Back in 08, when Obama got elected, we were on the heels of what we assumed was “change”. That was the buzzword of his campaign; no longer would we see extremist bullheaded warhawks. We would be getting a rational intellectual who would lead us to the promised land of America.

Now in 09 we find that may not be the case. The golden boy is losing some of his shine and is somewhat cracking under pressure. I must admit, I was one of those idealistic liberals who voted for him. I was interested in his positions on certain issues. Shit, you want the neocons to continue running this country into the ground for the next four years?

Now he’s reversing his stance on some issues. An interesting article that recently ran in Time magazine about how one of Obama’s top foreign security aides, Greg Craig, recently resigned after Obama softened on his plea to keep troops out of Afghanistan.

It’s a tricky situation to navigate, that of the of the politician, and so in that regard I don’t envy him one bit. While the hardcore, Birkenstock, wearing, frappuccino-sipping San Francisco college professors might have been enticed by his original promises, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans out there want a balanced methodology.

Obama has had to appease the more moderate base out there, as well as cool of the flames of the negative reaction the likes of Charles Kruthammer and other such Bush apologists have demonstrated. This involves bending on his initial outline and even what some might consider “selling out”. Why haven’t we ended the War in Iraq yet? Why hasn’t Guantanamo Bay been shut down? Where’s the quick and swift health care reform? And for God’s sakes, can we fix the damn economy already?

I understand when Obama came into office, it was not under pleasant or idyllic circumstances. But he knew that going, and that should have actually only strengthened his resolve. Instead, we see a weak-willed Ivy League bookworm seemingly crumbling ineffectually under pressure. One has to wonder, however well-intentioned this bid at health care reform is, if it isn’t a slight of hand to distract us from the fledgling stock market out there.

While we finally saw a politician attempt to stand up to the tyrannical bureaucracy of the HMOs and hospitals, but he really couldn’t have picked a worse time to enact this. He should be fixing the monetary situation here, and that doesn’t mean tossing a few dollars here and there in government programs that we all know will get wasted anyway.

The ugly situation over in the Middle East goes without saying, as well. The rising sociological tide says Obama got elected because Americans were disgusted with Bush and his hardline stance on war. We elected a Democrat hoping he would bring the hammer down on millions of troops getting killed every day. Now, not so much. We’ve seemingly forgotten about our failing military effort. The demonstrations have stopped because people are so simultaneously entranced and enraged with our commander in chief.

Perhaps Obama is simply too honest and endearing to be involved with the dirty cesspool that is politics. While I’m sure he’s far from a saint—I’m sure he has his skeletons in his closet as well—he strikes me as a modern-day version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. A hopeless romantic entrenched in the most corrupt of endeavors, starting off with grand dreams but forced to taint or outright squash them to appease not only the backstabbing careerists in his cabinet, but the average dolt and loud-mouthed pundit out there.

Could it be his youth and inexperience as well? It’s acknowledged the public sector is not a young man’s game. Say what you will about Clinton or even Bush, but they knew how to implement strategies and promote their actions (or close to it, in Bush’s case). While Obama may have been a decent senator, getting his start, should he really be put into the most powerful position in the free world?

Still, I can’t help but feel that I’ve been had by some clever charlatan. I felt, perhaps arrogantly, that I had looked beyond the style and saw some of the substance underneath. I viewed the debates, I paid attention to what he actually said in his speeches. Perhaps the country got swept up in a fervor of anti-Republicanism and just elected him out of a blind whim. Beneath the smile, the glib manner, the charisma and the nice suits, we see there not be so much he has to offer. Only time will tell. I don’t hope he fails like Rush Limbaugh or any of the other conservative tards, but it may be heading that way…..

With Thanksgiving having come and gone, what exactly does this holiday represent? The common image of Thanksgiving includes feasts involving turkey, cranberries, the sloth resulting from this, family get-togethers, and typically waves of gratitude and humility.

It is common wisdom that Thanksgiving evolved from an occurrence between the pilgrims, the initial European settlers of this land, and the Native Americans, the indigenous inhabitants of this land. They shared food as a means of cooperation and for the settlers to show their graciousness over the Indians helping them out as good neighbors.

Fast forward a few years later and the colonists have expressed their appreciation by taking over their land, raping their women, and essentially quarantining them. Way to go white people. Now it’s become a hallmark of American hypocrisy, to gluttonously stuff our face with fat and unhealthy goods while lounging around and watching football. The “thanks” often expressed have become a merely empty social custom.

The time often spent with one’s family has been remarked upon as being an awkward situation at best, and an unbearable agony at worst. These people that you are related to through blood/lineage but otherwise have absolutely nothing in common with are forced to be your companions for twenty hour long hours. Fun times, indeed.

But, maybe I’m tipping my hand and being a bit too biter. I am the Angry Cynic, after all. Thanksgiving can be a time to reflect upon one’s blessings. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so negative, but take the values of this holiday at face value: too often we complain about what we don’t have, what’s bothering us, our grievances and limitations. Instead, we should reflect on what we do have, the fact that we are alive and still standing, and that at least we have food and companions to dine with.

So Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan flipped out and mowed down a couple of his fellow soldiers in a hail of gunfire By now everyone knows about the infamous outburst at Fort Hood. The question that remains is, why? What exactly were his reasons and motivations? I think this is what is haunting the American consciousness the most.

Was he an anti-American crusader aligned with al-Queda or simply another alienated nut disgruntled with his job? The answers seem to pointing in both directions. Not to descend into alarmist hyperbole, but we may be seeing a new movement on the rise: self-made crusaders who will lash out at random, with seemingly no provocation.

Let’s go over the facts as they have been reported so far (although we must remember they are reported by the media, and so are always suspect). Hasan listed no religious preference on his profile, and reportedly had difficulty passing the exam to become a psychiatrist. Family had noted how he was unmarried and later on spoke of his disgust with the Iraq war and his fear of going over there.

This sounds to me like a man raised in a secular world and cut off from his original creed. I’ve known a few Muslim, and as they gradually become Westernized, they shed off the conservative veneer of their old ways and become affiliated with American popular culture. It seems they’re constantly in a struggle to reconcile their old way of life with the modern zeitgeist.

The fact that he went unmarried is also suspect. Not to downgrade those who chose to be bachelors (in fact, I’m one myself), but I can imagine he generally just felt like a troubled and outcast person. On a minor side note, this seems like more pro-marriage propaganda designed to make those who are independent look like violent oddballs. What we’re seeing here is an alarminng response to our disconnected, cold culture in the form of George Sodini, Cho Seung-Hui, and Raymond J. Clarke III: violence and outrageous murder and massacre become the only way for those at the fringes of our (admittedly) uncaring world to express their internal feelings of rage and emptiness.

I don’t think Hasan was a terrorist in training, per se, but rather a man who already wasn’t playing with a full deck and sought out an extreme ideology to blend in with. Thus, unfortunately, he found his way over to radical Islamic sites. Those who fear another 9/11 are panicking a bit too much; like I’ve pointed out, this doesn’t strike me as part of larger plot or coup against America, but rather a tragedy perpetuated by a stressed-out man who sought out a controversial position after the fact.

However, and stick with me on this point, the fact that an Army psychiatrist has gone crazy and formed anti-establishment opinions should raise some questions. I think one issue that’s going criminally ignored here is the stress being placed on soldiers in the military right now. How many times have we read about a fighter going AWOL, coming back home and suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, or (as is the case now) opening fire on his fellow recruits?

The thought of going over to Afghanistan, and the horror stories those who had been told him, made him nervous, and in a “fight or flight” panic frame of mind, he took a gun and killed a good many people. When conditions are that bad that a psychologist goes crazy, things are baaaaad.

Once again, we see alarmingly lax regulations in the public sector. Despite the fact that he has been acknowledged to have “past difficulties” (which have not been elaborated on), the military of all people still let him in without a second thought. Is our collective apathy and laziness really worth crazies like this slipping through the cracks? We’re held up to the utmost standards n other areas of our life, like ludicrous parking standards and paying college tuition. But when it comes to the arguably most important areas of society, this is what we witnessed?

The tension being placed on them in the wake of the Iraq war and the War on Terrorism is unimaginable. And with a seemingly thankless public and apathetic President, what else are they to do? This reeks to me of the evils of the industrial-military complex. We place such a high demand on these men to go into hostile and violent landscapes, with no sense of individuality and humanity, to kill other human beings, all in the name of nationalism and securing our oil so we can pump our precious cars and drive around.

If recent stories are any indication, the mismanagement in the military is severely understated. We’ve seen the horrors and evils of war go all the way back to the publication of books like Slaughterhouse Five and Catch 22.

As well, and not to make excuses and scapegoat the victims, but apparently Hasan had been harassed for being a Muslim. One can imagine those in the Army are, truthfully, not the most tolerant and intellectual people in the world. Even in recent reports and reactions (”will there be another mass bombing from them“, “this is proof we definitely can’t trust those kinds”), we’re seeing anti-Muslim sentiment break out once again.

I caution those who want to blame solely the Arab community and think they all hate the red, white, and blue. Many move over here for a better opportunity and because they think they’l rise up in prosperity if they work hard (oh, how wrong they’ll find that ideology to be). The Arab community has reportedly spoke out against 9/11 and other such extremist attacks.

Remember, Allah has instructed his followers that violence is wrong and any such sinners would not be allowed into the afterlife. It just speaks to the usual strand of nativism that has afflicted this country: we saw it against the Irish and Italian in the early 1900s and recently against Mexican immigrants. Despite the fact that we’re a nation of migrants (and the Native Americans were the sole original inhabitants of this country), we seek to vilify anyone who doesn’t fit into our suburban WASP vision of perfection.

Falcon Heene and his family have become the new American parable. Far from the squeaky-clean nuclear family who worked hard and engaged in thrift to make ends meet, now we have attention-starved narcissists who will do anything to get the spotlight.

The latest Bubble Boy fiasco is a symptom of a decaying culture that is rotten at the core. We have become so numb to stuff like Big Brother and Survivor we think all of us can become celebrities, for absolutely no good reason. We have fulfilled the prophecy of the avant-garde classic The Man With the Camera: now we all live in a fishbowl, gingerly watching each other’s movements, hoping for our 15 nanoseconds of fame.

And so now they’re under prosecution for filing a false crime. Serves them right. It’s become a cliche, but I really do feel the kid is suffering in all of this. To grow up with such d-bag parents and not be recognized as their offspring with tender loving care, but instead just a plot so they can get another network show.

And you know the sad thing? They would get ratings because some people out there would actually bother to watch these clowns. We have become a nation of helpless and paralyzed spectators, wandering to whatever train-wreck spectacle dazzles our attention.

Consider the metaphor; we were literally distracted by bright lights and a giant structure. While Barack Obama was making a historic visit down here at UNO, the rest of the country was caught up in one family’s bid for notoriety. Not to toot my own horn, but it was a historic moment where a politician actually bothered to visit here post-Katrina to address our area, and instead, what is the rest of the country enamored with? Some annoying former reality show participant who has seen his obscure notion of recognition go up in flames, with one last desperate bid for the cameras.

Like I said, this is becoming a symptom of a larger disease of our times. We’re so used to instantaneous gratification, we seem to have forgotten the human element that previously surrounded us. People will regularly degrade themselves in YouTube videos just to get hits. It seems we no longer reward behavior which is intelligent, upstanding, or creative. Now we value and champion whoever is the most outrageous. It’s like a bizarre inversion of social customs: whoever most violates our notions of ethics and civility gets the cash reward. All this angry cynic has to say is: huh?

Granted, we’ve never been the most enlightened batch of chumps to inherit this rock we call Earth. But where exactly did this shift take place? When exactly did we stop curbing alcohol abuse and start glorifying it in popular music? Since when has parenting become less a duty and more a burdensome distraction? Since when have kids become accessories to make us feel better, complement our egos, or just as bargaining incentives? For God’s sakes, why are we so interested in what Britney Spears will screw up at next but won’t even say”hi” to one another as we pass the hallways?

Surely Bubble Boy’s family would love that I’m discussing them right now (after all, that’s what they’re after, isn’t it?). But I feel the one, true Bubble Boy will soon come to claim his crown:

Salutations, dear reader! I assume since you’ve stumbled over here that you’re in grave assistance of help in the English department (and I don’t just mean talking to your advisor). Perhaps you’re a science student and they’re forcing you to take a bunch of classes studying Shakespeare and you could, quite frankly, care less?

Well, you’re in the right place. As an aspiring writer and college student myself, I thought I’d let you in on some tricks of the trade and divulge some trade secrets of us scholarly intellectuals who pour our noses through dusty books and try to figure out just what the hell John Keats was talking about.

And now I present to you, free of charge, your guide to literature classes!

Step 1: Pick a random liberal cause

This is one of the most overlooked but important aspects of literary criticism. After all, what would a text be without ham-handed lecturing? Here’s a list of some favorite ideas authors and teachers love to discuss. When in doubt, just pick one of the below and blurt it out during a class discussion:

• Objectification of women/feminism
• Evils of industrialization
• Alienation
• Loss of innocence (this is a real popular one)
• General “life sucks” thread

Remember, nothing fiction ever turns out happy or looks or the positive or normal side of life. All “realist” works involve complicated love triangles, suicide, conflicted people, and rich middle-class douchebags with nothing better to do than apparently subtly argue with one another. Enjoy!

Step 2: Always overanalyze everything

That’s right, no line, rhyme, bit of dialogue, or ending is ever just what it is. It goes without saying (perhaps you should write it down….HARDY HARDY HAR!) that there is always a hidden meaning or complicated connotation to it. For instance, let’s take this following line:

“Johny walked to the store to buy some bread.”

To the average reader, a simple declarative statement. Not so to burned-out professors who publish in obscure journals. The “bread” represents the earth, as bread is commonly a naturally-grown grain. One could argue that Johny here has a naturalistic urge to escape the smothering confines of suburbia.

Howeverm if you wante dto take a dim and pessismistic view, one could argue going to the store represents being stuck in the chains of commerce, and thus he is a victim of commercialization. It’s all up to you, really. Keep in mind, nothing is ever just something. A cigar may just be a ciagr, but what does it represent, Freud?

Step 3: Ignore the author

There’s this little myth that the author has a certain intende dmeaning or puts himself in his own work. “Why, he wrote the story, surely he brings his own expereinces to the table, right?” you say. Wrong, my naieve friend. A story is just a story.

For instance, James Joyce wrote many stories about frustrated men who seemed unable to communicate with anyone around them. Joyce himself was widely ackowledged to be a belligerent drunk who hated Ireland. But scholars assert he had nothing at all to with any of the emotions cropping up in his stories, even though he kinda wrote them and they sprang from his conciousness. Bollocks.

Many authors have said they have “written poems even [they] don’ understand”. This is commonly understood to be a fancy way of saying “I wrote a bunch of deep-sounding bs to confuse people and look smart”.

Well, hope this helped. Good luck on writing those papers and don’t forget to buy too many clove cigarettes!

The LGBT community continues to be a sadly-ignored and marginalized group in wrestling. It’s kind of to be expected, though; with such a masculine and agressive form of entertainment, there’s hardly any room for positive potrayals of homosexuals.

It’s something that has been on my mind since the article I discussed in my last blog post. Wrestling occupies a weird niche: one can’t deny the latent sexual undertones of two men doused in baby oil and sweat, dressed in their underwear and rolling around trying to gain control over one another. At the same time, the very thought of homosexuality becomes repulsive, because of the redneck contigent out in the crowd and the natural impulse twoards “manly” thought and behavior.

The few characters that have been featured as being outright homosexual were typically effeminate villians who riled up the crowd and played to their prejudices. The first of these was Goldust, who appeared in the pre-Attitude era and was quite controversial for his day. He played off the fears of the audience and the wrestlers, utilizing groping and psychological tactics to play mind games. He really pushed the boundaries and upset the fans.

Now, in the PG Era, when everything is carefully sanitized and re-written so the kids can buy John cena T-shirts, he’s marketed as an “eccentric outsider” who’s supposed to be a parable for anyone who’s felt different or unique. His past flirtations with his opponents are all but gone.

The other memorable performers were, of course, Billy and Chuck. At first they were just your average, run-of-the-mill heels, but soon they began to display affection for one another. The fans were both disgusted and intrigued with this odd behavior. However, it was all revealed to be a ruse and hastily retconned as a so-called “publiciy stunt”.

This was obviously intended to get publicity and really court controversy. They instead copped out and didn’t want to fully go through with it. This isn’t some gay man or angry left-winger ranting here, but rather a fan looking at this from a pragmatic and civil rights perspective.

When gays have popped up in the ring, they’re mainly used as comedic relief. The bookers and the promotion refuse to take them seriously, instead viewing them through the stereotypical lens of bumbling goofs, effeminate fairies, and incompetent wussies.

Ocasionally, however, thee’s a slight condemnation of homophobia, with the flamoyant performers exposing the straight-laced mindset as limiting and playing off their paranoia. Towards Rico’s later face run, he utilized this to his advantage, most notably against Charlie Haas.

The day when we get a normal, babyface potrayal of a homosexual wrestler looks to be a long day in the future. But hey, we got a black President, so never say never in America, right? There are a few perfomers who are actually gay in real life: Pat Patterson and Kanyon. Unfortnately, as is the case with the on-screen product as well, this is maninly kept hush-hush, and to come out the closet is akin to a dangerous tabboo that may lead one to being ostracized and blackballed in the business.

The fact that I’m an afficionado of mock combat is, quite honestly, something I tend not to mention in the company of others. As you can imagine, among friends, it’s something I keep to myself at times. But an article that was recently published in the Village Voice picqued my interest and awakened something that has been laying dormant in me for a long time.

Recently, it analyzed a recent ROH show and claimed it was perfect for gay men because of the latent homerotic undertones inheent in its matches. For those who are curious, you can read it yourself and make up your mind here: http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-03-11/voice-choices/blood-match

Quite frankly, I woulda have expected better than hem than this ciched rubbish. But then again, they’ve always had a reputation of being elitist high-culture snobs, in my opinion. By now, I am quite frankly tired of all the criticisms and insults lodged against wrestling: “It’s fake!” “It’s gay!” “It’s so lame!”

I will not deny that it is pre-planned and choreographed. This fact is indesputable and beyond common knowledge. So, yes, in that sense, it is fake. What’s not fake, though, is all the injuries these brave souls go through. Tell me, how is Edge’s recent torn Achilles tendon false? Watch the guy at the local high school gym promotion bleed from his head and ask him how cartoonish it feels.

I think a good majority of fans are, by now, aware of its rather theatrical style (at least, I hope). In fact, this becomes part of the spectacle. We passionate and hardcore fans have become like patrons at a play production: aware of its expectations, always critiquing the substance in an effort to improve it.

If the whole “don’t watch it because it’s fake” argument holds merit, why even bother with most forms of popular entertainment? Should people stop watching South Park because it’s animated and doesn’t involve three-dimensional flesh-and-blood protagonists? Should I turn off the television when House comes on because I possess the knowledge that in real life Hgh Laurie is not actually an acerbic doctor? There does exist this little concept called suspension of disbelief, ya know.

And speaking of South Park, there was recently an episode dealing with professional wrestling. Quite frankly, I didn’t find it that entertaining. Then again, South Park hasn’t really held my interest lately, what with its reactionary and reducto ad absurdum attacks on liberal ideas. Regardless, it went for the obvious route of viewing wrestling as a male soap opera.

In contrast, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, a superb show if I must say so myself, handled in a much more mature and thoughtful way (as mature and thoughtful as they get, that is). What we may be seeing here is a slight resurgence in the business’s popularity. As us inside fans know, the industry is cyclical, experiencing periodic ups and downs. Now we see a thourougjly postmodern fanbase; aware of its often cheesy limitations, but with a nostalgic reverence tied to childhood experiences with it.

Those who charge that it’s a bit discomforting to see two half-naked men roll around in a ring seem to be projecting their own latent homosexual feelings into the matches. If you see Triple H facing Randy Orton and the first thing that comes to mind is penis on penis, that tells me a lot more about you than it does the nature of wrestling. Not to get all Freudian on you or getting wordy with the old “no u” defense, but that’s how I feel. It’s just more projectile homophobia from people who can’t let that sort of thing rest.

So, with all this said, and all these arguments, let’s get down to the susbstance of my argument. Just why am I a wrestling fans? It’s hard to say, and I find myself gasping for even a muttering as I think about it. Perhaps WCW and WWF WWE got me when I was young. My brother exposed me to an episode of Nitro as a young kid in middle school, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Time went on and I stayed tuned, through the worst of times (yes, I suffered through Brock Lesnar as champion and Katie Vick….oh, what a loyal fan I am). What occured to me is that, as far-fetched as this argument is, is that wrestling is art, in a sense.

Think about it…..it’s pre-arranged, it tries to make a point, it’s performed in front of a group of people, and it often strives to elicit powerful emotions from the audience. So perhaps there is some merit to the “male soap opera” theory. Oftentimes, the storylines revolve around common themes we all encounter in life. Being betrayed by a friend, striving to compete to be the best, running up against arrogant blowhards, striving to be righteous and virtuous in a world rife with corruption. When Batista recently attacked his now former best friend Rey Mysterio, who couldn’t feel Rey-Rey’s pain, having been there before?

Wrestling combines the best of both worlds: playing on the testosterone-fueled desire for violence and bloodshed, with the public cathharsis we’ve come to expect from Shakespeare. In this gritty and bare release of pent-up agression, we fans feel either exhilirated or outraged, depending on whether the face or heel has come out on top. So, basically, RAW is theater with baby oil.

Is it true that some former fans are wandering away in something more raw, more athelic, more, dare I say it…..realer? I thik there actually is some credibility to this argument. MMA, specifically the UFC, has probably stolen away some disgruntled Attitude Era-bros. Even I’ve slightly wandered ove and have began viewing The Ultimate Fighter, without abandoning Vince McMahon’s baby. But even yo have to contend that the UFC is slightly over-the-top. The entrances, the hype, the PPVS, even how they’re building the Rashad-Rampage feud (so much for that, though, what with Jackson straight-up walking out on them). So even they’re not immune from pop culture producton values.

So, in closing, I hope you now see professional wrestling in a different light. As dorky as it sounds, we fans are a passionate bunch, and our fanatacism is not something to be taken lightly, and we are tired of the usual childish taunts levied against our favorite televsions shows. If it persists, we may have to take a steel chair upside your head.

While this may be a little late, I consider it still worth posting. So the authorities finally caught up with Roman Polanksi, eh? Where to start, where to start. It’s such a complex issue and there’s so many sides to look at it from.

On one hand, it’s about time. The guy knows he did something wrong (in the eyes of the law anyway). Why else would he be running around, evading the authorities? To seek asulym in other countries reeks of his knowledge of his guilt and just trying to escape his just desserts.

And all the Hollywood bigwigs rising to his defense makes me sick. They’r eonly defeding him because he’s a personal friend. It pisses me off that he may get off just based on name value alone. If this was you or I in this situation, we’d go to jail, no questions asked.

Those who say there isn’t a class divide in this country are incredibly blind. If you make it in the film or entertainment industry, you can skirt past the moral laws set up in this country. Just because Roman Polanki can toss oyt money to hire a high-rpcied lawyer, he may stand a (however small) chance of beating the rap.

Let’s not forget what he’s accused of; having sex with a 13-year old girl, and this after drugging her up. That’s pretty f’ed-up and reprehensible, no matter how you really look at it.

On the other hand, as a strong libertarian, I believe in the individual’s personal rights, and so Polanski is justified in this account. What he does is his personal business. It should not be up for anyone to infringe on his personal life.

As well, the girl who originally was hought to have been taken advantage of has forgiven Polanski. She admitted it was consenual, that she willingly took drugs, and no longer seeks to prosecute him. If she doesn’t desire vengeance, what business do the police have tracking him down and arresting him?

What I’m getting at here is if the so-called victim doesn’t care, what use is there in pursuing it? In the eyes of the the law, there is no crime. What this quite honestly sounds like to me is a wild party that got way out of hand.

Let’s cut the guy a break. He’s really been through enough. He went through the Holocaust, watched his wife get murdered in the notorious Manson Family ordeal, and now he’s got this on his hands. It seems like the moral contingency out there has ahd it out for him for whatever reason (probably for releasing thoughtful and provoking films), and were just waiing to seize him, regardless of whatever shenaningans or trickery they had to use.

It’s interesting to note the link between his art and his life. In Repulsion, we witnessed a possibly schizophrenic young lady have a psychological breakdown. The themes included were paranoia, a suffocating sense of being trapped, and the breakdown of a rational, objective view of reality.

In fact, many of Polanki’s films reflect a cynical, pessismistic view of human nature and an impending sense of doom or oblivion for the protagonists at large. It becomes tempting to link this with his up-and-down crazy personal life.

So, I’m somewhat torn. Part of me feels he is no more special than anyone else and he must obey the law and serve his time. At other times I feel he is his own individual and should be left alone, and hasn’t erred too seriously. Who knows? Time shal tell.