Skip to main content

Odds and Ends

A friend of mine recently saw two movies - The Social Network and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.  Of the two he preferred the second.  And, knowing me, he recommended Wall Street, a movie likely to be better appreciated by someone of my (advanced) age (of 56).  The Social Network, after all, was geared for young adults and their rather-troubling mores.

Since, this late-morning, I had five bucks that was burning a hole in my pocket and was depressed as all get out, I started to look around for what movie I wanted to see.  The reviews of The Social Network are interesting. While the youthful sensibility of the movie was a drawback, the biggest drawback was that it had a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Yipes.  Anything that gets 97% approval from critics just has to be good in a bland way, beyond redemption. 97% is what Disney animated movies get that are competently done and wholly non-offensive. I am a movie connoisseur: my interest, (somewhat) always, is in "the new."  And from all reports, despite its overly high RT rating, The Social Network has something 'new' about it.  Something that hadn't been tried before.

As a piece of work, The Social Network is fascinating.  It is original in many ways and addresses issues relating to Our Time.  It's also funny, and funniest when it's subtly funny, and I like that.  And some of the 'jokes' worked mostly because they were delivered especially well; good delivery is, um, a good thing.  It a key aspect of good acting.  Too, the lead actor in the movie, Jesse Eisenberg, was fully amazing.  It was a performance for the Ages, maybe, even if the film ends up being mostly appreciated just in our current decade.
-----
I had another legal meeting thing early this morning.  It was very embarrassing.  I don't have a storage locker, so I have to carry around my stuff, which weighs a ton, since I inherited my mother's pack-rat personality aspect.  The x-ray machine - or whatever you rightly call it - was out-of-whack at the courtroom annex where the 'thing' was and so I had to open my dufflebag for direct examination.  Woe, I am poor and a bit eccentric, I 'spose.  My "save everything" thing was on display.

Waiting in the waiting area, a couple of male lawyers - including 'my opponent' - were talking about feet, shoes and pedicures for men.  The lawyers were fancily dressed, spoiled rotten by every indication, talking about aspects of spectacularly expensive shoes and where to go to get your feet dipped into a mountain of fur (or, something like that).  Lotions, nail polish, scrubbing, cleanliness, softness all came up, as did the information that one of the lawyers had a wife and that the other lawyer was excellence at motorcycle maintenance.  [I think the macho thing came up at the end because otherwise the two men were on a vector toward spending the night together.] The stinking rich live in a different, much-cushier world than I do.  It's bad to be poor, but it's not a bad thing not being rich.

When we went into the judge's chamber, my impoverishedness was apparent, of course. I chose to sit on the couch rather than in the line of chairs.  The judge said something confirming that I could, indeed, sit there, since things were paid for with my tax dollars.

I said I hadn't been paying much in taxes, lately.

I was combative, more as a role than a representation of real indignation, but some real indignation was floating around inside me.

The judge told me, at one point, that I had all the rights of a litigant/lawyer making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and it was clear that that [how much a lawyer MADE] was the standard.  I took offense, inartfully [and nonsensically, I think the judge thought], but was glad I did.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Homeless Hate from Marcos Breton

There was a long spell a handful of years ago when Marcos Breton said something so fully ridiculous in one of his hateful screeds against homeless folk that it appeared to be very apparent he had been taken off the Homeless Beat by his superiors. Unhappily, after a few months, Breton was again writing disparaging columns about homeless folk

In today's Bee [3/5/17], Breton has written one of his longest columns. Online, it is titled "The price downtown Sacramento is paying for Mayor Steinberg’s homeless crusade
"
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/#storylink= It goes on for days. The message, essentially, is this: Homeless people poop; they're getting a great deal of what they want from the overmuch-helpful mayor; and business people proximate to Chavez Park are made miserable by the forever-disgusting homeless that are there in great number.

O.K. Let's get into all this a bit. Except in Breton's mind, homeless pe…

The first-person dimension of homeless Sacramentans suffering from Schizophrenia

"Disabilities and dysfunction process from having been shunned and denied access to needed opportunitites and networks of support."
~ the brothers Lysaker in Schizophrenia and the Fate of the Self What is schizophrenia? How many are homeless Sacramentans?

Perhaps 15% of the Sacramento homeless population suffers from schizophrenia. The percentage is difficult to determine for many reasons that branch from both the fuzzy definition of the malady and that many people within the homeless community who have the illness (1) are in denial and are undiagnosed and (2) have the illness as a diagnosis only – the disability can be faked by people who are successful claimants of social security and other benefits.

What is schizophrenia? One webspace gives us this definition: The most chronic and disabling of the severe mental disorders. Typically develops in the late teens or early twenties. The overt symptoms are hallucinations (hearing voices, seeing visions), delusions (false beliefs ab…

Homelessness and Remembrance

This is a follow-up on the matter of remembering homeless people who have died and the Wall that Libby Fernandez wants to build in remembrance of the deceased. [See earlier blogpost "Tell Libby NOT to build her wall."]

This blogpost is prompted by a Philosophy Bites podcast released in the last couple days -- titled "Cécile Fabre on Remembrance." Fabre's take on why we honor or grieve for certain individuals or certain collections of individuals is not greatly helpful -- since his focus is mainly one of fallen war heroes and war casualties -- but it does open up the issue of why should there be a remembrance effort for deceased homeless people at all. Who is served by it? And has the effort been perverted by the avarice of charities in their insatiable drive for donations.

It is, for starters, a curious thing for "homeless people" to be a collective that is honored. I write that NOT because I don't want the best for homeless people. But, homelessn…