Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Leadership’

There Is Supply AND Demand

Posted in Economics, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 24, 2026| 2 Comments »

The benefits – fiscal and social – of national service programs far outweigh their cost.  Programs like Teach for America, YouthBuild, and the National Guard Youth Challenge give young adults an opportunity to serve their fellow Americans alongside their peers.  The latter two especially focus on offering vocational opportunities for non-college-bound youth, an area in which we lag far behind other developed countries.  We should invest in and expand these offerings and explore a mandatory service obligation.
Public service generates the empathy so deeply needed in our hyperpartisan climate.  And there is demand – the Peace Corps receives three times as many applications as it has spots.
    —     Scott Galloway
From his book:  “Adrift – America in 100 charts“
.
Click here (24 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Criminal In The Oval Office

Posted in General Comments, History, Leadership, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 23, 2026| 2 Comments »

Statement of
Jack Smith
Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
before the
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
January 22, 2026
Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my work as Special Counsel in the investigation and prosecution of President Trump for his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents and obstruction of justice, and role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election and interfere with the lawful transfer of power.
I love my country and believe deeply in the core principles on which it was founded.  For nearly three decades, I served as a career prosecutor, spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations.  I have handled cases ranging from domestic assault, rape, armed robbery and murder, to gang violence, narcotics trafficking, and civil rights violations.  I have prosecuted public corruption and election crimes across the United States, and I have prosecuted war crimes abroad.  I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties.  My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law.
Throughout my public service, my approach has always been the same:  follow the facts and the law, without fear or favor.  Experienced prosecutors understand that specific case outcomes are beyond our control;  our responsibility is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons.  These principles have guided me in every role I have held — as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan;  a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn;  Chief of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice;  Acting U.S. Attorney in Tennessee during President Trump’s first term;  an international war crimes prosecutor;  and as Special Counsel.
During my tenure as Special Counsel, we followed Justice Department policies, observed legal requirements, and took actions based on the facts and the law.  I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.  President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the very laws that he took an oath to uphold.  Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions, as alleged in the indictments they returned.
Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. President Trump attempted to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts;  to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost;  to force his own Vice President to act in contravention of his oath and to instead advance President Trump’s personal interests;  and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then exploit the rioters’ violence to further delay it.  Over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted that day, a fact we should never forget.
And, as set forth in the original and superseding indictments issued in the Southern District of Florida, President Trump stored classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club after he left office in January 2021 and he repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.  Highly sensitive information was held in non-secure locations, including a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.  Tens of thousands of people came to the social club during the time period when those classified documents were stored there.
As I testify before the Committee today, I want to be clear:  I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump.  Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity.  If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat.  No one should be above the law in our country and the law required that he be held to account.  So that is what I did. To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and a public servant, which I had no intention of doing.  This is why I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and to correct the false and misleading narratives advanced about our work.  I am prepared to do so while adhering to the Justice Department’s authorization governing the scope of my testimony and while constrained by Judge Cannon’s order restricting the discussion of Volume II of my report regarding the classified documents case.  To that end, and as a result of Judge Cannon’s order and the Justice Department’s interpretation of that order, I will not be able to discuss the contents of Volume II of my report, and can only discuss matters with respect to that case that are set forth in the indictment or other public filings.  Similarly, I cannot discuss the contents of the documents at issue in the case due to their sensitive nature.
I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice of the career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff with whom I worked as I executed my responsibilities.  My team exercised independent judgment and acted in the highest traditions of the Justice Department in the face of threats to our safety and unfounded attacks on our character and integrity.  I am saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against them, and others who worked on cases related to the attack on this Capitol, for simply having worked on these cases, for simply having done their jobs.  In my opinion, these people are the best of public servants, our country owes them a debt of gratitude, and we are all less safe because many of these experienced and dedicated law enforcement officials have been fired.
Adherence to the rule of law is not a partisan concept or endeavor.  The Justice Department’s core values, and the traditions and norms I was raised on as a prosecutor, are not meant to change from one administration to the next.  After nearly 30 years of public service, including in international settings, I have seen how the rule of law can erode.  My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in this country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted.  But, the rule of law is not self-executing — it depends on our collective commitment to apply it.  It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs.  Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.  I look forward to your questions.
[I have reformatted this text (added emphasis, italics, underlining and removed page breaks) to improve the readability on my blog site.
The original PDF file can be downloaded from:  https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20260122/118881/HHRG-119-JU00-Wstate-SmithJ-20260122-U2.pdf
    —    kmab]
.
Click here (23 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Government Is Not Business

Posted in Economics, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on January 23, 2026| 2 Comments »

Some say we should have more business people in government.  I admire great business leaders, but government is not business.  Business teaches us to always look for an advantage, to not give anything away without getting more in return.  That’s the antithesis of government (and government service), the purpose of which is to contribute to the commonwealth without recompense.
    —     Scott Galloway
From his book:  “Adrift – America in 100 charts“
.
Click here (23 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Dream Remains, The Struggle Continues…

Posted in General Comments, Leadership, Philosophy, tagged , , , , , , , , on January 19, 2026| 1 Comment »

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr Day!!!
First, be kind to yourself.  Then, if you are able, perform one act of service for another person.  Be the change you wish to see.    —    kmab
.
Click here (19 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Somebody Has To Take The Fall

Posted in General Comments, History, Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“USS Indianapolis:  Men of Courage” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the WWII naval disaster film “USS Indianapolis:  Men of Courage” (2016), starring Nicolas Cage as Captain Charles McVay (the commanding officer of the doomed cruiser), Tom Sizemore as McWhorter (a seasoned crewman), Thomas Jane as Lt. Adrian Marks (the pilot who spots the survivors), and a supporting cast of earnest but uneven performances.  The film attempts to dramatize the true story of the USS Indianapolis, which delivered components for the Hiroshima bomb and was subsequently sunk by a Japanese submarine — leading to one of the worst shark-infested survival ordeals in naval history.
Background:  I’ve long been familiar with the tragedy of the Indianapolis — its top-secret mission, its sinking, and the horrific ordeal that followed.  (Anyone who has seen the movie “Jaws” has heard the story.)  I approached this film with a curiosity and caution.  The tragic story is worthy of cinematic treatment, but it also demands restraint and respect in depiction.  I never expect historical perfection, but I always hope for sincerity and historical fidelity – which was mostly delivered in this film.
Plot:  The film opens with the ship’s covert delivery of atomic bomb components.  After completing the mission, the Indianapolis is torpedoed and sinks rapidly.  Roughly 900 men survive the initial attack, only to face dehydration, hallucinations, and shark attacks over the next four days.  In terms of raw data:  the crew numbered about 1,200;  about 900 entered the water (survived the initial sinking);  a little over 300 were eventually saved.  The narrative interweaves scenes of bureaucratic delay, romantic subplots, and Cage’s portrayal of McVay as a man burdened by command and injustice.  The film concludes with McVay’s court-martial, suicide and eventual exoneration.
So, how’s the movie?  The acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I like / enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Mixed;  earnest;  uneven FX;  several;  yes.
Any good?  Yes — if you’re willing to look past the technical shortcomings and focus on the emotional core.  The film doesn’t always succeed in its execution, but it tries to honor the men who served and suffered.  That effort matters to me as a veteran.
Acting:  Nicolas Cage delivers a restrained performance, portraying McVay with quiet dignity.  (I’m not a fan of Cage, so I was happy to see the restraint and dignity this role deserved.)  Sizemore and Jane add credibility, and the supporting cast — while occasionally melodramatic — feels sincere.  The romantic subplot is unnecessary, but it doesn’t derail the film.  Cage’s best moments come when McVay confronts the weight of command and the injustice of being scapegoated.
Filming / FX:  The CGI is inconsistent.  Most of the ship sequences are clearly poorly done CGI.  The sinking sequence lacks realism and feels more like a poorly done re-shoot of a smaller “Titanic“.  However, the underwater shark filming and the Japanese submarine are serviceable adequate.
Problems:  Several.  The film tries to appeal to too many audiences by juggling too many tones — romance, action, courtroom drama, survival horror — and ends up fragmented.  The film’s pacing is uneven because of this.  The dialogue occasionally feels like it’s veering into cliché, but again, it’s probably just too many story-lines.  For me, the poor CGI distracted from the visual enjoyment (immersion) of the film.  Still, it feels like the film’s heart is in the right place.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Not because it’s absolutely historically accurate, but because it attempts to tell a story that matters.  I didn’t walk away impressed by the filmmaking, but I did walk away reminded of the sacrifice, suffering, and injustice endured by the crew – and ultimately by their Captain.  That’s worth something – quite a bit – to me.
Final Recommendation:  Good to strong.  “USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage” is not a great film (technically / cinematically), but it’s reasonably well acted and a sincere film.  If you’re interested in naval history, survival ethics, or the legacy of wartime command, it’s worth watching.  Just temper your expectations and focus on the miracle of some crew surviving and not the shame of the scapegoating.
.
Click here (7 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Encouraging A Constructive Use Of Criticism

Posted in Education, Leadership, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , , , , on October 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.  One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism.
    —    Carl Sagan
.
Click here (7 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Congress Continues To “Roll Over And Play Dead” For #47:DonTheFelon

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 21, 2025| 2 Comments »

When the leader in a free society becomes contemptuous of the people, he sooner or later proceeds on the false and fatal theory that all men are fools, and eventually blunders into defeat.  Things are different where the leader can employ ruthless coercion.  Where, as in an active mass movement, the leader can exact blind obedience, he can operate on the sound theory that all men are cowards, treat them accordingly and get results.
    —    Eric Hoffer
From his book:  “The True Believer:  Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements“
.
Click here (21 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

You Are Alive

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Proverbs, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 12, 2024| 2 Comments »

When you know who you are;  when your mission is clear and you burn with the inner fire of unbreakable will;  no cold can touch your heart;  no deluge can dampen your purpose.  You know that you are alive.
    —     Chief Seattle
Duwamish Tribe / People
.
Click here (12 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Not All Leaders Are “True” Leaders

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on March 2, 2024| 2 Comments »

Leaders are not, as we are often led to think, people who go along with huge crowds following them.  Leaders are people who go their own way without caring, or even looking to see, whether anyone is following them.  “Leadership qualities” are not the qualities that enable people to attract followers, but those that enable them to do without them.  They include, at the very least, courage, endurance, patience, humor, flexibility, resourcefulness, stubbornness, a keen sense of reality, and the ability to keep a cool and clear head, even when things are going badly.  True leaders, in short, do not make people into followers, but into other leaders.
    ―     John C. Holt
From his book: “Teach Your Own:  The John Holt Book Of Homeschooling“
.
Click here (2 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Leadership Lessons

Posted in Leadership, Other Blogs, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , on January 21, 2024| 2 Comments »

The XO’s 12 Lessons to Live By
1.  Anyone can change.
Do something different, make yourself better.
2.  Set high goals and go after them.
Even if you fail, at least you went for it.  The road to mediocrity is crowded with people who never tried anything great for fear of failing, and the list of people who did great things without even trying is really short.
3.  A person’s ability is often best judged by the work he is assigned.
If it’s a tough job, and someone’s got to do it, be thankful you’re the one who is called.  Doing the dirty work is a lot better than being thought incapable of success.
4.  Some things are worth fighting for.
It is a noble thing to dedicate yourself to, and risk one’s life for, the freedoms of another, whether it is those of the American people or those of another country.  Be proud of yourself.
5.  Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
Figure out what it takes to get the job done and take charge, but know when to fall in line too.
6.  Win the hearts and minds.
Leading is not pushing or pulling, but motivating others to act on their own accord.  This is much easier if you have the support of those you wish to lead.
7.  Expect and plan for the worst and you’ll never be disappointed.
It’s easy to become complacent after weeks and months of the same-old same-old.  So plan for and prepare for the worst case scenario.  You can laugh about how paranoid you are after you get home safe and sound.
8.  You go to war with the troops you’ve got, not the troops you wish you had.
Anyone can learn with the proper motivation.  Train your men well and train them in-depth.  Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.
9.  Keep your sense of humor.
Ours is a serious business, but laughter is the best medicine, preventative or otherwise.  So crack a joke, find a reason to smile; there will be plenty of reasons not to later.
10.  Confront your emotions.
Talk to someone, or offer to listen.  Reaching out for help doesn’t make you weak.
11.  Be careful what you wish for.
You might just get it.
12.  People make mistakes.
Forgive and forget — train them to be better.
[…And later, a closing thought]
…Even though I have read them hundreds of times, the above lessons hang on my wall where I can easily be reminded that just because you are on a staff, it doesn’t mean you aren’t a leader.  Leadership is important no matter what job you are in.
    —    James King
From his article / editorial titled:  “12 Tips for Showing Leadership During Your Staff Time“
The “original” article appeared at the following blog:  https://themilitaryleader.com/
A site / blog maintained by:  Drew Steadman
I found the article at one of the sites / blogs I follow:  https://taskandpurpose.com/
There, the blog post was titled:  “12 Leadership Tips That Every Staff Officer Should Live By“
The specific post is located at:  https://taskandpurpose.com/12-leadership-tips-every-staff-officer-live/
[Please visit both sites if you have some spare time and / or an interest in leadership – particularly an interest in military leadership.    —    kmab]
.
Click here (21 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Thoughts About Climate Change, Peace In the Middle-East And Gun Control In America

Posted in Environment, General Comments, Leadership, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 10, 2023| 2 Comments »

Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction.  They may be summed up by the phrases:  1)  It’s completely impossible.  2)  It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.  3)  I said it was a good idea all along.
 
    —    Arthur C. Clark
 
It has been said that the reception of any successful new scientific hypothesis goes through three predictable phases before being accepted.
First, it is criticized for being untrue.
Secondly, after supporting evidence accumulates, it is stated that it may be true, but it is not particularly relevant.
Thirdly, after it has clearly influenced the field, it is admitted to be true and relevant, but the same critics assert that the idea was not original.
 
    —    Adrienne Zihlman
 
All truth passes through three stages:  First, it is ridiculed.  Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
 
    —    Arthur Schopenhauer
 
[We are stuck between “One” and “Two”, so we may never get to “Three”…  It strikes me that we simply lack the moral fiber to recognize the truth and the political leadership to address the issues.    —    kmab]
 
.
Click here (10 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.
 
   

 

Read Full Post »

What If…?

Posted in Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Seven Days In May”  (1964)   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the black & white political drama “Seven Days In May” starring:  Burt Lancaster as Gen. James Mattoon Scott (the “bad-guy” military officer);  Kirk Douglas as Col. Martin ‘Jiggs’ Casey (the “good-guy” military Officer);  Fredric March as President Jordan Lyman (unpopular because he is trying to get a peaceful disarmament treaty with the USSR);  Ava Gardner as Eleanor Holbrook (the former mistress of Gen. Scott);   Edmond O’Brien as Sen. Raymond Clark (a longtime personal friend of the President);  Martin Balsam as Paul Girard (White House Chief of Staff);  Andrew Duggan as Col. William ‘Mud’ Henderson (a loyal officer who comes to the aid of Sen. Clark);  Whit Bissell as Sen. Frederick Prentice (a “bad-guy” Senator who supports the military coup).
Basic plot:  When the President seeks to negotiate a nuclear disarmament treaty with the USSR, the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon develop a plan to stage a coup to overthrow the government.  The coup plot is discovered by an aide (Col. Casey) who then convinces the President the plot is real and about to happen.  The White House then scrambles to prevent the coup.  Through a fortunate finding of evidence, the coup is narrowly prevented and the nation’s democracy is maintained.
Is this movie any good?  The actors?  The drama / plot?  Is it worth your time viewing?  Yes;  Good to Very Good;  Very Good;  Absolutely!
Any good:  This is a surprisingly good movie!  At almost sixty-years old, it presages our times as well as or better than “The West Wing“, “The American President“, “Dave” and “White House Down“.  The former two demonstrating the eloquence of a “good” President and the later two political and / or military corruption as a narrative for the destruction of American democracy.  It is worth noting this movie came out at a time when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were still very engaged in the “Cold War” and the American public was still practicing nuclear attack drills.  At the start of the movie, there is a riot between protesting groups in front of the White House.  While watching it, all I could think of was 6 January 2021 and the attack on the U.S. Capitol by the Trump supporters.
The actors:  I felt the actors in this movie were almost all good to great.  It would be hard for me to pick out any one of them for their superior performance.  If I had any objections, it would be John Houseman’s portrayal of Vice Admiral Farley C. Barnswell.  Between Houseman’s accent and the unrecognizable (to me) uniform he was wearing, I just went:  “Huh???”  He (sounded) and the uniform (looked) – too British!  And it wasn’t that Houseman couldn’t / didn’t carry off with the role (acting wise).  I just didn’t buy him.  (Can an actor “look” believable – in role, but not be believable?)  Other than that, all of the actors were (IMHO) well-known to famous actors who played their roles brilliantly.
Drama / plot:  These were (60 years ago) great actors in well cast roles.  There is buildup, conflict and resolution.  Is it a perfect movie?  No.  But, the film was nominated for two Oscars including O’Brien for Best Supporting Actor.
Worth your time:  This movie is well worth your time!  If nothing else, just to see the Lancaster vs Douglas face-off near the very end of the film!  Gardner was also outstanding as the hurt mistress struggling to find herself.  I never realized what a good actress she was until I re-watched this movie. Now I’ll have to be on the lookout for her in other films.  LoL
Final recommendation:  Highly recommended to MUST see cinema.  As much as this movie is a fictional drama, coups remain a realistic “threat” to our democracy.  This on-going threat from within is obvious from the felonious activities of real-life senior officers like Col. Oliver North (during the Reagan Administration) and General Michael Flynn (before, during and since the Trump Administration).  The threat is also obvious by the “dark money” constantly pouring in to our elections with the hopes of buying seats at the table when social / political options are being weighed and decisions are being made.  Even in “fiction” America only barely survives based on the resolute actions taken by a few agents-for-good;  individuals who happen to be at the right place at the fortuitous moment in history.
.
Click here (4 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Guilty Until Reasonable Doubt

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Poetry, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 22, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“12 Angry Men”   (1957)   —   movie review
Today’s movie review is for the jury room (courtroom) drama “12 Angry Men“.  This is a black and white film, and widely recognized as a “classic” of the film industry.  In 2007, the film was selected for the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for historical preservation.  The film is an almost exclusively dialogue driven recreation of a jury deliberation (argument) being held in a jury room in New York City.  The film does not use individual names for the cast and instead they are referenced by their juror “number” (1 through 12).  Hence the title…
The film stars many actors who either were already famous stars or would come to be (mostly via TV in the 1960’s).  They included:
Martin Balsam as Juror 1 (the jury foreman – and organizer who is a calm and methodical assistant high school football coach in real life);
John Fiedler as Juror 2 (in real life a bank teller who is a follower, easily flustered, but eventually stands up for himself against bullying by Jurors 3 and 10);
Lee J. Cobb as Juror 3 (in real life a hot-tempered owner of a courier business;  he is the most vocal / obstinate advocate of a “guilty” verdict.  It is implied this is an over-reaction to his relationship with his own rebellious / ungrateful young-adult son);
E. G. Marshall as Juror 4 (with a notable exception mentioned below, in real life an unflappable, fairly indifferent and analytical stockbroker who is concerned only with facts and logic, not opinions, hypotheticals or assumptions);
Jack Klugman as Juror 5 ( in real life a Baltimore Orioles fan who grew up in a violent slum, and is sensitive to bigotry and discrimination towards “slum kids”;  he demonstrates how switchblade knifes are “really” used);
Edward Binns as Juror 6 ( in real life a rough and tumble working-man painter who objects to others, especially the elderly, being verbally abused by the two bully jurors);
Jack Warden as Juror 7 ( in real life a wiseguy salesman who is worried about the missing a Yankees baseball game while they are arguing the verdict);
Henry Fonda as Juror 8 (the “voice of reason”, a justice-seeking – in real life – architect and father of three;  he starts out as the only juror to vote “not guilty” and wants the others to, at the very least, discuss the evidence before finding the defendant guilty);
Joseph Sweeney as Juror 9 (a thoughtful, elderly man who is highly observant of the witnesses’ clothes / behaviors and argues possible motivations for their testimonies);
Ed Begley as Juror 10 (the second bully on the jury;  an aggressive, frequently shouting – in real life – garage owner who is bigoted toward minorities and “those” people);
George Voskovec as Juror 11 (in real life, a polite European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who has better knowledge of and respect for “American” democratic values such as due process and the right to a fair trial by jury than many of the “native born” Americans);
Robert Webber as Juror 12 (in real life, an uninterested marketing executive who plays tic-tac-toe while the others are discussing the case facts).
Note:  In this context, “in real life” means outside the jury room yet still in the film role, not outside the film.
The film begins with a very brief scene in the courtroom where we also see the judge and the defendant.  Both sides (prosecution and defense) have rested / closed their arguments and the judge is providing instructions to the jury just before they walk to the jury room for their deliberations.  The defendant (a young man) is being tried for the murder of his abusive father.  What appears to be an obvious verdict becomes a detective story and an example of personal integrity and leadership when a single juror (Number 8) votes “not guilty”.  What follows is a string of questions about the clues which create doubt about the guilt of the defendant.  The drama examines each of the jurors’ character, prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other.  We are slowly given clues about the social status, education, jobs, and some family backgrounds of the various jurors and we “see” that twelve “white” men will not always see things the same way when it comes to “justice”.
They jury has an initial vote and there is only one (Juror 8) not guilty.  He insists that with a man’s life on the line they should take at least a few minutes to review the facts of the case to see if there is “any” reasonable doubt.  Over the course of several hours, Juror 8 manages to convince each of the others there is “reasonable doubt” the defendant committed the murder and they ultimately settle on a unanimous “not guilty” verdict.
Is this movie any good?  The acting?  The drama?  Is it worth you time viewing?  The short answer to all of the above is Yes!!  To shorten the review:  “It is MUST viewing for anybody who wants to consider themself a serious movie fan particularly of courtroom dramas.“
Okay, back to the longer review…
Any good:  the Library of Congress believes it is.  It is frequently rated in the top 100 films of all time and in the top 10 for courtroom dramas.  “To Kill A Mockingbird” regularly beats it for top spot.  Personally, I would put both up there with “Judgment At Nuremberg“, “Inherit the Wind“, “A Few Good Men“, “The Caine Mutiny“, “Miracle On 34th Street” and “The Trial of Billy Mitchell“.  After that, it’s pretty much flip a coin.  I’m sure I’m forgetting a ton of other courtroom based dramas, but this one is special (to me) because it is filmed almost exclusively in only one room (the jury deliberation room), it is a roasting hot day which turns into an absolute downpour (not sure if this was meant to be a metaphor for the build-up and release of tension in the script, but it sure struck me that way) and the roles, casting and acting are superb!  And we get a lesson in American civics thrown in, too!
The acting:  I don’t know how many different ways to say this film is excellent.  Full stop!  Cobb, Marshall and Fonda deserve particular kudos as far as I’m concerned, but all twelve actors are perfectly cast in their respective roles.
The drama:  Same…  I would like to mention one little scene:  Everyone but Juror 4 is sweating profusely and Juror 5 asks him if he ever sweats.  “4” replies:  “Never.”  Later, and this is the scene I love, Juror 8 asks if it’s unreasonable the defendant couldn’t remember the name of the movie he saw the previous night, especially given the police were questioning him with his father laying dead on the floor of their apartment.  Juror 4 says it is too convenient and he would have remembered.  “8” asks “4” a series of questions which leads to “4” stating he was at a movie a couple of nights previous.  After a few more questions, “4” fails to remember the name of the second film he saw or any of the names of the actors in the film.  As “8” asks “4” again if it’s so unreasonable, we see a single line of sweat run down “4’s” forehead.  “4” wipes the sweat stream off and he concedes it’s possible for the defendant to have forgotten the details of the film.  …”4″ changes his vote to not guilty.
Just brilliant!!
Is it worth your time:  my answer is based on your response to this question – are you a fan of movies and great cinema?  LoL
Final recommendation:  Extremely high!  This IS a MUST see movie.
A last comment:  Please remember this is Hollywood.  A good deal of what happens in the film (ex: bringing a knife to the jury room) would not / could not happen in a real deliberation – back then or today.  It is far more likely one of the jurors would have said something to the bailiff or judge and the trial would have been declared a mistrial.  But that wouldn’t have made for a very good movie ending – now would it…?
.
Click here (22 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Advice To America

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Poetry, Quotes, tagged , , , , on July 22, 2023| Leave a Comment »

Choose your leaders
with wisdom and forethought.
To be led by a coward
is to be controlled
by all that the coward fears.
To be led by a fool
is to be led
by the opportunists
who control the fool.
To be led by a thief
is to offer up
your most precious treasures
to be stolen.
To be led by a liar
is to ask
to be told lies.
To be led by a tyrant
is to sell yourself
and those you love
into slavery.
    ―     Octavia E. Butler
From her book:  “Parable of the Talents“
.
Click here (22 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Series Of Observations

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Reviews, Series (TV or Streaming) Review, TV Series, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Today’s TV series review is for the seven season / 151 episodes / 115 hours total viewing time, drama / crime-police / mystery series: “The Mentalist“.  The show stars Simon Baker as Patrick Jane (the Mentalist) and Robin Tunney as Agent Teresa Lisbon (his long suffering boss / side-kick”Watson”).  There are three other “main” supporting characters:  Kimball Cho (played by Tim Kang), Wayne Rigsby (played by Owain Yeoman) and Grace Van Pelt (played by Amanda Righetti).  The series originally aired between 2008 and 2015.  I viewed / “streamed” the series over several weeks in 3-to-4 episode chunks.  Some spoilers follow, so if you are intending to watch this series, do so before continuing this review…
The basic premise is that a “reformed” con-man / fake psychic (Jane) assists law enforcement (the California Bureau of Investigation [CBI]) with solving crimes (mostly murders).  Because the CBI is a state law enforcement unit, the crime is generally on California state property or CBI involvement is “requested” by someone with sufficient political influence to warrant the notice of the CA State Attorney General.  Sometimes this aspect is a REAL stretch…  and then has to be narratively explained away by dialogue.
The main character – Jane – has highly developed observational skill, exceptional memory skill and high intelligence which combined with his years as a con-man / magician / fake psychic allow him to “solve” each case in intuitive (sometimes illegal) ways – much to the discomfort of the supporting cast (professional law enforcement officers).  Jane becomes involved with CBI after recovering from a nervous breakdown following the brutal murder of his wife and daughter by a serial killer (“Red John”).  Red John’s modus operandi is “generally” a rape, disembowelment and then throat slitting of his (mostly female) victims.  Red John is a cult leader type criminal, generally following the “Dr. Moriarty” character type from the Sherlock Holmes genre.  Lisbon is Watson to Jane’s Sherlock.
The series has two over-arching series themes:  the developing romantic relationship between Jane and Lisbon and the developing friendship(s) between Jane and the rest of the law enforcement supporting characters.  Within this there are also three main seasonal story arcs:  seasons one through three are single episode murder mysteries developing the two main arcs.  Seasons four, five and half of season six are devoted to both episodic crimes and the hunt for Red John.  Red John is revealed (and killed) and then the last half a season six and all of season seven is Jane assisting in various FBI cases.  Season seven is an abbreviated season of only twelve episodes.  All of the other seasons are twenty-one plus episodes. Most of the series is based in Sacramento.  Post-Red John, the series moves from CBI to FBI and is then based from Austin, Texas.
So, is this series any good?  Has it stood the test of time?  How is the acting?  Is the show realistic for leadership, psychology or law enforcement?  And, finally, is it worth investing 115 hours of your life?  In order:  yes, mostly, poor to excellent, more often than not, so-so, “I sure hope not”, and yes.
More specifically, overall, this is a VERY good series.  It is as predictable as any police procedural:  crime, investigation, resolution.  It is mostly predictable for character development – but at a surprisingly / interesting slow pace and then – bang – your in rapids, and then – back to slow pace.  The series ends “happily” from a romantic perspective it is well rapped up – the two main couples wed.  So, bottom line, the good-guys win and live happily-ever-after.
Test of time / acting / theme portrayals:  As a police procedural – I hope not.  As a romantic drama, yes.  As a “Sherlock Holmes” genre, so-so.  In practically every episode, some person’s rights are either ignored or aggressively violated.  This is morally acceptable because the team is putting very bad people (mostly men) behind bars (or killing them).  No matter how honorable the character starts in their role, they are always corrupted by Jane and the concept of acting for “the greater good”.  On the romantic side, a big part of every drama is how long can you maintain the sexual tension between the main characters.  Although obvious from the first episode, both main relationship arcs are well developed.  As a super-sleuth / Holmes procedure series, the show has problems, but it (the show) still works because of the believability of the actors in their slowly developed / multi-layered character portrayals.  The portrayals of most of the bad-guys are mostly flat and one dimensional, but there are notable exceptions.  As the series progresses most of the other (non-super-genius) characters say:  “This is what Jane would (would not) have us do…”  For me personally, I found the various depictions of leadership styles / personalities to be one of the most interesting aspects of the series.  The whole gamut of leadership from criminal to sainted is represented and the strengths and weaknesses of the various styles is examined, critiqued and accepted or rejected.
Investment:  I feel there has been an on-going transformation in home entertainment happening over the course of my lifetime.  The progress is roughly equivalent to that of written literature.  In writing we have daily comics, short stories and comic books, short-moderate-long books (texts and novels), books series and encyclopedias.  In TV, the corresponding genre would be animated / cartoon shorts (multiple stories in a half-hour show), episodic stories (half-hour to hour long shows), movie length (90 minutes to mini-series [sub-30 hours of total viewing time]), and seasonal arcs (episodic, but with 3-5 minutes devoted to long-term character / story development), and then generational shows / series.  I consider “generational” series to be any series over 15 years / seasons – so, most day-time soap operas and multi-series franchises (“I Love Lucy“, “The Simpsons“, “StarTrek“, “Law & Order“, “NCIS“, etc).  I (personally) do NOT consider game shows to be “generational” series, even though many have gone well beyond 20 seasons, because they are normally not re-watched after the initial viewing.  Although, there is now some give on this characteristic, too, as you can “watch” some of the prior episodes (on TV-history channels).  The point of the “re-run” (though) is to view the contestants (famous personalities from yesteryear) and not viewing the contests, themselves.  At any rate, I would put a seven seasons series in the “War & Peace” – lengthy story grouping, but not in the generational level group.
Final recommendation:  This is a moderate to strong recommendation for an initial viewing (see caution later), a low to moderate for re-viewing in its entirety and a strong to highly for individual episodes (if you develop a favorite character or mini-story arc during your initial viewing).  For me, 100-plus hours is almost certainly too long to spend re-watching the entire series. I purchased my “series-bundle copy” on steep discount ($30 as I recall), at which price this a bargain for entertainment value – even if only viewed once – $.25 per hour or $.20 per episode.  One note of caution:  there is the occasional swear word used at least once per season and there are repeated scenes of victims injuries (almost one per episode), so this is not appropriate for viewers under 12 years of age.
.
Click here (22 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started