Remember when the Internet had a collective meltdown over what Justin Bieber said about abortion to Rolling Stone? Well, the magazine apparently made a slight “editing error” (their words) when it came to his answer. “The full quote, his response to whether abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, reads: ‘Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.’” Do with this information what you will.
That's the blurb I've recently seen posted. I left this remark in the comments:
I missed hearing about the fuss over the truncated version. He seems to be giving a sensitive answer that should alienate nobody. It's a little fishy that he was asked anything other than a softball question. A question about abortion seems designed to trip up someone with his target audience. It could be noted that a fetus gets DNA and RNA from the mother but only DNA from the father, so it is more a part of her. Also, intelligence is supposedly passed maternally, so the kid is not likely a destined rapist. And there is a 51 percent chance the unborn mystery guest is female, so even less likelihood she will rape anyone. People will abort, but let's not varnish the why: she likely thinks she is getting back at the rapist, who most likely would be delighted to show she aborted. Forcing someone to give birth might very well be an extension of the rape, but if I were talking to the pregnant woman I would not spin the fact of gestation as a mere phase of human life. Justin is right in saying that it is sad.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Published Philosophies
On Sex Talk
Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.
On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip
There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.
On Abortion
People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.
To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.
Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.
Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.
Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.
Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.
Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”
On voting under a veil
Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.
Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.
Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.
On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip
There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.
On Abortion
People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.
To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.
Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.
Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.
Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.
Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.
Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”
On voting under a veil
Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.
Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.
Oscars 2011
I didn''t watch them broadcast. I saw a bit of youtube crap from the red carpet and I find I have a low threshhold for Fashion talk.
I caught a few blurbs and opinions from people disappointed by the program and the hosts, then I actually found the ceremony on a file-sharing website which is illegal but also noble, generous and necessary. The show and the hosts were no worse than other years. I had no problem with James Franco other than when he sported a dress. There was a weird time-killing moment with Anne Hathaway singing a song apparently to Hugh Jackman which went nowhere, and I could have done without the Somewhere Under the Rainbow" ending which was pure cheese. I think there is legitimate complaint that the kid from Lost Boys was not included in the dead montage. After all, there are some names I'd never heard of included and a simple google would have likely coughed up a complete list of dead celebrities of 2010. In fact, didn't a couple of those people that were included die in 2011 ? I'm not sure how they organize that.
For Franco's movie, I would have made a joke about the sound of one hand clapping.
I caught a few blurbs and opinions from people disappointed by the program and the hosts, then I actually found the ceremony on a file-sharing website which is illegal but also noble, generous and necessary. The show and the hosts were no worse than other years. I had no problem with James Franco other than when he sported a dress. There was a weird time-killing moment with Anne Hathaway singing a song apparently to Hugh Jackman which went nowhere, and I could have done without the Somewhere Under the Rainbow" ending which was pure cheese. I think there is legitimate complaint that the kid from Lost Boys was not included in the dead montage. After all, there are some names I'd never heard of included and a simple google would have likely coughed up a complete list of dead celebrities of 2010. In fact, didn't a couple of those people that were included die in 2011 ? I'm not sure how they organize that.
For Franco's movie, I would have made a joke about the sound of one hand clapping.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Secure and postal
Remember when postal workers were "going postal"? I have thought it is odd you don't hear a lot about security guards going "secure." There must be at least a comparable amount of maddening office politics. Maybe guards aren't paid enough to be able to afford a gun. My theory, or the one that makes sense to me whoever is the author of the theory, is that it is a mistake to believe we are all so sane that we can't snap like O.J. and maybe blackout and let unconscious rage erode choice. I think it is better to assume that the alcoholic should stay out of the bar, the overeater should stay out of the bakery, and the angry divorcee should stay away from interaction with a former spouse. By the same token, if there is a powder keg in the workplace it serves nobody to pretend it is less a problem than it is. Too often we pride ourselves in what we can tolerate or what won't get to us. But we will never know the limit until it is too late. It may not even take much to turn a functional working environment into an unworkable and hostile one. And backing down is not a solution, because you will also never know how far back you have to back down and how much your opponent will take advantage. For this reason, I persist with issues that have to be nipped in the bud. And there are tao choices - assertive (which is what I strive for) and passive-agressive (which is the powder keg caused by allowing spin or blame-shift to prevail).
This anectote may be extremely boring for most people, since it just involves politics of a security company. Do not operate heavy machinery after reading this blog. I have omitted names and such, but I have no problem with airing dirty laundry. One drawback is that it's not a very heroic or chivilrous position I'm taking, unless you remember the chiv part of the word is a knife. Nobody likes to admit having someone on staff who brazenly disrespects one's supervisory authority - let alone someone successfully circumventing and undermining it. Sure, I've had many compliant guards and I've earned respect but it's not much comfort when you are faced with the one staff person you supposedly have to supervise during the day thumbing her nose at you essentially. And that's one rotten apple that has to be dealt with before the rot spreads.
I have worked for a company that is careful to hold workshops and hand out
pamphlets about the workplace environment and ethics and so on, and
which promotes the idea that if you have a problem with your immediate
superior you can do "upward communication" which is going over their head.
Perhaps going upside their head would be more productive.
A bunch of bosses work down the hall from each other and they are mainly
in the business of fending off lawsuits. I'm not saying I'd have the
patience to go for that, but seeing as how I have now spoken to three
ranks of bosses it seems that there is either a reader comprehension problem
on their part or they aren't even reading anything.
In short, suppose you are a supervisor on a job site and one of your staff
decides that her job can be easier and there is a short cut -- maybe she
doesn't have to wait around for the next shift, she can just leave and YOU
will have to stay. And for weeks she has been leaving nobody on the site
when you have gone. And she says she got this permission from someone
above you at head office, a spouse or whatnot who works there.
Both of you are gunning for each other and would slit each other's
proverbial throats if you had the chance. She tries and temporarily
succeeds to turn a major co-worker of the client against you. This
is fixed thanks to discussion with the client, but the threat remains
that this person is putting spin on any admonishment you give.
You can't just suspend this person and send her home, which is the
logical impulse, because you have to get confirmation from head office
about whether she is making empty threats about her connections or whether
they are real and you are therefore toothless.
But no such confirmation nor reassurance comes. Only irrelevant and
mimimalizing silence and stretches of nothing. The subordinate makes
snarky remarks in your brief book for staff - directed at you. So you
advise that the day shift must clear briefs with yourself verbally and
not write in the book. Then you find a little doodle with page numbers
inside the cover, with the name of a head office boss. Next thing you know
she is hiding this book in a drawer. Finally, you come to work one morning
and find out someone from head office has TAKEN the book to head office.
No word whatsoever about why, and no response when you tell head office that
the book had emergency contact numbers in it.
Two weeks later you have been away on sick leave and find out that
the book was never returned and your staff has been without those numbers.
My title was Site Supervisor. At head office there is an Account Supervisor (a new guy whom I have not met face to face), the Account Manager (whom I have seen in person and who seems quiet), and the Field Operations Manager who has been boss for a long time. I've pitched to all three. As a team they've pitched back. Three strikes and I'm out.
There is one person in schedualing I respect very much, named Craig, who has a good reputation among many employees I have spoken to over the years. There is also a pleasant-sounding guy that I have not clashed with over the years but I suspect this is the husband of my nemesis. And I know what you're thinking - if you are clashing with a female you have one hand tied behind your back. True. But even if it was a male connected to people from head office I would still have to pull my punches and I would still be waiting around anxiously for a straight answer.
From: William [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:09 PM
To:
Subject: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
The following issues were conveyed in e-mails and were
mimimalized to an extent that I feel the process and
relations between C P, J S and
at least one person in schedualing should be scrutinized.
The opportunity to comment and argue these issues
has been put off repeatedly by the gentlemen above,
so this is offered for the record.
After being employed by ******* 10 years, it has taken
a lot (over a very small span of 4 weeks) to alienate me
to the point where I can't do my job as site supervisor
of (****************):
(My) Grievances from January/February 2011
1. That these issues could have been dealt with when they were current,
before I went on sick leave, but answers were further put off during
that period ostensibly to protect me from answers that would impede
healthy recovery. . .leaving me with the same unresolved issues and
anticipatory stress during said ongoing recovery.
2. Key concern not taken seriously – that s/o ??????? on my site
turned a minor site organizational issue into a grandstand and told
me off as s/s on the grounds that she is not under my authority. This
case was immediately conveyed to J in a Monday e-mail and
by Friday the main insubordination issue was glossed over and the
threat that head office shows preference for this s/o over me as s/s
appears to stand proven (or fail to be disproven to offer reassurance).
3. The active brief book of the site was taken by PSD ostensibly
for delivery to C, but no answers given as to whether he asked
for it or ???????? did, the latter possibility compounding the
danger of issue #2. There was also no answer as to what was gleaned
from inspection of said brief book. Even after I advised that the guard
numbers and emergency contact list for OSMOS et cetera were in
that book, there was no comment and no return of it to site.
4. Not advised of any reaction or action taken over the fact that
s/o ???????? attempted to (and temporarily succeeded) turn a
key client rep (safety guy) against me and create a poison workplace
we have to share. I was flabbergasted by this episode, and was able
to diffuse it after a couple of days by talking to the main client but
it shouldn’t have happened and it illustrates that any disciplinary
gesture from myself as s/s will result in such tactics by Sarfraz and
leave an unruly impression of (____) staff.
5. Just before December 15, s/o ??????? was advised by “scheduling”
that she did not have to continue a procedure for end of shift she had
complied with for months. I was not advised by this schedualing person
despite the obvious possibility for confrontation. I did not push the matter
at the time because Samina was supposed to transfer to another site.
In the new year I had to revisit this because she had changed her plan.
There should be no secrecy about who advised her, yet the question
met with a very threatening outpouring from ???????? meant
to discourage any supervisory admonishments in the future.
It was urgent that I get the matter straightened out from
Head office – WHY does ???????? think she is pulling rank on
her s/s? And yet I have still heard nothing to reassure me that I
can realistically co-exist on that site with ???????.
6. No reaction to my suggestion that arguments about
“special coverage” versus “regular” shifts and the related
problems of relief be solved as follows: My 0700-1600
shift is technically over-complicated by being broken into
0700-0800 special coverage and then 0800-1600 regular.
So that I don’t relieve anyone by coming early and their
only relief is the “special coverage” 0800-1600 who I am
told now has no obligation to show up on time or stay to
be relieved by anyone. ??????? has many times arrived
after 0800 and may or may not seek me in the dock to
use the site cell to call on as I have instructed people.
My solution was: Change the semantic designation of my
0700-1600 shift to “special coverage” which seems more
suited to a supervisor. Leave the 0800-1600 as “regular.”
If there is a change, I could always be plugged back into
the “regular” but a reduction to 1 guard during days is
not expected for a long while.
--
These are the key issues of my complaint, the root of which
perhaps being the question of whether ???????????? has
allies at head office who have had any influence on the
items of concern which have not panned out in my favor
and fail to support my authority/responsibility as a site supervisor
(or anyone else who follows in that capacity).
I realize that pushing these items upward
will alienate people further, but the situation is already
unworkable and the only way to move forward is with clarity.
I see red flags of ethics and no concern about
poison work environment. At this place, all I can do is
present the issues above. I don't have the energy to fix
something so broken, but at least I can see that you are
aware at your level. Even if the matter is academic.
Thanks for your time.
(name)
Subject: RE: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:41:50 -0500
From: *****
To: e@hotmail.com
William,
Am aware that you are off on leave due to an ongoing illness, hope that your recovery is going well.
When an employee is on a medical, leave ****** has no expectation of the employee to deal with site or company issues or have contact with the client, but to utilize the time on medical leave to rest and recover from the condition of the illness. Believe this has been conveyed to you via email from C P on more than one occasion.
Do not take kindly to the accusation that favouritism is being shown to individual employees or issues that are raised are being swept under the carpet. The protocol being followed on your concerns was to follow up on the matter, meet with you upon your return from medical leave and hopefully resolve the issues. Again believe this was conveyed to you by C P via e mail.
Thank you
R S
Manager Field Operations
*****
Toronto, Ontario
Tel:
Fax:
Direct:
Web: .com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited.
REMARQUE DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ : L’information contenue dans ce courriel est de nature privilégiée et confidentielle. Son usage est réservé uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité nommée ci-dessus. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser nos bureaux immédiatement. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous êtes par la présente avisé que toute utilisation, distribution, diffusion ou copie de ce courriel ou de tout fichier joint est strictement interdite.
(Fu*k that sh*t !!!!)
My final reply:
All of the issues could have been addressed and resolved before I went on sick leave.
I am no longer on sick leave.
I don't expect someone to take kindly to an accusation that is correct, but there it is.
The whole thing has been demoralizing enough that I have resigned, R***.
Thanks for your time.
This anectote may be extremely boring for most people, since it just involves politics of a security company. Do not operate heavy machinery after reading this blog. I have omitted names and such, but I have no problem with airing dirty laundry. One drawback is that it's not a very heroic or chivilrous position I'm taking, unless you remember the chiv part of the word is a knife. Nobody likes to admit having someone on staff who brazenly disrespects one's supervisory authority - let alone someone successfully circumventing and undermining it. Sure, I've had many compliant guards and I've earned respect but it's not much comfort when you are faced with the one staff person you supposedly have to supervise during the day thumbing her nose at you essentially. And that's one rotten apple that has to be dealt with before the rot spreads.
I have worked for a company that is careful to hold workshops and hand out
pamphlets about the workplace environment and ethics and so on, and
which promotes the idea that if you have a problem with your immediate
superior you can do "upward communication" which is going over their head.
Perhaps going upside their head would be more productive.
A bunch of bosses work down the hall from each other and they are mainly
in the business of fending off lawsuits. I'm not saying I'd have the
patience to go for that, but seeing as how I have now spoken to three
ranks of bosses it seems that there is either a reader comprehension problem
on their part or they aren't even reading anything.
In short, suppose you are a supervisor on a job site and one of your staff
decides that her job can be easier and there is a short cut -- maybe she
doesn't have to wait around for the next shift, she can just leave and YOU
will have to stay. And for weeks she has been leaving nobody on the site
when you have gone. And she says she got this permission from someone
above you at head office, a spouse or whatnot who works there.
Both of you are gunning for each other and would slit each other's
proverbial throats if you had the chance. She tries and temporarily
succeeds to turn a major co-worker of the client against you. This
is fixed thanks to discussion with the client, but the threat remains
that this person is putting spin on any admonishment you give.
You can't just suspend this person and send her home, which is the
logical impulse, because you have to get confirmation from head office
about whether she is making empty threats about her connections or whether
they are real and you are therefore toothless.
But no such confirmation nor reassurance comes. Only irrelevant and
mimimalizing silence and stretches of nothing. The subordinate makes
snarky remarks in your brief book for staff - directed at you. So you
advise that the day shift must clear briefs with yourself verbally and
not write in the book. Then you find a little doodle with page numbers
inside the cover, with the name of a head office boss. Next thing you know
she is hiding this book in a drawer. Finally, you come to work one morning
and find out someone from head office has TAKEN the book to head office.
No word whatsoever about why, and no response when you tell head office that
the book had emergency contact numbers in it.
Two weeks later you have been away on sick leave and find out that
the book was never returned and your staff has been without those numbers.
My title was Site Supervisor. At head office there is an Account Supervisor (a new guy whom I have not met face to face), the Account Manager (whom I have seen in person and who seems quiet), and the Field Operations Manager who has been boss for a long time. I've pitched to all three. As a team they've pitched back. Three strikes and I'm out.
There is one person in schedualing I respect very much, named Craig, who has a good reputation among many employees I have spoken to over the years. There is also a pleasant-sounding guy that I have not clashed with over the years but I suspect this is the husband of my nemesis. And I know what you're thinking - if you are clashing with a female you have one hand tied behind your back. True. But even if it was a male connected to people from head office I would still have to pull my punches and I would still be waiting around anxiously for a straight answer.
From: William [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:09 PM
To:
Subject: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
The following issues were conveyed in e-mails and were
mimimalized to an extent that I feel the process and
relations between C P, J S and
at least one person in schedualing should be scrutinized.
The opportunity to comment and argue these issues
has been put off repeatedly by the gentlemen above,
so this is offered for the record.
After being employed by ******* 10 years, it has taken
a lot (over a very small span of 4 weeks) to alienate me
to the point where I can't do my job as site supervisor
of (****************):
(My) Grievances from January/February 2011
1. That these issues could have been dealt with when they were current,
before I went on sick leave, but answers were further put off during
that period ostensibly to protect me from answers that would impede
healthy recovery. . .leaving me with the same unresolved issues and
anticipatory stress during said ongoing recovery.
2. Key concern not taken seriously – that s/o ??????? on my site
turned a minor site organizational issue into a grandstand and told
me off as s/s on the grounds that she is not under my authority. This
case was immediately conveyed to J in a Monday e-mail and
by Friday the main insubordination issue was glossed over and the
threat that head office shows preference for this s/o over me as s/s
appears to stand proven (or fail to be disproven to offer reassurance).
3. The active brief book of the site was taken by PSD ostensibly
for delivery to C, but no answers given as to whether he asked
for it or ???????? did, the latter possibility compounding the
danger of issue #2. There was also no answer as to what was gleaned
from inspection of said brief book. Even after I advised that the guard
numbers and emergency contact list for OSMOS et cetera were in
that book, there was no comment and no return of it to site.
4. Not advised of any reaction or action taken over the fact that
s/o ???????? attempted to (and temporarily succeeded) turn a
key client rep (safety guy) against me and create a poison workplace
we have to share. I was flabbergasted by this episode, and was able
to diffuse it after a couple of days by talking to the main client but
it shouldn’t have happened and it illustrates that any disciplinary
gesture from myself as s/s will result in such tactics by Sarfraz and
leave an unruly impression of (____) staff.
5. Just before December 15, s/o ??????? was advised by “scheduling”
that she did not have to continue a procedure for end of shift she had
complied with for months. I was not advised by this schedualing person
despite the obvious possibility for confrontation. I did not push the matter
at the time because Samina was supposed to transfer to another site.
In the new year I had to revisit this because she had changed her plan.
There should be no secrecy about who advised her, yet the question
met with a very threatening outpouring from ???????? meant
to discourage any supervisory admonishments in the future.
It was urgent that I get the matter straightened out from
Head office – WHY does ???????? think she is pulling rank on
her s/s? And yet I have still heard nothing to reassure me that I
can realistically co-exist on that site with ???????.
6. No reaction to my suggestion that arguments about
“special coverage” versus “regular” shifts and the related
problems of relief be solved as follows: My 0700-1600
shift is technically over-complicated by being broken into
0700-0800 special coverage and then 0800-1600 regular.
So that I don’t relieve anyone by coming early and their
only relief is the “special coverage” 0800-1600 who I am
told now has no obligation to show up on time or stay to
be relieved by anyone. ??????? has many times arrived
after 0800 and may or may not seek me in the dock to
use the site cell to call on as I have instructed people.
My solution was: Change the semantic designation of my
0700-1600 shift to “special coverage” which seems more
suited to a supervisor. Leave the 0800-1600 as “regular.”
If there is a change, I could always be plugged back into
the “regular” but a reduction to 1 guard during days is
not expected for a long while.
--
These are the key issues of my complaint, the root of which
perhaps being the question of whether ???????????? has
allies at head office who have had any influence on the
items of concern which have not panned out in my favor
and fail to support my authority/responsibility as a site supervisor
(or anyone else who follows in that capacity).
I realize that pushing these items upward
will alienate people further, but the situation is already
unworkable and the only way to move forward is with clarity.
I see red flags of ethics and no concern about
poison work environment. At this place, all I can do is
present the issues above. I don't have the energy to fix
something so broken, but at least I can see that you are
aware at your level. Even if the matter is academic.
Thanks for your time.
(name)
Subject: RE: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:41:50 -0500
From: *****
To: e@hotmail.com
William,
Am aware that you are off on leave due to an ongoing illness, hope that your recovery is going well.
When an employee is on a medical, leave ****** has no expectation of the employee to deal with site or company issues or have contact with the client, but to utilize the time on medical leave to rest and recover from the condition of the illness. Believe this has been conveyed to you via email from C P on more than one occasion.
Do not take kindly to the accusation that favouritism is being shown to individual employees or issues that are raised are being swept under the carpet. The protocol being followed on your concerns was to follow up on the matter, meet with you upon your return from medical leave and hopefully resolve the issues. Again believe this was conveyed to you by C P via e mail.
Thank you
R S
Manager Field Operations
*****
Toronto, Ontario
Tel:
Fax:
Direct:
Web: .com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited.
REMARQUE DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ : L’information contenue dans ce courriel est de nature privilégiée et confidentielle. Son usage est réservé uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité nommée ci-dessus. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser nos bureaux immédiatement. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous êtes par la présente avisé que toute utilisation, distribution, diffusion ou copie de ce courriel ou de tout fichier joint est strictement interdite.
(Fu*k that sh*t !!!!)
My final reply:
All of the issues could have been addressed and resolved before I went on sick leave.
I am no longer on sick leave.
I don't expect someone to take kindly to an accusation that is correct, but there it is.
The whole thing has been demoralizing enough that I have resigned, R***.
Thanks for your time.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
separate schools
Another Eye Weekly thing. I got a generously long e-mail response when I questioned an Eye assertion that "we" the general public fund separate schools and that they are anwerable to all taxpayers. I still say I'm right.
Separate School trusties or board members are elected by Catholics who in turn DON'T get to vote for public school board members. Board members should be answerable to those who voted them in and will vote them in again.
Even though head count determines how much tax goes into each school system, parents do get to indicate on tax forms which system they want to support.
Those two issues - the votes and the tax allocation - are an agreement already made. For someone from a competing system to step in and say "Gee, those tax dollars should be part of the whole pool, and you should conform to the values and mores of the faithful Eye Weekly reader and back pages patron" would be a betrayal of a contract.
Even those like myelf who attended a Catholic Secondary School and grew up to question some positions of the Catholic Church and its prejudices must acknowledge that Catholic is the brand chosen by the parent (and in some cases also the student) and it should follow the expected course. A gay student who knows he/she is gay might be wiser to choose a more accepting public board in which to start a club, as opposed to where it is going to provoke antagonism. By the same standard, there is nothing stopping such a group from being hosted by its members instead of asking a political body (a school board) to officially accept or endorse it.
But of course my argument and my e-mail was reduced to one sentence that stripped away any level of reasonableness and my name was printed in the editorial column with my out-of-context quote.
Here is a more full version:
I appreciated the generous e-mail I got in response to my concerns about this article, but I don't buy the idea that money going to Cathic schools should be diverted to the public system at the expense of agreements already in place. I still say that - like it or not - Catholic voters vote in the Catholic board members and do not have a voice in electing the public board, so their respective trustees are accountable ONLY to those who VOTED THEM IN. That's where their loyalty belongs. And even if it is head count that determines the amount of tax money a system gets, and not just the space filled on a tax form, by sending one's children to one or the other system that still is a CONTRACT and EXPECTATION that certain antiquated values will be promoted. And with the proposed gay club you are asking a political body to take responsibility for use of a school room after hours and openly endorse it to what end? To antagonize those who voted you in, or those whose taxes pay for the school? Or to satisfy the opponent or competition? The safety of gay kids is a worthy issue, and it's not a case where Catholic students are reporting bullies and not getting action taken by the staff. That would be another story. We're talking about what might be a reverse-bullying of the Catholics by uber-liberal media.
I much prefer the old way of printing even a truncated version of the letter itself.
Here are som older letters to the editor:
Outreach and grasp
I say the positive principles we get from religion or stories that are considered religious in origin will survive the badgering of skeptics and the like. As a Catholic I would much prefer that my religion and its leaders embody these principles rather than pay lip service to them. The God I continue to believe in would not be so insecure as to hold atheism against one of his/her/its children. All the same, there is something a little precious and stuffy about organized atheism. If you are not smart enough to be invited into Mensa, you may still have a club. It still boils down to wanking away intelligence. Want to be considered a "scientist" without getting a degree? Join the atheist club and pay lip service to science. That's how it reads.
Older blurbs printed in Eye Weekly:
Tony Scott was involved
Re your review of The A-Team: In all fairness, the movie was well done. I can’t say as much for the reviews I’ve looked at. In EYE WEEKLY’s review, the critic says the movie should have been done by Tony Scott. Well, it is a Scott Free production, so both he and Ridley Scott would have consulted on it. But I will say your review is not the worst sample I’ve seen. Most critics will have this movie reviewed before they actually see it anyway, knee-jerk politics being what they are. » William La Rochelle
PORNO-TASTIC
I don’t know what’s wrong with Jason Anderson in his review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno (On Screen, Oct. 30). I mean it can’t out-subversive EYE WEEKLY, but this movie has the groove those of us who are Kevin Smith fans look forward to. It has the individual stamp that allows for extreme filth to co-exist with earned sentiment. It feels truthful even in its depiction of the cheap and false world of pornography, but it is more about community and affirmative vibes amid the mischief.
Jason Mews has the audacity to casually shock us and somehow the worst you can expect is OK. Brandon Routh even gets to thumb his nose at gossipmongers with an excellent bit of casting. Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks are, yes, a perfect fantasy match in my eyes and likely to enrage (and have enraged) some female critics who want to go off on the obvious tangential rant. That might account for the movie not having a more uniform high rating.
It’s a good movie, fun, and exactly what it should be. I’m shocked that anyone focused on having too few fake porn titles. It has a little fun with that, but the movie has better things to do. And it’s not Kevin Smith trying to do a Judd Apatow style; it is clearly, scene for scene, a Kevin Smith movie, right down to Zack’s inspiration about a last-minute shoot location. It still has a personal voice and hopefully will reach a wider audience for Smith. WILLIAM LA ROCHELLE
Separate School trusties or board members are elected by Catholics who in turn DON'T get to vote for public school board members. Board members should be answerable to those who voted them in and will vote them in again.
Even though head count determines how much tax goes into each school system, parents do get to indicate on tax forms which system they want to support.
Those two issues - the votes and the tax allocation - are an agreement already made. For someone from a competing system to step in and say "Gee, those tax dollars should be part of the whole pool, and you should conform to the values and mores of the faithful Eye Weekly reader and back pages patron" would be a betrayal of a contract.
Even those like myelf who attended a Catholic Secondary School and grew up to question some positions of the Catholic Church and its prejudices must acknowledge that Catholic is the brand chosen by the parent (and in some cases also the student) and it should follow the expected course. A gay student who knows he/she is gay might be wiser to choose a more accepting public board in which to start a club, as opposed to where it is going to provoke antagonism. By the same standard, there is nothing stopping such a group from being hosted by its members instead of asking a political body (a school board) to officially accept or endorse it.
But of course my argument and my e-mail was reduced to one sentence that stripped away any level of reasonableness and my name was printed in the editorial column with my out-of-context quote.
Here is a more full version:
I appreciated the generous e-mail I got in response to my concerns about this article, but I don't buy the idea that money going to Cathic schools should be diverted to the public system at the expense of agreements already in place. I still say that - like it or not - Catholic voters vote in the Catholic board members and do not have a voice in electing the public board, so their respective trustees are accountable ONLY to those who VOTED THEM IN. That's where their loyalty belongs. And even if it is head count that determines the amount of tax money a system gets, and not just the space filled on a tax form, by sending one's children to one or the other system that still is a CONTRACT and EXPECTATION that certain antiquated values will be promoted. And with the proposed gay club you are asking a political body to take responsibility for use of a school room after hours and openly endorse it to what end? To antagonize those who voted you in, or those whose taxes pay for the school? Or to satisfy the opponent or competition? The safety of gay kids is a worthy issue, and it's not a case where Catholic students are reporting bullies and not getting action taken by the staff. That would be another story. We're talking about what might be a reverse-bullying of the Catholics by uber-liberal media.
I much prefer the old way of printing even a truncated version of the letter itself.
Here are som older letters to the editor:
Outreach and grasp
I say the positive principles we get from religion or stories that are considered religious in origin will survive the badgering of skeptics and the like. As a Catholic I would much prefer that my religion and its leaders embody these principles rather than pay lip service to them. The God I continue to believe in would not be so insecure as to hold atheism against one of his/her/its children. All the same, there is something a little precious and stuffy about organized atheism. If you are not smart enough to be invited into Mensa, you may still have a club. It still boils down to wanking away intelligence. Want to be considered a "scientist" without getting a degree? Join the atheist club and pay lip service to science. That's how it reads.
Older blurbs printed in Eye Weekly:
Tony Scott was involved
Re your review of The A-Team: In all fairness, the movie was well done. I can’t say as much for the reviews I’ve looked at. In EYE WEEKLY’s review, the critic says the movie should have been done by Tony Scott. Well, it is a Scott Free production, so both he and Ridley Scott would have consulted on it. But I will say your review is not the worst sample I’ve seen. Most critics will have this movie reviewed before they actually see it anyway, knee-jerk politics being what they are. » William La Rochelle
PORNO-TASTIC
I don’t know what’s wrong with Jason Anderson in his review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno (On Screen, Oct. 30). I mean it can’t out-subversive EYE WEEKLY, but this movie has the groove those of us who are Kevin Smith fans look forward to. It has the individual stamp that allows for extreme filth to co-exist with earned sentiment. It feels truthful even in its depiction of the cheap and false world of pornography, but it is more about community and affirmative vibes amid the mischief.
Jason Mews has the audacity to casually shock us and somehow the worst you can expect is OK. Brandon Routh even gets to thumb his nose at gossipmongers with an excellent bit of casting. Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks are, yes, a perfect fantasy match in my eyes and likely to enrage (and have enraged) some female critics who want to go off on the obvious tangential rant. That might account for the movie not having a more uniform high rating.
It’s a good movie, fun, and exactly what it should be. I’m shocked that anyone focused on having too few fake porn titles. It has a little fun with that, but the movie has better things to do. And it’s not Kevin Smith trying to do a Judd Apatow style; it is clearly, scene for scene, a Kevin Smith movie, right down to Zack’s inspiration about a last-minute shoot location. It still has a personal voice and hopefully will reach a wider audience for Smith. WILLIAM LA ROCHELLE
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The War on God article in Eye
Interesting article in Eye Weekly.
I wonder why members of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and other such organizations expect atheists
to be included in interfaith discussion events organized by members of organized religions. CFI sounds like it has
more potential as a porn spoof title of CSI. If you didn't get invited into Mensa, it's nice to know smarties who
consider themselves scientists have a group they can join.
The slogan, "You are probably not going to get a book published, so stop worrying and watch Idol (or Scooby Doo,
as it turns out)." CFI makes the extraordinary claim that their outreach efforts and advertizing do not seek to
persuade or convert anyone, merely to gloat perhaps. I'd like to see evidence of their intentions, and that there is no
hate involved (often defined as desire to inflict emotional, psychological stress as bullies do). But it wouldn't
be cheeky enough to demand that evidence of their intentions.
For some people, crop circles were proof of UFOs. I don't recall reading the rational explanation for them. Atheists
often cite the Bible or other holy books and incidents from the history of flawed human institutions such as churches
as if religion or faith is a house of cards. There is God the security guard we blame for doors that we leave open
for our own convenience and God the parent who we refuse to let control us and who told us all they could about
how to live life and may end up being blamed or abandoned when we (or some of us) do horrible things.
Bill Maher's "Religulous" ends with a mushroom cloud and talk of how great science is and how dangerous faith is,
forgetting that the A-bomb which provided such a great go-to graphic was a product of science. And I don't know
about Oppenheimer, but Einstein was an atheist.
It perpetuates the polarization that makes most debates possible or easy to follow: believers are this and
atheists are that. My high school in Ontario was Roman Catholic, and yet we learned about evolution in history class.
The religion class I remember became World Religion and then Man in Society, more like sociology.
And this was in the nineteen-eighties. It's easy for someone to look at Westborough "Baptist" Church and make
them spokes people for believers. The Pope and the Vatican don't help, but Catholics I know are fed up with
the old boys' club and Rome putting its foot in its mouth to embarrass us every now and then. That doesn't mean
rejection of "love your enemy" or a respect for Jesus as a figure whether he existed as written or not.
The best case scenario for a group like CFI is to pathologize religious ideas and push churches underground.
That way, hey, only the most zealous people will seek it out and endure sneaking around in order to connect
with their fellow believers. And of course that breeds nothing dangerous at all. At least then it won't be a
boring routine attendance to be seen as part of the flock. No, that can be reserved for the Center for Inquiry,
center of the universe, where all the oxygen is sucked out of the room by free-form jazz and people playing
Six Degrees of Charles Darwin.
Funny thing about the "There probably is no God, so don't worry. . ." slogan is that people who believe there
is a God actually aren't worried about it. The line seems to address people in fear of hell. What they could
be doing to keep company in Hades with Hitler, I don't know. It just seems like a childish exercise, but if
they want to spend money lumping God in with Bigfoot (never disproven) and acupuncture (which actually
did help my back once and apparently eases muscles that can't be helped by massage) I suppose CFI is
entitled to making their little duty and we will applaud them for the size. I do think some vulnerable people
are hurt and injured by it, and may feel despair if they aren't used to really vetting what bullies tell them.
But again, that's not for me to enforce. If they start actually trashing churches and kicking out believers like
the officially atheist People's Republic of China, maybe it'll draw wider criticism.
I wonder why members of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and other such organizations expect atheists
to be included in interfaith discussion events organized by members of organized religions. CFI sounds like it has
more potential as a porn spoof title of CSI. If you didn't get invited into Mensa, it's nice to know smarties who
consider themselves scientists have a group they can join.
The slogan, "You are probably not going to get a book published, so stop worrying and watch Idol (or Scooby Doo,
as it turns out)." CFI makes the extraordinary claim that their outreach efforts and advertizing do not seek to
persuade or convert anyone, merely to gloat perhaps. I'd like to see evidence of their intentions, and that there is no
hate involved (often defined as desire to inflict emotional, psychological stress as bullies do). But it wouldn't
be cheeky enough to demand that evidence of their intentions.
For some people, crop circles were proof of UFOs. I don't recall reading the rational explanation for them. Atheists
often cite the Bible or other holy books and incidents from the history of flawed human institutions such as churches
as if religion or faith is a house of cards. There is God the security guard we blame for doors that we leave open
for our own convenience and God the parent who we refuse to let control us and who told us all they could about
how to live life and may end up being blamed or abandoned when we (or some of us) do horrible things.
Bill Maher's "Religulous" ends with a mushroom cloud and talk of how great science is and how dangerous faith is,
forgetting that the A-bomb which provided such a great go-to graphic was a product of science. And I don't know
about Oppenheimer, but Einstein was an atheist.
It perpetuates the polarization that makes most debates possible or easy to follow: believers are this and
atheists are that. My high school in Ontario was Roman Catholic, and yet we learned about evolution in history class.
The religion class I remember became World Religion and then Man in Society, more like sociology.
And this was in the nineteen-eighties. It's easy for someone to look at Westborough "Baptist" Church and make
them spokes people for believers. The Pope and the Vatican don't help, but Catholics I know are fed up with
the old boys' club and Rome putting its foot in its mouth to embarrass us every now and then. That doesn't mean
rejection of "love your enemy" or a respect for Jesus as a figure whether he existed as written or not.
The best case scenario for a group like CFI is to pathologize religious ideas and push churches underground.
That way, hey, only the most zealous people will seek it out and endure sneaking around in order to connect
with their fellow believers. And of course that breeds nothing dangerous at all. At least then it won't be a
boring routine attendance to be seen as part of the flock. No, that can be reserved for the Center for Inquiry,
center of the universe, where all the oxygen is sucked out of the room by free-form jazz and people playing
Six Degrees of Charles Darwin.
Funny thing about the "There probably is no God, so don't worry. . ." slogan is that people who believe there
is a God actually aren't worried about it. The line seems to address people in fear of hell. What they could
be doing to keep company in Hades with Hitler, I don't know. It just seems like a childish exercise, but if
they want to spend money lumping God in with Bigfoot (never disproven) and acupuncture (which actually
did help my back once and apparently eases muscles that can't be helped by massage) I suppose CFI is
entitled to making their little duty and we will applaud them for the size. I do think some vulnerable people
are hurt and injured by it, and may feel despair if they aren't used to really vetting what bullies tell them.
But again, that's not for me to enforce. If they start actually trashing churches and kicking out believers like
the officially atheist People's Republic of China, maybe it'll draw wider criticism.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
I have broken my rule about piracy
I have seen illegal versions of movies I had actually intended to pay to see,
but this is the nature of pre-Oscar season. We end up finding some good copies of screeners that have been uploaded by thoughtful criminals.
Here are the titles I have seen as pirated versions on-line this year:
Black Swan is stylish and in love with itself. This movie is indeed well acted and might engage people who have no interest in ballet and backstage rivalries real or imagined. But those cultural trappings won’t hurt it with people who do have a keen interest in all things artsy. Comparisons to Dario Argento are a bit overstated, since there is very little horror and only some pain. A few stabs to reflect upon, but for me it felt forced and engineered so that a character’s journeys become pathologies . I think people are prepared to impose deep meaning on unfortunate outcomes.
True Grit The Dude assumes a signature role of The Duke in this remake about a Marshall and a Ranger both engaged by a 14 year old girl to track her father’s killer. Hardship, infighting and frontier justice are brought to life with natural bits of humour that play to a modern audience without creating distance. I still want to see Jeff Bridges play stoner Lebowski again, but at least he is back with the Cohens and enveloped in the world of True Grit. Of special note is James Brolin’s characterization of the villain.
The Fighter Meddling family members highlight this boxing drama. Mark Wahlberg is committed as a labourer who is also pursuing his vocation as a boxer, in the shadow of his one-time promising brother played with note perfection by Christian Bale who has ended up spending more time in a crack house than functioning as a manager.
Get Low Reflective and slow-starting, the movie is more accessible once it introduces Bill Murray as a funeral director in a town where there isn’t enough death. Robert Duvall’s hermit with a guilty conscience plays his cards so close to his vest that some viewers may at first become restless although his back-story proves to be engaging and moving. The rustic setting feels like a western, though it is the nineteen-thirties or thereabouts.
The Town is an entertaining crime thriller directed by Ben Affleck within the world of Boston he had previously explored in Gone Baby Gone and as co-writer of Good Will Hunting. The nature of friendship and loyalty are explored as well as justice and corruption in their many guises. Sam Hamm has amusing moments as the antagonist who should be the protagonist. Top notch cast even for small parts give them respect relative to their position in the main guy’s mind. Chris Cooper is the father behind bars and Pete Postlethwaite is the flower-keeping crime boss who is determined to clip the balls of others. On the other hand, it helps that I didn’t recognize the leading lady Rebecca Hall centers the movie for non-criminal and non-FBI viewers. In fact, her character is an outsider to Charlestown itself.
but this is the nature of pre-Oscar season. We end up finding some good copies of screeners that have been uploaded by thoughtful criminals.
Here are the titles I have seen as pirated versions on-line this year:
Black Swan is stylish and in love with itself. This movie is indeed well acted and might engage people who have no interest in ballet and backstage rivalries real or imagined. But those cultural trappings won’t hurt it with people who do have a keen interest in all things artsy. Comparisons to Dario Argento are a bit overstated, since there is very little horror and only some pain. A few stabs to reflect upon, but for me it felt forced and engineered so that a character’s journeys become pathologies . I think people are prepared to impose deep meaning on unfortunate outcomes.
True Grit The Dude assumes a signature role of The Duke in this remake about a Marshall and a Ranger both engaged by a 14 year old girl to track her father’s killer. Hardship, infighting and frontier justice are brought to life with natural bits of humour that play to a modern audience without creating distance. I still want to see Jeff Bridges play stoner Lebowski again, but at least he is back with the Cohens and enveloped in the world of True Grit. Of special note is James Brolin’s characterization of the villain.
The Fighter Meddling family members highlight this boxing drama. Mark Wahlberg is committed as a labourer who is also pursuing his vocation as a boxer, in the shadow of his one-time promising brother played with note perfection by Christian Bale who has ended up spending more time in a crack house than functioning as a manager.
Get Low Reflective and slow-starting, the movie is more accessible once it introduces Bill Murray as a funeral director in a town where there isn’t enough death. Robert Duvall’s hermit with a guilty conscience plays his cards so close to his vest that some viewers may at first become restless although his back-story proves to be engaging and moving. The rustic setting feels like a western, though it is the nineteen-thirties or thereabouts.
The Town is an entertaining crime thriller directed by Ben Affleck within the world of Boston he had previously explored in Gone Baby Gone and as co-writer of Good Will Hunting. The nature of friendship and loyalty are explored as well as justice and corruption in their many guises. Sam Hamm has amusing moments as the antagonist who should be the protagonist. Top notch cast even for small parts give them respect relative to their position in the main guy’s mind. Chris Cooper is the father behind bars and Pete Postlethwaite is the flower-keeping crime boss who is determined to clip the balls of others. On the other hand, it helps that I didn’t recognize the leading lady Rebecca Hall centers the movie for non-criminal and non-FBI viewers. In fact, her character is an outsider to Charlestown itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)