Here, is what I think. I'm sick to death of hearing how people treat people, in state sponsored, God sponsored, religious, secular ways. When, if ever, is murder good? When it is used against those who are murderers. Especially, when used to stop them.
The entire World, needs to just stand up today, right now, and say,
"Hey! You! Yeah, you! You bastard! Stop killing your own people! NO! We... will... no... longer... put... up... with... IT!"
Where is the country (and I always thought it would be Israel, but nope) that is always the first to stand up, no matter what, or who is involved and scream at the top of their lungs at another power, governmental or religious or whatever, and say:
"STOP THEM! SOMEONE, STOP WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE! ITS WRONG!"
Governments that kill their people directly? NO! No more!
Governments that starve their people or kill them by indirect means? They should be in direct violation of World Law, and stopped. Screw sanctions. STOP THEM! NOW! We don't even have to go in with soldiers. Just bomb the crap out of their favorite stuff. NO, not their people's favorite stuff. No, not the people, but their palaces, their government buildings so that anyone that supports that government dies right along with them. Piss their own people off too, to the point of that government being utterly and completely ineffective. Destroy physically if possible but politically especially, those in charge.
Make THEIR lives as miserable as their citizenry.
Religions that advocate murder? And I don't care HOW they rationalize it or what they call it, they should be stopped. NOW. World Law says, NO! Religious leaders, executed on the spot. Their supporters? Executed on the spot. Stone a woman for adultery, or for showing her face in public, or for anything that requires her death? Then, Death to the proponents.
The crowd taking part in it? Executed. Zero tolerance. Any crowd, any religion that advocates or carries out murder in the name of God? Executed. Send them to their God. We don't need no Stinkin' God who advocates murder or lets their people think they could, or do, advocate it. Because any God that allows that to happen, doesn't deserve the even the paper that their religion's rules and laws and fables are written upon.
If we just say no, if we start killing those who kill others, soon there won't be anymore of these groups around and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about then, aren't we as bad as them? No, we're not. We're stopping it. Wipe this nonsense out, and we stop dong it. Then we don't have it anymore. What is worse, our putting up with it, on the theory that its none of our business? Or our doing something about it by ending it with all means possible and yes, most definitely, with Extreme Prejudice.
Because, this is the only and proper form of Prejudice.
If you want to argue against this, then you need to come up with an alternative.
And I don't mean some namby pamby touchy feely response, concept, or ideal. That does NOT help the cartoonist who is murdered for a damn cartoon; it doesn't help the guy who had an independent thought and spoke it aloud; it doesn't help the poor citizen being slowly starved by the insidious, delusional North Korean government who is eating a plenty, who has entertainment, an easy cushy life while citizens starve to support their megalomania; it certainly doesn't help the woman who is laying in the dirt, her clothes sticking to her broken and bloody frame while more rocks are being hurled at her until she dies; lying there for, to her, forever, and in great agony, all the while, wondering what?
Wondering, why her God forsakes her because she spoke back, didn't hide her beautiful face, had an affair? Wondering why she did what she did what and how she is now dying knowing (thinking) she deserves this? Ridiculous, don't you think? Well, if not, you should. You should think its ridiculous, you should think, use your mind, you should speak up against this.
Don't be afraid, not of foolish, narrow minded, fantasy entrenched Muslims, not of any religions, not of any governments, because they might cause some uncomfortable issues. We need a Gort, the robot from The Day the Earth Stood Still, who refuses to put up with a violent civilization on pain of total destruction. Maybe, that is the way to go.
I'm usually against, "zero tolerance" rules, as they tend to lead to stupid actions enforced by the stupid and ignorant and cowardly. Sending a child home because he has a half inch plastic toy gun, Oh My God, use your head people, there is a point at which something is wrong and the rule should be enforced, and a point at which its stupid and harmless, albeit, undesirable. There is, in that realm, too much of people being afraid of getting yelled at. We need to get yelled at more than we do. There will always be the ignorant, the stupid, and its up to educators and the intelligent and educated to lead the way over that of the bullies, the ignorant and the down right stupid.
But, that's another topic.
This form of thought where people think they are justified in killing someone, for the stupidest of things, needs to be stopped, squashed, killed, murdered, nipped in its judicial, clerical, self-important, audacious, over-blown bud. The death flower of ridiculous authority sponsored murder, needs to be exterminated with the poison it deserves and has dealt out upon this Earth for far long enough.
Turnabout's fair play.
Monday, August 23, 2010
2 new "Mad Max" movies on the way
Some rather surprising news to report. They are saying that George Miller doesn't have one new Mad Max movie coming but two. Apparently they will shoot the two films back to back which surprises me quite a bit considering that Mad Max is not exactly a huge franchise or a sure fire money maker like say TRANSFORMERS is. The films star Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. Mel Gibson reportedly passed on doing the film but there is strong rumors that he will have a cameo. Patrick Stewart is also rumored to star which would be pretty kick ass. The first film we know will be shot in 3D so here is assuming if they are shooting together that both will be in 3D
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Weekend Wise Words
"Flatter me, and I may not believe you.
Criticize me, and I may not like you.
Ignore me, and I may not forgive you.
Encourage me, and I may not forget you."
-- William Arthur Ward
Have a nice weekend!
Criticize me, and I may not like you.
Ignore me, and I may not forgive you.
Encourage me, and I may not forget you."
-- William Arthur Ward
Have a nice weekend!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Ron Galella, Paparazzo and proud of it
'Smash This Camera': Galella On His Iconic Shots. From the NRP article from August 11, 2010:
"Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. To the celebrities he hunted down, paparazzo Ron Galella was the enemy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. The documentary, "Smash His Camera" chronicles Galella's career as "the Godfather of the U.S. paparazzi culture."
I found this audio article interesting and recommend listening to it. I enjoyed hearing it for three reasons. One is that Paparazzi have always fascinated and terrified me, much like clowns do some people; and its always been interesting to me to hear their rationalizations for doing what they do. Two, Galella has indeed taken some of the most iconic shots in our history over the course of his career.
Three, would be simply that I used to live next door to Jackie Kennedy Onassis in Manhattan in the '70s. She had a corner house on a street where I lived next door in an apartment building. In fact, in an apartment that eventually, Anthony Quinn bought for his family, along with that entire floor, making it into his condo. I have the newspaper article about it the elevator operator lady sent some time after moving back home from NY. It was a nice neighborhood, across the street from Central Park and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
But, that's all about me.
Its interesting to hear someone talk about how public figures have no rights when in public because they are, by definition, public figures. They argue that anyone has the right to abuse their image, their actions, by sharing them indiscriminately, with the world, and for money in the most mercenary of ways. Its also interesting how they rationalize, that he wouldn't ever take shots of these people in their homes or their private areas of their lives, but only in the public areas. Well, that's something I suppose. But its also why celebs move places like the South of France (Johnny Depp), where no one cares who they are and where they can be treated like just ordinary people. And who wouldn't want that? OK, maybe some, but they stay in Hollywood most the time, don't they.
Its interesting to note, that the term, Paparazzi, is rumored to be Italian for "cockroach".
Wikipedia claims:
"In his book Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from an Italian dialect that describes a particularly annoying noise, that of a buzzing mosquito. This version of the word's origin has been strongly contested."
However, according to the, Online Etymology Dictionary:
"1961, from It. Paparazzo (pl. paparazzi) surname of the freelance photographer in Federico Fellini's 1959 film "La Dolce Vita." The name itself is of no special significance; it is said to be a common one in Calabria, and Fellini is said to have borrowed it from a travel book, "By the Ionian Sea," in which occurs the name of hotel owner Coriolano Paparazzo."
Regardless of their name, they are invaders of famous people's privacy, which they claim they have no legal claim to. Sad. Justifying your career choice and lifestyle by draining a person's dignity into the mainstream media to satisfy the public's morbid fascination with a person's actions and personality.
I guess you can see my orientation here, how I feel about this culture of photographers. Also, why I've always said, "Between fame and fortune, I'll take the fortune."
Every time.
"Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. To the celebrities he hunted down, paparazzo Ron Galella was the enemy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him. Marlon Brando broke his jaw. The documentary, "Smash His Camera" chronicles Galella's career as "the Godfather of the U.S. paparazzi culture."
I found this audio article interesting and recommend listening to it. I enjoyed hearing it for three reasons. One is that Paparazzi have always fascinated and terrified me, much like clowns do some people; and its always been interesting to me to hear their rationalizations for doing what they do. Two, Galella has indeed taken some of the most iconic shots in our history over the course of his career.
Three, would be simply that I used to live next door to Jackie Kennedy Onassis in Manhattan in the '70s. She had a corner house on a street where I lived next door in an apartment building. In fact, in an apartment that eventually, Anthony Quinn bought for his family, along with that entire floor, making it into his condo. I have the newspaper article about it the elevator operator lady sent some time after moving back home from NY. It was a nice neighborhood, across the street from Central Park and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
But, that's all about me.
Its interesting to hear someone talk about how public figures have no rights when in public because they are, by definition, public figures. They argue that anyone has the right to abuse their image, their actions, by sharing them indiscriminately, with the world, and for money in the most mercenary of ways. Its also interesting how they rationalize, that he wouldn't ever take shots of these people in their homes or their private areas of their lives, but only in the public areas. Well, that's something I suppose. But its also why celebs move places like the South of France (Johnny Depp), where no one cares who they are and where they can be treated like just ordinary people. And who wouldn't want that? OK, maybe some, but they stay in Hollywood most the time, don't they.
Its interesting to note, that the term, Paparazzi, is rumored to be Italian for "cockroach".
Wikipedia claims:
"In his book Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from an Italian dialect that describes a particularly annoying noise, that of a buzzing mosquito. This version of the word's origin has been strongly contested."
However, according to the, Online Etymology Dictionary:
"1961, from It. Paparazzo (pl. paparazzi) surname of the freelance photographer in Federico Fellini's 1959 film "La Dolce Vita." The name itself is of no special significance; it is said to be a common one in Calabria, and Fellini is said to have borrowed it from a travel book, "By the Ionian Sea," in which occurs the name of hotel owner Coriolano Paparazzo."
Regardless of their name, they are invaders of famous people's privacy, which they claim they have no legal claim to. Sad. Justifying your career choice and lifestyle by draining a person's dignity into the mainstream media to satisfy the public's morbid fascination with a person's actions and personality.
I guess you can see my orientation here, how I feel about this culture of photographers. Also, why I've always said, "Between fame and fortune, I'll take the fortune."
Every time.
"Hey, Ayatollah, leave us kids alone" A New Pink Floyd Song Rendition
Brothers Sepp and Sohl make up the Canadian duo Blurred Vision, avoiding using their last names for obvious reasons and ties to Iran, have updated Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" for the purpose that it was always meant for, as a protest against incorrect use of authority. And now, youth in Iran are downloading, passing along to one another and its become a rallying cry for freedom, both political and intellectual. This song has given strength to millions the world over regarding their being under foot of oppressive parents, and governments.
Much in line with his and the band Pink Floyd's Humanitarian efforts over the years, bassist Roger Waters, who penned the song originally in 1979, has given this good blessings on their use of his song. So, they are free to push ahead on a very cool adventure.
When NPR's Guy Raz asked if the duo would ever perform the song with Pink Floyd — in Iran, the brothers said they'd be happy to, if it became politically feasible. In fact, they say Iran can be thought of as a birthplace of rock and roll.
I think that's stretching it a bit. But I appreciate where they are coming from, and I certainly bow to the elements of R&R that is owed to this ancient culture, of those who would "roam the ancient lands, and drink wine, and speak poetry and sing, surrounded by women."
Here's to them. And here's to hoping no one tries to kill Sepp and Sohl for only doing what governments should do, care about their people and give them the freedom to be happy and live full rich lives as they decide is appropriate. The world needs these kinds of inspiring anthems.
You go, Kids!
Much in line with his and the band Pink Floyd's Humanitarian efforts over the years, bassist Roger Waters, who penned the song originally in 1979, has given this good blessings on their use of his song. So, they are free to push ahead on a very cool adventure.
When NPR's Guy Raz asked if the duo would ever perform the song with Pink Floyd — in Iran, the brothers said they'd be happy to, if it became politically feasible. In fact, they say Iran can be thought of as a birthplace of rock and roll.
I think that's stretching it a bit. But I appreciate where they are coming from, and I certainly bow to the elements of R&R that is owed to this ancient culture, of those who would "roam the ancient lands, and drink wine, and speak poetry and sing, surrounded by women."
Here's to them. And here's to hoping no one tries to kill Sepp and Sohl for only doing what governments should do, care about their people and give them the freedom to be happy and live full rich lives as they decide is appropriate. The world needs these kinds of inspiring anthems.
You go, Kids!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Abusive Satanic cults. Only in Germany, right? Best to hope so.
Ever see, Rosemary's Baby? Cult takes over husband, he helps his innocent wife to become impregnated by Satan, she bears, I suppose, the AntiChrist? Think all that is Baush prattle? Well, perhaps the supernatural elements, but people being evil has never been far fetched.
It would see that in Germany, there is a strong sect of delusional Satanic inspired criminals who have raised their daughters into a ridiculous cult with prostitution, murder, sacrifices, etc., etc., etc. Sad and predictable.
A woman named Laura, who was born into such a world in the Muenster region in western Germany, has come out and told her story. She tells of trying to be seen by the public as normal, while secretly living a life of cult pressured abuse, all supported by her criminally abusive parents. These are the kinds of things that can be hard to prove. Are they unbelievably criminal? Is their daughter, insane? No one ever wants to get involved in these things without hard proof. And one might suspect, they are very careful not to leave any laying around.
Alfons Strodt, capitular in the Catholic Diocese of Osnabrueck, has helped ex cult members. "In the beginning, I had to process all of this alone," he said. "People would tell me to stop making up such stories.
"I'm grateful that our bishop and the vicar-general now believe me and realize that it is an issue that can no longer be kept under wraps," he said. "Now, the victims can get some of the help they need."
For a more complete account of this story, see the Deutsche Welle, August, Friday the 13th, 2010 article
It would see that in Germany, there is a strong sect of delusional Satanic inspired criminals who have raised their daughters into a ridiculous cult with prostitution, murder, sacrifices, etc., etc., etc. Sad and predictable.
A woman named Laura, who was born into such a world in the Muenster region in western Germany, has come out and told her story. She tells of trying to be seen by the public as normal, while secretly living a life of cult pressured abuse, all supported by her criminally abusive parents. These are the kinds of things that can be hard to prove. Are they unbelievably criminal? Is their daughter, insane? No one ever wants to get involved in these things without hard proof. And one might suspect, they are very careful not to leave any laying around.
Alfons Strodt, capitular in the Catholic Diocese of Osnabrueck, has helped ex cult members. "In the beginning, I had to process all of this alone," he said. "People would tell me to stop making up such stories.
"I'm grateful that our bishop and the vicar-general now believe me and realize that it is an issue that can no longer be kept under wraps," he said. "Now, the victims can get some of the help they need."
For a more complete account of this story, see the Deutsche Welle, August, Friday the 13th, 2010 article
Showtime's new show, The Big C
I just watched, "The Big C", pilot. It was on just after my favorite show, Weeds.
I read a review of "C" today on NPR by David Bianculli is TV critic for TVWorthWatching.com, that was really quite negative, though it had good things to say about Laura Linney, who has the lead playing Cathy.
So, I expected little from the show. Which actually, is always the best way to watch something for the first time, don't you think? David Bianculli's review had said that the show as like a bad cartoon. Or something like that. And maybe it is kind of like a cartoon, but I don't think it would work in that vein, like a Family Guy, or a Simpsons. I needs the live actors to pull it off. Anyway, I think most of what the reviewer said was valid. But I realized, that didn't make it a show I wouldn't enjoy watching.
Still....
I think that any show that has any thing to do with someone breaking with their humdrum, doldrums of a reality, and starts LIVING, starts to enjoy Life, starts to breathe the fresh air once again, is worthy of note. Because, we need more of this kind of thing. Weeds is a lot like that, but for a different reason. Nancy, in Weeds, always seems to be reacting to something. But, C is about someone doing exactly what we need to do more of, change our lives because we suddenly wake up and realize what we are letting slip by. Our Life.
Like Cathy's homeless brother in C, telling her near the end of the pilot: "You're getting your "weird" back on, sis."
And that's exactly what more of us need to do in our own lives.
Live.
I read a review of "C" today on NPR by David Bianculli is TV critic for TVWorthWatching.com, that was really quite negative, though it had good things to say about Laura Linney, who has the lead playing Cathy.
So, I expected little from the show. Which actually, is always the best way to watch something for the first time, don't you think? David Bianculli's review had said that the show as like a bad cartoon. Or something like that. And maybe it is kind of like a cartoon, but I don't think it would work in that vein, like a Family Guy, or a Simpsons. I needs the live actors to pull it off. Anyway, I think most of what the reviewer said was valid. But I realized, that didn't make it a show I wouldn't enjoy watching.
Still....
I think that any show that has any thing to do with someone breaking with their humdrum, doldrums of a reality, and starts LIVING, starts to enjoy Life, starts to breathe the fresh air once again, is worthy of note. Because, we need more of this kind of thing. Weeds is a lot like that, but for a different reason. Nancy, in Weeds, always seems to be reacting to something. But, C is about someone doing exactly what we need to do more of, change our lives because we suddenly wake up and realize what we are letting slip by. Our Life.
Like Cathy's homeless brother in C, telling her near the end of the pilot: "You're getting your "weird" back on, sis."
And that's exactly what more of us need to do in our own lives.
Live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)