Seeing Stars

No, this isn't a post about my years in Hollywood. And I haven't seen a cartoon character take a mallet to the head recently. I'm talking about big gaseous balls of fire in the heavens.

I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...

When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
We do not see the same stars they did!
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:

This is basically what we see now:

Imagine seeing this:

I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.

Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."

The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"

Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"

To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!

I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.

International Politics

I think it's a rare event that JMO delves into the realm of international politics, but there are two issues that have burst onto the scene of current events on which JMO has an opinion. (Surprise, surprise, right?)

Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.

I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.

Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.

Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?

Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.

Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.

So, that's my opinion. What's yours?

Dismantling Food

Recently, I admitted to myself that I have a strange eating habit. I dismantle food (If this confuses you, you'll understand more as you read). I used to think this was localized only to one or two snacks. However, the more I reflected on this abnormality, the more I concluded that, when it comes to dismantling food, I practically do it whenever possible.

I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.

How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.

Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.

I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)

I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)

I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I devour the candy bar).

I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:

Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.

Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.

Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!

Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!

Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!

(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!

Review: Premonition

***Spoiler Alert***
Seriously, I'm totally going to give the movie away
I'm not even kidding, if you want to watch the movie and be surprised, stop reading now

(But let me say this: it's really not worth skipping the review to watch the movie. If you have to pick one, pick the review)

2007/PG-13/Drama

Premonition is my movie. And when I say that, "my movie" is a movie that never got made, for good reason. I'll explain:

For my final project in film school, we had to pitch a movie idea to the producers (Professors). They'd select which five movies would be made out of the twelve that were presented. I pitched a movie called Photo Finish. The very short synopsis is: Due to the consequences of his own actions, fate gives a man a Polaroid Camera. The camera begins to lead him to strangers who, unbeknownst to him, are about to die. He takes their picture and when it develops it turns out to be a picture of their death, which is imminent. He decides to try to do good and the each time the camera leads him he tries to save the person's life. His actions end up causing their death, and when he does nothing, they still die. Finally, the camera leads our anti-hero to a mirror. He takes his own picture and sees how he will die moments before it happens. The movie ends with an apparition of our hero passing the camera off to the person who was responsible for his death, and they cycle continues.

This is the movie I pitched. The producers didn't like the fact that there was no redemption for the main character. They told me my movie would be made, but I had to rework it so that his actions saved people from their imminent demise. What the producer says goes and Photo Finish was made.

What does this have to do with Premonition? If you've seen the movie, I hope you'll see the correlation. First, let me say that I didn't like this movie. It had so many things that annoy me. Not the least of which was some supernatural plot gimmick that had no explanation. Why is Sandra Bullock living the days of this specific week out of order? Was the priest supposed to provide some type of explanation? Hardly! So, basically, this was a time travel movie without being explicitly marketed as one.

Having said that, this time travel movie suffers from the same problem that many others do. In fact, it is the exact same complaint I have with Minority Report (Which was a much better movie). Her premonition is the direct cause of his death. If she did not have the premonition he is still living so what caused the premonition? He's not dead. (With Minority Report it was the Pre-cog's vision that causes the dominoes to tumble eventually ending with Cruise's character committing the murder the Pre-cog saw. No Pre-cog, no murder) No premonition, no death.

How did this movie get made? In my movie, the camera leads the anti-hero to a place where he causes peoples' deaths. In Premonition, the foreknowledge of how and when her husband dies causes Sandra Bullock to take actions that cause his death. If she lived the day he died like any other day, then he lives.

The producers who green lighted Photo Finish with their required changes made my movie better. The producers who green lighted Premonition (especially with it's clearly altered audience tested moronic ending) should not have made their movie.

Even though Bullock, Shyann McClure, and Courtney Taylor Burness (the girls playing her daughters) put forth fairly remarkable performances, considering the subject matter, they still weren't able to rescue this movie from its own storyline. (And what is with Sandra doing all these movies with weird time plot gimmicks? See The Lake House.)

Taking into account the acting: 1.5 out of 5 stars.

I Can't Believe This Exists

This may become a regular (or semi-regular) installment on JMO. If that does become the case then here is the first episode:

I can't believe that this exists:


That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.

The Nissan

With all of the failing car companies in the news, I can't help but wonder why people buy Nissans.

Noun 1. Nissan - the seventh month of the civil year; the first month of the ecclesiastic year (in March and April) in the Hebrew calendar.

Here's why I ask: When I think of all of the things a car could focus on, I don't think there is a Nissan that is primary for any of them!

A Nissan isn't known for being:

Reliable like the Honda Accord or a Saturn
Safe like a Volvo
Fuel efficient like the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius
Powerful like the Sliverado, Ram, Bronco, or Tacoma
a Muscle-car like the Mustang
a Family mobile like the Dodge Grand Caravan or Plymouth Voyager
a Chick magnet like the Mitsubishi Mirage or Eclipse
Luxurious like a BMW, Infinity, or an Audi
a Status symbol like a Lexus or a Jaguar
Stereotypical like the El Camino or the Monte Carlo
Eco-friendly like the Yaris
Sporty like the Pontiac Bonneville or Corvette
Versatile like the Subaru Outback or Ford Edge
Fun like the Dodge Neon or VW Passat
Classic like the Toyota Corolla or VW Bug
Aesthetically pleasing like a Ferrari or an Eagle Vision
an Old Person car like a Cadillac, Oldsmobile, or Lincoln

In fact, the only category that I could come up with that a Nissa might be first in would be "Nissan-y." But even in that category I might put the Mazda G6 as more "like a Nissan" than a Nissan.

So, please, why would anyone purchase a Nissan?

Translation, Please?

Ever notice how toddlers and young children seem to be speaking another language, and yet their parents somehow understand them?

Such is the case with our little Full House. His vocabulary is growing by leaps and bounds, he is speaking in full sentences, and he is finding creative ways to let us know what he is talking about. While, on one hand he is an excellent speaker and everyone he interacts with finds it easy to communicate with him; on the other hand, he does say a few things that could pass for other, sometimes humorous, words or phrases.

Below is a pictorial quiz to see how well you can speak "Full House-ese." The pictures are visual representations of what it sounds like he is saying. Can you determine what he means?

The first comment on this post will be what one might hear when he speaks, the "literal translation" if you will. Later in the week, I'll put the answers of what he actually means. See how well you can do. Feel free to put your answers in comments and let us all know if you used just the picture, or the picture and the explanation, to form your guess.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)
Happy guessing. Don't forget: The first comment is the "literal translation" of each picture and check back later for what he is really saying!

Selling Medocrity

I saw a preview for Tom Hank's newest film that proclaimed:

"Audiences and critics around the world agree: Angels and Demons is better than The Davinci Code!"

Is that the best they could come up with? I picture people standing outside the theater, shrugging and saying off-handedly, "Well, at least it was better than The DaVinci Code."

Isn't that like saying: "Sportscasters and fans alike believe that the 2007 Dolphins (1-15) were better than the 2008 Lions (0-16)!"

"Chefs and patrons both concur: week-old moldy mushroom soup is better than month-old maggot filled road kill!"

"Families everywhere declare: living in a run-down apartment is better than living in a cardboard box!"

Are we supposed to be impressed when they compare new crap with old crap and decide that new crap is better? Just wondering.

Outrageous!

"Filmmaker" Kirby Dick is at it again! The very first movie review on JMO was of this embittered man's attempt at a documentary regarding the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system. It ended up being "a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it." -JMO.

In his new "documentary," called Outrage, Dick purposefully outs closeted homosexual politicians who actively campaign and vote against the gay liberal agenda. In interviews, his stated purpose of this "documentary" is to expose the hypocrisy in these politicians. He states that a fringe effect of this is the unauthorized outing of these supposed closet homosexuals (all of whom happen to be members of the Republican party ~ surprise, surprise.) It has little to do with his support for the gay agenda.

This is wrong on so many levels! For years, one of the staples of the Left's gay agenda, and one of their repeated points as to why their legislation should pass, is that "what happens in someone's bedroom is private and the government should not intervene." I guess it's only private when it suits them. If they deem it counter-productive it becomes everyone's business.

Another complaint of the liberal left arose when a homosexual was outed by the media. This was "none of the public's business" and it was a despicable act by the media to out this person. It was their prerogative when and how they announced their sexual preference. Unless it was deemed counter-productive to the homosexual cause, then it becomes everyone's business.

Now, again, Kirby Dick states that this "film" is primarily to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If that is the case then I look forward to his upcoming "documentaries":

Up In Smoke - Politicians who smoke but pass anti-smoking laws.

Gun Shy - Politicians who own guns and vote for gun control laws.

Color Blind - African-American politicians who actively oppose Affirmative Action.

Straight & Narrow - Heterosexual politicians who support the homosexual cause.

Life & Death - Politicians who believe in Pro-life for themselves yet vote for Pro-choice legislation.

Rabid Pacifist - Draft-dodging politicians who support and wage war.

I.O.USA - Tax-evading politicians who vote to increase taxes.

Party Poopers - A two-part documentary that focuses on Republicans who vote for Socialist programs and Democrats who vote for pro-American legislation.

Once Dick has finished his comprehensive project on the hypocrisy in Washington, he should move on to his crowning jewel: Private No More: An expose on how those entrenched in the gay agenda will ignore their mantra of "the government should stay out of the bedroom" so that they can out anyone they chose if they feel it furthers their cause. And perhaps the most hypocritical act is to hold the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights, that the government should stay out of the bedroom, and then out people who had chosen to exercise their right to have their sexual preference remain private. I smell an Oscar!

I sincerely hope that those who earnestly believe in the cause of homosexuals will call this "documentary" what it is: detrimental, unethical, disrespectful, and hypocritical. And that is Just My Opinion!

The Father's Blessing

Abraham blessed Isaac.
Isaac blessed Jacob.
Jacob pronounced a blessing over all twelve of his sons.
Even Jesus received a blessing from his Father when he was baptised.

This weekend, our church provides an opportunity for parents to give this kind of amazing, life changing blessing to their children as they welcome their 7th and 8th graders into adulthood.

And the church has begun to take steps to actually back up the concept that they are adults by allowing them to become voting members. By seeing them, not as the future of the church, but as the church of today. And by slowly but surely listening to the voice of the youth.

Why is this important? Our society is filled with children who are trying to find their way without the intentional blessing of their parents. In particular, their father. Someone who has not received this blessing typically seeks acceptance from everyone and has difficulty if someone does not accept them. They are concerned that they never quite measure up. They search in as many places they can find for the blessing they never received as they entered adulthood.

Read through some of the Biblical blessings. Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing have accurately found that a blessing consists of "a spoken message of high value, a message that pictures a special future for the individual being bless and one that is base on an active commitment to see the blessing come to pass."

I am a dad. I will devote myself to blessing my children. Daily if I can. As often as I remember. And intentionally bestow upon both of them a complete Biblically based blessing as they enter adulthood.

I hope to bless them with, not only words, but action. By introducing them to Christ. By supporting their development: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. By pastoring my family, modeling a husband striving to love his wife, setting an example of unconditional love in parenting.

Will I fail? You bet! I already have. Will I give up? Absolutely not!

Have you missed your blessing? Don't let that fall to your children as well. Think you've missed your chance to bless your children? It's never too late to start over. Has God blessed you with offspring? Be sure you bless your offspring with your actions and words!

I found an amazing passage recently: Isaiah 49:15 (God speaking to Israel) "I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands." How true! He chose to engrave my name onto the palm of his hands using the nails that held him to the cross.

Epidemic

The cause of the swine flu epidemic has been discovered!

Eight Short Commentaries

Just a few short (and this time, though each successive one gets longer, by JMO standards these are all very short) thoughts on various subjects:

The roads in New England are not made for post surgery travel.

Before we had the medical ability to take out the appendix, was severe pain in your lower right side a death sentence?

"Obama looks to cut $100,000,000 from the federal budget." I know a couple of recent spending bills that could be cut...

Struggling to cut $100 Million from the $3 Trillion federal budget is like having a $3,000 budget and struggling to cut ten cents.

Note to supporters of "same-sex" marriage: The majority of the nation still opposes "Same-Sex" marriage (not a commentary for civil unions). Stop acting like your stance is main stream and stop slamming people when they express an honest opinion.

If there is to be a separation of Church and State, it needs to go both ways: Hey Church, don't tell my government how to govern. Hey State, don't tell my church how to handle its finances, don't tell my church who it must and must not marry, don't tell my church who it can and cannot refuse to hire.

The IMF is guesstimating that the world's economy won't recover until 2010! This is being reported as though we still have a long way to go. Wait a minute, I thought this was the greatest recession since the great depression. Two years doesn't quite make this the recession of the century! I guess this was over hyped too. Anything to get into office, right? (Of course, Obama will take credit for this recovery. Even though I still believe that after the "stimulus" money is gone, the US will see another dip, a more severe dip in our economy before we recover.)

Let us briefly note the difference in stimulus programs compared to the parties that authored them. The Republicans (remember: for big business and the rich) gave a stimulus to the people. The same amount to everyone unless you had kids, then you got a little more. The Democrats (remember for the little guy, against big business) gave a stimulus to HUGE businesses (AIG, GMC, Fannie and Freddie Mac, ETC) and to states to give the money to the lowest bidder (IE: other big businesses) for special projects. Wake up American voter! Stop guzzling the Kool-Aid! Look at the facts and think for yourself! Which party is favoring "the little guy" and which one is favoring "big business?"

Those are some of the things rattling around in my skull. Feel free to share your thoughts on them or add your own!

I Am A "Right-Wing Extremist"

At least, according to Janet Napolitano, the head of homeland security, I am.

And you might be too!
You may have heard the hubbub over Napolitano stating that returning Veterans would be targeted by these "Right-Wing Extremest" groups as possible recruits, and how up in arms the Veterans, and those who support them, were.

Not willing to just take someone's word for it, I found the declassified report. Low and behold, not only does it say that disgruntled veterans would be prime targets, but it also says that I am one, too! The report states:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Here we must note a few things. First, true to Washington's absolute narcissism, the only "government" that matters is the federal government. According to this paragraph, those that are "antigovernment" "reject federal authority in favor of state..." Apparently, state government doesn't exist. Second, did you find the immigration bias in this paragraph? I'm sure "Right-Wing Extremists" don't oppose immigration, but rather illegal immigration. Based on context elsewhere in the report, illegal immigration is listed as simply "immigration." As JMO has stated before, I refuse to refer to illegal aliens as "immigrants" as that term implies paperwork, visas, and law. As opposed to wire cutters, dark clothes, and the circumvention of the law

Now, while I don't fall into the hate category. I definitely favor state authority over federal authority and I am defiantly in opposition to abortion and illegal immigration.

Truth be told, my stat counter has already registered a hit from the House of Representatives.Maybe they are keeping an eye on me! Little do they know, I am keeping an eye on them!

I also had to chuckle that, according to this report, if you are a "Right-Wing Extremist" you are automatically breaking the law. Read this sentence:

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition.

That's right, "Rightwing Extremists" as well as law abiding citizens ~ And ne'er the twain shall meet.

To recap: I appose abortion. I favor states rights over federal authority, I oppose illegal immigration. Therefore, according to this report, I am a potential threat to the government. Are you?

Another Advertisement

In my last post, I mentioned an ad that I thought was humorous due to its claim that somehow doughnuts were better for your children than cartoons. Well, in this post, I'm going to destroy an advertisement that drives me absolutely crazy!

Mastercard has often assembled some of the more touching or thought provoking ads with their "Priceless" campaign. Their most recent attempt, however, falls well short of the mark. (You can view the commercial here.)

For those who haven't seen it, an eight year old boy is participating in everyday activities with his dad: brushing their teeth, buying light bulbs, and grocery shopping. With each activity the boy helps his dad be more eco-friendly. "Water glass... five dollars" says child's voice over as the youth turns off the running water. "Energy saving bulb... four dollars" and the child hands the dad the low power bulb while daddy returns the standard one. "reusable bag... two dollars." The son hands the plastic bag back to the cashier and gets a reusable one for his dad. "Helping your dad become a better man: Priceless."

I've often complain that Hollywood puts out too many films where the adults are morons and the kids/teens have all the answers. Now Mastercard has fallen into that same trap. I find few undercurrents more demeaning, more offensive, more detrimental to society than the one that puts forth that the youth know more than the aged.

What are we to infer from this ad? Somewhere this child learned how to be eco-friendly and needs to pass his eight-year-old wisdom on to his dad. Who did he learn if from? TV? His teachers? His friends? What else does dear-ole-daddy not know? What else has dad taught him that he should question or completely ignore? Nothing like undermining what should be the loudest strongest voice of influence in our lives: Our Dad.

Wanna make an eco-friendly commercial? Go right ahead. But have the dad teaching the child how to be environmentally responsible. The dad gives the kid the glass, shows him the better bulb, explains why he's bringing bags into the store. Need a tagline? "Raising the generation you are saving the world for: Priceless." "Passing the world on to a more responsible generation: Priceless." Teaching our children to be responsible is part of the job description. They could even leave my version with "Being a dad: Priceless." letting everybody know: This is something that all dads need to be doing.

Telling Mastercard where they can stick their commercial: Priceless.

300

Three years, seven months, twenty-five days.
Just under 44 months
Three days over 190 weeks
One thousand three hundred thirty-three days.
Thirty-one thousand nine hundred ninety-two hours

That is how long it has taken me to reach my three hundredth post.

Don't be fooled! This is not a review of the movie 300. This is my third "Let's look back" episode!

My first one hundred only took seven months, twenty-seven days

The next were posted over a period of one year, nine months, eighteen days

The most recent one hundred took one year, two months, and eleven days

These past 100 posts have seen some milestones!

• The birth of my beautiful daughter!


• The beginning of my wonderful wife's blog: It's Called Guilt


• The most comments on a single post
  (52 sparked by Intelligent Design, blowing the previous record of 39 on a post about immigration out of the water)


• The addition of high-speed Internet at home (leading to a great increase in photos being used to improve the JMO experience)

Here is just a quick review of the subject matter covered over the past 100 posts. (the link is to my favorite post in each category):

Politics won with 21 posts
Of those
12 of them were episodes of the "Voting Booth"
7 were aimed squarely at Obama, and
4 were about the economy

Sports was second with 20 posts
12 of them were about the NFL

General Culture grabbed 10 posts
15 were movie review posts (multiple reviews on a single post totalled 18 reviews)

As with all "Flashbacks" one has to pull out their favorite moment, Ross' leather pants from friends, the nose-slap from Cheers, and the following from JMO's "Holiday Compromise":

You will not have December 25th off and while you are working you will not be earning double time.

Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."

Now, one can only have so many of these without introducing something new in them. I believe I've reached that limit. Here is a new thought that you haven't read yet on JMO:

Dunkin Donuts has an ad campaign out right now that cracks me up. The children are in a dim living room watching cartoons. Hulu would be glad because they are transfixed, clearly rotting their brains.

Enter: Dad. He's returning home after a visit to Dunkin Donuts. Magically, the hypnotic trance of the television is broken. The children rush into a brightly lit kitchen and feast on the dozen doughnuts their father has purchased. In the background, the family dog is being unwillingly drawn in by the power of the TV.

The message of the ad? Hey kids, stop watching that crap, come over here and eat this crap!

If you like what you've seen over these last 300 posts, let me know! Want to see more of something? Less of something else? Here's to another hundred episodes of Just My Opinion!

Allianced Intermingled Greed

While investigating the "Watergate" scandal, Woodward and Bernstein (Co-authors of "All the President's Men") were admonished to "Follow the money."

As history has shown us, that has turned out to be very sound advice. So, let's take a few minutes today and follow the banking bail-out money.

We know that some of that money went to pay bonuses for certain employees of the bail-out companies. In response, several high ranking government officials expressed their outrage that AIG, in particular, would dare use the bail-out money for these bonuses. Many people don't know these were bonuses that AIG was contractually obligated to pay.

The outrage came from all over Washington, including the Oval Office!

But the money continues, let's keep following:

What else has AIG done with their bailout money? What a surprise! They've donated it to certain politicians' campaigns! What do you know? They are not the only bailed-out bank to be doing this!

Bank of America (which received $15 billion in bail-out dollars) has donated $24,500 in contributions in the first two months of 2009 alone! The lucky recipients? Democrat Steny Hoyer and members of the House and Senate banking committees. Citigroup (Which was handed $25 billion of our tax dollars) has donated $29,620 and UBS (who didn't receive funds directly but was paid as an AIG "counterparty" to the tune of $5 billion) has offered $10,000 to political parties.

Excuse me? Where is the outrage? Our government has passed a bill taxing 90% of the AIG bonuses, are we taxing the post-bail-out campaign contributions to the same degree? Oh. We only tax when the money is going to someone else. I get it...

Is there more money to follow? You bet!

AIG has sent nearly $100 billion to other banks. Over half of that has been sent to foreign banks! AIG is using US Taxpayer money to bail-out the rest of the world! Included, but not limited to $36 billion given to French and German banks alone!

But wait, there's more! (JMO never just scratches the surface!)

CBS is reporting that the Obama Administration and members of Congress knew that the bonuses were going to be paid months before the checks were actually issued! Yet they did nothing to stop it! Why would they do that? Two answers:

First, they could then fake outrage and appear to be morally incensed that the tax payers money was going to pay these undeserved huge bonuses (in the hopes we'd ignore the tax dollars being given back to the politicians as campaign contributions). This is the same tactic that Obama used regarding Rev. Wright. Wait for the story to break, feign outrage, encourage him to continue speaking and distance yourself from the problem.

The second answer? They could get the money back into the pockets of the government by taxing said bonuses. If Washington stopped the bonuses from being paid, they wouldn't have 90% back in the treasury! They'd have 0% and AIG would still have all of that money!

An interesting side note to this whole debacle is that in 2008 the bailed-out banks gave an awful lot of money to the very politicians who spear-headed this bail-out process. Let's use just AIG as an example: (Remember, this is only the contributions of AIG. Imagine what these people have received on the whole from the bailed-out banks and auto makers!:

Here are the top twenty.
(D-IL) Barack Obama ....... $104,332
(D-CT) Chris Dodd .......... $103,900
(R-AZ) John McCain .......... $59,499
(D-NY) Hillary Clinton ........ $37,965
(D-MT) Max Baucus .......... $24,750
(R-MA) Mitt Romney ......... $20,850
(D-DE) Joseph R Biden Jr .... $19,975
(D-CT) John B Larson ........ $19,750
(R-NH) John E Sununu ....... $18,500
(R-NY) Rudolph W Giuliani .. $13,200
(D-PA) Paul E Kanjorski ...... $12,000
(D-IL) Dick Durbin ............ $11,000
(D-CO) Edwin G Perlmutter . $10,500
(D-NY) Charles B Rangel ...... $9,000
(D-NC) John Edwards ......... $7,850
(R-TN) Bob Corker ............ $7,400
(R-NJ) Chris Smith ............ $6,900
(D-MA) Richard E Neal ........ $6,500
(D-WV) Jay Rockefeller ....... $6,500
(D-RI) Jack Reed .............. $6,000

Totals:
Donations to Republicans:
Total number of donations: 17
Average per donation: $6,132
Total donation amount: $104,249

Donations to Democrats
Total number of donations: 18
Average per donation: $18,229
Total donation amount: $328,122

I want to know where the major media journalists are. They are usually so fast to break stories like this. Sounds to me like Chris Dodd is set up to be the fall guy for all of these people who took money, gave a ton of money, and are now continuing to receive money from these very people.

Fishy-fishy!

Because it has taken me so long to finish this post, there is something that I must comment on: Our President has publicly shamed America while in Europe. Anyone else incensed? Obama worships at the alter of the EU because it's headed down the socialist path. America doesn't.

New School Rule

A child from Milford Connecticut's middle school had to be hospitalized after being struck in the groin by a classmate. The school authorities took quick action and instituted a policy to prevent this from ever happening again.

Did they strengthen the school's rules regarding fighting? No. Did they add a "horseplay" clause to those regulations? Nope. Rather, they instituted a "No Touching" rule. This rule states that touching of any kind could result in "parent conferences, detention, suspension and/or a request for expulsion from school!"

Come on, they can't mean no touching at all!? Can they?

YES! No touching. No pushing. No hugging. No high-fives. No holding hands. No Patty-Cake. No Touching Period.

Let's extend this out logically. This rule means: No tag. No football (Well, maybe flag football, but no blocking). No baseball (Or if you do play, once you are on base steal steal steal! If they can't touch you, they can't tag you out!). Theater would be difficult (Imagine Romeo and Juliet unable to come in contact with each other!).

How indicative is this of our culture?! Something happens that's bad, so we over-react! The "Shoe bomber" happens and every traveler in or going to America has to remove their shoes at the gate (Because when something fails, terrorists often try that exact same thing again.). A few people believe that immunization shots cause autism, so we cause a hysteria regarding them. (This action in no way saves our children from autism, but it does open the door for "extinct" diseases such as small pox, polio, mumps and measles.) A few people are offended by Christmas, so it's illegal to have a tree on the town green and companies won't wish you "Merry Christmas." (Let's remember that without the commercialism of Christmas most stores would be out of business! And Santa still makes money so we'll charge people to have their picture taken with him in the mall.) What's next? Some people are dying in car accidents: NO MORE DRIVING! (But when it comes to teens and sex, well, they are going to do it anyway...)

And what's next for this middle school in Connecticut? Are children having their feelings hurt from name-calling? No talking! Is that student making you nervous because he's staring at you menacingly? Don't look at each other! Whoever suggested this rule should be fired and whoever agreed to it should be demoted!

Kudos to the students, however, who protested the new ruling by coming to school wrapped in blue duct tape. My high school principle was wrong when he said that the school was there for the administrators and the faculty. Peacefully voice your dissension, students! Don't let them usurp your school!

That's my opinion. What's yours?

Review: Fireproof

2008/PG/Drama

(I've done my absolute best not to include any spoilers in the following review. )

This the third installment from the church in Georgia that made Flywheel and Facing the Giants. Kirk Cameron (from Growing Pains fame) plays Caleb Holt. He's a firefighter who never leaves his partner behind in a fire, but can't seem to keep his partner happy at home. Facing divorce, he takes forty days and participates in "The Love Dare," a process by which he increasingly shows his soon-to-be ex-wife that he loves her, even though she returns zero affection back to him. In the meantime, she's getting a little friendly with a co-worker and believes that her soon-to-be ex-husband's attempts are simply a plan to butter her up so he can keep the house.

I'm going to give my overall feeling first, then elaborate on it:

Fireproof was adequate.

There was nothing amazing about the movie, it had it's bright spots and it had it's stab me in the eye with an ice pick moments. But overall, it was adequate.

If I hadn't known better, I would have assumed this was a written and directed by first film. The script was clearly never viewed by a fresh set of eyes and the ones that wrote it probably only revised it once. It definitely could have used a rewrite, especially by someone other than the writer, someone who wasn't in love with certain lines or scenes. The movie opens with a "Because-we-can" crane shot yet includes a fairly convincing fire scene. As with all films slapped with the "Christian" label, this one rents a billboard with it's salvation scene, yet handles the fact that Caleb is addicted to pornography with tact and subtlety. So much so that it lead one reviewer to believe that it was being played as a small marital problem.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In this situation, it's simply the difference of how the characters handle their anger, hurt, and frustration. In the bigger picture, I have the opposite complaint with Christian films as I have with Hollywood. While Hollywood takes their message and buries it in story, Christian movies kill their story by slamming a salvation sermon in the middle of it. The pornography was dealt with expertly: It was never mentioned "by name" but everyone knew what was going on. Pay attention next time you are watching a great movie: You come into conversations mid-stream and are forced to play catch-up. You have to deduce what is being discussed. That is how this was portrayed and it was well done. The Caleb Conversion scene, however, was another story. All that was needed was for Caleb to say "How am I supposed to show love to somebody over and over and over who constantly rejects me?"; see the cross then cut to the "I'm in" scene between he and his friend, Michael. We understand the point, we assume the decision, we see the reaction. I will say, though, that this was one of the tamest and most well-acted conversions that I'd seen in recent memory. No tears, no "sinners prayer," no crying out to God.

Yes, most of the acting left something to be desired (Kirk Cameron and Ken Bevel being the notable exceptions) and yes, their "twists" were predictable (with one brief moment of surprise) and yes, the movie came off as preachy. But it did have its good parts. The juxtaposition of what Christ did for us and how Caleb's wife was treating him was inventive and powerful. And I was very glad to hear a movie finally say "Don't follow your heart. Lead it." Too much of Hollywood (and our culture) is the "if it feels right" "follow your heart" crap that leads to shirked responsibilities, broken marriages, and poor decisions.

You can read other's opinions on Fireproof here and here.

While not on par with the great movies of our time, Fireproof warrants a viewing. It has a good message and, for the most part, is palatable. If you don't expect much, you'll be pleased.

(The book "Love Dare" was written after the movie was finished. Normally I'd hold that against the film but Kirk Cameron didn't get a fee for his performance, he simply accepted a donation to his camp Camp Firefly. These two events cancel each other out.)

2 out of 5 stars.

One one final note. I'm pleased to report that Fireproof earned twice as much as Religulous. Take that Mr. Bill "I'm-smarter-than-God" Maher

Things That Make Me Go "Huh?"

General

Parents letting their teens have virgin alcoholic drinks.

Nothing like encouraging your children to drink. Strawberry Daiquiri? Sure, without the liquor. And what do they do when mommy and daddy aren't there? I wonder...

I saw this at Target:

How hard can they be?

Regardless of what you are doing, if your phone rings it is suddenly the most important thing in the world.

People could be having a heated argument, eating dinner, or watching a movie. It doesn't matter. When that phone rings, the world stops. People will get out of the shower to answer the phone. And call waiting compounds this. A few minutes ago, the person on the line was most important, but now someone else is calling and they are more important that the current caller.

Obama

"Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half" -Politico.com

How? By spending trillions of dollars that we don't have? By sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan? I think he failed to mention that if you make over $150,000 a year you can expect your taxes to increase by 80%. (Actually, the truth behind this statement is that he's vowing to cut the projected deficit. See, the projected deficit includes his current spending and projects out from there. He's not really promising anything.)

"'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name" -The Washington Post.

Change is change, right? We may be increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, but at least we changed the name of the war! Now it's the "'Overseas Contingency Operation." Once again the brilliant rhetoricist has come through. "Contingency": 1. An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended. 2. The condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty. 3. Something incidental to something else. So it sounds good, but it doesn't exactly instill confidence in me! Incidental? Uncertainty? Unintended? What are we doing over there?

Sports

$2.5 Billion dollars is wagered on the NCAA Tournament.

This is overshadowed only by the Super Bowl. Why do sports nuts risk their hard earned money on an untested group of 18-22 year-olds who notoriously crack under pressure?!

The NFL resists putting a salary cap on first round draft picks.

These college students have never played a down in the NFL but they are signing for more than seasoned veterans make? Who was the last 1st rounder to actually earn their millions? Just like with any other company, there should be a starting salary and you can go up from there.

The NFL considers expanding to 18 games.

See the post below...

Two More Games

At their annual meeting, the owners of all of the NFL teams are considering adding two more games to the NFL regular season moving it from a 16 games season to 18 games.

This is a terrible idea!

The original plan was to take two of the four preseason games and make them count. However, coaches felt they wouldn't be able to give prospective starters a fair shake if they lost two of the preseason games so this idea was scrapped. But not the whole idea. Now they are talking about adding these games to the end of the season.

Here's why this idea is for the birds (and I don't mean the Cardinals, Falcons, Eagles, Seahawks, or Ravens).

First and foremost: Injuries. The human body can only take so much punishment even if you are in prime condition. Compound that with the fact that a hit week sixteen is exponentially harder to take than a hit week one. Now we are talking about week 17? Week 18? With a hit week 18 being like 3 week two, this would also shorten the careers of players even more. Instead of being football-ancient at 30, now running backs have to hang up their cleats at 28. Imagine what that would do to players salaries! They already claim they need to make millions upon millions because their tenure is so limited. With an 18 week season, it would be even more so.

Second: Exposure. There is no question that the NFL has taken over from Major League Baseball as America's favorite game. Why is that? It has a reasonable season length. Or rather, it has the perfect season length. Every game in the NFL is a must see game. Every win is important. Every loss is crushing. What do people say about the other three major sports? Their seasons are too long! Let's compare them:

MLB

Regular Season...162 games
Playoffs...........11 to 19 games to win the World Series
Months playing...April to October
Total games......173-181

NHL

Regular Season...82 games
Playoffs...........16 to 28 games to win the Stanley cup
Months playing...October to May
Total games......98-110

NBA

Regular Season....82 games
Playoffs............16 to 28 games to win the Championship
Months playing....November to June
Total games.......98-110

NFL

Regular Season...16 games
Playoffs............3 to 4 games to win the Super Bowl
Months playing....September to February
Total games.......19-20

Why would they want to start down the road that leads to disinterest? Why did the XFL and Arena football leagues fail? Because football is 16 hard fought games and a short Championship tournament. That's why.

Finally: Money. How does money make this a bad idea? Because that is what is fueling the push for this change. If the NFL expands it's season by two weeks, not only would we have the Super Bowl on President's Day, but the league could charge more for the network and satellite contracts (The most recent of which had the Satellite NFL provider paying the NFL $1 Billion per year!)! The owners could charge more for season tickets. They may end up alienating more fans with their money grabbing ways (see NFL Network) just like baseball did by taking Friday Night Baseball off of free TV.

Keep the season at 16. Accept your $1,000,000,000 per year and be happy.

Kings is Not

*Forgive me, I've been trying to get this posted for a week!*

NBC's new show "Kings" is actually 1 Samuel, not the book of Kings.

The Queen of Hearts and I were first suspicious as we watched the previews for this new series. Our suspicions were confirmed when we watched the two hour premiere episode:

The main characters:

• David Shepherd

This is the up and coming star of the country.
1 Samuel 16:11. David, the future king of Israel was a shepherd.
• King Silas Benjamin

He is the current king whom God annointed by causing butterflies to encircle his head as a living crown.
1 Samuel 10:1. Samuel annoints Saul king of Israel.
1 Samuel 9:21. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin.
• Nathan Samuelson

This man is a mysterious religious figure. He is the combination of the prophet during King Saul's time (Samuel) and David's prophet (Nathan).
1 Samuel 10:1 Samuel was the prophet to Saul.
2 Samuel 7:17 Nathan was the prophet to David.
• Michelle Benjamin

King Silas' daughter.
1 Samuel 14:49 Saul's daughter's name was Michal.
• Jack Benjamin

King Silas' son.
1 Samuel 14:1 Saul's son's name was Jonathan.
• Jesse Shepherd

David's mother's name is Jesse.
1 Samuel 17:12 Jesse is David's father.
• Eli Shepherd

even the brother of David is the same.
1 Samuel 17:28. The Biblical David's brother's name was Eliab

Places

• Gath

This is the neighboring country that King Silas' army is fighting.
1 Samuel 17:4. Goliath is from Gath
• Shiloh

King Silas' capitol city is called Shiloh.
1 Samuel 4:4 Shiloh was the place where the Arc of the Covenant was brought

Events

• Goliath

David defeats a tank called Goliath in an attempt to rescue the King's son from captivity. David defeats a giant called Goliath
1 Samuel 17:50 David defeats Goliath
• Parade

When peace is reached the city has a parade primarily honoring David, secondarily honoring the King.
1 Samuel 18:7 The Israelites sang, "Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands"
• Courtship

David is falling for Michelle, the king's daughter (and vice versa).
1 Samuel 18:20 Saul was pleased that Michal was in love with David.
• Music

David is a musician, he plays the piano.
1 Samuel 16:23 David plays the harp.
• God's favor

Silas is annointed king by butterflies. When he reenters the war he looses God's favor. Samuelson tells him that God will chose "a man after Hisown heart." David is given his own crown of butterflies annointing him as the next king. Silas sees this and is trying to have David killed.
1 Samuel 15:26 Saul loses God's favor.
• Annointing

Silas was annointed by the crown of butterflies. David was annointed the same way. However, before the butterflies, David was visited by Nathan Samuelson and David fixed his car. Nathan wiped away a smudge of grease from David's forehead with his thumb. Lit from behind, this was a classic annointing pose.
1 Samuel 16:1 The LORD sends Samuel to annoint David.

The reason I mention this is two-fold:

First, during the previews when the Queen of Hearts and I were growing suspicious that this show was in fact Saul and David, one of the quotes from the critics was "Innovative." I had to chuckle. Innovative? This story has been told for 3000 years! (My pastor pointed out that they may have meant "innovative" in that no one has taken a Biblical story, set it in modern times, and made it into a TV series.)

Second, I wonder how many people recognize this story? 40 years ago, there'd be no doubt that the majority of the population would nearly imediately see the corilation. What's the percentage now?

I hope this series does well. Not only because I've kinda always had a soft spot for NBC, but because I think this is good for TV. Let's set Moses in the 1860's. Let's set Abraham in the wild west. Let's set Daniel during WWII occupied France. (This is fun!) Anyway. Watch Kings. Good writing. Good acting. Good story.

I wonder what season two would be? Solomon? (They'd probably call it Second Kings!)

The "Pepsi" Administration

Have you seen this billboard? Did you do a double take as you opened up Just My Opinion during your daily routine? (You need your JMO like your morning cup of coffee, right? Like the morning paper?)

I did a double take on my way to work a few weeks ago when I first saw this advertisement. It looked just a little to similar to this:


At first I scolded myself for assuming that Pepsi's advertising department would stoop to such blatant unimaginative levels as to plagiarize the President's symbol and slogan. But then I thought, "What does Pepsi give me in which I can place my hope?" Too much sugar in my diet? Aspartame? Pepsi One?

Ok, maybe they are simply wishing the President well. Maybe they buy into his messiah-like status and they just want the world to know. If that's the case, their billboard should say something to the effect of "We're behind you President Obama!" and then at the bottom "Sponsored by Pepsi." This sentiment also would not have required changing their logo. Also, if they were simply cheerleaders for our Commander in Chief then this campaign (and logo change) would have occurred following the election on November 4th.

As a good reporter should, I did a little research and found the following:
A) Pepsi altered their logo during the Presidential election (the first mention I found of it was toward the end of October 2008 (the 24th is the earliest reference I could find), when it began to look like Obama had it in the bag)
B) People were already noting the similarity between the new logo and the Obama logo before this billboard was erected.

But, maybe I'm crazy. Are they really trying to do what I'm alledging? Look at this progression:


Not so far fetched now is it?

The only conclusion that I could come
to was that they were hoping to tap into something subconscious in the American populous and ride the wave of Obama's rapidly declining approval rating. What's that website say? "Refresh Everything?" Yeah, except the originality of your advertising campaign. Maybe you should try "Got Pepsi?"

I think the aspect of this advertising campaign that irks me most is less that they've plagiarized from the Obama's graphic designers, but more along the lines of: Seriously, what does Pepsi offer that deserves our hope? Hope is a serious term. Hope is immense. People without hope end their lives and Pepsi is going to trivialize it by sticking their logo in the middle of the word? I understand hoping in government. So many people have ignored the real hope that we have in Christ that they cling to the "next best thing." Pepsi does not fit that bill!

I have met people who have no hope. They aren't turning to Pepsi. Nor shall I. Until this advertising campaign is ended, I will not be buying any Pepsi products (including but not limited to):
Pepsi, Pepsi One, Pepsi Max, Diet Pepsi
Mountain Dew, Mountain Dew Code Red, Mountain Dew Voltage
Mug Root Beer, Sierra Mist, Tropicana Twister Orange Soda
flavored and non flavored Propel and Aquafina waters
any and all SoBe drinks
Amp Energy Drink, No Fear Energy Drink
Brisk Tea and Lipton Tea, all variations
all Dole Juice Drinks Tropicana juice drinks
Bottled Starbucks Frappuccino, Canned Starbucks Iced Coffee
Gatorade and Gatorade G

After all is said and done, I couldn't help but wonder what Pepsi would have done if McCain had won...

Give It Some Time!

The Obama's have been in the White House for just over 50 days. That's less than three months. Let's take a look at some magazine covers and books that have already been out for a few weeks:














.......February 18, 2009 .........................February 4, 2009.......

















To quote Seth and Amy from SNL: "Really?" Do they really know what it's like to be a "White House" family? As of February 4th (15 days after the inaugeration), did Michelle really have some "secrets of a White House Mom" to share? Really? Two weeks later was there really an "Our life in the White House" expose that just needed to be reported on? Really? A children's book? Really? What educational value does speculating about the Obama's life in the White House hold for my eight year old? Really? I've had a daughter for alomst 6 months! Do I have some secrets to share on how to raise a girl? Really!

I have an idea: Let's let them be a family first. The President second. And celebrities third. Or, we could cut out that last part all together! That'd be just fine with me!

The Biblical Economist

I thought this was an apropos quote for what we are facing in these days and regarding the "solution" that has been proposed and enacted by our Federal Government:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

By Rev William JH Boetcker (Written in 1916) (9th quote in the link)

When plainly laid out in this fashion, to go against these observations seems to defy logic. Why are these tenets so hard to understand?

Not Gonna Mumbai it!

If you hop on over to The Queen of Hearts' most recent post, you'll read about the frustrating situation that is our home Internet.

In an effort to remove this consternation from our home, I've been calling about high speed Internet and various other solutions. I'm shopping around. Every time I call I'm transferred to a sales department filled with well trained people trying to get me to buy their product over the phone right then and there.

Allow me to provide a small hint to some of those companies:

DON'T OUTSOURCE YOUR
SALES
DEPARTMENT TO INDIA!
Nothing sets me against your company faster than a digital connection with someone with a thick Indian accent who is calling himself "Mike" or "Dave"! Maybe if you were to give me your service free of charge, I might consider it.

I understand outsourcing your customer service. Your customers already have your service, know what you provide and are probably mostly happy with it. Few people will cancel because the customer service has been outsourced. However, If you outsource your sales department you are outsourcing your first impression. Bad idea.

I will not purchase Direct TV nor will I patronize The Dish Network, both of whom attempted to sell me their product from India.

Employ Americans and more Americans will purchase your service.

Castle

ABC debuted a new show on Monday night called "Castle" starring Nathan Fillion (no relation that I'm aware of) and Stana Katic.

And as I'm watching this show I find myself pondering, "Do I want this show to succeed? Or fail miserably?" Following that thought I couldn't help but wonder why I'm concerned with the success or failure of this specific show! I don't care how "Private Practice" does. I have no opinion on "Boston Legal." I want "Grey's Anatomy" and "Desperate Housewives" to crash and burn, but those are on moral grounds. So, why this show? I found myself exploring these possibilities:

Jealousy: I'm not too proud to suggest that this may be the issue. Here's someone successful in something that I once wanted to do. Would I rather it be me? Do I see his success as a barrier to my own?

Pride: Allow me to explain... I don't like Guy Pearce. When I was in Hollywood, it was suggested that we find an actor with whom we thought we shared some similarities. This would be a good gauge of the types of roles we could play well. Guy Pearce was one of my choices. I began watching his movies. I began to think that I could do a better job than he did. Yet he was successful and I was unknown. Is this why I have some conflicting desires for this show? Do I think I could play these roles better than Nathan?

The Future: It's always in the back of my head that some of my friends in show-biz will make it big someday and be thinking, "I need the perfect person to play this role!" Their minds will hearken back to a time long long ago and think of me... Let's say this happens. (Just humor me ok?) Can I use my name? Or, like Nicolas Cage (who's name is actually Nicolas Coppola, nephew to Francis Ford Coppola), will I have to change my name so people don't think I road in on the coat-tails of success of Nathan? You know, like Joan Cusack has done with her brother John. (Please ignore the fact that I'd be riding in on the coat-tails of success of whichever friend made it big and gave me a call.)

The Show: Is it the show? Am I not sure whether I want the show to fail or not because of it's content? Well, that can't really be because as soon as I saw previews for it I started dealing with these questions. Not only that, but I watched the show... and I liked it! It was intelligent. It didn't have a base foundation of sex like most new shows. The conflict between the two main characters was interesting. It's not the show.

I've seen a few other pieces that Nathan has been in. I first saw him in Saving Private Ryan (He was the first wrong "Private Ryan" who's brothers were in elementary school...) I can't say that he is commonly in roles that would be well suited for me. Hence Pride cannot be the issue.

Why would I be jealous of him and not Ewan McGregor or Ed Harris. I don't like watching actors succeed that I think are sub-par (see Keanu Reeves, Joaquin Phoenix, and Joan Cusack). But Nathan has given no evidence that he isn't a good actor. So it's not jealousy.

That leaves only "The Future." How dumb is that?! Somebody smack me and tell me it's over!

Nathan, I liked the pilot for the show Castle and I wish you a long and successful career!

"Increased taxes"

The mayor of Hartford gave his "state of the city" address recently. He said that he had to use two of the words that people never like to hear and politicians never like to say: "Tax Increase." Well, at least 50% of that statement is true.

We are in a recession that's "rivalled only by the great depression," as he put it. So, here we are in the worst economic situation since the 1920's, people are hurting everywhere: out of work, losing their homes, business struggling, prices rising... What's the solution?

Take more money from those who still have jobs? Yeah, that makes sense.

Actually, what it says is: The function of the government is more important than the financial security of your family!

What do these people do? These people who now have problems paying rent and buying food because more of their money is going to the government? Where do they turn? To the government!

Now the government has a deficit and, in an effort to correct that, they've caused more of a draw on their already depleted funds!

"No, you foolish blogger, we're only going to increase business taxes." There's a solution. Make sure that those businesses are definitely not able to hire new people. In fact, depending on how much the increase is, let's cause more people to be out of work. That's even less money coming into the treasury coffers and even more people relying on the government!

I have an idea! Lower taxes! Let people and companies keep more of their money. Fewer people drawing on the funds of the state. More companies able to offer work. More money going back into the economy in the private sector rather than being forced in by the politicians!

Truth be told, however, if you want to funnel a culture into socialism the way to do it is spend money you don't have and then force the people to pay for it later. Once it's paid for, they'll be so used to sending 40%, 50%, even 60% of their paycheck to Uncle Sam that they won't notice that the government has taken over the banking system, has an ownership share in the auto makers, and decides who has their house paid for by the government. Now... where have I heard that plan before?

Saying Goodbye

This is another two part post.

The first is saying goodbye to a faithful, valued mode of transportation.

We never named it, and when it was given to us the previous owners estimated we might be able to squeeze another two, maybe three years out of it. That was five years ago. So a new starter, two new distributors (Never EVER go to the Firestone in Bristol, CT), a new muffler, and a couple of oil changes later, it's time to say farewell.

With the work that's already been done on this vehicle, what could possibly force this car into retirement? Well, for one, it doesn't go in reverse. Secondarily, every now and then (mostly all of the time) the transmission slips into what is known as "safety mode." This is when it never shifts out of second gear because the computer is telling it that there is something wrong: No transmission fluid, mechanical problem, etc. We've had it looked at and none of these are the case. It was this very problem that causes it to no longer travel in reverse. When we would need to travel on the highway (remember, in second gear) we would throw it into neutral to drop the RPMs and coast for a while. Did you know that you can throw a 93 Honda Accord into reverse while traveling 65 mph once and have few ill effects? Yeah... you can't do it twice.

So, after a lifetime of 242,578 miles, on January 24, 2009 we parked the car for the final time. And now, the car in which we brought both of our children home from the hospital in now sits, resting comfortably in our drive way.

Why did we keep it? Read the next post to find out!