Red October

Greetings, gentle readers.
Two things have been preying on my mind recently, and the colour red features prominently in both of them.
The first would be Liverpool Football club.  After seven consecutive wins to begin the season, the team suddenly seems to have hit a rough patch of form, losing and drawing their previous two games before facing off against Italian club Napoli in the Champions' League yesterday.  It would be the third game in a row against an opposition playing in blue, and the team playing in red seemed to be facing an uphill battle against form and very solid blue opposition.

Liverpool's goal in the second of four straight games against blue opponents.

The second would be the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Senate Judicial Confirmation Hearings, which seemed destined to be coasting toward a very contentious "yes" decision in the face of some serious allegations of sexual misconduct and perjury.  Given the American congressional midterm elections next month, the factions at odds over Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation seemed to be breaking very clearly across political party lines with Kavanaugh angrily asserting that evidence denigrating his character were the product of Democrat (blue) conspiracies and other forces mustered against the Republican-Trump (red) administration.  Only the actions of departing Red senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) prevented Kavanaugh's confirmation and allowed the FBI one week of investigation into the various allegations against the candidate.

Where should one look for clarity and direction in these times of confusion and uncertainty?  In my case, I turn on my iPod and take a shower with the Shuffle feature turned on and let the forces of the universe inform me in their own stochastic way, much as the shamanistic traditions of the world use animal entrails, bones, or wooden sticks.
Here's what it had to say:

Random Bathroom Tunes

• National Shite Day by Half Man, Half Biscuit
• Frag Mich Nicht Immer (trans.:  I Don't Remember) by Peter Gabriel
• The Party's Over (Hopelessly in Love) by Journey
• Dream Police by Cheap Trick
• Vindaloo by Fat Les
• Turn on Your Lovelight by Van Morrison and Them

It could just be me, but there almost seems to be a narrative created by this seemingly innocuous list.
The next few days will see how both red/blue conflicts develop, with Liverpool hosting the Manchester City Blues at home, and the FBI releasing its findings to both the red and blue congressional factions examining the SCOTUS.
Personally, I am highly partisan in the first instance in favour of the red side while wishing that partisanship could be removed altogether from the systemic examination of judicial candidacy in the second.
In lieu of further speculation, I shall drop back into one of my exhaustion comae and let the universe unfold as it should.  Or at least, as the universe shall, with or without my let.
Until next time, good night England and the Colonies.
—mARKUS

Why I Hate Bike Lanes

Greetings, gentle readers.
I live in Edmonton, Alberta.  This is both a blessing and a curse.  It is geographically one of the least eventful places on Earth.  The odds of untimely death or injury in Edmonton has got to be one of the lowest amongst all human population centres.  The happiness index and cost-of-living are well within acceptable first-world standards.
The problem was raised by Francis Fukuyama in his now-thoroughly debunked and abandoned treatise, The End of History and the Last Man.  Basically, he argued that once people satisfied all of their basic needs, they would run out of things to do and would stop striving for anything greater.  The problem with his book is that he reckoned that humanity as a whole had gotten there.  Sure, we still have poverty and whatnot, but he argued that we had found the right TEMPLATE.  He wrote that we had found the recipe:  liberal democratic government, plus a largely (but not completely) capitalist economy yields the best systematic pattern for the eventual satisfaction of all human needs; there's no point trying to develop new ideologies or economic models.  We've found them all, and we just need to fine tune what we've got.
Of course, Fukuyama was wrong.  The People's Republic of China is setting historical records for elevating vast numbers of people from poverty and increasing standards of living en masse, all without any effort at liberal democracy.  In some ways, they are moving in the opposite direction, removing any limits on Xi Jinping's term limits as President.
Unfortunately, in Edmonton what we see is the sort of decadence and arrogance one would expect from a society that has assumed that Fukuyama was right.  Basically, we see a system of municipal governance that has long ago stopped striving for excellence, and has turned a relatively static system of revenues and expenses into short-term splashes of visible electoral promises, rather than any significant long-term development or planning.

Bike Lanes

This brings me to my point of complaint with the City of Edmonton.  This relatively minor Canadian conurbation has blundered around like a blind pig in recent memory when it comes to the only thing of importance to its citizens at this level of government: infrastructure.  The idea of having a train transit system share a grade and intersections with road and pedestrian traffic was idiotic enough, but those same intersections and routes are now being shared with yet another form of transportation:  bicycles.
Bikes are fine.  They're healthy forms of exercise, they can get a person from place to place with a small carbon footprint, etc.  Nothing wrong with bicycles.  The problem comes when roadways that have been designed, built, and maintained by motor vehicles are ripped up and reconfigured to accommodate specific bicycle traffic.
Historically, the problem with bicycles has been that they are difficult to define as either pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic.  They are too fast to mix comfortably with people walking along sidewalks, and too slow to mix comfortably with automotive traffic.  In some places like The Netherlands, the problem has been addressed by creating new paved avenues designed specifically for cyclists, sometimes at the expense of motor vehicle routes.  The current municipal leaders of the City of Edmonton thought that they ought to follow this example despite the fact that Edmonton is a winter city, with bicycle travel being impractical for at least five months out of every year.
So what we have is this:  the neglect and outright obstruction of other modes of transportation in favour of spending city resources specifically to cater to bicycles.
Setting aside the physical aspects of construction - materials, equipment, pollution, closures, detours, signage, defoliation, etc., and putting the financial aspects into shallow focus, I will begin my objection to the city council's initiative to prioritize bicycle traffic with a fundamental principle - it is exclusionary.

Exclusion

Philosophically, a municipal government's responsibility ought to be toward all of its citizens.  Revenues accrued from the population should be spent in ways that maximize benefit to as many of that population as possible.
In short, bicycle lanes benefit a specific few for a specific time every year to the exclusion of everyone else.  Who is excluded?

People Who Can't Cycle a Bicycle

There are a host of physical and mental conditions that prohibit a person from operating a bicycle.  Short of creating special camps for the infantile, elderly, and invalid, there will never be a population that is 100% bicycle-capable.

People Who Hate Frostbite

Bicycles are great from April to September.  Not so much in the other five months.  Those who insist on riding bicycles through knee-high snowdrifts in temperatures that freeze exposed flesh in minutes are a special sort.  To construct a city's transportation strategy around that particular breed of individual would smack of myopia.

People Who Need to Carry Things

There are all manner of trolleys and baskets that can be attached to a bicycle in an effort to allow them to transport cargo, but they are generally expensive, space-consuming, and inconvenient for people of differing abilities and incomes.  Bicycles by themselves are unable to meet the needs of a single parent shopping for a three or four-person household.  For low-income families, walking would be a more efficient alternative, regardless of distance.

People Who Need to Commute

Endurance athletes are not bothered by fifty or sixty kilometres of travel in a single outing.  For a person who needs to make such a trip in order to reach a minimum-wage job every day, such a journey would involve a considerable investment of time and energy, often to the detriment of job performance, work/life balance, or health.

People Who Need Help and Services

One of the symptoms of a poorly-planned urban centre is sprawl.  The more a city expands outward from its core, the more expensive it becomes to provide electricity, water, sewage, transit, and emergency services (police, ambulance, fire, rescue, utilities).  The provision and maintenance of those services comes via roadways.  Replacing roadways with bicycle-only paths constricts traffic and thus any maintenance of utilities and services.

People Who Like the Environment

Anyone who has spent time at a major transit hub where a dozen or more diesel-powered buses congregate at once will know how air quality is affected by idling traffic.  When roadways are constricted by bike paths to the point that buses must stop and cause gridlock whenever they encounter oncoming traffic, they contribute more to air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, and products of incomplete combustion than an efficient traffic flow would.

People Who Like Seeing Nature

Every city block-length of bicycle path that replaces a traffic lane is accompanied by anywhere from eight to over twenty pieces of signage and directional instruction.  This means that in between all of the instructions to pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists, it often becomes difficult to discern where living examples of the natural world like trees, shrubs, and grass might be in evidence.  Bad enough to choke on all of the fumes from the construction vehicles and equipment building the bicycle lanes as well as all of the traffic that has been stalled and jammed, but one must tolerate the visual pollution of dozens of fluorescent signs, posts, and cones.

People Who Need Money

Bicycles are cheaper to purchase than motor vehicles, it's true.  They also do not require fees for registration, insurance, and licensing.  That being said, some families are dependent on public transit precisely because they cannot afford bicycles that are street legal.  A cyclist can be fined if he or she is operating a bicycle without:

• a bell or horn
• at least one brake device 
• a CSA-approved helmet (if under 18)
• a white headlamp, red tail-lamp, and red rear reflector (at night)

So while cyclists do not pay any of the fees that go towards maintaining roadways, they have enough other equipment considerations to dissuade or disqualify families in need from using their replacement.

Conclusion

The predominant beneficiaries of new bike path construction at the expense of motor vehicle traffic lanes are affluent summer hobbyists.  The people who are excluded and disadvantaged include the elderly, the disabled, the needy, and the average motorist.  The time, money, and resources that have been spent planning, building, maintaining, and monitoring bicycle paths would have been better spent lowering the cost for a rider to use public transit - something that would have benefited all segments of the community.  Taking all of the motor vehicle revenue (including traffic fines and petrol taxes) and spending it on projects that specifically harm the efficiency of that particular branch of infrastructure seems counter-intuitive.

Randomized Song List

Here is my most recent song list, as selected randomly by my little digital device.

• Some Days Are Better Than Others, by U2
• Doncha Wish Your Cyborg Could Dance Like Me, by DJ Earworm
• Let Me Roll It, by Big Sugar
• Your Lucky Day in Hell, by Eels
• Proud Mary, by Creedence Clearwater Revival
• What's My Name, by DJ Earworm
• Kung-Fu Fighting, by Carl Douglas

Other than the fact that there are two DJ Earworm song in this list, when they may in fact be the only DJ Earworm songs that I can name, there doesn't seem to be anything remarkably thematically unified about this list.  Oh well, another day of distance may confer a different perspective.
Until next time, it's good night England and the Colonies.

Enough of the Film Reviews Already

Greetings, gentle readers.
If you're as tired of my seemingly endless litany of mediocre cinematic offerings as I am, you should leap with elation at the prospect of such an enterprise drawing to a close.  In fact, I'm so excited at the prospect that I'm going to leap straight into things.

Rampage (2018)

I liked the original video game, and I enjoyed the misanthropy of this film, but that's pretty much where the enjoyment ends.  If lots of loud noises and smashing things floats your boat, this is 90 minutes of dizzy glee.  Otherwise, this would make for adequate background viewing while pressing laundry or doing some other household chores.  One jellybean, charitably given for one or two quips exchanged between Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Dwayne Johnson.

Mayhem (2017)

Those who have not seen AMC's "The Walking Dead" will not have heard of this film and will certainly not care to see it.  Those that have seen the television series and developed an attachment to the character of Glenn, might want to see this film and could possibly enjoy it.  Otherwise, this is just a cascade of zombified, blood-and-gore action sequences reminiscent of 2010's "Operation:  Endgame" — a series of NPC opponents that are routinely slaughtered in a procession of levels like a tepid video game.  1978's "Game of Death" established the classic scenario of literally climbing through levels of opponents, and the trope is used again here.  One half of one jellybean.  Barely.

6 Days (2017)

Garbage.  An utter waste of time.  Difficult things for me to say because I am a huge admirer of the works of Mark Strong.  I even made it through the entirety of "The Brothers Grimsby" (2016) because of his performance.  He can't save this abomination.  If you harbour any positive emotions for Abbey Cornish, avoid this film at all costs because she embarrasses herself and her family with a shockingly awful portrayal of a BBC reporter.  If you doubt my opinion, watch "The Final Option" (1982), also known as "Who Dares Wins" and then try and sit through five minutes of this clumsy attempt at imitation.  Zero jellybeans.  And a strong argument for an addition of negative values to my scale.

Security (2017)

Despite featuring Academy Award-winning legend Sir Ben Kingsley, this film didn't even make a blip on the cultural radar before it slipped beneath the waves a year ago.  Sure, Antonio Banderas isn't the swashbuckling action hero-type any more but this is a film about security guards, not Zorro or gunslinging mariachis.  There are some very familiar and well-trodden tropes that are used here that threaten to make this whole production into a tired cliché, but there is one thing in this film that completely saves it.  I don't want to spoil it, but there is an inversion of film convention in this movie that made me want to stand and applaud.  Amidst all of the formulaic, stock, stereotypical, derivative, and unimaginative lines, shots and scenes, there is a beacon of intelligence and hope.  When you see it, I hope that you find yourself rising from your seat as well.  Four jellybeans.

Winchester (2018)

Speaking of Oscar-winning legends, Helen Mirren does an above-average job in a below-average film.  The Winchester house is a fascinating structure, and the story of its eccentric designer has been the subject of much speculation for over a century.  This film begins to approach the topic with some interesting dynamics, like an unreliable POV protagonist, but it quickly unravels into a pale imitation of "Thir13en Ghosts" (2001), itself a remake of 1960's "13 Ghosts".  This film had the potential to explore some deep psychological horror themes, but instead devolves into just another ghost story like 1999's "The Haunting."  Very disappointing.  One jellybean.

The Dinner (2017)

Steve Coogan has done some very brilliant things in his career, "Hamlet 2" (2008) being amongst the most notable.  But long-time observers of his comedy will note that a lot of his humour comes from a very negative, deprecatory, sneering, and contemptuous place.  On-screen partnerships with people like Rob Bryden and Owen Wilson tend to colour the anti-social timbre of Coogan's muttering snipes, but this production embellishes the discomforting and alienating nature of his hyper-critical witticisms.  This is a tough film to sit through, particularly for people who value politeness, civility, and decorum, but there is some value in enduring Coogan's awful American accent and boorish behaviour.  Richard Gere essentially plays the straight man in this production, but his restraint and self-control form part of the reason why the dramatic tension is successful. Two jellybeans out of five.

Why Him? (2016)

There are some films that are built on an unrelenting frustration with a character who refuses to behave reasonably.  1991's "What About Bob?" had Richard Dreyfuss slowly descend into madness because he refuses to speak with Bill Murray's character.  The audience spends the entire film mumbling to themselves that if the protagonist would do one simple thing, all of the problems would evaporate.  This film is 111 (minus four or five) minutes of Bryan Cranston stubbornly refusing to do a simple thing and torpedoing everything in his life in the process.  If you enjoyed watching John Cleese experience new dimensions in frustration in 1986's "Clockwise", then you'll probably like watching Cranston tear his hair out in this film.  I will generously award this film two jellybeans because it also shows Richard Blais as a pretentious fanny.

Last Flag Flying (2017)

If you want a good Bryan Cranston film, look no further than this under-appreciated gem.  I have a few reservations with some of the ways in which Laurence Fishburne's character is treated and I would have done some things differently, but Cranston and Steve Carell pull off some masterful scenes in a very tightly-edited and sharp production.  Cranston has to portray a generally dissolute and burnt-out hedonist with a strange altruistic streak, and Carell has to play a boring and humourless schmuck whose one miraculous connection to happiness is killed in a meaningless occupation of a foreign country that echoes his own tragic past in Vietnam.  I would nominate this film for mandatory viewing by a generation of Americans who have never known a nation at peace.  Four jellybeans.

Geostorm (2017)

Somehow, it seems almost demeaning to climate science to have these potboiler productions churned out to take advantage of the next extreme weather tragedy as free promotion.  Like this year's "Black Panther", don't look too deeply into the science of this movie.  It's fluffy entertainment.  There are explosions and zero-gravity fist-fights and Gerard Butler's dodgy American accent.  There is also a weird sequence where a frozen jetliner crashes onto the Copacabana.  The thing that saves the film for me is the President.  Somehow, that character brought a confused and meandering mess back into some form of focus.  Two jellybeans.

Final Dregs

• "Brawl in Cell Block 99" (2017) - Skip it.  Meaningless violence from Vince Vaughn.
• "Genius" (2016) - Skip it.  Boring story of Tom Wolfe being edited.
• "Radius" (2017) - Meh.  Maybe worth a watch.  Premise interesting, pace slow.
• "Beyond Skyline" (2017) - Skip it.  Incoherent alien invasion defeated by Angkor Wat. 

OK.  That's enough out of me in terms of films.  I'll just list my last shower songlist, and then I can hopefully return to my usual ranting and raving about politics, religion, culture, and literature.

Random Playlist

• In the Evening, by Led Zeppelin
• Toccata and Fugue in D minor, by Johann Sebastian Bach
• Where Do You Get Love?, by Matthew Sweet
• Tweeter and the Monkey Man, by the Traveling Wilburys
• Roland the Roadie, by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show
• Matinee, by Franz Ferdinand
• Come to California, by Matthew Sweet
• Brown-Eyed Women, by The Grateful Dead

Stay cool out there in the summer heat.  Until next time, good night England and the Colonies.

Gosh, I Watch a Lot of Rubbish Films

Greetings, gentle readers.
Continuing on with my listing and review of recent film releases that generally seemed to elude the popular public consciousness, I noticed that Margot Robbie and Max Irons seem to keep cropping up in the credits.  Aside from the fact that the pair of them have undoubtedly been busy in the past couple of years, both seem eager to establish themselves quickly with a diverse body of work early in their careers.  Having said all that, I've only watched one film in recent memory that managed to feature both of them:

Terminal (2018)

Mike Myers appeared to have spurned live-action acting in favour of voicing cartoon Shrek for the past decade or so.  The former Austin Powers and Wayne's World star appeared to be heading for a career of meaningless cameos ("Inglourious Basterds") and pseudonymous television appearances ("The Gong Show.") Someone managed to convince the Canadian comedian to try his hand at a small-cast, highly-stylized, pop-art-house production with Max Irons, Margot Robbie, Simon Pegg, and Dexter Fletcher.  Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned acting talent emerges from this awful mess with any increased credibility.  A derivative, faux-noir offering in the mould of "Sin City" (2005), "Terminal" restricts itself too greatly in its minimalist scope to present any sensible narrative.  In fact, some of the plot machinations are more insulting to the audience than challenging, and some of the tropes are used and abused ineffectively.  Without revealing too many spoilers, if the identity of a mystery character is a point of tension, but the sparseness of the production restricts the possibilities to only one, it is difficult to treat the premise seriously.  That, and the downright idiotic implausibility of the plot ought to leave an observer shaking his or her head by the time of the end credits.  One half of one jellybean.

Suite Française (2015)

Michelle Williams gets all of the screen time, but Margot Robbie and Kristen Scott-Thomas provide powerful counter-point appearances in a surprisingly engaging Second World War occupation saga.  Usually, these sorts of films spend their time villainizing the awful Germans and celebrating the defiant spirit of the resistance with varying degrees of levity, ranging from "'Allo, Allo" to "The Diary of Anne Frank." This film shifts the dynamic of Second World War conflict from jackboots vs. bicycles to a class warfare scenario typical of a disintegrating capitalist system under the French Third Republic.  Seething hatred between impoverished tenant farmers and aristocratic landlords explodes into violence, confusing the erstwhile brutal occupation forces, who instead of enforcing fascist regulations, suddenly have to mediate a series of petty disputes and generations-old hostilities.  Based on the notebooks of a woman in the middle of these confusing historical events almost eighty years ago, there is a very immediate humanness that resounds through the film.  Williams herself seems almost too frail in comparison to Scott-Thomas' sneering upper-class bitch who cold-heartedly squeezes and manipulates her tenants, and Robbie's contemptuous peasant who is unafraid of using the confused (and horny) German soldiers to exact revenge on her economic oppressors.  This film is a lot of things, but it is not boring, despite the ghastly, slow-paced, period-piece-esque opening.  Those expecting a dry version of "Sophie's Choice" with some slow Chopin nocturnes highlighting fields of wheat or still-life bowls of fruit will be disappointed to see the sex, violence, and character development.  Four and a half jellybeans out of five.

7 Days in Entebbe (2018)

Carrying on in an historical vein, this film portrays some very well-trodden material.  There are probably some very solid political reasons for revisiting the triumphant rescue of an aeroplane worth of hostages by a team of crack Israeli commandos, exterminating a whole bunch of nasty terrorists in the process.  In fact, the fictionalization of the event in Chuck Norris' "Delta Force" (1986) provided many right-wing wet dreams about winning an unending war on terror.  This production even has a whole set of expository text scrolls through the opening and closing scenes that essentially advertise the film as being hard-liner friendly.  It takes some thinking through the film to get past the weird framing device of a performance-art interpretive dance and get to the actual point, which is that the raid should not have worked.  According to a number of contemporaneous witness accounts, the hostages should have been slaughtered in an awful bloodbath because of a clumsy Israeli attack that left Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's older brother dead, and left behind an elderly Israeli woman to be tortured to death by Idi Amin Dada's butchers.  It is left to the performances of Rosamund Pike and Daniel Brühl to reveal the reason that Entebbe wasn't a ridiculous calamity.  That was enough to keep me interested, though it may not be enough for most.  Two jellybeans.

And that's enough for now.  Whatever is going on with my medications, I have been profoundly exhausted for hours on end, day after day now.  Even an evening's worth of carbo-loading at the profoundly wonderful Café Amore yesterday has not proven effective at giving me any stamina.  At least my MRI is coming up this week, so we can have another examination of my medical situation then.  Before I go, here is my latest random musical playlist.

Random Music

• Sweet Emotion, performed by the Mighty Mighty Bosstones
• We've Got the Beat, by the Go-Gos
• Barbie Girl, by Aqua
• Glad to be Unhappy, by Billie Holiday
• No Sleep, by The Cardigans
• Fresh Feeling, by The Eels
• Love Explosion, by Lightning Seeds
• Falling in Love, by Lisa Loeb
• Teacher, by Jethro Tull
• Waiting for Magic, by Ace of Base

And that's all for now.  Until next time, goodnight England and the Colonies.
Cheers,
—mARKUS

More Cinematic Obscurities

Greetings, gentle readers.
Last entry, I began rattling off some brief reviews of films that have been recently released with very little fanfare.  Well, without too much extraneous ado, I thought that I would ignore the negligible viewership and continue in that vein until I've run my critical eye over every cinematic offering of the last two or three years that eludes the categories of "blockbuster", "tent-pole", and "hit."

Who Else Is In It?

Dark Crimes (2016)

Whatever happened to Jim Carrey's career?  It's a question that has floated about Hollywood since his strange interviews following the release of "Kick Ass 2" (2013).  To briefly recap, he played a vigilante named Col. Stars and Stripes in a very cynical parody of Captain America.  He then puzzled members of the press during the brief promotional tour by insisting that he be withdrawn from the credits because he was sick of mass shootings and gun culture in the United States.  The transition from rubber-faced, fart-joking, gurning village idiot to stony, sober, social critic has apparently become complete with his turn in this grim, grey, and thoroughly humourless production.  It's a bleak whodunit set in Eastern Europe, and the murder investigation leads to all manner of unhappiness, dolefully dredged by a moribund Carrey.  Not a great film to pair with "Ace Ventura:  Pet Detective" for a children's matinee double-header.  Intellectually interesting, but cinematographically routine. One and a half jellybeans out of five.

Kill Kane (2016)

Former Wimbledon FC hardman Vinnie Jones has chiselled himself a certain niche in Hollywood productions since he started stealing scenes in former Madonna-spouse Guy Ritchie films like "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" (1998) and "Snatch" (2000).  Some may argue that his film career hit its apex in 2000's Nicolas Cage/Angelina Jolie vehicle "Gone in 60 Seconds."  This film will not contradict that assertion.  A jumbled mess that tries to use jump-cut editing to try and artificially create a sense of tension and immediacy in an otherwise simple, linear tale of revenge, "Kill Kane" fails miserably.  The flashbacks are rather meaningless, and actually counter-productive in some cases because there is no discrepancy of knowledge.  For example, if we know in the present that a character is dead, a later flashback sequence that hinges its suspense on the survival of that character is stupid.  I was hoping for more, considering the participation of "Ming the Merciless"-clone Sean Cronin, whose performance stood out in "We Still Steal the Old Way." (2017)  Instead, this is just a frustrating slapdash production that does not merit an evening's investment.  Half a jellybean.  Barely.

Message From The King (2016)

For those still giddy from watching Chadwick Boseman in 2018's "Black Panther," this film may be a bit of a disappointment. Inconsistently engaging and with a strangely slow pace, it is difficult to enjoy.  Basically, it is a fish-out-of-water culture-shock revenge story of a South African man looking for his sister in Los Angeles.  The credits have barely stopped rolling when we discover that the protagonist's sister has been murdered and he has until his return flight leaves for Cape Town to exact his revenge on the evil-doers.  Luke (Bard of Lake Town) Evans and Alfred (Otto Octavius) Molina pop up in the chain of typically corrupt and perverse Americans that Boseman must navigate on his route to fulfill his quest.  An early opportunity for Boseman to work on his African accent before going on to become eternally recognized as the King of Wakanda, with one or two interesting action sequences, but little else of consequence.  Two jellybeans.

Crooked House (2017)

Another film adaptation of that greatest of all novelists, Agatha Christie.  This particular version changes the time setting of the novel to an England balancing on the advent of the Beatles - a society about to discover rock and roll, about to leave the postwar coupon-book austerity for a new exciting future of televisions and sports cars, yet still haunted by the echoes of aristocratic class warfare.  Several acting performances stand out, including Gillian Anderson as a faded celebrity and Julian Sands as the arrogant lord of a decaying manor.  But as much as one suspects that this was designed to mark the beginning of an ascendance of Jeremy Irons' son, Max, the film is really stolen by a mesmerizing performance from Glenn Close as the batty and eccentric aunt, preoccupied with poisoning, shooting, and detonating the moles and other vermin infesting the grounds of the titular Crooked House.  A fabulous murder-mystery with all of the twists one expects from Christie, and all of the creepy, suspicious mannerisms and quirks that can be fully developed by a talented and engaging cast.  Worth the watch.  Four jellybeans.

I'm out of steam for the time being, but rest assured that I'll keep on trying to work through my list of films I have watched from my couch of invalidity as soon as possible.  Until then, here's

My Latest Random Playlist

In another attempt to find meaning in the stochastic, here's what I heard during my last shower.
Eleanor Rigby, by The Beatles
Feeling Lazy, by Lightning Seeds
Sweet Jane, by Mott the Hoople
Nobody's Child, by The Travelling Wilburys
Old Brown Shoe, by The Beatles
My Sharona, by The Knack
All Along The Watchtower, by Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead
Lady Madonna. by The Beatles
The Rain Song, by Led Zeppelin

And that's all for now.  Until later, good night England and the Colonies.
—mARKUS

I Watch Them So You Don't Have To

Greetings, gentle readers. 
I've been housebound and bed-ridden invalid for months and I would be remiss as my duty as a gimp if I were to fail to share my experiences with the world at large.  In this case, I've had the opportunity to watch all of the under-marketed and under-distributed films of the recent decade or so.  I can thus try to enlighten and educate people at large as to which films on late-night cable or on whatever streaming service to which they subscribe, are worthy of a 90+ minute investment.
I'm going to have to do this in installments, so I've decided to go through films in order of genre.

I've never heard of that film...

Biographies

• Borg v. McEnroe (2018) - Shia LeBoeuf does a credible job as John "The Brat" McEnroe, but this film is really about how Björn Rune Borg was almost as crazy-bonkers.  Honestly.  The tennis sequences are not terribly interesting, and adult-Borg is not as interesting as child-Borg.  A boring watch unless you're a Swede who believes that your ethnicity bestows a hidden and latent Viking ferocity that expresses itself in oppressively monotonous press conferences.  Two jellybeans.
• Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (2017) - If you didn't know that Wonder Woman was constructed on the basis of BDSM fantasy, then please feel free to crawl back under your rock.  She has a rope that compels bound victims to tell the truth, she has constrictive jewellery that repels bullets, and she wears the closest thing to a corset-bikini permissible by the United States censors.  Unpopular viewing for those unwilling to see "female empowerment" reduced to "male bondage fantasy." Kinky, but basically a tepid rebellion against 1950s moral censorship. Two jellybeans.
• Goodbye Christopher Robin (2017) - Domhnall Gleeson makes the character of A.A. Milne rarely rise above the emotional level of an animated corpse and even then only in the absence of Margot Robbie.  An oddly-edited film that gives the impression it was cobbled together from anecdotes given by conflicting witnesses.  If you want to watch a film that wonders aloud what makes a delightful high society wit and playwright into a drab and sullen recluse, or why a woman can flap between meaningless histrionics and doting melodramatic maternal feelings for no other reason than a decades-long post-partum thing... go ahead.  But any insights hidden in the film are broken by the disjointed display of third-party-observed tableaux, rather than any elucidation by any of the participants.  One jellybean.
• Rebel In The Rye (2017) - This film disappeared in part because Kevin Spacey was publicly unmasked as a sexual predator who claimed amnesty because of mitigating homosexuality.  It also disappeared for good reason because J.D. Salinger is a ridiculously difficult subject for a film, and Salinger himself helped to perpetuate his own obscurity.  For lack of primary source material, this film falls into the same trap as "Goodbye Christopher Robin" in that it appears to be a pastiche of anecdotes contrived to form a narrative with a thematic agenda.  Nicholas "About a Boy" Hoult tries to show Salinger as an earnest, but PTSD-afflicted misanthrope, but in the final analysis, we are not given any insights into the universal appeal of Salinger's works, the literary techniques he employs, or the underlying philosophy embodied in his fictitious literary Glass family.  In fact, Salinger's work, with the exception of "Catcher in the Rye" is largely ignored in favour of meandering scenes of angst that try to depict the author as the titular "Rebel" when in fact there is very little rebellion on display. The film is not awful, but will leave Salinger aficionados unsatisfied, and the literary uninitiated puzzled.  One and a half jellybeans. 
• Jeremiah Tower:  The Last Magnificent (2016) - a sad film by any stretch, but an interesting one for anyone interested in the business side of running a restaurant.  An interesting elucidation on the intersection of celebrity, cuisine, and finance.  Particularly poignant is the story of homosexual backlash against Jeremiah in San Francisco during the heated days of perceived AIDS/HIV discrimination, and just how that ridiculous situation intersected with the earthquake in the 1980s.  Three and half jellybeans.
• A Futile and Stupid and Gesture (2018) - As much as Domhnall Gleeson made A. A. Milne feel like an emotionless automaton in "Goodbye Christopher Robin", he was at least a humourous homunculus in this film - and the only real avenue for a viewer to gain access to the story of Douglas Kenney.  Harvard Lampoon and National Lampoon were institutions founded in juvenile pranks and hysterical spoofs, and yet the film only wants to see the protagonist as a substance-abuser with an overwhelming desire to make his father proud.  The laughs and hijinks are muted so that the psychological narrative can be firmly stamped all over Will Forte's anguished face.  Gleeson deadpans the only witty and acerbic lines in the film, while Forte plays the doomed antihero to a slow and pedantic conclusion.  After watching this film, a neophyte would wonder how "Animal House" made any money at the box office.  One jellybean.
• Chappaquiddick (2018) - A film with a lot of content, but resonates with as much authenticity as a tin drum.  Jason Clarke plays a Ted Kennedy as a perpetually befuddled and confused child with an overwhelming family burden to succeed in the footsteps of his two assassinated brothers.  That's the angle.  Everything else is basically a recitation of evidence admitted in court with a few details chipped in by minor participants.  Large questions are left unanswered, and Kennedy is basically portrayed as an incompetent victim, despite suspicions that he may actually have been a murderous coward.  Even though Ted has been dead for almost a decade, there is still some sort of reverent hesitation that makes this film feel restrained and inauthentic.  Clancy Brown's depiction of Robert McNamara earns this film an extra half jellybean.  One and a half jellybeans.
• Anthropoid (2016) - Ordinarily, historical films involving Nazis are pretty straightforward - guys in the jackboots with the lightning bolts on their lapels are bad, and people in leather jackets and berets are good.  Can't go wrong.  Somehow this film does.  Reynhard Heydrich was a truly awful human being - so inhuman as to be categorized as anthropoid (man-like).  He was so awful that the rest of the Third Reich didn't know how to get rid of him without angering Hitler himself.  We thus reach a point in history where a pack of heroic Czechs, led by Cilian Murphy try to assassinate the evil bastard at the same time as the German High Command tries to shuffle him somewhere where he can do less harm.  With a narrow window of opportunity, the freedom fighters botch the assassination, allowing the wounded Heydrich to decree all manner of horrid reprisals before he dies under attendance of his own medical staff.  Their degree of medical participation in his demise is unknown.  The new German occupation then spend the remaining forty minutes of the film trying not to kill the partisans before finally surrendering to fate and putting them (and the plot) out of its misery.  One jellybean.
• Battle of the Sexes (2017) - One would think that the landmark match between Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King in 1973 could have used a number of angles.  Billie Jean King was fighting for some degree of pay equity between genders, so there's the feminist angle.  Riggs had previously beaten women's number one Margaret Court handily, so there is a technical sporting angle of the tactics and athleticism required in tennis at that time.  The film could have focused on King herself (played by a bored-looking Emma Stone), who was just coming to terms with her sexual orientation.  It could have focused on Riggs, who was battling a gambling addiction as well as his female opponents.  In the end, there is no real focus.  King is portrayed as rather dull person whose personal life could never be as interesting as her net play, despite infidelity and lesbianism.  The matches are only shown as tantalising snapshot tableaux, and Riggs (played capably by Steve Carell) seems to get far more screen time than one might expect, considering the rather linear progression of his character.  Deeply unsatisfying, and unfair to the subjects of its source material.  One jellybean.
• Death of Stalin (2017) - A truly strange film about some truly strange events.  Totalitarian states lend themselves to parody because so much of their machinations seem absurd to the casual observer.  Thus, when Stalin is found facedown in his office, the Communist political apparatus finds itself paralyzed, since all decisions were made by the insensate leader.  The confusion only grows in magnitude when it is eventually determined that he has, at some point, actually died.  The fact that the events are based on historical fact somehow makes the whole scenario even more darkly humourous.  Steve Buscemi does a remarkable job of portraying Nikita Khruschev, the bald bureaucrat who somehow manages to navigate the corridors of power without alienating too many of the lurking psychopaths, but Jason Isaacs positively steals the show as Georgy Zhukov.  The bombastic field marshal steals every scene as some sort of Nazi-stomping Yorkshire gangster with a direct approach to every situation in direct contradiction of all of the political weasels in the Kremlin.  Michael Palin is great as old Vyacheslav Molotov, and even has a couple of tear-jerking scenes in stark relief to his hysterical performances as a member of Monty Python.  A remarkably substantial film, and definitely worth a watch.  Four jellybeans.
• The Disaster Artist (2017) - The problem with making a meta-production of a film about the making of an existing film is that it becomes terribly easy to fill screen time with that of the topic film rather than the action of that film's production.  In this regard, "The Disaster Artist" manages to tread a fine line.  Once one gets past the gormless and pathetic gurning of Dave Franco, his elder brother James actually turns in a notable performance as quirky nutjob Tommy Wiseau, though some of the best scenes in the film are found when James Franco's scenery-chewing grandstanding is tempered with colleague Seth Rogen's cynical interjections as Sandy Schklair.  Entertaining without being enlightening, it's an amusing detour into Franco's thespian self-indulgence.  Three jellybeans.
• The Founder (2016) - This is a fantastic exploration of the McDonald's corporate phenomenon.  The story makes so much sense in hindsight that one wonders how it came down to a schmuck like Ray Kroc to create a lucrative multibillion-dollar empire using simple first principles.  Michael Keaton has a difficult row to hoe, making a conniving swindler like Kroc palatable as a protagonist, and yet manages to do so commendably.  Any other actor playing an character that ditches a wife played by Laura Dern and cheats aw-shucks good guys played by Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch would face ostracism by proxy, but Keaton somehow manages to imbue his greed with a Gordon Gecko-esque charm.  Not the glossiest production, but earnest and candid.  Four Jellybeans.

And to quickly recap my last random musical songlisting in the hope that the universe is speaking through me through my iPod, here are the last tracks that were given to me during my last shower.

• Pig Bad, by Bad Manners
• Fishes on the Line, by Lightning Seeds
• Sail on Sailor, by Matthew Sweet and Darius Rucker
• Star Baby, by The Guess Who
• ElectroFunk 21, by DJ John
• San Jacinto, by Peter Gabriel

And that's all for now.  When next we meet, I will continue my movie reviews.  I'm probably going to call the next genre Drama just to simplify such categorizations as Noir, Thriller, Psychological Whatnot, or Mystery.  After that, I reckon I can have Action subsume such categories as Adventure, Sci-Fi, Crime, and Horror.
Until then, goodnight England and the Colonies.
—mARKUS

Stare Decisis

Greetings, gentle readers.
Another day, and yet another bleak and awful vista yawns forth before us.  The most recent impetus for sticking one's head in a gas oven like a baked potato or Sylvia Plath is the retirement of Supreme Court of the United States Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Considering that a Supreme Court Justice serves for life (or whenever he or she pleases), Justice Kennedy's replacement could very well determine the course of the American judicial system for generations.
President Trump's nominee, subject to confirmation by the Senate, is a judge by the name of Brett Kavanaugh.  If confirmed, he would hold the "swing vote" previously held by Justice Kennedy.  This means that there are four conservative-leaning justices and four progressive-leaning justices, and he can tip the balance either way when deciding matters involving critically divisive social issues.  For example, the 2015 decision of Obergefell v. Hodges required that all fifty states treat same-sex marriages with the exact same legal conditions and mechanisms as opposite-sex marriages.  Had Justice Kennedy been replaced with a conservative judge in that case, the United States would not have marriage equality today.
I see three main issues where Justice Kavanaugh's vote will impact American society directly:  net neutrality, political finance law, and abortion.  Other issues like the death penalty, same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights are also important, but the court of public opinion has already been set down pretty firmly on those fronts, making any reversal profoundly unpopular and politically disastrous for any administration. But here's where things may change:

Net Neutrality

Hard as it may be to believe, Justice Kavanaugh's previous decisions indicate that he opposes net neutrality.  Follow me on this: he has ruled that Internet Service Providers can throttle, prioritize, or charge different rates for different sites or services.  In other words, if Crave TV wants to take over the market from Netflix, they can convince Shaw, TELUS, ComCast, or whomever else is providing internet access to the public to charge more for Netflix, or slow down Netflix traffic so that the programming lags, loses sound, etc.
That sounds stupid.  If Microsoft gives enough money to enough ISPs, they could throttle Google bandwidth to a trickle and force people to either use Bing as their search engine or pay ridiculously high 'premium access' fees.  Why would a judge allow what amounts to censorship of information access?  Answer:  because he has ruled that any government neutrality regulations would contravene the free speech rights of the companies that distribute bandwidth.  Yup.  The rights of the corporations are more constitutionally important than the rights of citizens.

We've already seen evidence that the American government has been tending toward corporate syndicalism for years, most recently evidenced by the fiasco in the United Nations recently when the United States bullied and threatened a stunned World Health Assembly in an attempt to prevent a resolution advocating the health benefits of breast milk.  (For more information, click HERE)  Why would the United States brandish economic sanctions and aid withdrawal against countries like Ecuador over breast milk?  Answer:  because the companies that manufacture infant formula are part of a $70 billion industry, and they don't want babies to be breast-fed, despite all medical evidence indicating it is the healthiest option for a child.  Breast-feeding eats into their profits, and the U.S. government is willing to use its foreign policy to defend those profits.
Speaking of the American government and its financial relationship with big business, how about:

Citizens United

In 2010, The Supreme Court of the United States decided in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that financial contributions are a form of expression of opinion and therefore protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States.  In short, any individual or corporation acting as an individual can throw as much money as it wishes at a political action committee (PAC) representing a candidate or campaign.  Hypothetically, that means a corporation that manufactures baby formula could spend loads of cash on any political candidate that promises to endorse any policy that villainizes breastfeeding.  In a two-party system, that would mean only bribing... erm... endorsing two candidates per political jurisdiction could ensure that a corporation's agenda will become public policy.
Should a case arise that might call for the Citizens United decision to be reviewed, how will Justice Kavanaugh treat this condition of unfettered "rent-a-politician" electoral finances?  In his presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders made it clear that his first and foremost criterion for a Supreme Court Justice nominee is that candidate's professed willingness to reverse the Citizens United decision.  Striking down Citizens United would be a direct slap in the face to all of the multinational corporations that are currently directing governmental activity. It would take a brave justice to try and stop the free-flow of corporate profits into politicians' pockets in exchange for more defence spending and fewer industrial health and safety regulations.  Is Kavanaugh that brave?  Possible, but unlikely.  It would seem more likely that the current state of corruption is very satisfying to most of the people within the District of Columbia beltway, leaving Kavanaugh unmotivated to change the status quo.
Above all, Kavanaugh is seen as a pro-business justice, meaning that his verdicts tend to favour corporations rather than employees, environmental concerns, anti-trust legislation, and health and safety regulations.  Overall, it seems likely that Citizens United will remain the law of the land in the face of any movement to repeal it.
And then there's the social conservative hot box:

Roe v. Wade

Ever since 1973, people who have identified as conservative have been trying to make abortion the biggest issue facing the American populace.  The logic here can only be seen as manipulative and duplicitous.  Conservatism generally involves "small government."  The answers to socio-economic problems are supposed to be solved by the free markets, economically and intellectually.  The government is not supposed to legislate or regulate the behaviour of business or people, but instead focus on service sectors of the public good.
The government may not infringe on the rights of the individual to free speech, peaceable assembly, bear arms, protection from malicious prosecution and double jeopardy, etc.  Conservatives are supposed to hold dear the civil rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.  Until it comes to women's reproductive organs.  At that point, the government is encouraged to use all of its power to restrict and coerce a woman's actions regarding her own body.  In the various points of conflict between the individual and the state, conservatives treasure the rights of the individual, except when it comes to abortion.
This particular conflict is so mind-numbingly stupid that it can only be seen as an artificial topic designed to force voters to conflate religious evangelism with political affiliation.  In cases such as that of U.S. Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania (HERE) and U.S. Representative Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee (HERE), lofty and pious-sounding speeches in Congress about the sanctity of life and other such tripe are shown to be bald-faced hypocrisy.  Abortion is fine for their mistresses and girlfriends, but not for their constituents in general as they build their political platforms on moral rather than policy bases.
The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy is one of the principal cornerstones of female empowerment, and female empowerment is the greatest possible measure of the advancement of a civilization.  Any society that systematically disenfranchises half of its people on the basis of gender is obviously inhibiting its own potential.  Depriving a woman of control over her own uterus essentially makes women incubators operating under government supervision.
No-one likes abortion.  No one wants one.  It's not fun, and nobody is gratified or even satisfied with the completion of such a surgical procedure.  But sometimes, it becomes a necessity for any of a host of ugly and unhappy reasons.  Usually, cases of rape, incest, paedophiliac interference, ectopic pregnancy, foetal inviability, or maternal endangerment are presented as cases extreme enough to warrant justification for terminating a pregnancy.  Other cases include children with Tay-Sachs disease (HERE) or mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS - HERE).  The point is that this is not a binary issue - this is complicated on moral, ethical, medical, psychological, and philosophical levels and cannot be reduced to a "forbid or allow" legal decision.
That being said, abortion has become a political lever.  Many elections in the bible belt have been won or lost on the basis of whichever candidate can behave the most convincingly as though they will work to repeal Roe v. Wade and make it universally illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.  This means that Justice Kennedy's retirement opens the door for Congresspeople and Senators alike to make good on all of their promises to bring their bizarre and thoroughly fascist-fantasy idea of Jesus to the judiciary.
In this case, there may be room for hope.  While we may all be justified in cringing in a corner and bemoaning the loss of environmental protections, labour relations, and integrity in politics, there is hope that Justice Kavanaugh, if confirmed, may not be 100% dedicated to turning women into government-regulated birth functionaries.

The Trump Angle

A lot of supporters of the current president might be disappointed that poor people might still have legal access to abortion services, despite the practical economic barriers that they encounter now.  But first of all, they have already forgiven any transgressions made by the president and his administration (adultery, bearing false witness, coveting, stealing tuition, etc.).  Second of all, they don't understand what they are voting for anyway, as long as it has something to do with blaming immigrants.  This is proven by looking at how they vote against their own interest. If you didn't click on the previous link, here it is again.  Finally, the president doesn't give a pig's burp about any of the potential social impacts of his SCOTUS nominations.
The real reason that Kavanaugh is being nominated is because of the enormous amount of written pages he has dedicated to a constitutional analysis of indicting a sitting president.  Corporate control of politics and the internet, and even abortion is relatively meaningless when it comes to the President trying to stack the deck against his own impeachment and conviction.
And that's really what it's all about - there are no secret agenda or deep political intrigues, or even an impending dissolution of the separation of church and state involved here.  Just the myopic, self-serving scramblings of a petty criminal.
And so it has come to pass that I come to the conclusion of my ramblings for the nonce.
Until next time, good night England and the Colonies,
—mARKUS

Sundowner Speculations

Greetings, gentle readers.
Sometimes I wonder if most social conversations are taking a few things for granted as being true or unquestionable. 
I saw one of those Extreme Home Makeover shows the other day.  The mother, a caretaker nurse for the severely handicapped, had a young daughter, and as soon as that daughter reached the age of six and started to care for herself - feeding, potty training, etc. - the mother suddenly became pregnant with twins that were so ridiculously handicapped with a rare genetic disorder that they required round-the-clock attention.
Suspicious scents about the case notwithstanding, the mother was asked what she wanted for her genetically disadvantaged children, since there was absolutely no medical hope of them ever becoming self-sufficient.  Her response shocked me.
"I can see them maybe working in a coffee shop, being useful."(or words to that effect) she blubbered.
That, I thought, was the root of a lot of misguided conversations. 
She didn't want her sons to fall in love, or write a poem, or sing a song, or inspire a young child to explore and learn.  She wanted them to WORK.  And since she was setting her sights low, she wanted them to work in a coffee shop.  For, one assumes, minimum wage.

JOBS

When a politician yowls out "Jobs!" like a scalded cat, it is meant to be a clarion call.   Jobs in this case meaning gainful employment so that people can get their hands on money that they can then use to climb the social ladder towards capitalist success, and by incidence, feed their families.
But wait - what if the whole structure is out of date?  What if one really clever person can build a robot that will mine as much coal as a hundred humans, and not die of black lung after 30 years of active service?  Is that one person worth 100 jobs?  What if what politicians ought to be offering is not just jobs, but fulfilling occupations?
American capitalists, for all of their other shortcomings, do not realize that they are preaching Karl Marx's gospel every day.  Those that seem to think that the death of the coal and other natural-resource-harvesting industries means the death of honest labour are the ones that are arguing for an archaic philosophy. 
Industry, for the most part, involves pulling stuff out of the environment (ground, air, water), doing something to it, selling it, consuming it, and disposing of it.  What Marx and the weirdly-nostalgic conservatives don't seem to get is that there are jobs at all five phases, not just the feudal-subsistence-level first element.  This is the basic structure of the industrial labour-force:

Level One - Harvesting

Generally, the dirtiest part of manufacturing is getting the raw materials.  This means the miners that dig coal seams or chisel platinum deposits or yank huge yellow boulders of sulphur out of volcanic craters.  It also means the dirt farmers that plant seeds and reap the various photosynthetic and other products of natural metabolic processes.  This is the basic level of employment - hunting, trapping, farming, and digging.

Level Two - Refining

Just after stuff is raised, grown, tapped, dug, or whatever, someone needs to process the stuff to make it useful.  Wheat grain needs to be milled in order to make flour.  Bauxite ore needs to be refined to make aluminium.  Iron ore needs to be smelted with carbon, tungsten, and other metals to make steel.  Essentially, this means a slightly higher level of training and industrialization in terms of employment, which might be accomplished by a rudimentary guild or syndicate.

Level Three - Sales and Distribution

Once you have a marketable product, you need to move it and get people to trade you something of value for it.  For this, you need information (how much is it worth and to whom), communication (where and when are things going), and transportation (how quickly and by what means will it get there).  By this point, one requires literacy, mathematics, and education and we have moved to a point where the labour force must be trained and compensated to a certain extent, requiring grammar schools, colleges, and universities.

Level Four - Consumption

Why drink one type of soda over another?  Why eat black truffles at $600/oz. instead of pink peppercorns at $10/lb.?  Why buy a Hyundai rather than a Honda?  Directing a population to use its purchasing power towards one terminus of a supply chain rather than another requires even more sophisticated understanding of language, media, and social conventions.  Again, the training for such a job requires years of investment in education and culture.

Level Five - Elimination

The final stage of industrial economics is disposal.  In earlier times, people like fullers and night soil farmers were a tad more commonplace than in today's world.  They used direct refuse to create their products, making them, in essence part of level one.  As a result of developments in hygiene and other health-related discoveries, those occupations have ceased to be.  However, now that people have put a monetary value (are willing to pay) on the environmental impact of commodity consumption, there is value in recycling or removing material from the ecosystem.  A tremendous amount of value is yet to be exploited by reducing the impact of used packaging and distribution elements, or transforming them into other constituent components in the creation of other components.

SO?

Why (if) did you bother to read all of the above?  Answer:  because "JOBS!" could mean employment in any of those five stages.  In other words, a politician that promises more jobs, but does not tell you what kind of jobs are being offered, is being ingenuous. 
In short, "first-world countries" like the United States should not be trying to create level one jobs.  The governments of such countries should not be expending its efforts trying to give more citizens black lung and other occupational hazards from whale-hunting or dustbowl wheat starvation.  It ought to be trying to create jobs based on higher-level education and information-based technology.
The point of free-trade agreements like NAFTA, then, is to try and fit the workforces of each country to the level of industrial sophistication. 
Thus:  any politician can create jobs.  The problem is wages.  A post-doctoral graduate with a ridiculous student debt burden cannot accept an Appalachian mining gig.  Given the wages, she could not realistically be expected to pay back any significant portion of her debt before dying of one of the many factors in that position that has been proven to lower life expectancy.  An increase in job openings without a corresponding relationship to the cost of living is worthless.
It's a pity that the United States lives in such a poisonous and divisive atmosphere right now.  If only they realized that their problem is not and has never been immigration.
The answer has been there all along; through history.
They lost in Vietnam.
They have been in Afghanistan for seventeen years now, and they are losing.
Bombs keep dropping on Iraq, Niger, Yemen, and Pakistan.
The enemy of the U.S. taxpayer is not these foreign lands of targets. 
The enemy was described by President Dwight D. Eisenhower HERE.
Why not invest some of that money into social services, health care, education, and infrastructure?  A higher-educated workforce is one that commands a higher value. 
Eventually, an economy develops from stage one through five until it reaches a zenith.  At that point, industrial economics ceases to have an impact and a post-industrial, information-based society takes over.  Production value becomes based on knowledge, wisdom, and artistic or scientific thought, not material goods.

Conclusion

When a government does not invest in its own people, it enables the disparity of wealth between the classes.  The United States has now become the poster child (*see infant mortality) for the United Nations recent study on wealth inequality.   I am not an American, but if I were, I would use my constitutional voting rights to try and do something - anything. 
Everything in the United States seems awful to me.  Educational vouchers?  Awful.  The amount of "freedoms" that are used to repress others is nauseating.  The conservative family values somehow being equated to separating and confining children below the age of 10?  Ridiculous.  I don't even want to get to the point where government of a country can use its legal powers to force a woman to carry a child to term beyond her own wishes.  Can it then impregnate her and use her as a surrogate incubator for party leaders?  If women are nothing more than reproduction machines, then what have we been doing for the past 350 years?  Thinking about the joys of 5th century BC oligarchism?

Discussion and Discourse

I don't get the debate.  Somehow, every single major political debate in North America devolves down into some kind of immigration, environmental, or health care discussion.  Education is routinely discarded, since no-one cares.
Basically -

We're afraid of the other

This is used to fight minority, LGBTQ, and anything other than Jerry Falwell's flock.  Conservatives think that the Bible (the quasi-literary-historical source of recorded genocide, rape, and murdering unborn children) supports their positions, holds aloft some sort of moral superiority over their opponents.

Scientists are lying

There is some kind of conspiracy to make oil companies make less money.  Strict Biblical followers can choose whatever scientific evidence supports their arguments, and dismiss the rest.  Supporters of a "Young Earth" are baffled when the family dog does not decompose into oil sands after 15 minutes of being pronounced deceased.

Goddam baby-killing commies

Whatever colour for whom a person votes, (Blue/Red) represents "saving" or "preserving" the American way.  Equally for a person who votes contrarily, the other side has somehow developed a way to thoroughly destroy it.  Roe v. Wade has proven to be a shibboleth to determine your enemy.
Women who would prefer that their uteri not be federal property are not allowed to argue, because their gender is predisposed to hysteria and irrational thinking.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

After looking at all of the argumentation and strife, one is tempted to ask why one would let arguments about abstract concepts create scenarios that would not only allow, but encourage a neighbour to distrust and despise his or her neighbour.  Techniques to disperse dissenting ideas have been around since antiquity, and it seems that their efficiency have not dimmed, despite the evolution of media.

The Bottom Line

Democracy as North America knows it is under siege.  American forces are militarily occupying foreign countries, and American troops are suppressing free expression and religion.  The principle of democracy is not being upheld in any American military operation
The longer they occupy foreign countries and dictate their policies, the more they expose themselves as hypocrites.
The American government decides that it can exempt itself from prosecution following specific, not generalized inadherence to the codes of conduct becoming civilized nations, forgetting that the My Lai massacre did, and does not allow it that sort of exemption.
The really huge philosophical problem here is this:  Democracy is not the only solution.
2500 years ago, the Chinese derived a system of governance that relied on merit, not on bloodline or preference.

Alternatives

Autocracy works in the People's Republic of China.  In fact, it's been outstripping the U.S. in terms of net economic growth for decades straight.  The horror for most American governmental officials is that such a system can make people happier and provide more household wealth.  Imagine the terror of having to explain literally shooting dissenting voices to suppress unions, when the technology they use to communicate the message is made by the peasant labour of Chinese factory workers with longer life-expectancies.  In China, poverty has been on the decline for years; the opposite is true of the United States of America.  Many statistics are available, and some pretty charts can be found HERE.
Many stories are made of over-worked Chinese/Burmese/Malayan/etc. factory workers flinging themselves from windows because they could not meet the production quotas of the factories.  What happens if the same media attention is drawn to American corporate sponsorship of such economic colonialism?  Do Wall Street shareholders feel obligated to donate their multinational dividends and earnings to the worker providing the shareholder value?

End

In conclusion, American capitalists have created more drooling, obedient slaves worldwide than the small-fry Communist regimes that it feared in the 1950s and 60s.  The conflicts in South-East Asia illustrated that Americans were actually waged by next-generation colonialists and oligarchists prepared to lose as many American troops as necessary to make a profit.  American troops now are sent overseas to protest imperialist interests and are discarded as damaged goods when their usefulness has been expended.  Veterans receive scant better benefits than stray animals, and their society receives negligible benefits from their service in oppressing third-world populations.

Song Randomizer

So what popped up in my random musical playlist today, and is there some sort of meaning that can be derived, like that of bird entrails or a handful of stones or bones cast by a shaman?  Here goes:

• Secret, by Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark
• Turn Turn Turn, by The Byrds
• Dear Mr. Fantasy, by Big Sugar
• Fresh Feeling, by Eels
• Ride Like Hell (acoustic), by Big Sugar
• Sniper, by Harry Chapin
• African Sky Blue, by Juluka

And that's all from me for now.  I'll be back soon with my movie reviews from the past year - all the films that I saw so that you didn't have to.  Being an invalid, I've seen more than my fair share of limited release, B-grade, and grindhouse films over the past couple of years.  As such, I can give some brusque and straightforward evaluations of films in the same way that 42nd Street Pete used to.
Back in the day, these recommendations would help you on your trip to the video store.  Now, they probably just inform your selections on Netflix or whatever other cable/interweb provider you have.
Until I can summon up the stamina to attack my list, it's good night England and the Colonies.
—mARKUS

Canada Day Eve 2018

Greetings, gentle readers.
Well, I'm in the middle of an awful stomach flux, so I'm in no mood to mutter either incomprehensibly nor terminally today.  Quick and simple it is, then.

Warum, Jögi?

Almost exactly one year ago, Germany's National Men's Football Team (Die Mannschaft) won the Confederations Cup in Saint Petersburg, Russia.  Timo Werner won the Golden Boot with three goals and two assists, topping Silver Boot winners Leon Goretzka and Lars Stindl, also from Germany, and also with three goals each.
What happened to the team that routed Mexico 4-1 in Sochi on 29 June 2017?
I offer three possible factors.  The impact or net effect of each is up to each individual to determine, but ultimately Joachim Löw is the final arbiter of what actually happened.

1.  The Effenberg Effect

Do you remember when Germany didn't win the World Cup in 1998?  One point of curiosity was the absence of Stefan Effenberg from the roster.  He pissed off manager Berti Vogts in the U.S.A. in the 1994 World Cup and was essentially banished from the team thereafter.  Why?  The guy went on to win the Bundesliga championship in the next three consecutive years, including a domestic treble in '99, a league and league cup double in '00, and a big double by winning the UEFA Champions League in '01.  The man was the UEFA Club Footballer of the year for that monstrous 2001 season.
What might Germany have accomplished with that midfield powerhouse in their lineup in either France 1998 or in Japan/Korea 2002?
Looking at the squads as they lined up, a couple of names leap out.
The first is Leroy Sané.  He was named to the Confederations Cup roster, but was withdrawn due to injury.  He didn't even make the squad for the World Cup.  That's interesting.
The second name is that of Emre Can.  If one watches Germany's undefeated performance in the Confederations Cup, Can should stand out as the defending midfielder who shielded the back four and performed a largely unsung role in beginning transitions from defence to attack.  In a team already stacked with offensive midfielders like Mesut Özil, Toni Kroos, Ilkay Gündoğan, Sami Khedira, Thomas Müller, Julian Brandt, and Julian Draxler, Can performed all of the unfashionable, gritty, and uncelebrated tasks that are sadly needed in a balanced team.  To be fair, Leon Goretzka could be counted on to perform some of those duties, but he never saw the pitch in the 2018 World Cup until the third game.
So what happens when two of your country's more influential midfielders are not even listed on your roster?  Likely, something is not happy between players and management.  Germany, historically a tournament team with resiliency and efficiency based on its locker-room solidarity must have suffered to some degree.

2.  Replacing Retiring Pieces

Whenever a team is going through a personnel rebuilding phase due to the age of some players, there are going to be some growing pains, both literally and figuratively.  Three names stand out in this regard - Miroslav Klose, Bastian Schweinsteiger and Philipp Lahm.  All three players announced their retirement from international football prior to qualifications for the 2018 World Cup - Klose and Lahm bowed out after winning the 2014 World Cup, Schweinsteiger played his last match for Die Mannschaft shortly after the 2016 European Championships.
Who replaced these team ever-presents?  The captaincy fell to the talented and athletic goalkeeper Manuel Neuer, but he spent the better part of a year recovering from injuries.
Schweinsteiger's midfield role was to be filled by Toni Kroos.  His many laudable performances for Réal Madrid theoretically make him a good candidate for a distributing central midfielder.
Lahm's right-back role was to be filled by Joshua Kimmich, the 23-year-old who also took Lahm's place in Bayern Munich's back four.
Klose's centre-forward position was to be covered by Timo Werner, a capable young lad who grabbed the Golden Boot at the 2017 Confederations Cup, auguring well.
The problem here is that the replacements are not like-for like.  Kroos can't defend or tackle back with the tenacity of a Schweinsteiger.  Kimmich doesn't have the positional or tactical awareness of a Lahm.  Werner is literally smaller than Klose and cannot physically perform some of the leaping aerial manouevres that the elder player could.
The bottom line here is that the players changed, but the system didn't.  Löw's failure to compensate may have been a contributory factor to Germany's failure.  His pre-tournament announcement that "...we must reinvent ourselves" seems to have been more shine-ola than substance.

3.  Die Fröliche Wissenschaft

One of the hallmarks of a successful team is the joy, zest, or verve they display when playing together.  Too often, Die Mannschaft looked like they were performing an onerous task or a distasteful chore.  They plugged away with workmanlike dedication, but there was no delight nor sparkle in their play.  In contrast, look at Russia.  When their towering centre-forward Artem Dzyuba scores a goal, he bursts into an enormous grin and practically tosses teammates a foot shorter than himself into the air.  The smaller and nimbler midfielders that work to provide him service, like Denis Cheryshev and Aleksandr Golovin, run to the big guy and hug him tearfully every time the ball hits the back of the net, and they celebrate together whilst raising their arms and gazes to the adoring home crowds.
The German team never shared such boisterous cameraderie.  They all seemed to be weighed down with purpose and responsibility, and tangible frustration when confronted with ill fortune or a particular obstacle.  When facing a Mexican team determined to thwart their ball movement on the ground toward a crossing position on one side of the field, Germany did not try to spread the play, bring more players into the action, distribute the workload, or share the responsibility - they doubled down and kept stubbornly attacking the same point of resistance, as though that challenge was a particular affront that had to be surmounted before they could continue.  It was a hard and unyielding force of will that pushed them onto the field together, and they doggedly but soullessly tried to grind their way through the game.
They didn't have fun playing, and it was no fun for anyone to watch.  Perhaps it is better that they lost and learned that the game is better played with heart and spirit than with precise skill and grim athleticism.

Musical Interlude

And so, having abandoned my quest to map and chart every minute of every game in this World Cup, I turned instead to the task of fixing the paralyzing cramps in my abdomen that threatened to be appendicitis.  Once I was able to stand upright without doubling over in searing agony, I took a shower, and here is what my sound device decided to play for me.

• Owner of a Lonely Heart, by Yes
• And We Danced, by The Hooters
• Are You Gonna Go My Way, by Lenny Kravitz
• Don't Let Me Go, by Melanie Chisholm
• Where Do You Get Love? by Matthew Sweet
• All My Life, by Echo and the Bunnymen
• I Can't Stand the Rain, by The Commitments
• This Sullen Welsh Heart, by Manic Street Preachers (with Lucy Rose)

If there is some sort of coherent theme, it's probably a fairly sad one.

So, only a few weeks left until my next MRI, and then we'll see what we can do about patching up my dodgy spine.  Until then, chins up.  Literally.
My apologies for gamely using a self-conscious repetition device, but it represents a certain amount of exhaustion and weariness on my part when searching for a conclusion.
Until next time, good night England, and the colonies.
—mARKUS

The European Champions' Cup Final, 2018

Greetings, gentle readers.
I'm going to spend the majority of time in this post talking about Liverpool FC's participation in the European Cup Final of 2018.  There's a whiff of conspiracy and some photographic evidence, so if you enjoy that sort of thing, it might be worth a read.  If you don't, I've got a random list of songs that might have some sort of prognosticatory value.  I'll lead off with that, so that the athletophobes can just skip the remainder.  Cheers.

Random Track List

• Bitterblue, by Cat Stevens
• Carry Me Carrie, by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show
• Gabriel's Mother's Highway Ballad #16 Blues, by Arlo Guthrie
• Mr. Blue Sky, by the Electric Light Orchestra

Konfusion in Kyiv

I'm going to be as uncharacteristically sparse in my descriptions as possible here to spare my readers' time and cut straight to the chase.  Liverpool lost the world's biggest football club game on 26 May by a score of three goals to one.  There were some bits of controversy, particularly since two of the goals scored by their opponents were due to spectacular Liverpudlian goaltending failures.  Here's a quick summary of the game.
The game starts brightly, with Liverpool playing a pressing game versus Real Madrid's tiki-taka tactics.  This means that the Spanish club was playing to keep possession, and hope to move the ball forward into promising attacking positions through accurate passing and positional distribution.  Liverpool's plan was to allow Madrid to have possession, but to harry any Madrid players with the ball into making a mistake and creating an interception.
The game was fast-paced and exciting to watch in terms of athleticism and rapidity of movement, but for all of their energy and enthusiasm, LFC were unable to turn several promising opportunities into goals.  Then, in the 26th minute, this happened:

 Sergio Ramos (Number 4, wearing the captain's armband) uses his left arm to lock Mohamed Salah's right arm at the elbow, and then throws his left leg in front of Salah, tripping him.  As thew two fall to the ground, Ramos twists his body so that their combined weight falls on Salah's extended and locked right shoulder, snapping it.  Liverpool's top goal scorer for the year is injured and has to leave the game.

 By the 37th minute, Liverpool have clearly been in the ascendency, having forced two corners and taken nine shots on the Madrid net, but they are now without their most prolific attacker, and have been forced to substitute on Adam Lallana, recently recovered from long-term injuries.

 Click on the image above to see the video of what happened just a few minutes after the game restarted, following halftime.  Madrid had earned a corner.  As the corner was taken, Sergio Ramos gave a ringing great elbow to the side of Liverpool goalkeeper Loris Karius' head.  On the following sequence, Karius receives the ball, and immediately throws it at Madrid forward Karim Benzema.  The ball hits Benzema's foot and rolls into the Liverpool net.  One - nil  to the Spanish team.

 Karius is shown here looking a bit blank following the goal.  Just four minutes later, Liverpool centre-back Dejan Lovren outjumps Ramos (again) at a corner and nods to ball down to winger Sadio Mane.  The Senegalese winger pokes the ball past Madrid 'keeper Jesus Navas, and the game is tied at one.

 Here we can see Karius' reaction to his team equalizing the score.  Fewer than ten minutes later, however, Madrid substitute Gareth Bale unleashes an unstoppable overhead kick that screams into the top corner of the Liverpool net.  Karius has no chance, and the Spaniards lead the game by a score of two goals to one.

 Karius again seems somewhat phlegmatic about having surrendered two goals in a European Cup Final.

Again, you may want to click on the image to see what happens with fewer than eight minutes remaining in the game.  Gareth Bale collects the ball on the right wing and hits a speculative, long-distance drive towards the net.  Karius extends his arms and allows the ball to hit him in the hands... whereupon they deflect the ball at a strange 135° angle and into the net.  Final score:  Real Madrid 3 - 1 Liverpool FC.
It is a fairly simple premise to suggest that the two catastrophic goalkeeping mistakes made by Loris Karius should never be made by a professional at this level.  In fact, they should not be made by a 12-year-old Victorian-era orphan with malnutrition, rickets, and consumption.  A 24 year-old pro that makes either of these mistakes has just ended his career and will now have to find another source of income for his family, as well as endure the enmity, scorn, and suspicion of the entire community surrounding the sport.  So why commit professional suicide?

Theory One - Concussion

The elbow that Sergio Ramos delivered to Karius' ear in the 48th minute is now suspected to have caused a concussion that adversely affected his performance thereafter.  This LINK reports that the Massachusetts General Hospital has diagnosed the head injury and the potential results.  A more detailed report can be found HERE.
If the man had a bruised brain, it would certainly go a long way to explain why he essentially scored two goals into his own net.  His neutral emotional responses to the goals would therefore be less phlegmatic and more dazed in nature.

Theory Two - Crooked Business

For those who enjoy a good conspiracy theory, this one goes something along these lines:

• Some sort of gambling concern or conglomerate has an interest in Real Madrid winning the game within 90 minutes; no extra time, no penalty shootout.
• Something fishy goes on with Ramos, as he rampages about and knocks Liverpool's premier goal-scorer out of the game with no disciplinary action - no free kick, no yellow card, not even a glance from the referee.
• At half-time, Salah is gone, but the game is still tied and hangs in the balance.  A lot of money is at stake, and some phone calls/texts are exchanged during the interval.  More intervention is required.
• Ramos bangs Karius, another foul without any notice from the officials.  
• Karius scores on himself by banking the ball off Karim Benzema.  Is he concussed?  Is there a gun pointed at the head of his dachshund? Either way, something is off.
• Liverpool equalize, but Karius is either too woozy to understand what's going on, or he realizes that he will have to concede more goals for Madrid to win.
• Bale scores a beautiful overhead bicycle kick, meaning that the scoreline is now safe for those betting on Madrid.  Karius seems relieved.
• With time ticking down, Liverpool start to throw everything forward in a desperate attack.  Given the explosive pace of Sadio Mane and the diabolical trickery of Roberto Firmino, it was a serious possibility that Liverpool could grab an equalizer and send the game into extra-time.  With single-digits of minutes left on the clock, Gareth Bale hits a speculative ball at the Liverpool net from 40 yards out.  Does Karius deliberately fluff it into his own net?  Is he unable to focus his eyes?  Either way, the result is made safe and the clock runs out to end the game.
• In the weeks after the game, rather than celebrating and gloating, Madrid begins to disintegrate.  Zinedine Zidane resigns as the team's manager, game-winning-goal-scorer Gareth Bale begins complaining loudly in the press that he does not receive adequate recognition or respect from the team, and superstar Cristiano Ronaldo joins the Portuguese national World Cup squad amidst new speculation that he is looking for an exit.  (See HERE)  Not exactly a happy family proud of a well-earned accomplishment.

In any event, the primary motivation in any conspiracy would be money.  If there is any advancement in this sort of theory, it would be from bookmakers who lost considerable sums on remarkably similar wagers of huge value.

I have started to publish some of my exhaustively lengthy book reviews on GoodReads.  In future, I'll try and balance that sort of work with these sorts of posts.  Until then, good reading and good evening.
Goodnight England and the Colonies,
—mARKUS

Where's the Precipice?

Greetings, gentle readers.
As the United States caroms from one constitutional crisis to another, I'm reminded of a series of science fiction novels written in the late 80s and early 90s of last century by an author named David Gerrold.  I hope. I read a tremendous amount of material that was being consumed at the time by a friend of mine working as a security guard, and I'm fervently wishing that I'm not confusing this SF literary franchise with another.  Any road...
Take away the wonderfully fantastic alien elements and world-creation efforts, and you are left with some occasionally good writing and an alarmingly good premise.
After the aliens invade using ecological tactics and humanity responds, we are told in flashback of the state of the world after World War Three.  As it turns out, the United States had made itself something of an international pariah and bully and eventually pushed world affairs to the state where it involved a nuclear confrontation between itself and everyone else.  Bottom line:  rather than exterminate all life on the planet, the brinkmanship negotiations cause the U.S.A. to capitulate and submit to Treaty of Versailles-like conditions:  demilitarization, political and economic reorganization, educational reform, and the same sorts of thing the IMF pushes on debtor-nations worldwide today.
Why discuss this sort of Hard-SF Lit now?  There are a couple of lessons buried in all of the red alien worm infestation and flame-thrower combat sequences. 
One is that the present-day United States cannot continue on its current course of regime-changer and arms-dealer to the developing world.  In the seventies, Americans finally forced their government to abandon a perpetual war in Vietnam, only for the Carter administration to begin a new policy of systematic destabilization and insurgency throughout the Middle-East, Africa, and both South and Central America.  Today Americans find themselves stuck with both horrible policies.  American troops of occupation are being slowly bled to death in Afghanistan and Iraq, American tomahawk missiles intermittently sprinkle over Syria, while American drone bombers rain devastation on Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and others.  Augmenting these overt efforts are special ground forces in Mali, Honduras, and another dozen or so developing nations.
Take the current murderously awful foreign policy agenda and combine it with a regime that suddenly has every student in the country googling "emoluments" and constitutional experts worldwide shaking their heads in astonishment.  It may mark the point where American exceptionalism becomes ostracism and the greedy nature of the American military-industrial complex overwhelms the rest of the world's ability to sustain it.
Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accords and the Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are actions indicative of an isolationist, xenophobic, and protectionist ideology.  Continued scrutiny of arms sales to countries and agents with sketchy human rights records and terrorist actions is starting to impede American arms sales overseas.
Are we reaching a point where the international community needs to behave as they did at the Treaty of Versailles and forcibly intervene in American internal affairs in the higher interests of all humanity?  Will the American people reach a breaking point where they suddenly demand a reform of their own governmental system?  I hope for the latter. 
Here's why.
We have all met American citizens.  They are friends, relatives, and colleagues.  Almost to a single individual, and almost to a fault, they are good people.  They are gracious hosts and generous contributors to communal endeavours.  In times of disaster and crisis, Americans are often the first to offer assistance.  According to data acquired by the Gallup World Poll and published by the Charities Aid Foundation, Americans are consistently near the top of the World Giving Index, only being outdone in generosity by citizens of Myanmar in 2015.  Odd, considering the Rohingya crisis, but we'll wait on the revised standings of that Index.  Meanwhile, Americans continue to do as they have done:  give until it hurts, as the saying goes.
In short, Americans are the global citizens that donate time, money, and effort to help strangers and charities.  So at what point do Americans lose that caring and sharing feeling?  Surely the preamble to the American Constitution has enshrined that compassionate feeling in their government when it says in its preamble,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis mine)
So where is the disconnect?  When did people stop seeing taxation as a way of helping fellow citizens? 

• The people of Flint, Michigan are still dealing with a poisonous water supply and now proceeding with legal proceedings against the people that poisoned it.  
• The people of Puerto Rico still haven't recovered from last year's hurricane damage, and are bracing for a new year of increasingly violent weather.  
• The federal government still hasn't recognized universal health care as a human right, leaving the poor and uninsured to perish in the face of rising medical and pharmaceutical costs.

Why are American citizens suffering and dying in the world's most compassionate country?  I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's Showtime election night special when he openly lamented "How did our politics get so poisonous?"  If you haven't seen it, or don't remember it, it's worth a watch HERE.
Somewhere, there is a specific point where people have become suspicious of giving taxation money to their government because they believe it will be put to nefarious purposes, like the Republicans who campaigned against JFK in 1961 because they thought that a Roman Catholic president would turn over the government to the pope.  Or the Democrats who campaigned against Ronald Reagan in 1979 because they feared he would usher in a new era of "cowboy-style" international interventionism. 
There is a point where the good-natured spirit of helping becomes a paranoid hoarder that lashes out like some sort of Gollum whenever asked to contribute to the public well-being.  I'd like to think that if we look carefully, we can track the whole philosophical trail where people can discover where their moral paths diverge.

• I am prepared to sacrifice something important to help a neighbour or friend in need. (Yes/No)
• I am prepared to sacrifice time with my family to help strangers in life-threatening situations (Yes/No)
• I am prepared to put my life and well-being at risk to assist families of other ethnicities or religions (Yes/No)
• I am prepared to donate funds and items to a centrally-administered agency to help with disaster relief. (Yes/No)
• I am prepared to pay my tax dollars with confidence that the officials I helped elect will distribute that money equitably to benefit all citizens. (Yes/No)

I'd like to think that we can identify that point where the consensus of compassion begins to dissolve, and we can start to build a solution from that point.  This is the spot where major problems like immigration, school shootings, health care, and education should find their root sources.  People often forget or obscure that point of reference.
When Americans realize that their social contract should be forged in goodwill and compassion, and not in mutually assured destruction, perhaps they can renegotiate their relationship with their own government so that transparency and accountability become the watchwords of the new covenant.  Perhaps that is the legacy of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her staff at the Democratic National Committee who decided that their charter explicitly allowed them to ignore the democratic wishes of their constituents - that the politically active and aware voters they spurned will create a revolution to overturn the self-destructive status quo.
And that's about all I can muster at the current time.
Looking forward at another assault at the keyboard in the future.
Cheers, and goodnight England and the Colonies.
—mARKUS