Category: Uncategorized

By on

When I attended the University of Kansas in the late 1970’s, a friend who was an actor got a small role in the Peter Shaffer play Equus. Equus had several nude scenes in it and he was looking forward to blowing the minds of the people in Lawrence, Kansas. Lawrence was playing its own role here instead of a university town with a mostly cosmopolitan population, it was taking on the the role of a small Kansas town rife with closed minds about nudity. I also was taking a course in Modern Theater. The professor encouraged his students to see the play because he thought it would blow our minds. Using almost the exact words as my friend. Hmm.

Blowing the minds of the audience was very much a part of the purpose of this play. To ensure that the damage done to our minds was not so severe, there were warnings about the nudity in the play so everyone who entered the theater was prepared for the genital reveal which , at least to my mind, spoiled the whole shock value of having nudity in the play. I was waiting for it.

Then, the type of person who would wander into a student play at a University is just not your typical small town Kansan. They would be more academic, more cosmopolitan, and more open to nudity in the theater. By 1979, even in Kansas, most people who followed the arts already had seen their fair of nudity before Equus exposed them to some more. But how do you get them into theater to see the nudity? Oh, yeah, why don’t we create a little controversy and, lo and behold, it worked, the controversy brought people into the show.

This is what I think happened with Bad Bunny’s Half-time performance. It was meant to provoke a certain segment of the population. It successfully provoked them. They lost their minds as they do and started demanding all kinds of things which cause the Media to follow the controversy. This created a demand to see the show. It was a genius marketing ploy — hyping the first Spanish language performer at the Super Bowl. The buzz was great, a lot of people watched it because most people had no idea who Bad Bunny was or what they were about to see. The television advertisers got their audience, so the money they paid was well spent.

Everybody is happy — particularly, I imagine, Bad Bunny who got a lot of free press and millions of potential new customers for his music. For the vast majority of people, though, it was a meaningless experience in a life filled with meaningless experiences. But no one’s minds were seriously blown here. It will hardly be a memory in a year or two.

But you have to give credit to the the organizers of the show, they certainly showed they knew what they are doing. If you got something to sell, I certainly would recommend them. Buzz is their middle name.

By on

The ever changing explanations for Donald Trump’s release of a racist video regarding the Obamas is a bit mystifying, at least, in regards to it being helpful in understanding what actually happened. I don’t think they really matter anymore because none of them give a good impression of the Trump White House.

First the idea that someone in the White House, up to and including the President, didn’t understand that depicting the Obamas as apes was racist is just a bit more bull shit than even some of Trump’s fellow Republicans are willing to swallow. But, say I am going to let you off the hook for being racist, it doesn’t let you off the hook for being ignorant of a common racist portrayal.

Is this really how you want to frame your mistake? Trump was using the Lion King characters as a funny way to express an opinion and had no racist intentions whatsoever. Well, then, why didn’t you know this? Since this history is common knowledge, is it really a good idea to have you managing the very country that has this complicated history? What stupid mistake are you going to make next because of your ignorance? It is hardly a reassuring answer.

Oh, then Trump says he didn’t watch the whole video so he missed the part where the Obamas were depicted as apes. Well, again, why not? If something is going out with your name associated with, it might be a good idea to watch the whole video. The video wasn’t that long — a full viewing by the man in charge could have prevented this embarrassing mistake. So we have gone from ignorant of a long standing racial stereotype to my team made a mistake because I couldn’t be bothered watching the whole video but I gave my approval any way even though I didn’t really know what was on the video.

Then there is the lack of an apology. If this was genuinely an honest error, what is the problem with saying you are sorry. Trump now claims he didn’t make a mistake, someone else did because he didn’t know about the Obamas as ape section of the video. That isn’t an excuse and failing to watch the whole video is indeed a mistake. He signed off on something that he had not thoroughly vetted.

It is mistake and he needs to say he is sorry. Is it really that difficult. I am sorry and I will try to do better next time. If this was an honest error then put it behind you already. Even if you aren’t genuinely sorry. An insincere apology is better than no apology. But no, Trump refuses to apologize because he, apparently, doesn’t make mistakes. Which, I might add, is also a troubling Trump characteristic.

This leads me to believe Trump simply doesn’t care that people think he is racist. Or stupid. Or incompetent. He thinks he should be able to say whatever he wants and if people don’t like it, tough shit. Just a reminder, he is the president of the United States something he has failed to understand since taking office. Don on a barstool in the local tavern can say anything he wants. The president of the United States has to think carefully before he opens his trap and, understandably, any person who is under such public scrutiny is going to slip occasionally, when you do, all you have to do is have the grace to say I am sorry.

So, to recap, the best case scenario here, is that we have an idiot as president who is unaware of the history of the country he leads, says whatever ill-thought out words come to his mind and isn’t going to apologize even after his mistakes are pointed out to him. The worst case is we have a racist who enjoys displaying his racism even when it is unnecessary and counter-productive to what he is trying to do. The truth probably lies somewhere in between but none of them really encourage me that Trump is worthy or up to the job that he holds.

By on 1 Comment

The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.

Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.

Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?

For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?

How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.

By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?

I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?

We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.

By on

For those people, on both sides of the political divide (think Rob Reiner and Charlie Kirk), who feel the need to respond to the murder of someone you personally hated and you passionately disagreed with, try silence. I know this is difficult to understand in a world where we believe that people are waiting for our every word but it is true. You actually can choose to say nothing at all.

I realize that famous people are often asked to respond in situations like this but that doesn’t mean your response is required. This is particularly important when you don’t like the person in question. If you must say something, try: I need to gather my thoughts about this and will be issuing a statement soon. Then, for God’s sake, come up with a polite neutral statement that is vetted by a hundred or so people before releasing it to the public.

Let’s try to avoid: He was a son of a bitch and I am happy he drowned in a pool of blood. Yes, you may feel that way but you can wait a few weeks, or better still months, before actually saying it. But, please, please wait until the wound is a little less fresh. No one looks good gloating over a murdered body.

By on

Quentin Tarantino bad mouthing Paul Dano bothered me for some reason. Tarantino has every right to criticize someone’s work. It is part of the risk artist takes. Critical feedback is a gauge of how effective the artist is so I am not opposed to criticism per se. Tarantino’s criticism, however, was unnecessarily mean spirited. He sounded like he wanted to hurt Dano more than let a colleague know how to improve his work.

More worrisome is this has become the environment we live in. I disagree with you has become more than a difference in opinion or taste. If I didn’t like your performance, you didn’t get it wrong, you are a bad actor. Or a stupid person. Or an evil person. The press eggs this on because it loves a disagreement and have a gleeful willingness to spread the absolute worst thoughts that people have to their readers and viewers. So if a famous person burns another famous person, you can bet your house that there will be a reporter sticking a microphone into the burn victim’s face asking for his response. Retaliation is inevitable.

I wish I was above it all but, I have to confess, I am right in there slinging mud with the best of them. I try to be conscious about it but I fail. Almost all of the time, I fail. A simple a thing as a Trump supporter with a misspelled protest sign is enough for me to forward to Facebook and Instagram so everyone can see how Trump supporter’s are so dumb. I am laughing at one person’s mistake and implying that all Trump supporters are the same which means they all potentially are bad spellers. Uneducated and stupid, right?

The problem is that in a few minutes, I will receive a post from a someone showing a misspelled sign from a left winger. Am I supposed to make the same sweeping assumption about all left wingers based on the one left winger who can’t spell? Of course not. It is just one person’s mistake. The question, for me, then what was I hoping people would think when I sent the post about the bad spelling Trump supporters? It was unfair of me to provide this false depiction of Trump supporters.

Making fun of people is all a lot of fun when you are speaking with people who agree with you but, in the social media world we live in, we no longer have this luxury. Everyone, including the people we are making fun of, can read your thoughts and know what you really think of them. People rarely change their minds if you are calling them stupid. Yet we keep calling each other stupid. Quite loudly at that. How then can we expect people to listen?

By on 2 Comments

I don’t know why I never realized this before now but butter is absolutely the best addition a person can make to any food. The best. It can make a stale piece of bread taste delicious. Maybe there can be too much butter but I seriously doubt it. I have never had that experience. Too much pepper yes, too much salt, an emphatic yes. But butter never. Even if I don’t like the taste of something, or I think I won’t like it, I can be persuaded to try it if this thing is slathered in butter. So I have tried snails and oysters but the only reason I even attempted a taste was because of the butter.

This is an irrefutable truth.

By on

I admit I haven’t been paying much attention to the news lately but U.S. troops took over a Venezuelan oil tanker today. I am so confused.

So Putin can invade the Ukraine and act like an all around asshole, killing Ukrainian civilians this way and that, and this isn’t worth one American life while the Venezuela government, who, at worst, may be complicit in the illegal drug trade, is getting direct American military intervention.

There simply is no sense of proportion here. Putin, a nuclear armed, political opponent murdering, kleptocrat supreme, war mongering dictator has to be given at least a small bit of the country he invaded unsuccessfully to whet his appetite while Venezuela can’t even ship a legal product, oil, because it is propping up a Latin American dictatorship who, as far as I know, has made no threats against the United States or any other country for the matter.

And people in the news are talking about a shooting war with Venezuela. A fucking war with Venezuela. Over illegal drug shipments? The world’s foremost military power is going to go toe-to-toe with a military lightweight over little more than a nuisance.

I am pretty certain the reason Trump is taking action against Venezuelan oil tankers is he thinks he can win. Taking on a much weaker nation doesn’t make you look like a tough guy (see Putin and the Ukraine for further information about this). It does make you look like a bully. And it runs the risk, particularly if things don’t go according to plan, of making the U.S.A. military look bad or ineffective (see Putin and the Ukraine).

The thing is you don’t risk your reputation on something that doesn’t really matter and I’m pretty sure the Venezuelan drug trade is secondary, at best, to U.S.A.’s larger interests. But, yeah, ok, let’s invade Venezuela. Go get them boys. I certainly feel a lot safer.

By on

So I wanted to buy a book.

I avoid Amazon because I find Jeff Bezos business practices suspect, to say the least, but I needed to buy the book quickly and didn’t have it in me to try something new and Amazon is easy which is long way to go to say I had to buy a book from the horrible Jeff Bezos.

Somehow in the process of buying the Kindle book, I also bought the audio book. I didn’t want the audio book. I tried to return it. After about 15 minutes of fruitless reads of the “Help” pages. I surrendered. I would to talk to Customer Service. It took me a good few minutes to find the Customer Service phone number but I finally found the hidden icon. I was immediately informed that it would when be a half hour wait to actually talk to someone and they kindly informed that there were other avenues to get help for my problem. Do you really want to wait a half hour on hold when Chat can help you right now.

I tried Chat. I told Chat I wanted to return an audio book. Amazon had a drop down box for accidental purchase which means accidental purchases of audio books is a frequent problem. Now, I want to pause my rant to point out something this should be a red flag to whoever is in charge of their system that there is a problem with people accidentally purchasing audio books. If it happens so often that they have an actual drop down box for it means it happens a lot. But I am pretty sure that the accidental purchase of unwanted products is a benefit not a feature of their system. How much money does Amazon earn from accidental purchases from people who don’t realize they have accidentally purchases something. What a wonderful source of passive income for the company.

Anyway, I was cracking away with the Chat function when Chat told me I could only return an audio book if I paid with a credit card which was mystifying because I had paid with a credit card. Since Chat was convinced that Chat had resolved the problem Chat wouldn’t let me talk any longer about my problem. Whenever I tried to return to the subject of my accidental purchase, Chat reminded me that Chat couldn’t help because I needed to have purchased with a credit card. The matter was resolved as far as Chat was concerned. I am assuming Chat’s reluctance to discuss the matter any further was because Chat was an AI robot and not an actual person. I couldn’t change Chat’s mind because Chat didn’t have a mind to change.

I decided to wait for phone operator. It took about 20 minutes, so less than the half hour mentioned at the beginning of the call. I spoke to Mohamed who took all of one minute to resolve my problem. ONE MINUTE, I tell you. He also let me in on why I couldn’t get a refund from Chat because I needed to belong to some Audio Club to get the refund. This might explain why the system wouldn’t let me use the normal refund process. I wasn’t supposed to get one because I didn’t belong to the Audio Club. The system just lumped my accidental purchase under a general category of not buying with a credit card because that happened a lot more.

I was bothered that I shouldn’t get a refund for my accidental purchase. It was an accident after all. In a conversation that resembled a comedy show routine, Mohamed said that only club members could return audio materials but I reminded him that I accidentally purchased the audio item. Mohamed then said and that was why he was refunding my money. He just wanted me to know that, in the future, I couldn’t return audio materials. But what if I accidentally purchase it, well then Mohamed said he would refund. Which begs the question why not just use the regular Amazon return system instead of forcing me to call them and explain that I accidentally purchased an audio book.

Never mind, I am pretty sure that Mohamed didn’t understand the policy either. He was doing his job, and quite well I might add. Someone up the food chain wants customers to know that if they accidentally purchase an Audio book they aren’t supposed to get a refund unless they belong to the Audio Club. Mohamed ticked that box. He didn’t understand the policy any better than I did so he couldn’t explain the policy to me. He followed his company script and that was all that mattered.

There are several reasons for me to be irritated with this customer service encounter:

  1. A human being resolved my problem quickly and efficiently. The Chat robot and help pages were time consuming and utterly useless.
  2. Making it difficult to talk to an actual human being is unhelpful. The company is actively thwarting good customer service by giving a show of alternates that aren’t as good. I tried for a good 15 minutes to use the help pages and then tried for another 10 minutes with Chat. Neither could help me, a person could.
  3. I spent a good 45 minutes to get $5.44 back when a human being could have help me almost instantaneously. How is routing customers to ineffective tools and wasting your customer’s time helpful.
  4. I am starting to believe that this is all an intentional way for Amazon to get passive income. How many people give up trying to get a refund? Indeed I thought several times is this worth my time to get back a paltry $5.44. There were so many impediments in my way. First, I didn’t realize I had bought the audio book, then I couldn’t return it through normal return process, the “Help” pages were no help at all, Chat couldn’t help me and I had to wait 20 minutes to get a customer service agent. I am certain that there are people who would have given up and ka-ching and extra $5.44 in Jeff Bezos pockets.
  5. Why aren’t more human beings hired for customer service? Jeff Bezos is a billionaire numerous times over. Real live human beings are better customer service than all the self-help bull shit put in our way. They just are. So why not have the customer service phone prominently displayed on every page and properly staffed so a customer doesn’t have to wait long to get help.
  6. Also, and this over everything else think might matter to someone like Bezos, the whole process made me hate Amazon all the more. Yes, I will use Amazon under duress but I am willing to pay more to stop him from getting any more of money that is absolutely necessary.

Rant complete.

By on

I have to hand it to Donald Trump. He picks his targets wisely. Trans people are an infinitesimally small minority that most people don’t understand and don’t have any contact with. They are mostly an unknown, not likely to get people out into the streets. Immigrants can’t vote and are being blamed for many of the social ills that afflict the country. Their status is vulnerable because many are here illegally. Now, he has declared foreign drug smugglers as terrorists which gives the government the ability to blow them out of the water without trial. Brilliant. Trump gets to pick on two hated groups for the price of one — they are foreigners so they can’t vote and they are engaging in an illegal act so they aren’t very popular. Bingo.

Defending them is tantamount to saying I want drug smugglers importing their poison into the country. Is that what you want? It’s awkward position to have to defend but, then, defending despicable people is sometimes necessary to defend every citizen’s rights. So here goes nothing.

What is disturbing me is that I thought I understood my legal rights as a citizen. This understanding seems out of steps with what the Trump Administration believes. I thought that terrorists had the same rights as any ordinary thug. It seems like a regular old American drug dealer unloading drugs at a dock in an American city would be treated differently than the drug smugglers killed recently in the Caribbean. They should be given an opportunity to surrender and given an opportunity to explain themselves in court. Right?

As far as I can tell, they weren’t given an opportunity to surrender. Again this seems like a reasonable first step in any police action where lethal force might be used. Why kill the suspect when you can get them to surrender. But these suspects weren’t warned. This doesn’t seem like a difficult step to take. Put a helicopter in the air, have someone with a megaphone explain the situation to the trapped smugglers and give them an opportunity to surrender.

Then there is the killing. My understanding of using lethal force is that it is limited to imminent danger. Someone’s life has to be in danger now, not some person who might use the drugs a week from now. This doesn’t seem to be the case here. The U.S. Navy was in control. They didn’t ask them to surrender and there was no imminent danger to anyone until the Navy attacked the drug smugglers.

Finally, drug smuggling isn’t a capital crime. No where in the United States can anyone be executed for drug smuggling. Again, what would have happened if this had happened on U.S. soil? Also has the status of terrorists been designated to local drug dealers? Can we expect executions in the streets to ensue?

Of all the shitty things that Donald Trump has done, this, I believe, is the worst because he has undermined my notion of what my rights are. I used to be able to say with some confidence what they were. Now you can say well as long as you don’t engage in drug smuggling you are safe. For now, maybe, but this man has intimidated his way into being the final say about what the law is and how the government interprets the law. So far he has used them against unpopular and marginal targets. As I am gay and reside in a more vulnerable part of the population, I question how safe I really am. All I can say is I don’t feel particularly safe anymore.

By on

I was once discussing Social Security with a much younger colleague. She was convinced it wouldn’t be there when she got old enough to receive benefits and couldn’t understand why I was supporting a system that could be belly up at any time soon.

This recurring concern still continues to bother young people entering the work force — social security will be bankrupt by the time I retire. Why should I contribute to a failing system? My argument 30 years ago is the same one I will give young people today.

  1. If you are going to place a bet on what institutions are going to be around in 40 years, my mark goes on the U.S. Government. It has been around, as we know it, since 1789. The best estimate of businesses making it 100 years is 0.5 %.
  2. If Social Security collapses, there is a good chance that there any private businesses handling retirement accounts are also going to be in trouble as well. Hell if Social Security collapses there is a good reason to believe that there is no Federal Government, no Federal Reserve, and no law and order. So, good luck collecting on your 401K in this dire situation.
  3. My colleague, based on absolutely no evidence, thought she could invest her money better. But she wasn’t investing any money at all. She was spending every last dime to live. How she thought she was going to out invest Social Security was beyond me.

The corporate shill that encouraged me to invest in my company’s 401K advised me that retirement was a three legged stool — Social Security, 401K/pension, and savings. We needed all three in order to retire. For some reason, Social Security is seen as the weak leg of this stool is worrisome when it is the most dependable leg of the stool — just ask the 73% of retired people who depend upon social security for over half of their monthly income.