Grimm: Come Together

Many posts ago I wrote that I loved what Christopher Nolan did with Lucius Fox in Batman Begins, but I didn't specify what. It was not just casting Morgan Freeman, though that is usually a sound strategy. What I liked was that it made the gadgetry that much more believable.

Accepting Bruce Wayne spending years developing physical strength and fighting prowess is one thing. Accepting that he is also studied magic and became a brilliant inventor and engineer is something else. Having someone else contributing some of that know-how, and getting it from an entire department, even one that was now shut down, was more realistic.

As long as we are starting with superhero movies, I loved Spider-Man 2. There were interesting things going on with Peter trying to have a normal life, but what was touching was seeing that he didn't have to be alone in the superhero life. The imagery in the train scene was a little over the top, but still, the passengers were caring and supportive, and MJ could know, and support him, and be there for him.

"Grimm" is not technically a superhero show. There are parallels, but even with the supernatural element, it is very grounded in reality. And, there might be disagreement over how realistic this is, but this hero has not been angst-ridden.

It could have gone the other way. Aunt Marie found it to be a curse. That makes sense. She lost her sister and brother in law, and presumably their parents were gone by this time. She had to give up her fiancé because of her responsibility. There is evidence that Aunt Marie was never simply a "behead-them-all" Grimm, but she was probably also never showered with gifts by Eisbibers.

I do think part of Nick having a better time with it was his role in law enforcement. Stopping wrongdoing was already his thing, and he could lock people up instead of always having to cut off their heads.

(I say that thinking that being a librarian was also a very good fit, and betting that not every new Grimm has a trailer full of helpful information.)

I also think a huge benefit for Nick has been Monroe. Monroe crashing through a window, and then offering Nick a beer, and being willing to help and answer questions. That's not typical behavior for any Wesen, especially a Blutbad, but it worked, and it started Nick's new world as a friendlier one, where he learned that he did not have to cut people off.

There were some rough spots, with Juliette turning down his proposal even before she lost her memory, and Hank and Wu both having some bad moments of disconnection, but the end result is stronger relationships and stronger support.

Nick does not need to know everything, and neither does Monroe, and sometimes it doesn't even have to be in the trailer. Rosalee knows herbs, and the seedy underbelly that exists with drugs and gangs. Juliette knows veterinary medicine, and has her own insights. Hank brings his existing police background, but now knowing more about what might be out there.

There is stronger connection within this group. They have not played it up a lot, but it is really great that Nick and Monroe's significant others are now friends; there are ways in which they are both very guy. This is not just for the cases that come up, either, because Juliette helped Monroe decorate for Christmas, and then helped Monroe and Juliette work through a relationship snag. It doesn't hurt to have more people care about you.

The last time I wrote about this, it looked like Renard was shifting from grey to villain. His turning point involved coming clean to Nick. This is what I have been asked to do, and I don't want to do it. Things can be different. Nick may still not trust him completely, and he may have a point, but there is a transformation of the relationships because of the new openness.

It is going beyond their group. No one exactly loves the Council now, but they can call on each other. There is at least a realization that things don't have to be the way they have always been. Nick survived the Wild Hunt not just because he had knowledge from the trailer, or help from Monroe, but also because Monroe's very traditional father loved his frustratingly independent son more than he hated the Grimm. And he can (maybe) start to see things differently too.

Dystopian themes have been coming up a lot in my reading and writing lately, and regardless of the cataclysm that led to environment, what makes it ugly is always the reaction - the way people start treating each other when things get rough. If we remember that the purpose of science fiction is not to predict but depict, then it is about now. What makes it ugly or beautiful now is how we are to each other. And there can be some pretty awful situations now, but the pockets of love and kindness are what make life worth living, and make life beautiful.

"Grimm" keeps choosing love. Even when there are real monsters, and real danger, their characters keep coming together and supporting each other. It makes the show more enjoyable, and it makes their triumphs more real. It's pretty hard to fight the darkness alone.

Related post:

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/05/10-reasons-you-should-be-watching-grimm.html

Grimm characters - Sebastien, Wu, and why we care

Aside from the torture issue we covered yesterday, I have appreciated the storyline with the Royals. Based on message boards, I know it's not popular with everyone, but I find I care about it, because I care about the characters.

A lot of that is centered on Sebastien, as portrayed by Christian Lagadec. Several episodes ago, I realized that I am always worried about them. I pondered that, because we really know very little about him. We don't know why he keeps Renard informed, when it is very dangerous for him, and frankly, Renard does not seem to be that supportive.

However, Sebastien stays there, even though he seems to be the least qualified. Renard has Hexenbiest lineage and police training, and is a crack shot. Meisner is a skilled fighter. On the other side, they have money and Hundjäger.

I suppose it could be my natural sympathy for the underdog coming through, but also, I think Lagadec acts nervous, and that comes through. It's not anything really flashy, but the actor understands the character's vulnerability, and that infuses the performance, making everything more relatable and more real.

This is something "Grimm" has always done well. They create good characters, but trust the actors to add their own touches, and the cast delivers. This has been especially true with the March 7th episode, where the writers found a creature from actor Reggie Lee's upbringing and gave us an episode letting us get to know his character, Wu, better.

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-grimm--culls-from-reggie-lee-s-real-life-childhood-in-the-philippines-to-give-sgt--wu-a-backstory-195938895.html

And it was great! There was emotion, but also humor, and while the episode is self-contained, what happened in it will continue to matter.

These are not the top-billed characters, but they matter. They build the world, and enrich it, and it lends importance to all of the developments.

Generally when the main cast is in peril, you know that things are going to work out somehow. I love Nick, and David Giuntoli does a great job, so I do care about what happens. He is not just going to be written off. Even if he were to decide to leave the show, which would be awful, there would probably be some advance warning.

Sebastien could totally die. There have been a couple of times when I was pretty sure he would.

(And yes, that would be a fictional death, but if we were going to get hung up on that, there would be no point in watching television at all.)

So there is real risk there, and yet there is real relief when he survives another day. Reggie Lee does other acting jobs, and does not appear in some episodes, but it is good to see him, and to learn things about Wu. Wu matters.

Some of this is just that on a basic level "Grimm" is a well-done show: good writing, good acting, and good continuity. I also think some of it is that in the mindset behind the show, individuals matter.

That can be hard to maintain for any police procedural, even without the supernatural element, because there is always a body count. Lately I find that there are some works that I can't enjoy, because at their roots they have too much contempt for humanity, and regardless of the many good reasons for that I can't get there.

I like that "Grimm", with literal monsters, finds a way to enjoy them, and we will build on that more tomorrow.

Torture, Television, and Social Responsibility

I have been meaning to write for a while about how much I love "Grimm". That will still happen, but something put me off Friday night, and I need to get that out of the way first.

At the end of the episode, Viktor and his henchmen were on the trail of Meisner, Adalind, and the baby, and they were there because they had tortured the proximate location out of Sebastien.

Oddly, torture had come up in "Person of Interest" too. My warning flags went up, actually, but they went back down because no information was acquired. I believe the reason that scene happened at all was to remind us that Stanton had no conscience or qualms about anything, and contrast with Reese, even before he meets Finch.

I get that a certain amount of contrivance happens in writing. You want to show certain things, and you find ways to make it work. If it requires too much contortion, the scene doesn't sit right. If demonstrating one person's character causes someone else to act out of character, it will not sit right. The contrivance becomes a problem if it makes the scene too false.

So, the problem that we have is that torture scenes can seem very reasonable and logical if people believe torture works. Since it doesn't, that makes scenes where people get the information they want, whether it involves good people or bad people, false. The problem is that a lot of viewers will not see an issue with the scene, because they also believe torture works, and these scenes reinforce it.

I will gladly agree that no one should be taking their political and ethical beliefs from television shows grounded in fantasy, but it does reinforce. The more you see torture as a viable way of getting information, even when you see the villains using it, the easier it is to justify it as a legitimate intelligence tactic.

Sebastien was water-boarded, just like the various US detainees who did NOT end up revealing the location of Bin Laden. Water-boarding techniques came out of training that was developed for resisting brainwashing. These are techniques that are designed to break people down so they say false things, not so you get the truth out of them. The most realistic outcome would have been Sebastien lying. (The reason the "Person of Interest" scene was not as problematic for me is that they did not get any information out of the prisoner.)

I know the scene is serving other purposes. I am hoping that getting Sebastien in the same vicinity as the other characters means that he has a shot of living. However, this is a show that has magic as a legitimate factor. They could have used some form of divination, or used magic on Sebastien. We saw Frau Pesch take on Adalind's form, they could have had Viktor take on Renard's form and asked Sebastien for help in locating them. There were other options.

The problem is that no one sees the need of other options. Apparently, torture is appearing more and more:

http://www.interpretthis.org/2014/01/05/the-rise-and-rise-of-television-torture

Entertainment has amazing power, and television reaches a lot of people. There have been some really beautiful points about human nature seen on "Grimm". Sebastien's torture is a low note for them. I know they can be better than that.

No one wants to watch straight out propaganda, but keeping an eye out for opportunities to do good should be happening. Reliance on torture shows something that is factually false and morally wrong, and that needs to be known.

Spread the word.

(I have written about this before, but it's been a while: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2011/06/one-more-thing.html )

Band Review: Scarling.

I found Scarling. via Jessicka Addams, whom I initially knew of more for non-musical art, though I had learned pretty early on that she had been in another band. I initially thought Scarling. was a new project, but they originally became active in the early 2000's, and are now coming back.

Their Facebook page lists a view different genres, but Wikipedia called it noise pop, which was new to me. (I can see the influence on shoegaze.)

Anyway, the way noise pop works is that not strictly musical sounds are combined. This could be something as simple as distorting the guitars, but there could also be elements of white noise or the ring of a telephone or power tools in the background. What I have found interesting with that is that it feels like it creates a distance. A filter is added. You do hear the melody. The normal musical elements are there, but there is something else too, and it changes how you experience the song.

Some of the songs feel more immediate - "Band Aid Covers The Bullet Hole" and "Baby Dracula" had rhythms that stuck out for me - but I felt a certain amount of detachment that made it more intellectual. On that level, having a song about Crispin Glover, or having twists on familiar phrases like "Alexander The Burn Victim" feels exactly as it should be.

That being said, I hear more life in the new songs. Maybe some of that is just a new energy at coming back. There is still that filter in place, but maybe it is thinner.

I did most of my listening via Spotify, which has two profiles. Both profiles have the two albums, Sweet Heart Dealer and So Long Scarecrow. However, one does not have the new songs, and one does not have the single releases, therefore does not have the B-sides.

At this point I only see the new songs on iTunes, thought the older material is available in a variety of places.

http://www.scarling.com/

https://www.facebook.com/scarlingmusic

https://twitter.com/Scarling

Band Review: Bash The Band

Bash The Band is a three man band from El Paso Texas. They have not followed me on Twitter, but singer and guitar player Sebastian Felix did, and that was enough to get them on the list.

Depending on where you are looking, I have seen them described as alternative rock or Texas metal. I tend to agree more with the rock side. They sound their most metal on a cover of the Cranberries' "Zombie", which seems odd, but I think the cover really works.

I like their original material a lot. There is a depth to it that seems beyond their years. I watched the video for "Broken Smile", and was thinking that the concept seemed more for older people, but then I thought "They have parents." You don't have to be at a certain age to know about the issues of that age, though perspective can certainly change. The videos overall are pretty well executed, though the concepts could be a little more sophisticated.

There is a lot that is admirable about the band. They have been consistently producing music, and working with the USO. Based on Facebook, they have made a strong effort to get their music into local retail stores, which a lot of bands neglect.

I do feel they could do a better job with the internet. They have their own site, but the link to the store didn't work. The most complete listings are at ReverbNation, but the links to Amazon and iTunes there did not work. They are playing with fuel tomorrow night, which is great, and it is on their Facebook timeline, but not in their events. I think that they are talented enough that it is worth making the effort to improve the web side. This is the digital age, so internet presence is a huge factor.

So, I actually cannot tell you where to purchase their music, but you can find the most songs at ReverbNation, and you can find the simplest listening experience at Soundcloud. You can also find some music and vote for them at ArtistSignal: https://artistsignal.com/bash#_=_.

http://www.bashtheband.com/

http://www.reverbnation.com/bashthebandofficial

https://soundcloud.com/bashdpm

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCscKqUnR0rjoL8zbgMcI0BQ

https://www.facebook.com/bashthebandofficial

https://twitter.com/BashTheBand

Barsotti Park

My family moved to Aloha in 1978, when I was six years old. Concerns about urban sprawl aside, I loved the suburban mix. We were close to theaters and stores, but there were trees and animals everywhere. On Farmington there was a flock of sheep, and across 160th there were horses, and right next to my cul de sac there were cows.

Most of that is apartments now. It's not horrible. There are still a lot of trees, and there are green spaces and some trails set aside. The inevitable changes and development could have been handled much worse, and I appreciate that. I am most grateful for what happened with the cow pasture, which is now a park.

I never really knew the Barsotti family. Every now and then I would see Mr. Barsotti and we'd exchange greetings, and I did run into one of the daughters while picking blackberries. That spot has always been important to me though. I loved having the cows there, and once they were gone I kind of missed them. Later on, I loved having that spot for picking blackberries. I guess it's not exactly nature, because these are things that we domesticate, but still, there was life and greenery and a feeling of connection.

Hearing that the family had decided to donate the land for a park was always something that I had thought was great, and seeing the plans that went out was something that looked good, but I had not anticipated how good it would be.

I walk by the park every day, so I was watching the construction's progress, but I was not the only one. The moment the fencing came down from around the play area, it was full of children. It was so popular, so fast.

I hadn't understood the need. When I was a kid, everyone had yards, which is no longer the case. Even so, we had yards we could play in, but we would often go to the play structure that the nearby school had, because sometimes you need to swing and slide and climb.

It is not just for kids. When my mother's knees got bad, her doctor recommended not walking the dogs anymore, because the road shoulders were so uneven. Now there is a walking path that she can do. When we explored it for the first time we found small children from our block, and older kids from our church, and a former coworker who is excited because she has a nearby park where she can bring her grandchildren.

It's not even completely done. The tennis nets are not up yet, and they were doing something with the picnic tables yesterday. It is still already filling a huge need, and I am probably not the only one who had not realized how much the need was there.

It appears that my role in this may be applying for one of the community garden plots, and seeing how that goes. Mainly, I'm just glad it's there. I'm grateful for the family's generosity. I'm glad that this field I was so fond of did not become another plot of apartments or tract housing. I'm glad that the children in all of the other apartments and tract housing have a nice place to play.

It's a beautiful thing.

Blossom

I have written twice about the new dog, and that she was shy, but those were both within her first month. At the one month mark something opened up. I promised I would write about some sweet and beautiful things, and this will be one - the blossoming of a dog. Let me tell you about Adele.

The first thing I will tell you is that we don't really call her that. With greyhounds, they always come already named. There is a racing name and a kennel name. Sometimes they are similar, like Geno was Oxbow Geno. Adele was Jstrollinthedeep, so yes, it was connected to that Adele, and we don't like her. We nonetheless love this Adele. We are mainly calling her Dellie (I guess that's how it would be spelled). It works.

She was straight from the kennel, had never raced, and was shy and scared of men. Our contact thought we would be a good fit, because it is an all-female household and Geno (the lone male) is a confident dog and she could learn from him.

Dellie came on December 14th. Part of kennel life is that the dogs are usually crated. They get let out to run, and maybe to eat, and things like that, but they spend a lot of time in the crate, and sometimes the new freedom was uncomfortable.

That first day, which was a Saturday, Dellie decided that the bathroom was her crate. It would be a little big, but about the right shape. She parked herself there, and we would lead her out to eat and go in the yard, but otherwise she did not budge. That included Sunday morning, when four women were getting ready for church. This may be why she found a new location.

Her new spot was a dog bed in my bedroom. It is bordered by my desk, bookcase, closet, and dresser, so it does feel a little enclosed, and it is not as high traffic. We would still lead her away for meals and walks and the yard, but she would always run back to this bed. She would make herself fit there, even if Geno was already on it.

I'll admit there was some frustration, especially with getting her housebroken. She was so scared of the yard, and actually so scared to go anywhere, that for a while she would only pee once a day, despite us giving her multiple opportunities. We had to put her on a leash to get her into the yard, and to get her to her food, and to get her to come into the living room.

Still, I could see some progress. It did not take long for her to get to the point where she was happy and content while she was on that dog bed and I was working on the computer next to her. I would see her stick her head into the hall, and know that she wanted to be around us when we were in the living room, even though she could not bring herself to come out on her own yet. I believed she would eventually feel comfortable at any spot in the house, and it would be okay.

There were two ways in which I was completely off base. One is that I thought it would take longer and progress more slowly. Also, mistook shy for quiet. Dellie is a spirited little dog. It started at about the one month mark, and it really started with the toys.

I'm not sure how she first got the idea to put one in her mouth. Geno doesn't play with the toys a lot, but he will sometimes so maybe she saw him. They often have toys in the kennels, so maybe she suddenly remembered. Suddenly she was playing all the time, and making them squeak, and carrying them around all over the house where she was now roaming freely.

The yard no longer terrified her, and she started running. I suspect the reason that she didn't race is that with her shyness, it seemed unlikely that she could do well, but she's a fast little thing. Sometimes she is more into trying to get someone to chase her than running laps, and sometimes she uses this weird prancing type of motion, so maybe she would have been too goofy, but I have seen her do laps and she does okay.

She has also found her voice. She barks a lot. Teaching her to be okay with visitors is taking a while. She is not attacking, but she will stay just at the exit of the room and bark these low throaty barks, like a German Shepherd. So now we will bring her to the person, and have them pet her, and then either let her go, or hold her and pet her while we visit, depending on whether the initial petting stops the barking. She does not love this process, but she did not love it when we made her spend time in the living room or in the back yard, and those worked out.

I suppose there are differences that are not completely positive. My shoes move around a lot, but I can usually find them. I can't get in and out of my room without a few squeaks now. We will periodically gather the stash of toys out of my room and the other depository in the family room, and return them to the toy basket. They come right back, but it gives her something to do. But it's fun. Our pets cheer us up. They make us laugh. In her case, much more than would ever have seemed possible.

She has learned to love home life, and we have found an eagerness there that was completely hidden. We're all lucky.

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/12/adjusting.html

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2013/12/preparing-for-change.html

The Return of the Celebrity Hate Extravaganza!

I have this irritation thing going on with people at varying levels of celebrity, in different fields. Two of them were quite similar, and happened around the same time. I did think about writing something then, but I was in the middle of writing other things. Also, there were goodhearted people who were getting kind of down due to these artists whose work they had admired being so ridiculous, and the sniping that was going on, and I didn't want to contribute to that.

Still, more irritation has come on, and also, I looked back. I thought the last time I did this was maybe two or three years ago, but it was in 2006. So, if I only need to vent my spleen every eight years, I think that can be okay. I'm going to allow it.

First blows go to Arthur Chu. They are actually the gentlest blows, but also, he is the least famous.

Arthur Chu is a player who is currently on Jeopardy! and doing pretty well. He is not the most prepossessing person, I suppose, but that's not the problem. His style of play is irritating, and people are paying it disproportionate attention. He jumps around the board hunting for daily doubles. He is not the first person to do that, but it is getting press as a new way of playing, against which those old-fashioned players are helpless.

I don't know how much of that is Arthur's fault, because obviously some people have to think there is a story there to cover the story. As I said, he's not the first person to do it. There may be some advantage to moving around where the other players can't make the mental switch quite as quickly as you, but it doesn't take that long for them to catch up. Also, you are losing the benefit from clues that build on each other in a category. Finding the daily doubles early keeps someone else from having them, but may not benefit you, depending on when you get it and if you'll know it. Really, I think he is doing well because he is fast on the buzzer, which is invaluable.

My beef with him is that it is annoying to watch, and some low wagers on the daily double felt really disrespectful to the game. Reading one of those interviews, it turns out that he is not a fan of the show; he doesn't even have a television. So, that's nice that he can still do well and win some money, and good for him, but this is a great show and he does not appreciate it enough. I am thrilled that they are interspersing his games with weeks of tournament play here and there, and I will be really happy when he is gone.

Moving on! Every now and then I would read something about a certain artist, and find myself perplexed by how clueless she is, and how badly she reads situations, until eventually I started recognizing the name, Amanda Palmer.

No, just because crowdsourcing worked for you does not mean that everyone should do it that way. In fact, you can make some fairly good arguments that those who have other sources of backing available should stick with those, thus leaving crowdsourcing resources available for those without other options.

No, the Boston bombing did not happen because society is too loud and they didn't know how else to react. That's you!

You are doing this thing called projection. You seem to think everything is about you. It is not.

For the most recent thing, it was a tweet: "12 Years a Slave drove the point home. the privileged (whites/straights/menfolk) MUST be allowed to fight for change. not just the oppressed"

Apparently, she was very upset that some people (possibly including Macklemore) thought Kendrick Lamar should have gotten the Grammy.

I will not argue that the privileged should be fighting prejudice too, and I have written about some of the conflicts that have come up. What she is missing is that when, for example, feminists of color criticize white feminists whom I could just as easily call corporate feminists, it is for missing important issues, and having too narrow a viewpoint, and sometimes even for promoting courses of action that will actively make lives worse for women of color. (Also for appropriation.) This criticism is generally then called bullying, or sometimes they will just say "Teach me" when in fact there is a lot of already existing material out there you can use to educate yourself, as opposed to placing a burden on people who are actually doing things.

I believe the reason that these rather obvious thoughts don't make it into her head is because then things are not about her, and it does not compute. And I really don't think that she's evil or has any bad intentions at all, but she needs to get over herself. Please. But I don't think she will, because I think she may actually be a manic pixie dream girl, and there's not a lot you can do with those.

(But if you want to read more about it, try here: http://flavorwire.com/436025/amanda-palmer-compares-macklemore-backlash-to-12-years-a-slave-is-wrong-as-usual/)

Alan Moore, Grant Morrison is not obsessed with you; you are obsessed with him. How do I know this? Because of the inordinate amount of time you spend on his obsession with you. I know he has spoken about you. You were a major force as comics were changing, and so anyone who was paying attention at all during that time frame, or who has looked back later, has to look back and see Moore's influence. But that doesn't mean everyone else is derivative, and that everyone who criticizes is an enemy.

(And I totally agree with the use of the word "sterile" as a criticism. I thought it was something Morrison said about Moore, but trying to find it, a lot of people say it about Moore, and they are right. I suspect it's a result of Moore's view of humanity.)

The actual event that really brought it up was a very long screed from Moore as he says goodbye, ultimately I guess because the industry doesn't deserve him, but it was disjointed. Some of that was his wandering thoughts, but also, I kept throwing my hands up in frustration, then coming back to it. Was it worth coming back to? Perhaps for a sense of completeness, but he is just so wrong, and it is so sad.

So there are plenty of reasons to be irritated with him, but one key one is the unnecessary verbosity. Paranoia and persecutions complexes are really narcissism when you get down to it, and while there are some ways in which being a narcissist might be enjoyable, these forms aren't fun for anyone. If we have to go there, can't we at least be brief? Direct and to the point?

http://sequart.org/magazine/39006/alan-moore-might-be-insane-now/

That of course makes him sound very similar to Alec Baldwin, who spends way too much time convincing us that he is a good person, and that people always tell him how good he is, and the lengths to which he goes to make sure that he is a good person. I'm not saying he's wrong, but the excessive verbiage indicates a sense of grandiosity that undermines the spirited defense.

http://www.vulture.com/2014/02/alec-baldwin-good-bye-public-life.html

Realistically, I don't think a lot of people thought Alec Baldwin was a homophobe. Even if you believe he did call the reporter that word, it would be easy to think that the problem is that word is still used as an insult, even by people who may not literally think of it that way, and that is a separate issue. I think what people really think is that Alec Baldwin is an egomaniac and kind of volatile, and that goes beyond the one incident. Think "Words With Friends" and "little pig".

And that is not to say that paparazzi are good, and that the lack of privacy that comes with celebrity is not a frustration. However, there are a lot of people who have issues with the press who manage to not get in these scuffles. Just off the top of my head, people who handle the press better than you (without necessarily liking them) include George Clooney, Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and kind of Kanye West, who does not handle them well at all.

So, I think your behavior is worth considering there, but also, you know how you make money doing something you love? And people listen to you and will let you put rambling big-headed rants on their sites? Yeah, every life has some problems in it, but yours could be worse.

One thing that was interesting about Alec's rant is that he mentioned Shia Labeouf in it, and said that he seems to have a mindset like he is always in jail. If so, that is very sad. Child actors can have it rough. At the same time, you have money and options and perhaps you should be grateful for that and quit being a douche.

(Shia is the other one, along with Alan Moore, who was making people sad. Basically, by not writing it then, I have added three other people whose names begin with A. That is one reason I did not go with one thought of making the whole thing gentler by only using initials.)

In his case, it is baffling how unnecessary it is. He has been in films with different people did writing and directing and producing. He has been in movies that were adaptations of books, comics, and cartoon shows. Daniel Clowes has had work adapted to film before.

I guess at that point, it is so bizarre to not ask for permission or accredit that it only makes sense to plagiarize an apology, sky write, put a bag over the head, and retire. I mean, what else can you possibly do? Give a writing credit? Pay for the work?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/shia-labeouf-taunts-daniel-clowes-669150

This one is actually the saddest, because it seems like either a nervous breakdown is on the way, or that he just doesn't know how to be a person. Moore may be crabby, but he does seem to have a satisfying family life, and Baldwin, Palmer, and Chu all really seem to be enjoying themselves.

I do wish them all well. That might not sound very hateful, but I do have a certain amount of sympathy for emotional deficiencies, those lacking in self-awareness, and even those who do not realize how amusing television can be. And hey, this is a long rambling rant too, so perhaps I am one of you, as horrifying as that thought is. So, I care, I'm sorry, but you are also all really annoying and should get over yourselves.

Now my spleen should be good until 2022.

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2006/08/celebrity-hate-extravaganza.html

Edited to add: One other Arthur thing that bothered me was he talked about his audition being full of a lot of socially awkward, non-telegenic people, which was not experience. I have noticed that some of the contestants don't seem to know as much lately, which may be a sign of harder questions, or that now that after decades of the show, the best people have been burned through already (in which case, I wish I had waited a bit), or that he is more likely to be contemptuous of others. Anyway, it reminded me that I have several posts from my time on the show. They start at http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2011/11/i-lost-on-jeopardy-baby.html.

Album Review: Stand In Line by The Cornerstones

I reviewed The Cornerstones back in August, but they have released a new album since then:

http://www.thecornerstones.co.uk/

One thing I found in doing the review is that they had another album that I missed completely, Begin To End, Volume 1. The sounds that I was listening to for the review were the newer material. So Stand In Line contains "My Mind" and "Smack Me In The Face" and all of the familiar songs, but also much more, with 12 tracks in all.

That balance that I remembered, of the cosmic and the blues, comes through again. I think I feel more of a folk influence as well this time around, but I would never consider them a folk band.

At times it feels like they are going to send you into space, and then you keep getting brought back to earth. The sound is grounded by rich and vivid guitar play, that keeps going to interesting places, but is very much bound to life.

So it's an interesting mix, and worth a listen. I hope it is well received.

There are links for purchasing at the page above, but it specifically lists iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, and 7 Digital.

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/08/band-review-cornerstones.html

Band Review: Gone By Daylight

Gone By Daylight was a pleasant surprise. They have beats that are very danceable, but without feeling clubby, and there is an emotional depth beside that. "Someone Better Than You" is poignant, and it's accessible, and "All The Girls" could easily fit into a dance-off situation. "Up In The Air" starts out hypnotic, and the element continues, and yet it is something that a crowd could really respond to. They fit in with rock, but I think they have really good crossover potential.

they have several performances in Austin in about a week due to the SXSW festival, so that will be a good opportunity for exposure.

I have primarily been listening to them via Soundcloud, but there are additional songs available on a CD from their web site, or via Amazon MP3 downloads. It's not a lot to go on, but Facebook indicates that they are in the studio, so perhaps more music will be available soon.

Definitely worth checking out.

http://gonebydaylight.com/

https://soundcloud.com/gonebydaylight

https://www.youtube.com/user/gonebydaylight?feature=results_main

http://www.amazon.com/Gone-By-Daylight/e/B001LGYQ2A/digital/ref=ntt_mp3_rdr?_encoding=UTF8&sn=d

https://www.facebook.com/gonebydaylight

https://twitter.com/gonebydaylight

Poverty shaming

Possibly what I should really do is write something about the concept of shaming in general, because there are some frequent similarities, regardless of what is being attacked. It will probably happen sooner or later.

Today, though, I am going to focus on something that happened around Christmas. I posted the following article on Facebook:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/24/christmas-working-poor_n_4494631.html

Honestly, I did not think it was a particularly controversial piece, but it started off a pretty lengthy discussion about the family's options. Well, that may give the wrong impression.

First of all, let me say that I have decided that I am not going to delete anyone for being ignorant and heartless. If they are willing to be exposed to my posts, I am not going to terminate just because I find their political beliefs repugnant.

The discussion happened because he thought it was the family's own fault. They had accepted low-paying jobs. They should have known better.

One of the more interesting side notes is that he was saying that with the father having gotten welding certification there were fly-in jobs he could take where he could probably still come home on the weekends and there was no excuse. However, another friend, who is familiar with some similar programs pointed out that some of the family stress and safety concerns with that, as well as that for a family already in financial distress, relocating to try and get a job he had just finished his training on, therefore being completely inexperienced, had some potential difficulties.

(Quimby does not need a no-deleting policy.)

On the original article you do have some suggestions that it was a waste for him to study welding. They may have a point, but it's the wrong point. I remember spending two weeks in class, and bus fare, and then a lot of time going in studying and testing, to ultimately only get paid for a few hours of work doing tax preparation. I also remember getting a one-day job that required clothes I didn't own, so I think I spent $30 to make $60, and I missed a friend's mother's funeral for that. Sometimes you may be too desperate to do the best job of evaluating an opportunity.

I think one really important point out of this is that there are not a lot of great opportunities. If it takes capital that you don't have, for relocating or start-up costs, it is not a great opportunity for you. A lot of these chances to better yourself involve risks that someone living that close to the line can't take. If you've got a buffer, great. If you've built up this buffer because of your amazing hard work and frugality, good for you. Not everyone gets the same chances.

Actually, I have heard the line about choosing to take a low-paying job recently.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-asks-a-panel-of-experts-to-defend-walmart-it-gets-awkward?c=reccon1

If they choose to take a low-paying job; try finding a high-paying job! There is no motivation for companies to pay decent wages when they can legally get away with paying the minimum, messing around with hours so that the employees are not considered full-time, and other labor abuses.

It used to be that people had this image of lazy people lying around collecting paychecks and living in the lap of luxury. That was based on a myth. There was a welfare queen, but she had her hands in all kinds of pots, and she worked really hard for it. Still, welfare reform happened, and the qualifications became more stringent. More people had to work.

The family in my original article is working, and they are not easy or pleasant jobs, and it is still not enough. Well, they chose a bad job. He's trying to learn how to do more. Well, he picked a bad field.

One of the more fascinating things about that thread is that everyone who commented was someone whom I knew through church. There should be some compassion there, but for some people all they can see is blame.

I wonder sometimes if it feels like a kind of talisman - if I can identify a way in which all of your problems are your own fault, then clearly it is not something that could ever happen to me. I worry about the reaction when the magical thinking runs out.

We have a world that breaks people. It is not only via the economy, but that one hits hard. Over and over again, you have people working against their own self-interests, and the interests of society, and the interests of human decency, and apparently the way they can do it is feeling comfortable looking down on someone else.

That's where I have the hardest time. It infuriates me, and that's not great for my own compassion. But that's why I don't delete him, or others like him. They have good points with their flaws. They're still human, and I can't stop seeing that. (But I may still blog mean things about them, and I did finally tell that one how condescending he was after he offered to let me shadow his job so I could see how I was wrong.)

Anyway, it may be some of the frustration over this, and things like it, that leads to me bringing back the celebrity hate extravaganza Monday, but then I will write two very sweet and touching things, and this is how I get by.

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/10/100-wrong-about-47.html

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/09/oh-snap.html

Gun control

I have a loose theme this week, relating to issues where the way we talk about them misses the point.

I am aware of the problem with people thinking that the passing of any gun restrictions at all is automatically equivalent to the government doing a house to house search and confiscating all guns and ammo and you can never get guns again. It does not matter how crazy that sounds, people's minds go there, and it has been very profitable for gun manufacturers as people keep stockpiling waiting for Obama to come for their guns. (He is going to have to hurry if he is really committed to that.)

It's probably hopeless to try and convince the crazy, so I am not going to go there, but there are a few things that get said, even by sensible people, that are wrong, and I would like to hit on that.

There are some things that are offensively stupid. One state senator recently suggested it was a good thing that the Aurora shooter used a large clip because it jammed; if he were using smaller clips he might have killed more people.

http://coloradopols.com/diary/54281/maybe-a-good-thing-that-he-had-a-100-round-magazine

I have heard the large clips jam argument many times. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I think if they really had that high a failure rate, they wouldn't be so popular. The large clips used at Sandy Hook didn't jam.

Perhaps we need to collect more data on the use of large clips, but that leads to one of the other false statements - "The data is in and gun laws don't work."

No, the data is not in. Not only is the data not it, we can't even do a great job of collecting the data because Congress won't even allow a central database of gun transactions which not only affects what you can figure out statistically, but slows down crime-fighting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We do have data on what Australia did, and that sounds pretty promising, but if you want something more permissible than that, it might make sense to quit pushing so hard against any attempts at gun responsibility, including closing the gun show loophole.

"Well his guns were purchased legally anyway. You couldn't have stopped it."

Some of it comes from this focus that we have on school shootings. The emotions run high when this happens, so maybe that's why it's harder for people to think realistically, and the refrain becomes "If they are really determined, you can't stop them." (Except, of course, with a good guy with a gun.)

This thinking is wrong. First of all, sometimes you can stop a lot. I recently read about a bookkeeper in a Georgia elementary school who talked a gunman into giving himself up. She did this not by threatening him but by showing love.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/us/georgia-school-gunshots/

Perhaps he just wasn't that determined, but a lot of people aren't really that determined to kill someone. When two brothers, or an uncle and a cousin, get into a dispute over the holidays, no one came planning on a death. Yes, the alcohol was a factor, but it is easier to take guns away from family gatherings than alcohol.

It is a factor in suicides too. People think that if someone is really bent on taking their life, you can't stop them. Actually, you often can. If you can stop the attempt, or the attempt fails, that is often enough to get them through. Attempts with guns don't fail often enough.

I don't think the popcorn shooter was planning on killing anyone at the theater. I guess you could say he was determined to be macho, and not let anyone push him around, and the natural result of that is that eventually he is going to kill someone. That explains George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn too, but if the natural result of easy access to guns and our current society is additional violence and grieving families, I think we need to reconsider.

I will tell you the natural result of some of my frustrations. Trayvon Martin's death, and Zimmerman's acquittal, hit me hard, and I have written about that, and ALEC, at times. Another thing that has been going on has been the attempt to deny more people their votes. Some of the laws focused on IDs, making many forms of identification that are perfectly reasonable unacceptable, but concealed weapons permits were still going to be okay.

In my angry mind, I was thinking that every person of color, male and female, should line up for concealed weapons permits, and let that put the fear of God (and man) in the minds of the people who think Stand Your Ground is a good idea.

The problem with that is that it will be even more shootings. I have a friend who would always say that "An armed society is a polite society." That sounds good; I see no proof that it's true.

I suppose people could still get the permits and not carry guns, but it is still creating a more fear-ridden, trigger-happy society that perpetuates ugly stereotypes. It's still not the answer.

There totally is a lot that can be said about how our society runs, in terms of the strength of the economy and the safety net, and how that affects how many people are in distress and despair, and how we treat the mentally ill, and racism, and all of those factors.

We can't have good discussions if we get hung up on lies, and we shouldn't get hung up on lies that fall apart so easily.

Related posts:

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/12/talking-about-guns.html

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2013/07/preparing-to-take-life.html

Art, artists, and us

Seeing chatter about the Oscars, I realized that I am really disconnected from movies right now, which probably does not bode well for me making it as a screenwriter. That is something I am going to have to deal with.

One question that came up recently with Dylan Farrow's open letter is to what extent we consider the personal life of the artist in our appreciation of the art. I am not a huge Woody Allen fan. I loved Midnight in Paris, and I thought Scoop had some good bits but was too loose, but those are all I have seen and that is without a lot of regrets. So, I could boycott Allen pretty easily, but I'm not sure that's the answer.

I have had this conversation with myself before, and I had come to the conclusion that if someone who was a bad person created some beautiful art, then that could be their big contribution and maybe it's really unfair to shun it. Of course, when I had that thought, it was about Romantic composers with messy personal lives. It was something far past, and not quite as repugnant.

One thing about the distance is that some things are more understandable. It is more understandable that George Washington had slaves, and more courageous that William Lloyd Garrison spoke out against slavery, in their respective time periods. In one of the Allen articles someone had mentioned Orff being a Nazi, which is not a great example and it is a complicated story, so we admire his friend Kurt Huber, and the other people in the White Rose movement more, but still, Orff is not automatically a monster, and even if he were definitely a full-fledged Nazi, I might still feel that was a natural result of his time and place, and still listen to Carmina Burana.

My problem, I suppose, is that if prominent director were found to be funding a Skinhead group or keeping slaves now, I believe that would kill the career pretty definitively. If someone proves me wrong, that will be very disappointing. However, we already have a director who definitely did rape a child, and people still work with him and admire him and don't want him in jail.

I read something interesting today. Nicholas Kristof has taken some flack both for publishing the letter, and for putting a disclaimer with it that we can't know that it is true. I was not bothered by the disclaimer, because I believe that is a mark of the paper's legal department. As such it feels reasonable, and it never occurred to me that he didn't believe her or didn't think his readers should believe her.

One of his critics is Janet Maslin, and in addition to a remarkably poorly-reasoned and offensive suggestion that the letter was inspired by sibling rivalry, she refers to Allen going through a dark period and that he "managed to rehabilitate himself through his work".

(I am taking this from a Gawker piece at http://gawker.com/times-critic-blasts-nick-kristof-says-dylan-farrow-wan-1527880499.)

That sounds an awful lot like she believes the abuse happened, but she doesn't think we should be making an issue of it. It might not bother me so much if that wasn't a feeling that I got over and over again. It's not really that the victim isn't believed, but we don't want to have to deal with it. He gets to do what he wants. If we can find a way to make it seem like you deserved it, we will; otherwise you are crazy and confused.

It goes along with something else I had read recently that disturbed me. The original post was an update from the mother of a girl who had been raped, and was being harassed for it, and she had attempted suicide. She was doing better, but was staying offline so she could heal, and that was completely understandable. What stung was that in the comments one woman wrote that this was why she had not reported her rape, and that she was glad she hadn't.

That's the thing we still haven't gotten right. We will still make a rape victim testify even though her rapist is already never getting out of jail because of murder charges. Not let her get her day in court because it's important to her, but make her because it's important to the prosecutor. We will still throw an unstable rape victim into jail when the prosecution finds her unreliable, while the person who set her up to be raped gets reduced charges for his cooperation with the prosecution. A judge will still base his sentencing on the girl looking older. (And her suicide attempt was successful.) And I could go on.

If we were not like that, maybe it wouldn't matter if Woody Allen still had a career. As it is, there is an overwhelming concern about smearing an innocent person. Well, that's fine, except over and over we see that the rate of false reporting on rape is about three percent, the same rate for most crimes. In contrast, the rate of successful prosecution of reported rapes is also about three percent. That's the number we should be concerned about.

I have no memory of the original charges. I think based on the timeline, it happened while I was on my mission, so I wouldn't have heard. When people found Woody Allen creepy, I thought it was just because of Soon-Yi. That was creepy, but even then the creepiness was minimized, because he was not biologically her father, and she didn't have his last name, and I knew nothing about grooming at the time.

I don't think I can watch Woody Allen films anymore.