The Disaster Artist (spoiler)

I was looking forward to this movie, mostly because I'd never heard of the cult film, The Room, which is apparently popular midnight fare. I heard Terry Gross interview James Franco, and that heightened my interest.

Here is the spoiler: This movie is about a man with at best a severe speech impediment and at worst severe brain damage which affects his ability to speak, and as a person who works with disabled people I would say it's the latter.

This is one of the cruelest movies I've ever seen. I'm not easily offended by mocking portrayals of disabled people in movies--I thought "Tropic Thunder" was hilarious--but this movie made me *very* uncomfortable, and I considered at a couple of points walking out.

One of the "mysteries" is where Tommy Wiseau got all his money. In the first part of the movie we learn he was in a serious auto accident which was "very bad for Tommy." I think it's obvious that the money came from an insurance payout for that accident, and the payout was apparently huge--he has seemingly endless supplies of money--because the brain damage from the accident was so severe.
Multi-million dollar payouts are usually made to provide the victim with a way to support himself for the rest of his life, since the injuries are too severe for him to be able to support himself.

I'm disappointed in everyone involved with this movie, and in Terry Gross, too.

"Who has one thumb and is going to jail?"

Another broken promise

Trump was supposed to *stop* the American carnage. Remember his inaugural speech?

Trump Tweets Massive Electoral College Victory

Donald J. Trump?Verified account @realDonaldTrump 15m15 minutes ago

Congratulations to all of the ”DEPLORABLES” and the millions of people who gave us a MASSIVE (304-227) Electoral College landslide victory!

:large

Unfuckingbelievable.

Trump can't release the Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton

because the Russians *have* no dirt on Hillary Clinton. They hacked the DNC computers and John Podesta's emails, but they were unable to get into Clinton's private server because she had impenetrable protection. My husband, who owns a financial services company, has a private server which is so over-protected--after all, a hack would give access to millions of other people's money--that I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, who was a US senator and Secy of State, wouldn't have an even tighter program of protection. Trump has been begging Russia to release this "dirt" that was promised to Don Jr. for a long time--I think that's what "DO SOMETHING" was all about--without result that I have decided that there is no dirt.

The Russians succeeded in interfering with our election, the big prize, and now I think they are having fun, trolling Donald Trump by dangling this non-existent evidence of Hillary Clinton's criminal activities in front of his nose. Why, otherwise, would he continue to insist that HRC is so much guiltier than his campaign of collusion with Russians?

Even Forbes magazine thinks Paradise Papers spell trouble for Trump associates

Ties between several Trump Administration key figures, and Russia, figure prominently in the newly disclosed “Paradise Papers” about the workings of secret offshore tax havens. (The papers were leaked from Appleby, one of the world's largest offshore law firms.) These warrant immediate Congressional hearings.

First, the papers have revelations about a connection between a Kremlin-connected company and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser. These ties go through Yuri Milner, a Russian tech mogul – a Russian citizen – who lives in Silicon Valley. Milner invested $850,000 in Cadre, a real estate firm co-founded by Kushner.

more at https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2017/11/05/new-paradise-papers-disclosures-of-trump-russia-ties-warrant-immediate-congressional-hearings/#1fbbc7e44baa

"The Fall" on Netflix

with Gillian Anderson is pretty good, but I'm having a real problem tolerating her breathless whispery voice. I didn't watch X-files, so I don't have any idea whether this is how she normally speaks on TV, but I'm at the point of wanting to slap her. Is anybody else watching this series?

I am ready to concede that I'm crazy, but

I want to get this off my chest. It may have a lot to do with my age (I'm 70), but this is bugging the hell out of me.

I like to solve crossword puzzles, and I'm pretty good at it. The daily puzzle in my local paper is too easy to be any fun; I have bought books of NYT puzzles, including diagramless and puns and anagrams. I sometimes am able to solve entirely the Nation's very tough crossword. I finish the Sunday Times puzzle in an hour or so. So I'm not new to this game.

Almost all the puzzles I encounter have been created by men, unless there are a lot of female puzzle constructers named Bill or John, and it really pisses me off when they use what I consider sort of *private* words pertaining to women in their solutions.

I object to the use of the word "bra" as the inevitable answer to "part of a bathing suit," "panties" in any context, and--especially--"pad" used in the context of women's toiletries. "Pad" could be the answer to any number of clues--where do these men get off using "our" word like that? Especially since I'm of a generation that talked about such things (if we talked about them at all) as "sanitary napkins."

I have to backtrack a little on "panties" because it was used in a clever way in last Sunday's Times puzzle, as part of "smarty-pants" ("smart panties&quot . But we called them "underpants." And pantyhose are "stockings."

I don't know what made that show up above.

Michael Scott, a warning?

I've been rewatching "The Office" (US version) and am struck by how much Michael Scott resembles Donald Trump in his pathological need to be loved, his preference for form over function, his inability to tolerate criticism, his profound ignorance. It really is worth a look.

Just think--ten years ago I was laughing at a guy like that.

Jerry Lee Lewis redux

Here we go again with the age-old question of the unfit priest. Is the money Harvey Weinstein donated *to a good cause* tainted because he is a dreadful human being?

The notion of accepting money from a known sexual predator is revolting, and had his history of abusing women been known before Democrats accepted his financial support, of course his donations should have been refused.

But the money was accepted in all innocence--afaik, no one in our party was privy to his secret life--and therefore I don't think we ought to be returning it.

Can an evil person perform good deeds? Are the deeds less admirable because the doer is a horrible human being? Does his character make his good works less beneficial? No, sez I.