Yesterday I wrote about the group involved in hacking Ashley Madison, the website devoted to married couples interested in starting an extra-marital affair, had released the information they stole (You can read about that here).
Let’s be clear here: What that hacking group did was illegal. They deemed themselves entitled to not only break into this (admittedly rather sleazy) business’ private servers and steal all their data but also morally superior enough to release this material to the public at large.
That’s not to say I’m defending Ashley Madison or their clients. As I said, the website boasts the ability of supposed married individuals to hook up with other supposed married individuals. The clients who frequented the site were clearly hoping to find action outside their married life.
Having said all that, I wondered how long it would take before some “big” names were linked to the service. It took all of one day and the “winner” is…
Conservative Family Values Activist, member of the now defunct reality show 19 Kids and Counting, and alleged molester of five young women (including four of whom were his sisters) Josh Duggar. The story:
One of my all time favorite quotes comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson and it goes like this:
The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
Putting aside (if at all possible) the whole Ashley Madison stuff for the moment, what is it about those who are the ones most engaged in public moralization that makes them so ripe to be involved in actions that run counter to their oh-so-loud moralizing?
There’s nothing new under the sun regarding hypocrisy, of course, yet one can easily lose track of the number of people, from senators to congressmen to clergymen to business leaders to what-have-you who talk one way yet whose actions are decidedly opposite of what they preach.
Are you at all familiar with the Ashley Madison website? You know, the website that caters to married individuals looking to…uh…spice up their sex life by allowing them to find willing affair partners?
Well, a little while back a hacker group claimed they had broken into the website and taken their database of some 37 million users. Was the breach real? Looks like it might have been as the hackers have released the data to the “dark web”:
What does this mean? Clearly anyone who used the website is now exposed, along with their personal and credit card information. Given the nature of the website, those who are exposed may be in for a world of hurt when their spouses/significant others get wind of their lurking (at the very least) on that particular website. And if some of the clients of that website wind up being higher ups in government or industry…?
Ouch.
As a society it seems we’re captivated and repulsed by sexuality. We can’t get enough of it but it’s filthy to even consider it. As parents we shield our daughters -how many times have you heard the old “my daughter won’t date until she’s in her 30’s” joke?- yet paradoxically encourage our sons to “play the field” (who exactly will they play the field with?).
We have no big problem with violent action on the television or movie screen but when presented with sexual matters, we’re quick to slap labels on it and, in some cases, hear from others how grotesque such displays of affection (!) are.
I don’t mean to get into a rant so I’ll get to my point: Ashley Madison is a perfect example of society’s sexual mores. Politicians and “well respected” people rant and rail about our sexualized society yet when the opportunity is presented to covertly engage in your sexual fantasies, people (to the tune of at least 37 million) take advantage of such a service and now they may well stand exposed.
Am I applauding this big reveal? Absolutely not. And neither do I want to come off as Mr. Know-It-All…
I suppose the only thing I wish is that we as a society would grow up and honestly face our desires and urges instead of railing against them while engaging in them when we think no one is looking.
Found this on Huffingtonpost.com (I’ll provide the link below the actual video) showing what has to be the two luckiest bicyclists of all time. But don’t take my word for it, see for yourself:
The article, and the above video, can be found at:
Pardon me for once again offering a link to an article involving, yes, Driverless Cars and their impact on society.
Only this time, we go to the legal field, to the effect Driverless Cars will have on our Fourth Amendment rights…
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
The article in question, written by John Frank Weaver and found on Slate.com, can be read here:
Driverless cars, by their very nature, are technological machines that require considerable computer equipment to perform their functions. Because they are essentially moving computers, they will likely have considerable memory of their function and movement.
Currently, Mr. Weaver notes, there are cases involving search and seizure of smartphones, noting that because of the volume of information they hold, from emails to photographs to phone calls to contacts, etc. etc. etc., that police should have to request a proper warrant to look into any individual’s smartphone and cannot simply take it from a person and look at the information within it without doing so.
Driverless Cars, when they become what I suspect they will be in the very near future, present a very similar issue. There is no doubt they will have records of where someone has been taken, where they left the car, when they returned to it, and, given the levels of technology in the vehicles, perhaps even conversations they had (if the car has its own cell phone device), etc.
Never heard of this before, but apparently when two pendulum clocks are put next to each other on the same wall, they tend to “sync up” after a short while. When the pendulum of one clock is to the right, the pendulum on the one next to it is on its left!
This strange phenomena (that, I repeat, I just now heard of!) has vexed scientists and researchers since, believe it or not, being first observed in 1665 (!!!!) and it wasn’t until now that the reason for this phenomena has been solved.
Care to find out for yourself? Then check this article out:
Ms. Marcotte offers three excellent points that analyze why “Satanists” (I’ll explain the quotes in a moment) have had such success in trolling Conservatives in various states over issues such as religious displays.
Why did I put the word Satanist in quotes? Because like Ms. Marcotte I strongly suspect the following, which Ms. Marcotte points out in her article:
Let’s be clear: most Satanists do not actually worship Satan. The entire “religion” is very tongue-in-cheek, a way to espouse humanist values while also poking fun at religion.
Got to give it to these “Satanists”, they have figured out a way of boldly point out attempts by the very religious to blur the lines between their faith and government, something that should always, in my mind, remain separated.
Second article involves something of a hot topic today, and that is the Confederate Flag and, by extension, why it is that so many in the South have a romanticized view of the Civil War and the South’s role in it. This is a very sobering article by Charles McCain, a gentleman who bought into those lies until he realized what they were:
The article effectively answers the one question I’ve always had regarding the (to my mind) puzzling mythologized view of the South and the Civil War, how a fight to retain an odious, barbaric practice, that of slavery, became softened to a gallant struggle for state’s rights against an aggressive invader.
As I noted before (you can read my thoughts here), until I started High School I knew very little concerning both the Civil War and the Southern views of it as I lived my entire life to that point abroad and in places where the Civil War was not a big enough issue to teach about.
Once I moved to Jacksonville, Florida, I got my first clear view of both the history of the Civil War and, for an outsider like me, the strange (to my mind) mythologizing of it by many of the Southerners around me. I say “strange” because at that time and being as naive as I was I couldn’t understand how these people could on the one hand view the actions of their forefathers as noble while on the other hand ignoring the brutal accounts of what slavery was about as well as the very clear fact that that’s what the Civil War was all about!
Since that time long ago, of course, I’ve come to realize what this mythologizing is, though I couldn’t have put it in quite the terms that Mr. McCain did.
As I said before, I am certainly not without sympathy for the incredible, brutal losses of life by both sides during the Civil War, but perhaps after all these years it is finally time to see the Civil War for what it actually was about, rather than the myths that have been made since.
I recall when back in 1985 and on TV appeared a brand new show called The Equalizer. Robert McCall, the show’s protagonist, is an aging ex-British secret service agent turned do-gooder for anyone in need. As played by Edward Woodward, McCall charmed me with his very tough, no-nonsense attitude which was pleasantly mixed in with a genuine altruistic streak. Despite his age, McCall was still very much a willy, dangerous man, one who could -and would- coldly take down the most hardened killers. But his decision post-retirement to help those in need, often for no pay at all, allowed viewers to see that a very good heart beats beneath that hardened granite exterior.
There was something else that made the show unique, and that was the fish-out-of-water aspect. As mentioned before, Robert McCall is an elderly British secret agent operating in an American milieu (his base of operations was New York City). This added, in my opinion, a unique element to the show, not unlike the excellent music by the Police’s Stewart Copeland…
I had the feeling that in Robert McCall’s Equalizer audiences were presented with a thinly veiled James Bond, now much older, who decided to spend his twilight years helping others.
The show was a success and lasted for four years before leaving the air in 1989. In 2014, a movie adaptation of the TV show was made. As directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Olympus Has Fallen), the film version featured considerable changes to the TV show’s original concept, along with several similarities.
Of course, the biggest change was getting veteran actor Denzel Washington to play this version of Robert McCall. Yes, Mr. Washington isn’t quite as “old” as the Edward Woodward version and certainly isn’t anywhere near as British (sarcasm mode…off!) yet as written the character isn’t that far off from the TV show’s version.
The movie version is basically an “origin” story. We are introduced to McCall and through various circumstances he winds up butting heads with a dangerous Russian mob, culminating in a showdown in the Home Mart, a Home Depot-like store where the retired McCall works.
It is at the very end of the movie that we dive into the heart of the TV show’s premise. We find that all this action has awoken in McCall a desire to help others. He now has a website that asks people who need help to contact him, and that he will “equalize” the odds.
As a film, The Equalizer isn’t bad. Unfortunately, neither is it particularly memorable. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it is a perfectly adequate film that never really rises above any other number of good but not great action films out there. Denzel Washington is always a pleasure to watch on screen, but the general emotionlessness of his character as written made him hard for me to get into him. Worse is the movie’s main villain, an ex-Russian Spetsznaz enforcer for a Russian mob boss who might just as well have been called Mr. Villain.
In sum, I can only give The Equalizer a mild recommendation. There is nothing terribly wrong with the film, but neither is there much that makes it stand out from so many other, better, action films.
Ok, so now let me get into my musings…
There has been much made, in particular with the casting of the upcoming Fantastic Four film, with the way Hollywood has of late remade known works yet changed the race of protagonists in these reworkings.
In the Fantastic Four movie, the white, blond haired and blue eyed Johnny Storm, aka The Human Torch, has been cast with Michael B. Jordan in that role.
Mr. Jordan is an up and coming actor whose previous work has been praised. He’s also, for those who haven’t noticed in the picture of him above, an African American, just about the exact opposite of the Johnny Storm we’ve seen in print and movies since his first appearance in the first Fantastic Four comic way back in 1961.
To make matters…stranger, Johnny Storm’s sister is fellow Fantastic Four member Sue Storm, aka The Invisible Girl/Woman. In the comics, she looks like her brother…
And in the upcoming movie, Sue Storm is being played by Kate Mara…
The explanation as to how Michael B. Jordan and Kate Mara are siblings, I believe, is that Sue Storm was adopted (Don’t hold me to that, I believe I read it in an article somewhere).
As mentioned, there has been some controversy generated by this casting, with some arguing that changing Johnny Storm from a white guy to an African American goes against the character’s very long history. To which others say “grow up”, that we’re living in a different society and this is a comic book character and showing him as being a different race than originally conceived doesn’t matter. What matters is showing the diverse culture that actually exists in this world.
To which I say yeah…but…
Sometimes, the character’s originally created race does matter with the work they are associated with.
When I first heard the movie version of the TV show was in the works (and before it was released and almost universally panned), I couldn’t help but shake my head at the casting choice. Sure, Will Smith was at his very “hottest” at the time, having just appeared in Independence Day, Men in Black, and Enemy of the State. But having him in the role of James T. West, a U.S. Secret Service agent operating just after the end of the Civil War, made no sense at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I couldn’t help wonder how an African American would fare during that time and in that particular job. Yes, The Wild Wild West movie and TV show were strictly fantasy, but they nonetheless took place during a specific historical period, one in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an African American to be able to take and succeed in such a job/role.
In the case of the Fantastic Four movie, I believe switching the Human Torch’s race may be ok, but it does create a bit of confusion, specifically with regard to his “sister”, and I can’t help but wonder if doing so -and spending precious screen time explaining how exactly they’re siblings- will ultimately take away from the movie or not. I also couldn’t help but wonder why they didn’t just re-cast Sue Storm with an African American actress as well and avoid all the inevitable questions to follow.
In the case of The Equalizer, while the movie did echo elements of the TV show, I felt that changing the Robert McCall character from an ex-British agent to an ex-American agent changed the movie’s dynamic to a degree that I couldn’t help but wonder why they bothered calling it a remake at all. As I said before, there was a “fish out of water” element to the original TV show in having McCall be a very obviously British individual operating on the streets of New York. By having Denzel Washington play McCall, we now have an ex-US secret agent in a US city and that whole fish out of water element is completely and totally gone. He’s as much a part of the scenery as the TV McCall wasn’t.
In fact, had the makers of the film renamed Denzel Washington’s character from Robert McCall to Paul Kersey, removed the few elements of his being an ex-agent and the scene where he visits his old handlers, they could just as easily converted this film into a remake of Charles Bronson’s Death Wish, albeit with a more resourceful protagonist.
The point is this: The Equalizer was created with certain elements regarding the main character. So too, for that matter, were The Fantastic Four and The Wild Wild West. While one can applaud modern entertainment companies’ use of diverse races in their features, there may be times where changing racial elements present in the original work begins to work against the remake, providing us something that is perhaps too far removed from what it is trying to adapt. Should this become the case, it might be better to create something “new” rather than a remake that wanders too far afield of what the original was all about.
For the most part, love reading these stories. Many are quite humorous, others quite horrifying. All are told from the point of view of those who work in the restaurants and what their client’s asked for, what they got, and what they ate.
I’ll add a story of my own, though I never worked in a restaurant and therefore offer this from the perspective of a client.
Many years ago, when I was living in South America, my father and I took a co-worker of his for lunch to a restaurant specializing in steaks. It is the only memory I have of going to eat lunch with my father and a co-worker so I guess I must have been out of school at the time and tagging along with him.
This co-worker had recommended the steak restaurant and raved about its food to us. As neither of us had been to this restaurant before that moment, we followed this man’s lead and let him order first.
My father’s co-worker asked for a certain type of steak and added he wanted it “extra grasoso”. What that means is “extra greasy”. Mind you, we are talking the mid to late 1970’s here, well before any concept of “healthy” food.
My father and I, as mentioned, followed the co-worker’s lead and recommendation and asked for the same.
When the meal arrived, it was an impressive enough looking thick, grilled steak. It smelled good and certainly looked good and we cut into it and began the meal.
My very first piece of the steak, it would turn out, had a chunk of fat on it, though I didn’t realize it at that moment. No, I realized it when I took my very first bite of the piece and it was like I hit (pardon the language) a fucking gusher.
My mouth was suddenly filled with a nauseating amount of grease.
There was no way I would take that down so I grabbed my cloth napkin, which thank the Gods was dark red, and pretended to wipe my mouth while spitting the whole nasty thing out. Because of the dark color of the napkin, it was impossible to tell what evil lay within it.
I don’t believe I ate any more of that super greasy steak but recall my father’s co-worker happily -and very quickly!- taking his down. When I looked to my side and at my father’s meal, I noticed he too barely touched any of his steak.
As the years pass, I can’t help but wonder what happened to this man. He was quite young at that time, at least five to ten years younger than my father. Given his atrocious dietary interests, I wonder if he’s still alive or succumbed to some kind of extreme arterial blockage many years before.
Regardless, I can only hope that that restaurant and its “extra greasy” steaks didn’t survive too terribly long, though I have to say this in their defense: They served exactly what was asked for!
It’s hard to believe but its been a whooping 14 years since the 9/11 attacks and, therefore, there are many, many youths out there who have absolutely no memory at all of the horrific events of that day in 2001.
What is interesting, and presented in this article, is the gallows humor some teens are engaged in regarding the conspiracy theories. Ms. Hess analyses and tries to come up with the reason why we engage in such morbid humor (it isn’t the first time) and what it may mean.
I think her conclusions are fascinating even as the subject matter remains a truly disturbing one.
