Author Archive

The Thinker

Review: Carol

I’ve decided that if I were a woman, I’d fall in love with Cate Blanchett anyhow. There is something about her in every role I’ve seen that makes you compulsively interested in her character, but really it’s something interesting about Blanchett that leaches through. She is mesmerizing to watch, beautiful but not particularly pretty, but eye catching nonetheless. No surprise then that in the movie Carol when sales clerk Therese (Rooney Mara) spots Carol (Blanchett) across the sales floor that she finds it hard to serve her customers instead of watching her. The divorcing Carol senses something too but manages to discreetly rope in this filly such that the younger Therese is hardly aware that she is the one being pursued. “Accidentally” leaving her gloves on her counter leads to a lunch date, then a Sunday at her house, and then a road trip west.

The time is the early 1950s. President Truman is leaving office, President Eisenhower is coming on board, and America is at its busiest and brassiest. Unsurprisingly the movie starts in at Christmas time in a Manhattan department store where Therese is forced to don silly Santa hats. She does have something of a social life: an interest in photography and a boyfriend that wants to marry her who is more in her friend zone. Mainly Therese is a woman trying to blossom but not knowing quite how.

Carol on the other hand is trying to get out of a bad marriage and is desperately trying to remain a full time mother to her daughter Rindy while not so successfully trying to stay in the closet. It’s true that her husband Harge (Kyle Chandler) is brash and controlling. Who wouldn’t want to get away from him? It’s clear to Harge though that she prefers women and he’ll use that as leverage. Her friend Abby (Sarah Paulson), an ex-lover, lives with her at her palatial upstate home and helps watch over Rindy and the household.

If you saw the movie The Imitation Game wherein Benedict Cumberbatch played the gay professor Alan Turing, you will know what’s in for Carol if she comes out as a lesbian. In Turing’s case, it landed him in prison. Just evidence that Carol might be a lesbian is enough for Rindy to go into her father’s custody while permanent custody is worked out. This makes Carol distraught and emotionally fragile. In other words, it’s not a great time to take on a new lover.

But so it goes. It’s often during turbulent personal times that affairs happen, and her relationship with Therese is something of an extramarital affair too, although they are a few days on their road trip before it gets tacitly acknowledged (they even sleep in separate rooms). Carol just wants to get away from divorce pressures. Therese is changing too, careers as it turns out, but she’s also chasing intimacy, which she doesn’t quite get from her circle of avant-garde New York friends.

Aside from both fine performances by Blanchette and Mara, the recreation of an early 1950s America should pull you into the movie as well. It is understated but well done and finely detailed, and almost a character in itself since that Puritanical decade frames Carol and Therese’s woes and loves. It’s not so much their love relationship that makes the movie special, although I appreciated the honest and understated way director Todd Haynes pulls it off. For me it was more the frame of this story within the gilded cage of its the times that is interesting. This is not a lesbian Love Story; indeed the love between these two women seems ephemeral at best. It’s more a story about navigating Carol’s personal crises, made especially challenging because she has to struggle to keep her daughter in her life. At best Therese provides her with some relief, but actually more in the way of distraction and companionship while these larger events unfold.

If you come to see great acting from Blanchett you will need to wait until the end of the movie. Meanwhile you can feel mesmerized by her presence and the endearing yet subtle way Carol wraps Therese around herself and her life. Can Carol be authentic to herself in these turbulent personal waters? That’s probably the most interesting part of the movie. Seeing lesbianism on the screen is not that big a thing in 2016 and what there is in this movie is softcore. Shot with a sort of grainy look, Carol feels as intimate as its subject; it’s just that the real intimacy in this movie is not their relationship but Carol’s turbulent personal life in which Therese gets caught up in the whirlwind.

Carol is a good movie with a raw and honest feel to it. It might win Blanchett an academy award, but it is a portrait in the small, not in the grandiose. This suits me fine, as I prefer an artsy and intimate film to an overstuffed blockbuster anyhow. It’s a good arts house film, but for discerning filmgoers only.

3.2 out of four-points.

Rating: ★★★¼ 

 
The Thinker

Craigslist casual encounter weirdness: February 2016 (Hartford CT) edition

I’m back indulging my monthly habit of looking into naughty areas of the Internet. I’m back to my most recent favorite spot: Hartford, Connecticut. I’m there to see what crazy shenanigans its residents hope to get into this weekend by hooking up with strangers using Craigslist’s casual encounters section. Few of these potential encounters will actually happen, at least on Craigslist, but when posting on Craigslist it helps to think not just big but grandiose. In recent months I looked at postings in both Boston (feh!) and Albany, New York (hmm), but Hartford (about an hour’s drive south of me) has postings that rarely disappoint. Let’s find out who’s hoping to shake their booties down in Connecticut’s capital this first Saturday in February.

But first: a look at my January statistics. There were at least 260 web page views for these posts on my site last month, with the top rated post my first May 2015 review of Hartford’s postings (96 views). That’s nearly forty more page views than in December and about 11% of my web page views in January, which is about average.

On the first page of ads in Hartford this afternoon I see:

  • 20 men looking for women
  • 57 men looking for men
  • 7 men looking for a couple
  • 1 man looking for multiple women
  • 2 men looking for multiple men
  • 1 group of men looking for a man
  • 5 women looking for men
  • 1 woman looking for a woman
  • 2 transgender women looking for a man
  • 1 couple looking for a woman

So there are lots of horny gay men posting this cold and snow-covered first Saturday in February. Let’s dig in to the posts:

  • A 45-year-old Farmington man does not have so much as a foot fetish as a toe fetish. He’ll massage your feet and kiss your toes, but curiously makes no suggestion of moving toward further intimacy. It’s probably just as well as he’s unlikely to get any takers, unless she is a working “gurl”. Considering the next post is also from a 45-year-old Farmington man, it looks like he is also interested in watching couples in his hotel room.
  • She’s 27, a big (fat) girl, but is looking for a special kind of guy: skinny but well endowed, 9 inches plus and thick. She wants photographic proof and asks that you host their booty call. Oh, and stop flagging her ad. Lady, if I were you I’d go with this guy from Windsor.
  • This 68-year-old widowed gay man seems very particular of who he will service. You have to be youngish but it’s not clear what that means when you are 68. The good news is you don’t have to reciprocate, which is probably just as well as I’m betting he has erectile dysfunction.
  • She’s virtually 29, lives near Bristol and really wants to try her own gender for the first time. She’s into lesbian porn but has a few unique requirements, including that you must be shaved below the waist. Dominant women preferred.
  • It’s odd to see what looks like a legitimate ad from a woman looking for a man, but this black woman, age 23, has one and she’s into white guys. Looks like she’s got the condom thing already figured out so no point in stopping by the CVS first.
  • Ladies: sounds like a good deal. He’s a generous (read “willing to pay”) man who simply wants a “pillow princess” to give to oral love to. You don’t have to do anything else. There is no clue what he looks like but just in case he’s ugly, obese and/or very old you might prefer to keep a blindfold handy. Don’t feel that this will be your best offer, however. This 50-year-old man from Southwick is also interested in covering you with sugar.
  • It’s not uncommon to find people posting for family role-play, i.e. “daddy/daughter”, “brother/sister” etc. This is the first post I’ve seen for a daughter looking for a mommy. She’s in her late 30s, and mommy must be 45+. Gosh, mommy started pushing them out young!
  • There are few things worse than going to the Hartford Cinema Arts Theater where XXX movies run all day and night and having to get off by watching the naughty action on the screen instead of in the seats. Which is why since couples occasionally show up to do the nasty and invite audience participation, this 40-year-old man wants to hook up with you there, and he’s hoping the husband is a cuckold.
  • This 30-year-old gay man from Wethersfield is trying to set some sort of record on how many men will take him orally or anally this weekend. Why do I think I see a HIV+ sign above his pictures of his ass? Probably because in the last picture he’s got a bruise on the right cheek. Avoid.
  • It’s curious how a pedestrian ad can seem kinky in this section. He’s 59, looking for a woman and is almost waxing poetic about how he’s working to be at the forefront of American history and will be creating millions of jobs. He’s even posted his name: Roy E. Cline. Umm, Roy, ever hear of okcupid.com or eHarmony?
  • He’s a gay guy very disturbed by the poor quality of men at Hartford’s local glory holes. Speaking of glory holes, here’s a couple from New Britain looking to find one for the wife to try out.
  • Can a woman be a whore to another woman? This 26-year-old “very submissive” and fit woman wants to find out.
  • You would think that a married man who want to see their woman with another man would just give up, particularly when the woman doesn’t want to move beyond fantasy. This 36-year-old man from Windsor is seeking to hire an endowed personal trainer who will seduce his wife.
  • Guys, if you are going to try a “gurl”, go with this 25-year-old “woman”.

More in March.

 
The Thinker

Eulogy for my father

Grace: (in Christian belief) is the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

My sister Mary related an anecdote about my father, who passed away on Monday at age 89. Two days before his death, she had to return to Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, Maryland to retrieve her cell phone. He was rapidly losing his war on pneumonia and pulmonary fibrosis. So she trudged back through Washington’s daunting traffic, through security and back to his room on the sixth floor. Dad looked zonked out but she did explain to Dad why she was there just in case he was listening. As she was heading out the door he heard him say in a calm and soothing voice, “Good night, dear.” It was the last coherent thing he said to her.

My father at his 80th birthday celebration

My father at his 80th birthday celebration

That was my father: so full of the milk of human kindness that even on his deathbed with hardly enough breath to form a sentence, he took the time to be kind. This was actually my father all through his 89 years and nearly four months of life: a kind, gentle and heartfelt man. It was who he was and it was apparently as reflexive as breathing.

He was this way with everyone and harsh with no one. When you were with him you felt special, heard, listened to and deeply appreciated for the unique soul that you were. It didn’t matter whether you were related to him, whether you were some momentary encounter on a bus or saw him every day. That’s the kind of father I was fortunate enough to grow up with, a true Mr. Rogers who took honest joy and interest in everyone he met, warts and all. While you were with him you thought here’s someone who really gets me and when you left him you felt the warm glow of connection.

Such empathy is sometimes expected in women, but it often feels forced. It is rare to find this in a man, but he took real joy in your presence. He was never judgmental, but always accepting, always open with a loving heart, and always happy to pass on his love to whoever he encountered in life.

A devout Catholic, he was catholic in the best sense of the world. The definition of catholic is universal, but you rarely see this kind of catholicism from Catholics. Instead you get dogmatists. Do this, don’t do that, avoid sin, lead a clean life and you will get into heaven. And my father did all of that, just absent the in-your-face dogmatism. He was about modeling the religious life than preaching it. He was abstemious to the point of fanaticism. Communion wine was as close as he ever got to drinking, and most of the time he only took the host. He never smoked. Despite having served in the Navy, he never learned the art of swearing. I only recall hearing him swear twice in his whole life, and only under the greatest duress.

He might have been seen as queer or effeminate but as best I can tell he was never perceived this way. It was not that he did not enjoy sports: he could toss the football with us and often coaxed us to do so. He was more interested in spending time with us than being outdoors or getting exercise. He was an engineer by trade, quiet and bookish, freakishly sober but gentle beyond words. Dad had to be experienced, and once experienced you rarely forgot it or him.

Dad never had grand ambitions. He never ran for political office or spoke that much about politics in general. One of the great mysteries of his marriage is where he fell politically. All we knew is that he and my mother were in different parties, but they wouldn’t discuss their feelings on candidates or elections with us. Late in his life I deciphered his quiet political leanings. He was where I thought he was all along: a Democrat, not so much because of its ideology but because he aligned with candidates that felt we needed to be compassionate to people. Curiously, in his second marriage he married a Republican, a woman who admired Bill O’Reilly but who was also a devout Catholic. They made it work somehow. My mother was the submissive in his first marriage. In the second one, his new wife was the brass and outspoken one. Dad just kept being dad, but I think he enjoyed the change of pace.

As I said in this post, Dad was saint-like, but not a saint. He did have some human foibles. Gluttony perhaps was one of his sins, although he was never obese. He enjoyed chocolate and baked goods too much, although it seemed to have no effect on his lifespan. My mom was the submissive in their marriage, but the dominant with the children. She was a harsh disciplinarian. She was in fact emotionally and physically abusive to some of us. For some of my siblings it simply washed over them like rain on a duck’s back. In my case it hurt and nearly crippled me psychologically, perhaps because I never saw it modeled in Dad. It took months of therapy after my Mom’s death to make sense of it. I was a victim of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); at least I had all the symptoms. Perhaps Dad should have stepped up to the plate and stopped my mother’s behavior, or maybe he was unaware of it because it happened when he was at work.

When Dad came home from work all his children were tickled pink to see him. We’d yell “Daddy’s home!” and run around the house excitedly. My mother was jealous of the attention he got. Sometimes a few of us would hide in the back of his closet and pretend to sneak up when he came in the bedroom to change clothes. (Our giggles generally gave us away.) We loved Dad with an honest and sincere intensity, counted our time alone with him as precious, and looked up to him.

I certainly looked up to him. Compassion forms a major part of whom I am, although I inherited a lot of my mom’s judgmental ways, so I am quick to scold. I will never be as good a man on my best day as my father was on his worst. But he taught me volumes: how to be thrifty, how to plan our finances, an engineering outlook where you make your future predictable, the importance of science and the value of empathy. I picked up some of his passions too: musicals, theater in general and an appreciation for classical music.

My friend Tom whose own father passed away recently related his relationship with his father, which was much different and much more challenging. I took my father for granted but he always wowed me. I just assumed most fathers were like mine. They were not. My father was exceptional in just about every way a human being can be exceptional. His religion gave him a frame for living his life that fit him like a comfortable glove, and amplified his native tendencies. He was not saintly but he was saint-like who intuitively and effortlessly touched people’s souls. He is a tough act for anyone to follow.

He lived a long, happy, healthy and productive life. I am convinced his life was so long in part because he was at peace with himself, and so few of us are. Like all of us, he was one soul adrift in a sea of many souls; he was just never lost. He reveled in the love all around him and drew it near him effortlessly. He lived the life that matters: not of power, or material possessions but of character, of love and the value of relationships.

I am so blessed to have spent 59 years with the man. His passing of course is a great sorrow, but bittersweet. He touched my soul so many times and I am an infinitely better and more humane person because of him. He was a gift of grace to all who knew him. I am humbled and full of gratitude to have known him.

What a man! What a life! He was a father indeed, a father in deed.

 
The Thinker

Second Viewing: Star Trek: The Next Generation (Season I)

How strange to watch this series again nearly thirty years later. I watched episodes of the original Star Trek series many times, not because they were that good, but because repeats were so easily available. Star Trek: The Next Generation is a much better show but I never took the time to go back and watch the episodes again, except sometimes when they were first broadcast, or in hotel rooms when I caught an occasional repeat.

STTNG (for short) lasted seven series where the original series lasted only three. STTNG’s first season was notably bad, while the original series (STTOS?) was best in its first season. STTNG though managed to shake off its first season and won eighteen Emmy awards, not to mention two Hugo awards, five Saturn awards and a Peabody award.

My Netflix streaming account gives me the opportunity to see STTNG again easily and in high fidelity that was simply unavailable when it was broadcast (1987-1994). Thirty years later it still looks quite slick; in fact it’s hard to believe nearly three decades have passed. Unlike STTOS, which had to contend with pennywise network overlords, STTNG (since it was independently distributed) had the money to build expensive sets and do gorgeous special effects. Still, watching the first season of STTNG again, many episodes are cringe-worthy. The whole first season was very much a shakedown cruise for this fancier version of the U.S.S. Enterprise. I also watched on Netflix an interesting documentary that discussed the behind-the-scenes power plays going on, not really among the actors, but among the producers, curiously produced and narrated by William Shatner. The major problem was that the series original creator Gene Roddenberry couldn’t delegate and became myopic on the series. After two years Rick Berman effectively took over, Roddenberry’s health deteriorated, he became a figurative role (he died in 1992), and the series started to improve a lot.

Under the circumstances the actors did pretty well considering that behind the scenes writers and directors were being hired and fired right and left. Still, many of the episodes are so poorly written that even fabulous actors like Patrick Stewart could not make the manure of their script into a rose. The third show, “The Naked Now”, stinks to high heaven, even worse that the episode 4, “The Naked Time” from STTOS which it references. It’s amazing the series survived after this episode, but perhaps not so much given that the subscribing stations were locked in for the season and Trekkies were so desperate for new material they could overlook these stink bomb episodes.

Anyhow, some random observations and thoughts:

  • Boy, the Enterprise is awfully white-bred. This part looks really off. Oh, they do have their token black (Geordi – LeVar Burton) and of course Michael Dorn who played the Klingon Worf is black. But the crew is mostly lily white; you would think in the 24th century we’d all be pretty interbred. A lot more people of color were needed.
  • Thirty years gave me a chance to appreciate Gates McFadden (Dr. Beverly Crusher). She did not resonate with me at all in my twenties. It’s not that she suddenly looks hot thirty years later but I discovered that she is actually quite a talented actress.
  • The whole boy wonder Wesley Crusher thing really annoyed me thirty years ago. Wesley (Will Wheaton) seemed pretty contrived: a crass attempt to bring in the youth market to make the show more successful. It’s still annoying seeing this in Season 1 again, and it is still feels contrived and artificial. However a second viewing showed me that Will Wheaton actually does a good job with the role, although his part often seems saccharine. For a teen actor in a half-baked part, he did a great job.
  • In the “whose the better captain” argument, obviously I vote for Patrick Stewart. He gave Captain Picard real gravitas. But Picard is cerebral where Kirk is instinctive, so being introverted of course I’m going to appreciate that more. But there is also the obvious fact that Stewart can act and that Shatner could not, at least not without a very good director. To me there is no comparison and it mystifies me why others would disagree.
  • Technology: they got most of it right, to their credit. A few things seem off thirty years later. In one episode Picard orders people use “printouts” for security purposes. So I guess they still have HP Laserjet printers in the 24th century. The Internet was not a thing in 1989 so the idea of a World-Wide-Web was something not yet envisioned, but it can be forgiven because starships are separated by space and time, so it was implausible anyhow.
  • Data (Brent Spiner) remains an interesting character. Thirty years later though you wonder what he’s got that the ship’s computer doesn’t, other than artificial arms and legs. Data’s quest to understand and emulate humans seems kind of silly and kind of like tilting at windmills. Overall though Spiner does an excellent job with the part and makes androids look admirable.
  • The United Federation of Planets often seems a saccharine place. Rick Berman changed that when he got control of the series, adding necessary drama that was often missing or seemed forced in the first season. It’s unclear how the UFP got to be so cohesive. Some species in the federation fight with other species. Klingons insist on their own starships and seem loosely aligned at best.
  • It still makes no sense to bring children along for the ride. Yes, the saucer section is supposed to separate in time of crisis, and they actually show it twice in the first season. I don’t recall it afterward. I mean, pretty much every episode the Enterprise is put in mortal danger. Picard does his best to keep his people safe but geez, what were they thinking?
  • Gene Roddenberry did think up the holodeck, something the late creator can take credit for. It’s a really interesting idea and presaged our current virtual worlds. Indeed, it might have been the impetus for emerging technologies like Oculus Rift.
  • One thing I like, even though it is unrealistic, is how much work and decisions are delegated to human beings. Everyone has a duty and a task that a computer can’t quite master by itself. The computer aids the crew, rather than supplants it. Humans are in charge and an integral part of the future, perhaps by design. Today that looks a bit off but it is at least consistent with the Trek philosophy that a hopeful future for humanity is possible.

If you want to scan the first season, here are some episodes to watch and avoid:

  • Watch: 5 (first Ferengi encounter), 9, 10 (Q is interesting to watch, but insufferable in the series opener), 13 (meet Data’s brother), 22, 23 (goodbye Tasha Yar), and 25 (I love a good conspiracy, even if this feels a bit contrived).
  • Avoid: 1/2 (series opener), 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, 17 (too much like “And the Children Shall Lead” from STTOS).
 
The Thinker

Republicans are simply racists and classists

Did you watch the last night’s Republican debate; you know the one where Donald Trump snippily decided he would not attend because he doesn’t like questions that Megyn Kelly might ask? You did? Good for you and apparently you are more into politics than I am. I was certain I’d learn nothing new and from the reviews I was right. So now voters wait warily for the results of the Iowa caucuses next Monday night. Let’s hope the Republicans get it right this time.

Some pundits are predicting the demise of the Republican Party after the next election. I’ll be lifting a glass of champagne if that happens to be the case. Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t recognize his own party anyhow. Republicans after all freed the slaves and today’s Republicans want to make them slaves again. I won’t be lifting my glass too high though because as bad as the Republican Party is, I do think whatever phoenix emerges from its ashes could actually be worse.

What got me thinking this way was reading the latest Washington Post OpEd by conservative Charles Krauthammer. After the obligatory sentences saying how Bernie Sanders couldn’t get elected because America doesn’t elect socialists (conveniently ignoring the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four terms on an effectively socialist platform, and by overwhelming majorities), Krauthammer looks at the factions within the G.O.P. In particular he notes that Donald Trump is not really conservative, certainly not in the sense that he wants to rollback social programs. In the same paper, Fareed Zakaria notes that Republicans have given lip service to getting rid of social programs and in many cases expanded them. In fact, he notes polls that economically conservative Republicans are going for Cruz over Trump by 15 percent, while Trump wins by 30 percent over Cruz from Republicans holding “progressive positions”, such as on health care, taxes, the minimum wage and the benefits of unions.

Well, this is a head scratcher, until you think about it a little while. One possibility is that Trump is expanding the Republican base, pulling in (principally white) people that don’t tend to vote Republican, or vote at all, because no one in the party represents them. However, there is no evidence that Republican Party registration is increasing significantly nationwide, as this recent Gallup poll attests. Zakaria does quote Michael Tessler of the Rand Corporation, who provided his statistics. Tessler says: “Trump performs best among Americans who express more resentment toward African Americans and immigrants and who tend to evaluate whites more favorably than minority groups.” This is a polite way of saying Trump does much better with the party’s racists. This is not surprising until you think about what this actually means.

What principally unites the Republican Party (to the extent it is united) is not fiscal conservatism. It’s not the importance of federalism (state control). It’s not God, an aggressive foreign policy and it’s certainly not Jesus. It’s not even guns. Their principle shared-value is that they think they are special and deserve a singular status over the rest of society, who they mostly look down on. In short, most of them are racists, even if they can’t even admit it to themselves. It’s more acceptable to be a classist, instead of a racist, which many will openly acknowledge. This basically means they don’t believe in egalitarianism and that some for whatever reasons (status, wealth, race, education, values) deserve to be privileged. Moreover because they are privileged, they should not feel (and apparently don’t feel) ashamed of this. It’s this energy that Trump is harnessing. When push comes to shove, this is what Republicans care about.

I believe it is part of Carl Rove’s master plan. He fed these primal fears to give the Republican Party oversize stature. They feel it slipping away, which is why Republican-led states enacted onerous voting restrictions. Their loss of their status, real or in many cases imaginary is their greatest motivation. Trump was savvy enough to cut through the bullshit and go for the jugular. This is why he is leading in the polls. (It does help to have so many competing candidates that the opposition is scattered.)

After all, if you want power it’s not about making a logical case; it’s about making a resonating emotional case. Fear is a great motivator and Republicans excel at looking behind their backs. Trump succeeds by saying that those others not like us are the cause of our fear of loss of status and privilege. Throw out the “illegals” and things may not be well, but they sure will be better. He has ruled out major changes to Medicare and Social Security because he’s read the polls and knows his fans support programs like these. Tax cuts go disproportionately to the wealthy but welfare goes disproportionately not to the poor, but to the middle class.

Medicare and Social Security are just two ways to keep the middle pacified, but it’s only the beginning. There is the employer health insurance tax credit, which annually costs three times as much as food stamps. There is the home mortgage interest deduction, tuition tax credits and even energy efficiency credits that go only to those who can afford to take advantage of them. Power is secured through keeping the rabble happy. Trump knows there are plenty in the middle who understand their standard of living is wobbly. The last thing most of these people want is more uncertainty to their standard of living, but they are perfectly happy to add uncertainty to those who don’t think and act like them: the others. Me first!

The Romans quickly realized that the rabble wasn’t happy unless the lions ate a gladiator or two now and then. They made it convenient for citizens to enjoy this entertainment by allowing everyone in for free. Trump is metaphorically doing the same thing: he is harnessing the power that is already there. He plays the crowd the same way Itzhak Perlman plays the violin. He plays up the juicy expectation of red meat to come: walls along the border with Mexico and less of the other among us. He says: less of them means more for us and will make us (the privileged) great again. And so they dance and he knows that the rest of the party will come along in time. The Republican Party leadership seems to understand which way the wind is blowing. Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus recently said as much, and even elder statesmen like Bob Dole seem to be acknowledging they will fall in line too. Power is what counts; whatever message gives them that power is okay.

It’s just that because of Donald Trump it’s now out in the open. Even Republicans can’t deny it anymore because their leading candidate simply won’t. They are the party of people like them: white racists and classists. They just can’t hide from it anymore.

 
The Thinker

Recipe for dysfunction: the Flint water crisis

My wife and I have been watching the Flint Water crisis for the last year or so. It has been in the news for a long time, just on back pages of papers or in obscure news articles when it was mentioned at all. Now, of course, it is suddenly a national story.

We were following it in part because my wife was born in Flint, Michigan so stories from Flint will naturally flag her interest. When she first heard that the state of Michigan (acting as its manager) had changed Flint’s water source from Lake Huron (via Detroit’s system) to the local Flint River, she said, “This isn’t going to work”. Although considerably cleaned up from its polluted days, she knew the Flint River was still an unsafe water source, much like the Hudson River near Albany is after decades of General Electric dumping PCBs into the river. The river is not the sewer it once was but lots of crap still ends up in it.

In the auto industry’s heyday, Flint was Detroit’s younger brother, living off the auto business. While cars were certainly built in Flint, equally important was its role in supplying auto parts. ACDelco, for example, still has a plant in Flint although it is certainly smaller than it was. Over the years we have made a few trips to Flint. Like many cities in Michigan, it’s a pretty sad place. If you’ve been paying attention to Flint stories, you’ll learn there is much that is dysfunctional in Flint. For example, it has a police force that works 8 to 6, Monday through Friday. If you need help at other times call the county police and hope that they will respond. This was due to the city’s declining tax base. It could no longer afford a full-time police department. Long ago Flint was pimped for its cheap blue-collar labor, found even cheaper elsewhere, so the city underwent hard times from which it never recovered. It became another sad tale of urban blight, if you can call of city of 100,000 with lots of boarded up houses and a declining tax base “urban”.

A perfect storm came together to cause the Flint water crisis. It would be easy to blame this entirely on Michigan State government, and it certainly does earn the majority of the blame. But it’s clear that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had a hand in the problem, basically by not providing the oversight that was needed. When it detected a problem, it didn’t take effective action to hold Michigan accountable.

The impact of the problem is easy enough to see now: thousands children and adults with elevated lead levels, which are not easily corrected and will likely lead to lifelong cognitive problems. The problem is more than the lead, which is mostly a factor of the differently treated water going through old pipes rather than of contaminants in the Flint River. It’s mostly a story about an absence of government, but it’s also a story of ideology overriding common sense. It’s also a story about the drawbacks of federalism. I’ll tackle each of these.

For several decades now Republicans have been pushing the rube that government is the problem instead of the solution. The government than governs least governs best they opined, channeling Thoreau. Michigan voters bought into this and turned the state bright red when it elected Rick Synder in 2010 as its governor. That was also the year its legislature went red, when Republicans won the State House (they had previously controlled the State Senate). It was quite a change, with the house going from 67 Democrats to 47 Democrats. Republicans got carte blanc, controlling all the levers of state government. The usual stuff that happens when Republicans claim a state government started. This included legislation allowing the state to take over local governments that could not stay fiscally solvent. Flint was one major city (the other being Detroit) to be taken over by the state.

From Governor Snyder’s perspective, Flint residents proved they couldn’t govern themselves. This was their fault: they were incompetent. In fact the city was a victim of economic forces largely beyond their control. The city needed “adults” (i.e. mostly white men from nowhere near Flint) to take charge, adults appointed by Snyder with the consent of the state government. And thus half-baked solutions like changing Flint’s water supply became a way to make the city more lean and efficient. (In fact, the City of Detroit offered Flint a 50% discount to keep it as a customer but the offer was spurned.)

Unsurprisingly the new city managers were tone deaf to complaints from citizens about their discolored water or from a local pediatrician who kept trying to get their attention with actual test results. They were not accountable to any voters and being challenged on their actions simply set up a wall of cognitive dissonance: if you are so smart why did you let things get so bad? Those cute, misinformed and principally black Flint residents simply didn’t know what they were talking about. It’s clear though that had Flint not been taken over, it would not have done something so radical as to quickly change its water source, at least not without considerable deliberation and testing. The mayor and city council would have probably raised concerns like whether it would have affected the aging lead pipes in the city. Not doing so might jeopardize their reelection. But when you are an out of town manager not running for reelection, you do what you think is right and aren’t concerned much about local input.

Federalism empowers regional control by allowing states to make regional decisions. There are obviously virtues to federalism, but occasionally there are drawbacks as well. This was pretty obvious by the way the EPA mishandled this crisis. The regional EPA senior executive was mindful of the political consequences of getting too involved in the issue. Michigan was now bright red, and he could expect interference and hostility if he went out on a limb for Flint. He chose not to, which was obviously a mistake, but an understandable one given that the job requires making political choices. In politics sometimes you overlook individual deficiencies to address a larger goal. That’s probably what happened here, but the judgment was obviously a flawed one and led to his resignation. Michigan deserved to have its hand slapped, but more importantly it’s the EPA’s job to raise these issues to prevent exactly these sorts of situations.

And so a perfect storm happened. A tone-deaf and ideologically driven state government tried to do things its way with entirely predictable results. Thousands were sickened and will endure lifelong disabilities. Government served no one here, certainly not the residents of Flint, and became an obstruction to common sense governance.

It’s unclear to me if we will learn any lessons from this. Here are mine:

  • Government should not be run by ideologues but by people who want society to run like a well-oiled engine.
  • We need local input and local control if possible but sometimes local government can’t do it all and are victims of macro forces beyond their control, like Flint’s shrinking tax base and it’s not necessarily their fault.
  • State and federal resources should be used to empower and supplement local control, not to countermand it.
  • Government exists to serve the people, not just the people that fund politicians’ campaigns.
  • Most importantly, anyone who serves in government has the role of a fiduciary. They should be there not to destroy government but to make it run better. Gumming up its machinery won’t make it better, and that’s what happened here to tragic effects.
 
The Thinker

I, Roomba

The future hasn’t worked out quite the way I envisioned it. I’m old enough to have grown up watching The Jetsons, which kind of modeled my thinking on what the future should look like. In the Hanna Barbara cartoon, people flew around in little personal airplanes that didn’t seem to need a runway and they could park on the balcony. No one had cell phones but there was this Skype-like thing at the house and on their putt-putting airplane that provided visual communications. The Jetsons did have a robot, Rosie, who did the cleaning, most of the mothering (Jane had other things to do) and occasionally dispensed pills.

In 2016, I have a smartphone, high-speed Internet and many awesome technologies that the Jetsons never imagined. But some things I do remain doggedly old fashioned. Cleaning is one of them and it usually involves brooms, scouring powder, detergents and washrags. No one has invented Rosie the robot yet, but it’s not hard to imagine that within twenty years she will get invented. Until then we at least we have a Roomba.

A Roomba is no replacement for Rosie. Our Roomba won’t make beds, clean bathtubs, dispense pills or give me any sass. A Roomba simply sweeps floors and carpets. The product, pioneered by iRobot, now has plenty of competition. We acquired our low end 600 series model at the local Costco for $359. It wasn’t my idea. As usual my wife spent months petitioning me for one of them and I kept putting her off. I don’t mind sweeping floors. As retirees we get little enough exercise already. But I don’t have a bad back like my wife and I’ll tend to procrastinate sweeping until it’s noticeable. We do have two cats that constantly leave their playthings on the floor, not to mention their dander and fur. And we have a lot of hardwood floors, which can be a pain to sweep. Roomba to the rescue!

Our Roomba is not a particularly intelligent robot. It doesn’t (at least this model) respond to voice commands. It can’t climb stairs or jump onto sofas, but at least it’s smart enough not to fall down a flight of stairs. It does have a couple of neat tricks. Perhaps the most impressive one is to slide under sofas and other furniture and pick up the stuff underneath that we typically uncover years later when we have a reason to move furniture. And it can usually find its way back to its charging station, which has to be butt up against a wall.

Our Roomba doesn’t listen very well, but it does talk from time to time, only when it needs your attention. You can program it to talk in your favorite language, providing it is English or one of fifteen other popular languages. Mostly though it doesn’t so much talk as whirr, and it’s reasonably loud. You will know when it is on.

It’s also (if you have pets) it is something of an amusement and/or torture device. There are plenty of pet videos you can watch on this theme. One cat watched with it with interest from across the room. The other ran under our bed. Running under our bed is not a great idea, because it won’t stop a Roomba, so cats will learn to climb for safety instead. After a couple of days though the Roomba became just another piece of furniture, just one that moves. Cats don’t do much talking but it would give them something to talk about. In a few more days I expect they will sleep through its work cycles.

Our Roomba is not a particularly intelligent robot. It won’t pick up objects off the floor unless very small and lightweight. It seems to move in a haphazard way but there is actually some intelligence built into the way it pings off walls or (if a floor is particularly dirty) moves in swirls. It does a pretty good job of avoiding obstacles. It doesn’t usually tip over the cat’s water bowl and does a decent job of picking up stray cat litter around the litter box. It can be agile. We have carpet runners down the hallways, sometimes with creases in them due to cats madly dashing around, and it usually manages to clean them anyhow. It “steps” onto and off of carpeting pretty well.

But it’s hardly autonomous. It needs our help. It needs us to pick up larger stuff off the floor first. If there is an area we want it to avoid, we have to put down a battery-operated device that essentially says, “stay away!” You have to empty its cleaning tray after each job. And periodically it requires more serious maintenance: brushing its brushes or replacing them as well as cleaning and replacing its filter. Actually though these defects aside it probably does a better job sweeping and vacuuming than I would. I won’t go under furniture and I tend to miss certain spots with the broom.

So it is at best a modest step toward a robotic future but actually quite a useful tool not to mention cat pal/torture device. It’s starting to feel like a member of the family. Perhaps we will give it a name in time. And Rosie will come along one of these days, and I’ll happily let her do those chores I really don’t like, like cleaning toilets and bathtubs. She can even dispense my medications, as I’m already old enough to forget when to take them.

Meanwhile, the Roomba will do.

 
The Thinker

Reading the election tealeaves

I skipped the last Republican debate (for the reason see my last post) but I did catch Sunday’s Democratic debate and even live tweeted it. The dynamics of the coming election are starting to clear up in my mind. The 2016 election, like the 2008 election is a change election. By this I mean a major change election, not just an “oh, I’m sick of the last guy, so let’s try someone that looks good.” It is an election where voters will express their frustration that change is not happening fast enough. The big mystery is whose change version will sell.

Curiously both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are echoing similar themes: do something already! Trump’s approach is radical authoritarianism. He channels the frustration of those who simply put getting things done ahead of the messy business of constitutional government. He will make sure things get done and it’s pretty obvious that he will do it by fiat if Congress and the courts won’t back him. This is crazily dangerous to our constitutional government, but there are a lot of authoritarian-based Americans out there, and they simply don’t care anymore because they can’t remember the last time government worked. Authoritarians are comfortable with the ends justifying the means, providing of course that the ends are ends that they agree with.

Sanders has a similar message. He has specifically ruled out being an authoritarian president but does say that he is a democratic socialist. He appeals to many Democrats and independents because his motivation for being president is clearly not ego-based, but part of a larger agenda. Ironically, by never being a formal Democrat he carries gravitas. He has been an independent representative and senator from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats. This gave him the freedom to vote his convictions rather than to feel he had to tow the party line to gain power. It was a politically smart thing for him to do. For example, it allowed him to vote against the 2002 resolution for the use of force against Iraq whereas others like Senator Hillary Clinton felt arm-twisted to do so to ensure their future political career. Moreover, Sanders is credible. He has been on the right side of history time and again. Even Trump can’t say that, although he has never run as a politician before. Trump’s politics though have been all over the place during his career. In some ways Sanders is conservative, as he votes his conscience and principle, whereas Trump rides the waves of perceived voter concerns.

Hillary Clinton and to some extent “moderate” Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich represent institutionalism, i.e. the traditional party structure which is top-down and consensus-based. The others sense a grassroots uprising fed by the inability of government to act in the people’s interests. Of course each candidate has his or her own idea of what the people’s interests actually are, and they are often so bizarre as to be comical because they bear no resemblance to modern America or even to the values that pollsters report that register the most. Their values are whatever they see in the mirror and they move in circles that amplify that view. In general, Americans are impatient with political parties as they have evolved simply because they don’t represent their interests. Instead they feel pimped by them. They voted for people who say the words but don’t follow up with deeds.

What makes Sanders interesting to me is not just his politics, which I largely agree with. It’s that he is not so much interested in being president as fomenting what he calls a “political revolution”. Even his supporters don’t really understand where he is planning to go. Yes, he wants the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, but what he really wants is Congress of and by the people again. If he wins the nomination you will see this in earnest, as he will move from venue to venue, including southern states, to build this grassroots political revolution: a “throw the bums out who haven’t acted in your interests” campaign. The odds are against him, particularly in the House, but politicians underestimate his power. Oddly, both he and Trump hold sway over some of the same voters. I expect that Sanders will be working to convince Trump’s voters that a political revolution is a better approach than Trump’s scary authoritarianism.

To some extent both Trump and Sanders supporters are masquerading their own motivations and anxieties, which they can’t seem to acknowledge. I don’t believe the authoritarians really want to recreate a fake 1950s “Leave it to Beaver” America. What they really want is a social contract again, i.e. a sense of normalcy. They are painfully aware that their carpet has been pulled up from under them. Their dads retired on pensions. They remember good public schools. They remember being proud of being American. But their cheese has been moved. Sanders response is to say, “Hey, your cheese has been moved and it’s not minorities and Mexicans. It’s big business and the very well off have bought an oligarchy”. Sanders has to convince these authoritarians that power comes from uniting on their common interests. This is why when he campaigns in the South he gets big crowds, often bigger than Trump’s. He is tapping into the same anxiety.

I have no idea how this will all fall out. No candidate is perfect and there are plenty of candidates who are reprehensible human beings and make you feel ashamed for your country. Just make no mistake: the real animus in this election is an often-inchoate feeling by many in the middle and on the sides that no one is truly on their side. Unlike Trump, Sanders has a consistent career of more than thirty years in politics that demonstrates he is on their side of these issues. You hear it in his voice and I certainly heard it during Sunday’s debate. Sanders was nearly hoarse from shouting at one point. There is conviction in is voice, in his mannerisms, in his eyes and in his demeanor that is stunningly authentic and sincere. This is certainly not true of Donald Trump, who has never held a consistent position about anything other than perhaps putting his personal profit over people’s needs. It’s not true of Hillary Clinton and it’s definitely not true with Republican weasels like Ted Cruz.

If people truly want an authentic candidate then I expect Sanders will increasingly resonate as they start to tune in, as they are doing during these debates. The question is: can it become a crescendo in time? There are many political and institutional forces that will put up obstacles to such a plain man from the heart, including Democratic Party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. During the next couple of months, this will all become much clearer.

 
The Thinker

A riffing good time (and a review of “Starship Troopers”)

If you are going to watch a bad movie, why not do it with laughs and commentary? It’s hardly a new idea but it sort of went away in 1999 when Mystery Science Theater 3000 died on what was then the Sci-Fi Channel. You may have slept through the 1990s if you don’t remember Joel Hodgson (1989 – 1993) and later Michael Nelson (1993 – 1999) and his crew of compatriot robots (Tom Servo, Crow and Gypsy) endlessly “riffing” (making fun of) bad movies from their “space station” usually parked on Comedy Central. You basically saw their silhouettes in the foreground while some dreadful movie generally from 1960 or earlier played in the background. Their wisecracking “live” commentary was usually great fun, and the films they “riffed” tended to be crap that the original producers didn’t care were riffed, mainly because they were now dead.

It had a good ten-year run but it definitely became less entertaining when Hodgson left the show and Nelson took up his slack. You can still find MST3K (as it is commonly known to its fans) online at the Rifftrax site. Rather than ripping off these riffs, devoted fans will get the DVDs instead, including whole seasons.

Or if you are more interested in the personalities than in the robots and the silly staged setting aboard a space station, you can watch Mike Nelson, Bill Corbett and Kevin Murphy at your local theater instead. No you don’t watch them perform live, unless you are lucky enough to be in a city where they do this, but you can see their shows streamed live at many local theaters. You can also see rebroadcasts courtesy of Fathom Events. That’s what we did last night with maybe a hundred others (mostly local college kids) at our local Cineplex in Hadley, Massachusetts, where we enjoyed a rebroadcast of their 2013 riff of Starship Troopers (1997).

In some ways I do miss the robots because the personalities behind MST3K are now fifty-plus with bellies that generally precede them, often by a considerable amount. Their funding comes from devoted fans that sponsored their Kickstarter campaign. Presumably they also make money from these remote broadcasts. Seeing these riffs in a theater actually is better than seeing them alone, as you are more likely to laugh along. The tickets were a bit pricey ($12.50 each for us) but well worth the price of admission. This rebroadcast was typical: Mike, Bill and Kevin provided commentary in pop up windows on the right side of the screen whilst the movie occupied the rest of the screen.

Many of these bad movies can stand by themselves as stinkers without the commentary. That was certainly the case with Starship Troopers. I would have preferred to see it first without the commentary, then have gone back to see it with the commentary. Wow! Starship Troopers is really quite a stinker, and that’s not just because of all the oversized bugs that get dismembered! Allegedly based on the novel by the late Robert Heinlein, this is a movie only Donald Trump could love. That’s because with a few exceptions it stars an all-Aryan cast of trim and handsome men and puffed-lipped beauties with flawless skin, mostly blondes. You get an odd combination of “talent” like Jake Busey as Ace Levy with his famous spiked Marine haircut, Neil Patrick Harris as Carl, Casper Van Dien as Johnny Rico (perhaps the central character) and Dina Meyer as Dizzy who ends up in Johnny’s squad fighting together.

It’s hard to know when this convoluted plot is supposed to take place, but it’s presumably at least a hundred years in the future. The “federation” (our world government, with a vaguely Nazi-like symbol) is apparently at war with distant bugs from other worlds. We send vast spaceships across the cosmos to do battle with them, but for the most part we send in storm troopers to dry class M planets who use machine guns at close range to destroy these oversized insects. Strangely enough, fighting in these wars seems to be optional, as is the case for our young heroes here, who fight to kill bugs and to become “citizens” as opposed to being a lesser boring “civilian”.

What you get in this movie is weird vision of the future, shot in 1997 that epically fails to imagine what the future will look like. We still play football, but in indoor gyms with silver footballs where they keep score on 1990s technology dot matrix clocks. There are weird scenes of kids stomping on insects, Dizzy losing her lunch during biology class, where students dissect the insects from other worlds. Rue McClanahan in there in a bit part as their teacher wearing weird looking sunglasses. You also get an odd scene where teacher, also a veteran, points with the stub of his arm.

You get a space opera that basically makes no sense, but with tons of gore and CGI. These new recruits are off for the ride of their abbreviated lives, and that’s because most of them will end up dead with insect stingers through their innards. I’ll stick to being a civilian, thank you. You get a planet Earth apparently overwhelmingly Caucasian, even in Buenos Aires where the flaxen haired Johnny is apparently from. Given their short mortality, one can at least rise quickly in rank. It helps if you don’t mind seeing lots of dismembered storm troopers or having your brains sucked out by these insects.

The plot basically makes no sense at all. Carmen (Denise Richards) wants to be a spaceship pilot but I guess they haven’t invented shields yet. Worse, all these spacecraft stay in close proximity to each other, so they are frequently crashing into each other. Their tactics for defeating the bugs make no sense. It’s clear their machine guns are not quite up to the task and only occasionally does their air force (space force?) drop a bomb. A brave trooper will occasionally get an opportunity to lob a grenade down a bug’s throat, but mostly they are dismembered or pierced long before then. The bugs sure look lethal, but not so much if you are pretty. At the end of the movie Carmen gets a stinger through the chest but walks away firing back.

So Starship Troopers can stand on its own and doesn’t need the riffers, but the MST3K crew keeps the one line commentaries coming so quickly it’s hard to appreciate just how appalling this movie actually is. So lesson learned. Next time I got to one of these events, I’ll try to see the movie first and then enjoy the movie with the riff, its own special art form worthy of enjoyment.

And we’re likely to be going frequently as they release a new movie riff or a rebroadcast about once a month. It’s a highly entertaining way to spend an evening with fellow bad movie compatriots and an opportunity to get out of the house. Fathom Events is clearly exploring a new revenue model for movie theaters that might just give live events some competition to these bloated Hollywood features.

 
The Thinker

Craigslist casual encounters weirdness: January 2016 (Albany NY) edition

It skipped my mind to survey Craigslist’s casual encounters section this month until now. I’ve been trying to do it on the first Friday of the month, which this year was New Years Day and I had statistics to post instead. Moreover, I forgot it yesterday, on the second Friday. But it is still the weekend, and that’s when these posts tend to be at their weirdest. I was disappointed in my survey of Boston’s posts in December but I was impressed when I surveyed Albany, New York last year. So I’m off to Albany again this month hoping to strike weird posting gold again.

First to note that Google Analytics recorded at least 221 page views for these posts last month. That’s 22 more than in November. However, my traffic was up some fifty percent in December so this was only six percent of total traffic of 3652 page views. 52 of those views were for my first review of the Hartford, Connecticut site in May of last year.

Who’s posting this Saturday in the Albany metro area? On the first page of postings I see:

  • 25 men are looking for a woman
  • 53 men are looking for a man
  • 12 men are seeking a couple
  • 1 man is looking for a transgender
  • 3 women are looking for a man
  • 0 women are looking for woman or anyone else
  • 1 couple is looking for a man
  • 1 couple is looking for a woman
  • 3 transgender individuals are looking for a man

And we’re off:

  • Men, have you ever wondered what it would be like to be transformed into a woman? Umm, no, at least not me. Now that I think about it I’m sure Frankenstein would look prettier in a dress. However, this “gurl” (45) and her friends are hosting a makeover party for the serious and experienced. You can bring a wardrobe but they have their own pretty extensive wardrobe too. Maybe they take pictures when they are done, and you can attach them in your next Craigslist post. Appropriately, these gurls are from Queensbury. Looking at “her” pictures, she could use a makeover herself. I’m afraid not even a quart of Jack Daniels would convince me to make a pass at her.
  • Meanwhile, this gurl in Latham is looking for a real girl (woman) to dress her up.
  • Speaking of the transgendered, this “gurl” is looking to make her first appearance at Adult World this weekend, if she can summon up the nerve. I’m guessing this is the local poorly lit porn shop. Basically she needs a sponsor so if you go there regularly, grab her arm and help “Ashley” through the door.
  • Women aren’t the only ones in this section looking to trade sex for money. This six foot black gay man from Albany with nine inches to spare is looking for a rose. Make that two roses. I guess he figures those extra inches are worth the extra money.
  • They are a couple looking for a woman and she wants a lap dance. If you dance well enough, she will give you your reward.
  • You wouldn’t think a couple in their 50’s would need to be taught how to have sex, but this couple from Fulton County needs help learning how to swing. Lesson #1: there is (usually) no actual swing involved.
  • He’s late 40s, from Albany, married and says he has his wife’s permission to hook up with you, a blonde woman. Why am I suspicious? Because I’m betting he is this poster.
  • He’s just another horny 38-year-old married guy who pines for his own sex. He wants to discreetly hook up with a similar married guy at his hotel room near the Albany airport on January 22 when he will be in town. Apparently he is an ex Boy Scout because he plays safe and here he is proving he knows how to be prepared, as two weeks should be plenty of time to screen dates. Maybe he should hookup with this dude.
  • Here’s the only legitimate young couple looking for a man post tonight, and they have very explicit pictures to prove it.
  • He’s 37 and was weaned too early; in fact he craves the breast milk. If you have some to spare, he’ll be your milking machine.
  • The last time I looked at Albany’s postings I found a guy that wanted to bottom another guy in a Schenectady bookstore. Weird, but today I found a 26-year-old man who wants to orally service a guy in a Troy bookstore. Perhaps it’s the same dude. I had no idea that bookstores were favorite spots for perverts and voyeurs. Next time I’m in a Barnes & Noble, I’ll keep a sharper eye out.
  • Draya is a 21-year-old working “gurl” and I guess if I had to cross the transgender and color line “she” would make a great choice. Not sure I could afford “her” however.
  • Some married men just want to be humiliated, i.e. sort of get off with a woman by getting no sex. Make love to his wife while berating him. It’s a strange idea of “fun”.
  • Not many men are interested in age 60+ women. Not many … unless you are divorced and 59 years old.
  • Speaking of older men, he’s 63, chubby and wants a hand job from a similarly chubby and age-appropriate woman. I hope that Cialis prescription has been recently filled.
  • If I were a woman looking for a woman I’d definitely check out this buxom beauty, 32, from Albany. I wouldn’t say no to this 46-year-old blonde honey looking for a woman half her age either.
  • They are a couple looking for another man but with no male-to-male contact. In fact, all that will happen is she will give you a hand job and I guess he watches. They are in their 30’s and from Albany.
  • I thought slavery was illegal but this couple in their 20s wants to own you (a woman). Expect to be degraded; in fact degrading may be putting it too mildly.
  • Ladies, this man would like to get to know you over coffee, but you’ll know him quite well before you ever get to the coffee shop, at least what he’s packing. It sounds like he’ll pass the truth-in-packaging law but don’t expect to spend much time sipping coffee.

More next month.

 

Switch to our mobile site