Mighty Trucks of Midnight: Bruce Cockburn

photo: F LoBuono

Bruce Cockburn -- Mighty Trucks Of Midnight --June 1991. Los Angeles.
Found on:
Nothing But A Burning Light (1991)

Lyrics:

Used to have a town but the factory moved away

Down to Mexico where they work for hardly any pay

Used to have a country but they sold it down the river

Like a repossessed farm auctioned off to the highest bidder

Mighty trucks of midnight

Moving on

Moving on

Wave a flag, wave the bible, wave your sex or your business degree

Whatever you want -- but don't wave that thing at me

The tide of love can leave your prizes scattered

But when you get to the bottom it's the only thing that matters

Mighty trucks of midnight

Moving on

Moving on

I believe it's a sin to try and make things last forever

Everything that exists in time runs out of time some day

Got to let go of the things that keep you tethered

Take your place with grace and then be on your way

Mighty trucks of midnight

Moving on

Moving on

Today's DOTD: Dan W. Richards

Let me begin by declaring I am not anti-hunting, at least not when it is practiced properly. Hunting is as old as the human species itself. In fact, there is something noble about hunting and killing what you will eventually consume. And most of the hunters who kill prey, eat the prey. However, there is an element that taints virtually every modern day hunt, even the ecologically conscious ones. And that is the TROPHY HUNT. And, in the sense that I mean, this takes on two forms. From everything that I've seen, heard, or read about modern hunting, the hunter always takes the largest, healthiest animal - the lead, or trophy buck. The more points the better - whether you are going to eat him or not. This is bad ecology and against the natural principals of predation. Natural predators ALWAYS seek out the weakest individual for the kill. Only the strongest survive. This is nature's way of keeping herds genetically strong. But no hunter that I know of, even the good ones, practices this technique.

Then there is the actual TROPHY HUNT in its rawest form: to take an animal solely to say you did and see it stuffed and presented for display in some perverse TROPHY ROOM. This is not true hunting. And, so, finally, with this in mind, we name Dan W. Richards, California Fish and Game Commissioner as today's DOUCHE OF THE DAY (DOTD). It seems that Mr. Richards recently bagged himself a real trophy animal when he traveled to a game preserve in Idaho to stalk and kill a real, live mountain lion. It is illegal to hunt mountain lions in California but it is not in Idaho. So, Mr. Richards traveled a 1,000 miles or so to The Flying B Ranch and fulfill a life-long dream and get him a lion!

He claims to have gone to the ranch originally to hunt pheasant but when guide Joseph Peterson told him about the need to "cull" a mountain lion, Mr. Richards jumped at the chance. Mr. Peterson explained that mountain lions are bad for the ranch's main business - deer hunting. It seems that mountain lions have the nasty habit of eating deer! So, the ranch culls, or kills, 1-4 mountain lions on its property ever year. And this one was going to go, with or without Dan Richards. Also, if Mr. Richards decided to participate, he would be doing the ranch such a favor that the $6800 fee normally charged for tracking and hunting a lion would be waived. So, of course, he said "let's go". Remember, in Idaho this is NOT illegal.

In a long and grueling track, stalk, and hunt using dogs, Messrs. Richards and Peterson finally treed a 3 year-old male lion. Richards shot the animal with a .45 caliber rifle, killing him and bringing him crashing to the ground. Mr. Richards then posed with his prized kill for a photo that was sent to a few hunting magazines. I understand (but have not confirmed) that a video of the kill exists on U-tube. The carcass of the lion would be sent to a taxidermist in Idaho for preservation.

When word of the photo spread, first in California, and then around the country, the story went viral and the condemnation almost universal. When pressed as to whether he felt it was appropriate for the California Fish and Game commissioner to hunt an animal that's protected in his home state, his snide reply was, "I'm glad it's not illegal in Idaho"! What a douche!! As more and more criticism poured in, Richards became more and more defensive, telling reporters its none of their damned business what he does on his own time. WRONG. He's missing the point: he's a PUBLIC official whose behavior effects his ability to do his job!

It's clear what is going on here and its no different than the uberwealthy who make a mockery of the tax code: what they do, and Richards did, is not illegal but it sure as shit is immoral! How blind could this man be to not see the consequences of his actions? He should be named DOTD just for his lack of good sense, much less the heinous act he perpetrated! There is no other way to look at this but as a shocking case of bad judgement and setting an even worse example.

Calls for Mr. Richards' resignation have been overwhelming. At last check, he was still resisting. And, just in case you were wondering, he is a Republican who was appointed by another former DOTD, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

You know what I always say: once a douche, always a douche.

Words to Live By: Chief Dan George

photo: F LoBuono

May the stars carry your sadness away.

May the flowers fill your heart with beauty.

May hope wipe away your tears.

And, above all, may silence make you strong.

Chief Dan George

Brain Droppings: The Cult of Celebrity, Part II

First, I have to admit that I have little, if ANY, interest in NASCAR racing. In fact, I have virtually no interesting in auto racing of any kind. Going around in circles is something that I get accused of doing far too frequently by my wife, among many others, anyway (LOL). Therefore, watching it on television has no allure for me. Still, you'd have to live pretty much in total isolation to not know that one of the most important and famous races on the NASCAR circuit, The Daytona 500, took place last night. It was already historically delayed by bad weather that still plagued the race last night, as well. So, it was already a big story. After a number of spectacular, weather related crashes the race was eventually won by Matt Kenseth. Kenseth won the race for the 2nd time and became one of only 8 others to have accomplished that feat.

As is my custom in the morning, I usually tune in the local news and catch up while having the morning cup'o'jo. I get the headlines, traffic, weather, and sports. Well, this morning, the sports anchor led her report with the story of the Daytona 500. She started correctly(IMHO) by describing the foul weather for the race and what effect it must have had on the drivers. This is the customary "overview" before getting into the specifics of the story. Then, inexplicably to me, she said that Danica Patrick finished in 38th place - before she announced the HISTORIC win by Kenseth!! WTF?!

Look, I get it. Danica Partick is a fan magnet. Her presence on the track means increased viewership, attendance, and, therefore, revenue. AND she's a competitive racer. It that sense, it's all good. However, she finished 38th! 30-freakin'-8th!!! Now, because of her importance to the sport, she is ALWAYS newsworthy and, therefore, deserves mention somewhere within the report. However, to report her 38th place finish before announcing the winner is just plain WRONG!! Once again, the anchor (and the writers) were pandering to the CULT OF CELEBRITY. Let's face it, despite Kenseth's remarkable record, more people (especially those out of the NASCAR circuit) are more familiar with Danica Patrick than they are with he. Why? Because she's more than just a driver: she's a CELEBRITY!

Danica Patrick is a celebrity for a number of reasons: she cultivates that image. The sport cultivates that image. And the media cultivates that image. It's all part of this Great Big Machine that spits out instant heroes as quickly as you can write a Twitter Tweet!! And it's wrong. I'm not really knocking Danica Patrick. She seems to have some chops as a racer and she's never been false about using her femininity and image to move her career forward. Why shouldn't she? But we need to keep things in perspective. Professional sports are about winning. And to the VICTOR should go the spoils.

Words to Live By: Jack Burton

Just remember what old Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big old storm right in the eye and says, "Give me your best shot. I can take it."

Kurt Russell as Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China.

Just replace Jack Burton's name with your own! :)

Brain Droppings: Why "Run Silent. Run Deep"?

When I want, or better, NEED, to probe the depths of my soul, I use the metaphor Run Silent. Run Deep. On the surface (pun intended), it's rather obvious. To be truly introspective, one must seek out a quiet spot so as not be distracted. One should also be prepared dig deeply into the root meanings of things to, perhaps, find the answers to the questions that brought you there in the first place. But where does that term come from and does it give us insight into what it REALLY means? I think that you might find the explanation interesting and, hopefully, enlightening.

The term Run Silent. Run Deep. comes to us from the title of a best-selling novel written by Commander Edward L. Beech and was published in 1955. He wrote the novel based on his experiences serving on a US submarine in the Pacific during WWII. In 1958 it was made into a movie starring Clark Gable and Burt Lanchaster. Although fiction, it is considering accurate in its depiction of the tactics employed by a WWII submarine and the effect those tactics had on the men who served on them.

One of those tactics used to avoid attack by a surface ship was to rig for silent running and prepare to dive! Surface warships would use sonar (that annoying pinging sound you hear throughout a movie about submarines) to locate submarines when they were submerged. Sonar uses reflected sound waves to locate an object. Another devise used by attacking surface ships was ultra-sensitive sound listened equipment that could detect even the slightest noise that was emitted underwater. This includes even a cough aboard a submarine! If a surface warship detected a submarine, they would attack it by launching depth charges to destroy it. WWII depth charges where typically 300 lbs. of TNT packed into a container that looked like a trash can. They used a depth sensitive fuse that could be set to explode at various depths with a maximum range of 300-600 feet. They ship's commander would order the charges to be set to explode at a depth where he felt the sub might be located. The hope was to cause a direct hit, but if not, to be close enough to the sub as to create irreparable damage from the impact. Although the attack was based on retrieved date, it ultimately came down to guess work.

To combat these measures, submarines were extremely limited in their response. At this time, all they could really rely on was their stealth. After sighting an attacking surface warship, the sub's commander would order to rig for silent running at which time alarms would blast and the boat (submarines as always referred to as a boat, never as a ship) would dive as rapidly as it could. Once it reached a depth the commander felt would safely hide the boat from the attacking force, the sub would become totally quite - no noise at all. No motors. No alarms. And NO talking! Total silence reigned. Without noise or movement, the sub could not be detected by sonar or listening devices. Now, here's where the cat and mouse game would begin in ernest between the two commanders. The surface commander now had to guess at which depth the sub might be lurking and set his charges accordingly. The sub commander had to hide his boat at a depth where the explosions would not effect them. And there's more intrigue. A typical WWII sub could dive to a maximum depth of about 660-900 feet before the intense pressure at those depths could potentially crush the hull of the boat. Some depth charges could be set to explode at depths of about 600 feet. So, the margin of error for the sub commander was very small; dive too deep and your boat gets crushed. Dive too shallow and be annihilated by an exploding charge.

So, the submarine would find a depth they believe shielded them from attack, hunker down and wait. Run Silent. Run Deep. Often the surface attackers would set their charges at various depths to blanket entire undersea areas with their explosions. Aboard the submarine, all the men could do was wait, think, and often pray. Their lives were literally not in their own hands; it would be determined by others like their commander and that of the surface attackers. And fate would be a major player- either they would make it, or they wouldn't. And they could do nothing to alter the outcome. They could only wait and surrender to their fate. I'm sure that it had to be terrifying. There is a great scene in the Academy Award winning film on a WWII German U-boat, Das Boot (The Boat), that depicts the shear terror of weathering such an attack. In addition to the palpable fear, their is also a sense of resignation in the crew to their fate. This may also be called courage. It the face of such terror the only response is to let go - to accept EVERYTHING that life offers, even until death. There is peace in such release.

The metaphor is strong for me. Because I live so strongly within my own mind, I often believe that I can reason or think my problems away. However, some things in life are beyond our control. We must allow things to take their course, often while all we can do is hunker down and wait for the explosions to pass. We are resigned to our fate while we Run Silent. Run Deep.

Thought for the Day: The Sword of Damocles

Circumstance has, lately, left me feeling as if The Sword of Damocles was hanging over my head. You know the basics of the fable. Damocles is surrounded by luxury but not without consequence: a sword, suspended by a single horse hair, hangs perilously just above his head, giving him a feeling of unease with the thought that the sword could come crashing down at any, unforeseen moment. But what does this story really mean? I was curious, so I looked it up and this is what I found.

The fable comes to us from the Roman politician and philosopher, Cicero. Although the names are Greek in origin, it is really a Sicilian tale. Being of Sicilian decent, this certainly piqued my interest. Damocles was a courtier of the Tyrant (ruler) of Siracusa (Syracuse), Dionysius II. Damocles constantly flattered the Tyrant by extolling the magnificence of the royal palace and the incredible luxury in which Dionysius lived. He did it so often that the Tyrant said, "So, Damocles, since this life delights you, do you wish to taste it yourself and make trial of my fortune"? Of course, Damocles said, yes, he would like that very much. Dionysius then ordered Damocles to be placed on a golden couch and to be surrounded with the most beautiful attendants who were to see to his every need. Incense was burned. Sumptuous meals were prepared of the most select foods and his every whim was indulged. Suddenly, right in the middle of providing Damocles with every luxury possible, Dionysius ordered that a shining sword be fastened by a single horse hair thread to the ceiling directly above Damocles' neck. Suddenly, Damocles became less interested on the luxuries surrounding him and focused exclusively on the sword dangling above his head. After a short time, Damolces begged the Tyrant to allow him to stand up and walk away, he no longer wanted to be as fortunate.

The anecdote is often told as a reminder that for powerful men, there is always danger present. However, most see a broader message: HAPPINESS IS FRAGILE - it hangs by a mere thread.

Brain Droppings: The Cult of Celebrity, Part 1

As seems to be the case lately, I really don't have enough time to develop this entry in the way that I would have liked. And the main reason that I can't is really the impetus for the entry in the first place: I'm so busy with a CULT OF CELEBRITY event, i.e. the funeral of cultural icon* Whitney Houston. We, and most networks, both in the US and around the world, have been covering her death and the coming funeral virtually around the clock for nearly a week! The coverage FAR exceeds the need, or, I believe, the interest in it. I have often pontificated on this topic in the past. But people want celebrities in all their forms and they sure are going to get them come the funeral on Saturday.

It' all part of a bigger picture where icons are created where there really aren't any. We can talk all we want about Houston's enormous talent, but in the end, she was just a flawed human being - JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

Anyway, I've been working so many hours (thank god!!!) under surprisingly difficult conditions (shitty weather, long hours, tough location) that it leaves little time or energy to contribute anything in any great detail to the blog!! However, I've been making lots of observations and photos to share with you as soon as time allows.

More . . . later.

Brain Droppings: Bah. Humbug!

OK. You can call be the Ebenezer Scrooge of Valentine's Day. Bah. Humbug. There I said it. Are you satisfied? And I've always felt that way. Whether I was a single man, or involved in a relationship, Valentine's Day was always my least favorite holiday. In fact, I've probably mellowed with age and, now, at least grant that ANY excuse to say "I love you" is, ultimately, a good thing. Therefore, I certainly don't knock people who use it to that end. In fact, I encourage it. My issue is with being told that I HAVE to celebrate it or I must be insensitive to the people that I love. I also have a problem with the fact that the whole thing has become a commercial juggernaut that has blurred the REAL meaning of when someone truly says "I LOVE YOU". To me, the more it's used in a banal, blatantly commercial way, the less meaningful it becomes. And, evidenced by the BILLIONS of dollars raked in by Greeting Card Companies, Florists, and makers of Cute Little Stuffed Animals, Valentine's Day has become a huge commercial success. Some will say that this part at least helps the economy, and this may be true. However, it also greatly contributes to the dissolution of the meaning of three of the most powerful words in any language: I, love, and you.

But Valentine's Day, at least in the modern era, was DESIGNED to be a COMMERCIAL endeavor. It is well known that, as a challenge to improve business during the slow season between Christmas and Easter, a Hallmark executive resurrected an obscure, little known, and NEVER celebrated holiday to serve as the base for celebrating Valentine's Day. And, obviously, he was brilliant. Valentine's Day has become a huge, commercial success and entire industries have developed around its celebration. The executive deserves to be congratulated. However, with the serious over-kill that dominates modern culture, he has also created a monster!! The commercials hyping Valentine's Day paraphernalia begin weeks before the actual day, building to a crescendo to entice those of us forgetful enough to have waited to the last minute to get our sweeties something. And we have been so conditioned by this constant barrage of messages urging us to show we care by buying something for a loved one from them, that we are actually in fear of our partners if we don't! I say that's just plain ridiculous and I want no part of it.

Again, ANY excuse to do something or say something nice to the people we love is ALWAYS a good thing. But, at the same time, we should be doing those things on a DAILY basis. I have strived to do that in my life. I have not always been successful. Except for my writing, I am not overly zealous with PDA's (Public Displays of Affection), and this is a flaw. But I work everyday at living in a way that expresses I Love You. For those around me, especially my wife, I hope that they understand this and know that no heart-shaped box of chocolates, no red balloons, no stuffed animals, no cheesy greeting card can change the fact that I love them EVERY DAY. If I have failed to make that known, then I am a fool and no manufactured feel good holiday can change that.

As for those who see no harm in doing it their way, it's all good - if you really mean it!

Social Commentary: Contraception and the Church

I was born into a Roman Catholic family. Therefore, I was born a Roman Catholic. This, of course, involved no choice on my part. Just as you can't choose what family you are born into, you have no choice as to what religion you will practice - at least for the early part of your life. So it was with me. I received a healthy (unhealthy?) dose of Catholic indoctrination (some would say brainwashing!) for the first 9 years (K-8th grade) of my schooling at The Madonna Parochial School and Parish in Fort Lee, NJ. And, in the beginning, I absorbed all that dogma like a dry sponge soaks up spilled milk. I was a pious little acolyte, serving as an Altar Boy and even working in the Parish offices. I received my First Holy Communion decked out in a white tuxedo and was Confirmed as an adult in the Church. I studied and prayed earnestly in an effort to understand the Mysteries of the Universe as preached by the Apostolic and Universal Roman Catholic Faith. And then I grew up.

As I came to a greater understanding of the world and my place in it, I began to turn further and further away from the Church's teachings. There were just so many inconsistancies in their doctrine that I could no longer justify. To me, Jesus seemed to preach one thing while the Church preached another. Jesus seemed to be all about love and acceptance while the Church just got bogged down in rules and restrictions. It was all so simple to me and the Church just kept mucking things up with all that dogma!! Jesus preached Love All - ALL. The Church said love SOME. It was if the Church couldn't see the forest through the trees.

The Catholic Church also claims to be an active, growing religion. However, whenever a new social concept is introduced for consideration by the Church, it always relies on traditions that were created 2,000 years ago and resists changing i.e. growing. There is nothing wrong with observing ancient traditions so long as they don't prevent you from functioning in a modern, constantly changing world. I understand that people resist change and there is comfort in relying on time-tested principals. However, when that resistance to change prevents an entity from growing and progressing to meet the needs of the Faithful, it can be a stultifying influence.

So it is with the latest controversy surround the Church. The Obama Administration has proposed legislation that would require Church owned entities that provide public services, like hospitals and nursing homes, to offer access to contraception and reproductive services as part of employee health care benefits. The Administration claims to have taken this step in an effort to provide reproductive services to ALL women. They also point out that over 28 States already have similar legislation in effect. Plus, since these Church entities receive public funding, they should be subject to the same rules that apply to other publicly funded institutions. Of course, the Church, backed by the GOP, is screaming FOUL! The Church, backed by the Republicans, claims that this legislation would force the Government's will on the Church and, specifically, force the Church to go against its own teachings. WTF?! Here we go again with the Church sticking its head in the religious sand and refusing to see the Faithful in a modern light.

First, NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to accept contraception! If you don't believe in using contraception, you don't have to do!! By providing it as part of a health benefits package, it gives you the CHOICE to use contraception or not. Besides, any type of effective health care, including reproductive services, should not be just an OPTION for anyone - It should be a RIGHT. If your religious beliefs prevent you from using birth control, don't take advantage of the program. Second, this is the freakin' 21st Century. The world's population is rapidly approaching 7 billion. Our natural resources are stretched thin. Millions live below the poverty level. Tens of thousands die of thirst and starvation every year. And birth rates in the poorest countries who suffer the most are always the highest. Obviously, we are rapidly approaching the Earth's tipping point. It would be reasonable to ask, "what we can we do to at least slow, if not stop, this trend"? One answer is right in front of us: slow our population growth. And how might we do this? Well, could it be more obvious? We MUST offer easy access to reproductive education and services.

And the Catholic Church resists this? Again, WTF?! Why? Is the Church that out of touch with what's truly happening in the world? In a word, YES! That is why the Catholic Church is hemorrhaging worshippers and has been for many years. Catholic priests are now in short supply. Parishes are collapsing and worshippers have been disappearing. Evangelical Churches, particularly within the Latino communities, have exploded in popularity, particularly at the expense of the Catholic Church. Why? Because those churches offer people a more direct pathway to worship without the layers of rules and dogma as those found in the Catholic Church.

The Church would say that they have two ways to practice birth control: abstinence or the so-called rhythm method. They claim this is nature's and, therefore, god's way. That may be, but it's also outdated. Practicing birth control in this manner is like asking someone to take a buggy ride to get from New York to D.C. instead of flying or taking a train because it's a more natural way to get there!! Get real. The Church could finally do something right if it could only get its head out its ass.

Social Commentary: The Courage of Conviction

Those who follow this blog and many of my Facebook entries may have noticed that I am strongly opinionated. Many would call that an understatement! In fact, some might even say that statement is the equivalent of saying that Andre the Giant was a large human being. Be that as it may, the POINT of creating the blog in the first place was to provide a forum for discussion beginning with MY point of view (POV) and encouraging others to share theirs. I am pleased and honored to say that the blog has accomplished most of that. People do read the blog and respond. Many agree with the POV taken by my blog entries. Often, many do not. I respect them all - even the ones that I know are wrong LOL! The blog's ultimate goal is to create a dialogue between people. In the end, "being right" is not most important. What IS important is that people are honest about their opinions, argue their points appropriately and effectively, and STAND UP for what they believe in i.e. have the courage of their convictions. If we can respect one another for those qualities, we will really have accomplished something here.

I know that I have stood behind every statement that I have ever made on this blog - even ones that I regretted when viewed with hind sight. I have apologized for mistakes that I have made. And I always try for balance in my entries. But people must also understand that entries made as commentary are exactly that: commentary. Therefore, they are MY opinions of the way that things are, or, at least, as I believe they should be. And I never (well, almost never!) write with the intention of being mean spirited. However, because my opinions are strong and pointed, they are bound to be, sometimes, controversial. They can certainly piss people off. Because of those opinions, I have been insulted by some. I have been "de-friended" by others. I was even threatened with a libel lawsuit by another. So, I know what it's like to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. And, to quote the bard again, I have decided to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them. I have never retracted a single opinion that I have made on this blog. I might be so bold as to say that, indeed, I do have the courage of my convictions. I BELIEVE in what I write and I am always willing to defend it.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case with some of those who have chosen to respond initially only to "bail out" and remove their responses when confronted with their veracity or intention. Sure, sometimes the discussions can heat up to the point where they become almost arguments rather than discussions. Since I tend to argue my points with great passion, as do many others who respond in opposition of those points, this is bound to happen. I love to cross swords with a good opponent! When this happens I always remind myself to keep it respectful and encourage others to do the same. Still, at some point, despite one's persuasiveness and passion, the discussion must end, often with the statement, let's just agree to disagree. This is fine but not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those who write something and don't just retract what they just wrote but remove it entirely! And this has happened to me on a number of occasions. The first time I encountered this was during a relatively innocuous discussion between a few friends on Facebook. During the course of the discussion thread, someone wrote something to me that I saw as derogatory. It was, in my opinion, homophobic. When I responded expressing my displeasure at his remarks, his original response suddenly disappeared from the thread and he replied, "what insult are you doing about"? Had he the courage of his convictions he would have:

a. Defended his original statement.

b. Made light of the statement by saying it was meant to humorous and I overreacted.

c. Apologized.

Certainly, don't run like a coward and erase the damned thing! If you said it, then you damned well better stand by it.

The example that I gave above was a relatively harmless one; the insult was, I believe, meant to be humorous. But, in the end, he realized that it was not, ran from the responsibility that goes with having written it in the first place and erased his response. However, this was a relatively benign example. I have experienced others who have removed things that they KNOW, when read by others, would expose their hidden agendas like racism, sexism, and homophobia. Once they have been called to task to defend their positions, POOF, just like magic, all of those responses suddenly disappear - as if they had never been said by them in the first place. This, of course, in the ultimate sense, proves how wrong they are. Their positions become indefensible - they no longer exist, literally. My point is that, if your thinking lands you in those controversial areas, you had damned well be prepared to defend them because I am going to vigorously defend my damned position in opposing you! I can stand the heat in my kitchen. The question remains, can you?

Brain Droppings: More Hollywood Crap

I get it. I get it. I get it. They make MONEY. And, after all, Hollywood is in the BUSINESS of ultimately making MONEY. So, what does that mean. It means you get great actors, like Denzel Washington, in POS (piece of shit) movies like his latest, Safe House. OK. Here's the startlingly original plot: Denzel is the CIA's best covert operative but, after being double crossed and labeled as a "rogue" agent, he must go underground for 15 years. When his "safe house" in South Africa is discovered, he plots with rookie agent, played by Ryan Reynolds, to escape the house and hunt down and destroy those who initiated the plot. WTF?! Is this NOT THE SAME OL' TIRED HOLLYWOOD FORMULA? Let's see, legendary agent gets double crossed. He goes rogue. He partners with a wide-eyed rookie to hunt down and kill the perpetrators before they hunt down and kill him. Is it me or does Hollywood release at least 3 or 4 of these freakin' movies every freakin' YEAR?!! Oh, and when they want to give it a really new "twist", instead of a guy agent, it's a chick!! PLEASE SPARE ME!

And what's so ultimately disappointing within this "bigger picture" (pun intended) is that an actor of the quality of Denzel Washington would continue to make ultra-violent, non-original, BORING despite the action, predictable, take your money and run, Hollywood CRAP. And this is not the first one he has made either. He is a wonderful actor with great range and has played many memorable roles. However, lately he seems more interested in being involved with money-making vehicles than creating art. It can't be for the money. There are no rumors of Washington being in any poor financial straights. And it shouldn't be for the exposure. Denzel is very well known and respected. Perhaps, they're fun to make and feed his ego at the same time. I hope that it would be for the former reason and not the latter.

Of course, I get to cover the AMAZING RED CARPET PREMIERE for the film tonight at The School of Visual Arts in NYC. It promises to be as big, exciting, and action packed as the film itself! BARFFFF!! However, there is one key difference for me: tonight I will be well paid to be there and they'll never get the cost of a ticket back from me - 'cause I won't buy one. So, ultimately, I'll have the last laugh.

Post Script: After I posted my latest diatribe on Facebook, I received some feedback from a dear and respected friend. He thought that, perhaps, I was a little hard on Mr. Washington, that it must be fun to make these type of movies. Of course, he acknowledged there was good money to be made, as well. He suggested that, in a sense, it was "harmless" escapism (my quotations)i.e. good fun. Of course, this is reasonable. Not every movie has to be Schindler's List! People DO go to the movies to sometimes escape harsh reality and to be simply entertained. However, there is one point that I would like to make in response. I mentioned that the film was ultra-violent within the body of the original text, but, perhaps, did not emphasize it strongly enough. This is an ULTRA-VIOLENT movie that glorifies extreme violence. Furthermore, the film's hero, played by Mr Washington, is THE ULTIMATE KILLING MACHINE. He, a black man, is a legendary expert in death dealing. He is truly the baddest freakin' mutha on the freakin' planet! And what weapon is he most deadly with? The hand gun! Now, some might say, how refreshing. A black man as the hero, totally in charge of his own destiny. That's a role model. Well, I say, stop for a minute and look more deeply into that. Who will see this movie? My guess is that a large percentage will be of young, black males. What is the scourge of young black men, particularly in urban environments? Young black men are dying in droves by gun violence. Hand gun violence is devastating our inner city youth and it gets worse all of the time. The statistics concerning hand gun violence among that demographic are simply staggering. Certainly, it is reasonable to ask why? In fact, it is imperative that we ask! And I believe that answer to this question is quite obvious. Too many of these young black men are seeing role models like the dashing, rich, successful, Mr. Washington as the all powerful, larger than life character in a huge, blockbuster movie, using ultra-violence to accomplish his ends. He is omnipotent! And, in the film, to what does Mr. Washington's character owe to his power? Yes, the hand gun.

It's not rocket science, folks! Put two and two together. Connect the dotted lines. Follow the drum beat. Read the handwriting on the wall. Get the picture? Films like this are not healthy or helpful. In fact, I believe that they can be quite harmful. They glorify violence, death, and destruction. And Mr. Washington, especially with his immense talent, should stop making them.

Thought for the Day

photo: F. LoBuono/OWS Protester, Des Moines

We are in a state of RIGHTEOUS RAGE! RAGE ON you crazy diamonds, RAGE ON. . .

Social Commentary: The GOP and The Tea Party - partners in crime!

Like the bony finger of death, the GOP, backed by the Tea Party, has put its mark on every single piece of MEAN SPIRITED, SHORT-SIGHTED , WTF?! moments that I have either witnessed or read about in recent weeks. Now, before you Tea Baggers go off and claim hyperbole, let me give you the empirical evidence. They are not in any particular order:

1. GOP candidate and front runner for his party's nomination for President, Mitt Romney, in an interview says "I'm not interested in the very poor". He eventually backed off, stating, "I misspoke". Coming from a man reportedly worth $400 million, this is a surprise?!

2. GOP candidate and contender for his party's nomination for President, Newt Gingrich, WORKED (making millions) for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two organizations that he now vehemently condemns. Creating further conflict, on a 1998 trip to promote those organizations in Ireland, Gingrich falsely claimed that he was invited by Habitat for Humanity*. He is obviously a serial liar (just ask his former wife).

3. The GOP led (its founder and VP of Public Policy are BIG PLAYERS in GOP circles) Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, the nation's pre-eminent breast cancer advocacy group, denied funding for Planned Parenthood (which provides breast cancer screening for low-income women in addition to abortion services) on some trumped up internal policy. Komen's leaders were influenced by anti-abortion groups, led by a REPUBLICAN, TEA PARTY backed legislative hack from Florida. Eventually, the public outcry was so intensely anti-Komen that the organization backed off and restored the funding to Planned Parenthood.

4. The GOP, backed by the Tea Party, is exerting disproportionate pressure on all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy.* They claim that by improving public transportation and preserving open space, the US is kowtowing to a United Nations conspiracy to reduce energy consumption, deny property rights, stifle small business, and steer people towards living in large cities. The Tea Party sees this as a vast conspiracy to create larger governments and deny individual freedoms. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, they do not believe in man-made global warming. So, they have blocked things like water quality improvements, high speed trains, road improvements to eliminate congestion, and environmental initiatives like reducing carbon emissions. Obviously, these are things that will destroy our country.

WTF?! You've got to be kidding me!!!!!!

I think that I'm starting to get it. The Tea Party GOP would have the country led by either a wealthy wonk who has no desire to even SEE the poor, much less help them, or a serial liar who was discarded once before by his own party. We would breath stagnant air and drink filthy water. We would sit for hours in our cars, further polluting our air, waiting to commute from all that empty space back into the cities where the jobs are. Women would die by the tens of thousands because funding would not be available for breast cancer screening. And the rich would survive by eating the poor. But, according to the Tea Party, at least we would be FREE!

If this is your vision of America's future then vote for a Tea Party candidate. Go ahead - I dare you. But you better eat and drink what you have now. And you'd better get screened for cancer. Because if you do vote TEA, you may not have those things for very much longer. But you will be FREE.

* As reported in the NY Times

The Bridge

These are just a few of the hundreds of images that I have made of the mighty George Washington Bridge over the course of many years commuting from my home in Rockland County to work in NYC. If you look, there's always something there! Special thanks to David Nieves for his invaluable assistance.

All images F.LoBuono, all rights reserved