Fear the Walking Dead brings the horror

Fear the Walking Dead delivers some real horror this time around. I'm was impressed by this episode.

The scariest parts of TWD are always the ones dealing with real people, not zombies. the fear, the distrust of strangers is a powerful motivator for Rick and his crew. You simply can't be too careful. Hence, the famous three questions everyone gets asked.

FTWD did a great job tonight of creating some interesting, disturbing characters who could certainly become a problem for our protagonists. First up, what's up with our man Daniel? we learn a lot more about him in this episode, and very little of it is good. Turns out, back in El Salvador, he wasn't only on the receiving end of the torture he had alluded to before. Apparently, he's kind of an expert at causing suffering, and seems very anxious to practice his skills on his daughter's soldier boyfriend.

Then there is the mysterious man in the holding cell, the one that "saves" Nick, the one that reduces another man to an hysterical, blubbering mass using only his words. This strange fellow is tall and well-spoken, and something about the way he dresses and uses his hands suggests he's a magician or a con artist. When Nick thanks him for bribing a guard who was going to remove him from the holding cell, he says, "I didn't save you, I obligated you. There's a difference." then he goes on to give a brilliantly succinct explanation of how the rules of the game have changed. The "frequent fliers" have lost, and will now by a "buffet" for men like himself. He's obviously a bad dude, but at the same time, he seems like someone you want to have on your side during a zombie apocalypse.

Travis has his own run in with a potentially evil character. The Army Sergeant, who up till now has seemed cold and uncaring, but relatively reasonable, starts to get aggressive when Travis demands to know where his friends have been taken. the Sergeant Dickhead's form of torture (sensing Travis's pacifism, no doubt) is to try to force him to shoot a walker. The other soldier's are creeped out, clearing sensing that this man is going off the rails. As it happens, after fending off a zombie attack, Sergeant Dickhead doesn't make it back to the humvee. Funny thing, huh?

what's happening is that things are falling apart. It's the part of the apocalypse where people still think they can be saved, but it's transitioning to the part where only those who realize they are on their own, and are repsonsible for their own survival, have a chance to make it. They are the strong, the one's not afraid to get their hands dirty. As cruel as Daniel is, as sick as his actions are, we find out at the end that he was right. The soldiers have been holding a terrible secret from the civilians they were supposed to protect. It's every man and woman for themselves. Things are about to get ugly.

American Sniper: Myth and Movie

The Chris Kyle portrayed in the movie American Sniper is a patriot and man of great loyalty. He is also a man who lacks imagination and empathy. Sure, he cares for his fellow soldiers. He genuinely loves "God, country, and family" above all else, but he never seems to be able to reconcile all these good qualities with his own nature. He seems unaware of his own darkness.

It's not easy to reconcile the light and dark sometimes. There's the Navy Seal with more confirmed kills than any other sniper in American history. There's the Chris Kyle who spent a lot of time after the war away from his family, drinking and brawling in bars. The guy who wrote in his memoir of the war that he was ready to "answer to God for every shot I ever took." The guy who admitted shooting a woman and more than one boy during the invasion of Iraq but whose only regret was that he couldn't save more of the "good guys," by which he means Americans. The guy who wrote in his book that all Iraqis were "savages" and that he "couldn't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis.”

Having read the first couple of chapters of Kyle's book, I can tell you that Clint Eastwood and his screen writer have taken a story told in a pretty basic, uncritical way, where every event is cast in black or white, and made out of that a pretty nuanced movie. Sure, it might seem like propaganda at first. The old-school "God and country" philosophy is laid on pretty thick, and Kyle seems to believe his own bullshit when he tells his new wife that nothing bad will happen to him in the war. He truly seems to believe that he cannot be killed. I sort of envy the guy.

But what I can't reconcile is how he says his time fighting in Iraq was "fun" and how he'd do it all over again if his family didn't need him. Fun? War is fun? I can only assume he is masking his true feelings here. I've never heard a sane person describe war as fun. Hell on earth, sure. Awful. Terrible. Soul-rending, but never fun. kinda makes you wonder.

But maybe it's more of the braggadocio he talks in the book. The kind the  character displays in the movie, when one of his comrades is shot through the eye. The gist of it is, You're gonna be alright, buddy! You have nothing to worry about! Never admitting the possibility that his friend might be dying. Maybe this was his magic thinking. His talisman. Never admit defeat, never even consider it. And never, ever admit to your own mortality.

When another friend is killed in an ambush, one of his last letters is read at the funeral. The movie's version of Chris Kyle says to his wife that it wasn't the ambush that killed him but the letter; the letter because it admitted doubt and fear, and a feeling of horror at all that is happening in Iraq, to the American soldiers, to the country, to the writer's own soul.

*********************************************************************************

Recently, Seth Rogen created a stir when he tweeted that the third act of American Sniper reminded him of the fictional pro-Nazi movie from Inglorious Basterds's third act. I admit the same thought crossed my mind, as I watched Kyle take on seemingly endless waves of Iraqi insurgents. However, the huge difference, and what makes Eastwood's movie a work of art and not merely a piece of propaganda (could it be a little of both?), is that following that scene, we find Kyle breaking down, crying, calling his wife and saying that he's "ready to go home." He has finally reached the end of himself, his invisible armor has been penetrated, and he can finally admit he needs help, that he is, in a word, human.

This moment, and several other nuanced ones throughout the film, elevate it from its source material.

Sons of Anarchy - Enough Already (Season 7: Episode 5)

anyone else tired of watching Jax Teller play the white Messiah? Of getting out of deadly scrapes with his Odysseus-level cunning and brilliant strategies? Of smirking his way through death and betrayal and psychopathic behavior? of always making excuses for his own murderous, black heart?

there, I got that out of my system...

but, seriously, at what point in his wheeling and dealing with every notorious gang leader and Fed in California, yet somehow always mastering them all, just start to seem unrealistic? Sure, i got the first three seasons. Jax is searching -- for answers, for direction, for a father. the club's retribution against corrupt cops and Feds seemed justified. we could buy that the club would be one step ahead, but that's because they had the support of a community, of decent people who just wanted to live their own lives. They had reason on their side; it made for a powerful motivation. Ever since that crazy shit in Ireland and Jax's sinking into the darkest parts of his heritage: gun trading, prostitution and betrayal.

it's interesting in season 7 to watch Jax (disingenuously) beg for his life in front of the Asian gang leaders. they should have their fucking heads examined, even listening to this guy. what interesting about it is the parallel with the scene where his mother begs for her life later in the episode. the two of them are so similar. it's obvious that Jax has not gone the way of his father, questioning himself, doubting and searching. He has become like his mother: doing whatever he needs to do to come out on top. Whether it's betraying long-time friends, hiding the truth from his club brothers or orchestrating any number of murders to feed his own revenge fantasy -- this guy seriously needs a wake up call. take a look in the mirror, brother. you have become what you hated.

maybe it's teh point of Kurt Sutter's epic to watch the young, swaggering and hopeful Jax become such a hardened and duplicitous creature. how can any of his "brothers" trust him at this point? isn't it obvious that he holds no one dear, no one is safe, save maybe his children?

all of this is to build up to the final confrontation with his mother, the dark witch of Charming, CA. the only other player on this stage who is on his level (forget the machinations of gangsters and entire departments of the federal government, they can't even compete). she is the only one who can take him down, or vice versa. It should be interesting.

On Football and Men

This is an interesting time for American Football. The various NFL players who have been accused or indicted on charges of violent crimes seems to have given birth to a national dialogue on such important issues as domestic violence, child abuse and rape. The faces of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are everywhere in the media now, and a dialogue has ensued about whether or not they should even be allowed to play football. Underneath that mundane dialogue is another, far more interesting, one about what kind of behavior we as a society are willing to accept from men.

Thanks to my daughter’s tutelage, I started learning how to use Twitter over the weekend. I had never had an account before, or at least one I used. I started by following some of my favorite funny people like Steve Colbert and Seth Meyers. Pretty soon, I got caught up in the two big football controversies currently raging. It was interesting to see people’s reactions and arguments and how they escalated. A lot of folks come from a place of outrage over these issues and I get that: a man knocking out his fiancee with a punch is disgusting. looking at the bloody welts on a 4 year old boy’s legs is certainly no fun, especially knowing they were put there intentionally by his father.

Trying to understand the motivations of Adrian Peterson isn’t really that hard. Looking at pictures of him on the internet, you can see that he’s a disciplined and committed athlete. He’s also, apparently, a religious man, who quotes Bible verses and has even started a charity. It appears he beat his son with a switch (a branch from a young tree for those of you not from the South). While he admits he may have overdone it a bit in a text to the boy’s mother, the reason had to do with the boy being disrespectful to a sibling and maybe stubborn about apologizing. He states in the text that the mother should be proud, because the boy “didn’t cry. He’s tough as nails.”

It’s fairly obvious why being “tough as nails” would be important to an NFL running back, whose game routine is to take hits from 200-300 pound men while attempting a touchdown. It’s obvious that we as a society value that kind of toughness, on and off the field. Is our tendency to react so strongly to such cases because we don’t want to face our own involvement in the cult of the athlete and other “tough guys”?

We want men who are tough as nails, nearly invulnerable on the field and in the boardroom, maybe even in the bedroom. We want gladiators who risk injury or worse for our entertainment. And we want role models who value right and wrong, God and country. We want this, yet we haven't really had the conversation about what effect it might have on our boys. About whether there's a downside to how we view masculinity. As we change the way in which we expect men to relate to women and children, we may have to change some of the other values associated with sports stars. And we may have to look within ourselves as well as at our celebrities. 

While it’s great that we’re talking about these sensitive issues, let’s dig a little deeper than we have. Let’s look at our own history: the way we raise children, our religious traditions of “spare the rod, spoil the child”, of sending young men (boys, really) off to war at the age of 18, of valuing strength over sensitivity when it comes to men. Let’s forgo the backlash and talk about how we can help a man like Adrian Peterson learn how to discipline his children without violence.

What Ever Happened to Common Sense?

Where did it go? Why did it leave? And can it please, please come back?

Simple concepts like working at something to get better at it. the idea that a person is responsible for their own actions. That the adults should be in charge of things, not the children.

Please don't think this is some call to go back to the "good old days". It's no such thing. There never were any good old days. But while society has evolved (at least in America) to be more tolerant, I feel like we have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

The culture I live in is heavily politicized and dissected. Everything is broken down into its parts. Getting from A to B has been replaced by the study of getting from A to B. When confronted with a challenge, people tend to think: am I allowed to do this? what kind of degree is required?

Engaging in the world directly and with a sense of accomplishment has been lost for many of us. And we are hurting for it. We lack that sense of getting things done, of figuring things out for ourselves. Instead we ask permission. We think, shouldn't the government be taking care of this?

But so much of the joy of accomplishment is getting through the tough parts, learning the ropes, as they say.

I see it everyday at work. Teachers in a public school will sit at their computers waiting for me to come and show them how to do a simple task, or fix some "problem" that usually they could have fixed for themselves, had they had the will, or more patience, or greater curiosity. the computer is seen as a machine that does certain things for them, not as an extension of themselves and their own exploration of the world. instead, they see it as a "press this button, get this result" kind of thing. Hence, their frustration when the machine doesn't function the same way every time. I guess this is a product of a consumer culture based on the precepts of the industrial age.

The idea of doing something and getting a certain result unfailingly is a kind of post-industrial dream. Of course, what is needed is people who are not afraid to experiment and fail as they learn. Failing and trying again are essential parts of learning. Anyone who has successfully achieved mastery of a skill will tell you that. You simply can't be afraid all the time, whether it's fixing your brakes or doing your own taxes. You have to be able to dust yourself off and start over again.

The difference between book learning and knowledge based on experience should be obvious, but it isn't always. I work in IT and I deal with network admins all the time. Most of them have information systems degrees and that tends to make them feel they have the answers, but sometimes a problem is simple and a simple mental troubleshooting list will have it cleared up in no time. When you approach a challenge by thinking about how it should look, you often fail to see how it actually looks in real time.

I give these examples to illustrate the problems with the way we are thinking about problems. Here's a breakdown:

1. We tend to ask ourselves if we have permission to be working with this problem instead of having the confidence to face things head on.

2. we dissect and attempt to fit the problem into a preconceived model instead of starting from the problem ( the inside) and then working our way out.

3. we misread the problem based on bias.

more to come...

Star Trek: The Next Generation series review

Herein lies my effort to rewatch and blog about one of  the greatest science fiction series of all time: Star Treck: The Next Generation.



No doubt the show was, for me, my first intellectual stimulant. True, mine was a particularly  dry environment, but I think I speak for a lot of people when I say TNG was at times pretty mind-blowing. Entities existing outside of our three-dimensional reality, questions about alien societies that made us think about our own, time travel and that awesome holodeck... Oh, the holodeck!

Another One Bites the Dust

"We hope Qhadafhi will be killed or captured soon so that you don't have to fear him anymore." -- Hillary Clinton

When talking about the "new" style of totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt said, "...terror is no longer used as a means to frighten and exterminate opponents, but as an instrument to rule masses of people who are perfectly obedient."

What we see happening in Libya now is the end of the old style of totalitarianism, where one man rises through the ranks to rule with an iron fist and an example of the new kind of global totalitarianism, where powerful Western nations police the "third world" and make political choices for the weaker nations, while keeping their own people subjugated through terror. The neo-Cons most blatantly did this with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. They did it with orange threat levels read over the radio daily, along with the weather and UV index. We saw it when our troops found the once dangerous Saddam Hussein (we helped it become dangerous) buried up to his neck in a ditch in back of his family home. And in his televised hanging. And today we saw it recorded on a cell phone, as the bloody body of the leader of Libya for over 40 years, Muammar Gaddafi, was beaten and possibly shot in the head. The UN is investigating.

Okay, Gaddafi was a bad guy, one of the worst. He oppressed masses of his own people. He may have used chemical weapons on them (I'm still researching). Like Hussein, he was a glorified gangster who killed people routinely. He was also almost certainly very nasty to women and fathered this douchebag (hey, what's he doing talking to Hillary Clinton, huh?).

He financed all of this by selling oil to Saudi Arabia, not really know for their strong history of civil rights. Of course Saudi Arabia sells oil to, uh, well if I'm not mistaken, US the United States of America. So, I guess that means oil taken from Libya (sold by an oppressive regime run by a sociopath, then sold to the Saudi gang, then sold to us) ends up in our cars. That means we've been involved, however peripherally, in Gaddafi's oppression.

Certainly, our government and industries have been involved in the Middle East for decades. For better or worse. We pay the consequences of that involvement. One interesting fact is knowing where Gaddafi's guns and bombs and tear gas came from. In this case, the answer is: Europe. Private companies in Italy, France and the UK sold lots of weapons to Gaddafi over the years. Ah, the never-ending intricacies of the Military Industrial Complex.

To paraphrase Charlie Chaplin, death to dictators and all those who make themselves strong at the expense of others.