Magpie Murders is Masterful Entertainment

Posted on by
Magpie Murders

I spend much time writing bad reviews and not enough writing positive blogs about the shows I watch. Today is a joy because I get to discuss the magnificent Magpie Murders. Don’t call it The Magpie Murders. It’s important, so get it right.

Magpie Murders is a television mystery series on PBS Masterpiece and based on a novel of the same name by Anthony Horowitz. The mysteries are finding out who murdered the man writing the Magpie Murders murder mystery and how the book itself ends. A mystery of a mystery. Let’s get on with the review.

A Complex Story

The story of Magpie Murders is relatively simple but incredibly complex from a writing perspective. There are really two mysteries going on at the same time with two completely different sets of characters. First is the death of murder mystery writer Alan Conway and second is the missing last chapter of his latest book, Magpie Murders.

The two mysteries run side by side with fictional Atticus Pund attempting to solve the fictional case while very real literary editor Susan Ryeland tries to solve the former. I can only begin to express my admiration for this dual storytelling and the aplomb with which it is achieved. Telling one story is difficult enough but switching back and forth between two mysteries, one a fictional account from the victim of the second, is a recipe for complete confusion and disaster.

It all comes together thanks to the wonderful acting, directing, writing, set-design, camera work, and everything else involved in a production of this nature.

Who Dunnit?

The essence of a mystery is trying to figure out who committed the crime, or crimes in this case. One of the most important things in a mystery, from my perspective, is making sure the author doesn’t cheat us. The clues must be available and, although we don’t usually solve it, when revealed we should nod our heads and say, yep, that makes sense.

In both cases the solution fits the crime and clues were available to us. There is a little montage during great reveals showing us various flashbacks, which is a nice touch considering the two different stories did tend to blend together in my mind. Normally I don’t need quite as much prompting from a show but I think this story merited the review.

There’s even some anagram wordplay, which I find to be badly overused these days, but it’s important to the story and works in this case.

The Acting

Excellent acting all the way around. From the main character to the bit players. I believed everyone in the story from beginning to end and special mention to Tim McMullin as Atticus Pund who traverses both realities, the fictional mystery and the real-world crime, with amazing compassion and serenity.

Many of the actors played dual roles, being one character in the scenes depicting events from the novel and a second in the world of Susan Ryeland and Alan Conway. Despite being the same actor they all manage to differentiate their characters easily and understandably to the audience. Outstanding work.

The Sets

The sets, as is often the case in English drama, are fantastic. I’m going to make one comparison here because the second season of Miss Scarlet runs right before Magpie Murders on PBS. If you read my review of Miss Scarlet, you’ll know my thoughts on that subject so I’m not going too in depth.

Signage. The signs on the establishments in the world of Magpie Murders look real, believable, you barely even notice them. From modern signs in the world of Susan Ryeland to mid twentieth century signs in the fictional realm. The signs in Miss Scarlet look slap-dash and out of place. It’s little things like this that make a difference. The people in charge of Magpie Murders care and it shows.

Cinematography

We see lavish, modern mansion, squalid groundskeeper’s shacks, wide vistas, modern London, and more. The camera moves from disparate scenes with ease and this is no easy task. Shooting indoors and outdoors, so many sets, it’s not easy to make all that work but it does and it does so beautifully.

Conclusion

If you like a good mystery, I can’t recommend Magpie Murders enough. There’s hardly a wrong note in the entire six episodes. Bravo.

Tom Liberman

Full Movies on Twitter and Section 230

Posted on by
Full Movies on Twitter

There’s an interesting situation in regard to Full Movies on Twitter being posted without repercussion. I can’t pass an opportunity to discuss any situation at Twitter but, in full honesty, I absolutely find this a fascinating from a legal perspective. It’s not just a matter of me piling on.

Twitter and other Social Media websites are generally immune to being sued for the content posted on their platforms under Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code. What I find interesting is the number of people who think this section makes Twitter immune to fines in this situation.

I’m a bit of a legal buff but not a lawyer. Therefore, if any actual lawyers out there wish to correct me, please have at it!

Is Posting Full Movies on Twitter Illegal?

Absolutely. Those movies are owned by entities with copyrights. Anyone who posts something like that on Twitter is subject to prosecution. This usually ends up with users banned from the social media platform rather than fines but repeated offenses will land the offender in the courts.

Is Twitter in Legal Trouble for what Others Post?

Reading the first few stories on this developing situation there are a number of people citing Section 230 as a reason Twitter and Elon Musk as the owner are under no legal peril. I disagree. Now, Twitter is absolutely not responsible for what other people post, that’s true.

The Motion Picture Industry and others actively monitor Twitter and other social media platforms for copyright violations. These entities and their agents then make copyright strikes against the person posting the movie, song, or other copyrighted media.

Once the automated system sees a copyright strike, the content is generally removed until a full review can be managed. There are problems with this system as well; people can and do use copyright strikes as weapons against social media users they dislike rather than as legitimate complaints. Let’s not get into that today.

The problem here is the copyright strike system seems to be broken. So, the industry is fulfilling their legal obligation but Twitter is failing to remove the movies after the strike. I think this is a serious violation and could end in enormous fines. Copyright infringement has stiff penalties pushed through the legal system by the entertainment industry. Stiff. Real stiff. Large fines for each violation. Every violation. Tens of thousands of them, potentially millions. As long as the copyright strike system remains broken more and more violations are piling up every minute.

Conclusion

Posting full movies on Twitter is a violation by the user and not Twitter under Section 230. Failing to promptly act on copyright strikes is outside the scope of Section 230. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Twitter shut down at least temporarily.

Naturally, I could be wrong and invite those with actual legal expertise to correct my mistakes.

Tom Liberman

The Twitter lesson: Workers and Management

Posted on by
Twitter Lesson

There’s a Twitter lesson to learned and it involves both workers and management. A lot of my friends find delight in the apparent demise of Twitter and I can’t say I blame them. I find it an interesting opportunity to examine the relationship of workers and management to the success of a business endeavor.

It seems to me; most people are not learning the correct Twitter lesson. A large group of people blame Musk for the ongoing situation. A second group blames lazy workers not willing to put forth enormous effort to save the company. What’s the reality? Let this Libertarian answer all your questions.

Twitter’s Problems

In order to determine the appropriate Twitter lesson, we need to fully understand the difficulties the company faces. Twitter was never immensely profitable. It had a couple of good years where income exceeded expenses but it largely lost money. Now, add the enormous loans new owner Elon Musk must pay back and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the company is in deep trouble.

This being the case, the simplest solution in these situations is always to cut payroll. That means firing people. So many people the platform is barreling toward destruction. This solution means Musk must hope his remaining employees will do the jobs of two or more people while still earning their current salary.

I wrote about when this sort of expectation can work in an article about Reciprocity if you’d like to read that. I’m not going to discuss it further here.

What is the Twitter Lesson?

With one side calling workers lazy and the other blaming Musk for his business decision it seems like one of those two things must be the Twitter lesson, right? Wrong.

So many people want to blame lazy workers and so many people want to blame bad management. It’s the same when a business succeeds. Half the people want to give the credit to management for financing the operation, hiring the people, creating the business. A second group of people claim it is the workers who achieve the success. It is their efforts that build value.

The problem is both groups are right and wrong at the same time. The business owner who comes up with an idea, hires people, takes out loans, and builds a company should be lauded for this effort. It’s dangerous from a financial point of view and she or he should be praised. Meanwhile, the workers who buy into the vision and perform the day-to-day tasks are absolutely vital to success. Without them there is nothing.

This seems very obvious to me and I think most people, after reading this, will agree. Yet, before reading this, people eagerly and vocally assign all the credit to the owner or to the workers, ignoring the cooperation between the two groups required.

That’s the Twitter lesson. It’s workers and management that lead to success and to failure. Sure, in this case, Musk badly overvalued Twitter and took out a big enough loan that success became a near-impossible task.

Crony Capitalism

The entire situation is further complicated by the fact politicians now pass laws and extend financial aid to favor one company or attack another. This Crony Capitalism is something I’ve talked about elsewhere but it is part of the equation.

The reality is Musk’s previous ventures were largely financed by taxpayers. Government agencies gave him direct money and tax breaks. That fact plays no small part in what is happening today but is, perhaps, a topic for another day.

Conclusion

My conclusion is pretty simple. A business does not succeed or fail solely because of workers or management. Good managers and good executives value their employees’ contributions. Good employees recognize that management and executives want the business to succeed and often have to make difficult decisions.

Tom Liberman

White Boy does not know about Rap Snacks

Posted on by
Rap Snacks

Today I recount an interesting interaction centered around a bag of what looked to be delicious Rap Snack Salt and Vinegar Chips. I’ve written about my life of White Privilege and about the Social Divide between black and white people in the United States. Today I write about that divide in regards to snacks.

Snacks you ask? Yes, snacks. After today’s encounter, which I will detail below, I begin to wonder how many delicious snacks I’ve been missing out on.

Rap Snacks at the Hospital

I was waiting for my mother to get her blood drawn and overheard a nearby technician waxing poetic about her Salt and Vinegar chips. Now, readers, let me be clear. I love me some Salt and Vinegar chips. So, when I heard a fellow devotee of the delightful treat gushing, I interjected myself into the conversation.

We spoke for a few moments about our shared delight of Salt and Vinegar before I asked her about the brand. I did not recognize the branding on the bag as I normally get Kettle Salt and Vinegar Chips. She paused for a moment, looked at her fellow technicians, and then finally told me about Rap Snacks.

Let’s Talk about the Pause

Why did my fellow Salt and Vinegar chip enthusiast pause? I suspect it was because she was a black woman and I am a white man. She knew, or at least strongly suspected, I never heard of Rap Snacks and likely the stores I frequent won’t carry it.

What’s important to understand is she’s right, if that was indeed her thought process. Until that moment I never knew anything about Rap Snacks and I feel fairly confident they will not be on the shelves of my grocery store.

If you take a look at the image I’m using with this blog post, you’ll probably understand why I’ve never hard of Rap Snacks despite my love of all things Salt and Vinegar. I’m not exactly in the market demographic for Rap Snacks.

Expanding my Horizons

It’s a shame I’m not a targeted audience for the chips because if so, I’d almost certainly have purchased a bag. Will they be better than my normal Kettle Brand? Worse? Equal? I’m not sure one way or the other but I do know that I’m the worse for not knowing they were an option.

Now that I do know, I will go out of my way and purchase a bag. I’ll likely get them from Amazon or Target although I’m sorely tempted to drive the short distance to a store outside of my normal shopping range and purchase them there.

I wonder how much else I miss out on in life because of marketing biases. I’ll keep you informed when I manage to get my hands on a bag.

Happy Snacking!

Tom Liberman

Hard Work without Reciprocity at Twitter

Posted on by
Reciprocity

The fallout from the Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is all over the news and a story about Musk demanding hardcore work from his employees brought to my mind the concept of reciprocity.

The idea of reciprocity is fairly simple. If you do me a favor, I feel an obligation to return that favor. It’s sort of like a personal version of the Social Contract I wrote about a while back. In this case, Musk is asking his employees to work considerably harder, whatever that means, in order to save the company.

The Reactions

While reading comments, I found that reactions largely come in two flavors. The majority of people argue hard work is expected and if the employees don’t like it, tough. Get out. On the other hand, some argue that overworking your employees is not a recipe for a successful company.

Does Musk ask for Reciprocity without Giving it?

My thoughts are probably closer to the second group but my real problem with Musk’s ultimatum is simply the expectation of reciprocity. I’m of the opinion Musk has a long record of working his employees hard and taking more than the lion’s share of the profits for himself.

He fired nearly four thousand Twitter employees largely without bothering to even look at the work they do. He fired people without notice. He implemented policies that ended doing far more harm than good.

I see no evidence Musk will reward hard-working employees who work enormous hours of overtime. If, by some miracle, Twitter begins to turn a profit, Musk will take most of the money for himself.

Working Hard with Reciprocity

Don’t get me wrong. If you work for a struggling company and have confidence the owner will work with you, reward you for your efforts, pay you when profits return; I’m all for working extra hard. If you don’t believe your boss will do so, all you’re doing is giving the boss your money. Your time is money, your money, not the boss’s money. Yours. A boss who tells you that you must work extra hours without pay and doesn’t plan on giving you a reward at the end of the day is stealing from you.

Working Hard without Reciprocity

It’s hard for me to imagine anyone thinking Musk is the sort of person who gives reciprocity. He threatened the same work hard or go bankrupt scenario with SpaceX not long ago. He ran SolarCity into bankruptcy. The much-famed Hyperloop is now abandoned along with all the people who poured their hard work into it.

The Boring company is a mess. The Gigafactory in Germany is largely unable to start because of water issues of which he was warned, long in advance. I could go on.

Conclusion

I am not telling Twitter employees how to react to this offer. That’s their business. If they believe Musk will eventually reward them for working long hours, if they think said work can somehow save Twitter, have at it. They have families, obligations, quitting is not an easy thing to do.

I’m just saying, if you give something, the other party isn’t obligated to reciprocity. In this case, I wouldn’t expect it.

Tom Liberman

Who is your Daddy Identical Twin Child Support

Posted on by
Identical Twin Child Support

I just read a fascinating legal case recently adjudicated in Brazil and it brings up some interesting questions, for me at least. It involves identical twin child support payments. It seems a pair of brothers have long used their identical twin status to impersonate one another, particularly in regards to swapping sexual partners without the knowledge of the woman.

In any case, a girl was impregnated by one of them and a DNA test proves this but not which one. The judge ordered both the men to pay child support in lieu of a second, more refined test that only sometimes differentiates between identical twins.

The Legal Ramification of Identical Twin Child Support

The case is salacious and thus getting headlines in the news but what interests me is the more esoteric legal questions. If it is sometimes impossible to use DNA to differentiate between identical twins, then who is the criminal, or in this case, the father?

In the United States the standard for conviction is proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant has an identical twin and neither of them has alibis for the time of the crime, how am I to convict one or the other?

In the case of the identical twin child support, we know for a fact that a man who is not the father is now legally required to pay for the upbringing of the child. In the case of a murder or other crime, the punishment might well be years in prison.

What’s a juror to decide? What’s a judge to decide on appeal? Certainly, an appeal of any conviction is perfectly reasonable, I didn’t do it, it was my identical twin.

Wrongly Convicted

There are all sorts of expert witnesses who end up sending the wrong person to jail. I wrote years ago about how Blood Spatter Analysis is largely a bogus science and yet it still results in convictions.

In the case of DNA analysis, the chance for an unjust conviction is greatly reduced, which is a great thing. It’s not perfect and this case illustrates one of the problems.

I recognize the situation of the identical twin child support is quite rare in the annals of criminal law but I still find it fascinating.

Conclusion

If a case like this went to trial and you found yourself as a juror, what do you think is the correct resolution?

Who should go to prison if one, undetermined, identical twin commits a crime?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

The Great Microsoft Solitaire Kerfuffle

Posted on by
Microsoft Solitaire

Everyday Microsoft Solitaire has a competition. It can be anything from a quick five match free cell with easy and medium games to a massive thirty game adventure with Klondike, Spider, Free Cell, Pyramid, and Tri Peaks with multiple expert games. Hundreds of thousands of players compete each day.

There are no rewards but time spent playing each game is tracked and players are ranked in a local group of fifty and overall, against all competitors. There are little ribbons for finishing in the top three of your group and a special Red Room where the top 100 players in an event are displayed.

I belong to a Facebook Group dedicated largely to playing in these tournaments, listing performances, talking about the games, etc. We’ve had a major kerfuffle and it’s an interesting one, at least I think so.

Cheating in Microsoft Solitaire

As you might expect, there is cheating. People cheat in a variety of ways. The main way of cheating is simply to have multiple accounts so you can practice the game on one account and then play it through more quickly on your main account.

Some people take this to the extreme; recording a successful playthrough with software and then replaying all the moves in just a few seconds on their main account. As a quick example, I finished the recent Free Cell mini tournament of three easy and two medium games in 4:09 and won my group by over a minute. I’m a bit of a Free Cell fanatic.

The Red Room first place at this moment is 1:35 with over 115,000 people playing so far. This time is, naturally, impossible without computer aided play and will be bettered as the day goes on and more people use this method. I’ve seen the top finisher with a time below ten seconds for the entire event.

To get away from all the toxicity on the main Facebook Solitaire page where these cheaters are often unpleasant, the exclusive little solitaire Facebook group to which I belong was created.

Are you Going to get to the Point Soon, Tom?

Thank you for being patient as I’m finally at the crux of today’s article. There is cheating going on in my group. Horrors! The differentiating factor is the cheater is using computer software. People are up in arms. Should we banish the cheater? Should we give the cheater another chance? Biblical references are being tossed around. People are angry.

Now, to let you in on a little secret; other people in the group play with multiple accounts and practice before playing on their main account. Some simply use the secondary account to study the board for a period of time figuring out best play in their minds before starting on their main account. Some practice multiple times to ingrain the quickest way to finish.

So, who is cheating really? Are only the people using specialized software cheating? Is anyone with a second, or third and fourth account, cheating?

Who is the Cheater in Microsoft Solitaire and Why do We care?

For me, there are no rules, so no one is cheating. There isn’t an official Microsoft Solitaire rules committee that makes decisions and disqualifies people who don’t follow the non-existent rules. I’m well aware people in my group don’t play the way I play. Generally, I open up Microsoft Solitaire after I get back from the gym in the morning, start the tournament, and play through each game in order. I don’t prepare, I don’t examine, I play. Am I the Pure Player? The Good Guy? The Fairness Adjudicator?

Not really, it’s just how I play. How other people play is their own business. I recognize my time is never going to be faster than those who play differently than me. I don’t worry about comparing my time with them or anyone for that matter. I get satisfaction from playing my best. I get frustrated when I play badly.

If someone in my group wants to use computer assist to get incredibly fast times, that’s their business. Now, does it annoy me slightly when he or she post all her or his fast times and brags about it? Sure. I’m not Perfect Tommy yet, but I’m working on it.

Conclusion

I don’t want to come off as sanctimonious here. If my fellow Solitaire enthusiasts get angry at the “cheating”, then that’s cool too. If they want to banish the cheater then I won’t stand in their way. I’ve just gotten to a point in life when people do things that don’t materially affect me, I just don’t care so much.

It seems to me this caring about how other people conduct their lives is out-of-control, particularly here in the United States. It’s not just Microsoft Solitaire. It’s a lot of things. I’m not going to delve deeply into all that today, but the idea is one of the reasons I identify as a Libertarian.

As Boy in the police stations advises: Your problem is you. You ought to spend a little more time dealing with yourself and a little less time worrying about what your brother does.

Tom Liberman

Miss Scarlet almost Proper Wokeness

Posted on by
Wokeness

I’m not a big fan of Miss Scarlet and the Duke but the second episode of the new season almost got it right. It was tantalizingly close to Wokeness done properly but failed in the end. Such a shame.

The show is clearly a vehicle to display a strong woman as the lead character. Miss Eliza Scarlet, played by Kate Phillips, is the titular character and the self-proclaimed only female private detective in London.

Just because a show wants to display a bit of Wokeness doesn’t mean it’s going to be bad. I’ve written several times I consider myself a member of the Wokeness clan. Several of my novels involve female leads. There’s nothing wrong with wanting equality in society but I’m also a fan of good entertainment and Miss Scarlet doesn’t quite make it there.

The Wokeness Plot was Good

This episode of Miss Scarlet involved Eliza investigating the theft of a Charles Darwin sketch from a museum. The museum in question being owned and operated by a woman. Things get strange when it turns out someone placed an advertisement in the local paper offering an enormous reward for the sketch before it was even stolen and requesting applications be put to Miss Scarlet.

The Estranged Husband

Miss Scarlet investigates the estranged husband of the museum owner who is played as an over-the-top jerk. This is one of the big problems with portraying Wokeness improperly. The unwoke, for lack of a better term, are overly one-dimensional, caricatures. They are so dumb, so angry, so ridiculous that it becomes impossible to take them seriously.

Instead of making the man so simple; why not give him some nuance? He is jealous of both his mother and his wife’s successes. That’s an interesting idea. His mother was apparently an Egyptologist who didn’t get credit for her work. The problem is we don’t find out about all this until the very end of the episode.

Eliza following the moth into the hidden chamber was a ludicrous way for the audience to learn about this critical information. Why can’t mom simply mention her past in conversation during the investigation? Why not have the husband gently chide his mother, “Nobody wants to hear about that old news” or something like that. That’s an organic method of displaying the subtle way in which women and minorities are treated unfairly, to genuinely show why Wokeness is important.

Waste of Time Red Herrings

A huge amount of time was spent tracking down art thieves and forgers. Several scenes involved Miss Scarlet, standing out like a sore-thumb, under-cover and following a master forger only to be saved at the last moment by the Duke. Why? It just wasted time. The real Red Herring was the husband stealing the sketch because of feelings of inadequacy compared to his wife and mother. That’s the story! That’s the Wokeness we needed.

More Time Wasted

The young detective, son of the commissioner, took up a huge amount of time and energy. When you’ve got forty-five minutes to tell a story, you absolutely can’t waste time like this. Every scene is important. The story was the husband’s jealousy. That’s the Wokeness angle and it’s a good one. We just didn’t explore it properly. We didn’t get nuance, we didn’t get interesting characters, we didn’t learn anything useful about why he felt this way.

The Ending

I found the conclusion wholly disappointing. The mother’s plan didn’t really make a lot of sense but with a few tweaks it might have done so. The entire anagram business seemed contrived and how did the sketch get into the bust?

That being said, the basic concept of mom wanting publicity for her daughter-in-law’s museum and Miss Scarlet is a great idea. A woman who went out and challenged the world but didn’t get the credit she deserves. Now she’s trying to help other women. It’s fantastic, it’s real, it’s visceral Wokeness.

Conclusion

This episode had so much potential but in the end, it largely failed, for me at least. That’s a shame because it feeds the anti-wokeness mob. Why not focus on the husband’s jealousy? Have him come to some realization at the end about his mother, his wife. That’s an arc, that’s a story, that’s good entertainment.

So close, yet so far.

Tom Liberman

The Alienist Crafts a Stupid Investigation

Posted on by
The Alienist

I can’t say that I particular enjoyed the first season of The Alienist but decided to give the second season a look. The second episode of the second season really turned me off and I’d like to spend some time talking about one thing I think went wrong.

The Alienist sort of tells story Laszlo Kreizler, played with a gravelly monotone by Daniel Bruhl. The titular character studies the human psyche and uses that to solve crimes with the help of Sara Howard, played by the overly dire Dakota Fanning, and the equally dire John Schuyler Moore, portrayed by Luke Evans.

I have a lot to criticize in the show, not my first time, but I’m going to focus on the investigation and why it left me so dismayed that I’ll likely abandon the show.

The Crime

Babies are being killed. That’s certainly an emotional reason for me to want to catch the vile killers. A poor woman’s child was killed and the mother was blamed and executed in the first episode. A wealthy ambassador’s child was kidnapped in the second episode and that’s where Sara, John, and Laszlo spring into action.

I don’t list the characters randomly, I start with Sara because she is now, clearly, the lead character in The Alienist with Laszlo taking on a supporting, if that, role.

The Investigation

A doll is found at the home of the ambassador and Sara goes to a store that sells dolls where the body of the first child was found. She gets the address of a purchaser from the shopkeeper and begins the investigation.

She decides to go into a bad part of the town to look at the building late at night. It turns out to be a burned-out shell. While there with John, the two are spotted by a band of ruffians and driven into an alley but the thugs spot a drunken, passed out man nearby and decide to abandon the pursuit.

Sara and John follow the ruffians back to a tavern. Sara apparently knows the owner and he tells her the ruffians work for a fellow named Goo Goo who owns the building in question.

The next day a pair of torsos are discovered and it is stated the gruesome remains are unidentifiable with even tattoos cut off.

John, at the newspaper office, is told by a woman that two of Goo Goo’s men were found dead. John quickly travels to the crime scene still cordoned off by the police. John spots an old acquaintance sitting on a box and pays the man to be put in touch with Goo Goo.

Goo Goo then learns about John. He confronts the reporter, putting a knife to his throat. John is saved by Sara who appears from nowhere at the last minute and threatens to shoot off Goo Goo’s penis. Goo Goo wanders off with his friends.

Why It Doesn’t Make Sense

Where to start? What a mess. If the above narrative makes any sense to you, please use the comments to explain it to me.

Why investigate the building at night? How lucky is it the very villains involved in the kidnapping happen to walk by? What a lovely coincidence the tavern keeper is a friend of Sara and knows all the useful information.

The bodies were unidentifiable one moment and then suddenly known when it becomes useful. Another amazing coincidence is the dockworker who knows Goo Goo and is sitting right there. Goo Goo seeks out and attacks John.

It’s all contrived to lead us to various scenes and left me incredibly cold and disinterested.

How The Alienist Investigation Might Go

As some of you may know, I think of myself as somewhat of a writer. Twelve novels and all. I understand that shortcuts have to happen. It can’t all follow a logical narrative in order to get from Point A to Point Z. Therefore, I offer up for your perusal, how I might write the investigation I so heavily criticize.

Sara and John learn of the building. They immediately head over to city hall and find the records. They discover it burned down and is a fake address used to purchase the dolls. They find out the owner is a man named Goo Goo Knox. John talk to some fellow reporters and learns where Goo Goo makes his office, who are his associates, what are his suspected crimes.

Sara and John arrange a meeting with Goo Goo under false pretenses associated with some of his criminal activities. Perhaps they are fellow criminals or John is corrupt and learned something about a rival gang and wants a payout for the information.

Conclusion

The way it’s done in the show allows for some dramatic confrontations and I suspect that’s the point. We have the narrow escape in the alley, the gory bodies, the knife to the throat scene. If we do it the way I want, those scenes don’t happen. We don’t meet the tavern owner and his daughter who I think will show up again.

I understand the thinking, I just don’t agree with it. I do think a lot of people like the sensational, gruesome, violent scenes. Not to say I would write it boring and clinical; I’d find ways to create drama within a logical investigation. I am curious as to your opinion on the subject.

Do you prefer a logical investigation or one that has more sensational elements but doesn't make logical sense?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Is The Undoing Crap or Gold?

Posted on by
The Undoing

I recently watched The Undoing on HBO and came away somewhat ambivalent. There are a number of things to like about The Undoing but, in the end, it left me slightly disappointed. I’ve written before about how an ending must be satisfying for any sort of entertainment to succeed completely. In this case it did not.

The Undoing tells the story of the Fraser family and the Alves family. Jonathan Fraser is the bridge between the two. He is a doctor treating the Alves son and Jonathan also has an affair with Mrs. Alves. It is her gruesome murder and the arrest of Fraser that drives the plot.

What I liked

Let’s start with the elements of The Undoing I enjoyed. The writers did an absolutely terrific job of keeping me guessing. Right up until the very end I wasn’t entirely positive who committed the crime. My early guess was that Grace Fraser, played ably by Nicole Kidman, bludgeoned Elena Alves to death. From there I fluctuated between Grace, Jonathan, their son Henry, and even the grandfather played by Donald Sutherland.

I found the setting entirely believable and the events around Reardon School, including the ostentatious auction, immersed me in the life of the Fraser’s completely.

Likewise, the acting proved largely excellent. Grant, Kidman, and Sutherland led the way but the supporting cast largely convinced me as well. Lily Rabe stands out for her portrayal of Grace’s friend as did young Noah Jupe as Henry.

What I didn’t Like

I found the courtroom scenes unconvincing. I regularly found myself thinking both lawyers didn’t know how to object properly, having watched real lawyers do it at the Depp and Heard civil trial. I kept emerging from immersion to think to myself, is that a question or a statement? Shouldn’t someone object here?

The final reveal also left me a bit dissatisfied. Shouldn’t the police and prosecution have discovered the information about Jonathan’s past during the investigation? They didn’t really need Grace to present it to them on a platter.

The Conclusion

As you may have guessed from my tease at the beginning of this review, the ending left me quite unhappy. I think the series should have ended with the final courtroom revelation. We know everything, boom, credits. Over and done. However, that’s not flashy. There is no running, shouting, or chasing. We don’t have helicopters and police cars. We don’t have a frantic Grace or an angry Jonathan and that’s what the audience apparently wants.

Not me. The last ten minutes of The Undoing really soured my entire opinion of an otherwise very good series. Of course, you may disagree! Tell me why.

Stick the landing!

Tom Liberman

Is Hans Cheating a Predetermined Result

Posted on by
Is Hans Cheating

Is Hans cheating? That question continues to roil the chess world, and beyond. Ever since Magnus Carlsen formally made an accusation that’s been speculated in the chess circles for over a year, it’s been a major news story. Is Hans Cheating? It’s not the question I will answer today. Sorry.

I’d like to discuss the notion of a predetermined result. The Is Hans Cheating question brings the problem into great clarity, for me at least. It’s a question that affects not only the chess community but our general perception of the world at large.

Do you have a strong opinion about Hans cheating? Will his future results change your opinion about that? No, they will not. Let’s discuss.

Hans can’t Win and he can’t Lose

If you, like me, tune into chess tournaments; there is vociferous debate in the chat rooms on the subject. Is Hans cheating? There are those who say he absolutely did not cheat against Carlsen and those that say Hans most certainly did cheat in that match and others as well. The debate rages during the current United States Chess Championship in which Hans is competing.

One of the interesting parts of the debate is Hans defenders frequently point out Hans can’t win. If he wins a game then his detractors assume he is continuing to cheat. If he loses then that means his past cheating is exposed because, with the new rules in place, he can’t cheat now.

The problem is these self-same defenders are guilty of the exactly the same thinking, only in reverse. If Hans loses a game, it’s because of the pressure he’s under and it doesn’t prove anything. If he wins a game then it shows he’s didn’t cheat in the past because he can still win under more stringent scrutiny.

In other words, whether you think Hans is cheating or not, you look at events through the proverbial rose-colored glasses and come to the conclusion that best suits your narrative. You will not, under almost any circumstance, change your mind.

It’s not just Chess

This is not just an issue with the Is Hans Cheating question. I see this every day in online debates. Both sides are completely unwilling to interpret any fact, any event, any argument in a way that persuades them to change their point of view. Everything feeds their predetermined decision. Nothing contradicts it. It matters not how many knots she or he must tie themselves into to achieve the desired result.

I suspect this is a human condition. Julius Caesar wrote: Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true. I’d add only one caveat to Caesar’s insightful comment. Women too.

Conclusion

The only weapon against this enemy is critical thinking. As I watch the United States and the world drift toward totalitarianism, as I see people eagerly embrace leaders who demand absolute rule, as I watch in dismay as people gleefully talk about disenfranchising, hurting, even killing those who disagree with their views, I am ever more convinced we must start a critical thinking curriculum at the earliest moments of our educational system.

Will it happen? You tell me.

Tom Liberman

Van der Valk too Clever by Far

Posted on by
Van der Valk

I watched the first episode of Series Two of Van der Valk last night and came away unimpressed. I didn’t really like the first season of Van der Valk all that much either but, I said to myself, why not give it a chance?

The show follows a team of detectives in Amsterdam led by Peter Van der Valk. They are an eclectic group to say the least. The show is actually a reboot from an earlier series which I have not seen so I can’t really make any comparisons. The new show is flashy, stylish, filled with dramatic music, tense scenes, and intense characters.

My Review of Van der Valk

My review of the episode can be summed up in a single line: too clever. That’s simplifying all my problems with the show but it does express my general frustration with crime dramas and mysteries that make the solution so convoluted I have no chance of figuring anything out. Of course, I actually figured out the actual killer from the beginning but the clues that led us there were beyond baffling.

Basically, our killer left notes on the corpses with cryptic clues as to the next victim. Then one member of the team eventually had some sort of epiphany of understanding that led to the next scene. The word ethics must mean Spinoza! The word fire must mean Prometheus. The word God must mean Inventor but then, also be an acronym. Each revelation made less sense than the previous.

It seemed to me someone came up with the clever idea of having the murderer use Spinoza as an inspiration but then just went about it in the laziest way possible. I get using a local philosopher as a plot point but the story had nothing to do with Spinoza and the three great disasters of Amsterdam except in the most convoluted way possible. I lost track of it and just kept shaking my head and sighing in bewilderment.

While the effort to be overly clever certainly made my experience watching the first episode of Van der Valk unpleasant, it was not my only issue. Spoilers coming.

The Fish Tank

The fish tank in which the young woman drowned was way too high for the scene to happen. The murderer could not push the victim into the tank. The elevated tank came up to the chest of the detectives. You can’t bend over that way, it needed to be at waist height.

The First Victim in the Windfarm

Our murderer is not a large man. How he managed to get his victim up on the cross in the middle of the wind farm is beyond my understand. I’m willing to give a little leeway here. Maybe he rented a truck with a crane or something.

The Publicist and the Car

It’s revealed the publicist, who drowned implausibly as described above, was murdered because she took a bribe in order to stop her campaign to help the local artists. The bribe being a fancy car. This seemed utterly improbably to me. Amsterdam is a city well-known for an excellent public transit system. I can see her taking a large sum of money, but a sports car that she needs to pay upkeep and taxes on? Made no sense to me.

The Husband

The first victim’s husband was impossibly bizarre. The story of his separation from his wife and his violent abuse didn’t tie into the story at all. It just seemed an excuse to have a dislikable character as a possible suspect. His transparent lies made it clear he couldn’t be the murderer.

The Date

I can’t even begin to tell you everything I found wrong in the date between the detective and the ink maker. First off, it’s a stretch just to imagine she agreed to go out with him. I found his bumbling stupidity beyond credibility and Van der Valk ridiculing the poor fellow incessantly as some sort attempt at comic relief came across as completely unrealistic.

The poor fellow, I can’t even remember his name, seems to be on the show simply so people can make fun of him.

The Final Scene

Wait, the other bombs were real? When did he plant them. How does he have explosive knowledge. His reasoning for the brutal murders makes almost no sense. His final dialog with our hero went on and on. And on. And on. And on.

While they were talking, you can clearly see the Ferris wheel revolving normally in the background although supposedly it is being evacuated.

The Acting

I think the actors do their best with the lines they’ve got. It’s a mess but at least they try.

Conclusion

Blah. Too clever. Trying too hard to be dramatic. The serial killer leaving cryptic clues is tired and boring writing at this point. A good crime drama doesn’t need to save the world. It can just be a good crime drama. Van der Valk isn’t that.

Tom Liberman

The Pump and Dump Suicide of Gustavo Arnal

Posted on by
Gustavo Arnal

An alleged Pump and Dump scheme led the Chief Financial Officer of Bed, Bath & Beyond, Gustavo Arnal, to kill himself by leaping from a New York Skyscraper. This suicide is a symptom of an untrustworthy market environment destroying lives all across this country, and not just for CFOs like Gustavo Arnal.

Heavily involved in the death of Gustavo Arnal is GameStop Corp. Chairman Ryan Cohen who allegedly convinced Gustavo Arnal to engage in the pump and dump scheme, only to sell out his shares for a massive profit.

I don’t much care about Gustavo Arnal or Ryan Cohen to be honest. If what is said about them is true, they are thieves and, frankly, murderers. What I do care about is the complete bankruptcy of ethics in the stock market that destroys the lives of many citizens of this country.

What Happened

Gustavo Arnal and Ryan Cohen reportedly created an artificial interest in purchasing Bed, Bath & Beyond shares. The did this in a number of ways but the important thing here isn’t the details, but the result. They hoped to make millions of dollars by selling their own shares of the stock at inflated prices. The stock went from $4.38 per share to over $30 per share over the course of about a month.

The Result

The result of all of this is quite predictable. Cohen, who sold his shares, made a huge amount of money. Now, I’m a big believer in capitalism so you’d think I’d say, good for him. Well done. Not in this case. In this case the price of the stock went up not because the company showed any signs of being more valuable, but simply because people were manipulated into thinking they could get rich.

The problem is not that Cohen got richer, it’s this money came largely from average investors who trusted the false information they were fed. Many people lost money they cannot afford to lose. This money was, for all practical purposes, stolen from them.

Caveat Emptor

Let the buyer beware. I agree. The people who bought into the Bed, Bath & Beyond stock manipulation should have known better. My financial advisors were not fooled. I lost no money. That being said, stupidity does not excuse fraud and theft. What Gustavo Arnal and Ryan Cohen are accused of doing was not only illegal but it was highly unethical and extremely harmful.

Pump and Dump is Rampant

This sort of stock manipulation is rampant in the market. People are losing their life savings in cryptocurrency scams, penny stock manipulations, and more. Celebrities, influencers, politicians, and more are leaping at the chance to steal from you to enrich themselves. It’s working.

Prison

Now, finally, law enforcement is catching up to those who engage in this behavior. Charges are being filed, lawsuits are pending, and people are going to jail. That doesn’t help someone who lost their child’s college fund or their retirement nest egg. That money is largely gone and will never, ever come back to anyone except a few law firms who successfully sue the thieves.

Solutions

One of the things I try to avoid here is simply laying blame without providing solutions. The solution here is multilayered. Law enforcement stepping in is a good thing but there will always be scammers when people can be scammed. There will always be drug dealers when people want drugs. The enforcement and interdiction side of the equation is the smaller part of the battle.

What must happen to stop this is people learning and applying critical thinking skills. I’ve written a number of articles touching on the topic which I’d encourage you to peruse.

We cannot stop people from stealing when millions of dollars are available for the taking. For everyone we arrest, five more will take their place. Cutting the head off the snake does no good. It is only when people learn to think critical and not let the allure of riches cloud their judgment that we will leave this scourge behind.

It is a scourge, of that there is no doubt. The suffering engendered by pump and dump schemes cuts a wide swathe across this country. From urban to rural. From farmers to fast food workers. People lose more than their money, they lose hope. They lose faith in the system.

Tom Liberman

The Government funds itself like a Loan Shark

Posted on by
Loan Shark

I just read an interesting article about five million dollars in late fees that sums up why the government is largely nothing more than a mobbed-up loan shark, bleeding citizens for all their money. In Branson, Missouri, there are four customers who have an outstanding sewage bill of $19,000. With the late fee tacked on top of this, they now owe over five million dollars.

The government has no incentive to make you pay your bills, they want you to rack up fees. It’s not only for utilities, as in the story in question, but it’s driving the Student Loan Crisis. It’s the main reason law enforcement issues as many fines as possible. It’s rampant in private business as well. It largely caused the housing bubble crisis.

How a Loan Shark makes Money

It’s pretty easy to be a loan shark and the methodology isn’t difficult to understand. Basically, get someone to owe you money for whatever reason. Then allow them to pay in installments with an interest fee tacked on. Then simply let your client pay the minimum amount so that the principle never gets paid down.

This is called a predatory loan and the reason loan sharks used them is because government, banks, and established businesses, at one point, refused to loan to someone who could not eventually pay it back. Times have changed.

Envy of the Loan Shark

In modern times the government, in the form of utilities, city fees, penalties, traffic and parking violations, student loans, licensing, and anything else they can think of; uses the loan shark methodology. Why? Because it works.

Sure, a lot of your loans will never be repaid but that’s the cost of doing business and business is booming. Once you’ve bled your mark for more than the principle loaned it’s all gravy at that point. This is how government survives. Penalties, over-due fees, escalating and leading you to bankruptcy. At the end of it all, in the case of this article, they simple turn off your water, having collected far more than was owed. Win!

The Causes

The cause of all this is complicated to be sure but a big part of it is increasing government expenditures largely related to infrastructure and lowering of taxes as a political win. The government simply doesn’t have enough revenue from taxes to pay their bills. Government’s innovative solution was to become a loan shark. They might claim there is a surplus, as here in my home state of Missouri, but this is just an excuse to lower principle taxes for wealthy people, while sticking it to poor people with increased fees.

The Solution

Good luck, there isn’t a solution. Almost every level of government, local, state, and federal; is leveraged up to their ears in loans. Just keeping up with infrastructure maintenance takes up the entire yearly budget. It is never going to be able to pay back the principle. Government takes money from citizens to pay off their own masters, the banks.

Meanwhile, they create misery for an increasing percentage of the population that lives month to month. Is it any wonder people are angry? Their anger is, of course, completely misdirected. They want to blame the politicians on the other side of the aisle.

The job of government is to improve the lives of citizens. Our government has failed.

Tom Liberman

Who is the Most Annoying Vicar in Grantchester?

Posted on by
Grantchester

Eh gads, but I’m thoroughly fed up with this show they call Grantchester. If it wasn’t for Leonard and the fact there’s nothing else to watch on Sunday nights; Sidney and Will would have driven me off long ago.

So, I put it to you, my audience. Who do you hate more, Sidney or Will? There will be a poll at the end of this blog. I remind you, casting your vote for Sidney or Will is not saying you like the other one. How could anyone like either of them?

Sidney’s Many Failings

Who could possible imagine I might yearn for the days of an almost psychopathic vicar who promised his girlfriend he’d leave the priesthood and marry her and then, an hour later, left her, waiting without so much as a note, at the door for a ride that never came.

Oh, Sidney, you were a liar, that much is certainly true. Filled with self-pity so much that it shot out your anus and your ears like a barrage of cannons. Every moment you came on the screen with your whining and crying about God having abandoned you, of not having love, of being bored with the religious life made me want to punch you all the more.

I’m not a religious man but I like to think if I was so, I’d rather have an aloof cat tend to my spiritual needs. If running away from your problems was a virtue, Sidney might be a Saint.

Ah, Sidney, you are not missed in Grantchester, not by me at least.

When will Will sigh sadly Again?

Probably in the next scene. Will sighs a lot. Everything about the new, chronically sad Vicar of Grantchester is awful. Life is miserable unless he’s banging whichever skirt happens to cross his path while guzzling whiskey like lemonade and smoking a pack a day. What a fine example you are for Grantchester.

Oh, sigh. Something happened. Sigh. Isn’t it awful? Sigh. I’m going to go sit and feel sorry for myself for a while. Go on and solve the case yourself. Sigh. Poor Leonard, it’s not fair. Nothing is fair. I’ve lost the love of my life for the tenth time. Sigh.

Well, Will, I mean, if it’s the tenth time it’s happened, it’s probably not the love of your life.

Gee, Tom, you’re right. Woe is me.

Oh wait, another girl! I’m in love again! I’ll charm her pants off and then find a reason why it’s all really so miserable. Sigh.

Grantchester Poll

You tell me. Who is worse?

Who do you find more Annoying?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Conclusion

Sigh.

Tom Liberman

Dark Winds a Bad Ending to a Good Show

Posted on by
Dark Winds

I just finished watching the last episode of the first season of the Dark Winds series on AMC and came away more than a little disappointed. Endings. They’re important.

Dark Winds is six-part series set in the 1970s which follows tribal police officer Joe Leaphorn as he attempts to solve both a bank robbery and a murder on the Navajo reservation. I very much enjoyed the show’s first four episodes although came away moderately disappointed after the fifth episode. It was the final episode that really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Let’s get into it.

Dark Winds Plot

The plot of Dark Winds revolves around Joe Leaphorn in his attempts to solve both the murders and bank robbery. The bank robbers escaped by helicopter onto Navajo lands and that puts the onus on Leaphorn to solve the crime. Meanwhile, the murders, while occurring on Navajo land, count as federal crimes meaning the FBI has jurisdiction.

The relationship between Leaphorn, played ably by Zahn McClarnon, and belligerent FBI Agent Noah Emmerich, played with great aplomb by Noah Emmerich, is key to the investigative part of the story. Emmerlich inserts a spy into the tribal police force to help solve the investigation but Leaphorn quickly figures it out and enlists Jim Chee, played by Kiowa Gordon, as an ally.

The Plot Isn’t the Story

Dark Winds does an excellent job, at least until the final episode, of telling a story and using the plot to drive it. The real stories are the death of Leaphorn’s son in an explosion at a refinery on the land and the general mistreatment of the Navajo people by the United States government.

Sure, the murders and the bank robbery drive much of the action but the real story is far more interesting. A young, pregnant Navajo girl is saved from forced sterilization by Leaphorn’s wife, a nurse at the hospital. Forced sterilization on Native Americans is just one of many shameful parts of United States history.

In addition, the Navajo activist who committed the bank robbery was the victim of horrific sexual abuse at the hands of teachers, priests, and nuns at boarding schools children were forced to attend away from their parents. The tormented Hoski, played by Jeremiah Bitsui, carries out his criminal acts largely as vengeance for both his own mistreatment and that of his people.

The dovetailing of Hoski’s storyline of rage and Leaphorn’s own grief over the loss of his son is the real story here. It’s a tale of anger and an inability to let go of hate. A path both Leaphorn and Hoski share at the beginning of the series.

The real stories of Dark Winds are told at a leisurely pace and we see them slowly unfold as we get to know the interesting characters. It draws us in and holds us.

The Last Episode of Dark Winds

Then, in the later part of the penultimate episode and the entirety of the final episode, all the good work is abandoned with a ridiculous series of events, stunning coincidences, and one action scene after the next. It’s just a mess and the various characters act in inexplicable fashion. I’m not going to get into it all including the strange addition of the Mormon family hostages, it’s too much.

It’s all a setup for an intense scene between Leaphorn and Hoski. Hoski realizes all his rage has done nothing to help, on the contrary has caused more harm, more pain. Leaphorn ostensibly tries to convince Hoski to let go of the rage, go to prison, accept responsibility for his actions. In reality, Leaphorn is talking to himself, telling himself to let go of the anger over his son’s death.

Conclusion

The final confrontation between Leaphorn and Hoski is fine as is the denouement when Leaphorn finally releases his anger.

It’s everything in the last episode or so that leads up to that final which fails. These sorts of action scenes are what a lot of people want and I suspect many, if not most, people will enjoy the action-adventure end to the season. I did not.

I think everything might have led to the soul-searching climax with far fewer complications and a simpler story line. The finale left me deeply disappointed. All the good from the first four plus episodes was tainted.

That being said, the series is good and worth watching.

Tom Liberman

Ideology over Reality and the Great Depression

Posted on by
Ideology over Reality

A recent Facebook spat of mine involving the Great Depression reminded me of the concept of ideology over reality. It’s not a big deal but it did strike me as something to discuss in a blog.

Basically, in a reply to one of my posts, a fellow with absolute certainty posited that the Great Depression would have lasted only a few months but President Franklin Roosevelt intentionally extended it to promote a socialist ideology.

It’s also important to understand my original reply had nothing to do with Roosevelt or the Great Depression. It was merely a comment about the Federal Reserve.

The Simple Problem

The simple problem with the stated post is that Roosevelt took office some three years after the Great Depression started. This is ideology over reality.

Do I think the person who made the statement is lying? No, I don’t. I think that person absolutely believes what they are saying. That person likely heard it from some factually unsound individual and believed it because it fit his world view. I didn’t even bother replying because there is just no point. When ideology over reality takes over a mind, for many people it seems almost impossible to go back.

The Original Thread

The original post I commented on involved a historical article about Andrew Jackson and his veto of the Second Bank of the United States. Someone else commented that between then and the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there were a series of economic panics and that, perhaps, Jackson’s veto, had drawbacks.

Ideology over Reality

In any case, that’s not really the point of my blog today. I understand Confirmation Bias and I’ve written about it before. Ideology over reality is becoming disturbing. The reply about the Great Depression was one of several I received on the issue. Not a single reply addressed my point in any way. They all spoke about nebulously related concepts, topics that met with the ideology of the person writing.

Conclusion

A growing number of people seem to just not care about reality. Ideology is first, last, and only. Facts simply don’t matter. Reality is irrelevant. What’s important is simple ideology. My ideology is right. Everything about it is right. There is no room for debate. There are no complex topics. It’s all simple, straightforward, easy. I’m smart, you’re stupid. Your way will lead to my destruction and I must stop you by any means possible.

Anyone who agrees with my ideology is always right. Anyone who disagrees with my ideology is always wrong. When a threshold percent of the population succumbs to this way of thinking, we can no longer coexist with one another in a peaceful way. We haven’t reached that threshold yet. Hopefully, we never will.

Think logically, not ideologically.

Tom Liberman

Sarah Michelle Gellar and McDonalds Misleading Headline

Posted on by
Sarah Michelle Gellar

It’s been a while since I’ve added to my Misleading Headline category but a story regarding Sarah Michelle Gellar and a lifetime ban at McDonalds rises to the occasion.

Matthew Thomas of the TheThings must be proud of sheer stupidity of this misleading headline and article. I read a lot of stories and I rarely encounter anything this incredibly illogical and stupid. I urge you to read the entire article, not just the incredibly misleading headline.

I’ll go ahead and give you quick summary of the abject stupidity presented here.

Burger King Commercial

As a child actress, Sarah Michell Gellar featured in a Burger King commercial. One of her lines included a claim that McDonalds hamburgers contained twenty-percent less beef than Burger King burgers. Following along so far?

McDonalds Sues

McDonalds then filed a lawsuit over this commercial and apparently Sarah Michell Gellar was named somewhere in the suit. She confirmed as much when asked about being sued by McDonalds when walking down the street one day. Proof positive, obviously.

Let’s Ignore the Fact Checker without any Facts

Thomas then goes on to link an article from the Huffington Post that debunks the claim Sarah Michelle Gellar was banned from McDonalds. Ok, seems reasonable so far. Then Thomas goes on to write “Despite the aforementioned fact check …” and what follows is utter gibberish.

Thomas posits because McDonalds apparently did file a lawsuit in the case, it stands to reason that maybe they also banned five-year-old Sarah Michell Gellar for life. I mean, just follow the logic, right? If they are willing to file the lawsuit then why wouldn’t they ban her for life? That’s it. That’s the entire train of logic from beginning to end.

Birds can fly so it’s perfectly logical there are birds on the moon being hidden by NASA because the earth is flat or something.

Anything is Possible

The stupidity of Thomas is based on the idea anything is possible. I wrote a lengthy blog on how the Egyptian Pyramids were built which discusses this concept in depth. Just because anything is possible doesn’t mean that the highly unlikely things are just as possible as the obviously possible things.

First off, how would McDonalds go about enforcing such a ban? I haven’t been to McDonalds in a long time but as I remember, no on checks identification before you order. Suffice it to say that such a ban is clearly impossible to enforce.

Conclusion

This headline is ridiculous and clearly false. The story that supports the headline is such an illogical mess of writing that it boggles the mind.

Tom Liberman

Endeavour Series Eight Trying too Hard

Posted on by
Endeavour

I just finished watching the final episode of the eighth series of Endeavour and came away mightily disappointed. Not that the mystery was terrible or anything but it failed to meet its normally high standards.

I’m aware this relatively negative review will not be popular with fans of Endeavour and of Morse shows in general. That being said, I call them like I see them and this season failed for a number of important reasons.

The Mystery

I’ve written in other places on the criteria I use when evaluating the objective quality of a show but a mystery show is slightly different. An important factor in a mystery is giving the audience a reasonable chance to solve the riddle before the conclusion. Too often in mysteries the writers make it so convoluted and confusing the audience never has a chance to figure it out.

In the three episodes of this series, only the first gives the audience even a semblance of chance to figure out the mystery. The second episode of Endeavour involved clock hands matching semaphore signals which spell the Welsh version of an important character’s name. Um, our chances of figuring that out? Zero percent seems high. The third was such a convoluted mess they spent twenty minutes explaining who did it and why and I’m still confused.

I found the mysteries too clever by far and this largely ruined the season for me. Particular the third episode, which tried to be Silence of the Lambs meets Halloween meets A Beautiful Mind, left me baffled, bored, and incredulous.

It’s my opinion the Endeavour audience doesn’t need all this nonsense. Give us a reasonable mystery and let the wonderful characters carry the story.

All the Rest

Everything else in Endeavour is up to par. The acting is excellent. The sets are great. The costumes are period and convincing. The cinematography is solid although I thought they got a little too fancy at times trying to be stylish.

Missing Son

The third episode included a lengthy side story involving Thursday’s missing son. I strongly suspect it is a lead-in to what will be the main storyline of series nine. It also allowed Thursday’s wife to have her meltdown which I guess was dramatic acting or something.

That being said, it was way, way too much. It took away from the episode and no investigation or even explanation occurred. It was just there. This really took time away from what was already a mind-boggler of an episode. Nothing forwarded the story.

I get what they are trying to do, or at least I think I get it. My problem is a much simpler way to handle the situation existed. Just a scene where the army calls looking for the son. Something simple, don’t get into details or even have it known that he’s missing. Just a quick setup.

Conclusion

The character of Morse, both older and younger, is well-established and interesting. He and his co-workers are good enough for an interesting episode. All I need is a reasonable mystery around them and I’m happy. This series of Endeavour just tried way too hard to be far more than it needed to be.

Hotel Portofino Two Episode Early Review

Posted on by
Hotel Portofino

I watched the second episode of Hotel Portofino on PBS and I’m ready to give my preliminary review of the six-episode series. When I write a review, I try to take into account a lot of the things that make it objectively better or worse. Absolute good or bad is difficult to assign because there are many parts to a show and Hotel Portofino definitely has a duality to it.

Hotel Portofino tells the story of an English woman running a hotel in Italy in the early 1920’s when Mussolini first comes to power. It focuses on Bella Ainsworth and her immediate family including a war-traumatized son, a daughter with a young child, and a wayward husband. We also get to meet a wide variety of guests.

So, is it good? To quote my favorite YouTube lawyer, it depends.

Acting in Hotel Portofino

The acting is generally solid and often excellent. Natascha McElhone is strong in the lead and is generally supported well by a large cast including her scheming husband Cecil played by Mark Umbers. I don’t have any problems with the acting in the show.

Sets and Costumes in Hotel Portofino

This is where the show is truly outstanding. Everything in the hotel, the scrumptious surrounding countryside, the fancy cars, and the wonderful costumes are spot on. Details in the scenes are excellent with every room of the hotel looking lived in and real.

The costumes also appear period to my eyes and wonderful. Everyone is dressed the part and I’m immersed in the world of Italy.

Writing and Dialog in Hotel Portofino

The writing and dialog are largely good although there is the never-ending problem of British actors portraying citizens of the United States. It’s a real problem but I’m not sure I can really blame that on anyone. If you’re a fan of period pieces on PBS you’ll have noted this yourself and I need not elaborate.

Story and Structure in Portofino

Here’s where all the good comes to a screeching halt. There are far too many characters, far too many story lines, and the structure of the episodes have no central support. We meet character after character in the first episode and it’s impossible to tell one from the other after a while. We meet even more guests in the second episode.

Scene after unrelated scenes spawns on the screen, often without any linear sense of story or structure. The nanny suddenly finds the son attractive out of nowhere. The food deliveries stop for no apparent reason. Is the American an art critic or a CIA agent? What’s up with his yoga practicing wife? The young waiter is an anti-fascist suddenly? I’m totally confused.

The writers don’t trust us with any information and its impossible to figure out what’s going on with all the plots. A good example of this is the local fascist blackmailing Bella over a letter. The contents of the letter? A complete mystery. The American’s real goal? A mystery. The nanny’s personal tragedy? A mystery.

The first two episode had no central support. Like the Gilded Age, we just got scene after scene, plot line after plot line but nothing to hold it all together.

In the second episode the cutting off of food deliveries might have brought the story together. Perhaps the staff all heads out, fishing, scavenging, finding friends, and bringing the entire story together. Instead, we spent forever on a scene painting when we learn, out of nowhere, the nanny has talent as an artist.

Conclusion

If you like beautiful scenery, lovely costumes, good acting, and you don’t particularly care to try and follow a mind-numbing number of plots with little explanation; this show is for you.

It’s not a bad show by any stretch. I think a tighter structure, more scenes devoted to just a few plots, and fewer characters are required to make it excellent entertainment. In its current state, it’s ok.

Tom Liberman