I think Coppola’s Godfather series created the modern heroic Sociopath. We rooted for Brando’s and Pacino’s characters, although Michael Corleone became unlikable by the end of Godfather II. Coppola was the first to romanticize the familiar character of the gangster in movies. But Quentin Tarantino perfected the generalized concept of the protagonist Sociopath. His breakout film was, of course, Pulp Fiction, a so-called dark comedy with such a wide variety of watchable sociopaths one could probably make a television series around virtually every major character in the film. In fact, the two strands of modern Sociopathic television and films can be plausibly traced to either Coppola or Tarantino. In the organized crime motif, for example, there is of course The Sopranos and the unfortunately canceled series Brotherhood. But shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad are in the dark comedy mode consistent with Tarantino’s sensibility. 

Breaking Bad is in the midst of its third season. It is really hitting its stride. When the show was first promoted prior to its first season, I had no interest at all in seeing it. The premise seemed ridiculous and unappealing. Walter White is the epitome of an underachiever. He has his PHD in chemistry but is somehow stuck teaching high school students who have less than zero interest in the subject matter. He is diagnosed with cancer, which his insurance will not pay for. So he becomes a Meth dealer. This is how the show was promoted. Not only did I not want to watch it, I aggressively had an affirmative dislike for such an amoral and stupid theme. Plus who wants to watch a show where the main guy has cancer? Real life is bad enough; does one really want to watch a television show about it? 

Sometime toward the end of the first season I was floundering around the cable channels in insomniac mode when I happened upon Breaking Bad. I believe it had followed an episode of Mad Men, which I have written about. So I watched it and became intrigued. I watched another episode and became hooked. The show has just the right mix of “comic” violence, fantasy, suspension of disbelief, and realism so required for Sociopathic entertainment. 

For example, White’s brother-in-law, “Hank,” is a DEA agent obsessed with capturing Heisenberg, but has no hint that White is Heisenberg. In one scene, Hank is in Mexico tracking down a lead on the Meth distribution network. They were working with a drug dealer/informant who called himself “Tortuga,” or Tortoise. He liked to brag to others he was patient and not reckless, which is why he lasted so long, hence the nickname “Tortuga.” 

They are tracking down the drug gang in the desert. In the distance they see movement in the tumbleweed. The group of American and Mexican agents carefully approaches the moving object, expecting an ambush. Slowly the moving object comes into view. It is a giant Tortoise. As it approaches they do many double takes as they try to take in what they see. Strapped to the top of the Tortoise is the actual head of Tortuga. After the initial shock, the agents go into macho mode making turtle jokes about Tortuga as the Tortoise strolls by. One of the agent stops the giant turtle to lift the head of Tortuga of its back. It’s a booby-trap. A bomb goes off, killing one agent and injuring several more. Hank survives but becomes psychologically scarred. 

Breaking Bad has 2 million viewers. Stuck on AMC (I have 150 HD channels but AMC is not one of them) this is a pretty big audience. Going back to my opening question, why are these shows appealing? For me, the theme was repulsive. Then I watched it. I root for Heisenberg/White, even though he has been directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths. In real life I would want him dead yesterday. But in my sometimes fantasy life, I somehow identify with him. What’s that all about? Maybe “between the dust and love that hangs on everybody, there is a dead man trying to get out.” Or a Sociopath.

Dick Wolf

The last episode was “Fed.” It’s a story about an ACORN-like community organizing group called “Rights Alliance.” The founder of the Rights Alliance has a conservative infiltrator murdered to “cover up a cover-up.” The cover up is an affair the founder was having with one of its members. The “cover up of the cover-up” was the money being paid by the founder to his mistress’s husband to keep the affair quiet. The right-wing infiltrator was murdered because he had been secretly video taping a sting he was arranging unrelated to the affair–clearly meant to be reminiscent of the O’Keefe/Giles real life ACORN investigation. The founder feared this tape would open the organization up to scrutiny, thus exposing his affair and the subsequent monetary extortion to his girlfriend’s husband. We are not supposed to be shedding too many tears for our murder victim, given he was “tricking a few dumb kids in an ambush video.”

The victim was found with the words “Fed” printed on his chest, apparently to throw our eagle-eyed detective team of Bernard and Lupo off the scent. You see, “right wingers” hate government so much we murder government employees all the time. Of course, Rights Alliance is a non-profit group, not a Government agency, but the writers assume dopey murdering “right wingers” might think Rights Alliance are government agents. This makes scrawling the word “Fed” on the victim’s chest a great ruse. Get it?

But the real action is how “conservatives” are portrayed and characterized. As implied above, the show makes more sense as a parody of the left-wing view of the right than it is effective propaganda for the left. This is now its entertainment value. The first suspect for the infiltrator’s murder is a “Patriot Ranger,” a crazed group that is stated to be linked with “last summer’s Tea Party Movement.” The Patriot Rangers look like casting rejects from the movie “Deliverance.” They carry rifles in Manhattan, are unshaven, uncouth, and it looks like you could smell them from 50 feet. The suspect, who is innocent, is still made to appear repulsive. He calls the detectives “Obamabots,” which they reacted to with shock and anger.

Our erstwhile “O’Keefe” style infiltrator is said to be a “militant conservative.” What makes one a militant conservative? Our murder victim is “militant” because in college he ran a student group supporting George W. Bush’s reelection. His roommate from college tells the detective Lupo the O’Keefe character “hated liberals.”

Of course, Jack McCoy has to get in his two cents. He states how he has always been a supporter of Rights Alliance, which “has worked across party lines.” He proceeds to tell his DAs to “go the extra mile” before “blowing up” up the Rights Alliance group because of its historical good works like “predatory lending reform,” “housing reform,” and “minimum wage reform”–the heart of the left’s financial reform agenda. (The first two were instrumental in helping take down our financial system in 2008.)

In a “town hall” meeting held by McCoy for Patriot Rangers (read: Teabaggers) and Rights Alliance, both groups get unruly, but the worst epithets naturally emanate from the Rangers. One exclaims: “Socialist Scum!” McCoy is genuinely pained when the Rights Alliance group does not believe his plea for patience because he supported their work for years. He made no such assertion to the “Deliverance” styled Patriot Ranger/Tea Party crowd.

This episode also comes on the heels of an “SVU” show earlier in the week where some character refers to various Fox opinion show hosts and Rush Limbaugh as “cancers” in society.

There is a “Last Days of Pompeii” feel to Wolf’s “Law and Order” empire. He has become very wealthy delivering prime time crime drama to television, and the truth is his shows have been high quality. But it’s time to hang it up. These shows have become message delivery machines. When drama is subordinated to politics, it’s no longer popular art, but cheap propaganda.

Dick should get out while it’s only a little too late.

AMC’s The Prisoner was awful. The headache inducing flashbacks, incomprehensible sudden and rapid scene changes, incessant and interminable runs through the desert to find the sea, the ever present morose gay son, “11-12,” of “2,” and the lack of any plot tension made the show almost unwatchable. But watch it I did, because I wanted to know both 2’s reasons and the technology that helped create “the Village.” The answer was preposterous. I should have read a “spoiler” review instead.

I never watched the original 1960’s television show, so had no particular expectations. The Prisoner is about a technology company, “Summaker,” which identifies people it presumes need help. It kidnaps them and places them in an induced hallucinogenic state. The hallucination is the “Village,” which looks like a human-sized toy town. The kidnapped live out their lives in a dreary hallucinogenic sameness with identical small pink houses, ambition free jobs, and some sense that all is ok. Villagers are unaware, mostly, they live in a hallucination, although many have odd “dreams” about their past. Dreamers are hunted down and sent down bottomless holes that appear in the ground. We are led to believe they are gone and dead. (Do they go back to the real world?).

All people have a number rather than a name. “2,” Ian McKellen, is the leader of the Village. He plays his character as a postmodern, ironic, fear inducing, ruthless dictator and lives in a mansion in the Village. “Six,” James Caviezel, is the “Prisoner” who intuits the illusion and seeks to escape and destroy “2.”

By the end of the mini-series, we learn “2’s” wife, who is in a trance/coma throughout the series, invented/discovered the Village in her mind. She is able to project this vision onto others. We are not told why a person from the real world is chosen to live in the Village. One character was a schizophrenic in real life, but it’s unclear all Villagers had such torments. No person is given a choice to go to the Village. “2” apparently realizes his own ruthless personality is less than ideal for this job as head Village honcho. The plot line results in “2” recruiting “6,” who has great empathy, to take over the Village.

Viewers have to suffer through various monologues by McKellen, each designed to teach us how tenuous and “relative” reality is. Yet he and his supposedly “mystical” wife apparently know what’s best for all. We never really learn how the hallucination is physically created in the minds of Villagers. “6” is seen taking his seat in a Director’s chair in front of computer banks by the end of the tedious six hour mini-series.

The Prisoner did strike me as an unintended satire of the totalitarian vision that is the Left’s view of the world. Elites know best and can force you to obey; just follow them and all will be great; reality and truth are mere conventions or fictions; and so on. The Prisoner takes totalitarianism to a high level, as there is utter lack of freedom. Even the fundamental facts about physical reality are subject to manipulation for the Villagers’ good. This is similar to the worldview of the East Anglia climate scientists and the Obama EPA’s Lisa Jackson. Who needs data? Just believe.

I prefer my unintended satires of the totalitarian Left more thrillingly and crisply delivered. Coincidentally, within a few days of seeing The Prisoner, I saw on TMC the original 1956 version of  The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. There are similarities between The Prisoner and Body Snatchers. In Body Snatchers, a small town is invaded by human sized “corn on the cob” looking “pods” from outer space. Each pod is designed for a particular citizen. A replacement being is born from each pod. When the real person falls asleep, the pod person takes over their memory. (I never could figure out where their bodies go; I guess they merge.). They become similar to people in the Village; they are dull, emotionless, pain free, and have some general sense of well being. They are all “one.”

Rather than creating a new mental “Village,” the Body Snatchers just capture the memory of every person in the small California town. The protagonist, Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy), gradually discovers the pod attack as reports mount of people claiming family members have “changed.” Like “6,” he tries to escape and is constantly thwarted by pod-people (rather than “2”). The movie is a flashback of a story he tells to doctors in a neighboring town who listen at first with great skepticism. The movie ends with Bennell racing out of town warning people in cars on the freeway to stay away. It is short, fast paced and has little wasted scenes.

Viewers identify with Bennell. The horror he witnesses is bad enough. But he also knows the story is absurd sounding and recognizes how impossible it is for others to believe it. Unlike “6,” Bennell knows what is happening from the beginning and explicitly rejects the pods relativist ideology, which “6” accepts. He quaintly believes in individual freedom and truth.

The Prisoner, on the other hand, is the perfect modern movie. All reality is relative and elites know better than you. Who cares if East Anglia scientists lost all the raw climate data 20 years ago? Forget those dreams of “truth” and listen instead to the likes of Lisa Jackson.

CO2 is a pollutant. Just believe. You’ll feel much better.

In the opening scene, a woman with 4 children is driving the wrong way down the West Side Highway (like the Diane Schuler Taconic Parkway horror this summer). Speaking on her cell phone erratically (no “hands free!”), the kids get concerned. She decides it is time to use nasal spray for her allergies, which had been spiked without her knowledge. Flash forward and viewers see two mangled vehicles resulting in seven deaths. 

Detectives Barnard and Lupo scan the usual suspects; husband (nope, he seems too distraught), in-laws (no reason, plus their kids died), even the cancer stricken mother-in-law (too sincere). We discover the deceased woman and her boss (“Mad Men’s” Rich Sommer) have had secret late night meetings for weeks. They discovered their drug company has doctored marketing materials and bribed doctors to push a cancer medication which can extend terminal patients lives up to a few months, although most last at most a week. The medication is a $1000 a day. The episode makes it clear such life extending drugs exist for drug company profit only. 

Consumers are portrayed as morons and dupes. Doctor’s have magical (and evil) powers to persuade them to buy this drug against their own better judgment and economic interest. One middle aged son complains that his father lasted 30 days too long on the drug, thus wiping out his mother’s savings as she was forced to sell her house. Apparently the writers did not think it important to explore why the father and mother were willing to do this. But they were quite sure they should not have. Who needs death panels with kids like that? 

Insurance companies are also evil. Even though they stopped paying for a drug which the writers make clear should not exist, they still come in for criticism for discontinuing payments. In utter frustration, Jack McCoy blurts out, “This is why we need health care reform.” Why is that Jack? The drug company used misleading advertising and made bribes. Don’t we already have laws against that? Or do we need to force people not to take life-extending drugs? What does health-care reform have to do with any of this? When shows just follow talking points it is hard to stay coherent. 

Ultimately, we learn the deceased drunk mother, Brenda Sawyer, was working with the FDA to expose her company’s deceitful marketing representations and practices, including bribing doctors, about the life extending cancer drug, “Lextenda.” A “whistle-blower” law awards a large percent of the fine to those who come forward if their company is convicted. Sommer’s character, Zach Marshall was her boss. He was working with her under the impression they would be sharing the award. She informed him, as the official “whistle-blower,” she would giving the award to charity. Marshall realizes his big payday is gone and decides to murder her so he can collect the award. During an office party he spikes her soft drink with alcohol and her nasal spray with a drug which mixes poorly with alcohol. Marshall then discovers she’s picking up the children and calls 9-1-1, but too late. He thought killing her was fine (plus whoever she might hit) but had some qualms about children.

While it is not made clear how Marshall communicated with his company, McCoy knew he had information proving their deceitful practices and was effectively blackmailing them. They erased his computer files, and paid for his legal defense, apparently all legal. The Chairman of Woodmore Pharmaceutical (a contributor to McCoy, who righteously gives him back his money) is shown as clearly caring only about covering up the illegal and deceitful marketing practices. The plot line makes it clear the company was willing to defend Sommer, regardless of what he did –  including murder, to prevent the information from getting out. Sommer is convicted of murder. The exposure of Woodmore’s practices is not made explicit, but the viewer assumes they have been compromised.

And that is why we need health care reform.

The “Mad Men” finale was a satisfying, although a bit too tidy, end to its 3rd season. When I was 8, my teenage sister introduced me to a card game called “52 Pick-Up.” When I handed her the deck, she tossed cards across the room. As I whined, she said, “What else did you think a card game called ‘52 Pick-Up’ was about?” When writers Weiner and Levy created chaos with all my familiar characters in the opening episode, I should have thought “52 Pick-Up.”

After all, they just had a merger for heaven’s sake. What else to expect? Relationships between and among characters changed as work and economic status changed, and they were reshuffled into new and less pleasing ones. But we became gradually more accustomed to the new “order,” although the dominant “feeling” was a cheerless dreariness. There were some memorable moments. When a drunk Lois amputated the erstwhile new Brit super star Guy MacKendrick’s foot with a John Deere tractor in the office, I laughed out loud for minutes. Taken one show at a time, they were good, but the cumulative gloom and doom became stifling.

The finale begins with the all consuming “Connie” Hilton telling Don that Putnamm, Powell and Lowe is about to be acquired by McCann Erickson. When Draper complains that he has been “used” by Hilton, Hilton pulls an “Ayn Rand” and states that he alone built Hilton. Hilton expresses disappointment with Don for being a whiner and thought he was not like “one of them.” Funny stuff. But Draper gets the joke and is determined to persuade all the key former Sterling Cooper people they should start their own firm. He has some reservations. He recalls his father’s death when he tried to go it alone by leaving his wheat co-op.  This represents “risk” (duh), while Ayn Hilton represents “reward.” But Burt Cooper makes Don realize he will have to right past wrongs if he is to create this new firm.

At this point, it begins to feel like an inside-out version of “The Godfather.” There was even the “it’s just business” line uttered by Hilton. Michael Corleone’s business solution was to blow away the other families; Draper-Corleone’s solution was to persuade all those he offended that he now understands their true worth.

He admits to Roger that relationships matter. Draper praises and values Lane Pryce’s financial ability. He prostrates to Pete as long as he can bring $8 million worth of business with him, supplementing Roger’s $24 million American Tobacco account. Burt Cooper is warding off the grim reaper by staying active. A newly svelte Joan (Marilyn Monroe has been dead for 18 months) knows where all the client boxes are buried, as she leads a midnight raid to steal them.

But Peggy and Betz are causing problems with the plan. Draper makes a perfunctory effort at marriage-saving but is relieved that Betty wants to marry the Rockefeller connected and wealthy Harry Francis. Don gets off alimony free with a Reno divorce. Look for Betz to mess with Harry’s head next season. Peggy and Don’s relationship went south this year.  She wants his respect. The Draper-Olsen relationship is serious stuff for Weiner/Levy. Draper really does need her and says she is the only one who understands “how everything has now changed” since the Kennedy assassination. He admits even if she says “no,” he “will spend the rest of my life trying to hire you.” Ah, true (business) love. She caves.

The old crowd is back together again, temporarily holed up in the Pierre Hotel. Except for legal questions, the ending of the show was plausible. Weiner/Levy gave the characters and fans what they wanted. But I am getting hip to their tricks. That “old gang of mine” will be soon recalling that old proverb “be careful what you wish for.”

I can’t wait.

A friend of mine asked me if I had seen” CSI: Miami” last week. I had not, but he suggested I take a look. He thought I might find something interesting. Warning: Spoiler Alert.

Not all television shows have blatant straw men capitalists cast as Beelzebub incarnate. In fact, many stay away from this topic. Although I have not done a count, there are still too many of these shows. One of the more bizarre depictions of a CEO as a “murder for profit” Satanic imp was presented in the “CSI: Miami” episode “Bad Seed” last Monday.  If capitalists were really this evil, mankind would not have made it out of the stone ages, as all their customers would have been killed soon after each new advancement in technology. Of course, in these shows it is only the capitalists who are evil. Not government employees, local farmers, truck drivers, police officers, medical professionals, illegal migrant workers, distributors or really any other human being. Just owners of businesses are evil, because they care about profits. These characters are people who willfully engage in conspiratorial confiscatory practices and also play “God” by determining how many people it is okay to kill in order to sell a product and make a profit.

“Bad Seed” features a venal CEO of “Bixton Whole Foods” whose name caused me to pause the show on my DVR to check what I heard. CEO Beelzebub, in “CSI: Miami”, has the name “Jerry Mackey.” As someone who follows the health-care legislation wars pretty closely I could not believe what I heard. As you may know, the CEO of the real life company “Whole Foods” is named “John Mackey.” Mackey used to be viewed as a liberal icon, “a third way” capitalist so to speak. His employment practices conformed to all liberal-approved ways. His product offering is first class. Now, as one who does not believe in the efficacy of “organic foods” etc., I also have no problem with people who wish to spend more on their food for aesthetic or any other reasons. Whole Foods apparently serves a niche market of well-off urban and ex-urban yuppies quite well. I occasionally shop there myself, as their presentation is very good. The First Lady made quite a stir herself in support of organic foods which I chronicled in “Let Them Eat Arugula.”

But, even the real Mackey’s third way organic capitalism could not save him from attack when he came out against the Obama/Democratic approved health-care plan last August. As an individual who is economically literate, he just could not stand idly by and let these proposals be put forth uncontested. This caused his stores to be boycotted and for him to be demonized by the Democrats. It seems almost impossible that “CSI: Miami” was not purposely looking to subliminally equate their comic book Satan with the real life Whole Foods CEO. “CSI’s” Bixton Whole Foods CEO Jerry Mackey was purposely making statistical trade offs guaranteed to create unnecessary deaths – willfully permitting E-coli to be genetically inserted into corn to make it more “digestible,” while increasing the odds of creating a killer strain of bacteria. 

I have sometimes thought “CSI: Miami” was a conscious put on. David Caruso’s character reminds me of a cross between Jack Webb’s “Joe Friday” in “Dragnet” and Dan Aykroyd’s “Raymond Stance” in “Ghostbusters.”  But this particular episode is immoral in equating their clown Satan with the real-life Mackey. Perhaps it is all a coincidence. After all, these things happen. But I doubt it. “CSI” seemed to obviously believe in the power of subliminal messaging. I have a hunch if the real Mackey had come out in support of ObamaCare, “Jerry Mackey” would not exist; and likely neither would “Bixton Whole Foods.” Even if it were a coincidence, isn’t there anyone on the staff who noticed the linkage?

Somehow I think the answer is yes.

I went on Amazon yesterday to purchase The Beatles Stereo Box Set and was informed it was still on back order. Borders noted that the set will be available on a limited basis in October on a “first-come, first-served” basis. The Mono version, which sells for $30 more than the Stereo version, is also on back order. So the Beatles obviously remain popular.

One topic I have always found interesting is the distinction between Lennon’s songs and McCartney’s songs. Of the 200 plus songs the Beatles wrote, perhaps about 30 had some form of  collaboration between the two, with maybe 20 being jointly written completely. Yet, I have always found this distinction very misleading. Their influence on each other was so deep that their individual songs really were effectively collaborations. Besides the obvious difference in sound between, say, Wings and McCartney written Beatles songs, I have constructed a “Beatles” trivia quiz below to demonstrate this point.  I assert that we think we can tell the difference because most of us know the songs well. But in reality, they were highly influenced by the other and are more similar than we sometimes realize.

I think the quiz is of high difficulty.  Of course, for some it may seem easy. Listed below are 12 YouTube links to well known Beatles’ songs. The object of the game is to guess the song writer. Being statistically oriented, to pass one needs to beat the “coin flip test.” The probability of guessing nine or more correctly by randomness alone is about 7% (I am ignoring  some factors–see below).  So 75% will be considered passing. My guess is the average score of all participants will be lower than that. You can cheat, of course, and do better.

Some hints.

One of the 12 songs was written jointly by Lennon and McCartney. I doubt anyone will guess this one. One song was written by neither. Guessing “neither” correctly results in a full point. Guessing “who” correctly gets another point; guessing “who” incorrectly subtracts 1/2 point.  Three of the songs were written where, for example,  one of the two was dominant with an “assist” by the other. These songs are also worth double points. These are usually listed as follows: “Lennon; with McCartney,” or vice versa. This means a total of 16 points can be earned and 9 still be passing. If one guesses “Lennon,” but it was really “Lennon; with McCartney,” one still gets a full point. A guess of an “assist” which is wrong subtracts 1/2 point. I doubt many will get extra credit.  Seven of the 12 songs were written by either Lennon or McCartney.

A really good amateur should get 11 points. I assume even a good amateur will not guess the joint song. To achieve 12 or higher means you are either in the business, you cheated, you have a photographic memory, or you are way too into the Beatles. I thought I was a Beatles expert but I would be borderline to pass this. The best I could have possibly done was 11.

Answers to each question can be found at a link provided at the end. Feel free to submit your score.  No cheating! I will attempt to list them from most easy to most difficult, but that is subjective of course. I begin with two very simple ones.

Here we go:

12) “I’ll Be Back”

This song is from Hard Day’s Night.  If you miss this one, then your odds of passing are pretty slim. Still, the sound of this song is very similar to number 11.

11) “Things We Said Today”

Also from Hard Day’s Night.

10) Do You Want to Know a Secret?

Sung by George Harrison on the their first British hit Album “Please Please Me.” Is this a trick by me or a gift?

9) Day Tripper

This song was recorded during the Rubber Soul sessions, but was only released as a single with “We Can Work it Out” as a “double A sided” single.

I’m Happy Just to Dance with You

Also from the album Hard Day’s Night and sung by George Harrison. Is this a trick by me or a gift?

7) If I Fell

Fourth one from the Hard Day’s Night album. Is this a trick by me or a gift?

6) What Goes On

Sung by Ringo on the Rubber Soul album. Is this a trick by me or a gift?

5) Money

Recorded in 1963 and appeared on “The Beatles Second Album.” Is this a trick by me or a gift?

4) Bad To Me

One of three hits by Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas, who were managed also by Brian Epstein.  It was recorded in demo form by the Beatles but never released.

3) A World Without Love

Never recorded by the Beatles but was the single biggest hit by the twosome, Peter and Gordon.

2) Good Night

This is the last song from the “White Album.” Ringo sings and is the only Beatle who appears on the song. Is this a trick by me or a gift?

1) I Call Your Name

This song was recorded live in 1967 at the Monterey Pop Festival by the Mamas and the Papas. The Beatles also previously recorded, and wrote, the song.

For answers to the above questions one can go to this Wikipedia Link—List of The Beatles songs

Events lead Kowalski to resist a local takeover by a Hmong youth gang. The Hmong are an ethnic Southeast Asian people, primarily from Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. In real life Michigan, they are among the fastest growing immigrants. Many Hmong people emigrated from South Vietnam after Democrats shamelessly withdrew monetary support from South Vietnam in 1974. The Paris Peace Agreements thus became toothless and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. “Boat people” fled Vietnam and the insane, murderous Pol Pot created the Cambodian Killing Fields.

Gran Torino can be viewed as metaphorical microcosm of the Vietnamese conflict with an alternate ending. Eastwood, the quintessential symbol of American independence and strength, helps defend a group of Asian Americans against a gangster group of other Asian Americans. Kowalski’s courage and independence led to his death and the defeat of the gang members. The image of protagonist Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) driving in Kowalski’s Gran Torino, left to Thao in his will, cements the “good Hmongs” victory, and ultimate commitment to America. The juxtaposition of this scene, versus Kowalski’s children trying to unload him in an old age home is striking.

Another morality play is occurring today in the real Michigan. Michigan has a 15% unemployment rate. Detroit’s auto industry, which made the 1972 Ford Gran Torino, has been decimated in large part by federal regulations. In classic “anti-comparative advantage” style, a sclerotic EPA required individual auto companies to meet mandated “CAFE” standards. Even if one wanted the nation’s entire car fleet to meet CAFE requirements on average, the EPA implemented it in the most inefficient way possible.

US automakers’ comparative advantage was in SUVs and small trucks. To keep their fleet within mandated averages, they were forced to build unprofitable, uncompetitive small cars. If the Feds just let comparative advantage work, the US auto fleet would have likely met federal CAFE standards without each company being compelled to build every type of car. But Government does not know economics. They simply know better.

Obama’s “new environmental energy plan,” the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill, is a ruse. It is not an energy bill, but a regressive consumption tax in disguise. It is favored by Wall Street, George Soros, Al Gore, GE and other corporatists looking for subsidies paid for by the tax payer. Cap and Trade is the ultimate economic destruction machine. The bill passed the House of Representatives this summer by six votes, 219-213. Forty-four Democrats voted against it. The Senate has not yet voted.

Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, a real life political “Kowalski” and GOP Policy Committee Chair, opposed this monstrosity. He is among a group of opponents being targeted for attack in the next few weeks. Others include House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Missouri’s Roy Blount. The campaigns are funded by Soros’ groups MoveOn.Org and Americans United for Change. The attack is preposterous, as this video shows (Groups target GOP on cap-and-trade). What is the goal of the bill?

The goal of the bill is to replace cheap energy with expensive energy. This is called “saving the environment.” This is accomplished by requiring consumers to purchase more expensive electricity, biomass power for example, while also paying taxes to subsidize these enterprises. As we consume more expensive energy, the same amount of labor and capital creates less output. Even if one believed the ridiculous 1.7 million “green job” increase advertised, it doesn’t factor the lost jobs from lower productivity and higher energy costs. The manufacturing heavy states and big users of energy, like Michigan, are clearly poised to be the big losers in such legislation. They are already seeking “exemptions” from regulations because of the bill’s potential economic devastation (Michigan Economic Impact on the State from the Waxman-Markey Bill).

Meanwhile, Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, and self important financial traders like George Soros, strongly support this legislation because they get to buy and sell “CO2 credits.” The rationale is this legislation will combat “global warming.” Climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates the best case impact of the bill would be to lower global temperature by “0.1″ degree centigrade in the year 2100. This bill does not address global warming. The bill’s costs exceed its “benefits” by a factor of at least ten, using the UN’s officially approved climate models. This means lost jobs and/or lost real income. This is also why Greenpeace joined with pro-growth conservatives and opposed it. The whole thing is a sham.

So why do Democrats want this bill? They want to raise your taxes under the cover of “climate change” reform. It also gives Government the power to decide which industries get benefited more heavily than others. It is part of the transformation from a free society to a government controlled society. This is yet another highway toward the ultimate c goal of centralized government planning.

McCotter understands, like Walter Kowalski, what it means to be an American. A great American can be a first generation “Hmong” from Vietnam, like Gran Torino’s Thao Vang Lor. Conversely, a treasonous American can be born in Chicago to great advantage, like Weatherman terrorist and Obama supporter Bill Ayers. This speech by Congressman McCotter provides a very clear vision of what America is and should be about. Let’s not permit anti-American fakes, like George Soros, sacrifice McCotter’s (or Cantor’s or Blount’s) “political life” by trying to pull the wool over our eyes. “Green jobs” are a wolf’s tax in sheep’s clothing.

On my Facebook profile page, I dutifully filled out my personal interests. Under favorite movies I listed “anything Quentin Tarantino”; under novels I listed “anything Elmore Leonard.” What I left out under “movies” was “anything Elmore Leonard which seem like Quentin Tarantino” and vice versa. To me, they are almost indistinguishable. I have read virtually all of Leonard’s books. I just purchased today his latest, “Road Dogs.” I have seen nearly all of Tarantino’s movies. I have read or seen many of their works multiple times. I still get surprised by a Leonard movie from time to time. I recently saw “3:10 from Yuma” on TV. There was something rivetingly familiar about it. It turns out it was adapted from a 15 page short story by Leonard that I had never read.

The first Elmore Leonard novel I read was “Rum Punch.” I was vacationing in St. Martin with my family in 1995 and we had rented a house. I just picked up a book at random on one of the shelves and began to read. I remember two things clearly. I kept having to reread these short, seemingly simple, sentences to understand them. This fits with what I have subsequently learned to be a rule of Leonard’s; “if it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.” The second thing I remember is that the characters were shockingly amoral. It was almost frightening. But not so frightening to prevent me from reading the other Leonard book in the house, “Freaky Deaky.”

It is still amazing to me to that “Rum Punch” was the only collaboration Leonard and Tarantino have had in films. “Rum Punch,” of course, became the 1997 hit film, “Jackie Brown.” There have always been rumors about other films. At various times, Leonard novels, “40 Lashes less One,” “Killshot,” and “Freaky Deaky” were all rumored to become Tarantino movies. “Killshot” has already been made without Tarantino.  Some movies which Tarantino directed seem like they were written by Leonard (“True Romance,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs” in particular, even “Kill Bill: Volume 1″) and some Leonard novels which became movies seem like they were produced or directed by Tarantino (“Be Cool,” “Get Shorty”–I have not yet seen “Killshot”).

When I first saw “Pulp Fiction” (on video, a year or two after its release), I assumed Leonard had to be involved. “Pulp Fiction” is one of my top 5 movies of all time. I still see new things when I watch it. To this day, I could swear I read in the movie credits that Leonard advised on “Pulp Fiction”; but he had nothing to do with it. In my memory, before writing this essay, I actually thought “Be Cool” and “Get Shorty” were Tarantino movies. But of course they are not. And I now remember being surprised back then they were not! I did not even see “Reservoir Dogs” until last year on DVD and, at first, thought it might have been a Leonard novel I missed. It was not, obviously. Interestingly, there are some crossover actors/producers in both sets of films, as well as in their one common film, which helps contribute to my illusion. They include; John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, James Gandolfini,  Danny DeVito (a producer of “Pulp Fiction” and “Get Shorty”), and probably some others.

It turns out there is a pretty strong link between Tarantino and Leonard besides just my own imagination. Charlie Rose interviewed Tarantino in 1994, the year “Pulp Fiction” was released. To quote Tarantino;

QUENTIN TARANTINO: Oh, I love Elmore Leonard. In fact, to me True Romance is basically like an Elmore Leonard movie–

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

QUENTIN TARANTINO: -that he didn’t write, you know. And like, actually, I actually owe a big debt to like kind of figuring out my style from Elmore Leonard because, you know, he was the first writer I’d ever read……

What they both have in common is an ability to tell a compelling story. The characters are completely amoral, yet can still be appealing. They retain, usually, some moral code, even if self designed. They are not evil, but certainly do not follow traditional morality either. Somehow, we still want to find the protagonist and root for them. Clearly, they are tapping into something beneath the surface of our conscious minds which we somehow find “freeing,” at least during the fantasy of reading their books or watching their movies. In a moral world, can we justify such fantasies? I really have no idea, but they provide some “great escapes.”

I am also quite lucky. I have both a new Leonard book and a new Tarantino movie to look forward to. Perhaps if they collaborated more, there would be only one.

Welcome to my first reaction to Season 3 of “Mad Men.” I was surprised they skipped seven or eight months in time. The opening flashback scene of Don Draper’s childhood was linked to Betty’s pregnancy, but seemed perfunctory. They have a big firing scene about the head of accounts who had never been on the show before. He must have been hired after “Duck Phillips” was fired. But this made no sense, because it means the Brits would have already approved it and been involved. Pete Campbell’s wife undergoes a personality transplant and is suddenly a power person. The usually sharp eyed Betty misses the meaning of the Stewardess’s pin her daughter finds, as Draper pretends it is a gift.

The absurdity of a hotel fire forcing an evacuation, thus leading to Sal being caught (but Sal is uncertain he is caught) with the bellboy, as Draper climbs down the fire escape with the Stewardess, seemed clownish. Draper’s forced approval seeking from Sal on the plane for his “London Fog” ad idea is out of character. Perhaps he was playing mind games with Sal about knowing he is gay, but that too seemed out of character. Campbell’s reaction to being named “co-head” of accounts with Ken Cosgrove seemed over wrought and unrealistically paranoid. Cosgrove also had a mini-power personality transplant. Joan is the same, and her confidence is probably heightened by knowing she will be leaving shortly after marriage. Olsen has definitely advanced up the food chain as she is assigned to most major accounts. Her personality is more “outwardly” confident, which makes sense.

The presence of the Brits is annoying, but is realistic given the Firm was sold. The most continuous aspect of the show is when Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Campbell casually gather in Draper’s office toward the end of the show. Cooper expresses what they all are feeling–they can’t stand the Brits, just as the Brits can’t stand the Americans. It is hard to believe one of the story lines won’t be somehow taking back control, even if the British firm is still in charge.

Overall, it felt forced. Of course, the “post game” wrap up by the cast and Wiener let us know the characters are merely reacting to the discomfort of change. Nothing is static. It was as if they were telling the audience, “we know this was not what you expected, but hang in there”. The fact is, they did not even have to tell me that. It did make me think they were conscious of the effect they were having on a likely skeptical audience, which was somewhat comforting. Yet, even as I was disappointed when watching, I still had no intention of blowing off the show. Complaints aside, I’m still ”all in” for Season 3.

Oh yeah, what about political correctness and politics in general? Still not forced down our throats. But the season has just begun.