Author Archives: Bob Evans

Universal Healthcare is not Slavery

So from the left side of the political spectrum that has been an assertion that ‘healthcare is a right.’ For the moment let’s set aside if they are in fact correct with that position. (And no the preamble to the constitution doesn’t establish it, that section has no force of law. It’s what gamers call ‘color text.’) In response to this position some on the right, generally from the libertarian wing, have counter-claimed that asserting that healthcare is a right means making an illegitimate claim on another’s person’s labor and that is de factor slavery.

Slavery? That is an absurd proposition beyond the boundaries of the asinine.

First off, the healthcare professions, doctors, nurse and the like would still be compensated for their labor. t would not be stolen without compensation or consent, so it in now way resembles slavery. It is the height of offensiveness to even suggest such a thing.

Second, all right require the labor of others. You want a right to a trail? That means that there must be judges, District Attorneys, clerks, bailiffs, and a whole host of support personal. You want a right to vote? There has to be registers, clerks, and again a vast support network. A right which is not protected and not enforced is no right at all and that protections and enforcement requires people and their labor.

Where the questions of labor that is compelled is the taxation. Taxes represents the labor of people that has been confiscated to support the public good. There is a great and vigorous debate over what constitutes a public good and therefore what sort of things are so valuable, so essential, that collective we must take some from most in order to support the goal.

There are strong arguments on both side about healthcare and if it is a public good or an individual responsibility, but comparisons to slavery are only for the dim and the deluded.

Share

Vintage Film Review: Blacula

As many of you are already aware I have a deep love of cinema. Sadly, one aspect of the cinema that my knowledge has been lacking in is the sub-genre of Blaxploitation. Traditionally defined this was a short period, primarily in the 70’s, when there was a sudden influx of movie that were black produced, black starred, for black audiences. Often dealing directly with issues of racial and social injustice these films addressed things from a more street-level rough around the edges style of production.

Last year as the start of my education in this cinema I watched Black Caesar, basically a modern retelling of Little Caesar but for a (then) contemporary black audience. Today, while I was home sick with a viral head cold, I watched Blacula. An urban vampire story from this particular sub-genre

The story of Blacula is the story of an African Prince, Mamuwalde (portrayed by the ever talented William Marshall whom geek audiences will remember as the creator of the M-5 computer in the original Star Trek.) and his mission to Europe to try and end the slave trade. Sadly his mission has taken him to Count Dracula who takes a fancy to Luva, the Prince’s wife and is offended at the idea of giving up slavery. When Mumawalde’s resistance offends the count Dracula turns him to a vampire and the entombs Mumawalde and his wife, who has not been turned so that the prince will hear his wife slowly die and then spend eternity trapped and suffering a thirst for blood that can never be fed. I have to admit, that’s a pretty nasty curse. Fast forward a lot of year and Mumawalde is freed and loose in 1970s Los Angeles.

I enjoyed this movie, despite the production being hampered by a quite limited budget. The vampire make-up effects are far from ideal, but I like the story, and I liked the characters; that is what really matters. If you have not seen it you should at least one. Be aware of the very limited budget and non-existence of modern special effects going in and you may enjoy the way I did.

 

Share

Movie Review: Spider-Man Homecoming

With his appearance in Captain American: Civil War, Spider-Man became part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Now home at the creative company that birthed him, the character appears in his first dedicated MCU film Spider-Man: Homecoming.

I wish I could say that this movie is great, but I can’t. I am happy to say that movie is not bad, nor is it terrible like the last few outing of the character when guided by the corporate meddlers at Sony. No, Spider-Man Homecoming is just, okay.

The film does a nice job of recapping some of the major events of the MCO, including Spider-Man’s own participation in Captain America: Civil War without simply falling back on either rethreaded footage or bad voice-over narration. The film also wisely centers on Parker’s civilian life, his troubles in high-school, and the confusion as he transits from teenager- towards adult in a world populated by heroes and his own feelings of inadequacy. There is a lot here, but unfortunately it is never handled in anything other than a workman-like manner. Parker, anxious to become an Avenger and to be seen as a hero in his own standing, chaffs at what he perceives as neglect from Tony Stark/Iron man while as Spider-man Parker hunts for good to do and adventure to be lived. Stumbling across a band of low-rent criminals equipped decidedly high-rent tools provides Parker with an opportunity to prove himself. During the course of his investigations he contends with crushes, best friends, and protective adults as he follows this story of growth.

The problem with the film isn’t that this arc is uninteresting but rather it is handled in a route predictable manner. The characters are engaging, the actors talented and well cast, but the story simply moves from plot point to plot point without much in the way of any new to say. Compounding the troubles is the inclusion of Tony Stark/Iron Man in the film. Stark is a larger than life, all-encompassing character and he tends to crowd out other characters. Placed inside of another hero’s story he tends to bend the arc around himself, like a black hole of story. An additional element of flabbiness to the movie is that there is a set action piece that has nothing to do with the plot. It doesn’t advance the story, it doesn’t illuminate character, it doesn’t present growth, it is simply a bit of razzle dazzle action. Cut it out and the story doesn’t change. This is not a bit in a montage, but a stand alone major set piece that service no purpose other than action for action’s sake.

I would also have to say that this film post-credit button is the most disappointing and the filmmakers seem to be aware of it. Nothing demonstrates the lack of original thought more than this added bit.

Over all the film is watchable but it will join The Incredible Hulk as an MCU film not in my library.

Share

Rejection is not Failure

This year was the first time I applied for the Viable Paradise writers workshop. There were a number of factors that held me back from submitting in years past, primarily the financial aspects. A week off, a cross-country trip, the tuition, and room and board expenses were all great enough to present a considerable challenge. This year things are looking well enough that those considerations were now manageable.

Yesterday, while I was home nursing a minor sinus cold, the email came in letting me know that I had not been accepted into the Workshop. I was informed that there are only 24 students and the competition had been unusually tough and the number of applications high. The rejection did also say that the readers had enjoyed my sample writing and that it showed promise but had not won a consensus to get that coveted slot.

Of course not getting in provoked sadness. I wanted in. Even with all the expenses and the anxiety I had applied in hopes of winning, but this is the nature of the beast. Attempted traditional publishing means not just courting rejection, but marrying the old girl and living with her forever. However, rejection is not failure.

Failure is not attempting.

Failure is not learning.

Failure is not dreaming.

Rejections are reality and it is a harsh one. Even harsher is that acceptance does not preclude rejections it merely changes the nature of it. A manuscript is accepted by the agent, but still rejected by a publisher. A manuscript is accepted by a publisher, but rejected by award committees. A book is sold but rejected by readers. A book fails to gain a second printing. The list is nearly endless.

There will also be someone rejecting your work, even if it is just the one star reviews on Amazon. (That’s if you get reviews, and form of rejection, no one even bothers to comment.) Live with the rejection, embrace it, learn from it, but never let it stop you.

To my fellow writers who made the cut and are going to spend a week on Martha’s Vineyard, all my best to you; have fun, learn a lot, and do not let the fear of rejection ever stop you.

I will continue working, sending material to my agents, and if conditions are right next year, I will try again.

Share

Can I Switch it Off?

Last night I started reading a new novel. Now, this is not a beta read for a friend, or an ARC (Advance Review Copy) but a published and successful novel by a writer I enjoy and follow on social media.

Of late, and by that mean the last two years, my pleasure reading has been rather limited. After signing with the Virginia Kidd Agency I pretty much devoted all the time I could spare to working on my writing to the detriment of past time reading.

A side note here: back in the early days of this blog you can find book reviews; I have decided to not do those anymore. I think there is a question of conflict in striving to be both a writer and reviewer. As I have friends who are professional writer it would be difficult to avoid the issue of bias and there is always the potential to poison working relationships with fellow writers, editors, and so on. If I discuss a book by title and author here it will be positive because it’s something I thoroughly enjoyed and want to share. I will not be posting critiques or criticisms of those titles that do not work for me.

Anyway, back to the subject. So here I was reading this book, enjoying the story, but damn it I could not stop the impulse to look at the prose and want to change it around. I could not stop the desire to ‘fix’ it.

People in my writing group have said that there is a distinct style or voice to my writing, but I have always had a hard time seeing it. I think I can see vague outlines of my voice now. It’s certainly there in sentence construction and how I think they are best assembled for dramatic effect. This is what I was doing with the novel. Looking at a sentence and saying to myself, ‘oh, that would be better with those clauses reversed.’ This inner editor voice is making it difficult for me to drop into the story and forget myself. It is also making me doubt my feedback to writers in my critique group.

How much of what I am saying is good critique and how much is just me trying to force my voice on things?

Dang, I don’t think anyone warned me of this when i set out to write.

Share

An American Birthday

Yesterday was the 4th of July. I spent it with my sweetie-wife in a relaxed and comfortable day off. We went to the theaters and for a second time watched Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, we enjoyed each other’s company, and we played games. The lack of cook-outs, picnics, and fireworks should be taken as a political statement. I believe that this is a great and flawed nation. A nation that has helped birth great ideal into the world and a nation that has failed to live up to its own great ideals.

There are those who look upon America’s history and stress only her sins. Make no mistake America have great sins upon her honor, most of them dealing with European racism towards the rest of the world. Our founding fathers possessed great insight and aspirations, but they also own people as chattel slaves. Looking only at the sins is a distortion; it is point-of-view propaganda that presents a false narrative.

There are those who ignore the sin and only promote the noble and uplifting elements of American history. With a wave of the hand they dismiss the suffering, the injustice, and the murder committed by this nations. Ignoring those terrible crimes, refusing to acknowledge them as terrible crimes, or placing them in some seal and irrelevant past with no connect to the present is also simplistic propaganda.

This nation has laid out high goals for itself and for humanity. This nation had never achieved those goal in total, it has always fallen short. Perfection cannot be achieved but people, we will also fail but we must always strive for that perfection. In the arts perfection can be the enemy. You may want the perfect prose but you cannot have it. There comes a time when you stop attempting to improve the piece and it must be what it is. This is not true of our nation. The United States of American will never be a completed project. We must always either be rising towards our ideal, or falling into decline.

With every vote to are choosing the path. Either up towards the heights or down into darkness. Where will you take us?

Share

Sunday Night Movie The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

The next movie up from my 5-disc DVD collection of film noir is The Asphalt Jungle. Directed by John Houston this is the story of small time hoods, one famous and brilliant criminal tactician, a crooked lawyer who is not as bright as he thinks he his, and the big jewel heist that they attempt to complete.

Starring Sterling Hayden as Dix a gambler and muscle man, Sam Jaffe, who often played geniuses, as ‘The Doc,’ a legendary criminal, and James Whitmore as the wheel man, The Asphalt Jungle is a film about the lower levels of criminality and the vices that crippled the men who dream beyond their abilities. This movie certain hits what I think are the central themes of classic film noir, an unmistakable cynicism about particularly concerning greed and characters who are consumed by their appetites or vices. With a story lacking in heroes, The Asphalt Jungle is about flawed people making bad decisions and the inevitable ruin of their lives. I think even without the Production Code requirements the only applicable end for this story was one of tragedy and failure. These are characters defined by their failures, even Doc, the mastermind, has only just been released from prison. The man hailed as a great crook, is still one captured, tried and imprison by the fumbling police forces.

Lacking snappy dialogue and a plot filled with unexpected reveals The Asphalt Jungle‘s power lays in their gritty portrayal of the street criminal life. There are no lovely costumes, no grand high-flying life, even the most successful characters are shown to be living a lie and that their material wealth of all illusion. The feel of the film is more like something you would expect from Warner Brothers, a studio that made its image one based on a ‘realistic’ portrayal of life rather than MGM which tended to focus more on glitz, glamor, and beautiful productions. The tone and look of the film comes from its director John Houston, an old- Warner Brothers man it should be noted. Produced post-war but before the material boom of the later 1950s, I like the film’s atmosphere of depression and limited resources.

A gritty, realistic, and entertaining film The Asphalt Jungle is a film noir worth seeing.

Share

An Innate Trait does not have to be Genetic

From the right side of my Facebook feed the other day I spotted an article pushing the position that people who are homosexual are not born that way and science proves it. I was skeptical of the proposition and went and read the article.

It fell far short of the bold position but it did rely on a curious fact about human sexuality; that within identical twins the sexual orientation of the pair is not always matched. It follows that if two people bearing identical genetic make-up do not share a trait then their genes do not determine that trait. Or at least is not determined solely by their genes.

The mistake is to think that because something is not solely determined by the genes then it must not be innate to the individual. The growing field of epigenetics has shown us that there are a lot of factors and traits that are set before birth but not because of the presence or absence of a gene but because of gene expression.

The position that people are choosing their sexuality was also the point of a recent conservative op-ed piece I read the other day. The main evidence supplied by the author was that more people are identifying are gay. bisexual, or transgendered than in the past and that this must represent people choosing these label simply because today’s ‘permissive’ society allows them to do so. The author goes on to argue that it our society were not so ‘permissive’ some of these people would reject such things and go on to be happy, heterosexual married people further society. That last element he presented no evidence only an assertion that matched up with his world view.

I found his argument unpersuasive. At the very least you have a diagnosis problem. People often lie on surveys and they often lie on sexual surveys getting good number on such a subject is very difficult now and was more so in years past.

As I have stated in other posts in my opinion it is better to think of human sexual desire as a spectrum, and that most individuals do not exist at the far ends Society can repress expression but that does not change the underlying predispositions. Despite human genetic make-up being basically the same throughout history and around the world the expression of sexual desire has varied greatly. The Spartans carried the same genes as we do today but had a very different set of sexual practices.

So while there is no ‘gay gene’ that doesn’t mean people who primarily are attracted to member of the same sex selected that and it also means that these people who so stridently insist on this false binary choice are very likely not so far out on the spectrum themselves.

Share

The Ultimate Insult

What is the worse political insult you can throw at a person? It’s not fascist. It’s not Nazi. It’s not Communist. I think the worst insult you can hurl a person is either liberal or conservative, and more specifically Democrat or Republican.

Now those sound pretty tame compared to the others mentioned. Surely, it must be far more insulting to be named a Nazi than a Republican. Well that depends on who is doing the naming. Those on the left expect to be called Communist and such from the right and liberals have long named Conservatives Nazi. In a partisan political combat those are practically medals. However if you are a conservative and a fellow traveler on the right calls you a liberal, that burns, that’s a wound. The same is perfectly true from the left. During the last presidential election the insult thrown with the most emotional weight at Hilary from fellow Democrats was that she was really a Republican.

This is the apogee of tribalism. It ceases to be about ideas, solutions, or even principles but everything devolves down being a good member of the team. I certainly know this effect well.

I believe in a second amendment right to bear arms; I believe in capital punishment; I believe a flat tax rate; I believe that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system, and more than once I have had conservative friends call me a left-wing liberal.

I believe in marriage equality; I believe in a woman’s right to control her body; I believe in social safety nets and universal care; I believe that corporations are not people, and more than one liberal friends have called me a right-wing conservative.

To me being called a liberal or a conservative is hardly noticeable, but to a partisan it is the supreme insult. It is to be called traitor, a turncoat, a quisling for the enemy. People who are partisan will contort and twist to avoid this. If it means taking up the same side or cause as the opposition they will stand silent on events that may otherwise inflame them.

This is opposed to reason and discourse. Free yourself from your tribe; think and speak for yourself.

Share