The Penguin is Just Plain Boring

Posted on by
The Penguin

It’s not often a comic book adaptation is boring, but The Penguin manages it with honors. Full disclosure, I am not generally a fan of comic book movies. They are usually ridiculously stupid with contrived action sequences, over the top special effects used to replace meaningful dialog and filled with enormous plot holes. Not that The Penguin doesn’t suffer from some of this as well.

The bigger problem is the show is just plain boring. There are huge segments of nothing happening in order to get us to a boring soliloquy that is supposed to touch us emotionally. Rage, sympathy, understanding, pity, whatever. None of it works.

The Penguin

What is The Penguin about? It’s about the rise of Oswald Cobblepot from organized crime button man to the king of crime in Gotham City. It follows on the heels of The Batman movie in which Colin Farrel played the titular character.

Oz, as he is called throughout the series because he has yet to earn The Penguin sobriquet, is a member of the Falcone crime family at the beginning. He murders the newly crowned boss of the family in a fit of rage and events spiral from there. His main foil is the sister of the boss, Sofia, played by Cristin Miloti.

He also picks up Victor as a sidekick when the boy attempts to steal hubcaps from the Penguin Mobile.

Why is it so Boring?

I’m going to have to get into a little bit of my own writing experience in order to explain why I think the show ended up so incredibly dull. I couldn’t make it through most episodes and was looking at my phone for extended periods.

When I write a novel, I try to flesh out pretty much everything that is going to happen. This includes most of the important scenes, conflicts, various resolution points, and, of course the ending. What I don’t have finalized in my mind is the vital middle work. In order for my big scenes to have meaning, I’ve got to lead up to them. I have to lay the groundwork. I must include foreshadowing, character development, and other writing elements in order to get the audience immersed and ready for the big scene.

This is the hard work of a novel, at least for me it is. The big scenes are easy to write. They largely write themselves. What’s hard is getting to them.

I think the writers did a pretty good job of imagining the big scenes. They knew where they wanted to get. The Penguin, Sofia, Victor, or another minor character has a big, long soliloquy all ready to go, all ready to punch home a point to the audience.

The problem is twofold. First, there are far too many big speeches, three or four an episode at least. It’s impossible to lay the groundwork for that many monologues. It’s almost like they pretty much gave up even trying. We skip over everything in order to rush from one big, boring speech to the next. The speeches themselves are probably pretty good, they are certainly acted powerfully, but because there is no buildup, they left me flat, bored.

One Example

I don’t want to waste a lot of your time giving example after example of what I’m talking about so I’ll only give one. Oswald sways the other crime families to his side. He gives a big speech while passing out beers from a ridiculously oversized cooler.

Ok, great. That could be interesting. The problem is we’ve barely seen any of the other families, there are no scenes where they are convinced to come to the big meeting. They are just there, the scene prefabricated and ready for the speech. Who are they? The Tongs are the only one we’ve sort of met. Other than that, just actors standing around pretending to look impressed.

I’m not invested because nothing led me to this moment. I suppose the big speech is fine although the oversized cooler really does bother me. I mean, there are like ten people there. Ok, enough, must move on.

Lots of Torture

As a side note, there is way too much torture. I guess that turns some people on. Baddies getting tortured. I don’t like it. It’s just awful. The episode about Sofia was impossible to watch. It was designed to get us into her mindset for when her big speeches come but it was just gratuitous and unhelpful.

If you like torture, well, have no fear, there is yet another torture scene coming soon.

Other Aspects

The acting is good, the music is fine, the sets are largely great, the cinematography is well done. The production values are top notch throughout. I honestly think, and judging by the predominantly positive reviews, this is the sort of thing people want. Hollywood knows what they are doing, I guess.

Conclusion

It’s not for me.

Tom Liberman

Flag Planting and Dick Swinging

Posted on by
Dick Swinging

Well, rivalry week is over in college football, and I had the joy of reading about half a dozen dick swinging, er, I mean flag planting incidents. The Michigan v. Ohio State game was probably the biggest news as far as dick swinging, er, I mean flag planting in college football, but we actually had a number of incidents all across this brave and free nation of ours.

Nebraska v. Iowa, Texas A&M v. Texas, North Carolina State v. North Carolina, Florida v. Florida State and probably half a dozen more I don’t even know about. Hooray. It’s good to see all those dicks, er I mean flags, are bigger and better than yours.

What is with all this Dick Swinging, er I mean Flag Planting?

Basically, rivalry week in college football is when two traditional rivals play each other. It’s fairly straight-forward concept designed to generate a lot of enthusiasm from fans, players, luxury box owners, and particularly television viewers. By that I mean money.

What happens is when the visiting team wins the game they wish to celebrate. All well and good. You win the game, go right ahead and celebrate. Lately the celebration seems to include dick swinging, er, I mean flag planting. This is when the visiting team runs to the center of the field, pulls out their insecure, tiny little dick, er I mean flag, and plunges it into soft, yielding turf where their opponents’ logo is painted.

What heroes. What brave men. What considerate guests.

The home team then rushes forward, their own dicks, er, I mean flags a waving and attempt to forcibly pull their opponents’ dick, er I mean flag, out of the soft yielding turf or prevent the penetration all together. It’s a glory to behold.

College football, the great and glorious home to the dick swingers, I mean flag planters. Aren’t we proud?

Tom Liberman

NFL Flexed Game Stresses Traveling Fans

Posted on by
NFL Flexed Game

The NFL Flexed Game on Thursday night football for the first time in league history but it is far from the first them they flexed a game. This flex stressed fans who travel to the game and purchased non-refundable airline tickets and hotel rooms.

At least one analyst thinks the fans out of pocket money should be refunded by the league. It’s an interesting question and that’s the sort of thing I live to talk about.

What is an NFL Flexed Game

An NFL flexed game is one that changes from one date on the schedule to another. Generally, the NFL announced these decisions twelve days in advance to help fans and players prepare for the change. Because this was the first time they flexed a Thursday Night game they announced it twenty-eight days in advance.

Why does the NFL Flex Games?

The reason for NFL flexed games is simple. Media ratings. The NFL schedule is prepared in advance of the season. During the course of the season what appeared to be an attractive game for national viewing might become less so because the two teams are having poor years. In this case, the NFL will flex the game, moving it from one date to another.

This almost always involves one of their specialty games. Sunday Night Football, Monday Night Football, etc. The NFL wants a high-profile game in the slot rather than a couple of teams that have a small national audience or a game of little importance.

The Stress of an NFL Flexed Game

The stress of such a game is obvious. Fans paid for tickets on a particular date and now must make arrangements to attend on a different date. For fans traveling to the game, this is particularly stressful. They now must make new travel and hotel plans. Even if given the longer twenty-eight days, this can be expensive. If given just twelve days the ability to change plans becomes even more difficult.

There will always be some fans flexed out of a game because they have unalterable plans on the new date of the game.

The Individual Fan Matters Less

One of the biggest issues is fan attendance is becoming almost an afterthought in the revenue stream of sports franchises. The teams make much more money from media rights, luxury boxes, gambling website associations, and jersey sales than they do from individual fans in the relatively inexpensive seats.

Stadiums are eating away at cheap seats with enormous luxury boxes. The average fan watches from home on television.

Conclusion

It’s not going to change. As a greater and greater portion of revenue stems from sources other than fans at the game, the leagues will continue to be unperturbed by annoyed fans unable to attend flexed games. They just don’t care. They will not reimburse. Hate it all you want.

Tom Liberman

Law Enforcement Destroying a House

Posted on by
Law Enforcement Destroying a House

The United States Supreme Court just ended an interesting case involving law enforcement destroying a house while pursuing a criminal. There is no question about what happened, just the financial responsibility of the McKinney, Texas government to pay for the damages.

What happened is fairly straight-forward. A fugitive with a kidnapped child entered a house and refused to leave. After the child was released, the McKinney police force did an enormous amount of damage to the home in an effort to force out the criminal.

The municipality refused to pay for the damages and the Supreme Court let stand a ruling supporting their non-payment.

Is Law Enforcement Destroying a House reasonable?

The first question to answer is if law enforcement destroying a house is a legal action. There seems to be little question about this, at least from the court’s perspective, my own opinion is different. The courts seem to accept without question that law enforcement can pretty much destroy whatever they want in the name of public and personal safety.

Going into the house eliminated a potentially dangerous criminal and using explosives and bulldozes was safer for law enforcement officers than risking their lives by entering personally.

The criminal in this case committed suicide and the destruction proved unnecessary but law enforcement did not know this.

Is Compensation Required?

The second question is if the suburb of McKinney owes the home owner money to pay for the damages. The initial verdict seemed to think so, awarding $60,000 in damages. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and vacated the judgment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth Circuit and refused to hear the case.

Insurance Company being an Insurance Company

The insurance company refused to pay for damages because the destruction is an act of government and not covered by the policy.

Not as Isolate as you might Imagine

While this case of law enforcement destroying a home is fairly extreme, it is hardly an isolated incident. Police kick in doors, ransack homes, and otherwise cause damage every day in the United States. Often times they catch criminal, sometimes they do not. In either case, the courts largely agree they did their job and do not owe any money to pay for repairs.

That is the underlying problem. You might say to yourself, why doesn’t the government of McKinney just pay out this one egregious case? The reason is they’d then have to pay out for hundreds of other, smaller, cases just like it. As will cities all across the United States.

As things currently stand, if law enforcement destroys your property in the legitimate pursuit of a criminal, whether or not the crime is actually taking place, they owe you nothing. You must foot the bill.

What do I think?

I mentioned earlier that while the courts do not object to such wanton destruction, I do. I think the local government agency should always pay for the damage, even if the destruction occurred in pursuit of a criminal in order to safeguard the community.

Anything else just leads to abuse of the system. If law enforcement can always damage your property without fear of any financial renumeration, they will do so. They are doing so. It happens to poor people disproportionality and often involves the failed policy we call the war-on-drugs.

The people who have the least recourse and the least money to pay for such destruction are the ones suffering from it the most.

Equal protection? Ha.

Tom Liberman

What is Back to the Office Really About?

Posted on by
Back to the office

There’s a lot of talk about back to the office for not only federal workers but workers all over the country. It’s usually couched in insulting terms like slackers, lazy, unproductive, and words of that nature. The rational isn’t fully articulated by the people espousing back to the office.

If they do talk about why they want it, it’s usually about the lack of teamwork, personal associations, team building, and productivity. I’m not going to say there are no arguments for back to the office but the primary force driving it is office space.

Office Space is the Back to the Office Reality

Large companies are heavily invested in enormous office buildings. Realtors are heavy invested selling square footage in large office buildings. Construction companies spend money to build these structures. In short, there’s a lot of established money tied up in office buildings all over this country. From urban centers to rural town. Office space is big business.

When people work remotely, they aren’t in those office. Who does that hurt? As they always say in detective shows, follow the money.

People Like Working from Home

The vast majority of everyday workers enjoy working from home because they don’t have to get dressed, drive in rush-hour traffic in two directions, and make or buy a lunch. They don’t like being away from small children and having to pay for daycare and other services.

Again, I’m not an absolutist. Some people like the social aspect of the office. They enjoy happy hour after work. Still, I think it’s safe to say the average worker prefers working from home and the average business owner doesn’t like paying rent for empty office buildings.

It’s really pretty simple. Who stands to benefit from back to the office? Average workers or those associated with office buildings and their financial stake in them?

Tom Liberman

Louisiana Business-Friendly Tax Policy

Posted on by
Business-Friendly

I just read an interesting article about the business-friendly tax policy enacted by legislators in the state of Louisiana. The state of Louisiana already has some of the highest sales taxes in the country when state and local taxes are combined.

The new business-friendly policy reduces corporate taxes and personal income taxes to the tune of about $1.3 billion and this revenue is made up by increasing sales taxes to an even higher level. The rational for this is the desire to be competitive in attracting businesses to the state.

Business-Friendly Taxation State Competition

At its heart, the business-friendly taxation plans implemented all across the United States are a giant competition to bring in corporations. Every state and every municipality has long championed this tax structure. If we make it so a company has to pay little or often no taxes, they will build their factories here.

Businesses now hold bidding wars with various states and municipalities in order to get not only low taxes but enormous refunds and credits on the little taxes they do pay.

The rational expounded in Louisiana is just that. Their neighbor states have created enormous tax shelters and attracted businesses away from the Cajun State.

The Problem with Business-Friendly

Let me say I’m not a Bernie Sanders loving socialist screaming tax the rich from my soap box. I’m a Libertarian who believes in limited taxes and smaller government.

That being said, the problem with enterprise companies paying no taxes is the state still provides services for those factories. The state spends enormous sums to build and maintain roads so trucks can carry goods. The state pays for sewage and utilities. The state pays to clean up waste problems associated with spills. The state pays for the port facilities and the airports.

If the companies aren’t paying that money, then it falls on the citizens to pay via sales taxes. This is a horrendous solution. Taxes should be tied to the government services associated with them. Gas taxes should be spent on road maintenance. Gambling taxes should be spent on helping problem gamblers.

The current system is nothing more than taking money from the bottom income earners in this country to pay the bills for the wealthiest.

The system isn’t rigged as Bernie Sanders and many others in poor, rural communities like to argue. The system is working exactly the way it was designed to work. To siphon money from the bottom to the top.

The Solution is Simple

The solution to the entire business-friendly, take money from the poor and give it to the wealthy, is relatively simple. The government shouldn’t be involved in business enterprises in any way. They shouldn’t be giving tax breaks to incentivize companies to build in particularly locations.

This cuts both ways on the political spectrum. As an example; it’s obvious to me that electric car companies shouldn’t be getting $7,500 from tax-payers every time someone buys one of their cars because the government thinks it’s good for the environment. Nor should oil refineries and oil companies get enormous tax breaks because the government wants to drill-baby-drill.

I wrote about this in my Pretty Woman post when I suggested Edward is the protagonist of the movie. A business owner shouldn’t be shopping around to local government, it’s a perversion of capitalism and it’s doing dirty the great people of this country, democrats, republicans, and all the rest.

Tom Liberman

Will Deregulation Prevent Synapse Collapse?

Posted on by
Synapse Collapse

People are losing their lifesavings everywhere and the Synapse Collapse is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of people are making extremely risky financial decisions involving Crypto Currencies, NFTs, and other get-rich-quick schemes.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who lose their money to such schemes but the Synapse collapse and others like it are not of the same ilk. Fiscally careful investors are losing their money all over this country.

What is the Synapse Collapse?

I’m sure most of you haven’t followed the story of Synapse, fintech, and Yotta or even heard about it but I watch a few YouTube channels that cover this stuff regularly. That being the case, I’ll go over it briefly but for a detailed examination you should visit those channels and read the articles.

Basically, a company, Synapse, took money from a variety of investors all over the United States who deposited it with startup companies like Yotta and Juno. Synapse used something called fintech to deposit the money in Evolve Bank. By having the money in a bank backed by the U.S. Government, people assumed that it was safe.

Sadly, this turned out to be false. The money wasn’t deposited properly although there is still a great deal of confusion about what happened to it in the maze of transactions through fintech, Yotta, Juno, and Evolve Bank.

Where did the Money Go?

The money may never be found. It’s a maze of transactions without a clear trail. What’s clear, it is the money is gone. Regular folks deposited at least $64.9 million through Yotta although there are likely many more investors from different startups. Now they are being offered $11.8 million in payment returns.

That’s about an 80% loss for most investors. It is their life savings. It is college funds. It is retirement money. It is real life and real suffering.

Sympathy for the Gullible

I mentioned earlier that I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for people who make risky investments. I personally consider the entire Synapse Collapse a bit of a risky investment but for a lot of people that required more financial sophistication than they had. They don’t have a great team of financial advisors like me.

While I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for the risky investors, I still feel their pain. This is real suffering. These are real people and what happened to them is brutal, even if it was through their own decisions.

In many cases the foolish decision was believing the lies of a convincing scammer. This sort of thing isn’t going away any time soon.

The Regulatory Roll

Much as my fellow Libertarians will hate me for it, I do think government led regulatory organizations are way behind the Synapse Collapse. This is not an isolated incident. There are many potential problems brewing in the industry. Many have lost their money to scams, schemes, and even well-intentioned investment advisors.

We don’t want people to put their money in a bank and then lose it. It’s bad for everyone. Regulations have a role here in helping people recover money and preventing them from losing it.

Creating good and useful regulations is another matter and a topic for a different time. That being said, I’m on board to get regulatory organizations up to speed on the new paradigms we face in the financial world.

Tom Liberman

Cardinals: Jets Drama or the Steelers Stability?

Posted on by
Jets Drama

I’ve been watching the New York Jets drama with interest for a few weeks now. Maybe I, like everyone else, just likes a trainwreck. It’s a mess. The team is a gigantic failure and hasn’t made the playoffs in fourteen years. It’s actually thirteen but I’m going out on a limb and saying the current 3-8 team ain’t gonna get it done this season.

In the midst of watching the Jets drama I came across a comment that really struck me. A fellow mentioned it was nice to have the stability of the Pittsburgh Steelers organization under the guidance of the Rooney family.

It took me a day or so to realize why I was so struck by the comment but now I shall explain.

I’m a St. Louis Cardinals Fan

Born and bred right here in St. Louis and still living here. Yes, embarrassing but I don’t mind. I love my town and I love my team. The Cardinals have long been associated with stability, much like the Steelers. Our ownership went from August Busch to Bill Dewitt but both men clearly love the team and they love stability.

In 1980 the team hired Whitey Herzog to be the manager and we’ve largely kept managers for lengthy periods since then. Eleven years for Herzog, six years for Joe Torre, a single season for Mike Jorgensen, sixteen years for Tony LaRussa, seven years for Mike Matheny. Then we hired Mike Schildt and he lasted only four years.

Now there is intense pressure to fire Oliver Marmol. We are drifting away from the Steelers model and toward the Jets drama.

Stability is a Good Thing

To paraphrase the famous military quote. Stability has a quality all its own. If the players coming up in an organization know from day one the organizational goals, it helps them maximize their potential as players.

While the Cardinals certainly didn’t win the World Series every year, they did make it to the playoffs more often than not, and generally were an above average team. They gave an effort that fans were glad to see and filled the stadium year after year to do so. A bad season here or there didn’t change the organization philosophy.

The Cardinal Way

The organizational philosophy can be summed up with the annoying The Cardinals Way phrase. Annoying because it worked and other teams and fans hated us for consistent winning. Mike Schildt was a big believer in the Cardinal Way and it is largely what got him fired. Upper management wanted analytics-based teams and that is not the Cardinal Way.

The Cardinal Way is based on pitching to contact with a strong defensive team in the field and manufacturing runs with walks, base hits, and minimizing strikeouts. Modern analytics want strike outs and home runs. We got a team of fence swingers and fireballers. We started losing and now Marmol is in danger of being fired.

Jets Drama or Steelers Stability?

Sure, the Pittsburgh Steelers haven’t won a Super Bowl since 2008. That being said they make the playoffs far more often than they don’t. They put out a competitive team for the fans to watch week after week. They don’t stink and they don’t have a lot of drama.

The Jets? Well, the less said the better. They are terrible and, to my way of thinking, that has a lot to do with instability. An instability inspired by their owner, Woody Johnson, that trickles down to all aspects of the team.

Which do we want? I suspect I’ve made my preference clear.

Tom Liberman

Local Law Enforcement and The Marlow Murder Club

Posted on by
The Marlow Murder Club

I just finished watching the Marlow Murder Club and took away something from it that I did not expect. I’m not going to get into a detailed review of why the show is good or bad but instead talk about the real-world ramifications that I’m not sure were even intended. Law enforcement isn’t engaged with the citizens they are supposed to protect and serve.

The Marlow Murder Club tells the story of Judith Potts, a retired woman living in a large estate she inherited from an aunt, and her involvement and investigation of a local murder.

The Basic Plot of The Marlow Murder Club

It’s important to understand the plot of the Marlow Murder Club in order to understand the topic of today’s post. Judith Potts is swimming along in the river when she overhears an argument followed by a gunshot. She immediately begins to investigate.

Eventually there are more murders and Potts involves Suzie Harris, a local dogwalker, and Becks Starling, the wife of the town’s church leader.

Local Law Enforcement

The constabulary is led by DS Tanika Malik who is new to the job and eager to prove her worth although suffering somewhat from imposter syndrome. Malik’s team of investigators is able enough but the leads they follow don’t get them any closer to solving the crime. Meanwhile, Potts finds useful clue after useful clue.

Eventually Malik recognizes Potts is helpful and hires on the trio to aid in the investigation. That’s the point I’d like to discuss today.

It neatly coincides with the brilliant but hard to watch miniseries We Own this City. In that show Treat Williams plays Brian Grabler, a retired Baltimore detective now teaching at the police academy. At one-point Grabler gives a monolog where it lambastes the Baltimore police department’s personnel as unable to investigate crime. They do not have the skills nor the contacts. They never get out of their cars, he says.

This is, in my opinion, an enormous disconnect which impacts both citizens and law enforcement in a negative fashion. The officers just are not in the communities they protect serve. The people in those communities don’t know the officers and the officers don’t know the people.

Officers spend their off hours drinking at the union lodge, not in the community at the local pub. They don’t go have breakfast at the diner where everyone who is anyone in town meets. They don’t get their hair cut at the barbershop. Thus, they are unable to solve crimes with the help of the locals. The focus isn’t even really on solving crimes, it’s on generating revenue but that’s another topic.

The Rural and Urban Divide

All the problems I just listed here are exacerbated by a large population. In rural areas with small populations, it’s easier for law enforcement to be a part of the fabric of the community. In urban areas the opposite is true and I think, sadly, a lot of law enforcement departments have just given up trying to be part of the community. They don’t live there, they don’t socialize there, they avoid the places they patrol.

In rural areas people find it difficult to understand why urban dwellers don’t trust the police. While in urban areas people don’t understand unconditional support for law enforcement. What’s wrong with those idiots? Don’t they see how it is?

They do see, they just see it from their own lens.

Solutions

Solutions are not easy in a densely populated urban region. Police have outreach programs where they visit schools and what not but that really doesn’t solve the disconnect problem. Law enforcement officers must be part of the community they serve. There must be trust.

I think the slow way back involves local police offices scattered liberally throughout an urban center. A small number of officers who remain in that area patrol on foot, have breakfast, grab a brew, and create relationships with the people. It will take time, it will take money, and it will take the desire to change.

Is all that possible in today’s climate of distrust, even hate? I’m not sure. Still, I advocate the effort.

Tom Liberman

A Nation’s Right to Defend Itself with U.S. Supplied Weapons

Posted on by
Nation’s Right to Defend Itself

The ongoing wars between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and its various Arabic enemies brings forward the question of a nation’s right to defend itself. At least it does so for me and that’s why I’m writing this post. It’s an important question for people of the United States for a couple of reasons.

We provide weapons to Ukraine and Israel and restrict how they can be used. President Biden recently announced that the Ukraine can use missiles to strike deep into Russia after having long banned the practice. Meanwhile there are few restrictions on how Israel uses its U.S. made weapons.

What is the role of the United States in all of this? A fair and complicated question.

Absolutist Position One

It seems almost self-evident that a nation’s right to defend itself is without limits. When involved in war, there are few, if any limits. A nation must be able to defend itself using all available means.

Absolute Position Two

Our weapons are being used and the United States has every right to restrict how those weapons are used in a nation’s right to defend itself. If we tell a country not to use weapons in a specific way, then they must abide by those rules. After all, without our weapons they would largely be unable to defend themselves at all.

The Nuanced Position

The pragmatic position is far more difficult. Yes, we provide many of the weapons. Yes, a country is fighting for its existence. But there are global ramifications to both wars. The conflicts have the potential to spiral into larger wars. Could the entire Middle East become embroiled in war? All of Europe? Even the entire world? Are nuclear attacks completely off the table?

What are the long-term ramifications if Ukraine is destroyed, Isreal?

When a country uses weapons made in the United States there is always the potential for errors. A bomb meant for a military target might hit a school or a hospital. These are almost inevitable outcomes in the horrors of war. Children are dying in both conflicts.

It is only fair and reasonable that U.S. taxpayers who, after all, paid for all these weapons, have some say in how they are used. There are many in the United States who sympathize with both Israel and Ukraine. There are others less sympathetic and politicians are wise to consider these sentiments when restricting the use of such weapons.

My Opinion on a Nation’s Right to Defend Itself

I suppose that’s enough waffling about on the issue. I think a nation’s right to defend itself is unlimited. If they choose methods that turn their allies away from their cause, so be it. Yes, there are enormous global consequences to both conflicts but I don’t think the United States should be telling other nations how to defend themselves anymore than I think other nations should be telling the United States how to do so.

This, of course, leads me to my idealistic position.

We Shouldn’t have to ask this Question

We produce far too many weapons in this country. Far more than are needed for our defense and at an enormous price tag to the U.S. taxpayer. We sell huge numbers of our weapons to warring nations and blood is all over our hands. We are steeped in the blood of other nations and it is distressing to this Libertarian.

George Washington said it best in his Farewell Address where he advises against foreign entanglements. His reasoning is superb, and I recommend everyone read the Wikipedia summation of his thoughts.

Tom Liberman

DUI Arrests with No Impairment

Posted on by
DUI Arrests

There’s a lot of news lately about a story in Tennessee where many people with no alcohol or drugs in their system are getting DUI arrests on their record. A part of the problem here is many people take a field sobriety test where an officer determines that person is under the influence.

It’s an interesting problem because it’s quite clear the total number of people arrested with no impairment is a very low percentage, less than one percent, of all such arrests. It’s also clear we have a vested interest in keeping impaired drivers off the road.

Field Sobriety Tests are Hard

Do not take the field sobriety test. It’s hard. You will likely fail. Even the best-intentioned officer can mistake nervousness or being uncoordinated for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. DUI arrests often follow such failed tests.

Officers typically perform field sobriety tests after accidents. The driver might be disoriented, even injured from the accident.

Frankly, I think the field sobriety test should just be shelved altogether. There’s just too much pressure on law enforcement officers to make an arrest. Imagine being the officer who pulled over a driver, decided they were sober, the driver went on cause an accident where people die, and the subsequent blood tests show the driver was under the influence.

Imperfect Detection

The tools officers use are imperfect. Drug test kits give false positives, the breathalyzer give false positives, drug-sniffing dogs take cues from officers and give false positives. The end result is too many DUI arrests where the driver was not impaired in any way.

The Negative Ramification of DUI Arrests

The people who are arrested in these circumstances face enormous difficulties. In the story we read about people who lost out on career opportunities while the case was pending, people who paid thousands of dollars to clear their name, and people who were ostracized within their peer group when they did nothing wrong at all.

It’s not fair to We The People.

Impaired Driving and Distracted Driving

Personally, I think distracted driving is a far greater problem than impaired driving but that’s not really the subject of today’s post. That being said, it is an enormous problem. Talk a walk around your town for a few miles and watch every driver who passes you by. The number of people not paying attention is frightening.

Solutions

As I wrote earlier; solutions are not particularly easy in this case. We do want to keep people off the road who are impaired. I think the best solution is to simply stop field DUI arrests. If an officer suspects a driver, pull them over, take them to the hospital for a blood test, and drive them to their destination afterwards. Don’t publicize it, don’t put a name in a report, don’t arrest them.

When the blood test comes back, take the appropriate action. Saving a few people from injustice is worth the price. Just ask anyone wrongly arrested.

Tom Liberman

The Fake Fight Hype Tyson versus Paul

Posted on by
Tyson versus Paul

I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve got scam fatigue and the fake fight of Tyson versus Paul is just another yawn for me. Tyson versus Paul is a nonsense event dreamed up by people who want your money and will provide some sort of product.

If you want to pour your hard-earned dollars into this silliness, that’s your business. If you want to enrich Tyson, Paul, and their various backers, have at it. I don’t like it, I’m not watching it, and I’m going to explain why.

The Endless Scam

Crypto, NFT, boxing matches, romance, pig butchering, whatever. Mr. Beast, Logan Paul, Liz Friesen, just from today’s headlines. It’s endless. It goes on and on. Caveat Emptor. My old-man memory told me the first celebrity boxing matches was Danny Bonaduce versus Barry Williams, but Wikipedia reminded me way back in 1979 we had Muhammad Ali versus Lyle Alzado.

Why You Shouldn’t Pay to Watch Tyson versus Paul

If people want to watch Tyson versus Paul, they can do so. I’m not saying you can’t watch. That the government should sanction this event, but I am saying by paying money for this you are enriching people who are borderline evil. They don’t care about anything other than taking your money and providing as little product as possible.

Sure, there will be a boxing match. They will fight. There is no doubt in my mind they’ve already spoken to the lawyers and they’ll stay behind the legal line of a scam.

This doesn’t make it ethically right and I think it would be awesome of everyone who promoted this sort of nonsense went bankrupt instead of making tens of millions of dollars. Windmill Tilting Tom, they call me. It’s not the first time I’ve taken on such a hopeless cause, and I suspect it won’t be the last.

This idiocrasy we’re living in is perhaps the ultimate and inevitable result of intelligence in evolution. We love the spectacle. We allow the worst people who laugh all the way to the bank after taking our money to lead us.

It’s your money, do with it as you please. Don’t come bitching to me after the fight.

Tom Liberman

Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead is not Premium

Posted on by
Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead

I just read about an interesting false advertising legal case making its way through the U.S. Court system involving dark chocolate with cadmium and lead. In this particular case it’s Lindt Chocolate made in Switzerland.

I’ve written about false advertising in the past and I do think manufactures should give a fairly reasonable description of the product. In this case, Lindt advertises its chocolates as expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. They do not write dark chocolate laden with cadmium and lead on the label, for obvious reasons.

Study Reveals Dark Chocolate with Heavy Metals

The reality is that dark chocolate is usually laden with at least some heavy metals. The Cadmium generally arrives from the cocoa plant itself while lead gets there during the processing phase. The study that led to the lawsuit examined a number of dark chocolate brands including Lindt.

The result from Consumer Reports showed Lindt dark chocolate contained high-levels of Cadmium. Cadmium is generally considered a dangerous heavy metal that can lead to a variety of negative healthy effects.

Of the dark chocolate tested, Lindt wasn’t the highest for cadmium and lead nor was it the lowest.

The Lawsuit over Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead

At issue is the advertising statement of expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. The argument goes that this statement might lead a consumer to pay for Lindt with the expectation that it did not have some of the problems associated with dark chocolate of a lower quality.

Lindt lawyers call the advertising statement puffery. Puffery is a legal term indicating that a reasonable consumer knows it’s merely exaggeration, boasting, and blustering. That it isn’t a real indication of the product quality. Anyone who has ever seen any advertisement knows all about puffery.

Lindt Dark Chocolate Conforms with Regulations

There are regulations about how much cadmium and lead is allowed to be in various food products and there is no question that Lindt chocolate comes in under this level. The Food and Drug Administration considers it safe for consumers in the United States.

The Fate of the Lawsuit

I strongly suspect the suit will result in no damages for the plaintiffs but that, perhaps, is not the point. The lawsuit, in my opinion, aims to educate the average buyer as to what they are consuming when they eat dark chocolate. Which is often advertised as healthier than milk or white chocolate.

We’ve seen quite a few lawsuits of this nature. Tuna in Subway sandwiches. Strawberries in Pop-Tarts. Various ingredients in supplements. It’s an interesting way to illustrate, Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

While I suspect the lawsuit is going nowhere, I do applaud the effort. In this modern age it pays to be aware of what you are consuming. The origin of the product, the quality of the product, the way labor is treated by the manufacturer, the environmental impacts of production.

Whether it be dark chocolate with cadmium and lead or any other product, I think most people want to make the world a better place. The government can’t save us and neither can the courts. Your purchasing power is the last line of defense. Use it wisely.

Tom Liberman

Should Pete Rose be in the MLB Hall of Fame

Posted on by
Pete Rose

There’s a fairly interesting debate going on in the world of major league baseball regarding Pete Rose and his potential induction into the Hall of Fame. Rose recently died and a remembrance at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati brought the attention back to the public eye.

Where do I stand on this issue? Does Pete Rose deserve to be honored in the Baseball Hall of Fame or were his misdeed egregious enough to exclude him from entry?

The Obvious about Pete Rose

My first step is to dispense with any nonsense arguments. Pete Rose was more than a good enough player and manager to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. He is the all-time Hits leader in the league and his nickname, Charlie Hustle, is deserved for his all-out play. He is a first-ballot Hall of Famer for his performance. No questions asked. Done.

The second issue is that he agreed to a lifetime ban in exchange for MLB not filing a formal report about his gambling habits. He gambled on games, he gambled on games the team he was managing competed in, and the man who wrote the report is on record as saying he thinks Pete Rose bet against his own team. This fully disqualifies Pete Rose from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Rose agreed to the ban.

The more Complex Issues

The lifetime ban Pete Rose agreed to serve is over. He is no longer alive. MLB now accepts considerable money from gambling services in advertisement revenue. Some players who cheated in the Houston Astros sign stealing scheme are still eligible despite unfairly altering outcomes. The same for some players who took performance enhancing drugs.

His betting on games his team played in is an enormous problem. Even if he never bet against the Cincinnati Red, his job as manager allowed him to influence games. Did he save the ace pitcher for a game Pete Rose gambled on? Did he rest players to get them in the best position for the days he gambled? His roll as manager is in direct conflict with his wagers; whether to win, lose, over/under, or any other proposition bet.

His personal life and the fact he lied and lied and lied about his gambling is another issue in the perception of his entry in the Hall of Fame.

Enough Dodging About

All right, enough of me dodging sharing my opinion. What do I think? I think the Veterans Committee should submit his name for consideration. The agreed upon lifetime ban is over.

Would I vote for Pete Rose? No. I think his gambling, lies, and off-field behavior is enough for me to say he doesn’t belong. But it’s not my decision. Others disagree with me and they should be allowed to speak with their vote.

What do you think?

Should the Veterans Committee Consider Pete Rose for the MLB Hall of Fame?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Posted on by
Censorship and Freedom of Speech

The other day at a Halloween party I got into a discussion with a fellow who seemed to have a confused idea of the relationship between Censorship and Freedom of Speech. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this misunderstanding both in person and more commonly in the comments section on news articles.

Today I spotted a story that I think highlights people’s confusion and I hope might illustrate the difference for you.

What is the Confusion in Censorship and Freedom of Speech?

The confusion I see fairly frequently is any type of censorship is a violation of freedom of speech. People who make this mistake generally do so because it leads them to believe their political favorites are being denied their freedom of speech through censorship.

In reality, censorship is, in most cases, actually an example of freedom of speech.

The Situation that illustrates the Proper Relationship

How are censorship and freedom of speech connected? I think sports organizations illustrate the real relationship between the two fairly well. The Big 12 athletic conferenced fined Utah Athletic Director Mark Harlan for his pointed criticism of referees after BYU defeated Utah in a football game.

My party friend would certainly argue Harlan is suffering from censorship and a denial of his freedom of speech but this is false.

The freedom of speech issue at stake here is the conference’s ability to apply censorship to members of their organization. If the government came in and fined or imprisoned the conference officials for their punishment of Harlan, that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.

The act of censorship is not a violation of freedom of speech but is actually, in this case, an expression of it. Freedom of Speech is a concept that applies to the government preventing people from speaking out, generally in a negative way about the government, but also more broadly as well.

When the Big 12 censors Harlan, which they are most certainly doing, they are not violating his freedom of speech, they are actually exercising their own.

Any organization, other than the government, can censor people as part of their rules and regulations. Even the government can do so under various circumstances. The Hatch Act prevents government officials from expressing partisanship. This is, obviously, censorship, but it is not violation of freedom of speech.

Are Athletic Organizations right to Censor Criticism of Officials?

This is another question entirely and one I thought I’d touch on briefly. I think everyone should be able to criticize anyone else, slander and defamation excluded, without fear of penalty. But that being said, the people who make the rules for the Big 12 conference are entitled to do so at their whim. As are the other athletic organizations that largely have the same rule in regards to criticism of officials.

Conclusion

None of us like it when someone speaking on a subject with which we agree is censored by an organization, but it is not a violation of freedom of speech. Understanding the relationship between censorship and freedom of speech is part of being free, although so is misunderstanding it.

Tom Liberman

Does Exercising your Rights Piss off Law Enforcement?

Posted on by
Law Enforcement

At the old man’s retired club breakfast the other day an interesting topic of conversation came up in regards to law enforcement officers. Well, it’s always an interesting conversation with the old man’s retired club but this one struck my Libertarian fancies.

We were speaking about getting pulled over by law enforcement officers and sobriety tests. We were all in agreement that passing a sobriety test while completely sober was something beyond our old man capabilities and I suggested that if such a situation were to arise, refuse to take the test.

One of my fellow old men suggested this would piss off the law enforcement officer and I found myself in agreement. That’s what I’d like to examine today.

Law Enforcement doesn’t like it when you Exercise your Constitutional Rights

At the time I didn’t think much about my friend’s comment. I basically agreed with it. A law enforcement officer who runs into someone who refuses to comply, citing the Constitution as the reason, is going to get angry.

But why? Aren’t law enforcement officers sworn to uphold the law? Isn’t the Constitution of the United States the highest law in the land? Shouldn’t officers not only respect your declaration of rights but actually applaud it. You’re right, old man. That is your right and I’m not only proud of you for knowing it, but I’ll fight for you against anyone who tries to take it away.

That should be the response but it’s not. I find that troubling. I find it troubling that officers are encouraged to lie to you, deceive you into giving away your rights, taking advantage of this surrender, and attempting to penalize you as much as possible.

Doesn’t Exercising my Constitutional Right make Law Enforcement’s job Harder?

At first glance, it sure does. But maybe not. When people give up their rights, they make it significantly easier to be convicted of a crime, sometimes, certainly not always, but sometimes a crime they did not commit.

We end up prosecuting a lot of people who actually didn’t commit a crime at all. It’s not the job of a law enforcement to determine guilt or innocence. If such an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place, they must simply arrest the person and turn the rest of the matter over to the justice system. That’s the way the Founding Fathers intended it to work.

You must remember, the men who wrote our constitution were subject to many summary violations of the rights we hold dear today. The English law enforcement officers could simply come into a home at any time, search for whatever evidence they hoped to find, take it, and use it against you. They could arrest you for no reason at all and interrogate you for an extended period in a condition that amounted to torture.

They could actually live in your house, eat your food, sleep in your bed. This was the environment in which the Constitution was written. This is why we have such protections and why you should always assert them. And, of course, why law enforcement should fully support you doing so.

Conclusion

If a law enforcement officer doesn’t like you asserting your legal rights, perhaps that is not such a good job for that person. I find it disturbing that, by and large, law enforcement officers are enraged when a suspect asserts her or his legal rights. I think that’s an issue with the way we perceive the job.

It’s a situation that came about for a number of reasons. Focus on revenue instead of enforcement, the war on drugs, and others. This is not the fault of the law enforcement officer; she or he is simply responding in the way he or she was trained. It is a problem for the United States.

I say to citizens. Assert your rights boldly and proudly. I say to officers, do the same and support and applaud those who do so.

Tom Liberman

Senator Bernie Moreno and Auto Manufacturing

Posted on by
Senator Bernie Moreno

I just read an interesting article in which Senator Bernie Morena from Ohio is interviewed on the subject of auto manufacturing and the role politics has to play in it. I was particularly struck by how right Senator Moreno is in regard to part of his argument and how absolutely wrong he is in the other. Even more interesting is that his two main points are basically doing the same thing, but he hates one and loves the other.

Senator Bernie Moreno and the Electric Car Mandate

Senator Bernie Moreno makes some fantastic points about the federal government involvement in encouraging car manufacturers to make electric cars. His point of view in this regard aligns perfectly with my own Libertarian ideology.

He argues that the government shouldn’t give electric car manufacturers tax money to encourage them to make such cars. He argues that the government shouldn’t be dictating miles per gallon fleet averages. Yes, I call out. Yes, yes, yes! The government should not be involved in these things. Let the car manufactures determine how many electric, hybrid, and gas-powered cars they make. They know their markets better than any politician. Senator Bernie Moreno, count me as a fan.

Senator Bernie Moreno and Tax Breaks for Gas Powered-Cars

In the very next paragraph makes some absolutely terrible points. He wants to give tax breaks to any company that manufactures in the United States. He wants to incentivize energy prices. He wants to prevent foreign car companies from competing in the United States by instituting enormous tariffs on foreign made cars.

The tax breaks Senator Bernie Moreno wants to give car manufacturers is exactly the same thing as giving tax rebates for every electric car sold. It’s the same thing. In both cases the government is encouraging manufactures to behave in a way the politicians think is best.

The problem with tariffs is that it destroys competition. Probably not many of you are Boomers like me but U.S. cars in the 1970s were horrible. You hoped they started in the morning and spent a huge amount of time at the repair shop. Japanese car companies came into the picture with better cars. The result? U.S. car companies started making better cars.

I Trust the America Worker and Manufacturer

Here is my base position. I trust the hard workers right here in the United States. I trust the owners of the big car companies. I trust the relationship between Unions and Executives in that they have a balance of power. Between the workers, executives, and competition we have a fantastic system.

When politicians think they know better and try to bribe one side or the other it destroys the delicate balance that built this great country.

You’re half right Senator Bernie Morena. Now wake up, get the other half right, and stop giving our tax dollars to either side. Let them build cars, that’s their job and they are good at it.

Tom Liberman

I Found Joe Pickett Inauthentic

Posted on by
Joe Picket Inauthentic

I just finished watching the penultimate episode of the first season of Joe Pickett and I’ve just about had enough. I found the show to be almost completely inauthentic. The premise is incredibly interesting, and it’s based on a popular book series by C. J. Box.

The titular character is a game warden in Wyoming fulfilling a childhood dream between he and his brother. Joe’s wife, Marybeth is pregnant with a son; and they already have two daughters. Joe seems resolved to be a good father, throwing off the genetic heritage of an alcoholic and abusive father. Sound interesting? I thought so also.

My Wyoming Bona Fides

Let me preface my thoughts with the fact I’m a City Slicker. Born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. What do I know about authentic Wyoming you can rightly ask. It’s a fair question.

I can only tell you I went to college in Idaho and I have a number of friends from rural Missourah. Does this make me an expert in what is authentic Wyoming? No, it does not. If you disagree with my assessment, go ahead and let me know.

What’s Inauthentic about Joe Pickett

My background now divulged, let me tell you I found almost every character in Joe Pickett to be completely inauthentic. I didn’t believe they lived in Wyoming, that they grew up in Wyoming, that they were in any way related to Wyoming.

The town of Saddlestring didn’t seem like a small, northwestern town. The people in town had lots of unusual names. The men I know from rural areas tend to be named Bob, Dick, Tom, Glen, Brian, and Mike.

I just didn’t believe any of it. The sheriff didn’t act like a rural sheriff, at least to my eyes. The wealthy family seemed egregiously not Montana. All the gun toting seemed like someone’s fantasy of what it’s like to live in the west.

Don’t even get me started on the southern accents.

Northern Exposure

I want to spend a moment making a comparison to another show, Northern Exposure. It’s not exact but I think it largely illustrates my problem with the authenticity of Joe Pickett. In Northern Exposure the characters are varied, interesting, multi-dimensional and all of them, with the exception of Joel of course, came across to me as Alaskan, authentic.

The interior and exterior of the town of Cicely seemed authentic. I really believed this was Alaska and the actors were Alaskan. When I believe the people and places, I’m much more likely to become immersed in the show, to forget I’m watching and just experience.

The Experience of Joe Pickett

I never felt that Wyoming experience in Joe Pickett. Some of the cinematography was really beautiful but whenever we weren’t looking at vistas, I just wasn’t buying it.

Other Stuff

The plot went completely off the rails and a lot of stuff happened that made no logical sense but I don’t want to get heavily into all of that, although it certainly effected my enjoyment, or lack thereof, of the show.

Conclusion

Sadly, by the end of Joe Pickett I found myself shaking my head and almost every scene, completely out of immersion and into finding everything wrong. There were a lot of problems with the first season of the show but I thought its inauthenticity was an underlying issue that hurt everything else.

I won’t be watching season two.

Tom Liberman

Who is the Protagonist of Pretty Woman?

Posted on by
Pretty Woman

Whilst clicking my way through channels the other day I flicked past Pretty Woman and it got me thinking about the movie. Who is the protagonist is the question I ask myself as a Boomer. I am no longer the thirty-something year old infatuated with Laura San Giacomo.

I think it’s an interesting question because the obvious answer is Vivian, played by Julia Roberts. It is, after all, her story. She has the arc. Doesn’t she?

Edward has the Character Arc

The thing is, Vivian doesn’t really change much or at all. She’s the hooker with a heart of gold. She’s a little rough around the edges perhaps but she is clearly educated, intelligent, and capable. She starts that way and she finishes that way.

Edward, on the other hand, changes dramatically. He starts the movie as a corporate raider with no qualms about staging a leveraged buyout of Morse Industries, a shipbuilding company run by Jim Morse along with his grandson, David.

Early Edward is the villain of the movie. The corporate raider. The dismantler of capitalism. His interactions with Jim, David, and Vivian change him. That’s his arc. By the end of the movie, he is joining Morse Industries as a partner. He will build ships with the company rather than dismantling it and selling it off for profit.

We like the finished Edward. He’s the hero. He’s changed. He has an arc.

Edward, Jim, and Capitalism

In thinking about Edward and his arc in Pretty Woman, my thoughts turned to leveraged buyouts, private equity, and capitalism.

It seems to me that, generally, we now admire beginning Edward far more than finished Edward. Make as much money as possible for yourself and your shareholders.

Edward contrasts dramatically with old-school Jim Morse. Jim owns a company but isn’t interested in squeezing the maximum profit from it. He wants to build big, beautiful ships. Ships that serve our country, yards that employ people. His goal is to create, employ, and, of course make money. He’s a wealthy industrialist. His company is successful but not as profitable as it could be and thus a target for Edward and his leveraged buyout.

A Moment about Private Equity

I’m no naïve do-gooder who thinks Private Equity firms and leveraged buyouts have no place in capitalism. They are valuable tools to keep companies in line. They play a useful role in ending bloated companies with dozens of board members and executives earning enormous salaries, siphoning off all the profits. Such companies deserve their fate.

The problem is when the Edwards of the world can leverage a buyout of a largely successful company that isn’t squeezing maximum profits. We instinctively admire Jim Morse and his grandson. They are embodiment of the best parts of capitalism.

Build a great product, provide a useful service, employ hard-working people at a fair wage. That’s the end-result of healthy capitalism. We hate early Edward in Pretty Woman.

Conclusion

It’s a complicated problem and not easily solved. I do think the ability to borrow enormous sums and immediately declare bankruptcy and not pay them back if things go wrong is a big part of the problem. These days, the darling of the capitalistic world is early Edward. We should know better.

Tom Liberman

The Porter is Ultimately Disappointing

Posted on by
The Porter

I recently finished watching the BET+ series The Porter and came away fairly disappointed. The show tells the story of a group of porters working the railroad lines between Canada and the United States in the 1920s.

The porters face various obstacles in their quest to live their lives. These obstacles include racism and general unbridled capitalistic abuses. Why was I disappointed? Let me tell you.

Lost Story

The central story of the porter revolves around their desire to join the railroad union and improve their working conditions. The show itself highlights the problem in almost the opening scene when a young porter falls to his death off the top of a train car doing a job requiring more people than were allocated.

In addition, we see racism between the other employees of the railroad and the black porters. These are the two main stories, and they are both compelling, interesting, and historically accurate. There are also hints of the main character’s service in combat during World War I.

Sadly, these stories take a backseat for most of the show. Instead, we focus mainly on a porter working a gambling ring with a powerful black mobster in Chicago. A young woman trying to advance her career as an entertainer and examining her interracial relationship with the dissolute son of the railroad owner. And a nurse working in the black community to bring healthcare to the minority working class who are denied such at the white hospitals.

All three of these stories are moderately interesting at best and take a huge amount of time away from the more compelling stories.

I want to know about the union. I want to see the porters performing their jobs. There are a number of scenes with this focus but they are largely relegated to the back carriage of the show. This was the big problem for me. The compelling story, the reason for the show, the title of the show even, is just not developed well enough.

Acting in the Porter

The acting is fairly good with some standout performances from Mouna Traoré as Nurse Marlene Massey and Ronnie Rowe Jr. as Zeke Garrett the union agitator. The rest of the cast is fairly good to mediocre.

Sets and Cinematography

The sets are largely great with the interior carriage scenes meticulous and beautiful. The homes the porters live in are believable and well-done. The scenes themselves are largely framed nicely with a variety of angles.

The show does heavily rely on CGI for the exterior train shots and it’s not so great.

Music

The music is largely good and maintains a background presence rather than dominating the scenes although it does get obtrusive now and again.

Conclusion

I think the show had a great deal of potential and thus my disappointed. If it didn’t have such a high bar then its ultimate disappointment wouldn’t bother me as much. It could have great but they really just lost track of the compelling stories and focused on things that held little interest for me. Others may think differently.

Tom Liberman