By on

I have a problem with historical dramas. There always come some point in the story when I realize this is speculation on part of the writers. it may be true but it could just as easily be false. There is no way of knowing because the characters are long dead and aren’t able to confirm or deny the speculation.

I also get that the writers have to speculate some as these historical figures didn’t live 24/7/365 in front of the public. Speculation about a conversation between a wife and husband might have to happen in order for the drama to make sense. Most of the time, the writers try to give a best guess based on the historical information they have. It may be difficult to confirm whether the actual conversation happened as told but it makes sense in the context of what happened in history.

Then there is Ryan Murphy, the creator of American Horror Story and the Monster series. His latest story is about Lizzie Borden — a woman who lived in the late 19th century and is suspected of killing her parents. Murphy and his team go well beyond speculation in their portrait of the infamous Lizzy Borden. They wander from speculation into mostly fiction and complete fantasy, leaving the audience with no real idea what happened to Andrew and Abby Borden — other than they were killed.

Here are some of the problems:

  1. Lizzie, at the time of her parent’s murder, was 32 years old and not this post adolescence naif that Ella Beatty plays in the show.
  2. Andrew and Abby Borden were in the early 60’s to late 70’s which I could have lived with except the implication is that this middle aged couple in the television show were engaged in numerous sexual trysts that don’t really make sense for their age. Andrew is chasing and catching every maid and Abby is seducing Andrew’s brother-in-law. There is no evidence that any of these sexual liasons ever occurred.
  3. Andrew impregnated Maggie and he pays her to abort the child.
  4. Lizzie had a lesbian affair with Maggie Sullivan, the Borden’s maid which is speculation and might be a plausible explanation for the killings but this speculation isn’t grounded in any facts.
  5. Lizzie and Maggie are implicated in another murder. There is no evidence that they were involved.
  6. Murphy’s team doesn’t even try to explain one of the more interesting events of the murder — the hour and half between Abby’s death and Andrew’s death. They even go as far as to have Andrew visiting a whore the night before and just arriving home from his tryst to meet his fate. This is complete fantasy.
  7. Lizzie didn’t met Nance O’Neal until well after Lizzie’s trial so could not have coached Lizzie on how to behave at her trial.
  8. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Lizzie and Maggie were prominent in the suffragette movement.
  9. It is a bit disburbing to paint Lizzie as this feminist icon when her big claim to fame, as portrayed by Murphy, is killing her parents for the sin of being mean to her. Yes that is why Lizzie took an axe to her parent. They were mean to her.

There is too much speculation and fantasy to have any relevance to understand what happened to the Borden family which I would think is the whole point of calling it Monster: Lizzie Borden. Yes, maybe there is some speculation but a show that purports to explain what happened should at least come close to the truth.

Murphy has created an account of a Lizzie Borden like character but not Lizzie Borden.

By on

First, I think the strong positions people are taking before all the facts are know is interesting. The whole point of an investigation is to uncover the facts and come to a conclusion about how best to resolve the manner. This isn’t happening. People are already taking positions based on the accusations made. I am assuming I don’t have all the facts, to take a position is premature.

The woman in the case feels wronged and she has a burden to prove her case. What facts we do have reveal a messy situation. Drugs, alcohol and sex. But this is precisely why a court should intervene. It is messy.

Something happened though and it is worth investigating.

What I find irritating is the tears shed for the men involved. Miranda Devine, in the New York Post, writes: “The young men made bad choices, too, and I would be ashamed to have sons who behaved that way. But they were just as young and just as out of it as she was and don’t deserve to have their lives ruined if the evidence shows they committed no crime. As far as ruining the young men’s lives involved, though, I don’t know what to say.”

If a woman has to be cautious about how she behaves at a Frat Party, then the same applies for the men. Men need to be aware that women may object to these maneuvers to get them into bed and, because times have changed, these grievances may end up in court. This is where we are with the Cornell case.

I would also argue that these are questions worth pursuing and the courts are best place for their resolution.

Why did these men offer an already drunk woman even more intoxicating substances if not to make her more pliable to their sexual advances? By making her even more incapacitated, they were making the woman even less capable of making a reasonable decision. She wasn’t asking for more drugs and drinks, so why were the encouraging her to get even more inebriated? This seems like a line of inquiry worth pursuing.

But men have been doing this for thousands of years, it is all part of the seduction process — a woman has to be aware when given alcohol or drugs. This is hardly a defense of the young men. Making a person so inebriated they will do anything you want, doesn’t sound like a benign seduction maneuver here. They should have to explain their intentions here.

Then there is the message from one of the men to the rest of his fraternity to come join him for free pussy. Two questions here. Did the woman ask him to offer her up for sexual use? If not, why did he think she was offering it up? Again, this doesn’t seem like some benign action from a nice guy. It sounds very much like he was offering her up to be sexually used by the rest of the fraternity without her consultation.

But she put herself in that position. She did.

And the young men put themselves in the position of wanting sex so badly that they behaved badly in order to pursue this end. They now find themselves in a court of law to straighten out the mess they participated in making. Given the numerous ambiguities of the case, there is a good chance that most of them will get off scot-free.

Of course, their parents and friends have learned about their capacity for bad behavior but then, let’s face it, their behavior was bad. Is it really so wrong to learn this? Discovery is the risk a person takes when they do the wrong thing. If their lives are ruined, which I doubt very much in this case, they participated in causing the ruin.

By on

Trump regrets his 3 Supreme Court nominees who now, rarely, but on occasion, vote independently of what Trump wants.

This seems to be a reoccurring problem for the President. He seems to have a problem with selecting good staff. Indeed, I can’t recall a president ever having so much trouble with his own staff.

It must be difficult to find people with tongues long enough to reach the tippy top of his intestinal wall.

By on

This Slate Advice column left me gobsmacked. This woman’s daughter-in-law left her kids at the front gate of her house expecting Grandma to take care of them while she dealt with a work emergency. The daughter-in-law called her before leaving her kids there, got no answer and just assumed she was there. She was not. She, in fact, was out of town. The woman’s neighbor, seeing two children abandoned at the front gate, called Child Protective Services who then got involved.

The son and daughter-in-law are now angry with the woman because she wasn’t at home when they needed her. The woman had gone out of town with her new boyfriend. The daughter-in-law informed her she needs to keep them apprised of her out of town visits. Her son had the nerve to say she was whoring around with wrinkly old men instead of caring for her grandchildren.

So much to say about this:

  1. The daughter-in-law didn’t know where the woman was. The woman hadn’t answered her phone. Why would the daughter-in-law assume she was there? And why would she leave her children at the gate based on this lack of information?
  2. The woman could have been in-town and not at her house. She could have been taking care of a sick friend or shopping at the mall. Does her family expect her to keep them informed of her every move? Do they expect her to give them a daily rundown of her schedule? Is she supposed to sit at her home waiting for their emergencies.
  3. I don’t think implying that your emergency babysitter is a whore is a good way to encourage her to be available at a moment’s notice. Just saying there might have been a more diplomatic approach to the discussion.
  4. The woman sounds like she is afraid that she has ruptured her son and daughter-in-law’s relationship with her. This is truly eye opening. I mean they are going to get bent out of shape with their emergency babysitter. The person who will take their children at the last minute. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Really, this is what you want to do?
  5. Getting CPS called on them was a bummer. But having their two children sitting outside Grandma’s house without any adult supervision was a mistake. The daughter-in-law made a lot of bad assumptions here and hopefully she has learned her lesson but misdirecting her anger towards her mother-in-law is unfair and unrealistic.

I think the woman should take a long vacation with her new boyfriend and see how her son does with emergency babysitters while she is gone.

By on 2 Comments

I am against capital punishment because I distrust the present judicial system. People are wrong. Systems and processes fail. You can release a person who is wrongfully imprisoned, you can’t revive the dead. I am particularly wary of convicting anyone just on circumstantial evidence. I also realize I am in the minority in the United States and capital punishment is something I have to live with.

I thought I had made my peace with the process but Christa Pike’s botched execution in Tennessee has caused me to reconsider the practice. If the state is going to execute someone, the state should, at least, be able to ensure that it is done right. Particularly worrisome is the number of botched lethal injection executions. By my count, there have been 17 lethal injection executions that have gone wrong since 2000.

And, before someone writes, at least she was treated better than her victim. That is not the point. An execution is a state sponsored action. The state owes it to its citizens to conduct itself in a humane manner. Not because the person deserves such treatment, but because this sentence is being carried out for all of us. We don’t want to engage in torture and mistreatment of any individual.

If we can’t do it right, we shouldn’t be doing it at all.

By on

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt’s embarrassing gaffe regarding Jack Smith is more than a little puzzling. The sparse evidence Schmitt possessed confirmed absolutely nothing that Schmitt thought he had evidence for.

  1. Even if Smith had gone to the game, it only proved he was in Atlanta. Schmitt didn’t have any evidence that Smith had talked to Fani Willis — just that he was in Atlanta at the same time as Willis. This is Schmitt’s best case scenario and, if true, he would have had to provide evidence that the two actually met which he clearly didn’t have. So why would he even pursue this line of questioning is mind boggling?
  2. Given this slim gruel of evidence, Schmitt projected Smith into a meeting with Willis based solely on proximity. If Smith had said yes, I was at the Atlanta Hawks game and I was in Atlanta — this hardly proves he talked with Willis. Ok, Smith was in Atlanta, so what?
  3. Schmitt, because he had so little evidence, could have approached his questioning more as an inquiry instead of an accusation. In this way, he could have sussed out whether he did indeed have the goods on Smith and saved himself from looking so stupid. A polite question to Smith about where he was, and seeing Smith’s confusion regarding the question, he would have had an opportunity to suss out his next move. If he had listened to Smith, he might have even had realized that their was a problem with his thinking and to proceed with caution. Instead, he was so convinced he had his Gotcha Moment, he didn’t even listen to the confused Smith who was trying to figure out what Schmitt was talking about, and he barrelled a head into ignominy.
  4. The worse part of this whole brouhaha is that nobody stopped to think that there was no there there. They had sketchy and, as it turns out, incorrect evidence that Smith was in Atlanta and none that Smith met with Willis. This was the whole basis of the Gotcha Moment and nobody looking at this sparse evidence and said this doesn’t really add up. I mean I can accept that one Senator from Missouri might be dim, that is a given, but a whole staff of paid professionals just shook their heads yes and said gotcha.

Then, to hear that Eric Schmitt is being considered as a potential Vice-President candidate. Yes, I realize that Donald Trump as set the bar so low that almost any idiot can clear it but even the Republicans surely can come up someone better than Schmitt.

By on

I feel compelled to remark on the linked letter I found in the Slate advice columns.

The run down is six years ago she wanted to bring her new born baby home and she only wanted family to greet her. This means her husband had to 86 the nanny who was taken care of her older daughter. When she arrives home her nanny is leaving in tears because she thinks the woman doesn’t want her to met the new baby. So instead of enjoying the baby, she had to comfort the nanny. Six years later she is still mad about the nanny ruining her special day.

Really? I mean REALLY. This is a problem.

First, the nanny was already at her home, taking care of her other kid. Her husband had to ask the nanny to leave so only family would be there when she arrived. Now, I grant the husband may have botched asking the nanny to leave but she put the husband in a difficult position in the first place — a family only guest list which could have been ruined in any number of ways. A neighbor could have come by with food at the same time or been working in the yard as she drove up. Those are two off the cuff examples. Given some more time, I am sure I can think of some more. The point here is there is no way to control other people even on your special day. One of life’s little lessons is to learn how to roll with the punches.

Second, the nanny was at your house already. She had to be asked to leave. It’s awkward. If I were the nanny, I might feel a little insulted at the request. Does it really ruin your special day if the nanny hung around to met the new baby that she will soon be caring for. The nanny could have had quick cootchy cootch coo and left. But no, the nanny had to be gone are it would ruin your special day. Ruin it. Her special day.

Third, I have heard of wedding days being a special day for the bride and birthdays although there should be an age limit on that one. But bringing home the baby from the hospital? When did that become such a special day to the point where the mother tries to control the guest list for her arrival home. Her expectations are way too high for the occasion involved.

Finally, six fucking years ago. This happened six years ago. Give it a rest. You have two kids looking up to you to as a role model. Try not to model behavior that will make them into whinny ninnies

By on

One of the more illuminating revelations of the Epstein Sex trafficking scandal is that when given a choice between protecting children from a billionaire predator and enjoying the same billionaire’s lavish hospitality that most, if not all, people will accept the sexual predator’s hospitality with nary a word about the young women wandering around the party without their parents.

At best, they enjoyed Epstein’s food and liquor while ignoring the suspicious presence of teenage girls at these adult functions. These people claim ignorance about what Epstein was up to but it is willful ignorance given Epstein’s reputation with young women. They weren’t just a tiny bit suspicious that Epstein was up to no good. These rich and powerful people said absolutely nothing.

Mind you, this is the best case scenario — willful ignorance. From there it descends horribly given the participation of the person in Epstein’s fun and games.

This, in and of itself, is troubling but it gets worse. These are the same people entrusted to make important decisions for government and business. It should be concerning that they behaved so badly when tested. They don’t seem like a group that would be particularly motivated to protect Anne Frank from the Nazis.

One thing I do know for sure is that they don’t care one bit what happens to your children.

By on

The Middle East is a problem of the West’s making and, because of that, the West bears a good deal of responsibility in sorting the problem out.

Why it is our responsibility can be summed up in one word — oil. The West’s economy runs on oil. If there is no oil, the economy grinds to a halt. The West has known, for at least 100 years, that the Middle East sits on top of a large patch of oil thus making it very important piece of real estate.

This also explains why we have been fucking about with the Middle East. The US, in particular, has been stirring up trouble there for a number of years. Installing governments, reaping the whirlwind when those governments are overthrown, going to war numerous times to ensure that the right government is in charge of oil production. Supporting Saddam Hussein one moment and the next one we oppose him. Saying we want democracy in the region while propping up a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban is good give them arms. The Taliban is bad go to war with them.

The one overriding factor in our strategy, if it can be called that, is who will keep the flow of oil running. None of this is based in any real commitment to the people of the region. This incoherence, if nothing else, makes it clear to people living in the region that our commitment is to one thing and one thing only — oil.

Very little comfort can be taken by people living in the region when Americans say it is just business don’t take it personally. This may work if you are looking at an Excel spreadsheet in Washington DC; on the other hand, if you’re facing a firing squad in Baghdad, you might feel a little more alarmed. It certainly wouldn’t encourage anyone to risk his life for the USA.

Part of the reason alternate energy sources were pushed was to make the West more energy independent so we wouldn’t have to worry about the Middle East and perhaps take a stand there that might remotely be called moral and civic minded. Instead, and for reasons beyond me, alternate energy sources have become a hair shirt for eco-weenies. Why do we need alternate energy sources when we have plenty of oil. All we have to do is maintain a huge armed force to make sure we keep that oil coming through the Strait of Hormuz.

So we are back to where we started — dependent on oil which is both dangerous and expensive.

Do you get it? Neither do I.

By on

Every so once in awhile I am reminded that the two countries with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons are led by narcissistic idiots. The fate of the world is in the hands of two men who stopped developing mentally at 12 years of age.

Neither one seems to understand warfare in the way they rest of the world understands warfare. Putin has refused to say he won’t use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine which may, and I am using the word may here very liberally, make sense if Russia didn’t border the Ukraine. Is wind so difficult of a concept for him to realize that Russians would be in danger if he shot a nuclear missile into the Ukraine? Worse still is the possibility that he thinks it is perfectly willing to devastate parts of his own homeland in order to defeat the Ukrainians. Given the amount of Russians he has sacrificed already, I am afraid it is the later.

Then there is Trump who talks about invading countries, blowing up countries as if it is a school boy’s war games. His understanding of strength boils down to killing anybody and everybody unfortunate enough to live in a country he is angry with. Since he never follows through with it, thank God, he looks increasingly like the guy at the end of the bar who is telling war stories that nobody believes. Yeah right, Donnie, you charged up the hill and single handedly won the battle, are you buying another round?

Because there growth was stunted in early adolescence, it is impossible to talk to them like you would talk with another adult. If you try to talk sense to them, you are dead politically in Trump’s case and dead in reality in Putin’s case. And all any of us can do is whistle past the graveyard.