mixed with stories you knew you didn't need to know, but read anyway. Then they branched out, covering sports, video games, women's issues and more. It was good journalism, but a few times  a week you knew they'd just posted something and left the office early, maybe for margaritas.

Now, I understand most of it survived. Jezebel, Kokatu, Deadspin and the others will live on. But the linchpin, the hub, Gawker itself, is too toxic a brand to be viable. And so the digital fourth estate loses its class clown, leaving behind a void of much needed slightly reckless reporting that keeps the news fresh and from appearing to be what most of it is now....PR work. Tough shoes to fill.

Hey, I'll give'em five dollars for the address. Let those who will be offended sue me.

Barkeep, first article, how to get free drinks at the bar. What? What did I say? I have cash! 

Some thoughts on Tragedy

This is a political post. 

I'm going to first suggest a simple step, a change of policy.  How about....all media outlets NOT use mugshots to discuss any victims AND stop using Facebook glamour photos to describe any alleged murderers. Let's start there. 

I drove down to visit the folks the the country this week. My father has started wearing shorts, which is monumental if you know him, and my mother is still putting together food for me to take so I don't have to cook when I get back. My younger brother looks good. I bring this up because it on those trips that I try to escape my bubble and see what the rest of the world is thinking. I find those who only want to work in echo chambers unpalatable, no matter what the views are, so I strive not to be one of them whenever possible. So, between my house and my parents, I listen to a variety of local media to see where my thoughts are on the social spectrum. 

I was somewhat taken aback.

On the final leg of the journey back from parents on Sunday, I tuned into a a right wing pundit's radio show.  What at first seemed funny, then a lot less funny, quickly transformed into a defensive screed. Listening to him I got the impression that Libertarians are apparently trying to join Crossfitters and Vegans, in that every one in those groups can't wait to share that fact with you. This radio pundit mentioned he was a Libertarian before nearly every statement he made, as though the term signified his thoughts held more gravity due to his association. After listening for almost a half hour, him working through his always self centered rationalizations as a way of explanations, contradicting himself and failing to see it, and ignoring basic concepts of empathy I'm surprised he's still on the radio. Ah, but it was conservative radio, so my bad.  

He first indicated that he was sure white male privilege was a fraudulent concept. Apparently just designed to annoy him. Then he explained how there was no relationship between the Dallas police department and what happened in Baton Rouge and Minnesota. As though this was a news flash, and we aren't all aware that the irrational people don't think logically. There was a long piece about how terrible hate crime laws are, because people should only be judged on the actions. But he kept repeating the term "in cold blood" to describe the events in Dallas as though simply killing someone wouldn't qualify as heinous enough. He followed that up with the Black Lives Matter Movement conspiracy concept, in the protests that continued despite the shooting were designed to push the events in Dallas off the front page. As though the BLM movement is a vast well organized machine. He finished by to educating his listeners to the dangers of thought police, how he was an enlightened man who knew he was and needed no validation, while carefully treading over some past professional transgressions he was obviously still very bothered about. It would have been funny if he wasn't dead serious.

That he has a radio show, which means people listen to him, is a frightening concept.

It is my opinion that what happened in Dallas was outrageous, there is no reason to shoot police officers at all. Even now, prominent activists have been calling for peaceful protests all weekend, not pushing out calls for a repeat performance. Before this act of senseless violence we saw a model demonstration, where the police and protesters were even taking photos together. Afterwards, we found ourselves again in the cycle of finger pointing, confirmation bias derived anger and the usual conspiracy theories. What could and should have been a starting point for reasonable conversation concerning the deaths of Sterling and Castile, has once again devolved into social and political gamesmanship. Despite what my new favorite radio personality would have you believe, it is possible to both a believer in the ideals of Black Lives Matter and pro-Police. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure where we're headed. We live in...in interesting times.

Changes in thinking an attitudes move slowly, but we live in an instant digital world, where we expect change and satisfaction quickly. Where relationships can blossom in 500 words or less. This problem isn't from a digital world, and so we're going to have to go back...to a time of thoughtful conversation and patience...to address it. I hope we're up to it.

What if the Supreme Court....was liberal?

This is a political post.

As much as I wanted Scalia to no longer be a part of the supposedly non-political court that controls quite possibly the fate of the world, if you read back I just wanted the man to retire someplace quiet. And take Clarence Thomas with him. But I'm ashamed to admit my first feeling was an inappropriate glee at his passing. Two or three seconds, but I would like to apologize because it was just that very, very inappropriate. A man has passed on and his passing should be embraced with the solemn respect of one who has affected so many of our lives.

I just wish someone had told the conservatives. 

It goes without saying that there is a belief on the part of the conservatives that this country is theirs, by right, and those of us who disagree with them but who were also born here and are citizens should have no say in it's running. I'm not sure why this is, or why the version of free they espouse has so many limitations in it for things they don't agree with, but I try not to let the incongruity get to me. Lest my head explode. So, it goes without saying that of all the things that could have happened, the most conservative of the conservatives Supreme Court Justices passing on was not something that was supposed to happen. At least not now.

Because before everyone was even sure the man was dead, the GOP establishment and the candidates running were of the very verbal opinion that Obama was on his way out and the next president should pick the next Justice. Then had the gall to got upset if anyone (else) tried to politicize the man's death. But there plan has an issue. Obama has officially more than three hundred thirty (330) days left in office. A lame duck president he is not. Someone suggested that maybe the Republicans thought because he was black he only gets 3/5ths of a term. But since the average time to confirm a nominee going back to Rehnquist is about three (3) months, let's see, some quick math, let's see carry the week, divide by a weekend...yep, he's got time to get it done. Twice. Maybe three time. It turns out the long thought of as permanent conservative majority of the Court may not be as permanent as they thought.

Which leads us to our next issue: Instead of playing and rigging the game, they ANNOUNCED that they're going to turn the table over, grab all the chips and hide in the bushes until the next election. Not exactly sporting. And it an election year, potentially politically fatal. There plan is already falling part less than a week later, as some Republicans have refused to toe the party line and are saying we should consider one. Of course this might be a ploy - say they'll consider one and then just continue to call them unfit until after the election, but still. And hopefully they realize that even this plan runs the risk of them tagging someone obviously qualified as unfit and making it clearly political. It's a delicate game they're playing, and right this second they're using sledgehammers and baseball bats.

But what if the Supreme Court had a liberal majority? It's had a conservative majority for so long we've all just assumed that it's the normal state of things. But what if it's not. What if the Supreme Court wasn't a ref checking the rule book as the Executive and Legislative branches duke it out, but instead a more of what it was designed to actually be...the third branch of government. While we deride the idea of legislating from the bench, is that such a bad thing? And isn't that within the bounds of the court, with it's intentionally vague constitutional mandate. Could the Founding Fathers who crafted a document that seemed to encompass so many other checks and balances have left that one out...on purpose? One of my law professors, as I've explained here, likes to refer the Supreme Court as American's Counsel of Wise Men. Maybe he had a point.

But, most giddy for me, does this mean the return of....BATMAN Obama.   

Opening a Pandora's Box

This is a political post.

I'm not sure what time the President of the University of Missouri resigned, but I can assure you that fifteen minutes after the announcement that at every university with a sizable athletic program that every campus activist, at least those that already weren't at the athletic dorms because setup looked promising, was headed that way. Every single we will overcome, we must protest, we need a safe space, we need more of program X, the university needs to divest, the the cafeteria is serving green jello and that's the color of money and I am triggered crusader one and all. And you thought the jocks beat out the nerds before? Man, talk about making someone the big man on campus.

I once tried to explain that this is why the President doesn't do everything he's legally allowed to by executive order. All it takes is one, and suddenly you have to have brought enough for everybody. And while this issue may be understandable if not fully justified, the next one may be controversial if not individually self serving and possibly destructive in the longer term. I'm fairly certain there is a political science major down there now explaining to the home team about the power they just found out they possess. At least I hope there is, because they should explain the downsides as well. At the bare minimum let's pray that someone remembers their Spiderman and invokes "with great power comes great responsibility." 

And by the way, the NCAA is in trouble and ain't even know it.

I can already see a protest before the big rivalry game to change school policy on admissions? Or before a bowl appearance to get appropriations for a particular subject? Imagine a threatened walkout before the national championship game to get fill in the blank?

What will play out in the next few months, or possibly even into the college basketball season has the possibility to change the entire idea of college and college athletics as we know it. I'm not even going to go into the NCAA rules involving paying athletes or side jobs, those are obvious. And if this does spill over into basketball season you might go to sleep and wake up to find your Alma mater has had to replace the board to get the team to suit up for the tourney. Think about the implications. It is possible that a particularly persuasive social justice movement may actually cause the implosion of a prominent program if the NCAA feels forced to revive the death penalty in response. 

One only hopes that college athletics have advanced enough that the players realize that only the most serious of subjects deserve this kind of attention and they shouldn't let themselves be manipulated into serving the interests of those who are only interested in them because of the potential power they possess. This was a particularly unique situation, or should be considered so, and thus repeats of this extreme should be rare and infrequent. This should be preached to the team, not necessarily by the coaching staff but by the players to themselves, and if possible to more even keeled of their fellow students.

Well, the box is open. Now let's see what happens. 

The Old South loses more ground

This is a political post. 

“Today I am very proud to say that it is a great day in South Carolina,” Republican Gov. Nikki Haley said Thursday moments before she signed Senate Bill 897 to officially lower the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the South Carolina Statehouse. The flag will be moved to a new "appropriate display.”

Crowds gather to watch flag come down - Columbia SC
(Japace/ Instagram)

Two things.

First, Wow. I did not expect that to happen so fast. I'm from SC originally, so I figured this a for a bitter fight that would last months. I listened to the arguments made for keeping the flag up, and the "I remember playing with the sword of my great grandfather" is, to put it properly, weak sauce.  Taking it off the state house grounds doesn't ban it, it just means that the grounds of the building that is supposed to represent all of South Carolina's citizens isn't marred by the battle flag a rebel army who would have like to see half of those citizens still in chains. Those who want to honor it still can, but don't make those who don't want to have to.

Second, what is an appropriate display? Because for years, on TOP of the statehouse was deemed appropriate and then after taking off the top of the building was done, keeping on the grounds was deemed appropriate. So what's appropriate?

Oh, and personally, I don't think it should have gotten an honor guard. A janitor with a mop and bucket should have come out around midnight and took it down with no ceremony, folded up and left it in the speaker's office or in a bag outside the governor's office. I understand that the display might have been a sop to those upset that they lost the fight here, but still.

Can We Talk?

This is a political post. 

My father owned a dry cleaner for a number of years. I learned a lot there: hard work (because my father believed in it), how to deal with irate people (because destroying someone's favorite skirt is a real bummer) and how to tolerate things. Because on more than a few occasions, I handled an Confederate article of clothing. We cleaned it as best we could, pressed it if the fabric could stand it, bagged it up and charged the customer just as if it were there best Sunday go to meeting clothes. Which in a few cases it very well may have been.

(In the interest of full disclosure as a child I was a Dukes of Hazzard fan and as I think I've related here before, I probably pushed my parents tolerance levels to 1000 when I asked for and got a toy "General Lee" as a Christmas present.)

Having a learned a little bit, having gotten a little older, I don't particularly care for the flag, but it is what is.

That is my South Carolina upbringing. You just don't think about it.

There are a lot of conversations we can have in the wake of the horror that happened in Charleston. In a nation that as of late appears rife with racial tensions and clear evidence of systemic racism, and unambiguous act of terrorism might just be the catalyst to get us all talking. Maybe one of those conversations will be about how we still have a huge issue with race even though we have a black president. Maybe one of them will be about the mostly unnecessary and dangerous level of access of weapons we have in this country. Maybe we could get the one about how the media has a tendency to demonize one race. Maybe it will even be about how we handle tragedy...with kindness and forgiveness in the face of concept versus the of pointing fingers and destruction...or even howls of pain directed at the guilty. It is my belief that all we really need is a conversation, one serious honest conversation free from the confines of self induced bias, to get things kicked off.

The question is, will we even get one, just one, before we get sidetracked?

Oh wait, we're talking about the flag.

Sidetracked already.

Damn. 

Sidetrack Image via Tumblr, via Twitter...from CNN

Baltimore 2015

This is a political post. 

Apparently we've learned nothing. And are learning nothing.

First let me state that I don't agree with the rioting and the property destruction. It's pointless and senseless, self inflicted wounds if you will. But the rioting and looting isn't the most heinous of acts happening, for that's like saying the injuries are worse than the crash. No one seems to be asking how could we have avoided the crash, and then how can avoid the next one.

The news media doesn't surprise me.

Images of riots draw eyeballs. And news outlets need eyeballs.

The news media has a vested interest in excitement. And answers don't come in sound bites, 3D graphics and talking head discussions in two minute segments that lead to commercial. It comes from hard serious and sober conversations about the underlying root issues that got us here and what can be done to address them that exhaust the participants. But if you'll notice, the seeds of those conversations are being reduced to blurbs the announcers can breeze through while they show this video of something on fire. High unemployment and this burning building. Horrible education and these images of police in riot gear. Injustice and look at the smoke in this panoramic shot. These potshots of news and information allow the guilty souls of vampire news to sleep at night. 

That the people of Baltimore are experiencing the pains that come from shrugging your shoulders in the face of injustice is...tragic. People marched fifty years ago for these same ideas. And yet here we still are, wondering why? But there is no need to wonder.

It's been 60 years and ain't a damned thing changed.

Image from Tumblr ( and I know they don't know where they got it)

The Black Panther....finally.

Ramblings Post #274
As a black nerd, yes they exist, I have learned a lot about how people view other people through fiction. Although derided as fantasy, the truth is when you put your imagination on display in a comic book or novel, you reveal a lot about yourself...and the society that you're holding a mirror up to. 

After years of speculation, er, hoping by black nerds everywhere, Marvel finally went ahead and made it official: The Black Panther is getting his own movie. It's a few years away, the end of 2017 - but I can go ahead and put it on my calender now. I also like how they're going to work him into the next Captain America movie...and provided I see the last one before then (come on, HBO!) and evaluate it properly I might have to increase my movie collection. But they'll need to show me something before I can add it alongside my James Bond, Pirates of the Caribbean or Cosby/Potiter collections.

The only other troubling part I had was the favorite for the role - Idris Elba - already exists in another role in the Marvel Movie Universe. Seriously, we fans have considered everyone for the role, including Will Smith, Morris Chestnut, Donald Glover and even Vin Diesel for some reason. And although I would have gone with Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 years a slave), Dijmon Hounsou or maybe even Colin Salmon (though he might be a bit old now), the selection of Chadwick Boseman isn't horrible. I would have preferred an English accent, but Boseman seems to be a flexible enough performer, but I think he'll need to put on some muscle and add some gravitas to play T'Challa. Here's to hoping they write the character as a multidimensional person with his own concerns and not just a caricature or an African version of Tony Stark. 

T'Challa:   And who do you think you are to give me ultimatums?
Tony Stark:   Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.
T'Challa:   *smirks* Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, legendary warrior and king of the most powerful and technologically advanced nation on earth.
Tony Stark:   . . .

It's become clearly evident that the Marvel Movie Universe is going to be drastically different than the Marvel Comic Universe, but then that's okay. Over at DC you have to remind yourself which Earth you on, so this is no biggie. Hopefully they'll also use Wakanda as the backdrop, and show it not as mud huts but just as it is in the comics.

Now, Marvel, when is Luke Cage getting his movie? Oh, he's an Avenger now, and Avengers get movies. And yes, ya'll done started something.

Barkeep. Champagne all around. The good stuff too, not that soda water.

Have I got a deal for you...

This is a political post.

I'll be honest, the first time I looked since this "dust-up" I had a little trouble finding the Ukraine on the map...and I like looking at maps. But I didn't comment because a) I had other priorities and b) and didn't know all the facts, except that the photos made it look like a baby civil war taking its first steps. And as it turned out, I was right.

The pictures I glanced at of the Yanukovych's estate were impressive, and the boat restaurant was a nice touch. In my opinion, I think his departure may have allowed them to sidestep a great deal of bloodshed, despite the deceptively named "military exercises" Russia's has decided to have and the mysterious troops with no insignia who just happen to speak Russian. Sure, not Russian though. Really. Sure.

So what to do? How about Ukraine just sell Russia the Crimean peninsula?

Why you ask? Because that's what it's all about. Unlike our own forays in retaliation in Afghanistan or outright revenge in Iraq, the Russian's major goal right now is securing the port of Sevastopol. This city on the Black Sea is the home of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. Without Sevastopol, their ability to field a navy in Atlantic ocean is severely hampered for six months a year by this pesky thing called ice. It is a major strategic point, hence the designation geopolitical argument. This major base became part of the Ukraine in 1991 when they declared independence and since the Russians have LEASING it from Ukraine. Because they had no choice.

And geopolitically speaking, even as a novice, I'm going to guess that having your main southern military port under your own control is generally a preferable situation.

Up until a few weeks ago, the ownership mechanic wasn't really a problem, because Ukraine relied on Russia for quite a bit of its resources meaning even the previous western leaning leaders had understood their role. Despite overtures from the EU about membership the then current Yanukovych government was pretty much pro-Russian. This would be understandable after Russia cut-off the gas in 2006 and 2009 during the winter months, plunging the country into cold and darkness, to pressure the government to be pro-Russian. The whole thing was a sham of sorts, independent but not really. However, a large part of the general population did and still do believe the ruse and are interested in joining the European Union. Hence this, well, let's be honest, coup of sorts.

So, again, how about Ukraine just sell Russia the Crimean peninsula for 150 billion rubles? Or maybe just Sevastopol, the surrounding ten or fifteen miles for 100 billion, and we'll throw in the undercoating, no charge?

As it appears, Ukraine will have be split into it's East, West and Crimea component parts, which is already a stye in Putin's eye - he wanted it whole in his quest to rebuild old Russia. No, he's got to walk away with something. So Sevastopol, which is home to five Russian naval units including subs and surface ships, and where they're already "protecting" Russians frightened by recent events would be the perfect prize.

You see, while the Republicans here scream at the top of their lungs that this whole event exposes a truth, that Obama's foreign policy appears weak to the rest of the world, the reality is that Putin letting his country's major southern military port slip out of his hands will actually make him weak.

Further, here is an opportunity to learn from our previous mistakes in um, ...Nation Advising? Effectively the EU and America are now backing an off brand coup, which is some ways is reminiscent of change friction in Egypt - the banning of political parties, sweeping changes that upset the general populace, etc. Which means the whole thing could fall apart as quickly as that did. So even when this tense part is over, this whole thing is not gonna be over soon. But just so we're clear, everybody needs to holster their weapons and clear their throats. Words are needed here. Careful well thought out words.

But first things first. Putin. He's not leaving the Crimean peninsula. Way too much at stake. And they think we're all for sale anyway. So, Tell you what, Sevastopol, the land and a I'll throw in a flat screen TV. Forty inch plasma. 95 billion. My manager is gonna kill me. 

Debates - Round 2. Better...but not best.

This is a political post. 

Romney don't look happy. Image via Tom Joad, Facebook.

I realize that I'm expecting way too much, but I don't think I'll be satisfied until in the middle of the debate, the President just does a Joe Biden and calls his opponent out. Or even better,  just leans back, throws his head to the sky and in the fashion of almost friendly arguments everywhere yells "You must be out your goddamn mind!"

Expecting. Way. Too. Much.

What I found most interesting about the debate this time wasn't actually in the debate, but that the moderators of late are exercising journalism, asking followups, correcting the speakers. In today's partisan news cycle, where the news acts more like propaganda to see journalism is refreshing...twice in one year.

I say that the journalism was interesting because the people in the arena calling themselves undecided are apparently the people in the country who don't do serious political analysis, or even simple political analysis. Those questions weren't hard questions, or questions that even made the candidates think. Despite claims that the two choices aren't really choices, the two candidates couldn't be more different. The idea that you're still weighing options mean the vast majority of the undecided have discarded everything but the one issue that affects them most - jobs, healthcare, abortion, whatever. They're essentially flipping a coin to say if they hold fast their convictions or drink the respective kool-aid, from the point of view of whichever direction it is that you are coming from.

I was also interested in that the candidates seems to rattled by a format they should be familiar with. Two minutes, that's it. Both Obama and Romney found reason to keep speaking past their time. I realize these were impromptu questions (kinda) but I still think the moderator should be able to turn off a microphone after two minutes and thirty seconds, but that's just me.

In reality Mitt has changed the entire concept of debating. Since truth, facts or explanations are no longer required, and everything is spin and self promotion, what does one do, short of kicking the opponent in the teeth? Because of this there were times when neither candidate engaged the crowd, to busy verbally kicking one another or promoting themselves. And that's bad for us all. That's not the purpose of a debate.

Does the President need a debate coach. I realize that the President isn't culturally allowed to do what Joe Biden did, or go HAM on him, or even play a smoothed out Katt Williams, but I think he can still do better than he did. Case in point: when he has to check Romney, he needs to state the man is wrong, state why is one or two sentences, and move on. He should know what Romney thinks are the pressure points by now...and his team should know which ones are lurking. Have the responses memorized. He also needs to work in a few key buzzwords and terms he can repeat over and over, like his opponent does. I mean his staff writes great speeches, do they need help for snappy answers? We're available.

Though this week, two questions presented themselves that make me wonder are any of us really listening?

First, Stephen Colbert asked the question (in a skit while debating himself) that if Romney is going to lower tax rates by twenty percent, then close loopholes and deductions to make the reduction revenue neutral, then why lower the tax rate? And second, if Romney claims the government doesn't create jobs, then why is he promising to create twelve million in four years if he's elected? And I'm not even a reporter, you would think more than just a TV comedian and myself would think of these questions.

Are we really this slow as a people?

Joe Biden. Well damn.

This is a political post.

Is she available for the next debate? My favorite line of moderator Martha Raddaz was after she asked Rep. Ryan if his plan had specifics. He'd launched into a short piece on bi-partisanship so she stopped him and repeated the question. When he started again with explanation she cut him off flatly : "So, No, no specifics then."

Priceless.

Although Red State disagrees, and for some reason saw Ryan as the winner, Joe Biden broke through the image of the politico always good for a verbal gaffe.  Can Biden give Obama the debate prep for next time, or maybe a blood transfusion or something? Given his foreign policy background and unpredictable mouth I actually expected Biden to do well, but his showing was so much better than I expected. He was Samuel L. Jackson in white face - electrifying, agitated, almost scary good. Now, I say that with the caveat that his debate performance was the equivalent of in game adjustments, that after seeing the chamelon-like Romney's performance last week, he prepared for more of the same from Ryan. And so prepared, Biden came out of locker room and brought the wood.

Newt Gingrich remarked that it's hard to debate a liar, and I guess that's because debates are usually a very polite and professional affair. But it's easy to debate someone who "massages the truth" if you call them out on it. Biden didn't hesitate to call out Ryan when he veered off the edge of the reality, alternately laughing at him and looking shocked at the younger man's comments.  I could almost see the glint in his eyes when he caught himself just before cussing on national TV, changing his sentiment to a more prime-time palatable "stuff." Where Ryan was cagey, Biden was direct. Libya? It was the Ryan's Republican House that cut the security budget for the embassy. Iran? Toughest sanctions ever. Syria? All that's left is to put troops on the ground. Budget? Yours is mathematically impossible. Medicare? Call it what you want but your plan is still a voucher program. What else ya got?

I half expected Biden to blurt during one of his "bet against America" comments that Ryan doesn't even believe in his own campaign - and point out he's still running ads for re-election in Wisconsin.

My spit-take moment however, was when asked what he could bring to the office of the vice president character wise, the first word out of Paul Ryan's mouth was "honesty." Does he not understand we can see him? What was his best marathon time again? He claimed he didn't ask for stimulus money right before we found out he did? Honesty? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Bill Mahar summed it up the best in a tweet that should be on the news : Hello 9-1-1? There's an old man beating a child on my TV." 

Obama, I think Joe deserves one of those White House beers, ya think?

My Last Musings on Aurora... (I hope)

This is a political post. 

Let's not make this tragedy political.

This was the spin that immediately emerged from those who looked at the events in Colorado and thought not of the loss of life or the senselessness of it all, but saw the possibility that at the end of it all, something might have to change.  And yet mere hours after it occurred, after they implored those who might suggest change not make it political, we heard the distinct rumblings of their own peccadilloes. From the common refrain "guns don't kill people" to the fanciful idea that if someone else there had been armed it would have, ironically, ended with movie style heroics.

First, one part is correct. Guns don't kill people. Guns are a tool, and tools are useless without users. But to make the argument as one of my conservative FB friends did less than 24 hours after it happened,  that "cars and bats also kill people, but no one stops you from driving to the ball game" mis-characterizes the whole situation.  But this is the misdirection employed by those seeking to enshrine the second amendment? The comparison is unwieldy at best. Cars are regulated out the wahzoo, and you can only drive them in certain areas called roads. And whereas bats aren't has heavily regulated, walking around with one on your shoulder all the time makes the rest of us real nervous.  Guns are tools, but they should be regulated. And regulations here wouldn't infringe upon our right to bear arms, much in the same way that some regulation on free speech and the right to assemble don't infringe upon our constitutional rights to those things. 

But It's the second idea that really scares me. That if someone else had been armed, the shooter could have been stopped sooner and lives would have been saved. This is a fantasy that deserves a dismantling as quickly as possible. Say, the theater held 300 people, and for this exercise... 25 are armed. In the middle of the film a man emerges and first throws tear gas and starts firing. He is heavily armed...and wearing body armor.  Of the 25, let's say 5 realize discretion is the better part of being out gunned and keep their guns in holster. But 20 people pull out weapons. In a now chaotic situation. Surely having terrified people blinded by tear gas in a dark room full of screaming running people waving loaded pistols ready to fire will make things safer! How many of them  would be nerves of steel sharpshooters? If just half of them fire off two shots and miss, how many more people get hit? Especially since now the bullets are coming from more than one direction. And if they hit him, then what? He was wearing as I stated earlier... body armor.  It may have fazed him for a few seconds...but he wasn't about the scamper away. A few of those brave souls, drawing attention to themselves would have gone down. 

And before it starts this situation isn't comparable to the armed man who stopped the robbery in Florida a few days earlier. Those thugs were there to rob and used violence only as a threat in a well lit room. Here, the criminals intent was to kill...nothing more. Threatend, they ran away. Here, we don't know what he might have done. He might have decided to go out in a bigger blaze of glory.

Adding more guns does not necessarily make a situation safer.

We'd all be happy to not politicize this tragedy. That was good advice. Now only if those people who suggested it had listened to themselves.

Casey Anthony (as required by Internet Rule 47854b)

Ramblings Post #152
There are certain Rules. You don’t lead somebody on. If get served, then you tip. You don't talk about fight club. You don't ask the stripper for change. You don't press the little red button. The correct answer for "does this make my butt look fat" is always NO. And if it is a hot topic, your blog must comment on it...if only in passing. So, today, we discuss of all things, a trial that happened in Florida.

The only reason I understood there even was a trial was that I would sometimes catch the lurid headlines in the tabloids as I checked out at the grocery store. I’ve been in school, then in summer school, pretty much since 2008 when this all went down. And since I wasn’t getting a check and my focus really wasn’t criminal law, I really wasn’t all that pressed to know all the facts. I got briefs to write, cases to read, code to learn. So today, when I slipped into the nearly empty chicken factory as part of the skeleton crew the idea that we’d stop to hear the verdict hadn’t even crossed my mind. Verdict? For who? What? But lo and behold, the people in my section let me know when it would be read - 2:15, and went up to the big screen in the main break area to watch. The glee in which they trooped up stairs has to bring to mind the idea of Romans heading off to watch the lions at the Coliseum.

Boom. Not Guilty of the first three BIG counts.

You’d thought they let OJ off again.

The people in my office were mortified. I think my facebook almost melted down. Comments from those legal classmates of mine were a clash of pragmatic thinking, citing reasonable doubt, or wondering exactly how the defense pulled it off. Someone else suggested they put Nancy Grace on suicide watch. My other folks decried the justice system, the sense of the jurors, the complete unreasonableness of the verdict, the insanity of it all. You know, I'm getting the idea they thought she might have done it.

I had to read about the whole thing on Wikipedia.

I got nothing.

Wait, is this when she starts the search for the “real killers”? I mean, since OJ is off the case....

Got it in one.

Peeking into the Eygptian Night

This is a political post.

There has been a lot of talk lately about how the Obama Administration is handling the situation in Egypt, and most of it from people who haven't the first clue either, but just really want to some air time and figure it's a way to take shots at the President. The Middle East has been contentious for several hundred years, and neither a weekend at Camp David or even Batman Obama is gonna fix it just like that. What's happening right now is really more of what the local police word refer to as a "domestic situation" more than anything else, and no cop really likes to deal with those.

I'm no foreign policy expert, just a guy with internet access, but this is how I'm seeing it. Think of the situation as husband and wife in a fight, with Hosni Mubarak as the husband and the people of Egypt as the wife. The wife wants a divorce, now, and wants the husband to move out, now. No ifs, ands or buts. The husband on the other hand, wants to stay for a while. He's even agreed that he'll sleep in the guest room. And then as soon as he's ready, having gotten things in order, he'll find a new place. It's a weird analogy, but it works. And as anyone who has been between a man and wife fighting knows, taking sides is dicey at best. Looking at these circumstances, this divorce is going to happen. The problem is that the longer the husband stays in the house, the uglier this whole deal is gonna get.
'
What's funny is that Mubarak claims he wants to stay to effect a "smooth" transition. But the country is entering its fourth week of massive protests. Blood is being spilled in the streets. Video of the army driving over people floats around the internet. There are rumors are that the secret police are arresting protesters. The country's economy is shut down. This is smooth? How much rougher would him leaving make it? Theoretically, him leaving will make all that stop and life can get back to some semblance of normal, if not actually better.

Now while it is true that his resignation would trigger an election in a scant 60 days under the Egyptian Constitution, and who exactly would run for office is unclear, so there would be some degree of chaos. But this more about ego, as so many things are these days. Ego on the part of Mubarak, who wants to leave with dignity, but more importantly ego on the part of the US State Department. Seventy years of meddling in the Middle East has taught them nothing.

The question is presented as "will there be enough time to hold free and fair elections were Mubarak to step down?" The real question is, much like the Daily Show reporter joked, will 60 days give the US enough time pick who they want from the field? The fact is, the existence of the clause triggering the election means there IS a process in place for just such an emergency. So use it. It might not be pretty, or fit the plan...but it is the law. And who the Egyptians pick is immaterial, as long as they get to pick him. That's how democracy works.

The really real question is why hasn't Mubarak woken up one morning and found himself on a jet headed to Saudi Arabia, next to a box of gold bullion, a suitcase full of money and one of those cutesy termination letters that reads: "thanks for your dedicated service, but we've decided to go another way." He's over eighty, exactly how hard would that be?

It might not be the right answer. Okay, I'm fairly certain that's not the right answer, but it will get the country started on the road to where everyone wants them to be...which can't be all bad.

Now boarding at Gate 1, one way to not here. Heck, they should even give him an extra bag of peanuts.

Bar Chatter

Bar Chatter #15
Sometimes it just ain't enough to make a post, but it's still needs to go out....it's just bar chatter.

Friday, on a whim, I tried out for the Washington Post.

Skimming through something someplace, not half paying attention, I came across their annual pundit contest, where you submit a quick 400 words online and see if they like it. It was the last day of the contest, it was something to do a Friday as I waited out the last few minutes of my day, my brain needed a break from law, and so I fired up the ole synapses and gave it a whirl. I realized then that 400 words really isn't a whole lot of words. Not once you get going.

I'm fairly certain others had lovingly crafted articles, whittling away words and fashioning context images to create voices that move minds and stir souls over the course of many days. I tossed something together. Actually tossed two somethings together, flipped a coin and sent one. It was a mental break of a kind, something different, and no doubt in a few days I'll get one of those we thank you for participating but we've "gone another way" emails that make publishing so much fun.

In any case, It was one for the books. Er,...um, papers. Well, internet.

Now that I think about it, hell, I could have done that here.

Shucks,

My Brother's book

Ramblings Post #109
This is what they call the final straw. I said I was gonna do it, and since I have the time now, what with the PS3 pilfered, I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna finish one of the many novels I’ve been working on since....a period of time I’m too ashamed to admit. Which works well with my life changes theme currently in play. Okay, it’s not the final straw, but it sure is a good reason to get back to something I do like to do.

For ages my older brother has talked about publishing a book. The Great African American Novel. It’s an odd wish when I think about it, in this day age but I guess my older brother and I are kind of a black down market version of Frasier and Niles Crane: Maybe a little too smart for our own good, maybe a little to urbane, maybe a little too intellectual. My brother runs a blog that covers political commentary while I do...well this. Our mother was a school teacher and I think it shows.

Think black, without the cool suits, or the money.
And one of us actually is balding!

And he’s been working on a novel, as have I, for years now. While other black guys work on a way to put rims on what they’re driving, or try for a record deal, or promoting parties... my brother and I have been “studying the human condition” so we can distill it down to words that educate and inspire. Well, he has, I’ve been trying to write something funny. Well, recently, thanks to the modern technology of Kindle and other ebook readers, he's put together a tome of short stories and managed to get it, I guess, published. Well, e-published.

For some reason he called it DaddyMomma.

He said he named it that a while back and the title stuck with him for some reason, and now means something to him. What it means I’m still working on.

I have yet to read it, due to the pilferage from my house. My backup computer system won't support any of the available e-readers it downloads in (the back up runs on Windows 2000, the readers start at Vista). But I guess i've read snippets and parts of it for years now, a short story here, a story idea there, and to be honest if you plan on checking it out, my brother specializes in literature.

What is literature?

First, let me tell you what literature mostly isn't. It mostly isn't that the "african american author" section in your local book store, with a vast cadre of books that read like badly concieved, outlined and written rap albums in word form. The stories are for the most part exploitative thuggery, simplistic, the characters cardboard or worse, the writing uneven and disjointed. My younger brother bought me a book a few years ago for Christmas, and it nearly spurred me into a writing frenzy as I finished. The idea of that hot mess being published and me not writing anything for publication was like someone laughing at my soul. And I don’t like to be laughed it. Unless I’m telling jokes.

No, my brother writes about themes, and ideas, and characters with depth and flaws. Deep thought provoking stuff. That’s literature. I've seen the other stuff he wrote, but until I get either the wireless for the laptop connection or a new computer, this novel is gonna have to wait for a second, but I’m fairly certain this isn’t a tome of jokes and funny stories. His works are usually about relationships - between father and son, old and young, just stories about people. Literature need not have a compelling story - like a spy novel or adventure tale - but it merely needs to make you think. And my brother is big on making people think.

I just realized that he also doesn’t really ever read what I send him. Interesting. Partly because I'm guessing, what I write doesn't seem to make him want to think.

When I finish, I'm gonna send him the whole thing and ask for a page by page commentary.

Yeah right.

Barkeep, did I tell you my brother wrote a book?

A Man's Home is His Castle

This is a Political Post

“I’m up with a gentleman, says he resides here, but was uncooperative, but keep the cars coming,” the sergeant said.

These are the words of Sgt. Crowley as recorded by the Cambridge police during his incident with Professor Gates, a controversy I tried my best not to write about because politics are really more my brother's bag than mine. But today a facebook friend of mine denied their was any racial profiling because the 911 call did not mention race. A black friend of mine. Time does change people.

When the white people are more upset at treatment towards you than you are, then I think you missed something.

At the point in the incident the officer spoke those words, I'm not sure if Prof. Gate had produced identification or not. But I do know that once the Professor had properly identified himself as the resident, and proved it was his house (as he did) the officer should have "switched modes" and gone from investigator/defender to public servant. If you don't know what that is, it's the point in the coversation where the "sirs" change hands, in the beginning you call the officer sir, at the end he should be calling you sir. In this case, that didn't happen. Shortly thereafter, the Harvard scholar was arrested for disorderly conduct, or as the supporters of the sargent say, the gentleman was being belligerent.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. - Harvard Scholar
Photo from Wall Street Journal

Only, you can't arrest someone for just being belligerent in Massachusetts. It doesnt' matter if the Gates went on a tirade and threatened at one point, "call the officer's mother". It doesnt' matter if Gates pulled the race card or not. In Cambridge, which is in Massachusetts, you can do that. It's called protected speech. In fact, the Massachusetts courts have made it clear that a person who berates an officer, even during an arrest, is not guilty of disorderly conduct.

So why was Gates arrested? What was the officer's rationale? The REAL question is whether the officer wants to be a racist or a abuser of power? I remember watching a video a long time ago where a person getting a ticket blessed out the police officer, and I marveled because the officer took it with a straight face, never taking it personally. But here, the officer suddenly felt there was an issue with a slight man who walked with a limp (I don't know if the cane was seen) to such a degree that he would ask that they "keep the cars coming"? Black or white in the original call at this point fades from the consciousness, as here the officer is on the scene and can see who his facing. In this case the officer, perhaps a little perturbed, arrested Prof. Gates in what was an obvious show of power.

Power. Respect.

The question of the day is: Was it a show of power over everyone, to respect the police? Or was is a show of power over this little nasty black fellow, to respect the police?

I dunno. But either case, it seems I'm gonna be siding with the little black fellow. Because he can be as nasty as he wanna be. That's what the law says. So the officer, was wrong.

Barkeep...I need something that will make me grit my teeth.