I was just today accosted from my own tiny little personal post office box by an insidious and nefarious notification requiring me to attend Jury Duty in Port Orchard, Washington, our county seat!
I'm thinking of defecting to Canada.
I know they said no more draft dodgers, but I've seen the draft, and this ain't your mama's draft notice.
OK, it ain't your papa's draft notice either.
I'm not a big fan of being on Jury Duty. I've served my country in the military. I've served it in doing search and rescue in the mountains. But I'd rather do any of that, than do Jury Duty.
Not to change the subject or anything, but I'd just like to state here and now, that I burned my draft card. Yes, I had a draft card. Yes, that was a long time ago.
I'll never forget it, the day I did it. I was in the parachute shop one day (my AFSC in the Air Force).
It was around the day half way through my military career, wherein I had just realized that I had packed maybe my 10,000th, 230 pound, B-52 drag chute and about a bit more of that in personnel chutes; when I ran across my draft card in my wallet.
So I pulled it out and said, "I've had it, I'm burning my draft card", and proceeded to burn it right there in the shop.
We had a motto for living the Air Force life. The Air Force put the view they wanted people to think we had on a bumber sticker:
"Air Force! A Great Way of Life"
Close, ours was slightly different and went:
"Air Farce. A Rat's Way of Life."
Matter of opinion and orientation, I suppose.
And easily achieved, as Craig found out when he took the "Great Way of Life" bumper sticker and rearranged it a little so it now said our motto. Out of rebellion and humor, he put it on his clothes locker, in his room, in the on-base barracks. We didn't have closets, we had clothes lockers, but good enough.
Anyway, our Squadron Colonel, on inspecting the rooms one day, did not find it amusing.
So about the time that draft card was burning down to my fingers, someone said, "You damn fool, you're already IN the service!"
But I said, "I don't care, I've had it!"
He then went on to say I could still be put in jail for that kind of thing. See we had recently discovered that we could be fined and jailed simply for getting a sun burn. Damaging Government property, they called it, they called us.
It simply all underlined the surreal nature of living the military life.
And I suppose, in the end, the truly salient and succulent nature and spice of my rebellion was somewhat lost, upon his declaration indicating the absolute control that our Government had over us. We were owned. And it sucked. And there was nothing we could do about it, until we timed out and became civilians again. And then would have to start doing our local government civic duties. Something some of us looked quite forward to.
Either way, I have jury duty....
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Gulf Oil Spill, no more oil spill? Worse news ever! For some....
I'm hearing through all the news media, that BP says, we've cleaned up 75% of the oil. The Obama Administration says, we agree with BP and its been peer reviewed. Peer review is a very important thing. It lends it credibility. It means, it may very well be true. Although, you do need to look at just who these peers ARE. Still, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Whenever something like this happens, and it becomes, or hits a point, where its considered as "fixed" as its gonna get (we'll still have to clean up the beaches), then what?
What happens then, is those people who make (made?) a living in this region, who have made nearly no money this year at all, who have seasonal jobs, who have to live on the money from this Summer to make it until the next Summer; these people are now going to be left damaged in the wake of the worst man made disaster in the history of the world.
They won't be getting recompensed. Even if they are, they won't get all the money they are losing, either through BP or the Government not believing their claims, even if they are true, be it through monies they usually make and do not claim (under the counter, tips, smuggling, etc.); whatever the reason, many if not most of these people are now going to be forgotten, not only by BP, a foreign company, but also by our, and these people's own, Government.
This, is just wrong. This, is just business as usual.
Just hope it doesn't happen to you, in your region, related to your job. Because, you could be next.
Whenever something like this happens, and it becomes, or hits a point, where its considered as "fixed" as its gonna get (we'll still have to clean up the beaches), then what?
What happens then, is those people who make (made?) a living in this region, who have made nearly no money this year at all, who have seasonal jobs, who have to live on the money from this Summer to make it until the next Summer; these people are now going to be left damaged in the wake of the worst man made disaster in the history of the world.
They won't be getting recompensed. Even if they are, they won't get all the money they are losing, either through BP or the Government not believing their claims, even if they are true, be it through monies they usually make and do not claim (under the counter, tips, smuggling, etc.); whatever the reason, many if not most of these people are now going to be forgotten, not only by BP, a foreign company, but also by our, and these people's own, Government.
This, is just wrong. This, is just business as usual.
Just hope it doesn't happen to you, in your region, related to your job. Because, you could be next.
Dating, with sanity
Obnoxiously Picky or Simply Discriminating: Dating with Sanity
OK now, let's be real. If you want a relationship, you need a set of aesthetics or values that you absolutely want and/or absolutely don't want, in a person. Then you need to find someone that matches up to those valuations.
Of course they need to find you acceptable too, but that's a whole other article in itself. After all, here and now? This, is all about you.
The problem at this point is that for most people, you aren't going to find that person with those absolutely right requirements. And so typically, you just need to compromise. Some. Just compromise some. Not too much, because then what's the use at having considered all this in the first place? So feel free to compromise at least once in a while, but reasonably so.
So, how does one define compromise?
I would suggest you not go about defining it as one of my ex-wives did. In her view, first the other person was to compromise halfway. I was always amenable to this as it only seems fair that both people should compromise halfway.
Then it was her turn. She would compromise (maybe) halfway too, but she gauged things a bit differently than I. You see, she would compromise half of the way between the distance from wherever she was originating from in her view, just to where I had compromised to (which you may note, if you're paying close attention, is the actual half way point).
Which means that, in this oh so clever style of compromise, it requires one person to compromise in the very least, a full half of the situation, while the other would only have to compromise a quarter's worth. The odd thing about this, was that she really believed that she was compromising halfway. And typically, possibly because she was such a knock out, I didn't notice. Not at first anyway.
Now don't get me wrong, this is great style of compromise that is obviously quite good for one of the party's involved. It's just not really so great for the other person, or a long term relationship.
Back to the point. I look at it this way, I have my basics in what I want from someone. No, that's not quite right, I have a basic design in what I "need" from someone. The rest is all negotiable. I do want someone who is in good shape. I'd prefer someone whom I find attractive and has some inherent degree of caring about what she looks like. Someone, that is, who will at least make an attempt at it. But looks aren't the whole thing. Not by a long shot.
Preferably, she should also have a brain. A brain is good. Sexy, after all, comes, from the brain. I like sexy. In fact, I find that an absolutely, very positive trait in a woman.
However it is also important that she have it stocked with some actually interesting stuff. Sexy and all is fine and dandy, but you have to have something to talk about beyond, locking eyes, and heated moments.
Some street smarts are always a good thing, as is a strong (or any) personality. But not so "smart" or not so strong, to the point of it being "difficult" (read that, annoying) to get along with, well, not so good.
I mean, a "wiseguy" can be funny, but a constant "smart ass" is just a real pain in the same.
Most definitely she should like sex (as opposed to NOT liking it) or at very least have an interest in it and a desire of some sort to actually have it, at least once in a while. Or, possibly show a passing fancy toward it.
It would be very nice too if she were of a patient and understanding nature, with a good sense of humor, better yet, a great sense of humor; as that always comes in handy. Especially through the tough times and if you have ever been in a relationship with me, you'd understand. Not to mention that patience and understanding go along really quite well with sex, as the more patient and understanding the woman is, the better the chances are of actually culminating in our having sex together.
I do find it extremely very attractive when a person is able to have some degree of respect for their partner. I don't know, maybe its just me. Like in where they are not too ashamed or too shy to let others know about it? About what? About how they feel about you, without looking away, not acknowledging you, or out right denying knowing you. As well as being able to maintain that attitude over the long haul.
Let me take a moment to say a word or two about respect in a relationship. You could argue that one needs to deserve respect rather than just having it supplied, without any care or responsibility afforded to its being freely given. Especially when its obvious that they certainly don't deserve it. I have always thought that one needs to earn respect. I wholeheartedly agree on that.
I mean, one should never simply expect respect from people, but rather one should be deserving OF it. Then again, its nice if you just give someone the benefit of the doubt and give them the respect out of shear politeness, until they prove they don't deserve it, and not just assume that they don't deserve it, without giving them a chance to first prove your justification for your disdain.
Now on the other hand, some do take one's lack of expecting respect as a queue not to have any respect for them whatsoever. This is a quantifiable misapprehension about the significance of one not expecting something, but being therefore, deserving of it nonetheless.
Too many times I've seen where a couple loses respect for each other which pretty much heralds the end of what was once a marvelous relationship. So I do think that when one does this in a relationship, especially as a serial offender, it first and foremost at that point then becomes a personality failing within them self.
After all, if you don't respect someone, then what in the hell are you doing with them in the first place? Or at this point? So please, do you both a favor and Leave. Besides, and I can't say this in strong enough words, what does it say about you if you are with someone you have no respect for? So rather than just hate someone because you are too stupid to not be with them, simply bugger off. OK?
Another trait I most definitely do not want in someone is that of being a "workaholic". Or any kind of an "aholic" for that matter. Being rich is of course preferable. A "richaholic" sounds like a most perfect disease to me and I will need to look into a study of that somewhat further. Anyway it follows that workaholics can become rich. But I don't believe in pressing my luck either; so I think that being rich is not a requirement, merely a preference.
Regarding "workaholism" (or bi-polarism, manic/depression-ism, OCD-ism, or those extreme opposing dimensions of autism or of the coma bound), I do believe it to be fundamentally important not to attach myself to someone like that. If they are there, if it happens in your family, or to friends, then most definitely, you have a responsibility and hopefully a desire to care for and protect these loved ones.
In the end, on choosing who I want, I want someone who will Be There. Someone who is Interested in Being There For Me and who will Be There With Me. Someone who is, well, interested IN me. And for that matter I also greatly appreciate someone who doesn't look for any excuse to be interested in anything else, BUT me. Which isn't to say that I want all her attention, I just don't want her regularly seeking reasons to get, or be away from me. If you see what I mean.
And again, if that's the case, why would she be there, or remain there? Its weird, but people do, you know.
And so from those few, relatively benign points onward I do believe that a person is their own person. And that it is then that whoever they are individually makes them intriguing and likely worth being around.
Mostly in Life I've learned that I don't want to be around someone who makes my existence difficult. After all, your partner, a partner, any partner should be there at least in part, because they make and want to make, your life LESS difficult. Not more difficult as so typically seems to happen. Don't you think that sounds oh so very nice? Maybe even somewhat Appealing? Maybe like a LOT even, like very appealing?
So, I believe that by having a few basic ideas at hand and an open mind, with a penchant for compromise, you will very likely find that special person. A person with whom you will enter into a fair and loving relationship, leaving you both quite able and ready to enjoy not only just each other, but also the challenges to face you both ahead.
Hopefully, this person will be one who will make it all seem less complicated for you, at least in some ways. Or maybe in many ways, and you will both enjoy Life to the fullest, right there in the world alongside one another.
And a hot LBD (Little Black Dress) just wouldn't hurt none too much, either....
OK now, let's be real. If you want a relationship, you need a set of aesthetics or values that you absolutely want and/or absolutely don't want, in a person. Then you need to find someone that matches up to those valuations.
Of course they need to find you acceptable too, but that's a whole other article in itself. After all, here and now? This, is all about you.
The problem at this point is that for most people, you aren't going to find that person with those absolutely right requirements. And so typically, you just need to compromise. Some. Just compromise some. Not too much, because then what's the use at having considered all this in the first place? So feel free to compromise at least once in a while, but reasonably so.
So, how does one define compromise?
I would suggest you not go about defining it as one of my ex-wives did. In her view, first the other person was to compromise halfway. I was always amenable to this as it only seems fair that both people should compromise halfway.
Then it was her turn. She would compromise (maybe) halfway too, but she gauged things a bit differently than I. You see, she would compromise half of the way between the distance from wherever she was originating from in her view, just to where I had compromised to (which you may note, if you're paying close attention, is the actual half way point).
Which means that, in this oh so clever style of compromise, it requires one person to compromise in the very least, a full half of the situation, while the other would only have to compromise a quarter's worth. The odd thing about this, was that she really believed that she was compromising halfway. And typically, possibly because she was such a knock out, I didn't notice. Not at first anyway.
Now don't get me wrong, this is great style of compromise that is obviously quite good for one of the party's involved. It's just not really so great for the other person, or a long term relationship.
Back to the point. I look at it this way, I have my basics in what I want from someone. No, that's not quite right, I have a basic design in what I "need" from someone. The rest is all negotiable. I do want someone who is in good shape. I'd prefer someone whom I find attractive and has some inherent degree of caring about what she looks like. Someone, that is, who will at least make an attempt at it. But looks aren't the whole thing. Not by a long shot.
Preferably, she should also have a brain. A brain is good. Sexy, after all, comes, from the brain. I like sexy. In fact, I find that an absolutely, very positive trait in a woman.
However it is also important that she have it stocked with some actually interesting stuff. Sexy and all is fine and dandy, but you have to have something to talk about beyond, locking eyes, and heated moments.
Some street smarts are always a good thing, as is a strong (or any) personality. But not so "smart" or not so strong, to the point of it being "difficult" (read that, annoying) to get along with, well, not so good.
I mean, a "wiseguy" can be funny, but a constant "smart ass" is just a real pain in the same.
Most definitely she should like sex (as opposed to NOT liking it) or at very least have an interest in it and a desire of some sort to actually have it, at least once in a while. Or, possibly show a passing fancy toward it.
It would be very nice too if she were of a patient and understanding nature, with a good sense of humor, better yet, a great sense of humor; as that always comes in handy. Especially through the tough times and if you have ever been in a relationship with me, you'd understand. Not to mention that patience and understanding go along really quite well with sex, as the more patient and understanding the woman is, the better the chances are of actually culminating in our having sex together.
I do find it extremely very attractive when a person is able to have some degree of respect for their partner. I don't know, maybe its just me. Like in where they are not too ashamed or too shy to let others know about it? About what? About how they feel about you, without looking away, not acknowledging you, or out right denying knowing you. As well as being able to maintain that attitude over the long haul.
Let me take a moment to say a word or two about respect in a relationship. You could argue that one needs to deserve respect rather than just having it supplied, without any care or responsibility afforded to its being freely given. Especially when its obvious that they certainly don't deserve it. I have always thought that one needs to earn respect. I wholeheartedly agree on that.
I mean, one should never simply expect respect from people, but rather one should be deserving OF it. Then again, its nice if you just give someone the benefit of the doubt and give them the respect out of shear politeness, until they prove they don't deserve it, and not just assume that they don't deserve it, without giving them a chance to first prove your justification for your disdain.
Now on the other hand, some do take one's lack of expecting respect as a queue not to have any respect for them whatsoever. This is a quantifiable misapprehension about the significance of one not expecting something, but being therefore, deserving of it nonetheless.
Too many times I've seen where a couple loses respect for each other which pretty much heralds the end of what was once a marvelous relationship. So I do think that when one does this in a relationship, especially as a serial offender, it first and foremost at that point then becomes a personality failing within them self.
After all, if you don't respect someone, then what in the hell are you doing with them in the first place? Or at this point? So please, do you both a favor and Leave. Besides, and I can't say this in strong enough words, what does it say about you if you are with someone you have no respect for? So rather than just hate someone because you are too stupid to not be with them, simply bugger off. OK?
Another trait I most definitely do not want in someone is that of being a "workaholic". Or any kind of an "aholic" for that matter. Being rich is of course preferable. A "richaholic" sounds like a most perfect disease to me and I will need to look into a study of that somewhat further. Anyway it follows that workaholics can become rich. But I don't believe in pressing my luck either; so I think that being rich is not a requirement, merely a preference.
Regarding "workaholism" (or bi-polarism, manic/depression-ism, OCD-ism, or those extreme opposing dimensions of autism or of the coma bound), I do believe it to be fundamentally important not to attach myself to someone like that. If they are there, if it happens in your family, or to friends, then most definitely, you have a responsibility and hopefully a desire to care for and protect these loved ones.
In the end, on choosing who I want, I want someone who will Be There. Someone who is Interested in Being There For Me and who will Be There With Me. Someone who is, well, interested IN me. And for that matter I also greatly appreciate someone who doesn't look for any excuse to be interested in anything else, BUT me. Which isn't to say that I want all her attention, I just don't want her regularly seeking reasons to get, or be away from me. If you see what I mean.
And again, if that's the case, why would she be there, or remain there? Its weird, but people do, you know.
And so from those few, relatively benign points onward I do believe that a person is their own person. And that it is then that whoever they are individually makes them intriguing and likely worth being around.
Mostly in Life I've learned that I don't want to be around someone who makes my existence difficult. After all, your partner, a partner, any partner should be there at least in part, because they make and want to make, your life LESS difficult. Not more difficult as so typically seems to happen. Don't you think that sounds oh so very nice? Maybe even somewhat Appealing? Maybe like a LOT even, like very appealing?
So, I believe that by having a few basic ideas at hand and an open mind, with a penchant for compromise, you will very likely find that special person. A person with whom you will enter into a fair and loving relationship, leaving you both quite able and ready to enjoy not only just each other, but also the challenges to face you both ahead.
Hopefully, this person will be one who will make it all seem less complicated for you, at least in some ways. Or maybe in many ways, and you will both enjoy Life to the fullest, right there in the world alongside one another.
And a hot LBD (Little Black Dress) just wouldn't hurt none too much, either....
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
John Cleese on Sarah Palin as a parrot
I just ran across this video on YouTube and had to mention it. Why? Because, before we go through this kind of thing again, we need to review what we've done in the past. History, is the foreteller of the future, if we are not careful and learn form it.
John Cleese, during an interview in 2008, was asked his opinion on Sarah Palin.
Cleese broke out in laughter. He then said, she was very good at being a "parrot"; that she delivered her speeches very well, she must have an incredible memory, with an itinerant "Ah, shucks" thrown in here and there. But that it was unbelievable that she had been asked to be the vice presidential nominee.
Cleease went on to say that "Monty Python, could have written this" situation; and, "I'm sorry Michael Palin, but you are no longer the funniest Palin around". He was speaking to the age and health of McCain, put up against Palin one day, possibly having to run the most office of the most powerful country in the history of the world.
How was it possible Republican party? What the hell were you thinking? I understand the concept of including something to gain attention, to get people to like something, to feel attracted to something. But, come on!
Christopher Hitchens said that people should have not only refused to vote for McCain, but also all Republicans down the line in a show of force; thereby telling the Republican Party that "we're just not that stupid, so stop treating us as such."
But alas, America chose not to. They didn't take up the banner to fight against the belief that they truly are ignoramuses. Luckily, the opposing party, had a candidate and a situation that was timely and needed, in order to turn the World's opinion of who we are as a nation, back around and at least give us the chance at another look from the people we share this world with. And luckily, they won.
Luckily. Now that IS sad, that luck should have anything to do with a choice between Palin and Obama. McCain? Yeah, he was in there somewhere. But this was what it actually came down to, this was what the Republican party set up.
And luckily, they got what they planned, nothing.
Here, watch for yourself, its quite entertaining:
Cleese on Palin
I so love listening to people not from America talking about us, it can really put you in your place sometimes.
John Cleese, during an interview in 2008, was asked his opinion on Sarah Palin.
Cleese broke out in laughter. He then said, she was very good at being a "parrot"; that she delivered her speeches very well, she must have an incredible memory, with an itinerant "Ah, shucks" thrown in here and there. But that it was unbelievable that she had been asked to be the vice presidential nominee.
Cleease went on to say that "Monty Python, could have written this" situation; and, "I'm sorry Michael Palin, but you are no longer the funniest Palin around". He was speaking to the age and health of McCain, put up against Palin one day, possibly having to run the most office of the most powerful country in the history of the world.
How was it possible Republican party? What the hell were you thinking? I understand the concept of including something to gain attention, to get people to like something, to feel attracted to something. But, come on!
Christopher Hitchens said that people should have not only refused to vote for McCain, but also all Republicans down the line in a show of force; thereby telling the Republican Party that "we're just not that stupid, so stop treating us as such."
But alas, America chose not to. They didn't take up the banner to fight against the belief that they truly are ignoramuses. Luckily, the opposing party, had a candidate and a situation that was timely and needed, in order to turn the World's opinion of who we are as a nation, back around and at least give us the chance at another look from the people we share this world with. And luckily, they won.
Luckily. Now that IS sad, that luck should have anything to do with a choice between Palin and Obama. McCain? Yeah, he was in there somewhere. But this was what it actually came down to, this was what the Republican party set up.
And luckily, they got what they planned, nothing.
Here, watch for yourself, its quite entertaining:
Cleese on Palin
I so love listening to people not from America talking about us, it can really put you in your place sometimes.
If Twitter were available to Napoleon
Napoleon: Josephine! My Petit Whore! How are you?
Josephine: How is my Petit Caporal, on his campaign today?
Napoleon: The secret of war lies in the communications. I tell you, I freaking LOVE this Twitter thing!
Josephine: Oui, mon Cherie, but you know how I do not like to talk about ugly war things. Couldn't Twitter help you win the wars easier?
Napoleon: What? Nonsense, its but a toy. Oh, well...and you know? People keep referring to me in the street as, "That Corsican"! So rude!
Josephine: I do not think it sounds so that bad, Cherie? You can be MY petit Corsican any time.
Napoleon: But, I hate it! I HATE it! I'd rather be called..."Le Bishop"! Or, ooo, I know! "Le Emporer"!
Josephine: Aw, they'll call you "Le Emporer" one day. Just keep demanding it. France will simply forget not to call you that & just fall into step.
Napoleon: France? No, Germany? Maybe. But maybe so. And after all I've done for them, too!
Josephine: Oui, decreasing the burden on the State through massive attrition WAS very creative, Cherie, my Great big, petite mon Emporer!
Napoleon: What? What was that? I didn't quite hear you....
Josephine: Oui Cherie, my Great big, petite mon Emporer! And you can't "hear" text, my petit fool.
Napoleon: Say it again....?
Josephine: Come back here and I shall whisper it to any part of your petit self that you wish!
Napoleon: Arghhhh! I really hate this Spanish country! You know I've had to recapture Madrid...AGAIN?
Josephine: When you return I will recapture Your Royal Madrid my petit Grand Soldier.
Napoleon: How are you coming along with that whole, giving me a male heir thing?
Josephine: But, you are not here and you know, and I need to practice practice practice....
Napoleon: Oui, Josephine, I am practicing daily.
Josephine: What?!
Napoleon: I mean, I think about practicing, daily. Merde!
Josephine: You are not playing with those little whores who follow your war machine everywhere you go, are you?
Napoleon: Hello? Hello? Damn, reception here is so bad!
Josephine: Don't you give me that, you petit midget. You'd better NOT be playing the field.
Napoleon: But, mon cherie, it is my JOB to play in the fields, and you know, slaughter, bludgeon, and KA Bang!
Josephine: Oui, cherie. Well, bang well, Cherie, I will boom you like a cannon when you return.
Napoleon: Merde! I hate Spain!
Josephine: How is my Petit Caporal, on his campaign today?
Napoleon: The secret of war lies in the communications. I tell you, I freaking LOVE this Twitter thing!
Josephine: Oui, mon Cherie, but you know how I do not like to talk about ugly war things. Couldn't Twitter help you win the wars easier?
Napoleon: What? Nonsense, its but a toy. Oh, well...and you know? People keep referring to me in the street as, "That Corsican"! So rude!
Josephine: I do not think it sounds so that bad, Cherie? You can be MY petit Corsican any time.
Napoleon: But, I hate it! I HATE it! I'd rather be called..."Le Bishop"! Or, ooo, I know! "Le Emporer"!
Josephine: Aw, they'll call you "Le Emporer" one day. Just keep demanding it. France will simply forget not to call you that & just fall into step.
Napoleon: France? No, Germany? Maybe. But maybe so. And after all I've done for them, too!
Josephine: Oui, decreasing the burden on the State through massive attrition WAS very creative, Cherie, my Great big, petite mon Emporer!
Napoleon: What? What was that? I didn't quite hear you....
Josephine: Oui Cherie, my Great big, petite mon Emporer! And you can't "hear" text, my petit fool.
Napoleon: Say it again....?
Josephine: Come back here and I shall whisper it to any part of your petit self that you wish!
Napoleon: Arghhhh! I really hate this Spanish country! You know I've had to recapture Madrid...AGAIN?
Josephine: When you return I will recapture Your Royal Madrid my petit Grand Soldier.
Napoleon: How are you coming along with that whole, giving me a male heir thing?
Josephine: But, you are not here and you know, and I need to practice practice practice....
Napoleon: Oui, Josephine, I am practicing daily.
Josephine: What?!
Napoleon: I mean, I think about practicing, daily. Merde!
Josephine: You are not playing with those little whores who follow your war machine everywhere you go, are you?
Napoleon: Hello? Hello? Damn, reception here is so bad!
Josephine: Don't you give me that, you petit midget. You'd better NOT be playing the field.
Napoleon: But, mon cherie, it is my JOB to play in the fields, and you know, slaughter, bludgeon, and KA Bang!
Josephine: Oui, cherie. Well, bang well, Cherie, I will boom you like a cannon when you return.
Napoleon: Merde! I hate Spain!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Raul Julia's last film: "Down came a Blackbird"
Last week, I saw a movie listed to be on TV that looked interesting and so I Tivoed it. It was, 1995s "Down came a blackbird" with Laura Dern, Vanessa Redgrave and Raul Julia. It is about torture victims at a clinic for their type, by a Dr. who is a holocaust survivor.
I find interesting, stories about political intrigue and its ramifications. Perhaps as a way to stay conscious of what can happen, anywhere. Because, with some of the things we are seeing in our on country, the "Land of the Free, home of the brave", I've seen too many instances of our rights deteriorating, our freedoms suffering restrictions, to the popular interests of the fearful, the uneducated, the powerful and the greedy.
A few quotes from William S. Burroughs. Why? Because it shows a certain thought process, or defective way of thinking, ones that we are prone to do, ones that we tend to flock, to as a mob:
* A paranoid man is a man who knows a little about what's going on.
o Quoted in Friend magazine (1970)
* There is simply no room left for 'freedom from the tyranny of government' since city dwellers depend on it for food, power, water, transportation, protection, and welfare. Your right to live where you want, with companions of your choosing, under laws to which you agree, died in the eighteenth century with Captain Mission. Only a miracle or a disaster could restore it.
o Cities of the Red Night (1981)
* Most of the trouble in the world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has.
o "My Own Business" in The Adding Machine : Selected Essays (1985), p. 16
* This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.
o "The War Universe", taped conversation, first published in Grand Street, No. 37 (1991)
* After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.
o Grand Street, no. 37 & The War Universe (1992)
Back to the film...it starts with Dern in South America as a journalist with a partner doing the job that those types tend to do in a country such as they were in. They were picked up and tortured by death squads and only she made it out alive.
She met the Dr. (Redgrave) who survived the Nazis concentration camps as a child and the Dr. asks Dern's character to come to her clinic, because she needs it. But Dern refuses and needs a reason, the reason being, she see is enticed by the possibility of a very good story in it. But is she really doing it for the story, or because deep down she knows she needs it, but can only do it by fooling herself?
At this point, I had forgotten Raul was in this film. He had always been one of my favorite actors. I never thought much of him, until I saw him in "Kiss of the Spiderwoman", another film about political abuses in a South American country, with William Hurt as a gay prisoner; Raul, being the exact opposite of Hurt's character. It is an affecting story, at times, difficult to watch, just as it was as a stage play, powerful, disturbing, affecting.
So, when Raul turns up in the movie, finally, it was a shock in...several ways.
After Dern arrives at the clinic and settles in, Raul's character arrives, suave in a way, secretly paranoid, but with a real squad from his homeland, trying to track him down. When Raul appeared, I was stunned at his appearance, because he was so gaunt, so weak looking. I couldn't understand it until I looked the movie up on IMDB and discovered this was his last film before he died in 1994; the movie being only released in 1995.
I think, it is a tribute to Raul, as a man and an actor, that this should prove to be his last role. I would have perhaps, preferred, that his last role had been a happy character, as in "The Addams Family" film, when he played Gomez; one of my favorite TV shows of the 60s.
Regarding this last role of Raul's life and film career...whenever I write horror stories, it is as an attack against what I am fearful of, of what I am against in life, about those injustices in the world; in order to make people think, to make them rail against what is bad and evil and wrong. A woman once read a short story of mine, one of "social horror" as I like to call it; and she said after, with a look of horror on her face: "You don't, see things that way, do you?"
Of course, I don't. That, was the point.
I see things, in the exact opposite of the story's main character. I wrote it that way so that YOU will understand what is horrible, to see what evil sees, to realize the narcotic powers it has over some, to fear what is bad in life, then to feel motivated to fight against it, to recognize it, to refuse to put up with it.
This film was a very interesting story, at times, difficult to watch and difficult to listen to. But a powerful tale and one that gives us a better understanding of what torture victims live through afterward, but more importantly, what it is that goes on. What goes on in the way of anyone, doing this to someone, or allowing it, to happen to someone.
Has America ever done this, or allowed this to happen by third parties? Have we tortured, or set up people to be tortured? "Waterboarded"? Terrified? Humiliated? Have we ever redefined what the word "torture" means in order to allow us to be justified, to be able to do it? Do we, as citizens have any responsibility in our government having done this? IS it justified? Is ANYTHING to be justified in the process of national security? Perhaps, at times, the answer is yes; still, we then have that blood on our hands, too. Do you find that...unsettling to think of?
It is strange and curious in the way we Humans can be. One thing that kept sticking in my mind through nearly the entire film, that I really hated Laura Dern's hair style. Funny how we will latch on to something when we are uncomfortable, in an attempt to try and allay in any way possible, our fears, our embarrassments. To be able to do what needs to be done. To misdirect our attention, to complete an uncomfortable, or disagreeable task. How do the torturers rationalize their behaviors, their jobs, when they go home at night, to family, friends, even their religion?
"Sing a Song of Sixpence", a Nursery Rhyme:
Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of rye;
Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.
When the pie was opened, the birds began to sing;
Oh, wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?
The king was in his counting house counting out his money,
The queen was in the parlour eating bread and honey.
The maid was in the garden hanging out the clothes
When down came a blackbird and pecked off her nose.
I find interesting, stories about political intrigue and its ramifications. Perhaps as a way to stay conscious of what can happen, anywhere. Because, with some of the things we are seeing in our on country, the "Land of the Free, home of the brave", I've seen too many instances of our rights deteriorating, our freedoms suffering restrictions, to the popular interests of the fearful, the uneducated, the powerful and the greedy.
A few quotes from William S. Burroughs. Why? Because it shows a certain thought process, or defective way of thinking, ones that we are prone to do, ones that we tend to flock, to as a mob:
* A paranoid man is a man who knows a little about what's going on.
o Quoted in Friend magazine (1970)
* There is simply no room left for 'freedom from the tyranny of government' since city dwellers depend on it for food, power, water, transportation, protection, and welfare. Your right to live where you want, with companions of your choosing, under laws to which you agree, died in the eighteenth century with Captain Mission. Only a miracle or a disaster could restore it.
o Cities of the Red Night (1981)
* Most of the trouble in the world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has.
o "My Own Business" in The Adding Machine : Selected Essays (1985), p. 16
* This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.
o "The War Universe", taped conversation, first published in Grand Street, No. 37 (1991)
* After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.
o Grand Street, no. 37 & The War Universe (1992)
Back to the film...it starts with Dern in South America as a journalist with a partner doing the job that those types tend to do in a country such as they were in. They were picked up and tortured by death squads and only she made it out alive.
She met the Dr. (Redgrave) who survived the Nazis concentration camps as a child and the Dr. asks Dern's character to come to her clinic, because she needs it. But Dern refuses and needs a reason, the reason being, she see is enticed by the possibility of a very good story in it. But is she really doing it for the story, or because deep down she knows she needs it, but can only do it by fooling herself?
At this point, I had forgotten Raul was in this film. He had always been one of my favorite actors. I never thought much of him, until I saw him in "Kiss of the Spiderwoman", another film about political abuses in a South American country, with William Hurt as a gay prisoner; Raul, being the exact opposite of Hurt's character. It is an affecting story, at times, difficult to watch, just as it was as a stage play, powerful, disturbing, affecting.
So, when Raul turns up in the movie, finally, it was a shock in...several ways.
After Dern arrives at the clinic and settles in, Raul's character arrives, suave in a way, secretly paranoid, but with a real squad from his homeland, trying to track him down. When Raul appeared, I was stunned at his appearance, because he was so gaunt, so weak looking. I couldn't understand it until I looked the movie up on IMDB and discovered this was his last film before he died in 1994; the movie being only released in 1995.
I think, it is a tribute to Raul, as a man and an actor, that this should prove to be his last role. I would have perhaps, preferred, that his last role had been a happy character, as in "The Addams Family" film, when he played Gomez; one of my favorite TV shows of the 60s.
Regarding this last role of Raul's life and film career...whenever I write horror stories, it is as an attack against what I am fearful of, of what I am against in life, about those injustices in the world; in order to make people think, to make them rail against what is bad and evil and wrong. A woman once read a short story of mine, one of "social horror" as I like to call it; and she said after, with a look of horror on her face: "You don't, see things that way, do you?"
Of course, I don't. That, was the point.
I see things, in the exact opposite of the story's main character. I wrote it that way so that YOU will understand what is horrible, to see what evil sees, to realize the narcotic powers it has over some, to fear what is bad in life, then to feel motivated to fight against it, to recognize it, to refuse to put up with it.
This film was a very interesting story, at times, difficult to watch and difficult to listen to. But a powerful tale and one that gives us a better understanding of what torture victims live through afterward, but more importantly, what it is that goes on. What goes on in the way of anyone, doing this to someone, or allowing it, to happen to someone.
Has America ever done this, or allowed this to happen by third parties? Have we tortured, or set up people to be tortured? "Waterboarded"? Terrified? Humiliated? Have we ever redefined what the word "torture" means in order to allow us to be justified, to be able to do it? Do we, as citizens have any responsibility in our government having done this? IS it justified? Is ANYTHING to be justified in the process of national security? Perhaps, at times, the answer is yes; still, we then have that blood on our hands, too. Do you find that...unsettling to think of?
It is strange and curious in the way we Humans can be. One thing that kept sticking in my mind through nearly the entire film, that I really hated Laura Dern's hair style. Funny how we will latch on to something when we are uncomfortable, in an attempt to try and allay in any way possible, our fears, our embarrassments. To be able to do what needs to be done. To misdirect our attention, to complete an uncomfortable, or disagreeable task. How do the torturers rationalize their behaviors, their jobs, when they go home at night, to family, friends, even their religion?
"Sing a Song of Sixpence", a Nursery Rhyme:
Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of rye;
Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.
When the pie was opened, the birds began to sing;
Oh, wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?
The king was in his counting house counting out his money,
The queen was in the parlour eating bread and honey.
The maid was in the garden hanging out the clothes
When down came a blackbird and pecked off her nose.
Jim Henson - New graphic novel to be released
A new graphic novel to be released developed by Jim Henson. The production of the book will be overseen by Henson’s daughter, Lisa Henson, CEO of the Henson Company In 2009 a deal was made with Archaia an independent L.A. graphic novel publisher to produce graphic novels and periodical comics based on Henson material. Archaia editor-in-chief Stephen Christy, who will also oversee the book’s production,.
The book was originally developed in the 1960s and Christy says it went through numerous drafts but was “too expansive to be produced as a film at that time. Christy said the Tale of Sand was “an idea that was in Henson’s head since the 1950s. We have 3 or 4 versions and we’re going to base the book on a 1974 draft.”
"A Tale of Sand" is a feature length screenplay, Christy said, that tells the story of a young boy kicked out of a dusty town in the middle of the desert. “There’s nothing but sand in every direction,” Christy said, “and he embarks on an oddball journey.” Christy said the screenplay is “dark and very weird” and was done before Henson made films like Labyrinth and Dark Crystal.
From: blogs.publishersweekly.com
The book was originally developed in the 1960s and Christy says it went through numerous drafts but was “too expansive to be produced as a film at that time. Christy said the Tale of Sand was “an idea that was in Henson’s head since the 1950s. We have 3 or 4 versions and we’re going to base the book on a 1974 draft.”
"A Tale of Sand" is a feature length screenplay, Christy said, that tells the story of a young boy kicked out of a dusty town in the middle of the desert. “There’s nothing but sand in every direction,” Christy said, “and he embarks on an oddball journey.” Christy said the screenplay is “dark and very weird” and was done before Henson made films like Labyrinth and Dark Crystal.
From: blogs.publishersweekly.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)