We can't help but notice how the latter-day moves currently shown on television tend to include virtual copulation scenes as an almost standard bill-of-fare. What amazes us, however, is that use of the common four-letter word describing such action has been forbidden, except during the very late evening and wee morning hours.
Aren't our supposedly do-gooder networks being a bit inconsistent?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
FLYING
Our latest resolution concerns travel by air. Following due deliberation, our personal intent from here onward, and until present airline practices change, will be to board no aircraft unless it is operated by Southwest.
Monday, May 23, 2011
A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACTS
Based on long years of varied experience, this writer has derived an indisputable conclusion as to the two most stupid acts a man can commit during his lifetime. Stated purely and simply, they are the following:
1. Smoke cigarettes
2. Get married
Although many now mature gents may be reluctant to admit it, we're convinced that an overwhelming majority would sincerely agree, at least within their own minds.
Friday, October 29, 2010
FED UP
After many years of being concerned over the anticipated, then the actual outcome of a periodic general election, this writer has finally reached a conclusion. Having grown irrevocably sick and tired of the half-truths and distortions belched forth by the candidates, we find the whole affair no more sincere than those ghastly TV commercial messages the advertising gentry endeavors to make us swallow.
As a consequence, our personal conclusion can be best stated as follows:
WE DON’T GIVE A _____________________ ANY LONGER
Each reader is invited to fill in the blank space with whatever term he or she may choose, in at least four and not more than eight letters.
As a consequence, our personal conclusion can be best stated as follows:
WE DON’T GIVE A _____________________ ANY LONGER
Each reader is invited to fill in the blank space with whatever term he or she may choose, in at least four and not more than eight letters.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
GOOD OLD NO. XV
The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as ratified on February 3, 1870, proudly declares that citizens’ voting rights shall not be denied or abridged due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
We must now ask how said wording might appear to mean from a 21st century schoolchild’s viewpoint. We can’t help but feel that his or her understanding would be that every American citizen could head straight to the polls on all election days thereafter.
Well, Kids, ‘tain’t so. The teacher will have to mark your answer wrong in this particular case.
Considering the era in which this amendment became law, the obvious implication at the time was that such right would continue to be restricted to members of the unfair sex only, be their skin white, black, red, brown, blue, or green.
Actually, doesn’t it sound a bit preposterous that no necessity whatsoever called for the words male citizens, rather than just citizens? Talk about chauvinism!
So how did our latter 19th century ladies react in combating this effrontery? Were there protest marches down New York’s Fifth Avenue, fiery speeches from soapboxes across the land, or armies of female pickets outside the White House? As far as we can determine, no such endeavors were undertaken. Having been formally deprived of such right by every state since 1807, our womenfolk knew their place, and continued to content themselves at the spinning wheel and in the kitchen, while tending to a nursery filled with youngsters. Otherwise, they may have been subject to victimization by tar and feathers, or maybe even a horsewhip.
It took another 50 (count ‘em) 50 years before voting privileges were extended to the distaff side, and only after a lengthy and tedious bout with all those stuffy hidebound men running the show, as had been the practice for countless millennia.
Our sole remaining question is why did it take so much blooming time for a leading world nationality, not to mention the entire human race, to resolve what we view today as an utterly logical issue?
We must now ask how said wording might appear to mean from a 21st century schoolchild’s viewpoint. We can’t help but feel that his or her understanding would be that every American citizen could head straight to the polls on all election days thereafter.
Well, Kids, ‘tain’t so. The teacher will have to mark your answer wrong in this particular case.
Considering the era in which this amendment became law, the obvious implication at the time was that such right would continue to be restricted to members of the unfair sex only, be their skin white, black, red, brown, blue, or green.
Actually, doesn’t it sound a bit preposterous that no necessity whatsoever called for the words male citizens, rather than just citizens? Talk about chauvinism!
So how did our latter 19th century ladies react in combating this effrontery? Were there protest marches down New York’s Fifth Avenue, fiery speeches from soapboxes across the land, or armies of female pickets outside the White House? As far as we can determine, no such endeavors were undertaken. Having been formally deprived of such right by every state since 1807, our womenfolk knew their place, and continued to content themselves at the spinning wheel and in the kitchen, while tending to a nursery filled with youngsters. Otherwise, they may have been subject to victimization by tar and feathers, or maybe even a horsewhip.
It took another 50 (count ‘em) 50 years before voting privileges were extended to the distaff side, and only after a lengthy and tedious bout with all those stuffy hidebound men running the show, as had been the practice for countless millennia.
Our sole remaining question is why did it take so much blooming time for a leading world nationality, not to mention the entire human race, to resolve what we view today as an utterly logical issue?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
MENTAL POISONING (BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES)
In 1949, a renowned author named George Orwell wrote a novel entitled 1984, which depicted living conditions as they might become by that time. The book envisioned a wholly totalitarian world, with only three gigantic countries remaining in existence, each having derived from territorial conglomeration. They all ruled their citizenry in a terrifying manner, by the simple means of sheer news fabrication. The individual would receive a daily dose of disinformation about wars being fought, subversive activities attempted, and the utter necessity to maintain unceasing patriotic sentiment and loyalty by promptly reporting any suspected offenders to the central authorities. The nation known as Oceania, whose capital lay in London, had identified an anarchist named Emmanuel Goldstein, allegedly leading forces dedicated to undermining the so-called people’s government and everything it stood for. As matters turned out, however, no such person actually lived, having been fabricated to foster universal hatred, a feature most essential to the “inner party’s” undisputed control over the masses.
Although our own year 1984 came and went without the eventuality so grimly described by Mr. Orwell, we can’t help but wonder if our modern society leadership hasn’t been taking a few pages out of his work and putting them to comparable use, albeit not to such extremes. We’d like to cite a few reasons why we harbor suspicion in this regard.
For openers, one of comedian Bob Newhart’s earliest monologue sketches dealt with the presumed need to have created a public figure image for Abraham Lincoln, causing the man to appear somewhat more exciting than his true characteristics would convey. Although only a retroactive spoof, it clearly illustrated the principle of artificially fabricating a persona. The piece accurately mirrored practices known to be carried out today by TV wizards, in order to glorify candidates for office or intended prominence elsewhere.
Additionally, our private DVD collection happens to include certain films, among which are the following, based on situations of a factual or too close for comfort nature:
· Power, wherein a national election becomes a rivalry between image builders representing their respective candidates, with little or no concern over the issues each may be guided by;
· Wag the Dog, with the presidential election prospects getting completely overturned during the last eleven campaign days, by virtue of staging a bogus war scare and a fictitious martyred military hero;
· The Pentagon Papers, a biographical presentation of Daniel Ellsberg’s struggle to make the true Vietnam war results clearly understood, and the government’s two-fisted effort to discredit him;
· Network, a plot Larry King and others in the TV business consider to be pure realism put on film, explaining how the general public can be influenced and motivated solely through overblown or virtually concocted news coverage;
· Finally, JFK, where Oliver Stone endeavors to portray a believable cover-up of the actual circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and its attempt to identify a sole red-tinged young man as the culprit.
The above instances have dealt with two opposite poles, evidencing concentration either on hatred or heroic imagery, sometimes throwing both together. To our mind, each ranks as insidious as the other. Misguiding the multitude definitely falls under bearing false witness, according to the tablets God delivered to Moses. The obvious question has to be whether the U.S. government or the television industry deserves the greater guilt. In our opinion, it’s both, in the form of an ill-conceived, unofficial joint venture.
What we’re busting our tails to drive home in this piece is the extent to which utter phoniness has long been known to prevail at the highest political and show business levels, while the majority goes on blithely accepting the engineered news diet with little reservation.
It’s a foregone conclusion that our government requires a sense of national paranoia at all times, with the best means being through perpetual focus on at least one leading villain in the public eye, á la Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Interestingly, a fellow can be transformed from the world’s biggest schmuck into a nice guy almost overnight, whereas in some cases the exact reverse will occur. A few prominent examples from recent decades are shown below.
From mean s.o.b. to reasonably sound citizen, there have been:
· Yasser Arafat;
· Muammar Gadaffi;
· Manuel Ortega.
On the other hand, from half-way decent chap to downright louse, we offer:
· Fidel Castro;
· Manuel Noriega;
· Sadam Hussein.
The most notable feature is that elevating yesterday’s nastiest guy in the universe to today’s top semi-god must invariably be followed by immediate demotion of some new person to prime time satanic status.
Currently, however, we just may have established the all-time greatest villain in modern history, namely the very elusive Osama bin Laden, who’s been ducking our belligerent legions for such a long while that we can’t avoid wondering if such a bloke really does exist as such, or is represented only by photos of some humble middle eastern shepherd. Nevertheless, the sentiment mounted against him has become so overwhelming that our organized propaganda machine now seems to have put all its eggs in one basket.
Be that as it may, until the day arrives when this demonic personage is either slain or captured, we remain somewhat less than convinced about him and his so-called family connections not having been at least partially fabricated. Still, we’ll be more than pleased to acknowledge his evil authenticity, once duly proven.
Although our own year 1984 came and went without the eventuality so grimly described by Mr. Orwell, we can’t help but wonder if our modern society leadership hasn’t been taking a few pages out of his work and putting them to comparable use, albeit not to such extremes. We’d like to cite a few reasons why we harbor suspicion in this regard.
For openers, one of comedian Bob Newhart’s earliest monologue sketches dealt with the presumed need to have created a public figure image for Abraham Lincoln, causing the man to appear somewhat more exciting than his true characteristics would convey. Although only a retroactive spoof, it clearly illustrated the principle of artificially fabricating a persona. The piece accurately mirrored practices known to be carried out today by TV wizards, in order to glorify candidates for office or intended prominence elsewhere.
Additionally, our private DVD collection happens to include certain films, among which are the following, based on situations of a factual or too close for comfort nature:
· Power, wherein a national election becomes a rivalry between image builders representing their respective candidates, with little or no concern over the issues each may be guided by;
· Wag the Dog, with the presidential election prospects getting completely overturned during the last eleven campaign days, by virtue of staging a bogus war scare and a fictitious martyred military hero;
· The Pentagon Papers, a biographical presentation of Daniel Ellsberg’s struggle to make the true Vietnam war results clearly understood, and the government’s two-fisted effort to discredit him;
· Network, a plot Larry King and others in the TV business consider to be pure realism put on film, explaining how the general public can be influenced and motivated solely through overblown or virtually concocted news coverage;
· Finally, JFK, where Oliver Stone endeavors to portray a believable cover-up of the actual circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and its attempt to identify a sole red-tinged young man as the culprit.
The above instances have dealt with two opposite poles, evidencing concentration either on hatred or heroic imagery, sometimes throwing both together. To our mind, each ranks as insidious as the other. Misguiding the multitude definitely falls under bearing false witness, according to the tablets God delivered to Moses. The obvious question has to be whether the U.S. government or the television industry deserves the greater guilt. In our opinion, it’s both, in the form of an ill-conceived, unofficial joint venture.
What we’re busting our tails to drive home in this piece is the extent to which utter phoniness has long been known to prevail at the highest political and show business levels, while the majority goes on blithely accepting the engineered news diet with little reservation.
It’s a foregone conclusion that our government requires a sense of national paranoia at all times, with the best means being through perpetual focus on at least one leading villain in the public eye, á la Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Interestingly, a fellow can be transformed from the world’s biggest schmuck into a nice guy almost overnight, whereas in some cases the exact reverse will occur. A few prominent examples from recent decades are shown below.
From mean s.o.b. to reasonably sound citizen, there have been:
· Yasser Arafat;
· Muammar Gadaffi;
· Manuel Ortega.
On the other hand, from half-way decent chap to downright louse, we offer:
· Fidel Castro;
· Manuel Noriega;
· Sadam Hussein.
The most notable feature is that elevating yesterday’s nastiest guy in the universe to today’s top semi-god must invariably be followed by immediate demotion of some new person to prime time satanic status.
Currently, however, we just may have established the all-time greatest villain in modern history, namely the very elusive Osama bin Laden, who’s been ducking our belligerent legions for such a long while that we can’t avoid wondering if such a bloke really does exist as such, or is represented only by photos of some humble middle eastern shepherd. Nevertheless, the sentiment mounted against him has become so overwhelming that our organized propaganda machine now seems to have put all its eggs in one basket.
Be that as it may, until the day arrives when this demonic personage is either slain or captured, we remain somewhat less than convinced about him and his so-called family connections not having been at least partially fabricated. Still, we’ll be more than pleased to acknowledge his evil authenticity, once duly proven.
Monday, July 19, 2010
A NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM BOMBSHELL
As evidenced by an earlier blog article, we aren’t exactly enthralled with the performance qualities exhibited by our collective professorial gentry. It’s now sad to report that we’ve recently discovered yet another specific failing in the educational process.
Having become informally affiliated with the retail guitar trade, we’ve made several new acquaintances who play as amateurs or professionals, some of whom hold music major degrees. What has struck us in the solar plexus more than once lately is the general lack of familiarity displayed regarding mid-20th century jazz greats and their contribution to modern note-producing history.
Without exception, these esteemed diploma-wavers are able to converse somewhat intelligently about Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, Verdi, Debussy, and those other classical cats, having had such names crammed down their throats during classroom days. However, we find ourselves constantly appalled when, upon mentioning Goodman, Ellington, Basie, Dorsey, Miller, and even Brubeck, a blank stare results, followed by a Benny Who, Duke Who, or similar response.
Harking back to our own music class school days, we recall being thoroughly familiarized with outpourings of the “old master” fraternity by the dozen. Contrarily, of course, no teacher seated at the piano or up front alongside the record-player dared admit that “swing bands” were then reigning supreme, with their latest hits being mentally hummed by students galore. Such subject was a strict discussionary no-no.
We long ago wrote off that crew of eunuchal fuddy-duddies as not having been in tune with the times. What else could be expected in such a backward-looking era? Jumping to the present, though, we can’t help but detect a still apparent disdain for the musicianship which steadily evolved from its birth around the 1890s, through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and onward, having become an established way of life. About the only statement we can utter to those unenlightened ex-students of music is that overworked cliché, “Your education has been sadly neglected”, with all sincerity.
At least we’ve not yet reached the ultimate stage when singers may be the conversational topic, and some youthful wizard pipes up with “Frank Who?”
Having become informally affiliated with the retail guitar trade, we’ve made several new acquaintances who play as amateurs or professionals, some of whom hold music major degrees. What has struck us in the solar plexus more than once lately is the general lack of familiarity displayed regarding mid-20th century jazz greats and their contribution to modern note-producing history.
Without exception, these esteemed diploma-wavers are able to converse somewhat intelligently about Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, Verdi, Debussy, and those other classical cats, having had such names crammed down their throats during classroom days. However, we find ourselves constantly appalled when, upon mentioning Goodman, Ellington, Basie, Dorsey, Miller, and even Brubeck, a blank stare results, followed by a Benny Who, Duke Who, or similar response.
Harking back to our own music class school days, we recall being thoroughly familiarized with outpourings of the “old master” fraternity by the dozen. Contrarily, of course, no teacher seated at the piano or up front alongside the record-player dared admit that “swing bands” were then reigning supreme, with their latest hits being mentally hummed by students galore. Such subject was a strict discussionary no-no.
We long ago wrote off that crew of eunuchal fuddy-duddies as not having been in tune with the times. What else could be expected in such a backward-looking era? Jumping to the present, though, we can’t help but detect a still apparent disdain for the musicianship which steadily evolved from its birth around the 1890s, through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and onward, having become an established way of life. About the only statement we can utter to those unenlightened ex-students of music is that overworked cliché, “Your education has been sadly neglected”, with all sincerity.
At least we’ve not yet reached the ultimate stage when singers may be the conversational topic, and some youthful wizard pipes up with “Frank Who?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
