An interesting article on cliches in film, or more accurately, how they have changed. There are the givens like the fact that no matter where someone on the screen lives in Paris, the Eiffel Tower will always be visible through their window. Really, keep your eyes open and you’ll notice it.
Fans of traditional western movies, for example, know that the gunmen on the American frontier settled their disputes fair and square, meeting in one-on-one main-street pistol duels, ideally at noon. I was shocked when Elmore Leonard said he made it a rule to omit that scene from the western books and movies he wrote. He claims no one would ever be so foolish as to do that.
Good on Elmore Leonard. Thankfully, for the most part, you’ll never see a western movie with two pistol-swinging gunmen facing each other down in the middle of main street. Nowadays, mainstreet is turned into a gritty, gut-shot, messy bloodbath. Think of Open Range or Unforgiven. Watching Open Range, I remember thinking that it felt like watching Vietnam War footage.
One “wisdom” not mentioned in the article is that, as of the past few decades, Republican or Conservative means bad.
When I was very young, I wasn’t subjected to much television or film. It’s not that I’m that old (46), it’s just a result of where I grew up at. The 60’s and 70’s, in the mountains of Idaho didn’t lend itself to much television. Try to see what kind of reception you get with rabbit ears while living in a town of 400 or so people at the bottom of the second deepest canyon in North America. Also, there tends to be very little in the way of local theater going experiences. What people mostly did for entertainment was bitch about the weather and government, and read a lot.
The reason I bring this up is because while growing up, my young eyes and ears caught much of what the old-timers would say and talk about. There was a certain standard of how a “man” was supposed to act. I still have vivid memories of ranch hands standing around the fireplace, holding cups of coffee and talking about one thing or another and through it all, for the most part, there was a certain code of behavior that was pretty cut and dry. That’s not to say that there were not those who did not or would not live up to expected standards. They just weren’t respected. In hindsight, I realize that human behavior is what it is and has not changed much for perhaps thousands of years, but, often times, people like to put on a good and/or righteous face. A few years later, when I became more exposed to film and television, I saw, in westerns, much of the same kind of “code” of behavior that I witnessed as a child when men with names like Jake, Jasper, and Arlin stood around that stove holding their coffee talking in low-toned, rumbling voices.
At the time I wondered if this code of behavior presented in the western films was a reflection of reality, or if the reality was a reflection of the cliché. I still haven’t figured that one out because I’m pretty sure that Jake, Jasper, or Arlin hadn’t had much exposure to films and television as well. Of course, I’m sure that they all had lots of experience reading Louis L Amour and other writers of the Western Mythos. I also must point out that some of the most well-read individuals I’ve every met were simple, rural types that I’ve come across in remote villages and mountain campsites. Show me a real cowboy who spends a good portion of their life in the outdoors away from people, doing the things that cowboys do, living the lonely life that cowboys do, and I would be willing to bet that they are extremely well-read. Think about it, what the hell else is there to do out there in the great wide open? You will rarely see something so incongruous as a bow-legged, filthy cowboy with a wad of tobacco in his mouth, punctuating his dialect with “y,all”, “fixin’”, and displaying the manners of someone ill-equipped to handle social interactions beyond telling his dog to “Git in the back of the truck” while at the same time, in casual conversation, throwing out a quote by Keats or Oscar Wilde or applying a Shakespearean incident to an anecdote. Trust me, this isn’t all that uncommon.
Which brings me back to the whole cliché thing. Sometimes the anti-cliché is the cliché.
This morning I, along with nine other sorry S.O.B.’s, went through the hell that is known as level testing in Krav Maga. This particular bout was for completing level 1 and moving on to level 2 training. It was nearly three hours of abject brutality. This was, without a doubt, the most physically exhausting experience of my life. But it’s all good because I passed. Hell, we all passed which which is cool because it’s not easy, and people do fail these tests. I did catch a knee to the mouth, causing a small split in both upper and lower lips. Had it not been for my mouthpiece, I would’ve lost some teeth and had some stitches instead of licking off the blood and carrying on.
From the moment G.W. Bush became the President Elect, nitwits were calling for his impeachment. Such people were, quite simply, idiots. Now, B.O. is the President Elect and the nitwits are already crawling out of the woodwork.
Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet as the 44th president of the United States but groups are springing up online calling for his impeachment.
On Facebook, an “Impeach Barack Obama” group has attracted more than 700 members and a lively debate about the Democrat’s election victory on Tuesday over Republican John McCain.
Another Facebook group of the same name has 160 members and urges others to join because “we might as well get a head start on the impeachment of Obama.”
Look, I’ll be the first to tell you that B.O. makes me real nervous. From what he’s said, done, and who he has hung out with for the past 20 years, I don’t feel real good about it. His views on the Constitution and “spreading the wealth around” are downright idiotic, and nitwit like. Yes, he says he will reach out, close divides, and all that feel good shit, and, yes, actions speak louder than words--something the majority of voters seemed to have forgotten,
But.
BUT ...
Unlike the dolts from the left who brayed “Bush lied ...” and who did everything they could to marginalize and tear him down, I will at least give the guy a chance and hope that I’m wrong about him.
If, as I fear, the left begins to threaten freedom of speech or my Second Amendment rights, or go all Woodrow Wilson or FDR, I’ll cry bullshit. But, until that happens, I’m plugging my nose, swallowing the caster oil, and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. No Daily Kos or Move On bullshit here because the ends does not justify the means. Stupid nonsense from the left--and believe me, there’s plenty of it--does not justify stupid nonsense from the right.
Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.
Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American.
The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.
This is another pathetic attempt at trying to silence someone who doesn’t think as desired or asks the wrong questions.
One of the biggest concerns I have with a Democratic super majority is the well documented desire from the left to implement the Fairness Doctrine. Freedom of speech and expression, and a free flowing of the market place of ideas without government or Party interference is crucial.
A while ago I posted about my wife’s voter registration adventure. Yesterday she was featured in a news story aired on KUTV, the local CBS affiliate. Basically, what it boils down to is that there is no system to verify a person’s eligibility to vote. Shortly after the story aired, my wife received a phone call from Utah’s Utah’s Lt. Governor, Gary Herbert to discuss her concerns. Granted, you have to give him kudos for wanting to discuss the matter, but Anna quickly grew frustrated at what seemed, to her, not much more than the usual political attempt to smooth-talk her in the hopes that it all goes away. I’m not saying that is the case, but it seemed that way.
Right now, the basic guideline on one’s eligibility to vote as spelled out in the Constitution is that in order to vote, you must be a citizen and 18 years of age. Much of this is explained primarily in the Twenty-Sixth Amendment,
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The problem is with Section 2 of the Twenty Sixth Amendment in that Congress has never established any means to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. Rightfully, Congress has addressed section two in both the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, but, apparently has never addressed section 2 of the Twenty Sixth Amendment. The only thing that seems to have been established is to verify that a certain name on a voter registration roll can be matched with an ID to verify that the person exists and lives at the same address as noted on the voter registration record. What does that mean? It means that the very foundation upon which the whole system rests is a crumbling, weak, unsteady mess. The whole house faces collapse. Showing one’s state ID, employer ID, paycheck, or utility bill says absolutely nothing with regards to one’s right to vote. Because of this, the chance of opportunity for voter fraud or manipulation is extremely high which is unconscionable. Stepping into the voting booth and casting a ballot is one of the few, and most powerful, tools citizens have at their disposal to have an influence on what direction our government--both local and national--heads.
As long as the status quo remains, the very cornerstone of our democracy will always be in doubt.
The only way to reasonably verify one’s eligibility to vote is to require a passport, period. A passport is the simplest, most efficient means to establish both citizenship and age--the two stated Constitutional requirements in the Twenty Sixth Amendment to vote. I don’t believe it would take any tinkering with the Constitution, and would not require government tax dollars to implement. If you want to vote, get a passport. Hell, a passport is not any more difficult to get then a drivers license. I know, I’ve got one.
Some people I’ve brought this up to have complained about how it violates or disenfranchises voters by creating “roadblocks” to their right to vote. Nonsense. Securing the foundation upon which this country operates secures your voting rights by minimizing the chance of your valid vote being undermined or diluted by those who do not have a right to vote, not to mention the underlying lack of confidence in the system.
Today, I actually spoke with someone who was nearly hysterical at the notion of showing a passport to vote. They ranted on about how “they have a damned right” and shouldn’t have to show anyone anything to vote.” My question to them was, “Does that mean our right to free speech comes without some responsibilities? Does the fact that you can’t libel someone or scream ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater where no fire is present, mean that your right to free speech is being violated? Does the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms mean that you have a right to have a fargin’ nuclear warhead in your back yard? If not, does that mean that your Constitutional rights are being violated?”
Of course I was met with stammering silence.
Establishing a simple means of verifying of one’s Constitutional prerequisites to vote is securing your right to vote.
Since the election of G.W. Bush there has been much national hand wringing with regards to our voting system and the potential of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. We’ve got punch ballots, various electronic forms of voting, etc. It doesn’t have to be so damned complicated. In fact I can think of just two steps that would go a long ways to minimizing the chance of voter fraud/manipulation and balloting.
1.Require a passport to both register and vote.
2.Paper ballots.
Typically, I dislike most science fiction. In fact I’ll go out on a limb and state that I hate Star Wars and, with the exception of Enterprise, I would rather vomit than take in an episode of Star Trek. Granted, Enterprise has its fair share of cheese, but it seemed to accept that fact and, often times, relish in it.
After stating the above, I will now state that after watching a few episodes of the new version of Battlestar Galactica, it is one of the best shows on television. It’s heavy, gritty, and by God I’ve yet to see one alien, ray gun, or cheese. The writing and acting is very good for the most part. It is easily as good as anything on television.
Generally speaking, much of what Obama espouses is Marxist light. Anytime you talk about “redistributing” wealth, you are treading on Marxist territory. Ok, call it socialism, but socialism is Marxism light. What I don’t understand is why everyone gets up in arms about pointing this fact out. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it damn well is a duck for all intents and purposes. Even if it ain’t a duck, it may as well be a duck because it does everything a duck does.
Obama’s tax proposal relies heavily on wealth redistribution. His so called tax cut for all but those making more than 250 K holds more than the average person is aware of. One fact that people seem willing to overlook is that this so called tax cut program also gives tax money to people who don’t pay taxes at all.
Also, it seems that many people aren’t aware that the top 10 percent income earners pay something like 80 percent of all taxes. The bottom 40 percent pay nothing.
Also, no matter what measures government takes to increase taxes on corporations, corporations simply do not pay them. Oh, they fork over the money to the government, but they then pass down that expense, like all expenses, to customers, workers, etc. If it gets bad enough, many of them will simply pack up and move their operations to another, more tax advantaged country. Tell me, how does that help middle class America? Answer, it doesn’t.
Which is why the prospect of an Obama Presidency is not too appealing to me.
Next Saturday I’ll be testing for level 2 in Krav Maga. I’ve been trying to go as much as possible in preparation and it’s been kicking my ass which is what it’s supposed to do. Last night we were working on some ground techniques; the kind of thing you might employ if someone has you down on your back, on top of you, and pummeling the shit out of you. We were doing some arm trap techniques—trapping the arm, rolling them over, pound them in the nuts a couple of times and escape. As a result, my shoulders and arms are sore.
The ground stuff in Krav is pretty basic. Against a real good grappler—ground fighter you’d probably be in a world of hurt, but most people aren’t experienced ground fighters. Your average attacker, if he does get you on the ground would be play meat to a knowledgeable Krav practitioner.
A couple of months ago I had surgery on my left elbow and I was forced to take a few weeks off. Just before the surgery I was in decent shape considering the atrocious condition I was in before I began taking Krav on a regular basis. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t some overweight couch potato, but I was just not in good shape. When I came back after recuperating from the surgery I thought I was going to die. The first two weeks back I was puking my guts out every time I worked out. However, the last two weeks I haven’t tossed my guts yet. I did come close last night though.
Anyway, it’ll be good to get the level 2 out of the way. Then the fun really begins.
Like I’ve said before, I’m hesitant to get political on this blog because of experiences on another site I used to have. People have a tendency to get out of hand. But to hell with it, I’m going to go political. You are welcome to comment as long as it’s not stupidity. If you want to have an intellectually honest discussion, go for it in the comments. But if—when—the comments go stupid, I’ll simply not let them be posted.
I remember, growing up, the old adage of never discussing politics or religion. I’ll agree with the religion aspect because discussing something based solely on faith and belief is a losing proposition. However, as far as politics are concerned, there is no reason why they can’t be discussed. The only people who will get offended are those who refuse to participate in an intellectually honest discussion and those kinds of people usually have other motives in mind. In fact, I believe that politics should be openly discussed and during that discussion, the participants should be willing to change their minds in the face of facts and historical precedent. There have been many times that I’ve altered long held beliefs in the face of a well reasoned, intellectually honest discussion. Changing beliefs does not change the facts and in matters of politics and culture, “beliefs” should play a small role in lieu of empirical, historical facts.
Sure, to cast aside any form of “gut feeling” or belief would be superhuman, but to let blind ideology stand in the way of reason does no good for anyone or any culture. I believe that any belief that we hold should be willingly held up to scrutiny and that willingness to let it go, no matter how dear we hold it—belief that is—is simply intellectual honesty.
To be sure, this blog is mostly centered on writing, but dammit, sometimes I just gotta vent!
Okay, history is replete with shenanigans from both sides of the political spectrum, but this time around it seems to be most evident in Obama’s camp.
It turns out that half of Obama’s haul in 2008 has come in contributions of $200 dollars or less. These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors. Obama earlier announced he’d accept public financing if the GOP nominee did the same (and then, of course, broke his pledge in June after realizing he’d far surpass previous fundraising records). So there’s a pattern. By keeping his donor list secret now, the Illinois senator has heightened speculation of financial impropriety.
What strikes me is that the media can go all gaga over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, yet not even pose a rudimentary question as far as Barack Obama’s questionable campaign contributions.
I mean, this kind of thing is alarming.
the Obama campaign refuses to screen credit card contributions for potential fraudulent transactions, and thus any individual could make unlimited contributions using infinite aliases.
It turns out, for example, that credit card companies deploy a variety of security measures to guarantee the processing of electronic transactions. For campaign giving, the key safeguards are vendor address verification, country of residence, and proof of citizenship. We now know that Obama operatives at the campaign’s website have disabled the security settings on vendor identity to expedite online donations, gifts that then speed through to fund election activities that would be flagged as illegal under normal FEC reporting standards.
Allapundit at Hot Air has shown that, as the news of Obama’s open-access credit card procedures went viral across the conservative blogosphere, readers conducted dozens of “experiments” to see if the Obama campaign would accept their money. In no time, the Obama campaign was accepting money from the likes of “JarackBoe BOamabiden” and “Nodda Realperson.” It’s unlikely that these donations will be flagged as fraudulent once the original credit card transactions clear. Thus, while amassing its illegal campaign-contributions war chest, the Obama campaign brazenly flouts the federal election regulations enacted during an earlier reform era of “hope and change.” Meanwhile, the pro-Obama liberal press looks the other way, partnering with the very corruption and duplicity the media industry has attacked during eight years of Republican power in Washington.
Make no mistake, the Democratic nominee may now be running the biggest underground finance operation since President Nixon deployed the “plumbers” as his key operatives for CREEP in 1972.
What’s particularly ironic is that the door to this form of “change” was opened by McCain himself with the absurd McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform act.
Today was a momentous day for me and my wife, Anna. This morning, along with 195 others from 62 different countries, my wife raised her right hand and took the oath of citizenship of the United States of America. Immediately after the oath, a microphone was passed around to various new citizens who were given the opportunity to publicly state what being a U.S. citizen meant to them. The heartfelt statements coming from people hailing from Palestine, Venezuela, Russia, Canada, U.K., India, etc was enough to cause me to come to the conclusion that no matter how divided we seem to be now, this country--the principles upon which it was founded--is far more robust than what I realized. At the end of the ceremony, the new citizens were reminded that there was still time for them to vote and were advised to take their new certificates of citizenship with them to the Salt Lake County Courthouse and register. My wife has been looking forward to being able to participate in this election for some time.
At the County Clerk’s office, Anna filled out the voter registration form and handed it to a young woman who took it, said “thanks”, and turned to walk away. “Excuse me,” Anna said. “Do you need to see any kind of ID?”
The young woman looked at my wife with true bewilderment.
“I have an accent, I’d think you would want to make sure I’m even eligible to vote.”
“Uh, okay,” the voter registration woman said.
Anna pulled out the certificate of citizenship and held it out to the woman who barely put in the effort to look at it before walking away.
This didn’t sit well with my wife. Her view is that the very foundation upon which this country is built is the election process. To treat the process so shoddily is shocking. So, while driving home, she decided to call the County Clerk’s office and ask them just how, exactly, do they determine the eligibility of those registering to vote. She’s only been a citizen for an hour and already she’s raising hell. Gotta love her.
She actually managed to get a hold of someone and expressed her concern at not being asked for some form of ID or proof of eligibility to vote and wanted to know what processes were employed to verify the eligibility of voters. Anna was told she had no need to worry about it, that measures would be taken. She pressed the County employee about the measures and was told that that was privileged information.
“Privileged? asked Anna. “I pay taxes that pay your salary. I have every right to expect you to tell me about the measures you take to verify the eligibility of voters.” At this point, she was forwarded to a higher-up who basically told her that they “trust” people. When asked why they don’t at least check ID’s, the higher-up told her that doing so makes some people angry.
Huh?
Anna’s take is that there should be some sort of verification of eligibility to vote especially if you are obviously not a natural born citizen.
I think that she’s right. It just leaves too many holes through which voter fraud can take place. I used to be against the notion of a requirement that all U.S. citizens have a passport, but now I’m thinking that the possession and display of a passport should be the requirement to both register and vote.
Apparently, Barak Obama is laying out a new economic plan. I haven’t gone through it thoroughly, but one thing is unsettling.
Penalty-Free Withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s in 2008 and 2009. Obama is calling for new legislation to allow families to withdraw 15% of their retirement savings – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without facing a tax-penalty this year (including retroactively) and next year.
I work in financial services. Daily, I work with people dealing with matters of retirement, IRA’s, and 401(k)’s. For many, their 401(k) is the only retirement that they will have. If this aspect of Obama’s economic plan is implemented, there will be many more people who will be insufficiently funded for retirement. If government must interfere, it should interfere on the side of strongly encouraging people to actively plane for and contribute to their retirement, not making it easier for them to screw it up.