Just No Pleasing Some Folks

Listening to the news incessantly can be irritating. Yes, stating the obvious does seem foolish, but there you have it.

When Obama was running for office, critics said he was inexperienced and naive. When he took office, nay sayers continued to criticize both what he hadn't gotten to yet and what he proposed; that continues. Evidently the courtship was so intense that they've no desire to await any sort of honeymoon period.

Then there are those in Congress for whom no concessions will suffice. Cooperation is a word they understand they need to use, but matching action seems beyond their reach, and always will be, much like fruit and drink to the Greek Tantalus. They prefer to offer themselves up as impediments, their only proffered resolutions to be the lack thereof...

Then there's the afternoon tv critic who simply refuses to be pleased. Evidently the government is not tough enough on criminals and illegal aliens, not adequately staffed or supplied, too involved in job creation, too bureaucratic. The economy is recovering too slowly because investors don't trust what they're hearing and seeing, yet when investors step forward, interested in the creation of energy alternatives, they are unwelcome because they are not American - you know, those sitting on the fence, feeling the pinch, wiped out by recent events...

Nothing's ever right, no one's good enough, nothing's gonna get better...

Okay, Pollyanna isn't what I'm advocating here, but would a little more even-handedness be so terrible? Probably, for such critics' ratings, anyway...

Who's cynical?

Big Brother for Sale

Who among us hasn't read George Orwell's 1984, either in high school or in college? One of my earliest recollections of the text is of wondering how the government managed to install so many devices in so many private locales and at what cost. Well, now I have my answer.

Just saw a commercial advertising the increasingly ubiquitous home security equipment now available for purchase and installation by concerned families. There is a distinct sense that we live in an embattled society wherein one's abode is, indeed, a fortress, or should be. What right-thinking parent would dare to leave their loved ones and valuables unprotected for even an instant? The need for 24-hour surveillance equipment should be self-evident, or should it?

Am I, in fact, as naive as Cheney believes the newly elected President to be? Is the threat of physical danger so imminent and all-pervasive that failure to take preemptive measures dooms those still foolish enough to trust in common decency as the rule rather than the exception? Is only might able to make right, and not vice versa? After all, King Arthur and his Round Table not only fell, they have disappeared into the mists of legend...

And yet, as much as I love cool tech toys, I cannot bring myself to actively participate in this widespread paranoia. I cannot and will not actually pay to invite Big Brother into my personal living spaces. Like Underdog, he's far too truly everywhere these days as it is (and I liked Underdog; BB not so much).

A Better Take

The news article linked here, , finally reports John McCain acting the hero he has been attempting to portray himself over the course of this campaign. He once said, "Better to lose a war than a campaign"; now it seems he finally realizes that it is better to lose a campaign than one's honor, which surely has been more than adequately besmirched in recent days and weeks by increasingly rabid radical supporters. Those who see McCain as representative of demagoguery and hate mongering do their idol a disservice. Perhaps McCain reclaims his honor too late for this campaign, but it is never too late to do so for the man himself.

Seriously, if McCain had actually gone to Washington and fought the bailout bill instead of desperately flailing before attempting to assist in its passage, if he had called out the hate mongers when they first surfaced, if he had resisted the easy path of turning GOP young guns loose on his campaign when his numbers first floundered, I might have thought him enough of a leader to respect and at least consider.

Now at least, I am once more willing to consider the merits of the man who has actually contributed much to the legislation some of us take for granted today.

Still not good enough for president when reflex responses matter so much more, but an honorable legislator, truly.

Monday Freefall Part Next

It's the first Monday in October, but instead of leading off with stories about the Supreme Court opening a new round of sessions, the news is full of more freefall on Wall Street and its counterparts around the globe. It's good to be able to go global, isn't it?

In case anyone is confused, the legislation so urgently demanded by Bush and supported by both presidential candidates is intended to assist the lending industry, a different beast than the Wall Street that so many citizens were so eager to assure their spooked Representatives they did not want to help bail out. Now while I'm all for helping to alleviate credit debt, I remain leery of anything recommended by G.W., especially anything urgently recommended by G.W....

And it's good to know that both Democrat and Republican candidates are adamantly for change and for blowing off lobbyists, as long as said folk bow out gracefully while still leaving their ample donations at the door on their ways out...

So where was all this vaunted leadership when that lovely bill was being crafted? Where is there evidence of direct assistance to the financially distressed in the streets (literally), as opposed to continuing to rely on the theory of trickle down economics, which seems to be at the heart of the idea of buying up bad debt? And why are we only now hearing about the private companies that will be serving as "economic experts" who will be doing the actually buying and processing of said bad debts?

Personally, I'm sick and tired of having my perfectly good credit card debts being sold to increasingly rapacious holders who have consistently raised the interest rates on outstanding debt. I've given up on seeing any end in sight, aside from the promised lighted tunnel, after which I won't care anyway. But enough and too much about me -

Now that the national election campaigns are entering the final month, the rainy season is beginning and mud is flying. As a teacher I used to sit in conferences with parents of children who had been reprimanded for fighting, only to hear said parents averring that while they had taught their children not to start fights, they had also personally taught their children to make sure at least to bloody if not outright knock down and out anyone who attacked them first, either verbally or physically. Now I hear the same from an otherwise high-minded sounding candidate. All I can say is grrrrrrrr

Of course, I realize that turning the other cheek, while Christ-like, is believed to have cost at least two or three previous candidates the presidency, which I guess is why true Christians make such poor and unsuccessful politicians. Equally disturbing is the observation that those most vocally professing to be followers of Christ are the ones leading the character assassinations. IMHO, they give true believers a bad name. Of course, that's nothing new: the Roman Emperor Nero is credited with being the first high profile fellow to villify Christians, while his successors managed to do so from within the Church. Ah well...

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." That doesn't seem to invite political activism on any level, certainly not in His name. That's my story and I'm sticking to it (as Steve Kerr famously said in a Chicago park back in the early 90s).

Again, Already

It's the Saturday ending the wildest economic roller coaster ride this country has experienced in my lifetime, culminating in what can only be called the nationalizing (read socializing) of three major financial institutions, and already members of Congress are passing about accusations and innuendo about politicking over rapid passage of the sweeping proposal presented them. As I read the aforelinked article, I could not help but be glad that someone is pausing to read and think before signing off ahead of the drying ink. Seriously, would you rubber stamp a proposal (and with such rapidity) that has emerged from the office of the one we have for too long called simply, G. W.? Is this proposal, in fact, the salvation of our American economy and way of life as we know it, or is it just another grab for power in an opportune moment such as has happened repeatedly in this land of exploitation at every opportunity? The term, "sweeping powers" sends shivers up and down my spine. I cannot but approve a closer scrutiny of conditions that will quite possibly protect those who sought to benefit at the expense of the majority, and who evidently still do...

And....

Does anyone besides those directly affected remember that we began the week facing the monumental task of picking up the pieces after the devastation of Hurricane Ike, that monster storm that has cut a wide swath across the nation, not just the impressive devastation through Texas? That was the promise of a whopping bill as well. What are those in D.C. thinking these days? Are they? Or are they experiencing more knee-jerk reactions such as those in evidence following the 9/11/01 attacks?

Cynical? Who me?

Birthing Biases

Today's most disturbing news item amidst word of war and rumors of war in distant Georgia is that several families in Kansas are suing a Roman Catholic parochial school because of an English only policy recently instituted in response to playground behavior problems that resulted in an expulsion. The students and families involved are all evidently either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. The problem seems to stem from the fact that at least one of the students was using another language on the playground to make disparaging remarks about fellow classmates, faculty, and staff, thus inciting negative attitudes and behavior in others. Though the lawsuit was filed in May, it's making the news today because the the civil suit is commencing.

When I first heard the teaser for this story, I thought there was another battle brewing about bilingual education. Unfortunately, this is not such a simple case, for this involves the attempt of a private school to control the behavior of its students. It's not a public school, so the students are there by choice, not perforce. The students involved are native English speakers, so it's not a matter of denying them academic access or hindering their learning. And let's face it: kids talking smack is an ever-present problem, regardless of where they congregate.

On the other hand, whether the school is allowed to make and uphold its own policy or not, the fact that the issue has been raised is a problem. Schools need to be able to enforce discipline and private schools have the right to try to inculcate their chosen value system on their students, but does anyone have the right to try to control talk and thoughts, especially during free time in open spaces? It's all very disturbing.

Then there's the news today that the Spanish Olympic basketball team posed for a photo for a courier company that is one of the team's sponsors. The problem is multifaceted: the ad involves all the team members using their fingers to make slant-eyes and has been running daily for well over a month back in Spain; almost no one on the team or associated with the team sees a problem with this; nothing seems to be happening in response to the recent concerns raised by international journalists, the issue being viewed by the Spaniards as a tempest in a teapot.

So the change we seek for unity in a globally diverse world is still evidently a bit of a ways down the road, it seems.

Proof That Blonde Is a State of Mind

Cokie Roberts, the ABC journalist who feels comfortable taking a cheerleading name into professional journalism, is reported in this morning's newspapers as characterizing Hawaii as "foreign" and "exotic", even though she admits to being aware that it is, in fact, the 50th state. She questions the wisdom of Barack Obama's decision to take a weeklong breather in the town of his birth and youth after a grueling year on the campaign trail, even though part of his stated purpose is to visit his aging grandmother and sister, who both still reside here. Ms. Roberts suggests that a man in serious pursuit of the presidency of the United States would be better off vacationing in an east coast resort such as Myrtle Beach. Is this professional journalist by any chance aware of the provincialism evident in such a perspective?

I never cease to be amazed that those who style themselves as cosmopolitan or at least sophisticated can be so oblivious of the narrowness of their own perceptions as to what constitutes "the world" and that which matters in it. Is the east coast the only relevant geographic arena in our country? Is anything to which one cannot drive beyond the bounds of acceptable?

I do remember the fuss and furor when Ronald Reagan set up a "West Coast White House" because he was desirous of occasionally returning to his California ranch and horses to get away from the hubbub of D.C. Lyndon Johnson and the Bushes have periodically returned to their Texas homes for rest, recreation, and even occasional political liaisons.

Still, since Hawaii is strategically positioned in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and claims the title of "Crossroads of the Pacific," is it not at least as well-placed, if not more so, than Washington, D.C. as things heat up in Georgia and the world turns its attention to Georgia?

The world's still a big place, albeit shrinking in perception daily. If one travels far enough, one circles back. The days of easy access only by cart or car are long past. Legislators travel from all fifty states to congregate and serve in the capital, and no one has serious problems with either travel or communications. If a sitting representative does not occasionally make it back home, the electorate wonders whether or not s/he remembers the roots from which such a representative came. Everyone else vying for leadership in this country discounts Hawaii as too distant and too insignificant to bother visiting during an election. It's nice to know that a native son has managed to take time, at least once, to come home and remember the family and friends who have contributed so much to the shaping of who and what he now is and hopes someday to be.

Going Bananas

It's been awhile since I've been here, so let's get right to it, shall we?

Went to a local multiplex this afternoon, figuring I'd see whatever wasn't sold out. I mention this little factoid as it clearly reflects the state of my expectations, or lack thereof...

As I was in a bit of a time crunch, Space Chimps promised to be a perfect combination of available, brief, and underadvertised; it fulfilled that promise. The audience was sparse, the laughter seemed primarily to come from me, (but I've been away from consistent film viewing for some time now,) but I found it a pleasant way to ease back into experiencing a theatrical airing of a movie.

Having just read the Yahoo reviews submitted by other viewers, I cannot help but notice how much the reviews remind me of the political rhetorc airing daily on CNN. There seems to be a very hard division between lovers and haters of this film, and I suspect I know where the lline lies.

I confess I understand why there are those who say all the characters were a bit annoying, even as I understand those who found the film to be cute. On the one hand, I love monkeys: I've never seen an entire group without at least one class clown and an appreciative audience within said gathering; on the other hand, I can see how those unable to ignore the anthropomorphizing simply want to slap the protagonist silly, get the girl drunk to loosen her up a bit and get the rod out of her rectum, and drop the stud muffin monkey into the nearest deepest pit. And yes, Jeff Daniels' villainous character is written with the depth of Dudley Doright's Dishonest John. But seriously, what can one expect going into a movie rated G? The ones I question are the ones who had problems with the language used.

Granted, the puns are groan-worthy corny, but some people like that sort of thing; my dad does, but I don't (exactly) judge him for it. He is, after all, from a different era/mentality/world than the one in which I live and move. Of course, that's a puritanical world in which sexual innuendo is picked up on highly sensitive radar that begs explanations by the innocent. While not everyone who appreciates corn will necessarily be offended by innuendo, those who will be offended won't like anything about this film.

Of course, those who dislike this film because they do not relate to or appreciate the criticism leveled at the protagonist's behavior are not those who will be offended by the innuendo. If anything, they will find the references too tame by far. In fact, there was one and only one comment that caused me to do a doubletake because it seemed so out of keeping with the general tone otherwise maintained throughout the film.

I think what irritated me more was that the protagonist's manifestations of the chip on his shoulder seemed all too real to me. Such characters are alive and well in our society, much too well. They strut and preen, show off and mouth off, and it's all considered normal, acceptable, conventional. The film dealt with this and all other problems much as has the Road Runner over the years. If one sympathizes with Wile E. Coyote or even merely abhors RR's violent solutions, one will find SC less than amusing.

Another way of looking at it, I think, is that this is reminiscent of Mel Gibson's Chicken Run, though I found the chimps more appealing than the hens for some reason.

When all is said and done, I just like monkey muzzles.

Mad for More

Back to the Movies and it's been a delight. Got to see the fourth installment of Indiana Jones proved to be an attempted handoff to the next generation, something someone should suggest to Sylvester Stallone...

Handoff or not, formulaic or not, the film was satisfactory. It probably didn't hurt that I hadn't been in a theater since last year, but there you go. The pacing was swift, the dialogue punny, the situations ridiculous, the resolutions campy. What more can one ask of an Indy film?

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, on the other hand, was so very highly touted and I had such great expectations of it. On the eve of my viewing, I was reliably informed that the new lead is tres cute, though way older... 26 or something like that... (tried to keep a straight face, really). True, there were two epic battles instead of just one: one for failure and one for success, as is proper for apprentices succeeding passing masters. Yes, young though William Moseley may be, this was, indeed, the passing of High King Peter the Magnificent, whose suffix should perhaps be omitted, as his sister so wisely suggests... I do think that the tension between Peter and Caspian is better illustrated in the film than I felt was fleshed out in the text, though again, it's been awhile since I've read the book. I particularly liked the mostly silent Edmund, who is growing up quite nicely, I think. Certainly he is far more intriguing silent than is the oh so virtuous and disgustingly righteous Lucy, whom I adore in the books and despise in this film - too much of a know-it-all this time around, for my taste. Can't say I was all that keen on Susan, either, though no doubt was left that she and Caspian had a non-thing going pretty hot and heavy... Too bad Tumnus is long gone - that MacAvoy had a nice, furry torso... Still, Reepicheep ... well, he's cuter in the book, too, though not by much. And who could help loving the DLF? Eh... Still, I did feel compelled to watch he first installment next day, just to refix my focus. Fun stuff.

What's next? Not sure, but definitely an air-conditioned theater is preferable in this heavy laden heat...

Another Month

Another month has passed and much has happened.

Gas prices have gone through the roof, causing people finally to reconsider transportation alternatives, especially here in the good old U.S. of A. Let's face facts, though: if I was a poor cyclist before, impecuniousness is not going to improve my balance. So I guess it's back to the pedes God gave me, though they don't work quite as well as of yore, if perhaps as well as when I first received them over half a century ago...

Natural disasters have struck around the globe, from Myanmar and China to the American Midwest and most recently, California. If the cost of the California wildfire down Santa Cruz way has risen to some $10 million and there are over 34 million people residing in the state, isn't that less than 50 cents per person? Or is that not an appropriate way of thinking of the matter?

Daniel Radcliffe was evidently featured on the Rachael Ray talk show this morning, but I didn't get the memo until the last five minutes of the show, during which she was demonstrating the virtues of a warehouse-purchased pot roast dinner in these fiscally trying times...

Rambling does, indeed, seem to be what I am doing here today...

Checked out Facebook... found some addictive word games... sure wish I knew how to link all my blogs so that I don't have to keep thinking of different things to say for each... Something tells me this sort of rambling belongs on a different long-neglected blog...

Ah well...