Jeb sez

According to Jeb, climate change is "convoluted."
Such thinking could derive from a mind that's polluted,
or maybe this Bush just doesn't get science
and reacts with a knee-jerk voice of defiance;
regardless, it's a 'tude major dudes have booted.

Border wall is possible - but do we want one?

Donald Trump, who continues to dominate all other Republican presidential hopefuls in the polls, has big plans for the Mexican border. Trump says, as president, he would build a wall to stop illegal immigration.

But this week CNN's Gary Tuchmann reported it would be impossible to build an impenetrable wall along the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico frontier. Tuchmann basically mocked the idea in his on-site video reportage.

That is a shockingly defeatist attitude and an utterly unrealistic claim. Of course the United States, who put men on the moon more than 40 years ago, could build such a wall. You need a template? I give you the Iron Curtain.

If you build it, they will no longer come

I traversed the Iron Curtain a handful of times back in the 1970s and I assure you that such a fearsome barrier along our border with Mexico would put an end to illegal crossings (and drastically slow lawful passage as well).

The question is whether we Americans want or believe we need a southern border that is on a permanent war footing. The Iron Curtain, perhaps a mile wide in places, was patrolled by the Red Army, including drafted Russian teens with Kalishnikovs and German shepherds. People were killed along the Iron Curtain attempting to escape communism and reach freedom. I lived half of the 1970s in Europe and I hated the Iron Curtain and its little cousin the Berlin Wall. I rejoiced when those instruments of repression were destroyed. Their demise marked a milestone of progress for Europe.

But the question remains: Do we need a modern-day Iron Curtain along our southern border? If Americans want a border wall, trust me CNN, it can be built.

"Humans" -- We can love

"Humanity isn't a condition, it is a quality" This is another poignant line of dialog in the very cool AMC original series "Humans," written by Sam Vincent and Jonathan Brackley.

And ain't it the truth? Sadly, there are far too many human beings in our world today who clearly lack or have lost their humanity. (Think: terrorists, racists, or just run of the mill bastards.) No doubt this has always been the case throughout history.

Still, most of us can empathize, can show compassion, can put the well-being of others ahead of our own needs and desires. In short, most of us can love.

Is it enough to ensure the survival of our species? That is the question. Culture accrues and civilizations come and go, but mankind has yet to achieve a communion of saints on earth, as 20th century British historian Arnold Toynbee famously noted, arguing that absent such an improbable achievement, we are likely to engender our own demise.

Clinton's 2016 camp pain?

Hillary sure figured she’d be the first female sent 

to be anointed prez, that's before her emails went

to the Feebs for a big inquiry.

Now we don't need to hack  her diary

to know Clinton is fearing a career derailment.

"Humans" -- think about it

In the AMC cable network’s original series “Humans,” one particular soulful synthetic person or “synth,” by the name of Anita (a riveting Gemma Chan), who has developed human-like consciousness, bemoans that the world will never accept her kind. To this her “owner” counters, “We are accepting you.”

Score one for diversity. It is a poignant moment in the episode. But what are the chances viewers and fans, moved as they might be by that scene, ever accept outsiders in their own lives? It would appear that synth Anita has inherited a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to homo sapiens embracing “foreigners.” Her human owner may not be quite as astute.

“Humans” is set in Great Britain. The more prosperous nations in the European Union are experiencing an historic uptick of migrants and refugees thanks to a number of global factors, including the war in Syria, standard of living disparities between certain former Soviet bloc member nations and the rest of the E.U., and a worldwide upswing of Chinese nationals seeking education and job opportunities abroad.

Of course, in America undocumented immigrants are a major issue in America. Today, the world’s disadvantaged populations increasingly know what they are missing and they know where they have to move to in order to get it.

Kudos to the creators of “Humans” for giving us food for thought about the actual state of our society wrapped in cool science fiction in the best tradition of the genre. “Humans” is thought-provoking, but also can be safely enjoyed by those who have yet to develop human-like cerebration.

Beaucoup bourbon and a horse race

Where Dan’l and Davey historically blazed and stood,
a nation’s upper crust invades the blue grass backwoods.
That “whisky gentry,” with fashionable headgear in place,
indulges in the sport of kings and ODs on the navel-gaze.

Meanwhile, a diaspora of the down and out (include me)
with little but last-minute racing form clout,
are clamoring to conjure out of a crash course
in handicapping a quick score on a fast horse.

A seedy savant eavesdrops in the betting parlor.
He chews on a pencil in the nicotine-free squalor.
An amateur, he will attempt, based on hustled tips,
the lottery of the post and divined significance
of equine noms de guerre, his own tentative trifecta.
But will he ever win? He doesn’t really expect to.

Hooray today for our 200th Star-Spangled anniversary

On this momentous occasion, do yourself a favor and check out this posting from January 2013. If you missed it the first time around you'll be glad to catch up.
Even if you did read it 20 months ago, come on, isn't worth a second read?

Jack went boating

As a rule, my fave flicks turn out to have been based on novels or plays. In the beginning was the word, if you’ll pardon the blasphemy. "Jack Goes Boating" from 2010 succeeds on this level, a tight play by Rob Glaudini adapted as a small film. It presents big issues: love and friendship amid the struggle in society.

I like the idea of Jack learning to swim. In the film it provides cinematic metaphor. Jack, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who also directed,  must strip himself of all his defenses, including his knit cap, which he clings to like a child its blanket. At the mercy of his friend, he is urged presciently to open his eyes and visualize himself under water. 

Jack is a pudgy plodder. He demonstrates a circumspect ability. He is a kind of Everyman. No Michael Phelps in the pool, no Bobby Flay in the kitchen, no Casanova in the bedroom, he forever lags yet manages to improve by dint of repetition and ardent "visualization."

Even so, Jack has difficulty making anything work. He is a slow learner in a fast-paced environment. Turns out this handicap predisposes Jack to the patience which the abused Connie needs. I love Amy Ryan as Connie. She gives her character a childlike fragility which gradually transforms into beauty as she is forced to find her steely inner self. Meanwhile, Clyde's very capacity for forgiveness is what infuriates Lucy and enables her infidelities.

As Jack and Connie gradually come together as a couple, Clyde (John Ortiz) and Lucy (Daphne Rubin-Vega) are cracking beneath the stress of their relationship. The dinner party is like the point people pass each other on a stairs, one couple going up, the other headed for the cellar.

The scenes of Jack rowing Connie around the lake in Central Park are meant to show us this is as good as it gets. By Hollywood standards, a modest payoff to be sure. Jack gets the MTA job, apparently surviving his earlier insult to the job’s gatekeeper. Still, notice the cramped room full of small desks where he has orientation. He may be moving on up, but his success is limited and the struggle ongoing.

The film is a study in ambiguity and ends on that note. Will Jack hit a wall in his relationship with Connie? Or will her guidance make it work?