John McCain & Being 'Green"

OK...buckle-up boys & girls.
A little reality lesson for you 'Greenies'--- if you have the courage to insert some logic into the so-called global warming argument. First of all, is global warming even happening? If so, is it man made? Many reports show that it is not happening at all! (let alone prove that it is caused by human activity). How can that be? If it is really happening, there must be definitive proof which is able to correlate the 'supposed' warming with man-made activity? As far as I know, there HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF THIS!!!! If so, PLEASE show it to me. Remember, if man-made global warming is even happening, all scientists would have proof of it. There wouldn't be a 'consensus'... as Al Gore states in his propoganda movie & during his speeches. (Yes, I photographed one of his presentations at Castilleja School in Palo Alto) There would be undeniable proof. Why is this important? Because, the Scientific Method is the means by which it could be proven...not just a so-called 'consensus'. Remember high school, when we did our science projects (my kids still do this) and we had to do the whole Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion deal? This is the standard by which scientists are supposed to function...not consensus or opinion. It can be proven repeatedly ...with a predictable outcome...as a fact. If so, why can't climate 'scientists' even predict the up-coming weather with any kind of accuracy? Instead, it has become a political hot-button issue (with the help of PR agencies, I might add) that only clouds the non-sense. Why am I confident in these statements? Besides the scientific aspect of the issue, the political aspect is obvious... America is at fault. It doesn't matter that the US has the highest standards of any country in the world, we are always blamed. When was the last time you heard anyone being critical of India or China (even Mexico) regarding green-house gasses? They couldn't care less!!! Instead, the US is the villain & the other non-Kyoto agreeing countries aren't criticized...
Think About It! (And try to be intellectually honest, if you can.) As I've said before, this argument is based on facts rather than feelings.
OK...about John McCain being too late to jump into the nonsense. (Hello, Lilly?) Did he wait too long to jump into the non-provable hysteria for you? Or, is it just your political bias that motivates you? (Yes, you are biased. Obama, Wal-Mart, Conservatives, et al) Whatever the case, ALL politicians do what will help them convince enough people to vote for them in order to get elected. When presented with the acts, even us right-wingers are skeptical of the people that are supposed to represent our values...
The trouble is that too many people have fallen for the propaganda (John McCain, being one) to support their opinions (based on PR & media bias) about the subject. Again, if it's a liberal cause, it's usually based on 'feelings' and not research or facts.
FYI--- I conserve, recycle, re-use and intend to leave the planet better-off than when I was born ( I also teach my kids the same without being militant). It's too bad that the issue is polluted because of a political agenda. John McCain had fallen into a trap he won't get out of....hello president Barak Hussein Obama. God Help us All...even Canadians.

Censorship & WalMart

In order to have an intelligent debate about censorship, it is best that it is defined. Is it the government limiting free speech? Is it concerned parents not wanting sexually explicit material being used to teach their children at school (public vs private)? Is it Wal Mart choosing to not sell music with warning labels? After looking at a few sources, the consensus is that censorship is the suppression of speech or deleting/changing of materials because they are determined to be harmful or objectionable. What immediately jumps to mind is: Just who decides these things? Is it a bad thing to censor things? Sometimes? Or, as in the Wal Mart example, is it just a business decision based on the ideology of a corporation? Please, let's not dilute the debate by talking about 'feelings' or 'fairness'. It's about who has the authority to do the censoring in each example and what guides their decision making. First of all, every government censors something...even the US Gov't. While there are many examples that are far worse (Cuba, China), it happens today in our country. Is that a bad thing? If so, when does it start to become a bad thing? Regarding Wal Mart, I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily. Why? Because Wal Mart has a reputation that they want to maintain & stockholders that they are accountable to. They are a business & they can run it as they choose...as long as they aren't breaking any laws. Good for them! As far as only 'white, bible-belt conservatives' shopping there? (Lilly's words) Venture over to the Wal Mart by my house on Story Rd in SJ and you'll see many types of people shopping for their families. It seems their only concern is stretching their dollar, not about Sheryl Crow's CD.
I digress...
Censorship? Is it censorship by Lilly if she were to only assign certain chapters of our textbook? Is it censorship that the Mercury News editorial board doesn't consider hiring conservative journalists (as Joe Rodriguez flippantly stated last semester in my 100W class), or when they choose which stories to run & which not too? Is it censorship when my editors only post 25 of the 35 images I submit to them after an assignment? OR, is it just people with the proper authority attempting to use their judgment in the best interest of their company & customer? Before we start throwing around the 'censorship' accusations, I again, request that you leave out your 'feelings'. They don't apply here. Otherwise almost everything could be considered censorship and it only negates the real examples of it. It also begins to sound McCarthy-esque...know what I mean?

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?

My review...
I'm sure you've heard the term, "Talk the Talk & Walk the Walk". Well, this movie is a perfect example of putting that attitude into action.
Released in 1967, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? is a timely portrayal of families coming to terms with an upcoming interracial marriage. Directed by Stanley Kramer (Best Director), the film is the story of Dr. John Prentice (Sydney Poitier), his fiancee Joey Drayton (Katharine Houghton) and the challenges that arise after showing up unexpectedly to the parents of Drayton and announce their engagement. In addition to being caught off-guard by the visit, Joey's parents, Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) and Christina Drayton (Katharine Hepburn, Best Actress) were forced to re-examine, and live up to, the color-blind values that they raised their daughter with (because Prentice is black and Drayton is white). Even though Dr Prentice is the ideal man for their daughter to marry --- an accomplished, world-renowned physician with an impeccable reputation--- the Drayton's are concerned about the obstacles that the couple will be forced to endure in that day and age. (There is even a reference to the fact that in 1967 interracial marriages were against the law in a number of states). The movie, which happens in one busy day, takes place at the San Francisco home of the Drayton family. After the marriage announcement, the story is mostly about different conversations between the many number of people who happen to visit the Drayton home that day, and the different viewpoints expressed by each character. With varying levels of acceptance throughout the household, each character is examined thoroughly, even the crusty house staffer Tillie (Isabel Sanford), who takes Prentice to task, even calling him a niggar. What was supposed to be a small get-acquainted dinner turns into a very testy affair when the parents of Dr Prentice (Roy Glenn, Beah Richards) decide to fly north from Los Angeles to meet their sons wife-to-be. Everyone congregates at the Drayton home for dinner and what follows is a series of brilliantly scripted and acted scenes...the best of which is Tracy's incredible speech in the final scene. (Ironically, this was Spencer Tracy's final movies as well. He passed away in 1967 after suffering a heart attack. His career spanned over 40 years with 78 films, two Oscars and many more awards to his credit.) Along with Hepburn and Tracy, Poitier gives a stirring performance. A timeless, must-see movie.

Tim Robbins is a TOOL

OK, so I watched the Tim Robbins' video again and it only reinforced what I already knew about him....he's a left-leaning, condescending elitist. His entire diatribe was based on the premise that we the 'rubes', less-informed idiots have no control over the decisions we make regarding which entertainment to view...if any. Also, his not-so-subtle- innuendo about the current Bush Administration was obvious. Yes, his nonsense sounded similar to Murrow's speech from the movie Good Night and Good Luck. So what? During the Murrow Era, there were only the 'big three' TV networks ABC, NBC & CBS. Today there are a myriad of channels to watch along with a multitude of shows with many different subject matters...not so back then. Also, Murrow was an active member of the TV broadcasters...not Robbins. Which begs the already asked question: Why was he even the keynote speaker? Everybody knows his ridiculous, elitist political views. (If you don't believe me, just listen to the entire rant.) Because of the political climate back in the 50's, and the entertainment industry, Murrow wasn't so obviously condescending. TV was in it's infancy and was just beginning to blossom as an undustry. Also, America was a lot more conservative back then and Murrow was risking his career. Robbins is not. He's doing nothing more than preaching to the choir of media elites who think they should be the arbitors of entertainment. If he were so concerned about junk entertainment, he would have mentioned the epic, enlightening films he's has acted in like: Howard The Duck, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny. I'm sure they were all made for the betterment of our society, don't you think? Why don't y0u check out his BLAHG on the Huffington Post...a community of liberal idiots who think they know than more we do about ourselves, our families, TV, Music, the environment, politics, etc.
Too often us Conservatives are accused of hate-speech, just look at the Huffington Post so you can see what it really is.

Water for Elephants

I must say that this was a great book..I had a really difficult time putting it down. (Usually I'm referring to the remote control...not a book.)

Anyways, regarding the social classes as portrayed in the book:
It was obvious to Jacob after he jumped on the train, and realized he had come upon a circus, that there were defined social classes on the tour. The character Camel was very aware of the class structure and tried to inform Jacob of it. What I liked about Camel is that he didn't seem to have a problem with Jacob being educated & deserving of a higher social status in the circus. He was content showing him the ropes and doing doing his own thing...mostly drinking moonshine or 'Jake', the Jamaican extract that made him ill. There were the performers who got the preferred treatment, and the roustabouts who settled for whatever they could get...usually only a meal and sporadic pay, if they were lucky. During the Depression Era, I suppose they might have been content knowing they had food & a place to sleep...no matter how bad ( even with the animals). As Jacob quickly found out, the higher-class circus folks often dined and enjoyed the finer things...while everyone else got whatever was available to them. How does this apply to today's social class structure? I'm not sure since it was a traveling circus during the Depression....but I'll give it a shot. Today's 'roustabout' class is mostly made up of people who gravitate towards being the victim of one thing or another. Just look watch the TV news or read a newspaper and you'll see that finding a way to be the victim is an art form supported by the mostly-liberal media. There are non-stop programs that show people who were victims of everything....hot coffee, pharmaceuticals, McDonald's, oil companies...the list could go on & on. The difference between back then and now? That people who faced various challenges did whatever it took to take care of themselves and their families. Today most 'victims' abdicate their personal responsibility knowing that they will probably qualify for government assistance, or even worse, be able to sue. And, again, the left-wing media has no problem giving these people their fifteen seconds of fame. Just look at any reality TV show, talk show or Judge 'whatever' show to see I'm telling the truth. Back in those days, the people weren't interested in any of that crap...again, they just wanted to do whatever it took to care for their families. I'm a little older than most of my classmates, so I think I might have a little clearer perspective. My grandparents, being immigrants seeking a better life, were much too proud to ask for a hand-out. They just worked hard...period. They knew they were at the bottom of the social-class ladder, but always knew that if they set goals and worked hard to achieve them, they could accomplish those goals. Same for my parents. This is in stark contrast to what is happening today, where there is an entire class of able-bodied people who rely on the government to take responsibility for their decisions. Whatever happened to being appreciative of what you have been given and doing whatever you can to make your children's lives better than yours? I thought that was our jobs as parents? It reminds me of when Jacob met with an attorney (?) after his parents died and was told he didn't have any inheritance. "What the heck?", thought Jacob. Until he realized that his parents mortgaged their entire estate in order to send him to an Ivy League school. Once he discerned that, it resonated deep within him. It also was a value that he held deeply...family (animals included)and sacrifice...the way it's supposed to be. Flash forward to today and you can see how the generations have changed. It was extremely obvious in the book when Jacob's children & family never showed up to see him the Sunday the circus was in town that he had gone 'full-circle' socially, if you will. Even though he never was rich man, he had achieved his dreams (Marlena & caring for animals). Now he was left to feel ignored and insignificant in the nursing home...just like the roustabouts on the circus tour. Surely his eldest son, Simon (who was born while touring with Barnum) would have known how much Jacob's past meant to him. It's where he met & fell in love with their mother for heavens sake! Instead Jacob was forced to become a 'victim' of today's society and values...one in which there is no use for learning from our previous generations. Instead, he was relegated to becoming a needy nuisance who was an inconvenience to his family and the staff at his care home. It kind of reminds me how the lower-class circus folks were 'red-lighted' once they had no value to the circus tour. Also, it really caught me off-guard when Walter & Camel were literally thrown away once they appeared to be nuisances to the circus hierarchy. (I must say, it was very cool to find out that Big Al was found strangled inside a tent later on. Yes, I read the entire book). Back to the modern day...
It really seems that the government (and the media somewhat) have taken on the role of the traditional family...one in which the parents & elders are respected and valued. What does this mean? It seems, that the Gen-Y & Millenials...whatever...care only about themselves, their computers, digital media & their friends. Their ears, eyes & closed-minds are filled with whatever makes them feel good at the time. I have first-hand experience because I have 19 year-old & seven year-old daughters. Instead, it's immediate gratification 24/7. You don't have to work for anything, it's owed to you. Where the heck did that attitude come from? I think it's the hippie-generation parents who have fostered & encouraged these attitudes. Luckily my parents didn't encourage this crap. My dad worked his ass-off to provide us with a better life...same as his father did. Again, I feel the blame for exaggerated 'social classes' lies on the government, media and care-free parents. I say exaggerated because what defines poverty today is WAY DIFFERENT than what defined it during the Depression Era. Heck, today's poverty-stricken youth have cell-phones, wear $200 sneakers, get free school breakfasts & lunches (even during the summer), watch cable TV and have HUGE attitude. For the most part, the teens of today feel like the are 'due' respect and don't have to give any. They also feel like it's cool to 'hook-up', get pregnant and have no worries nor responsibility for what happens next. What about their children? Who's going to take care of them and see their basic needs are met? I guess the answer is you & me! Via taxes and government programs, WE are forced to be the 'financial' parents to these innocent children while their parents run-the-streets doing their own thing. 'It's All Good' is the frequent no-responsibility phrase of today's youth. Keep in mind these are today's & tomorrow's leaders (Barak Obama) who have no clue about what's really going on in the world, just fist-bumps & focus-grouped, researched platitudes.
To summarize again, there were some definite parallels between the book and today's social-class structures...even though the causes for the divisions might be debatable. Jacob was an incredible character who finally re-found his proper place in society, even if it was today's circus. He was back at his real home and valued...isn't that what we all want, to be valued? great book.

The Persuaders...

I thought The Persuaders was very enlightening as to how advertising & marketing is done. As a professional photographer & photojournalist, I am seldom involved in the 'sales' aspect of a job....unless it's a story/feature. What I mean by story/feature is that I always meet with the writer (and editor, if possible) before the story to get the 'vision' of how the story will run. For the most part, it makes no sense for me to shoot photos of someone reading a book when the story will be about how they are missing their feet...make sense? Anyway, I thought Bob Garfield, of Ad Age, was very straightforward in his analysis of the latest techniques of reasoning behind the examples we saw in the video. I understood it to be that much is becoming over-analyzed and that the line between advertising and psychology is being blurred. I'm not sure what the statistics show...and I really don't care...I just thought Garfield made great sense. Also, I loved the (hair)piece on Frank Luntz. He's a frequent contributor regarding politics & polling on FOX news (get over it) and it gave me some background on him. Even though the video portrays him as a right-winger, he never comes across as that in his focus group analysis on FOX. Regarding his influence on current political jargon, i.e. 'War on Terror', 'Death Tax', etc., so what? Come on, like both parties don't have their own talking points & scripted slogans? The best part was the segment with Clotaire Rapaille, He didn't buy into the babble of any of the previous folks. He didn't have to. He just does his research & analysis of what has proven to work for his clients...period. And it works!!! (Side note responding to what the 'person in the back' said about Rapaille's position, techniques(?) in the industry and his extravagant, 'superfluous' surroundings. What works for him, works for him...period. If he has a proven track record, what difference does it make? The clients pay fair-market price for what he offers. Imagine if he showed up on a skatebaord, shouted non-sense and were to be condescending. How long do you think he would be in business?) Anyway, it was very educational...

Ban on Books?

I don't think the government should be in the business of banning books because of certain non-PC language that might 'offend' certain people... like the word niggar. If niggar is such a bad word, than why aren't the rap songs who contain 'niggar' in the lyrics banned? Can only black people can say niggar? If a non-black person says niggar, does that automatically mean they are racist? If you listen to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, apparently so. Having said that, I don't believe that the government is doing the banning, the ALA is. Who is the ALA? The American Library Association, a group of advocates who supposedly are trying to protect information services. Check out their website and you'll see they are not the government. "Its mission is to promote the highest quality library and information services and public access to information." is the ALA mission statement...or is it? It depends on how one views 'quality' & 'public access to information'. When I was growing up, back in the 1970's, I often went to the library. Many times I actually attended 'advanced' (MGM, AT, AP) classes in the library taught by the librarian. Never did I ever conceive that the librarians were the intellectual police of books and information. They were just folks who loved books and wanted to share their passion with us, the 'brightest' students in the school. Instead they've become nothing more than a left-leaning political advocacy group attempting to monitor what they feel is most politically correct for us...the uninformed 'rubes' (to steal a term from Water for Elephants) ... to consume. How arrogant to think that we aren't able to discern what we think is best for ourselves and families. This is the same group of idiots who fight for pornography to be available in public libraries citing the first amendment! Talk about a misguided, moronic bunch of snobs. They feel we can't handle having certain words or books in schools and libraries, but it's OK for some weirdo to be looking various types of pornography in a public setting. Give me a break! I challenge any of you to read the ALA president's message and make any sort of sense to it. Talk about non-sensical psycho-babble. Regarding the advocacy, “I commit ALA to continue to try to bring common sense to these debates and seek appropriate changes in the future.” is what's stated. How about just making sure the library is open on-time and that it is free of loud conversation & perverts looking at porn? Gotta bounce and hang with my niggaz....Peace.