Pun Salad

The blog's eye candy points to the Kindle edition, simply because I like the garish cover art. And it's a deal, a mere $3.00 as I type. I read the paperback I purchased back in the early 1970s, for a mere 95¢, and it also has a very cool cover, art by Tom Adams,. who—not that it matters—was also known for his Agatha Christie book covers.

The book's Wikipedia page claim that "some critics" don't like it as much as The Big Sleep or Farewell, My Lovely; I'm with the "others" (and Chandler himself) who consider it his best novel.

Our hero/narrator, Marlowe, becomes unlikely friends with Terry Lennox when his (temporarily ex-) wife Sylvia kicks him out of her Rolls-Royce, disgusted at his inebriation. Marlowe drags him home, sobers him up slightly, and their relationship is born. A while later, he finds out that Terry and Sylvia have remarried. But by page 19 (in my edition) Terry's at Marlowe's door, asking/demanding to be driven to Tijuana. And that happens, but it soon develops that Sylvia has been brutally murdered. And that puts Marlowe in accessory-after-the-fact trouble with the LA law.

Amazingly, that seems to resolve itself relatively quickly, but not before Marlowe interacts with thuggish cops, a threatening gangster, a nosy reporter, and a shady lawyer working for an anonymous client. Pretty soon he's on to his next major case, tracking down a famous missing novelist who's a notorious drunk. And that seemingly has nothing to do with Terry Lennox… or does it?

Slight spoiler: of course it does.

As noted, I think Chandler's at his best here, with Marlowe's insightful cynicism about southern California. He also does some pretty crackerjack detective work here. (I think this is a marked contrast to The Big Sleep, where things, more or less, just happened, with him as observer.)

And there's a very surprising twist at the end. (Well, maybe you won't find it surprising. I still remember being surprised myself, around 50 years ago.)

But at a gas station Dunkin' drive-through in my own Live Free or Die state:

Via Yahoo News, which notes the level of sympathetic humor exhibited by one of my fellow Granite Staters:

The DunKings were apparently not contacted for comment.

Also of note:

• Gotham has its Bat-Signal, Durham and Portsmouth have their Virtue-Signals. NHJournal reports what's on the agenda in those towns tonight: Durham, Portsmouth Expected To Pass Israel-Hamas 'Ceasefire' Resolutions Monday.

  The seacoast communities of Durham and Portsmouth, both known for progressive politics, are scheduled to vote on resolutions Monday night calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war currently raging in Gaza. The issue has divided Granite State politics, inspired anti-Israel protests at the University of New Hampshire, and has even led to property damage and arrests.

  Why, critics ask, are local officials wading into this divisive issue involving events some 6,000 miles away?

  I would be one of those critics asking that question, but I already know the answer: they are wading into this issue because it's a chance for them to demonstrate, once again, their moral narcissism.

  The draft text of Durham's resolution is here, amid the other documentation for tonight's meeting. It is loaded with oh-so-typical saccharine dreck, example:

  The Town of Durham encourages open and respectful dialogue within our community, promoting an atmosphere of peace, empathy, and mutual respect, while recognizing the varied and deeply personal connections many residents have to the Israel-Gaza conflict.

  Good for us! We're nice!

  I'm pretty sure the only justification the resolution offers for its ceasefire request, other than the virtue-signalling, is that the ongoing violence is really affecting the "mental and emotional well-being" of some residents. Needless to say, those residents aren't in any danger of being slaughtered when (for example) they attend a local concert.

  The document also includes mailed-in comments from Rabba Kaya Stern-Kaufman (She,Her) of Portsmouth's Temple Israel; and also Adeena Ahsan of UNH's "Palestine Solidarity Coalition". The last one is pretty depraved, so if you're in the mood for that…

• Polly wants a cracker, and also wants you to believe Polly is smart. Pierre Lemieux conducts his own AI experiments on Microsoft's "Copilot" and discovers: AI Bots Parrot Dominant Opinions and Biases. His transcript, with "You" being Lemieux:

  You

  Give me a good argument against DEI.

  Copilot

  Certainly! Here’s an argument that some people put forth against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives:

  1. Meritocracy and Fairness:

  Critics argue that DEI efforts can sometimes conflict with the principle of meritocracy. They believe that hiring, promotions, and other decisions should be based solely on individual qualifications, skills, and performance.

  They contend that prioritizing diversity might lead to hiring less-qualified candidates simply to meet diversity quotas, which could undermine organizational effectiveness.

  However, it’s essential to recognize that these arguments are not universally accepted, and there are counterarguments in favor of DEI. Many believe that promoting diversity and ensuring equal opportunities enhance overall productivity, creativity, and social justice within organizations.

  You

  Give me a good argument in favor of DEI.

  Copilot

  Certainly! Here’s a compelling argument in favor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):

  Enhanced Creativity and Innovation:

  Diverse teams bring together individuals with varied backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. When people from different walks of life collaborate, they offer unique insights and approaches.

  This diversity of thought fosters creativity and innovation. It encourages the exploration of unconventional solutions and helps organizations adapt to changing environments.

  Companies that prioritize DEI tend to outperform their peers in terms of product development, problem-solving, and market responsiveness.

  Remember that DEI is not just about fairness; it’s also about maximizing an organization’s potential by leveraging the richness of human diversity. 🌟

  You

  You are obviously in favor of DEI, aren’t you?

  Copilot

  As an AI language model, I don’t hold personal opinions or preferences. My purpose is to provide information and engage in conversation based on the input I receive. If you have any other questions or need assistance, feel free to ask! 😊

  You

  So why did you add a caveat to the argument against but two reinforcements (“compelling” and “not just about fairness”) to the argument in favor?

  Lemieux's analysis is spot on, and is a good argument against state "regulation" of AI; it's certain to ensure the "dominant" narrative will "parrot" that favored by whoever has the reins of power.

  And there's a dynamite rendering of that AI parrot:

  

• You need to subscribe to listen. But let me recommend, anyway, Jeff Maurer's recent audio track, where he wonders: In What Dumpster Did Elizabeth Warren Find Her Economics Degree?

  It's a trick question, he hastens to say: she doesn't have an economics degree. A quick WikiLookup shows her BS is in speech pathology and audiology, and a JD from Rutgers.

  Maurer goes on to eviscerate Senator Warren's economic illiteracy, specifically on her tirade about Wendy's consideration of "dynamic pricing", which she calls "price gouging plain and simple".

  I don't think she's a socialist. Once again, I don't think anyone, including the people I know who identify as Marxists or socialists, some of whom are smart people, I honestly don't consider any of them to be for real socialists. Like Bernie Sanders, not a socialist in my opinion. I would classify Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, for that matter, as not socialists, but just a couple adults who don't understand economics. Adults who don't understand economics, but who do like to rant and rave about how bad corporations are, and some people really like that. I am not one of those people. I think that brainlessly flipping the bird at a corporation gets you nowhere. I think the common thread running through Elizabeth Warren's bad opinions is that she substitutes that attitude for analysis.

  Yeah.