reflections of a grateful voter

November - the month of Thanksgiving. The real beginning, if you will, of the holiday season. Leaves are changing, you can smell the fireplaces outside, sweaters are being worn, and the time for snuggling is upon us – look out Mr. Baravelli! Children are excited and geared up for celebrations and gifts and, it would seem that, “goodwill towards men” is reappearing. Oh wait, what’s that you say. Ah, yes, November. The first Tuesday in November, to be exact. Election Day. What magnificent irony that the day when the fighting comes to a head, the debates heat up, and we are called upon to choose the lesser of two evils exists in the same month when we should be reminded of our love for one another, a time when the newcomers to this country sat down with those who were here first – not for a heated debate or scandalous commercial but to come together peacefully and accept each other’s differences. What they would think of us now.

After narrowly escaping what I feared was the beginning of the “birds and bees” talk the previous evening with now 7-yr-old Little Baravelli, she surprised me on the way home this past Tuesday when, after explaining to her that she would be joining me at the polls so that I could vote, she asked who I would be voting for. I tried to explain that this is a personal decision and you shouldn’t ask that question. Her innocent voice replied, “Just don’t vote for the woman because she lied!” “How do you know she lied?” I asked, curious as to who at school would have had this discussion in front of children. “I saw it on TV,” she replied.

Can’t they just stay young forever?? Unfortunately, they can’t. So, I took this opportunity as another teaching moment to try to instill some not so young wisdom into the mind of a 7-yr-old. While doing so, I was reminded of why it is my responsibility to vote. In this month of Thanksgiving, I was reminded that I do, indeed, live in a free country, regardless of what is going on in it or around it. The names of the candidates may be littering up my highway and airways, but at least I have a right to choose. There weren’t any riots at my voting polls and everyone in line was having friendly discussions with each other about everyday life, not every day politics. Kindness was in my line as two elderly people with canes were asked to go ahead of everyone else, and no one had a harsh rebuke for it. It didn’t matter that we weren’t all voting the same way. What mattered was that we were all voting. Period. Little Baravelli was excited to go with me and was on her best behavior. She asked appropriate questions and was intent to understand how the process worked, if not why. She even asked the poll worker for a sticker. I’m sure I had a more pleasant experience voting than most. However, I can assure you we will be watching children’s programming tonight and not the news. I can only tolerate so much of the “experience.” I, however, am grateful for my right to vote. The right to take my child with me to take part, in some menial way, in a freedom that many still don’t or can’t participate in and that those before us had to fight for. It is my duty to educate myself on these choices, and not pay attention or get mired down in the dirtiness of the fight. It is also my duty to educate Little Baravelli, as well as Little Baravelli #2, on the process and on being able to discern the truth out of the lies – I’m still working on that one.

So, I encourage us all to participate in the continual change of this great country. Whether our candidate wins this time or not, we will never lose as long as we continue for change and a better future.



You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that.

an open letter to barbara boxer

Senator Boxer, ma’am.

I am a recent emigrant to the State of California. I have been frustrated, knowing that even though I am now one of your constituents, my views were not likely to be represented. I have written you in the past about my concerns over the current federal legislative agenda, including cap and trade, the socialized approach to fixing health care, and the assaults on DOMA. Each time I have written, I have received a response that seemed to politely say “Thanks for the input, but I’m not interested.” I have been frustrated that my concerns seemed to mean so little to either of my Senators. But I wanted to tell you this:

I saw what happened in Massachusetts with Scott Brown, and I’ve seen your poll numbers for the upcoming election. It used to seem that you were guaranteed to keep your seat in perpetuity. I now know that this is no longer the case.

I urge you to start taking the concerns of your constituents seriously, or in the fall, you may no longer have constituents that you can ignore.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

shocked...

The lamest thing about this seems to be how surprised President Obama is that Iran would do such a thing...



As the leader of all illegal activities in Casablanca, I am an influential and respected man.

we interrupt this broadcast...

It's been busier than usual at Chez Shelf, what with teach two courses now in addition to everything else. So that may explain some of the light posting around here. That doesn't mean I am not paying attention to things- including the passing of several celebrities and the whole Sanford debacle. I know, because I've read them, that many other fellow bloggers have been keeping teh interwebs informed and topics thoroughly discussed. However, the things that have concerned me the most are things that we don't often discussed here on The Shelf, and like my friend Laura, we haven't focused on politics at all, as it seems so dark and discouraging of late. We do try to focus on Classic films, culture and history on The Shelf, but we do like to take a general congenial tone, as you can encounter bluster and doom elsewhere. However in the last few days, indeed weeks, things have occurred that concern me- and what is most troubling is the inattention being given to these topics; Iran, Honduras and North Korea.

Sure- you can definitely see it on news sites and the regular political sites- but what about the general public? We are plastered by MJ tributes, Spencer and Heidi (god, I wish I had never found out who those two were), wall to wall celebrity death watch, and Sanford peccadillo debates. I conducted a casual poll among students, not asking or giving opinion- but more asking about general recognition. Out of the 35 students asked, 2/3rds of them knew more or less "something" was happening in Iran, 2 of them knew just what that something was. The rest "hadn't heard." (Again- this is very unscientific- just a casually polling) None of the students asked knew anything about North Korea missile tests aimed at Hawaii or our following their shipping boat and had no clue about Honduras. Sad to say, several students didn't know Honduras was a country. In fact one person was sure she went there on a student trip to Europe during High School. Sigh. Geography issues aside (and I did correct them), this illustrates several things, but chief among them is that despite this being the most tech and internet-savvy generation, people still either don't seek out information or facts, or still rely on television to provide them with news. If they don't pick it up in passing on CNN on their way to E! Entertainment Network or as a scrolling blurb during some Reality show, they may not pick it up at all.

I think the topics of North Korea and Iran are very troubling and we should all pay attention. We should be mourning the loss of freedoms and the death of protesters in Iran. We, and by we I mean our Leaders, should have taken a strong position from the get go- not a wait and see who will win attitude. The most recent item that has me paying rapt attention is the issue of Honduras and their Constitutional and legal excise of power in depowering their former President. If you haven't been paying attention, Mel Zelaya was attempting to micromanage and push through a referendum to ensure eliminating the Constitutional term limits law, which would allow him to pull a "Hugo" and basically become yet another tin-pot dictator. Hugo Chavez was even "helping" by providing the ballots and promising to make sure things went "smoothly."

So what happened? Well, allow me to quote Mary O'Grady in her piece in the Wall Street Journal:
"The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica." (O'Grady, Honduras Defends Its Democracy, The Wall Street Journal)

OK- first thing to understand- this is the Honduran Constitution, laws and process. Second thing is: THIS WAS NOT A COUP. This was how their government dealt with an elected official seeking to grab power and considering himself above the law, and perhaps engaging the assistance of a foreign power to do so. The other branches of the Honduran government followed the constitution to the letter, and even people in his own party were telling him not to try and circumvent their constitution. This is what our own Founders themselves were talking about in terms of where the power resides, and laying down rules and laws and ways to remove those who would circumvent them from office. There was no "military coup" like the press and the other leftist thugs like Chavez and Fidel would want to make it out to be. The Legislature and Supreme Court of Honduras instructed the military in what they are to do and instituted an interim President.

Now- here is the kicker: our fearless Leader- he who shall be OBAyed, has now gone on record to defend Zelaya and say there was a coup. Our own President is taking the side of these leaders- guys who were in the vein of say, leaders from the era of the 80s in Chile for example. So let me get this straight: when hundreds of people fighting for their freedoms, that our country emulates, you can't make a statement or take a position of strong support- that's meddling. But when a leader is circumventing the supreme court, people, legislature, and constitution to ensure lifetime rule like Hugo Chavez - we've got to step right in and make sure that leader doesn't get LEGALLY ousted by his government- That's statesmanship. OK- I've got it now. Do you?Why is that other countries of the world are now better at demonstrating the freedoms and Constitutional ideals that we claim to cherish?

And today the story has taken a further turn: The UN is demanding that Zelaya be restored. In fact President Obama is quoted in the story also as saying: "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections." While on the face of the statement, it seems reasonable, however he is utterly and completely wrong about one thing- there was no military coup as such. This was a Constitutional means of ousting an over-reaching politician. the Honduran people and their representative legislature and their Supreme Court displayed the whole checks and balances thing in action. They are the ones who directed the military to act or not act. There is no military leader in charge, nor was there ever one in charge- they've elected an interim President.

But why should we be surprised? Leftists not only have a fondness for power, but also for overlooking it's own over-reaching politicians and leaving them right where they are as to not loose power. But this is getting ridiculous. So now it's ok for the UN to tell a democracy that their Constitution needs to be circumvented? So if Zelaya goes back- does that mean that the UN or Castro and Chavez will "enforce" his return? Or worse- "enforce" his bypass of their constitution to eliminate the constitutionally imposed term limits? Now the UN is in the position of promoting "hyper-presidencies" as the left is beginning to call democratically elected leaders who get into power and then do everything, legal or illegal, to stay in power. Again- in a Democracy- does the power reside with the people or the Executive? Since he was removed by Constitutional means, by another of the Constitutional branches of government and according to their law and process- he no longer holds any power. I am so sick of the idiots in the world who pass off their raw grabs for power under the guise of populism. And even more, I am sickened by the naked ambition of our own leader who is aligning himself with the thugs of the world and thereby opposing the freedoms and the peoples of the world.

But what do you think? I suppose after a break here at The Shelf, it may have been coming on strong to rant this way, but I decided to no longer be silent. Years ago, when Wolf and I started - we had a simple motto: Think for yourself. It's time to remind myself and others of that motto that has never changed here. Perhaps it's time to speak up about these things again when occasion warrants and to ask questions. Oh, we'll continue to have fun and focus on Classic films and culture and history, but we can't forget that sometimes politics needs to take a back seat to our own basic freedoms and the laws and principles that we, as Americans, say we emulate and cherish. Freedom, as I believe and as our Founders verbalized is not a particular thing only allowed to those ready for it, culturally conditioned for it or given by a government. Rather it is a basic Human right, or as someone else better expressed it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Do we believe those words? I do. And no amount of economic disaster, leftist chic populism, fear, or trendy socialistic policy will EVER change that. SO why do we decide to adapt or reverse engineer these rights to fit someone else's idea of power or public policy. The Founders may have lived several hundred years ago, but if you know anything about them, you know they reached far back into history and weighed out the best and worst of civilizations and governments to provide us with not only the farsighted enumeration of rights we have today, but the means to continue to right wrongs against the rights of our citizens. And in the case of our nations history, make sure that those rights should not be abridged by slavery, gender or race.

So tell us what you think in the comments thread and forgive the rant. We return you to regularly scheduled episode of "So You Think my Fat Ass can Groom Dogs, Dance, Date, Lose Weight have Talent and Survive the Jungle," already in progress.



Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

exercise your right...

The Shelf is closed today for election day- and we encourage American citizens everywhere to get out there and exercise your right to vote. And special thanks to all those who came before us who secured that right and special thanks to those men and women who preserve that right today.



You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that.

vdh is spot on again...

From Victor Davis Hanson's most recent article, The Campaign Takes a Strange Turn on Work and Days via Pajamas Media:

"Why do so many conservatives think that an Obama-elect might be prove a centrist, and so why do they use phrases like “I pray” or “I hope” that Obama might turn out, well, not to be Obama?
Jimmy Carter did exactly what he promised: raised taxes, grew the government, told the world he had no inordinate fear of communism, trashed our allies as retrograde right-wing authoritarians—and we got the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage-taking (have we forgotten that the “Great Satan” originated as a slur against Nobel laureate Carter?), communism in Central America, the Cambodian Holocaust, and spikes of 12% inflation, 18% interest, and 7% unemployment.
For his first two years (until 1994 Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ revolution, and Dick Morris’s ‘triangulation’), Bill Clinton, as promised, raised taxes, raised spending, tried to ram through socialized medicine, and by fiat wanted to force the military to accept those openly gay.
So why would any conservative think that Obama—friend of Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright, veteran of mysterious campaigns in which rivals in 1996 and 2004 simply dropped out or were forced out, erstwhile advocate of repealing NAFTA, controlling guns, stopping new drilling and nuclear plants, zealot for bringing all troops home by March 2008, advocate of a trillion dollars in new spending, and raising the tax burden on the 5% who now pay 60% of the aggregate income taxes, supporter of more oppression studies and racial reparations—would not likewise try to govern as he has lived the last 20 years?
Why would anyone think that an Obama would not wish to enact the visions of those who first backed him—the Moveon.org crowd, ACORN, The Huffington Post, Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, a Chris Dodd or Barney Frank—rather than the late pilers-on like Colin Powell or Scott McClellan? We should remember that, unlike the cases of Carter and Clinton, Obama would have both houses of Congress, and a (Republican) precedent of the federal government intervening into the free market, in the manner of 1932."

It is worth reading the whole thing. As always, wise words from Hanson.

UPDATE:
Also along the same lines, check out this article from Mark R. Levin, The Obama Temptation over at The Corner on National Review:

"Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands. The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care."

Take time to read the whole thing. (Thanks and Hat Tip to Laura for the article)




Yet Conservatism is pretty simple, and is based on just a few principles. Human nature remains constant, and thus is predictable across time and space. There is a certain humility that comes with conservatism, since the ways of the world, despite the technological chaos, are constant.

fred said right...

Fred Thompson on the choice we face.



This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

the chess match has begun...

Many have been watching (or at least paying attention) to the Democratic Convention this week- and it was historic. Now the chess game that is the Presidential race has gotten even more interesting. McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. My picks from the very beginning have been completely out of it for some time now, so this was beginning to be a somewhat bleak campaign to endure. Now- I think the stakes are higher and I think that a choice I want to make, as opposed to a choice I should make, has appeared. Well played, Sen. McCain, sir- well played. Although I was banking on Gov. Romney (and hoping for Gov. Romney) I think this is a brilliant move and a great pick.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Gov. Palin- here are some excellent articles with some information about her: Foxnews, ABCnews, Real Clear Politics and Reuters. Here is the official website for the Alaskan Governor, although it's getting slammed right now and isn't coming up - it will later. She is a lifetime member of the NRA, pro-life, pro-drilling and smart on energy. She is a strong fiscal conservative, with a record for reform and fighting corruption. And unlike many other people running, she has served as mayor and has executive experience as a governor. She holds a degree in journalism and has worked as a sports reporter and alongside her husband as a commercial fisherman. She is an avid sportswoman herself and has a son in the military. She and her husband have 5 kids (one recently born and not in this earlier family picture).

I knew of her for sometime now, but really started paying attention this year after the state sued the government over the bogus listing of the "polar bear as a threatened species, arguing the designation will slow development in the state" (Reuters). And her position on energy and her challenge to Harry Reid and the democrats on drilling.
Here is her appearance on The Glenn Beck Show on Headline News: good stuff.



Well played, Senator McCain, well played.



I want you to let the ballyhoo boys loose, plan a celebration, and declare a holiday.

everything old is stupid again

I know Laura (and her daughter) has mentioned this before at her Musings site (she's gone fishing- so I'm trying to do my insignificant part), but I can't help but be irritated at the stupidity of this article from MSNBC about a year long moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area in South Los Angeles.
The reason for the ban? Basically, according to city council, in this "impoverished" area of L.A., there are too many fast food places. "Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said." Translation: the City Council thinks the poor in L.A. can't find a grocery store and can't cook. I find the whole attitude fairly racist and buying into stereotypes if you ask me. Apparently the City Council, and by extension the Mayor, feel that the residents of South Los Angeles are too stupid to figure out how to feed their family.

The article states:
"Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the measure and represents much of South Los Angeles in her 9th District, says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order."
Can the economics of the area support more than regular grocery stories and fast food restaurants? How do they know that full service restaurants offer nothing but healthy food? Most places service "kid friendly" meals with hamburgers and fries at regular sit down restaurants- so does that mean the City Council will then proceed to dictate what can be on the menu when this latest hair-brained scheme doesn't work? I don't see fancy sit-downs sprouting all over the place anytime soon, and I don't see the residents patronizing expensive places in such an "impoverished area".
And how does the City Council of L.A. define a fast food restaurant? Are they only targeting national and regional chains? Or will they extend it to local mom and pop hamburger stands? There are plenty of those, hot dog stands and taco trucks all around. Anybody who has seen Diners, Drive-In's and Dives (love that show) has seen big old hamburgers at these Mom and Pop joints that make your head spin. In a good way. So how do you control local places? Do they intend to prevent free enterprise there as well?

According to the article, "If the moratorium is passed, Perry wants to lure restaurateurs and grocery retailers to area....A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South L.A. restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles." How do they exactly propose to do that in a heavily taxed state, with increased government controls and restrictions - especially in the food service and grocery industry, and in area that cannot necessarily support them? Is West L.A. more financially able to support other restaurants? The fact is, if a business or chain could be in business, and be economically viable and make profits in the area, there would be more. The whole idea of wanting business to come in, that depend on making a profit, by suppressing another (and similar) type of business - should really send up warning flags to anyone trying to make a living. It is, basically, an anti-capitalist measure, which I'm sure doesn't bother them a bit.

There have been several studies demonstrating that poorer families choose less expensive food items at grocery stores, including less expensive, fattier meats. It doesn't have anything to do with choosing it because they don't have other options- it's because they may think that may be the only option within their budget. There are other ways, other types of protein and meats that have been suggested in these studies, that fit the same budget profile, that allow families to include healthier options in their diet. These studies also suggest that families can by fresh produce etc, at discount chain grocery stores, than smaller or specialty health food stores, which tend to be more expensive. Walmart, anyone? If you can have a Walmart, or such place in the community, which better transportation access (bus stops, etc)- you might see some improvement. It's still a community resources and money issue. In other words, at the base of the problem, it's an economic issue, not always an availability issue. What the City Council should be looking at is ways to address the economics, tax problems and financial problems of the area, and freeing the area to more market activity. Create more opportunity by decreasing the government footprint, as it were.
However- when socialists and others of the same mindset in the past have seen a problem with society, they've tackled it from an angle of government intrusion and take over - which, by the way, is what the Constitution was originally designed to prevent. This is but another attempt, in a succession of many, to try government dictates again to tackle a problem. Case in point- the recent Ethanol fiasco which created so many more problems, including increased food prices!

Since the problem is not only economics, but education in the sense of families learning how do things like cooking healthier, learning creative ways to budget etc., the solution isn't to clamp down on capitalism and free enterprise, which is exactly what the City Council is doing. Make no mistake- they may dress it up as an approach to solving obesity, but at the root of the situation is government intrusion: You are too stupid to live and take care of yourself the way we think you ought to, therefore we are going to tell you what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
And guess what- there are those who would rather the government do it for them. It's way easier! Case in point: (again from the article) "Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more. 'They should have better things for children,' she said. 'This fast-food really fattens them up.' " How about stop giving your kids fast food for dinner, lady?

I am not a french fry person. I'd rather have a baked potato or have 'em mashed. But that's just me. It really has nothing to do with health, although it should. The thing is, my family can't afford to eat out at fast food places all the time- and my wife and I both work. We have three growing boys, and our time and budget is just as stretched thin as anyone else's. We've found it's cheaper to shop, cook, prepare, freeze or bake as much as we can- and that means leftovers get eaten. That's just how it is, and I imagine how it is for millions of families across the US. Do we eat as healthy as we should? No, not as much as we can- but we are trying harder. We are trying to be better at what we buy at the store and how to fix it. And if the kids ask for chips or candy- we sometimes say yes, but mostly we say no. It's supposed to be a treat- not a way of life. And if a government body came in and said- "Sorry, we're taking over and telling you what and where to eat"- not only would I be insulted and offended, I'd tell them to stuff it. While the author of the article mentioned only one resident in favor of the ban, aren't you the least bit curious as to why that is? Could it be they found more people oppossed it? So what is the solution? Helping families by tackling economic burdens (especially those created by the government?) or just telling McDonald's "Sorry- you can't come in here" ? Is attacking "Big Fast Food" just like attacking "Big Oil", "Big Business" etc - a convenient straw man that allows the government to obfuscate the problems they are creating or can't solve themselves? How about other ideas- grocery store start-up incentives, tax incentives, etc- or is that just too capitalist for the L.A. City Council?

More here, here, here and here.
What do you think? Please feel free to comment and sound off.



Everything you see I owe to spaghetti.

it's all relative...

Warning: The following is a commentary. It is not a film review, but an opinion. It may contain humor or satire, it may contain logic and rational arguments. Those easily offended by such things should proceed with caution.

Very recently I watched an interesting documentary about the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) entitled This Film Is Not Yet Rated. I was very interested to see it as it was about the ratings of film, the ratings board and Jack Valenti, who died earlier this year. I am no fan of Valenti, but I couldn't help but watch this film and be amazed at what a hit piece it was on Valenti, Middle America, Religion, and the studios. And rather than walk away from the film with thoughts on censorship and why things are rated the way they are, I came away with more questions than ever and a reaffirmation of things I had often considered about human nature and power.

Let me start off by saying this is not a review, but commentary that arose from watching the film. Secondly let warn anyone who might wish to see the film: it does contain some nudity and language, which, if you've seen "edgy" documentaries in the last 10 years you should come to expect. I was a little peeved in the sense that I didn't necessarily care to see some of that stuff and didn't go see a movie because of it's content, why are you shoving it in my face in the guise of an "intelligent discussion" or "documentary? (The problem I had was that it seemed overkill- "Hey this is NC-17, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this! You couldn't see it in the theater, but here it is for you to see now!) All I can say is: Thank goodness they haven't come for my remote control or removed my fast forward button.

Next, let me add that I myself am somewhat mystified by the MPAA. As a historian I know how they came about, I understand Valenti's political connections, etc. But I have often had the experience of sitting through a PG-13 film and wondered why it wasn't rated "R" or, in a different film, why it wasn't a "PG". I think part of the main argument of director/writer Kirby Dick's film addresses the arbitrariness, secrecy, and bias of the MPAA and raises the question: Should it be more open, or public? Valid point, one that I think I agree with on the surface of the argument. Should the system be more transparent? Perhaps. But there is where the nonsense begins.

The approach taken by Dick and many of those he interviewed, is that the ratings system is
"fascist" (it was called that by one "interviewee"), and is secret and controlled by corporations, etc. In fact there were so many tired lines out of the cultural elite playbook, that I stop counting them. But here is a few, paraphrased, except where in quotations:
1. Rather see sex on screen, than violence.
2. We should be more European, the European are so much more sophisticated/advanced.
3. We should have "experts, rather than parents" rate movies.
4. Money, corporations, studios are evil.
5. Films with a military "gung-ho" approach are a "form of brainwashing and it has led our society to be militaristic."
6. "Two or three corporations control the information in this country."
7. The government is better suited to handle ratings.
8. Americans have a problem with sex and/or pleasure.
9. Did we say we should be more like Europeans?

Yawn.
I've heard it all before, and the arguments made in the film (not necessarily by Kirby Dick-I want to be fair) by some of the people interviewed where so conspiratorial in tone, so irrational, so lop-sided, so circular in their reasoning they would make Oliver Stone confused. Ok- maybe not Stone, but you get the picture. Here are a few thoughts that I have based on some of these arguments:

1. If the ratings system was devised as a way to guide parents (which somehow works with video games to a degree if reports are to be believed, and these same elites have no problem with that!), why should there not be parents on the board. Should the board be "refreshed" every so often? Yes? Should parents be excused in favor of lawyers and bureaucrats? NO. The argument was made in the film that the MPAA ratings board is "Unconstitutional". This is laughable in and of itself, because it's not a government entity, and the ratings are not binding. They can be accepted or not. But to suggest that the government would be more suited to the task and that somehow passes "Constitutional muster" is a joke.

2. Money and corporations and republicans were the big bad guys in the film. In fact, one individual was specifically identified as a republican. Knowing that they are a minority in Hollywood, why was that person so identified on screen and no one else's party or political affiliation given. Jack Valenti was a LBJ man, but except for one brief mention, you'd think he had lived at some secret central republican compound and controlled things from his "undisclosed location." He was a democrat! And I guarantee that many of the people they were after in the film were democrat as well, which may be why their political affiliation was never brought up. Jack Valenti was, in my opinion, a political opportunist and enjoyed being in power and feted by those in power. This is also expressed in the film. Irregardless, someone, either Valenti or a MPAA spokesperson, should be able to comment. I would think they would be someone to question. But, Valenti, nor any other individual involved with the MPAA has any time in the film, other than previous footage or when they are being "identified". Valenti retired in 2004 and died in 2007. The film was released in fall of 2006. Are you telling me they couldn't talk to him during production, or anyone associated with him? Yes, they used footage of interviews, but as anyone knows, those can be (and were) edited for maximum effect.

Money is as at the root of this thing as it is power. If it is only the artist's vision or if it is about telling their story, how do they feel about piracy and the MPAA's efforts towards addressing that issue? Some that I've seen have fervently been in favor in clamping down on piracy, downloading, or otherwise sharing the film. It was given cursory mention towards the end. But you can not escape the fact that one of the main gripes that if their film gets a less than favorable rating that may prevent them from receiving advertising funds. Not to mention hamper box office or DVD sales. But I'm not convinced. Unrated or uncensored DVDs outsell their rated counterparts by a small margin. Is that because it's unrated, or because typically there are more special features on such discs? And for that matter, pay per view, HBO, etc routinely show films and original programing that gets into such rated territory. I don't find fault with film makers worried about money. After all they should see a return on their efforts. But just like everyone else, earn it. Don't get up on a soapbox and grandstand to force people to accept or see your film if they normally wouldn't want to see it. Too much carping on money, evil corporations and the old saw about 2 or 3 corporations controlling everything is hypocritical and tired.

3. The beginning of the film was tied to sex. "Sex should be natural, should be seen, should be on the screen. We Americans are backwards and puritanical. We should be more like Europeans." I heard several times: "What do we think teenagers are doing anyway? We aren't showing them anything they have seen before!" Just because, it was argued, they see the acts on the screen, doesn't mean they are going to immediately go out and engage in all this activity anyway. But, herein, lies the problem. They also said, sometimes in the same breath, it's wrong that we can show violence and not sex. We worry more about the violence. Then later on in a section devoted to violence, they tried to make the argument that the more violence onscreen can lead to those acts being imitated in real life, and that poses a threat. Uh, what? So which is it? If you see it, you do- or you see it, but you don't do it? You can't claim one way for sex (a physical act) on the screen and not for violence (another physical act.)

I personally would rather have BOTH rated and am uncomfortable with my children watching excessive (non-cartoonish) violence or sex in a movie. That's why I watch and oversee what they watch and what movies they see. The ratings should help me have an idea of what's in a film, rather than me relying on a teenager to tell me: "It's OK dad. There's nothing bad in it. Can I go?" Anyone who has a teenager, or has been a teenager should honestly know better than to trust that statement. The ratings should help the theater employees (if they are doing their job) to make sure a teenager isn't trying to sneak into a movie they swore on their life they weren't going to, even if I am doing everything, including driving them to the theater and back and reading a book in the car. In other words, the ratings system, ideally should be a way to help give parents information and theaters to support choices parents have made. Telling me, I should chill and that "everybody does it" is an argument that hasn't washed since baby boomers first tried to borrow dad's Thunderbird to go to the sock hop, and it ain't flying now.

The thing that isn't being addressed is the ways in which sex is tied into politics, whether artificially or not. That was something that came out several times in the film when some film makers commented that the ratings system was a way to "stifle" the voices of gay or straight film makers who felt like they weren't "represented" and that censoring their film, because of sex scenes was because raters or the people behind them, would lose political control, or wanted to suppress them. I recall the Oscars of early 2006, when producers and elitists insisted that Brokeback Mountain be given the Best Picture award. When Crash won, there was a general sense of outrage among commentators and insiders. Some of these films are made by companies, whose express purpose is to produce films to spark "change" in society. That's all well and good. I just resent in when someone shoves a pile of crap down my throat and tells me it's change and I will damn well like it. Besides, who's "change" is it? I don't have a problem with people doing their thing. I just have a problem when I am forced to like it, incorporate it or forced to never say anything negative about it. That, my friends, is fascism.

4. We should be more like the Europeans? Please. That is not the way to win me over. What is wrong with being who we are? Increasingly in our country, we are told, not only how bad our country is, but how good the Europeans are. I don't have a problem with Europe. I would love to visit there someday. But, in the words of the great Dennis Miller, being the head of the European Union is like being Valedictorian of your summer school. I lived is South America for a while, and saw first hand the love/hate feelings some people have for Americans. We are loved and hated precisely because we have freedom, we have more plenty and less poor in our nation. We are and have been doing some things right, and some want that as well. Others would rather destroy it. The idea of being "European" is a fantasy that not even Europeans that I personally know would recognize. It's a fantasy that began with post modernism in the 50s and has carried on today.

5. The government? Seriously? The government should take over? The argument was: The secrecy of the board is guarded so they can't be influenced. This is wrong. If the government was in charge, then it would be experts and a transparent process. PUH-LEEZE. Government can't be influenced? Isn't that what cultural elites piss and moan about 24/7 - about how the evil corporations influence the government? And by the way- this liberal fantasy about how corporations and businesses are inherently evil is a little too "hippie" for me. Grow up and grow some. People can be bad. People can make wrong choices and evil choices, whether they are in business or government. But you cannot extrapolate the specific to the general whole. The film makers interviewed in the film weren't mad so much because someone judged their work (some did mention that), but they seemed more upset because studios don't like to back NC-17 movies (although I've seen several commercials of some of those films on television) and will reduce their advertising budget (and I've read some film makers who accepted the R or NC-17 rating almost as a badge of honor). Also we've seen the effects of regulation in at the expense of freedom, common sense and money. Cultural elites are all about regulation when it suits them. Wanna see?

Here's just some examples:
Cigarettes: Regulate or outlaw
Marijuana & other drugs: Decriminalize
Movies: Uncensor. especially in regards to sex
Video Games, Talk Radio and "unregulated" newsmedia: censor
Oil, nuclear power, vehicles: bad
Biofuel (that's starting to prove costly) or no cars: good
Transfats: Eliminate
Tofu: Unfettered access
So which is it, Hollywood? What's your deal? The bottom line is that cultural elites are relativistic and their views are relative. Everything is relative to their lives or pretensions.

I agree, in principle, that the ratings should be less arbitrary and more open. I also agree that perhaps paid lifetime positions on the board isn't smart. But you can't seriously expect the government to solve those problems. Besides, the ratings do help. Some fairly understandable guidelines are publicly known. They help me know what I should take a careful look at before I, or my family go see a movie, if I personally don't believe that it is appropriate or good for my family. While some think I shouldn't be allowed to make judgements or moral decisions, I stress it is vital to me to be able to do so, without anyone telling me what to think. In a capitalistic society, I am able to make my choices and opinion known with my dollar. And in the end, I think that ticks off cultural elites more than anything else.




I'll see my lawyer about this as soon as he graduates from law school.

the beautiful people

People, Us and similar trash should be published once a month in a single periodical called "Chronicles of the Stupid". Mrs. Flywheel and other ladies in my family love these rags for a reason that is well beyond my grasp. We tend to have a copy or two collecting dust around the house at any given time and when I happen upon one of the things, I feel like I have to go take a shower. I'm sorry for coming on strong about this stuff, but it's exactly how I feel. Every time I stand in the check out line of my local grocer, my eyes are littered with headlines about who's dating who and who lost 20 pounds. For cryin' out loud, I wouldn't care about that sort of thing if it were about close friends of mine. Sit back and think about it. How much of the "news" reported today has something to do with Hollywood and her elite? It's well more than this country needs and something should be done about it.

The last century was filled with folks of fame and fortune who, for better or for worse, were role models to the country. In the early days, most of these role models were very careful of how they were portrayed by the media and perceived by the public due to the simple notion of human decency. This flew out the window with yesterday's wash-water at some point which can't be pinned to a specific person or event. If it could, I'd personally find Doc Brown and his DeLorean and give him the plutonium needed to go back and reverse the trauma. What happened to the respectful Hollywood of yesteryear when your favorite stars spoke out against communism and other atrocities? Now-a-days we're stuck with Cameron Diaz prancing around with a purse emblazoned with a slogan made famous by Chairman Mao. Is it stupidity? Is it ignorance? Is it arrogance? Maybe it's a little of all three. Such dingbats as Sean Penn prance around in their smug (shout out to South Park) writing op-ed pieces for left wing publications and about how the voice of the American liberal is stifled by the neo-con administration and it's atrocities against the Constitution. Mr. Penn declared, "We will be snowed no more." I don't know about any of you, but I fail to see where any voices have been stifled. If I could figure out a way to do it, I would've turned down the volume on some of these goobers a long time ago.

Our rich and famous who have traditionally served as the face of our country have been tooling around the world too long in the guise of Scaramouche when the rest of us in the states just see Bozo. Where have they gotten their system of values? Sometimes I just blow it off with a mild scoff, but this is a serious issue that must be addressed. There is no doubt that entertainment effects the development of the younger generation. I see it everywhere when I'm out and about and as my children get a day older every 24 hours I get more and more worried about this influence on them. It is important that we play a large role in the lives of our children. They need to learn about life and it's mysteries from us, not Sheryl Crow or Rosie O'Donnell. Values are timeless, yet pop culture changes their interpretation every decade or so. The popular consensus of what is good and bad, right and wrong are changed slightly every so often by that dirty tactic of "pushing the envelope". Where did the envelope come from and who said we wanted it pushed? The values that were taught to my father and his father are the values I should teach my children. Right and wrong does not change, so why do the Hollywood elite feel the need to mask it as if it does? It makes me wonder who taught them their values. Sherlock Holmes would point the finger at Prof. Moriarty, but I'm sure it is a mix of the three ingredients I mentioned earlier: stupidity ignorance and arrogance.

Stupidity speaks for itself. Forest Gump told us that, "Stupid is as stupid does." and there sure are plenty out there doin' some stupid. Being an actor doesn't make you smart. Heck, being a scientist doesn't make you smart. It only means you're intelligent in that field or those relating to it. Common sense and practicality have to be taught outside of schools of higher learning. To be fair to those I am trampling upon, I feel there is a fair amount of ignorance involved in their actions as well. A large amount of today's Hollywood is a product of life in the Hollywood bubble. There are plenty of working actors and actresses today who have been acting since a young age and quite a few who are second generation thespians. This would lead me to believe that the lax values of the previous Hollywood generation were surrounding these folks from a young age making them "come by it honestly". Lastly and mostly, I feel that arrogance plays a large role in the issues we face with today's Hollywood elite. To feel that your fame makes you a spokesperson for the people with an inside line to truth and pure, flawless understanding is the height of arrogance. Have you ever noticed how folks with no more political than you or I get on television and pound our foreheads about the rights and wrongs of the current administration's foreign policy? What about when they tell us about how great and righteous they are while keeping two nostrils high in the air? The worst is how they flood media with their "thoughts" on things to the point that most folks who do no research on their own except the poison fed to them and begin to chant along. Then in the few instances when some of these goons mouth off and the "lowly commoners" of the public react to it, they portray themselves as martyrs and speak of how they stand strong against insurmountable odds. I just can't figure out how they feel like they are the lone voices crying out in the wilderness when they are backed by and reprinted over and over by most of mainstream media. Their thoughts ad beliefs are slipped into the dialogue of movies and television and stated as fact which causes the weak minded to absorb these ideas and grow closer to believing.

We can't change the "rich and famous". Heck, we could never effectively boycott their products either. The truth is , we are not the America we once were. I often ask my grandfather about what the country was like during WWII and he always starts off by saying, "This country came together." We are certainly not together. We no longer share the same values as a country which leads to us not sharing the same culture. We are truly divided and though they don't hold the entire burden alone, the Hollywood society and the bile it spews does not help any. If we want to take this country back as a united people, we need to drop the "hyphenated American" status , the battle over who owes who and who's political party is more evil. Above all, we need to put an end to the tight grip that pop culture has on our society. W e need to put an end to allowing the self appointed "envelope pushers" dictate our values. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Free speech be damned, it's wrong for an American to aid in producing propaganda films for an anti-American government. It's wrong to negotiate with terrorists under the banner of "diplomacy". It's also wrong for someone who has gained fortune in this great country to become a mouthpiece for a world class thug who makes his fortune from the misfortune of others. I don't know if you realize this, but a majority of the current college-age citizens in this country worship these fools. You would think that kids smart enough to be in college would see through these buffoons, but they cheer on the Hollywood "emperors" as they prance around in the clothes of their arrogance and the tailors like Castro and Chavez laugh all the way to the political bank. Useful idiots all.


I didn't intend to come on here today and engage in an endless and unorganized tirade, but it was one of those days where I happened across something that struck a nerve and set me off. Your regularly scheduled Shelf programming will resume soon enough. To those of you still reading after all of my street-corner preaching today: thank you for your perseverance and your tenacity.




Please feel free to comment if the need strikes you.

“If God doesn't destroy Hollywood Boulevard, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology ”

i like mine medium with a hint of marsala....

I came across an article today written by the one and only Ted Nugent. I don't follow him or his politics, but I am aware of his affection for eating the flesh of animals. This is something we have in common. He mentions something about the battle of right and left and makes a good point. Contrary to popular belief, the conservative stance is pro-choice and the left opposes this. I guess I could clarify that by saying that Mr. Nugent , or "The Nuge", implies that the conservative stance is that conservatives want the freedom to choose how they want to live and let others choose how they wish to live. The left wishes to have the choice made for all of us, according to Mr. Nugent. It's an interesting thought and makes a lot of sense. I found the article to be worth the 3 minute read and encourage you to see for yourself. The article is from the Waco(TX) Tribune which is his local paper and includes a mention about someone being fired from Paul McCartney's road crew for eating a hamburger. Now if the guy agreed not to eat meat as part of employment, then that's his own fault. I still think it is somewhat disturbing and gives a glimpse into the mentality possessed by he and his peers.

It seems more and more that a majority of the left-leaning thinkers in this country want to force their ideology onto everyone they find. When I see a hippie, I just shake my head and grin. I don't run over there and make him bathe and get a job and a haircut. I let him live how he chooses. As long as he breaks no laws or infringes upon my rights, he should be able to live as he chooses. On the other hand, he will most likely lecture me on big business, the "new world order", and the war machine until I faint from the smell of Doritos, Kool-Aid, and weed coming from his hairy maw. At the other end of the spectrum, their are a few small contingents of right-leaning nut bags who act the same as the aforementioned hippie. I've only personally experienced a small number of this type of conservative, though. By small, I mean two. The Mainstream Media is quick to spotlight the Westboro Church "ultra crazy 44th black belt conservatives" and label them as Republicans and Bush voters when they are nothing more than a collection of looneys who have lost their keeper. I know there will be some who read this that will accuse the right of doing the same with extreme liberal factions, but I beg to differ. The difference is that while the right has tiny pockets of this problem, the left has tiny pockets of sanity. Make no mistake about it. I encourage everyone to think for themselves and if the left is the side for you then, by all means, be there and be well. There are groups of folks on the left who look at hippies and lefty wackos the same way I do, but they are few and far between. I appreciate them and open dialogue with all of those who have opposing views because it is through that dialogue that we reach compromise, understanding and harmony. I am neither a registered Republican or Democrat. I vote how I choose. It just so happens that my desire to make that choice is a conservative trait.



Please feel free to comment if the need strikes you.

“Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians - except for the occasional mountain lion steak. ”

Dennis Miller is my favorite pundit

He was great as the "weekend update guy" on SNL and I loved his HBO show. I hated it when his show MSNBC was cancelled and rejoiced when he landed a radio gig. My all time favorite "Miller moments" though, is when he makes quick guest shots on other shows to do nothing more than rant. Dennis Miller has an uncanny ability to truly verbalize his feelings and what I feel to be the feelings of most Americans without a pulpit to preach from so-to-speak. I blog, but I don't reach millions with my thoughts. That's why I am appreciative of Mr. Miller. I know that when he speaks, he typically shares my views, expresses them well and reaches a lot farther than I do. The following clip is just another example of that talent of his. You may have seen it. It's a classic Dennis Miller rant where he tells us how he really feels about Las Vegas Sen. Harry Reid. Be prepared to pay attention because he's preachin' in this one. All I have to say is "Hallelujah!"




Please feel free to comment if the need strikes you.


“Politicians in government should be changed regularly, like diapers, for the same reason.”