Author: Tom Fitzpatrick

Life

By on

I bought a cat toy from my Facebook feed. It was stupid of me. I realize that now but the toy looked like the answer to the clawing of our furniture which was happening at a prodigious pace and leaving it tattered. I had to do something, anything, to try and stop the carnage.

Unfortunately since this purchase, cat toy ads have flooded my Facebook feed. It seems like every other post on my Facebook feed is a cat toy that will end furniture scratching.

I should have known that Mark Zuckerberg and his minions would see this and try to take advantage of my weakness for cats to buy even more cat toys.

I can live with this but what I find interesting is that, as marketing device, this seems a bit badly timed. I just bought a cat toy. Why would I be in the market to buy another cat toy so soon after this purchase. Wouldn’t it be wiser to wait for a month or two before flooding me with ads?

Added to my confusion is the company where I bought my cat toy sent me an email advising me that while my cats will love their new toy but that they would be even happier if I bought another toy which compliments the one I already bought. They even delayed sending me the toy so I could consider their offer. WTF.

I felt like cancelling my order and living with the tattered furniture.

By on

I have to confess I enjoyed the TV series — Reacher. The big man is fun to watch as he fearlessly takes on all comers and, no matter how outnumbered he is, he always comes out on top — usually after killing a shit load of people. He is tough, he is rule breaker, he is smart, he is cool, he disrespects all authority figures, he speaks softly and carries a big stick. He is everything we imagine our macho men should be. So not terribly realistic but, come on, it can be good television.

Since I liked Reacher, I was willing to take a chance on Neagley. Neagley was a member of Reacher’s crew but now works as a private detective in Chicago. I was skeptical whether Neagley was strong enough character for her own series. She was a good second banana to Reacher but her own show, I don’t know. I needed to be convinced.

Surprisingly the best part of the show is the character of Neagley. Maria Sten does an excellent job of making Neagley a believable but damaged character. The show delves into her tough cold exterior and tries to understand how she got the way. A good portion of the the series involves her trying to figure out why she doesn’t like to be touched. The show also connects her investigation of the death of a friend to her own personal trauma.

Neagley gathers a band of renegades to help her investigate the cult her friend was involved in. All seem foolishly willing to risk their lives trying to get to the bottom of her friend’s death and their back stories are interesting enough to keep me watching. Then, inexplicably, the show goes into a killing spree that defies believe.

It isn’t so much that people are killing and getting killed that is to be expected in a detective show. It is the volume of people engaged in both that becomes a cause for disbelief.

Spoiler Alert: Almost every lead character and important supporting character gets to kill someone at some point. And, even those who are new to murder, take to it with relish by the end. Give them a gun, take them to a shoot out and their guns are blazing away without nary a thought. And so many of the murders happen in front of room full of people. One man is shot in a room full of policeman, the cult members stone one of their leaders at a cult meeting of about 30 people, and a billionaire murders his lackey in front of his staff. No one seems to be much bothered by it.

Supporting characters left and right just remove the bodies. The idea that the leaders of the cult would be OK with testing drugs on their fellow cult members and when these drugs turned deadly, which happened quite frequently, they chopped up the dead bodies, put them into bags and disposed of the evidence. Really? No one thought this was a bad idea. I find that difficult to believe.

Then the Swedish businessman who was paying for the dangerous drug to be tested on these poor cult members decides there is too many witnesses to the cult killings. He decides to kill the entire cult to cover up his excesses. Except he has to hire a para-military group to do the massacre. Isn’t he creating even more witnesses? It just is so unbelievable. There is too many conspirators and too many victims to make this believable.

The villains are all caricatures of villains — the crazy cult leader who sleeps with all the women in the cult and then rubs the cuckold’s nose with their wife’s infidelities, the businessman who cares so much about money that he is willing to kill an entire cult if it stands in his way and a business lackey, so lacking in morals and too willing to please his boss, who incorporates murder into his plans in order to get his product developed. Huh?

You might give it a gander but what started out as a fairly serious investigation of trauma and a person trying to overcome it turns into a cartoonish pile of bodies with villains who twirl their mustaches.

By on

Execution is a solemn occasion. We, and I use the word we here because the state is acting on our behalf, only carry out this sentence for the most extreme crimes after a jury of 12 people review the facts in the case. It is a grave matter to decide that taking a man’s life is a just sentence. When all is said and done a human being is dying. It is sad if only that the murderer found himself making profoundly stupid decisions that he could have easily avoided.

The glee with which Pete Hegseth takes in executing a man is disturbing. It certainly isn’t solemn, it is more like won’t it be cool to kill a man on live television. Maybe he could wear a white shirt so we can see where the bullets He is behaving like a 12 year old with a brand new BB gun who wants to kill, well, anything. He clearly misunderstands the gravity of taking a man’s life.

Holding public office requires an understanding of polite behavior. He may think it is all fun and games in private. That is his business. In public, however, he is a cabinet secretary of the U.S. government. He serves the people of this country and a certain amount of decorum is required to serve in this position. Either he is so arrogant to not care about how a cabinet secretary should behave when faced with such a situation or he is incredibly stupid.

I wish I could say he was just an asshole but I am inclined to believe he is really a stupid asshole although I am debating which puts us in a worse position. Malicious or clueless. Neither one is particularly helpful at this time.

Sometimes when I think the fate of the world is in the hands of people of such character as Trump and Hegseth my mind boggles.  This is one of those occasions.  

By on

Tropical storm Rachel blew through southern California with nary a problem for the folks who live here. Much to the disappointment of every weatherperson in the region who were ginning this up to be a potential disaster of catastrophic proportions. Of course, nobody really believed them and everyone pretty much carried on like they would on any other day.

This is a problem that I would think people involved with journalism might consider more seriously. And weather reports are the perfect place to start because they aren’t political. It’s weather. If there is anything we, as a nation, might agree upon it is the weather. We don’t like bad weather because it makes our lives more difficult and we like good weather because it makes our lives easier. Sure, there a few curmudgeons who might disagree but, by and large, I think weather is one of the few topics in which most people can find agreement.

Back to tropical storm Rachel.What occurred? A pretty mild rainstorm which I had to go out into twice and managed quite nicely. Most everyone I know had the same experience. The ground is barely wet 24 hours afterwards.

Now, you might think why am I making such a big deal about this? Isn’t this good news? Because I, and about everyone else in the region, basically ignored all the warnings and did whatever it is we wanted to do which is fine. Until it isn’t.

And sometimes it isn’t. I was visiting my family back in Kansas City one Christmas and the weather report was telling people a blizzard was coming. I asked my sister, who lives there, for her advice and she said something to the effect that they are always saying there is a blizzard and it never happens, so I went out in it. It was an actual blizzard and I dangerously traversed miles across the city in order to reach my destination. I was so shaken when I arrived, I had to have two martinis to calm my nerves. Two martinis.

Now you might say it was my own damn fault for listening to my sister. There is a certain truth to that and I will consider that now every time I seek weather report information from her. But, and this is important, she had numerous experiences that proved her right. If they call a blizzard and it never happens, you get kind of used to it not being a blizzard and ignoring the warnings. And, if you are right 9 out 10 times, why wouldn’t you?

So when the media is screaming about the dangers of AI, I shrug my shoulders and carry on like nothing is going to happen. I might be wrong but I have lived through similar scares. Anybody remember Y2K? The world was supposed to end on January 1, 2000 because the computer systems of the world weren’t programmed for years after 1999. Planes were supposed to come crashing down, bank accounts were going to be inaccessible, the world was going to end.

It didn’t. It wasn’t even memorable. It came and went without even a whimper. So, pardon my sangfroid, but I am finding it difficult to get worked up about AI taking over the world. Not because it isn’t important but because experts are wrong about what is going to happen. They are wrong a lot in fact.

But this doesn’t matter to the media who love nothing more than a potential crisis to whip up headlines and panic and more headlines because people are now panicked because the media told them to be panicked. Now the media could couch these discussions in a reasonable debate between people but who would watch a reasonable debate. They want yelling, they want over talking, they want chairs flying onto the debaters, they want to provide their viewers with good television and not necessarily accurate information with which to make reasonable decisions.

In other words, nobody much believes the media any longer because the media’s main job is to attract viewers and not to inform their audience with dry facts and reasoned arguments. This is a big problem.

By on

I have to give Donald Trump credit for one thing — I am a much better citizen than I was in 2016. Before that, I paid attention to elections to the extent that I read the newspapers and made my decisions based on what I learned. But that was pretty much it. I didn’t worry much about Republicans winning elections. I may have been a little disappointed but that was the extent of my feelings. Life went on and, more importantly, democracy went on without getting much more input from me.

Now I pay attention. I think maybe I pay too much attention. I have to review every poll for every Senate race to see who is ahead. I know the candidates for every close Senate race in the country. Ask me this 20 years ago and I would be hard pressed to supply this information.

This isn’t a bad thing. Trump may be our punishment for taking democracy for granted. Thinking that all I had to do is just show up every election and everything would be find. I realize there are people who should just not hold office and I need to pay attention better which isn’t a bad lesson to learn.

But is is also driving me a bit crazy. Compulsive reading of poll numbers isn’t exactly easing my mind. I wonder. Are these correct? Polls have been wrong in the past, what if these are wrong now? How are we going to get through another couple years of the mad man Trump?

It is making me anxious and my anxiety can’t be quelled by thinking the Democrats look good and might win. Because, then, I start thinking about what revenge will Trump take on the country then.

So, at least until November 4, I will be anxious. Forgive me ahead of time if I am cranky for the next month or so.

By on

I have a problem with historical dramas. There always come some point in the story when I realize this is speculation on part of the writers. it may be true but it could just as easily be false. There is no way of knowing because the characters are long dead and aren’t able to confirm or deny the speculation.

I also get that the writers have to speculate some as these historical figures didn’t live 24/7/365 in front of the public. Speculation about a conversation between a wife and husband might have to happen in order for the drama to make sense. Most of the time, the writers try to give a best guess based on the historical information they have. It may be difficult to confirm whether the actual conversation happened as told but it makes sense in the context of what happened in history.

Then there is Ryan Murphy, the creator of American Horror Story and the Monster series. His latest story is about Lizzie Borden — a woman who lived in the late 19th century and is suspected of killing her parents. Murphy and his team go well beyond speculation in their portrait of the infamous Lizzy Borden. They wander from speculation into mostly fiction and complete fantasy, leaving the audience with no real idea what happened to Andrew and Abby Borden — other than they were killed.

Here are some of the problems:

  1. Lizzie, at the time of her parent’s murder, was 32 years old and not this post adolescence naif that Ella Beatty plays in the show.
  2. Andrew and Abby Borden were in the early 60’s to late 70’s which I could have lived with except the implication is that this middle aged couple in the television show were engaged in numerous sexual trysts that don’t really make sense for their age. Andrew is chasing and catching every maid and Abby is seducing Andrew’s brother-in-law. There is no evidence that any of these sexual liasons ever occurred.
  3. Andrew impregnated Maggie and he pays her to abort the child.
  4. Lizzie had a lesbian affair with Maggie Sullivan, the Borden’s maid which is speculation and might be a plausible explanation for the killings but this speculation isn’t grounded in any facts.
  5. Lizzie and Maggie are implicated in another murder. There is no evidence that they were involved.
  6. Murphy’s team doesn’t even try to explain one of the more interesting events of the murder — the hour and half between Abby’s death and Andrew’s death. They even go as far as to have Andrew visiting a whore the night before and just arriving home from his tryst to meet his fate. This is complete fantasy.
  7. Lizzie didn’t met Nance O’Neal until well after Lizzie’s trial so could not have coached Lizzie on how to behave at her trial.
  8. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Lizzie and Maggie were prominent in the suffragette movement.
  9. It is a bit disburbing to paint Lizzie as this feminist icon when her big claim to fame, as portrayed by Murphy, is killing her parents for the sin of being mean to her. Yes that is why Lizzie took an axe to her parent. They were mean to her.

There is too much speculation and fantasy to have any relevance to understand what happened to the Borden family which I would think is the whole point of calling it Monster: Lizzie Borden. Yes, maybe there is some speculation but a show that purports to explain what happened should at least come close to the truth.

Murphy has created an account of a Lizzie Borden like character but not Lizzie Borden.

By on

First, I think the strong positions people are taking before all the facts are know is interesting. The whole point of an investigation is to uncover the facts and come to a conclusion about how best to resolve the manner. This isn’t happening. People are already taking positions based on the accusations made. I am assuming I don’t have all the facts, to take a position is premature.

The woman in the case feels wronged and she has a burden to prove her case. What facts we do have reveal a messy situation. Drugs, alcohol and sex. But this is precisely why a court should intervene. It is messy.

Something happened though and it is worth investigating.

What I find irritating is the tears shed for the men involved. Miranda Devine, in the New York Post, writes: “The young men made bad choices, too, and I would be ashamed to have sons who behaved that way. But they were just as young and just as out of it as she was and don’t deserve to have their lives ruined if the evidence shows they committed no crime. As far as ruining the young men’s lives involved, though, I don’t know what to say.”

If a woman has to be cautious about how she behaves at a Frat Party, then the same applies for the men. Men need to be aware that women may object to these maneuvers to get them into bed and, because times have changed, these grievances may end up in court. This is where we are with the Cornell case.

I would also argue that these are questions worth pursuing and the courts are best place for their resolution.

Why did these men offer an already drunk woman even more intoxicating substances if not to make her more pliable to their sexual advances? By making her even more incapacitated, they were making the woman even less capable of making a reasonable decision. She wasn’t asking for more drugs and drinks, so why were the encouraging her to get even more inebriated? This seems like a line of inquiry worth pursuing.

But men have been doing this for thousands of years, it is all part of the seduction process — a woman has to be aware when given alcohol or drugs. This is hardly a defense of the young men. Making a person so inebriated they will do anything you want, doesn’t sound like a benign seduction maneuver here. They should have to explain their intentions here.

Then there is the message from one of the men to the rest of his fraternity to come join him for free pussy. Two questions here. Did the woman ask him to offer her up for sexual use? If not, why did he think she was offering it up? Again, this doesn’t seem like some benign action from a nice guy. It sounds very much like he was offering her up to be sexually used by the rest of the fraternity without her consultation.

But she put herself in that position. She did.

And the young men put themselves in the position of wanting sex so badly that they behaved badly in order to pursue this end. They now find themselves in a court of law to straighten out the mess they participated in making. Given the numerous ambiguities of the case, there is a good chance that most of them will get off scot-free.

Of course, their parents and friends have learned about their capacity for bad behavior but then, let’s face it, their behavior was bad. Is it really so wrong to learn this? Discovery is the risk a person takes when they do the wrong thing. If their lives are ruined, which I doubt very much in this case, they participated in causing the ruin.

By on

Trump regrets his 3 Supreme Court nominees who now, rarely, but on occasion, vote independently of what Trump wants.

This seems to be a reoccurring problem for the President. He seems to have a problem with selecting good staff. Indeed, I can’t recall a president ever having so much trouble with his own staff.

It must be difficult to find people with tongues long enough to reach the tippy top of his intestinal wall.

By on

This Slate Advice column left me gobsmacked. This woman’s daughter-in-law left her kids at the front gate of her house expecting Grandma to take care of them while she dealt with a work emergency. The daughter-in-law called her before leaving her kids there, got no answer and just assumed she was there. She was not. She, in fact, was out of town. The woman’s neighbor, seeing two children abandoned at the front gate, called Child Protective Services who then got involved.

The son and daughter-in-law are now angry with the woman because she wasn’t at home when they needed her. The woman had gone out of town with her new boyfriend. The daughter-in-law informed her she needs to keep them apprised of her out of town visits. Her son had the nerve to say she was whoring around with wrinkly old men instead of caring for her grandchildren.

So much to say about this:

  1. The daughter-in-law didn’t know where the woman was. The woman hadn’t answered her phone. Why would the daughter-in-law assume she was there? And why would she leave her children at the gate based on this lack of information?
  2. The woman could have been in-town and not at her house. She could have been taking care of a sick friend or shopping at the mall. Does her family expect her to keep them informed of her every move? Do they expect her to give them a daily rundown of her schedule? Is she supposed to sit at her home waiting for their emergencies.
  3. I don’t think implying that your emergency babysitter is a whore is a good way to encourage her to be available at a moment’s notice. Just saying there might have been a more diplomatic approach to the discussion.
  4. The woman sounds like she is afraid that she has ruptured her son and daughter-in-law’s relationship with her. This is truly eye opening. I mean they are going to get bent out of shape with their emergency babysitter. The person who will take their children at the last minute. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Really, this is what you want to do?
  5. Getting CPS called on them was a bummer. But having their two children sitting outside Grandma’s house without any adult supervision was a mistake. The daughter-in-law made a lot of bad assumptions here and hopefully she has learned her lesson but misdirecting her anger towards her mother-in-law is unfair and unrealistic.

I think the woman should take a long vacation with her new boyfriend and see how her son does with emergency babysitters while she is gone.

By on 2 Comments

I am against capital punishment because I distrust the present judicial system. People are wrong. Systems and processes fail. You can release a person who is wrongfully imprisoned, you can’t revive the dead. I am particularly wary of convicting anyone just on circumstantial evidence. I also realize I am in the minority in the United States and capital punishment is something I have to live with.

I thought I had made my peace with the process but Christa Pike’s botched execution in Tennessee has caused me to reconsider the practice. If the state is going to execute someone, the state should, at least, be able to ensure that it is done right. Particularly worrisome is the number of botched lethal injection executions. By my count, there have been 17 lethal injection executions that have gone wrong since 2000.

And, before someone writes, at least she was treated better than her victim. That is not the point. An execution is a state sponsored action. The state owes it to its citizens to conduct itself in a humane manner. Not because the person deserves such treatment, but because this sentence is being carried out for all of us. We don’t want to engage in torture and mistreatment of any individual.

If we can’t do it right, we shouldn’t be doing it at all.