The only constitutionally recognized police force for the United States is the U. S. Marshall's Service. Prior to the 1920s almost all crimes were state crimes and not federal crimes. The Treasury was one of the biggest federal law enforcement agencies because they went out of counterfeiters because that was a federal crime. The Secret Service, that protects the presidents, is actually part of the Treasury department. In fact, prior to the 1920s the US Marshalls were not active in most places. They were active in the west because they were the only police force that had any authority on Indian lands. The US Marshalls authority was limited to federal crimes and it wasn't even until after Kennedy's death that it became a federal crime to kill a president.
Now, let me tell you about John Dillinger. Mr. Dillinger was a bank robber and murderer during the 1920s. That era spawned a lot of violent criminals, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Ma Barker and her boys, Al Capone and so many others. The people at the time often viewed them as heroes because they saw the banks as bigger criminals during the great depression. If you don't know the people I mentioned, you need to look them up. Dillinger and the others I mentioned were guilty of bank robbery and murder; but, the reason the federal government got involved was because they had transported stolen vehicles across state lines. See, the federal government used to only have any authority over crimes that crossed state lines otherwise only state resources could be used.
I need you to really think about what I am saying. In 1920 a constitutional amendment was enacted that prohibited the sale of alcohol. They had to make it a federal law to be effective and the states loved it. The states also loved it when the federal government helped them find their worst criminals. It was state police officers that begged for the federal government to be allowed to help them catch criminals, they were not coerced or forced into it. I see a lot of ultra conservative media talk about how the fed has too much reach; but, they never address the fundamentals, like why can the federal government have authority over kidnappings that do not cross state lines?
Let's go back to Dillinger. The FBI called him number one on the list of the most wanted and that he was wanted dead or alive. Yet, the only federal crime they could arrest him for was driving a stolen car across state lines. How does that rate a dead or alive order? At around the same time the FBI got involved in the case of Bonnie and Clyde. Two more murderers; but, the FBI had the same charge against them as they did against Dillinger, stealing a car and crossing state lines. By the way, Capone went to federal prison for tax evasion, not for killing or even breaking the 18th amendment, they didn't even bust him for bootlegging.
What the real question I am addressing is the use of federal troops, the military, to deal with riots. Why should people who don't believe the federal government should have national programs like social security support the federal government being involved in shutting down internal state protests like Occupy Wall Street? Trespassing is not a federal crime, not even today. The federal government coordinated the shut down of occupy sit-ins with the states, that is a documented fact and neither Fox news or conservative politicians complained.
This is actually a mediocre post because I lost track of where I planned on going with it over the three days it took to finish it. Having said that, I would enjoy reading comments on any posts including this one. Retirement is boring.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Corporations are Killing Las Vegas.
I just got back from Las Vegas, I was going to a get together. While most people think of conventions like trade shows or ComicCon, in fact their are organizations that represent every conceivable organization and/or interest. There are also hundreds of reunions everyday in Las Vegas ranging from graduating classes to people who served at the same military base or suffered in the same disaster. Often people meet up in Vegas because it is a relatively inexpensive flight from anywhere in the country and it allows for private get togethers that will not even be noticed. In fact I watched two different semi-anonymous meetings where some sort of business was conducted. Each involved one man sitting with a computer and meeting with three or four different individuals in a business center hallway, neither rented out any space, they could have just as easily had the meeting at a Starbucks (not a promotion for Starbucks, I actually prefer another coffee shop). The think about meeting in Vegas is that you always have an excuse for being there, gambling. The same type of meeting would be more noticeable at an indian casino, not enough people at one time. My meeting was much less secretive and much more public. This discussion is not about my meeting, it is about Vegas.
Las Vegas began as an old west town that had bar-casinos. Not unusual in the day as many places in the mid-west and west had bars where gambling was done on site. Think of the story of the shoot-out at the O.K corral. Wyatt Earp actually owned at least one such bar-casino. Doc himself was a professional gambler. For whatever reason, many states outlawed gambling and Nevada did not. During the depression Las Vegas took off with the building of the Hoover dam. It should be noted that the families of the men who worked on the damn often lived just outside of Las Vegas in Henderson where gambling was illegal as was prostitution. It should be noted that while prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, it is NOT legal in Las Vegas.
In the late 40s a mafia gangster named Bugsy Siegel decided that the mob could make legal money on gambling in Las Vegas by attracting people from Los Angeles. It was already known that people in Los Angeles liked to gamble as they had supported a gambling ship off the coast for years until it stopped operating. After building the first real hotel casino in Las Vegas, Mr. Siegel was killed; but, the mob discovered the advantages for money laundering in having Vegas casinos and began building what we have come to know as modern Vegas. Vegas under the mafia was well run and thieves were not tolerated, instead, they were buried in the desert by the mafia. In order to keep their casinos the mafia insisted that the casinos run honest games and not allow cheating.
The mafia pretty much controlled Vegas until Howard Hughes went there and got annoyed that he could not use his favorite room in a hotel. Upon being told that, he decided to buy the casino and thereby changed the town. Not only did he begin buying casinos, he also got a television station for the town. After Hughes other companies decided to invest in casinos and basically took over from the mafia. The next big change came when Steve Wynn built the Mirage, the first truly massive mega-resort. After Wynn the resorts got bigger and grander with the MGM Grand taking it to an all new level. The mega resorts became a reason for Vegas becoming the home to more and more conventions and it was especially well suited to mega-conventions. During the 1990s Vegas began branding itself as a place for the family to vacation and the MGM actually added on a theme park with a rollercoaster and other attractions. That all ended after 9-11.
After 9-11 tourism dropped off and Vegas then doubled down on the sin city aspect with the phrase, "What happens here stays here". The MGM actually tore down their amusement park and Vegas stopped trying to attract families. Since 9-11 bankers and corporations have taken over Vegas and not for the better. Vegas began selling out it's individuality and began cross branding, the Palms had a Playboy casino, all the resorts began having celebrity chefs and services were dropped.
Slot machines in Vegas used to be coin operated and the floor of the casino was loaded with cocktail waitressed and change servers who would give you quarters in exchange for your dollars. The corporations determined that they could save a lot of money by switching to a ticket system and eliminating the change servers. Gone was the sound of coins hitting trays and the personal touch of people coming by to break your bills. In the last few years even the type of slot machines has changed. Now, the casinos are mostly "penny machines"; but, that term is misleading. These "penny machines" often require a bet of at least 40 cents and up to 80 cents as a minimum bet. These machines also had lower payouts. Old quarter and dollar machines used to have a 97% payout with the "penny machines" having payouts of around 93%. It may not sound like a big difference; but, it is in fact huge and worth billions to the casinos; but, it also caused fewer people to play the slots.
While many believe (and the corporations that own casinos in Vegas would like to believe) that the decrease in gambling revenue is down to the increase in Indian casinos, this is not true. In fact tourism to Vegas has been on the increase, it just has not led to an increase in the number of people playing slot machines. While the odds in Vegas used to be better than those at Indian casinos, the odds are now better at the Indian casinos. Consider the fact that Vegas now makes 60% of it's revenue from food and entertainment with the biggest entertainment draw being DJs and dance parties.
When you used to go to Vegas you might lose at the tables or machines; but, you could always get comped for a buffet or go buy the $1.99 steak and eggs or even a 99 cent shrimp cocktail. Those are both gone. I have also noticed fewer and fewer cocktail waitresses on the floors.
I haven't really stayed in Vegas for about 5 years. I travelled to Nevada but it was to another city to visit relatives. The biggest trends I notice in Vegas was the increase in branding on everything and at every casino. It has become one big commercial for everything from Harley Davidson to Gucci. I also noticed that the casinos which traditionally had their own restaurants have turned to contracting out with IHOP and Dennys and they do not offer $1.99 steak and eggs or 99 cent shrimp cocktails. In fact, food at the casinos has gotten ridiculous and entertainment costs have skyrocketed with shows like Celine Dion commanding $500 a seat. What the big corporations have managed to do is take away all the little perks that Vegas used to offer. As for the club scene in Vegas, expect to have to pay $500 for a bottle of champagne to get a decent table. I could do that in Los Angeles and see the same acts at concert venues without travelling 5 hours on the road.
Corporate perspective is killing Vegas as a place to go to gamble and the corporations are committed to eliminating true gambling with honest odds. The big move right now in Nevada is to change the way that slot machines work. Historically it has been illegal to make slots a game skill; but, that is just what they are promoting. Think of it this way. Imagine playing a slot machine, hitting all the right symbols for a payout and then having to throw darts at a board and hitting them all dead center to actually get paid. Sounds silly but that is exactly what they are trying to have a law passed to allow. While they could just increase the odds back to 97% to bring back gamblers, that is not going to happen because the corporate mindset is to increase profitability each year while decreasing expenses. That may work with selling clothes; but, it does not work for gamblers. Gambling is a choice, like picking a movie to see. Gamblers do not return to casinos where they constantly lose. If you hated the first "Fast and the Furious" movie, odds are that you did not watch the sequels. By increasing your chances of losing at the casinos, people will continue to stop going to them for gambling. The corporations will convince themselves that it is because people would rather go for the clubs; but, clubbing will lose it's draw and then there will be no reason to go to Vegas. Gambling is the essence of Vegas and it's attraction and once it loses that, it will go the way of Atlantic city and begin having to close more and more casinos. This will be devastating to Nevada as gambling is it's only big industry.
On a personal note, I used to go to Vegas once a month with my father and always enjoyed it. This trip has convinced me that I will not travel to Vegas to gamble. That is not a good sign for Vegas' future. Now, I do plan on playing in poker tournaments again; but, I can do that in California and get the food for less.
Las Vegas began as an old west town that had bar-casinos. Not unusual in the day as many places in the mid-west and west had bars where gambling was done on site. Think of the story of the shoot-out at the O.K corral. Wyatt Earp actually owned at least one such bar-casino. Doc himself was a professional gambler. For whatever reason, many states outlawed gambling and Nevada did not. During the depression Las Vegas took off with the building of the Hoover dam. It should be noted that the families of the men who worked on the damn often lived just outside of Las Vegas in Henderson where gambling was illegal as was prostitution. It should be noted that while prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, it is NOT legal in Las Vegas.
In the late 40s a mafia gangster named Bugsy Siegel decided that the mob could make legal money on gambling in Las Vegas by attracting people from Los Angeles. It was already known that people in Los Angeles liked to gamble as they had supported a gambling ship off the coast for years until it stopped operating. After building the first real hotel casino in Las Vegas, Mr. Siegel was killed; but, the mob discovered the advantages for money laundering in having Vegas casinos and began building what we have come to know as modern Vegas. Vegas under the mafia was well run and thieves were not tolerated, instead, they were buried in the desert by the mafia. In order to keep their casinos the mafia insisted that the casinos run honest games and not allow cheating.
The mafia pretty much controlled Vegas until Howard Hughes went there and got annoyed that he could not use his favorite room in a hotel. Upon being told that, he decided to buy the casino and thereby changed the town. Not only did he begin buying casinos, he also got a television station for the town. After Hughes other companies decided to invest in casinos and basically took over from the mafia. The next big change came when Steve Wynn built the Mirage, the first truly massive mega-resort. After Wynn the resorts got bigger and grander with the MGM Grand taking it to an all new level. The mega resorts became a reason for Vegas becoming the home to more and more conventions and it was especially well suited to mega-conventions. During the 1990s Vegas began branding itself as a place for the family to vacation and the MGM actually added on a theme park with a rollercoaster and other attractions. That all ended after 9-11.
After 9-11 tourism dropped off and Vegas then doubled down on the sin city aspect with the phrase, "What happens here stays here". The MGM actually tore down their amusement park and Vegas stopped trying to attract families. Since 9-11 bankers and corporations have taken over Vegas and not for the better. Vegas began selling out it's individuality and began cross branding, the Palms had a Playboy casino, all the resorts began having celebrity chefs and services were dropped.
Slot machines in Vegas used to be coin operated and the floor of the casino was loaded with cocktail waitressed and change servers who would give you quarters in exchange for your dollars. The corporations determined that they could save a lot of money by switching to a ticket system and eliminating the change servers. Gone was the sound of coins hitting trays and the personal touch of people coming by to break your bills. In the last few years even the type of slot machines has changed. Now, the casinos are mostly "penny machines"; but, that term is misleading. These "penny machines" often require a bet of at least 40 cents and up to 80 cents as a minimum bet. These machines also had lower payouts. Old quarter and dollar machines used to have a 97% payout with the "penny machines" having payouts of around 93%. It may not sound like a big difference; but, it is in fact huge and worth billions to the casinos; but, it also caused fewer people to play the slots.
While many believe (and the corporations that own casinos in Vegas would like to believe) that the decrease in gambling revenue is down to the increase in Indian casinos, this is not true. In fact tourism to Vegas has been on the increase, it just has not led to an increase in the number of people playing slot machines. While the odds in Vegas used to be better than those at Indian casinos, the odds are now better at the Indian casinos. Consider the fact that Vegas now makes 60% of it's revenue from food and entertainment with the biggest entertainment draw being DJs and dance parties.
When you used to go to Vegas you might lose at the tables or machines; but, you could always get comped for a buffet or go buy the $1.99 steak and eggs or even a 99 cent shrimp cocktail. Those are both gone. I have also noticed fewer and fewer cocktail waitresses on the floors.
I haven't really stayed in Vegas for about 5 years. I travelled to Nevada but it was to another city to visit relatives. The biggest trends I notice in Vegas was the increase in branding on everything and at every casino. It has become one big commercial for everything from Harley Davidson to Gucci. I also noticed that the casinos which traditionally had their own restaurants have turned to contracting out with IHOP and Dennys and they do not offer $1.99 steak and eggs or 99 cent shrimp cocktails. In fact, food at the casinos has gotten ridiculous and entertainment costs have skyrocketed with shows like Celine Dion commanding $500 a seat. What the big corporations have managed to do is take away all the little perks that Vegas used to offer. As for the club scene in Vegas, expect to have to pay $500 for a bottle of champagne to get a decent table. I could do that in Los Angeles and see the same acts at concert venues without travelling 5 hours on the road.
Corporate perspective is killing Vegas as a place to go to gamble and the corporations are committed to eliminating true gambling with honest odds. The big move right now in Nevada is to change the way that slot machines work. Historically it has been illegal to make slots a game skill; but, that is just what they are promoting. Think of it this way. Imagine playing a slot machine, hitting all the right symbols for a payout and then having to throw darts at a board and hitting them all dead center to actually get paid. Sounds silly but that is exactly what they are trying to have a law passed to allow. While they could just increase the odds back to 97% to bring back gamblers, that is not going to happen because the corporate mindset is to increase profitability each year while decreasing expenses. That may work with selling clothes; but, it does not work for gamblers. Gambling is a choice, like picking a movie to see. Gamblers do not return to casinos where they constantly lose. If you hated the first "Fast and the Furious" movie, odds are that you did not watch the sequels. By increasing your chances of losing at the casinos, people will continue to stop going to them for gambling. The corporations will convince themselves that it is because people would rather go for the clubs; but, clubbing will lose it's draw and then there will be no reason to go to Vegas. Gambling is the essence of Vegas and it's attraction and once it loses that, it will go the way of Atlantic city and begin having to close more and more casinos. This will be devastating to Nevada as gambling is it's only big industry.
On a personal note, I used to go to Vegas once a month with my father and always enjoyed it. This trip has convinced me that I will not travel to Vegas to gamble. That is not a good sign for Vegas' future. Now, I do plan on playing in poker tournaments again; but, I can do that in California and get the food for less.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
What are they willing to do to you?
Yahoo - The Wall Street Journal - The Eye-Scanning ATM Is Here. Not much to say for my part, I have already written about this technology numerous times. Yes, it is real and it is going to be standard.
YouTube - 26 Creepiest Science Experiments You've Never Heard Of . I have to admit that I was aware of most of these experiments. I think the most famous corrupt experiment in America was probably the Tuskegee Experiment where blacks in the south who were part of an experiment that they thought was to take care of them were actually not treated for Syphilis which resulted in many of them dying and others living in pain with a very curable disease. What must be remembered is that this experiment went on until 1972. You should watch this short video and then ask yourself if people were willing to do these things before, what makes you think their intent has changed?
YouTube - 5 New Inventions That Will Blow Your Pants Off ◆ 3. I often write about technologies that are being finalized; but, this video is about things that are already being produced and you still probably don't know about them.
YouTube - Top 10 Medical Advances that Sound Like Science Fiction — TopTenzNet.
YouTube - Top 10 Sinister Moves Made By Tobacco Companies Continuing to Sell a Deadly Product — TopTenzNet.
YouTube - godfather of propaganda edward bernays (full length) 2013. This is not the best article on Mr Bernays; but, is a quick outline on him and you can search his name for more information. Basically he was related to Freud and used those tools to create propaganda for the government and then later to create advertising for whoever. He is the father of modern public relations and if you don't know him and his works then you will never understand why I write about the news in the manner that I do and you will not realize how you are being lied to by all medias.
YouTube - 26 Creepiest Science Experiments You've Never Heard Of . I have to admit that I was aware of most of these experiments. I think the most famous corrupt experiment in America was probably the Tuskegee Experiment where blacks in the south who were part of an experiment that they thought was to take care of them were actually not treated for Syphilis which resulted in many of them dying and others living in pain with a very curable disease. What must be remembered is that this experiment went on until 1972. You should watch this short video and then ask yourself if people were willing to do these things before, what makes you think their intent has changed?
YouTube - 5 New Inventions That Will Blow Your Pants Off ◆ 3. I often write about technologies that are being finalized; but, this video is about things that are already being produced and you still probably don't know about them.
YouTube - Top 10 Medical Advances that Sound Like Science Fiction — TopTenzNet.
YouTube - Top 10 Sinister Moves Made By Tobacco Companies Continuing to Sell a Deadly Product — TopTenzNet.
YouTube - godfather of propaganda edward bernays (full length) 2013. This is not the best article on Mr Bernays; but, is a quick outline on him and you can search his name for more information. Basically he was related to Freud and used those tools to create propaganda for the government and then later to create advertising for whoever. He is the father of modern public relations and if you don't know him and his works then you will never understand why I write about the news in the manner that I do and you will not realize how you are being lied to by all medias.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
American Graffiti and Looking Back Again
If you have never seen the movie "American Graffiti" then I am going to suggest that you do not see it until you have seen it's sequel, "More American Graffiti" and I will explain why. American Graffiti came out in 1973. At that time we were still in Vietnam and Nixon was still in office. During that year the Watergate scandal was just beginning to gain ground. To kids growing up then it seemed like we were a lost generation that was vastly outnumbered by people only a few years older as the baby boom had ended in the late 50s or early 60s depending who you want to believe.
The 1970s seemed boring, the music wasn't as good; but, there was something more. It was if the 60s generation of kids had all the fun and the 70s teenagers were more controlled. At least it seemed that way to the people I knew at the time. In the 60s there were strong marriages, in the 70s divorce exploded and most people had both parents working. Drugs were no longer an experiment, it was just getting high. The kids in the 70s wanted things that just belonged to us; but, what we got was disco, corporate rock and practically no focus on our generation. Heck, it wasn't till video games that we really got something of our own.
One thing we had was B movies that were actually aimed at us. Movies like "The Pom Pom Girls", "Drive in" and "Heavy Metal" along with "Fritz the Cat". These were stupid exploitation movies aimed specifically at teenagers in the early to mid 70s. Then came "American Graffiti" which was more about the 50s than the 60s. It wasn't about hippies, it was about kids growing up in the suburbs who thought that getting beer was naughty. We longed for that as our families were coming apart. All my friends came from homes of divorce. We didn't want to change the world, it was already changing to fast for most. We wanted some fun that wasn't a complete rejection of society but maybe a call to the past and the 50s fit that perfectly.
American Graffiti takes place in 1962 before the Beatles arrived in the United States and before President Kennedy died, it took place before this nations loss of innocence. That is why the show it spawned, "Happy Days" took place in the 50s and was so successful with my generation. We grew up while the world was losing it's innocence and felt cheated. We grew up I a world that both catered to and took advantage of the 60s generation. The only thing that we did inherit from the 60s was the chance to die in Vietnam and the draft was still in effect.
Think about the other really big films that kids loved in the 70s, "Grease" and "Star Wars". We were looking for a return to simple and innocent fun. Heck, the films they made about kids in the 70s that were big budget were depressing, "Aloha Bobby Rose" and "Little Foxes" had horrible endings and were about the depressing nature of growing up then. Heck one of the biggest films was the first Rocky film and at least that was one about succeeding in a depressing situation, it was what we felt.
"American Graffiti" wasn't about riots and protests, it was about racing and girls and innocent fun. It was escapism from the 70s and a wish for what we felt we had missed out on. Now blacks in America may not have seen it the same way at the time and that makes sense. They were watching movies like "Superfly" and "Cooley High" and tv shows like "Good Times". These were shows and movies about dealing with poverty and hard times. America was still very much racially divided and the biggest show that dealt with that issue was "All in the Family" and that always had a depressing backstory. It was nothing but conflict, though, it did have some great jokes, it was still sad in the end.
"American Graffiti" was made for pennies using mostly unknowns and at that time even Ron Howard was no longer a star, he was just an ex-child star. George Lucas' previously film was THX1138, a depressing futuristic film and not a favorite with most kids. "American Graffiti" was a film for 70s kids and had happy music from beginning to end. The story was simple, a bunch of kids just graduated from high school and were going to move into the rest of their lives. They decided to have one last good time before leaving the comfort of their homes and moving out into the real world, the future. It was their last chance to have innocent fun. It resonated with us. It was made for pennies and was never expected to do particularly well, it was the kids from the 70s that made it big, not the people who grew up during that time. It certainly wasn't aimed at ex-hippies, they had rejected that time and longed for the late 60s.
Now I want to talk about "More American Graffiti". At the time everyone I knew hated it. It has not only a depressing ending; but, the story itself is depressing. It is not a hopeful film, it is instead about the victims of the mid to late 60s. I won't give away the plot details too much for those who have not seen it. Suffice it to say that the film is about what happened to the characters in "American Graffiti" after they grew up and the party was over and real life became their life. I hated it, it had no hope for the future in it.
Looking back on "More American Graffiti" now, I see the film from a different perspective. You see the second movie wasn't made for the same people as the first movie, it was made for the children who grew up in the 60s, not the ones who grew up in the 70s. Lucas didn't understand who made the first film so popular, he was still writing to his generation and they didn't care about the 50s and early 60s. It was people who grew up in the 50s and their children who watched "Happy Days", not the ex-hippies.
By accident I happened to see large parts of "More American Graffiti" again today and you know, it is a fitting end to the saga. It is not however a teen film and the first one was.
Where are the teen films today, what films talk to the current generation. I am not talking about action films or big films, I am talking about small films that they can call their own and address their hopes? I don't see it. Then again what do they have to look forward to? Oh year, living at home with a hundred thousand dollars in debt if they go to college or maybe just a film about having fun while working at McDonalds or WalMart. Wait, wait, what about working until they die?
UPDATE:
You know what, it just occurred to me what the biggest films aimed at young teenagers today are. "Twilight" and "The Hunger Games" They may have grown up on "Harry Potter"; but as teenagers they are given a different perspective. I guess they also have superhero shows and comics (graphic novels); but, those are not about teenagers except maybe "Heroes". What is realistic in media about the teen experience today?
The 1970s seemed boring, the music wasn't as good; but, there was something more. It was if the 60s generation of kids had all the fun and the 70s teenagers were more controlled. At least it seemed that way to the people I knew at the time. In the 60s there were strong marriages, in the 70s divorce exploded and most people had both parents working. Drugs were no longer an experiment, it was just getting high. The kids in the 70s wanted things that just belonged to us; but, what we got was disco, corporate rock and practically no focus on our generation. Heck, it wasn't till video games that we really got something of our own.
One thing we had was B movies that were actually aimed at us. Movies like "The Pom Pom Girls", "Drive in" and "Heavy Metal" along with "Fritz the Cat". These were stupid exploitation movies aimed specifically at teenagers in the early to mid 70s. Then came "American Graffiti" which was more about the 50s than the 60s. It wasn't about hippies, it was about kids growing up in the suburbs who thought that getting beer was naughty. We longed for that as our families were coming apart. All my friends came from homes of divorce. We didn't want to change the world, it was already changing to fast for most. We wanted some fun that wasn't a complete rejection of society but maybe a call to the past and the 50s fit that perfectly.
American Graffiti takes place in 1962 before the Beatles arrived in the United States and before President Kennedy died, it took place before this nations loss of innocence. That is why the show it spawned, "Happy Days" took place in the 50s and was so successful with my generation. We grew up while the world was losing it's innocence and felt cheated. We grew up I a world that both catered to and took advantage of the 60s generation. The only thing that we did inherit from the 60s was the chance to die in Vietnam and the draft was still in effect.
Think about the other really big films that kids loved in the 70s, "Grease" and "Star Wars". We were looking for a return to simple and innocent fun. Heck, the films they made about kids in the 70s that were big budget were depressing, "Aloha Bobby Rose" and "Little Foxes" had horrible endings and were about the depressing nature of growing up then. Heck one of the biggest films was the first Rocky film and at least that was one about succeeding in a depressing situation, it was what we felt.
"American Graffiti" wasn't about riots and protests, it was about racing and girls and innocent fun. It was escapism from the 70s and a wish for what we felt we had missed out on. Now blacks in America may not have seen it the same way at the time and that makes sense. They were watching movies like "Superfly" and "Cooley High" and tv shows like "Good Times". These were shows and movies about dealing with poverty and hard times. America was still very much racially divided and the biggest show that dealt with that issue was "All in the Family" and that always had a depressing backstory. It was nothing but conflict, though, it did have some great jokes, it was still sad in the end.
"American Graffiti" was made for pennies using mostly unknowns and at that time even Ron Howard was no longer a star, he was just an ex-child star. George Lucas' previously film was THX1138, a depressing futuristic film and not a favorite with most kids. "American Graffiti" was a film for 70s kids and had happy music from beginning to end. The story was simple, a bunch of kids just graduated from high school and were going to move into the rest of their lives. They decided to have one last good time before leaving the comfort of their homes and moving out into the real world, the future. It was their last chance to have innocent fun. It resonated with us. It was made for pennies and was never expected to do particularly well, it was the kids from the 70s that made it big, not the people who grew up during that time. It certainly wasn't aimed at ex-hippies, they had rejected that time and longed for the late 60s.
Now I want to talk about "More American Graffiti". At the time everyone I knew hated it. It has not only a depressing ending; but, the story itself is depressing. It is not a hopeful film, it is instead about the victims of the mid to late 60s. I won't give away the plot details too much for those who have not seen it. Suffice it to say that the film is about what happened to the characters in "American Graffiti" after they grew up and the party was over and real life became their life. I hated it, it had no hope for the future in it.
Looking back on "More American Graffiti" now, I see the film from a different perspective. You see the second movie wasn't made for the same people as the first movie, it was made for the children who grew up in the 60s, not the ones who grew up in the 70s. Lucas didn't understand who made the first film so popular, he was still writing to his generation and they didn't care about the 50s and early 60s. It was people who grew up in the 50s and their children who watched "Happy Days", not the ex-hippies.
By accident I happened to see large parts of "More American Graffiti" again today and you know, it is a fitting end to the saga. It is not however a teen film and the first one was.
Where are the teen films today, what films talk to the current generation. I am not talking about action films or big films, I am talking about small films that they can call their own and address their hopes? I don't see it. Then again what do they have to look forward to? Oh year, living at home with a hundred thousand dollars in debt if they go to college or maybe just a film about having fun while working at McDonalds or WalMart. Wait, wait, what about working until they die?
UPDATE:
You know what, it just occurred to me what the biggest films aimed at young teenagers today are. "Twilight" and "The Hunger Games" They may have grown up on "Harry Potter"; but as teenagers they are given a different perspective. I guess they also have superhero shows and comics (graphic novels); but, those are not about teenagers except maybe "Heroes". What is realistic in media about the teen experience today?
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Let's talk religion and politics.
I am going to bet that most of my readers have never heard of an ERUV. While it may sound like some sort of scary drone, it is not. It is a Jewish thing, specifically, Jews are not supposed to carry things out of their house on the Sabbath. In order to get around this rule, many communities have placed a wire that runs around their whole community and believe that as long is they stay within the boundaries of that wire, they are not in violation of their biblical requirements regarding the Sabbath. Here is a very short video on it.
Business Insider - There's a hidden wire stretched above American cities - and few people know what it is for.
I first came across this issue about 20 years ago when someone who worked on maintaining them told me about it. I worked with public infrastructure for most of my career and prior to that I worked in real estate with some work in factories, gas stations, restaurants, retail and trade shows. Of all the things I ever worked on, infrastructure is probably the most informative as it connects to everything else. While working in infrastructure I learned about hidden casinos and brothels that operate in our largest cities that are never raided by the police because they are ethnic.
Back to the Eruv, from a religious standpoint it is sort of insincere. While I am not Jewish I still find it insincere to find ways around following the tenants of your religion. I also find it to be a fantastic example of Jesus' complaints about the Jews of his day, of which he was one. Jesus complained that the Jews of his day were hypocrites who used inventive explanations of the law to use the law to do things that were not pleasing to God and then were overly legalistic regarding things that they wanted to stop others from doing.
I should point out that not all Rebbis support the use of Eruvs to get around what they believe the rule to be. It is merely an example of a modernization of biblical law to suit society.
Yahoo - Ben Carson would ‘love’ to see Roe v. Wade overturned, compares abortion to slavery.
The truth is that Ben Carson does not have any chance whatsoever of becoming President and to add to that comment, neither does Rand Paul or Carly Fiorina. None of them have a chance because none of them could get any crossover votes once people know what they believe. The funny thing is that the media, while attacking Trump, has failed to point out any of the crazy things these other three believe.
Here is a quote from Mr. Carson, “I’m a reasonable person, and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen", he then went on to say that rape and incest were not reasonable reasons. While I do not believe abortion is right, I certainly would not claim that a woman who had been raped was being "unreasonable" for wanting one.
Another thing Carson recently said was that homosexuality was a choice. As proof he discussed how straight people came out of prison gay. Getting raped in prison is not the same thing as becoming gay. I would love to see the statistics this guy believes he is reading, they are nonsense. The truth is I am worried about any man who thinks he could be gay under whatever circumstances. Growing up, I never wondered whether being gay might be more to my liking, I liked women. I would like Mr. Carson to find me these adults who went to jail straight and then came out gay, he should have them talk to the cameras about how they made that choice, I will wait. The man is an idiot and unfortunately unsure about his own sexuality.
Yahoo - Fiscal Times - Trump Knocks Carson as a Seventh Day Adventist as Iowa Polls Shift.
This one is just great and the ultimate example of hypocrisy. A few months ago Carson questioned Trumps beliefs in Christianity and then he also went so far as to say that Muslims should not run for President or at least not have a chance at winning. Trump stated that Carson was a Seventh Day Adventist and said that it was a fringe movement. Carson's response was to be offended. Well, the truth is just about every Christian group believes that Seventh Day Adventists are fringe Christians.
Just to be clear, the Seventh Day Adventists have predicted the end of the world multiple times in the 1800s. If any of you remember what I wrote about a few years ago when there was an idiot going around saying the world was going to end, I said that the only true measure according to the bible of a Prophet was whether or not he was ever wrong and that if they were wrong then they were a false prophet under bible law. Nothing has changed in my belief and religions started by false prophets are false religions. I would say the same about Seventh Day Adventists. I don't doubt their sincerity; but, to say that a church that incorrectly predicted the end of the world multiple times was not fringe is silly.
The article seemed confused by why Trump brought up Carsons church. The answer, while confounding to non-believers and the media is relatively simple. Most Christians will not vote for Carson in the end anymore than they would vote for a Muslim. Mr. Carson is being pierced by his own petard.
Business Insider - There's a hidden wire stretched above American cities - and few people know what it is for.
I first came across this issue about 20 years ago when someone who worked on maintaining them told me about it. I worked with public infrastructure for most of my career and prior to that I worked in real estate with some work in factories, gas stations, restaurants, retail and trade shows. Of all the things I ever worked on, infrastructure is probably the most informative as it connects to everything else. While working in infrastructure I learned about hidden casinos and brothels that operate in our largest cities that are never raided by the police because they are ethnic.
Back to the Eruv, from a religious standpoint it is sort of insincere. While I am not Jewish I still find it insincere to find ways around following the tenants of your religion. I also find it to be a fantastic example of Jesus' complaints about the Jews of his day, of which he was one. Jesus complained that the Jews of his day were hypocrites who used inventive explanations of the law to use the law to do things that were not pleasing to God and then were overly legalistic regarding things that they wanted to stop others from doing.
I should point out that not all Rebbis support the use of Eruvs to get around what they believe the rule to be. It is merely an example of a modernization of biblical law to suit society.
Yahoo - Ben Carson would ‘love’ to see Roe v. Wade overturned, compares abortion to slavery.
The truth is that Ben Carson does not have any chance whatsoever of becoming President and to add to that comment, neither does Rand Paul or Carly Fiorina. None of them have a chance because none of them could get any crossover votes once people know what they believe. The funny thing is that the media, while attacking Trump, has failed to point out any of the crazy things these other three believe.
Here is a quote from Mr. Carson, “I’m a reasonable person, and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen", he then went on to say that rape and incest were not reasonable reasons. While I do not believe abortion is right, I certainly would not claim that a woman who had been raped was being "unreasonable" for wanting one.
Another thing Carson recently said was that homosexuality was a choice. As proof he discussed how straight people came out of prison gay. Getting raped in prison is not the same thing as becoming gay. I would love to see the statistics this guy believes he is reading, they are nonsense. The truth is I am worried about any man who thinks he could be gay under whatever circumstances. Growing up, I never wondered whether being gay might be more to my liking, I liked women. I would like Mr. Carson to find me these adults who went to jail straight and then came out gay, he should have them talk to the cameras about how they made that choice, I will wait. The man is an idiot and unfortunately unsure about his own sexuality.
Yahoo - Fiscal Times - Trump Knocks Carson as a Seventh Day Adventist as Iowa Polls Shift.
This one is just great and the ultimate example of hypocrisy. A few months ago Carson questioned Trumps beliefs in Christianity and then he also went so far as to say that Muslims should not run for President or at least not have a chance at winning. Trump stated that Carson was a Seventh Day Adventist and said that it was a fringe movement. Carson's response was to be offended. Well, the truth is just about every Christian group believes that Seventh Day Adventists are fringe Christians.
Just to be clear, the Seventh Day Adventists have predicted the end of the world multiple times in the 1800s. If any of you remember what I wrote about a few years ago when there was an idiot going around saying the world was going to end, I said that the only true measure according to the bible of a Prophet was whether or not he was ever wrong and that if they were wrong then they were a false prophet under bible law. Nothing has changed in my belief and religions started by false prophets are false religions. I would say the same about Seventh Day Adventists. I don't doubt their sincerity; but, to say that a church that incorrectly predicted the end of the world multiple times was not fringe is silly.
The article seemed confused by why Trump brought up Carsons church. The answer, while confounding to non-believers and the media is relatively simple. Most Christians will not vote for Carson in the end anymore than they would vote for a Muslim. Mr. Carson is being pierced by his own petard.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
75,000 HIts and Counting
This blog has now had over 75,000 hits. And none of that is on my mind right now, my next post is. Thanks and be well.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Lets Talk About Gun Control
Whenever you are reading this, I actually wrote it awhile ago. I didn't want to post it immediately in the aftermath of the latest college slaughters as I thought it would be disrespectful of the victims (although less so than the vile statements of Ben Carson and others who did not think the deaths worthy of discussion in any real sense) and because I don't believe we should ever have a knee jerk reaction to big events, in our life or in the world.
Let's start with the Constitution. It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sorry, the Constitution does not give you the right to own a gun to hunt, protect yourself or involve yourself in attacking the government or it's institutions. It says that it is necessary because we needed a "well regulated militia". Now, if you are against the supreme court interpreting the constitution then you would have to be for limiting gun ownership to those who join the National Guard or some other state sponsored militia. By the way, there are limitations on what weapons the National Guard can own. No state has it's own nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Let's ignore the constitution for a second and ask a rational rather than a legal question. What weapons should individuals be allowed to own and for what purposes? Should you be allowed to own a machine gun so that you can rob banks or kill groups of people that you don't like? Are those valid reasons for owning weapons? Should individuals be allowed to own atomic weapons and use them against foreign countries that they don't like? If you are for unlimited weapon ownership than how can you justify stopping foreign countries like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons? Are you consistent in your beliefs?
There are those on the fringe right that claim everyone should have a gun and that somehow we would all be safer. Let's follow that logic a little further, if everyone had access to a nuclear bomb, do you really believe the world would be safer and that nobody would use it for evil and senseless purposes. If you really believe that, would you have allowed the insane shooters of Columbine, Aurora and the more recent shootings to own personal nuclear bombs? That would be insanity and is the insanity of the argument that everyone should be armed.
The standard conservative response to the latest batch of mass shootings is to say that we should get better at finding the mentally disturbed. It does not however address whether or not we should deny the mentally disturbed access to weapons. A knife can be used as a weapon; but, unless you are actively suicidal or homicidal you should probably have access to some type of knife if only to cut up your steak. Perhaps a plastic knife for really disturbed people. Do rational people really think we will all be safer if crazy people can own tanks or cannons or machine guns?
Perhaps the weapons you may own should be limited based on what weapons we can trust you to use properly. Limit the crazy to plastic knives, members of state militias to non-intercontinental weapons and no weapons of mass destruction. I would not allow local police to have military jets with tactical weapons. The police are supposed to protect and serve us, not kill thousands of innocents. I am not even for the militarization of the police and oddly enough, neither are most libertarians or far right conservatives. They should try and be consistent to. If you don't want the police to have certain weapons then you cannot promote individuals owning them.
I have a relative who sold drugs a very long time ago, decades ago. He was convicted of a non-violent felony and is no longer allowed to own a gun. In fact, he will not stay in a place where there are guns and has been on the straight and narrow for decades. I might allow non-violent offenders to own a gun to protect themselves or to hunt; but, if you use a weapon in a crime or violence, yeah, I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun or machine gun or sniper rifle or weapon of mass destruction. Does that belief make me a crazy radical gun controlling commie? I don't think so and the founding fathers would have agreed with me.
Can we at least agree that limitations should be put on weapons ownership by the insane and violent criminals? I don't believe either group would have been allowed in a well regulated militia. The Constitution certainly does not give them a right to own guns. I am pretty sure that it didn't allow slaves to own guns. Do you think all slaves should have been allowed to own guns and how do you think that would have turned out in the south? Heck, it was a crime to teach slaves to read. Wave that confederate flag fascists everywhere.
There is a statement made frequently on the left and the right that with rights comes responsibility. If you agree with that then perhaps we could agree that your right to weapons should be aligned with the responsibility you show for limiting your ownership to valid uses. Now, overthrowing the government is not a valid use, that is called treason and you can go to jail for that, so, it would be irrational to expect to government to protect your right to use weapons against the government. If you think you should have the right to own a weapon for hunting then you should probably be limited to owning hunting weapons and having a hunting license. If you believe you should be able to own a weapon to protect your family then you should be probably limited to weapons that do not cause collateral damage. You don't need a machine gun that is powerful enough to kill the police and innocent bystanders to defend yourself from an intruder into your home. Now, the constitution does not say that you can own weapons for the purpose of hunting or to protect yourself; but, those are things I can support IF limited to people who are sane and not violent criminals.
Sorry, we need to talk about something else. You know where it said "a well regulated militia"? Wouldn't that require that people know how to use a weapon and are trained in it's proper usage as a minimum? In California you need a doctor's note to say that you would benefit from marijuana; but, you don't need a certificate from the state or a private agency to say you have a valid reason for owning a weapon. More conservatives are against marijuana legalization for any reason, including medical than are against unrestricted weapon ownership. How many died from smoking marijuana last year and how many died from being shot?
I would have posted this today possibly, as the Oregon mass killing has had time pass; but, a couple more mass killings in recent days means that I shall delay posting as it is too soon to expect either side in the debate to actually think about their positions. I do not know when enough time will have passed. I shall wait until the news articles have slowed and the mass killings have stopped for a bit.
UPDATE:
So I wrote the above a week or two ago. Here is a question, why did the 2nd amendment bother stating why people should have a right to own arms? Why didn't it say that because you have a right to protect yourself and hunt you should have a right to own arms and limit it to a national need for a well regulated militia? Why did the constitution use the term "well regulated" to further define militias that should have weapons? The term "well regulated" presumes that the writers of the amendment did not believe every militia was or deserving or a right to weapons. Do you really think the founding fathers would have allowed states to give weapons to all their citizens with the express purpose of taking over the federal government?
Unlike the constitution, I believe people should be allowed to own weapons to protect themselves and to hunt. I don't think we should only be allowed to own weapons to protect the country, I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves too. I also believe we should change the constitution to clearly state that. Lets take to a vote. Lets write a law, a constitutional amendment that we can all agree on. What would that look like? What weapons should people be allowed to own and for what purposes? Who should be allowed to own weapons of mass destructions, we did go to war in Iraq over that, should average Americans be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction, how about of mass murder?
Let's start with the Constitution. It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sorry, the Constitution does not give you the right to own a gun to hunt, protect yourself or involve yourself in attacking the government or it's institutions. It says that it is necessary because we needed a "well regulated militia". Now, if you are against the supreme court interpreting the constitution then you would have to be for limiting gun ownership to those who join the National Guard or some other state sponsored militia. By the way, there are limitations on what weapons the National Guard can own. No state has it's own nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Let's ignore the constitution for a second and ask a rational rather than a legal question. What weapons should individuals be allowed to own and for what purposes? Should you be allowed to own a machine gun so that you can rob banks or kill groups of people that you don't like? Are those valid reasons for owning weapons? Should individuals be allowed to own atomic weapons and use them against foreign countries that they don't like? If you are for unlimited weapon ownership than how can you justify stopping foreign countries like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons? Are you consistent in your beliefs?
There are those on the fringe right that claim everyone should have a gun and that somehow we would all be safer. Let's follow that logic a little further, if everyone had access to a nuclear bomb, do you really believe the world would be safer and that nobody would use it for evil and senseless purposes. If you really believe that, would you have allowed the insane shooters of Columbine, Aurora and the more recent shootings to own personal nuclear bombs? That would be insanity and is the insanity of the argument that everyone should be armed.
The standard conservative response to the latest batch of mass shootings is to say that we should get better at finding the mentally disturbed. It does not however address whether or not we should deny the mentally disturbed access to weapons. A knife can be used as a weapon; but, unless you are actively suicidal or homicidal you should probably have access to some type of knife if only to cut up your steak. Perhaps a plastic knife for really disturbed people. Do rational people really think we will all be safer if crazy people can own tanks or cannons or machine guns?
Perhaps the weapons you may own should be limited based on what weapons we can trust you to use properly. Limit the crazy to plastic knives, members of state militias to non-intercontinental weapons and no weapons of mass destruction. I would not allow local police to have military jets with tactical weapons. The police are supposed to protect and serve us, not kill thousands of innocents. I am not even for the militarization of the police and oddly enough, neither are most libertarians or far right conservatives. They should try and be consistent to. If you don't want the police to have certain weapons then you cannot promote individuals owning them.
I have a relative who sold drugs a very long time ago, decades ago. He was convicted of a non-violent felony and is no longer allowed to own a gun. In fact, he will not stay in a place where there are guns and has been on the straight and narrow for decades. I might allow non-violent offenders to own a gun to protect themselves or to hunt; but, if you use a weapon in a crime or violence, yeah, I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun or machine gun or sniper rifle or weapon of mass destruction. Does that belief make me a crazy radical gun controlling commie? I don't think so and the founding fathers would have agreed with me.
Can we at least agree that limitations should be put on weapons ownership by the insane and violent criminals? I don't believe either group would have been allowed in a well regulated militia. The Constitution certainly does not give them a right to own guns. I am pretty sure that it didn't allow slaves to own guns. Do you think all slaves should have been allowed to own guns and how do you think that would have turned out in the south? Heck, it was a crime to teach slaves to read. Wave that confederate flag fascists everywhere.
There is a statement made frequently on the left and the right that with rights comes responsibility. If you agree with that then perhaps we could agree that your right to weapons should be aligned with the responsibility you show for limiting your ownership to valid uses. Now, overthrowing the government is not a valid use, that is called treason and you can go to jail for that, so, it would be irrational to expect to government to protect your right to use weapons against the government. If you think you should have the right to own a weapon for hunting then you should probably be limited to owning hunting weapons and having a hunting license. If you believe you should be able to own a weapon to protect your family then you should be probably limited to weapons that do not cause collateral damage. You don't need a machine gun that is powerful enough to kill the police and innocent bystanders to defend yourself from an intruder into your home. Now, the constitution does not say that you can own weapons for the purpose of hunting or to protect yourself; but, those are things I can support IF limited to people who are sane and not violent criminals.
Sorry, we need to talk about something else. You know where it said "a well regulated militia"? Wouldn't that require that people know how to use a weapon and are trained in it's proper usage as a minimum? In California you need a doctor's note to say that you would benefit from marijuana; but, you don't need a certificate from the state or a private agency to say you have a valid reason for owning a weapon. More conservatives are against marijuana legalization for any reason, including medical than are against unrestricted weapon ownership. How many died from smoking marijuana last year and how many died from being shot?
I would have posted this today possibly, as the Oregon mass killing has had time pass; but, a couple more mass killings in recent days means that I shall delay posting as it is too soon to expect either side in the debate to actually think about their positions. I do not know when enough time will have passed. I shall wait until the news articles have slowed and the mass killings have stopped for a bit.
UPDATE:
So I wrote the above a week or two ago. Here is a question, why did the 2nd amendment bother stating why people should have a right to own arms? Why didn't it say that because you have a right to protect yourself and hunt you should have a right to own arms and limit it to a national need for a well regulated militia? Why did the constitution use the term "well regulated" to further define militias that should have weapons? The term "well regulated" presumes that the writers of the amendment did not believe every militia was or deserving or a right to weapons. Do you really think the founding fathers would have allowed states to give weapons to all their citizens with the express purpose of taking over the federal government?
Unlike the constitution, I believe people should be allowed to own weapons to protect themselves and to hunt. I don't think we should only be allowed to own weapons to protect the country, I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves too. I also believe we should change the constitution to clearly state that. Lets take to a vote. Lets write a law, a constitutional amendment that we can all agree on. What would that look like? What weapons should people be allowed to own and for what purposes? Who should be allowed to own weapons of mass destructions, we did go to war in Iraq over that, should average Americans be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction, how about of mass murder?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)