Russian "Oligarchs"

Am I the only one questioning why it is that any Russian person with any degree of wealth is continually referred to as an "oligarch"? American mainstream media wasn't doing this constantly prior to Trump's election, so why the change? Also, am I the only one more than tired of this practice?

Russia isn't a new country. Putin isn't new on the scene of Russia politics. Wealthy Russians aren't new. So, again, why does our media spontaneously decide to refer to, apparently, every single wealthy Russian as an "oligarch"?

I submit that the reason is our media knows full well probably over half of American citizens don't know what the word means and won't bother looking it up. I believe that their goal is solely to make Russia look archaic and thus suspicious.

Here's what I mean. According to Merriam-Webster, an oligarch is defined simply as "a member or supporter of an oligarchy." An oligarchy is defined as:

1) government by the few
2) a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes
3) an organization under oligarchic control

Now, if that is the definition of an oligarchy, could it not be argued America is also an oligarchy? We willfully place an incredibly small handful of people to represent us, yes? There are under 500 people in Congress and the White House ruling over 350+ million people? Is that not a government by a few? Is that not a government in which a small group exercises control? Oh, sure, we elect them, but that doesn't change the fact that a small number rule a larger number. There is nothing in the definition of an oligarchy stating the rulers gained or maintained power through coercion. It may well be implied, but it's not explicit. And, let's be honest, it is essentially common knowledge money controls our government and, with that, that control is leveraged for "corrupt and selfish purposes." Sure, sure we don't generally feel it as oppression (mostly), but it's still rule by a few is it not?

And yet... there is our beloved media continually referring to only wealthy Russians as oligarchs. This isn't mere coincidence, guys.

Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination

Here's an article about the recent Metropolitan Museum of Art's theme for its fund-raiser. I didn't read the article because I'd already read more than enough of them about the event. The one I posted just happened to be near the top of my search for articles about the event and I decided to share it.

It seems The Met has annual themed fund-raisers and for 2018 they opted for a "Catholic" theme. This, of course, is where it gets stupid. Here's Rhianna's idea for a costume:

As you can surely tell, her getup is "...a mitre and gown inspired by Papal opulence..." See? Right there. "Papal opulence." Now, either I'm crazy or very misinformed, but I simply don't see much regarding Christianity here. Sure, clearly there's something along the lines of Catholicism going on here, but little regarding anything resembling Christianity (of course, I've said that about Catholicism in general for a long, long time).

Had it been up to me, I would've made the fund-raiser a Christian (not, specifically, Catholic) themed event and asked all the attendees to wear anything off-the-rack and, rather than purchasing new, pricey outfits, donate the money they would've spent on an outfit to a charity for the homeless, abused women, an orphanage, etc. Basically, I would've said "Don't make this about you." But who cares about the homeless or orphans when there's a photo-op to be had?

Batman Ninja

Rotten Tomatoes does not yet have an official rating for this film (Tomatometer is unavailable though audience rates it at 62%). Fortunately for you, I do. The art is fantastic. The animation is great. Some of the fight scenes are cool. But that's about all this has going for it.

Batman, some of his cohorts, and several bad guys time travel to feudal Japan thanks to some gizmo Gorilla Grodd made. Now you know why the movie is called Batman Ninja (or do I really have to tell you Batman becomes a "ninja"?). I'm not going to mention the ludicrous technology they use despite it being feudal Japan. I'm not going to mention the giant sock puppet a large group of monkeys combine together to form to fight the giant robot made of houses Joker created. Nor am I going to tell you about the large group of bats which surround the combined large group of monkeys in the form of a sock puppet to make a giant Batman to fight Joker's house/robot. I'm definitely not going to tell you about the large, precise rockets Joker's house/robot fires. If I told you about any of those things, you may decide not to watch the movie.

Imagine having the opportunity to see your favorite piece of art or musician in person. The catch is you'd have to do it barefoot standing on hot coals and broken glass. Visually, this movie is great. It's the story which makes it near-torture.

Lady Bird: Rated the Best Movie of 2017 by Rotten Tomatoes

Here is the full list of the best movies for 2017 by Rotten Tomatoes. Lady Bird tops the list with 311 reviews and an overall approval of 99%. The ratings become clearer when you see how they break down between "professional" critics and people like you and I (99% critic approval versus 79% audience approval). Get Out was second place overall with 99% critic approval versus 86% audience approval. How then did Lady Bird win over Get Out? Apparently by a mere five votes (Lady Bird had 311 whereas Get Out had 306).

I've not seen Get Out and though I somewhat intend to, I haven't yet. I have now seen Lady Bird. My question is: How in the world did this movie rate as the best 2017 had to offer? Have you ever seen any "coming of age" movie? Any at all? For example: The Breakfast Club, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, or Boyhood. There are tons of them. To my knowledge, 1951's The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger truly popularized the genre, though as a novel.

The point is, coming of age films are hardly new and, really, Lady Bird is simply another among them. There's absolutely nothing special about it. If you simply want to see a coming of age film, sure, you could watch this one or you could do yourself a favor and watch Boyhood instead.

Here is the entire plot of Lady Bird: Young chick (Lady Bird) goes to a Catholic school because her middle class parents didn't want their kids to attend public school after their son witnessed a stabbing. To put it another way, because the parents actually cared about their kids, they did what they could to put their children in a better environment though it put a financial burden on the parents. Horror of horrors! Young self-absorbed chick is wholly unappreciative of anything her caring parents do because she's self-absorbed and young. Because she's certain she knows best but is actually naive, she has sex with a teenage guy who (surprise, surprise) lied saying he too was a virgin. Lady Bird is unhappy about this. Finally, Lady Bird gets what she wants (freedom from home) by attending college in another state. The final scene shows Lady Bird calling home to tell her parents she loves them after she realizes her parents maybe aren't really so bad. Big whoop.

Make no mistake: I'm not saying this movie is terrible or even bad. I'm saying simply I am surprised it was Rotten Tomatoes highest rated movie for all of 2017.

Then again, when I consider some of the other movies from that year, maybe it's not so surprising. There was Dunkirk at #3 which was not bad but (intentionally) slow and, I regret to say, too slow to warrant ever wanting to see it again (though it did have a great scene in it which is best in context of the entire film). Wonder Woman placed at # 6 and, in my opinion, was enjoyable primarily because it followed the traditional comic book good versus evil formula. I didn't come away from it digging Wonder Woman as character any more or less than I did before I saw it (I still don't care for her). Logan came in at #7. I didn't hate Logan, but didn't think it particularly stellar (though I did like it more than the comic it's based on). The abomination and insult to all previous movies in the franchise which was Star Wars: The Last Jedi ranked #8. The Shape of Water was rated #9 and left me with mixed feelings. It wasn't horrible but not great either. I was thrilled Guillermo del Toro received the recognition he did as a director but ultimately felt this movie was about as bad as many others he's directed. I continue to think he's a spectacular director who, for whatever reason, picks rather poor projects to direct. #11 was Baby Driver and that movie was a complete waste of time. Thor: Ragnarok came in at #12 and was simply not great. Not awful, but definitely not great. Spider-Man: Homecoming rated #15 and, being a lifelong Spider-Man fan, I absolutely hated it. It would require a separate post to detail the reasons why, but, yes, I detested it. The only Spider-Man movie I've seen that was as bad was Spider-Man 3. Last on my list of Rotten Tomatoes' list is Hidden Figures. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't great. It felt like a forced feel-good movie. Coming in at #55 was the laughably poor John Wick: Chapter 2. Below that at #58 was Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2 which made me practically hate Disney taking over Marvel.

I suppose, given the other choices which somehow dominated the top of RT's Best of 2017, it's not surprising Lady Bird would place so highly. Maybe 2017 was just a really, really bad year for movies.

Wah Wah Wah or Bureaucracy for Bureaucracy's Sake?

I stumbled upon this article from MSN. The headline reads: "Nearly all members of National Park Service advisory panel resign in frustration." I, of course, noting the article was from a leftist source and had something to do with Trump and his surely dastardly administration, assumed it was going to be a typical fear-mongering, Trump-hating, SJW "We're all gonna die!" tripe.

Being the pessimistic optimist I am and with the recent news Trump's Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke had recently reversed some of his decisions about off-shore drilling (which I was rather glad he did), I decided I'd best read the article.

I am also aware of the reality that in many cases, bureaucracy exists for the sake of bureaucracy. Consider, for instance, how likely it is any employee would ever make an argument to their employer that the employee is unnecessary. If it ever happens, it won't be on a large scale. Few people intentionally talk themselves out of a job.

The article begins with the plight of the National Park Service advisory panel. The details are stunning. Why, the certainly soulless Zinke "refused to meet with them or convene a single meeting last year." It gets worse... Then we learn "[t]he resignation of nine out of 12 National Park System Advisory Board members leaves the federal government without a functioning body to designate national historic or natural landmarks"! Alright, that's a thing, but... people, we are far from talking about lives on the line. I mean only that perspective matters.

We are then graciously informed by MSN such behavior "...underscores the extent to which federal advisory bodies have become marginalized under the Trump administration." Well... maybe, but isn't that all of one example? That's like saying your kid is definitely going to become the worst of criminals because he was okay with stealing a candy bar at age five.

Oh... but there is more. And the details are juicy to say the least. It seems Zinke once "suspended all outside committees "! Is this guy outta control or what?!? Revolt! Rebel! The possible designation of national or historic or natural landmarks is in peril! Hold on, what's this? He suspended them "while his staff reviewed their composition and work." Well, that actually could be useful. I would think if you're going to run an organization, it would help to fully know what they're about and do.

We learn also former governor of Alaska Tony Knowles, the board chairman who decided to bounce in, I guess, outrage, wrote a stinging letter to Zinke stating: "...our requests to engage have been ignored and the matters on which we wanted to brief the new Department team are clearly not part of its agenda." The letter was signed by eight other frustrated board members all of which were conceivably on their way out anyway (their terms were set to expire in May).

It seems a little late to say this, but to make a long story short, to the discerning reader, what the article basically does is give you the leftist (MSN's target audience) angle but by reporting simply the truth (the Trump/Zinke angle), causes them to produce, as Rush Limbaugh says, "random acts of journalism". For practically every intended shocking nugget, there follows a rather reasonable explanation for why. Reasonable if one is willing to be informed and critical as opposed to simply outraged.

I say that last bit because I believe it to be true a certain side of the current dominant political ideologies in America is far less interested in truth than emotion but also because of the title of this writing. I stopped reading article when I reached this line: "Two of the Bureau of Land Management's 38 resource advisory councils..." Two of only the BLM's thirty-freaking-eight advisory councils!! A single agency has thirty-eight advisory councils?!? To be a "council" you obviously need more than one person. Who even knows how many people are on these councils. Maybe some of the people on some of these councils works for free, but I doubt it's many.

So, yes, one government agency feels it cannot possibly be effective without thirty-eight councils to advise it. That's not encouraging to me. Then I consider that if that one agency has such an insanely high number of advisory councils, what about the other hundreds of government agencies? Why would not they also have as many advisory councils as possible? What incentive do they have to not expand their size and income? Yes, I am italicizing these words for emphasis. On the one hand, there is the sheer number of "advisers". On the other there is the fact these people simply advise. Are they not also the workers on the ground? Not to say they aren't necessary, but shouldn't it be at least desirable to determine they are?

My point is this: It may be true Zinke isn't doing everything completely right or desirable, but it is also true no one is going to talk themselves out of a job (especially not a cushy one). Instead, that person is going to droll on about how necessary their work and thus they are. So, when I hear that a bunch of dudes quit because they feel they aren't being heard and then learn the guy not doing the listening may just be deciding if they need to keep getting paid, I'm not so quick to feel tremendous sympathy for them and automatically demonize their boss.

UPDATE! One day after making this post, I happened to catch former governor of Alaska and former board chairman of the National Park Service advisory panel, Tony Knowles, on NPR discussing the dire situation with Trump. When asked essentially why his team is important his response was that they have made a lot of progress in (let the suspense build for the totally shocking and not at all predictable answer...) "climate change" and "education". Remember, now, the purpose of the National Park Service advisory panel (according to the very article which brings us here) is to ..."designate national historic or natural landmarks". Sure. I can see how "climate change" and some unspecified claim of  "education" might have a bearing on designating stuff.

Like I said: "bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy." From what I can tell, these jackasses just want to keep the money flowing to them for a cake job.

Somali Police Lady Arrested

Here is a very brief summary of the episode.

It is true all of the reporting on this I'm aware of has given simply the charges; the location of the arrest; the venue; and the sex, nationality, and occupation of the offender. It is also true none of the reporting I have heard or seen on this has made any overt implications. No, no trace of "Aha! And therefore... something about immigration generally or immigration for or against certain countries."

None of that anywhere. However, when I realized that my mind had made that connection, I began wondering why, then, this arrest had received even the attention it had.

While always unwelcome and justifiably upsetting, it's hardly unheard of that some cops some times don't act the way a citizen expects them to. Those instances are often reported. Depending on the press-value, they may become national headlines.

Nearly every account of this story I'm aware of begins by mentioning that this is Maine's first Somali police officer. Why? Sure, yes, I can see it in the way that the first black whatever tends to make headlines simply for being the first black whatever. The link I gave to an article about the arrest is from The San Antonio Express-News, a paper based in Texas. Here's one from The Seattle Times in Seattle, Washington.

The arrest was made in Massachusetts. The officer, from Kenya, lived in Maine. Both of those states are in the northeast of the U.S. Why in the world does a relatively minor story like this (no one was killed, right?) make its way to the headlines of papers literally on the other side of the country and parts in-between?

I cannot help but feel that reason is for the purpose of shaping opinion on immigration.

Make no mistake, I support not only true immigration reform because the policy we've been "acting" under for too long has proven grossly ineffective. I'm even a fan of a merit-based system as opposed to a lottery system. I'm cool with all of that.

I'm also well aware of the fact that Somalia has a bad reputation for a reason. And I'm fine enough with that.

What I'm not so cool with is what occurs to me as the implied message that this one officer may very well be evidence that Somalis are or could be problematic. Of course I can't prove that this is the intent of any of the reporting including even the initial local report. Yet, as I mentioned, why would Seattle care what a lone officer of any background does in Massachusetts?

Yeah, yeah, the "information age" and all that, but still. Is it necessary to publish something simply because its available to you? I doubt it. If that were true, we'd be even more inundated with all sorts of drivel and minutia from across the globe.

My thinking on this may be wrong, but until I'm offered a more plausible reason for the reporting, I'm trusting my gut. And for now, that trust leaves a bad taste in my mouth.