Monday, December 29, 2014
Answer me this LGBTACDEFGers ...
Why is somebody, all of a sudden, "gay" if they're rumored to be dating (or are dating) someone of their own sex even if previous relationships were with the opposite sex? Isn't there a thing called "bisexuality" or even bi-curious (not exactly "bi" but just "seeing where it goes"/"experimenting")?
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Christian movies
I was reading a thread dedicated to Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) and it made me think what makes Christian theme movies, for the most part, feel like very bad Lifetime Original movies.
These are what I've seen, so far: I thought Fireproof was decent at best; October Baby was quite good for what it was; Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ still remains the cinematic apex of the group besides Ben-Hur to me. Doubt, though not really a Christian film, is also a very good one. I haven't seen Courageous yet (made by the same director who made Fireproof).
I'll admit that I haven't watched many faith based movies so my criticism is more on narrow grounds than one based on a wider catalog.
But still, I have a strong feeling, that many who do make - either direct or script - faith based movies aren't all that talented. Why do so many directors who are, no doubt, very talented tend to be of the secular cloth? Darren Aronofsky, maker of Noah (roughly based of off Noah's Ark and not really Christian as well), directing talent speaks for itself, but he's an atheist (of Jewish background). I don't think John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) is religious even though Doubt is a rough snippet of his Catholic upbringing.
Again, many of the faith based films that are being made today, if they aren't made by the Aronofskys or the Shanleys of the world, are cheesy - not intentional it seems - so I'm left to conclude that there is a lack of talent in front of the camera and in back. This upsets me because as someone who has much familiarity with movies that come out of Cannes, TIFF, Sundance - basically the more "raw"/"real" indie/Europa fare - I see the stark difference and it's telling. It could say something that I don't want to be true: That those who make such movies, as secular & liberal/progressive as they are, are just innately more talented in making movies than Christians who make things like Saving Christmas. It's like how certain races fare better in (certain) sports. Does this hold true, in the artistic department, for secular & liberal/progressive types?
What's the deal? Why are most faith based films that I looked at seem quite horrible? Where are the directors, script writers and actors that can deliver a movie that's on the level of The Passion of the Christ year in and year out? The actors don't have to be Christian, but I do think it takes someone who knows the feeling of being an traditional Christian to write & direct a decently made faith based film -- oh and talent, as well.
It kind of reminds me of a discussion about the talent pool for USA soccer & classical music. I was reading that the problem that men's team did not advance as far as others national teams in the World Cup is because of the lack of talent. There is a somewhat strong narrative saying that other sports such as baseball, football and basketball "steal" athletes from soccer that might other wise excel at the sport. I don't necessarily agree, but I do understand where those who advocate this narrative come from. If only a few thousand that might look at baseball. basketball and football look at soccer instead at the age of five the talent gap would be shortened, so the theory goes. (This greatly reminds of the 1% vs 99% wealth distribution that has been touted ... and out of all the sports, soccer. Go figure.)
The same was said about the almost barren land of great modern day classical composers. Those that believed the narrative that many great composers, such as Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin etc, existed during their times was because music - classical to be exact - was the main "thing" to get into. The narrative continues that if many of the talents today, in various fields, such as computer technology (Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates) and movie making (take your pick from many talented directors) focused on making music - classical - instead we'd have more Handels, Beethovens, Mozarts and Chopins. Again, it's the "other sports 'stole' potential greatness for [insert field that is seeing much mediocrity]." I find this very interesting and even compelling. There might a grain of truth to it, or it might be more than that.
This also makes me think: Is it that movie making, a relatively new medium of art, is just more conducive to debauchery and the narcissism of the human condition? Sculpture and paintings (with writing, be it poetry or novel writing a close third) still remain, to my knowledge, the best mediums that can honestly portray religious themes. Many of the movies that I think are well-made have directors & script writers that, I think, are non-religious. Maybe this is a medium where secular & faith are rightly so divided -- that faith, for all its complexities and wonder, is much trickier to be cinematic, to actually "reach" to the audiences. It just seems that way to me.
Is it that film making might be an inferior medium to broadcast/show/tell a deeply human religious life and events? Or is that the religious who have directing & script writing interests just aren't talented enough to make a film that isn't a cheese fest and its narrative isn't "beating me over the head"? After all, movies tend to be two hours long -- not a very gracious length of time to fit in a script that is about 120 pages double spaced.
It's a complex issue with many factors and many potential theories.
I'm confused on why this hasn't been addressed before by someone either in the industry (who is a Christian and is as talented as Darren Aronofsky) or someone from the outside looking in (not using the "Hollywood" term to include the mainstream fare that make up the lineup at your local theater).
These are what I've seen, so far: I thought Fireproof was decent at best; October Baby was quite good for what it was; Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ still remains the cinematic apex of the group besides Ben-Hur to me. Doubt, though not really a Christian film, is also a very good one. I haven't seen Courageous yet (made by the same director who made Fireproof).
I'll admit that I haven't watched many faith based movies so my criticism is more on narrow grounds than one based on a wider catalog.
But still, I have a strong feeling, that many who do make - either direct or script - faith based movies aren't all that talented. Why do so many directors who are, no doubt, very talented tend to be of the secular cloth? Darren Aronofsky, maker of Noah (roughly based of off Noah's Ark and not really Christian as well), directing talent speaks for itself, but he's an atheist (of Jewish background). I don't think John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) is religious even though Doubt is a rough snippet of his Catholic upbringing.
Again, many of the faith based films that are being made today, if they aren't made by the Aronofskys or the Shanleys of the world, are cheesy - not intentional it seems - so I'm left to conclude that there is a lack of talent in front of the camera and in back. This upsets me because as someone who has much familiarity with movies that come out of Cannes, TIFF, Sundance - basically the more "raw"/"real" indie/Europa fare - I see the stark difference and it's telling. It could say something that I don't want to be true: That those who make such movies, as secular & liberal/progressive as they are, are just innately more talented in making movies than Christians who make things like Saving Christmas. It's like how certain races fare better in (certain) sports. Does this hold true, in the artistic department, for secular & liberal/progressive types?
What's the deal? Why are most faith based films that I looked at seem quite horrible? Where are the directors, script writers and actors that can deliver a movie that's on the level of The Passion of the Christ year in and year out? The actors don't have to be Christian, but I do think it takes someone who knows the feeling of being an traditional Christian to write & direct a decently made faith based film -- oh and talent, as well.
It kind of reminds me of a discussion about the talent pool for USA soccer & classical music. I was reading that the problem that men's team did not advance as far as others national teams in the World Cup is because of the lack of talent. There is a somewhat strong narrative saying that other sports such as baseball, football and basketball "steal" athletes from soccer that might other wise excel at the sport. I don't necessarily agree, but I do understand where those who advocate this narrative come from. If only a few thousand that might look at baseball. basketball and football look at soccer instead at the age of five the talent gap would be shortened, so the theory goes. (This greatly reminds of the 1% vs 99% wealth distribution that has been touted ... and out of all the sports, soccer. Go figure.)
The same was said about the almost barren land of great modern day classical composers. Those that believed the narrative that many great composers, such as Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin etc, existed during their times was because music - classical to be exact - was the main "thing" to get into. The narrative continues that if many of the talents today, in various fields, such as computer technology (Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates) and movie making (take your pick from many talented directors) focused on making music - classical - instead we'd have more Handels, Beethovens, Mozarts and Chopins. Again, it's the "other sports 'stole' potential greatness for [insert field that is seeing much mediocrity]." I find this very interesting and even compelling. There might a grain of truth to it, or it might be more than that.
This also makes me think: Is it that movie making, a relatively new medium of art, is just more conducive to debauchery and the narcissism of the human condition? Sculpture and paintings (with writing, be it poetry or novel writing a close third) still remain, to my knowledge, the best mediums that can honestly portray religious themes. Many of the movies that I think are well-made have directors & script writers that, I think, are non-religious. Maybe this is a medium where secular & faith are rightly so divided -- that faith, for all its complexities and wonder, is much trickier to be cinematic, to actually "reach" to the audiences. It just seems that way to me.
Is it that film making might be an inferior medium to broadcast/show/tell a deeply human religious life and events? Or is that the religious who have directing & script writing interests just aren't talented enough to make a film that isn't a cheese fest and its narrative isn't "beating me over the head"? After all, movies tend to be two hours long -- not a very gracious length of time to fit in a script that is about 120 pages double spaced.
It's a complex issue with many factors and many potential theories.
I'm confused on why this hasn't been addressed before by someone either in the industry (who is a Christian and is as talented as Darren Aronofsky) or someone from the outside looking in (not using the "Hollywood" term to include the mainstream fare that make up the lineup at your local theater).
NYT : Millennials and the Age of Tumblr Activism
The heading sums up my generation succinctly, at least for this year and years past. As someone who has a tumblr page (see right side for link) I will have to say that tumblr is a place where activism is probably the strongest theme besides fandoms of "whatever floats your boat."
Read the article here.
In my words: My generation - the more political active ones - despises hatred, bigotry, injustice and discrimination. My generation loves their feelings & emotions; such things dictatealmost everything they do.
Read the article here.
In my words: My generation - the more political active ones - despises hatred, bigotry, injustice and discrimination. My generation loves their feelings & emotions; such things dictate
It's Sorta Written In Stone So It's Not Really Debatable.
No That's what I read from two guys on two different subjects:
1. Late POTUS Reagan failed to help the LGBT community when AIDS became a national epidemic.
2. Blacks are given less quality roles in ratio when compared to whites due to racism.
For the first it was "it's been written and documented - go read yourself" and for the second "this is quite non-debatable."
It's sorta like retorting with "deal with it" or "we win, give up." There is little room for questioning because history has made up its mind. But -BUT -let's talk and question and change (read: forever change) institutional structures like marriage, healthcare, the military, education and our own minds in order to accommodate those who believe they are oppressed, were cheated and just plain butt hurt for whatever reason.
Oh, and if it matters, these two guys were homosexuals of your progressive garden variety sorts.
I must be honest
spotting the bizarre existence of a butthurt progressive -- that fits practically every stereotype you might have of them, but in the most saddest way -- is somewhat gratifying ... because when I push their buttons, direct them a certain way, they mostly crash and burn.
Yea, I troll them. I have no shame in this because it exposes them for what they are (and I bet it does the same for me). I'm blunt in my delivery if I must be and I don't mind slinging a few ad homs at them because the ones I do are the hard-core butthurt ones. They're already lost for the most part so I sling away.
Yea, I troll them. I have no shame in this because it exposes them for what they are (and I bet it does the same for me). I'm blunt in my delivery if I must be and I don't mind slinging a few ad homs at them because the ones I do are the hard-core butthurt ones. They're already lost for the most part so I sling away.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Using celebrities & movies to push an agenda.
SPOILERS
In the movie Still Alice the character Lydia (Kristen Stewart) brings up that her roommate is gay. Her mother, Alice (Julianne Moore), doesn't react negatively or positively; she doesn't seem to care either way. Now, I haven't seen the movie and I only know this tidbit because it was brought up on IMDb. The person that brought it up was, I guess, a homosexual or at least liked his own sex and appealed to the "we're people too" card. I'm not disagreeing with the poster on that. But here's what I read:
All of what the OP said kind of confuses me.
What's weird is that the poster is obviously hinting to LGBT "rights." That's pandering -- giving them what they want -- marriage, adoption etc. I'm not sure of his experiences in the past and how he was treated, but I take that most gay people are treated "normally", like people, just that numerous people don't see homosexuality as "normal" yet treat such people with respect when they meet in real life. It's not like they a ramp to go up an incline surface or that people shift away from them when they see them. I also don't necessarily buy into stories that say that they were fired because of their sexuality. The Matthew Sheperd case was a lie. The waitress saying the coupe didn't leave tip because she was a lesbian was a made up story.
When homosexuals say they aren't treated like normal people they're, I'm taking a stab, talking about marriage most of all. Well, if I go up to my local parish and say that me and my best friend of the same sex wants to get married we'd be denied - not because we're homosexuals (which we aren't) but because we're of the same sex.
I know Mark Ruffalo is a proponent of anti-fracking. A slew of others are on the PETA train. No doubt gay "rights" are a pet issue to the movie industry. Out of all the three social issues I've mentioned the LGBT issue is the most vested in emotions - it's a very easy social issue to bandwagon on.
In the movie Still Alice the character Lydia (Kristen Stewart) brings up that her roommate is gay. Her mother, Alice (Julianne Moore), doesn't react negatively or positively; she doesn't seem to care either way. Now, I haven't seen the movie and I only know this tidbit because it was brought up on IMDb. The person that brought it up was, I guess, a homosexual or at least liked his own sex and appealed to the "we're people too" card. I'm not disagreeing with the poster on that. But here's what I read:
A poster shared skepticism ("It doesn't work that way.) and the OP pushed -ever since i saw still alice i just can't stop thinking about the line where she said her roommate was gay. it was just so natural, like it didn't even make a difference. similarly, the way alice didn't react at all is important too and i think julianne moore may be on her way as well. i really think these two can do a lot for gay rights. i can definitely sense a shift in society ever since this movie came out. it seems like it's all downhill from here.
why not? i find her very similar to judy garland actually. she didn't pander to them. she treated them like normal peopleOne poster pointed out that Stewart is big with lesbians (but not with gay men, which is strange to me) saying it's possible.
All of what the OP said kind of confuses me.
What's weird is that the poster is obviously hinting to LGBT "rights." That's pandering -- giving them what they want -- marriage, adoption etc. I'm not sure of his experiences in the past and how he was treated, but I take that most gay people are treated "normally", like people, just that numerous people don't see homosexuality as "normal" yet treat such people with respect when they meet in real life. It's not like they a ramp to go up an incline surface or that people shift away from them when they see them. I also don't necessarily buy into stories that say that they were fired because of their sexuality. The Matthew Sheperd case was a lie. The waitress saying the coupe didn't leave tip because she was a lesbian was a made up story.
When homosexuals say they aren't treated like normal people they're, I'm taking a stab, talking about marriage most of all. Well, if I go up to my local parish and say that me and my best friend of the same sex wants to get married we'd be denied - not because we're homosexuals (which we aren't) but because we're of the same sex.
I know Mark Ruffalo is a proponent of anti-fracking. A slew of others are on the PETA train. No doubt gay "rights" are a pet issue to the movie industry. Out of all the three social issues I've mentioned the LGBT issue is the most vested in emotions - it's a very easy social issue to bandwagon on.
Whoa. Whoa. UVA sexual assualt case: Apparently truth doesn't win out.
Like I said in a previous post, IMDb is the gift that keeps on giving. Check below for the discussion about the UVA sexual assault case.
Holy shit.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
An observation and a thing when it comes to movies.
It's rather bizarre seeing people who are skeptical of whatever modern trend and dive right into, in support, of a modern pet issue.
Say for example the very strong and passionate cult of "animals are sentient beings." I came across one person who didn't buy into that stuff then went all "the anti-SJWs are even worse than the SJWs on tumblr. I mean, the label 'SJW' is stupid - they need to label everything - and who can be against a thing like equality?! WHO!?"
Or when a person is convinced by the narratives of Brown/Ferguson riots and then doesn't see a celebrity as a compassionate person touted by, you guessed it, the media.
Inconsistency. That's what supporting in social "progress" and "justice" does to ones brain.
That thing when it comes to movies:
Someone says something critical of a movie/director/actor.
"Well that's your opinion."
Someone says something positive about a movie/director/actor.
"It's a fact, yo."
Say for example the very strong and passionate cult of "animals are sentient beings." I came across one person who didn't buy into that stuff then went all "the anti-SJWs are even worse than the SJWs on tumblr. I mean, the label 'SJW' is stupid - they need to label everything - and who can be against a thing like equality?! WHO!?"
Or when a person is convinced by the narratives of Brown/Ferguson riots and then doesn't see a celebrity as a compassionate person touted by, you guessed it, the media.
Inconsistency. That's what supporting in social "progress" and "justice" does to ones brain.
That thing when it comes to movies:
Someone says something critical of a movie/director/actor.
"Well that's your opinion."
Someone says something positive about a movie/director/actor.
"It's a fact, yo."
IMDb forums is the gift that keep on giving.
Take a look here.
According to some IMDb posters Selma isn't registering well, audience rating wise, because of racism and a fictitious thing called a "liberal agenda." Here's what they had to say:
and (by poster ibaaaaaad)
Now it's interesting that both poster zombieDANCE and ibaaaaaad are homosexuals. The zombie guy practically talks in cliches (the guy's is indignant beyond belief) and ibaaaaad is a Muslim, if I'm not mistaken, who isn't as pathetic as zombieDANCE but still has his moments of "well that's just racist!" And he doesn't like the late President Reagan because of how he handled AIDS.Well, if your fellow "love is love"/You-just-help-who-you-fall-in-love-with" peeps wouldn't part take in anal sex and carpet eating (though not a way of getting AIDS, but still) you wouldn't have such a big problem with this horrible disease. Go figure.
"But I lo - "
"It ain't love."
According to some IMDb posters Selma isn't registering well, audience rating wise, because of racism and a fictitious thing called a "liberal agenda." Here's what they had to say:
and (by poster zombieDANCE)
The average IMDb is a middle-class white fanboy who doesn't care about social issues and resents any film that steals the thunder from the latest Nolan geekfest, hence their hatred towards Selma. Many of them are also right-of-centre and possibly resent the coverage of the police killings of black men and see Selma as part of some 'liberal agenda' to make them face up to their own privileges.
I laugh because this is probably true.
and (by poster ibaaaaaad)
I doubt many have heard of this movie, Selma, so allegations for middle white class down voting it is rather ridiculous.Racists always troll the black-centric movies without seeing them. Not worth reading into.
Now it's interesting that both poster zombieDANCE and ibaaaaaad are homosexuals. The zombie guy practically talks in cliches (the guy's is indignant beyond belief) and ibaaaaad is a Muslim, if I'm not mistaken, who isn't as pathetic as zombieDANCE but still has his moments of "well that's just racist!" And he doesn't like the late President Reagan because of how he handled AIDS.Well, if your fellow "love is love"/You-just-help-who-you-fall-in-love-with" peeps wouldn't part take in anal sex and carpet eating (though not a way of getting AIDS, but still) you wouldn't have such a big problem with this horrible disease. Go figure.
"But I lo - "
"It ain't love."
Friday, December 5, 2014
A poster named Gracie
wrote this on AT (American Thinker) of an article trying to refute the popular notion that marriage is an unpopular option -
Onto Gracie. She later comments on another poster's "my wife keeps the house clean while I work outside" asking "Is your wife a stay-at-home-wife or does she work?" Based on the above quote I figure she has issues with women working and doing house chores. I also take that she sees marriage and everything that comes with it as more of a burden - almost like "Whoa is me for having breasts and a vagina with fallopian tubes that aren't tied (yet) - than "it is what it is."
Though just a couple of comments, I think these types of quick "insights" of a modern woman is telling. I know I'm being judgmental, but this mentality is just a turn-off and comes across as sad, confused, pathetic, lost and plain narcissistic.
"I would be lonely than miserable" Too many married women, after working 8 hours, must come home to cook, help children, do laundry while their husbands "are resting" after 8 hrs work. It's just too much, so many women would rather have the peace and quiet and be single again. Single men/women have "friends with benefits" that solve other problems. Whether married or single, a women must look hard and chose whatever will be easier for her in the future.....Now I'll say this: Not everyone is meant for marriage - some people are called to the religious life (celibacy) and some people just don't do well in relationships so they're single forever. Some never find a person of their opposite sex worthy of a proposal; some women never are proposed to. I've even met some who said their profession, mainly single teachers (male), was their calling and the students were, in some way, their "children." Their quality of teaching is their legacy which, hopefully, resides and influences some of their students.
Onto Gracie. She later comments on another poster's "my wife keeps the house clean while I work outside" asking "Is your wife a stay-at-home-wife or does she work?" Based on the above quote I figure she has issues with women working and doing house chores. I also take that she sees marriage and everything that comes with it as more of a burden - almost like "Whoa is me for having breasts and a vagina with fallopian tubes that aren't tied (yet) - than "it is what it is."
Though just a couple of comments, I think these types of quick "insights" of a modern woman is telling. I know I'm being judgmental, but this mentality is just a turn-off and comes across as sad, confused, pathetic, lost and plain narcissistic.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Yelp: When Yelper's discuss health care. Hoo Boy.
This is the usual diarrhea of emotional "Well what's your idea?!" of panicky idiots.
All my family members and and most of my friends have healthcare. How, you may wonder? They either ARE union workers or held down jobs that had decent enough coverage. My uncle works for the state and total of both his children were $5 - it was the copay he paid when he went down to the insurance office for his youngest child. Those that graduated with me have full time jobs or have union jobs (teaching or construction). Some have health care plans through there corporate jobs. My aunt works two jobs (part-time) and due to this has 'okay' coverage (Aetna, though I'm not sure what exact plan).
I'm lucky because my siblings and I, before we found our current jobs, were on our parents health care plan, which was mighty awesome. Reflecting the times we needed urgent care and prescriptions and were graced with fine care, minimum co-pays and free doctors appointments (one of the many perks of being the child of a respected nurse) made me motivated to do well in school in hopes I too can find a job that made me privileged for such a health care plan.
Now how about those who aren't as lucky as you? I don't know. I'd say get a job(s) that offer decent enough health coverage. The rest is really up to genetics -- no heart disease, no thin veins, no high blood pressure, no cancer etc. Take care of yourself. Get your flu shot yearly. Medicaid is there if you're unemployed or fall below a a certain income line.
In the end find a good job that isn't a barista or an entertainer (if you get membership into SAG/AFTRA, which is union, then you should at least sleep at night). Seriously. If you manage to get become a professional athlete, like in the big leagues, then you're guarantee to rack up $4 million in less than seven years unless you're in the MLS (the average salary is around $200K) which should be enough to pay for most health care till you die.
Okay, all you Obama health care plan naysayers. Now is your time to actually make a valid point.There's too much stupidity in the above post. I just wanted it to further exist in case the page gets deleted in the site's system. Instead of curing poverty, hunger, cancer, ALS, saving the whales, saving clean water or saving the earth from climate change it's saving all the those who can't afford (or just too lazy to do their own research on the services provided) health care. The only point the Rachel H., the poster that started the thread, listed I actually take interest in the cost. I do think the costs are rather absurd. The rest is too complex to get into.
People who are pro healthcare reform have been saying that the systems available in France, Switzerland, and etc are better because of things like:
-Longer life expectancy
-Lower infant mortality rates
-Overall lower cost per person of healthcare
-No one is denied care
People who are against the Obama version of healthcare reform think that these countries' systems are somehow worse than what the US has now, despite the above listed evidence to the contrary. Okay, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, y'all need to be able to back it up. One thing we can all agree on is that the current system does NOT work and it needs to be reformed.
So, my question is: If France, Switzerland, and etc's health care systems are not good enough for you, then which country has the best health care system, in your opinion? Which country (or countries) do you Republicans think we should model our reform after?
For those who think that no country on the entire Earth has a health care system that is good enough for the US, then what the hell should we do then? Please answer this one with a super simplified version of your dream health care system, for the sake of quick reading. If we pick yours you can always expound upon it later with a full blown, many-thousands-of-pages policy.
And lastly, please stay on the topic questions and don't waste time nit-picking my wording. There are many other threads devoted to such subjects as who is or isn't denied health care in France, and whether Obama's plan can be called a reform or not, but this isn't the point here.
I repeat, the questions are directed at the anti-"socialist"-plan people, and they are thus: Which country has the best health care plan (all systems are flawed, pick the least flawed), and, if none, then post your ideas.
All my family members and and most of my friends have healthcare. How, you may wonder? They either ARE union workers or held down jobs that had decent enough coverage. My uncle works for the state and total of both his children were $5 - it was the copay he paid when he went down to the insurance office for his youngest child. Those that graduated with me have full time jobs or have union jobs (teaching or construction). Some have health care plans through there corporate jobs. My aunt works two jobs (part-time) and due to this has 'okay' coverage (Aetna, though I'm not sure what exact plan).
I'm lucky because my siblings and I, before we found our current jobs, were on our parents health care plan, which was mighty awesome. Reflecting the times we needed urgent care and prescriptions and were graced with fine care, minimum co-pays and free doctors appointments (one of the many perks of being the child of a respected nurse) made me motivated to do well in school in hopes I too can find a job that made me privileged for such a health care plan.
Now how about those who aren't as lucky as you? I don't know. I'd say get a job(s) that offer decent enough health coverage. The rest is really up to genetics -- no heart disease, no thin veins, no high blood pressure, no cancer etc. Take care of yourself. Get your flu shot yearly. Medicaid is there if you're unemployed or fall below a a certain income line.
In the end find a good job that isn't a barista or an entertainer (if you get membership into SAG/AFTRA, which is union, then you should at least sleep at night). Seriously. If you manage to get become a professional athlete, like in the big leagues, then you're guarantee to rack up $4 million in less than seven years unless you're in the MLS (the average salary is around $200K) which should be enough to pay for most health care till you die.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Tumblr's SJW object to Sleepy Hollow
SPOILERS
There is underlying racism at work according to some posters on tumblr.
IMDb poser MonaRich sensed something wasn't right (them spider senses are tingling!), but thanks to tumblr she was able to make sense of this warning -
I do not know what show they watched, honestly, but if I'd take a guess I'd guess out of all the episodes Abbie is more of the leader in the adventures than Crane. Maybe because the two actors playing the respective roles differ in height substantially some may come to the conclusion that Abbie is the side-kick.
If we talk about portrayals, Abbie, not only being beautiful, is shown to be amazingly resilient, self-sufficient, smart and resourceful; she is Crane's guide to the modern world and sometimes acts as a bigger sister to him. Crane, when he's met with a modern phrase or piece of technology that bemuses him, is written as the comic relief in a very endearing/charming way. Abbie is practically the rock in their relationship - she may not be flashy or as endearing as her male friend, but it is more of her show than Crane's, so far.
What makes this "Abbie is getting the shaft" issue more interesting is that posters are complaining that Abbie doesn't have a love interest. Yep. Before having a love interest for our heroes would've been deemed sexist in a couple of scenarios: If it was a 'typical' relationship with some 'hot' guy or if the relationship showed the woman in a more passive light than She-Male. I thought being a strong, independent woman who doesn't need a love interest to be happy was of grave importance to show young females across the globe that they too can be She-Males? Whoops.
There's more (Akeda is the name of an episode in S.2) -
Note: It doesn't help that it seems that many of the fans of Sleepy Hollow fall under the SJW/OmurGurd/My-Feelings-It's-All-About-Emotions group. Like I said in previous posts, I wish my interests and hobbies were different. But they are not.
There is underlying racism at work according to some posters on tumblr.
IMDb poser MonaRich sensed something wasn't right (them spider senses are tingling!), but thanks to tumblr she was able to make sense of this warning -
Killing off/undermining/sidelining all the POC and then having actual dialogue in the show about how the four white trees will turn black and that means they're extra evil and having Moloch rip off his white skin to reveal the scary evil black thing underneath after he had masqueraded as a pure blonde innocent Aryan prince. Like this *beep* isn't even subtle. It's about as subtle as Birth of a Nation. These new writers are trash.HarveyMidnight pitches in -
A lot of people felt that it was -- what can we say, somewhat ignorant? -- for the season 2 writers to shove Irving onto the sidelines, push Crane further forward as a 'main character' making Abbie somewhat of a sidekick instead of a balanced equal to him, and outright replace Jenny with a white man who has almost exactly the same skill-set.Considering Crane and Abbie are the two "witnesses" and not Irving, putting Irving as a secondary character is absolutely understandable. Even in the start of the show I knew Irving wasn't a 'main character' - though one of the 'main' secondary characters. As the season went on Irving still played a vital role; he was written rather effectively and it's nice role for any actor to take on - one filled with many complexes, emotions and trials.
I do not know what show they watched, honestly, but if I'd take a guess I'd guess out of all the episodes Abbie is more of the leader in the adventures than Crane. Maybe because the two actors playing the respective roles differ in height substantially some may come to the conclusion that Abbie is the side-kick.
If we talk about portrayals, Abbie, not only being beautiful, is shown to be amazingly resilient, self-sufficient, smart and resourceful; she is Crane's guide to the modern world and sometimes acts as a bigger sister to him. Crane, when he's met with a modern phrase or piece of technology that bemuses him, is written as the comic relief in a very endearing/charming way. Abbie is practically the rock in their relationship - she may not be flashy or as endearing as her male friend, but it is more of her show than Crane's, so far.
What makes this "Abbie is getting the shaft" issue more interesting is that posters are complaining that Abbie doesn't have a love interest. Yep. Before having a love interest for our heroes would've been deemed sexist in a couple of scenarios: If it was a 'typical' relationship with some 'hot' guy or if the relationship showed the woman in a more passive light than She-Male. I thought being a strong, independent woman who doesn't need a love interest to be happy was of grave importance to show young females across the globe that they too can be She-Males? Whoops.
There's more (Akeda is the name of an episode in S.2) -
I have so many complaints about Akeda. But this is the one that hurt the most and forgive me because this is heavy and I might not be the best person to voice this, but I gotta get off my chest cause last night it had me close to tears.Italics: You're making me laugh, seriously. I'll say this: Quit your bitching you little bitch. I was more upset that J.K. Rowling said Ron and Hermione was more of an accident and thought of divorce for them (did she follow through?).
Media doesn’t exist in vacuum. So what does it say when a show’s only black male lead is sidelined for the majority of the season only to be cut down after twenty minutes of focus? What does it say when the white male lead, then turns around and offers his killer a “life of his choosing” rather than insisting he be brought to any measure of justice due to some clannish misguided notion of loyalty/empathy to his own kind when it is clearly unearned?
Goffman said that they chose to kill Frank because they wanted to make the war feel real. Well thats awesome, congrats, it feels real. Too bad the Cranes didn’t get the memo. Too bad the writer’s didn’t either.
The timing is so *beep* up for this. This was beyond insensitive. This hurt.
Because Crane is suppose to be a Hero. And Frank, goddamnit - Frank mattered. Frank was a friend. His life, his family, his sacrifice all mattered.
Except it didn’t and his one champion was literally injured, tied up, and effectively silenced so the Cranes’ ‘oh so interesting’ unconditional love for their murdering white son could take center stage. And as of right now, the narrative has rewarded them for that and that is really really gross. This show is gross, the writers are gross, the ‘hero’ is gross and I don’t see any indication that that is going to change though I really hope I’m wrong.
Note: It doesn't help that it seems that many of the fans of Sleepy Hollow fall under the SJW/OmurGurd/My-Feelings-It's-All-About-Emotions group. Like I said in previous posts, I wish my interests and hobbies were different. But they are not.
Monday, December 1, 2014
How Sleepy Hollow is "one for all."
But in an insidious way.
SPOILERS
The television show made a commentary on gay "marriage." The character Ichabod Crane utters an "Is that considered acceptable now?" when the camera focuses on two men in a restaurant holding hands; Lt. Abbie Mills follows through that the view on homosexuality has changed since Crane's time and that gay "marriage" is being upheld by the Supreme Court - stating that it is a constitutional right with aid of more states legalizing it. Crane then corrects her saying "I mean gentlemen wearing hats indoors."
SPOILERS
The television show made a commentary on gay "marriage." The character Ichabod Crane utters an "Is that considered acceptable now?" when the camera focuses on two men in a restaurant holding hands; Lt. Abbie Mills follows through that the view on homosexuality has changed since Crane's time and that gay "marriage" is being upheld by the Supreme Court - stating that it is a constitutional right with aid of more states legalizing it. Crane then corrects her saying "I mean gentlemen wearing hats indoors."
The show does a good job on updating Crane on modern things - credit cards, mobile phones, modern dress, tax, pastries - but this "update" was out of left field. The setup seemed awkward.
What makes it even more insidious was the layout for this very scene. In the episode before this, there were dialogues about marriage, to further explain the background of other characters. There was talk about marriage being a business to fortune and marriage being something special - more the love between two people than anything religious.
The only things that were shown as remotely religious, at least in the realm of the superstitious, were the usual things: churches, possession, purgatory, a priest getting his head twisted 180 (killed); another priest getting decapitated (this show kills of priests rather inhumanely), using salt, crucifixes and rosaries as weapons to walking evil. In other words cliche after cliche. All the showcase one has seen before if they were remotely interested in either tv or film. There was no actual talk about marriage having an ounce of religion in it, though I assume that the character of Ichabod Crane isn't religious due to his "science over the superstitious" line when Mills urged him to make a wish before he blew out his birthday cupcake.
Overall the show is very witty, but when I reflect on his gay "marriage" scene it reveals how inconsistent the writers are in their own views (more libertarian than anything since the Constitution is at least mentioned once every other episode). It's basically a show that plugs in modern interpretations of the constitution.
I'll update this post once I find the part where the 2nd amendment (gun rights) was commented on.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Someone's homophobic
One of my family members is on grindr, an app dedicated for homosexuals to find other homosexuals or bi's in a given area, and noted that one of the kids that we knew through our parish was on it. The moment went like this:
"I think so-and-so is gay. He's on my website (grindr). Look ... "
Shows picture.
"Okay, this is weird."
"Someone's homophobic ... "
"Someone's homophobic ... "
No, someone is rather tired of hearing a certain someone make comments about their disorder and other remarks, such as this:
"A female conducter. Oh what is the world coming to!"
Liberals/progressives/modernists are more immune to being trolls
I say this because there's at least one of them trolling on a conservative/right-leaning libertarian blog - not every site I stumble upon, though. The conservatives who post on liberal sites are almost non-existence; if they do they're not nearly as assholish - they're quite benign, really.
Take mud _rake for instance. On his (now-defunct) blogger profile, his occupation states "unattached to any monetary-based entity" and the "introduction" warmly says "Dislike bigots and Jesus-pimpers most of all and freely give them dope slaps at every opportunity." I take that he has grandchildren because they're listed under "interests."
Yea, I wonder who was the lucky lady he impregnated and I wonder what's his relationship with his kids (mostly likely the response is "Absolutely amazing," or something like that).
Back in 2011 he asked "Are you a Christian too?" to a diatribe of a post on a blog entitled "The Anti Liberal Zone." It turns out the writer of the blog isn't really religious. The post which mud_rake responded to never even mentioned religion nor Christ. He just immediately thought "wing-nut ... probably Christian." If the writer indeed self-identified as a Christian I don't see much of a problem, but then again I'm biased.
Here are some of mud_rake's responses, devoid of any substance, insight or meaningful rebuttal (though the Christian poster who did engage with him didn't do so well in terms of apologetics) -
Mud_rake is an atheist so hating, according to him - when it's done by him, isn't so much hypocritical. Also, in italics (emphasized by me) notice the egging on of the hate session. Notice that he never actually tried to defend one perceived misinformation or accusation.
And this one -
1. Calling Christianity (religion in general) "fairy tales."
2. The "wars were justified in the name of religion" card when used by an atheist ... nuff said. (I haven't heard of the hymn before, but I did look it up and I sort a like it.)
3. Calling those who mix their faith and patriotism as a fantasyland. Immensely ironic given how he's of old age and his political leanings let alone his (type of) atheism.
4. He assumes the Christian poster failed to graduate high school, hence the jab at GED holders. He is appealing to the popular notion that the (Christian) religious believers are stupid.
5. Pulls the Wars of Religion card in an attempt to discredit the "mixing faith and patriotism."
6. Appeals to "love one another" when met with a stubborn opposition. How about all the "tolerance" almost universally touted by liberals/progressives/modernists? I'm guessing he forgot.
Then there's poster "RD" - Christian - who doesn't really like the hate being thrown around by some of the Christians -
I have to agree with the poster "10 generation" when he says "I am tired of all you candy ass Christians saying turn the other cheek. The old timers that came before your old timers would think you're a pussy."
Take mud _rake for instance. On his (now-defunct) blogger profile, his occupation states "unattached to any monetary-based entity" and the "introduction" warmly says "Dislike bigots and Jesus-pimpers most of all and freely give them dope slaps at every opportunity." I take that he has grandchildren because they're listed under "interests."
Yea, I wonder who was the lucky lady he impregnated and I wonder what's his relationship with his kids (mostly likely the response is "Absolutely amazing," or something like that).
Back in 2011 he asked "Are you a Christian too?" to a diatribe of a post on a blog entitled "The Anti Liberal Zone." It turns out the writer of the blog isn't really religious. The post which mud_rake responded to never even mentioned religion nor Christ. He just immediately thought "wing-nut ... probably Christian." If the writer indeed self-identified as a Christian I don't see much of a problem, but then again I'm biased.
Here are some of mud_rake's responses, devoid of any substance, insight or meaningful rebuttal (though the Christian poster who did engage with him didn't do so well in terms of apologetics) -
AntiLib answers, Am I a Christian?The "that's very un-Christian like of you" card. The guy's a Gnu Atheist (check out his wordpress blog). I like it how he emphasized on the HATE session - like a snarky d-bag. "Ohhh boy I caught you now you right-wing nut bags, getting all mad!"
No, I consider myself more of a warrior-poet
Oh, that's a relief. For a while there I thought that maybe you WERE a Christian but, with all of that 'hate' stuff that you posted, Jesus would weep bloody tears at your anti-Christian rhetoric.
I suppose that none of the other people who commented here are Christians , either, seeing how they all agree to hate other human beings.
Like you, I feel that it's good to hate. Nothing like a good, fat HATE session to purge oneself of all of the nasty toxins that build up within. It's a cathartic experience from time to time.
Do you feel refreshed after a good hate session, AntiLib? Raring to go, bright-eyed, optimistic about tomorrow- new challenges, fertile ground to plow?
I'd urge all of those who comment here to do their own hate-session from time to time. Quite cleansing of body, mind and soul.
Mud_rake is an atheist so hating, according to him - when it's done by him, isn't so much hypocritical. Also, in italics (emphasized by me) notice the egging on of the hate session. Notice that he never actually tried to defend one perceived misinformation or accusation.
And this one -
Read the book of Revelations? Good joke, Tenth. I gave up reading Fairy Tales a long time ago, about the time I lost my first tooth.Let me count the idiocy:
I'll bet, Tenth, that you like the christian hymn, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'Marching as to war.
In your fantasyland I'll bet that you play medieval crusader- fighting to free the Holy Land from the godless Muslims.
Are you, Tenth, a 'soldier of Jesus' in your bubble universe? Do you recall your European history class while in the GED program? Recall the idiotic Wars of Religion? I'm guessing not.
I'll let you go back to your World of Delusion now, Tenth. Remember though, that Jesus taught, "Love one another."
1. Calling Christianity (religion in general) "fairy tales."
2. The "wars were justified in the name of religion" card when used by an atheist ... nuff said. (I haven't heard of the hymn before, but I did look it up and I sort a like it.)
3. Calling those who mix their faith and patriotism as a fantasyland. Immensely ironic given how he's of old age and his political leanings let alone his (type of) atheism.
4. He assumes the Christian poster failed to graduate high school, hence the jab at GED holders. He is appealing to the popular notion that the (Christian) religious believers are stupid.
5. Pulls the Wars of Religion card in an attempt to discredit the "mixing faith and patriotism."
6. Appeals to "love one another" when met with a stubborn opposition. How about all the "tolerance" almost universally touted by liberals/progressives/modernists? I'm guessing he forgot.
Then there's poster "RD" - Christian - who doesn't really like the hate being thrown around by some of the Christians -
10th generation...I can't agree with you there.So venting on the internet is evil. So setting up a blog, even if it's entitled "anti" is evil. So sharing ones thoughts on the internet and allowing people to comment on any given post is evil. So writing a blog to express ones thoughts, even if it's considered hatred is cowardly.
I don't support homosexuality, and I don't believe in abortion.
I read my Bible every day and the only thing you wrote that was actually in the Bible was to turn the other cheek.
If you want to publicly disassociate yourself with Christianity, go ahead. It is obvious you have no understanding of the Bible anyway. Jesus did not raise up armies. Paul did not overthrow Nero...
I'm taking issue with the tone here. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Do you want to enact change? Run for office, volunteer for a candidate you believe in. But to hide on the internet and spew hatred...it's just cowardly and you guessed it, evil.
I have to agree with the poster "10 generation" when he says "I am tired of all you candy ass Christians saying turn the other cheek. The old timers that came before your old timers would think you're a pussy."
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Gotta love Yahoo! Answers.
A response to "Why do some liberals support the murder of children but hate war?" (written in 2008).
This is my favorite -
Oh.
Dear.
Lord.
The poster that plays the moderate card and later resorts to fallacy cards. I guess if a straw man argument is a fallacy that puts the opposite side on the defensive (which it's not) then every person on trial should be let go. High school debate teams should cease to exist. Logic - ahem - should not be allowed. Everyone should win because ties don't ever determine a winner; we're all winners. Also, not sure how a tie was in anyway productive because sooner or later one of the opposite sides takes control. It's like how objectivism is touted like it's actually a state of mind when it's not. Trying to be objective is more like it.
There are other brain grenade answers directed at the question, so if you're up for it click on the link.
Nice try, but Liberals (and the rest of the pro-choice crowd) don't 'Support the Murder of Children', they simply believe that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.Though six years old, I think the same defense still stands amongst those who do support abortion. Abortion is given a noble name change: Pro-choice. Let's hide "I support abortion" because rarely, in my experience, has anyone said "I support motherhood." And don't forget the rape fallacy. Rare? I'm too lazy to look up accurate numbers, but I'd wager that rare isn't really "rare" but more common. Dubya's admin hasn't turned on each other, yet; Obama's on the other hand ...
Illegalizing it won't stop it - because if a girl or woman wants an abortion, they will get it someplace, or end up using a coathanger. If it were up the pro-life crowd, even a woman who had been raped would be forced to give birth to the rapists baby. They would also require a woman with medical problems that could possibly be fatal to give birth.
I am not a woman, nor have I ever impregnated a woman other than my wife, who gave birth to our beautiful baby girl who is going to turn 8 in May. Neither of us ever considered aborting it for a second. I would hope that no woman should ever have to make that decision, and I definitely do not support using it as a form of birth control.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it affect you. All of this 'but what if your parents had chosen abortion' crap is a null and void argument.
Now, meanwhile - war is a necessary evil. There are times when there is no other choice but to authorize the use of force against another country or group of people. This is what was done before the US went into Iraq. There was never a declaration of war (which shoots a few holes in the preznits 'wartime power' claims). Going into Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein may have been a noble cause, however the pathetic way in which the aftermath has been handled and the rampant corruption and cronyism will haunt some members of this administration for years to come.
There was an election last fall - and the people spoke. Dubya and his pals need oversight. Badly.
So far Dubya and Co. are still acting like they have a mandate. It will please me greatly to watch them fall one by one, and as they turn on each other.
This is my favorite -
Why would you spend your time baiting liberals, rather than finding solutions that work for everyone? Just because they place their priorities on different aspects of the same problems you face, doesn't make them the enemy. Political parties are not sports teams- the only way one can win is if both win. Mindlessly arguing with emotional rhetoric isn't going to change any minds, and you know it. Why waste time dividing the country further?Oh. Dear. Lord.
A Straw Man argument is a type of logical fallacy, used to derail the topic by putting the other side on the defensive. The best you can hope for in employing such a tactic is a tie; because it forces you off topic too. Do you ever want to get anything done, or do you simply enjoy trolling for unproductive arguments?
Oh.
Dear.
Lord.
The poster that plays the moderate card and later resorts to fallacy cards. I guess if a straw man argument is a fallacy that puts the opposite side on the defensive (which it's not) then every person on trial should be let go. High school debate teams should cease to exist. Logic - ahem - should not be allowed. Everyone should win because ties don't ever determine a winner; we're all winners. Also, not sure how a tie was in anyway productive because sooner or later one of the opposite sides takes control. It's like how objectivism is touted like it's actually a state of mind when it's not. Trying to be objective is more like it.
There are other brain grenade answers directed at the question, so if you're up for it click on the link.
If you don't get pass MEPS you're good as dead to us. Gur-bye.
"They'll accept almost anyone in the military."
Not really. Besides major criminal backgrounds and large tattoos in certain areas, it's the medical exam that turns away most potential servicemen. It's natural selection at work.
An interesting observation towards disqualified applicants during MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) when pleading their case -
Serving is not a right, but a privilege. True.
You don't meet (medical) standards so get over it. True.
There are other ways to serve your country. True, but those who say this never list the other ways.
An overall attitude of "too bad, boohoo, get the f_ck out of here, stop wasting our time ... Oh and I served two tours in Kuwait." Good for you. Did you save a life? No. Then I won't suck your dick. Nor will I be impressed with your "achievement" and "good conduct" badges.
Passing MEPS isn't so much an accomplishment (like one serviceman said during swear in) as it is being born with no disqualifying medical issues, or being lucky enough to avoid life incidences that puts you on the disqualified list. It's like being blessed with good genes in terms of looks and height. If you decide to become a model it shouldn't be counted as an accomplishment than good fortune that allows that person to pursue that career path.Then again I don't count a career in the glitterati world so much an accomplishment, if you want to call it that, as in good fortune and sadness masked as happiness.
Some of the medical issues that I've read about that permanently disqualified an applicant:
- having one testicle since the age of four
- suffering from a concussion at the age of 17 from being tripped
They aren't just barred from the branch that they want in, they're barred from all military branches.
It would be nice if some of the people saying "too bad" would admit that such applicants are a health liability when out on missions/job-site, that a perfectly normal, functioning body is what it is needed than any "blue chip" applicants. If you say "but I - " they'll just give the hand and say "get over it." That's okay. Until they get hurt by an IED and complain about TriCare. Well, soldier/airman/Coastie/Marine/sailor: Get over it. Decent health care isn't a right, but a privilege. You knew what you were signing up for, so I am in no way obligated to massage your now stump of a leg or arm, or say your now burnt face is "beautiful" (because it ain't, you could pass as Freddy Kuger's heir or something, seriously).
Nor should a serviceman be put in front of another applicant just because he's a military guy looking for a job once back to civilian life, especially those who were infantry all throughout their military career, straight out of high school, who probably know nothing but to aim and shoot. Do what my Marine friend did after his four year AD was done - go to college and major in a degree that is more marketable than art history (no offense to art history majors) and send your applications to HR like the rest of the civilians hoping for a job.
Also, the doctors & nurses who do the MEPS screenings are looking for potential candidates to weed out. A potential Marine candidate was put on the temporary disqualified list for an ingrown toe nail, so he had to get that toe taken of before he passed the medical exam. Given that the military currently downsized, medical waivers are much harder to come by.
If you don't suffer from any health issues, don't have any large tattoos, and meet the minimum ASVAB score you're practically in. But the most important thing, besides that ASVAB score: a perfectly normal healthy body. My first college roommate flunked out with a 0.0 GPA. He failed all of his classes his first semester (failed it again his second semester when he was given academic probation) and later joined the U.S. Army. I don't think he made it pass Basics.
Not really. Besides major criminal backgrounds and large tattoos in certain areas, it's the medical exam that turns away most potential servicemen. It's natural selection at work.
An interesting observation towards disqualified applicants during MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) when pleading their case -
Serving is not a right, but a privilege. True.
You don't meet (medical) standards so get over it. True.
There are other ways to serve your country. True, but those who say this never list the other ways.
An overall attitude of "too bad, boohoo, get the f_ck out of here, stop wasting our time ... Oh and I served two tours in Kuwait." Good for you. Did you save a life? No. Then I won't suck your dick. Nor will I be impressed with your "achievement" and "good conduct" badges.
Passing MEPS isn't so much an accomplishment (like one serviceman said during swear in) as it is being born with no disqualifying medical issues, or being lucky enough to avoid life incidences that puts you on the disqualified list. It's like being blessed with good genes in terms of looks and height. If you decide to become a model it shouldn't be counted as an accomplishment than good fortune that allows that person to pursue that career path.Then again I don't count a career in the glitterati world so much an accomplishment, if you want to call it that, as in good fortune and sadness masked as happiness.
Some of the medical issues that I've read about that permanently disqualified an applicant:
- having one testicle since the age of four
- suffering from a concussion at the age of 17 from being tripped
They aren't just barred from the branch that they want in, they're barred from all military branches.
It would be nice if some of the people saying "too bad" would admit that such applicants are a health liability when out on missions/job-site, that a perfectly normal, functioning body is what it is needed than any "blue chip" applicants. If you say "but I - " they'll just give the hand and say "get over it." That's okay. Until they get hurt by an IED and complain about TriCare. Well, soldier/airman/Coastie/Marine/sailor: Get over it. Decent health care isn't a right, but a privilege. You knew what you were signing up for, so I am in no way obligated to massage your now stump of a leg or arm, or say your now burnt face is "beautiful" (because it ain't, you could pass as Freddy Kuger's heir or something, seriously).
Nor should a serviceman be put in front of another applicant just because he's a military guy looking for a job once back to civilian life, especially those who were infantry all throughout their military career, straight out of high school, who probably know nothing but to aim and shoot. Do what my Marine friend did after his four year AD was done - go to college and major in a degree that is more marketable than art history (no offense to art history majors) and send your applications to HR like the rest of the civilians hoping for a job.
Also, the doctors & nurses who do the MEPS screenings are looking for potential candidates to weed out. A potential Marine candidate was put on the temporary disqualified list for an ingrown toe nail, so he had to get that toe taken of before he passed the medical exam. Given that the military currently downsized, medical waivers are much harder to come by.
If you don't suffer from any health issues, don't have any large tattoos, and meet the minimum ASVAB score you're practically in. But the most important thing, besides that ASVAB score: a perfectly normal healthy body. My first college roommate flunked out with a 0.0 GPA. He failed all of his classes his first semester (failed it again his second semester when he was given academic probation) and later joined the U.S. Army. I don't think he made it pass Basics.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Question for gamers
and those that have anime characters as their avatar:
Why do so many - not all - of you adhere to the feminist mentality and left/progressive politics? Besides being rather "ew" towards religion (or believing in some god that actually looks like a fairy), and rather pasty in skin color (see the sun much?), I can't help but sense this demographic would form their own lunch table in high school.
One anime avatar dude I was talking to said that ISIS wasn't really a threat. He said maybe, but not entirely.
I mean, go ahead and dress up as anime characters wishing you were in Japan, and fighting for LGBT "rights." It's like you guys never fully developed and matured, day dreaming of what picture you should draw to put on deviantART.
Why do so many - not all - of you adhere to the feminist mentality and left/progressive politics? Besides being rather "ew" towards religion (or believing in some god that actually looks like a fairy), and rather pasty in skin color (see the sun much?), I can't help but sense this demographic would form their own lunch table in high school.
One anime avatar dude I was talking to said that ISIS wasn't really a threat. He said maybe, but not entirely.
I mean, go ahead and dress up as anime characters wishing you were in Japan, and fighting for LGBT "rights." It's like you guys never fully developed and matured, day dreaming of what picture you should draw to put on deviantART.
Interstellar was Awesome
SPOILERS
But there's one tiny thing that is bothersome to a group of people. Apparently the flag of the U.S.A. being stationed on planets is considered "tribalism" - which alludes to an archaic mindset (my gosh, why can't we just be One World!?) - and that it was a bit too much of "Rah Rah Americuuuh!"
The objection is birthed because the earth, being met with a devastating fate, would forgo their "us vs. them" and adopt the "work together" mindset, dropping the provincialism.
As much as I liked Interstellar there's one thing, amongst a handful, playing off this "One World" line, that I had an issue with is the "no war" part. Besides the dysfunctional family relationships showed, there was little conflict outside the communities, everyone, more or less, got along.
So a point for the common sense for planting the American flag on the planets because the astronauts were from NASA, but a minus a point for the somewhat peaceful human existence on earth -- no wars, no riots, no "let's fuck this shit up" mentality.
Minus a million points for the people who think it's irritating that NASA decides to put an American flag on a potential habitual planet, let alone dress the NASA office with, ya know, "American" stuff like the country's flag in the background. The horror. The madness.
But there's one tiny thing that is bothersome to a group of people. Apparently the flag of the U.S.A. being stationed on planets is considered "tribalism" - which alludes to an archaic mindset (my gosh, why can't we just be One World!?) - and that it was a bit too much of "Rah Rah Americuuuh!"
The objection is birthed because the earth, being met with a devastating fate, would forgo their "us vs. them" and adopt the "work together" mindset, dropping the provincialism.
As much as I liked Interstellar there's one thing, amongst a handful, playing off this "One World" line, that I had an issue with is the "no war" part. Besides the dysfunctional family relationships showed, there was little conflict outside the communities, everyone, more or less, got along.
So a point for the common sense for planting the American flag on the planets because the astronauts were from NASA, but a minus a point for the somewhat peaceful human existence on earth -- no wars, no riots, no "let's fuck this shit up" mentality.
Minus a million points for the people who think it's irritating that NASA decides to put an American flag on a potential habitual planet, let alone dress the NASA office with, ya know, "American" stuff like the country's flag in the background. The horror. The madness.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Dear dear tumblr
I personally get a laugh on how the media - SI, some guy reporting for SI and John Stewart - try to spin the victim hood card with Michael Sam. Just look here. Apparently the poster is a self-proclaimed feminist. Go figure. (Note the "fist pump" a poster gave as a sign of embrace and agreement.)
There's more madness ... and more laughter. A supposed Canadian take down towards those who voted for the GOP instead of the DNC this past November election has been circulating amongst those under 30 with a tumblr account, all with a Dwayne Johnson gif, even though in real life Johnson probably wouldn't agree with the fools.
I laugh for many reasons. 20% to mock, 30% out of disgust and 50% of the reason I I laugh is because it's just plain funny how stupid & naive "open minded" people are.These are the people who consider themselves fighters of the oppressed, the downtrodden and the weak. These are the people called Social Justice Warriors.
The site that hosted the article about the Canadian disappointment of the November election is called American Against the Tea Party. Within their "about us" section this is what is written:
Poster James Richy seems to agree with the writer of the site and Richard Brunt -
I am sure America can look to Canada for political inspiration of what not to do.
There's more madness ... and more laughter. A supposed Canadian take down towards those who voted for the GOP instead of the DNC this past November election has been circulating amongst those under 30 with a tumblr account, all with a Dwayne Johnson gif, even though in real life Johnson probably wouldn't agree with the fools.
I laugh for many reasons. 20% to mock, 30% out of disgust and 50% of the reason I I laugh is because it's just plain funny how stupid & naive "open minded" people are.These are the people who consider themselves fighters of the oppressed, the downtrodden and the weak. These are the people called Social Justice Warriors.
The site that hosted the article about the Canadian disappointment of the November election is called American Against the Tea Party. Within their "about us" section this is what is written:
as well as this as the site's mission -The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith
The hatred, division, virulent, unpredictable anger, violent threats and posturing by the Tea-Baggers present a real danger to the lives of President Obama, his family, his administration, Congressional Democrats and liberals and progressives of all stripes. Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist-fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process – and organizing together to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on the ballot everywhere. We support the Occupy movement. WE ARE THE 99%. WE ARE AATTP!Cliche after cliche after cliche.
Poster James Richy seems to agree with the writer of the site and Richard Brunt -
I am sure America can look to Canada for political inspiration of what not to do.
Plenty HumanWear: Brand
Inspired By All -
The thing is I like streetwear; during certain night outs and if the occasion calls for it I'll wear what's considered streetwear. But what I'm finding, when I peruse street wear brands and their philosophy is that besides the font on their logos, they blend in together. I see it when a new raw jean company opens and pulls the heritage/tradition line ... like the half dozen companies before them did. Way to practice individuality. I thought the head of marketing gave you the memo that heritage/tradition line has been used, abused and recycled before the owners decided to practice their indignation towards mall brands and fashion conformity (not that streetwear brands & the people that make them are devoid of this dreaded conformity, oh the irony).
Again with the "artists" + ideas + passion cards.PLENTY HUMANWEAR is a streetwear company for men and women which first got inspired by the lifestyle put forward by counter-cultural sports such as snowboard, skateboard and surf. We are also highly influenced by all artists who could die for an idea, who live solely to create and who, just like riders, grow to the beat of their passions.
The thing is I like streetwear; during certain night outs and if the occasion calls for it I'll wear what's considered streetwear. But what I'm finding, when I peruse street wear brands and their philosophy is that besides the font on their logos, they blend in together. I see it when a new raw jean company opens and pulls the heritage/tradition line ... like the half dozen companies before them did. Way to practice individuality. I thought the head of marketing gave you the memo that heritage/tradition line has been used, abused and recycled before the owners decided to practice their indignation towards mall brands and fashion conformity (not that streetwear brands & the people that make them are devoid of this dreaded conformity, oh the irony).
Into the Wild = Into the Predictable
This is a joke, right?
Unfortunately the book didn't turn into an American classic like On the Road, and the feedback to Chris' actions were met with negativity and not with adulation and youthful yearning that were bestowed on the mentioned book. That's okay. Apparently the sisters' of the now-dead young man withheld a chapter that came before the romanticized bus adventure of their brother: He was abused by his parents.
Like I didn't see this coming. (I didn't, really, but it strikes as too convenient.)
Now I'm not alluding that parental abuse is fine and dandy. I'm not. But the lengths that Chris took to supposedly get away from his parents just doesn't sit right. It's kinda like how LGBT kids run away from home and say the reason why was because their parents rejected them when they probably are having a hard time coming to terms with their kids disorder, so the kid - seeing that parent isn't all "Run into my arms my child where I shall shower you with kisses!" - gets all indignant and cooks up some fantasy that makes them into some victim of narrow-mindedness and oppression. Like I said: convenient.
And I still think what Chris was mightily stupid and selfish; whatever he wanted to prove he massively failed. But hey, can't let character assassination by people like me ruin the memory of your brother, isn't that right sister McCandles?
Chris: "I'm gonna live in a bus in the wilderness to get away from society."
Sisters: "Chris was abused by our parents that's why he lived in the woods."
So which is it?
You'd think Chris would just move away, like any other sane person, to another state or city or maybe two hours away to avoid his supposedly horrible parents. But no, he moved into the Alaskan wilderness.
Unfortunately the book didn't turn into an American classic like On the Road, and the feedback to Chris' actions were met with negativity and not with adulation and youthful yearning that were bestowed on the mentioned book. That's okay. Apparently the sisters' of the now-dead young man withheld a chapter that came before the romanticized bus adventure of their brother: He was abused by his parents.
Like I didn't see this coming. (I didn't, really, but it strikes as too convenient.)
Now I'm not alluding that parental abuse is fine and dandy. I'm not. But the lengths that Chris took to supposedly get away from his parents just doesn't sit right. It's kinda like how LGBT kids run away from home and say the reason why was because their parents rejected them when they probably are having a hard time coming to terms with their kids disorder, so the kid - seeing that parent isn't all "Run into my arms my child where I shall shower you with kisses!" - gets all indignant and cooks up some fantasy that makes them into some victim of narrow-mindedness and oppression. Like I said: convenient.
And I still think what Chris was mightily stupid and selfish; whatever he wanted to prove he massively failed. But hey, can't let character assassination by people like me ruin the memory of your brother, isn't that right sister McCandles?
Chris: "I'm gonna live in a bus in the wilderness to get away from society."
Sisters: "Chris was abused by our parents that's why he lived in the woods."
So which is it?
You'd think Chris would just move away, like any other sane person, to another state or city or maybe two hours away to avoid his supposedly horrible parents. But no, he moved into the Alaskan wilderness.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Even the homeless have their romances
INT. Morning. City library. Dimly lit.
GRA is upset the file that was saved had turned out corrupted. A woman sits across, head down, trying to get sleep.
Homeless Man: Excuse lady, may I talk to you?
Homeless Woman: Yes.
Homeless Man: I just want to say you look lovely today.
Homeless Woman: I had an accident outside.
Homeless Man: What happened?
Homeless Woman: I peed myself.
Man seems uncomfortable; shuffles in spot.
Homeless Man: Uh, um ... What's your name?
Homeless Woman: Annette.
Homeless Man: Well nice to meet you, Annette. I've seen you around here and you never talk to me. Maybe one day we'll sit down and have a conversation to get to know each other better. How does that sound? Is that okay with you?
Homeless Woman: Yes.
Man walks away.
___
This is a true story. It happened just a few minutes before I wrote this, as I sit in my city's library where it attracts the homeless. They seek a warm, clean and dry place. It's quite - no one can disturb their sleep; the loud ones know they won't be asked to leave the premises. Often times the chairs they sit in and desks they use tend to smell afterwards (I feel really sorry for the unfortunate person who later occupies the seat that Annette now sits in, unaware that its previous user was soaked in her own urine).
What humbles me is the sheer respect the Homeless Man had for the Homeless Woman for a potential "date." The only times I hear this type of respect is when someone addresses a man sir or mister or a woman miss or mam. Now the dialogue isn't exact, but dang, the Homeless Man was a gentleman. Straight up. If I hadn't turned around in my seat - since the moment I heard his voice I was sort of suspicious - I would've thought he was a well-dressed man wearing a suit and a fedora by just the way he talked and the timbre of his voice. But he wasn't well dressed - he wore a dirty old blue jacket, on his head was a dirty old blue winter cap - and that's okay: he was charming and courteous.
Compare this "getting to know you" with today's modern dating norms. It's worlds apart. It's old-style. This type of approach would be considered downright silly and pathetic, but it's neither one of those things. It's the complete opposite: manly and profound. This "getting to know you" was "friends first sex partners later." I'm not sure if the man and woman will engage in sex afterwards or maybe after two sit downs or so, but I'd wager, just the way he spoke and his demeanor, that it won't happen anytime soon, that such actions would be "off the list" so to speak. Of course, I could be wrong.
I hope he eventually finds Annette again, in a much better state, and they have that sit down he asked. They're conversation has made my heart glow.
GRA is upset the file that was saved had turned out corrupted. A woman sits across, head down, trying to get sleep.
Homeless Man: Excuse lady, may I talk to you?
Homeless Woman: Yes.
Homeless Man: I just want to say you look lovely today.
Homeless Woman: I had an accident outside.
Homeless Man: What happened?
Homeless Woman: I peed myself.
Man seems uncomfortable; shuffles in spot.
Homeless Man: Uh, um ... What's your name?
Homeless Woman: Annette.
Homeless Man: Well nice to meet you, Annette. I've seen you around here and you never talk to me. Maybe one day we'll sit down and have a conversation to get to know each other better. How does that sound? Is that okay with you?
Homeless Woman: Yes.
Man walks away.
___
This is a true story. It happened just a few minutes before I wrote this, as I sit in my city's library where it attracts the homeless. They seek a warm, clean and dry place. It's quite - no one can disturb their sleep; the loud ones know they won't be asked to leave the premises. Often times the chairs they sit in and desks they use tend to smell afterwards (I feel really sorry for the unfortunate person who later occupies the seat that Annette now sits in, unaware that its previous user was soaked in her own urine).
What humbles me is the sheer respect the Homeless Man had for the Homeless Woman for a potential "date." The only times I hear this type of respect is when someone addresses a man sir or mister or a woman miss or mam. Now the dialogue isn't exact, but dang, the Homeless Man was a gentleman. Straight up. If I hadn't turned around in my seat - since the moment I heard his voice I was sort of suspicious - I would've thought he was a well-dressed man wearing a suit and a fedora by just the way he talked and the timbre of his voice. But he wasn't well dressed - he wore a dirty old blue jacket, on his head was a dirty old blue winter cap - and that's okay: he was charming and courteous.
Compare this "getting to know you" with today's modern dating norms. It's worlds apart. It's old-style. This type of approach would be considered downright silly and pathetic, but it's neither one of those things. It's the complete opposite: manly and profound. This "getting to know you" was "friends first sex partners later." I'm not sure if the man and woman will engage in sex afterwards or maybe after two sit downs or so, but I'd wager, just the way he spoke and his demeanor, that it won't happen anytime soon, that such actions would be "off the list" so to speak. Of course, I could be wrong.
I hope he eventually finds Annette again, in a much better state, and they have that sit down he asked. They're conversation has made my heart glow.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Election Day
Bruce Rauner was leading with about 20, 000 votes then a few minutes later Pat Quinn gained the lead. Then Rauner gained back the lead. Gotta get a wrist sweat band... It's getting hot in here.
Monday, November 3, 2014
A New Start
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/world-trade-center-reopens-for-business/ar-BBcGY5x?ocid=ansnewsap11
NEW YORK (AP) — The resurrected World Trade Center has again opened for business, 13 years after the 9/11 terrorist attack — marking an emotional milestone for both New Yorkers and the nation.
Some staffers of publishing giant Conde Nast began working at 1 World Trade Center on Monday. The 104-story, $3.9 billion skyscraper dominates the Manhattan skyline. The publishing giant becomes the first commercial tenant in America's tallest building.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
A note to conservatives commenting on Chicago
PG-13 for crude language.
Old-time conservatives when commenting on Chicago need to stop being so ignorant. I know that's a word that's thrown at non-progressives all the time, but I think in this case it's appropriate.
I am not apologizing for the city of Chicago's crime rate and gang wars, but if you want to "prove" that Democratic governance is horrid every time the city is mentioned, in whatever way, then at least drop the headlines that you receive in your local newspapers or whatever - most likely immensely inaccurate - ideas you have about crime in the city.
The "Chiraq" call is effective when commenting on the shootings, when acknowledging that there is a problem in Chicago, but on the South Side. But it stops there when conservatives or when outsiders use it. Why? If you want to get into the particulars a lot of the shooting happen in select low-income neighborhoods whose residents are black. Derrick Rose lived in Englewood which is a neighborhood known for its gang wars and crime. Ben Wilson aka Benji was shot to death in the South Side neighborhood of Chatham even thought Chatham is considered more of a "safe" neighborhood when compared to the likes of Englewood.
Most of the North Side of Chicago and Southwest Side are relatively safe. The West Side is the South Side Light, but like its "heavier" half most of the crime happens in certain neighborhoods - in certain streets/pockets/zones. What demographic tends to dominate the West Side? Latinos. Most of the North Side is white while the Southwest Side is a mixture of white (ie Polish immigrants) and family oriented Latinos.
Many of the conservatives who comment on Chicago and its crime fail to acknowledge, or simply they succumb to laziness and generalizations, that a couple of the occurring facts that fail to make the headlines: Many of the shootings are located in neighborhoods on South Side which are dominated by black residents. The problem isn't the city itself, but the culture that pervades the South Side in these neighborhoods plagued by gang wars and ghetto mamas.
It's the culture, stupid!
When old-time conservatives complain about the MSM fooling America, they are fooled as well since Chicago crime fits right into the (true) narrative that ghetto culture ruins family and potential which is pushed by the right (and 'rightfully' so).
The irony of shot-gun feelings. No pun.
Friday, October 24, 2014
The Hatchet (not the book) + Another (school) Shooting
A man snapped and attacked a group of NYC police officers in the borough of Queens yesterday. It reminds me of the knife massacres that happened in China.
Much love and comfort to the family and friends who experienced the Washington school shooting this morning.
Now, this gets me wondering: For all the "gun control" push and "gun free zones", what if the people who commit crimes with guns resort to hatchets (or knives) instead? Will there be "hatchet control", or "hatchet free zones" being implemented?
If a person can't get a hold of a gun they'll resort to another weapon; let's not forget that our appendages also can be used as weapons (see: domestic violence and fist fights). Our fists, arms and legs can be lethal, but sometimes they're put under "martial arts" as a pretense. I would guess guns - the image of one - the sound of one going off - the destruction that it can cause - are major factors for those that push for such weapon control. They have "gunphobia." Literally.
Much love and comfort to the family and friends who experienced the Washington school shooting this morning.
Now, this gets me wondering: For all the "gun control" push and "gun free zones", what if the people who commit crimes with guns resort to hatchets (or knives) instead? Will there be "hatchet control", or "hatchet free zones" being implemented?
If a person can't get a hold of a gun they'll resort to another weapon; let's not forget that our appendages also can be used as weapons (see: domestic violence and fist fights). Our fists, arms and legs can be lethal, but sometimes they're put under "martial arts" as a pretense. I would guess guns - the image of one - the sound of one going off - the destruction that it can cause - are major factors for those that push for such weapon control. They have "gunphobia." Literally.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
You can't judge
I don't understand this "You can't judge so-and-so because you don't know them" especially when it comes to entertainers - especially actors and musicians (usually rock stars) - yet politicians, and sometimes athletes, are fair game. It seems like a phenomenon.
Can someone please help me understand this?
Can someone please help me understand this?
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Sometimes I wish my interests were things like basket weaving and stamp collecting
But they're not. One of my hobbies is watching movies. Foreign. Indie. Black & White. Subtitles.
You get the idea.
The new critic darling, Whiplash, is lighting the indie movie world on fire. A Sundance favorite, it has garnered many admirers; with these admirers come typical defensive remarks when a critic goes against the the almost consensus view.
The "you didn't 'get it'" card and to be a "qualified movie critic" one shouldn't be offended by the scenes that garner the R (or NC-17) rating. Interesting. I never knew reviewing films had such qualifications.
And this -
"It's a movie!"
On another comment, on another review, not liking the film is "being cool" for the sake of it.
Wait, I thought the ingrained belief/common-thought was that art was subjective? I guess not, at least not when it comes to indie, foreign and Oscar-type pics that win the critics' hearts. It also turns out that subjectivity is put aside when a movie widely rejected by most critics.
Take for example Andrew Niccol's The Host. I thought it was a decent sci-fi/romance movie. It was at times uninspiring, but overall it was solid. Now, compared to its precedent Stephenie Myer adapted work, the Twilight series, The Host was practically disemboweled; the franchise wasn't met with warmth, but Niccol's movie was just crucified.
WARNING: SPOILERS ahead.
The Whiplash love I "get", but I can't bring myself to share the same enthusiasm as the critics and its admirers; the "drive to be the best" was way overdone and it resorted to tired cliches (ie musician in family isn't understood, the football player is lauded) to downright petty scenes (mentor framing his student's father as a loser due to the mother/wife leaving them, the "rather be remember than not" mentality). Some of the critics who shared their negative reviews I also "get" -- I can see why the didn't like it (mentor's teaching method rendered him a borderline sociopath).
I see it all often that when people say a movie is "overrated" - even when giving reasons why - the defenders resort to "So are you saying that all the people who liked it are wrong? Are you seriously saying that so-and-so from NYT/LA Times/Tribune/IndieWire/Hollywood Reporter is wrong?"
Wait, so are the critics the priests/judges now? I thought art was universally said to be subjective so if a a review is negative then it's equally as valid as a positive one. Hmmm. That seems to be not the case.
Those familiar with the movie making world, and not fully on the train of "ma feelings", would agree that it is wrought with amorality, subjectivity, relativism and nihilism. It's a very modern medium. I'm not talking about blockbusters, I'm talking about films that are screened at festivals like Sundance, TIFF, Cannes, and NY FF. Granted not all films are like this that are accepted & screened, but most of the lauded ones - the ones entered in the main competitions or the ones that are the most anticipated, tend to be tackle the similar themes (sexual angst, some sort of LGBT theme, inner turmoil). Basically, they try to humanize many things that might be a taboo to Western culture. I wouldn't really object to one saying that those films is said film fests were pretentious and self-involved without even realizing.
But, like the person who said that critics who are offended by the contents of R rated movies, maybe I might not be "qualified" to be interested in such a hobby.
You get the idea.
The new critic darling, Whiplash, is lighting the indie movie world on fire. A Sundance favorite, it has garnered many admirers; with these admirers come typical defensive remarks when a critic goes against the the almost consensus view.
The "you didn't 'get it'" card and to be a "qualified movie critic" one shouldn't be offended by the scenes that garner the R (or NC-17) rating. Interesting. I never knew reviewing films had such qualifications.
And this -
"It's a movie!"
On another comment, on another review, not liking the film is "being cool" for the sake of it.
Wait, I thought the ingrained belief/common-thought was that art was subjective? I guess not, at least not when it comes to indie, foreign and Oscar-type pics that win the critics' hearts. It also turns out that subjectivity is put aside when a movie widely rejected by most critics.
Take for example Andrew Niccol's The Host. I thought it was a decent sci-fi/romance movie. It was at times uninspiring, but overall it was solid. Now, compared to its precedent Stephenie Myer adapted work, the Twilight series, The Host was practically disemboweled; the franchise wasn't met with warmth, but Niccol's movie was just crucified.
WARNING: SPOILERS ahead.
The Whiplash love I "get", but I can't bring myself to share the same enthusiasm as the critics and its admirers; the "drive to be the best" was way overdone and it resorted to tired cliches (ie musician in family isn't understood, the football player is lauded) to downright petty scenes (mentor framing his student's father as a loser due to the mother/wife leaving them, the "rather be remember than not" mentality). Some of the critics who shared their negative reviews I also "get" -- I can see why the didn't like it (mentor's teaching method rendered him a borderline sociopath).
I see it all often that when people say a movie is "overrated" - even when giving reasons why - the defenders resort to "So are you saying that all the people who liked it are wrong? Are you seriously saying that so-and-so from NYT/LA Times/Tribune/IndieWire/Hollywood Reporter is wrong?"
Wait, so are the critics the priests/judges now? I thought art was universally said to be subjective so if a a review is negative then it's equally as valid as a positive one. Hmmm. That seems to be not the case.
Those familiar with the movie making world, and not fully on the train of "ma feelings", would agree that it is wrought with amorality, subjectivity, relativism and nihilism. It's a very modern medium. I'm not talking about blockbusters, I'm talking about films that are screened at festivals like Sundance, TIFF, Cannes, and NY FF. Granted not all films are like this that are accepted & screened, but most of the lauded ones - the ones entered in the main competitions or the ones that are the most anticipated, tend to be tackle the similar themes (sexual angst, some sort of LGBT theme, inner turmoil). Basically, they try to humanize many things that might be a taboo to Western culture. I wouldn't really object to one saying that those films is said film fests were pretentious and self-involved without even realizing.
But, like the person who said that critics who are offended by the contents of R rated movies, maybe I might not be "qualified" to be interested in such a hobby.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Enjoy the sounds until you pay attention to the lyrics (and the music video).
I heard "Take Me to Church" by Hozier on the radio for the first time today. I didn't catch all the lyrics but I liked the melody, that is until I went on youtube and saw all of the lyrics, made sense of them and later viewed the music video.
My lover's got humour
She's the giggle at a funeral (1)
Knows everybody's disapproval
I should've worshiped her sooner
If the heavens ever did speak (2)
She's the last true mouthpiece
Every Sunday's getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week
'We were born sick,' you heard them say it
My Church offers no absolutes. (3)
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—
I was born sick, (4)
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.
[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies (5)
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife (6)
Offer me that deathless death (7)
Good God, let me give you my life
My break-down:
1. The glorification and hero-worship of the "rebel."
2. Sunday's homilies are poison and shouldn't be trusted. Only the rebel should.
3. Bodily/sexual desires are the only absolutes that we know of; obey them.
4. Relish the "sickness" in the faces of the "prudes" for this shows courage
5. People who attend mass are like Pavlov's dog.
6. Who killed the confessor? Was the confessor killed with the candle stick? Was it with the sharpened knife? (Hozier, that's Islam, you Irish git.)
7. The talk of hell does not scare me. Your death doesn't pertain to me.
The music video mostly shows a fictional story about two men supposedly in the closet to their town besides to each other - they are 'together.' They're caught walking alongside each other by a man who's in a gang. One day the man who saw them brings his gang to the boyfriend's house, kidnaps him and drags him into the forest where they threaten him. The other homosexual finds out about this and desperately tracks his boyfriend down, but it's too late. The captured man is seen being kicked and beaten in the distance; his lover covering his eyes in horror.
Like such a scenario for the music video wasn't predictable, especially for a song & video meant to speak out for LGBT "rights."
It reminds me greatly of "Sacrilege" with model/actress Lilly Cole, but this time instead of focusing on homosexuals it was about Cole's character sleeping around with most of the townspeople, later getting married to a man who's oblivious to her "bad girl" nature; every man in the pews she has slept with.
The parallels between the two narratives are alike, so I suggest to watch both and draw comparisons.
Here's a couple of comments; the brilliance astounds me.
Will I keep listening to the song? I'm not sure. I do like the melody and I suppose this is one of those songs that I can "listen to" without paying attention to the lyrics.
It's the same thing when I heard Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" in that I really liked the melody and the lyrics. You're probably saying to yourself "Er, Smith is a homosexual as well." I know. But I didn't know that until after I learned about the singer/writer. The entire time I thought the song was about a guy singing about a girl (as did others).
What's interesting about "Stay With Me" is that, in some way, it's kinda respectful to religion. Smith is wearing earrings that are in a shape of crosses at the 2:20 mark where it seems he's in some kind of church, dressed in white, background white with organ pipes, as the melody transitions into a gospel-esque atmosphere. This tone in melody makes it is the best of the video for me since I enjoy some melodies from gospel music.
Now, every time the song is played on the radio I can't help think of two guys instead of a guy and a girl, which, sadly, diminishes my enjoyment of the song (once I heard it was about one-night stands it was a turn off; it was a second turn off when I learned it was about two guys).
It also doesn't really help that the Top 40 station in my city is playing his new songs -- and every time I hear one of Smith's songs I think "two guys."
Wait, what was that, Mr. Lee?
Honestly, every time. It came to a point where I'd listen to the lyrics if I haven't heard of the song before, then once it's played again some time later I'd switch it. People will probably say that I should be open-minded and get over it. I did listen to the lyrics and see how they relate to my own feelings of my love life and what not, but then reality hits me and remind me it's about homosexuals.
*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*
Then there's "She Keeps Me Warm" by Mary Lambert who went to an evangelical church during her teenage years (they tend come from evangelical churches ... ). When I head that I felt kinda sick.
*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*
I can't forget about "Same Love" by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Mary Lambert (surprise surprise), probably the piece that paved the way for airing the above mentioned songs.
Also, bing.com is a gift that keeps on giving. Besides acting as a decent search engine, it also has its own news feed at the bottom. Since this post is about same-sex relationships, bing recently let me know that actress Rachel Evan Wood has entered a relationship with a woman. Such wonderful timing. Thank you, bing.com. According to wiki, Wood was married to fellow actor Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) no less than two years - divorcing in 2013, bearing his child. I wonder how the kid turns out.
My lover's got humour
She's the giggle at a funeral (1)
Knows everybody's disapproval
I should've worshiped her sooner
If the heavens ever did speak (2)
She's the last true mouthpiece
Every Sunday's getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week
'We were born sick,' you heard them say it
My Church offers no absolutes. (3)
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—
I was born sick, (4)
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.
[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies (5)
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife (6)
Offer me that deathless death (7)
Good God, let me give you my life
My break-down:
1. The glorification and hero-worship of the "rebel."
2. Sunday's homilies are poison and shouldn't be trusted. Only the rebel should.
3. Bodily/sexual desires are the only absolutes that we know of; obey them.
4. Relish the "sickness" in the faces of the "prudes" for this shows courage
5. People who attend mass are like Pavlov's dog.
6. Who killed the confessor? Was the confessor killed with the candle stick? Was it with the sharpened knife? (Hozier, that's Islam, you Irish git.)
7. The talk of hell does not scare me. Your death doesn't pertain to me.
The music video mostly shows a fictional story about two men supposedly in the closet to their town besides to each other - they are 'together.' They're caught walking alongside each other by a man who's in a gang. One day the man who saw them brings his gang to the boyfriend's house, kidnaps him and drags him into the forest where they threaten him. The other homosexual finds out about this and desperately tracks his boyfriend down, but it's too late. The captured man is seen being kicked and beaten in the distance; his lover covering his eyes in horror.
Like such a scenario for the music video wasn't predictable, especially for a song & video meant to speak out for LGBT "rights."
It reminds me greatly of "Sacrilege" with model/actress Lilly Cole, but this time instead of focusing on homosexuals it was about Cole's character sleeping around with most of the townspeople, later getting married to a man who's oblivious to her "bad girl" nature; every man in the pews she has slept with.
The parallels between the two narratives are alike, so I suggest to watch both and draw comparisons.
Here's a couple of comments; the brilliance astounds me.
Will I keep listening to the song? I'm not sure. I do like the melody and I suppose this is one of those songs that I can "listen to" without paying attention to the lyrics.
It's the same thing when I heard Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" in that I really liked the melody and the lyrics. You're probably saying to yourself "Er, Smith is a homosexual as well." I know. But I didn't know that until after I learned about the singer/writer. The entire time I thought the song was about a guy singing about a girl (as did others).
What's interesting about "Stay With Me" is that, in some way, it's kinda respectful to religion. Smith is wearing earrings that are in a shape of crosses at the 2:20 mark where it seems he's in some kind of church, dressed in white, background white with organ pipes, as the melody transitions into a gospel-esque atmosphere. This tone in melody makes it is the best of the video for me since I enjoy some melodies from gospel music.
Now, every time the song is played on the radio I can't help think of two guys instead of a guy and a girl, which, sadly, diminishes my enjoyment of the song (once I heard it was about one-night stands it was a turn off; it was a second turn off when I learned it was about two guys).
It also doesn't really help that the Top 40 station in my city is playing his new songs -- and every time I hear one of Smith's songs I think "two guys."
Wait, what was that, Mr. Lee?
Honestly, every time. It came to a point where I'd listen to the lyrics if I haven't heard of the song before, then once it's played again some time later I'd switch it. People will probably say that I should be open-minded and get over it. I did listen to the lyrics and see how they relate to my own feelings of my love life and what not, but then reality hits me and remind me it's about homosexuals.
*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*
Then there's "She Keeps Me Warm" by Mary Lambert who went to an evangelical church during her teenage years (they tend come from evangelical churches ... ). When I head that I felt kinda sick.
*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*
I can't forget about "Same Love" by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Mary Lambert (surprise surprise), probably the piece that paved the way for airing the above mentioned songs.
Also, bing.com is a gift that keeps on giving. Besides acting as a decent search engine, it also has its own news feed at the bottom. Since this post is about same-sex relationships, bing recently let me know that actress Rachel Evan Wood has entered a relationship with a woman. Such wonderful timing. Thank you, bing.com. According to wiki, Wood was married to fellow actor Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) no less than two years - divorcing in 2013, bearing his child. I wonder how the kid turns out.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
I wanted Swan Lake, but instead I got Mary McNamara.
I woke up this morning groggy as usual then I remembered that there might be a review of Joffrey Ballet's Swan Lake which premiered last night. I was suddenly alert. I flipped through my city's newspaper for the arts & entertainment section, finally getting to it and disregarding the rest of the sections like gift wrap on Christmas morning.
"Where is it?" I thought to myself since it wasn't the on the front page. Then at the bottom I saw this eye-catching headline; its content more predictable than I can imagine. It was a review, sorta, not on a ballet production, but how maternity is portrayed on television.
No mention of whether or not the use of a biblical story as a plot device to make a comedy -- a virgin becoming miraculously impregnated without any sexual intercourse or in vitro -- was a "wise" decision to the audience members who may be religious since it obviously uses the story in a mocking manner (the character wants to save sex for marriage). It's parody.
No mention of whether or not the feelings of, I would bet, most women when they find they are pregnant: joy - shock - nervousness - happiness.
Nope.
McNamara, a mother of three, sees these two shows - one a comedy, the other a drama - as vehicles of "socially enforced motherhood" even though abortion- on-demand is basically the issue for modern day women -- supported like crazy in her circles, elite journalism, and in the city of L.A. This mentality of feeling threatened I mention here and the abortion issue mentioned here.
I would think that if a mother of three is critical of this "socially enforced motherhood" then she must have a good point, right? I mean, if mothers themselves support abortion and woman's "right" to be childless, for whatever reasons, then that's how society should work, right?
All of a sudden the L.A. Times writer feels threatened by two shows. How about all the rest of the shows out there that are getting publicity?
In the Middle portrays a family, the Midwest of course, of five as lovable fools and motherhood as unattractive and (somewhat) miserable. The same with Malcolm in the Middle. Most of the shows today, when two characters have sex, don't even mention the pregnancy. They just get all hot, proceed to make out and get naked. Or the director just shoots the sex scene and skips the make out session and build up (see: Game of Thrones).
Or how about Sex and the City, Mistresses, Scandal and Revenge? How is maternity portrayed? I can safely say maternity isn't shown in anyway positive -- little to no affection, no anything. Just "that's my daughter/wife you slept with," type of attitude.
All of a sudden McNamara wants the characters to practice "choice."
I do wonder what her thoughts are of the shows I mentioned. I wonder if the choices the females made in the shows would be seen as "empowering." I'd guess McNamara would complain about sexism and patriarchy.
This "not wanting a child", kinda just using the reproductive sex organs as a gateway to pleasure without the consequences (nipping the babe in the butt), outright rejects the natural purpose of it. It divorces mind & body (though, if McNamara practices yoga or is a marathon runner she'll probably resort to the "mind & body" slogan). It draws a parallel to transgenderism and homosexuality as well, but especially transgenderism.
There's another through-line involved with these three: Neither of these are romantic. At All. I'm using "romantic" in its most classic sense.
But Swan Like is. It's a classic in the cannon of ballets. It's timeless. Even with modern twists and interpretation, it's still Swan Lake (unless some choreographer totally butchers the story). The only "crazy" thing in the story is between Odette and Odile, otherwise known as the White Swan and Black Swan. No, it ain't no lesbo story (I did enjoy the movie, though).
Maybe I'll be met with a Swan Lake review tomorrow morning. Maybe. Maybe I'll be met with beauty:
"Where is it?" I thought to myself since it wasn't the on the front page. Then at the bottom I saw this eye-catching headline; its content more predictable than I can imagine. It was a review, sorta, not on a ballet production, but how maternity is portrayed on television.
The two series could not be more different. "Homeland" is the once-exalted then much-criticized Showtime political thriller rebooting its fourth season to wary and conditional praise. "Jane the Virgin" is a highly anticipated CW comedy, with magical realism top-notes and a very high buzz factor.
Yet they share a troubling and unexpected theme: Socially Enforced Motherhood.
Despite their contrasting tone, form and intent, both shows insist that, deep down, every woman wants a child no matter the conditions, even when the woman in question has made it very clear that she does not feel this way at all.So two shows all of a sudden make up a "tyranny" (of motherhood). That's an impressive conclusion to come up with.
No mention of whether or not the use of a biblical story as a plot device to make a comedy -- a virgin becoming miraculously impregnated without any sexual intercourse or in vitro -- was a "wise" decision to the audience members who may be religious since it obviously uses the story in a mocking manner (the character wants to save sex for marriage). It's parody.
No mention of whether or not the feelings of, I would bet, most women when they find they are pregnant: joy - shock - nervousness - happiness.
Nope.
McNamara, a mother of three, sees these two shows - one a comedy, the other a drama - as vehicles of "socially enforced motherhood" even though abortion- on-demand is basically the issue for modern day women -- supported like crazy in her circles, elite journalism, and in the city of L.A. This mentality of feeling threatened I mention here and the abortion issue mentioned here.
I would think that if a mother of three is critical of this "socially enforced motherhood" then she must have a good point, right? I mean, if mothers themselves support abortion and woman's "right" to be childless, for whatever reasons, then that's how society should work, right?
All of a sudden the L.A. Times writer feels threatened by two shows. How about all the rest of the shows out there that are getting publicity?
In the Middle portrays a family, the Midwest of course, of five as lovable fools and motherhood as unattractive and (somewhat) miserable. The same with Malcolm in the Middle. Most of the shows today, when two characters have sex, don't even mention the pregnancy. They just get all hot, proceed to make out and get naked. Or the director just shoots the sex scene and skips the make out session and build up (see: Game of Thrones).
Or how about Sex and the City, Mistresses, Scandal and Revenge? How is maternity portrayed? I can safely say maternity isn't shown in anyway positive -- little to no affection, no anything. Just "that's my daughter/wife you slept with," type of attitude.
All of a sudden McNamara wants the characters to practice "choice."
I do wonder what her thoughts are of the shows I mentioned. I wonder if the choices the females made in the shows would be seen as "empowering." I'd guess McNamara would complain about sexism and patriarchy.
This "not wanting a child", kinda just using the reproductive sex organs as a gateway to pleasure without the consequences (nipping the babe in the butt), outright rejects the natural purpose of it. It divorces mind & body (though, if McNamara practices yoga or is a marathon runner she'll probably resort to the "mind & body" slogan). It draws a parallel to transgenderism and homosexuality as well, but especially transgenderism.
- Transgenderism - a man/woman whose brain tells them they're a woman/man. Obviously nature gave them something else than what their brains makes them think they are.
- Homosexuality - a man/woman is attracted to a man/woman. "Consuming" the relationship is a waste.
- Feminism - choosing not to allow the natural course of reproduction to occur, therefore rejecting the natural "job" and duty of maternity of which those organs call for.
There's another through-line involved with these three: Neither of these are romantic. At All. I'm using "romantic" in its most classic sense.
But Swan Like is. It's a classic in the cannon of ballets. It's timeless. Even with modern twists and interpretation, it's still Swan Lake (unless some choreographer totally butchers the story). The only "crazy" thing in the story is between Odette and Odile, otherwise known as the White Swan and Black Swan. No, it ain't no lesbo story (I did enjoy the movie, though).
Maybe I'll be met with a Swan Lake review tomorrow morning. Maybe. Maybe I'll be met with beauty:
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
It's quite Easy
to defend detainees that are supposed terrorists. Just say the following:
You then come off as a sensitive, well-meaning, thoughtful and intelligent person.
Of course, each of the above can be used for most of any modern social cause. Surprise, surprise.
- "they're people, too"
- "there are two sides to every coin"
- "the real evil is to (negatively) judge"
You then come off as a sensitive, well-meaning, thoughtful and intelligent person.
Of course, each of the above can be used for most of any modern social cause. Surprise, surprise.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Religious, Agnostic or Atheist
Every now and then these types of threads on IMDB, in its Movie Awards forum, show up. It's always interesting to see what the responses are and the explanations some give to their answer.
Friday, October 10, 2014
F*ck the Police? F*ck the Courts and ACLU!
The Supreme Court recently blocked the states of Wisconsin and Texas' bill to put in place voter identification come this November -- you just need to show a valid ID in order to vote (driver's license, state ID) -- but that's controversial to the civil rights lawyers (like I didn't see this coming) that opposed it.
According to the L.A. Times
It just can't be anymore obvious why the ACLU "civil rights" lawyers did what they did. Their motivations and thoughts are bare.
Here are some of the things, in my city, where you need to show a valid ID:
According to the L.A. Times
By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal from civil rights lawyers, who argued it was too late to put the rule into effect this year.
Lawyers for the ACLU noted that the state had already sent out thousands of absentee ballots without mentioning the need for voters to return a copy of their photo identification.
It would be “chaos,” they said, for Wisconsin to have to decide whether to count such ballots now because voters had failed to comply with the new law.I'll psychoanalyze the emergency: "We can't enforce these standards on the illegal immigrants in the States. If that happens then it greatly weakens the chances of any (D) winning the election! We need the votes! Plus, it's their right to vote -- it's racism to make people (of color) to show a valid ID. It's totally non-progressive." The desperation smells like burning rubber. Oh the stench ...
It just can't be anymore obvious why the ACLU "civil rights" lawyers did what they did. Their motivations and thoughts are bare.
Here are some of the things, in my city, where you need to show a valid ID:
- discounted opera tickets for students; valid student ID must be present when presenting ticket for entrance
- bars (21 yrs of age)
- entering certain building accessible only to its employees; guests need passes
- purchasing any student discounts for public transportation (need valid ID and working student e-mail address)
- teacher discounts at movies
- using a credit card (sometimes the cashier asks)
- paying by check
Startup vs Corp.
ZocDoc from glassdoor.com -
I guess this is the nature of "fast growing" startups. I wonder if the "fast growing" startups ever fully mature. Probably not. It ain't google, or facebook or youtube. but those places dress like college students -- and most, I bet, are like people in the arts: totally unaware of the real world and just sticking to their startups and art. But hey, they dress in jeans and have laundry (google) at their work.
Or my favorite Con:
Yes, because people in the medical world and finance world (big corp.) don't work long hours as well. You poor thing. Just ask my friends who are medical interns and my mother. Ask my brother about the hours he worked during certain projects plus some of his co-workers working till midnight - starting at 8:30AM - in accounting. Accounting. But this was at a Big 4 firm, not a startup. Heck, I know an executive personal assistant who had to arrive at her job at 8:30AM and couldn't leave the boss said "You can go now." That was anywhere between 6PM and 8:30PM, easily clocking 50-60 hrs a week. Add in being "on call" on weekends.
Then there's a little light of sanity -
For people who want to build something, try new things, and pave the way, they shouldn't hesitate to climb aboard. For people who want to do the same job day in, day out, clock in, clock out, maintain the status quo - probably better to go to a big corporation without any fire in the belly.So I take whatever new status quo is put in place. set by an employee, another "fire in the belly" type of person will change that status quo a few years down the line? It's a revolving door of status quos trying to out do one another.
I guess this is the nature of "fast growing" startups. I wonder if the "fast growing" startups ever fully mature. Probably not. It ain't google, or facebook or youtube. but those places dress like college students -- and most, I bet, are like people in the arts: totally unaware of the real world and just sticking to their startups and art. But hey, they dress in jeans and have laundry (google) at their work.
Or my favorite Con:
LONG HOURS. 8-6 at least, but you are expected to work after hours as well, especially if your territory sucks.
Yes, because people in the medical world and finance world (big corp.) don't work long hours as well. You poor thing. Just ask my friends who are medical interns and my mother. Ask my brother about the hours he worked during certain projects plus some of his co-workers working till midnight - starting at 8:30AM - in accounting. Accounting. But this was at a Big 4 firm, not a startup. Heck, I know an executive personal assistant who had to arrive at her job at 8:30AM and couldn't leave the boss said "You can go now." That was anywhere between 6PM and 8:30PM, easily clocking 50-60 hrs a week. Add in being "on call" on weekends.
Then there's a little light of sanity -
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Social Work & Conservatism
Since I'm thinking of getting a MSW (if so, going to attend the cheapest program that I can drive to) I visited an online forum called thegradcafe.com. One of the responses warned those holding conservative views that the waters were dangerous. I'm taking it with a grain of salt since the poster only has one post, but still, I wouldn't be surprised if what was said was accurate.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
A "tacit" victory. That's an interesting way to put it.
When advocates of same-sex "marriage" say "gay marriage won't affect your marriage" I think they don't acknowledge (or don't realize) the underlying affects of such a belief and "justice."
The fact that they think two people of the same sex shouldn't be a factor when deciding whether to allow them to "wed", that only consent and love ("love is love" card) should matter, it says something about them. It does affect my marriage because it makes it the "archaic"/"narrow minded" view, even though such a view is one of the pillars for western civilization.
What happened today isn't creating anything that actually benefits society besides A) the LGBTYMCA activists and B) the perverts.
The "pairings" aka the homosexual/bi newlyweds, if they even want kids, will always go through a third party to get children. Always. They are sexual incompatible to produce a child together. There is no/zero point to their anal sex and oral sex besides "it feels good, so do it." I'm not sure how anal sex can even remotely feel good.
Here's a story my mother told me. She's a nurse, and one of her co-workers is a homosexual. He's in a relationship with another man who left his wife for him. This man has one child from the previous marriage. The co-worker wants a child because his boyfriend has one. So the co-worker finds a surrogate in India to birth the child. The child dies in labor. The co-worker is devastated.
Call me heartless, but I feel no sympathy for my mom's co-worker. I do feel sympathy for the child of the boyfriend's and for the surrogate. I also feel for the ex-wife.
And I will not acknowledge any same-sex couple as a couple. Instead I will say "pairing," I won't think they're married even if they have the stamp of state & government approval because such a combination -- same-sex pairings -- defeats logic and purpose, let alone makes the concept of marriage another victim of the perversion of words.
There will be people saying "it doesn't matter what you think." Of course it does. If it didn't then advocates of SS"M" wouldn't be so indignant when people like me express such views. My thoughts are nothing to activist judges, but it sure matters to those who abhor people that share my views. So, the end, it is about acceptance - not just by the government, but by the people who go about their daily lives. It's not about "justice", it's about changing the social thought -- it's practically brainwashing and forcing (through intimidation) a particular (and destructive) belief onto innocent people.
"The eventual green light to same sex marriage will offer an interesting insight into the depraved mind of man."
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Craig's List
The subject head was "Professionally managed elevator building" yet I found this at the bottom of the page.
I hope the dachshund is okay.
I hope the dachshund is okay.
Friday, October 3, 2014
I don't care how, I want it now!
Due to a federal court in Texas siding with an abortion law asking to close down the existing abortion clinics within the state, I shall leave you with this:
No apology. Probably no shame as well.
Channeling Veroua Salt, I see. In the name of "rights", of course. I notice that most are tattooed. I 'hate' to be judgmental but I'm not surprised. And they' aren't attractive. at. all.
The "on demand" part always reminds of the "On Demand!" cable slogan. The "get all the latest & hottest movies" deal.
Oompa Loompas:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me
Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame:
The mother and the father!
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do
I also want to note that the Oompa Loompa's work in a factory, doing work that can be described as a routine and monotonous. What they do wouldn't be deemed to be exciting or creative (well, kinda). I wouldn't label it a field (candy making) that lends itself to self-expression. They aren't "their own boss." They make things (candy) that people consume and enjoy as shown in the film. It's practically a craft (in the traditional sense). I assume that what they wear in the video are their "work clothes" - so a uniform of sorts. Each has their own set of responsibilities, with Wonka calling the shots, and probably rarely go outside the factory, if ever. I don't know what they're paid for their labor.
They aren't worldly, but they're unique simply by being their own "race" (if we take the world of Wonka as it is). Their green hair and orange skin aren't fake - it's actually their real/natural color, driven by genetics & nature.
According to Willy Wonka, he rescued them from great danger in their homeland and asked them to work for him, where they'd be safe. The Oompa Loompa's also seem very content with their situation in life. Does this remind you of something very Americana?
No apology. Probably no shame as well.
Channeling Veroua Salt, I see. In the name of "rights", of course. I notice that most are tattooed. I 'hate' to be judgmental but I'm not surprised. And they' aren't attractive. at. all.
The "on demand" part always reminds of the "On Demand!" cable slogan. The "get all the latest & hottest movies" deal.
Oompa Loompas:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me
Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame:
The mother and the father!
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do
I also want to note that the Oompa Loompa's work in a factory, doing work that can be described as a routine and monotonous. What they do wouldn't be deemed to be exciting or creative (well, kinda). I wouldn't label it a field (candy making) that lends itself to self-expression. They aren't "their own boss." They make things (candy) that people consume and enjoy as shown in the film. It's practically a craft (in the traditional sense). I assume that what they wear in the video are their "work clothes" - so a uniform of sorts. Each has their own set of responsibilities, with Wonka calling the shots, and probably rarely go outside the factory, if ever. I don't know what they're paid for their labor.
They aren't worldly, but they're unique simply by being their own "race" (if we take the world of Wonka as it is). Their green hair and orange skin aren't fake - it's actually their real/natural color, driven by genetics & nature.
According to Willy Wonka, he rescued them from great danger in their homeland and asked them to work for him, where they'd be safe. The Oompa Loompa's also seem very content with their situation in life. Does this remind you of something very Americana?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)