Author Archives: gonzo66

The CODES play The House of Blues in New Orleans (Again)

0
by

After Katrina, it was doubtful whether New Orleans could ever come back to its former glory. On the way from the airport, the cab driver pointed out watermarks from 2006 in residential areas that were higher than the roof of the cab. Now, six years later, convention and tourist business is thriving and the City with a Soul is back full steam.

I say City with a Soul to contrast NOLA with Las Vegas, a city with a counterfeit soul. A city built by and for gangsters; a city full of gangster chic and no place to sit in any hotel lobby unless there’s a slot machine in front of it. A city whose soul purpose is separating suckers from their cash.

New Orleans is a unique American social experience.  The area around Bourbon Street teems until the wee hours with every strata of society. A place where most of the social laws of God and Man are suspended for the purpose of conviviality.

Of course, the CODES brought down the house at the NOLA House Of blues. This was our third gig there. Total head count was 510 and they had trouble keeping up with the demand for ethanol. The audience was still going strong when we were pulled off the stage at midnight after a three hour set.

Following evening on the town, we soaked up the culture. Mimes in the middle of the street stop their act to compliment my T-Shirt. (The Dude Abides!), Live girls swing out over the sidewalk on trapezes from Bordeaus. Proper ladies in heels give high fives to biker guys. Perfect strangers greet each other with hugs like long lost relatives to a cacophony of music emitting from virtually every doorway. In the words of Paul Simon; “An atmosphere of freaky holiday”.

One street over (Royal Ave) is full of art and original mementos, including much of what you might see on “Pawn Stars”.  An autograph shop with signatures from just about everyone who’s anyone (some very expensive) from Marilyn Monroe to every President of the United States. A poster from the Godfather signed by the major cast that includes a real circa 1032) Thompson Submachine gun in the frame.

Bourbon Street is a bit like Paris. Virtually any eatery a passerby might bumble into has great good. Every other bar on either side of the street has live music of virtually any variety. Straight up jazz, Dixieland, hard rock, blues all preformed masterfully.

We bumbled from bar to bar sampling the rich texture of music (enhanced by continuous cups of “Hurricanes”). Ultimately, we ended up in a bar with an incredible set of blues musicians so far outta sight musically we were stunned. The place was packed like sardines and running about 80 decibels. I journeyed up to the bar to get (another) set of Hurricanes, and the barmaid gave me a pick on the cheek. We were all friends by implication of the situation. We were there.

The band was incredible. I managed to get just a hint of it with my iPhone before getting reminded of the no photos/video policies that all have in place.  The lead singer/guitarist mentioned between songs something about football and Tebow and that he and his wife were graduates of LSU and, of course, were Saints fans.

That means that this guy playing for us in the middle of the night has a day job. But you could see in his face and his music that his undying passion was being exactly where he was, and the loves of his life were Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn and ZZ Top. He was immersed and saturated and through him we were all one. There were people dancing in the aisles and the humanity was at least for the time at peace with the innocence of the universe.

It was an experience I do not believe anyone on this list should ever miss.

I give Bourbon Street at midnight 4 of 5 gas lamps.  Must do.

Feline issues

0
by

A couple of years ago, my youngest daughter the tree hugging vegetarian, decided she wanted a cat. Not just any cat, a cat that had been rejected by all others. So she and my wife made a trip down to the pound to check out reject cats, presumably awaiting a fatal demise.

So she perused all the available cats, and settled on a black/white tabby caged with it’s sibling. Unusual. They were brother and sister, ensconced in the same cage as the keepers had discovered they basically refused to be parted. So when it came to pulling one of them out of the cage, they both entangled themselves with each other, wrapped themselves around each other and simply refused to be separated. It was incredible. Finally, after much yowlling and hissing, the keeper finally said it didn’t look like they were going to separate them, so they would need to be taken as a two-cat unit or not at all.  So, she took both of them. Then after about a month, she developed a new roommate with a cat, and the cats didn’t get along so in the interests of maintaining the kid’s domicile, we inherited the two cats, both appropriately neutered and spayed.

These are two VERY strange cats. The male is proportional white face on both sides and mottled black body (Kitty1). He acts just like a male lion in the wild. He lays around all day, sleeps and eats. He frequently sits on his front paws and surveys his world dispassionately. You rarely see him. The female, half white face (Kitty2), is like a lioness in the wild. She struts around all over the house looking for anything to get into. No one can do anything without her there gawking. Sitting on laptop keys a specialty. She’s everywhere and a big pain in the ass.

When it comes to feeding time, she always eats first; he waits his turn. When she’s eaten exactly half of the ration, she exits licking her chops and he finishes. Sleeping arrangements- the male sleeps on my wife’s side of the bed I’m not on, about six inches from her. Evry night. The dog (standard Poodle) sleeps at the foot of the bed on my wife’s side and every night reliably chases the female off. I have no idea where she sleeps. He never bothers the male.

When I get up in the morning about 0700 hours to go to work, I plop down on the John and the male cat reliably follows me in there, plops down on his back, exposes his underside and looks as if to say “It’s not gonna scratch itself!”. He accepts some belly scratching and that’s it. Never gives me the time of day again until the next morning. The female has no interest in petting at all and will run off every time I try.

Voice of reason from a Young Republican

0
by

I spent about two hours this morning talking to one of the young doctors that did his fellowship here a few years ago, did phenomenally well and now is climbing quickly climbing up the vines toward a stellar career here at UPMC. I respect him a lot and I am proud to have been a part of his professional nurturing. He spends most of his time at one of the other UPMC hospitals and drops by to see me now and then when he’s around.

Like most doctors, he’s a voting Republican. I think he is clearly more on the moderate end of the spectrum, which I suspect a greater percentage of advertised Republicans are. He claims to be a “conservative”, but he differs radically from most of what I’m hearing other (said to be) conservatives are saying on “Events”.

At any rate, we had a long conversation about a lot of things and I think his opinions are very interesting and worth relating to you. Here are some of his expressed opinions as best I can interpret them.

1.  Being “conservative” doesn’t necessarily mean being a nut.

There are some politicians out there that use the “conservative” angle as a platform to extol their social theories that are not necessarily what a lot of other “conservative” voters believe.  In fact, many conservatives think of Sarah Palin as a self promoting opportunist who happens to stand on a conservative platform because it tends to gather a bigger crowd. Rick Santorum is a radical evangelical purist who calls himself a conservative because it resonates to a smaller but more vocal crowd.  Newt Gingrich is a cold blooded politician that has been working the system for many years and has figured out how to use conservative angles for his own financial and political benefit.

But in fact, a conservative is just a reasonable person who is concerned about reasonable things. Fiscal responsibility. Treating people as you would like to be treated. Some degree of personal autonomy in a world full of regimented political mandates. Things most reasonable folks subscribe to (Gasp….even some Democrats). The problem is that those principles have been hijacked by self-serving, self-promoting persons using them as a base for their own social restructuring programs in the name of all conservatives. The current sitting President is not Satan incarnate. He is a person whose policies are perceived as contra-productive to the GOP ideal, and therefore they oppose his policies, not the man.

The reality is that the majority of Republicans don’t subscribe to the Sarah Palin brand which is why after all the hoopla, she is sitting in a cabin in Alaska instead of being intimately involved in Republican issues.  If she thought she’s get more mileage from the American Nazi Party, she’d be wearing jack boots tomorrow on Fox. It is also why Santorum is getting about 10% of the vote anywhere but in States infested with evangelicals. And “most” responsible Republicans are appalled and embarrassed by Newt Gingrich and this will be a self correcting issue in time.  In the end, the GOP will do the best they can with what they have to work with, just like everyone else. Time smooths all wrinkles.

2.  Some of his VERY interesting observations about the Affordable Health Care Act of 2008 (AHCA/2008).

He thinks the AHCA/2008 is unconstitutional because it allows the Federal Government to MANDATE what amounts to a tax by some other name without calling it a tax. There is no precedent for the Government doing that. It is extra-constitutional for the States to do exactly that (Mass), but not the Federales. The most effective way to afford health care for all citizens is simply to create a tax to support it (just like Medicare/Medicaid). The reason that was not done is as soon as any voter hears or sees the word “tax”, they immediately vote against it as a knee jerk. Residents of affluent townships routinely vote against school tax increases that benefit their own children.

So the theory of the AHCA/2008 is technically correct as far as it goes. It definitely does good things for the population. Contrary to some highly biased sources, there is no language in it creating “death panels” and no specific restrictions as to who will be treated. However, there is a 600 lb gorilla sitting in the room. The fact that under current regulations COBRA and EMTALA, everyone presenting for medical care has to be seen and treated to their satisfaction regardless of their ability to pay. So that means there is no incentive for younger, lower risk patients to purchase indemnification and virtually no practical way to make them if they refuse. You can’t get much blood out of turnips. And if they don’t, then the point of spreading the risk to lower the cost is lost.

So, unless the law mandates that anyone that didn’t purchase the plan will be REFUSED medical care if they get sick, the plan can’t work in practice even though it’s technically right minded. And the voters will never sit still for any refusal of service no matter how it’s applied.  So, if the AHCA/2008 is trashed by the SCOTUS in March, we then go back to a system that is very rapidly and reliably going broke. Even if it’s implemented on time in 2013, it’s probably already too late to save our current Medicare/Medicaid system, and the private insurers are already in the process of pricing themselves out of the market.

The reality is that there is only one way to provide health indemnification for all comers in the USA, and that’s where it’s applied in virtually every other country- a straight up National Health Care Service just like the UK does it, with an option for the well-off to purchase more if they can. This from the mouth of a Republican(who knows the system). Traditionally, private indemnification has been a GOP hallmark, but it suffers from a double whammy: 1)  They cannot keep up with the never-ending escalation in cost, and 2) the coming laws disallowing them from cherry picking only low risk patients will finish them, just like it would finish a car insurance agency that was forced to charge drunk drivers the same as safe drivers.

The voters (and the GOP) want it both ways. They want cheap, efficient health care without Government input and they also want unlimited benefits. The Government can’t afford that and neither can the private insurance companies. We will continue on that course until the system we have now collapses, and it will…..in my lifetime. When it collapses, there will be only one way to re-build it. That will be with restrictions as to how much money is spent on non-viable resources, and it will be tied to a GNP. There will be no dialysis after age X, no unlimited ICU stays awaiting the pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye-long-shot-cure, no instant MRI for trivial complaints, extremely limited transplantation, no unrestricted ED admission for convenience complaints, and on and on and on. It will be that or it will be nothing. Pay or die.

Newt (The Grinch) Gingrich and the Republican dilemma

0
by

I have three card carrying Republican friends that I physically see and discuss politics with.  Interestingly, none of these people support Gingrich (or Santorum) and as of today, the day after the South Carolina primary, I’m hearing some pretty tight mouthed grumping.  All three support Ron Paul but all know Paul has no chance of being nominated and so are also willing to vote for Romney rather than take a chance on Obama winning again. All have said recently that, holding their noses, they are on board with Romney because he is the only candidate that has a shot at winning in 2012. The others candidates are more or less in tune with their conservative principles, but all are un-electable. My riding buddy has taught me a lot about Republicans.  They all thought this was a done deal and considered that the others were place markers merely stating a lot of conservative principles all of them bought into but seriously doubted would ever fly in a National election.

Now the Republicans are facing a clear dilemma. They had a shot at the 2012 election from a candidate they weren’t thrilled with but was infinitely better than their mortal enemy Obama. It was just a matter of waiting it out. Then suddenly things changed. Because the State of South Carolina, a radically conservative State, bought into a spirited debate performance by an otherwise unacceptable candidate, they decided to rebel against the self fulfilling prophesy. Almost exactly what happened to Hillary in 2007. Hillary was the heir apparent, there was no way she could lose, it was her karma. She hadn’t really even worked at it. then came a debate performance by someone no one had heard of.

Now, it’s remotely possible that a candidate with an wholly unacceptable past history and even a high unacceptability rating within much of his own party could get the nomination if remaining ultra-conservatives unexpectedly get on board with the revolt.  If Gingrich actually gets the numbers and nails the nomination, that will put him up against an infinitely more powerful enemy that didn’t exist before. Any deficit ascribed to Obama would be put into the perspective of his opponent.

All Republicans fear and loathe the media and Gingrich will go out of his way to fight a war of attrition with them, ultimately to be sucked dry like David Bowie in “The Hunger”.  It’s a battle he will not win and in the end will destroy him.  Those things are downplayed by conservative Republicans because they consider them lesser evils of available issues, but you can be sure that in a general election, they will be considered differently by a more pleuralistic population of voters.

There might have been some more moderate Democrats roll over for Romney out of frustration with Obama’s perceived weak management style. That will never happen with Gingrich. EVERY Democrat will go way out of their way to vote AGAINST Gingrich. Many independents that might have swung toward Romney as a more moderate alternative to Obama will definitely not do so. Many moderate Republicans will vote for Ron Paul out of frustration, essentially voting for Obama by default. unelectable candidates Paul and Santorum will go all the way to the convention out of pure hubris, fighting all the way, and will do everything they can to disrupt the entire process and the GOP will become the part of discord, while Obama smiles from afar. The Republicans will fall on their collective swords on principle and lose infinitely more than they gain.

Now responsible Republicans have gotten what they asked for and they’re going to have to figure out how to fix it.  Gingrich simply cannot win a general election where his spectacularly evil past history on every level will be worked mercilessly by all his enemies including Republicans and Democrats, and his angry unpredictability will be on constant exhibit.  He will spend most of his time denying and explaining, not very convincingly. There aren’t enough truly strident conservative Republicans to put him into the white House and it will be McCain revisited.

Double Feature Review: “The Descendents” and “The Artist”

0
by

Double Feature Review:  “The Descendents” and “The Artist”

Interesting paradoxes of film that there can be an exceptional production you really don’t really want to see.

Sometimes emotionally disturbing content can promote critical thought as to the subject matter and can be worth the effort. Other times, the disturbing content can simply make you wish you were somewhere else. Sometimes you get into it and sometimes you wish you hadn’t.

“The Descendents” is technically and artistically a good film. Exceptional acting, good direction, photography and a strong, coherent story line that you should avoid. You really don’t want to witness the issues in “The Descendents” on a big screen. The issue of marital infidelity is appropriately prickly and doesn’t go anywhere. The issue of families dealing with severe brain injury and coma is handled reasonably well, but profoundly and open-endedly depressing. It sucks you into a black hole leaving you little in return other than hives.

Compare and contrast to “The Artist”, a film depicting bad luck, bad timing, bad tidings, bad life decisions and pathos. The story skillfully allows you into the world of the actors, lets you experience the story and then get out cleanly.  The silent motif is profoundly successful in forcing you read the story line from the actor’s subtle body language. You experience the story through the actors in very different ways than usual, and it absolutely works.

Accordingly, I can’t recommend “The Descendents”, the Golden Globes not withstanding. An appreciation of good technical film doesn’t mitigate the pain you go through to be in the same room with it. If you must see it, get it off Netflix so you can mercifully turn it off without embarrassing yourself spilling popcorn all over the lady next to you as you make an escape from the theater.

* Best feature:  George Clooney is an excellent actor

* Worst feature:  Sticking your head in an oven before the film is halfway over.

I give it 2 of five pasty brain death preps.

Alternatively, “The Actor” is near perfection. The film is fresh, novel, creative, well acted, directed and photographed.  It came from nowhere to the top of the heap on the wings of talent and originality.

* Best feature:  The intricate subtlety of the lead actor and actress that leaps off the screen (silently).

* Worst feature: A little long and tedious, takes a while getting used to the silence and the ending is just a bit  incongruous.

I give it 4.5 of 5 manicured moustaches. Must see on big screen

On The Affordable Health Care Act of 2008

0
by

 

Here is the website for Dr. Levin’s highly biased personal  opinion.

http://www.therightscoop.com/shock-brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/

 

Dr. Levin is a conservative pundit that interprets and spins political issues according to his personal opinion, not accepted as mainstream by many other physicians.

 

Here is an alternative opinion:  I have read “Obama care” from stem to stern as it will directly affect everyone when fully implemented. Technically it’s formal name is the  “Affordable Heath Care Act of 2008” (AHCA 2008).  The cold reality: there is absolutely nothing in it (except in the mind of Dr. Levin and other wing-nuts) that proscribes treatment for needy patients of any age. What the law does include is an end-of-life facet, commonly misinterpreted, usually intentionally.

 

The law allows payment for physicians to include discussions of end-life care preferences and what’s available to them, not what they are mandated to do. That means that a discussion of whether such aggressive measures as CPR, endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, dialysis, vasoactive medications to stabilize blood pressure, IV medications for cardiac arrhythmias and other similar measures are desired under the circumstances of admission or if the patient suddenly or unexpectedly deteriorates.

 

That means that if I land in the trauma bay at age 68, and I’m all other factors equal in pretty good baseline health and I have good family support systems, and I get operated on and I land in an ICU for a while, the discussion of my care would be what modalities were available, what could be effectively applied and what my expected outcome would be. The discussion of  “end-of-life” would ONLY occur to determine my  (prospective) wishes should I suddenly and unexpectedly have a cardiac standstill, or major full hemispheric stroke, or big intracranial bleed…….something that dramatically changed my potential for an  outcome I or anyone else would want. I would have an opportunity to determine what my wishes might be in such circumstances BEFORE I became incompetent to speak for myself. Then that discussion would revolve around goals of care, what it’s surmised that I might want for myself, what my wife would want for me.  Does that sound reasonable?

 

Would I want to be fully maintained with a tracheostomy, feeding tube  and skilled nursing home admission on the long shot chance I might  unexpectedly get better? Or would I or my wife want to opt for “comfort  measures”, letting nature take it’s course as it will anyway.  It’s all about choice, not demands of arrogant surgeons that some politician is mandating something or nothing.

 

The “Death Panel” ploy was originated in 2008 by the impeccably ruthless, self-promoting political opportunist Sarah Palin who knows nothing about any health care formulation. Palin took the above and bastardized it to a tortured interpretation.  That discussions of  end-of-life care necessarily allowed the Federal Government to use those  discussions as a foot-in-door, then inform the patient or their family  that the physician would deny care unilaterally by some structured  mandate. She then famously told audiences that Obama would have let her kid with Downs Syndrome die, which should give you a pretty good view of what she’s capable of.  There is not a single syllable in the AHCA of 2008 that even remotely suggests that ANY needy patient will be denied care on the basis of their age or any other objective factor.

 

And thereby hangs a dilemma.

 

The United States is the ONLY country in the global village that allows patients and their family’s wishes to drive the health care industry.  That’s good news and bad news. The good news is you can pretty much name your poison.  The bad news is that in allowing this, the cost of health care is unbelievably expensive and increasing arithmetically every year, actually every month.  What that means as a practical matter is that someone somewhere is eventually going to have to start making decisions about the appropriateness of flying 95 year old Hunt & Hess grade 5  (unresponsive) intracranial bleeds to hospitals like mine in helicopters so they can run up a big bill before we stop the nonsense. We have the ability now to pretty accurately access outcome for virtually any disease process. That means that sooner or later, patients and their families desiring extremely long shot cures for vanishingly small outcome potential are going to have to back off or pony up the cash.  Who will make those decisions?

 

Unlikely I will, nor should I.  Traditionally my role is as a patient advocate. I am expected to defend my patient against the vicissitudes of any bureaucratic body tending to use them as isolated cost-savers. That means that it’s a conflict of interest for me to have anything to do with conservation of resources at the macro level. My job is to do the best I can with what I have to work with. In a perverse way, Palin is right. Death Panels will probably eventually arrive, but it won’t be for the purposes of saving the government money. It will be because it’s medically inappropriate to spend money on patients without a meaningful potential to survive with a quality of life any normal hominid would desire. That day is coming, but it wasn’t Palin that accurately predicted it.

 

You want to be scared?  I’ll give you a good scare. A family of four,  Mama, Papa both work to make ends meet, two kids both in grade school  making a combined income of under US$50,000/Year. They make ends meet as long as there are no unforeseen emergencies, but it’s tight. In this kind of job market, it’s highly unlikely either of them receive any meaningful health care indemnification from their jobs. Jobs that pay these kinds of wages rarely offer affordable medical insurance. If it is offered, it’s extremely expensive and increasing in price anywhere from 9% to 15% a year. They probably don’t opt for it in order to afford kids clothes and school expenses.  Then the patriarch has a car accident, lands in a trauma bay, ends up in the operating room.  Worse, they look up and and see ME. Neurological injuries are particularly devastating and expensive. A three hour neurosurgical procedure later, they land in  a Neuro-ICU intubated and it takes three days to get them extubated,  then another week treating other disasters, transfer to the ward for  another three days and home but unable to work for a while due to  residual deficits. Then expensive physical rehab.

 

Now this family is running on ONE income, less than half the funds available before the accident just about what it takes to pay the  mortgage on their modest home. Now they are in a DEEP financial bind, and since the patriarch is not in a union and there is no right to work  law, they give his job to the next in line and he’s out of work. THEN the hospital presents them with a total bill for about US$100,000 and demands a payment schedule be set up about the same as purchasing a  Mercedes. The hospital then issues a legal claim and gets a judgment allowing them to garnish the wages of the one remaining worker.

 

This scenario happens every day and it breaks my heart. I never send anyone a bill for anything. I am an employee of the medical center and I deal with everyone and everyone that comes my way. I don’t know nor do I care what their financial status is which one of the reasons I’m here. It’s the hospital that acts as the bad guy and they have no problem with it.  It’s cold, impersonal business.

 

The reason I support the AHCA of 2008 is not because it’s perfect. It isn’t. I support it because it does SOMETHING to rectify the outrageous inequity of people getting sick and ruining the rest of their lives. The AHCA of 2008 adds 31 million hard working needy persons to the roles of an indemnification plan that literally saves their lives in the event of   medical emergency. It forces greedy and heartless insurance companies to quit cherry picking only healthy clients, ignoring those most likely to need medical care, and it also forces them to stop arbitrarily and capriciously refusing to pay for care after it’s already been rendered.  It’s a start and it’s better than what we have now.  You don’t see any members of the aforementioned family out in Tea Party lines carrying  “repeal Obamacare” signs. You see idealists that don’t understand the situation, or don’t care about their fellow Americans.

Because of Clark’s Law, there is a whole contingent out there dedicated to opposing everything and anything the current sitting President does,  including anything that might be beneficial. A lot depends on if he is re-elected, which as a practical matter is likely when the smoke from the Republican circular firing squad clears. If the AHCA clears the Supreme Court, which its likely to all other factors being equal, I think it will be beneficial for the public. If not, the current stockholder driven health care insurance companies will continue to drive the price (profit) to unaffordability for all.

 

Worried about the cost of the AHCA/2008?  Worry more about the cost without it.  Something like the AHCA of 2008 is necessary to protect the public from exorbitant costs of health care in the USA. The rates are exorbitant because they’re geared to the insurance trade, which pays ten cents on the dollar, so if they bill ten times more than they expect to get, they break even. But for the uninsured, they pay the ten times rate. Access to health care is DIRECTLY related to indemnification.  Paying up front for them is cheaper than paying MORE for them once they put off medical care and get sicker. Because of HIPPA and COBRA, EVERYONE must be treated when they show up.  As soon as they land in an ER, they must be treated, admitted and kept till they can be put back on the street. Taxpayers are going to pay for them in any event. If the health care services get them earlier, the taxpayers pay lass for them.


Film review: “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” (2012)

0
by

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1974) is the first novel in the “Karla” series by John le Carré, featuring milquetoasty, middle-aged British intelligence officer protagonist George Smiley.

Smiley is recalled from retirement to help hunt down and identify a Soviet mole somewhere in the British Secret Service (M-16) loosely modeled after Kim Philby.  John Le Carre’, real name David Cornwell) was an intelligence officer for MI-16 during Philby era, and it’s said that Philby betrayed his identity to the Russians in 1964, resulting in Le Carre’s forced retirement from the service. Philby defected to the Soviet Union in 1964 and died there in 1988.  The Philby story is exceptionally interesting in itself.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967442,00.html

In fact, it’s reliably thought that “Karla” is modeled after  KGB Gen. Rem Krassilnikov, an undercover agent well known to the CIA who died in Moscow in 2003.

The novel is dense and Le Carre’s prose is hard to follow for most readers.  In 1982, the author’s vision was clarified for millions of viewers in the TV Miniseries “Smiley’s People”, considered by most Le Carre enthusiasts to be the definitive work. So much so that Alec Guinness would be about as irreplaceable as Freddie Mercury.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083480/

That said, underrated veteran actor Gary Oldman brings a serviceable but rather laconic interpretation of the taciturn and meticulous Smiley, not unlike a more mature Ryan Gosling.  But he faces an uphill credibility battle as the specter of the inimitable Guinness colors every scene. Heavyweights Colin Firth and John Hurt are excellent in creating the interconnecting intricacy of “the Circus”.

Much like Le Carre’s novel, the story line is murky and sometimes incomprehensible.  The film may be perceived as a snooze fest by many accustomed to the 007 generation. In fact, the defense of the free world during the cold war was really pretty much accomplished in musty rooms full of paper by old men in reading glasses. The few violent scenes are very dispassionately and cold bloodedly functional.

I think it’s a noble effort with big name actors doing their best rather with obtuse subject matter.  Much of the story is not of particular interest to most audiences and does not render a significantly fresh look at the author’s original vision. The appeal is not so much the story but the texturing of the character interpretations the actors do consummately well. The viewer might want to go into it with a bit of a knowledge base by reading the book (or the Cliff’s Notes) before seeing the film.

Best scene:  Smiley describing his attempt at turning Karla to the West.

Worst scene:  None

I give it four of five horn-rimmed spectacles.

Reccomended.

A lighthearted look at the Iowa Caucus (Giggle)

0
by

  • ————————————————-
    From Politico.com:  The Iowa caucuses delivered a virtual tie for first place between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, with Romney ahead by just eight votes, Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn announced early Wednesday. Each carried 25 percent of the vote, with Ron Paul in third at 21.5 percent. Newt Gingrich was in fourth, with 13 percent, Rick Perry in fifth, at 10 percent, Michele Bachmann at 5 percent and Jon Huntsman at 0.6 percent.

    It’s a dead heat tie with much bigger implications.

    It means among other things that there are actually people out there that went out of their way to support a seriously damaged candidate with an extensive record of gaffes, weird behavior and failure as a public servant in Pennsylvania that got him dumped after one term by the largest majority in voting history.  SPECIFICALLY to avoid supporting the only candidate that has any meaningful chance of competing with Obama.  Each and every one of the current candidates still (for a while) in the race is spending more time dumping on the only viable choice than pushing a Presidential agenda. That means that the dissension within the Republican party is such that they are severely damaged before they even go up against the Obama machine, a formidable opponent.

    Lets argue just for grins that the radical right wing of the GOP really is in charge now and they can maneuver to pick a candidate. Lets argue further than that faction has decided after munching on each of the others for a while that Santorum is the best choice to carry their banner. If that were to happen, the GOP would go down in flames like Pierre the French fighter pilot almost immediately.  There’s a reason why Santorum only earned a < 10% share outside the Tea Party enclave of Iowa. He’s not an arrogant, mean spirited asshole like Gingrich, not a brain damaged serial platitude spinner like Bachmann and he’s not a kindly grandfatherly relic of Ayn Rand like Paul. He’s a sober, well meaning person with a history of failure that has no business being allowed to do it all again on a higher level. Not only do 90% of mainstream GOP voters not support him, if he were to be actually selected to run against Obama, every Democrat of any stripe would come from as far away as Venus to specifically vote AGAINST him. It’s Clark’s Law.  The reason Romney has a shot at it is not just because he will appeal to the majority of non-Tea Party mainstream Republican voters in the end, but also because he has the only chance to draw in disaffected Democrats who will NEVER vote for a strongly conservative candidate.

    Accordingly, since I’m doing pretty well in my predictions (I predicted Paul, Romney and Santorum as 1,2,3 in Iowa) 😉 I’ll now push my luck again.

    *  Santorum has gleefully gotten the erroneous message that he can win and will lunge forward with renewed vigor to be beaten by Huntsman (0.6 share in Iowa) in New Hampshire and end up on the bottom (again).  He will then go on to South Carolina and end up 4th or 5th and will then issue forth the “it’s been a great day for conservatives” speech and tearfully drop out.

    *  Sadly, Bachmann drop out and all the late night comics will be forced into retirement. She’ll tearfully issue the “it’s been a great day for conservatives” speech and quietly fade back to converting gays to the path of righteousness.

    *  Paul will continue to be the kindly grandfather with a copy of Atlas Shrugged under his arm and will continue to run every four years until he dies quietly in bed at age 104, then he’ll be cryopreserved by Mike Darwin and run again in the year 3424.

    *  The Grinch will do everything in his power to create as much disaffection within the party for the obvious choice until someone in the power base gives him the “Hillary Call” and tells him to die more quietly. He’s too mean to die however and will eventually be pickled and rolled in and out of conventions in-state like Jeremy Bentham.

    *  Huntsman will have a fair showing in New Hampshire then vanish. He will write a book wondering what it was all about that will sell three copies.

    *  Perry is the one of the clown acts that has correctly observed this is over and has quietly moved out with as much dignity as is possible to muster under the circumstances.

    *  Romney will win New Hampshire big and go on to win South Carolina which will rubber stamp New Hampshire and then this drab, dreary, dreadful, draconian drama will drag to a merciful end. When selected as  the however reluctant GOP candidate, he will continue to reverse virtually every position he’s ever held to appease the Tea Party which will use his photo for target practice on firing ranges.

    That said, it probably doesn’t matter in the grand scheme because the GOP is in the process of tearing itself apart and as long as the economy remains even reasonably stable, it’s highly unlikely voters will dump an incumbent.

Of Biker Boyz and Polar Bears

0
by

Today is the annual Polar Bear Club bike ride sponsored by one of the local Harley dealerships.  Most are Harley guys and I bet about a quarter of them are wearing Colors. Serious Colors (multicolored biker gang leathers). Leather on their leather. The whole drill. WW II German helmets, skulls & xbones, All sorts of evil incantations in print.  Couple of members of the Western Pa Airheads Club (vintage 70’s BMW air-cooled boxer head bikes) attended to show support. Bikers of all species are welcome even “furriner bikes”, but I don’t think you’d want to show up on a Vespa. A bunch of them checked out my ’76 BMW R90/6, shook their heads sadly, but they all gave me big smiles and a Laurel & Hardy handshake.

By the time it all got rolling, I would hazard a guess there were about 200 or so bikes lined up.  Weather was rainy but not too cold, about 40 degrees F. We’ve had a mild winter here so far. They have been known to do it in the snow in years past.  I’ve never ridden with a really big group before so I tucked i behind my experienced buddy Tom Furey and watched my Ps and Qs.

Few if any of these machines had anything resembling mufflers (some had tomato cans) so after a brief riders meeting outlining the drill, everyone fired these things up and other than sounding like Rommel’s advance at El Alamein, everyone proceeded in an orderly fashion. And when I say “proceeded”, I mean advance without any obstruction. Red lights ignored, pedestrians get the collective stink-eye. Mob rule with me right in the middle of it (Hi Mom!!).

Somewhere Gil Ross is smiling.

Film review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

0
by

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of  Shadows

Robert Downey Jr was interesting in Iron Man. Jude Law is normally good in everything he does. Rachel McAdams is your basic all purpose starlet. All of them are probably hiding out somewhere in South America hoping this turkey isn’t a career ender like The Mothman Prophesies (2002) was for Richard Geer and Mars Attacks! (1996) Should have been for Pierce Brosnan.

Guy Ritchie proved that casting your wife in a truly bad film (Swept Away 2002) was a guarantee of instant divorce. He didn’t learn any lessons from that mistake. Professor Moriarty comes off about as sinister as Pee Wee Herman with a moustache. Downey does a convincing Hedley Lamarr. “My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.” All false bravado- like bullfighting on a handball court.

This film holds about as much interest as a forced two hour tour of your living room.  The plot is all over the place, lacking any continuity.  All the energy vaporizes into the ether and goes nowhere. It’s a Victorian remake of “The Wild, Wild West” (1999) a boneheaded film that nearly ended Will Smith’s career. Of course, as the film winds down, it shamelessly sets up a sequel if this one makes any money.

I give it ONE of five hyperactive detectives, and that’s a gift.

Hint:  Be suspicious of glib, facile high budget films aimed at the mass market. They’re not all bad, but a high percentage are.  Read reviews from critics with a track record of honesty (Roger Ebert) and check out the tomatometer on <rottentomatoes.com>. Look for films that win out-of-the way awards for excellence, and that includes many foreign films that are overlooked by Hollywood.

That said, I saw two extremely good films last week that never made it to American theaters.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to track them down, a chore that will require some resourcefulness.

The Interview (1998 Australian), starring Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in all the Matrix films, and “V” in “V for Vengence”.) An extremely interesting and engrossing film reminiscent of “The Usual Suspects” (1995). 1998 American Film Institute winner for Best Film, for Best Original Screenplay and for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120714/

Incendies.  (Canadian 2010- spoken French, English subtitles). A highly emotionally charged drama reminiscent of “The Bridges of Madison County (1995). Extremely intense. Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Won eight awards at the 31st Genie Awards, including Best Motion Picture, Best Actress (Lubna Azabal), Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Overall Sound and Sound Editing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1255953/