Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Fiction in Non-Fiction Movies



“Never let facts get in the way of a good story.”

I’m certain this quote was spoken by someone in the Hollywood industry.  I just can’t remember who.

I recently watched three films that are based on true stories – all to varying degrees of excellence (or lack thereof).


Argo - see, it says so right on the poster

 
The first film was “Argo” – the movie that won Best Picture for 2012.  Directed by Ben Affleck it told the true story of six Americans that hid out in the Canadian embassy until someone from the U.S. came up with a specialized plan to get them out.

Having watched some of the interviews with the real live persons, and seeing that they’re all over the blu-ray disc, I assume that the film is pretty historically accurate.  But, I’m sure, a lot of the “Hollywoodization” of the film – some close calls, conflicts, and the chase at the end to stop the plane are all fabricated so we, the audience, can get our adrenaline going and wonder what eventually will happen.  Affleck does a very good job of ramping up the conflict and it IS a good exciting piece of filmmaking, but what truth was sacrificed to create a good story.  What facts were kicked to the curb.


The second film I watched was the film “The Last King of Scotland” – another good Hollywood vehicle and award winner – this film tells the story of a young idealistic doctor who goes to Uganda to help the poor.  Next thing you know he’s hanging with the President (Idi Amin) and doing all the things that a close confidant is allowed to do:  drink, party, drink, party.  Ooopsy, though, he sleeps with one of Amin’s many wives, gets caught up in political whatnot, tries to escape, tries to escape again and finally succeeds.  This film, too, has a tense filled scene at the end as the Dr. escapes on a plane.  This precedes a scene that is so blatantly stupid that it almost ruins the film.  The scene?


Beat-up Hero in the Duty Free Shop

 
Dr. Feelgood is trying to poison the president – when he gets found out he gets the crap kicked out of him and is dragged to a duty free gift shop in a crowded airport (crowded because there are hostages and Israelis and camera crews).  Ami comes in and tells the good Dr. that he knows about his wife, monologues for a bit, and then has his henchmen pull him on meat-hooks, I guess, to anticipate his coming execution.  How no one in the entire airport doesn’t see this happen is beyond me.


With the wife...what you didn't think you were
 gonna be found out?

 
Then, after the Dr. has been hanging around for a while, the henchmen take him down and then, uh, leave to have a drink somewhere.  I think one even says: “Oh, he ain’t goin’ nowhere.”  Which, of course, is enough time for another rival, good, Dr. to come in and make the save and get him to escape.


Actor (left) - very good.  Real Dictator (right) - very bad.

 
Forest Whitaker’s amazing performance as Idi Amin and a ripping good story keep it from not falling completely apart but I fled to my Wikipedia to find out about the doctor and find the book that he had written about his experience.  What did I find out?  Oh, there was no doctor.  Yes, the book is “kinda” based on the same story – but not a doctor – a soldier.  And the author lived in Uganda for 10 years or something and was a reporter – so I don’t doubt that the atrocities and story beats are based in fact – but I was a bit saddened to find out that there was no doctor and that whole story was made up.  Or, in essence, a combination of other stories pooled together to make one solid story.

Lastly, I watched the film “The Worlds Fastest Indian.”


One of the year's best?  I dunno...



This film is based on the true story of Herbert Monro – a New Zealander motorcycle rider who got it in his mind that he wanted to come to America and test his modified motorcycle at the salt flats in Utah.  His hope was to travel beyond the speed of 200 mph and set a new land-speed record for that type of motorcycle.  Good for him.

I was ready to rip this film to shreds until I read the Wikipedia page and then it become abundantly clear what writer/director Roger Donaldson was doing.  Still…I’m going to rip it to shreds.


Real Burt aka Bert ...I think.

 
The biggest problem I have with this film, and again, it’s based on fact…I guess…  Is that Mr. Monro’s journey is all so very simple and non complicated.  He’s also the greatest, sweetest most wonderful guy you’d ever want to meet.  SERIOUSLY.  Is only real personality “flaw” is that he pees on his lemon tree.  That’s it!  This film has so little conflict in it of any sort of weight or merit, that I swear it’s more of a Hallmark card to an old grease-monkey than an actual film.


The genuine article - Bob's Your Uncle!



Let me go through the conflicts one-by-one:

Conflict one:  Bert tests his loud motorcycle at a God-awful time in the morning.  The neighbor complains he’s going to call the cops.  That’s it.

Conflict two:  Bert has a party to raise funds for his trip, a group of “bad bikers” shows up (why, I don’t know) and challenge him to a race.  He says…Okay.

Conflict three:  They race.  Though Bert loses (he crashes).  He’s not injured in the slightest.

Conflict four:  He beds the local Social Security clerk (really with no problem – he has to wash his hands before she’ll sleep with him).


This happens A LOT in this movie.

 
Conflict five:  He has a near heart-attack.  Now, I’ll call this the BIG CONFLICT because this reoccurs throughout the film and hangs like a low cloud over everything because you want to know…is he going to have a heart attack and die?  Spoiler alert:  He doesn’t.

Conflict six:  He goes to the bank to mortgage his house to pay for the trip.  No problems there.

Conflict seven:  He sets a match to his yard to “cut the grass” nothing else catches on fire.

Conflict eight:  On his way to the ship to take him to the U.S. the bike gang shows up and…gives him money for beer (he doesn’t drink).

Conflict nine:  On the ship he has to be the cook, no one complains and, I guess, he’s a good cook.

Conflict ten:  He gets to America and his visa or there’s a problem in customs but it just so happens that a guy read an article about Monro in Popular Mechanic’s magazine and so that’s good enough for him.

Conflict eleven:  He takes a cab to his hotel and the guy tells him it’s $27 or something and that makes Bert a little angry.

Conflict twelve:  A flower seller steals $10 from his wallet when he goes to buy a flower.

Conflict thirteen:  The clerk at the hotel is a transvestite black man dressed as a woman.  Bert has no problems with this whatsoever.  He’s not bothered by the race difference, he’s not bothered by the homosexual or drag queen angle of, he’s fine being seen with her out at a restaurant, etc.

Conflict fourteen:  He goes to buy a car, negotiates a better price on the car and then tweaks the car so it runs better.  And then he’s offered a job at the car dealership to fix cars and is loved by the owner.

Conflict fifteen:  He goes to customs to get his bike and the box is crushed!  NO!  Oh, the bike is fine.

Conflict sixteen:  He heads on his way to Utah and, on his way there, the trailer carrying his precious bike loses a tire and the trailer crashes!  NO!  Oh, the bike is fine.  He finds a log and uses that to replace the wheel.

Conflict seventeen:  A man comes along and not only helps him, he also feeds him, gives him native American medicine and puts a necklace around his neck for good luck.  Alas, though, he’s not able to replace the wheel.

Conflict eighteen:  In hopes of replacing the wheel he ends up on a run-down farm.  The woman owner of the farm shows him her husband’s gravesite (been dead for ten years) and then a rattlesnake ALMOST bites Bert.

Conflict nineteen:  As soon as you can say “bob’s your uncle” he’s slept with the farm woman.

Conflict twenty:  On the way to Utah he sleeps in his car by the side of the road, a cop pulls over and tells him to move along and that he “can’t do that.”  No ticket.  No confiscating the weird contraption.

Conflict twenty-one:  He gets to the salt flats and didn’t register weeks ago.  They let that pass even after saying “rules are rules” about a dozen times.


Rules are rules?  Who cares, as long as you've got 
over-acting friends like these!



Conflict twenty-two:  The inspectors say his bike is unable to run as it’s too dangerous.  They let that pass.

Conflict twenty-three:  Running out of money a nice guy pays for a hotel room for him.

Conflict twenty-four:  Veteran racer comes in and sees him taking medication for his heart and says that he’s “tried everything” to allow him to race his bike.  Says he’ll try again, even though he now knows that the guy could die at any moment.

Conflict twenty-five:   He does a “minor” test run against the officials’ wishes and they don’t punish him.

Conflict twenty-six:  The officials decide to do a run where they travel with him and even though the bike is wobbly and dangerous and he went way too fast for them – they decide for him to race for real.

Conflict twenty-seven:  He does another test run on a Nevada highway and gets pulled over by the cops.  Gets off with a warning.  No ticket.

Conflict twenty-eight:  Low on funds, people pool their money together for him (note:  This is based on fact as there’s a photo in some magazine that they recreated for the film).

Conflict twenty-nine:  It’s the final race:  Is he going to surpass 200 mph?  Is the bike going to crash?  Is he going to burn his leg up on the exhaust?  Is he going to die?  (wait, I spoiled that last one already didn’t I)  I’ll tell you this:  He crashes.  He’s fine...other than his leg being burned quite a bit.


Final crash...have a little salt in that wound?

 

There you go.  29 conflict moments, or beats, in this film that all, pretty much, get a pass.  There’s no “all is lost moment.”  There’s no point at all where I thought that the story was going to turn out differently than what was presented.  And to be honest, maybe the above is EXACTLY how it happened in real life.  I don’t know.  Maybe those are the facts and everyone was super sweet to him and he slept around and didn’t get bit by a rattlesnake and no cop gave him a ticket but by GOD, I wanted something like that to happen to him.  For goshsakes do SOMETHING to him.  Don’t make the journey so easy.

Above I wrote that it was obvious what Roger Donaldson was doing when I read the Wikipedia page.  It said that Donaldson had worked on this story for 12 years – even after making a documentary about Mr. Monro.  Well, that’s peachy, but that’s also God creating.  The character, played fine by Anthony Hopkins, is a complete endearing puppy dog of a man.  You couldn’t make him more loveable if he was carrying puppies and babies from a burning building.  He absolutely has NO FLAWS (other than peeing on a lemon tree which, according to Wikipedia, was a homage to Donaldson’s father and not something that Monro did).


A lot of these were actually Monro's - which is kind of nice that
 they put this bit of realism into the movie.



When creating characters or heroes, you MUST give them a flaw.  (Potential for having a heart-attack at any moment is not a flaw.)  Being brash and taking unnecessary risks is a flaw (Top Gun).  Unsure of yourself and what you’re capable of and struggling to succeed is a flaw (multiple films).  Even being stuck in a foreign land after making bad decisions is a flaw (Wizard of Oz).  In fact, most films are described as someone who is stuck trying to get un-stuck and therein the conflict arises.   But I never ever felt that Monro was stuck in any sort of way.  Nor does the character go through any sort of arc?  He doesn’t change throughout the story which also leaves the story flat.  He’s the same guy from frame one through frame million.

What would I do differently?  I would have him lose his bike (Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure).  I would have him suffer a heart-attack.  I would have destroyed the bike and forced him to rebuild it.  I would have had him arrested.  I would have a tire blow-out and break his arm.  ANYTHING more than just:  “You can’t do it.”  30 seconds later.  “Okay you can do it.”

Again, I’m not disputing the potential facts of the story.  Again, it could have happened EXACTLY that way and wouldn’t I look like an idiot?  But there are facts here that could have been used to enhance the story beyond what it already is.  In real life Mr. Monro was divorced.  He could have talked about that.  In real life Mr. Monro had four kids.  Where?  Not a mention in the story.  What about them confronting their father about this trip.  Their concern for his health.  Even a plot point used in the story blurs the truth.  In the story Mr. Monro has a wonderful speech about his twin brother who died when a tree fell on him.  In real life Mr. Monro had a twin sister who was still-born and an older brother who died when a tree fell on him.  Is it too difficult to change the speech to an older brother?  ie:  The truth?  I guess the writer’s felt it would have more impact on him if it was a twin.  I can see that – but you could even use the real life still-born twin.

Back to the God Complex.  According to Wikipedia this film broke box office records in New Zealand so it is obvious to me that this Monro guy is a folk hero and no one wants to see their folk hero struggle.  They want to see their folk hero succeed on every level.  Who wants to see them hurt/die/suffer?  It may make a wonderful fairy-tale, but it sure as heck doesn’t make a compelling film.

There was another “fact based” film from down-under entitled “Phar Lap.”  I learned of Phar Lap from a co-worker who loved horses.  “Phar Lap” was one of the fastest horses that ever lived and it got to the point where they had to put weights on the horse just so he wouldn’t win every race.  Eventually those weights wore him down and he died.  (I can’t remember if he died on the track or what.)  My co-worker told me that when they did an autopsy on Phar Lap they found out that the horse’s heart was twice the size of a normal horse’s heart.


Australia had a hero horse, New Zealand had a hero old codger.

 
When I watched the film and it ended with the dead horse, one of the characters said:  “Wow, that horse must’ve had some heart.”  And...that was it.  Nothing about the double size.  No title screen where it said this.  Just....the end.  Go figure.  Like some weird inside Australian joke.  Where everyone who knows can nod knowingly.  But for the 90% of us out there that didn’t know – we miss out on amazing little bit of fact.


I assume this is the horse's actual heart, him being
 a hero to a nation and all...but, still, kinda gross.


 Pretty horse, but could it go 200 mph?  I doubt it.



Well, as they say:  “Never let the facts get in the way of a story.”

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The Fundamentalist Tightrope



The Fundamentalist Tightrope



Disclaimer:  This blog is going to be about religion.  So if that bothers you, you don’t believe in God, don’t celebrate Lent or whatnot, feel free to skip over to my other e-mails.  Thank you.

Welcome to Lent!  The 40 days of prayer and reflection that people go through every year to prepare for Pascha, or Easter.  Since it’s Ash Wednesday, I figured I would talk a bit about religion today.



I’m a sinner.  I’m also human.  Those two things go hand-in-hand.  I’m human.  I try NOT to sin, occasionally I do.  Lucky for me I believe in a God of love and forgiveness, of compassion and redemption, of hope and future and change.  I believe in what I call the God of the New Testament as shown through Christ.  Many people, though, don’t believe in that God.  They believe in the God of the Old Testament.  Of rules and regulations and pillars of salt and wiped out dead children and Sodom and Gomorrah, a vengeful angry God who sits high above the clouds with his finger on the sin switch-board waiting….just waiting….and waiting….for you to fall, fail and off to hell and damnation you go.  I don’t believe in that God.



For those of you out there who do believe in that God, and the inerrant bible where not a word can be changed, and every word is true and lasting and forever and the writers were “holy scribes” placed in some sort of biblical God induced trance to transcribe words like a 2000 year old teletype machine – I fear you walk that tightrope.

You see, here’s the rub, if you believe in a God that is an angry and vengeful God but also a loving and forgiving God it’s difficult to truly grasp the fact that you’re human (and have a brain).  What ends up happening is that for people in this situation – you either behave (and have heaven and all the glory) or you don’t (and you burn in a fiery pit of hell).  There’s no “middle ground.”  There’s no “gray area.”  Thus, for many fundamentalist/literalists there’s a tightrope to be walked.  How do be fully human (and fall into sin on occasion) and how do you live in the loving presence of a loving God – who, of course, will smite you and kill you in a heart-beat if you “get out of line.”



Certainly the sacrifice of Christ bridges the human and divine, our sins are upon him who took that upon himself.  His sacrifice, his torture, brings about our redemption – but there’s still that nasty bit of a tightrope.

Now, I don’t want to get all liberal v. conservative in this blog but if you look at both the Old and New Testament I see the God of the Old Testament (lots of talk about the wealthy, lots of talk about obeying the rules and punishing sinners) as the Republican and I see Jesus of the New Testament (lots of talk about the poor and giving your money away and hanging out with sinners and breaking some of the rules) as the Democrat.  Maybe it’s the yin to the yang.  But if you truly believe that every word of the bible is inerrant and that God does not change – then the God of killing babies is also the God of love and forgiveness – it can make for some confusion.



Back to the tightrope.  If you’re on a tightrope hovering 200 feet in the air, what would make this easier (besides not being 200 feet in the air in the first place).  Maybe what would make this easier is simply a WIDER tight rope.  How about a plank.  Two, wait, 10 planks.  Well, now you have a bridge…

When I see, and hear, people who fall into this weird dichotomy of tightropeness – I often see them do what anyone would do in their situation:  Make the tightrope wider.  And how do they do that?  Simple:  Rationalization.  Re-explaining or re-figuring or re-configuring their thought process to thus make things “work” for them.



Here’s an example, and I’ll use the bible.  Revelation 7:4  “Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.”  So, okay, if we take that number literally – as people who are literalists should do…then only 144,000 go to heaven.  That seems a bit small, in world of 7 billion living people and the billions that came before us.  Of course the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that is the LITERAL number – but you go on-line and you’ll see that many experts believe this number is “SYMBOLIC.”  But…wait?  Is it literal or is it symbolic?  Tightrope expansion.  Justification and rationalization used together to create a wider tightrope so you get into heaven and not just 144,000 people…or something.

 Oliver "Ollie" North


 
Jerry Falwell


I thought about this years ago with Oliver North had lied to the U.S. Government about running guns.  Say what you will about Oliver North (I personally believe he was/is a dork) – but the truth came out that he was a lying sack of crap.  Soon after, though, Jerry Falwell of the fundamentalist/literalist Liberty University was praising Mr. North – raising money for him and I thought… “Wait just a goldurn minute!  Isn’t this the guy who was lying and perjuring himself?”  Now, call me crazy, but the last time I checked lying was a sin – punishable by death.  You know, one of those silly 10 commandment thingys.  And here was MR. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY HIMSELF standing up there and calling Oliver North a hero.  Uh, what about God and those rules and hell and damnation?  How does one rationalize or justify one’s actions (and thus make the tightrope wider)?  Simply by explaining themselves?  But does that make it right?

A lot has been made recently about gay rights and you betcha the fundamentalist/literalists community is all up in arms about it and they will trot out time, and time, and TIME AGAIN passages in Leviticus that says that “man should not lie with another man.”  But a perfect example of the tightrope conundrum was found on a photo that was going around on the internet (and hopefully I was able to find it).

So...one should be followed and the other not?


In the photo a person has had the quote from Leviticus about men laying with other men tattooed on their arm.  And, of course, someone pointed out that later in Leviticus it says that people should not have their bodies inked or adorned in any way.  Oh snap!  But, I’m sure, if you brought this up to this guy that believes so very strongly in the bible that he’s WILLING TO TATTOO himself a scripture verse he’s got every possible rationalization or justification as to why it’s against God’s holy law for a man to sleep with another man while it’s NOT against God’s law to get a tattoo.  How, possibly, can one justify that?  Last I checked all these laws seemed about the same in ruleness.  But, then again, I’m not walking the tightrope.

Reverend Billy Graham
 
Billy Graham used to do a Q&A column in the newspaper and people would write him letters about whatever was affecting them and he’d respond back.  Someone once wrote to him about gays and homosexuality and ol’ Rev. Graham didn’t back down and called it a sin but then he went one step further:  “Isn’t gossiping a sin?  Isn’t lying a sin?  Isn’t bearing false witness a sin?”  What he did was take this person’s concern about “the gays” and turned it around on them to explain that there are all sorts of sins out there – not just someone being gay.  I, personally, do not believe that being gay is a sin – but I agree with Rev. Graham’s overall point.  We sin all the time, in all sorts of ways, but somehow we’re able to justify it and rationalize it so we don’t fry in the pits of Hades.



I think what bothers me the most about the people who walk this tightrope and widen it out through rationalizations and justifications and explanations is that they simply don’t OWN it.  As for the guy who had the tattoo.  Just OWN that you don’t like gay people because if you truly believe that the bible says it’s a sin – then you must truly believe that tattooing is a sin and have them all removed (and not eat shellfish).  Jerry Falwell – if you truly believe that Oliver North is a hero – just OWN that he lied, tell the world that he lied, call it out as the sin that it is.  Don’t hide behind, don’t justify it, don’t rationalize it.  If you sin, own it.  Don’t say the “devil made you do it” or “I had a lapse in judgment” just say it:  “I’m human.  I did it.  I made a mistake – I’ll try not to do it again.”

I know I’m human.  I know that I sin.  I know that I have forgiveness through Christ’s sacrifice.  I fall, I get up again, I try again, I learn, I do better, I fall down, I slip back, I move forward.  I’m real.   That’s me.  I don’t need the bible to tell me this.  I’m as human as anyone.  I certainly don’t believe that when I sin I’m going to hell and that when I do good I’m going to heaven.  I’m ultimately washed by the blood of Christ.

Billy Idol (not Reverend)

Rock-and-Roll artist Billy Idol, not really known for his spiritual depth, wrote a song called “Heroin” presumably about his addiction to the drug.  In the song there is a refrain:  “Jesus died for somebody’s sins…but not mine.”

When people walk that tightrope.  When it’s soooooo tight and the stumbles to the hell side happen (as they will) on a frequent basis, too many people believe too strongly that they are unforgivable.  Unredeemable.  And many truly believe that refrain that Jesus died for somebody’s sins…but not mine.

For this Lent, understand your humanness.  Understand your reality.  Understand that you will succeed and you will fail and understand that you will ultimately grow and hopefully be a more honest, open, real human being.



Thursday, February 7, 2013

Turn of Phrase...





We’ve all heard the saying:  “Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.”  And we all have been hurt by the various names we’ve been called.  Words are very very powerful and when they shift their meaning or become something we’re not expecting…what then?  Gay used to mean happy (and still does, I’m sure, in certain circles).  Still I can’t listen to the lyrics “don we now our gay apparel” and not think of mesh shirts and tight rainbow shorts.  But, you know, that’s on me.  It’s not on the lyricist, it’s not on who’s speaking – that’s on me and I’ll own it.



I tell the story of the time I came into the tail end of (ha!) of the Westminster dog show (or some such show) and the final dog had won.  The reporter is then interviewing a judge who stands there saying:  “Well, you know, she’s one of the finest bitches we’ve had to date.  I mean an all out perfect bitch.  Just wonderful.  Now I’ve seen a number of bitches who haven’t measured up to her…”  And she went on to say bitch about 400 more times and I’m laughing so hard tears are coming out of my eyes.  Again, I fully admit, that’s all on me.  ALL ON ME.  It’s not her doing.  She’s speaking the Queen’s English and I’m wallowing around in the mire of Jethro’s slang.



Words.  Words.  Words.  You see quotes about words, too.  Much like the above with “sticks and stones.”  These quotes (or memes) are found on Facebook and are meant to hit us square between the eyes and fill our hearts.  But I want to take away just the concept of words for a moment and look, instead, at phrasing.





It’s one thing to say the word “love.”  It’s a nice word.  Good.  Four letters.  Two consonants, two vowels, well balanced.  But put that word into the phrase:  “I love you.”  It takes on whole new meaning.  Expand that out to “I love you…as a friend.”  It takes on a nearly opposite meaning.  So as important as individual words are – I challenge you dear reader to look instead not at the word – but at the phrasing behind it.  Take the word love and add a few words around it and what have you got…?  Really.



Miriam, my lovely wife, has a great way of phrasing things (to her – not to me).  There are things called conversations – we have them all the time.  Then there are things called arguments – which we have rarely.  Often times, though (note the word often there), in a fit of a bit of anger – Miriam will say:  “You always do---- .”  Or  “You never do---- .”  And this stops me.  Now it may very well be that I always dump the trash but never put the other garbage bins into the main trash (like I should) but when you’re in the throes of an argument and someone uses words like “always” or “never” – it immediately makes me pause.  I think to myself:  “Do I ALWAYS do that?”  “Do I NEVER do that?”  It’s very rare that you ALWAYS do something or that you NEVER do something – but by using this certain phrasing I’m checked out.  I’m in another world.  I’m thinking about that instead of the person who is pointing their finger at me and the soap soaked sponge that I “never rinse out” or the glasses in the dishwasher that I “always put in wrong.” (You see, above I wrote “often times” – didn’t  say EVERY time or...)






Does Miriam have a point?  She may very well have…but by now the point is now being lost because I’ve become defensive and am not listening.  So try these two different phrases:  “When you take out the kitchen garbage, go ahead and dump the other garbages in there, too – that way you can do it all in one trip.”  Or:  “You NEVER put the other garabages in the kitchen garbage!  Why do you ALWAYS forget to do that?!”  Which one is better?  Certainly they both get their points across but...in one I’m immediately defensive and have checked out mentally while the other I may be more aware or more open...or I may just forget and never do it or always forget or whatever...



The words “Calm” and “Down” are pretty good words.  Both four letters, but there’s a skew in terms of the vowel v. consonant ratio.  Still, separately they’re just fine.  But...put them together?  Early on in my relationship with Miriam, and this may have happen pre marriage but I distinctly remember telling her to calm down and she told me to “never ever tell her to calm down again.”  I think those words have exited from my vocabulary.



Often, though, it’s the word you choose that make a true difference.  Of course this is obvious but I’m not talking about saying “I love pizza” v. “I like pizza.”  I’m talk about buzz words, hot button words, words that have more depth – history – gravitas to them.



At one point when I worked at Heller, my team and I got really good at figuring out when the free lunches came available (see previous blog about the free lunches).  It got to the point where we had secretaries (who often ordered the lunches) giving us a “heads up.”  “Hey, Matt, it’s a litigation attorneys meeting today – I ordered pasta.”  “Cool.”  I would respond and then get the word out to my staff and we’d be on high alert for 1 or 1:15 when the lunch would be over.  But, as I wrote in the previous blog, the office services manager was having a BIG issue with us – couple this with the fact that the receptionist was lying to her that we were running back and forth between conference rooms – balancing four plates piled high while ingesting foot long sandwiches in one bite – she had her eye on us.  But it went beyond that.  She started talking to secretaries about us.  She was undercutting our network of lunch moles who were happy to give us a heads up.  And she was pissed.



Here’s the thing, though.  We abided by every rule and regulation that was put before us.  Yes, we love our free lunch – but we’re not stupid – and I knew my staff and I knew they abided by the rules.  But that wasn’t good enough for her.  She was CERTAIN that we were still stalking and gorging.  Of course HR had to be brought in and a finger was wagged in our general direction and we, once again, said it wouldn’t happen again – and it wasn’t happening anyway...



Then I realized something.  I realized that we were be harassed by the Office Services manager.  The fact that she was creating a “new set of rules” for us and going after our friends and secretaries to stop talking to us (one secretary told us she came to her and told her “stop talking to the records department about lunches”).  When I approached Human Resources and used the word harassed instead of “bothered” or “bugged” or “annoyed” – that perked up HR’s ears.  It’s one thing to bug someone – it’s another thing to harass someone and, my mouth to God’s ear, we were being harassed for really no reason.



It wasn’t long before things were hosed down and cooler head prevailed.  But I had to go THERE.  I had to change the wording.  I had to change the phrasing to get my point across very clearly.  Suddenly, by a change of word or phrase, things were different.





In looking at the state of this country – I can’t help but wonder how we got to the point where we place people who are obscenely wealthy on such platforms that we, basically, worship them.  The Oprahs, the Trumps, the Rockefellers, the owner of Papa Johns, the Walton family of Walmart, etc.  These are some people who make a GAJILLION dollars a year and instead of a society that says – “You know, it’s better for you to live in a 20 room house with a 10 car garage and a moat and make $10,000,000 a year instead of living in four 20 room houses, with 40 car garages and make $100,000,000.”  Think just for a minute how much more success the Walton Family, and the Walmart infrastructure would have if they just decided to cut their pay by, say, 90%.



Take a look at their family’s wealth as of 2012 – according to Forbes:


Just how much money should one person truly have?

Just so we’re clear – because it’s kinda run together.  Those are BILLIONS.  BILLIONS.  A combined wealth of 102 BILLION dollars.  I will say that probably most of that is stock options or what not but I could probably think they could survive just as well on $100 million, oh, hell, $500 million than $25.3 billion or $23.7 billion.  Heck, how about you keep 5 Billion and send the other 20 billion back into the workers of Walmart?  You know how this would help our country?

Good times!

Bad times!



 Of course the conservatives (and others) would say that this is socialism, a distribution of wealth, etc.  I would tend to agree – except for the very fact that these folks got to their 102 BILLION on the backs of the middle class.  Not giving them good healthcare (guess who pays for the  healthcare they don’t get – you and me Joe Taxpayer), paying them poor salaries so they need assistance (guess where that assistance comes from – you and me Joe Taxpayer), etc. etc. etc.  They made their billions by pushing every envelope and exploiting every loophole and much of what is left over because they don’t pay people a decent wage – or in the extreme wiped out entire communities (see my Going Out of Business commentary) and those unemployment/welfare/government assistance programs, etc. are paid for by you and me.  C’mon, Christy.  Live off of $5 billion and give the other 20 billion back to your workers.  How ‘bout it Jimbo, want to live off of $3 billion and put the other 20 billion into eradicating poverty?  How’s about you give that a try....

One Chart



Another chart with more words and statistics.

 But here’s the deal.  We let this all get a pass because not only do we think it’s OKAY.  We think it’s the AMERICAN WAY.  As if Joan and Ward Clever were just waiting for a moment to invest in Apple and become millionaires overnight.  That somehow it’s just fine for them to horde money and have vast amounts of wealth and let the American Taxpayer die by a million cuts.





What of those “overnight” millionaires?  As much as the wealth of the Walton family is obscene, at least they created a company that hires people and puts people to work all over the world.  I can give them a pass, in a sense, for that because they truly did start from the ground up and now have a large Gross Domestic Product than many small countries combined.  The true villain in this whole equation is the banker/day-trader/stock broker.  The person who makes  a million on a flip of a market term.  A person who makes a million on a tricky investment.  These people, truly, are the scum of the earth.





When Hewlett Packard got started in their garage – they made a product which had to be tested, manufactured and sold.  There’s some “skin in the game.”  There’s risk – massive risk – both financially and physically.  Anyone who dreams up the next invention deserves props for getting there.  You build a better mousetrap and all that jazz...  But these investment brokers/traders/bankers, what not, they don’t create anything.  They’re not creating a product which puts people to work.  They’re not creating the next “new thing” that is going to bring customers to their door and input money back into the monetary network.  They’re manipulating facts and figures and creating lies upon which they can make more millions with one phone call and one push of the button.



But...where is the outrage?  Where are the angry hordes?!  Where is the shame?  At what juncture did these people get where it’s seemingly okay to rob people blind legally and illegally?



Where this turn of phrasing and choice of words comes down to is simply that we, as a nation, as a people, need to rephrase our acceptance of massive wealth.  Either by paying your staff so little that the American taxpayer needs to compensate or by manipulating the markets to the point where you can destroy an economy?  We need to find the words.  We need to find the comparisons.  We need to find the way to speak the anger and frustration in a way that makes clear and rational sense to whoever hears it.  And we need to do it now.



Love you all...as a friend.