Tossing It Out

Showing posts with label political agendas. Show all posts

Monday, March 13, 2017

Time Travel, Revisionist History, and the Liberal Agenda

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." 1984 by George Orwell

A mosaic stitched image of Stone Mountain, Georgia, United States. Taken with a Canon 5D and 70-200mm f/2.8L at 200mm. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When the CW television network debuted The Flash in 2014 I was enthusiastically on board from the first episode. Since I had been a big fan of the first short-lived incarnation of The Flash in 1990 and sad to see its demise after only one season, I welcomed the reinvention of the superhuman speedster in a television era where special effects technology would be so much better. The characters in the new show were well developed and fun and the story was not so far-fetched that I could reasonably buy into it. But then, as will invariably happen with such genres, the writers of The Flash went into realms of the absurd that I could no longer accept. I've stopped watching The Flash.

Superhero stories like most science fiction and fantasy typically require healthy doses of willing suspension of disbelief and yet there can be limits to just about everything. In The Flash I could accept the increasing array of super villains and even the alternate universe. However for me the entire "flashpoint" concept--the changing of a timeline where the Flash entered a world where he had memories of another timeline that no one else knew with subsequent plots revolving around events connected with the new timeline with plot points interjected from the previous timeline--this concept annoyed me. To me an ability for someone or some power to be able to change the past or create an alternate past has no logic and becomes downright silly.

Oddly over the past few years we've seen a number of television shows and films with similar past-changing plot devices. This past TV season alone I've gotten caught up in Frequency (derived from the 2000 film of the same name) and Timeless. In both, the element of going back in time in order to change the timeline of history does bother me, but the stories have been so engaging and are so well written that I was able to forgive the illogical premise. I also recall seeing other films and shows that used the device of changing time (Looper comes to mind) but I can't name any others at the moment, but I've been less forgiving of most of them.

Time travel happens to be a favorite fictional genre of mine, but I have a hard time accepting the stories where someone goes back to change history. To me that's like the story that has the "it was only a dream ending". It's a gimmick that usually doesn't work well for me unless it's something on a less serious note such as the Back to the Future films. If time gets changed to the point of a new outcome then was the outcome as remembered by the time traveler comparable to being only a dream? And what does that traveler do with that memory and once returned to a future with a new outcome does that traveler have the memory of the new history line somehow implanted in their mind?

For me there becomes an almost conspiratorial suspicion that this type of change plot line is a sort of liberal leftist agenda, whether it be purposeful or subconsciously devised, to become a part of the revisionist history movement that is becoming more popular in recent U.S. thinking in circles of academia and new progressive socialism.

More often a tool of dictatorships and radical governmental change agents, the concept of historical revision is being seen in the movements to remove symbols such as statues of former heroes, primarily associated with the Confederacy, or the names of historical figures that offend certain people in new movements taken off of schools and other public buildings. Many early explorers, founders, and shapers of the United States are now being looked upon with disfavor and gradually being eliminated from this nation's history or relegated to roles where they are deemed essentially unsavory.

The agents of social change and certain academicians unable to physically go back in time in order to exert change seem to want to instead rewrite history books and change the landscape to no longer reflect an existence of anyone who engaged in anything that is now looked upon with an unfavorable eye. The revolutionaries of the New Order of Thought would prefer future generations to understand a new and different history that is more reflective of the demographics of our time.

Revising history is in the hands of educational institutions, politicians who exert the most power, social groups with the loudest voices, or whoever else becomes the victor in future struggles for dissemination of knowledge and lore. The entertainment industry has been doing this for years as seen by theatrically released biopics and historical epics.

More than once have I been disappointed after watching an interesting film and then, after being driven by curiosity to investigate further about the topic, to find that what I had seen was mostly a reinvention of actual history. If in the future our textbooks and other references are changed to reflect the new history then who will know what the truth is. Already we see a mythology of history appearing on the internet to the extent that we cannot always trust what we read. This of course has always been the case to some extent in published materials, but with the internet it seems that revisionism could be getting worse.

So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were really jerks and not worth having a school named after them? Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were part of an evil cause and should have their monuments removed from public view? The United States legacy is really one of aggression and oppression? Does the history of this country and the country as it now is deserve to be respected?

Oh, I'll still be watching the time travel shows and films. I'll do my best to suspend disbelief as much as I can. But nevertheless, this nagging fear will linger in my mind that maybe the trend to depict time travelers as being successful in changing history is really a nod of approval to the real history revisionists in our midst. When society starts eradicating the truth, they might create an illusion that where we are now and where we are going in the future is wonderful, but they will also be building castles with foundations of sand.

What do you think of the revisionist history movements? Do you like time travel stories in which history gets changed? What is your favorite time travel television show or movie?

On Wednesday I'll be presenting a Battle of the Bands post which continues on the theme of today's post. Two different songs from the seventies by two well known groups who went through numerous personnel changes over the years. If you'd like to join the participants of Battle of the Bands to present your own musical battle then let me know so I can have your blog link added to the list. It's great fun and we'd like to see some more musical tastes involved. I'm sure you've got something you can add to the mix that will make things even more interesting that they are now.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Meryl Streep Is Overrated

You don't always have to talk about politics or religion to piss some people off. Any opinion you express will likely find someone on the opposing side--sometimes a lot of people.

Today

Long before Donald Trump's notorious tweet and Streep's unnecessary acceptance speech at the Golden Globes ceremony, I've always said that I thought the multi-Oscar nominated actress was overrated. Now do I not only think that she's overrated, but she's also an idiot. But that's my opinion and I'm sure that I'll make some of you cringe with that statement.

My sister and I have gotten into arguments every time I've said this over the years as she is a firm Streep adulator. Others have also found it a bit disturbing when I express this opinion of mine so I try to stay mum on the topic most of the time, but if her name comes up in a conversation I can't help but blurt out something like, "I can't stand Meryl Streep--I think she's a bore."

Thinking that I might be wrong after hearing the floods of Streep accolades after her recent controversies and yet another Oscar nomination (oh no, not another stupid award nomination for Streep!), I decided that I should check her filmography to see if maybe I'd made an unfair assessment of Meryl Streep.

Checking the IMDb site I discovered that Meryl Streep has been a part of nearly 70 films and of those films there are 12 that I've definitely seen and maybe a few more that I might have seen and have forgotten that I've seen them. Only one of these was a movie that I purposely saw because she was in it and that was A Cry in the Dark (1988) which I watched this past week-end mostly because it sounded interesting. It was good, but not necessarily because of her performance.

I liked the The River Wild (1994) because it was a good story, but I actually didn't recall Streep being in it. I guess she did a fine job, but there are a lot of actresses who would have been good in this film. This is the case with many of the films I've seen Streep in--any actress would have been fine in the role that she played and some might have been better. Some of those films being Defending Your Life (1991) (she must have had a cameo in this one), Music of the Heart (1999) (I think I saw this, but it didn't make any impression I guess), Out of Africa (1985) (I don't remember this other than it being rather a bore as I recall--probably a suitable film for her style), and Holocaust (1978) (actually a TV mini-series that is one of my wife's favorite "films" that I bought her on DVD and I liked for the story--don't recall Streep's role that much).

Then there was the 1979 Woody Allen film Manhattan and that great film The Deer Hunter (1978), both which garnered early Oscar nominations for Streep. However, if you had asked me before I had looked it up if Streep had been in either film, I would have said that I didn't think so. In other words, the roles she played in those films made no impression on me.

Streep also starred in two films that I absolutely hated. The first is The Bridges of Madison County (1995). I hated the movie and equally hated the book and didn't care for Streep's role in the movie that I hated. This one is a big source of contention between my sister and I and will always result in an argument when the topic comes up so we usually don't discuss it. Most women seem to love this dumb movie, but to me it's a rotten enough movie to make a case for disliking Meryl Streep period.

Another "hate it" role I'll add is the one from the remake of The Manchurian Candidate (2004). For one thing the role Streep played reminded me too much of Hilary Clinton of whom I'm no fan either. The only consolation about that role is that Streep's character gets killed--oops! Sorry for the spoiler, but if you haven't seen it, don't. See the original from 1962. In my opinion the remake is typical modern Hollywood liberal garbage. Hated the film. Hated Streep's role.

So, I guess the argument I'm making is that I don't like Meryl Streep's acting and I don't particularly like the way she looks. There is something about her that creeps me out. And now she's added her political opinions to the mix and that's all the more reason for me to dislike her.

For those who think I'm being superficially judgmental about looks and beliefs and that those things shouldn't affect my opinion of acting ability I'll offer another case--Sean Penn. Can't stand the way he looks and hate his politics. But every role that I've seen him in has been great in my opinion. I can watch one of his films and forget his looks and his politics and walk away thinking he did a great job. Too bad he's such a jerk.

Of course, many will disagree with my assessment. But then, many would likely ridicule some of my favorite actors like Nicholas Cage or Jean-Claude Van Damme--hey, my wife and I both like those guys and have enjoyed every film we've seen them in. And we've seen a lot of their films. We also think Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Leonardo di Caprio, and Christian Bale are far better than Streep.

Funny, but I tend to find actors more memorable than actresses. There are plenty of actresses I like, but none that stand out as much as actors. Of great actresses from the past you can give me Giulietta Masina over Streep any day. I think the roles played by either Charlize Theron or Christina Ricci in Monster blow away anything Meryl Streep has ever done. But that's just me speaking here. Maybe you agree or maybe not.

If you're a Streep fan and I've offended you then I apologize. After all, I'm just expressing my personal opinion. And if you're Streep and you're offended then I don't really care. You shouldn't be spouting politics on a stupid awards show. If you really feel the need to shoot off about your political beliefs then start a blog or something. The ABC Network daytime show The View would probably even give you a seat right there with Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. If you were on that show I'd have yet another reason not to watch it.

On the other hand, Meryl Streep, send me some of your money and I'll delete this post and replace it with one telling how much I think you're the greatest ever and write glowing reviews of all your films. I might even watch Mamma Mia! and give it a great review. For that you'll need to send a lot of money.

Have I been overly harsh in my assessment of Meryl Streep? Is there any particular actress or actor that you think is overrated? Do you think actors and other entertainers should be expressing their political opinions and causes on public forums like award shows and concert appearances?

Join me next Wednesday March 15th for the Battle of the Bands. If you love music then why don't you join us with your own Battle post. Let me know if you'd like to join in and we can add you to the participant list.

Monday, September 21, 2015

People Hear But Often Don't Listen (BOTB results)

An example of crossover between video game culture and graffiti culture found on the Berlin Wall (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of late my frustrations with our screwed up society have been exacerbated. More than ever before, media creates the stories that become our history and provides interpretations of what people say rather than merely reporting what they say. That which is presented as news is distorted in order to fulfill agendas and control our thinking. No wonder so many in the United States are amazingly nonchalant about who we are as a nation and where we are going in the future.

As I have been watching certain television reports lately I am baffled when I know what I heard and what I understood about what has been said and then the talking heads reinterpret things for me to let me know what I was supposed to have heard and what it is that I'm supposed to think. This is a technique that is in essence mind or thought control.

The U.S. government has been working on the collective brain of society for years now as certain influential groups have been whittling away our traditional thinking and twisting our history into the story they want us to believe about ourselves. My memory is fading as I grow older, but the powers that pervade the general belief systems of the American psyche in an attempt to pervert rational thinking in favor of emotions are interfering with my ability to remember the United States of America as a beacon for the world. The guiding light that once made this nation great may be dying out and many of the younger generations don't even realize it or for that matter care.

I'm puzzled when something makes total sense to me and then the message bearers from the media tell me that I'm wrong and then let me know according to them what I am supposed to be witnessing and hearing. I'm not naming names or citing specific situations. I'm being enigmatic for a good reason. This is just my way of saying something without actually saying it. Obfuscation is a media tactic and a ruse of the politicians that seems to be the way we are often forced to use as our method of communication and now here I am also resorting to it, not in the way they do, but in the way I feel I must for reasons some of you might understand. If you don't understand then I see no reason to explain this to you.

Besides, those who don't like me or what I'm saying will shape my statements to suit their own needs. Most everyone else isn't listening anyway.

Results for Battle of the Bands

My most recent Battle featured the Kool and the Gang hit "Cherish" with versions by The Katinas and Pappa Bear. Knowing the nature of my voting audience, the winner of the contest was no real surprise. What did surprise me was how well the rap artist Pappa Bear actually did. I had even considered the possibility of a blowout in favor of the Katinas, but a handful of you kept that from happening.

One thing for certain is that my vote would not have saved Pappa Bear although I thought the rap version was pretty good. Rap is not a genre that I normally listen to, but I like to keep an open mind about music and I can honestly say that there are some rap songs that I actually don't mind and in some cases I even think a few rap songs are quite good. However, I would imagine that my general preference in music will always fall in a direction away from rap. This is so in the case of this match-up and my preference is with the group The Katinas.

Final Vote Tally:

The Katinas 23 votes

Pappa Bear 7 votes

One More Thing...

Regarding my opening statement, you can make what you want of it. You can consider it an exercise in writing or another rant blogging in the wind. I tend to do some of both. When something strikes me strongly I tend to say more than "ouch" and then fade with a whimper, but then again what I say might be so veiled that I leave people guessing or just moving on to the next thing. I do what I feel like I need to do, but often not to the extent that some would think I should do. I guess that's my business though. And for now I do mean "business".

Next Battle of the Bands will be on Thursday October 1st when I will get political by presenting one of the most well-known and perhaps oldest of political songs--a song that most of you probably wouldn't even associate with politics. You might be surprised.

Do you avoid discussing what is meaningful to you for fear of offending others? Can you think of any recent blatant mind manipulations in the media? Have you avoided any genre of music merely because of your decision not to like any of it?

Friday, August 28, 2015

Does Government Want to CONTROL Us?

1920s cartoon, showing man standing at microphone with his mouth wide open and the text "I'M A SMART GUY". (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Would you believe that a good many schools now are starting school before Labor Day? Would you believe that some school districts have already been in session since the end of July? How about some schools are going to a year round schedule or have at least tried this in some form or another?

Whatever happened to summer vacation and all the fun kid things that went with that? Sorry about that, kids. Big brother has decided to screw you out of your childhood and prepare you for a bleak future world where everyone is the same. Make believe and thinking differently is not allowed unless it's the kind of different sanctioned by the "brave new world" of groupthink.

They claim they want our kids to get smart yet they really want to dumb us all down so we can conform to their every whim. It's all about control. Of course, government is in the business of control. That's what laws and regulations are all about. This makes sense to keep an orderly structure to society--to a degree.

Do we need government telling us what we can eat or drink that is beyond the useful action of making sure consumables are safe for us and won't kill us because of contamination or something of that nature? What we decide to ingest and consume should be a matter of personal choice should it not? Same with schools. Teachers should have more control of the classroom under the guidance of local directives, but it makes little sense for the federal government to have an across the board agenda to homogenize society. Rural areas have different concerns that urban areas. A concentration of one cultural group in one area of the country might be a good reason to adapt a school system to that group, but not a reason to impose those cultural needs on every school system.

The old American dream has been corrupted. We missed it by that much! Now the question is can we get it back? The freedom train has been derailed by politically correct elements of society that want to change the story of the United States and alter the meaning of words that tell our story now. The old totalitarianism trick is being pulled on us and anyone who is out of step with what the powers-that-be want is getting the duct tape across the mouth treatment and ostracization by those who are allowed to shout them down.

In my blog post from 2013 Do You Know What Your Children Are Learning in School? I discussed the matter of government control as related to the federal government's intrusion on schools with the Common Core curriculum. This educational initiative will undoubtedly become a big issue in the 2016 presidential race. Common Core certainly has its proponents, but it is also facing vigorous resistance from its opponents. Hopefully, voters will take a closer look at Common Core before continuing to allow it to turn our children into submissive clones. Common Core is more than an educational agenda, it's a political agenda. Certain elements of the ruling forces in this world would like nothing better than to see a degradation of the United States by weakening what this nation represents. Despite what we think about our democracy, we may not actually have as much control over government as we'd like to believe.

There will be many loud voices on all sides of every argument in the year to come. Let's hope the voices on the side of what will be best for this nation will stay strong and remain loud. "You can't move mountains by whispering at them," said chanteuse Pink. Floyd Lawson, the barber and purveyor of homespun observations from The Andy Griffith Show, might have interjected with "I thought Calvin Coolidge said that."

Uh, no Floyd, Pink is attributed to having made that particular statement. However Calvin Coolidge is credited with the following:

"We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen.... If the foundation is firm, the superstructure will stand." -Calvin Coolidge

"If in a free republic a great government is the product of a great people, they will look to themselves rather than government for success..." -- Calvin Coolidge

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." -- Calvin Coolidge

“Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.”
― Calvin Coolidge

Though it wasn't Calvin Coolidge, there is some disagreement on who said the following, but I think it's worth mentioning:

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”---Thomas Jefferson (according to some sources)

Battle of the Bands Coming!

Reading through my above rant you might have gotten some hint of what my next Battle of the Bands song will be. Actually I think I made it so obvious to anyone who knows the song that I'd be very surprised if no one gets it. Let me know in the comments what you think my next song choice will be. My next Battle of the Bands will be combined with my Insecure Writer's Support Group post and will appear on Tuesday September 1st.

Do you think political correctness has gotten out of hand in the United States? Is it important for school kids to have an old-fashioned summer vacation? Did you recognize what classic television comedy show I was alluding to in my post (other than The Andy Griffith Show)?

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

What Are We To Believe?

Melbourne Zombie Shuffle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With our greater access to knowledge via the media and the internet you'd think we'd be up to our brains in truth. Ironically all of this access has muddied the waters of information more than ever. Rumors, misinformation, and outright lies are continually disseminated throughout all channels available to us to the extent that sometimes it's difficult to know what we should actually believe.

Here are some examples:

Harmful substances: Various studies have shown that coffee can be bad for you while others suggest that it can be good for you. Some recent studies suggest that a couple cups a day can stave off or even prevent Alzheimer's and dementia. Similar conflicting result studies have come out about alcoholic beverages, eggs, and other products. Anyone remember the "studies" back in the fifties that suggested that smoking could be beneficial. There was a time not so long ago when smoking was prevalent in public places. I guess it depends on who's doing the study and what result they want to come up with. In the meantime much of the public is misguided and confused.

Global warming: We keep hearing all sorts of research indicating that the Earth is warming and the polar ice caps are melting. There have been suggestions from some camps that our coastal areas will eventually be flooded and adverse weather conditions such as hurricanes will increase endangering us all. Then there are the scientists who believe that we should be more concerned about global cooling. Some even suggest that we may be seeing the coming of another Ice Age. There are also the scientists and pundits who believe that the world climate goes in cycles and we will periodically have times of cooling and heating that are not influenced by anything humankind does.

Overpopulation: The concept that the Earth would be eventually unable to sustain the growing population was introduced by Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798. He advocated population control to keep the order of things in check. Paul Ehrlich revived the Malthus scare tactic in 1968 with his best selling book The Population Bomb. Now here we are nearly 50 years later with none of the predictions coming to pass quite like Ehrlich speculated. Famine and pestilence is not the result of overpopulation. Actually we could move everybody in the world to Texas and with the right infrastructure we could all live quite comfortably while turning the rest of the world into parks and recreation land. Anyone who's driven across Texas can imagine this. Texans would undoubtedly hate it if everyone moved there, but I'm just repeating an example others have given for illustrative purposes.

These are but three areas of debate that politicians, activists, scientists, doomsayers, and others like to banter about. I'm sure you can think of other studies as could I, but this is a blog and I want to keep this post within reasonable limits.

My Conclusion:

My own study shows that if you keep looking at all of these studies your brain will turn to mush and gradually seep out of your head. With your brain gone then you would become part of the zombie population in a constant quest for more brains.

Zombies are thrilled by this news as an increase in their population means an ever-growing zombie voter block. Of course it's probable that we already have a majority of zombie voters and we could see an influx of zombies eventually taking office in the United States.

Vampires think that prospect sucks. Vampires think a lot things should suck. Vampires are interested in all things sucky. Nearly all of those running things in government are vampires who have a need to keep the zombie population under their control. The vampires look for issues they can sink their teeth into so they can suck the life-blood out of the rest of us. They love having brain dead constituents who will follow their commands without any thought.

Have a frightful Halloween and may Election Day be a scary one--they usually are.

What is your favorite conspiracy? Do you think we stand a ghost of a chance in the coming election? Are you ready to move to Texas?

Battle of the Bands coming this Saturday November 1st. There are some clues about my BOTB theme in this post. Can you guess the song? This time around I'm offering versions of a 70's hit as performed by two groups that I like and you might enjoy as well. Nothing too controversial in this Battle. It's one of the most accessible I've had so far. Check it out!

Friday, January 18, 2013

Let's Do It For Our Children!

George Orwell - Author series (Photo credit: New Chemical History)

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”
— George Orwell, 1984

Since we've reached the year 2013 is it time for the clocks to start striking thirteen? Sure, things have been strange for several decades, but are they about to become even stranger?

I'm not going to dissect the words spoken by the President of the United States on Wednesday January 16, 2013 or the nonsensical babble of his buddy Joe. I think I may have incensed enough readers with a few of my more recent posts and I don't need to make things worse by pointing out the code words and diversionary tactics of this speech, but I do want to declaim the tactic of using "the children" to sway an argument or tug at heartstrings to get what we want.

It's a purely emotional appeal that is used as a propaganda strategy. Advertisers use it all the time. No parent wants to deprive their children of their safety, health, comfort, or pleasure in life. Nearly all parents want the absolute best for their children whenever possible. They want their children to have the best toys, clothes, food, and experiences. They rarely want their children to face deprivation or danger. It's the normal way to be.

The provision and well-being of our children affects every single one of us. After all, we are all parents or know someone who is a parent. Children are a part of our daily lives and most of us have the desire to save every child and give them the best opportunity for a quality life that our society can provide them. We sacrifice much for our children and it is well that we should.

However, doesn't using the children to propagandize and promote a political agenda seem a bit underhanded? Is it right to use children as a device to manipulate emotions to overrule rational thinking to get what we want?

I've been guilty of this myself. In my nearly twenty years working in a business affiliated with fund-raising, we evoked the name of "the children" to encourage people to dig deeper to give more money to whatever cause we were promoting at the time. After all, "It's for the kids". Make the audience feel bad. Make them feel like they must do something even though that something may not necessarily be the right thing when put into place in the bigger picture.

Showcasing the children is not always a bad thing. "Jerry's Kids", the young cancer patients at St. Jude Hospital, or "Save the Children" seem to be fine causes over all that have a decent long range mission in mind that will benefit many children in the future. If the intent is righteous then I don't mind.

It's the politicizing of the children that annoys me the most. I can deal with politicians giving their speeches before a background of union members, interest groups, or their own supporters. It's a common cliche that's rather stupid looking in my opinion, but it's a great photo op for the politicos. If a bunch of sheep-faced people want to stand behind some blithering politician, then more power to them. Maybe they'll even get shown on television.

But please, political agendists, don't use "the children" as props for your cause. Creating a reactionary movement because of some sensational incident by invoking all children as the cause du jour is merely a cheap appeal to the feelings of those who are not thinking out the entire issue.

I love my kids and my grandkids and I want everyone's kids to be alright. I also want to protect children from the dangers of the future just as much as the immediate dangers. I want to protect the children against things we are talking about now, but I think it might be even more important to protect them from the things that many of us are not talking about. We are holding the future in our hands--so what do we plan to do with it?

Stop the agenda driven rhetoric that is driven by emotions. See the absolute logic if you can. Today it may be 23 executive actions, tomorrow it might be 33 executive orders, by the end of the year we might be looking at who knows how many legislative actions costing more money than is worth spending. Thousands of words. And we know the danger of words. Words can be far more dangerous than weapons and have a far more lasting effect.

Maybe I need to dig up my copy of George Orwell's 1984 and reread it.

Pages

This Is Me--2024 A to Z Theme

Monday, March 13, 2017

Time Travel, Revisionist History, and the Liberal Agenda