Perhaps the most personal aspect of a woman’s physiology, other than opening her most private self during sex, is her menstrual process. Menstruation begins deep inside a woman’s body, but it becomes an external part of her whenever she is discharging the fluids from her womb. In addition to the emotional responses to this process, a woman has to deal with the physical reality of the discharging fluids. Some days, this is a minimal amount, but other days it can become a torrent of discharge that is difficult to manage. It always has an identifiable odor associated with it that most women try to avoid disclosing by using tampons, internal protection that should do the job, but often does not.
Napkins absorb much more menstrual fluid than tampons, but by inserting tampons inside the body, women think they are better protected, especially against odor. The problem is that it’s more difficult to know if a tampon leaks than it is to tell that an external pad has reached maximum absorption; in either case, once the absorption is maxed out, both kinds of products have to be changed or there could be visible evidence that the woman is in her period. Most women respond kindly in this situation, offering to help by standing/walking behind the woman in distress, offering clean pads/tampons, and/or doing whatever it takes to help the embarrassed woman deal with the immediate issue of cleaning herself and replacing the absorption product and, sometimes, even her clothes. Seldom would any woman publicly make an issue of the failed absorption or bring it to the attention of others, especially strangers.
However, on yesterday’s The Talk, not only was the apparent failure of personal protection products brought up as a topic of discussion, but the women panelists seemed to delight in discussing in explicit detail what a photograph showed, as well as how “gross” it was. As the conversation continued for several minutes, the panelists increased their personal pleasure in enlarging the issue, laughing at what on earth that “fluid” could be, but not one of the women protected the victim of their inappropriate verbal assault or shielded her identity from the curious public.
I am appalled that this conversation took place and outraged that the women were so callous in discussing what has to be the penultimate embarrassment for any woman, but most especially for an entertainer photographed while performing in a public venue.
The thought came to mind that there, but for the Grace of God, goes each of us, one time or another. Some women suffer from severe discharge during their periods, while others deal with excessive discharge following childbirth, and almost all women have to deal with disgusting discharge during the perimenopausal phase of their "change of life" process. When it is their turn to get through this difficult time, I hope that the women on The Talk have a kinder, more supportive group of women to help them than they were to a young woman singing a tribute at the funeral of Etta James last weekend. It must have taken courage to realize that “something” was going on while she was performing, but finish the performance in spite of her personal discomfort.
What no woman needs is a group of “mean girls” pointing out a personal problem to the public who really did not need to know what happened or how funny those women all thought it was.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Food + Fast + Friendly-- or NOT
When I walk into a fast-food outlet, I expect okay food, fast service, and friendly personnel behind the counter. Yesterday, I walked into a Jack in the Box with my friend after attending a showing of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (over the top excellent, by the way) and there were no employees visible. At first, I thought the restaurant was closed, but a group of 4 students came into the lobby, huddled at the corner of the counter for what looked like a group drug deal, and then fumbled their way through ... ordering their food!
This was the first time I have been required to use a kiosk to order, pay for, and then submit my meal order to personnel who only come into view to call the order number when the food is on the delivery tray!! Believe me, it's not an experience I will repeat as I expect PEOPLE to work in a restaurant, not fast food self-service. I was in the restaurant for fully 10 minutes before I had any contact with an employee, reading the menu board behind the counter, waiting to be greeted, finally asking the group of people at the end of the counter if the business was open, and then, when they departed the area, figuring out that the machine they huddled around was not an ATM but the only option I had for ordering my meal.
My initial reaction was to leave, but I already had invested time in the process, so I stumbled my way through ordering my meal and then helped my friend order hers, forgoing the option of extra cheese on her sandwich because that option was not in the kiosk option menu.
Requiring guests to use the ordering kiosk should not take the place of a human greeting. Seeing an employee behind the counter would have given me a clue that there were employees somewhere in the building, rather than wondering if I needed to return later, when someone showed up for work. Especially in a down economy, I question the wisdom of cutting people from the payroll in favor of an ordering kiosk that allows the employees who are on the clock to avoid customer contact, and, thus, avoid providing basic customer service.
I'm scratching Jack in the Box off my list of fast-food stops and sticking with live employees with whom I can ask questions and request accommodations so the food comes reasonably close to the way I like it. If they all go the way of Jack in the Box, I'll stop eating at fast food restaurants. Win-win for me, but I'm not so sure about the Jack in the Box franchisees.
This was the first time I have been required to use a kiosk to order, pay for, and then submit my meal order to personnel who only come into view to call the order number when the food is on the delivery tray!! Believe me, it's not an experience I will repeat as I expect PEOPLE to work in a restaurant, not fast food self-service. I was in the restaurant for fully 10 minutes before I had any contact with an employee, reading the menu board behind the counter, waiting to be greeted, finally asking the group of people at the end of the counter if the business was open, and then, when they departed the area, figuring out that the machine they huddled around was not an ATM but the only option I had for ordering my meal.
My initial reaction was to leave, but I already had invested time in the process, so I stumbled my way through ordering my meal and then helped my friend order hers, forgoing the option of extra cheese on her sandwich because that option was not in the kiosk option menu.
Requiring guests to use the ordering kiosk should not take the place of a human greeting. Seeing an employee behind the counter would have given me a clue that there were employees somewhere in the building, rather than wondering if I needed to return later, when someone showed up for work. Especially in a down economy, I question the wisdom of cutting people from the payroll in favor of an ordering kiosk that allows the employees who are on the clock to avoid customer contact, and, thus, avoid providing basic customer service.
I'm scratching Jack in the Box off my list of fast-food stops and sticking with live employees with whom I can ask questions and request accommodations so the food comes reasonably close to the way I like it. If they all go the way of Jack in the Box, I'll stop eating at fast food restaurants. Win-win for me, but I'm not so sure about the Jack in the Box franchisees.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Obfuscation with Rhetoric
Let me be perfectly clear: there is a chasm of difference between creating new jobs and filling existing jobs with people who may be unemployed, thus lowering the unemployment rate. Attrition means that people are fired, people retire, people quit existing jobs to accept another position, and, sometimes, people simply quit working for personal reasons. Filling these vacancies is NOT creating new jobs, but merely restaffing existing positions.
Obama’s claim is that "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect." But he argues that the country is turning around under his policies, pointing to 3 million new jobs created in the last 22 months. President Obama brags about all the new jobs his policies and practices have created – but does not provide documentation of where, when and how, referring instead to the decline in unemployment rates to support his claims.
For instance, an existing business in the desert that was in financial jeopardy announced it was closing its doors, putting 300 current employees out of work. About 4 months later, government incentives were provided to help the business keep its doors open, as well as the 300 employees working. For publicity purposes, this becomes “creating new jobs” to enhance the President’s image – but isn't it redistributing government funding to stop the hemorrhaging across the nation caused by businesses closing their doors and adding to the unemployment rosters?
Ditto with all the local road construction clogging Interstate 10 and the 3 major cross-overs that allow residents to get to work each day. Did the government provide funding that keeps current employees working, as well as hiring back those who lost their jobs when the funds ran out a few years ago, or is this another example of “creating new jobs that put Americans to work"? These over-pass projects have been on the books literally for more than a decade, but no money was available either to begin or finish them, so the plans gathered dust while workers were let go. Hiring unemployed employees is not the same as creating new jobs; it is filling pre-existing jobs with unemployed workers, but that isn’t a sound bite the media will chew.
The Keystone XL oil pipeline is a proposed new project that could create tens of thousands new jobs and revenue for the people/states involved in the planning and execution of that project, but Obama refuses to sign approval for that new project. Keystone XL would originate in Alberta, Canada and travel across many US states to its destination in the Gulf Coast, but a string of objections to the project creates a stalling tactic that will be addressed only after the 2012 election. President Obama does not want to risk potential environmental issues damaging his re-election hopes, and, if he's not sitting in the White House at the end of the year, he dodges a bullet if anything negative comes of the project in the future.
Creating NEW jobs is what this nation needs, as well as keeping the doors open for existing businesses, but when there is an opportunity to create new jobs, the President balks or makes massive mistakes, such as backing the solar business in the desert that went belly up after throwing away $500 million in government funding. Yes, $500 million. The flawed business plan was questioned and then rejected by the outgoing Bush administration, but President Obama bum-rushed the project through to enhance his plan to create new businesses, especially those that are eco-friendly, while ignoring the advice of advisors who said "Don't do this." The advisors were correct, but the mistake was made, and the media, rather than putting this blunder onto the front page, swept it into the back pages as ... insignificant? Not only were jobs lost when the doors closed on this new jobs project, but the people's federal monies were also gone.
The rhetoric may make a great sound bite and stir up supporters, but the reality is that politicians need to say what they mean, and then mean what they say.
Obama’s claim is that "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect." But he argues that the country is turning around under his policies, pointing to 3 million new jobs created in the last 22 months. President Obama brags about all the new jobs his policies and practices have created – but does not provide documentation of where, when and how, referring instead to the decline in unemployment rates to support his claims.
For instance, an existing business in the desert that was in financial jeopardy announced it was closing its doors, putting 300 current employees out of work. About 4 months later, government incentives were provided to help the business keep its doors open, as well as the 300 employees working. For publicity purposes, this becomes “creating new jobs” to enhance the President’s image – but isn't it redistributing government funding to stop the hemorrhaging across the nation caused by businesses closing their doors and adding to the unemployment rosters?
Ditto with all the local road construction clogging Interstate 10 and the 3 major cross-overs that allow residents to get to work each day. Did the government provide funding that keeps current employees working, as well as hiring back those who lost their jobs when the funds ran out a few years ago, or is this another example of “creating new jobs that put Americans to work"? These over-pass projects have been on the books literally for more than a decade, but no money was available either to begin or finish them, so the plans gathered dust while workers were let go. Hiring unemployed employees is not the same as creating new jobs; it is filling pre-existing jobs with unemployed workers, but that isn’t a sound bite the media will chew.
The Keystone XL oil pipeline is a proposed new project that could create tens of thousands new jobs and revenue for the people/states involved in the planning and execution of that project, but Obama refuses to sign approval for that new project. Keystone XL would originate in Alberta, Canada and travel across many US states to its destination in the Gulf Coast, but a string of objections to the project creates a stalling tactic that will be addressed only after the 2012 election. President Obama does not want to risk potential environmental issues damaging his re-election hopes, and, if he's not sitting in the White House at the end of the year, he dodges a bullet if anything negative comes of the project in the future.
Creating NEW jobs is what this nation needs, as well as keeping the doors open for existing businesses, but when there is an opportunity to create new jobs, the President balks or makes massive mistakes, such as backing the solar business in the desert that went belly up after throwing away $500 million in government funding. Yes, $500 million. The flawed business plan was questioned and then rejected by the outgoing Bush administration, but President Obama bum-rushed the project through to enhance his plan to create new businesses, especially those that are eco-friendly, while ignoring the advice of advisors who said "Don't do this." The advisors were correct, but the mistake was made, and the media, rather than putting this blunder onto the front page, swept it into the back pages as ... insignificant? Not only were jobs lost when the doors closed on this new jobs project, but the people's federal monies were also gone.
The rhetoric may make a great sound bite and stir up supporters, but the reality is that politicians need to say what they mean, and then mean what they say.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Stranded, NOT Abandoned
If one only reads the headlines, it must have been awful for the hikers “Abandoned on the Tram,” a headline that leads readers to think that the hikers were dangling from a Tram car on its way down the mountain, suspended over the gorge thousands of feet below, while the winds whipped the car to and fro. Actually, however, the hikers were stranded on the mountain, safe and sound, waiting out the sudden storm that shut down the Tram when it was no longer safe to operate.
The opening ‘graph (and accompanying photo) portrays 17 people left out in the fierce winds and winter weather that forced the Tram to suspend operations at 2pm. Alas, these poor abandoned hikers, appropriately dressed for a winter hike and carrying food, were left to fend for themselves at the top of the mountain, taking shelter in an old, drafty mule shed and making it through the worst night of their lives (www.mydesert.com).
A picture, however, is worth a thousand words, and one of the (other) published pictures shows that the hikers were in a metal mule shed that they fortified with plywood flooring and a “sliding door” they constructed as protection from the winter weather.
(www.mydesert.com) The spacious metal building the hikers occupied is not the height of luxury by any means, but it kept the hikers safe for the night and protected them from the worst of the winter weather. The tram car arrived at 8am to take them down to the parking lot. They were tired, cold and hungry, but safe, a fact that seems not worth mentioning by the reporter whose focus for the ending of the story is on a back window of one hiker's car smashed out by debris from the ferocious storm that came through the Valley while the hikers were stranded on the mountain.
The reader has to get well into the long article to learn that a ranger stayed at the top of the mountain to wait for the hikers to return to the ranger station, and provided the hikers with adequate shelter, as well as blankets and sleeping bags. Sure, he did not have the key to the Tram station, nor did he feel that he could accommodate that many strangers in the ranger station, but he did do what he could to help with this emergency. Things could have been a whole lot worse for the hikers, but not to worry: the ranger's name is on the list of people who ought to be fired for what they did to these poor abandoned hikers -- who obviously were NOT abandoned at all!
Lots of corny platitudes come to mind, such as "be prepared," “think before you act,” and “plan for the worst, then expect the best,” especially when weather reports called for winter weather conditions and unusually high winds, 90 mph winds that forced the emergency shut-down and evacuation of the gala Humana Golf Challenge the same day and also over-qualified for emergency shut down of the tram! Trees were uprooted, power poles felled, businesses and homes damaged, and a carport collapsed onto residents' cars at an apartment building. Lots of citizens were without power during the horrendous storm, but the sole focus of today's news is the hikers, dressed for a winter hike, "Abandoned (Stranded overnight) on the Tram (mountain)."
Imagine how upset the hikers' families would have been had the hikers been crowded into a tram car, started down the mountain in obviously unsafe conditions, and ended their trip with a free-fall thousands of feet below onto the rocks! Now that would be something about which to complain, but an uncomfortable overnight emergency shelter at the top of the mountain is simply a great story to tell the grandkids!
The opening ‘graph (and accompanying photo) portrays 17 people left out in the fierce winds and winter weather that forced the Tram to suspend operations at 2pm. Alas, these poor abandoned hikers, appropriately dressed for a winter hike and carrying food, were left to fend for themselves at the top of the mountain, taking shelter in an old, drafty mule shed and making it through the worst night of their lives (www.mydesert.com).
A picture, however, is worth a thousand words, and one of the (other) published pictures shows that the hikers were in a metal mule shed that they fortified with plywood flooring and a “sliding door” they constructed as protection from the winter weather.
The reader has to get well into the long article to learn that a ranger stayed at the top of the mountain to wait for the hikers to return to the ranger station, and provided the hikers with adequate shelter, as well as blankets and sleeping bags. Sure, he did not have the key to the Tram station, nor did he feel that he could accommodate that many strangers in the ranger station, but he did do what he could to help with this emergency. Things could have been a whole lot worse for the hikers, but not to worry: the ranger's name is on the list of people who ought to be fired for what they did to these poor abandoned hikers -- who obviously were NOT abandoned at all!
Lots of corny platitudes come to mind, such as "be prepared," “think before you act,” and “plan for the worst, then expect the best,” especially when weather reports called for winter weather conditions and unusually high winds, 90 mph winds that forced the emergency shut-down and evacuation of the gala Humana Golf Challenge the same day and also over-qualified for emergency shut down of the tram! Trees were uprooted, power poles felled, businesses and homes damaged, and a carport collapsed onto residents' cars at an apartment building. Lots of citizens were without power during the horrendous storm, but the sole focus of today's news is the hikers, dressed for a winter hike, "Abandoned (Stranded overnight) on the Tram (mountain)."
Imagine how upset the hikers' families would have been had the hikers been crowded into a tram car, started down the mountain in obviously unsafe conditions, and ended their trip with a free-fall thousands of feet below onto the rocks! Now that would be something about which to complain, but an uncomfortable overnight emergency shelter at the top of the mountain is simply a great story to tell the grandkids!
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Pond Scum Rises to the Surface
As primarily a Republican in my general political philosophy, I feel disenfranchised by an electoral system that dismisses potential presidential candidates 5 months before my state’s primary elections! No matter how long the list of candidates vying for my vote, the last person I would consider is Newt Gingrich because his past is also his present when it comes to both his politics and his personal life. However, if one believes today’s media hyperbole, Gingrich is the Republican candidate for President in November 2012, the only candidate who can beat Obama, say some political pundits. Really? He’s been there, done that, and had to step down for ethical considerations, so why elevate his status again? Some men cannot handle power, and Gingrich is a living, breathing example of a man for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sure, everyone has past misdeeds, but Gingrich was a political legend who acted with impunity regardless of how egregious his conduct, and he brings with him today a past that shapes his present. When asked about his sexual misconduct, he could have been forthcoming: it is important to know how honest any candidate is, and Newt side-stepped honesty by turning on the commentator who asked the question. The bottom line is, Newt, did you, while actively engaged in a sexual affair with the woman who presently serves as your wife, ask your legal wife at that time to give her permission for you to continue with your extra-marital affair by suggesting she agree to an open marriage? Wasn’t it enough that your wife repeatedly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what you were already doing without her permission?
It is a fair question and it speaks to the basic integrity of the man behind the series of affairs, as well as the question of wanting his wife’s permission to do what he was already doing – keeping her in his control by suggesting that she approve his actions. His pattern and practice of disloyalty to his wives is important because a man who cheats in his marriage cheats in other aspects of his life, as evidenced by his actions during the 1990s, which Gingrich probably also does not want to revisit, featuring a 1990 ethics investigation that led to the first congressional reprimand of a House speaker.
According to many sources and summarized by www.washington post.com, Members of the ethics committee may have been divided and partisan in their political ideology, but the group decided almost unanimously that Gingrich had violated ethics standards. The same goes for Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to reprimand the former speaker.
Gingrich’s history with ethics investigations — both his own and that of Wright — serve as proof that those who live by the sword die by the sword. He has little room to complain about Democrats having brought charges against him, nor does he have any basis to suggest the panel made a partisan decision to reprimand him.
In fact, the only thing provably (sic) “partisan” in Gingrich’s case was the former speaker’s college course. The ethics committee used that exact word to describe it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs /fact-checker/post/newt-gingrich-tries-to-re-write-history-of-his-ethics-scandal-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/14/ gIQA4AOcwO_blog.html).
In January, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida hold primaries; by the time the first month of the presidential primaries closes, the determination of the Republican Party’s official candidate will be determined by … the media’s bias and coverage of the candidates’ personal and political lives. As one pundit puts it, “The truth is that about three quarters of the Republican voters really don't like Mitt Romney. They see him as a slick phony who doesn't have any core principles at all, let alone conservative ones. But the problem is that all the other candidates are deeply flawed” (www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012).
Whose truth is that? The truth of the South Carolina voters who surprisingly thrust Gingrich into front-runner status after the media put him onto the front page of every media outlet in the nation? I’m going to guess that three-quarters of the Republican voters have not made a choice because only 3 states have conducted primaries, which leaves 47 states left to determine who the Republican candidate will be! Going into Florida, the last January primary, the media has determined that Gingrich is the front-runner because his misdeeds are a better front page story than Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs, Rick Santorum’s youthful inexperience, and Ron Paul’s advanced age, as these and other potential nominees continue a steady climb toward the Republican Convention.
The media has far too much influence on the people’s choice of candidates, using front page coverage either to hype or disparage a candidate with the media version of “the truth.” Making Gingrich the Republican darling because he refuses to respond to legitimate questions about his personal and political ethics is reprehensible, especially when it encourages the candidate not to respond honestly. Gingrich says that his second wife’s allegations are a lie, but when Newt doesn’t like the accusations, he denies them, twisting the truth to better fit what he wants people to know about him:
Gingrich earns four Pinocchios for suggesting the ethics committee acted in partisan fashion, and for trying to rewrite history by pretending he succumbed to Democratic attacks when he actually acknowledged wrong doing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/).
Newt Gingrich is a dishonest man in both his personal and his public life and is not a candidate I will support, but that may be a moot point because any candidate I may consider in the June Presidential primary may not be on the ballot by the first of February! It is time for a nationwide primary to determine who the people want on the ballot, not who some voters in some states determine get a state’s electoral votes months before other voters are allowed to voice an opinion. The media outlets won’t have nearly the power to make or break a candidate week-by-week, state-by-state, primary-by-primary, depending on which way the political winds blow on any given day, if we all go to the primary polls on the same day.
Sure, everyone has past misdeeds, but Gingrich was a political legend who acted with impunity regardless of how egregious his conduct, and he brings with him today a past that shapes his present. When asked about his sexual misconduct, he could have been forthcoming: it is important to know how honest any candidate is, and Newt side-stepped honesty by turning on the commentator who asked the question. The bottom line is, Newt, did you, while actively engaged in a sexual affair with the woman who presently serves as your wife, ask your legal wife at that time to give her permission for you to continue with your extra-marital affair by suggesting she agree to an open marriage? Wasn’t it enough that your wife repeatedly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what you were already doing without her permission?
It is a fair question and it speaks to the basic integrity of the man behind the series of affairs, as well as the question of wanting his wife’s permission to do what he was already doing – keeping her in his control by suggesting that she approve his actions. His pattern and practice of disloyalty to his wives is important because a man who cheats in his marriage cheats in other aspects of his life, as evidenced by his actions during the 1990s, which Gingrich probably also does not want to revisit, featuring a 1990 ethics investigation that led to the first congressional reprimand of a House speaker.
According to many sources and summarized by www.washington post.com, Members of the ethics committee may have been divided and partisan in their political ideology, but the group decided almost unanimously that Gingrich had violated ethics standards. The same goes for Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to reprimand the former speaker.
Gingrich’s history with ethics investigations — both his own and that of Wright — serve as proof that those who live by the sword die by the sword. He has little room to complain about Democrats having brought charges against him, nor does he have any basis to suggest the panel made a partisan decision to reprimand him.
In fact, the only thing provably (sic) “partisan” in Gingrich’s case was the former speaker’s college course. The ethics committee used that exact word to describe it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs /fact-checker/post/newt-gingrich-tries-to-re-write-history-of-his-ethics-scandal-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/14/ gIQA4AOcwO_blog.html).
In January, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida hold primaries; by the time the first month of the presidential primaries closes, the determination of the Republican Party’s official candidate will be determined by … the media’s bias and coverage of the candidates’ personal and political lives. As one pundit puts it, “The truth is that about three quarters of the Republican voters really don't like Mitt Romney. They see him as a slick phony who doesn't have any core principles at all, let alone conservative ones. But the problem is that all the other candidates are deeply flawed” (www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012).
Whose truth is that? The truth of the South Carolina voters who surprisingly thrust Gingrich into front-runner status after the media put him onto the front page of every media outlet in the nation? I’m going to guess that three-quarters of the Republican voters have not made a choice because only 3 states have conducted primaries, which leaves 47 states left to determine who the Republican candidate will be! Going into Florida, the last January primary, the media has determined that Gingrich is the front-runner because his misdeeds are a better front page story than Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs, Rick Santorum’s youthful inexperience, and Ron Paul’s advanced age, as these and other potential nominees continue a steady climb toward the Republican Convention.
The media has far too much influence on the people’s choice of candidates, using front page coverage either to hype or disparage a candidate with the media version of “the truth.” Making Gingrich the Republican darling because he refuses to respond to legitimate questions about his personal and political ethics is reprehensible, especially when it encourages the candidate not to respond honestly. Gingrich says that his second wife’s allegations are a lie, but when Newt doesn’t like the accusations, he denies them, twisting the truth to better fit what he wants people to know about him:
Gingrich earns four Pinocchios for suggesting the ethics committee acted in partisan fashion, and for trying to rewrite history by pretending he succumbed to Democratic attacks when he actually acknowledged wrong doing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/).
Newt Gingrich is a dishonest man in both his personal and his public life and is not a candidate I will support, but that may be a moot point because any candidate I may consider in the June Presidential primary may not be on the ballot by the first of February! It is time for a nationwide primary to determine who the people want on the ballot, not who some voters in some states determine get a state’s electoral votes months before other voters are allowed to voice an opinion. The media outlets won’t have nearly the power to make or break a candidate week-by-week, state-by-state, primary-by-primary, depending on which way the political winds blow on any given day, if we all go to the primary polls on the same day.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Iron Lady
Meryl Streep is at the top of her profession, stunning in her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher as a young woman, a career politician, and an elderly woman in the fog of dementia. The story is as powerful as the woman whose life is captured on the screen, but without the commanding performance of Meryl Streep, the film would have trivialized Thatcher's life and fallen flat.
It takes a strong woman to portray a strong woman, something Hollywood producers do not always remember.
Margaret Thatcher did not make life easier for her family, her friends, and her political rivals, but an easy life is not always a life lived well. Her contributions to her country outweigh her failings as a wife and mother, but only to those standing outside those relationships. Her inner steel allowed her to pursue her dreams, but her success often came at a high price for those who loved her, including her husband, who became Mr. Mom long before that became a fashionable family option. Ironically, the movie focuses on Mr. Thatcher almost as much as it does Prime Minister Thatcher, and the scenes wherein the wife has to face the rest of her life without her husband are the most wrenching because Margaret kept her husband alive long, long after his death.
Iron Lady is well worth the time and effort required to participate in the experience, both the screen capture of Margaret Thatcher's life and the stellar performance by Meryl Streep.
It takes a strong woman to portray a strong woman, something Hollywood producers do not always remember.
Margaret Thatcher did not make life easier for her family, her friends, and her political rivals, but an easy life is not always a life lived well. Her contributions to her country outweigh her failings as a wife and mother, but only to those standing outside those relationships. Her inner steel allowed her to pursue her dreams, but her success often came at a high price for those who loved her, including her husband, who became Mr. Mom long before that became a fashionable family option. Ironically, the movie focuses on Mr. Thatcher almost as much as it does Prime Minister Thatcher, and the scenes wherein the wife has to face the rest of her life without her husband are the most wrenching because Margaret kept her husband alive long, long after his death.
Iron Lady is well worth the time and effort required to participate in the experience, both the screen capture of Margaret Thatcher's life and the stellar performance by Meryl Streep.
Egregious Error in Judgment -- or Not
Mark Wahlberg expressed this week in a magazine article what many parents believe: if I were on a hijacked plane with my children, I too would do anything to try to save their lives. That may make me sound foolish and filled with false bravado, but no one is going to hurt my family if I can do anything, anything at all to prevent that from happening. Wahlberg is being skewered in the media for thinking he is as good as the action movies he makes, but he wasn’t speaking as some macho movie actor: he was speaking as a father who would sacrifice his life to protect his children’s lives, and so would I – and so would you.
Wahlberg’s comments don’t take away from what passengers did on Flight 93: his comments affirm that those “macho male” passengers changed the outcome intended by the terrorists because they refused to go down without a fight. And that’s what Wahlberg professes he would have done: fight back, especially had his children been on the flight with him. He may not have been successful, and he may have been frozen by fear, just like so many other passengers would be, but in his mind, he would have gone down fighting for the lives of his children.
Shake off his comments as uninformed, overly-enthusiastic, or misguided, but crucifying him in the media as somehow guilty of somehow hurting people whose loved ones were on the planes and died? That’s a big leap, folks.
Wahlberg’s comments don’t take away from what passengers did on Flight 93: his comments affirm that those “macho male” passengers changed the outcome intended by the terrorists because they refused to go down without a fight. And that’s what Wahlberg professes he would have done: fight back, especially had his children been on the flight with him. He may not have been successful, and he may have been frozen by fear, just like so many other passengers would be, but in his mind, he would have gone down fighting for the lives of his children.
Shake off his comments as uninformed, overly-enthusiastic, or misguided, but crucifying him in the media as somehow guilty of somehow hurting people whose loved ones were on the planes and died? That’s a big leap, folks.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The Bulging Middle
Frankly, I’m tired of reading about all the people who are “falling out of the middle class” because my thought process works differently. Based on the past decade of conspicuous consumption, it becomes apparent that many people live above their means, using credit as a crutch to have whatever they want, rather than being content with meeting their needs and then adding the wants a little at a time. Young kids turning 16 have to receive a brand-new car to drive whether the family’s combined income can support that luxury or suspends their financial well-being on the brink of bankruptcy. Ditto the McMansions, the recreational vehicles, the humongous flat-screen TVS, the plethora of individual electronic devices, the designer wardrobes, the fabulous week-end getaways and annual family vacations at the hot spots around the world.
If you want it all, you have to pay for it, one way or another, and for the majority of the people living on credit as if they earn double their actual income, that bill comes due in a confrontation with a reality that results in losing much of what they (temporarily) have in their lives. That may be falling out of the middle class to some people, but to me, it's simply facing the reality of one's life. The financial foundation re-centers itself, a self-correction that happens naturally when people go too far into debt to be able to sustain themselves.
The message used to be that there are some people who come with money, while others earn it through innovation, dedication, and/or unique talent – and we celebrate their success in achieving The American Dream. On the other hand, there are those who fail to rise from poverty because they are too content to sit back and wait for what happens to them, those that I term the “stoop sitters” because, as the commuter trains take the workers to work, they pass miles of people sitting on their stoops, standing on the street corners, or waiting on the freeway ramps for a hand-out. In the middle is the support system for both the wealthiest, who need working people to allow them to continue their extra-ordinary success, as well as support for the stoop-sitters, who need working people to allow them to continue to sit on the stoop.
Some stoop-sitters make it into the bulging middle, while some of the world’s wealthiest fall from grace, but for most of us, we are the bulging middle, sometimes at the lower edge of it and other times at the higher end. We work hard, we get a good education, we find a reasonable job that provides us with financial stability, and we create our own version of The American Dream within our means to do so. That’s what used to be called living the good life for most of us, but we lost our way when we decided that we all wanted to live a life that we could not realistically sustain. Sure it pisses me off that some kid hyping himself as The Situation earns more from showing up at a club to get wasted than I earned in a year as a teacher, but hey, more power to him for wanting something above what he was and making it happen. Sure, it pisses me off that a former childhood actress earns more for posing nude for a magazine than I earned in a year as a teacher, but hey, more power to her for wanting something above what she was and making it happen.
But what pisses me off far more than a person making success for him/ herself are those who refuse to lift a finger to provide themselves with even the most basic necessities. If you refuse to provide for yourself because you have the expectation that I will provide for you, I say shame on you for thinking that and more shame on a government that fosters that way of life.
Ditto to those who vehemently and sometimes violently protest what they call the 3%: we need the richest among us to keep us working, so why not do something more personally constructive to provide yourself with an opportunity to rise above where you are, even, maybe to that coveted highest plateau? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did it, as well as Mark Zuckerberg and thousands of talented musicians, actors, performers, athletes, inventors, innovators who began at the bottom but ended at the top, so why not you? No one is going to give it to you: if you want it, go get it, but first, get out of the tents, get off the stoops, and figure out a better way to achieve what it is that YOU want.
That's what I did, rising from the bottom and working my way into the middle -- but THAT'S WHAT I DID, not what I got from a free government program that provides me with hand-outs. I'm content to earn my keep, to have my own little part of The American Dream, all the while accepting that I'm not driven to go after the top tier of financial wealth and power. When I know people who are working hard to better themselves, I help them in whatever ways I can because I believe in rewarding work, not the lack thereof. A person begging on a street corner will NEVER get a dime from me because there are too many people who need a hand up to waste time with those who will only accept a hand-out!
If YOU want, go get it; if you won't go get it, then be content to be where you are, doing what you're doing, because that is actually what you want. Protest if you must, but pick up your own trash when you move on: I resent the hell out of paying for the mess you make, as well as the message you are sending about who you REALLY are where it counts.
If you want it all, you have to pay for it, one way or another, and for the majority of the people living on credit as if they earn double their actual income, that bill comes due in a confrontation with a reality that results in losing much of what they (temporarily) have in their lives. That may be falling out of the middle class to some people, but to me, it's simply facing the reality of one's life. The financial foundation re-centers itself, a self-correction that happens naturally when people go too far into debt to be able to sustain themselves.
The message used to be that there are some people who come with money, while others earn it through innovation, dedication, and/or unique talent – and we celebrate their success in achieving The American Dream. On the other hand, there are those who fail to rise from poverty because they are too content to sit back and wait for what happens to them, those that I term the “stoop sitters” because, as the commuter trains take the workers to work, they pass miles of people sitting on their stoops, standing on the street corners, or waiting on the freeway ramps for a hand-out. In the middle is the support system for both the wealthiest, who need working people to allow them to continue their extra-ordinary success, as well as support for the stoop-sitters, who need working people to allow them to continue to sit on the stoop.
Some stoop-sitters make it into the bulging middle, while some of the world’s wealthiest fall from grace, but for most of us, we are the bulging middle, sometimes at the lower edge of it and other times at the higher end. We work hard, we get a good education, we find a reasonable job that provides us with financial stability, and we create our own version of The American Dream within our means to do so. That’s what used to be called living the good life for most of us, but we lost our way when we decided that we all wanted to live a life that we could not realistically sustain. Sure it pisses me off that some kid hyping himself as The Situation earns more from showing up at a club to get wasted than I earned in a year as a teacher, but hey, more power to him for wanting something above what he was and making it happen. Sure, it pisses me off that a former childhood actress earns more for posing nude for a magazine than I earned in a year as a teacher, but hey, more power to her for wanting something above what she was and making it happen.
But what pisses me off far more than a person making success for him/ herself are those who refuse to lift a finger to provide themselves with even the most basic necessities. If you refuse to provide for yourself because you have the expectation that I will provide for you, I say shame on you for thinking that and more shame on a government that fosters that way of life.
Ditto to those who vehemently and sometimes violently protest what they call the 3%: we need the richest among us to keep us working, so why not do something more personally constructive to provide yourself with an opportunity to rise above where you are, even, maybe to that coveted highest plateau? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did it, as well as Mark Zuckerberg and thousands of talented musicians, actors, performers, athletes, inventors, innovators who began at the bottom but ended at the top, so why not you? No one is going to give it to you: if you want it, go get it, but first, get out of the tents, get off the stoops, and figure out a better way to achieve what it is that YOU want.
That's what I did, rising from the bottom and working my way into the middle -- but THAT'S WHAT I DID, not what I got from a free government program that provides me with hand-outs. I'm content to earn my keep, to have my own little part of The American Dream, all the while accepting that I'm not driven to go after the top tier of financial wealth and power. When I know people who are working hard to better themselves, I help them in whatever ways I can because I believe in rewarding work, not the lack thereof. A person begging on a street corner will NEVER get a dime from me because there are too many people who need a hand up to waste time with those who will only accept a hand-out!
If YOU want, go get it; if you won't go get it, then be content to be where you are, doing what you're doing, because that is actually what you want. Protest if you must, but pick up your own trash when you move on: I resent the hell out of paying for the mess you make, as well as the message you are sending about who you REALLY are where it counts.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Devilishly Good
Reliving the angst and the anger of one’s high school days is not a journey one wants to take often, nor a journey that presents well on the big screen of a theater. Diablo Cody dissects the worst high school has to offer, then serves it to theater-goers in a limited release entitled A Young Adult, starring Cherlize Theron (who is incredible as a narcissitic bitch determined to regain her "rightful" place in the world she once ruled), Patrick Wilson (currently starring as a Gifted brain surgeon in a TV drama), and Patton Oswalt, whose name viewers may not recognize, but whose face they immediately know and whose performance demands applause.
The basic premise is one we all experienced: the high school Campus Queen; her forever steady, the campus jock; and the freek who took the brunt of the jocks’ rage at what they, too, feared may be down the road. Mavis Gary lives a miserable life as a young adult, but, at age 37, she’s way beyond the “young” part and nowhere near to being an actual adult. As sometimes happens, a current event triggers the victorious joy of Mavis’s youth, so she returns home to reclaim who she used to be without once considering anyone from her former life. Her focus is Buddy Slade, her high school sweetheart, but there’s nothing sweet about their past: she was an easy lay who put out in the trees surrounding the high school campus. Because Buddy Slade was her favorite sex partner, he becomes her one true love in her fantasies about how great high school was for her.
Mavis needs to have all of that back, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes of Buddy's marriage and the birth of Buddy's baby that trigger the memory of her own pregnancy, a pregnancy that ended in miscarriage, not triumph.
When she arrives in town, she wanders aimlessly, looking for her youth. She sits next to a man at a bar without recognizing him as the person who had the locker next to hers during high school, Matt Freehauf, played by Patton Oswalt, who is outstanding in the film. Matt was taunted as a queer by some high school jocks who then broke his legs, as well as his penis, with a crowbar. Mavis’s yeah-yeah-yeah attitude reveals that she doesn’t remember this event as well as she remembers giving head to Buddy Slade, but when her desperate attempt to regain the glorious life she remembers implodes, she drunkenly turns to Matt for comfort that is not offered by anyone else. Patton Oswalt nails his role in this challenging, difficult movie, weaving together his intense anger at what happened in the past with the necessity to handle it in the present and get through his life one day at a time, a lesson that Mavis needs to learn, but never will.
There is a moment, just one moment, when the movie could have become redemptive, but that moment requires Mavis’s parents to listen and then accept as truth what their daughter says, rather than roll their eyes. After spending several days searching for anything of her past to make sense to her present, Mavis comes face-to-face with her mother, who hears that her daughter is in town and begs her to stop by the family home to see her father. As her parents eat dinner, Mavis remarks that she thinks she’s an alcoholic, a revelation that could, for some sons/daughters, evoke an emotional response from the parents, but Mavis’s parents merely continue eating. The sub-text is that Mavis, the self-centered drama queen, is obviously trying to evoke sympathy from her parents because her life is not what she expected it to be, but her parents have been there/done that – and are not going to give up their own lives to indulge Mavis’s drama. Again.
The movie is dark, difficult, and not an experience many audiences will enjoy. There is not one single redemptive quality about Mavis Gary, no matter how much a viewer may want to witness her epiphany and salvation. Her treatment of her dog reveals how little she cares about any other living thing outside of herself, the dog she leaves locked in a hotel room as Mavis desperately searches for anyone to give a damn about who she was then or who she needs to be now. When everyone she contacts during her brief stay in Hometown, USA disregards her triumphant return, the only constant she has left is the dog, which she stuffs into a carrier and drops onto the front seat of her car as she pulls into the traffic on the highway back to MinneApple.
Diablo Cody takes the worst of high school as an iconic reminder of how much we hated those four years and how relieved most of us are that we never have to go there/do that again. What’s tragic is that there are far too many Mavises in our adult lives, the high school stereotypes that never grow up, move on, make something of themselves now, rather than reliving who they thought they were or who they pretended to be back in the day. For those of us who moved on in spite of our lack of popularity during high school, it's tiring to pretend with them.
Dealing with the past head-on may be cathartic for Diablo Cody, but I’m not sure it’s a journey I needed to take.
The basic premise is one we all experienced: the high school Campus Queen; her forever steady, the campus jock; and the freek who took the brunt of the jocks’ rage at what they, too, feared may be down the road. Mavis Gary lives a miserable life as a young adult, but, at age 37, she’s way beyond the “young” part and nowhere near to being an actual adult. As sometimes happens, a current event triggers the victorious joy of Mavis’s youth, so she returns home to reclaim who she used to be without once considering anyone from her former life. Her focus is Buddy Slade, her high school sweetheart, but there’s nothing sweet about their past: she was an easy lay who put out in the trees surrounding the high school campus. Because Buddy Slade was her favorite sex partner, he becomes her one true love in her fantasies about how great high school was for her.
Mavis needs to have all of that back, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes of Buddy's marriage and the birth of Buddy's baby that trigger the memory of her own pregnancy, a pregnancy that ended in miscarriage, not triumph.
When she arrives in town, she wanders aimlessly, looking for her youth. She sits next to a man at a bar without recognizing him as the person who had the locker next to hers during high school, Matt Freehauf, played by Patton Oswalt, who is outstanding in the film. Matt was taunted as a queer by some high school jocks who then broke his legs, as well as his penis, with a crowbar. Mavis’s yeah-yeah-yeah attitude reveals that she doesn’t remember this event as well as she remembers giving head to Buddy Slade, but when her desperate attempt to regain the glorious life she remembers implodes, she drunkenly turns to Matt for comfort that is not offered by anyone else. Patton Oswalt nails his role in this challenging, difficult movie, weaving together his intense anger at what happened in the past with the necessity to handle it in the present and get through his life one day at a time, a lesson that Mavis needs to learn, but never will.
There is a moment, just one moment, when the movie could have become redemptive, but that moment requires Mavis’s parents to listen and then accept as truth what their daughter says, rather than roll their eyes. After spending several days searching for anything of her past to make sense to her present, Mavis comes face-to-face with her mother, who hears that her daughter is in town and begs her to stop by the family home to see her father. As her parents eat dinner, Mavis remarks that she thinks she’s an alcoholic, a revelation that could, for some sons/daughters, evoke an emotional response from the parents, but Mavis’s parents merely continue eating. The sub-text is that Mavis, the self-centered drama queen, is obviously trying to evoke sympathy from her parents because her life is not what she expected it to be, but her parents have been there/done that – and are not going to give up their own lives to indulge Mavis’s drama. Again.
The movie is dark, difficult, and not an experience many audiences will enjoy. There is not one single redemptive quality about Mavis Gary, no matter how much a viewer may want to witness her epiphany and salvation. Her treatment of her dog reveals how little she cares about any other living thing outside of herself, the dog she leaves locked in a hotel room as Mavis desperately searches for anyone to give a damn about who she was then or who she needs to be now. When everyone she contacts during her brief stay in Hometown, USA disregards her triumphant return, the only constant she has left is the dog, which she stuffs into a carrier and drops onto the front seat of her car as she pulls into the traffic on the highway back to MinneApple.
Diablo Cody takes the worst of high school as an iconic reminder of how much we hated those four years and how relieved most of us are that we never have to go there/do that again. What’s tragic is that there are far too many Mavises in our adult lives, the high school stereotypes that never grow up, move on, make something of themselves now, rather than reliving who they thought they were or who they pretended to be back in the day. For those of us who moved on in spite of our lack of popularity during high school, it's tiring to pretend with them.
Dealing with the past head-on may be cathartic for Diablo Cody, but I’m not sure it’s a journey I needed to take.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
One Question Answered ...
I've often wondered why my little town has become such a pit: there appears to be no coherence, no carefully considered master plan that puts us on a path to being better. The grafitti, the trash-filled empty lots, the plethora of homes in foreclosure, the lack of simple neighborhood amenities such as paved streets, the financial boondoggles all fill me with wonder: is anyone in charge who actually knows what needs to be done, as well as what is actually being done?
There is an answer for that: at last night's televised 4-hour long City Council meeting, the MAYOR characterized another Council member as a "son of a bitch" in front of a live mic. Oh yes she did!
When a newly-seated Council member chastized the other Council members for their treatment of him, one of the old-timers admonished him that he needs to "toughen up" if he's going to be in politics! No common courtesy and/or Golden Rule if you win an election in this town, no siree!
At this point, there may be some "lower" to go, but I'm thinking maybe we're already there?
There is an answer for that: at last night's televised 4-hour long City Council meeting, the MAYOR characterized another Council member as a "son of a bitch" in front of a live mic. Oh yes she did!
When a newly-seated Council member chastized the other Council members for their treatment of him, one of the old-timers admonished him that he needs to "toughen up" if he's going to be in politics! No common courtesy and/or Golden Rule if you win an election in this town, no siree!
At this point, there may be some "lower" to go, but I'm thinking maybe we're already there?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Grading My 2011 Movies
Going to the movies is one of my favorite spare-time fillers, and in 2011 I saw 16 movies, of which only 2 made the F list: Moneyball and The Descendants, both of which received far better press than deserved. A big name actor cannot save a mediocre movie script and neither of these movies began with a good script, but both went downhill from there.
However, the rest of my viewing experiences earned grades of A, B or C:
Grades of A: The Warrior, the fight movie that pits brothers against each other, with Dad in the middle; The Ides of March, which is perhaps too nuanced for those who don’t know Shakespeare's Caesar and Brutus dust-up; The King’s Speech, which connects on many levels to many viewers for many reasons (released last year, in time for Oscar recognition); and the incredible My Week With Marilyn, for which the leading lady, Michelle Williams, should receive an Oscar.
The B films are J. Edgar, which went a bit too heavy in some aspects of the script and took away from the overall quality of the performance; War Horse, too similar to Secretariat to stand in the A category, but a really good viewing experience; Water for Elephants, which I enjoyed more than I enjoyed reading the book; Sherlock Holmes II, which is clever, interesting, and just dark enough to stave off campy; and Bridesmaids, which has to be the best chick comedy ever!! Believe me, I'll never eat in an Indian restaurant!!
In the C category are Footloose, which proves that a remake never is as good as the original; The Lincoln Lawyer, which demonstrates why I often prefer the book; The Muppets, which publicizes itself as a kid’s film, but is obviously intended to entertain the (younger) adults who grew up with the muppets; and A Dolphin Tale, one of the best “feel good” films of the year.
I don’t rent too many DVDs because I’m never quite sure how to make that aspect of the tangled wires of the electronics' components work, but my two favorites continue to be The Hurt Locker and Taking Chance, starring Kevin Bacon in what I believe is the role of his career. I would watch NetFlix, but the "newest" movies for NetFlix are at least 6 months in the past, which doesn't meet my standard for "new," especially when I can RedBox DVDs that are really new at the local grocery store. And I can RedBox a whole lot of movies for the "cost of a couple of lattes each month," Mr. NetFlex CEO!!
My to-do list still has several titles on it: The Iron Lady, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Too Loud/Too Close, Mission Impossible, We Bought a Zoo, and Young Adult. The only one of these that may prove impossible for me to watch is … Mission Impossible ... because I have a problem with people on the big screen acting at dizzying heights. The previews for The Man on the Ledge prove to me that there’s no way I could ever watch that film, even if I wanted to, which I don’t. The lady climbing to the top of the “penis” sandstone rock, both in the TV commercials and on the huge theater screen, sends me into panic attack mode! I can tell myself repeatedly that Tom Cruise is acting in a movie, that no film company is going to risk his life by allowing him to die while jumping off the highest building in the world, and still scream when he does that in the previews!
My goal is to see one movie a week until I'm caught up with my list and then add new titles that catch my attention during the previews. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
However, the rest of my viewing experiences earned grades of A, B or C:
Grades of A: The Warrior, the fight movie that pits brothers against each other, with Dad in the middle; The Ides of March, which is perhaps too nuanced for those who don’t know Shakespeare's Caesar and Brutus dust-up; The King’s Speech, which connects on many levels to many viewers for many reasons (released last year, in time for Oscar recognition); and the incredible My Week With Marilyn, for which the leading lady, Michelle Williams, should receive an Oscar.
The B films are J. Edgar, which went a bit too heavy in some aspects of the script and took away from the overall quality of the performance; War Horse, too similar to Secretariat to stand in the A category, but a really good viewing experience; Water for Elephants, which I enjoyed more than I enjoyed reading the book; Sherlock Holmes II, which is clever, interesting, and just dark enough to stave off campy; and Bridesmaids, which has to be the best chick comedy ever!! Believe me, I'll never eat in an Indian restaurant!!
In the C category are Footloose, which proves that a remake never is as good as the original; The Lincoln Lawyer, which demonstrates why I often prefer the book; The Muppets, which publicizes itself as a kid’s film, but is obviously intended to entertain the (younger) adults who grew up with the muppets; and A Dolphin Tale, one of the best “feel good” films of the year.
I don’t rent too many DVDs because I’m never quite sure how to make that aspect of the tangled wires of the electronics' components work, but my two favorites continue to be The Hurt Locker and Taking Chance, starring Kevin Bacon in what I believe is the role of his career. I would watch NetFlix, but the "newest" movies for NetFlix are at least 6 months in the past, which doesn't meet my standard for "new," especially when I can RedBox DVDs that are really new at the local grocery store. And I can RedBox a whole lot of movies for the "cost of a couple of lattes each month," Mr. NetFlex CEO!!
My to-do list still has several titles on it: The Iron Lady, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Too Loud/Too Close, Mission Impossible, We Bought a Zoo, and Young Adult. The only one of these that may prove impossible for me to watch is … Mission Impossible ... because I have a problem with people on the big screen acting at dizzying heights. The previews for The Man on the Ledge prove to me that there’s no way I could ever watch that film, even if I wanted to, which I don’t. The lady climbing to the top of the “penis” sandstone rock, both in the TV commercials and on the huge theater screen, sends me into panic attack mode! I can tell myself repeatedly that Tom Cruise is acting in a movie, that no film company is going to risk his life by allowing him to die while jumping off the highest building in the world, and still scream when he does that in the previews!
My goal is to see one movie a week until I'm caught up with my list and then add new titles that catch my attention during the previews. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
See Something? Say Something? Maybe.
The new year kicked off with the murder of a 16-year-old at 12:20 am in my environs. Additionally, a bullet came through the metal roof of a business in a neighboring community, and a child sleeping on a couch was injured by a bullet that penetrated the ceiling of his home — and then his head -- in a 3rd neighborhood, but only one person was arrested for discharging a firearm on New Year’s Eve in the entire Valley, and that was a man in a 4th community standing outside his home and firing his gun into the air.
Happy New Year?
Having been ducked behind the bed for most of the first 30 minutes of the new year while keeping my dogs both calm and inside, it is no surprise that someone was shot dead in the streets of my small city; what’s more surprising is that there aren’t more shootings/killings of/by the residents of this vast Valley. Of course, it’s racial profiling if I write that Mexicans discharge their weapons as a matter of course, but especially on New Year’s Eve, the 4th of July, and at birthday parties! I’m sure other ethnic groups possess and enjoy shooting their guns too, but I happen to live in a primarily Mexican community that sounds like an all-out armed conflict any time there is the slightest reason to “celebrate.” According to the local media, 20 homicides occurred in the Valley in 2010; in 2011, that total rose to 29, while the rest of California experienced an over-all decrease in homicides; 2012 began here with the first of a new year's worth of killings within the first half-hour, which does not bode well for the coming year.
I’ve called both 9-1-1 and the local police to report shots fired at the house behind me, but because I have not seen the shooter, nor can I definitively say which of the 2 houses behind me house the shooter, nor have I heard either screaming or the fast retreat of a vehicle, there is “nothing we can do for you, ma’am.” Best advice: call back if/when I hear the screaming, see a vehicle rapidly leave the area, or witness the shooter pull the trigger. My next-door neighbor is also anxious about the firing range mentality of our neighbors, but she has had prior contact with law enforcement, so she’s not going to call the po-leece no way for nothin’.
Actually, I don’t blame her for making that decision because I’ve arrived at the same conclusion. If I do hear the screaming, it’s probably too late to prevent whatever is happening -– and anyone left alive inside or out will make that call. If I do see the shooter, s/he probably also sees me, so I’m going to duck and cover until s/he’s done doing whatever it is s/he’s doing, rather than provide another human target. And if I hear a vehicle leaving, well fast retreat is the way the drivers in my neighborhood always drive, especially the crew at the corner who own “speed racers,” cars they’ve hopped up for street racing. And, if a vehicle is speeding away from the scene on the street behind me, there is no way I'll be able to provide either a description or a license plate, so ... ?
See something; say something? Maybe, but probably not.
In my world, living in a small community with an over-whelming population of parolees, I’d be tempted to do a house-to-house search of all parolees prior to the shooting celebration holidays. It is still illegal for parolees to have guns, isn’t it? I’m never sure what’s legal/illegal these days, but do know that my unopened bottle of Propel was confiscated as a potential terrorist weapon before I boarded a recent flight. It seems plausible that if a sealed bottle of water can be confiscated from a US citizen with no police record, then a gun and/or bullets could conceivably be confiscated from a known felon on parole. But, I’m just guessing; after all, the TSA confiscated weapons-grade explosives from the carry-on luggage of a man traveling with his family last week, but quickly explained to concerned travelers that there was no danger.
My bottle of Propel in my carry-on; a passenger with weapons-grade explosives in his carry-on? Residents routinely discharging weapons in neighborhoods? Guess that falls into the category of "whatever."
Happy New Year?
Having been ducked behind the bed for most of the first 30 minutes of the new year while keeping my dogs both calm and inside, it is no surprise that someone was shot dead in the streets of my small city; what’s more surprising is that there aren’t more shootings/killings of/by the residents of this vast Valley. Of course, it’s racial profiling if I write that Mexicans discharge their weapons as a matter of course, but especially on New Year’s Eve, the 4th of July, and at birthday parties! I’m sure other ethnic groups possess and enjoy shooting their guns too, but I happen to live in a primarily Mexican community that sounds like an all-out armed conflict any time there is the slightest reason to “celebrate.” According to the local media, 20 homicides occurred in the Valley in 2010; in 2011, that total rose to 29, while the rest of California experienced an over-all decrease in homicides; 2012 began here with the first of a new year's worth of killings within the first half-hour, which does not bode well for the coming year.
I’ve called both 9-1-1 and the local police to report shots fired at the house behind me, but because I have not seen the shooter, nor can I definitively say which of the 2 houses behind me house the shooter, nor have I heard either screaming or the fast retreat of a vehicle, there is “nothing we can do for you, ma’am.” Best advice: call back if/when I hear the screaming, see a vehicle rapidly leave the area, or witness the shooter pull the trigger. My next-door neighbor is also anxious about the firing range mentality of our neighbors, but she has had prior contact with law enforcement, so she’s not going to call the po-leece no way for nothin’.
Actually, I don’t blame her for making that decision because I’ve arrived at the same conclusion. If I do hear the screaming, it’s probably too late to prevent whatever is happening -– and anyone left alive inside or out will make that call. If I do see the shooter, s/he probably also sees me, so I’m going to duck and cover until s/he’s done doing whatever it is s/he’s doing, rather than provide another human target. And if I hear a vehicle leaving, well fast retreat is the way the drivers in my neighborhood always drive, especially the crew at the corner who own “speed racers,” cars they’ve hopped up for street racing. And, if a vehicle is speeding away from the scene on the street behind me, there is no way I'll be able to provide either a description or a license plate, so ... ?
See something; say something? Maybe, but probably not.
In my world, living in a small community with an over-whelming population of parolees, I’d be tempted to do a house-to-house search of all parolees prior to the shooting celebration holidays. It is still illegal for parolees to have guns, isn’t it? I’m never sure what’s legal/illegal these days, but do know that my unopened bottle of Propel was confiscated as a potential terrorist weapon before I boarded a recent flight. It seems plausible that if a sealed bottle of water can be confiscated from a US citizen with no police record, then a gun and/or bullets could conceivably be confiscated from a known felon on parole. But, I’m just guessing; after all, the TSA confiscated weapons-grade explosives from the carry-on luggage of a man traveling with his family last week, but quickly explained to concerned travelers that there was no danger.
My bottle of Propel in my carry-on; a passenger with weapons-grade explosives in his carry-on? Residents routinely discharging weapons in neighborhoods? Guess that falls into the category of "whatever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)