• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    lililam on Chernobylesque
    Ann Brown on Decisions, Decisions.
    jmac on Decisions, Decisions.
    Ga6thDem on Decisions, Decisions.
    HerstoryRepeating on Decisions, Decisions.
    William on Decisions, Decisions.
    Pat Johnson on Decisions, Decisions.
    tamens on Decisions, Decisions.
    Catscatscats on Chernobylesque
    Propertius on Chernobylesque
    Catscatscats on Chernobylesque
    William on Chernobylesque
    William on Chernobylesque
    William on Chernobylesque
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Chernobylesque
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr   Jun »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • And They Made A Desert: 80 to 90% Drop In Nutrients In Food
      Stumbled across this lovely chart the other day. The core fact most people, including the folks in the “best every world” Panglossian movement (like Pinker) don’t seem to understand, is that even if they were right (questionable), the prosperity we have is based on burning down our house. “Sure is hot! Hottest it’s every been!” […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Last GoT post, I promise

This scene had me laughing so hard.

Here’s the setup: Dany is dead, Jon is in prison, the Unsullied are running Kings Landing. There’s a council of the nobility of the realm. Tyrion says they should pick a new king. Grey Worm looks like he’s had enough of this crazy continent so he agrees. Let’s get this over with.

So there they all are, ready to vote and Edmure Tully, the most mediocre man in the kingdom gets up to make a stump speech. He recounts his minor accomplishments, skipping over the part where he spent much of the years between his Red Wedding and the death of House Frey in a dungeon.

But enough explanation, let’s roll the scene (sound quality not great, you might have to turn it up):

This is going to be my tweet the next time some mediocre white male politician, septuagenarian or small town mayor gets the idea that he deserves to be president more than the women who have earned it.

“Uncle, please sit.”

Advertisements

42 Responses

  1. So is Bran the Broken, the guy with the good story the people will cling to, Obama?

    Did anyone else notice how slim and curvy Sansa was at the end with what looked like a plastic/leather bustier? And it was black?

    Still digesting the finale, but overall i have to say i didn’t like it. If the Starks were to run the board, Jon should have stayed Ned’s bastard.

    Was the point of the story to break the wheel or that it can’t be broken? Seems to me, the only way to break the wheel is to eliminate kings and queens, the concept of abject loyalty to a single person, whether malevolent or benevolent, and eliminating the demeaning requirement to “bend the knee.”

  2. Oops, i too thought that scene between Uncle and Sansa was wickedly funny but everything that followed was laughable. Can’t shake the belief that S8 made a hard turn that was inconsistent with what went before. That scene where Bran gets rolled in by Brienne and rolled out by Pod so Bran could search for Drogon like a distracted child following a butterfly was ridiculous. The writers turned the final scenes into a political comedy.

  3. There are apparently three different GOT prequels in the works.

  4. I know that this may not be well received. I will preface by saying that yes, there are plenty of men in the race who are not sufficiently qualified in terms o background or experience to be President. Of the women, the only two I see as qualified in that way, are Warren and Klobuchar. Though being a respected governor of a state, like Inslee or Bullock, is not inherently less creditable than being a senator.

    To me, Gillibrand is very unimpressive. Her most significant act as senator was doing everything she could to make sure that Al Franken was denied his senatorial and constitutional rights, by demanding that he resign because of very questionable allegations of not very much at all. Just because the issue is gender, and not Communism, does not make someone less of a McCarthyite. She also opined that President Clinton should have resigned, because he had a seamy affair with an of-age intern who flashed her thong at him. She was one of the few Democratic supporters of the gun lobby, until she reversed course.

    As to Harris, I continue to see her as the wishful projection candidate of this campaign. She obviously is on the right side of the issues, but then so are 95% of the Democrats in the Senate. She has been in that body for just two years, just like Obama had been when he ran. What is it that she has done, or shown, to be more qualified than others? People fall over themselves to give her credit for “asking tough questions in hearings,” something which doesn’t really betoken much beyond that, see Estes Kefauver or Patrick Leahy. Well, she asked Kavanaugh if he had talked to the Kasowitz firm, got him to stumble around, then dropped the line of inquiry, and did not return to it when her next round of questioning came up And nothing whatsoever came of up, there is no evidence that she had any proof that he had;and if she did, why did she not show it? When she questioned Barr, she did a good job, asking about if the White House had suggested that he investigate the investigation. Barr did his usual game of playing with the word “suggest,” so Harris came up with a few other synonyms–except that “infer” is not a synonym of “suggest,” the right word is “imply.” Now, this is a mistake that some make, and it is something that my grammatical puritanism flinches at, but is obviously no big deal overall in average conversation. Except that Senate hearings are not normal conversation, and she is an attorney, a prosecutor in the past. No attorney in court should ever make that mistake, because “imply” and “infer” are the opposite sides of the coin. “Your Honor, opposing counsel is wrongly implying…” The Prosecution wishes us to infer from this evidence…” Those words are frequently used in court by attorneys and judges, and somehow saying “”inferred,” when you mean “implied,” is embarrassing. Oh, and yesterday, when an Ari Melber guest on his show, she was asked the question which he always asks the candidates, “If you could pick any person, living or dead, as your running mate, who would it be?” She thought about it for a bit, and then said, “Muhammad Ali.” Really? This is whom she would most want to have on a Harris ticket? If Hillary Clinton had ever given an answer like that, we would have never, ever, heard the end of it. When HIllary was asked in an interview, what her favorite book was, she said,”The Brothers Karamazov.” How do you think she would have answered Melber’s question?

    • William:
      Interesting that you mentioned Klobuchar; I’m pulling for her.
      May not have the vibrant Warren’s delivery but I like her priorities, centrist and pragmatic; though sturdy, she’s soft spoken and with a calm demeanor.
      It could be such a welcome change from the -bully, angry, amoral, chaotic, corrupted, insane, etc. etc. etc. that the orange “Thing” -occupying the White House, has inflicted upon us.

      • Bellecat, I like Klobuchar fairly well, but like with some of the male candidates, she does not seem to be able to find a clear space to run, in racing terms. I thought her being from the Midwest would help, but it has not, at least in polls. She has to do well in Iowa, because that would seem to be favorable territory for her. The ridiculous importance of the four early states: Iowa, NH, SC, and Nevada, make it very hard for some of these candidates. Obviously, the debates will be very important, crucial for most of the lower polling candidates.

    • I don’t think anyone should be pressured to vote for a Biden type just to make guys feel comfortable.
      Maybe guys should think of voting for Warren first.

      • It does seem unfair. Because there are certain guys in rust belt states who foolishly voted for Trump over Clinton, and Bush over Dukakis, one worries that they will vote for Trump over Warren, for either or both of the reasons that they cast those other votes. I’m Jewish, and I am always upset when some suggest that a Jewish candidate should not be nominated, because some will vote against him/her because of it.

        The problem we have here, is that this election seems like the most important ever. The last one did, and may have been; but now we have to deal with the effects of that one, and there’s no expectation that we could get through another four years of Trump. Even Adam Schiff suggested that. So I, who never have warmed to Biden very much, think that if I could be fairly assured that he would win, I guess I would rather have him win the nomination, than to lose it because the Left, or the Progressive Wing, whatever we want to call it, managed to get their candidate through. It would be fun, and exciting, seriously. But the last time this happened, it was McGovern. Probably no one would have beaten Nixon, but he lost so badly, that the progressives lost influence, leading to Carter, whom the Republicans ran against from 1976-1992. So I am not sure what the best way to go might be. I like Warren better, and will not vote for Biden in my state’s primary, but I don’t know what kind of early primary results would be best in terms of the absolute imperative of electing a Democratic President. I don’t want another “moderate” and conciliatory Obama presidency, but I don’t want to lose by nominating another McGovern or Dukakis. One other thing: if we don’t somehow win the Senate, McConnell will block everything, he has no compunction. Which candidate, if any, gives us the best chance to win the Senate?

        • Jimmy Carter’s biggest mistake was choosing to run in 1976.

          This country had so many literal and metaphorical bills coming due in the late 1970s that WHOEVER was inaugurated in January 1977 was going to be a one-term President, presiding over a series of setbacks and calamities.

          Ronald Reagan almost defeated Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976. The fact that Carter won so narrowly over Ford later that year suggests that Reagan, who would not have been running with the rotting albatross of Watergate hanging around his neck, could have defeated Carter in 1976, and then Reagan would be remembered as a one-term president, plagued by disasters.

          Speaking of Watergate, the GOP saved itself by distancing itself from Nixon toward the end of the Watergate period. This enabled them almost to keep the White House in 1976, and to win it back in 1980. One wonders if the contemporary GOP will take note of that.

  5. On another issue, is there a character in GOT who could be compared to Pelosi in terms of challenges? I will never get over her pretty obvious favoritism for Obama over Hillary, but aside from that, she has been a very good legislator and Speaker, and of course is a liberal, and wants the Democrats to triumph. Her position is very difficult. She apparently believes that the Democrats will win the 2020 election, unless Trump is able to portray impeachment as a vendetta by Democrats who supposedly lost the last election. I think she was right in wanting the full Mueller report and to question witnesses. But Trump and Barr are blocking all of it. Now many are complaining that she is failing us, which I think is unfair. She is certainly not sympathetic to Trump, as some bots or instigators want to say. She is not weak-willed at all. But it is a very tough call.

    There is a risk to impeachment, since he will never be convicted. He will be there on the ballot next year. I well understand the moral argument, that impeachment is a responsibiilty of the House, and that one must stand for the right, against evil. But she also knows that of the 40 Democrats who took over seats last election, a sizeable number of those were from very purple districts, and they could easily lose next time, when more Republicans will turn out than did in the recent election. Maybe it shouldn’t be this kind of calculus, maybe you just go ahead and do the right moral thing. But it is politics, and there are elections, and a good Speaker thinks of those things, even if pundits do not. It would be cathartic to have impeachment hearings. But I do empathize with the difficulty of Pelosi’s choices here.

  6. William,

    I know you don’t like Harris. So, don’t vote for her.

    You hold her to standards that are much higher than the men who have been touted by the media as being presidential material. You say everyone makes a big deal out of her asking tough questions, but that’s no different than Mayor Pete being given a big pat on the back for saying he “didn’t care” about trumps’ tweets and gets a standing ovation at the Fox townhall. Wow!

    Bill Clinton was a governor of one of the poorest states in the union and was governor for 11 years. His years as governor were marked by extensive efforts to reform the public school system and to spur economic growth. He persuaded lawmakers to enact numerous educational reforms, levy substantial taxes to improve education, and enact an array of laws to invite industrial development and spur business investment. Hardly an overwhelming record of achievement to measure the kind of president he would turn out to be. Nonetheless, he achieved a great deal during his 2 terms.

    After him came GW Bush who served 2 terms a governor of texas and everyone knows that the governorship in texas is primarily ceremonial and the real power is wielded by the lieutenant governor. then came obama with less experience than Harris, Clinton or Bush. Of course, trump was placed into office by the Russians.

    So, when you look back over the men who have been president since clinton, I honestly don’t see how you can nit pick Harris to death like you do. No one did that to any of these men when they were running.

    As I’ve said, it’s too early to start knocking down any of the women (when the men are being given the benefit of the doubt as usual by the media). I’m waiting for the debates to get a close look at who has gravitas, a plan, a spine, fighting spirit, best interest of the American people ahead of their own ambition, knows how to connect with the people AND has experience. I want to see who is just talk, charisma and offers platitudes when asked about difficult issues. These are the “qualifications” which have put ONLY men in the WH to the detriment of the American people. Time for a change in holding EVERYONE to a higher standard and see who comes out on top.

    • Kathleen, I was focusing on the women in my comment, as a kind of response to RD’s. I could easily criticize most of the men, and would be happy to do so, but few of them have any chance at all, so I did not bother. In no way am I saying that the men should not be held to a very high standard, and for what my one vote is worth, I always have.

      If I were to pick any of these candidates just on issues, I’d pick Warren right now, though I don’t think she would get most of her ideas enacted, but that’s probably true of all of them. My big concern about her is her ability to win nationally, but that’s just how I see it. I don’t love any of the male candidates. Right now, my favorite of those is Beto, but he has lacks in experience and probably political sophistication. He is not ideal, not like Hillary was. I would probably choose Warren next, and she has a much better chance of being nominated. I think Biden has the best chance to beat Trump, which seems fairly obvious, and that has to matter. The only two candidates I have really liked in the last 30 years, have been Hillary and Bill, and I liked Kerry fairly well, and Dukakis, too, but he was not a good candidate. I’m open to changing my mind, and casting a pragmatic vote for someone who I think can beat Trump, and can also make a major change in policies. Warren is best on policies, Biden is most likely to beat Trump; is there someone else who is feasible? I am not a Kamala fan, not because I do not think she is a decent person with decent ideas, but because, just in my opinion, she has been greatly overhyped, just like Obama was. I can well understand the frustration of women that in many cases they seem to be held to a higher standard. Hillary undoubtedly was. I don’t think that any of the women or men in this race are near her level. But obviously, we have to pick one.

  7. William,

    By not at least pointing out that the majority of the men running don’t have a chance is what needs to be done. Otherwise, it appears only the women have shortcomings. Perception is reality and the perception is always that the women don’t measure up to the men, no matter if the man has no qualifications or experience.

    If a woman with Hillary’s experience is treated the horrrifically disrespectful way not only by the media, republicans and the bernie bros but also by the dems themselves when they didn’t lift a finger to defend her against lies and frivolous accusations, then yes, I am going to be very sensitive to any replay of that behavior in any form against the women running.

    You believe that Warren cannot win nationally but I believe she has a better chance than Beto, not only because of his lack of experience and record while in Congress for 6 years, but also because his lack of specific policy plans for the major issues facing America. How can any of these guys who have offered no specifics in policy solve the problems if they don’t understand what they are enough to explain how to fix it The ONLY reason Beto could even be considered a better choice than Warren is simply because he is a white male. Period.

    I believe Harris, Warren and Klobuchar have more of what it will take to be president, as well as what is NEEDED to tackle the mess we are in, than any of the men running, even biden. biden has so much baggage, a mixed bag of legislative history that cannot be ignored or minimized. Why isn’t he being racked across the coals like Warren ahd Harris are and for far worse?

    Here’s another question…Why is no one questioning why so many of the men running who have little to no experience nor understanding of the legislative process and how it works, can still feel that they are qualified to be president! Therein likes the core problem. As a result of this shared mindset by the media and society, a man like trump who had no experience in any direction with regard to taking on the most powerful position in the world, except for a highly questionable business history, was given a free pass from the media while the most qualified person, a woman, was beaten up for the slightest infraction. WE MUST NOT FALL INTO THAT TRAP AGAIN. WHICH IS WHY I INTEND TO HOLD THE MEN TO THE SAME STANDARD AS THE WOMEN ARE HELD TO THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ELECTION CYCLE.

    • Bravo, KW!

      I like Harris’s background as the California AG, especially in light of the fact that she barely squeaked in in the 2010 election and then was overwhelmingly reelected 4 years later.

      She had the onerous task of being the top law enforcement official for an enormous state, which seems like a qualification to me.

      If anything, the purity side of the left might take her to task for some of her harsher “law and order” decisions and court briefs.

      I don’t see overhype here, though. She worked her way through the legal and political systems and has a verifiable body of work.

      I’m with you, KW, Harris, Klobuchar and Warren each bring heavy duty qualifications. None of them were nebulous community organizers that got a hefty media/money boost to the front of the line, as did Obama. I like that each of them have proven to be achievers, in spite of the inherent obstacle of being of the female persuasion.

      • I’ve made a point to watch interviews and Town Halls of all women candidates.
        IMO, they all have excellent qualifications, points of view on issues and a moral compass to be POTUS.
        I’m very happy to see the array of strong women’s leadership coming forward thanks to Hillary; the ground breaker of and for all.

        I don’t believe that a male candidate is needed to defeat the orange “thing”; it will only preserve the patriarchal unbalanced power.

        We women can make it happen by voting by packs for own kind. Just like man do for their herds.

    • Kathleen, your last paragraph is very powerful. And it is true. But we also need to note that Hillary got virtually no support or kind words from any woman in the media. I was trying to compile a list in my mind of those who seemed to never say one positive thing about her during the campaign, and spent their time derogating her, patronizing her an sneering at her, while incessantly or wiring about “emails.” Andrea Mitchell. Maureen Dowd. Maggie Haberman. Beth Tuohy. Susan Page. Annie Linskey are some of them which come to mind. And of course the women on the Republican side were against her as well. Oh, plenty of men on the networks did the same thing. But when there are those endless panels, and the Republicans are of course consistently attacking her, and then the women journalists on the panel make sure to take shots at her, too, the effect is even worse. Can we think of any women media people who were strongly praising of her? Not even Maddow was. You and Herstory Repeating are absolutely right, that no woman with as little background as Obama or Trump would ever be nominated. But Hillary, with the most depth of experience and knowledge of any candidate in many decades, had to deal with both men and women who simply refused to give her that credit. I will always blame the media, men and women, for the election outcome. Why so many women with influence decided to hate or dismiss Hillary, and in some cases, have for over two decades, is worth a book on its own. Maybe part of it is that she is smarter than any of the journalists of either gender, and they don’t like it.

      • William,

        Let’s not forget that the women in the media are controlled by powerful men who own the media. I believe if they had defended Hillary, their jobs would have been in jeopardy. Besides, women are conditioned from birth to consider each other a threat, while men are taught to interact as a team.

        If we continue to have more women in the House AND the Senate, plus finally, finally elect a qualified woman to be our president, I believe we will witness a sea change in how women are covered by the media.

  8. I have neither seen Game of Thrones, or read the books, but I think these two “Honest Trailers” tell me everything I need to know about the fantasy universe of GoT. 😛

    • LOL. Took one look, saw all the boobage (where were the weiners?) and said “No, nope. Not for me.”

      • Some blacked-out weiners (they said “dongs” instead of “weiners”) showed up in the 2nd Honest Trailer. 😛

  9. Specifically, they tell me that this whole horror show is aimed at vulgarians who prefer gore and porn to halflings and talking trees. This garbage isn’t fit to kiss The Lord of the Rings‘s arse. 😛

    • I will never know what its non-vulgarian fans see in it.

      • IBW, i loved the writing, the acting and the cinematography, assuming i fall into the non-vulgarian category. I read all the books only once and watched all the episodes only once so i missed a lot of detail others revel in. I thought the books were extraordinary in scope and complexity, covering the good, the bad and the ugly in human nature. Boobs and nudity in GoT had no appeal, after awhile it is just scenery, context for the narrative. IIRC, The Borgias was far more explicit, perverted and based on real people. I looked away at the gore and cringed at the death of the direwolves, horses and dragons. I read the Tolkien books in high school and college, liked them a lot, but didn’t love them or integrate them into my life. Never played a video game which i understand can be pretty gruesome. Don’t get anime at all. I am close to 70 and prefer fiction to non fiction; i love fantasy, mystery and sci fi as a general rule. Read some of Martin’s other books, they were horrible. Not sure how he managed to write the GoT series. May I ask if you even tried to read the first book?

        • Cats, did you ever watch “Twin Peaks,” the earlier series and then “The Return”? I thought that “The Return” was wonderful. Of course there were a few elongated moments and discursions, but most of it was brilliant and unforgettable. I am not a big fan of science fiction, and I have never gravitated to what I term “sword and sorcery epics,” though I know that they are very popular. I do like the Arthurian legends, but those are based on a particular period in English history. I like “The Last Kingdom,” as I mentioned, but while I will continue with Series 3 at some point, I was not happy with the inclusion of a weird sorceress type with curses which will undoubtedly come to pass in some way. Before that, there was not much of that on the show. I liked the historical aspects better. So I never watched any of GOT, just not my kind of thing, though I acknowledge that it became very popular, so must have had some good elements I saw the first LOTR movie, thought it was good, but then I thought the whole saga got very boring. I guess that those kind of fantasy epics are just not for me. I love the novels of Philip K. Dick, but hated “Dune” when I read it, and wouldn’t dream of reading any of the other ones in that trilogy, but I know it has a big fandom.

          It would be somewhat difficult for someone who had not watched the first season of “Twin Peaks” to jump into “The Return,” but I do highly recommend it as remarkable television, though Lynch suggested that all 18 episodes be seen at once, like a very long movie. I like shows full of mystery and even supernatural aspects, but it is so hard to make a series like that, and maintain the suspense, yet have it move to a compreehensible and elegant conclusion. “Lost” was fun, but ultimately a disappointment in that way, as many of the mysteries were just left and ignored, as if they were just there to keep viewer interest. “Twin Peaks” did not do that, though of course not everything was explained.

          • I read the original Dune trilogy. I was not impressed, either.

            I cut my teeth on Roddenberry’s optimistic SF, whereas the humanity of Dune, morally, has not progressed one Madoka-damned bit from the fornicating Middle Ages. The humans of Dune would have damned well deserved the Borg.

          • William, i enjoyed Twin Peaks but did not watch the Return. Was that a reboot or a sequel? Where can i find it? Totally agree about Lost. With respect to TV, i suspect a lot of writers just go from season to season, without a clue as to how a series will end if it doesn’t get cancelled first! Did you like Outlander? I loved the books (historical fiction] with a vocabulary that sends me to the dictionary endlessly, but was disappointed in the Starz version and bailed after the first season. Back in the days of black and white, i loved to watch Twilight Zone, Outer Limits and Star Trek. My longest running TV series is Supernatural which is ending next year, its 16th season.Great run for a quirky series about a family of ”hunters” who hunted more non humans than i can name with character arcs for God, his sister, the Grim Reaper, angels, prophets, archangels and a nephalim. I forget, where did you land on the Vikings? Gory, but never boring, except for Floki’s adventures in Iceland!

  10. Exhibit #24,536,879 that white males do not deserve the privileges we have in this society: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mississippi-lawmaker-punched-wife-in-face-for-not-undressing-quickly-enough-for-sex_n_5ce53e05e4b0547bd130004a

  11. Cats, if you liked “Twin Peaks” 25 or so years ago, you must see “The Return”! It is a sequel, it continues the story, and is far better than most of Season 2. It is a haunting and poignant, and of course very unsettling, continuation of the story, a must see!

    I have not watched “Vikings,” though I love historical dramas. The show which got completely ignored, was “Crossbones,” written by Neil Cross of “Luther,” an imagining that Edward Teach, Blackbeard, had not died, and was creating his own society on an island. Great acting, excellent piratical storyline, and NBC was simply the wrong network for it. So I would not watch “Black Sails,” or “Vikings” because I was upset at the way Crossbones was treated by network and viewers. I also love mysteries, and I would highly recommend all the Inspector Morse episodes, and “Foyle’s War,” if you have not seen those. Also an unfortunately brief series called “Murder Rooms,” which imagined the young Arthur Conan Doyle going to medical school in Scotland, and learning from Dr. Joseph Bell, who indeed was his mentor, and probably the inspiration for the Holmes stories. Doyle and Bell get involved in mysteries; very complex and well-written. Finally, I love the original “Twilight Zone,” was too young to get to stay up to see it when it started, but was stunned by how good it was when I saw the episodes on marathons and then on DVD. Absolutely incredible, probably the best thing ever to be on TV, though “The Return” is not too far behind.

    • William, will try to find The Return and Crossbones. Have seen most of the PBS mystery series but don’t recall Murder Rooms. Understand there is or will be an Inspector Gamache series as well. Love the Penny books, wonder who will play Ruth and Rosa the Duck, my favorite characters! FYI, Luther will be back on BBC America June 2 (on my calendar). Also, put Philip Dick on my reading list, is that a nom de plume? I sure hope so… Also, when you are ready, try Black Sails and Vikings.

      • Cats. not a nom de plume, just his name. I would perhaps recommend starting with “Time Out of Joint,” a great read. Just don’t read the back cover, to learn anything about the story. And remember that it was written around 1964 or so. So many other great ones. “Ubik” may be his best, but I would wait on that. “The Penultimate Truth” is good, also “Do Anddroids Dream of Electric Sheep,” which became the movie “Blade Runner,” but the book is better, in my view. “A Maze of Death” also very good. “The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldriitch.” “The Game Players of Titan is quite entertaining. “But read one, see what you think.

        I have never heard of Inspector Gamache, but will try. There is really a duck in the story? :Luther” was well done, but too many depraved serial killers . I like the classic Agatha Christie stories, with motives and misdirection. I also loved Ross McDonald novels, just brilliantly written, with elegant plots.

        • William, will follow your recommendations on Phillip Dick novels. Inspector Gamache is a high ranking officer in Quebec’s Surete Homicide department. The author is Louise Penny and her books were recommended by Hillary as good reads. You have to read them in sequence. The characters are fascinating (witty, well read, quirky, accomplished) and as each novel progresses you learn more about each of them. The mysteries are excellent, I rarely guess the killer! Most of the characters live in an enchanting, literally off the grid, village called Three Pines near the Vermont border to Quebec and yes there is a duck in the book that also has her own story. Rosa is the beloved companion of an irascible, award winning poetess. The repartee among the characters is clever and funny. Her latest book, Kingdom of the Blind, came out this year, the fourteenth in the Gamache series.

  12. IBW, I did not grow up watching “Star Trek,” but I have seen some fairly recently, and I also like Rodenberry’s humane and optimistic vision, in the midst of all the dystopias we are shown. I am not a big sci-fi fan; the only writers I like in that genre are Robert Silverberg, before he started writing fantasy novels; and then in the last few years, I have discovered Philip K. Dick, who is amazing and so thought-provoking. His characters somehow always have modern attributes of anxiety or greed or self-doubt, no matter in what century the stories are set, which makes the novels rather charming, in the midst of the “what you are seeing is not what is happening” themes which suffuse them.

    • Nichelle Nichols (“Lt. Uhura”) tells a story that at one point in the filming of the original series, she realized: “Why, Star Trek is just a series of morality plays!”, to which Gene Roddenberry stage-whispered, “Shhhh! Don’t tell anyone!” 😉

      • Great comment, IBW. Couldn’t agree more about Star Trek. It was mesmerizing and inspirational. Uhura/Nichelle was a ground breaker and so, so classy. In that pix, i wish she had been squarely between Kirk and Spock. Wonder if her placement was intentional…

  13. Well, I have always been a Liz fan. I wanted her in ’16 too. And the brilliant lecture that RD posted says a lot about why. Note well, she was saying all these things before the 2008 crash.

    I think she is one who knows how to reform and rein in the worst excesses of capitalism to save it from itself, as FDR once did.

  14. A brief return to politics, after the refreshing discussion about books and TV shows. While the news of yesterday is quite upsetting, I do think that the potential actions of Pelosi and the House are being underestimated. It’s been a while since I I learned about governance, but II think that any budget must start in the House. All the talk from media about “Trump’s budget proposes,” is misleading, because only the House can initially pass a budget. It is a delicate path, but what if the House passes a budget which has favorable things for the middle class, which proposes to restore various cuts made by the all-Republican government of last year? Trump would veto it, but then what? If indeed our country is in great danger of being turned into a fascist state, emergency measures are needed. Propose to fund government agencies which Trump is trying to defund. Do not give them the money they want for other agencies.

    The framing is crucial, of course. This is where our side is ordinarily outspent and outflanked People must get the message that the Democrats are trying to help the average person with the proposed budget, while Trump is only helping the wealthy, plus trying to take services away from the middle class and poor. If there is a major budget impasse, who gets blamed? No reason to help Trump with anything, at this point. The House has great power in our system, because that is where the money originates.

  15. I don’t necessarily agree with this post on Crooks and Liars, but I find it an interesting defense of Daenarys.

    https://crooksandliars.com/2019/05/game-thrones-finale-sexist-treatment

    OTOH, Dany and Jon were both lovers, and aunt and nephew?

    EEEEEUUUUUUWWWWWW!!!1!

  16. IBW, you are not alone in your EW reaction to a love affair between a nephew and an aunt even if they fell in love before they knew they were nephew and aunt. However, in this fantasy incest was not uncommon among ruling families, I believe the pharoahs of Egypt also did not consider it taboo but a way to ensure purity of the blood line. I do blame the writers for what I consider a horrible, disappointing, unsatisfying final season. What if Jon had not been heir to the throne, but in reality, as all were erroneously lead to believe, he was Ned Stark’s bastard. (Everyone loved Ned Stark,) Incest then not an issue. What if Dany had not destroyed King’s Landing after the town had surrendered? Not a mad queen. To me, her character’s trajectory would have achieved its target. Bran as the winner of the game was ludicrous; having him allow his sister to be the one and only independent ruler among his now Six Kingdoms was political suicide in my book, human nature being what it is.

    It may not have been their intent, but the writers sure looked sexist to me. Having Dany rule with Jon giving her love, counsel and stability and staying home taking care of the kids would have been fine with me! If Martin ever finishes the last two books, it will be interesting to see if Dany also dies as the “crazy bitch.” I suspect she will but hopefully it will be a better supported and understandable plot and the ultimate winner of the game worthy of the throne, not someone who knows the past and the future, doesn’t want to rule and would rather go find out where the last dragon is rather than have the responsibility of the welfare of his newly won people. Sansa would have been the better Stark ruler. So many better endings than the one we were given.

    IBW, you might actually like the books and at least the first 6 or 7 seasons of the show. IMHO, it will be a television classic.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: