Trump and the First Amendment

Once again, here's a quick lesson on the First Amendment, since, it seems, most Americans do not fully understand it.

The First Amendment is designed to protect an individual from retaliation from the government when enacting his/her right to free speech. Even that is limited, to some degree, in that you cannot state things that are a form of defamation, that could incite riot or panic, or that are direct threats (among other things).

Basically, you can say what you want as long as what you say is not libel (written) or slander (oral), does not cause people to potentially harm themselves or others, or that is a direct threat toward someone, and the government will not arrest or detain you.

However, one of the huge and important caveats to this freedom is the right for other, non-governmental agencies (including businesses) to provide you with repercussions for what you say. As mentioned above, even the government can issue repercussions depending on what you say. And this is the part that most Americans seem to forget-- that there are repercussions for saying anything you want to. It is where your freedom of speech ends and another's begins.

Donald Trump recently said, in his announcement speech for running for President in 2016, that Latinos were all bad people. He specifically called them rapists. He said they were bringing crime and drugs to America.

Now, it is true that he has the right to say it. However, NBC, Univision, and the people also have the right to be offended by what he said and to react accordingly. I keep seeing people saying that NBC and Univision don't have the right to pull out of their contracts with Trump just because he said something they disagree with. Wrong. Not only do they have the right, it is an exercise of the exact same right he used to offend them! He is feeling the repercussions for saying something that people disagree with. Those people have then acted completely within the law in pulling away, disassociating from him, and issuing statements that show that Trump's opinions do not express their own opinions. Trump can sue all he wants, but it just shows that he simply does not understand the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

In the future, try to remember that there are real, tangible repercussions for anyone's use of the freedom of speech. These can be as innocuous as being fired from your job for saying something unseemly or as big as being put in jail and fined for defamation of character, threats to harm another person, or inciting a riot. I cannot state it often enough, but here it is again: Your right to free speech ends where another person's right to free speech begins. There are repercussions for what you say!

Trump talks big. He thinks big. But he simply does not understand the laws of America nor does he understand the Bill of Rights or Constitution. But, then again, that seems to make him a fairly typical American.

Marvel's NOT "All-New All-Different" Approach

Marvel Comics is coming out of a series of event specials and will be restarting their comics universe again. This is not really news, as they have done both hard and soft reboots a number of times. What is frustrating is that their tag-line for this new universe is "All New, All Different" yet the evidence screams otherwise.

Secondly, Marvel Comics has been strong in denying that they are altering their comic landscape to be more in line with their cinematic universe. Again, the evidence seems to shout otherwise.

Here are links to the most recent posters released by Marvel Comics relating to this reboot. They show the characters in various levels of prominence. Now, we don't know which will have their own books and which will be a part of a team book, but the characters are pretty indicative of both a merging of the comics and cinematic universe and a less than new and different approach to characters.

https://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/a/10/5571d44e88fbe.jpg

https://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/3/60/5571d408cc355.jpg

Poster 1

Poster 2

By my count, excluding the repeat of Iron Man in the middle of poster 2, there are 27 characters displayed in the two posters. Of those 27 characters, 18 of them have been, are, or have been announced to be featured in a solo or group TV show or movie. Of the 27 characters, 8 of them (including the original) are, in essence, duplicates of an original character idea.

In Poster 1, you have the following movie or TV personalities:

Back row:

• Doctor Spectrum. No TV or movie news.
• Rocket Raccoon. Recently featured in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie with immediate plans for a sequel.
• Hyperion. While the character has been shown on Marvel's Avengers Assemble cartoon, no movie or TV news has been announced as of today.
• Daredevil. Displayed in a new costume that is closer to what the character wears at the end of the recent Netflix series featuring the character, rather than his usual all-red costume.
• Dr. Strange. Recently announced as a movie starring Benedict Cumberbatch.

Front row:

• Citizen V. No current TV or movie news.
• The Thing. Will be in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie. Also note that the character in the poster has a GotG insignia on his uniform -- possible tie-in?
• Karnak, Infernal, Medusa. Three Inhumans, which have been introduced as an over-all concept in the Agents of SHIELD TV show and are rumored to be getting their own movie.
• X-23. No current TV or movie news.
• Starlord. Recently featured in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie with immediate plans for a sequel.
• Old Man Logan. Aka Wolverine. The character of Wolverine has been in just about every X-Men movie as well as featured in his own properties.

Center (on both posters):

• Iron Man. His own movies, the Avengers movies, plus cameos in other movies. Note the prominence of the character in both posters. This is a character that, up until Robert Downey, Jr. made him extremely popular in the first Iron Man movie, was considered at best a second-string character in the Marvel comics universe. His prominence in the movies has made the character much more popular and he is now the most prominent figure in the two posters and has a much-raised presence in the comics universe as a result.

In Poster 2:

Back row:

• Spider-Gwen. Introduced in the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, but no current plans for a movie or TV show.
• Spider-Man. Seen in his own movies. Recent changes now allow the character to be used in Marvel's cinematic universe, with plans for the character to appear in the next Captain America movie and then his own solo movies again.
• Vision. Recently introduced in the second Avengers movie.
• Spider-Man (alternate). Introduced in the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon; no current plans for a movie or TV show.

Front row:

• Phil Coulson. Seen in many Marvel cinematic movies as well as on Agents of SHIELD TV show.
• Spider-Woman. Introduced in the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon; no current plans for a movie or TV show.
• Black Panther. Future plans to include the character in both solo and Avengers movies.
• Captain America (Falcon). The character, as Falcon, was introduced in the second Captain America movie and had a cameo in the second Avengers movie. Future plans include more Captain America and Avengers movies.
• Captain America (old Steve Rogers). Seen in his own movies as well as Avengers movies.
• Ant-Man. Will be seen in a movie about to be released.
• Thor (female). The male version of the character has been in his own movie as well as Avengers. There are talks of having the female take over after Chris Hemsworth's contract concludes.
• Ms. Marvel. No current TV or movie plans. However, the character is an Inhuman, so she may show up in Agents of SHIELD or in the planned Inhumans movie in a cameo (or larger) role at some point.
• Red Wolf. No current TV or movie plans.

That list serves two purposes: it shows how closely aligned the new comics' featured players will be to the cinematic universe, something that Marvel has either been coy about or has outright denied. Really? Fully two-thirds of the characters listed have been or are about to be in a TV show or movie! Some have been in cartoons on TV (although how closely aligned the cartoons are to the MCU is in question).

Secondly, did you notice how often versions of the same characters popped up? You have:

• X-23 and Old Man Logan -- both are versions of the character Wolverine. One is the female clone of Wolverine, the other is an older version of the same character.
• Spider-Gwen, Spider-Man (original), Spider-Man (alternate), Spider-Woman -- in essence, each is a version/variation on the original Spider-Man concept. One is a younger girl, one is the original, one is half-black, half-hispanic, and one is an older female version. Now, each has their own, somewhat unique origin story and version of their powers, but they are all just variations on a theme.
• 2 Captains America -- one is the original character of Falcon put into the role of CA. The other is an older version of the original character (which, by itself, sounds like a cloning of the Old Man Logan idea!).
• Thor -- this is a female version of the typically male character. As the original character still exists, just without the Thor power set, this can be argued as another clone/knock-off character.

So, as you can see, Marvel's "all new, all different" line-up, so far, is nothing close. Most of the characters are not new or different, with fully a third of them being, basically, cloned ideas that became popular with fans and which will have a larger role in the new Marvel comics universe going forward. Also, those protestations by Marvel that they are not aligning the comics universe more closely with the cinematic universe don't seem to bear fruit, either, do they?

This is not to say that I am upset by this. The new Iron Man comic looks promising. Some of what they are doing with the alternate Spider-Man (Miles Morales) is quite good. The new Ms. Marvel is telling some good stories. Thor's sales have been much higher since they made the main character female. I am just pointing out that the tag-line of "all new, all different" is completely misleading if not downright wrong.

Oh, shit!

Every company -- hell, every department within a company -- has an "oh, shit!" person. The person that gets all the last-minute projects, the projects with a suddenly changed and really close due date, the person who can work under the stress and strain of a suddenly changing working environment and still produce good work.

I am that guy at work, currently. The manager thinks nothing of telling me to drop everything and work on something "quick and dirty" or to assign to me the task that slipped through everyone's fingers and is suddenly due in a day, a few days, or a week.

His willingness to do this tells me that he has confidence in my abilities, shows respect to what I can do and have accomplished for him, and trust in me to learn what needs to be done and do it right on short notice.

However, the fact that lately all I have worked on are these types of projects can lead to quick burnout. Right now, everything I am working on is last-minute, short time frame projects. This leads to a lot of excitement, over time, and stress as I am given each project, work it, and complete it. It means I have to change my daily routine to accommodate sudden changes in the project's dynamics and due dates, which can lead to poor eating and sleeping habits, which further adds to the stress of the project.

I believe in the old axiom, "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." And, while I like to try to live by it as often as I can, the truth is that, as long as you have a boss or bosses above you, the axiom does not apply. If they need you to get it done, and it is their poor planning that caused the emergency, then it is your emergency to deal with.

My current boss, for example, realized that he was going to be overdue on a project because, and he was perfectly willing to admit it, he forgot about it. It slipped through the cracks until the department that needed it reminded him of it. Suddenly, he asked me to drop everything, learn how to do it, and get it done in a couple of days in order to appease the other department. And I, wanting to continue to have a job and get paid, bent over backward, learned the system, did the work, and got it back to him as quickly as I could.

After the last few weeks (months, really) of this level of stress, I may have to ask for an extended time off. I don't want to burn out and do crappy work, or be barely able to get anything done because I'm so mentally exhausted from the grind.

For now, I keep looking at the plus side of things: OT means flex time accrual and extra money coming in. And that's nothing to sneeze at, either.

Some Religious Thoughts

There are somewhere around 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today. It is the second largest religion in the world, behind Christianity. So, saying that all Muslims are extremist, or that all Muslims are hate-filled, or all Muslims are jihadists is about equivalent to saying all 2.2 billion Christians are like the members of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan.

I am willing to bet that most Americans do not realize that Christianity actually has more common beliefs with Islam than it does with Judaism.

I keep finding it bitterly funny, and distasteful, how many politicians in America, and the west in general, claim to be Christian and yet every policy and reaction to proposals stinks of a lack of understanding of the Bible, Jesus' teachings, or God's love. God is supposed to be the only one who can judge man, yet I keep seeing a whole lot of judging going on. And, how is taking one small comment out of context and in contradiction to the overall message of the Bible a way to make a stand on any Christian matter? But you are smart enough to use that to oppress, vilify, and condemn entire subsets of people -- how so very Christian of you.

I have a feeling that most Americans do not know or, if they do know, do not understand, that America was founded on the principle of religious freedom by people who were being persecuted in their homelands. And, because of this miss understanding or lack of knowledge, that is why they want more (Christian) religion in politics. If they would just learn this truth, then they would see that the laws of America are the way they are for a reason... and specifically to keep them from doing exactly what they want to do to others who do not share the same belief system as they do.

Just because someone is Atheist, non-Theist, or Agnostic, does not mean they lack morals. Morality can be taught without a Theistic belief system. Concepts like it is wrong to kill, steal, or abuse others are not religion-specific. And when I see/hear a theistic person who says otherwise, I can't help but wonder what their agenda is for vilifying an entire group of people (who make up about 1 billion people in this world, and growing).

As more religions turn more conservative, militant, and fearful of "the other," I can't help but notice an upward trend in non-Theists. Why aren't more religions being more inclusionary?

Compromise

It's like we have all forgotten how to get along. You are either right or wrong, and there is no middle ground, these days.

If you have a baby and want to breastfeed it in public, you are right and everyone else who does not want to see that happen while they are out enjoying their day are wrong. If you are speaking loudly into your phone, or playing a game on it with the sound on, in public, you are in the right and everyone else subjected to your fun or phone call is wrong... and not only wrong, but why are they listening to your 'private' phone call in the first place?

If you are liberal and want to do something, you are right and the conservatives are wrong. If you are conservative and want to do something, you are right and the liberals are wrong. If you are a politician and you are speaking about some new topic that came up, you are right and everyone else is wrong. If you are shown evidence of the multitude of times you have said the direct opposite of your current stance, you are somehow right each time, and right now, and everyone else is wrong, especially the reporter who is somehow taking your previous comments out of context or misconstruing what you said or did before (even though they are your exact words).

The list goes on and on.

What happened to compromise? Compromise has never meant that you get your way and everyone else is screwed. It means that each side gets some of what they want and each side loses some of what they want. Hopefully, the most important bits are what are kept and everyone has something they can work with.

If you need to breastfeed in public, covering your breast and child allows you to perform the action and allows those who do not wish to witness to both be satisfied. Each side gets what they want, each side loses a little (the "right" to flash your breast and show your suckling baby to all who glance your way versus the "right" of all those who would rather eat their meal, shop, or just be out in public without seeing 'that sort of thing' at all).

If you need to speak with someone on the phone, or are bored and want to use your game for entertainment, going off to the side, leaving the room, or otherwise minimizing the effect of your conversation and game playing on the rest of the public in the area allows both sides to get some of what they want.

Just because you are Liberal and tend toward wanting to help people doesn't mean Conservatives are wrong to want to figure out a way to pay for those services, or make sure they aren't abused. Just because you are Conservative doesn't mean you can axe every program without repercussion or issue or that your constituents want you to. We used to be able to have low taxes and meaningful social programs without breaking the bank, with decent oversight, and while meeting in the middle on the hard choices about how to fund them properly.

If you think before you speak, and speak for yourself, you will often find your responses to media more consistent and without hyperbole. Instead of rejecting outright and being embarrassed when called on the carpet for saying one thing and then voting or doing another, how about you be smart, fess up, and admit when you are wrong? How about living with honor and acting like you care for your constituents instead of looking like you are only in it for the job (and all those perks that come with it).

And, as the public, how about we all try to get along? How about we look up the best candidate, regardless of party, that embodies what we want done in Washington and vote for him/her, instead of just voting for party? How about we walk next door and say Hi to our neighbor and talk with them a bit about what they want from life? How about we all listen to what is being said by those with whom we disagree and see if there is any truth to it that we can work with?

Criminal Criminal Minds

(Spoilers; this is entirely about the ending of the Criminal Minds episode, Mr. Scratch)

I enjoy Criminal Minds. I especially like Thomas Gibson's Agent Hotchner. With the exception of the ever-pervasive music that they can't seem to get away from, the show is top-notch.

This week's episode, "Mr. Scratch," was very good. It was eerie and atmospheric. It played on fears and with the mind. It was clever. They discover a bad guy who was always a step ahead and who was using chemicals to make his victims do things by planting suggestions in their heads.

And then they ruined it by having Hotch go, alone, to the last suspected victim's house, enter said house, and get gassed? Really? Really?

This is beyond unbelievable. Hotch knows when to stretch the rules and when not to. He knows his team and he knows his own limitations. He knows the criminal mind extremely well. And, on top of all of this, he's a smart man. Knowing what the criminal uses, the effectiveness of the chemicals and the brainwashing techniques, why in the hell would Hotch ever enter the victim's house without backup? Even if he feared for her life, he would have called the local PD to help out, or called to her from outside and have her come to him.

Then, you have the Hotch versus Unsub battle of wits where Hotch gets a bit of the upper hand (maybe?) and then succumbs to the criminal. At the end, the criminal gives up and makes it seem like he's done something to Hotch.

Well, first, this scene should never have happened because Hotch would never put himself in that position (Derek might, because he often leaps without looking and lets his emotions get the better of him). Second, how strong a suggestion could the Unsub implant in the very few minutes he had with Hotch?

My only feeling is that Thomas Gibson likely wants to leave the series and they are setting that up with this totally out of character instance and its possible side effects.

All in all, this was one of the better, creepier Criminal Minds that they have produced in a while. I'm just so disappointed with the ending. I hope I'm wrong about Gibson leaving.

Francis Bean

Francis Bean Cobain is now 22. She has been in the news lately discussing her father, Kurt Cobain (lead singer of the seminal 1990s band Nirvana), and what her father wanted from life, his band, and music. Here's the problem with that: Francis Bean was 2 years old when her father died. Unless she has an eidetic memory, she has no idea what her father wanted. She was simply too young to remember (not to mention that her father likely didn't discuss such weighty matters with a two-year old).

Everything she is saying in these interviews is secondhand at best. She is reiterating what her mother, Courtney Love, or what her dad's friends and band mates have told her over the years. And, while I believe each is trying to stay true to Kurt's memory and life, time changes our perceptions and memories. What they think "Kurt wanted" at the time is warped by their own lives lived since and changing memories. However, as has been proven with the various lawsuits since Kurt's death, Courtney, Kurt's band mates, and others had very different ideas about what Kurt wanted -- enough so that it led to those lawsuits over rights, money, credit, and other issues. Even taking a middle ground between all of what each says leaves you with a much different interpretation of the actual man than who he really was or who he might have been today had he not ended his life.

Francis Bean Cobain is a young woman coming into her own. She has a lot of life left to live, and a lot of decisions to make about herself and who she will become. We should not add her father's legacy onto her, nor should we ask her about it. She needs to make her own path in life and she doesn't need her dad's baggage added to her's. Let's leave that to the rock historians.

Random Thoughts, Government

The Republicans campaigned on the idea that they needed to show how well they could govern. In their very first opportunity to show leadership, they fail miserably. Meanwhile, the plans the President was able to push through have caused the economy to stabilize, the job market to rise steadily, and the world's leaders to respect our government again, and he's rewarded with losing the Senate and being called one of the worst presidents in history by his opponents and much of the nation. Hunh?

The Republicans are praying to the ghost of Reagan past, acting like he was some sort of god-incarnate, and claiming to be "Reagan Republicans," and yet, Obama is following Reagan's play-book step by step and the Republicans are doing nothing but blocking him at every turn. Go back and look it up; everything that Obama has proposed is nearly identical to what Reagan did to help pull America up and get the economy humming again. Yet "modern" Republican leadership ignores that, obfuscates, and blocks Obama at every turn. It just goes to prove that modern Republicans have shifted the playing field so far to the right that Reagan would be considered a Liberal today.

Jon Stewart made a comment that I think is insightful. Paraphrased, he said that the Republicans today are not about governing, they are about doing that which protects and projects the Republican/conservative ideals. The more I've thought about it, the truer those words seem. The Republicans are not governing, they absolutely do not care about their constituents' or the country's needs, all they want to do is show their "Republican-ness" or Conservative credentials.

The Republicans are making a big deal about Obama's executive orders. Yet they don't comment on the fact that Reagan passed over 1600 while in office and that Obama currently stands at just 200. They don't comment on the fact that Obama has asked, pleaded, and begged for the Republicans to help him draft laws that make sense, and yet they refuse to govern at all, making executive orders a requirement to get anything done. Again, opportunities to show leadership that the Republicans flush down the toilet.

Don't you find it interesting that the FCC declares the Internet a right, like water, and shifts where it is located under the law to protect its neutrality, and the Republicans that are drawing up a lawsuit to challenge that decision have, as their highest dollar-amount donors, Comcast, Cox, Verizon, et al? Gee, the exact groups that want to charge you as much as possible, put in "slow lanes" and bottlenecks, and stop any and all innovation from happening on the Internet don't like the FCC's ruling? Big shocker. And all the more reason to think the FCC did the RIGHT thing.

The nation is falling apart. The infrastructure for water, sewer, bridges, roads in general, subways, trains, etc. are all crumbling and in dire need of repair. Yet the Republicans have blocked reasonable laws that would fund fixing this mess for over seven years now. That's seven years worth of continued degradation and collapse. Is this the leadership the nation needs?

We need term limits. (See.) Part of the problem is that people are spending much longer in Congress than our founding fathers ever could have guessed. When it becomes an average of a 10-year long career, it creates cronyism and a lack of new ideas due to the lack of turnover. And that leads to further polarization of the groups, including putting people who have seniority but absolutely no idea what they are governing in the subcommittees that create laws and hear the will of the people. Congress needs more turnover, needs new blood, and needs more parties than the main two in it.

I still cannot help but think that America needs a strong independent to rise up, challenge the notions of the bicameral system by winning elections and/or standing strong and making a great showing in a Presidential election (if not winning it), to break the hold that the Democrats and Republicans have on politics and bring things back to the people.

Or we need another revolution. 

My Oscars Ceremony

Another Academy Awards has come and gone. Some will say Neil Patrick Harris did well, others will say he did poorly. Someone will complain about the In Memoriam forgetting people. Someone will complain about the length. I don't care anymore. I watch the opening and the first couple of awards, and then I flip away and watch something else, or simply go to sleep.

To keep me occupied, here's how I'd change the Oscars:

• The host of the show presents all Oscars. No more need for awkward, unfunny jokes and presentations by celebrities. No more "Adele Dazeem" issues (hopefully). Too often while we're watching the host suddenly disappears for long periods of time and you get bad celebrity after bad celebrity presentation. The switching to these also slows things down. The host is there for a reason, use him/her.
• If the host is a song and dance person, then have multiple short areas where he/she can perform. If he/she is a comedian, then provide time for him/her to tell jokes and keep the audience "warm."
• Build up to best picture. I know, I know, the argument is that no one will watch the first hour or so of the ceremony of the show if there aren't any of the "big" categories in it. I counter argue that if you make it entertaining, they will watch. Also, by cutting out the celebrity presenters, the show will move more quickly and people will have to watch more of the program to keep up.
• Have the host tell the audience to save their applause for after the list of nominees has finished. This includes the In Memoriam section.
• Limit ALL acceptance speeches to 20 seconds. Saying thank you is enough, people. We don't need a political statement, we don't need to hear a list of people read out loud on camera; the people who helped you get there should know who they are and your saying thank you should be inclusive enough.
• Seat people by category, so whenever a particular award is presented, those people up for it are seated relatively together. If a person is in more than one category, then they are seated with the "most prestigious" award group (say, a writer/director would be seated with the directors, etc.). Alternately, have a section with twenty chairs in it at the very front of the auditorium. As each category comes up, the people nominated and their guest are moved to that section so that, again, they are seated together and so that their trip to get their award is as brief as possible.
• Decide if you are presenting a somber, serious show or a lighter, funnier show and go with that throughout. Too often the shows get bogged down because they open light and funny, and then turn somber for section on certain movies or the In Memoriam, and then try to go back to light and funny. Pick one. Stick with it.

I'm sure there are more things and I may add to this as I think of them. But these, as a start, would allow me to pay more attention and watch the Oscars.

The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit

I have not been shy about how much I dislike Peter Jackson's overly bloated The Hobbit movies (here and here). Now that all three movies are available, I thought that maybe some enterprising fan would take the movies and re-edit them down to the actual story presented in the book The Hobbit. I quickly found this page with a link to a 6 GB version of the story in film format. I watched it this week and I was blown away.

As suspected, the parts of the film that Jackson made that were on point with the book were quite well done. When re-edited, each movie was chopped down to about 90 minutes and, together, make an approximately 4.5 hour film that follows the book pretty closely. I have some small quibbles with the fan edit but, for the most part, I think it is solid and it is definitely far superior to what Jackson released.

Some points, both pro and con, about this edit (likely Spoilers if you haven't watched the movies):

• Getting rid of the love triangle took large swaths of the movie out and kept the focus more tightly on the dwarves (and Bilbo), who should be the main protagonists. I'm not sure why Jackson felt the need to force this in, other than he, like most of Hollywood, is under the misimpression that women won't watch a movie without a love triangle in it. Hogwash. Women will watch any movie if it is a good movie. Period.
• As noted in my other reviews, whenever Legolas was on screen, the movies seemed to grind to a halt. Cutting 99% of him out of the movie helped the flow of the story much more.
• Cutting back on the "humorous happenstance" and overly bloated fight sequences from most of the movies helps the dwarves be actual agents of their own adventure, rather than humorous victims of circumstance. In the books, they are serious about their mission and they are feared warriors. When they are captured or overwhelmed, they need saving, and Bilbo steps up by "finding his courage" and proving his worth to the dwarves. Too often in Jackson's movies, those scenes were played for humor and he took the scenes to absurd lengths (like the wooden bridge falling with the dwarves on it as they fight the goblins in the first movie). With this edit, they appear to be capable fighters who occasionally get in over their heads and need assistance from Bilbo or Gandalf to escape. It makes it more believable for the end Battle of Five Armies sequence that they are capable fighters earlier.
• Bilbo comes across as much more of the unlikely hero he was in the book than he did in Jackson's edit. With the humor mostly removed, Bilbo is actively helping the dwarves, actively showing his value, and actively becoming friends with and learning respect for the dwarves he is teamed with. The bonds seem deeper and there seems to be more focus on the company and their relationships.
• Cutting out a bunch of the 'madness of Thorin' scenes moves the story along more quickly. Jackson beat us over the head with it by having way too many scenes showing Thorin's dragon sickness; the actor is good enough to convey this in a couple of scenes, so that's all the audience needs.
• Cutting way back on the Battle of Five Armies fight sequences helps this to move along more quickly. Originally, as I commented, it just took so long what with Jackson focusing on every single named person having a shining moment to himself during the combat. Now, I would have kept a little more in than this edit; for example, Kili and Fili's death, if possible, so you know why they are missing at the end. And I would have re-edited the Thorin versus Azog slightly so that there wasn't the (trying to be a) jump scare 'Azog is presumed dead but comes back up through the ice and they kill each other' moment. I would have just had them fight to the end like men.
• I would have left in, if I could make it work, the dwarves being chased to the tree and the Eagles rescuing them. If no other reason than to bring it full circle when the Eagles come to their aid at the last battle. Also, if I could have managed to keep the Bilbo rescues Thorin sequence that happens during this sequence, I would have. It shows how Bilbo has grown and the respect that Thorin has growing inside for Bilbo.

All in all, though, this edit is vastly superior to the movies that Jackson released. I think that if Jackson had done this (sticking close to the original story) and released it as one longer (3-3.5 hour) or two shorter (2-2.5 hrs each) film(s), he likely would have had numbers more similar to those he achieved with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Unfortunately, each Hobbit movie made less at the box office and, I think, it is because he shed viewers along the way with how bloated and overdone they were.

I have saved the copy of this fan's edit and will, in the future, watch this movie instead of Jackson's when I want to see The Hobbit.

Grade: B+

John Wick

John Wick is a lean story about a mob enforcer who has retired but is brought back into the life when some miscreants beat him up, steal his car, and kill his dog. He then seeks revenge on those who commit these crimes against him.

I love how the story just starts. There is no voiceover. You learn everything you need to know about Wick from both his actions and how other people in the movie talk about him/react to him. The action sequences are equally lean; they feel real, violent, and believable. I was most impressed with how quickly Wick dispatches most of those who get in his way; he shoots nearly every person twice, once wherever and once in the head to make sure they are dead (like a real mob assassin would). Very few individual fights with people last for longer than 10 seconds and the longest fight sequences with multiple people usually don't last longer than a minute or two.

I was similarly impressed with the fact that nearly every stunt was a practical effect. This puts you so much more into the movie than seeing a ton of CGI people and effects (see my recent review of the Hobbit movies).

Another thing that surprised me was the fact the love story is entirely implied; Wick's wife is dead from the outset and you see his love and interest for her in the opening series of flashbacks and in his watching of the video of her on his phone (and, partly, in how the mob leaders talk about him leaving due to the love of a woman). It gives you enough backstory without needing any of it really in the story.

Keanu Reeves, not a favorite actor of mine, is surprisingly good and effective in this role. He is completely believable and at no time did I fall back on saying any of his Bill and Ted or Matrix catch phrases (which I usually do when watching him on screen). It's like this role was tailored to make the most out of him as an actor and action star.

Lastly, the run time is near perfection. At 95 minutes of movie (plus 6 minutes of credits), you don't feel antsy or like the movie is overly long. First act simply introduces the main characters and sets up the plot. The second act brings the main characters together and starts the action. The third act finishes the action and provides a brief denouement. Slam bam, thank you maam.

Is this film art or Oscar-worthy? Of course not. But it is a slick, lean, quality action film with a believable plot and really well-done action sequences. The main character is both likeable and well-defined. As an action movie I'd rate this an A-.

Addendum (May 4, 2015):

Just announced: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/05/04/keanu-reeves-is-back-lionsgate-announces-john-wick-2/

The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies

I previously reviewed the first Hobbit movie here. I skipped reviewing the second one altogether. This review will focus on the third film, but is really a summation of all three movies.

As I said before, these movies are bloated and a little boring. Pretty much every scene with Orlando Bloom bogs down the story and brings the movie to a grinding halt. His "action" sequences are universally ludicrous and mostly done with quite-obvious CGI. I know that Elves are supposed to be special, but a humanoid body simply can't do some of what the CGI has his doing.

Throwing the love story between the elf and the dwarf in also bogged the story down. I guess they didn't trust the source material, beloved by both men and women for decades, to draw women in and had to put something 'lovey' in for the 'girls.' When will people learn that women will watch a movie regardless of whether or not it has a love interest in it if the movie is good. That's most women's major criteria for a movie.

The second movie was mostly "lucky escapes" and a bunch of dialogue to move the plot along. This movie's plot, therefore, goes like this: the battle at Lake Town between the Dragon and Bard the Bowman, Thorin wandering around being swayed by all the gold, battle to save Gandalf from Sauron, Thorin acting like a jerk, the Elves arriving and picking a fight, Thorin acting like a fool, the extra Dwarves arriving and picking a fight, Thorin continuing to act like a fool, the Orks, Goblins, and Bats arriving and starting the war, Thorin finally wising up and joining the war, and then the war, with a brief goodbye by Bilbo. There is more battle and "action" sequences in this movie, more destruction and battle porn, than in Man of Steel, I think!

There are so many individual and group battle moments that I was looking at my watch, taking bathroom breaks, and getting antsy for the movie to wrap it all up. It is so bloated that it becomes cringe-inducing at times. Even the least jaded movie watcher, I presume, would be yelling at the screen the obviousness of the battle scenes, what was going to happen, and when. The battle between Thorin and Azog is particularly grueling; it goes on way too long, has way too many segments, and the big "surprise, Azog is still alive and you have to finally kill him" moment was so telegraphed ahead of time that there is no jump scare or surprise in evidence. Something else that didn't help this movie was having all the villains as CGI. Unlike the LotR movies, where many of the battle sequences were shot with actual people in ork and goblin makeup and prosthetics, this movie had them all CGI'd (whether actual people with CGI elements or simply all motion-captured CGI (like Gollum was), I don't know-- but it little matters). The over-use of CGI took me right out of the action because it didn't look real. The battle in LotR where Boromir gives his life trying to protect the Hobbits was much more meaningful and interesting because real people were dressed as orks and goblins; it felt real and not the least bit "cartoony." The battles here all felt like a cartoon world.

Aside: Another really ludicrous moment is when someone mentions that there are about a 100 goblins coming and two Dwarfs stay behind to take them. This pretty much means that the Dwarves consider 50:1 odds quite in line with their capabilities. And you know that the Elves consider themselves at least equally capable of combat to the Dwarves. Which means that Azog did not bring nearly enough goblins, orks, or bats to the fray, as he has at least 113 dwarves and 100 elves, plus a smattering of men to wade through. It appears he only brought a few hundred. At a minimum of 50:1 odds, however, Azog should have brought at least in the vicinity of 12,500 warriors.

Peter Jackson and company (as there were four people listed as the screenwriters for this movie) also reused a bunch of dialogue from LotR movies so that the audience could have multiple "see how it ties together" or "oh, he said that in the LotR movies!" moments. They become ludicrous because they indicate that no one grew, got smarter, or learned from their mistakes in these films when, 60 years later, the same things happen to them in LotR! It's exactly like forcing Rd-D2 and C3PO into the Star Wars 1-3 and even making one of them built by Anakin, yet we know that the droids were never recognized by Vader later in movies 4-6. It's head scratching.

Now, don't get me wrong -- each individual scene was well crafted and generally well done. The actors (except for Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, and Lee Pace; all actors I generally enjoy, but who provided very wooden, rote readings of their lines (it likely didn't help that each was also CGI'd so that their faces looked 'ageless')) generally did a very serviceable job.

I definitely think this movie is the BEST of the three Hobbit movies, and it isn't even close. I grade it a C+

Aside: I look forward to some enterprising Netizen taking all three films and editing out all the bloat into one movie that sticks with the story of The Hobbit, rather than having all that added Silmarillion and other stuff added in. With the job that Jackson did in directing it, it will probably make for a very entertaining and well-done movie!

Another Break

Once again, I haven't been writing as often. The world is in such a state that I sit down to write a blog and then something else happens and I'm left speechless or dumbfounded again. I have probably sat down to write a blog at least 10-12 times since the last missive, only to be unable to focus on any one topic long enough to get my opinions out! There is just so, so much right now.

• Regarding the cops shooting people: This is not an easy case. Until you've been in the dark, responding to a potentially violent situation, with unknown factors, and a bunch of fear and adrenalin pumping through your veins, you have no idea what it is like for a policeman to intervene in any situation. Do they make mistakes? Of course they do. Do they then regret it and do something (potentially illegal) to make it right, either for themselves or those affected -- quite possibly. They are human.
• Regarding people being shot by cops: In each case of a police shooting someone (mostly, it seems, black people this time around), the videos I saw showed those people to be acting belligerently, responding with violent comments or aggressive actions when asked to do something by the police, and a bunch of passers by who watched and filmed rather than intervening, resolving, or helping the situation. 
• When my wife and I were driving to PA from Montreal a few years ago, our vehicle and another one were pulled over by the same cop for speeding. My wife and I sat calmly in our vehicle waiting for the cop to get to us. We kept our hands visible and we spoke in a calm manner with the cop. The other couple were making fast movement, talking back to the cop, getting out of the vehicle and walking up aggressively to the cop as he spoke with us. And, gee, we got off relatively easy, he put our over the speed limit number down to something that would give us the smallest fine possible, and he sent us on our way with a nice anecdote. They got to stay with the cop for much longer, got a bigger fine, and pissed off the cop with their actions. I wouldn't be surprised if he added a few miles to the speed he estimated they were traveling just to give them the biggest fine possible. Moral to this story: HOW YOU ACT TO AUTHORITY FIGURES MATTERS.
• Regarding cops being shot randomly: When, at any point in history, has violence being met with more violence solved the problem? People taking it upon themselves to shoot random cops as they sit in their cruisers or walk their beat will just make the cops more jumpy when they have to respond to any calls, making the likelihood of another accident or brutality issue to happen. Why can't the calmer heads prevail?
• Regarding Extremists shooting the Charlie Hebdo staff: The Koran does not actually prohibit depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. Just like the Old Testament and Bible (from which the Koran is derived, of course), the Koran prohibits worshipping false idols. This has been stretched to mean images of the prophet in recent times, but originally did not. I mean, there are a bunch of paintings specifically depicting the Prophet Mohommed that have been done throughout history and hang in various museums and are on walls of holy places. This is just a case of Extremists who want to make someone pay for their lot in life and have chosen Islam as their focal point.
• Regarding judging all Muslims based on extremists: Fox news correspondents have once again been really maligning the Muslim religion and showing their ignorance. I know, I know, big surprise. My response, similar to many others, is this: We don't judge all Christians based on the actions of the KKK, white supremacists, the Spanish Inquisition, or the actions of those who went to the Holy Lands during the Crusades, so why do they judge all Muslims based on the actions of a very, very small minority of those claiming to be Muslim? (And, to boot, of radical sects of Islam that ignore whole swathes of the Koran in order to preach the hate and violence these groups espouse.)
• Why does Fox News refuse to admit that the majority of Muslim groups denounce these extremists? Their commentators specifically ask that question and then refuse to show or admit that there are dozens of groups with official statements that denounce these acts. Fox News refuses to show the outreach of these Muslim groups as they try to show the other (majority) side of the issue. Yet Fox News refuses to provide fair and balanced reporting when it comes to this. Why?
• Regarding Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress: For the last six years, the Republicans have gone out of their way to block as much legislation as they could, including their own legislature that the Democrats/President happened to agree with, in order to make this current President look weak and ineffectual. The end result was that the economy has improved, jobs are way up, and the country's standing among the world has improved greatly. The Republicans then told Americans that the President sucked and that they, the least effective Congress in history with an approval rating of 13% should be re-elected. The Democrats, rather than telling the American people the real story, showing the job growth, stability in the economy, and how much their policies had worked, bought into what the Republicans were selling, did not want to be associated with the President, and ran confusing, scared re-election/election campaigns with no focus. In the absence of truth, the American people bought it as well and re-elected/elected the Republicans and gave them control of both houses! What should have been a slam dunk for the Democrats became a solid win for the Republicans. How did that happen?
• As an aside: Why do the Republicans think that the Democrats, now in the same position they were just a few years ago, won't do the exact same things to them that the Repubs did to the Democrats and filibuster and block everything possible? It worked for the Republicans, so why not do it right back at them? I would bet that is what the minority whip is telling everyone. The biggest thing the Repubs need to prove is that they can govern... well, don't let them. Block everything.

What a lot of these issues have in common is a totally all or nothing view of the world. Why must a select few take this all or nothing stance and then espouse it from the rooftops? How do so many of the disaffected glom onto these idiots and join their cause? Whether it is politics or violence, we should be looking for the calmer voices and helping them to prevail. We need to think and act for ourselves, rather than listen to what the select few say. We need to think before we act. We need to research to help us think. We need to be smarter about everything.

Let's Dance!

One of the things I like about the movie Flashdance is that, at the end, Nick has overstepped his bounds by getting his girlfriend, Alex, an audition for the ballet school. She is angry with him, maybe rightfully so. It makes her question whether or not she has the talent to 'make it on her own.' But she goes to the audition anyway. She goes, she dances her ass off, and she makes an impression. She lives her dream. She's happy at the very end, but we don't know for sure if she made it; maybe she's just happy that she tried and did her very best. Maybe she got a call back or was asked to join the school. It doesn't matter, really.

The point is, she got over her anger at Nick and took a chance. She seized the opportunity given her. She, hopefully, made the most of it and felt vindicated or at peace with herself and her talent.

Too often lately, in my own life, in the lives of my friends and family, and even on TV and in the media, I see people being given opportunity who turn it down because they insist on 'doing it on their own.' They think that it somehow demeans the process to get assistance; that somehow their talent and perseverance will get them to that goal somehow, some day. But, you know what? That simply isn't always the case. Sometimes it takes meeting or knowing the right person at the right time who has the connections. Sometimes it takes saying or doing the right thing at the right time to someone totally unrelated to put you in position to make your break. Sometimes, perfectly talented people never get the chance -- life is sometimes hard and living it takes all your time and effort, no matter your talent at something else.

Take it, people. If the opportunity presents itself, grab it. Get out of your own way and don't hold yourself back due to pride or ego. Carpe diem.

News Media

Dear News Media,

You seem to be confused on a number of fairly obvious things. I thought I would help you with a few of them.

1. Use the proper terminology when presenting information. "Going viral" does not mean something that is temporarily getting larger notice than usual. For example, that article about the guy who had some (good, quality) suggestions for the BC Ferry? 800 "Likes" does not equal "going viral." Thousands (multiple) of Likes/Retweets/Plusses/Views, if not millions, are needed to make something "go viral." It needs to be seen/read by people nowhere associated with the thing and passed along by them. Misusing "going viral" actually denigrates the source. The 800 Likes the BC Ferry comments received is not a "rant" that has "gone viral" -- it is a well-written example of issues with the BC Ferry program that a number of people in the area agree with. BC Ferry should listen to and consider the information. But by having the News Media blow it out of proportion by using these buzzwords, BC Ferry may ignore the advice and the good ideas. "Selfie" means a picture taken of yourself (sometimes including friends, where the term "Us-sie" (pronounced like 'fussy') takes precedence), usually using your own camera. If the picture is taken such that it is impossible for the subject of the picture to be holding the camera and taking it of him/herself, then the proper term for the result is either "picture" or "photograph." Since most News Media still employ cameramen and photographers, I'm surprised I need to remind you of this.
2. Assign people to cover a story who understand the story elements. We frequently read or watch news items that get obvious things wrongs. For example, a recent news article about "Captain Marvel" was written by a person who didn't know that both Marvel and DC Comics have (had) characters who use that monicker. The intent of the article was to present the new, female, Marvel character and the fact that she's going to be in a movie. The article writer didn't understand the subject, did little to no fact checking or research, and constantly referenced the DC Comics character who used to use that name. That's an egregious error, as the audience for that news item will undoubted know the subject and will jump on the mistakes. Similarly, when writing about the TPP, Net neutrality, Keystone pipeline, or other technical or scientific news items, make sure the reporter has a basic understanding or will do the research required to get that understanding before turning in the story.
3. Quite literally, every single person I have ever talked to would rather pay attention to News Media that gets their facts right, vets the story properly, and presents it accurately than the News Media that is simply first. Being right and accurate still counts for a lot with the people. Try it.
4. It is also important not to speculate, rush to judge, or present information that you haven't yet vetted -- especially during live events. If you need an example of how to handle these rapidly unfolding live events, look to the CBC's coverage of the shooter in Ottawa. They kept speculation to a minimum, they carefully checked their sources and their facts before conveying them, they were calm as they presented the details as they knew them, and they kept the public informed. It was a master class in journalism. Learn it.
5. Lastly, just because someone says it as a representative of your News Media outlet does not make it a fact. Anything said should be considered their opinion, and labeled as such, unless they have vetted facts to justify their conclusion. Too many times I see talking heads saying something that is most definitely their opinion but you present it as though it is a fact. It is not. And it confuses too many people. Of course, since you have never corrected this, I have to assume you intend to confuse people, which is the exact opposite of what the News Media is for and how it is supposed to work. So, if you aren't News, what are you exactly?

I'm sure there are more cases where you have failed us, News Media, but I think these steps will help minimize the damage you can do to your audience. Let's get you back to presenting the news, without hyperbole or bloviation. Give us the facts and, if you are going to present opinion, then label it as such very clearly. It's quite simple, really.

Sincerely,

A fan of proper news media

Compromise?

Every woman has the right to breastfeed in public. Everyone else has the right not to watch a woman breastfeeding in public. As with every right, yours end where another's begin. So, in a case like this, who is right? Where should the public establishment come down? Where is the compromise between these two sides?

Compromise: (noun) an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

This controversy has come up on a number of occasions recently, in the US, Canada, and abroad. In some cases, the woman was asked to use a nursing blanket (or anything similar and handy) to cover her breast so others didn't have to watch. In many of the cases, the women were obliging and did so without rancor or issue. In some cases, either at the time of being asked or later, the woman complained to management and made a big deal over it. There have even been lawsuits filed or threatened.

Where does the woman's right to do this very natural act end and the rights of those who may have religious, moral, or ethical issues with this act being performed in public begin?

I do not have children and probably never will. While I understand that breastfeeding is natural, I get a little embarrassed and flustered when a woman's naked breast is out in my field of view. I'm also a man -- we are predominantly visually oriented and seeing a naked breast, even doing such a mundane task, is somewhat stimulating. Which I do not necessarily want to be when, say, out at a public restaurant trying to eat food, enjoy the company I'm with, or otherwise not in that mood. Is the woman's right to breastfeed more important than my right not to see it?

And what about religion? Some religions, like Islam or the Amish, among others, see any amount of nudity in public as blasphemous. If they are at a restaurant and a woman uncovers her breast for all to see, do they not have a legitimate request for the woman to cover her nakedness while they are present? Or does the woman's right to breastfeed trump that, as well?

Right now, the laws in America say that a private company has the right to show bias toward their clients. However, those companies that do may have a harder time drumming up business and/or hiring people to work there. For example, private marriage specialists have the right to refuse service to gay couples, even in states where gay marriage is legal. However, as word gets around, they will lose out on a growth area in marriages and some people may choose not to work for them. I think this is a fair balance; the gay people who wish to get married have that right, those who do not believe in that right have the ability to personally deny their services to something they don't believe in, but they must also take on the negatives that come with that stance -- fewer clients, fewer employees, and possible negative press for their decision.

It's a little known fact that private institutions still have the right to restrict membership, clientele, and service based on race, creed, religion, and even gender. But, again, they run the risk of the negative press, lower profits from having a more "select" clientele or membership list, and having a harder time finding employees who agree with their criteria. As long as the institution does not take a dime of government money, however, they can choose this path. That's how we still have all-women colleges, all-black clubs, religion-specific groups, etc.

So, again, I ask, where does the right of the breastfeeding woman end and my rights begin?

I think, if I was a store owner, I would have a posted breastfeeding policy. To be as inclusive as possible, I think my policy would be stated something like:

"We encourage women to breastfeed their children. However, some individuals may find the act uncomfortable for a variety of reason which may include their religious beliefs. As we want to maintain a comfortable environment for all our patrons, we prefer/request that you use a nursing blanket. Thank you."

In this way you clearly state your wish to be inclusive and service both sides of this contentious issue. You also provide guidance to your employees as to how to handle this situation if it comes up. And, if a breastfeeding woman sues you after the fact, you have a stated, existing policy to help you in your defense.

This seems, to me, like a fair compromise between the two sides. One side can do the act they have every right to, even if it is a little uncomfortable for them. And those who don't wish to see it are shielded from the act, even if they know it is going on and that makes them a little uncomfortable. Both have made a small concession and both get what they want.

Mid-Term Elections 2014

The mid-term elections are just a month away. I have a suggestion for every voter, regardless of party affiliation or conservative/liberal leanings: do NOT vote for any incumbents. The incumbents of both parties have proven they cannot do the job for which we hired them, so show your disapproval by voting as many of them out as possible.

Our founding fathers did not think that anyone would want to serve for longer than a term or two, so they didn't put term limits into the Constitution. And, for the first 150 years of our country, the number of people who served more than two terms was very small. However, in the mid-20th century, people started to realize that politics could be a lucrative career. Priorities shifted to spending more money to get in, and stay in, Congress.

Since the 1950s, we see incumbents slowly dominating all of the elections until today we see about 90% incumbent success rate. This has led to cronyism, graft, and the further widening of the political divide until you have the worst Congress in history, one that had the majority party saying they refused to work with the current President and would block anything he or his party put forward. Both sides lie with impunity. They pass laws that make no sense when they do work, like shutting down the government, but allowing themselves to keep getting paid.

So, I say enough. Let's show our displeasure by voting them out. Both sides. My proposal is this: simply look at the length of time a person has been in office. If they have served more than two terms (or this will be their third term), DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM. If you can't find it online, call their office (easily found in a quick websearch or through going to congress.gov and searching for the person in question).

You may be asking yourself about now, 'Who am I going to vote for then?' Easy: anyone except an incumbent. You can easily find liberal and conservative alternatives in other parties (for example, the Green party leans liberal and the Libertarians lean conservative). Many races have multiple Republicans and Democrats running -- pick one that hasn't been in office before.

Once this is done and we've kicked as many incumbents out of office as possible, we should press our Congressmen to enact a Term Limits law to keep what is currently happening from ever happening again.

It's time for our government to fear its people once more.

#revolution

Related topics:

http://jmc-omniverse.blogspot.ca/2013/07/congress-must-go.html
http://jmc-omniverse.blogspot.ca/2013/09/i-have-revised-my-set-of-rules-for.html
http://jmc-omniverse.blogspot.ca/2013/02/congressional-reform.html

A New Appreciation

I think my wife may have opened me up to a new appreciation of music. She was following links in Facebook and it took her here. As you can see, the link provides an example of a very complicated bass line in an otherwise "pop" or even "bubblegum" song. Due to choices made in mixing the song, that bass line gets lost in the background unless you really are listening for it.

Since she played that for me, I am now hearing bass lines in everything I'm listening to. My hearing isn't great (not bad enough to need a hearing aid, yet, but bad enough that music just sort of blends together), but I seem to be keyed on the bass now. I'm listening to the beats and the rhythm of it and hearing how it drives a song or keeps it on track.

I've heard some surprisingly complicated bass lines in some surprising artists, like Alanis Morrisette, the Beatles, and Prince. For the most part, though, it seems like the bass is pretty generic in most songs. Most seem to follow a pretty repetitious sound, often something like, "Thub --- thub-thub --- thub --- thub-thub," or "thub --- thub-thub-thub --- thub --- thub-thub-thub" or similar. Maybe, if the bassist gets really tired, there might be some sort of change-up to the bass line at about the midpoint of the song. But, for the most part, my newfound appreciation of the bass indicates to me that bassists must get really bored while playing for a band.

I do have some music that is of a more jazz-style. In these songs, and in most Police songs, the bass is played by a stand-up bass rather than a guitar bass. In these songs, I naturally seem to hear more variations and interesting movements in the bass line. And, of course, when you watch a jazz player strumming his bass, you usually see a lot more intricate fingerwork and movement of the hands.\

I still can't really hear the difference between two rhythm guitars playing in one song. Most wind instruments blend together into one sound to my ears. But I now have a greater appreciation of the bass player.

Presidential Debate

As I now live outside of the country, I have easier access to non-American news media and outlets. All this week, the BBC and CBC have had reports talking about how one of ISIS's goals is to compel America into attacking them, returning to the region with "boots on the ground," because they know how bad that will look to radical Islamists and jihadists in the region (and around the world) and will give legitimacy to the group's goals, swelling their membership and funding to allow more terrorism.

The non-American media is praising the American administration for its restraint in handling this current regional crisis; by staying mostly out of it, we are not inciting the terrorists and swelling their ranks and coffers. Food drops to the dispossessed and the occasional drone strike aren't enough for ISIS to wave its flag and gather support.

What I find incongruent is switching to and watching some American news media. Fox News, of course, is continuing its never-ending crusade to lambast the President. The talking heads, both the pundits and their interviews, were talking about how "weak" the President is for his handling of the situation, about how America needs to go right back in there and "take care of business," and about how we should have no fixed timetable so we can "get the job done right." How is it that other news agencies in the world see America's "non-action" in the region as a triumph and the right move, and yet Fox News labels it weak and improper?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the same thing happened; Fox News lambasted our "weak" President for his lack of action in the region. The CBC, BBC, and other non-American media had Russian experts on who cautioned to stay out of it, as it was a desperate ploy by Putin to stay in power; a weakening leader trying to shore up his far right allies with what would look like a strong move but really was simply an appeasement. Putin's people are now hungry, a lot of their money is devalued or unavailable, and unrest appears to be growing quickly due to the economic sanctions other nations, including the US, put in place to protest his actions. Yet Fox News continues to claim the American President is a weak and ineffectual leader in the world arena. They exemplify what Putin did as showing strength and leadership.

There is a great line within a great speech in the movie The American President: "He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." This, in a nutshell is what both the American media and American politicians in this election cycle are trying to do: It is the President's fault the world is the way it is; it is his fault you don't have a job; it is his fault for X, Y, and Z. Facts be damned!

Guess what, folks? No, it's not. I'm not trying to claim that President Obama is a great or even good President. However, I can tell you fairly confidently that he is not a bad President. I think history will look back on this era and, similar to Jimmy Carter, realize there were challenges that no President could have successfully navigated. His biggest failure, perhaps, is his inability to get the Republicans to buy in to the direction he has set and the goals and tasks he sees as important. However, those same Republicans also said from day one that they were going to block everything this President proposed, so THEY never gave HIM a chance to succeed. Hell, reports now indicate a small but growing number of Republicans in Congress want to help, want to work on bipartisan efforts, and agree with some of what Obama has proposed. They simply fear the backlash from actually voting their conscience and doing their job.

Until I was exposed to a broader swath of media, I did not realize quite how biased the American news media was, or how contentious the politics had become. Now, seeing reports about what goes on inside (and outside) America from a news media with no real dog in the fight, I get a less biased view of the situation, see experts who are not paid to sway viewers/voters in a particular direction, and see just how politically motivated much of what I was given before actually is.

In the end, I think that historians will improve President Obama's rating as we get more time between his presidency and current issues, especially if current Republicans get their wish and make world matters worse with their overly militant stance. I think that those same historians will downgrade this Congress even more harshly over time. And, if sanity is to be restored, I think the American people need to vote OUT every elected official who has been in office more than two terms. Lastly, I think that Congress needs term limits to stop this sort of partisan infighting and gridlock in the future.

(As an aside: I once proudly was a member of the Republican party. But, even as a youth voting for the first time, I voted my conscience and not party if I felt a different leader more closely aligned with my needs. I still feel I lean mostly Conservative on most issues, but I find that I rarely align with the Republican party's goals or stated objectives. I think that is true of many Republicans today; I think you will see the ranks of a third party, possibly the Libertarians, who more closely align with conservative but not Republican views, swell in ranks in the coming years. And I shudder to think what state America would be in today if current Republicans were in complete power -- many of the issues I outlined above would probably have led to military conflict, another Cold War with Russia (or maybe even a hot war, in Ukraine), and an unending presence in the Middle East, leading to further acts of terrorism.)

Sewer Flood Follow-Up

A year ago we had a sewer flood into our basement. It took us a while to clean up from that issue. We also felt that finishing the bathroom in the basement would help close off many of the open holes and pipes that helped allow the sewage to back up into our house. One of the outstanding issues involved was the "belly" in the sewage line that they found when they scoped our line after the flood.

We finally saved enough money and found someone to dig up our yard and go looking for the belly to repair. They started on Monday. After two days of digging, they found the line nearly 12 feet below the surface of our front lawn. However, after exposing nearly 30 feet of sewer line, they could not find the belly described. We came up with a plan to have the same company come back out and review the line again and pinpoint where the dip in the line actually was. Unfortunately, it was found to be underneath our porch, below and behind the asphalt walkway, and underneath some very large, decorative rocks in our yard, rather than farther out in the lawn area as we were originally led to believe.

In the end, we decided it would be fairly major construction to try to fix the belly where it is located. So, the plumbers and diggers came up with a new plan: we installed a backflow device with a pipe that will lead to the surface of the yard. That pipe can be opened and a plumber/sewer specialist can use it to look at the sewer pipe and clean it out as needed. They also recommended that filling and draining the bath every now and then would likely provide enough flow and weight to clear out the belly of any build up and debris.

The good thing is that the plumbers saw very little build up in the year since the flood. So our "best practices," and the fact that I often take a bath already, seem to be keeping the belly clear. As we are on the end (lowest point) of a sewer line with our house's location, I feel much more confident having a "whole home" backflow installed, too.

Will it look nice, having that pipe in the middle of our yard? No. But I'm thinking we can plant some small bushes around it and make a decorative central point to look at that will both hide it from casual view and keep it accessible. In the meantime, the digging has decimated our front yard and we'll probably have to pay hundreds of dollars to repair it when they are finished with the project.

Ain't being a homeowner grand?