GOOGLE GUY

Like everything else on the Internet, this incident has arisen to cartoon character status, because those are the only persons many Americans will believe. The Google Guy was given space on Saturday’s Wall Street Journal op-ed page.

In 1790 in Vienna an honest observer would say Mozart was the most original composer of the times. Franz Joseph Hayden was equally excellent, but in a different way. What about Beethoven? He had arrived and played the piano for Mozart, who unjustly wasn’t impressed. When Mozart heard Beethoven improvise, he said, “The world will hear from this young man.”
Hayden took Beethoven on as a student. The pupil fought with his teacher all the time, but something was conveyed. Fifteen years later during the performance of The Seasons the old man got up to leave. Beethoven was kneeling before him. Embarrassed and overwhelmed, Hayden got Beethoven to stand so he could look at his peer.

In 1793 who would have known the disagreeable student would be the best composer to live, ever. By 1808 Hayden knew it. Beethoven’s collective work shows a steady improvement and use of the imagination. Later pieces are consistently better than the earlier. And who knew after 1808 Beethoven would compose the Fifth Concerto, the Seventh Symphony, Eighth Symphony, sonatas, quartets and when deaf, the Ninth Symphony. He wrote Wellington’s Victory to pay the rent.

I’ve seen the Google Guy interviewed, and who is he? He does not realize there are big grand issues he is not addressing. The issue is, how to prompt an employee’s imagination to do the work presented. The answer is not forthcoming by comparing men to women. To do that one needs gobs of data, personal knowledge and be educated in teaching the disciplines which Google finds important. We’re talking about higher forms of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 5. If a Google employee can teach that, one might be able to evaluate other employees, if there is complete access to academic and psychological reports for each individual.

Remember the Google Guy is looking for distinctions in imaginations. In 1830 Chopin left Poland on his way to Paris. He stopped in Germany to hear Mendelssohn perform. They were both 20 years old. When the music wasn’t very good, Chopin went on his way: “No use meeting Felix.” Mendelssohn had every musical gift Mozart had, but did not know how to use the talents – focus to produce compelling music. Polish speaking Chopin was fleeing a failing revolution at home against the Russian occupier. Chopin’s music is almost always precise, surprising and pleasing.

Somebody who collects gross data off the Internet, and tries to make it comprehensible does not have the facts and figures to conclude anything about anyone. Hence, the Google Guy, likely has a storied career in education, perfect scores on the SAT, and everything else – ornaments for the resume. He also has a list of letters following his name longer than the alphabet, reflecting victories in science and wizardry contests and extending far into his Wazoo. Such credentials are why this guy should not write. There have always been exact answers in his world.

I can tell Google Guy that how he did it is not how writers do it. Sources may be available but what do they indicate? They are not formulas, equations and therms. The studies produced are by researchers seeking answers. Do they ever ask enough questions? Like a political poll the best any one can derive from studies are inclinations and trends. I assume that the A-Hole U which Google Guy attended did not teach him how to research any better than it taught writing and interpretation. Google Guy’s abilities are best left in the imagination, working through math problems, conceptual relationships among sets, numbers and equations and hoping to arrive at a defensible conclusion or a better product. Most human beings and situations are far from those efforts, and being human they don’t always act predictably.

What specifically is not happening at Google? Work is not being done? Someone in management is to blame. Employees need better training. Google is a choice employer. There should be enough scrutiny of new employees so urging them to work is not a problem. They are self-motivating; they have initiative; they use their brains to confront issues before them.

Or does Google hire employees who are not qualified? Are Google employees happy with their performances in academia, and now want to coast during employment? And since this is California, are there substance abuse issues? Perhaps some employees have psychological problems, and a few physical limitations.

What do Beethoven, Hayden and Mozart have to do with Google? I suppose Google hires employees hoping each will contribute often over the long term. Some may be standouts but not fully noticeable today. In a decade how will these people have helped?

FIRST PERSON NARRATIVE

In literature this voice is not used often; there are good reasons why. Having “I” tell the story greatly limits the options a writer has available in any writing. The reader and world already know whose point of view is being presented: I, and to be consistent I must fill in all the action and description. A derivation into description present in a third party tale is noticeable and a flaw.

It may seem that dialogue can be accurately reported by using I. Indeed, some of the sentences may have been previously uttered, but there is not enough paper in the world to record every conversation completely. In all literature conversations reported in dialogue are edited and representative. That selection process picks the jewels coming from the human brain through the mouth rather than a jumbo mix of participles, prepositional phrases and adverbs. Someone writing dialogue I, the first person narration needs to tone down and eliminate as many words as possible: First, the words come from I, a person the reader is familiar with. Second, unless the dialogue drives the story forward, it should be dropped. In a first person narration I is the primary mover of the story. If points in dialogue have not been made, they may have already been implied, or they are not important and possibly conflicting. An author cutting his dialogue – this is my styleHORRORS! It is an impossible task.
Writing a novel is the first person narrative and having flashbacks seems an impossibility. I have tried reading such a novel. The author tried to clarify by dating each chapter of the multi-decade story: Chapter 1, Winter 2008; Chapter 2, Autumn, 1982, etc. Embracing I along with keeping track of incidences in I’s life over the decades is more than a reader should endure: Chapter 3, Winter, 1983; Chapter 4, Spring 1984; Chapter 5, Summer 2008.

The author jumped relying on dates and seasons and dialogue from those times, but I wondered, why bother. The author supposedly wanted to tell a first person narrative about a police investigation of a local heroin distribution ring. It seems a timely subject beset by the awkward telling.

So I put the book down. There are others to read, one by Joseph Conrad.

TRUMP VULGARITIES

In the draft of the film script, The Lady Eve, which Preston Surges handed to Barbara Stanwyck read on the pages where she and her father watched Henry Fonda, the mark, come aboard:

JEAN [Stanwyck]
,,,and I hope he’s got a big fat wife so I don’t
have to dance in the moonlight with him. I don’t
know why it is but a sucker always steps on your
toes.

COL. H [Father]
(looking over rail)
And is a mug about everything.

JEAN
I don’t see why I have to do all the dirty work…
There must be plenty of rich old dames just
waiting for you to push them around.

COL. H
You find them and I’ll push them.

JEAN
Boy, would I like to see you giving some old
harpy the three-in-one.

COL. H
Don’t be vulgar, Jean. Let us be crooked but
not common.

(Axel Madsen, Stanwyck, Harper Collins, NY, 1994, p. 189.) A Brooklyn girl, Stanwyck, knew every vulgar term and could use each appropriately. She never did.

But last week we had Anthony Scaramucci mouth off, vulgarly, in the most ordinary, common ways showing no class, no education, of awareness or propriety, morals, ethics and comportment. Being a street thug was good enough.

Living the low life of a ground crawler was surprising to Scaramucci’s boss, Don Trump, and he was upset that Scaramucci upstaged him: Fire Scaramucci, who may now be mooching in his infamy and notoriety. Don Trump is on vacation.

SHERLOCK – Season 4

This series has begun the slide into fantasy and surrealism. Points are blocked out and seemingly follow one another. But do the blocks make sense? A headline from Favorite Internet Site leads to Sherlock and Watson to follow a line; a note discarded in the Underground on the other side of London stirs them in other directions.

The cartoonish coincidences of blocks mock the whole Sherlock idiom. Most of Season 4 is taken up with the future crimes predicted by past bad guys, James Moriety, killed in Season 2. Note that a few years or more have passed by Season 4. The dead man has joined forces with Sherlock Holmes brilliant sister, who supposedly has not been released from confinement for 30 years.

According to the cartoon story she knows everything. She’s more brilliant than either of her brothers, although she is severely mentally retarded. She keeps that handicap in check while having her brothers jump through her hoops. Episode three of Season 4 is not good science fiction, science fantasy, detective fantasy, etc. It’s more like a pseudo-psycho story with gaps, and the audience is to fill in the blanks while trying to follow improbable actions: A cross between Survivor and Alien [the original].

The Sherlock Holmes idiom presents a man who is different from other human beings. Note that Sherlock is not in a different setting. In the settling that is known to the audience, what delights readers and viewers is Sherlock’s observations of the unknown and unnoticed. When Sherlock pursues criminals, he does not leave reality, the setting the audience is in. When using fantasy leaps, grand coincidences and changes of setting in SHERLOCK – Season 4, the Sherlock idiom is lost. [Robert Downey Jr. movies came close but did not cross this line.]

What the audiences and the writers lose? Nobody cares about Sherlock or how the crimes are solved. Most of the crimes are obvious {cereal (serial) killer}and solvable by the cops; Sherlock isn’t needed. SHERLOCK – Season 4 lost its strongest human being when Mary, John Watson’s wife, is unnecessarily killed. If the truth be known the original Terminator movie has more human beings in it (including Arnold) than SHERLOCK – Season 4.

CRIME 2

On April 23, 2017 I gave a rundown of criminal situations that arise frequently on crime shows. I gave 15 much scenarios, and I’m adding another 15. I cannot say I’ve covered the whole range of basic facts leading to crime. I may write more, but the 20 categories I’ve identified can help anyone to analyze any scene. Here comes Crime 2:

l.   No adult or adolescent female should ever attempt to mother a man who is a boyfriend. There is no reforming the male. That relationship will end badly – violently with psychological issues rearing and separating the couple, and an ugly aftermath.

2. There is a different between support, care and attention and mothering. A mother has
to accept all great aberrant behaviors. But a woman in a relationship does not to go
beyond care, nursing a scrapped knee; she should support criminal acts but she should to ready the man for the consequences of his actions, striving to improve his state of mind if the idiot is capable. She should never tell everyone her man is right and righteous.

3. DO NOT EVER believe having plastic surgery will rekindle a marriage/love affair.
Marital problems usually go to he bone – far beyond skin deep.

4. Marriage, living with another, is real. DO NOT EVER believe a spouse who commits fraud or steals from other is a mate. Theft is theft, whether it be money, time, attention or caring.

5. Missing persons: When a child, adult or relative are missing – not were anyone expected them to be and not found anywhere else – call the cops. When anyone waits for the cops to call them to report, your missing person is dead.

6, Women of all ages, but primarily adolescents and a bit older, should never feel sorry for a guy who tells a sad tale otherwise instantly recognized as a sob story. His life is one
of hard knocks. The guy wants you to cry; he wants you to take care of him; he wants your body. He wants your attention. He wants your money. He says he does but he does not care about you.

Corollary: A sob story is not a good basis on which to establish a long term
relationship.

7. Boys and girls who insist on confronting someone who has wronged them, and they don’t want to go to the cops, frequently their end up murdered or hurt. When a crime is committed, the perpetrators frequently are emotionally dangerous human beings and easily act wantonly a second time.

8, If perpetrators of crimes have a successful run, treat it like a job. Save the money. Have an exit strategy. Train replacements. Leave town. Remain silent. Live a quiet life somewhere afar. Spend time reading books taken from the public library. Try not to see the old gang again.

9. A single adult with a child must realize: Grow up, be mature. The child or any adult the
needs attention and care. The child is offspring; you are not a child. Rules of being single no longer apply. The single person is first an adult. The most important person in life is the child – not the single socialite, and not the pretty person who is offering attention to the single parent. There are no good reasons for ignoring a neglected child.

10. Human thought puts too much emphasis on experience, and not enough on the imagination: identifying an activity, playing through the actions, consider the consequences. The thinking is much better than the reality: Do a stupid, wanton, wasteful act will forever change lives including your own, and your life will be gone.

11. Being a parent means you must also carry the responsibilities of being an adult. But being an adult, does not mean one is capable of being an parent.

12. A teenager of a small town who is going to college, in a larger town should reflect. Where you are going is much more exciting than anything in the hometown. It is not time to paint the hometown red. Too much can happen which usually does, involving crime, injury and death. Instead, rest and read so you can paint the college town red.

13. In America today are large subcultures, devoid of or producing their own morals and
ethics and inflected with with addictions. Citizens live on the edge or off the grid
because they are incapable of joining society in any way.

14. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Right? There are towns and neighborhoods,
elsewhere, where the Vegas rule also pays out. One such place is the Haight-Ashbury in
San Francisco. There are also yoga communities along the coast of Southern California;
and there’s the spiritual community of Sedona Arizona.

15. Marriage. If you are on drugs, or your marital partner is on drugs, do not marry. If you are on drugs, and the potential spouse is not, neither person knows the other. If both persons are on drugs, neither person has a chance to know the other.
When writing about marriage, any author should mention drug usage when writing a story – crime, romance, family.

DON TRUMP ZERO

In an ill-conceived, poorly written op-ed piece, David Gelernter failed to get points across while trying to key on four issues. His trivality is titled, The Conservative Resistance is Futile, July 6 2017, and once again The Wall Street Journal has tossed a jumble of words onto its editorial page whilst asking readers to make sense of them.

What does Gelernter mean by culture? Good writing where sentences logically support one another and complete paragraphs is not present. Instead, he gives snippets, stuff that is populated from the Internet; his ideas are cluttered, the writing is cliched.

The biggest glob blocking Gelernter’s argument is Don Trump. He is anathema to the American people. He goes far beyond vulgar; he is rude and offensive so no right-minded American would invite Don Trump into his house, especially if females were present. Americans who like Don may learn that wives are cows, this opinion expressed by a guy having two scoops of ice cream bankrupting the country by adding calories to the national debt. Being fat and boisterous is not part of American culture.

An American cultural phenomenon prizes that which is said with humor, fun and understatement which is more penetrating and longer lasting than ideas presented in anger, hate and spite. Gelernter’s world is perverse; he believes Trump’s unAmerican ways preferable. Therefrom it’s easy to determine that Trump and Gekernter have no sense of humor. They’re from New York City. There’s no humor there. Don Trump seems to relish hate. New York City may need a public relations campaign to rid hate from the fabric of its existence.

Trump is a business guy who promised competence from Day One. Nope! Republicans have been hard at work on a Health Care Replacement bill, although the party had met and discussed the issues for six years. They have no idea what they are doing. Remaining permanently stupido, Don Trump has criticized Congress many times rather than attempt accommodations and facilitate the passage of new legislation. Compromise is not part of Don Trump’s universe. However, there are many deals he has to make with the Russians who don’t care if Don Trump hates.

The Republicans will eliminate any move to reform taxes and the tax code, yet they will try to give the rich more tax breaks. It is a formula to enlarge the public debt as much as President Obama did. The wealthy need more cash to support their greed. The Republicans should take heed. The last year of low taxes will be 2020. In 2021 a Democratic Congress and Executive will double taxes on the rich.

Should the Republicans resist Don Trump and his self-serving tax policies free-loading on the public treasury? One of 100 tweets from Don Trump makes sense. The remainder are evidence of a weak wandering mind incapable of logical thoughts and full of errant items of hate. That’s why Don Trump sticks to twitter, a form of speech and culture. Twitter Corporation may not be profitable and will fail, but it will be Don Trump’s cultural contribution to America. But the country has changed. Americans once believed what was good for General Motors was good for the country. No one believes today, what is good for Don Trump is good for any citizen of the United States of America and secondly, good for any human being on earth.

What sort of culture should Conservatives adopt? They apparently like the same music liberals do. Don Trump had difficulty hiring artists to perform at inauguration balls. Do Conservatives favor acoustical instruments over electronic instruments? Do they like partner dancing, or the free-lance stuff where you might see your date in the next county – Don Trump in search of his date might engage with four women as he goes. How about painting? Does Don Trump want a Hans Holbein version of the Duchess of Cleves, or is he like Oliver Cromwell, “paint worts and all?” It is likely any painting will liposuction off 150 pounds; Conservatives and Don Trump are vane. They know history never gets in the way: Everyone looks at Holbein’s painting today and considers Anne of Cleves a fair looking woman.

So what’s happened to Conservative versus Don Trump versus the Liberals? Don Trump figures he can make statements by portraying himself in tough guy situations, in cartoons. Like the good fat Kraut he is, Trump is a fighter pilot [too obese to be a pilot] shooting at a civilian airliner destroying CNN. In another he sucker-punches a figure representing CNN. During World War Two the German Army was manly when attacking women, children, old men and civilians, but they turned tail when facing British, Russian, American soldiers and others from freedom-loving nations. This fat Kraut should remember these historical facts.

So while Gelernter and others are admiring and on their prayer rugs hoping for the best, they are on their own. The American people will not be intimidated.

POLITE DISCOURSE

Everyone wants polite social discourse especially after the Republican congressman was shot. But it’s hard to leave the old ways: In the government sandbox be rude, be offensive and pee but use no plumbing. I’m sure Don Trump got solace from that good Christian woman, defending him and blessing his actions. I bet, though, when Sarah Huckabee is at home, if her kids are as rude and offensive as is the President, she whips them. [Spare the rod, spoil the child is the Proverb modified from 13:24.] In this matter spanking anyone would produce adverse results. The guy’s been spanked before.

DISGUSTING FUTURES

I’ve seen two movies, both set in New York City. In each there is no character worth liking; there is no one to root for. Keanu Reeves is in Exposed; Adam Rodriquez is in A Kiss of Chaos.

The stories like the setting, the underside of New York City, are grimy, tough, rude, vulgar and bleak. In A Kiss a character says to another: “The cops are coming.” RESPONSE: “The cops don’t come here.” Without knowing anything else viewers agree. The dialogue reflects elementary educations, perhaps to sixth grade after most kids know the swear words, cliches and conventional comments which are meaningless. Someone offered to teach a woman class; he spoke quietly, like he had an eighth grade education.

In Exposed Reeves investigates his partner’s murder. He learns along the way, that his partner has been committing felonies. A Kiss is about a cocaine deal that goes wrong – the buyer ends up with drugs and the cash. How do they get it back?

These low, miserable, youthful tales have identifiable characters, none that a family would want delivered to a family member who is in the state prison. Each movie has a premise which is resolved; each is filled with sociological terrors. The human imagination runs wide and strong, but I have no reason to doubt that these films and stories reflect large doses of reality. They are existing facts and circumstances which will arrive in the future.

Finally, I must commend Mr. Reeves and Mr. Rodriquez for acting and being in these stories. They are not fantasy; they are not concocted love; they are not super-hero stuff; they are not monster versus mankind, or the earth; there are no car races or car chases. These movies seem real, although the movies suggest the true facts should never be put into a police report.

MEGYN KELLY SHOW

Brenda Starr has returned. She’s covering the big issues of the day.

One issue is demystifying self-proclaimed truths repeated by people who are mentally ill. In Megyn’s recent interview of Alex Jones, he claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was perpetrated in conspiratorial fashion in part, by the parents of the victims.

A program with such headlines and ramifications would be definitive, if the sources were identified and verified, like once-upon-a-time happened in the newspaper world. It was Ronald Reagan who advanced the standard: Verify and trust. Americans have to learn whether Brenda Starr ignores all that and goes for the exclusive.

For himself, Alex Jones said he “looked at all the angles of Newtown.” What was the view from one hundred eighty-three degrees? Jones also asserts, “Thirty years ago they began creating animal-human hybrids.” Do you think it’s true? I’ve heard countless women describe Don Trump as a Neanderthal.

Perhaps Alex Jones cannot help himself. He is photographed wearing a tin-foil hat. He looks sad, a pouty face like a kid at a birthday party who didn’t get a piece of the cake. I notice, though, in another photograph while he’s talking, he looks like he has eaten the whole damn cake.

Reactions of the Sandy Hook parents are predictable and justified. If Jones gets to spit out his conspiracy theories and Brenda Starr only argues with him, the parents have a mighty point. If Jones is one of 300 such people spewing these theories, is Jones the most representative spokesman? Why? Ask him to distinguish facts which make his presentation better. Ask about his experience and depth of knowledge. Ask, ask, ask. Most of those people do not have the background to answer. What they know are the cliches and catch phrases known by their audience and followers.

Brenda Starr is correct about one thing: The more that is known about these people – how they collect their facts, conceive their opinions, rely on biases and prejudices, believe intuitions, chose the correct or inflammatory word, and depend upon instinct – the better for the American people. The American people should judge the TV program based upon reason, logic and common sense, as well as common decency.

And Brenda Starr, herself, should strive for a newsworthy program, not one that is entertaining: A “riveting exchange,” she is quoted.

TRUTH vs. DON TRUMP

Comey arrives at the White House. His boss, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States is there with Vice President, Mike Pense. Pense and the Attorney General leave. Comey is stuck talking with President Don Trump.

Don Trump talks. His son says when his father talks he is direct. His message is never confused. He never uses innuendo or metaphors to convey a message. Don Trump said, Suppress all investigations involving G.G.F. (Good-Guy Flynn) and my B.F.F., the Russians.

Comey went home and wrote notes about that conversation with President Don Trump, a talk he should not have been forced into. He wrote nothing that was privileged or secret. Remember any American can have an Oval Office conversation with Don Trump, go home and write it down. That writing is not confidential or secret.

Comey did something else when he wrote the conversation. The facts, ideas and proposed actions seemed to support inferences or elements of criminal activity which by his prior knowledge involves Comey in the plot. Comey was being asked to join the conspiracy. Don Trump was being subtle for once. Comey’s after meeting writing is a means to recount what was said.

Viewing the writing in light of post meeting statements from Don Trump and his minions, Comey handed it to a Third Party. His death or absence would preserve his version of the meeting. That transfer is evidence of Comey’s unwillingness to act in unison with Don Trump and his minions. Comey did not want to be part of any conspiracy.

Production and publication of the writing will end with legislative and legal scrutiny. Comey has an early date whereby he did not want to join the conspiracy. If only New York prosecutors had similar tapes and writings of conversations, they would have taken down all thugs, racketeers and mobsters long before Rudy Giuliani did.

If everything Comes said was a lie, Don Trump must prove it by producing his tape recordings today. If there are no productions of tape recordings, or if there are no tapes, Don Trump is the liar.